AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Interstate 42  (Read 50905 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4107
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:20:27 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #300 on: November 30, 2017, 05:16:10 PM »

So, no upgrading from Princeton westward for now...?

Once those interchanges are built and US-70 is upgraded between Goldsboro and Princeton, there shouldn't be any traffic lights between I-40 and Willie Measley Road east of La Grange.

Having those interchanges built beforehand makes upgrading the rest of US-70"s substandard features (at-grades, shoulders, etc.) much easier whenever NCDOT gets around to it. NCDOT is also seriously considering building a direct interchange with I-95 in Selma, which I think should be done.

I’m going to guess no, but can I-42 be signed by then like I-87 up by Raleigh?

There might be some push from individual cities or localized interest groups to get qualifying portions of US 70 signed as I-42 before the corridor is finished -- but it's likely that at least the segment from I-40 east to the east end of the Goldsboro bypass will be completed -- or very close to it -- before any I-42 signage is posted; that'll comprise a lengthy section that connects to I-40 (and likely I-95) that can be extended by the eventual Kinston bypass.  If that occurs, expect other qualifying completed segments (such as the proposed James City upgrade and/or the Havelock bypass) to request signage as well; the interim sections between Kinston and New Bern would get signage as they are upgraded (likely the last segment to get such attention). 
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1457
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:51 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #301 on: November 30, 2017, 05:36:35 PM »

I've often wondered why NCDOT never requested I-42 shields for the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses when they were eager to post I-87 shields on the Knightdale Bypass, but the US-70 Corridor Commission is concerned about the reduced weight limits that will go into effect once I-42 starts getting signed. I suspect that they brought that concern to NCDOT's attention and is trying to set the groundwork to have the weight limits grandfathered in the way Wisconsin did for I-41.
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

orulz

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 115
  • Age: 36
  • Location: NC
  • Last Login: Today at 04:49:37 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #302 on: December 01, 2017, 12:40:33 PM »

I've often wondered why NCDOT never requested I-42 shields for the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses when they were eager to post I-87 shields on the Knightdale Bypass, but the US-70 Corridor Commission is concerned about the reduced weight limits that will go into effect once I-42 starts getting signed. I suspect that they brought that concern to NCDOT's attention and is trying to set the groundwork to have the weight limits grandfathered in the way Wisconsin did for I-41.
Perhaps they just won't place any shields until everything from I-40 to La Grange is upgraded. Changing over one disjoint segment at a time would give the road split personalities in terms of exit numbers and would be very confusing. For example, Business 70 east of Clayton would change from exit 326 to exit 8, while 7 miles east, the Buffalo Rd exit would stay as exit 333, then 17 miles later the US70 exit for Goldsboro changes from exit 350 to exit 32. That is something that would be genuinely confusing to anybody, not just just nitpicking roadgeeks like us :)

LGL33L

Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1457
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:51 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #303 on: December 01, 2017, 04:08:52 PM »

I've often wondered why NCDOT never requested I-42 shields for the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses when they were eager to post I-87 shields on the Knightdale Bypass, but the US-70 Corridor Commission is concerned about the reduced weight limits that will go into effect once I-42 starts getting signed. I suspect that they brought that concern to NCDOT's attention and is trying to set the groundwork to have the weight limits grandfathered in the way Wisconsin did for I-41.
Perhaps they just won't place any shields until everything from I-40 to La Grange is upgraded. Changing over one disjoint segment at a time would give the road split personalities in terms of exit numbers and would be very confusing. For example, Business 70 east of Clayton would change from exit 326 to exit 8, while 7 miles east, the Buffalo Rd exit would stay as exit 333, then 17 miles later the US70 exit for Goldsboro changes from exit 350 to exit 32. That is something that would be genuinely confusing to anybody, not just just nitpicking roadgeeks like us :)

LGL33L

Good point.
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 454
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: August 16, 2018, 06:24:09 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #304 on: December 01, 2017, 06:33:39 PM »

I've often wondered why NCDOT never requested I-42 shields for the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses when they were eager to post I-87 shields on the Knightdale Bypass, but the US-70 Corridor Commission is concerned about the reduced weight limits that will go into effect once I-42 starts getting signed. I suspect that they brought that concern to NCDOT's attention and is trying to set the groundwork to have the weight limits grandfathered in the way Wisconsin did for I-41.
Perhaps they just won't place any shields until everything from I-40 to La Grange is upgraded. Changing over one disjoint segment at a time would give the road split personalities in terms of exit numbers and would be very confusing. For example, Business 70 east of Clayton would change from exit 326 to exit 8, while 7 miles east, the Buffalo Rd exit would stay as exit 333, then 17 miles later the US70 exit for Goldsboro changes from exit 350 to exit 32. That is something that would be genuinely confusing to anybody, not just just nitpicking roadgeeks like us :)

LGL33L

Good point.

