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

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

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

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