Interstate 42

[sprjus4]

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?

[wdcrft63]

The Clayton Bypass seamlessly ties into I-40 on its western end, 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?

[froggie]

^^ 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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[LM117]

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

[sprjus4]

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

Fair enough.

[LM117]

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

Division 4: http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/April-2019-US-70-Workshop-Division-4.pdf

[LM117]

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

[goobnav]

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.

[goobnav]

^^ 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.

[Mapmikey]

This was NC 55 at 540 not long before opening...


photo by Adam Prince

[goobnav]

This was NC 55 at 540 not long before opening...


photo by Adam Prince

Thank you for the correction Mapmikey!!

[bob7374]

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

[sprjus4]

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

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.

[CanesFan27]

This was NC 55 at 540 not long before opening...


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.

[LM117]

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-11-craven-county-highway-ramp-closed.aspx

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.

[bob7374]

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

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.

[sprjus4]

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

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.

[tolbs17]

This was NC 55 at 540 not long before opening...


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.

[tolbs17]

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

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.

[sprjus4]

This was NC 55 at 540 not long before opening...


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.

[hockeyjohn]

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?

[sprjus4]

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.

[jcarte29]

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?

[sprjus4]

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

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.