AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Southeast => Topic started by: flaroads on January 20, 2009, 11:55:15 PM

Title: North Carolina
Post by: flaroads on January 20, 2009, 11:55:15 PM
Have the exit numbers along I-795 been corrected to reflect its mileage and not US 117's?
Title: Mid-Currituck Bridge
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 29, 2009, 07:59:54 AM
Inspired by the "Garden Pkwy" thread even though not related to it, the new NCTA has also sped up the process on the Mid-Currituck Bridge connecting US 158 on the mainland to NC 12 on the Outer Banks around Corolla.  Honestly I don't believe that the connection will relieve that much traffic on US 158(and it won't north of the bridge) and NC 12 as most head to Nags Head and Kill Devil Hills anyhow.  http://www.ncturnpike.org/projects/Mid_Currituck/ (http://www.ncturnpike.org/projects/Mid_Currituck/)
Title: Re: Mid-Currituck Bridge
Post by: Alex on March 29, 2009, 10:38:27 AM
$659.2 million for that span!  :wow:

Having driven NC-12 up to Corolla many times, that cost is unjustified. The road more or less serves a number of expensive beach homes, including vacation residences of Tom Cruise and Bruce Willis.
Title: Re: Mid-Currituck Bridge
Post by: Alex on March 29, 2009, 10:35:41 PM
And No Build is the option they should take...
Title: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Bryant5493 on March 31, 2009, 11:06:09 PM
Tell me if my understanding of the Greensboro Urban Loop is correct.

I had read a Wikipedia article and saw a YouTube video, concerning the routing of I-40 in/around Greensboro, NC. I-40 and I-85 were moved out of Downtown Greensboro, to follow the southern bypass toward Durham and Raleigh. Then, because of protests from residents (and confusion between I-40 and I-40 Business), I-40 was moved back through Greensboro, eliminating I-40 Business altogether. Also, I-85 is still along the southern portion of the Loop.

Again, is my understanding of this routing correct?

Lastly, is I-40 East through Greensboro a quicker route to Raleigh-Durham? Or is I-85 North around Greensboro quicker to get to Raleigh-Durham?
 
Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: flaroads on March 31, 2009, 11:10:17 PM
Yes, your understanding is correct. Interstate 40 has been routed back onto its original route through downtown Greensboro.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Interstate/Future 73, which also enters the mix on the western portion of the beltway between Interstate 85 and Interstate 40 at Exit 212...
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Bryant5493 on March 31, 2009, 11:27:06 PM
^^ You know, I saw that (Future I-73) on the Urban Loop page, but I didn't know where it started. It seemed to just appear out of nowhere (lol).

Thanks for the confirmation.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: OracleUsr on April 01, 2009, 01:27:53 AM
Dude, I live in Statesville, and use the temp alignment of I-40 to get to my mother's house in Haw River (between Greensboro and Raleigh) all the time.  I hate Death Valley, and the speed is 65mph on the entire "bypass" of I-73 to I-85.  I don't think it's that much further.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Chris on April 01, 2009, 05:43:38 AM
Isn't the I-73/I-74 to be rerouted via High Point across US 311? It would connect to the US 220 near Randleman. But what number does the Randleman - Greensboro section get? Just US 220?

The 2009 RandMcNally map says I-40 is still taking the southern bypass. I guess they aren't sure either.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 01, 2009, 08:23:12 AM
OracleUsr said:
Dude, I live in Statesville, and use the temp alignment of I-40 to get to my mother's house in Haw River (between Greensboro and Raleigh) all the time.  I hate Death Valley, and the speed is 65mph on the entire "bypass" of I-73 to I-85.  I don't think it's that much further.

Bryant5493 says:
Okay, thank you.

froggie said:
The complaints about noise from residents along the southwest side of the loop was a red herring.  The real reason why I-40 was moved back onto its previous route through Greensboro was so that NCDOT wouldn't lose Interstate Maintenance funds.

Bryant5493 says:
So, with the Business Interstate designation, NCDOT wouldn't be able to keep the Interstate Maintenance funds?


Be well,

Bryant
 
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Alex on April 01, 2009, 01:23:10 PM
I updated all of the area guides (http://www.southeastroads.com) to reflect the current alignments for Interstate 40 (what a pain in the butt it was). There is also a blog post (http://www.aaroads.com/blog/?p=171) I made last fall about it too.

When we drove through there in December, and from what I've read from Bob Malme's Future NC Interstates (http://www.duke.edu/~rmalme/ncfutint.html) pages, signage will not be replaced until later this year.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 01, 2009, 02:23:41 PM
^^ I saw the updates and read the blog -- Good work! :clap:


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 01, 2009, 03:28:13 PM
I busted out laughing when I heard I-40 was being put back in Greensboro as I had read something(it might have been the nonexistent NCRoads.com(I'm not sure though)) that said that many would still use I-40 through Greensboro whatever number it is was called due to supposedly faster travel time.  :-D :poke:
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 01, 2009, 07:00:59 PM
^^ Why's that?


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 01, 2009, 08:54:07 PM
^^ Oh, okay. Didn't know that. The more you know, the more you grow. :D


Be well,

Bryan
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Alex on April 01, 2009, 10:51:33 PM
And they have shuffled around the U.S. highways into useless multiplexes too. I was pondering what will happen with U.S. 220 once Interstate 73 is completed northwest of town. Will Wendover Avenue be devoid of any numbered route when that happens as U.S. 220 uselessly overlaps with the new freeway? That is if the route even survives the completion of Interstate 73 through N.C.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 02, 2009, 03:18:44 PM
Don't forget about how US 421 now follows the SW portion of the loop to I-40 before multiplexing with I-40 to Winston-Salem and multiplexing with all of Winston-Salem's Business I-40 along with US 158.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: jackson1300 on April 06, 2009, 09:34:50 AM
In my opinion the stupidest part of the whole thing is why did NC DOT renumber the old I-40 & I-85 to Business 40 & 85 instead of either make the entire Greensboro Loop I-840 and kept I-40 & 85 on their current alignments or, renumber the old I-40 & I-85 to 3di interstates.  In my opinion the Business Loops of I-40 & I-85 are not used what they are intended for and they are located way too close in distance. The two Business 85's begin and end within 5 miles of each other (High Point's Bus. 85 and Greensboro's Bus. 85), and the two Business 40's (Winston-Salem & Greensboro).  I thought a Business I- designation was not intended for "freeway" purposes, but to guide travelers into a city for food, lodging, and fueling purposes with an easy access return to the interstate, not just to "cover up" the old interstate designation, and cause way too much confusion with travelers who are not too familiar with these areas.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 06, 2009, 10:19:15 AM
^^ I think that makes sense, signing the loop with one continuous number. The other routes could be secondary, but one primary route number would be great.

Ex: The Athens Perimeter Highway/Paul Brouwn Parkway (SR 10 Loop) -- this route also has concurrencies with US 29, US 78, US 129, US 441, SR 8 and SR 15, but the SR 10 Loop (SR 422 Loop, which isn't signed) is the only continuous number on the loop; the others turn off onto surface streets.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Alex on April 06, 2009, 10:23:52 AM
The business loop for Interstate 85 is considered to be joined with Interstate 85 on the five-mile stretch between the two independent segments. That is why the exit numbers are in the 30s through Greensboro. They were going to do the same with Business Loop I-40 and continue the Winston-Salem exit numbers.

(http://www.aaroads.com/blog_images/southeast/greensboro_map_old.gif)
Title: Re: Mid-Currituck Bridge
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 30, 2009, 03:48:00 PM
Quote
And No Build is the option they should take...
  But the NCTA has now signed a development agreement with ACS  http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4134 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4134)
Title: Re: Mid-Currituck Bridge
Post by: njroadhorse on May 02, 2009, 01:02:11 PM
Depending on the location, it could be an alternative to getting into Corolla and Nags Head and avoid the beach traffic that funnels in near Roanoke Island between 64, 158 and 264.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 09, 2009, 08:56:01 AM
http://www.myfox8.com/wghp-loop-confusion-090508,0,3682388.story (http://www.myfox8.com/wghp-loop-confusion-090508,0,3682388.story)   Beginning Sunday NCDOT plans to start fixing signage in the Greensboro area along I-40 and so on.  However, this article did not include the exit renumberings along I-40 and I-73 but I assume that they are a part of the signage switch.  :confused:
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: njroadhorse on May 09, 2009, 09:15:47 AM
Wouldn't it be better to sign Bus I-40 and Bus I-85 as regular 3di's, or just keep their original routes through Greensboro?
Sheesh, this scheme is hard to keep up on, especially when the routes kept changing.  X-(
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 09, 2009, 09:28:20 AM
Quote
Wouldn't it be better to sign Bus I-40 and Bus I-85 as regular 3di's, or just keep their original routes through Greensboro?
  Business I-85 yes(of course not the portion multiplexed with I-40), Business I-40 maybe but I prefer just leaving I-40's original route through Greensboro.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: florida on May 09, 2009, 01:26:46 PM
All I can say is hopefully someone's got "historic" photos before they started  and during the construction of this monstrosity.  :-D Talk about a roadgeek's paradise.

"Chronicles of the Greensboro Urban Loop"
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: J N Winkler on May 09, 2009, 04:36:58 PM
Quote from: froggie
The complaints about noise from residents along the southwest side of the loop was a red herring.  The real reason why I-40 was moved back onto its previous route through Greensboro was so that NCDOT wouldn't lose Interstate Maintenance funds.

I know this is the explanation Jim Dunlop pushed in MTR, but it doesn't convince.  NCDOT had the option of applying for a concealed Interstate designation for Business 40 which would have maintained eligibility for IM funding--this is what California does with Business 80 in Sacramento (hidden Route 51, hidden I-305).  Moreover, NCDOT should have, and probably would have, considered the implications of IM funding before relocating the I-40 designation to the bypass in the first place.

It is, I think, relevant that the bypass route was longer than the original I-40 routing, and was not attracting I-40 traffic aside from trucks not wanting to go through Death Valley.  The shift in designation looks like a belated acceptance of reality.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: OracleUsr on May 10, 2009, 11:50:45 PM
Here's a photo from just off the loop, coming from Groometown Road on to the I-85 bypass:

(http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2231/crw2831.jpg)

Two notes:

1.  This is an unusual combination sign in that the route number matches the exit number.  I snapped this picture today because I believe this will soon be Exit 78, in keeping with the exit numbers on US 220/I-73.

2.  The road here is an off ramp from an exit off I-85, but the exit number is for I-40's mile numbers.
Title: Re: Mid-Currituck Bridge
Post by: Alex on May 13, 2009, 10:57:56 AM
Quote
Depending on the location, it could be an alternative to getting into Corolla and Nags Head and avoid the beach traffic that funnels in near Roanoke Island between 64, 158 and 264.

It will only serve local interests at Corolla and along NC-12. NC-12 is just two lanes and on some stretches the speed limits are as low as 25.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 17, 2009, 10:28:40 AM
Have the exit numbers along I-795 been corrected to reflect its mileage and not US 117's?
Probably not but hopefully they'll fix it while they repair I-795  ;-) http://www.charlotteobserver.com/232/story/838558.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/232/story/838558.html)
Title: I-140/US 17 Wilmington Bypass
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 17, 2009, 03:11:20 PM
Some odd good news in the North Carolina Transportation Front -

Thanks to nearly $26 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, along with $100 million from other sources, a previously unfunded Interstate 140/US 17 Bypass construction project will get underway in 2010.

The 'A' Section of the Brunswick County segment of I-140/US 17 is the benefactor of the new funding. This segment will run from US 17 (near where NC 87 meets it in Bishop) to US 74/76 east of Malmo. This will be a design/build project.

The 'B' Section from US 74/76 to where the current freeway ends at US 421 is scheduled to see construction begin in 2012. Land acquisition for this segment is ongoing.

So it now appears that for a few years there will be a gap in I-140 and the US 17 Bypass from US 74/76 to US 421.

Story:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20090715/ARTICLES/907159988/1004?Title=U-S-17-bypass-s-Brunswick-leg-to-be-started-earlier-than-planned (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20090715/ARTICLES/907159988/1004?Title=U-S-17-bypass-s-Brunswick-leg-to-be-started-earlier-than-planned)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: SSF on July 19, 2009, 10:45:28 PM
does NC use glass beads in their new thermo?

when it rained up there, i had a very hard time seeing the striping on their roadways.
Title: Cape Fear Skyway
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 20, 2009, 12:59:51 PM
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority recently released a few new details for the proposed Cape Fear Skyway.

First, the bridge will most likely be a cable-stayed bridge rising anywhere from 165-187 feet over the cape Fear River. If it is a cable-stayed bridge, the design will be very similar to the new Ravenel Bridge in Charleston, SC.

The NCTA also increased the proposed cost of the bridge from anywhere between $1.1 to 1.5 billion.

Currently, no specific construction or routing details are planned. A preferred route has not been finalized, and construction could begin in 2013. Early estimates for completion and opening to traffic is sometime in 2017.

Story: http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20090218/ARTICLES/902180243/-1/NEWS4538?Title=Vision-for-billion-dollar-Cape-Fear-Skyway-clearer-now (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20090218/ARTICLES/902180243/-1/NEWS4538?Title=Vision-for-billion-dollar-Cape-Fear-Skyway-clearer-now)
Title: US-311
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 09, 2009, 03:23:13 AM
Does anybody know why NCDOT will not post the Northern extension they requested for the route back in 2003 with the AASHTO?  I mean, they have it on all of their maps, but yet have not posted it in the field.  Sometimes, I just don't get NCDOT.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on September 21, 2009, 03:40:38 PM
I-85 Yadkin bridge: If we start planning to build it, maybe the money will come (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/crosstown/i-85-yadkin-bridge-if-we-start-planning-to-build-it-maybe-the-money-will-come)

Quote
The scary old I-85 bridge over the Yadkin River near Salisbury is woefully overdue for a $350 million replacement. Agreed. But who wants to pay for it?

The state applied this summer for federal stimulus money under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to buy a new bridge.

If the Obama administration turns thumbs down on North Carolina's Yadkin request, our backup plan is to make it a toll project. The N.C. Turnpike Authority would borrow the money, build the new bridge, and then collect tolls from I-85 drivers for the next 30 to 40 years.



DOT moves ahead on I-85 plans (http://www.the-dispatch.com/article/20090903/ARTICLES/909039990/1005/NEWS?Title=DOT-moves-ahead-on-I-85-plans)

Quote
The I-85 Corridor Improvement Project will consist of two contracts that will complete a comprehensive overhaul of the highway, bridge and rail infrastructure located along 6.8 miles of I-85 from north of Long Ferry Road (Exit 81) in Rowan County to Interstate 85 Business Loop (Exit 87) in Davidson County. The total project cost is estimated at more than $300 million. The first contract would widen 2.2 miles of the interstate, including replacing the bridges over the Yadkin River and improving the sharp curve along this stretch. The second contract would widen the remaining section of highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 21, 2009, 05:32:40 PM
The state made the formal application in July:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seroads/message/8973 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seroads/message/8973)

The website gives great detail on the actual plans for the project.  The project, in addition to the new bridge and widening, would redesign a number of interchanges north of the river and would still preserve the Wil-Cox Bridge (http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/us29/wilcox.html (http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/us29/wilcox.html))  opened in 1924.

http://www.ncdot.gov/recovery/i85corridor/ (http://www.ncdot.gov/recovery/i85corridor/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on September 21, 2009, 06:14:37 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but will that include the Exit 82 (US 29/70 NC 150 Spencer Exit) remodeling?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 21, 2009, 06:22:02 PM
Yes...it will eliminate all the left exits/entrances on the Lexington side of the river.

Exits 82 (US 29/70/NC 150) and 83 (NC 150) will be combined into one interchange.

Exit 85 (Clark Road) will be eliminated

Exit 86 (Belmont Road) will be rebuilt.  No word on what will happen to 'Big Bill' though.

http://www.ncdot.gov/recovery/i85corridor/projectplans/ (http://www.ncdot.gov/recovery/i85corridor/projectplans/)
http://www.ncdot.gov/recovery/i85corridor/download/yadkin_publichearingmap.pdf (http://www.ncdot.gov/recovery/i85corridor/download/yadkin_publichearingmap.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on September 22, 2009, 02:26:35 AM
U.S. 25 widening to begin (http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20090604/NEWS/906039909)

Quote
A $17 million widening of U.S. 25 will start this month and bring the road up to interstate standards.

The N.C. Department of Transportation awarded the project to Tennessee-based Wright Brothers Construction. The work is scheduled to be completed by August 2012.

The project has been in the planning stages for decades but never received funding, DOT Division Construction Engineer Jamie Wilson said. The DOT bought the right-of-way for the widening project more than 25 years ago.

The three-mile section, which begins at the Interstate 26 exit, will become a four-lane divided highway when complete.

The only access to the road will be through Spartanburg Highway or Upward Road. The DOT is creating a frontage road for residents located along the section of highway. The access road will run on the south end of the highway from Tabor Road to Laurel Creek Drive.

Access to the highway along the section will close as the project proceeds.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: lamsalfl on September 23, 2009, 02:22:50 AM
Time to build a straight line route I-46 from Charlotte to Raleigh to Norfolk. :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 03, 2009, 04:55:03 PM
Residents and tourists input is being sought in an online "willingness to pay" survey that the North Carolina Turnpike Authority will use to get credit to sell bonds to pay for construction of the bridge.

The survey, which gives scenarios on time savings and what you would pay to cross the bridge to save time, is located at http://www.nustats.com/midcurrituck/. (http://www.nustats.com/midcurrituck/.)

With toll ranges from $6 to $30, the survey will help the NCTA make revenue projections. The survey is part of the Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study and should be complete by next spring.

The survey takes no longer than five minutes.
 
For more:
http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/how-much-should-bridge-toll-be-867106.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/how-much-should-bridge-toll-be-867106.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 18, 2009, 05:06:00 PM
The proposed Cape Fear Skyway is at a crossroads as elected leaders in both Brunswick and New Hanover Counties debate on which is their preferred choice for the highway and bridge.

At a recent meeting between the North Carolina Turnpike Authority and the Wilmington Area Transportation Advisory Committee, various leaders voiced their opinions on what route the proposed toll road should follow.

Full Story & Commentary:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2009/10/cape-fear-skyway-at-crossroads.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2009/10/cape-fear-skyway-at-crossroads.html)

Story Links:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091014/ARTICLES/910149944/1155?Title=Proposed-Skyway-Bridge-still-has-a-twisted-path-to-follow (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091014/ARTICLES/910149944/1155?Title=Proposed-Skyway-Bridge-still-has-a-twisted-path-to-follow)

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091009/ARTICLES/910099954?Title=Cape-Fear-Skyway-s-future-hinges-on-Wednesday-meeting (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091009/ARTICLES/910099954?Title=Cape-Fear-Skyway-s-future-hinges-on-Wednesday-meeting)

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091017/ARTICLES/910174002/1018/LETTERS?Title=Editorial-It-s-not-pie-in-the-sky (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091017/ARTICLES/910174002/1018/LETTERS?Title=Editorial-It-s-not-pie-in-the-sky)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 18, 2009, 05:38:54 PM
A few months ago, the NCTA announced that they may be able to save $60 million in the cost of the $660 million Mid-Currituck Bridge.  Last week, they unveiled that plan to the public.  The plan already has mainland Currituck County residents (specifically those in Aydlett) concerned.

http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/new-currituck-bridge-option-unveiled-894287.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/new-currituck-bridge-option-unveiled-894287.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 22, 2009, 09:07:31 PM
The NCTA has been floating this trial balloon for about 18 months now.  But they are looking at the possibility of tolling parts of or all of the existing and soon to be constructed US 17/I-140 Wilmington Bypass to help fund the construction of the proposed Cape Fear Skyway toll project.
 
Even if this would happen - and there are many hurdles to clear - the tolls would only reduce the nearly $50 million/per year over 40 years in annual gap funding from the NC General Budget by about $11 million.
 
Story:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091018/COLUMNIST/910189982/-1/LIVING08?Title=Crossroads-Tolls-on-table-for-Skyway-project (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091018/COLUMNIST/910189982/-1/LIVING08?Title=Crossroads-Tolls-on-table-for-Skyway-project)
 
Commentary:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2009/10/ncta-continues-to-look-at-tolling-i.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2009/10/ncta-continues-to-look-at-tolling-i.html)

Title: I-40 distance sign "Barstow, Calif. 2,554" stolen - will not be replaced.
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 14, 2009, 11:10:41 AM
The sign on I-40 that reads "Barstow, Ca 2,554" in Wilmington was stolen again for the fourth time.  This time NCDOT says they aren't going to replace it.

Story:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091112/ARTICLES/911129963 (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091112/ARTICLES/911129963)


And a photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/llnesinthesand/2935760293/in/pool-i-40 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/llnesinthesand/2935760293/in/pool-i-40)

In all the trips I've made down to Wilmington and Wrightsville Beach, I would pass the sign and want to get a photo with it, but I always said "eh, I'll get it next time down." 

Oh well.
Title: Re: I-40 distance sign "Barstow, Calif. 2,554" stolen - will not be replaced.
Post by: Alex on November 14, 2009, 11:15:26 AM
The sign on I-40 that reads "Barstow, Ca 2,554" in Wilmington was stolen again for the fourth time.  This time NCDOT says they aren't going to replace it.

Story:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091112/ARTICLES/911129963 (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091112/ARTICLES/911129963)


And a photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/llnesinthesand/2935760293/in/pool-i-40 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/llnesinthesand/2935760293/in/pool-i-40)

In all the trips I've made down to Wilmington and Wrightsville Beach, I would pass the sign and want to get a photo with it, but I always said "eh, I'll get it next time down." 

Oh well.

I missed photographing the sign when I was there in 2006 as well...

I would think that an easy solution to the sign theft problem would be to mount it on the overpass nearby.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: simguy228 on November 14, 2009, 07:44:42 PM
My gosh. I can't believe I-26 near Asheville is still a future route (I don't know why it not signed as an official interstate
Title: UPDATE: I-40 sign to be replaced
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 14, 2009, 11:25:44 PM
It appears that after a number of e-mails and calls - NCDOT decided to take one more look through storage - and found another distance to Barstow, CA sign.

No word on when the sign will be replaced...but it does cost about $600 to replace it.

Story: http://www.wwaytv3.com/no_sign_road_ahead/11/2009 (http://www.wwaytv3.com/no_sign_road_ahead/11/2009)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 14, 2009, 11:28:31 PM
My gosh. I can't believe I-26 near Asheville is still a future route (I don't know why it not signed as an official interstate

It's a Future Interstate up to Exit #9 from I-240 because the Interstate is not up to standards.  From what I know, it will stay a Future Interstate till they reconfigure the whole I-26/I-240 interchange.


It appears that after a number of e-mails and calls - NCDOT decided to take one more look through storage - and found another distance to Barstow, CA sign.

No word on when the sign will be replaced...but it does cost about $600 to replace it.

Story: http://www.wwaytv3.com/no_sign_road_ahead/11/2009 (http://www.wwaytv3.com/no_sign_road_ahead/11/2009)

Wow, I'm amazed that the DOT actually suggests you to pull over a take a picture with it when it's replaced. :wow:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: simguy228 on November 15, 2009, 08:37:48 AM
That is what I thought. Though, I found this videos on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cVtWqC_4Jg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cVtWqC_4Jg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 15, 2009, 09:29:51 AM
Question is...is that the preferred alternative, or just an alternative being considered?  NCDOT's project website suggests the latter.
Title: If you are going to rename a bridge, at least come up w/something more original
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 29, 2009, 05:45:44 PM
In an effort to secure $300 million in stimulus/TIGER funding to build new
bridges over the Yadkin River on I-85, Governor Perdue has decided to rename the
Yadkin River Bridge to the 'I-85 Bridge' to stress the regional importance of
the project.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2009/11/gov-perdue-brilliant-new-yadkin-river.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 29, 2009, 06:24:17 PM
Tolls on the newly opened and free of charge Interstate 140 in Wilmington? The
Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce likes the idea. Why do they like the
idea, because it will assist in paying for the construction of the proposed toll
project the Cape Fear Skyway.

Story:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091118/ARTICLES/911184000?Title=Chamber-backs-toll-for-bypass-to-fund-Skyway&tc=autorefresh
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 16, 2009, 09:30:25 PM
Great article in the Wilmington Star-News discussing the history of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. Check out the historic photos section also (73 photos in total!):

Story:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091215/ARTICLES/912159986/1004?p=1&tc=pg

Photos:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=WM&Dato=20091215&Kategori=NEWS&Lopenr=121509999&Ref=PH&Profile=1004&show=galleries
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: lamsalfl on January 03, 2010, 11:20:16 PM
Not sure if my exhaustion from 5 hrs of sleep was doing the talking, but yesterday when I drove I-40 from Asheville to Statesville, it felt like the ugly stepchild road of North Carolina.  It seemed busy, questionable shoulders in spots?, and in need of a repave.  Also, I-77 was PACKED from Statesville to Charlotte at 6pm on a Saturday night.  What's the deal here?  Where are all these people coming from?  Accumulation of traffic from I-40w, Va/WVa, and W-S? 

I was driving from Nashville to Charlotte.  I-40e to Knoxville, US 11W to Kingsport, short ride up to VA state line, then I-26 to Asheville, then I-240 loop (which sucks by the way), I-40e to I-77s.


I-26 north of Asheville is an amazing drive.  The NC Welcome Center is a must-stop for anybody southbound.  The scenic view is awesome, and the building is nice.  The lady said they purposely blasted more mountain to make it as straight as possible, and an easier drive for the trucks.  There aren't any ridiculous hairpin turns or grades.  She basically said they wanted to make it much easier than I-40... modern engineering, and modern federal Interstate standards played a role in that. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on January 04, 2010, 01:49:52 AM
Instead of I-26 to I-240, wouldn't I-26 to US 74 to I-85 be a more direct route?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 04, 2010, 06:55:37 AM
Not sure if my exhaustion from 5 hrs of sleep was doing the talking, but yesterday when I drove I-40 from Asheville to Statesville, it felt like the ugly stepchild road of North Carolina.  It seemed busy, questionable shoulders in spots?, and in need of a repave.  Also, I-77 was PACKED from Statesville to Charlotte at 6pm on a Saturday night.  What's the deal here?  Where are all these people coming from?  Accumulation of traffic from I-40w, Va/WVa, and W-S? 

I was driving from Nashville to Charlotte.  I-40e to Knoxville, US 11W to Kingsport, short ride up to VA state line, then I-26 to Asheville, then I-240 loop (which sucks by the way), I-40e to I-77s.


I-26 north of Asheville is an amazing drive.  The NC Welcome Center is a must-stop for anybody southbound.  The scenic view is awesome, and the building is nice.  The lady said they purposely blasted more mountain to make it as straight as possible, and an easier drive for the trucks.  There aren't any ridiculous hairpin turns or grades.  She basically said they wanted to make it much easier than I-40... modern engineering, and modern federal Interstate standards played a role in that. 

I-40 from Statesville to Conover is one of the oldest parts of the highway in the state as is the section from about Old Fort to just west of Hickory.

77 is always difficult from Statesville to Charlotte from the growth in the area.  The hope is to have it six lanes all the way down from I-40 one day.

Basically I-26, US 74, I-85 and I-40, US 321, I-85 are similar to I-40/I-77 to Charlotte.

US 74 can be slow with all the traffic lights in Shelby. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: lamsalfl on January 05, 2010, 12:28:22 AM
Instead of I-26 to I-240, wouldn't I-26 to US 74 to I-85 be a more direct route?

Wanted to get counties and I-40 mileage. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Hellfighter on January 05, 2010, 03:34:50 PM
Is the I-74/I-95 Interchange almost finished? According to the street view image, MCDOT was in the process of building the I-74 overpass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 05, 2010, 03:41:40 PM
It's been open for over a year.

http://web.duke.edu/~rmalme/i74seg16.html

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 05, 2010, 08:23:39 PM
The Triangle Business Journal reports that NCDOT has awarded a contract to D.H. Griffin Infrastructure LLC of Greensboro to widen 2.1 miles of US 401 in Wake County.  The $8.6 million contract will widen US 401 from two lanes to four from Ligon Mill Road to Louisburg Road in the northern part of the county.

The project is one of 34 projects totaling over $107 million awarded by NCDOT on Monday, January 4.  The US 401 project is one of thirteen projects in the awards that are being funded by federal stimulus funds.

The project begins at Ligon Mill Road (where the six lane US 401 currently ends and narrows to two lanes) and will extend northward to Louisburg Road.  Work on the project may begin as early as this coming February and is slated to be completed before the end of 2011.

NCDOT's plan is to continue the widening of US 401 northwards roughly an additional 20 miles to Louisburg in Franklin County.

Story:
http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2010/01/04/daily5.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 09, 2010, 09:36:48 PM
AAA Carolinas has recently released their list of the 20 most substandard bridges in North Carolina.

The I-85/Yadkin River Bridge moved up two spots to #6.  Meanwhile, the top five in the list remained the same.

The entire list can be read here:

http://www.digtriad.com/news/pdf/2010_Top_20.pdf

Additional stories here:
http://www.salisburypost.com/News/010810-yadkin-bridge-on-list
http://www.wbtv.com/global/story.asp?s=11791378
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: shoptb1 on January 09, 2010, 11:31:45 PM
AAA Carolinas has recently released their list of the 20 most substandard bridges in North Carolina.

The I-85/Yadkin River Bridge moved up two spots to #6.  Meanwhile, the top five in the list remained the same.


I remember this bridge when I lived down in the Triad.  I'm wondering though...why aren't people making more of a fuss about the I-40/I-85 bridge over the South Buffalo Creek or the I-40 Business Loop bridge over Liberty Street?  Is the Yadkin River bridge just so much longer? 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 10, 2010, 11:47:20 AM
Well the Yadkin River Bridge is 1) longer as it crosses railroad tracks in addition to the river. 2) Narrower and the bridge is four lanes which is beginning to cause a choke point as I-85 is widened to six or eight lanes north and south of the bridge. 3) The other two bridges have been technically bypassed in both Winston and Greensboro.  AAA has yet to reduce the actual traffic count on the South Buffalo Creek bridge as a result of the southern half of the Greensboro Loop being built
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: shoptb1 on January 10, 2010, 11:50:58 AM
Makes sense....thanks for the explanation :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 11, 2010, 10:16:04 PM
If you're traveling through Wake Forest, North Carolina in the upcoming weeks, you may see some new signs.

The town is currently in the process of installing 15 new wayfinding signs. Road crews were setting anchors for the new signs today. The signs will be located on US 1A, NC 98 Business, along with local streets.

To see what the signs will look like head to the blog:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/01/wake-forest-nc-to-install-wayfinding.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on January 11, 2010, 11:20:05 PM
Wow, that's kind of cool.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 11, 2010, 11:38:07 PM
Wow, that's kind of cool.

Raleigh already has wayfinding signs up.  Other towns in North Carolina are wanting to do the same.  It's a matter of raising funds or grants.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 26, 2010, 09:02:36 PM
Synopsis of articles on the resignation of Lanny Wilson from both the NC Transportation Board and his vice chairmanship on the NC Turnpike Authority Board.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/01/lanny-wilson-resigns-from-nc-board-of.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 26, 2010, 09:04:29 PM
Soon, perhaps within weeks, the North Carolina Turnpike Authority will release
the Environmental Impact Study on the Mid-Currituck Bridge. This is the next
big step needed to be completed before construction can begin on the
approximately $660 million project.

The study was to have been released last year, but the NCTA held back as they
wanted to include an 'Option B' design in the study. 'Option B', plans for
which was released to the public last October, would move toll booths closer to
US 158 and also change the location of Aydlett Road. Aydlett residents and
Currituck County Commissioners both oppose 'Option B'.

After the study is formally made public, the NCTA plans to hold another round of
public hearings on the results.

Story:
http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/currituck-mid-county-bridge-study-close-release-14351
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 27, 2010, 08:51:28 PM
Within the next 30 days, we'll know if North Carolina and South Carolina will
receive all, some, or none of the maximum $300 million of $1.5 billion highway
grant money that can be awarded to states for large highway or bridge projects.
The money is part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

States were allowed to submit applications to the federal government for these
funds. North Carolina's application is for the replacement of the aging I-85
bridges over the Yadkin River. South Carolina's request is to help construction
the first six miles of Interstate 73 in the state. (I-95 to US 501 near Latta.)

The awarding of the grant money should occur by February 17th. It either state
receives funding, construction on either project should begin later this year.

http://hpe.com/view/full_story/5638292/article-Yadkin-River-bridge-decision-may-come-next-month
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on January 27, 2010, 10:35:55 PM
I-85 Yadkin River bridge is deserving.  I-73 isn't.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 27, 2010, 10:52:01 PM
The future of the 1922 Wil-Cox Bridge over the Yadkin River is tied to the upcoming and hopeful construction of the I-85 Yadkin River Bridge Replacement Project.

Story:
http://www.the-dispatch.com/article/20100127/ARTICLES/100129923/1005/NEWS?p=1&tc=pg

Commentary:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/01/as-decision-on-yadkin-river-bridge.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 30, 2010, 03:14:15 PM
We've been documenting some of the concerns the town of Leland, NC has had over one of the routings of the proposed Cape Fear Skyway.  The northern routing option of the highway runs the closest to the town.

Leland Mayor, Walter Futch, has publicly come out against the highway.  He's stated that if the northern routing was built it would separate his town.

Leland's view is contrary to Brunswick County Commissioners, who on January 19th passed a resolution in support of the northern route.

The town has sent to the North Carolina Turnpike Authority 16 pages of questions in regards to the highway - from financing to routing to economic impacts.  Futch said he will not consider changing his mind until the NCTA answers the 16 page questionnaire.

The questionnaire can be found here:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/assets/pdf/WM19411122.PDF

The story is here:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20100122/ARTICLES/100129884?p=2&tc=pg

My commentary on some of the more odd questions is here:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/01/town-of-leland-has-numerous.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 08, 2010, 11:05:10 AM
There are new I-85 NC shields at the ramps for Exit 212 in Henderson.  Didn't get to taking a photo of them on the way to Wintergreen, VA this weekend, but I may try later this month.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 30, 2010, 11:31:44 PM
The days of 'Inner' and 'Outer' 440 are no more - I-440 has officially (at least to NCDOT) been removed from the southern half (or it's multiplex of I-40) of the Raleigh Beltline. 

http://www.wral.com/traffic/story/7323149/

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 10, 2010, 02:02:41 PM
The 86 year old Wil-Cox Bridge was recently closed due to safety concerns from a recent inspection.

http://www.salisburypost.com/News/040910-bridge-wilcox-bridge-at-river-closed
Title: NCTA releases Mid-Currituck Bridge Draft EIS
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 11, 2010, 11:30:43 AM
On March 31st, the North Carolina Turnpike Authority released their Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and recommended alternative for the Mid-Currituck Bridge.

The NCTA has recommended alternative MCB4 - which will build the bridge from US 158 Aydlett eastwards to NC 12 in Corolla.  Although the preferred alternative has been selected, NCTA has yet to decide on the location for the eastern terminus of the bridge or the location of the toll booths on the Aydlett side of the bridge.

The Turnpike Authority will hold public hearings on the bridge in May.

More detail on the blog:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/04/ncta-releases-mid-currituck-bridge.html

And the NCTA DEIS can be found here:
http://www.ncturnpike.org/pdf/Mid-Currituck%20Bridge%20DEIS.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Traffic on April 14, 2010, 02:19:22 PM
Isn't the I-73/I-74 to be rerouted via High Point across US 311? It would connect to the US 220 near Randleman. But what number does the Randleman - Greensboro section get? Just US 220?

The 2009 RandMcNally map says I-40 is still taking the southern bypass. I guess they aren't sure either.

I-74 would exit 220 near Randleman and go west along the High Point Bypass.   I-73 would stay on 220 north to the Greensboro loop (Exit 122 of the current I-85 Bypass), where it then merges (breifly) with I-85 to go west along the loop around the SW side of town.  Due to the unique interchange designs and use of C-D roads, I-73 and I-85 never actually share the same roadway, just the R/W.  I-85, which leaves the loop and goes south toward Charlotte at Exit 121, is on the inner lanes, and I-73 is on the outer lanes.  The SW part of the Greensboro loop between I-85 and I-40 is signed as I-73 (also cosigned with US 421) and uses exit numbers and mileposts for I-73.  I-73 disappears at the I-40 interchange, but it is scheduled to continue north to Bryan Blvd., where it will exit the Greensboro loop onto a new freeway alignment that will follow NC 68 and then US 220 to VA.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on April 14, 2010, 06:12:29 PM
I would guess that the I-74 interchange with US 220 in Randolph County (Randleman) is where the existing southern terminus of US 311 is at US 220.  I say that because there is an END I-74 sign at that interchange.

I-40 is now more or less permanently routed along its old alignment in Greensboro.  Where the exit numbers changed from I-85's to Business I-85 in 2004, they changed in early 2009 to I-40's mileposts.  The old US 220 interchange (back in the 70's) is now...Exit 220 on both I-40 and Bus I-85N, though the left-hand exit from I-40 East is closed for right now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 14, 2010, 06:26:11 PM
I would guess that the I-74 interchange with US 220 in Randolph County (Randleman) is where the existing southern terminus of US 311 is at US 220.  I say that because there is an END I-74 sign at that interchange.

I-40 is now more or less permanently routed along its old alignment in Greensboro.  Where the exit numbers changed from I-85's to Business I-85 in 2004, they changed in early 2009 to I-40's mileposts.  The old US 220 interchange (back in the 70's) is now...Exit 220 on both I-40 and Bus I-85N, though the left-hand exit from I-40 East is closed for right now.

It will be near there.   Bob pretty much has it covered...
http://web.duke.edu/~rmalme/i74seg7.html

He just recently took a trip to check on progress and it's up on the blog:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/04/april-i-74us-311-freeway-progress.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 31, 2010, 10:38:28 PM
Asheville has some unique wayfinding signs:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/05/asheville-wayfinding-signs.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 15, 2010, 11:11:37 PM
The Triangle Business Journal reports that NCDOT will let for bid in February 2011 the four mile US 401 Roleseville Bypass project.  The bid is expected to come in at about $35.6 million and take about two years to complete. 

This project is the second major US 401 project in Northern Wake County that will take place in the early part of this decade.  Currently, a project to widen over two miles of US 401 to four lanes is taking place north of Ligon Mill Road.  That project, funded with dollars from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, should be completed in late 2011.

Story: http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2010/06/14/story11.html?b=1276488000^3486821&s=industry&i=commercial_real_estate
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 29, 2010, 07:46:14 PM
20 years ago today, on June 29, 1989, Interstate 40 was officially completed within the state of North Carolina.  A 122 mile extension of I-40 from Raleigh to Wilmington that took nearly 20 years to put together at a cost of $417 million was finally completed.

The Wilmington Star-News has a great article marking the 20th anniversary and some of the political battles fought for completion of the road.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20100628/ARTICLES/100629689/1092/ARTICLES?p=1&tc=pg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 28, 2010, 08:49:01 AM
WRAL has a nice two plus minute video on the 20 year anniversary of I-40 from Raleigh to Wilmington.  It includes footage from the opening and I-40 from the late 80s and 1990.

http://www.wral.com/lifestyles/travel/video/8045601/
Title: Misspelled sign on I-277 will be fixed
Post by: Alex on September 01, 2010, 02:09:51 AM
Misspelled sign on I-277 will be fixed (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/08/31/1658010/misspelled-sign-on-i-277-will.html)

The article includes a photo of the misspelling.

Quote
The North Carolina Department of Transportation says fixing a misspelled sign on Interstate 277 will not cost taxpayers any money.

NCDOT crews say the sign manufacturer made the mistake, reversing the 'd' and 'n' in the word "Independence."

NewsChannel 36 cameras caught the spelling error on Monday and NCDOT hopes to put up a temporary fix for the sign by Tuesday evening.

You can see the sign if you are driving eastbound on I-277 toward Independence Boulevard.

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/08/31/1658010/misspelled-sign-on-i-277-will.html#ixzz0yFtxxSyq
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on September 01, 2010, 12:46:52 PM
What galls me is that we're spending a small fortune ugprading signage to these new specifications and no one is checking them.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 03, 2010, 12:24:55 PM
NC 90's Western Terminus, perhaps the most isolated in the state, in Edgemont now signed:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/10/nc-90s-east-end-now-signed-and-paved.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 24, 2010, 12:02:35 PM
The $50 million Charlotte I-77 HOT Lane project was not one of the TIGER II award recipients earlier this month, leaving funding for the project in jeopardy.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/10/24/1779920/i-77-hot-lanes-lose-funding.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 26, 2010, 09:39:02 PM
NCDOT considers building their second Diverging Diamond Interchange at US 74/76 @ NC 133 in Leland.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/10/could-diverging-diamond-interchange-be.html

The first is currently under construction at I-77 Exit 28 in Mecklenburg County.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 27, 2010, 12:39:12 AM
The first is currently under construction at I-77 Exit 28 in Mecklenburg County.

Hmm, I think I'll need to check that out the next time I'm heading towards Florida on I-77. :nod:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 27, 2010, 10:22:43 AM
NCDOT considers building their second Diverging Diamond Interchange at US 74/76 @ NC 133 in Leland.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/10/could-diverging-diamond-interchange-be.html

The first is currently under construction at I-77 Exit 28 in Mecklenburg County.

A comment on the blog notes that their are a total of seven DDI's in North Carolina being considered, in design, or under construction.  Two are on I-85 in Concord, another on I-40 in Kernersville, and I-95 in Lumberton.  Most have a 2012-2014 window for completion.

So there is actually a race to see which will be the first open DDI here in North Carolina.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 17, 2010, 10:53:54 PM
When the Southwestern corner of Interstate 485 in Mecklenburg County was opened in October 2004, some wondered what was going on with the unbuilt interchange between Wilkinson Blvd (US 29/74 - Exit 9) and NC 160 (Exit 4).


The diamond interchange with Garrison Road was clearly graded, but there was no asphalt, no concrete, no signs, nothing.  Well six years after the six lane I-485 was opened to traffic, there's construction activity going on at this 'ghost interchange'.


NCDOT has recently awarded a $1.2 contract to Boggs Paving to complete the grade work and pave the interchange ramps for what will be Exit 6 or 7.  The new interchange which will give additional access to Charlotte-Douglas International Airport will be a 'ghost' no more in June 2011.

Story: http://mecktimes.com/news/2010/11/01/work-begins-on-i-485garrison-road-interchange/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on November 17, 2010, 11:50:16 PM
Wonder what will happen to a seeming phantom interchange between NC 16 and NC 24 in the Northwest corner.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on November 18, 2010, 09:59:05 AM
Wonder what will happen to a seeming phantom interchange between NC 16 and NC 24 in the Northwest corner.
That is another future interchange with Oakdale Road. It was graded when the highway was built, just like Garrison.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 18, 2010, 10:03:22 AM
Wonder what will happen to a seeming phantom interchange between NC 16 and NC 24 in the Northwest corner.
That is another future interchange with Oakdale Road. It was graded when the highway was built, just like Garrison.

I haven't had a chance to head "home" to Gaston County in awhile.  We're planning on going down to Charlotte for a Checkers game in the winter so hopefully I'll get to check out the changes to 485.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on November 18, 2010, 02:48:52 PM
Wonder what will happen to a seeming phantom interchange between NC 16 and NC 24 in the Northwest corner.
That is another future interchange with Oakdale Road. It was graded when the highway was built, just like Garrison.

I haven't had a chance to head "home" to Gaston County in awhile.  We're planning on going down to Charlotte for a Checkers game in the winter so hopefully I'll get to check out the changes to 485.

Maybe I can meet up with you for that one!  If it's in January or February, I'll be in Columbia full time by then.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 13, 2011, 12:40:45 PM
Just received confirmation from NCDOT via twitter (yeah I know) that the first phase of the Goldsboro Bypass will open by the end of the week.  The Goldsboro Bypass will be the rebirth of NC 44 after nearly 20 years off the map.  But the NC 44 designation will not last entirely too long as when the entire bypass is completed - US 70 will move on to the new freeway.

I have to be in Charlotte tomorrow but will most likely be able to get photos when the road opens.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Takumi on December 13, 2011, 04:54:06 PM
When is the full bypass supposed to open? I'd like to see an NC 44 while one exists.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on December 13, 2011, 05:34:31 PM
Ramp configurations can be seen on Bing aerials, and therefore have been added to OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.42109&lon=-77.96343&zoom=15&layers=M
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Takumi on December 13, 2011, 06:39:46 PM
I found an NCDOT proposal of the full bypass, and compared it with NE2's link. Looks like NC 44's going to be with us for a little while.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 13, 2011, 06:47:01 PM
It's a good 5-7 years at a minimum before the entire bypass is open.  It is being built in three stages...the next stage will continue East and rejoin the existing US 70 near LaGrange.  This is currently out to bid and it appears will be awarded next spring.  This is the most lengthy part (nearly 11 miles) as it combines segments BB and C.  I could see US 70 being routed on the bypass and down 795 to the existing US 70 at that point.

The final stage goes west from 795 to current US 70 somewhere near NC 581.

Here's an NCDOT schematic of the bypass.

http://www.ncdot.org/planning/development/tip/prbmaps/maps/R2554.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 16, 2011, 12:52:24 PM
The rebirth of NC 44 is official.  The new road opened sometime this morning.  Drove it about an hour ago, and will have photos and such up over the weekend.

One thing that was interesting, first time I saw California style "Freeway Entrance" signs - at the US 117 ramps to get onto the new freeway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on December 16, 2011, 09:21:45 PM
The rebirth of NC 44 is official.  The new road opened sometime this morning.  Drove it about an hour ago, and will have photos and such up over the weekend.

One thing that was interesting, first time I saw California style "Freeway Entrance" signs - at the US 117 ramps to get onto the new freeway.

Curious, but do the exits have exit numbers?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 18, 2011, 09:37:45 AM
Yes they have exit numbers based off of US 70's mileage
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 18, 2011, 09:38:39 AM
Photos and write up of the new bypass are on the blog:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2011/12/nc-44-is-back.html

Flickr set of the bypass:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/sets/72157628457432307/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: J N Winkler on December 20, 2011, 01:04:42 PM
Interesting article about NCDOT's problems with the new Davis-Bacon prevailing wage determination for North Carolina:

http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/16744617/article-Wage-dispute-delays-bids-on-I-40-bridge?instance=homefirstleft

This dispute has already resulted in two monthly lettings being rolled over.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on December 20, 2011, 07:37:52 PM
Durham has some of highest taxes in NC and some of the worst roads.  This is what happens when crooked politicans are given the task of building roads.  85 took the better part of a decade to reconstruct but 40 near Raleigh only took about 3 years.

I live only a mile or two from where they plan the bridge.  It'll take them 5 years to build it.  A job that normal would take 2, all because contractors get kickbacks from their buddies in NCDOT.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 21, 2011, 07:33:19 AM
State works on N.C. 12 plans (http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/12/16/1713798/state-works-on-nc-12-plans.html)

Quote
Environmental regulators meeting Thursday in Raleigh ruled out some of the state Department of Transportation's ideas for protecting N.C. 12 from storm damage, but they agreed to consider elevating parts of the Outer Banks road on long bridges.

Quote
Concerned about harm to the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge south of the N.C. 12 bridge over Oregon Inlet, the state and federal agencies vetoed options to protect the highway with heavy beach renourishment and dune construction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 29, 2011, 09:49:23 AM
Just a quick note from a trip last night to Fayetteville.  Construction to extend I-295 west of US 401 towards base is underway.  Clearing is being done west of the US 401/Future 295 interchange and a crane is in place for early work to build the bridge carrying I-295 over 401.

Here are the two most recent articles on the Outer loop:
http://fayobserver.com/articles/2011/11/23/1137855?sac=Local
http://fayobserver.com/articles/2011/11/17/1138004?sac=Local
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 27, 2012, 05:15:45 PM
News and Observer: I-95 upgrade plans unfold (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/01/21/1793961/i-95-upgrade-plans-unfold.html)

[Emphasis added below]

Quote
The Department of Transportation says it wants to get moving on improvements to Interstate 95, starting in 2016 with a project to add lanes along 60 busy miles between Interstate 40 in Johnston County south to Lumberton. The state expects to join Virginia in winning federal permission to pay for I-95 improvements by collecting tolls. A long-range plan is estimated to cost $4.4 billion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on January 31, 2012, 09:50:16 AM
This is only the beginning, I see more potential for this, I-85 will probably be the next cadidate.

News and Observer: I-95 upgrade plans unfold (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/01/21/1793961/i-95-upgrade-plans-unfold.html)

[Emphasis added below]

Quote
The Department of Transportation says it wants to get moving on improvements to Interstate 95, starting in 2016 with a project to add lanes along 60 busy miles between Interstate 40 in Johnston County south to Lumberton. The state expects to join Virginia in winning federal permission to pay for I-95 improvements by collecting tolls. A long-range plan is estimated to cost $4.4 billion.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on January 31, 2012, 10:57:22 AM
Not unless/until Congress expands the pilot project allowing it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 08, 2012, 04:44:54 AM
When the Southwestern corner of Interstate 485 in Mecklenburg County was opened in October 2004, some wondered what was going on with the unbuilt interchange between Wilkinson Blvd (US 29/74 - Exit 9) and NC 160 (Exit 4).


The diamond interchange with Garrison Road was clearly graded, but there was no asphalt, no concrete, no signs, nothing.  Well six years after the six lane I-485 was opened to traffic, there's construction activity going on at this 'ghost interchange'.


NCDOT has recently awarded a $1.2 contract to Boggs Paving to complete the grade work and pave the interchange ramps for what will be Exit 6 or 7.  The new interchange which will give additional access to Charlotte-Douglas International Airport will be a 'ghost' no more in June 2011.

Story: http://mecktimes.com/news/2010/11/01/work-begins-on-i-485garrison-road-interchange/

And that interchange is now opened.  Couldn't find a single news article that mentioned the opening of the new interchange.  However, I did find two other forums that mention the interchange opened.  Seems it opened in near the end of July '11.
http://www.steelecreekresidents.org/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=113
http://www.city-data.com/forum/charlotte/852831-i-485-mystery-exit-near-berewick.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on February 09, 2012, 09:56:24 AM
They say that the Tar Heel State is king when it comes to strange-looking interchanges! With the coming diverging diamonds, I-77 in the Charlotte area alone will just add on to its myriad of unusual exits, joining the already-existing ones for I-85 and I-277 on both ends.

Also, what's the progress on that I-85/I-485 interchange on the northeast side?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 09, 2012, 01:43:07 PM
They say that the Tar Heel State is king when it comes to strange-looking interchanges! With the coming diverging diamonds, I-77 in the Charlotte area alone will just add on to its myriad of unusual exits, joining the already-existing ones for I-85 and I-277 on both ends.

Also, what's the progress on that I-85/I-485 interchange on the northeast side?

Here is a link to the NCDOT site:

http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/charlotteouterloop/

They are saying 2014 for the 485/85 completion
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 09, 2012, 04:45:41 PM
More on possible I-95 tolls from WRAL-TV 5: NCDOT considering tolls for I-95; public feedback encouraged (http://www.wral.com/traffic/story/10694965/)

Video report from WRAL here (http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/10695538/).

Post Merge: February 09, 2012, 05:06:36 PM
Not unless/until Congress expands the pilot project allowing it.

As understand it, there are "slots" still available for states wanting to impose tolls "free" Interstates, and North Carolina is making application to use one of them.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 09, 2012, 06:03:34 PM
I'm aware of that.  I was replying to the comment goobnav made about I-85 being "the next candidate".  Unless/until Congress expands the program, the limit is 1 per state and 3 total...Virginia (I-95) and Missouri (I-70) (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_rr.htm) already have 2 of the 3 slots taken.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 09, 2012, 07:36:14 PM
Froggie,

VA is also working on getting 85 tolled at the border going North from NC to VA.

Here is a link:

http://nbc12.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/mcdonnell-unveils-plans-to-toll-i-95/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on February 09, 2012, 09:14:20 PM
They say that the Tar Heel State is king when it comes to strange-looking interchanges! With the coming diverging diamonds, I-77 in the Charlotte area alone will just add on to its myriad of unusual exits, joining the already-existing ones for I-85 and I-277 on both ends.

Also, what's the progress on that I-85/I-485 interchange on the northeast side?

Here is a link to the NCDOT site:

http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/charlotteouterloop/

They are saying 2014 for the 485/85 completion
Just saw one of the videos tracing the final route of I-485. At the end of the video, there's a stack interchange at I-85, but now that junction will become a turbine instead, correct?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 09, 2012, 10:09:50 PM
Quote
Froggie,

VA is also working on getting 85 tolled at the border going North from NC to VA.

However, the application VDOT submitted is only for I-95, as current Federal law prohibits Virginia from applying for 2 interstates.  This is why they dropped the plan to toll I-81 so they could shift that "slot" to I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on February 09, 2012, 10:12:27 PM
Logically they should be allowed to submit I-85 and I-95 north of I-85 as one continuous route. But politics isn't logical.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on February 09, 2012, 10:56:10 PM
Can they bring back the tolls they once had on the Turnpike? :P
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Takumi on February 09, 2012, 11:58:33 PM
I-85 at the VA/NC border would be pretty easy to shunpike, with the northernmost NC exit (US 1/401) less than a mile from the border.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 10, 2012, 10:16:30 AM
I-85 at the VA/NC border would be pretty easy to shunpike, with the northernmost NC exit (US 1/401) less than a mile from the border.

Agreed.  There is also 903 that is not too far from there and takes you right back to VA or NC.  A little circuitious but another alternative.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2012, 10:04:25 AM
News and Observer: Plan fights evasion of I-95 toll in North Carolina (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/12/1848361/plan-fights-toll-evasion.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 13, 2012, 10:15:25 AM
News and Observer: Plan fights evasion of I-95 toll in North Carolina (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/12/1848361/plan-fights-toll-evasion.html)


Read the article yesterday, the map on paper is perfect to show just how to avoid and take US 301 to get back on with no tolls.  This is a disaster waiting to happen.  If they get this and VA does not toll I-85 the traffic will use it as an alternate and Triangle traffic will become worse than it is now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2012, 11:24:10 AM
News and Observer: Plan fights evasion of I-95 toll in North Carolina (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/12/1848361/plan-fights-toll-evasion.html)


Read the article yesterday, the map on paper is perfect to show just how to avoid and take US 301 to get back on with no tolls.  This is a disaster waiting to happen.  If they get this and VA does not toll I-85 the traffic will use it as an alternate and Triangle traffic will become worse than it is now.

I-85 serves a very different travel market from I-95, and I do not believe that much traffic will divert from 95 to 85, even if 95 were to be tolled across all of North Carolina.

Are you suggesting that trips will divert down I-85 at Petersburg, Va. and then continue south on U.S. 1 in the direction of Raleigh?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 13, 2012, 12:34:36 PM
Yes.  Plus I-540, US-64 to get out to the Eastern part of the state from Raleigh or US-1 South to US 74(I-74) or I-73 when completed in SC.  Don't forget the toll is supposed to be $19.20 and that is with NC QuickPass or E-ZPass, with gas prices going up, truckers will take a slighty about 45 to 60 mile detour to save money.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on February 13, 2012, 12:49:30 PM
People who are willing to put a modicum of thought into routes might well take I-85 to save on tolls. The distance from my house to my sister-in-law's house in Florida is 859 miles if I do a straight shot down I-95 (except for taking I-295 around Richmond). If I jump off onto I-85, then take US-1 south to Raleigh, then take the Beltline around the east side of town to pick up I-40 and then return to I-95 at Benson, the trip becomes a whole three miles longer (862 miles) and I'd have cut off about half to two-thirds of I-95 through North Carolina. There's a slight time penalty, but it's not severe.

If instead I take US-1 on down through Sanford and the Pinehurst area and return to I-95 in South Carolina (I've never actually done this yet), the trip becomes 870 miles. Time-wise I'm sure it's a good bit longer due to traffic, red lights, and lower speed limits; Google Maps estimates an extra 50 minutes. But if you're a truck driver or someone who drives on that road regularly, the extra time might well be worth it, given that the tolls for trucks are almost always higher than they are for cars. I could see truck drivers peeling off I-95 at the I-74 interchange near Lumberton to hook west to US-1. They'd still incur a toll, but it would be relatively minimal.

The other routes via US-29 or I-77 aren't really great options, especially for truckers, due to terrain or the additional distance. Saving on a toll becomes a false economy if you burn enough fuel that it winds up costing the same amount. You have to be a really adamant anti-toll zealot to be willing to do that (I'm not).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 13, 2012, 01:02:19 PM
People who are willing to put a modicum of thought into routes might well take I-85 to save on tolls. The distance from my house to my sister-in-law's house in Florida is 859 miles if I do a straight shot down I-95 (except for taking I-295 around Richmond). If I jump off onto I-85, then take US-1 south to Raleigh, then take the Beltline around the east side of town to pick up I-40 and then return to I-95 at Benson, the trip becomes a whole three miles longer (862 miles) and I'd have cut off about half to two-thirds of I-95 through North Carolina. There's a slight time penalty, but it's not severe.

