The Birmingham MPO has voted to scrap planning for the western portion of the $3 billion Birmingham Northern Beltline from I-59 in Bessemer to US 78 in Graysville. If this road is being built for economic development, then this is a poor call IMO since that area of Jefferson County is the most rural and poor. It would also prove to be a good bypass route for traffic going from I-65 north of town to I-20/59 southwest of town, and vice versa.
Birmingham-area plan would drop 40 road projects for lack of funds (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/04/birmingham-area_plan_would_dro.html)
I've only been through Birmingham a few times on I-65 and I had no problem getting through the downtown area and I'm not sure if the Northern Beltline is needed. Also, what's with these 3di branches of interstates that do not exist yet. There is this I-422 planned when I-22 has not even come into fruition yet ?It's the same thing going on at Memphis with a 3DI for I-69 and I-69 isn't even close to existing in the South.
Quote from: codyg1985 on April 22, 2010, 09:10:09 AM
The Birmingham MPO has voted to scrap planning for the western portion of the $3 billion Birmingham Northern Beltline from I-59 in Bessemer to US 78 in Graysville. If this road is being built for economic development, then this is a poor call IMO since that area of Jefferson County is the most rural and poor. It would also prove to be a good bypass route for traffic going from I-65 north of town to I-20/59 southwest of town, and vice versa.
Birmingham-area plan would drop 40 road projects for lack of funds (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/04/birmingham-area_plan_would_dro.html)
Sound more like a delaying action than completely scrapping it to me, since it's on the 'projects we would do if the money was there list.'
Fixed quote tag - Alex
I have been to Birmingham every few years to meet my grandparents.
Quote from: codyg1985 on April 22, 2010, 09:10:09 AM
If this road is being built for economic development, then this is a poor call IMO since that area of Jefferson County is the most rural and poor.
Agreed.
Another issue is whether or not those cities will allow the beltway to be built, and whether or not the taxpayers, especially in the Birmingham area want to pay for it. That will be something officials there will have to keep in mind.
Quote from: codyg1985 on April 22, 2010, 09:10:09 AM
The Birmingham MPO has voted to scrap planning for the western portion of the $3 billion Birmingham Northern Beltline from I-59 in Bessemer to US 78 in Graysville. If this road is being built for economic development, then this is a poor call IMO since that area of Jefferson County is the most rural and poor. It would also prove to be a good bypass route for traffic going from I-65 north of town to I-20/59 southwest of town, and vice versa.
Birmingham-area plan would drop 40 road projects for lack of funds (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/04/birmingham-area_plan_would_dro.html)
Agreed here, also going from Graysville to Bessemer is a pain in the neck. The the part from I-65 to I-59 near Trussville is needed badly.
If you want a truly good bypass route, you have to limit the access points, which runs counter to using the road to "promote economic development" (which IMO is not a valid reason to be spending scarce transportation dollars on a new road). Can't have it both ways.
Also, how many people really need to get between Graysville and Bessemer? Is it worth spending $1 billion (which would likely be Federal money since Alabama is too cheap to use their own money) for such a route?
Since you already have a pretty good road that exists for a good stretch...CR 65/Minor Pkwy, I'd think if you really want to improve Graysville-Bessemer travel, you'd use Minor Pkwy as a baseline...improve the connection north to I-22 then figure out a way to bypass Hobson and tie into I-20/59, and you have an effective minor arterial that will address Graysville-Bessemer travel and much less cost than building that segment of the Northern Beltline.
Meanwhile, widening 20/59 and fixing Malfunction Junction would take care of most of the need for the northern beltline as a bypass route. And would be much cheaper to boot.
Quote from: leifvanderwall on April 22, 2010, 12:34:47 PM
I've only been through Birmingham a few times on I-65 and I had no problem getting through the downtown area and I'm not sure if the Northern Beltline is needed. Also, what's with these 3di branches of interstates that do not exist yet. There is this I-422 planned when I-22 has not even come into fruition yet ?It's the same thing going on at Memphis with a 3DI for I-69 and I-69 isn't even close to existing in the South.
I-69 exists in Mississippi. It's not continuous with the other I-69(s) but it exists just the same.
In my opinion, that short stubby 69 in Mississippi should still be just MS 304. 69 signing in Mississippi is very premature and I think it confuses the Mississippi drivers. Until the funding is there to change US 61 and US 51 into interstate grade roads, 69 should not be signed in Mississippi.
It doesn't confuse Mississippi drivers. They know the difference between an Interstate and a non-Interstate.
Quote from: leifvanderwall on April 22, 2010, 12:34:47 PM
I've only been through Birmingham a few times on I-65 and I had no problem getting through the downtown area and I'm not sure if the Northern Beltline is needed.
I suppose it could be argued several different ways, but to me every city this size or larger needs a complete loop - it automatically takes stress off of the center intersection downtown which is - in our case, "Malfunction Junction." It would also mean less big trucks mixing it up with commuters in the same area - those guys would be required to go around unless they are delivering down there.
Now, with that said, looking at the route it seems to be huge and way out of the way. The area it encompasses is over twice as large as the area surrounded by I-459. I think this has a lot to do with it just being tough to get right of way and the fact that the people that own this land want to get paid a fat wad of cash to see it come through their property. So yeah, it probably isn't the best route for the city and traffic, but it will still solve some problems and stimulate the economy in those areas. Gas stations, then truck stops, then fast food, then hotels, the restaurants, apartment complexes, subdivisions and so on...
Has any portion of it even begun construction yet? I'd heard the segment between highways 75 and 79 was first, but I haven't heard anything more about it.
It's probably better to call I-69 in MS I-69 now, when it's just opened, instead of calling it MS 304, then when it gets connected to I-69 proper, still have all the local morons going around calling it MS 304.
69, yes? 22, no? Absolutely awful justification for signing one but not the other ("because Alabama can't build four miles of road, and Tennessee can't build six")
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2010, 11:45:07 PM
69, yes? 22, no? Absolutely awful justification for signing one but not the other ("because Alabama can't build four miles of road, and Tennessee can't build six")
Actually, construction on Alabama's final segment of I-22 should be underway later this year.
This PBS special highlights many of the CONS for the northern belt line:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/zombie-highways/overview/782/
I can totally understand where these guys are coming from but it seems obvious to me that "some" kind of road is needed. And I disagree that the CONS presented in this piece that claim these are good reasons not to build it.
On the economic side of it, the reporter points out that Alabama has received more dollars then they have given out and that whatever official he was talking about was lying about it (who then covered his tracks by saying Jefferson County was a donor, not Alabama). I say, who cares? Alabama is a poor state with not a huge tax base compared to say, Texas or California. How in the world would we ever have enough tax dollars to out gross them? Of course we get more federal money. Do they expect us to somehow build interstates for half price down here?
