Major junctions in the infobox[edit]

I did some cleanup in the infobox. While doing so, I noted 13 entries under major junctions where USRD Standards allows a maximum of 10. I'd do this myself, but I don't know what would be the most major of these routes. If nothing else, I suggest either removing all U.S. Routes from the list, or some of the 3-digit U.S./Interstate routes. --LJ (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article comments[edit]

  1. The route description is too long for only three sections. Typically, I like the RD to be split in three and each paragraph to cover so many miles of each subsection split. However, with nearly 500 miles, there should be five sections and each section should cover about 100 miles, give or take.
  2. Almost every paragraph of the history section starts with "In <year>, ..."
  3. Over-reliance on NCDOT links. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but if any more sources are added, they should be non-DOT.
  4. Future section is just a list of projects. There should be some context as to why they're coming or needed. The Future I-42 sub-section is fine in this regard.

I could see this article getting a FA star one day, if this comes to WP:HWY/ACR some day, I will review it again in more depth. –Fredddie™ 18:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article[edit]

(this is "repeated" here for when the review is no longer transcluded)

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. I think that there are the noted areas which need a bit of work but there was no editor involved here during the review process, and those areas were not sufficient to prevent passage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Reviewer[reply]

Errata[edit]

1. As of Feb 13, 2020, the reference to "SR 1349" with respect to Walnut Drive under "History / Late 20th Century" (Ref 63) is incorrect. First, the reference in the link makes no mention of SR 1349. Second, a current search for SR 1349 in Madison County reveals that it is nowhere near Walnut Drive or US 70. (It is east of I-26 in the Mars Hill area). Even if a connection between Walnut Drive and SR 1349 was historically accurate, it is neither supported by the linked reference or by its current-day location, hence the reference to SR 1349 is at best misleading. (It misled me.) I have not done edits to the main article, I leave that to others. - C H Collins, Asheville NC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.250.184.53 (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Interstate 42[edit]

I was thinking that maybe that Interstate 42 should be separated into its own article. Cwater1 (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for a break-out of its own article is that it lacks content and it is still a future corridor. For now, I recommend leaving it as is till things change. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split[edit]

It is official. 32 miles, in two sections, have been designated Interstate 42.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/johnston-county/article259467844.html

— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of splitting to make a new page, use an existing page that already been modified once before: U.S. Route 70 Bypass (Goldsboro, North Carolina). Everything here will be incorporated and can easily be expanded upon from there. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes on that page, but I'm not certain what the proper wording is. Do we move the article to I-42, and if not, what should the wording be?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I admit no one has removed the U.S. 70 Bypass designation, but for some reason I was using the logic it was still U.S. 70 Bypass but not just U.S. 70 Bypass with that wording.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The revised article will nest US 70 Bypass inside it, same way we have I-26 and SR 137 within U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee. It completely overlaps it and would be redundant to have it anywhere else. I am almost certain NCDOT will decommission US 70 Bypass, but gotta wait for the paperwork first. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When they officially put up I-42 signs then create an article called I-42 or rename this article. Renaming this article would be easier to be honest.Cwater1 (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I-42 is on Google Maps at the eastern terminus of the Goldsboro Bypass, but it is only on the exit with US 70 and signage does not appear to be up in this area.ChessEric 01:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps is not always correct. A good way to confirm is to actually see I-42 signage on the highway or a press release from NCDOT. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once I-42 is officially announced then the process of creating a separate article can began. Cwater1 (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Washuotaku: I'm not saying it is. I was just saying it was there. On a separate note, why exactly can I not list Future I-42 in an exit list? I usually work on tornado articles, so I don't understand everything here. ChessEric 14:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Future routes are not fixed routes and are still subject to change, even if it is unlikely to happen. They are not signed the same way as established routes and are more about awareness than having the public use it to get from point A to point B. Hope that helps. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Washuotaku: It does! Thank you for the information! ChessEric 14:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This provides some of the information on the lack of signage.ChessEric 17:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also merged the I-42 section into the futures section as the upgrades of US 70 between Raliegh and Morehead City are for I-42. ChessEric 19:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you list Raleigh when it begins in Clayton? --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. My bad. I was just going by the section (which said Raleigh to Morehead City) and changed it to that. I've fixed that now. If you want me to go through the source I used and take out specific references since it's not necessarily a reliable source, I can do that too. ChessEric 19:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source has been used in the past and has been flagged because it does not meet Wikipedia reference standards. You can if you like, I just saw an easy revert on the other page. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Will do. ChessEric 19:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...can you help me with this please? ChessEric 20:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not reliable? https://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut42.html Cwater1 (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... that's the ref I used bro. XD ChessEric 02:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that Cwater1 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its alright. ChessEric 16:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that this situation is different from I-3 because the latter interstate isn't on a specific corridor. I-42 will essentially be co-signed with US 70 for most, if not all, of its route. ChessEric 23:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, has anyone found a source for I-42 not being signed? As far as I'm concerned, if there is no articles or published information regarding signage, than a ref for it is not needed. ChessEric 00:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to I-42 already having an article (albeit a redirect at this time), I was wondering if it would be a good idea to start adding info there, but hide it until the interstate is signed. In this way, we don't have to worry about doing a bunch of redirects and having to add mass amounts of info when I-42 is finally signs. What do you guys think? ChessEric 13:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be said that is not already said here? I do not see the need, as of yet, till the Interstate is established. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential routing change note for east end of I-42

As noted here, I-42 will probably be routed off of US 70 south of Havelock onto a new alignment (possibly including parts of the NC 101 route), bypassing Newport and Morehead City before curving back south to the port of Morehead City via US 70 in a possible wrong-way concurrency. I don't know if the source used is reliable or not, but I will note that the quote came from the ECC (Eastern Carolina Council) in an update from Becca Eversole, the Senior Transportation Planner who is coordinating the infrastructure projects in this region. I think this is important to note here. ChessEric 19:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I-42 to be routed around Morehead City to terminate at Beaufort[edit]

I just saw the Comprehensive Transportation Plans from Carteret (pending a new one currently in development) and Craven (adopted in 2023) Counties on the ECC (Eastern Carolina Council of Government) website. It appears that I-42 will indeed be routed to go around Morehead City to a termination point north of Beaufort. I just wanted to let everyone know since I was going to need to make some changes to the future portion of US 70 in regards to I-42 upgrades, and we probably need to reconsider if the split for the I-42 article is needed now or later. ChessEric 20:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is properly sourced, then fine. But keep in mind, that extension will likely need AASHTO or FHWA, so I would not state it as fact yet; officially it terminates at Morehead City. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, although I put "according to the CTP," so I think its fine. ChessEric 01:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, changed it back in case you forgot. Remember, if we take local area officials at their word, then places like Wilmington would have a dozen interstates by now. --WashuOtaku (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, true. I hadn't thought of that. ChessEric 16:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories