Poll
Question:
Will AASHTO Approve or Reject the I-36 or 89 designations?
Option 1: Approve Both
votes: 12
Option 2: Approve 36 and Reject 89
votes: 30
Option 3: Reject 36 and Approve 89
votes: 3
Option 4: Reject Both
votes: 20
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2016.pdf
Doesn't NC know that I-89 is already taken? Please, for the love of God, no more duplicate 2dis! I-69 (will likely never connect between TN and LA), I-74 (will never connect through OH and WV, guaranteed), I-76, I-84, I-86, and I-88 are bad enough.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 05, 2016, 01:13:26 PM
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2016.pdf
I think the Raleigh to Norfolk corridor is more EW and 42 is more appropriate. The only way I could see NS is if it were combined with an interstate thru Delmarva.
Furthermore there are plenty of even numbers available
Quote from: vdeane on May 05, 2016, 01:41:45 PM
Doesn't NC know that I-89 is already taken? Please, for the love of God, no more duplicate 2dis! I-69 (will likely never connect between TN and LA), I-74 (will never connect through OH and WV, guaranteed), I-76, I-84, I-86, and I-88 are bad enough.
Yes they do in the text of their I-89 request they write specifically to that.
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/Interstate_Routes_Binder.pdf
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 05, 2016, 01:13:26 PM
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2016.pdf
Why 36, for Pete's sake? US 70 is north of I-40 and all the even numbers between 40 and 60 (except 44) are available. AASHTO should change this number.
It seems like the Raleigh-Durham to Norfolk corridor would be as well served with an east-west number, of which there are more choices.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 05, 2016, 02:15:09 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 links=topic=17910.msg2142863#msg2142863 date=1462468406
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2016.pdf
Why 36, for Pete's sake? US 70 is north of I-40 and all the even numbers between 40 and 60 (except 44) are available. AASHTO should change this number.
And they could - if so desired. They could also decide that 89 is more east/west and ask for that to change.
Keep in mind this is to reserve a number - This could be a year long drama of proposals to be honest. I think once the state gets a number reserved and approved - they will then ask for designations on standardized sections that connect to the system.
I would also expect 495 to disappear at some point as well.
I would recommend 52, 54, 56, or 58--as there are no even-numbered interstates anywhere. I excluded 50 as it is not going to resemble a cross-country interstate.
My Gawd NC literally couldn't of chose two worse numbers. First off the US. Route 70 corridor is north of I-40 so wtf does NC choose I-36? Should be I-42. But I can let that slide compared to them picking freaking I-89 for the Raleigh-Norfolk Corridor. The route is east/west not north/south, I-89 already exists, and is east of I-95! Please AASHTO have some sense and change these
Remember that the originally discussed I-50 for the US 70 corridor may have been considered in the end a conflict with NC 50 as I (and Froggie I believe) had stated before. There is also NC 42, which travels through Clayton (and has an interchange with US 70 in that area).
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 05, 2016, 03:35:55 PM
Remember that the originally discussed I-50 for the US 70 corridor may have been considered in the end a conflict with NC 50 as I (and Froggie I believe) had stated before. There is also NC 42, which travels through Clayton (and has an interchange with US 70 in that area).
There is no NC 36, so that may be why I-36 was requested.
I like how NCDOT took everyone's suggestion and totally threw it in the trash. Unless they read my proposed fictional I-36 routing from I-26, via US 74, to Rockingham then US 1 to Raleigh, they should have stayed above 40. :( Also think I-89 was a poor choice.
Personally, I think 44 would have made more sense for the US 70 corridor, given that it's A) north of I-40, and B) the completed part of the Goldsboro bypass is signed as NC 44. Despite vdeane's rant, the precedent for separate segments with the same number is there and there is considerable distance between this and the existing I-44 in the central US.
I always saw I-36 as a better fit for the US 74 corridor between I-26 and Wilmington.
89 makes basically no sense between Raleigh and Norfolk. The corridor is very much an east west corridor...128 miles worth east-west versus 75 miles north-south. Nevermind that I think an Interstate is unnecessary east of Rocky Mount to begin with, this should be an east-west corridor.
I guess I'm slightly ok with the 36 designation since 40 goes basically south after Raleigh.
I don't know what the hell they were smoking when the requesting I-89. Unless there are people who are on this forum that work for them :hmmm:
If I-89 does get selected, maybe they should consider extending it down US 1 to Rockingham. Might as well at this point. :spin:
Is NC allergic to 3dis?
89 as a number makes no sense. Looking at the map in NC's application for the number, it seems that's primarily an east-west route, necessitating an even number > 40 and < 64. 42 or 46 would probably be most ideal for that route.
89 only makes sense if they plan to extend it up the DelMarVa peninsula via US-13. As long as they're doing that, might as well connect it to existing I-89 via a bridge replacing the Cape May/Lewes Ferry, the Garden State Parkway, I-287, NJ/NY-440, I-495, a bridge over the Long Island Sound, replace existing I-395/I-290/I-190 in CT and MA, and, well, new highway between Leominster MA and Concord NH.
Similarly ludicrous, no? At least then it's a north-south route, primarily...
Quote from: kkt on May 05, 2016, 04:59:22 PM
Is NC allergic to 3dis?
No, over the last 15 years our doctor prescribed I-285, 295, 840, 140, 795 and 274 and said we should be fine. He recently gave us a new drug 885 and might give us 426 to help with our allergies.
Quote from: mvak36 on May 05, 2016, 04:32:30 PM
I guess I'm slightly ok with the 36 designation since 40 goes basically south after Raleigh.
I don't know what the hell they were smoking when the requesting I-89. Unless there are people who are on this forum that work for them :hmmm:
If I-89 does get selected, maybe they should consider extending it down US 1 to Rockingham. Might as well at this point. :spin:
CAMPO - the Local planning outfit - did float 89 as a possible number instead of 44.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 05, 2016, 05:33:29 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on May 05, 2016, 04:32:30 PM
I guess I'm slightly ok with the 36 designation since 40 goes basically south after Raleigh.
I don't know what the hell they were smoking when the requesting I-89. Unless there are people who are on this forum that work for them :hmmm:
If I-89 does get selected, maybe they should consider extending it down US 1 to Rockingham. Might as well at this point. :spin:
CAMPO - the Local planning outfit - did float 89 as a possible number instead of 44.
Fair enough. I apologize for overreacting
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 05, 2016, 05:31:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 05, 2016, 04:59:22 PM
Is NC allergic to 3dis?
No, over the last 15 years our doctor prescribed I-285, 295, 840, 140, 795 and 274 and said we should be fine. He recently gave us a new drug 885 and might give us 426 to help with our allergies.
Don't forget I-785! Also for the record none these have yet to be fully completed.
Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
Quote from: mvak36 on May 05, 2016, 05:40:40 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 05, 2016, 05:33:29 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on May 05, 2016, 04:32:30 PM
I guess I'm slightly ok with the 36 designation since 40 goes basically south after Raleigh.
I don't know what the hell they were smoking when the requesting I-89. Unless there are people who are on this forum that work for them :hmmm:
If I-89 does get selected, maybe they should consider extending it down US 1 to Rockingham. Might as well at this point. :spin:
CAMPO - the Local planning outfit - did float 89 as a possible number instead of 44.
Fair enough. I apologize for overreacting
Don't like the numbers either, unless they use them in for an idea I thought of. Use I-40 for the Raleigh-Norfolk Corridor, then I-36 fits using the US 70 corridor, and since current I-40 runs north-south from Raleigh to Wilmington, renumber it to a N-S 2di, such as I-89.
I hope though, like many other NCDOT I-route requests to AASHTO, that these applications will not be accepted and NCDOT will be told to go back and try again.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 05, 2016, 03:35:55 PM
Remember that the originally discussed I-50 for the US 70 corridor may have been considered in the end a conflict with NC 50 as I (and Froggie I believe) had stated before. There is also NC 42, which travels through Clayton (and has an interchange with US 70 in that area).
The state hasn't changed NC 73 , yet. Though I agree, and do think 42 and 50 was on their minds when they requested 36. The proximity of NC 48 and 46 may have influenced their choice of I-89.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 05, 2016, 05:59:10 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on May 05, 2016, 05:40:40 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 05, 2016, 05:33:29 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on May 05, 2016, 04:32:30 PM
I guess I'm slightly ok with the 36 designation since 40 goes basically south after Raleigh.
I don't know what the hell they were smoking when the requesting I-89. Unless there are people who are on this forum that work for them :hmmm:
If I-89 does get selected, maybe they should consider extending it down US 1 to Rockingham. Might as well at this point. :spin:
CAMPO - the Local planning outfit - did float 89 as a possible number instead of 44.
Fair enough. I apologize for overreacting
Don't like the numbers either, unless they use them in for an idea I thought of. Use I-40 for the Raleigh-Norfolk Corridor, then I-36 fits using the US 70 corridor, and since current I-40 runs north-south from Raleigh to Wilmington, renumber it to a N-S 2di, such as I-89.
I hope though, like many other NCDOT I-route requests to AASHTO, that these applications will not be accepted and NCDOT will be told to go back and try again.
Numbers criss-cross all the time. And even in our state - 77/85 for example. 36/40 is not a big deal.
I doubt proximity to existing routes is a factor in what numbers NCDOT wants; otherwise, there would be no I-74 debacle (heck, it even overlaps with US 74 at least once!). More likely, either someone there really hates roadgeeks, or FritzOwl is their governor.
In any case, the interstates are the supreme system, so if the care to avoid duplication, they should renumber the NC route.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 05, 2016, 05:31:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 05, 2016, 04:59:22 PM
Is NC allergic to 3dis?
No, over the last 15 years our doctor prescribed I-285, 295, 840, 140, 795 and 274 and said we should be fine. He recently gave us a new drug 885 and might give us 426 to help with our allergies.
:-D
Fair enough, thank you.
I still think these are too short for 2dis.
Quote from: vdeane on May 05, 2016, 06:42:37 PM
I doubt proximity to existing routes is a factor in what numbers NCDOT wants; otherwise, there would be no I-74 debacle (heck, it even overlaps with US 74 at least once!). More likely, either someone there really hates roadgeeks, or FritzOwl is their governor.
In any case, the interstates are the supreme system, so if the care to avoid duplication, they should renumber the NC route.
Was not the I-74 extension and designation legislatively done?
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 05, 2016, 05:31:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 05, 2016, 04:59:22 PM
Is NC allergic to 3dis?
No, over the last 15 years our doctor prescribed I-285, 295, 840, 140, 795 and 274 and said we should be fine. He recently gave us a new drug 885 and might give us 426 to help with our allergies.
Don't forget 785
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 05, 2016, 05:43:36 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 05, 2016, 05:31:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 05, 2016, 04:59:22 PM
Is NC allergic to 3dis?
No, over the last 15 years our doctor prescribed I-285, 295, 840, 140, 795 and 274 and said we should be fine. He recently gave us a new drug 885 and might give us 426 to help with our allergies.
Don't forget I-785! Also for the record none these have yet to be fully completed.
Wrong. I-785 is completed (since it is a spur route, it doesn't have to connect to another interstate.) it runs for about 3 miles as of right now, and then 7 in the future when it is extended to US 29, and then later around 45 miles once its extended to Danville, VA.
I-795 is completed and runs from I-95 south to Goldsboro.
As of the rest, you're correct.. they're not completed, but under construction. I-274 is only proposed, not approved yet.
Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
I said fully completed. US. Route 29 still needs to be upgraded to interstate standards for interstate I-785 and I-795 is about to be extended further south to I-40 near Raison.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 05, 2016, 11:21:36 PM
I said fully completed. US. Route 29 still needs to be upgraded to interstate standards for interstate I-785 and I-795 is about to be extended further south to I-40 near Raison.
I think you meant Faison.
I don't mind the 89 designation so much, even though it does duplicate a route that already exists. Besides, NCDOT couldn't care less about numbering rules. Witness the I-540/TOLL NC 540 mess for a road that, at least at one time, would have to have had a 3 digit number with an even first digit.
I think 62 would have been a better choice for Raleigh to Norfolk.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 05, 2016, 11:21:36 PM
I said fully completed. US. Route 29 still needs to be upgraded to interstate standards for interstate I-785 and I-795 is about to be extended further south to I-40 near Raison.
I was not responding to your message unless you posted it. Somebody posted these interstates have not been completed yet.. that is who i am trying to respond to. But thanks for your input.
Quote from: kktI still think these are too short for 2dis.
So I suppose you think we should also renumber I-4, I-12, I-16, I-17, I-19, I-37, I-66, I-68, I-72, I-78, I-82, I-83, the western I-86, and both I-88s. They're all about the same mileage (or less) as these two corridors...
Quote from: Strider on May 05, 2016, 10:12:04 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 05, 2016, 05:43:36 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 05, 2016, 05:31:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 05, 2016, 04:59:22 PM
Is NC allergic to 3dis?
No, over the last 15 years our doctor prescribed I-285, 295, 840, 140, 795 and 274 and said we should be fine. He recently gave us a new drug 885 and might give us 426 to help with our allergies.
Don't forget I-785! Also for the record none these have yet to be fully completed.
Wrong. I-785 is completed (since it is a spur route, it doesn't have to connect to another interstate.) it runs for about 3 miles as of right now, and then 7 in the future when it is extended to US 29, and then later around 45 miles once its extended to Danville, VA.
I-795 is completed and runs from I-95 south to Goldsboro.
As of the rest, you're correct.. they're not completed, but under construction. I-274 is only proposed, not approved yet.
Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
785 has an entire route to Danville - it's not completed. You can argue that 495 is completed also, but it's not.
As for others mentioning forgetting 785 - it happens - the overall point was made.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 08:04:39 AM
Quote from: Strider on May 05, 2016, 10:12:04 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 05, 2016, 05:43:36 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 05, 2016, 05:31:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 05, 2016, 04:59:22 PM
Is NC allergic to 3dis?
No, over the last 15 years our doctor prescribed I-285, 295, 840, 140, 795 and 274 and said we should be fine. He recently gave us a new drug 885 and might give us 426 to help with our allergies.
Don't forget I-785! Also for the record none these have yet to be fully completed.
Wrong. I-785 is completed (since it is a spur route, it doesn't have to connect to another interstate.) it runs for about 3 miles as of right now, and then 7 in the future when it is extended to US 29, and then later around 45 miles once its extended to Danville, VA.
I-795 is completed and runs from I-95 south to Goldsboro.
As of the rest, you're correct.. they're not completed, but under construction. I-274 is only proposed, not approved yet.
Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
785 has an entire route to Danville - it's not completed. You can argue that 495 is completed also, but it's not.
As for others mentioning forgetting 785 - it happens - the overall point was made.
Yes, 785 has an entire route to Danville, for me that is technically completed because as an spur route, it is not required to end at an interstate. Besides it does end at the U.S. route at least for now. Then it will extend to another U.S. route. Even if they decide to change their mind and not extend it to Danville one day, it will still be completed because 785 is a spur route.
495 is not completed because it is to connect with a 2di interstate, since it is not right now. (it ends at a 3di.)
For me, it is technically completed. we both have different opinions on what is completed, what is not.
Quote from: MazdaStrider on May 06, 2016, 11:22:31 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 08:04:39 AM
Quote from: Strider on May 05, 2016, 10:12:04 PM
Wrong. I-785 is completed (since it is a spur route, it doesn't have to connect to another interstate.) it runs for about 3 miles as of right now, and then 7 in the future when it is extended to US 29, and then later around 45 miles once its extended to Danville, VA.
I-795 is completed and runs from I-95 south to Goldsboro.
As of the rest, you're correct.. they're not completed, but under construction. I-274 is only proposed, not approved yet.
Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
785 has an entire route to Danville - it's not completed. You can argue that 495 is completed also, but it's not.
As for others mentioning forgetting 785 - it happens - the overall point was made.
Yes, 785 has an entire route to Danville, for me that is technically completed because as an spur route, it is not required to end at an interstate. Besides it does end at the U.S. route at least for now. Then it will extend to another U.S. route. Even if they decide to change their mind and not extend it to Danville one day, it will still be completed because 785 is a spur route.
495 is not completed because it is to connect with a 2di interstate, since it is not right now. (it ends at a 3di.)
For me, it is technically completed. we both have different opinions on what is completed, what is not.
So any spur route can be completed because it doesn't have to connect to anything? Even if existing plans have it extending 30 or so miles further? That's a very interesting definition - don't you think?
You also say - "Even if they decide to change their mind and not extend it to Danville one day, it will still be completed because 785 is a spur route." Well yes when and if that ever happens. Currently, 785 is planned to go to Danville so the entire route is not completed.
Your definition for 495 not being completed is the same reason for 785 not being completed. It connects to an interstate (3di's aren't required to connect on both ends to a 2 digit route) So you are contradicting yourself in the post.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 05, 2016, 04:10:53 PM
I like how NCDOT took everyone's suggestion and totally threw it in the trash. Unless they read my proposed fictional I-36 routing from I-26, via US 74, to Rockingham then US 1 to Raleigh, they should have stayed above 40. :( Also think I-89 was a poor choice.
By any chance, are you the guy who once ran a website called swamphen.net? I distinctly remember seeing the I-36 routing there!
I would've gone with I-46 as the number for the Norfolk-Raleigh route, and I-42 for the US 70 one. I also think I-89 is a dumb choice since not only is the majority of the route east-west, it's also east of I-95. But then again, NH and VT are further east than the NC coastline, so that could be excused.
OT: I-40 should've been built to at least New Bern, and the route south to Wilmington should've gotten I-97, instead of that insane Baltimore-Annapolis highway that has it now.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 11:38:39 AM
Quote from: MazdaStrider on May 06, 2016, 11:22:31 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 08:04:39 AM
Quote from: Strider on May 05, 2016, 10:12:04 PM
Wrong. I-785 is completed (since it is a spur route, it doesn't have to connect to another interstate.) it runs for about 3 miles as of right now, and then 7 in the future when it is extended to US 29, and then later around 45 miles once its extended to Danville, VA.
I-795 is completed and runs from I-95 south to Goldsboro.
As of the rest, you're correct.. they're not completed, but under construction. I-274 is only proposed, not approved yet.
Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
785 has an entire route to Danville - it's not completed. You can argue that 495 is completed also, but it's not.
As for others mentioning forgetting 785 - it happens - the overall point was made.
Yes, 785 has an entire route to Danville, for me that is technically completed because as an spur route, it is not required to end at an interstate. Besides it does end at the U.S. route at least for now. Then it will extend to another U.S. route. Even if they decide to change their mind and not extend it to Danville one day, it will still be completed because 785 is a spur route.
495 is not completed because it is to connect with a 2di interstate, since it is not right now. (it ends at a 3di.)
For me, it is technically completed. we both have different opinions on what is completed, what is not.
So any spur route can be completed because it doesn't have to connect to anything? Even if existing plans have it extending 30 or so miles further? That's a very interesting definition - don't you think?
You also say - "Even if they decide to change their mind and not extend it to Danville one day, it will still be completed because 785 is a spur route." Well yes when and if that ever happens. Currently, 785 is planned to go to Danville so the entire route is not completed.
Your definition for 495 not being completed is the same reason for 785 not being completed. It connects to an interstate (3di's aren't required to connect on both ends to a 2 digit route) So you are contradicting yourself in the post.
Like i said, we have different opinions.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 05, 2016, 03:58:17 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 05, 2016, 03:35:55 PM
Remember that the originally discussed I-50 for the US 70 corridor may have been considered in the end a conflict with NC 50 as I (and Froggie I believe) had stated before. There is also NC 42, which travels through Clayton (and has an interchange with US 70 in that area).
There is no NC 36, so that may be why I-36 was requested.
Two additional comments on the proposed I-36 and I-89.
(1) NC 44 is being used as a stand-in designation for the western half of the unfinished Goldsboro Bypass, which is part of the proposed I-36. That use becomes obsolete in just a few weeks when the rest of the bypass opens (it will then be numbered US 70). So: why the heck didn't NCDOT propose I-44 instead of I-36? When they proposed I-89 they proved they don't care about duplicating an interstate number used elsewhere, and at least I-44 would fit the grid.
(2) On the question of whether the proposed I-89 should be seen as east-west or north-south: I agree it should be east-west, but NCDOT is already on record as viewing it as north-south: it has signed I-495 between Raleigh and Rocky Mount (it would become part of I-89 now) as north-south. Proof here:
https://goo.gl/maps/M9dvZr7v3eT2
Quote from: Henry on May 06, 2016, 11:52:57 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 05, 2016, 04:10:53 PM
I like how NCDOT took everyone's suggestion and totally threw it in the trash. Unless they read my proposed fictional I-36 routing from I-26, via US 74, to Rockingham then US 1 to Raleigh, they should have stayed above 40. :( Also think I-89 was a poor choice.
By any chance, are you the guy who once ran a website called swamphen.net? I distinctly remember seeing the I-36 routing there!
I would've gone with I-46 as the number for the Norfolk-Raleigh route, and I-42 for the US 70 one. I also think I-89 is a dumb choice since not only is the majority of the route east-west, it's also east of I-95. But then again, NH and VT are further east than the NC coastline, so that could be excused.
OT: I-40 should've been built to at least New Bern, and the route south to Wilmington should've gotten I-97, instead of that insane Baltimore-Annapolis highway that has it now.
You are going to have to time travel and go back to the 1970s when the state was debating on whether to route 40 to Morehead City or Wilmington. Hey, look I wrote something about it - and if i ever have time can expand further on it.
http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/history/i40.html
Let's forget about the grid - the country is not a perfect square or rectangle and we were to follow the grid how many routes would need to be changed? (Though just take a look at the fictional highways section - and well.....) Arguing a number because it isn't in strict compliance to the grid is a non starter as there are so many instances counter to it. Arguing that the Raleigh to Norfolk designation should be east/west vs. north/south is a far better and more valid argument.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 06, 2016, 12:00:15 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 05, 2016, 03:58:17 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 05, 2016, 03:35:55 PM
Remember that the originally discussed I-50 for the US 70 corridor may have been considered in the end a conflict with NC 50 as I (and Froggie I believe) had stated before. There is also NC 42, which travels through Clayton (and has an interchange with US 70 in that area).
There is no NC 36, so that may be why I-36 was requested.
Two additional comments on the proposed I-36 and I-89.
(1) NC 44 is being used as a stand-in designation for the western half of the unfinished Goldsboro Bypass, which is part of the proposed I-36. That use becomes obsolete in just a few weeks when the rest of the bypass opens (it will then be numbered US 70). So: why the heck didn't NCDOT propose I-44 instead of I-36? When they proposed I-89 they proved they don't care about duplicating an interstate number used elsewhere, and at least I-44 would fit the grid.
(2) On the question of whether the proposed I-89 should be seen as east-west or north-south: I agree it should be east-west, but NCDOT is already on record as viewing it as north-south: it has signed I-495 between Raleigh and Rocky Mount (it would become part of I-89 now) as north-south. Proof here:
https://goo.gl/maps/M9dvZr7v3eT2
And I live right off of 540 and 495. And commute to work on both versions of 495 daily. The signing changes in the next few years will be fun.
What's been overlooked in all this is that 89 is proposed to begin at Exit 301 on I-40 (Exit 16 I-440) follow I-440 until the start of the Knightdale BYpass (or start of 495) and go on from there.
This might be their reason: "It's north-south because it's roughly parallel to I-85 and I-85 is north-south."
