AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Interstate 42  (Read 119147 times)

74/171FAN

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1883
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:04:33 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #850 on: February 18, 2021, 12:38:48 PM »

It looks like Google Maps has jumped the gun in labeling the US-70 bypass around Goldsboro as I-42. Not sure if North Carolina plans to seek interstate designation for sections that meet interstate standards in the near future, or wait until the entire I-42 corridor is completed before applying the interstate designation.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3046416,-77.8185494,2501m/data=!3m1!1e3
That lone I-42 shield has been on Google Maps for at least a year at this point... NCDOT has gotten approval to sign the Goldsboro Bypass as I-42 since it meets interstate standards and connects to I-795, though so far has not officially posted any shields.

When was that?  I do not remember seeing it in any AASHTO Meeting approvals.
Logged
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7659
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:25:22 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #851 on: February 18, 2021, 04:24:26 PM »

It looks like Google Maps has jumped the gun in labeling the US-70 bypass around Goldsboro as I-42. Not sure if North Carolina plans to seek interstate designation for sections that meet interstate standards in the near future, or wait until the entire I-42 corridor is completed before applying the interstate designation.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3046416,-77.8185494,2501m/data=!3m1!1e3
That lone I-42 shield has been on Google Maps for at least a year at this point... NCDOT has gotten approval to sign the Goldsboro Bypass as I-42 since it meets interstate standards and connects to I-795, though so far has not officially posted any shields.

When was that?  I do not remember seeing it in any AASHTO Meeting approvals.

Was under the impression that since AASHTO's role back in 2016 was to designate (actually mandate, after NCDOT's attempts to call it I-50 and then I-36) I-42; after that, FHWA would be the entity vetting the facility to ensure it met their criteria -- physical standards plus connectivity, as noted in the prior posts.  Then it would be back in NCDOT's hands to actually sign the roadway.  Considering the flack they took with the "Future I-73/74" shields, they might be a bit gun-shy to post signage on I-42 until more of it is completed, particularly the adjoining Kinston bypass and the section west toward I-95. 
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2742
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 08:39:11 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #852 on: February 18, 2021, 08:02:36 PM »

I wish the US-70 Corridor Commission would start posting their meeting minutes again. Granted, not much happened over the past year because of Covid, but the last meeting minutes posted was from January 31, 2019, and the last Director's Report was for March, April, May 2019.
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2742
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 08:39:11 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #853 on: February 18, 2021, 08:08:37 PM »

It looks like Google Maps has jumped the gun in labeling the US-70 bypass around Goldsboro as I-42. Not sure if North Carolina plans to seek interstate designation for sections that meet interstate standards in the near future, or wait until the entire I-42 corridor is completed before applying the interstate designation.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3046416,-77.8185494,2501m/data=!3m1!1e3
That lone I-42 shield has been on Google Maps for at least a year at this point... NCDOT has gotten approval to sign the Goldsboro Bypass as I-42 since it meets interstate standards and connects to I-795, though so far has not officially posted any shields.

When was that?  I do not remember seeing it in any AASHTO Meeting approvals.

The approval came from FHWA. It's mentioned near the bottom of page 4:

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Jan_Feb_2019-Directors-Report.pdf
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

snowc

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 111
  • Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
  • Last Login: March 03, 2021, 02:33:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #854 on: February 19, 2021, 05:22:19 AM »

It looks like Google Maps has jumped the gun in labeling the US-70 bypass around Goldsboro as I-42. Not sure if North Carolina plans to seek interstate designation for sections that meet interstate standards in the near future, or wait until the entire I-42 corridor is completed before applying the interstate designation.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3046416,-77.8185494,2501m/data=!3m1!1e3
That lone I-42 shield has been on Google Maps for at least a year at this point... NCDOT has gotten approval to sign the Goldsboro Bypass as I-42 since it meets interstate standards and connects to I-795, though so far has not officially posted any shields.

When was that?  I do not remember seeing it in any AASHTO Meeting approvals.

Was under the impression that since AASHTO's role back in 2016 was to designate (actually mandate, after NCDOT's attempts to call it I-50 and then I-36) I-42; after that, FHWA would be the entity vetting the facility to ensure it met their criteria -- physical standards plus connectivity, as noted in the prior posts.  Then it would be back in NCDOT's hands to actually sign the roadway.  Considering the flack they took with the "Future I-73/74" shields, they might be a bit gun-shy to post signage on I-42 until more of it is completed, particularly the adjoining Kinston bypass and the section west toward I-95.