If instead I take US-1 on down through Sanford and the Pinehurst area and return to I-95 in South Carolina (I've never actually done this yet), the trip becomes 870 miles. Time-wise I'm sure it's a good bit longer due to traffic, red lights, and lower speed limits; Google Maps estimates an extra 50 minutes. But if you're a truck driver or someone who drives on that road regularly, the extra time might well be worth it, given that the tolls for trucks are almost always higher than they are for cars. I could see truck drivers peeling off I-95 at the I-74 interchange near Lumberton to hook west to US-1. They'd still incur a toll, but it would be relatively minimal.

The other routes via US-29 or I-77 aren't really great options, especially for truckers, due to terrain or the additional distance. Saving on a toll becomes a false economy if you burn enough fuel that it winds up costing the same amount. You have to be a really adamant anti-toll zealot to be willing to do that (I'm not).

Per the article, NCDOT estimates that 20 to 25% will try to avoid the tolls but, they are using that to justify higher cost of toll.  The PA Turnpike is $30.17 for the 359 miles of the mainline, I-76 & 276, I-95 in NC is half the distance, 181 miles and only $10 less?  The truckers are already to protest this and I am sure their Teamster brothers will join soon.  This is going to be a fun thing to see played out.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 13, 2012, 05:44:12 PM
Quote
There's a slight time penalty, but it's not severe.

Depends on what time you hit Wake Forest.  I'd say it's a moderate time penalty with the lights and sprawl between Wake Forest and the Beltline.

Quote
Per the article, NCDOT estimates that 20 to 25% will try to avoid the tolls but, they are using that to justify higher cost of toll.  The PA Turnpike is $30.17 for the 359 miles of the mainline, I-76 & 276, I-95 in NC is half the distance, 181 miles and only $10 less?  The truckers are already to protest this and I am sure their Teamster brothers will join soon.  This is going to be a fun thing to see played out.

Well here's the problem:  if we don't get the money, we can't maintain the road, let alone widen it.  Trucks are getting off at a damn good rate anyway, given that the amount of damage they do to pavement is considerably more than 3-4 times that of cars.  We're living on borrowed time right now as it is with transportation funding....unless elected officials, not to mention the voters who vote them in, are willing to accept higher transportation taxes and/or tolls, the bottom WILL FALL OUT before too long, and we'll be at the point where we literally CAN'T maintain what we already have.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on February 14, 2012, 12:44:42 AM
I'm fine with the tolls. I've driven all of I-95 and US 301 in NC. (:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: brownpelican on February 14, 2012, 04:09:35 PM
Just saw one of the videos tracing the final route of I-485. At the end of the video, there's a stack interchange at I-85, but now that junction will become a turbine instead, correct?

That stack is at I-77/I-485 on the south side of Charlotte. The turbine interchange will be at the northeast side of town, where 485 currently ends at I-85 in a trumpet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 14, 2012, 10:01:50 PM
I'm fine with the tolls. I've driven all of I-95 and US 301 in NC. (:

I have driven enough of 301 in N.C. to know that I would much rather pay the tolls for an improved I-95 across the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on February 15, 2012, 12:16:47 AM
I would much rather use other US highways or even state highways and traverse the state at my leisure. YMMV.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 15, 2012, 07:54:04 AM
I would much rather use other US highways or even state highways and traverse the state at my leisure. YMMV.

If I have the time, and the road is right for a leisurely trip, so would I.

In North Carolina, two routes that come to mind are N.C. 12 on the Outer Banks, and on the other side of the state, the Blue Ridge Parkway.

But driving from Maryland to South Carolina when time is limited (I make that trip somewhat frequently), I will take I-95 every time.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on February 15, 2012, 09:39:49 AM
I'm fine with the tolls. I've driven all of I-95 and US 301 in NC. (:

I have driven enough of 301 in N.C. to know that I would much rather pay the tolls for an improved I-95 across the state.

I have driven all of US-301 through N.C. on one trip, and that is interesting once in a while, but I would much rather pay a toll on an improved I-95.  It needs at least 3 lanes each way in its entirety.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on February 15, 2012, 09:47:02 AM
I think that they're figuring for those who make the trip rarely (once or twice a year) the tolls won't be that much of an inconvenience-they'll just go ahead and pay it; but for those who use I-95 on a regular basis for travel may be put out enough to do long-distance shunpiking (not just truckers...all those boys in the 82nd ABN/1st COSCOM at Ft. Bragg who use I-95 to travel to visit family out of state are NOT going to be happy, nor will the Marines at Cherry Point or Camp Lejeune).

And $19.20?  No, no...I could see $12-15 to start, but not close to $20 a pop...and no SunPass interoperability?  That's gonna yank the snowbirds' chain...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on February 15, 2012, 10:10:27 AM
I tend to agree that I'd probably pay the toll, or I might just use the I-85-->Raleigh-->I-40 route to cut off part of it. (With respect to froggie's point about when you hit Wake Forest, I've never encountered traffic issues there and I can only speak from my own experience in terms of time. But I have no doubt traffic issues can happen there, just as they can around Raleigh....I especially remember how bad it was when the Beltline was still being widened between Wade and Glenwood Avenues. I worked off Millbrook Road at the time and used Wake Forest Road-->Beltline-->Wade Avenue-->I-40-->Durham Freeway for my commute.) I'm kind of in the same camp as cpzilliacus: 95% of my driving on I-95 through North Carolina is on trips to or from Florida to visit relatives and the idea of a leisurely detour doesn't really work—especially from my wife's point of view—because it means sacrificing the time in Florida. The other thing is, quite frankly, I get fed up rather quickly with traffic lights and slow local drivers when I'm on a longer trip.

From the standpoint of the principle behind the thing I don't object much to tolls when they're used to finance a new road or major improvements in lieu of other forms of financing. For example, it's well-known that the New Jersey Turnpike doesn't get any gas tax funding and relies on tolls and service area revenue. From my point of view, that's a great example of capitalism at its finest: If you drive on the road, you help pay for it; if you don't drive on the road, you don't pay for it. I assume I-95 in North Carolina, or in Virginia under the toll proposal here, wouldn't go quite that far on the financing, as I assume the state portion of the gas tax would still partially fund the road under the existing formula. The point made in the article in the first post in this thread about how lots of drivers (myself included) don't stop in North Carolina to buy gas is a valid concern (in my case, it's not due to price; it's due to vehicle range—I can get at least to Florence before I have to think about filling the tank) and with the federal portion of the gas tax becoming increasingly inadequate, it is important for states to find other methods of financing these things. I-95 desperately needs upgrading across BOTH of the Carolinas. I can stomach a toll a couple of times a year if the end result is a major improvement. I should also note that my opinion on this is also based on my understanding that federal approval to toll Interstates in this fashion is conditioned in part on the states' commitment not to use the toll revenue for anything other than improvements to, or maintenance of, the tolled road—so, in this example, toll revenue from I-95 couldn't be used to improve I-26 or to complete I-74. I'm not a huge fan of paying a toll that will finance some far-away roads I'll never use, and to me the sort of thing Delaware does on I-95 is a big middle-finger gesture to all the out-of-staters.

With all that said, back when I lived in North Carolina I sometimes found myself wondering if the state was perhaps too focused on building new roads instead of maintaining what they already had. I recall the state government making a big deal about their commitment to bringing a four-lane highway within some relatively small distance of every state resident. I remember thinking that I-85 from Durham to the Virginia state line, and I-95 around Lumberton in particular, was in such horrible shape that they needed to repair those before trying to build anything else. I don't spend nearly as much time down there now, so I don't know whether the same is still true as a general matter, but the only real change I've seen on I-95 since August of 1995 was the posting of 70-mph speed limits the following summer.


I think that they're figuring for those who make the trip rarely (once or twice a year) the tolls won't be that much of an inconvenience-they'll just go ahead and pay it; but for those who use I-95 on a regular basis for travel may be put out enough to do long-distance shunpiking (not just truckers...all those boys in the 82nd ABN/1st COSCOM at Ft. Bragg who use I-95 to travel to visit family out of state are NOT going to be happy, nor will the Marines at Cherry Point or Camp Lejeune).

And $19.20?  No, no...I could see $12-15 to start, but not close to $20 a pop...and no SunPass interoperability?  That's gonna yank the snowbirds' chain...

Regarding SunPass, I suspect most of the snowbirds have both E-ZPass and SunPass devices, so that likely won't pose much of an issue.

The article in the first post makes it sound to me like they're trying to figure out a way to make this somewhat similar—note I said "somewhat"—to the way the Maine Turnpike allows reasonably long toll-free drives for Maine residents while tagging the out-of-staters with the full toll. The toll-free distances won't be nearly as long on North Carolina's road, though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on February 15, 2012, 11:05:21 AM
$19.20 for the entire stretch will lead me to shunpike the vast majority of it. I might drive the completed eight-lane or whatever stretch just to see it once, but that would be it. From far enough away, Florida/Gulf Coast, etc., alternate routes are more viable to bypass stiff tolls. Further more, if Virginia tolled theirs at an equally high rate, the I-77/81 corridors, even with all the trucks, would become more appealing, with the added bonus of avoiding the congestion of DC by staying on I-81 to I-70 to make the turn eastward.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on February 15, 2012, 11:19:18 AM
$19.20 for the entire stretch will lead me to shunpike the vast majority of it. I might drive the completed eight-lane or whatever stretch just to see it once, but that would be it. From far enough away, Florida/Gulf Coast, etc., alternate routes are more viable to bypass stiff tolls. Further more, if Virginia tolled theirs at an equally high rate, the I-77/81 corridors, even with all the trucks, would become more appealing, with the added bonus of avoiding the congestion of DC by staying on I-81 to I-70 to make the turn eastward.

Valid point about Virginia not having said anything yet about the rates. I wasn't thinking about that when I made my comments and it does indeed change my thought process, though I imagine that as a DC-area resident I'd probably opt for US-29 south to Greensboro and then either continue straight down US-220 to Rockingham or else head down to Charlotte to take I-77 and I-26. To me going around via Atlanta simply isn't worth it going to or from Florida unless there is a SERIOUS problem closer to the coast—it adds at least 200 miles, depending where I'm headed and which road I use to get to Atlanta, and the traffic around there can be maddening.

Your comment about the I-77/I-81 route does prompt me to wonder whether an unintended consequence of the tolling plans might well be to make I-81 through Virginia just flat-out intolerable. It's pretty close as it is. In my view the problem isn't the trucks per se, it's the large number of idiot car drivers who can't seem to deal with the trucks in a semi-rational manner or who gum up the left lane by trying to pass the trucks without increasing speed. I think a lot of truck drivers (not all, but a lot) tend to be among the most cooperative drivers out there if you try to work with them because they know the limitations of their vehicles and they know how it can be frustrating to get stuck behind them, but I think your average car driver has no concept of the issues truckers face on mountainous highways and of the importance of maintaining sufficient momentum when the truck approaches an uphill grade. Also, your average car driver doesn't have a clue about how much harder it is for truckers to see what's behind them and of how useful all the various flashing-your-lights signals are for truck drivers. I've found over the years that when I flash my lights to signal to them in the same way they do, they tend to acknowledge it and to move back out of the way more promptly than they might otherwise.

Anyway, I'm sure you know that about 10 years ago or so there was a PPTA proposal to widen I-81 to a quad-carriageway with the truck lanes being trucks and buses only (unlike the New Jersey Turnpike) and with the truck carriageway being subject to a toll. The deal never came to fruition in part because the bidder wanted a non-compete clause that would have prohibited any improvements to roads that could be reasonable shunpike routes (including US-29), but I wonder if tolling I-95 might well result in the I-81 proposals being resurrected in a different form. People in Virginia tend to focus on I-95 because it's the East Coast's main thru route, but in Virginia I-81 really needs improvements a lot more than I-95 does.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on February 15, 2012, 03:01:53 PM
While vastly out of date - http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-081.html, I was aware of the tolling I-81 Truck lane concept. Need to add that to the queue to update...

You make a good point about the cars passing trucks, but its a two-fold problem. Not only is it a pain when one car lollygags in the left-hand lane at a mile or two per hour faster than the adjacent truck, but trucks are not known to pass each other with break neck speeds either. Often is the case on I-81 or I-77, with the hilly nature of both roads, where one truck will take one to two miles to complete a pass. Meanwhile the lemming queue of passenger cars forms behind the left-hand truck, creating moving bottlenecks. Perhaps additional truck passing lanes may be needed here and there to compensate should either freeway gain a significant amount of traffic.

Being based out of the DC area, it would be hard to avoid the bulk of tolls on the basis of time expenditure.


Valid point about Virginia not having said anything yet about the rates. I wasn't thinking about that when I made my comments and it does indeed change my thought process, though I imagine that as a DC-area resident I'd probably opt for US-29 south to Greensboro and then either continue straight down US-220 to Rockingham or else head down to Charlotte to take I-77 and I-26. To me going around via Atlanta simply isn't worth it going to or from Florida unless there is a SERIOUS problem closer to the coast—it adds at least 200 miles, depending where I'm headed and which road I use to get to Atlanta, and the traffic around there can be maddening.

Your comment about the I-77/I-81 route does prompt me to wonder whether an unintended consequence of the tolling plans might well be to make I-81 through Virginia just flat-out intolerable. It's pretty close as it is. In my view the problem isn't the trucks per se, it's the large number of idiot car drivers who can't seem to deal with the trucks in a semi-rational manner or who gum up the left lane by trying to pass the trucks without increasing speed. I think a lot of truck drivers (not all, but a lot) tend to be among the most cooperative drivers out there if you try to work with them because they know the limitations of their vehicles and they know how it can be frustrating to get stuck behind them, but I think your average car driver has no concept of the issues truckers face on mountainous highways and of the importance of maintaining sufficient momentum when the truck approaches an uphill grade. Also, your average car driver doesn't have a clue about how much harder it is for truckers to see what's behind them and of how useful all the various flashing-your-lights signals are for truck drivers. I've found over the years that when I flash my lights to signal to them in the same way they do, they tend to acknowledge it and to move back out of the way more promptly than they might otherwise.

Anyway, I'm sure you know that about 10 years ago or so there was a PPTA proposal to widen I-81 to a quad-carriageway with the truck lanes being trucks and buses only (unlike the New Jersey Turnpike) and with the truck carriageway being subject to a toll. The deal never came to fruition in part because the bidder wanted a non-compete clause that would have prohibited any improvements to roads that could be reasonable shunpike routes (including US-29), but I wonder if tolling I-95 might well result in the I-81 proposals being resurrected in a different form. People in Virginia tend to focus on I-95 because it's the East Coast's main thru route, but in Virginia I-81 really needs improvements a lot more than I-95 does.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on February 15, 2012, 03:11:52 PM
Well, if they push it then the next time I go home to Philly it's I-95>I-26>I-77>I-85>US 301>MD 5>I-495>I-95 for the win...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on February 15, 2012, 03:44:12 PM
....

Being based out of the DC area, it would be hard to avoid the bulk of tolls on the basis of time expenditure.

For me, the main thing is that going too far out of the way runs up against a low WAF: Wife Acceptance Factor. (The time I made a wrong turn in Colorado on the way back from a football trip to the University of Wyoming and took us 125 miles out of our way did NOT go over well with her....I enjoyed the scenery and seeing someplace new, but she quickly got sick of being in the car.) Like most of us on this forum, I'm always happy to go a different way just for the sake of the drive, as long as it's within reason of course, and I'll do up to about 100 extra miles. But my wife prefers just to get where we're going unless there's a traffic issue or some such.

I'll certainly concede that if we have to be somewhere by a particular time I'll almost always opt for the most direct route, even if the "particular time" is the following day. I suppose factors such as night driving at the end of a long day's drive factor in as well—I find that headlight glare bothers me more now than it did when I was in my 20s, and if I drive from home to Florida during the winter it means I hit Florida right around sunset and the lack of a wide median on I-95 down there makes the headlight glare all the more noticeable.

I think in the end most people will accept the tolls. The same thing happened with the Dulles Toll Road here in Fairfax County. Back when it opened in the mid-1980s everybody thought it was astoundingly expensive (max toll back then was 85¢ to go about 12 miles from the Beltway to the end of the road at VA-28), especially compared to the New Jersey Turnpike and other toll roads that were more familiar to everyone back then. But the alternate routes take so much longer that most people ultimately decided the toll was worth it. I'm sure I-95 tolling would be no different. I also expect a lot of people don't know of any other route—seriously! I'm always amazed at how many people think I-95 and the New Jersey Turnpike are the only route between DC and New York—and I think a lot of people would have a very serious bias against shunpiking via US-301 or other non-Interstate routes. (When I say "a lot of people" I mean the general public, not roadgeeks or people who drive for a living.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 15, 2012, 05:45:31 PM
With all that said, back when I lived in North Carolina I sometimes found myself wondering if the state was perhaps too focused on building new roads instead of maintaining what they already had. I recall the state government making a big deal about their commitment to bringing a four-lane highway within some relatively small distance of every state resident. I remember thinking that I-85 from Durham to the Virginia state line, and I-95 around Lumberton in particular, was in such horrible shape that they needed to repair those before trying to build anything else.

That section of I-85 was rebuilt a few years ago, its all fresh pavement now. VA and NC also resurfaced large portions of I-95 which I believe was funded by ARRA.

Coming from a state that has a perpetually broke transportation budget (but cheap gas tax), it amazes me how much road building NC is able to do.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on February 16, 2012, 12:34:12 AM
Well, if they push it then the next time I go home to Philly it's I-95>I-26>I-77>I-85>US 301>MD 5>I-495>I-95 for the win...

What about the Tydings Bridge and the Delaware Turnpike?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on February 16, 2012, 03:11:53 AM
Well, if they push it then the next time I go home to Philly it's I-95>I-26>I-77>I-85>US 301>MD 5>I-495>I-95 for the win...

What about the Tydings Bridge and the Delaware Turnpike?

I can live with both, especially the Tydings since I only have to pay northbound (although since I've been on this forum and found out some of the Delaware Turnpike avoidance routes, I can bypass it too).  :biggrin: :nod:

But $20 through NC for God knows how long?  Especially if someone gets the bright idea to start using the tolls to do mass transit too? :ded: Nuh uh.

(Then again, I do live near Orlando and have a SunPass transponder, so you can take that with a dump truck of salt).   :D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2012, 03:08:45 PM
According to TOLLROADSnews, USDOT/FHWA has allocated the one remaining "slot" in the Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program to North Carolina for I-95:

USDOT allocates open toll slot to NC/I-95, stiffs RI/I-95, AZ/I-15 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5766)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on February 18, 2012, 10:41:19 PM
According to real news sources, that's what I've heard as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Grzrd on February 18, 2012, 11:08:28 PM
According to real news sources, that's what I've heard as well.

I think this is a real news source (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/crosstown/nc-wins-federal-permission-for-i-95-check-your-drive-on-i-95-toll-map):

Quote
North Carolina won permission from the Federal Highway Administration Friday to collect tolls on Interstate 95, the state Department of Transportation said.
DOT is floating a $4.4 billion plan to overhaul all 182 miles of I-95, widening the four-lane expressway to six lanes -- and eight lanes on the busiest 50 miles. To pay for it, DOT wants to collect tolls from its drivers .... As a result, truckers (25 percent of all I-95 traffic) and out-of-state cars and trucks (55 percent) could actually end up paying more than their share of the tolls.
Check the attached Google map to see how this would affect you and your trips on I-95. Blue icons mark locations for 9 sets of electronic toll sensors on I-95.  Pink icons mark the nearest exits, before and after the sensors, where drivers going on or off I-95 also would pay tolls.
All other exits? Toll-free. And that's most of them.
When tolling starts in 2019, a car driving all the way between South Carolina and Virginia probably would be tolled $19.20, DOT says. Tolls for heavy trucks will be higher ....
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 19, 2012, 11:09:52 PM
Here's the story from WRAL (http://www.wral.com/traffic/story/10747682/).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on February 20, 2012, 06:08:36 AM
North Carolina won permission from the Federal Highway Administration Friday to collect tolls on Interstate 95, the state Department of Transportation said.
DOT is floating a $4.4 billion plan to overhaul all 182 miles of I-95, widening the four-lane expressway to six lanes -- and eight lanes on the busiest 50 miles. To pay for it, DOT wants to collect tolls from its drivers .... As a result, truckers (25 percent of all I-95 traffic) and out-of-state cars and trucks (55 percent) could actually end up paying more than their share of the tolls.
Check the attached Google map to see how this would affect you and your trips on I-95. Blue icons mark locations for 9 sets of electronic toll sensors on I-95.  Pink icons mark the nearest exits, before and after the sensors, where drivers going on or off I-95 also would pay tolls.
All other exits? Toll-free. And that's most of them.
When tolling starts in 2019, a car driving all the way between South Carolina and Virginia probably would be tolled $19.20, DOT says. Tolls for heavy trucks will be higher ....


Car tolls of 11 cents per mile for 181 miles of historically untolled rural Interstate highway???

The public will massively oppose this scheme.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on February 20, 2012, 03:55:15 PM
So I decided to run some numbers here...$4.4B with a projected toll of $19.20 comes out to approximately 229.1 million trips needed to pay it off.
Divided by the best case 53,000 AADT, you have 4,323 days...nearly 12 YEARS of tolls.

And, of course, this does NOT exclude the possibility that those tolls won't rise OR that those tolls won't be dropped in 2030 (after all, they can always find OTHER needs that can be addressed using the cash flow).

Whee doggies, this is gonna get UG-LY...  :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on February 20, 2012, 09:40:47 PM
The N.C. US-301 corridor was for the most part quite rural back before I-95 was built.  Nowadays there are tons of small town type development all along the N.C. I-95 corridor, which for the most part closely parallels US-301.  Then there are the long established US-301 cities of Fayetteville, Wilson, Rocky Mount and Roanoke Rapids.

Meaning that a goodly portion of the N.C. I-95 traffic is local within N.C., local as in trips of 20 miles or less --- and while they may get some break on tolls, they are going to have to pay something in this scheme, and even with a 50% discount that is still 6 cents per mile, or $1.20 for a 20 mile trip.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2012, 11:07:57 PM
Meaning that a goodly portion of the N.C. I-95 traffic is local within N.C., local as in trips of 20 miles or less --- and while they may get some break on tolls, they are going to have to pay something in this scheme, and even with a 50% discount that is still 6 cents per mile, or $1.20 for a 20 mile trip.

One of the few things that the Pennsylvania proposal to toll I-80 got right was to grant free passage to 4-wheeled vehicles passing their first toll point, so that relatively short trips on the road would not be tolled. 

With all-electronic tolling, this is relatively simple to implement.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on February 21, 2012, 08:41:41 AM
Meaning that a goodly portion of the N.C. I-95 traffic is local within N.C., local as in trips of 20 miles or less --- and while they may get some break on tolls, they are going to have to pay something in this scheme, and even with a 50% discount that is still 6 cents per mile, or $1.20 for a 20 mile trip.

One of the few things that the Pennsylvania proposal to toll I-80 got right was to grant free passage to 4-wheeled vehicles passing their first toll point, so that relatively short trips on the road would not be tolled. 

With all-electronic tolling, this is relatively simple to implement.

N.C. I-95 has far more local development and traffic than PA I-80 ... I don't think it would be feasible to let short trips be untolled.  That local traffic and development will increase on a widened highway.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Grzrd on February 21, 2012, 09:21:51 AM
I think this is a real news source (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/crosstown/nc-wins-federal-permission-for-i-95-check-your-drive-on-i-95-toll-map):
Quote
Check the attached Google map to see how this would affect you and your trips on I-95. Blue icons mark locations for 9 sets of electronic toll sensors on I-95.  Pink icons mark the nearest exits, before and after the sensors, where drivers going on or off I-95 also would pay tolls.
All other exits? Toll-free. And that's most of them.

I admittedly have not closely analyzed the map icons to see to what extent local traffic could realistically avoid the tolls, but I got the impression that NCDOT was at least making some type of effort to spare the locals.  Has anyone tried to figure out sensor avoidance routes yet?  :ninja:  
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 21, 2012, 09:43:37 AM
Meaning that a goodly portion of the N.C. I-95 traffic is local within N.C., local as in trips of 20 miles or less --- and while they may get some break on tolls, they are going to have to pay something in this scheme, and even with a 50% discount that is still 6 cents per mile, or $1.20 for a 20 mile trip.

One of the few things that the Pennsylvania proposal to toll I-80 got right was to grant free passage to 4-wheeled vehicles passing their first toll point, so that relatively short trips on the road would not be tolled.  

With all-electronic tolling, this is relatively simple to implement.

N.C. I-95 has far more local development and traffic than PA I-80 ... I don't think it would be feasible to let short trips be untolled.

Using a travel demand forecasting model for I-95 traffic in North Carolina, it should be pretty easy for NCDOT or one of its consultants to develop a trip length frequency distribution for I-95 travel to determine that.  In fact, it's one of the basic steps in running a "four step" travel demand model, so they have probably already done it.

You might recall that the Connecticut Turnpike (most of which is I-95) was once tolled with a system of barrier tolls, and the locations of the barriers were sited to allow significant local travel to take place without paying tolls.

Quote
That local traffic and development will increase on a widened highway.

Are you buying in to the notion of "induced" demand for highway capacity?  "Induced" demand and "induced" traffic are standard arguments used (over and over and over again) by the anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility industry to oppose increased highway capacity.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on February 21, 2012, 09:46:39 AM
That local traffic and development will increase on a widened highway.
Are you buying in to the notion of "induced" demand for highway capacity?  "Induced" demand and "induced" traffic are standard arguments used (over and over and over again) by the anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility industry to oppose increased highway capacity.

No, I am basing the future on the changes that have occured since I-95 was built.  The corridor continues to develop.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 21, 2012, 09:50:44 AM
The N.C. US-301 corridor was for the most part quite rural back before I-95 was built.  Nowadays there are tons of small town type development all along the N.C. I-95 corridor, which for the most part closely parallels US-301.  Then there are the long established US-301 cities of Fayetteville, Wilson, Rocky Mount and Roanoke Rapids.

Meaning that a goodly portion of the N.C. I-95 traffic is local within N.C., local as in trips of 20 miles or less --- and while they may get some break on tolls, they are going to have to pay something in this scheme, and even with a 50% discount that is still 6 cents per mile, or $1.20 for a 20 mile trip.

I-95 traffic is more thru than local.  The local traffic is heaviest in the Dunn and Benson areas which there will not be any tolls.  Any other local (NC origin) traffic is going to be of some distance 40+ miles.  I.E. Raleigh to Fayetteville.  

US 301 would not be able to handle any toll avoidance traffic with the exception of Fayetteville (Business I-95), and Kenly to Rocky Mount.  Those are the only four lane sections of US 301.  Traffic is slow in Dunn, Benson, Smithfield/Selma, old 301 through Lumberton, Weldon, then throw in many of the 35 mph small town along the way.

Driving 301 compared to 95 throughout NC is a good 90 minutes or more of a drive.

It isn't going to get ugly as ya'll are making out to be.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 21, 2012, 09:54:49 AM
That local traffic and development will increase on a widened highway.
Are you buying in to the notion of "induced" demand for highway capacity?  "Induced" demand and "induced" traffic are standard arguments used (over and over and over again) by the anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility industry to oppose increased highway capacity.

No, I am basing the future on the changes that have occured since I-95 was built.  The corridor continues to develop.

It has? Sure you aren't talking about I-40/85 or 85 from Charlotte to Durham?

People are leaving the eastern part of the state to move to Charlotte and Raleigh.  Just look at some of the unemployment numbers of the I-95 Counties and eastern North Carolina.  If development means compared to 1960 when the Fayetteville to Kenly stretch opened sure.  But compared to the rest of the state - or even the other interstates within the state- no way.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 21, 2012, 10:00:23 AM
TOLLROADSnews: Tolls for $4.5b work on NC/I-95 proposed in two phases (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5769)

Quote
Tolling and rebuild/capacity additions costing some $1.81b will start in the most urgent section 61 miles, 100km from NC211 at mile marker MM20 south of Fayetteville to MM81 at I-40. Phase 2 to begin after Phase 1 is  complete would see $2.63b of work on 20 miles south of Fayetteville to South Carolina and on 100 miles north of I-40 up to the Virginia line plus tolls started in those stretches.

Quote
Tolls per mile would be higher in the Phase 1 part with the higher traffic and greater roadwork (going to 8 lanes) plus more interchange improvements.

Quote
The toll scheme is for all-electronic toll points - a mix of multi-protocol transponder readers (E-ZPass, SunPass and NC brand 6Bs at least) and cameras for pay-by-mail. There will be nine mainline toll points and on 18 sets of outwards facing ramp pairs on  either side to get tolls on all but the short on and off trips in between. (see sketch plan nearby)

Quote
They've allowed $78m for the toll system - just under 2% of project cost.

Quote
Mainline gantries would be about 20 miles, 32km apart, three in the Phase 1 portion and six in the Phase 3.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 21, 2012, 10:10:39 AM
Oh, I will be stopping by at the info session in Wilson tonight.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on February 21, 2012, 10:43:24 AM
"Induced" demand and "induced" traffic are standard arguments used (over and over and over again) by the anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility industry to oppose increased highway capacity.
Doesn't make it false.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 21, 2012, 01:25:29 PM
"Induced" demand and "induced" traffic are standard arguments used (over and over and over again) by the anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility industry to oppose increased highway capacity.
Doesn't make it false.

I believe that new highways (if they are "free" and uncongested) probably lead to longer trip lengths in areas that are experiencing growth in employment and resident population).  But as CanesFan27 correctly pointed out above, many counties near I-95 in North Carolina have been losing population.  And the availability of new highway capacity does not mean that it instantly fills up, especially if it is tolled (as NCDOT is proposing for I-95).

The lay source that's frequently cited on the subject of "induced" demand for highway capacity was a 1999 article about increased traffic on I-270 in Maryland by Alan Sipress in the Washington Post (online for free here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/traffic4.htm)). 

Sipress and his editors at the Post made a critical omission in that article. 

When  the travel demand forecasts were done as part of the studies that recommended widening I-270, the network assumptions included both an InterCounty Connector running east to I-95 (which at the time that the article was written, was in limbo) and a new crossing of the Potomac River to the west and south of I-270 to Northern Virginia.  Without those circumferential links, I-270 was going to fill to capacity much more quickly than the forecasts had predicted.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 21, 2012, 04:27:57 PM
It's not going to get ugly - but Anti I-95 Tolling signs are already up. 

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/02/anti-i-95-tolling-signs-already-up-in.html

Weldon, NC photo taken today by Billy Riddle.  He's going to meet up with me at the info meeting in Wilson tonight.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 21, 2012, 04:36:48 PM
no state name on the shields.  I cannot respect that organization.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on February 21, 2012, 05:38:39 PM
....

You might recall that the Connecticut Turnpike (most of which is I-95) was once tolled with a system of barrier tolls, and the locations of the barriers were sited to allow significant local travel to take place without paying tolls.

....

I believe the Maine Turnpike is configured that way now (I last drove on it in 2008, but aside from a rate increase I think the setup is the same). There are three barrier tolls. At the entrances between the York and New Gloucester barriers you also pay $1.00 when you enter the Turnpike. Most exits, however, are not tolled, with a couple of exceptions—the two ends of I-295, as well as unsigned I-495, are tolled for both entry to and exit from the Turnpike. (The southern end of I-295 is the place where Maine residents all know to take Exit 45, the Maine Mall exit, instead of Exit 44 for I-295 because the former is not tolled while the latter carries a $1.00 toll. Half a mile east from Exit 45 you then enter I-295. It's even easier than shunpiking the Delaware Turnpike!) So essentially what it does is let local residents go a long way for a dollar while hitting out-of-staters with the barrier tolls plus another toll upon exit if they use the most popular tourist routes. I-95 in North Carolina is a much busier road than it is in Maine (though the portion in Maine is a much better road than most of North Carolina's, at least the part south of Portland at least), but I'm certain North Carolina could study the way Maine set it up and figure out some way to do something similar. They've plainly stated that they really want to sock the out-of-staters who pass through the state but never stop except perhaps at a rest area to take a leak.

Maine also gives E-ZPass customers a major discount if they use the Turnpike a lot. The plan is set up so that while out-of-staters are technically eligible, in practice they'll never qualify unless they commute to work in Maine from a residence in New Hampshire or Massachusetts. North Carolina could opt to do the same if enough residents push for it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 22, 2012, 10:51:27 PM
Some photos, notes, information, and commentary on the I-95 toll proposal from the Public Information Hearing that Billy Riddle and I attended in WIlson, NC on Tuesday.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/02/i-95-tolling-public-hearing-wilson-nc.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2012, 09:04:22 AM
....

You might recall that the Connecticut Turnpike (most of which is I-95) was once tolled with a system of barrier tolls, and the locations of the barriers were sited to allow significant local travel to take place without paying tolls.

....

I believe the Maine Turnpike is configured that way now (I last drove on it in 2008, but aside from a rate increase I think the setup is the same). There are three barrier tolls. At the entrances between the York and New Gloucester barriers you also pay $1.00 when you enter the Turnpike. Most exits, however, are not tolled, with a couple of exceptions—the two ends of I-295, as well as unsigned I-495, are tolled for both entry to and exit from the Turnpike. (The southern end of I-295 is the place where Maine residents all know to take Exit 45, the Maine Mall exit, instead of Exit 44 for I-295 because the former is not tolled while the latter carries a $1.00 toll. Half a mile east from Exit 45 you then enter I-295. It's even easier than shunpiking the Delaware Turnpike!) So essentially what it does is let local residents go a long way for a dollar while hitting out-of-staters with the barrier tolls plus another toll upon exit if they use the most popular tourist routes.

Last time I was on the Maine Turnpike, it was still a "closed" ticket system (like the New Jersey Turnpike).  A long time ago.

Quote
I-95 in North Carolina is a much busier road than it is in Maine (though the portion in Maine is a much better road than most of North Carolina's, at least the part south of Portland at least), but I'm certain North Carolina could study the way Maine set it up and figure out some way to do something similar. They've plainly stated that they really want to sock the out-of-staters who pass through the state but never stop except perhaps at a rest area to take a leak.

I usually make at least one stop in North Carolina when crossing it on I-95.  Either to fill up at the Sam's Club in Lumberton (near Exit 20) or at the outlet mall in Smithfield.  So I pay some taxes to N.C. when I go that way.

Quote
Maine also gives E-ZPass customers a major discount if they use the Turnpike a lot. The plan is set up so that while out-of-staters are technically eligible, in practice they'll never qualify unless they commute to work in Maine from a residence in New Hampshire or Massachusetts. North Carolina could opt to do the same if enough residents push for it.

I like the idea of giving short trips on I-95 a break from the tolls (regardless of residency of the vehicle), as Pennsylvania proposed to do with I-80. 

I don't like the system used by some states to give E-ZPass discounts only to their own residents.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2012, 09:07:12 AM
TOLLROADSnews: NC Turnpike/ATI asking vendors to demo newest toll technologies, especially IOP in April (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5770)

Quote
NCTA is especially interested license plate recognition and in multi protocol readers, NCTA director of operations Barry Mickle tells us, because of their location between Florida and the E-ZPass region and the importance of interstate travel in their future tollroads.  They are also very interested in improvements on the ISO 18000 6B sticker tags and the opportunity for lower cost transponders.

Quote
For the demonstrations they will have the use of the facilities at an emergency services training center next to the runway of an abandoned airfield near Sanford NC, 35 miles west of Raleigh. The runway pavement is just 0.8 miles, 1.2km long and 40ft, 12m wide.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2012, 11:11:17 PM
Ellmers against I-95 tolls (http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/ellmers_against_i95_toll_plan)

Quote
U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers opposes the I-95 tolls plan. The Dunn Republican charges that residents in her district would be disproportionately affected since a major portion of the highway runs through the region. She sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation Wednesday calling for an economic impact study on local business and residents

Quote
Last month, North Carolina won preliminary approval from the Federal Highway Administration to collect tolls on Interstate 95 to pay for a $4.4 billion widening project.

Quote
“While I recognize the need to maintain I-95, paying for the construction through a highway tax could be devastating to residents and small businesses along the I-95 corridor,” Ellmers wrote.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on March 02, 2012, 06:12:07 PM
Quote
U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers opposes the I-95 tolls plan. The Dunn Republican charges that residents in her district would be disproportionately affected since a major portion of the highway runs through the region. She sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation Wednesday calling for an economic impact study on local business and residents

Quote
Last month, North Carolina won preliminary approval from the Federal Highway Administration to collect tolls on Interstate 95 to pay for a $4.4 billion widening project.

Quote
“While I recognize the need to maintain I-95, paying for the construction through a highway tax could be devastating to residents and small businesses along the I-95 corridor,” Ellmers wrote.

What the hell kind of "news" sources do you always find? In the same quotes, it says that Ellmers reportedly opposes tolls, but is directly quoted in writing as saying that paying through a highway tax could be devastating. Sounds to me like she SUPPORTS the tolls.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on March 02, 2012, 06:18:43 PM
Eh, it's the Repub language where everything bad is a tax.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2012, 05:04:45 PM
What the hell kind of "news" sources do you always find?

The News & Observer (http://www.newsobserver.com/), Raleigh, N.C.  More to the point, a blog belonging to said newspaper site called Under the Dome (http://projects.newsobserver.com/dome/).

Quote
In the same quotes, it says that Ellmers reportedly opposes tolls, but is directly quoted in writing as saying that paying through a highway tax could be devastating. Sounds to me like she SUPPORTS the tolls.

I interpret that to say that she does not want her constituents to pay any more in taxes or tolls to fund improvements to I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: brownpelican on March 08, 2012, 04:47:54 PM
Slightly off-topic:

How come the state hasn't looked at widening I-77 to eight lanes from the Belk Freeway to the state line to match S.C.'s eight-laner? Traffic's flowing that good?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on March 15, 2012, 10:05:15 PM
I say just build 2 toll booths at the VA line and the SC line. Charge $5 at each one and just use that money to start building. Another mid-state toll could be added 10 years down the road. Yankees travelling to and from Florida don't go out of their way to avoid tolls. They're used to them. And NC locals wouldn't have anything to b*tch about either.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 15, 2012, 10:48:54 PM
Slightly off-topic:

How come the state hasn't looked at widening I-77 to eight lanes from the Belk Freeway to the state line to match S.C.'s eight-laner? Traffic's flowing that good?
Personally I think the widening from I-485 north of Charlotte to at least Mooresville should be a higher priority considering that it is still only 4 lanes with high traffic levels on the weekends.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on March 16, 2012, 12:36:45 PM
I'd love to hear the reaction from the lakefront people in Cornelius on widening the bridge near Davidson
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 18, 2012, 03:59:54 PM
I say just build 2 toll booths at the VA line and the SC line. Charge $5 at each one and just use that money to start building. Another mid-state toll could be added 10 years down the road. Yankees travelling to and from Florida don't go out of their way to avoid tolls. They're used to them. And NC locals wouldn't have anything to b*tch about either.

Delaware Turnpike-style tolling is fine in Delaware, since that section of I-95 was built without  federal funding, and the federal government has no say-so about tolling (including location of toll points).   

I don't think the USDOT or its FHWA are going to permit that anywhere on the currently "free" Interstate system if federal dollars were used for construction or repair and rehabilitation.   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on March 18, 2012, 09:14:58 PM
Is there any particular reason the federal government wouldn't allow NC to toll I-95 in that manner, if I-95 is approved for tolling?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on March 19, 2012, 07:58:22 PM
Is there any particular reason the federal government wouldn't allow NC to toll I-95 in that manner, if I-95 is approved for tolling?
I agree, I don't understand CP's point.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 20, 2012, 08:10:58 AM
Is there any particular reason the federal government wouldn't allow NC to toll I-95 in that manner, if I-95 is approved for tolling?

I suspect (but cannot prove) that the FHWA will not allow a state to impose tolls only on traffic crossing a state boundary as part of the Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program (http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_rr.htm), for practical reasons (a single tolling point is likely to cause shunpiking) and for reasons of equity (states should not be allowed to discriminate against interstate travel).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on March 20, 2012, 09:49:02 AM
I suspect (but cannot prove) that the FHWA will not allow a state to impose tolls only on traffic crossing a state boundary as part of the Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program (http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_rr.htm), for practical reasons (a single tolling point is likely to cause shunpiking) and for reasons of equity (states should not be allowed to discriminate against interstate travel).

On its face, that may be true, but in practical application, most of the interstates that the states are pushing for this program carry a higher-than-normal percentage of true interstate (or out-of-state) traffic.

I-80 connects nothing of real significance in Pennsylvania, but it's a major route from the Midwest to NYC.

I-95 connects nothing of real significance in North Carolina, but it's a major route from Florida to the Northeast.

A toll collection point near the state line would just be a much more obvious symbol of what those states are really trying to do; which is collect tolls from out-of-state motorists who are just passing through.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on March 20, 2012, 03:21:24 PM
On its face, that may be true, but in practical application, most of the interstates that the states are pushing for this program carry a higher-than-normal percentage of true interstate (or out-of-state) traffic.

I-80 connects nothing of real significance in Pennsylvania, but it's a major route from the Midwest to NYC.

I-95 connects nothing of real significance in North Carolina, but it's a major route from Florida to the Northeast.

I would think that folks in Williamsport, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Raleigh, Rocky Mount, Fayetteville, and Wilmington would disagree!

Raleigh and Wilmington are not directly on I-95, but I-95 provides a major access for those cities, in the case of Raleigh a state capital and served by spurs of I-40 and US-264.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 21, 2012, 11:01:25 AM
I suspect (but cannot prove) that the FHWA will not allow a state to impose tolls only on traffic crossing a state boundary as part of the Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program (http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_rr.htm), for practical reasons (a single tolling point is likely to cause shunpiking) and for reasons of equity (states should not be allowed to discriminate against interstate travel).

On its face, that may be true, but in practical application, most of the interstates that the states are pushing for this program carry a higher-than-normal percentage of true interstate (or out-of-state) traffic.

H.B., that is correct (at least in most cases).  The Virginia proposal to toll I-95 is an exception.

Quote
I-80 connects nothing of real significance in Pennsylvania, but it's a major route from the Midwest to NYC.

I've driven almost none of I-80 in Penn's Woods, but from looking at a map, it seems you are correct.  "A whole lot of nothing." 

Other people that I trust say that long sections of I-80 in Pennsylvania need reconstruction and repair (and probably widening, though that was not included in the PTC/PennDOT proposal that was submitted to USDOT).

Quote
I-95 connects nothing of real significance in North Carolina, but it's a major route from Florida to the Northeast.

Absolutely correct.  I am one of those users, driving rather frequently from Maryland to South Carolina.

And I know that long sections of I-95 in North Carolina are badly in need of widening and total reconstruction. 

And even though NCDOT has done some remediation work, there are still about a dozen overpasses (mostly around and north of Lumberton) that are too low for Interstate-legal truck traffic.

Quote
A toll collection point near the state line would just be a much more obvious symbol of what those states are really trying to do; which is collect tolls from out-of-state motorists who are just passing through.

That's true, though (strange as it sounds), I liked the PTC/PennDOT proposal for tolling I-80 (I did not like the proposal to divert most of the I-80 revenue to militantly unionized hourly transit employees in urban areas of Pennsylvanian far from the I-80 corridor, however - nor did the Bush and Obama Administration USDOTs).   

Four-wheeled vehicles with E-ZPass transponders would have gotten the first toll collection gantry they passed on I-80 free of charge, in that way making a fair number of short intrastate trips toll-free.

Did you ever drive the Connecticut Turnpike in the years before it was de-tolled?  I did.  Even though there was no E-ZPass back then, it was pretty obvious to me that the barrier tolls were located in such a way to allow many local trips on the Turnpike to be free of charge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Traffic on March 21, 2012, 01:39:08 PM
FHWA must not have a concern tolls at state lines if they have ever traveled I-95 between Delaware and Maryland.  $5 just to cross the state line.  Not an issue for Delaware residents, but punish the out of state folks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on March 21, 2012, 02:25:55 PM
FHWA must not have a concern tolls at state lines if they have ever traveled I-95 between Delaware and Maryland.  $5 just to cross the state line.  Not an issue for Delaware residents, but punish the out of state folks.

That's not an FHWA issue. The Delaware Turnpike was constructed without federal Interstate funds and Delaware originally imposed the tolls to pay for it. The FHWA couldn't demand that they remove the tolls once the bonds were paid off, so the state now uses it as a cash cow to fund other things and to allow them not to have a sales tax.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on March 22, 2012, 01:58:00 PM
Williamsport, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre aren't on I-80.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on March 22, 2012, 04:52:45 PM
Williamsport, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre aren't on I-80.

I-80 provides major Interstate east-west access to them, via spur I-380 and a section of I-81 for Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, and via spur I-180 and a section of US-220 for Williamsport.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on March 22, 2012, 11:41:07 PM
Williamsport, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre aren't on I-80.

I-80 provides major Interstate east-west access to them, via spur I-380 and a section of I-81 for Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, and via spur I-180 and a section of US-220 for Williamsport.


What does this have to do with North Carolina?? Stay on topic...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on March 23, 2012, 12:48:10 AM
Williamsport, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre aren't on I-80.

I-80 provides major Interstate east-west access to them, via spur I-380 and a section of I-81 for Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, and via spur I-180 and a section of US-220 for Williamsport.


What does this have to do with North Carolina?? Stay on topic...
It has to do with the topic of tolling I-95. Read the thread...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on March 23, 2012, 06:22:31 AM
Williamsport, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre aren't on I-80.

I-80 provides major Interstate east-west access to them, via spur I-380 and a section of I-81 for Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, and via spur I-180 and a section of US-220 for Williamsport.


What does this have to do with North Carolina?? Stay on topic...
It has to do with the topic of tolling I-95. Read the thread...

And the fact that NC I-95 and PA I-80 both DO serve significant cities in those states, directly and indirectly.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 23, 2012, 08:36:23 AM
Williamsport, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre aren't on I-80.

I-80 provides major Interstate east-west access to them, via spur I-380 and a section of I-81 for Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, and via spur I-180 and a section of US-220 for Williamsport.


What does this have to do with North Carolina?? Stay on topic...
It has to do with the topic of tolling I-95. Read the thread...

And the fact that NC I-95 and PA I-80 both DO serve significant cities in those states, directly and indirectly.

Significant, yes.

But as a percentage of statewide population (and seats in the respective state legislatures), no.

That is presumably why North Carolina is studying tolls on I-95, and why Pennsylvania promoted tolls on I-80.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on March 23, 2012, 08:55:08 AM
And the fact that NC I-95 and PA I-80 both DO serve significant cities in those states, directly and indirectly.

Significant, yes.

But as a percentage of statewide population (and seats in the respective state legislatures), no.

That is presumably why North Carolina is studying tolls on I-95, and why Pennsylvania promoted tolls on I-80.

I would disagree ... the I-80 zone in PA contains about 20% of the state population, and as stated before I-95 provides northerly and southerly access to the state capital Raleigh, and several other NC cities.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 27, 2012, 07:03:37 AM
A new NC 130 Business has been designated in Shallotte, as mainline NC 130 has been placed on the Smith Rd extension.  Not sure about the need for this...NC 130 still goes through most of the town on its duplex with US 17 Business...


http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/Programs/data/route_change/2012/2012_02_20.pdf (http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/Programs/data/route_change/2012/2012_02_20.pdf)


Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on April 09, 2012, 01:16:57 PM
A new NC 130 Business has been designated in Shallotte, as mainline NC 130 has been placed on the Smith Rd extension.  Not sure about the need for this...NC 130 still goes through most of the town on its duplex with US 17 Business...

A few years back they did the same thing to NC 179 down the road in Sunset Beach....seems useless to me
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 15, 2012, 09:16:57 AM
Didn't realize this but the northbound span of the new I-85 bridge over the Yadkin River is open to traffic. Two lanes are open.

Two Southbound lanes will be temporarily moved onto the new bridge in July.  The southbound four lane span should be open next year.  One article says January the other says May.

I'll most likely be crossing the new bridge this weekend coming back from the Warrior Dash in Charlotte this weekend.

http://triad.news14.com/content/top_stories/657055/i-85-north-bridge-over-yadkin-river-to-open-saturday
http://salisbury.wbtv.com/news/transportation/72982-85yadkin-river-bridge-now-open
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on May 15, 2012, 06:16:16 PM
I drove across the bridge a couple of months ago.

Never did figure out how you take Exit 84, turn left and go to Spencer.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on May 15, 2012, 10:17:31 PM
I drove across the bridge a couple of months ago.

Never did figure out how you take Exit 84, turn left and go to Spencer.
Currently, if you take Exit 84, you can make a hard left turn onto Old Salisbury Road, which will take you down to US 29/70 just east of the old highway bridge. You can only turn left onto the bridge. There is one lane open westbound. After the end of the bridge, traffic is diverted onto a temporary road paralelling the highway. You reenter US 29/70 at the barricades.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 09, 2012, 09:21:52 AM
News & Observer: Taking a toll: Drivers knock DOT's plans for I-95 (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/06/01/2109956/taking-a-toll-drivers-knock-dots.html)

Quote
North Carolina drivers who use Interstate 95 the most know it’s in bad shape. But some out on their Sunday drives said they would avoid using the highway if the state started collecting tolls to improve it.

Quote
Their reaction illustrates one of the challenges to adding tolls to an existing road, even to upgrade one as worn as I-95. Construction of the major north-south highway started in North Carolina in the mid-1950s and ended in 1980. Some sections of the four-lane corridor have seen no improvements since they were built.

Quote
Toll opposition has united Republican and Democratic lawmakers, who have teamed to file bills giving the legislature final say over tolling the interstate. A bill to block federal approval of the toll filed by U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers, a Republican from Dunn, has bipartisan support among the state’s congressional delegation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 24, 2012, 01:55:28 AM
News & Observer: Class-action ruling could add thousands of drivers to Cary red-light camera lawsuit (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/06/22/2154364/class-action-ruling-could-add.html)

Quote
A Wake County judge has granted class-action status to a lawsuit filed by two drivers against Cary’s red-light camera traffic enforcement system, opening the possibility that Cary could be forced to refund $50 tickets paid by thousands of drivers since late 2009.

Quote
The lawsuit was filed in 2010 by Brian Ceccarelli, an Apex computer consultant. He blames his November 2009 ticket on a fleeting yellow light at Cary Towne Boulevard and Convention Drive, arguing that it was too brief to give drivers time to stop safely before the light turned red.

Quote
Ceccarelli calls himself a physicist on the strength of his undergraduate degree in physics from the University of Arizona. He argues that it is impossible for drivers to stop their cars in the short time allowed, citing Newton’s second law of motion, which explains the relationship between the mass of an object and the amount of force needed to make it accelerate or decelerate.

Quote
Ceccarelli’s arguments were dismissed in 2010 in formal papers published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), but he expressed disdain in reply.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 25, 2012, 10:37:43 PM
The Diverging Diamond Interchange - started in France - imported to Missouri - and slowly appearing in North Carolina - is being proposed at one of the busiest interchanges in the Asheville area.  If built, the Interstate 26 interchange with NC 280 will be home of the seventh type interchange within the state.

This interchange also serves Asheville Regional Airport and the area has seen significant growth over the last two decades.  Construction on the new DDI interchange should begin in the fall of 2013 at a cost of $6.4 million.


Story Link: http://www.hendersonvillelightning.com/news/375-dot-previews-interchange-design-for-n-c-280.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CarolinaPaladin on June 27, 2012, 09:34:37 AM
Is a diverging diamond interchange still under consideration in Waynesville at US-23/US-74 and Hyatt Creek Road (US-23 Business)?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on June 30, 2012, 06:33:48 PM
Is there an NCDOT site where I can find diagrams of the Sanford Bypass (guess) and I-295 (Fayetteville)?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on July 01, 2012, 12:13:35 PM
Is there an NCDOT site where I can find diagrams of the Sanford Bypass (guess) and I-295 (Fayetteville)?
The NCDOT has project breakdown maps for Sanford, I-295, and many other projects here:
http://www.ncdot.gov/planning/development/tip/prbmaps/maps/ (http://www.ncdot.gov/planning/development/tip/prbmaps/maps/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2012, 09:26:54 PM
News & Observer: GOP legislators attack plans for seven-mile, $650 million Outer Banks toll bridge (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/10/05/2392577/gop-legislators-attack-plans-for.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 11, 2012, 11:42:31 PM
News & Observer: DOT will study economic impact of its $4.4 billion I-95 toll proposal (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/crosstown/dot-will-study-economic-impact-of-its-44-billion-i-95-toll-proposal)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 15, 2012, 10:08:21 PM
NCDOT has posted on its Route Changes webpage a letter to the FHWA Regional Office in Raleigh from this past spring requesting that the current portion of the Greensboro Urban Loop from I-40/85 to US 70 east of Greensboro be signed as I-785. A curious request since they got approval to sign it as I-840 last year and have not signed it nor are there currently any plans to upgrade the remainder of the proposed I-795 route north of the Loop along US 29 (the construction of the portion of the Loop to US 29 is scheduled to start next year). They also want additional Interstate maintenance funds with the request. Do they get more money if the route has two interstates on it rather than just one?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on October 16, 2012, 06:44:44 AM
Does Bob or anyone here have an update on I-285 from Lexington to Winston-Salem? And I-485 in Charlotte from I-77 to I-85? (Last leg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 16, 2012, 11:25:30 AM
Does Bob or anyone here have an update on I-285 from Lexington to Winston-Salem? And I-485 in Charlotte from I-77 to I-85? (Last leg)
I can comment on I-285. NCDOT is supposed to let a contract out in November 2013 that will upgrade US 52/NC 8. It will upgrade the highway for several miles in Davidson County to bring it up to interstate standards and then calls for the contractor to repave (and I presume, add signage) from I-85 to I-40. Hopefully, this can be completed by the end of 2014. Don't know when the plan, if funded, to upgrade US 52 through Winston-Salem (beyond what they are doing now) is going to take place.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on October 16, 2012, 11:32:57 AM
NCDOT has posted on its Route Changes webpage a letter to the FHWA Regional Office in Raleigh from this past spring requesting that the current portion of the Greensboro Urban Loop from I-40/85 to US 70 east of Greensboro be signed as I-785. A curious request since they got approval to sign it as I-840 last year and have not signed it nor are there currently any plans to upgrade the remainder of the proposed I-785 route north of the Loop along US 29 (the construction of the portion of the Loop to US 29 is scheduled to start next year). They also want additional Interstate maintenance funds with the request. Do they get more money if the route has two interstates on it rather than just one?
Corrected that mistake for you. I-795 is the former US 117 freeway further east. I'll have to check on the guidelines for Interstate maintenance funds, but my guess is they won't get any additional funds for a route that has two Interstates signed on it, only the new single-numbered routes.

Does Bob or anyone here have an update on I-285 from Lexington to Winston-Salem? And I-485 in Charlotte from I-77 to I-85? (Last leg)
I can comment on I-285. NCDOT is supposed to let a contract out in November 2013 that will upgrade US 52/NC 8. It will upgrade the highway for several miles in Davidson County to bring it up to interstate standards and then calls for the contractor to repave (and I presume, add signage) from I-85 to I-40. Hopefully, this can be completed by the end of 2014. Don't know when the plan, if funded, to upgrade US 52 through Winston-Salem (beyond what they are doing now) is going to take place.
My guess is, they'll wait until part of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway is finished. And as for I-485, IIRC, the timetable is to have the entire loop open by 2015, if not earlier than that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on October 23, 2012, 08:10:55 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alpsroads/8117558289/

This is somewhere in Raleigh. Who recognizes it?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on October 23, 2012, 09:24:31 PM
Looks like that set of shops a few blocks near the RCC
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: broadhurst04 on October 23, 2012, 10:06:29 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alpsroads/8117558289/

This is somewhere in Raleigh. Who recognizes it?

Looks like North Hills to me, at Six Forks Rd and the I-440 Beltline.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on October 24, 2012, 01:32:58 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alpsroads/8117558289/

This is somewhere in Raleigh. Who recognizes it?

Looks like North Hills to me, at Six Forks Rd and the I-440 Beltline.
Yes, it is.  I was there at the end of August for my brother's wedding and stayed there.  I did see this particular sign.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on October 24, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alpsroads/8117558289/

This is somewhere in Raleigh. Who recognizes it?

Looks like North Hills to me, at Six Forks Rd and the I-440 Beltline.
Yes, it is.  I was there at the end of August for my brother's wedding and stayed there.  I did see this particular sign.
And what do you think of 21st-century yellow yields? :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on October 26, 2012, 01:51:43 AM
Like being back in the 1960's or early 1970's. :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2013, 02:55:59 PM
News & Observer: Board of Transportation members want tolls on Hatteras-Ocracoke ferry, too (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/12/2602599/board-of-transportation-members.html)

(http://media2.newsobserver.com/smedia/2013/01/12/19/37/EqS9m.Em.156.jpeg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: brownpelican on January 15, 2013, 03:55:28 PM
Talk about jacking the prices up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on January 30, 2013, 01:24:47 PM
DOT plans meeting on I-26 widening proposal (http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20130124/NEWS/301240021/DOT-revisitING-proposal-towidenbusy-Interstate?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE)

Quote
Ten years after a lawsuit derailed a project to widen a stretch of Interstate 26 in Henderson County, the N.C. Department of Transportation is again proposing to widen the busy road.

