Talk:Interstate 540 (North Carolina)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Topics Interstate Highways North Carolina State Highways
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

Contents

[edit] I-640

As stated at Interstate Highway System#Three-digit Interstates, Interstate auxiliary highways are named with three digits, spurs with an initial odd digit, loops with an initial even digit. In its current unfinished state, I-540 is a spur. When it is finished, it will become a loop, and the naming will be required to change. --- Bitt 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this one may end up being an exeption and may be I-540 even after it is reconected to I-40 south of Raleigh. I don't understand why they didn't just name it I-640 to begin with, realizing that it will be a loop in the future. For some reason, they must follow the rules to the book and have to dish out extra money to change all the route signs when the project is complete. I-840 in Greensboro is currently a spur, but they won't place any real Interstate 840 shields on the route, just Future signs, which I think are just a waste. I say go ahead a place the real signs on I-840 and I-640 signs on the loop... but Wikipedia's not a soapbox, so I'll stop here. --TinMan 02:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exit 50 in Wake or Durham County?

I've updated the exit list to bring it in line with I-40's. However, I've got an issue with Exit 50, the under-construction exit for NC 54. Google Earth doesn't have recent enough maps to show the construction. It looks, based on existing buildings, that the NC 54 interchange will be in Wake County. Does somebody have a better source to confirm this? —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I have a large Seager map of the Raleigh area showing the plans for I-540. According to it, the junction with NC 54 will barely be in Wake County. Maybe one exit ramp will touch the county line, but I really doubt it...it should be entirely within Wake. The only junction I of I-540 that seems to cross into Durham county is the I-40/I-540 interchange. So, in other words, you're right and your theory is confirmed. Have a nice day! --TinMan 15:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exit 49-Davis Dr

I added Davis Drive (Exit 49) to the exit list. The interchange on I 540 that will eventually connect with the planned Triangle Parkway curves to the West just North of the interchange and connects to Davis Drive at the Kit Creek Road intersection. At this intersection, you can see the construction extending Kit Creek Road to connect with this interchange. You can also see an overhead BGS for "Davis Dr" if you look West at I 540 just North of the interchange on NC 54. --petejohnson82 17:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exit # changes based on field observations

I made exit # changes based on observations I saw November 11, 2006. Looking south at the interchange of US 64 (Knightdale Bybass) and I-540, the BGS posted reads "Exit 26B" for the future cloverleaf ramp. Looking northbound on the Lynnwood Dr underpass in Knightdale;, you can see the BGS for "Exit 24" for Knightdale Blvd (Bus 64). You can also see one looking south on the Old Mulburne Rd overpass (you may need binoculars to read the exit #). Looking northbound at the Old Mulburne Rd overpass, you can see a BGS for Buffalo Rd (Exit 20). Moreover, I-540 south of Buffalo Rd has lane markings down and looks almost ready to open. It looks like there is still minor work to be done between Buffalo Rd and Capital Blvd. --petejohnson82 04:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Will 26 be a full cloverleaf? If so, this should be reflected in the exit table. —C.Fred (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Exit 26 will be a half cloverleaf with one flyover ramp (US 64/264 East to I 540 West). I have updated the exit table to reflect this. When I 540 is extended to the south of this interchange, it will be a full cloverleaf with two flyover ramps. I also updated the control cities for US 64/264 East to reflect what is on the BGS. --petejohnson82 12:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you had the compass directions flipped, and I changed them. I lived in Raleigh and worked in Rocky Mount for a year; I know about the commute east out of Raleigh, though I had to do it along what is now 64 Business. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You may should change/add this info on the Knightdale Bypass article. --TinMan 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exit 50?

It is my understanding that I-540 will be close to 70 miles in length once the complete loop is finished. However, the exit immediately west of Exit 1 (I-40) is Exit 50 (NC-54). Has there been any explanation for this? --petejohnson82 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's more or less halfway around at exit 26, then 50 miles isn't unreasonable for the full loop length. The only other thing I can think of is that with the tolling, it won't be allowed to wear Interstate shields, and for some unfathomable reason they restart the numbering sequence on the east side of town. Just speculating; I went looking for an official blueprint/description showing planned length, and I couldn't find one. —C.Fred (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've also found a non-verifiable source that says I-540 will be 72 miles when complete. I assume that does not include the Triangle Parkway extension, which some newspaper articles call an extension of I-540. I can't find anything verifiable, or I would change the article. —C.Fred (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to http://www.notollson540.org/

Normally I would delete this link outright since the target page is a blog. However, it's also a resource for those who oppose the tolling of I-540. In the absence of a more authoritative site, I think it's appropriate to leave the link, lest the article take on the appearance of being non-NPOV. —C.Fred (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; if there are issues with NPOV, and reliable sources that say talk about opposition to tolls, then we can include that. But I couldn't find any newspaper articles that talk about this site, so it really is a "random blog". --NE2 07:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The opposition to the tolls hasn't gained traction; it's a one-person blog. While there are some standard government shenigans around the tolls, it's not really gathered that much media attention (yet). I think it could be removed as it doesn't represent anything authoritative; the blog owner is simply trying to attract traffic to the site using Wikipedia. Jpp42 02:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Outer Loop"

I've been in Raleigh ~10 years, and "Outer Loop" has always referred to the outer beltline (440). Emphasis on "always," if someone said they were off exit 13 of the outer loop I'd head onto 440 without a second thought.

I have heard 540 called the "Outer Beltline" many times, both publicly and privately. I note that nomenclature is not listed so I wonder if it just got confused.

Also, people (ironically, especially carpetbaggers) I've known tend to get up in arms when you start talking about "beltways" around Raleigh; beltways are in DC, not NC. =)

I'd change it but I'm all about discussion. You can tell how my vote would lean.

I agree, Inner and Outer refer to 440. 540 is just 540.

[edit] NC 540 shield/separate article?

Have we got a source to confirm that the road has opened as NC 540 south of I-40? If so, I think this article should be changed to cover both roads—including a shield for the article. I do not have an SVG editor, so I can't make it; has anybody else made them before? —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


The road south of I-40 is Opened, and it is now signed as NC 540. It will need a new page, as it is not an Interstate, but rather a state road. I have driven it to the terminus at NC 55 and back. It officially opened at 4:30 P.M EDT July 14

The exits listed in the Contruction page of I-540 are correct for NC 540. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.77.27.244 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

I'm not convinced that it needs its own article yet. Oddly, this ties back into the above discussion. If this were a named road, it would be an easy, obvious decision to redirect both I-540 and NC 540 to the article on the named road. Since, at this point, NC 540 is only a small stub for the southern bit of the loop, I'm thinking to combine the two here. —C.Fred (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I would combine the two as well right now, but leave the possibility for an article on NC 540 to exist in the future if the designation is extended or if this article needs to be split somewhere down the line.
I can also take care of the SVG. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow... unexpected move... one I don't particularly like, but oh well. This really throws a wrench into the works. Let's keep it the same for now. I'll handle the extra WP:NCSH work. --Triadian 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)