Interstate 42 (E)

[jcil4ever]

Just drove home, and saw that westbound 70 is now using the Wilsons Mills Rd. bridge. No stoplights now on 70 W from Princeton until it leaves I-40 near Garner! At least until it's rerouted through Clayton.

Also, a slightly less blurry image of the first 42 reassurance shield on the Goldsboro Bypass...🥔

[jzn110]

The first I-42 shield in history...and the number is off-center. Sigh.

You clearly have a better eye than me.

My boss is a stickler about proper centering of numbers in shields (far more than most actual DOTs are). I've had them get sent back if they're off by a mm or two. So I've had to learn. Fortunately for me, I get to use the 1957 shields, which have a lot more let than whatever standard NCDOT is using here—they are really not doing themselves a favor using digits that large.

I will grant them that numbers starting with 4 are usually the hardest to make look right.

Speaking as a graphic designer who is also a stickler for typography and typesetting: there can be a big difference between "technically centered" and "visually centered," and sometimes making something look right  requires finding the happy medium between both.

The I-42 shield might be off-center in terms of strict measurements off the ruler, but it doesn't look off-balance visually because there's a fairly balanced amount of blue space in the top corners. If it were strictly centered, there'd be an imbalance of blue space left of the 4.

[Scott5114]

The I-42 shield might be off-center in terms of strict measurements off the ruler, but it doesn't look off-balance visually because there's a fairly balanced amount of blue space in the top corners. If it were strictly centered, there'd be an imbalance of blue space left of the 4.

Eh, it looks off-balance enough to me that I'd be scared to send that in to my boss...

[Bobby5280]

Speaking as a graphic designer who is also a stickler for typography and typesetting: there can be a big difference between "technically centered" and "visually centered," and sometimes making something look right  requires finding the happy medium between both.

Yeah, there can be a big difference between mathematically centered and optically centered.

I'm a full time graphic designer, mainly making commercial signs. I think those I-42 shields suck. It's not over how the numerals are centered. The problem is the numerals are too damned big for that space -just like so many other "neutered" Interstate shields. The left corner of the "4" and lower right leg of the "2" are almost touching the edge. "White space" is an extremely important thing in all types of graphic design. Rules about white space are utterly disregarded with most neutered Interstate shields.

I see so many shitty sign designs for businesses out in the field. One of the most common problems is people making the lettering and other elements too damned big for the given space. That could be a street sign face, building sign or a tenant panel in one of those multi-listing signs. Those tenant signs with multiple tenant faces can get terrible looking very quickly (especially if more than one sign company is making alterations to it). The "designer" just crams everything in there, often using a default typeface like Arial and artificially squeezing or stretching the letters to make them big as possible. The end result looks like amateur crap. That stuff is everywhere. And it's a big reason why various cities and suburbs adopt sweeping anti-signs ordinances. They can't legislate taste. But they can sure ban entire categories signs.

[Scott5114]

Here's mine, just for the sake of backing up my words with deeds.



But, like I said, it's a lot easier to get right with the 1957 specs, because white space.

[vdeane]

The problem is the numerals are too damned big for that space -just like so many other "neutered" Interstate shields. The left corner of the "4" and lower right leg of the "2" are almost touching the edge. "White space" is an extremely important thing in all types of graphic design. Rules about white space are utterly disregarded with most neutered Interstate shields.

Amen.  I honestly don't know why so many DOTs insist on making the numbers so big.  The problem with neutered shields isn't the lack of the state name, it's the too-large numbers.  NY's shields have traditionally been sensible, but the jumbo numbers have even infiltrated this state, with such shields becoming increasingly common in Regions 2, 3, and 4 as well as the Thruway.

It's not the specs, because the examples shown in the MUTCD look like what NY traditionally installed, not the extra-large numbers that are so common around the country.

[Bobby5280]

My theory on why so many neutered Interstate shields have jumbo-sized numerals: some not-designer boss at the DOT agency probably noticed the numerals sizes on "plain" US highway shields and most state highway markers. Then he noticed numerals on properly designed Interstate shields aren't as big. So he insists on the numerals being at least that big. Hence the jumbo numerals that are crammed into too small of a container.

Oversized numerals on an Interstate shield are NOT more legible. The lack of white space and even lack of space between the numerals (tracking) makes the shield LESS legible.