This time the proposal involves a 22-mile stretch from south of Hendersonville to Asheville.

State transportation department officials will hold an informational meeting Jan. 31 to talk about a long-range plan to widen the road from U.S. 25 in the East Flat Rock area of Henderson County to Interstate 40 in Buncombe County.

Quote
Work on the first sections is tentatively set to begin in the 2019-20 fiscal year, according to DOT’s long-range plans. However, officials say that could change.

Quote
The current cost estimates total around $263 million for the 22 miles. The work would be done in phases with the final phase starting in 2030.

The idea of widening I-26 has been around for a while. But it has proven controversial.

In 2002, DOT was on the verge of signing a contract to start work on a 13.6-mile stretch of the road between East Flat Rock and the Buncombe County line when a lawsuit was filed by several environmental and citizen groups.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on January 30, 2013, 01:39:32 PM
Damn tree-huggers tried doing the same thing to hold back the Winston-Salem Northern Belt (Future I-74), finally were defeated and the project is now on the books, with a portion of it funded and set for construction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 02, 2013, 08:42:36 AM
IIRC, it was moreso the local residents than the "tree-huggers" who got I-26 delayed in Asheville.  There's some quite stringent LOCAL opposition to the project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 02, 2013, 08:46:28 AM
BTW, posted the following on Facebook last weekend but just realized I never posted it here:

- About 4 miles of US 17 south of the Washington bypass has been 4-laned, with "Superstreet" elements included in the construction.

- The next phase of widening north of Washington is underway, about 4 more miles from a little north of the Washington bypass to just north of NC 171. Traffic is now 2-way on the new lanes while the old lanes are torn up for rehab. Bulb-outs along the construction zone suggest that this will be a "Superstreet" as well. (I posted 2 photos of this on the Southeast Roads group on Facebook.)

- Noticed that both the Windsor bypass (from US 13 North east to old 17) and the freeway segment around Edenton (including the Chowan River bridge) are posted 70 MPH. By comparison, the Washington bypass was "only" 65 MPH.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2013, 08:25:47 PM
News & Observer:  NC DOT can blame its customers or learn from them (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/02/04/2656086/road-worrier-ncdot-can-blame-its.html)

Quote
Thank you for calling Customer Service. How may I insult you?

Quote
Oh, let me count the ways.

Quote
You could double-bill the drivers you hope to turn into loyal, paying customers for your billion-dollar toll road. Then, without apology, blame them for your blunder.

Quote
That’s the N.C. Turnpike Authority approach. Who do they think they are – the DMV?

Quote
At the state Department of Transportation, now under new management, customer service is a hot concept. It was a catchphrase in Pat McCrory’s gubernatorial campaign and became a mission mantra for Tony Tata, his new DOT secretary.

Quote
Tata is focusing first on the Division of Motor Vehicles, where there’s plenty of room for improvement in customer service. Chapel Hill, where I live, has gone three months without a license tag office. A note on the door tells drivers to go to Durham.

Quote
Tata is considering recommendations to open offices on weekends, establish shopping mall kiosks, and provide online options for parents who keep driving logs for teens with learner’s permits.

Quote
And after he makes DMV more responsive to the millions of drivers it regulates, Tata might be ready to fix the Turnpike Authority. He’ll find some unhappy customers there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2013, 07:59:50 PM
News & Observer:  NCDOT Secretary Tata apologizes for toll-road double-billing, promises fix (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/02/07/2661412/tata-apologizes-for-toll-road.html)

Quote
It wasn’t their fault, after all, Tony Tata says.

Quote
More than 800 drivers are receiving toll-road refunds and profuse apologies from the state Department of Transportation – by telephone and by mail – because they were double-billed for trips on the Triangle Expressway.

Quote
“It was completely avoidable,” Tata, the state transportation secretary, said Thursday. “It’s our fault. And we are fixing the problem, and your account is going to be credited. So we accept full responsibility for this.”

Quote
The billing errors started Jan. 3, when the state Turnpike Authority began accepting electronic toll payments from drivers with E-ZPass transponders. Drivers who also had N.C. Quick Pass transponders in their cars were charged twice, through the separate debit accounts tied to each transponder.

Quote
Last week, N.C. Turnpike Authority and E-ZPass officials blamed their customers for the double-billing.

Quote
They said drivers could have avoided the problem by complying with the fine-print terms and conditions of their contracts, which admonish toll-road drivers not to travel with more than one transponder in the car.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 08, 2013, 09:35:39 AM
TOLLROADSnews: Missing lines of code in transaction management software cause double billing in North Carolina (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6396)

Quote
Most transaction management software looks for transponder reads in a lane that are very close in time to one another and dumps all but one of the reads. Those lines of code to match and dump redundant reads are apparently missing from the ACS/Xerox backoffice data processing algorithms, and ACS programmers are working on adding the function.

Quote
Meanwhile the NC Turnpike Triangle Expressway in Raleigh has been getting some bad publicity for double billing motorists with two transponders on their windshield - an E-ZPass on an account in Virginia, say, plus a 6B+ sticker tag brand NC QuickPass issued by NC Turnpike/DOT.

Quote
The Raleigh News Observer's Bruce Siceloff quotes the NC secretary of transportation Tony Tata as saying today: "It’s our fault. And we are fixing the problem, and your account is going to be credited. So we accept full responsibility for this. It was completely avoidable."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 13, 2013, 07:24:35 PM
BTW, posted the following on Facebook last weekend but just realized I never posted it here:

- About 4 miles of US 17 south of the Washington bypass has been 4-laned, with "Superstreet" elements included in the construction.

A portion of it appears to already show up in Google's aerial imagery! http://goo.gl/maps/60VkV The next image south of this one shows pavement but no markings yet, and the next image to the north still shows a 2-lane road, and the lack of a Washington bypass.

Quote
- Noticed that both the Windsor bypass (from US 13 North east to old 17) and the freeway segment around Edenton (including the Chowan River bridge) are posted 70 MPH. By comparison, the Washington bypass was "only" 65 MPH.[/i]

I'm glad to hear the Chowan River bridge has been raised to 70! Last time I drove down there (2010 or early 2011), the Elizabeth City and Windsor bypasses were posted at 70, and the Edenton bypass was posted at 65 east of the Chowan River bridge, with the bridge itself at a painfully low 55.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2013, 12:13:03 PM
Durham's 11 foot 8 inch "Bridge of Death" claims another victim.  This time a semitrailer. 

WRAL:  Tractor-trailer stuck under Durham bridge; some roads closed (http://www.wral.com/tractor-trailer-stuck-under-durham-bridge-some-roads-closed/12128762/)

Atlantic Cities article from 2012 about the bridge: Durham's Bridge of Death Will Decapitate Any Tall Truck (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/10/durhams-bridge-death-will-decapitate-any-tall-truck/3707/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on February 20, 2013, 01:48:19 PM
Alright, the bridge clearance says 11'8"; my trailer is 13'6"...  :hmm:  Aww, I'll give it a try.

It's like watching trucks take the Onondaga Lake Pkwy. :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on February 20, 2013, 01:59:31 PM
I don't see how the bridge is the problem. I remember that bridge from when I lived there and I remember there being plenty of warning signs. It seems to me it's the driver's responsibility to avoid it.

There's an even lower-clearance railroad bridge (10'0") in Charlottesville, Virginia. That one has a loud bell on each side that sounds any time a large vehicle approaches. Given that a couple of bus routes pass around the corner on the far side of the bridge as seen in this Street View image ( http://goo.gl/maps/OejNL ) that bell used to sound all the time. But the Charlottesville police ticket any truck driver who slams into a low bridge (basis for the ticket is either failure to obey a road sign or failure to pay full time and attention).

(http://www.readthehook.com/files/imagecache/max_viewable/images/field_images/snap-stuck-truck.jpg)

(http://www.readthehook.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/snap-stuck-truck1.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2013, 03:30:09 PM
I don't see how the bridge is the problem. I remember that bridge from when I lived there and I remember there being plenty of warning signs. It seems to me it's the driver's responsibility to avoid it.

Agreed.  And CDL drivers especially, which the driver of today's tractor-trailer should have had (though most of the trucks featured in the video linked by the Atlantic above do not require a CDL).

There's an even lower-clearance railroad bridge (10'0") in Charlottesville, Virginia. That one has a loud bell on each side that sounds any time a large vehicle approaches. Given that a couple of bus routes pass around the corner on the far side of the bridge as seen in this Street View image ( http://goo.gl/maps/OejNL ) that bell used to sound all the time. But the Charlottesville police ticket any truck driver who slams into a low bridge (basis for the ticket is either failure to obey a road sign or failure to pay full time and attention).

Interesting regarding the bell, which I presume is the speaker-like contraption attached to the bridge itself?

There used to be one of those attached to one of the overhead sign assemblies on westbound I-64 approaching the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel inspection station in Norfolk, but I think it has been removed (I never heard it sound, but I presume it was pretty loud - maybe it was to alert any HAZMAT carriers or overheight vehicles  to pull in to the inspection station).  There's still one at one of the eastbound entrance ramps in  Hampton (GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=hampton+va&hl=en&ll=37.015444,-76.32753&spn=0.004789,0.009645&sll=37.015447,-76.327525&sspn=0.004823,0.009645&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Hampton,+Virginia&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.015444,-76.32753&panoid=qMveE7DwUBtxQ3md4_1T_Q&cbp=12,157.5,,0,9.01)).

A driver that strikes the bridge in Charlottesville like those two featured in your images above are (IMO) ideal candidates for one of those dreaded Virginia reckless driving summonses.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on February 20, 2013, 03:53:50 PM
There's an even lower-clearance railroad bridge (10'0") in Charlottesville, Virginia. That one has a loud bell on each side that sounds any time a large vehicle approaches. Given that a couple of bus routes pass around the corner on the far side of the bridge as seen in this Street View image ( http://goo.gl/maps/OejNL ) that bell used to sound all the time. But the Charlottesville police ticket any truck driver who slams into a low bridge (basis for the ticket is either failure to obey a road sign or failure to pay full time and attention).

Interesting regarding the bell, which I presume is the speaker-like contraption attached to the bridge itself?

....

Correct. Also, you can't see it in those two images, but there's a light-up flashing sign to the right of that speaker thing as well (you can see it in the Street View image I linked).

I recall that bell thing seeming really loud when it would sound as I was waiting to cross the street there.

Incidentally, there's a sign warning of that low clearance as far west as Emmet Street (US-29 Business). You'd think there would be another at Rugby Road (the last light before the bridge, and the last street wide enough to accommodate large trucks without a very tight squeeze), but there isn't.


Edited to add: BTW, this one (also in Charlottesville, but on the other end of town) may be the lowest-clearance railroad crossing I know of....and it's a one-lane underpass too! http://goo.gl/maps/cJU7u
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2013, 05:45:43 PM
Edited to add: BTW, this one (also in Charlottesville, but on the other end of town) may be the lowest-clearance railroad crossing I know of....and it's a one-lane underpass too! http://goo.gl/maps/cJU7u

Here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=ferndale,+md&hl=en&ll=39.186926,-76.642395&spn=0.002341,0.004823&sll=38.028719,-78.479949&sspn=0.001189,0.002411&t=m&hnear=Ferndale,+Anne+Arundel,+Maryland&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.186833,-76.642328&panoid=DBTuct8F_AuKVUzbvFh4CA&cbp=12,242.95,,0,5.46) is one that's even lower - North Hollins Ferry  Road off of Md. 648 (Baltimore-Annapolis Boulevard) in Ferndale, Anne Arundel County (not far from BWI Airport) under the Maryland Transit Administration's light rail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Light_Rail) tracks (formerly the Baltimore and Annapolis Railroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_and_Annapolis_Railroad)), the posted overhead clearance is only 6' 8"!

Fortunately, it is one-way.  If you click on the photos, you will see a light rail train crossing the bridge from the "other side" of the tracks from Md. 648.

Nearby is another oddity - a fire station with its very own grade crossing (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=ferndale,+md&hl=en&ll=39.182797,-76.640035&spn=0.002341,0.004823&sll=38.028719,-78.479949&sspn=0.001189,0.002411&t=m&hnear=Ferndale,+Anne+Arundel,+Maryland&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.182738,-76.639665&panoid=FUItaxAoVeuFnN8r2HDiAg&cbp=12,276.09,,0,16.02) of the light rail line.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on February 20, 2013, 06:12:05 PM
We already had this discussion: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5222.0
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 20, 2013, 06:39:19 PM
There used to be one of those attached to one of the overhead sign assemblies on westbound I-64 approaching the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel inspection station in Norfolk, but I think it has been removed (I never heard it sound, but I presume it was pretty loud - maybe it was to alert any HAZMAT carriers or overheight vehicles  to pull in to the inspection station).  There's still one at one of the eastbound entrance ramps in  Hampton (GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=hampton+va&hl=en&ll=37.015444,-76.32753&spn=0.004789,0.009645&sll=37.015447,-76.327525&sspn=0.004823,0.009645&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Hampton,+Virginia&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.015444,-76.32753&panoid=qMveE7DwUBtxQ3md4_1T_Q&cbp=12,157.5,,0,9.01)).

There's one on the mainline approach too: http://goo.gl/maps/53wNB. I've never heard either actually sound though.

Nearby is another oddity - a fire station with its very own grade crossing (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=ferndale,+md&hl=en&ll=39.182797,-76.640035&spn=0.002341,0.004823&sll=38.028719,-78.479949&sspn=0.001189,0.002411&t=m&hnear=Ferndale,+Anne+Arundel,+Maryland&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.182738,-76.639665&panoid=FUItaxAoVeuFnN8r2HDiAg&cbp=12,276.09,,0,16.02) of the light rail line.

There's a similar example in Boston, on Huntington Ave at Ruggles St: http://goo.gl/maps/IGcK9
The Green Line tracks are in the median of Huntington, rather than between two two-way roads as in CP's example, but the crossing is exclusively for fire vehicles who wish to go west on Huntington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 20, 2013, 08:20:25 PM

Quote
Edited to add: BTW, this one (also in Charlottesville, but on the other end of town) may be the lowest-clearance railroad crossing I know of....and it's a one-lane underpass too! http://goo.gl/maps/cJU7u

Here's another 9'2" railroad underpass on SR 623 Falmouth with the added bonus that the road is itself a low water bridge over a creek.  This floods all the time though the diagonal thing you see across the road is an attempt to displace water better....

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fredericksburg,+VA&hl=en&ll=38.329,-77.449672&spn=0.002373,0.004823&sll=38.028719,-78.479949&sspn=0.0012,0.002411&oq=fredericksburg&t=h&hnear=Fredericksburg,+Virginia&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.329,-77.449672&panoid=Nm1UfnU499gAbqRNlO3Ekg&cbp=12,100.39,,0,0 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fredericksburg,+VA&hl=en&ll=38.329,-77.449672&spn=0.002373,0.004823&sll=38.028719,-78.479949&sspn=0.0012,0.002411&oq=fredericksburg&t=h&hnear=Fredericksburg,+Virginia&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.329,-77.449672&panoid=Nm1UfnU499gAbqRNlO3Ekg&cbp=12,100.39,,0,0)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2013, 10:15:51 PM
There used to be one of those attached to one of the overhead sign assemblies on westbound I-64 approaching the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel inspection station in Norfolk, but I think it has been removed (I never heard it sound, but I presume it was pretty loud - maybe it was to alert any HAZMAT carriers or overheight vehicles  to pull in to the inspection station).  There's still one at one of the eastbound entrance ramps in  Hampton (GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=hampton+va&hl=en&ll=37.015444,-76.32753&spn=0.004789,0.009645&sll=37.015447,-76.327525&sspn=0.004823,0.009645&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Hampton,+Virginia&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.015444,-76.32753&panoid=qMveE7DwUBtxQ3md4_1T_Q&cbp=12,157.5,,0,9.01)).

There's one on the mainline approach too: http://goo.gl/maps/53wNB. I've never heard either actually sound though.

Thank you.

The diameter of the one on the westbound mainline of I-64 on the Willoughby Spit approaching the HRBT was much larger in diameter (maybe because it was louder?), but as I told Hoo, I never heard it make a sound, nor was it clear how or who activated it.

Here's another 9'2" railroad underpass on SR 623 Falmouth with the added bonus that the road is itself a low water bridge over a creek.  This floods all the time though the diagonal thing you see across the road is an attempt to displace water better....

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fredericksburg,+VA&hl=en&ll=38.329,-77.449672&spn=0.002373,0.004823&sll=38.028719,-78.479949&sspn=0.0012,0.002411&oq=fredericksburg&t=h&hnear=Fredericksburg,+Virginia&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.329,-77.449672&panoid=Nm1UfnU499gAbqRNlO3Ekg&cbp=12,100.39,,0,0

Going to have to take a look-see at that the next time I am in the Spotsylvania County vicinity.

Fixed quote for you - Connor
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 24, 2013, 10:08:05 AM
When NCDOT replaced the 65 mph signs on I-540 with the new increased 70 mph signs, they also installed new Interstate 540 shields.  The replacement also included this sign

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2012/2442357790_137c6230c0.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/2442357790/)
IMG_3216 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/2442357790/) by Adam's Journey (http://www.flickr.com/people/adamontheroad/), on Flickr

..and its twin sign on I-540 East.

No word yet if any of the sign folks will be holding a memorial service for this sign.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 24, 2013, 10:01:59 PM
What was wrong with the old signs? They were 5 years old, but likely in fine condition.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on February 24, 2013, 10:21:53 PM
It was too dark for me to get pictures, but NC DOT seems to have gone off track a little bit.  At the Old NC 10 (Exit 118) and Parker Padgett Road (Exit 75) interchanges on East I-40, they have upgraded their final signs to MUTCD standards, but they seem to have forgotten the part about DIRECTIONAL TAB ALIGNMENT.  Both have the EXIT ### tabs centered on the signs.  I hope the new signs in Morganton aren't like that as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on February 25, 2013, 12:21:05 AM
What was wrong with the old signs? They were 5 years old, but likely in fine condition.

Typical NCDOT actions. They usually replace signs that doesn't have anything wrong with them... way to waste more money.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 25, 2013, 06:52:33 AM
What was wrong with the old signs? They were 5 years old, but likely in fine condition.

Typical NCDOT actions. They usually replace signs that doesn't have anything wrong with them... way to waste more money.

I can name numerous DOT's that do the same.

They replaced the signs all the way from Exit 4 to Exit 26.  Some of the signs were leftovers from the 'Future' I-540 days and didn't have interstate printed on them or were without directional banners etc.  SO these signs were anywhere from 6-13 years old.

I have no problem with it. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on February 25, 2013, 09:13:01 AM
Yeah.. if they were to replace the leftovers from Future I-540 days, then I can understand why. But speaking of other signs that doesn't have issues.. and they replace them? for example: on Battleground Ave (US 220) in Greensboro, their shields were in great shape, but they get replaced anyways.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on February 25, 2013, 04:05:30 PM
They should replace the "Future I-74" shields with "Interstate 74" shields in Forsyth County now that it is recognized as such all the way to I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 01, 2013, 01:00:17 PM
TOLLROADSnews: Studying the Red route while having declared it verboten, finis, terminar - NC540 SE ext (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6486)

Quote
Federal permitting of highway projects has reached new levels of absurdity in North Carolina - that the Feds have suspended consideration of permits for the southeast extension of NC540 belt route unless North Carolina DOT reinstates studies of a 'Red Route' which by state law it is not allowed to do. Project planning  for the southeast extension - a southside part of the 540 belt route around the NC capital - has been on hold for over two years now.

Quote
The project initiated by the NC Turnpike Authority since it is an extension of the Triangle Expressway. Since the Turnpike's extinction it is now NCDOT which also favors an alternative route. At issue is whether the belt route expressway in Wake County takes the shortest route through the town of Garner (the Red Route) or how it swings to the south (Orange route). There are also light blue (with a dark blue variant), plum, lilac and brown routes all of which are south of the main built-up area of metro Raleigh.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on April 01, 2013, 03:08:38 PM
Changin subjects, I am back in my hometown of Winston-Salem, just drove US 52 to check out the widening/bridge replacement project, scheduled to finish next month, and nothing looks different from the "grand plans" it entailed.

Still same ol', dangerous US 52 with stupid-short on/off ramps.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on April 02, 2013, 10:53:54 AM
I have posted photos taken along the next section of I-140 to open later this year and videos of driving along the Wilmington Bypass and US 74/76 in Brunswick County on my NC Future Interstates I-140 page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html) Enjoy.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on April 02, 2013, 11:34:51 AM
I have posted photos taken along the next section of I-140 to open later this year and videos of driving along the Wilmington Bypass and US 74/76 in Brunswick County on my NC Future Interstates I-140 page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html) Enjoy.

Nice coverage of the newest segment, I had no idea it was even under construction. I surmise that NC 87 will be moved to follow the new freeway segment when it opens and be the sole designation for it until I-140 is connected in 2015 or later. Is that the plan, or will it get signage displaying something like "TO US 17 south" and "TO US 74/76 west"?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on April 02, 2013, 01:05:42 PM
I have posted photos taken along the next section of I-140 to open later this year and videos of driving along the Wilmington Bypass and US 74/76 in Brunswick County on my NC Future Interstates I-140 page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html) Enjoy.

Nice coverage of the newest segment, I had no idea it was even under construction. I surmise that NC 87 will be moved to follow the new freeway segment when it opens and be the sole designation for it until I-140 is connected in 2015 or later. Is that the plan, or will it get signage displaying something like "TO US 17 south" and "TO US 74/76 west"?

Man Alex that's a great point, I never thought of NC 87 as a temp designation (some have speculated that US 17 will be moved again but that would be as stupid as what they did in New Bern a couple years back with their newest by-pass).

I personally think it will be designated "Future I-140" and/or have the "TO 74/76 and "TO US 17" as you also speculated.

The logical think would have been to build the middle segment (between US74/76 and US421) first but I think the "C" segment got GARVEE bonds or somethin to accelerate its construction. 2015 will be a big year for I-140, maybe at that point we will know of I-74 will be drawn closer to it
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 05, 2013, 02:26:35 PM
Out of Control (Reason Foundation): New Study Suggests Transportation Priorities for North Carolina (http://reason.org/blog/show/new-study-suggests-transportation-p)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on April 05, 2013, 08:25:05 PM

Nice coverage of the newest segment, I had no idea it was even under construction. I surmise that NC 87 will be moved to follow the new freeway segment when it opens and be the sole designation for it until I-140 is connected in 2015 or later. Is that the plan, or will it get signage displaying something like "TO US 17 south" and "TO US 74/76 west"?

There is precedent for the NC 87 option in the Wilmington area.  I learned just today that I-40 from Wallace southward was designated as NC 132 from Jan 1983 to Aug 1984.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/1983_01_01.pdf

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/1984_08_01.pdf


I don't know if this was signed or not, though, and the 1984 official showed the freeway as not open yet...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 06, 2013, 01:55:16 PM

Nice coverage of the newest segment, I had no idea it was even under construction. I surmise that NC 87 will be moved to follow the new freeway segment when it opens and be the sole designation for it until I-140 is connected in 2015 or later. Is that the plan, or will it get signage displaying something like "TO US 17 south" and "TO US 74/76 west"?

There is precedent for the NC 87 option in the Wilmington area.  I learned just today that I-40 from Wallace southward was designated as NC 132 from Jan 1983 to Aug 1984.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/1983_01_01.pdf

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/1984_08_01.pdf


I don't know if this was signed or not, though, and the 1984 official showed the freeway as not open yet...

Mapmikey

NCDOT sometimes label new sections of freeway as NC Highways before becoming U.S. or Interstate highway sections.  Other examples include current NC 44 covering for future US 70, former NC 752 becoming I-74, and the currently unbannered NC 295 for future I-295.  With exception of the last example, they were bannered.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on April 06, 2013, 02:15:05 PM
As a counterexample, the current Sanford Bypass has no number. It will become US 421 (and US 421 connector) once the bypass is completed to current US 421. The segment from NC 42 to US 1 has been open for years without a number and signed TO US 1/TO NC 42. When the last segment was opened to connect to US 421 East and NC 87 East, the signage was changed to indicate control cities ( Lillington eastbound ). IMO, the current bypass should carry NC 87 now, but the current plans are for NC 87 to go through Sanford and US 421 to take the Bypass once completed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on April 06, 2013, 02:27:48 PM
Does Anyone know of details for a signing contract for either or both of these:

Brunswick Co- future I-140 project
Forsyth Co- I-74 (co-signed with US 311) from Guilford Co line to I-40
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on April 07, 2013, 02:18:46 AM
I can vouch for the I-74 part. No signage changes. The only exception is: they added I-74 mile markers along the road, and there seems to be a widening project going on at Union Cross Rd interchange. Looks like they are making this a folded diamond instead...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on April 08, 2013, 05:24:33 PM
I have posted photos taken along the next section of I-140 to open later this year and videos of driving along the Wilmington Bypass and US 74/76 in Brunswick County on my NC Future Interstates I-140 page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html) Enjoy.
I drove right past there last October (editing photos now). Wish I knew about this, I'd have detoured down US 17 and 74/76!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on May 07, 2013, 11:55:10 AM
Found this by chance - apparently some folks in Wilmington have coveted an I-20 extension for quite some time:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19630804&id=p0NjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MXQNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3147,535385 (scroll up for picture)
 
Of course, this was before I-40 was planned to be extended, but interesting anyway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2013, 11:21:44 AM
TOLLROADSnews: North Carolina's lower house votes 113-0 to limit interstate tolls to added lanes - kills I-95 tolling? (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6554)

Quote
2013-05-20: The North Carolina House of Representatives voted 113 in favor, none opposed May 16 to a bill that limits tolls on interstates to added lanes. This would halt the state DOT's plans to finance $4.5 billion of rebuild of the 182 miles of I-95 from the Virginia to the South Carolina order by fully tolling the interstate. A NCDOT sponsored Cambridge Systematics economic impact study recently released showed stakeholder support for the full toll plan. It did propose, however, to 'mitigate' tolls for local people by 50% to address complaints about the local burden.

Quote
Those who followed the debate in the legislature in Raleigh last week said the amendment that passed unanimously "came from nowhere" and there was little discussion of its implications. I-95 is not mentioned in the bill, but much of the debate was in the context of arguments about the big interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 20, 2013, 04:14:46 PM
Without reading the bill, the wording you mention still seems to allow 95 to be rebuilt as a 2-3-3-2 with tolls on the center lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on May 21, 2013, 01:31:15 AM
I-95 should have been widened a long time ago. Thanks to these unnecessary projects being built in NC (especially the eastern section of the state).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 21, 2013, 06:40:59 AM
Quote
Without reading the bill, the wording you mention still seems to allow 95 to be rebuilt as a 2-3-3-2 with tolls on the center lanes.

Given I-95's traffic volumes, 2-3-3-2 would be some serious overkill and would take a noticeable dent out of some of the towns it passes through (namely Wilson and Lumberton).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2013, 12:30:01 PM
Quote
Without reading the bill, the wording you mention still seems to allow 95 to be rebuilt as a 2-3-3-2 with tolls on the center lanes.

Given I-95's traffic volumes, 2-3-3-2 would be some serious overkill and would take a noticeable dent out of some of the towns it passes through (namely Wilson and Lumberton).

I agree.  And the nice people in North  Carolina should "be careful what they ask for, because they just might get it."  If there are 3-3 toll lanes in the middle with 2-2 "free" lanes on the  outside, I think it safe to assume that there will be much less in the way of access and egress to and from those tolled lanes, which means that some businesses in the corridor are likely to lose business - potentially a lot of business.

The impact on Lumberton (especially the retail that faces I-95 on frontage roads between Exits 20 and 22) could be significant (though I think  most of the stores are set back far enough that there would not be any need to tear anything down).  Not sure that the impact on Wilson would be as bad, given that they will have access via I-795/U.S. 264 and probably Alternate U.S. 264 regardless of what alternatives emerge.

I-95 across all of North Carolina needs the following:

At least three lanes each way (and probably four lanes each way between Fayetteville and I-40);
Reconstruction of the substandard "diamond" interchanges (the ones at Selma and Smithfield are (IMO) especially bad);
Perhaps removal of a few interchanges, or the addition of C-D lanes; and
Elimination of the (many) remaining low-overhead-clearance overpasses, especially north of Lumberton.

NCDOT has a pretty good discussion of these and related issues in the Purpose and Need for the project here (http://www.driving95.com/assets/pdfs/MeetingMaterials/EnvAssessment2012/001_Ch1_PurposeAndNeedForImprovements.pdf) (Adobe Acrobat .pdf, 4.31 MB).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mdcastle on May 21, 2013, 02:40:01 PM
Driving NC 12 definitely is a unique experience. Is there some reason only the northern half of the proposed road to Cape Lookout got built. I could also see replacing the Oregon Inlet Bridge with a ferry if it were free. Ocracoke didn't seem to be doing too badly.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: formulanone on June 06, 2013, 09:44:07 PM
I found this sign in Fayetteville, North Carolina last year...they look like Virginia's secondary route signs. But I've never seen four-digit routes posted anywhere else in the state, except for those funny little four-digit panels on stop signs.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/8467/28883721693_df61c0c2be_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/L1mCaB)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4549/26944906629_3776c73427_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/H42FZF)

Something new? Or a one-off?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 06, 2013, 09:46:27 PM
I found this sign in Fayetteville, North Carolina last year...they look like Virginia's secondary route signs. But I've never seen four-digit routes posted anywhere else in the state, except for those funny little four-digit panels on stop signs.

(http://www.formulanone.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NC1007sign.jpg)

Something new? Or a one-off?

Typical install for 1000-1010 secondary routes (sometimes greater).

Steffora used to have samples of various secondary routes on his page.  I don't think Mike was able to transfer that to the newer ncroads site
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: formulanone on June 06, 2013, 10:01:35 PM
Ah, thanks. Turns out, it's part of the All-American Freeway, according to wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_American_Freeway).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 07, 2013, 01:43:42 PM
North Carolina has been posting their SR 10xx routes this way since about 1960.  They also used to put a number on the front of those signs that  may have denoted which county you were in, such as these photos from aashields:

http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NC19481000 (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NC19481000)

http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NC19481606 (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NC19481606)

However, The 1959 Official also shows one of these shields with a 5xxx route number with a 27 which would correspond to Currituck County.  My theory about this is that the secondary numbering scheme as we know it in North Carolina appeared in 1960 (the 1957 County Maps and earlier back to 1930 show NO secondary numbering at all), and the 1959 Official was giving an example of what a secondary posting was going to look like.  I bet somebody decided it would be too expensive to post those signs for ALL secondary routes and they ramped it down to just the major 10xx ones.


(http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/1959mapshields.gif)


Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 07, 2013, 01:54:40 PM
lovely block fonts on the shields even in the 1959 diagram.  I think they switched, in actual use, to round fonts by ~1952.

do you know when they changed from black background to white on the secondary signs?

I have several of the fully embossed black ones, if anyone wants one.  they're not too rare; I'd let them go for 25 each plus shipping.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 07, 2013, 03:21:31 PM
I wasn't aware of the existence of black SR signs until I saw the one on aashields, so I have no idea.

My earliest memories of NC travels are about 1974 and I do not recall anything other than white...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on June 09, 2013, 03:41:48 PM
lovely block fonts on the shields even in the 1959 diagram.  I think they switched, in actual use, to round fonts by ~1952.

do you know when they changed from black background to white on the secondary signs?

I have several of the fully embossed black ones, if anyone wants one.  they're not too rare; I'd let them go for 25 each plus shipping.
I've never seen a black one.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 10, 2013, 06:08:01 PM
I've never seen a black one.

I've seen the black ones, but they are very uncommon.  Signs that incorporate secondary highway numbers are either typically on white or green (seen on freeways), though most are incorporated on green street signs.  Keep in mind, the numbers reset in every county and do not traverse through incorporated towns or cities that maintain their own roads.  They are used more for State and County record keeping as oppose to using road names, while most roads highlight the road name for drivers.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on June 10, 2013, 09:46:20 PM
Random NC question that I didn't think needed its own thread: does anyone know why they've closed two lanes of Rivers Street in Boone, NC. They've torn up the road so I'm assuming they're trying to reach some kind of pipe. But does anyone know what or how long it will take?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on June 11, 2013, 08:54:54 AM
Random NC question that I didn't think needed its own thread: does anyone know why they've closed two lanes of Rivers Street in Boone, NC. They've torn up the road so I'm assuming they're trying to reach some kind of pipe. But does anyone know what or how long it will take?

They're putting in a new steam tunnel, and the lanes will be closed til late July.

http://physicalplant.appstate.edu/news/rivers-street-lane-closure
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 02, 2013, 08:16:42 AM
lovely block fonts on the shields even in the 1959 diagram.  I think they switched, in actual use, to round fonts by ~1952.

do you know when they changed from black background to white on the secondary signs?

I have several of the fully embossed black ones, if anyone wants one.  they're not too rare; I'd let them go for 25 each plus shipping.

Every now and then you'll find a white on green one as well.

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3770/9189808072_63576344c6.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/9189808072/)
IMG_7815 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/9189808072/) by Adam's Journey (http://www.flickr.com/people/adamontheroad/), on Flickr

Photo above is on "The Football Road" in Alamance County

The photo is in black & white - but this still exists on US 401 in Rolesville

http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/various/nc1003.jpg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on July 09, 2013, 04:07:25 PM
I do miss those white directional mileage signs!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 09, 2013, 06:27:32 PM
I do miss those white directional mileage signs!

They seem to be quite common in NC still. Saw quite a few last week in Johnson County along US-70 and NC-42.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 09, 2013, 06:49:32 PM
I do miss those white directional mileage signs!

They seem to be quite common in NC still. Saw quite a few last week in Johnson County along US-70 and NC-42.

I have seen them commonly in the Sandhills area of North Carolina (Fayetteville, Lumberton, etc.).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 09, 2013, 07:17:16 PM
I do miss those white directional mileage signs!

They seem to be quite common in NC still. Saw quite a few last week in Johnson County along US-70 and NC-42.

I have seen them commonly in the Sandhills area of North Carolina (Fayetteville, Lumberton, etc.).

There are very common through much of the state.  In some maintenance districts, they are newer reflective types. in a handful of districts, they have been removed.  But you can pretty much travel anywhere in the state and still come across these.

Finding black on white town & crossroads signs; however, is very rare.

Marc - you may want to head up towards Bellhaven Blvd & Valleydale Rd/ McClure Circle in NW Mecklenburg County.  White destination signs that still have the interlocking NC in it for NC 16.

I wasn't able to take a photo of it last year when we came across on the way back from the Warrior Dash.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 09, 2013, 07:19:52 PM
Here's an example of one in Troutman -  IIRC there were a few still in that area along NC 115 but that was ten years ago since i last was on NC 115 or US 21 north of Huntersville.

http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/subs/whitesignnc150-patriarca.jpg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 09, 2013, 08:08:00 PM
Marc - you may want to head up towards Bellhaven Blvd & Valleydale Rd/ McClure Circle in NW Mecklenburg County.  White destination signs that still have the interlocking NC in it for NC 16.

Not finding it on Google http://goo.gl/maps/m9rof (http://goo.gl/maps/m9rof)  :-/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 09, 2013, 08:17:48 PM
Tracing my steps on streetview I found the following town and crossroads signs

NC-42@NC-50 in Cleveland: http://goo.gl/maps/brnBs
A sample of US-70 in Clayton (just about every cross street has one east of here): http://goo.gl/maps/0FS2e and http://goo.gl/maps/fl8XU

US-70@ Industrial Park Dr.: http://goo.gl/maps/UP1Qb
In the shadow of I-95 on Industrial Park Dr.: http://goo.gl/maps/OJ9dB
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on July 09, 2013, 09:18:37 PM
These black and white signs are less common than they were 20 years ago, but still plentiful the further east you are in the state.

One thing I noticed a long time ago is that west of roughly I-77, these signs didn't depict mileage to someplace but instead just the name of the road itself.  This was nearly universal once in the mountains.  One exception I remember from the 1980s is still located in Blowing Rock, for Globe - http://goo.gl/maps/2O3xJ

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 10, 2013, 08:19:40 AM
Marc - you may want to head up towards Bellhaven Blvd & Valleydale Rd/ McClure Circle in NW Mecklenburg County.  White destination signs that still have the interlocking NC in it for NC 16.

Not finding it on Google http://goo.gl/maps/m9rof (http://goo.gl/maps/m9rof)  :-/

Go further towards Charlotte to the other intersection with McClure Circle and Valleydale.  It's the intersection with a traffic light and I want to say a gas station.  I think we stopped there for a bathroom/catch up break for the 03 or was it 04 Charlotte Road Meet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on July 10, 2013, 08:36:57 AM
I see the sign, but I don't get it. Were they still using that style in 1986 when the current NC 16 was built?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 10, 2013, 09:55:42 AM
I see the sign, but I don't get it. Were they still using that style in 1986 when the current NC 16 was built?

Possibly or they may have just moved an old sign to that location.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 10, 2013, 09:59:20 AM
Tracing my steps on streetview I found the following town and crossroads signs

NC-42@NC-50 in Cleveland: http://goo.gl/maps/brnBs
A sample of US-70 in Clayton (just about every cross street has one east of here): http://goo.gl/maps/0FS2e and http://goo.gl/maps/fl8XU

US-70@ Industrial Park Dr.: http://goo.gl/maps/UP1Qb
In the shadow of I-95 on Industrial Park Dr.: http://goo.gl/maps/OJ9dB


Sorry I meant town and crossroads like this:

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3753/9063535796_b826ca37d3.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/9063535796/)
Verona (2013) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/9063535796/) by Adam's Journey (http://www.flickr.com/people/adamontheroad/), on Flickr

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 10, 2013, 05:51:17 PM
Go further towards Charlotte to the other intersection with McClure Circle and Valleydale.  It's the intersection with a traffic light and I want to say a gas station.  I think we stopped there for a bathroom/catch up break for the 03 or was it 04 Charlotte Road Meet.

Okay, found it http://goo.gl/maps/qevvj

I will go by hopefully this weekend and take a picture of it close-up, hopefully it will still be there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Takumi on July 10, 2013, 11:35:01 PM
I found an NC-style white sign at this intersection today, on old VA 233. Turn 90º east to see it.
http://goo.gl/maps/hpvjm
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on July 11, 2013, 06:31:33 AM
Don't know if I would classify that as NC-style since Virginia has/had lots of these that are green and white instead of black and white...

Some communities use(d) this style of sign as their street signs.


some others I have found followed by an older green one:

(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/delhartwhitesign.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/oldfortvalleysign.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/whitebullrun.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/whitebridlecreek.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/whiterixeyville.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/whitesugargrove.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/white_montpelier.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/whitesignlakota.jpg)

Mapmikey
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/whitemarshall.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/whitearcadia.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/bowlinggreen.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on July 11, 2013, 10:28:16 AM
There are a few examples of what Mapmikey posted to be found in SW Virginia. I have photographed a few.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 15, 2013, 08:34:23 PM
Okay, found it http://goo.gl/maps/qevvj

I will go by hopefully this weekend and take a picture of it close-up, hopefully it will still be there.

Took a picture of the sign on Saturday.  I suspect it has been there since the 1950s, SR 2005 is for McClure Circle and yes, if you go almost three miles that direction you will reach the Oak Dale Elementary School.  So after looking at old county maps, NC 16 traversed along Bellhaven Boulevard, so it would cross here and if you took McClure Circle, it would reconnect further west to NC 16 again... though it begs the question why you would take a road TO NC 16 when you are already on NC 16, maybe it was an assurance thing.  Anyway, took a few pics of it, even a close-up of the countless nails, screws, and staples on it.  :-D 

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7338/9297139034_01a851b7ca_n.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/washuotaku/9297139034/)
130713-3436 Charlotte (http://www.flickr.com/photos/washuotaku/9297139034/) by WashuOtaku (http://www.flickr.com/people/washuotaku/), on Flickr
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 21, 2013, 12:54:05 AM
Officials believe they know cause of US-441 landslide (http://www.wbir.com/news/article/249676/2/Football-size-landslide-takes-out-part-of-US-441)

Quote
Park officials now believe they know what caused the massive landslide, which took out a football field-sized portion of Newfound Gap Road (US 441) on the North Carolina side. 

Quote
Officials said they found a subsurface spring underneath the landslide site and they aren't quite sure how long its been there.  They said the spring, along with last week's massive amounts of rainfall, contributed to the landslide Wednesday morning, near mile marker 22 between Collins Creek and Webb Overlook.

Quote
"We were unaware of this subsurface spring which causes embankment failure," said Acting Deputy Superintendent Alan Sumeriski.

Quote
Approximately 90,000 cubic yards of dirt, rock and roadway crashed 45-50 feet down the side of the mountain.  Officials surveying the damage said the area is still not stable as debris continues to fall. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on July 27, 2013, 05:19:10 PM
Gallery of aerial photos of the landslide that wiped out NC 194 in Avery County.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=170653346453054&set=pb.139130392938683.-2207520000.1374959595.&type=3&theater

In initial photos of the incident, there was a lane left standing, but eventually that fell in too.

There is a short detour around that section that only adds a couple miles, but trucks can't navigate it (to say nothing of Floridians), so they have to take a 14-mile detour. Two homes were also destroyed and some livestock was killed, but no people were injured.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 27, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
Gallery of aerial photos of the landslide that wiped out NC 194 in Avery County.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=170653346453054&set=pb.139130392938683.-2207520000.1374959595.&type=3&theater

In initial photos of the incident, there was a lane left standing, but eventually that fell in too.

There is a short detour around that section that only adds a couple miles, but trucks can't navigate it (to say nothing of Floridians), so they have to take a 14-mile detour. Two homes were also destroyed and some livestock was killed, but no people were injured.

I looked up the NCDOT news release on it, officially southbound is to use US 19E South -> NC 194 North -> US 221 North -> NC 194 North; northbound use NC 181 south -> NC 105 north -> NC 194 south.  But yes, if people use Blevins Creek Road (Old NC 194), locals can get around it.  Thanks for sharing that picture; makes one wonder if they did the best engineering job in the 1960s when they built that section of road, I guess it was a matter of time and water.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on August 17, 2013, 02:13:14 PM
US401 Wake County:
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w102/architect77/blades.png) (http://s174.photobucket.com/user/architect77/media/blades.png.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on August 21, 2013, 08:38:01 AM
Does anyone know when the new section of I-295 around Fayetteville will open (or opened)? Everything I've read about says it should be open by July 2013, and AFAIK it still isn't open.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 21, 2013, 09:09:27 PM
Does anyone know when the new section of I-295 around Fayetteville will open (or opened)? Everything I've read about says it should be open by July 2013, and AFAIK it still isn't open.
Based on the information on the NCDOT Projects Listings page http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/search/details.html#id=2881 (http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/search/details.html#id=2881) only 1 of the current contracts is to be completed this year, this month in fact. The remainder have completion dates either next spring or November 2014. I do not think they'll open any of it until all the contracts are completed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DBR96A on August 21, 2013, 10:19:46 PM
So I was looking at North Carolina in my road atlas last night, and it seems to me that there's a lot of limited-access highways that are either redundant or kind of pointless, especially near the Greensboro and Winston-Salem areas. It also looks like they're trying to connect every town with more than one traffic signal with a limited-access highway.

Do you agree with my assessment? Is it feasible to eliminate some of the highway tangle around some of the larger cities? Just curious.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on August 21, 2013, 10:29:46 PM
It also looks like they're trying to connect every town with more than one traffic signal with a limited-access highway.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/StrategicHighwayCorridors.aspx
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPB%20%20Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors/Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors%20Vision%20Plan.pdf shows the corridors (blue=freeway).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DBR96A on August 21, 2013, 11:24:22 PM
It also looks like they're trying to connect every town with more than one traffic signal with a limited-access highway.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/StrategicHighwayCorridors.aspx
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPB%20%20Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors/Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors%20Vision%20Plan.pdf shows the corridors (blue=freeway).

Interesting map. It still seems like overkill, though. The only new limited-access highway extensions that seem justifiable to me are Charlotte to Wilmington, Greensboro to Fayetteville, and Raleigh to the Outer Banks. The rest of them seem like they'd be adequately taken care of by "arterial" highways.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 22, 2013, 08:37:45 AM
It also looks like they're trying to connect every town with more than one traffic signal with a limited-access highway.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/StrategicHighwayCorridors.aspx
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPB%20%20Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors/Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors%20Vision%20Plan.pdf shows the corridors (blue=freeway).

Interesting map. It still seems like overkill, though. The only new limited-access highway extensions that seem justifiable to me are Charlotte to Wilmington, Greensboro to Fayetteville, and Raleigh to the Outer Banks. The rest of them seem like they'd be adequately taken care of by "arterial" highways.

The key phrase here is "justifiable to you".  So what about freeway bypasses of the towns of over 20,000 people - is that "justifiable to you".  Or should they be handled by arterial type roads? 

Again just because something appears that way on a map, doesn't mean it to be true.  Drive through old US 311 in High Point and let me know if that freeway bypass and connections to I-40 and I-85 isn't necessary.  Drive through Business 40 in Winston and let me know if they shouldn't have built the freeway bypass to the south.  Let me know how Asheboro doesn't need a US 64/NC 49 bypass.

If there is one point of reasoning I hate is,"Well I saw this on the map and so they should or shouldn't do this."

The overall SHC is a long term goal with many of these items not seeing the light of day for a long time.  US 70 from I-40 to Morehead City sure it's fine right now - but a full freeway bypass of Goldsboro is necessary when you look at the planned growth of the port in Morehead City and the state's plan - albeit very hopeful - for the Global Transpark in Kinston.  Yeah, US 70 could even be an expressway in the rural areas outside of Kinston and Goldsboro - but the plan to have the road a freeway means a full fledged limited access from the Port of Morehead City to I-95 and I-40. 

But to the original point about being too many freeeways in the Triad just because "well, i looked on a road atlas and it just doesn't look right" and assuming that each of the towns are one stoplight especially when I gather you've never been to the Triad is downright absurd.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MBHockey13 on August 22, 2013, 10:22:40 AM
It also looks like they're trying to connect every town with more than one traffic signal with a limited-access highway.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/StrategicHighwayCorridors.aspx
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPB%20%20Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors/Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors%20Vision%20Plan.pdf shows the corridors (blue=freeway).

Interesting map. It still seems like overkill, though. The only new limited-access highway extensions that seem justifiable to me are Charlotte to Wilmington, Greensboro to Fayetteville, and Raleigh to the Outer Banks. The rest of them seem like they'd be adequately taken care of by "arterial" highways.

The key phrase here is "justifiable to you".  So what about freeway bypasses of the towns of over 20,000 people - is that "justifiable to you".  Or should they be handled by arterial type roads? 

Again just because something appears that way on a map, doesn't mean it to be true.  Drive through old US 311 in High Point and let me know if that freeway bypass and connections to I-40 and I-85 isn't necessary.  Drive through Business 40 in Winston and let me know if they shouldn't have built the freeway bypass to the south.  Let me know how Asheboro doesn't need a US 64/NC 49 bypass.

If there is one point of reasoning I hate is,"Well I saw this on the map and so they should or shouldn't do this."

The overall SHC is a long term goal with many of these items not seeing the light of day for a long time.  US 70 from I-40 to Morehead City sure it's fine right now - but a full freeway bypass of Goldsboro is necessary when you look at the planned growth of the port in Morehead City and the state's plan - albeit very hopeful - for the Global Transpark in Kinston.  Yeah, US 70 could even be an expressway in the rural areas outside of Kinston and Goldsboro - but the plan to have the road a freeway means a full fledged limited access from the Port of Morehead City to I-95 and I-40. 

But to the original point about being too many freeeways in the Triad just because "well, i looked on a road atlas and it just doesn't look right" and assuming that each of the towns are one stoplight especially when I gather you've never been to the Triad is downright absurd.

I agree. That person has obviously never driven here - or gotten off the interstates on their ride through.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on August 22, 2013, 06:48:52 PM
Interesting map. It still seems like overkill, though. The only new limited-access highway extensions that seem justifiable to me are Charlotte to Wilmington, Greensboro to Fayetteville, and Raleigh to the Outer Banks. The rest of them seem like they'd be adequately taken care of by "arterial" highways.

LOL, you wouldn't say that if you lived in North Carolina.   :happy:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 27, 2013, 10:27:57 PM
A new interstate route in NC as of July 31. NCDOT now has permission to sign the eastern section of I-840 from I-40/85 to US 70, all 2.2 miles of it, also as I-785.

The official documentation here: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on August 27, 2013, 10:42:16 PM
A new interstate route in NC as of July 31. NCDOT now has permission to sign the eastern section of I-840 from I-40/85 to US 70, all 2.2 miles of it, also as I-785.

The official documentation here: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf)
Currently, this route is signed as Future I-840. We'll see if it will be signed Future I-785 as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on August 27, 2013, 10:55:12 PM
A new interstate route in NC as of July 31. NCDOT now has permission to sign the eastern section of I-840 from I-40/85 to US 70, all 2.2 miles of it, also as I-785.

The official documentation here: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf)
WTF? The map on the last page shows it running down US 29 all the way to downtown Greensboro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 28, 2013, 08:06:20 AM
A new interstate route in NC as of July 31. NCDOT now has permission to sign the eastern section of I-840 from I-40/85 to US 70, all 2.2 miles of it, also as I-785.

The official documentation here: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf)

I have to admit I'm selfishly waiting to learn when I-495 gets approved.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on August 28, 2013, 12:50:34 PM
A new interstate route in NC as of July 31. NCDOT now has permission to sign the eastern section of I-840 from I-40/85 to US 70, all 2.2 miles of it, also as I-785.

The official documentation here: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf)
WTF? The map on the last page shows it running down US 29 all the way to downtown Greensboro.

That map is from 1997.  My guess is that the original thought was to send I-785 all the way down 29.  Then it probably occurred to NCDOT that doing that would be costly and time-consuming.

The original NCRoads.com entry for I-785 described the routing as using I-840 like it will be today and the webpage was dated in 2001.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 28, 2013, 03:20:51 PM
Yeah, the original plan for I-785 is to run it down US 29 to I-40/Bus 85 (former I-85 routing at that time). However, it's too expensive due to too many crossroads, tight loops, no shoulders in some places, the frontage roads paralleling too close, and other things.


But, I am right. the 2.2 mile I-840 from I-80/85/Bus 85 up to US 70 should be named I-785 along with I-840. Glad they got it approved.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on October 24, 2013, 11:53:24 AM
New style signs are going up around Watauga Co. prohibiting trucks along NC 194 near Valle Crucis, along with a new sign prohibiting them on Wilson's Ridge Road outside of Boone. The current signs just say "Not recommended for vehicles over 35 ft. in length," but tractor-trailer accidents along 194 continue to be common. Truckers have reported not seeing the signs. Hopefully the new look, along with the "prohibited" language, will reduce accidents.

(http://roadspullzone1.wataugaroadscom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/194-sign.jpg-400x300.jpg)

(http://roadspullzone1.wataugaroadscom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Wilsons-Ridge-Road-sign.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on October 24, 2013, 01:40:51 PM
Good plan; I'm not sure I'd take my car up 194 between Beech Mountain and Valle Crucis, let alone a semi.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: english si on October 24, 2013, 02:06:20 PM
I have to admit I'm selfishly waiting to learn when I-495 gets approved.
I'm pretty sure it has.

Or is FHWA kicking up a fuss?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on October 24, 2013, 06:37:44 PM
Good plan; I'm not sure I'd take my car up 194 between Beech Mountain and Valle Crucis, let alone a semi.

It's definitely not a good idea, but GPSs set for the Banner Elk/Newland/Linville area often lead truckers down that route, especially if they are programmed to give "shortest distance" rather than "fastest time."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on October 24, 2013, 09:22:26 PM
(http://roadspullzone1.wataugaroadscom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/194-sign.jpg-400x300.jpg)


Punctuation. Learn it, love it, live it. Whoever designed that sign must be female and pregnant because they missed a period - or at the very least, a semicolon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on October 24, 2013, 10:55:27 PM
I think the MUTCD frowns upon punctuation on signage
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on October 25, 2013, 01:33:07 AM
I think the MUTCD frowns upon punctuation on signage
Yeah, but when your sentence break is in the middle of a line, you need SOMETHING
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 25, 2013, 09:21:24 AM
that sign just plain sucks.  I would see that as:

"thru tractor-trailers" - that's me!
"prohibited turn around" - okay, wasn't planning on it.
"and follow truck route" - gonna assume that's forward of here, so forward we go.

and thus, the intent of the sign ends up perfectly inverted.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on October 25, 2013, 03:17:01 PM
that sign just plain sucks.  I would see that as:

"thru tractor-trailers" - that's me!
"prohibited turn around" - okay, wasn't planning on it.
"and follow truck route" - gonna assume that's forward of here, so forward we go.

and thus, the intent of the sign ends up perfectly inverted.

It's worth noting that sign is on the road itself, the same style signs (haven't been out there to see the text) are up before the turn onto that road. So if you're a thru trucker on that route you've already fucked up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 25, 2013, 09:18:16 PM
I have to admit I'm selfishly waiting to learn when I-495 gets approved.
I'm pretty sure it has.

Or is FHWA kicking up a fuss?

Nope, not yet.  NCDOT has to improve the older sections of US 64 first before they sign-off on the new designation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on October 26, 2013, 03:52:42 PM
I'd like to see North Carolina get rid of some of their bannered routes. Like Business I-85 going through Greensboro, High Point, and Lexington. Would it be simpler to drop the Business 85 shields and leave it as US 29/70? Or Business and Alternate 74 (which turn into one another between Maxton and I-95), does having so many business, bypass, alt routes get confusing?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 26, 2013, 11:16:23 PM
I'd like to see North Carolina get rid of some of their bannered routes. Like Business I-85 going through Greensboro, High Point, and Lexington. Would it be simpler to drop the Business 85 shields and leave it as US 29/70? Or Business and Alternate 74 (which turn into one another between Maxton and I-95), does having so many business, bypass, alt routes get confusing?

Not really.  Same rules apply in North Carolina as do in South Carolina on what banner type is used and they are understood for.  :pan:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on October 26, 2013, 11:52:42 PM
Okay, what's with the 'OBX' license plates. I've noticed that locals in the Outer Banks always have license plates that say 'OBX' followed by 5 random numbers. Is there a reason for this other than to tell them apart from the locals.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on October 27, 2013, 09:30:02 AM
North Carolina has two geographically oriented license plate series: OBX for Outer Banks and GTP for the Global TransPark (Goldsboro). Each is issued in the license plate offices in the area defined. The numbers are issued serially, but have been issued for years, so the numbers issued are getting large.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on October 27, 2013, 07:31:04 PM
I'd like to see North Carolina get rid of some of their bannered routes. Like Business I-85 going through Greensboro, High Point, and Lexington. Would it be simpler to drop the Business 85 shields and leave it as US 29/70? Or Business and Alternate 74 (which turn into one another between Maxton and I-95), does having so many business, bypass, alt routes get confusing?



I am supporting for the removal of Business I-85 along the Greensboro area.. the former routing of I-85 is fully freeway. It should be 3di or just leave it as US 29/70.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on October 28, 2013, 12:16:58 PM
I was also looking at US 70 around Selma, where a Business, Bypass, Alternate and the mainline US 70 exist around each other is a relatively close area. To me, it'd make more sense if they renumbered 70A and Business 70 as an NC x70, keep the US 70 mainline on the freeway around I-95 and turn the current mainline into an unsigned spur with just trailblazers to East/West US 70.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on October 28, 2013, 02:50:11 PM
I'd like to see North Carolina get rid of some of their bannered routes. Like Business I-85 going through Greensboro, High Point, and Lexington. Would it be simpler to drop the Business 85 shields and leave it as US 29/70? Or Business and Alternate 74 (which turn into one another between Maxton and I-95), does having so many business, bypass, alt routes get confusing?



I am supporting for the removal of Business I-85 along the Greensboro area.. the former routing of I-85 is fully freeway. It should be 3di or just leave it as US 29/70.
However, let's keep in mind that removing Business I-40 in Winston-Salem would be a tough challenge, as there are no even 3di's left, assuming that I-540 is changed to I-640. US 421 would do just fine.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on October 28, 2013, 02:54:30 PM
If Business 40 were pulled, I'd be fine with them reverting it to US 421
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 28, 2013, 05:37:06 PM
However, let's keep in mind that removing Business I-40 in Winston-Salem would be a tough challenge, as there are no even 3di's left, assuming that I-540 is changed to I-640. US 421 would do just fine.

The problem is that the old I-40 route through Winston-Salem is not currently interstate grade worthy and they are doing the best they can to upgrade this.  Around 2015 or so (don't quote me) they are going shut down an entire section of Business I-40 in downtown Winston-Salem to raze all the bridges and redo the entire stretch; yes its that bad that they have to shutdown part of the highway for a couple of years to rebuild it.  That will happen soon after upgrades are completed along US 52/NC 8.  After they fix everything on Business I-40 after another 10-15 years, we can revisit it in becoming a 3di of either I-40 or I-74.  US 421 already overlaps the route, so that's a mute point.

