News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Birmingham Northern Beltline (I-422, I-959)

Started by codyg1985, April 22, 2010, 09:10:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

seicer

Louisville won't have a full "circle," nor will it. Nothing is planned for the west side at all.


silverback1065

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on January 06, 2016, 09:06:09 AM
Louisville won't have a full "circle," nor will it. Nothing is planned for the west side at all.

I agree, plus there's no need for 265 to go over there, but you could argue that 264/64/71 does make a "full circle" around the core of the city.

The Ghostbuster

Louisville? Hop on a plane and return to Birmingham ASAP!

Tourian

Quote from: codyg1985 on January 05, 2016, 10:00:01 PM
If the Birmingham loop was a circle and not a deformed football that is pointed up the Appalachian mountains, then it would be more useful.

Birmingham is shaped like a deformed football. So it makes since for its bypass to follow suit.

The Ghostbuster

Has the short segment of future Interstate 422 between AL 75 and AL 79 been completed yet? It was said to have a completion date of Fall 2016.

codyg1985

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 14, 2016, 02:53:43 PM
Has the short segment of future Interstate 422 between AL 75 and AL 79 been completed yet? It was said to have a completion date of Fall 2016.

That is just for the grade and drain. Bridges and paving have not been built yet.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

ARMOURERERIC

Are there any other sections even on the radar for bidding?

froggie


codyg1985

The next projects that will be let will be for the required mainline and ramp bridges between AL 79 and AL 75. Looks like right now 2019 is the targeted date for construction, but who knows when it will actually happen.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

freebrickproductions

Quote from: codyg1985 on December 15, 2016, 08:02:03 AM
The next projects that will be let will be for the required mainline and ramp bridges between AL 79 and AL 75. Looks like right now 2019 is the targeted date for construction, but who knows when it will actually happen.
My money's on 2028.
It's all fun & games until someone summons Cthulhu and brings about the end of the world.

I also collect traffic lights, road signs, fans, and railroad crossing equipment.

(They/Them)

The Ghostbuster

Does anyone believe that the BNB will be completed as proposed? Given that it will cost approximately $5.5 billion (and maybe even more), I'm not sure it will.

silverback1065

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 19, 2016, 01:49:29 PM
Does anyone believe that the BNB will be completed as proposed? Given that it will cost approximately $5.5 billion (and maybe even more), I'm not sure it will.
nope

codyg1985

I also don't think so. ALDOT only has long range plans for completing the NE quadrant of it at this time. At least that would provide a bit of a bypass for I-65 through traffic.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

The Ghostbuster

If only the northeast segment is to be constructed in the near to mid term, then the Interstate 422 designation has to go. I always thought the 420 designation would have been a better choice, given that an Interstate 222 connecter would have to be constructed to provide any connection between Interstate 22 and Interstate 422.

Charles2

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 21, 2016, 06:17:46 PM
If only the northeast segment is to be constructed in the near to mid term, then the Interstate 422 designation has to go. I always thought the 420 designation would have been a better choice, given that an Interstate 222 connecter would have to be constructed to provide any connection between Interstate 22 and Interstate 422.

Since it would only connect I-65 with I-59 and not I-20, the 420 Ganja designation wouldn't work, either.  Numbers such as 465, 659 or 665 would come into play.

freebrickproductions

#315
Quote from: Charles2 on December 21, 2016, 11:37:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 21, 2016, 06:17:46 PM
If only the northeast segment is to be constructed in the near to mid term, then the Interstate 422 designation has to go. I always thought the 420 designation would have been a better choice, given that an Interstate 222 connecter would have to be constructed to provide any connection between Interstate 22 and Interstate 422.

Since it would only connect I-65 with I-59 and not I-20, the 420 Ganja designation wouldn't work, either.  Numbers such as 465, 659 or 665 would come into play.
Duplex it with I-459 (and I-59 if I-459 and "I-420" don't meet at the same interchange). Problem solved. ;-) :-D
It's all fun & games until someone summons Cthulhu and brings about the end of the world.

I also collect traffic lights, road signs, fans, and railroad crossing equipment.

(They/Them)

Tourian

Naming it "420" would be silly because the sign theft would be off the charts and there are no immediate plans to connect it to 20 right now. Only the portion in Jefferson co is laid out.

freebrickproductions

Quote from: Tourian on December 22, 2016, 07:35:29 PM
Naming it "420" would be silly because the sign theft would be off the charts and there are no immediate plans to connect it to 20 right now. Only the portion in Jefferson co is laid out.
It seems that Lauderdale County, AL is having trouble keeping the shields for CR 420 around on the posts they have. I only saw one when I went by there yesterday and the others appeared to have been stolen.
It's all fun & games until someone summons Cthulhu and brings about the end of the world.

I also collect traffic lights, road signs, fans, and railroad crossing equipment.

(They/Them)

The Ghostbuster

Okay forget the Interstate 420 numbering. How about numbering it Interstate 465?

Voyager75

I would favor I-659 to keep it in a 359/459/659/759 sequential order. I could still pretend that the Hidden Red Mtn Expressway of I-559 existed ;-) for the straight flush.

Interstate 69 Fan

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2016, 03:22:07 PM
Okay forget the Interstate 420 numbering. How about numbering it Interstate 465?
465 is Indianapolis' thing.
Apparently I’m a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

froggie

Doesn't mean it couldn't be used in another state.  Several examples across the country (including there being eight current or future I-295's in existance).

freebrickproductions

#322
Quote from: froggie on December 27, 2016, 10:44:33 PM
Doesn't mean it couldn't be used in another state.  Several examples across the country (including there being eight current or future I-295's in existance).
Well, as of right now, I-65 only has one 3di of each number for each of its five current 3dis (I-165, I-265, I-465, I-565, I-865). It'd be nice to see that trend continue (maybe we could use I-665?). Also, I have to wonder how many interstates are like I-65 in that regard...
It's all fun & games until someone summons Cthulhu and brings about the end of the world.

I also collect traffic lights, road signs, fans, and railroad crossing equipment.

(They/Them)

froggie

An I-x65 number for the road doesn't make any more sense than an I-x22 number does.  Aside from through traffic between I-65 to the north and I-20/59 to the southwest, it doesn't serve I-65 very well.  No trucker in their right mind is going to take the Northern Beltline and I-459 over staying on I-65, even during rush hour.  Not when it's 24 miles long and across much hillier terrain.  Only real exception to that would be if we get another exploding tanker at Malfunction Junction.

An I-x20 doesn't really make sense either unless it gets extended back to I-20 near Leeds....this is something that has been talked about but no serious planning has occurred to my knowledge.

QuoteAlso, I have to wonder how many interstates are like I-65 in that regard...

14 total for those that have more than one 3-digit child, including I-59, I-76, I-81, and I-84.

The Ghostbuster

Maybe the Northern Beltline should have been un-numbered, or given a state highway designation.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.