Talk:Interstate 40 in North Carolina/Archive 1

Migrated exit lists
Both following lists migrated by me from Talk:Interstate 40. —C.Fred (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we remove the "Mile" column? And can we finish the table (the blank space on the right doesn't look too good).  Also it looks like there's a problem in the Triangle list, I don't know what's up with that.  I've tried before, but I just can't get it right. --MPD01605 (T / C) 00:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I didn't edit yet, just copy. I need to look at the latest guidelines and bring it in line with those. I'll start with the Triangle, since I have more first-hand knowledge of the exit list there. —C.Fred (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I'll work on the Triad list, and I have a link to a full I-40 exit list (minus municipalities) somewhere.  I won't do it tonight...probably not at least.  I have some other work to do before that. --MPD01605 (T / C) 02:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrightsville Beach
I've deleted Wrightsville Beach from the list of major cities twice now, based on these criteria:
 * 1) It is not on AASHTO's list of control cities, so it fails that criteria for inclusion.
 * 2) It is less than 50,000 people in population, so it is not a major city.
 * 3) It is not located on I-40.

This may be a situation like LA, where it should have its own little note after the listing, but I'm not convinced. Does anybody have a stronger argument than "It appears on a pull-through sign" for why it should be listed? —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Where are you getting these criterea from? No, Wrightsville Beach not on the AASHTO list, but neither is Hickory or Chapel Hill and neither of them, even Statesville or Benson have a population over 50,000.
 * The AASHTO list are as follows for I-40: Barstow, Needles, Kingman, Flagstaff, Gallup, Albuquerque, Santa Rosa, Tucumcari, Amarillo, Oklahoma City, Fort Smith, Little Rock, Memphis, Nashville, Knoxville, Asheville, Statesville, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, Durham, Raleigh, Benson, Wilmington.
 * The official control cities, identified by AASHTO, are listed in this article in bold, but the ones that are unofficial are in regular text. So how do we know which ones are unofficial? We look at the road signs and see their actual use. "Hickory" is used as a control city for I-40 at the I-26 interchange in Asheville, for instance, and it, in a way, makes sense. Since the junction is in Asheville, the "Asheville" control city name wouldn't make sense to use. The same is true for the Wrightsville Beach addition. Since the I-140/I-40 junction is in Wilmington, using "Wilmington" as a control city is confusing to apply, so the nearest other city, Wrightsville Beach, was chosen. Judging by where Wrightsville Beach is in relation to I-40, this choice is just weird in my opinion, but it's a control city nonetheless. Most control city references are "usually found at highway junctions to show where the intersecting road goes..." That's where the "Wrightsville Beach" name was found, so if it looks like a control city and behaves like a control city, I say it is a control city, unofficial, but still a control city. Main sign I'm basing this on, A sign that features it, but is really confusing, This one is on I-40, but so is Carolina Beach (Not going to debate that one). If you think it's too minor to note, then fine, we don't have to put it. It's silly to argue something like this much further. So, in a nutshell, I disagree with your argument, but we don't have to put it up there. A third editor can share what he/she thinks if he/she wants. Oh and to explain my actions (for whoever wants to know): I did put the Wrightsville Beach entry on the Interstate 40 article to begin with, but it was reverted so I put it on this "in NC" article since it's more localized, hoping it would be more accepted. --Triadian 18:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hickory MSA is over 300,000; Chapel Hill's estimated 2004 population is 52,000 and change. However, both are on the route of I-40. Since I-40 doesn't enter Wrightsville Beach, how about a note similar to the LA note on the I-40 main article?
 * Note: Wrightsville Beach is used as a{n unofficial} control city at{/near} the intersection with I-140 in Wilmington, even though the highway does not enter the city of Wrighstville Beach.

