Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[codyg1985]

^ I am surprised that the western segments of the BNB are scheduled to be built but the easternmost segment isn't programmed yet for construction. Last I have heard they want to focus on the part between I-65 and I-59 north first.

I still see no connection to I-20 from I-59 at the east terminus of I-422.  As an Atlanta based driver, I don't see how useful I-422 would be to me without that connection.  If I want to drive to Memphis, I will still have to take I-20 to I-65 and then north to I-22, if I want an all-interstate route.

BTW, is I-422 scheduled to be constructed in our lifetime, or is this just a paper exercise anyway?

Totally agree. I don't remember the reasoning behind not including an extension down to I-20, but I think that has either been scrapped or it will be built later. It may be ready in time for the 22nd century.

[BamaZeus]

It has now been moved into this thread that ALDOT is submitting a request to the AASHTO SCOH Committee to designate the northern beltline as I-422. The connector freeway that will connect I-22 with I-422 in lieu of a direct interchange would be called I-222. I-422 and I-222 are separate requests.

I'm not quite sure why they would even need a number for this connector road, as there won't be any exits off of it.  To me, it's effectively a 2 mile long exit ramp and nothing else.  All the other spur roads like that in Alabama (359. 759, 165) all have regular exits off of them, and aren't trying to simply connect two interstates.

[Alex]

I'm not quite sure why they would even need a number for this connector road, as there won't be any exits off of it.  To me, it's effectively a 2 mile long exit ramp and nothing else.  All the other spur roads like that in Alabama (359. 759, 165) all have regular exits off of them, and aren't trying to simply connect two interstates.

I suspect it will be a hidden designation if the Beltway is ever completed the way the Falmouth Spur in Maine (connecting I-95/Maine Turnpike with I-295) is unsigned I-495.

[froggie]

Or they could sign it much as I-865 near Indianapolis is.

[Morriswa]

Where are the termini of the Northern Beltline supposed to go?  Will they correlate to either of the termini of I-459?

[Alex]

Where are the termini of the Northern Beltline supposed to go?  Will they correlate to either of the termini of I-459?

South end at I-20/59 & I-459
North end around milepost 146 of Interstate 59.

See for yourself with the map at http://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=i0459al

[tidecat]

I also question the use of an I-x22 here too; I don't know why it couldn't be I-659 or, if the eastern extension to I-20 would be built, I-220 or I-420.

Alabama catalogs their 2-digit interstates with by putting a "6" in front of the number, therefore I-59's catalog number is AL 659, so a 3di with a leading "6" will likely never be used in Alabama.  I-359, I-459, and I-759 have the numbers that they do in part because to avoid conflicts with other state highways, and to keep from having to use 4-digit catalog numbers.

[Tourian]

The I-222 road is a connector that will connect I-22 to I-422 (confused yet)?

Man, that's just awesome. They should give each on off ramp its on 3DI designation. I want it so nobody's map, Garmin or Mapquest works right in that area. Then when people just give up and abandon their cars from being hopelessly lost, I can just tip on over and take my pick, 'cause you know - free Benz.

[codyg1985]

The I-222 road is a connector that will connect I-22 to I-422 (confused yet)?

Man, that's just awesome. They should give each on off ramp its on 3DI designation. I want it so nobody's map, Garmin or Mapquest works right in that area. Then when people just give up and abandon their cars from being hopelessly lost, I can just tip on over and take my pick, 'cause you know - free Benz.

I think they were reading your mind when they submitted the request.

[kurumi]

I also question the use of an I-x22 here too; I don't know why it couldn't be I-659 or, if the eastern extension to I-20 would be built, I-220 or I-420.

Alabama catalogs their 2-digit interstates with by putting a "6" in front of the number, therefore I-59's catalog number is AL 659, so a 3di with a leading "6" will likely never be used in Alabama.  I-359, I-459, and I-759 have the numbers that they do in part because to avoid conflicts with other state highways, and to keep from having to use 4-digit catalog numbers.

I wonder how they'll handle proposed I-685 (old segment of I-85 after it's relocated) in Montgomery.

[codyg1985]

I also question the use of an I-x22 here too; I don't know why it couldn't be I-659 or, if the eastern extension to I-20 would be built, I-220 or I-420.

Alabama catalogs their 2-digit interstates with by putting a "6" in front of the number, therefore I-59's catalog number is AL 659, so a 3di with a leading "6" will likely never be used in Alabama.  I-359, I-459, and I-759 have the numbers that they do in part because to avoid conflicts with other state highways, and to keep from having to use 4-digit catalog numbers.

I wonder how they'll handle proposed I-685 (old segment of I-85 after it's relocated) in Montgomery.

There is already a duplication of routes with I-165 in Mobile and and AL 165 near Eufaula.

