I-777 proposed for Triad. From I-40 in Winston-Salem through Yadkinville.
https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2024/04/08/future-insterstate-777-nc-carolina-core-forstyh.html
Interstate 777? I would prefer the Interstate 340 designation to be applied, assuming that portion of the US 421 corridor needs an Interstate designation.
This article on I-777 is not behind a paywall. (https://myfox8.com/news/north-carolina/winston-salem/road-from-wilkesboro-to-i-40-in-winston-salem-could-become-i-777/)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 08, 2024, 03:19:44 PMInterstate 777? I would prefer the Interstate 340 designation to be applied, assuming that portion of the US 421 corridor needs an Interstate designation.
Likely response from NCDOT: "Not again!" The agency already has maybe 200+ miles of interstate upgrades to do on interstates 42, 73, 74, 87, 587, 685, and 785.
Quote from: AlmaPinnix on April 08, 2024, 02:46:05 PMI-777 proposed for Triad. From I-40 in Winston-Salem through Yadkinville.
https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2024/04/08/future-insterstate-777-nc-carolina-core-forstyh.html
I thought this was going to be a late April Fools Day joke. So surprised it's legitimate...
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 08, 2024, 07:14:20 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on April 08, 2024, 03:19:44 PMInterstate 777? I would prefer the Interstate 340 designation to be applied, assuming that portion of the US 421 corridor needs an Interstate designation.
Likely response from NCDOT: "Not again!" The agency already has maybe 200+ miles of interstate upgrades to do on interstates 42, 73, 74, 87, 587, 685, and 785.
plus the cloverleaf at 77 is way under standard.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 08, 2024, 07:14:20 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on April 08, 2024, 03:19:44 PMInterstate 777? I would prefer the Interstate 340 designation to be applied, assuming that portion of the US 421 corridor needs an Interstate designation.
Likely response from NCDOT: "Not again!" The agency already has maybe 200+ miles of interstate upgrades to do on interstates 42, 73, 74, 87, 587, 685, and 785.
My head can't wrap around this decision... :pan:
Surely, SOMEBODY had to have "Another North Carolina Interstate" on their bingo card this week...
Lol oh lord.. now Texas and North Carolina is competing to see how many new interstates both states are going to build... SMH.
NC NEEDS to finish I-73, I-74, I-42, I-87, I-587 and I-685 BEFORE they ever think about adding more interstates... how embarrassing for my state.
"Carolina Core officials are actively seeking Congressional support to move forward with the project."
Oh, so they're bribing politicians. Got it.
Basically Winston Salem and Wilkesboro were left out of the US-421 upgrade into I-685, so they are trying to garner support to get it upgraded to I-777 instead, I think its a pipedream and will probably not happen for another 25+ years. There just is no need to upgrade that stretch of highway at the moment. At least with I-685 there is a big need with Toyota and other factors such as another hurricane evacuation route, etc.
The current US 421 corridor from Winston-Salem to Wilkesboro has all interchanges and no at-grade intersections. Upgrading this stretch would cost much less than I-42 or I-74 but right now any money to upgrade highways in NC should be used on the Charlotte to Wilmington or Raleigh to Morehead City corridors.
Quote from: RoadPelican on April 09, 2024, 05:39:41 PMThe current US 421 corridor from Winston-Salem to Wilkesboro has all interchanges and no at-grade intersections. Upgrading this stretch would cost much less than I-42 or I-74 but right now any money to upgrade highways in NC should be used on the Charlotte to Wilmington or Raleigh to Morehead City corridors.
Several bridges would need to be replaced / widened and interchanges reconfigured to meet modern standards... the route meets freeway standards but not interstate standards. Many portions are old. Additionally, the entire route would need the paved shoulders widened.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 08, 2024, 07:09:10 PMThis article on I-777 is not behind a paywall. (https://myfox8.com/news/north-carolina/winston-salem/road-from-wilkesboro-to-i-40-in-winston-salem-could-become-i-777/)
Oh lawd...
Quote from: Alex on April 08, 2024, 07:15:52 PMQuote from: AlmaPinnix on April 08, 2024, 02:46:05 PMI-777 proposed for Triad. From I-40 in Winston-Salem through Yadkinville.
https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2024/04/08/future-insterstate-777-nc-carolina-core-forstyh.html
I thought this was going to be a late April Fools Day joke. So surprised it's legitimate...
North Carolina makes me wish FHWA had the authority to revoke or refuse interstate designations even if they are mandated by Congress. If any congressman can write a highway number into law, then what happens when they are all used up for pet projects (well, just look at the 69s). It's bad enough when they mandate that a new interstate has to zig-zag to serve every town rather than a direct regional connection, like what I saw with the proposed I-14 routing in Texas.