That presents the info without implying that the highway enters Wrightsville Beach, it's consistent with the main article, and it appropriately drills into state-level detail for the state-specific article. Does that work by you? —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone once recently put on the Interstate 77 article the control city of Charleston, South Carolina. This is most likely because for the 5 miles south of South Carolina State Highway 277 in Columbia, South Carolina (its last control city) to its terminus with Interstate 26, I-77 shows Charleston as its control city because it is out of cities.  It's still a good two or three hours from Charleston.  Things get hairy near the end of Interstates.  I-140 intersects I-40 about four miles from its terminus.  This is quite a predicament though.  I like CFred's idea (from I-40 with LA).  But that is also a good few hundred miles, not four or five. I would actually prefer to see LA in the list with a little symbol like † or something to the note at the bottom...I don't know, it's complicated.  But that works for the time being.  -- M PD T / C 04:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with something like that if you'd want to put it. It's just an interesting fact and I doubt anyone searching Wikipedia for I-40 in North Carolina would care too much unless they were searching for freaky Interstate signage. Yea, it does get confusing at Interstate ends, and in all reality, it's the state DOT's that get the final say. Heck, one of the signs on I-40's last mile stretch lists Carolina Beach as a control city, but it's only found on one solitary sign and is not used as a way to show where I-40 is going in all reality, and is showing the routing of NC 132, which continues 1 mile ahead. Plus, it's the third city listed, so it's not worth mentioning. --Triadian 06:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This sign in particular is just interesting. The "Wrightsville Beach" control city applies to I-40 because US 17 and I-140 go away from the beach. What's odd is that US 17 Business would take you closer to Wrightsville Beach than I-40 would. So essentially, if you were traveling down US 17 south and saw the Wrightsville Beach control city sign and followed the route it wanted you to take, you would be sent west away from the beach, then back east. Since the US 17 bypass and I-40 are high-speed freeways though, it actually might be a little quicker to take that way. I just thought that was strange. --Triadian 06:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Stub
Several parts of this article show it as a "stub" - yet it's full-length article. Shoudl the stub designator be removed? Jpp42 12:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

New stretch of I-40
I-40 has a new stretch around Greensboro that opened up this past week. It added about 4.15 miles to the total distance of I-40 in NC. Wendover is still Exit 214, however, the next exit is Groometown road and I cannot remember the exit number at the moment, then the I-40 / I-85 BUS-85 29 interchange is next. I will get this info soon.

