AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Interstate 42  (Read 179547 times)

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12260
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: May 15, 2022, 11:44:34 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #975 on: January 04, 2022, 09:24:14 AM »

The railroad isn't the problem.  It's 1/3 mile away from 95...plenty of room.  The problem is Outlet Center Dr (the frontage road) and the businesses along it, including DeWayne's and a La Quinta.
Logged

VTGoose

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 410
  • Age: 2017
  • Location: Blacksburg, VA
  • Last Login: May 13, 2022, 03:26:37 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #976 on: January 04, 2022, 12:07:44 PM »

So it looks like I-95 won't be relocated.

I don't see how they make an interstate-to-interstate interchange between I-95 and future I-42 without relocating I-95.  That railroad paralleling I-95 is just too close, as well as expensive ROW to buy.
Could they claim a railroad under eminent domain or something?

Yes, but it is expensive. In the '80s a portion of a Virginian/Norfolk & Western line near Gilbert, West Virginia, was claimed to build the R. D. Bailey Lake. The lake was planned to flood the line, so a new line was built by the government above the high-water line.
Logged
"Get in the fast lane, grandma!  The bingo game is ready to roll!"

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 804
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: May 13, 2022, 06:17:41 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #977 on: January 04, 2022, 06:26:06 PM »

So it looks like I-95 won't be relocated.

I don't see how they make an interstate-to-interstate interchange between I-95 and future I-42 without relocating I-95.  That railroad paralleling I-95 is just too close, as well as expensive ROW to buy.
Could they claim a railroad under eminent domain or something?

Yes, but it is expensive. In the '80s a portion of a Virginian/Norfolk & Western line near Gilbert, West Virginia, was claimed to build the R. D. Bailey Lake. The lake was planned to flood the line, so a new line was built by the government above the high-water line.
When Jordan Lake was built south of Durham (completed in 1974), the Corps of Engineers rerouted a long section of the old Durham and  South Carolina Railroad, then part of the Southern Railroad I think. Guess what: in less than ten years the brand new railroad was abandoned. Eventually NCDOT bought the ROW and today it is a section of the American Tobacco Trail greenway.
Logged

orulz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 157
  • Age: 40
  • Location: NC
  • Last Login: May 06, 2022, 12:54:10 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #978 on: January 05, 2022, 07:48:27 AM »

ED on a railroad more or less takes an act of congress. State highway departments do not have the authority.

This is CSX's east coast main line. It's like 1000x more important than the notion of a direct 95-42 interchange. So, ED ... and then what?
Logged

Dirt Roads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1536
  • Location: Central North Carolina
  • Last Login: May 15, 2022, 09:34:57 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #979 on: January 05, 2022, 10:54:21 AM »

So it looks like I-95 won't be relocated.

I don't see how they make an interstate-to-interstate interchange between I-95 and future I-42 without relocating I-95.  That railroad paralleling I-95 is just too close, as well as expensive ROW to buy.

Could they claim a railroad under eminent domain or something?

Yes, but it is expensive. In the '80s a portion of a Virginian/Norfolk & Western line near Gilbert, West Virginia, was claimed to build the R. D. Bailey Lake. The lake was planned to flood the line, so a new line was built by the government above the high-water line.

When Jordan Lake was built south of Durham (completed in 1974), the Corps of Engineers rerouted a long section of the old Durham and  South Carolina Railroad, then part of the Southern Railroad I think. Guess what: in less than ten years the brand new railroad was abandoned. Eventually NCDOT bought the ROW and today it is a section of the American Tobacco Trail greenway.

I suspect that some folks got confused between the planned I-42 connection to I-95 and the proposal to reroute I-95 at a smaller exit nearby, which was partly due to the nearby CSXT mainline (former Atlantic Coast Line).

For the record, roadway/railroad construction is "expensive" in general.  The bigger issue is that most state DOTs have a hard time working with railroads because of the difference in agenda.  Large projects take a great deal of "energy" from the railroad that is better focused on railroad line capacity (meaning the number of experienced railroad designers from the various departments, in particular track, signals and B&B=bridges and buildings).  One of the hardest things about rerouting a mainline railroad is that the "bypass" will almost always be longer and somewhat slower than the straightline route that needs to be relocated.  It doesn't sit well with railroaders (me being one of them) when the DOT wants to speed up their traffic by slowing down the railroad traffic (as well as diverting attention from more important railroad projects).  Once that issue gets addressed, everything else will fall in place.

