Interstate 42

[LM117]

Alternative 1 SB (aka Shallow Bypass) has the best chance IMO, and is my personal preference. Upgrading all of the existing highway through Kinston is a non-starter because of the businesses butted up against the road and it's dangerously close to the Neuse River near US-258. The Shallow Bypass would still put I-42 very close to Kinston and it's businesses while also keeping a fairly safe distance from the Neuse River.

[sprjus4]

Alternative 1 SB (aka Shallow Bypass) has the best chance IMO, and is my personal preference. Upgrading all of the existing highway through Kinston is a non-starter because of the businesses butted up against the road and it's dangerously close to the Neuse River near US-258. The Shallow Bypass would still put I-42 very close to Kinston and it's businesses while also keeping a fairly safe distance from the Neuse River.

There's a few issues with the "Shallow Bypass".

For one, it costs $440 million as opposed to the cheapest, Alternative 52, which costs $356 million. It's $84 million cheaper to build a farther out bypass than close in. Also, Alternative 52 fits within the $379 million budget, the "Shallow Bypass" would be $61 million over.

Secondly, consider the impacts. For the Shallow Bypass, there's 229 relocations, including 162 homes, 67 businesses, 1 school, and 6 churches. Right of way costs are $123 million.

Alternative 31, which costs $368 million (only $12 million more than the cheapest) only has 106 relocations, including 76 homes, 30 businesses, no schools, and 1 church. Right of costs are only $63 million.

Thirdly, you have to cross the Neuse River on any alternatives. There's no way to avoid that. The only benefit to the Shallow Bypass is that there's only 65 acres of wetland impacts as opposed to Alternative 52 (cheapest) where there's 136 acres of wetland impact, or Alternative 31 (least relocations) where there's 126 acres of wetland impacts. The cost would most likely outweigh that benefit, no matter how much the RE/T groups cry.

IMO, the preferred alternatives are either going to be Alternative 52, which is the cheapest, or Alternative 31 which has the least relocations, and is only $12 million more than the cheapest.

The Shallow Bypass would be most ideal, but when you consider all of these factors, it doesn't appear to be a preferred option.

[tolbs17]

I'm just excited for the new highway to be built! They should speed it up. Why 2025? Why not 2022 or 2021? Whatever though.

[LM117]

Alternative 1 SB (aka Shallow Bypass) has the best chance IMO, and is my personal preference. Upgrading all of the existing highway through Kinston is a non-starter because of the businesses butted up against the road and it's dangerously close to the Neuse River near US-258. The Shallow Bypass would still put I-42 very close to Kinston and it's businesses while also keeping a fairly safe distance from the Neuse River.

There's a few issues with the "Shallow Bypass".

For one, it costs $440 million as opposed to the cheapest, Alternative 52, which costs $356 million. It's $84 million cheaper to build a farther out bypass than close in. Also, Alternative 52 fits within the $379 million budget, the "Shallow Bypass" would be $61 million over.

Secondly, consider the impacts. For the Shallow Bypass, there's 229 relocations, including 162 homes, 67 businesses, 1 school, and 6 churches. Right of way costs are $123 million.

Alternative 31, which costs $368 million (only $12 million more than the cheapest) only has 106 relocations, including 76 homes, 30 businesses, no schools, and 1 church. Right of costs are only $63 million.

Thirdly, you have to cross the Neuse River on any alternatives. There's no way to avoid that. The only benefit to the Shallow Bypass is that there's only 65 acres of wetland impacts as opposed to Alternative 52 (cheapest) where there's 136 acres of wetland impact, or Alternative 31 (least relocations) where there's 126 acres of wetland impacts. The cost would most likely outweigh that benefit, no matter how much the RE/T groups cry.

IMO, the preferred alternatives are either going to be Alternative 52, which is the cheapest, or Alternative 31 which has the least relocations, and is only $12 million more than the cheapest.

The Shallow Bypass would be most ideal, but when you consider all of these factors, it doesn't appear to be a preferred option.

If the Shallow Bypass doesn't work out, then the short yellow route would be my next pick. The other alternatives go a bit too far out and probably wouldn't draw as much traffic.

[froggie]

Given the other options, I would not be surprised if the Army Corps of Engineers vetoes Alternative 52 due to the wetlands impacts.  They effectively have that authority in that they're the ones issuing the wetlands permits.

