North Carolina

[CanesFan27]

Fewer direction signs are probably common, I never really noticed that some weren't part of the signs.

NC581 (and NC561) begin in Louisburg, where I grew up.

I like the simple diamond shield for state highways. I've never cared for the outline of state's shapes.

NC at one time used the symbol for UNC Chapel Hill, the N and C on top of one another was at one time the state highway shield, in the 30s, 40s, maybe 50s.

For the use of the interlocked NC and UNC, they are not completely the same.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2024/01/highway-shields-and-university-logos.html

[bob7374]

Based on public comments, NCDOT has revised its proposal for modernizing the Pinehurst Traffic Circle to a simpler design with traffic signals. A public meeting about the new recommended final design is to be held on October 28:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2025/2025-10-20-pinehurst-traffic-circle-final-design.aspx

[The Ghostbuster]

The proposed configuration of the reconstructed Pinehurst Traffic Circle is the most unusual design I have ever seen. A traffic circle with traffic lights? I can't say I've ever seen that before. Are there any other traffic circles like the one proposed in Pinehurst?

[jdunlop]

The proposed configuration of the reconstructed Pinehurst Traffic Circle is the most unusual design I have ever seen. A traffic circle with traffic lights? I can't say I've ever seen that before. Are there any other traffic circles like the one proposed in Pinehurst?

NJ 'has/had a few that added a through road similar to this design.  Sometimes referred to as a "hamburger" (what it looked like from an aerial view) , they didn't allow lefts from the main road (the road that cut through the center.). The one I drove through the most was at NJ 70 and 73 (Marlon Circle).  Problem with it was the lefts from the main road had a close merge with the lefts from the side street.  Google Earth's "wayback machine" (old aerials, I'm a fan of the old Rocket and Bullwinkle show!) would like show it, before about 2010.  Also, a quick google search shows some concepts and photos.

Looking at the design, I'll say if I would have been allowed to cut through the wooded center of the circle back when I was looking at this, I could have come up with something similar to this.  (It wasn't until the CFI was proposed that the locals relented and allowed any disturbances to the center.). Best I came up with was akin to the "Magic Roundabout", but volumes grew too much for that to work.

[fillup420]

Based on public comments, NCDOT has revised its proposal for modernizing the Pinehurst Traffic Circle to a simpler design with traffic signals. A public meeting about the new recommended final design is to be held on October 28:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2025/2025-10-20-pinehurst-traffic-circle-final-design.aspx

where might one find a visual depiction of this new design? the link doesn't include one.

edit: wait yes it does, link within the link

[bob7374]

If you were wondering when the 2025-2026 NCDOT State Transportation Map would be (or ever?) published, wait no more. A link to both sides is now available at: https://www.ncdot.gov/travel-maps/maps/Pages/state-transportation-map.aspx (No press release for it, as of now).

My quick review. Front Good-I-42 is shown, though no exit numbers. NC 74 is shown as complete between US 421 and US 52. Toll NC 540 is seen as complete to I-40/I-42 and under construction to I-87/US 64/264. The new Rockingham Bypass is shown as complete, but only signed as I-74. NC 295 is shown complete from Hope Mills to I-95, but not signed. The I-74 extension along the US 74 Bypass around Rockingham and Hamlet is not shown. The Havelock Bypass is shown as under construction. Bad-I-587 is shown as still using the former US 264 exit numbers and even has the never used I-795 milepost numbers for the exits where they are concurrent. US 74 is depicted as a freeway between the Rockingham and Laurinburg Bypasses, including exits in Old Hundred and Laurel Hill.
Back-There are still no exit numbers provided for NC/Future I-74 along the Beltway on the Triad Inset. The Wilson inset also uses old US 264 exit numbers, including on I-587/I-795. The Triangle inset does show NC 540 meeting I-40 and I-42 on the Clayton Bypass (and NC 36, but uses the old US 70 exit number for the exit). The NC 295 portion of the Loop is signed as I-295 on the Fayetteville inset.

Will the next 2027-2028 edition come out in 2027 at all?

