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!

Grand Loop Road of Yellowstone National Park

Grand Loop Road is a 140 mile loop highway which traverses the interior of Yellowstone National Park. Grand Loop Road connects all of the major attractions and geological features of Yellowstone National Park along with the entrance roads. Grand Loop Road is a seasonal highway and despite some conjecture never has been part of the US Route System. Part 1; the history of Grand Loop Road The majority of history pertaining to Grand Loop Road was taken from the below National Park Service article: Historic Roads - Yellowstone National Park (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov) Yellowstone was declared the first National Park of the United States on March 1st, 1872. The first real highway to access Yellowstone National Park came in 1873 when a tolled facility was constructed from Bozeman, Montana via Yankee Jim Canyon to Mammoth Hot Springs. Numerous attempts were made to fund construction of roadway infrastructure during the early years of Yellows...

The last 1956-63 era California Sign State Route Spade?

Along southbound California State Route 170 (the Hollywood Freeway Extension) approaching the Hollywood Freeway/Ventura Freeway interchange a white California State Route 134 Sign State Route Spade can be observed on guide sign. These white spades were specifically used during the 1956-63 era and have become increasingly rare. This blog is intended to serve as a brief history of the Sign State Route Spade. We also ask you as the reader, is this last 1956-63 era Sign State Route Spade or do you know of others? Part 1; the history of the California Sign State Route Spade Prior to the Sign State Route System, the US Route System and the Auto Trails were the only highways in California signed with reassurance markers. The creation of the US Route System by the American Association of State Highway Officials during November 1926 brought a system of standardized reassurance shields to major highways in California. Early efforts to create a Sign State Route ...

California State Route 70; the Feather River Highway

From 2017 through to early 2019 I drove the majority of the California State Route 70; the Feather River Highway from CA 89 southwest to CA 99. CA 70 is an approximately 178.5 mile state highway which starts at US 395 near the Nevada State Line and travels west through the Feather River Canyon to CA 99. CA 70 is often referred to as the Feather River Highway" given it's close association with the river. Historically CA 70 was previously signed as US 40A and CA 24. The Legislative Routes prior to the 1964 California Highway Renumbering that made up the current route of CA 70 are as follows: - Legislative Route Number 21 from US 395 westward to Oroville. - LRN 87 from Oroville south to Marysville. - LRN 232 from Marysville to the current junction with CA 99. CA 70 was even dual signed with CA 99 into Sacramento on what was LRN 232 for a time. The change from US 40A/LRN 21/LRN 87/LRN 232 can be seen by comparing the 1963 State Highway Ma...

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