Skip to main content

North Carolina to petition AASHTO for Interstate 295 designation (again...for like the third or fourth time)

Image
By
The semi-annual American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) meeting is being held next week in Atlanta.  And with this meeting is another round of state petitions for highway designation changes, additions, and deletions.  Requests from North Carolina are typically on the agenda for every meeting.

This year is no different - as North Carolina is petitioning for the designation of Interstate 295 and Future Interstate 295 for the Fayetteville Outer Loop.  You may be wondering - wasn't this done before - maybe a few times before.  Hell, I've lost count.

So what is going on here - and if Interstate 295 was approved over a decade ago why did they take the I-295 signs down in the first place?
Taken in 2007, could I-295 shields be returning to the Fayetteville Outer Loop?

Well - it's complicated.  The first numbering request for the Fayetteville Outer Loop was made in 2003, and the highway was asked to be signed as Interstate 195.  It was rejected - as AASHTO said hey you are going to built this as a full loop one day why don't you try something like 295.  So two years later, when the highway was extended east to connect with Interstate 95 (Exit 58), NCDOT went back to AASHTO and said hey let's try this again as Interstate 295.  AASHTO approved and pretty much that was that.  Signs went up like the one above, and hey, NC had another Interstate.

By 2016, the Outer Loop was now known as NC Highway 295

Well, around 2014 is when all this confusion kicked in.  As NCDOT began to extend the Outer Loop westwards towards the All-American Freeway.  Signage plans revealed that the highway would be signed as NC 295 and not as Interstate 295.  An oversight maybe, after all it seemed like no one ever could agree on what number it should be.  But when NC replaced the Interstate 295 shields on signs along Interstate 95 around the same time - it was generally considered that because of various parts of the highway that did or may not meet full Interstate standards caused the Interstate status to go away. Two examples were the lack of shoulders on the bridge crossing the Cape Fear River and the lack of a direct freeway to freeway connection from I-95 North to I-295.

The left hand turn from Interstate 95 North onto I-295 is a possible reason why I-295 lost its shield. (Google Maps)
So let's fast forward to the present, and North Carolina's current application for Interstate and Future Interstate 295.  First, the Interstate 295 request is for the segment of highway that is currently open from Interstate 95 to the All-American Freeway.  The state argues in its petition that "[t]his section of roadway meets interstate standards and is currently open to traffic."  Further, they note that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had approved designation of this route as Future I-295 in November 2003. 
(Source: AASHTO)
The request for the Future I-295 designation is from US 401 (Raeford Road) south to Interstate 95 near St. Pauls.  I guess those are the next sections to open and won't be connected to the north end of the highway so they are going with Future.

So then why did they take the Interstate 295 signs down in the first place?  It the thought was because the highway didn't meet Interstate standards was correct, then why would have the FHWA approved the highway in 2003?  They must have agreed it was up to standard, right?

And could AASHTO reject the designation? Sure, they could, but they are not the ones to judge if the highway meets standard.  They are really in place more for an approval of a route designation.  And besides, they are too worried about the proper spacing format in an application.

(Source: AASHTO)
The Special Committee on US Route Numbering meets in Atlanta next week.  We should get an answer on Interstate 295's third at bat sometime in October.

Further Reading:


Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The 1915-era Teilman Bridge (the only known Concrete Pony Truss Bridge in California)

By
The Teilman Bridge is a semi-abandoned structure over Fresno Slough west of Burrell siding near the intersection of Elkhorn Avenue and Elkhorn Grade.  This structure is the only known Concrete Pony Truss Bridge constructed in California and was designed by Ingvart Teilman.  Teilman's Bridge would open in late 1915 when the Elkhorn Grade was the primary road between Fresno and Coalinga.  The structure would be replaced in 1991 but was left standing as it carries pipelines over Fresno Slough.  Part 1; the history of the Teilman Bridge In the early Twentieth Century the most direct highway between Fresno and Coalinga followed the Elkhorn Grade.  The Elkhorn Grade began at Fresno Slough a short distance west of Burrell siding.  From Fresno Slough the Elkhorn Grade followed a generally southwestern course through San Joaquin Valley into the Kettleman Hills towards Coalinga.   The Elkhorn Grade can be seen on the  1914 C.F. Weber map of Fresno Coun...
1 comment
Read more

The Dummy Lights of New York

By
  A relic of the early days of motoring, dummy lights were traffic lights  that  were  placed  in the middle of a street intersection. In those early days, traffic shuffled through busy intersections with the help of a police officer who stood on top of a pedestal. As technology improved and electric traffic signals became commonplace, they were also  originally  positioned on a platform at the center of the intersection. Those traffic signals became known as  " dummy lights "  and were common until  traffic lights were moved  onto wires and poles that crossed above the intersection.  In New York State, only a handful of these dummy lights exist. The dummy lights  are found  in the Hudson Valley towns of Beacon and Croton-on-Hudson, plus there is an ongoing tug of war in Canajoharie in the Mohawk Valley, where their dummy light has been knocked down and replaced a few times. The dummy light in Canajoharie is currently...
Post a Comment
Read more

Prunedale Road (Monterey County)

By
Prunedale Road is a short 2.6-mile-long frontage corridor of US Route 101 in the namesake Monterey County community of Prunedale.  Prior to 1932 US Route 101 bypassed Prunedale in favor of the San Juan Grade to the east.  Prunedale Road along with nearby Moro Road served as an alternative connecting highway between Salinas and San Juan Bautista.  Following the realignment of US Route 101 onto the Prunedale Cutoff the former through route along Prunedale Road would be rendered as a western frontage.   Part 1; the history of Prunedale Road Prunedale Road is located in and is named after the Monterey County community of Prunedale.  Said community was founded near the junction of San Migeul Canyon, Langley Canyon and Echo Valley.  Watsonville settler Charles Langley (namesake of Langley Canyon) was one of the prominent early community settlers.  The Prunedale Post Office would open for the first time in 1894 but would close by 1908.  Early agricu...
Post a Comment
Read more