AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Interstate 42  (Read 164125 times)

fillup420

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 419
  • Business route advocate

  • Location: NC 86
  • Last Login: January 23, 2022, 12:36:22 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #900 on: March 30, 2021, 10:24:24 PM »

NCDOT has awarded a contract to upgrade US-70 to interstate standards between the Clayton Bypass and the Neuse River in Johnston County. Completion is expected by fall 2024.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-30-johnston-county-us-70-upgrade.aspx

In addition to this piece of good news, it appears the US-70 upgrade project between Dover and New Bern has been completed. It's no longer listed on NCDOT's Progress Report page.
not quite. its still one lane in each direction and 55mph restriction. drove it yesterday.


iPad
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3014
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 12:08:38 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #901 on: March 30, 2021, 10:37:33 PM »

NCDOT has awarded a contract to upgrade US-70 to interstate standards between the Clayton Bypass and the Neuse River in Johnston County. Completion is expected by fall 2024.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-30-johnston-county-us-70-upgrade.aspx

In addition to this piece of good news, it appears the US-70 upgrade project between Dover and New Bern has been completed. It's no longer listed on NCDOT's Progress Report page.
not quite. its still one lane in each direction and 55mph restriction. drove it yesterday.


iPad

I stand corrected.
Logged
ďI donít know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!Ē - Jim Cornette

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3981
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:52:24 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #902 on: March 31, 2021, 06:32:45 PM »

If the previously-proposed US 17 bypass of New Bern is not going to be constructed, maybe the stubs should be removed.

That was to replace the old NC 43 routing and have it concurrent with the new freeway.

Can't find the link cause NCDOT updated their website...

What happened to this proposal?

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

Not sure if you'all are getting these two confused.  The "stubs" are for the second freeway bypass of US-17 around the northwest side of New Bern.  They don't have anything to do with the cancelled plans for a southern US-70 Bypass around New Bern and James City, other than utilizing the existing US-17 Bypass southbound from Exit 410A.  Interestingly, the two projects combined would have made a monsterous three-quarters beltway around New Bern rivaling I-295 around Richmond.
That project is for US-17 NC-43 bypass traffic to get around New Bern. That is more of a N-S bypass project than E-W. That's so if you don't want to go through James City.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #903 on: April 01, 2021, 05:43:49 PM »

If the previously-proposed US 17 bypass of New Bern is not going to be constructed, maybe the stubs should be removed.

That was to replace the old NC 43 routing and have it concurrent with the new freeway.

Can't find the link cause NCDOT updated their website...

What happened to this proposal?

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

Not sure if you'all are getting these two confused.  The "stubs" are for the second freeway bypass of US-17 around the northwest side of New Bern.  They don't have anything to do with the cancelled plans for a southern US-70 Bypass around New Bern and James City, other than utilizing the existing US-17 Bypass southbound from Exit 410A.  Interestingly, the two projects combined would have made a monsterous three-quarters beltway around New Bern rivaling I-295 around Richmond.
That project is for US-17 NC-43 bypass traffic to get around New Bern. That is more of a N-S bypass project than E-W. That's so if you don't want to go through James City.

Since there's quite a bit of wetlands involved in any extension of a US 17 New Bern bypass north of US 70/I-42, that particular project is likely off in the distance (the study time alone will likely take several years in itself).  But if NCDOT gets a bug up its collective ass (or is pushed in that direction by local boosters) about making the remainder of US 17 south of Williamston into an Interstate corridor, that section would likely be the "keystone" of the entire corridor; including a high-level bridge over the Neuse River. 
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3981
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:52:24 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #904 on: April 01, 2021, 06:32:59 PM »

If the previously-proposed US 17 bypass of New Bern is not going to be constructed, maybe the stubs should be removed.

That was to replace the old NC 43 routing and have it concurrent with the new freeway.

Can't find the link cause NCDOT updated their website...

What happened to this proposal?