777 is the 3-digit number that takes the longest to say. Will this be an issue?
That said, I don't really have an issue with this corridor getting a number. Unlike some others, it's already a freeway.
Quote from: hotdogPi on April 11, 2024, 11:06:28 AM777 is the 3-digit number that takes the longest to say. Will this be an issue?
That said, I don't really have an issue with this corridor getting a number. Unlike some others, it's already a freeway.
Freeway, but not up to interstate standards. It will require hundreds of millions of dollars of upgrades.
Just because it's "already a freeway" doesn't make it more worthy of being designated an interstate. It doesn't connect to anything significant. It's comparable to I-587 in a sense, but at least I-587 connects to a city of over 100,000 population - it makes logical sense to designate that route. I-87, in a way, connects Hampton Roads to Raleigh in the bigger picture. I-73 connects Roanoke to Myrtle Beach in the ultimate build. I-685 provides a needed bypass / connector route around Raleigh / Durham for I-40 traffic and also connects Greensboro to Fayetteville (sort of). I-42 connects Raleigh to the Crystal Coast, connecting areas of over 100,000 population and a major corridor during peak season.
This proposed route connects Winston-Salem to... nothing. Wilksboro, a bustling metropolis with... 3,000 population? Yadkinville, the next booming town of over 2,000 population? There's no ultimate destination on either end of the proposed corridor. This might be the most "pork" of any interstate highway proposal in North Carolina history.
The area is very fortunate to even have a limited access / interstate quality route connecting through to begin with, nothing more is needed. The route carries 18,000 - 20,000 AADT and will function adequately as a four lane freeway for the long term future. As older bridges age, some replacements might be warranted but beyond maintenance / routine upgrades, no large scale, interstate specific targeted upgrades are necessary.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 11, 2024, 01:49:55 PMThis proposed route connects Winston-Salem to... nothing. Wilksboro, a bustling metropolis with... 3,000 population? Yadkinville, the next booming town of over 2,000 population? There's no ultimate destination on either end of the proposed corridor. This might be the most "pork" of any interstate highway proposal in North Carolina history.
Hey, North Wilkesboro is once again an active NASCAR track! (Though the track access from the existing, not-yet-an-interstate US 421 freeway is lacking - an issue that came up when the raceway restarted full operations in 2022-2023)
Funny enough, it hits me that two of the once-endangered older NASCAR tracks that were seen as "isolated" for years compared to a Charlotte or Daytona - North Wilkesboro and Rockingham - now or will potentially have connections to the Interstate system, all because of the I-73/I-74 saga and this planned I-777. Me and a friend actually did drive from Winston-Salem to Rockingham along 74 in 2021 to pass by the track, as part of a Daytona roadtrip for the fall Cup race. (Randleman, the town where Petty Enterprises was based for years, is also right off 73/74)
Ironically, none of that actually changes that these two locations have been this close to a limited access route for years, other than that a fancy new, more marketable shield has been or will be slapped onto these roads.
It's fascinating comparing this protocol to California, where 58/99 would have been Interstates long ago by NC standards (never mind that 99 is the pre-1958 planned I-5), and likely 101. (101 and 58 were pre-1968 submissions that got rejected)
Quote from: Strider on April 09, 2024, 12:19:15 AMLol oh lord.. now Texas and North Carolina is competing to see how many new interstates both states are going to build... SMH.
NC NEEDS to finish I-73, I-74, I-42, I-87, I-587 and I-685 BEFORE they ever think about adding more interstates... how embarrassing for my state.
Hey, don't forget the I-795 extension south of Goldsboro to I-40! That's still around...right!?
And I-274!
AND it just hit me, when is the part of I-785 north of Greensboro going to finally be signed as Interstate, hasn't that been on the books for over a decade or more now?
Starting a separate thread on anything relating to the re-designation of US 421 near Winston-Salem as I-777, which was just proposed a day or two ago for the first time.
https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/road-from-wilkesboro-to-i-40-in-winston-salem-could-become-i-777/
Reddit discussion thread on the concept:
https://www.reddit.com/r/NorthCarolina/comments/1c0pmms/road_from_wilkesboro_to_i40_in_winstonsalem_could/
Linkedin post from the person at Carolina Core who is presenting this (the same organization that came up with planned I-685)
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/loren-hill-549990151_future-interstate-777-what-a-lucky-number-activity-7183403316243013634-6gyz/
---
One key question that has not yet been answered in the articles: will I-777 be applied to just the section of 421 from Wilkesboro to the western 40/421 junction, or will it include the Salem Parkway section of former I-40 all the way to Kernersville?
