NCDOT

[dubone]

I want to know why NCDOT is still planning to build i74 to end at Myrtle Beach rather than Wilmington. By trying to build the connector between the current US74/76 to US17 towards Myrtle, NCDOT is building a redundant freeway, as SCDOT is already building a i73 freeway to Myrtle Beach on the other side of the state lane. Taxpayers will eventually upgrade us74/76 to interstate standards to Wilmington as either i20 or a spur, so why not just have i74 use it.

The north carolina route for 74 to head south to Myrtle would not only be very expensive and go through wetlands, etc., but doesn't serve north carolina's interests at all. Anyone driving to Myrtle Beach when 73 is built will clearly take that route from 95, Charlotte, or Greensboro as it is much more direct.

It is bad enough that 73 and 74 are parallel between the Rockingham area and 95, but that is excusable if 73 goes to Myrtle and 74 goes to Wilmington... but it just seems like a complete lack of planning if they actually end up heading to the same place.

With the amount of unfunded needs in NC, I really hope that the part of i74 that veers off of us74/76 in Columbus/Brunswick counties is at least never built, even if it stays in the plans.

Here is the 74 route in NC

I've roughed up a map to show both on the same map.

[orulz]

I'd looked at that and scratched my head for a while, too.

I would think they should build I-74 to I-140 and end it there. US-17 is going to be upgraded to a freeway between Wilmington and the SC state line anyway, so why not just sign that as I-374 instead?

[dubone]

i think the plans for freeway upgrades of us74/76 to wilmington and us17 between myrtle and wilmington are ongoing. The only reason to build that stretch of i74 through the wetlands would be for people coming from the piedmont to myrtle... but no one would actually take 74 over south carolina's 73 which is much more direct.

if it is a law that i74 must end at myrtle beach, then just route 74 all the way to wilmington and then jog back along 17... or just not build the unnecessary part ala 95 in New Jersey

[ChiefJoJo]

As far as the I-277 lighting issue is concerned... the lighting equipment is aparently faulty--ie, the wiring is substandard, and in need of a total rehaul. Apparently, they are in need of more than a "bandaid" fix, as in new bulbs, and that will require major $$$ (how much I don't know). The Division 10 office is well aware of this issue, and is looking into funding sources. If you want more details, I can pursue them, but it is a funding issue at this time. Sorry, I wish I had better news.

BTW I remember a comment about this before--the Division 10 office is in Albemarle because it's near the geographical center of Div 10--not Clt. (Not everything revolves around Clt--ha ha.)

I want to know why NCDOT is still planning to build i74 to end at Myrtle Beach rather than Wilmington. By trying to build the connector between the current US74/76 to US17 towards Myrtle, NCDOT is building a redundant freeway

I wish I could provide anthing to the contrary, but I agree. I-73 and 74 are very much redundant as planned. I-74 is a political project for SE NC IMO. In my opinion (somewhat informed on the matter), I-74 will never make it through a review process with the feds and resource agencies (Army Corp of Engr, FHWA, NCDENR, etc.) as the purpose and need are very weak, if non-existant. Now the I-20 proposal to Wilmington might actually have some chance as a lot of the NC portion would be a US 74 upgrade, and not a new location facility--the agencies tend to prefer that. It would provide an E-W connection to the port of Wilmington and ease travel between Wilmington and points west. I do know SC doesn't care about I-20 though... they are focused on I-73.

Check out the SE NC hwy "vision" map here.

[dubone]

thanks chief. i agree that i20 seems reasonable, as it is just an upgrade of an existing US highway...

it is good to know that there is an extra federal review requiring some justification. with all the money nc doesn't have for roads it desparately needs, it will be good for that division to just finish up the other stuff instead of plowing a redundant freeway through the wetlands to deliver people to sc.

[ChiefJoJo]

it is good to know that there is an extra federal review requiring some justification.

