Interstate 42

[orulz]

I think that NC is likely to get rid of all the stoplights very quickly - I predict it will take less than 10 years until it's all open - and then they will let it sit as "Future I-42" for as long as they possibly can.

For a somewhat similar situation, they finally did manage to build the difficult and expensive mountain section of I-26 in Madison County north of Asheville, completing it in 2003. They seem to finally be moving towards completing the connector in Asheville as well, which is another extremely costly project. However, the part between Weaverville and Mars Hill, where all they have to do is upgrade shoulders and lengthen merges, has been stuck as "Future" I-26 for over two decades now, and I'm pretty sure they still don't have a clear schedule for when they will do the work.

[bob7374]

There is a public meeting on March 22nd 2018 for the design of the interchange and frontage roads at Willie Measley / Jim Sutton Road.
https://ncdot.publicinput.com/US_70_Lagrange

Rather than begin the upgrade at NC-903, it would make more sense to start at the eastern end of the Goldsboro Bypass and upgrade the entire substandard freeway section in La Grange all at once...

As for the interchange itself, Alternative 2 would be the way to go.

All proposed alignments for the Kinston Bypass call for the first two miles or so of US 70 east of La Grange to be upgraded to interstate status on the existing route. So this can be considered a first small piece of Kinston Bypass project.

True and I agree, but it still doesn't make sense to leave out the 1 mile stretch of freeway between the Goldsboro Bypass and NC-903. All that is needed there is outside shoulder widening. I can't believe that adding that small stretch to the project would substantially increase the cost.

There was also a missed opportunity when NCDOT repaved the La Grange freeway 2 years ago. They increased the inner shoulders to 4ft. to meet interstate standards since they were previously extremely narrow, but they rebuilt the substandard outside shoulders rather than widen them. That was a half-assed job, IMO.

We have to ask ourselves, what's the real goal here. If the goal is to get I-42 shields up as quick as possible then  I agree, lets get that section by NC-903 done, it's short and really won't cost that much in the big picture.

But if the real goal is to provide an efficient 70 mph freeway between Raleigh and the coast then I think that section by NC-903, as well as the Dover to New Bern section of freeway will be the last sections to get any attention as they are all perfectly functioning high speed sections of roadway, albeit substandard for Interstate status.

Good point. Honestly, I prefer upgrading the non-freeway sections first. I was just a little perplexed that the extra mile of freeway in La Grange wasn't included in the interchange project, given it's close proximity.

The official NCDOT press release on the US 70 project, with a link to the public meeting materials:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14978

[LM117]

There is a public meeting on March 22nd 2018 for the design of the interchange and frontage roads at Willie Measley / Jim Sutton Road.
https://ncdot.publicinput.com/US_70_Lagrange

Rather than begin the upgrade at NC-903, it would make more sense to start at the eastern end of the Goldsboro Bypass and upgrade the entire substandard freeway section in La Grange all at once...

As for the interchange itself, Alternative 2 would be the way to go.

All proposed alignments for the Kinston Bypass call for the first two miles or so of US 70 east of La Grange to be upgraded to interstate status on the existing route. So this can be considered a first small piece of Kinston Bypass project.

True and I agree, but it still doesn't make sense to leave out the 1 mile stretch of freeway between the Goldsboro Bypass and NC-903. All that is needed there is outside shoulder widening. I can't believe that adding that small stretch to the project would substantially increase the cost.

There was also a missed opportunity when NCDOT repaved the La Grange freeway 2 years ago. They increased the inner shoulders to 4ft. to meet interstate standards since they were previously extremely narrow, but they rebuilt the substandard outside shoulders rather than widen them. That was a half-assed job, IMO.

We have to ask ourselves, what's the real goal here. If the goal is to get I-42 shields up as quick as possible then  I agree, lets get that section by NC-903 done, it's short and really won't cost that much in the big picture.

But if the real goal is to provide an efficient 70 mph freeway between Raleigh and the coast then I think that section by NC-903, as well as the Dover to New Bern section of freeway will be the last sections to get any attention as they are all perfectly functioning high speed sections of roadway, albeit substandard for Interstate status.