If the Interstate 777 designation is approved, it would be only the third 3di with all three digits having the same number, after unsigned Interstate 444 in Tulsa, OK and Interstate 555 between Turrell, AR and Jonesboro, AR. There may be an Interstate 222 in the future constructed as part of the Interstate 422 Birmingham Northern Beltline in Birmingham, AL. However, whether 222 will ever be constructed or whether 422 will ever be completed is completely unknown, as the BNB will be very expensive and very controversial to complete.
Quote from: TheStranger on April 11, 2024, 04:43:31 PMStarting a separate thread on anything relating to the re-designation of US 421 near Winston-Salem as I-777, which was just proposed a day or two ago for the first time.
https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/road-from-wilkesboro-to-i-40-in-winston-salem-could-become-i-777/
Reddit discussion thread on the concept:
https://www.reddit.com/r/NorthCarolina/comments/1c0pmms/road_from_wilkesboro_to_i40_in_winstonsalem_could/
Linkedin post from the person at Carolina Core who is presenting this (the same organization that came up with planned I-685)
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/loren-hill-549990151_future-interstate-777-what-a-lucky-number-activity-7183403316243013634-6gyz/
---
One key question that has not yet been answered in the articles: will I-777 be applied to just the section of 421 from Wilkesboro to the western 40/421 junction, or will it include the Death Valley section of former I-40 all the way to Kernersville?
It will not. Winston-Salem insisted that the former I-40 lose its designation as Business 40 and that it should not have any interstate designation.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 11, 2024, 01:49:55 PMThe area is very fortunate to even have a limited access / interstate quality route connecting through to begin with, nothing more is needed. The route carries 18,000 - 20,000 AADT and will function adequately as a four lane freeway for the long term future.
You clearly aren't a legislator with a summer home in Blowing Rock or Banner Elk.
The recently upgraded stretch of U.S. 70/future I-42 east of Dover has an AADT of only 11,000-12,000... but... beach homes.
And if we're pulling out and measuring, U.S. 64/U.S. 17/future I-87 doesn't get above 15,000 AADT for 92 out of the 110 miles between Princeville and Virginia, doesn't go above 15,000 for 75 miles between Princeville and Hertford, barely reaches 20,000 around Elizabeth City at the max, is less than 10,000 for about 43 miles and is around 8,000 for 21 of those miles. So, despite U.S. 421 connecting to "nothing", it has more traffic than future I-87. Hmmm...
Or... maybe ALL of these pork projects don't warrant an interstate designation and North Carolina should focus on addressing its many other developing highway issues instead of letting our country bumpkin legislators plan highways like it's the 80s.
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on April 11, 2024, 10:21:42 PMYou clearly aren't a legislator with a summer home in Blowing Rock or Banner Elk.
Then why stop at Yadkinville? Let's go all the way to Boone, Blowing Rock, Banner Elk, etc.
QuoteThe recently upgraded stretch of U.S. 70/future I-42 east of Dover has an AADT of only 11,000-12,000... but... beach homes.
Most of the route is carrying over 30,000 AADT and is plagued with traffic signals in those busy areas. The upgrades are warranted, blue shield or not.
QuoteAnd if we're pulling out and measuring, U.S. 64/U.S. 17/future I-87 doesn't get above 15,000 AADT for 92 out of the 110 miles between Princeville and Virginia, doesn't go above 15,000 for 75 miles between Princeville and Hertford, barely reaches 20,000 around Elizabeth City at the max, is less than 10,000 for about 43 miles and is around 8,000 for 21 of those miles. So, despite U.S. 421 connecting to "nothing", it has more traffic than future I-87. Hmmm...
At least there's a more plausible case in connecting two metropolitan areas of over 2 million population that are currently not linked by an interstate highway or limited access highway. US-421 isn't exactly connecting to any major metropolitan areas or population centers on the west end, and again - is already built up as a limited access highway.
whoa. some real east vs. west action here. yes, both routes serve vacation homes with 42 having this military/port caveat. 777 would actually end in Wilkesboro, while not huge is a decent stopping point for the money. if you want Blowing Rock drop another billion. and yes, Dover is a dead zone. east of Kinston and west of New Bern only sees the Raleigh/beach traffic. the rest of the road gets respectable traffic volumes. if 785 is the standard then 777 certainly meets that.
Quote from: TheStranger on April 11, 2024, 04:43:31 PMStarting a separate thread on anything relating to the re-designation of US 421 near Winston-Salem as I-777, which was just proposed a day or two ago for the first time.