Must the exit numbers change? Can I-42 preserve the US 70 exit numbers?
Logged

21stCenturyRoad

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 91
  • They didn't offer neutered shields...

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Miami Lakes, FL
  • Last Login: Today at 03:31:32 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #305 on: December 01, 2017, 07:37:42 PM »

I've often wondered why NCDOT never requested I-42 shields for the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses when they were eager to post I-87 shields on the Knightdale Bypass, but the US-70 Corridor Commission is concerned about the reduced weight limits that will go into effect once I-42 starts getting signed. I suspect that they brought that concern to NCDOT's attention and is trying to set the groundwork to have the weight limits grandfathered in the way Wisconsin did for I-41.
Perhaps they just won't place any shields until everything from I-40 to La Grange is upgraded. Changing over one disjoint segment at a time would give the road split personalities in terms of exit numbers and would be very confusing. For example, Business 70 east of Clayton would change from exit 326 to exit 8, while 7 miles east, the Buffalo Rd exit would stay as exit 333, then 17 miles later the US70 exit for Goldsboro changes from exit 350 to exit 32. That is something that would be genuinely confusing to anybody, not just just nitpicking roadgeeks like us :)

LGL33L

Good point.

Must the exit numbers change? Can I-42 preserve the US 70 exit numbers?
Yes, they have to change to reflect the mileage that will be implemented on I-42, especially if US-70 is to be rerouted to different alignments.
Logged
The truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9528
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:25:01 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #306 on: December 01, 2017, 08:29:15 PM »

Must the exit numbers change? Can I-42 preserve the US 70 exit numbers?
Yes, they have to change to reflect the mileage that will be implemented on I-42, especially if US-70 is to be rerouted to different alignments.

From Section 2E.31 of the MUTCD:

"Where numbered routes overlap, continuity of interchange numbering shall be established for only one of the routes. If one of the routes is an Interstate and the other route is not an Interstate, the Interstate route shall maintain continuity of interchange numbering."

In other words, as 21stCenturyRoad noted, the exit numbers must follow I-42's mileage.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1457
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:51 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #307 on: December 02, 2017, 04:12:18 AM »

Must the exit numbers change? Can I-42 preserve the US 70 exit numbers?
Yes, they have to change to reflect the mileage that will be implemented on I-42, especially if US-70 is to be rerouted to different alignments.

From Section 2E.31 of the MUTCD:

"Where numbered routes overlap, continuity of interchange numbering shall be established for only one of the routes. If one of the routes is an Interstate and the other route is not an Interstate, the Interstate route shall maintain continuity of interchange numbering."

In other words, as 21stCenturyRoad noted, the exit numbers must follow I-42's mileage.

Somebody might want to inform NCDOT of that rule since the I-795/US-264 overlap in Wilson still uses US-264 exit numbers and mileposts after 10 years of I-795's existance. That's just one issue with I-795 during NCDOT's half-assed (IMO) signing job. I could go on about a couple of others...

Meanwhile, NCDOT is making sure I-87 is king of the Knightdale Bypass after barely a year.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2017, 04:24:42 AM by LM117 »
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13479
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 03:32:35 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #308 on: December 02, 2017, 10:39:45 AM »

But does I-42 mileage have to start at 0? See I-15 CA, I-17 AZ.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4107
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:20:27 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #309 on: December 02, 2017, 03:11:31 PM »

But does I-42 mileage have to start at 0? See I-15 CA, I-17 AZ.

AZ's system is just plain weird; and as Caltrans counts the mileposts based on the route number (15) rather than its particular status (Interstate/state highway); the south end of CA 15 at I-5 is "point zero" -- now & forever!  One of these days -- maybe -- they'll do the spot upgrades needed to achieve I-standards on the CA 94 interchange, and then the point will be moot.   
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1457
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:51 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #310 on: December 07, 2017, 09:32:49 PM »

We're in Goldsboro visiting a friend and I finally managed to drive the entire Goldsboro Bypass earlier today. I managed to get a couple of pics of the corrected BGS approaching the eastern end of the bypass. Feel free to use them however you want.

Both of these were taken on US-70 West approaching the bypass. The overhead BGS on US-70 Bypass eastbound approaching US-70 still says "To La Grange" for US-70 West.





Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1457
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:51 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #311 on: December 09, 2017, 02:01:19 PM »

Reactions from NCDOT's public meeting in Princeton.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/12/08/dot_receives_comments_from_public_about_us_70_improvement_project/

Quote
For Johnston County resident Jeanette Burgess, the North Carolina Department of Transportation's plan to improve US 70 to interstate quality could result in the loss of a potential new business.

Burgess, who recently purchased property along US 70 to open a small business, was among those at Grace Baptist Church in Princeton Tuesday to speak with DOT representatives and give her comments on the project.

Under the proposed plans, she said, her property would no longer be located conveniently alongside the highway, but on a service road away from easy access for drivers. Burgess said she wished she had known about the plans when she bought her property.

"They knew this was coming, and I think people who are buying property should be told what is coming in the future," she said. "I wasn't left with anything, but I wanted to leave something for my kids, and this is my life's savings. I would never have done this if I'd known."

The project in question -- estimated to cost around $130.5 million -- would construct approximately 6.7 miles of freeway between the US 70 bypass in Goldsboro and a spot west of Pondfield Road in Princeton. To do so, several intersections which currently have stoplights would need to be decommissioned and replaced with highway interchanges with ramps and bridges.

Andrew Barksdale, DOT public relations officer, said that the most substantial change would come to Princeton.

"There are two interchanges we would need to build in Princeton. There are also a number of side roads which currently connect directly to U.S. 70, and we couldn't have that. Those would need to either go over the interstate or under it," he said. "That would be a change for people who are used to taking this street or that street to go to work or to school, now you would have to go down and get on the interstate."

The goals of the project are ultimately to reduce travel time and improve safety by cutting down on the number of places drivers can turn on to the highway without a traffic light, Barksdale said.

Matt Clark, project developer, said that planning for the project began six months ago. It is tentatively slated for construction in 2023, he said, and will be sorely needed by that time.

"We've been doing studies on traffic, and what they are showing is that we're expecting 70 percent traffic growth over the next 25 years," he said.

The project in question is only part of the overall US 70 improvement plan, which would completely change the highway from Wake County to Morehead City into Interstate 42, Barksdale said.

Princeton Mayor Donald Rains said that finalizing the plans would help the town bring in business.

"We have been meeting with developers for the past few years, and they're looking to come in because we have water and sewer," he said. "But we can't work anything out until we know where the interstate is going to go."

Attendees were encouraged to submit comments to a box in the center of the room. Clark said that the comments will be read and taken into consideration as the DOT narrows down the exact path of the interstate. Other sections of the interstate, which fall outside the department's 10-year plan, will need to re-compete with other short term projects every two years, meaning that there is not a definitive end date for the entire project.

I find it hard to believe that people were unaware. The push for interstate status was recent, but NCDOT has made it well-known for at least 10 years that US-70 will eventually become a freeway between I-40 and Morehead City.
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1457
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:51 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #312 on: December 20, 2017, 11:00:51 AM »

The US-70 Corridor Commission finally woke up and posted the minutes of their September 21 meeting. The minutes of their November meeting haven't been posted yet.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Sept_21_2017_minutes.pdf
« Last Edit: December 20, 2017, 11:18:39 AM by LM117 »
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

CanesFan27

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1186
  • Last Login: August 12, 2018, 10:35:33 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #313 on: December 20, 2017, 12:37:48 PM »

The US-70 Corridor Commission finally woke up and posted the minutes of their September 21 meeting. The minutes of their November meeting haven't been posted yet.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Sept_21_2017_minutes.pdf

Has there been a December meeting?  If not, November's meeting most likely won't be posted until the group approves the November minutes at the next meeting whenever that is.

And seeing that the next meeting us in January it won't be then until the November minutes are approved by the board and later posted.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2017, 12:41:39 PM by CanesFan27 »
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1457
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:51 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #314 on: December 20, 2017, 01:49:43 PM »

The US-70 Corridor Commission finally woke up and posted the minutes of their September 21 meeting. The minutes of their November meeting haven't been posted yet.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Sept_21_2017_minutes.pdf

Has there been a December meeting?

