Skip to main content

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!

Comments

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.
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.
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.
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.

Popular posts from this blog

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

Former California State Route 190 at the bottom of Lake Success

East of the City of Porterville the alignment of California State Route 190 follows the Tule River watershed into the Sierra Nevada Mountains.  In modern times California State Route 190 east of Porterville climbs south of the Lake Success Reservoir towards Springville.  Much of the original alignment of California State Route 190 within the Lake Success Reservoir can still be hiked, especially in drier years.  Pictured above is the original alignment of California State Route 190 facing northward along the western shore of Lake Success.  Part 1; the history of California State Route 190 through Lake Success The corridor of California State Route 190 ("CA 190") east of Porterville to Springville follows the watershed of the Tule River.  The Tule River watershed between Porterville and Springville would emerge as a source of magnesite ore near the turn of the 20th Century.  The magnesite ore boom would lead to the development of a modern highway in the Porterville-Springville