Good idea, so separated the prior I-777 posts from the general North Carolina thread and merged them into this thread.
Quote from: Strider on April 09, 2024, 12:19:15 AMLol oh lord.. now Texas and North Carolina is competing to see how many new interstates both states are going to build... SMH.
NC NEEDS to finish I-73, I-74, I-42, I-87, I-587 and I-685 BEFORE they ever think about adding more interstates... how embarrassing for my state.
Hey, don't forget the I-795 extension south of Goldsboro to I-40! That's still around...right!?
And I-274!
AND it just hit me, when is the part of I-785 north of Greensboro going to finally be signed as Interstate, hasn't that been on the books for over a decade or more now?
[/quote]
I-795 is still planned to be extended to I-40. They're under development. I-274 is already under construction (at least around the future I-74/NC-74/US 52 interchange north of Winston Salem), but the only section of future I-274 is about to start construction soon is the section between NC 67 and NC 74/US 52 interchange starting in 2028.
As for I-785, it cannot be signed until the section between I-785/I-840 and Rockingham county line is upgraded. Only one section that is under construction so far is the Reddy Fork Parkway interchange.
Will they make it legal to have a casino nearby?
Quote from: TheStranger on April 11, 2024, 02:10:45 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on April 11, 2024, 01:49:55 PMThis proposed route connects Winston-Salem to... nothing. Wilksboro, a bustling metropolis with... 3,000 population? Yadkinville, the next booming town of over 2,000 population? There's no ultimate destination on either end of the proposed corridor. This might be the most "pork" of any interstate highway proposal in North Carolina history.
Hey, North Wilkesboro is once again an active NASCAR track! (Though the track access from the existing, not-yet-an-interstate US 421 freeway is lacking - an issue that came up when the raceway restarted full operations in 2022-2023)
Funny enough, it hits me that two of the once-endangered older NASCAR tracks that were seen as "isolated" for years compared to a Charlotte or Daytona - North Wilkesboro and Rockingham - now or will potentially have connections to the Interstate system, all because of the I-73/I-74 saga and this planned I-777. Me and a friend actually did drive from Winston-Salem to Rockingham along 74 in 2021 to pass by the track, as part of a Daytona roadtrip for the fall Cup race. (Randleman, the town where Petty Enterprises was based for years, is also right off 73/74)
Ironically, none of that actually changes that these two locations have been this close to a limited access route for years, other than that a fancy new, more marketable shield has been or will be slapped onto these roads.
It's fascinating comparing this protocol to California, where 58/99 would have been Interstates long ago by NC standards (never mind that 99 is the pre-1958 planned I-5), and likely 101. (101 and 58 were pre-1968 submissions that got rejected)
Quote from: Strider on April 09, 2024, 12:19:15 AMLol oh lord.. now Texas and North Carolina is competing to see how many new interstates both states are going to build... SMH.
NC NEEDS to finish I-73, I-74, I-42, I-87, I-587 and I-685 BEFORE they ever think about adding more interstates... how embarrassing for my state.
Hey, don't forget the I-795 extension south of Goldsboro to I-40! That's still around...right!?
And I-274!
AND it just hit me, when is the part of I-785 north of Greensboro going to finally be signed as Interstate, hasn't that been on the books for over a decade or more now?
The 2024-2033 STIP document broke the project upgrading US 29 to I-785 into 2 parts. The first part from I-840 to NC 150 is to start construction in 2031, the second part, from NC 150 to Bus. 29 in Reidsville is currently not funded, and therefore can't start until at least 2034. So no additional signing of I-785 for at least 10 years.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 11, 2024, 06:38:58 PMQuote from: TheStranger on April 11, 2024, 04:43:31 PMStarting a separate thread on anything relating to the re-designation of US 421 near Winston-Salem as I-777, which was just proposed a day or two ago for the first time.
https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/road-from-wilkesboro-to-i-40-in-winston-salem-could-become-i-777/
Reddit discussion thread on the concept:
https://www.reddit.com/r/NorthCarolina/comments/1c0pmms/road_from_wilkesboro_to_i40_in_winstonsalem_could/
Linkedin post from the person at Carolina Core who is presenting this (the same organization that came up with planned I-685)
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/loren-hill-549990151_future-interstate-777-what-a-lucky-number-activity-7183403316243013634-6gyz/
---
One key question that has not yet been answered in the articles: will I-777 be applied to just the section of 421 from Wilkesboro to the western 40/421 junction, or will it include the Death Valley section of former I-40 all the way to Kernersville?
It will not. Winston-Salem insisted that the former I-40 lose its designation as Business 40 and that it should not have any interstate designation.