Quote from: froggie on May 06, 2016, 05:43:14 AM
Quote from: kktI still think these are too short for 2dis.
So I suppose you think we should also renumber I-4, I-12, I-16, I-17, I-19, I-37, I-66, I-68, I-72, I-78, I-82, I-83, the western I-86, and both I-88s. They're all about the same mileage (or less) as these two corridors...
Don't forget I-97. Not only is it a 2di within a single state, it is also less than 20 miles long and wholly within a single county!
Quote from: Henry on May 06, 2016, 11:52:57 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 05, 2016, 04:10:53 PM
I like how NCDOT took everyone's suggestion and totally threw it in the trash. Unless they read my proposed fictional I-36 routing from I-26, via US 74, to Rockingham then US 1 to Raleigh, they should have stayed above 40. :( Also think I-89 was a poor choice.
By any chance, are you the guy who once ran a website called swamphen.net? I distinctly remember seeing the I-36 routing there!
Nope, I'm just one of the peeps that updates the Wikipedia highway pages in the area. :awesomeface:
Quote from: tckma on May 06, 2016, 12:21:09 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 06, 2016, 05:43:14 AM
Quote from: kktI still think these are too short for 2dis.
So I suppose you think we should also renumber I-4, I-12, I-16, I-17, I-19, I-37, I-66, I-68, I-72, I-78, I-82, I-83, the western I-86, and both I-88s. They're all about the same mileage (or less) as these two corridors...
Don't forget I-97. Not only is it a 2di within a single state, it is also less than 20 miles long and wholly within a single county!
He excluded it because I-2, I-97, and I-99 are Interstates some people on this forum believe
should be renumbered. Nobody really has a problem with the numbers he listed except 19 (combining 17 and 19, not turning it into a 3di), 82 (due to being an even number, not due to length), and the duplicated numbers.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 12:07:04 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 06, 2016, 12:00:15 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 05, 2016, 03:58:17 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 05, 2016, 03:35:55 PM
Remember that the originally discussed I-50 for the US 70 corridor may have been considered in the end a conflict with NC 50 as I (and Froggie I believe) had stated before. There is also NC 42, which travels through Clayton (and has an interchange with US 70 in that area).
There is no NC 36, so that may be why I-36 was requested.
Two additional comments on the proposed I-36 and I-89.
(1) NC 44 is being used as a stand-in designation for the western half of the unfinished Goldsboro Bypass, which is part of the proposed I-36. That use becomes obsolete in just a few weeks when the rest of the bypass opens (it will then be numbered US 70). So: why the heck didn't NCDOT propose I-44 instead of I-36? When they proposed I-89 they proved they don't care about duplicating an interstate number used elsewhere, and at least I-44 would fit the grid.
(2) On the question of whether the proposed I-89 should be seen as east-west or north-south: I agree it should be east-west, but NCDOT is already on record as viewing it as north-south: it has signed I-495 between Raleigh and Rocky Mount (it would become part of I-89 now) as north-south. Proof here:
https://goo.gl/maps/M9dvZr7v3eT2
And I live right off of 540 and 495. And commute to work on both versions of 495 daily. The signing changes in the next few years will be fun.
What's been overlooked in all this is that 89 is proposed to begin at Exit 301 on I-40 (Exit 16 I-440) follow I-440 until the start of the Knightdale BYpass (or start of 495) and go on from there.
I never understood why NCDOT even bothered with the I-495 designation if the long term plan was getting a 2-digit number anyway. They've should've waited for I-89 to get approved and then put Interstate shields on the Knightdale Bypass, IMO. I also wonder why NCDOT wants I-89 to end at I-40 rather than I-440? That got my attention too. :hmmm:
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 12:07:04 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 06, 2016, 12:00:15 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 05, 2016, 03:58:17 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 05, 2016, 03:35:55 PM
Remember that the originally discussed I-50 for the US 70 corridor may have been considered in the end a conflict with NC 50 as I (and Froggie I believe) had stated before. There is also NC 42, which travels through Clayton (and has an interchange with US 70 in that area).
There is no NC 36, so that may be why I-36 was requested.
Two additional comments on the proposed I-36 and I-89.
(1) NC 44 is being used as a stand-in designation for the western half of the unfinished Goldsboro Bypass, which is part of the proposed I-36. That use becomes obsolete in just a few weeks when the rest of the bypass opens (it will then be numbered US 70). So: why the heck didn't NCDOT propose I-44 instead of I-36? When they proposed I-89 they proved they don't care about duplicating an interstate number used elsewhere, and at least I-44 would fit the grid.
(2) On the question of whether the proposed I-89 should be seen as east-west or north-south: I agree it should be east-west, but NCDOT is already on record as viewing it as north-south: it has signed I-495 between Raleigh and Rocky Mount (it would become part of I-89 now) as north-south. Proof here:
https://goo.gl/maps/M9dvZr7v3eT2
And I live right off of 540 and 495. And commute to work on both versions of 495 daily. The signing changes in the next few years will be fun.
What's been overlooked in all this is that 89 is proposed to begin at Exit 301 on I-40 (Exit 16 I-440) follow I-440 until the start of the Knightdale BYpass (or start of 495) and go on from there.
What is going to happen to the 2 miles of I-440 between I-40 and the future I-89? an multiplex or a truncation?
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 06, 2016, 12:00:15 PM(2) On the question of whether the proposed I-89 should be seen as east-west or north-south: I agree it should be east-west, but NCDOT is already on record as viewing it as north-south: it has signed I-495 between Raleigh and Rocky Mount (it would become part of I-89 now) as north-south. Proof here:
https://goo.gl/maps/M9dvZr7v3eT2
Not sure why NCDOT considers their I-495 to be a north-south route. Among Interstates, the odd routes being north-south and the even routes being east-west
only apply to one and two-digit routes. 3dis are a bit more of free-for-all. Given that I-495 was just recently established; why not just make the new corridor to the VA line simply an extension of I-495?
Quote from: froggie on May 06, 2016, 05:43:14 AM
Quote from: kktI still think these are too short for 2dis.
So I suppose you think we should also renumber I-4, I-12, I-16, I-17, I-19, I-37, I-66, I-68, I-72, I-78, I-82, I-83, the western I-86, and both I-88s. They're all about the same mileage (or less) as these two corridors...
I don't think those routes (except maybe I-4 because it's the full width of the country at that point) should have been created as 2dis and we shouldn't create any new 2dis that short. The 2dis, in my view, should travel across a substantial fraction of the country, not just a couple hundred miles.
However, renumbering is a lot of work, both for the DOTs involved and the general public. If they just didn't create new short 2dis, that'd be good.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 12:32:38 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 06, 2016, 12:00:15 PM(2) On the question of whether the proposed I-89 should be seen as east-west or north-south: I agree it should be east-west, but NCDOT is already on record as viewing it as north-south: it has signed I-495 between Raleigh and Rocky Mount (it would become part of I-89 now) as north-south. Proof here:
https://goo.gl/maps/M9dvZr7v3eT2
Not sure why NCDOT considers their I-495 to be a north-south route. Among Interstates, the odd routes being north-south and the even routes being east-west only apply to one and two-digit routes. 3dis are a bit more of free-for-all. Given that I-495 was just recently established; why not just make the new corridor to the VA line simply an extension of I-495?
well routes have been renumbered before. Remember 495 came about before the FAST Act. I just see it as hey an interesting back story. As for the N/S thing for 495 who knows. It honestly doesn't bother me.
Once a number is established and APPROVED - NCDOT will begin the signing request process. That's when we will find out the fate of 495 (likely gone).
Quote from: MazdaStrider on May 06, 2016, 12:29:56 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 12:07:04 PM
And I live right off of 540 and 495. And commute to work on both versions of 495 daily. The signing changes in the next few years will be fun.
What's been overlooked in all this is that 89 is proposed to begin at Exit 301 on I-40 (Exit 16 I-440) follow I-440 until the start of the Knightdale BYpass (or start of 495) and go on from there.
What is going to happen to the 2 miles of I-440 between I-40 and the future I-89? an multiplex or a truncation?
once a number is established we will know. I think 440 will stay - you can have two routes end at the same place.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 12:45:11 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 12:32:38 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 06, 2016, 12:00:15 PM(2) On the question of whether the proposed I-89 should be seen as east-west or north-south: I agree it should be east-west, but NCDOT is already on record as viewing it as north-south: it has signed I-495 between Raleigh and Rocky Mount (it would become part of I-89 now) as north-south. Proof here:
https://goo.gl/maps/M9dvZr7v3eT2
Not sure why NCDOT considers their I-495 to be a north-south route. Among Interstates, the odd routes being north-south and the even routes being east-west only apply to one and two-digit routes. 3dis are a bit more of free-for-all. Given that I-495 was just recently established; why not just make the new corridor to the VA line simply an extension of I-495?
well routes have been renumbered before. Remember 495 came about before the FAST Act. I just see it as hey an interesting back story. As for the N/S thing for 495 who knows. It honestly doesn't bother me.
Once a number is established and APPROVED - NCDOT will begin the signing request process. That's when we will find out the fate of 495 (likely gone).
Not to mention that NCDOT asked FHWA in Nov 2012 to have what is now I-495 designated as I-44 first.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 12:45:11 PM
well routes have been renumbered before. Remember 495 came about before the FAST Act. I just see it as hey an interesting back story. As for the N/S thing for 495 who knows. It honestly doesn't bother me.
Once a number is established and APPROVED - NCDOT will begin the signing request process. That's when we will find out the fate of 495 (likely gone).
Just throwing this out there, but could they maybe use 495 for the US264 corridor to Greenville? That way they don't have to remove the signs that are already in place out in the field. You would have concurrencies with 89 and 795.
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 06, 2016, 02:08:44 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 12:45:11 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 12:32:38 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 06, 2016, 12:00:15 PM(2) On the question of whether the proposed I-89 should be seen as east-west or north-south: I agree it should be east-west, but NCDOT is already on record as viewing it as north-south: it has signed I-495 between Raleigh and Rocky Mount (it would become part of I-89 now) as north-south. Proof here:
https://goo.gl/maps/M9dvZr7v3eT2
Not sure why NCDOT considers their I-495 to be a north-south route. Among Interstates, the odd routes being north-south and the even routes being east-west only apply to one and two-digit routes. 3dis are a bit more of free-for-all. Given that I-495 was just recently established; why not just make the new corridor to the VA line simply an extension of I-495?
well routes have been renumbered before. Remember 495 came about before the FAST Act. I just see it as hey an interesting back story. As for the N/S thing for 495 who knows. It honestly doesn't bother me.
Once a number is established and APPROVED - NCDOT will begin the signing request process. That's when we will find out the fate of 495 (likely gone).
Not to mention that NCDOT asked FHWA in Nov 2012 to have what is now I-495 designated as I-44 first.
A couple of month's ago when working on a blog entry on the subject - I was trying to locate that request and had no luck. I wonder if NCDOT removed it from record.
The Interstate 36 designation isn't too terrible, but if I had my druthers I'd have gone with I-46. But I-89 (S) from Raleigh...yeesh. Not only is it a duplicate number, it's not even running the right direction!!
I say, number this route I-50. I don't care if it's not a major, coast-to-coast highway; it won't get any use anywhere else and doesn't cause cause any number duplication problems with US 50, being on the other end of the state.
Quote from: mvak36 on May 06, 2016, 02:08:50 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 12:45:11 PM
well routes have been renumbered before. Remember 495 came about before the FAST Act. I just see it as hey an interesting back story. As for the N/S thing for 495 who knows. It honestly doesn't bother me.
Once a number is established and APPROVED - NCDOT will begin the signing request process. That's when we will find out the fate of 495 (likely gone).
Just throwing this out there, but could they maybe use 495 for the US264 corridor to Greenville? That way they don't have to remove the signs that are already in place out in the field. You would have concurrencies with 89 and 795.
Anything is possible - I do forsee that once 64/264 is upgraded to standards to the split in Zebulon that NCDOT would ask to extend I-795 to Zebulon along 264 (it really only needs some shoulder upgrades - maybe a little more) at the same time. As for too Greeneville - who knows 1, 3, 5, and 9 are available.
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 06, 2016, 02:12:27 PM
The Interstate 36 designation isn't too terrible, but if I had my druthers I'd have gone with I-46. But I-89 (S) from Raleigh...yeesh. Not only is it a duplicate number, it's not even running the right direction!!
I say, number this route I-50. I don't care if it's not a major, coast-to-coast highway; it won't get any use anywhere else and doesn't cause cause any number duplication problems with US 50, being on the other end of the state.
I should start a poll like we used to have on the old SEROADS Yahoo Group on whether or not AASHTO will reject 89. Indeed, I think I shall.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 12:46:18 PM
Quote from: MazdaStrider on May 06, 2016, 12:29:56 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 12:07:04 PM
And I live right off of 540 and 495. And commute to work on both versions of 495 daily. The signing changes in the next few years will be fun.
What's been overlooked in all this is that 89 is proposed to begin at Exit 301 on I-40 (Exit 16 I-440) follow I-440 until the start of the Knightdale BYpass (or start of 495) and go on from there.
What is going to happen to the 2 miles of I-440 between I-40 and the future I-89? an multiplex or a truncation?
once a number is established we will know. I think 440 will stay - you can have two routes end at the same place.
We have a similar situation on the east side of Greensboro involving the I-840 beltway and I-785. In this case the two routes will be concurrent.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 02:11:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 06, 2016, 02:08:44 PM
Not to mention that NCDOT asked FHWA in Nov 2012 to have what is now I-495 designated as I-44 first.
A couple of month's ago when working on a blog entry on the subject - I was trying to locate that request and had no luck. I wonder if NCDOT removed it from record.
They did but the wayback machine has it - https://web.archive.org/web/20140517130607/http://www.campo-nc.us/TCC_Agenda/2013/Agenda-TCC-2013-01-03-ATT-10-Addition%20of%20I-44,%20Wake%20County.pdf
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 12:32:38 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 06, 2016, 12:00:15 PM(2) On the question of whether the proposed I-89 should be seen as east-west or north-south: I agree it should be east-west, but NCDOT is already on record as viewing it as north-south: it has signed I-495 between Raleigh and Rocky Mount (it would become part of I-89 now) as north-south. Proof here:
https://goo.gl/maps/M9dvZr7v3eT2
Not sure why NCDOT considers their I-495 to be a north-south route. Among Interstates, the odd routes being north-south and the even routes being east-west only apply to one and two-digit routes. 3dis are a bit more of free-for-all. Given that I-495 was just recently established; why not just make the new corridor to the VA line simply an extension of I-495?
I I-495 is north-south because it does go northeasterly from I-440 to I-95, and it matches with the whole odd number north-south scheme typically done for Interstates.
Why make the entire route into I-495 when it would need to be renumbered going into Virginia anyway? Might as well do it sooner than later, especially when its only four miles long.
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 06, 2016, 04:00:08 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 02:11:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 06, 2016, 02:08:44 PM
Not to mention that NCDOT asked FHWA in Nov 2012 to have what is now I-495 designated as I-44 first.
A couple of month's ago when working on a blog entry on the subject - I was trying to locate that request and had no luck. I wonder if NCDOT removed it from record.
They did but the wayback machine has it - https://web.archive.org/web/20140517130607/http://www.campo-nc.us/TCC_Agenda/2013/Agenda-TCC-2013-01-03-ATT-10-Addition%20of%20I-44,%20Wake%20County.pdf
This guy probably has a nice and growing file folder on this route
I'm not wild about either number, but 36 make a lot more sense than 89. And why is existing 495 signed north-south when 64 and 264 are signed east-west, which is the direction of the roadway?
If there is an official justification for the choice of I-89 for the Raleigh to Norfolk interstate, it would probably be this post in February on the web site of Raleigh's Regional Transportation Alliance.
Quote
The use of a north-south routing is attractive for Raleigh, since this route will be Raleigh's first direct Interstate connection to I-95 north and the mid-Atlantic and northeastern states, and also for Hampton Roads, since this would be coastal Virginia's first direct Interstate connection to I-95 south.
A north-south Interstate designation would also allow both Raleigh and Hampton Roads to have both an east-west (i.e., I-40 and I-64) and north-south (e.g., I-89) primary Interstate serving their respective metro areas. In addition, a north-south designation would be consistent with the routing used by existing I-495 in Wake County – currently signed as north and south – which a new, north-south Interstate designation like I-89 would likely replace.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 06, 2016, 06:14:48 PM
I'm not wild about either number, but 36 make a lot more sense than 89. And why is existing 495 signed north-south when 64 and 264 are signed east-west, which is the direction of the roadway?
Sources tell me it's done just to keep this thread going #sources
Assuming AASHTO and FHWA approve Future I-36, what are the odds that NCDOT would send an application to AASHTO at their fall meeting to have I-36 shields posted on the Clayton and (soon to be open) Goldsboro Bypasses since they already meet Interstate standards and connect to existing interstates (I-40 in Garner and I-795 in Goldsboro)? :hmmm:
Quote from: LM117 on May 06, 2016, 07:06:09 PM
Assuming AASHTO and FHWA approve Future I-36, what are the odds that NCDOT would send an application to AASHTO at their fall meeting to have I-36 shields posted on the Clayton and (soon to be open) Goldsboro Bypasses since they already meet Interstate standards and connect to existing interstates (I-40 in Garner and I-795 in Goldsboro)? :hmmm:
I was surprised they didn't do it now. I do think they will then. If they don't - they may wait until the section of 70 around Wilson Mills is complete as it will at least lead to some connection with I-95.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 07:08:25 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 06, 2016, 07:06:09 PM
Assuming AASHTO and FHWA approve Future I-36, what are the odds that NCDOT would send an application to AASHTO at their fall meeting to have I-36 shields posted on the Clayton and (soon to be open) Goldsboro Bypasses since they already meet Interstate standards and connect to existing interstates (I-40 in Garner and I-795 in Goldsboro)? :hmmm:
I was surprised they didn't do it now. I do think they will then. If they don't - they may wait until the section of 70 around Wilson Mills is complete as it will at least lead to some connection with I-95.
Yeah, I was surprised about it too. You can bet the Super 70 Corridor Commission will be making some serious noise to have the shields go up if I-36 goes through.
I would like to point out that the numbers in the signs posted along these highways will have little to no effect on their usefulness or use in navigation. All the groups propping up these fantasies proposals care about is the blue and red shield.
I looked at NCDOT's AASHTO application again and noticed that they mentioned requesting sections of US-70 to the Interstate system as it's being upgraded, so I figured they either wanted to wait and make sure the I-36 number got approved first (in case they have to go back to the drawing board if AASHTO cans I-36) or wait until the Goldsboro Bypass opens and kill two birds with one stone since Clayton and Goldsboro are the only sections that are currently Interstate standard. Maybe a combination of both. If I-36 goes through and NC requests I-shields for Clayton and Goldsboro, I think it's very likely I-shields will go up sometime early next year, provided NCDOT sends their applications at AASHTO's next meeting. They said they would do the same for the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor if I-89 got approved, so I-495 might get the heave-ho sooner rather than later. That's my best guess anyway, FWIW.
Now that I actually live here, I can see a good justification for I-36 if they plan to also use it for any interstate plans they have for westward and south of Raleigh.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on May 08, 2016, 08:42:35 PM
Now that I actually live here, I can see a good justification for I-36 if they plan to also use it for any interstate plans they have for westward and south of Raleigh.
But I-36 would still have that out of place section east of Raleigh. IMHO it would be better to start with something that fits the grid, such as I-42, (screw the duplicated state route), and then break the grid when the extension does occur. Plus, given the proximity of the route to I-40, I think it would be better to stick with a number closer to 40 (either 38 or 42) to allow any future even 2di additions to be a better fit.
As for I-89, if they really want an odd number for the corridor, I would prefer I-91 - at least if I visualize a hidden multiplex/future extension back to the existing I-91, it looks more direct than a hidden multiplex to the southern end of the existing I-89. Even a southern I-87 would appear better to me.
EDIT: I see someone beat me to this in the fictional section.
What happened to I-101? Being that US 101 set the standard for US 10-1 why cannot the interstate system do the same. Then if the eastern shore of VA and MD ever decide they want to replace US 13 with an interstate, then it would be partially done already.
If it were me and I would want to duplicate an odd number, why not use I-97? That interstate should have never even been a 2 digit in the first place, but that would be the best candidate IMO if one is to be copied.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on May 08, 2016, 08:42:35 PM
Now that I actually live here, I can see a good justification for I-36 if they plan to also use it for any interstate plans they have for westward and south of Raleigh.
The only plausible interstate route westward and south of Raleigh would be along US 1, and that would be an extension of I-89, not I-36.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 06, 2016, 04:52:38 PM
I-495 is north-south because it does go northeasterly from I-440 to I-95, and it matches with the whole odd number north-south scheme typically done for Interstates.
For Interstates; Odd number N/S, even number E/W
only applies to 1 and 2-digit routes. 3-digit routes can go either way (see several examples of I-195, I-476 & I-684). Full Loop 3dis can change cardinal directions along the way as well (see I-695 in MD).
While the corridor is somewhat diagonal; the NC stretch is more E/W rather than N/S... especially the I-440 to I-95 (near Rocky Mount) stretch.
I agrees with PHLBOS in that the route seems to be more E/W then N/S. I don't think I like I-89 being used here (besides the duplication fact), since the only portions that are truly N/S are east of Rocky Mount it seems.
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.
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:
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).
If you ask me, Interstate 26 and Interstate 85 would have more legitimacy if the two existing routes swapped places.
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.
QuoteThere'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.
Quote from: froggie on May 09, 2016, 08:46:37 PM
QuoteThere'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.
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. :) :) :) :))
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 09, 2016, 11:14:12 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. :) :) :) :))
None of that is going to happen.
Quote from: vdeane on May 09, 2016, 01:04:22 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.
Below is an email (posted verbatim) I received from NCDOT that details out their decision to request the numbers in question:
QuoteThis 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.
Quote from: froggie on May 10, 2016, 10:28:46 PM
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.
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.
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.
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...
Quote from: froggie on May 10, 2016, 10:28:46 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 noticed that NC 54 isn't "widely" used...why not just renumber that? ;)
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 11, 2016, 09:08:09 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 10, 2016, 10:28:46 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:
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?
Quote from: vdeane on May 11, 2016, 01:41:24 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.
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.
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 11, 2016, 10:53:34 AM
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.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 11, 2016, 02:56:59 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 11, 2016, 01:41:24 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).
Quote from: vdeane on May 11, 2016, 05:52:38 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 11, 2016, 02:56:59 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 11, 2016, 01:41:24 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)
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.
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 11, 2016, 10:53:34 AM
I noticed that NC 54 isn't "widely" used...why not just renumber that? ;)
First, thanks to froggie for getting this explanation from NCDOT. Good work!
Let's not assume that NC state highway numbers can be changed easily, because that is not the case. In North Carolina, the roads carrying state highway numbers often have no other name. That is true of NC 54: in all of Durham County and most of Orange County the road's official name is "Highway 54," and that's the street and postal address for hundreds, maybe several thousand, of homes and businesses along the road. Changing the name would upset every one of those landowners; it's a hornet's nest NCDOT wouldn't consider disturbing.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 11, 2016, 06:39:08 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 11, 2016, 10:53:34 AM
I noticed that NC 54 isn't "widely" used...why not just renumber that? ;)
First, thanks to froggie for getting this explanation from NCDOT. Good work!
