Interstate 73/74

[carbaugh2]

I came across this article regarding the sausage making process for the Carolina Bays Parkway. It paywalled on the Star News site but was available in full with the Apple News link.

https://apple.news/AibRr9ta1THeDXXY4JhbArg

https://www.starnewsonline.com/story/news/local/2026/07/28/ncdot-and-scdot-differ-speed-in-carolina-bays-parkway-project/90929569007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=true&gca-epti=undefined&gca-ft=0&gca-ds=sophi

[vdeane]

I came across this article regarding the sausage making process for the Carolina Bays Parkway. It paywalled on the Star News site but was available in full with the Apple News link.

https://apple.news/AibRr9ta1THeDXXY4JhbArg

https://www.starnewsonline.com/story/news/local/2026/07/28/ncdot-and-scdot-differ-speed-in-carolina-bays-parkway-project/90929569007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=true&gca-epti=undefined&gca-ft=0&gca-ds=sophi

The Apple News link just redirects to Star News with the paywall for me.

[The Ghostbuster]

If you have the Apple News app, you can read the whole story.

[Molandfreak]

If you have the Apple News app, you can read the whole story.

You don't say...

[carbaugh2]

If you have the Apple News app, you can read the whole story.

You don't say...

I found the article at the end of my lunch break yesterday. I wasn't sure how effective the Apple link would be, so I'm glad it wasn't a complete waste.

To summarize, the article contrasts the hurdles and progress that SCDOT and NCDOT are finding in the design portion of the Carolina Bays Parkway project. I think that most of us in the forum are aware that NCDOT is back to the drawing board to provide alternatives that the locals might tolerate. On the other hand, SCDOT is on a comparatively blistering pace. It is working with the FHWA to get advanced right of way acquisition to streamline the project. The article states that SCDOT has a $22 million federal earmark for those purchases.

SCODT is on track to complete its environmental documents and start right of way purchases next year with construction slated to start in 2029, which caught me off guard. For those who know NCDOT better than me, would this timeline cause NCDOT to place more of a priority on the project?

[Rothman]

What does the Federal Housing Administration have to do with ROW? 

[Dirt Roads]

SCODT is on track to complete its environmental documents and start right of way purchases next year with construction slated to start in 2029, which caught me off guard. For those who know NCDOT better than me, would this timeline cause NCDOT to place more of a priority on the project?

Sorry.  I sent the reply to this post under the <Carolina Bays Parkway> thread and forgot to send this type of notice.  (AARoads now filters against sending them back-to-back).

[bob7374]

Looks like they may be placing I-40 in its final alignment through the I-74/Beltway interchange project work zone, based on this incident notice on the NCDOT Real Time Traffic site:
"Maintenance on I-40 Westbound in Forsyth County from Union Cross Rd to I-74 Westbound. 1 Right lane closed. Id: 5193
Comment
The right lane will be closed on I-40 W due to a realignment operation.
Start Time   Aug 6 2026, 9:00 PM
Anticipated End Time   Aug 7 2026, 5:00 AM"
There's a similar notice for I-40 East. They also have closed the ramps from current I-74 (already signed as NC 192) to Ridgewood Road all day today into tomorrow morning.

[yadkinv]

A question - In Winston-Salem, now, I 74 continues almost 2 mi straight to I 40 past where the new version continues north as the western part of the W-S Beltway and its new junction with I 40. When the new beltway version opens soon, I 74 will turn north at a major new interchange about 2 miles before its current junction with I 40. This orphaned section needs a 3-digit Interstate designation - very important! It could and ought to be I 474, but it seems that NCDOT intends to designate this 2-mile section as NC 192. This makes no sense, that is, to have an existing Interstate standard highway revert from Interstate designation to State road designation connecting two Interstates. It is important to retain a 3-digit even Interstate designation - repeat, this makes no sense.

[Mapmikey]

A question - In Winston-Salem, now, I 74 continues almost 2 mi straight to I 40 past where the new version continues north as the western part of the W-S Beltway and its new junction with I 40. When the new beltway version opens soon, I 74 will turn north at a major new interchange about 2 miles before its current junction with I 40. This orphaned section needs a 3-digit Interstate designation - very important! It could and ought to be I 474, but it seems that NCDOT intends to designate this 2-mile section as NC 192. This makes no sense, that is, to have an existing Interstate standard highway revert from Interstate designation to State road designation connecting two Interstates. It is important to retain a 3-digit even Interstate designation - repeat, this makes no sense.

