NC is requesting I-36 for US 70 East Corridor and I-89 for RDU to Norfolk corr

[WashuOtaku]

I didn't mean extend 495 into Virginia (it can't be done as you point out), I only meant to extend the 495 designation to where US 64 exits US 13/17 around Williamston.

They would had to request that with AASHTO as well, since the current approved routing is between Raleigh and Rocky Mount.  So, it makes little sense to hold-off two-digit assignment if that is the intended goal to start.

[LM117]

I didn't mean extend 495 into Virginia (it can't be done as you point out), I only meant to extend the 495 designation to where US 64 exits US 13/17 around Williamston.

They would had to request that with AASHTO as well, since the current approved routing is between Raleigh and Rocky Mount.  So, it makes little sense to hold-off two-digit assignment if that is the intended goal to start.

+1

[The Ghostbuster]

All right, next time I'll post it in Fictional Highways.

[LM117]

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.

http://goldsborodailynews.com/blog/2016/05/20/eastern-portion-of-new-bypass-in-wayne-to-open-friday/

[sparker]

First post -- and only because a little light came on inside my head today:  since NCDOT's intending to "break the grid" (albeit marginally) with the I-36 designation along the US 70 corridor, why not take a similar approach as a viable alternate to the decidedly clumsy I-89 designation for the Raleigh-Hampton Roads (HPC 13) corridor?  In this case, replace the I-89 proposal with I-38!  As it seems NCDOT is unwilling to break local eggs, so to speak, for this particular Interstate omelet (although IMHO they could have gritted their teeth and used the number 46, since that state route doesn't actually intersect the corridor in question), a "38" designation would certainly satisfy their desire to keep some distance between the state & Interstate signage; NC 38 is a short (about 6 mile) route extending from US 74 in Hamlet south to the SC state line -- as well as being planned for superseding by I-73 at some future point (pending, of course, SC getting their internecine political & financial shit together -- good luck!).  In any case, the present NC 38 is, as the crow flies, about 90 miles from the nearest point at which I-38 would be signed (at or near the I-40/440 interchange SE of central Raleigh); NC 89's eastern end is similarly about 95 miles from that point.  And there shouldn't be any significant blowback from VA; VA 38 is itself a short 7-mile highway in the central part of the state, near US 360 about 25 miles west of metro Richmond. 

An added bonus would be (please pardon me for edging sideways into the fictional realm here) that the I-38 designation could potentially be extended SW along US 1 to the Rockingham area, thence west along the relocated/upgraded US 74 alignment through the Charlotte area (likely using I-485 as the pathway) before overtaking US 74 west of I-85 -- bypassing Shelby on the under-development bypass before terminating at I-26 near Columbus.  Of course, that would also render "grid" issues moot!

Finally -- as a Bay Area resident -- I would be willing to see if Caltrans could prepare adoption papers for our local oddball Interstate route (yeah -- The Interstate Number That Must Not Be Spoken), transferring custody of said number to US 264 between the new I-38 and I-95!  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/happy0009.gif   

[Alex]

Nice first post and welcome to the board!

[Henry]

First post -- and only because a little light came on inside my head today:  since NCDOT's intending to "break the grid" (albeit marginally) with the I-36 designation along the US 70 corridor, why not take a similar approach as a viable alternate to the decidedly clumsy I-89 designation for the Raleigh-Hampton Roads (HPC 13) corridor?  In this case, replace the I-89 proposal with I-38!  As it seems NCDOT is unwilling to break local eggs, so to speak, for this particular Interstate omelet (although IMHO they could have gritted their teeth and used the number 46, since that state route doesn't actually intersect the corridor in question), a "38" designation would certainly satisfy their desire to keep some distance between the state & Interstate signage; NC 38 is a short (about 6 mile) route extending from US 74 in Hamlet south to the SC state line -- as well as being planned for superseding by I-73 at some future point (pending, of course, SC getting their internecine political & financial shit together -- good luck!).  In any case, the present NC 38 is, as the crow flies, about 90 miles from the nearest point at which I-38 would be signed (at or near the I-40/440 interchange SE of central Raleigh); NC 89's eastern end is similarly about 95 miles from that point.  And there shouldn't be any significant blowback from VA; VA 38 is itself a short 7-mile highway in the central part of the state, near US 360 about 25 miles west of metro Richmond. 

