AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Interstate 42  (Read 220177 times)

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 0
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1000 on: February 14, 2022, 09:15:08 AM »

^^

Another "I-74" and maybe I-73 like issue with the interstates with NO full shoulders.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12668
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 08:26:13 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1001 on: February 14, 2022, 09:22:51 AM »

1) NCDOT asked that I-42 end at NC-903 in La Grange instead of the eastern bypass interchange with US-70. I thought interstates were supposed to start/end at a US Route or another interstate. :hmmm:

There is no requirement that it end at a US route.  FHWA's main requirement is that it have a "logical termini".  Intersecting NHS routes qualify as such, but what's interesting in this case is that BUSINESS US 70 is an NHS route but NC 903 isn't.

Quote
2) That AASHTO approved it, since the outer shoulders of the freeway in La Grange haven't been widened to interstate standards AFAIK.

As I noted in another thread, AASHTO only approves route numbers.  FHWA has the final say on if (and when) a segment is actually added to the Interstate system.
Logged

kendallhart808

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 20
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Last Login: May 26, 2023, 05:14:28 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1002 on: February 14, 2022, 09:34:00 AM »

I was looking at the AASHTO minutes again just now and two things surprised me about NCDOT's I-42 request for the Goldsboro Bypass:

1) NCDOT asked that I-42 end at NC-903 in La Grange instead of the eastern bypass interchange with US-70. I thought interstates were supposed to start/end at a US Route or another interstate. :hmmm:

Well technically it still ends at US 70 and NC 903 since 70 continues East. Kinda like how I-87 currently ends at Rolesville Road which isnít even a signed route, but US 64/264 continues from there so itís okay.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3214
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: May 20, 2023, 06:44:07 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1003 on: February 14, 2022, 09:47:16 AM »

Quote
2) That AASHTO approved it, since the outer shoulders of the freeway in La Grange haven't been widened to interstate standards AFAIK.

As I noted in another thread, AASHTO only approves route numbers.  FHWA has the final say on if (and when) a segment is actually added to the Interstate system.

I guess that begs the question of why NCDOT even bothered to go through AASHTO to get approval to post the I-42 shields in the first place, since they never did so for I-87 in Raleigh & Knightdale (they only went through FHWA for that).
« Last Edit: February 14, 2022, 09:49:51 AM by LM117 »
Logged
ďI donít know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!Ē - Jim Cornette

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3214
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: May 20, 2023, 06:44:07 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1004 on: February 14, 2022, 09:50:20 AM »

I was looking at the AASHTO minutes again just now and two things surprised me about NCDOT's I-42 request for the Goldsboro Bypass:

1) NCDOT asked that I-42 end at NC-903 in La Grange instead of the eastern bypass interchange with US-70. I thought interstates were supposed to start/end at a US Route or another interstate. :hmmm:

Well technically it still ends at US 70 and NC 903 since 70 continues East. Kinda like how I-87 currently ends at Rolesville Road which isnít even a signed route, but US 64/264 continues from there so itís okay.

Good point. I never thought of it that way.
Logged
ďI donít know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!Ē - Jim Cornette

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3969
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 09:00:46 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1005 on: February 14, 2022, 03:02:26 PM »

Interstate 42 definitely should be signed on the Clayton Bypass (Interstate 40/future NC 540 to Business 70), and along the Bypass 70 Goldsboro Bypass, since both segments have connections to the Interstate system (via Interstate 40 and Interstate 795). The rest can remain future Interstate 42 pending more upgrades.
Logged

PColumbus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 526
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
  • Last Login: October 05, 2022, 08:34:23 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1006 on: February 14, 2022, 08:31:31 PM »

Have y'all seen this drawing of possible alternatives?



It's from the 2016 FS-1604A scoping study.

What an interesting interchange design there.

Regarding the I-42/95 interchange, having a direct freeway-to-freeway connection would be the default, but in this case would it be as much of a priority? The southeast quadrant is the only one that doesn't have an interstate, existing or future, already serving a more direct route nearby. I-40, (Future) I-87 & 587, and I-795 takes much of the long-haul loads, leaving 42/95 to handle mostly local traffic and long-haul trips from 95 South to 42 East. In the least, it would buy NCDOT some time to sort out right-of-way and design challenges in this location.

Whenever the time does come to build a direct interchange, something like a double trumpet on the eastern side of I-95 might be sufficient for the connection.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8393
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:12:01 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1007 on: February 14, 2022, 08:35:33 PM »

long-haul trips from 95 South to 42 East.
Assuming you mean I-95 North to I-42 East here.

