AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Interstate 42  (Read 64504 times)

Tom958

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 736
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Lawrenceville, GA
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 10:15:52 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #400 on: December 20, 2018, 12:33:20 PM »

Maybe it has to do with retaining US 70 exit numbering. It wouldn't do to have US 70 mileage on a road that isn't US 70.
Logged

slorydn1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1081
  • If I pass you on the right, you're doing it wrong.

  • Age: 49
  • Location: New Bern, North Carolina
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 05:06:41 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #401 on: December 23, 2018, 03:47:35 AM »



You will notice from my list that the exit numbers in the plans are closely duplicated by current exits in the New Bern area (verified by May 2018 Google Maps Street View images, which already have I-42 labels posted along the pavement). Is the future work to improve US 70 to interstate standards going to eliminate 15 or so miles from US 70's current route to account for the reduced mileage near Havelock?


Bob, I don't believe so, no. If anything the Kinston Bypass would add mileage rather than subtract it-that said it should be pretty small. The Goldsboro bypass added roughly 1.1 miles to US-70's total from I-40 to New Bern, and I can't see the Kinston bypass adding much more than that. Any change that has shortened US-70's mileage would have had to have been much farther west in the state and its just taken a while for it to catch up with us on this end.  I'd have to go back and measure, but possibly the Clayton bypass shortened US 70 a little when it opened back in the day, maybe a mile or two. I'll have to measure it sometime this week when I have time.


I can confirm that  Exit 410 is the US-17 exit from US-70 west of New Bern. We call it the bypass here but it truly is US-17's mainline. I am not sure where they came up with 410 for the beginning of the Havelock Bypass in Pine Grove, it just doesn't make sense.
Logged
Please Note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of any governmental agency, non-governmental agency, quasi-governmental agency or wanna be governmental agency

Counties: Counties Visited

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 919
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:35 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #402 on: January 01, 2019, 07:54:45 PM »

NCDOT released plans for the US 70 Havelock Bypass project to be let in February. The sign plans feature notations for future I-42 shields to be added to the pull through and ramp signs, an example:


The entire sign plan set is available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf

I have posted more of the signs with I-42 on my I-42 Exit list page:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html

You will notice from my list that the exit numbers in the plans are closely duplicated by current exits in the New Bern area (verified by May 2018 Google Maps Street View images, which already have I-42 labels posted along the pavement). Is the future work to improve US 70 to interstate standards going to eliminate 15 or so miles from US 70's current route to account for the reduced mileage near Havelock?
Three things I noticed odd (though very minor) from the signing plans. First off, is the speed limit actually going to be 55 MPH on the bypass, or 65-70 MPH? I've heard 65-70 MPH, though the signs indicate Speed Limit 55 signs at each entrance. Also, am I the only one who thinks it's odd when it says "Welcome To - Craven County, Leaving - Carteret County" on the little county line signs? Doing a whole lot of interstate driving yesterday, at least here in Virginia, you see "Entering - XX County" as opposed to "Welcome To - XX County". Third, why U.S. 70 and U.S. 70 Business? That just seems weird, the other two bypasses (Goldsboro and Selma) have U.S. 70 Bypass, which would be removed and replaced with I-42 eventually. When an interstate is running the bypass and mainline, the U.S. / State mainline routing should be on the older / business routing.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 919
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:35 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #403 on: January 01, 2019, 07:57:47 PM »

A public meeting is being held on Nov. 29 in La Grange to discuss upgrading US-70 between NC-903 and the Jim Sutton/Willie Measley Road intersection, including it’s future conversion to an interchange. A map of the preferred alternative for that interchange can be found here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/R-5813-2018-11-29.aspx
Kind of late, but am I the only one who thinks the "preferred alternative" is a bad idea? This is in a rural environment, and they're proposing urban, compressed diamond interchange. If this was in a city/urban environment, I could understand it. The only benefit is that a couple of homes are saved. Alternative #1 proposes a large partial cloverleaf, with a full grassy median (a rural type interchange), and that seems to be the best option. It only takes a few more homes and not to mention costs $15 million less than what NCDOT is proposing.
Logged

Roadsguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1420
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Here
  • Last Login: Today at 01:33:24 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #404 on: January 01, 2019, 07:59:04 PM »

NCDOT released plans for the US 70 Havelock Bypass project to be let in February. The sign plans feature notations for future I-42 shields to be added to the pull through and ramp signs, an example:


The entire sign plan set is available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf

I have posted more of the signs with I-42 on my I-42 Exit list page:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html

You will notice from my list that the exit numbers in the plans are closely duplicated by current exits in the New Bern area (verified by May 2018 Google Maps Street View images, which already have I-42 labels posted along the pavement). Is the future work to improve US 70 to interstate standards going to eliminate 15 or so miles from US 70's current route to account for the reduced mileage near Havelock?
Three things I noticed odd (though very minor) from the signing plans. First off, is the speed limit actually going to be 55 MPH on the bypass, or 65-70 MPH? I've heard 65-70 MPH, though the signs indicate Speed Limit 55 signs at each entrance. Also, am I the only one who thinks it's odd when it says "Welcome To - Craven County, Leaving - Carteret County" on the little county line signs? Doing a whole lot of interstate driving yesterday, at least here in Virginia, you see "Entering - XX County" as opposed to "Welcome To - XX County". Third, why U.S. 70 and U.S. 70 Business? That just seems weird, the other two bypasses (Goldsboro and Selma) have U.S. 70 Bypass, which would be removed and replaced with I-42 eventually. When an interstate is running the bypass and mainline, the U.S. / State mainline routing should be on the older / business routing.

What I find more odd is the fact that the blank space on all the signs is on the right, with US 70 being ultimately the first shield. Usually the Interstate comes first. I agree about the speed limit, though. That seems odd.
Logged
[thing you don't like] is better than [thing you like]

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 919
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:35 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #405 on: January 01, 2019, 09:12:10 PM »

NCDOT released plans for the US 70 Havelock Bypass project to be let in February. The sign plans feature notations for future I-42 shields to be added to the pull through and ramp signs, an example:


The entire sign plan set is available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf

I have posted more of the signs with I-42 on my I-42 Exit list page:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html

You will notice from my list that the exit numbers in the plans are closely duplicated by current exits in the New Bern area (verified by May 2018 Google Maps Street View images, which already have I-42 labels posted along the pavement). Is the future work to improve US 70 to interstate standards going to eliminate 15 or so miles from US 70's current route to account for the reduced mileage near Havelock?
Three things I noticed odd (though very minor) from the signing plans. First off, is the speed limit actually going to be 55 MPH on the bypass, or 65-70 MPH? I've heard 65-70 MPH, though the signs indicate Speed Limit 55 signs at each entrance. Also, am I the only one who thinks it's odd when it says "Welcome To - Craven County, Leaving - Carteret County" on the little county line signs? Doing a whole lot of interstate driving yesterday, at least here in Virginia, you see "Entering - XX County" as opposed to "Welcome To - XX County". Third, why U.S. 70 and U.S. 70 Business? That just seems weird, the other two bypasses (Goldsboro and Selma) have U.S. 70 Bypass, which would be removed and replaced with I-42 eventually. When an interstate is running the bypass and mainline, the U.S. / State mainline routing should be on the older / business routing.

What I find more odd is the fact that the blank space on all the signs is on the right, with US 70 being ultimately the first shield. Usually the Interstate comes first. I agree about the speed limit, though. That seems odd.
Huh, that is weird. Hopefully they'll just remove U.S. 70 and exclusively call it I-42.
Logged

GreenLanternCorps

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 288
  • What's behind me, is not important!

  • Age: 52
  • Location: Ohio
  • Last Login: Today at 08:03:22 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #406 on: January 03, 2019, 07:39:46 AM »

NCDOT released plans for the US 70 Havelock Bypass project to be let in February. The sign plans feature notations for future I-42 shields to be added to the pull through and ramp signs, an example:


The entire sign plan set is available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf

I have posted more of the signs with I-42 on my I-42 Exit list page:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html

You will notice from my list that the exit numbers in the plans are closely duplicated by current exits in the New Bern area (verified by May 2018 Google Maps Street View images, which already have I-42 labels posted along the pavement). Is the future work to improve US 70 to interstate standards going to eliminate 15 or so miles from US 70's current route to account for the reduced mileage near Havelock?
Three things I noticed odd (though very minor) from the signing plans. First off, is the speed limit actually going to be 55 MPH on the bypass, or 65-70 MPH? I've heard 65-70 MPH, though the signs indicate Speed Limit 55 signs at each entrance. Also, am I the only one who thinks it's odd when it says "Welcome To - Craven County, Leaving - Carteret County" on the little county line signs? Doing a whole lot of interstate driving yesterday, at least here in Virginia, you see "Entering - XX County" as opposed to "Welcome To - XX County". Third, why U.S. 70 and U.S. 70 Business? That just seems weird, the other two bypasses (Goldsboro and Selma) have U.S. 70 Bypass, which would be removed and replaced with I-42 eventually. When an interstate is running the bypass and mainline, the U.S. / State mainline routing should be on the older / business routing.

