Interstate 42

[LM117]

Just an FYI Oklahoma and Arkansas are upgrading US-412 and proposing that it be I-42 as well.

Ugh. We have enough 2-di duplicates.

[ElishaGOtis]

Not sure if this has been brought up or not, and I hope this doesn't enter too far into fictional. Could the segment of NC-42 in question be considered for an I-42 Business Spur (pending AASHTO approval)? I'm thinking that would clear up the confusion relating to route numbering (as the number "42" serves a new purpose) and keep NC-42 contiguous.

I will mention it appears that NCDOT hasn't had the best of luck with Interstate business routes, as a couple on I-40 & I-85 have been removed or unsigned due to motorist confusion. It also appears that the idea of some business loop/route for I-42 was tossed around in 2020 on this thread.

[The Ghostbuster]

Other numbers proposed for the US 70 corridor included numbering it Interstate 36, Interstate 46, or Interstate 50. I think the Interstate 42 designation was the most logical for the Clayton-Morehead City corridor. As for the US 412 corridor in Oklahoma and Arkansas, while I would have preferred the Interstate 46 designation (since it would be north of Interstate 44 between Interstate 35 and Interstate 244), it seems like Interstate 42 is Oklahoma's (and possibly Arkansas's) preferred designation.

[Henry]

Other numbers proposed for the US 70 corridor included numbering it Interstate 36, Interstate 46, or Interstate 50. I think the Interstate 42 designation was the most logical for the Clayton-Morehead City corridor. As for the US 412 corridor in Oklahoma and Arkansas, while I would have preferred the Interstate 46 designation (since it would be north of Interstate 44 between Interstate 35 and Interstate 244), it seems like Interstate 42 is Oklahoma's (and possibly Arkansas's) preferred designation.

I-42 is a way better fit for the US 70 corridor than it is for US 412. I would've preferred for I-46 to follow what is now the proposed I-87 Raleigh-Norfolk corridor, and for I-36 to follow an upgraded US 74 from Asheville to Wilmington and/or I-485 around Charlotte. In OK and AR, why they didn't go ahead and name the US 412 upgrade I-50 is beyond me, and I don't care if Tulsa is the largest city along that route.

[vdeane]

I think the US 412 situation will be the first time that a 2di number gets duplicated for reasons that have nothing to do with lack of number availability of 2di numbers for the given directionality the DOT wanted.  I-87 (S) should be E-W and I-86 (W) should be a 3di (and I-84 (W) could have been avoided by making it I-82 and making existing I-82 N-S; the only duplicates that don't have an easy solution are I-88 and I-76), but there are plenty of E-W numbers available where I-42 (W) will be.

[The Ghostbuster]

Who knows what is going through the minds of those who make the decisions on what numbers these corridors will receive? Some of them seem illogical. Wikipedia claims the southern Interstate 87 got its number due to events that occurred in 1587, 1787, and 1887: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_87_(North_Carolina)#Renumbering. Other numbers considered for the corridor were 44, 50, 56 and 89. At least the 42 designation for North Carolina and Oklahoma-Arkansas  is not as outlandish as Bud Shuster numbering the Interstate 99 corridor in Pennsylvania (Interstate 238 also gives indigestion, though everyone knows why it was given that number).

[bob7374]

Who knows what is going through the minds of those who make the decisions on what numbers these corridors will receive? Some of them seem illogical. Wikipedia claims the southern Interstate 87 got its number due to events that occurred in 1587, 1787, and 1887: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_87_(North_Carolina)#Renumbering. Other numbers considered for the corridor were 44, 50, 56 and 89. At least the 42 designation for North Carolina and Oklahoma-Arkansas  is not as outlandish as Bud Shuster numbering the Interstate 99 corridor in Pennsylvania (Interstate 238 also gives indigestion, though everyone knows why it was given that number).

Maybe a final decision for OK came out of the AASHTO Meeting this past week, although, looking at the agenda, there was no listing for a meeting of the US Route Numbering Committee. Perhaps that was earlier, or is to come. Needless to say, the current Committee website is of no help in determining when a meeting is/was planned.

