Control Cities Request by North Carolina Dot

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Control Cities Request by North Carolina Dot NEW CONTROL CITIES REQUEST BY NORTH CAROLINA DOT Neil Boudreau Highway Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering, Vice Chair MassDOT, Assistant Administrator for Traffic and Safety June 19, 2018 Interstate Control Cities Purpose of a control city…. To provide the driver the best orientation of the major destinations and population centers located on or near the Interstate Highway System. Control city legends should be used in the following situations: 1. Interchange between freeways 2. Separation points of overlapping freeways 3. On directional signs on intersecting routes, to guide traffic entering the freeway 4. On pull Thru signs 5. On the bottom line of post interchange distance signs 2 Proposed North Carolina Control Cities Detail I-42 : proposing six cities and towns I-73 (partial complete): proposing five cities and towns I-74 (partial complete): proposing five cities and towns I-87 (partial complete): proposing five cities and towns 3 Interstate 42 (US-70) 142 Miles total length Proposed Interstate Control Cities: City of Raleigh City of Goldsboro City of Kinston City of New Bern City of Havelock Town of Morehead City Poposed Control Cities Interstate: I-42 4 Poposed Control Cities Route: I-42 (Western Portion) City of Raleigh Population (2015): 451,000 Major intersecting routes: I-40, I-87, US-1 Important feature: Capital of NC City of Kinston Population (2015): 21,300 Distance from last control city: 29 miles Important feature: Global Transpark air City of Goldsboro freight facility Population (2015): 35,800 Distance from last control city: 54 miles Major intersecting routes: I-795 Important feature: Seymour Johnson Air Force Base 5 Poposed Control Cities Route: I-42 (Eastern Portion) City of Kinston City of New Bern Population (2015): 30,100 Distance from last control city: 35 miles Major intersecting routes: US-17 Important feature: Important tourist destination Town of Morehead City City of Havelock Population (2015): 9,300 Population (2015): 20,400 Distance from last control city: 17 miles Distance from last control city: 19 miles Important feature: Port of Morehead City, Important feature: Cherry Point Marine Corps End of Route I-42 Air Station 6 Interstate 73 98.5 Miles total length Proposed Interstate Control Cities: City of Martinsville (VA) City of Greensboro City of Asheboro City of Rockingham City of Bennettsville (SC) Poposed Control Cities Interstate: I-73 7 Poposed Control Cities Route: I-73 (Northern and Southern Portion) City of Martinsville (VA) City of Asheboro Population (2015): 13,600 Distance from the last control city: 48 miles Major intersecting routes: US-58 Important feature: Recommended by VDOT City of Greensboro City of Rockingham Population (2015): 285,000 Population (2015): 9,200 Distance from the last control city: 27 miles Distance from the last control city: 31 Major intersecting routes: I-40, I-85, I-785 Major intersecting routes: I-74, US-1, US-74 City of Asheboro City of Bennetsville (SC) Population (2015): 8,600 Population (2015): 26,100 Distance from the last control city: 25 miles Distance from the last control city: 57 miles Major intersecting routes: US-15 Major intersecting routes: I-74, US-64 Important feature: Location Questioned by Important feature: North Carolina Zoo SCDOT Northern I-73 Southern I-73 8 Poposed Control Cities Route: I-73, Highway Layout Not Set (South Carolina Portion) Bennettsville Myrtle Beach 9 Interstate 74 122 Miles total length Proposed Interstate Control Cities: City of Wytheville (VA) City of Winston-Salem City of Asheboro City of Rockingham City of Lumberton Poposed Control Cities Interstate: I-74 10 Poposed Control Cities Route: I-74 (Northern and Southern Portion) City of Wytheville (VA) City of Asheboro Population (2015): 8,100 Major intersecting routes: I-81 Important feature: Recommended by VDOT City of Rockingham Population (2015): 9,200 Distance from the last control city: 57 miles City of Winston-Salem Major intersecting routes: I-73, US-74 Population (2015): 241,000 Distance from the last control city: 