Good point. Honestly, I prefer upgrading the non-freeway sections first. I was just a little perplexed that the extra mile of freeway in La Grange wasn't included in the interchange project, given it's close proximity.

The official NCDOT press release on the US 70 project, with a link to the public meeting materials:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14978

Alternative 2 seems like the clear winner to me. It has the least impacts.

[LM117]

After taking their sweet time, the US-70 Corridor Commission has posted the minutes of their July 20 meeting. Noteworthy mention is that the let date for construction of the Havelock Bypass has been pushed back to 2019 instead of 2018 due to ongoing negotiations between NCDOT and the SELC.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Meeting-Minutes-July_2017.pdf

The let date for the Havelock Bypass is currently listed as February 2019.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US70HavelockBypass/

[sparker]

Alternative 2 seems like the clear winner to me. It has the least impacts.

Agreed -- the concept of putting the freeway lanes up on a retained berm (with room for future expansion in the median) with the interchange diamond ramps at the bottom of the retaining walls seems like the best at conserving space, although it would likely pose the greatest through-traffic problems during the construction period; the frontage roads bowing out from the freeway alignment would probably have to be built first and US 70 traffic temporarily shunted over to these to allow efficient construction of the actual interchange structures.  The narrow ROW method seems to be one of the more optimal to be used when property acquisition is a particularly problematic local issue (as it appears to be in this instance); albeit with more complex construction techniques required.   

[LM117]

The Kinston Bypass has moved into the Environmental Impact Statement phase.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15055

[LM117]

Good news for Wayne and Johnston counties.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2018/04/10/us_70_upgrade_plan_moves_forward/

Plans to upgrade a nearly 7-mile section of U.S. 70 to freeway standards have passed the initial round of the state's evaluation process. That process will determine which Department of Transportation projects will be funded and scheduled for construction over the next decade.

The approximately $125 million project stretches from the western end of the U.S. 70 Goldsboro Bypass in Wayne County to just west of Pondfield Road in Johnston County. The project, which is divided into two sections, would potentially include three new interchanges with overpasses and ramps, as well as new service roads. Once the improvements are made, that section of road will be fully controlled access.

Last November, Wayne and Johnston county residents had the opportunity to make comments and ask questions about the project during a public meeting in Princeton.

The Wayne County end of the project, 3.45 miles, is expected to cost $62.9 million. It scored 75.24 points out of a possible 100. It stretches from just east of Earl Drive (secondary road 1408) at the western end of the U.S. 70 Goldsboro Bypass to just west of Luby Smith Road (secondary road 1229). Right-of-way acquisition and construction could start in fiscal year 2023.

The second part of the project, which is mostly in Johnston County, would cost $62 million. It stretches from just west of Luby Smith Road to just east of Pondfield Road (secondary road 2314). It received 77.64 points out of a possible 100. Right-of-way acquisition could start in 2025 and construction in 2027.

On Wednesday the DOT released data scores for more than 2,100 transportation improvement projects, including U.S. 70, in the first round of evaluation. The evaluation process identified 77 high-scoring statewide mobility projects, including U.S. 70, that will be programmed for construction in the upcoming 2020-29 State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).

[slorydn1]

^reading both the Kinston Bypass and Wayne/Johnston County improvements^

I wonder if this means that I-42 could be a reality from I-40 to the Carteret County line by 2030?

[LM117]

^reading both the Kinston Bypass and Wayne/Johnston County improvements^

I wonder if this means that I-42 could be a reality from I-40 to the Carteret County line by 2030?

I doubt it...there's still a lot of work that needs done and little chance it will all be done by 2030. It's still a nice thought, though! That project in Wayne and Johnston counties, however, will effectively complete I-42 in Wayne County, so it's still a big step forward.

