Fort Wayne, Indiana, boosters are once again talking up upgrading U.S. Route 30 to an interstate. It looks like they're talking a cue from the I-69 project, which involves, in part, the upgrading of SR 37 to interstate standards between Bloomington and Indianapolis.
QuoteTime to make U.S. 30 into a genuine freeway
Leigh E. Morris
U.S. Highway 30 is a key 155-mile traffic artery that runs between the Illinois and Ohio state lines. For most of its length, it is classified as a limited-access highway, which means that at-grade intersections or driveway cuts are not allowed unless a permit is issued.
However, through the years, many permits have been issued so that today, it should probably be considered limited-access in name only. Along with the proliferation of access permits issued, there has been growth in the number of traffic signals at intersections — 40 of them between Interstates 65 and 69 alone.
All of this has impeded traffic flow and contributed to the number of accidents as vehicles enter and leave the highway.
A U.S. 30 Coalition has been formed to advocate that the roadway become a freeway between I-69 near Fort Wayne and Indiana 49 at Valparaiso. If that goal is achieved, there would be no direct access from driveways and no at-grade crossings. Overpasses and frontage roads would help provide the local access that residents, businesses and farmers need. ...
http://www.journalgazette.net/opinion/columns/20170817/time-to-make-us-30-into-a-genuine-freeway
I think it's a great idea, and it should be from 65 to 69 upgraded.
It would be nice is most of the signals were replaced with interchanges (between SR-49 and I-69), and there was a bypass of Warsaw.
Does US 30 in Indiana really need to be an Interstate. I think it is as likely to become an Interstate as US 31 from Indianapolis to South Bend is to become an Interstate. As in, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2017, 03:17:00 PM
Does US 30 in Indiana really need to be an Interstate. I think it is as likely to become an Interstate as US 31 from Indianapolis to South Bend is to become an Interstate. As in, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
I think what you most likely end up seeing on US-30 between I-69 and SR-49 is the upgrade of major intersections of interchanges, and converting segments to freeway that pass through Columbia City, Warsaw and Plymouth, while keeping at-grade intersections in place at less-traveled cross roads. While not a true freeway for the entire length, it would at least eliminate all of the traffic lights and make US-30 a non-stop route between Fort Wayne and Valparaiso.
Maybe IL should Piggy-back on this, and from where this US 30 Freeway would terminate, keep the Freeway going West into IL on something we've heard called the "Illiana Expressway"
I wonder if having a US 30 Freeway would change predicted Traffic Counts on a future Illiana? Make it more attractive for tolling maybe?
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 22, 2017, 04:27:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2017, 03:17:00 PM
Does US 30 in Indiana really need to be an Interstate. I think it is as likely to become an Interstate as US 31 from Indianapolis to South Bend is to become an Interstate. As in, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
I think what you most likely end up seeing on US-30 between I-69 and SR-49 is the upgrade of major intersections of interchanges, and converting segments to freeway that pass through Columbia City, Warsaw and Plymouth, while keeping at-grade intersections in place at less-traveled cross roads. While not a true freeway for the entire length, it would at least eliminate all of the traffic lights and make US-30 a non-stop route between Fort Wayne and Valparaiso.
I'm on board with this, though I'd be even more on board with this if the original poster knew that US 30 is in Northern Indiana and not Southern Indiana.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 22, 2017, 08:33:03 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 22, 2017, 04:27:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2017, 03:17:00 PM
Does US 30 in Indiana really need to be an Interstate. I think it is as likely to become an Interstate as US 31 from Indianapolis to South Bend is to become an Interstate. As in, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
I think what you most likely end up seeing on US-30 between I-69 and SR-49 is the upgrade of major intersections of interchanges, and converting segments to freeway that pass through Columbia City, Warsaw and Plymouth, while keeping at-grade intersections in place at less-traveled cross roads. While not a true freeway for the entire length, it would at least eliminate all of the traffic lights and make US-30 a non-stop route between Fort Wayne and Valparaiso.
I'm on board with this, though I'd be even more on board with this if the original poster knew that US 30 is in Northern Indiana and not Southern Indiana.