As for Business I-85, the new signage at exit 87 appears to put it at a backseat to US 29/52/70 (and soon I-285).  I saw a Business I-85 sign to itself saying its at same exit... maybe the state is moving away from it since its putting it on its own sign and not the main signage with the others, but that's only a guess.

You all neglected Business I-95 in Fayetteville, which is completely overlapped with US 301.  To my understanding, it exists because businesses wanted to keep some kind of through route as the main highway bypassed the city.  I suspect that is the same reason for Business I-40 and Business I-85 routes in NC and obviously true for Business I-85 in Spartanburg, SC (a snapshot of what interstates were like in the late 1950s, thanks to never being improved).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on October 28, 2013, 05:54:44 PM
My main gripe with Business 85 in Greensboro is that it partially overlaps I-40, which is rather nonsensical. Also, I think Business 85 between US 52 and the Urban Loop is really long to be a 'Business' route, why not sign US 29/70 as an Alt I-85 similar to how Wisconsin signs Alt I-43 and I-39?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on October 28, 2013, 07:59:13 PM
The problem is that the old I-40 route through Winston-Salem is not currently interstate grade worthy

But it was when it was built.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 28, 2013, 08:04:17 PM
Doesn't matter anymore.  Since BUSINESS I-40 was dropped, it can't be grandfathered.  So for NCDOT to bring it back, it'll have to bring it up to CURRENT Interstate standards before FHWA will approve.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MBHockey13 on October 29, 2013, 01:40:40 AM
I'd like to see North Carolina get rid of some of their bannered routes. Like Business I-85 going through Greensboro, High Point, and Lexington. Would it be simpler to drop the Business 85 shields and leave it as US 29/70? Or Business and Alternate 74 (which turn into one another between Maxton and I-95), does having so many business, bypass, alt routes get confusing?

I disagree with all of this. Having Business 85 and Business 40 makes sense, and is very helpful - even for those who aren't road geeks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MBHockey13 on October 29, 2013, 01:42:10 AM
I was also looking at US 70 around Selma, where a Business, Bypass, Alternate and the mainline US 70 exist around each other is a relatively close area. To me, it'd make more sense if they renumbered 70A and Business 70 as an NC x70, keep the US 70 mainline on the freeway around I-95 and turn the current mainline into an unsigned spur with just trailblazers to East/West US 70.

Disagree with this as well.

I also wish they had left US-29A and US-70A on High Point Road in Greensboro, and not removed NC-6, as well as kept Business US-311 through High Point even if High Point itself wanted it removed. Made no sense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on October 29, 2013, 02:14:24 PM
My main gripe with Business 85 in Greensboro is that it partially overlaps I-40, which is rather nonsensical. Also, I think Business 85 between US 52 and the Urban Loop is really long to be a 'Business' route, why not sign US 29/70 as an Alt I-85 similar to how Wisconsin signs Alt I-43 and I-39?
Business I-80 in Sacramento also overlaps I-305, but the latter is a hidden route, so that is a moot point there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on October 29, 2013, 03:03:30 PM
True, and if they chose to sign I-305, Business 80 could/should be truncated to between I-80 and 305, same goes with Business 85 and I-40. At the very least, why can't Business 85 be truncated to the former I-40/85 junction at Death Valley?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 29, 2013, 05:30:32 PM
I was also looking at US 70 around Selma, where a Business, Bypass, Alternate and the mainline US 70 exist around each other is a relatively close area. To me, it'd make more sense if they renumbered 70A and Business 70 as an NC x70, keep the US 70 mainline on the freeway around I-95 and turn the current mainline into an unsigned spur with just trailblazers to East/West US 70.

Disagree with this as well.

I also wish they had left US-29A and US-70A on High Point Road in Greensboro, and not removed NC-6, as well as kept Business US-311 through High Point even if High Point itself wanted it removed. Made no sense.

They all still exist according the Bing Triad Area map NCDOT uses for its TIMS traffic management website.  :-/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 29, 2013, 05:51:56 PM
True, and if they chose to sign I-305, Business 80 could/should be truncated to between I-80 and 305, same goes with Business 85 and I-40. At the very least, why can't Business 85 be truncated to the former I-40/85 junction at Death Valley?

Because North Carolina never used Business Spurs; NCDOT probably feels every business route should loop back in some way.  Though they are known to hide business loops like US 19/23 BUS in Asheville overlapping with I-240 and US 64 BUS overlapping with I-440.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MBHockey13 on October 29, 2013, 07:31:49 PM
True, and if they chose to sign I-305, Business 80 could/should be truncated to between I-80 and 305, same goes with Business 85 and I-40. At the very least, why can't Business 85 be truncated to the former I-40/85 junction at Death Valley?

Because North Carolina never used Business Spurs; NCDOT probably feels every business route should loop back in some way.  Though they are known to hide business loops like US 19/23 BUS in Asheville overlapping with I-240 and US 64 BUS overlapping with I-440.

I think it might have been possible that if NCDOT hadn't originally plan on putting I-40 on the Southern Greensboro Loop and renumbering current I-40 as Business Loop 40 through Greensboro, then they may have considered having Business 85 be a spur ending at I-40. As it was, though, there was going to be symmetry with I-40 and I-85 running along the loop and BUS 40/85 running through Greensboro. Now you just have I-40 multiplexed with the eastern part of BUS 85.

BUS 85 is still a major route in the Triad, even split into two parts. They are constantly working on upgrades on BUS 85 on its multiplex with US 29/70. I use it more frequently than I-85 for local trips, and the traffic is definitely there. It's less of a decision now since they opened I-74 / US-311 between BUS 85 and I-85, as you can use that to cut back and forth between the two, even if that doesn't make too much logistical sense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 29, 2013, 08:12:02 PM
NewsObserver.com: Raleigh mulls making I-540 a toll road (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/26/3410198/raleigh-mulls-making-i-540-a-toll.html)

Quote
The northern 540 Outer Loop will have to be widened in coming years to handle its growing traffic load, and the Raleigh City Council wants to consider transforming it into an eight-lane, 26-mile toll road.

Quote
Meanwhile, traffic engineers are considering quicker action to install ramp meters – special stop-and-go signals used on freeways from New York to San Diego – that could smooth out the rush-hour glut of cars entering Interstate 540.

Quote
A consultant study commissioned this month will help the state Department of Transportation decide whether to deploy North Carolina’s first ramp meters on I-540, for westbound drivers coming down the on-ramps at Falls of Neuse, Six Forks, Creedmoor and Leesville roads.

Quote
Tolls are seeing increased use as a way to pay for added freeway lanes – often called “managed lanes” – as on an I-77 project underway in Charlotte. They make money from drivers willing to pay for a faster trip at times when the toll-free lanes are congested. Along with toll collection for most drivers, managed lanes usually include toll-free trips for buses and carpools.

Quote
With all-electronic toll collection, a technology now in use on the 18-mile Triangle Expressway section of 540 in western Wake County, DOT can build separate toll lanes without the old expense of barriers and tollbooths. Toll rates can fluctuate during rush hour, rising or falling as freeway congestion gets worse or better.

Quote
Local planners have vacillated in recent years about their approach to paying for an I-540 widening: toll all eight lanes, or just the two added lanes?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on November 30, 2013, 06:26:45 PM
NewsObserver.com: Raleigh mulls making I-540 a toll road (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/26/3410198/raleigh-mulls-making-i-540-a-toll.html)

Quote
The northern 540 Outer Loop will have to be widened in coming years to handle its growing traffic load, and the Raleigh City Council wants to consider transforming it into an eight-lane, 26-mile toll road.

It's a good thing the city of Raleigh has no say on how a state road should be.  Also the nagging fact that its an Interstate and cannot be converted into a toll road without both the state and federal governments signing-off on it, which hasn't happened yet anywhere.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on December 01, 2013, 01:43:49 PM
Quote
It's a good thing the city of Raleigh has no say on how a state road should be.  Also the nagging fact that its an Interstate and cannot be converted into a toll road without both the state and federal governments signing-off on it, which hasn't happened yet anywhere.

This one they might, since I-540 was added as non-chargeable Interstate...no Interstate Construction funds were used in its construction.  If nothing else, Federal law would certainly allow tolling any new lanes added to I-540.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 02, 2013, 11:52:16 PM
NewsObserver.com: NCDOT gets tougher with TriEx toll deadbeats (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/12/02/3426945/road-worrier-ncdot-gets-tougher.html)

Quote
RALEIGH — State toll collectors are about to get tough with deadbeats who don’t pay their bills for trips on the 18-mile Triangle Expressway.

Quote
Starting next year, 73,000 TriEx drivers with delinquent toll bills will find collections agencies hounding them to pay up. And they will be blocked from renewing their automobile registrations with the state Division of Motor Vehicles.

Quote
The state Department of Transportation said it is taking these new steps to collect delinquent tolls from drivers who are at least three months late in paying for their TriEx trips. The delinquent bills include tolls worth more than $815,000 – plus $3.4 million in late fees and civil penalties.

Quote
These are folks who receive toll bills in the mail, based on photos of their license plates. DOT levies the late fees, which pile up fast at $6 per month, and the $25 penalties to prod drivers to pay their bills and to open N.C. QuickPass transponder accounts. Transponder users pay automatically, with tolls at a lower rate, and DOT saves the expense of billing them by mail.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on December 03, 2013, 02:04:35 PM
WTKR is reporting (http://wtkr.com/2013/12/03/bonner-bridge-to-close-immediately/) that NCDOT is closing the NC 12 "Bonner Bridge" over Oregon Inlet today due to ongoing safety concerns related to pier scouring.  The story notes that four ferryboats are being dispatched to establish an emergency ferry service while the bridge is closed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on December 12, 2013, 06:58:31 PM
WTKR is reporting (http://wtkr.com/2013/12/03/bonner-bridge-to-close-immediately/) that NCDOT is closing the NC 12 "Bonner Bridge" over Oregon Inlet today due to ongoing safety concerns related to pier scouring.  The story notes that four ferryboats are being dispatched to establish an emergency ferry service while the bridge is closed.

Last updates I've seen say that the emergency repairs (dumping tons of sand in front of the piers) seem to have done the job even better than expected, and the bridge could possibly reopen as early as next week, as opposed to the worst case of March.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 14, 2013, 07:01:17 PM
W T F:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on December 14, 2013, 07:21:14 PM
NCDOT Communications seems to have hired a hipster.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 14, 2013, 10:41:52 PM
What has been seen cannot be unseen.   :ded:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on December 15, 2013, 12:19:33 AM
So children, was any useful information gathered from the video we just watched?

- If you travel to the Yadkin River Bridge Replacement project, you'll have an epileptic breakdown?

That is correct.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on December 15, 2013, 07:53:54 AM
@1:22: Bouncy trucks are fun and not deadly!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 15, 2013, 09:10:28 AM
W T F:

Regarding the Fin at the end - did NCDOT hire someone that used to work for Transports Québec?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 15, 2013, 04:12:20 PM
Please......make...............the..............seizures..........stop........
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 15, 2013, 04:35:40 PM
WTKR is reporting (http://wtkr.com/2013/12/03/bonner-bridge-to-close-immediately/) that NCDOT is closing the NC 12 "Bonner Bridge" over Oregon Inlet today due to ongoing safety concerns related to pier scouring.  The story notes that four ferryboats are being dispatched to establish an emergency ferry service while the bridge is closed.

Last updates I've seen say that the emergency repairs (dumping tons of sand in front of the piers) seem to have done the job even better than expected, and the bridge could possibly reopen as early as next week, as opposed to the worst case of March.
NCDOT's dredging job seems to have done the trick, the Bonner Bridge is back open as of 4PM this afternoon:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=9142 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=9142)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on December 15, 2013, 05:30:21 PM
WTKR is reporting (http://wtkr.com/2013/12/03/bonner-bridge-to-close-immediately/) that NCDOT is closing the NC 12 "Bonner Bridge" over Oregon Inlet today due to ongoing safety concerns related to pier scouring.  The story notes that four ferryboats are being dispatched to establish an emergency ferry service while the bridge is closed.

Last updates I've seen say that the emergency repairs (dumping tons of sand in front of the piers) seem to have done the job even better than expected, and the bridge could possibly reopen as early as next week, as opposed to the worst case of March.
NCDOT's dredging job seems to have done the trick, the Bonner Bridge is back open as of 4PM this afternoon:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=9142 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=9142)
Worth noting in the article that repairs are ongoing to continue strengthening the bridge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on December 15, 2013, 10:38:58 PM
I really hope someone mirrored that Yadkin River Bridge video before they took it down.

And I wish my truck could do that
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on December 15, 2013, 11:39:15 PM
I really hope someone mirrored that Yadkin River Bridge video before they took it down.
Yep.
How to fish: http://www.google.com/search?q=pzHwff8Leow
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on December 16, 2013, 01:23:20 PM
Rode the Currituck-Knotts Island ferry this weekend.  NC 615 is now signed on the Currituck side.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 16, 2013, 06:09:16 PM
I really hope someone mirrored that Yadkin River Bridge video before they took it down.

And I wish my truck could do that

(http://i.imgur.com/kHeN5mf.gif)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on December 16, 2013, 07:59:38 PM
I really hope someone mirrored that Yadkin River Bridge video before they took it down.

And I wish my truck could do that

(http://i.imgur.com/kHeN5mf.gif)
Whoever created this GIF is entitled to a free pie.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on December 16, 2013, 09:29:18 PM
dafuq did they put in that ProStar's tank?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 16, 2013, 09:59:04 PM
I really hope someone mirrored that Yadkin River Bridge video before they took it down.

And I wish my truck could do that

(http://i.imgur.com/kHeN5mf.gif)

I'm speechless. This almost makes less sense than Alanland.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on January 02, 2014, 09:06:01 AM
Took a New Years half-day trip into northeastern NC.  A few notes:

- There's now a TRUCK NC 308 posted in Windsor, following US 13/BYPASS 17 and US 17 on the west/south sides of town.
- A widening project is underway on US 13/158 from their northern junction to at least some point south of NC 137 (I turned off at NC 137).  North of NC 137, the new lanes will be the future northbound lanes, and look close to opening to two-way traffic so that the existing southbound lanes can be rehabbed.  South of NC 137, it looks like the new lanes will be the future southbound lanes.
- Related to the widening project, the northern US 13/US 158 junction has been moved about 1/4 mile north of the old intersection....the relocated intersection is now open to traffic.  The only mapping entity that currently shows it is Google satellite, which shows the tree clearing for the new intersection.
- NC 111 and NC 122 are concurrent on both sides of Tarboro, yet take different streets off of ALT US 64.
(EDIT) - The planned NC 186 extension west and north to NC 48 is not signed yet.  In fact, the planned routing between NC 46 and NC 48, along Lebanon Church Rd/James Jones Rd is closed for reconstruction, presumably to bring it to state primary standards.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CarolinaPaladin on January 15, 2014, 12:38:23 PM
Is the long term plan for US-13 is a four lane facility from Windsor to Suffolk, Viriginia?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on January 15, 2014, 12:57:32 PM
Is the long term plan for US-13 is a four lane facility from Windsor to Suffolk, Viriginia?
http://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPB%20%20Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors/Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors%20Vision%20Plan.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CarolinaPaladin on January 15, 2014, 04:59:58 PM
Is the long term plan for US-13 is a four lane facility from Windsor to Suffolk, Viriginia?
http://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPB%20%20Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors/Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors%20Vision%20Plan.pdf

US-13 is designated as facility needing upgrade to an expressway.  I do not know if that is an expressway with controlled access.  I could see US-13 as a four lane divided highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 15, 2014, 05:36:01 PM
US-13 is designated as facility needing upgrade to an expressway.  I do not know if that is an expressway with controlled access.  I could see US-13 as a four lane divided highway.

Expressways in North Carolina are basically limited access, not controlled access.  An example is US 74 (non-freeway sections) throughout the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2014, 04:38:13 PM
The Virginian-Pilot/HamptonRoads.com: Hearings on N.C. ferry tolls get off to a feisty start (http://hamptonroads.com/2014/02/hearings-nc-ferry-tolls-get-feisty-start)

Quote
Tolls on what have been free ferries to North Carolina’s Knotts Island and Ocracoke could be coming in spite of public protests.

Quote
The first of seven scheduled public hearings this week and next was held Tuesday in Knotts Island. An agitated crowd that nearly filled an elementary school gym spoke for more than two hours against starting tolls.

Quote
“I do not believe the residents of this island can afford this tax toll,” resident Terry King said. “I already pay taxes.”

Quote
Hearings are scheduled in Hatteras and Ocracoke next week. New or higher tolls are proposed for all seven of North Carolina’s ferry routes, the second-largest system in the nation.

Quote
New tolls would range from $1 for a pedestrian to $28 for a large multi-axle truck. The average passenger vehicle would be charged $7. Annual passes would be available.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on February 07, 2014, 07:43:08 PM
http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/704426/carolinas-border-closer-to-moving-over-homes--businesses/

Someone fell asleep drawing the NC/SC state lines, 300 years ago!!!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on February 07, 2014, 07:49:24 PM
http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/704426/carolinas-border-closer-to-moving-over-homes--businesses/

Someone fell asleep drawing the NC/SC state lines, 300 years ago!!!

I think they'd be better off leaving it as-is.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 10, 2014, 10:05:18 AM
Someone fell asleep drawing the NC/SC state lines, 300 years ago!!!

LOL, no... they redid the border (which was a twenty year project to keep costs low and a lot of research) to retrace the steps when they drew the border 300 years ago.  Since that time, markers in the field have been removed or buried and land deeds have been mistaken.  Some people may not see the value of knowing what is yours and not yours, but making a correction now saves the states making even bigger corrections in the future.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: formulanone on February 10, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
Lesson should have always been: Don't put anything on a border where someone lives or pays taxes. Especially one set by someone who wasn't even a colonist, it seems.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on February 11, 2014, 09:20:39 PM
Someone fell asleep drawing the NC/SC state lines, 300 years ago!!!

LOL, no... they redid the border (which was a twenty year project to keep costs low and a lot of research) to retrace the steps when they drew the border 300 years ago.  Since that time, markers in the field have been removed or buried and land deeds have been mistaken.  Some people may not see the value of knowing what is yours and not yours, but making a correction now saves the states making even bigger corrections in the future.

There is so much precedent in border cases of keeping what is currently marked vs. what was originally legislated. That's really the sane way to deal with this.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on March 15, 2014, 08:42:08 PM
http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/704426/carolinas-border-closer-to-moving-over-homes--businesses/

Someone fell asleep drawing the NC/SC state lines, 300 years ago!!!

The first thing I thought of was whether or not this will screw up Carrowinds' entrance plaza.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 12, 2014, 08:56:32 AM
Good news everybody, NCDOT has just awarded a $187 million contract to Blythe Construction to complete the widening of I-85 between NC 73 (exit 55) to the Cabarrus-Rowan county line.  Here's the news article: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/12/4836402/dot-awards-contract-for-i-85-widening.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/12/4836402/dot-awards-contract-for-i-85-widening.html)

Construction is expected to begin in Spring, 2015, completing in December, 2017.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Tom958 on April 12, 2014, 11:07:25 PM
Good news everybody, NCDOT has just awarded a $187 million contract to Blythe Construction to complete the widening of I-85 between NC 73 (exit 55) to the Cabarrus-Rowan county line.  Here's the news article: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/12/4836402/dot-awards-contract-for-i-85-widening.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/12/4836402/dot-awards-contract-for-i-85-widening.html)

Construction is expected to begin in Spring, 2015, completing in December, 2017.

So, what's the plan at the US 29/601 interchange?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 13, 2014, 11:12:21 AM
Good news everybody, NCDOT has just awarded a $187 million contract to Blythe Construction to complete the widening of I-85 between NC 73 (exit 55) to the Cabarrus-Rowan county line.  Here's the news article: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/12/4836402/dot-awards-contract-for-i-85-widening.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/12/4836402/dot-awards-contract-for-i-85-widening.html)
Construction is expected to begin in Spring, 2015, completing in December, 2017.
So, what's the plan at the US 29/601 interchange?

The article says it will be "improved upon," which I don't know what that means.  I guess we will have to wait till more details emerge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on April 13, 2014, 11:24:55 AM
I suspect the US 29/601 interchange might be turned into a diverging diamond interchange. I won't be surprised if it is because 2/3 of the interchanges are being transformed into DDI along I-85: (Exit 52 and Exit 55).  By the way, 8 lanes of I-85 is awesome and relief to drive on. I'm glad they are widening it all the way to Exit 68 in phrases.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on April 13, 2014, 12:12:27 PM
I suspect the US 29/601 interchange might be turned into a diverging diamond interchange. I won't be surprised if it is because 2/3 of the interchanges are being transformed into DDI along I-85: (Exit 52 and Exit 55).  By the way, 8 lanes of I-85 is awesome and relief to drive on. I'm glad they are widening it all the way to Exit 68 in phrases.

A DDI is the plan for that interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: I85Roadrunner on April 13, 2014, 01:38:01 PM
This part of the widening of I-85 is probably going to be the most involved project of all due to all the bridges, especially the Norfolk Southern Railway overpass.  All the bridges have no room under the supports.  I am figuring the reason for the rail crossing just to the west of the interstate (railroad north of the interstate, since I work for NS) I would imagine if for a realignment of the tracks for a new railroad bridge.  This should be a interesting project to see progress especially with 4 bridges right on top of each other almost.

Carter
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on April 26, 2014, 05:17:45 PM
Went on an ad-hoc storm chase yesterday into northeastern NC (sadly, only thing I spotted was a nail in my rear left tire).  But in the process of racing down to get into position, I noticed further progress on the US 13/US 158 widening northeast of Winton.  The northern few miles, north of NC 137, are now on the new alignment as reconstruction of the old lanes begins.  The future U-turn locations are now more obvious…NCDOT is definitely instituting its Superstreet concepts into new 4-lane highway construction.  Progress continues on the new bridge over the Chowan River (future northbound lanes)…from what I could see, looks like the bridge deck is being worked on.  There will definitely be an interchange at 13/158/NC 45, with US 13 bridging over 158/45.  I couldn't tell what type of interchange, though, whether it'll be a standard diamond or a partially folded-diamond with a loop in one quadrant.

I also discovered a new construction project:  work is well underway to widen US 158 to 4 lanes between Winton and the Murfreesboro bypass.  On the easternmost ~3 miles near Winton, the new lanes are the future westbound lanes.  There will be a new alignment across Potecasi Creek, south of the existing alignment, and tying back into existing US 158 near Mt Tabor Church Rd.  Another new alignment section occurs near Mapleton, just southwest/south of the existing alignment, with the existing alignment being retained as a frontage road.  West of Mapleton over to the start of the existing 4-lane Murfreesboro bypass, the new lanes will be the future eastbound lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 16, 2014, 01:35:18 PM
The FHA issued a Record of Decision, this week, for the Monroe Bypass.  NCDOT believes they will be able to start construction in two weeks from now on the 19.7-mile toll road from the Mecklenburg county line to Marshville.

www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05/16/4914470/nc-gets-go-ahead-for-work-on-monroe.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05/16/4914470/nc-gets-go-ahead-for-work-on-monroe.html)

My opinion, would still be cheaper to widen and implement super-street style on the existing road.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on May 16, 2014, 02:11:35 PM
The FHA issued a Record of Decision, this week, for the Monroe Bypass.  NCDOT believes they will be able to start construction in two weeks from now on the 19.7-mile toll road from the Mecklenburg county line to Marshville.

www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05/16/4914470/nc-gets-go-ahead-for-work-on-monroe.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05/16/4914470/nc-gets-go-ahead-for-work-on-monroe.html)

My opinion, would still be cheaper to widen and implement super-street style on the existing road.

I think the overall plan is to connect Charlotte with Wilmington, with a freeway (or even possibly an interstate). This bypass, along with improvements on US 74 between Wingate and Rockingham, would link I-485 to I-74. Conversely, the Shelby US 74 Bypass in Cleveland County will do the same with linking Asheville and Charlotte.

Also, I do believe the state has plans of improving the existing US 74 in Union County, with widening, adding sidewalks, and bicycle lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on May 26, 2014, 05:16:38 PM
The FHA issued a Record of Decision, this week, for the Monroe Bypass.  NCDOT believes they will be able to start construction in two weeks from now on the 19.7-mile toll road from the Mecklenburg county line to Marshville.

www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05/16/4914470/nc-gets-go-ahead-for-work-on-monroe.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05/16/4914470/nc-gets-go-ahead-for-work-on-monroe.html)

My opinion, would still be cheaper to widen and implement super-street style on the existing road.

I think you're underestimating the cost of buying up the private property along US 74 in Monroe and Indian Trail that would be required to upgrade the existing highway.  That's probably the main reason why it's cheaper to just build a completely new roadway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on June 14, 2014, 10:35:04 AM
Here's a map of the various road projects submitted for funding:

http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=defb244d156a4722a0cd56d2a4c97df2

Looks like many of the major projects in Charlotte, Triangle, and Triad scored very well with this new funding system. Hopefully many of these projects start construction within the next ten years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 14, 2014, 01:38:33 PM
Here's a map of the various road projects submitted for funding:

http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=defb244d156a4722a0cd56d2a4c97df2

Looks like many of the major projects in Charlotte, Triangle, and Triad scored very well with this new funding system. Hopefully many of these projects start construction within the next ten years.

Keep in mind, the STI is still being updated with local projects and will be revised several more times before it becomes official sometime next year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendancy66 on June 14, 2014, 02:08:43 PM
I am looking at Winston-Salem.  Each road has a number like H090938-A and H090938-B on US-158.  How can I get more specific information on that number?

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: June 14, 2014, 10:10:33 PM
^^^  I figured it out.  I just click on the number.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 24, 2014, 10:31:58 PM
NCDOT has proposed (but not yet finalized) using NC 555 for the All-American Freeway and Owen Dr in Fayetteville.  The designation, if approved, would run from Wilmington Hwy (old NC 87) just east of NC 87 to the front gate at Fort Bragg.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Request%20Form%20140516%20SIGNED.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 25, 2014, 06:38:04 AM
NC has also proposed NC 472 for the Northern Durham Pkwy which will run from the I-40/540 by RDU Airport concurrent with I-540  to Aviation Pkwy then north as new construction to connect with US 501 north of Durham.  See https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Map%20U-4721%20140611%201609%20-%20SDV.pdf

I find it odd that the June 2014 NC STIP (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Planning%20Document%20Library/LIVE_STIP.pdf) shows this as unfunded yet they have gone to the trouble of proposing a route change and assigning a number.

They are also going to extend NC 58 another 1.4 miles to the end of the road in Fort Macon State Park - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/NC%2058%20Carteret%20Request%20140422%20-%20APPROVED.pdf

These changes plus NC 555 were published in the last day or two.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 25, 2014, 08:43:35 AM
Mike,

There's precedent with NC 452.  If they really wanted to, They could sign NC 472 along Aviation from 540 to Globe Road.

--Adam
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 25, 2014, 10:32:35 AM
NC has also proposed NC 472 for the Northern Durham Pkwy which will run from the I-40/540 by RDU Airport concurrent with I-540  to Aviation Pkwy then north as new construction to connect with US 501 north of Durham.  See https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Map%20U-4721%20140611%201609%20-%20SDV.pdf

I find it odd that the June 2014 NC STIP (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Planning%20Document%20Library/LIVE_STIP.pdf) shows this as unfunded yet they have gone to the trouble of proposing a route change and assigning a number.

They are also going to extend NC 58 another 1.4 miles to the end of the road in Fort Macon State Park - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/NC%2058%20Carteret%20Request%20140422%20-%20APPROVED.pdf

These changes plus NC 555 were published in the last day or two.

Mapmikey
NC 555 being the designation for the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville. NCDOT is also reserving NC 74 for the Eastern Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. The designation will be used for completed sections, the first between Business 40 and US 158, until the entire Beltway is completed and becomes part of I-74.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on June 25, 2014, 10:34:51 AM
NC 555 being the designation for the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville. NCDOT is also reserving NC 74 for the Eastern Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. The designation will be used for completed sections, the first between Business 40 and US 158, until the entire Beltway is completed and becomes part of I-74.

Would this be the first instance of one state having a state route, US route and Interstate route all with the same number?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 25, 2014, 11:05:39 AM
NC 555 being the designation for the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville. NCDOT is also reserving NC 74 for the Eastern Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. The designation will be used for completed sections, the first between Business 40 and US 158, until the entire Beltway is completed and becomes part of I-74.
That may be an error on the part of the person who created the link on the NCDOT Route Change page.  There are a few errors like this throughout the site.

The June 2014 STIP refers to this part of the highway as Future I-74.  The link from the route change page shows a map but I don't see any route label.

When they put out the actual approved change document to establish the primary designation for this route (as they did with NC 452) then we will know if NC 74 is the intended designation.

Mapmikey


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on June 25, 2014, 04:18:08 PM
NC 555 being the designation for the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville. NCDOT is also reserving NC 74 for the Eastern Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. The designation will be used for completed sections, the first between Business 40 and US 158, until the entire Beltway is completed and becomes part of I-74.

Would this be the first instance of one state having a state route, US route and Interstate route all with the same number?
And bike route 74.
http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/Bike-Route-74
 :bigass:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 25, 2014, 05:09:23 PM
Would this be the first instance of one state having a state route, US route and Interstate route all with the same number?

I believe in the 1960s, California had US-40 (about to be decommissioned), I-40 (built in several places) and legislatively defined CA-40, signed as US-66, over the old 66 connecting the segments of freeway.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on June 26, 2014, 03:41:18 PM
NC 555 being the designation for the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville. NCDOT is also reserving NC 74 for the Eastern Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. The designation will be used for completed sections, the first between Business 40 and US 158, until the entire Beltway is completed and becomes part of I-74.
That may be an error on the part of the person who created the link on the NCDOT Route Change page.  There are a few errors like this throughout the site.

The June 2014 STIP refers to this part of the highway as Future I-74.  The link from the route change page shows a map but I don't see any route label.

When they put out the actual approved change document to establish the primary designation for this route (as they did with NC 452) then we will know if NC 74 is the intended designation.

Mapmikey



So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on June 26, 2014, 06:11:24 PM

So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?

No, the Eastern half is the only (partially at best) funded portion and most important because it will be I-74 eventually. The Western Belt (Future I-274 or whatever number they agree on) is way off.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 27, 2014, 09:29:57 AM
So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?
No, the Eastern half is the only (partially at best) funded portion and most important because it will be I-74 eventually. The Western Belt (Future I-274 or whatever number they agree on) is way off.

Honestly, I don't think the western section will be Future I-274 anymore.  NCDOT only briefly used in planning maps in the early 2000s, but has since kept it unlabeled along that stretch.  Officially on the books, since 1999, it's designated as NC 452.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on June 27, 2014, 10:29:37 AM
So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?
No, the Eastern half is the only (partially at best) funded portion and most important because it will be I-74 eventually. The Western Belt (Future I-274 or whatever number they agree on) is way off.

Honestly, I don't think the western section will be Future I-274 anymore.  NCDOT only briefly used in planning maps in the early 2000s, but has since kept it unlabeled along that stretch.  Officially on the books, since 1999, it's designated as NC 452.


It might be like that because it will be built in pieces too and is just a placeholder (and not being sure of how soon I-74 will be official through there). No need to submit a request for interstate designation until there is one there LOL. This would follow what happened with I-74 in Surry County (remember NC 752?), Raleigh (NC 540 Toll), Fayetteville (NC 295), and Wilmington (NC 140). All just placeholders.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 27, 2014, 10:09:16 PM
So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?
No, the Eastern half is the only (partially at best) funded portion and most important because it will be I-74 eventually. The Western Belt (Future I-274 or whatever number they agree on) is way off.
Honestly, I don't think the western section will be Future I-274 anymore.  NCDOT only briefly used in planning maps in the early 2000s, but has since kept it unlabeled along that stretch.  Officially on the books, since 1999, it's designated as NC 452.
It might be like that because it will be built in pieces too and is just a placeholder (and not being sure of how soon I-74 will be official through there). No need to submit a request for interstate designation until there is one there LOL. This would follow what happened with I-74 in Surry County (remember NC 752?), Raleigh (NC 540 Toll), Fayetteville (NC 295), and Wilmington (NC 140). All just placeholders.

Do we have any details on NC 140 yet?  I hear it's a place holder, but no solid proof on NCDOT or on the field yet.  :confused:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on June 28, 2014, 10:16:54 AM
So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?
No, the Eastern half is the only (partially at best) funded portion and most important because it will be I-74 eventually. The Western Belt (Future I-274 or whatever number they agree on) is way off.
Honestly, I don't think the western section will be Future I-274 anymore.  NCDOT only briefly used in planning maps in the early 2000s, but has since kept it unlabeled along that stretch.  Officially on the books, since 1999, it's designated as NC 452.
It might be like that because it will be built in pieces too and is just a placeholder (and not being sure of how soon I-74 will be official through there). No need to submit a request for interstate designation until there is one there LOL. This would follow what happened with I-74 in Surry County (remember NC 752?), Raleigh (NC 540 Toll), Fayetteville (NC 295), and Wilmington (NC 140). All just placeholders.

Do we have any details on NC 140 yet?  I hear it's a place holder, but no solid proof on NCDOT or on the field yet.  :confused:
James Carter posted photos on Facebook of new signage at the US 17 interchange with the new freeway which show NC 140 shields. Those signs were then covered up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 28, 2014, 10:33:09 AM
So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?
No, the Eastern half is the only (partially at best) funded portion and most important because it will be I-74 eventually. The Western Belt (Future I-274 or whatever number they agree on) is way off.
Honestly, I don't think the western section will be Future I-274 anymore.  NCDOT only briefly used in planning maps in the early 2000s, but has since kept it unlabeled along that stretch.  Officially on the books, since 1999, it's designated as NC 452.
It might be like that because it will be built in pieces too and is just a placeholder (and not being sure of how soon I-74 will be official through there). No need to submit a request for interstate designation until there is one there LOL. This would follow what happened with I-74 in Surry County (remember NC 752?), Raleigh (NC 540 Toll), Fayetteville (NC 295), and Wilmington (NC 140). All just placeholders.
Do we have any details on NC 140 yet?  I hear it's a place holder, but no solid proof on NCDOT or on the field yet.  :confused:
James Carter posted photos on Facebook of new signage at the US 17 interchange with the new freeway which show NC 140 shields. Those signs were then covered up.

(http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u266/washuotaku/1364874682852_zps18fe05f3.png) (http://s170.photobucket.com/user/washuotaku/media/1364874682852_zps18fe05f3.png.html)
Unacceptable!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on June 28, 2014, 11:38:23 AM
Speaking of placeholder NC route numbers, why does the Goldsboro Bypass (Future US 70) have the placeholder NC 44, but the Sanford Bypass (Future US 421) does not?
NC 44 is signed. It even has milemarkers with little NC 44 shields on it. But it doesn't act as a real bypass yet.
The Sanford Bypass is labeled as NC 87 Bypass on the County maps, but is not signed in the field. It just has destination signs, no shields. It connects US 1 to US 421 and NC 87, which serves as a viable bypass of Sanford now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 28, 2014, 11:46:20 AM
Jan 2014 GMSV shows NC 140 posting on US 74-76 eastbound...

http://goo.gl/maps/Sd84i

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 28, 2014, 05:29:43 PM
Speaking of placeholder NC route numbers, why does the Goldsboro Bypass (Future US 70) have the placeholder NC 44, but the Sanford Bypass (Future US 421) does not?
NC 44 is signed. It even has milemarkers with little NC 44 shields on it. But it doesn't act as a real bypass yet.
The Sanford Bypass is labeled as NC 87 Bypass on the County maps, but is not signed in the field. It just has destination signs, no shields. It connects US 1 to US 421 and NC 87, which serves as a viable bypass of Sanford now.

The Sanford Bypass is to be designated as US 421 when the final section is completed. 
From NCDOT, a colored map - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Proposed/Map%20US%20421%20Lee%20130116.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Proposed/Map%20US%20421%20Lee%20130116.pdf)

However, you are also right, here is the official route change processed in August 20, 2013:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_08_20.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_08_20.pdf)

So here is my guess, they are waiting to complete the final section and then sign the whole route all at once with US 421/NC 87 BYP.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 28, 2014, 05:31:08 PM
Jan 2014 GMSV shows NC 140 posting on US 74-76 eastbound...

http://goo.gl/maps/Sd84i

Mapmikey

Score one for Google Streetview.  I'm surprised those weren't covered.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 02, 2014, 02:56:15 AM
Let me guess, this happened @ I-77 Exit #28, right?

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 10, 2014, 08:52:47 PM
As someone who grew up close to the current I-74/US 74 concurrency, I'll chime in with some thoughts on the monstrosity that currently exists:

There's no doubt that a freeway was needed in the Lumberton, NC area. The two lane road that ran through Robeson County was incredibly dangerous, congested and a pain in the ass for locals to transverse or even travel short distances on. A freeway basically took traffic off of local roads and made it easier to get around for everyone.

Of course, the route and the way it was executed is so mind-numbingly stupid that it boggles my mind that it got to the point of being built. If I were in charge, I would routed I-74 from Asheville to Wilmington. I would've had I-74 start at a junction with I-40 and end again at an extended I-140 in Wilmington. Given its start and end points, you could probably number it I-340 but a 500+ mile long 3di would be a bit much, I would instead probably just give it I-34.

Asheville to Wilmington would connect a lot of the cities in southern NC. I had to drive from Charlotte to Fayetteville and was struck by how there isn't a really good connection there. US 74 to I-95 involves going through some small towns with frequent stop lights. Taking an east-west interstate to I-95 would've been quicker. There's also no direct interstate route to the southeastern NC beaches from Charlotte, it's honestly easier to get to Myrtle Beach than our own beaches. You would think that NCDOT would want to encourage people from Charlotte to spend their money on the Carolina coast.

Cities in the state are usually well connected but I'm astonished by how relatively difficult it is to get from Charlotte to Fayetteville or Wilmington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jakeroot on July 10, 2014, 08:59:39 PM
Let me guess, this happened @ I-77 Exit #28, right?

The best part of that video is the comments section. Everyone is going on about how complicated the intersection is. I wanna chime in with my own two cents but I know it's a waste of time.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on July 13, 2014, 11:01:40 AM
As someone who grew up close to the current I-74/US 74 concurrency, I'll chime in with some thoughts on the monstrosity that currently exists:

There's no doubt that a freeway was needed in the Lumberton, NC area. The two lane road that ran through Robeson County was incredibly dangerous, congested and a pain in the ass for locals to transverse or even travel short distances on. A freeway basically took traffic off of local roads and made it easier to get around for everyone.

Of course, the route and the way it was executed is so mind-numbingly stupid that it boggles my mind that it got to the point of being built. If I were in charge, I would routed I-74 from Asheville to Wilmington. I would've had I-74 start at a junction with I-40 and end again at an extended I-140 in Wilmington. Given its start and end points, you could probably number it I-340 but a 500+ mile long 3di would be a bit much, I would instead probably just give it I-34.

Asheville to Wilmington would connect a lot of the cities in southern NC. I had to drive from Charlotte to Fayetteville and was struck by how there isn't a really good connection there. US 74 to I-95 involves going through some small towns with frequent stop lights. Taking an east-west interstate to I-95 would've been quicker. There's also no direct interstate route to the southeastern NC beaches from Charlotte, it's honestly easier to get to Myrtle Beach than our own beaches. You would think that NCDOT would want to encourage people from Charlotte to spend their money on the Carolina coast.

Cities in the state are usually well connected but I'm astonished by how relatively difficult it is to get from Charlotte to Fayetteville or Wilmington.




I don't like the routing of I-74 through NC as well, and also believes it should be changed. (Keep I-73 because it is pretty much the only interstate out of the two that NC continues working on) The section from I-73 to I-40 can be easily be 3di such as I-273 or something like that. I would build a interstate to connect Asheville, Charlotte, Rockingham and Wilmington and call it I-28 or I-3X something.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 14, 2014, 06:46:28 PM
I don't like the routing of I-74 through NC as well, and also believes it should be changed. (Keep I-73 because it is pretty much the only interstate out of the two that NC continues working on) The section from I-73 to I-40 can be easily be 3di such as I-273 or something like that. I would build a interstate to connect Asheville, Charlotte, Rockingham and Wilmington and call it I-28 or I-3X something.

I believe the state is doing that, but since it's not considered a federal designated route for an interstate, the state has to build it with funds available... which takes it a long time.  When the routing is mostly completed, they will likely make it an interstate.  First jigsaw that must complete first is the new Shelby Bypass, which they already started working on around Mooresboro.  Once Columbus to Gastonia is freeway grade, they will likely request a I-x26 along it.  When freeway bypasses and connectors are completed east of Charlotte, then talk of a new I-xx may be discussed.

However, I have a feeling instead of the prefer routing between Asheville to Wilmington, they will instead veer northeast along US 1 to Sanford --> Raleigh, replace I-495 to Rocky Mount --> Williamston --> Elizabeth City --> Virginia Beach.  Ta-da... screw Wilmington.  :happy:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 14, 2014, 10:23:12 PM
I don't like the routing of I-74 through NC as well, and also believes it should be changed. (Keep I-73 because it is pretty much the only interstate out of the two that NC continues working on) The section from I-73 to I-40 can be easily be 3di such as I-273 or something like that. I would build a interstate to connect Asheville, Charlotte, Rockingham and Wilmington and call it I-28 or I-3X something.

I believe the state is doing that, but since it's not considered a federal designated route for an interstate, the state has to build it with funds available... which takes it a long time.  When the routing is mostly completed, they will likely make it an interstate.  First jigsaw that must complete first is the new Shelby Bypass, which they already started working on around Mooresboro.  Once Columbus to Gastonia is freeway grade, they will likely request a I-x26 along it.  When freeway bypasses and connectors are completed east of Charlotte, then talk of a new I-xx may be discussed.

However, I have a feeling instead of the prefer routing between Asheville to Wilmington, they will instead veer northeast along US 1 to Sanford --> Raleigh, replace I-495 to Rocky Mount --> Williamston --> Elizabeth City --> Virginia Beach.  Ta-da... screw Wilmington.  :happy:

Wilmington: Getting the shaft from the state government since 1898.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: andy3175 on August 04, 2014, 01:01:27 AM
Jan 2014 GMSV shows NC 140 posting on US 74-76 eastbound...

http://goo.gl/maps/Sd84i

Mapmikey

I had to look twice at the cardinal direction for NC 140. So NC 140 "west" actually heads south to US 17. I wonder if they will consider shifting cardinal direction signage for the route, perhaps once they've connected the whole thing together with I-140 so that the last leg between US 74-76 and US 17 south is signed as north-south.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on August 04, 2014, 08:50:37 AM
Jan 2014 GMSV shows NC 140 posting on US 74-76 eastbound...

http://goo.gl/maps/Sd84i

Mapmikey

I had to look twice at the cardinal direction for NC 140. So NC 140 "west" actually heads south to US 17. I wonder if they will consider shifting cardinal direction signage for the route, perhaps once they've connected the whole thing together with I-140 so that the last leg between US 74-76 and US 17 south is signed as north-south.
I 140 is signed East/West. Since NC 140 is Future I 140, it should be signed the same as I 140, so they won't have to change all of the signage when the roads connect. They just have to swap out or overlay the NC 140 shields with I 140 shields.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on August 04, 2014, 02:09:24 PM
It's no different than I-40 going straight north south for it's last, say, 100 miles lol.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on August 04, 2014, 02:28:11 PM
I don't like the routing of I-74 through NC as well, and also believes it should be changed. (Keep I-73 because it is pretty much the only interstate out of the two that NC continues working on) The section from I-73 to I-40 can be easily be 3di such as I-273 or something like that. I would build a interstate to connect Asheville, Charlotte, Rockingham and Wilmington and call it I-28 or I-3X something.

I believe the state is doing that, but since it's not considered a federal designated route for an interstate, the state has to build it with funds available... which takes it a long time.  When the routing is mostly completed, they will likely make it an interstate.  First jigsaw that must complete first is the new Shelby Bypass, which they already started working on around Mooresboro.  Once Columbus to Gastonia is freeway grade, they will likely request a I-x26 along it.  When freeway bypasses and connectors are completed east of Charlotte, then talk of a new I-xx may be discussed.

However, I have a feeling instead of the prefer routing between Asheville to Wilmington, they will instead veer northeast along US 1 to Sanford --> Raleigh, replace I-495 to Rocky Mount --> Williamston --> Elizabeth City --> Virginia Beach.  Ta-da... screw Wilmington.  :happy:
Hey, that's the routing of I-36 from Swamphen's old website!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on August 06, 2014, 05:18:11 PM
US appeals panel reverses Bonner Bridge work - http://wavy.com/2014/08/06/us-appeals-panel-reverses-bonner-bridge-work/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://wavy.com/2014/08/06/us-appeals-panel-reverses-bonner-bridge-work/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)

Quote
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A federal appeals court panel on Wednesday unanimously rejected North Carolina’s plan to replace a crucial Outer Banks bridge without rerouting a state highway away from a wildlife refuge.

The dispute centers on a plan to replicate the existing 2.5-mile Bonner Bridge across Oregon Inlet at a cost of $216 million. The bridge is the only span connecting the mainland to Hatteras Island and was designed to last 30 years when built in 1963.

Construction has been blocked by a lawsuit by environmental groups, who favor a 17-mile bridge that would bypass the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. The route favored by environmentalists would require building the second-longest bridge in the United States at a cost of more than $1 billion, state transportation officials said.

Environmentalists counter that changing the route would also help avoid recurring problems with the current road, which is frequently rendered impassable by water and sand kicked up by storms.

“At the heart of this case are the past and future of the Outer Banks,” Judge James Wynn wrote for the three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. “The effects of time threaten the structural integrity of the Bonner Bridge, while large storms and changing coastal conditions threaten the viability of the non-elevated portions of North Carolina Highway 12 south of the Bonner Bridge.”

The appeals court overruled a federal judge’s order last September allowing North Carolina an exception to laws protecting a wildlife refuge.

Opponents argued the state’s replacement plan leaves out the cost of moving or maintaining about 12 miles of N.C. 12 through the wildlife refuge. The highway has been breached by new inlets twice in the past several years. Environmentalists said the shorter bridge will be useless without additional infrastructure construction.

The road was closed for three days early last month after waves churned by Hurricane Arthur caused a small section of the fragile roadway to buckle.

The bridge was closed for nearly two weeks in December because sand had washed away from the bridge supports. That closing led to a series of broadsides by the state’s top Republican leaders against the environmental lawsuit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on September 17, 2014, 03:03:30 PM
Governor McCrory is pushing to upgrade three routes to interstate standards in North Carolina, along with other major transportation projects. This includes converting US 74 into an interstate between Asheville, Charlotte, and Wilmington; US 70 from I-40 to New Bern; and US 64 and US 17 from I-95 to Hampton Roads, linking the Triangle to the Virginia Beach metro.

http://www.ncdot.gov/ncvision25/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 17, 2014, 09:11:42 PM
Governor McCrory is pushing to upgrade three routes to interstate standards in North Carolina, along with other major transportation projects. This includes converting US 74 into an interstate between Asheville, Charlotte, and Wilmington; US 70 from I-40 to New Bern; and US 64 and US 17 from I-95 to Hampton Roads, linking the Triangle to the Virginia Beach metro.

http://www.ncdot.gov/ncvision25/

It's all good stuff and a road geek wet dream, but having a vision and implementing it are two different things.  It was only a couple of Governors ago that they wanted to extend I-20 into Wilmington and now you can't find any documentation on NCDOT's website even hinting that was a plan.   :pan:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 17, 2014, 11:22:14 PM
In an odd quirk of NC politics, Gov. Jim Martin campaigned on extending I-40 from Raleigh to Wilmington and won.

Promising interstate highways seems to be a good campaign strategy in NC.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on September 19, 2014, 06:06:05 PM
...US 17 from I-95 to Hampton Roads, linking the Triangle to the Virginia Beach metro.

US 17 and I-95 run completely parallel to each other throughout NC, so do you mean from US 64 intersection (Williamston area) and north?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on September 19, 2014, 10:10:44 PM
Has anyone seen a diagram, or at least a detailed description, of the proposed changes to roads (i.e. NC 87/24, Murchison Road, etc.) at Fort Bragg? Apparently they want to close current 87/24 through the base and reroute it onto 210/Murchison Road (which explains the seemingly overkill upgrades), but what about the northern tie-in? How much of the road, if any, will be left as local access? I also heard that they want to build an interchange on Murchison at Randolph Street. Is this true?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 19, 2014, 10:38:26 PM
Has anyone seen a diagram, or at least a detailed description, of the proposed changes to roads (i.e. NC 87/24, Murchison Road, etc.) at Fort Bragg? Apparently they want to close current 87/24 through the base and reroute it onto 210/Murchison Road (which explains the seemingly overkill upgrades), but what about the northern tie-in? How much of the road, if any, will be left as local access? I also heard that they want to build an interchange on Murchison at Randolph Street. Is this true?
This has some information:
http://www.bracrtf.com/documents/04_Transportation.pdf (http://www.bracrtf.com/documents/04_Transportation.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on September 19, 2014, 11:13:49 PM
...US 17 from I-95 to Hampton Roads, linking the Triangle to the Virginia Beach metro.

US 17 and I-95 run completely parallel to each other throughout NC, so do you mean from US 64 intersection (Williamston area) and north?

Yes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on September 20, 2014, 01:38:39 AM
NC 555 being the designation for the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville. NCDOT is also reserving NC 74 for the Eastern Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. The designation will be used for completed sections, the first between Business 40 and US 158, until the entire Beltway is completed and becomes part of I-74.

Would this be the first instance of one state having a state route, US route and Interstate route all with the same number?

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/search/query.htm?Route=System&search=69
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hawk07 on October 15, 2014, 01:12:02 PM
According to the Wilmington Star-News, the N.C. Department of Transportation will open the southern section of the U.S. 17 Wilmington Bypass, also known as Interstate 140, on Thursday.  The completion date for the entire Bypass is late in 2017.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jakeroot on October 15, 2014, 01:34:04 PM

Be careful about adjusting the subject line. From what I've been told, we try not to do that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 15, 2014, 11:09:11 PM
According to the Wilmington Star-News, the N.C. Department of Transportation will open the southern section of the U.S. 17 Wilmington Bypass, also known as Interstate 140, on Thursday.  The completion date for the entire Bypass is late in 2017.
The link to the story: http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20141015/ARTICLES/141019822/1092/ARTICLES?Title=Southern-section-of-Wilmington-bypass-to-open (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20141015/ARTICLES/141019822/1092/ARTICLES?Title=Southern-section-of-Wilmington-bypass-to-open)

The new section will be signed as NC 140 until the next segment is completed in 2017.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2014, 09:04:55 AM
FYI, when I drove southbound along Interstate 95 through NC on Sunday night, signs for Future I-295 were greened out to reflect NC 295.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 16, 2014, 07:57:10 PM
NC 140 between Winnabow and Leland opened today, that is all.   :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on October 20, 2014, 08:20:45 PM
FYI, when I drove southbound along Interstate 95 through NC on Sunday night, signs for Future I-295 were greened out to reflect NC 295.
Those were there when I drove through in early Spetember.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on October 23, 2014, 10:45:43 AM
Does everyone have pictures of the newly opened section of NC 140?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: geocachingpirate on November 07, 2014, 11:15:18 PM
http://www.wxii12.com/news/contract-awarded-for-first-leg-of-winstonsalem-northern-beltway/29597882

My prediction for when all of the beltway is completed:  May 2032
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on November 13, 2014, 05:39:02 PM
http://www.wxii12.com/news/contract-awarded-for-first-leg-of-winstonsalem-northern-beltway/29597882

My prediction for when all of the beltway is completed:  May 2032

I'll take $5 dollars for the OVER on that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on November 19, 2014, 10:20:27 PM
http://www.wxii12.com/news/contract-awarded-for-first-leg-of-winstonsalem-northern-beltway/29597882

My prediction for when all of the beltway is completed:  May 2032

I'll take $5 dollars for the OVER on that.

Who wants to place bets on when the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway will be started?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on November 20, 2014, 08:13:54 PM
http://www.wxii12.com/news/contract-awarded-for-first-leg-of-winstonsalem-northern-beltway/29597882

My prediction for when all of the beltway is completed:  May 2032

I'll take $5 dollars for the OVER on that.

Who wants to place bets on when the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway will be started?

Probably before they start tolling I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on November 20, 2014, 10:04:04 PM
Probably before they start tolling I-95.

The whole tolling I-95 discussion seems to have gone away in the last year.  The current STIPs identify all of I-95 needing widening, but not to be funded by tolls.  I guess their was simply no political support for it. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on November 23, 2014, 08:09:42 AM
Still waiting for news on when in 2015 the Business 40 shutdown will happen in Winston.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on December 05, 2014, 07:03:10 PM
Looks like the Charlotte region is going to have some pretty big projects going on in the next ten years (mostly funded by toll roads). They are:

I-77 South. The road will be widen by four toll lanes, along with replacing most of the bridges for the needed ROW. Construction is slated to start around 2024.

I-85 in Rowan County and in Gaston County. The road will be widened to eight lane highway between Lane Street and US 29/US 601 Connector in Rowan County, and as well in Gaston County between US 321 and NC 273. This will make I-85 an eight lane highway through much of the metro Charlotte area, and will also make the road consistently eight/six lanes between Gastonia to Hillsborough.

I-485 in South Charlotte. The remainder of the road between Rea Road and US 74 will be widened to a total of eight lanes, with two of those lanes being toll lanes. This project will also add toll lanes to the existing section of I-485 that was just widened (the two lanes are currently being used as a large shoulder), and adding two lanes for tolls between US 521 and Rea Road. Construction could start as soon as 2018.

US 74 in Southeast Charlotte. The road will be converted to a controlled access highway, and the major intersections will be grade separated for over/underpasses. The two inner lanes will be used as toll/express bus lanes. Construction is slated to start around 2022, though conversion of the existing busway to reversible toll lanes, from Uptown Charlotte to NC-24/27, could start as soon as 2017.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 05, 2014, 08:23:05 PM
Looks like the Charlotte region is going to have some pretty big projects going on in the next ten years (mostly funded by toll roads). They are:

I-77 South. The road will be widen by four toll lanes, along with replacing most of the bridges for the needed ROW. Construction is slated to start around 2024.

I-85 in Rowan County and in Gaston County. The road will be widened to eight lane highway between Lane Street and US 29/US 601 Connector in Rowan County, and as well in Gaston County between US 321 and NC 273. This will make I-85 an eight lane highway through much of the metro Charlotte area, and will also make the road consistently eight/six lanes between Gastonia to Hillsborough.

I-485 in South Charlotte. The remainder of the road between Rea Road and US 74 will be widened to a total of eight lanes, with two of those lanes being toll lanes. This project will also add toll lanes to the existing section of I-485 that was just widened (the two lanes are currently being used as a large shoulder), and adding two lanes for tolls between US 521 and Rea Road. Construction could start as soon as 2018.

US 74 in Southeast Charlotte. The road will be converted to a controlled access highway, and the major intersections will be grade separated for over/underpasses. The two inner lanes will be used as toll/express bus lanes. Construction is slated to start around 2022, though conversion of the existing busway to reversible toll lanes, from Uptown Charlotte to NC-24/27, could start as soon as 2017.

US 74 (between Sardis Road and I-485) will be a freeway/expressway... in other words, there will be interchanges but still have access to business like the already existing section.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on December 14, 2014, 12:21:46 AM
Looking at the scope of work for that section of US 74 in the NCDOT STI pdf, it notes that they want to build the road with full control access, rather than partial. Considering that parallel roads will be built along side Independence as part of the project, it doesn't make much sense to allow businesses access to the road, when they will be connected with side roads.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 22, 2014, 04:30:22 PM
WNCN.COM: McCrory to propose new NC road-building sources (http://www.wncn.com/story/27681962/mccrory-to-propose-new-nc-road-building-sources)

Quote
Gov. Pat McCrory and North Carolina legislators praised each other for the new method they approved last year to fund transportation projects they say is based not on who you know but more on reducing gridlock and creating jobs.

Quote
The result, the state Department of Transportation says, is efficiencies to fund 300 additional projects in its first 10-year road-building proposal released this month under new evaluation formulas.

Quote
"Everybody understood that we needed to get politics out of the road and transportation decision-making business," Transportation Secretary Tony Tata said.

Quote
There will be new political pressure in 2015 upon GOP legislative leaders and the Republican governor to locate tens of billions of dollars over the next generation to pay for needed but yet-funded projects. McCrory has said he'll offer options and a recommendation early next year. The gap between anticipated transportation funds and needs was estimated two years ago through the early 2040s from $32 billion to $60 billion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on December 23, 2014, 11:02:41 PM
When I was driving through NC back in October, I was going through some construction zones and keeps seeing signs that read ROAD UNDER CONST. I've never seen that sign before anywhere else.