91 miles Major intersecting routes: I-40 City of Lumberton Population (2015): 21,700 Distance from the last control city: 60 miles Major intersecting routes: I-95 Important feature: University City of Asheboro Population (2015): 26,100 Distance from the last control city: 44 miles Major intersecting routes: I-73, US-64 Important feature: North Carolina Zoo 11 Northern I-74 Southern I-74 Interstate 87 185 Miles total length Proposed Interstate Control Cities: City of Raleigh City of Rocky Mount City of Williamston City of Elizabeth City City of Norfolk (VA) Poposed Control Cities Interstate: I-87 12 Poposed Control Cities Route: I-87 (Western Portion) City of Williamston Population (2015): 5,500 City of Raleigh Distance from last control city: 46 miles Major intersecting routes: US-17, US-64 Population (2015): 451,000 Important feature: Route to Outer Banks Major intersecting routes: I-40, US-1 Important feature: Capital of NC, end of route City of Rocky Mount Population (2015): 55,800 Distance from last control city: 59 miles Major intersecting routes: I-95 13 Poposed Control Cities Route: I-87 (Eastern Portion) City of Norfolk (VA) Population (2015): 246,000 City of Elizabeth City Distance from last control city: 47 miles Major intersecting routes: I-64, US-13, US-58 Population (2015): 18,000 Important feature: Recommended by VDOT, Distance from last control city: 62 miles end of route Major intersecting routes: US-158 Important feature: Route to Outer Banks, University City of Rocky Mount City of Williamston 14 Thank you! 15.
Recommended publications
  • Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) 2040
    Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) 2040 4.1 Roads and Highways Element The largest part of the transportation system is a roadway network of more than 7,000 lane miles and is comprised of NCDOT maintained roads, locally maintained roads, and private roads. In late 2013 the metropolitan area boundary for the High Point MPO increased in size to include the remaining portion of Davidson County not already included in an MPO. This substantially expanded the roadway network for the MPO. Radial movements that are strongest in the MPO are: • Towards Greensboro and Jamestown to the northeast, • Towards Winston-Salem from High Point to the northwest via Interstate 74, • Towards the Piedmont Triad International Airport to the north via NC 68, • Towards Lexington from High Point to the southwest via Interstate 85 and US 29/70, and • Towards Winston-Salem from Lexington via US 52. • There is some radial demand between High Point, Thomasville, Archdale, Trinity, and Wallburg. Heavily traveled routes include: • Eastchester Drive (NC 68), towards Piedmont Triad International Airport • Westchester Drive and National Highway (NC 68), towards Thomasville • NC 109 • Main Street in High Point, • Main Street in Archdale, • US 311 Bypass, • Interstate 85, • US 29-70, • Wendover Avenue, • Main Street and NC 8 in and around Lexington, • High Point - Greensboro Road, and 4.1 Roads and Highways Element • Surrett Drive. Chapter: 1 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) 2040 The projects in the Roadway Element of the Transportation Plan come from the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) for the High Point Urbanized Area. The differences between the Roadway Element of the MTP and the CTP include: • The MTP is required by Federal Law, CTP is mandated by the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide
    Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide A Complete Compendium Of RV Dump Stations Across The USA Publiished By: Covenant Publishing LLC 1201 N Orange St. Suite 7003 Wilmington, DE 19801 Copyrighted Material Copyright 2010 Covenant Publishing. All rights reserved worldwide. Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide Page 2 Contents New Mexico ............................................................... 87 New York .................................................................... 89 Introduction ................................................................. 3 North Carolina ........................................................... 