And even MapMikey over at his site STILL says requested by NCDOT, even though its unapproved!  :colorful: :colorful: :colorful:
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11489
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:32:32 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #855 on: February 19, 2021, 09:11:47 AM »

^ Because the 4th line in the I-36 entry is that "AASHTO rejected the number 36 and the two parties agreed on I-42 instead."  Nowhere do we say that it is still requested.
Logged

snowc

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 111
  • Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
  • Last Login: March 03, 2021, 02:33:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #856 on: February 19, 2021, 10:06:36 AM »

^ Because the 4th line in the I-36 entry is that "AASHTO rejected the number 36 and the two parties agreed on I-42 instead."  Nowhere do we say that it is still requested.
Froggie, it still says on the grey bar, requested by NCDOT.
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3509
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 04:35:33 PM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #857 on: February 19, 2021, 10:44:05 AM »

^ Because the 4th line in the I-36 entry is that "AASHTO rejected the number 36 and the two parties agreed on I-42 instead."  Nowhere do we say that it is still requested.
Froggie, it still says on the grey bar, requested by NCDOT.

...because NCDOT requested it at one point. AASHTO and NCDOT have since mutually agreed on I-42 instead.

snowc

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 111
  • Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
  • Last Login: March 03, 2021, 02:33:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #858 on: February 19, 2021, 10:58:09 AM »

^ Because the 4th line in the I-36 entry is that "AASHTO rejected the number 36 and the two parties agreed on I-42 instead."  Nowhere do we say that it is still requested.
Froggie, it still says on the grey bar, requested by NCDOT.

...because NCDOT requested it at one point. AASHTO and NCDOT have since mutually agreed on I-42 instead.
I see now. Why doesn't @froggie put formerly instead of futurely on the text to the left of the description?
Logged

snowc

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 111
  • Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
  • Last Login: March 03, 2021, 02:33:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #859 on: February 19, 2021, 08:17:37 PM »


We have some new info on I-42! Looks like they are placing an exit on Wilsons Mills Road. Meeting will be March 16.  :popcorn:
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3150
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 51
  • Last Login: Today at 09:00:13 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #860 on: February 19, 2021, 08:52:51 PM »

^ Because the 4th line in the I-36 entry is that "AASHTO rejected the number 36 and the two parties agreed on I-42 instead."  Nowhere do we say that it is still requested.
Froggie, it still says on the grey bar, requested by NCDOT.

...because NCDOT requested it at one point. AASHTO and NCDOT have since mutually agreed on I-42 instead.
I see now. Why doesn't @froggie put formerly instead of futurely on the text to the left of the description?

Because Mapmikey probably did several of those I-pages all at once where futurely was the correct thought for most of them.  Mistakes occur in the continually expanding and voluminous world of vahighways.com.  There hasn't yet been a 2106 AASHTO meeting either (though I am confident when that does happen it'll be 2108 before we find out whether NCDOT got NC 12 approved as an interstate)
Logged

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1440
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: March 02, 2021, 08:17:51 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #861 on: February 20, 2021, 09:54:19 AM »

^ Because the 4th line in the I-36 entry is that "AASHTO rejected the number 36 and the two parties agreed on I-42 instead."  Nowhere do we say that it is still requested.
Froggie, it still says on the grey bar, requested by NCDOT.

...because NCDOT requested it at one point. AASHTO and NCDOT have since mutually agreed on I-42 instead.
I see now. Why doesn't @froggie put formerly instead of futurely on the text to the left of the description?

Because Mapmikey probably did several of those I-pages all at once where futurely was the correct thought for most of them.  Mistakes occur in the continually expanding and voluminous world of vahighways.com.  There hasn't yet been a 2106 AASHTO meeting either (though I am confident when that does happen it'll be 2108 before we find out whether NCDOT got NC 12 approved as an interstate)

rotflmao!!

Anyone who has maintained a website can attest ot how easy it is to miss typos.
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

snowc

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 111
  • Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
  • Last Login: March 03, 2021, 02:33:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #862 on: February 20, 2021, 10:13:01 AM »

^ Because the 4th line in the I-36 entry is that "AASHTO rejected the number 36 and the two parties agreed on I-42 instead."  Nowhere do we say that it is still requested.
Froggie, it still says on the grey bar, requested by NCDOT.