Let's not assume that NC state highway numbers can be changed easily, because that is not the case. In North Carolina, the roads carrying state highway numbers often have no other name. That is true of NC 54: in all of Durham County and most of Orange County the road's official name is "Highway 54," and that's the street and postal address for hundreds, maybe several thousand, of homes and businesses along the road. Changing the name would upset every one of those landowners; it's a hornet's nest NCDOT wouldn't consider disturbing.
Apparently that is why US 202 Business exists now on the old alignment of US 202 that was bypassed via the new parkway from Montgomeryville to Doylestown. From what I read, many businesses had Route 202 in their addresses and using the local road names must have somehow led to the lost of business there leading the businesses to want the business route.
Quote from: wdcrft63Let's not assume that NC state highway numbers can be changed easily, because that is not the case. In North Carolina, the roads carrying state highway numbers often have no other name. That is true of NC 54: in all of Durham County and most of Orange County the road's official name is "Highway 54," and that's the street and postal address for hundreds, maybe several thousand, of homes and businesses along the road. Changing the name would upset every one of those landowners; it's a hornet's nest NCDOT wouldn't consider disturbing.
Not far from the mark. I sent NCDOT a follow-up email inquiring if they considered renumbering an existing state route to free up an east-west number for the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor. Also let some frustration about drivers confused by closely numbered routes adjacent to each other. Here is the response:
Quote from: NCDOTWe are not casting dispersions on any drivers within the region; however, we have received complaints about similar numbers in North Carolina. I am unsure which region these drivers are originally from, they may be native to North Carolina or one of the millions that have moved to our state. Either way, we see an opportunity to avoid a potential conflict.
As previously indicated, the Department did consider numerous scenarios. One of the considerations was renumbering the effected state route; however, this path was not chosen. This was due to the number of required address changes for those businesses that utilized the highway number as an address.
Concerning email correspondence from the State of Virginia, we will discuss with the State of Virginia to see if they have any concerns about us proving you a copy of the email. If they have no concerns, we will send it to you. If they have concerns, we will ask that you proceed through the public records request process.
Please realize that regardless of the specific number chosen, there will be people who disagree with the choice. In this case, we reviewed the various options and chose from those that have the least impact on our citizens. Which route would you have chosen?
So what wdcrft63 posted is EXACTLY why they didn't consider renumbering an existing state route.
Dear NCDOT, there are actually only 49 east-west interstate numbers potentially available, numbers 2 to 98, unless interstate numbering rules are revised to allow I-0 or I-100.
IMO they should both be east-west, grid appropriate, and not duplicates.
Everything even between 44 and 64 is wide open, so it should be a no-brainer to find two suitable numbers. The conflict arguments are weak IMO, considering the 74/74 mess.
I think 74 should be changed too since there's no chance it will ever touch the other one, but that's another argument.
Quote from: mrose on May 12, 2016, 02:23:11 AM
IMO they should both be east-west, grid appropriate, and not duplicates.
Everything even between 44 and 64 is wide open, so it should be a no-brainer to find two suitable numbers. The conflict arguments are weak IMO, considering the 74/74 mess.
I think 74 should be changed too since there's no chance it will ever touch the other one, but that's another argument.
I think we've been over this I-74 ground several times, but here's one more time. The routes of I-73 and I-74 are specified in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) passed by Congress in 1996. If you want to review the rather complicated history of this legislation as it applies in North Carolina, Wikipedia has a summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_74_in_North_Carolina#History. The point is that NCDOT did not request the confusing concurrence of I-74 and US 74; it is something that Congress imposed, unwisely.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 12, 2016, 08:53:27 AM
Quote from: mrose on May 12, 2016, 02:23:11 AM
IMO they should both be east-west, grid appropriate, and not duplicates.
Everything even between 44 and 64 is wide open, so it should be a no-brainer to find two suitable numbers. The conflict arguments are weak IMO, considering the 74/74 mess.
I think 74 should be changed too since there's no chance it will ever touch the other one, but that's another argument.
I think we've been over this I-74 ground several times, but here's one more time. The routes of I-73 and I-74 are specified in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) passed by Congress in 1996. If you want to review the rather complicated history of this legislation as it applies in North Carolina, Wikipedia has a summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_74_in_North_Carolina#History. The point is that NCDOT did not request the confusing concurrence of I-74 and US 74; it is something that Congress imposed, unwisely.
Unfortunately - like MTR was with this route and I-99 - this forum is the sounding board for those unhappy with numbering and how designations of highways correspond to various grids.
73/74, 99, 11, 14 are what they are.
A tweet in response to my blog entry about the numbering has a different view:
https://twitter.com/leafstorm/status/730735412919013377
The response says the numbering grid is inadequate
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 12, 2016, 08:53:27 AM
Quote from: mrose on May 12, 2016, 02:23:11 AM
IMO they should both be east-west, grid appropriate, and not duplicates.
Everything even between 44 and 64 is wide open, so it should be a no-brainer to find two suitable numbers. The conflict arguments are weak IMO, considering the 74/74 mess.
I think 74 should be changed too since there's no chance it will ever touch the other one, but that's another argument.
I think we've been over this I-74 ground several times, but here's one more time. The routes of I-73 and I-74 are specified in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) passed by Congress in 1996. If you want to review the rather complicated history of this legislation as it applies in North Carolina, Wikipedia has a summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_74_in_North_Carolina#History. The point is that NCDOT did not request the confusing concurrence of I-74 and US 74; it is something that Congress imposed, unwisely.
1. Who gave Congress the idea? I doubt very much that it originated in a vacuum. NC is gung ho about these roads, VA and SC are lukewarm, WV stopped being interested when the FHWA wouldn't let the coal miners grade the road, and OH (and MI for I-73) has never been interested.
2. Why has nobody either passed a law changing the number or decided to test how much Congress cared by numbering it something else and daring Congress to do something?
To reply to the fact that the Interstate numbering grid is inadequate, I would add that the US Highway numbering grid is as well. Sure, US Highways don't have to be four-laned freeways like the Interstates, but there are plenty of US Highways out of numerical sequence. We all know what they are.
Quote from: vdeane on May 12, 2016, 03:53:18 PM
2. Why has nobody either passed a law changing the number or decided to test how much Congress cared by numbering it something else and daring Congress to do something?
Because roadgeeks are the only one who realize how important it is to follow the grid!
Quote from: vdeane1. Who gave Congress the idea? I doubt very much that it originated in a vacuum.
As I recall, it was business and industrial interests pushing the concept and the number who got Congress to buy in.
Quote from: froggie on May 12, 2016, 04:21:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane1. Who gave Congress the idea? I doubt very much that it originated in a vacuum.
As I recall, it was business and industrial interests pushing the concept and the number who got Congress to buy in.
It was business and industrial interests who wanted the highways, no doubt about that. I think the numbering is kind of accidental. As I understand the history, I-74 was originally supposed to end where it meets I-73 south of Greensboro. Then-senator Lauch Faircloth, who was from eastern NC, got the route from Rockingham east almost to Wilmington and then south to Myrtle Beach added to the legislation; that section was described as an extension of I-74 and nobody asked NCDOT what they thought of that idea.
I agree with CanesFan27 that these numbers are what they are, and we're going to have to live with them.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 12, 2016, 05:50:13 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 12, 2016, 04:21:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane1. Who gave Congress the idea? I doubt very much that it originated in a vacuum.
As I recall, it was business and industrial interests pushing the concept and the number who got Congress to buy in.
It was business and industrial interests who wanted the highways, no doubt about that. I think the numbering is kind of accidental. As I understand the history, I-74 was originally supposed to end where it meets I-73 south of Greensboro. Then-senator Lauch Faircloth, who was from eastern NC, got the route from Rockingham east almost to Wilmington and then south to Myrtle Beach added to the legislation; that section was described as an extension of I-74 and nobody asked NCDOT what they thought of that idea.
I agree with CanesFan27 that these numbers are what they are, and we're going to have to live with them.
Yeah that is correct, I-74 was supposed to end at I-73 and I-73 is supposed to run along US 74 east along the current proposed routing of I-74 to enter North Myrtle Beach. Should have kept that routing, would make it much easier.
but yeat the numbers are what they are. stinks we're going to have to live with I-74 in NC and a potiental Interstates 36 (which I am ok with) and 89 (in which I am not ok with..).
What a wretched proposal, even the I-36. :banghead:
If NCDOT wants to use I-36, then redesignate existing I-40 as I-36 and use I-40 for the new route to Morehead City.
Yeah I know, won't happen.
David
I say we lobby Congress to remove the number requirement and direct NC and FHWA to find a more logical number. We must fight disorder in all its forms, road related or not.
Yes we need to live with them. Even the Bud Schuster I-99 in another state. Apparently some of us can't and will complain about the numbers, but then again we are also entitled to our own opinion as well.
Lets see, though, what AASHTO says about it. :D
How long does it usually take AASHTO to post their PDF binder of approvals and/or rejections once their meetings are done and over with? I was surprised they put up their list of applications this early.
Typically within a couple weeks to a month.
I-73 as a concept was the brainchild of two West Virginia folks - a Bluefield College Professor and a Bluefield area businessman.
I-74 addition was pushed by the mayor of Portsmouth OH and another individual from Cincinnati.
I haven't seen anything explaining why the I-74 connection had to result in 74 then following 73 all the way to South Carolina.
The original 1991 bill defining the 73/74 corridor did not have any sponsors from NC.
Sens Robert Byrd and John Warner were big players, with Warner securing I-73 running from Roanoke to Greensboro after input from a separate advocacy group from NC and VA. Sen Faircloth of NC got them to split 73 and 74 within NC to fulfill the ISTEA requirement of Winston-Salem while getting Greensboro its interstate. So Faircloth is the reason there isn't a complete 73-74 overlay everywhere.
Sources: I-73 wikipedia page and nat'l I-73/74/75 association...
Quote from: vdeane on May 12, 2016, 06:14:16 PM
I say we lobby Congress to remove the number requirement and direct NC and FHWA to find a more logical number. We must fight disorder in all its forms, road related or not.
There is a little bit of Don Quixote in all of us.
Really though, how much of an impact does highway numbering have outside this forum? How many would be genuinely confused by the fact that I-89 travels more east/west than north/south, and that I-36 is in fact entirely north of I-40? How many people are even aware that an interstate numbering system exists at all?
Inconsistencies like this abound throughout the system. A segment of I-26 is north of I-40 and a segment is also south of I-20. It also travels farther north-south than east-west despite being an even number. I do not lose sleep over this.
I am fine with both proposals. The goal of reducing expense and inconvenience by not duplicating existing highway numbers and not renumbering existing NC highways seems reasonable to me.
I definitely agree that NC jumped the gun by going for I-495, and I will be quite glad to see that one go away.
Quote from: LM117 on May 12, 2016, 07:50:39 PM
How long does it usually take AASHTO to post their PDF binder of approvals and/or rejections once their meetings are done and over with? I was surprised they put up their list of applications this early.
It may depend on the decisions the Committee makes. Given that NCDOT went to much effort to publicize the placement of a blank Future Interstate corridor sign on US 70, you would expect them to post a news release very quickly if AASHTO approves at least one of the two numbers. If not, it may be, as Froggie noted, a week or two before AASHTO posts their decisions.
Are we talking about the section of US 70 through Selma as part of this? If so then we obtain another Breezewood as the current US 70 (Bypass) does not connect directly to I-95. I doubt NCDOT could easily connect the two freeways as a lot of development around Selma. Plus the location of current Exit 97 would make that tricky to build as well. If you did what they did in Lumberton with I-74 as the old US 74 alignment did not have the many motels that US 70 has. I do not think the City of Selma would sacrifice their income for a direct connection.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2016, 11:21:41 PM
Are we talking about the section of US 70 through Selma as part of this? If so then we obtain another Breezewood as the current US 70 (Bypass) does not connect directly to I-95. I doubt NCDOT could easily connect the two freeways as a lot of development around Selma. Plus the location of current Exit 97 would make that tricky to build as well. If you did what they did in Lumberton with I-74 as the old US 74 alignment did not have the many motels that US 70 has. I do not think the City of Selma would sacrifice their income for a direct connection.
Yes there was discussion about it in the NC thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg2113925#msg2113925).
Quote from: orulz on May 12, 2016, 10:45:21 PM
I definitely agree that NC jumped the gun by going for I-495, and I will be quite glad to see that one go away.
Be mindful of the fact that the I-495 designation was in 2013 and the FAST Act, establishing an interstate highway between Raleigh and Norfolk, happened last December. I do not believe they anticipated it happening so fast.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 12, 2016, 11:11:33 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 12, 2016, 07:50:39 PM
How long does it usually take AASHTO to post their PDF binder of approvals and/or rejections once their meetings are done and over with? I was surprised they put up their list of applications this early.
It may depend on the decisions the Committee makes. Given that NCDOT went to much effort to publicize the placement of a blank Future Interstate corridor sign on US 70, you would expect them to post a news release very quickly if AASHTO approves at least one of the two numbers. If not, it may be, as Froggie noted, a week or two before AASHTO posts their decisions.
I think you're right. I highly doubt NCDOT would keep it a secret if I-36 and/or I-89 got approved. Super 70 Corridor Commission's next meeting is May 26 in New Bern. They might get the news then and if NCDOT doesn't announce it first, there's a good chance one of the Commission members will. FHWA usually takes a lot longer, I believe.
Quote from: vdeane on May 12, 2016, 03:53:18 PM
WV stopped being interested when the FHWA wouldn't let the coal miners grade the road
West Virginia never intended on building the route as a freeway. They were always building as a surface route four-lane expressway rather than a full freeway.
And I don't think it was FHWA that stopped the public-private partnership wherein coal companies were building the grade and drain. SP Cook may have more details, but I seem to remember that it was an adverse court ruling in a lawsuit filed over prevailing wage requirements for highway contractors, or something similar.
Quote from: LM117 on May 13, 2016, 09:14:26 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 12, 2016, 11:11:33 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 12, 2016, 07:50:39 PM
How long does it usually take AASHTO to post their PDF binder of approvals and/or rejections once their meetings are done and over with? I was surprised they put up their list of applications this early.
It may depend on the decisions the Committee makes. Given that NCDOT went to much effort to publicize the placement of a blank Future Interstate corridor sign on US 70, you would expect them to post a news release very quickly if AASHTO approves at least one of the two numbers. If not, it may be, as Froggie noted, a week or two before AASHTO posts their decisions.
I think you're right. I highly doubt NCDOT would keep it a secret if I-36 and/or I-89 got approved. Super 70 Corridor Commission's next meeting is May 26 in New Bern. They might get the news then and if NCDOT doesn't announce it first, there's a good chance one of the Commission members will. FHWA usually takes a lot longer, I believe.
Wouldn't you know it...they're gonna have the meeting right here and I'm gonna be out of town on vacation <facepalm>
I'm beginning to believe that a comprehensive renumbering of the Interstate Highway system is necessary. I-39 and I-43 should not be east of I-49, I-26 should not be used on a north/south Interstate, and Congress should butt out of the numbering process once and for all. One other change I'd make is to have 3DI Interstates beginning with '1' classified as short-distance primary routes. For example, I-99 could be renumbered as I-170 or I-176. Using that approach, a Raleigh/Norfolk Interstate could be numbered as I-140 or I-195.
Quote from: Gnutella on May 16, 2016, 04:56:18 AM
I'm beginning to believe that a comprehensive renumbering of the Interstate Highway system is necessary. I-39 and I-43 should not be east of I-49, I-26 should not be used on a north/south Interstate, and Congress should butt out of the numbering process once and for all. One other change I'd make is to have 3DI Interstates beginning with '1' classified as short-distance primary routes. For example, I-99 could be renumbered as I-170 or I-176. Using that approach, a Raleigh/Norfolk Interstate could be numbered as I-140 or I-195.
No, it isn't. It would involve spending a massive amount of money just to make a few internet neckbeards happy.
Nexus 6P
The Interstate Highway numbering system may be screwed up, but its too late to do anything about it (except in Fictional Highways).
Now that we've all decided what numbers these roads should have, let's look at whether NC is actually going to build these interstate highways anytime soon. I've been studying the STIP and STIP Amendments, and this is what I see.
I-36: A big piece of this highway, the Goldsboro Bypass, is nearly complete; it should open within a few weeks, and it meets interstate standards. There's also some work underway near Pine Level to replace several intersections on US 70 with interchanges, although I don't believe this project is bringing the road all the way to interstate standards.
The next project will be the Havelock Bypass (10 miles), scheduled for construction starting in fiscal 2018. In fiscal 2020, there's a project to bring several miles of the Wilson's Mills Bypass to freeway status with two new interchanges. In fiscal 2023 there's a project to build the freeway through James City, the town across the Trent River from New Bern. The remaining section from James City to Havelock is scheduled for right of way acquisition starting in 2025, so construction is probably considered for around 2027.
This is the North Carolina Way: a project here and another one there, keep moving the dirt and pouring the concrete, and eventually we have a road. The next big project would be the Kinston Bypass, with construction around 2030. Bottom line: I-36 will get built, but don't plan to drive all of it before 2040.
I-89: Don't hold your breath for work on this one. There are zero projects scheduled for upgrading the US 64 freeway between Raleigh and Williamston. The first project scheduled for US 17 is upgrading the existing Edenton Bypass to interstate standards, and that isn't scheduled for construction until fiscal 2025. So nothing will be done on I-89 for the next nine years.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 16, 2016, 05:04:04 PM
Now that we've all decided what numbers these roads should have, let's look at whether NC is actually going to build these interstate highways anytime soon. I've been studying the STIP and STIP Amendments, and this is what I see.
I-36: A big piece of this highway, the Goldsboro Bypass, is nearly complete; it should open within a few weeks, and it meets interstate standards. There's also some work underway near Pine Level to replace several intersections on US 70 with interchanges, although I don't believe this project is bringing the road all the way to interstate standards.
The next project will be the Havelock Bypass (10 miles), scheduled for construction starting in fiscal 2018. In fiscal 2020, there's a project to bring several miles of the Wilson's Mills Bypass to freeway status with two new interchanges. In fiscal 2023 there's a project to build the freeway through James City, the town across the Trent River from New Bern. The remaining section from James City to Havelock is scheduled for right of way acquisition starting in 2025, so construction is probably considered for around 2027.
This is the North Carolina Way: a project here and another one there, keep moving the dirt and pouring the concrete, and eventually we have a road. The next big project would be the Kinston Bypass, with construction around 2030. Bottom line: I-36 will get built, but don't plan to drive all of it before 2040.
I-89: Don't hold your breath for work on this one. There are zero projects scheduled for upgrading the US 64 freeway between Raleigh and Williamston. The first project scheduled for US 17 is upgrading the existing Edenton Bypass to interstate standards, and that isn't scheduled for construction until fiscal 2025. So nothing will be done on I-89 for the next nine years.
This can change - a number of projects throughout the state were bumped up as a result of the changes to the funding program. Also as discussed in southeast roads on Facebook. 64 is interstate standard east of Tarboro (to Williamston). It's conceivably possible that funds could be found to upgrade the shoulders on 64 from 95 to Tarboro. 89 or whatever number is chosen can then be applied.
NCDOT also has the section of US-70 from the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass to Edwards Road just across the Johnston County line near Princeton on their radar. This feasibility study is from November 2015.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1204A_Report_2015.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1204A_Report_2015.pdf)
PS: For future reference, do we post updates on construction projects involving these two corridors here or on the main North Carolina thread? :hmmm:
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 16, 2016, 06:27:37 PM
This can change - a number of projects throughout the state were bumped up as a result of the changes to the funding program. Also as discussed in southeast roads on Facebook. 64 is interstate standard east of Tarboro (to Williamston). It's conceivably possible that funds could be found to upgrade the shoulders on 64 from 95 to Tarboro. 89 or whatever number is chosen can then be applied.
That's true, and the interstate designation is helpful in that regard. When shields go up and there are gaps, there's pressure to fill those gaps. However, it's hard to accelerate the planned schedule very much; the recent STIP amendments moved a number of projects up, but only by a year or two.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 16, 2016, 05:04:04 PM
Now that we've all decided what numbers these roads should have, let's look at whether NC is actually going to build these interstate highways anytime soon. I've been studying the STIP and STIP Amendments, and this is what I see.
I-36: A big piece of this highway, the Goldsboro Bypass, is nearly complete; it should open within a few weeks, and it meets interstate standards. There's also some work underway near Pine Level to replace several intersections on US 70 with interchanges, although I don't believe this project is bringing the road all the way to interstate standards.
The next project will be the Havelock Bypass (10 miles), scheduled for construction starting in fiscal 2018. In fiscal 2020, there's a project to bring several miles of the Wilson's Mills Bypass to freeway status with two new interchanges. In fiscal 2023 there's a project to build the freeway through James City, the town across the Trent River from New Bern. The remaining section from James City to Havelock is scheduled for right of way acquisition starting in 2025, so construction is probably considered for around 2027.
This is the North Carolina Way: a project here and another one there, keep moving the dirt and pouring the concrete, and eventually we have a road. The next big project would be the Kinston Bypass, with construction around 2030. Bottom line: I-36 will get built, but don't plan to drive all of it before 2040.
I-89: Don't hold your breath for work on this one. There are zero projects scheduled for upgrading the US 64 freeway between Raleigh and Williamston. The first project scheduled for US 17 is upgrading the existing Edenton Bypass to interstate standards, and that isn't scheduled for construction until fiscal 2025. So nothing will be done on I-89 for the next nine years.
I believe your assessment is pretty much spot-on. Besides the projects you mentioned we also already have a 70 mph facility between SR 1005 in Jones County and the Freedom Memorial Bridge in New Bern (only the last 3 miles or so is 55 mph) that wouldn't need much work to be interstate standard (really all that's needed is slightly wider shoulders and a redesigned Pembroke Rd interchange eastbound) that has been in place since the mid 70's. I think a 25 year corridor completion window for "I-36" is a definite possibility-may be less if they can ever figure out what they are going to do with the Kinston Bypass.
I also second your assessment on "I-89". I haven't seen or heard much discussed on it locally, not that I have done the research that you have done. There just doesn't seem to be any real push to get the ball rolling. Maybe the new designation will kick-start some projects that haven't been announced yet.
Quote from: slorydn1 on May 16, 2016, 10:46:23 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 16, 2016, 05:04:04 PM
Now that we've all decided what numbers these roads should have, let's look at whether NC is actually going to build these interstate highways anytime soon. I've been studying the STIP and STIP Amendments, and this is what I see.
I-36: A big piece of this highway, the Goldsboro Bypass, is nearly complete; it should open within a few weeks, and it meets interstate standards. There's also some work underway near Pine Level to replace several intersections on US 70 with interchanges, although I don't believe this project is bringing the road all the way to interstate standards.
The next project will be the Havelock Bypass (10 miles), scheduled for construction starting in fiscal 2018. In fiscal 2020, there's a project to bring several miles of the Wilson's Mills Bypass to freeway status with two new interchanges. In fiscal 2023 there's a project to build the freeway through James City, the town across the Trent River from New Bern. The remaining section from James City to Havelock is scheduled for right of way acquisition starting in 2025, so construction is probably considered for around 2027.
