Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Cary
 [Register]
Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Cary The Triangle Area
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-24-2016, 06:49 AM
 
Location: Danville, VA
7,177 posts, read 6,726,468 times
Reputation: 4814

Advertisements

The US-70 Corridor Commission has posted VHB Engineering's presentation for a feasibility study that will soon be underway for upgrading US-70 to interstate standards from Buffalo Road near Selma to Edwards Road in Princeton.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/l...%20posting.pdf

Here are the proposed interchanges and grade separations:

Quote:
• Consider eight interchange locations

US 70/I-95
US 70 Bypass/I-95
-Potentially combine I-95 interchanges into a single system interchange

Peedin Road Extension (W-5107)
Davis Mill Road (W-5107)
Country Store Road
US 70 Alt
Rains Mill Road
Edwards Road

• Consider five grade separation locations

Firetower Road
Creech’s Mill Road
Dr. Donnie H Jones Jr. Boulevard
Old Rock Quarry Road/Barden Street
1 undesignated

• Frontage road system for access considerations
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-24-2016, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Morrisville, NC
9,122 posts, read 14,664,501 times
Reputation: 8973
That's not going to be cheap! Combining the 70/70 Bypass/95 interchanges alone has got to be way up there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2016, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Danville, VA
7,177 posts, read 6,726,468 times
Reputation: 4814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherifftruman View Post
That's not going to be cheap! Combining the 70/70 Bypass/95 interchanges alone has got to be way up there.
That'll probably be the biggest part of the upgrade between Selma and Princeton. However, a direct I-42/I-95 interchange would be a very welcome relief for US-70 between both ends of US-70 Bypass. It would keep thru traffic that's changing from one interstate to another from clogging up the local roads. US-70 has plenty of traffic lights and a lot of truck traffic coming off of I-95 to US-70 and vice-versa. I've driven through there many times. It sucks.

The current connection to I-95 from US-70 reminds me of the way I-70 is set up in Breezewood, PA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2016, 10:16 AM
 
9,576 posts, read 7,230,135 times
Reputation: 13995
Quote:
Originally Posted by LM117 View Post
The current connection to I-95 from US-70 reminds me of the way I-70 is set up in Breezewood, PA.
Come on, how often can you say you've been on an interstate with surface streets and a traffic light!

There has been talk, probably over 30 years now, to fix the Breezewood connection, and the sad part is, there's plenty of open land to make a freeway to freeway interchange, if they really wanted to do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2016, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Danville, VA
7,177 posts, read 6,726,468 times
Reputation: 4814
I meant to post this earlier, but NCDOT completed a feasibility study last year that covers upgrading US-70 to interstate standards from Edwards Road in Princeton to the western end of the US-70 Goldsboro Bypass.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/p...eport_2015.pdf

There were 3 alternatives. One was a new alignment that ran north of the existing alignment, the second involved upgrading the existing US-70 and the third was a new alignment that paralled US-70 to the south. The South Alternative was recommended.

Quote:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the data presented in this study, it is recommended that the South Alternative should
be considered for programming with a formal decision on the preferred alternative being deferred to later during the NEPA process. This alternative proposes to construct a freeway facility on new location to the south of the existing US 70 facility.

The South Alternative starts just west of SR 2372 (Edwards Road) and departs onto new location via a free flow interchange just east of SR 1229 (Luby Smith Road); traffic from both SR 2371 (Old Cornwallis Road) and SR 1229 (Luby Smith Road) would be routed to the west, accessing US 70 via SR 2372 (Edwards Road). This alternative proposes a partial clover interchange at SR 2372 (Edwards Road) and a diamond interchange at SR 1234 (Ebenezer Church Road). The South Alternative would rejoin US 70 Business via a free flow interchange just west of SR 1381/SR 1237 (Aulander Road/Community Drive). Because the proposed alternative would be fully controlled, it includes service roads along much of the new location alignment to provide access to numerous parcels; additionally, a service road is proposed to connect SR 1234 (Ebenezer Church Road) to SR 1237 (Community Drive) on the south side of existing US 70.

The recommendation of this alternative is based on several aspects of the project, including environmental impacts, community impacts and mid‐range cost.