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

Not sure if you'all are getting these two confused.  The "stubs" are for the second freeway bypass of US-17 around the northwest side of New Bern.  They don't have anything to do with the cancelled plans for a southern US-70 Bypass around New Bern and James City, other than utilizing the existing US-17 Bypass southbound from Exit 410A.  Interestingly, the two projects combined would have made a monsterous three-quarters beltway around New Bern rivaling I-295 around Richmond.
That project is for US-17 NC-43 bypass traffic to get around New Bern. That is more of a N-S bypass project than E-W. That's so if you don't want to go through James City.

Since there's quite a bit of wetlands involved in any extension of a US 17 New Bern bypass north of US 70/I-42, that particular project is likely off in the distance (the study time alone will likely take several years in itself).  But if NCDOT gets a bug up its collective ass (or is pushed in that direction by local boosters) about making the remainder of US 17 south of Williamston into an Interstate corridor, that section would likely be the "keystone" of the entire corridor; including a high-level bridge over the Neuse River.
I don't think it's needed right now, but possibly in 10-20 years.
Logged

snowc

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 643
  • I'm back!

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Harnett County NC
  • Last Login: January 22, 2022, 06:00:01 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #905 on: April 01, 2021, 06:38:16 PM »

NCDOT has awarded a contract to upgrade US-70 to interstate standards between the Clayton Bypass and the Neuse River in Johnston County. Completion is expected by fall 2024.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-30-johnston-county-us-70-upgrade.aspx

In addition to this piece of good news, it appears the US-70 upgrade project between Dover and New Bern has been completed. It's no longer listed on NCDOT's Progress Report page.
Thank you Jesus!
Logged
I have returned to AARoads after mulling over the holidays! :biggrin:

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3981
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:52:24 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #906 on: April 01, 2021, 06:52:24 PM »

Can they STOP the construction of Eastfield Crossing so I-95 can be relocated?
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 745
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 09:19:15 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #907 on: April 02, 2021, 09:27:18 AM »

Can they STOP the construction of Eastfield Crossing so I-95 can be relocated?
Why would I-95 need to be relocated to accommodate I-42, and how are they proposing to relocate it?
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

tjcreasy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 104
  • Location: Richmond
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 07:54:06 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #908 on: April 02, 2021, 09:57:27 AM »

Iím sure a better answer will be provided but hereís my take: The interchange complexity for an I-42 I-95 interchange at the current location is more than what NCDOT wants to take on. There is a proposal out their to shift I-95 to the east on new location to simplify the interchange design.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 745
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 09:19:15 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #909 on: April 02, 2021, 10:16:15 AM »

Iím sure a better answer will be provided but hereís my take: The interchange complexity for an I-42 I-95 interchange at the current location is more than what NCDOT wants to take on. There is a proposal out their to shift I-95 to the east on new location to simplify the interchange design.

They couldn't just build a simple cloverleaf interchange to connect I-42 and I-95?
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

tjcreasy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 104
  • Location: Richmond
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 07:54:06 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #910 on: April 02, 2021, 11:26:00 AM »

No sir, exit 97 is too close. C-D lanes and braided ramps would certainly be needed to make an interchange work there.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7250
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:49:29 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #911 on: April 02, 2021, 11:26:35 AM »

Iím sure a better answer will be provided but hereís my take: The interchange complexity for an I-42 I-95 interchange at the current location is more than what NCDOT wants to take on. There is a proposal out their to shift I-95 to the east on new location to simplify the interchange design.

They couldn't just build a simple cloverleaf interchange to connect I-42 and I-95?
It would require a significant amount of right of way along with dealing with a parallel roadway as opposed if they shifted east. Take a look at a map.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3981
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:52:24 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #912 on: April 02, 2021, 11:30:53 AM »

Iím sure a better answer will be provided but hereís my take: The interchange complexity for an I-42 I-95 interchange at the current location is more than what NCDOT wants to take on. There is a proposal out their to shift I-95 to the east on new location to simplify the interchange design.