What I find more odd is the fact that the blank space on all the signs is on the right, with US 70 being ultimately the first shield. Usually the Interstate comes first. I agree about the speed limit, though. That seems odd.
Huh, that is weird. Hopefully they'll just remove U.S. 70 and exclusively call it I-42.

I think it is because the Havelock Bypass will probably not be connected to the rest of the Interstate System for many years.  Just looking at a map, the I-95 to New Bern segment looks to be an easier overall upgrade than the New Bern to Havelock and points South segment.  (Of course, I could be completely wrong...)
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 919
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:35 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #407 on: January 03, 2019, 05:05:47 PM »

NCDOT released plans for the US 70 Havelock Bypass project to be let in February. The sign plans feature notations for future I-42 shields to be added to the pull through and ramp signs, an example:


The entire sign plan set is available at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/02-19-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven_R-1015_C204177/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf

I have posted more of the signs with I-42 on my I-42 Exit list page:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i42exits.html

You will notice from my list that the exit numbers in the plans are closely duplicated by current exits in the New Bern area (verified by May 2018 Google Maps Street View images, which already have I-42 labels posted along the pavement). Is the future work to improve US 70 to interstate standards going to eliminate 15 or so miles from US 70's current route to account for the reduced mileage near Havelock?
Three things I noticed odd (though very minor) from the signing plans. First off, is the speed limit actually going to be 55 MPH on the bypass, or 65-70 MPH? I've heard 65-70 MPH, though the signs indicate Speed Limit 55 signs at each entrance. Also, am I the only one who thinks it's odd when it says "Welcome To - Craven County, Leaving - Carteret County" on the little county line signs? Doing a whole lot of interstate driving yesterday, at least here in Virginia, you see "Entering - XX County" as opposed to "Welcome To - XX County". Third, why U.S. 70 and U.S. 70 Business? That just seems weird, the other two bypasses (Goldsboro and Selma) have U.S. 70 Bypass, which would be removed and replaced with I-42 eventually. When an interstate is running the bypass and mainline, the U.S. / State mainline routing should be on the older / business routing.

What I find more odd is the fact that the blank space on all the signs is on the right, with US 70 being ultimately the first shield. Usually the Interstate comes first. I agree about the speed limit, though. That seems odd.
Huh, that is weird. Hopefully they'll just remove U.S. 70 and exclusively call it I-42.

I think it is because the Havelock Bypass will probably not be connected to the rest of the Interstate System for many years.  Just looking at a map, the I-95 to New Bern segment looks to be an easier overall upgrade than the New Bern to Havelock and points South segment.  (Of course, I could be completely wrong...)
It's not that, improvements are planned & funded to bring U.S. 70 to an elevated 6 lane freeway south of New Bern, then to four-lane rural freeway. Those improvements stop just 4 miles north of the proposed bypass. That will probably eventually be extended to the bypass. I think at the southern terminus of this bypass will be where I-42 ends, unless they build the Carteret County Bypass to Beaufort.

US 70 James City Improvements (freeway upgrade) - https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-james-city/Pages/default.aspx

Seems to me it's just poor planning on NCDOT's part.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1755
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 03:01:43 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #408 on: January 07, 2019, 01:52:26 PM »

For those that happen to be in the area and want to attend, the next meeting of the US-70 Corridor Commission is January 31 in Smithfield. NCDOT Secretary Jim Trogdon will be the guest speaker. Exact meeting location can be found on the home page:

http://www.super70corridor.com
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

slorydn1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1081
  • If I pass you on the right, you're doing it wrong.

  • Age: 49
  • Location: New Bern, North Carolina
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 05:06:41 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #409 on: January 20, 2019, 03:39:09 AM »

^addressing the few posts prior to LM117's post sans quote wall^

I think the one thing that a few of you are forgetting is that the Havelock Bypass design and planning has been in the works for right around 20 years or so (+/- a few years), well before I-42 was even a thing. Same with upgrades in the James City area. The study that brought us the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses detailed many changes that were meant to reduce the number of stop lights and thus travel time from Raleigh to the Crystal Coast. All this was done with the understanding that this would remain US-70.