Then the environmentalist comes on and says it will pollute the rivers much like 459 has done to the Cahaba. We have to protect our streams and if a bunch of land gets paved over, like how Patton Creek parking lots have, it keeps rainwater from going through the soil and its aquifers and dumps "raw" rain water into the streams with all is silt and soot that clogs up the streams. Okay, legitimate concern, I'm listening - so whats the plan? Well he said something to the effect of "I'm not against construction that doesn't impact the environment." And that's it. Not, here's how it should be done, or how it could be done, just I don't like how they do it. Might as well have just said he didn't like construction of any kind, really.
Just before that, they had our currently incarcerated former mayor Larry Langford claim we needed to spend that money on mass transit before we build a road we don't need. Of course the woeful Max Bus system is brought up. Some realtor who sells flats downtown talks about streetcars from 60 years ago. Well, just like every other city in the country, lots of people moved to the suburbs and spread out. We still drive cars here in Birmingham. We don't have the population density or culture like New York or Tokyo - we don't need light rail. The buses and taxis we have are enough. People will only ride on those things when its cheaper, faster and easier to do it rather then owning a car and right now owning a car in Birmingham is far more efficient then not having one.
At any rate, from the articles I've read recently it looks like the plan is a go, however it probably won't be done until around 2035 - if that.
Quote from: Tourian on June 22, 2010, 11:20:16 AM
Do they expect us to somehow build interstates for half price down here?
no, they expect you to die.
Quote from: Tourian on June 22, 2010, 11:20:16 AM
Right now owning a car in Birmingham is far more efficient then not having one.
At any rate, from the articles I've read recently it looks like the plan is a go, however it probably won't be done until around 2035 - if that.
Hence you have the pollution to contend with. Furthermore, not everyone owns a motor vehicle in Birmingham; my grandmother is one of them. And the bus system in metro Birmingham, as you already mentioned, is broke. So I do believe that funding mass transit is more important than building a northern loop.
Quote from: Tourian on June 22, 2010, 11:20:16 AM
Do they expect us to somehow build interstates for half price down here?
No. That's because the tax base is too small and the people who work don't have a decent pay in that state.
Another reason is the politics. One of the persons who commented on that article mentioned about the history of corruption in that state.
The politics plays a big part in why the state's priorities are so out-of-whack. Along those lines, consider that the Northern Beltline is by far not the only grandiose highway project some people in the state envision...witness the I-85 Extension, West Alabama Interstate, Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta Interstate, Montgomery Outer Loop, Dothan-to-I-10-connector, etc etc. Of those, only the last one arguably has any real need.
Alabama also has what I've long noted as an over-reliance on Federal highway funding. Mississippi put considerable state dollars into their portion of Corridor X, and as a result it's been complete there for over 15 years. Had Alabama done the same and not been so cheap, we'd probably be talking about "Future I-22" in the past-tense now instead of future-tense. We'd also arguably have some segments of the Northern Beltline and other roads open by now as well.
The bus system in Birmingham is basically only in Jefferson County. Only one route (the 280 route and it ends at Wal-Mart) goes into Shelby County.
As Froggie has mentioned, Politics play a huge role in the state's priorities. It is the reason why nothing has been done on the US 280 corridor.
Quote from: jdb1234 on June 26, 2010, 03:44:44 PM
As Froggie has mentioned, Politics play a huge role in the state's priorities. It is the reason why nothing has been done on the US 280 corridor.
It also has to do with the many Birmingham suburbs putting their own priorities ahead of the regions priorities. I'm looking at you Homewood, Mountain Brook, Vestavia Hills, Cahaba Heights, and Hoover. It isn't just over the US 280 corridor, either.
Quote from: jdb1234 on June 26, 2010, 03:44:44 PM
The bus system in Birmingham is basically only in Jefferson County. Only one route (the 280 route and it ends at Wal-Mart) goes into Shelby County.
That is indeed the sad case. I think that one has more to do with Birmingham as a whole instead of the other suburbs. It needs to be more or a sub-regional bus system or a metro system that connects all major spokes of the wheel together.
Quote from: codyg1985 on June 28, 2010, 01:22:01 PM
It also has to do with the many Birmingham suburbs putting their own priorities ahead of the regions priorities. I'm looking at you Homewood, Mountain Brook, Vestavia Hills, Cahaba Heights, and Hoover. It isn't just over the US 280 corridor, either.
Don't remind me. I went with the US 280 example because it was the easiest I could think of (I also live off of US 280). By the way, Cahaba Heights was annexed into Vestavia Hills several years ago.
Quote from: codyg1985 on June 28, 2010, 01:22:01 PM
That is indeed the sad case. I think that one has more to do with Birmingham as a whole instead of the other suburbs. It needs to be more or a sub-regional bus system or a metro system that connects all major spokes of the wheel together.
As much as I would like to see something like that, it would be easier said than done. People in my area love their cars too much.
Quote from: froggie on June 26, 2010, 03:19:12 PM
The politics plays a big part in why the state's priorities are so out-of-whack. Along those lines, consider that the Northern Beltline is by far not the only grandiose highway project some people in the state envision...witness the I-85 Extension, West Alabama Interstate, Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta Interstate, Montgomery Outer Loop, Dothan-to-I-10-connector, etc etc. Of those, only the last one arguably has any real need.
Not quite sure if there is not a need for at least part of a Montgomery Outer Loop, as there needs to be a better route for SB I-65 to SB US 231 traffic around Montgomery than the stoplight infested, overloaded (at least the few times I've been on it) US 80/82.
EDIT: Since when has I-959 been tossed around for the Birmingham Northern Beltline? I'm not finding anything on the number by searching for it.
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 28, 2010, 05:51:44 PM
Not quite sure if there is not a need for at least part of a Montgomery Outer Loop, as there needs to be a better route for SB I-65 to SB US 231 traffic around Montgomery than the stoplight infested, overloaded (at least the few times I've been on it) US 80/82.
Which is why I go I-65 to I-85 to Taylor Rd. to US 231. South Blvd (US 80/82 AL 21) also goes through a very bad part of Montgomery between I-65 and US 231.
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 28, 2010, 05:51:44 PM
EDIT: Since when has I-959 been tossed around for the Birmingham Northern Beltline? I'm not finding anything on the number by searching for it.
I-959 has been tossed around well before I-422 was tossed around. In ALDOT's 5 year plan it calls the Northen Beltline SR 959.