On the flip side, state DOTs see the railroad as immovable and also view the cost line item as something that can be eliminated from the project.  And that plays right into the railroad's hand.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12265
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: May 15, 2022, 11:36:52 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #980 on: January 05, 2022, 11:10:30 AM »

Isn’t the I-95 and Future I-42 challenge is all the development along the Frontage Roads. Both sides are filled in along I-95 from US 70 (formerly US 70A) to US 70 Business between Selma and Smithfield. So all four quadrants are pretty much taken.

IMO a connector freeway would be the best option and allow for full connections, but then again Texas faced the same issue with US 281 and IH 410 as well near SA Airpoty. That area is way overdeveloped, but engineers figured a way to get flyovers in the very tight space they had.  So that may be what NCDOT might end up duplicating TexDOT there.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12260
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: May 15, 2022, 11:44:34 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #981 on: January 05, 2022, 11:12:28 AM »

I don't understand why we're still talking about the railroad.  The tracks are almost a half mile from the southbound I-95 lanes where I-42 will cross.  The railroad is not the issue with a future I-42/I-95 interchange.
Logged

orulz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 157
  • Age: 40
  • Location: NC
  • Last Login: May 06, 2022, 12:54:10 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #982 on: January 05, 2022, 11:56:44 AM »

Yes I've seen that, I am just wondering if NCDOT will buy the Eastfield Crossing property for the I-95 relocation.
I am of the opinion that Eastfield Crossing is not an actual development that anybody plans to build, but rather a cynical play to pump up the value of the land so that when NCDOT has to acquire it, they will have to pay more.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #983 on: January 05, 2022, 02:16:43 PM »

Yes I've seen that, I am just wondering if NCDOT will buy the Eastfield Crossing property for the I-95 relocation.
I am of the opinion that Eastfield Crossing is not an actual development that anybody plans to build, but rather a cynical play to pump up the value of the land so that when NCDOT has to acquire it, they will have to pay more.
Looking at the Sentinel explorer, nothing has happened there. I think the infrastructure bill should move forward and keep on with the I-95 relocation that's needed.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #984 on: January 05, 2022, 02:32:21 PM »

I don't understand why we're still talking about the railroad.  The tracks are almost a half mile from the southbound I-95 lanes where I-42 will cross.  The railroad is not the issue with a future I-42/I-95 interchange.
And it's ironic of how that happens...
Logged

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 804
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: May 13, 2022, 06:17:41 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #985 on: January 05, 2022, 06:42:46 PM »


For the record, roadway/railroad construction is "expensive" in general.  The bigger issue is that most state DOTs have a hard time working with railroads because of the difference in agenda.  Large projects take a great deal of "energy" from the railroad that is better focused on railroad line capacity (meaning the number of experienced railroad designers from the various departments, in particular track, signals and B&B=bridges and buildings).  One of the hardest things about rerouting a mainline railroad is that the "bypass" will almost always be longer and somewhat slower than the straightline route that needs to be relocated.  It doesn't sit well with railroaders (me being one of them) when the DOT wants to speed up their traffic by slowing down the railroad traffic (as well as diverting attention from more important railroad projects).  Once that issue gets addressed, everything else will fall in place.
OTOH, sometimes DOT's work is good for the railroad. NCDOT has straightened curves between Raleigh and Charlotte to speed rail traffic including passenger trains, but I assume that helps freight trains as well.
Logged

Dirt Roads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1536
  • Location: Central North Carolina
  • Last Login: May 15, 2022, 09:34:57 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #986 on: January 05, 2022, 09:09:14 PM »

For the record, roadway/railroad construction is "expensive" in general.  The bigger issue is that most state DOTs have a hard time working with railroads because of the difference in agenda.  Large projects take a great deal of "energy" from the railroad that is better focused on railroad line capacity (meaning the number of experienced railroad designers from the various departments, in particular track, signals and B&B=bridges and buildings).  One of the hardest things about rerouting a mainline railroad is that the "bypass" will almost always be longer and somewhat slower than the straightline route that needs to be relocated.  It doesn't sit well with railroaders (me being one of them) when the DOT wants to speed up their traffic by slowing down the railroad traffic (as well as diverting attention from more important railroad projects).  Once that issue gets addressed, everything else will fall in place.

OTOH, sometimes DOT's work is good for the railroad. NCDOT has straightened curves between Raleigh and Charlotte to speed rail traffic including passenger trains, but I assume that helps freight trains as well.

