Talk:Interstate 540 (North Carolina)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I, David McDowell, am the founder of No Tolls on 540, we are a legitimate organization with numerous volunteers fighting tolls on 540. We have been featured in the News & Observer and on WRAL TV and website. We are not trying to "attract" traffic via wikipedia. Tolls on this road are a concern of the citizens of the Triangle and of NC and the information for and against them should be made available for all to see. Turnpike420 12:56, 14, Aug 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have links to the articles? (I know, the WRAL story has probably expired.) If the sources can show the scope and nature of the opposition, then it will make a good section. As it is, the "Criticism" section you added is merely promotion for the website; that is why I have removed it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The WRAL article is still up and works great. Here is a listing of ALL the places where our organization has news: http://www.notollson540.org/inthenews.php so checking the link before presumption of expiration would be appreciated. I would be glad to learn more about who you are so I can understand why you feel the way you do about the Criticism section. As far as I can tell you are pro-toll and paid by the NCTA to remove all negative publicity. I am trying to be as fair to all as possible and access to information of all views is important, otherwise we are no longer democratic, but authoritarian. Turnpike420 Turnpike420 (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) As I said, I feel the Criticism section discusses the website and not the road; I think there are ways to remedy it. I also think it's better for an editor without a conflict of interest to add the text. (And not that it matters to my evaluation of the text, but I have been known to take Peachtree-Dunwoody or Roswell to avoid the toll on Georgia 400.) As for the website itself, the links to news stories make the site a valuable resource per WP:EL, so I do favor keeping a link. I just think if we're mentioning it in the article, we need more context about how it relates to the road. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the section in for other editors to review, but I have flagged it with an {{ambox}} with my concerns (since there isn't a boilerplate for COI-section). —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like we are coming to an agreement, thank you. Please give me a couple days and I will have the section re-worded a bit to provide more direct relevant information about the proposed toll route. I will make this change on all relevant pages to the Triangle Expressway proposed toll road. (Glad to see you would avoid GA 400, I lived in Atlanta for 8 months off north druid hills in 1998 when gas was $0.69 per gal!) I will use a proper reference to the site as well instead of in-line URL. Turnpike420 (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to edit the text some just now (let's face it, it could be better), but I am going to wait until you (Turnpike420) work on it a bit since I think your intentions are in good faith, then I'll have a go and check it over. Two suggestions: I would either like to see a reference made to another anti-toll group to give more substance to "criticism", or, the "History" could actually have history of the route (reasons for construction, planning etc), and what's in that section now could be merged with "Criticism" to become a "Future" section since the current "History" section is mostly about tolls and we have another section about (a website right now but hopefully..) why there shouldn't be tolls. Like I said, I'll wait a few days to see what happens. --MPD ^{T / C} 19:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MPD, my intentions are in good faith. There are a lot of facts out there about the project and its impact, changes in the HTF issues, etc. We plan to look through wikipedia to see where/if things like that are covered. I am very passionate about our position, and I understand me being the one to deliver it to the page does stand to question a bit, but I am always open to suggestion through our discussion(s) to have it as amicable as possible. What is your relationship to the project? It will help me to understand your position. It looks like I'm meeting with a couple folks Saturday, so hopefully I can have some re-wording done sometime Sunday. If you would like to submit some of your own wording to us in email, we would be glad to look over it! We'll all get it if you send to the notollson540@gmail.com address, thanks, have a good weekend.Turnpike420 (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) How about if we find a proper place in the History section which is currently mentioning the proposed toll aspects of the road, just add a short simple sentence or 2 explaining local opposition and do a ref link for the website? Seems like that is going to meet everyone's needs. I still think it is important for the logo image to be off to the side of the paragraph where the ref link is. What do you guys think? Turnpike420 (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"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.

