Introduction

Interstates 73 and 74 were initially authorized by the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, as one of several high priority transportation corridors to be designated across the country. The I-73/74 corridor, Corridor 5 as defined by ISTEA, and in later amendments to that act including the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1996 (TEA-21), defined both the routing of a new Interstate 73 through Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and North and South Carolina and the extension of already existing Interstate 74 between Cincinnati, Ohio, and South Carolina. (1) Lobbying to include this route, initially described as a Detroit to Charleston interstate, as a High Priority Corridor in the 1991 Act was encouraged by many business and transportation groups as a way both to enhance economic development potential throughout the corridor (2) and as a means to encourage funding many previously existing highway upgrade projects along the path of the proposed highways.

Initially the corridor was to be served by one interstate, I-73, but when officials in Virginia, including newly designated chairman of the Senate transportation subcommittee John Warner, sought a more eastern path for the new corridor through Roanoke disputes arose over the proposed routing, especially in the Carolinas (both Greensboro and Winston-Salem wanted the new interstate in North Carolina, South Carolina feared the interstate would end in Wilmington and not benefit the South Carolina coast). A compromise was reached between Senator Warner and Senator Lauch Faircloth of North Carolina in 1995 whereby I-74 would be extended from Cincinnati and serve as a seperate route where disputes over the path of I-73 existed. I-74's route would serve Winston-Salem and I-73 Greensboro (critics claimed at the time that Faircloth's support for the I-73 route through Greensboro was aided by a major donor to his campaign, the Jefferson Pilot Insurance company having land along the future I-73 route). Later Faircloth and Senator Strom Thurmond reached a compromise over the where the two routes would enter South Carolina. I-73 was promised to enter South Carolina near Rockingham while the I-74 corridor would enter south of Wilmington. (3)

Though the routes were approved by Congress, no money was appropriated to pay for any construction. It was left up to each state to decide when, and if, I-73 and I-74 were to be built. Later the termini for the I-73 corridor was changed to run from Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan to Georgetown, SC. For more on the proposed routings of I-73 and I-74 beyond North Carolina go here.

On July 25, 1996, AASHTO accepted Interstates 73/74 into the Interstate Highway System within the states of South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. The approved route for I-73 was from the I-81/I-581 intersection in Roanoke, Virginia to the intersection of US 17 and I-26 in Charleston, SC. The southern terminus was later truncated to US 17 at Georgetown, SC. For I-74 the route approved was from the intersection of I-81 and I-77 near Wytheville, Virginia to the I-73/ I-74 junction near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.(1) In 1997, North Carolina took the lead in signing these two interstates along some of its highways.
 

I-73/74 in North Carolina

Interstates 73 and 74 will use a combination of existing highways and new roadways to make their way through North Carolina. I-73 will roughly parallel current US 220 from Virginia to Rockingham and then follow US 74 east then the path of NC 38 into South Carolina. I-74 will enter with I-77 from Virginia and then roughly follow US 52 to Winston-Salem, picking up US 311 to US 220 north of Asheboro then following it (and I-73) to US 74 in Rockingham, then finally proceeding east then south into South Carolina. A February 2005 map of the proposed routings of I-73 and I-74 by NCDOT is below, though this does not reflect the latest probable routing of I-73 around Greensboro or into South Carolina (4):


If fully constructed as proposed, I-74 would be North Carolina's second longest interstate, totaling about 295 miles*, trailing only I-40's 420 miles but ahead of I-85's 233 miles. I-73 would be the fourth longest at about 140 miles, beating out I-77 (105 miles) and I-26 (71 miles). There has been greater progress in constructing I-74 so far than I-73, with three distinct segments of I-74 currently signed as full interstate as of January 2008 totalling 63 miles and two more sections marked as a future interstate, totalling 27 miles; while only one section of I-73 is signed as a full interstate for 27 miles and 2 others as future I-73 totalling 30 miles (another 7 miles near Greensboro may be marked full or future and another 9-mile section near Rockingham could be signed soon). Percentagewise, however, since I-73 is much shorter, more of I-73's routing is signed as either a full or future interstate (62%) than I-74's (31%) (5).

STATUS of I-73 and I-74 Construction Projects as of November 2009:
 