No. They usually meet once every other month. They recently posted the agenda for the November meeting and just a little while ago they posted a letter made this month from Executive Director Durwood Stephenson supporting the construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, but that's all.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2017, 01:52:56 PM by LM117 »
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1457
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:51 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #315 on: January 26, 2018, 01:35:28 PM »

Two lanes on the new Gallants Channel Bridge is opening this Saturday.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14791

Quote
Residents of Carteret County will benefit from a major milestone on Saturday, Jan. 27 when traffic will move into a new traffic pattern for the Gallants Channel Bridge project. The shift will occur this weekend in two phases. On Saturday, traffic will be shifted on the east end of the project up to N.C. 101. By Sunday, traffic will be shifted on the west end from Radio Island to N.C. 101 across the new bridge.

“This is a major milestone and a true benefit for the residents and visitors to all of Carteret County,” said NCDOT Division Engineer Preston Hunter. “The old drawbridge is being replaced on a new alignment with a 65-foot high fixed-span bridge, which will not have to open at all.”

The $66.4 million construction project has been under way since 2014. It also involves widening U.S. 70 to four lanes with a median on a new location, and building a bridge on Turner Street. Additional traffic shifts for the project will take place in the coming months.

“The Turner Street component of this project is slated to open by the first of April,” said Hunter. “Once it does, residents and business owners will benefit by significantly lower travel times.”

For real-time travel information, visit DriveNC.gov or follow NCDOT on Twitter.
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1457
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:51 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #316 on: February 14, 2018, 12:47:54 PM »

NCDOT is permanently closing the Firetower Road intersection on US-70 in Johnston County.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14843

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation will permanently close the intersection of Firetower Road at U.S. 70 in Johnston County later this month.

The department will close the southern connection of the road at U.S. 70 on Monday, Feb. 26, and then close its northern connection at U.S. 70 the following week on Monday, March 5. The closure will improve safety and traffic flow on U.S. 70.

To access the highway from Firetower Road, motorists will use the nearby U.S. 70 interchange at U.S. 70 Business that opened last fall.
“This change will provide for safer traffic movements and reduce the risk of crashes for motorists entering or exiting U.S. 70,” said Brandon Herring, the department’s Deputy Construction Engineer in the Wilson office.

As part of the same project, another newly constructed interchange opened last fall at the intersection of U.S. 70 and Davis Mill Road/Stevens Chapel Road. This interchange is about 2.5 miles east of Firetower Road and includes a bridge and ramps to replace the existing intersection.

This section of U.S. 70 has an average of more than 29,000 vehicles a day – a figure expected to reach 45,000 vehicles by 2035. The $16.7 million project by Flatiron Constructors Inc. of Broomfield, Colo., began in 2015 and is scheduled to wrap up later this year.
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

orulz

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 115
  • Age: 36
  • Location: NC
  • Last Login: Today at 04:49:37 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #317 on: March 15, 2018, 10:33:54 PM »

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

This would eliminate the only stoplight between Goldsboro and Kinston, which is also the only standalone stoplight between Raleigh and Newport - all the others are clustered in Princeton, Kinston, James City, and Havelock).
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1457
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:51 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #318 on: March 16, 2018, 03:24:00 PM »

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.

Quote
This would eliminate the only stoplight between Goldsboro and Kinston, which is also the only standalone stoplight between Raleigh and Newport - all the others are clustered in Princeton, Kinston, James City, and Havelock).

There are two lights near Wilson’s Mills at Swift Creek Road and Wilson’s Mills Road. There’s also one near Pine Level at Creechs Mill Road.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 03:56:42 PM by LM117 »
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

orulz

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 115
  • Age: 36
  • Location: NC
  • Last Login: Today at 04:49:37 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #319 on: March 16, 2018, 03:59:28 PM »

I drive through there several times a year on my way down to New Bern, and I'm pretty sure that the light at Creechs Mill Road has been gone since late Fall.

But you're definitely right about Wilson's Mills.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1457
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:51 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #320 on: March 16, 2018, 04:07:41 PM »

I'm pretty sure that the light at Creechs Mill Road has been gone since late Fall.

I forgot about that.
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 454
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: August 16, 2018, 06:24:09 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #321 on: March 16, 2018, 06:46:28 PM »

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.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1457
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:51 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #322 on: March 18, 2018, 07:35:18 AM »

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.
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

slorydn1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1034
  • If I pass you on the right, you're doing it wrong.

  • Age: 48
  • Location: New Bern, North Carolina
  • Last Login: Today at 10:39:36 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #323 on: March 18, 2018, 11:43:09 PM »

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.
Logged
Please Note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of any governmental agency, non-governmental agency, quasi-governmental agency or wanna be governmental agency

Counties: Counties Visited

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1457
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:51 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #324 on: March 19, 2018, 12:01:00 AM »

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.
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

 


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.