Sorry, but I'd better reply in a different forum:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30507.msg2695452#msg2695452
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3046
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: May 11, 2022, 08:38:18 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #987 on: January 06, 2022, 01:30:17 PM »

Yes I've seen that, I am just wondering if NCDOT will buy the Eastfield Crossing property for the I-95 relocation.
I am of the opinion that Eastfield Crossing is not an actual development that anybody plans to build, but rather a cynical play to pump up the value of the land so that when NCDOT has to acquire it, they will have to pay more.

I would agree with you, but according to a paywalled article from August 22, 2021, work is underway there.

https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2021/08/22/eastfield-crossing-ground-breaking-selma.html

Quote
Work is progressing on one of the largest mixed-use projects in the Triangle.

Selma-based AdVenture Development will hold a groundbreaking event Tuesday for Building 100, the first facility to get underway at Eastfield Business Park in Johnston County. The business park is part of the more expansive Eastfield Crossing project outside Selma, which totals approximately 3 million square feet of industrial, retail, medical and housing space.

Building 100 will bring much-needed inventory to Johnston County, which is starving for industrial space.

"The desire to build it came out of the fact that there was no inventory in that industrial category in the Johnston County market," said Kevin Dougherty, president and owner of AdVenture Development.

Building 100 will be 135,000 square feet and Dougherty expects the shell to be complete in March. He said he envisions advanced manufacturing or warehouse operations functioning out of the space. ARCO Design/Build is providing design and construction services and Phoenix Commercial is handling the leasing.

Eastfield is one of the most ambitious projects in the Triangle, as Dougherty said the only thing not included in the development is traditional office space – "not that we wouldn't," he quickly added. "We just didn't necessarily see this as that kind of location."

Eastfield will include about 225 single-family homes, 300-350 multifamily units as well as hotel and medical space and room for major retailers, Dougherty said. He declined to name specific retailers yet that have expressed significant interest, but said they are names that "everybody would recognize and that are currently not in the market."

The next 18-24 months months should see a flurry of activity at the site. AdVenture Development is working on its single-family and multifamily residences, the first phase of retail and a hotel that was ready to go to bid when Covid-19 hit in early 2020. He said the hotel could go back out to bid as early as this year.

"The hotel will take 12 months-plus to build, so I don't see the hotel open and operating until 2023 at the earliest," Dougherty said. "I see the first phase of retail opening in April 2023. I see single-family on the ground definitely in 2022 and multifamily the same way – I see them potentially closing before year end and being under construction in 2022. We've got a lot of moving parts and I'm excited to get them all activated."

Work is progressing on Old North State Food Hall, too. The food hall will be located in the Triangle East Collaborative building within Eastfield, and a company run by a renowned chef was recently brought on to manage the space.

All this comes while Johnston County is coming off a decade where it added 47,000 people. The area, historically focused around the agriculture industry, is now the fastest-growing county in North Carolina. The rapid influx of people means more retail development will inevitably follow.

The lack of retail options in Johnston County was one of the driving factors behind the conception of Eastfield, Dougherty said. He moved to the area in 2004 and remembers his children saying at the time, "'Hey, Dad – we don't have a Panera. We don't have a Dick's Sporting Goods. We don't have a Target.'" What started as a 10-acre project to bring more retail to Johnston County has ballooned to around 475 acres.

"I think we have enough land assembled that we can put together a nice, quality mixed-use project," Dougherty said.

AdVenture Development has offices in Raleigh and Pittsburgh.

Good luck getting a direct I-42/I-95 interchange...
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #988 on: January 18, 2022, 11:39:34 AM »

This document shows that it will be done in the feasibility study project.

https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?layers=8623ff32a0a249c79a106dfb12dc83b2
Logged

orulz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 157
  • Age: 40
  • Location: NC
  • Last Login: May 06, 2022, 12:54:10 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #989 on: January 19, 2022, 04:31:24 PM »

Have y'all seen this drawing of possible alternatives?



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

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #990 on: January 19, 2022, 05:32:56 PM »

Have y'all seen this drawing of possible alternatives?



It's from the 2016 FS-1604A scoping study.
No but even with it being done, it still bisects the Eastfield Crossing development by a hair. So if anything would be done, I have to assume it would be a Partial cloverleaf. With some loops lacking access or they would leave the interchange as it is thanks to that Eastfield Crossing development..
Logged

CoolAngrybirdsrio4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 175
  • just looking at roads and stuff

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Ann Arbor
  • Last Login: May 10, 2022, 07:32:24 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #991 on: January 21, 2022, 02:37:36 AM »

Have y'all seen this drawing of possible alternatives?