[Dirt Roads]

If you were wondering when the 2025-2026 NCDOT State Transportation Map would be (or ever?) published, wait no more. A link to both sides is now available at: https://www.ncdot.gov/travel-maps/maps/Pages/state-transportation-map.aspx (No press release for it, as of now).

Oops!  This map shows a new freeway from US-52 (Future I-42) from the Westinghouse Boulevard exit heading straight up to connect with (unmarked) Old US-52 in downtown King.  I suspect that someone trying to redraw the connection to the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway forgot to clip the new line with a tie-in to the original freeway.

[The Ghostbuster]

The city map for Raleigh/Durham shows Toll NC 885 as Toll Interstate 885. It also shows Interstate 42 with its US 70 mileage exit numbers. NC 147 also has its original exit numbers. Hopefully, these will be corrected in the next edition.

[roadman65]

Is Thomas A Betts Parkway in Rocky Mount a municipally built arterial to be an actual bypass of the city? Or is it intended for economic growth within the city?

I noticed it as a divided highway and its built like a typical bypass, but not freeway.

[architect77]

I'm sure everyone has seen this, but the Reason Foundation cites NC as having the most efficient and cost effective highway system in the country.

https://reason.org/highway-report/28th-annual-highway-report/

[Rothman]

I'm sure everyone has seen this, but the Reason Foundation cites NC as having the most efficient and cost effective highway system in the country.

https://reason.org/highway-report/28th-annual-highway-report/

MA dropping twenty spots because of decline of rural roads...over the course of one year?  Sounds like their methodology is questionable or everchanging.

It's also hard not to use an ad hominem against Reason's usual biased schlock...So, anyway, methodology raises an eyebrow.

[wriddle082]

I'm sure everyone has seen this, but the Reason Foundation cites NC as having the most efficient and cost effective highway system in the country.

https://reason.org/highway-report/28th-annual-highway-report/

MA dropping twenty spots because of decline of rural roads...over the course of one year?  Sounds like their methodology is questionable or everchanging.

It's also hard not to use an ad hominem against Reason's usual biased schlock...So, anyway, methodology raises an eyebrow.

These same morons ranked South Carolina second?!?!?!

Meanwhile, my Lexington County neighborhood is surrounded by state-maintained secondary arterial roads with high VPD's not resurfaced in at least the 20 years that I've been coming around (at first when my in laws lived there before we moved, then we moved there a few years later).  All full of cold patch-filled craters, that may have been crack sealed once but never again, that shake my truck to death anytime I need to go anywhere, but they replace the reflectors on a semi-annual basis!    One of the roughest roads near me is finally scheduled for resurfacing next year, but there are several other bad ones not scheduled yet.

[Mapmikey]

I believe I have figured out why NC 24 was added to NC 27 for 106 miles to Charlotte from Fayetteville.

NCDOT wanted to apply for a US Route from Charlotte through Fayetteville to Morehead City in 1962.  Correspondence indicates NC realizes there is no chance unless it can be incorporated as an extension of an existing route. Separately sent was a map that highlights the corridor and points out Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune and Port.  It also highlights US 74 for some reason. 

I don't see a workable extension but they could've gotten creative and checked if SC would go in on a new US route involving SC 49 or SC 72.

So, when this didn't go anywhere, NC apparently elected to assign it one state highway number, which first appeared on the 1963 official. 

To see the documents (1962 Other and 1962 Correspondence), go to this link first, then the links below:
https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default

Correspondence at: https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=27ba0ee0-c4d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
Map at: https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=37ba0ee0-c4d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true

[fillup420]

I believe I have figured out why NC 24 was added to NC 27 for 106 miles to Charlotte from Fayetteville.

NCDOT wanted to apply for a US Route from Charlotte through Fayetteville to Morehead City in 1962.  Correspondence indicates NC realizes there is no chance unless it can be incorporated as an extension of an existing route. Separately sent was a map that highlights the corridor and points out Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune and Port.  It also highlights US 74 for some reason. 

I don't see a workable extension but they could've gotten creative and checked if SC would go in on a new US route involving SC 49 or SC 72.

