Interstate 42 (E)

[LM117]

^ I never understood why La Grange is used as the control city for US-70 West at the east end of I-42. Most (if not all) La Grange-bound traffic on I-42 is simply gonna stay on it and get off at the NC-903 exit.

Then again, this is the same DOT that uses Kenly as a control city for I-795 South at the split from I-587...

[jcil4ever]

^ I never understood why La Grange is used as the control city for US-70 West at the east end of I-42. Most (if not all) La Grange-bound traffic on I-42 is simply gonna stay on it and get off at the NC-903 exit.

Same! I've also wondered why that's the only sign that includes "To" 🤔

[LM117]

^ I never understood why La Grange is used as the control city for US-70 West at the east end of I-42. Most (if not all) La Grange-bound traffic on I-42 is simply gonna stay on it and get off at the NC-903 exit.

Same! I've also wondered why that's the only sign that includes "To" 🤔

I remember when the bypass first opened in 2016, Goldsboro was used as a control city for I-42 West at the east end of the bypass on US-70 while "To La Grange" was used for US-70 West. It didn't take long for the businesses along US-70 in Goldsboro to kick up a fuss about it. NCDOT corrected it shortly afterwards and replaced Goldsboro with Selma for I-42 West and replaced "To La Grange" with Goldsboro for US-70 West.

[jcil4ever]

I remember when the bypass first opened in 2016, Goldsboro was used as a control city for I-42 West at the east end of the bypass on US-70 while "To La Grange" was used for US-70 West. It didn't take long for the businesses along US-70 in Goldsboro to kick up a fuss about it. NCDOT corrected it shortly afterwards and replaced Goldsboro with Selma for I-42 West and replaced "To La Grange" with Goldsboro for US-70 West.

Indeed! Only lasted one streetview! It makes even less sense going west since you've already passed La Grange.

[PColumbus73]

What amuses me is there seems to be more enthusiasm for I-42 over most of the other interstate proposals coming out of North Carolina. At least judging by the buzz in this forum.

[vdeane]

What amuses me is there seems to be more enthusiasm for I-42 over most of the other interstate proposals coming out of North Carolina. At least judging by the buzz in this forum.

Probably because it doesn't upset the sanctity of the rest of the system like I-87 and I-74 do (any issues it has are the fault of Oklahoma and Arkansas) and isn't predicated on other states that will never build their pieces like I-73 and I-74.

[PColumbus73]

What amuses me is there seems to be more enthusiasm for I-42 over most of the other interstate proposals coming out of North Carolina. At least judging by the buzz in this forum.

Probably because it doesn't upset the sanctity of the rest of the system like I-87 and I-74 do (any issues it has are the fault of Oklahoma and Arkansas) and isn't predicated on other states that will never build their pieces like I-73 and I-74.

Very true. If I-73 was planned for only existing south/east of I-81, it would be an oddity of the system but otherwise inoffensive. Most of the others could have remained as they were and had been just fine.

[vdeane]

Very true. If I-73 was planned for only existing south/east of I-81, it would be an oddity of the system but otherwise inoffensive. Most of the others could have remained as they were and had been just fine.

Honestly, even the portion of I-73 from the VA/NC line to I-81 seems unlikely at this point, and it's questionable whether South Carolina will get around to their portion, so it might never even leave NC.

[PColumbus73]

Back to I-42, I'm probably an outlier here by saying the I-42/95 interchange is probably fine as-is.

Most of the long-haul connections are already made by either I-40, 87/587, and 795, all are within at least 20 miles of the 42/95 interchange. The only direct connection I would make would be the southeast quadrant, maybe the northwest quadrant assuming people start using I-42 and NC 540 to get to southwest of Raleigh, like to Pittsboro or Sanford.

[The Ghostbuster]

I doubt they'll leave the interchange between US 70 and Interstate 95 in its existing configuration. They probably will build a free-flow system interchange between Interstate 95 and present-day Bypass 70 (future Interstate 42). They'll have to tear down quite a bit to make it happen, though.