P.S.- I hope NCDOT finds a way to make it easier to get through Winston-Salem. Trying to get from US 52 to Eastbound Business 40 or I-40 is a nightmare!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 24, 2014, 07:45:56 AM
FYI, when I drove southbound along Interstate 95 through NC on Sunday night, signs for Future I-295 were greened out to reflect NC 295.
I saw that when I went up in November. I stayed in this cheap hotel at the end of it, and started talking to the hotel clerk about the removal or the I-295 shields, and she thought it contributed to the inability to draw customers to the place.

The hotel was damn nearly a roach motel (not the most stable balcony), but the clerk was a gorgeous woman. If she had been willing, I would've invited her to my room that night.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 28, 2014, 05:58:07 PM
Does anyone know if the Blue Ridge Parkway (all of which is maintained by the National Park Service) has a state route number in North Carolina?

It is Va. 48 north of the state line.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on December 28, 2014, 06:47:13 PM
Does anyone know if the Blue Ridge Parkway (all of which is maintained by the National Park Service) has a state route number in North Carolina?

It is Va. 48 north of the state line.
Nothing public. NCDOT documents only refer to it as Blue Ridge Parkway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: broadhurst04 on December 28, 2014, 10:37:47 PM
Does anyone know if the Blue Ridge Parkway (all of which is maintained by the National Park Service) has a state route number in North Carolina?

It is Va. 48 north of the state line.

Why would VA bother to assign a number to a road they didn't build and are not responsible for?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on December 28, 2014, 10:45:21 PM
Does anyone know if the Blue Ridge Parkway (all of which is maintained by the National Park Service) has a state route number in North Carolina?

It is Va. 48 north of the state line.

Why would VA bother to assign a number to a road they didn't build and are not responsible for?

I believe (though someone else will probably correct me on this) that the VA-48 designation is used for describing the right-of-way around the BRP and Skyline Drive that the NPS maintains, as all references to it in CTB notes are related to land transactions. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on December 28, 2014, 11:18:50 PM
Does anyone know if the Blue Ridge Parkway (all of which is maintained by the National Park Service) has a state route number in North Carolina?

It is Va. 48 north of the state line.

Why would VA bother to assign a number to a road they didn't build and are not responsible for?

The Baltimore-Washington Parkway is an unsigned Maryland 295 for the first bit of its route. It's an easy way to refer to the highway within state documents and communication.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 29, 2014, 12:55:49 AM
Does anyone know if the Blue Ridge Parkway (all of which is maintained by the National Park Service) has a state route number in North Carolina?

It is Va. 48 north of the state line.
Nothing public. NCDOT documents only refer to it as Blue Ridge Parkway.

Ditto.  North Carolina doesn't have a state highway assigned to the route, it's just the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 29, 2014, 06:28:29 AM

I believe (though someone else will probably correct me on this) that the VA-48 designation is used for describing the right-of-way around the BRP and Skyline Drive that the NPS maintains, as all references to it in CTB notes are related to land transactions. 

This is correct...

Here is the 1957 route log:

(http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/VDOT%20logs/57_40-50.jpg)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on January 02, 2015, 05:00:26 PM
Deja vu in the Queen City, as its unlit freeways are the subject of a news headline once again...
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2015/01/02/5420568/dozens-of-burned-out-street-lights.html#.VKcUJGfQcdU
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 02, 2015, 09:04:26 PM
Deja vu in the Queen City, as its unlit freeways are the subject of a news headline once again...
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2015/01/02/5420568/dozens-of-burned-out-street-lights.html#.VKcUJGfQcdU

Yea, they fixed all the interstate lights just before the Democratic Convention a few years ago.  As expected, the maintenance hasn't kept up since; part of the problem though is the system is pretty out-dated and the whole system should be re-wired.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on January 07, 2015, 06:43:49 PM
NCDOT is "confident" construction on the long awaited Monroe Bypass will start this Spring, and end in 2018. It'd be interesting if this project is not halted by more lawsuits, like the one currently from the Southern Environmental Law Center.

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/27775757/dot-says-its-confident-monroe-bypass-begins-this-spring
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 30, 2015, 07:54:41 PM
New I-495 signage at the interchange with I-440.
http://ow.ly/i/8spyd
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on January 30, 2015, 08:31:25 PM
North?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 30, 2015, 11:08:08 PM
North?

Why are you surprised its north-south?   :confused:  Rocky Mount is northwest of Raleigh.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 30, 2015, 11:27:04 PM
Speaking of NCDOT posted photos, anyone have information about this one, posted about 3 months ago?
(http://static.ow.ly/photos/normal/7p3ce.jpg)

from http://ow.ly/i/7p3ce (http://ow.ly/i/7p3ce)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 30, 2015, 11:51:36 PM
Speaking of NCDOT posted photos, anyone have information about this one, posted about 3 months ago?

You talking about the signs used for the run on I-485?  That's long gone and I'm sure the signs are either in the trash or kept as a collector item.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on January 31, 2015, 08:25:32 AM
North?

Why are you surprised its north-south?   :confused:  Rocky Mount is northwest of Raleigh.
East-northeast.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 31, 2015, 08:31:25 AM
Plus the road (495/64) connects Raleigh to I-95 North, so it carries plenty of northbound traffic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 31, 2015, 10:06:12 AM
North?

Why are you surprised its north-south?   :confused:  Rocky Mount is northwest of Raleigh.
East-northeast.

Opps, sometimes I get my northwest and northeast mixed-up.  Regardless, it's still going in a northerly direction, similar to I-85 in the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on January 31, 2015, 10:15:01 AM
It's more east than north. I suppose as a connection to I-95 north makes sense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 31, 2015, 07:14:45 PM
It's more east than north. I suppose as a connection to I-95 north makes sense.

Generally, people that take that route continue north into Virginia from Raleigh and vice-versa.  To go south on I-95, they would take I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on January 31, 2015, 07:32:36 PM
So I-40 should be signed south. And I-40 west should be signed south, since it's the route to I-85 south. But wait, I-495 will be the route to US 58 east, so it and I-95 should be east.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 01, 2015, 08:58:15 AM
So I-40 should be signed south. And I-40 west should be signed south, since it's the route to I-85 south. But wait, I-495 will be the route to US 58 east, so it and I-95 should be east.

I-495 is not be the route to US 58 east, the road continues as US 64 east to the Outer Banks.  There is no future interstate "planned" between Raleigh and Virginia Beach; and if there was, it wouldn't be a super long 3di.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on February 01, 2015, 03:28:39 PM
I-495 is not be[sic] the route to I-95 north,[sic] the road continues as US 64 east to the Outer Banks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 01, 2015, 03:28:55 PM
Quote
There is no future interstate "planned" between Raleigh and Virginia Beach

Some business boosters and even the Governor's transportation plan argue otherwise...

As I recall, we had this discussion/argument about north-south vs east-west for I-495 when the number was first announced.  Though I disagree with the decision to sign it north-south (there is no requirement that 3dis be signed the same directions as their parent), I can understand it.  There would be confusion regardless of whether it's signed east-west or north-south.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on February 01, 2015, 03:31:38 PM
Considering that I-495 is a spur of its parent it should be East- West.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 02, 2015, 06:33:47 PM
Quote
There is no future interstate "planned" between Raleigh and Virginia Beach

Some business boosters and even the Governor's transportation plan argue otherwise...

As I recall, we had this discussion/argument about north-south vs east-west for I-495 when the number was first announced.  Though I disagree with the decision to sign it north-south (there is no requirement that 3dis be signed the same directions as their parent), I can understand it.  There would be confusion regardless of whether it's signed east-west or north-south.

There is talk about an interstate, but that it is... talk.  A decade ago there was talk of extending I-20 to Wilmington that went no where; there was talk of I-99 along US 17, which has also gone no where.  What I am saying is that NCDOT has no immediate plans to build an interstate between the two cities is all.  In the future that may change, but at the moment it's simply a proposal.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 02, 2015, 06:34:18 PM
Considering that I-495 is a spur of its parent it should be East- West.

Why should it be east-west?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 11, 2015, 01:24:28 PM
NCDOT's website has added three more county atlas books to their historical collection:

1980, 1990, and 1999-2000

All can be downloaded here (scroll to very bottom) - http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/statemapping/default.html#county_maps

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 11, 2015, 05:44:50 PM
NCDOT's website has added three more county atlas books to their historical collection:

1980, 1990, and 1999-2000

All can be downloaded here (scroll to very bottom) - http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/statemapping/default.html#county_maps

Mapmikey
Thanks. Speaking of maps, anyone heard when, or if, there will be a new NC state map? The NCDOT website still proudly proclaims that the new 2013-2014 map is now available.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on February 17, 2015, 09:27:39 AM
Looks like the Charlotte region is going to have some pretty big projects going on in the next ten years (mostly funded by toll roads). They are:

I-77 South. The road will be widen by four toll lanes, along with replacing most of the bridges for the needed ROW. Construction is slated to start around 2024.

I-85 in Rowan County and in Gaston County. The road will be widened to eight lane highway between Lane Street and US 29/US 601 Connector in Rowan County, and as well in Gaston County between US 321 and NC 273. This will make I-85 an eight lane highway through much of the metro Charlotte area, and will also make the road consistently eight/six lanes between Gastonia to Hillsborough.

I-485 in South Charlotte. The remainder of the road between Rea Road and US 74 will be widened to a total of eight lanes, with two of those lanes being toll lanes. This project will also add toll lanes to the existing section of I-485 that was just widened (the two lanes are currently being used as a large shoulder), and adding two lanes for tolls between US 521 and Rea Road. Construction could start as soon as 2018.

US 74 in Southeast Charlotte. The road will be converted to a controlled access highway, and the major intersections will be grade separated for over/underpasses. The two inner lanes will be used as toll/express bus lanes. Construction is slated to start around 2022, though conversion of the existing busway to reversible toll lanes, from Uptown Charlotte to NC-24/27, could start as soon as 2017.

Any source on the I-77 widening?  Four toll lanes so expanded to 5 total lanes on each side?  If so that's very impressive and should be sufficient capacity for the next 30-40 years at least.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on February 20, 2015, 12:05:38 PM
Looks like the Charlotte region is going to have some pretty big projects going on in the next ten years (mostly funded by toll roads). They are:

I-77 South. The road will be widen by four toll lanes, along with replacing most of the bridges for the needed ROW. Construction is slated to start around 2024.

I-85 in Rowan County and in Gaston County. The road will be widened to eight lane highway between Lane Street and US 29/US 601 Connector in Rowan County, and as well in Gaston County between US 321 and NC 273. This will make I-85 an eight lane highway through much of the metro Charlotte area, and will also make the road consistently eight/six lanes between Gastonia to Hillsborough.

I-485 in South Charlotte. The remainder of the road between Rea Road and US 74 will be widened to a total of eight lanes, with two of those lanes being toll lanes. This project will also add toll lanes to the existing section of I-485 that was just widened (the two lanes are currently being used as a large shoulder), and adding two lanes for tolls between US 521 and Rea Road. Construction could start as soon as 2018.

US 74 in Southeast Charlotte. The road will be converted to a controlled access highway, and the major intersections will be grade separated for over/underpasses. The two inner lanes will be used as toll/express bus lanes. Construction is slated to start around 2022, though conversion of the existing busway to reversible toll lanes, from Uptown Charlotte to NC-24/27, could start as soon as 2017.

Any source on the I-77 widening?  Four toll lanes so expanded to 5 total lanes on each side?  If so that's very impressive and should be sufficient capacity for the next 30-40 years at least.

There's an interactive map towards the bottom, that gives some info on the project:
http://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/

More info can be found in this excel document. The project is broken up into several different pieces:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIData/Highway_STI_Data.xlsm
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 22, 2015, 12:17:13 PM
In 1964, North Carolina briefly considered an interstate corridor from Fayetteville to Norfolk.  The number for consideration - Interstate 13.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2015/02/terry-sanfords-1964-north-carolina.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on February 22, 2015, 12:29:47 PM
According to the article, the state considered making it an Interstate, but only a single senator gave it the I-13 designation. It's worth noting that this was only a year or two after US 13 had been extended from Goldsboro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 22, 2015, 12:44:14 PM
I have a whole bunch of old articles that I have kept aside for research on pages/projects I'll never get to so I'd figure I'd share them as I get a chance for possibly someone to use on their site, blog etc.

When Governor Mike Easley pushed to extended I-20 into North Carolina about a decade ago, he was just echoing the thoughts of the Robeson County Commissioners in 1971. 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19710506&id=f69OAAAAIBAJ&sjid=twkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4217,1070033
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 22, 2015, 01:06:22 PM
Series of articles on NCDOT's 1978 decision to route I-40 from I-95 to Wilmington along US 117 vs. US 421.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19780422&id=Q9BOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KRMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6194%2C4313228

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19780419&id=QNBOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KRMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2835%2C3802134

And from pushback against an early proposal to route I-40 along US 70 to Morehead City:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19711115&id=x-gbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wlEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1566%2C1117280

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19710506&id=f69OAAAAIBAJ&sjid=twkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6035%2C1082924
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 22, 2015, 02:38:50 PM
Link for the December 1980 opening of the Fayetteville Bypass section of I-95: 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19801216&id=mOMbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UVIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3671,1959307

This completed I-95 within the state.  The completion of I-95 around Fayetteville was dragged on from a 1967 - 1976 legal battle over the routing of I-95.  Business groups wanted 95 to remain along US 301 (today's Business 95).

Some background:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19750808&id=7OJNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aIsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3811,922246
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19751205&id=lmpPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wiQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5139,3494527
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on February 24, 2015, 03:50:48 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rockingham,+NC/@34.992846,-79.7895278,1583m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8854c8db0f5a2927:0x5e26fb6d4bfca517

I am guessing that the construction and path through the trees in the center of this here image is that of some more work to extend I-73 and I-74 further south to connect it with US 74 at Rockingham.  If this is to be then US 220 north to Ellerby is going to be upgraded to be freeway instead of a new alignment elsewhere being the way the roads are to come together at the north end of the construction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on February 24, 2015, 04:22:37 PM
Yeah, they are constructing I-73/I-74 by using the current US 220 from Elliebe to the proposed US 220 interchange near Rockingham. The proposed trumpet interchange that you just see from the link.. will carry US 220 over I-73/I-74. I guess the construction on Western Rockingham Bypass won't start until after 2018 somehow. I still think NCDOT should go ahead and construct WRB to connect to US 74.

If you moved up north on Google Maps, you will see both frontage roads being constructed as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 25, 2015, 10:55:13 PM
Gold Rock to Kenly, NC  stretch of Interstate 95 opened November 21, 1978

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1105&dat=19781116&id=F0NlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=i5MNAAAAIBAJ&pg=346,3408468
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on March 05, 2015, 06:43:55 PM
I have a whole bunch of old articles that I have kept aside for research on pages/projects I'll never get to so I'd figure I'd share them as I get a chance for possibly someone to use on their site, blog etc.

When Governor Mike Easley pushed to extended I-20 into North Carolina about a decade ago, he was just echoing the thoughts of the Robeson County Commissioners in 1971. 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19710506&id=f69OAAAAIBAJ&sjid=twkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4217,1070033

So the Robeson County Commissioners wanted an I-40 junction as far south as possible and an I-20 extension to Wilmington?

Also loving the state named interstate shield.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 17, 2015, 08:44:36 AM
Work is beginning this week on the Durham East End Connector (possible future I-885). And it only took 60 years to get it going.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=10891
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on March 18, 2015, 12:34:34 PM
These old articles are very interesting finds, especially the I-13 one! But in all due respect as to the Raleigh-Norfolk route, I like the I-44 idea better.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on March 18, 2015, 08:50:53 PM
The Raleigh-Norfolk idea makes more sense now than it did back then. The Research Triangle has exploded in growth in the last 50 years.

Also, Terry Sanford was from Laurinburg and practiced law in Fayetteville. You think that he might have had a self-interest in his I-13 proposal?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on March 25, 2015, 12:59:31 PM
Also, Terry Sanford was from Laurinburg and practiced law in Fayetteville. You think that he might have had a self-interest in his I-13 proposal?
I highly suspect that, as part of the corridor was already signed as US 13. I myself would've proposed it as I-97, if they had insisted on a north-south route, freeing up I-99 for a potential route along the coast.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 25, 2015, 04:50:06 PM
Does anyone have any idea when the US 52 freeway south of Winston-Salem will become Interstate 285?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 25, 2015, 07:04:45 PM
Does anyone have any idea when the US 52 freeway south of Winston-Salem will become Interstate 285?

The quick answer is when roadway improvements are completed.  As to when the construction will be finish, should be soon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 25, 2015, 10:33:05 PM
Does anyone have any idea when the US 52 freeway south of Winston-Salem will become Interstate 285?

The quick answer is when roadway improvements are completed.  As to when the construction will be finish, should be soon.

Will it only go to Winston-Salem or will it go up to the Winston-Salem Beltway?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on March 26, 2015, 01:01:39 PM
Does anyone have any idea when the US 52 freeway south of Winston-Salem will become Interstate 285?

The quick answer is when roadway improvements are completed.  As to when the construction will be finish, should be soon.

Will it only go to Winston-Salem or will it go up to the Winston-Salem Beltway?
AFAIK, it'll only go to Winston-Salem for now (presumably ending at I-40). If improvements are ever done north of there to the Beltway, then it's possible they may extend it further.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on March 26, 2015, 04:13:11 PM
Yeah, I-285 will only go from I-85 to I-40 (it will end at I-40 in Winston-Salem, with the extension possible after improvements are done to US 52 that connects to the proposed Beltway.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 28, 2015, 10:01:03 PM
2015-2016 map is now available:

http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/mappubs/statetransportationmap/

Changes I see:

Insets: (some of these changes are also shown on the main map too)
I-495 labeled near Raleigh
I-785 label replaces I-840 label east of Greensboro
Sanford Bypass complete to US 1 (it is actually fully open now) and labeled as NC 87 Byp
NC 148 extension to US 70 shown as finished
They redrew I-540 between Exits 17-20
NC 295 open between NC 87 and NC 210
several Charlotte roads redrawn to what I presume is more accurate alignment

main map:
US 311 leaving I-74 at Randleman is now visible
Exit numbers added to I-73/74
FUTURE I-495 shield added east of Zebulon
NC 186 western extension shown but not labeled


Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on March 28, 2015, 11:40:39 PM
I just drove through NC and it looks like that there is major construction happening on a new interchange at Exit 22 in Lumberton. Majorly needed because the previous one was terrible and just caused congestion. That exit has gotten way more commercialized in the last decade and needed a new interchange to reflect that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on March 30, 2015, 01:00:21 PM
2015-2016 map is now available:

http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/mappubs/statetransportationmap/

Changes I see:

Insets: (some of these changes are also shown on the main map too)
I-495 labeled near Raleigh
I-785 label replaces I-840 label east of Greensboro
Sanford Bypass complete to US 1 (it is actually fully open now) and labeled as NC 87 Byp
NC 148 extension to US 70 shown as finished
They redrew I-540 between Exits 17-20
NC 295 open between NC 87 and NC 210
several Charlotte roads redrawn to what I presume is more accurate alignment

main map:
US 311 leaving I-74 at Randleman is now visible
Exit numbers added to I-73/74
FUTURE I-495 shield added east of Zebulon
NC 186 western extension shown but not labeled


Mapmikey
I take it that I-485 is shown as an entirely completed loop on this map? BTW, when is the last constructed portion (from east of I-77 back to I-85) scheduled to open, if it hasn't been already?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on April 06, 2015, 01:44:44 PM

I take it that I-485 is shown as an entirely completed loop on this map? BTW, when is the last constructed portion (from east of I-77 back to I-85) scheduled to open, if it hasn't been already?

Actually it is not shown as complete...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on April 14, 2015, 08:20:45 PM
2015-2016 map is now available:

http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/mappubs/statetransportationmap/

Changes I see:

Insets: (some of these changes are also shown on the main map too)
I-495 labeled near Raleigh
I-785 label replaces I-840 label east of Greensboro
Sanford Bypass complete to US 1 (it is actually fully open now) and labeled as NC 87 Byp
NC 148 extension to US 70 shown as finished
They redrew I-540 between Exits 17-20
NC 295 open between NC 87 and NC 210
several Charlotte roads redrawn to what I presume is more accurate alignment

main map:
US 311 leaving I-74 at Randleman is now visible
Exit numbers added to I-73/74
FUTURE I-495 shield added east of Zebulon
NC 186 western extension shown but not labeled


Mapmikey
I take it that I-485 is shown as an entirely completed loop on this map? BTW, when is the last constructed portion (from east of I-77 back to I-85) scheduled to open, if it hasn't been already?

Supposed to open in May
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on April 15, 2015, 12:23:50 PM
2015-2016 map is now available:

http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/mappubs/statetransportationmap/

Changes I see:

Insets: (some of these changes are also shown on the main map too)
I-495 labeled near Raleigh
I-785 label replaces I-840 label east of Greensboro
Sanford Bypass complete to US 1 (it is actually fully open now) and labeled as NC 87 Byp
NC 148 extension to US 70 shown as finished
They redrew I-540 between Exits 17-20
NC 295 open between NC 87 and NC 210
several Charlotte roads redrawn to what I presume is more accurate alignment

main map:
US 311 leaving I-74 at Randleman is now visible
Exit numbers added to I-73/74
FUTURE I-495 shield added east of Zebulon
NC 186 western extension shown but not labeled


Mapmikey
I take it that I-485 is shown as an entirely completed loop on this map? BTW, when is the last constructed portion (from east of I-77 back to I-85) scheduled to open, if it hasn't been already?

Supposed to open in May
That's what I thought.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 17, 2015, 07:52:44 PM
North Carolina Congressional Delegation today introduced companion bills that would “high priority corridors” and “future interstates" for two routes in the state:
Details in the press release:  NCDOT Offers Thanks and Support for Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11022)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 17, 2015, 08:08:52 PM
The Governor released his proposed $3 Billion in Bonds package today.  $1.5 Billion would go towards Transportation and $1.5 Billion would go towards Infrastructure.  Not a sure thing yet, as it will need to be approved by the Legislators before voters get a chance to approve or deny the bonds in November.

Article:  McCrory proposes $3 billion in bonds for fall vote (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article18723564.html)
List of Bond Projects:  Transporation Bond Projects/Infrastructure Bond Projects (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article18723558.ece/BINARY/List%20of%20Bond%20Projects.pdf?hc_location=ufi)

Some of the big items include:  I-74 Winston-Salem Beltway, I-295 Fayetteville Outer Loop, US 74 Shelby Bypass and the I-40/I-77 Interchange in Statesville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on April 17, 2015, 10:33:56 PM
Quote
North Carolina Congressional Delegation today introduced companion bills that would “high priority corridors” and “future interstates" for two routes in the state:

Unless they come with dollar signs, it's effectively useless legislation.  And unless the bill includes connections to other important military facilities in other states, it has no chance.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on April 18, 2015, 12:45:03 AM
The North Carolina legislature likes building useless interstates or jumping the gun on building interstates when other states show no interest. It's not the home of I-73 and east coast home of I-74 for nothing, you know.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 19, 2015, 06:56:46 PM
The recently announced STIP doesn't have anything in the I-795/US 117 corridor, and I can't see anything happening there in the foreseeable future. The upgrading of US 70 is a long-term project that's definitely moving forward, but full freeway at interstate standards is still a long way off.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on April 19, 2015, 10:05:41 PM
What happened to the I-95 widening/tolling? Doesn't look there's much going on there...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on April 19, 2015, 10:32:42 PM
Local political opposition made that a non-starter.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on April 19, 2015, 11:36:38 PM
Local political opposition made that a non-starter.

No, I didn't think the folks in Eastern NC were going to take kindly to it, "we'll build free limited access corridors or expand the existing ones all over the state but fuck I-95, let the tourists pay for it and who cares what the eastern half of the state thinks?"

Enough to get it killed...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on April 19, 2015, 11:58:07 PM
Tolling I-95 is a terrible idea. It runs through the poorest part of the state with no real metro area being served by it.

It's be like routing the Pennsylvania Turnpike onto I-80 honestly. If NC is going to toll a road to raise money, I-85 is the obvious answer.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on April 20, 2015, 05:18:05 AM
Tolling I-95 is a terrible idea. It runs through the poorest part of the state with no real metro area being served by it.

It's be like routing the Pennsylvania Turnpike onto I-80 honestly. If NC is going to toll a road to raise money, I-85 is the obvious answer.

I think tolling it is an excellent idea.  It's used much more by out of state travelers between the northeast and Florida more than local NC residents.  It's actually a very busy highway and I have no qualms about letting those travelers pay to upgrade the road that they use the most.  Tolling 85 makes no sense as it's already a modern and high quality roadway through most of the state.  The whole idea is to make money off the people who use 95 the most to pay for its upgrades. 

So now that the tolling idea has been struck down I guess those northeast-Florida drivers can expect 95 to remain the substandard 1960s era interstate that it currently is for a very long time.  95 just isn't priority enough for the residents of NC to spend the estimated $4B on upgrading with our tax dollars.  It's easily the least important interstate in the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on April 20, 2015, 07:11:05 AM
I agree with Cemajr.  Tolling may suck for the locals, but given the volume of out-of-state travelers who use it, it makes sense from the state's perspective to toll it to pay for upgrades.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on April 20, 2015, 11:13:15 AM
Easy solution: make the road free for those with NC plates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on April 20, 2015, 12:54:04 PM
North Carolina Congressional Delegation today introduced companion bills that would “high priority corridors” and “future interstates" for two routes in the state:
  • US 117/I-795 - Between I-40 and US 70
  • US 70 - Between Garner and the state port at Morehead City
Details in the press release:  NCDOT Offers Thanks and Support for Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11022)
Like there needs to be another Interstate serving Raleigh! I'll bet that they're finally starting to realize how they blew the chance to send I-40 east along the US 70 corridor instead of south along US 117. Why this wasn't thought up at the same time as the I-40 extension (which would work better with an odd 2di designation) is beyond me.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on April 20, 2015, 03:52:00 PM
Tolling I-95 is a terrible idea. It runs through the poorest part of the state with no real metro area being served by it.

It's be like routing the Pennsylvania Turnpike onto I-80 honestly. If NC is going to toll a road to raise money, I-85 is the obvious answer.

I think tolling it is an excellent idea.  It's used much more by out of state travelers between the northeast and Florida more than local NC residents.  It's actually a very busy highway and I have no qualms about letting those travelers pay to upgrade the road that they use the most.  Tolling 85 makes no sense as it's already a modern and high quality roadway through most of the state.  The whole idea is to make money off the people who use 95 the most to pay for its upgrades. 

So now that the tolling idea has been struck down I guess those northeast-Florida drivers can expect 95 to remain the substandard 1960s era interstate that it currently is for a very long time.  95 just isn't priority enough for the residents of NC to spend the estimated $4B on upgrading with our tax dollars.  It's easily the least important interstate in the state.

I think we've been through this already though (and I think I made the same points). Eastern North Carolina is the poorest part of the state with very high poverty and it is very rural. Tolls are already a form of regressive taxation, putting them in Eastern NC would be terrible for the locals. Free tolls for those with an address within x miles of I-95 would probably be the best solution.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on April 20, 2015, 09:04:24 PM
Tolling I-95 is a terrible idea. It runs through the poorest part of the state with no real metro area being served by it.

It's be like routing the Pennsylvania Turnpike onto I-80 honestly. If NC is going to toll a road to raise money, I-85 is the obvious answer.

I think tolling it is an excellent idea.  It's used much more by out of state travelers between the northeast and Florida more than local NC residents.  It's actually a very busy highway and I have no qualms about letting those travelers pay to upgrade the road that they use the most.  Tolling 85 makes no sense as it's already a modern and high quality roadway through most of the state.  The whole idea is to make money off the people who use 95 the most to pay for its upgrades. 

So now that the tolling idea has been struck down I guess those northeast-Florida drivers can expect 95 to remain the substandard 1960s era interstate that it currently is for a very long time.  95 just isn't priority enough for the residents of NC to spend the estimated $4B on upgrading with our tax dollars.  It's easily the least important interstate in the state.

I think we've been through this already though (and I think I made the same points). Eastern North Carolina is the poorest part of the state with very high poverty and it is very rural. Tolls are already a form of regressive taxation, putting them in Eastern NC would be terrible for the locals. Free tolls for those with an address within x miles of I-95 would probably be the best solution.

I do agree that they should've offered some type of exemption or greatly reduced rate for NC residents.  That probably would've gotten the tolls approved.  Being that out of state drivers are by far the biggest users of that highway, I'm not sure why the NCDOT didn't make such a proposal.  Even without money from NC residents they would have still been able to collect a significant amount of toll revenue as I doubt most long distance travelers would've been bothered to use 85/77 as an alternative to 95 in NC.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on April 20, 2015, 10:58:22 PM
Quote from: Thing342
Easy solution: make the road free for those with NC plates.

Very difficult if not impossible to actually implement/enforce this.  Something along the lines of what Nature Boy or Cemajr suggested, with EZPass discounts for local residents, is more realistic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 20, 2015, 11:16:40 PM
North Carolina Congressional Delegation today introduced companion bills that would “high priority corridors” and “future interstates" for two routes in the state:
  • US 117/I-795 - Between I-40 and US 70
  • US 70 - Between Garner and the state port at Morehead City
Details in the press release:  NCDOT Offers Thanks and Support for Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11022)
Like there needs to be another Interstate serving Raleigh! I'll bet that they're finally starting to realize how they blew the chance to send I-40 east along the US 70 corridor instead of south along US 117. Why this wasn't thought up at the same time as the I-40 extension (which would work better with an odd 2di designation) is beyond me.
It's not too late to do this, I guess: relocate I-40 to the US 70 corridor and renumber the freeway to Wilmington. But I don't think that's likely.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hurricanehink on April 21, 2015, 02:49:16 PM
North Carolina Congressional Delegation today introduced companion bills that would “high priority corridors” and “future interstates" for two routes in the state:
  • US 117/I-795 - Between I-40 and US 70
  • US 70 - Between Garner and the state port at Morehead City
Details in the press release:  NCDOT Offers Thanks and Support for Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11022)
Like there needs to be another Interstate serving Raleigh! I'll bet that they're finally starting to realize how they blew the chance to send I-40 east along the US 70 corridor instead of south along US 117. Why this wasn't thought up at the same time as the I-40 extension (which would work better with an odd 2di designation) is beyond me.
It's not too late to do this, I guess: relocate I-40 to the US 70 corridor and renumber the freeway to Wilmington. But I don't think that's likely.
Not with I-140 already there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 22, 2015, 10:29:49 PM
Yeah. More likely NCDOT would go for a 2di number like I-42 or I-46 for the US 70 route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on April 23, 2015, 01:08:28 PM
Yeah. More likely NCDOT would go for a 2di number like I-42 or I-46 for the US 70 route.
That would be a good compromise. In a perfect world, I-40 would go to Morehead City and the Raleigh-Wilmington route would be I-97, as I once suggested from old atlas markings, but it'll never happen that way.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Grzrd on April 27, 2015, 11:20:41 PM
North Carolina Congressional Delegation today introduced companion bills that would “high priority corridors” and “future interstates" for two routes in the state:
  • US 117/I-795 - Between I-40 and US 70
  • US 70 - Between Garner and the state port at Morehead City
Details in the press release:  NCDOT Offers Thanks and Support for Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11022)

The text of the Senate bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/983/text) has been posted on Congress.gov and it does not provide specific interstate numerical designations for the two corridors, although it does provide that they would be High Priority Corridor Nos. 81 and 82 on the list of FHWA High Priority Corridors (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm):

Quote
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act of 2015”.
SEC. 2. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
(a) In General.—Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032; 119 Stat. 1213) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(81) United States Route 117/Interstate Route 795 from United States Route 70 in Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina, to Interstate Route 40 west of Faison, Sampson County, North Carolina.
“(82) United States Route 70 from its intersection with Interstate Route 40 in Garner, Wake County, North Carolina, to the Port at Morehead City, Carteret County, North Carolina.”.
(b) Inclusion Of Certain Route Segments On Interstate System.—Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (109 Stat. 597; 119 Stat. 1213) is amended in the first sentence by striking “and subsection (c)(57)” and inserting “subsection (c)(57), subsection (c)(81), and subsection (c)(82)”.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on May 06, 2015, 10:01:29 AM
Looks like if I-77 is tolled as planned, it will not be widened again for another half-century:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article20226147.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on May 06, 2015, 10:32:50 AM
Tolling I-77 is a curious decision. What is the traffic count on it? It seems to only serve to connect Cleveland to Charlotte with maybe some Charleston bound traffic in between.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 06, 2015, 11:29:11 AM
There's a fair bit of traffic that uses 77 to 81 to connect to inland areas of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.  There's also a lot of warehousing and manufacturing along I-81 in Virginia and some of that traffic utilizes 77 to head to/from points south.  But the bulk of traffic on 77 in the area in question is metro Charlotte traffic.

The overall Express Lane project runs from I-277/NC 16 up to NC 150...the segment specified in the article is the northernmost 8 miles.  This segment sees daily volumes of 60-90K, getting higher as you head south.  Those are volumes that are pretty high for a 4-lane freeway, even an urban one.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on May 06, 2015, 11:39:19 AM
If helps alleviate traffic congestion in Charlotte then I'm for it. I-85 and 77 can resemble parking lots if you go out at the wrong time.

I do wonder how much the light rail will alleviate congestion once more lines get built. Charlotte needs reliable public transit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on May 06, 2015, 01:41:08 PM
The tolls are now officially coming to a 25-mile stretch of I-77:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article20265252.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on May 07, 2015, 10:08:10 PM
Looks like Apple Maps has updated and shows 485 as completed around Charlotte.  Hope people don't run into the 'Road Closed' signs trying to follow its directions.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on May 08, 2015, 01:29:20 PM
I saw that on my iPhone too! I-485 isn't completed yet.. there are still a few tweaks to do before it opens later this summer. Apple must be crazy.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tarcanes92 on May 09, 2015, 01:03:11 AM
I saw that on my iPhone too! I-485 isn't completed yet.. there are still a few tweaks to do before it opens later this summer. Apple must be crazy.

Guess apple didn't get the updated memo.  But then again, there have been way to many updated memos for this section.  First, it was suppose to be done in Dec 2014, then spring 2015, and now it is summer 2015.   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on May 12, 2015, 10:03:22 AM
NCDOT announces start of project to bring far northern section of I-85 up to current interstate standards:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11124 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11124)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 12, 2015, 12:53:22 PM
NCDOT announces start of project to bring far northern section of I-85 up to current interstate standards:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11124 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11124)

Good news: NCDOT is finally fixing the horrible section of I-85 between Henderson and the Virginia line. This road dates from the early 1960s.

Bad news: The project will take five years to complete.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on May 12, 2015, 01:27:32 PM

Easy solution: make the road free for those with NC plates.

That raises potential constitutional problems under the Dormant Commerce Clause because the state would be discriminating against interstate (lowercase "i") commerce.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 12, 2015, 03:22:53 PM
Hopefully those I-85 repairs include a bump to 70mph limits, although that road doesn't really appear all that substandard to me.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 12, 2015, 06:43:56 PM
Hopefully those I-85 repairs include a bump to 70mph limits, although that road doesn't really appear all that substandard to me.

Yes, it is substandard.  Typically, when they get it to current standards they bump up to 70mph.  For example, the widen section of I-485 around Pineville has covered 70 mph signs... just waiting for the construction to finish.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on May 13, 2015, 12:10:02 PM
Seems to me that opposition to I-77 toll lanes is still going strong, and alternatives to widen the road are still floating around:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article20778747.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on May 13, 2015, 12:57:58 PM
I-485 set to open June 5th at Noon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on May 14, 2015, 11:56:54 AM
I-485 set to open June 5th at Noon.
I've already had that date marked! :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Grzrd on May 19, 2015, 03:34:56 PM
Congress.gov has posted the text for the proposed ROAD Act of 2015 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2211/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Intermodal+Surface+Transportation+Efficiency+Act+of+1991%22%5D%7D), which would amend HPC 13 to expressly include Rocky Mount, Williamston, and Elizabeth City, North Carolina as part of the route, and would officially designate the corridor as a future interstate:

Quote
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Route to Opportunity And Development Act of 2015” or the “ROAD Act of 2015”.

SEC. 2. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

(a) In general.—Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by striking paragraph (13) and inserting the following:

“(13) Raleigh-Norfolk Corridor from Raleigh, North Carolina, through Rocky Mount, Williamston, and Elizabeth City, North Carolina, to Norfolk, Virginia.”.
 
(b) Inclusion of certain route segments on interstate system.—Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by inserting “subsection (c)(13),” after “subsection (c)(9),”.

The current language of paragraph (13) can be found here (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l13).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 20, 2015, 08:22:11 PM
NCDOT announced today that they have reached the financial close on the I-77 toll lanes with I-77 Mobility Partners. 

Press Release:  https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11161 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11161)

Local Paper: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article21484476.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article21484476.html)

This whole process has given NCDOT a black eye on how they have not been very forthcoming on the contract changes last year promising no additional improvements for I-77 for the duration of the contract (50 years); which means that if more lanes were needed to ease traffic, they either could not or would compensate I-77 Mobility Partners of loss revenue.  This caused all the towns along I-77 and Mecklenburg County requesting a delay in the process, which NCDOT refused.

My personal take, any other possible public-private partnership that is suggested will have to deal with the bad blood started here.  I-77 south of Center City is planned to add toll lanes after 2020 and likely another public-private candidate... it will be interesting how that turns out.  Other toll lanes being constructed (US 74, I-485) and toll roads are own wholly by NCDOT, so possible future improvements would not be hindered.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 20, 2015, 10:12:57 PM
NCDOT didn't learn from VDOT's mistakes.  'Course, given who controls the legislature and the governor's office, I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 20, 2015, 10:25:29 PM
Why would NC be messing around with a private-public concession when they already have a toll road division all setup? Is the toll road bond market that lousy?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 20, 2015, 10:40:47 PM
Why would NC be messing around with a private-public concession when they already have a toll road division all setup? Is the toll road bond market that lousy?

In 2013, the legislators made changes to the Authority allowing them to have up to three public/private agreements. The I-77 Managed Lanes Project in Charlotte is the first.  Will they do two more after this, dunno.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on May 25, 2015, 02:22:11 PM
Drove through Eastern NC over the weekend.  Looks like NC 24 is being upgraded to a four-lane divided highway between Fayetteville and Clinton.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 26, 2015, 06:40:41 PM
Google now has satellite views of the I-140 segment between US 17 and US 74/76, and of the construction zone to northeast.
https://goo.gl/maps/vW2qR
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on May 28, 2015, 05:35:03 PM
Why would NC be messing around with a private-public concession when they already have a toll road division all setup? Is the toll road bond market that lousy?

In 2013, the legislators made changes to the Authority allowing them to have up to three public/private agreements. The I-77 Managed Lanes Project in Charlotte is the first.  Will they do two more after this, dunno.

I'm willing to bet that I-77 in South Charlotte will be the second.

Also, construction on the US 74 Monroe Bypass has begun.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11192

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on May 28, 2015, 05:40:02 PM
Why would NC be messing around with a private-public concession when they already have a toll road division all setup? Is the toll road bond market that lousy?

In 2013, the legislators made changes to the Authority allowing them to have up to three public/private agreements. The I-77 Managed Lanes Project in Charlotte is the first.  Will they do two more after this, dunno.

I'm willing to bet that I-77 in South Charlotte will be the second.

Also, construction on the US 74 Monroe Bypass has begun.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11192

Finally.  That Monroe Bypass is desperately needed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 02, 2015, 12:28:09 PM
Things aren't looking so good for the Governor's proposed transportation bond issue:
http://www.wral.com/top-legislative-leaders-cast-doubt-on-transportation-bonds/14684933/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Gnutella on June 03, 2015, 06:29:40 AM
Has I-85 been widened between Kannapolis and High Point? I remember a segment of it was still four lanes back in 2009, and it stuck out like a sore thumb because it was the only four-lane segment between Durham and Gastonia.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on June 03, 2015, 07:52:45 AM
They really need to widen I-95. I've been stuck in traffic in some really rural areas, it's bad.

And by "they," I mean NC, SC and Virginia. I-95 should probably never be a two-lane road given its high traffic volume.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 03, 2015, 10:07:47 AM
Quote
I've been stuck in traffic in some really rural areas, it's bad.

How slow were you going?  I've been stuck in plenty of traffic on I-95 but we were still going at or close to the speed limit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on June 03, 2015, 12:56:06 PM
Has I-85 been widened between Kannapolis and High Point? I remember a segment of it was still four lanes back in 2009, and it stuck out like a sore thumb because it was the only four-lane segment between Durham and Gastonia.

It's been mostly widened.  The only part that's still 4 lanes is between Exit 55 and Exit 68 around Kannapolis.  They're already widening that segment right now and redesigning some of the interchanges.  I think it's supposed to be complete late 2016.  Then the only parts of 85 remaining that will be 4 lanes will be north of Durham and the segment near the SC border.

They really need to widen I-95. I've been stuck in traffic in some really rural areas, it's bad.

And by "they," I mean NC, SC and Virginia. I-95 should probably never be a two-lane road given its high traffic volume.

They really do but with the tolling option shot down who knows if it will ever get widened in our lifetimes now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on June 03, 2015, 01:21:28 PM
They really need to widen I-95. I've been stuck in traffic in some really rural areas, it's bad.

And by "they," I mean NC, SC and Virginia. I-95 should probably never be a two-lane road given its high traffic volume.

They really do but with the tolling option shot down who knows if it will ever get widened in our lifetimes now.
I agree, and add GA to that group. Making I-95 less than 2 lanes each way is a major insult to the East Coast's main Interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 03, 2015, 04:43:36 PM
Quote
I've been stuck in traffic in some really rural areas, it's bad.

How slow were you going?  I've been stuck in plenty of traffic on I-95 but we were still going at or close to the speed limit.


Not entirely "rural" but really not urban as there are nothing but trees on either side of the road through here:


On May 9 2015 (a Saturday, no less) between 1430 and 1450 hrs it took me 20 minutes, 22 seconds to cover the 13.0 miles northbound on I-95 from MM47 to MM60 (so from just south of the Hope Mills rest area to just south of the Wade-Stedman Rd exit). There were multiple times in that segment I was at a dead stop. For the first time in a long time there weren't a whole bunch of trucks blocking the view either, and I never saw any blue or red flashing lights to denote an incident of some kind, so it was just a case of volume exceeding capacity.


38.4mph over that 70mph speed limit segment on a Saturday????? I could understand it if it was closer to 1700 hrs and on a weekday since Fayetteville and Ft Bragg is right there but a Saturday afternoon??


(source Garmin Basecamp, measurements taken with a Garmin Nuvi 2689 LMT)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on June 03, 2015, 05:03:26 PM

It's been mostly widened.  The only part that's still 4 lanes is between Exit 55 and Exit 68 around Kannapolis.  They're already widening that segment right now and redesigning some of the interchanges.  I think it's supposed to be complete late 2016.  Then the only parts of 85 remaining that will be 4 lanes will be north of Durham and the segment near the SC border.

The current widening project is for I-85 from Exit 55 to Exit 60. When this project is complete (projected for Dec 2017), there still will be a bottleneck from Exit 60 to 68. The next project to widen the bottleneck is projected to begin ROW acquisition in 2018 and begin construction in 2020.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 03, 2015, 07:27:01 PM
They really need to widen I-95. I've been stuck in traffic in some really rural areas, it's bad.

And by "they," I mean NC, SC and Virginia. I-95 should probably never be a two-lane road given its high traffic volume.
They really do but with the tolling option shot down who knows if it will ever get widened in our lifetimes now.
I agree, and add GA to that group. Making I-95 less than 2 lanes each way is a major insult to the East Coast's main Interstate.

To be fair, I-95 between Jacksonville, FL and Petersburg, VA isn't a high priority on anyone's list except those that can't drive fast enough through it.  The states have no insentive to improve it since I-95 isn't an economic benefactor compared to others in those states.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: afguy on June 03, 2015, 07:31:59 PM
Georgia has already six-laned Interstate 95 through the entire state. The project was completed in 2010. In fact, Georgia is the first state in the Southeast to have I-95 be six lanes from state line to state line. Also unlike the Carolinas, Georgia has vested interest in making sure I-95 is six lanes, Savannah and Brunswick. Both a major tourist cities and ports, with Savannah receiving 13 million tourists annually and being home to the nation's fourth busiest container port. Also the Port of Brunswick is major port for automobiles and agricultural products.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on June 04, 2015, 12:02:03 PM
Georgia has already six-laned Interstate 95 through the entire state. The project was completed in 2010. In fact, Georgia is the first state in the Southeast to have I-95 be six lanes from state line to state line. Also unlike the Carolinas, Georgia has vested interest in making sure I-95 is six lanes, Savannah and Brunswick. Both a major tourist cities and ports, with Savannah receiving 13 million tourists annually and being home to the nation's fourth busiest container port. Also the Port of Brunswick is major port for automobiles and agricultural products.
Well, then disregard what I said about GA. And what I meant to say was, making I-95 less than 3 lanes each way is an insult to the main Interstate route on the East Coast.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on June 05, 2015, 09:00:45 PM
Split off the most recent chat about I-485 into the thread that's already dedicated to that highway. (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1312.0) :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 07, 2015, 01:18:37 PM
Here is info on the widening of I-85 from 4 lanes to 8 near Kannapolis: http://bit.ly/1HUbNCL
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 15, 2015, 06:20:58 PM
NCDOT has reached a settlement with environmental groups that clears the way for the replacement of the Bonner Bridge on NC 12, connecting Hatteras Island to the mainland. In return for withdrawal of the lawsuits, NCDOT will cancel its plans for improvements to NC 12 north of Rodanthe and start a new study that will likely recommend moving this section of the highway westward off the island and over Pamlico Sound.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11288
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 28, 2015, 10:42:46 AM
US-17 will be widened to 4 lanes between New Bern and Jacksonville, finally:


http://www.newbernsj.com/article/20150627/NEWS/150629072 (http://www.newbernsj.com/article/20150627/NEWS/150629072)


Quote
After decades of trying to open the corridor to four lanes between New Bern and Jacksonville it is finally going to happen.The N.C. Department of Transportation awarded a $143.4 million construction contract to Balfour Beatty and E.V. Williams on June 16 to begin the project from northern Onslow County through Jones County to River Bend.The project will convert the current two-lane highway into a four-lane, divided expressway with bypasses at Belgrade, Maysville and Pollocksville, according to a press release from the Highway 17 Association.


Quote
“After patiently waiting through decades of permitting, landowner and funding issues, eastern North Carolina will see a four-lane expressway linking New Bern to Jacksonville,” he said in a press release.[/font][/size]The project is expected to break ground in September or October and should be completed in approximately three years, according to the Highway 17 Association.</blockquote>The N.C. Department of Transportation and the Board of Transportation members from Eastern North Carolina receive the credit for finding the balance of funding required to build the project and accelerating the construction date to 2015, Finlayson said.




Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Zeffy on June 28, 2015, 11:00:34 AM
I'm surprised it took that long. Though unfamiliar with the area, I'd assume US 17 is a major corridor for traveling to points like Wilmington, Myrtle Beach and Charleston. If that were the case, there must be a lot of traffic on US 17 when the weather is great.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 28, 2015, 11:52:59 AM
I'm surprised it took that long. Though unfamiliar with the area, I'd assume US 17 is a major corridor for traveling to points like Wilmington, Myrtle Beach and Charleston. If that were the case, there must be a lot of traffic on US 17 when the weather is great.

Yes, Zeffy it is a busy and dangerous corridor.
I'm not sure on the average number of vehicles, but I do know that on most summer weekends traffic is rolling along at 25-30 mph (in a 55 zone) and the town of Maysville has a ridiculously slow 20 mph speed limit near the NC-58 intersection.

Back in the day when I ran volunteer Fire/EMS with Pollocksville Fire and Rescue (in the mid 90's) we had alot of really bad head on crashes due to one person holding up a long line of traffic and someone pulling out to pass only to get creamed by a log truck. There was talk of doing bypasses and expanding the rest to 4 lanes even then, but there was the usual push back from those who would lose property in the ROW acquisition. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 28, 2015, 05:14:40 PM
US-17 will be widened to 4 lanes between New Bern and Jacksonville, finally:


http://www.newbernsj.com/article/20150627/NEWS/150629072 (http://www.newbernsj.com/article/20150627/NEWS/150629072)


Quote
After decades of trying to open the corridor to four lanes between New Bern and Jacksonville it is finally going to happen.The N.C. Department of Transportation awarded a $143.4 million construction contract to Balfour Beatty and E.V. Williams on June 16 to begin the project from northern Onslow County through Jones County to River Bend.The project will convert the current two-lane highway into a four-lane, divided expressway with bypasses at Belgrade, Maysville and Pollocksville, according to a press release from the Highway 17 Association.


Quote
“After patiently waiting through decades of permitting, landowner and funding issues, eastern North Carolina will see a four-lane expressway linking New Bern to Jacksonville,” he said in a press release.[/font][/size]The project is expected to break ground in September or October and should be completed in approximately three years, according to the Highway 17 Association.</blockquote>The N.C. Department of Transportation and the Board of Transportation members from Eastern North Carolina receive the credit for finding the balance of funding required to build the project and accelerating the construction date to 2015, Finlayson said.
Based on the signing plans it appears the Bypass of Pollocksville will be between mileposts 130 and 136, with the existing US 17 between those points becoming US 17 Business. A curiosity at  the north end of the project. The current signage, according to the plans, has the US 70 interchange with US 17 being Exit 147, while under the new signage it will be 141. Will the new bypass(es) shave that much off of US 17's current mileage, or is this simply an error in the plans?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 28, 2015, 06:17:07 PM



Quote
Based on the signing plans it appears the Bypass of Pollocksville will be between mileposts 130 and 136, with the existing US 17 between those points becoming US 17 Business. A curiosity at  the north end of the project. The current signage, according to the plans, has the US 70 interchange with US 17 being Exit 147, while under the new signage it will be 141. Will the new bypass(es) shave that much off of US 17's current mileage, or is this simply an error in the plans?

Seems like a mistake. Here is the current signage: https://goo.gl/maps/OLgiI
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 29, 2015, 08:47:50 AM
Looking at the county traffic maps, average volumes on 17 are mostly in the 10-12K range.  So right on the cusp of warranting 4 lanes in the rural areas.  Of note however:  the existing New Bern bypass segment only sees 3300 vpd.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 29, 2015, 08:59:29 AM
Looking at the county traffic maps, average volumes on 17 are mostly in the 10-12K range.  So right on the cusp of warranting 4 lanes in the rural areas.  Of note however:  the existing New Bern bypass segment only sees 3300 vpd.


I'd be willing to bet the vpd on the segment of 17 in question is a fair bit higher during the summer with beach traffic. 

Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 29, 2015, 11:15:36 AM
Looking at the county traffic maps, average volumes on 17 are mostly in the 10-12K range.  So right on the cusp of warranting 4 lanes in the rural areas.  Of note however:  the existing New Bern bypass segment only sees 3300 vpd.


I'd be willing to bet the vpd on the segment of 17 in question is a fair bit higher during the summer with beach traffic. 

Mike

Thanks Froggie for the numbers, I never knew them for sure and yes I can attest that the traffic is alot lighter on the bypass than on the old mainline (current US-17 business). I think part of that is because until the rest of the bypass north of Exit 147 is built the bypass is really out of the way for both us locals and for thru traffic. What I mean by that is that I can still get from US-17/US-70 exit at M L King Jr Blvd to to the stoplight that is the current intersection of the bypass and US-17 business quicker by heading down MLK past the mall, the high school and my house than by staying on US-70 to Exit 410 and coming down the bypass. Even with all the stoplights and 50 mph speed limit all the way down to the north end of Rocky Run Road versus 70 mph speed limits (with people doing 78-80 on the never patrolled bypass) that still seems to be the case.


I really believe that will change whenever the rest of the bypass is built in Craven County as it will remove US-17 from the Bridgeton speed trap and the Neuse River Bridge and route it west of New Bern so the through traffic won't have to worry about having to come through here.  It will be a much better through route to go down the bypass then.


Mike, I really haven't seen any appreciable increase on the bypass during the summer months since it opened a few years ago. Most of us in the New Bern area go to Atlantic Beach via US-70 down through Havelock and Morehead City. The people who go down US-17 are trying to get to either Emerald Isle or possibly even down to the Wrightsville Beach area and are mostly not from our area, and it seems that they still choose to come down US-17 business to do that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 29, 2015, 12:26:37 PM

Mike, I really haven't seen any appreciable increase on the bypass during the summer months since it opened a few years ago. Most of us in the New Bern area go to Atlantic Beach via US-70 down through Havelock and Morehead City. The people who go down US-17 are trying to get to either Emerald Isle or possibly even down to the Wrightsville Beach area and are mostly not from our area, and it seems that they still choose to come down US-17 business to do that.

I was referring to the part of 17 yet to be bypassed which is where I think Froggie was pulling the 10-12k vpd from...

Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on June 29, 2015, 01:11:02 PM
I'm surprised it took that long. Though unfamiliar with the area, I'd assume US 17 is a major corridor for traveling to points like Wilmington, Myrtle Beach and Charleston. If that were the case, there must be a lot of traffic on US 17 when the weather is great.
This would make a great Interstate corridor from Savannah to at least Norfolk, but I'll save that for another story. I think US 17 needs to be at least four lanes all the way through, if not freeway-grade.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on June 29, 2015, 01:14:44 PM
I'm surprised it took that long. Though unfamiliar with the area, I'd assume US 17 is a major corridor for traveling to points like Wilmington, Myrtle Beach and Charleston. If that were the case, there must be a lot of traffic on US 17 when the weather is great.
This would make a great Interstate corridor from Savannah to at least Norfolk, but I'll save that for another story. I think US 17 needs to be at least four lanes all the way through, if not freeway-grade.

It would make a great interstate corridor. Right now freeway-wise Norfolk is a dead end.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 29, 2015, 04:29:05 PM
NC 24-87 is getting ready to be moved onto NC 295 and NC 210 as the existing route through Fort Bragg property will be closed to civilian traffic...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/NC%2024_NC%2087%20More%20Information.pdf

Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on June 29, 2015, 04:36:15 PM
NC 24-87 is getting ready to be moved onto NC 295 and NC 210 as the existing route through Fort Bragg property will be closed to civilian traffic...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/NC%2024_NC%2087%20More%20Information.pdf

Mike

At first I thought this would mean a new part of I-295 is opening. I guess I'm wrong  :-(
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 29, 2015, 10:57:55 PM
NC 24-87 is getting ready to be moved onto NC 295 and NC 210 as the existing route through Fort Bragg property will be closed to civilian traffic...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/NC%2024_NC%2087%20More%20Information.pdf

Mike

At first I thought this would mean a new part of I-295 is opening. I guess I'm wrong  :-(

This is why the segment of 295 between Bragg Blvd and Murchison Rd was rushed to completion ahead of the other segments under construction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on June 30, 2015, 05:34:11 PM
NC 24-87 is getting ready to be moved onto NC 295 and NC 210 as the existing route through Fort Bragg property will be closed to civilian traffic...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/NC%2024_NC%2087%20More%20Information.pdf

Mike

At first I thought this would mean a new part of I-295 is opening. I guess I'm wrong  :-(

This is why the segment of 295 between Bragg Blvd and Murchison Rd was rushed to completion ahead of the other segments under construction.

I was stationed at Pope AFB in the 70s and 80s and that road was used quite a bit. That's gonna leave a mark.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: noelbotevera on June 30, 2015, 06:53:59 PM
Actually, I-95 doesn't have too much traffic in this state. When my family were going to Lexington, NC for a barbeque fest, our route was I-95 to US 52. Between I-26 and I-40, traffic isn't incredibly heavy.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tarcanes92 on July 05, 2015, 05:22:38 AM
Actually, I-95 doesn't have too much traffic in this state. When my family were going to Lexington, NC for a barbeque fest, our route was I-95 to US 52. Between I-26 and I-40, traffic isn't incredibly heavy.

Do you mean I-85?  I-95 and US-52 do not intersect.  (If you are coming down I-95 from PA, at Petersburg, VA, you would exit onto I-85.  I-85 will take you through Lexington, NC where US-52 joins with I-85.)

But I-85 can be very heavy in traffic, depending on the time of the day and events, between Durham and Charlotte (which includes Greensboro).  While most of the road is 3+ lanes (mostly 4 lanes) in each direction between Durham and Charlotte, there are still a few sections with just 2 lanes in each direction. 

And I-85 does intersect (and duplexes with) I-40 in NC, but it doesn't intersect I-26 until you get into SC.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: noelbotevera on July 05, 2015, 04:50:36 PM
Actually, I-95 doesn't have too much traffic in this state. When my family were going to Lexington, NC for a barbeque fest, our route was I-95 to US 52. Between I-26 and I-40, traffic isn't incredibly heavy.

Do you mean I-85?  I-95 and US-52 do not intersect.  (If you are coming down I-95 from PA, at Petersburg, VA, you would exit onto I-85.  I-85 will take you through Lexington, NC where US-52 joins with I-85.)

But I-85 can be very heavy in traffic, depending on the time of the day and events, between Durham and Charlotte (which includes Greensboro).  While most of the road is 3+ lanes (mostly 4 lanes) in each direction between Durham and Charlotte, there are still a few sections with just 2 lanes in each direction. 