[tolbs17]

Given the other options, I would not be surprised if the Army Corps of Engineers vetoes Alternative 52 due to the wetlands impacts.  They effectively have that authority in that they're the ones issuing the wetlands permits.

Yeah, I was thinking the yellow alternatives were the best.

[sprjus4]

Given the other options, I would not be surprised if the Army Corps of Engineers vetoes Alternative 52 due to the wetlands impacts.  They effectively have that authority in that they're the ones issuing the wetlands permits.

Alternative 31 will likely end up being the preferred alternative. The cost is $368 million, there's only 106 relocations, and 126 acres of wetlands impacted.

Obviously it would have less impact following the existing routing or a shallow bypass, but you have to also consider the amount of relocations and the costs being way higher.

[tolbs17]

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

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!

[sprjus4]

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

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!

It's a real proposal under consideration, but would be -expensive-.

[tolbs17]

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

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!

It's a real proposal under consideration, but would be -expensive-.

There's also another alternative, would just widen the shoulders and that's pretty much it. Nothing else really. But I like the first one better where it has a major redesign.

[tolbs17]

How big is the median on US 70 that goes to New Bern? I know it's bigger than 70 feet. I like that design of a freeway. I'm just curious.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1689291,-77.368193,3a,75y,307.03h,84.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DkTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D260%26pitch%3D-10%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

[sprjus4]

How big is the median on US 70 that goes to New Bern? I know it's bigger than 70 feet. I like that design of a freeway. I'm just curious.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1689291,-77.368193,3a,75y,307.03h,84.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DkTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D260%26pitch%3D-10%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

It's 95 feet wide.

For a while NCDOT built new location highway projects with a 60 - 70 foot median, though a lot of the newer freeways being built now only have 46 foot medians. That's still plenty wide and is tolerable, but I still personally prefer 60 feet or wider. Any size grassy median is better than a barrier though IMO.

[tolbs17]

How big is the median on US 70 that goes to New Bern? I know it's bigger than 70 feet. I like that design of a freeway. I'm just curious.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1689291,-77.368193,3a,75y,307.03h,84.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DkTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D260%26pitch%3D-10%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

It's 95 feet wide.

For a while NCDOT built new location highway projects with a 60 - 70 foot median, though a lot of the newer freeways being built now only have 46 foot medians. That's still plenty wide and is tolerable, but I still personally prefer 60 feet or wider. Any size grassy median is better than a barrier though IMO.

It looks the same as that routes from Sims to Zebulon. And is 46 too small for a rural freeway or it's fine? The 95 foot freeways looked very nice. They provide easy widening for a third lane.

[sprjus4]

How big is the median on US 70 that goes to New Bern? I know it's bigger than 70 feet. I like that design of a freeway. I'm just curious.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1689291,-77.368193,3a,75y,307.03h,84.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DkTdxSANwgdm5Vk7LPJcxmQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D260%26pitch%3D-10%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

It's 95 feet wide.

For a while NCDOT built new location highway projects with a 60 - 70 foot median, though a lot of the newer freeways being built now only have 46 foot medians. That's still plenty wide and is tolerable, but I still personally prefer 60 feet or wider. Any size grassy median is better than a barrier though IMO.

It looks the same as that routes from Sims to Zebulon. And is 46 too small for a rural freeway or it's fine? The 95 foot freeways looked very nice. They provide easy widening for a third lane.

For Sims to Zebulon, that's an 82 foot median (with the exception of the forested median section which gets up to 1,000 ft at its widest point) so slightly smaller, but still wide. Both of those freeways (US-70 and US-264) were built in the 70s where median size wasn't as strict as it is today.

46 feet is still plenty wide. Anything smaller than 40 - 42 feet is too small IMO.

I-40 was built with a 44 foot median between I-85 and Wilmington (with one exception along a small 70s stretch of I-40 in the RTP area that has a 70 ft median) when it was constructed throughout the 80s and early 90s. It's a consistent size for the most part, and is plenty adequate for a rural interstate highway posted at 70 mph.

[Finrod]

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

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!

It's a real proposal under consideration, but would be -expensive-.