One thing to note. Sometime by the end of spring, the NCDOT will have to re-milemark the rest of the interstate starting around mile marker 259 in Orange county where I-40/I-85 split again. All exit numbers beginning with 261 will have to be renumbered, with the majority of exit numbers going up by 4 with the additional strech of road in Guilford county. Just a heads up for those on this project. --Pparazorback (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about this (i.e. source)? Groomtown Road/I-85 S is 218 (A and B most likely, they're the same ramp off I-40, however), and BUS 85/US 29 N is 219.  I saw something in a paper somewhere (Greensboro News and Record) that said that NCDoT wasn't going to renumber/mark the rest of I-40 because it's only 4 miles and, to paraphrase, it "doesn't really matter" in the end and would cost a lot of time and money.  That may have changed however.  Reference 3 at Greensboro Urban Loop is a map of the loop with exits and numbers.  -- M PD T / C 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the exit number for Groometown on the new stretch, I will confirm that exit number next time I drive down that stretch, which I might do tomorrow. Also to note, that there will eventually be a High Point Rd exit but that is an entirely separate project since they plan on rerouting High point road between Groometown and just before the Adams Farm shopping Center.  As for the commentary about not renumbering, I never saw the article that they won't renumber but that might be possible that they might not do it.  They should renumber it for accuracy.  Now, when I-85 was rerouted, they did not change anything, however the reroute only ended up adding less than a quarter mile to the entire route.  I guess we will see.  --Pparazorback (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 218 is correct for Groometown, numbered from I-85's mile markers. --Pparazorback (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Several State Troopers have died in the Haywood Co. section?
Needs reference.. sounds unlikely to me. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference is the citation just before that part of the paragraph. You only need one citation for many facts in a paragraph.  But the sentence wasn't entirely correct.  The article, published 19 November 2003, states that two state troopers had been killed by speeding trucks while conducting traffic stops along the stretch in the 18 months prior to the article.  You're correct in that it's not "several".  According to this article published a few weeks ago the total number is four state trooper deaths in 23 years.  The first was shot in '86, then came the 2001 and 2003 accident deaths, then the latest shooting in June.  Take what you will from it, I just edited the sentence to reflect the current citation. -- M PD T / C 20:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great follow up. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Major" cities
If Benson (aka BFE) is included on the "Major Cities" list, then the name of the list should be changed to "Major or Control cities"...or something with "control". A North Carolinian reading the current list would probably wonder how Benson (pop. 3374) could be considered a city, let alone a major city.  APK  is ready for the tourists to leave  02:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a standard. Go to WT:USRD and bring it up there as it's a WikiProject standard. -- M PD T / C 03:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Though there was a caption on the list noting that entries in bold are AASHTO control cities. I'm not sure what happened to it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, that's not the Major Cities template at all. -- M PD T / C 05:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh god. I'd rather the page contain incorrect information than try to convince some project's members to change their way of thinking (that goes for all projects, mine included).  APK  is ready for the tourists to leave  04:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * APK, I agree with you 100%. To be fair, I hadn't looked at the article, just saw the edit summaries pop up on my watchlist.  Its current state should explain it all.  C.Fred- that other template was added by the anon user; before, it was a section and had a control cities note.  I'm trying out a new template on a few articles that addresses some concerns I've encountered with major/control cities sometimes (such as "Canada") (not to mention the old template isn't actually a template and has to be coded into the article).  -- M PD T / C 05:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Page Construction
I will be working on Interstate 40 for the next week. If there is anything that looks unfinished, don't delete it, I had to go do something and will be back to it later. The main area I will be working on is the route description and first section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncchild (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Redesigning History
, I wanted to get your opinion on a restructuring of the Interstate's history to go more in order based on time. Seems like we have some of that then it goes into a bunch of subcategories and it may be confusing to readers.--Ncchild (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Writing eloquently and incorporating existing works isn't my strong suit, so I'm cool if you can reformat it in a better organization. Just remember to incorporate the important history and don't delete anything unless it is fluff.  --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright cool. I wasn't planning on deleting any details unless of course it's not needed.--Ncchild (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sen. Robert D. Warren Highway
I noticed the Sen. Robert D. Warren Highway is not listed as one of the names for I-40. Prior to his terms in the state senate, Warren was the director of driver's licenses from 1970-1974. It looks like the name was added in 2005. I assume the people who maintain this page are more familiar with what the database is saying here, or would know how to pull up the complete entry: (entry is on page 8). Also mentioned in this obituary:. The sign on eastbound I-40 comes just before mile marker 337 in Johnston County. I might have dashcam footage showing the sign on the westbound lanes also (if it hasn't recorded over yet), but I would assume somewhere in some database is a listing of the exact stretch of I-40 that is the Sen. Robert D. Warren Highway. --jqubed (Talk | Contributions) 00:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thank you for alerting us and feel free to make any additional constructive edits. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Cleveland Road Interchange
I wanted to put this into the article, but wasn't sure if there was consensus already. With the I-40 widening in southern Wake/Johnston County, NCDOT is going to create a new interchange at Cleveland Road. This interchange is going to be connected with the current NC 42 interchange, so my best guess is it will be Exit 312 A/B. Of course, I think we can add it with no exit number, as that isn't confirmed in the conceptual drawings on the NCDOT website. --Ncchild (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If a new interchange is going to be built, and is confirmed with sources, then it should be included in the Future/History and Exit list. Anything we do not know, like exit numbers, should be left blank until a source can be referenced. Always avoid making assumptions and only report what is currently available. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)