This is the North Carolina Way: a project here and another one there, keep moving the dirt and pouring the concrete, and eventually we have a road. The next big project would be the Kinston Bypass, with construction around 2030. Bottom line: I-36 will get built, but don't plan to drive all of it before 2040.
I-89: Don't hold your breath for work on this one. There are zero projects scheduled for upgrading the US 64 freeway between Raleigh and Williamston. The first project scheduled for US 17 is upgrading the existing Edenton Bypass to interstate standards, and that isn't scheduled for construction until fiscal 2025. So nothing will be done on I-89 for the next nine years.
I believe your assessment is pretty much spot-on. Besides the projects you mentioned we also already have a 70 mph facility between SR 1005 in Jones County and the Freedom Memorial Bridge in New Bern (only the last 3 miles or so is 55 mph) that wouldn't need much work to be interstate standard (really all that's needed is slightly wider shoulders and a redesigned Pembroke Rd interchange eastbound) that has been in place since the mid 70's. I think a 25 year corridor completion window for "I-36" is a definite possibility-may be less if they can ever figure out what they are going to do with the Kinston Bypass.
I also second your assessment on "I-89". I haven't seen or heard much discussed on it locally, not that I have done the research that you have done. There just doesn't seem to be any real push to get the ball rolling. Maybe the new designation will kick-start some projects that haven't been announced yet.
I'm guessing the freeway section of US-70 from Dover to New Bern will probably be the last section to get upgraded since it wouldn't take much work. NCDOT seems to be tackling the tougher spots first. The northern alternatives for the Kinston Bypass have been eliminated but that's the only development there that I know of. I-36 will likely be finished long before I-89 is even halfway done, especially since Virginia will have to build their part and if I-73 in VA is any indication, I-89 will be dormant for a long time, IMO.
Quote from: LM117 on May 17, 2016, 09:39:50 AM
I'm guessing the freeway section of US-70 from Dover to New Bern will probably be the last section to get upgraded since it wouldn't take much work. NCDOT seems to be tackling the tougher spots first. The northern alternatives for the Kinston Bypass have been eliminated but that's the only development there that I know of. I-36 will likely be finished long before I-89 is even halfway done, especially since Virginia will have to build their part and if I-73 in VA is any indication, I-89 will be dormant for a long time, IMO.
I agree the US 70 corridor will be completed before the US 64-US 17 corridor. However, I do not think it would take Virginia much time to build their section since they have been upgrading US 17 there to toll roads; they can easily slap an interstate on it, assuming in 30 years it will no longer be a toll road.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 17, 2016, 10:01:00 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 17, 2016, 09:39:50 AM
I'm guessing the freeway section of US-70 from Dover to New Bern will probably be the last section to get upgraded since it wouldn't take much work. NCDOT seems to be tackling the tougher spots first. The northern alternatives for the Kinston Bypass have been eliminated but that's the only development there that I know of. I-36 will likely be finished long before I-89 is even halfway done, especially since Virginia will have to build their part and if I-73 in VA is any indication, I-89 will be dormant for a long time, IMO.
I agree the US 70 corridor will be completed before the US 64-US 17 corridor. However, I do not think it would take Virginia much time to build their section since they have been upgrading US 17 there to toll roads; they can easily slap an interstate on it, assuming in 30 years it will no longer be a toll road.
US 17 or VA 168? Last I checked the only tolled portions of US 17 in Virginia under consideration were bridges.
Quote from: WashuOtakuHowever, I do not think it would take Virginia much time to build their section since they have been upgrading US 17 there to toll roads; they can easily slap an interstate on it, assuming in 30 years it will no longer be a toll road.
This is incorrect. Virginia (Chesapeake in particular) is only building their portion to a freeway-grade toll facility from VA 165/Cedar Rd north. South of VA 165/Cedar Rd to the state line is and will remain at-grade with intersections. That's about 13-14 miles that'll require frontage roads, bridges, and interchanges (much of it adjacent to swampland, so wetlands impacts). So there is no ease in "slapping an Interstate on it" like you suggest.
In addition, most of the the Chesapeake Expressway (VA-168 freeway) is not up to interstate standards (at least north of Hillcrest Pkwy, not sure about the tolled portion) and would require a considerable amount of work to upgrade.
VA 168 is a moot point here, because you'd need some sort of new roadway to get the proposed Raleigh-Norfolk corridor over to 168 to begin with.
Quote from: froggie on May 17, 2016, 11:21:33 AM
VA 168 is a moot point here, because you'd need some sort of new roadway to get the proposed Raleigh-Norfolk corridor over to 168 to begin with.
Not to mention a new highway connecting US-17 and VA-168 would likely face stiff opposition and lawsuits from environmental groups since it would go through sensitive wetlands, if I'm not mistaken.
I can see I-36 get completed long before I-89 does.
Maybe the entire existing future 89 corridor should be 495, until more upgrades are made to the corridor. I'd wait until there is some freeway in Virginia along future 89 before giving the entire corridor that number.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2016, 06:15:46 PM
Maybe the entire existing future 89 corridor should be 495, until more upgrades are made to the corridor. I'd wait until there is some freeway in Virginia along future 89 before giving the entire corridor that number.
Why should they wait till all is completed? The interstate system didn't do that when it was under construction for the 30+ years. When a section was ready, it was signed and good to go. You are just experiencing the benefits of a mostly completed system and not use to the piece-meal method these systems take.
Heck, look at other nations that have freeway systems and you will see gaps in them too.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 17, 2016, 06:33:29 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2016, 06:15:46 PM
Maybe the entire existing future 89 corridor should be 495, until more upgrades are made to the corridor. I'd wait until there is some freeway in Virginia along future 89 before giving the entire corridor that number.
Why should they wait till all is completed? The interstate system didn't do that when it was under construction for the 30+ years. When a section was ready, it was signed and good to go. You are just experiencing the benefits of a mostly completed system and not use to the piece-meal method these systems take.
Heck, look at other nations that have freeway systems and you will see gaps in them too.
Because there was less room for doubt that all the segments would be completed, in some form. At least the construction funding was pretty much settled.
Quote from: slorydn1 on May 16, 2016, 10:46:23 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 16, 2016, 05:04:04 PM
I-89: Don't hold your breath for work on this one. There are zero projects scheduled for upgrading the US 64 freeway between Raleigh and Williamston. The first project scheduled for US 17 is upgrading the existing Edenton Bypass to interstate standards, and that isn't scheduled for construction until fiscal 2025. So nothing will be done on I-89 for the next nine years.
I believe your assessment is pretty much spot-on. Besides the projects you mentioned we also already have a 70 mph facility between SR 1005 in Jones County and the Freedom Memorial Bridge in New Bern (only the last 3 miles or so is 55 mph) that wouldn't need much work to be interstate standard (really all that's needed is slightly wider shoulders and a redesigned Pembroke Rd interchange eastbound) that has been in place since the mid 70's. I think a 25 year corridor completion window for "I-36" is a definite possibility-may be less if they can ever figure out what they are going to do with the Kinston Bypass.
I also second your assessment on "I-89". I haven't seen or heard much discussed on it locally, not that I have done the research that you have done. There just doesn't seem to be any real push to get the ball rolling. Maybe the new designation will kick-start some projects that haven't been announced yet.
Don't forget that a sizable section of "89" is a completed freeway. 64 from Raleigh to Williamston is freeway. So there's not a push to build a freeway as there was 15-25 years ago when they were finishing 64 east of Tarboro. Yes, there's upgrading to Interstate standards to be done. But a lot of the groundwork has been done.
FWIW, I-495 can't be extended into VA anyway, because that number is already in use in the northern part of the state. So it's just as well that I-89 end at the border until something north of there can be figured out.
I didn't mean extend 495 into Virginia (it can't be done as you point out), I only meant to extend the 495 designation to where US 64 exits US 13/17 around Williamston.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 18, 2016, 03:19:26 PM
I didn't mean extend 495 into Virginia (it can't be done as you point out), I only meant to extend the 495 designation to where US 64 exits US 13/17 around Williamston.
They would had to request that with AASHTO as well, since the current approved routing is between Raleigh and Rocky Mount. So, it makes little sense to hold-off two-digit assignment if that is the intended goal to start.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 19, 2016, 12:42:59 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 18, 2016, 03:19:26 PM
I didn't mean extend 495 into Virginia (it can't be done as you point out), I only meant to extend the 495 designation to where US 64 exits US 13/17 around Williamston.
They would had to request that with AASHTO as well, since the current approved routing is between Raleigh and Rocky Mount. So, it makes little sense to hold-off two-digit assignment if that is the intended goal to start.
+1
All right, next time I'll post it in Fictional Highways.
The final section of the US-70 (possible I-36) Goldsboro Bypass from Wayne Memorial Drive to US-70 just west of La Grange is scheduled to open next Friday, May 27. A ribbon-cutting ceremony will be held that morning at 11:00 AM.
http://goldsborodailynews.com/blog/2016/05/20/eastern-portion-of-new-bypass-in-wayne-to-open-friday/ (http://goldsborodailynews.com/blog/2016/05/20/eastern-portion-of-new-bypass-in-wayne-to-open-friday/)
First post -- and only because a little light came on inside my head today: since NCDOT's intending to "break the grid" (albeit marginally) with the I-36 designation along the US 70 corridor, why not take a similar approach as a viable alternate to the decidedly clumsy I-89 designation for the Raleigh-Hampton Roads (HPC 13) corridor? In this case, replace the I-89 proposal with I-38! As it seems NCDOT is unwilling to break local eggs, so to speak, for this particular Interstate omelet (although IMHO they could have gritted their teeth and used the number 46, since that state route doesn't actually intersect the corridor in question), a "38" designation would certainly satisfy their desire to keep some distance between the state & Interstate signage; NC 38 is a short (about 6 mile) route extending from US 74 in Hamlet south to the SC state line -- as well as being planned for superseding by I-73 at some future point (pending, of course, SC getting their internecine political & financial shit together -- good luck!). In any case, the present NC 38 is, as the crow flies, about 90 miles from the nearest point at which I-38 would be signed (at or near the I-40/440 interchange SE of central Raleigh); NC 89's eastern end is similarly about 95 miles from that point. And there shouldn't be any significant blowback from VA; VA 38 is itself a short 7-mile highway in the central part of the state, near US 360 about 25 miles west of metro Richmond.
An added bonus would be (please pardon me for edging sideways into the fictional realm here) that the I-38 designation could potentially be extended SW along US 1 to the Rockingham area, thence west along the relocated/upgraded US 74 alignment through the Charlotte area (likely using I-485 as the pathway) before overtaking US 74 west of I-85 -- bypassing Shelby on the under-development bypass before terminating at I-26 near Columbus. Of course, that would also render "grid" issues moot!
Finally -- as a Bay Area resident -- I would be willing to see if Caltrans could prepare adoption papers for our local oddball Interstate route (yeah -- The Interstate Number That Must Not Be Spoken), transferring custody of said number to US 264 between the new I-38 and I-95! https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/happy0009.gif
Nice first post and welcome to the board!
Quote from: sparker on May 23, 2016, 05:03:14 AM
First post -- and only because a little light came on inside my head today: since NCDOT's intending to "break the grid" (albeit marginally) with the I-36 designation along the US 70 corridor, why not take a similar approach as a viable alternate to the decidedly clumsy I-89 designation for the Raleigh-Hampton Roads (HPC 13) corridor? In this case, replace the I-89 proposal with I-38! As it seems NCDOT is unwilling to break local eggs, so to speak, for this particular Interstate omelet (although IMHO they could have gritted their teeth and used the number 46, since that state route doesn't actually intersect the corridor in question), a "38" designation would certainly satisfy their desire to keep some distance between the state & Interstate signage; NC 38 is a short (about 6 mile) route extending from US 74 in Hamlet south to the SC state line -- as well as being planned for superseding by I-73 at some future point (pending, of course, SC getting their internecine political & financial shit together -- good luck!). In any case, the present NC 38 is, as the crow flies, about 90 miles from the nearest point at which I-38 would be signed (at or near the I-40/440 interchange SE of central Raleigh); NC 89's eastern end is similarly about 95 miles from that point. And there shouldn't be any significant blowback from VA; VA 38 is itself a short 7-mile highway in the central part of the state, near US 360 about 25 miles west of metro Richmond.
An added bonus would be (please pardon me for edging sideways into the fictional realm here) that the I-38 designation could potentially be extended SW along US 1 to the Rockingham area, thence west along the relocated/upgraded US 74 alignment through the Charlotte area (likely using I-485 as the pathway) before overtaking US 74 west of I-85 -- bypassing Shelby on the under-development bypass before terminating at I-26 near Columbus. Of course, that would also render "grid" issues moot!
Finally -- as a Bay Area resident -- I would be willing to see if Caltrans could prepare adoption papers for our local oddball Interstate route (yeah -- The Interstate Number That Must Not Be Spoken), transferring custody of said number to US 264 between the new I-38 and I-95! https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/happy0009.gif
You know, that's not a bad idea! And welcome aboard!
Quote from: sparker on May 23, 2016, 05:03:14 AM
First post -- and only because a little light came on inside my head today: since NCDOT's intending to "break the grid" (albeit marginally) with the I-36 designation along the US 70 corridor, why not take a similar approach as a viable alternate to the decidedly clumsy I-89 designation for the Raleigh-Hampton Roads (HPC 13) corridor? In this case, replace the I-89 proposal with I-38! As it seems NCDOT is unwilling to break local eggs, so to speak, for this particular Interstate omelet (although IMHO they could have gritted their teeth and used the number 46, since that state route doesn't actually intersect the corridor in question), a "38" designation would certainly satisfy their desire to keep some distance between the state & Interstate signage; NC 38 is a short (about 6 mile) route extending from US 74 in Hamlet south to the SC state line -- as well as being planned for superseding by I-73 at some future point (pending, of course, SC getting their internecine political & financial shit together -- good luck!). In any case, the present NC 38 is, as the crow flies, about 90 miles from the nearest point at which I-38 would be signed (at or near the I-40/440 interchange SE of central Raleigh); NC 89's eastern end is similarly about 95 miles from that point. And there shouldn't be any significant blowback from VA; VA 38 is itself a short 7-mile highway in the central part of the state, near US 360 about 25 miles west of metro Richmond.
An added bonus would be (please pardon me for edging sideways into the fictional realm here) that the I-38 designation could potentially be extended SW along US 1 to the Rockingham area, thence west along the relocated/upgraded US 74 alignment through the Charlotte area (likely using I-485 as the pathway) before overtaking US 74 west of I-85 -- bypassing Shelby on the under-development bypass before terminating at I-26 near Columbus. Of course, that would also render "grid" issues moot!
Finally -- as a Bay Area resident -- I would be willing to see if Caltrans could prepare adoption papers for our local oddball Interstate route (yeah -- The Interstate Number That Must Not Be Spoken), transferring custody of said number to US 264 between the new I-38 and I-95! https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/happy0009.gif
Welcome to the forum and not too shabby of an idea! And your last paragraph might be reality eventually, sans I-238. Greenville has been pushing heavily to have US-264 upgraded to Interstate standards and designated an Interstate from Zebulon to Stantonsburg Road in Greenville, so an I-x89 could be a real possibility in the future, though it'll likely be a long way off. Greenville also wants NC-11 upgraded from Greenville to US-70 in Kinston and now that the interstate corridor between Raleigh and Norfolk has been made official, Greenville will probably want either an I-x36 or an I-x89 connecting I-36 and I-89 by using US-13 from US-64/I-89 in Bethel, the US-264 Greenville northwest bypass and the future NC-11 Greenville southwest bypass and continue on NC-11 until it connects with US-70/I-36 somewhere in Kinston. When the "Quad East" idea first came about in 2013, they wanted the whole loop designated I-795. Luckily, they realized how stupid it was to think the whole thing could be called I-795. :ded: The "Quad East" idea is still alive and well, though.
http://m.newbernsj.com/article/20151110/news/151108814 (http://m.newbernsj.com/article/20151110/news/151108814)
Thanks, board contributors & admins, for the compliments -- always appreciated. Thought briefly about sending off a quick email to NCDOT suggesting the I-38 concept (I could just see their delegate asking the AASHTO committee at the last minute "Hey -- you guys have a bottle of white-out handy?"). But since the meeting does start tomorrow (5/24), I'll just hold off until a decision is reached re both of the corridors in question -- and offer my 2 cents if the decision comes down as thumbs-up for 36 and the opposite for 89. At least they would have a ready alternative for the next committee meeting that would reasonably satisfy their criteria -- provided they don't go the route of having one of their Congressional folks stick such a designation into a funding bill, such as Rand Paul's recent efforts to get I-169 established along the lower Pennyrile.
Quote from: sparker on May 23, 2016, 05:03:14 AM
Finally -- as a Bay Area resident -- I would be willing to see if Caltrans could prepare adoption papers for our local oddball Interstate route (yeah -- The Interstate Number That Must Not Be Spoken), transferring custody of said number to US 264 between the new I-38 and I-95! https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/happy0009.gif
Hello and welcome.
No, I don't think Caltrans would be willing to give up the number of that freeway in San Lorenzo. Interstate funds paid for its expansion and interchanges, so it has to stay an interstate. There are other interstate numbers that could be used, but from Caltrans' point of view, people are used to the number and why should they spend their limited budget changing a bunch of signs instead of working on their long list of seismic retrofits or capacity bottlenecks? But NC can still use I-238, because three digit interstate numbers can be duplicated in different states.
Yeah, I know....the "adoption" was meant as a joke. We Californians are going to be stuck with I-238 for the foreseeable future unless some region-wide renumbering occurs. At the present, a NC-based I-238 would simply serve as a textbook example of irony!
Breaking news: it's I-42, not I-36, and I-87, not I-89.
Quote
Raleigh, N.C. – North Carolina has received approval for the names of two new interstate route designations in the eastern part of the state. The American Association of State and Transportation Officials approved I-42 for the U.S. 70 Corridor between I-40 and Morehead City, and I-87 for U.S. 64/17 between Raleigh and the Virginia state line.
"These connections are an integral part of my 25-Year Vision for North Carolina to improve the state's infrastructure, expand economic opportunities and create jobs," says Governor Pat McCrory. "They bring a much-needed interstate corridor to the Hampton Roads area, stronger connections between our important military bases, and enhance economic development through faster shipment of freight for our ports and Global TransPark."
The N.C. Department of Transportation may now proceed with determining where "Future I-42" and "Future I-87" signs should be installed and pursue approval to install those signs from the Federal Highway Administration.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12558
Fuck AASHTO for duplicating I-87. That should be an east-west interstate in any case.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 25, 2016, 05:38:35 PM
Breaking news: it's I-42, not I-36, and I-87, not I-89.
Quote
Raleigh, N.C. – North Carolina has received approval for the names of two new interstate route designations in the eastern part of the state. The American Association of State and Transportation Officials approved I-42 for the U.S. 70 Corridor between I-40 and Morehead City, and I-87 for U.S. 64/17 between Raleigh and the Virginia state line.
"These connections are an integral part of my 25-Year Vision for North Carolina to improve the state's infrastructure, expand economic opportunities and create jobs," says Governor Pat McCrory. "They bring a much-needed interstate corridor to the Hampton Roads area, stronger connections between our important military bases, and enhance economic development through faster shipment of freight for our ports and Global TransPark."
The N.C. Department of Transportation may now proceed with determining where "Future I-42" and "Future I-87" signs should be installed and pursue approval to install those signs from the Federal Highway Administration.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12558
Well this could explain why the website 4042.com is no more :-p
http://johnstoncounty.today/4042-com-domain-name-please-update-old-links-and-bookmarks
In all seriousness, NC 42 is the first/last (depending on travel direction) on the new I-42 and it is the exit immediately before/after the soon to be 40 and I-42 interchange. Maybe NC 42 will become NC 36.
Kinda surprised that they picked 87 (may as well keep 89) but wouldn't it be fitting if I-87 was a typo and it's still I-89.
Quote from: vdeane on May 25, 2016, 06:15:19 PM
Fuck AASHTO for duplicating I-87. That should be an east-west interstate in any case.
Ooooooo, Temper, Temper!
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 25, 2016, 05:38:35 PM
Breaking news: it's I-42, not I-36, and I-87, not I-89.
Amusing that regional groups didn't get the numbers they wanted and NCDOT didn't get the numbers they wanted. :bigass:
Quote from: vdeane on May 25, 2016, 06:15:19 PM
Fuck AASHTO for duplicating I-87. That should be an east-west interstate in any case.
Unless it's a long term plan to connect them? Maybe this is a signal that they will push for a highway going up Delmarva and New Jersey. Large portions of that corridor are done (US 64, Bay Bridge-Tunnel adding parallel tunnel soon, US 113 is twinned and has several exits, Garden State Parkway). Either way, I like the new numbers more than NC's proposed ones.
Quote from: hurricanehink on May 25, 2016, 06:36:25 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 25, 2016, 06:15:19 PM
Fuck AASHTO for duplicating I-87. That should be an east-west interstate in any case.
Unless it's a long term plan to connect them? Maybe this is a signal that they will push for a highway going up Delmarva and New Jersey. Large portions of that corridor are done (US 64, Bay Bridge-Tunnel adding parallel tunnel soon, US 113 is twinned and has several exits, Garden State Parkway). Either way, I like the new numbers more than NC's proposed ones.
and there it is! The first official connect I-87 theory post!
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 25, 2016, 06:35:30 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 25, 2016, 05:38:35 PM
Breaking news: it's I-42, not I-36, and I-87, not I-89.
Amusing that regional groups didn't get the numbers they wanted and NCDOT didn't get the numbers they wanted. :bigass:
AASHTO sent a clear message:
We Still Believe in the Grid. The grid says that I-42 is the best choice for the Us 70 corridor, and
if you accept the notion that the US 64/17 corridor is north/south, then the grid says that I-87 is the best choice.
Over in Fictional Highways, everyone will be connecting the two sections of I-87 with an interstate up the Delmarva Peninsula and across New Jersey.
Quote from: hurricanehink on May 25, 2016, 06:36:25 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 25, 2016, 06:15:19 PM
Fuck AASHTO for duplicating I-87. That should be an east-west interstate in any case.
Unless it's a long term plan to connect them? Maybe this is a signal that they will push for a highway going up Delmarva and New Jersey.
Paging Fritzowl...
Okay, I-42 makes sense, but why not I-36 or I-38 instead of "I-87 (Part II)"?
I understand route number duplication will occur, but personally, a "no multiple two-digit interchanges" rule should be laid down, since "I-87" will cross over I-95. Then again, New York City prefers route names to route numbers, so there might never be much confusion between the two...
Quote from: formulanone on May 25, 2016, 06:53:25 PM
Okay, I-42 makes sense, but why not I-36 or I-38 instead of "I-87 (Part II)"?
I understand route number duplication will occur, but personally, a "no multiple two-digit interchanges" rule should be laid down, since "I-87" will cross over I-95. Then again, New York City prefers route names to route numbers, so there might never be much confusion between the two...
Why would you break grid having a lower number further north? I think you mean I-46 or I-48. Why? Who knows, maybe they see a future designation through Delmarva.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 25, 2016, 07:26:22 PM
Quote from: formulanone on May 25, 2016, 06:53:25 PM
Okay, I-42 makes sense, but why not I-36 or I-38 instead of "I-87 (Part II)"?
I understand route number duplication will occur, but personally, a "no multiple two-digit interchanges" rule should be laid down, since "I-87" will cross over I-95. Then again, New York City prefers route names to route numbers, so there might never be much confusion between the two...