8.2.1 Environmental Impacts

The South Alternative would have the highest impact on wetland areas but the lowest impact
stream crossings in the project area, impacting no perennial streams. The relocation and ROW
impacts are comparable across all alternatives. While there is a potential UST impact with this alternative, it avoids any impact to gravesites.

8.2.2 Estimated Cost

Based on the cost estimates, the South Alternative is expected to cost $75,311,107 including the
ROW, utility relocation and construction costs, which is mid‐range among the evaluated
alternatives.

8.2.3 Benefit‐Cost Analysis

The South Alternative has a lower benefit‐cost ratio than the Improve Existing alternatives, but is
similar to the North Alternative. There would be a long‐term benefit in user value of time, user operating costs, and crash reduction benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2016, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Danville, VA
7,177 posts, read 6,726,468 times
Reputation: 4814
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjseliga View Post
Come on, how often can you say you've been on an interstate with surface streets and a traffic light!

There has been talk, probably over 30 years now, to fix the Breezewood connection, and the sad part is, there's plenty of open land to make a freeway to freeway interchange, if they really wanted to do it.
PA has attempted it several times in the past. The businesses there grabbed torches and pitchforks every time a freeway-to-freeway interchange is proposed. PA gave in every time. It makes no sense because there could easily be an exit there for Breezewood so businesses wouldn't really lose any money. They're just being a-holes about it, IMO. Traffic congestion be damned!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2016, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Cary, NC
4,292 posts, read 5,939,826 times
Reputation: 4778
Quote:
Originally Posted by LM117 View Post
PA has attempted it several times in the past. The businesses there grabbed torches and pitchforks every time a freeway-to-freeway interchange is proposed. PA gave in every time. It makes no sense because there could easily be an exit there for Breezewood so businesses wouldn't really lose any money. They're just being a-holes about it, IMO. Traffic congestion be damned!
The businesses would lose a lot of money. Most of the economy there is predicated on people stopping as they're already being forced onto surface streets. Put in a direct interchange, and Breezewood would become just another exit that most people wouldn't give a second thought about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2016, 03:24 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
13,966 posts, read 24,007,684 times
Reputation: 14759
Quote:
Originally Posted by LM117 View Post
The US-70 Corridor Commission has posted VHB Engineering's presentation for a feasibility study that will soon be underway for upgrading US-70 to interstate standards from Buffalo Road near Selma to Edwards Road in Princeton.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/l...%20posting.pdf

Here are the proposed interchanges and grade separations:
A little off topic but, after seeing that report, I reminded how much I think that new NC logo is horrible. Who hired whose relative to produce that junk? Let's hope that the road and interchange is better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2016, 08:51 PM
 
Location: Danville, VA
7,177 posts, read 6,726,468 times
Reputation: 4814
NCDOT made an announcement regarding the draft 2017-2028 STIP. The Kinston Bypass was included. Once the Kinston Bypass is built, there will be a 70mph freeway from the western end of Goldsboro to New Bern, making trips to the coast easier. However, the freeway segment from Dover to New Bern does not meet interstate standards due to the lack of 10ft. outside shoulders.

Key Eastern N.C. Projects to Be Included in Next State Transportation Plan

Quote:
Projects for eastern North Carolina include:

Constructing the U.S. 70 Kinston Bypass from N.C. 148 to east of N.C. 58, part of the Future Interstate 42 corridor and an important connection to the Crystal Coast and Port of Morehead City
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2016, 05:49 AM
 
Location: Danville, VA
7,177 posts, read 6,726,468 times
Reputation: 4814
I know it's not directly I-87 related, but a possible 3-digit spur of I-87 is already in the works, which would give Wake County another interstate, albeit the very eastern fringe. No interstate number was announced...yet.

https://governor.nc.gov/press-releas...264-greenville

Quote:
Governor Pat McCrory announced today that North Carolina is seeking federal approval to designate U.S. 264 as a future interstate from the U.S. 264/64 split in Zebulon to Greenville.
Quote:
State transportation officials will submit an application by September 16 to the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. These groups will consider the application and cooperatively make a decision on the designation. That decision is expected by the end of the year.
AASHTO's meeting is in November. September 16 is just their deadline for accepting applications.

Last edited by LM117; 09-08-2016 at 06:01 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Cary

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top