Talk:North Carolina Highway 147

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interchange[edit]

What was going to interchange with NC 147 between Ellis Road and Briggs Avenue? --NE2 23:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question and I don't know for sure, but it seems to me like they were planning for a future connector between 147 and US 70. If you look at this [Strategic Highway Corridors map] for the Triangle area, you can see there is a planned link between the two highways at almost the exact location of the "bowing out" in the highway. That's my best educated guess at this point. I've driven by that segment a few times and it does look like it was built to accomodate some type of intersection. --TinMan 20:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. That does appear to be its purpose. --NE2 20:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the NCDOT's plan for that connector: [1]. --TinMan 06:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exits section[edit]

The Exits section needs major cleanup - it's pretty unreadable now. Why not a list, table, etc.? Jpp42 11:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a table. Feel free to modify it, clean it up, or otherwise change it. See Help:Table if you need syntax assistance. Nimur 22:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

I, David McDowell, found of No Tolls on 540 have re-added this section. The public has a right to read and know all things relevant to this road including information for or against the proposed tolls. Turnpike420 13:05, 14 Aug 2008

Wikipedia is not a soap box. This section is filled with POV. Although you should probably not be writing this section at all due to conflict of interest, you should at least rewrite it so that it is NPOV.67.81.96.169 (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on North Carolina Highway 147. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on North Carolina Highway 147. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split I-885 article; review of draft[edit]

Closing split proposal—once something official happens, there's a draft ready to go. We don't need to have the article tagged for a split indefinitely in the interim. Imzadi 1979 → 10:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

I-885 shouldn't have only a subsection of NC 147, considering that it also runs along US 70 and that the East End Connector isn't solely related to 147. To have enough material for a split, I put together a draft for an I-885 article. It's ready to simply be copied over to replace the Interstate 885 redirect, so it won't take a group effort, but I would like some second opinions on my draft before anything is done. Roadsguy (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, though no one has commented yet, no one has objected either, I'm going to just go ahead and do it within the next few days unless anyone wants to get in a last-minute objection. Roadsguy (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're fine. Certainly someone would have said something in objection if we had any issues. –Fredddie™ 23:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let us hold off at this time till an official submission and approval by AASHTO or FHWA. The reasoning is because things can change and what NCDOT may want, may not get. This happened with Interstates 42 and 87, when NCDOT had picked a different designations and was given those instead. In the meantime, we can continue to park proposed I-885 here. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Washuotaku here on holding off; if someone wants to create something in draft space in preparation for when this becomes a real thing, I'd be fine with that, but as of now I-885 isn't even a paper interstate and exists only ephemerally, it's a loosely proposed number that hasn't been submitted for consideration even. AASHTO may approve a different number, a different routing, or may reject the entire thing out-of-hand. I remember all of the wrangling that went on a few years back over the I-495/I-44/I-50/I-87 proposals and changes that kept going around and around. Lets get this to a stable thing first; mock up something in draft so it is ready to go when it's in some kind of final form is fine, but as of yet, we're not there. --Jayron32 15:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing I waited a few more days. My draft is already essentially finished, but for now I agree that we should wait for AASHTO approval or some other official word. I-495 in particular, though, was official, though the various designations proposed since 495 and before 87 certainly didn't deserve a separate article yet. Roadsguy (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I-885 has been officially approved yet, but NCDOT is clearly serious enough about the designation that covered-up signs have been installed featuring I-885 shields. Perhaps it's time to revisit creating the article for it.

My draft is essentially ready, perhaps requiring a few updates by now. One thing that needs to be corrected is the exit numbers, which are apparently being revised to start with NC 147's exit numbers rather than restarting at I-40, though I can't find any source (nor do any signs seem to be installed yet) for whether the numbering on the connector and US 70 is being changed. Roadsguy (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

New developments regarding I-885 and NC 147 designations[edit]

I have obtained the revised signing plans for U-0071, the East End Connector project, from NCDOT. This latest version features new changes that were never publicized. Below are some of the most notable:

  • I-885 starts out with NC 147's mileage, thus not changing any exit numbers south of the connector. On and above the connector, the mileage continues, with the terminus at I-85 being Exit 13. This change is already visible on the road, as already-installed signage indicates the left exit for NC 147 northbound as being Exit 9 rather than Exit 4 as the original plans indicated.
  • NC 147 is being truncated to begin at the connector, eliminating the would-be concurrency with I-885. Mile markers and exit numbers are being adjusted as well, with Briggs Avenue changing from Exit 10 to Exit 1 (signs for which having already been put up on the road). Exit numbers on the remainder of the road are not featured in these plans.
  • Toll NC 147 on the Triangle Expressway will become Toll NC 885.

