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.
Well....this is interesting. Apparently, even though NCDOT made no objections at the Super 70 Commission's meeting to I-50 being used, they seem to want to wait until sending an application to AASHTO before announcing their final decision regarding what number they want to use.
I-38 or I-42 would be more appropriate, or even a 3-digit based on I-40 or I-95. But not I-50...
AASHTO would reject I-38 in a split second because it wouldn't fit the numbering grid, since it's technically north of I-40. It would have to be any even number between I-42 and I-62. AASHTO might not object to I-50 being used since even though the designation itself is extremely short compared to other I-x0's in the US, it does connect to I-40, so it would act as a cross-country connector, similar to I-30 running from I-40 in Little Rock, AR to I-20 in Fort Worth, TX. I-30 is short compared to the other I-x0's, but it serves a major purpose. I-30 acts as a connector for long distance traffic heading out of Texas and the Southwest to the mid-Atlantic states and the Northeast and vice-versa.
AASHTO would reject I-38 in a split second because it wouldn't fit the numbering grid, since it's technically north of I-40.
Yeah, I was thinking more of this new interstate being south of MOST of I-40, since I-40 takes that sharp turn to the south after Raleigh. If the new interstate were ever extended to the west, it would mostly run south of I-40. But then, with NC-540 picking up at the Garner end of the interstate, there wouldn't be any need to run this new interstate further west, soo... You're right, I was just thinking of something in that range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LM117
Well....this is interesting. Apparently, even though NCDOT made no objections at the Super 70 Commission's meeting to I-50 being used, they seem to want to wait until sending an application to AASHTO before announcing their final decision regarding what number they want to use.
I bet I know how that meeting went...
Super70 people: We want I-50!
NCDOT person: (takes deep breath, about to explain the interstate numbering scheme and how I-50 would be reserved for a major interstate, then thinks about how long that discussion would go, thinks about wife keeping his dinner warm... takes another deep breath) OK, yeah, we'll discuss that later.
I meant to update this thread the other day, but utility relocation work is set to begin within the next few months on US-117 (future I-795) at the Oberry Road intersection in Dudley and the Country Club Road intersection north of Mount Olive in preparation for upgrading those intersections to interchanges as part of the long-term goal of upgrading US-117 to Interstate standards from Goldsboro to I-40 west of Faison and extending I-795. NCDOT will also likely widen the shoulders in the vicinity of those two future interchanges since US-117 currently lacks any shoulders. The only article I could find that mentions the projects has a paywall (I'm not currently a subscriber), but it gives you the general idea in the first paragraph. Once the Oberry Road intersection becomes an interchange, it would eliminate the only traffic light between the Mar-Mac area in southern Goldsboro and I-40.
Also, NCDOT released a feasibility study (dated July 2015) for upgrading US-117 to I-795 from Goldsboro to I-40. NCDOT released 4 alternatives for US-117 from the Mar-Mac area just south of US-13 to the Ash Street intersection where I-795 currently ends at the traffic light. One of the alternatives is upgrading the existing US-117 from Mar-Mac to Ash Street, which is extremely unlikely due to the terrain, especially near the Neuse River area and numerous business along the road way. The other three alternatives are the routing of the new location highway. Wayne County Commissioners favor Alternative 4A. The I-795 linkup with I-40 is the most interesting part. NCDOT's original plan is to upgrade the existing Exit 355 on I-40 in Sampson County to free-flowing interchange for the connection with I-795 in a design similar to the I-40, I-95 interchange near Benson. Sampson County opposes that option because they're planning a 200-acre industrial site called "Project 355" near Exit 355 and is worried that an upgraded interchange would interfere with the site. They want NCDOT to have I-795 split off from the US-117 Connector between Faison and I-40 and turn southward in a new location route about 2-4 miles and link up with I-40 in a new interchange south of Exit 355. Duplin County disagrees with Sampson County because they don't want farm land destroyed and wants NCDOT to stick with the original plan of upgrading the US-117 Connector in it's entirety from Faison to I-40 and upgrading Exit 355. I don't know how to directly link PDF documents here, but this Google search link will take you to it. It's the very first search result titled "Feasibility Study - Connect NCDOT". The document is 65 pages long, but there's a table of contents at the beginning. Wayne County came up with Alternative 4A between Mar-Mac and Ash Street and is pushing that option.
Have to agree with the Sampson Co side in this one. That 200 acre site has been cleared and infrastructure is going in place. Not only that, but Hwy 403 connects Clinton and Faison and goes through that interchange...using the Benson interchange as your guide would disconnect that road (because it would be an interstate interchange and not have local access to 403.
I think the better model is the one used when the new 74 was built over I-95 in Robeson County....they just moved the interchange a little further south and left the old exit off the interstate the same. This also happened with the Wilson 264 bypass off of 95.
There is a 9 mile gap between exits off of I-40 between Faison and Warsaw...the I-795 interchange should be put somewhere in between that 9 mile gap. And lets not talk about loss of farmland...there is A LOT of farmland in this area...they can afford to lose a little without much impact...and if an industrial park is being created, that's jobs for that area that helps both counties.
There is a 9 mile gap between exits off of I-40 between Faison and Warsaw...the I-795 interchange should be put somewhere in between that 9 mile gap. And lets not talk about loss of farmland...there is A LOT of farmland in this area...they can afford to lose a little without much impact...and if an industrial park is being created, that's jobs for that area that helps both counties.
Agreed. At first, as I mentioned in the Goldsboro thread, I thought Sampson County was nuts since they knew there was a long term project to extend I-795 to I-40 and should've planned the site accordingly, but the more I thought about it, the more I agreed with Sampson. Other than the industrial site, squeezing in NC-403 would be the biggest headache in that interchange. Even still, Sampson is likely gonna be facing an uphill battle since not only does Duplin County oppose Sampson's route, the Eastern Carolina Rural Planning Organization also opposes a new location interchange and wants Exit 355 upgraded. I'm gonna save some popcorn for that fight...
NCDOT finally sent their application to AASHTO. Turns out NCDOT didn't like the Super 70 Commission's suggestion for I-50. They're applying for future I-36 for the US-70 corridor from I-40 in Garner to Morehead City. I would be very surprised if AASHTO approves the number since it doesn't fit the numbering grid due to I-40 technically running south of the corridor. It won't let me directly link PDF documents here, but it can be found on AASHTO's website in the following link. The PDF is titled "Agenda and List of Applications SM-2016.pdf". It's only 8 pages. I-36 is mentioned on page 5. On a slightly unrelated note, on page 6, NCDOT is also applying for future I-89 for US-64 and US-17 from I-440 in Raleigh to the VA state line for the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor.
Not sure why they didn't just go with I-42. Seems to make the most sense.
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.
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.
Apparently, even though NCDOT made no objections at the Super 70 Commission's meeting to I-50 being used, they seem to want to wait until sending an application to AASHTO before announcing their final decision regarding what number they want to use.
