<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Alabama 158 (Industrial Parkway) extended</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.aaroads.com/blog/2008/09/29/alabama-158-industrial-parkway-extended/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.aaroads.com/blog/2008/09/29/alabama-158-industrial-parkway-extended/</link>
	<description>Road news.  Pictures.  Crazed ranting.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:24:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephane Dumas</title>
		<link>http://www.aaroads.com/blog/2008/09/29/alabama-158-industrial-parkway-extended/comment-page-1/#comment-60238</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephane Dumas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:15:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aaroads.com/blog/?p=169#comment-60238</guid>
		<description>I agree with Dale, no access control is a complete mistake, they should had reserved some additionnal ROW for future service roads to built in a way similar to some Texas freeways.
AL-158 could had been part of the long proposed West Mobile bypass
http://www.southeastroads.com/mobile.html
what might have been</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Dale, no access control is a complete mistake, they should had reserved some additionnal ROW for future service roads to built in a way similar to some Texas freeways.<br />
AL-158 could had been part of the long proposed West Mobile bypass<br />
<a href="http://www.southeastroads.com/mobile.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.southeastroads.com/mobile.html</a><br />
what might have been</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven</title>
		<link>http://www.aaroads.com/blog/2008/09/29/alabama-158-industrial-parkway-extended/comment-page-1/#comment-59996</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:17:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aaroads.com/blog/?p=169#comment-59996</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t like how US 98 is getting rerouted here!  Mark it as ALT US 98 or something like that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t like how US 98 is getting rerouted here!  Mark it as ALT US 98 or something like that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dale Padgett</title>
		<link>http://www.aaroads.com/blog/2008/09/29/alabama-158-industrial-parkway-extended/comment-page-1/#comment-59900</link>
		<dc:creator>Dale Padgett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:23:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aaroads.com/blog/?p=169#comment-59900</guid>
		<description>I think it&#039;s a mistake to build a bypass with no access control - businesses will eventually relocate to the corridor, creating a sea of private driveways and traffic lights. We have a few examples here in SC - there&#039;s a US 178 
&quot;bypass&quot; through Orangeburg, but it now takes just as much time to drive the bypass as the &quot;business&quot; route.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it&#8217;s a mistake to build a bypass with no access control &#8211; businesses will eventually relocate to the corridor, creating a sea of private driveways and traffic lights. We have a few examples here in SC &#8211; there&#8217;s a US 178<br />
&#8220;bypass&#8221; through Orangeburg, but it now takes just as much time to drive the bypass as the &#8220;business&#8221; route.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

