Skip to main content

Freeway Signing in Greensboro: The Saga Continues

Today's Raleigh N&O's Road Worrier column is devoted to driver confusion caused by the re-signing along Greensboro freeways due to I-40 being put back on its old alignment:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1660986.html

In the article an NCDOT traffic engineer, Kelvin Jordan, admits the I-40 East interchange with I-73 on the west side of town is confusing with those needing to stay on I-40 having to exit the main highway. However, since the interchange was designed when I-40 was to use the Loop, it's understandable. He also says that NCDOT is considering removing the Business 85 designation through Greensboro in the future as well. From the article:

"Getting through Greensboro will be easier now, Jordan said, with just one I-40 and no Business 40.

But DOT may never finish trying to untangle Greensboro's Urban Loop.

There are more plans to simplify markers at the three main approaches to the city. And there's still the confusion of two freeways called 85. DOT could decide one day to get rid of Business 85, too.

'I won't say that change won't come at some point," Jordan said. "That is something we will look at, but it won't be changed in the next year or two.'"

See the URL for the entire article.

Commentary
I was interviewed for the piece and suggested they should have given Business 85 perhaps a 3di number, in the first place since having two highways with the same number, is naturally confusing. I guess I wasn't confused enough as a driver to be quoted for the article, however.

Business 85 was conceived when I-85 and I-40 were to use the Loop, leaving the freeway east of Death Valley with no designation. With the I-40 re-routing this is no longer the case and only adds another route between the US 29 and I-40 interchanges which, even with the rerouting of US 421 is still also I-40, US 29, US 70 and US 220. South of the I-40 split the Business 85 route does have other designations, US 29/70, for the three miles or so back to I-85.

The questions I would ask are: if an NCDOT traffic engineer is mentioning removing Business 85 sometime in the future, why was this not thought of, or thought of and not done, at the same time they were (I guess they still are) re-signing the original I-40 route? Isn't the new NCDOT supposed to be more efficient and cost sensitive?

My solution would try to solve two problems with one new route number and possibly provide NCDOT with additional money in the process. The 2 biggest with how the highways are signed now are that people are supposedly confused due to the two 85 routes, and drivers are also confused about how to get to US 220 South (Future I-73) from I-85 North. You can't get there on the I-85 Loop but have to exit onto Business 85 travel a mile or so north and then take the US 220 South exit. I would remove the Business 85 designation completely through Greensboro, I would then replace it south of US 220 with a new 3di, I-273 (To I-73, too obvious?) which would travel with US 29/70 to the US 220 exit and then back south on US 220 to the Loop and I-73. NCDOT could then claim interstate maintenance money for the route like they did by putting I-40 on its original alignment. As to the argument that the route is not up to modern interstate standards, so are parts of I-40 through Death Valley, yet the FHWA let NCDOT move I-40 back anyway. The Business 85 part was also marked as I-85 for decades.

Trying to figure out why NCDOT does the things it does is sometimes frustrating, but it always makes life interesting for those interested in roads in North Carolina.

Comments

Anonymous said…
They should have signed it I-685 for the business 85 in Greensboro. Since it is a loop and it will make the road more qualifying for federal money.

The sign heading to Greensboro from I-85 should read "I-685 North, US 29 North, US 70 East (TO US 220 South/I-73 South)

BUT the one thing of all.. they should have signed I-73 along US 220 anyways (even if some stretch is not interstate standards)
Bob Malme said…
Looks like there's some progress on completing the signage work. I-73/US 421 in both directions was closed during the midday hours today for what was described as sign installation. This may mean the last I-40/I-73 sign on the SW portion of the Loop has been updated.

Also in looking at the traffic cameras on the I-85 portion, I believe that one of the former green signs that had both I-40 and I-85 on it, now just has a centered I-85. I guess they decided not to waste the signage already up there by replacing it with a stand alone I-85 shield on a signpost.
Bob Malme said…
The I-73 closings were lanes near Wendover Avenue. The I-85 sign was heading southbound on the portion north of the US 421 interchange.

Popular posts from this blog

Porter-Parsonsfield Covered Bridge - Maine

  Spanning over the Ossipee River on the border between Porter in Oxford County, Maine and Parsonsfield in York County, Maine is the 152 foot long Porter-Parsonsfield Covered Bridge. The Porter-Parsonsfield Bridge is built in a Paddleford truss design, which is commonly found among covered bridges in the New England states. The covered bridge is the third bridge located at this site, with the first two bridges built in 1800 and 1808. However, there seems to be some dispute for when the covered bridge was built. There is a plaque on the bridge that states that the bridge may have been built in 1876, but in my research, I have found that this bridge may have been built in 1859 instead. That may check out since a number of covered bridges in northern New England were built or replaced around 1859 after a really icy winter. The year that the Porter-Parsonsfield Covered Bridge was built was not the only controversy surrounding its construction. There was a dispute over building and maintain

Route 75 Tunnel - Ironton, Ohio

In the Ohio River community of Ironton, Ohio, there is a former road tunnel that has a haunted legend to it. This tunnel was formerly numbered OH 75 (hence the name Route 75 Tunnel), which was renumbered as OH 93 due to I-75 being built in the state. Built in 1866, it is 165 feet long and once served as the northern entrance into Ironton, originally for horses and buggies and later for cars. As the tunnel predated the motor vehicle era, it was too narrow for cars to be traveling in both directions. But once US 52 was built in the area, OH 93 was realigned to go around the tunnel instead of through the tunnel, so the tunnel was closed to traffic in 1960. The legend of the haunted tunnel states that since there were so many accidents that took place inside the tunnel's narrow walls, the tunnel was cursed. The haunted legend states that there was an accident between a tanker truck and a school bus coming home after a high school football game on a cold, foggy Halloween night in 1

US Route 299 and modern California State Route 299

US Route 299 connected US Route 101 near Arcata of Humboldt County east across the northern mountain ranges of California to US Route 395 in Alturas of Modoc County.  US Route 299 was the longest child route of US Route 99 and is the only major east/west highway across the northern counties of California.  US Route 299 was conceptualized as the earliest iteration of what is known as the Winnemucca-to-the-Sea Highway.  The legacy of US Route 299 lives on today in the form of the 307 mile long California State Route 299.   Featured as the cover of this blog is the interchange of US Route 101 and US Route 299 north of Arcata which was completed as a segment of the Burns Freeway during 1956.   Part 1; the history of US Route 299 and California State Route 299 The development of the State Highways which comprised US Route 299 ("US 299") and later California State Route 299 ("CA 299") began with 1903 Legislative Chapter 366 which defined the general corridor of the Trinit