91 Alabama ........................................................................ 5 North Dakota ............................................................. 93 Alaska ............................................................................ 8 Ohio ............................................................................ 95 Arizona ......................................................................... 9 Oklahoma ................................................................... 98 Arkansas ..................................................................... 13 Oregon ...................................................................... 100 California .................................................................... 15 Pennsylvania ............................................................ 104 Colorado ..................................................................... 23 Rhode Island ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gregor Weichbrodt on the Road 0X0a
    0x0a On the Road Gregor Weichbrodt On the Road Gregor Weichbrodt 0x0a © 2014 Gregor Weichbrodt All rights reserved. www.ggor.de CONTENTS About this book ........................ 5 Chapter 1 ............................... 7 Chapter 2 .............................. 23 Chapter 3 .............................. 41 Chapter 4 .............................. 53 ABOUT THIS BOOK Based on the novel “On the Road” by Jack Kerouac and Google Maps Direction Service. The exact and approximate spots Kerouac traveled and described are taken from the book and parsed by Google Direction Service API. The chapters match those of the original book. Gregor Weichbrodt January 2014 www.ggor.de 7 CHAPTER 1 Head northwest on W 47th St toward 7th Ave. Take the 1st left onto 7th Ave. Turn right onto W 39th St. Take the ramp onto Lincoln Tunnel. Parts of this road are closed Mon–Fri 4:00 – 7:00 pm. Entering New Jersey. Continue onto NJ-495 W. Keep right to continue on NJ-3 W, follow signs for New Jersey 3 W/Garden State Parkway/Secaucus. Take the New Jersey 3 W exit on the left toward Clifton. Merge onto NJ-3 W. Slight right onto the Garden State Pkwy N ramp. Merge onto Garden State Pkwy. Take exit 155P on the left to merge onto NJ-19 N toward I-80/ Paterson. Turn left onto Cianci St. Turn right onto Market St. Head west on Market St toward Washington St. Turn left onto Main St. Turn right onto County Rd 509 S. Take the Interstate 80 E ramp. Merge onto I-80 E. Take exit 62A-62B toward Saddle 9 Brook/Saddle River Rd/Garden State Pkwy.
    [Show full text]
  • CED-79-94, Excessive Truck Weight
    COMPTROLLER ..GENERAL'S EXCESSIVE TRUCK WEIGHT: REPORT TO THE CONGRESS AN EXPENSIVE BURDEN WE CAN NO LONGER SUPPORT D I G E S T ---~----;--- Arner ica mov'es on its roaas ana these roaas are in trouble. They are deteriorating at an accelerated pace and suff icie.o.t f.u.Pd.S. aea-noi:. a-VaiTabTe to -cope with curr_efil n.e_eiL<;;_ o.r meet mcure requirements. · While there are many uncontrollable causes of highway deterioration, such as weather, exces­ sive truck weiqht is. .onE .c.au.s_e th.at c_an be con­ ~rolle,g,. By strictly enforcing tneir we-ight · laws,-States could virtually eliminate damage caused by overweight trucks. While controlling truck weights will not eliminate highway deteri­ oration, applying Feaeral weight limits to all trucks on all Federal-aid highways could re­ duce it even further. National statistics show that at least 22 per­ cent of all loaded tractor-trailers exceed State weight limits. This percentage is even higher for other types of large trucks. (Seep.11.) In 1956, Congress established weight limits for interstate highways as a precondition for Federal highway funaing, but these limits ao not apply to noninterstate Federal-aid high­ ways--95 percent of the Federal-aia system. Even for interstate highways, higher weights are often allowea. The Federal investment in the Nation's nighway system, over $96 billion s~nc~ 1956, must be protectea. (Seep. 37.) eongress should amend the highway legislation 1o: · · --Make Federal weight limits also apply to noninterstate Federal-aid highways in all States. --Terminate current exceptions in Federal law that allow higher limits on some interstate highways.