They couldn't just build a simple cloverleaf interchange to connect I-42 and I-95?
US-70 used to be a 4-lane arterial.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf

Alternative 1 is complete renovations like replacing every single bridge.

Alternative 2 is just widening the shoulders.
Logged

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 769
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 06:12:23 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #913 on: April 02, 2021, 06:06:54 PM »

Iím sure a better answer will be provided but hereís my take: The interchange complexity for an I-42 I-95 interchange at the current location is more than what NCDOT wants to take on. There is a proposal out their to shift I-95 to the east on new location to simplify the interchange design.

They couldn't just build a simple cloverleaf interchange to connect I-42 and I-95?
A cloverleaf is proposed, but the relocation would avoid wiping out a lot of development along the west side of I-95. There's open country on the east side. Here's the map:
https://jocoreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Conceptual-design-of-95-and-70-interchnage.pdf
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3981
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:52:24 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #914 on: April 02, 2021, 07:19:08 PM »

And for the US-70 improvements in James City, I'm sure the posted speed will be 65 mph. Cause it will be an urban freeway. Going to the Havelock bypass, I'm sure it will raise to 70.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7250
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:49:29 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #915 on: April 02, 2021, 08:50:42 PM »

The design speed for the James City project is 60 mph IIRC. I imagine, similar to the existing freeway through New Bern, the speed limit will be posted at 60 mph. The further upgrades south of there will likely be 65 mph or 70 mph.

IMO, the interstate through New Bern and James City should be 65 mph, then 70 mph everywhere else, but who knows.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3981
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:52:24 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #916 on: April 02, 2021, 10:35:36 PM »

This bridge can definitely hold another lane (which is needed) cause of the higher AADT in that area. It should be widened to 6 lanes all the way to the US-17 split.

That being said, should this interchange be converted to a diverging diamond?
« Last Edit: April 02, 2021, 10:48:19 PM by tolbs17 »
Logged

Finrod

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 318
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Atlanta GA
  • Last Login: January 03, 2022, 12:34:26 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #917 on: April 03, 2021, 03:04:53 AM »

Iím sure a better answer will be provided but hereís my take: The interchange complexity for an I-42 I-95 interchange at the current location is more than what NCDOT wants to take on. There is a proposal out their to shift I-95 to the east on new location to simplify the interchange design.

They couldn't just build a simple cloverleaf interchange to connect I-42 and I-95?
A cloverleaf is proposed, but the relocation would avoid wiping out a lot of development along the west side of I-95. There's open country on the east side. Here's the map:
https://jocoreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Conceptual-design-of-95-and-70-interchnage.pdf

There's open country for now.  Developments for that area are already being proposed which would complicate things.
Logged
Internet member since 1987.

Hate speech is a nonsense concept; the truth is hate speech to those that hate the truth.

People who use their free speech to try to silence others' free speech are dangerous fools.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #918 on: April 03, 2021, 04:12:46 AM »

Iím sure a better answer will be provided but hereís my take: The interchange complexity for an I-42 I-95 interchange at the current location is more than what NCDOT wants to take on. There is a proposal out their to shift I-95 to the east on new location to simplify the interchange design.

They couldn't just build a simple cloverleaf interchange to connect I-42 and I-95?
A cloverleaf is proposed, but the relocation would avoid wiping out a lot of development along the west side of I-95. There's open country on the east side. Here's the map:
https://jocoreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Conceptual-design-of-95-and-70-interchnage.pdf

There's open country for now.  Developments for that area are already being proposed which would complicate things.


