Talk:Interstate 540 (North Carolina)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I-640 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Exit 50 in Wake or Durham County? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Exit 49-Davis Dr 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Exit # changes based on field observations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Exit 50? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Link to http://www.notollson540.org/ 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Outer Loop" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Exit numbers on NC 540 segment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Map 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Interstate 540 (North Carolina). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: I will have to see what  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  tag to http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/story/63999.html
*Added  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Requested move 2 July 2022