The sign plan for the Havelock Bypass reflects this thinking. One should note that the I-42 sign is for Future I-42, so US-70 would take precedence as I-42 doesn't exist yet. If and when I-42 gets that far SE the signs will have to be redone, and I foresee a scenario where NCDOT would apply to have US-70 moved back to its current routing through Havelock (see US-17 in Wilmington).


I guess what I am trying to say is that the upgrades from the Neuse River Bridge to Havelock were going to happen anyway. The announcement of Future I-42 just sped up the process by approximately 5-10 years or so. Any mention of I-42 east of La Grange in Lenior County, though, is moot until the Kinston Bypass gets built and I am not seeing that getting accomplished anytime soon, its projected start date is 2025. Those signs depicted in the Havelock Bypass sign plan may very well age out by the time it will be necessary to change them.
Logged
Please Note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of any governmental agency, non-governmental agency, quasi-governmental agency or wanna be governmental agency

Counties: Counties Visited

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 919
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:35 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #410 on: January 20, 2019, 03:50:29 AM »

The sign plan for the Havelock Bypass reflects this thinking. One should note that the I-42 sign is for Future I-42, so US-70 would take precedence as I-42 doesn't exist yet. If and when I-42 gets that far SE the signs will have to be redone, and I foresee a scenario where NCDOT would apply to have US-70 moved back to its current routing through Havelock (see US-17 in Wilmington).
I understand, but the point was they should’ve signed the bypass as “U.S. 70 Bypass”, and left the mainline route through town. When it becomes I-42, they could easily delete “U.S. 70 Bypass”, and sign “I-42”, similar to the Goldsboro Bypass. Calling it “U.S. 70” complicates things in the future.
Logged

Roadsguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1420
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Here
  • Last Login: Today at 01:33:24 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #411 on: January 20, 2019, 08:17:49 AM »

From what I've gathered from NCDOT's other sign plans that I've seen, that "FUTURE East I-42" isn't a shield with a banner that will be on the sign, it's a blank space where an overlay will eventually be applied, like this:



The weird thing about that, then, is why the blank space is on the right and not on the left as it normally would be, as Interstate shields are supposed to come first on signage.
Logged
[thing you don't like] is better than [thing you like]

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1755
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 03:01:43 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #412 on: January 20, 2019, 09:35:09 AM »

The sign plan for the Havelock Bypass reflects this thinking. One should note that the I-42 sign is for Future I-42, so US-70 would take precedence as I-42 doesn't exist yet. If and when I-42 gets that far SE the signs will have to be redone, and I foresee a scenario where NCDOT would apply to have US-70 moved back to its current routing through Havelock (see US-17 in Wilmington).
I understand, but the point was they should’ve signed the bypass as “U.S. 70 Bypass”, and left the mainline route through town. When it becomes I-42, they could easily delete “U.S. 70 Bypass”, and sign “I-42”, similar to the Goldsboro Bypass. Calling it “U.S. 70” complicates things in the future.

Agreed. The Goldsboro Bypass was also planned 20+ years ago (Record of Decision issued in 1998) and NCDOT had no problem signing it as US-70 Bypass, even though it wasn’t a future interstate when construction on the first section began in 2008. The Goldsboro city council (in typical fashion) did try to screw it up recently by asking NCDOT to change ‘vanilla’ 70 through town to US-70 Business by removing the business route off of Ash Street. Thankfully, NCDOT ignored their request.

I see where slorydn1 is coming from, but it’s been known for 3 years that US-70 will be eventually become an interstate. I don’t know why the sign plans couldn’t have been changed in that time period to reflect that fact. I just hope that this isn’t a preview of the Kinston Bypass...
« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 02:01:43 AM by LM117 »
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1755
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 03:01:43 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #413 on: February 06, 2019, 01:57:44 AM »

NCDOT has posted a visualization of the James City upgrade project.

« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 01:59:54 AM by LM117 »
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

Roadsguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1420
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Here
  • Last Login: Today at 01:33:24 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #414 on: February 06, 2019, 10:37:21 AM »

NCDOT has posted a visualization of the James City upgrade project.