If there's enough political will emanating from the region -- and expressed continually and vocally -- then it's possible that both US 30 and 31 will see enhancement on a large scale (whether as an Interstate or not). Regarding 30: if some sort of cooperation can be achieved with Ohio regarding coordination of upgrade efforts, then such a project -- or series of projects -- might gain some traction. Of course, there will be blowback from the ITR operators (possibly of the litigious variety!) fearful of long-distance shunpiking!
This subject has been discussed at length in the Great Lakes board (where the discussion belongs, since the route is in northern Indiana). It's in the Indiana Notes thread, starting with my post here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7946.msg2238885#msg2238885 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7946.msg2238885#msg2238885). Enjoy!
this thread should be in the great lakes thread
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 22, 2017, 05:36:17 PM
Maybe IL should Piggy-back on this, and from where this US 30 Freeway would terminate, keep the Freeway going West into IL on something we've heard called the "Illiana Expressway"
I wonder if having a US 30 Freeway would change predicted Traffic Counts on a future Illiana? Make it more attractive for tolling maybe?
Hahaha I was going to say the exact same thing.
Also the interchange at US30 and IN-49 needs a re-work. I'd include that with this initiative.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 24, 2017, 12:48:54 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 22, 2017, 05:36:17 PM
Maybe IL should Piggy-back on this, and from where this US 30 Freeway would terminate, keep the Freeway going West into IL on something we've heard called the "Illiana Expressway"
I wonder if having a US 30 Freeway would change predicted Traffic Counts on a future Illiana? Make it more attractive for tolling maybe?
Hahaha I was going to say the exact same thing.
Also the interchange at US30 and IN-49 needs a re-work. I'd include that with this initiative.
not a major one, unless you're going for interstate standards. this is fictional, but maybe they can throw i-80 onto it, they could upgrade it from i-355 and 80 interchange, have 80 go onto 30 from there, and have it jump back onto it's old alignment using i-71 and 76. make up some number for any orphaned routes.
The only number here that might work would be a western "I-78". Probably better to improve it as an expressway with some reductions of the number of stoplights with either frontage roads and or select interchange construction at key intersections. US 30 east of Ft. Wayne could hypothetically be an extension of I-72. Or an eastern orphan of it.
Still think that if you could get Ohio on board, you could just twin I-76 with I-71 from near Akron to Mansfield, and then split off and put I-76 on US 30 (which is mainly freeway through Ohio), and then improve the non-freeway portions to Fort Wayne, bypass the city on I-469 and I-69, and then take back up with US30 and spend a boatload of money to get it freeway updated to the Valparaiso area (or further). It would immediately have traffic once done, from trucks that would go from the Ohio and Indiana Toll Roads to the new interstate. Although I don't think that that would be the idea for the improvement.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on September 12, 2017, 11:59:33 AM
Still think that if you could get Ohio on board, you could just twin I-76 with I-71 from near Akron to Mansfield, and then split off and put I-76 on US 30 (which is mainly freeway through Ohio), and then improve the non-freeway portions to Fort Wayne, bypass the city on I-469 and I-69, and then take back up with US30 and spend a boatload of money to get it freeway updated to the Valparaiso area (or further). It would immediately have traffic once done, from trucks that would go from the Ohio and Indiana Toll Roads to the new interstate. Although I don't think that that would be the idea for the improvement.
Why not just keep I-76 on the OH Turnpike up to I-90, and keep I-80 on the Free Interstate following the current I-76 to I-71 and break off in Mansfield, following US 30?
If IN gets US 30 upgraded in Indiana and Illinois finds a way to get the Illiana built, there could be 2 continuous Freeways between I-80 in IL and the current I-80/I-76 junction at the OH Turnpike
I'd sign it I-80, if such a thing happens. Also, if I were OH, IN, and IL, I'd toll it (if in line to get an Interstate designation), especially since it will compete with the OH Turnpike, IN Toll Road, and the Tri-State.
I guess the downsides would be having to renumber I-480 and I-280, but those could be renumbered it I-476 and I-290, respectively
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 12, 2017, 03:27:45 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on September 12, 2017, 11:59:33 AM
Still think that if you could get Ohio on board, you could just twin I-76 with I-71 from near Akron to Mansfield, and then split off and put I-76 on US 30 (which is mainly freeway through Ohio), and then improve the non-freeway portions to Fort Wayne, bypass the city on I-469 and I-69, and then take back up with US30 and spend a boatload of money to get it freeway updated to the Valparaiso area (or further). It would immediately have traffic once done, from trucks that would go from the Ohio and Indiana Toll Roads to the new interstate. Although I don't think that that would be the idea for the improvement.