Obviously we can't just add all this information to every related article all hinging on a single citation to a set of plans that need to be specially requested and can't just be downloaded. It does mean, though, that we definitely should wait for NCDOT to release details to the press before revisiting a dedicated I-885 article. I will, however, be creating a second I-885 draft including this new information to be cleaned up and implemented later. These new plans also raise the question of what to do with the NC 147 article, since the Durham Freeway name will still apply to I-885. We can either reduce the scope of it to only the northern half of the Durham Freeway, changing the Durham Freeway redirect to a disambiguation page similar to Delaware Expressway, or move "North Carolina Highway 147" to "Durham Freeway" and relegate NC 147 to a component highway, like PA 581 on the Capital Beltway in Harrisburg. It's way too early to make a decision since we can't even add the information yet, but we should at least know that a decision will eventually need to be made. Roadsguy (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming your single source is legit, NC 147 would get a considerable diet but would still have the same history and would likely have links to it to any new I-885/NC 885 article. I do not support the idea of renaming the article the Durham Freeway, because it would be the only component that would remain after I-885 breaks-out, so why even bother. I am also against combo titles like Interstate 540 and North Carolina Highway 540, just call it Interstate 885 and leave it be.
As for changes in the article, people need to calm down, this is a single source that is not confirmed through normal channels. If sources are provided to confirm, then go ahead then. Also, if you are itching to update highway articles, we still have a slew of highway pages that are stubs and need love too. --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to split I-885[edit]

Closing split proposal—Draft successfully published. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

I stumbled across multiple signs that the project is in the final stages. First, on the official site of the NCDOT, in their DriveNC.gov site, it now shows I-885 (Sorry I can't link it directly but the signs pop up right after the Interchange with I-40). Second, I found an image originally from the News & Observer which shows that NC 147 will be decommissioned on the current concurrency with I-885. Not to mention they have taken the drapes off of the signs which mention I-885. What is everyone's opinion about this? Thanks! DiscoA340 (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – At this point only Wikipedia is behind from accepting the fact that I-885 exists now, I suspect it is because the connector has not opened yet, but everything else from the redesignation of NC 147 --> NC 885 along the toll route and all signage of I-885 no visible along US 70 and former NC 147 are mostly complete. By all accounts AASHTO approved the request, even though we don't have documentation yet; that was the final step, not the connector. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and ping Roadsguy to see if he's around to possibly work with User:Roadsguy/Interstate 885. Imzadi 1979 → 16:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick side note to mention that a formal RfC is probably overkill for a basic split proposal. Splits would appear on WP:USRD/AA and attract the attention of interested editors. RfCs are really more for intractable disputes that need outside attention to resolve. Just something to remember for the future, DiscoA340. Imzadi 1979 → 16:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, @Roadsguy draft looks great! DiscoA340 (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be noted that NC 885 will also exist, replacing NC 147 Toll section; the exit numbers will reflect both NC 885 and I-885. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this tweet says that the ribbon-cutting of I-885 is on June 30. So here is a deadline date for finish drafting the new interstate article. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Summoned by bot) Support Looks like we have a good draft going. I also somewhat agree with Imzadi on the RfC comment. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 20:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s official everyone. As of 10 AM today, the east end connector was opened. Signs for I-885 can now be seen on Google Maps, though they have incorrectly shown NC 885 to be part of I-885. DiscoA340 (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone will need to takeover the draft of I-885 and finish it up so it can be added. --WashuOtaku (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can, but I'll need a few hours to complete it. I'll put it at Draft:Interstate 885. Ncchild (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Support. Cards84664 12:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – As of the time I am writing this comment, I believe that the draft is now in a suitable position to be published. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The new draft looks good and has everything it needs to be an article. DiscoA340 (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved the draft to Interstate 885 (NC), but I was wondering if a better name for the article should be “Interstate 885 and North Carolina highway 885”? Also, sorry if there are any errors created by the move, I’m still getting the hang of moving pages.
    • @DiscoA340: Move it to just Interstate 885. It is the only Interstate Highway numbered "885" in existence, so there is no need to have a state name qualifier in the page name. Furthermore, it's been discussed before, but combo titles are simply long and unnecessary. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried doing that originally, but it didn’t let me, I believe it has to do with the redirects to its section in this article. I don’t know how to change the redirect to allow it to just be called “Interstate 885,” sorry about that. DiscoA340 (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed a request on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! DiscoA340 (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Translation[edit]

For some reason, many of the world’s worldwide languages (i.e. French, Spanish, and all of the varieties of Chinese) are missing a version of this wiki. I think versions of this article for those aforementioned languages should be created. TheCool1Z (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Carolina_Highway_147&oldid=1204327722"