An added bonus would be (please pardon me for edging sideways into the fictional realm here) that the I-38 designation could potentially be extended SW along US 1 to the Rockingham area, thence west along the relocated/upgraded US 74 alignment through the Charlotte area (likely using I-485 as the pathway) before overtaking US 74 west of I-85 -- bypassing Shelby on the under-development bypass before terminating at I-26 near Columbus.  Of course, that would also render "grid" issues moot!

Finally -- as a Bay Area resident -- I would be willing to see if Caltrans could prepare adoption papers for our local oddball Interstate route (yeah -- The Interstate Number That Must Not Be Spoken), transferring custody of said number to US 264 between the new I-38 and I-95!  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/happy0009.gif   

You know, that's not a bad idea! And welcome aboard!

[LM117]

First post -- and only because a little light came on inside my head today:  since NCDOT's intending to "break the grid" (albeit marginally) with the I-36 designation along the US 70 corridor, why not take a similar approach as a viable alternate to the decidedly clumsy I-89 designation for the Raleigh-Hampton Roads (HPC 13) corridor?  In this case, replace the I-89 proposal with I-38!  As it seems NCDOT is unwilling to break local eggs, so to speak, for this particular Interstate omelet (although IMHO they could have gritted their teeth and used the number 46, since that state route doesn't actually intersect the corridor in question), a "38" designation would certainly satisfy their desire to keep some distance between the state & Interstate signage; NC 38 is a short (about 6 mile) route extending from US 74 in Hamlet south to the SC state line -- as well as being planned for superseding by I-73 at some future point (pending, of course, SC getting their internecine political & financial shit together -- good luck!).  In any case, the present NC 38 is, as the crow flies, about 90 miles from the nearest point at which I-38 would be signed (at or near the I-40/440 interchange SE of central Raleigh); NC 89's eastern end is similarly about 95 miles from that point.  And there shouldn't be any significant blowback from VA; VA 38 is itself a short 7-mile highway in the central part of the state, near US 360 about 25 miles west of metro Richmond. 

An added bonus would be (please pardon me for edging sideways into the fictional realm here) that the I-38 designation could potentially be extended SW along US 1 to the Rockingham area, thence west along the relocated/upgraded US 74 alignment through the Charlotte area (likely using I-485 as the pathway) before overtaking US 74 west of I-85 -- bypassing Shelby on the under-development bypass before terminating at I-26 near Columbus.  Of course, that would also render "grid" issues moot!

Finally -- as a Bay Area resident -- I would be willing to see if Caltrans could prepare adoption papers for our local oddball Interstate route (yeah -- The Interstate Number That Must Not Be Spoken), transferring custody of said number to US 264 between the new I-38 and I-95!  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/happy0009.gif

Welcome to the forum and not too shabby of an idea! And your last paragraph might be reality eventually, sans I-238. Greenville has been pushing heavily to have US-264 upgraded to Interstate standards and designated an Interstate from Zebulon to Stantonsburg Road in Greenville, so an I-x89 could be a real possibility in the future, though it'll likely be a long way off. Greenville also wants NC-11 upgraded from Greenville to US-70 in Kinston and now that the interstate corridor between Raleigh and Norfolk has been made official, Greenville will probably want either an I-x36 or an I-x89 connecting I-36 and I-89 by using US-13 from US-64/I-89 in Bethel, the US-264 Greenville northwest bypass and the future NC-11 Greenville southwest bypass and continue on NC-11 until it connects with US-70/I-36 somewhere in Kinston. When the "Quad East" idea first came about in 2013, they wanted the whole loop designated I-795. Luckily, they realized how stupid it was to think the whole thing could be called I-795. The "Quad East" idea is still alive and well, though.

http://m.newbernsj.com/article/20151110/news/151108814

[sparker]

Thanks, board contributors & admins, for the compliments -- always appreciated.  Thought briefly about sending off a quick email to NCDOT suggesting the I-38 concept (I could just see their delegate asking the AASHTO committee at the last minute "Hey -- you guys have a bottle of white-out handy?").  But since the meeting does start tomorrow (5/24), I'll just hold off until a decision is reached re both of the corridors in question -- and offer my 2 cents if the decision comes down as thumbs-up for 36 and the opposite for 89.  At least they would have a ready alternative for the next committee meeting that would reasonably satisfy their criteria -- provided they don't go the route of having one of their Congressional folks stick such a designation into a funding bill, such as Rand Paul's recent efforts to get I-169 established along the lower Pennyrile.   