The year 2008 saw several critical milestones in constructing I-73 completed, 2009 has not been as active. Completion of the US 220 Ellerbe bypass, which is to be both I-73 and I-74, was completed on January 8, 2008. Work started in September 2003. It is signed as a future interstate route for now. NCDOT also completed its work constructing the western portion of the Greensboro Urban Loop (Painter Blvd.). This highway north of I-40 was completed in December 2007 and is designated Future I-73/ I-840. The remaining southwest portion between I-85 and I-40 was open in February 2008 and was signed I-40/I-73. The completion of these projects cleared up any confusion as to the exact path of I-73 through Greensboro. Confusion by drivers about I-40 though resulted in NCDOT deciding to reroute I-40 to its old alignment in September 2008. The former I-40/73 freeway became the I-73/US 421 freeway at that time but was not fully signed until late summer 2009. NCDOT also stated that Bryan Blvd. will be classified as an National Highway System Route, allowing I-73, instead of Future I-73 to be signed north of I-40, this was approved by the FHWA and AASHTO, but hasn't been reflected in a change in signing because NCDOT feels the 3+ miles north of I-40 are too short to labeled as a full interstate. Whenever it is signed, it will continue onto Bryan Blvd heading west to a new airport interchange that opened in November 2008 and then connect to NC 68 on a new alignment north of the existing Bryan Blvd. It will then take a short hop on existing NC 68 before taking a new connector to be built back to US 220 near Summerfield. With the airport interchange complete, no more I-73 construction is planned in 2009, except for rest areas in the Seagrove area. The next project scheduled to start, the NC 68-US 220 connector, probably will not begin until at least 2013 at this time. Some changes to projects may occur if more money is received from the federal government in the meanwhile. No projects were listed in stimulus projects of March to June, however another round is to be announced in June for July to September. As for other states, SC got approval to build its northern section of I-73 which will connect to US 74/Future I-74 near Hamlet, a funding source is still being sought with the first part to be built being an interchange at I-95 in Dillon with the route connecting to US 501. The I-73/74 Association announced in October that NCDOT had completed right-of-way purchases to upgrade US 220 to an interstate north for Greensboro to the VA state line. Work will not start until Virginia starts construction of its own section.


The 12 months of 2008 also brought milestones for I-74 and 2009 has seen some significant developments also. The US 220 Ellerbe bypass (discussed above) was completed and the US 74 bypass freeway between Maxton and I-95 near Lumberton, that was partially opened in November 2007, was completed early in late September 2008. When the 6 miles from the end of the Maxton Bypass to NC 710 opened to local traffic in 2007, NCDOT 'completed' the segment to the east by adding I-74/US 74 signs along the new road and the previous segment covering the Laurinburg and Maxton bypasses. Combined these two segments are over 30 miles long. There was a small problem with exit numbering along these sections with the numbers being 27 miles too high. NCDOT started to correct the problem with the correct numbers being placed on the new freeway, however this created duplicate exit numbers, a problem that they finally addressed by putting up new numbers along the Laurinburg Bypass in early May 2009. The last leg of the High-Point "East Belt" extension, or US 311 Bypass, from Business I-85 to I-85 started construction in late May 2007, it is ahead of schedule with almost 78% now complete. All the bridges along this segment, with the exception of Baker Road and the I-85 interchange are completed with the opening of the Poole Road bridge in May. While parts of this project may not be built to interstate standards, the route will be signed I-74 upon completion. Construction on the first segment of the US 311 bypass between I-85 and US 220 started at the same time. The route will be signed as I-74 when the projects are completed in 2011, though NCDOT changed exit numbers to I-74 based ones in November along the completed part of the route from Business US 311 to Business 85. They also put up new signs with I-74 exit numbers along the older 311 freeway east to I-40 near Winston-Salem and then designated the highway as Future I-74. The remaining section of US 311 freeway to be constructed from Spencer Road to US 220 went out to bid in the summer of 2008 and construction started in early September. A study of the proposed I-74 route in SE NC was released in December 2005 (and is posted on the NCDOT's Strategic Corridors Website, HERE) with a total projected cost of over $600 million for the recommended route, work may not start on this project though for decades. A new way to determine the priority of NCDOT projects may relegate the plan to the trash bin, since its cost is so high. A study was completed in June 2007 on the feasibility of building part of it as a toll highway to expedite construction. The results were not encouraging here either, the consultant determined that tolls would only cover about 40% of the costs. For a more detailed listing of the progress made in constructing each Interstate, choose the buttons below, left for the I-73 progress page or right for the I-74 page (or center to go back).

In 2004 NCDOT thought I-73 could be signed as a full interstate south of Greensboro to just north of Rockingham by 2010. They also believed much of I-74's route could be completed by 2014. (5)* Financial realities though have caught up with NCDOT in the past few years. Many of the proposed I-73/74 projects were kept unfunded or were delayed to after 2015 in the 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) released in June 2008. A NCDOT official recently remarked the two routes may not be completed for decades. (7) NCDOT estimates the total cost of building the highway to be $2.2 billion of which only $475 million currently has been funded. (8) Meanwhile, SC and NC officials met for an I-73 summit Feb. 11, 2005 in Myrtle Beach to discuss Interstate 73 plans, where an official route across the border using NC/SC 38 was chosen. (See I-73 Segment 13). Construction on this part of I-73 could start as soon as 2009. (7) South Carolina selected its corridors for how I-73 will be routed south of Rockingham to I-95 in August 2007. How soon it's built depends on funding, which mean it will probably be built as a toll road, including the short 5 mile section in NC.  While completion of both routes may be many years off, I-73 probably will exist south of Greensboro to SC (and maybe in SC) within a decade and I-74 west of I-95 to Mount Airy about the same time.
 
* this is using the proposed routing as discussed in I-74-Segment 18, mileage from NCDOT Strategic Corridors list (No. 30), a newly discussed alternative routing generally following NC 410 and NC 130 would be shorter.