Also, Death Valley is in Greensboro, not Winston-Salem. It was once signed as Business 40, but now it's I-40 once again.
The question here is, why I-777? It's not like any other spur number of I-77 isn't available. I-177 was once the closest to being used (as a spur into Cleveland, back when I-77 was going to Detroit), but then it was decided that Cleveland was a more worthy terminus for its parent, and that was it. There are two I-277s (Charlotte and Akron), and after that, nothing.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on April 12, 2024, 11:25:30 AMWill they make it legal to have a casino nearby?
I-377, I-577 and I-977 could've also been used, but if they insist on I-777, they really ought to build a casino off at least one of its exits to justify the designation.
(On a side note, has there ever been a NV 777 or NJ 777?)
Quote from: Strider on April 09, 2024, 12:19:15 AMLol oh lord.. now Texas and North Carolina is competing to see how many new interstates both states are going to build... SMH.
This is what I thought when I heard the news, but it may just be worth it if it gives the Wilkes County area more visibility, which was one of the goals for designating 264 from Wilson to Greenville as 587.
I remember NC wanted to sign I-587 as north/south because it's an odd number (regardless of its direction on the ground) but they relented and are signing it east/west.
Before I found out the above, I was wondering whether Wilkesboro would end up being "north" or "south" of I-77
Will I-777 require ETOPS approval before or after AASHTO approval?
Quote from: formulanone on April 12, 2024, 05:20:32 PMWill I-777 require ETOPS approval before or after AASHTO approval?
It would probably be safer if they named it I-A350.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on April 12, 2024, 05:40:04 PMQuote from: formulanone on April 12, 2024, 05:20:32 PMWill I-777 require ETOPS approval before or after AASHTO approval?
It would probably be safer if they named it I-A350.
I thought that was the infamous Alaskan bridge to nowhere?
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 11, 2024, 10:35:05 PMQuote from: cowboy_wilhelm on April 11, 2024, 10:21:42 PMQuoteThe recently upgraded stretch of U.S. 70/future I-42 east of Dover has an AADT of only 11,000-12,000... but... beach homes.
Most of the route is carrying over 30,000 AADT and is plagued with traffic signals in those busy areas. The upgrades are warranted, blue shield or not.
What does spending tens of millions of dollars to add shoulders between Dover and New Bern for an already grade-separated, four-lane divided freeway with a 70 MPH speed limit and 12,000 AADT have to do with building bypasses around Kinston and Havelock and upgrading other portions of the corridor?
One might even say that
"The area is very fortunate to even have a limited access / interstate quality route connecting through to begin with, nothing more is needed. [It] will function adequately as a four lane freeway for the long term future [...] no large scale, interstate specific targeted upgrades are necessary."An interchange could have been built at La Grange with that funding rather than adding shoulders through nowhere. Something with actual benefit and to help upgrade the corridor to a freeway.
QuoteAt least there's a more plausible case in connecting two metropolitan areas of over 2 million population that are currently not linked by an interstate highway or limited access highway. US-421 isn't exactly connecting to any major metropolitan areas or population centers on the west end, and again - is already built up as a limited access highway.
Why spend several billion dollars for a highway that mostly sees less than 10k vehicles just because there are two metro areas 175 miles apart? Even if a completed interstate doubles traffic volumes you're at what, a whopping 16k vehicles for a large portion? Great benefit/cost ratio there. There's a reason future I-87 upgrades repeatedly fail to secure any funding in the STIP or receive any federal grant dollars. Do we still build interstates just to connect dots on a map? Those days
should be over.
U.S. 421, even though "it doesn't connect to anything significant/nothing," has about the same amount or more traffic than parts of U.S. 70/future I-42, U.S. 264/I-587, U.S. 421/I-685, U.S. 74/I-74 and most of future U.S. 17/I-87. I guess those people are going
somewhere, even if it's not a metro area. Do we ignore traffic volume and capacity and only upgrade roads that "go somewhere." Maybe we should have left those hillbillies with dirt roads since there ain't no cities up thar?
Regardless, ALL of these future interstate shoulder widening projects are a joke and colossal waste of hundreds of millions of dollars that could be better spent on projects that actually address traffic capacity for the existing system.
Quote from: Henry on April 12, 2024, 03:43:58 PMQuote from: wdcrft63 on April 11, 2024, 06:38:58 PMIt will not. Winston-Salem insisted that the former I-40 lose its designation as Business 40 and that it should not have any interstate designation.
Also, Death Valley is in Greensboro, not Winston-Salem. It was once signed as Business 40, but now it's I-40 once again.