Which means that interchange plans need to be finalized as soon as possible so that local development plans can be "dovetailed" into the new configuration rather than becoming an obstacle to any reasonably-designed facility's deployment.  For better or worse, since I-95 has been there for 40+ years, much of local commercial development has essentially sandwiched itself between US 301 and I-95, necessitating some eastward shift to accommodate an interchange that's not hopelessly convoluted.  A few commercial developers might be disappointed in the short term -- but if I-95 is relocated to the east, it'll free up some of the land to the west presently occupied by that freeway -- even though it would be more or less a sliver paralleling I-95, anything not actually needed for the I-42 interchange could be used for road-related businesses such as hotels and/or restaurants, which can be sized/configured to fit into such an area. 
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3014
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 12:08:38 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #919 on: April 03, 2021, 04:14:54 PM »

Iím sure a better answer will be provided but hereís my take: The interchange complexity for an I-42 I-95 interchange at the current location is more than what NCDOT wants to take on. There is a proposal out their to shift I-95 to the east on new location to simplify the interchange design.

They couldn't just build a simple cloverleaf interchange to connect I-42 and I-95?
A cloverleaf is proposed, but the relocation would avoid wiping out a lot of development along the west side of I-95. There's open country on the east side. Here's the map:
https://jocoreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Conceptual-design-of-95-and-70-interchnage.pdf

There's open country for now.  Developments for that area are already being proposed which would complicate things.

Construction on Eastfield Crossing has already begun, which is right in the path of where the proposed I-95 alignment would go. I find it very hard to believe the developers were not aware of this proposal before construction started.

Methinks they want the connection between I-95 & I-42 to be a mini-Breezewood.
Logged
ďI donít know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!Ē - Jim Cornette

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3981
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:52:24 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #920 on: April 03, 2021, 04:48:03 PM »

Iím sure a better answer will be provided but hereís my take: The interchange complexity for an I-42 I-95 interchange at the current location is more than what NCDOT wants to take on. There is a proposal out their to shift I-95 to the east on new location to simplify the interchange design.

They couldn't just build a simple cloverleaf interchange to connect I-42 and I-95?
A cloverleaf is proposed, but the relocation would avoid wiping out a lot of development along the west side of I-95. There's open country on the east side. Here's the map:
https://jocoreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Conceptual-design-of-95-and-70-interchnage.pdf

There's open country for now.  Developments for that area are already being proposed which would complicate things.

Construction on Eastfield Crossing has already begun, which is right in the path of where the proposed I-95 alignment would go. I find it very hard to believe the developers were not aware of this proposal before construction started.

Methinks they want the connection between I-95 & I-42 to be a mini-Breezewood.
Oof. So maybe it WILL get demolished or cut short if I-95 truly does get relocated.
Logged

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 769
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 06:12:23 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #921 on: April 03, 2021, 06:28:43 PM »

Iím sure a better answer will be provided but hereís my take: The interchange complexity for an I-42 I-95 interchange at the current location is more than what NCDOT wants to take on. There is a proposal out their to shift I-95 to the east on new location to simplify the interchange design.

They couldn't just build a simple cloverleaf interchange to connect I-42 and I-95?
A cloverleaf is proposed, but the relocation would avoid wiping out a lot of development along the west side of I-95. There's open country on the east side. Here's the map:
https://jocoreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Conceptual-design-of-95-and-70-interchnage.pdf

There's open country for now.  Developments for that area are already being proposed which would complicate things.

Construction on Eastfield Crossing has already begun, which is right in the path of where the proposed I-95 alignment would go. I find it very hard to believe the developers were not aware of this proposal before construction started.

Methinks they want the connection between I-95 & I-42 to be a mini-Breezewood.
Oof. So maybe it WILL get demolished or cut short if I-95 truly does get relocated.

Nobody (except the merchants in the area) wants a Breezewood. But for sure something will have to give. We have three exits (95, 97 and 98) in less than four miles and we need to fit in a major interchange.