So what is the question?

[NJRoadfan]

So what is the question?

How does an account go 12+ years without a single post?

[The Ghostbuster]

I agree NC 192 should've been designated Interstate 474. It appears North Carolina wanted the 2.6-mile segment to be an Interstate temporarily. I think making it a state highway had to do with the fact that the unbuilt connector between Interstate 40 and US 421's interchange at US 158 East would've been built as a non-freeway.

[yadkinv]

"So what is the question?" The question is why would a stretch of road already signed as an Interstate (becoming orphoned by a new interchange) revert to a State Highway number instead of acquiring a 3-digit even number Interstate such as I 474?

[yadkinv]

"How does an account go 12+ years without a single post?" Good question to which the answer is simply - one forgot and one was involved in another forum - nothing else.

[The_Ginger]

How does an account go 12+ years without a single post?

Good question to which the answer is simply - one forgot and one was involved in another forum - nothing else.

In addition—after three posts, IIRC, ads are disabled for reading the forum. Who's Online (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=who) shows numerous 0-5 post accounts browsing the Forum daily.

[Mapmikey]

"So what is the question?" The question is why would a stretch of road already signed as an Interstate (becoming orphoned by a new interchange) revert to a State Highway number instead of acquiring a 3-digit even number Interstate such as I 474?

This was never intended to be in the interstate system, even as I-74.  The 1996 AASHTO application to add I-74 from Mt. Airy to Winston-Salem included a route log for all of I-74 which was already assumed to use the beltway.  A companion application for I-74 Temp on US 52 specifically stopped at I-40 and did not follow I-40 east to use the then-US 311 freeway.

A quick check of GMSV on NC 192 shows almost no paved shoulders, left or right side.  So, NC 192 may not meet interstate standards to begin with.  Although, this 2012 NCDOT document suggests the segment is to standard - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2012_10_04.pdf

[bob7374]

"So what is the question?" The question is why would a stretch of road already signed as an Interstate (becoming orphoned by a new interchange) revert to a State Highway number instead of acquiring a 3-digit even number Interstate such as I 474?

This was never intended to be in the interstate system, even as I-74.  The 1996 AASHTO application to add I-74 from Mt. Airy to Winston-Salem included a route log for all of I-74 which was already assumed to use the beltway.  A companion application for I-74 Temp on US 52 specifically stopped at I-40 and did not follow I-40 east to use the then-US 311 freeway.

A quick check of GMSV on NC 192 shows almost no paved shoulders, left or right side.  So, NC 192 may not meet interstate standards to begin with.  Although, this 2012 NCDOT document suggests the segment is to standard - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2012_10_04.pdf

Agreed that that section was never along the official I-74 route. The Beltway related construction, however, upgraded the shoulders of what will be most of NC 192 to interstate standards, with perhaps the exception of the westernmost 1/3 of a mile, along with modernizing the ramps at Ridgewood Road, therefore turning the road into a interstate quality roadway signed until recently as an interstate. Perhaps NCDOT will revisit the highway's designation at a future date.

[Strider]

"So what is the question?" The question is why would a stretch of road already signed as an Interstate (becoming orphoned by a new interchange) revert to a State Highway number instead of acquiring a 3-digit even number Interstate such as I 474?

Like others said, that part of NC-192 is never intended to be a part of I-74. When W-S Beltway was introduced, I-74 intends to bypass Winston-Salem using the beltway instead of down US-52 and then east on I-40. They're not turning NC-192 into I-xxx because NC-192 wasn't planned to end at I-40.

NC-192 was planned to continue north past I-40 to where US-421 and US-158 "Y" interchange as an 4-lane road with at-grade intersections and bicycle path. The extension will create a direct connection between I-40/I-74 and US-421/158 without using local streets and/or I-285/US-52. That is why they came up with NC-192 designation the first time. (It was first proposed as a US-311 Connector when US-311 used the freeway southeast of I-40 towards High Point.)

