Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[74/171FAN]

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.

[sparker]

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. 

[LM117]

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.

[LM117]

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

[snowc]

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! 

[froggie]

^ 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.

[snowc]

^ 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.

[US 89]

^ 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]

^ 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?

[snowc]

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

[Mapmikey]

^ 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)

[rte66man]

^ 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.

[snowc]

^ 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! 

[snowc]

^ 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. 

[tolbs17]

^ 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"

[sparker]

^ 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. 

[sturmde]

^ 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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.