So, when this didn't go anywhere, NC apparently elected to assign it one state highway number, which first appeared on the 1963 official. 

i could see a US 174 designation making sense for the route of NC 24. the western split of NC 24/27 is only 2.5 miles from a logical connection to US 74, and NC 24's eastern terminus is at US 70 near Morehead.

[The Ghostbuster]

I doubt there will be many new US Highways designated in the future. In fact, US 48 and US 121 may be the last ones to be designated (I doubt the previously-mentioned proposed US 111 will be designated).

[architect77]

These cost cutting measures are ruining the legacy of the state's reputation for highways. Look how tiny the replacements are on those cantilevered trusses. Elegance has been lost.

Costcuttingmadness by Stephen Edwards, on Flickr

[froggie]

Metal ain't cheap these days.  Nevermind that NCDOT has been hit financially by several large storms, not to mention the Map Act fiasco...

[sprjus4]

These cost cutting measures are ruining the legacy of the state's reputation for highways. Look how tiny the replacements are on those cantilevered trusses. Elegance has been lost.

Costcuttingmadness by Stephen Edwards, on Flickr

Wut

If you're taking issue with NCDOT's signage (which looks good, btw), don't look at some other states.

[fillup420]

i see nothing wrong with any of those signs...

[Thing 342]

These small guide signs are mostly preferable to the era of massive highway-spanning APLs, imo...

[PColumbus73]

These cost cutting measures are ruining the legacy of the state's reputation for highways. Look how tiny the replacements are on those cantilevered trusses. Elegance has been lost.

Costcuttingmadness by Stephen Edwards, on Flickr

Wut

If you're taking issue with NCDOT's signage (which looks good, btw), don't look at some other states.

That post reminds me of a certain someone on a certain page regarding a certain bridge.

I really don't see the issue either. If that graphic had some before and afters, maybe we could understand it better.

[cowboy_wilhelm]

I'm more concerned that there is only a guardrail protecting the Wade Ave. overpass piers instead of a concrete barrier. At least two tractor-trailers have already overturned on that ramp.

[sprjus4]

These cost cutting measures are ruining the legacy of the state's reputation for highways. Look how tiny the replacements are on those cantilevered trusses. Elegance has been lost.

Costcuttingmadness by Stephen Edwards, on Flickr

Am I the only ones that honestly think the new signs look better than the old ones?

[CanesFan27]

So looking at this - it's also a matter of perspective.  Some overhead signs look different because the original sign was ground mounted and may have mentioned a town versus a road.  These make for long rectangular signs.

I'm posting from my phone so I apologize for links vs the photo

Let's take Exit 44 on I-26 (US 25 North / Bus 25 South). Prior to widening the original ground mounted sign said "Mtn (Mountain) Home  / Fletcher"

https://flic.kr/p/2rxvCMZ

The new overhead sign only uses Asheville Highway. 

https://flic.kr/p/2rxq4p4

The same was done for other exits the US 64 interchange no longer includes "Bat Cave"

Then - considering the photo uses some Raleigh signs including from the 440 Beltlone - signs that are way too large. Like this one at the Glennwood Avenue interchange, for example.

https://flic.kr/p/2qSetJT

Other examples of signs looking odd because they are now overhead vs. ground mounted occur on the recently widened stretches of I-95.


Wade-Stedman Road
https://flic.kr/p/2raRBUe

Murphy Road:
https://flic.kr/p/2raRBPp

I don't think it is as much cutting corners as you are making it out to be.  Some are for exits that don't have a lot of information that are now on overheads because of widening projects.  I hope my examples show that.

[CanesFan27]

And finally - the 540 sign for US 401/Louisburg is basically the same size as the original install.  They just took out the lights and replaced the sign with a more reflective sign.  It still looks the same size as the original.  That was installed between Oct 23 and March 24.

The Mt Hope Church sign on I-40/85 was not originally the size as you drew.  It was a longer rectangle - but the height was the same. 

I'll try to go back and GSV how those two signs looked 15 years ago later this evening.