Skip to main content

Trip to NCDOT's 'I-95 Citizens Informational Workshop'

On Monday, August 23 I drove to Wilson to attend NCDOT's Informational Workshop for the 'Interstate 95 Corridor Planning and Finance Study' or 'Driving 95' project held from 4-7PM at the Ellis Convention Center. This meeting was one of 7 meetings held from mid to late August. The purpose according to NCDOT is 'to provide information regarding the proposed study and obtain public input' or as I heard one NCDOT official say, so that after we run our models to develop a plan, no one can say 'you screwed up by forgetting the problems at this or that interchange' in your plan.

NCDOT itself says it hasn't done a lot of work itself on the I-95 just, the displays and maps were presented by representatives of 2 contractors. It was this data presented by the contractors that NCDOT wanted feedback. One contractor had gone the length of I-95 and determined any problems at each interchange. They also looked at problems with I-95 itself between exits. They took traffic counts from which they determine a Level of Service Ranking (A-D, F) for today and produced a model for what the service rank would be in 2040 if no action were taken. For most, not surprisingly, the LOS in 2040 was ranked D or F. Another firm looked at the environmental factors and historic structures (those older than 50 years) within 1000' of each side of I-95 to determine what obstacles may be in the way of construction, or restrict the highway right-of-way. Ideally, NCDOT would like to use the median to add lanes to save money, but that may not be possible in some places. The ideal outcome for these studies and comments are segmented plans for the entire I-95 corridor. One stretch may need to be widened to 8 lanes requiring rebuilding not only the road but bridges, overpasses and interchanges within 5 years to avoid extreme congestion while another area may not have to be widened until 2025, and, for now may only need some curves to be straightened to increase sight distances. Separate EIS reports would be created for each segment to be submitted to the FHWA for approval. The more segments spread out over many years, the less money NCDOT would have to need annually for I-95 projects.

The meeting did bring up financing options for paying for all this. These included raising the state gas tax or registration fee, enacting a local sales tax, public-private partnerships, and tolls. Since they had a couple extra posters on tolls, you could sense that's where NCDOT is leaning as of now. The tolling would be completely electronic, like that being placed on the Triangle Expressway (NC 540) near Raleigh. They did say the were considering either open road tolling (which would allow some free travel if one gets on and off between toll facilities), or those placed at interchanges which would mean anyone getting off the highway would pay. This information session was for the first part of the project, they are planning two more steps that will include public involvement over the next 2 years. Click the Blog Entry title to link to NCDOT's official study website.

Other observations on the trip down and back:
New signs, they have put up new signs at the US 64/264 interchange that don't need to be lighted, but like with the Durham freeway, the replacement signs do not bother to correct mistakes or update information. Thus heading east on 264, one still comes to signs splitting traffic to East or West 64, no mention that 264 continues on 64 East.
I-795 repaving, since I got to Wilson before 4, I took a drive down I-795 to just over the Wilson County line. I wanted to see what progress there had been in repaving, due to be done by this fall. It appears to be ahead of schedule with all of the freeway I drove having new asphalt on it into Wayne county. Traffic in the first 10 miles southbound was restricted to the left lane, though construction was only occurring in a 1/4 mile stretch on the shoulder. The road was quite smooth in both directions, just shows you what NCDOT can accomplish when the job is done twice.
None of the overheads on US 264 or I-795 had been changed. Sorry I have no photos, it was raining on and off both down and back, so I decided not to bring the camera.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Memphis & Arkansas Bridge (Memphis, TN)

  Like the expansion of the railroads the previous century, the modernization of the country’s highway infrastructure in the early and mid 20th Century required the construction of new landmark bridges along the lower Mississippi River (and nation-wide for that matter) that would facilitate the expected growth in overall traffic demand in ensuing decades. While this new movement had been anticipated to some extent in the Memphis area with the design of the Harahan Bridge, neither it nor its neighbor the older Frisco Bridge were capable of accommodating the sharp rise in the popularity and demand of the automobile as a mode of cross-river transportation during the Great Depression. As was the case 30 years prior, the solution in the 1940s was to construct a new bridge in the same general location as its predecessors, only this time the bridge would be the first built exclusively for vehicle traffic. This bridge, the Memphis & Arkansas Bridge, was completed in 1949 and was the third

Old River Lock & Control Structure (Lettsworth, LA)

  The Old River Control Structure (ORCS) and its connecting satellite facilities combine to form one of the most impressive flood control complexes in North America. Located along the west bank of the Mississippi River near the confluence with the Red River and Atchafalaya River nearby, this structure system was fundamentally made possible by the Flood Control Act of 1928 that was passed by the United States Congress in the aftermath of the Great Mississippi River Flood of 1927 however a second, less obvious motivation influenced the construction here. The Mississippi River’s channel has gradually elongated and meandered in the area over the centuries, creating new oxbows and sandbars that made navigation of the river challenging and time-consuming through the steamboat era of the 1800s. This treacherous area of the river known as “Turnbull’s Bend” was where the mouth of the Red River was located that the upriver end of the bend and the Atchafalaya River, then effectively an outflow

California State Route 203 the proposed Minaret Summit Highway

California State Route 203 is an approximately nine-mile State Highway located near Mammoth Lakes in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of Mono County.  California State Route 203 as presently configured begins at US Route 395, passes through Mammoth Lakes and terminates at the Madera County line at Minaret Summit.  What is now California State Route 203 was added to the State Highway System in 1933 as Legislative Route Number 112.  The original Mammoth Lakes State Highway ended at Lake Mary near the site of Old Mammoth and was renumbered to California State Route 203 in 1964.  The modern alignment of the highway to Minaret Summit was adopted during 1967.   The corridor of Minaret Summit and Mammoth Pass have been subject to numerous proposed Trans-Sierra Highways.  The first corridor was proposed over Mammoth Pass following a Southern Pacific Railroad survey in 1901.  In 1931 a corridor between the Minarets Wilderness and High Sierra Peaks Wilderness was reserved by the Forest Service for po