They're not talking about Greensboro or the Death Valley segment there. They really are talking about the former Business 40 segment through Winston-Salem.
I guess if North Carolina wanted to go "whole hog" on this as they have done with other interstates, they could make it I-42 and co sign it with I-40 and part of I-85 from Raleigh. Hey, they could pull another number out of their posterity and make it I-46. With either one they could spend some more money to extend it to Boone, and then to the TN border in hopes that they could connect it to I-26 (right though the national rec area). Cha-ching!
Quote from: froggie on April 13, 2024, 12:27:48 PMQuote from: Henry on April 12, 2024, 03:43:58 PMQuote from: wdcrft63 on April 11, 2024, 06:38:58 PMIt will not. Winston-Salem insisted that the former I-40 lose its designation as Business 40 and that it should not have any interstate designation.
Also, Death Valley is in Greensboro, not Winston-Salem. It was once signed as Business 40, but now it's I-40 once again.
They're not talking about Greensboro or the Death Valley segment there. They really are talking about the former Business 40 segment through Winston-Salem.
I mistyped in my original post, will correct that confusing reference there.
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on April 13, 2024, 12:09:54 PMWhat does spending tens of millions of dollars to add shoulders between Dover and New Bern for an already grade-separated, four-lane divided freeway with a 70 MPH speed limit and 12,000 AADT have to do with building bypasses around Kinston and Havelock and upgrading other portions of the corridor?
really? to secure an interstate designation for the
entire corridor. which in the eyes of many benefits economic development. I get it. spending millions to make highways with shoulders for pretty shields seems wasteful but US17 and US70 are the most deserving corridors of an interstate designation statewide. throw US74 in there too.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 11, 2024, 01:49:55 PMThe route [U.S. 421] carries 18,000 - 20,000 AADT and will function adequately as a four lane freeway for the long term future. [...] no large scale, interstate specific targeted upgrades are necessary.
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on April 11, 2024, 10:21:42 PMThe recently upgraded stretch of U.S. 70/future I-42 east of Dover has an AADT of only 11,000-12,000.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 11, 2024, 10:35:05 PMMost of the route is carrying over 30,000 AADT and is plagued with traffic signals in those busy areas. The upgrades are warranted, blue shield or not.
(The aforementioned shoulder upgrades east of Dover are warranted...? I should have specified interstate shoulders. No other U.S. 70 projects were mentioned.)
You can't say interstate upgrades are
not warranted on one route due to the AADT and then turn around and say they
are warranted on another route with less traffic,
blue shield or not. Yes,
freeway upgrades are warranted for the other busy segments, without a blue shield and the associated costs to upgrade the
entire corridor.
And most of the route does not carry over 30,000 AADT.
| AADT | Miles | Percent of Route |
| 11,000-20,000 | 44.28 | 32.8% |
| 20,000-30,000 | 51.12 | 37.8% |
| 30,000+ | 39.66 | 29.4% |
| 135.06 | |
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on April 13, 2024, 12:09:54 PMWhat does spending tens of millions of dollars to add shoulders between Dover and New Bern for an already grade-separated, four-lane divided freeway with a 70 MPH speed limit and 12,000 AADT have to do with building bypasses around Kinston and Havelock and upgrading other portions of the corridor?
Quote from: nerdom on April 13, 2024, 03:32:51 PMreally? to secure an interstate designation for the entire corridor. which in the eyes of many benefits economic development. I get it. spending millions to make highways with shoulders for pretty shields seems wasteful but US17 and US70 are the most deserving corridors of an interstate designation statewide. throw US74 in there too.
From the quote above, how is spending millions of dollars on shoulder upgrades for the least traveled segment warranted,
blue shield or not, when there are still miles and miles of freeway upgrades, interchanges, etc. around Princeton that are still unfunded and the Kinston Bypass has been in the planning stages for decades and is still unfunded for probably another decade or more? Why not focus on upgrading the corridor into a freeway before starting on these asinine shoulder projects,
then go for the interstate designation? Oh, that's right, federal dollars to pay for interstate maintenance for "future"
interstate intrastate corridors that will take half a century or longer to finish.
I will die on this hill. :ded:
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on April 13, 2024, 12:09:54 PMWhat does spending tens of millions of dollars to add shoulders between Dover and New Bern for an already grade-separated, four-lane divided freeway with a 70 MPH speed limit and 12,000 AADT have to do with building bypasses around Kinston and Havelock and upgrading other portions of the corridor?
It was a $25 million to resurface and reconstruct 32 miles of freeway. They added paved shoulders in the process. A routine resurfacing project would've cost similar. Look at similar projects on US-64, US-17, US-264, etc. that did
not include paved shoulders. They are roughly the same cost per mile.
