AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Southeast => Topic started by: LM117 on May 27, 2016, 11:39:37 AM

Title: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on May 27, 2016, 11:39:37 AM
Images of the US-70 (Future I-42) Goldsboro Bypass ribbon-cutting ceremony courtesy of WNCN. They wasted no time with I-42.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjeOr5zXIAQgylz.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjeJ8Z6UgAARZhQ.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjeP8OLVEAAjyAR.jpg)

[Split from the North Carolina thread. -S.]
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 27, 2016, 11:43:06 AM
Images of the US-70 (Future I-42) Goldsboro Bypass ribbon-cutting ceremony courtesy of WNCN. They wasted no time with I-42.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjeOr5zXIAQgylz.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjeJ8Z6UgAARZhQ.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjeP8OLVEAAjyAR.jpg)

So are they just going ahead and signing it as I-42, then?
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on May 27, 2016, 12:09:08 PM
So are they just going ahead and signing it as I-42, then?
From the looks of it, yeah. They might do the same thing with I-87, albeit with the I-49/I-540 treatment (in AR), where both routes would be signed concurrently, and one is eventually dropped (in this case, I-495). FWIW, I-87 will most likely be in the same boat as I-74, in that it will not connect to New York anytime soon, but we'd sure love to see that!
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 27, 2016, 12:25:33 PM
Images of the US-70 (Future I-42) Goldsboro Bypass ribbon-cutting ceremony courtesy of WNCN. They wasted no time with I-42.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjeOr5zXIAQgylz.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjeJ8Z6UgAARZhQ.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjeP8OLVEAAjyAR.jpg)

So are they just going ahead and signing it as I-42, then?

I wish. No, they have AASHTO approval only for "Future I-42". FHWA still has to sign off on it, but FHWA usually goes along with what AASHTO approves, so it's just as good as official. You can bet NCDOT will be sending applications at AASHTO's next meeting in the fall to have I-42 shields go up on the Goldsboro and Clayton bypasses and for I-87 to be signed along I-440 and the Knightdale Bypass (currently I-495). NCDOT will also likely seek to have I-495 and the section of I-440 from I-40 in southeast Raleigh to the Knightdale Bypass decommissioned.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on May 27, 2016, 12:58:59 PM
I doubt NCDOT will be in a hurry to decommission the segment of I-440 but I suppose I could be proven wrong?

I wonder what NCDOT will do with the I-95 interchange? Will new ramps be built or will the breezewood-ish status quo be maintained? There are better alternatives in three quadrants, all of which are (or will be) interstates, that cut off the corner for long distance traffic. The quadrant with the missing connection is I-95N to I-42E (and the reverse, I-42W to I-95S.) Is that one movement important enough to merit an eight figure interchange project? Probably not in our lifetimes. Maybe that little stretch of US 70 could get an alternate designation of Business (Green) I-42.

LGL33L

Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 27, 2016, 01:05:22 PM
I was waiting for an image of the 42 sign behind the podium making a speech.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 27, 2016, 01:35:01 PM
I wonder what NCDOT will do with the I-95 interchange? Will new ramps be built or will the breezewood-ish status quo be maintained? There are better alternatives in three quadrants, all of which are (or will be) interstates, that cut off the corner for long distance traffic. The quadrant with the missing connection is I-95N to I-42E (and the reverse, I-42W to I-95S.) Is that one movement important enough to merit an eight figure interchange project? Probably not in our lifetimes. Maybe that little stretch of US 70 could get an alternate designation of Business (Green) I-42.

LGL33L

As far as I know, it will be a Breezewood. There's been no mention of a direct I-42/I-95 connection. Personally, I'd like to see a direct interchange with I-42 and I-95 built to keep thru traffic off of US-70, but from the looks of it, it would be a LOT of work to make it happen.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on May 27, 2016, 01:52:08 PM
I wonder what NCDOT will do with the I-95 interchange? Will new ramps be built or will the breezewood-ish status quo be maintained? There are better alternatives in three quadrants, all of which are (or will be) interstates, that cut off the corner for long distance traffic. The quadrant with the missing connection is I-95N to I-42E (and the reverse, I-42W to I-95S.) Is that one movement important enough to merit an eight figure interchange project? Probably not in our lifetimes. Maybe that little stretch of US 70 could get an alternate designation of Business (Green) I-42.

LGL33L

As far as I know, it will be a Breezewood. There's been no mention of a direct I-42/I-95 connection. Personally, I'd like to see a direct interchange with I-42 and I-95 built to keep thru traffic off of US-70, but from the looks of it, it would be a LOT of work to make it happen.


Looking at Google Maps, there won't be enough room to put an interchange there because there are businesses near the interstate.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/DeWayne's/@35.5168823,-78.2977414,681m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0000000000000000:0x1b67d7e4ccbee91e!8m2!3d35.516594!4d-78.2984374
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on May 27, 2016, 02:13:41 PM
A minimal solution would be to connect only the directions where no freeway alternate  exists, although I'm not sure incomplete interchanges are allowed anymore. A direct ramp from I-95N to I-42E would be easy to build and there would be no weave issues, but the reverse I-42W to I-95S would be more difficult given the frontage road and hotels west of I-95 and north of future I-42.

LGL33L

Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on May 28, 2016, 04:59:49 AM
Wait, What?  I thought NC applied for it to be I-36 and now they are planning on signing it I-42?  I believe that is the better number choice but is NC going to change the application or are they going to do whatever the hell they please?  :hmmm:

OK.  I had not read the I-36/I-89 posts since Monday the 23rd.  I read that the numbers are I-42 and I-87.  I guess they are not going to do whatever the hell they please.  Agree with 42, disagree with 87.  The general direction is mostly east/west until Williamson, then it begins to go north/northeast.  I still believe it should be I-46, however, if there is a north/south number used, it should be I-97.  Just get rid of the one in Maryland and make it an I-70 extension.  Or...do not get rid of it and have it act like an I-69 (one here in Kentucky, one in Mississippi, one in Texas).  There would be one in NC and one in Maryland.  Which begs the question, "Are the pieces ever going to connect?"

I started a post in Fictional Highways about an I-46 that started on the east side of Raleigh, followed the US 64 freeway to near Bethel, NC, followed US 13 around Ahoskie, NC to Suffolk, VA, and then used the existing Suffolk bypass to Bowers Hill in Cheaspeake, VA.  My fictional I-46 would most likely be better suited for an odd north/south number than the one currently proposed.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 28, 2016, 06:23:06 AM
I wonder what NCDOT will do with the I-95 interchange? Will new ramps be built or will the breezewood-ish status quo be maintained? There are better alternatives in three quadrants, all of which are (or will be) interstates, that cut off the corner for long distance traffic. The quadrant with the missing connection is I-95N to I-42E (and the reverse, I-42W to I-95S.) Is that one movement important enough to merit an eight figure interchange project? Probably not in our lifetimes. Maybe that little stretch of US 70 could get an alternate designation of Business (Green) I-42.

LGL33L

As far as I know, it will be a Breezewood. There's been no mention of a direct I-42/I-95 connection. Personally, I'd like to see a direct interchange with I-42 and I-95 built to keep thru traffic off of US-70, but from the looks of it, it would be a LOT of work to make it happen.


Looking at Google Maps, there won't be enough room to put an interchange there because there are businesses near the interstate.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/DeWayne's/@35.5168823,-78.2977414,681m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0000000000000000:0x1b67d7e4ccbee91e!8m2!3d35.516594!4d-78.2984374

Yep. It would be impossible to put a full interchange there without leveling the businesses in the vicinity. Still, the thought of separating thru traffic from local traffic is nice. I used to go through there a lot and traffic used to get heavy on US-70 between both ends of the US-70/US-70 Bypass split. There are 5 traffic lights on US-70 between both ends of the bypass and they used to back up frequently. A direct I-42/I-95 interchange would definitely help.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 28, 2016, 09:59:04 AM

I wonder what NCDOT will do with the I-95 interchange? Will new ramps be built or will the breezewood-ish status quo be maintained? There are better alternatives in three quadrants, all of which are (or will be) interstates, that cut off the corner for long distance traffic. The quadrant with the missing connection is I-95N to I-42E (and the reverse, I-42W to I-95S.) Is that one movement important enough to merit an eight figure interchange project? Probably not in our lifetimes. Maybe that little stretch of US 70 could get an alternate designation of Business (Green) I-42.

LGL33L

My guess is that NCDOT is aware of this problem, but it's waaay down near the bottom of their to-do list for this highway. So it's Breezewood for the next 25 years or so.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 28, 2016, 10:18:30 AM

I wonder what NCDOT will do with the I-95 interchange? Will new ramps be built or will the breezewood-ish status quo be maintained? There are better alternatives in three quadrants, all of which are (or will be) interstates, that cut off the corner for long distance traffic. The quadrant with the missing connection is I-95N to I-42E (and the reverse, I-42W to I-95S.) Is that one movement important enough to merit an eight figure interchange project? Probably not in our lifetimes. Maybe that little stretch of US 70 could get an alternate designation of Business (Green) I-42.

LGL33L

My guess is that NCDOT is aware of this problem, but it's waaay down near the bottom of their to-do list for this highway. So it's Breezewood for the next 25 years or so.

and lets keep in mind 42 will not be routed onto 'Vanilla 70' so it won't be a complete breezewood situation of 70 being routed on a surface highway.   The exits will remain as 'TO" i-95 and theUS 70 exit will most likely include 'TO' I-42.  As it is, the Bypass US 70 through here will need to be upgraded (shoulders) to Interstate standards as it is. 
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 28, 2016, 01:30:38 PM
Another piece of the I-42 puzzle will soon be underway. NCDOT is currently buying the right-of-way for the 10-mile Havelock Bypass. It will be built to Interstate standards. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2018 and is supposed to be finished by 2021.

http://www.witn.com/content/news/Planning-continues-for-Havelock-bypass-381178011.html (http://www.witn.com/content/news/Planning-continues-for-Havelock-bypass-381178011.html)
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on May 28, 2016, 05:10:30 PM
I wonder if NCDOT will get rid of the "US-70 Bypass" designation for the Goldsboro Bypass once NCDOT applies for and gets permission to put up I-42 signs and just have the bypass solely as I-42. Similar to NCDOT taking US-117 off of I-795. There were already two different 70's in Goldsboro (US-70 and Business US-70) and now a third. Personally, I'd rather they do that, not just in Goldsboro, but for all the future bypasses. Leave US-70 for local traffic where possible, just like US-117.
It may be a while before we find out whether the Bypass 70 signs are taken down. This article in the News & Observer, and at least one other news story I read, implies NCDOT will not seek to designate any section of US 70 an interstate until the whole corridor is brought up to interstate standards:
[url]http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article80405172.html[url]
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 28, 2016, 06:36:17 PM
I wonder if NCDOT will get rid of the "US-70 Bypass" designation for the Goldsboro Bypass once NCDOT applies for and gets permission to put up I-42 signs and just have the bypass solely as I-42. Similar to NCDOT taking US-117 off of I-795. There were already two different 70's in Goldsboro (US-70 and Business US-70) and now a third. Personally, I'd rather they do that, not just in Goldsboro, but for all the future bypasses. Leave US-70 for local traffic where possible, just like US-117.
It may be a while before we find out whether the Bypass 70 signs are taken down. This article in the News & Observer, and at least one other news story I read, implies NCDOT will not seek to designate any section of US 70 an interstate until the whole corridor is brought up to interstate standards:

Either the media is clueless or NCDOT changed their mind (I'll take "clueless media" for $500, Alex). On NCDOT's application to AASHTO on page 22 of this PDF, they specifically said that they would send more applications to AASHTO for sections of US-70 to be added to the Interstate system as it's being upgraded. Plus, the Super 70 Corridor Commission will most likely remind NCDOT of that fact in case they forget. I'm almost positive NCDOT will be asking to have the Clayton and Goldsboro Bypasses signed as I-42 during AASHTO's next meeting in the fall and hopefully decommission US-70 Bypass. Two 70's is enough. Three is overkill, IMO.

Quote
As individual portions of the proposed alignment are constructed or upgraded to
interstate standards, separate AASHTO applications requesting the addition of those portions to the interstate system will
be submitted for review.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/Interstate_Routes_Binder.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/Interstate_Routes_Binder.pdf)
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 08, 2016, 09:09:43 AM
Another piece of the I-42 puzzle (albeit small) will soon be in place.

http://www.witn.com/content/news/Improvements-detours-coming-to-US-70-in-Lenoir-County-382205501.html (http://www.witn.com/content/news/Improvements-detours-coming-to-US-70-in-Lenoir-County-382205501.html)

Quote
Two sections of U.S. 70 in Lenoir County will soon undergo a $3 million overhaul.

The N.C. Department of Transportation says crews will mill, resurface and reconstruct shoulders along 8.5 miles of roadway. The two areas are the highway between the bridge over Bear Creek to the bridge over Falling Creek, and between east of Sanderson Way and Mt. Vernon Park Drive.

Work will begin as early as July 5, and is scheduled to be completed by next March. Drivers should expect some lane closures, but no detours are planned.

This will bring the La Grange freeway section of US-70 from Washington Street east of the town to the Goldsboro Bypass up to Interstate standards.  :nod: I didn't expect this to happen so soon. Now, if only the Kinston Bypass can get put back on the list...
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 24, 2016, 09:11:46 AM
One of my co-workers who lives in Cove City advised me that she spotted a "Future I-42" sign on the eastbound side of the US-70 freeway between the Cove City exit and the Tuscarora exit. I'm going to try to get up there and snap a picture of it when I get off this evening.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 24, 2016, 09:37:09 AM
One of my co-workers who lives in Cove City advised me that she spotted a "Future I-42" sign on the eastbound side of the US-70 freeway between the Cove City exit and the Tuscarora exit. I'm going to try to get up there and snap a picture of it when I get off this evening.

I thought NCDOT had to get Future I-42 approved by FHWA before they could put up "Future I-42" signs...or did FHWA approve it already?  :hmmm:
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 24, 2016, 09:55:17 AM
One of my co-workers who lives in Cove City advised me that she spotted a "Future I-42" sign on the eastbound side of the US-70 freeway between the Cove City exit and the Tuscarora exit. I'm going to try to get up there and snap a picture of it when I get off this evening.


I thought NCDOT had to get Future I-42 approved by FHWA before they could put up "Future I-42" signs...or did FHWA approve it already?  :hmmm:

I'm not sure if the FHWA did or not, to be honest. I haven' seen anything on here saying they did.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 24, 2016, 10:24:30 AM
One of my co-workers who lives in Cove City advised me that she spotted a "Future I-42" sign on the eastbound side of the US-70 freeway between the Cove City exit and the Tuscarora exit. I'm going to try to get up there and snap a picture of it when I get off this evening.


I thought NCDOT had to get Future I-42 approved by FHWA before they could put up "Future I-42" signs...or did FHWA approve it already?  :hmmm:

I'm not sure if the FHWA did or not, to be honest. I haven' seen anything on here saying they did.

I just did a Google search and even checked NCDOT's website and I couldn't find any mention of FHWA approval for Future I-42. Either NCDOT jumped the gun (which would be odd since they admitted they need FHWA approval first) or it was quietly approved with no announcement yet, which would be pretty fast by FHWA standards. When AASHTO approved I-495/Future I-495 in the spring of 2013, FHWA approval wasn't announced until December of that year. But I'm not complaining. The sooner, the better, IMO.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 24, 2016, 10:57:01 AM
One of my co-workers who lives in Cove City advised me that she spotted a "Future I-42" sign on the eastbound side of the US-70 freeway between the Cove City exit and the Tuscarora exit. I'm going to try to get up there and snap a picture of it when I get off this evening.


I thought NCDOT had to get Future I-42 approved by FHWA before they could put up "Future I-42" signs...or did FHWA approve it already?  :hmmm:

I'm not sure if the FHWA did or not, to be honest. I haven' seen anything on here saying they did.

I just did a Google search and even checked NCDOT's website and I couldn't find any mention of FHWA approval for Future I-42. Either NCDOT jumped the gun (which would be odd since they admitted they need FHWA approval first) or it was quietly approved with no announcement yet, which would be pretty fast by FHWA standards. When AASHTO approved I-495/Future I-495 in the spring of 2013, FHWA approval wasn't announced until December of that year. But I'm not complaining. The sooner, the better, IMO.


Wouldn't be the first time NCDOT has done that. I guess they are in the same boat I am, thinking that there is no way that FHWA wouldn't approve this one.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 24, 2016, 12:14:22 PM
One of my co-workers who lives in Cove City advised me that she spotted a "Future I-42" sign on the eastbound side of the US-70 freeway between the Cove City exit and the Tuscarora exit. I'm going to try to get up there and snap a picture of it when I get off this evening.


I thought NCDOT had to get Future I-42 approved by FHWA before they could put up "Future I-42" signs...or did FHWA approve it already?  :hmmm:

I'm not sure if the FHWA did or not, to be honest. I haven' seen anything on here saying they did.

I just did a Google search and even checked NCDOT's website and I couldn't find any mention of FHWA approval for Future I-42. Either NCDOT jumped the gun (which would be odd since they admitted they need FHWA approval first) or it was quietly approved with no announcement yet, which would be pretty fast by FHWA standards. When AASHTO approved I-495/Future I-495 in the spring of 2013, FHWA approval wasn't announced until December of that year. But I'm not complaining. The sooner, the better, IMO.


Wouldn't be the first time NCDOT has done that. I guess they are in the same boat I am, thinking that there is no way that FHWA wouldn't approve this one.

Agreed. The corridor was signed into law and the number perfectly fits the grid. FHWA wouldn't have any grounds to reject it. It's a done deal.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 24, 2016, 04:37:23 PM
See 4th reply -

https://www.facebook.com/groups/seroads/permalink/1066708250085511/

Cool! I gotta admit though, it seems a little redundant having "Interstate" printed twice, both on the I-42 shield and on the green sign. I guess the sign was put up before the shield went on it. Either way, it's nice to see I-42 showing up on US-70, even if it is "Future" for now. :nod:
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 24, 2016, 04:38:39 PM
One of my co-workers who lives in Cove City advised me that she spotted a "Future I-42" sign on the eastbound side of the US-70 freeway between the Cove City exit and the Tuscarora exit. I'm going to try to get up there and snap a picture of it when I get off this evening.

I thought NCDOT had to get Future I-42 approved by FHWA before they could put up "Future I-42" signs...or did FHWA approve it already?  :hmmm:
That's right, and FHWA hasn't had time to approve it. NCDOT posted "Future Interstate" signs with a large blank area left for a shield; now they're slapping 42 shields on the signs. And no, they really shouldn't do that, although in honesty there's not a lot of harm in it; FHWA approval for I-42 seems certain.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 24, 2016, 07:20:55 PM

I just got home from work. I've been chomping at the bit (a 12 hour shift never felt so long) to get out to Cove City to get this picture ever since my co-worker told me about the sign this morning. Well here it is, in Craven County on US-70 eastbound approximately 0.75 miles east of the Cove City overpass:

(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww34/slorydn1/Road%20Photos/20160624_183355_zpsv17zzxhn.jpg)


That little smudge of green off in the distance to the left of this sign is the 401 mile marker.

That sign was not there, even in blank form, when I went through there Tuesday evening. The only blank ones I had seen so far were on either side of the Lenior/Wayne County line on the new US-70 Bypass around Goldsboro.


For the first time in my short road geek picture taking career I actually pulled off the road and took the picture. I was really thinking that the picture would have come out better since I stopped the car, even with a smartphone camera. Asyou can see, I hoped wrong. I'm going to have to invest in a decent camera, I guess.




Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 24, 2016, 08:40:18 PM

I just got home from work. I've been chomping at the bit (a 12 hour shift never felt so long) to get out to Cove City to get this picture ever since my co-worker told me about the sign this morning. Well here it is, in Craven County on US-70 eastbound approximately 0.75 miles east of the Cove City overpass:

(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww34/slorydn1/Road%20Photos/20160624_183355_zpsv17zzxhn.jpg)


That little smudge of green off in the distance to the left of this sign is the 401 mile marker.

That sign was not there, even in blank form, when I went through there Tuesday evening. The only blank ones I had seen so far were on either side of the Lenior/Wayne County line on the new US-70 Bypass around Goldsboro.


For the first time in my short road geek picture taking career I actually pulled off the road and took the picture. I was really thinking that the picture would have come out better since I stopped the car, even with a smartphone camera. Asyou can see, I hoped wrong. I'm going to have to invest in a decent camera, I guess.

If this sign is any indication, then it's a good bet that I-42 shields will be put up on the empty signs around Goldsboro real soon, if it hasn't been done already.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 25, 2016, 07:18:13 AM
After I drove all the way out to Cove City to get that picture last night my wife informed me that there is also one posted on US-70 westbound just west of the Pembroke Rd overpass, so just after you come down off the Trent River Bridge here in New Bern. I totally missed it. Sure enough when I got to work this morning I swung my bridge surveillance camera around and yep, its there.

Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 25, 2016, 07:55:14 AM
Quote
If this sign is any indication, then it's a good bet that I-42 shields will be put up on the empty signs around Goldsboro real soon, if it hasn't been done already.

Only IF FHWA has quietly signed off on it.  Otherwise, NCDOT needs to wait.  Future I-42 shields may be allowed...but full I-42 shields on the Interstate standard segments must wait for FHWA to sign off.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 25, 2016, 11:38:54 AM
Quote
If this sign is any indication, then it's a good bet that I-42 shields will be put up on the empty signs around Goldsboro real soon, if it hasn't been done already.

Future I-42 shields may be allowed...but full I-42 shields on the Interstate standard segments must wait for FHWA to sign off.

I know that. I was talking about NCDOT putting I-42 on the blank "Future Interstate" signs that were put up on the Goldsboro Bypass in March. NCDOT will likely ask AASHTO and FHWA this fall to add the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses to the Interstate system and fully sign those segments as I-42 and (hopefully) decommission US-70 Bypass in Goldsboro since otherwise it would be a useless concurrency with I-42.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on June 25, 2016, 09:22:44 PM
Someone needs to start a thread on all the ways future Interstates have been signed. North Carolina alone could have several entries. For instance, Future I-26 is signed along the US 19/23 corridor with "FUTURE" in the blue banner where the direction normally appears, and no writing in the red portion of the route marker. I've seen designations for Future I-73 and I-74 with "FUTURE" in the red area of the shield.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 26, 2016, 12:08:48 PM
Someone needs to start a thread on all the ways future Interstates have been signed. North Carolina alone could have several entries. For instance, Future I-26 is signed along the US 19/23 corridor with "FUTURE" in the blue banner where the direction normally appears, and no writing in the red portion of the route marker. I've seen designations for Future I-73 and I-74 with "FUTURE" in the red area of the shield.

The reason why I-26 is signed differently is because its a gap in the route and eventually they want to keep those same signs by simply removing the FUTURE when completed.
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on June 29, 2016, 10:49:12 AM
(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww34/slorydn1/Road%20Photos/20160624_183355_zpsv17zzxhn.jpg)
I knew it would only be a matter of time before we saw I-42 on signs! It's not a bad number choice for that corridor. But as for I-87...
Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on July 04, 2016, 10:31:28 PM
My wife and I took one of our famous road trips up to the mountains this weekend, and as such I can confirm that "FUTURE I-42" is fully signed between New Bern in Craven County all the way to I-40 in Wake County, in both directions-complete with "BEGIN" on US-70 eastbound approx 1/2 mile east of I-40 and "End" approximately the same distance from I-40 on the westbound side. What I mean by "fully" is that NCDOT has placed the 2 signs per county that they bought out in the field.

I have not been east of New Bern to see what they did in Carteret County, so I can't speak to what has been done down that way, yet.

I have noticed, that all but one westbound was placed on an an existing freeway section (and now I forgot which one wasn't on a freeway section).
It was after midnight when I was coming back eastbound so I forgot placement on those for sure but I want to say all were on freeway segments.

Title: Re: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 05, 2016, 06:56:48 AM
I have not been east of New Bern to see what they did in Carteret County, so I can't speak to what has been done down that way, yet.

I'll be surprised if there's any past Havelock. The Northern Carteret Bypass is supposed to split off of US-70 just past the future Havelock Bypass and reconnect with US-70 near Beaufort, so I-42 will eventually have a slight indirect ending near Morehead City and it's access to the port, similar to how I-40 ends at the very edge of Wilmington. I haven't found any updates on the status of the Northern Carteret Bypass other than a feasability study that was released in 2009. The bypass doesn't even show up on NCDOT's map of the projects on US-70 anymore, so I'm not sure what the deal is there.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Mr. ENC on July 07, 2016, 01:17:11 PM
I saw a Future 42 sign right next to Wynn Oddom Ford in La Grange. Also why not extend I-42 to Charlotte so you can avoid having to go to the Triad to get to Charlotte?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 07, 2016, 04:03:48 PM
I saw a Future 42 sign right next to Wynn Oddom Ford in La Grange. Also why not extend I-42 to Charlotte so you can avoid having to go to the Triad to get to Charlotte?

Other than the fact NCDOT didn't request that, there is already a direct route between Charlotte and Raleigh via NC 49/US 64.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 07, 2016, 05:06:31 PM
Mr. ENC, even if Interstate 42 was extended to Charlotte, what route would you have it take?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Thing 342 on July 07, 2016, 05:26:12 PM
My wife and I took one of our famous road trips up to the mountains this weekend, and as such I can confirm that "FUTURE I-42" is fully signed between New Bern in Craven County all the way to I-40 in Wake County, in both directions-complete with "BEGIN" on US-70 eastbound approx 1/2 mile east of I-40 and "End" approximately the same distance from I-40 on the westbound side. What I mean by "fully" is that NCDOT has placed the 2 signs per county that they bought out in the field.

I have not been east of New Bern to see what they did in Carteret County, so I can't speak to what has been done down that way, yet.

I have noticed, that all but one westbound was placed on an an existing freeway section (and now I forgot which one wasn't on a freeway section).
It was after midnight when I was coming back eastbound so I forgot placement on those for sure but I want to say all were on freeway segments.
Have any pictures?
Is it signed like the designated "Future" routes (i.e. Future I-26/73/74), or just the "FUTURE INTERSTATE" LGSs like above?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 07, 2016, 06:31:57 PM
The Super 70 Corridor Commission FINALLY posted their minutes from their most recent meeting on May 26. It gives the status of the projects on US-70. Their next meeting is on August 18 at the Crystal Coast Civic Center in Morehead City.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/Highway%2070%20May%2026.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/Highway%2070%20May%2026.pdf)

Quote
US Highway 70 Projects Update

North Carolina Department of Transportation Eastern Project Development Section Head
of the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit Rob Hanson updated the members
of the Highway 70 Corridor Commission on the following:

• Wilson's Mills freeway upgrade. Merger team meeting will be held in June 2016 to
discuss preferred alternative and impact minimization for project. The environmental
document is being prepared and is expected to be approved in July 2016.
Minimization of the design has recently reduced wetlands impact by one-half acre
and reduced impacts to a cemetery. Right of way acquisition is expected in October
2017. Construction is expected in October 2019.

• Pine Level improvements. Median cross-over closures and upgrades of two
intersections to interchanges. Construction is underway and is 31% complete.
Estimated completion date is January 2018.

• Kinston Bypass is unfunded in the 2016-2025 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP). Decisions regarding further scheduling activities will be
determined. Work continues on study revisions to traffic forecasts and design aspects
of the shallow bypass alternative. Rough draft of the preliminary draft
Environmental Impact Statement to be completed this fall.

• James City improvements to upgrade to freeway standards. Public meetings held last
year. Public meetings will be held this fall to show the preliminary design concepts.
Evaluation of historical resources is underway to determine any effects the design of
the project may cause. Traffic forecast is due this summer. Environmental surveys
are underway. Environmental documents are planned to be completed in 2018
(Environmental Assessment) and 2019 (Finding of No Significant Impact).
Design/build let is planned for 2021. Charles Cox is working on the project as a
Project Manager.

• James City to Havelock Bypass improvements will upgrade to freeway standards,
including construction of service roads and interchanges. The right of way
acquisition was recently funded in the 2016-2025 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP). The schedule is as follows: environmental assessment fiscal year
2022, Finding ofNo Significant Impact (FONSI) fiscal year 2023, right of way
acquisition fiscal year 2025 and construction is post year. The planning and
environmental study will begin in 2017. Charles Cox is working on the project as a
Project Manager.

• Slocum Gate improvements for construction of fly over on existing US Highway 70
into MCAS Cherry Point. Right of way acquisition is underway. Construction is
scheduled for June 2017.

• Havelock Bypass - North Carolina Department of Transportation Eastern Region
Project Development Group Supervisor Brian Yamamoto has been completing the
Record of Decision for the project. Hopefully, the Federal Highway Administration
will approve the Record of Decision in June or July. The North Carolina Department
of Transportation is working with the US Forest Service concerning the Havelock
Bypass closure plan for prescribed burns. After the Record of Decision is approved,
the US Forest Service will need to grant an easement, 4,000 acres will need to be
transferred to the US Forest Service, a Memorandum of Understanding will need to
be updated concerning wetland mitigation. Right of way acquisition is scheduled for
September 2016. Construction is scheduled for September 2018.

• Newport River Bridge project- US Highway 70 will be widened and the bridge will
be widened and upgraded. The project is fully funded in the 2016-2025 State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The schedule is as follows:
enviromnental assessment fiscal year 2020, Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) fiscal year 2021, right of way acquisition fiscal year 2022 and construction
is scheduled for fiscal year 2024. The planning and enviromnental study will begin in
2016.

• Gallants Channel Bridge replacement in Beaufort - Turner Street bridge construction
is almost complete. Traffic scheduled to be on bridge in spring 2017.

Does anybody know what happened with the Northern Carteret Bypass? Nearly all the info on it has practically vanished. Was it killed?  :hmmm: I can't see NCDOT upgrading the existing US-70 between the future Havelock Bypass and Morehead City. There's numerous side streets and businesses along there, IIRC. :hmm:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on July 07, 2016, 06:41:10 PM
My wife and I took one of our famous road trips up to the mountains this weekend, and as such I can confirm that "FUTURE I-42" is fully signed between New Bern in Craven County all the way to I-40 in Wake County, in both directions-complete with "BEGIN" on US-70 eastbound approx 1/2 mile east of I-40 and "End" approximately the same distance from I-40 on the westbound side. What I mean by "fully" is that NCDOT has placed the 2 signs per county that they bought out in the field.

I have not been east of New Bern to see what they did in Carteret County, so I can't speak to what has been done down that way, yet.

I have noticed, that all but one westbound was placed on an an existing freeway section (and now I forgot which one wasn't on a freeway section).
It was after midnight when I was coming back eastbound so I forgot placement on those for sure but I want to say all were on freeway segments.
Have any pictures?
Is it signed like the designated "Future" routes (i.e. Future I-26/73/74), or just the "FUTURE INTERSTATE" LGSs like above?

No I didn't take any new pictures. All of the signs look exactly like the one I did post a picture of in reply #25 above, with the addition of BEGIN or END before the word Future for the 2 signs closest to I-40 in both directions. Now I wish I took a picture of one of those two because I can't remember if the words BEGIN or END were above or to the left of the word Future.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on July 07, 2016, 06:44:25 PM
The Super 70 Corridor Commission FINALLY posted their minutes from their most recent meeting on May 26. It gives the status of the projects on US-70. Their next meeting is on August 18 at the Crystal Coast Civic Center in Morehead City.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/Highway%2070%20May%2026.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/Highway%2070%20May%2026.pdf)

Quote
US Highway 70 Projects Update

North Carolina Department of Transportation Eastern Project Development Section Head
of the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit Rob Hanson updated the members
of the Highway 70 Corridor Commission on the following:

• Wilson's Mills freeway upgrade. Merger team meeting will be held in June 2016 to
discuss preferred alternative and impact minimization for project. The environmental
document is being prepared and is expected to be approved in July 2016.
Minimization of the design has recently reduced wetlands impact by one-half acre
and reduced impacts to a cemetery. Right of way acquisition is expected in October
2017. Construction is expected in October 2019.

• Pine Level improvements. Median cross-over closures and upgrades of two
intersections to interchanges. Construction is underway and is 31% complete.
Estimated completion date is January 2018.

• Kinston Bypass is unfunded in the 2016-2025 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP). Decisions regarding further scheduling activities will be
determined. Work continues on study revisions to traffic forecasts and design aspects
of the shallow bypass alternative. Rough draft of the preliminary draft
Environmental Impact Statement to be completed this fall.

• James City improvements to upgrade to freeway standards. Public meetings held last
year. Public meetings will be held this fall to show the preliminary design concepts.
Evaluation of historical resources is underway to determine any effects the design of
the project may cause. Traffic forecast is due this summer. Environmental surveys
are underway. Environmental documents are planned to be completed in 2018
(Environmental Assessment) and 2019 (Finding of No Significant Impact).
Design/build let is planned for 2021. Charles Cox is working on the project as a
Project Manager.

• James City to Havelock Bypass improvements will upgrade to freeway standards,
including construction of service roads and interchanges. The right of way
acquisition was recently funded in the 2016-2025 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP). The schedule is as follows: environmental assessment fiscal year
2022, Finding ofNo Significant Impact (FONSI) fiscal year 2023, right of way
acquisition fiscal year 2025 and construction is post year. The planning and
environmental study will begin in 2017. Charles Cox is working on the project as a
Project Manager.

• Slocum Gate improvements for construction of fly over on existing US Highway 70
into MCAS Cherry Point. Right of way acquisition is underway. Construction is
scheduled for June 2017.

• Havelock Bypass - North Carolina Department of Transportation Eastern Region
Project Development Group Supervisor Brian Yamamoto has been completing the
Record of Decision for the project. Hopefully, the Federal Highway Administration
will approve the Record of Decision in June or July. The North Carolina Department
of Transportation is working with the US Forest Service concerning the Havelock
Bypass closure plan for prescribed burns. After the Record of Decision is approved,
the US Forest Service will need to grant an easement, 4,000 acres will need to be
transferred to the US Forest Service, a Memorandum of Understanding will need to
be updated concerning wetland mitigation. Right of way acquisition is scheduled for
September 2016. Construction is scheduled for September 2018.

• Newport River Bridge project- US Highway 70 will be widened and the bridge will
be widened and upgraded. The project is fully funded in the 2016-2025 State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The schedule is as follows:
enviromnental assessment fiscal year 2020, Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) fiscal year 2021, right of way acquisition fiscal year 2022 and construction
is scheduled for fiscal year 2024. The planning and enviromnental study will begin in
2016.

• Gallants Channel Bridge replacement in Beaufort - Turner Street bridge construction
is almost complete. Traffic scheduled to be on bridge in spring 2017.

Does anybody know what happened with the Northern Carteret Bypass? Nearly all the info on it has practically vanished. Was it killed?  :hmmm: I can't see NCDOT upgrading the existing US-70 between the future Havelock Bypass and Morehead City. There's numerous side streets and businesses along there, IIRC. :hmm:

It was on the 2006-2012 STIP as post year, I haven't heard a peep about it in years down here though.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us70corridor/download/US70_TIP_Projects.pdf
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 07, 2016, 07:18:33 PM
The Super 70 Corridor Commission FINALLY posted their minutes from their most recent meeting on May 26. It gives the status of the projects on US-70. Their next meeting is on August 18 at the Crystal Coast Civic Center in Morehead City.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/Highway%2070%20May%2026.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/Highway%2070%20May%2026.pdf)

Quote
US Highway 70 Projects Update

North Carolina Department of Transportation Eastern Project Development Section Head
of the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit Rob Hanson updated the members
of the Highway 70 Corridor Commission on the following:

• Wilson's Mills freeway upgrade. Merger team meeting will be held in June 2016 to
discuss preferred alternative and impact minimization for project. The environmental
document is being prepared and is expected to be approved in July 2016.
Minimization of the design has recently reduced wetlands impact by one-half acre
and reduced impacts to a cemetery. Right of way acquisition is expected in October
2017. Construction is expected in October 2019.

• Pine Level improvements. Median cross-over closures and upgrades of two
intersections to interchanges. Construction is underway and is 31% complete.
Estimated completion date is January 2018.

• Kinston Bypass is unfunded in the 2016-2025 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP). Decisions regarding further scheduling activities will be
determined. Work continues on study revisions to traffic forecasts and design aspects
of the shallow bypass alternative. Rough draft of the preliminary draft
Environmental Impact Statement to be completed this fall.

• James City improvements to upgrade to freeway standards. Public meetings held last
year. Public meetings will be held this fall to show the preliminary design concepts.
Evaluation of historical resources is underway to determine any effects the design of
the project may cause. Traffic forecast is due this summer. Environmental surveys
are underway. Environmental documents are planned to be completed in 2018
(Environmental Assessment) and 2019 (Finding of No Significant Impact).
Design/build let is planned for 2021. Charles Cox is working on the project as a
Project Manager.

• James City to Havelock Bypass improvements will upgrade to freeway standards,
including construction of service roads and interchanges. The right of way
acquisition was recently funded in the 2016-2025 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP). The schedule is as follows: environmental assessment fiscal year
2022, Finding ofNo Significant Impact (FONSI) fiscal year 2023, right of way
acquisition fiscal year 2025 and construction is post year. The planning and
environmental study will begin in 2017. Charles Cox is working on the project as a
Project Manager.

• Slocum Gate improvements for construction of fly over on existing US Highway 70
into MCAS Cherry Point. Right of way acquisition is underway. Construction is
scheduled for June 2017.

• Havelock Bypass - North Carolina Department of Transportation Eastern Region
Project Development Group Supervisor Brian Yamamoto has been completing the
Record of Decision for the project. Hopefully, the Federal Highway Administration
will approve the Record of Decision in June or July. The North Carolina Department
of Transportation is working with the US Forest Service concerning the Havelock
Bypass closure plan for prescribed burns. After the Record of Decision is approved,
the US Forest Service will need to grant an easement, 4,000 acres will need to be
transferred to the US Forest Service, a Memorandum of Understanding will need to
be updated concerning wetland mitigation. Right of way acquisition is scheduled for
September 2016. Construction is scheduled for September 2018.

• Newport River Bridge project- US Highway 70 will be widened and the bridge will
be widened and upgraded. The project is fully funded in the 2016-2025 State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The schedule is as follows:
enviromnental assessment fiscal year 2020, Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) fiscal year 2021, right of way acquisition fiscal year 2022 and construction
is scheduled for fiscal year 2024. The planning and enviromnental study will begin in
2016.

• Gallants Channel Bridge replacement in Beaufort - Turner Street bridge construction
is almost complete. Traffic scheduled to be on bridge in spring 2017.

Does anybody know what happened with the Northern Carteret Bypass? Nearly all the info on it has practically vanished. Was it killed?  :hmmm: I can't see NCDOT upgrading the existing US-70 between the future Havelock Bypass and Morehead City. There's numerous side streets and businesses along there, IIRC. :hmm:

It was on the 2006-2012 STIP as post year, I haven't heard a peep about it in years down here though.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us70corridor/download/US70_TIP_Projects.pdf

It probably won't be brought up again until the Havelock Bypass is done, since the eastern (or southern) end of that bypass is supposed to be where the Northern Carteret Bypass begins.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on July 07, 2016, 08:02:20 PM
The more I look at it, the Northern Carteret Bypass was nothing more than a feasibility study (R-4431) and it dropped off the face of the map after it was completed in 2009. I have not been able to find any links to the actual study anywhere, so I'm guessing it was probably deemed not feasible and dropped.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 07, 2016, 08:11:18 PM
My wife and I took one of our famous road trips up to the mountains this weekend, and as such I can confirm that "FUTURE I-42" is fully signed between New Bern in Craven County all the way to I-40 in Wake County, in both directions-complete with "BEGIN" on US-70 eastbound approx 1/2 mile east of I-40 and "End" approximately the same distance from I-40 on the westbound side. What I mean by "fully" is that NCDOT has placed the 2 signs per county that they bought out in the field.

I have not been east of New Bern to see what they did in Carteret County, so I can't speak to what has been done down that way, yet.

I have noticed, that all but one westbound was placed on an an existing freeway section (and now I forgot which one wasn't on a freeway section).
It was after midnight when I was coming back eastbound so I forgot placement on those for sure but I want to say all were on freeway segments.
Have any pictures?
Is it signed like the designated "Future" routes (i.e. Future I-26/73/74), or just the "FUTURE INTERSTATE" LGSs like above?

Ask and you shall receive:

(https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7291/28126889946_87e7423fb7.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JRtEso)IMG_9806 (https://flic.kr/p/JRtEso) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 07, 2016, 09:14:54 PM
The more I look at it, the Northern Carteret Bypass was nothing more than a feasibility study (R-4431) and it dropped off the face of the map after it was completed in 2009. I have not been able to find any links to the actual study anywhere, so I'm guessing it was probably deemed not feasible and dropped.

I believe I found it. :nod: Two versions, actually. I tried downloading it myself, but my phone keeps dropping the signal and interrupting the download (Sprint's BoostMobile blows) and I don't have access to a desktop at the moment, so I have no idea what the study says. Maybe you and whoever else wants to see it will have better luck. I'm not sure which is the real deal (maybe both), but here ya go:

(This PDF size is 26.96MB)

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-4431_Feasibility-Study_Memo-Report_2009.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-4431_Feasibility-Study_Memo-Report_2009.pdf)

(This PDF size is 92.68MB)

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-4431_Feasibility-Study_Report_2009.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-4431_Feasibility-Study_Report_2009.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on July 07, 2016, 09:27:32 PM
The more I look at it, the Northern Carteret Bypass was nothing more than a feasibility study (R-4431) and it dropped off the face of the map after it was completed in 2009. I have not been able to find any links to the actual study anywhere, so I'm guessing it was probably deemed not feasible and dropped.

I believe I found it. :nod: I tried downloading it myself, but my phone keeps dropping the signal and interrupting the download (Sprint's BoostMobile blows) and I don't have access to a desktop at the moment, so I have no idea what the study says. Maybe you and whoever else wants to see it will have better luck. Here ya go:

(PDF is 26.96MB)

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-4431_Feasibility-Study_Memo-Report_2009.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-4431_Feasibility-Study_Memo-Report_2009.pdf)




You didn't miss much, it just discusses the costs and general alignment of 2 options (all freeway and a freeway/expressway combo) at the southern 2 sections of the project near Beaufort (map included).
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 07, 2016, 09:35:36 PM
The more I look at it, the Northern Carteret Bypass was nothing more than a feasibility study (R-4431) and it dropped off the face of the map after it was completed in 2009. I have not been able to find any links to the actual study anywhere, so I'm guessing it was probably deemed not feasible and dropped.

I believe I found it. :nod: I tried downloading it myself, but my phone keeps dropping the signal and interrupting the download (Sprint's BoostMobile blows) and I don't have access to a desktop at the moment, so I have no idea what the study says. Maybe you and whoever else wants to see it will have better luck. Here ya go:

(PDF is 26.96MB)

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-4431_Feasibility-Study_Memo-Report_2009.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-4431_Feasibility-Study_Memo-Report_2009.pdf)




You didn't miss much, it just discusses the costs and general alignment of 2 options (all freeway and a freeway/expressway combo) at the southern 2 sections of the project near Beaufort (map included).


I found a second, longer version. I edited my last post to include the link. It might have more details in it.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on July 07, 2016, 09:46:48 PM
Wow, that was a huge file, it took 5 minutes at broadband speeds to download, lol.

OK, I'll cut to the chase, here is the section labeled "reccomendations" in it's entirety:





Quote
VII. Recommendations CORRIDORS A, B, & C: It was found that the four-lane divided freeway (Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – Option A, 6, and 7) and the four-lane divided expressway (Section 5 – Option B) would be able to accommodate the projected 2030 design year traffic volumes with an acceptable level of service. The estimated cost for the proposed project corridor with the whole freeway ranges from $372,400,000 to $390,100,000. The estimated cost for the proposed project corridor with the freeway/expressway combination ranges from $272,300,000 to $290,000,000.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 07, 2016, 10:34:04 PM
Wow, that was a huge file, it took 5 minutes at broadband speeds to download, lol.

OK, I'll cut to the chase, here is the section labeled "reccomendations" in it's entirety:





Quote
VII. Recommendations CORRIDORS A, B, & C: It was found that the four-lane divided freeway (Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – Option A, 6, and 7) and the four-lane divided expressway (Section 5 – Option B) would be able to accommodate the projected 2030 design year traffic volumes with an acceptable level of service. The estimated cost for the proposed project corridor with the whole freeway ranges from $372,400,000 to $390,100,000. The estimated cost for the proposed project corridor with the freeway/expressway combination ranges from $272,300,000 to $290,000,000.

Damn, I knew it was a big file but I didn't think it would take 5 minutes to download. Oops! :-D

Anyway, thanks for the briefing. Steep price tags aside, it might be likely that NCDOT will go for the "whole freeway" route now that I-42 is a factor.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on July 07, 2016, 10:51:16 PM
Wow, that was a huge file, it took 5 minutes at broadband speeds to download, lol.

OK, I'll cut to the chase, here is the section labeled "reccomendations" in it's entirety:





Quote
VII. Recommendations CORRIDORS A, B, & C: It was found that the four-lane divided freeway (Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – Option A, 6, and 7) and the four-lane divided expressway (Section 5 – Option B) would be able to accommodate the projected 2030 design year traffic volumes with an acceptable level of service. The estimated cost for the proposed project corridor with the whole freeway ranges from $372,400,000 to $390,100,000. The estimated cost for the proposed project corridor with the freeway/expressway combination ranges from $272,300,000 to $290,000,000.

Damn, I knew it was a big file but I didn't think it would take 5 minutes to download. Oops! :-D

Anyway, thanks for the briefing. Steep price tags aside, it might be likely that NCDOT will go for the "whole freeway" route now that I-42 is a factor.

I'm with ya' there, I think they probably will.

After speed reading through the whole document, I think I now understand why its being out off until very last. I can see a HUGE pissing contest brewing between NCDOT and the environuts over this one. There are approximately 10 different endangered species of animals and plants that reside in the area, not to mention all the natural water runoff areas in northern Carteret County-not to mention the US Forest Service, too.

The only reason (IMO) that the Craven County sections of all of this is going ahead is because for the most part, the roadway already exists thanks to MCAS Cherry Point needing improved access over the years, and even the largest portion of the Havelock Bypass will go through land that was already somewhat inhabited by humans. The USFS was willing to work with NCDOT with the rest of the land needed to complete the bypass since it is such a small sliver. I'm not so sure that's going to be the case with an entirely facility down in Carteret County.



Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 08, 2016, 05:47:56 AM
Wow, that was a huge file, it took 5 minutes at broadband speeds to download, lol.

OK, I'll cut to the chase, here is the section labeled "reccomendations" in it's entirety:





Quote
VII. Recommendations CORRIDORS A, B, & C: It was found that the four-lane divided freeway (Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – Option A, 6, and 7) and the four-lane divided expressway (Section 5 – Option B) would be able to accommodate the projected 2030 design year traffic volumes with an acceptable level of service. The estimated cost for the proposed project corridor with the whole freeway ranges from $372,400,000 to $390,100,000. The estimated cost for the proposed project corridor with the freeway/expressway combination ranges from $272,300,000 to $290,000,000.

Damn, I knew it was a big file but I didn't think it would take 5 minutes to download. Oops! :-D

Anyway, thanks for the briefing. Steep price tags aside, it might be likely that NCDOT will go for the "whole freeway" route now that I-42 is a factor.

I'm with ya' there, I think they probably will.

After speed reading through the whole document, I think I now understand why its being out off until very last. I can see a HUGE pissing contest brewing between NCDOT and the environuts over this one. There are approximately 10 different endangered species of animals and plants that reside in the area, not to mention all the natural water runoff areas in northern Carteret County-not to mention the US Forest Service, too.

The only reason (IMO) that the Craven County sections of all of this is going ahead is because for the most part, the roadway already exists thanks to MCAS Cherry Point needing improved access over the years, and even the largest portion of the Havelock Bypass will go through land that was already somewhat inhabited by humans. The USFS was willing to work with NCDOT with the rest of the land needed to complete the bypass since it is such a small sliver. I'm not so sure that's going to be the case with an entirely facility down in Carteret County.

Agreed. The N.C. Bypass will likely get stonewalled to death until the end, similar to the Bonner Bridge battle. I can see why NCDOT removed it from the US-70 Corridor map, since they probably don't want to draw much attention to the N.C. Bypass until they have no choice but to bring it up again after the rest of I-42 is built, especially considering the headache NCDOT went through to finally get construction of the new Bonner Bridge over the Oregon Inlet underway. Even the Super 70 Corridor Commission isn't saying a word about it.

Well, if they can at least get the Kinston Bypass underway and upgrade the freeway section between Dover and New Bern, and with the Goldsboro Bypass now open, over half of I-42 would be done at least, not counting the other projects between Princeton and the Clayton Bypass.

Nothing is yet planned or done for the section between the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass and Princeton other than a feasibility study that was just released last year. At least I was able to read that one. :spin:

(Don't worry, it's a small PDF this time.  :sombrero: 71 pages, 3.21MB. A map of the alternatives is on page 10)

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1204A_Report_2015.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1204A_Report_2015.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Mr. ENC on July 08, 2016, 10:22:27 AM
Mr. ENC, even if Interstate 42 was extended to Charlotte, what route would you have it take?

I would run I-42 with I-40 then put it on the future 540 to Apex.From there it follows US 64 into Chatham County (along existing Pittsboro Bypass, build new byass of Siler City), then to Randolph County (along the new Asheboro Bypass currently under construction), and then have it follow 49 through Davidson and Stanley County. From there it merges it I-85 just north of Concord and follows all the way through Charlotte and Gastonia where it will meet US-74 at Kings Mountain. It uses that highway (along with the Shelby Bypass currently under construction) and then it ends at I-26 in Columbus.

With this plan Charlotte can now be more easily linked to the port of Wilmington or Morehead City by not having to go anywhere near the Triad nor through the busy traffic of the Triangle. It also makes for a great alternate to 40 if you want to go to the mountain.





Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 08, 2016, 11:22:37 AM
Mr. ENC, even if Interstate 42 was extended to Charlotte, what route would you have it take?

I would run I-42 with I-40 then put it on the future 540 to Apex.From there it follows US 64 into Chatham County (along existing Pittsboro Bypass, build new byass of Siler City), then to Randolph County (along the new Asheboro Bypass currently under construction), and then have it follow 49 through Davidson and Stanley County. From there it merges it I-85 just north of Concord and follows all the way through Charlotte and Gastonia where it will meet US-74 at Kings Mountain. It uses that highway (along with the Shelby Bypass currently under construction) and then it ends at I-26 in Columbus.

With this plan Charlotte can now be more easily linked to the port of Wilmington or Morehead City by not having to go anywhere near the Triad nor through the busy traffic of the Triangle. It also makes for a great alternate to 40 if you want to go to the mountain.

Doesn't make sense for anybody to take the interstate between Charlotte and Wilmington; everyone knows, who can read a map or follow GPS, that you take US 74. 

The biggest hitch about your route is taking Future NC 540, which will be a toll road.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Mr. ENC on July 08, 2016, 01:24:37 PM
Mr. ENC, even if Interstate 42 was extended to Charlotte, what route would you have it take?

I would run I-42 with I-40 then put it on the future 540 to Apex.From there it follows US 64 into Chatham County (along existing Pittsboro Bypass, build new byass of Siler City), then to Randolph County (along the new Asheboro Bypass currently under construction), and then have it follow 49 through Davidson and Stanley County. From there it merges it I-85 just north of Concord and follows all the way through Charlotte and Gastonia where it will meet US-74 at Kings Mountain. It uses that highway (along with the Shelby Bypass currently under construction) and then it ends at I-26 in Columbus.

With this plan Charlotte can now be more easily linked to the port of Wilmington or Morehead City by not having to go anywhere near the Triad nor through the busy traffic of the Triangle. It also makes for a great alternate to 40 if you want to go to the mountain.

Doesn't make sense for anybody to take the interstate between Charlotte and Wilmington; everyone knows, who can read a map or follow GPS, that you take US 74. 

The biggest hitch about your route is taking Future NC 540, which will be a toll road.

Probably not but it makes perfect sense for people that live in the middle and northern coastal plains. It's either take 40/85 to Charlotte which takes forever or US74/I-74 which isn't completely up to interstate standard(which it probably would be before a I-42 to Charlotte). This proposed interstate would save almost 100 miles from people who live in the mid/northern coastal plains to a trip to Charlotte.

As for your second point, fine then instead of going on future 540, it follows 40 to and thru Raleigh and back down US1/US64 to Apex and then it continues like I first posted.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Gnutella on July 11, 2016, 08:41:05 PM
I think the western terminus of I-42 should be in Johnson City, TN via Wilkesboro and Boone.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 11, 2016, 10:10:19 PM
I think the western terminus of I-42 should be in Johnson City, TN via Wilkesboro and Boone.

(http://data.whicdn.com/images/126005083/large.png)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 11, 2016, 10:51:09 PM
Since I am now a local, here is what I think NC wants to do over the next 50 years.  I-40 will be Raleigh south beltline, Apex, Asheboro, Mocksville.  I-42 is Raleigh north Beltline, Durham, Greensboro, W-S, Mocksville.  I-38 is Asheboro, Charlotte, Kings Mountain, I-26.  They know at some point an alternative will be needed to the 40/85 multiplex.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on July 11, 2016, 11:41:12 PM
Well, for where I-42 has been designated for now, I have created a very preliminary exit list for the corridor segments that are freeways, interstate standard or not, at this time. Info largely taken from US 70 in NC Wikipedia exit list. The listing is at:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on July 12, 2016, 11:30:50 AM
Since I am now a local, here is what I think NC wants to do over the next 50 years.  I-40 will be Raleigh south beltline, Apex, Asheboro, Mocksville.  I-42 is Raleigh north Beltline, Durham, Greensboro, W-S, Mocksville.  I-38 is Asheboro, Charlotte, Kings Mountain, I-26.  They know at some point an alternative will be needed to the 40/85 multiplex.
US 64 to US 421 already is an alternative to bypass the 40/85 multiplex in that corridor. I think that Ramseur and Siler City bypasses as well as NC49 upgrades are lower down the priority list than upgrading US64 between Pittsboro and Raleigh. That corridor could be given an interstate designation.

LGL33L

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 12, 2016, 12:15:47 PM
Since I am now a local, here is what I think NC wants to do over the next 50 years.  I-40 will be Raleigh south beltline, Apex, Asheboro, Mocksville.  I-42 is Raleigh north Beltline, Durham, Greensboro, W-S, Mocksville.  I-38 is Asheboro, Charlotte, Kings Mountain, I-26.  They know at some point an alternative will be needed to the 40/85 multiplex.

Huh?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 12, 2016, 02:04:01 PM
Well, for where I-42 has been designated for now, I have created a very preliminary exit list for the corridor segments that are freeways, interstate standard or not, at this time. Info largely taken from US 70 in NC Wikipedia exit list. The listing is at:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html)

Nice list! Hopefully NCDOT will use I-42 mile markers and exit numbers along I-42/US-70 concurrencies. The I-795/US-264 concurrency in Wilson still uses US-264 exit numbers and mile markers, even though interstates are supposed to take top priority. I never understood why that wasn't changed.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on July 12, 2016, 05:59:15 PM
Well, for where I-42 has been designated for now, I have created a very preliminary exit list for the corridor segments that are freeways, interstate standard or not, at this time. Info largely taken from US 70 in NC Wikipedia exit list. The listing is at:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html)


A couple of notes to assist you with your exit list:


Exit 409 (I-42 Exit 92) is Clarks Road (aka SR 1225)
The US-17 Bypass exit is Exit 410, not sure where Wiki got 411 from.
The NC-43 exit is 411, not sure where Wiki got 412 from.