[kkt]

Finally -- as a Bay Area resident -- I would be willing to see if Caltrans could prepare adoption papers for our local oddball Interstate route (yeah -- The Interstate Number That Must Not Be Spoken), transferring custody of said number to US 264 between the new I-38 and I-95!  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/happy0009.gif   

Hello and welcome.

No, I don't think Caltrans would be willing to give up the number of that freeway in San Lorenzo.  Interstate funds paid for its expansion and interchanges, so it has to stay an interstate.  There are other interstate numbers that could be used, but from Caltrans' point of view, people are used to the number and why should they spend their limited budget changing a bunch of signs instead of working on their long list of seismic retrofits or capacity bottlenecks?  But NC can still use I-238, because three digit interstate numbers can be duplicated in different states.

[sparker]

Yeah, I know....the "adoption" was meant as a joke.  We Californians are going to be stuck with I-238 for the foreseeable future unless some region-wide renumbering occurs.  At the present, a NC-based I-238 would simply serve as a textbook example of irony!

[wdcrft63]

Breaking news: it's I-42, not I-36, and I-87, not I-89.

Raleigh, N.C. – North Carolina has received approval for the names of two new interstate route designations in the eastern part of the state. The American Association of State and Transportation Officials approved I-42 for the U.S. 70 Corridor between I-40 and Morehead City, and I-87 for U.S. 64/17 between Raleigh and the Virginia state line.

"These connections are an integral part of my 25-Year Vision for North Carolina to improve the state's infrastructure, expand economic opportunities and create jobs,"  says Governor Pat McCrory. "They bring a much-needed interstate corridor to the Hampton Roads area, stronger connections between our important military bases, and enhance economic development through faster shipment of freight for our ports and Global TransPark."

The N.C. Department of Transportation may now proceed with determining where "Future I-42"  and "Future I-87"  signs should be installed and pursue approval to install those signs from the Federal Highway Administration.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12558

[vdeane]

Fuck AASHTO for duplicating I-87.  That should be an east-west interstate in any case.

[CanesFan27]

Breaking news: it's I-42, not I-36, and I-87, not I-89.

Raleigh, N.C. – North Carolina has received approval for the names of two new interstate route designations in the eastern part of the state. The American Association of State and Transportation Officials approved I-42 for the U.S. 70 Corridor between I-40 and Morehead City, and I-87 for U.S. 64/17 between Raleigh and the Virginia state line.

"These connections are an integral part of my 25-Year Vision for North Carolina to improve the state's infrastructure, expand economic opportunities and create jobs,"  says Governor Pat McCrory. "They bring a much-needed interstate corridor to the Hampton Roads area, stronger connections between our important military bases, and enhance economic development through faster shipment of freight for our ports and Global TransPark."

The N.C. Department of Transportation may now proceed with determining where "Future I-42"  and "Future I-87"  signs should be installed and pursue approval to install those signs from the Federal Highway Administration.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12558

Well this could explain why the website 4042.com is no more :-p

http://johnstoncounty.today/4042-com-domain-name-please-update-old-links-and-bookmarks

In all seriousness, NC 42 is the first/last (depending on travel direction) on the new I-42 and it is the exit immediately before/after the soon to be 40 and I-42 interchange.  Maybe NC 42 will become NC 36.

Kinda surprised that they picked 87 (may as well keep 89) but wouldn't it be fitting if I-87 was a typo and it's still I-89.

[CanesFan27]

Fuck AASHTO for duplicating I-87.  That should be an east-west interstate in any case.

Ooooooo, Temper, Temper!

[WashuOtaku]

Breaking news: it's I-42, not I-36, and I-87, not I-89.