...because NCDOT requested it at one point. AASHTO and NCDOT have since mutually agreed on I-42 instead.
I see now. Why doesn't @froggie put formerly instead of futurely on the text to the left of the description?

Because Mapmikey probably did several of those I-pages all at once where futurely was the correct thought for most of them.  Mistakes occur in the continually expanding and voluminous world of vahighways.com.  There hasn't yet been a 2106 AASHTO meeting either (though I am confident when that does happen it'll be 2108 before we find out whether NCDOT got NC 12 approved as an interstate)
@MapMikey, is that a typo with 2106? Its supposed to be 2016, NOT 2106!  :colorful: :colorful:
Logged

snowc

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 111
  • Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
  • Last Login: March 03, 2021, 02:33:36 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #863 on: February 20, 2021, 10:14:16 AM »

^ Because the 4th line in the I-36 entry is that "AASHTO rejected the number 36 and the two parties agreed on I-42 instead."  Nowhere do we say that it is still requested.
Froggie, it still says on the grey bar, requested by NCDOT.

...because NCDOT requested it at one point. AASHTO and NCDOT have since mutually agreed on I-42 instead.
I see now. Why doesn't @froggie put formerly instead of futurely on the text to the left of the description?

Because Mapmikey probably did several of those I-pages all at once where futurely was the correct thought for most of them.  Mistakes occur in the continually expanding and voluminous world of vahighways.com.  There hasn't yet been a 2106 AASHTO meeting either (though I am confident when that does happen it'll be 2108 before we find out whether NCDOT got NC 12 approved as an interstate)

rotflmao!!

Anyone who has maintained a website can attest ot how easy it is to miss typos.
I'll be LONG gone before I see this happen.  :colorful: :colorful:
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1453
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 11:18:27 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #864 on: February 21, 2021, 10:11:08 PM »

^ Because the 4th line in the I-36 entry is that "AASHTO rejected the number 36 and the two parties agreed on I-42 instead."  Nowhere do we say that it is still requested.
Could still be used for from Wilmington to Columbus (NC).

I-36 was a bad idea from the get-go. That's a reason why AASHTO rejected it.

I'm sure people would know which right route to take if it's "Highway" or "Interstate 42"
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7659
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:25:22 AM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #865 on: February 22, 2021, 02:54:37 AM »

^ Because the 4th line in the I-36 entry is that "AASHTO rejected the number 36 and the two parties agreed on I-42 instead."  Nowhere do we say that it is still requested.
Could still be used for from Wilmington to Columbus (NC).

I-36 was a bad idea from the get-go. That's a reason why AASHTO rejected it.

I'm sure people would know which right route to take if it's "Highway" or "Interstate 42"

Since there still is no route "36" within NC, it'd have to be the odds-on favorite for a potential E-W Interstate along the part of US 74 not yet designated as such, which currently means Columbus-Shelby-Charlotte-Rockingham.  Fits the grid and wouldn't rattle the "localist" sensibilities within NCDOT that upturned the numbering process 5 years ago. 
Logged

sturmde

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 113
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Bangor, Maine, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:20:32 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #866 on: February 23, 2021, 12:28:19 PM »

^ Because the 4th line in the I-36 entry is that "AASHTO rejected the number 36 and the two parties agreed on I-42 instead."  Nowhere do we say that it is still requested.
Could still be used for from Wilmington to Columbus (NC).

I-36 was a bad idea from the get-go. That's a reason why AASHTO rejected it.

I'm sure people would know which right route to take if it's "Highway" or "Interstate 42"

Since there still is no route "36" within NC, it'd have to be the odds-on favorite for a potential E-W Interstate along the part of US 74 not yet designated as such, which currently means Columbus-Shelby-Charlotte-Rockingham.  Fits the grid and wouldn't rattle the "localist" sensibilities within NCDOT that upturned the numbering process 5 years ago.

Yes, that would leave "38" for the corridor along NC 49 and US 64 from Charlotte to Raleigh. :D
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2823
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 05:40:26 PM
Re: Interstate 42
« Reply #867 on: February 23, 2021, 02:25:29 PM »

If North Carolina designates an Interstate 38 along NC 49 and US 64 (which I don't think it will), they should also designate an Interstate 238; one that would be legitimate for a change.
Logged

 


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.