Because long haul southbound would be handled by I-795.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3214
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: May 20, 2023, 06:44:07 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1008 on: February 16, 2022, 07:53:04 AM »

Yesterday, the Wayne County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution urging NCDOT to speed up the Kinston Bypass and the upgrades between Goldsboro and Princeton. Flooding impacts from the Neuse River was cited as the main reason for the request.

https://www.goldsborodailynews.com/2022/02/16/wayne-county-asks-for-acceleration-of-u-s-70-bypass-projects-in-kinston-princeton/

I'm scratching my head on this one. I can see how the Kinston Bypass would help, but apparently they didn't get the memo that NCDOT plans to upgrade the existing highway in Princeton. Not sure how that would help mitigate flooding impacts.

If Wayne County really wanted to help mitigate problems from the Neuse River, they should've asked about I-795's future bypass around Mar-Mac, since US-117 there has had serious problems caused by the Neuse River in the past, notably cutting Wayne County in half when the US-117 bridges are flooded and/or shut down. Talk about misplaced priorities...
Logged
ďI donít know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!Ē - Jim Cornette

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 0
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1009 on: February 16, 2022, 08:45:26 AM »

I like to see some action happening!!!
Logged

Dirt Roads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2451
  • Location: Central North Carolina
  • Last Login: Today at 08:17:00 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1010 on: February 16, 2022, 11:47:23 AM »

I guess that begs the question of why NCDOT even bothered to go through AASHTO to get approval to post the I-42 shields in the first place, since they never did so for I-87 in Raleigh & Knightdale (they only went through FHWA for that).

That's because AASHTO and FHWA had already approved the western end of the route as I-495.  I'm pretty sure that this section was already posted with some I-495 trailblazer signage, but somebody else shoudl confirm this as they were up only a short period of time.  I don't recall any I-495 signage on BGS.
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4173
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 53
  • Last Login: Today at 08:35:27 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1011 on: February 16, 2022, 11:58:28 AM »

I guess that begs the question of why NCDOT even bothered to go through AASHTO to get approval to post the I-42 shields in the first place, since they never did so for I-87 in Raleigh & Knightdale (they only went through FHWA for that).

That's because AASHTO and FHWA had already approved the western end of the route as I-495.  I'm pretty sure that this section was already posted with some I-495 trailblazer signage, but somebody else shoudl confirm this as they were up only a short period of time.  I don't recall any I-495 signage on BGS.

It made it onto BGSs - https://goo.gl/maps/8LtAeB3u3h3Hb3tJ9
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8393
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:12:01 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1012 on: February 16, 2022, 12:04:19 PM »

I guess that begs the question of why NCDOT even bothered to go through AASHTO to get approval to post the I-42 shields in the first place, since they never did so for I-87 in Raleigh & Knightdale (they only went through FHWA for that).

That's because AASHTO and FHWA had already approved the western end of the route as I-495.  I'm pretty sure that this section was already posted with some I-495 trailblazer signage, but somebody else shoudl confirm this as they were up only a short period of time.  I don't recall any I-495 signage on BGS.
I-495 only extended to I-540. The remainder to US-64 Business was not designated as an interstate highway until I-87.
Logged

CanesFan27

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1376
  • Last Login: May 28, 2023, 08:45:57 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1013 on: February 17, 2022, 08:52:10 AM »

I guess that begs the question of why NCDOT even bothered to go through AASHTO to get approval to post the I-42 shields in the first place, since they never did so for I-87 in Raleigh & Knightdale (they only went through FHWA for that).

That's because AASHTO and FHWA had already approved the western end of the route as I-495.  I'm pretty sure that this section was already posted with some I-495 trailblazer signage, but somebody else shoudl confirm this as they were up only a short period of time.  I don't recall any I-495 signage on BGS.
I-495 only extended to I-540. The remainder to US-64 Business was not designated as an interstate highway until I-87.

Correct, it was future 495 east of 540.  Drove enough of it going from Knightdale to Rocky mount to never forget.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 0
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1014 on: March 16, 2022, 03:37:43 PM »

Good news! I-42 signs will go up later this year on the clayton and Goldsboro bypasses. :)

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-03-16-i-42-coming-us-70-corridor.aspx
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3214
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: May 20, 2023, 06:44:07 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1015 on: March 17, 2022, 08:58:21 AM »

It only says that a timeline for putting up I-42 shields will be announced later this year.

If NCDOT's recent actions with I-587 & US-264 are any indication, then it's very likely they'll ask AASHTO to decomission the US-70 Bypass designation in Goldsboro, as well as relocate US-70 back to it's old alignment through Clayton before posting I-42 shields.
Logged
ďI donít know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!Ē - Jim Cornette

ahj2000

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 96
  • Location: VA/NC/DC
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:49 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1016 on: March 17, 2022, 09:22:26 AM »

It only says that a timeline for putting up I-42 shields will be announced later this year.