Yes, but it is very important to know that there are two types of planning as mandated by the federal statutes:

1. Long Range Planning, ie, planning for a minimum of 20 years... here is the link to the federal code if you care to look: clicke here and then click on Sec 134 (Metropolitan Planning)

2. So called project planning/development, which calls for exhaustive environmental study of a particular project (ie, the Monroe Bypass). This process is much more detailed and stringent, as it deals with planning and environmental analysis just prior to right-of-way and construction authorization. The feds (if federal $$$ are involved) & state govt. take this very seriously (as they should) as it essentially gives federal and/or state permission to utilize millions of dollars in public funds that will alter the landscape and potentially have huge effects on local communities and regions. See the link here: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969

Just to clarify, #1, above is where we are with I-74 (this one in particular is NOT being driven by staff--hint, hint)... at least 20 years out. My opinion is that when we get to the environmental phase, #2 (NEPA), that's where I-74 may hit a dead end.

[monsoon]

I'd looked at that and scratched my head for a while, too.

I would think they should build I-74 to I-140 and end it there. US-17 is going to be upgraded to a freeway between Wilmington and the SC state line anyway, so why not just sign that as I-374 instead?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Myrtle Beach & SC does not want to deliver tourists to Wilmington. 73 is being built to serve the interests of SC tourism with MB being its biggest beneficiary.

[dubone]

Myrtle Beach & SC does not want to deliver tourists to Wilmington.  73 is being built to serve the interests of SC tourism with MB being its biggest beneficiary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

which is my point, too...why should nc deliver tourists to MB. As far as i20, i don't see why it couldn't just follow i95 and then follow us74 to wilmington. It would only be about 8 miles longer than building a direct freeway connection along us76 from Florence. SC would only have to chip in for a few signs .

I'm sure it would be much more valuable for both NC and SC to spend what they would have spent on a freeway from Florence, SC to Whiteville, NC into widening/upgrading 95 between florence and lumberton.

[Miesian Corners]

Thanks for your reply Chief. Now why couldn't the DOT simply say that to the news media (and me) instead of saying it was being repaired (which it's not)?

[DCMetroRaleigh]

Not to beat a dead horse, but after visiting Raleigh-Durham this weekend, I must say it is outrageous how dark I-40 is throughout the Triangle. It definitely makes the area seem undeveloped and rural. I cannot believe that DOT has not added lights along the interstate by now.

[ChiefJoJo]

For freeway lighting questions, see here:

NCDOT lighting policy

[sax184]

Not to beat a dead horse, but after visiting Raleigh-Durham this weekend, I must say it is outrageous how dark I-40 is throughout the Triangle. It definitely makes the area seem undeveloped and rural. I cannot believe that DOT has not added lights along the interstate by now.

[Jerseyman4]

Bumping up this thread for visability,

While im at this, I have some questions directing to Chiefjojo:

Question 1: Why do most of its NC freeways along its NC and US numbered highways do not have full right shoulders?

Question 2: Is it a sin for NCDOT to ever provide full shoulders on two lane highways because they are never to be found anywhere in my travels through the 83/100 counties ive been to in the state.

Question 3: Roundabouts and Superstreets..... is there any out of state influence at NCDOT coming up with new ideas? Ive heard of a recent roundabout built on NC 98 in downtown Wake Forest.

Question 4: Will there ever be a transition to county maintained roads?

Question 5: Are city DOTS (High Point, Greensboro, Charlotte etc) closely monitored by NCDOT, perhaps to maintain state standards? Personally, i think High Point does a good job!

Question 6: Every so often, some major state secondary roads throughout the state upgrade to a primary state highway number. Is this influenced by politics/towns/residents/etc?

Think thats all i can come up with, sorry for so many questions

[ChiefJoJo]

1. When you say full, I'm not sure what you mean. Interstates require 10' or 12' paved shoulders (depending on traffic volumes), and most other highways require 4' paved (12' total). Older highways built in the 40s,50s, & 60s were built to lower design standards, so they may not have "full" shoulders.

2. See question #1. Most highways were built when the standards were very different than they are today. Any questions about highways in NC (many of which were built as farm-to-market country roads) must respect this fact.

3. Certain management and staff attend regional and national conferences where ideas are shared. For many years, NC didn't need superstreets, HOV lanes, flyover ramps, SPUI interchanges, tool facillties, etc, because this was a rural state throughout it's history. That has changed, and urbanization has contributed to the introduction of most these concepts. Roundabouts are definitely coming on in this state. I'll add that there is still a lot of resistance in rural or small town NC (outside of Charlotte, Triad, Triangle) to many of these ideas. Many of these people, by nature, are resistant to change.