And I-85 does intersect (and duplexes with) I-40 in NC, but it doesn't intersect I-26 until you get into SC.
I meant I-40 to I-85. I-95 also intersects I-26 in SC, though I may have meant I-20.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on July 18, 2015, 08:19:35 PM
Saw a map of current and proposed toll roads in 1955:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/US_toll_roads_January_1955.jpg/640px-US_toll_roads_January_1955.jpg

Anybody have any information of the toll road that was proposed from Gastonia to Mount Airy? At first glance it looks like I-77, but I-77 doesn't cross through Gastonia. I'm guessing the idea behind this proposal ended up being I-77 in North Carolina, just altered from Gastonia to Charlotte.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 18, 2015, 10:05:55 PM
I've had that on my list to research years ago but never got started on it. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jwolfer on July 18, 2015, 10:35:10 PM
Actually, I-95 doesn't have too much traffic in this state. When my family were going to Lexington, NC for a barbeque fest, our route was I-95 to US 52. Between I-26 and I-40, traffic isn't incredibly heavy.

Do you mean I-85?  I-95 and US-52 do not intersect.  (If you are coming down I-95 from PA, at Petersburg, VA, you would exit onto I-85.  I-85 will take you through Lexington, NC where US-52 joins with I-85.)

But I-85 can be very heavy in traffic, depending on the time of the day and events, between Durham and Charlotte (which includes Greensboro).  While most of the road is 3+ lanes (mostly 4 lanes) in each direction between Durham and Charlotte, there are still a few sections with just 2 lanes in each direction. 

And I-85 does intersect (and duplexes with) I-40 in NC, but it doesn't intersect I-26 until you get into SC.
I meant I-40 to I-85. I-95 also intersects I-26 in SC, though I may have meant I-20.
I95 also intersects US52 in South Carolina
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on July 19, 2015, 08:39:59 PM
Saw a map of current and proposed toll roads in 1955:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/US_toll_roads_January_1955.jpg/640px-US_toll_roads_January_1955.jpg

Anybody have any information of the toll road that was proposed from Gastonia to Mount Airy? At first glance it looks like I-77, but I-77 doesn't cross through Gastonia. I'm guessing the idea behind this proposal ended up being I-77 in North Carolina, just altered from Gastonia to Charlotte.
What caught my eye was a toll road (seemingly following US 50) from Greendale/Lawrenceburg, IN to Vincennes, IN (Southern Indiana Toll Road?) and a toll road from Virginia Beach to Nags Head.  Where would that have gone?  Down along the beaches and the Mackay Island NWF?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on July 20, 2015, 09:59:25 AM
Quote from: amroad17
and a toll road from Virginia Beach to Nags Head.  Where would that have gone?  Down along the beaches and the Mackay Island NWF?

In short, south of the Virginia Beach Oceanfront and close to the shore.  The northern end was to be near today's General Booth Blvd/Nimmo Pkwy intersection.  It was slated to pass through Sandbridge, False Cape State Park, and the Currituck NWF instead of Mackay Island.  Presumably, it would have followed or paralleled NC 12 once past Corolla.

Based on old Hampton Roads transportation plans, it appeared to die sometime between 1965 and 1969.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 20, 2015, 07:24:22 PM
I take that back I do have some preliminary Google News Archive on the turnpike proposals for NOrth Carolina.

As a whole they were trying to work together with Virginia and West Virginia to basically follow a route similar/parallel to I-77.  There were also proposals in the early 1950s pushed by then NC Governor Scott to build an east-west turnpike similar to I-85 and I-40 today.

Overtures were made to South Carolina to join the proposal but they said no.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19541230&id=344zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gHoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3422,4218265&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19571021&id=_dAbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4VAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7133,6025150&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19550729&id=5FhgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=V3ENAAAAIBAJ&pg=5841,5309016&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19500928&id=KBkcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_VAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3730,3536059&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19530819&id=VLkdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1yMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3376,2324606&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19541001&id=BtAbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=y1AEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6902,5357016&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19500301&id=711gAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GXINAAAAIBAJ&pg=3979,12425&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19541009&id=awgaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YiMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1946,4697658&hl=en

This Miami News article from 1955 said that NC was already working on their turnpike and had authorized 125 miles.  The name of the Virginia portion appears to have been "the Old Dominion Turnpike"

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2206&dat=19550829&id=93hVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Qj8NAAAAIBAJ&pg=2924,4397453&hl=en

I'm thinking that it only went as far as feasibility studies and that's about it. 

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19500609&id=sG1gAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1nENAAAAIBAJ&pg=5346,2659894&hl=en

Appears the cost would be $90-100 million

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19500307&id=8V1gAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GXINAAAAIBAJ&pg=2284,1937212&hl=en

I have notes trying to see if i could come across any more detailed information vs. what I just found in the articles.  The articles give a great start in trying to do further research.  it was just on the drawing board of pages for All Things NC I never got to.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on August 04, 2015, 07:43:01 PM
Quote from: amroad17
and a toll road from Virginia Beach to Nags Head.  Where would that have gone?  Down along the beaches and the Mackay Island NWF?

In short, south of the Virginia Beach Oceanfront and close to the shore.  The northern end was to be near today's General Booth Blvd/Nimmo Pkwy intersection.  It was slated to pass through Sandbridge, False Cape State Park, and the Currituck NWF instead of Mackay Island.  Presumably, it would have followed or paralleled NC 12 once past Corolla.

Based on old Hampton Roads transportation plans, it appeared to die sometime between 1965 and 1969.
Good thing it did.  On one hand, the trip from Hampton Roads to Nags Head would have been much quicker.  On the other hand, Sandbridge would not be the quiet beach it is today and there would be no False Cape State Park.  Much of the land area around this proposed toll road would most likely have been commercialized.  No quiet Corolla and Duck beachfront areas for people to enjoy.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2015, 01:12:16 AM
Between I-26 and I-20, traffic isn't incredibly heavy.

FTFY.

North of Florence, S.C. the inadequacies of only four lanes on I-95 - as far north as Petersburg, Va. - is often pretty obvious.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2015, 01:16:58 AM
NCDOT has reached a settlement with environmental groups that clears the way for the replacement of the Bonner Bridge on NC 12, connecting Hatteras Island to the mainland. In return for withdrawal of the lawsuits, NCDOT will cancel its plans for improvements to NC 12 north of Rodanthe and start a new study that will likely recommend moving this section of the highway westward off the island and over Pamlico Sound.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11288

Looks to be a done (legal) deal now.

AP via WRAL.COM: Legal deal allows Bonner Bridge replacement, 2 other bridges (http://www.wral.com/legal-deal-allows-bonner-bridge-replacement-2-other-bridges/14838962/)

Quote
A legal settlement is clearing the way for work to replace the crumbling bridge connecting the Outer Banks as early as next spring, as well as two new bridges on Hatteras Island over precarious areas where the main road is frequently washed out, North Carolina officials said Tuesday.

Quote
The word comes after environmental groups represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center dropped a lawsuit last week blocking North Carolina from replacing the 52-year-old bridge that was designed to last for 30 years. A legal settlement wrapping up the case was reached in June.

Quote
The deal calls for a new span over Oregon Inlet parallel to the existing Bonner Bridge, the only link to the mainland from Hatteras Island. Past estimates have put the price tag for the 2.8-mile bridge at about $215 million, but years of delays would raise the price tag. The total extra cost was not yet clear, DOT spokesman Mike Charbonneau said Tuesday.

Quote
The state also will build a half-mile bridge over an unnamed inlet carved through the island by a 2011 hurricane. The bridge for North Carolina Highway 12 over the now-largely filled inlet through the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge is expected to cost about $28 million, Charbonneau said. Work on this bridge could start before the end of the year, state officials said. The DOT is scrapping a $79 million contract to build a longer, permanent bridge, according to terms of the legal settlement.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on September 07, 2015, 10:40:08 AM
Just found out that the Gaston Parkway was submitted to the NCDOT for Prioritization, except in a smaller segment. It would run from I-485 to South New Hope Road in south Gaston County. Widening of I-85 from US 321 to US 74 is being pushed for the 2030s, and the rest of the US 74 bypass around Shelby could happen in the 2020s/2030s.

http://gclmpo.org/wp-content/uploads/GCLMPO-Draft-Amended-2040-MTP-Map-1-9-15.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 07, 2015, 10:19:33 PM
Just found out that the Gaston Parkway was submitted to the NCDOT for Prioritization, except in a smaller segment. It would run from I-485 to South New Hope Road in south Gaston County. Widening of I-85 from US 321 to US 74 is being pushed for the 2030s, and the rest of the US 74 bypass around Shelby could happen in the 2020s/2030s.

http://gclmpo.org/wp-content/uploads/GCLMPO-Draft-Amended-2040-MTP-Map-1-9-15.pdf


That is currently a draft and not submitted to NCDOT at this time.  Site even posted comments they received so far from it:  http://gclmpo.org/ (http://gclmpo.org/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on September 08, 2015, 11:24:50 AM
Just found out that the Gaston Parkway was submitted to the NCDOT for Prioritization, except in a smaller segment. It would run from I-485 to South New Hope Road in south Gaston County. Widening of I-85 from US 321 to US 74 is being pushed for the 2030s, and the rest of the US 74 bypass around Shelby could happen in the 2020s/2030s.

http://gclmpo.org/wp-content/uploads/GCLMPO-Draft-Amended-2040-MTP-Map-1-9-15.pdf


That is currently a draft and not submitted to NCDOT at this time.  Site even posted comments they received so far from it:  http://gclmpo.org/ (http://gclmpo.org/)
Well, they should hurry up and submit it!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on September 14, 2015, 12:50:57 PM
The Capital Area MPO (CAMPO) has gotten the results of a study for how to reconfigure the I-40/I-440/US1/US64 interchange in the Crossroads area between Raleigh and Cary. This interchange currently has an awful lot of cloverleafs and weaves considering how busy it is.

The study is pretty interesting. It's a fairly constrained area but they want lots of flyovers and even show several alternatives for how managed lanes could be integrated. One of the central issues is that the existing Crossroads flyover and half-exit are too close to I-40, but just closing it would overwhelm the Walnut Street interchange with traffic. Some proposals include adding an interchange on I-40 at Jones Franklin Road, others include keeping the loops and weaves at the 40/440/1/64 interchange but linking them to the entrance to Crossroads instead.

http://campo-nc.us/hotspots/FY15/Final%20CAMPO%20I-40-US%201%20Hotspot%20Assessment%20Report.pdf

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 15, 2015, 04:35:14 PM
Does anyone know if NC 540 will become Interstate 540 when the Raleigh Beltway is completed? Or will only the portion between Interstate 40 (west junction) and US 64/264/Interstate 495 be in the Interstate System?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 15, 2015, 05:58:36 PM
Does anyone know if NC 540 will become Interstate 540 when the Raleigh Beltway is completed? Or will only the portion between Interstate 40 (west junction) and US 64/264/Interstate 495 be in the Interstate System?

The portion that is NC 540 is a toll road and will remain a state highway long after the loop completes.  The section that is now I-540 will not be extended to I-40, NC 540 will meet-up at US 64/US 264/I-495.  Maybe after the toll road has been paid off after 30-50 years, maybe...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on September 16, 2015, 11:20:49 AM
Does anyone know if NC 540 will become Interstate 540 when the Raleigh Beltway is completed? Or will only the portion between Interstate 40 (west junction) and US 64/264/Interstate 495 be in the Interstate System?

The portion that is NC 540 is a toll road and will remain a state highway long after the loop completes.  The section that is now I-540 will not be extended to I-40, NC 540 will meet-up at US 64/US 264/I-495.  Maybe after the toll road has been paid off after 30-50 years, maybe...
In which case it should be I-640, because that's what the original plans were anyway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on September 16, 2015, 02:17:40 PM
Does anyone know if NC 540 will become Interstate 540 when the Raleigh Beltway is completed? Or will only the portion between Interstate 40 (west junction) and US 64/264/Interstate 495 be in the Interstate System?

The portion that is NC 540 is a toll road and will remain a state highway long after the loop completes.  The section that is now I-540 will not be extended to I-40, NC 540 will meet-up at US 64/US 264/I-495.  Maybe after the toll road has been paid off after 30-50 years, maybe...
In which case it should be I-640, because that's what the original plans were anyway.
When NCDOT petitioned for the I-495 designation for US 64, they specifically asked for, and were granted, an exemption from changing the number from I-540 to I-640 even though it would now be connected with interstates at both ends. So the number will stay I-540. IMHO they should make it I-640 if only to further differentiate the toll from the free part of the loop: 540=toll, I-640=no toll.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 16, 2015, 03:18:14 PM
I agree the Raleigh Beltway should have been Interstate 640 to begin with. I also think that toll policy in the Interstate system should have been repealed a long time ago. It may have made sense when all toll plazas operated via toll booths. But with all-electronic tolling becoming the norm, the policy should be repealed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 17, 2015, 06:48:52 PM

When NCDOT petitioned for the I-495 designation for US 64, they specifically asked for, and were granted, an exemption from changing the number from I-540 to I-640 even though it would now be connected with interstates at both ends. So the number will stay I-540. IMHO they should make it I-640 if only to further differentiate the toll from the free part of the loop: 540=toll, I-640=no toll.

That's a really good idea, and since 540 is an NC highway it doesn't break any internet rules.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendancy66 on September 19, 2015, 12:01:03 AM
What are these internet rules you speak of?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 19, 2015, 12:33:02 PM
What are these internet rules you speak of?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Numbering_system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Numbering_system)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Tom958 on September 19, 2015, 03:37:58 PM
What are these internet rules you speak of?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Numbering_system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Numbering_system)

I think that predictive text is doing the talking.  :-D


Quote from: orulz
The study is pretty interesting.
http://campo-nc.us/hotspots/FY15/Final%20CAMPO%20I-40-US%201%20Hotspot%20Assessment%20Report.pdf

To put it mildly. Thanks!  :clap:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on September 19, 2015, 05:37:55 PM
I agree the Raleigh Beltway should have been Interstate 640 to begin with. I also think that toll policy in the Interstate system should have been repealed a long time ago. It may have made sense when all toll plazas operated via toll booths. But with all-electronic tolling becoming the norm, the policy should be repealed.

Toll policy on the Interstate system?  Then how did I-355 in IL happen?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on September 21, 2015, 11:47:34 AM
I agree the Raleigh Beltway should have been Interstate 640 to begin with. I also think that toll policy in the Interstate system should have been repealed a long time ago. It may have made sense when all toll plazas operated via toll booths. But with all-electronic tolling becoming the norm, the policy should be repealed.

Toll policy on the Interstate system?  Then how did I-355 in IL happen?

Since it was already a tollway that was built and operated by the state, IL was able to get away with making it I-355. On the other hand, the reason the Pocahontas Parkway is VA 895 and not I-895 is because it used federal funding.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 27, 2015, 06:18:19 PM
I missed this: the western section of the US 70 Goldsboro Bypass opened ten days ago:
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Western-section-of-US-70-Goldsboro-Bypass-opens-Saturday-333651791.html

This section was to be signed as NC 44 until the entire bypass is complete (photos, anyone?).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 28, 2015, 07:51:56 PM
I missed this: the western section of the US 70 Goldsboro Bypass opened ten days ago:
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Western-section-of-US-70-Goldsboro-Bypass-opens-Saturday-333651791.html

This section was to be signed as NC 44 until the entire bypass is complete (photos, anyone?).

I don't work that way anymore - and have been too busy to drive down.  If anyone does go, there's also the two interchanges being built near Pine Level.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: J N Winkler on October 29, 2015, 10:33:37 AM
Since it was already a tollway that was built and operated by the state, IL was able to get away with making it I-355. On the other hand, the reason the Pocahontas Parkway is VA 895 and not I-895 is because it used federal funding.

AIUI, the no-tolls policy does not apply to mileage (including mileage that was otherwise eligible for Interstate construction funds as part of the original 41,000-mile system) for which no federal funding has been used.  Examples include I-335 in Kansas (not part of original system, construction originally paid for by tolls, designated 30 years in retrospect in order to take advantage of the Reagan-era NMSL increase to 65 MPH for Interstates), I-95 between Baltimore and the Delaware state line (could have been built with Interstate construction funds, but opened as tolled I-95), entire length of the Pennsylvania Turnpike (paid for by tolls), and so on.

Virginia SR 895 had no federal funds used in its construction, so what prevents its being designated as an Interstate is several million dollars of federal funds that were disbursed for design (including compilation of environmental documentation) decades before it opened.  In principle eligibility for an Interstate designation could be restored by repaying these federal funds, but nobody seems to have a few spare million in loose change lying around.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 31, 2015, 05:30:48 PM
I missed this: the western section of the US 70 Goldsboro Bypass opened ten days ago:
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Western-section-of-US-70-Goldsboro-Bypass-opens-Saturday-333651791.html

This section was to be signed as NC 44 until the entire bypass is complete (photos, anyone?).

The new section appears now on Google Maps, but it is identified inaccurately as US 70. https://goo.gl/maps/2aVYsiY2zwn
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 04, 2015, 05:52:11 PM
At long last FHWA has approved the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the missing section of the Triangle Expressway (NC 540, or crypto-I-540). This clears the way for public hearings leading to selection of a route. Construction is expected in 2018.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11906
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: lordsutch on November 05, 2015, 12:57:28 AM
Virginia SR 895 had no federal funds used in its construction, so what prevents its being designated as an Interstate is several million dollars of federal funds that were disbursed for design (including compilation of environmental documentation) decades before it opened.  In principle eligibility for an Interstate designation could be restored by repaying these federal funds, but nobody seems to have a few spare million in loose change lying around.

Or the law could just be changed to either carve out an exception for 895 or just get rid of the rule in question. Honestly the logic of this rule escapes me, since it still allows all sorts of tolled Interstates and even tolled lanes on Interstates; I'm sure whoever came up with it had some reason for doing so at the time, but they're more than likely gone from Congress now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on November 05, 2015, 11:45:21 AM
At long last FHWA has approved the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the missing section of the Triangle Expressway (NC 540, or crypto-I-540). This clears the way for public hearings leading to selection of a route. Construction is expected in 2018.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11906
About time!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 05, 2015, 04:14:33 PM
I agree with lordsutch. That toll road law should be repealed. I see no reason why toll roads can't be Interstates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 06, 2015, 12:29:41 PM
I missed this: the western section of the US 70 Goldsboro Bypass opened ten days ago:
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Western-section-of-US-70-Goldsboro-Bypass-opens-Saturday-333651791.html

This section was to be signed as NC 44 until the entire bypass is complete (photos, anyone?).
This is good news, and the rest of the bypass will open summer 2016.

However, Kinston has always been a much worse impediment to traffic flow on US 70 than Goldsboro, which already had a bypass through three quarters of the city. The Kinston Bypass is pretty far behind in the planning process.

Havelock is pretty congested too, but a bypass is already under construction there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on November 06, 2015, 06:40:57 PM
I think the biggest reason for the delay in a Kinston bypass has always been the Neuse river. No matter where they build it, one or several new bridges will have to be built over the river and much of the route lies in the flood plain. Making it a lot more expensive. There is a small possibility that they'll build the bypass north of the city to avoid the river but it would make the route so much longer that most people would probably continue to use the old route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 08, 2015, 10:28:41 AM
At long last FHWA has approved the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the missing section of the Triangle Expressway (NC 540, or crypto-I-540). This clears the way for public hearings leading to selection of a route. Construction is expected in 2018.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11906

Public hearings on the route are scheduled for December 7-9. After years stuck in red tape, this project is now on fast track.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=11922
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: noelbotevera on November 08, 2015, 11:54:01 AM
At long last FHWA has approved the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the missing section of the Triangle Expressway (NC 540, or crypto-I-540). This clears the way for public hearings leading to selection of a route. Construction is expected in 2018.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11906

Public hearings on the route are scheduled for December 7-9. After years stuck in red tape, this project is now on fast track.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=11922
Finally. Seriously, NC wanted it I-540 since 2004 I think (2004 was when I was born).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on November 30, 2015, 01:56:57 PM
NC 581 has been rerouted in Bailey to follow the NC 581 Truck route.  The old route underneath the 8.5 ft underpass will remain in the secondary system.  This was approved by NCDOT in August - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2015_08_12.pdf

NC 41 has also been approved in August to follow NC 87 Business into Elizabethtown - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2015_08_20.pdf

No idea if either of these changes has been posted in the field...

Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 04, 2015, 06:38:28 PM
As expected, the 5-year highway bill provides for interstate corridors from Raleigh to Norfolk (US 64 + 17) and from Raleigh to Morehead City (US 70), plus extension of I-795 from Goldsboro to I-40.
http://wunc.org/post/congress-passes-bill-would-create-two-new-interstates-north-carolina-coast#stream/0

So let's get serious. NCDOT has projects underway or in the pipeline for US 70 and for the I-795 extension, but I'm not aware of any serious planning for upgrading US 17. It's the Raleigh-Norfolk link that's had the most discussion on his forum, but it's the US 70 corridor that has the better chance of actually happening.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on December 04, 2015, 08:13:45 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor. I-42 would work really well since it's not currently being used for another route in the interstate system. I know there's talks of using I-44 or I-50 for the Raleigh/Norfolk interstate, but I think I-48 is a better option.

Now I wait for the day when US 74 from Asheville to Charlotte and Wilmington gets designated as an interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on December 04, 2015, 08:33:09 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor.

I-340?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 05, 2015, 10:42:56 AM
As expected, the 5-year highway bill provides for interstate corridors from Raleigh to Norfolk (US 64 + 17) and from Raleigh to Morehead City (US 70), plus extension of I-795 from Goldsboro to I-40.
http://wunc.org/post/congress-passes-bill-would-create-two-new-interstates-north-carolina-coast#stream/0

So let's get serious. NCDOT has projects underway or in the pipeline for US 70 and for the I-795 extension, but I'm not aware of any serious planning for upgrading US 17. It's the Raleigh-Norfolk link that's had the most discussion on his forum, but it's the US 70 corridor that has the better chance of actually happening.

70 has a few projects - from the interchanges at Pine Level under construction right now and plans for two interchanges at Wilson Mills to start in 2020.

With the law passed, NC could and just may petition for the 70 corridor to be signed.  The Clayton and soon to be completed Goldsboro bypasses are interstate standard and would connect to the system.

The us 70 bypass of Selma/Smithfield will be interesting as it does not - and to the best of my knowledge has no plans - for a direct connection to 95.  This will create a Breezewood as Vanilla US 70 has a number of signals along it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 05, 2015, 06:16:07 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor.

I-340?

I-340 is fine with me, but NC is likely to ask for a 2di. The route is about 130 miles long, pretty long for a 3di but certainly short for a 2di.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on December 05, 2015, 06:48:27 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor.

I-340?

I-340 is fine with me, but NC is likely to ask for a 2di. The route is about 130 miles long, pretty long for a 3di but certainly short for a 2di.

If it was a north-south route, I would have said it should have a 3di number. There's plenty of even 2di numbers to go around lol.  It is short for a 2di, but it would have greater mileage than I-12, I-83, I-86 Idaho, I-97, etc. It'd be comparable in length to I-22.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 05, 2015, 10:14:41 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor.

I-340?

I-340 is fine with me, but NC is likely to ask for a 2di. The route is about 130 miles long, pretty long for a 3di but certainly short for a 2di.

Well the Goldsboro Bypass currently IS NC 44.........
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 06, 2015, 03:18:00 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor.

I-340?
I-340 is fine with me, but NC is likely to ask for a 2di. The route is about 130 miles long, pretty long for a 3di but certainly short for a 2di.
Well the Goldsboro Bypass currently IS NC 44.........

Doesn't mean anything; it was simply an available number that previously existed in the area before and not some idea what the interstate number might be.  The current plan is to switch it to US 70 Bypass when completed, that can easily change at the next AASHTO meeting.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 06, 2015, 07:33:44 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor.

I-340?
I-340 is fine with me, but NC is likely to ask for a 2di. The route is about 130 miles long, pretty long for a 3di but certainly short for a 2di.
Well the Goldsboro Bypass currently IS NC 44.........

Doesn't mean anything; it was simply an available number that previously existed in the area before and not some idea what the interstate number might be.  The current plan is to switch it to US 70 Bypass when completed, that can easily change at the next AASHTO meeting.

Mark, you're no fun.  ;-p
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on December 07, 2015, 11:15:53 AM
North Carolina has quite a bit of work to do on the US 70 corridor around Kinston, New Bern, and Havelock before it would be able to be signed as interstate.  Is the US 70 bypass even up to interstate standards?  It's been while since I've been out there.  The 3 US 70s around Smithfield will definitely be interesting as well.

I don't doubt that they'll request a 2di rather than a 3di for the corridor whenever that day does come that it's finally all upgraded though. NC seems pretty set on having almost every major road in the state an interstate, which is fine with me.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 07, 2015, 11:28:02 AM
Goldsboro and Clayton are built to standards.  Havelock bypass scheduled to begin in 2018.  Super70Corridor.com is a very good source of info.  Look at the meeting minutes for the most recent ncdot update
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 07, 2015, 12:52:32 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor.

I-340?
I-340 is fine with me, but NC is likely to ask for a 2di. The route is about 130 miles long, pretty long for a 3di but certainly short for a 2di.
Well the Goldsboro Bypass currently IS NC 44.........

Doesn't mean anything; it was simply an available number that previously existed in the area before and not some idea what the interstate number might be.  The current plan is to switch it to US 70 Bypass when completed, that can easily change at the next AASHTO meeting.

Mark, you're no fun.  ;-p
I wimped out with the new shields I created for the two entries on my Future NC Interstates site, simply designating both routes an I-4? 2di for now. While some have suggested I-50 for the Raleigh to Norfolk route, I have a more interesting suggestion if NCDOT really wants an I-x0 there. You already have one in NC, I-40. Why not re-route I-40 around the Beltline and east on US 64/US 264 to US 17. Yes, it does turn north dramatically near Norfolk, but given its current route, the turn north would be less dramatic than the current turn south to Wilmington. You could make I-40 south of Raleigh a southern version of a current New England N-S interstate (take your pick, I-89, I-91 or I-93) and save an unused interstate number for elsewhere.

My Future NC Interstates site: http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/index.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/index.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 07, 2015, 06:55:34 PM
I wimped out with the new shields I created for the two entries on my Future NC Interstates site, simply designating both routes an I-4? 2di for now. While some have suggested I-50 for the Raleigh to Norfolk route, I have a more interesting suggestion if NCDOT really wants an I-x0 there. You already have one in NC, I-40. Why not re-route I-40 around the Beltline and east on US 64/US 264 to US 17. Yes, it does turn north dramatically near Norfolk, but given its current route, the turn north would be less dramatic than the current turn south to Wilmington. You could make I-40 south of Raleigh a southern version of a current New England N-S interstate (take your pick, I-89, I-91 or I-93) and save an unused interstate number for elsewhere.

My Future NC Interstates site: http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/index.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/index.html)

I don't see a dramatic rerouting of I-40 happening, people in Wilmington would simply flip their shit.   :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 12, 2015, 03:56:24 PM
Here is the current situation on the proposed interstate highway along US 70 from Raleigh to Morehead City, based on my observations and the NCDOT web site. This is a road that will actually be built, although completion is probably way out in the 2030s. Freeway exists (or will exist, when the Goldsboro Bypass is finished next year) on about half the route, and there is at least some preliminary planning on nearly all of the rest.

Section 1, Clayton Bypass. 10.7 miles freeway, interstate grade or close to it, opened in 2008, connecting I-40 at the west end to US 70 Business. Speed limit 70.

Section 2, Wilsons Mills Section. About 6.5 miles divided highway, US 70 Business to Buffalo Road interchange. The road is fenced and has no driveway connections, but there are at least 9 at-grade intersections and 2 traffic signals. Speed limit 55. The STIP calls for replacing the two principal intersections at Wilson Mills with interchanges in construction scheduled for 2020-22. Upgrading the rest of the section to a freeway would not be difficult but it is unfunded.

Section 3, Smithfield Bypass. About 3.5 miles freeway. The narrow shoulders of the road are clearly not interstate grade, so this section would need upgrading. The big problem is that US 70 crosses I-95 with no direct connection (traffic from US 70 to I-95 is shunted onto the old US 70A, which has an obsolete diamond interchange with I-95 and a major stoplight intersection with US 301). Speed limit 55.

Section 4, Pine Level Section. 2.2 miles divided highway, Firetower Road to Stevens Chapel Road, including the intersection with US 70 Business east of Smithfield. Until recently the road has had at-grade intersections, driveway connections, and two stoplights. Speed limit 55. Construction is underway to replace two intersections with interchanges and eliminate all left turns, but it sounds like the result will still have some driveway and side road connections.

Section 5, Princeton Bypass. About 13 miles old-fashioned divided highway, with many at-grade intersections and driveway connections and at least two stoplights. Improvement of this section is completely unfunded; a preliminary cost estimate study has been in progress and should be completed soon. It does not seem likely that this section can be upgraded without moving a significant fraction of the route to a new location.

Section 6, Goldsboro Bypass. 22.3 miles freeway, interstate-grade, on new location north of the city. The western 9.8 miles are complete and the eastern 12.5 miles are scheduled to open in June 2016.

Section 7, Lagrange Bypass. About 2.3 miles freeway with one interchange at NC 903. This is an old section (1970s?); it needs some upgrading to meet interstate standards.

Section 8, Kinston Bypass. Roughly 25 miles. Planning for this major section has been underway since 2009 and many possible routes have been considered and rejected. The alternatives still being considered are all south of the city. Most are on new location over nearly the whole length, but there is also a “close-in” alternative that would require a (difficult) upgrading of the existing route on the eastern and western approaches to Kinston. The draft environmental impact statement is to be released in early 2016. The project is not funded, so construction is unlikely before the late 2020s.

Section 9, Dover – New Bern Section. 26 miles freeway, speed limit 70. This is an older road, but it appears that it needs only interstate-width shoulders to be added to meet current standards.

Section 10, James City Section. About 2 miles 4-lane divided highway with parallel frontage roads passing through a commercial zone; there are at-grade intersections and several stoplights. A project in planning would upgrade this section to a freeway. The current STIP calls for construction beginning in FY 2021.

Section 11, James City – Havelock Section. About 13 miles 4-lane divided highway. A feasibility study for upgrading this section to a freeway was completed in 2012. The original STIP does not include it, but the amended STIP in fall 2015 calls for right of way acquisition to begin in FY 2025.

Section 12, Havelock Bypass. 10.1 miles freeway on new location south of the city. Right of way is being acquired and construction is scheduled to begin in 2018.

Section 13, unknown. It’s not clear where an interstate would go after passing Havelock. Would it continue to Morehead City? There has been a feasibility study for a project called the Northern Carteret Bypass, which would loop US 70 in an arc well to the north of Morehead City and Beaufort to end in eastern Carteret County. (That seems like an unlikely place for an interstate highway to end.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 12, 2015, 05:26:12 PM
Here is the current situation on the proposed interstate highway along US 70 from Raleigh to Morehead City, based on my observations and the NCDOT web site. This is a road that will actually be built, although completion is probably way out in the 2030s. Freeway exists (or will exist, when the Goldsboro Bypass is finished next year) on about half the route, and there is at least some preliminary planning on nearly all of the rest.

Section 1, Clayton Bypass. 10.7 miles freeway, interstate grade or close to it, opened in 2008, connecting I-40 at the west end to US 70 Business. Speed limit 70.

Section 2, Wilsons Mills Section. About 6.5 miles divided highway, US 70 Business to Buffalo Road interchange. The road is fenced and has no driveway connections, but there are at least 9 at-grade intersections and 2 traffic signals. Speed limit 55. The STIP calls for replacing the two principal intersections at Wilson Mills with interchanges in construction scheduled for 2020-22. Upgrading the rest of the section to a freeway would not be difficult but it is unfunded.


Most of the at-grades can be handled with the construction of the service roads.  The bridges over the Neuse River will be the most troublesome part - specifically the older westbound bridge. 

Section 3, Smithfield Bypass. About 3.5 miles freeway. The narrow shoulders of the road are clearly not interstate grade, so this section would need upgrading. The big problem is that US 70 crosses I-95 with no direct connection (traffic from US 70 to I-95 is shunted onto the old US 70A, which has an obsolete diamond interchange with I-95 and a major stoplight intersection with US 301). Speed limit 55.


I believe the 55 mph is just because of the short length of the segment.   The interchange with 95 is a six ramp partial cloverleaf.  Some upgrades from the current 70 West to 95 could be possible for a more direct connection.  However, 70 East to 95 would not be possible.  I think this is going to be a new-Breezewood.

Section 4, Pine Level Section. 2.2 miles divided highway, Firetower Road to Stevens Chapel Road, including the intersection with US 70 Business east of Smithfield. Until recently the road has had at-grade intersections, driveway connections, and two stoplights. Speed limit 55. Construction is underway to replace two intersections with interchanges and eliminate all left turns, but it sounds like the result will still have some driveway and side road connections.

Section 5, Princeton Bypass. About 13 miles old-fashioned divided highway, with many at-grade intersections and driveway connections and at least two stoplights. Improvement of this section is completely unfunded; a preliminary cost estimate study has been in progress and should be completed soon. It does not seem likely that this section can be upgraded without moving a significant fraction of the route to a new location.


The lights along the Princeton bypass is where proposed interchanges will be located.  IIRC, ROW is already preserved for eventual interchanges there.

Section 6, Goldsboro Bypass. 22.3 miles freeway, interstate-grade, on new location north of the city. The western 9.8 miles are complete and the eastern 12.5 miles are scheduled to open in June 2016.

Section 7, Lagrange Bypass. About 2.3 miles freeway with one interchange at NC 903. This is an old section (1970s?); it needs some upgrading to meet interstate standards.

the Goldsboro bypass is tying in directly to the LaGrange Bypass.  The construction zone does include some shoulder widening west of the 903 interchange.

Section 8, Kinston Bypass. Roughly 25 miles. Planning for this major section has been underway since 2009 and many possible routes have been considered and rejected. The alternatives still being considered are all south of the city. Most are on new location over nearly the whole length, but there is also a “close-in” alternative that would require a (difficult) upgrading of the existing route on the eastern and western approaches to Kinston. The draft environmental impact statement is to be released in early 2016. The project is not funded, so construction is unlikely before the late 2020s.

Section 9, Dover – New Bern Section. 26 miles freeway, speed limit 70. This is an older road, but it appears that it needs only interstate-width shoulders to be added to meet current standards.

Section 10, James City Section. About 2 miles 4-lane divided highway with parallel frontage roads passing through a commercial zone; there are at-grade intersections and several stoplights. A project in planning would upgrade this section to a freeway. The current STIP calls for construction beginning in FY 2021.

Section 11, James City – Havelock Section. About 13 miles 4-lane divided highway. A feasibility study for upgrading this section to a freeway was completed in 2012. The original STIP does not include it, but the amended STIP in fall 2015 calls for right of way acquisition to begin in FY 2025.

Section 12, Havelock Bypass. 10.1 miles freeway on new location south of the city. Right of way is being acquired and construction is scheduled to begin in 2018.

Section 13, unknown. It’s not clear where an interstate would go after passing Havelock. Would it continue to Morehead City? There has been a feasibility study for a project called the Northern Carteret Bypass, which would loop US 70 in an arc well to the north of Morehead City and Beaufort to end in eastern Carteret County. (That seems like an unlikely place for an interstate highway to end.)


The Northern Carteret Bypass is the most likely choice.  My understanding is that the bypass was to tie into 70 around NC 101.  With the dualization of the channel bridge connecting Morehead to Beaufort - the connection to the Port of Morehead City (and it's not much of a port) will be similar to 40's connection to the Port of Wilmington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 12, 2015, 09:03:47 PM
NCDOT could finesse the US 70/I-95 interchange problem by making it part of the much larger problem of upgrading I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on December 17, 2015, 11:56:43 AM
I could see I-42 on the US 70 upgrade, especially if the I-44 to Norfolk thing goes through.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 17, 2015, 05:27:57 PM
Who believes North Carolina needs more Interstates? Me, I'm undecided.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 17, 2015, 06:12:59 PM
Who believes North Carolina needs more Interstates? Me, I'm undecided.

Yes, the more the better.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 17, 2015, 06:38:13 PM
I could see I-42 on the US 70 upgrade, especially if the I-44 to Norfolk thing goes through.

As far as I can tell from its minutes, the US 70 Corridor Commission has never discussed a number for the proposed interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on December 18, 2015, 12:27:18 PM
I could see I-42 on the US 70 upgrade, especially if the I-44 to Norfolk thing goes through.

As far as I can tell from its minutes, the US 70 Corridor Commission has never discussed a number for the proposed interstate.
Well, don't be surprised if it comes up eventually, and it most likely will.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on December 18, 2015, 12:30:03 PM
Yeah they'll definitely request interstate designation. NC is going wild with building freeways these last few decades.  Wish they were this aggressive back in the 50s-60s when the Feds were handing out money like candy for interstates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: noelbotevera on December 18, 2015, 03:49:23 PM
Yeah they'll definitely request interstate designation. NC is going wild with building freeways these last few decades.  Wish they were this aggressive back in the 50s-60s when the Feds were handing out money like candy for interstates.
North Carolina hasn't been losing its temper though. Connecting the freeway sections of I-26 northwest of Asheville to the Tennessee state line has been waiting to be funded since I was born in 2004, and they haven't gone haywire. They seem pretty patient.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 18, 2015, 06:32:45 PM
Yeah they'll definitely request interstate designation. NC is going wild with building freeways these last few decades.  Wish they were this aggressive back in the 50s-60s when the Feds were handing out money like candy for interstates.

Actually, NC has been fairly aggressive from the beginning. Remember that the original Interstate plan short-changed North Carolina; there was no I-77, I-40 ended at Greensboro, and there was no interstate connection to the state capital, Raleigh. NC had to push for all of those extensions early on.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 18, 2015, 08:13:49 PM
Yeah they'll definitely request interstate designation. NC is going wild with building freeways these last few decades.  Wish they were this aggressive back in the 50s-60s when the Feds were handing out money like candy for interstates.

Actually, NC has been fairly aggressive from the beginning. Remember that the original Interstate plan short-changed North Carolina; there was no I-77, I-40 ended at Greensboro, and there was no interstate connection to the state capital, Raleigh. NC had to push for all of those extensions early on.

Yes and No.  The state did sit on the sidelines throughout the 50s. Their position was that they wanted Interstate funds to improve their own highways. (This is covered in Paving Tobacco Roads)   They did not apply for any loops and Spurs.  It wasn't until the 1960s - specifically the 1968 extensions - did they really get into the game.  NC petitioned / proposed numerous corridors at that time.  Greensboro to Wilmington, including a split that roughly followed NC 24 to Morehead City, Charlotte to Wilmington, and a complex of Spurs connecting 85 to downtown Durham and Raleigh which eventually laid the groundwork for I-40, NC147, etc. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 18, 2015, 08:25:07 PM
NCDOT could finesse the US 70/I-95 interchange problem by making it part of the much larger problem of upgrading I-95.

I thought that as well but you have to shoehorn through some development or make a high speed trumpet to trumpet connection.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 18, 2015, 09:25:30 PM
NCDOT could finesse the US 70/I-95 interchange problem by making it part of the much larger problem of upgrading I-95.

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


I'd argue that an interchange between I-95 and current US 70 wouldn't need all movements:

I-95 NB to US 70 WB is not necessary...using I-40 WB gets you directly to Clayton and points west.  Could also be argued that I-95 SB to US 70 WB is not essential either because of US 64 for Raleigh.

I-95 SB to US 70 EB is not necessary because of I-795.

Getting a high speed ramp from I-95 NB to US 70 EB either at the current overpass or at US 70 Bus (behind JRs) is probably doable but US 70 WB to 95 SB could be more challenging especially if you didn't want a flyover coming in as a left merge onto 95 SB.

Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 22, 2015, 09:14:15 AM
NCDOT could finesse the US 70/I-95 interchange problem by making it part of the much larger problem of upgrading I-95.

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


I'd argue that an interchange between I-95 and current US 70 wouldn't need all movements:

I-95 NB to US 70 WB is not necessary...using I-40 WB gets you directly to Clayton and points west.  Could also be argued that I-95 SB to US 70 WB is not essential either because of US 64 for Raleigh.

I-95 SB to US 70 EB is not necessary because of I-795.

Getting a high speed ramp from I-95 NB to US 70 EB either at the current overpass or at US 70 Bus (behind JRs) is probably doable but US 70 WB to 95 SB could be more challenging especially if you didn't want a flyover coming in as a left merge onto 95 SB.

Mike

Similar reasoning didn't stop a full access cloverleaf from being built at 95 and the US 264 freeway.  There's full access to the east via US 64 in Rocky Mount and the US 264A exit to the north cuts the corner.  When I would travel that way to Goldsboro rarely did I ever see folks entering 264 W via 95S or exit onto 95N via 264 E but the ramps were still there.

Of course a lot more space there too
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 22, 2015, 05:05:18 PM
I think the Interstate 495 freeway should have been numbered 695, then it could be extended into Virginia without duplication, and these discussions about renumbering 495 to a 2-digit Interstate highway would be rendered moot.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on December 22, 2015, 09:28:08 PM
I think the Interstate 495 freeway should have been numbered 695, then it could be extended into Virginia without duplication, and these discussions about renumbering 495 to a 2-digit Interstate highway would be rendered moot.

I would have preferred using I-495 for US 64/264 from I-440 to I-95, near Wilson. US 64 from I-440 (or the split in Zebulon), and US 17 to Norfolk could simply use a 2-digit number, like I-44 or I-46.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on December 23, 2015, 12:15:08 PM
I think the Interstate 495 freeway should have been numbered 695, then it could be extended into Virginia without duplication, and these discussions about renumbering 495 to a 2-digit Interstate highway would be rendered moot.

I would have preferred using I-495 for US 64/264 from I-440 to I-95, near Wilson. US 64 from I-440 (or the split in Zebulon), and US 17 to Norfolk could simply use a 2-digit number, like I-44 or I-46.
Which is what they've been discussing anyway. I'd prefer I-46 to avoid duplication with the OKC/Tulsa/St Louis interstate, but I-44 would also work just as well there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2015, 04:42:27 PM
If the US 64 corridor was to have a 2-digit Interstate designation, it should have had one from the get-go (instead of using the 495 designation). The same as the Raleigh Beltway, which should have been 640 to begin with, instead of temporarily, then permanently, numbering it 540.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 23, 2015, 05:20:35 PM
I agree. However, I think NCDOT will be looking for a designation for the US 70 corridor a long time before the US 64 corridor.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jwolfer on December 26, 2015, 05:11:27 PM
Yeah they'll definitely request interstate designation. NC is going wild with building freeways these last few decades.  Wish they were this aggressive back in the 50s-60s when the Feds were handing out money like candy for interstates.
In the 1950s NC was a much less populated state. The Northeast and Midwest had a much bigger proportion of interstates. Most of the South and West are now underserved by interstates
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on December 28, 2015, 05:38:18 PM
I have mentioned before in another thread about having the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor be numbered I-46 (although in my post in Fictional Highways, the routing was different).  The US 70 corridor should be I-42, if an I-number needs to be assigned to this.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 29, 2015, 11:30:41 AM
I have mentioned before in another thread about having the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor be numbered I-46 (although in my post in Fictional Highways, the routing was different).  The US 70 corridor should be I-42, if an I-number needs to be assigned to this.

I would say both routes qualify for a two-digit interstate number.  Heck, we have countless examples of short two-digit interstates located in one state.  I'm fine with anything between 40-64.   :nod:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on December 29, 2015, 11:43:24 AM
I have mentioned before in another thread about having the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor be numbered I-46 (although in my post in Fictional Highways, the routing was different).  The US 70 corridor should be I-42, if an I-number needs to be assigned to this.

I would say both routes qualify for a two-digit interstate number.  Heck, we have countless examples of short two-digit interstates located in one state.  I'm fine with anything between 40-64.   :nod:
As am I, although I'd prefer anything in the 40s range.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on December 30, 2015, 08:53:26 PM
Although I'd be fine with a 2di number for the US-70 corridor I would think it would be better to save a 2di number for a longer multi-state route (man if only they could figure out a way to get I-30 from Little Rock to New Bern, but I digress into fictional territory, lol).

I would think that an odd 3di would be fine for the corridor, which would be a spur off of a major 2di anyway. As someone else had stated, 340 is available in NC and would be perfect for this corridor.

Man, and to think, it could have been I-40 had things gone differently back in the 60's and 70's.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 31, 2015, 08:06:01 AM
Although I'd be fine with a 2di number for the US-70 corridor I would think it would be better to save a 2di number for a longer multi-state route (man if only they could figure out a way to get I-30 from Little Rock to New Bern, but I digress into fictional territory, lol).

I would think that an odd 3di would be fine for the corridor, which would be a spur off of a major 2di anyway. As someone else had stated, 340 is available in NC and would be perfect for this corridor.

Man, and to think, it could have been I-40 had things gone differently back in the 60's and 70's.

Save a 2di number till when exactly?  Are there big plans for more interstates that will need these spare numbers too? 

I get what you are saying but there is no plans for these numbers anytime, exact same reason why Texas went ahead and snagged I-2, because it's available.  Creating super-long 3di would be foolish when a 2di is available and would still be longer than several other Intrastate 2di, I-40 to Morehead City is roughly 130 miles.

Remember, back in the '60s and '70s, North Carolina had roughly 5 million people, today it's double that.  Needs were very different back then as oppose today now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 01, 2016, 05:48:43 PM
My attempt to describe the current state and future needs and plans of the three new Interstate corridors (two new / one extended) here in North Carolina:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-fast-act-brings-two-new-interstate.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on January 02, 2016, 10:04:36 PM
Hey, CanesFan, I have a question about Raleigh.  What are they doing to the Saunders St. interchange on I-40?  I found it odd that they have the second ramp signs covered up in both directions of I-40, does that mean they're only going to have an Exit 298 now instead of 298A-B?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 02, 2016, 10:46:47 PM
Hey, CanesFan, I have a question about Raleigh.  What are they doing to the Saunders St. interchange on I-40?  I found it odd that they have the second ramp signs covered up in both directions of I-40, does that mean they're only going to have an Exit 298 now instead of 298A-B?

Brent, I'm fairly certain it's only a result of ramps being closed as they are rebuilt.  We rarely travel the lower half of the beltline so I'm not exactly sure.  Brian would know - ask on southeast roads on facebook - he's on more often there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on January 02, 2016, 10:55:28 PM
Oh, okay, gotcha.  Thank you.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 03, 2016, 02:02:19 PM
I actually drove thru there this morning (US-401 North to I-40 East). The on ramp was open, but couldn't see much else.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on January 03, 2016, 05:32:35 PM
My attempt to describe the current state and future needs and plans of the three new Interstate corridors (two new / one extended) here in North Carolina:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-fast-act-brings-two-new-interstate.html

After this is all said and done Eastern NC might have one of the highest miles of interstate highway per capita in the country.

I'm in favor of all of them except that Raleigh-Norfolk corridor.  That one seems to offer little benefit and would likely carry a large cost that would be better spent on other NC road projects.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 23, 2016, 09:12:25 PM
Of the proposed interstate projects in eastern NC, it's clear that only the US 70 corridor has a high priority. It will get built. The others ... not for a long time.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Buffaboy on January 23, 2016, 09:39:12 PM
Why does CLT need express lanes? From when I was there over the summer, the traffic on I-77 seemed to move freely.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 24, 2016, 02:53:16 AM
Why does CLT need express lanes? From when I was there over the summer, the traffic on I-77 seemed to move freely.

Which section of I-77 where you on and what time of day?  I-77 is horriblely underpowered with only 2 lanes each way North of I-485.  Traffic there can be a nightmare.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 24, 2016, 08:35:45 AM
Why does CLT need express lanes? From when I was there over the summer, the traffic on I-77 seemed to move freely.

Then you didn't drive on it during rush hour.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on January 24, 2016, 04:10:03 PM
Why does CLT need express lanes? From when I was there over the summer, the traffic on I-77 seemed to move freely.

77 is the most congested highway in the state. It's way overcapacity in both directions even off peak hours. The only part that flows smoothly is between 85 and 485 and that's because it's the only section with 4 lanes on each side. The part south of 85 needs to be at least 5 lanes each side but is currently only 3.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 03, 2016, 12:01:53 PM
NCDOT has chosen preferred alternatives for Complete 540 project around Raleigh:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12208 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12208)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MazdaStrider on February 03, 2016, 12:52:31 PM
NCDOT has chosen preferred alternatives for Complete 540 project around Raleigh:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12208 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12208)


That means there is going to be a complex interchange between I-40, US 70 and NC 540 southeast of Raleigh. I wonder how will location look like when it is open.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 03, 2016, 01:54:07 PM
NCDOT has chosen preferred alternatives for Complete 540 project around Raleigh:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12208 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12208)


That means there is going to be a complex interchange between I-40, US 70 and NC 540 southeast of Raleigh. I wonder how will location look like when it is open.

No surprise at this choice. Construction could begin by the end of 2017.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 03, 2016, 03:00:06 PM
I wish they would do away with that toll law so all of NC 540 could be Interstate 540 the entire way around the beltway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 03, 2016, 03:34:23 PM
What toll law?  There's nothing in Federal law stopping NC from requesting adding 540 as an Interstate.  If there's a "toll law", it's at the state level.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 03, 2016, 03:38:28 PM
On the subject of 540, I had come up with an interchange concept (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/interchanges/i040-i540-us70.htm) several years ago for a theoretical 40/540/70 East junction.  I may clean it up for better presentation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 03, 2016, 04:25:11 PM
I thought there was a law prohibiting toll roads from becoming Interstates, on an account of how they were funded. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this law the reason Virginia's Highway 895 is a state highway and not an Interstate? I also assumed this law is why the toll portions of the 540 beltway also have to be a state highway and not an Interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 03, 2016, 05:05:37 PM
There's a general prohibition against toll roads receiving Federal highway funding, but Federal law does allow new toll roads *NOT* built with Federal funding to be added to the Interstate system if they're logical extensions and are constructed to Interstate standards.  Relatively recent examples include I-185 in SC and I-355 in the outer Chicago suburbs.

The reason for why VA 895 wasn't added was because Federal highway funding was used in its planning.  This may be the same reason why 540 south of RTP wasn't added as an Interstate, either.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 03, 2016, 05:06:15 PM
I wish they would do away with that toll law so all of NC 540 could be Interstate 540 the entire way around the beltway.
Although NCDOT is famous for upgrading freeways to interstate status, I don't think it has any intention of asking for an interstate designation for the toll sections of the beltway. Once upon a time there was a thought that the completed beltway would be renunbered I-640, but that I believe that idea is dead now that everyone is accustomed to calling the road 540.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 04, 2016, 11:10:55 AM
My attempt to describe the current state and future needs and plans of the three new Interstate corridors (two new / one extended) here in North Carolina:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-fast-act-brings-two-new-interstate.html
WRAL has a report about upgrades planned for the US 70 corridor. The report says that NCDOT will be putting up 'Future Interstate Corridor' signs soon:
http://www.wral.com/us-70-expansion-could-soon-be-reality/15305954/ (http://www.wral.com/us-70-expansion-could-soon-be-reality/15305954/)

This blog piece discusses possible numbers for the future interstate corridors:
http://letsgetmoving.org/rta-blog/raleigh-norfolk-495-44-50-89-56/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/rta-blog/raleigh-norfolk-495-44-50-89-56/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on February 04, 2016, 11:11:30 AM
On the subject of 540, I had come up with an interchange concept (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/interchanges/i040-i540-us70.htm) several years ago for a theoretical 40/540/70 East junction.  I may clean it up for better presentation.

I too find this interchange to be fascinating.

The Environmental Impact Statement does show a proposed design. It looks like a cross between a turbine and a giant high speed three and a half level stacked incomplete roundabout, with the existing cloverleaf kept plus three new ones. The turbiney-roundabouty thingy has two weaves shown, plus two weaves between cloverleafs.

The weave on I-40E is long so it would probably be OK but it's a little disappointing to me that US70W -> NC540W doesn't get a flyover.
(http://www.reprehensible.net/~orulz/540interchange.jpg)
Something tells me this design is still a work in progress.
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/Complete540/maps/C540_6A_PHM.pdf - see the one marked "Orange to Green"
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on February 04, 2016, 07:16:55 PM
That design is quite fascinating
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on February 04, 2016, 08:04:56 PM
You can make a U turn on it   :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on February 05, 2016, 11:22:25 AM
Since the Raleigh-Norfolk Interstate runs east-west, an even number makes a lot more sense.

As for the I-40/NC 540/US 70 interchange, I don't mind the C/D road for I-40 east, although I would prefer a flyover from US 70 west to NC 540 west, as well as from I-40 east to NC 540 east.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MazdaStrider on February 05, 2016, 11:30:13 AM
On the subject of 540, I had come up with an interchange concept (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/interchanges/i040-i540-us70.htm) several years ago for a theoretical 40/540/70 East junction.  I may clean it up for better presentation.

I too find this interchange to be fascinating.

The Environmental Impact Statement does show a proposed design. It looks like a cross between a turbine and a giant high speed three and a half level stacked incomplete roundabout, with the existing cloverleaf kept plus three new ones. The turbiney-roundabouty thingy has two weaves shown, plus two weaves between cloverleafs.

The weave on I-40E is long so it would probably be OK but it's a little disappointing to me that US70W -> NC540W doesn't get a flyover.
(http://www.reprehensible.net/~orulz/540interchange.jpg)
Something tells me this design is still a work in progress.
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/Complete540/maps/C540_6A_PHM.pdf - see the one marked "Orange to Green"



Interesting design. Looks fascinating, but I have the feeling this won't be the final design as there may be a traffic mess
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 14, 2016, 02:20:52 PM
I missed this: the western section of the US 70 Goldsboro Bypass opened ten days ago:
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Western-section-of-US-70-Goldsboro-Bypass-opens-Saturday-333651791.html

This section was to be signed as NC 44 until the entire bypass is complete (photos, anyone?).

Did get down there yesterday.  The highway is currently signed NC 44 if you are headed eastbound. However, westbound west of the 795 interchange it is signed as US 70 Bypass West. Signs at the NC 581 interchange already read US 70 Bypass.  No changes to signs at the US 117 and Wayne MEmorial Drive interchanges.  (Didn't get on 795 to see how it looked like there).  I and a few others have mentioned that it is to Interstate standards.  It may need an exception for one lengthy bridge over a swamp between 581 and the 795 interchange.  Here are some photos.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1578/24396509114_9a7bf145fd_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/DaQucu)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/DaQucu) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
70 East approaching the bypass - these are temporary signs until the entire bypass opens.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1710/24659495439_e586d2b939_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Dz5mSt)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/Dz5mSt) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Just east of the NC 581 Interchange - temporary NC 44 shield.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1553/25000774176_0f35079d94_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/E6ev9C)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/E6ev9C) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Westbound at NC 581.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1554/24731582270_70af11b623_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/DFrPLS)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/DFrPLS) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Eastbound approaching I-795.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1561/24400264843_bb05e900f2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/DbaJDr)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/DbaJDr) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Eastbound at 795.  This is actually an impressive interchange - an cell camera doesn't give it justice.  Will need to come back and take more shots.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1489/24659492199_c8388948c5_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Dz5kUB)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/Dz5kUB) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Westbound between 795 and 581.  This is the bridge with the narrow interior shoulder that may be of concern.  It is rather lengthy so a possible exception?  I didn't measure the length.


I've added the photos to my album that covered the opening of the original segment of the bypass here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/albums/72157628457432307
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 15, 2016, 11:49:30 AM
According to the minutes of the Super 70 Corridor Commission. Future Interstate corridor signs have been ordered and depending on what month's notes you read, will be delivered and posted some time in February to May 2016.

Signs will be at the termini of the corridor and at county lines.

There are no clues in to what the number will be.  Keep an eye out for the signs!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 15, 2016, 12:46:05 PM
According to the minutes of the Super 70 Corridor Commission. Future Interstate corridor signs have been ordered and depending on what month's notes you read, will be delivered and posted some time in February to May 2016.

Signs will be at the termini of the corridor and at county lines.

There are no clues in to what the number will be.  Keep an eye out for the signs!

Per the US 70 Directors Report for Oct-Dec 2015 (pg. 5) there is a number range anticipated...
http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/October%20and%20November%20Directors%20Report.pdf

Quote
An official number for the new proposed Interstate along US 70 will be assigned by ASHTO [sic] at the May 2016 meeting.  It is anticipated it will be between 40 and 60.  Signs are now being fabricated and should be available by mid-March.  At that time we will begin posting signs.

42 would make the most sense based solely on grid placement - it is unlikely another E-W interstate would be between I-40 and US 70, but due to the proximity of NC 42 they could opt for 44 instead (they are already using NC 44 for a piece of this anyway).  It will also be curious to see if the number for the corridor east of Rocky Mount to Norfolk will be assigned and if so to what number.