If NCDOT's recent actions with I-587 & US-264 are any indication, then it's very likely they'll ask AASHTO to decomission the US-70 Bypass designation in Goldsboro, as well as relocate US-70 back to it's old alignment through Clayton before posting I-42 shields.
(As they should)
Logged

WashuOtaku

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 662
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Last Login: Today at 04:46:58 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1017 on: March 17, 2022, 09:38:20 AM »

Of course, we are still waiting for sign changes promised for I-587, the realignment of US 70, and decommissioning of I-85 Bus.
Logged

bob7374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1841
  • Age: 58
  • Location: East Weymouth, Massachusetts
  • Last Login: Today at 11:32:22 AM
    • Bob Malme's Road Pages
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1018 on: April 01, 2022, 04:54:16 PM »

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3969
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 09:00:46 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1019 on: April 02, 2022, 02:17:22 PM »

Upgrading this segment of US 70 is going to be a colossal task. It looks like everything from US 17 to Garner Rd. is going to have to be demolished, even the frontage roads. How many interchanges will be constructed along this segment of US 70/future Interstate 42?
Logged

nerdom

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 38
  • Location: new bern nc
  • Last Login: May 29, 2023, 05:24:04 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1020 on: April 02, 2022, 04:11:00 PM »

There will be 3 exits between the bridge and Garner rd. 2 more south of Garner.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3736
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 06:59:03 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1021 on: April 09, 2022, 11:50:49 PM »

I think upgrading US-70 into I-42 from the US-17 interchange down to Garner Road is do-able. It's not going to be the smoothest, easiest project. The main lane traffic will have to be shunted over to frontage roads and vice versa for bridges and slip ramps to be built. Nevertheless there is enough ROW there already for an urban-style freeway.

Farther South, between Garner Road and the turn for MCAS Cherry Point, I would expect the same design to be used: continuous frontage roads with an urban style freeway in the middle. There is enough space for it, except for maybe one or two properties partially in the path of future frontage roads (Riverside Camping Center is one example).

They can get away with the same treatment to US-70 going part of the way into Havelock. South of the intersection with Fontana Blvd/NC-101 the situation just gets a whole lot more difficult. No more existing frontage roads holding back property from hugging close to the main lanes.   
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8393
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:12:01 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1022 on: April 10, 2022, 06:15:17 AM »

I think upgrading US-70 into I-42 from the US-17 interchange down to Garner Road is do-able. It's not going to be the smoothest, easiest project. The main lane traffic will have to be shunted over to frontage roads and vice versa for bridges and slip ramps to be built. Nevertheless there is enough ROW there already for an urban-style freeway.
Thatís not exactly the plan - although I agree it should be. The existing frontage roads will be retained and kept 2 way while the mainline is upgraded into a six lane freeway. At interchanges, the frontage roads will curve away from the main intersection to leave room for tight traditional ramps.

Construction begins this year.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-james-city/Pages/default.aspx

The second segment between the southern end of this project and the Havelock Bypass is scheduled to begin construction next year. A similar design will be used, though it will transition back to a 4 lane mainline design with a 46 foot median. The bridges appear to be designed with a third center lane for future expansion, however.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-james-city-havelock-bypass/Pages/default.aspx
« Last Edit: April 10, 2022, 06:21:34 AM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3736
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 06:59:03 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1023 on: April 13, 2022, 02:59:26 PM »

Quote from: sprjus4
Thatís not exactly the plan - although I agree it should be. The existing frontage roads will be retained and kept 2 way while the mainline is upgraded into a six lane freeway. At interchanges, the frontage roads will curve away from the main intersection to leave room for tight traditional ramps.

They'll have to buy and clear quite a few properties near the intersection corners to do that. Tight slip ramps at various points along the way would be easier. I suppose those wouldn't be up to current geometry standards though.

Quote from: sprjus4
The second segment between the southern end of this project and the Havelock Bypass is scheduled to begin construction next year. A similar design will be used, though it will transition back to a 4 lane mainline design with a 46 foot median. The bridges appear to be designed with a third center lane for future expansion, however.

I wouldn't think there would be enough space for a 46' wide median, much less any kind of grassy median at all. I pretty much expected the opposing main lanes to be divided by a concrete Jersey barrier along all the portions flanked by frontage roads.
Logged

nerdom

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 38
  • Location: new bern nc
  • Last Login: May 29, 2023, 05:24:04 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #1024 on: April 13, 2022, 06:56:40 PM »

A jersey barrier will be used from the bridge east to just after the Grantham rd. Interchange where it goes from 6 to 4 lanes. Demolition has already been completed at the properties that are interchange adjacent. Just waiting for the rubble to be hauled off.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.