In Oklahoma I've noticed both ODOT and OTA have started using neutered Interstate shields with smaller numerals, a little more similar to 1970's designs but without the state name included. However, they're using bolder Series E/M numerals in the shields rather than the standard Series D numerals. Derp.

[jcil4ever]

More sporadic signs added for you all to examine and discuss. This time, it looks like the most recent round off additions focused on adding reassurance shields on the eastern half or so of the westbound lanes:

I see what y'all mean about the 4 & 2 being so big, especially beside the 795 sign.

Yet, within the zone where signs were added, Future 42 signs remain:


As do 70 Mile Markers:

I also noticed that it looked like I-42 mile markers have been added to the eastbound lanes, but they've left the 70 mile markers in place as well. I'm guessing a large part of that has to do the miles not precisely matching up.

BYP 70 reassurance shields remained on the western half or so of the westbound lanes, but they have added an END 42 sign just east of the junction with 70:


It was also very nice to go over the westbound Wilsons Mills bridge!


Hopefully eastbound isn't far behind!


The old 40 East guide sign on 70 West is sill there, covered:


It looks like this message board will make do for now:


I wonder if some of this ongoing work will be paused for a while so crews can help with more pressing needs in western counties. Prayers for all those affected, and for those like DOT workers there to help them!

[PColumbus73]

Here's a good example of a shield in NC where the numbers aren't maxed out

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2341706,-77.9797385,3a,15y,114.21h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPVj5zKpTHeaNrI0rZ0kEwQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkyNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[LM117]

^^That I-42 shield should've been put on the left side of the I-795 shield.

[jcil4ever]

I was amused to see both 42 and 70 signage on 40 West. 40 East is all 70 and 540 West is all 42.

[The Ghostbuster]

Interstate 42 markers have returned to Google Maps: from Interstate 40/NC 540-to-Business 70 (Exit 318-to-Exit 326AB) and the entire Goldsboro Bypass (Exit 350-Exit 370).

[bob7374]

I was amused to see both 42 and 70 signage on 40 West. 40 East is all 70 and 540 West is all 42.

Perhaps they think drivers will be less confused seeing I-42 before NC 42 than NC 42 before I-42? Or maybe NCDOT is doing an experiment to see if drivers are really confused by the two 42 routes before they commit to putting up NC 36 signs?

[LilianaUwU]

Perhaps they think drivers will be less confused seeing I-42 before NC 42 than NC 42 before I-42? Or maybe NCDOT is doing an experiment to see if drivers are really confused by the two 42 routes before they commit to putting up NC 36 signs?

If NCDOT didn't want confusion, they would've either requested a different number for I-42 or renumbered NC 42.

Also, who the hell gets confused between state highways and Interstates? Granted, there's I-/NC 540, but come on.

[sprjus4]

Perhaps they think drivers will be less confused seeing I-42 before NC 42 than NC 42 before I-42? Or maybe NCDOT is doing an experiment to see if drivers are really confused by the two 42 routes before they commit to putting up NC 36 signs?

If NCDOT didn't want confusion, they would've either requested a different number for I-42 or renumbered NC 42.

Also, who the hell gets confused between state highways and Interstates? Granted, there's I-/NC 540, but come on.

People that aren't road geeks.

[Mapmikey]

Perhaps they think drivers will be less confused seeing I-42 before NC 42 than NC 42 before I-42? Or maybe NCDOT is doing an experiment to see if drivers are really confused by the two 42 routes before they commit to putting up NC 36 signs?

If NCDOT didn't want confusion, they would've either requested a different number for I-42 or renumbered NC 42.

Also, who the hell gets confused between state highways and Interstates? Granted, there's I-/NC 540, but come on.

People that aren't road geeks.

Per a 2023 news article, the reasons:

The change is necessary, NCDOT officials say, to avoid confusion with Interstate 42, the new name of the highway now known as both U.S. 70 and the Clayton Bypass. I-42 will cross what is now N.C. 42, and both roads will intersect I-40, potentially befuddling visitors and others unfamiliar with the local nomenclature. That confusion could have serious consequences if someone calling 911 doesn't know the difference between I-42 and N.C. 42, says Kevin Lacy, NCDOT's director of strategic planning.

[vdeane]

If NCDOT didn't want confusion, they would've either requested a different number for I-42 or renumbered NC 42.