There are several unnumbered exits in Craven County, all original exits from when the freeway was built-from west to east:


Unnumbered (should be US-70 Exit 400) NC-41 South//Trenton Highway (we locals call it the Cove City Exit).
Unnumbered (should be US-70 Exit 408) Tuscarora-Rhems Road (aka SR 1224)
Unnumbered (should be US-70 Exit 414)  S. Glenburnie Road.
Unnumbered (should be US-70 Exit 415)  US-17 Business South//Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd.


One thing to keep in mind, too, when judging I-42 mileage is that I-42 won't using US-70's mainline the entire distance. The Goldsboro Bypass adds 1.3 miles to the distance from New Bern to I-40, and there is not yet a way to tell how much of a difference the as yet undesigned Kinston Bypass will make.


I have the distance between the MLK exit in New Bern to the exit ramp to merge to I-40 using the new Goldsboro Bypass measured as 98.6 miles (3 trips now, measured with a Garmin Nuvi-2689), it was 97.3 miles using the mainline through Goldsboro.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 12, 2016, 06:07:24 PM
Well, for where I-42 has been designated for now, I have created a very preliminary exit list for the corridor segments that are freeways, interstate standard or not, at this time. Info largely taken from US 70 in NC Wikipedia exit list. The listing is at:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html)

Nice list! Hopefully NCDOT will use I-42 mile markers and exit numbers along I-42/US-70 concurrencies. The I-795/US-264 concurrency in Wilson still uses US-264 exit numbers and mile markers, even though interstates are supposed to take top priority. I never understood why that wasn't changed.
The final route of I-42 is uncertain between Smithfield and Goldsboro and on the Kinston Bypass. Until those routes are firmed up, we can't measure mileage accurately along I-42 east of I-95.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Henry on July 14, 2016, 10:44:20 AM
Mr. ENC, even if Interstate 42 was extended to Charlotte, what route would you have it take?

I would run I-42 with I-40 then put it on the future 540 to Apex.From there it follows US 64 into Chatham County (along existing Pittsboro Bypass, build new byass of Siler City), then to Randolph County (along the new Asheboro Bypass currently under construction), and then have it follow 49 through Davidson and Stanley County. From there it merges it I-85 just north of Concord and follows all the way through Charlotte and Gastonia where it will meet US-74 at Kings Mountain. It uses that highway (along with the Shelby Bypass currently under construction) and then it ends at I-26 in Columbus.

With this plan Charlotte can now be more easily linked to the port of Wilmington or Morehead City by not having to go anywhere near the Triad nor through the busy traffic of the Triangle. It also makes for a great alternate to 40 if you want to go to the mountain.






The US 74 corridor would work better as an I-32, I-34, I-36 or I-38. And there's still time to reserve I-36 for that corridor, now that I-42 was chosen for the US 70 upgrade instead. However, I-87 should go down the US 1 corridor to Rockingham to better justify its existence. Otherwise, it should've been renumbered to I-46 or I-48, IMHO.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: nerdom on July 14, 2016, 12:31:58 PM
I think that 42(or any freeway/toll road) should continue west along Raleigh's southern outer loop, then 64 to asheboro's bypass, but then straight to statesville to hook back up with 40. crossing 85 at salisbury while providing an alternative to 40/85 for eastbound 40 traffic and a more direct route b/w raleigh and charlotte. ??? :poke:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 12:33:25 PM
Shouldn't this be in the Fictional Highways forum?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 14, 2016, 08:57:55 PM
Wow you folks in NC are ate up with interstates and fully controlled access highways.  Your neighbor to the west does very well without all the interstates all over the place.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 14, 2016, 09:58:21 PM
Wow you folks in NC are ate up with interstates and fully controlled access highways.  Your neighbor to the west does very well without all the interstates all over the place.

Hey there! I'm on the phone with I-69, 269 and 840.  They'd like to speak with you. They're trying to get I-26 on the line, too.  Have a minute?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 14, 2016, 10:26:36 PM
Wow you folks in NC are ate up with interstates and fully controlled access highways.  Your neighbor to the west does very well without all the interstates all over the place.

Each state has it's own needs. If you had driven some of the roads in NC before they were upgraded, you'd understand why there are many controlled-access highways, the current upgrade of US-70 being a prime example. I grew up in Wayne County near Goldsboro and US-70 was a real pain in the ass before NCDOT started it's slow but steady upgrade over the years, especially between Goldsboro and Clayton. US-117 (a two-lane road) between Goldsboro and Wilson wasn't much fun either until I-795 got built.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 15, 2016, 10:04:32 AM
US-70 being relocated around Beaufort as part of the Gallants Channel bridge construction project got me thinking. Assuming the Northern Carteret Bypass doesn't run into much opposition and gets built, would it be safe to assume (at least until NCDOT says otherwise) that I-42 will end just after crossing the new Gallants Channel bridge heading towards the Port of Morehead City? :hmm:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 15, 2016, 10:17:12 AM
US-70 being relocated around Beaufort as part of the Gallants Channel bridge construction project got me thinking. Assuming the Northern Carteret Bypass doesn't run into much opposition and gets built, would it be safe to assume (at least until NCDOT says otherwise) that I-42 will end just after crossing the new Gallants Channel bridge heading towards the Port of Morehead City? :hmm:
.

Pretty much can end it wherever and however they want at this poin in time

 
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on July 15, 2016, 10:43:50 AM
Only if they upgrade 70 to an Interstate-grade freeway between the Northern Carteret Bypass and the Gallants Channel Bridge.  As I understand it, the realignment as part of the bridge project will NOT be freeway-grade.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 15, 2016, 11:02:23 AM
Only if they upgrade 70 to an Interstate-grade freeway between the Northern Carteret Bypass and the Gallants Channel Bridge.  As I understand it, the realignment as part of the bridge project will NOT be freeway-grade.

Oh, ok. I wasn't sure whether or not the realignment around Beaufort would be a freeway. Thanks for clearing that up.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Strider on July 15, 2016, 11:15:09 AM
Have they decided on which alignment they would choose for the Kinston Bypass?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: nerdom on July 15, 2016, 12:40:12 PM
not yet. I believe they are leaning toward the shallow southern alternative. the one that shadows 70 closely to the south.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 15, 2016, 12:48:50 PM
not yet. I believe they are leaning toward the shallow southern alternative. the one that shadows 70 closely to the south.

This.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Strider on July 15, 2016, 12:59:19 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinstonbypass/download/R2553ProjectMap.pdf


I don't know how to post a picture on this page, (embarrassing, I know haha). I assume you are talking about the orange line that is proposed to run just south of 70?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: nerdom on July 15, 2016, 01:15:34 PM
correct
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 15, 2016, 01:16:47 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinstonbypass/download/R2553ProjectMap.pdf


I don't know how to post a picture on this page, (embarrassing, I know haha). I assume you are talking about the orange line that is proposed to run just south of 70?

Yep, that's the one. The rest of US-70 in the area would be upgraded. Part of the upgrade of existing US-70 on that orange line should be starting anytime now with a completion date of March 1, 2017. This will at least bring the La Grange bypass to interstate standards.

http://m.wcti12.com/news/us-70-improvements-coming-in-lenoir-county/39945590 (http://m.wcti12.com/news/us-70-improvements-coming-in-lenoir-county/39945590)

Once the rest of US-70 gets upgraded and the new location part in Kinston gets built, US-70 will be a freeway from the west side of Goldsboro to New Bern. The Dover to New Bern section is already a freeway, but it lacks 10ft. outside shoulders, so once it's shoulders are widened, it should meet interstate standards.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Strider on July 15, 2016, 01:25:44 PM
Boy, they're really getting around to upgrade US 70 to interstate standards quickly, don't they? Kudos to them.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 15, 2016, 01:45:37 PM
Boy, they're really getting around to upgrade US 70 to interstate standards quickly, don't they? Kudos to them.

Yep! :-D I'm not complaining though. The upgrade was much needed. With the exception of the Northern Carteret Bypass, the entire US-70 corridor is either in the planning stages or currently under construction.

There's some good info here if you want to check it out: http://www.super70corridor.com/ (http://www.super70corridor.com/)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Strider on July 15, 2016, 02:16:19 PM
Boy, they're really getting around to upgrade US 70 to interstate standards quickly, don't they? Kudos to them.

Yep! :-D I'm not complaining though. The upgrade was much needed. With the exception of the Northern Carteret Bypass, the entire US-70 corridor is either in the planning stages or currently under construction.

There's some good info here if you want to check it out: http://www.super70corridor.com/ (http://www.super70corridor.com/)



Lol, I am not either. I have not driven on that part of the road. Maybe I need to soon lol.  Thanks for the link.  :-D
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 15, 2016, 02:51:40 PM
Wow you folks in NC are ate up with interstates and fully controlled access highways.  Your neighbor to the west does very well without all the interstates all over the place.

Hey there! I'm on the phone with I-69, 269 and 840.  They'd like to speak with you. They're trying to get I-26 on the line, too.  Have a minute?
I-26 did have our name on it but I-69 was forced on us and I-840 wasn't really discussed much and is not even signed.  We have I-124 which isn't signed either.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 16, 2016, 04:45:22 PM
I was glancing through NCDOT's feasibility studies page and stumbled across a feasibility study (dated October 3, 2014) for a US-70 freeway bypass of New Bern on new location from near the US-17 freeway west of New Bern to the beginning of the Havelock Bypass. Has anybody else heard of this bypass? It's been quite a few moons since I last passed through New Bern so traffic may have changed since then, but I would think finishing the US-17 bypass of New Bern would do more to relieve traffic on US-70 since US-17 traffic would no longer need to use US-70.

Looking at it on paper, I don't think this new alignment is necessary as long as the remainder of the US-17 bypass gets finished, not to mention the existing US-70 is getting upgraded to interstate standards through James City to the Havelock Bypass. It strikes me as redundant. Thoughts? :hmm:

(31 pages, 6.45MB)
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1202B_Report_2014.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1202B_Report_2014.pdf)

EDIT: Here's NCDOT's feasibility studies page if anyone wants to look up studies that were done for other parts of the US-70 corridor.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/feasibilitystudiesdocuments/forms/allitems.aspx (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/feasibilitystudiesdocuments/forms/allitems.aspx)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: nerdom on July 16, 2016, 05:01:56 PM
I've not seen it, but the route would have probably cut through a substantial part of croatan national forest and wetlands. As for the 17 bypass removing traffic from 70, it would only remove traffic from the freeway portion of 70 through new bern which moves smoothly on most days. It would do nothing for james city and points east which are where the real bottlenecks are. the upgrading of 70 through james city is exactly what the area needs.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 16, 2016, 05:19:53 PM
I've not seen it, but the route would have probably cut through a substantial part of croatan national forest and wetlands. As for the 17 bypass removing traffic from 70, it would only remove traffic from the freeway portion of 70 through new bern which moves smoothly on most days. It would do nothing for james city and points east which are where the real bottlenecks are. the upgrading of 70 through james city is exactly what the area needs.

I can't see NCDOT getting approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for a new route when there's an existing freeway and an easily upgradable highway through James City towards Havelock that doesn't involve cutting through the Croatan National Forest.  James City to the future Havelock Bypass is already scheduled to be upgraded to interstate standards. I say finish the US-17 bypass of New Bern, upgrade the existing US-70 from James City to Havelock and call it a day (for that area, anyway). :coffee:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on July 17, 2016, 11:40:58 AM
I've not seen it, but the route would have probably cut through a substantial part of croatan national forest and wetlands. As for the 17 bypass removing traffic from 70, it would only remove traffic from the freeway portion of 70 through new bern which moves smoothly on most days. It would do nothing for james city and points east which are where the real bottlenecks are. the upgrading of 70 through james city is exactly what the area needs.

This is pretty much my take on that. Years ago I thought it might be necessary to completely bypass New Bern and James City by using the not yet built (at that time) US-17 Bypass and then continuing down over the Trent River and tying back in with existing US-70 just west of Pine Level before the beginning of the Havelock Bypass.

Now that I have seen what can be done in James City to convert it to a freeway, I don't see the need for an expensive new facility that the tree huggers would fight tooth and nail every inch of the way.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 17, 2016, 12:07:35 PM
I've not seen it, but the route would have probably cut through a substantial part of croatan national forest and wetlands. As for the 17 bypass removing traffic from 70, it would only remove traffic from the freeway portion of 70 through new bern which moves smoothly on most days. It would do nothing for james city and points east which are where the real bottlenecks are. the upgrading of 70 through james city is exactly what the area needs.

This is pretty much my take on that. Years ago I thought it might be necessary to completely bypass New Bern and James City by using the not yet built (at that time) US-17 Bypass and then continuing down over the Trent River and tying back in with existing US-70 just west of Pine Level before the beginning of the Havelock Bypass.

Now that I have seen what can be done in James City to convert it to a freeway, I don't see the need for an expensive new facility that the tree huggers would fight tooth and nail every inch of the way.

Once US-70 is upgraded from James City to Havelock, it ought to be smooth sailing. Does the US-70/US-17 interchange in James City need any work to bring it to interstate standards?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on July 17, 2016, 12:22:49 PM
I've not seen it, but the route would have probably cut through a substantial part of croatan national forest and wetlands. As for the 17 bypass removing traffic from 70, it would only remove traffic from the freeway portion of 70 through new bern which moves smoothly on most days. It would do nothing for james city and points east which are where the real bottlenecks are. the upgrading of 70 through james city is exactly what the area needs.

This is pretty much my take on that. Years ago I thought it might be necessary to completely bypass New Bern and James City by using the not yet built (at that time) US-17 Bypass and then continuing down over the Trent River and tying back in with existing US-70 just west of Pine Level before the beginning of the Havelock Bypass.

Now that I have seen what can be done in James City to convert it to a freeway, I don't see the need for an expensive new facility that the tree huggers would fight tooth and nail every inch of the way.

Once US-70 is upgraded from James City to Havelock, it ought to be smooth sailing. Does the US-70/US-17 interchange in James City need any work to bring it to interstate standards?

The interchange itself? Nah, its good the way it is now, high speed all the way through. Nits could be picked with the outside shoulder width, I guess, but show me any off ramps from an Interstate that have extra wide shoulders pretty much anywhere in the country.

It's a smooth merge both off of, and on to US-70 in both directions on the James City side.

The sticky situation is the tight ramp coming from East Front St to US-70 West and the lack of acceleration room before the ramps merge form US-17 South and US-70 West. The East Front St to US-70 west is a feature of the original freeway and when they built the Neuse River Bridge they just built around it. If they want too keep this access from downtown New Bern to I-42 West they will probably need a waiver from the FHWA or they will have to close it-the topography of that area precludes any redesign of that ramp.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 17, 2016, 03:51:31 PM
I've not seen it, but the route would have probably cut through a substantial part of croatan national forest and wetlands. As for the 17 bypass removing traffic from 70, it would only remove traffic from the freeway portion of 70 through new bern which moves smoothly on most days. It would do nothing for james city and points east which are where the real bottlenecks are. the upgrading of 70 through james city is exactly what the area needs.

This is pretty much my take on that. Years ago I thought it might be necessary to completely bypass New Bern and James City by using the not yet built (at that time) US-17 Bypass and then continuing down over the Trent River and tying back in with existing US-70 just west of Pine Level before the beginning of the Havelock Bypass.

Now that I have seen what can be done in James City to convert it to a freeway, I don't see the need for an expensive new facility that the tree huggers would fight tooth and nail every inch of the way.

Once US-70 is upgraded from James City to Havelock, it ought to be smooth sailing. Does the US-70/US-17 interchange in James City need any work to bring it to interstate standards?

The interchange itself? Nah, its good the way it is now, high speed all the way through. Nits could be picked with the outside shoulder width, I guess, but show me any off ramps from an Interstate that have extra wide shoulders pretty much anywhere in the country.

It's a smooth merge both off of, and on to US-70 in both directions on the James City side.

The sticky situation is the tight ramp coming from East Front St to US-70 West and the lack of acceleration room before the ramps merge form US-17 South and US-70 West. The East Front St to US-70 west is a feature of the original freeway and when they built the Neuse River Bridge they just built around it. If they want too keep this access from downtown New Bern to I-42 West they will probably need a waiver from the FHWA or they will have to close it-the topography of that area precludes any redesign of that ramp.

I don't think the shoulders on the ramps matter. As long as US-70 itself has 10ft. outside shoulders and at least 4ft. inner shoulders, it should be good to go. Given the tightness of the East Front St. ramp and it's location, I'm a little doubtful FHWA will grant a waiver. The ramp will likely be given the ol' heave-ho. But, I could be wrong. Stranger things have happened.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 05, 2016, 10:48:17 AM
I was looking at NCDOT's preliminary 2018-2027 STIP page and there are some projects listed that would upgrade US-70 to interstate standards. Here's what's listed:

-Upgrade US-70 to interstate standards from the western end of the US-70 Goldsboro Bypass to the Wayne/Johnston County line.

-Upgrade US-70 to interstate standards from Washington Street in eastern La Grange to the CF Harvey Parkway interchange in Kinston.

-Build the Kinston Bypass (Shallow Bypass alternative) from just east of the CF Harvey Parkway interchange to existing US-70 just east of NC-58.

-Upgrade US-70 to interstate standards from the eastern end of the future Kinston Bypass to the existing US-70 freeway in Dover. Project is split in two phases with Wyse Fork Road being the dividing point.

-Upgrade US-70 to interstate standards and construct service roads from the Neuse River bridge in James City to the future Havelock Bypass. Project is split in two phases with Grantham Road being the dividing point.

That's it, though it's subject to change in the future. I'm really hoping the Kinston Bypass makes the cut this time.

https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html (https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 05, 2016, 05:11:19 PM
I was looking at NCDOT's preliminary 2018-2027 STIP page and there are some projects listed that would upgrade US-70 to interstate standards. Here's what's listed:

-Upgrade US-70 to interstate standards from the western end of the US-70 Goldsboro Bypass to the Wayne/Johnston County line.

-Upgrade US-70 to interstate standards from Washington Street in eastern La Grange to the CF Harvey Parkway interchange in Kinston.

-Build the Kinston Bypass (Shallow Bypass alternative) from just east of the CF Harvey Parkway interchange to existing US-70 just east of NC-58.

-Upgrade US-70 to interstate standards from the eastern end of the future Kinston Bypass to the existing US-70 freeway in Dover. Project is split in two phases with Wyse Fork Road being the dividing point.

-Upgrade US-70 to interstate standards and construct service roads from the Neuse River bridge in James City to the future Havelock Bypass. Project is split in two phases with Grantham Road being the dividing point.

That's it, though it's subject to change in the future. I'm really hoping the Kinston Bypass makes the cut this time.

https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html (https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html)
What's missing here is the Johnston County sections (east and west of I-95). If we can imagine all these projects completed, the non-freeway section around Princeton would be the biggest pain-in-the-neck part of the highway.

Also, there's nothing concerning the lack of a direct connection between I-42 and I-95, which has been the subject of numerous posts in the forum.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 05, 2016, 05:59:25 PM
I was looking at NCDOT's preliminary 2018-2027 STIP page and there are some projects listed that would upgrade US-70 to interstate standards. Here's what's listed:

-Upgrade US-70 to interstate standards from the western end of the US-70 Goldsboro Bypass to the Wayne/Johnston County line.

-Upgrade US-70 to interstate standards from Washington Street in eastern La Grange to the CF Harvey Parkway interchange in Kinston.

-Build the Kinston Bypass (Shallow Bypass alternative) from just east of the CF Harvey Parkway interchange to existing US-70 just east of NC-58.

-Upgrade US-70 to interstate standards from the eastern end of the future Kinston Bypass to the existing US-70 freeway in Dover. Project is split in two phases with Wyse Fork Road being the dividing point.

-Upgrade US-70 to interstate standards and construct service roads from the Neuse River bridge in James City to the future Havelock Bypass. Project is split in two phases with Grantham Road being the dividing point.

That's it, though it's subject to change in the future. I'm really hoping the Kinston Bypass makes the cut this time.

https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html (https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html)
What's missing here is the Johnston County sections (east and west of I-95). If we can imagine all these projects completed, the non-freeway section around Princeton would be the biggest pain-in-the-neck part of the highway.

Also, there's nothing concerning the lack of a direct connection between I-42 and I-95, which has been the subject of numerous posts in the forum.

Yep, that's about the size of it. I think NCDOT plans to upgrade the Princeton bypass but they're considering a new alignment between the eastern end of the Princeton Bypass and an upgraded US-70 at the Wayne/Johnston County line. Their recent feasibility study recommended the South alternative, which follows a new routing south of US-70 to connect the Princeton Bypass to US-70 at the Wayne/Johnston County line.

I'm not surprised about NCDOT ignoring the lack of a direct I-42/I-95 interchange. There are a couple of businesses in that vicinity that would need to be demolished to make it happen, so chances are very slim. That being said, I would definitely like to see a direct I-42/I-95 interchange built, since US-70 between both ends of US-70 Bypass tends to get really congested due to the traffic lights and people (mostly trucks) using it to get on/off I-95. A direct I-42/I-95 interchange would relieve US-70 and help make it easier and safer for local traffic.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on August 06, 2016, 01:06:03 PM
As far as high-speed freeway-to-freeway connections are concerned, the ones that are most vital to a I-95/I-42 interchange address connections to eastbound I-42, particularly for long-distance and/or commercial traffic needs.  Because of the interchange's proximity to other, more efficient routes, egress from either direction of I-95 to west I-42 need not be a priority; from southbound I-95, Raleigh-bound traffic would have (logically) exited at either US 64 west (nascent I-87 south) or even US 264 west, while from northbound I-95, the most efficient route to Raleigh would remain along westbound I-40.  Traffic needing to go west from I-95 in the Selma area will likely be local only; the existing configuration is satisfactory for that purpose.  When it is time to plan and budget the I-95/42 interchange, it would likely be for the better if NCDOT prioritized any needed connections to EB I-42. 
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 06, 2016, 01:22:25 PM
The Super 70 Corridor Commission has posted their agenda for their August 18 meeting in Morehead City. There's mention of a feasibility study that will soon be underway to upgrade US-70 to interstate standards from Selma to Princeton.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/aug%2018%20highway%2070.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/aug%2018%20highway%2070.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: WashuOtaku on August 07, 2016, 08:02:07 AM
As far as high-speed freeway-to-freeway connections are concerned, the ones that are most vital to a I-95/I-42 interchange address connections to eastbound I-42, particularly for long-distance and/or commercial traffic needs.  Because of the interchange's proximity to other, more efficient routes, egress from either direction of I-95 to west I-42 need not be a priority; from southbound I-95, Raleigh-bound traffic would have (logically) exited at either US 64 west (nascent I-87 south) or even US 264 west, while from northbound I-95, the most efficient route to Raleigh would remain along westbound I-40.  Traffic needing to go west from I-95 in the Selma area will likely be local only; the existing configuration is satisfactory for that purpose.  When it is time to plan and budget the I-95/42 interchange, it would likely be for the better if NCDOT prioritized any needed connections to EB I-42.

Priority is best served building out I-42 than constructing an interchange that for the time being doesn't need to be built right away.  Eventually it should be resolved, but lets get most of I-42 ready for it first; the current configuration still works.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 07, 2016, 01:45:14 PM
Another old NC page moving over to the blog - the four different US 70's in the Smithfield/Selma area, but also updated to include Interstate 42 information.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-four-us-70s-of-selma-smithfield.html
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 08, 2016, 04:59:22 PM
I doubt US 70 will be retracted once all segments of future Interstate 42 are completed and signposted.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on August 11, 2016, 04:18:29 AM
I doubt US 70 will be retracted once all segments of future Interstate 42 are completed and signposted.

I guess it would depend on whether NCDOT could convince AASHTO to allow them to move US-70 to its former pre-freeway alignments through Clayton, Goldsboro and New Bern, and then leave it on its current routing through Kinston and Havelock. If that happens then yeah I think US-70 survives all the way to its current terminus in Atlantic.

If not, then it would probably eventually be truncated back to Garner. Would we really need an I-42/US-70 concurrency all the way to Morehead City?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 11, 2016, 08:41:40 AM
I doubt US 70 will be retracted once all segments of future Interstate 42 are completed and signposted.

I guess it would depend on whether NCDOT could convince AASHTO to allow them to move US-70 to its former pre-freeway alignments through Clayton, Goldsboro and New Bern, and then leave it on its current routing through Kinston and Havelock. If that happens then yeah I think US-70 survives all the way to its current terminus in Atlantic.

If not, then it would probably eventually be truncated back to Garner. Would we really need an I-42/US-70 concurrency all the way to Morehead City?

NCDOT could decommission US-70 Bypass in Goldsboro once it becomes I-42, so the new bypass would only have one designation. The way I look at it, US-70 Bypass is only good as a temporary placeholder for I-42, just like NC-44 used be temporary for US-70 Bypass.

The US-70 Bypass freeway in Selma could also be decommissioned and signed solely as I-42. I'm not so sure about the Clayton Bypass or New Bern since it's "vanilla" US-70, but then again, AASHTO (albeit reluctantly) allowed US-117 to be returned to it's old 2-lane alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson once I-795 came about, so I suppose anything is possible.

I don't think AASHTO and/or FHWA would have a problem with any future bypasses (Havelock, Kinston, etc...) being signed solely as I-42 since they generally follow the US-70 corridor. I don't think that an I-42/US-70 concurrency is neccessary for the entire length.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 11, 2016, 02:33:45 PM
I am shore the Eastern North Carolians will not want to truncate US 70.  There is too much tied to the economic environment even if I-42 is actually built.  I-42 won't go everywhere that US 70 does.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on August 12, 2016, 11:15:39 AM
Keeping in mind this could be considered fictional, I still feel it's appropriate here because of our ongoing discussion of what to do with US-70 when I-42 is completed. This is my vision of what I think US-70 can be once that happens, going from Garner to Morehead City:

If you are following along with me on the map, look where US-70 is coming east from Garner. It would move back to its previous alignment down what is now US-70 BUS through Clayton, so it would no longer be jumping on with I-40 at its Exit 306. It would then become concurrent with I-42 from what is now US-70's Exit 326 to it's current Exit 334, where it would go through Selma and at least "temporarily permanently" be I-42's access to I-95.

After rejoining I-42 for another concurrency at it's current Exit 336 it would then continue east until the beginning of the new Goldsboro Bypass where it would leave I-42 for it's current trek through Goldsboro (I-42 is replacing US-70 Bypass here).

It would rejoin I-42 at the east end of the Goldsboro Bypass near Lagrange and be concurrent until the beginning of the as yet unbuilt Kinston Bypass, so until somewhere near the Banks School Rd intersection in Lenior County. I-42 would jump off here on to its new facility and US-70 would follow its current route through the Kinston area.

I-42 would actually rejoin US-70 somewhere between British Rd and Wyse Fork Rd in Jones County.

Nothing I have said so far is far fetched, its all dual carriage way 4 lane expressway (with some freeway portion in Goldsboro), with the exception of going back to being a 4 lane arterial on the Clayton section).

The rest of the way could be a little more dicey, to wit:

US-70 would then leave I-42 at what is now the Dover turnoff at SR 1005 at the Jones/Craven County line in Dover (that is currently called old US-70) and follow that from Dover all the way to the NC-55 intersection at Beamon's Fork. It would then run concurrent with NC-55 from there through New Bern down Neuse Blvd to First St, then right on First to the Pembroke Exit, where it will become concurrent with I-42 again.

I could forsee AASHTO having an issue with Old 70 being only a 2 lane road, but it is a high speed (55 mph) 2 lane road pretty much that whole distance except through Dover and Cove City proper. In any event, as LM117 posted above, they have kinda set precedent with US-117 being moved back to a 2 lane alignment with the completion of I-795 north of Goldsboro.

Anyway, in my vision I then have US-70 concurrent with I-42, and NC-55 over the Trent River Bridge (properly known as the Freedom Memorial Bridge), with the NC-55 concurrency splitting off as it does now to go over the Neuse River Bridge (by the time all this is done US-17 wouldn't be going through here at all any more, it's New Bern Bypass around to the west and north should be completed by then). US-70 would stay with I-42 all the way to the still to be built Havelock Bypass near Pine Grove, where it would stay on its current alignment through Havelock while I-42 takes the bypass.

After that is anybody's guess. I can tell you that I finally got down to Morehead City last  to pick up one of the last VCR-DVD combo units Best Buy had in stock and I can confirm the total lack of Future I-42 signs on US-70 in Carteret County-this tells me that somewhere in a dusty office at NCDOT someone is holding out hope that the Northern Carteret Bypass gets built someday, and that when that happens I-42 would follow that route to the state port. If that happens, the rest of US-70 through Carteret County would remain as currently aligned all the way to its current terminus in Atlantic, NC.


What this would do would give traffic a decent alternative if something catastrophic were to occur on I-42 where a portion would need to be shut down near one of the cities along the way.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Henry on August 12, 2016, 11:55:11 AM
An excerpt from the Sure Why Now entry:

Quote
Coming Soon: With the approval of an Interstate from Clayton to Morehead City, Interstate 42 will be routed along what is currently US 70 By-Pass through the area.  It will also run along regular US 70 to the immediate east and west.  Interestingly, there are no current plans to connect Interstate 42 to its north-south counterpart - Interstate 95. Traffic will continue to use the current US 70 connection through Selma to connect between the two interstate.  So soon a new chapter in the area's colorful highway history is set to begin.
Not having any direct connections between two Interstates should be a crime! Then again, I-95 is not as busy here as it is further north, but that shouldn't be an excuse for not building an interchange with I-42. At least we'll have that with the new I-87.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 12, 2016, 12:41:07 PM
An excerpt from the Sure Why Now entry:

Quote
Coming Soon: With the approval of an Interstate from Clayton to Morehead City, Interstate 42 will be routed along what is currently US 70 By-Pass through the area.  It will also run along regular US 70 to the immediate east and west.  Interestingly, there are no current plans to connect Interstate 42 to its north-south counterpart - Interstate 95. Traffic will continue to use the current US 70 connection through Selma to connect between the two interstate.  So soon a new chapter in the area's colorful highway history is set to begin.
Not having any direct connections between two Interstates should be a crime! Then again, I-95 is not as busy here as it is further north, but that shouldn't be an excuse for not building an interchange with I-42. At least we'll have that with the new I-87.

Building a direct I-42/I-95 interchange won't be easy, mostly due to the businesses at that junction and it's close proximity to the existing US-70/I-95 interchange. NCDOT will probably leave it as-is, at least until the rest of I-42 is built.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 12, 2016, 01:06:23 PM
I can tell you that I finally got down to Morehead City last  to pick up one of the last VCR-DVD combo units Best Buy had in stock and I can confirm the total lack of Future I-42 signs on US-70 in Carteret County-this tells me that somewhere in a dusty office at NCDOT someone is holding out hope that the Northern Carteret Bypass gets built someday, and that when that happens I-42 would follow that route to the state port.

I suspected as much. There's just no way to upgrade existing US-70 between Newport and Morehead City. It's too built up. If I-42 is to reach the Port of Morehead City, the Northern Carteret Bypass will have to be built and that bypass isn't even listed in NCDOT's preliminary 2018-2027 STIP. They're definitely saving that for last, IMO. The Kinston Bypass is listed though, so maybe it'll make the cut this time and US-70 will be a freeway between Goldsboro and New Bern. The current freeway between Dover and New Bern will still need shoulder widening and it's not listed in the STIP either.

Your plan for US-70 sounds good to me, btw!
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 12, 2016, 04:43:28 PM
Are the traffic counts on US 70 between high enough to warrant Interstate 42 to go all the way to Morehead City? If not, maybe they could terminate the future Interstate in New Bern.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on August 12, 2016, 05:29:30 PM
Are the traffic counts on US 70 between high enough to warrant Interstate 42 to go all the way to Morehead City? If not, maybe they could terminate the future Interstate in New Bern.

You're right. I am sure they could. But they were already planning to "freeway-ize" (lol) US-70 between New Bern and Havelock well before I-42 was a thing. The traffic between New Bern and Havelock is abysmal during shift change commutes for Cherry Point, and really bad during the summer. They were talking about LOS's of D and F at the major intersections in James City and in Havelock by the 2030's , so NCDOT had already made up its mind about the Havelock Bypass and the James City upgrades.

So, if they're going to do it anyway, then I see no reason for I-42 to not get at least as far as Havelock, and maybe even in my lifetime.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 12, 2016, 05:33:57 PM
Are the traffic counts on US 70 between high enough to warrant Interstate 42 to go all the way to Morehead City? If not, maybe they could terminate the future Interstate in New Bern.

It's been many years since I've been that far down US-70, but it got pretty heavy in the summer time during tourist season. Traffic dies down (a little) during the fall and winter seasons, but there is still truck traffic going to and from the Port of Morehead City. Plus, I-42 would serve as a high-speed evacuation route if a major hurricane happens to make a beeline of the Crystal Coast.

NCDOT won't terminate I-42 in New Bern, at least not permanently. The Port of Morehead City is one of the major reasons why they pushed for US-70 to become an interstate in the first place.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: texaskdog on August 12, 2016, 05:35:25 PM
I was waiting for an image of the 42 sign behind the podium making a speech.

There is no podium there, only a lectern
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Mr. ENC on August 17, 2016, 08:37:46 PM
So I was on 70 today pass Goldsboro going into Princeton and I see a Future 42 shield. So there planning to just upgrade 70 between the bypass and the Smithfield bypass? How is that gonna work with all those homes and businesses on 70? I know they're looking into interchanges in Princeton.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 18, 2016, 11:39:06 AM
So I was on 70 today pass Goldsboro going into Princeton and I see a Future 42 shield. So there planning to just upgrade 70 between the bypass and the Smithfield bypass? How is that gonna work with all those homes and businesses on 70? I know they're looking into interchanges in Princeton.

NCDOT is planning to upgrade US-70 between the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass and the Wayne/Johnston County line. However, it's possible that I-42 would use a new alignment between the county line and Princeton. A recent feasibilty study recommended a southern alignment alternative.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1204A_Report_2015.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1204A_Report_2015.pdf)

A feasibilty study to upgrade US-70 to interstate standards between Selma and Princeton will soon be underway.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/aug%2018%20highway%2070.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/aug%2018%20highway%2070.pdf)

EDIT: My brain farted. The feasibility study covered the section from the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass to Princeton, not the county line to Princeton. :pan:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on August 18, 2016, 01:46:36 PM
I will be interested to see if they do end up going with a new alignment up that way. I had thought they could probably get by going with a Texas style freeway with slip ramps to frontage roads, similar to what they plan to do in James City down here.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 18, 2016, 03:45:14 PM
After Interstates 42 and 87, I wonder what corridor will get an Interstate designation next (excluding those that are already slated to become Interstates in the future)?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 18, 2016, 04:49:33 PM
After Interstates 42 and 87, I wonder what corridor will get an Interstate designation next (excluding those that are already slated to become Interstates in the future)?

Probably the US-17 corridor south of Williamston all the way to Myrtle Beach SC( because Myrtle Beach needs 3 interstates apparently) will become a 2nd I-99 or I-101
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 18, 2016, 05:05:01 PM
After Interstates 42 and 87, I wonder what corridor will get an Interstate designation next (excluding those that are already slated to become Interstates in the future)?

If Greenville has their way, US-264 from the city to Zebulon, which would most likely become an I-x87 if it comes to fruition. The Pitt County Board of Commissioners has been raising hell lately about having US-264 upgraded. They act like it's some kind of damn emergency. I'm not against upgrading US-264, but it's not in an urgent need of an upgrade (it's already 70mph), unlike US-70 which has had serious safety issues on most of it's non-freeway sections. Pitt County needs to have a seat.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 18, 2016, 06:33:21 PM
After Interstates 42 and 87, I wonder what corridor will get an Interstate designation next (excluding those that are already slated to become Interstates in the future)?
Probably US 264 Zebulon to Greenville. But don't count out US 74 from I-26 to I-85.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 18, 2016, 07:25:59 PM
I will be interested to see if they do end up going with a new alignment up that way. I had thought they could probably get by going with a Texas style freeway with slip ramps to frontage roads, similar to what they plan to do in James City down here.

It could probably be done on the Princeton Bypass, but there's Evergreen Memorial Cemetery brushing up directly against US-70 westbound next to the Ebenezer Church Road intersection, which was a big reason the South Alternative was recommended in the feasibility study. I don't know about the section between Princeton and the Selma bypass. I'm definitely looking forward to reading that study once it's done and released.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 23, 2016, 04:43:38 AM
The Super 70 Corridor Commission posted VHB Engineering's presentation for a feasibility study that will soon be underway for upgrading US-70 to interstate standards from Buffalo Road near Selma to Edwards Road in Princeton.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/FS-1604A%20US%2070%20Commision%20Meeting%20Presentation%20for%20posting.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/FS-1604A%20US%2070%20Commision%20Meeting%20Presentation%20for%20posting.pdf)

It looks like a direct I-42/I-95 interchange is being considered after all.

Quote
System interchange between US 70 and I-95 to be considered as one of the alternatives

Here's the proposed interchanges and grade separations:

Quote
• Consider eight interchange locations
   --US 70/I-95
   --US 70 Bypass/I-95
       -Potentially combine I-95 interchanges into a single system interchange
   
    --Peedin Road Extension (W-5107)
    --Davis Mill Road (W-5107)
    --Country Store Road
    --US 70 Alt
    --Rains Mill Road
    --Edwards Road

• Consider five grade separation locations
     --Firetower Road
     --Creech’s Mill Road
     --Dr. Donnie H Jones Jr. Boulevard
     --Old Rock Quarry Road/Barden Street
     --1 undesignated

• Frontage road system for access considerations
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on August 23, 2016, 01:07:35 PM
Related to this thread, I've put together a theoretical design for an I-95/I-42 interchange and posted it in Fictional Highways (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18652).  The direct Flickr link is here (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/29178007315/).
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 23, 2016, 06:11:41 PM
How much opposition might there be if a 42-to-95 interchange was actually proposed? And what would the right-of-way impacts be?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 23, 2016, 08:05:28 PM
How much opposition might there be if a 42-to-95 interchange was actually proposed? And what would the right-of-way impacts be?

You might want to re-read my last post. A direct I-42/I-95 interchange IS proposed, though the interchange design remains to be seen. One of the biggest reasons for the feasibility study that will be done is to answer the very questions you just asked. The draft report is due to be finished by October 2017 and the final report by December 2017.

Personally, I don't think there will be very much opposition, though it would largely depend on what kind of design is proposed in the study. A direct I-42/I-95 interchange would be a welcome relief for US-70 between both ends of US-70 Bypass. It gets pretty congested there.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 24, 2016, 09:17:15 PM
As originally posted in the main NC thread, an announcement was made involving NCDOT's draft STIP for 2018-2027. The Kinston Bypass was included.

http://wnct.com/2016/08/24/key-eastern-n-c-projects-to-be-included-in-next-state-transportation-plan/ (http://wnct.com/2016/08/24/key-eastern-n-c-projects-to-be-included-in-next-state-transportation-plan/)

Quote
Projects for eastern North Carolina include:
Constructing the U.S. 70 Kinston Bypass from N.C. 148 to east of N.C. 58, part of the Future Interstate 42 corridor and an important connection to the Crystal Coast and Port of Morehead City

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on September 04, 2016, 08:00:36 AM
I have created my own I-42/I-95 interchange design and posted it (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18652.msg2169416#msg2169416) in Froggie's Fictional Highways thread from above.

Direct google maps link here (https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=11urNk2i4t1DeS2m2Tf6n_LZfhuo)

The main concept is to relocate the I-95/US70 interchange further north to give the I-42 interchange some breathing room.
A secondary concept is that it yields a dedicated route for mainline US70 through the area, meaning that US70 does not multiplex with any interstates between I-85 in Durham and I-42 in Princeton.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on September 11, 2016, 08:37:09 PM
The US-70 Corridor Commission posted their minutes from their August 18 meeting. Not much noteworthy.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/August%2018%20minutes.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/August%2018%20minutes.pdf)

However, updates for projects were given.

Quote
Division 2 Update

North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 2 Engineer John Rouse updated
the members of the Highway 70 Corridor Commission on the following projects:

• Slocum Gate -Right of way and utility relocation work in progress. Project scheduled to
be let in June 2017.

• Gallants Channel Bridge -Traffic shift completed. Estimate traffic will be on the bridge
in early spring 2017.

• Havelock Bypass - Still waiting on Record of Decision from the Federal Highway
Administration. Ready to begin right of way this fall. Let date is scheduled for 2019.

• James City - Environmental document is underway. Preliminary designs are scheduled
to be completed this fall. Right of way scheduled for 2021. The project will probably be
changed to a design-build project with a 2021 construction let date.

• Kinston Bypass- This is an unfunded project, but scored very well in SPOT 4.0 regional
tier. It is anticipated this will be funded as a regional tier project in the upcoming STIP.
It was the top project in the Eastern Carolina RPO.

• Harvey Parkway-Part C- The environmental documents are complete. North Carolina
Department of Transportation has the Record of Decision. Right of way will start this
fall. The construction let date is scheduled for December 2017.

Division 4 Update

North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 4 Division Engineer Tim Little
updated the members of the Highway 70 Corridor Commission on the following projects:

• Wilson's Mills - Merge is complete. Environmental document in place. Right of way
acquisition scheduled for 2017. Construction let date scheduled for 2019.

• Spot safety project in Princeton at Martin Livestock and Lakeview Estates- Directional
crossover with the medians removed. Connection to Lakeview Estates will be severed on
the south side.

• Pine Level -Bridge building taking place. Ramps can be visualized at Collins, Inc.
Work is progressing well. Project is a little behind schedule with a 2018 completion date.

• Goldsboro Bypass- Overhead signs foundations are complete.

The next meeting of the Highway 70 Corridor Commission will be held on November 10,
2016 at 1:30 p.m. in Wayne County. The meeting will be held at the Lane Tree Conference
Center, 2317 Salem Church Road, Goldsboro, North Carolina.

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on September 28, 2016, 02:18:22 PM
I found an interesting recent article from Goldsboro's local newspaper, News-Argus. Apparently, the local businesses are hurting due to what they say is a lack of business logo signage along the interchanges on the new US-70 Bypass. There's a paywall, but the opening paragraph gives the gist of it (I don't currently have a subscription. If anybody else does, have at it).

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2016/09/27/business_owners_press_dot_about_signs/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2016/09/27/business_owners_press_dot_about_signs/)

IMO, NCDOT's stupid decision to use La Grange as a control city for US-70 westbound at the eastern end of the Goldsboro Bypass has more to do with it, since the signs are currently telling Goldsboro-bound drivers to take the bypass to get to Goldsboro, instead of using US-70 (where most of the businesses are located) that, oh I don't know, actually goes through Goldsboro! :banghead:

Easy solution: Change the control city for US-70 westbound from La Grange to Goldsboro. Problem solved. Smithfield can take Goldsboro's place as a control city for US-70 Bypass westbound.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on September 28, 2016, 10:31:46 PM
I found an interesting recent article from Goldsboro's local newspaper, News-Argus. Apparently, the local businesses are hurting due to what they say is a lack of business logo signage along the interchanges on the new US-70 Bypass. There's a paywall, but the opening paragraph gives the gist of it (I don't currently have a subscription. If anybody else does, have at it).

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2016/09/27/business_owners_press_dot_about_signs/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2016/09/27/business_owners_press_dot_about_signs/)

IMO, NCDOT's stupid decision to use La Grange as a control city for US-70 westbound at the eastern end of the Goldsboro Bypass has more to do with it, since the signs are currently telling Goldsboro-bound drivers to take the bypass to get to Goldsboro, instead of using US-70 (where most of the businesses are located) that, oh I don't know, actually goes through Goldsboro! :banghead:

Easy solution: Change the control city for US-70 westbound from La Grange to Goldsboro. Problem solved. Smithfield can take Goldsboro's place as a control city for US-70 Bypass westbound.


Totally with you there. Anyone driving down the bypass who is not familiar with the area sees nothing but a bunch of, well, nothing, at every interchange. You are out in the middle of nowhere, only a few houses and some farmland near the bypass. Since I am not familiar with Wayne County's zoning ordinance I don't know if this will change with time or not. Usually gas stations and restaurants migrate to be near exits, but the area around them in this case seems to be rural residential.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on October 01, 2016, 04:57:07 PM
I found an interesting recent article from Goldsboro's local newspaper, News-Argus. Apparently, the local businesses are hurting due to what they say is a lack of business logo signage along the interchanges on the new US-70 Bypass. There's a paywall, but the opening paragraph gives the gist of it (I don't currently have a subscription. If anybody else does, have at it).

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2016/09/27/business_owners_press_dot_about_signs/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2016/09/27/business_owners_press_dot_about_signs/)

IMO, NCDOT's stupid decision to use La Grange as a control city for US-70 westbound at the eastern end of the Goldsboro Bypass has more to do with it, since the signs are currently telling Goldsboro-bound drivers to take the bypass to get to Goldsboro, instead of using US-70 (where most of the businesses are located) that, oh I don't know, actually goes through Goldsboro! :banghead:

Easy solution: Change the control city for US-70 westbound from La Grange to Goldsboro. Problem solved. Smithfield can take Goldsboro's place as a control city for US-70 Bypass westbound.


Totally with you there. Anyone driving down the bypass who is not familiar with the area sees nothing but a bunch of, well, nothing, at every interchange. You are out in the middle of nowhere, only a few houses and some farmland near the bypass. Since I am not familiar with Wayne County's zoning ordinance I don't know if this will change with time or not. Usually gas stations and restaurants migrate to be near exits, but the area around them in this case seems to be rural residential.

Yeah, I finally managed to visit Goldsboro 2 weeks ago (along with my old stomping grounds in Fremont and Pikeville) while I was staying a motel in Wilson and drove part of the new bypass from I-795 to the US-13 interchange and came into the city that way so I could check out the Berkeley Boulevard widening project between New Hope Road and Royall Avenue. I see what you mean about a whole lot of nothing along the interchanges! :-D I was under a severe time constraint, so I didn't get to drive the entire length of the bypass. I definitely will next time!

As far as Wayne County's zoning, I'm not sure of the specifics, but I read not too long ago that they were already planning for businesses near the new interchanges, particularly the Wayne Memorial Drive and US-13 interchanges, IIRC. The only new business that's confirmed to be coming to one of the interchanges (so far) is a Wendy's, which will be located at the US-70/NC-581 intersection in the Rosewood area of Goldsboro across from Walmart, practically a stone's throw from the I-42 US-70 Bypass interchange. A new regional & agricultural convention center has also broke ground recently on Wayne Memorial Drive, which will be located beside Wayne Community College, also not far from I-42 US-70 Bypass.

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on October 02, 2016, 02:59:24 PM
I might've spoke too soon. Looks like NCDOT finally realized that they screwed up with the control cities for US-70 West at the eastern end of the Goldsboro Bypass.

According to the minutes from the August 16 meeting of the Wayne County Board of Commissioners, it appears Goldsboro will be added as a control city for US-70 West. No timetable was given for the change, so it may or may not already be fixed by now.

http://www.waynegov.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/09062016-387 (http://www.waynegov.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/09062016-387)

Page 13:

Quote
Chairman Joe Daughtery stated the new US Highway 70 Goldsboro Bypass has new
billboards. The exit signs on US Highway 70 for LaGrange are being redesigned to include
this as an exit for Goldsboro.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on October 04, 2016, 09:47:08 AM
Why Goldsboro? Couldn't it be Raleigh? (Sorry I'm new here, and don't know how to quote. :/ )
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on October 04, 2016, 12:03:47 PM
Why Goldsboro? Couldn't it be Raleigh? (Sorry I'm new here, and don't know how to quote. :/ )

(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww34/slorydn1/Road%20Photos/20160530_123429_zpsrg5cbh4n.jpg)

(Photo courtesy of slorydn1)

Raleigh is in the correct spot and will remain there. Problem is that Goldsboro is being used for US-70 Bypass westbound at the eastern split as shown here, which goes around north and away from the city, while La Grange is used for US-70, which runs right through the middle of Goldsboro and is where nearly all of the businesses are located. The businesses are taking a big hit as a result.

The Goldsboro City Council and the Wayne County Board of Commissioners were rightfully pissed about Goldsboro-bound traffic being led away from the city and businesses along US-70 and I can't blame 'em. NCDOT apparently agreed to take Goldsboro off the US-70 Bypass sign in the above photo and put it on the US-70 sign with La Grange. From the sound of it, La Grange will remain on the US-70 sign, but at least Goldsboro will finally be put in the correct spot. Smithfield will probably be added as a second control city for US-70 Bypass.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Rothman on October 04, 2016, 12:24:04 PM
The Goldsboro City Council and the Wayne County Board of Commissioners were rightfully pissed about Goldsboro-bound traffic being led away from the city and businesses along US-70 and I can't blame 'em.

Hm.  Although I see the argument, wouldn't Goldsboro-bound traffic not take the bypass no matter what the sign said?  Seems to me that people don't just decide to go somewhere and follow BGSes without consulting some other source to make sure they get to wherever they want to go.

If anything, the issue just seems more of a simple correction to having the control city on the wrong sign rather than having a significant impact on traffic bound to Goldsboro and whatever business it generates (McDonald's and a gas station, I suppose :D).
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on October 04, 2016, 02:46:50 PM
The Goldsboro City Council and the Wayne County Board of Commissioners were rightfully pissed about Goldsboro-bound traffic being led away from the city and businesses along US-70 and I can't blame 'em.

Hm.  Although I see the argument, wouldn't Goldsboro-bound traffic not take the bypass no matter what the sign said?  Seems to me that people don't just decide to go somewhere and follow BGSes without consulting some other source to make sure they get to wherever they want to go.

If anything, the issue just seems more of a simple correction to having the control city on the wrong sign rather than having a significant impact on traffic bound to Goldsboro and whatever business it generates (McDonald's and a gas station, I suppose :D).

I see your point, but on the other hand, having the control cities on the right signs would serve as a reminder to those not familiar with the area and who either didn't check other sources beforehand or simply forgot by the time they get there (even after checking before hitting the road).

While the impact on Goldsboro-bound traffic may not have been extreme to the point of businesses shutting down, it seems to have been enough to get the attention of the city/county leaders. NCDOT had no plans to change the signs until Goldsboro/Wayne County brought it to their attention. There are more than fast food joints along US-70. There are also shopping centers (including a mall), motels/hotels and auto dealerships along US-70, mostly near the Berkeley Boulevard, Spence Avenue and Wayne Memorial Drive interchanges.

Meanwhile, there's practically nothing near the US-70 Bypass interchanges, except at the Wayne Memorial Drive exit, where there's a small local gas station and a Walmart Neighborhood Market (also sells gas), and the NC-581 exit with a Walmart shopping center and other businesses. Other than that, there's absolutely nothing along the bypass.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on October 09, 2016, 01:09:33 PM
The Goldsboro News-Argus removed their paywall for the weekend, so I took advantage and went back and read the full article about business logo (or lack of) signs on US-70 Bypass in Goldsboro. It appears that the blue logo signs won't go up until at least March next year.

From September 27: http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2016/09/27/business_owners_press_dot_about_signs/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2016/09/27/business_owners_press_dot_about_signs/)

Quote
Local business owners Monday morning pressed state Department of Transportation officials for prompt action on installing business logo signs near interchanges on the new U.S. 70 Bypass, saying they are suffering as traffic passes them by.

They, along with Wayne County officials, voiced concerns that there would be no logo signs on the east-bound lane at the N.C. 581 exit.

The reason there will be no logo sign is because of space requirements, the DOT officials said. However, there will be smaller logo signs on the off ramp, they said.

Local leaders also sought assurances that signs would direct motorists to shopping areas, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base and the to-be-built Maxwell Regional Agricultural and Convention Center.

DOT officials said that would look into those requests, but that in some cases, their hands are tied by state policy and that March would be the earliest that the large blue logo signs will go up.

It is only then that the DOT will begin taking applications for logos on a first-come, first-serve basis, they said.

The process was outlined by DOT Division 4 traffic engineer Andy Brown, District 3 engineer Jiles Harrell and division Logo/Tourist Oriented Directional Signing coordinator Paul Marak.

The meeting was sponsored by the Wayne County Chamber of Commerce.

Several in the audience at the Goldsboro Event Center questioned why the signs had not been discussed earlier. They also wanted to know why signs were not erected during the time the highway was being built over the past five years.

The DOT officials said that state policy does not allow the signs to be erected until a project is completed.

Audience members shook their heads when they were told that they could not submit an application for a logo until they see the signs going up.

"Just as a process, I am not sure why they have to wait until you get all of this done to apply for a sign," Goldsboro Mayor Chuck Allen said. "Why can't they apply for the sign today. Have that paperwork out of the way. That would have to save some time and do that now.

"Why do you have to wait until you get the sign, the steel and all of that to let people apply and the sign go up. I don't get that."

Brown said that the rules have changed over the years and that the signs are now on a first-come, first-served basis.

"These people here would have an advantage if we just took applications today, instead of waiting for other businesses to be able to see logo signs going up," Brown said. "But you guys are going to have an advantage because you came, and you know you can anticipate seeing them.

"But if we started taking applications today, it wouldn't actually be fair to anyone else who didn't happen to attend this meeting."

Brown reiterated that applications would be taken as soon as the signs started going up.

Wayne County Manager George Wood questioned the lack of public notification about when applications would be accepted.

"You just count on people seeing the signs -- that's the notification to start the process, is that correct?" Wood said.

Brown told Wood that was correct and that would happen in March.

"Could we, and I guess Jiles I am directing this to you, if you and (Division IV engineer) Tim (Little) could look at, at our request, to change that policy, to make an exception to that policy if we were willing to do say public advertisement, things like that to put people on notice ahead of time," Wood said. "Then allow these people after that public notice, and have a cutoff date at that time, then say start your registration.

"I don't know why that wouldn't be as good a notice as putting the sign up. I know you can't make a decision today. We are just asking that you all take a look at that. I think it is obvious, we would be willing to pay for an ad or a series of ads to do that."

Wayne County Commission Chairman Joe Daughtery said businesses and the county are already behind the eight ball because of a lack of signs.

"We need to find a way to do this sooner than later," he said. "So if there is anyway that we can run an ad in order to put the public on notice -- to forestall just seeing somebody happening to dig a hole on the highway.

"How do we know that process of digging a hole is actually one of these signs? It just doesn't make sense."

The public wouldn't, and that is why people wait until they see a blue sign go up, Brown said.

The DOT does not build the signs. That work is outsourced, Marak said.

The initial cost to the business owner averages $250 to $300 per sign, Marak said.

Businesses within a three-mile radius of an interchange are automatic, he said. Business outside that area are placed on a provisional contract.

If a new business opens within the three-mile radius it would bump off the last business from outside that radius that had been added to the sign, he said.

Participating businesses pay an annual rental fee of $300 per each mainline, ramp, and trailblazer panel. Trailblazer panels are necessary when more than one turn is required to find the business.

Typically, two business panels are installed along the mainline (one in each direction) and two business panels are installed along the ramps resulting in total annual rental fees of $1,200.

A maximum of six business logo panels shall be installed on gas, food, lodging, camping and attraction service signs.