Why would you break grid having a lower number further north? I think you mean I-46 or I-48. Why? Who knows, maybe they see a future designation through Delmarva.
Maybe, but I doubt it. I think the committee had two things in mind:
(1) The south end of the new road is at Raleigh, about 30 miles east of I-85, and
(2) The north end, at Hampton Roads, is reasonably aligned with the original I-87 and certainly not with I-89.
Obviously one could also make a case that the grid suggests I-97; we don't have any way to know if that was considered.
In any case, NCDOT's thinking was soundly rejected. They were concerned about confusion with nearby NC route numbers, and on that basis they probably hate both I-42 (which will intersect NC 42) and I-87 (since NC 87 is an important route in southeast North Carolina).
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 25, 2016, 07:39:22 PM
In any case, NCDOT's thinking was soundly rejected. They were concerned about confusion with nearby NC route numbers, and on that basis they probably hate both I-42 (which will intersect NC 42) and I-87 (since NC 87 is an important route in southeast North Carolina).
They could always renumber NC 42 to say NC 420... oh wait. NCDOT probably will leave it be just like NC 73 and I-73.
I figured I-36 would get rejected due to it being out of grid. I-87 came out of left field though. :hmm:
There's gotta be some sort of secret way long term plan to connect the I-87s, no way AASHTO just randomly picks stuff like NC does. I would have preferred I-50 but if it had to be north/south I would have done I-97 and replaced finally that stupid little 17 mile thing in Maryland.
QuoteThere's gotta be some sort of secret way long term plan to connect the I-87s, no way AASHTO just randomly picks stuff like NC does.
There isn't. About a decade ago, VDOT studied the idea of a Delmarva Interstate that also extended down the coast into South Carolina. What they found amongst both themselves and the other states was a mix of a lack of funding, a lack of interest, and higher priorities elsewhere in those states, so they dropped the idea. While it's clear that NCDOT has interest in an Interstate, given their request for an Interstate number, it's clear that even they don't have the funding to do anything about it in the next couple decades.
Quote from: froggie on May 25, 2016, 08:15:16 PM
QuoteThere's gotta be some sort of secret way long term plan to connect the I-87s, no way AASHTO just randomly picks stuff like NC does.
There isn't. About a decade ago, VDOT studied the idea of a Delmarva Interstate that also extended down the coast into South Carolina. What they found amongst both themselves and the other states was a mix of a lack of funding, a lack of interest, and higher priorities elsewhere in those states, so they dropped the idea. While it's clear that NCDOT has interest in an Interstate, given their request for an Interstate number, it's clear that even they don't have the funding to do anything about it in the next couple decades.
They have interest and we will likely see I-87 shields up by Christmas. The entire corridor may not be ready, but several sections are.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 25, 2016, 06:26:56 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 25, 2016, 05:38:35 PM
Breaking news: it's I-42, not I-36, and I-87, not I-89.
Quote
Raleigh, N.C. – North Carolina has received approval for the names of two new interstate route designations in the eastern part of the state. The American Association of State and Transportation Officials approved I-42 for the U.S. 70 Corridor between I-40 and Morehead City, and I-87 for U.S. 64/17 between Raleigh and the Virginia state line.
"These connections are an integral part of my 25-Year Vision for North Carolina to improve the state's infrastructure, expand economic opportunities and create jobs," says Governor Pat McCrory. "They bring a much-needed interstate corridor to the Hampton Roads area, stronger connections between our important military bases, and enhance economic development through faster shipment of freight for our ports and Global TransPark."
The N.C. Department of Transportation may now proceed with determining where "Future I-42" and "Future I-87" signs should be installed and pursue approval to install those signs from the Federal Highway Administration.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12558
Well this could explain why the website 4042.com is no more :-p
http://johnstoncounty.today/4042-com-domain-name-please-update-old-links-and-bookmarks
In all seriousness, NC 42 is the first/last (depending on travel direction) on the new I-42 and it is the exit immediately before/after the soon to be 40 and I-42 interchange. Maybe NC 42 will become NC 36.
Kinda surprised that they picked 87 (may as well keep 89) but wouldn't it be fitting if I-87 was a typo and it's still I-89.
My wife suggested we claim 4242.com not a bad idea
Given that Interstate 42 has been designated on Towel Day, I think a petition to name it the Douglas Adams Freeway is appropriate.
Quote from: vdeane on May 25, 2016, 06:15:19 PM
Fuck AASHTO for duplicating I-87. That should be an east-west interstate in any case.
We stole your interstate. Herp derp. :awesomeface:
So in my grand scheme, I-87 gets extended down the Garden State Parkway to Cape May...would this possibly be part of a grand plan to connect to the original I-87 via crossings of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays? Would it be viable to have an Interstate cross a waterway by ferry? Kind of pie-in-the-sky, but I thought I'd throw the idea out there. This loooooong stretch of an idea is my ONLY desperate attempt to make sense of selecting the number 87. Otherwise I echo the sentiment of "Fuck AASHTO etc etc." Then again, US17 fails by a longshot to fit the grid. Maybe they said "ah fuck it. We'll adopt the same leniency that allowed US17 to exist."
Edit: So apparently this idea has been suggested already. But I still beg the question, are ferry crossings for an Interstate okay or not okay?
Quote from: froggie on May 25, 2016, 08:15:16 PM
QuoteThere's gotta be some sort of secret way long term plan to connect the I-87s, no way AASHTO just randomly picks stuff like NC does.
There isn't. About a decade ago, VDOT studied the idea of a Delmarva Interstate that also extended down the coast into South Carolina. What they found amongst both themselves and the other states was a mix of a lack of funding, a lack of interest, and higher priorities elsewhere in those states, so they dropped the idea. While it's clear that NCDOT has interest in an Interstate, given their request for an Interstate number, it's clear that even they don't have the funding to do anything about it in the next couple decades.
Yes and no - there are some standard segments already. And there are plans to upgrade a section of 17 around Edenton to interstate standards in the current STIP. wdcrft63 can correct me on where on 17 if I am incorrect with Edenton.
The key is in the next STIP and if continued accelerated funding sources change thugs further.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 25, 2016, 09:20:04 PM
Edit: So apparently this idea has been suggested already. But I still beg the question, are ferry crossings for an Interstate okay or not okay?
Precedent both ways:
-- Most recently, AASHTO approved addition of the ferry crossing of Lake Michigan to US 10, to connect the existing segments in MI and WI.
-- in 1960, the Bureau of Public Roads (now FHWA) blew off a request by Alaska, when it became a state, for an Interstate route consisting of the mainline Inside Passage ferry route through the southeast panhandle. Unlike conventional Interstate proposals elsewhere in the state, which got analyzed and scored on a 100-point scale (cut line was 90, no proposed route scored higher than the mid-80s, and the silliest one got only 22), BPR treated the proposed liquid Interstate as totally unworthy of discussion.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 25, 2016, 09:30:44 PM
Yes and no - there are some standard segments already. And there are plans to upgrade a section of 17 around Edenton to interstate standards in the current STIP. wdcrft63 can correct me on where on 17 if I am incorrect with Edenton.
The key is in the next STIP and if continued accelerated funding sources change thugs further.
That's correct. NCDOT has a feasibility study going that will identify options for the creation of the new interstate. That's the first step toward getting projects into future STIPs.
If my understanding of procedure is correct, these designations will be forwarded to FHWA for final approval. Assuming they're not particularly inclined to "rubber-stamp" the AASHTO decisions, there's always a glimmer that they would rather see an even number applied to the RDU-Norfolk corridor. I certainly wouldn't bet big $$ on it...but 46 through 56 could conceivably be back in play before the year is out. Nevertheless, like other posters, I'll bet NCDOT is not too happy about either number; and, yes, it repudiates their "internal-considerations-first" rationale. Six months ago I would have placed money on 42/46 being the selections; I guess batting .500 isn't too hard to take.
It's interesting to note that for the last five years running one previously unused Interstate trunk designation (if not full deployment or signage) has been forthcoming each year: 2012, I-11; 2013, I-2; 2014, I-41; 2015, I-14; 2016, I-42. Since all seem to have come about by the concerted efforts of local interest groups and the politicos tethered to those groups, I for one would be curious to see if regional entities in other parts of the country would be, for better or worse, encouraged or even empowered by this seeming continuum -- and similar corridor proposals (particularly in states that have tacitly acceded to the will of these groups) might be a regular occurrence over the next decade or so. In any event, it might be of interest to do a bit of analysis and project just where 2017's and 2018's proposals will manifest themselves (not that the contributors on this board don't do more than their share of that already!).
Quote from: sparker on May 25, 2016, 09:46:10 PMIf my understanding of procedure is correct, these designations will be forwarded to FHWA for final approval. Assuming they're not particularly inclined to "rubber-stamp" the AASHTO decisions, there's always a glimmer that they would rather see an even number applied to the RDU-Norfolk corridor. I certainly wouldn't bet big $$ on it...but 46 through 56 could conceivably be back in play before the year is out. Nevertheless, like other posters, I'll bet NCDOT is not too happy about either number; and, yes, it repudiates their "internal-considerations-first" rationale.
FHWA usually goes along with AASHTO, so I'm fairly certain I-42 and I-87 are here to stay. If NCDOT is unhappy with the numbers they were given, then they need to get over it, though I think they're happy just to have numbers to put on the I-shields. AASHTO made the right call with I-42. NCDOT should've realized I-36 would get rejected since it's out of grid. Not one of their brightest moments, even if their reasoning was understandable. I'm not thrilled with the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor being a north-south route, whether it's I-87 or I-89, but what's done is done. NCDOT will probably send more applications to AASHTO and FHWA this fall to get I-42 posted on the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses and I-87 on the Knightdale bypass. They'll also (hopefully) try to get I-495 and the part of I-440 that I-87 is planned to use decommissioned while they're at it. It's fitting that US-70 gets an I-4x since I-40 was originally proposed to follow US-70 to Morehead City before it was changed to Wilmington.
I wish AASHTO would be less eager to approve interstate numbers for routes that aren't likely to be completed to interstate standard within a reasonable time. Say, a decade or so.
Quote from: LM117 on May 25, 2016, 11:17:18 PM
FHWA usually goes along with AASHTO, so I'm fairly certain I-42 and I-87 are here to stay. If NCDOT is unhappy with the numbers they were given, then they need to get over it, though I think they're happy just to have numbers to put on the I-shields. AASHTO made the right call with I-42. NCDOT should've realized I-36 would get rejected since it's out of grid. Not one of their brightest moments, even if their reasoning was understandable. I'm not thrilled with the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor being a north-south route, whether it's I-87 or I-89, but what's done is done. NCDOT will probably send more applications to AASHTO and FHWA this fall to get I-42 posted on the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses and I-87 on the Knightdale bypass. They'll also (hopefully) try to get I-495 and the part of I-440 that I-87 is planned to use decommissioned while they're at it. It's fitting that US-70 gets an I-4x since I-40 was originally proposed to follow US-70 to Morehead City before it was changed to Wilmington.
I hear that from some road geeks that the original routing of I-40 was to Morehead City. But, I rewrote the I-40 NC history section on wikipedia and none of the research I pulled actually says that. If you, or anyone else, has references that back that up, I would like to see them so I can incorporate it on the page.
Quote from: kkt on May 25, 2016, 11:59:46 PM
I wish AASHTO would be less eager to approve interstate numbers for routes that aren't likely to be completed to interstate standard within a reasonable time. Say, a decade or so.
Why?
I say this because the original interstates were proposed and took well over 30 years to complete most of them. Why change the standard now? Interstates were not built overnight then and they will not be in the future either.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 26, 2016, 12:00:01 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 25, 2016, 11:17:18 PM
FHWA usually goes along with AASHTO, so I'm fairly certain I-42 and I-87 are here to stay. If NCDOT is unhappy with the numbers they were given, then they need to get over it, though I think they're happy just to have numbers to put on the I-shields. AASHTO made the right call with I-42. NCDOT should've realized I-36 would get rejected since it's out of grid. Not one of their brightest moments, even if their reasoning was understandable. I'm not thrilled with the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor being a north-south route, whether it's I-87 or I-89, but what's done is done. NCDOT will probably send more applications to AASHTO and FHWA this fall to get I-42 posted on the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses and I-87 on the Knightdale bypass. They'll also (hopefully) try to get I-495 and the part of I-440 that I-87 is planned to use decommissioned while they're at it. It's fitting that US-70 gets an I-4x since I-40 was originally proposed to follow US-70 to Morehead City before it was changed to Wilmington.
I hear that from some road geeks that the original routing of I-40 was to Morehead City. But, I rewrote the I-40 NC history section on wikipedia and none of the research I pulled actually says that. If you, or anyone else, has references that back that up, I would like to see them so I can incorporate it on the page.
I've only read it on this page. I couldn't find it anywhere else. :pan:
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-040.html (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-040.html)
QuoteAn original Interstate highway, Interstate 40 was initially slated to end at its junction with Interstate 85 in Greensboro until 1968, when its route was extended eastward to Interstate 95. There was some difficulty in determining which route Interstate 40 would ultimately take. At first, the state petitioned for the Interstate 40 freeway to follow U.S. 70 from Raleigh-Durham east to Morehead City in 1962. Although that plan was rejected, U.S. 70 has gradually been upgraded to freeway and expressway standards from 2000 onward.
In the 1968 Interstate addition legislation, I-40 was slated to depart from I-85 near Durham, just as it exists today, but the eastern terminus was to be I-95 at the US 70 junction near Selma. Curiously, the Gousha maps of that era showed a proposed freeway (originally shown as a dotted line but undesignated) from I-95 near Benson south along what is now the I-40 extension generally following NC 50 and US 117 -- all the way to Wilmington. While the Durham-Raleigh routing was retained, eventually I-40 was rerouted more or less along NC 50 south of Raleigh to Benson to connect to this route, with the whole corridor finally becoming I-40. The only originally chargeable mileage per the 1968 legislation was west of I-95; the remainder was completed under NC state aegis.
From Kurumi's website showing requests that were actually submitted by 1970. Shows request to Morehead City though not explicitly as I-40:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kurumi.com%2Froads%2F3di%2Fpics%2Fmap-isr-1970.jpg&hash=1d8d31e3d54e5ccd4445f8eb1e8f42b80056204a)
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 25, 2016, 06:39:36 PMif you accept the notion that the US 64/17 corridor is north/south, then the grid says that I-87 is the best choice.
How is it better than I-89? Given that 90% of it will be east of I-95, a lower number is even worse!
If, and it's a big 'if', you accept that it's north-south, a number in the 90s would be the best fit.
Quote from: LM117 on May 25, 2016, 11:17:18 PM
They'll also (hopefully) try to get I-495 and the part of I-440 that I-87 is planned to use decommissioned while they're at it.
I'm sure I-495 is dead now; the 495 shields already posted will be replaced by 87 shields. I'm not so sure that I-440 will be decommissioned on the overlap with I-87. Everyone calls that road "440." If it's decommissioned, the northbound side would still have to be signed "TO 440" and the southbound side "TO 40", so there's really nothing to be gained by decommissioning.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 26, 2016, 12:00:01 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 25, 2016, 11:17:18 PM
FHWA usually goes along with AASHTO, so I'm fairly certain I-42 and I-87 are here to stay. If NCDOT is unhappy with the numbers they were given, then they need to get over it, though I think they're happy just to have numbers to put on the I-shields. AASHTO made the right call with I-42. NCDOT should've realized I-36 would get rejected since it's out of grid. Not one of their brightest moments, even if their reasoning was understandable. I'm not thrilled with the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor being a north-south route, whether it's I-87 or I-89, but what's done is done. NCDOT will probably send more applications to AASHTO and FHWA this fall to get I-42 posted on the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses and I-87 on the Knightdale bypass. They'll also (hopefully) try to get I-495 and the part of I-440 that I-87 is planned to use decommissioned while they're at it. It's fitting that US-70 gets an I-4x since I-40 was originally proposed to follow US-70 to Morehead City before it was changed to Wilmington.
I hear that from some road geeks that the original routing of I-40 was to Morehead City. But, I rewrote the I-40 NC history section on wikipedia and none of the research I pulled actually says that. If you, or anyone else, has references that back that up, I would like to see them so I can incorporate it on the page.
I posted newspaper links about it awhile back
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg2045477#msg2045477
40 appeared headed to Morehead City but during the 70s it was pushed towards Wilmington. The goal to have a four lane and a freeway to Morehead never changed though.
I never got around to updating this page http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/history/i40.html with the more detail on the Morehead to Wilmington debate and change in the late 70s. Hence why I posted the links here (in case I never move it to the blog or update it).
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 26, 2016, 08:26:35 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 25, 2016, 11:17:18 PM
They'll also (hopefully) try to get I-495 and the part of I-440 that I-87 is planned to use decommissioned while they're at it.
I'm sure I-495 is dead now; the 495 shields already posted will be replaced by 87 shields. I'm not so sure that I-440 will be decommissioned on the overlap with I-87. Everyone calls that road "440." If it's decommissioned, the northbound side would still have to be signed "TO 440" and the southbound side "TO 40", so there's really nothing to be gained by decommissioning.
Well, not yet. NCDOT now got the numbers from AASHTO and needs them approved by FHWA. I expect the Autumn AASHTO Meeting they will ask for I-495 to be replaced by I-87, as well as establishing I-42 along part(s) of US 70.
The major problem I have with the proposed I-87 -- and I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone in this thread bring it up -- is that it's utterly redundant. No one would ever use this route to travel between Raleigh and Norfolk. It's almost 30 miles longer than taking I-95/US-58.
If they really wanted to improve travel between Raleigh and Norfolk, upgrading US-58 east of Emporia would be the way to go. Actually, an interstate from I-85 near the VA/NC state line all the way to Norfolk would give travelers a faster route between Norfolk and Durham, and Norfolk and Charlotte as well. (The proposed I-87 would not, check out a map.) Some of it would have to be on new location, but some of it could be built from the existing US 58 highway. The problem is, Virginia would have to pay for this.
But this is a complete waste of money. The largest city along the route between Rocky Mount and VA is Elizabeth City, pop. 18,000. No reason to make an interstate that goes so far out of the way between point A and point B just to connect several tiny eastern NC towns.
Quote from: english si on May 26, 2016, 08:20:32 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 25, 2016, 06:39:36 PMif you accept the notion that the US 64/17 corridor is north/south, then the grid says that I-87 is the best choice.
How is it better than I-89? Given that 90% of it will be east of I-95, a lower number is even worse!
If, and it's a big 'if', you accept that it's north-south, a number in the 90s would be the best fit.
Since 2dis are now being duplicated; why not use either I-97, 99 or even I-91 (if MD & PA get their panties in a wad about reusing
their number for another corridor despite considerable separation)?
Quote from: JacobNC on May 26, 2016, 09:41:49 AMThe major problem I have with the proposed I-87 -- and I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone in this thread bring it up -- is that it's utterly redundant. No one would ever use this route to travel between Raleigh and Norfolk. It's almost 30 miles longer than taking I-95/US-58.
True, but being able to avoid VA's infamous US-58 speed traps is an idea that I'm sure most people who have driven on US-58 (including myself) can get behind. :spin:
Quote from: JacobNC on May 26, 2016, 09:41:49 AM
The major problem I have with the proposed I-87 -- and I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone in this thread bring it up -- is that it's utterly redundant. No one would ever use this route to travel between Raleigh and Norfolk. It's almost 30 miles longer than taking I-95/US-58.
Well, all that can be said is North Carolina wanted another interstate and Virginia doesn't give two sh*ts about upgrading highways outside of Northern Virginia.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 26, 2016, 11:29:09 AM
Quote from: JacobNC on May 26, 2016, 09:41:49 AM
The major problem I have with the proposed I-87 -- and I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone in this thread bring it up -- is that it's utterly redundant. No one would ever use this route to travel between Raleigh and Norfolk. It's almost 30 miles longer than taking I-95/US-58.
Well, all that can be said is North Carolina wanted another interstate and Virginia doesn't give two sh*ts about upgrading highways outside of Northern Virginia.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: LM117 on May 26, 2016, 11:40:29 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 26, 2016, 11:29:09 AM
Quote from: JacobNC on May 26, 2016, 09:41:49 AM
The major problem I have with the proposed I-87 -- and I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone in this thread bring it up -- is that it's utterly redundant. No one would ever use this route to travel between Raleigh and Norfolk. It's almost 30 miles longer than taking I-95/US-58.
Well, all that can be said is North Carolina wanted another interstate and Virginia doesn't give two sh*ts about upgrading highways outside of Northern Virginia.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Or they does, but politics in Northern Virginia doesn't want money going that way?
I like I-42 for the US 70 upgrade, but I-87 kind of threw me for a loop. I would've liked to have I-97 instead, so that the missing link could be filled in with freeway upgrades to US 13 and US 50. Then there could be a continuous nonstop alternative to I-95 between Baltimore and Raleigh.
Now that I think of it, Steve proposed I-87 to run up DE 1 and US 202 years ago. This would open the door for an extension down the US 13 corridor through the Tidewater area, and provide a nonstop alternative between NYC/Philly and the Triangle.
Quote from: LM117 on May 26, 2016, 11:22:49 AM
Quote from: JacobNC on May 26, 2016, 09:41:49 AMThe major problem I have with the proposed I-87 -- and I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone in this thread bring it up -- is that it's utterly redundant. No one would ever use this route to travel between Raleigh and Norfolk. It's almost 30 miles longer than taking I-95/US-58.
True, but being able to avoid VA's infamous US-58 speed traps is an idea that I'm sure most people who have driven on US-58 (including myself) can get behind. :spin:
That's true, but much of the road from Emporia to Suffolk has been upgraded and now has 60mph speed limits so it's not so slow. Just don't drive above 65mph. There is a 45mph and 35mph section in Suffolk that would need to be bypassed if upgraded to an Interstate though.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 26, 2016, 11:29:09 AM
Quote from: JacobNC on May 26, 2016, 09:41:49 AM
The major problem I have with the proposed I-87 -- and I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone in this thread bring it up -- is that it's utterly redundant. No one would ever use this route to travel between Raleigh and Norfolk. It's almost 30 miles longer than taking I-95/US-58.
Well, all that can be said is North Carolina wanted another interstate and Virginia doesn't give two sh*ts about upgrading highways outside of Northern Virginia.
Yeah, If they ever did it they would probably toll it for 200 years to pay for it too.
Quote from: wdcrft63if you accept the notion that the US 64/17 corridor is north/south, then the grid says that I-87 is the best choice.
A big "if", as si noted. But the reality is that it is less north-south (78 miles) than it is east-west (125 miles).
Quote from: JacobNCThe major problem I have with the proposed I-87 -- and I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone in this thread bring it up -- is that it's utterly redundant. No one would ever use this route to travel between Raleigh and Norfolk. It's almost 30 miles longer than taking I-95/US-58.
If they really wanted to improve travel between Raleigh and Norfolk, upgrading US-58 east of Emporia would be the way to go. Actually, an interstate from I-85 near the VA/NC state line all the way to Norfolk would give travelers a faster route between Norfolk and Durham, and Norfolk and Charlotte as well. (The proposed I-87 would not, check out a map.) Some of it would have to be on new location, but some of it could be built from the existing US 58 highway. The problem is, Virginia would have to pay for this.