They didn't have to wide or replace any bridge structures, or redesign any roadway features on US-70.
Should they not proceed with routine maintenance such as a resurfacing?
Paving shoulders where they are already built and graded (just not paved) is a fairly cheap addition to the routine resurfacing and adds a crucial safety feature for a 70 mph freeway. It adds room for error in emergency situations, whether it be swerving to avoid something, a safe place to pull over in an incident, etc. It is definitely worthwhile - regardless of where it is. The same could be said on US-421 - the problem is, a lot of other features about that road do
not meet interstate standards, and would cost significant money to address. That issue did not exist on US-70. So it's a poor comparison to make.
Quote from: kurumi on April 12, 2024, 04:07:02 PMI remember NC wanted to sign I-587 as north/south because it's an odd number (regardless of its direction on the ground) but they relented and are signing it east/west.
Before I found out the above, I was wondering whether Wilkesboro would end up being "north" or "south" of I-77
FWIW US 421 is signed north-south throughout NC. This is fairly reasonable from Wilmington to Greensboro but not west of Greensboro.
With this bullshit, it makes me wonder: when will the AASHTO gain some balls and refuse to approve the numbers written into law by congresspeople?
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 14, 2024, 06:09:32 PMWith this bullshit, it makes me wonder: when will the AASHTO gain some balls and refuse to approve the numbers written into law by congresspeople?
Read the last part of your post really slowly...
There's a reason why Congress is called the legislative branch of our government...
Quote from: Rothman on April 14, 2024, 06:53:18 PMThere's a reason why Congress is called the legislative branch of our government...
Because they can override a process that shouldn't have government interference?
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 14, 2024, 07:09:30 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 14, 2024, 06:53:18 PMThere's a reason why Congress is called the legislative branch of our government...
Because they can override a process that shouldn't have government interference?
...
Because they make the laws and AASHTO was only filling a legislative void when it took upon itself that role.
Also, please review what "AASHTO" stands for if you think they're not government...
I-777? Is Boeing involved? :-P :pan:
Quote from: Rothman on April 14, 2024, 07:38:52 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on April 14, 2024, 07:09:30 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 14, 2024, 06:53:18 PMThere's a reason why Congress is called the legislative branch of our government...
Because they can override a process that shouldn't have government interference?
...
Because they make the laws and AASHTO was only filling a legislative void when it took upon itself that role.
Also, please review what "AASHTO" stands for if you think they're not government...
Given the amount of interstate highways (and numbers) that have been written into law recently, I feel like the USDOT/FHWA/AASHTO/ or someone should one day have the authority to reject or provide alternative numbers for proposed interstates regardless of if a specific number was written into law. Given that a lot of these new interstates are unfunded mandates (i.e. I-69), there is no guarantee that it would get built in the foreseeable, especially in poorer states without earmarked funds from Congress. Reserving a number for a Congressman's election rather than a highway that has actual viability is a waste.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 01, 2024, 03:20:00 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 14, 2024, 07:38:52 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on April 14, 2024, 07:09:30 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 14, 2024, 06:53:18 PMThere's a reason why Congress is called the legislative branch of our government...
Because they can override a process that shouldn't have government interference?
...
Because they make the laws and AASHTO was only filling a legislative void when it took upon itself that role.
Also, please review what "AASHTO" stands for if you think they're not government...
Given the amount of interstate highways (and numbers) that have been written into law recently, I feel like the USDOT/FHWA/AASHTO/ or someone should one day have the authority to reject or provide alternative numbers for proposed interstates regardless of if a specific number was written into law. Given that a lot of these new interstates are unfunded mandates (i.e. I-69), there is no guarantee that it would get built in the foreseeable, especially in poorer states without earmarked funds from Congress. Reserving a number for a Congressman's election rather than a highway that has actual viability is a waste.
Probably should give the Constitution a read...
Quote from: Rothman on June 01, 2024, 03:42:40 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on June 01, 2024, 03:20:00 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 14, 2024, 07:38:52 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on April 14, 2024, 07:09:30 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 14, 2024, 06:53:18 PMThere's a reason why Congress is called the legislative branch of our government...
Because they can override a process that shouldn't have government interference?
...
Because they make the laws and AASHTO was only filling a legislative void when it took upon itself that role.
Also, please review what "AASHTO" stands for if you think they're not government...