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic and Safety Study for US 52 and SR 7 in Lawrence County, Ohio
    Traffic and Safety Study for US 52 and SR 7 in Lawrence County, Ohio LOS during the peak hours are the intersections of the Ashland Bridge with US 52 and Charley Creek Road Executive Summary with US 52. With no additional investment, in 2030, 14 of the study intersections are projected to operate at This Traffic and Safety Study for US 52 and SR 7 in Lawrence County, Ohio has been conducted to focus on LOS D or worse in the AM or PM peak hours, and 9 would operate below LOS D in both the AM and PM the mobility and safety along the corridor in Lawrence County, Ohio. This plan was developed by Kimley- peak hours. Horn and Associates, in conjunction with the KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission and the Ohio In addition to analyzing quantitative data, public input was obtained to identify the perceived needs of corridor Department of Transportation. The goal in developing this study is to examine the corridor’s current users. A series of public meetings for the study allowed several issues to be identified for the corridor, conditions, reasonably forecast future conditions, and create and evaluate recommendations for dealing with including the following. issues impacting safety and mobility along the corridor. This document explains the efforts undertaken to address that goal. There is a lack of alternate routes to SR 7 in Proctorville to use when incidents occur. Analysis of Conditions The speed limit on US 52 changes from 65 MPH to 55 MPH at the Scioto County line. Consequently, there is a speed differential near the county line as some vehicles slow down and others do not.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 North
    Interstate 73 FEIS: I-95 to North Carolina The feasibility study recognized that there had been some improvements to roads in the project study area; however, the improved roads were predicted to have capacity problems along some segments by the year 2025, based on traffic modeling. Future traffic projections indicated that I-73 would divert traffic from existing roadways, which would improve capacity and reduce traffic congestion.10 North Carolina completed a feasibility study in 2005 that evaluated alternatives for the proposed I­ 74 in Columbus and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina, located in the southeastern portion of the state. The study was an initial step in the planning and design and described the project, costs, and identified potential problems that required consideration. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was passed by Congress and signed into law on August 10, 2005. SAFETEA-LU acknowledges the prior purpose for, and designation of, I-73 as a High Priority Corridor, along with designating it as a project of “national and regional significance” (23 U.S.C. §101(2005)). In addition, SAFETEA-LU provides earmarks for the I-73 project in South Carolina. At the state level, Concurrent Resolution H 3320 passed by the South Carolina General Assembly in 2003 states “that the members of the General Assembly express their collective belief and desire that the Department of Transportation should consider its next interstate project as one that provides the Pee Dee Region with access to the interstate system.”11 Both Congress and the South Carolina General Assembly have appropriated money to SCDOT to study the potential corridor for the proposed I-73.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Suspended Where Possible for July 4
    State of Illinois JB Pritzker, Governor Illinois Department of Transportation Omer Osman, Acting Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: July 1, 2020 Paul Wappel 217.685.0082 Maria Castaneda 312.447.1919 Construction suspended where possible for July 4 Non-emergency closures called off, but motorists should still expect work zones SPRINGFIELD – The Illinois Department of Transportation announced today that lanes that have been closed for construction will reopen, where possible, for the Fourth of July holiday to minimize travel disruption. Non-emergency closures will be suspended from 3 p.m. July 2 to 11:59 p.m. July 5. The following lane closures will remain in place during the holiday weekend. Work zone speed limits will remain in effect where posted. Please buckle up, put your phone down and drive sober. District 1 City of Chicago: • The following ramps in the Jane Byrne Interchange work zone will remain closed: • o Inbound Kennedy (Interstate 90/94) Expressway exit to inbound Ida B. Wells Drive. o Outbound Dan Ryan Expressway exit to Taylor Street and Roosevelt Road. o Outbound Ida B. Wells Drive entrance from Canal Street. o Outbound Ida B. Wells Drive exit to outbound Dan Ryan. o Outbound Ida B. Wells Drive exit to outbound Kennedy. o Inbound Eisenhower Expressway (Interstate -290) to outbound Kennedy; detour with U-turn posted. o Inbound Eisenhower; lane reductions continue. o Inbound Ida B. Wells Drive; lane reductions continue. • Outbound Kennedy exit at Canfield Road; closed. • Westbound Bryn Mawr Avenue between Harlem and Oriole avenues; lane reductions continue. • Westbound Higgins Avenue between Oriole and Canfield avenues; lane reductions continue.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter Reso 1..2