Mike

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on February 15, 2016, 07:33:15 PM
If they are going to give a 2di number to a highway in North Carolina, why would it not go to US 64?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 15, 2016, 08:27:10 PM
Perhaps because the US 70 corridor is both further along in planning and actually has the traffic volume to support such a designation?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 16, 2016, 07:03:17 PM
I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think NCDOT will be applying for an interstate designation on either route anytime soon. So we can enjoy this discussion for quite a while yet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 17, 2016, 04:54:55 PM
I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think NCDOT will be applying for an interstate designation on either route anytime soon. So we can enjoy this discussion for quite a while yet.
And wrong I am, it seems. The 70 Corridor task force says that a number "will be assigned" at the May AASHTO meeting. NCDOT has until April 18 to apply for a number. "Future Interstate Corridor" signs have already been ordered, so they won't have a number, at least not initially.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Katavia on February 20, 2016, 08:10:23 AM
Per the US 70 Directors Report for Oct-Dec 2015 (pg. 5) there is a number range anticipated...
http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/October%20and%20November%20Directors%20Report.pdf

Quote
An official number for the new proposed Interstate along US 70 will be assigned by ASHTO [sic] at the May 2016 meeting.  It is anticipated it will be between 40 and 60.  Signs are now being fabricated and should be available by mid-March.  At that time we will begin posting signs.

42 would make the most sense based solely on grid placement - it is unlikely another E-W interstate would be between I-40 and US 70, but due to the proximity of NC 42 they could opt for 44 instead (they are already using NC 44 for a piece of this anyway).  It will also be curious to see if the number for the corridor east of Rocky Mount to Norfolk will be assigned and if so to what number.

Mike
Interstate 44 already exists though... Maybe 46?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 20, 2016, 12:31:20 PM
Quote from: Katavia
Interstate 44 already exists though... Maybe 46?

Doesn't mean they couldn't keep this one as 44.  There's precedent for multiple legs of the same Interstate route separated by more than one state.  76, 84, 86, and 88 all fit that bill.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jwolfer on February 20, 2016, 12:52:08 PM
Quote from: Katavia
Interstate 44 already exists though... Maybe 46?

Doesn't mean they couldn't keep this one as 44.  There's precedent for multiple legs of the same Interstate route separated by more than one state.  76, 84, 86, and 88 all fit that bill.
No reason to duplicate numbers since 42, 46 are available and fit in the grid. Unless there is some grand scheme to connect i44 from Raleigh to St Louis
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on February 20, 2016, 01:02:51 PM
Per the US 70 Directors Report for Oct-Dec 2015 (pg. 5) there is a number range anticipated...
http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/October%20and%20November%20Directors%20Report.pdf

Quote
An official number for the new proposed Interstate along US 70 will be assigned by ASHTO [sic] at the May 2016 meeting.  It is anticipated it will be between 40 and 60.  Signs are now being fabricated and should be available by mid-March.  At that time we will begin posting signs.

42 would make the most sense based solely on grid placement - it is unlikely another E-W interstate would be between I-40 and US 70, but due to the proximity of NC 42 they could opt for 44 instead (they are already using NC 44 for a piece of this anyway).  It will also be curious to see if the number for the corridor east of Rocky Mount to Norfolk will be assigned and if so to what number.

Mike
Interstate 44 already exists though... Maybe 46?

This new route would be mostly south of the existing I-44, though. I-42 seems like the logical option, as NC hasn't shown any fear of heaving similarly-numbered routes nearby.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 20, 2016, 01:04:18 PM
I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think NCDOT will be applying for an interstate designation on either route anytime soon. So we can enjoy this discussion for quite a while yet.
And wrong I am, it seems. The 70 Corridor task force says that a number "will be assigned" at the May AASHTO meeting. NCDOT has until April 18 to apply for a number. "Future Interstate Corridor" signs have already been ordered, so they won't have a number, at least not initially.

I'd think that they will try to get a number for both corridors just to have it on the record.  I think 70 is easier to get a consensus for a number where as 64 may be a little more difficult because of 495.  Does NC drop 495 after two years in favor of one number throughout? And how will that be viewed.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 20, 2016, 04:57:46 PM
I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think NCDOT will be applying for an interstate designation on either route anytime soon. So we can enjoy this discussion for quite a while yet.
And wrong I am, it seems. The 70 Corridor task force says that a number "will be assigned" at the May AASHTO meeting. NCDOT has until April 18 to apply for a number. "Future Interstate Corridor" signs have already been ordered, so they won't have a number, at least not initially.
I'd think that they will try to get a number for both corridors just to have it on the record.  I think 70 is easier to get a consensus for a number where as 64 may be a little more difficult because of 495.  Does NC drop 495 after two years in favor of one number throughout? And how will that be viewed.
Think it would be somewhat ironic if AASHTO chooses 44 for the US 70 Corridor route since the group pushing the US 64/US 17 Raleigh-Norfolk corridor route had suggested that number for its proposal. IMO either 42 or 44 would work for US 70. I would have an I-5x for US 64 since that number should be higher than that for the US 70 route and all the even 5x numbers are available.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on February 25, 2016, 06:44:42 AM
Interstate 11 should be a designation

I-11: From Vegas to Havelock

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 25, 2016, 03:55:15 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on February 25, 2016, 05:24:52 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.
Maybe US 70 should be Interstate 11, the road to Las Vegas!

SM-G360T1

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 25, 2016, 06:28:01 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

The folks who want an interstate number on US 264 are in Greenville; they want a number that covers the road all the way to their town.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: national highway 1 on February 25, 2016, 06:32:23 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.
Maybe US 70 should be Interstate 11, the road to Las Vegas!

SM-G360T1


Why would it be I-11? It's already applied a proposal to US 93 in Arizona and Nevada, and it wouldn't exist in North Carolina because US 70 is an east-west route and plus it violates the guidelines of the interstate grid.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on February 25, 2016, 06:34:07 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.
Maybe US 70 should be Interstate 11, the road to Las Vegas!

SM-G360T1


Why would it be I-11? It's already applied a proposal to US 93 in Arizona and Nevada, and it wouldn't exist in North Carolina because US 70 is an east-west route and plus it violates the guidelines of the interstate grid.
Don't worry sir, I scrapped 11 and decided that I-48 should be the designation for US 70!!

SM-G360T1

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on February 25, 2016, 06:36:24 PM
Actually they could sign it into law.  All they need to do is pick another I-11 for this route and a Bud Schuster type of those who support the I-69ECW BS do it and AASHTO ruling cannot do diddly.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on February 25, 2016, 08:44:19 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

The folks who want an interstate number on US 264 are in Greenville; they want a number that covers the road all the way to their town.

I'm sorry that the folks in Greenville aren't on a 2di interstate but their city is kind of positioned in an awkward place to be on an interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 25, 2016, 08:45:41 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

actually i wouldn't be surprised if 795 does get extended west to Zebulon when that happens.  Upgrading 264 from Zebulon to 95 wouldn't be difficult - just shoulder work for the most part.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on February 29, 2016, 11:17:49 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

The folks who want an interstate number on US 264 are in Greenville; they want a number that covers the road all the way to their town.



Maybe they can get 264 to get signed as a 3di spur of I-95. Maybe 195.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on March 01, 2016, 06:58:25 AM
Lane closures on Neuse and Trent River Bridges from today through June 15th (http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Lane-closures-on-two-popular-bridges-starting-today-370612161.html)


Quote
Closures will be happening on the N.C. 55 / U.S. 70 bridge over the Trent River, and the N.C. 55 / U.S. 17 bridge over the Neuse River will have lane closures beginning at 9 a.m., Tuesday.[/font]One lane will be closed 24/7, and at least one lane will remain open from now until June 15th.
DOT crews will be replacing expansion joints and lay down a protective coating on both bridges during the next few months.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 01, 2016, 10:49:13 AM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

The folks who want an interstate number on US 264 are in Greenville; they want a number that covers the road all the way to their town.



Maybe they can get 264 to get signed as a 3di spur of I-95. Maybe 195.
The question would be is worth it
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 01, 2016, 04:20:21 PM
Whether it is worth it depends on whether or not one thinks North Carolina needs more Interstates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 01, 2016, 04:32:42 PM
Whether it is worth it depends on whether or not one thinks North Carolina needs more Interstates.
North Carolina loves interstates, that's for sure. I don't really think there's anything fundamentally wrong with that. However, the state is piling up a huge backlog of "Future I-xx" mileage that needs to be upgraded to interstate standards. I'd like to see some progress on those upgrades, and right now I'm not seeing much of it. A good place to start would be the section of Future I-26 north of Asheville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 01, 2016, 05:32:12 PM
Whether it is worth it depends on whether or not one thinks North Carolina needs more Interstates.
North Carolina loves interstates, that's for sure. I don't really think there's anything fundamentally wrong with that. However, the state is piling up a huge backlog of "Future I-xx" mileage that needs to be upgraded to interstate standards. I'd like to see some progress on those upgrades, and right now I'm not seeing much of it. A good place to start would be the section of Future I-26 north of Asheville.
They still haven't finished I-26? Ncdot step your game up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 01, 2016, 06:48:37 PM
Whether it is worth it depends on whether or not one thinks North Carolina needs more Interstates.
North Carolina loves interstates, that's for sure. I don't really think there's anything fundamentally wrong with that. However, the state is piling up a huge backlog of "Future I-xx" mileage that needs to be upgraded to interstate standards. I'd like to see some progress on those upgrades, and right now I'm not seeing much of it. A good place to start would be the section of Future I-26 north of Asheville.
They still haven't finished I-26? Ncdot step your game up.
The section of US 19/23 north of Asheville is well short of interstate standards. Here's the sign at the south end of the section, coming off I-240 northbound:
https://goo.gl/maps/Spo9np63WD82

The substandard section is about 20 miles long.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on March 01, 2016, 09:30:44 PM
The section of US 19/23 north of Asheville is well short of interstate standards. Here's the sign at the south end of the section, coming off I-240 northbound:
https://goo.gl/maps/Spo9np63WD82

Doesn't look as bad as the section of I-70 through Wheeling, WV, which I don't believe there are any plans to fix.

North Carolina's representatives in Congress just need to step up, legislate that section as I-26, and put an end to this future interstate nonsense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 02, 2016, 03:37:11 PM
Everyone knows that it takes many years to study, fund and construct any highway improvement. It would be nice to do it faster, but that's the way it will always be.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on March 02, 2016, 04:36:01 PM
Whether it is worth it depends on whether or not one thinks North Carolina needs more Interstates.
North Carolina loves interstates, that's for sure. I don't really think there's anything fundamentally wrong with that. However, the state is piling up a huge backlog of "Future I-xx" mileage that needs to be upgraded to interstate standards. I'd like to see some progress on those upgrades, and right now I'm not seeing much of it. A good place to start would be the section of Future I-26 north of Asheville.
They still haven't finished I-26? Ncdot step your game up.
The section of US 19/23 north of Asheville is well short of interstate standards. Here's the sign at the south end of the section, coming off I-240 northbound:
https://goo.gl/maps/Spo9np63WD82

The substandard section is about 20 miles long.
Finishing I-26 through Asheville alone is estimated to be a $600-$800 million project. From Woodfin to Mars Hill will be another $184 million. So this is essentially a billion dollar project. Not something the state of NC will take on lightly. The most expensive segment, the new bridge over the French Broad River, is pretty badly needed, but for everything else, I don't see a need to rush it. I-26 from Asheville to Johnson City is frankly not that important of a transportation corridor.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 02, 2016, 07:12:24 PM
Finishing I-26 through Asheville alone is estimated to be a $600-$800 million project. From Woodfin to Mars Hill will be another $184 million. So this is essentially a billion dollar project. Not something the state of NC will take on lightly. The most expensive segment, the new bridge over the French Broad River, is pretty badly needed, but for everything else, I don't see a need to rush it. I-26 from Asheville to Johnson City is frankly not that important of a transportation corridor.

Mars Hill to Woodfin upgrades are on the 2016-2025 STIP, slated for construction in 2022.  Asheville Connector, recently added to the STIP, is slated for 2023 construction.  So the good news is funding has been found and are on the calendar.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 02, 2016, 07:32:40 PM
Finishing I-26 through Asheville alone is estimated to be a $600-$800 million project. From Woodfin to Mars Hill will be another $184 million. So this is essentially a billion dollar project. Not something the state of NC will take on lightly. The most expensive segment, the new bridge over the French Broad River, is pretty badly needed, but for everything else, I don't see a need to rush it. I-26 from Asheville to Johnson City is frankly not that important of a transportation corridor.

Mars Hill to Woodfin upgrades are on the 2016-2025 STIP, slated for construction in 2022.  Asheville Connector, recently added to the STIP, is slated for 2023 construction.  So the good news is funding has been found and are on the calendar.
What's wrong with Mars Hill to Woodfin segment, tight shoulders? I understand the need for the Ashville Connecter and yes that could not come soon enough.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on March 02, 2016, 08:18:01 PM
Everyone knows that it takes many years to study, fund and construct any highway improvement. It would be nice to do it faster, but that's the way it will always be.

I'm not referring to getting funding and building the upgrade now, I'm referring to getting legislation overriding FHWA and allowing that section to be signed as I-26 without any 'future' banners, even though that section is not up to interstate standards at the moment.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 02, 2016, 10:10:41 PM
Finishing I-26 through Asheville alone is estimated to be a $600-$800 million project. From Woodfin to Mars Hill will be another $184 million. So this is essentially a billion dollar project. Not something the state of NC will take on lightly. The most expensive segment, the new bridge over the French Broad River, is pretty badly needed, but for everything else, I don't see a need to rush it. I-26 from Asheville to Johnson City is frankly not that important of a transportation corridor.

Mars Hill to Woodfin upgrades are on the 2016-2025 STIP, slated for construction in 2022.  Asheville Connector, recently added to the STIP, is slated for 2023 construction.  So the good news is funding has been found and are on the calendar.

So I'm guessing that once the Mars Hill to Woodfin and the Asheville Connector, it can all be signed as I-26 right?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 02, 2016, 10:35:33 PM
Everyone knows that it takes many years to study, fund and construct any highway improvement. It would be nice to do it faster, but that's the way it will always be.

I'm not referring to getting funding and building the upgrade now, I'm referring to getting legislation overriding FHWA and allowing that section to be signed as I-26 without any 'future' banners, even though that section is not up to interstate standards at the moment.

It's not really that big of a deal.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 02, 2016, 10:39:08 PM
Finishing I-26 through Asheville alone is estimated to be a $600-$800 million project. From Woodfin to Mars Hill will be another $184 million. So this is essentially a billion dollar project. Not something the state of NC will take on lightly. The most expensive segment, the new bridge over the French Broad River, is pretty badly needed, but for everything else, I don't see a need to rush it. I-26 from Asheville to Johnson City is frankly not that important of a transportation corridor.

Mars Hill to Woodfin upgrades are on the 2016-2025 STIP, slated for construction in 2022.  Asheville Connector, recently added to the STIP, is slated for 2023 construction.  So the good news is funding has been found and are on the calendar.

So I'm guessing that once the Mars Hill to Woodfin and the Asheville Connector, it can all be signed as I-26 right?

Either actually.  If the upgrades finish first then it can already by signed; if they complete around same time, so much the better. If it was reversed, they probably could have gotten a waiver then.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on March 02, 2016, 11:21:30 PM
I-77 Toll Lane project in jeopardy? NCDOT issued a short press release today stating governor has asked them to reassess the I-77 Toll Lanes due to bankruptcy of Texas toll project: https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12273 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12273)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on March 03, 2016, 05:40:42 AM
@bob7374 It is in jeopardy! You know that the toll road project is dangerous to the LKN community and all of N.C.?

SM-G360T1

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 03, 2016, 02:17:16 PM
So this company has already bankrupted on the Indiana Toll Road and now TX-130. Bodes well for I-77 lanes doesn't it?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 03, 2016, 03:10:34 PM
Maybe some other toll company can pick up the slack.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on March 03, 2016, 03:16:27 PM
No toll companies no more!! The Transportation Departments could maintain roads!!!

SM-G360T1

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 03, 2016, 04:37:26 PM
NCDOT has awarded a $108M contract for the last widening project on I-85 between Charlotte and Greensboro.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12276
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on March 03, 2016, 06:23:04 PM
NCDOT has awarded a $108M contract for the last widening project on I-85 between Charlotte and Greensboro.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12276
But what about Hillsborough?

SM-G360T1

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 03, 2016, 08:46:26 PM
Quote
But what about Hillsborough?

Not between Charlotte and Greensboro.  And not as high of a need as the segment just awarded.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: broadhurst04 on March 04, 2016, 12:41:54 AM
NCDOT has awarded a $108M contract for the last widening project on I-85 between Charlotte and Greensboro.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12276
But what about Hillsborough?

SM-G360T1



They have to get to that segment eventually. When this contract is completed, that will be the only section between Durham and Charlotte that hasn't been renovated since it was originally built.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on March 04, 2016, 10:42:09 AM
NCDOT has awarded a $108M contract for the last widening project on I-85 between Charlotte and Greensboro.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12276
But what about Hillsborough?

SM-G360T1



They have to get to that segment eventually. When this contract is completed, that will be the only section between Durham and Charlotte that hasn't been renovated since it was originally built.
There's no funded project in the current 2016-2025 STIP to widen I-85 in Hillsborough. There is, however, a contract to widen I-40 to 6 lanes from I-85 to the Durham Freeway (Future I-885) starting in 2023.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on March 04, 2016, 01:44:59 PM
Question about I-95 north and south of Kenly, NC.  As you all are aware the frequency of interchanges along I-95 south of Kenly is far more than it is north of there.  Where interchanges are almost every mile between BL I-95 for Fayetteville and the US 301 interchange in Kenly, from north of US 301 to the VA state line they are on average (not accurate) probably five miles apart with the section between Kenly and Gold Rock about eight miles apart.

Apparently this has to do with the fact that I-95 was completed between Kenly and Gold Rock in the early 80's where the other section south of there was built almost twenty years earlier.  Of course traffic back in the 1960's were built to different standards then they were in the 1970's and 1980's as the overall counts were lower.  Plus US 301 runs closely to I-95 which was more likely done that way so that all locals who live along US 301 would have immediate access to the interstate instead of like along the toll roads and turnpikes where you have to travel miles to get to the nearest intersection to connect to an interchange of the toll facility.  That is why you have access to unnumbered roads such as Truck Stop Road and Flowers Road unlike the rest of I-95 that has only interchanges with either NC or US routes. 

Am I correct on the hypothesis?  Is it mainly because of both the times and the fact that US 301 is within a mile of I-95 south of Kenly to Eastover and to the north of it US 301 is several miles from the interstate? Or is it more of one over the other?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 04, 2016, 07:49:41 PM
Question about I-95 north and south of Kenly, NC.  As you all are aware the frequency of interchanges along I-95 south of Kenly is far more than it is north of there.  Where interchanges are almost every mile between BL I-95 for Fayetteville and the US 301 interchange in Kenly, from north of US 301 to the VA state line they are on average (not accurate) probably five miles apart with the section between Kenly and Gold Rock about eight miles apart.

Apparently this has to do with the fact that I-95 was completed between Kenly and Gold Rock in the early 80's where the other section south of there was built almost twenty years earlier.  Of course traffic back in the 1960's were built to different standards then they were in the 1970's and 1980's as the overall counts were lower.  Plus US 301 runs closely to I-95 which was more likely done that way so that all locals who live along US 301 would have immediate access to the interstate instead of like along the toll roads and turnpikes where you have to travel miles to get to the nearest intersection to connect to an interchange of the toll facility.  That is why you have access to unnumbered roads such as Truck Stop Road and Flowers Road unlike the rest of I-95 that has only interchanges with either NC or US routes. 

Am I correct on the hypothesis?  Is it mainly because of both the times and the fact that US 301 is within a mile of I-95 south of Kenly to Eastover and to the north of it US 301 is several miles from the interstate? Or is it more of one over the other?

You've placed a lot of thought into this JP - I hope you haven't lost much sleep - and the answers can be found in earlier threads.  Kenly to Gold Rock was opened in 1978 and Kenly to Eastover was completed by I believe 1960.  The first sections was basically a US 301 bypass of Benson and Dunn.

as for why exits were built who knows -
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on March 04, 2016, 08:01:35 PM
Not really I built all this over time. For years my parents went down to Florida when I grew up in New Jersey, so I got to see it all.  Well mostly.  I remember when the Kenly to Gold Rock Segment was not completed and you had to use US 301, however I did not realize it was in 78 when that opened.  Although we did vacation in Florida in 1978 at Jekyl Island, GA one year after 8th Grade Graduation, and now that its mentioned it might of been that year it opened.

I do know for sure that the Fayetteville Bypass was completed either in 1981 or 1982.  The Georgia segment by Brunswick was around the same time as that was the last segment of I-95 in the Peach State to finally open to traffic.  So it was not until my HS Graduation trip when it was all completed from Delaware to Florida that I first saw it.  I did not go to Florida in 1982 for sure as we just went to Williamsburg then as my dad was not ahead financially that year, so we went closer to home.

So yes, I guess my frequent trips to Florida were in the early 80's and all the 70's.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 04, 2016, 11:08:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65
Where interchanges are almost every mile between BL I-95 for Fayetteville and the US 301 interchange in Kenly, from north of US 301 to the VA state line they are on average (not accurate) probably five miles apart with the section between Kenly and Gold Rock about eight miles apart.

Fayetteville to Kenly:  ~51 miles, 22 interchanges.  ~2.3mi average.
Kenly to Gold Rock:  ~38 miles, 8 interchanges.  ~4.8mi average.
Kenly to VA Line:  ~75 miles, 16 interchanges.  ~4.7mi average.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 05, 2016, 01:35:52 PM
Why was BL 95 designated anyway? Couldn't the road have just remained designated US 301?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 06, 2016, 08:42:13 PM
Why was BL 95 designated anyway? Couldn't the road have just remained designated US 301?

At the time (1978), they were established to link a gap in Interstate 95, the same with Interstate 85 between Lexington and High Point.  When the interstate was finally completed (1983), it was left in place, mainly for the businesses along it.

Do they provide real purpose today... I don't believe so.  Each location where a business route exists is concurrency with a U.S. Route (in North Carolina).   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on March 11, 2016, 02:02:32 PM
Since the proposal to toll I-95 fell through, as there been any updates on widening parts of I-95 in North Carolina? I'm surprised that the FAMPO hasn't at least submitted the section of I-95 in Cumberland County to be widened, or looked into the use of HOT lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on March 11, 2016, 03:42:10 PM
I wish toll roads were freeways

From Concord Telephone, Yadkin Valley

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 11, 2016, 03:44:38 PM
Since the proposal to toll I-95 fell through, as there been any updates on widening parts of I-95 in North Carolina? I'm surprised that the FAMPO hasn't at least submitted the section of I-95 in Cumberland County to be widened, or looked into the use of HOT lanes.

The 2016-2026 STIP only lists pavement rehabilitation and some bridge replacements along I-95.  So no widening plans on the horizon.

HOT lanes wouldn't work on I-95, not enough commuter traffic to justify it.  A couple years ago though NCDOT did have a similar idea in mind for I-95 by building inner travel lanes that would be tolled and go 75mph.  That was quickly shot down by the state legislators when they both rejected 75mph speed limits and that toll plan as being too expensive to implement on entire route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Cemajr on March 12, 2016, 02:51:07 PM
The tolls were the best chance at getting 95 upgraded in NC.  It looks like it's going to just remain as is now. We probably won't see it upgraded in our lifetimes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: noelbotevera on March 12, 2016, 03:18:27 PM
The tolls were the best chance at getting 95 upgraded in NC.  It looks like it's going to just remain as is now. We probably won't see it upgraded in our lifetimes.
I will in my lifetime  ;-)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 14, 2016, 05:22:33 PM
It looks like they are going to have to find another funding mechanism if they want to upgrade Interstate 95. Maybe they should just do the upgrades in several different phases.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on March 14, 2016, 05:36:10 PM


It looks like they are going to have to find another funding mechanism since we spent some fu*king Gas Tax s*it if they want to upgrade Interstate 95. Maybe they should just do the upgrades in several different phases.

Tax the rich will save us money!!


From Concord Telephone, Yadkin Valley

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on March 23, 2016, 10:47:30 PM
I found this FYI on the Super70 Corridor site:


Quote
March 30, 201610:00 AM - 11:00 AM
Unveiling Future Interstate Designation Sign-Enter Hwy. 70 Goldsboro Bypass at Parkstown Rd. Ramp (http://www.super70corridor.com/site/Default.aspx?PageID=2&PageType=17&DomainID=4&ModuleInstanceID=1&EventDateID=71)




That's all I've been able to dig up on that, however.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 23, 2016, 10:52:00 PM
So are they unveiling the number too, or just the sign? :biggrin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 23, 2016, 11:16:36 PM
So are they unveiling the number too, or just the sign? :biggrin:

It has been my understanding there will be a blank shield on it, but who knows.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on March 24, 2016, 10:22:14 AM
So are they unveiling the number too, or just the sign? :biggrin:

It has been my understanding there will be a blank shield on it, but who knows.
There you go!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 24, 2016, 06:10:56 PM
So are they unveiling the number too, or just the sign? :biggrin:
The signs will simply say "Future Interstate Corridor." I don't think there will be a shield, blank or otherwise, but I'll be interested to see. No word on what number will be requested.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 24, 2016, 07:32:54 PM
Is there a good site to see the history of interstate openings in NC?  With my soo to be move from California to Morganton, I have done the usual study of USGS topo maps and Historic Arials.  A few things that stand out to me as cool:  I-40 from NC 18 in Morganton to west of Hickory is shown as under construction on both thew 1958 and 1964 USGS maps, this section is very substandard but it is being upgraded now.  The stub west of Hickory and it's temporary connector road to US 70 is cool.  Having US 64 and 70 concurrent from Morganton to Hickory into the 1970's with the current arrangement having US 64 go north to Lenoir, going out of grid and crossing US 70 twice.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 24, 2016, 07:47:13 PM
Decent information on NC interstate openings can be found at the individual route links at the bottom of the NCRoads.com Annex site - http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/route-log/index.html

US 64 was moved to its Lenoir-Taylorsville routing in the 1987-88 timeframe...

Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 24, 2016, 08:02:54 PM
Is there a good site to see the history of interstate openings in NC?  With my soo to be move from California to Morganton, I have done the usual study of USGS topo maps and Historic Arials.  A few things that stand out to me as cool:  I-40 from NC 18 in Morganton to west of Hickory is shown as under construction on both thew 1958 and 1964 USGS maps, this section is very substandard but it is being upgraded now.  The stub west of Hickory and it's temporary connector road to US 70 is cool.  Having US 64 and 70 concurrent from Morganton to Hickory into the 1970's with the current arrangement having US 64 go north to Lenoir, going out of grid and crossing US 70 twice.

I try writing the history of highways in North Carolina on Wikipedia.  But honestly I get my sources from NCRoads.com Annex (http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/route-log/index.html) and then back them up with actual historic maps, and records pulled from both NCDOT and AASHTO (because Wikipedia rules say that NCRoads.com is not a valid source of ref).  For reference though, the first piece of interstate opened in North Carolina was I-40 in Winston-Salem in early 1958, known as the East-West Expressway (today Business I-40; source NCDOT Interstate Fact Sheet).  Looking on the I-40 NC page on Wikipedia, it needs more work.  X-(

The 1957 county maps I have show I-40 under construction, from near the McDowell County line to Catawba County line.  They appear completed on the state map in 1960; here are the state maps of interest:  1951 State Map (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTStateTravelMapHistoric/STM1951.pdf), 1960 State Map (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTStateTravelMapHistoric/STM1960.pdf), 1970 State Map (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTStateTravelMapHistoric/STM1970.pdf), 1979-80 State Map (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTStateTravelMapHistoric/STM1980.pdf) and 1990-91 State Map (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTStateTravelMapHistoric/STM1990.pdf).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 24, 2016, 08:44:08 PM
The stub west of Hickory and it's temporary connector road to US 70 is cool. 

Some of the stubs NC built to connect to interstate endings were assigned route numbers although I don't know if they were actually posted (all 3 of these are 1968 county maps):

(http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/1968_64a.jpg)

(http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/1968_70a.jpg)

(http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/1968_23a.jpg)



Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 24, 2016, 09:16:32 PM
The stub west of Hickory and it's temporary connector road to US 70 is cool. 

Some of the stubs NC built to connect to interstate endings were assigned route numbers although I don't know if they were actually posted (all 3 of these are 1968 county maps):

(http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/1968_64a.jpg)

Mike

I drive this stretch of I-40 all the time, I like how over-built the Hildebran interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7092561,-81.4187026,2527m/data=!3m1!1e3) is.  Only interchange besides I-40/US 321 that has lights and the design of the before and after is striking; west is the tight 1950-1960s design and east is late 1970-1980s wide design.  Even the geography (see link) you can tell how it was setup.

The Efland interchange use to have US 70 along it, but later changed, today it just have signs "TO" US 70 and "TO" I-85.  The Candler interchange, you cannot tell it existed like that at all anymore; I was actually surprised when I first saw the stubs like that, but made sense consider how the freeway there was laid out.  Another amusing one is former exit 153 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122872,-80.8427629,891m/data=!3m1!1e3) (closed since 2012), east of Statesville.  Check this streetview from October, 2015 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122076,-80.8452564,3a,75y,126.44h,85.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sizr-f7nq3AUCvCMIfVXbWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), the signage is still there but the ramp is gone.  :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on March 24, 2016, 09:53:27 PM
I remember having to go through Newton and  Conover to  get from one segment of I-40 to the next; my father's family lived in Knoxville, and we lived in Greensboro so we drove what is now US 70 through the area until 1977.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on March 24, 2016, 10:17:09 PM
Supposedly North Carolina is to begin zero-tolerance speed limit enforcement (http://myfox8.com/2016/03/23/speeding-enforcement-crackdown-in-nc-to-target-anyone-going-above-posted-limit/). "Obey the sign or pay the fine."

I have my doubts as to whether that'll actually happen. But since I saw the article, I figured I'd pass it on.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: broadhurst04 on March 24, 2016, 10:23:44 PM
Supposedly North Carolina is to begin zero-tolerance speed limit enforcement (http://myfox8.com/2016/03/23/speeding-enforcement-crackdown-in-nc-to-target-anyone-going-above-posted-limit/). "Obey the sign or pay the fine."

I have my doubts as to whether that'll actually happen. But since I saw the article, I figured I'd pass it on.

I think this is only for the upcoming Easter weekend and a few days after that. I really doubt they're going to ticket people for going 1 MPH over; there aren't enough officers on the payroll to do that, and the tickets would be dismissed in court when the judges see lines circling the building 10 times over.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 24, 2016, 11:20:06 PM
Supposedly North Carolina is to begin zero-tolerance speed limit enforcement (http://myfox8.com/2016/03/23/speeding-enforcement-crackdown-in-nc-to-target-anyone-going-above-posted-limit/). "Obey the sign or pay the fine."

I have my doubts as to whether that'll actually happen. But since I saw the article, I figured I'd pass it on.

I think this is only for the upcoming Easter weekend and a few days after that. I really doubt they're going to ticket people for going 1 MPH over; there aren't enough officers on the payroll to do that, and the tickets would be dismissed in court when the judges see lines circling the building 10 times over.

Agreed.  It's a holiday weekend and the Highway Patrol will already have more troopers for it.  This will last the week or so and then back to normal. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on March 25, 2016, 11:28:53 AM
So are they unveiling the number too, or just the sign? :biggrin:
The signs will simply say "Future Interstate Corridor." I don't think there will be a shield, blank or otherwise, but I'll be interested to see. No word on what number will be requested.
Any number between 42 and 62 would still do, though I'd expect it to be in the 40s, mainly because it would start at or near I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 25, 2016, 09:03:32 PM
Supposedly North Carolina is to begin zero-tolerance speed limit enforcement (http://myfox8.com/2016/03/23/speeding-enforcement-crackdown-in-nc-to-target-anyone-going-above-posted-limit/). "Obey the sign or pay the fine."

I have my doubts as to whether that'll actually happen. But since I saw the article, I figured I'd pass it on.

I could repost by southeast roads post.  It's not the case.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 30, 2016, 01:04:45 PM
"Future Interstate" signs unveiled on the US 70 not-yet-open Goldsboro Bypass:
http://wnct.com/2016/03/30/sign-for-future-u-s-70-interstate-to-be-unveiled-in-goldsboro/

The signs say "Future Interstate" at the top and have a large blank green space where a shield can be placed after a number for the future interstate becomes known.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 30, 2016, 04:01:33 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on March 30, 2016, 08:31:31 PM
"Future Interstate" signs unveiled on the US 70 not-yet-open Goldsboro Bypass:
http://wnct.com/2016/03/30/sign-for-future-u-s-70-interstate-to-be-unveiled-in-goldsboro/

The signs say "Future Interstate" at the top and have a large blank green space where a shield can be placed after a number for the future interstate becomes known.
Don't know, especially given the many years it will take until the project to upgrade US 70 is completed, why the hurry to unveil a sign with a blank space now. Why not wait until May when AASHTO, assuming it get's an application from NCDOT, will decide which number NCDOT can use.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on March 30, 2016, 10:56:00 PM
"Future Interstate" signs unveiled on the US 70 not-yet-open Goldsboro Bypass:
http://wnct.com/2016/03/30/sign-for-future-u-s-70-interstate-to-be-unveiled-in-goldsboro/

The signs say "Future Interstate" at the top and have a large blank green space where a shield can be placed after a number for the future interstate becomes known.
Don't know, especially given the many years it will take until the project to upgrade US 70 is completed, why the hurry to unveil a sign with a blank space now. Why not wait until May when AASHTO, assuming it get's an application from NCDOT, will decide which number NCDOT can use.

Photo op to distract from the recent H.B. 2 controversy?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on March 31, 2016, 07:52:37 AM
"Future Interstate" signs unveiled on the US 70 not-yet-open Goldsboro Bypass:
http://wnct.com/2016/03/30/sign-for-future-u-s-70-interstate-to-be-unveiled-in-goldsboro/ (http://wnct.com/2016/03/30/sign-for-future-u-s-70-interstate-to-be-unveiled-in-goldsboro/)


The signs say "Future Interstate" at the top and have a large blank green space where a shield can be placed after a number for the future interstate becomes known.
Don't know, especially given the many years it will take until the project to upgrade US 70 is completed, why the hurry to unveil a sign with a blank space now. Why not wait until May when AASHTO, assuming it get's an application from NCDOT, will decide which number NCDOT can use.

Photo op to distract from the recent H.B. 2 controversy?


Nah this was planned before all of that broke loose.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 31, 2016, 08:34:37 AM
Photo op in general.  Gives the politicians the ability to "show" that they're actually doing "something" when they're really not...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on March 31, 2016, 10:30:09 AM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.
At this point, we still don't know. I could see this become an eastern I-44, or barring that, I-42, I-46 or I-48. None of the last three numbers are currently in use anywhere, so I think they'd be a good fit there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 31, 2016, 10:48:27 AM
"Future Interstate" signs unveiled on the US 70 not-yet-open Goldsboro Bypass:
http://wnct.com/2016/03/30/sign-for-future-u-s-70-interstate-to-be-unveiled-in-goldsboro/

The signs say "Future Interstate" at the top and have a large blank green space where a shield can be placed after a number for the future interstate becomes known.
Don't know, especially given the many years it will take until the project to upgrade US 70 is completed, why the hurry to unveil a sign with a blank space now. Why not wait until May when AASHTO, assuming it get's an application from NCDOT, will decide which number NCDOT can use.

A few things
 1) this sign is located on the under construction section of the 70 bypass. So - as long as it's not signed anywhere else - a blank sign just is publicity.  This section of 70 will be opened after Aashto in May and when it opens they can place the shield - open sections of 70 can wait till the designation is assigned

2) silly as it is but this sign appears to have the same dimensions as the Future 495 signs on 64 between 540 and Rocky Mount.  They want a 2di but .... When you are looking for clues that's about all you get

3) the sign unveiling was scheduled and pushed by the Super70 commission before anything with HB2. It is strictly for publicity and awareness of the route - check the box stuff. Heck gov. Easley came to a rather uneventful groundbreaking for an expansion of a shingle mfg plant. Just a check the box thing politicos do.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 31, 2016, 12:09:25 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. ASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 31, 2016, 12:22:51 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. AASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."

Does NC 50 not count as a conflict with numbering?  Especially since it is concurrent with US 70 and partly US 401 through Raleigh into Garner
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 31, 2016, 12:33:29 PM
He may have meant no conflict with there being another I-50 somewhere else...?

North Carolina already has I-74/US 74 and I-73/NC 73 without a problem.

There is no rule about state route conflict anyway.  South Carolina has several (20, 126, 185, 385) and only renumbered SC 77 and SC 85 because they crossed into North Carolina and NC renumbered all its original conflicts.  SC 26 and SC 95 were renumbered before the interstate era.

Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 31, 2016, 12:44:23 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. ASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."

Did you mail them - if go great job!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 31, 2016, 01:33:15 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. ASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."

Did you mail them - if go great job!

Yes. Thanks for getting that info.

Also, what does this do for the Norfolk-Raleigh interstate number? :poke: :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 31, 2016, 02:06:51 PM
Also, what does this do for the Norfolk-Raleigh interstate number? :poke: :spin:
If I-50 is accepted by AASHTO, then to fit the grid the US 64/17 route would have to have an even number between 52 and 62. I don't know whether NCDOT is asking for a number for that route on this AASHTO cycle as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 31, 2016, 02:12:36 PM
Also, what does this do for the Norfolk-Raleigh interstate number? :poke: :spin:
If I-50 is accepted by AASHTO, then to fit the grid the US 64/17 route would have to have an even number between 52 and 62. I don't know whether NCDOT is asking for a number for that route on this AASHTO cycle as well.

I wonder if they will even build it in the first place. But, I wouldn't put anything past NCDOT when it comes to new interstates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 31, 2016, 02:17:18 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. AASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."

Does NC 50 not count as a conflict with numbering?  Especially since it is concurrent with US 70 and partly US 401 through Raleigh into Garner

The state could renumber NC 50 to something else, it's not hard for them and they have done this in the past... best example NC 26 --> NC 226.  However, since existing NC 73 and I-73 exist and even cross each other, the current NCDOT may not care.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 31, 2016, 02:32:38 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. AASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."

Does NC 50 not count as a conflict with numbering?  Especially since it is concurrent with US 70 and partly US 401 through Raleigh into Garner

The state could renumber NC 50 to something else, it's not hard for them and they have done this in the past... best example NC 26 --> NC 226.  However, since existing NC 73 and I-73 exist and even cross each other, the current NCDOT may not care.
NC 50 is concurrent with US 70 in Raleigh but not anywhere along the route of the new interstate (NC 50 roughly parallels I-40, not the proposed I-50). The name NC 50 is well known locally and there would probably be strong local opposition to changing it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 31, 2016, 03:26:33 PM
Also, what does this do for the Norfolk-Raleigh interstate number? :poke: :spin:
If I-50 is accepted by AASHTO, then to fit the grid the US 64/17 route would have to have an even number between 52 and 62. I don't know whether NCDOT is asking for a number for that route on this AASHTO cycle as well.

I wonder if they will even build it in the first place. But, I wouldn't put anything past NCDOT when it comes to new interstates.

If they are asking for I-50 for US 70, then I could see NCDOT ask for I-60 along US 64/US 17, because why not.  :bigass:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 31, 2016, 04:08:32 PM
Also, what does this do for the Norfolk-Raleigh interstate number? :poke: :spin:
If I-50 is accepted by AASHTO, then to fit the grid the US 64/17 route would have to have an even number between 52 and 62. I don't know whether NCDOT is asking for a number for that route on this AASHTO cycle as well.

I wonder if they will even build it in the first place. But, I wouldn't put anything past NCDOT when it comes to new interstates.

If they are asking for I-50 for US 70, then I could see NCDOT ask for I-60 along US 64/US 17, because why not.  :bigass:

Lol.  Doesn't US 60 end somewhere near Norfolk though?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 31, 2016, 04:37:12 PM
If they are asking for I-50 for US 70, then I could see NCDOT ask for I-60 along US 64/US 17, because why not.  :bigass:
Lol.  Doesn't US 60 end somewhere near Norfolk though?

US 60 goes through Norfolk to end in Virginia Beach, so yes.  But think how much this would troll the highway fanatics; something else to complain about besides I-238.  North Carolina having both mystical unicorn interstates 50 and 60, neither of which go cross-country.  Fun times!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 31, 2016, 04:46:14 PM
US 60 goes through Norfolk to end in Virginia Beach, so yes.  But think how much this would troll the highway fanatics; something else to complain about besides I-238.  North Carolina having both mystical unicorn interstates 50 and 60, neither of which go cross-country.  Fun times!

Good point. I-60 it is then
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 31, 2016, 04:53:19 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. AASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."

Does NC 50 not count as a conflict with numbering?  Especially since it is concurrent with US 70 and partly US 401 through Raleigh into Garner

The state could renumber NC 50 to something else, it's not hard for them and they have done this in the past... best example NC 26 --> NC 226.  However, since existing NC 73 and I-73 exist and even cross each other, the current NCDOT may not care.
NC 50 is concurrent with US 70 in Raleigh but not anywhere along the route of the new interstate (NC 50 roughly parallels I-40, not the proposed I-50). The name NC 50 is well known locally and there would probably be strong local opposition to changing it.

Note that NC 50 is supposed to have an interchange with the future NC 540 just west of the current I-40/US 70 (and probably future NC 540) interchange.  I guess that is a non-factor if this comes to fruition.

Official word from the Highway 70 Corridor Commission on I-50 from its March 17 meeting (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/Highway%2070%20March%2017.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 31, 2016, 05:45:04 PM
So it's what the 70 corridor folks suggested. Not what NCDOT may actually request.  Thanks for catching that. Hey only a few weeks til it is known
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rover_0 on March 31, 2016, 05:48:56 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. AASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."

Does NC 50 not count as a conflict with numbering?  Especially since it is concurrent with US 70 and partly US 401 through Raleigh into Garner

I'm most partial to I-46 or I-48, as those numbers would be unique and NC-46 and NC-48 are fairly short routes that could be renumbered relatively easily (though there is that issue with VA-46, as it's a continuation of NC-46).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 31, 2016, 06:16:59 PM
So it's what the 70 corridor folks suggested. Not what NCDOT may actually request.  Thanks for catching that. Hey only a few weeks til it is known
That's a good point, although NCDOT is represented on the Corridor Commission and apparently raised no objection. And of course AASHTO can decide on a different number.

The NCDOT Board meets next week, and numbering requests are due to AASHTO later in April.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on March 31, 2016, 07:10:46 PM
Well any way, regardless of number, here is a picture of the blank Future Interstate sign from WITN-7 (our local NBC affilliate's) website.

http://media.graytvinc.com/images/future+interstate.jpg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 31, 2016, 07:53:12 PM
So it's what the 70 corridor folks suggested. Not what NCDOT may actually request.  Thanks for catching that. Hey only a few weeks til it is known
That's a good point, although NCDOT is represented on the Corridor Commission and apparently raised no objection. And of course AASHTO can decide on a different number.

The NCDOT Board meets next week, and numbering requests are due to AASHTO later in April.

Is there much of a history on AASHTO deciding different numbers?  I have a hard time wondering the criteria for them to deny a request and go in a different direction.  (as in make the corridor I-340 instead of a 2di in this scenario)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 31, 2016, 08:04:48 PM
So it's what the 70 corridor folks suggested. Not what NCDOT may actually request.  Thanks for catching that. Hey only a few weeks til it is known
That's a good point, although NCDOT is represented on the Corridor Commission and apparently raised no objection. And of course AASHTO can decide on a different number.

The NCDOT Board meets next week, and numbering requests are due to AASHTO later in April.

Is there much of a history on AASHTO deciding different numbers?  I have a hard time wondering the criteria for them to deny a request and go in a different direction.  (as in make the corridor I-340 instead of a 2di in this scenario)

Not really, most of the time they either say yes or no to a request with explanation and may be asked to resubmit again.  So it will likely be whatever North Carolina goes with and if they don't like, the vote and say try again in the Fall.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 31, 2016, 09:06:21 PM
So it's what the 70 corridor folks suggested. Not what NCDOT may actually request.  Thanks for catching that. Hey only a few weeks til it is known
That's a good point, although NCDOT is represented on the Corridor Commission and apparently raised no objection. And of course AASHTO can decide on a different number.

The NCDOT Board meets next week, and numbering requests are due to AASHTO later in April.

Is there much of a history on AASHTO deciding different numbers?  I have a hard time wondering the criteria for them to deny a request and go in a different direction.  (as in make the corridor I-340 instead of a 2di in this scenario)

Not really, most of the time they either say yes or no to a request with explanation and may be asked to resubmit again.  So it will likely be whatever North Carolina goes with and if they don't like, the vote and say try again in the Fall.

Not sure about 2di to 3di.  But AASHTO did reject 195 and 185.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on April 01, 2016, 01:46:27 PM
It's not what AASHTO decides.
So it's what the 70 corridor folks suggested. Not what NCDOT may actually request.  Thanks for catching that. Hey only a few weeks til it is known
That's a good point, although NCDOT is represented on the Corridor Commission and apparently raised no objection. And of course AASHTO can decide on a different number.

The NCDOT Board meets next week, and numbering requests are due to AASHTO later in April.

Is there much of a history on AASHTO deciding different numbers?  I have a hard time wondering the criteria for them to deny a request and go in a different direction.  (as in make the corridor I-340 instead of a 2di in this scenario)

Not really, most of the time they either say yes or no to a request with explanation and may be asked to resubmit again.  So it will likely be whatever North Carolina goes with and if they don't like, the vote and say try again in the Fall.

Given that it's a potential Interstate we're talking about, it's not what AASHTO decides.  It's what FHWA decides.  AASHTO is just an advisory body here...FHWA has final approval on Interstate route numbers.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 01, 2016, 02:04:31 PM
Per NcDoT a proposed designation number for submission has yet to be decided.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 01, 2016, 03:17:09 PM
Per NcDoT a proposed designation number for submission has yet to be decided.

Renumbering requests for the May AASHTO meeting must be submitted by Monday, April 18 (same deadline as income taxes).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 01, 2016, 05:22:11 PM
I think the corridor is too short for a 2 digit interstate with a 0 at the end. But then again, so is Interstate 30.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on April 02, 2016, 10:58:18 PM

Renumbering requests for the May AASHTO meeting must be submitted by Monday, April 18 (same deadline as income taxes).

Why is the tax deadline not Friday the 15th?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 03, 2016, 12:06:28 AM

Renumbering requests for the May AASHTO meeting must be submitted by Monday, April 18 (same deadline as income taxes).

Why is the tax deadline not Friday the 15th?

Pulled this from the IRS website:
Quote
Why is Tax Day April 18?
The regular tax return filing deadline is April 15. However, due to the Washington D.C. Emancipation Day holiday being observed on April 15 instead of April 16, 2016, Tax Day is on the following Monday.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 15, 2016, 10:37:41 PM
Wanted to give some kudos to the NC State road people, but also a query:  GSV has updated their sat immagry for Morganton, where I am about to move, and it shows the reconstruction as complete at the I-40 exits for US64, Enola Road, and NC 16 interchanges.  Now, as I posted earlier, these were substandard, with the NC16 into being especially bad.  The kudos is in that that traffic signals at the ramps are all decorative curved mast arms in black.  The one big thing that always stood out to me as "trashy" in NC was the leaning telephone pole supports for the traffic signals.  Now query 1: Seeing similar rebuilds in Asheville on 40 with the same mast arm signals, is this anew statewide standard?  Query 2:  There is a big project to widen Old Enola Road/old NC 18 's approach to Morganton to 4 lanes divided, is this a state project, and why was that approach chosen and not the US 64 approach to town?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on April 15, 2016, 11:34:07 PM
Wanted to give some kudos to the NC State road people, but also a query:  GSV has updated their sat immagry for Morganton, where I am about to move, and it shows the reconstruction as complete at the I-40 exits for US64, Enola Road, and NC 16 interchanges.  Now, as I posted earlier, these were substandard, with the NC16 into being especially bad.  The kudos is in that that traffic signals at the ramps are all decorative curved mast arms in black.  The one big thing that always stood out to me as "trashy" in NC was the leaning telephone pole supports for the traffic signals.  Now query 1: Seeing similar rebuilds in Asheville on 40 with the same mast arm signals, is this anew statewide standard?  Query 2:  There is a big project to widen Old Enola Road/old NC 18 's approach to Morganton to 4 lanes divided, is this a state project, and why was that approach chosen and not the US 64 approach to town?

For question 2 I would assume it's due to the new(ish) high school there, can't remember if it's Draughn or Patton.  US 64 south of I-40 really has nothing of interest, and I can't remember much traffic going towards Rutherfordton from when I lived that way.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 16, 2016, 10:25:42 AM
Query 2:  There is a big project to widen Old Enola Road/old NC 18 's approach to Morganton to 4 lanes divided, is this a state project, and why was that approach chosen and not the US 64 approach to town?

Nearly all roads in the state are owned/maintained by NCDOT, so likely yes; they are not the #2 largest highway system in the U.S. for nothing.  As for US 64, that's not as traveled as the NC 18 route from Gaston County.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on April 18, 2016, 11:45:37 AM
Construction on the Monroe Bypass has begun, with a completion date targeted for 2018:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/community/south-charlotte/article31539566.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on April 18, 2016, 12:41:19 PM
Construction on the Monroe Bypass has begun, with a completion date targeted for 2018:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/community/south-charlotte/article31539566.html

Quote
When complete, the 20-mile road, running roughly parallel to N.C. 74 from west of Marshville to the Interstate 485 interchange in Matthews, will allow motorists to bypass the stop-and-go traffic along U.S. 74.
Usually I don't give a shit about getting the shield type wrong, but when you have I-74 and US 74 as different routes, it's more important.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 18, 2016, 06:25:03 PM
Construction on the Monroe Bypass has begun, with a completion date targeted for 2018:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/community/south-charlotte/article31539566.html

Quote
When complete, the 20-mile road, running roughly parallel to N.C. 74 from west of Marshville to the Interstate 485 interchange in Matthews, will allow motorists to bypass the stop-and-go traffic along U.S. 74.
Usually I don't give a shit about getting the shield type wrong, but when you have I-74 and US 74 as different routes, it's more important.

The Monroe Expressway will not be part of I-74; Charlotte and Monroe are well to the west of Rockingham, where I-74 and US 74 become concurrent. As a matter of fact, as far as I can tell no route number has been assigned to the Expressway. The project is listed with "-" as the route number in the NCDOT Construction Progress database.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 18, 2016, 07:23:28 PM
Construction on the Monroe Bypass has begun, with a completion date targeted for 2018:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/community/south-charlotte/article31539566.html

Quote
When complete, the 20-mile road, running roughly parallel to N.C. 74 from west of Marshville to the Interstate 485 interchange in Matthews, will allow motorists to bypass the stop-and-go traffic along U.S. 74.
Usually I don't give a shit about getting the shield type wrong, but when you have I-74 and US 74 as different routes, it's more important.

The Monroe Expressway will not be part of I-74; Charlotte and Monroe are well to the west of Rockingham, where I-74 and US 74 become concurrent. As a matter of fact, as far as I can tell no route number has been assigned to the Expressway. The project is listed with "-" as the route number in the NCDOT Construction Progress database.

The Monroe Bypass will be "US 74 Bypass," it is in several NCDOT documents on its website.  There is also going to be a NC 74, which will exist for a few years in Winston-Salem as the bypass there is being built.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2016, 03:04:56 PM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 20, 2016, 03:25:23 PM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on April 21, 2016, 11:05:49 AM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
What makes it worse is that it will not connect to Cincinnati, due to the lack of interest from the states in between. In a perfect world, I-73 would be I-79, and US 74 would be a I-3x route from Asheville to Wilmington, but we'll never know that now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Katavia on April 21, 2016, 11:34:53 AM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
So basically NC 74 is just a fancy unbuilt unsigned highway?   :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 21, 2016, 03:38:24 PM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
So basically NC 74 is just a fancy unbuilt unsigned highway?   :spin:

Will be, for just a few years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 21, 2016, 03:58:28 PM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
So basically NC 74 is just a fancy unbuilt unsigned highway?   :spin:

Will be, for just a few years.
NCDOT has started construction on a 4 mile segment of the Winston-Salem Beltway (Future I-74) extending from US 421 (aka Business I-40) to US 158. This segment should be completed in 2019. It will be at least five years, maybe longer, before this segment will be connected to the completed portion of I-74. So for at least five years IMO this segment would be signed as NC 74.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 22, 2016, 12:43:42 PM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
What makes it worse is that it will not connect to Cincinnati, due to the lack of interest from the states in between. In a perfect world, I-73 would be I-79, and US 74 would be a I-3x route from Asheville to Wilmington, but we'll never know that now.

Question: at night, do you lose sleep over this?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on April 22, 2016, 01:25:37 PM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
What makes it worse is that it will not connect to Cincinnati, due to the lack of interest from the states in between. In a perfect world, I-73 would be I-79, and US 74 would be a I-3x route from Asheville to Wilmington, but we'll never know that now.

Question: at night, do you lose sleep over this?
No more than over I-99 in PA! :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 22, 2016, 04:02:43 PM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
What makes it worse is that it will not connect to Cincinnati, due to the lack of interest from the states in between. In a perfect world, I-73 would be I-79, and US 74 would be a I-3x route from Asheville to Wilmington, but we'll never know that now.

Question: at night, do you lose sleep over this?
No more than over I-99 in PA! :)

Well judging from your posts - you must never get any sleep then.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 22, 2016, 04:46:50 PM
Interstate 74 in North Carolina is here to stay, just like Interstate 99 in Pennsylvania and New York. Maybe we should stop whining about it and just accept those facts.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 28, 2016, 10:26:26 AM
Any guesses to where this photo was taken: US 64 East of Raleigh.


Personally I think somewhere near the current WakeMed campus.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on April 28, 2016, 10:53:59 AM
Any guesses to where this photo was taken: US 64 East of Raleigh.


Personally I think somewhere near the current WakeMed campus.

Pretty sure it is here:
https://goo.gl/maps/hdZ4ZoBu4pP2

1965 Aerials support this...  current aerials show that a flock of trees has sprung up in front of the building that is visible up the hill in the NCDOT picture...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 28, 2016, 11:22:05 AM
Any guesses to where this photo was taken: US 64 East of Raleigh.


Personally I think somewhere near the current WakeMed campus.

Pretty sure it is here:
https://goo.gl/maps/hdZ4ZoBu4pP2

1965 Aerials support this...  current aerials show that a flock of trees has sprung up in front of the building that is visible up the hill in the NCDOT picture...


So yes just West of Wake Med.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 29, 2016, 05:13:44 PM
NCDOT has completed the formal designation of its Preferred Alternative for the NC 540 beltway south and southeast of Raleigh. No surprise on the route, which was announced earlier this year. Next up is work on the Final Environmental Impact Statement, with construction by the NC Turnpike Authority expected sometime during the 2017-18 fiscal year. Here's the announcement:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12458
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 30, 2016, 04:07:17 PM
How long will it be before we can drive around the entire 67-mile circle?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on April 30, 2016, 04:20:04 PM
How long will it be before we can drive around the entire 67-mile circle?
According to the NCDOT site, the work will be done in 3 phases:
1. N.C. 55 Bypass to U.S. 401
2. U.S. 401 to I-40, and
3. I-40 to U.S. 64/264 Bypass (I-495)
Construction could start in FY 2017, but with the Final EIS still due, I think 2018 is more likely. Assuming they don't start the next phase until the prior one is complete and it takes 2-3 years to complete each section, you're probably looking at 2025 as the earliest possible completion date for the entire loop, which, by the way is 70 miles around, not 67.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 01, 2016, 01:50:05 PM
3. I-40 to U.S. 64/264 Bypass (I-495)

When everything is completed, that interchange with I-40, US 70/Future Interstate and NC 540 is going to be crazy looking.  I wish they already had designs how that interchange will look.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 01, 2016, 03:54:33 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku
I wish they already had designs how that interchange will look.

They do (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/Complete540/maps/C540_6A_PHM.pdf). (Warning:  119mb file)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 01, 2016, 06:33:52 PM
3. I-40 to U.S. 64/264 Bypass (I-495)

When everything is completed, that interchange with I-40, US 70/Future Interstate and NC 540 is going to be crazy looking.  I wish they already had designs how that interchange will look.
Quote from: WashuOtaku
I wish they already had designs how that interchange will look.