Also a view from the road and a rendering of the temporary through lanes:



Does this mean they settled on an alternative? I could've sworn they hadn't decided on one last time I saw the project.
Logged
[thing you don't like] is better than [thing you like]

jcarte29

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 277
  • Location: Charlotte, NC
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 09:58:55 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #415 on: February 06, 2019, 02:12:41 PM »

Wow that all looks like a replica of the US 74 Monroe Expressway Western end before the turn off. It will be a mess in the interim but super nice after!
Logged
Interstates I've driven on (Complete and/or partial, no particular order)
------------------
40, 85, 95, 77, 277(NC), 485(NC), 440(NC), 540(NC), 795(NC), 140(NC), 73, 74, 840(NC), 26, 20, 75, 285(GA), 81, 64, 71, 275(OH), 465(IN), 65, 264(VA), 240(NC), 295(VA), 526(SC), 985(GA), 395(FL), 195(FL)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 919
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:35 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #416 on: February 06, 2019, 04:32:09 PM »

NCDOT has posted a visualization of the James City upgrade project.


NCDOT has posted a visualization of the James City upgrade project.


Also a view from the road and a rendering of the temporary through lanes:



Does this mean they settled on an alternative? I could've sworn they hadn't decided on one last time I saw the project.
Definitely some good quality renderings, and really give perspective on how the road will be. I do disagree with the design though. Looking at this, along with the actual plans, it seems oddly done. Similar to how the Monroe Expressway was done, and how every urban freeway in Texas is done, why didn't they just have one-way frontage roads on each side, with slip-off / on ramps, and U-Turn points under the bridges? The current design just seems out of place, and could be confusing to navigate. Continuous one-way frontage roads would better serve businesses, provide easier access, etc.

The "temporary through lanes" construction phasing video is how it should actually be built, with 2-lane one-way frontage roads in each direction, and be continuous with slip-off / on ramps + U-Turns under the bridges.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10373
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 01:32:48 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #417 on: February 06, 2019, 09:09:06 PM »

I don't see the frontage road design as an issue.  Especially closer to New Bern, most of the properties on the northeast side (on the left when looking at the first video) have a backage road in the form of SR 1113/Old Cherry Point Rd.  The southwest side is where you would need the continuous frontage road.

If they were to do one-way frontage roads on each side, they'd either need to end them at Williams Rd (which would still require a 2-way replacement for the existing frontage road through the fast food restaurants), or incur additional expense for another bridge closer to the US 17 interchange.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 919
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:35 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #418 on: February 06, 2019, 09:29:35 PM »

I don't see the frontage road design as an issue.  Especially closer to New Bern, most of the properties on the northeast side (on the left when looking at the first video) have a backage road in the form of SR 1113/Old Cherry Point Rd.  The southwest side is where you would need the continuous frontage road.

If they were to do one-way frontage roads on each side, they'd either need to end them at Williams Rd (which would still require a 2-way replacement for the existing frontage road through the fast food restaurants), or incur additional expense for another bridge closer to the US 17 interchange.
Look at the construction phasing video.


A continuous frontage one-way two-lane design is going to get built for the temp. mainline, but then be torn up once the freeway opens. They should build that, and attach the ramps to / from the one-way roads permanently. The only difference is the overpass bridges would have to be slightly longer to accommodate the U-Turns underneath.

The existing concept might work for locals, but it makes it harder for out-of-town traffic to visit businesses, etc. along the frontage roads, because they aren't continuous. In some areas, they just dead end to make way for a controlled off-ramp. If they were continuous on both sides, travelers could exit I-42, drive the frontage road until reaching the business, or turn around via the U-Turns under the bridge, instead of having to go out of the way to reach it, then have to come all the way back to reach the entrance to I-42.

It works all throughout Texas, and other areas they've implemented them. About 1 mile of the U.S. 74 Monroe Expressway outside of Charlotte was recently built with a continuous frontage road design with U-Turns, one-way, etc. It would make sense if they did it here, especially considering the fact frontage roads already exist continuously, and should remain that way, but as one-way frontage roads.

It would also involve less R/W when the road has to divert off of its path to make way for the off-ramp. If the off-ramp and one-way frontage road were together, it would make for less R/W impact, and a smoother flow of traffic.
Logged

Gnutella

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 408
  • Last Login: Today at 05:52:16 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #419 on: February 11, 2019, 03:55:11 PM »

I wonder what NCDOT will do with the I-95 interchange? Will new ramps be built or will the breezewood-ish status quo be maintained? There are better alternatives in three quadrants, all of which are (or will be) interstates, that cut off the corner for long distance traffic. The quadrant with the missing connection is I-95N to I-42E (and the reverse, I-42W to I-95S.) Is that one movement important enough to merit an eight figure interchange project? Probably not in our lifetimes. Maybe that little stretch of US 70 could get an alternate designation of Business (Green) I-42.