    *LRB09621705GRL39304r* SJ0118 LRB096 21705 GRL 39304 r 1 SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 2 WHEREAS, The Chicago - Kansas City Expressway (C-KC) 3 corridor through Illinois and Missouri forms a unified corridor 4 of commerce between 2 of the major commercial and tourism 5 centers in the Midwest; and 6 WHEREAS, The portion of the Chicago - Kansas City 7 Expressway corridor from Chicago to the Quad Cities, Galesburg, 8 Monmouth, Macomb, and Quincy, constitutes a major artery for 9 travel, commerce, and economic opportunity for a significant 10 portion of the State of Illinois; and 11 WHEREAS, It is appropriate that this highway corridor 12 through Illinois connecting to the corridor in the State of 13 Missouri be uniquely signed as the Chicago - Kansas City 14 Expressway (C-KC) to facilitate the movement of traffic; 15 therefore, be it 16 RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE OF THE NINETY-SIXTH GENERAL 17 ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 18 CONCURRING HEREIN, that we designate Interstate 88, the 19 portions of Interstate 55 and Interstate 80 from Chicago to the 20 Quad Cities, Interstate 74 to Galesburg, U.S. Route 34 to 21 Monmouth, U.S. Route 67 to Macomb, Illinois 336 to Interstate 22 172 at Quincy, Interstate 172 to Interstate 72, and Interstate -2-SJ0118LRB096 21705 GRL 39304 r 1 72 to the crossing of the Mississippi River at Hannibal, 2 Missouri as the Illinois portion of the Chicago - Kansas City 3 Expressway and marked concurrently with the existing route 4 numbers as Illinois Route 110; and be it further 5 RESOLVED, That the Illinois Department of Transportation 6 is requested to erect at every route marker, consistent with 7 State and federal regulations, signs displaying the approved 8 C-KC logo and Illinois Route 110; and be it further 9 RESOLVED, That suitable copies of this resolution be 10 delivered to the Secretary of the Illinois Department of 11 Transportation, the Director of the Missouri Department of 12 Transportation, and the Mayors of Chicago, the Quad-Cities, 13 Galesburg, Monmouth, Macomb, and Quincy..
    [Show full text]
  • West Harrison, In
    CINCINNATI, OH MSA 190,000+ SF BUILD TO SUIT | FOR SALE OR LEASE DISTRIBUTION | MANUFACTURING FACILITY INTERSTATE 74 AT EXIT 169 | WEST HARRISON, IN Lee Wilburn President c 502.939.7909 e [email protected] CINCINNATI, OH MSA 190,000+ SF BUILD TO SUIT | FOR SALE OR LEASE DISTRIBUTION | MANUFACTURING FACILITY INTERSTATE 74 AT EXIT 169 | WEST HARRISON, IN PROPERTY OVERVIEW LEED GOLD CERTIFIABLE NATIONAL Delivery Date: Q2 2020 Square Feet: 190,000 (Expandable to 271,000) Office: Build to Suit Site: 17.1 Acres Clear Height: Up to 40’ Building Dimensions: 540’ x 350’ Column Spacing: 70’ x 50’ (Docks) / 50’ x 50’ (Internal) Loading: Crossdock Truck Court: 190’ VICINITY Fire Protection System: ESFR INDIANA OHIO Dock Doors: 23 Available 75 SITE 71 Drive-In Doors: 1 (Additional Available) 74 Walls: Insulated Concrete CINCINNATI 275 Floors: 7” (Ductilcrete available) OHIO Warehouse Lighting: LED and Skylights RIVER Parking Spaces: 214 (Up to 507) OHIO INDIANA 71 KENTUCKY 75 KENTUCKY Trailer Parking: 29 (12’ x 60’) Roof: White TPO over R-24 Rail Service Adjacent Zoning: Interstate 74 Adjacent I-2 Port of Cincinnati 25 miles Utilities: Telecom Fiber Optic CVG Airport/Amazon/DHL 27 miles Electricity Duke Energy Indianapolis 87 miles Water 12” Gas 6 inch CROSSDOCK DEVELOPMENT [email protected] CINCINNATI, OH MSA 190,000+ SF BUILD TO SUIT | FOR SALE OR LEASE DISTRIBUTION | MANUFACTURING FACILITY INTERSTATE 74 AT EXIT 169 | WEST HARRISON, IN PROPERTY OVERVIEW LEED GOLD CERTIFIABLE Site Transportation: Interstate-74 Frontage;
    [Show full text]
  • Revive Cincinnati: Lower Mill Creek Valley
