News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Interstate 42

Started by LM117, May 27, 2016, 11:39:37 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

froggie

Federal funds ≠ Federal loans.


sprjus4

Quote from: froggie on July 13, 2019, 09:08:32 PM
Federal funds ≠ Federal loans.
I never said it was the same...

I merely quoted what the document said.

LM117

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
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

tolbs17

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.

sprjus4

Quote from: mrhappy1261 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.
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.

sprjus4

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.

LM117

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:
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

bob7374

Quote from: 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:
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.

LM117

Quote from: bob7374 on July 20, 2019, 11:03:41 AM
Quote from: 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:
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.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

FightingIrish

Quote from: 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.
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.

Roadsguy

Quote from: FightingIrish on July 20, 2019, 09:32:43 PM
Quote from: 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.
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.
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

tolbs17

#561
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.

LM117

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-24-craven-county-highway-ramp-closing-aspx.aspx

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

tolbs17

Quote from: 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

QuoteNEW 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

sprjus4

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 01:03:30 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.

tolbs17

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 01:19:51 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 01:03:30 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"

sprjus4

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 01:37:15 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.

tolbs17

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 01:42:47 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 01:37:15 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.

LM117

#568
The project page for the Kinston Bypass has an updated timeline.

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

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
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

sprjus4

#569
Quote from: 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

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/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
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.

sprjus4

#570
^

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.

tolbs17

#571
Quote from: 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.

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.


tolbs17

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 07:56:57 PM
Quote from: 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

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/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
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.

sprjus4

Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 09:13:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 07:56:57 PM
Quote from: 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

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/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
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.

tolbs17

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 10:24:15 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 09:13:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 07:56:57 PM
Quote from: 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

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/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
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.



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.