I-73/74 FAQ

 Answers to some frequently asked or interesting questions...:

Why does the FHWA on its website list I-73 as the shortest interstate at 12 miles when it is listed on your site as much longer? Is the FHWA wrong?
Looks like the FHWA is working to correct this listing. The 'trivia section' of the FHWA Design website was revised on Feb. 2, 2007 to list I-73 now as the third shortest 2di interstate behind I-97 and I-99. I-73's length is now listed as 56.7 miles from Emery to Greensboro. The wrong listing still appears though on the FHWA' Interstate mileage log, which hasn't been updated since 2002. This may reflect as I-73's original length in 1997, which was 12 miles from Ulah, south of Asheboro to near Ester. I-73 signs were later added in 1998 south for 14 more miles to near Emery, for a total of 26 miles. The remaining 30+ miles are marked as future interstate. The FHWA apparently now recognizes this combined length or simply the true distance of more than 56 miles between Greensboro and Emery.  Of course, this new listing is now wrong as another 17 miles of I-73 opened up in early January 2008.

Do you have any maps that would show if my property is in the way of the proposed I-73 and/or I-74 freeways?
I collect my information from several sources including the NCDOT website and media outlets. I typically don't have detailed information on where a highway is to be constructed at a specific location. If you think that you may be impacted by a future freeway I suggest you contact someone in your local NCDOT divisional office. They should have plans or can point you to the project engineer for the specific contract who should have detailed information. Divisional office phone numbers are available at the NCDOT website, www.ncdot.org.

Why are some I-73 and I-74 routes marked as Future while others have regular interstate signs?
The signing of a particular route is decided on by the FHWA in coordination with NCDOT and depends on a number of factors including whether the route meets current interstate standards, is connected to another interstate highway, and whether a project is funded. Routes that are up to current interstate standards and are connected to other interstates at both ends or at one end where the other end is a highway that is part of the National Highway System (such as I-74 near Mt. Airy) can be signed as interstate highways. Routes that are up to interstate standards but are not currently connected to another interstate (like I-74 along the US 74 Rockingham Bypass) can be signed as future interstate routes. Freeways that currently do not meet interstate standards but have a funded project in the books to improve them can also be signed as future interstates (such as I-73/74 around Asheboro). Freeways with planned upgrades but no funding can only be signed as a 'Future Interstate Corridor' (like US 52 north of Winston-Salem).  These signs, which are really more useful for advertising a future route than as a driver's aide, can also be found on routes that will be eventually supplanted by an interstate (such as US 74 between Rockingham and Laurinburg). As with all regulations, there are exceptions. For example, the newest portion of the US 311 High Point Bypass is up to interstate standards but has received no I-74 signage at all. The recently approved I-285 south of Winston-Salem could be signed as a Future Interstate route but has only received Future Corridor signs, both perhaps decisions made in an attempt to save money from not erecting short-term future signage.

Why use the I-74 number when the route runs further south than I-40? Wouldn't an I-20 or I-30 something number be more appropriate?
The I-74 number was written into the legislation authorizing the routes with the idea that I-74 would be extended from Cincinnati to Myrtle Beach. Similar legislation would be needed to change the route number and until the plans to extend the route in Ohio are declared officially dead there probably would be little incentive for anyone to introduce a bill to do that. If the route finally runs only from Mount Airy to Myrtle Beach, however, then maybe a better fitting number for the route would be considered. There are certainly a number of possibilities for a lower number. With the exception of I-30 there are no other even number interstates currently between 28 and 40. This would though end the unique co-routing of an interstate and US route with the same number in North Carolina, for better or worse.

Sources: (1) AASHTO. 1996. Special Committee on US Route Numbering Meeting Minutes, July 26.
(2) Parsons Brinckerhoff Internet Development I-73 Overview Page (VA) (http://www.pbid.net/I73/studyoverindex.html)
(3) Virginian-Pilot. 1995. "Faircloth Sought New Route for I-73." The Virginian-Pilot. June 26.
(4) NCDOT. 2005. TIP Unit I-73/74 Corridor map (http://www.ncdot.org/planning/development/TIP/i73and74.htm).
(5) Author's calculations from summing mileage between freeway exits or towns along proposed freeway routings depicted in map above from the 2002 ADC North Carolina Road Atlas. Percentages derived from dividing mileage from portions currently signed as Interstate or Future Interstate by the sum of the mileage of proposed plus signed routings.  
(6) Sparks, Jim. 2004. "Public Will Get to Hear Beltway Plans." Winston-Salem Journal. November 7. (downloaded from www.wsjournal.com, 11/9/04).
(7) Vergakis, Brock. 2005. "States Hammer Out Routes, Funding." The Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC), August 2. Comments by NCDOT Public Information Officer Bill Jones.
(8) MacCallum, Tom. 2004. "Officials Plan Lobbying for I-73/74." Richmond County Daily Journal. January 29. Downloaded from http://www.yourdaily.com/articles/2004/01/22/news/news01.prt.
*some at NCDOT may still think so, the 2014 completion date was again mentioned in an article about construction of I-74 in Robeson County on April 3, 2006, see I-74 Segment 16 for more details.

Last updated: November 6, 2009