[Mapmikey]

Who knows what is going through the minds of those who make the decisions on what numbers these corridors will receive? Some of them seem illogical. Wikipedia claims the southern Interstate 87 got its number due to events that occurred in 1587, 1787, and 1887: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_87_(North_Carolina)#Renumbering. Other numbers considered for the corridor were 44, 50, 56 and 89. At least the 42 designation for North Carolina and Oklahoma-Arkansas  is not as outlandish as Bud Shuster numbering the Interstate 99 corridor in Pennsylvania (Interstate 238 also gives indigestion, though everyone knows why it was given that number).

The Wikipedia claim is based on a quote from the head of a group called Regional Transportation Alliance.  See here - https://www.wral.com/north-carolina-gets-designations-for-2-more-interstates/15729936/

NCDOT requested I-89 with no symbolism reasons given (see pg. 15 here) and AASHTO asked them to change it and they agreed to I-87 (pg. 12 in the same document).

[bugo]

Who knows what is going through the minds of those who make the decisions on what numbers these corridors will receive? Some of them seem illogical. Wikipedia claims the southern Interstate 87 got its number due to events that occurred in 1587, 1787, and 1887:

That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day. Leave it to a government agent to come up with something stupid like that.

[Mapmikey]

Who knows what is going through the minds of those who make the decisions on what numbers these corridors will receive? Some of them seem illogical. Wikipedia claims the southern Interstate 87 got its number due to events that occurred in 1587, 1787, and 1887:

That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day. Leave it to a government agent to come up with something stupid like that.

The RTA is not a government agency or office. It is like the Chamber of Commerce. See
https://letsgetmoving.org/about/

This group was also the originator of the  I-44 designation that NC originally requested for the Raleigh to Norfolk interstate.

[splashflash]

[quote and AASHTO asked them to change it and they agreed to I-87
[/quote]

Too bad I-44 in OK, TX, and MO couldn't become I-50.  Maybe AASHTO will do what they are paid to do and not permit 2di duplication and ask for I -42 in OK and AR to be numbered I-46.  There is the precedent with I-87.

[Bobby5280]

I don't think we're ever going to see an "I-50" (or other vanity routes such as "I-1" or "I-100") in the mainland 48 states. That's due to the US Highway network, the routes it established before the Interstate system was developed and the fuzzy rules about route number duplication.

US-50 is a pretty significant cross-country route. But only some portions of US-50 have potential of being upgraded into an Interstate-class route. I remember seeing plans for a freeway between Pueblo and Lamar. A lot of US-50 in the Western states is more scenic.

It sounds to me like the I-42 designation is getting more solidified. Given the existence of all the other duplicate 2 digit Interstate routes I don't know why the AASHTO would object to an I-42 designation in Oklahoma and Arkansas. The one in North Carolina will be shorter in length and confined permanently in North Carolina.

The AASHTO has to keep the long term future in mind when approving or assigning route number designations. The nation's population migrates to some degree over time. Right now we're seeing a lot of people leaving areas with ridiculously high living costs (California, the Northeast) and moving to places that are more affordable. If the migration patterns turn into long term trends the highway network has to be tailored to it. Some route designations need to be kept in reserve.

[vdeane]

I don't think we're ever going to see an "I-50" (or other vanity routes such as "I-1" or "I-100") in the mainland 48 states. That's due to the US Highway network, the routes it established before the Interstate system was developed and the fuzzy rules about route number duplication.

US-50 is a pretty significant cross-country route. But only some portions of US-50 have potential of being upgraded into an Interstate-class route. I remember seeing plans for a freeway between Pueblo and Lamar. A lot of US-50 in the Western states is more scenic.

It sounds to me like the I-42 designation is getting more solidified. Given the existence of all the other duplicate 2 digit Interstate routes I don't know why the AASHTO would object to an I-42 designation in Oklahoma and Arkansas. The one in North Carolina will be shorter in length and confined permanently in North Carolina.

The AASHTO has to keep the long term future in mind when approving or assigning route number designations. The nation's population migrates to some degree over time. Right now we're seeing a lot of people leaving areas with ridiculously high living costs (California, the Northeast) and moving to places that are more affordable. If the migration patterns turn into long term trends the highway network has to be tailored to it. Some route designations need to be kept in reserve.

My understanding is that duplicate routes were something that was tolerated as a "necessary evil" (although one can argue that, given that most of them are possible to avoid with more creative numbering decisions that may not respect what locals want but adhere to the system and work just fine from a national perspective).  I-42 (W) would be unprecedented in that the number basically just ignores I-42 (E) for no good reason, as there are plenty of other numbers available.  As for saving numbers... it seems like in this case we'd be "saving numbers" by creating the very situation that we'd be trying to avoid by saving numbers in the first place!  Duplication really isn't needed here, there are plenty of other numbers available.