Marak said he could be contacted at 252-237-6164 or pmarak@ncdot.gov.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on October 30, 2016, 07:52:19 AM
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13218 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13218)

Quote
RALEIGH – To allow the workers to safely place girders for a new bridge over U.S. 70, the N.C. Department of Transportation will close a section of U.S. 70 near Pine Level in Johnston County overnight starting Tuesday, Nov. 1.

Beginning at 10 p.m., the highway will be closed nightly until 6 a.m. the following morning, between I-95 and Davis Mill/Stevens Chapel Road until mid-November. Traffic will be rerouted onto U.S. 70 Alternate around the closure.

The construction is part of a project to improve safety along a two-mile stretch of U.S. 70, and includes converting the intersections at Davis Mill Road/Stevens Chapel Road and near Woods Road/U.S. Business to interchanges.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on October 30, 2016, 08:58:17 AM
Blue logo signs are going up on the Goldsboro Bypass.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13215 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13215)

Quote
RALEIGH -- As a service to motorists, the N.C. Department of Transportation installs signs on certain highways to let travelers know where they can find gas, food, lodging, camping and attractions. The department is now in the process of installing these signs, referred to as logo signs, along the recently opened U.S. 70 Goldsboro Bypass, and is accepting applications from businesses interested in purchasing space.

Participating businesses pay an annual rental fee of $300 to have their name, symbol or trademark on a logo panel. The fee covers the  agency's costs. Panel space is assigned on a first-come first-serve basis. Interested businesses should submit their request to participate to Paul Marak at pmarak@ncdot.gov.  He can also be reached at (252) 237-6164.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on October 31, 2016, 02:51:26 AM
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13218 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13218)

Quote
RALEIGH – To allow the workers to safely place girders for a new bridge over U.S. 70, the N.C. Department of Transportation will close a section of U.S. 70 near Pine Level in Johnston County overnight starting Tuesday, Nov. 1.

Beginning at 10 p.m., the highway will be closed nightly until 6 a.m. the following morning, between I-95 and Davis Mill/Stevens Chapel Road until mid-November. Traffic will be rerouted onto U.S. 70 Alternate around the closure.

The construction is part of a project to improve safety along a two-mile stretch of U.S. 70, and includes converting the intersections at Davis Mill Road/Stevens Chapel Road and near Woods Road/U.S. Business to interchanges.

Good, this means they are making progress there too. It's been a few months since I have been up that way, Matthew and its aftermath put a crimp on my off weekend cruises.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 31, 2016, 04:37:10 PM
Is there any place along future Interstate 42 where a x-42 3-digit Interstate could theoretically go?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on October 31, 2016, 06:35:07 PM
Is there any place along future Interstate 42 where a x-42 3-digit Interstate could theoretically go?

NC-11/US-13 between Kinston & US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel, though I think it'll probably become another I-x87 since the idea is to connect Kinston's Global TransPark and Greenville to Hampton Roads via the I-87 connection in Bethel.

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: amroad17 on October 31, 2016, 09:47:15 PM
I-42 isn't officially signed, yet some are talking about where to fit an I-X42?

C'mon, man!
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on October 31, 2016, 10:18:02 PM
I-42 isn't officially signed, yet some are talking about where to fit an I-X42?

C'mon, man!

It's a real possibility for the NC-11/US-13 corridor if this bill passes Congress. It's being pushed heavily by Kinston and Greenville. NCDOT is currently trying to get US-264 between US-64/Future I-87 in Zebulon and Greenville (Exit 73) designated as "Future I-587".

https://butterfield.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/burr-tillis-butterfield-jones-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation (https://butterfield.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/burr-tillis-butterfield-jones-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation)

http://wnct.com/2016/10/27/request-to-make-us-264-an-interstate-still-under-consideration/ (http://wnct.com/2016/10/27/request-to-make-us-264-an-interstate-still-under-consideration/)

Kinston wants the Global TransPark connected to the Port of Virginia in Norfolk (by interstate & rail) and Greenville wants to have interstate connections to 2 nearby metros, the Triangle & Hampton Roads.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on November 01, 2016, 02:03:09 PM
How about the US 17 New Bern Bypass which is already partially complete? It is a very similar situation to interstate 140 in Wilmington, which is also a bypass for US 17 - but since it crosses an interstate, it is given an interstate designation.

LGL44VL

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on November 01, 2016, 03:32:04 PM
How about the US 17 New Bern Bypass which is already partially complete? It is a very similar situation to interstate 140 in Wilmington, which is also a bypass for US 17 - but since it crosses an interstate, it is given an interstate designation.

LGL44VL

Wilmington is also larger than New Bern.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on November 01, 2016, 04:11:35 PM
 Interstate designation for I-140 was first pursued in 1997. Don't have statistics for Wilmington's metro population in 1997 but in 1990 it was 171k and 200 it was 233k so interpolated assuming a stenady growth rate of 3.1% that gives us approx. 211k in 1997.

New Bern MSA population is currently 127k.

So yes Wilmington was bigger even back when I-140 was first pursued in 1997; but not THAT much bigger: for every 5 people in the Wilmington area then, there are 3 people in the New Bern area today. Is there some sort of policy whether official or unofficial that only cities of a certain size can get 3di's?

LGL44VL

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 01, 2016, 04:37:33 PM
Interstate designation for I-140 was first pursued in 1997. Don't have statistics for Wilmington's metro population in 1997 but in 1990 it was 171k and 200 it was 233k so interpolated assuming a stenady growth rate of 3.1% that gives us approx. 211k in 1997.

New Bern MSA population is currently 127k.

So yes Wilmington was bigger even back when I-140 was first pursued in 1997; but not THAT much bigger: for every 5 people in the Wilmington area then, there are 3 people in the New Bern area today. Is there some sort of policy whether official or unofficial that only cities of a certain size can get 3di's?

LGL44VL



The 1997 140 request was from I-40 to Sanford along US 1. It had nothing to do with wilmington
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on November 01, 2016, 06:35:18 PM



The 1997 140 request was from I-40 to Sanford along US 1. It had nothing to do with wilmington

According to Wikipedia, in 1997 is when local planners in Wilmington first announced they would pursue interstate designation for the US 17 bypass, though they were not requesting a specific number at that point.

LGL44VL

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: english si on November 01, 2016, 07:26:11 PM
Wilmington is also larger than New Bern.
And? There's no reason why New Bern can't have I-x42, or even two*, on US17 provided I-42 gets there and the 3di roadway meets interstate standards.

And this is NC we're talking about. If it meets the standards and isn't a toll road, blue-and-red shields will be sought. And if it's a freeway that doesn't meet the standards they'll make up some upgrade plan so as to get blue-and-red shields anyway as "Future I-xxx".

*both the bypass, and across to Bridgeton are surely options for short 3dis in the area.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on November 01, 2016, 08:02:32 PM
I think across to bridgeton is not a likely candidate. Shoulders are certainly not up to standards. Exceptions are often granted for long bridges like this when they are part of some larger corridor, but when the corridor itself is basically just the bridge, I somehow doubt it would pass muster.

LGL44VL

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 01, 2016, 08:47:29 PM



The 1997 140 request was from I-40 to Sanford along US 1. It had nothing to do with wilmington

According to Wikipedia, in 1997 is when local planners in Wilmington first announced they would pursue interstate designation for the US 17 bypass, though they were not requesting a specific number at that point.

LGL44VL



Well you know what they say about Wikipedia.  I-140 was first proposed for US 1 to Sanford in 1999.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/1999-USRN_Cmte.pdf

I-140 in Wilmington was not approved until 2003.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2003-USRN_Cmte.pdf

How you wrote it can be interpreted as Wilmington asked for I-140 in 1997.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 01, 2016, 08:50:58 PM
Blue logo signs are going up on the Goldsboro Bypass.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13215 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13215)

Quote
RALEIGH -- As a service to motorists, the N.C. Department of Transportation installs signs on certain highways to let travelers know where they can find gas, food, lodging, camping and attractions. The department is now in the process of installing these signs, referred to as logo signs, along the recently opened U.S. 70 Goldsboro Bypass, and is accepting applications from businesses interested in purchasing space.

Participating businesses pay an annual rental fee of $300 to have their name, symbol or trademark on a logo panel. The fee covers the  agency's costs. Panel space is assigned on a first-come first-serve basis. Interested businesses should submit their request to participate to Paul Marak at pmarak@ncdot.gov.  He can also be reached at (252) 237-6164.

I guess these people don't realize that Happiness is Goldsboro in the rear view mirror.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on November 01, 2016, 09:14:08 PM

How you wrote it can be interpreted as Wilmington asked for I-140 in 1997.

Yes you are right and in fact I was confused about that. So thanks for setting the facts straight.

However I still think Wilmington considering applying for an I-x40 designation for its US17 bypass in 1997 is a very relevant if not 100% equal comparison for New Bern considering applying for an I-x42 designation for its US17 bypass in 2016.

The points on which it is not equal are that New Bern is still somewhat smaller than Wilmington was then, and that the I-42 corridor is not yet complete. So I am not saying this should happen right away. But give it a decade or so and I think we will find New Bern has a pretty convincing argument.

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on November 10, 2016, 09:17:18 PM
I watched a YouTube video along the Goldsboro Bypass that was published earlier this month, and to my surprise, Future Interstate signs were up, but without I-42 shields. Weird!
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on November 11, 2016, 09:09:56 AM
I watched a YouTube video along the Goldsboro Bypass that was published earlier this month, and to my surprise, Future Interstate signs were up, but without I-42 shields. Weird!

Huh? This was the most recent video I could find (uploaded July 4) and I believe I-42 shields have been put up on the blank signs since then.

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on November 11, 2016, 10:19:57 AM
I watched a YouTube video along the Goldsboro Bypass that was published earlier this month, and to my surprise, Future Interstate signs were up, but without I-42 shields. Weird!

Huh? This was the most recent video I could find (uploaded July 4) and I believe I-42 shields have been put up on the blank signs since then.

Someone commented on it, and I saw the sign, but no I-42 shields. I could've sworn I saw a later video.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 11, 2016, 06:19:32 PM
Why would they put up Future Interstate signs, but omit the Interstate 42 designation?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Mapmikey on November 11, 2016, 08:18:50 PM
Why would they put up Future Interstate signs, but omit the Interstate 42 designation?

Signs were put up before a number was settled upon...
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on November 12, 2016, 08:32:57 AM
I saw somewhere up-thread (a different page so I don't feel like going back and quoting it now) that someone was comparing New Bern to Wilmington. I just about fell out of my chair when they used the population of the entire New Bern MSA to compare it to Wilmington's city population, but enough on that.

I don't ever foresee a time that the Neuse River Bridge between New Bern and Bridgeton would be an interstate. I am fairly confident that when they finish the northern section of the New Bern Bypass that the Neuse River Bridge would lose its mainline US designation and either be US-17 Business or possibly even just NC-55. I say this because they already moved mainline US-17 onto the bypass between Jones County and US-70.

I also don't see the New Bern Bypass ever being signed as an interstate unless US-17 as a whole becomes an interstate through the entire state. As Froggie astutely noted in conversations we have had over the years on this issue, it really isn't needed. Back in the MTR days I was pushing for a true coastal interstate through this area as I-95 was too far away from the coast here, but years later it seems that Froggie has been right and I was wrong.


What US-17 did need, and is finally within a decade or so of being done, is to be 4-laned throughout the state. That, coupled with proper bypasses, has made US-17 a much more enjoyable trip through the area, and I can't wait until the work is finished in Jones County.


So in summary I don't believe there will ever be any I-x42's in Craven or Jones counties.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on November 12, 2016, 10:02:29 AM
I also don't see the New Bern Bypass ever being signed as an interstate unless US-17 as a whole becomes an interstate through the entire state. As Froggie astutely noted in conversations we have had over the years on this issue, it really isn't needed. Back in the MTR days I was pushing for a true coastal interstate through this area as I-95 was too far away from the coast here, but years later it seems that Froggie has been right and I was wrong.


What US-17 did need, and is finally within a decade or so of being done, is to be 4-laned throughout the state. That, coupled with proper bypasses, has made US-17 a much more enjoyable trip through the area, and I can't wait until the work is finished in Jones County.


So in summary I don't believe there will ever be any I-x42's in Craven or Jones counties.

I agree. I don't see any need for US-17 (outside of I-87's corridor) to become an interstate unless it ran from I-95 near Savannah GA to I-87 in Wiliamston. Virginia did a feasability study about 10 years ago on a possible interstate (I-99) that would run from I-95 in SC north of Savannah to I-95 in Wilmington, DE. SC said they weren't interested, NC turned it down due to lack of funding and Delaware & Maryland couldn't agree on the routing. Then there was the very expensive problem of upgrading the Chesapeake Bay-Bridge Tunnel between Virginia Beach & the Eastern Shore. Upgrading US-13 to interstate standards on the Eastern Shore would've had a huge environmental impact that would be virtually impossible to mitigate, so the whole I-99 proposal was killed.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwi8idq0tqPQAhUJ94MKHfmNBQkQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNGLgExuSi9ig3hqh2Lx-Pwr_Yb3GQ (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwi8idq0tqPQAhUJ94MKHfmNBQkQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNGLgExuSi9ig3hqh2Lx-Pwr_Yb3GQ)

I don't think there will be an I-x42 anywhere along the whole corridor. The Kinston-Bethel interstate (if it passes Congress) will probably become another I-x87 since Kinston wants the Global TransPark to have interstate access to the Port of Virginia in Norfolk and Greenville is practically doing jumping jacks at the idea of having interstate connections to not one, but two nearby metros. NCDOT has already applied for the Future I-587 designation for US-264 between Zebulon and Greenville.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on November 14, 2016, 12:37:33 PM
I saw somewhere up-thread (a different page so I don't feel like going back and quoting it now) that someone was comparing New Bern to Wilmington. I just about fell out of my chair when they used the population of the entire New Bern MSA to compare it to Wilmington's city population, but enough on that.
Actually I used MSA population numbers for both. Please have another look. The thrust of the argument is that New Ben's MSA today is 3/5 the size of the Wilmington MSA in 1997, which is when officials first started discussing an interstate designation for the Wilmington bypass. But even though New Bern today is clearly comparable (though admittedly not equal) with Wilmington of 20 years ago in terms of population, I actually don't even think that population is all that relevant in the first place. when considering whether the US 17 New Bern bypass is designated as an interstate or not.
I don't ever foresee a time that the Neuse River Bridge between New Bern and Bridgeton would be an interstate. I am fairly confident that when they finish the northern section of the New Bern Bypass that the Neuse River Bridge would lose its mainline US designation and either be US-17 Business or possibly even just NC-55. I say this because they already moved mainline US-17 onto the bypass between Jones County and US-70.
Completely agree with this one.
I also don't see the New Bern Bypass ever being signed as an interstate unless US-17 as a whole becomes an interstate through the entire state. As Froggie astutely noted in conversations we have had over the years on this issue, it really isn't needed. Back in the MTR days I was pushing for a true coastal interstate through this area as I-95 was too far away from the coast here, but years later it seems that Froggie has been right and I was wrong.

What US-17 did need, and is finally within a decade or so of being done, is to be 4-laned throughout the state. That, coupled with proper bypasses, has made US-17 a much more enjoyable trip through the area, and I can't wait until the work is finished in Jones County.
Again, I completely agree with this one.


So in summary I don't believe there will ever be any I-x42's in Craven or Jones counties.
I disagree. For a New Bern I-X42 recall I am not proposing that hundreds of millions of dollars be spent to build a new interstate. This is just a matter of numbering and signing for a long planned highway corridor that is already half-built, and already up to interstate standards AFAIK. Given the extremely low cost of this over what is already planned, and that this would be very desirable to Craven County officials, and also given NC's tendency to go for interstate designation whenever possible, I still argue that seeking an I-X42 designation is extremely likely - and would be even if New Bern were half its population. Whether it would be approved or not is another matter, but frankly I don't see any reasonable grounds for denial. The only grounds would be "sorry New Bern, you're too much of a backwater, no designation for you!" Honestly that is a pretty good argument for why a bypass isn't needed at all, but since the political machinery in NC has already planned this bypass, and indeed built half of it, an X42 designation should be almost a given.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on November 14, 2016, 02:15:46 PM

 
So in summary I don't believe there will ever be any I-x42's in Craven or Jones counties.
I disagree. For a New Bern I-X42 recall I am not proposing that hundreds of millions of dollars be spent to build a new interstate. This is just a matter of numbering and signing for a long planned highway corridor that is already half-built, and already up to interstate standards AFAIK. Given the extremely low cost of this over what is already planned, and that this would be very desirable to Craven County officials, and also given NC's tendency to go for interstate designation whenever possible, I still argue that seeking an I-X42 designation is extremely likely - and would be even if New Bern were half its population. Whether it would be approved or not is another matter, but frankly I don't see any reasonable grounds for denial. The only grounds would be "sorry New Bern, you're too much of a backwater, no designation for you!" Honestly that is a pretty good argument for why a bypass isn't needed at all, but since the political machinery in NC has already planned this bypass, and indeed built half of it, an X42 designation should be almost a given.

I'm not saying that I am absolutely ruling out the notion that the New Bern Bypass may someday bear and interstate number, I am merely saying it will not be a 3di child of I-42.
The only way I see I-xx on the bypass is if the entire US-17 corridor is upgraded to an interstate highway, something that there doesn't seem to be a need for, at least not at this time.

I've lived here in New Bern for almost 26 years now, so I was here when we were still using the old draw bridge to cross the Neuse River from downtown New Bern to Bridgeton. The road was 2 lanes from Jacksonville all the way to the Craven County line, and only 4 lanes from there all the way to the old bridge which was only 2 lanes again.

Any significant incident downtown near the bridge had the effect of backing traffic up all the way past the mall and Walmart, sometimes even as far down as River Bend!

Our state senator from that time period was none other than Beverly Purdue. There had been talk for years about building the Neuse River Bridge that exists today for years before I moved here, but there wasn't much being done to actually get it done. Purdue started moving up the ladder in the state senate and the bridge got built. Concurrent with that, M L King Jr Blvd (still named Clarendon Blvd at the time) was expanded to 6 lanes and that eased traffic somewhat between Trent Rd and US-70. The realignment of US-17 onto the US-70 freeway took care of the rest of town.

As New Bern grew, and more stoplights were added between South Glenburnie Rd and US-70 it became clear that even the 6 lanes of MLK weren't enough, especially during the summer months with beach traffic coming through. So there was a push to build a bypass for US-17 to send it west of the city entirely. As you well know the southern half has been done for several years, the northern half is planned but not funded to be built any time soon. When it is built, my understanding is that the northern end in Ernul will be very much like the southern end in Jones County: ending at a 3 way intersection with a stoplight.

I'm ashamed to admit that I am not as up on my interstate standards as I should be but I think the very small left shoulder as well as the very narrow central median is not up to current interstate standards (I could be wrong though and I am sure one of our experts will correct me if I am). The south end in Jones County is definitely not. The US-70 interchange is high speed and flowing from US-17 NB to US-70 EB, and from US-70 EB to US-17 SB. The clover leaf ramps from US-17 NB to US-70 WB and US-70 WB to US-17 SB, however, are tight and have that 1960's feel to them. I guess I bring this up to illustrate that the bypass was never built with the idea that it might be part of an interstate someday, it was merely built to get US-17 out of New Bern.

I-42 is coming. It's going to link New Bern to Raleigh, and New Bern to the state port. We're getting the interstate that the powers that be wanted, and it's already going to be taking us to where we want to go. There is no need for, and I have not heard of, a push for a a second interstate to cross our area. Yes, NC loves procuring more than it's share of interstate highways, but there is almost always a local push behind that, and that just doesn't seem to be the case, here.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on November 14, 2016, 03:37:27 PM
As for interstate standards, measurements I did on Google Maps indicate that the US 17 New Bern bypass is built with exactly the same dimensions as the recently opened Goldsboro Bypass, in terms of ramp curvature, as well as shoulder and median width. An extension of the bypass is also already under construction which will stay a full 70mph interstate standard freeway until where it rejoins the present US 17 alignment south of Pollocksville.

Why go to the trouble of interstate standards if you do not intend to go for interstate designation?

LGL44VL

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Brandon on November 14, 2016, 04:15:26 PM
As for interstate standards, measurements I did on Google Maps indicate that the US 17 New Bern bypass is built with exactly the same dimensions as the recently opened Goldsboro Bypass, in terms of ramp curvature, as well as shoulder and median width. An extension of the bypass is also already under construction which will stay a full 70mph interstate standard freeway until where it rejoins the present US 17 alignment south of Pollocksville.

Why go to the trouble of interstate standards if you do not intend to go for interstate designation?

Why not?  Other states do that all the time with non-interstate freeways.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on November 14, 2016, 05:20:27 PM
Yes, NC loves procuring more than it's share of interstate highways, but there is almost always a local push behind that, and that just doesn't seem to be the case, here.

Exactly. Kinston got the surrounding counties onboard and pushed heavily for an interstate designation for US-70. Hello I-42. Raleigh and Rocky Mount pushed for an interstate to I-95 & Norfolk. Hello I-495 I-87. Recently, Greenville has been pushing for an interstate designation for US-264 between Zebulon and Greenville. Now we're only a few days away from finding out whether or not Future I-587 will be joining the party. Tomorrow is AASHTO's final day of their fall meeting.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 14, 2016, 06:12:21 PM
Yes, NC loves procuring more than it's share of interstate highways, but there is almost always a local push behind that, and that just doesn't seem to be the case, here.

Exactly. Kinston got the surrounding counties onboard and pushed heavily for an interstate designation for US-70. Hello I-42. Raleigh and Rocky Mount pushed for an interstate to I-95 & Norfolk. Hello I-495 I-87. Recently, Greenville has been pushing for an interstate designation for US-264 between Zebulon and Greenville. Now we're only a few days away from finding out whether or not Future I-587 will be joining the party. Tomorrow is AASHTO's final day of their fall meeting.
The statement "NC loves procuring more than it's share of interstate highways" probably has other forum members nodding their heads. Putting aside the question of whether there's some sort of "fair share" that NC is exceeding, it's wrong to think that NCDOT is obsessed with slapping interstate shields on every freeway or proposed freeway in the state. The interstate designations for I-42, I-87, and I-587 were sought only because there was strong pressure to do so from the communities served by those roads. Absent that kind of local pressure, NCDOT isn't likely to seek an interstate designation.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on November 14, 2016, 09:46:14 PM
Quote from: orulz
Why go to the trouble of interstate standards if you do not intend to go for interstate designation?

Current Green Book standards for freeway construction are basically the same as Interstate standards, with the only real exception being shoulder surface....some states still do narrower, dirt, or gravel shoulders even on new construction.

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2016, 05:24:09 PM
I personally don't think Future Interstate 42 needs any three-digit Interstate spurs, but that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Jmiles32 on November 15, 2016, 05:54:10 PM
Since Future I-42 already goes through New Burn, the city likely really doesn't care if it gets another, the only reason I could see an I-x42 ever being created would be to connect to Jacksonville NC. If I-587 is fully approved, Jacksonville I believe would be NC's new most populated area not served by an interstate which of course is not very appealing( just ask Greenville). If this were to happen then NC might as well make the whole US-17 in the state an interstate since now it would be part of three across two thirds of the state( I-140, I-x42, I-87).
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 15, 2016, 06:37:46 PM
Since Future I-42 already goes through New Burn, the city likely really doesn't care if it gets another, the only reason I could see an I-x42 ever being created would be to connect to Jacksonville NC. If I-587 is fully approved, Jacksonville I believe would be NC's new most populated area not served by an interstate which of course is not very appealing( just ask Greenville). If this were to happen then NC might as well make the whole US-17 in the state an interstate since now it would be part of three across two thirds of the state( I-140, I-x42, I-87).
NCDOT does have a proposed project to build a freeway from 140 on the northeast side of Wilmington to US 17 north of Hampstead, but as far as I know no one has suggested that should be designated as an extension of I-140. And there are no plans for a freeway (again AFAIK) between Hampstead and Jacksonville. Here's a link for the Hampstead Bypass project:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US17HampsteadBypass/
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Mr. ENC on November 16, 2016, 03:41:48 PM
Since Future I-42 already goes through New Burn, the city likely really doesn't care if it gets another, the only reason I could see an I-x42 ever being created would be to connect to Jacksonville NC. If I-587 is fully approved, Jacksonville I believe would be NC's new most populated area not served by an interstate which of course is not very appealing( just ask Greenville). If this were to happen then NC might as well make the whole US-17 in the state an interstate since now it would be part of three across two thirds of the state( I-140, I-x42, I-87).
NCDOT does have a proposed project to build a freeway from 140 on the northeast side of Wilmington to US 17 north of Hampstead, but as far as I know no one has suggested that should be designated as an extension of I-140. And there are no plans for a freeway (again AFAIK) between Hampstead and Jacksonville. Here's a link for the Hampstead Bypass project:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US17HampsteadBypass/

I always felt that there needs to be a bypass that connects Greenville, New Bern, Jacksonville, and Wilmington. Call it 995, 140, 787, etc. Have it run with NC 43 between Greenville and New Bern, and then Hwy 17 with everything else.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on December 10, 2016, 08:16:55 PM
The Super 70 Corridor Commission posted the status of the projects on US-70 as of December 1.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/US%2070%20Corridor%20Status-%20Dec%202016.docx (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/US%2070%20Corridor%20Status-%20Dec%202016.docx)

Speaking of status, I'm surprised NCDOT did not send applications to AASHTO during their fall meeting to have the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses fully signed as I-42. :hmm:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on December 11, 2016, 01:23:16 PM
The Super 70 Corridor Commission posted the status of the projects on US-70 as of December 1.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/US%2070%20Corridor%20Status-%20Dec%202016.docx (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/US%2070%20Corridor%20Status-%20Dec%202016.docx)


Speaking of status, I'm surprised NCDOT did not send applications to AASHTO during their fall meeting to have the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses fully signed as I-42. :hmm:

It doesn't surprise me, actually. If they did that, and AASHTO/FHWA agreed, then you have additional signage to be placed in the field, a concurrency they may or may not want, oh and the expense of changing the BGS's at either end of the bypass yet again, changes to be made to the BGS's on I-795 at the bypass exit (etc etc etc). Just for that reason, I don't see them petitioning to officially sign any of I-42 until it's ready from I-40 all the way to at least the east end of the Goldsboro bypass.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 11, 2016, 06:51:49 PM
The Super 70 Corridor Commission posted the status of the projects on US-70 as of December 1.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/US%2070%20Corridor%20Status-%20Dec%202016.docx (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/US%2070%20Corridor%20Status-%20Dec%202016.docx)


Speaking of status, I'm surprised NCDOT did not send applications to AASHTO during their fall meeting to have the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses fully signed as I-42. :hmm:

It doesn't surprise me, actually. If they did that, and AASHTO/FHWA agreed, then you have additional signage to be placed in the field, a concurrency they may or may not want, oh and the expense of changing the BGS's at either end of the bypass yet again, changes to be made to the BGS's on I-795 at the bypass exit (etc etc etc). Just for that reason, I don't see them petitioning to officially sign any of I-42 until it's ready from I-40 all the way to at least the east end of the Goldsboro bypass.
I agree. For the time being,everyone is happy just to have the "future interstate corridor" signs.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on December 13, 2016, 09:55:20 PM
Another Future I-42 project is to be funded according to this NCDOT News Release: https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=13370 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=13370)

a project for "Upgrading U.S. 70 to freeway standards from the west end of the U.S. 70 [Goldsboro] Bypass [east] to the Wayne-Johnston county line" has been added to the upcoming Draft 2017-2027 STIP to be released in January.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 13, 2016, 11:02:33 PM
The Super 70 Corridor Commission posted the status of the projects on US-70 as of December 1.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/US%2070%20Corridor%20Status-%20Dec%202016.docx (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/US%2070%20Corridor%20Status-%20Dec%202016.docx)


Speaking of status, I'm surprised NCDOT did not send applications to AASHTO during their fall meeting to have the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses fully signed as I-42. :hmm:

It doesn't surprise me, actually. If they did that, and AASHTO/FHWA agreed, then you have additional signage to be placed in the field, a concurrency they may or may not want, oh and the expense of changing the BGS's at either end of the bypass yet again, changes to be made to the BGS's on I-795 at the bypass exit (etc etc etc). Just for that reason, I don't see them petitioning to officially sign any of I-42 until it's ready from I-40 all the way to at least the east end of the Goldsboro bypass.
I agree. For the time being,everyone is happy just to have the "future interstate corridor" signs.

May just be they haven't figured out what to do with NC 42 just yet.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on December 14, 2016, 12:08:27 AM
Another Future I-42 project is to be funded according to this NCDOT News Release: https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=13370 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=13370)

a project for "Upgrading U.S. 70 to freeway standards from the west end of the U.S. 70 [Goldsboro] Bypass [east] to the Wayne-Johnston county line" has been added to the upcoming Draft 2017-2027 STIP to be released in January.

Great news!
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on December 20, 2016, 08:22:05 AM
Google StreetView is now showing the Goldsboro Bypass between it's eastern end and the Parkstown Road interchange.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on December 20, 2016, 09:45:27 PM
Google StreetView is now showing the Goldsboro Bypass between it's eastern end and the Parkstown Road interchange.

Maybe one of these days (with some tutelage) I may figure out how to time lapse the video I shot westbound of the entire Goldsboro Bypass back in May when my wife took this picture (red light is on the GoPro so I was recording).
(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww34/slorydn1/Road%20Photos/20160530_123429_zpsrg5cbh4n.jpg)









Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: mvak36 on December 21, 2016, 09:42:06 PM
Ran into this article today: http://wnct.com/2016/12/16/federal-highway-administration-approves-u-s-70-havelock-bypass/

I'm guessing this will be a part of I-42 right?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on December 22, 2016, 08:00:46 AM
Ran into this article today: http://wnct.com/2016/12/16/federal-highway-administration-approves-u-s-70-havelock-bypass/

I'm guessing this will be a part of I-42 right?

Yes. Most (if not all) future freeway bypasses along the US-70 corridor between I-40 and Morehead City will eventually become I-42 and they will be built to interstate standards.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on December 27, 2016, 06:11:25 PM
Just to let anyone know who cannot drive on the Goldsboro Bypass, Google Maps has streetview for it now! Also, the eastbound lanes of US 70 near I-40 at I-42's east end has been redone as well. The westbound lanes still remain pre-2016.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on December 27, 2016, 07:08:59 PM
Just to let anyone know who cannot drive on the Goldsboro Bypass, Google Maps has streetview for it now! Also, the eastbound lanes of US 70 near I-40 at I-42's east end has been redone as well. The westbound lanes still remain pre-2016.

Huh? Streetview on my phone is only showing the Goldsboro Bypass between the Parkstown Road interchange and it's eastern end at US-70. The rest of the bypass isn't showing up and images of the central section between Wayne Memorial Drive and I-795 are the older images from 2012, long before the western and eastern sections opened. However there are current images on US-70 eastbound approaching the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass showing the updated overhead BGS, but that's as close to the bypass Streetview goes.

As far as the lanes being redone, I assume you're talking about the "old" US-70 freeway around La Grange? Yes, those were redone over the summer. When that project was first announced, I initially thought NCDOT was going to widen the outside shoulders to interstate standards while they were at it, but it's obvious they did not.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on December 29, 2016, 06:20:24 PM
Just to let anyone know who cannot drive on the Goldsboro Bypass, Google Maps has streetview for it now! Also, the eastbound lanes of US 70 near I-40 at I-42's east end has been redone as well. The westbound lanes still remain pre-2016.

Huh? Streetview on my phone is only showing the Goldsboro Bypass between the Parkstown Road interchange and it's eastern end at US-70. The rest of the bypass isn't showing up and images of the central section between Wayne Memorial Drive and I-795 are the older images from 2012, long before the western and eastern sections opened. However there are current images on US-70 eastbound approaching the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass showing the updated overhead BGS, but that's as close to the bypass Streetview goes.

As far as the lanes being redone, I assume you're talking about the "old" US-70 freeway around La Grange? Yes, those were redone over the summer. When that project was first announced, I initially thought NCDOT was going to widen the outside shoulders to interstate standards while they were at it, but it's obvious they did not.
I put streetview on the westbound lanes.
What I mean about the redo, is streetview drove on it, and updated.
Just for clarification  ;-)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on January 12, 2017, 12:59:39 PM
I haven't seen it posted here yet, but there are some PDFs depicting alternatives (including renderings) for the James City freeway conversion posted on the NCDOT website from the public meeting last month.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US70_JamesCity/ (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US70_JamesCity/)

All alternatives have a full interchange at Airport Road and two-way frontage roads that are severed at the major iand connected to those roads by jug handle things.

The alternatives vary based on whether the major intersecting roads (Grantham, Airport, Williams) are raised over US70/I-42 or vice versa, and whether Grantham and Williams get full or partial interchanges.

Overall I like the "US 70 Over" alternatives (A1 and A3), because they seem to have less impact on adjacent commercial parcels, and because they allow for a new grade separation of Elder St which eliminates a kind of scary looking pedestrian bridge. I also like the alternatives with partial interchanges at Grantham and Williams (A3 and C3) though the way they have the frontage roads cofigured with jug handles like that kind of gives me pause. I wish they paid more attention to making the frontage roads contiguous and useful in all the alternatives.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on January 17, 2017, 11:48:23 PM
I was perusing these myself the other day, and I don't really have a preference. Any of the options shown would be a massive improvement over the current situation.

What I did notice is that we can say "bye bye" to the Mcdonald's/Citgo located at the SE corner of the US-70/Williams Rd intersection as well as Riverside Chrysler located at the SW corner of US-70/Airport Rd intersection.

As for that scary looking pedestrian bridge it's about 15-20 years old, and should really still be in excellent condition because it's never used. The people that live there would rather play Frogger with the traffic on US-70 than walk a few feet out of their way to use the pedestrian crossing that we paid a lot of money for. Elder Street has been severed (for vehicle traffic) pretty much the entire time I have lived here, people are used to going down to Williams to cross over US-70 by car.

That said, I still really don't have a preference either way.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 08, 2017, 06:24:59 PM
The US-70 Corridor Commission has posted the minutes from their January 19 meeting.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/01_19_17%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/01_19_17%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 13, 2017, 06:24:44 PM
Google StreetView is now showing the Goldsboro Bypass between it's western end at US-70 and the I-795 interchange. It also updated images from Salem Church Road (SR-1300) through the I-795 interchange for those wanting an alternate view of the interchange.

The only remaining part of the bypass that has not yet been added to StreetView at all is a section between Wayne Memorial Drive and Parkstown Road.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 16, 2017, 09:29:04 AM
I just found an article from December 30 (late, I know :pan:). Apparently, there was a lawsuit filed by the Southern Environmental Law Group to stop the Havelock Bypass from being built.

Quote
The proposed Highway 70 bypass around Havelock will run through part of the Croatan National Forest and is causing concern among environmentalists who say it will ruin a national treasure.

The NCDOT has proposed the 10.3-mile bypass as an alternative to the stop and go through Havelock, but environmental groups concerned about the bypass’ location say it’s not worth it.

The Southern Environmental Law Group filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging the construction of the bypass, calling it unnecessary, costly and illegal.

In a statement to WNCT, the group stated “…the bypass would destroy important lands within the Croatan National Forest…and there are far less costly and less destructive options, such as upgrades to the existing 70 corridor.

Mayor Will Lewis said the bypass is integral to helping Havelock grow.

“There are businesses that will be negatively impacted,” said Lewis. “We know that businesses are going to see a decrease in traffic during tourist season. But on the positive side, one of the main directions we have to grow is south toward where the bypass will be.”

The bypass will be a four-lane divided freeway with speeds up to 70 miles per hour, and it will connect Raleigh to the Morehead City port.

But some business owners are still concerned.

Commissioner Danny Walsh is one of the business owners who will be impacted, and he said he has mixed feelings.

“If it helps Cherry Point, it helps my community,” said Walsh. “If it hurts my businesses out in town, it hurts my community. So it’s a double edged sword.”

Walsh said he’s seen some communities who are bypassed continue to thrive.

The estimated cost of the bypass is $221 million.

Construction is set to begin in the winter.

Until the lawsuit is taken care of, construction on the bypass will not be able to begin.

EDIT: This article is more detailed.

http://www.newbernsj.com/news/20161229/lawsuit-challenges-bypass-around-havelock (http://www.newbernsj.com/news/20161229/lawsuit-challenges-bypass-around-havelock)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 16, 2017, 05:50:12 PM
Are there any alternative routes that could be taken? Or was the alternative chosen the best route for the new US 70/Future Interstate 42 alignment?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on February 17, 2017, 01:42:48 PM
Havelock is entirely boxed in by Cherry Point on the east and Croatan on the west, so options are limited.

SELC seems to prefer an 'upgrade existing' alternative but those were eliminated in the EIS due to extensive business relocations, and due to either the 'expressway' alternative being too congested or the 'freeway' alternative not handling local traffic and causing extensive community impacts.

There were three 'detailed study' alternatives for the bypass, varying by how deep they go into Croatan in order to avoid impacts to development. The preferred alternative (alt 3) was the middle one, striking a balance between impacts to Croatan and impacts to residences - only 16. There was an alternative (alt 2) that stayed significantly closer to US70 but it would involve 133 residential impacts, so it was eliminated at the expense of a deeper excursion into Croatan.

Elsewhere on the corridor, Kinston was able to hit upon a better balance with its "shallow bypass" alternative which minimizes the bypass length and keeps it close into town, within the footprint of existing development. But they were able to take advantage of the fact that there's a lot of low lying undeveloped but unprotected land just south of Kinston, avoiding extensive relocations in spite of staying close to the existing route. So in that sense they were just lucky to have such an option available.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on February 17, 2017, 09:39:33 PM
Given the sensitive nature of the environment down there, I'd rather impact development than impact woodlands and wetlands.  Homes and businesses can be rebuilt.  Woods and wetlands are far more difficult.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 18, 2017, 06:57:56 PM
Given the sensitive nature of the environment down there, I'd rather impact development than impact woodlands and wetlands.  Homes and businesses can be rebuilt.  Woods and wetlands are far more difficult.
In general, the courts have required NCDOT to make sure that all the i's are dotted and all the t's crossed as required by law, and to do the best they can to address environmental concerns. Assuming that's been done in this case, the most likely effect of the suit will be to delay the project and increase its cost.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 19, 2017, 02:51:23 AM
Given the sensitive nature of the environment down there, I'd rather impact development than impact woodlands and wetlands.  Homes and businesses can be rebuilt.  Woods and wetlands are far more difficult.
In general, the courts have required NCDOT to make sure that all the i's are dotted and all the t's crossed as required by law, and to do the best they can to address environmental concerns. Assuming that's been done in this case, the most likely effect of the suit will be to delay the project and increase its cost.

Agreed. There's too much development on US-70 through Havelock and there would probably be just as much opposition from the town and it's businesses to that alternative. NCDOT will probably win this one.

The one bypass that I DON'T think is needed at all is the proposed US-70 New Bern Bypass. US-70 through New Bern is already an upgradable freeway and once US-70 is upgraded through James City between the Neuse River bridge and the beginning of the Havelock Bypass, there's no reason I-42 can't follow existing US-70 through New Bern.

Plus, the New Bern Bypass would cut through a larger chunk of Croatan National Forest than the Havelock Bypass would. The SELC would have a field day with that one and that would be one case where they would have a good argument for upgrading existing US-70.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on February 19, 2017, 09:23:26 AM
Has NCDOT received wetlands permits from the Corps of Engineers for the Havelock bypass?  If not, that's one factor where NCDOT could still easily get shot down.  If you doubt this, just look at US 460 in Virginia last year...
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: nerdom on February 19, 2017, 10:36:05 AM
Given the sensitive nature of the environment down there, I'd rather impact development than impact woodlands and wetlands.  Homes and businesses can be rebuilt.  Woods and wetlands are far more difficult.
In general, the courts have required NCDOT to make sure that all the i's are dotted and all the t's crossed as required by law, and to do the best they can to address environmental concerns. Assuming that's been done in this case, the most likely effect of the suit will be to delay the project and increase its cost.

Agreed. There's too much development on US-70 through Havelock and there would probably be just as much opposition from the town and it's businesses to that alternative. NCDOT will probably win this one.

The one bypass that I DON'T think is needed at all is the proposed US-70 New Bern Bypass. US-70 through New Bern is already an upgradable freeway and once US-70 is upgraded through James City between the Neuse River bridge and the beginning of the Havelock Bypass, there's no reason I-42 can't follow existing US-70 through New Bern.

Plus, the New Bern Bypass would cut through a larger chunk of Croatan National Forest than the Havelock Bypass would. The SELC would have a field day with that one and that would be one case where they would have a good argument for upgrading existing US-70.


there are no plans for a 70 bypass of new bern. just the 70 upgrade through james city.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 19, 2017, 11:23:41 AM
Given the sensitive nature of the environment down there, I'd rather impact development than impact woodlands and wetlands.  Homes and businesses can be rebuilt.  Woods and wetlands are far more difficult.
In general, the courts have required NCDOT to make sure that all the i's are dotted and all the t's crossed as required by law, and to do the best they can to address environmental concerns. Assuming that's been done in this case, the most likely effect of the suit will be to delay the project and increase its cost.

Agreed. There's too much development on US-70 through Havelock and there would probably be just as much opposition from the town and it's businesses to that alternative. NCDOT will probably win this one.

The one bypass that I DON'T think is needed at all is the proposed US-70 New Bern Bypass. US-70 through New Bern is already an upgradable freeway and once US-70 is upgraded through James City between the Neuse River bridge and the beginning of the Havelock Bypass, there's no reason I-42 can't follow existing US-70 through New Bern.

Plus, the New Bern Bypass would cut through a larger chunk of Croatan National Forest than the Havelock Bypass would. The SELC would have a field day with that one and that would be one case where they would have a good argument for upgrading existing US-70.


there are no plans for a 70 bypass of new bern. just the 70 upgrade through james city.

It's been proposed.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1202B_Report_2014.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1202B_Report_2014.pdf)

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: nerdom on February 19, 2017, 02:00:53 PM
Given the sensitive nature of the environment down there, I'd rather impact development than impact woodlands and wetlands.  Homes and businesses can be rebuilt.  Woods and wetlands are far more difficult.
In general, the courts have required NCDOT to make sure that all the i's are dotted and all the t's crossed as required by law, and to do the best they can to address environmental concerns. Assuming that's been done in this case, the most likely effect of the suit will be to delay the project and increase its cost.

Agreed. There's too much development on US-70 through Havelock and there would probably be just as much opposition from the town and it's businesses to that alternative. NCDOT will probably win this one.

The one bypass that I DON'T think is needed at all is the proposed US-70 New Bern Bypass. US-70 through New Bern is already an upgradable freeway and once US-70 is upgraded through James City between the Neuse River bridge and the beginning of the Havelock Bypass, there's no reason I-42 can't follow existing US-70 through New Bern.

Plus, the New Bern Bypass would cut through a larger chunk of Croatan National Forest than the Havelock Bypass would. The SELC would have a field day with that one and that would be one case where they would have a good argument for upgrading existing US-70.


there are no plans for a 70 bypass of new bern. just the 70 upgrade through james city.

It's been proposed.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1202B_Report_2014.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1202B_Report_2014.pdf)

yeah. it was an alternative to upgrading 70 in james city. now that james city is full steam ahead, i dont expect to see this dusted off again until 2050. 6 lanes of 70 through james city should be adequate for some time and the new bern side of the river could be easily upgraded to 6 lanes. the glenburnie exit is begging to be a DDI or SPUI as well.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on February 20, 2017, 06:29:39 PM
The people that I deal with at NCDOT knew this was coming and say they were prepared for it. We shall see if that's correct.

Orulz is spot on about the alternatives that were looked at down in Havelock, and about just how tightly boxed in Havelock is. There just isn't very many different places to put it, and routing it straight through Havelock just wouldn't work.

I read the proposal that LM117 was talking about last year. There was a time in my younger days I would have been fully onboard with that, but looking at it now I just don't see the need for it, and apparently neither does NCDOT. We already have a fully functioning freeway and bridge system coming through New Bern, and the improvements in James City make a new terrain freeway unnecessary.

Nerdom, no I don't believe a full redesign of the Glenburnie Rd exit is really needed. Yeah, I hate the traffic on Glenburnie, too, but I don't see a DDI as being the answer there. I used to think so until I experienced my first DDI (I-40 Exit 407, TN-66 in Kodak TN). https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9832298,-83.6081137,376m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

There just isn't enough room on the current overpass to do one correctly and I don't see alot of room, especially on the south side of US-70 to build a second overpass to make that work. https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1121739,-77.0966704,761m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

I think you will find alot of the north-south traffic that currently uses Glenburnie to get from MLK to Neuse Blvd or points NW of town will shift to the new NC-43 bypass if and when NCDOT decides to finish the southern segment between NC-55 and US-17 Business (it's supposed to come out at the light near Ben Quinn Elementary School). It won't completely eliminate the backups caused by Craven Community College traffic, but I think it will help some.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 21, 2017, 12:49:52 PM
I just read an interesting tidbit from this morning's article in the Goldsboro News-Argus.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/02/21/council_approves_tiger_grant/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/02/21/council_approves_tiger_grant/)

Quote
During the regular meeting, the council approved:

* A N.C. Department of Transportation request to rename U.S. 70 to U.S. 70 Business and the existing U.S. 70 Business to Ash Street inside the city limits.

If this happens, it would mean that the US-70 Bypass designation in Goldsboro won't be going away once I-42 gets signed...

IMO, I don't think the change is needed. The only change I'd be in favor of is decommissioning US-70 Bypass once I-42 takes over.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 23, 2017, 06:00:33 PM
I just read an interesting tidbit from this morning's article in the Goldsboro News-Argus.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/02/21/council_approves_tiger_grant/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/02/21/council_approves_tiger_grant/)

Quote
During the regular meeting, the council approved:

* A N.C. Department of Transportation request to rename U.S. 70 to U.S. 70 Business and the existing U.S. 70 Business to Ash Street inside the city limits.

If this happens, it would mean that the US-70 Bypass designation in Goldsboro won't be going away once I-42 gets signed...

IMO, I don't think the change is needed. The only change I'd be in favor of is decommissioning US-70 Bypass once I-42 takes over.

It's also another indication that NCDOT is not in a hurry to post I-42 signs on the completed sections.

Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on February 23, 2017, 08:23:50 PM
^That quote box above ^ got botched. I don't blame ya' wdcrft it happens quite often to me when I use the quick reply box too.

I also agree with your assessment. I don't see NCDOT signing the Goldsboro bypass as I-42 until the portion between the east end of the Clayton Bypass and the west end of the Goldsboro bypass is up to standards.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Henry on February 24, 2017, 09:17:27 AM
Better to put off those plans now than to rush into it completely, like they did with I-73 and I-74.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 24, 2017, 11:27:57 AM
Better to put off those plans now than to rush into it completely, like they did with I-73 and I-74.

At least I-73 is consistent. I-74 just pops in and out between Mount Airy and Lumberton.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 24, 2017, 11:34:12 AM
I just read an interesting tidbit from this morning's article in the Goldsboro News-Argus.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/02/21/council_approves_tiger_grant/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/02/21/council_approves_tiger_grant/)

Quote
During the regular meeting, the council approved:

* A N.C. Department of Transportation request to rename U.S. 70 to U.S. 70 Business and the existing U.S. 70 Business to Ash Street inside the city limits.

If this happens, it would mean that the US-70 Bypass designation in Goldsboro won't be going away once I-42 gets signed...

IMO, I don't think the change is needed. The only change I'd be in favor of is decommissioning US-70 Bypass once I-42 takes over.

It's also another indication that NCDOT is not in a hurry to post I-42 signs on the completed sections.

Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67

More than likely it is to appease the business owners along the old 70 bypass. 
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 24, 2017, 11:40:45 AM
I also agree with your assessment. I don't see NCDOT signing the Goldsboro bypass as I-42 until the portion between the east end of the Clayton Bypass and the west end of the Goldsboro bypass is up to standards.

It would make sense. NCDOT's main focus on the corridor (other than James City & Havelock) seems to be on that section anyway.

The eastern end of the Goldsboro Bypass would easily serve as a logical temporary ending point since I-42 would then have connections to 3 existing interstates (I-40, I-95, I-795). It would also avoid possible driver confusion by I-42 appearing and disappearing otherwise.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 24, 2017, 11:43:26 AM
I just read an interesting tidbit from this morning's article in the Goldsboro News-Argus.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/02/21/council_approves_tiger_grant/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/02/21/council_approves_tiger_grant/)

Quote
During the regular meeting, the council approved:

* A N.C. Department of Transportation request to rename U.S. 70 to U.S. 70 Business and the existing U.S. 70 Business to Ash Street inside the city limits.

If this happens, it would mean that the US-70 Bypass designation in Goldsboro won't be going away once I-42 gets signed...

IMO, I don't think the change is needed. The only change I'd be in favor of is decommissioning US-70 Bypass once I-42 takes over.

It's also another indication that NCDOT is not in a hurry to post I-42 signs on the completed sections.

Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67

More than likely it is to appease the business owners along the old 70 bypass.

Changing the control city for US-70 West from La Grange to Goldsboro at the eastern end of the Goldsboro Bypass would do more for businesses on US-70 than changing US-70 to US-70 Business.

As it is now, Goldsboro, alongside Raleigh, is used as one of the control cities for US-70 Bypass West, essentially diverting Goldsboro-bound traffic away from Goldsboro. Smithfield should take Goldsboro's spot there.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 24, 2017, 12:19:52 PM
I just read an interesting tidbit from this morning's article in the Goldsboro News-Argus.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/02/21/council_approves_tiger_grant/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/02/21/council_approves_tiger_grant/)

Quote
During the regular meeting, the council approved:

* A N.C. Department of Transportation request to rename U.S. 70 to U.S. 70 Business and the existing U.S. 70 Business to Ash Street inside the city limits.

If this happens, it would mean that the US-70 Bypass designation in Goldsboro won't be going away once I-42 gets signed...

IMO, I don't think the change is needed. The only change I'd be in favor of is decommissioning US-70 Bypass once I-42 takes over.

It's also another indication that NCDOT is not in a hurry to post I-42 signs on the completed sections.

Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67

More than likely it is to appease the business owners along the old 70 bypass.

Changing the control city for US-70 West from La Grange to Goldsboro at the eastern end of the Goldsboro Bypass would do more for businesses on US-70 than changing US-70 to US-70 Business.

As it is now, Goldsboro, alongside Raleigh, is used as one of the control cities for US-70 Bypass West, essentially diverting Goldsboro-bound traffic away from Goldsboro. Smithfield should take Goldsboro's spot there.

Both are bones thrown at the businesses along the old bypass.  What actually is doing more for business is all the billboards along the highway and if any blue services signs are up.


As for the LaGrange/Goldsboro kerfuffle- most traffic along the bypass is thru traffic and most likely were already on US 70 heading east where the bypass begins just west of NC 581. A portion of travelers most likely did get on from 795. And at that Interchange signs along 795 South read Goldsboro.

I can argue that removing "bypass" from US 70 in Goldsboro is actually a step towards I-42.  I can't think of any "Bypass" US route signed along any current signed (not future) interstate in North Carolina.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: NE2 on February 24, 2017, 02:55:08 PM
I can argue that removing "bypass" from US 70 in Goldsboro is actually a step towards I-42.  I can't think of any "Bypass" US route signed along any current signed (not future) interstate in North Carolina.
US 21 Bypass on I-77 at Elkin. US 158 Bypass on I-85 at Henderson.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 24, 2017, 04:20:36 PM
I can argue that removing "bypass" from US 70 in Goldsboro is actually a step towards I-42.  I can't think of any "Bypass" US route signed along any current signed (not future) interstate in North Carolina.
US 21 Bypass on I-77 at Elkin. US 158 Bypass on I-85 at Henderson.

Thanks I am sure I had forgotten one or in this case two.  If I am not mistaken those bypasses date nearly 50 years. I don't think that having or not having a bypass is any sign that the state will or will not sign I-42.

North Carolina's more recent history shows that they will try to get an Interstate designation if it meets standards and connecting requirements. 
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 24, 2017, 06:31:52 PM
North Carolina's more recent history shows that they will try to get an Interstate designation if it meets standards and connecting requirements.

That's why I was puzzled when NCDOT didn't seek AASHTO/FHWA approval last November to put up I-42 shields on the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses since they meet interstate standards. NCDOT mentioned in their applications to AASHTO last year that they would send additional requests to add segments to the Interstate system as the corridor is upgraded.

But on the other hand, I can also understand waiting to have an interstate grade connection to I-40, or at least I-95.

From what I can tell based on reading the US-70 Corridor Commission meeting minutes and recent minutes of the Wayne County Board of Commissioners, there has been no local push for NCDOT to attempt to add either bypass to the Interstate system. Wayne County seems to be more focused on I-795's extension.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on February 26, 2017, 07:59:10 AM
Quote from: LM117
That's why I was puzzled when NCDOT didn't seek AASHTO/FHWA approval last November to put up I-42 shields on the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses since they meet interstate standards.

The bypasses as they currently stand do not meet FHWA criteria for "logical termini", at least not if the local FHWA office is paying attention to their own policies.  Except for I-95, there are no intermediate major road crossings or major points of interest that would serve as a logical termini.  You'd basically have to do this:

Designate Clayton bypass?  Extend Interstate-grade section to I-95
Designate Goldsboro bypass west of I-795?  Extend Interstate-grade section to I-95
Designate Goldsboro bypass east of I-795?  Extend Interstate-grade section to NC 148
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2017, 06:44:30 PM
Maybe they should wait until the entire corridor (142 miles) is an Interstate-compatible freeway before posting Interstate 42 signs. Same with 87 and 587.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on February 27, 2017, 07:52:09 PM
Maybe they should wait until the entire corridor (142 miles) is an Interstate-compatible freeway before posting Interstate 42 signs. Same with 87 and 587.

NCDOT will likely plaster all three corridors with "FUTURE" signs, whether with the shield format used for I-73/74 or smaller BGS's (isn't that an oxymoron?).  Otherwise, the US 70 corridor will likely need to be completed from I-40 to at least New Bern before it is posted with actual I-42 shields.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 27, 2017, 08:36:53 PM
Quote from: LM117
That's why I was puzzled when NCDOT didn't seek AASHTO/FHWA approval last November to put up I-42 shields on the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses since they meet interstate standards.

The bypasses as they currently stand do not meet FHWA criteria for "logical termini", at least not if the local FHWA office is paying attention to their own policies.  Except for I-95, there are no intermediate major road crossings or major points of interest that would serve as a logical termini.  You'd basically have to do this:

Designate Clayton bypass?  Extend Interstate-grade section to I-95
Designate Goldsboro bypass west of I-795?  Extend Interstate-grade section to I-95
Designate Goldsboro bypass east of I-795?  Extend Interstate-grade section to NC 148


But there are examples within the state that show otherwise.

1. I-74 ends at NC 41 East of I-95. 
2. I -74 ends at where Business/Alternate US 74 crosses I-74 near Maxton
3. I-73/74 fizzles out at US 220 southof Ellerbe and will inch along as the Rockingham Bypass continues construction

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 28, 2017, 09:31:53 AM
Maybe they should wait until the entire corridor (142 miles) is an Interstate-compatible freeway before posting Interstate 42 signs. Same with 87 and 587.