    revive cincinnati: neighborhoods of the lower mill creek valley Cincinnati, Ohio urban design associates february 2011 STEERING COMMITTEE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Revive Cincinnati: Charles Graves, III Tim Jeckering Michael Moore Emi Randall Co-Chair, City Planning and Northside Community Council Chair, Transportation and OKI Neighborhoods of the Lower Buildings, Director Engineering Dave Kress Tim Reynolds Cassandra Hillary Camp Washington Business Don Eckstein SORTA Mill Creek Valley Co-Chair, Metropolitan Sewer Association Duke Energy Cameron Ross District of Greater Cincinnati Mary Beth McGrew Patrick Ewing City Planning and Buildings James Beauchamp Uptown Consortium Economic Development PREPARED FOR Christine Russell Spring Grove Village Community Weston Munzel Larry Falkin Cincinnati Port Authority City of Cincinnati Council Uptown Consortium Office of Environmental Quality urban design associates 2011 Department of City Planning David Russell Matt Bourgeois © and Buildings Rob Neel Mark Ginty Metropolitan Sewer District of CHCURC In cooperation with CUF Community Council Greater Cincinnati Waterworks Greater Cincinnati Metropolitan Sewer District of Robin Corathers Pat O’Callaghan Andrew Glenn Steve Schuckman Greater Cincinnati Mill Creek Restoration Project Queensgate Business Alliance Public Services Cincinnati Park Board Bruce Demske Roxanne Qualls Charles Graves Joe Schwind Northside Business Association CONSULTANT TEAM City Council, Vice Mayor City Planning and Buildings, Director Cincinnati Recreation Commission Urban Design Associates Barbara Druffel Walter Reinhaus LiAnne Howard Stefan Spinosa Design Workshop Clifton Business and Professional Over-the-Rhine Community Council Health ODOT Wallace Futures Association Elliot Ruther Lt. Robert Hungler Sam Stephens Robert Charles Lesser & Co. Jenny Edwards Cincinnati State Police Community Development RL Record West End Community Council DNK Architects Sandy Shipley Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Illinois
    State of Illinois Illinois Department of Transportation District 1 – Urban Interstate Resurfacing Milling and resurfacing on Interstate 290 from Sacramento Boulevard to Interstate 90/94 in Chicago. District 2 – Rural 4 Lane Bridge Rehabilitation Miscellaneous repairs on the structure carrying Interstate 80 over the Mississippi River. District 6 – Rural 2 Lane Concrete pavement on County Highway 10 east of Elkhart. District 6 – Urban Streetscape Streetscape reconstruction that includes new concrete pavers, sidewalks, lighting, planting beds and traffic signals on Capitol Avenue between 5th Street and 7th Street in Springfield. District 8 – Urban Pedestrian Bridge Construction Construction of a 3-span pedestrian bridge, sidewalk, lighting, landscaping, sewer and retaining walls for the city of Alton over US 67 at Riverfront Park. Printed by authority of the State of Illinois, 0445-11, 01/11, 500 FY 2012-2017 Proposed Highway Improvement Program Spring 2011 Published by the Illinois Department of Transportation Springfield, Illinois 62764 Printed by authority of State of Illinois, April 2011, 275 copies. This document is printed on recycled paper. This document is available on-line at www.dot.il.gov/opp/publications.html. CONTENTS Page Program Development Process ................................... 1 Seeking Public Involvement – Outreach Meetings ....... 3 Executive Summary ..................................................... 5 Department of Transportation District Map ................. 21 Public Review and Comment Form ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate 73/74 Economic Atlas of North Carolina
    Interstate 73/74 Economic Atlas of North Carolina Piedmont Triad Rural Planning Organization Piedmont Triad Council of Governments May 2011 Interstate 73/74 Economic Atlas of North Carolina May 2011 Prepared by Piedmont Triad Rural Planning Organization & Piedmont Triad Council of Governments In partnership with: Cape Fear RPO• Greensboro Urban Area MPO • High Point Urban Area MPO • Lumber River RPO Northwest Piedmont RPO • Winston-Salem Urban Area MPO Staff Hanna Cockburn, AICP, Planning Program Manager Jesse Day, Regional Planner Anne Edwards, Director, Regional Data Center Malinda Ford, GIS Planner Route data courtesy of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Lead Planning Agencies Table of Contents The Great Lakes Mid-Atlantic Route ........................................................................................................... 1 Interstate Impacts .......................................................................................................................................... 2 The North Carolina Corridor .......................................................................................................................... 3 Surry County .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Stokes County ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Forsyth County ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]