I've been in that area several times; there's no good way to make an interstate interchange between I-42 and I-95 without relocating I-95, because there's so much stuff so close to the highway in that whole area.  You'd blow your whole budget just relocating things.  Also, look at what the plan does to the eventual I-42-- it straightens it out somewhat on the east side of I-95.  It's not as wacky as it first looks.

[tolbs17]

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

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!

It's a real proposal under consideration, but would be -expensive-.

I've been in that area several times; there's no good way to make an interstate interchange between I-42 and I-95 without relocating I-95, because there's so much stuff so close to the highway in that whole area.  You'd blow your whole budget just relocating things.  Also, look at what the plan does to the eventual I-42-- it straightens it out somewhat on the east side of I-95.  It's not as wacky as it first looks.

I would love to see where all this businesses will go to. Especially that the new I-42 and I-95 interchange will run through a solar panel area.

[Finrod]

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

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!

It's a real proposal under consideration, but would be -expensive-.

I've been in that area several times; there's no good way to make an interstate interchange between I-42 and I-95 without relocating I-95, because there's so much stuff so close to the highway in that whole area.  You'd blow your whole budget just relocating things.  Also, look at what the plan does to the eventual I-42-- it straightens it out somewhat on the east side of I-95.  It's not as wacky as it first looks.

I would love to see where all this businesses will go to. Especially that the new I-42 and I-95 interchange will run through a solar panel area.

I figure the area where the current I-95 - US 70 interchange is will get zoned for business after it gets relocated.  It's not like life will change much for say JR Cigar-- they'll just have I-95 running behind them instead of in front of them.

I'm wondering which of the four US 70s of Selma-Smithfield will become US 70 once this is all said and done.  The sensible thing to do would be to return US 70 to what is now Business US 70 all the way to I-40, then just extend Alt US 70 (or as they have it signed, US 70A) west along current US 70 across I-95 to I-42.

[Finrod]

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

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!

It's a real proposal under consideration, but would be -expensive-.

I've been in that area several times; there's no good way to make an interstate interchange between I-42 and I-95 without relocating I-95, because there's so much stuff so close to the highway in that whole area.  You'd blow your whole budget just relocating things.  Also, look at what the plan does to the eventual I-42-- it straightens it out somewhat on the east side of I-95.  It's not as wacky as it first looks.

I would love to see where all this businesses will go to. Especially that the new I-42 and I-95 interchange will run through a solar panel area.

I figure the area where the current I-95 - US 70 interchange is will get zoned for business after it gets relocated.  It's not like life will change much for say JR Cigar-- they'll just have I-95 running behind them instead of in front of them.

I'm wondering which of the four US 70s of Selma-Smithfield will become US 70 once this is all said and done.  The sensible thing to do would be to return US 70 to what is now Business US 70 all the way to I-40, then just extend Alt US 70 (or as they have it signed, US 70A) west along current US 70 across I-95 to I-42.

I was mistaken-- it's currently signed as East US 70-A :
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5184778,-78.2871196,3a,15y,157.56h,84.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6wi1caktp5kv9TgEKpdvpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[tolbs17]

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

Is this real or fake? Them completely replacing bridges and putting a new interchange on a new alignment (which i think they need to do), would be crazy!!

I would love to see an update on this!

It's a real proposal under consideration, but would be -expensive-.

I've been in that area several times; there's no good way to make an interstate interchange between I-42 and I-95 without relocating I-95, because there's so much stuff so close to the highway in that whole area.  You'd blow your whole budget just relocating things.  Also, look at what the plan does to the eventual I-42-- it straightens it out somewhat on the east side of I-95.  It's not as wacky as it first looks.

I would love to see where all this businesses will go to. Especially that the new I-42 and I-95 interchange will run through a solar panel area.

I figure the area where the current I-95 - US 70 interchange is will get zoned for business after it gets relocated.  It's not like life will change much for say JR Cigar-- they'll just have I-95 running behind them instead of in front of them.

I'm wondering which of the four US 70s of Selma-Smithfield will become US 70 once this is all said and done.  The sensible thing to do would be to return US 70 to what is now Business US 70 all the way to I-40, then just extend Alt US 70 (or as they have it signed, US 70A) west along current US 70 across I-95 to I-42.

I was mistaken-- it's currently signed as East US 70-A :
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5184778,-78.2871196,3a,15y,157.56h,84.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6wi1caktp5kv9TgEKpdvpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That turns left yes.