LGL33L

As far as I know, it will be a Breezewood. There's been no mention of a direct I-42/I-95 connection. Personally, I'd like to see a direct interchange with I-42 and I-95 built to keep thru traffic off of US-70, but from the looks of it, it would be a LOT of work to make it happen.


Looking at Google Maps, there won't be enough room to put an interchange there because there are businesses near the interstate.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/DeWayne's/@35.5168823,-78.2977414,681m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0000000000000000:0x1b67d7e4ccbee91e!8m2!3d35.516594!4d-78.2984374


That interchange reminds me of the interchange between I-70 and U.S. 63 in Columbia, MO.
Logged

Roadsguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1420
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Here
  • Last Login: Today at 01:33:24 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #420 on: February 11, 2019, 04:08:51 PM »

There are definitely plans for an upgrade there, but they're years away and I don't think they're accessible from the main NCDOT site. I think they were discussed earlier in this thread somewhere, though I don't think they were known yet back in 2016 when those quoted posts were written.
Logged
[thing you don't like] is better than [thing you like]

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 527
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 06:17:07 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #421 on: February 11, 2019, 06:30:18 PM »

There are definitely plans for an upgrade there, but they're years away and I don't think they're accessible from the main NCDOT site. I think they were discussed earlier in this thread somewhere, though I don't think they were known yet back in 2016 when those quoted posts were written.
The idea was to relocate I-95 to the east in order to create space for an interchange. Here's a conceptual plan as it was drawn a couple of years ago:
https://jocoreport.com/dot-could-relocate-i-95-between-smithfield-and-selma/
This plan draws a cloverleaf interchange of US 70 (now Future I-42) with the relocated I-95. It's likely that more recent plans include one or more flyover ramps, but as far as I know they haven't been released.

In any case, no Breezewood.
Logged

orulz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 128
  • Age: 37
  • Location: NC
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 02:54:05 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #422 on: February 12, 2019, 05:43:09 AM »

The fact that long distance traffic has better alternatives in most directions (Fayetteville-Raleigh: I-40; Raleigh-Richmond: I-87; Richmond-Goldsboro: I-795) means that probably only the Goldsboro-Fayetteville movement should be considered for a flyover. I do like the overall plan of relocating I-95 to the east. This is a tight stretch on I-95 as it is, hemmed in by businesses and frontage roads, so an outright relocation through mostly open agricultural land might actually be cheaper.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1755
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 03:01:43 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #423 on: February 12, 2019, 10:25:30 AM »

As of August 2018, the cloverleaf design is the only one proposed for the I-95/I-42 interchange.

Here’s the feasibility study: https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1875
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT/Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:53:35 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #424 on: February 12, 2019, 02:45:23 PM »

I wonder what NCDOT will do with the I-95 interchange? Will new ramps be built or will the breezewood-ish status quo be maintained? There are better alternatives in three quadrants, all of which are (or will be) interstates, that cut off the corner for long distance traffic. The quadrant with the missing connection is I-95N to I-42E (and the reverse, I-42W to I-95S.) Is that one movement important enough to merit an eight figure interchange project? Probably not in our lifetimes. Maybe that little stretch of US 70 could get an alternate designation of Business (Green) I-42.

LGL33L

As far as I know, it will be a Breezewood. There's been no mention of a direct I-42/I-95 connection. Personally, I'd like to see a direct interchange with I-42 and I-95 built to keep thru traffic off of US-70, but from the looks of it, it would be a LOT of work to make it happen.


Looking at Google Maps, there won't be enough room to put an interchange there because there are businesses near the interstate.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/DeWayne's/@35.5168823,-78.2977414,681m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0000000000000000:0x1b67d7e4ccbee91e!8m2!3d35.516594!4d-78.2984374


That interchange reminds me of the interchange between I-70 and U.S. 63 in Columbia, MO.

Or the interchange between I-70 and E-470 in Aurora, CO.
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14, 82, 215 (UT), 225, 345, 444, 575, 985
US clinches: 491, 550

Flickr
Imgur

 


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.