The beltline just got changed to east-west I-440--Ncchild (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

Exit numbers on NC 540 segment

The text describes a change from initially-signed exit numbers to a second set, but the exit table shows a third set of exit numbers. How'd they decide to change the numbers again? Was any follow-up story run by the local media about this second revision? —C.Fred (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow what your saying. The exit numbers on the highway were numbered as built and has never changed. I believe there might have been an error on some of the numbers on the NC 540 piece that was quickly fixed to as seen on the junction list. -WashuOtaku (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

New Map

This Article needs a new map so it shows it going all the way to NC 55. --Ncchild (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Interstate 540 (North Carolina). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070630030911/http://www.newsobserver.com:80/news/growth/traffic/story/596394.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/news/growth/traffic/story/596394.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Triangle Expressway be merged into Interstate 540 and North Carolina Highway 540. I think that the content in the Triangle Expressway article can easily be explained in the context of Interstate 540 and North Carolina Highway 540, and the Interstate 540 and North Carolina Highway 540 article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Triangle Expressway will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Jesse Schulman (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I will have to see what @Washuotaku: thinks about this idea. The only concern I have is that the Triangle Expressway isn't explicitly part of the I-540/NC 540 loop, it has the NC 147 section through RTP.--Ncchild (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Don't merge - Hey guys, I am going to say no on the merger request as Ncchild already touched on, the Triangle Expressway is not solely on NC 540 but also on NC 147. This is setup similar to other named roads in North Carolina, like Great Smoky Mountains Expressway, Cherohala Skyway and Forest Heritage Scenic Byway. Thank you for asking first before any unilateral action. ^_~ --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I get that, but there are also entire pieces of each article that are completely redundant. Maybe link them to each other and remove some of the overlap of articles then? Jesse Schulman (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Redundancy is bound to happen, but asking people to jump back and forth between articles isn't user friendly either. Generally, discussions regarding the tolls should be on the Triangle Expressway and details about the highway itself on this article. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm completely with Washuotaku here. The articles will be redundant both along NC 540 and NC 147 just because it is comprised on both those highways. I also agree that tolls should be more on the Triangle Expressway Article than the I-540/NC 540 or NC 147 article. However I also think it might not be a bad idea on the Route Description for NC 540 Only to place a "see also Triangle Expressway". As far as I know that is only on the Toll part.--Ncchild (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not see an issue using main articles for both NC 147 and NC 540 when talking about the route descriptions; just make sure there is something is written there to link the two besides just link articles (don't jump on that yet Ncchild, wait till consensus first). --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If this isn't what you were talking about, sorry I'm a little tired. I say they should all have their own RD's that are appropriate. The Triangle Expressway shouldn't be split up because it is one highway. I'm just saying especially for the I-540/NC 540 article, on the NC 540 section we could have a see also to the Triangle Expressway.--Ncchild (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine whatever, just don't make it crappy looking or need people to click here for this and click there for that. I only ask the toll focus on the Triangle Expressway and the route history and all its glory on the highway pages. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 540 and North Carolina Highway 540. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140414225141/https://www.myncquickpass.com/en/faq/all.shtml to https://www.myncquickpass.com/en/faq/all.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 540 and North Carolina Highway 540. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120803003814/http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07/31/2237737/toll-collection-starts-thursday.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07/31/2237737/toll-collection-starts-thursday.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/story/63999.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/story/63999.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402222109/http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/03/30/413414/southern-wake-loops-roadwork-to.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/03/30/413414/southern-wake-loops-roadwork-to.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Interstate 540 and North Carolina Highway 540 → Interstate 540 (North Carolina) – The name for this page is too long and excessively precise. There is already precedence for this kind of situation with Interstate 140 (North Carolina). OrdinaryJosh (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support At the time there wasn't other examples like this where the state would transition between Interstate and NC Highway using the same route number. Nowadays, NCDOT uses this in several places and when segments of an interstate do not link-up directly. So yea, no need for long name anymore. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support Agreeing with the same reasons as above. Also, when I-885 will get its own article soon it will probably stay as Interstate 885. So it really should be just Interstate 540 (North Carolina) and nothing else. ~ Sandy14156 (Talk ✉️) 05:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the reasons stated above. DiscoA340 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.