QuoteNot quite sure if there is not a need for at least part of a Montgomery Outer Loop, as there needs to be a better route for SB I-65 to SB US 231 traffic around Montgomery than the stoplight infested, overloaded (at least the few times I've been on it) US 80/82.
Traffic around Montgomery really isn't all that bad, and as jdb suggested there are alternatives. The "need" isn't so much for an Outer Loop as it is a more overall need for Alabama to actually start practicing some access management and incorporate interchanges at major junctions.
QuoteI-959 has been tossed around well before I-422 was tossed around. In ALDOT's 5 year plan it calls the Northen Beltline SR 959.
That earlier planning was using the AL 959 label (SR 959 as you noted, but effectively AL 959), not I-959. 422 was the first "real Interstate" number proposed.
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 28, 2010, 05:51:44 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 26, 2010, 03:19:12 PM
The politics plays a big part in why the state's priorities are so out-of-whack. Along those lines, consider that the Northern Beltline is by far not the only grandiose highway project some people in the state envision...witness the I-85 Extension, West Alabama Interstate, Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta Interstate, Montgomery Outer Loop, Dothan-to-I-10-connector, etc etc. Of those, only the last one arguably has any real need.
Not quite sure if there is not a need for at least part of a Montgomery Outer Loop, as there needs to be a better route for SB I-65 to SB US 231 traffic around Montgomery than the stoplight infested, overloaded (at least the few times I've been on it) US 80/82.
Nor any of the other freeways. An I-85 extention and a I-10 connection to Dothan (give or take) IMO would make sense, but there is no real need for any other freeways unless the state focuses on mass transit or use most of its own money, like Mississippi did with U.S. Hwy 78 (Corridor X) as froggie pointed out, instead of relying on federal money, which may not be there to assist them.
QuoteAn I-85 extention
...doesn't even need to be on the table. Completing the current plan to 4-lane US 80, plus bypasses of Uniontown and Selma, will more than adequately cover the Meridian-Montgomery corridor.
Quote from: The Premier on June 28, 2010, 07:55:02 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 28, 2010, 05:51:44 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 26, 2010, 03:19:12 PM
The politics plays a big part in why the state's priorities are so out-of-whack. Along those lines, consider that the Northern Beltline is by far not the only grandiose highway project some people in the state envision...witness the I-85 Extension, West Alabama Interstate, Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta Interstate, Montgomery Outer Loop, Dothan-to-I-10-connector, etc etc. Of those, only the last one arguably has any real need.
Not quite sure if there is not a need for at least part of a Montgomery Outer Loop, as there needs to be a better route for SB I-65 to SB US 231 traffic around Montgomery than the stoplight infested, overloaded (at least the few times I've been on it) US 80/82.
Nor any of the other freeways. An I-85 extention and a I-10 connection to Dothan (give or take) IMO would make sense, but there is no real need for any other freeways unless the state focuses on mass transit or use most of its own money, like Mississippi did with U.S. Hwy 78 (Corridor X) as froggie pointed out, instead of relying on federal money, which may not be there to assist them.
The I-85 extension isn't really needed, as Froggie pointed out. A four-lane route with interchanges at major junctions would probably work just fine. The I-10 connector is needed, and it should be also be extended in both directions to Panama City to the south and Montgomery to the north. It would provide a nice evacuation route.
I think the rest of the money needs to be spent in the big four urban areas of Alabama and on improving the existing interstates, particularly I-65 and I-20.
Quote from: The Premier on June 26, 2010, 02:14:41 PM
Hence you have the pollution to contend with. Furthermore, not everyone owns a motor vehicle in Birmingham; my grandmother is one of them. And the bus system in metro Birmingham, as you already mentioned, is broke. So I do believe that funding mass transit is more important than building a northern loop.
You really think all our pollution problems are from too many cars? I think it has more to do with the iron and steel industry.
Quote from: Tourian on June 30, 2010, 06:56:42 PM
Quote from: The Premier on June 26, 2010, 02:14:41 PM
Hence you have the pollution to contend with. Furthermore, not everyone owns a motor vehicle in Birmingham; my grandmother is one of them. And the bus system in metro Birmingham, as you already mentioned, is broke. So I do believe that funding mass transit is more important than building a northern loop.
You really think all our pollution problems are from too many cars? I think it has more to do with the iron and steel industry.
The same iron and steel industry that has been scaling back in Birmingham for decades? Increased congestion in the suburbs to the south and east cause cars to sit and idle longer, which causes more particulate pollution. The topology of the Birmingham area with the moutains surrounding the areas that are congested don't help. The Alabama Power coal plants to the northwest and southeast don't help, either.
Quote from: codyg1985 on July 01, 2010, 07:15:07 AM
Quote from: Tourian on June 30, 2010, 06:56:42 PM
Quote from: The Premier on June 26, 2010, 02:14:41 PM
Hence you have the pollution to contend with. Furthermore, not everyone owns a motor vehicle in Birmingham; my grandmother is one of them. And the bus system in metro Birmingham, as you already mentioned, is broke. So I do believe that funding mass transit is more important than building a northern loop.
You really think all our pollution problems are from too many cars? I think it has more to do with the iron and steel industry.
The same iron and steel industry that has been scaling back in Birmingham for decades? Increased congestion in the suburbs to the south and east cause cars to sit and idle longer, which causes more particulate pollution. The topology of the Birmingham area with the moutains surrounding the areas that are congested don't help. The Alabama Power coal plants to the northwest and southeast don't help, either.
Yes, the declining steel industries and the Alabama Power plants are the biggest causes of our pollution. A bunch of late model cars sitting around on 280 are no where near anywhere close to putting out as much filth. Keeping cars from sitting around in traffic is the point of building more roads. I do not see why this has to be a one or the other solution. More buses AND a northern bypass.
most cars sold anywhere in the US these days are made to California emissions standards, which implies that a steel mill (especially one from the 1960s or earlier, like the ones in Alabama) is responsible for the equivalent of literally millions of cars worth of pollution.
That said, there are too many cars. But this is America, where people think nothing of driving 20 mind-numbing miles to the same place every morning, and 20 equally mind-numbing miles back home every night. There's a damn good reason I chose a place to live that's five miles and one easy bus commute from my work, and planet Earth is only a secondary concern.
QuoteYes, the declining steel industries and the Alabama Power plants are the biggest causes of our pollution.
I'd like to see the numbers that show this. Not saying it isn't true locally. But at the national level, vehicles are very much the #1 source of air pollution.