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

What an interesting interchange design there.
Logged
Renewed roadgeek

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #992 on: February 10, 2022, 04:02:38 PM »

Heavy construction for this project was supposed to begin last year. However it was delayed one year. They are still in the stages of building demolition and moving the power lines. Heavy construction is expected to be let in 2 months (April). The railroad company is the one you have to blame for this... Same goddamn thing with the East End Connector being delayed...

Completion for this project is expected to be in late 2024.

Quote
Originally the U.S. 70 upgrade in James City was to be complete by the end of 2023, but it has been pushed another year.

Due to previous reports of the North Carolina Department of Transportation waiting for railroad permits, an unusual delay moved the completion date to the end of 2024.

https://wcti12.com/news/local/us-70-construction-in-james-city-to-pick-up-over-next-few-months

https://www.newbernsj.com/story/news/2022/02/07/us-70-improvements-james-city-completion-2024/6639226001/
Logged

RoadPelican

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 142
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: May 15, 2022, 08:33:23 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #993 on: February 11, 2022, 07:58:15 AM »

Havelock Bypass is supposed to open in Spring 2024 ahead of the James City work now.  2024 will be a big year for the US 70/I-42 corridor in Craven and Carteret County.
Logged

RoadPelican

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 142
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: May 15, 2022, 08:33:23 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #994 on: February 11, 2022, 08:13:59 AM »

There is a 7 mile gap between the James City project and the Havelock Bypass project.  That gap is supposed to be upgraded to interstate standards with construction beginning in 2023 and completion in 2025.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #995 on: February 11, 2022, 08:50:16 AM »

Wilson's Mills upgrades are also expected to be complete in 2024. After that, you can expect a lot of waiting...
Logged

bob7374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1654
  • Age: 57
  • Location: East Weymouth, Massachusetts
  • Last Login: May 14, 2022, 10:54:27 AM
    • Bob Malme's Road Pages
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #996 on: February 14, 2022, 12:01:36 AM »

It turns out 2 segments of I-42 were approved by AASHTO at their Fall 2021 Meeting, the Goldsboro and Clayton Bypasses (see details in North Carolina topic thread). NCDOT personnel have only talked about getting federal approval of the Goldsboro Bypass. Did NCDOT ask for federal approval also and were turned down, or are they going to wait until additional miles of US 70 between Business 70 and the Neuse River bridge are upgraded to ask for putting up I-42 shields? Guess we'll find out eventually.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2022, 11:57:37 AM by bob7374 »
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3046
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: May 11, 2022, 08:38:18 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #997 on: February 14, 2022, 12:36:36 AM »

It turns out 2 segments of I-42 were approved by AASHTO at their Fall 2021 Meeting, the Goldsboro and Clayton Bypasses (see details in North Carolina topic thread). NCDOT has only publicized the federal approval of the Goldsboro Bypass. Did NCDOT ask for federal approval and was turned down, or are they going to wait until additional miles of US 70 between Business 70 and the Neuse River bridge are upgraded to ask for putting up I-42 shields? Guess we'll find out eventually.

They may wait to sign I-42 on the Clayton Bypass because of the project you mentioned, but I think they'll throw the US-70 Corridor Commission a bone and sign the Goldsboro Bypass ASAP. Hopefully, they'll ditch the US-70 Bypass designation altogether when they sign it.

Given that NCDOT is tossing US-264 off the freeway east of Wilson in favor of I-587, I wonder if they'll put US-70 back through Clayton once they get around to signing I-42 there.
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3625
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: Today at 06:04:52 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #998 on: February 14, 2022, 05:50:32 AM »

Given that NCDOT is tossing US-264 off the freeway east of Wilson in favor of I-587, I wonder if they'll put US-70 back through Clayton once they get around to signing I-42 there.
The 587/264 approach was get the Interstate approved, and then the moving of the US highway off it. So next AASHTO meeting will probably have applications for the deletion of US70 Bypass around Goldsboro, and the relocation of US70 back through Clayton (with associated truncation of the Business route).
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3046
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: May 11, 2022, 08:38:18 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #999 on: February 14, 2022, 08:10:09 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:

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

Given that NCDOT is tossing US-264 off the freeway east of Wilson in favor of I-587, I wonder if they'll put US-70 back through Clayton once they get around to signing I-42 there.
The 587/264 approach was get the Interstate approved, and then the moving of the US highway off it. So next AASHTO meeting will probably have applications for the deletion of US70 Bypass around Goldsboro, and the relocation of US70 back through Clayton (with associated truncation of the Business route).

I got my fingers crossed.
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

 


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.