NCDOT will likely plaster all three corridors with "FUTURE" signs, whether with the shield format used for I-73/74 or smaller BGS's (isn't that an oxymoron?).  Otherwise, the US 70 corridor will likely need to be completed from I-40 to at least New Bern before it is posted with actual I-42 shields.

Future I-42 BGS signs were posted along the US-70 corridor last summer.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 28, 2017, 12:47:42 PM
Maybe they should wait until the entire corridor (142 miles) is an Interstate-compatible freeway before posting Interstate 42 signs. Same with 87 and 587.

NCDOT will likely plaster all three corridors with "FUTURE" signs, whether with the shield format used for I-73/74 or smaller BGS's (isn't that an oxymoron?).  Otherwise, the US 70 corridor will likely need to be completed from I-40 to at least New Bern before it is posted with actual I-42 shields.

Future I-42 BGS signs were posted along the US-70 corridor last summer.

There is a difference- they should actually be future interstate corridor signs similar to what was/is up for 73 and 74 in the state.

These 42 and 87 signs (and the 87 signs have only been posted by division 1 and not division 4) are only at County lines or for the Goldsboro Bypass at the start of freeway sections.  In fact the Future sign at the Wayne/Johnston line is on a non freeway section of 70. So it should be Future Corridor.

In contrast, Future 495 shields are after every exit on US 64. 

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on March 13, 2017, 11:42:33 AM
I might've spoke too soon. Looks like NCDOT finally realized that they screwed up with the control cities for US-70 West at the eastern end of the Goldsboro Bypass.

According to the minutes from the August 16 meeting of the Wayne County Board of Commissioners, it appears Goldsboro will be added as a control city for US-70 West. No timetable was given for the change, so it may or may not already be fixed by now.

http://www.waynegov.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/09062016-387 (http://www.waynegov.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/09062016-387)

Page 13:

Quote
Chairman Joe Daughtery stated the new US Highway 70 Goldsboro Bypass has new
billboards. The exit signs on US Highway 70 for LaGrange are being redesigned to include
this as an exit for Goldsboro.

According to the minutes from the February 21 meeting of the Wayne County Board of Commissioners, the signs have been changed...finally.

http://waynegov.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03072017-416 (http://waynegov.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03072017-416) 

From page 6:

Quote
Board of Commissioners Committee Reports and Comments

Commissioner Joe Daughtery stated the directional signs in LaGrange have been changed, reflecting the correct directions. He said he attended a good meeting with the North Carolina Legislative Delegation.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on March 14, 2017, 02:51:17 AM
I might've spoke too soon. Looks like NCDOT finally realized that they screwed up with the control cities for US-70 West at the eastern end of the Goldsboro Bypass.

According to the minutes from the August 16 meeting of the Wayne County Board of Commissioners, it appears Goldsboro will be added as a control city for US-70 West. No timetable was given for the change, so it may or may not already be fixed by now.

http://www.waynegov.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/09062016-387 (http://www.waynegov.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/09062016-387)

Page 13:

Quote
Chairman Joe Daughtery stated the new US Highway 70 Goldsboro Bypass has new
billboards. The exit signs on US Highway 70 for LaGrange are being redesigned to include
this as an exit for Goldsboro.

According to the minutes from the February 21 meeting of the Wayne County Board of Commissioners, the signs have been changed...finally.

http://waynegov.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03072017-416 (http://waynegov.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03072017-416) 

From page 6:

Quote
Board of Commissioners Committee Reports and Comments

Commissioner Joe Daughtery stated the directional signs in LaGrange have been changed, reflecting the correct directions. He said he attended a good meeting with the North Carolina Legislative Delegation.

I guess I am just getting to used to going through there, because I went through that area on Saturday (both directions) and I didn't even notice they were different. I guess I was too busy looking for troopers and not looking at the signs, LOL.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on March 14, 2017, 06:05:17 AM
I might've spoke too soon. Looks like NCDOT finally realized that they screwed up with the control cities for US-70 West at the eastern end of the Goldsboro Bypass.

According to the minutes from the August 16 meeting of the Wayne County Board of Commissioners, it appears Goldsboro will be added as a control city for US-70 West. No timetable was given for the change, so it may or may not already be fixed by now.

http://www.waynegov.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/09062016-387 (http://www.waynegov.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/09062016-387)

Page 13:

Quote
Chairman Joe Daughtery stated the new US Highway 70 Goldsboro Bypass has new
billboards. The exit signs on US Highway 70 for LaGrange are being redesigned to include
this as an exit for Goldsboro.

According to the minutes from the February 21 meeting of the Wayne County Board of Commissioners, the signs have been changed...finally.

http://waynegov.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03072017-416 (http://waynegov.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03072017-416) 

From page 6:

Quote
Board of Commissioners Committee Reports and Comments

Commissioner Joe Daughtery stated the directional signs in LaGrange have been changed, reflecting the correct directions. He said he attended a good meeting with the North Carolina Legislative Delegation.

I guess I am just getting to used to going through there, because I went through that area on Saturday (both directions) and I didn't even notice they were different. I guess I was too busy looking for troopers and not looking at the signs, LOL.

Brings back memories of me cruising I-795 during my last 2 years in high school (class of 2007) when I lived in Fremont. Granted, I was driving a 2005 Dodge Stratus and not a Mustang or Challenger, but I made do with what I had. :-D
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 06, 2017, 09:06:27 PM
The US-70 Corridor Commission has posted their minutes from the March 16 meeting, giving updates on various projects on US-70, as well as an update on CSX's future Carolina Connector terminal in Rocky Mount. The Commission has also approved a resolution to have US-70 in Wayne, Lenoir, and Craven counties designated as an Aerospace Corridor.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/March_16_Meeting_Minutes.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/March_16_Meeting_Minutes.pdf)

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 07, 2017, 06:58:20 PM
The US-70 Corridor Commission has posted their minutes from the March 16 meeting, giving updates on various projects on US-70, as well as an update on CSX's future Carolina Connector terminal in Rocky Mount. The Commission has also approved a resolution to have US-70 in Wayne, Lenoir, and Craven counties designated as an Aerospace Corridor.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/March_16_Meeting_Minutes.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/March_16_Meeting_Minutes.pdf)

On the list of upgrade projects, I had to look up these locations where replacement of at-grade intersections with interchanges are planned:

"Willie Beasley Road": this is the first at-grade intersection east of existing Lagrange Bypass freeway.

"Taberna Way": This an intersection southeast of James City, on the way to Havelock.

"Slocum gate": this is near the Cherry Point Marine Corps air station.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Mr. ENC on April 10, 2017, 08:21:46 AM
The US-70 Corridor Commission has posted their minutes from the March 16 meeting, giving updates on various projects on US-70, as well as an update on CSX's future Carolina Connector terminal in Rocky Mount. The Commission has also approved a resolution to have US-70 in Wayne, Lenoir, and Craven counties designated as an Aerospace Corridor.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/March_16_Meeting_Minutes.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/March_16_Meeting_Minutes.pdf)

On the list of upgrade projects, I had to look up these locations where replacement of at-grade intersections with interchanges are planned:

"Willie Beasley Road": this is the first at-grade intersection east of existing Lagrange Bypass freeway.

"Taberna Way": This an intersection southeast of James City, on the way to Havelock.

"Slocum gate": this is near the Cherry Point Marine Corps air station.

Actually the one in La Grange is called Willie Measly Road
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on April 10, 2017, 07:38:06 PM
The US-70 Corridor Commission has posted their minutes from the March 16 meeting, giving updates on various projects on US-70, as well as an update on CSX's future Carolina Connector terminal in Rocky Mount. The Commission has also approved a resolution to have US-70 in Wayne, Lenoir, and Craven counties designated as an Aerospace Corridor.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/March_16_Meeting_Minutes.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/March_16_Meeting_Minutes.pdf)

On the list of upgrade projects, I had to look up these locations where replacement of at-grade intersections with interchanges are planned:

"Willie Beasley Road": this is the first at-grade intersection east of existing Lagrange Bypass freeway.

"Taberna Way": This an intersection southeast of James City, on the way to Havelock.

"Slocum gate": this is near the Cherry Point Marine Corps air station.


Slocum Gate is what we call the "Back Gate" to get onboard MCAS Cherry Point. It leads directly back into staff (senior enlisted) housing, and has been a real traffic problem at the west end of Havelock for as long as I can remember. Actually this interchange has been in the planning stages for years. They started talking about it around the same time they were building a similar interchange on NC-24 down in Jacksonville for Camp Lejune, some 20 years ago or so. It was going to get built regardless of what NCDOT eventually planned to do with a Havelock Bypass or the designation of Future I-42. This interchange will be on what I am guessing will eventually be called US-70 Business and not on the freeway corridor that will eventually be I-42.


Taberna Way didn't even exist when I started with the 911 center 20 years ago, but when they built the Taberna subdivision they added this outlet to US-70. It is the only true outlet to 70 for the people that live there. Traffic isn't that bad there to be honest. But, there seems to be a high incidence of T-Bone crashes here from people running the red on US-70, (as well as the next light to the east [south] at Thurman Road). It's like once people leave James City heading east [south] towards Havelock they make up their mind that they aren't stopping unless they absolutely have to.


Oh and LM117, although I didn't get any pictures on Saturady I can confirm that yes, the BGS's on the Goldsboro Bypass westbound have been fixed, and mainline US-70 West through town now has Goldsboro instead of La Grange.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 11, 2017, 08:08:15 AM
Oh and LM117, although I didn't get any pictures on Saturady I can confirm that yes, the BGS's on the Goldsboro Bypass westbound have been fixed, and mainline US-70 West through town now has Goldsboro instead of La Grange.

Cool! Thanks for the heads up. :thumbsup:

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: PColumbus73 on April 11, 2017, 06:27:31 PM
Given the current and proposed Interstate network surrounding I-42, would a full direct interchange between I-42 & I-95 would be necessary? I think the only direct links between I-42 & I-95 needed would be NB to EB and WB to SB. For long distance traffic, all the other movements would be satisfied by I-40, Future I-87, and I-795. I think the existing interchange with I-95 and US 70 would be able to handle the rest of the traffic volume.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on April 12, 2017, 02:20:42 AM
Given the current and proposed Interstate network surrounding I-42, would a full direct interchange between I-42 & I-95 would be necessary? I think the only direct links between I-42 & I-95 needed would be NB to EB and WB to SB. For long distance traffic, all the other movements would be satisfied by I-40, Future I-87, and I-795. I think the existing interchange with I-95 and US 70 would be able to handle the rest of the traffic volume.

This interchange previously discussed in this thread: replies #6-8, #10-12, #93-94, #96, #103-104, #119-121, and #123; the coverage is quite exhaustive.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 11, 2017, 02:57:55 PM
Part of the Goldsboro Bypass between I-795 and US-13 has been designated as the John H. Kerr III Highway.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/06/11/john_h_kerr_iii_highway_named/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/06/11/john_h_kerr_iii_highway_named/)

Quote
The five-mile section of the U.S. 70 Goldsboro Bypass from the Interstate 795 interchange to U.S. 13 has been designated as the John H. Kerr III Highway by the N.C. Board of Transportation.

The late Kerr was one of the most powerful members of the state General Assembly and championed improvement to state infrastructure including the bypass and the I-795 designation (for a four-laned U.S. 117) between Goldsboro and Wilson.

The Wayne County Board of Commissioners first tried to have the road named in memory of Kerr shortly following his death in May 2015. However, road-naming criteria requires that a person be deceased for at least a year.

Commissioners submitted the resolution again this past February.

It was unanimously approved during the Transportation Board's June 1 session in Raleigh.

The resolution was read by board member Gus Tulloss of Rocky Mount who represents Division Four, which includes Wayne County.

Tulloss also made the motion to adopt the resolution.

"It was approved at the May meeting of the Road Naming Committee," Tulloss said. "Then it sets, and this is how it works with any resolution, for 30 days until the next board meeting. Then it is presented to the entire board. It was approved unanimously by the Road Naming Committee.

"We had representatives from the county and the city (of Goldsboro) to accept the resolution. We presented the resolution to (Mayor) Chuck Allen and (Commissioner) Wayne Aycock. It was an impressive ceremony."

Tulloss said he had known Kerr for "many, many, many years" when he was involved in state-level politics and was in Raleigh "quite a lot."

It was prior to his time on the transportation board, he said.

"I just admired him for so long," Tulloss said. "He was such a powerful legislator. He was just so committed to eastern North Carolina and particularly Wayne County, and so respected by everybody. But he was a doer. He would call you if he thought his area needed something, and he would go to bat for it."

More often than not, Kerr got what he wanted, he said.

"He was that well respected," Tulloss said. "I think everybody knew that he wasn't going just to be asking because he could and had the influence. We knew that everything that he did was for a purpose, and it was to help his area.

"He was a great guy and a good friend to everybody.

"Big John, he got it done. I was very proud to be able to be the one who presented it."

Kerr was first elected to the state House of Representatives in 1986, serving three terms before being elected to the state Senate, where he served from 1992 until 2008.

It adds that he focused attention on the need to increase eastern North Carolina's infrastructure, including water, sewer, natural gas and roads.

The resolution adds that Kerr "dedicated his life to his family, Madison Avenue Baptist Church, numerous boards, civic organizations and causes that touched the lives of the people and communities in North Carolina and especially in eastern North Carolina."

Signs noting the designation will be erected at a later date.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on June 11, 2017, 10:17:39 PM

I just got home from work. I've been chomping at the bit (a 12 hour shift never felt so long) to get out to Cove City to get this picture ever since my co-worker told me about the sign this morning. Well here it is, in Craven County on US-70 eastbound approximately 0.75 miles east of the Cove City overpass:

(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww34/slorydn1/Road%20Photos/20160624_183355_zpsv17zzxhn.jpg)


That little smudge of green off in the distance to the left of this sign is the 401 mile marker.

That sign was not there, even in blank form, when I went through there Tuesday evening. The only blank ones I had seen so far were on either side of the Lenior/Wayne County line on the new US-70 Bypass around Goldsboro.


For the first time in my short road geek picture taking career I actually pulled off the road and took the picture. I was really thinking that the picture would have come out better since I stopped the car, even with a smartphone camera. Asyou can see, I hoped wrong. I'm going to have to invest in a decent camera, I guess.






Interesting side note: All of these Future I-42 signs have now had the word INTERSTATE greened out. I know that the actual I-42 shield itself isn't supposed to have the word Interstate in the red but is there any stipulation about what can be on the green portion of the BGS itself?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 12, 2017, 07:33:14 AM

I just got home from work. I've been chomping at the bit (a 12 hour shift never felt so long) to get out to Cove City to get this picture ever since my co-worker told me about the sign this morning. Well here it is, in Craven County on US-70 eastbound approximately 0.75 miles east of the Cove City overpass:

(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww34/slorydn1/Road%20Photos/20160624_183355_zpsv17zzxhn.jpg)


That little smudge of green off in the distance to the left of this sign is the 401 mile marker.

That sign was not there, even in blank form, when I went through there Tuesday evening. The only blank ones I had seen so far were on either side of the Lenior/Wayne County line on the new US-70 Bypass around Goldsboro.


For the first time in my short road geek picture taking career I actually pulled off the road and took the picture. I was really thinking that the picture would have come out better since I stopped the car, even with a smartphone camera. Asyou can see, I hoped wrong. I'm going to have to invest in a decent camera, I guess.






Interesting side note: All of these Future I-42 signs have now had the word INTERSTATE greened out. I know that the actual I-42 shield itself isn't supposed to have the word Interstate in the red but is there any stipulation about what can be on the green portion of the BGS itself?

I'm not sure what the stipulation is, but as far as I know, the "Future" BGS with "Interstate" printed on the green section, as well as on the I-shield, where only done that way for I-42 and I-87. Some of the Future I-587 signs don't have "Interstate" printed on the BGS at all and some only have it printed on the I-shield, or at least the first BGS you see leaving Greenville on US-264 West.

My guess is that NCDOT realized that it seemed redundant to have "Interstate" printed twice on the same BGS, so that MAY have been why they greened it out, rather than replace the I-shields. Either way, I'm glad they did it. It always seemed silly to me since the I-shield already had the word in it.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 12, 2017, 07:39:15 AM
I just read an interesting tidbit from this morning's article in the Goldsboro News-Argus.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/02/21/council_approves_tiger_grant/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/02/21/council_approves_tiger_grant/)

Quote
During the regular meeting, the council approved:

* A N.C. Department of Transportation request to rename U.S. 70 to U.S. 70 Business and the existing U.S. 70 Business to Ash Street inside the city limits.

If this happens, it would mean that the US-70 Bypass designation in Goldsboro won't be going away once I-42 gets signed...

IMO, I don't think the change is needed. The only change I'd be in favor of is decommissioning US-70 Bypass once I-42 takes over.

I noticed in AASHTO's minutes from their recent spring meeting that NCDOT (thankfully) did not request this change.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 14, 2017, 01:40:18 PM
While the US-70 Corridor Commission has not yet posted their minutes from last month's meeting, they have posted the 13-page Director's Report for April & May, which gives some (albeit minor) updates regarding the Kinston and Havelock bypasses. There has been no mention of the I-42 designation itself, so they appear to be in no hurry for I-shields to start popping up in Clayton and Goldsboro.

https://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/Apr_May_2017%20Directors%20Report.pdf (https://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/Apr_May_2017%20Directors%20Report.pdf)

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 14, 2017, 04:09:45 PM
Of course the entire US 70 corridor has to be upgraded to freeway and Interstate Standards before the Interstate 42 designation will likely be added. How much of the corridor is currently at freeway/interstate standards?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 14, 2017, 06:53:11 PM
Of course the entire US 70 corridor has to be upgraded to freeway and Interstate Standards before the Interstate 42 designation will likely be added. How much of the corridor is currently at freeway/interstate standards?

Only the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses meet interstate standards. The small stretch in La Grange is freeway, but lacks wide outside shoulders. Same with the section between Dover and New Bern.

I seriously doubt that the entire corridor has to be brought up to interstate standards before I-42 can be signed on any part of it. I don't think NCDOT would have much of a problem getting approval to sign the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses as I-42. They connect to existing interstates and a US Route.

As Adam Prince alluded to in the past, it wouldn't be the first time NCDOT got approval to put I-shields on sections of interstate-grade freeways. Examples are I-73, I-74, and I-495 I-87.

NCDOT mentioned last year that they would seek I-shields for sections of US-70 as it's upgraded. My guess is either they were too busy with getting US-264 approved as Future I-587 and getting the I-495/I-87 mess straightened out first before focusing on I-42, or they want to wait until US-70 is upgraded to interstate standards between Clayton and I-95 or Goldsboro and I-95. If NCDOT does not seek I-42 shields during AASHTO's next meeting this fall, then it's probably the latter.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 23, 2017, 11:41:44 AM
Not sure how I missed it before, but I just stumbled across this March 3 article that gives NCDOT's response to the lawsuit filed against them by the Sierra Club regarding the Havelock Bypass.

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2017/03/03/ncdot-denies-it-acted-arbitrarily-in-finalizing.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2017/03/03/ncdot-denies-it-acted-arbitrarily-in-finalizing.html)

Quote
Two months after California environmental group The Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against both the N.C. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration over a planned 10-mile coastal highway, the state is responding to its accusers.

The state repeatedly denies that it acted “arbitrarily” when finalizing plans to construct the $221 million U.S. 70 Havelock Bypass, according to the response filed Friday by N.C. Attorney General Josh Stein on behalf of NCDOT.

The highway is planned to run from just north of Havelock to just north of the Craven-Carteret county line, and is expected to boost freight traffic coming in and out of the Morehead City Port. State officials have said the four-lane, median-divided freeway will allow truckers to avoid an area of U.S. 70 riddled with more than a dozen traffic signals.

The Sierra Club said in its January lawsuit that the highway will pave over rare forest habitats. The group has accused the government of acting “arbitrarily and capriciously,” both when preparing its environmental impact statement and when handing down what’s called a “ record of decision,” the last environmental hurdle for the project. And it asks that a court stop the highway’s construction.

In its response, NCDOT denies The Sierra Club’s claim that its draft environmental impact statement “was based on inadequate information or analysis.” And it also denies that additional studies were not considered when it decided to build the highway. The state asks that the plaintiffs be responsible for court costs, attorney’s fees and that their request to halt construction on the road be denied.

Regardless of the suit, NCDOT still has a ways to go before it starts construction. The bypass is expected to impact 16 residents, one business and one nonprofit – and right-of-way acquisitions are still ongoing.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 23, 2017, 04:15:36 PM
Does this mean future Interstate 42 will end in New Bern?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on June 23, 2017, 04:48:13 PM
Does this mean future Interstate 42 will end in New Bern?

Probably not, at least in the long run.  Serving the ports was the main raison d'etre of the corridor to begin with; if the Havelock bypass controversy is favorably resolved, the entire corridor will likely be built.  That being said, the portion west of New Bern will probably be completed before anything east of there, as much of it is done already or in more advanced planning stages -- and there is considerable political support from that area and the cities along US 70 for completing those segments.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 23, 2017, 05:58:18 PM
Does this mean future Interstate 42 will end in New Bern?

Not permanently, no.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 23, 2017, 06:55:13 PM
That being said, the portion west of New Bern will probably be completed before anything east of there, as much of it is done already or in more advanced planning stages -- and there is considerable political support from that area and the cities along US 70 for completing those segments.

Considering that traffic is usually heavier between Kinston and Clayton, it makes sense to focus west of New Bern. The biggest issues east of New Bern is James City and Havelock and once those have been upgraded/bypassed, it should be good to go until if/when NCDOT decides to make a move with the Northern Carteret Bypass.

And yeah, there is a lot of support from the cities/towns along the corridor and with good reason. US-70 has been woefully inadequate for years. The upgrades have been long overdue. I was in Goldsboro last September and the bypass there has been a godsend! US-70 through Goldsboro flows MUCH better and there were no more backups at the notorious US-70/Grantham Street interchange. I remember when westbound traffic used to back up from that interchange all the way to the William Street interchange.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 29, 2017, 03:51:19 PM
The project to upgrade US-70 to interstate standards between the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass and the Johnston County line has been accelerated under an updated draft 2018-2027 STIP.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14027 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14027)

Quote
Accelerated projects include:

Upgrading U.S. 70 to freeway standards from U.S. 70 Bypass to east of Luby Smith Road in Wayne County will begin in 2023 instead of 2026;
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on June 29, 2017, 04:06:05 PM
The project to upgrade US-70 to interstate standards between the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass and the Johnston County line has been accelerated under an updated draft 2018-2027 STIP.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14027 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14027)

Quote
Accelerated projects include:

Upgrading U.S. 70 to freeway standards from U.S. 70 Bypass to east of Luby Smith Road in Wayne County will begin in 2023 instead of 2026;

Along with the (slight) advancement of the Rockingham bypass mentioned in another thread, this advancement to the future I-42 corridor seems to indicate that the practice of applying numerical scores to projects (which tend to favor those in urban/commute situations at the expense of intercity/interregional corridors) is meeting with political opposition at the local level -- likely from those entities that initiated the corridors to begin with.  Not surprising -- once a project that is viewed as potentially benefiting a larger region has "speedbumps" placed in its path, those bumps tend to be bulldozed -- in this case, sooner than later!     
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Strider on June 29, 2017, 04:14:42 PM
Wow, Google Maps has I-42 signed on US 70 Goldsboro Bypass????
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on June 29, 2017, 04:33:26 PM
Wow, Google Maps has I-42 signed on US 70 Goldsboro Bypass????

OK, fine............wonder if it's the same party who signed I-587 & I-87 to Google Maps.  If gun jumping ever became an Olympic sport, this person would certainly sport a gold medal! :cool:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 29, 2017, 06:33:25 PM
More good news.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14030 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14030)

Quote
New projects include:

Constructing an interchange on U.S. 70 at Thurman Road in Craven County

Accelerated projects include:

U.S. 70 Kinston Bypass in Lenoir County moves up by one year, from 2025 to 2024
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 05, 2017, 04:55:24 PM
NCDOT will be holding a public meeting later this month to discuss upgrades to US-70 in Johnston County.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14041 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14041)

Quote
RALEIGH– The N.C. Department of Transportation will hold a public meeting on Friday, July 17, regarding proposed improvements along U.S. 70 between Swift Creek Road and Wilson’s Mill Road in Johnston County.

The project will convert U.S. 70 intersections with Swift Creek Road and Wilson’s Mill Road into interchanges. Access to properties along the highway will be provided by service roads that will be part of the project.

The meeting will take place at Wilson’s Mills Elementary School-Cafeteria, 4654 Wilson’s Mills Road, between 4 and 7 p.m.

NCDOT representatives will be available to answer questions and listen to comments regarding the project. The opportunity to submit written comments will also be provided at the meeting or via phone, email, or mail by July 31, 2017. Comments received will be taken into consideration as the project develops. Please note that no formal presentation will be made.

Anyone wanting additional information may contact Matt Clarke PE, NCDOT Project Engineer, at 509 Ward Blvd., PO Box 3165, Wilson, NC 27895, or (252) 640-6419, or wmclarke@ncdot.gov. Project information and materials can be viewed as they become available online at  http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/publicmeetings.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on July 05, 2017, 05:16:52 PM
So -- if I'm reading this correctly, this project upgrades the route segment between the Clayton bypass and the freeway section crossing I-95 to full Interstate standards.   
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 05, 2017, 06:30:35 PM
So -- if I'm reading this correctly, this project upgrades the route segment between the Clayton bypass and the freeway section crossing I-95 to full Interstate standards.   
No. It upgrades the Wilson's Mills Bypass section, but there remain several at-grade intersections and an inadequate westbound bridge over the Neuse River to be upgraded in later projects.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on July 06, 2017, 01:25:06 AM
So -- if I'm reading this correctly, this project upgrades the route segment between the Clayton bypass and the freeway section crossing I-95 to full Interstate standards.   
No. It upgrades the Wilson's Mills Bypass section, but there remain several at-grade intersections and an inadequate westbound bridge over the Neuse River to be upgraded in later projects.

Too bad -- the cited press release was a bit shy of details save the two planned interchanges (inclusion of the total project mileage would have helped!).  I guess this portion of I-42 will progress in bits and pieces rather than tackling large chunks of corridor at once. 
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: epzik8 on July 06, 2017, 03:42:40 AM
Is the I-42 corridor the current U.S. 264 corridor. I get that mixed up with 87/587.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 06, 2017, 07:57:55 AM
Is the I-42 corridor the current U.S. 264 corridor. I get that mixed up with 87/587.

No, I-42 is along US 70.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 06, 2017, 08:16:10 AM
Too bad -- the cited press release was a bit shy of details save the two planned interchanges (inclusion of the total project mileage would have helped!).  I guess this portion of I-42 will progress in bits and pieces rather than tackling large chunks of corridor at once.

Yep. Unless a big pile of cash falls into NCDOT's lap, that's the way it's gonna go. 2 interchanges are already being built in Johnston County near Pine Level at the US-70 Business intersection and at Davis Mill Road with a completion date of 1-21-2018.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 06, 2017, 06:12:10 PM
Therefore, it will be at least a couple decades before significant portions of Interstate 42 are completed. After all, money doesn't grow on trees (as we all know).
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 07, 2017, 08:23:09 AM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to resurface the Clayton Bypass.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14061 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14061)

Quote
RALEIGH— Johnston County drivers will encounter fewer bumps during their commutes on the U.S. 70 Bypass as a result of a $3.5 million contract awarded by the N.C. Department of Transportation.

The contract awarded to Fred Smith Company of Raleigh includes milling and resurfacing 9.6 miles of the U.S. 70 Bypass in each direction between Sadisco Road and the Wake County line. The project will also include each of the following ramps and loops, which amounts to an additional 5.2 miles:

Westbound U.S. 70 Bypass Exit 326A loop to U.S. 70 Business

Eastbound U.S. 70 Bypass Exit 326 loop to U.S. 70 Business

Westbound and Eastbound U.S. 70 Business Entrance Ramps to U.S. 70 Bypass

Westbound and Eastbound U.S. 70 Bypass Exit Ramps to Ranch Road

Westbound and Eastbound Ranch Road Entrance Ramps to U.S. 70 Bypass

Westbound and Eastbound U.S. 70 Bypass Exit Ramps to N.C. 42

Westbound and Eastbound N.C. 42 Entrance Ramps to U.S. 70 Bypass

Work on the project can begin April 2, 2018 and is expected to be complete by October 19, 2018.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 14, 2017, 04:43:43 PM
The US-70 Corridor Commission has posted their minutes from their previous May 18 meeting.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Meeting-Minutes-May_2017.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Meeting-Minutes-May_2017.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 14, 2017, 06:42:45 PM
The US-70 Corridor Commission has posted their minutes from their previous May 18 meeting.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Meeting-Minutes-May_2017.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Meeting-Minutes-May_2017.pdf)
Thanks for the link. There's been some skepticism in the Forum about whether I-42 would actually be built east of New Bern, but here we see the James City and Havelock sections both scheduled for construction by 2019.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 15, 2017, 04:55:12 PM
And thus, the (likely) slow march converting US 70-to-Interstate 42 would begin.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 15, 2017, 06:57:50 PM
Yesterday's article talking about the upcoming projects near Wilson's Mills.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article161514373.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article161514373.html)

Quote
WILSON’S MILLS
The N.C. Department of Transportation is taking away the main entrance to Double Barley Brewing in Johnston County. And the owners are thrilled.

Brewers Cheryl and Larry Lane will lose the driveway as part of a project prepping U.S. 70 Highway to become the future Interstate 42. Double Barley isn’t hard to find, but relies on directions like “the first left after the Family Dollar” to get people into the taproom. Now, Cheryl said, they can just name an exit.

“We’re definitely impacted, but we’re impacted in a good way,” Lane said of the changes. “70 is a very fast road and right now people have to turn off of it to get to us. For me as a business owner, it’s way better for me to say ‘exit blah blah blah’ so people know where to find us.”

The changes will take Wilson’s Mills from a two stoplight town to a no-stoplight town. DOT is taking the U.S. 70 intersections at Swift Creek Road and Wilson’s Mills Road and turning them into exits. For Swift Creek, a bridge will be built over the highway. At Wilson’s Mills Road, the more developed of the two, the highway will be shifted to the south and a bridge will be built over the road.

“One of the main goals of the project is to increase the safety along the corridor,” said DOT project manager Matt Clarke. “The easiest way to improve safety is to no longer have an intersection.”

This is a fast five-mile stretch of Highway 70, where the speed limit drops from 70 miles per hour to 55. Removing the stop lights and closing off the driveways and business entrances will cause headaches for some and a culture shift for many. Employees of contractor S.T. Wooten will now have to get to their facility by way of a to-be-constructed service road, turning what used to be a right turn into a four-mile excursion.

At the Wilson’s Mills intersection, Clarke said the highway was shifted to the south so it wouldn’t affect a group of businesses. That intersection has a Family Dollar, a Handy Mart gas station and a White Swan Barbeque. The new exit will one day be the route that drivers take to get to Double Barley Brewing.

“For me it’s a big bonus; it’s going to get people to us even faster,” Lane said. “It’s getting them to where they can find us. It’s going to put us more on the map.”

Aside from safety, Clarke said the project would improve mobility along the highway. In this case, mobility means getting those in the Triangle to the beach faster, which is one of the main drivers of the future Interstate 42.

Wilson’s Mills is enjoying some of the residential growth going on across Johnston County, but has seen little in the way of commercial projects. Taking away the stoplights could mean even less of a reason to stop in the small town, but Mayor Phillip Wright is optimistic.

“The intersections will help; Swift Creek is one of the most accident-prone intersections in Johnston County,” Wright said. “I just don’t know what the impact will be. I suspect time will tell. There’s been some commercial interest around Swift Creek.”

Town councilman Kenneth Jones will lose a fair chunk of land to make way for the highway changes, closing a car lot he leases to a business owner and cutting off a corner of a cow pasture. Jones says it’s the price of progress.

“It’s like anything else,” Jones said. “Progress is coming. I think it’s a good thing for Wilson’s Mills. If I’m going to be on the board, I’ve got to look at in a positive manner because it’s best for the town.”

Like the mayor, Jones hopes developers will see opportunity in building near the future exits, pointing out more than 400 acres north and south of the highway.

“That could be a win-win for the town,” Jones said. “Some of that could be developed as commercial, but a large portion would be for homes. ... Anything in Johnston County, if you can put in one tract of land that’s 100 acres-plus, you’ve got something to deal with. That can be asset to a builder for commercial or residential.”

Construction costs for the project will run around $31 million, Clarke said, and that $7.8 million had been set aside for right of way acquisition. Clarke said DOT will start buying land and easements this October and that construction is slated to begin in October of 2019 and take 24 months.

This will just about do it for stoplights on 70 in Johnston County and Wayne County, one of the chief obstacles for eastern-bound beach goers. Clarke said two lights will remain in Princeton for now and that another is already on the chopping block near Pine Level.

A public meeting on the Wilson’s Mills projects will be held Monday, July 17, at Wilson’s Mills Elementary School from 4 to 7 p.m. DOT engineers will be on hand to answer questions about the conversions of intersections to exits, but no formal presentation will be made.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on July 16, 2017, 12:37:52 AM
If the attitudes of the folks being impacted by the I-42 development are indicative of those within the state in general (the denser cities notwithstanding), it's quite easy to see how NCDOT and the internal jurisdictions within the state are able to plan and develop new Interstate corridors with relative ease.  Whether those attitudes reflect a deferential/compliant norm or a genuine feeling that highway enhancement does provide palpable public benefits is something possibly TBD at some point in time.  OTOH, the difficulties -- and corresponding delays -- encountered with the I-26 extension/realignment in Asheville may just illustrate that even in a state demonstrably favorable to Interstate construction in general, attempting to do so in a larger city encounters the criticisms and obstacles found elsewhere!   
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 16, 2017, 10:13:29 AM
If the attitudes of the folks being impacted by the I-42 development are indicative of those within the state in general (the denser cities notwithstanding), it's quite easy to see how NCDOT and the internal jurisdictions within the state are able to plan and develop new Interstate corridors with relative ease.  Whether those attitudes reflect a deferential/compliant norm or a genuine feeling that highway enhancement does provide palpable public benefits is something possibly TBD at some point in time.  OTOH, the difficulties -- and corresponding delays -- encountered with the I-26 extension/realignment in Asheville may just illustrate that even in a state demonstrably favorable to Interstate construction in general, attempting to do so in a larger city encounters the criticisms and obstacles found elsewhere!

The culture difference between Havelock and Asheville couldn't be more different.  Havelock's population works with the U.S. Military and are transit, thus would see the benefit in an Interstate in the area.  Asheville has a lot of hipsters and tree huggers, who believe any progress must be fought to protect the charm of the city.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 16, 2017, 10:39:38 AM
If the attitudes of the folks being impacted by the I-42 development are indicative of those within the state in general (the denser cities notwithstanding), it's quite easy to see how NCDOT and the internal jurisdictions within the state are able to plan and develop new Interstate corridors with relative ease.  Whether those attitudes reflect a deferential/compliant norm or a genuine feeling that highway enhancement does provide palpable public benefits is something possibly TBD at some point in time.  OTOH, the difficulties -- and corresponding delays -- encountered with the I-26 extension/realignment in Asheville may just illustrate that even in a state demonstrably favorable to Interstate construction in general, attempting to do so in a larger city encounters the criticisms and obstacles found elsewhere!

The culture difference between Havelock and Asheville couldn't be more different.  Havelock's population works with the U.S. Military and are transit, thus would see the benefit in an Interstate in the area.  Asheville has a lot of hipsters and tree huggers, who believe any progress must be fought to protect the charm of the city.

I've heard people refer to Asheville as a "mini San Francisco".
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 16, 2017, 10:46:30 AM
If the attitudes of the folks being impacted by the I-42 development are indicative of those within the state in general (the denser cities notwithstanding), it's quite easy to see how NCDOT and the internal jurisdictions within the state are able to plan and develop new Interstate corridors with relative ease.  Whether those attitudes reflect a deferential/compliant norm or a genuine feeling that highway enhancement does provide palpable public benefits is something possibly TBD at some point in time.

I think the majority of I-42's support from locals is is due to the fact that the business owners and local leaders commute on US-70 themselves and know firsthand how dangerous the road is and that leaving it as-is is not acceptable anymore, from both an economic and safety standpoint. I remember right after I-795 was built, several people in Goldsboro used I-795 & US-264 as an alternate route to Raleigh just to avoid US-70. More mileage, but a lot safer. There were concerns in Goldsboro from businesses since they would be bypassed entirely, but they never fully objected to the bypass since, as mentioned earlier, they commute on US-70 themselves and know that US-70 was parking lot, particularly at the US-70/Grantham Street interchange, which was famous for it's backups. Everybody knew that bypass was desperately needed.

The only opposition I-42 seems to be getting is from the envrionmentalists near the coast. The Sierra Club has already filed a lawsuit against NCDOT to try to stop the Havelock Bypass from being built. I can only imagine their reaction if/when NCDOT decides to bring up the idea of the Northern Carteret Bypass again, which would cut through much more land than the Havelock Bypass.

What blows my mind is that US-64 and US-264 were made freeways first while US-70, which carries much more traffic than 64/264, remained mostly an expressway with numerous at-grades and traffic lights. US-70's upgrade has been loooong overdue. If there was ever a corridor in eastern NC that warranted becoming an interstate, it's US-70, with US-117 (Future I-795) being a close second.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 16, 2017, 09:00:35 PM
I went to NCDOT's US-70 Corridor page and found the map of future & ongoing projects and what's left to be done before the entire corridor becomes I-42. Note that while the sections in La Grange and between Dover and New Bern are marked as existing freeways, they do not meet interstate standards due to the lack of 10ft. outside shoulders.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US70corridor/download/US70Corridor_Map.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US70corridor/download/US70Corridor_Map.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on July 17, 2017, 06:36:43 AM
I went to NCDOT's US-70 Corridor page and found the map of future & ongoing projects and what's left to be done before the entire corridor becomes I-42. Note that while the sections in La Grange and between Dover and New Bern are marked as existing freeways, they do not meet interstate standards due to the lack of 10ft. outside shoulders.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US70corridor/download/US70Corridor_Map.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US70corridor/download/US70Corridor_Map.pdf)

Which means that since they're functioning freeways -- and the upgrades would simply be to satisfy current Interstate criteria -- they'll be among the last segments to be addressed.  At least the sections that will pose the most difficulty and expense (Wilsons Mills, Kinston bypass, Havelock bypass) are "front-loaded" within the overall plan; probably the most effective way to expedite the entire corridor (save the less costly projects, with less inflationary impact, for last). 
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 17, 2017, 11:22:49 AM
I went to NCDOT's US-70 Corridor page and found the map of future & ongoing projects and what's left to be done before the entire corridor becomes I-42. Note that while the sections in La Grange and between Dover and New Bern are marked as existing freeways, they do not meet interstate standards due to the lack of 10ft. outside shoulders.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US70corridor/download/US70Corridor_Map.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US70corridor/download/US70Corridor_Map.pdf)

Which means that since they're functioning freeways -- and the upgrades would simply be to satisfy current Interstate criteria -- they'll be among the last segments to be addressed.  At least the sections that will pose the most difficulty and expense (Wilsons Mills, Kinston bypass, Havelock bypass) are "front-loaded" within the overall plan; probably the most effective way to expedite the entire corridor (save the less costly projects, with less inflationary impact, for last).

Agreed. The one thing that puzzles me is that NCDOT repaved the US-70 freeway in La Grange last year, as well as reconstruct the shoulders (Google Streetview updated to show it), but they did not widen the outside shoulders to interstate standards. It would've made sense IMO to do so while they were working on it at the time. :hmm:

Something that stood out to me on the map is that the Northern Carteret Bypass is no longer shown.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on July 17, 2017, 09:56:13 PM
The one thing that puzzles me is that NCDOT repaved the US-70 freeway in La Grange last year, as well as reconstruct the shoulders (Google Streetview updated to show it), but they did not widen the outside shoulders to interstate standards. It would've made sense IMO to do so while they were working on it at the time. :hmm:

If NCDOT is anything like Caltrans, the reconstruction project mentioned was likely planned several years in advance -- well before the I-42 designation activity.  The parameters probably specified simple "in place" criteria that didn't include widening to 10 feet.  Districts & contractors tend to view the "brief" as more or less set in stone; they'll do the work called for -- period.  It would be nice if a newer set of parameters, such as the shoulder widening, could be incorporated in a pre-existing contract, but normally it doesn't work that way -- the widening would have to come later under separate cover.  Often it ends up that a job with this sort of scenario ends up being done at least twice -- but most contractors would consider that "gravy" -- or at least job security! 
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 17, 2017, 10:27:35 PM
The one thing that puzzles me is that NCDOT repaved the US-70 freeway in La Grange last year, as well as reconstruct the shoulders (Google Streetview updated to show it), but they did not widen the outside shoulders to interstate standards. It would've made sense IMO to do so while they were working on it at the time. :hmm:

If NCDOT is anything like Caltrans, the reconstruction project mentioned was likely planned several years in advance -- well before the I-42 designation activity.  The parameters probably specified simple "in place" criteria that didn't include widening to 10 feet.  Districts & contractors tend to view the "brief" as more or less set in stone; they'll do the work called for -- period.  It would be nice if a newer set of parameters, such as the shoulder widening, could be incorporated in a pre-existing contract, but normally it doesn't work that way -- the widening would have to come later under separate cover.  Often it ends up that a job with this sort of scenario ends up being done at least twice -- but most contractors would consider that "gravy" -- or at least job security!

What misled me into thinking NCDOT was going to widen the shoulders to interstate standards was this tidbit from their June 7, 2016 press release announcing the project:

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12609 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12609)

Quote
Milling and resurfacing improves both traction and ride quality on the road, which is especially important during rainy and snowy weather. Shoulder reconstruction provides motorists with a refuge area in case of an emergency.

...yet the new shoulders are only slightly wider than what they were to begin with. If you pull over, at least half of your vehicle would still end up in the grass.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on July 18, 2017, 04:40:40 PM
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12609 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12609)

Quote
Milling and resurfacing improves both traction and ride quality on the road, which is especially important during rainy and snowy weather. Shoulder reconstruction provides motorists with a refuge area in case of an emergency.

...yet the new shoulders are only slightly wider than what they were to begin with. If you pull over, at least half of your vehicle would still end up in the grass.

I suppose with narrow shoulders abutting a grassy area the thought is that at least two tires (L, front/rear) are still on the pavement, allowing a measure of traction when pulling back into the traffic lane (a quasi-analog of taking only 2 tires on a pit stop!).  Since grass -- at least when damp -- is pretty slippery, this is a questionable concept that might result in a clumsy road re-entry as right side tires slip.  I remember driving on US 78 in MS prior to the I-22 designation; their shoulders (since paved) were graded earth but wide enough to accommodate a passenger vehicle or small pickup (they looked like 10' wide but could have been marginally less); some consistent traction would be available for those pulling off & on the roadway.  Luckily, I never had to test that prospect on that stretch of highway.  But at least they were functional shoulders!
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 18, 2017, 05:21:36 PM
I suppose with narrow shoulders abutting a grassy area the thought is that at least two tires (L, front/rear) are still on the pavement, allowing a measure of traction when pulling back into the traffic lane (a quasi-analog of taking only 2 tires on a pit stop!).  Since grass -- at least when damp -- is pretty slippery, this is a questionable concept that might result in a clumsy road re-entry as right side tires slip.  I remember driving on US 78 in MS prior to the I-22 designation; their shoulders (since paved) were graded earth but wide enough to accommodate a passenger vehicle or small pickup (they looked like 10' wide but could have been marginally less); some consistent traction would be available for those pulling off & on the roadway.  Luckily, I never had to test that prospect on that stretch of highway.  But at least they were functional shoulders!

I had the misfortune of having to test out the narrow shoulders on US-264 near Zebulon last year on my way to Wilson and I hope the day I use them again never comes. No graded earth. Just grass. It wasn't fun trying to merge back into 70+ mph traffic, never mind that hellacious bump going from pavement to grass and vice-versa. You can slow down all you want, but you're still going to feel that bump.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Rothman on July 23, 2017, 11:28:54 AM
So...is I-42 signed out by Goldsboro or is Google Maps just sucking again?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: dfilpus on July 23, 2017, 12:20:29 PM
So...is I-42 signed out by Goldsboro or is Google Maps just sucking again?
Both, US 70 Bypass has Future I-42 signs, but is not fully signed, so Google Maps is jumping the gun.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Rothman on July 23, 2017, 05:33:04 PM
So...is I-42 signed out by Goldsboro or is Google Maps just sucking again?
Both, US 70 Bypass has Future I-42 signs, but is not fully signed, so Google Maps is jumping the gun.
That is what I suspected.  Thanks much.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 13, 2017, 02:28:53 AM
According to this article, upgrading US-70 to interstate standards between the Goldsboro Bypass and Princeton will be done in two phases.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/08/13/road_improvement_projects_included_in_states_10year_budget/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/08/13/road_improvement_projects_included_in_states_10year_budget/)

Quote
Also in the plan, U.S. 70 would be upgraded to freeway standards from the west end of the U.S. 70 Bypass to the Wayne-Johnston county line by eliminating at-grade intersections and driveway connections.

The $130.5 million project to bring U.S. 70 up to freeway standards would be completed in two phases.

The first would be for the section of highway from the U.S. 70 Bypass to west of Lube Smith Road. Right of way would start in 2023 and construction in 2024, 2025 and 2026.

The second phase would be from west of Lube Smith Road to east of Pondfield Road. The second phase is unfunded for future years past 2027.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 21, 2017, 07:58:56 PM
While the minutes from last month's meeting have not yet been posted, the US-70 Corridor Commission did post the Director's Report for June & July. The Havelock Bypass is still tied up in negotiations due to the lawsuit filed by the SELC last December. The let date for upgrading US-70 to interstate standards in James City has been moved up from 2021 to 2019 with no opposition from the locals. The Kinston Bypass is apparently being designed to be raised above the flood area that was hit by Hurricane Matthew and the draft Environmental Impact Statement is planned for early 2018. The planned projects on US-70 near Wilson's Mills got a lot of support during the public meeting on July 17 with Right of Way beginning next year.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/June_July_2017-Directors-Report.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/June_July_2017-Directors-Report.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 23, 2017, 06:02:06 PM
Construction coming to US-70 in Lenoir and Jones counties.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14270 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14270)

Quote
GREENVILLE – The N.C. Department of Transportation has awarded a $6.5 million contract to mill, resurface and reconstruct shoulders on more than 11 miles of roadway in Lenoir and Jones Counties.

The contract awarded to Barnhill Contracting Company of Rocky Mount includes improvements to four sections of U.S. 70 between Mt. Vernon Park Drive in Kinston and Dover Road in Jones County.

Milling and resurfacing improves both traction and ride quality on the road, which is especially important during rainy and snowy weather. Shoulder reconstruction provides motorists with a refuge area in case of an emergency.

Work on this project is scheduled to begin as soon as Sept. 25, and is scheduled to be completed by Dec. 30, 2018. Some lane closures will be needed but no detours are proposed at this time.

Despite what NCDOT says about the shoulder reconstruction providing a place to pull over in an emergency, I wouldn't count on the shoulders being widened. They made the same claim when they did the same project between La Grange and Kinston last year and yet the shoulders are still narrow. So much for the "refuge area"...
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 26, 2017, 01:38:42 PM
For those interested, I found the most recent crash summary posted by the US-70 Corridor Commission, which covers 2014-2016. It also provides AADT info.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/US-70-Corridor-2014-2016-Crash-Data.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/US-70-Corridor-2014-2016-Crash-Data.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Henry on August 29, 2017, 09:42:12 AM
Similar to what they did with I-87 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.250), the same thing is now happening to I-42. Apparently, Google Maps has been hacked!

(http://imgur.com/uN2H1ca.jpg)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 29, 2017, 01:02:00 PM
Similar to what they did with I-87 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.250), the same thing is now happening to I-42. Apparently, Google Maps has been hacked!

(http://imgur.com/uN2H1ca.jpg)

It's been like that for a while. It's probably some idiot that doesn't know what the word "future" means. Google is quick to put out false information but slow as hell correcting it. :banghead:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on September 19, 2017, 09:53:51 AM
Update on the Gallants Channel Bridge project.

http://publicradioeast.org/post/gallants-channel-bridge-beaufort-nears-completion (http://publicradioeast.org/post/gallants-channel-bridge-beaufort-nears-completion)

Quote
The 65 foot, high-rise bridge is on track to open this fall, at least partially. Senior Assistant Resident Engineer for the State Department of Transportation Rhett Gerald says the span over Gallants Channel will open for a two lane, two way traffic pattern while crews finish construction.

“We’ll have traffic in that phase for probably about four or five months, and then we’ll have the complete project finished and that includes the Turner Street bridge and have traffic in a four lane pattern.”

Currently, DOT crews are working on the architectural rail for the Turner Street bridge and completing the tie-ins on the west and east portions of the project. The 66.4 million dollar Gallants Channel bridge replacement has experienced some minor setbacks since construction started in early 2014, pushing completion back a couple of months. The entire project, which includes the removal of the old bridge and final traffic patterns is slated for early 2019.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on October 10, 2017, 08:58:50 PM
According to AASHTO's minutes from their recent fall meeting, NCDOT did not request I-42 shields for the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on October 19, 2017, 03:00:53 AM
Part of the Goldsboro Bypass has been named the John H. Kerr III Highway.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/10/18/governor_to_attend_naming_ceremony/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/10/18/governor_to_attend_naming_ceremony/)

Quote
A ceremony dedicating a section of the U.S. 70 Goldsboro Bypass as the John H. Kerr III Highway will be held at 11 a.m. Friday, Nov. 3.

Gov. Roy Cooper is expected to attend the ceremony to be held in Courtroom No. 1 in the Wayne County Courthouse.

Kerr's sons, John H. Kerr IV and James Y. Kerr II, will speak.

Wayne County Commissioner Wayne Aycock will speak on behalf of the county.

The 5-mile section of bypass to be dedicated in memory of Kerr stretches from the highway's interchange with Interstate 795 to U.S. 13.

The ceremony was announced Tuesday morning during the commissioners' meeting.

The late Kerr, one of the most powerful members of the state General Assembly, championed improvements to state infrastructure including the bypass and the I-795 designation for a four-lane U.S. 117 between Goldsboro and Wilson.

Gus Tulloss of Rocky Mount, who represents District Four on the state Board of Transportation, made the motion in June to name the section in memory of Kerr.

The DOT Board unanimously approved the motion.

Born in Warrenton, Kerr was a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, president of the junior class, treasurer of the student body and president of the Order of the Grail.

After receiving his bachelor's degree, Kerr attended the University of North Carolina Law School, receiving a law degree with honors in 1961.

He was first elected to the state House of Representatives in 1986, serving three terms before being elected to the state Senate, where he served from 1992 until 2008.

In their resolution to the state seeking the designation, commissioners praised Kerr for his dedication on focusing attention on the need to bolster eastern North Carolina's infrastructure -- including the need for improvements for water, sewer, natural gas and roads.

The resolution added that Kerr dedicated his life to his family, Madison Avenue Baptist Church, numerous boards, civic organizations -- causes that touched the lives of the people and communities in North Carolina and especially in eastern North Carolina.

Kerr received the Order of the Long Leaf Pine, the state's highest civilian honor, and a plaque of appreciation from the N.C. Rural Economic Development Center for his leadership in providing financial assistance on water and sewer projects for struggling communities across the state.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on October 23, 2017, 03:42:40 PM
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 (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Meeting-Minutes-July_2017.pdf)

The director's report for August & September has also been posted, which also includes an updated map of the projects along US-70.

Apparently, there have been concerns/complaints from business owners because of the reduced weight limits for trucks that will go into effect once US-70 begins to be added to the Interstate system as I-42.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Aug_Sept_2017-Directors-Report.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Aug_Sept_2017-Directors-Report.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on October 24, 2017, 08:22:38 AM
^ So do they want an Interstate or do they want to run too-heavy trucks?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on October 24, 2017, 08:37:31 AM
^ So do they want an Interstate or do they want to run too-heavy trucks?

Both. From the looks of it, I would expect some effort by the Commission to get the local Congressional delegation to introduce a bill in Congress to allow the heavy trucks to continue using I-42, similar to what Wisconsin pushed through for I-41. This may also explain why the Commission hasn't (yet) pressed for I-42 to be signed in Clayton and Goldsboro the way Raleigh had for I-87.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on November 03, 2017, 04:45:33 PM
A new interchange at the former US-70/US-70 Business intersection east of Smithfield will open to traffic this Monday. An aerial view of the interchange can be seen on the webpage.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14561 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14561)

Quote
Beginning next week, travelers on U.S. 70 east of Smithfield will encounter changes that improve the safety and flow of traffic.

The N.C. Department of Transportation plans to open by Monday, Nov. 6, a new interchange and overpass where U.S. 70 and U.S. 70 Business once intersected. With its construction, traffic on the two-lane road will cross over the main highway, allowing motorists to enter or exit U.S. 70 via new ramps.

Once the new interchange is open, contract crews will close the median crossover at nearby Firetower Road. Eliminating the crossover will require motorists on Firetower Road to turn right onto the highway, or to use the new interchange to go in the other direction toward Smithfield.

More improvements are coming over the next month along the same two-mile stretch of U.S. 70. Crews with Flatiron Constructors Inc. of Broomfield, Colo., are also building an interchange with an overpass and ramps at the highway’s intersection with Davis Mill Road/Stevens Chapel Road.

After the Davis Mill/Stevens Chapel interchange opens the middle of this month, NCDOT will close two crossover medians between the two new interchanges: One location is at Pine Street, and the other is the Peedin Road/Creeches Mill Road intersection at U.S. 70. Closing the crossover medians will improve safety by reducing the risk of collisions.

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. Motorists on the side streets now have to stop and wait for traffic to clear. The $16.7 million project began in 2015 and is scheduled to be completed by February 2018.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 03, 2017, 06:24:13 PM
A new interchange at the former US-70/US-70 Business intersection east of Smithfield will open to traffic this Monday. An aerial view of the interchange can be seen on the webpage.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14561 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14561)

Quote
Beginning next week, travelers on U.S. 70 east of Smithfield will encounter changes that improve the safety and flow of traffic.

The N.C. Department of Transportation plans to open by Monday, Nov. 6, a new interchange and overpass where U.S. 70 and U.S. 70 Business once intersected. With its construction, traffic on the two-lane road will cross over the main highway, allowing motorists to enter or exit U.S. 70 via new ramps.

Once the new interchange is open, contract crews will close the median crossover at nearby Firetower Road. Eliminating the crossover will require motorists on Firetower Road to turn right onto the highway, or to use the new interchange to go in the other direction toward Smithfield.

More improvements are coming over the next month along the same two-mile stretch of U.S. 70. Crews with Flatiron Constructors Inc. of Broomfield, Colo., are also building an interchange with an overpass and ramps at the highway’s intersection with Davis Mill Road/Stevens Chapel Road.

After the Davis Mill/Stevens Chapel interchange opens the middle of this month, NCDOT will close two crossover medians between the two new interchanges: One location is at Pine Street, and the other is the Peedin Road/Creeches Mill Road intersection at U.S. 70. Closing the crossover medians will improve safety by reducing the risk of collisions.