Quote from: froggie on July 01, 2010, 12:41:58 PM
I'd like to see the numbers that show this. Not saying it isn't true locally. But at the national level, vehicles are very much the #1 source of air pollution.
that's because of the generally even distribution of vehicles compared to the vastly uneven distribution of steel mills. There are a lot of metropolises in the US that have lots of cars, and no steel mills. There are no areas in the US, I don't think, with some steel mills and hardly any cars. Maybe I-180 in Illinois! So the number of cars adds up much faster than the number of steel mills on a national scale, while on
some local scales, but not others, the steel mills dominate.
Quote from: codyg1985 on July 01, 2010, 07:15:07 AM
Quote from: Tourian on June 30, 2010, 06:56:42 PM
Quote from: The Premier on June 26, 2010, 02:14:41 PM
Hence you have the pollution to contend with. Furthermore, not everyone owns a motor vehicle in Birmingham; my grandmother is one of them. And the bus system in metro Birmingham, as you already mentioned, is broke. So I do believe that funding mass transit is more important than building a northern loop.
You really think all our pollution problems are from too many cars? I think it has more to do with the iron and steel industry.
The same iron and steel industry that has been scaling back in Birmingham for decades? Increased congestion in the suburbs to the south and east cause cars to sit and idle longer, which causes more particulate pollution. The topology of the Birmingham area with the moutains surrounding the areas that are congested don't help. The Alabama Power coal plants to the northwest and southeast don't help, either.
And if ALDOT DO end up constructing the north beltline, which might not happen anytime soon, you can expect the same exact issue like it did with I-459.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 01, 2010, 12:25:08 PM
most cars sold anywhere in the US these days are made to California emissions standards, which implies that a steel mill (especially one from the 1960s or earlier, like the ones in Alabama) is responsible for the equivalent of literally millions of cars worth of pollution.
In Greater Cleveland (including the Akron-Canton Area), we have a program called E-Check that requires us to have our vehicles be subject to testing to ensure those vehicles do not emit excessive amounts of pollution. Like agentsteel53 pointed out, most vehicles are made based on emissions standards in California. Therefore, newer vehicles in Ohio 2007 or newer are exempt for 4 years.
Quote from: froggie on July 01, 2010, 12:41:58 PM
QuoteYes, the declining steel industries and the Alabama Power plants are the biggest causes of our pollution.
I'd like to see the numbers that show this. Not saying it isn't true locally. But at the national level, vehicles are very much the #1 source of air pollution.
Vehicles maybe, or motorized contraptions. And by that I mean you have to include trains, big rigs, construction vehicles, ships, lawnmowers, weedeaters, construction equipment etc. All that other jazz is not as heavily regulated as the cars we drive. It just makes for bigger sound bites when politicians go after the car manufacturers to decrease emissions. But new cars (and by that I mean anything 20ish years or newer) don't put out hardly any emissions.
QuoteAnd if ALDOT DO end up constructing the north beltline, which might not happen anytime soon, you can expect the same exact issue like it did with I-459.
If by issue you mean less congestion through malfunction junction and more development and places to go around it in North Jefferson county then yeah, that's what I'm hoping for. Bring it on.
Exhaust from cars add only little to air quality. Trucking is more important (I've read somewhere a freeway with 10,000 trucks emit the same as a freeway with 100,000 cars). In Europe, road traffic is generally responsible for about 10% of the emissions, although it varies by type (for example, NOx emissions from vehicles is worse than PM10 or CO2). I guess it would be somewhat higher in the US because there is somewhat more traffic and a larger share of the vehicle fleet has a relatively low gas mileage.
I conduct air quality surveys for work, using computer models. Generally, the background concentrations is around 80 - 90% of the PM10 (particle matter) concentrations, and the rest is added by a freeway (I'm talking about major freeways, say 100,000 vehicles per day).
Air quality is predominantly influenced and fluctuated by weather patterns and geography, this is why Mexico City and Los Angeles have worse air quality than cities in flatter terrain with a sea breeze that is not trapped by mountains. Although it has to be mentioned air quality in greater Los Angeles improved massively since the 70's, while the number of cars exploded in the same time.
In overall emissions, road traffic doesn't have that much influence, although there is some impact on local air quality, for example within 600 feet off a major freeway, especially when there is a bottleneck. Queuing traffic emits 3 to 6 times more than free-flow traffic, most notably trucks. That is why a road widening is often positive for local air quality, even if there is more traffic than in the old situation.
Quote from: Chris on July 03, 2010, 11:25:56 AMAlthough it has to be mentioned air quality in greater Los Angeles improved massively since the 70's, while the number of cars exploded in the same time.
The La Brea tar pits mention that air quality was worse in the LA basin in pre-colonial times (when the population was big, but far less than now, and there were no cars, but cooking fires) than today.
Quote from: codyg1985 on June 28, 2010, 01:22:01 PM
Quote from: jdb1234 on June 26, 2010, 03:44:44 PM
The bus system in Birmingham is basically only in Jefferson County. Only one route (the 280 route and it ends at Wal-Mart) goes into Shelby County.
That is indeed the sad case. I think that one has more to do with Birmingham as a whole instead of the other suburbs. It needs to be more or a sub-regional bus system or a metro system that connects all major spokes of the wheel together.
Here's their service area according to their website:
"BJCTA provides fixed route and paratransit service to a service area of more than 200 square miles with a demand population base of nearly 400,000. The service area includes Birmingham, Bessemer, Fairfield, Homewood, Mountain Brook, Hoover, and Vestavia Hills. BJCTA carries out its commitment to air quality and pollution control by operating only CNG buses. On your way to work, school, shopping or just out for a little fun, "we'll get you there.""
Maybe they are just dial-a-ride in the areas you guys aren't seeing much presence from them. How far past Hoover would you suggest they be going in to Shelby County? Pelham? Helena? Alabaster?
Sent to me from Carter (the video has the main news story):
Future I-422 (http://www.cbs42.com/content/localnews/story/Future-I-422/0wTUz9DPhky1vhYeCbI8ng.cspx)
QuoteMore money, more jobs, less congestion. According to plans, that's what the construction of Interstate 422 will do. The Northern Beltline will loop around Birmingham, not only reducing congestion, but also creating new jobs. Congressman Spencer Bachus says funding is there, all that's needed is the support of cities surrounding the project. I-422 should take around 20 years to complete. Once finished, Bachus believes it would generate 20,000 jobs a year.
Quote from: AARoads on July 14, 2010, 04:56:50 PM
Sent to me from Carter (the video has the main news story):
Future I-422 (http://www.cbs42.com/content/localnews/story/Future-I-422/0wTUz9DPhky1vhYeCbI8ng.cspx)
QuoteMore money, more jobs, less congestion. According to plans, that's what the construction of Interstate 422 will do. The Northern Beltline will loop around Birmingham, not only reducing congestion, but also creating new jobs. Congressman Spencer Bachus says funding is there, all that's needed is the support of cities surrounding the project. I-422 should take around 20 years to complete. Once finished, Bachus believes it would generate 20,000 jobs a year.