Why not just keep I-76 on the OH Turnpike up to I-90, and keep I-80 on the Free Interstate following the current I-76 to I-71 and break off in Mansfield, following US 30?
If IN gets US 30 upgraded in Indiana and Illinois finds a way to get the Illiana built, there could be 2 continuous Freeways between I-80 in IL and the current I-80/I-76 junction at the OH Turnpike
I'd sign it I-80, if such a thing happens. Also, if I were OH, IN, and IL, I'd toll it (if in line to get an Interstate designation), especially since it will compete with the OH Turnpike, IN Toll Road, and the Tri-State.
I guess the downsides would be having to renumber I-480 and I-280, but those could be renumbered it I-476 and I-290, respectively
If either I-76 or I-80 is ever extended over US 30 west of I-71, it might be appropriate to upgrade the two trumpet-type TOTSO's in the Akron area. They might function adequately for use with the local Akron connector that the west end of I-76 is today, but as part of a long-distance corridor, not so much! Directional or semi-directional interchanges with multiple through traffic lanes on relatively high-speed turns would be more fitting that the present arrangement.
Quote from: sparker on September 12, 2017, 04:06:21 PM
If either I-76 or I-80 is ever extended over US 30 west of I-71, it might be appropriate to upgrade the two trumpet-type TOTSO's in the Akron area. They might function adequately for use with the local Akron connector that the west end of I-76 is today, but as part of a long-distance corridor, not so much! Directional or semi-directional interchanges with multiple through traffic lanes on relatively high-speed turns would be more fitting that the present arrangement.
Counterpoint:
Present I-80 traveling between the Indiana Toll Road and the Borman Expressway. Can't get a much lower speed connection there (well, there is always Breezewood...), especially for a major trucking corridor
That should have been upgraded years ago, yet here we are...
Quote from: sparker on August 23, 2017, 12:09:12 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 22, 2017, 08:33:03 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 22, 2017, 04:27:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2017, 03:17:00 PM
Does US 30 in Indiana really need to be an Interstate. I think it is as likely to become an Interstate as US 31 from Indianapolis to South Bend is to become an Interstate. As in, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
I think what you most likely end up seeing on US-30 between I-69 and SR-49 is the upgrade of major intersections of interchanges, and converting segments to freeway that pass through Columbia City, Warsaw and Plymouth, while keeping at-grade intersections in place at less-traveled cross roads. While not a true freeway for the entire length, it would at least eliminate all of the traffic lights and make US-30 a non-stop route between Fort Wayne and Valparaiso.
I'm on board with this, though I'd be even more on board with this if the original poster knew that US 30 is in Northern Indiana and not Southern Indiana.
If there's enough political will emanating from the region -- and expressed continually and vocally -- then it's possible that both US 30 and 31 will see enhancement on a large scale (whether as an Interstate or not). Regarding 30: if some sort of cooperation can be achieved with Ohio regarding coordination of upgrade efforts, then such a project -- or series of projects -- might gain some traction. Of course, there will be blowback from the ITR operators (possibly of the litigious variety!) fearful of long-distance shunpiking!
Particularly so with US-24 upgraded to a 4-lane facility between Fort Wayne and Toledo. Upgrading US-30 between Fort Wayne and Valparaiso, and linking with the US-24 Fort-to-Port route would certainly make shunpiking a lot easier. The ITRCC in Indiana and the Ohio Turnpike Commission in Ohio would likely fight the completion of a toll-free nonstop route between Toledo and Valparaiso.
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 20, 2017, 11:57:28 PM
Particularly so with US-24 upgraded to a 4-lane facility between Fort Wayne and Toledo. Upgrading US-30 between Fort Wayne and Valparaiso, and linking with the US-24 Fort-to-Port route would certainly make shunpiking a lot easier. The ITRCC in Indiana and the Ohio Turnpike Commission in Ohio would likely fight the completion of a toll-free nonstop route between Toledo and Valparaiso.
