Interstate 42 (E)

[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.

[tolbs17]

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1202B_Report_2014.pdf

Wouldn't this project still be needed for I-42 to go? It gets pretty congested near the downtown area.

[RoadPelican]

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1202B_Report_2014.pdf

Wouldn't this project still be needed for I-42 to go? It gets pretty congested near the downtown area.

NO,

here is a recent article from February 2021-New Bern Sun Journal describing the US 70/I-42 project going thru James City.

The changes will begin at US 70, just east of the Trent River Bridge and will extend 5.1 miles, widening the highway, adding access roads, and turning the five intersections of Williams Road, Airport Road, Grantham Road, Taberna Way and Thurman Road into exits.


Those exits will run beneath US 70, with bridges carrying the highway over them, giving them what one might guess is a very-low-thrill rollercoaster ride. Four of the exits will make use of roundabout — that is, traffic circles — to ease traffic congestion.

Wendi Johnson, project engineer, said the project, which will be completed sometime in late 2023, will be done in three phases. Phase 1 will include upgrading existing service roads and building new roads, along with the temporary widening of US 70.


In Phase 2, traffic will be shifted onto the service road while the widening of 70 will continue and ramp construction begins.

Phase 3 will use the newly-constructed widening of 70 and the construction of temporary traffic signals and intersections. Access to 70 will be made with right turns only while, to cross the highway, dedicated lanes will be built about every 1,000 feet with traffic signals allowing drivers to make U-turns.

In the final phase, bridges will be constructed and roundabouts completed.

The price tag is estimated at 327.56 million.

Lauren DeHaviland, Divisions 2 and 3 communications officer for NCDOT, said that some work is already happening in the form of utility relocation. Demolition on acquired parcels will start this month and actual road work, under contractor Balfour Beatty, will begin in late spring.

While numerous businesses along the corridor will be affected in some way, many will be able to continue to operate where they are. DeHaviland said that 50 businesses were actually being displaced.

She listed those as: Mallard Oil; Handymart; The Plant Farm; Craven County Junior Chamber of Commerce; Thermik; Twin Rivers Supply Compan; Auda Style; United Refrigeration, Inc.; Pamlico Marine & Trailer; Speedway; Marine Federal Credit Union; Cowell Cleaners; Junkyard Market; Re-Max (Consuelo Colvin); First Citizens Bank; Connor Spear Plumbing Co.; Suburban Propane; Fisher Stores, Inc.; Craven Tire Sales; Craven Pre-Cast Products; Stone Craft; Mater Builders Fencing; Ruby Tuesday; McDonalds; PMC of North Carolina; A2 Z; CSC Service Works; Pho Saigon Osaka Express Grille; Joli Salon; Amerigas; West Shore Window & Door; Waffle House; Fisher Stores; D&D's Entertainment; Riverside Mitsubishi; Riverside Dodge; Riverside Subaru; Comfort Master Mechanical; Highway 55; Sun Tan City; Jersey Mike's; Brices Creek Bible Church; United Self Storage; The Gartner Marie Group; Dock Pro, Inc.; Spring Creek Timber Company; A-1 Tree; Hear Me Speak and TheraPlay Junction.

The Kinston bypass is not scheduled to start until 2029. The 22-mile stretch will begin near La Grange and connect to US 70 near Dover on the Jones-Craven county line. The cost is estimated to be $381.1 million.The Havelock bypass is listed as under construction and will be completed in spring, 2024 at a cost of $167.2 million. The 10-mile road will begin north of Havelock city limits ad continue to just south of the Craven-Carteret county line.

[tolbs17]

So that tells me that project is dropped from further study.

However there's stubs at the end of the US-17 bypass and the document I showed you is part of it.

[sprjus4]

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1202B_Report_2014.pdf

Wouldn't this project still be needed for I-42 to go? It gets pretty congested near the downtown area.

Existing US-70 between New Bern and Havelock is going to be upgraded to interstate standards over the next 5-10 years and will carry the I-42 designation.

The bypass route is not needed for the designation. At some point in the long-term future may it be needed if congestion problems arise near New Bern? Maybe... (and even then, the existing 4 lane freeway near New Bern could be widened to 6 lanes as an immediate fix - the new portions being upgraded will have 6 lanes) but I'd say the priority is quite low at this time, given a full freeway will exist on the existing alignment through New Bern.

The US-17 bypass exit would serve as a starting point, but it still serves a purpose today for traffic wishing to exit the US-17 freeway to reach US-17 Business.

[tolbs17]

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1202B_Report_2014.pdf

Wouldn't this project still be needed for I-42 to go? It gets pretty congested near the downtown area.

Existing US-70 between New Bern and Havelock is going to be upgraded to interstate standards over the next 5-10 years and will carry the I-42 designation.

The bypass route is not needed for the designation. At some point in the long-term future may it be needed if congestion problems arise near New Bern? Maybe... (and even then, the existing 4 lane freeway near New Bern could be widened to 6 lanes as an immediate fix - the new portions being upgraded will have 6 lanes) but I'd say the priority is quite low at this time, given a full freeway will exist on the existing alignment through New Bern.

The US-17 bypass exit would serve as a starting point, but it still serves a purpose today for traffic wishing to exit the US-17 freeway to reach US-17 Business.

Some Greenville and Washington traffic may use that route though. However there's many other beaches that you can go though

[sprjus4]

Some Greenville and Washington traffic may use that route though. However there's many other beaches that you can go though

Greenville and Washington traffic would join the US-70 corridor and follow it through New Bern and James City...?

[tolbs17]

Some Greenville and Washington traffic may use that route though. However there's many other beaches that you can go though

Greenville and Washington traffic would join the US-70 corridor and follow it through New Bern and James City...?

If the north and the southern new bern bypass gets built, they will be using US-17 not US-70

[sprjus4]

Some Greenville and Washington traffic may use that route though. However there's many other beaches that you can go though

Greenville and Washington traffic would join the US-70 corridor and follow it through New Bern and James City...?

If the north and the southern new bern bypass gets built, they will be using US-17 not US-70

They would still intersect with US-70 and would follow US-70 into and through New Bern and James City.