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. Motorists on the side streets now have to stop and wait for traffic to clear. The $16.7 million project began in 2015 and is scheduled to be completed by February 2018.
This is a significant improvement to US 70, but it does not bring this section of highway up to interstate standard. The project was planned well before the decision to upgrade US 70 to I-42. Three at-grade intersections will remain on this section; left turns will be prevented but there will still be right turning vehicles. So further construction will be needed here in the future.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on November 03, 2017, 06:36:22 PM
A new interchange at the former US-70/US-70 Business intersection east of Smithfield will open to traffic this Monday. An aerial view of the interchange can be seen on the webpage.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14561 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14561)
This is a significant improvement to US 70, but it does not bring this section of highway up to interstate standard. The project was planned well before the decision to upgrade US 70 to I-42. Three at-grade intersections will remain on this section; left turns will be prevented but there will still be right turning vehicles. So further construction will be needed here in the future.

It's likely a temporary safety measure until NCDOT gets around to the full freeway conversion on the scale that they're planning for the stretch between the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass and the Johnston County line.

But yes, it's still a much needed improvement compared to what it was before.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on November 17, 2017, 08:51:39 AM
NCDOT will be hosting an upcoming public meeting on December 7 in Princeton to discuss upgrading US-70 to interstate standards between the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass and Holts Lake just west of Princeton.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/11/17/hearing_to_look_at_us_70_project/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/11/17/hearing_to_look_at_us_70_project/)

Quote
A $130.5 million project to bring U.S. 70 up to freeway standards will be the subject of a Dec. 7, public meeting at Grace Baptist Church in Princeton. The time has not yet been announced.

The plan calls for U.S. 70 to be upgraded from the west end of the new U.S. 70 Bypass to Holts Lake in Johnston County by eliminating at-grade intersections and driveway connections.

Jiles Harrell, N.C. Department of Transportation District 3 engineer, provided an update on that project and several others Wednesday during the Wayne County Transportation Committee meeting at the Goldsboro Event Center.

"What we are going to do (at the meeting), we will show the overall plan, what we are looking to do on that piece of the (U.S. 70) corridor," Harrell said. "At certain interchanges, strategic places, we may have some alternates that need to be considered.

"So we are seeking public opinion on those alternates. We have a couple of interchange alternatives that we are going to look at for Princeton itself, and then they will get to see where we are proposing to have an additional interchange between the end of the bypass and Princeton."

Maps at the meeting also will show service road tie-ins, Harrell said.

"It is going to be fully controlled access," he said. "It will be up to Interstate standards when we do that project. We hope to be moving toward construction in 2022 providing we can get everything straightened out and together."

Comments from the public will be used as the state moves forward with design, Harrell said.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on November 27, 2017, 12:17:45 PM
NCDOT will be hosting an upcoming public meeting on December 7 in Princeton to discuss upgrading US-70 to interstate standards between the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass and Holts Lake just west of Princeton.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/11/17/hearing_to_look_at_us_70_project/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/11/17/hearing_to_look_at_us_70_project/)

The timing of this meeting has been announced.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14615 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14615)

Quote
GOLDSBORO – State transportation officials are seeking public comment on plans for upgrading sections of U.S. 70 in Wayne and Johnston Counties into interstate standards.

The N.C. Department of Transportation will hold an informal open house from 4 to 7 p.m. on Thursday, Dec. 7, at Grace Baptist Church at 220 Barden St. in Princeton, where the public may learn more about the $130.5 million proposed project and offer comments.

The 6.7-mile section of U.S. 70 that would be improved is between the U.S. 70 Goldsboro Bypass in Wayne County and west of Pondfield Road in Johnston County. The project would potentially include three new interchanges with overpasses and ramps, as well as new service roads. More information as it becomes available will be posted on the NCDOT website.

The deadline to submit comments is Jan. 8, 2018.

To send comments, or seek additional information about the proposed project, the public may contact Debbie Barbour, a consultant project engineer, at Debbie.Barbour@kisingercampo.com or 919-882-7839, ext. 5101; or Matt Clarke, NCDOT project engineer for Division 4, at wmclarke@ncdot.gov, P.O. Box 3165, Wilson N.C., 27895 or 252-640-6419.

Here are the maps:

https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R-5829AB_WayneCountyMapArea.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R-5829AB_WayneCountyMapArea.pdf)

https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R-5829AB_EastPrinceton-DrDonnieJonesEastMap.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R-5829AB_EastPrinceton-DrDonnieJonesEastMap.pdf)

https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R-5829AB_WestPrinceton-DrDonnieJonesWestMap.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R-5829AB_WestPrinceton-DrDonnieJonesWestMap.pdf)

https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R-5829AB_WestPrinceton-US70-AInterchangeMap.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R-5829AB_WestPrinceton-US70-AInterchangeMap.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on November 27, 2017, 05:18:17 PM
So, no upgrading from Princeton westward for now...?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 27, 2017, 06:42:24 PM
So, no upgrading from Princeton westward for now...?
Expect a hearing on that section in the not-too-distant future.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on November 27, 2017, 06:49:26 PM
So, no upgrading from Princeton westward for now...?

Not yet. But on the flipside, an interchange at Davis Mill Road near Pine Level should be opening anytime and there are two more interchange projects lined up near Wilsons Mills at Swift Creek Road and Wilsons Mills Road. 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.

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on November 27, 2017, 06:53:35 PM
So, no upgrading from Princeton westward for now...?
Expect a hearing on that section in the not-too-distant future.

I agree. NCDOT has been very eager to get US-70 upgraded between Goldsboro and the Clayton Bypass. The aformentioned US-70 interstate upgrade project was originally supposed to end at the Wayne/Johnston county line, but that's obviously changed. I'm definitely not complaining.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on November 27, 2017, 11:32:09 PM
So, no upgrading from Princeton westward for now...?

Not yet. But on the flipside, an interchange at Davis Mill Road near Pine Level should be opening anytime and there are two more interchange projects lined up near Wilsons Mills at Swift Creek Road and Wilsons Mills Road. 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.

The Davis Mill interchange was open when I drove through there over the Thanksgiving holiday. I did note that some of the ramps on those two new interchanges have speeds posted at 15mph, which seems rather tight and probably doesn't meet interstate standards.

After the projects you mention, Willie Measley/Jim Sutton will be the lone stoplight left between I-40 and (I think) Newport that is not being addressed by one of the three already-programmed major bypass projects, in Kinston, James City, and Havelock. I have to imagine there will be a great deal of pressure to expedite the interchange there (STIP ID#: R-5813).

On the flip side, once the stoplights are gone and the bypasses are built, I expect the grunt work to upgrade the corridor to a full interstate will move very slowly. Upgrading shoulders isn't likely to be controversial, but removing driveways and building service roads where needed will be expensive and painful with lots of impacts to businesses and property. This will test NCDOT's mettle; are they really serious about making this an interstate, or will they lose their motivation once we have a "Future Interstate" with no stoplights?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on November 28, 2017, 05:15:56 AM
The Davis Mill interchange was open when I drove through there over the Thanksgiving holiday. I did note that some of the ramps on those two new interchanges have speeds posted at 15mph, which seems rather tight and probably doesn't meet interstate standards.

You can't be serious. 15mph ramps on a high speed corridor? Who thought that was a good idea? :banghead: Oh well, at least the lights are gone I suppose...

Quote
After the projects you mention, Willie Measley/Jim Sutton will be the lone stoplight left between I-40 and (I think) Newport that is not being addressed by one of the three already-programmed major bypass projects, in Kinston, James City, and Havelock. I have to imagine there will be a great deal of pressure to expedite the interchange there (STIP ID#: R-5813).

I agree. There's already been talk about a new interchange there. As for Newport, it was supposed to be bypassed by the Northern Carteret Bypass, but I don't think it's even being considered anymore. NCDOT hasn't mentioned it in years and the US-70 Corridor Commission has been silent about it for a long time now. That bypass isn't shown on the US-70 corridor maps anymore.

Quote
On the flip side, once the stoplights are gone and the bypasses are built, I expect the grunt work to upgrade the corridor to a full interstate will move very slowly. Upgrading shoulders isn't likely to be controversial, but removing driveways and building service roads where needed will be expensive and painful with lots of impacts to businesses and property. This will test NCDOT's mettle; are they really serious about making this an interstate, or will they lose their motivation once we have a "Future Interstate" with no stoplights?

I think NCDOT is very eager to get I-42 signed from Goldsboro to I-40 (boneheaded 15mph interchange ramps notwithstanding). They also want to upgrade US-70 through James City. Once those are done, I think that's when things will slow down, since those sections carry the most traffic.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Henry on November 28, 2017, 10:31:41 AM
At least NC will have this one by itself, unlike the failed I-73 and I-74 projects. It would be nice to have another high-speed drive from Raleigh to the coast available.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 28, 2017, 06:25:39 PM
So, no upgrading from Princeton westward for now...?

Not yet. But on the flipside, an interchange at Davis Mill Road near Pine Level should be opening anytime and there are two more interchange projects lined up near Wilsons Mills at Swift Creek Road and Wilsons Mills Road. 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.

The Davis Mill interchange was open when I drove through there over the Thanksgiving holiday. I did note that some of the ramps on those two new interchanges have speeds posted at 15mph, which seems rather tight and probably doesn't meet interstate standards.

After the projects you mention, Willie Measley/Jim Sutton will be the lone stoplight left between I-40 and (I think) Newport that is not being addressed by one of the three already-programmed major bypass projects, in Kinston, James City, and Havelock. I have to imagine there will be a great deal of pressure to expedite the interchange there (STIP ID#: R-5813).

On the flip side, once the stoplights are gone and the bypasses are built, I expect the grunt work to upgrade the corridor to a full interstate will move very slowly. Upgrading shoulders isn't likely to be controversial, but removing driveways and building service roads where needed will be expensive and painful with lots of impacts to businesses and property. This will test NCDOT's mettle; are they really serious about making this an interstate, or will they lose their motivation once we have a "Future Interstate" with no stoplights?
It's worth mentioning again that this project was designed before the big push to upgrade US 70 to an interstate got serious. From this point forward, I'd expect every US 70 project to meet interstate standards.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on November 29, 2017, 07:23:49 AM
It's worth mentioning again that this project was designed before the big push to upgrade US 70 to an interstate got serious. From this point forward, I'd expect every US 70 project to meet interstate standards.

How far back was it designed? The Goldsboro Bypass was in development as far back as the mid-1990's (R.O.D. was issued in 1998) and it was designed to be built to interstate standards before the idea to turn US-70 into an interstate came to fruition. Same with the Clayton Bypass.

The push for I-shields may have been recent, but the concept of turning US-70 into an interstate-grade freeway goes back further than that, which brings me back to my point that it didn't make sense for NCDOT to build those substandard interchanges only to have to go back and upgrade them later.

But as I said before, at least the traffic lights are gone, so it's still a step up (albeit a small one).
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on November 29, 2017, 11:10:43 AM
The push for I-shields may have been recent, but the concept of turning US-70 into an interstate-grade freeway goes back further than that, which brings me back to my point that it didn't make sense for NCDOT to build those substandard interchanges only to have to go back and upgrade them later.

But as I said before, at least the traffic lights are gone, so it's still a step up (albeit a small one).

This segment still has a multitude of driveways and at-grade intersections; driving it, 55mph seems about the right speed for now. There is clearly a lot of work left to do here, in terms of shoulders and frontage roads, and they'll probably realign the ramps if/when they do all that.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on November 29, 2017, 04:34:19 PM
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization has released their draft 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. It calls for widening the Clayton Bypass to 6 lanes with the Traditional Funding Horizon set for 2035.

http://www.campo-nc.us/transportation-plan/draft-2045-metropolitan-transportation-plan (http://www.campo-nc.us/transportation-plan/draft-2045-metropolitan-transportation-plan)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on November 29, 2017, 04:56:15 PM
Pointless unless and until they improve I-40 first...
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 29, 2017, 06:34:47 PM
Pointless unless and until they improve I-40 first...
The I-40 project is scheduled to start in fall 2018 with completion in 2022. I-40 will be widened to 8 lanes between I-440/87 and NC 42, and the NC 42 interchange will be redone as a DDI.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i40nc42/
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on November 30, 2017, 02:33:18 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?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker 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). 
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz 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

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 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?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: 21stCenturyRoad 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie 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 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31) 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 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 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31) 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: NE2 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker 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.   
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 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.

(http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/coastal-north-carolina/193076d1512699716-proposed-i-795-quad-east-loop-bypass.jpg)

(http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/coastal-north-carolina/193077d1512699750-proposed-i-795-quad-east-loop-goldsboro-bypass.jpg)

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 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/ (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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 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 (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Sept_21_2017_minutes.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 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 (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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 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 (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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 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 (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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 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 (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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz 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).
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on March 19, 2018, 07:24:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on March 21, 2018, 06:18:14 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.

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 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14978)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on March 22, 2018, 06:04:16 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.
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 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14978)

Alternative 2 seems like the clear winner to me. It has the least impacts.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on March 22, 2018, 01:45:56 PM
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 (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/ (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US70HavelockBypass/)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on March 22, 2018, 06:15:58 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 09, 2018, 04:29:17 PM
The Kinston Bypass has moved into the Environmental Impact Statement phase.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15055 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15055)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 10, 2018, 08:23:34 AM
Good news for Wayne and Johnston counties.

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

Quote
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).
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on April 11, 2018, 02:16:48 AM
^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?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 11, 2018, 05:06:42 AM
^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...
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 12, 2018, 08:23:47 AM
Right on cue. :coffee:

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

Quote
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...
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 13, 2018, 08:10:56 AM
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 (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 (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2018-Directors-Report.pdf)

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

Quote
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...
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 13, 2018, 06:48:09 PM
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 (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 (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2018-Directors-Report.pdf)

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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 13, 2018, 08:16:35 PM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on April 13, 2018, 08:53:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 13, 2018, 11:04:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on April 14, 2018, 01:08:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on April 14, 2018, 07:02:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on April 16, 2018, 12:43:13 PM
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 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15077)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 16, 2018, 01:16:57 PM
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 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15077)

:clap:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on April 16, 2018, 01:30:40 PM
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 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15077)

:clap:
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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 21, 2018, 06:22:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 21, 2018, 06:31:16 PM
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
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 21, 2018, 08:48:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 24, 2018, 03:35:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on April 24, 2018, 03:49:35 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280
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.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on April 24, 2018, 03:52:23 PM
I would say a US 17 freeway (probably an interstate) is all but guaranteed from Surfside Beach (just south of Myrtle Beach) to Virginia Beach, but unlikely anywhere else. Upgrading US 17 has always been a high priority for NC. A higher priority than improving I-95, I'd dare say.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on April 24, 2018, 04:43:34 PM
I would say a US 17 freeway (probably an interstate) is all but guaranteed from Surfside Beach (just south of Myrtle Beach) to Virginia Beach, but unlikely anywhere else. Upgrading US 17 has always been a high priority for NC. A higher priority than improving I-95, I'd dare say.

Seeing as how SC NIMBY's, allied with coastal environmentalists, managed to truncate the HPC 5/I-73/74 corridor concept back from Charleston to Georgetown back in the '90's, a limited-access route using or paralleling US 17 isn't likely to extend farther south than the present south end of SC 31.  And NC has not been shy about tending to its tourist traffic, whether along the shoreline or in the Great Smokies region by extending and/or improving facilities serving those areas -- so a N-S corridor along US 17 is probably on their radar; how it would be prioritized in comparison with the plethora of existing projects on the table remains to be determined.  My guess is that spot improvements -- such as a northern extension of the New Bern US 17 bypass -- will be undertaken along with efforts to bring that section of US 70/I-42 up to standards, whenever NCDOT elects to let that project.  And "spurs" to Jacksonville and the Camp Lejeune region crop up for discussion on a regular basis -- so its not difficult to envision all those concepts being strung together for a viable corridor.   Hey, it's NC -- so anything's possible (and possibly probable!).
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 24, 2018, 11:33:19 PM
Quote from: froggie
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.

I assumed those frontage roads on either side of US-70 were one way. I can understand them being two way on the short stretches where there is only one frontage road on one side of the divided highway. Those gaps will have to be filled so there are frontage roads on both sides of the highway the entire way. Then the completed frontage roads will indeed have to be converted to one way operation for slip ramps to work. There's not enough room for the kinds of off ramps needed to connect into 2 way frontage road.

NC DOT can either build one way frontage roads through that area or they can spend a lot of money acquiring extra ROW (and the properties on it) to build traditional diamond shaped exits.

Quote from: orulz
I would say a US 17 freeway (probably an interstate) is all but guaranteed from Surfside Beach (just south of Myrtle Beach) to Virginia Beach, but unlikely anywhere else. Upgrading US 17 has always been a high priority for NC. A higher priority than improving I-95, I'd dare say.

Savannah and Charleston are significant destinations along US-17. Between those two cities there are several coastal destinations for tourists. Beaufort is home to the Parris Island Marine Corps base. I can certainly see the need for an new freeway on US-17 or parallel to it to serve that traffic and also make hurricane evacuation more efficient.

US-17 between Charleston and Georgetown is mostly divided 4 lane highway. Some bypass work would be needed in the Charleston and Georgetown areas.

Quote from: sparker
Seeing as how SC NIMBY's, allied with coastal environmentalists, managed to truncate the HPC 5/I-73/74 corridor concept back from Charleston to Georgetown back in the '90's, a limited-access route using or paralleling US 17 isn't likely to extend farther south than the present south end of SC 31.

Given some of the improvement projects on US-17 itself in the Myrtle Beach area (some busy intersections being converted to freeway style exits) the powers that be in that area will eventually be forced to cave and allow better regional traffic access.

The South end of the Carolina Bays Parkway is being extended back into US-17. It would be impossible to convert US-17 South from there into a freeway. But a new alignment could veer off the parkway just past the SC-544 exit near the bridge over the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The new road could swing North of Bucksport and then hook into the US-701 corridor on the way SW to Georgetown and then bypass that town on its North side and then hook back into US-17 near the Georgetown airport. From there it would be a more simple upgrade process down to Charleston.

It would be a big project to extend the North end of the Carolina Bays Parkway across the NC state line and then make a new freeway connection into Wilmington. But there is a lot of development along the coast. Back when I was a kid and starting to get nerdy about highways I thought the corridor along or near US-17 between Savannah and Virginia Beach (and even up into Delaware) would have been the obvious location for I-99.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on April 25, 2018, 12:08:20 AM
The South end of the Carolina Bays Parkway is being extended back into US-17. It would be impossible to convert US-17 South from there into a freeway. But a new alignment could veer off the parkway just past the SC-544 exit near the bridge over the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The new road could swing North of Bucksport and then hook into the US-701 corridor on the way SW to Georgetown and then bypass that town on its North side and then hook back into US-17 near the Georgetown airport. From there it would be a more simple upgrade process down to Charleston.

Back in SAFETEA-LU days (2005) the HPC-5 compendium that authorized I-73 & 74 in the region was amended (by a SC congressman; I don't recall his/her name presently) to include a branch extending inland more or less along US 521 from Georgetown to I-20 at Camden.  I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but it may not be beyond the realm of possiblity that the extension could be "massaged" a bit to provide access from the SC 31 freeway to at least I-95 somewhere north of the Lake Marion crossing.   Apologies for edging into marginally fictional territory, but such an extension would provide a continuous facility from the southern reaches of I-95 to US 17 points, including, of course, the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area.  That would functionally obviate objections from coastal activists while adhering to present corridor definition.   
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 25, 2018, 06:59:46 AM
Back when I was a kid and starting to get nerdy about highways I thought the corridor along or near US-17 between Savannah and Virginia Beach (and even up into Delaware) would have been the obvious location for I-99.

Virginia thought so too.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on April 25, 2018, 05:10:16 PM
Back when I was a kid and starting to get nerdy about highways I thought the corridor along or near US-17 between Savannah and Virginia Beach (and even up into Delaware) would have been the obvious location for I-99.

Virginia thought so too.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf)

And that report was released 11 years after Bud Shuster's I-99 was designated in PA!  Obviously this report wasn't, at least in that regard, particularly concerned with context!  It was interesting to read the various states' reaction (generally "yeah, we'd kinda like something like this, but...............") to the coastal corridor proposal (and per usual, only NC prospects were given more than a vague chance of actually happening!).  The only thing that one can realistically take away from this document is the closing-statement suggestion that at minimum corridor preservation be instituted in the event that financial situations changed (and the report timeframe being 2006, that hasn't yet occurred in most jurisdictions).  Otherwise, the report isn't particularly optimistic about overall corridor prospects.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: US 89 on April 25, 2018, 05:59:48 PM
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.

The part between Charleston and Myrtle Beach would be especially hard to upgrade to Interstate quality. There are several segments with a lot of driveways (especially some areas of Mount Pleasant and Pawleys Island) that you'd have to use one-way frontage roads with slip ramps. For the most part, it looks like there's enough ROW for that, with the possible exception of the places listed above.

The worst part would be constructing a freeway bypass of Georgetown, which I can see two ways to do. The first would be to build a bypass to the west and north of the city, which would be a very indirect route. It would also require at least three major bridges, over the Sampit, Pee Dee, and Waccamaw River (and maybe even the Black River, depending on how far up the river it's built). The second alternative would be to directly cross Winyah Bay south of Georgetown. That would require one huge bridge, and it would likely be less environmentally friendly.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 25, 2018, 06:39:39 PM

The South end of the Carolina Bays Parkway is being extended back into US-17. It would be impossible to convert US-17 South from there into a freeway. But a new alignment could veer off the parkway just past the SC-544 exit near the bridge over the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The new road could swing North of Bucksport and then hook into the US-701 corridor on the way SW to Georgetown and then bypass that town on its North side and then hook back into US-17 near the Georgetown airport. From there it would be a more simple upgrade process down to Charleston.

It would be a big project to extend the North end of the Carolina Bays Parkway across the NC state line and then make a new freeway connection into Wilmington. But there is a lot of development along the coast. Back when I was a kid and starting to get nerdy about highways I thought the corridor along or near US-17 between Savannah and Virginia Beach (and even up into Delaware) would have been the obvious location for I-99.

The Carolina Bays Parkway is being extended to SC 707, but there's no plan, as far as I know, to extend it to US 17.

NCDOT has a feasibility study on the extension of the north end of the Parkway to connect to US 17.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/CBP/

There's a plan to remove the one at-grade intersection on the US 17 bypass of Shallotte, but, as far as I know, there aren't any other plans to upgrade US 17 to a freeway between Wilmington and SC.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on April 25, 2018, 11:17:59 PM
The reason I don't think anything's going to get built in SC is that SC's gas tax is just too low. They just don't have the money to make improvements like these. NC has (I think) the highest gas tax in the south but by golly we have the rural freeways to show for it.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: US 89 on April 25, 2018, 11:42:36 PM
The reason I don't think anything's going to get built in SC is that SC's gas tax is just too low. They just don't have the money to make improvements like these. NC has (I think) the highest gas tax in the south but by golly we have the rural freeways to show for it.

You can tell who has more road money just by driving across the state line and comparing. I remember crossing from SC into NC on a shitty road which turned into a well-maintained, smooth road.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on April 26, 2018, 12:44:55 AM
The reason I don't think anything's going to get built in SC is that SC's gas tax is just too low. They just don't have the money to make improvements like these. NC has (I think) the highest gas tax in the south but by golly we have the rural freeways to show for it.

You can tell who has more road money just by driving across the state line and comparing. I remember crossing from SC into NC on a shitty road which turned into a well-maintained, smooth road.

So -- what's the gas tax rate in other Seaboard states such as VA, GA, etc.?  Besides the SC example, might provide at least a partial explanation for policy differences.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 26, 2018, 09:15:58 AM
From 2013, but not much has changed. Sorry for such a large picture size!

(https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/Gas-Taxes-(Large).png)

SC’s gas tax was raised to 18 cents, which took effect at the beginning of this year. It was one of the first things the SC legislature did after Nikki Haley left office...
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Rothman on April 26, 2018, 09:28:26 AM
I believe NJ had a tax hike, too.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: RoadPelican on April 26, 2018, 12:56:35 PM
I think the gas tax rate for NC went down slightly in the last few years.  NC uses a formula where the gas tax is based on the price of a gallon of gas, the lower the gas price the lower the tax and vice versa.  I believe the current rate is around 34 cents/gallon with a floor of 30 cents/gallon.  The 30 cent floor was passed by the legislature sometime in 2015 when gas went from $3.50/gallon down to under $2.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on April 26, 2018, 03:45:29 PM
Quite a bit has actually changed since 2013.  Besides what was mentioned for other states, Virginia lowered their per-gallon gas tax rate but also began a percentage tax rate for gas at the wholesale level.  Vermont, New Hampshire, and Minnesota have also changed their gas tax rates.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 26, 2018, 06:30:41 PM
Quite a bit has actually changed since 2013.  Besides what was mentioned for other states, Virginia lowered their per-gallon gas tax rate but also began a percentage tax rate for gas at the wholesale level.  Vermont, New Hampshire, and Minnesota have also changed their gas tax rates.

The American Petroleum Institute has complete and up-to-date information on gas tax rates here:
http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/consumer-information/motor-fuel-taxes
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 28, 2018, 02:42:45 AM
That table has Oklahoma ranked #49 in the nation on fuel tax rates. Oklahoma's fuel tax is going up 3¢ per gallon for gasoline and 6¢ for diesel as a result of House Bill 1010xx. For the first year money from the tax hike will go into education -particularly to fund very long overdue pay raises for teachers. Next year the fuel tax increase will go into the Rebuilding Oklahoma Access and Driver Safety fund. Some of the state income tax money that had been going into the ROADS fund will go into education. Hopefully the increase in ROADS funding will speed up the reduction of repairs on roads and bridges in critical need of repair.

Quote from: wdcrft63
The Carolina Bays Parkway is being extended to SC 707, but there's no plan, as far as I know, to extend it to US 17.

Oops. I guess I didn't look closely enough where that South extension was ending in Google Earth. I confused SC-707 for US-17.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on April 29, 2018, 01:40:53 AM
Well -- the map and associated data displayed above tells quite a story about available revenue for road improvement or expansion.   Sorry that I hadn't put those particular dots together before chiming in about building new facilities (particularly new Interstate mileage) in states lacking the fiscal means to undertake discretionary projects.  If a jurisdiction simply lacks the wherewithal to undertake projects that wouldn't faze adjoining states with considerably higher rates, then that's a matter that needs to be resolved within the political and/or administrative mechanisms of the state itself.   Just goes to show that everything needs to be addressed in context.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on May 01, 2018, 12:24:15 PM
Yes. If you ever wonder why NCDOT is so bent on putting interstates everywhere, take note that NC has gas taxes in line with Illinos or Michigan, but roads last longer (due to weather/salt) and construction costs are lower (fewer unions).
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on May 24, 2018, 09:12:10 AM
Update on the James City upgrade project.

http://www.havenews.com/news/20180523/james-city-interstate-work-slowly-advancing (http://www.havenews.com/news/20180523/james-city-interstate-work-slowly-advancing)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Henry on May 24, 2018, 09:38:22 AM
Yes. If you ever wonder why NCDOT is so bent on putting interstates everywhere, take note that NC has gas taxes in line with Illinos or Michigan, but roads last longer (due to weather/salt) and construction costs are lower (fewer unions).
And I wouldn't be surprised if they trolled our Fictional section for their new highway ideas either, because I do remember reading some proposals there long before they actually came to be.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on May 24, 2018, 03:46:33 PM
Yes. If you ever wonder why NCDOT is so bent on putting interstates everywhere, take note that NC has gas taxes in line with Illinos or Michigan, but roads last longer (due to weather/salt) and construction costs are lower (fewer unions).
And I wouldn't be surprised if they trolled our Fictional section for their new highway ideas either, because I do remember reading some proposals there long before they actually came to be.

Whether or not our threads are the actual source of the NC Interstate impetus, the fact remains that pretty much all viable suggestions (US 74 from Columbus to Rockingham, US 17 overall) either have already been incorporated into Interstate corridors or are part of the overall state improvement plan (similar in concept to the original California "freeway & expressway" plans dating back to '59).  NCDOT has a master plan, and they're sticking to it as funding and in-state political pressure dictates.  Contrast this to their immediate northern neighbor, with a gas tax rate well less than half of NC's, and a commonwealth-driven policy process that favors "bottom-up" or locally promulgated projects over new freeway mileage (understandable given persistent funding shortfalls).  That in itself underscores the probability that new NC Interstate mileage may, for the time being, simply terminate at the state line.   
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on May 30, 2018, 09:25:36 PM
The US-70 Corridor Commission has posted the Director’s Report for March & April. The minutes from February’s meeting still haven’t been posted yet.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Mar_Apr_2018-Directors-Report.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Mar_Apr_2018-Directors-Report.pdf)

Highlights:

—Kinston Bypass
Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Summer 2018
Select Preferred Alternative—Fall 2018
Final Environmental Impact Statement—Winter 2020
ROW acquisition—2022
Construction—2025

—US-70/Willie Measley Road interchange near La Grange
Finding of No Significant Impact—Fall 2018
ROW acquisition—2023
Construction—2024
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on June 06, 2018, 06:06:12 AM
Also mentioned this in the North Carolina thread, but the Raleigh News & Observer is reporting (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article212607139.html) that the state won a Federal grant to widen two sections of I-95 (on each side of Fayetteville) and also upgrade two sections of US 70 to Interstate-grade.  The US 70 sections are "from the U.S. 70 Bypass near Selma east to Pondfield Road near Princeton, while the other section runs from a proposed interchange at Thurman Road, south of New Bern, to the planned Havelock Bypass."
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 06, 2018, 07:36:10 AM
Also mentioned this in the North Carolina thread, but the Raleigh News & Observer is reporting (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article212607139.html) that the state won a Federal grant to widen two sections of I-95 (on each side of Fayetteville) and also upgrade two sections of US 70 to Interstate-grade.  The US 70 sections are "from the U.S. 70 Bypass near Selma east to Pondfield Road near Princeton, while the other section runs from a proposed interchange at Thurman Road, south of New Bern, to the planned Havelock Bypass."

:clap:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 06, 2018, 05:10:57 PM
Also mentioned this in the North Carolina thread, but the Raleigh News & Observer is reporting (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article212607139.html) that the state won a Federal grant to widen two sections of I-95 (on each side of Fayetteville) and also upgrade two sections of US 70 to Interstate-grade.  The US 70 sections are "from the U.S. 70 Bypass near Selma east to Pondfield Road near Princeton, while the other section runs from a proposed interchange at Thurman Road, south of New Bern, to the planned Havelock Bypass."

:clap:
The grant is for $147 million. That's more than pocket change, but it won't come close to funding these four projects.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 07, 2018, 12:52:27 PM
Also mentioned this in the North Carolina thread, but the Raleigh News & Observer is reporting (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article212607139.html) that the state won a Federal grant to widen two sections of I-95 (on each side of Fayetteville) and also upgrade two sections of US 70 to Interstate-grade.  The US 70 sections are "from the U.S. 70 Bypass near Selma east to Pondfield Road near Princeton, while the other section runs from a proposed interchange at Thurman Road, south of New Bern, to the planned Havelock Bypass."

:clap:
The grant is for $147 million. That's more than pocket change, but it won't come close to funding these four projects.

True, but every bit helps. I’ve driven US-70 numerous times when I lived in Goldsboro and it wasn’t fun, to put it mildly. 
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 08, 2018, 04:50:22 PM
Here’s NCDOT’s press release regarding the federal grant, which contains a link to the project page:

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15330 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15330)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 18, 2018, 08:09:20 AM
US-70 Corridor Commission has updated their site. The minutes of their February & May meetings have been posted.

February: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/February-22_2018-Meeting-Minutes.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/February-22_2018-Meeting-Minutes.pdf)

May: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/May-17_2018-Meeting-Minutes.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/May-17_2018-Meeting-Minutes.pdf)

The NC Board of Transportation workgroup reports for US-70 in Divisions 2 & 4 have also been posted.

Division 2: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/July-2018-US-70-Workshop-Division-2.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/July-2018-US-70-Workshop-Division-2.pdf)

Division 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/July-2018-US-70-Workshop-Division-4.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/July-2018-US-70-Workshop-Division-4.pdf)

Biggest thing of note is that a contract was awarded to upgrade the existing freeway between Dover and New Bern to interstate standards by repaving and widening the shoulders with a completion date set for November 15, 2019. It can be seen in the Divison 2 report.

 Looks like I-42 got put in the express lane...
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: jcarte29 on July 18, 2018, 09:22:53 AM
Go ahead and type up that waiver request lol.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on July 18, 2018, 09:49:20 PM
Wow!  A significant project (Dover-New Bern) that's only taking 16 months!  The facility probably doesn't need all that much (primarily inner shoulders, according to the GSV) before it meets standards.  Several months ago I opined that this stretch would likely be the last part of the I-42 corridor to be tackled since it's functioning perfectly well as a limited-access facility as it sits; but it looks like NCDOT is tackling a relatively "easy one" as part of the process (after their hassles with the Havelock bypass, I suppose they needed a bit of a break).  Also, it's possible that with preliminary plans for the projects extending from either end of this segment underway (Kinston & James City), they wanted to have a fully finished segment connecting them -- particularly if they planned on installing I-42 signage (may as well have as much continuous signable mileage as possible!).  In any case, it's nice to see that the push to complete the corridor is progressing reasonably well no matter what the strategy to do so entails.   
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 19, 2018, 06:42:50 PM
Wow!  A significant project (Dover-New Bern) that's only taking 16 months!  The facility probably doesn't need all that much (primarily inner shoulders, according to the GSV) before it meets standards.  Several months ago I opined that this stretch would likely be the last part of the I-42 corridor to be tackled since it's functioning perfectly well as a limited-access facility as it sits; but it looks like NCDOT is tackling a relatively "easy one" as part of the process (after their hassles with the Havelock bypass, I suppose they needed a bit of a break).  Also, it's possible that with preliminary plans for the projects extending from either end of this segment underway (Kinston & James City), they wanted to have a fully finished segment connecting them -- particularly if they planned on installing I-42 signage (may as well have as much continuous signable mileage as possible!).  In any case, it's nice to see that the push to complete the corridor is progressing reasonably well no matter what the strategy to do so entails.
I haven't seen this road in quite a while. Does it need resurfacing? It may be that if resurfacing is needed it just makes sense to bring the road up to interstate standards at the same time.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 19, 2018, 10:30:11 PM
Wow!  A significant project (Dover-New Bern) that's only taking 16 months!  The facility probably doesn't need all that much (primarily inner shoulders, according to the GSV) before it meets standards.  Several months ago I opined that this stretch would likely be the last part of the I-42 corridor to be tackled since it's functioning perfectly well as a limited-access facility as it sits; but it looks like NCDOT is tackling a relatively "easy one" as part of the process (after their hassles with the Havelock bypass, I suppose they needed a bit of a break).  Also, it's possible that with preliminary plans for the projects extending from either end of this segment underway (Kinston & James City), they wanted to have a fully finished segment connecting them -- particularly if they planned on installing I-42 signage (may as well have as much continuous signable mileage as possible!).  In any case, it's nice to see that the push to complete the corridor is progressing reasonably well no matter what the strategy to do so entails.
I haven't seen this road in quite a while. Does it need resurfacing? It may be that if resurfacing is needed it just makes sense to bring the road up to interstate standards at the same time.

Funny thing is that when NCDOT resurfaced the short stretch of freeway in La Grange over a year ago, they did not widen the shoulders to interstate standards. Now, according to the Division 2 report I posted, a contract will be awarded in March 2019 to go back and do just that.

Classic NCDOT. :pan:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on July 20, 2018, 07:58:30 AM
Wow!  A significant project (Dover-New Bern) that's only taking 16 months!  The facility probably doesn't need all that much (primarily inner shoulders, according to the GSV) before it meets standards.  Several months ago I opined that this stretch would likely be the last part of the I-42 corridor to be tackled since it's functioning perfectly well as a limited-access facility as it sits; but it looks like NCDOT is tackling a relatively "easy one" as part of the process (after their hassles with the Havelock bypass, I suppose they needed a bit of a break).  Also, it's possible that with preliminary plans for the projects extending from either end of this segment underway (Kinston & James City), they wanted to have a fully finished segment connecting them -- particularly if they planned on installing I-42 signage (may as well have as much continuous signable mileage as possible!).  In any case, it's nice to see that the push to complete the corridor is progressing reasonably well no matter what the strategy to do so entails.
I haven't seen this road in quite a while. Does it need resurfacing? It may be that if resurfacing is needed it just makes sense to bring the road up to interstate standards at the same time.


Compared to some other roads in the area not really, the mainline is pretty smooth most places. If it it wasn't part of this whole I-42 project I don't think it would be getting any attention for many years yet.


Now the exit ramps at Clarks, Tuscarora, and Cove City, they do need some work, they are quite bumpy and crumbling in some spots.

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on July 22, 2018, 12:32:45 AM
I haven't seen this road in quite a while. Does it need resurfacing? It may be that if resurfacing is needed it just makes sense to bring the road up to interstate standards at the same time.
Compared to some other roads in the area not really, the mainline is pretty smooth most places. If it it wasn't part of this whole I-42 project I don't think it would be getting any attention for many years yet.

Now the exit ramps at Clarks, Tuscarora, and Cove City, they do need some work, they are quite bumpy and crumbling in some spots.

Hopefully, this will be addressed within the parameters of the contract to be let for that segment. 
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on October 21, 2018, 01:20:17 PM
Due to the postponement of the planned September meeting because of Hurricane Florence, the next US-70 Corridor Commission meeting is November 15. For those close to the area who want to attend, it’s being held at the new Maxwell Center in Goldsboro.

http://www.super70corridor.com (http://www.super70corridor.com)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on October 31, 2018, 01:02:33 PM
NCDOT has announced it’s preferred design alternatives for upgrading US-70 to interstate standards between Princeton and the US-70 Goldsboro Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-31-us-70-upgrades-wayne-johnston-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-31-us-70-upgrades-wayne-johnston-counties.aspx)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on November 01, 2018, 12:37:02 AM
Quote
....The entire 6.7-mile project, with an overall $130 million estimated cost, has been accelerated. The department plans to obtain bids in December 2019 from design-build teams, with construction starting in 2021.....

Sounds like they are serious about getting started on this.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on November 01, 2018, 01:02:59 AM
Quote
....The entire 6.7-mile project, with an overall $130 million estimated cost, has been accelerated. The department plans to obtain bids in December 2019 from design-build teams, with construction starting in 2021.....

Sounds like they are serious about getting started on this.

If I were a NC officeholder, I'd be anxious to get another limited-access facility to the coast rolling ASAP -- considering the aftermath of Florence -- and the likelihood that with climate change such storms may become regular fare.  Having 4 continuous lanes for westward emergency evacuation without roadside incursions would certainly be appropriate and desirable. 
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: mvak36 on November 01, 2018, 08:39:49 AM
Quote
....The entire 6.7-mile project, with an overall $130 million estimated cost, has been accelerated. The department plans to obtain bids in December 2019 from design-build teams, with construction starting in 2021.....

Sounds like they are serious about getting started on this.

If I were a NC officeholder, I'd be anxious to get another limited-access facility to the coast rolling ASAP -- considering the aftermath of Florence -- and the likelihood that with climate change such storms may become regular fare.  Having 4 continuous lanes for westward emergency evacuation without roadside incursions would certainly be appropriate and desirable.

I agree. I also think they need to start working on upgrading US74 to a 4 lane freeway from Wilmington to Charlotte so that Wilmington will have another evacuation route.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on November 01, 2018, 09:45:56 AM
Quote from: sparker
If I were a NC officeholder, I'd be anxious to get another limited-access facility to the coast rolling ASAP -- considering the aftermath of Florence -- and the likelihood that with climate change such storms may become regular fare.

The fly in this ointment is that a majority of NC officeholders deny that climate change exists, and have (ostensibly in the "name" of Outer Banks tourism) actually passed laws banning the use or prediction of sea level rise in state policy.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on November 01, 2018, 12:22:02 PM
Quote from: sparker
If I were a NC officeholder, I'd be anxious to get another limited-access facility to the coast rolling ASAP -- considering the aftermath of Florence -- and the likelihood that with climate change such storms may become regular fare.

The fly in this ointment is that a majority of NC officeholders deny that climate change exists, and have (ostensibly in the "name" of Outer Banks tourism) actually passed laws banning the use or prediction of sea level rise in state policy.

It's not the climate change theory -- over which these folks you mention have buried their head in the sand -- or possibly in a rear-facing orifice -- but the actual manifestation of that theory, the hurricane(s), which have resulted in problems in that part of the state, which contain their constituents.  But you do raise a salient if ironic point -- the quest for tourist dollars that has prompted those cited laws may well provide an additional inducement for the construction of I-42.  Ostensibly planned as a commercial corridor to a potential post-Panamax port (try saying that 10 times in a row!), it could be "sold" as another improvement in the tourist-conveyor system from I-95 and the state's population centers to said coast; maybe it'll be done in time for them to see the outermost islands and beaches inundated first-hand! 
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on November 01, 2018, 01:00:37 PM
^ A bit of a macabre way of looking at it, but not necessarily wrong.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on November 09, 2018, 08:22:30 AM
A public meeting is being held on Nov. 29 in La Grange to discuss upgrading US-70 between NC-903 and the Jim Sutton/Willie Measley Road intersection, including it’s future conversion to an interchange. A map of the preferred alternative for that interchange can be found here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/R-5813-2018-11-29.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/R-5813-2018-11-29.aspx)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: mvak36 on November 09, 2018, 10:11:16 AM
Interesting article about some design changes in the Princeton area for I-42 based on public feedback: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article221160605.html. This is for projects R-5829A/B (https://ncdot.publicinput.com/us70_goldsborotoprinceton)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on November 30, 2018, 11:58:30 AM
The US-70 Corridor Commission just posted the minutes of their July 19 meeting.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/July-19_2018-Meeting-Minutes.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/July-19_2018-Meeting-Minutes.pdf)

...and NCDOT gave an update on the projects along the corridor as of November 15.

Division 2: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/November-2018-US-70-Workshop-Division-2.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/November-2018-US-70-Workshop-Division-2.pdf)

Division 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/November-2018-US-70-Workshop-Division-4-002.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/November-2018-US-70-Workshop-Division-4-002.pdf)

NCDOT has also completed and posted it’s feasibility study for upgrading US-70 between Edwards Road in Princeton and Buffalo Road near Selma.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on December 19, 2018, 11:15:01 PM
NCDOT released plans for the US 70 Havelock Bypass project to be let in February. The sign plans feature notations for future I-42 shields to be added to the pull through and ramp signs, an example:
(http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42us70havelockbypasssignplan2.jpg)

The entire sign plan set is available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf)

I have posted more of the signs with I-42 on my I-42 Exit list page:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html)

You will notice from my list that the exit numbers in the plans are closely duplicated by current exits in the New Bern area (verified by May 2018 Google Maps Street View images, which already have I-42 labels posted along the pavement). Is the future work to improve US 70 to interstate standards going to eliminate 15 or so miles from US 70's current route to account for the reduced mileage near Havelock?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on December 20, 2018, 06:13:10 AM
So, rather than sign the Havelock Bypass as US-70 Bypass and leaving ‘vanilla’ 70 where it is, they’re gonna move ‘vanilla’ 70 onto the bypass and create an unnecessary overlap with I-42? Typical NCDOT. :banghead:

I can sort of understand why NCDOT did the same thing in Clayton since I-42 wasn’t thought of back then, but it makes no sense to do it in Havelock. The US-70 Bypass designations work well in Selma and Goldsboro, so I see no reason why it wouldn’t work here.

I wonder if they’re gonna pull this crap in Kinston too...
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on December 20, 2018, 07:10:07 AM
^ The plan to relocate US 70 to the Havelock Bypass and the Northern Carteret Bypass long predates I-42.  I recall that being NCDOT's intentions 10-15 years ago.

As for US 70 Bypass vs. vanilla, I personally think NCDOT has way too many 70 sub-designations...especially in Selma.  Confusing for non-local motorists.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on December 20, 2018, 07:18:31 AM
^ The plan to relocate US 70 to the Havelock Bypass and the Northern Carteret Bypass long predates I-42.  I recall that being NCDOT's intentions 10-15 years ago.

True, but that doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have changed it, particularly now that US-70 was made a future interstate 3 years ago by the FAST Act.

Quote
As for US 70 Bypass vs. vanilla, I personally think NCDOT has way too many 70 sub-designations...especially in Selma.  Confusing for non-local motorists.

The bypass designations could be temporary until they’re decommissioned in favor of I-42 since there would be no real reason for the bypass designations to exist once I-42 takes over. Even with shifting vanilla 70 onto the Havelock Bypass, there will still be two different designations in Havelock since vanilla will become business. Keeping vanilla 70 where it is would be less confusing, IMO.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Tom958 on December 20, 2018, 12:33:20 PM
Maybe it has to do with retaining US 70 exit numbering. It wouldn't do to have US 70 mileage on a road that isn't US 70.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on December 23, 2018, 03:47:35 AM


You will notice from my list that the exit numbers in the plans are closely duplicated by current exits in the New Bern area (verified by May 2018 Google Maps Street View images, which already have I-42 labels posted along the pavement). Is the future work to improve US 70 to interstate standards going to eliminate 15 or so miles from US 70's current route to account for the reduced mileage near Havelock?


Bob, I don't believe so, no. If anything the Kinston Bypass would add mileage rather than subtract it-that said it should be pretty small. The Goldsboro bypass added roughly 1.1 miles to US-70's total from I-40 to New Bern, and I can't see the Kinston bypass adding much more than that. Any change that has shortened US-70's mileage would have had to have been much farther west in the state and its just taken a while for it to catch up with us on this end.  I'd have to go back and measure, but possibly the Clayton bypass shortened US 70 a little when it opened back in the day, maybe a mile or two. I'll have to measure it sometime this week when I have time.


I can confirm that  Exit 410 is the US-17 exit from US-70 west of New Bern. We call it the bypass here but it truly is US-17's mainline. I am not sure where they came up with 410 for the beginning of the Havelock Bypass in Pine Grove, it just doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on January 01, 2019, 07:54:45 PM
NCDOT released plans for the US 70 Havelock Bypass project to be let in February. The sign plans feature notations for future I-42 shields to be added to the pull through and ramp signs, an example:
(http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42us70havelockbypasssignplan2.jpg)

The entire sign plan set is available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf)

I have posted more of the signs with I-42 on my I-42 Exit list page:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html)

You will notice from my list that the exit numbers in the plans are closely duplicated by current exits in the New Bern area (verified by May 2018 Google Maps Street View images, which already have I-42 labels posted along the pavement). Is the future work to improve US 70 to interstate standards going to eliminate 15 or so miles from US 70's current route to account for the reduced mileage near Havelock?
Three things I noticed odd (though very minor) from the signing plans. First off, is the speed limit actually going to be 55 MPH on the bypass, or 65-70 MPH? I've heard 65-70 MPH, though the signs indicate Speed Limit 55 signs at each entrance. Also, am I the only one who thinks it's odd when it says "Welcome To - Craven County, Leaving - Carteret County" on the little county line signs? Doing a whole lot of interstate driving yesterday, at least here in Virginia, you see "Entering - XX County" as opposed to "Welcome To - XX County". Third, why U.S. 70 and U.S. 70 Business? That just seems weird, the other two bypasses (Goldsboro and Selma) have U.S. 70 Bypass, which would be removed and replaced with I-42 eventually. When an interstate is running the bypass and mainline, the U.S. / State mainline routing should be on the older / business routing.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on January 01, 2019, 07:57:47 PM
A public meeting is being held on Nov. 29 in La Grange to discuss upgrading US-70 between NC-903 and the Jim Sutton/Willie Measley Road intersection, including it’s future conversion to an interchange. A map of the preferred alternative for that interchange can be found here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/R-5813-2018-11-29.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/R-5813-2018-11-29.aspx)
Kind of late, but am I the only one who thinks the "preferred alternative" is a bad idea? This is in a rural environment, and they're proposing urban, compressed diamond interchange. If this was in a city/urban environment, I could understand it. The only benefit is that a couple of homes are saved. Alternative #1 proposes a large partial cloverleaf, with a full grassy median (a rural type interchange), and that seems to be the best option. It only takes a few more homes and not to mention costs $15 million less than what NCDOT is proposing.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Roadsguy on January 01, 2019, 07:59:04 PM
NCDOT released plans for the US 70 Havelock Bypass project to be let in February. The sign plans feature notations for future I-42 shields to be added to the pull through and ramp signs, an example:
(http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42us70havelockbypasssignplan2.jpg)

The entire sign plan set is available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf)

I have posted more of the signs with I-42 on my I-42 Exit list page:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html)

You will notice from my list that the exit numbers in the plans are closely duplicated by current exits in the New Bern area (verified by May 2018 Google Maps Street View images, which already have I-42 labels posted along the pavement). Is the future work to improve US 70 to interstate standards going to eliminate 15 or so miles from US 70's current route to account for the reduced mileage near Havelock?
Three things I noticed odd (though very minor) from the signing plans. First off, is the speed limit actually going to be 55 MPH on the bypass, or 65-70 MPH? I've heard 65-70 MPH, though the signs indicate Speed Limit 55 signs at each entrance. Also, am I the only one who thinks it's odd when it says "Welcome To - Craven County, Leaving - Carteret County" on the little county line signs? Doing a whole lot of interstate driving yesterday, at least here in Virginia, you see "Entering - XX County" as opposed to "Welcome To - XX County". Third, why U.S. 70 and U.S. 70 Business? That just seems weird, the other two bypasses (Goldsboro and Selma) have U.S. 70 Bypass, which would be removed and replaced with I-42 eventually. When an interstate is running the bypass and mainline, the U.S. / State mainline routing should be on the older / business routing.

What I find more odd is the fact that the blank space on all the signs is on the right, with US 70 being ultimately the first shield. Usually the Interstate comes first. I agree about the speed limit, though. That seems odd.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on January 01, 2019, 09:12:10 PM
NCDOT released plans for the US 70 Havelock Bypass project to be let in February. The sign plans feature notations for future I-42 shields to be added to the pull through and ramp signs, an example:
(http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42us70havelockbypasssignplan2.jpg)

The entire sign plan set is available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf)

I have posted more of the signs with I-42 on my I-42 Exit list page:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html)

You will notice from my list that the exit numbers in the plans are closely duplicated by current exits in the New Bern area (verified by May 2018 Google Maps Street View images, which already have I-42 labels posted along the pavement). Is the future work to improve US 70 to interstate standards going to eliminate 15 or so miles from US 70's current route to account for the reduced mileage near Havelock?
Three things I noticed odd (though very minor) from the signing plans. First off, is the speed limit actually going to be 55 MPH on the bypass, or 65-70 MPH? I've heard 65-70 MPH, though the signs indicate Speed Limit 55 signs at each entrance. Also, am I the only one who thinks it's odd when it says "Welcome To - Craven County, Leaving - Carteret County" on the little county line signs? Doing a whole lot of interstate driving yesterday, at least here in Virginia, you see "Entering - XX County" as opposed to "Welcome To - XX County". Third, why U.S. 70 and U.S. 70 Business? That just seems weird, the other two bypasses (Goldsboro and Selma) have U.S. 70 Bypass, which would be removed and replaced with I-42 eventually. When an interstate is running the bypass and mainline, the U.S. / State mainline routing should be on the older / business routing.

What I find more odd is the fact that the blank space on all the signs is on the right, with US 70 being ultimately the first shield. Usually the Interstate comes first. I agree about the speed limit, though. That seems odd.
Huh, that is weird. Hopefully they'll just remove U.S. 70 and exclusively call it I-42.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on January 03, 2019, 07:39:46 AM
NCDOT released plans for the US 70 Havelock Bypass project to be let in February. The sign plans feature notations for future I-42 shields to be added to the pull through and ramp signs, an example:
(http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42us70havelockbypasssignplan2.jpg)

The entire sign plan set is available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf)

I have posted more of the signs with I-42 on my I-42 Exit list page:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html)

You will notice from my list that the exit numbers in the plans are closely duplicated by current exits in the New Bern area (verified by May 2018 Google Maps Street View images, which already have I-42 labels posted along the pavement). Is the future work to improve US 70 to interstate standards going to eliminate 15 or so miles from US 70's current route to account for the reduced mileage near Havelock?
Three things I noticed odd (though very minor) from the signing plans. First off, is the speed limit actually going to be 55 MPH on the bypass, or 65-70 MPH? I've heard 65-70 MPH, though the signs indicate Speed Limit 55 signs at each entrance. Also, am I the only one who thinks it's odd when it says "Welcome To - Craven County, Leaving - Carteret County" on the little county line signs? Doing a whole lot of interstate driving yesterday, at least here in Virginia, you see "Entering - XX County" as opposed to "Welcome To - XX County". Third, why U.S. 70 and U.S. 70 Business? That just seems weird, the other two bypasses (Goldsboro and Selma) have U.S. 70 Bypass, which would be removed and replaced with I-42 eventually. When an interstate is running the bypass and mainline, the U.S. / State mainline routing should be on the older / business routing.

What I find more odd is the fact that the blank space on all the signs is on the right, with US 70 being ultimately the first shield. Usually the Interstate comes first. I agree about the speed limit, though. That seems odd.
Huh, that is weird. Hopefully they'll just remove U.S. 70 and exclusively call it I-42.

I think it is because the Havelock Bypass will probably not be connected to the rest of the Interstate System for many years.  Just looking at a map, the I-95 to New Bern segment looks to be an easier overall upgrade than the New Bern to Havelock and points South segment.  (Of course, I could be completely wrong...)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on January 03, 2019, 05:05:47 PM
NCDOT released plans for the US 70 Havelock Bypass project to be let in February. The sign plans feature notations for future I-42 shields to be added to the pull through and ramp signs, an example:
(http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42us70havelockbypasssignplan2.jpg)

The entire sign plan set is available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf)

I have posted more of the signs with I-42 on my I-42 Exit list page:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html)

You will notice from my list that the exit numbers in the plans are closely duplicated by current exits in the New Bern area (verified by May 2018 Google Maps Street View images, which already have I-42 labels posted along the pavement). Is the future work to improve US 70 to interstate standards going to eliminate 15 or so miles from US 70's current route to account for the reduced mileage near Havelock?
Three things I noticed odd (though very minor) from the signing plans. First off, is the speed limit actually going to be 55 MPH on the bypass, or 65-70 MPH? I've heard 65-70 MPH, though the signs indicate Speed Limit 55 signs at each entrance. Also, am I the only one who thinks it's odd when it says "Welcome To - Craven County, Leaving - Carteret County" on the little county line signs? Doing a whole lot of interstate driving yesterday, at least here in Virginia, you see "Entering - XX County" as opposed to "Welcome To - XX County". Third, why U.S. 70 and U.S. 70 Business? That just seems weird, the other two bypasses (Goldsboro and Selma) have U.S. 70 Bypass, which would be removed and replaced with I-42 eventually. When an interstate is running the bypass and mainline, the U.S. / State mainline routing should be on the older / business routing.

What I find more odd is the fact that the blank space on all the signs is on the right, with US 70 being ultimately the first shield. Usually the Interstate comes first. I agree about the speed limit, though. That seems odd.
Huh, that is weird. Hopefully they'll just remove U.S. 70 and exclusively call it I-42.