The OTC would almost certainly weigh in negatively on any prospects of turning us 30 from Fort Wayne to I-71 into a full limited-access facility (although it's pretty close right now). The ITRCC probably wouldn't really care about anything east of Fort Wayne; they
would, however, concentrate their concern on the Valparaiso-I-69 segment, since (a) that would be in competition with their facility and (b) the US 24 upgrades east of the Fort are a
fait accompli -- and there's little agencies in either state can do to limit its usage -- and its primary effect is on the Ohio Turnpike, with only a few miles of ITR affected.
Quote from: sparker on October 21, 2017, 01:53:22 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 20, 2017, 11:57:28 PM
Particularly so with US-24 upgraded to a 4-lane facility between Fort Wayne and Toledo. Upgrading US-30 between Fort Wayne and Valparaiso, and linking with the US-24 Fort-to-Port route would certainly make shunpiking a lot easier. The ITRCC in Indiana and the Ohio Turnpike Commission in Ohio would likely fight the completion of a toll-free nonstop route between Toledo and Valparaiso.
The OTC would almost certainly weigh in negatively on any prospects of turning us 30 from Fort Wayne to I-71 into a full limited-access facility (although it's pretty close right now). The ITRCC probably wouldn't really care about anything east of Fort Wayne; they would, however, concentrate their concern on the Valparaiso-I-69 segment, since (a) that would be in competition with their facility and (b) the US 24 upgrades east of the Fort are a fait accompli -- and there's little agencies in either state can do to limit its usage -- and its primary effect is on the Ohio Turnpike, with only a few miles of ITR affected.
I think they might be wasting their time if they complain. It's mostly freeway or pretty damn close already. If someone is going from Fort Wayne to Akron, they're not going to take the turnpike. US 30 is a shorter distance and it's faster. I wouldn't mind 76 being extended west to Ft. Wayne.
I have driven US30 from the IL/IN line all the way to Ohio.
I agree that too many exceptions for traffic lights have been made and would be enhanced by upgrading the route to limited access at a minimum.
They can start when the route between Ft Wayne and Logansport is finally done.
While getting an I number assigned would be great, I dont care as long as the travel times improve.
Isn't there some clause from when they gave responsibility of the Toll Road to private operators that they can't build a competing facility to the Toll Road?
Quote from: sparker on October 21, 2017, 01:53:22 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 20, 2017, 11:57:28 PM
Particularly so with US-24 upgraded to a 4-lane facility between Fort Wayne and Toledo. Upgrading US-30 between Fort Wayne and Valparaiso, and linking with the US-24 Fort-to-Port route would certainly make shunpiking a lot easier. The ITRCC in Indiana and the Ohio Turnpike Commission in Ohio would likely fight the completion of a toll-free nonstop route between Toledo and Valparaiso.
The OTC would almost certainly weigh in negatively on any prospects of turning us 30 from Fort Wayne to I-71 into a full limited-access facility (although it's pretty close right now). The ITRCC probably wouldn't really care about anything east of Fort Wayne; they would, however, concentrate their concern on the Valparaiso-I-69 segment, since (a) that would be in competition with their facility and (b) the US 24 upgrades east of the Fort are a fait accompli -- and there's little agencies in either state can do to limit its usage -- and its primary effect is on the Ohio Turnpike, with only a few miles of ITR affected.
The Ohio Turnpike generally sees a lot of cross country traffic, as well as that going to/from Michigan from the east. US-30 is pretty much all freeway already in Ohio, and is too far south to be in competition. Plus, the Turnpike is six lanes from Youngstown to Toledo due to the traffic load.
The Indiana Toll Road, on the other land, could be very negatively affected by a much upgraded US-30 when combined with Fort-to-Port (US-24). The Toll Road is only four lanes, and it is in rough shape currently.
Quote from: mvak36 on October 22, 2017, 02:28:55 PM
Isn't there some clause from when they gave responsibility of the Toll Road to private operators that they can't build a competing facility to the Toll Road?
Yes, but that seems to affect US-20 more than US-30, IIRC.
Quote from: mvak36 on October 22, 2017, 02:28:55 PM
Isn't there some clause from when they gave responsibility of the Toll Road to private operators that they can't build a competing facility to the Toll Road?