The only way we'll see I-42 shields anytime soon is if NCDOT decides to sign it piecemeal the way they did with I-87 and I-74. Given that precedent, that's why I've been surprised that they did not do the same with I-42. I can somewhat understand not signing I-42 on the Goldsboro Bypass for the time being, but signing I-42 on the Clayton Bypass would be no different than what they did with I-87 in Raleigh and Knightdale. Another precedent for signing interstates as they're slowly upgraded is I-69 in Texas.

As far as I know, the US-70 Corridor Commission has not yet pressed NCDOT for I-42 shields. Speaking of the commission, I wonder what's going on with them? They haven't touched their website in months. Their front page still lists their next meeting as being January 18 and they never did post the minutes from their November meeting...

[LM117]

Right on cue.

http://wcti12.com/news/local/some-local-businesses-not-happy-about-proposed-kinston-bypass

KINSTON, Lenoir County – Travelers coming to and from New Bern and the Crystal Coast beaches come right here through Kinston. But a planned bypass would cut the time it takes to get through the city.

That proposed bypass has some business owners along that route less than happy, even though the proposed project would not be started until at least 2025.

"A lot of the businesses on this stretch of highway depend on beach traffic," said Nicky Rapoza, owner of North Street Burger Bar & Grill. "During he summertime, it picks up our revenue stream so I don't think it's a good idea."

"How many times have you gone through Smithfield, Clayton or Garner since they put the bypass around those towns?" said Joseph Hargitt, CEO and owner of King's Restaurant. "I mean I don't go through them anymore, I go around them. I used to go through them all the time and you know that's what's going to happen here."

Yet those towns are doing just fine...

[LM117]

The US-70 Corridor Commission has posted the minutes from their November 15 meeting. Apparently due to the snowstorm, the January meeting was pushed back to February 22. The minutes of that meeting have not been posted. Their next meeting is on May 17 in La Grange.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Meeting-Minutes-November_2017.pdf

I was also browsing the Director's Report for January & February and came across this interesting little tidbit:

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2018-Directors-Report.pdf

February's focus has been on continuing U.S. 70/I-42 projects: Wilson's Mills, Pine Level, Princeton, Havelock, Kinston and James City. The large proposed interchange at U.S. 70/I-42 and I-95 has garnered much attention - probably a bit premature to become overly anxious with this project now.

On an unrelated, but quick note, the director is NOT happy with the Milburnie Dam in Raleigh being destroyed.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Oct_Nov_Dec_2017-Directors-Report.pdf

The destruction of our towns, cities and the devastating consequences of Hurricane Matthew upon our citizens invited/demanded that we revisit the 1985 report and seek to address downstream flooding. I feel certain Governor Cooper's Neuse River Flood Abatement Study will explore remedies to minimize future downstream flooding.

It is puzzling and disappointing the U.S. Corps of Engineers chose to destroy the century-old Milburnie Dam - the only stop-gap between Falls Lake and the Pamlico Sound. Despite an expression of concern by many along the Neuse River in Eastern N.C., the dam was destroyed in 2017.

With the destruction of Milburnie Dam, acres of wetlands have been destroyed by the agency charged with the responsibility of protecting wetlands. I have not heard a plausible explanation of why the dam destruction was authorized. Acres of wetlands are gone without re-establishing new replacement wetlands - a requirement for developers and NCDOT.

The only benefit acknowledged is a new source of recreational activity in the Raleigh area - with no barrier to slow the waters and minimize downstream flooding. By all reports, we need more flood control business - not less.

Wow...

[wdcrft63]

The US-70 Corridor Commission has posted the minutes from their November 15 meeting. Apparently due to the snowstorm, the January meeting was pushed back to February 22. The minutes of that meeting have not been posted. Their next meeting is on May 17 in La Grange.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Meeting-Minutes-November_2017.pdf

I was also browsing the Director's Report for January & February and came across this interesting little tidbit:

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2018-Directors-Report.pdf

February's focus has been on continuing U.S. 70/I-42 projects: Wilson's Mills, Pine Level, Princeton, Havelock, Kinston and James City. The large proposed interchange at U.S. 70/I-42 and I-95 has garnered much attention - probably a bit premature to become overly anxious with this project now.