But this is a complete waste of money. The largest city along the route between Rocky Mount and VA is Elizabeth City, pop. 18,000. No reason to make an interstate that goes so far out of the way between point A and point B just to connect several tiny eastern NC towns.
Very logical. But logic flies completely in the face of eastern North Carolina business interests who want a shiny red/white/blue shield (paid for by someone else, of course) in order to support their business.
Quote from: LM117True, but being able to avoid VA's infamous US-58 speed traps is an idea that I'm sure most people who have driven on US-58 (including myself) can get behind.
In my own considerable experience, I'd say the Emporia speed trap is more bark than bite. Does it exist? Yes. But people make it out to be a bigger deal than it really is.
Quote from: WashuOtakuWell, all that can be said is North Carolina wanted another interstate and Virginia doesn't give two sh*ts about upgrading highways outside of Northern Virginia.
First off, this is utter nonsense, not that you really care. Second, it shows that VDOT is more interested in addressing real traffic issues than throwing freeways willy-nilly all over a rural area like your state does. Let me know how that I-40 commute or the I-77 Charlotte commute are going, please...
Quote from: froggie on May 26, 2016, 12:35:29 PM
Quote from: JacobNCThe major problem I have with the proposed I-87 -- and I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone in this thread bring it up -- is that it's utterly redundant. No one would ever use this route to travel between Raleigh and Norfolk. It's almost 30 miles longer than taking I-95/US-58.
If they really wanted to improve travel between Raleigh and Norfolk, upgrading US-58 east of Emporia would be the way to go. Actually, an interstate from I-85 near the VA/NC state line all the way to Norfolk would give travelers a faster route between Norfolk and Durham, and Norfolk and Charlotte as well. (The proposed I-87 would not, check out a map.) Some of it would have to be on new location, but some of it could be built from the existing US 58 highway. The problem is, Virginia would have to pay for this.
But this is a complete waste of money. The largest city along the route between Rocky Mount and VA is Elizabeth City, pop. 18,000. No reason to make an interstate that goes so far out of the way between point A and point B just to connect several tiny eastern NC towns.
Very logical. But logic flies completely in the face of eastern North Carolina business interests who want a shiny red/white/blue shield (paid for by someone else, of course) in order to support their business.
Quote from: WashuOtakuWell, all that can be said is North Carolina wanted another interstate and Virginia doesn't give two sh*ts about upgrading highways outside of Northern Virginia.
First off, this is utter nonsense, not that you really care. Second, it shows that VDOT is more interested in addressing real traffic issues than throwing freeways willy-nilly all over a rural area like your state does. Let me know how that I-40 commute or the I-77 Charlotte commute are going, please...
There's a spirited discussion of VDOT's priorities going on today in the I-73 in VA thread of the Mid-Atlantic forum. Not everyone there agrees with you.
Fact is, every state has its own set of priorities and they always reflect a lot of the politics internal to that state. Frankly, I enjoy seeing how they work out in each state. In NC, the metropolitan areas are not as dominant as they are in Virginia or in many other states.
OK, I had to google "Towel Day" to find out what it is and what it has to do with the number 42. I'm usually blissfully ignorant of pop culture, but sometimes it puts me way behind the curve to know what people are talking about.
QuoteThere's a spirited discussion of VDOT's priorities going on today in the I-73 in VA thread of the Mid-Atlantic forum. Not everyone there agrees with you.
They may not agree with me regarding I-73, but they were also rather incorrect in how money flows in Virginia.
Quote from: froggie on May 26, 2016, 12:35:29 PM
Quote from: WashuOtakuWell, all that can be said is North Carolina wanted another interstate and Virginia doesn't give two sh*ts about upgrading highways outside of Northern Virginia.
First off, this is utter nonsense, not that you really care. Second, it shows that VDOT is more interested in addressing real traffic issues than throwing freeways willy-nilly all over a rural area like your state does. Let me know how that I-40 commute or the I-77 Charlotte commute are going, please...
As a Charlottean, I wish we got a bone from the state from all these new Interstate main and auxiliary routes. I was hoping US 74 would have gotten a route from Asheville to Charlotte, and then to Wilmington, but that was squashed, though we might get an Interstate spur between I-26 and I-85. The state seems to have an obsession with wanting to create limited-access expressways in the Charlotte region, like the NC 16 corridor between here and Hickory, and the NC 24/27 corridor between Charlotte and Fayetteville. Even the NC 49/US 64 corridor between Charlotte and Asheboro is suppose to be an expressway, but US 64 between Asheboro to Cary is planned as a freeway.
Well, so much for Interstate 36 and Interstate 89. Both were rejected. Personally, I still think both corridors should have gotten even-numbered Interstate designations. Here's another question for my fellow AARoads posters. Once 495 becomes 87, where would you move the 495 designation to, if anywhere?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 28, 2016, 02:36:39 PMHere's another question for my fellow AARoads posters. Once 495 becomes 87, where would you move the 495 designation to, if anywhere?
Personally, I'd just get rid of it. Greenville has been pretty vocal about wanting US-264 from US-64 (future I-87) in Zebulon to Stantonsburg Road in Greenville upgraded to Interstate standards. I-287 would be a good number for it, if and when the upgrade happens. I-795 would remain concurrent with US-264 and hypothetical I-287 to the I-95 junction, similar to I-785 and I-840 in Greensboro. That's about all I can say without diving headfirst into fictional territory.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 28, 2016, 02:36:39 PM
Well, so much for Interstate 36 and Interstate 89. Both were rejected. Personally, I still think both corridors should have gotten even-numbered Interstate designations. Here's another question for my fellow AARoads posters. Once 495 becomes 87, where would you move the 495 designation to, if anywhere?
Old Faison Road in Knightdale.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 28, 2016, 02:36:39 PM
Well, so much for Interstate 36 and Interstate 89. Both were rejected. Personally, I still think both corridors should have gotten even-numbered Interstate designations. Here's another question for my fellow AARoads posters. Once 495 becomes 87, where would you move the 495 designation to, if anywhere?
As for new spur routes, I think that if they ever completed the US-17 bypass of New Bern (unlikely, the only reason to do so would be to cut off some extra mileage) , it would make a good I-142, but that's way, way out in fictional territory.
So its official, being that the ribbon cutting ceremony for the Goldsboro Bypass has I-42 as the future interstate for US 70. That means I-36 is dead then?
Quote from: roadman65 on May 29, 2016, 11:37:47 AM
So its official, being that the ribbon cutting ceremony for the Goldsboro Bypass has I-42 as the future interstate for US 70. That means I-36 is dead then?
Yep. I-36 got trashed (and rightfully so) for obvious reasons and was replaced with I-42 by AASHTO. FHWA still has to sign off on Future I-42, but it's just as good as approved. FHWA can't deny US-70 from becoming a future Interstate corridor since it was signed into law and I don't see any reason why they would deny the I-42 number since it fits the grid and isn't in the same state as US-42. I'm not worried about FHWA's decision. From the way I see it, all FHWA can do within reason is rubber-stamp it.
Random thought, but assuming VDOT surprises me and actually builds and signs their part of I-87, what are the chances of I-87 taking over I-464 and ending at I-264 in Norfolk instead of I-64 in Chesapeake? I'd like to see it happen. Thoughts? :hmmm:
That would be a good idea. 464 or 87, does not make a difference really. Hey they eliminated VA 44 for an extension of I-264 to the beach, why not do the same here?
Quote from: LM117 on May 29, 2016, 08:35:47 PM
Random thought, but assuming VDOT surprises me and actually builds and signs their part of I-87, what are the chances of I-87 taking over I-464 and ending at I-264 in Norfolk instead of I-64 in Chesapeake? I'd like to see it happen. Thoughts? :hmmm:
Cannot see why not, but that is probably years away.
I think why AASHTO thought of I-87 in hopes that the Delmarva might upgrade US 13 completely to interstate standards someday like in 2100. However, if that ever did happen even in our lifetime, it would give the 1 to 6 on the NJ Turnpike an interstate designation as after I-95 in Delaware, it could duplex to the Delaware Memorial Bridge and up the NJT to duplex again in Central and North Jersey and connect to the other I-87 in the Bronx!
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 29, 2016, 08:40:52 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 29, 2016, 08:35:47 PM
Random thought, but assuming VDOT surprises me and actually builds and signs their part of I-87, what are the chances of I-87 taking over I-464 and ending at I-264 in Norfolk instead of I-64 in Chesapeake? I'd like to see it happen. Thoughts? :hmmm:
Cannot see why not, but that is probably years away.
On one hand, true, but on the other hand, VDOT could ask AASHTO to decommission I-464 and go ahead and sign it as I-87, like what NCDOT plans to do with I-495 and part of I-440. At least both ends in Raleigh and Norfolk would have a start. Of course, it's just wishful thinking on my part since VDOT never bothered to send a request to AASHTO to sign US-17 as Future I-87 from the NC state line to I-64 in Chesapeake.
Quote from: LM117 on May 29, 2016, 09:00:32 PM
On one hand, true, but on the other hand, VDOT could ask AASHTO to decommission I-464 and go ahead and sign it as I-87, like what NCDOT plans to do with I-495 and part of I-440. At least both ends in Raleigh and Norfolk would have a start. Of course, it's just wishful thinking on my part since VDOT never bothered to send a request to AASHTO to sign US-17 as Future I-87 from the NC state line to I-64 in Chesapeake.
I don't see Virginia being proactive. I expect them to wait till its built right to the border then muddle for several more years before reluctantly building their small section of it.
When the Dominion Blvd Project is complete in 2017, the entirety of the proposed route of I-87 in VA will have been completely rebuilt in the last 15 years. I don't see VDOT spending more money to upgrade a road that serves its purpose quite adequately. Keep in mind that the Grassfield and Scenic Pkwy intersections along the new Dominion Blvd are only being built at-grade. (and would be difficult to convert into interchanges due to abutting businesses)
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 30, 2016, 09:26:40 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 29, 2016, 09:00:32 PM
On one hand, true, but on the other hand, VDOT could ask AASHTO to decommission I-464 and go ahead and sign it as I-87, like what NCDOT plans to do with I-495 and part of I-440. At least both ends in Raleigh and Norfolk would have a start. Of course, it's just wishful thinking on my part since VDOT never bothered to send a request to AASHTO to sign US-17 as Future I-87 from the NC state line to I-64 in Chesapeake.
I don't see Virginia being proactive. I expect them to wait till its built right to the border then muddle for several more years before reluctantly building their small section of it.
-sigh- I agree. Like I said, it's just wishful thinking on my part. :pan: The leaders in Hampton Roads definitely support I-87 but the interstate has no love in Richmond. Hell, only 4 out of 11 VA congressmen supported the ROAD amendment of the FAST Act while all of NC's supported it. I guarantee Hampton Roads wouldn't have had a future interstate corridor signed into law if it wasn't for NC. In the unlikely case VA ever does build their part, Hampton Roads can thank NC for it.
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 30, 2016, 09:52:28 AMKeep in mind that the Grassfield and Scenic Pkwy intersections along the new Dominion Blvd are only being built at-grade. (and would be difficult to convert into interchanges due to abutting businesses)
Too bad the interstate idea wasn't thought of before the Dominion Boulevard project got underway. Bad timing. :banghead:
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2016, 10:33:16 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 30, 2016, 09:26:40 AM
I don't see Virginia being proactive. I expect them to wait till its built right to the border then muddle for several more years before reluctantly building their small section of it.
-sigh- I agree. Like I said, it's just wishful thinking on my part. :pan: The leaders in Hampton Roads definitely support I-87 but the interstate has no love in Richmond. Hell, only 4 out of 11 VA congressmen supported the ROAD amendment of the FAST Act while all of NC's supported it. I guarantee Hampton Roads wouldn't have had a future interstate corridor signed into law if it wasn't for NC. In the unlikely case VA ever does build their part, Hampton Roads can thank NC for it.
That is because North Carolina sees the full potential of Hampton Roads. Historically, from the Great Dismal Swamp Canal to railroads, the Hampton Roads area has been a big economic part of eastern North Carolina. With Hampton Roads being one of the deep ports that can already handle thew new line of Panamax ships, its no surprised North Carolina wants a major interstate between the two. Virginia don't care, they have their connections and don't see it benefiting them as much, except for the Hampton Roads area.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 29, 2016, 08:46:27 PM
I think why AASHTO thought of I-87 in hopes that the Delmarva might upgrade US 13 completely to interstate standards someday like in 2100. However, if that ever did happen even in our lifetime, it would give the 1 to 6 on the NJ Turnpike an interstate designation as after I-95 in Delaware, it could duplex to the Delaware Memorial Bridge and up the NJT to duplex again in Central and North Jersey and connect to the other I-87 in the Bronx!
You can hop on over to Fictional Highways, where there is a thread discussing ways to connect the two sections of I-87.
I don't think AASHTO was thinking about possible northward extensions of I-87 when they approved the NC application. By "AASHTO" what we mean is the US Route Numbering Committee of that organization. The committee members are DOT officials from different states across the country. They read the applications and get together to vote on them. I've served on committees a lot in my life, and generally they want to get their jobs done as quickly as possible. They'll approve these applications routinely as long as no one comes in with a good reason to do otherwise. It goes like this: "NC wants an I-87...anybody have a problem with that?...No?...OK it's done, let's move on to the next application."
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 30, 2016, 05:52:04 PM
It goes like this: "NC wants an I-87...anybody have a problem with that?...No?...OK it's done, let's move on to the next application."
Except NC wanted an I-89.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 30, 2016, 02:55:50 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2016, 10:33:16 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 30, 2016, 09:26:40 AM
I don't see Virginia being proactive. I expect them to wait till its built right to the border then muddle for several more years before reluctantly building their small section of it.
-sigh- I agree. Like I said, it's just wishful thinking on my part. :pan: The leaders in Hampton Roads definitely support I-87 but the interstate has no love in Richmond. Hell, only 4 out of 11 VA congressmen supported the ROAD amendment of the FAST Act while all of NC's supported it. I guarantee Hampton Roads wouldn't have had a future interstate corridor signed into law if it wasn't for NC. In the unlikely case VA ever does build their part, Hampton Roads can thank NC for it.
That is because North Carolina sees the full potential of Hampton Roads. Historically, from the Great Dismal Swamp Canal to railroads, the Hampton Roads area has been a big economic part of eastern North Carolina. With Hampton Roads being one of the deep ports that can already handle thew new line of Panamax ships, its no surprised North Carolina wants a major interstate between the two. Virginia don't care, they have their connections and don't see it benefiting them as much, except for the Hampton Roads area.
That sounds about right.
Quote from: 1 on May 30, 2016, 05:58:42 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 30, 2016, 05:52:04 PM
It goes like this: "NC wants an I-87...anybody have a problem with that?...No?...OK it's done, let's move on to the next application."
Except NC wanted an I-89.
That's right! and I don't know I forgot that. So it's not quite as simple as I said before. But I still don't think AASHTO was looking at possible future extensions; they said something like, "I-89? that's weird. Wouldn't I-87 align better with the grid?'
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 28, 2016, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 28, 2016, 02:36:39 PM
Well, so much for Interstate 36 and Interstate 89. Both were rejected. Personally, I still think both corridors should have gotten even-numbered Interstate designations. Here's another question for my fellow AARoads posters. Once 495 becomes 87, where would you move the 495 designation to, if anywhere?
As for new spur routes, I think that if they ever completed the US-17 bypass of New Bern (unlikely, the only reason to do so would be to cut off some extra mileage) , it would make a good I-142, but that's way, way out in fictional territory.
I am somewhat surprised, though certainly not disappointed, that they plan to upgrade US70 through James City to in interstate rather than just extending the US17 bypass and signing it as I-42. When faced with the question to upgrade the existing highway or bypass it, North Carolina almost always chooses the bypass alternative, except in extremely rural areas - and especially in built up areas like this. Even now I still half expect them to cancel the James City interstate segment and take the bypass route instead.
LGL33L
Quote from: orulz on May 30, 2016, 08:56:25 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 28, 2016, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 28, 2016, 02:36:39 PM
Well, so much for Interstate 36 and Interstate 89. Both were rejected. Personally, I still think both corridors should have gotten even-numbered Interstate designations. Here's another question for my fellow AARoads posters. Once 495 becomes 87, where would you move the 495 designation to, if anywhere?
As for new spur routes, I think that if they ever completed the US-17 bypass of New Bern (unlikely, the only reason to do so would be to cut off some extra mileage) , it would make a good I-142, but that's way, way out in fictional territory.
I am somewhat surprised, though certainly not disappointed, that they plan to upgrade US70 through James City to in interstate rather than just extending the US17 bypass and signing it as I-42. When faced with the question to upgrade the existing highway or bypass it, North Carolina almost always chooses the bypass alternative, except in extremely rural areas - and especially in built up areas like this. Even now I still half expect them to cancel the James City interstate segment and take the bypass route instead.
LGL33L
Problem is, they really can't. The Croatan National Forest is a major roadblock to bypassing James City to the west and Neuse River is a major roadblock to bypassing James City to the east. The feds won't allow a new corridor through their forest, because, God forbid, a woodpecker or 2 might be displaced and have to find a new tree to nest in-its not like they don't have elevendy billion other trees they can find a home in-oh wait.
I am truly surprised they acquiesced to the new Havelock Bypass, to be honest. I guess that's because most of it will go over terrain not technically part of the national forest.
Converting the section from the Twin Spans (that's what we locals call the Freedom Memorial Bridge over the Trent River) to the beginning of the Havelock bypass will be a major PITA for those of us that live and work here, yes. But when it's finished, it will have been worth it. From some of the rough sketches that I have seen of it, it seems that it will be similar to what I saw when I traveled I-30 in Texas, with slip-ramp exits and to the service roads on both sides at interchanges, and those service roads will be converted to one-way travel as opposed to both being two way roads as they are now. I think it will be pretty cool, if I get to live long enough to actually see it, LOL.
Quote from: orulz on May 30, 2016, 08:56:25 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 28, 2016, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 28, 2016, 02:36:39 PM
Well, so much for Interstate 36 and Interstate 89. Both were rejected. Personally, I still think both corridors should have gotten even-numbered Interstate designations. Here's another question for my fellow AARoads posters. Once 495 becomes 87, where would you move the 495 designation to, if anywhere?
As for new spur routes, I think that if they ever completed the US-17 bypass of New Bern (unlikely, the only reason to do so would be to cut off some extra mileage) , it would make a good I-142, but that's way, way out in fictional territory.
I am somewhat surprised, though certainly not disappointed, that they plan to upgrade US70 through James City to in interstate rather than just extending the US17 bypass and signing it as I-42. When faced with the question to upgrade the existing highway or bypass it, North Carolina almost always chooses the bypass alternative, except in extremely rural areas - and especially in built up areas like this. Even now I still half expect them to cancel the James City interstate segment and take the bypass route instead.
LGL33L
Aside from the National Forest issue, I suspect that it may also be because US-70 has frontage roads through there, meaning that no new ROW would have to be procured. May also appease local businesses somewhat, as motorists would be able to see them from I-42.
I'm guessing that work on this section will progress piece-by-piece, starting with a SPUI at Williams Rd, and continuing by removing other median breaks and replacing them with RIROs.
Quote from: slorydn1 on May 30, 2016, 09:21:14 PMFrom some of the rough sketches that I have seen of it, it seems that it will be similar to what I saw when I traveled I-30 in Texas, with slip-ramp exits and to the service roads on both sides at interchanges, and those service roads will be converted to one-way travel as opposed to both being two way roads as they are now. I think it will be pretty cool, if I get to live long enough to actually see it, LOL.
I have seen freeways like that with long contiguous frontage roads in other states, especially Texas, but I am not aware of any in NC? Mostly a product of NC's tendency to bypass rather than upgrade, IMO. Can somebody think of any examples where a frontage road is at least 2 miles long or so, and is a true frontage road where it always has the same, narrow buffer between it and the mainline highway?
Do the plans you have seen show that the frontage roads will be one-way? That will be a requirement in order to have slip ramps but not need any new ROW, I would think.
Quote from: orulz on May 31, 2016, 10:39:45 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on May 30, 2016, 09:21:14 PMFrom some of the rough sketches that I have seen of it, it seems that it will be similar to what I saw when I traveled I-30 in Texas, with slip-ramp exits and to the service roads on both sides at interchanges, and those service roads will be converted to one-way travel as opposed to both being two way roads as they are now. I think it will be pretty cool, if I get to live long enough to actually see it, LOL.
I have seen freeways like that with long contiguous frontage roads in other states, especially Texas, but I am not aware of any in NC? Mostly a product of NC's tendency to bypass rather than upgrade, IMO. Can somebody think of any examples where a frontage road is at least 2 miles long or so, and is a true frontage road where it always has the same, narrow buffer between it and the mainline highway?
Do the plans you have seen show that the frontage roads will be one-way? That will be a requirement in order to have slip ramps but not need any new ROW, I would think.
Ummmm :rolleyes: :bigass:
Then again, there was a proposed I-101 for the Philly-Raleigh route, IIRC. So I've been led to believe that I-87 (and I-89) must've been inspired by that fact.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 30, 2016, 06:29:12 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 30, 2016, 05:58:42 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 30, 2016, 05:52:04 PM
It goes like this: "NC wants an I-87...anybody have a problem with that?...No?...OK it's done, let's move on to the next application."
Except NC wanted an I-89.
That's right! and I don't know I forgot that. So it's not quite as simple as I said before. But I still don't think AASHTO was looking at possible future extensions; they said something like, "I-89? that's weird. Wouldn't I-87 align better with the grid?'
They could really do what Pennsylvania did, notably Bud Schuster, and sign the dang number into law. Then AASHTO would have no say in the matter like they have no say over Texas signing I-2 even though its orphaned from the rest of the interstate system.
However, I-87 is good. It lets all all dream about how to use US 13 and the NJT to connect the two segments.
Quote from: roadman65Then AASHTO would have no say in the matter like they have no say over Texas signing I-2 I-69E/69C even though its orphaned from the rest of the interstate system.
FTFY. I-2 was not written into law.
Quote from: orulz on May 31, 2016, 10:39:45 AM
I have seen freeways like that with long contiguous frontage roads in other states, especially Texas, but I am not aware of any in NC? Mostly a product of NC's tendency to bypass rather than upgrade, IMO. Can somebody think of any examples where a frontage road is at least 2 miles long or so, and is a true frontage road where it always has the same, narrow buffer between it and the mainline highway?
Do the plans you have seen show that the frontage roads will be one-way? That will be a requirement in order to have slip ramps but not need any new ROW, I would think.
Except for the crossing of the Lumber River, the entirety of I-95 in the Lumberton area from US 74 ALT (old Exit 14) and US 301 Exit 22 have continuous frontage roads on both sides.
I-85 in Charlotte has a couple sections like this
I-4 in between Lakeland and Plant City has frontage roads on both sides. It did, however, get altered and some of the WB frontage road got severed when I-4 was widened from four to six lanes and the new Exit 25 ramps were reconfigured. Now the road dead ends on one side of County Line Road.
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 31, 2016, 08:37:46 PM
Quote from: orulz on May 31, 2016, 10:39:45 AM
I have seen freeways like that with long contiguous frontage roads in other states, especially Texas, but I am not aware of any in NC? Mostly a product of NC's tendency to bypass rather than upgrade, IMO. Can somebody think of any examples where a frontage road is at least 2 miles long or so, and is a true frontage road where it always has the same, narrow buffer between it and the mainline highway?