4. I doubt it. NC had county maintained roads i the 20s i believe, but it was such a bad system the state took it over and for most of the years since has done a good job. The state can continue to do a good job, but it needs much more funding to do it. NC may have a high gas tax relative to the other SE states, but it also has the 2nd highest mileage of state roads to maintain in the nation (to Texas). Strictly IMO, the legislature should grant local funding authority (like a 1 cent local gas tax) to the 3 major metros to fund badly needed transit and road projects.

5. Yes, on state roads. If cities use their money to improve a state road, it's reviewed by NCDOT staff for compliance with state standards. City streets are not.

6. I don't understand what you are asking here. I'm not aware of any SR roads being upgraded to state hwys--except one in Durham. The old Durham Freeway was an SR, and became NC 147 a number of years ago. NC routes are typically multi-county highways and provide a needed connection between smaller towns, where I or US routes do not.

[Transplant]

Why are broken down cars left on the sides of roads here? I think owners have a week to pick them up before there towed. I think they should be given 1 day, at most.

[DCMetroRaleigh]

Exactly Transplant. In the DC area, they have tow trucks roaming the roads to pick up any abandoned cars rightaway.

[Jerseyman4]

1. When you say full, I'm not sure what you mean. Interstates require 10' or 12' paved shoulders (depending on traffic volumes), and most other highways require 4' paved (12' total). Older highways built in the 40s,50s, & 60s were built to lower design standards, so they may not have "full" shoulders.

6. I don't understand what you are asking here. I'm not aware of any SR roads being upgraded to state hwys--except one in Durham. The old Durham Freeway was an SR, and became NC 147 a number of years ago. NC routes are typically multi-county highways and provide a needed connection between smaller towns, where I or US routes do not.

Re: #1

Take the US 264 freeway through eastern Wake & Nash counties for example. The shoulders there are narrow with rumble strips, why does NCDOT still do not provide shoulders on some of its newer freeways? I could understand the older highways though.

Re: #6

Lobelia Road in eastern Moore County was once SR 1XXX then upgraded to NC 690 between US 1 and NC 24/87 as it happend out of nowhere one day. I cant recall how many routes get upgraded but some do every now and then.

[ChiefJoJo]

Re: #1

Take the US 264 freeway through eastern Wake & Nash counties for example. The shoulders there are narrow with rumble strips, why does NCDOT still do not provide shoulders on some of its newer freeways? I could understand the older highways though.

Re: #6

Lobelia Road in eastern Moore County was once SR 1XXX then upgraded to NC 690 between US 1 and NC 24/87 as it happend out of nowhere one day. I cant recall how many routes get upgraded but some do every now and then.

I believe US 264 has 4' paved shoulders with 8' grass = 12' shoulders. This is more than adequate for any type of vehicle to use. I think you may be confusing a shoulder with a paved shoulder. Those sections have a gradually sloping area of grass shoulder that extends beyind the pavement that it is safe to pull your vehicle on. I believe the cutoff for NCDOT freeways is design year volume of 50k vehicles per day. Over that get 10' paved, under that get 4' paved.

SRs to NCs I have no idea why that happens.

[Jerseyman4]

Thanks for answering all of my questions. I left out one more.

Through my two recent trips back to the state, ive noticed an increase of mast-arm traffic signals [Note: not exactly this style] being installed, mainly throughout Division 8. Statewide, will this be the future of traffic signals phasing out the box-wired style signals?

Two new ones that have popped up:

US 15/501 - Carthage, Moore County

Archdale Road (Randolph SR 1005) - Archdale, Randolph County

[e2ksj3]

^ I've always wondered why NC hasn't made the mast-arm type setup the main standard when building traffic signals like in Virginia. They seem to last longer and more wind resistant than the box-wire style and aren't likely to fail in case a hurricane hits.

Here is my question to ChiefJoJo, since the DOT and the state seem to be short on cash and many road projects and widenings like on Independence Blvd (US 74) and I-85 in Cabarrus Co. keep being pushed back. Has the

state thought about finding more "creative" ways to finance road projects, with public-private initiatives like other states are doing now to speed up some of these projects? For example, having a private company finance all or part of the widening of a road with extra lanes like Independence or I-85, and charging a toll on those specific lanes (like the HOT lanes on the I-15 or 91 Fwy in California) to make money off the project.