On an unrelated, but quick note, the director is NOT happy with the Milburnie Dam in Raleigh being destroyed.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Oct_Nov_Dec_2017-Directors-Report.pdf

The destruction of our towns, cities and the devastating consequences of Hurricane Matthew upon our citizens invited/demanded that we revisit the 1985 report and seek to address downstream flooding. I feel certain Governor Cooper's Neuse River Flood Abatement Study will explore remedies to minimize future downstream flooding.

It is puzzling and disappointing the U.S. Corps of Engineers chose to destroy the century-old Milburnie Dam - the only stop-gap between Falls Lake and the Pamlico Sound. Despite an expression of concern by many along the Neuse River in Eastern N.C., the dam was destroyed in 2017.

With the destruction of Milburnie Dam, acres of wetlands have been destroyed by the agency charged with the responsibility of protecting wetlands. I have not heard a plausible explanation of why the dam destruction was authorized. Acres of wetlands are gone without re-establishing new replacement wetlands - a requirement for developers and NCDOT.

The only benefit acknowledged is a new source of recreational activity in the Raleigh area - with no barrier to slow the waters and minimize downstream flooding. By all reports, we need more flood control business - not less.

Wow...

The proposed plan for the I-42/I-95 interchange is here:
https://jocoreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Conceptual-design-of-95-and-70-interchnage.pdf

This is not a forum about dams, but the comments about the Milburnie Dam are very strange. That dam was much too small to provide any significant flood control benefit beyond that provided by the much larger (and Corps of Engineers managed) Falls Dam.

[LM117]

The proposed plan for the I-42/I-95 interchange is here:
https://jocoreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Conceptual-design-of-95-and-70-interchnage.pdf

Whoa...that's way overkill IMO. I now see why it's gotten attention. Good luck getting local support for that.

This is not a forum about dams, but the comments about the Milburnie Dam are very strange. That dam was much too small to provide any significant flood control benefit beyond that provided by the much larger (and Corps of Engineers managed) Falls Dam.

I brought it up in case any forum members that lived along the Neuse River were interested. I posted it in City-Data forum as well and the response was pretty much the same as yours.

[froggie]

I don't see that as overkill.  It would require a lot of new right-of-way, but it's actually a good way to be able to use standardized interchange designs.  There's a few things I'd quibble with, but it's a fairly good start.

[LM117]

I don't see that as overkill.  It would require a lot of new right-of-way, but it's actually a good way to be able to use standardized interchange designs.  There's a few things I'd quibble with, but it's a fairly good start.

One thing I notice is the lack of C/D lanes for I-42.

I figured any direct I-42/I-95 interchange would be a good size, but I certainly didn't expect realigning I-95. But hey, if that's what it takes to get the interchange built, then I'm all for it. It beats the congested mess that's there now.

[slorydn1]

I don't see that as overkill.  It would require a lot of new right-of-way, but it's actually a good way to be able to use standardized interchange designs.  There's a few things I'd quibble with, but it's a fairly good start.

Agreed. Actually, I do like your concept better than this one, but this would be ok, too.

[froggie]

My concept was intended to minimize right-of-way takings and preserve the retail grid near Exit 97, but would probably be confusing to drivers.  NCDOT's concept may require a lot of right-of-way, but is much simpler for drivers than mine.

[bob7374]

NCDOT and the Sierra Club have come to an agreement that will allow for the go ahead on the US 70 Havelock Bypass. Construction should start in 2019 and be completed by 2022:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15077

[LM117]

NCDOT and the Sierra Club have come to an agreement that will allow for the go ahead on the US 70 Havelock Bypass. Construction should start in 2019 and be completed by 2022:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15077

[orulz]

NCDOT and the Sierra Club have come to an agreement that will allow for the go ahead on the US 70 Havelock Bypass. Construction should start in 2019 and be completed by 2022:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15077

You know, I don't even have a problem with this kind of lawsuit. The delay wasn't too long, and it seems they didn't want to derail the project entirely. I don't really have a big problem with spending a bit more of my gas tax money on mitigations like this through a national forest.

