My prediction on the numbers for the two new North Carolina Interstate Corridors

Could these be the next two Interstates in North Carolina?

It seems more than likely that NCDOT is going to petition AASHTO to approve the formal numeric numeration for the two new interstate corridors that were included in the FAST ACT. The two corridors are US 64 from Raleigh to Williamston then continuing north on US 17 to Hampton, VA. The other follows US 70 from Interstate 40 near Clayton eastwards to Morehead City.

NCDOT is most likely going to submit an application for both routes this April for the AASHTO meeting this coming May. Here are my predictions for the number of each route.

US 70 Corridor - We know that NCDOT is planning to petition for a number between 40 and 60. Obviously, 40 is already taken, and there is an Interstate 44 already in place running from St. Louis to Wichita Falls, TX. 42 is possible - however - there are a few of the opinion that since NC 42 intersects with the proposed Interstate this number is out. Though, this hasn't stopped NC 73 from intersecting with I-73, I think NCDOT will pass on 42 because of NC 42's close proximity. My guess is Interstate 46. NC 46 runs near the state line and can be renumbered if the state chooses. AASHTO and or the FHWA may throw a curveball and suggest a three digit branch of Interstate 40. If that is the case, and because I am going to hedge by bet here - I'll say that this suggestion with be Interstate 340 because the connection to 40 lies between 140 in Wilmington and 540 in Raleigh.

US 64/US 17 Corridor - This is slightly more difficult. The local business coalition that pushed for an Interstate designation along this corridor has always branded this as Interstate 44. However, they concede that Interstate 44 may not be the right number for the route. There seems to be an overall consensus of opinion for Interstate 50. Plus, the western end of this corridor - from I-95 in Rocky Mount west to I-440 in Raleigh - already has an Interstate designation, Interstate 495. So what will NCDOT do? Scratch 495 and have a two digit number for the entire corridor? Keep 495 and begin the new route at Interstate 95 in Rocky Mount?

My guess - Interstate 50. Yes, US 50 goes through Virginia but it is nowhere in the vicinity of the Tidewater Region. If that is of a concern - Interstate 54 would be my next choice. I also believe that if a two digit Interstate is approved that the allowed signage for the new route will go beyond Interstate 495's current end at I-540 in Knightdale. They will allow the route to be signed to the US 64 Business Exit in Wendell (Exit 429).

Of course, I'm most likely wrong. Feel free to make your own predictions in the comments below.

Interstate shields courtesy of David Kendrick's Shields Up!

I-40 rockslide uncovers old debates on highway

The Asheville Citizen-Times continues to do a great job covering all the angles of the Interstate 40 Haywood County rock slide. An article in Sunday's edition provides a strong historical perspective on how the Pigeon River routing of Interstate 40 came about. And perhaps most strikingly, in an article that ran just prior to the highway's opening in the fall of 1968, how engineers from both Tennessee and North Carolina warned "...that slides would probably be a major problem along the route for many years." On February 12, 1969, not long after the Interstate opened, the first rock slide that would close I-40 occurred. Like many other Interstates within North Carolina, Interstate 40 through the mountains has a history prior to formation of the Interstate Highway System and was also a heated political battle between local communities. The discussion for a road that would eventually become Interstate 40 dates back to the 1940's as the idea for interregional high

Mines Road

Mines Road is an approximately twenty-eight-mile highway located in the rural parts of the Diablo Range east of the San Francisco Bay Area. Mines Road begins in San Antonio Valley in Santa Clara County and terminates at Tesla Road near Livermore of Alameda County. The highway essentially is a modern overlay of the 1840s Mexican haul trail up Arroyo Mocho known as La Vereda del Monte. The modern corridor of Mines Road took shape in the early twentieth century following development of San Antonio Valley amid a magnesite mining boom. Part 1; the history of Mines Road Modern Mines Road partially overlays the historic corridor used by La Vereda del Monte (Mountain Trail). La Vereda del Monte was part of a remote overland route through the Diablo Range primarily used to drive cattle from Alta California to Sonora. The trail was most heavily used during the latter days of Alta California during the 1840s. La Vereda del Monte originated at Point of Timber between modern day Byron and Bre

Former California State Route 41 past Bates Station

When California State Route 41 was commissioned during August 1934 it was aligned along the then existing Fresno-Yosemite Road north of the San Joaquin River. Within the Sierra Nevada foothills of Madera County, the original highway alignment ran past Bates Station via what is now Madera County Road 209, part of eastern Road 406 and Road 207. Bates Station was a stage station plotted during the early 1880s at what was the intersection of the Coarsegold Road and Stockton-Los Angeles Road. The modern alignment bypassing Bates Station to the east would be reopened to traffic during late 1939. Part 1; the history of California State Route 41 past Bates Station Bates Station was featured as one of the many 1875-1899 Madera County era towns in the May 21, 1968, Madera Tribune . Post Office Service at Bates Station is noted to have been established on November 23, 1883 and ran continuously until October 31, 1903. The postal name was sourced from Bates Station owner/operator George Ba

Brian said…

In a state which has no problem with an I-74/US-74 concurrency, I doubt that other route numbers in conflict will be an issue. Personally, I don't see a need for new route numbers of any variety, but that's not the "cool and trendy" way to approach this.

5:14 PM

Bob Malme said…

Good choices for the predictions. I too agree that the US 70 one will be an I-4x and the US 64 an I-5x. As for I-50, the Regional Transportation Alliance (the organization pushing for the US 64 I-route) in a blog post last updated on Feb. 9 (available at: http://letsgetmoving.org/rta-blog/raleigh-norfolk-495-44-50-89-56/) sees potential problems with I-50 due to the existence of NC 50 which also intersects I-95. Their preferred I-5x route is I-56.

6:23 PM

6:36 PM

Kristin Rollins said…

Living in southeastern Virginia, I don't think Virginia's route numbering matters, because I fail to see where the political will will come from to foot the bill for any portion of this Interstate. Southeastern Virginia has many higher-priority projects for which funding has not yet been found, especially regarding a number of urban bridge and tunnel crossings. While I love the route (and the US 17/US 64 route is our favored route to get to I-95 southbound from Hampton Roads), I do not see the value of upgrading the portion north of the VA/NC state line, and I do not see circumstances where it is likely to become valuable enough to be worth the cost to taxpayers and governments here.

4:22 PM

Gribblenation

Search This Blog