Within a certain number of miles of the Toll Road. US 30 is far enough to not be constrained.
If US-30 is upgraded to a freeway it should keep its US Highway designation. No need to slap an interstate shield on it.
Quote from: NE2 on October 22, 2017, 05:02:00 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on October 22, 2017, 02:28:55 PM
Isn't there some clause from when they gave responsibility of the Toll Road to private operators that they can't build a competing facility to the Toll Road?
Within a certain number of miles of the Toll Road. US 30 is far enough to not be constrained.
I don't remember the exact distance. Very unlikely to affect US 30 east of US 31, but west of US 31 it's a lot closer to the TR, it might come into play there.
It may use some upgrades but not fully controlled access. If they did upgrade to full interstate standards they could name it I-80S.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 22, 2017, 01:10:09 PM
It may use some upgrades but not fully controlled access. If they did upgrade to full interstate standards they could name it I-80S.
Doubt any suffixed number would fly outside Texas; a 76 extension would be the most likely speculative designation. But unless the ITR shows marked deterioration, it's unlikely that a massive project such as an Interstate-grade upgrade of US 30 would be considered in the near term, as INDOT has quite a bit on its plate right now with I-69 and the sporadic improvement of US 31.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 22, 2017, 01:10:09 PM
It may use some upgrades but not fully controlled access. If they did upgrade to full interstate standards they could name it I-80S.
Doesn't even need the "S" hook -- just name it I-80 and end the duplex on the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike of 80/90
For that to work, it needs to connect to the US 30 Freeway in Ohio, and Illinois needs to build the Illiana and connect that to US 30 Freeway in Indiana
Quote from: ilpt4u on November 22, 2017, 05:21:40 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 22, 2017, 01:10:09 PM
It may use some upgrades but not fully controlled access. If they did upgrade to full interstate standards they could name it I-80S.
Doesn't even need the "S" hook -- just name it I-80 and end the duplex on the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike of 80/90
For that to work, it needs to connect to the US 30 Freeway in Ohio, and Illinois needs to build the Illiana and connect that to US 30 Freeway in Indiana
Or I-80 could follow US-24 (which is already at or close to interstate standards) from I-469 east of New Haven, Indiana and rejoin the Ohio Turnpike in Toledo.
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 05, 2018, 10:59:34 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on November 22, 2017, 05:21:40 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 22, 2017, 01:10:09 PM
It may use some upgrades but not fully controlled access. If they did upgrade to full interstate standards they could name it I-80S.
Doesn't even need the "S" hook -- just name it I-80 and end the duplex on the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike of 80/90
For that to work, it needs to connect to the US 30 Freeway in Ohio, and Illinois needs to build the Illiana and connect that to US 30 Freeway in Indiana
Or I-80 could follow US-24 (which is already at or close to interstate standards) from I-469 east of New Haven, Indiana and rejoin the Ohio Turnpike in Toledo.
A configuration like that -- Chicago to Fort Wayne and Fort Wayne to Toledo -- would be pointless except to serve as a "shunpiking" option (or just something to serve Fort Wayne itself), or just a way to eliminate a long Interstate multiplex (at this point, is that really bothering anyone?). Wouldn't save mileage between the endpoints (quite the opposite); and would require considerable new-terrain construction to get it around the NWI metro area. IMHO, if US 30 is ever
really considered for a new E-W Interstate, the upgrades should extend at least to I-71 in Ohio to provide a full regional alternative; besides, there's more usable facility (or at least ROW) in Ohio than in Indiana. As the saying goes: if you're going to do it, do it right!
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 05, 2018, 10:59:34 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on November 22, 2017, 05:21:40 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 22, 2017, 01:10:09 PM
It may use some upgrades but not fully controlled access. If they did upgrade to full interstate standards they could name it I-80S.
Doesn't even need the "S" hook -- just name it I-80 and end the duplex on the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike of 80/90
For that to work, it needs to connect to the US 30 Freeway in Ohio, and Illinois needs to build the Illiana and connect that to US 30 Freeway in Indiana
Or I-80 could follow US-24 (which is already at or close to interstate standards) from I-469 east of New Haven, Indiana and rejoin the Ohio Turnpike in Toledo.