I think it is because the Havelock Bypass will probably not be connected to the rest of the Interstate System for many years.  Just looking at a map, the I-95 to New Bern segment looks to be an easier overall upgrade than the New Bern to Havelock and points South segment.  (Of course, I could be completely wrong...)
It's not that, improvements are planned & funded to bring U.S. 70 to an elevated 6 lane freeway south of New Bern, then to four-lane rural freeway. Those improvements stop just 4 miles north of the proposed bypass. That will probably eventually be extended to the bypass. I think at the southern terminus of this bypass will be where I-42 ends, unless they build the Carteret County Bypass to Beaufort.

US 70 James City Improvements (freeway upgrade) - https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-james-city/Pages/default.aspx

Seems to me it's just poor planning on NCDOT's part.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on January 07, 2019, 01:52:26 PM
For those that happen to be in the area and want to attend, the next meeting of the US-70 Corridor Commission is January 31 in Smithfield. NCDOT Secretary Jim Trogdon will be the guest speaker. Exact meeting location can be found on the home page:

http://www.super70corridor.com (http://www.super70corridor.com)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on January 20, 2019, 03:39:09 AM
^addressing the few posts prior to LM117's post sans quote wall^

I think the one thing that a few of you are forgetting is that the Havelock Bypass design and planning has been in the works for right around 20 years or so (+/- a few years), well before I-42 was even a thing. Same with upgrades in the James City area. The study that brought us the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses detailed many changes that were meant to reduce the number of stop lights and thus travel time from Raleigh to the Crystal Coast. All this was done with the understanding that this would remain US-70.


The sign plan for the Havelock Bypass reflects this thinking. One should note that the I-42 sign is for Future I-42, so US-70 would take precedence as I-42 doesn't exist yet. If and when I-42 gets that far SE the signs will have to be redone, and I foresee a scenario where NCDOT would apply to have US-70 moved back to its current routing through Havelock (see US-17 in Wilmington).


I guess what I am trying to say is that the upgrades from the Neuse River Bridge to Havelock were going to happen anyway. The announcement of Future I-42 just sped up the process by approximately 5-10 years or so. Any mention of I-42 east of La Grange in Lenior County, though, is moot until the Kinston Bypass gets built and I am not seeing that getting accomplished anytime soon, its projected start date is 2025. Those signs depicted in the Havelock Bypass sign plan may very well age out by the time it will be necessary to change them.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on January 20, 2019, 03:50:29 AM
The sign plan for the Havelock Bypass reflects this thinking. One should note that the I-42 sign is for Future I-42, so US-70 would take precedence as I-42 doesn't exist yet. If and when I-42 gets that far SE the signs will have to be redone, and I foresee a scenario where NCDOT would apply to have US-70 moved back to its current routing through Havelock (see US-17 in Wilmington).
I understand, but the point was they should’ve signed the bypass as “U.S. 70 Bypass”, and left the mainline route through town. When it becomes I-42, they could easily delete “U.S. 70 Bypass”, and sign “I-42”, similar to the Goldsboro Bypass. Calling it “U.S. 70” complicates things in the future.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Roadsguy on January 20, 2019, 08:17:49 AM
From what I've gathered from NCDOT's other sign plans that I've seen, that "FUTURE East I-42" isn't a shield with a banner that will be on the sign, it's a blank space where an overlay will eventually be applied, like this:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Route_322_WB_2.jpg)

The weird thing about that, then, is why the blank space is on the right and not on the left as it normally would be, as Interstate shields are supposed to come first on signage.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on January 20, 2019, 09:35:09 AM
The sign plan for the Havelock Bypass reflects this thinking. One should note that the I-42 sign is for Future I-42, so US-70 would take precedence as I-42 doesn't exist yet. If and when I-42 gets that far SE the signs will have to be redone, and I foresee a scenario where NCDOT would apply to have US-70 moved back to its current routing through Havelock (see US-17 in Wilmington).
I understand, but the point was they should’ve signed the bypass as “U.S. 70 Bypass”, and left the mainline route through town. When it becomes I-42, they could easily delete “U.S. 70 Bypass”, and sign “I-42”, similar to the Goldsboro Bypass. Calling it “U.S. 70” complicates things in the future.

Agreed. The Goldsboro Bypass was also planned 20+ years ago (Record of Decision issued in 1998) and NCDOT had no problem signing it as US-70 Bypass, even though it wasn’t a future interstate when construction on the first section began in 2008. The Goldsboro city council (in typical fashion) did try to screw it up recently by asking NCDOT to change ‘vanilla’ 70 through town to US-70 Business by removing the business route off of Ash Street. Thankfully, NCDOT ignored their request.

I see where slorydn1 is coming from, but it’s been known for 3 years that US-70 will be eventually become an interstate. I don’t know why the sign plans couldn’t have been changed in that time period to reflect that fact. I just hope that this isn’t a preview of the Kinston Bypass...
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 06, 2019, 01:57:44 AM
NCDOT has posted a visualization of the James City upgrade project.

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Roadsguy on February 06, 2019, 10:37:21 AM
NCDOT has posted a visualization of the James City upgrade project.


Also a view from the road and a rendering of the temporary through lanes:



Does this mean they settled on an alternative? I could've sworn they hadn't decided on one last time I saw the project.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: jcarte29 on February 06, 2019, 02:12:41 PM
Wow that all looks like a replica of the US 74 Monroe Expressway Western end before the turn off. It will be a mess in the interim but super nice after!
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on February 06, 2019, 04:32:09 PM
NCDOT has posted a visualization of the James City upgrade project.


NCDOT has posted a visualization of the James City upgrade project.


Also a view from the road and a rendering of the temporary through lanes:



Does this mean they settled on an alternative? I could've sworn they hadn't decided on one last time I saw the project.
Definitely some good quality renderings, and really give perspective on how the road will be. I do disagree with the design though. Looking at this, along with the actual plans, it seems oddly done. Similar to how the Monroe Expressway was done, and how every urban freeway in Texas is done, why didn't they just have one-way frontage roads on each side, with slip-off / on ramps, and U-Turn points under the bridges? The current design just seems out of place, and could be confusing to navigate. Continuous one-way frontage roads would better serve businesses, provide easier access, etc.

The "temporary through lanes" construction phasing video is how it should actually be built, with 2-lane one-way frontage roads in each direction, and be continuous with slip-off / on ramps + U-Turns under the bridges.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on February 06, 2019, 09:09:06 PM
I don't see the frontage road design as an issue.  Especially closer to New Bern, most of the properties on the northeast side (on the left when looking at the first video) have a backage road in the form of SR 1113/Old Cherry Point Rd.  The southwest side is where you would need the continuous frontage road.

If they were to do one-way frontage roads on each side, they'd either need to end them at Williams Rd (which would still require a 2-way replacement for the existing frontage road through the fast food restaurants), or incur additional expense for another bridge closer to the US 17 interchange.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on February 06, 2019, 09:29:35 PM
I don't see the frontage road design as an issue.  Especially closer to New Bern, most of the properties on the northeast side (on the left when looking at the first video) have a backage road in the form of SR 1113/Old Cherry Point Rd.  The southwest side is where you would need the continuous frontage road.

If they were to do one-way frontage roads on each side, they'd either need to end them at Williams Rd (which would still require a 2-way replacement for the existing frontage road through the fast food restaurants), or incur additional expense for another bridge closer to the US 17 interchange.
Look at the construction phasing video.


A continuous frontage one-way two-lane design is going to get built for the temp. mainline, but then be torn up once the freeway opens. They should build that, and attach the ramps to / from the one-way roads permanently. The only difference is the overpass bridges would have to be slightly longer to accommodate the U-Turns underneath.

The existing concept might work for locals, but it makes it harder for out-of-town traffic to visit businesses, etc. along the frontage roads, because they aren't continuous. In some areas, they just dead end to make way for a controlled off-ramp. If they were continuous on both sides, travelers could exit I-42, drive the frontage road until reaching the business, or turn around via the U-Turns under the bridge, instead of having to go out of the way to reach it, then have to come all the way back to reach the entrance to I-42.

It works all throughout Texas, and other areas they've implemented them. About 1 mile of the U.S. 74 Monroe Expressway outside of Charlotte was recently built with a continuous frontage road design with U-Turns, one-way, etc. It would make sense if they did it here, especially considering the fact frontage roads already exist continuously, and should remain that way, but as one-way frontage roads.

It would also involve less R/W when the road has to divert off of its path to make way for the off-ramp. If the off-ramp and one-way frontage road were together, it would make for less R/W impact, and a smoother flow of traffic.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Gnutella on February 11, 2019, 03:55:11 PM
I wonder what NCDOT will do with the I-95 interchange? Will new ramps be built or will the breezewood-ish status quo be maintained? There are better alternatives in three quadrants, all of which are (or will be) interstates, that cut off the corner for long distance traffic. The quadrant with the missing connection is I-95N to I-42E (and the reverse, I-42W to I-95S.) Is that one movement important enough to merit an eight figure interchange project? Probably not in our lifetimes. Maybe that little stretch of US 70 could get an alternate designation of Business (Green) I-42.

LGL33L

As far as I know, it will be a Breezewood. There's been no mention of a direct I-42/I-95 connection. Personally, I'd like to see a direct interchange with I-42 and I-95 built to keep thru traffic off of US-70, but from the looks of it, it would be a LOT of work to make it happen.


Looking at Google Maps, there won't be enough room to put an interchange there because there are businesses near the interstate.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/DeWayne's/@35.5168823,-78.2977414,681m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0000000000000000:0x1b67d7e4ccbee91e!8m2!3d35.516594!4d-78.2984374


That interchange reminds me of the interchange between I-70 and U.S. 63 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/DeWayne's/@38.9633967,-92.2997325,2734m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0000000000000000:0x1b67d7e4ccbee91e!8m2!3d35.516594!4d-78.2984374) in Columbia, MO.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Roadsguy on February 11, 2019, 04:08:51 PM
There are definitely plans for an upgrade there, but they're years away and I don't think they're accessible from the main NCDOT site. I think they were discussed earlier in this thread somewhere, though I don't think they were known yet back in 2016 when those quoted posts were written.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 11, 2019, 06:30:18 PM
There are definitely plans for an upgrade there, but they're years away and I don't think they're accessible from the main NCDOT site. I think they were discussed earlier in this thread somewhere, though I don't think they were known yet back in 2016 when those quoted posts were written.
The idea was to relocate I-95 to the east in order to create space for an interchange. Here's a conceptual plan as it was drawn a couple of years ago:
https://jocoreport.com/dot-could-relocate-i-95-between-smithfield-and-selma/
This plan draws a cloverleaf interchange of US 70 (now Future I-42) with the relocated I-95. It's likely that more recent plans include one or more flyover ramps, but as far as I know they haven't been released.

In any case, no Breezewood.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on February 12, 2019, 05:43:09 AM
The fact that long distance traffic has better alternatives in most directions (Fayetteville-Raleigh: I-40; Raleigh-Richmond: I-87; Richmond-Goldsboro: I-795) means that probably only the Goldsboro-Fayetteville movement should be considered for a flyover. I do like the overall plan of relocating I-95 to the east. This is a tight stretch on I-95 as it is, hemmed in by businesses and frontage roads, so an outright relocation through mostly open agricultural land might actually be cheaper.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 12, 2019, 10:25:30 AM
As of August 2018, the cloverleaf design is the only one proposed for the I-95/I-42 interchange.

Here’s the feasibility study: https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: US 89 on February 12, 2019, 02:45:23 PM
I wonder what NCDOT will do with the I-95 interchange? Will new ramps be built or will the breezewood-ish status quo be maintained? There are better alternatives in three quadrants, all of which are (or will be) interstates, that cut off the corner for long distance traffic. The quadrant with the missing connection is I-95N to I-42E (and the reverse, I-42W to I-95S.) Is that one movement important enough to merit an eight figure interchange project? Probably not in our lifetimes. Maybe that little stretch of US 70 could get an alternate designation of Business (Green) I-42.

LGL33L

As far as I know, it will be a Breezewood. There's been no mention of a direct I-42/I-95 connection. Personally, I'd like to see a direct interchange with I-42 and I-95 built to keep thru traffic off of US-70, but from the looks of it, it would be a LOT of work to make it happen.


Looking at Google Maps, there won't be enough room to put an interchange there because there are businesses near the interstate.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/DeWayne's/@35.5168823,-78.2977414,681m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0000000000000000:0x1b67d7e4ccbee91e!8m2!3d35.516594!4d-78.2984374


That interchange reminds me of the interchange between I-70 and U.S. 63 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/DeWayne's/@38.9633967,-92.2997325,2734m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0000000000000000:0x1b67d7e4ccbee91e!8m2!3d35.516594!4d-78.2984374) in Columbia, MO.

Or the interchange between I-70 and E-470 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7405404,-104.7209033,2646m/data=!3m1!1e3) in Aurora, CO.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 14, 2019, 01:55:54 PM
Construction began a month ago to upgrade the US-70 freeway between Dover and New Bern to interstate standards.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on February 14, 2019, 04:39:27 PM
Construction began a month ago to upgrade the US-70 freeway between Dover and New Bern to interstate standards.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx)
I see the real possibility to have I-42 fully completed and signed from I-40 to Havelock completed in 10 years. Every section has a planned project, and has advanced further from just a concept.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on February 14, 2019, 06:19:56 PM
Construction began a month ago to upgrade the US-70 freeway between Dover and New Bern to interstate standards.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx)
I see the real possibility to have I-42 fully completed and signed from I-40 to Havelock completed in 10 years. Every section has a planned project, and has advanced further from just a concept.
Perhaps east of Goldsboro. Not all the projects to bring US 70 in Wayne and Johnston Counties to interstate standards will be completed by 2029 according to the Draft 2020-2029 STIP. While the project that will upgrade US 70 to a freeway in Johnston from Business 70 to the Neuse River bridge with interchanges with Swift Creek and Wilson's Mills Roads is to start this year, the project that will upgrade the route from Pondfield Road in Johnson County to the Goldsboro Bypass is to be built in 2 stages, with the second not starting construction until 2028. Neither of these addresses the section through Smithfield including if, and where, there will be an interchange with I-95. Improvements are to be made to the US 70/I-95 interchange in 2020, but this is unrelated to I-42.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on February 14, 2019, 08:22:54 PM
Construction began a month ago to upgrade the US-70 freeway between Dover and New Bern to interstate standards.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx)
I see the real possibility to have I-42 fully completed and signed from I-40 to Havelock completed in 10 years. Every section has a planned project, and has advanced further from just a concept.
Perhaps east of Goldsboro. Not all the projects to bring US 70 in Wayne and Johnston Counties to interstate standards will be completed by 2029 according to the Draft 2020-2029 STIP. While the project that will upgrade US 70 to a freeway in Johnston from Business 70 to the Neuse River bridge with interchanges with Swift Creek and Wilson's Mills Roads is to start this year, the project that will upgrade the route from Pondfield Road in Johnson County to the Goldsboro Bypass is to be built in 2 stages, with the second not starting construction until 2028. Neither of these addresses the section through Smithfield including if, and where, there will be an interchange with I-95. Improvements are to be made to the US 70/I-95 interchange in 2020, but this is unrelated to I-42.
Couldn't the section from Princeton (once upgraded) to Havelock be still signed officially as I-42 because it connects to an existing interstate highway (I-795 in Goldsboro)? Or does it have to connect to a mainline?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Roadsguy on February 14, 2019, 08:40:21 PM
Construction began a month ago to upgrade the US-70 freeway between Dover and New Bern to interstate standards.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx)
I see the real possibility to have I-42 fully completed and signed from I-40 to Havelock completed in 10 years. Every section has a planned project, and has advanced further from just a concept.
Perhaps east of Goldsboro. Not all the projects to bring US 70 in Wayne and Johnston Counties to interstate standards will be completed by 2029 according to the Draft 2020-2029 STIP. While the project that will upgrade US 70 to a freeway in Johnston from Business 70 to the Neuse River bridge with interchanges with Swift Creek and Wilson's Mills Roads is to start this year, the project that will upgrade the route from Pondfield Road in Johnson County to the Goldsboro Bypass is to be built in 2 stages, with the second not starting construction until 2028. Neither of these addresses the section through Smithfield including if, and where, there will be an interchange with I-95. Improvements are to be made to the US 70/I-95 interchange in 2020, but this is unrelated to I-42.
Couldn't the section from Princeton (once upgraded) to Havelock be still signed officially as I-42 because it connects to an existing interstate highway (I-795 in Goldsboro)? Or does it have to connect to a mainline?

I-97 connects two 3di's (one unsigned) without intersecting any other 2di, so I don't see why not.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on February 15, 2019, 03:08:14 PM
Construction began a month ago to upgrade the US-70 freeway between Dover and New Bern to interstate standards.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx)
I see the real possibility to have I-42 fully completed and signed from I-40 to Havelock completed in 10 years. Every section has a planned project, and has advanced further from just a concept.
Perhaps east of Goldsboro. Not all the projects to bring US 70 in Wayne and Johnston Counties to interstate standards will be completed by 2029 according to the Draft 2020-2029 STIP. While the project that will upgrade US 70 to a freeway in Johnston from Business 70 to the Neuse River bridge with interchanges with Swift Creek and Wilson's Mills Roads is to start this year, the project that will upgrade the route from Pondfield Road in Johnson County to the Goldsboro Bypass is to be built in 2 stages, with the second not starting construction until 2028. Neither of these addresses the section through Smithfield including if, and where, there will be an interchange with I-95. Improvements are to be made to the US 70/I-95 interchange in 2020, but this is unrelated to I-42.
Couldn't the section from Princeton (once upgraded) to Havelock be still signed officially as I-42 because it connects to an existing interstate highway (I-795 in Goldsboro)? Or does it have to connect to a mainline?

I-97 connects two 3di's (one unsigned) without intersecting any other 2di, so I don't see why not.

Well looking at Google maps (which can be deceiving) the Goldsboro bypass from US 70 on the East side to NC 903 is both Interstate quality and connected to an Interstate, so If NC wanted, they could sign it as I-42 now. (Unless I am missing something.)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 04:47:52 PM
Construction began a month ago to upgrade the US-70 freeway between Dover and New Bern to interstate standards.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx)
I see the real possibility to have I-42 fully completed and signed from I-40 to Havelock completed in 10 years. Every section has a planned project, and has advanced further from just a concept.
Perhaps east of Goldsboro. Not all the projects to bring US 70 in Wayne and Johnston Counties to interstate standards will be completed by 2029 according to the Draft 2020-2029 STIP. While the project that will upgrade US 70 to a freeway in Johnston from Business 70 to the Neuse River bridge with interchanges with Swift Creek and Wilson's Mills Roads is to start this year, the project that will upgrade the route from Pondfield Road in Johnson County to the Goldsboro Bypass is to be built in 2 stages, with the second not starting construction until 2028. Neither of these addresses the section through Smithfield including if, and where, there will be an interchange with I-95. Improvements are to be made to the US 70/I-95 interchange in 2020, but this is unrelated to I-42.
Couldn't the section from Princeton (once upgraded) to Havelock be still signed officially as I-42 because it connects to an existing interstate highway (I-795 in Goldsboro)? Or does it have to connect to a mainline?

I-97 connects two 3di's (one unsigned) without intersecting any other 2di, so I don't see why not.

Well looking at Google maps (which can be deceiving) the Goldsboro bypass from US 70 on the East side to NC 903 is both Interstate quality and connected to an Interstate, so If NC wanted, they could sign it as I-42 now. (Unless I am missing something.)
No, you're correct. The US 70 Goldsboro Bypass opened in 2016, and was built to full interstate standards. I wonder why they didn't sign it upon its completion.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on February 18, 2019, 05:50:50 PM
Construction began a month ago to upgrade the US-70 freeway between Dover and New Bern to interstate standards.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx)
I see the real possibility to have I-42 fully completed and signed from I-40 to Havelock completed in 10 years. Every section has a planned project, and has advanced further from just a concept.
Perhaps east of Goldsboro. Not all the projects to bring US 70 in Wayne and Johnston Counties to interstate standards will be completed by 2029 according to the Draft 2020-2029 STIP. While the project that will upgrade US 70 to a freeway in Johnston from Business 70 to the Neuse River bridge with interchanges with Swift Creek and Wilson's Mills Roads is to start this year, the project that will upgrade the route from Pondfield Road in Johnson County to the Goldsboro Bypass is to be built in 2 stages, with the second not starting construction until 2028. Neither of these addresses the section through Smithfield including if, and where, there will be an interchange with I-95. Improvements are to be made to the US 70/I-95 interchange in 2020, but this is unrelated to I-42.
Couldn't the section from Princeton (once upgraded) to Havelock be still signed officially as I-42 because it connects to an existing interstate highway (I-795 in Goldsboro)? Or does it have to connect to a mainline?

I-97 connects two 3di's (one unsigned) without intersecting any other 2di, so I don't see why not.

Well looking at Google maps (which can be deceiving) the Goldsboro bypass from US 70 on the East side to NC 903 is both Interstate quality and connected to an Interstate, so If NC wanted, they could sign it as I-42 now. (Unless I am missing something.)
No, you're correct. The US 70 Goldsboro Bypass opened in 2016, and was built to full interstate standards. I wonder why they didn't sign it upon its completion.
Good question. It seems to go against NCDOT's recent practice of putting up new interstate signs as soon as they can on interstate standard routes (I-87 for just I-440 and the Knightdale Bypass, previously I-495 for just a few miles from I-440 to I-540). Perhaps they want to wait until it connects to I-95. If they preferred to sign it only where it connects to a 2di, they could have signed it along the Clayton Bypass.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on February 18, 2019, 08:51:22 PM
Good question. It seems to go against NCDOT's recent practice of putting up new interstate signs as soon as they can on interstate standard routes (I-87 for just I-440 and the Knightdale Bypass, previously I-495 for just a few miles from I-440 to I-540). Perhaps they want to wait until it connects to I-95. If they preferred to sign it only where it connects to a 2di, they could have signed it along the Clayton Bypass.
I assumed when they signed I-87 on the Knightdale Bypass, I-42 would go on the Clayton Bypass.

Another thought - 20 miles of U.S. 264 freeway (2 miles west of I-95 to 18 miles east of I-95) meet Interstate Standards. Connecting to both I-795 and I-95, why don't they sign that as I-587? Or at that point does it have to connect to its parent (I-87)?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 18, 2019, 10:05:29 PM
Another thought - 20 miles of U.S. 264 freeway (2 miles west of I-95 to 18 miles east of I-95) meet Interstate Standards. Connecting to both I-795 and I-95, why don't they sign that as I-587? Or at that point does it have to connect to its parent (I-87)?

Didn't stop TX signing I-369, even though it didn't connect to I-69 yet.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on February 18, 2019, 10:32:38 PM
Another thought - 20 miles of U.S. 264 freeway (2 miles west of I-95 to 18 miles east of I-95) meet Interstate Standards. Connecting to both I-795 and I-95, why don't they sign that as I-587? Or at that point does it have to connect to its parent (I-87)?

Didn't stop TX signing I-369, even though it didn't connect to I-69 yet.
Good point. I'm shocked they haven't tried I-587 yet. Then again Texas is also the state that signed I-2, I-69E, and I-69C
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 18, 2019, 11:18:03 PM
Another thought - 20 miles of U.S. 264 freeway (2 miles west of I-95 to 18 miles east of I-95) meet Interstate Standards. Connecting to both I-795 and I-95, why don't they sign that as I-587? Or at that point does it have to connect to its parent (I-87)?

Didn't stop TX signing I-369, even though it didn't connect to I-69 yet.
Good point. I'm shocked they haven't tried I-587 yet. Then again Texas is also the state that signed I-2, I-69E, and I-69C

& I-69W (https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-069w_tx.html). ;)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: goobnav on February 19, 2019, 06:10:37 AM
Another thought - 20 miles of U.S. 264 freeway (2 miles west of I-95 to 18 miles east of I-95) meet Interstate Standards. Connecting to both I-795 and I-95, why don't they sign that as I-587? Or at that point does it have to connect to its parent (I-87)?

Didn't stop TX signing I-369, even though it didn't connect to I-69 yet.
Good point. I'm shocked they haven't tried I-587 yet. Then again Texas is also the state that signed I-2, I-69E, and I-69C

There are future signs posted, the Goldsboro bypass has Future I-42 and 264 after the 64 split near Zebulon has Future I-587.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on February 19, 2019, 11:10:30 AM
We have talked about this before. Several times. My take is that they are keeping it as US70 for the time being because jumping back and forth from US70 to I-42 would make mile markers and exit numbers jump around confusingly. If this were entirely a freeway built on a new route then this problem would be immaterial but since it jumps back and forth between new alignment, upgraded old alignment, and un-upgraded old alignment, keeping it as US70 and just signing future I-42 maintains consistency. I suspect that completion as far as Havelock is close enough at hand that they will just sign it all from Clayton (Raleigh?) to Havelock as I-42 in a big bang when the whole thing is finished.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 19, 2019, 12:27:51 PM
We have talked about this before. Several times. My take is that they are keeping it as US70 for the time being because jumping back and forth from US70 to I-42 would make mile markers and exit numbers jump around confusingly.

That didn’t stop NCDOT from signing I-73/I-74 piecemeal.

Personally, if I-42 were to get signed anywhere right now, the Clayton Bypass would be the only spot where it would make sense, given that it’s the beginning/end, like I-87 in Raleigh & Knightdale.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on February 19, 2019, 05:18:14 PM
& I-69W (https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-069w_tx.html). ;)
At least that connects to another interstate (I-35)  :-D
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 19, 2019, 05:39:49 PM
Public meeting set for February 26 on the upgrade of US 70 to Future I-42 in James City.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/R-5777AB-2019-02-26.aspx
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on February 19, 2019, 05:43:10 PM
Public meeting set for February 26 on the upgrade of US 70 to Future I-42 in James City.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/R-5777AB-2019-02-26.aspx
I thought that was already refined. Are they re-doing the designs again, or are they just telling the public - hey, here's our plans, if you don't like them, too bad, construction starts next year.?

There's some design changes I'd like to see, and I will write a comment in, but if nothing is going to change (designs are refined, construction starts soon), I won't bother for the obvious reason of it's not changing.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: slorydn1 on February 21, 2019, 01:25:48 AM
Construction began a month ago to upgrade the US-70 freeway between Dover and New Bern to interstate standards.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx)

They haven't done anything yet, but line the side of the road with cones and barrels...
I am not sure what they are waiting for, unless its all the rain we have had the last week or so.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 21, 2019, 05:54:20 PM
Construction began a month ago to upgrade the US-70 freeway between Dover and New Bern to interstate standards.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx)

Bit of a tangent here... This project is $25.5 million for upgrading about 32 miles of 70 to interstate standards. Now, looking at the statewide projects that were submitted for prioritization, the estimated cost to upgrade US 74 to interstate standards between I-26 and the Shelby Bypass (approx. 30 miles) is $212.5 million.

Huh? I'm not great at math, but something seems off.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2019, 06:41:13 PM
Bit of a tangent here... This project is $25.5 million for upgrading about 32 miles of 70 to interstate standards. Now, looking at the statewide projects that were submitted for prioritization, the estimated cost to upgrade US 74 to interstate standards between I-26 and the Shelby Bypass (approx. 30 miles) is $212.5 million.

Huh? I'm not great at math, but something seems off.
The US 70 stretch is about 26 miles. The highway was opened in 1979, and the bridges and overpasses conform to modern design standards. All that's involved with the upgrade are constructing 10 foot paved shoulders (about $1 million per mile). The bridges also carry 10 foot shoulders across them, so no bridge widening & replacements are needed.

About 20 miles of the US 74 stretch opened in 1992 & 1994, but about 10 miles opened in 1970, and 2 miles between I-26 and Exit 163 (NC 108) opened in 1975. The 1970 stretch has some way substandard bridges, do not provide full 16 foot clearance, and do not carry shoulder across them. These would all have to be replaced, and that can be pretty expensive because you also have to raise them. Some interchanges would be likely need to modified as well. Also, not to mention the non-freeway mile between the end of the 1970 freeway and the recent 2016 freeway upgrade. Crosses a small creek with substandard + no shoulder bridges that would need to be replaced, a railroad overpass that would likely need to be replaced as well, along with likely a partial or full interchange constructed with US 74 / US 74 Business (Ellenboro Rd). The 10 homes, 6 trailers, 1 business, and 1 church would have to either have a frontage road constructed or fully bought out.

To break down the costs...
- $25 or 30 million for the 1 mile gap in the freeway
- $32 or 35 million for shoulder widening & reconstruction
- About $150 million for bridge replacements, raising, and possibly a couple interchange modifications (about 13 bridges, $11 million or so per bridge)

It seems to be a reasonable estimate for those reasons.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on February 21, 2019, 06:48:53 PM
^ If the I-85 upgrade project between Henderson and the Virginia state line is any indication, then NCDOT will probably lower the highway in order to increase bridge clearances rather than replace the bridges themselves.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2019, 06:57:11 PM
^ If the I-85 upgrade project between Henderson and the Virginia state line is any indication, then NCDOT will probably lower the highway in order to increase bridge clearances rather than replace the bridges themselves.
That would still involve a very expensive project (I-85 cost $137 million). You would have to fully reconstruct that area of highway, including everything below the pavement. Another thing in regards to the I-85 upgrade - that was designed to interstate standards at the time when it opened in 1960. The reconstruction of the highway did not replace substandard bridges. A true interstate upgrade to US 74 would involve  replacing the substandard bridges as well, especially if it's looking to have a blue and red shield. It would have to meet today's interstate standards, including modern bridges. Pre-existing long bridges (long river crossings with narrow shoulders, etc.) are exempt from this requirement, though none exist on this stretch.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 21, 2019, 08:51:42 PM
Bit of a tangent here... This project is $25.5 million for upgrading about 32 miles of 70 to interstate standards. Now, looking at the statewide projects that were submitted for prioritization, the estimated cost to upgrade US 74 to interstate standards between I-26 and the Shelby Bypass (approx. 30 miles) is $212.5 million.

Huh? I'm not great at math, but something seems off.
The US 70 stretch is about 26 miles. The highway was opened in 1979, and the bridges and overpasses conform to modern design standards. All that's involved with the upgrade are constructing 10 foot paved shoulders (about $1 million per mile). The bridges also carry 10 foot shoulders across them, so no bridge widening & replacements are needed.

About 20 miles of the US 74 stretch opened in 1992 & 1994, but about 10 miles opened in 1970, and 2 miles between I-26 and Exit 163 (NC 108) opened in 1975. The 1970 stretch has some way substandard bridges, do not provide full 16 foot clearance, and do not carry shoulder across them. These would all have to be replaced, and that can be pretty expensive because you also have to raise them. Some interchanges would be likely need to modified as well. Also, not to mention the non-freeway mile between the end of the 1970 freeway and the recent 2016 freeway upgrade. Crosses a small creek with substandard + no shoulder bridges that would need to be replaced, a railroad overpass that would likely need to be replaced as well, along with likely a partial or full interchange constructed with US 74 / US 74 Business (Ellenboro Rd). The 10 homes, 6 trailers, 1 business, and 1 church would have to either have a frontage road constructed or fully bought out.

To break down the costs...
- $25 or 30 million for the 1 mile gap in the freeway
- $32 or 35 million for shoulder widening & reconstruction
- About $150 million for bridge replacements, raising, and possibly a couple interchange modifications (about 13 bridges, $11 million or so per bridge)

It seems to be a reasonable estimate for those reasons.

Except there are already separate projects for some of those:


Can't say for sure about the vertical clearances on the overpasses, but horizontal seems fine. I don't recall any of them being posted for having a low clearance. The interchanges east of 74A seem to have reasonably long on-ramps, so I don't know why they would need to be modified.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on March 11, 2019, 09:15:14 AM
Does anybody know what the hold up is with the Havelock Bypass? The project page still lists construction as starting in February 2019, but so far the contract still hasn’t been awarded. There’s been no mention of it in the news and the US-70 Corridor Commission still hasn’t posted the minutes of their November meeting, so no luck there either. :hmm:

As for the Kinston Bypass, the project page lists the preferred alternative being selected in February 2019, but there’s been nothing on that.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on March 11, 2019, 12:17:34 PM
Does anybody know what the hold up is with the Havelock Bypass? The project page still lists construction as starting in February 2019, but so far the contract still hasn’t been awarded. There’s been no mention of it in the news and the US-70 Corridor Commission still hasn’t posted the minutes of their November meeting, so no luck there either. :hmm:

As for the Kinston Bypass, the project page lists the preferred alternative being selected in February 2019, but there’s been nothing on that.
According to this document, the Havelock Bypass project was withdrawn from the Feb. 19th letting and will instead be let on March 19, no reason is given:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf)

Also NCDOT has not released the new 2019-2020 State Transportation Map yet, but since the last one wasn't released until May, I guess it can't be called late.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on March 11, 2019, 01:16:40 PM
Does anybody know what the hold up is with the Havelock Bypass? The project page still lists construction as starting in February 2019, but so far the contract still hasn’t been awarded. There’s been no mention of it in the news and the US-70 Corridor Commission still hasn’t posted the minutes of their November meeting, so no luck there either. :hmm:

As for the Kinston Bypass, the project page lists the preferred alternative being selected in February 2019, but there’s been nothing on that.
According to this document, the Havelock Bypass project was withdrawn from the Feb. 19th letting and will instead be let on March 19, no reason is given:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf)

Also NCDOT has not released the new 2019-2020 State Transportation Map yet, but since the last one wasn't released until May, I guess it can't be called late.

Thanks for the update. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on March 11, 2019, 04:46:02 PM
Does anybody know what the hold up is with the Havelock Bypass? The project page still lists construction as starting in February 2019, but so far the contract still hasn’t been awarded. There’s been no mention of it in the news and the US-70 Corridor Commission still hasn’t posted the minutes of their November meeting, so no luck there either. :hmm:

As for the Kinston Bypass, the project page lists the preferred alternative being selected in February 2019, but there’s been nothing on that.
According to this document, the Havelock Bypass project was withdrawn from the Feb. 19th letting and will instead be let on March 19, no reason is given:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf)
Maybe they realized I-42 comes first in the signage, then US 70, or the old road should be US-70, not US-70 Business ;-)

But honestly, who knows why.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Roadsguy on March 11, 2019, 04:57:57 PM
Does anybody know what the hold up is with the Havelock Bypass? The project page still lists construction as starting in February 2019, but so far the contract still hasn’t been awarded. There’s been no mention of it in the news and the US-70 Corridor Commission still hasn’t posted the minutes of their November meeting, so no luck there either. :hmm:

As for the Kinston Bypass, the project page lists the preferred alternative being selected in February 2019, but there’s been nothing on that.
According to this document, the Havelock Bypass project was withdrawn from the Feb. 19th letting and will instead be let on March 19, no reason is given:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf)
Maybe they realized I-42 comes first in the signage, then US 70, or the old road should be US-70, not US-70 Business ;-)

But honestly, who knows why.

Maybe they changed something in the signing plans, but this wasn't it.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on March 11, 2019, 05:13:05 PM
Does anybody know what the hold up is with the Havelock Bypass? The project page still lists construction as starting in February 2019, but so far the contract still hasn’t been awarded. There’s been no mention of it in the news and the US-70 Corridor Commission still hasn’t posted the minutes of their November meeting, so no luck there either. :hmm:

As for the Kinston Bypass, the project page lists the preferred alternative being selected in February 2019, but there’s been nothing on that.
According to this document, the Havelock Bypass project was withdrawn from the Feb. 19th letting and will instead be let on March 19, no reason is given:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf)
Maybe they realized I-42 comes first in the signage, then US 70, or the old road should be US-70, not US-70 Business ;-)

But honestly, who knows why.

Maybe they changed something in the signing plans, but this wasn't it.
Who knows. At minimum they could've swapped the I-42 and US 70 shield locations to properly match how it should be, with I-42 first, and US 70 last, not the other way around.

But I doubt it.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on March 12, 2019, 12:07:20 PM
Does anybody know what the hold up is with the Havelock Bypass? The project page still lists construction as starting in February 2019, but so far the contract still hasn’t been awarded. There’s been no mention of it in the news and the US-70 Corridor Commission still hasn’t posted the minutes of their November meeting, so no luck there either. :hmm:

As for the Kinston Bypass, the project page lists the preferred alternative being selected in February 2019, but there’s been nothing on that.
According to this document, the Havelock Bypass project was withdrawn from the Feb. 19th letting and will instead be let on March 19, no reason is given:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf)
Maybe they realized I-42 comes first in the signage, then US 70, or the old road should be US-70, not US-70 Business ;-)

But honestly, who knows why.

Maybe they changed something in the signing plans, but this wasn't it.
Who knows. At minimum they could've swapped the I-42 and US 70 shield locations to properly match how it should be, with I-42 first, and US 70 last, not the other way around.

But I doubt it.
A quick look at the sign plans attached to the March letting showed no changes to the sign plans, nor were the exit numbers, which duplicate those on US 70 west of New Bern, revised.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on March 15, 2019, 02:09:14 PM
Construction began a month ago to upgrade the US-70 freeway between Dover and New Bern to interstate standards.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-14-craven-county-work-interstate-standards.aspx)

Update.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-15-craven-county-highway-upgrade-interstate.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-15-craven-county-highway-upgrade-interstate.aspx)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 16, 2019, 10:25:28 AM
Does anybody know what the hold up is with the Havelock Bypass? The project page still lists construction as starting in February 2019, but so far the contract still hasn’t been awarded. There’s been no mention of it in the news and the US-70 Corridor Commission still hasn’t posted the minutes of their November meeting, so no luck there either. :hmm:

As for the Kinston Bypass, the project page lists the preferred alternative being selected in February 2019, but there’s been nothing on that.
According to this document, the Havelock Bypass project was withdrawn from the Feb. 19th letting and will instead be let on March 19, no reason is given:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf)
Maybe they realized I-42 comes first in the signage, then US 70, or the old road should be US-70, not US-70 Business ;-)

But honestly, who knows why.

Maybe they changed something in the signing plans, but this wasn't it.

More likely, a contractor asked for an extension to complete their bid or something to that effect.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on March 19, 2019, 06:16:33 PM
Does anybody know what the hold up is with the Havelock Bypass? The project page still lists construction as starting in February 2019, but so far the contract still hasn’t been awarded. There’s been no mention of it in the news and the US-70 Corridor Commission still hasn’t posted the minutes of their November meeting, so no luck there either. :hmm:

As for the Kinston Bypass, the project page lists the preferred alternative being selected in February 2019, but there’s been nothing on that.
According to this document, the Havelock Bypass project was withdrawn from the Feb. 19th letting and will instead be let on March 19, no reason is given:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf)
Maybe they realized I-42 comes first in the signage, then US 70, or the old road should be US-70, not US-70 Business ;-)

But honestly, who knows why.

Maybe they changed something in the signing plans, but this wasn't it.

More likely, a contractor asked for an extension to complete their bid or something to that effect.
NCDOT posted a letter to the document page for the Havelock Bypass project explaining the pulling of the project from the March letting was due to needed extra time to get all the permits needed for construction:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/04-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CARTERET_CRAVEN_R-1015_C204177/Pulled_from_March_Letter.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/04-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CARTERET_CRAVEN_R-1015_C204177/Pulled_from_March_Letter.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on March 19, 2019, 06:47:56 PM
Does anybody know what the hold up is with the Havelock Bypass? The project page still lists construction as starting in February 2019, but so far the contract still hasn’t been awarded. There’s been no mention of it in the news and the US-70 Corridor Commission still hasn’t posted the minutes of their November meeting, so no luck there either. :hmm:

As for the Kinston Bypass, the project page lists the preferred alternative being selected in February 2019, but there’s been nothing on that.
According to this document, the Havelock Bypass project was withdrawn from the Feb. 19th letting and will instead be let on March 19, no reason is given:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf)
Maybe they realized I-42 comes first in the signage, then US 70, or the old road should be US-70, not US-70 Business ;-)

But honestly, who knows why.

Maybe they changed something in the signing plans, but this wasn't it.

More likely, a contractor asked for an extension to complete their bid or something to that effect.
NCDOT posted a letter to the document page for the Havelock Bypass project explaining the pulling of the project from the March letting was due to needed extra time to get all the permits needed for construction:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/04-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CARTERET_CRAVEN_R-1015_C204177/Pulled_from_March_Letter.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/04-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CARTERET_CRAVEN_R-1015_C204177/Pulled_from_March_Letter.pdf)
It'll be 2020 before this thing gets started.  :pan:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on March 19, 2019, 07:32:32 PM
Does anybody know what the hold up is with the Havelock Bypass? The project page still lists construction as starting in February 2019, but so far the contract still hasn’t been awarded. There’s been no mention of it in the news and the US-70 Corridor Commission still hasn’t posted the minutes of their November meeting, so no luck there either. :hmm:

As for the Kinston Bypass, the project page lists the preferred alternative being selected in February 2019, but there’s been nothing on that.
According to this document, the Havelock Bypass project was withdrawn from the Feb. 19th letting and will instead be let on March 19, no reason is given:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/02-19-2019%20Central%20Letting/Carteret-Craven%20R-1015%20C204177%20%20Withdrawal%20from%20February%2019%202019.pdf)
Maybe they realized I-42 comes first in the signage, then US 70, or the old road should be US-70, not US-70 Business ;-)

But honestly, who knows why.

Maybe they changed something in the signing plans, but this wasn't it.

More likely, a contractor asked for an extension to complete their bid or something to that effect.
NCDOT posted a letter to the document page for the Havelock Bypass project explaining the pulling of the project from the March letting was due to needed extra time to get all the permits needed for construction:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/04-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CARTERET_CRAVEN_R-1015_C204177/Pulled_from_March_Letter.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/04-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CARTERET_CRAVEN_R-1015_C204177/Pulled_from_March_Letter.pdf)
It'll be 2020 before this thing gets started.  :pan:

SHUT UP! :-P
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: goobnav on March 20, 2019, 07:01:13 AM
I'd say the majority, not all of I-42 will be ready by 2030, signed, that's a different story.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on March 22, 2019, 02:03:47 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-22-craven-county-highway-ramp-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-22-craven-county-highway-ramp-closure.aspx)

Quote
An entrance ramp to a Craven County highway will close early next week as the N.C. Department of Transportation continues work to upgrade the highway to an interstate.

On Monday, weather permitting, the westbound entrance ramp to U.S. 70 at Clarks Road in New Bern will be closed to traffic. If it should rain, crews will work March 26. During the closure, NCDOT will remove the top 2.5” of existing asphalt and replace it with 2.5” of new asphalt.

Traffic on Clarks Road will be sent eastbound onto U.S. 70 to the N.C. 43 exit. After taking the exit, traffic will drive on the bridge over U.S. 70 and turn left onto the entrance ramp for U.S. 70 West.

The work is part of a larger project to bring U.S. 70 up to interstate standards. Crews are widening shoulders, as well as milling and repaving the highway, which will be renamed Interstate 42. The project in its entirety is 32 miles long and costs $25.5 million.

For real-time travel information, visit DriveNC.gov or follow NCDOT on social media.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Roadsguy on March 25, 2019, 08:48:03 PM
I contacted NCDOT a few weeks ago about the wrongly ordered shields on the Havelock Bypass signage. I finally heard back today and they will be revising the signage plans to have the future I-42 space come first. My message may have prompted the change, judging by the wording of the response and the long delay. (I've contacted NCDOT before and they don't usually take two weeks to respond.)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on March 25, 2019, 11:05:40 PM
I contacted NCDOT a few weeks ago about the wrongly ordered shields on the Havelock Bypass signage. I finally heard back today and they will be revising the signage plans to have the future I-42 space come first. My message may have prompted the change, judging by the wording of the response and the long delay. (I've contacted NCDOT before and they don't usually take two weeks to respond.)
Hopefully, they will be revising the exit numbers as well or they'll have to revise the plans again later on.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on March 28, 2019, 12:39:25 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-28-craven-county-highway-improvements-close-ramps.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-28-craven-county-highway-improvements-close-ramps.aspx)

Quote
NEW BERN - The N.C. Department of Transportation will close multiple ramps to a Craven County highway next weekend as work continues to bring the highway up to interstate standards.

Crews will close the U.S. 70 westbound exit ramps onto Glenburnie Road and the westbound entrance ramp from Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard onto U.S. 70 West on March 30 and 31, weather permitting. If it should rain, crews will do the work the following weekend. The outside right lane between the two ramps will also be closed.

During the closure, NCDOT will remove the top 2.5” of existing asphalt and replace it with 2.5” of new asphalt.

​Traffic accessing U.S. 70 West from Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard will turn onto the entrance ramp to U.S. 70 East and continue to the Pembroke exit. At the light, turn left and continue across the bridge, turning left onto the entrance ramp for U.S. 70 West.

Traffic accessing Glenburnie Road from U.S. 70 West will take exit 411 for N.C. 43. At the stop sign, turn left and continue across the bridge, turning right onto the entrance ramp to U.S. 70 East. Drivers will continue east and take the Glenburnie exit.

The work is part of a larger project to bring U.S. 70 up to interstate standards. Crews are widening shoulders, as well as milling and repaving the highway, which will be renamed Interstate 42. The project in its entirety is 32 miles long and costs $25.5 million.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 05, 2019, 12:33:47 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-05-craven-county-highway-entrance-ramp-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-05-craven-county-highway-entrance-ramp-improvements.aspx)

Quote
NEW BERN – The N.C. Department of Transportation is planning to close the entrance ramp to a Craven County highway for one day this weekend to make improvements.

The entrance ramp from Glenburnie Road to U.S. 70 West will be closed to traffic 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. April 6. If it rains, the work will be done on Sunday.

During the closure, NCDOT will remove the top 2.5” of existing asphalt and replace it with 2.5” of new asphalt.

To get around the closure, traffic accessing U.S. 70 West from Glenburnie Road will turn onto the entrance ramp for U.S. 70 East and continue to the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard exit. At the stoplight, drivers will turn left and continue under the overpass, turning left at the stoplight onto the entrance ramp for U.S. 70 West.

The work is part of a larger project to bring U.S. 70 up to interstate standards. Crews are widening shoulders, as well as milling and repaving the highway, which will be renamed Interstate 42. The project in its entirety is 32 miles long and costs $25.5 million.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 05, 2019, 05:10:18 PM
The speed limit between the Clayton Bypass and the recently-built US-70 Business interchange near Pine Level has been bumped up to 60mph.

https://jocoreport.com/dot-increases-speed-limit-on-section-of-us-70/ (https://jocoreport.com/dot-increases-speed-limit-on-section-of-us-70/)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on April 05, 2019, 05:20:00 PM
The speed limit between the Clayton Bypass and the recently-built US-70 Business interchange near Pine Level has been bumped up to 60mph.

https://jocoreport.com/dot-increases-speed-limit-on-section-of-us-70/ (https://jocoreport.com/dot-increases-speed-limit-on-section-of-us-70/)
Nice.

Currently, that entire segment is limited-access with no private driveway access permitted. Only cross-roads, and frontage roads.

I could see the rest of the roadway being increased to 60 MPH to New Bern, though it'll be a 70 MPH interstate highway in 10 years or so, so I'm not complaining.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 11, 2019, 07:55:02 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-11-craven-county-highway-ramp-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-11-craven-county-highway-ramp-closure.aspx)

Quote
NEW BERN – The N.C. Department of Transportation will continue a Craven County project to bring U.S. 70 up to interstate standards by closing some ramps this weekend.

The closures will occur on the eastbound entrance ramp from Clarks Road to U.S. 70 and the exit ramp from U.S. 70 to Clarks Road. The entrance ramp will be closed between 7 a.m. April 12 and 7 p.m. April 14. The exit ramp will be closed between 7 a.m. April 13 and 7 p.m. April 14.

Similarly, to the previous entrance and exit ramp closures, NCDOT will remove the top 2.5” of existing asphalt and replace it with 2.5” of new asphalt.

A detour will send eastbound U.S. 70 drivers needing to access Clarks Road to exit 411, where they will take N.C. 43, drive over the highway and turn left to enter U.S. 70 West to reach the Clarks Road exit.

This will be the detour route for Clarks Road drivers wanting to reach U.S. 70 East: They will take U.S. 70 West to the Tuscarora Road Exit, continue to the stop sign at the top of the ramp, turn left onto Tuscarora Road; then drive over U.S. 70 and take a left onto U.S. 70 East.

The work is part of a larger project to bring U.S. 70 up to interstate standards. Crews are widening shoulders, as well as milling and repaving the highway, which will be renamed I-42. The project in its entirety is 32 miles long and costs $25.5 million.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 17, 2019, 09:59:50 AM
For those in the area that may be interested in attending, the US-70 Corridor Commission is having their next meeting tomorrow at the Global TransPark in Kinston. The minutes from their November meeting still have not been posted yet, however.

http://www.super70corridor.com (http://www.super70corridor.com)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on April 18, 2019, 12:02:41 PM
The letting of the US 70 (Future I-42) Havelock Bypass has been postponed again, this time from April to July, again apparently due to right of way issues. Link to the official NCDOT letter on the postponement:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CARTERET_CRAVEN_R-1015_C204177/R-1015_Pulled_from_April_let_Extend%20to%20July.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CARTERET_CRAVEN_R-1015_C204177/R-1015_Pulled_from_April_let_Extend%20to%20July.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on April 18, 2019, 12:18:43 PM
The letting of the US 70 (Future I-42) Havelock Bypass has been postponed again, this time from April to July, again apparently due to right of way issues. Link to the official NCDOT letter on the postponement:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CARTERET_CRAVEN_R-1015_C204177/R-1015_Pulled_from_April_let_Extend%20to%20July.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CARTERET_CRAVEN_R-1015_C204177/R-1015_Pulled_from_April_let_Extend%20to%20July.pdf)
Like I said, 2020  :D
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Roadsguy on April 18, 2019, 01:27:27 PM
The letting of the US 70 (Future I-42) Havelock Bypass has been postponed again, this time from April to July, again apparently due to right of way issues. Link to the official NCDOT letter on the postponement:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CARTERET_CRAVEN_R-1015_C204177/R-1015_Pulled_from_April_let_Extend%20to%20July.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CARTERET_CRAVEN_R-1015_C204177/R-1015_Pulled_from_April_let_Extend%20to%20July.pdf)
Like I said, 2020  :D

Seems the plan documents were pulled this time. I know they're fixing the I-42/Bypass 70 shield order, but I wouldn't think it would require that unless they're changing more. The last time I saw the signing plans, the shields were still in the wrong order.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 18, 2019, 02:07:08 PM
The letting of the US 70 (Future I-42) Havelock Bypass has been postponed again, this time from April to July, again apparently due to right of way issues. Link to the official NCDOT letter on the postponement:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CARTERET_CRAVEN_R-1015_C204177/R-1015_Pulled_from_April_let_Extend%20to%20July.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CARTERET_CRAVEN_R-1015_C204177/R-1015_Pulled_from_April_let_Extend%20to%20July.pdf)

:banghead:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 18, 2019, 02:10:47 PM
Seems the plan documents were pulled this time. I know they're fixing the I-42/Bypass 70 shield order, but I wouldn't think it would require that unless they're changing more. The last time I saw the signing plans, the shields were still in the wrong order.

Hell, I’m just hoping NCDOT is rethinking their asinine plan to shift ‘vanilla’ 70 onto the bypass instead of signing it as US-70 Bypass and leaving ‘vanilla’ 70 where it is like they did for Selma and Goldsboro. I would make the same complaint about Clayton, but that was built long before I-42 was thought of. Havelock, on the other hand...
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Roadsguy on April 18, 2019, 02:56:38 PM
Seems the plan documents were pulled this time. I know they're fixing the I-42/Bypass 70 shield order, but I wouldn't think it would require that unless they're changing more. The last time I saw the signing plans, the shields were still in the wrong order.

Hell, I’m just hoping NCDOT is rethinking their asinine plan to shift ‘vanilla’ 70 onto the bypass instead of signing it as US-70 Bypass and leaving ‘vanilla’ 70 where it is like they did for Selma and Goldsboro. I would make the same complaint about Clayton, but that was built long before I-42 was thought of. Havelock, on the other hand...

Oh yeah, I forgot that they're not doing that...
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on April 25, 2019, 04:41:32 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-25-craven-county-highway-widening-shoulder.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-25-craven-county-highway-widening-shoulder.aspx)

Quote
NEW BERN – As work continues to upgrade a Craven County highway to meet interstate standards, one lane will be closed temporarily to widen the highway’s shoulder.

The N.C. Department of Transportation will close one lane of U.S. 70 West from mile marker 412, half of a mile east of N.C. 43, to Tuscarora Rhems Road. The lane closure will begin 6:30 a.m. April 29 and will last until the work is complete.

Crews will widen shoulders in 2.5-mile increments.

One lane will remain open and drivers are urged to slow down when approaching the work zone and while traveling through it.

The work is part of a larger project to bring U.S. 70 up to interstate standards. Crews are widening shoulders, as well as milling and repaving the highway, which will be renamed I-42. The project in its entirety is 32 miles long and costs $25.5 million.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on May 14, 2019, 10:31:18 AM
A public meeting is being held on May 21 in Princeton to discuss the revised plan for upgrading US-70 to interstate standards between the Goldsboro Bypass and Pondfield Road just west of Princeton.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-14-open-house-us-70-johnston-wayne-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-14-open-house-us-70-johnston-wayne-counties.aspx)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on May 18, 2019, 09:45:48 PM
A public meeting is being held on May 21 in Princeton to discuss the revised plan for upgrading US-70 to interstate standards between the Goldsboro Bypass and Pondfield Road just west of Princeton.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-14-open-house-us-70-johnston-wayne-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-14-open-house-us-70-johnston-wayne-counties.aspx)
Design plans can be seen on this site. (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/R-5829A-2019-05-21.aspx)

Some of the most notable features about this particular project -
One thing I don't like about the design is that while generally the frontage roads are continuous, there's one area east of Princeton the frontage road goes for over a mile, dead ends, but then 1,000 feet away, another frontage road picks back up. A proper design would have these connected, even if it doesn't serve any properties, it still creates a continuous frontage road system for local traffic so they don't have to enter Interstate 42.

Construction on the area around Princeton starts in 2025, and the rest of the corridor between Princeton and the Goldsboro Bypass starts in 2028.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on May 28, 2019, 03:17:55 PM
A public meeting is being held on May 21 in Princeton to discuss the revised plan for upgrading US-70 to interstate standards between the Goldsboro Bypass and Pondfield Road just west of Princeton.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-14-open-house-us-70-johnston-wayne-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-14-open-house-us-70-johnston-wayne-counties.aspx)

Comments from that meeting.

http://www.johnstoniannews.com/stories/dot-unveils-revised-interstate-42-plans-in-princeton,178533 (http://www.johnstoniannews.com/stories/dot-unveils-revised-interstate-42-plans-in-princeton,178533)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: jcarte29 on May 28, 2019, 04:19:28 PM
A public meeting is being held on May 21 in Princeton to discuss the revised plan for upgrading US-70 to interstate standards between the Goldsboro Bypass and Pondfield Road just west of Princeton.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-14-open-house-us-70-johnston-wayne-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-14-open-house-us-70-johnston-wayne-counties.aspx)

Comments from that meeting.

http://www.johnstoniannews.com/stories/dot-unveils-revised-interstate-42-plans-in-princeton,178533 (http://www.johnstoniannews.com/stories/dot-unveils-revised-interstate-42-plans-in-princeton,178533)

If this has been asked before I am sorry, but could they go ahead and sign the Goldsboro By-Pass off of I-40 to Bus 70 exit?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on May 28, 2019, 06:11:35 PM
A public meeting is being held on May 21 in Princeton to discuss the revised plan for upgrading US-70 to interstate standards between the Goldsboro Bypass and Pondfield Road just west of Princeton.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-14-open-house-us-70-johnston-wayne-counties.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-14-open-house-us-70-johnston-wayne-counties.aspx)

Comments from that meeting.

http://www.johnstoniannews.com/stories/dot-unveils-revised-interstate-42-plans-in-princeton,178533 (http://www.johnstoniannews.com/stories/dot-unveils-revised-interstate-42-plans-in-princeton,178533)

If this has been asked before I am sorry, but could they go ahead and sign the Goldsboro By-Pass off of I-40 to Bus 70 exit?