Do the plans you have seen show that the frontage roads will be one-way? That will be a requirement in order to have slip ramps but not need any new ROW, I would think.
Except for the crossing of the Lumber River, the entirety of I-95 in the Lumberton area from US 74 ALT (old Exit 14) and US 301 Exit 22 have continuous frontage roads on both sides.
I-85 in Charlotte has a couple sections like this
And so does the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago. Frontage roads are most common in large urban areas, seeing that there are many businesses accessed by them.
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2016, 10:54:30 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 30, 2016, 09:52:28 AMKeep in mind that the Grassfield and Scenic Pkwy intersections along the new Dominion Blvd are only being built at-grade. (and would be difficult to convert into interchanges due to abutting businesses)
Too bad the interstate idea wasn't thought of before the Dominion Boulevard project got underway. Bad timing. :banghead:
Speaking of that, however, the new exits on the Dominion Blvd freeway will be numbered using US-17 mileage (which would also necessarily be I-87's mileage), so I wonder if the city of Chesapeake (the ones behind the upgrade, not VDOT) might be interested in the future. The I-87 proposal also made an appearance on the local news recently, which is rare for these types of projects.
Dominion Blvd has had mile markers on it back to the VA 104 days which built upon US 17's mileage from the NC line...
Interestingly, the last study (2006) on an interstate corridor up US 17 and then the Eastern Shore did not use I-64 at all. It had the interstate head east on the Southeastern Parkway, then connected to I-264 near the Oceanfront to head west back to around VA 225 to head north to the CBBT.
Also, Maryland wants to use US 13 while Delaware wants to use US 113.
Maps are at the end of this document - http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf
Interesting that they called this proposal I-99, even when the one in PA was already established! My guess is that they wanted to keep it separate from the other.
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 01, 2016, 10:28:19 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 30, 2016, 10:54:30 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 30, 2016, 09:52:28 AMKeep in mind that the Grassfield and Scenic Pkwy intersections along the new Dominion Blvd are only being built at-grade. (and would be difficult to convert into interchanges due to abutting businesses)
Too bad the interstate idea wasn't thought of before the Dominion Boulevard project got underway. Bad timing. :banghead:
I wonder if the city of Chesapeake (the ones behind the upgrade, not VDOT) might be interested in the future. The I-87 proposal also made an appearance on the local news recently, which is rare for these types of projects.
I don't see why they wouldn't be. The leaders in HR were vocal in their support for the interstate when the bill was introduced in Congress. The state, for the most part, isn't interested. NC pretty much strong-armed VA into getting the bill passed. Hampton Roads wouldn't be on a future interstate corridor otherwise. I have relatives living in Norfolk and Virginia Beach and they tell me that the sentiment there is that NC is paying more attention to Hampton Roads economically, than their own state. I don't live there, so I don't know how true it is, but that's what I was told . There's also no love for NoVA in Hampton Roads. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just passing on what I've heard. :poke:
To be fair, it would cost Virginia a fair bit to convert US 17 to an interstate because it would either have to re-open the old alignment along the Dismal Canal or build 2 or 3 extra interchanges to allow access to roads that have at-grade access now.
Access to most of North Carolina from the ports is possible via US 58/I-95, so providing an interstate to the one segment of North Carolina that is largely unpopulated would be an expense borne by Virginia for nearly no benefit to Virginia. I can see why North Carolina might want to have as much access to Hampton Roads as they can based on this study (may have a point of view bias but it does show some interesting things) of NC port access: http://savethecape.org/stcwp1/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/Otherports4.pdf
North Carolina certainly understands the point of view of Virginia not spending $ that largely doesn't benefit themselves. NC hasn't done much with I-95 over the years with this same principle in mind - upgrading it doesn't benefit that many North Carolinians.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 02, 2016, 12:58:44 PM
North Carolina certainly understands the point of view of Virginia not spending $ that largely doesn't benefit themselves.
This is why I believe if North Carolina builds out I-87, it will stop right at the state line into Virginia like I-74 does now and soon to be I-73.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 02, 2016, 12:58:44 PM
North Carolina certainly understands the point of view of Virginia not spending $ that largely doesn't benefit themselves.
I understand why Virginians outside the HR area would think that way. But for people in Hampton Roads, NE NC really is part of their metropolitan area.
Quote from: Mapmikeyre-open the old alignment along the Dismal Canal
Which, given that some pavement was removed and the rest of the old alignment was converted into a bike/ped path, would likely require reconstruction of the old alignment.
Quote from: wdcrft63But for people in Hampton Roads, NE NC really is part of their metropolitan area.
Statistically, per the Census, yes. But speaking from long experience, few Hampton Roads people cross south of the border unless they're going to the Outer Banks.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on June 02, 2016, 05:47:36 PM
I understand why Virginians outside the HR area would think that way. But for people in Hampton Roads, NE NC really is part of their metropolitan area.
I suppose the reverse might be true - NE NC thinking they are part of the Hampton Roads area since a fair number of folks commute to HR from NC. I'd be surprised as a former HR resident if HR thought of NE NC as part of HR.
But even if I am wrong, it doesn't mean Virginia should spend $ on a route that has been already greatly updated in the last 15 years. If US 17 were still on its dark and dangerous canal path 2-lane alignment (headlights were needed in the daytime parts of it were so dark) then I would opine that the upgrade would be needed.
HR has some pressing needs (new I-64 High Rise Bridge) that cost big bucks, so as with I-73 it is a matter of prioritization.
It's a game lots of neighboring states play. Virginia is on the short end of the stick with Maryland because Maryland won't widen US 15 south of US 340 (despite it being pretty dangerous and the ROW is already in place) or do anything about I-495 north of the American Legion Bridge. Virginia elected to build some of their improvements on 495 but has so far elected not to do anything with US 15 unless Maryland changes their mind.
Elizabeth City, et al. are satellite cities at best for the Hampton Roads metro area. They may be a part of the same media market (one that stretches as far north as Chincoteague and as far south as Ocracoke) , but most people from the area would regard a trip to NE NC as a bit of a trek unless they lived in Suffolk or Great Bridge. I just don't think there's enough demand to justify most of these NC interstate pet projects over say, the High Rise Bridge replacement (although basically all of 64 past Exit 291 needs to be widened and redone).
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 02, 2016, 10:08:38 PM
Elizabeth City, et al. are satellite cities at best for the Hampton Roads metro area. They may be a part of the same media market (one that stretches as far north as Chincoteague and as far south as Ocracoke) , but most people from the area would regard a trip to NE NC as a bit of a trek unless they lived in Suffolk or Great Bridge. I just don't think there's enough demand to justify most of these NC interstate pet projects over say, the High Rise Bridge replacement (although basically all of 64 past Exit 291 needs to be widened and redone).
I-64 definitely needs widened. I always hated driving on I-64 through Chesapeake. :ded: There may not be much demand for I-87, but the NC's I-42 "pet project" is definitely warranted. I-42 needs to be done first over I-87. US-70 is long overdue for an upgrading.
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 02, 2016, 10:08:38 PM
I just don't think there's enough demand to justify most of these NC interstate pet projects over say, the High Rise Bridge replacement (although basically all of 64 past Exit 291 needs to be widened and redone).
I believe there is. I have friends who will drive to Richmond then to Norfolk because it's all interstate; I believe a lot of people are like them. Also, economically beneficial to the RTP area having a 70mph interstate connecting directly to a major seaport.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 03, 2016, 09:04:36 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 02, 2016, 10:08:38 PM
I just don't think there's enough demand to justify most of these NC interstate pet projects over say, the High Rise Bridge replacement (although basically all of 64 past Exit 291 needs to be widened and redone).
Also, economically beneficial to the RTP area having a 70mph interstate connecting directly to a major seaport.
+1
Most of RTP's economic might is intellectual, not manufacturing. An interstate connection to a seaport is not going to help that. Nevermind that, as has already been noted on this forum, there are better ways to make such a connection.
And yes, while there may be some who detour to Richmond because it's an "all Interstate route", those travel numbers are not big enough to justify the expense of Interstate construction.
Regardless of whether or not I-87 is worth building, I think we can all agree that US-70 is certainly worth upgrading to I-42. It carries heavy traffic (tourists, local and trucks) and connects the Port of Morehead City and military bases to I-95 and I-40. :coffee:
Quote from: LM117 on June 03, 2016, 11:42:01 AM
Regardless of whether or not I-87 is worth building, I think we can all agree that US-70 is certainly worth upgrading to I-42. It carries heavy traffic (tourists, local and trucks) and connects the Port of Morehead City and military bases to I-95 and I-40. :coffee:
You won't get any argument from me on that!
Over the years any time conversation of any upgrade to US-70 between Raleigh and the coast has come up one of the first comments from the peanut gallery has been "Oh great, more construction, just so the people up in Raleigh can get to their beach home a few minutes faster; Oh joy" <whiny sarcastic voice>.
Um, yeah, that and many other reasons, not the least of which is freight movement is usually my reply.
I first visited New Bern in 1986, and moved here in 1991. In that time, the average travel time for me from New Bern to I-40 has dropped from about 2hrs and 15 minutes (back when we had to go through Selma and Clayton and accessed I-40 at exit 306) to the 1 hr and 28 minutes it took me this past Monday-which would have been even quicker yet had it not been for the 3 heavy rain storms I encountered, one of them on the new bypass). If I was coming from Morehead City you could add 45 minutes to an hour to that,depending on how bad Havelock and James City traffic is.
Think about it-back in the late 80's to early 90's we would have been sitting in long cues at more stoplights than I can count. Now its only a handful between New Bern and I-40, with Kinston being the biggest problem for me, and I still manage to catch most of those red-its how my luck goes, lol. Besides Kinston the few that are left seem to be out in the middle of podunk, and of course Havleock and Morehead City to the east of me.
One of the perks of my job is that I have the controls to the Trent/Neuse River Bridge cameras/VMS signs on my desk. I spend many a Friday afternoon during the summer watching the eastbound traffic crawl through James City. Its a mixture of beach goers and 18 wheelers, and the last few years I have been noticing a larger number of trucks heading through there. And I can count on 2-3 wrecks from lunch time until I get off at 6pm (when I'm on dayshift) on US-70 at either Williams Road, Airport Road, or Thurman Road.
I can only imagine what it's like up and down the rest of the corridor, but I'm confident that the numbers must be similar.
I wasn't sure that we absolutely needed an Interstate designation for US-70 to upgrade the corridor to a freeway along its entirety, I think there was momentum pushing things in that direction already. But I believe the Interstate designation will definitely speed that process up and for that I am thankful, I may now get to see it happen before I have to stop at the great toll booth in the sky.
Quote from: slorydn1 on June 03, 2016, 03:01:05 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 03, 2016, 11:42:01 AM
Regardless of whether or not I-87 is worth building, I think we can all agree that US-70 is certainly worth upgrading to I-42. It carries heavy traffic (tourists, local and trucks) and connects the Port of Morehead City and military bases to I-95 and I-40. :coffee:
I can only imagine what it's like up and down the rest of the corridor, but I'm confident that the numbers must be similar.
I wasn't sure that we absolutely needed an Interstate designation for US-70 to upgrade the corridor to a freeway along its entirety, I think there was momentum pushing things in that direction already. But I believe the Interstate designation will definitely speed that process up and for that I am thankful, I may now get to see it happen before I have to stop at the great toll booth in the sky.
Oh man, US-70 was/still is a headache between Goldsboro and the Clayton Bypass. I went to Raleigh a few times and I hated that stretch. There were quite a few horrific crashes along that stretch. I also remember before the Goldsboro Bypass was built, westbound US-70 traffic had to follow a one-lane ramp at the US-70/Grantham Street interchange in Goldsboro in order to continue on US-70 west and traffic used to back up that ramp onto the mainline during rush hour, sometimes backing up to near the William Street interchange, and once you get past that, you're greeted by about 4-5 traffic lights in rapid succession. For eastbound US-70 traffic coming up at that same interchange, you had to follow a tight, single-loop ramp to continue on US-70 east. I remember a lot of semis flipped on that ramp over the years.
I grew up in Fremont, which is right off of I-795 near the Wilson County line and used to go through there all the time. I lived in NC from 1995-2009 and lived in Wayne County most of the time. The last time I was in the area was 3 years ago. I've only been on US-70 east of Goldsboro a handful number of times during the time I lived there, last time being about 14-15 years ago. I don't remember too much from my trip on that part of US-70. I'm hoping to move back sometime this year if all goes well. It figures that all the action with I-42 happens after I moved away. At least I was around for I-795 when it came about during my last two years in high school. :evilgrin: :bigass:
I should have been more clear when I said I wasn't sure about the rest of the corridor-I was talking about the frequency of crashes.
I am intimately familiar with that one lane ramp going westbound, and coming back east bound that extremely tight, 15mph advisory speed ramp.
My brother and I affectionately call that tight radius turn Martinsville in honor of the race track (even though it's backwards turning to the right instead of left). It's not such a big deal now that I have a 2014 Mustang GT but back in my loser cruiser days that was quite a scary turn and immediate need to accelerate to keep from getting run over by a semi that's already at speed.
Actually things got a lot better west of Goldsboro once they opened the Clayton bypass. That slog between I-95 and I-40 was the worst having to go through Clayton, many times in stop and go traffic.
Quote from: slorydn1 on June 03, 2016, 07:06:42 PM
I should have been more clear when I said I wasn't sure about the rest of the corridor-I was talking about the frequency of crashes. Oops. Pardon my brainfart. :pan:
I am intimately familiar with that one lane ramp going westbound, and coming back east bound that extremely tight, 15mph advisory speed ramp.
My brother and I affectionately call that tight radius turn Martinsville in honor of the race track (even though it's backwards turning to the right instead of left). It's not such a big deal now that I have a 2014 Mustang GT but back in my loser cruiser days that was quite a scary turn and immediate need to accelerate to keep from getting run over by a semi that's already at speed. I hated driving an SUV (and a U-Haul at one point) through there. Good name for it! :spin:
Actually things got a lot better west of Goldsboro once they opened the Clayton bypass. That slog between I-95 and I-40 was the worst having to go through Clayton, many times in stop and go traffic. Yeah, my grandmother worked in Clayton before the bypass opened. The commute sucked. :ded:
Replied in bold.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 02, 2016, 06:33:33 AM
Dominion Blvd has had mile markers on it back to the VA 104 days which built upon US 17's mileage from the NC line...
Interestingly, the last study (2006) on an interstate corridor up US 17 and then the Eastern Shore did not use I-64 at all. It had the interstate head east on the Southeastern Parkway, then connected to I-264 near the Oceanfront to head west back to around VA 225 to head north to the CBBT.
Also, Maryland wants to use US 13 while Delaware wants to use US 113.
Maps are at the end of this document - http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf
That route through VA Beach is the most ridiculous interstate corridor proposal I've ever seen
Agreed. However, in that study, I guess the planners were considering a way to have a use for the Southeastern Parkway (which has been talked about for nearly 40 years, btw). The odd part, other than going around you butt to get to your elbow, is the use of VA 225 (Independence Blvd.) to get to US 13. This street was built up in the 1980's! How could any DOT build an interstate through there?
If I-87, or another numbered interstate, is built through the Hampton Roads area, it should be routed on I-64 from Exit 291 to US 13 at Exit 282. Upgrading US 13 from there to the CBBT would be an enormous undertaking. The only way I could see it done is to do what NYSDOT did with I-86 is Horseheads, NY. Build an elevated freeway with close proximity frontage roads and limited interchanges. There are two "interchanges", albeit substandard, along US 13 between I-64 and the CBBT. One is at VA 225 (Independence Blvd.) and the other is at US 60 (Shore Drive). I could see only one or two more built in that stretch for this to remotely work.
As an aside, I am warming to I-87. It sort of "fits" in tandem with I-85.
Quote from: amroad17 on June 07, 2016, 04:13:53 AM
Agreed. However, in that study, I guess the planners were considering a way to have a use for the Southeastern Parkway (which has been talked about for nearly 40 years, btw). The odd part, other than going around you butt to get to your elbow, is the use of VA 225 (Independence Blvd.) to get to US 13. This street was built up in the 1980's! How could any DOT build an interstate through there?
I guess this was the closest to ever getting Froggie's fictional VA 225 freeway (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/fictional/hamptonroads/va225/va225.htm) to be built. (Well, partially, note that this page was last updated years ago, I do not know if Froggie himself would make any changes to his fictional ideas from back then.)
Quote from: JacobNC on June 06, 2016, 07:06:28 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 02, 2016, 06:33:33 AM
Dominion Blvd has had mile markers on it back to the VA 104 days which built upon US 17's mileage from the NC line...
Interestingly, the last study (2006) on an interstate corridor up US 17 and then the Eastern Shore did not use I-64 at all. It had the interstate head east on the Southeastern Parkway, then connected to I-264 near the Oceanfront to head west back to around VA 225 to head north to the CBBT.
Also, Maryland wants to use US 13 while Delaware wants to use US 113.
Maps are at the end of this document - http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf
That route through VA Beach is the most ridiculous interstate corridor proposal I've ever seen
Yep. It looks like somebody hit a few bottles of Jack Daniels and drew an interstate. An interstate would never be built north of Norfolk anyway. I don't know about Maryland, but the Eastern Shore of VA would be up in arms with doomsday bunkers ready and screaming "apocalypse!" the moment the word "interstate" is mentioned,
especially Northampton County. Northampton is probably the only county I know of that could give NoVA counties a run for the money in NIMBY'ism, whether it's road-related or businesses. My dad and his people are from Northampton County and he always jokes that they oppose damn near everything except breathing.
QuoteWell, partially, note that this page was last updated years ago, I do not know if Froggie himself would make any changes to his fictional ideas from back then.
For the record, I would not advocate trying to build such today...Independence Blvd is simply too built up and there's a stretch where there are houses right along the roadway. My fantasy VA 225 freeway was intended as a "what-if" showing what COULD have happened if Virginia Beach had planned it as a freeway instead of as an arterial.
I know this is right out of left field, but when NCDOT sent their applications to AASHTO for these two corridors, I'm a bit puzzled as to why NCDOT didn't also send one to AASHTO to designate US-117 from Goldsboro to I-40 as "Future I-795". :hmm:
Quote from: LM117 on June 09, 2016, 11:12:34 AM
I know this is right out of left field, but when NCDOT sent their applications to AASHTO for these two corridors, I'm a bit puzzled as to why NCDOT didn't also send one to AASHTO to designate US-117 from Goldsboro to I-40 as "Future I-795". :hmm:
I was thinking they would just ask for an extension of 795 once it's built to interstate standards. Would they need to designate it as Future 795 first?
Quote from: mvak36 on June 09, 2016, 11:59:29 AM
Quote from: LM117 on June 09, 2016, 11:12:34 AM
I know this is right out of left field, but when NCDOT sent their applications to AASHTO for these two corridors, I'm a bit puzzled as to why NCDOT didn't also send one to AASHTO to designate US-117 from Goldsboro to I-40 as "Future I-795". :hmm:
I was thinking they would just ask for an extension of 795 once it's built to interstate standards. Would they need to designate it as Future 795 first?
No, they don't have to. NCDOT usually has a habit of getting Future I-signs for future interstate corridors so they can advertise to motorists that the route will be upgraded to an interstate and also let's locals get used to the number before it's signed and added to the Interstate system. It also allows towns and cities along a future interstate corridor to advertise to businesses that they will soon have access to an interstate in the hopes that a company or small business will locate in or near those towns since most companies won't locate near a city or town that either doesn't have an interstate or won't be along an interstate in the future. It's one of the biggest reasons the Global TransPark in Kinston has been a failure after all these years since it lacked interstate access and at the time the Global TransPark was built, there were no plans to designate US-70 as an interstate. I just figured that since they got Future I-42 and Future I-87 for US-70 and US-64/US-17, they would do the same for US-117 since it was also included in the same amendment as US-70 in the FAST Act.
Quote from: LM117 on June 09, 2016, 12:49:10 PM
No, they don't have to. NCDOT usually has a habit of getting Future I-signs for future interstate corridors so they can advertise to motorists that the route will be upgraded to an interstate and also let's locals get used to the number before it's signed and added to the Interstate system. It also allows towns and cities along a future interstate corridor to advertise to businesses that they will soon have access to an interstate in the hopes that a company or small business will locate in or near those towns since most companies won't locate near a city or town that either doesn't have an interstate or won't be along an interstate in the future. It's one of the biggest reasons the Global TransPark in Kinston has been a failure after all these years since it lacked interstate access and at the time the Global TransPark was built, there were no plans to designate US-70 as an interstate. I just figured that since they got Future I-42 and Future I-87 for US-70 and US-64/US-17, they would do the same for US-117 since it was also included in the same amendment as US-70 in the FAST Act.
Ok. I got ya. Maybe they will request it next time.
Is the C.F. Harvey Parkway around Kinston proposed to reconnect with US 70 and thus become part of 70 (and Interstate 42)?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 09, 2016, 04:41:51 PM
Is the C.F. Harvey Parkway around Kinston proposed to reconnect with US 70 and thus become part of 70 (and Interstate 42)?
http://www.google.com/search?q=kinston+bypass
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 09, 2016, 04:41:51 PM
Is the C.F. Harvey Parkway around Kinston proposed to reconnect with US 70 and thus become part of 70 (and Interstate 42)?
Not anymore. It was one of the northern alternatives for the bypass, but NCDOT eliminated all of the alternatives that ran north of the existing US-70. Kinston initially wanted the CF Harvey Parkway to be the alignment for the bypass since it runs right by the Global TransPark, but since the northern alternatives got the ax, only the southern alternatives remain.
Quote from: LM117 on June 09, 2016, 12:49:10 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on June 09, 2016, 11:59:29 AM
Quote from: LM117 on June 09, 2016, 11:12:34 AM
I know this is right out of left field, but when NCDOT sent their applications to AASHTO for these two corridors, I'm a bit puzzled as to why NCDOT didn't also send one to AASHTO to designate US-117 from Goldsboro to I-40 as "Future I-795". :hmm:
I was thinking they would just ask for an extension of 795 once it's built to interstate standards. Would they need to designate it as Future 795 first?
No, they don't have to. NCDOT usually has a habit of getting Future I-signs for future interstate corridors so they can advertise to motorists that the route will be upgraded to an interstate and also let's locals get used to the number before it's signed and added to the Interstate system. It also allows towns and cities along a future interstate corridor to advertise to businesses that they will soon have access to an interstate in the hopes that a company or small business will locate in or near those towns since most companies won't locate near a city or town that either doesn't have an interstate or won't be along an interstate in the future. It's one of the biggest reasons the Global TransPark in Kinston has been a failure after all these years since it lacked interstate access and at the time the Global TransPark was built, there were no plans to designate US-70 as an interstate. I just figured that since they got Future I-42 and Future I-87 for US-70 and US-64/US-17, they would do the same for US-117 since it was also included in the same amendment as US-70 in the FAST Act.
There could be another reason, perhaps they want to re-designate I-795 to another number. A review of NCDOT's potential projects for the next STIP (2018-2027) reveals a couple potential projects that would upgrade US 264 to an interstate east to Greenville, and also US 13/NC 11 between the US 264 Greenville Bypass north to US 64. If this is part of a plan to create a future I-x87 running from Wendell past Wilson east to Greenville then north back to I-87/US 64 east of Tarboro perhaps NCDOT would prefer a non-95 number for the Goldsboro freeway, instead of it running concurrently with the I-x87 route as it currently does with US 264 from I-95 until it splits off.