As for US 50 being a significant cross-country route... is ANY US route still significant on a cross-country basis?  The system was largely obsoleted by the interstates.  US routes can be important on a regional level, like US 95 across Nevada or US 7 across Vermont (although I would argue that far too many don't even meet that bar), but nationally?  That's what the interstates are for.

[roadman65]

Why are we worrying about I-42 and NC 42 meeting each other? Considering I-74 and US 74 are concurrent, this is far from being a new development.

In fact it's old news. US 23 and GA 23 are concurrent in Georgia. Also US 27 and GA 27 intersect in Georgia.

Oh and the southern terminus of US 25 ends at GA 25.
FL 17 in Haines City, Florida terminates at its northern end at US 17 and even continues as Polk County Road 17 from there on. You have in that three 17 designations at one intersection.

In all of those I'm sure ambiguity is not an issue and it won't be in the Tar Heel State. In New York, yes. New Jersey definitely. However these states call all highways " Routes" no matter what the designation is. If NJ finally decided to make US 46 become NJ 46, I think no one would even notice the change in shields.

I think the other extreme in NC. No one really cares that state highway 42 and I-42 will be meeting.

[The Ghostbuster]

I think renumbering a portion of NC 42 to NC 36 is unnecessary. The NC 42 designation has been around since 1922, so locals shouldn't confuse the two 42s. Hopefully, out-of-towners can tell the difference between a four-lane freeway (Interstate 42) and a two-lane state highway (NC 42).

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/RLxgwk8dHVdEX26B7
I think this is more to worry than two 42 designations.

Of course I'm making an analogy here. Nothing wrong with this sign as far as I'm concerned. However, being it's not that big a deal, the two numbers colliding isn't either.

[bwana39]

People worry about the numbers intersecting and perhaps having connectivity. IN Texas  US-69 and IH-69 are going to have a 5 mile concurrency.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lufkin,+TX/@31.3179483,-94.7246879,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x8638373d19aab3b1:0x494379f4c112bf49!8m2!3d31.3345562!4d-94.7321127!16zL20vMF94a3o?entry=ttu

[Mapmikey]

NC 42 and NC 73 numbering violate NCDOT's own stated policy from their current webpage (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Teppl/Pages/Teppl-Topic.aspx?Topic_List=N08):

See pg. 2 here - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Teppl/TEPPL%20All%20Documents%20Library/N08%20-%20SPNCRD.pdf

[roadman65]

Like who's going to tell😂

[The Ghostbuster]

Some states have a policy against number duplication, and some states don't, and some states just don't care.

[vdeane]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/RLxgwk8dHVdEX26B7
I think this is more to worry than two 42 designations.

Of course I'm making an analogy here. Nothing wrong with this sign as far as I'm concerned. However, being it's not that big a deal, the two numbers colliding isn't either.

What's wrong with it?

I'm starting to think you account might have been hijacked by tolbs17...

[roadman65]

It looks like the intersection with Swift Creek Road will have an overpass across I-42 once completed. I'm guessing that no ramps will be built leaving the two roads inaccessible from each other.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TTGcTsLw63neiS7j9

https://maps.app.goo.gl/zyQja1wXnEfmyHhE6
A better caption from September showing the piers in place.

[The Ghostbuster]

Hopefully, next year they will finally erect Interstate 42 signage along some portions of the US 70 corridor.

[wdcrft63]

It looks like the intersection with Swift Creek Road will have an overpass across I-42 once completed. I'm guessing that no ramps will be built leaving the two roads inaccessible from each other.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TTGcTsLw63neiS7j9

https://maps.app.goo.gl/zyQja1wXnEfmyHhE6
A better caption from September showing the piers in place.

The project includes interchanges at Swift Creek Road and Wilson Mills Road. Here's the project map:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-wilsons-mills/Pages/project-maps.aspx

[bob7374]

Google Maps Street View has updated their coverage of the Clayton Bypass and US 70 in Johnston County to September. The now have image from the new ramp in the Turbine Interchange between I-40 East and the Bypass:


and of construction of the construction in the Wilson's Mills area:


Further images from both areas are now on my Future I-42 in NC page, the latter under Segment 2:
https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut42.html#newphotos