Don’t you mean the Clayton Bypass? If so, then I see no reason why they can’t. It wouldn’t be any different than them signing I-87 on the Knightdale Bypass. I’m surprised NCDOT hasn’t tried to get permission to do so yet, especially given that I-42 will likely be completed long before I-87.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: jcarte29 on May 28, 2019, 06:22:32 PM


If this has been asked before I am sorry, but could they go ahead and sign the Goldsboro By-Pass off of I-40 to Bus 70 exit?

Don’t you mean the Clayton Bypass? If so, then I see no reason why they can’t. It wouldn’t be any different than them signing I-87 on the Knightdale Bypass. I’m surprised NCDOT hasn’t tried to get permission to do so yet, especially given that I-42 will likely be completed long before I-87.
[/quote]

Yes, thank you for correcting me lol.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on May 29, 2019, 03:27:20 PM
Anybody know what the status of the Kinston Bypass is? NCDOT’s project page says that they are going to choose their preferred alternative in February 2019. It’s almost June and still no announcement.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on May 29, 2019, 06:46:06 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-29-craven-county-ramps-closed-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-29-craven-county-ramps-closed-improvements.aspx)

Quote
NEW BERN – As work continues to bring U.S. 70 in Craven County up to interstate standards, the N.C. Department of Transportation will close one exit ramp and one entrance ramp for 36 hours this week.

The eastbound entrance and exit ramps for N.C. 41 will be closed from 7 a.m. May 30 until 7 p.m. May 31.

To access N.C. 41 from U.S. 70 East, traffic will continue past the exit for about seven miles and exit at Tuscarora Rhems Road. At the stop sign, turn left and cross U.S. 70, returning to U.S. 70 west until the N.C. 41 exit.

For traffic wanting to get to U.S. 70 East, drivers will use the entrance ramp to U.S. 70 West, drive 8.5 miles and turn left at the crossover at Dover Road and continue to U.S. 70 East.

The work is part of a larger project to bring U.S. 70 up to interstate standards. Crews are widening shoulders, as well as milling and repaving the highway, which will be renamed I-42. The project in its entirety is 32 miles long and costs $25.5 million.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on May 29, 2019, 07:05:44 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-29-craven-county-ramps-closed-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-29-craven-county-ramps-closed-improvements.aspx)

Quote
NEW BERN – As work continues to bring U.S. 70 in Craven County up to interstate standards, the N.C. Department of Transportation will close one exit ramp and one entrance ramp for 36 hours this week.

The eastbound entrance and exit ramps for N.C. 41 will be closed from 7 a.m. May 30 until 7 p.m. May 31.

To access N.C. 41 from U.S. 70 East, traffic will continue past the exit for about seven miles and exit at Tuscarora Rhems Road. At the stop sign, turn left and cross U.S. 70, returning to U.S. 70 west until the N.C. 41 exit.

For traffic wanting to get to U.S. 70 East, drivers will use the entrance ramp to U.S. 70 West, drive 8.5 miles and turn left at the crossover at Dover Road and continue to U.S. 70 East.

The work is part of a larger project to bring U.S. 70 up to interstate standards. Crews are widening shoulders, as well as milling and repaving the highway, which will be renamed I-42. The project in its entirety is 32 miles long and costs $25.5 million.
The detour routes are so poor. Who would get on the freeway, drive for 10 minutes, then go back another 20 minutes? I'd rather just sneak over to Old US-70, which is the two-lane road parallel to the freeway. It does exist after all, why NCDOT chooses to ignore it is beyond me.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on May 29, 2019, 11:51:52 PM
NCDOT has reposted the plans for the US 70/Future I-42 Havelock Bypass now due to be let in July. It appears that, at least for the signing plans, no revisions have been made meaning the pull through signs still have future I-42 shields on the right and the exit numbers still duplicate those on US 70 in the New Bern area. Plans are available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 06:59:32 AM
NCDOT has reposted the plans for the US 70/Future I-42 Havelock Bypass now due to be let in July. It appears that, at least for the signing plans, no revisions have been made meaning the pull through signs still have future I-42 shields on the right and the exit numbers still duplicate those on US 70 in the New Bern area. Plans are available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/)

...and they’re still not going to sign it as US-70 Bypass, creating yet another useless concurrency in the state. :banghead:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 03:14:37 PM
A public meeting is being held on June 18 in Havelock to discuss upgrading US-70 to interstate standards between Thurman Road in James City and the future Havelock Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-craven-county-highway-upgrades-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-craven-county-highway-upgrades-public-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Roadsguy on May 30, 2019, 04:59:53 PM
NCDOT has reposted the plans for the US 70/Future I-42 Havelock Bypass now due to be let in July. It appears that, at least for the signing plans, no revisions have been made meaning the pull through signs still have future I-42 shields on the right and the exit numbers still duplicate those on US 70 in the New Bern area. Plans are available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/)

The plans seem to be gone again. Completely gone too, unlike last time where it was simply the main project documents that were removed.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on May 30, 2019, 06:03:06 PM
NCDOT has reposted the plans for the US 70/Future I-42 Havelock Bypass now due to be let in July. It appears that, at least for the signing plans, no revisions have been made meaning the pull through signs still have future I-42 shields on the right and the exit numbers still duplicate those on US 70 in the New Bern area. Plans are available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/)

The plans seem to be gone again. Completely gone too, unlike last time where it was simply the main project documents that were removed.
Is it wishful thinking that they were removed because they accidentally put up the old plans and will bring the link back when the new ones are uploaded? The letting is still listed, so it doesn't appear they've postponed it again.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on May 30, 2019, 06:05:52 PM
NCDOT has reposted the plans for the US 70/Future I-42 Havelock Bypass now due to be let in July. It appears that, at least for the signing plans, no revisions have been made meaning the pull through signs still have future I-42 shields on the right and the exit numbers still duplicate those on US 70 in the New Bern area. Plans are available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/)

The plans seem to be gone again. Completely gone too, unlike last time where it was simply the main project documents that were removed.
Is it wishful thinking that they were removed because they accidentally put up the old plans and will bring the link back when the new ones are uploaded? The letting is still listed, so it doesn't appear they've postponed it again.
One could only hope. And hopefully the update those "Speed Limit 55" signs to "Speed Limit 65" or "Speed Limit 70".
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on May 31, 2019, 12:49:06 PM
A public meeting is being held on June 18 in Havelock to discuss upgrading US-70 to interstate standards between Thurman Road in James City and the future Havelock Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-craven-county-highway-upgrades-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-craven-county-highway-upgrades-public-meeting.aspx)
The latest NCDOT 12-month tentative letting list has this contract as a design-build project to be let on July 16, 2020.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on May 31, 2019, 01:03:56 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to resurface US-70 between the Neuse River in Johnston County and the Wayne County line.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-31-us-70-repaving-johnston-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-31-us-70-repaving-johnston-county.aspx)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 07, 2019, 03:22:28 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-07-tuscarora-rhems-us-70-ramp-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-07-tuscarora-rhems-us-70-ramp-closure.aspx)

Quote
NEW BERN – Work on upgrading U.S. 70 to interstate status (future I-42) in Craven County will require the closure of the ramp from eastbound U.S. 70 to Tuscarora Rhems Road for two days early next week, weather permitting.

The closure is scheduled to go into effect at 6:30 a.m. on Monday, June 10, and end by 7 p.m. on Tuesday, June 11.

Drivers who need to access Tuscarora Rhems Road off U.S. 70 East will instead be directed to go an additional 2.6 miles and exit at Clark Road. They should turn left at the stop sign, cross over U.S. 70, then turn left for the ramp for U.S. 70 West. They can then exit onto Tuscarora Rhems Road.

Motorists need to pay extra attention when approaching the ramp closure and follow the detour signs. They should anticipate needing extra time to travel through the area because of the 5.2-mile detour.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 20, 2019, 09:31:43 AM
A public meeting is being held on June 18 in Havelock to discuss upgrading US-70 to interstate standards between Thurman Road in James City and the future Havelock Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-craven-county-highway-upgrades-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-craven-county-highway-upgrades-public-meeting.aspx)

Some remarks from that meeting. More importantly is this tidbit:

https://www.witn.com/content/news/Community-feedback-on-Highway-70-project-between-James-City-and-Havelock-511496571.html (https://www.witn.com/content/news/Community-feedback-on-Highway-70-project-between-James-City-and-Havelock-511496571.html)

Quote
NCDOT plans to have another public meeting on the project in spring 2020 and aims to have an environmental study done by summer of that year. It's likely construction on this section of U.S. 70 won't begin until 2023.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on June 25, 2019, 11:35:38 PM
NCDOT has reposted the plans for the US 70/Future I-42 Havelock Bypass now due to be let in July. It appears that, at least for the signing plans, no revisions have been made meaning the pull through signs still have future I-42 shields on the right and the exit numbers still duplicate those on US 70 in the New Bern area. Plans are available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/)

The plans seem to be gone again. Completely gone too, unlike last time where it was simply the main project documents that were removed.
Is it wishful thinking that they were removed because they accidentally put up the old plans and will bring the link back when the new ones are uploaded? The letting is still listed, so it doesn't appear they've postponed it again.
Apparently so, all the plans have been restored to the website with a June 25 date, but the sign plans are the same as before with the same issues as listed above:
 https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/)

I am tempted to contact the project engineer, especially about the exit numbers, but don't know what reaction I'd get.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on June 26, 2019, 12:24:22 AM
NCDOT has reposted the plans for the US 70/Future I-42 Havelock Bypass now due to be let in July. It appears that, at least for the signing plans, no revisions have been made meaning the pull through signs still have future I-42 shields on the right and the exit numbers still duplicate those on US 70 in the New Bern area. Plans are available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/)

The plans seem to be gone again. Completely gone too, unlike last time where it was simply the main project documents that were removed.
Is it wishful thinking that they were removed because they accidentally put up the old plans and will bring the link back when the new ones are uploaded? The letting is still listed, so it doesn't appear they've postponed it again.
Apparently so, all the plans have been restored to the website with a June 25 date, but the sign plans are the same as before with the same issues as listed above:
 https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/)

I am tempted to contact the project engineer, especially about the exit numbers, but don't know what reaction I'd get.
Still also reads “Speed Limit 55”, and judging by the rural environment and the proposed design speed of 70 mph, it’s likely going to be 65 mph or 70 mph.

As for contacting the project engineer, I say go for it. All of your claims are legitimate. I may do it as well just to have more than one person questioning it, which may help if any change is to happen.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 26, 2019, 01:10:26 PM
NCDOT has reposted the plans for the US 70/Future I-42 Havelock Bypass now due to be let in July. It appears that, at least for the signing plans, no revisions have been made meaning the pull through signs still have future I-42 shields on the right and the exit numbers still duplicate those on US 70 in the New Bern area. Plans are available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/)

The plans seem to be gone again. Completely gone too, unlike last time where it was simply the main project documents that were removed.
Is it wishful thinking that they were removed because they accidentally put up the old plans and will bring the link back when the new ones are uploaded? The letting is still listed, so it doesn't appear they've postponed it again.
Apparently so, all the plans have been restored to the website with a June 25 date, but the sign plans are the same as before with the same issues as listed above:
 https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/)

I am tempted to contact the project engineer, especially about the exit numbers, but don't know what reaction I'd get.

Looks like NCDOT is hellbent on creating a needless I-42/US-70 overlap. :banghead:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on June 26, 2019, 01:28:54 PM
NCDOT has reposted the plans for the US 70/Future I-42 Havelock Bypass now due to be let in July. It appears that, at least for the signing plans, no revisions have been made meaning the pull through signs still have future I-42 shields on the right and the exit numbers still duplicate those on US 70 in the New Bern area. Plans are available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/)

The plans seem to be gone again. Completely gone too, unlike last time where it was simply the main project documents that were removed.
Is it wishful thinking that they were removed because they accidentally put up the old plans and will bring the link back when the new ones are uploaded? The letting is still listed, so it doesn't appear they've postponed it again.
Apparently so, all the plans have been restored to the website with a June 25 date, but the sign plans are the same as before with the same issues as listed above:
 https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/)

I am tempted to contact the project engineer, especially about the exit numbers, but don't know what reaction I'd get.

Looks like NCDOT is hellbent on creating a needless I-42/US-70 overlap. :banghead:
We should all contact the project engineer and see what they say. It’ll help if more than one of us do it.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Henry on June 26, 2019, 01:35:37 PM
Kind of makes you wonder if FritzOwl is from NC...or has even been there, for that matter.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on June 26, 2019, 01:45:40 PM
Kind of makes you wonder if FritzOwl is from NC...or has even been there, for that matter.
He's from California.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sparker on June 26, 2019, 05:42:48 PM
Kind of makes you wonder if FritzOwl is from NC...or has even been there, for that matter.
He's from California.

That explains a lot!  Poor guy's just frustrated living in a place that can't (or won't) bother to appropriately sign an Interstate-grade corridor that's now 12 years old.  His reaction's a bit over the top -- but at least good for the occasional chuckle.  So he'll just carry on in his own quixotic way, tilting at all those 2-lane rural windmills!   :hyper:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on June 26, 2019, 07:08:08 PM
Just curious, where do you live? What are the interstate plans for your area?
I live in the Sacramento,. Ca area, and you have probably seen some of my plans for the Sacramento area.
^^^
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Roadsguy on June 26, 2019, 11:07:07 PM
NCDOT has reposted the plans for the US 70/Future I-42 Havelock Bypass now due to be let in July. It appears that, at least for the signing plans, no revisions have been made meaning the pull through signs still have future I-42 shields on the right and the exit numbers still duplicate those on US 70 in the New Bern area. Plans are available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/)

The plans seem to be gone again. Completely gone too, unlike last time where it was simply the main project documents that were removed.
Is it wishful thinking that they were removed because they accidentally put up the old plans and will bring the link back when the new ones are uploaded? The letting is still listed, so it doesn't appear they've postponed it again.
Apparently so, all the plans have been restored to the website with a June 25 date, but the sign plans are the same as before with the same issues as listed above:
 https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/)

I am tempted to contact the project engineer, especially about the exit numbers, but don't know what reaction I'd get.

I already contacted someone and was told that the positioning of the US 70 shield and the space for the I-42 shield would be reversed, though I don't think I asked about exit numbers.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 27, 2019, 11:46:25 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-27-craven-county-highway-glenburnie-ramp.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-27-craven-county-highway-glenburnie-ramp.aspx)

Quote
NEW BERN – An entrance ramp to a Craven County highway will be closed this weekend so the N.C. Department of Transportation can make improvements to it.

The entrance ramp at Glenburnie Road leading to U.S. 70 West will be closed between 7 a.m. June 29 and 7 p.m. June 30. These dates are weather permitting.

During the closure, NCDOT will remove the top 2.5 inches of existing asphalt and replace it with 2.5 inches of new asphalt.

Motorists accessing U.S. 70 West from Glenburnie Road will turn onto the entrance ramp to U.S. 70 East and continue to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard exit. After exiting the highway, drivers will turn left at the stoplight and continue under the overpass to make another left at the next stoplight. This detour will send drivers to the entrance ramp for U.S. 70 West.

This construction is part of the project to bring U.S. 70 up to interstate standards. Crews are widening shoulders, as well as milling and repaving the highway, which will be renamed Interstate 42. The project in its entirety is 32 miles long and costs $25.5 million.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on June 29, 2019, 08:36:45 AM
NCDOT has reposted the plans for the US 70/Future I-42 Havelock Bypass now due to be let in July. It appears that, at least for the signing plans, no revisions have been made meaning the pull through signs still have future I-42 shields on the right and the exit numbers still duplicate those on US 70 in the New Bern area. Plans are available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/)

The plans seem to be gone again. Completely gone too, unlike last time where it was simply the main project documents that were removed.
Is it wishful thinking that they were removed because they accidentally put up the old plans and will bring the link back when the new ones are uploaded? The letting is still listed, so it doesn't appear they've postponed it again.
Apparently so, all the plans have been restored to the website with a June 25 date, but the sign plans are the same as before with the same issues as listed above:
 https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/)

I am tempted to contact the project engineer, especially about the exit numbers, but don't know what reaction I'd get.

Looks like NCDOT is hellbent on creating a needless I-42/US-70 overlap. :banghead:
We should all contact the project engineer and see what they say. It’ll help if more than one of us do it.

What’s funny is that NCDOT says they’re trying to eliminate useless overlaps...

https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/u-s-to-high-point-is-going-away-but-don/article_8c365cc0-b7d7-58f6-8ed5-732f633b299a.html (https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/u-s-to-high-point-is-going-away-but-don/article_8c365cc0-b7d7-58f6-8ed5-732f633b299a.html)

Quote
“We do have a statewide interest in reducing situations where there are multiple designations along a single route,” said Aaron Moody, a public relations officer for the N.C. Department of Transportation.

Yet they plan to do the exact opposite in Havelock. :pan:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on June 29, 2019, 09:38:19 AM
NCDOT has reposted the plans for the US 70/Future I-42 Havelock Bypass now due to be let in July. It appears that, at least for the signing plans, no revisions have been made meaning the pull through signs still have future I-42 shields on the right and the exit numbers still duplicate those on US 70 in the New Bern area. Plans are available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/)

The plans seem to be gone again. Completely gone too, unlike last time where it was simply the main project documents that were removed.
Is it wishful thinking that they were removed because they accidentally put up the old plans and will bring the link back when the new ones are uploaded? The letting is still listed, so it doesn't appear they've postponed it again.
Apparently so, all the plans have been restored to the website with a June 25 date, but the sign plans are the same as before with the same issues as listed above:
 https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/ (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R1015_34360.3.GV4_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/)

I am tempted to contact the project engineer, especially about the exit numbers, but don't know what reaction I'd get.

Looks like NCDOT is hellbent on creating a needless I-42/US-70 overlap. :banghead:
We should all contact the project engineer and see what they say. It’ll help if more than one of us do it.

What’s funny is that NCDOT says they’re trying to eliminate useless overlaps...

https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/u-s-to-high-point-is-going-away-but-don/article_8c365cc0-b7d7-58f6-8ed5-732f633b299a.html (https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/u-s-to-high-point-is-going-away-but-don/article_8c365cc0-b7d7-58f6-8ed5-732f633b299a.html)

Quote
“We do have a statewide interest in reducing situations where there are multiple designations along a single route,” said Aaron Moody, a public relations officer for the N.C. Department of Transportation.

Yet they plan to do the exact opposite in Havelock. :pan:
Don’t worry - in 15 years when I-42 makes it down that way, they’ll try to shift US-70 back onto its original alignment.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Verlanka on June 30, 2019, 05:18:40 AM
Looks like NCDOT is hellbent on creating a needless I-42/US-70 overlap. :banghead:
We should all contact the project engineer and see what they say. It’ll help if more than one of us do it.

What’s funny is that NCDOT says they’re trying to eliminate useless overlaps...

https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/u-s-to-high-point-is-going-away-but-don/article_8c365cc0-b7d7-58f6-8ed5-732f633b299a.html (https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/u-s-to-high-point-is-going-away-but-don/article_8c365cc0-b7d7-58f6-8ed5-732f633b299a.html)

Quote
“We do have a statewide interest in reducing situations where there are multiple designations along a single route,” said Aaron Moody, a public relations officer for the N.C. Department of Transportation.

Yet they plan to do the exact opposite in Havelock. :pan:
I know, right?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 05, 2019, 10:46:33 AM
The US-70 Corridor Commission is having their next meeting on July 18 in Morehead City. However, they still haven’t posted the minutes from their recent meetings for whatever reason...

http://www.super70corridor.com (http://www.super70corridor.com)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 06, 2019, 06:56:39 AM
The US-70 Corridor Commission is having their next meeting on July 18 in Morehead City. However, they still haven’t posted the minutes from their recent meetings for whatever reason...

http://www.super70corridor.com (http://www.super70corridor.com)

The Director’s Report for March, April, and May has been posted. The most noteworthy tidbit is on the first page. Apparently, some of the projects got pushed back because of lack of funding due to the recent hurricanes.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Mar_Apr_May_2019-Directors-Report.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Mar_Apr_May_2019-Directors-Report.pdf)

I guess this could explain why NCDOT is in no hurry to pick their alternative for the Kinston Bypass, which should’ve been done back in February...
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 07, 2019, 09:26:52 AM
Big news. It looks like the Goldsboro Bypass will be the first to get I-42 shields. According to the US-70 Corridor Commission’s Director’s Report for January/February 2019, NCDOT got federal approval to sign the Goldsboro Bypass as I-42. No mention of when I-42 shields will go up, though.

It can be seen near the bottom of page 4:

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf)

Also, the meeting minutes from last November & January have been posted.

November 2018: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/November-15_2018-Meeting-Minutes.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/November-15_2018-Meeting-Minutes.pdf)

January 2019: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/January-31_2019-Meeting-Minutes.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/January-31_2019-Meeting-Minutes.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: goobnav on July 07, 2019, 09:28:02 AM
Strange how the Clayton bypass won't?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 07, 2019, 09:31:06 AM
Strange how the Clayton bypass won't?

Yeah, I’m scratching my head on that one.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: goobnav on July 07, 2019, 09:59:21 AM
Strange how the Clayton bypass won't?

Yeah, I’m scratching my head on that one.

Glad I'm not the only one being that I-87 is now up and signed.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on July 07, 2019, 10:19:19 AM
^^ FHWA policy for Interstate signing is that it must have logical termini, whether another Interstate, an NHS route, or a major traffic generator (like an airport or military base or whatnot).  The Goldsboro Bypass has that (NHS routes at both ends, I-795, and US 13)...Clayton bypass doesn't.  If FHWA follows their own policy, Clayton bypass won't be signed as I-42 until an Interstate-grade facility reaches I-95.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 07, 2019, 10:53:23 AM
^^ FHWA policy for Interstate signing is that it must have logical termini, whether another Interstate, an NHS route, or a major traffic generator (like an airport or military base or whatnot).  The Goldsboro Bypass has that (NHS routes at both ends, I-795, and US 13)...Clayton bypass doesn't.  If FHWA follows their own policy, Clayton bypass won't be signed as I-42 until an Interstate-grade facility reaches I-95.

The western end of the Clayton Bypass connects to I-40 and the eastern end to a NHS route (US-70). How does it not qualify?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: goobnav on July 07, 2019, 11:51:19 AM
^^ FHWA policy for Interstate signing is that it must have logical termini, whether another Interstate, an NHS route, or a major traffic generator (like an airport or military base or whatnot).  The Goldsboro Bypass has that (NHS routes at both ends, I-795, and US 13)...Clayton bypass doesn't.  If FHWA follows their own policy, Clayton bypass won't be signed as I-42 until an Interstate-grade facility reaches I-95.

By your logic I-87 or it predecessor I-495 should not have been signed either.  Neither should have been I-540, come on froggie, you're better than that :).
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 07, 2019, 01:03:35 PM
The Clayton Bypass seamlessly ties into I-40 on its western end (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6349695,-78.5567302,3634m/data=!3m1!1e3), and also is the western end of the I-42 routing.

It connects to another interstate highway, the bypass meets interstate standards, connects to the capital city of North Carolina via I-40, and feeds into US-70 on the eastern end, a NHS route.

If I-87 was signed to I-40, I-42 can be signed to I-40.

I agree with the Goldsboro designation, but also the Clayton Bypass should be signed too. Both highways connect to other interstate highways and meet interstate standards.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 07, 2019, 01:26:11 PM
A few weeks old, but still relevant. http://www.carolinacoastonline.com/news_times/article_52e56ff8-93ae-11e9-bd50-e751a6d3f90d.html

Quote
CAPE CARTERET — Within about 10 years, U.S. Highway 70 will transform into Interstate 42, roughly from the Raleigh-Garner area to the east end of Havelock, enabling a growing stream of inland residents to more easily get to Carteret County to live and recreate.

When that process is complete and the full impacts are felt, Carteret County Economic Development Director Don Kirkman said Tuesday night, “We’ll probably look a lot less like Ocracoke and a lot more like Wilmington.”

Mr. Kirkman was speaking as an invited guest at the second meeting of the Cape Carteret Strategic Growth Committee in town hall off Dolphin Street.

The idea was to let Mr. Kirkman, who’s considered the local expert on the potential impacts of the I-42 project, inform the committee, as well as town residents, commissioners, Mayor Dave Fowler and Town Manager Zach Steffey about the impacts and give some advice.

Mr. Kirkman noted that although official state project maps show I-42 going through Morehead City to the state port, he believes the chances of that happening are almost nil, because of the complexity of running an interstate highway through narrow Morehead City.

Still, he said, everyone needs to think ahead – now, not later – and get ready for bigtime change. With the flood of new tourists coming to Bogue Banks beaches, it’s likely “every day in the summer will look a lot like Fourth of July weekend.”

What this means, Mr. Kirkman said, is decision-makers, from county commissioners and staff, down to town boards of commissioners, planning board members and staff, will face hard choices as tourism and the permanent population grow.

He sees it as an opportunity, but with big challenges and built-in limitations.

Land uses

“We’re a large county,” Mr. Kirkman said. “But there’s not a whole lot of area for that growth to go. If you’re a ‘smart growth’ advocate, which I am, this is actually a good thing.

“If you look at New Hanover County (after completion of I-40 from Raleigh to Wilmington in 1990), what you see is the county has experienced massive sprawl,” to the point where it’s also impacted neighboring counties, such as Pender and Brunswick, roads cut through formerly rural areas and development has occurred almost everywhere.

But in Carteret, he said, about half of the total of 664,660 acres is water, and another 156,104 acres is the Croatan National Forest, which is off-limits to development.

When you add in other off-limits areas, such as military land, state land, land trust easements and Open Grounds Farm, the total acreage available for development here is about 60,860 acres, including wetlands, most of which are also off-limits because of state and federal regulations.

Where will growth occur?

Most of the permanent population growth will be along what is now the Highway 70 corridor, the Highway 24 corridor, Highway 58, on the banks and off, and Highway 101 from Beaufort to Havelock.

Much of that growth will be in Morehead City and Newport, which already have central waste treatment systems. Beaufort will grow, too, as it has central sewer, as well.

Mr. Kirkman said Newport is going to be “ground zero,” because I-42 will stop just a few miles from its western limit, and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point is projected to grow dramatically, because it could become home to at least seven new squadrons of the F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter. That will add scores of military personnel and civil servants.

Plus, Mr. Kirkman said, there’s plenty of land available for development around Newport and it’s cheaper than in most other places in the county.

Cape Carteret will almost surely grow much faster than it has in the past, Mr. Kirkman said, because of I-42, but also because major improvements are underway or planned for U.S. 17, which runs north to the rapidly growing Virginia and Washington, D.C., areas.

Also, he said, Cape Carteret will continue to be influenced by growth at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in nearby Jacksonville and will be influenced at least somewhat by the Cherry Point growth.

“This town of about 2,000 could easily be a lot bigger” as a result of all of these influences, maybe even double its current size within 20 years, he said.

But, he added, just where and how Cape Carteret grows will depend upon what town officials want. Without a central sewer system – something Mayor Fowler has pushed for years – there’s only so much development that can occur.

Why so fast?

Where does Mr. Kirkman get all these projections? Essentially, he said, from figures compiled by the state before and after I-40 opened Wilmington and the rest of southeastern North Carolina to faster and easier travel from inland areas.

In 1980, the population in Wilmington was 55,530, but by 2010, 20 years after I-40, it was 106,476, nearly double. By 2017, it was 119,045.

Comparable figures for New Hanover County – Wilmington is its largest city – are 103,471 in 1980, 203,382 in 2010 and 227,198 in 2017.

Carteret County’s population, Mr. Kirkman said, has grown only about 1% per year for decades, rising from 41,092 in 1980 to 66,700 in 2010. I-42 will change that, he’s certain.

Official state figures project Carteret County’s population will hit 75,646 by 2027 and 81,423 by 2037. Mr. Kirkman thinks that’s low, for several reasons.

First, he said, the state planners can, by law, only look at historical growth rates to project future growth rates. Second, slow growth is definitely not what happened after I-40 connected Raleigh to Wilmington. Growth was faster and much higher than projected.

Then, Mr. Kirkman said, there’s the fact that I-40, when built to Wilmington, ran through mostly rural, even desolate areas, with almost no large towns.

I-42, by contrast, will run through or near larger areas – Kinston and Goldsboro, for example – so there are more people likely to visit and maybe move to the Crystal Coast. In addition, he said, the number of people who live in the Raleigh area is far higher than it was when I-40 connected it to Wilmington.

“I think there will be lot more people who just wake up in the morning and say, ‘Let’s go the beach for the day,’” the economic development director said.

Impacts

Schools will need to be expanded and new ones will need to be built, Mr. Kirkman said, particularly in the west. Health care will need to be addressed. Bridges will become traffic choke-points, particularly the two-lane high-rise that runs from Cape Carteret/Cedar Point on the mainland to Emerald Isle.

“You’re right in the middle of that,” he said to the town hall audience Tuesday.

Emerald Isle has for years resisted the idea of expanding the bridge to four lanes and also resisted the concept of making Highway 58 through town four lanes instead of two, with a center turn lane in places.

Mr. Kirkman said he’s not advocating for a four-lane high-rise to Emerald Isle, but said there are likely to be many who push for it. Similarly, he said, there could be a renewed push for a third bridge from the mainland to Bogue Banks.

But residents and officials in the banks towns that are likely landing spots for such a bridge – Indian Beach or Salter Path/Pine Knoll Shores – are probably going to be “reticent” to the concept, as they have been in the past, he said. It would be a major disruption for many.

“We may have to deal with some suboptimal compromise (traffic) solutions,” he said.

Limitations

There are limiting factors to growth in Carteret County, however. In addition to the low amount of land available for development, there are few available existing buildings of significant size for large businesses to move into, Mr. Kirkman said. Carteret County also must pay strong attention to its natural environment.

There’s also a serious labor shortage, bad enough that many small businesses can’t find enough workers. The economic development director said his office has in recent years shifted its focus from attracting businesses to attracting people.

Telecommuting, he said, is a great concept and a real possibility, as it’s now easier than ever for more people to work remotely.

The county, he said, has advantages in that effort; it’s a desirable place to live aesthetically and has a great school system. The hospital, Carteret Health Care, is excellent, he said, and both of those things are desired by the kind of high-skilled workers who would move here and telecommute for jobs in Research Triangle Park in the Raleigh-Durham area.

Also in the county’s favor is the fact it has the lowest property tax rate in the state.

To make telecommuting happen in a big way, the county will need more high-speed internet connections, meaning more fiber optic lines to serve not just schools, medical facilities and big businesses, but homes. Some is already in the ground, but it’s not widely available to the general population.

Emerald Isle, Mr. Kirkman has been pushing for fiber optic to town, but it’s really up to the companies that put it in, chiefly Spectrum.

Plan now

The good thing, Mr. Kirkman said, is officials in Carteret County and its towns have “already taken the opportunity” to begin the conversations necessary to get ready for the growth that is sure to come.

Work is already underway on the Havelock portion of U.S. 70 set to become I-42, and work is scheduled to begin on the complex James City section, near New Bern, as early as this fall. All of the other segments in the I-42 corridor are in the State Transportation Improvement Program.

The whole project is considered high priority, in part because it’s a hurricane evacuation route, but also because of the military bases.

Completion of the two segments in Havelock and James City will have a noticeable impact, Mr. Kirkman said, as elimination of bottlenecks in New Bern/James City and Havelock will significantly lessen the time it takes for many to get to the Carteret County beaches. While the James City project is underway, Highway 58, the alternate route to Carteret County, will also see more traffic.

At the end of the talk, Mayor Fowler said one of his concerns is while elected officials and planners might know of the challenges that face the town and county as growth intensifies, very few others do.

He said he’s hopeful Cape Carteret’s growth committee, planning board and commissioners make wise choices, and that they talk to others who’ve gone through this before.

“There’s an old saying,” he said. “It’s ‘our problem is not unique, it’s only unique to us.’”
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 07, 2019, 01:28:00 PM
I don’t think it will be too long before the Clayton Bypass gets added. As for the Goldsboro Bypass, I’m certainly not complaining that it’s getting I-42 shields. I’m surprised it took this long.

My guess is that NCDOT will want AASHTO to decommission US-70 Bypass this fall before signing I-42, so that I-42 shields can be slapped over the 70 Bypass shields on the BGS’s.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 07, 2019, 01:45:02 PM
I don’t think it will be too long before the Clayton Bypass gets added. As for the Goldsboro Bypass, I’m certainly not complaining that it’s getting I-42 shields. I’m surprised it took this long.

My guess is that NCDOT will want AASHTO to decommission US-70 Bypass this fall before signing I-42, so that I-42 shields can be slapped over the 70 Bypass shields on the BGS’s.
Hopefully they'll re-route US-70 off of the Clayton Bypass before signing that, and decommission US-70 Business.

Ditto with the other freeways when they come around to becoming I-42.

Or it'll just be another I-73, I-74, I-85, and I-87 situation.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: goobnav on July 07, 2019, 03:02:30 PM
They have I-885 shields up on the BGS of the Durham freeway where it splits on to the new East End Connector and AASHTO hasn't formally approved the route yet.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Roadsguy on July 07, 2019, 03:12:42 PM
They have I-885 shields up on the BGS of the Durham freeway where it splits on to the new East End Connector and AASHTO hasn't formally approved the route yet.

Which is really odd considering that the signage plans explicitly state not to fabricate the I-885 shields until the designation is approved :P
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 07, 2019, 03:23:17 PM
They have I-885 shields up on the BGS of the Durham freeway where it splits on to the new East End Connector and AASHTO hasn't formally approved the route yet.
Are those still covered up or have they taken the cover off and it's visible?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 07, 2019, 04:36:18 PM
The Clayton Bypass seamlessly ties into I-40 on its western end (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6349695,-78.5567302,3634m/data=!3m1!1e3), and also is the western end of the I-42 routing.

It connects to another interstate highway, the bypass meets interstate standards, connects to the capital city of North Carolina via I-40, and feeds into US-70 on the eastern end, a NHS route.

If I-87 was signed to I-40, I-42 can be signed to I-40.

I agree with the Goldsboro designation, but also the Clayton Bypass should be signed too. Both highways connect to other interstate highways and meet interstate standards.
Construction widening I-40 and extending NC 540 will require new signage at the I-40/Future I-42 interchange. Maybe that's what we're waiting for. Does anyone have signage plans for that expanded interchange?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on July 07, 2019, 04:46:19 PM
^^ FHWA policy for Interstate signing is that it must have logical termini, whether another Interstate, an NHS route, or a major traffic generator (like an airport or military base or whatnot).  The Goldsboro Bypass has that (NHS routes at both ends, I-795, and US 13)...Clayton bypass doesn't.  If FHWA follows their own policy, Clayton bypass won't be signed as I-42 until an Interstate-grade facility reaches I-95.

The western end of the Clayton Bypass connects to I-40 and the eastern end to a NHS route (US-70). How does it not qualify?

Business 70 through Clayton is not on the NHS.  Both you and sprjus note that US 70 continues east as an NHS route, but does not count...it's intersecting routes they look at.  Aside from a short connector to a pipeline terminal (off SR 1003/Buffalo Rd), there are no intersecting NHS routes along US 70 between I-40 and I-95.

^^ FHWA policy for Interstate signing is that it must have logical termini, whether another Interstate, an NHS route, or a major traffic generator (like an airport or military base or whatnot).  The Goldsboro Bypass has that (NHS routes at both ends, I-795, and US 13)...Clayton bypass doesn't.  If FHWA follows their own policy, Clayton bypass won't be signed as I-42 until an Interstate-grade facility reaches I-95.

By your logic I-87 or it predecessor I-495 should not have been signed either.  Neither should have been I-540, come on froggie, you're better than that :).


Not true.  I-495 (nee I-87) ends at I-540...certainly logical in FHWA's eyes.  And I-540 wasn't signed as a full interstate until it reached US 1.  It was "Future I-540" before that.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 07, 2019, 05:30:57 PM
Not true.  I-495 (nee I-87) ends at I-540...certainly logical in FHWA's eyes.  And I-540 wasn't signed as a full interstate until it reached US 1.  It was "Future I-540" before that.
Not true. I-87 ends at SR-1003 Rolesville Rd... 7 miles east of I-540... it dumps onto US-64. FHWA approved this in February 2017 with no issues. It connected to I-40, I-440, and I-540 along the way and meets interstate standards.

I-73 / I-74 ended at the US-220 Business north of Rockingham interchange and seamlessly continued as US-220 until it was ended in 2017.

I-74 east of Lumberton ends at NC-41 then seamlessly continues as US-74. On the west end, it ends at the US-74 Alt interchange and continues as US-74. It merely intersects I-95 in the middle.

In Virginia, I-264 was extended in the 90s to the Oceanfront. It ends at an intersection with Parks Ave - a local street.

Not seeing your logic in how this is different if an I-42 began at I-40 then ended at the US-70 Business interchange and continued as US-70.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 07, 2019, 06:02:52 PM
I-795 ends at an intersection with NC-581 then seamlessly continues as US-117 in Goldsboro.

While the freeway does end at NC-581, I-795 technically ends at US-70.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2007_10_19.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2007_10_19.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 07, 2019, 06:46:10 PM
I-795 ends at an intersection with NC-581 then seamlessly continues as US-117 in Goldsboro.

While the freeway does end at NC-581, I-795 technically ends at US-70.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2007_10_19.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2007_10_19.pdf)
Fair enough.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 08, 2019, 11:18:41 AM
The US-70 Corridor Commission has posted status updates on projects as of April 2019 from the NC Board of Transportation.

Division 2: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/April-2019-US-70-Workshop-Division-2.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/April-2019-US-70-Workshop-Division-2.pdf)

Division 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/April-2019-US-70-Workshop-Division-4.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/April-2019-US-70-Workshop-Division-4.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 10, 2019, 06:17:47 AM
The Clayton Bypass was recently designated as a NC Scenic Byway.

https://www.ncdot.gov/travel-maps/traffic-travel/scenic-byways/Documents/scenic_byways.pdf#page114 (https://www.ncdot.gov/travel-maps/traffic-travel/scenic-byways/Documents/scenic_byways.pdf#page114)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: goobnav on July 10, 2019, 06:58:58 AM
They have I-885 shields up on the BGS of the Durham freeway where it splits on to the new East End Connector and AASHTO hasn't formally approved the route yet.
Are those still covered up or have they taken the cover off and it's visible?

Still covered but partially visible.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: goobnav on July 10, 2019, 07:12:50 AM
^^ FHWA policy for Interstate signing is that it must have logical termini, whether another Interstate, an NHS route, or a major traffic generator (like an airport or military base or whatnot).  The Goldsboro Bypass has that (NHS routes at both ends, I-795, and US 13)...Clayton bypass doesn't.  If FHWA follows their own policy, Clayton bypass won't be signed as I-42 until an Interstate-grade facility reaches I-95.

The western end of the Clayton Bypass connects to I-40 and the eastern end to a NHS route (US-70). How does it not qualify?

Business 70 through Clayton is not on the NHS.  Both you and sprjus note that US 70 continues east as an NHS route, but does not count...it's intersecting routes they look at.  Aside from a short connector to a pipeline terminal (off SR 1003/Buffalo Rd), there are no intersecting NHS routes along US 70 between I-40 and I-95.

^^ FHWA policy for Interstate signing is that it must have logical termini, whether another Interstate, an NHS route, or a major traffic generator (like an airport or military base or whatnot).  The Goldsboro Bypass has that (NHS routes at both ends, I-795, and US 13)...Clayton bypass doesn't.  If FHWA follows their own policy, Clayton bypass won't be signed as I-42 until an Interstate-grade facility reaches I-95.

By your logic I-87 or it predecessor I-495 should not have been signed either.  Neither should have been I-540, come on froggie, you're better than that :).


Not true.  I-495 (nee I-87) ends at I-540...certainly logical in FHWA's eyes.  And I-540 wasn't signed as a full interstate until it reached US 1.  It was "Future I-540" before that.

540 was not signed future when extended to US 64 Bus or US 64 bypass and sprjus4 is right, 87 ends at Rolesville Rd. exit on 64 and 540 was not initially signed future when it extended west to NC 55, before it was changed to NC 540.  Bob7374 can confirm this as well.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Mapmikey on July 10, 2019, 10:53:05 AM
This was NC 55 at 540 not long before opening...

(http://vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/I540-NC540.JPG)
photo by Adam Prince
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: goobnav on July 10, 2019, 11:13:22 AM
This was NC 55 at 540 not long before opening...

(http://vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/I540-NC540.JPG)
photo by Adam Prince

Thank you for the correction Mapmikey!!
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on July 10, 2019, 05:41:30 PM
I have finally gotten around to creating a Future I-42 page for my Future NC Interstates website. At present, it's mostly information from the US 70 Commission and NCDOT project pages, but I hope to add more as time goes on. I have broken the route up into segment like my I-73/74 pages and included a few photos taken back in 2017 and the sign plan images that were on the I-42 exit list page.

Feel free to check it out at: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut42.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut42.html)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 10, 2019, 06:02:26 PM
I have finally gotten around to creating a Future I-42 page for my Future NC Interstates website. At present, it's mostly information from the US 70 Commission and NCDOT project pages, but I hope to add more as time goes on. I have broken the route up into segment like my I-73/74 pages and included a few photos taken back in 2017 and the sign plan images that were on the I-42 exit list page.

Feel free to check it out at: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut42.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut42.html)
Nice site!

The segment layout is a nice touch, similar to the I-73 website.

You should consider adding the segment layout to the I-87 page.

The feasibility study completed back in December for that road split the US-17 corridor into 10 segments that you could use as a basis, then create segments for the US-64 stretch like I-40 to Rolesville Rd, Rolesville Rd to US-264, etc

Just my two cents.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 10, 2019, 09:11:13 PM
This was NC 55 at 540 not long before opening...

(http://vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/I540-NC540.JPG)
photo by Adam Prince

Thank you for the correction Mapmikey!!

It was changed from Future I-540 to NC 540 at the last minute.  The text from myold feature/article at gn.com about it.

"The headline on the July 4, 2007 Raleigh News & Observer read "New bit of Outer Loop renamed."  This headline told the story of how the soon to be opened five mile stretch of Interstate 540 was not going to be called I-540 after all.  Instead, the freeway would have a new designation, NC 540.  This 'change' was made after many signs for I-540 had been posted on the new freeway.

The reason for the change is North Carolina's plans to build much of 540, that is south of Interstate 40, as a toll road.  Because federal funding was used to build the freeway, in order to maintain 'Interstate' status, NCDOT would had to have given back the money used to build the road.  So rather than pay back the federal government, I-540 became NC 540.

The change came only days before then I-540 was to open to traffic.  Signs for Interstate 540 were in place on the highway as early as May.  As you can see in the photos below, the I-540 shields had to be removed and replaced by NC 540 shields.  Fortunately, myself and others were able to capture some of the former I-540 shields before they were taken down. "

I took the photo Mike posted on May 28, 2007 and by July 4th (most likely sooner) they had changed to NC 540.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 11, 2019, 09:59:10 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-11-craven-county-highway-ramp-closed.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-11-craven-county-highway-ramp-closed.aspx)

Quote
NEW BERN – A Craven County highway ramp will be closed this weekend as the N.C. Department of Transportation continues work to upgrade the highway to interstate standards.

The U.S. 70 Westbound exit ramp to ​Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard will be closed from 6:30 a.m. July 13 through 7 p.m. July 14. These dates are weather permitting.

During the closure, NCDOT will remove the top 2.5 inches of existing asphalt and replace it with 2.5 inches of new asphalt.

Motorists needing to access Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard from U.S. 70 West will continue past the closed ramp and exit at Glenburnie Road. Drivers will turn left at the stoplight, continue across the bridge to make another left back onto U.S. 70 East.

This construction is part of the project to bring U.S. 70 up to interstate standards. Crews are widening shoulders, as well as milling and repaving the highway, which will be renamed Interstate 42. The project in its entirety is 32 miles long and costs $25.5 million.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on July 11, 2019, 11:57:24 AM
I have finally gotten around to creating a Future I-42 page for my Future NC Interstates website. At present, it's mostly information from the US 70 Commission and NCDOT project pages, but I hope to add more as time goes on. I have broken the route up into segment like my I-73/74 pages and included a few photos taken back in 2017 and the sign plan images that were on the I-42 exit list page.

Feel free to check it out at: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut42.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut42.html)
Nice site!

The segment layout is a nice touch, similar to the I-73 website.

You should consider adding the segment layout to the I-87 page.

The feasibility study completed back in December for that road split the US-17 corridor into 10 segments that you could use as a basis, then create segments for the US-64 stretch like I-40 to Rolesville Rd, Rolesville Rd to US-264, etc

Just my two cents.
Thanks for the feedback. I do plan to 'segmentize' the I-87 page in the near future, the feasibility study would be a good starting point for that project. Meanwhile, hopefully there will be news about when I-42 may be signed along the Goldsboro Bypass.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 12:56:53 PM
I have finally gotten around to creating a Future I-42 page for my Future NC Interstates website. At present, it's mostly information from the US 70 Commission and NCDOT project pages, but I hope to add more as time goes on. I have broken the route up into segment like my I-73/74 pages and included a few photos taken back in 2017 and the sign plan images that were on the I-42 exit list page.

Feel free to check it out at: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut42.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut42.html)
Nice site!

The segment layout is a nice touch, similar to the I-73 website.

You should consider adding the segment layout to the I-87 page.

The feasibility study completed back in December for that road split the US-17 corridor into 10 segments that you could use as a basis, then create segments for the US-64 stretch like I-40 to Rolesville Rd, Rolesville Rd to US-264, etc

Just my two cents.
Thanks for the feedback. I do plan to 'segmentize' the I-87 page in the near future, the feasibility study would be a good starting point for that project. Meanwhile, hopefully there will be news about when I-42 may be signed along the Goldsboro Bypass.
And actually IIRC the US-64 feasibility study was also divided into segments, so that’s a basis for that portion.

I-42 should be signed on both the Goldsboro Bypass and Clayton Bypass IMO. I-587 should also be signed on the Wilson Bypass - meets interstate standards and connects to I-95.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 12, 2019, 02:19:15 AM
This was NC 55 at 540 not long before opening...

(http://vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/I540-NC540.JPG)
photo by Adam Prince

Thank you for the correction Mapmikey!!

It was changed from Future I-540 to NC 540 at the last minute.  The text from myold feature/article at gn.com about it.

"The headline on the July 4, 2007 Raleigh News & Observer read "New bit of Outer Loop renamed."  This headline told the story of how the soon to be opened five mile stretch of Interstate 540 was not going to be called I-540 after all.  Instead, the freeway would have a new designation, NC 540.  This 'change' was made after many signs for I-540 had been posted on the new freeway.

The reason for the change is North Carolina's plans to build much of 540, that is south of Interstate 40, as a toll road.  Because federal funding was used to build the freeway, in order to maintain 'Interstate' status, NCDOT would had to have given back the money used to build the road.  So rather than pay back the federal government, I-540 became NC 540.

The change came only days before then I-540 was to open to traffic.  Signs for Interstate 540 were in place on the highway as early as May.  As you can see in the photos below, the I-540 shields had to be removed and replaced by NC 540 shields.  Fortunately, myself and others were able to capture some of the former I-540 shields before they were taken down. "

I took the photo Mike posted on May 28, 2007 and by July 4th (most likely sooner) they had changed to NC 540.

I don't get why that they can't sign the triangle expressway as I-540 and not NC 540. Because i've seen toll roads signed with interstate numbers. Maybe it has the fact of traffic capacity? But anyway, that looks nice. Nice catch bro! I didn't live there then.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 12, 2019, 02:20:44 AM
I have finally gotten around to creating a Future I-42 page for my Future NC Interstates website. At present, it's mostly information from the US 70 Commission and NCDOT project pages, but I hope to add more as time goes on. I have broken the route up into segment like my I-73/74 pages and included a few photos taken back in 2017 and the sign plan images that were on the I-42 exit list page.

Feel free to check it out at: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut42.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut42.html)
Nice site!

The segment layout is a nice touch, similar to the I-73 website.

You should consider adding the segment layout to the I-87 page.

The feasibility study completed back in December for that road split the US-17 corridor into 10 segments that you could use as a basis, then create segments for the US-64 stretch like I-40 to Rolesville Rd, Rolesville Rd to US-264, etc

Just my two cents.
Thanks for the feedback. I do plan to 'segmentize' the I-87 page in the near future, the feasibility study would be a good starting point for that project. Meanwhile, hopefully there will be news about when I-42 may be signed along the Goldsboro Bypass.
And actually IIRC the US-64 feasibility study was also divided into segments, so that’s a basis for that portion.

I-42 should be signed on both the Goldsboro Bypass and Clayton Bypass IMO. I-587 should also be signed on the Wilson Bypass - meets interstate standards and connects to I-95.

Maybe the want to wait until I-87 gets built to interstate standards first? And for I-42 i'm not sure why they want to wait. They should sign it now. I agree with you.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 02:32:54 AM
This was NC 55 at 540 not long before opening...

(http://vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/I540-NC540.JPG)
photo by Adam Prince

Thank you for the correction Mapmikey!!

It was changed from Future I-540 to NC 540 at the last minute.  The text from myold feature/article at gn.com about it.

"The headline on the July 4, 2007 Raleigh News & Observer read "New bit of Outer Loop renamed."  This headline told the story of how the soon to be opened five mile stretch of Interstate 540 was not going to be called I-540 after all.  Instead, the freeway would have a new designation, NC 540.  This 'change' was made after many signs for I-540 had been posted on the new freeway.

The reason for the change is North Carolina's plans to build much of 540, that is south of Interstate 40, as a toll road.  Because federal funding was used to build the freeway, in order to maintain 'Interstate' status, NCDOT would had to have given back the money used to build the road.  So rather than pay back the federal government, I-540 became NC 540.

The change came only days before then I-540 was to open to traffic.  Signs for Interstate 540 were in place on the highway as early as May.  As you can see in the photos below, the I-540 shields had to be removed and replaced by NC 540 shields.  Fortunately, myself and others were able to capture some of the former I-540 shields before they were taken down. "

I took the photo Mike posted on May 28, 2007 and by July 4th (most likely sooner) they had changed to NC 540.

I don't get why that they can't sign the triangle expressway as I-540 and not NC 540. Because i've seen toll roads signed with interstate numbers. Maybe it has the fact of traffic capacity? But anyway, that looks nice. Nice catch bro! I didn't live there then.
It’s because it received federal funding. An interstate highway can be signed as such if it’s a toll road ONLY if it’s fully funded via toll revenue and bonds.

Since NC-540 received federal funding and is tolled, it cannot Be an interstate.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: hockeyjohn on July 12, 2019, 09:20:41 AM

It’s because it received federal funding. An interstate highway can be signed as such if it’s a toll road ONLY if it’s fully funded via toll revenue and bonds.

Since NC-540 received federal funding and is tolled, it cannot Be an interstate.

Is this why E-470 around Denver is not designated as an interstate?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 10:20:02 AM

It’s because it received federal funding. An interstate highway can be signed as such if it’s a toll road ONLY if it’s fully funded via toll revenue and bonds.

Since NC-540 received federal funding and is tolled, it cannot Be an interstate.

Is this why E-470 around Denver is not designated as an interstate?
I’m not fully aware of the funding sources of that particular road, but presumably it received some sort of federal funding, so yes.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: jcarte29 on July 13, 2019, 02:13:39 PM

It’s because it received federal funding. An interstate highway can be signed as such if it’s a toll road ONLY if it’s fully funded via toll revenue and bonds.

Since NC-540 received federal funding and is tolled, it cannot Be an interstate.

Is this why E-470 around Denver is not designated as an interstate?
I’m not fully aware of the funding sources of that particular road, but presumably it received some sort of federal funding, so yes.

Quick re-direct, was US 74 Toll around Monroe built with any federal funds?
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 13, 2019, 02:53:34 PM
Quick re-direct, was US 74 Toll around Monroe built with any federal funds?
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/monroe-expressway/Documents/monroe_FEIS_FactSheet.pdf

Quote
The Monroe Connector/Bypass is estimated to cost between approximately $750 and $825 million and will be be financed using a variety of sources, including toll revenue bonds, federal loans, and state funding.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on July 13, 2019, 09:08:32 PM
Federal funds ≠ Federal loans.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 13, 2019, 09:18:41 PM
Federal funds ≠ Federal loans.
I never said it was the same...

I merely quoted what the document said.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 17, 2019, 12:58:15 PM
According to NCDOT’s 12-month contract letting list as of this month, the contract awarding date for upgrading US-70 to interstate standards between the eastern end of the Goldsboro Bypass and Willie Measley Road east of La Grange has been pushed back from October 15, 2019 to February 18, 2020.

Also, the contract awarding date for upgrading US-70 to interstate standards between the Clayton Bypass and the Neuse River has been pushed back from September 17, 2019 to March 17, 2020.

They can be seen on pages 10 and 17, respectively.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/JULY%202019%20CHANGES%20REPORT.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/JULY%202019%20CHANGES%20REPORT.pdf)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 19, 2019, 11:54:40 PM
I'm so ready for I-42. It's been a long wait and they are moving slow. It's the worst stretch right now. I've been on it and it sucks. Especially New Bern and Havelock.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 20, 2019, 09:43:31 AM
I'm so ready for I-42. It's been a long wait and they are moving slow. It's the worst stretch right now. I've been on it and it sucks. Especially New Bern and Havelock.
That stretch hopefully will be done in 5-6 years.

Construction is going to be a headache likely, but will definitely pay off when completed.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 20, 2019, 09:52:11 AM
Recently updated Google Street View imagery in the New Bern area shows some areas where newly 10 foot shoulder has been paved. Other areas though only show lane repaving but still no shoulder. And in other areas there’s no repaving at all yet.

Assume it’s being done in sections, and the regular lane repaving comes first, then shoulder grading & paving new 10 foot shoulder.

Once the project is complete next year or so, this stretch will be fully up to interstate standards. It can’t be signed I-42 though until the Kinston Bypass is completed.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 20, 2019, 10:30:15 AM
Speaking of shoulder widening, I never understood why NCDOT didn’t widen the shoulders on the freeway section in La Grange when they repaved it 2 (maybe 3) years ago.

BTW, anybody know if the Havelock Bypass got pushed back again? The contract was supposed to have been awarded last Tuesday, but there’s been no announcement. :hmm:
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on July 20, 2019, 11:03:41 AM
Speaking of shoulder widening, I never understood why NCDOT didn’t widen the shoulders on the freeway section in La Grange when they repaved it 2 (maybe 3) years ago.