[nyxmike]

The lighting on the roads are terrible! Especially in Charlotte - why bother putting up lights if your not going to fix them? The only stretch of road where all the lights work is Ballantyne Commons Parkway.

Also, I have noticed that a lot of roads, especially side streets, do not have curbs, or sometimes there will be curb and sidewalk, and then it will stop, or will only be on one side of the road. It looks very half-assed. It seems like curb and sidewalk has to do with who the developer is, but shouldn't it be the state (or city) responsiblity? Either curb and/or sidewalk the whole road or don't do it all.

[DCMetroRaleigh]

The lack of lighting, working and non-working, along North Carolina interstates is appalling and unacceptable.

[ChiefJoJo]

^ I've always wondered why NC hasn't made the mast-arm type setup the main standard when building traffic signals like in Virginia. They seem to last longer and more wind resistant than the box-wire style and aren't likely to fail in case a hurricane hits.

I would guess it's the answer to most questions... the mast-arm units are more expensive. The pole & wire only requires wood poles driven into the ground with the wires spanned across. The mast arms require steel tube sections and concrete footings that can get quite large depending on the length the cantilever must span over travel lanes.

Has the state thought about finding more "creative" ways to finance road projects, with public-private initiatives like other states are doing now to speed up some of these projects?

Yes. I actually participated in a series of forums last fall that was charged with receiving input on now to pay for roads, transit, etc. Some possible scenarios: tolls, public/private, VMT fees, local options taxes/fees, impact fees, increase gas tax, etc.

The NCTA is charged with building many toll roads around the state and the first one may be the Western Wake Freeway/Triangle Parkway combo, which appear to be financially feasible.

This is all political though, and most of these options will be a tough sell to voters/taxpayers, that we need more money for roads/transit. Honestly, with the existing problems and the future growth expected in NC, we don't have much choice. Something must be done in the legislature to solve the problem.

The lighting on the roads are terrible!

It's being worked on. The I-277 issue is well documented. See the roads/freeways topic in the Clt forum so I don't have to explain it over again.

Also, I have noticed that a lot of roads, especially side streets, do not have curbs, or sometimes there will be curb and sidewalk, and then it will stop, or will only be on one side of the road. It looks very half-assed.

Because most of these streets used to be rural country roads built in the 40s and 50s, and due to suburban growth, they have been overcome with subdivisions and strip malls. Many are required to be widened by the developer in front of his property but no farther (he doesn't own it), so you end up with a hodgepog of wide pavement w/sidewalks, then back to a 2-lane farm-to-market road. Sometimes cities or DOT can afford to fill in the gaps, but mostly they don't until a critical mass develops.

-----------

[begin editorial comment] NCDOT has a ton of issues to deal with and it struggles with a lot of it to be sure... not enough money, poor planning, lack of staff, too centralized, etc. Many of the issues are also driven by a lack of land use planning on the local level. If cities did not allow so much sprawl to occur, and promoted more compact development, providing 100s of miles of extra lanes probably would not be needed. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that public infrastructure is much more efficient when it's not spread too thin to recoup it's cost (and there is a real cost). If we fit our city populations into half the land area, connected our streets and sidewalks, and funded transit instead of way too many roads, we wouldn't see so many needs going unfilled. The current model of how to build cities and finance their infrastructure in the US (around the single occupied vehicle) is outdated and needs to be trashed for something else. [/end editorial comment]

[orulz]

It would be nice if the state/cities could force any developer to connect their development to the city's sidewalk grid and build curbs along the road to where it connects with the city's grid, rather than just builidng the sidewalks and roads on their property. Perhaps the state/city could fund right-of-way acquisition and condemnation, but the construction costs would all be privately paid for. That way, the cost of building gets higher and higher the further out you go, which means less sprawl.

[NcSc74]

Why would toll roads be a tough sell. At some point the DOT has to stand up and say look we are swamped. You the legislature are not helping matters any either.

As far as the gas tax increase...good luck. Then again it might work for municipalites. However how fair would that be. Charlotte already has other projects funded by the taxpayers. Now the to ask them to pay a little extra because our state government really does't use the common sense factor.