Given the amount of interstate highways (and numbers) that have been written into law recently, I feel like the USDOT/FHWA/AASHTO/ or someone should one day have the authority to reject or provide alternative numbers for proposed interstates regardless of if a specific number was written into law. Given that a lot of these new interstates are unfunded mandates (i.e. I-69), there is no guarantee that it would get built in the foreseeable, especially in poorer states without earmarked funds from Congress. Reserving a number for a Congressman's election rather than a highway that has actual viability is a waste.
Probably should give the Constitution a read...
Assuming it went to the Supreme Court, it could be argued that the Federal government has an interest in assigning and maintaining route numbers for the national highway systems, both Interstate and the US Highway System. In the case of suffixed routes, the Federal government has an interest in removing and disallowing them to improve the overall navigability of the system.
Regarding 3DIs, this is less of an issue as they were always intended for local / intrastate connectivity, but I think it's improper for Congress to assign highway numbers.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 01, 2024, 05:37:45 PMQuote from: Rothman on June 01, 2024, 03:42:40 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on June 01, 2024, 03:20:00 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 14, 2024, 07:38:52 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on April 14, 2024, 07:09:30 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 14, 2024, 06:53:18 PMThere's a reason why Congress is called the legislative branch of our government...
Because they can override a process that shouldn't have government interference?
...
Because they make the laws and AASHTO was only filling a legislative void when it took upon itself that role.
Also, please review what "AASHTO" stands for if you think they're not government...
Given the amount of interstate highways (and numbers) that have been written into law recently, I feel like the USDOT/FHWA/AASHTO/ or someone should one day have the authority to reject or provide alternative numbers for proposed interstates regardless of if a specific number was written into law. Given that a lot of these new interstates are unfunded mandates (i.e. I-69), there is no guarantee that it would get built in the foreseeable, especially in poorer states without earmarked funds from Congress. Reserving a number for a Congressman's election rather than a highway that has actual viability is a waste.
Probably should give the Constitution a read...
Assuming it went to the Supreme Court, it could be argued that the Federal government has an interest in assigning and maintaining route numbers for the national highway systems, both Interstate and the US Highway System. In the case of suffixed routes, the Federal government has an interest in removing and disallowing them to improve the overall navigability of the system.
Regarding 3DIs, this is less of an issue as they were always intended for local / intrastate connectivity, but I think it's improper for Congress to assign highway numbers.
Wut.
USDOT/FHWA are Executive Branch agencies. AASHTO only has informal authority. Congress makes laws.
The idea of someone challenging congressional laws that assign route numbers in a way that any appeals court would entertain after being struck down by summary judgment strikes me as delusional. Wonder if an attorney would even take up the case.
^ And given that the Supreme Court heard a case where the plaintiff basically asked for the ability of Congress to even willingly delegate authority to federal agencies be declared unconstitutional, something tells me they wouldn't rule in favor of a federal agency (much less an independent organization like AASHTO) overriding Congress.
Bumping this......
Why would Winston-Salem want 421/old green 40 tacked on, when they already took 40 off of it 3+ decades ago?
Also, I do wonder if Boone actually getting the long-rumored Daniel Boone Parkway built would make it a candidate to be part of this I-777 (which SHOULD be I-340)......while Wilkesboro is a regionally important place to northwest NC, it doesn't hold a candle to the importance of Boone and ASU. Though the terrain between the Wilkesboros and Boone would be a whole other kettle of fish in its own right.
If you really wanted an I-x77 route in NC, take I-74 here out of the system and re-designate the I-77 to Winston-Salem portion as I-177
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on August 07, 2024, 10:07:45 PMBumping this......
Why would Winston-Salem want 421/old green 40 tacked on, when they already took 40 off of it 3+ decades ago?
Also, I do wonder if Boone actually getting the long-rumored Daniel Boone Parkway built would make it a candidate to be part of this I-777 (which SHOULD be I-340)......while Wilkesboro is a regionally important place to northwest NC, it doesn't hold a candle to the importance of Boone and ASU. Though the terrain between the Wilkesboros and Boone would be a whole other kettle of fish in its own right.
If you really wanted an I-x77 route in NC, take I-74 here out of the system and re-designate the I-77 to Winston-Salem portion as I-177
I-777 is proposed to run between I-40 on the west side of Winston-Salem to Wilksboro... basically where the existing highway is already a freeway.
They're not talking about upgrading other parts that have intersections, etc.
I agree though - the only thing of significance is Boone. US-421 is adequate and already is a freeway.
Mabey once they get to the top of the ridgeline west of Wilkesboro on 421, they can upgrade the Blue Ridge Parkway to an interstate to Boone as a southern bypass :awesomeface:
Maybe the proposed Interstate 685 and Interstate 777 corridors should be combined and numbered as a 2di, like Interstate 38.