It would be nice to see the study that says that it will create all of these jobs and see how they came up with those figures. I'm not skeptical that it won't create jobs, but keep in mind that I-459 went through valleys that had land to develop. I-422 will go through hilly terrain that has land that will be more difficult to develop.
I'm also a bit skeptical of the "less congestion" claim. I don't think it'll draw enough through traffic to improve things at Malfunction Junction...
probably "less congestion than we otherwise would have in 2030", not necessarily less congestion than we have today.
However, if enough development is induced by the road, then in some areas you WOULD have more congestion "than we otherwise would have in 2030"...
Quote from: codyg1985 on July 15, 2010, 07:26:15 AM
It would be nice to see the study that says that it will create all of these jobs and see how they came up with those figures. I'm not skeptical that it won't create jobs, but keep in mind that I-459 went through valleys that had land to develop. I-422 will go through hilly terrain that has land that will be more difficult to develop.
Those studies cost money and they are paid for by people who want a positive outcome to what they want to do...so...
Quote from: Tourian on July 15, 2010, 06:52:13 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on July 15, 2010, 07:26:15 AM
It would be nice to see the study that says that it will create all of these jobs and see how they came up with those figures. I'm not skeptical that it won't create jobs, but keep in mind that I-459 went through valleys that had land to develop. I-422 will go through hilly terrain that has land that will be more difficult to develop.
Those studies cost money and they are paid for by people who want a positive outcome to what they want to do...so...
Both of AL's gubernatorial candidates have paid recent lip service in support of Birmingham Northern Beltline/ I-422. Here's a link to that report which touted the PROS of I-422:
http://www.cityofgardendale.com/NorthernBeltline_Final_Report.pdf
I don't know enough about Birmingham to argue about necessity of the project, but from a purely selfish perspective it would be nice to have the old Corridor X-1 idea of a northern bypass from I-20 outside of I-459 to
I-22. I usually go to one Ole Miss football game per year. I did manage to miss the Jax State and Vandy games ...
EDIT
As of this time last year, "Corridor X-1" extension of I-422 from I-459 to I-20 was still on books and eligible for ADHS funding: http://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/adhs_status_report_2009/ADHSFY2009StatusReportAlabama.pdf
I guess that since it is "on the books" as an ADHS corridor, it may stick around for a long time as a theoretical possibility.
Inflation has caused the price of the beltline to go up another billion which causes proponents to want to push the project ahead to keep costs from going up even more:
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/02/birminghams_northern_beltline.html
$90 million per mile? That sounds high to me, but maybe it's because of the mountainous and hilly terrain it goes through.
A lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Montgomery yesterday, alleging that ALDOT has not met all the necessary prerequisites for starting the project. As of this moment, ALDOT plans to let the first section later this year:
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/04/black_warrior_riverkeeper_nort.html
Quote
Black Warrior Riverkeeper sued the Alabama Department of Transportation on Monday, charging the agency has failed to fully account for the environmental impacts of the planned 52-mile Northern Beltline and asking that work on the road be blocked.
Filed in U.S. District Court in Montgomery, the lawsuit contends that ALDOT has violated the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires an up-to-date evaluation of environmental impacts and identification of the most cost-effective and least damaging alternatives for projects funded with federal money ...
ALDOT spokesman Tony Harris said, "ALDOT officials are just beginning to review the lawsuit, so it's still a bit early to respond with any comments." ...
ALDOT did perform an environmental assessment of the project in 1997, but the Riverkeeper group's suit contends the law requires re-evaluation when a project has been inactive for three years or more. Beyond that, the lawsuit claims that the initial assessment was incomplete and did not consider the indirect and cumulative effect the Northern Beltline would have on the environment.
Designs, costs and conditions have changed since 1997, the suit states. In the initial environmental impact study, the proposed road was a four-lane highway, but now the design calls for six lanes. In recent years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated streams downstream of the Northern Beltline's path as critical habitat for endangered species of fish ...
ALDOT has re-evaluated the environmental impact of one segment of the proposed road, a stretch between Alabama 79 and Alabama 75, which is slated to be the first segment built. That segment of approximately 3 miles is estimated to cost $63 million. ALDOT expects to take bids for its construction later this year ...
Just like that Zombie Road piece done by APT, I never see any pundits offer any sort of resolution, they just seem to want to block progress altogether. I hope the case gets thrown out quickly.
I understand their point. All this is really going to do is promote sprawl-type development. If the goal is to improve traffic flow in the middle of town, they would do better by fixing Malfunction Junction.
Quote from: froggie on April 15, 2011, 02:58:48 PM
I understand their point. All this is really going to do is promote sprawl-type development. If the goal is to improve traffic flow in the middle of town, they would do better by fixing Malfunction Junction.
I hear the anti sprawl thing thrown around a lot, but it just doesn't hold water to me. Most of it comes from Over The Mountain suburbanites that live in this town that already enjoy the benefits of "sprawl" development. So what if people north and north west of the city get an O'Charley's and a Best Buy somewhere down the line, that doesn't necessarily mean we will jump straight to unending sprawl because of this road's existence. It just seems so much like a "We got our's, we don't what you to get yours" sort of circular argument. A city this size that is a transportation hub that we are needs a complete bypass.
Quote from: Tourian on April 16, 2011, 11:38:31 AM
A city this size that is a transportation hub that we are needs a complete bypass.
And a much better bus system.
Even IF the northern belt does get built, it will require a lot of rock blasting. Do you know how dangerous that is? X-( Furthermore, it will also be hard to have developments there, much less businesses, because the northern area IIRC is very mountainous.
Quote from: froggie on April 15, 2011, 02:58:48 PM
I understand their point. All this is really going to do is promote sprawl-type development. If the goal is to improve traffic flow in the middle of town, they would do better by fixing Malfunction Junction.
Didn't ALDOT just refurbished Malfunction Junction a couple years ago? :hmmm:
Quote from: The Premier on April 16, 2011, 02:24:00 PM
And a much better bus system.
Ok, why not both. If it is one before the other I still say bypass first.
QuoteEven IF the northern belt does get built, it will require a lot of rock blasting. Do you know how dangerous that is?
I'll just give ALDOT the benefit of the doubt that the route they have chosen takes this into consideration and that I don't need to worry about it.
QuoteX-( Furthermore, it will also be hard to have developments there, much less businesses, because the northern area IIRC is very mountainous.