They do (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/Complete540/maps/C540_6A_PHM.pdf). (Warning:  119mb file)

Yes, the existing trumpet will stay then you have a cloverleaf and turbine interchange right on top of it plus widening of 40 to this point to six lanes.  It's gonna be fun to watch in 10 years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 01, 2016, 11:15:26 PM
I believe the STIP has the widening of I-40 for construction starting in 2018. So that may precede the NC 540 construction. And it can't come too soon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 04, 2016, 08:59:33 AM
Now that I am living in NC,  I caught an article about the STIP update for Charlotte's MPO.  Widening 85 to 8 lanes down to the 29/74 exit by Kings Mountain and 6 lanes thereafter to the border.  But the big lock surprise: Upgrading Us 74 to interstate standards to Asheville to be redesignated I-426
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on May 04, 2016, 09:23:50 AM
Now that I am living in NC,  I caught an article about the STIP update for Charlotte's MPO.  Widening 85 to 8 lanes down to the 29/74 exit by Kings Mountain and 6 lanes thereafter to the border.  But the big lock surprise: Upgrading Us 74 to interstate standards to Asheville to be redesignated I-426

Do you have a link to the article, by chance? I tried looking for it, but couldn't find anything.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 04, 2016, 09:54:07 AM
You may not have found anything because the referenced projects are not in the Charlotte MPO area.  Gaston, Lincoln, and Cleveland Counties are their own MPO (http://gclmpo.org).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 04, 2016, 10:55:20 AM
Now that I am living in NC,  I caught an article about the STIP update for Charlotte's MPO.  Widening 85 to 8 lanes down to the 29/74 exit by Kings Mountain and 6 lanes thereafter to the border.  But the big lock surprise: Upgrading Us 74 to interstate standards to Asheville to be redesignated I-426

The designation makes sense, as it would be a connector interstate between I-26 and I-85.  However, we do need a source, if possible.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 04, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
All I can find is this discussion, which provides a link to the updated STIP which does include converting US 74 to an interstate west of Shellby but does not specify a number.

Later in this discussion I-426 is speculated as a number...

http://www.city-data.com/forum/charlotte/2569030-new-transportation-projects-submitted-charlotte-region.html

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2016, 04:18:55 PM
How difficult would it be to connect the two freeway segments of US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85? Approximately how much condemning of homes and businesses would be necessary?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 04, 2016, 06:38:48 PM
All I can find is this discussion, which provides a link to the updated STIP which does include converting US 74 to an interstate west of Shellby but does not specify a number.

Later in this discussion I-426 is speculated as a number...

http://www.city-data.com/forum/charlotte/2569030-new-transportation-projects-submitted-charlotte-region.html
The new STIP is in a very early phase, so it's too early to put a lot of stock in this. However, it's a reasonable idea. Since the road is west to east, the I-x26 number is preferable to I-x85, I think.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on May 04, 2016, 08:01:46 PM
Man, NC loves to build(or least say they're going to build)interstates. It should definitely be I-x26 because like someone said the only I-x85 option left that makes sense is I-685 which I'm am just SURE NC has planned eventually for US Route 1 between Raleigh and Henderson.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on May 05, 2016, 09:26:59 AM
Man, NC loves to build(or least say they're going to build)interstates. It should definitely be I-x26 because like someone said the only I-x85 option left that makes sense is I-685 which I'm am just SURE NC has planned eventually for US Route 1 between Raleigh and Henderson.

At the rate they're going, they will announce a new interstate every year  :bigass:. A roadgeek's dream come true.

Although, I would like to see them finish some of these planned interstates before moving on to new ones.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on May 05, 2016, 10:54:42 AM
I'm sure FritzOwl goes out there a lot! :rofl:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 05, 2016, 11:06:20 AM
How difficult would it be to connect the two freeway segments of US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85? Approximately how much condemning of homes and businesses would be necessary?

Construction already started a couple years ago on the northern Shelby bypass, to be called US 74 Bypass.  The routing went through mostly farmland, so not much condemning was done.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 05, 2016, 11:20:06 AM
Man, NC loves to build(or least say they're going to build)interstates. It should definitely be I-x26 because like someone said the only I-x85 option left that makes sense is I-685 which I'm am just SURE NC has planned eventually for US Route 1 between Raleigh and Henderson.

It's not that they love building interstates. It is the freeways they are buildings are typically to Interstate standards.  This allows them to ask for an Interstate designation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 06, 2016, 12:59:12 PM
I found the latest feasibility study (dated July 2015) for upgrading US-117 to Interstate standards and extending I-795 south to I-40 west of Faison in Sampson County. The Wayne County Board of Commissioners favor Alternative 4A for the new terrain route from US-117 south of US-13 near the Mar-Mac area of Goldsboro to Ash Street where the freeway currently ends. The link-up with I-40 is the most interesting part. The original plan is to upgrade the existing I-40 interchange (Exit 355), but Sampson County opposes that alternative because they have a planned industrial site near that exit and they're worried that an upgraded interchange would interfere with that site. Sampson Co. wants I-795 to split off from the US-117 Connector between Faison and I-40 and follow a short, new terrain route and link up with I-40 at a new interchange south of Exit 355. Duplin County and the Eastern Carolina Rural Planning Organization opposes the new terrain I-795 linkup with I-40 because of the farmland that would be destroyed and wants the US-117 Connector and Exit 355 upgraded. I wonder who's gonna win that one...

(PDF is 65 pages and 7.70MB)

EDIT: I found a direct link on NCDOT's website without Google interfering in the previous link.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1304A_Report_2015.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1304A_Report_2015.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 01:23:27 PM
I found the latest feasibility study (dated July 2015) for upgrading US-117 to Interstate standards and extending I-795 south to I-40 west of Faison in Sampson County. The Wayne County Board of Commissioners favor Alternative 4A for the new terrain route from US-117 south of US-13 near the Mar-Mac area of Goldsboro to Ash Street where the freeway currently ends. The link-up with I-40 is the most interesting part. The original plan is to upgrade the existing I-40 interchange (Exit 355), but Sampson County opposes that alternative because they have a planned industrial site near that exit and they're worried that an upgraded interchange would interfere with that site. Sampson Co. wants I-795 to split off from the US-117 Connector between Faison and I-40 and follow a short, new terrain route and link up with I-40 at a new interchange south of Exit 355. Duplin County and the Eastern Carolina Rural Planning Organization opposes the new terrain I-795 linkup with I-40 because of the farmland that would be destroyed and wants the US-117 Connector and Exit 355 upgraded. I wonder who's gonna win that one...

(PDF is 65 pages and 7.70MB)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1304A_Report_2015.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjohc2H8cXMAhVDGj4KHXW4BM0QFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNH-XAyXroPHSFbYAe84BzSiAilILQ (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1304A_Report_2015.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjohc2H8cXMAhVDGj4KHXW4BM0QFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNH-XAyXroPHSFbYAe84BzSiAilILQ)

Great find looking forward to digging into it
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 06, 2016, 04:22:44 PM
Construction on the Monroe Bypass has begun, with a completion date targeted for 2018:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/community/south-charlotte/article31539566.html

Quote
When complete, the 20-mile road, running roughly parallel to N.C. 74 from west of Marshville to the Interstate 485 interchange in Matthews, will allow motorists to bypass the stop-and-go traffic along U.S. 74.
Usually I don't give a shit about getting the shield type wrong, but when you have I-74 and US 74 as different routes, it's more important.

The Monroe Expressway will not be part of I-74; Charlotte and Monroe are well to the west of Rockingham, where I-74 and US 74 become concurrent. As a matter of fact, as far as I can tell no route number has been assigned to the Expressway. The project is listed with "-" as the route number in the NCDOT Construction Progress database.

The Monroe Bypass will be "US 74 Bypass," it is in several NCDOT documents on its website.  There is also going to be a NC 74, which will exist for a few years in Winston-Salem as the bypass there is being built.

Before you made this reply I posted a query on the NCDOT website asking what route number would be assigned to the Monroe Expressway, and in particular whether there was any plan for it to become an interstate highway. They finally answered today, confirming that the Expressway will be US 74 Bypass, and they say there is "no plan" for an interstate designation. This will disappoint Fictional Highway participants, who are hoping for an interstate all the way across NC on US 74.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 06, 2016, 04:44:44 PM
It's not that they love building interstates. It is the freeways they are buildings are typically to Interstate standards.  This allows them to ask for an Interstate designation.

NC has three metropolitan areas that are doing OK economically and a large number of smaller cities that aren't doing so well because they depended historically on tobacco or on furniture manufacturing. To help with economic redevelopment all these smaller cities want to be on freeways, preferably interstates. IMO that's what's driving NC's current craze for new interstate designations.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 06, 2016, 04:56:00 PM
NC has three metropolitan areas that are doing OK economically and a large number of smaller cities that aren't doing so well because they depended historically on tobacco or on furniture manufacturing. To help with economic redevelopment all these smaller cities want to be on freeways, preferably interstates. IMO that's what's driving NC's current craze for new interstate designations.

Could ask Texas that same question.... I-2, I-14, I-69, I-69E, I-69W and I-69C.  :pan:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 06, 2016, 06:08:07 PM
I found the latest feasibility study (dated July 2015) for upgrading US-117 to Interstate standards and extending I-795 south to I-40 west of Faison in Sampson County. The Wayne County Board of Commissioners favor Alternative 4A for the new terrain route from US-117 south of US-13 near the Mar-Mac area of Goldsboro to Ash Street where the freeway currently ends. The link-up with I-40 is the most interesting part. The original plan is to upgrade the existing I-40 interchange (Exit 355), but Sampson County opposes that alternative because they have a planned industrial site near that exit and they're worried that an upgraded interchange would interfere with that site. Sampson Co. wants I-795 to split off from the US-117 Connector between Faison and I-40 and follow a short, new terrain route and link up with I-40 at a new interchange south of Exit 355. Duplin County and the Eastern Carolina Rural Planning Organization opposes the new terrain I-795 linkup with I-40 because of the farmland that would be destroyed and wants the US-117 Connector and Exit 355 upgraded. I wonder who's gonna win that one...

(PDF is 65 pages and 7.70MB)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1304A_Report_2015.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjohc2H8cXMAhVDGj4KHXW4BM0QFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNH-XAyXroPHSFbYAe84BzSiAilILQ (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1304A_Report_2015.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjohc2H8cXMAhVDGj4KHXW4BM0QFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNH-XAyXroPHSFbYAe84BzSiAilILQ)

Great find looking forward to digging into it

Thanks! It's an interesting read.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 06:13:27 PM
It's not that they love building interstates. It is the freeways they are buildings are typically to Interstate standards.  This allows them to ask for an Interstate designation.

NC has three metropolitan areas that are doing OK economically and a large number of smaller cities that aren't doing so well because they depended historically on tobacco or on furniture manufacturing. To help with economic redevelopment all these smaller cities want to be on freeways, preferably interstates. IMO that's what's driving NC's current craze for new interstate designations.

I'd agree with that and where they can they are trying to build to standards so the designations can come with it. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on May 07, 2016, 12:10:51 AM

Before you made this reply I posted a query on the NCDOT website asking what route number would be assigned to the Monroe Expressway, and in particular whether there was any plan for it to become an interstate highway. They finally answered today, confirming that the Expressway will be US 74 Bypass, and they say there is "no plan" for an interstate designation. This will disappoint Fictional Highway participants, who are hoping for an interstate all the way across NC on US 74.

That actually surprised me considering how they put an interstate shield on everything else.

Maybe in a couple of years some politician or very influential people in Monroe or the other towns along that stretch will request an interstate number and then NCDOT will ask for one from the feds.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 07, 2016, 12:30:09 AM

Before you made this reply I posted a query on the NCDOT website asking what route number would be assigned to the Monroe Expressway, and in particular whether there was any plan for it to become an interstate highway. They finally answered today, confirming that the Expressway will be US 74 Bypass, and they say there is "no plan" for an interstate designation. This will disappoint Fictional Highway participants, who are hoping for an interstate all the way across NC on US 74.

That actually surprised me considering how they put an interstate shield on everything else.

Maybe in a couple of years some politician or very influential people in Monroe or the other towns along that stretch will request an interstate number and then NCDOT will ask for one from the feds.

Some of the money to build the Monroe Expressway supposedly comes via a federal loan.  I don't know if that means an interstate shield can therefore not be put on it in the same way as if the federal government paid for any part of the project more directly...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 07, 2016, 07:33:13 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey
Some of the money to build the Monroe Expressway supposedly comes via a federal loan.  I don't know if that means an interstate shield can therefore not be put on it in the same way as if the federal government paid for any part of the project more directly...

Even new toll roads can be added to the Interstate system these days, as long as they're built to Interstate standard, have logical termini for an Interstate route, and are added as non-chargeable Interstate (meaning the local jurisdiction does not get any additional Federal funding for having the route).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 07, 2016, 09:25:52 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey
Some of the money to build the Monroe Expressway supposedly comes via a federal loan.  I don't know if that means an interstate shield can therefore not be put on it in the same way as if the federal government paid for any part of the project more directly...

Even new toll roads can be added to the Interstate system these days, as long as they're built to Interstate standard, have logical termini for an Interstate route, and are added as non-chargeable Interstate (meaning the local jurisdiction does not get any additional Federal funding for having the route).


Right.  So does in the eyes of this rule, does federal loan = federal funding?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 07, 2016, 12:35:13 PM
No.  In this case, "Federal loan" means that the relevant jurisdiction needs to reimburse FHWA back.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on May 10, 2016, 03:05:56 PM
While the Monroe Expressway is getting built, its counterpart to the west, the Garden Parkway, will not be:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article76552132.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 14, 2016, 09:11:18 AM
Since the I-36(?)/US-70 Goldsboro Bypass is scheduled to open next month, I looked to see if there were any plans for the remainder of US-70 in Wayne County that hasn't been upgraded yet. All I found was this feasibility study (dated November 2015) for upgrading US-70 from the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass to Edwards Road just across the Johnston County line near Princeton. There's 3 alternatives, one is upgrading the existing highway, one is north of existing US-70 and the other is south of existing US-70.

(PDF is 71 pages, 3.21MB)

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)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 14, 2016, 12:43:49 PM
Since the I-36(?)/US-70 Goldsboro Bypass is scheduled to open next month, I looked to see if there were any plans for the remainder of US-70 in Wayne County that hasn't been upgraded yet. All I found was this feasibility study (dated November 2015) for upgrading US-70 from the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass to Edwards Road just across the Johnston County line near Princeton. There's 3 alternatives, one is upgrading the existing highway, one is north of existing US-70 and the other is south of existing US-70.

(PDF is 71 pages, 3.21MB)

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)

Thanks for finding this document. At first glance, the North Alternative seems to be the least disruptive of the three possibilities, but it might have environmental problems.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 14, 2016, 03:07:47 PM
Since the I-36(?)/US-70 Goldsboro Bypass is scheduled to open next month, I looked to see if there were any plans for the remainder of US-70 in Wayne County that hasn't been upgraded yet. All I found was this feasibility study (dated November 2015) for upgrading US-70 from the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass to Edwards Road just across the Johnston County line near Princeton. There's 3 alternatives, one is upgrading the existing highway, one is north of existing US-70 and the other is south of existing US-70.

(PDF is 71 pages, 3.21MB)

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)

Thanks for finding this document. At first glance, the North Alternative seems to be the least disruptive of the three possibilities, but it might have environmental problems.

Agreed. I don't think there's much chance of the North Alternative being built because of that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 14, 2016, 03:15:13 PM
Since the I-36(?)/US-70 Goldsboro Bypass is scheduled to open next month, I looked to see if there were any plans for the remainder of US-70 in Wayne County that hasn't been upgraded yet.

I believe it will be signed US 70 Bypass when it opens, the document to ASHTOO is to assign the Interstate Number and they will likely need FHWA approval too before any on-the-ground signage appears.  If they get I-36, I expect FHWA sign-off this Summer and NCDOT submitting in the Fall the first sections of I-36, with signs up by Christmas.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 21, 2016, 07:11:16 AM
Mornin' folks! I wasn't sure if this should go in this thread or the "I-36" thread, so I'll post it in both. 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. You may now return to your regulary scheduled programming. 

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/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on May 21, 2016, 07:54:52 AM
Just in time for the Memorial Day rush to the beach? Or is there a central segment of the highway that won't be open yet?

LGL33L

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 21, 2016, 08:23:36 AM
Just in time for the Memorial Day rush to the beach? Or is there a central segment of the highway that won't be open yet?

LGL33L

No, once this section opens, the entire length of the Goldsboro Bypass will be open. It'll be about 20 miles long from end to end. It's currently open from US-70 just west of NC-581 in the Rosewood area of Goldsboro to Wayne Memorial Drive. The part that will open next week is the eastern tie-in to the existing US-70 near La Grange in Lenoir County.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 21, 2016, 08:23:55 AM
The "central segment" was the first segment to open.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 21, 2016, 08:39:52 AM
The "central segment" was the first segment to open.

December of 2011 to be exact:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/albums/72157628457432307
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 21, 2016, 10:30:46 AM
RIP NC 44, December 2011-May 2016.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 21, 2016, 11:01:54 AM
Just in time for the Memorial Day rush to the beach? Or is there a central segment of the highway that won't be open yet?

LGL33L

No, once this section opens, the entire length of the Goldsboro Bypass will be open. It'll be about 20 miles long from end to end. It's currently open from US-70 just west of NC-581 in the Rosewood area of Goldsboro to Wayne Memorial Drive. The part that will open next week is the eastern tie-in to the existing US-70 near La Grange in Lenoir County.

The new section connects at its eastern end with the existing La Grange Bypass, making a freeway segment of Future I-36 (or I-whatever) about 24 miles long. By my count there will be about 63 miles of freeway complete on Future I-36 including the Clayton Bypass and the segments at Smithfield and New Bern.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 22, 2016, 07:22:17 PM
The "central segment" was the first segment to open.

December of 2011 to be exact:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/albums/72157628457432307

Speaking of the central segment, I never understood why they cut Tommys Road in half between US-117 and NC-111 when that segment was built. Shouldn't it have been kept open for local traffic?  :hmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on May 27, 2016, 12:47:10 PM
Could that instance of I-495 be the shortest lived Interstate number? 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 27, 2016, 04:13:34 PM
Hopefully whenever Google Maps updates to show the newly opened section of the Goldsboro Bypass, they'll FINALLY update the I-795 interchange. The ramp from southbound I-795 to westbound I-42 is still missing from Google Maps despite the fact that it's been open since last October. WNCN tweeted that the people at the ceremony were notifying Google that the road is now open.

PS: Yeah, I know I-42 isn't signed yet, but it's only a matter of time, so I'm calling the bypass I-42. Deal with it.  :bigass:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on May 28, 2016, 05:30:04 AM
Hopefully whenever Google Maps updates to show the newly opened section of the Goldsboro Bypass, they'll FINALLY update the I-795 interchange. The ramp from southbound I-795 to westbound I-42 is still missing from Google Maps despite the fact that it's been open since last October. WNCN tweeted that the people at the ceremony were notifying Google that the road is now open.

PS: Yeah, I know I-42 isn't signed yet, but it's only a matter of time, so I'm calling the bypass I-42. Deal with it.  :bigass:
Agreed.  Dealt with! :clap:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 28, 2016, 02:31:55 PM
Interstate 42 and Interstate 87 in North Carolina? Now I've seen everything.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 28, 2016, 05:00:24 PM
I wonder if NCDOT will get rid of the "US-70 Bypass" designation for the Goldsboro Bypass once NCDOT applies for and gets permission to put up I-42 signs and just have the bypass solely as I-42. Similar to NCDOT taking US-117 off of I-795. There were already two different 70's in Goldsboro (US-70 and Business US-70) and now a third. Personally, I'd rather they do that, not just in Goldsboro, but for all the future bypasses. Leave US-70 for local traffic where possible, just like US-117.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 28, 2016, 05:44:15 PM
Does anyone know how the US 70 signage in Goldsboro is now?

The original bypass was signed as 70 BYPASS.

Is the new bypass now 70 BYPASS and the old bypass 70 with no banner?

Did 70 Business move from the original business route to the original bypass?

Something else?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 28, 2016, 06:12:48 PM
Does anyone know how the US 70 signage in Goldsboro is now?

The original bypass was signed as 70 BYPASS.

Is the new bypass now 70 BYPASS and the old bypass 70 with no banner?

Did 70 Business move from the original business route to the original bypass?

Something else?


Bypass was taken away from US 70 awhile ago.  Only US 117 had a bypass tag.

I was going to drive there this weekend, but nash came a week early, to confirm. However my understanding is that old bypass is US 70 , new bypass - Bypass US 70 and Business 70 remains as is
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on May 29, 2016, 02:45:37 AM
Question:  does anyone out there know if there are any pending NCDOT plans to add shoulders to the Dover-New Bern freeway section(plus any other necessary modifications) in order to bring that segment up to Interstate standards?  It seems to me with the effort that the Super 70 corridor commission put into the process that eventually produced I-42, they would likely be pestering NCDOT on a regular basis to advance such a project to sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 29, 2016, 06:19:38 AM
Question:  does anyone out there know if there are any pending NCDOT plans to add shoulders to the Dover-New Bern freeway section(plus any other necessary modifications) in order to bring that segment up to Interstate standards?  It seems to me with the effort that the Super 70 corridor commission put into the process that eventually produced I-42, they would likely be pestering NCDOT on a regular basis to advance such a project to sooner rather than later.

There's none that I know of. NCDOT seems to be focusing on the tougher spots with traffic congestion like they did with Goldsboro, which had a HUGE bottleneck at the US-70/Grantham Street interchange. That interchange is the "confusing loop" the news articles were referring to. I used to go through there everyday and it was a parking lot at rush hour. I'm guessing NCDOT is saving the easiest for last like the Dover-New Bern section. Since the Dover-New Bern freeway is already 70mph with no traffic lights, NCDOT would have little incentive to upgrade it versus bypassing congested areas like Havelock and Kinston, so my guess is that unless there's a sudden change in NCDOT's priorities, the freeway section will be the last to get upgraded. As far as the Super 70 Corridor Commission goes, they'll likely be more interested in getting I-42 signed in Goldsboro and Clayton ASAP (since they already meet Interstate standards) than they would be upgrading a 70mph freeway. You saw how quickly an I-42 shield was made and displayed at the ribbon-cutting ceremony with little time passed since the announcement of AASHTO's approval. :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 29, 2016, 02:05:38 PM
Question:  does anyone out there know if there are any pending NCDOT plans to add shoulders to the Dover-New Bern freeway section(plus any other necessary modifications) in order to bring that segment up to Interstate standards?  It seems to me with the effort that the Super 70 corridor commission put into the process that eventually produced I-42, they would likely be pestering NCDOT on a regular basis to advance such a project to sooner rather than later.

There's none that I know of. NCDOT seems to be focusing on the tougher spots with traffic congestion like they did with Goldsboro, which had a HUGE bottleneck at the US-70/Grantham Street interchange. That interchange is the "confusing loop" the news articles were referring to. I used to go through there everyday and it was a parking lot at rush hour. I'm guessing NCDOT is saving the easiest for last like the Dover-New Bern section. Since the Dover-New Bern freeway is already 70mph with no traffic lights, NCDOT would have little incentive to upgrade it versus bypassing congested areas like Havelock and Kinston, so my guess is that unless there's a sudden change in NCDOT's priorities, the freeway section will be the last to get upgraded. As far as the Super 70 Corridor Commission goes, they'll likely be more interested in getting I-42 signed in Goldsboro and Clayton ASAP (since they already meet Interstate standards) than they would be upgrading a 70mph freeway. You saw how quickly an I-42 shield was made and displayed at the ribbon-cutting ceremony with little time passed since the announcement of AASHTO's approval. :-D

Much more important now is to get back to work on plans for the Kinston Bypass. NCDOT suspended that project when it didn't make the 2016-2025 STIP.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on May 29, 2016, 02:51:24 PM
 My in-laws live in New Bern and I live in the triangle so mostly I drive 70 on weekends, and find that the congestion has always been worse in Kinston so I wondered why the second Goldsboro bypass got priority over Kinston but I respect that if it is a rush hour bottleneck then Goldsboro did indeed deserve to come first. However Kinston definitely should come next after Havelock.

LGL33L

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 29, 2016, 03:07:18 PM
Question:  does anyone out there know if there are any pending NCDOT plans to add shoulders to the Dover-New Bern freeway section(plus any other necessary modifications) in order to bring that segment up to Interstate standards?  It seems to me with the effort that the Super 70 corridor commission put into the process that eventually produced I-42, they would likely be pestering NCDOT on a regular basis to advance such a project to sooner rather than later.

There's none that I know of. NCDOT seems to be focusing on the tougher spots with traffic congestion like they did with Goldsboro, which had a HUGE bottleneck at the US-70/Grantham Street interchange. That interchange is the "confusing loop" the news articles were referring to. I used to go through there everyday and it was a parking lot at rush hour. I'm guessing NCDOT is saving the easiest for last like the Dover-New Bern section. Since the Dover-New Bern freeway is already 70mph with no traffic lights, NCDOT would have little incentive to upgrade it versus bypassing congested areas like Havelock and Kinston, so my guess is that unless there's a sudden change in NCDOT's priorities, the freeway section will be the last to get upgraded. As far as the Super 70 Corridor Commission goes, they'll likely be more interested in getting I-42 signed in Goldsboro and Clayton ASAP (since they already meet Interstate standards) than they would be upgrading a 70mph freeway. You saw how quickly an I-42 shield was made and displayed at the ribbon-cutting ceremony with little time passed since the announcement of AASHTO's approval. :-D

Much more important now is to get back to work on plans for the Kinston Bypass. NCDOT suspended that project when it didn't make the 2016-2025 STIP.

The Super 70 Corridor Commission will likely be making noise to have the Kinston Bypass squeezed into NCDOT's "To-Do" list now that I-42 will soon be up and running. At least NCDOT had the good sense to eliminate the northern alternatives for the Kinston Bypass. Kinston city leaders wanted the northern alternative by upgrading the C.F. Harvey Parkway, which runs right beside the Global TransPark, and reconnecting with US-70 on the east side of the city. They wanted an interstate directly serving the Global TransPark. Problem is, nobody going to the beach would use the northern alternative since it would take traffic out of their way. Beach-bound traffic would stick to the existing US-70 since it would be shorter. A short, southern shallow bypass using as much of the existing US-70 (upgraded to Interstate standards) as feasibly possible would probably be the best option there, IMO.  :hmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 29, 2016, 03:30:03 PM
My in-laws live in New Bern and I live in the triangle so mostly I drive 70 on weekends, and find that the congestion has always been worse in Kinston so I wondered why the second Goldsboro bypass got priority over Kinston but I respect that if it is a rush hour bottleneck then Goldsboro did indeed deserve to come first. However Kinston definitely should come next after Havelock.

LGL33L

The US-70/Grantham Street interchange in Goldsboro was a big problem at rush hour, but there's also 8 traffic lights, most of them one right after another, between the US-70/Grantham Street interchange and the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass that also added to the headache. I agree that the Kinston Bypass needs to be built once the Havelock Bypass is done.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 29, 2016, 04:01:52 PM
My in-laws live in New Bern and I live in the triangle so mostly I drive 70 on weekends, and find that the congestion has always been worse in Kinston so I wondered why the second Goldsboro bypass got priority over Kinston but I respect that if it is a rush hour bottleneck then Goldsboro did indeed deserve to come first. However Kinston definitely should come next after Havelock.

LGL33L

Here is the inactive web site for the Kinston Bypass project: http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinstonbypass/

The project started in May 2009, and the most recent public hearing was in August 2014. The hope then was that construction could begin in 2023. The suspension means a delay of at least 3 years, more likely 5 years.
Title: [NC] Plans for new Rodanthe Bridge get green light to move forward
Post by: Thing 342 on May 30, 2016, 09:44:01 PM
And now for something completely different:
Quote from: WAVY-TV
Plans for new Rodanthe Bridge get green light to move forward
RODANTHE, N.C. (WAVY) — North Carolina received approval from the federal government Tuesday to move forward with plans to build the new Rodanthe Bridge.

The Federal Highway Administration’s approval of a revised version of the environmental assessment for the Rodanthe Bridge is a key step toward constructing a new, permanent bridge for N.C. 12 in northern Rodanthe, a vital link for the region.

The new bridge will be a long-term solution to keep N.C. 12 open through an area that has dealt with severe storm damage in the past.

The bridge will be at a new location and will include a 2.4 mile long stretch of bridge known as a “jug handle,” which will extend from the southern end of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge over the Pamlico Sound into Rodanthe.

This design wasn’t always the preferred option.

Prior to public meetings in January of 2014, the North Carolina Department of Transportation had proposed building a bridge over top of N.C. 12 through that same stretch.

After hearing public input, NCDOT changed its preferred option for a long-term solution to the alternative: a bridge at a new location.

NCDOT says this design will be better than a bridge along the existing route of N.C. 12 because it minimizes the impact on the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, the ocean shoreline and the community of Rodanthe, while providing safe and reliable access for area residents and Hatteras Island visitors, the agency said.

NCDOT will begin asking the public for comments and opinions on the revised plan. A set of local public meetings will be held this summer to publicize the alternative.

The agency is partnering with the Federal Highway Administration to consider public comments and identify the final selected alternative.

The project is estimated to cost between $179.3 million and $198.3 million. It is part of a bigger plan to replace the Bonner Bridge over the Oregon Inlet, which the governor broke ground on March of this year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 31, 2016, 10:23:10 AM
The recently opened section of the Goldsboro Bypass from Wayne Memorial Drive to US-70 near La Grange is now showing up on Google Maps, but Google labeled it as NC-44. The ramp from southbound I-795 to westbound US-70 Bypass is still missing from the map.  :pan:
Title: Re: [NC] Plans for new Rodanthe Bridge get green light to move forward
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 31, 2016, 02:52:39 PM
And now for something completely different:
Quote from: WAVY-TV
Plans for new Rodanthe Bridge get green light to move forward
RODANTHE, N.C. (WAVY) — North Carolina received approval from the federal government Tuesday to move forward with plans to build the new Rodanthe Bridge.

The new bridge will be a long-term solution to keep N.C. 12 open through an area that has dealt with severe storm damage in the past.

The bridge will be at a new location and will include a 2.4 mile long stretch of bridge known as a “jug handle,” which will extend from the southern end of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge over the Pamlico Sound into Rodanthe.

For those of us who've been going to the Outer Banks for years (since the 1970s in my case) this is a really big deal. It's the first official recognition that the decades-long effort to keep NC 12 on the barrier islands is doomed to failure long term, and radical solutions will be needed to keep the OBX communities connected.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 02, 2016, 02:19:15 PM
Breaking news: the NC House has voted to cancel the contract for the I-77 toll lanes.
http://www.wral.com/house-tells-i-77-toll-road-contractor-to-hit-the-road/15747591/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 02, 2016, 02:45:09 PM
How accurate are the claims that this project is unneeded?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 02, 2016, 02:49:58 PM
Breaking news: the NC House has voted to cancel the contract for the I-77 toll lanes.
http://www.wral.com/house-tells-i-77-toll-road-contractor-to-hit-the-road/15747591/

Interesting part in the article.

Quote
Rep. Larry Pittman, R-Cabarrus, tried to tack an amendment onto the bill that would preclude any future toll roads in North Carolina, but House Speaker Tim Moore ruled it out of order.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 02, 2016, 06:02:31 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster
How accurate are the claims that this project is unneeded?

[citation needed]
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on June 02, 2016, 07:21:35 PM
Breaking news: the NC House has voted to cancel the contract for the I-77 toll lanes.
http://www.wral.com/house-tells-i-77-toll-road-contractor-to-hit-the-road/15747591/


Good. The company itself is trouble. Look at what happened to TX Toll Road 130. The contract was trouble from the beginning.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 04, 2016, 08:38:35 AM
I forgot to mention this before, but utility relocation work on US-117 at the intersections of Oberry Road in Dudley and Country Club Road just north of Mount Olive is set to begin soon, if it hasn't begun already. It's being done in preparation for upgrading those intersections to interchanges in order to help bring US-117 to Interstate standards for the extension of I-795 from Goldsboro to I-40 near Faison. The Oberry Road intersection currently has the only traffic light on US-117 between the Mar-Mac area of southern Goldsboro and I-40. I believe NCDOT will also widen the shoulders on US-117 in the vicinity of those two interchanges as part of the projects. The actual construction is set to begin sometime next year.

This was the only article I could find that mentions the utility relocation. I'm not currently a subscriber to the News-Argus (there's a paywall), but in case some of you are, here ya go. The article is dated April 19. At least the first paragraph gives the gist of it for the poor folk like me.  :awesomeface:

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2016/04/19/us_117_utility_work_to_begin/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2016/04/19/us_117_utility_work_to_begin/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 04, 2016, 04:32:42 PM
My in-laws live in New Bern and I live in the triangle so mostly I drive 70 on weekends, and find that the congestion has always been worse in Kinston so I wondered why the second Goldsboro bypass got priority over Kinston but I respect that if it is a rush hour bottleneck then Goldsboro did indeed deserve to come first. However Kinston definitely should come next after Havelock.

LGL33L

The US-70/Grantham Street interchange in Goldsboro was a big problem at rush hour, but there's also 8 traffic lights, most of them one right after another, between the US-70/Grantham Street interchange and the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass that also added to the headache. I agree that the Kinston Bypass needs to be built once the Havelock Bypass is done.

Well considering Kinston is the only town left on 70 that really needs to be bypassed - kinda easy to say that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 04, 2016, 05:37:02 PM
My in-laws live in New Bern and I live in the triangle so mostly I drive 70 on weekends, and find that the congestion has always been worse in Kinston so I wondered why the second Goldsboro bypass got priority over Kinston but I respect that if it is a rush hour bottleneck then Goldsboro did indeed deserve to come first. However Kinston definitely should come next after Havelock.

LGL33L

The US-70/Grantham Street interchange in Goldsboro was a big problem at rush hour, but there's also 8 traffic lights, most of them one right after another, between the US-70/Grantham Street interchange and the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass that also added to the headache. I agree that the Kinston Bypass needs to be built once the Havelock Bypass is done.

Well considering Kinston is the only town left on 70 that really needs to be bypassed - kinda easy to say that.

Welp, we certainly walked into that one!  :pan:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 04, 2016, 07:23:47 PM
The lastest I-87 blog from the Raleigh RTA had some interesting points. I expect the Super 70 Corridor Commission will be putting the same pressure on NCDOT to have I-42 shields go up in Clayton and Goldsboro. I guess the RTA didn't get the memo that NCDOT already said they would seek to have interstate standard sections of both corridors added to the Interstate system. I think AASHTO's next meeting this fall will be worth looking forward to.

http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/freeways/interstate-87/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/freeways/interstate-87/)

Quote
The RTA business coalition will seek the timely installation of “Interstate 87” signage from its southern terminus at I-40 (exit 301) in southeast Raleigh to at least I-540 along the US 64/264 (currently I-495) corridor east of Raleigh.

The RTA will also seek the timely installation of “Future I-87” signage along the remaining portions of the existing “Future I-495” corridor west of I-95 and the corridor segments along US 64 and US 17 east of I-95.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 05, 2016, 08:23:22 PM
I just thought of something. When US-117 between Goldsboro and I-40 near Faison was signed into law as a future interstate, was the I-795 designation itself written into law or will NCDOT have to get a waiver from FHWA to keep I-795 as-is without renumbering to an even number once US-117 is upgraded and the area between Mar-Mac and Ash Street bypassed? Everything I've read from NCDOT indicates that they intend on keeping the I-795 designation once it's extended, but I don't know if they'll need a waiver from FHWA or not.  :hmmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on June 05, 2016, 11:04:00 PM
...an odd first digit can end at another Interstate...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 05, 2016, 11:25:14 PM
I just thought of something. When US-117 between Goldsboro and I-40 near Faison was signed into law as a future interstate, was the I-795 designation itself written into law or will NCDOT have to get a waiver from FHWA to keep I-795 as-is without renumbering to an even number once US-117 is upgraded and the area between Mar-Mac and Ash Street bypassed? Everything I've read from NCDOT indicates that they intend on keeping the I-795 designation once it's extended, but I don't know if they'll need a waiver from FHWA or not.  :hmmm:
An odd number can run between two interstates, however, I believe the FHWA would prefer an even number. In the case of I-540, NCDOT did ask for and got a waiver from the FHWA so as not to have to renumber it I-640 when the I-495 designation was approved and that route was now to run between two interstates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 06, 2016, 12:24:30 AM
The I-85 reconstruction in the northern part of the state is moving along. The northbound side is completely shut down and everything is in a cattle shoot setup on the southbound side from the VA/NC state line to just shy of the Vance/Warren County line. There is additional work at the US-1 interchange (Exit 218), but exited off before so I wasn't able to get a good look at what was going on there. Was it in the plans to reconfigure that left exit?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on June 06, 2016, 12:44:29 AM
An odd number can run between two interstates, however, I believe the FHWA would prefer an even number. In the case of I-540, NCDOT did ask for and got a waiver from the FHWA so as not to have to renumber it I-640 when the I-495 designation was approved and that route was now to run between two interstates.

Speaking of 540, once that beltway is done, will they make the whole thing I-540? Not that it's needed or anything, just curious.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 06, 2016, 08:35:38 AM
An odd number can run between two interstates, however, I believe the FHWA would prefer an even number. In the case of I-540, NCDOT did ask for and got a waiver from the FHWA so as not to have to renumber it I-640 when the I-495 designation was approved and that route was now to run between two interstates.
Speaking of 540, once that beltway is done, will they make the whole thing I-540? Not that it's needed or anything, just curious.

No.  I-540 will continue as it exists as seen today, it will not be extended or renumbered.  The new sections of the beltway will be signed NC 540 because those too will be toll roads.  NC 540 will exist as long as the toll roads remain, which is 30 years after completion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 06, 2016, 08:52:46 AM
However, with recent changes in Federal law regarding toll roads and Interstates, there is now nothing stopping NCDOT from requesting that I-540 be extended along the TriEx.  This did not exist when the first segments of NC 540 opened south of I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 06, 2016, 12:05:37 PM
However, with recent changes in Federal law regarding toll roads and Interstates, there is now nothing stopping NCDOT from requesting that I-540 be extended along the TriEx.  This did not exist when the first segments of NC 540 opened south of I-40.

Possibly, but I believe NCDOT will keep this setup because it breaks the difference clearly between toll and non-tolled section. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on June 06, 2016, 03:56:24 PM
The I-85 reconstruction in the northern part of the state is moving along. The northbound side is completely shut down and everything is in a cattle shoot setup on the southbound side from the VA/NC state line to just shy of the Vance/Warren County line. There is additional work at the US-1 interchange (Exit 218), but exited off before so I wasn't able to get a good look at what was going on there. Was it in the plans to reconfigure that left exit?

No, the project is a bridge/pavement rehab project, so the configuration remained the same.  This is TIP project I-0914BA; the section north (to the state line) is BB.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 06, 2016, 04:00:02 PM
I just thought of something. When US-117 between Goldsboro and I-40 near Faison was signed into law as a future interstate, was the I-795 designation itself written into law or will NCDOT have to get a waiver from FHWA to keep I-795 as-is without renumbering to an even number once US-117 is upgraded and the area between Mar-Mac and Ash Street bypassed? Everything I've read from NCDOT indicates that they intend on keeping the I-795 designation once it's extended, but I don't know if they'll need a waiver from FHWA or not.  :hmmm:

Do we have a misunderstanding here? My belief was that the even first digit indicates that the route will loop, that is, it will return to the parent; the odd first digit indicates that the route will not return to the parent, whether it ends at another interstate or not. As long ago as 1976, I-35W in Kansas was renumbered I-135, not I-235; it connects I-35 to I-70. I was surprised that NC got I-495 to run from I-95 to I-540; I thought that number should have had an odd first digit. If I'm right about this, there's no problem with I-795 when it is extended.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 06, 2016, 04:30:49 PM
I just thought of something. When US-117 between Goldsboro and I-40 near Faison was signed into law as a future interstate, was the I-795 designation itself written into law or will NCDOT have to get a waiver from FHWA to keep I-795 as-is without renumbering to an even number once US-117 is upgraded and the area between Mar-Mac and Ash Street bypassed? Everything I've read from NCDOT indicates that they intend on keeping the I-795 designation once it's extended, but I don't know if they'll need a waiver from FHWA or not.  :hmmm:

Do we have a misunderstanding here? My belief was that the even first digit indicates that the route will loop, that is, it will return to the parent; the odd first digit indicates that the route will not return to the parent, whether it ends at another interstate or not. As long ago as 1976, I-35W in Kansas was renumbered I-135, not I-235; it connects I-35 to I-70. I was surprised that NC got I-495 to run from I-95 to I-540; I thought that number should have had an odd first digit. If I'm right about this, there's no problem with I-795 when it is extended.

Apparently. I always thought that a 3-di that either connected to another interstate or reconnected with it's parent had to have an even 1st digit, which is why NCDOT asked FHWA for a waiver to keep I-540 as-is once I-495 was signed on the Knightdale Bypass and a 3-di that didn't connect to another interstate or reconnect with it's parent had to have an odd 1st digit. If I remember correctly, NCDOT submitted I-185 to AASHTO for US-52 from I-85 in Lexington to I-40 in Winston-Salem but it got rejected because of the odd 1st digit and was subsequently changed to Future I-285. I'm aware of odd-numbered 3-di's elsewhere that reconnected with their parents or connected with another interstate but I figured they were either grandfathered, waivered by FHWA, or written into law. I don't have a problem with I-795 keeping it's designation (I actually prefer it that way).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 06, 2016, 04:54:45 PM
Bruce Siceloff - aka the Road Worrier - wrote his last column for the N&O two weeks ago.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/road-worrier-blog/article79284317.html

He and his wife received Fulbright scholar grants to teach in Montenegro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 06, 2016, 06:33:55 PM
I just thought of something. When US-117 between Goldsboro and I-40 near Faison was signed into law as a future interstate, was the I-795 designation itself written into law or will NCDOT have to get a waiver from FHWA to keep I-795 as-is without renumbering to an even number once US-117 is upgraded and the area between Mar-Mac and Ash Street bypassed? Everything I've read from NCDOT indicates that they intend on keeping the I-795 designation once it's extended, but I don't know if they'll need a waiver from FHWA or not.  :hmmm:

Do we have a misunderstanding here? My belief was that the even first digit indicates that the route will loop, that is, it will return to the parent; the odd first digit indicates that the route will not return to the parent, whether it ends at another interstate or not. As long ago as 1976, I-35W in Kansas was renumbered I-135, not I-235; it connects I-35 to I-70. I was surprised that NC got I-495 to run from I-95 to I-540; I thought that number should have had an odd first digit. If I'm right about this, there's no problem with I-795 when it is extended.

The current rules are thus:  If its Odd, it's a spur; if its even, then it is either a loop or connector.  I-495 was a connector, between I-440 and I-540 and eventually I-95.  Future I-285 is also a connector between I-85 and I-40.  If its odd and connects to another interstate, it could be renumbered or be waived for various reasons.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 06, 2016, 10:07:18 PM
The current rules are thus:  If its Odd, it's a spur; if its even, then it is either a loop or connector.  I-495 was a connector, between I-440 and I-540 and eventually I-95.  Future I-285 is also a connector between I-85 and I-40.  If its odd and connects to another interstate, it could be renumbered or be waived for various reasons.
I can think of at least three cases of spurs that have become (or are becoming) connectors:

I-180 in PA (connects I-80 to Future I-99)
I-155 in TN (connects I-55 to Future I-69)
I-310 in LA (connects I-10 to Future I-49)

As far as I know, there's no move to renumber any of these.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on June 07, 2016, 03:39:41 AM
Also, I-380 in Pennsylvania connecting I-80 to I-84 (and I-81).  To me this is a spur route which happens to connect to another interstate--which is not I-80.  Just because the plan is for this freeway to connect to I-40 does not necessarily mean that I-795 would have to change to I-695 or I-895.  I-795 effectively acts as a spur from I-95.  In the plan, I-795 would not return to I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 07, 2016, 07:51:56 AM
Also, I-380 in Pennsylvania connecting I-80 to I-84 (and I-81).  To me this is a spur route which happens to connect to another interstate--which is not I-80.  Just because the plan is for this freeway to connect to I-40 does not necessarily mean that I-795 would have to change to I-695 or I-895.  I-795 effectively acts as a spur from I-95.  In the plan, I-795 would not return to I-95.

Agreed, which is why we are saying words like "could" and "may" here.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 07, 2016, 10:15:52 PM
Is there a site that shows future road improvement proposals in NC? Having driven from Hickory to Lenoir several times in the last week, the corridor really seems to need freewayization, does the ADT justify that?  Also, as a cool FYI, I was in a retaurant on Sunday, AJ's that had lots of pics of a 1950's era rotary at what is now the 321/64/90/18 intersection.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 08, 2016, 06:55:51 AM
Some stuff is here - http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/projectsstudies/default.html?Region=*&Counties=*
Interactive map of their 10-year STIP - https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/State-Transportation-Improvement-Program.aspx
Looks like some longer range stuff can be accessed here - https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/Comprehensive-Transportation-Plans.aspx?county=Caldwell

It appears they want to widen 321 to 6 lanes and there is a superstreet conversion project near Lenoir in the STIP...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 08, 2016, 02:35:53 PM
Some stuff is here - http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/projectsstudies/default.html?Region=*&Counties=*
Interactive map of their 10-year STIP - https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/State-Transportation-Improvement-Program.aspx
Looks like some longer range stuff can be accessed here - https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/Comprehensive-Transportation-Plans.aspx?county=Caldwell

It appears they want to widen 321 to 6 lanes and there is a superstreet conversion project near Lenoir in the STIP...

Thank you, I will scope that out.  Just an FYI, there has been HUGE surveying activity on I-40 between at least exit 116 (where I exit to go home from my new job) and exit 125 where a 6 lane section from the east and Conover ends.  With a massive EB traffic jam Sunday for a minimum of 8 miles or more Sunday evening with tourists coming back from Asheville, and improvement out here will be big.

OT, Damm the economy here is sooooo much better than in California.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 08, 2016, 04:23:46 PM
Thank you, I will scope that out.  Just an FYI, there has been HUGE surveying activity on I-40 between at least exit 116 (where I exit to go home from my new job) and exit 125 where a 6 lane section from the east and Conover ends.  With a massive EB traffic jam Sunday for a minimum of 8 miles or more Sunday evening with tourists coming back from Asheville, and improvement out here will be big.

OT, Damm the economy here is sooooo much better than in California.

This project (I-0911) was added to the STIP last fall on a hurry-up basis with construction to start in fiscal 2017-18. I believe this explains the sudden surveying activity.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 14, 2016, 04:38:32 PM
I noticed on the Raleigh RTA's website and the News & Observer that US-1 from I-540 north to NC-98/Durham Road in Wake Forest is slated to be upgraded to a freeway.

http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/)

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html)

Quote
• Convert Raleigh’s Capital Boulevard (U.S. 1) to a freeway between the northern 540 Outer Loop and N.C. 98 at Wake Forest. A freeway conversion also is planned for South Miami Boulevard between T.W. Alexander Drive and Lynn Road in Durham. Other clogged intersections in Durham and Wake counties will be upgraded to freeway-style interchanges.

I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?  :poke:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on June 14, 2016, 05:27:40 PM

I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?  :poke:

100%?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 14, 2016, 06:26:45 PM
Let's see them get it done first.  There's *A LOT* of bulldozing that would be involved along North Capital.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 14, 2016, 06:48:54 PM
You'd think they would have at least done some corridor preservation if that was the long term plan. All they keep doing is adding lights in northern Wake to US-1 and now its spreading into Franklin County.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 14, 2016, 09:49:20 PM
I want to thank you for the link to the state's planned road improvements.  I saw some very aggressive projects on a "4.0" list.  Some seemed a bit overkill like widening US 64 to 4 lanes divided from Morganton to Lenoir, but I can see that being needed in 15 years.  As part of what I mentioned upthread, lots more surveying at the Icard exit, where I enter and exit 40 for my work commute.  The 40 ramps are part of a 5 way intersection wherin a busy access road serving 3 fast food establishements and the local PO also make up a leg.  I would look forward to any improvement allowing Miller Bridge Road a more free flowing entrance onto 40.  One other item that throgh me for a loop were upgrades to Causby Road, Exit 96, while not listing the much more substandard and busier Jamestown Road, Exit 100.  I think it may be political:  Seems like there is a Causby business in every commercial segment around here plus the mayor of Glen alpine seems to have an unusual amount of pull in Raleigh.

Now that I am aware of the Hickory MPO, I will endeavor to attend meetings and push for a small local project that is part of my daily commute:  NC 18 and Sugarloaf Road is a disaster waiting to happen and could use at minimum a realignment.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on June 14, 2016, 10:15:40 PM
Would you save much drive time from Raleigh to DC if you make US 1 a freeway up through the I-85 intersection in Henderson? Connecting Raleigh to Richmond and DC in a more direct manner than US 64/I-95 might be worthwhile but I'm not sure if you save much time by doing so.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jwolfer on June 14, 2016, 11:08:03 PM
I noticed on the Raleigh RTA's website and the News & Observer that US-1 from I-540 north to NC-98/Durham Road in Wake Forest is slated to be upgraded to a freeway.

http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/)

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html)

Quote
• Convert Raleigh’s Capital Boulevard (U.S. 1) to a freeway between the northern 540 Outer Loop and N.C. 98 at Wake Forest. A freeway conversion also is planned for South Miami Boulevard between T.W. Alexander Drive and Lynn Road in Durham. Other clogged intersections in Durham and Wake counties will be upgraded to freeway-style interchanges.

I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?  :poke:
How I-38? It would fit right in with a mostly east-west I-87
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 14, 2016, 11:44:09 PM
I noticed on the Raleigh RTA's website and the News & Observer that US-1 from I-540 north to NC-98/Durham Road in Wake Forest is slated to be upgraded to a freeway.

http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/)

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html)

Quote
• Convert Raleigh’s Capital Boulevard (U.S. 1) to a freeway between the northern 540 Outer Loop and N.C. 98 at Wake Forest. A freeway conversion also is planned for South Miami Boulevard between T.W. Alexander Drive and Lynn Road in Durham. Other clogged intersections in Durham and Wake counties will be upgraded to freeway-style interchanges.

I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?  :poke:
How I-38? It would fit right in with a mostly east-west I-87
Three projects to upgrade US 1 to a freeway between I-540 and NC 98 are listed in the table of preliminary projects eligible to be included in the 2018-2027 STIP. They all have relatively high project scores (between 60 and 70/100 for State Mobility and 49-50/70 for Regional Mobility) that would increase the odds they make it into, at least, the Draft STIP due out in January. The downside may be the cost which is estimated to be about $375 million.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 15, 2016, 03:37:10 AM
Would you save much drive time from Raleigh to DC if you make US 1 a freeway up through the I-85 intersection in Henderson? Connecting Raleigh to Richmond and DC in a more direct manner than US 64/I-95 might be worthwhile but I'm not sure if you save much time by doing so.

According to Google Maps, from the center of Raleigh to the center of Richmond using US-1/I-85 is 155 miles. Using US-64/I-95 is 170 miles. Right now, US-64/I-95 would be the better option since there are no traffic lights once you get on US-64. US-1 still has traffic lights, so the drive time wouldn't be better than US-64/I-95 even though it's 15 miles shorter. If US-1 was upgraded between I-540 and I-85, then US-1/I-85 would be a time-saver. When I-495 came about, I never really bought the argument that it would connect Raleigh to the northeast (other than east and southeast Raleigh, which is better served by US-64/I-95) when upgrading US-1 would do a better job at that. Upgrading US-64 to connect to Hampton Roads is a more logical argument for that route. If NCDOT actually does decide to upgrade US-1 all the way to I-85, I wouldn't be opposed to I-685 if NCDOT decides to go for it. All of the other even-numbered I-x85's are already taken.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 15, 2016, 04:02:44 AM
 
I noticed on the Raleigh RTA's website and the News & Observer that US-1 from I-540 north to NC-98/Durham Road in Wake Forest is slated to be upgraded to a freeway.

http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/)

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html)

Quote
• Convert Raleigh’s Capital Boulevard (U.S. 1) to a freeway between the northern 540 Outer Loop and N.C. 98 at Wake Forest. A freeway conversion also is planned for South Miami Boulevard between T.W. Alexander Drive and Lynn Road in Durham. Other clogged intersections in Durham and Wake counties will be upgraded to freeway-style interchanges.

I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?  :poke:
How I-38? It would fit right in with a mostly east-west I-87

(https://jlobdell76.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/what.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 15, 2016, 05:52:46 AM
Would you save much drive time from Raleigh to DC if you make US 1 a freeway up through the I-85 intersection in Henderson? Connecting Raleigh to Richmond and DC in a more direct manner than US 64/I-95 might be worthwhile but I'm not sure if you save much time by doing so.

According to Google Maps, from the center of Raleigh to the center of Richmond using US-1/I-85 is 155 miles. Using US-64/I-95 is 170 miles. Right now, US-64/I-95 would be the better option since there are no traffic lights once you get on US-64. US-1 still has traffic lights, so the drive time wouldn't be better than US-64/I-95 even though it's 15 miles shorter. If US-1 was upgraded between I-540 and I-85, then US-1/I-85 would be a time-saver. When I-495 came about, I never really bought the argument that it would connect Raleigh to the northeast (other than east and southeast Raleigh, which is better served by US-64/I-95) when upgrading US-1 would do a better job at that. Upgrading US-64 to connect to Hampton Roads is a more logical argument for that route. If NCDOT actually does decide to upgrade US-1 all the way to I-85, I wouldn't be opposed to I-685 if NCDOT decides to go for it. All of the other even-numbered I-x85's are already taken.

I had an internship in NC one summer, and to go back to VA on weekends I would connect to I-85 from NC 50 and US 15 (via Creedmoor) due to hearing about how bad US 1 traffic is.  Maybe a freeway corridor on US 1 would also help relieve NC 50 slightly.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 15, 2016, 06:52:01 AM
Would you save much drive time from Raleigh to DC if you make US 1 a freeway up through the I-85 intersection in Henderson? Connecting Raleigh to Richmond and DC in a more direct manner than US 64/I-95 might be worthwhile but I'm not sure if you save much time by doing so.

According to Google Maps, from the center of Raleigh to the center of Richmond using US-1/I-85 is 155 miles. Using US-64/I-95 is 170 miles. Right now, US-64/I-95 would be the better option since there are no traffic lights once you get on US-64. US-1 still has traffic lights, so the drive time wouldn't be better than US-64/I-95 even though it's 15 miles shorter. If US-1 was upgraded between I-540 and I-85, then US-1/I-85 would be a time-saver. When I-495 came about, I never really bought the argument that it would connect Raleigh to the northeast (other than east and southeast Raleigh, which is better served by US-64/I-95) when upgrading US-1 would do a better job at that. Upgrading US-64 to connect to Hampton Roads is a more logical argument for that route. If NCDOT actually does decide to upgrade US-1 all the way to I-85, I wouldn't be opposed to I-685 if NCDOT decides to go for it. All of the other even-numbered I-x85's are already taken.

I had an internship in NC one summer, and to go back to VA on weekends I would connect to I-85 from NC 50 and US 15 (via Creedmoor) due to hearing about how bad US 1 traffic is.  Maybe a freeway corridor on US 1 would also help relieve NC 50 slightly.

It really depends on where you live in Wake County.  If you live in east wake, like I do, you take 64 to 95.  North Raleigh and North Wake (Wake Forest) is US 1 on Nc 50 to 85.  Western wake is either 70 or Nc 147 to 15/501 - later the east end connector) to 85.

The issue with one isn't the entire length it's from Wake Forest south.  South of New Falls of Neuse/Main St (US 1A) to 540 and then 440 being the worst. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 15, 2016, 08:47:59 AM
I noticed on the Raleigh RTA's website and the News & Observer that US-1 from I-540 north to NC-98/Durham Road in Wake Forest is slated to be upgraded to a freeway.

http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/)

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html)

Quote
• Convert Raleigh’s Capital Boulevard (U.S. 1) to a freeway between the northern 540 Outer Loop and N.C. 98 at Wake Forest. A freeway conversion also is planned for South Miami Boulevard between T.W. Alexander Drive and Lynn Road in Durham. Other clogged intersections in Durham and Wake counties will be upgraded to freeway-style interchanges.

I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?  :poke:

It's been slated to become a freeway since at least the 90s.  And to Adam's & njroadfan's point - there would be a lot of row going on because much of the corridor is not preserved - there isn't many if at all protected areas along US 1.  There's also the possibility of the Southeast High Speed Rail along the same corridor. More of if it gets funded.  The somewhat abandoned rail line parallel to 1 will be part of the Richmond to Raleigh route.

The intersections that need it the most (honestly they all do) is (going south to North) Durant.  There's no interchange corridor protection here.  The SW corner of the interchange - though wooded and vacant - is up for sale and zoned commercial. Thorton Road though you can't build to the west (Malinkrodt has a large pharma plant there) so you have to tear down or come awfully close to the existing Sheetz. Burlington Mills Road - again no corridor preservation for an interchange. And obviously S Main.

Gresham Lake Road can be closed as that traffic can be diverted onto Capital Hills Drive go behind all of the Leith Dealerships and tie into Durant.  Sharon Farms Road can also be closed as that traffic can go to Burlington Mills Road.

Some form of service roads will have to be built and some existing ones can be utilized.  Would a new bridge over the Neuse River be needed?

As you can see - upgrading to a needed freeway from 540 to S. main (Us 1A) isn't going to be an easy task.  They really should have ( and granted hindsight is 20/20) steps to preserve the corridor 20 years ago.