[Mr. ENC]

Given the other options, I would not be surprised if the Army Corps of Engineers vetoes Alternative 52 due to the wetlands impacts.  They effectively have that authority in that they're the ones issuing the wetlands permits.

Yeah, I was thinking the yellow alternatives were the best.

Here's a question, why did they get rid of al the northern alternates? They could very easily ran this hwy into 148 and run to where it ends now.  It would cost less, the Neuse River on that side is easier to manage, it would spark growth at GTP, and again the hwy is already either built or being built. The only reason I could think of is because of the civil war battlefield land, and if it is, that sis a really dumb reason.

[sprjus4]

Given the other options, I would not be surprised if the Army Corps of Engineers vetoes Alternative 52 due to the wetlands impacts.  They effectively have that authority in that they're the ones issuing the wetlands permits.

Yeah, I was thinking the yellow alternatives were the best.

Here's a question, why did they get rid of al the northern alternates? They could very easily ran this hwy into 148 and run to where it ends now.  It would cost less, the Neuse River on that side is easier to manage, it would spark growth at GTP, and again the hwy is already either built or being built. The only reason I could think of is because of the civil war battlefield land, and if it is, that sis a really dumb reason.

My guess is because of opposition from Kinston with preference to a southern highway for the US-70 / I-42 corridor. They want the northern highway too, but as a different route, such as a C.F. Harvey Pkwy extension (under construction) or NC-11 freeway bypass (proposed to run to the east of NC-11 and meet I-42 at its southern end, not funded though).

[LM117]

Given the other options, I would not be surprised if the Army Corps of Engineers vetoes Alternative 52 due to the wetlands impacts.  They effectively have that authority in that they're the ones issuing the wetlands permits.

Yeah, I was thinking the yellow alternatives were the best.

Here's a question, why did they get rid of al the northern alternates? They could very easily ran this hwy into 148 and run to where it ends now.  It would cost less, the Neuse River on that side is easier to manage, it would spark growth at GTP, and again the hwy is already either built or being built. The only reason I could think of is because of the civil war battlefield land, and if it is, that sis a really dumb reason.

My guess is because of opposition from Kinston with preference to a southern highway for the US-70 / I-42 corridor.

From a 2014 press release:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2014/Kinston-Bypass-Project-Moving-Forward-wi.aspx

All northern bypass alternatives are being eliminated due to new traffic projections that show minimal traffic from U.S. 70 using these routes. Thus, existing U.S. 70 would still require widening, even after a northern bypass was constructed. The southern alternatives would attract more traffic from U.S. 70, significantly reducing congestion in Kinston and eliminating the need to widen existing U.S. 70.

[tolbs17]

^^^^

They could still use the northern alternatives for a nice loop and have easier access to the GTP.

[froggie]

^ The Global TransPark primarily needs access to/from the west.  They already have that via a 4-lane limited-access NC 148.  Traffic does not warrant a full loop.

[Mr. ENC]

Given the other options, I would not be surprised if the Army Corps of Engineers vetoes Alternative 52 due to the wetlands impacts.  They effectively have that authority in that they're the ones issuing the wetlands permits.

Yeah, I was thinking the yellow alternatives were the best.

Here's a question, why did they get rid of al the northern alternates? They could very easily ran this hwy into 148 and run to where it ends now.  It would cost less, the Neuse River on that side is easier to manage, it would spark growth at GTP, and again the hwy is already either built or being built. The only reason I could think of is because of the civil war battlefield land, and if it is, that sis a really dumb reason.

My guess is because of opposition from Kinston with preference to a southern highway for the US-70 / I-42 corridor.

From a 2014 press release:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2014/Kinston-Bypass-Project-Moving-Forward-wi.aspx

All northern bypass alternatives are being eliminated due to new traffic projections that show minimal traffic from U.S. 70 using these routes. Thus, existing U.S. 70 would still require widening, even after a northern bypass was constructed. The southern alternatives would attract more traffic from U.S. 70, significantly reducing congestion in Kinston and eliminating the need to widen existing U.S. 70.

So are they saying that people coming from New Bern or La Grange would opt to us 70 vs Hwy 42 if it was a northern bypass? If that is so it still doesn't make sense.