Or.....you could just keep I-76 on the toll road ending at I-90 in Cleveland, and route I-80 on what is now non-toll I-76 in Ohio and then multiplex I-80 with I-71 down to Mansfield, and then over the rest of the way on US-30's route. You would have to have new terrain in NW Indiana perhaps south of Merrillville and could potentially hook into what is IL-394 (Bishop Ford Memorial Freeway), which would mean only a few miles of new terrain in Illinois, and then back on I-80's current route in Illinois. I would say it's not going to happen since there is too much money on the line for the Ohio and Indiana toll roads to allow a nearby shunpike route.
This discussion went way over to the fictional side, but a new article brings us back closer to reality: http://timesuniononline.com/Content/Top-Stories-Click-for-more-top-stories/Top-Stories/Article/Panel-Outlines-Reasons-For-New-U-S-30-Freeway/82/353/113047
Momentum is starting to build, especially in the Warsaw area, to upgrade to a freeway.
QuoteOfficials said they have not embraced any specific path and hope to have a meeting this fall to unveil preliminary options that could take the highway along its current footprint or either go around Warsaw to the north or south.
The proposal is not yet an official project taken in by the Indiana Department of Transportation, but concerns for the highway were first established by a blue ribbon panel during former Gov. Mike Pence's administration and is now viewed as the next major new highway project in Indiana, [Dennis] Faulkenberg said.
Faulkenberg is a consultant working with the U.S. 30 coalition. He was formerly executive director of the U.S. 31 coalition which got some pretty good results there.
QuoteOfficials said they have not embraced any specific path and hope to have a meeting this fall to unveil preliminary options that could take the highway along its current footprint or either go around Warsaw to the north or south.
What would the status of this be vis-a-vie the 'no compete' clause in the Toll Road's sale contract?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on May 25, 2018, 08:01:07 PM
What would the status of this be vis-a-vie the 'no compete' clause in the Toll Road's sale contract?
It's far enough away.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2017, 03:17:00 PM
Does US 30 in Indiana really need to be an Interstate. I think it is as likely to become an Interstate as US 31 from Indianapolis to South Bend is to become an Interstate. As in, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
Advice from North Carolina: plan for a freeway all the way, even if you're only going to build a few freeway sections in the next 8-10 years. (People think NC has been rapidly building interstates all over the place, but actually the development of the I-73 freeway has taken about 40 years.) If you have a freeway plan in print, it guides future decisions as traffic increases.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 30, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2017, 03:17:00 PM
Does US 30 in Indiana really need to be an Interstate. I think it is as likely to become an Interstate as US 31 from Indianapolis to South Bend is to become an Interstate. As in, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
Advice from North Carolina: plan for a freeway all the way, even if you're only going to build a few freeway sections in the next 8-10 years. (People think NC has been rapidly building interstates all over the place, but actually the development of the I-73 freeway has taken about 40 years.) If you have a freeway plan in print, it guides future decisions as traffic increases.
What's interesting about NC is that, like CA, there's (at least presently) a relatively longstanding state "master plan" regarding corridor upgrades on a statewide basis, including the N-S US 17 and NC 11 corridors, and E-W along US 74, NC 87, etc. -- and these predate the 1995 NHS federal legislation that brought about I-73/74 among others. In other words, NC's freeway plans were in place prior to the new-Interstate-via-new-HPC routine; adding the later I-designations simply "dovetailed" into their previously-promulgated plans, no doubt aided by the revenue derived from the state's relatively high gas tax rate. The difference between the CA and NC approaches is that in the 59 years since the first CA "master plan" was devised, many of the original planned corridors have been eliminated or truncated because of policy changes at the top or via local opposition, while most NC equivalents remain intact -- although never completely certain due to many of the same in-state considerations, including funding prioritization. Also, the present generation of Caltrans execs couldn't give a shit about new Interstates; with their parvenu now including subsidization of local transit, they certainly have a lot more -- if not bigger -- "fish to fry".
I-67 and I-76 in IN, how cool would that be? And they'd intersect at Plymouth to boot! (Of course, it's the current crossroads of US 30 and US 31, but I'm thinking way into the future.)