There is plenty of room and flat enough land for there to be development out in Forestdale/Adamsville/Graysville. There is already development in Fultondale right near where 22 is coming in. There is also lots of development the Pinson/Trussville area too.
Quote from: Tourian on April 16, 2011, 11:38:31 AM
Quote from: froggie on April 15, 2011, 02:58:48 PM
I understand their point. All this is really going to do is promote sprawl-type development. If the goal is to improve traffic flow in the middle of town, they would do better by fixing Malfunction Junction.
I hear the anti sprawl thing thrown around a lot, but it just doesn't hold water to me. Most of it comes from Over The Mountain suburbanites that live in this town that already enjoy the benefits of "sprawl" development. So what if people north and north west of the city get an O'Charley's and a Best Buy somewhere down the line, that doesn't necessarily mean we will jump straight to unending sprawl because of this road's existence. It just seems so much like a "We got our's, we don't what you to get yours" sort of circular argument. A city this size that is a transportation hub that we are needs a complete bypass.
I totally agree with you on the development thing. It seems like no one wants the northwest part of Birmingham metro area to experience growth. However, I don't know if a freeway is going to single-handedly cause that to happen. It is going to also take some bold developers that are willing to take on the risk of developing that area.
I think the bypass is needed, but not in it's current form. I think a bypass that is better suited for I-65 traffic would be nicer to see (one that isn't stretched northeast-southwest like I-459 is currently). Then again such a bypass would be more difficult and more expensive to build. Money needs to go towards widening I-65 to at least eight lanes through metro Birmingham.
Quote from: codyg1985 on April 18, 2011, 09:39:57 AM
I totally agree with you on the development thing. It seems like no one wants the northwest part of Birmingham metro area to experience growth. However, I don't know if a freeway is going to single-handedly cause that to happen. It is going to also take some bold developers that are willing to take on the risk of developing that area.
I hear ya. That's why I don't think we'll see unending sprawl, because developers won't take a huge risk on those areas. I don't see it going much further then ONE Colonial Promenade like they have in McCalla, Fultondale and Alabaster. The only likely place for one left would be the Forestdale area. The only other "sprawl" you'd get would be the normal gas stations, truck stops, motels and maybe a couple of apartment complexes. Its not like hwy 78 and 79 would suddenly become 280s.
QuoteI think the bypass is needed, but not in it's current form. I think a bypass that is better suited for I-65 traffic would be nicer to see (one that isn't stretched northeast-southwest like I-459 is currently). Then again such a bypass would be more difficult and more expensive to build. Money needs to go towards widening I-65 to at least eight lanes through metro Birmingham.
Birmingham is shaped like a football so a rounder bypass is just not possible. But again, I hear what you are saying. I used to live on the north side of town and if there was a way to skirt the Junction to get to the west or east, I would have taken it. Even now I'll take 459 even though I know its longer distance wise, but because it will be faster flow wise if I'm coming from the east or west and need to get to the south or vice versa.
Here's a link to an approximate five-minute video report from a Birmingham TV station which touches upon many of the arguments recently raised in this thread:
http://www2.alabamas13.com/news/2011/apr/20/birminghams-proposed-northern-beltine-generates-st-ar-1742759/
Looking at that report, it doesn't appear that the Birmingham northern beltline would go between I-59 and I-20 on the east side of Birmingham. Other than cost savings, I can't understand the reasons for the gap.
As a resident of the Atlanta area, I can't see any advantages to me of this roadway if it does not continue to I-20. If it did, I would use it between I-20 and I-22, otherwise, I would continue to go through the center of Birmingham.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on April 25, 2011, 08:43:33 PM
Looking at that report, it doesn't appear that the Birmingham northern beltline would go between I-59 and I-20 on the east side of Birmingham.
The report indicates that the BNB will receive 80% of its funding from the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). In addition to I-422, the proposed highway is also designated as ADHS Corridor X-1 . Here is a link to the page for the ARC's status report of Alabama's ADHS Corridors:
http://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/adhs_status_report_2010/ADHS2010StatusReportAlabama.pdf
As of Sept. 30, 2010, the ADHS map still shows a segment for Corridor X-1 from I-59 to I-20 [page 4/4 of the pdf], and Corridor X-1 is still defined as extending to I-20 [page 3/4 of the pdf]. The status report indicates that, at the very least, location studies are being performed for the entire length of Corridor X-1, but I suspect such studies for the I-59 to I-20 section are in the VERY early stages.
What's the point of having the Northern beltline? Why not extend I-22 to I-20 instead ending it at I-65 using parts of Northern beltline?
Quote from: Buummu on April 26, 2011, 08:02:04 PM
What's the point of having the Northern beltline? Why not extend I-22 to I-20 instead ending it at I-65 using parts of Northern beltline?
Interesting suggestion. :hmmm: Yet again, getting the ROW in residential areas trying to connect to I-59 or even I-20 will be very tough.
Extending I-22 to I-20/59 in the vicinity of the airport has been bantered about at both ALDOT and the Birmingham MPO for at least the past 10 years, if not longer. I know the MPO was suggesting a feasibility study in the long-range plan in 2001.
The problem wouldn't be so much residential ROW as it would be the high potential for Superfund/contaminated land sites plus squeezing it past the south side of the airport.
Such a connection would also be beneficial in that it'd draw some traffic off of Malfunction Junction (I-20/59/65), especially the future traffic expected when I-22 opens to I-65.
Looking at Google Maps, I can see them extending I-22 from I-65/US 31 towards I-20/59 near exit 128.... even though they might have to get rid of houses and business in the way.. (of course it won't be easy)... but I can just see ALDOT rebuilding the Maflunction Junction anytime later.. and make it similiar to the I-95/I-695 northern interchange (formerly Malfunction Junction)
Quote from: Buummu on April 26, 2011, 08:02:04 PM
What's the point of having the Northern beltline?
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on April 25, 2011, 08:43:33 PM
As a resident of the Atlanta area, I can't see any advantages to me of this roadway if it does not continue to I-20. If it did, I would use it between I-20 and I-22
I'm also from Atlanta and doubt I would ever use this road as a bypass of Birmingham without an I-20 extension.
BNB still appears to have significant local support and ALDOT has posted its Preliminary Analysis (reevaluation of 1997 FEIS and 1999 ROD) of the BNB on its website:
http://aldotapps.dot.state.al.us/BNB/docs/Summary_TechStudyDocument_NorthernBeltline.pdf
It includes a 25 year schedule, $4.7 billion price tag, and a presumption that ARC funding will continue for the next 25 years. A satellite image of the proposed "I-22 Connector" interchange is on page 16/98 of the pdf.