[Henry]

I doubt they'll leave the interchange between US 70 and Interstate 95 in its existing configuration. They probably will build a free-flow system interchange between Interstate 95 and present-day Bypass 70 (future Interstate 42). They'll have to tear down quite a bit to make it happen, though.

There is, in fact, the plan to rebuild I-95 on a new alignment that will include an interchange with I-42. The current location is impractical to squeeze one in, so they'll relocate it to where a direct connection would be possible.

[jcil4ever]

There is, in fact, the plan to rebuild I-95 on a new alignment that will include an interchange with I-42. The current location is impractical to squeeze one in, so they'll relocate it to where a direct connection would be possible.

Here's a description of what that could look like:
DOT Could Relocate I-95 Between Smithfield And Selma

[vdeane]

There is, in fact, the plan to rebuild I-95 on a new alignment that will include an interchange with I-42. The current location is impractical to squeeze one in, so they'll relocate it to where a direct connection would be possible.

Here's a description of what that could look like:
DOT Could Relocate I-95 Between Smithfield And Selma

So much for having all of I-95 clinched south of Maine...

[The Ghostbuster]

The realignment of Interstate 95 and the construction of the free-flow interchange hasn't been scheduled yet, right? US 70 still needs extensive upgrades between Exits 337 and 350.

[english si]

Probably because it doesn't upset the sanctity of the rest of the system like I-87 and I-74 do

That sanctity is all in your mind. There were exceptions from basically day 1: 26 at right angles to and crossing south of 20, 59 crossing 65, 85 crossing 75.

The finalised official numbering in '58 still wasn't as wedded to the grid system (26, 59 and 85 joined by 24 crossing 40, 74 crossing 70, 78 entirely north of 80S (but south of 80)) or lack of duplicates (for instance, the two 80Ss are no better than the two 76s that replaced them).

The rules were never sacred, even when the numbering was a blank slate as opposed to now where there's massive constraints on various numbers.

(any issues it has are the fault of Oklahoma and Arkansas)

You spelt AASHTO wrong - it was they who pushed the 42 number on NC (who wanted a perfectly cromulant 36 so it fitted NC's numbering rules as well as surely sensible enough to please an AASHTO who hadn't long approved I-11 for a route that was, at the time, entirely east of I-15) and they who approved OK-AR I-42 without caring about the duplicate (which they also did with NC I-87, where they could have demanded one of the even numbers NC had thought about using before deciding on an odd number).

[Strider]

Correct. NCDOT originally requested I-36 for US-70 corridor and I-44 for US-64 corridor. AASHTO told them no and then recommended I-42 and I-87. NCDOT obligated, so that's on AASHTO. And now, we'll have two separate I-42s that will not be connected.

[vdeane]

That sanctity is all in your mind. There were exceptions from basically day 1: 26 at right angles to and crossing south of 20, 59 crossing 65, 85 crossing 75.

The finalised official numbering in '58 still wasn't as wedded to the grid system (26, 59 and 85 joined by 24 crossing 40, 74 crossing 70, 78 entirely north of 80S (but south of 80)) or lack of duplicates (for instance, the two 80Ss are no better than the two 76s that replaced them).

The rules were never sacred, even when the numbering was a blank slate as opposed to now where there's massive constraints on various numbers.

This isn't the slam dunk point you think it is because I have never been one of those people who treats the grid like walls that numbers should never cross for any reason ever.  As long as a number isn't way off base, I'm fine with it.  Therefore diagonals like I-26 aren't a problem; part of it exists north of I-20, the original wasn't clearly N-S in geography (that only happened after the extension to Tennessee), and even the modern one at least follows the "E-W = perpendicular to the coast" convention in the area.  The only real problem with the original numbering is the flagrant use of suffixes, which fortunately got clamped down on later (unfortunately, they didn't force states to do things like accept 3dis or renumber other interstates to avoid duplication, nor did they tell Dallas to take a hike because they already had I-45 or St. Paul to take a hike because I-35E doesn't allow trucks).