[Bobby5280]

Although it could be a long time before I-42 is completed all the way to the coast, I wonder what the potential may be for the US-17 bypass from New Bern to Jacksonville to be incorporated into the I-42 system as a 3 digit Interstate. Plans I've seen so far show the US-17 bypasses around Maysville and Pollocksville to have a number of grade separated intersections. It's not being build outright in full Interstate highway quality, but it looks like it won't be difficult to upgrade to a full freeway at some point.

The combination of the improved US-17 between Jacksonville and New Bern and the planned US-70 bypass around New Bern would provide a better highway link between the Camp Lejeune Marine Corp base and MCAS Cherry Point in Havelock. It's still far from direct though due to having to go around the Croatan National Forest.

[wdcrft63]

Although it could be a long time before I-42 is completed all the way to the coast, I wonder what the potential may be for the US-17 bypass from New Bern to Jacksonville to be incorporated into the I-42 system as a 3 digit Interstate. Plans I've seen so far show the US-17 bypasses around Maysville and Pollocksville to have a number of grade separated intersections. It's not being build outright in full Interstate highway quality, but it looks like it won't be difficult to upgrade to a full freeway at some point.

The combination of the improved US-17 between Jacksonville and New Bern and the planned US-70 bypass around New Bern would provide a better highway link between the Camp Lejeune Marine Corp base and MCAS Cherry Point in Havelock. It's still far from direct though due to having to go around the Croatan National Forest.

Jacksonville is certainly interested in this idea.
http://www.jdnews.com/news/20180218/jacksonville-could-see-interstate-access-soon

[LM117]

The combination of the improved US-17 between Jacksonville and New Bern and the planned US-70 bypass around New Bern would provide a better highway link between the Camp Lejeune Marine Corp base and MCAS Cherry Point in Havelock. It's still far from direct though due to having to go around the Croatan National Forest.

A US-70 bypass around New Bern isn't planned. A feasibility study was done a few years ago, but NCDOT decided to go with upgrading the existing US-70 through New Bern and James City to interstate standards. The only US-70 bypasses planned is Kinston and Havelock. The jury is still out on the Northern Carteret Bypass.

[Bobby5280]

I thought they were doing serious planning work for a New Bern bypass. Even with that idea scrapped it would still be relatively easy to upgrade US-70 between New Bern down into Havelock at the NC-101 intersection. That's just a block away from the MCAS Cherry Point main gate.

US-70 is flanked by existing frontage roads nearly all the way from the US-17/US-70 freeway intersection in James City down to NC-101. As best as I can tell all the businesses and homes along US-70 are set back far enough for an I-42 upgrade. There's not enough space for modern diamond interchange exits. But slip ramps between frontage roads and main lanes could be built without any problem. The main lanes of US-70 on this stretch would have to be rebuilt anyway since they don't have adequate shoulders. They could butt the EB & WB roadways up next to each other, separated by a Jersey barrier to create a little more space for the on/off ramps to/from frontage roads.

US-17 has a new freeway connection running from the North side of Pollocksville to US-70 just West of New Bern. The Pollocksville bypass under contruction connects into that new freeway. The Maysville bypass is another significant upgrade currently in progress. Out of the possible new Interstate corridors people in Jacksonville want, I think this US-17 upgrade to New Bern is the most realistic option.

For a long time I've thought much or all of US-17 between Savannah and Virginia Beach should be upgraded to Interstate quality. Some parts, like Savannah to Charleston, would be tricky to build. That segment would provide better access to the Parris Island Marine Corps base. The Myrtle Beach area is growing. Things lead on up into Wilmington and points North.

[froggie]

But slip ramps between frontage roads and main lanes could be built without any problem.

Only if you convert the frontage roads to one-way.  While they exist in spades in Texas, slip ramps to two-way frontage roads are generally frowned upon these days for safety reasons.