I don't know what happened to NC-192 extension plan as it is no longer listed on their transportation page. That is why I put "was" instead of "is" or "still is".

[yadkinv]

Thanks to all for the reasons and explanations regarding this orphaned part of I 74 in Winston-Salem. Still, one wonders why NCDOT simply does not change its approach and use a 3-digit Interstate of I 74 for continuity and lack of confusion since this orphaned part has been signed as I 74 and shown as such on maps for quite a while - seems logical to me. On the other hand NCDOT is known for violating AASHTO rules for W-S Interstates, but that's another story.

[Dirt Roads]

Thanks to all for the reasons and explanations regarding this orphaned part of I 74 in Winston-Salem. Still, one wonders why NCDOT simply does not change its approach and use a 3-digit Interstate of I 74 for continuity and lack of confusion since this orphaned part has been signed as I 74 and shown as such on maps for quite a while - seems logical to me. On the other hand NCDOT is known for violating AASHTO rules for W-S Interstates, but that's another story.

If you search hard enough upstream, you'll find several discontiguous theories about whether NCDOT is trying to discourage eastbound travellers on I-40 from using NC-192 eastbound to reach I-74 [southbound].  The best explanation that I can give is that since FHWA requires complete movements at each Interstate-to-Interstate junction, NCDOT overspent on each of the new "ramps" and the new signage gives preference to the use of those ramps instead of the shorter route (NC-192).  Anywhoosit, for those who utilize GPS it will surely give directions using NC-192 when travelling from Statesville -to- Asheboro.

[Strider]

At the end of the day, NC-192 will be acting as a connector between I-40 and I-74 which I'll assume for local traffic along Union Cross, High Point and Ridgewood Roads to access a freeway without having to drive extra miles to either I-40 or I-74.

I hope W-S DOT consider extending NC-192 north to US-421/US-158. It would make more sense instead of a short freeway connector. Let's see what happens after I-74 Beltway opens this year. (either next month or the end of this year).

[brian440i]

I hope W-S DOT consider extending NC-192 north to US-421/US-158. It would make more sense instead of a short freeway connector. Let's see what happens after I-74 Beltway opens this year. (either next month or the end of this year).

My recollection was that the Black Community (My High School) was heavily against the highway extension connecting (Now NC192 & US158) through Waughtown/Sprague Street. By the time New I-40/US311 interchange opened, let alone before when New-I-40 was completed East of Kernersville and was still US311, I think it was dead in the water, 1988? 89? 

Roughly at that time the Winston Salem Beltline was envisioned... (Who knew Lawsuits could delay 30 years)

I have always wanted it extended as a Boulevard initially to Sprague Street/Waughtown and to Reynolds Park Rd, then one day a bridge over to Lowery Street (Industrial Park) and US 158 for easier access to jobs.  Not at a Divided Highway.

Once the Eastern Loop I-74 is Open and this NC 192 to US158 is not viewed as a through traffic route...  I agree "Let's see what happens"  Pulling Local Traffic off of US52(Future I 285) at Waughtown Street Exit(s) could almost justify its building on its own.

[The Ghostbuster]

The Interstate 40-to-US 421 connector is likely permanently dead. The completion of the Interstate 74 segment of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway likely renders the connector unnecessary.

[Strider]

The Interstate 40-to-US 421 connector is likely permanently dead. The completion of the Interstate 74 segment of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway likely renders the connector unnecessary.

Since it was already removed from NCDOT's STIP, you may be right. Or they may revisit it in the next STIP (after 2040).

[yadkinv]

And by the way, lest we not forget, Interstate 73 initially was routed through Winston-Salem and Mount Airy. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 originally planned for the Interstate 73 corridor to run through Winston-Salem to Charleston. However, by November 1995, an organization called Job Link, made up of business leaders from northern North Carolina and southern Virginia wanted a major highway to connect Roanoke with the Greensboro area. So I-73, seemed the perfect candidate. In April 1995, John Warner, who chaired the Senate subcommittee that would select the route of I-73, announced the new route through Roanoke and Greensboro. This distressed Winston-Salem officials, who were counting on I-73, but as usual they were no match for Virginia and Greensboro counterparts. So, realizing the wrongful and biased decision the I73/74 compromise emerges making I 74 (should be easy-west) more north-south than east-west.