BTW, anybody know if the Havelock Bypass got pushed back again? The contract was supposed to have been awarded last Tuesday, but there’s been no announcement. :hmm:
There's nothing on the July 19 letting page that suggests the Havelock Bypass project wasn't let. It sometimes takes time between when the winning bidder is determined and when the contract is officially awarded, then there's usually an announcement. The only project that was withdrawn from this letting was one in Buncombe County on June 27. Related, there were 3 addenda to the Bypass contract published after the project was pushed back to July. None of them involved changes to signing, however. Guess there's still time to fix the problems before signs go up.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 20, 2019, 05:42:33 PM
Speaking of shoulder widening, I never understood why NCDOT didn’t widen the shoulders on the freeway section in La Grange when they repaved it 2 (maybe 3) years ago.

BTW, anybody know if the Havelock Bypass got pushed back again? The contract was supposed to have been awarded last Tuesday, but there’s been no announcement. :hmm:
There's nothing on the July 19 letting page that suggests the Havelock Bypass project wasn't let. It sometimes takes time between when the winning bidder is determined and when the contract is officially awarded, then there's usually an announcement. The only project that was withdrawn from this letting was one in Buncombe County on June 27. Related, there were 3 addenda to the Bypass contract published after the project was pushed back to July. None of them involved changes to signing, however. Guess there's still time to fix the problems before signs go up.

Gotcha. Thanks for the 411. I also have my fingers crossed for the sign changes.

Also, since I’m originally from Wayne County, I read the local newspapers online everyday and there hasn’t been any mention of when I-42 shields will go up on the Goldsboro Bypass, nor of the approval of I-42 itself. I checked FHWA’s interstate logs, but they haven’t been updated since last December. NCDOT hasn’t posted any approval letters on their Route Changes page yet, either.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: FightingIrish on July 20, 2019, 09:32:43 PM
Recently updated Google Street View imagery in the New Bern area shows some areas where newly 10 foot shoulder has been paved. Other areas though only show lane repaving but still no shoulder. And in other areas there’s no repaving at all yet.

Assume it’s being done in sections, and the regular lane repaving comes first, then shoulder grading & paving new 10 foot shoulder.

Once the project is complete next year or so, this stretch will be fully up to interstate standards. It can’t be signed I-42 though until the Kinston Bypass is completed.
Kinda funny. I was looking at US 70 in the New Bern area on Google Maps. I tapped for the Street View of the road. The first one I pulled up identified it as I-42. I closed it before I could get a screenshot, and couldn't find it again, as the rest of it is labeled US 70. Must be an Easter egg.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Roadsguy on July 20, 2019, 11:15:05 PM
Recently updated Google Street View imagery in the New Bern area shows some areas where newly 10 foot shoulder has been paved. Other areas though only show lane repaving but still no shoulder. And in other areas there’s no repaving at all yet.

Assume it’s being done in sections, and the regular lane repaving comes first, then shoulder grading & paving new 10 foot shoulder.

Once the project is complete next year or so, this stretch will be fully up to interstate standards. It can’t be signed I-42 though until the Kinston Bypass is completed.
Kinda funny. I was looking at US 70 in the New Bern area on Google Maps. I tapped for the Street View of the road. The first one I pulled up identified it as I-42. I closed it before I could get a screenshot, and couldn't find it again, as the rest of it is labeled US 70. Must be an Easter egg.

Google has "Interstate 42" as one of the names of the road (all of US 70 from I-40 to NC 24 near Moorehead City, not just the existing freeway sections). It must have some kind of setting in place to prevent the shield from rendering, but this evidently doesn't affect the listed name in Street View.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 21, 2019, 11:45:43 PM
I like how things are getting done pretty good. Now the only thing would take a while is the Kinston Bypass. On the NCDOT website it says start date is 2025. Not sure why that is but i hope it gets moved to like 2021.

And I would just love for them to make a freeway on the existing 70 that goes through Kinston. Like where Walmart and Toyota and Cook out are.

Just saying that because I KNOW it's not gonna happen. There's plenty choices that do better when putting 42 on a new alignment.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 24, 2019, 09:04:14 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-24-craven-county-highway-ramp-closing-aspx.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-24-craven-county-highway-ramp-closing-aspx.aspx)

Quote
NEW BERN – An exit ramp off a Craven County highway will be closed the next two days so the N.C. Department of Transportation can improve pavement.​

The exit ramp at Clarks Road from ​​​U.S. 70 East will be closed between 6:30 a.m. July 25 and 7 p.m. July 26. These dates are weather permitting.

During the closure, NCDOT will remove the top 2.5 inches of existing asphalt and replace it with new asphalt.

Motorists on U.S. 70 East wanting to access Clarks Road will continue about a mile to N.C. 43, exit 411. Drivers will cross the bridge over U.S. 70 and turn left on the ramp for U.S. 70 West and continue toward the Clarks Road exit.

This construction is part of the project to bring U.S. 70 up to interstate standards. Crews are widening shoulders, as well as milling and repaving the highway, which will be renamed Interstate 42. The project in Craven County is 32 miles long and costs $25.5 million.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 25, 2019, 01:03:30 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-24-craven-county-highway-ramp-closing-aspx.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-24-craven-county-highway-ramp-closing-aspx.aspx)

Quote
NEW BERN – An exit ramp off a Craven County highway will be closed the next two days so the N.C. Department of Transportation can improve pavement.​

The exit ramp at Clarks Road from ​​​U.S. 70 East will be closed between 6:30 a.m. July 25 and 7 p.m. July 26. These dates are weather permitting.

During the closure, NCDOT will remove the top 2.5 inches of existing asphalt and replace it with new asphalt.

Motorists on U.S. 70 East wanting to access Clarks Road will continue about a mile to N.C. 43, exit 411. Drivers will cross the bridge over U.S. 70 and turn left on the ramp for U.S. 70 West and continue toward the Clarks Road exit.

This construction is part of the project to bring U.S. 70 up to interstate standards. Crews are widening shoulders, as well as milling and repaving the highway, which will be renamed Interstate 42. The project in Craven County is 32 miles long and costs $25.5 million.

Nice. I like seeing things like this happen! Where will all of 70 go? I guess on the frontage roads maybe? Not positive though
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 01:19:51 AM
Where will all of 70 go? I guess on the frontage roads maybe? Not positive though
Likely will stay on the existing roadway and be concurrent with I-42 for many parts.

Or it can do something like I-95 and US-301 does in Virginia. When US-301 was upgraded from a four-lane highway to I-95 in the 80s between Emporia and Petersburg, the southbound roadway was converted to a continuous 2-lane frontage road, while the northbound roadway and a brand new roadway was converted into the interstate. Today, US-301 runs on that two-lane frontage road, and I-95 runs on the mainline. The two highways never are concurrent within Virginia.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 25, 2019, 01:37:15 AM
Where will all of 70 go? I guess on the frontage roads maybe? Not positive though
Likely will stay on the existing roadway and be concurrent with I-42 for many parts.

Or it can do something like I-95 and US-301 does in Virginia. When US-301 was upgraded from a four-lane highway to I-95 in the 80s between Emporia and Petersburg, the southbound roadway was converted to a continuous 2-lane frontage road, while the northbound roadway and a brand new roadway was converted into the interstate. Today, US-301 runs on that two-lane frontage road, and I-95 runs on the mainline. The two highways never are concurrent within Virginia.

Yeah i kinda thought so. Because the frontages are two way and not one. So there's probably no way that it can go on it. Maybe US 70 should to go New Bern and go back on the old highway. When the freeway was built in the 70's it got moved on there. There is nothing signed on it. Not even an alternative route. It's just labeled as "Old US Highway 70"
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 01:42:47 AM
Because the frontages are two way and not one. So there's probably no way that it can go on it.
The frontage road on I-95 is a two-way road. It's just continuous. As long as it's one continuous road, it can work. Two-way or one-way. Highly unlikely to find continuous one-way frontage roads up this way though, you'll see them everywhere in Texas though.

If it's just minor frontage roads here and there that do not connect, obviously it cannot be a route then.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 25, 2019, 02:00:09 AM
Because the frontages are two way and not one. So there's probably no way that it can go on it.
The frontage road on I-95 is a two-way road. It's just continuous. As long as it's one continuous road, it can work. Two-way or one-way. Highly unlikely to find continuous one-way frontage roads up this way though, you'll see them everywhere in Texas though.

If it's just minor frontage roads here and there that do not connect, obviously it cannot be a route then.

I see now. So it will probably just concurrent with I-42.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 25, 2019, 07:38:25 PM
The project page for the Kinston Bypass has an updated timeline.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/default.aspx)

Also, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dated June 2019) and technical reports have been posted:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx)

The maps of the alternatives that will be shown during the public meeting in Kinston next month are also posted:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 07:56:57 PM
The project page for the Kinston Bypass has an updated timeline.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/default.aspx)

Also, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dated June 2019) and technical reports have been posted:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx)

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/july-2019-technical-reports.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/july-2019-technical-reports.aspx)

The maps of the alternatives that will be shown during the public meeting in Kinston next month are also posted:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx)
The design of this highway is interesting in a couple ways...

First off, the originally approved "compressed diamond" at Little Baltimore has been changed to a diamond interchange... a change I fully agree with, especially on a rural facility. Good move.

Secondly, all of the interchanges on new location segments, plus the one at Little Baltimore, are all (or most of them) designed as wide diamond interchanges, and all designed to be expanded into full cloverleaf interchanges one day. It's quite noticeable by the right of way designs, and some of them, including the one at Little Baltimore, have dashed lines where the loops would be located.

It will be certainly interesting seeing this built. An important piece in the I-42 corridor, and will enable it to be completed from I-795 to Havelock.

As for my favored alternative, I'd say one of the middle ones. Not too far away from the city, but at the same time, not on the existing corridor. The detailed drawings for upgrading the existing corridor aren't feasible.

Another thing - now that the DEIS is out, RE/T groups, Sierra Club, SELC, and others are going to start filing lawsuits claiming this destroys wetlands and the DEIS is flawed.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 08:07:56 PM
^

Another thing, after looking at the detailed cost estimates and comparing it to the money allocated to the project, only Alternatives 31, 32, 35, 51, and 52 could be built within that budget.

On the map, that's the yellow alternatives, purple alternatives, and blue alternatives. All the middle new location alternatives. The upgrading existing alternative, and the far out bypass are over the allocated budget.

Alternative 31, the yellow alignment fully on new location, has the least amount of relocations (106), Alternative 52, the blue alignment mostly on new location, with the eastern end upgrade, costs the least ($356 million), and Alternative 1SB, upgrading most of the existing, some new location, has the least wetlands impact (65 acres), but costs $440 million.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 25, 2019, 09:03:43 PM
^

Another thing, after looking at the detailed cost estimates and comparing it to the money allocated to the project, only Alternatives 31, 32, 35, 51, and 52 could be built within that budget.

On the map, that's the yellow alternatives, purple alternatives, and blue alternatives. All the middle new location alternatives. The upgrading existing alternative, and the far out bypass are over the allocated budget.

Alternative 31, the yellow alignment fully on new location, has the least amount of relocations (106), Alternative 52, the blue alignment mostly on new location, with the eastern end upgrade, costs the least ($356 million), and Alternative 1SB, upgrading most of the existing, some new location, has the least wetlands impact (65 acres), but costs $440 million.

The purple alternatives (35 and 36) just seem unnecessary in my opinion. They bypass Kinston too much and don't really do too much potential

Blue alternatives (51 and 52) are better, but still bypass the town too much and i don't like the southwest how it bypasses it. It bypasses it too much and I would love for access from the CF Harvey Parkway.

Pink alternatives (63 and 65) are pretty decent.

Red alternatives (11 and 12) are just silly in my opinion.

Yellow alternatives (31 and 32) are better than the red, and I think I say 32 is my favorite. Although, 31 can work too if it has fewer relocations.

Finally, the orange alternatives (1 UE and 1 SB) I say the 1 SB is the most considered and probably what's most likely going to be built. It's a pretty good alternative, except the wetlands and churches.

1 UE looks more like an urban highway design which i think won't be built at all. It's possible but it's just kinda silly in my opinion. Build it on a new alignment.

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 25, 2019, 09:13:45 PM
The project page for the Kinston Bypass has an updated timeline.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/default.aspx)

Also, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dated June 2019) and technical reports have been posted:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx)

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/july-2019-technical-reports.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/july-2019-technical-reports.aspx)

The maps of the alternatives that will be shown during the public meeting in Kinston next month are also posted:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx)
The design of this highway is interesting in a couple ways...

First off, the originally approved "compressed diamond" at Little Baltimore has been changed to a diamond interchange... a change I fully agree with, especially on a rural facility. Good move.

You like this interchange

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/R-2553/july-2019-alternative-maps/R-2553_A11_1.pdf

Better than this one?

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-5813_Alternative_2.pdf

I say it does a lot more impacts but if that's the interchange that they are going for then I'm fine with it. It gives it more of a 'freeway' look.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 10:24:15 PM
The project page for the Kinston Bypass has an updated timeline.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/default.aspx)

Also, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dated June 2019) and technical reports have been posted:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx)

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/july-2019-technical-reports.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/july-2019-technical-reports.aspx)

The maps of the alternatives that will be shown during the public meeting in Kinston next month are also posted:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx)
The design of this highway is interesting in a couple ways...

First off, the originally approved "compressed diamond" at Little Baltimore has been changed to a diamond interchange... a change I fully agree with, especially on a rural facility. Good move.

You like this interchange

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/R-2553/july-2019-alternative-maps/R-2553_A11_1.pdf

Better than this one?

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-5813_Alternative_2.pdf

I say it does a lot more impacts but if that's the interchange that they are going for then I'm fine with it. It gives it more of a 'freeway' look.
Not only does that wide diamond have a more rural design as opposed to urban, it’s also $20 million cheaper than the compressed urban diamond.

I had preferred the partial cloverleaf alternative actually as it was the cheapest and had less impacts, but I’m fine with the diamond too. Just not the compressed option.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 25, 2019, 11:56:20 PM
The project page for the Kinston Bypass has an updated timeline.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/default.aspx)

Also, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dated June 2019) and technical reports have been posted:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx)

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/july-2019-technical-reports.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/july-2019-technical-reports.aspx)

The maps of the alternatives that will be shown during the public meeting in Kinston next month are also posted:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx)
The design of this highway is interesting in a couple ways...

First off, the originally approved "compressed diamond" at Little Baltimore has been changed to a diamond interchange... a change I fully agree with, especially on a rural facility. Good move.

You like this interchange

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/R-2553/july-2019-alternative-maps/R-2553_A11_1.pdf

Better than this one?

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/R-5813_Alternative_2.pdf

I say it does a lot more impacts but if that's the interchange that they are going for then I'm fine with it. It gives it more of a 'freeway' look.
Not only does that wide diamond have a more rural design as opposed to urban, it’s also $20 million cheaper than the compressed urban diamond.

I had preferred the partial cloverleaf alternative actually as it was the cheapest and had less impacts, but I’m fine with the diamond too. Just not the compressed option.

Yeah. All the business can relocate. They should start building around the proposed interchange right now.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 26, 2019, 12:46:57 PM
Alternative 1 SB (aka Shallow Bypass) has the best chance IMO, and is my personal preference. Upgrading all of the existing highway through Kinston is a non-starter because of the businesses butted up against the road and it’s dangerously close to the Neuse River near US-258. The Shallow Bypass would still put I-42 very close to Kinston and it’s businesses while also keeping a fairly safe distance from the Neuse River.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 01:10:12 PM
Alternative 1 SB (aka Shallow Bypass) has the best chance IMO, and is my personal preference. Upgrading all of the existing highway through Kinston is a non-starter because of the businesses butted up against the road and it’s dangerously close to the Neuse River near US-258. The Shallow Bypass would still put I-42 very close to Kinston and it’s businesses while also keeping a fairly safe distance from the Neuse River.
There's a few issues with the "Shallow Bypass".

For one, it costs $440 million as opposed to the cheapest, Alternative 52, which costs $356 million. It's $84 million cheaper to build a farther out bypass than close in. Also, Alternative 52 fits within the $379 million budget, the "Shallow Bypass" would be $61 million over.

Secondly, consider the impacts. For the Shallow Bypass, there's 229 relocations, including 162 homes, 67 businesses, 1 school, and 6 churches. Right of way costs are $123 million.

Alternative 31, which costs $368 million (only $12 million more than the cheapest) only has 106 relocations, including 76 homes, 30 businesses, no schools, and 1 church. Right of costs are only $63 million.

Thirdly, you have to cross the Neuse River on any alternatives. There's no way to avoid that. The only benefit to the Shallow Bypass is that there's only 65 acres of wetland impacts as opposed to Alternative 52 (cheapest) where there's 136 acres of wetland impact, or Alternative 31 (least relocations) where there's 126 acres of wetland impacts. The cost would most likely outweigh that benefit, no matter how much the RE/T groups cry.

IMO, the preferred alternatives are either going to be Alternative 52, which is the cheapest, or Alternative 31 which has the least relocations, and is only $12 million more than the cheapest.

The Shallow Bypass would be most ideal, but when you consider all of these factors, it doesn't appear to be a preferred option.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 26, 2019, 06:26:15 PM
I'm just excited for the new highway to be built! They should speed it up. Why 2025? Why not 2022 or 2021? Whatever though.

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 27, 2019, 07:38:22 AM
Alternative 1 SB (aka Shallow Bypass) has the best chance IMO, and is my personal preference. Upgrading all of the existing highway through Kinston is a non-starter because of the businesses butted up against the road and it’s dangerously close to the Neuse River near US-258. The Shallow Bypass would still put I-42 very close to Kinston and it’s businesses while also keeping a fairly safe distance from the Neuse River.
There's a few issues with the "Shallow Bypass".

For one, it costs $440 million as opposed to the cheapest, Alternative 52, which costs $356 million. It's $84 million cheaper to build a farther out bypass than close in. Also, Alternative 52 fits within the $379 million budget, the "Shallow Bypass" would be $61 million over.

Secondly, consider the impacts. For the Shallow Bypass, there's 229 relocations, including 162 homes, 67 businesses, 1 school, and 6 churches. Right of way costs are $123 million.

Alternative 31, which costs $368 million (only $12 million more than the cheapest) only has 106 relocations, including 76 homes, 30 businesses, no schools, and 1 church. Right of costs are only $63 million.

Thirdly, you have to cross the Neuse River on any alternatives. There's no way to avoid that. The only benefit to the Shallow Bypass is that there's only 65 acres of wetland impacts as opposed to Alternative 52 (cheapest) where there's 136 acres of wetland impact, or Alternative 31 (least relocations) where there's 126 acres of wetland impacts. The cost would most likely outweigh that benefit, no matter how much the RE/T groups cry.

IMO, the preferred alternatives are either going to be Alternative 52, which is the cheapest, or Alternative 31 which has the least relocations, and is only $12 million more than the cheapest.

The Shallow Bypass would be most ideal, but when you consider all of these factors, it doesn't appear to be a preferred option.

If the Shallow Bypass doesn’t work out, then the short yellow route would be my next pick. The other alternatives go a bit too far out and probably wouldn’t draw as much traffic.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on July 27, 2019, 08:58:25 AM
Given the other options, I would not be surprised if the Army Corps of Engineers vetoes Alternative 52 due to the wetlands impacts.  They effectively have that authority in that they're the ones issuing the wetlands permits.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 27, 2019, 03:09:15 PM
Given the other options, I would not be surprised if the Army Corps of Engineers vetoes Alternative 52 due to the wetlands impacts.  They effectively have that authority in that they're the ones issuing the wetlands permits.

Yeah, I was thinking the yellow alternatives were the best.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 03:16:32 PM
Given the other options, I would not be surprised if the Army Corps of Engineers vetoes Alternative 52 due to the wetlands impacts.  They effectively have that authority in that they're the ones issuing the wetlands permits.
Alternative 31 will likely end up being the preferred alternative. The cost is $368 million, there's only 106 relocations, and 126 acres of wetlands impacted.

Obviously it would have less impact following the existing routing or a shallow bypass, but you have to also consider the amount of relocations and the costs being way higher.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 27, 2019, 11:52:26 PM
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 28, 2019, 12:05:24 AM
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!
It's a real proposal under consideration, but would be -expensive-.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 28, 2019, 12:07:21 AM
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!
It's a real proposal under consideration, but would be -expensive-.

There's also another alternative, would just widen the shoulders and that's pretty much it. Nothing else really. But I like the first one better where it has a major redesign.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 28, 2019, 01:40:15 AM
How big is the median on US 70 that goes to New Bern? I know it's bigger than 70 feet. I like that design of a freeway. I'm just curious.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1689291,-77.368193,3a,75y,307.03h,84.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DkTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D260%26pitch%3D-10%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 28, 2019, 01:52:36 AM
How big is the median on US 70 that goes to New Bern? I know it's bigger than 70 feet. I like that design of a freeway. I'm just curious.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1689291,-77.368193,3a,75y,307.03h,84.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DkTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D260%26pitch%3D-10%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
It's 95 feet wide.

For a while NCDOT built new location highway projects with a 60 - 70 foot median, though a lot of the newer freeways being built now only have 46 foot medians. That's still plenty wide and is tolerable, but I still personally prefer 60 feet or wider. Any size grassy median is better than a barrier though IMO.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 28, 2019, 01:56:45 AM
How big is the median on US 70 that goes to New Bern? I know it's bigger than 70 feet. I like that design of a freeway. I'm just curious.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1689291,-77.368193,3a,75y,307.03h,84.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DkTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D260%26pitch%3D-10%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
It's 95 feet wide.

For a while NCDOT built new location highway projects with a 60 - 70 foot median, though a lot of the newer freeways being built now only have 46 foot medians. That's still plenty wide and is tolerable, but I still personally prefer 60 feet or wider. Any size grassy median is better than a barrier though IMO.

It looks the same as that routes from Sims to Zebulon. And is 46 too small for a rural freeway or it's fine? The 95 foot freeways looked very nice. They provide easy widening for a third lane.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 28, 2019, 02:03:44 AM
How big is the median on US 70 that goes to New Bern? I know it's bigger than 70 feet. I like that design of a freeway. I'm just curious.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1689291,-77.368193,3a,75y,307.03h,84.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DkTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D260%26pitch%3D-10%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
It's 95 feet wide.

For a while NCDOT built new location highway projects with a 60 - 70 foot median, though a lot of the newer freeways being built now only have 46 foot medians. That's still plenty wide and is tolerable, but I still personally prefer 60 feet or wider. Any size grassy median is better than a barrier though IMO.

It looks the same as that routes from Sims to Zebulon. And is 46 too small for a rural freeway or it's fine? The 95 foot freeways looked very nice. They provide easy widening for a third lane.
For Sims to Zebulon, that's an 82 foot median (with the exception of the forested median section which gets up to 1,000 ft at its widest point) so slightly smaller, but still wide. Both of those freeways (US-70 and US-264) were built in the 70s where median size wasn't as strict as it is today.

46 feet is still plenty wide. Anything smaller than 40 - 42 feet is too small IMO.

I-40 was built with a 44 foot median between I-85 and Wilmington (with one exception along a small 70s stretch of I-40 in the RTP area that has a 70 ft median) when it was constructed throughout the 80s and early 90s. It's a consistent size for the most part, and is plenty adequate for a rural interstate highway posted at 70 mph.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Finrod on July 28, 2019, 03:04:47 AM
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!
It's a real proposal under consideration, but would be -expensive-.
I've been in that area several times; there's no good way to make an interstate interchange between I-42 and I-95 without relocating I-95, because there's so much stuff so close to the highway in that whole area.  You'd blow your whole budget just relocating things.  Also, look at what the plan does to the eventual I-42-- it straightens it out somewhat on the east side of I-95.  It's not as wacky as it first looks.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 28, 2019, 10:20:55 AM
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!
It's a real proposal under consideration, but would be -expensive-.
I've been in that area several times; there's no good way to make an interstate interchange between I-42 and I-95 without relocating I-95, because there's so much stuff so close to the highway in that whole area.  You'd blow your whole budget just relocating things.  Also, look at what the plan does to the eventual I-42-- it straightens it out somewhat on the east side of I-95.  It's not as wacky as it first looks.

I would love to see where all this businesses will go to. Especially that the new I-42 and I-95 interchange will run through a solar panel area.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Finrod on July 28, 2019, 03:00:02 PM
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!
It's a real proposal under consideration, but would be -expensive-.
I've been in that area several times; there's no good way to make an interstate interchange between I-42 and I-95 without relocating I-95, because there's so much stuff so close to the highway in that whole area.  You'd blow your whole budget just relocating things.  Also, look at what the plan does to the eventual I-42-- it straightens it out somewhat on the east side of I-95.  It's not as wacky as it first looks.

I would love to see where all this businesses will go to. Especially that the new I-42 and I-95 interchange will run through a solar panel area.
I figure the area where the current I-95 - US 70 interchange is will get zoned for business after it gets relocated.  It's not like life will change much for say JR Cigar-- they'll just have I-95 running behind them instead of in front of them.

I'm wondering which of the four US 70s of Selma-Smithfield will become US 70 once this is all said and done.  The sensible thing to do would be to return US 70 to what is now Business US 70 all the way to I-40, then just extend Alt US 70 (or as they have it signed, US 70A) west along current US 70 across I-95 to I-42.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Finrod on July 28, 2019, 03:15:29 PM
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!
It's a real proposal under consideration, but would be -expensive-.
I've been in that area several times; there's no good way to make an interstate interchange between I-42 and I-95 without relocating I-95, because there's so much stuff so close to the highway in that whole area.  You'd blow your whole budget just relocating things.  Also, look at what the plan does to the eventual I-42-- it straightens it out somewhat on the east side of I-95.  It's not as wacky as it first looks.

I would love to see where all this businesses will go to. Especially that the new I-42 and I-95 interchange will run through a solar panel area.
I figure the area where the current I-95 - US 70 interchange is will get zoned for business after it gets relocated.  It's not like life will change much for say JR Cigar-- they'll just have I-95 running behind them instead of in front of them.

I'm wondering which of the four US 70s of Selma-Smithfield will become US 70 once this is all said and done.  The sensible thing to do would be to return US 70 to what is now Business US 70 all the way to I-40, then just extend Alt US 70 (or as they have it signed, US 70A) west along current US 70 across I-95 to I-42.
I was mistaken-- it's currently signed as East US 70-A :
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5184778,-78.2871196,3a,15y,157.56h,84.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6wi1caktp5kv9TgEKpdvpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 28, 2019, 06:10:27 PM
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!
It's a real proposal under consideration, but would be -expensive-.
I've been in that area several times; there's no good way to make an interstate interchange between I-42 and I-95 without relocating I-95, because there's so much stuff so close to the highway in that whole area.  You'd blow your whole budget just relocating things.  Also, look at what the plan does to the eventual I-42-- it straightens it out somewhat on the east side of I-95.  It's not as wacky as it first looks.

I would love to see where all this businesses will go to. Especially that the new I-42 and I-95 interchange will run through a solar panel area.
I figure the area where the current I-95 - US 70 interchange is will get zoned for business after it gets relocated.  It's not like life will change much for say JR Cigar-- they'll just have I-95 running behind them instead of in front of them.

I'm wondering which of the four US 70s of Selma-Smithfield will become US 70 once this is all said and done.  The sensible thing to do would be to return US 70 to what is now Business US 70 all the way to I-40, then just extend Alt US 70 (or as they have it signed, US 70A) west along current US 70 across I-95 to I-42.
I was mistaken-- it's currently signed as East US 70-A :
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5184778,-78.2871196,3a,15y,157.56h,84.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6wi1caktp5kv9TgEKpdvpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That turns left yes.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Mr. ENC on July 29, 2019, 02:49:51 PM
Given the other options, I would not be surprised if the Army Corps of Engineers vetoes Alternative 52 due to the wetlands impacts.  They effectively have that authority in that they're the ones issuing the wetlands permits.

Yeah, I was thinking the yellow alternatives were the best.

Here's a question, why did they get rid of al the northern alternates? They could very easily ran this hwy into 148 and run to where it ends now.  It would cost less, the Neuse River on that side is easier to manage, it would spark growth at GTP, and again the hwy is already either built or being built. The only reason I could think of is because of the civil war battlefield land, and if it is, that sis a really dumb reason.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 29, 2019, 03:19:43 PM
Given the other options, I would not be surprised if the Army Corps of Engineers vetoes Alternative 52 due to the wetlands impacts.  They effectively have that authority in that they're the ones issuing the wetlands permits.

Yeah, I was thinking the yellow alternatives were the best.

Here's a question, why did they get rid of al the northern alternates? They could very easily ran this hwy into 148 and run to where it ends now.  It would cost less, the Neuse River on that side is easier to manage, it would spark growth at GTP, and again the hwy is already either built or being built. The only reason I could think of is because of the civil war battlefield land, and if it is, that sis a really dumb reason.
My guess is because of opposition from Kinston with preference to a southern highway for the US-70 / I-42 corridor. They want the northern highway too, but as a different route, such as a C.F. Harvey Pkwy extension (under construction) or NC-11 freeway bypass (proposed to run to the east of NC-11 and meet I-42 at its southern end, not funded though).
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 29, 2019, 03:45:57 PM
Given the other options, I would not be surprised if the Army Corps of Engineers vetoes Alternative 52 due to the wetlands impacts.  They effectively have that authority in that they're the ones issuing the wetlands permits.

Yeah, I was thinking the yellow alternatives were the best.

Here's a question, why did they get rid of al the northern alternates? They could very easily ran this hwy into 148 and run to where it ends now.  It would cost less, the Neuse River on that side is easier to manage, it would spark growth at GTP, and again the hwy is already either built or being built. The only reason I could think of is because of the civil war battlefield land, and if it is, that sis a really dumb reason.
My guess is because of opposition from Kinston with preference to a southern highway for the US-70 / I-42 corridor.

From a 2014 press release:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2014/Kinston-Bypass-Project-Moving-Forward-wi.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2014/Kinston-Bypass-Project-Moving-Forward-wi.aspx)

Quote
All northern bypass alternatives are being eliminated due to new traffic projections that show minimal traffic from U.S. 70 using these routes. Thus, existing U.S. 70 would still require widening, even after a northern bypass was constructed. The southern alternatives would attract more traffic from U.S. 70, significantly reducing congestion in Kinston and eliminating the need to widen existing U.S. 70.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 29, 2019, 03:57:36 PM
^^^^

They could still use the northern alternatives for a nice loop and have easier access to the GTP.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on July 29, 2019, 08:21:22 PM
^ The Global TransPark primarily needs access to/from the west.  They already have that via a 4-lane limited-access NC 148.  Traffic does not warrant a full loop.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Mr. ENC on July 30, 2019, 08:52:56 AM
Given the other options, I would not be surprised if the Army Corps of Engineers vetoes Alternative 52 due to the wetlands impacts.  They effectively have that authority in that they're the ones issuing the wetlands permits.

Yeah, I was thinking the yellow alternatives were the best.

Here's a question, why did they get rid of al the northern alternates? They could very easily ran this hwy into 148 and run to where it ends now.  It would cost less, the Neuse River on that side is easier to manage, it would spark growth at GTP, and again the hwy is already either built or being built. The only reason I could think of is because of the civil war battlefield land, and if it is, that sis a really dumb reason.
My guess is because of opposition from Kinston with preference to a southern highway for the US-70 / I-42 corridor.

From a 2014 press release:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2014/Kinston-Bypass-Project-Moving-Forward-wi.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2014/Kinston-Bypass-Project-Moving-Forward-wi.aspx)

Quote
All northern bypass alternatives are being eliminated due to new traffic projections that show minimal traffic from U.S. 70 using these routes. Thus, existing U.S. 70 would still require widening, even after a northern bypass was constructed. The southern alternatives would attract more traffic from U.S. 70, significantly reducing congestion in Kinston and eliminating the need to widen existing U.S. 70.

So are they saying that people coming from New Bern or La Grange would opt to us 70 vs Hwy 42 if it was a northern bypass? If that is so it still doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: froggie on July 30, 2019, 09:22:12 AM
Makes perfect sense.  A northern bypass...especially one that utilizes NC 148...goes considerably out of the way compared to staying on US 70.  Their traffic models account for that.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: BrianP on July 30, 2019, 02:18:11 PM
Makes perfect sense.  A northern bypass...especially one that utilizes NC 148...goes considerably out of the way compared to staying on US 70.  Their traffic models account for that.
A rough estimate I did with google maps says it would add about 5 miles to the existing route.   

But what's faster in that scenario:
northern bypass 20 miles at 70 mph = 17 minutes, 9 seconds
or
existing US 70, google maps says 14.7 miles taking 19 mins = 46 mi/h

So the northern bypass would still be better than the existing route.

But the southern bypass would be faster than both of the above since it would add only a small amount of distance to the route but have the greater speed limit than the existing route and shorter distance than the northern bypass. 
e.g. 16 miles at 70 mph = 13 minutes, 43 seconds
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on July 30, 2019, 02:19:29 PM
Makes perfect sense.  A northern bypass...especially one that utilizes NC 148...goes considerably out of the way compared to staying on US 70.  Their traffic models account for that.
A rough estimate I did with google maps says it would add about 5 miles to the existing route.   

But what's faster in that scenario:
northern bypass 20 miles at 70 mph = 17 minutes, 9 seconds
or
existing US 70, google maps says 14.7 miles taking 19 mins = 46 mi/h

So the northern bypass would still be better than the existing route.

But the southern bypass would be faster than both of the above since it would add only a small amount of distance to the route but have the greater speed limit than the existing route and shorter distance than the northern bypass. 
e.g. 16 miles at 70 mph = 13 minutes, 43 seconds
And if you designed continuity for the bypass (which is most likely unless it pulls an I-73), most traffic would default on it anyways and not get off.

Either way, I'm supportive of a southern bypass, having the C.F. Harvey Parkway as its own facility, and a future NC-11 Bypass east of the existing NC-11 south of the Pkwy extension, which would link to I-42.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 30, 2019, 08:33:02 PM
Has this been mentioned yet? I got lost in all of the embedded quotes. Public meetings are being held in a couple of weeks for the Kinston Bypass.

Map of alternatives (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/R-2553/july-2019-alternative-maps/R-2553_Alternatives_KeyMap.pdf)
Upcoming meetings (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/R-2553-2019-08-17.aspx) and detailed maps of alternatives (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx)
Draft EIS (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx)

Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 30, 2019, 11:26:09 PM
Has this been mentioned yet? I got lost in all of the embedded quotes. Public meetings are being held in a couple of weeks for the Kinston Bypass.

Map of alternatives (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/R-2553/july-2019-alternative-maps/R-2553_Alternatives_KeyMap.pdf)
Upcoming meetings (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/R-2553-2019-08-17.aspx) and detailed maps of alternatives (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx)
Draft EIS (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx)

Yeah, and Alternative 31 is probably the winner in all of those alternatives. Least impacts, and a nice bypass. Purple alternatives are just retarded. The red ones are also stupid.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: bob7374 on July 31, 2019, 12:59:43 PM
Speaking of shoulder widening, I never understood why NCDOT didn’t widen the shoulders on the freeway section in La Grange when they repaved it 2 (maybe 3) years ago.

BTW, anybody know if the Havelock Bypass got pushed back again? The contract was supposed to have been awarded last Tuesday, but there’s been no announcement. :hmm:
There's nothing on the July 19 letting page that suggests the Havelock Bypass project wasn't let. It sometimes takes time between when the winning bidder is determined and when the contract is officially awarded, then there's usually an announcement. The only project that was withdrawn from this letting was one in Buncombe County on June 27. Related, there were 3 addenda to the Bypass contract published after the project was pushed back to July. None of them involved changes to signing, however. Guess there's still time to fix the problems before signs go up.

Gotcha. Thanks for the 411. I also have my fingers crossed for the sign changes.

Also, since I’m originally from Wayne County, I read the local newspapers online everyday and there hasn’t been any mention of when I-42 shields will go up on the Goldsboro Bypass, nor of the approval of I-42 itself. I checked FHWA’s interstate logs, but they haven’t been updated since last December. NCDOT hasn’t posted any approval letters on their Route Changes page yet, either.
Update. The NCDOT letting pages now lists the contracts for July 19 as being awarded, but curiously, they have links to the award letters for all the let projects, except for the Havelock Bypass. There has also been no public announcement as of yet. Stay tuned.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on July 31, 2019, 09:30:58 PM
I figure the area where the current I-95 - US 70 interchange is will get zoned for business after it gets relocated.  It's not like life will change much for say JR Cigar-- they'll just have I-95 running behind them instead of in front of them.

It was announced today that there’s a huge development planned next to the interchange.

https://www.wral.com/proposed-300m-live-work-play-project-on-i-95-in-johnston-could-transform-county/18543094/ (https://www.wral.com/proposed-300m-live-work-play-project-on-i-95-in-johnston-could-transform-county/18543094/)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on July 31, 2019, 11:45:40 PM
I figure the area where the current I-95 - US 70 interchange is will get zoned for business after it gets relocated.  It's not like life will change much for say JR Cigar-- they'll just have I-95 running behind them instead of in front of them.

It was announced today that there’s a huge development planned next to the interchange.

https://www.wral.com/proposed-300m-live-work-play-project-on-i-95-in-johnston-could-transform-county/18543094/ (https://www.wral.com/proposed-300m-live-work-play-project-on-i-95-in-johnston-could-transform-county/18543094/)

Awesome sauce! That would boost the economy and maybe ease some people from Garner and Wake County.

And looking at that, since they want to put development in that area, Alternative 1 is a non-starter. Alternative 1A (which is basically just widening the shoulders) is the winner. They can just keep the bridges to widen I-95 to six lanes, but there's just going to be no direct access from I-42. It would be similar to this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9601263,-92.2932579,14.83z
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on August 01, 2019, 06:29:38 AM
I figure the area where the current I-95 - US 70 interchange is will get zoned for business after it gets relocated.  It's not like life will change much for say JR Cigar-- they'll just have I-95 running behind them instead of in front of them.

It was announced today that there’s a huge development planned next to the interchange.

https://www.wral.com/proposed-300m-live-work-play-project-on-i-95-in-johnston-could-transform-county/18543094/ (https://www.wral.com/proposed-300m-live-work-play-project-on-i-95-in-johnston-could-transform-county/18543094/)
While I usually don’t have too many issues with these developments, I think Johnson County officials should realize this could potentially be in the path of a relocated I-95 and at least require the developer to reserve right of way for the highway on the western end.

A now dead highway, the Southeastern Parkway here in Chesapeake and Virginia Beach had a path selected in the late 90s and any new developments in the path were required by the cities to dedicate a 300 ft right of way in its path in order to get a rezoning approved. That way, if the highway was ever built (it’s now canceled indefinitely due to high environmental impact, high costs, and tolls would be underutilized), they wouldn’t have as much right of way issues to deal with as the newer developments would have a reserved path ready.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: orulz on August 01, 2019, 11:32:34 AM
The "developers" probably laid this out intentionally to put as much in the way of the I-95 relocation as possible. Notice the most intensely developed "mixed use" area in the master plan is *exactly* where the big 95/42 cloverleaf would go. This means that either the "developers" are trying to stop the relocation of I-95, or, this could be a cynical play by the owners of this land to get as much money as possible from DOT for the I-95 relocation. Spend a bit to get somebody to draw a master plan, in order to boost the value of this and surrounding property, without any intention to actually *build*, and hope to cash in big when the highway is built.

Honestly I would guess the intention is closer to the latter. When NC passed the Map Act, this is the sort of shenanigan that they were trying to prevent, and when the state supreme court struck it down as unconstitutional seizure without compensation, they invited more of said shenanigans to begin.

I don't quite see the demand for something like this in this location. Clayton, I could see it, but this? Who will buy all this? Will people driving from NJ to FL, or Raleigh to Morehead City, look out their window and say "Gosh, that looks like a nice place! I'll buy a house!"? It is at the intersection of two major highways but overwhelmingly the traffic is dominated by long distance through traffic.

Is there something about Selma that I'm missing??
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 01, 2019, 12:53:46 PM
The "developers" probably laid this out intentionally to put as much in the way of the I-95 relocation as possible. Notice the most intensely developed "mixed use" area in the master plan is *exactly* where the big 95/42 cloverleaf would go. This means that either the "developers" are trying to stop the relocation of I-95, or, this could be a cynical play by the owners of this land to get as much money as possible from DOT for the I-95 relocation. Spend a bit to get somebody to draw a master plan, in order to boost the value of this and surrounding property, without any intention to actually *build*, and hope to cash in big when the highway is built.

Honestly I would guess the intention is closer to the latter. When NC passed the Map Act, this is the sort of shenanigan that they were trying to prevent, and when the state supreme court struck it down as unconstitutional seizure without compensation, they invited more of said shenanigans to begin.

I agree. I’m normally not against development, but I do not want a direct I-95/I-42 interchange sacrificed over something that may or may not take off.

BTW, for those interested, here’s the developer’s web page for Eastfield Crossing.

https://adventuredev.com/eastfield-crossing (https://adventuredev.com/eastfield-crossing)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 01, 2019, 04:56:01 PM
Havelock Bypass award letter (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/07-16-2019%20Central%20Letting/C204177%20CarteretCraven%20Awd%20Lter.pdf) posted today.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 01, 2019, 05:03:07 PM
Havelock Bypass award letter (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/07-16-2019%20Central%20Letting/C204177%20CarteretCraven%20Awd%20Lter.pdf) posted today.

Finally! So now that just leaves the Kinston Bypass...unless NCDOT decides to revive the dormant Northern Carteret Bypass.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on August 01, 2019, 07:35:33 PM
Havelock Bypass award letter (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/07-16-2019%20Central%20Letting/C204177%20CarteretCraven%20Awd%20Lter.pdf) posted today.

Finally! So now that just leaves the Kinston Bypass...unless NCDOT decides to revive the dormant Northern Carteret Bypass.

It will be needed otherwise i-42 will end at the end of the Havelock Bypass. It might of got removed because it was far too expensive. I don't know if it will ever come back or not. :(
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 02, 2019, 10:41:22 AM
Havelock Bypass award letter (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/07-16-2019%20Central%20Letting/C204177%20CarteretCraven%20Awd%20Lter.pdf) posted today.

Here’s the press release:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-02-havelock-bypass-awarded.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-02-havelock-bypass-awarded.aspx)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 02, 2019, 05:18:07 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-02-craven-county-highway-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-02-craven-county-highway-improvements.aspx)

Quote
COVE CITY – An entrance and an exit ramp will be closed for a couple days next week while the N.C. Department of Transportation continues to upgrade U.S. 70 to interstate standards.

The exit ramp from U.S. 70 West to N.C. 41 will be closed from 6:30 a.m. – 7 p.m. Aug. 5. The entrance ramp from N.C. 41 to U.S. 70 West will be closed from 6:30 a.m. – 7 p.m. Aug. 6. These dates are weather permitting.

During each closure, NCDOT will remove the top 2.5 inches of existing asphalt and replace it with 2.5 inches of new asphalt.

U.S. 70 Westbound traffic wanting to access N.C. 41 will go past the exit and continue west for 10 miles. Drivers will make a U-turn at the cross over on U.S. 70 West, Dover Road intersection. Drivers will head east on U.S. 70 until exiting at N.C. 41.

Motorists on N.C. 41 that wish to access U.S. 70 will use the U.S. 70 East entrance ramp, drive six miles east and exit at Tuscarora Road. At the stop sign, turn left and continue across the bridge until making another left onto U.S. 70 West. Traffic will continue for six miles west on the highway and exit at N.C. 41.

This construction is part of the project to bring U.S. 70 up to interstate standards. Crews are widening shoulders, as well as milling and repaving the highway, which will be renamed Interstate 42. The project in its entirety is 32 miles long and costs $25.5 million.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 02, 2019, 05:58:15 PM
Havelock Bypass award letter (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/07-16-2019%20Central%20Letting/C204177%20CarteretCraven%20Awd%20Lter.pdf) posted today.

Here’s the press release:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-02-havelock-bypass-awarded.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-02-havelock-bypass-awarded.aspx)
Oddly, no mention of I-42 in the announcement.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Finrod on August 06, 2019, 10:29:47 AM
The "developers" probably laid this out intentionally to put as much in the way of the I-95 relocation as possible. Notice the most intensely developed "mixed use" area in the master plan is *exactly* where the big 95/42 cloverleaf would go. This means that either the "developers" are trying to stop the relocation of I-95, or, this could be a cynical play by the owners of this land to get as much money as possible from DOT for the I-95 relocation. Spend a bit to get somebody to draw a master plan, in order to boost the value of this and surrounding property, without any intention to actually *build*, and hope to cash in big when the highway is built.

Honestly I would guess the intention is closer to the latter. When NC passed the Map Act, this is the sort of shenanigan that they were trying to prevent, and when the state supreme court struck it down as unconstitutional seizure without compensation, they invited more of said shenanigans to begin.

I agree. I’m normally not against development, but I do not want a direct I-95/I-42 interchange sacrificed over something that may or may not take off.

BTW, for those interested, here’s the developer’s web page for Eastfield Crossing.

https://adventuredev.com/eastfield-crossing (https://adventuredev.com/eastfield-crossing)

I've spent some time in that area; while it does need development, it doesn't need something that would complicate the future I-95 - I-42 interchange.  If the plans were altered so they didn't interfere, then these plans would be good and beneficial for the area.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 08, 2019, 05:55:54 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-08-craven-county-highway-upgrades-ramp-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-08-craven-county-highway-upgrades-ramp-closure.aspx)

Quote
NEW BERN – An exit ramp on U.S. 70 will be closed this weekend while N.C. Department of Transportation crews continue work to upgrade the highway to interstate standards.

The eastbound U.S. 70 exit ramp to Glenburnie Road will be closed between 6:30 a.m. Aug. 10 and 7 p.m. Aug. 11, weather permitting.

During the closure, crews will remove a top layer of asphalt and replace it with fresh asphalt.

​​​​​​​Motorists wanting to access Glenburnie Road from U.S. 70 East will continue driving on U.S. 70 and pass the exit ramp for Glenburnie Road and exit at Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. After exiting the highway, make a left at the stoplight and proceed under the overpass, turning left at the next traffic signal for the entrance ramp for U.S 70 West. Drivers will continue for less than a half mile until exiting at Glenburnie Road.

This construction is part of the project to bring U.S. 70 up to interstate standards. Crews are widening shoulders, as well as milling and repaving the highway, which will be renamed Interstate 42. The project in its entirety is 32 miles long and costs $25.5 million.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 12, 2019, 12:17:10 PM
Press release announcing 3 public meetings and a hearing in Kinston this month regarding the Kinston Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-12-kinston-bypass-open-house-hearing.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-12-kinston-bypass-open-house-hearing.aspx)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Mileage Mike on August 16, 2019, 07:14:20 PM
The project page for the Kinston Bypass has an updated timeline.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/default.aspx)

Also, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dated June 2019) and technical reports have been posted:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx)

The maps of the alternatives that will be shown during the public meeting in Kinston next month are also posted:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx)

I think the Yellow or Red Ones will be chosen.

There's no way they'll build the orange one along the existing route due to impact on the existing businesses and proximity to the Neuse River

The other Orange one heavily impacts residential areas and I remember back in 1999 when I lived there that Hurricane Floyd also flooded most of the area along that route.

I like the Yellow and Pink ones as they're far enough from the river but not too far from the city

Both the Blue and Purple seem too far out to be seriously considered.

I do like how the Red one ties into NC-148 to form a sort of semi-loop around the city.

Personally I'd prefer that the southern Orange one be built due to proximity to the city but judging from the Goldsboro Bypass and the cost of it, I doubt NCDOT will choose that one.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on August 16, 2019, 07:39:52 PM
The project page for the Kinston Bypass has an updated timeline.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/default.aspx)

Also, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dated June 2019) and technical reports have been posted:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/draft-environmental-impact-statement.aspx)

The maps of the alternatives that will be shown during the public meeting in Kinston next month are also posted:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Pages/alternative-maps.aspx)

I think the Yellow or Red Ones will be chosen.

I think the yellow ones would be chosen. The red ones seem stupid in my opinion.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on August 18, 2019, 11:58:04 PM
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/R-2553/draft-eis/STIP_R-2553_DEIS_Part-I.pdf

If you scroll to page 25 it will tell you the impacts.

31 seems like the best one.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 21, 2019, 07:07:31 AM
Press release announcing 3 public meetings and a hearing in Kinston this month regarding the Kinston Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-12-kinston-bypass-open-house-hearing.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-12-kinston-bypass-open-house-hearing.aspx)

An article from the Kinston newspaper taking about the reaction from residents during those meetings. It went about as well as you’d expect...

https://www.kinston.com/news/20190820/public-reacts-to-kinston-bypass-around-70 (https://www.kinston.com/news/20190820/public-reacts-to-kinston-bypass-around-70)

One thing that stood out me was this:

Quote
“Goldsboro on 70 has suffered from the bypass,” Vick said.

No, it hasn’t. As far as I know, the only major business that went belly up since the bypass opened was Wilber’s Barbecue earlier this year and that’s because he owed over $70,000 in taxes. The state put a notice on his door and shut him down. The place was losing business anyway since the building and food had went down the crapper thanks to the people Wilber let run the place. After Wilber filed bankruptcy, new owners are taking over with plans to reopen it.

Goldsboro is suffering largely because of two assholes on the city council (one of which is running for mayor in November), not the bypass.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Mileage Mike on August 21, 2019, 11:53:51 AM
They do have some good points.  Kinston is has mostly been a dying town for the past 20 years and I do agree that a lot of the customers get along the existing US 70 will be greatly reduced once people don't have to drive through the town. It really doesn't attract many visitors other than people passing through.

Upgrading the existing route of course would be the most favorable to businesses but overall I don't think the cost is worth it. Either way the highway has to get built and I think the Interstate 42 designation will be better for the town overall in the long term. Like most bypasses, businesses will begin to pop up around the interchanges along the new route.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 21, 2019, 01:38:46 PM
Like most bypasses, businesses will begin to pop up around the interchanges along the new route.

That’s already starting to happen near the Wayne Memorial Drive interchange on the Goldsboro Bypass. Bojangles just opened a new location there across from Walmart Neighborhood Market and there’s been a lot of rumors going around town that Cracker Barrel is considering building a location there as well, though city/county officials won’t confirm or deny it.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on August 21, 2019, 11:53:53 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-21-craven-county-highway-ramp-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-21-craven-county-highway-ramp-closures.aspx)

Quote
NEW BERN – An entrance and exit ramp connected to a Craven County highway are expected to close for improvements this weekend.

Between 6:30 a.m. on Aug. 24 and 7 p.m. on Aug. 25, the ramp from Glenburnie Road onto U.S. 70 East and the ramp from U.S. 70 East onto Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard will be closed. The outside right acceleration/deceleration lane between the two ramps will also be closed during this time. If the weather hinders work for this upcoming weekend, it will be done Sept. 7-8.

During the closures, crews will remove a top layer of asphalt and replace it with fresh asphalt.

Motorists wanting to access U.S. 70 East from Glenburnie Road will take U.S. 70 West and proceed two miles to exit 411, N.C. 43. Drivers will make a left at the stop sign, cross the bridge and take an immediate right to loop onto U.S. 70 East.

Motorists wanting to access Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard from U.S. 70 East will go 1.5 miles past that exit and take the exit for Pembroke Road. Drivers will make a left at the stop light, continue across the bridge to make another left turn to get onto U.S. 70 West and return to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.

Drivers should anticipate needing extra time for their commute this weekend and also slow down when near the work zone.

This construction is part of the project to bring U.S. 70 up to interstate standards. Crews are widening shoulders, as well as milling and repaving the highway, which will be renamed Interstate 42. This segment of the project is 32 miles long and costs $25.5 million.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on September 03, 2019, 02:40:35 PM
The US-70 Corridor Commission is having their next meeting on September 19 in Havelock.

http://www.super70corridor.com (http://www.super70corridor.com)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: LM117 on September 18, 2019, 12:31:04 PM
During last Monday's meeting, the Lenoir County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to pick Alternative 1SB (Shallow Bypass) as their preferred alternative for the Kinston Bypass.

https://www.neusenews.com/index/2019/9/16/lenoir-county-commissioners-unanimously-agree-to-bypass-route (https://www.neusenews.com/index/2019/9/16/lenoir-county-commissioners-unanimously-agree-to-bypass-route)
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on September 18, 2019, 02:52:22 PM
During last Monday's meeting, the Lenoir County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to pick Alternative 1SB (Shallow Bypass) as their preferred alternative for the Kinston Bypass.

https://www.neusenews.com/index/2019/9/16/lenoir-county-commissioners-unanimously-agree-to-bypass-route (https://www.neusenews.com/index/2019/9/16/lenoir-county-commissioners-unanimously-agree-to-bypass-route)
So all those impacts and relocations and the wetlands? When looking at the price and the relocations, I think I still like alternative 31 better. But 1SB works. That alternative does serve a nice routing for a freeway, trying to keep more traffic closer to the town than away.

Alternative 1SB serves a nice route for a bypass, not too far and Alternative 31 causing the least impacts.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on September 18, 2019, 04:57:45 PM
During last Monday's meeting, the Lenoir County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to pick Alternative 1SB (Shallow Bypass) as their preferred alternative for the Kinston Bypass.

https://www.neusenews.com/index/2019/9/16/lenoir-county-commissioners-unanimously-agree-to-bypass-route (https://www.neusenews.com/index/2019/9/16/lenoir-county-commissioners-unanimously-agree-to-bypass-route)
The only reasoning is to keep the freeway near Kinston. That's the only thing in favor of it. The cost, impacts, etc. are significantly higher on the other hand, and is a reason it would not be a preferred alternative of the EIS.

Ideally, it's a nice concept, but it's not worth the additional nearly $100 million and significant impacts required.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: tolbs17 on September 18, 2019, 08:40:45 PM
During last Monday's meeting, the Lenoir County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to pick Alternative 1SB (Shallow Bypass) as their preferred alternative for the Kinston Bypass.

https://www.neusenews.com/index/2019/9/16/lenoir-county-commissioners-unanimously-agree-to-bypass-route (https://www.neusenews.com/index/2019/9/16/lenoir-county-commissioners-unanimously-agree-to-bypass-route)
The only reasoning is to keep the freeway near Kinston.
And the best to keep the freeway near Kinston is they choose Alternative 1UE. No chance of it happening. It's a little more expensive than the shallow, but it has more impacts. I'm not sure if everyone would want to enter the building at the back.

And if freeways are so good being close to the city, Why not upgrade US 70 to a freeway in Goldsboro instead of making a bypass!
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 18, 2019, 09:36:06 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261
And if freeways are so good being close to the city, Why not upgrade US 70 to a freeway in Goldsboro instead of making a bypass!

Obviously that has to be a rhetorical, joking question.

But supposing anyone forced the issue of upgrading US-70 thru Goldsboro the costs of doing so would have been cost prohibitive. At first glane it seemed like a fairly freeway-friendly road since a few stretches of it are flanked by frontage roads. Unfortunately too much of US-70 lacks frontage roads or the necessary property set backs to squeeze in a freeway. A lot of US-70 on the West and East sides of Goldsboro is pretty messed up with businesses hugging too close to the road and dumping traffic directly out onto the main lanes via lots and lots of drive ways.

On top of that the various angles US-70 takes thru Goldsboro are a bit sharp. I don't think they jive with the current curve geometry standards of modern Interstate highways. The interchnages with I-795 and US-13 so close together presents a pretty complicated problem that would have meant clearing a lot of properties next to the road if US-70 was to be upgraded to Interstate standards through there.

Kinston poses similar problems. Existing US-70 through there is in even less upgrade-able shape. A bypass definitely makes sense. Where best to build the Future I-42 bypass is another matter.
Title: Re: Interstate 42
Post by: sprjus4 on September 18, 2019, 10:00:33 PM