The list and preliminary scores for potention 2018-2027 projects is available at:
http://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html (http://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on June 09, 2016, 09:40:18 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 09, 2016, 12:49:10 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on June 09, 2016, 11:59:29 AM
Quote from: LM117 on June 09, 2016, 11:12:34 AM
I know this is right out of left field, but when NCDOT sent their applications to AASHTO for these two corridors, I'm a bit puzzled as to why NCDOT didn't also send one to AASHTO to designate US-117 from Goldsboro to I-40 as "Future I-795". :hmm:
I was thinking they would just ask for an extension of 795 once it's built to interstate standards. Would they need to designate it as Future 795 first?
No, they don't have to. NCDOT usually has a habit of getting Future I-signs for future interstate corridors so they can advertise to motorists that the route will be upgraded to an interstate and also let's locals get used to the number before it's signed and added to the Interstate system. It also allows towns and cities along a future interstate corridor to advertise to businesses that they will soon have access to an interstate in the hopes that a company or small business will locate in or near those towns since most companies won't locate near a city or town that either doesn't have an interstate or won't be along an interstate in the future. It's one of the biggest reasons the Global TransPark in Kinston has been a failure after all these years since it lacked interstate access and at the time the Global TransPark was built, there were no plans to designate US-70 as an interstate. I just figured that since they got Future I-42 and Future I-87 for US-70 and US-64/US-17, they would do the same for US-117 since it was also included in the same amendment as US-70 in the FAST Act.
There could be another reason, perhaps they want to re-designate I-795 to another number. A review of NCDOT's potential projects for the next STIP (2018-2027) reveals a couple potential projects that would upgrade US 264 to an interstate east to Greenville, and also US 13/NC 11 between the US 264 Greenville Bypass north to US 64. If this is part of a plan to create a future I-x87 running from Wendell past Wilson east to Greenville then north back to I-87/US 64 east of Tarboro perhaps NCDOT would prefer a non-95 number for the Goldsboro freeway, instead of it running concurrently with the I-x87 route as it currently does with US 264 from I-95 until it splits off.
The list and preliminary scores for potention 2018-2027 projects is available at:
http://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html (http://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html)
Well, that would be a plot twist! Greenville has been wanting US-264 upgraded to an interstate for a while now, so I'm sure they'll be happy. I'm not against Greenville having an interstate, but a single I-x87 designation from Zebulon to Bethel seems like a crooked routing. There's been a "Quad East" concept floating around since 2013 among the leaders of Greenville, Wilson, Kinston and Goldsboro to have all four cities connected by an interstate. If that's what NCDOT is doing, US-264 from Future I-87 in Zebulon to Stantonsburg Road on the west side of Greenville should be it's own I-x87 and NC-11 (along with the Greenville northwest bypass and future southwest bypass) from Future I-87 in Bethel to Future I-42 in Kinston should be a different I-x87, IMO. I-795 could remain where it is now along US-264/Future I-x87, like I-785 and I-840 in Greensboro.
Bob, honestly that's a stretch to say they'll renumber 795. Like 785 - they can have a brief multiplex with x87 from 95 to where 795 heads south. There's no games being played there.
LM117, do you have any links for the Quad East - I've never seen anything on it and would love to catch up on it.
Thanks!
Adam
Quote from: LM117 on June 09, 2016, 06:56:03 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 09, 2016, 04:41:51 PM
Is the C.F. Harvey Parkway around Kinston proposed to reconnect with US 70 and thus become part of 70 (and Interstate 42)?
Not anymore. It was one of the northern alternatives for the bypass, but NCDOT eliminated all of the alternatives that ran north of the existing US-70. Kinston initially wanted the CF Harvey Parkway to be the alignment for the bypass since it runs right by the Global TransPark, but since the northern alternatives got the ax, only the southern alternatives remain.
Wouldn't surprise me if, once I-42 exists around Kinston, that they convert C.F. Harvey Parkway as a spur of I-42.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on June 10, 2016, 08:07:27 AM
Bob, honestly that's a stretch to say they'll renumber 795. Like 785 - they can have a brief multiplex with x87 from 95 to where 795 heads south. There's no games being played there.
LM117, do you have any links for the Quad East - I've never seen anything on it and would love to catch up on it.
Thanks!
Adam
I agree. I don't think I-795 is going anywhere. All NCDOT documents refer to it as an extension of I-795.
Here's some articles about Quad East. This should bring you up to speed. The idea is still alive there. Now that Future I-87 is set in stone, I expect Greenville will want US-13 upgraded from the US-264 northwest bypass interchange to US-64/Future I-87 to add a connection to Hampton Roads into the mix. Happy reading!
http://publicradioeast.org/post/quadloop-proposed (http://publicradioeast.org/post/quadloop-proposed)
http://m.wcti12.com/news/leaders-meet-to-discuss-quadeast-highway-loop-project/22802226 (http://m.wcti12.com/news/leaders-meet-to-discuss-quadeast-highway-loop-project/22802226)
http://m.kinston.com/article/20140609/News/306099988 (http://m.kinston.com/article/20140609/News/306099988)
The Virginian Pilot finally picked up on the AASHTO approval of I-87. Aside from what's in the article title ($1B estimate), there's not much new, though a quote tied to a Raleigh business group's executive director suggests that the route number "is tied to four historic years". While the years he cites are valid, I find it dubious that it was a rationale behind the route number given that I-89 is the number originally requested by NCDOT.
New $1 billion, 213-mile interstate planned to connect Norfolk and Raleigh (http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-billion--mile-interstate-planned-to-connect-norfolk-and/article_b621ca2d-0824-5d08-9ca8-636230f8475b.html)
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 10, 2016, 09:34:39 AM
Quote from: LM117 on June 09, 2016, 06:56:03 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 09, 2016, 04:41:51 PM
Is the C.F. Harvey Parkway around Kinston proposed to reconnect with US 70 and thus become part of 70 (and Interstate 42)?
Not anymore. It was one of the northern alternatives for the bypass, but NCDOT eliminated all of the alternatives that ran north of the existing US-70. Kinston initially wanted the CF Harvey Parkway to be the alignment for the bypass since it runs right by the Global TransPark, but since the northern alternatives got the ax, only the southern alternatives remain.
Wouldn't surprise me if, once I-42 exists around Kinston, that they convert C.F. Harvey Parkway as a spur of I-42.
And that is the driving factor for I-42. Not the Port of Morehead City but the Global TransPark.
Quote from: froggie on June 10, 2016, 02:29:40 PM
The Virginian Pilot finally picked up on the AASHTO approval of I-87. Aside from what's in the article title ($1B estimate), there's not much new, though a quote tied to a Raleigh business group's executive director suggests that the route number "is tied to four historic years". While the years he cites are valid, I find it dubious that it was a rationale behind the route number given that I-89 is the number originally requested by NCDOT.
New $1 billion, 213-mile interstate planned to connect Norfolk and Raleigh (http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-billion--mile-interstate-planned-to-connect-norfolk-and/article_b621ca2d-0824-5d08-9ca8-636230f8475b.html)
Of course they were gonna put a positive spin on the number. You didn't think they were gonna announce that I-87 only came about because AASHTO canned I-89, did ya? :spin:
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 10, 2016, 09:34:39 AM
Quote from: LM117 on June 09, 2016, 06:56:03 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 09, 2016, 04:41:51 PM
Is the C.F. Harvey Parkway around Kinston proposed to reconnect with US 70 and thus become part of 70 (and Interstate 42)?
Not anymore. It was one of the northern alternatives for the bypass, but NCDOT eliminated all of the alternatives that ran north of the existing US-70. Kinston initially wanted the CF Harvey Parkway to be the alignment for the bypass since it runs right by the Global TransPark, but since the northern alternatives got the ax, only the southern alternatives remain.
Wouldn't surprise me if, once I-42 exists around Kinston, that they convert C.F. Harvey Parkway as a spur of I-42.
If the CF Harvey Parkway ever becomes part of a 3-di, I doubt a 3-di interstate would permanently end at the Global TransPark. It will likely go up to Greenville, if not Bethel, in which case an I-x87 would be a better number, IMO. As I've mentioned to CanesFan27, there's been a big push from Kinston and Greenville to have the CF Harvey Parkway and NC-11 upgraded to interstate standards and have an interstate connecting Kinston and Greenville as part of the Quad East loop. Greenville will probably want it to extend to US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel to connect it to Hampton Roads. Regardless of whether or not it's worth doing, you gotta admit, it's one hell of an idea they cooked up.
Quote from: LM117 on June 10, 2016, 04:15:02 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 10, 2016, 09:34:39 AM
Quote from: LM117 on June 09, 2016, 06:56:03 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 09, 2016, 04:41:51 PM
Is the C.F. Harvey Parkway around Kinston proposed to reconnect with US 70 and thus become part of 70 (and Interstate 42)?
Not anymore. It was one of the northern alternatives for the bypass, but NCDOT eliminated all of the alternatives that ran north of the existing US-70. Kinston initially wanted the CF Harvey Parkway to be the alignment for the bypass since it runs right by the Global TransPark, but since the northern alternatives got the ax, only the southern alternatives remain.
Wouldn't surprise me if, once I-42 exists around Kinston, that they convert C.F. Harvey Parkway as a spur of I-42.
If the CF Harvey Parkway ever becomes part of a 3-di, I doubt a 3-di interstate would permanently end at the Global TransPark. It will likely go up to Greenville, if not Bethel, in which case an I-x87 would be a better number, IMO. As I've mentioned to CanesFan27, there's been a big push from Kinston and Greenville to have the CF Harvey Parkway and NC-11 upgraded to interstate standards and have an interstate connecting Kinston and Greenville as part of the Quad East loop. Greenville will probably want it to extend to US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel to connect it to Hampton Roads. Regardless of whether or not it's worth doing, you gotta admit, it's one hell of an idea they cooked up.
Interstate designation for US 264, Zebulon to Greenville: very likely.
New interstate from Kinston to Bethel: don't hold your breath. The fact that projects are being scored doesn't mean they'll be in the new STIP.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on June 10, 2016, 04:42:47 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 10, 2016, 04:15:02 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 10, 2016, 09:34:39 AM
Quote from: LM117 on June 09, 2016, 06:56:03 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 09, 2016, 04:41:51 PM
Is the C.F. Harvey Parkway around Kinston proposed to reconnect with US 70 and thus become part of 70 (and Interstate 42)?
Not anymore. It was one of the northern alternatives for the bypass, but NCDOT eliminated all of the alternatives that ran north of the existing US-70. Kinston initially wanted the CF Harvey Parkway to be the alignment for the bypass since it runs right by the Global TransPark, but since the northern alternatives got the ax, only the southern alternatives remain.
Wouldn't surprise me if, once I-42 exists around Kinston, that they convert C.F. Harvey Parkway as a spur of I-42.
If the CF Harvey Parkway ever becomes part of a 3-di, I doubt a 3-di interstate would permanently end at the Global TransPark. It will likely go up to Greenville, if not Bethel, in which case an I-x87 would be a better number, IMO. As I've mentioned to CanesFan27, there's been a big push from Kinston and Greenville to have the CF Harvey Parkway and NC-11 upgraded to interstate standards and have an interstate connecting Kinston and Greenville as part of the Quad East loop. Greenville will probably want it to extend to US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel to connect it to Hampton Roads. Regardless of whether or not it's worth doing, you gotta admit, it's one hell of an idea they cooked up.
Interstate designation for US 264, Zebulon to Greenville: very likely.
New interstate from Kinston to Bethel: don't hold your breath. The fact that projects are being scored doesn't mean they'll be in the new STIP.
I know. I didn't say Kinston to Bethel is likely to be built. I'm just saying that's what Kinston and Greenville wants. I agree that an I-x87 from Zebulon to Greenville is very likely. The only thing keeping US-264 from being interstate standard that I know of from Zebulon to Greenville is the lack of 10 ft. outside shoulders. The inner shoulders are fine and the bridges already have 10 ft. shoulders. US-264 is already interstate standard from I-95 to the Wilson/Greene county line. There are signs along US-264 warning drivers of farm equipment using the highway, so those will have to come down if I-x87 is ever signed on it since farm equipment are forbidden from using interstate highways (unless Congressional law grandfathers it in like they did for I-555 in Arkansas and I don't see it happening for US-264). Greenville wants US-264 upgraded first anyway, above anything else. Greenville only supported the Quad East idea in the first place because it was the only way they could get the surrounding counties to support upgrading US-264. Kinston was the one that threw the Quad East monkeywrench into the works.
CF Harvey Parkway needs upgrades past the interchange with US 258 before being Interstate standards. I think they'll extend it to intersect NC 11 but not beyond that to Greenville. The current 4 lane NC 11 does a pretty good job of moving traffic between Kinston and Greenville. There's only one or two traffic lights before you hit Winterville.
The CF Harvey Parkway does have at-grade intersections east of the US 258 interchange. If they do extend the parkway to SR 11, it seems like it would be built the same way. How likely is it that the stretch east of 258 would receive a freeway conversion? I've never been anywhere near there, but my guess is that it would be unlikely to happen.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 24, 2016, 04:34:02 PM
The CF Harvey Parkway does have at-grade intersections east of the US 258 interchange. If they do extend the parkway to SR 11, it seems like it would be built the same way. How likely is it that the stretch east of 258 would receive a freeway conversion? I've never been anywhere near there, but my guess is that it would be unlikely to happen.
NCDOT is indeed extending the CF Harvey Parkway to NC-11. This extension will be a freeway.
https://ncdot.gov/projects/CFharveyPkwyExt/default.html (https://ncdot.gov/projects/CFharveyPkwyExt/default.html)
What about the portion between US 258 and NC 58? Will that segment remain as-is for the foreseeable future?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 24, 2016, 04:53:08 PM
What about the portion between US 258 and NC 58? Will that segment remain as-is for the foreseeable future?
As far as I know, yes. Kinston, however, wants the rest of the CF Harvey Parkway and NC-11 upgraded to interstate standards so an I-x42 or I-x87 can run from I-42 in Kinston to Greenville and possibly further to US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel as part of the Quad East interstate concept. But, there are no current plans by NCDOT for that to happen.
http://publicradioeast.org/post/quadloop-proposed#stream/0 (http://publicradioeast.org/post/quadloop-proposed#stream/0)
http://m.wcti12.com/news/leaders-meet-to-discuss-quadeast-highway-loop-project/22802226 (http://m.wcti12.com/news/leaders-meet-to-discuss-quadeast-highway-loop-project/22802226)
http://www.kinston.com/20140609/quad-east-interstate-loop-projects-on-priority-list/306099988 (http://www.kinston.com/20140609/quad-east-interstate-loop-projects-on-priority-list/306099988)
Quote from: LM117 on June 24, 2016, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 24, 2016, 04:53:08 PM
What about the portion between US 258 and NC 58? Will that segment remain as-is for the foreseeable future?
As far as I know, yes. Kinston, however, wants the rest of the CF Harvey Parkway and NC-11 upgraded to interstate standards so an I-x42 or I-x87 can run from I-42 in Kinston to Greenville and possibly further to US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel as part of the Quad East interstate concept. But, there are no current plans by NCDOT for that to happen.
http://publicradioeast.org/post/quadloop-proposed#stream/0 (http://publicradioeast.org/post/quadloop-proposed#stream/0)
http://m.wcti12.com/news/leaders-meet-to-discuss-quadeast-highway-loop-project/22802226 (http://m.wcti12.com/news/leaders-meet-to-discuss-quadeast-highway-loop-project/22802226)
http://www.kinston.com/20140609/quad-east-interstate-loop-projects-on-priority-list/306099988 (http://www.kinston.com/20140609/quad-east-interstate-loop-projects-on-priority-list/306099988)
SO i had the time to research and put some thought to this "Quad East" idea.
First, NC 11 tp the US 264 Greenville bypass won't as difficult to get to standards compared to Greenville to Kinston. The interchange with the 64 (I-87) freeway will need to be upgraded, the interchange with US 64 Alt on the Bethel Bypass as well. A number of at grades with Business NC 11, NC 30 will obviously need to become interchanges -and the remaining intersections will either be removed by an overpass, or removed. As you get to Greenville, the highway is going to need to divert to the south and west from the current alignment. This will be needed to avoid Welcome Middle School and the large Patheon (pharma) plant that is at the current US 264/NC11/US 13 interchange. This will most likely by the Pitt County Dump Service site on Briley Road.
South of Greenville towards Kinston there's a lot more farms, businesses and residences impacted. Obviously, the SW corner of the Greenville Bypass will be built on a new alignment (someday) but from that point to Kinston will be more involved and expensive than the segment to the North.
What I can see happening is some 3di offshoot of 87 or 95 going from Wilson - east to Greenville - along the Greenville bpyass - and north via NC 11 to 87 in Bethel. The Greenville to Kinston segment - it's own designation. Or Wilson to the Greenville Bypass as an interstate and Bethel to Kinston as it's own.
it will be a long way off - most likely 30 years minimum - the first priority is actually just completing the SW corner of the Greenville (more of a Winterville and Ayden) bypass. Any other upgrades from that point is not currently necessary.
I've always found it interesting that Kinston is the only significant sized city in the region that doesn't have any freeways at all. Goldsboro even received a second limited access bypass before Kinston got one. It's also looking like they will be the last to finally receive an upgraded bypass for the I-42 corridor.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on June 25, 2016, 10:45:05 AM
Quote from: LM117 on June 24, 2016, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 24, 2016, 04:53:08 PM
What about the portion between US 258 and NC 58? Will that segment remain as-is for the foreseeable future?
As far as I know, yes. Kinston, however, wants the rest of the CF Harvey Parkway and NC-11 upgraded to interstate standards so an I-x42 or I-x87 can run from I-42 in Kinston to Greenville and possibly further to US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel as part of the Quad East interstate concept. But, there are no current plans by NCDOT for that to happen.
http://publicradioeast.org/post/quadloop-proposed#stream/0 (http://publicradioeast.org/post/quadloop-proposed#stream/0)
http://m.wcti12.com/news/leaders-meet-to-discuss-quadeast-highway-loop-project/22802226 (http://m.wcti12.com/news/leaders-meet-to-discuss-quadeast-highway-loop-project/22802226)
http://www.kinston.com/20140609/quad-east-interstate-loop-projects-on-priority-list/306099988 (http://www.kinston.com/20140609/quad-east-interstate-loop-projects-on-priority-list/306099988)
Obviously, the SW corner of the Greenville Bypass will be built on a new alignment (someday) but from that point to Kinston will be more involved and expensive than the segment to the North.
Or Wilson to the Greenville Bypass as an interstate and Bethel to Kinston as it's own.
The Greenville SW Bypass is already under construction and will be signed as NC-11.
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Contract-awarded-to-build-new-Southwest-Greenville-Bypass-303093791.html
If Quad East comes to fruition, it will likely be two interstates, (probably two I-x87's). However, I don't think an interstate on US-264 would just run from Wilson to Greenville. It'll probably run from I-87 in Zebulon and end at Stantonsburg Road in Greenville. Greenville has been wanting US-264 upgraded all the way to Raleigh so they would have an interstate connection to the Triangle. At the risk of getting into fictional territory, if Quad East ever happens, an I-x87 from I-87 in Zebulon to Stantonsburg Road in Greenville and another I-x87 from I-87 near Bethel to I-42 in Kinston, using the CF Harvey Parkway to connect to I-42, would be the way to go, IMO. :hmm:
Quote from: Cemajr on June 25, 2016, 03:42:29 PM
I've always found it interesting that Kinston is the only significant sized city in the region that doesn't have any freeways at all. Goldsboro even received a second limited access bypass before Kinston got one. It's also looking like they will be the last to finally receive an upgraded bypass for the I-42 corridor.
I think they'll be the second to last to get their bypass done. Nothing has ever been mentioned or done about the Northern Carteret Bypass since a feasability study was done back in 2009 that I know of. The Northern Carteret Bypass doesn't even show up on NCDOT's US-70 Corridor improvements map anymore. I'm not sure what the plans for the bypass are now.
Kinston really isn't that big. It's a little smaller than Goldsboro. There are a few who wonder why money should be spent on infrastructure for the Global TransPark since it's been a failure since it's opening in 1991, but one of the biggest reasons it's been a failure was
because of the lack of infrastructure. It's the chicken/egg scenario. All it had to start with was a runway. It had no direct rail access and, until a few months ago, wasn't near a future interstate corridor. Hell, the CF Harvey Parkway didn't even connect to US-70 until fairly recently and it didn't get a railroad spur leading directly into the park until 2012, which connects to the railroad that goes to the Port of Morehead City.
And of course, there's been companies that refused to locate there because it lacked access to a nearby interstate. The cart was put before the horse. I think once I-42 is finished in it's entirety and the CF Harvey Parkway extends to NC-11, the Global TransPark will be more successful. It obviously won't be RTP, but I think it will finally start to take off over time. Extending the rail spur from the TransPark to connect to the railroad that leads through Greenville and extending that line northward from Parmele to the rail line in Kelford, which leads to the Port of Virginia in Norfolk, would also be a huge boost for the TransPark.
CSX is also wanting to build a large rail hub off of I-95 near Selma, but they've ran into hardcore NIMBY's in Johnston County. If CSX builds their hub off of I-95 near I-42 and the Global TransPark turns around, eastern NC will be in a lot better shape, economically.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/johnston-county/article54653390.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/johnston-county/article54653390.html)
The Port of Morehead City and the military bases were basically used as a means to an end to getting US-70 signed into law as a future interstate. The Global TransPark was a much bigger driving factor for getting US-70 upgraded. The military and the Port of Morehead City is a much more convincing sell than trying to convince Congress and FHWA that an interstate is needed for an industrial park that's been a failure for 20+ years. I know a few might consider the Quad East idea a waste (and they could be right), but the reasoning behind it certainly isn't, IMO.
It's not only existing nearby industrial/distribution facilities that are currently driving the deployment of new facilities such as I-42, it's the projected increase in large-scale seagoing cargo on the East Coast due to PANAMAX (the Panama Canal enhancement). East Coast ports are in the process of setting themselves up for potentially drastic increases in inbound cargo. Each of them sees two things necessary for this: (a) a rail line for moving large volume units, and (b) an Interstate route for LTL or multiple-destination egress. The established Southeast Seaboard ports of Savannah and Charleston have had these facilities for years; Wilmington completed theirs (I-40) 20+ years ago. Much $$ have been expended dredging channels for this anticipated cargo increase; improving highway access is simply part of the equation. NC ports in particular see themselves in a unique position to serve as cost-effective entryways for cargo intended for the Great Lakes region, considering the distance from port to destination -- and the possibility of using less-congested corridors (both rail & roadway) to effect that cargo movement. Morehead City/Beaufort is simply trying to get in on the action. The fact that CSX is considering a rail hub near Selma speaks volumes about their hopes for a Panamax-fueled business boost; their domestic & export coal shipments -- long their bread & butter -- have gone to hell in the last few years, and they, along with their competitor NS, are looking for anything to replace that lost business.
Whether Panamax pans out in the long haul is, of course, a matter of conjecture; folks on the Seaboard have certainly doubled down on it!