Skip to main content

NCDOT Announces 'New Exit Numbers' in Greensboro

Another press release that may raise more questions than it answers from NCDOT was placed online this afternoon (8/20): https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/pio/releases/details.aspx?r=2877

"Motorists traveling on Interstates 40 and 73 in Guilford County can expect to see new signs and mile markers. Last summer, the N.C. Department of Transportation decided to reroute I-40 traffic from the Greensboro Western Urban Loop back to I-40 Business based on citizen comments.

The department has started replacing the following signs:

  • Changing the green I-40 Business signs back to the blue I-40 signs;
  • Re-signing the exits along I-40 as Exit 212 (I-40/73) to Exit 227 (I-40/85);
  • Re-signing the exits along I-73 as Exit 103 (I-73/40 interchange) to Exit 96 (I-73/U.S. 220 interchange); and
  • Rerouting U.S. 421 to run concurrently with I-73 and parts of I-85.

The I-85 exit signs will remain the same."


See the URL for the entire release and access to a correct(!) map of the new exit signs and designations for all the Greensboro interstates. The release also says "shield pavement markings will be installed along I-40 prior to the I-85/I-40 split on the west side of Greensboro to help motorists determine which lane to follow."

One problem, the I-85/40 split is EAST of Greensboro. Doh!


They say the hope to be completed in a few more weeks. Where have we heard that before?


Comment: 8 months after the signage replacement project that was supposed to be done at the end of the year, then April, then July, NCDOT releases this 'Final' release only to say the job's not done yet. Are they going to release another statement in September saying 'we are finally, finally done, please please you must believe us now."


'Motorists can expect to see new signs.' Are Greensboro drivers now suppose to look up and notice the new signs after most have been up since April? Are irate citizens going to call in saying why are you expecting us to see new signs when you put new ones up a few months ago?


And of course, there has to be one major blunder. If the people putting the news release together would look at the attached map, or an editor brought in to peruse the statement before putting it online they might have noticed that I-85 and I-40 meet east of Greensboro, not west. I'll plan to go out to Greensboro in mid-September and make sure the project truly is done. And that there are no I-85 shields at the I-40/I-73 interchange.


Comments

Anonymous said…
wow! apparently the guy didnt know where I-85/I-40 split is.. lol. However, I like the idea of that..I am also living in Greensboro and not all signs are complete. I still see some Business 40 and US 421 signs in greensboro.. especially from the Bus 85/I-40 split eastwards. I dont know what is taking them long..

I just wish they can widen the Death Valley and replace all bridges on that section.. oh well.

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