Fixed quote. - rmf67
« Last Edit: April 03, 2021, 10:26:18 PM by rickmastfan67 »
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3981
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 01:52:24 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #922 on: April 03, 2021, 07:42:03 PM »

Iím sure a better answer will be provided but hereís my take: The interchange complexity for an I-42 I-95 interchange at the current location is more than what NCDOT wants to take on. There is a proposal out their to shift I-95 to the east on new location to simplify the interchange design.
Nobody (except the merchants in the area) wants a Breezewood. But for sure something will have to give. We have three exits (95, 97 and 98) in less than four miles and we need to fit in a major interchange.

They couldn't just build a simple cloverleaf interchange to connect I-42 and I-95?
A cloverleaf is proposed, but the relocation would avoid wiping out a lot of development along the west side of I-95. There's open country on the east side. Here's the map:
https://jocoreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Conceptual-design-of-95-and-70-interchnage.pdf

There's open country for now.  Developments for that area are already being proposed which would complicate things.

Construction on Eastfield Crossing has already begun, which is right in the path of where the proposed I-95 alignment would go. I find it very hard to believe the developers were not aware of this proposal before construction started.

Methinks they want the connection between I-95 & I-42 to be a mini-Breezewood.
Oof. So maybe it WILL get demolished or cut short if I-95 truly does get relocated.
?
Logged

snowc

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 643
  • I'm back!

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Harnett County NC
  • Last Login: January 22, 2022, 06:00:01 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #923 on: April 04, 2021, 07:22:18 PM »

Iím sure a better answer will be provided but hereís my take: The interchange complexity for an I-42 I-95 interchange at the current location is more than what NCDOT wants to take on. There is a proposal out their to shift I-95 to the east on new location to simplify the interchange design.
Nobody (except the merchants in the area) wants a Breezewood. But for sure something will have to give. We have three exits (95, 97 and 98) in less than four miles and we need to fit in a major interchange.

They couldn't just build a simple cloverleaf interchange to connect I-42 and I-95?
A cloverleaf is proposed, but the relocation would avoid wiping out a lot of development along the west side of I-95. There's open country on the east side. Here's the map:
https://jocoreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Conceptual-design-of-95-and-70-interchnage.pdf

There's open country for now.  Developments for that area are already being proposed which would complicate things.

Construction on Eastfield Crossing has already begun, which is right in the path of where the proposed I-95 alignment would go. I find it very hard to believe the developers were not aware of this proposal before construction started.

Methinks they want the connection between I-95 & I-42 to be a mini-Breezewood.
Oof. So maybe it WILL get demolished or cut short if I-95 truly does get relocated.
?
Breezewood interchange is where I70 meets with US 30.
I took pictures of it.
It is considered the weirdest interchange in America.
Logged
I have returned to AARoads after mulling over the holidays! :biggrin:

Dirt Roads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1266
  • Location: Central North Carolina
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 05:17:17 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #924 on: April 04, 2021, 08:31:13 PM »

Fortunately, AASHTO will not permit I-42 to be constructed with a Breezewood.  That being said, I'm wondering why NCDOT can't work with modifications to the infrastructure that is already there. 

The short version is that there appears to be only one movement that cannot be accommodated with the existing Bypass US-70 and Plain Ole (Kind-of-Bypass) US-70.  The movement from I-95 southbound to I-42 eastbound is going to need to be a greenfield route.  This can be threaded into the existing Exit 98 (Pine LevelĖSelma Road).  It appears that there is enough land at the eastern connection between Bypass US-70 and Plain Ole US-70 to tie-in for the other movements.  The ramp from Plain Ole US-70 westbound to I-95 northbound would need to be reconstructed for free-flow traffic.  Also, I also suspect that a new ramp from Plain Ole US-70 eastbound to I-95 northbound will be somewhat complex, since there would need to be some modifications for access to US-70A and the former JR Cigars warehouse complex. 

The long version was posted a few days ago and disappeared.  It may have showed up under a different thread, but I couldn't find it anywhere.

(Sorry, it just seems like yesterday when Plain Ole Kind-of-Bypass US-70 was completed.  I know I'm getting old when the bypass of the bypass of the bypass is being discussed).
Logged

 


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