I-74 is an issue mainly because it will never be finished, leaving it as a way out of position duplicate, and anyone with half a brain could have figured that out even back when it was first proposed.  I-87 is a problem because it's a duplicate and should be E-W by any way you think of it; there is no criteria whatsoever for which a N-S number makes sense on the Southway.

You spelt AASHTO wrong - it was they who pushed the 42 number on NC (who wanted a perfectly cromulant 36 so it fitted NC's numbering rules as well as surely sensible enough to please an AASHTO who hadn't long approved I-11 for a route that was, at the time, entirely east of I-15) and they who approved OK-AR I-42 without caring about the duplicate (which they also did with NC I-87, where they could have demanded one of the even numbers NC had thought about using before deciding on an odd number).

AASHTO alternating between being a rubber stamp and doing stupid stuff is something I don't like, but don't forget that NC's I-42 came first, making the OK/AR one the duplicate one, not NC's.  AASHTO was correct that I-36 did not make sense because it's entirely north of I-40 and there are plenty of other numbers available.  In hindsight, given the OK/AR route, maybe a higher number like I-46 should have been chosen, but that was not known at the time.  NC's proposed I-44 would be a duplicate and was rightly pushed back on as well; the error was in switching it to a N-S number when it's an E-W route and there are plenty of E-W numbers available in that part of the country.

I-11 is not an issue.  There are no N-S numbers east of I-15 until I-21, and there's no way Vegas would accept an I-13.

Correct. NCDOT originally requested I-36 for US-70 corridor and I-44 for US-64 corridor. AASHTO told them no and then recommended I-42 and I-87. NCDOT obligated, so that's on AASHTO. And now, we'll have two separate I-42s that will not be connected.

In hindsight, perhaps they should have chosen I-46 and I-48, or at least one number in the 50s.  Unfortunately NC was laser-focused on not duplicating or renumbering existing state routes, even though the interstates are the higher order system, so the lower systems should bend around them, not the other way around.

[The Ghostbuster]

I would have been okay with the Interstate 44 designation along the US 64 corridor had it been approved. The Interstate 36 designation along the US 70 corridor would have an awkward numbering. The 36 designation would have been better placed on the US 74 corridor, if North Carolina wanted all of US 74 to have an Interstate designation.

[jcil4ever]

Here's some video from this weekend of the western approach to Havelock passing through the interchange for what will be the Havelock Bypass. It will be nice to be open!

Also, the advance signs on 70 West for 40 East and 540 have been updated. Currently, you don't get any notice that you're dumping onto 40 West until you get to the turbine interchange. I wonder if there will be any signage added as part of the 42 renumbering.

[jcil4ever]

Oh, and the eastbound bridge over Wilsons Mills Rd. is now open. This means there are currently no stoplights on US-70 between I-40 and Princeton! However, there is still also no signage on 70 for Wilsons Mills Rd. either.

[74/171FAN]

Oh, and the eastbound bridge over Wilsons Mills Rd. is now open. This means there are currently no stoplights on US-70 between I-40 and Princeton! However, there is still also no signage on 70 for Wilsons Mills Rd. either.

Yeah, it looked pretty close to ready when I drove through a few weeks ago.

[jcil4ever]

I stumbled upon this dated article (evidenced by its promise of "the Havelock Bypass [being] finally finished and ready for drivers in 2024") and thought it was interesting that the delay in construction has been caused, in large part, by the interchange at the northern end of the bypass originally only being designed for 60 mph traffic. I'm glad they caught that this wouldn't make sense between two 70 mph sections, but am (kind of) surprised it wasn't caught earlier. 🤷🏻�♂️

[epzik8]

It's looking very likely that I'll have a picture of real-life I-42 signage (not counting future) prior to Google Street View.

[roadman65]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DD1-WNWufwp/?igsh=MXQ4NGNocGI5d3QwYg==
AA Roads Instagram has it already.

[epzik8]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DD1-WNWufwp/?igsh=MXQ4NGNocGI5d3QwYg==
AA Roads Instagram has it already.

It looks so beautiful