To be fair to NCDOT (not that I want to be), they did, and at least originally, that was the plan.

[roadman65]

Perhaps they think drivers will be less confused seeing I-42 before NC 42 than NC 42 before I-42? Or maybe NCDOT is doing an experiment to see if drivers are really confused by the two 42 routes before they commit to putting up NC 36 signs?

If NCDOT didn't want confusion, they would've either requested a different number for I-42 or renumbered NC 42.

Also, who the hell gets confused between state highways and Interstates? Granted, there's I-/NC 540, but come on.

People that aren't road geeks.

Per a 2023 news article, the reasons:

The change is necessary, NCDOT officials say, to avoid confusion with Interstate 42, the new name of the highway now known as both U.S. 70 and the Clayton Bypass. I-42 will cross what is now N.C. 42, and both roads will intersect I-40, potentially befuddling visitors and others unfamiliar with the local nomenclature. That confusion could have serious consequences if someone calling 911 doesn't know the difference between I-42 and N.C. 42, says Kevin Lacy, NCDOT's director of strategic planning.

And yet US 74 and I-74 don't create confusion or in Florida's Haines City US 17 and SR 17 don't either.

[Strider]

Perhaps they think drivers will be less confused seeing I-42 before NC 42 than NC 42 before I-42? Or maybe NCDOT is doing an experiment to see if drivers are really confused by the two 42 routes before they commit to putting up NC 36 signs?

If NCDOT didn't want confusion, they would've either requested a different number for I-42 or renumbered NC 42.

Also, who the hell gets confused between state highways and Interstates? Granted, there's I-/NC 540, but come on.

People that aren't road geeks.

Per a 2023 news article, the reasons:

The change is necessary, NCDOT officials say, to avoid confusion with Interstate 42, the new name of the highway now known as both U.S. 70 and the Clayton Bypass. I-42 will cross what is now N.C. 42, and both roads will intersect I-40, potentially befuddling visitors and others unfamiliar with the local nomenclature. That confusion could have serious consequences if someone calling 911 doesn't know the difference between I-42 and N.C. 42, says Kevin Lacy, NCDOT's director of strategic planning.

What they should do is remove NC-42 interchange with I-42 and keep the one on I-40. The next interchange for both I-40 and I-42 after they meet with NC-540 Toll is... NC-42. Both within 2 miles away. For the one on I-42, build a new interchange with Cornwallis Rd, which meets NC-42 to the south anyway. And boom. No renumber needed.

That is a bad excuse for NCDOT to say that because we have I-74/US-74 running together, 4 US-70 routings between Selma and Smithfield and 3 US-74s and a I-74 near Maxton... not to mention that I-73/I-74 meets NC-73 at a interchange near Norman and they didn't renumber NC-73 at that area.

[sprjus4]

Perhaps they think drivers will be less confused seeing I-42 before NC 42 than NC 42 before I-42? Or maybe NCDOT is doing an experiment to see if drivers are really confused by the two 42 routes before they commit to putting up NC 36 signs?

If NCDOT didn't want confusion, they would've either requested a different number for I-42 or renumbered NC 42.

Also, who the hell gets confused between state highways and Interstates? Granted, there's I-/NC 540, but come on.

People that aren't road geeks.

Per a 2023 news article, the reasons:

The change is necessary, NCDOT officials say, to avoid confusion with Interstate 42, the new name of the highway now known as both U.S. 70 and the Clayton Bypass. I-42 will cross what is now N.C. 42, and both roads will intersect I-40, potentially befuddling visitors and others unfamiliar with the local nomenclature. That confusion could have serious consequences if someone calling 911 doesn't know the difference between I-42 and N.C. 42, says Kevin Lacy, NCDOT's director of strategic planning.

What they should do is remove NC-42 interchange with I-42 and keep the one on I-40. The next interchange for both I-40 and I-42 after they meet with NC-540 Toll is... NC-42. Both within 2 miles away. For the one on I-42, build a new interchange with Cornwallis Rd, which meets NC-42 to the south anyway. And boom. No renumber needed.

Spending tens of millions of dollars to build a new interchange to avoid a renumbering is wasteful, unless there's genuinely a need for a new interchange - which it doesn't appear there is.

