AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

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

Author Topic: Interstate 42  (Read 184639 times)

nerdom

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24
  • Location: new bern nc
  • Last Login: Today at 02:48:54 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #75 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.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3076
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: June 30, 2022, 11:10:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #76 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.
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

Strider

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 839
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:20 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #77 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?
Logged

nerdom

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24
  • Location: new bern nc
  • Last Login: Today at 02:48:54 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #78 on: July 15, 2016, 01:15:34 PM »

correct
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3076
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: June 30, 2022, 11:10:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #79 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

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.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2016, 01:23:19 PM by LM117 »
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

Strider

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 839
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:20 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #80 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.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3076
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: June 30, 2022, 11:10:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #81 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/
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

Strider

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 839
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:24:20 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #82 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/



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
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1959
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: June 30, 2022, 05:01:54 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #83 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.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3076
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: June 30, 2022, 11:10:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #84 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

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
« Last Edit: July 16, 2016, 05:07:06 PM by LM117 »
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

nerdom

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24
  • Location: new bern nc
  • Last Login: Today at 02:48:54 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #85 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.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3076
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: June 30, 2022, 11:10:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #86 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:
« Last Edit: July 16, 2016, 08:26:34 PM by LM117 »
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

slorydn1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1084
  • If I pass you on the right, you're doing it wrong.

  • Age: 52
  • Location: New Bern, North Carolina
  • Last Login: July 11, 2020, 03:34:36 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #87 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.
Logged
Please Note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of any governmental agency, non-governmental agency, quasi-governmental agency or wanna be governmental agency

Counties: Counties Visited

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3076
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: June 30, 2022, 11:10:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #88 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?
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

slorydn1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1084
  • If I pass you on the right, you're doing it wrong.

  • Age: 52
  • Location: New Bern, North Carolina
  • Last Login: July 11, 2020, 03:34:36 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #89 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.
Logged
Please Note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of any governmental agency, non-governmental agency, quasi-governmental agency or wanna be governmental agency

Counties: Counties Visited

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3076
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: June 30, 2022, 11:10:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #90 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.
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3076
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: June 30, 2022, 11:10:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #91 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
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 811
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: June 30, 2022, 05:55:47 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #92 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
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.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3076
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: June 30, 2022, 11:10:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #93 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
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.
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #94 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. 
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3076
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: June 30, 2022, 11:10:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #95 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
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

WashuOtaku

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 629
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Last Login: Today at 09:21:40 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #96 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.
Logged

CanesFan27

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1332
  • Last Login: Today at 10:18:32 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #97 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
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3494
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: June 30, 2022, 11:35:17 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #98 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.
Logged

slorydn1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1084
  • If I pass you on the right, you're doing it wrong.

  • Age: 52
  • Location: New Bern, North Carolina
  • Last Login: July 11, 2020, 03:34:36 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #99 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?
Logged
Please Note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of any governmental agency, non-governmental agency, quasi-governmental agency or wanna be governmental agency

Counties: Counties Visited

 


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