[jdb1234]

Report Says Economic Benefits of Birmingham's Northern Beltline Exaggerated:

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/06/report_says_economic_benefits.html#incart_river_default

[Grzrd]

Report Says Economic Benefits of Birmingham's Northern Beltline Exaggerated:
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/06/report_says_economic_benefits.html#incart_river_default

The Center for Business and Economic Research fires back with a strong response and a challenge to the Birmingham News:

The Southern Environmental Law Center-funded study recently reported by The Birmingham News is wrong on both its criticisms and related conclusions ("Report disputes economic impact of Northern Beltline," June 20).
The study falsely claimed the University of Alabama's Center for Business and Economic Research used Federal Highway Administration impact factors in its study. Roughly a quarter of the CBER report is devoted to methodology, so for the Southern Environmental Law Center-funded study to get that wrong is astounding.
Also, it is improper to use Federal Highway Administration impact factors when the focus is not national, but on a state or metro area level.
The CBER did not perform a cost-benefit analysis, but rather presented socioeconomic indirect and cumulative impacts of constructing the Northern Beltline. This is required for the project's environmental impact statement. Cost-benefit analysis is one of the most used and abused economic tools available, but is inappropriate when significant costs and benefits cannot be fully defined and measured, as is the case for highways.
The CBER has conducted socioeconomic indirect and cumulative impact studies on several highways. In none of those studies did we use cost-benefit analysis or Federal Highway Administration impact factors because they are inappropriate. The CBER does not engage in they-said-we-said exchanges, so perhaps The Birmingham News should send the two reports to a reputable and credible entity for review if interested.

Samuel N. Addy, Ph.D.
Associate dean for research and outreach
Director, Center for Business and Economic Research
University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa

[Tourian]

I was surprised to see that most of the commenters to that blog entry felt as I do - that a study commissioned by environmentalists would be slanted heavily against the construction without any real substance to their report. At this point though, I still don't see the road happening during my lifetime. Although I might would feel more optimistic once I-22 is completed. Maybe there can just be ONE major project going on at a time.

[Grzrd]

This July 23 article reports that MAP-21 changed the ADHS funding formula: ADHS projects now can be paid 100% with federal dollars, BUT that money is no longer specifically designated for particular projects; the Northern Beltline will now have to compete with other projects for the funding:

The federal transportation bill enacted earlier this month eliminates the separate, designated source of funding that was to be used to build a 52-mile interstate beltline north of Birmingham. But at the same time, it includes incentives and directives aimed at keeping the project on track.
Opponents of the $4.7 billion Northern Beltline say the change takes away one of the proponents' main arguments -- that money designated for the project can't be spent on other more pressing transportation needs. Now beltline spending will compete with transportation priorities statewide.
But supporters, who see the beltline as an economic bonanza for Jefferson County, say the legislation increases the appeal of the beltline by eliminating the requirement that the state provide a 20 percent match for federal funding. Now Appalachian Development Highway System projects can be paid for 100 percent with federal dollars ....
In 2012, Alabama will get about $110 million in ADHS money. In subsequent years, that money is continued in Alabama's total allocation, but not carved out specifically for ADHS projects.
The ADHS program was designed to improve road connections and drive economic development in the poor, rural mountain counties. Corridor X was among the roads built with ADHS money, and in 2003, Shelby managed to have the Northern Beltline added to the ADHS system.
That move brought more money to the state but has been a sore spot on Capitol Hill, with complaints that the Alabama project is too big, too expensive and too unfair to the other states in the system.
There have been attempts to kill funding for the Birmingham beltline over the years, all of them unsuccessful. But the new highway bill indicates that patience has worn thin, so Shelby negotiated the incentives to encourage the state to hurry up ....
If the state were to continue to spend $109 million a year on ADHS projects, including the beltline, it would take at least 43 years to complete the beltline .... ALDOT spokesman Tony Harris said that the department still is reviewing the bill, which is lengthy and complex and makes significant changes in many areas. Harris said the department would be consulting with federal agencies in coming weeks to more fully understand the implications of the bill.

If the Northern Beltline now has to compete against other projects for the money, maybe the notion of an I-22 extension will be revisited, for the reasons set forth below by Froggie:

This refers to a long-standing proposal to extend I-22 to I-20/59 near the airport (likely just east of the AL 79 interchange).  It would do a lot more than you think...it'd be much more cost-effective than building the Northern Beltline and extending it south to I-20.  It would also take some traffic off of Malfunction Junction.

[codyg1985]

EPA wants more study before it issues construction OK for Birmingham Northern Beltline:

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/08/epa_wants_more_study_before_it.html#incart_river_default

[NYYPhil777]

The I-222 road is a connector that will connect I-22 to I-422 (confused yet)?