Amusing that regional groups didn't get the numbers they wanted and NCDOT didn't get the numbers they wanted.   

[hurricanehink]

Fuck AASHTO for duplicating I-87.  That should be an east-west interstate in any case.

Unless it's a long term plan to connect them? Maybe this is a signal that they will push for a highway going up Delmarva and New Jersey. Large portions of that corridor are done (US 64, Bay Bridge-Tunnel adding parallel tunnel soon, US 113 is twinned and has several exits, Garden State Parkway). Either way, I like the new numbers more than NC's proposed ones.

[CanesFan27]

Fuck AASHTO for duplicating I-87.  That should be an east-west interstate in any case.

Unless it's a long term plan to connect them? Maybe this is a signal that they will push for a highway going up Delmarva and New Jersey. Large portions of that corridor are done (US 64, Bay Bridge-Tunnel adding parallel tunnel soon, US 113 is twinned and has several exits, Garden State Parkway). Either way, I like the new numbers more than NC's proposed ones.

and there it is!  The first official connect I-87 theory post!

[wdcrft63]

Breaking news: it's I-42, not I-36, and I-87, not I-89.

Amusing that regional groups didn't get the numbers they wanted and NCDOT didn't get the numbers they wanted.   

AASHTO sent a clear message: We Still Believe in the Grid. The grid says that I-42 is the best choice for the Us 70 corridor, and if you accept the notion that the US 64/17 corridor is north/south, then the grid says that I-87 is the best choice.

Over in Fictional Highways, everyone will be connecting the two sections of I-87 with an interstate up the Delmarva Peninsula and across New Jersey.

[kkt]

Fuck AASHTO for duplicating I-87.  That should be an east-west interstate in any case.

Unless it's a long term plan to connect them? Maybe this is a signal that they will push for a highway going up Delmarva and New Jersey.

Paging Fritzowl...

[formulanone]

Okay, I-42 makes sense, but why not I-36 or I-38 instead of "I-87 (Part II)"?

I understand route number duplication will occur, but personally, a "no multiple two-digit interchanges" rule should be laid down, since "I-87" will cross over I-95. Then again, New York City prefers route names to route numbers, so there might never be much confusion between the two...

[WashuOtaku]

Okay, I-42 makes sense, but why not I-36 or I-38 instead of "I-87 (Part II)"?

I understand route number duplication will occur, but personally, a "no multiple two-digit interchanges" rule should be laid down, since "I-87" will cross over I-95. Then again, New York City prefers route names to route numbers, so there might never be much confusion between the two...

Why would you break grid having a lower number further north?  I think you mean I-46 or I-48.  Why?  Who knows, maybe they see a future designation through Delmarva.

[wdcrft63]

Okay, I-42 makes sense, but why not I-36 or I-38 instead of "I-87 (Part II)"?

I understand route number duplication will occur, but personally, a "no multiple two-digit interchanges" rule should be laid down, since "I-87" will cross over I-95. Then again, New York City prefers route names to route numbers, so there might never be much confusion between the two...

Why would you break grid having a lower number further north?  I think you mean I-46 or I-48.  Why?  Who knows, maybe they see a future designation through Delmarva.

Maybe, but I doubt it. I think the committee had two things in mind:
(1) The south end of the new road is at Raleigh, about 30 miles east of I-85, and
(2) The north end, at Hampton Roads, is reasonably aligned with the original I-87 and certainly not with I-89.

Obviously one could also make a case that the grid suggests I-97; we don't have any way to know if that was considered.

In any case, NCDOT's thinking was soundly rejected. They were concerned about confusion with nearby NC route numbers, and on that basis they probably hate both I-42 (which will intersect NC 42) and I-87 (since NC 87 is an important route in southeast North Carolina).

[WashuOtaku]

In any case, NCDOT's thinking was soundly rejected. They were concerned about confusion with nearby NC route numbers, and on that basis they probably hate both I-42 (which will intersect NC 42) and I-87 (since NC 87 is an important route in southeast North Carolina).

They could always renumber NC 42 to say NC 420... oh wait.  NCDOT probably will leave it be just like NC 73 and I-73.

[LM117]

I figured I-36 would get rejected due to it being out of grid. I-87 came out of left field though.