Not to mention, on I-42, now you have two interchanges (NC-540 / I-40, and this new one) within 1 mile which isn't typically preferred, especially on a 70 mph rural freeway.

The current exit provides around 2.5 miles of spacing between NC-42 and I-40, and also has a medical park / fast food / gas and a hospital right off it - likely built to be right next to the interchange.

Closing that would now put them miles away from highway access.

The current renumbering plan seems like the best option, IMO, to cut down on confusion and minimize any physical changes and costs asides from signs.

[PColumbus73]

Perhaps they think drivers will be less confused seeing I-42 before NC 42 than NC 42 before I-42? Or maybe NCDOT is doing an experiment to see if drivers are really confused by the two 42 routes before they commit to putting up NC 36 signs?

If NCDOT didn't want confusion, they would've either requested a different number for I-42 or renumbered NC 42.

Also, who the hell gets confused between state highways and Interstates? Granted, there's I-/NC 540, but come on.

People that aren't road geeks.

Per a 2023 news article, the reasons:

The change is necessary, NCDOT officials say, to avoid confusion with Interstate 42, the new name of the highway now known as both U.S. 70 and the Clayton Bypass. I-42 will cross what is now N.C. 42, and both roads will intersect I-40, potentially befuddling visitors and others unfamiliar with the local nomenclature. That confusion could have serious consequences if someone calling 911 doesn't know the difference between I-42 and N.C. 42, says Kevin Lacy, NCDOT's director of strategic planning.

What they should do is remove NC-42 interchange with I-42 and keep the one on I-40. The next interchange for both I-40 and I-42 after they meet with NC-540 Toll is... NC-42. Both within 2 miles away. For the one on I-42, build a new interchange with Cornwallis Rd, which meets NC-42 to the south anyway. And boom. No renumber needed.

Spending tens of millions of dollars to build a new interchange to avoid a renumbering is wasteful, unless there's genuinely a need for a new interchange - which it doesn't appear there is.

Not to mention, on I-42, now you have two interchanges (NC-540 / I-40, and this new one) within 1 mile which isn't typically preferred, especially on a 70 mph rural freeway.

The current exit provides around 2.5 miles of spacing between NC-42 and I-40, and also has a medical park / fast food / gas and a hospital right off it - likely built to be right next to the interchange.

Closing that would now put them miles away from highway access.

The current renumbering plan seems like the best option, IMO, to cut down on confusion and minimize any physical changes and costs asides from signs.

Perhaps they can reroute NC 42 onto NC 540 & I-42, NC 42 between NC 50 and I-42 becomes Business NC 42. Then it would be not much different from the existing duplicates they have.

[bugo]

So are they just going ahead and signing it as I-42, then?

From the looks of it, yeah. They might do the same thing with I-87, albeit with the I-49/I-540 treatment (in AR), where both routes would be signed concurrently, and one is eventually dropped (in this case, I-495). FWIW, I-87 will most likely be in the same boat as I-74, in that it will not connect to New York anytime soon, but we'd sure love to see that!

The I-540 shields came down the day the I-49 signs went up. Another brilliant idea from AHTD.

[bugo]

And yet US 74 and I-74 don't create confusion or in Florida's Haines City US 17 and SR 17 don't either.

How do you know this for a fact?

[The Ghostbuster]

Another idea would be to reroute NC 42 northward on Interstate 40 between Exits 312 and 309, then run it east on Interstate 42/US 70 to Exit 320 (future Exit 2). My preference is to scrap the NC 42-to-NC 36 renumbering proposal and leave the existing NC 42 designation as-is.

[1995hoo]

Perhaps they think drivers will be less confused seeing I-42 before NC 42 than NC 42 before I-42? Or maybe NCDOT is doing an experiment to see if drivers are really confused by the two 42 routes before they commit to putting up NC 36 signs?

If NCDOT didn't want confusion, they would've either requested a different number for I-42 or renumbered NC 42.

Also, who the hell gets confused between state highways and Interstates? Granted, there's I-/NC 540, but come on.

Evidently some people, as the well-known sign from Maryland demonstrates. I don't think most people distinguish between route types when giving directions: "Take 70 west to 68, then take 68 west to 219." (The sign shown below is sort of stupid for not referring to I-68 to Cumberland and maybe Morgantown. "National Freeway" isn't going to help anyone who gets confused by MD-68/I-68.)