Man, that's just awesome. They should give each on off ramp its on 3DI designation. I want it so nobody's map, Garmin or Mapquest works right in that area. Then when people just give up and abandon their cars from being hopelessly lost, I can just tip on over and take my pick, 'cause you know - free Benz.

In my honest opinion, the I-222 is overkill. And I-422 does not exactly work if both termini are at I-59.
My suggestion would be that I-422 is a part of the loop that starts at I-59 and goes to I-22, and the other half could be I-259, I-659 or even I-859.
Just like I-170 in STL goes from I-270 and ends at I-64, and my idea for a southern extension of that highway to I-55 would be I-355.

[codyg1985]

The I-222 road is a connector that will connect I-22 to I-422 (confused yet)?

Man, that's just awesome. They should give each on off ramp its on 3DI designation. I want it so nobody's map, Garmin or Mapquest works right in that area. Then when people just give up and abandon their cars from being hopelessly lost, I can just tip on over and take my pick, 'cause you know - free Benz.

In my honest opinion, the I-222 is overkill. And I-422 does not exactly work if both termini are at I-59.
My suggestion would be that I-422 is a part of the loop that starts at I-59 and goes to I-22, and the other half could be I-259, I-659 or even I-859.
Just like I-170 in STL goes from I-270 and ends at I-64, and my idea for a southern extension of that highway to I-55 would be I-355.

I agree that I-222 is overkill.  There is a precedent for it with I-865/I-465 in the NW part of Indianapolis. Both are overkill IMO and a waste of a 3di.

FWIW, a while back the project was known internally as AL 959.

Fixed 856<->865

[Grzrd]

Corridor X was among the roads built with ADHS money, and in 2003, Shelby managed to have the Northern Beltline added to the ADHS system.

I-422 does not exactly work if both termini are at I-59.

FWIW, a while back the project was known internally as AL 959.

With Corridor X having been designated as I-22, I am guessing the decision was made, after the Northern Beltline was designated as ADHS Corridor X-1 in 2003, to make the Northern Beltline/ Corridor X-1 an I-422 "child" of its ADHS Corridor X/ I-22 "parent" in much the same manner as Corridor X-1 can be viewed as a "child" of Corridor X.

[Tourian]

With Corridor X having been designated as I-22, I am guessing the decision was made, after the Northern Beltline was designated as ADHS Corridor X-1 in 2003, to make the Northern Beltline/ Corridor X-1 an I-422 "child" of its ADHS Corridor X/ I-22 "parent" in much the same manner as Corridor X-1 can be viewed as a "child" of Corridor X.

Yeah, I think that was a clever way to get more/any federal funding for the project, right?

[Grzrd]

This July 23 article reports that MAP-21 changed the ADHS funding formula: ADHS projects now can be paid 100% with federal dollars, BUT that money is no longer specifically designated for particular projects; the Northern Beltline will now have to compete with other projects for the funding

Yeah, I think that was a clever way to get more/any federal funding for the project, right?

Initially, the Corridor X-1 designation allowed the Northern Beltline to get ADHS earmarked funding (although the recent enactment of MAP-21 has dramatically changed the allotment of ADHS funds, as discussed upthread).  That said, I don't think the numerical interstate designation would have had any effect on the ADHS funding (although I would love to hear from ADHS experts if that is not the case).  Also, in looking at the below ARC map of Corridor X-1, I wonder if they ever considered I-420 as the interstate designation:


Although still in the books, the I-59 to I-20 section of Corridor X-1 seems to have fallen off of ALDOT's radar screen.  Also, maybe ALDOT anticipated numerous thefts of "I-420" shields and decided it would be safer to go with an I-422 designation. 

[Henry]

The I-222 road is a connector that will connect I-22 to I-422 (confused yet)?

Man, that's just awesome. They should give each on off ramp its on 3DI designation. I want it so nobody's map, Garmin or Mapquest works right in that area. Then when people just give up and abandon their cars from being hopelessly lost, I can just tip on over and take my pick, 'cause you know - free Benz.

One has to wonder, then, why AL didn't pull a MD (I-270 and I-895 come to mind) and propose the connector as "Spur I-422", or why IN changed the I-465 spur to I-865!

[Alex]

Video attacks Southern Environmental Law Center for objections to Northern Beltline

[codyg1985]

If the Northern Beltline were built in the right way, it could be among the most scenic freeways in the state. I don't know what sort of strategy will be used. I would love to see something like I-70 west of Denver, but I know that probably won't happen.

[The Great Zo]

In my honest opinion, the I-222 is overkill. And I-422 does not exactly work if both termini are at I-59.

Especially strange if the Corridor-X connection is signed I-222. That would mean that I-422 doesn't even have an interchange with its supposed parent (I-22). Is there precedent for that?