On September 27, over 600 people attended a presentation in Gardendale regarding the BNB, with a large majority of attendees apparently in support of the project:
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/09/gardendale_meeting_on_birmingh.html
Quote
...with ALDOT officials on hand to listen to and record the comments, 65 citizens and 20 to 30 elected officials spoke to the large audience. The overwhelming majority of them spoke in favor of building the road...
Quote from: Grzrd on October 02, 2011, 08:34:00 PM
I'm also from Atlanta and doubt I would ever use this road as a bypass of Birmingham without an I-20 extension.
This seems to be the only use for it, and even then only if you are going from I-22 to/from I-20 or maybe I-20 to/from I-65 north. Other than that it is purely for economic development. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing remains to be seen.
Quote from: Grzrd on October 02, 2011, 08:34:00 PM
A satellite image of the proposed "I-22 Connector" interchange is on page 16/98 of the pdf.
The reasoning for constructing a connector was due to having to use braided ramps at adjacent ramps. From the satellite image it looks like braided ramps for Cherry Ave (~3800' between ramps) and Hillcrest Rd (~1800' between ramps) would still be needed long-term if traffic grows in that area. At the very least, weaving sections would be needed on both ends.
I could also see this alternative requiring less earthwork to occur.
Also there is no need to avoid the historic trestle since it has burned down and the track has been long abandoned.
Quote from: codyg1985 on October 03, 2011, 07:05:24 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on October 02, 2011, 08:34:00 PM
I'm also from Atlanta and doubt I would ever use this road as a bypass of Birmingham without an I-20 extension.
This seems to be the only use for it, and even then only if you are going from I-22 to/from I-20 or maybe I-20 to/from I-65 north. Other than that it is purely for economic development. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing remains to be seen.
It's also a means to keep 18 wheelers out of the center of the city, if possible and give them a bypass that doesn't involve weaving through traffic and crashing into the Malfunction Junction bridges like it happened a few years ago.
Alabama Department of Transportation to delay construction of Northern Beltline for in-depth study of route (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/11/alabama_department_of_transpor_7.html)
QuoteThe Alabama Department of Transportation has withdrawn its application for a permit to build the first segment of the proposed Northern Beltline until an in-depth study of the whole 52-mile route is completed.
ALDOT had applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for permits needed to begin construction on a 3.4-mile segment of the six-lane beltline that would connect Alabama 75 and Alabama 79 near Palmerdale in northeast Jefferson County. ALDOT has spent $15 million acquiring the needed right-of-way and had indicated construction could begin as early as next year.
ALDOT spokesman Tony Harris said ALDOT is still in the midst of a new study that will look at the Beltline project as a whole and evaluate its impact on the economy and environment. The permit application will be resubmitted after the study is completed.
"I can't speculate on when the re-evaluation will be completed because the ongoing work is very detailed," Harris said. "Obviously, the reevaluation must be completed before the project can advance, so I can't guess at when the section of the Beltline between Highways 75 and 79 will be completed."
During the public comment period on ALDOTs permit application, environmental groups had urged the Corps to reject it and were pleased ALDOT was withdrawing the application.
"I think ALDOT is doing the right thing and waiting until the reevaluation is complete," said Sarah Stokes, a staff attorney with the Birmingham office of Southern Environmental Law Center. "We are eager to see what the reevaluation contains. Hopefully, it will thoroughly study the cumulative and indirect impacts of the project and look at alternatives for investing that $4.7 billion."
The SELC represents Black Warrior Riverkeeper in a lawsuit that charges ALDOT hasn't performed required analysis needed to justify the project and determine the best route.
In their comments to Army Corps, the SELC and the Riverkeeper group said that ALDOT's attempt to proceed with construction on the first segment would have circumvented the whole review process by building a segment of the beltline in the middle of its northernmost arc, a segment that would effectively dictate the entire route.
ALDOT had justified the selection of that as the first segment because it would connect two state routes and would have independent utility if the rest of the beltline was never built. Critics of the project disputed that contention since Alabama 79 and Alabama 75 already connect a few miles south of the proposed Beltline.
Stokes said the permit at issue was a good example of the issue as a whole. ALDOT's application for the first segment asked for permission to alter the 1.66 acres of wetlands, but the Beltline project in total would affect 68 acres of wetlands.
In the same way, the construction of one 3.4-mile segment may seem to have only a minor impact but when that segment dictates the route, it is important to understand and justify the entire project, Stokes said.
"It just makes sense to do those kind of studies before you invest that kind of money," Stokes said.
Quote from: Alex on November 16, 2011, 09:12:56 AM
The Alabama Department of Transportation has withdrawn its application for a permit to build the first segment of the proposed Northern Beltline until an in-depth study of the whole 52-mile route is completed ...
ALDOT spokesman Tony Harris said ALDOT is still in the midst of a new study that will look at the Beltline project as a whole and evaluate its impact on the economy and environment. The permit application will be resubmitted after the study is completed.
I posted this article (http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/news/2012/01/10/bentley-proposes-toll-roads-2b-bonds.html) in the "Alabama" thread earlier today, but I started thinking about the possible effects of tolling the Northern Beltline. It seems like a study would need to be performed to determine how much of the Northern Beltline's traffic would avoid the toll by simply staying on I-59 and I-65 southward and then continuing on I-59/I-20 toward Tuscaloosa (and vice versa). My hunch is that number would be significant. It seems like a tolling study should include the additional thirteen miles of Corridor X-1 from I-59 to I-20. (http://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/adhs_status_report_2010/ADHS2010StatusReportAlabama.pdf) My guess is that a significant amount of through traffic from Atlanta to Memphis, particularly freight traffic, would be willing to pay a toll to bypass Birmingham and use the Northern Beltline as the route to get from I-20 to I-22. At the very least, I think a tolling study would need to address this possibility because it might provide the best opportunity for tolls to be feasible.
Can a road built with APD funding be tolled?
Tolling it just seems asinine, in my opinion. Too many people will just avoid using it.
If that's the case, then perhaps the road isn't necessary after all...
I don't get that logic. They should toll I-459 too. Why do people in the more affluent southern suburbs get a free bypass while the neglected north has to pay? Truckers don't care, they'll just get reimbursed by their carriers. That's what a bypass is really for. However, the common local man just wanting to shave a few minutes off his commute shouldn't have to pay. Little towns like Graysville that are frothing at the mouth buying up property looking foward to collecting tax revenue off of businesses that they'll build off of I-22 would love to have the same opportunity with I-422.
If you toll one or both bypasses, you'll likely get a situation similar to Austin, TX. The straight route through town (I-35) is not tolled and congested. The tolled bypass has little traffic as it is longer and the tolls are high enough that it is not worth it for truckers to pay the high rates versus slugging through on I-35.
Right. I agree, having one tolled bypass (or actually half a bypass) tolled and the other half not is insane. Make it free or don't even bother.
This March 29 article (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/03/feds_approve_alabamas_environm.html) indicates that the FHWA has approved Alabama's environmental evaluation of the 3.4-mile segment between Alabama 75 and Alabama 79, and that ALDOT will now start relocating utility lines along that section:
Quote
Proponents of plans for the Northern Beltline scored a major victory today as the Federal Highway Administration gave approval to the state's environmental evaluation of the first segment of the 52-mile interstate connector.
Alabama Department of Transportation director John Cooper tonight confirmed the state had received approval of its evaluation, which had been submitted earlier this week ....
The approval of the evaluation will allow the state to begin working toward relocating utility lines on a 3.4-mile segment between Alabama 75 and Alabama 79 near Palmerdale in northeast Jefferson County.
That must be done before bids for construction can be sought, he said ....
ALDOT in November withdrew its application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build that first segment as it prepared to conduct an in-depth study of the entire 52-mile route.
At that point, ALDOT had spent $15 million acquiring the needed right-of-way in the area of that first segment and had indicated construction could begin this year.
ALDOT officials at the time said the permit application would be resubmitted after the study is completed ....
I'm a little confused. Won't ALDOT still have to submit another application to the Corps of Engineers in order to start construction on the Alabama 75 to Alabama 79 segment? Or, is this simply a prerequisite before re-submitting an application to the Corps?
EDIT - Or, is the Alabama 75 to Alabama 79 segment a SIU of the Northern Beltline, and "FHWA approval" is the issuance of a FEIS (ROD?) for the SIU?
Seeing that the western section most likely won't be built anytime soon, I'd be for an I-22 extension to I-20/I-59, which would provide not only a smooth transition to another Interstate route, but also, a more complete northern bypass of downtown.
QuoteSeeing that the western section most likely won't be built anytime soon, I'd be for an I-22 extension to I-20/I-59, which would provide not only a smooth transition to another Interstate route, but also, a more complete northern bypass of downtown.
Something that, IMO, should be built anyway. Would provide a little bit of redundancy for Malfunction Junction too.
I don't see how extending I-22 would make a decent bypass or that it should be considered as an alternative. I think they should extend I-22 through the city so that it takes some load off of 280 and then run it on down to Columbus, GA and then eventually ending in Jacksonville, Fl. Then build the Northern belt too.
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. Your proposal would actually increase traffic at Malfunction Junction, nevermind that A) 280 is too far gone for a realistic solution, thanks to Alabama's lack-of-ability to do access control/access management on arterials; and B) traffic thins out and the existing US 280 is fine once you get past Chelsea. At most, you'd only need to run a freeway to Harpersville.
I agree with the general concept of extending I-22 to 20/59 somewhere in the eastern part of the city, but IMO the best way they could build that would be to directly connect it at the 20/59 split. In theory, you keep the northbound truck traffic away from the middle of the city by forcing them onto I-22, and help Malfunction Junction as well.
However, that means it would likely go right through not only the airport, but a large cemetery as well. I don't know if it's feasible to go under the airport, either building-wise, or if the government would allow such a thing for security reasons. The alternative is to go around the southern end of the airport and build parallel to 20/59 until the split, then curve it over.
The 20/59 split is already tough to negotiate with the tough curves, but I presume it would be rebuilt anew as part of the construction. There's also the issue of the I-20 portion being only 4 lanes there with the long elevated section, and the intersection with US11 almost right on top of the interchange.
Beyond the airport though, it's a mainly industrial/railroad/open area so the "western" part of that connection should be easy to complete through Fultondale/North Birmingham, other than the topography of it.
You could also connect I-22 to 20/59 a little farther west around the Tallapoosa St. exit, but traffic backs up there as it is, so I can't imagine taking I-22 almost all the way through downtown just to avoid a 4 mile stretch to Malfunction Junction. Either way, IMO by building a connection that close to downtown, you're adding more traffic to the area immediately east of Malfunction Junction, which is the whole reason for the bypass. That little 3 mile area between Tallapoosa and the Split would make for all the difference in the world.
Quote from: BamaZeus on April 11, 2012, 01:00:57 PM
I agree with the general concept of extending I-22 to 20/59 somewhere in the eastern part of the city, but IMO the best way they could build that would be to directly connect it at the 20/59 split. In theory, you keep the northbound truck traffic away from the middle of the city by forcing them onto I-22, and help Malfunction Junction as well.
However, that means it would likely go right through not only the airport, but a large cemetery as well. I don't know if it's feasible to go under the airport, either building-wise, or if the government would allow such a thing for security reasons. The alternative is to go around the southern end of the airport and build parallel to 20/59 until the split, then curve it over.
The 20/59 split is already tough to negotiate with the tough curves, but I presume it would be rebuilt anew as part of the construction. There's also the issue of the I-20 portion being only 4 lanes there with the long elevated section, and the intersection with US11 almost right on top of the interchange.
Beyond the airport though, it's a mainly industrial/railroad/open area so the "western" part of that connection should be easy to complete through Fultondale/North Birmingham, other than the topography of it.
You could also connect I-22 to 20/59 a little farther west around the Tallapoosa St. exit, but traffic backs up there as it is, so I can't imagine taking I-22 almost all the way through downtown just to avoid a 4 mile stretch to Malfunction Junction. Either way, IMO by building a connection that close to downtown, you're adding more traffic to the area immediately east of Malfunction Junction, which is the whole reason for the bypass. That little 3 mile area between Tallapoosa and the Split would make for all the difference in the world.
That's another good way to go.
Well, while I'm dreaming up this Northern Beltline that probably will never happen, or if it does I'll be dead or to old to drive on it, might as well move the airport too. If they ever want the air traffic Delta and Southwest would like to see to give Atlanta a break, they should taken LaLa's deal to line his and his friends pockets to move the airport out east near the dog track.
QuoteThis 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. Your proposal would actually increase traffic at Malfunction Junction, nevermind that...
Well I was saying that 22 should still run through Tarrant and in to 20/59 at Tallapoosa/79 - along WITH a NB. I think the plan holding things up is because the area around there is so dense and it is right there close to the airport.
Quote from: froggie on April 11, 2012, 11:00:57 AM
QuoteSeeing that the western section most likely won't be built anytime soon, I'd be for an I-22 extension to I-20/I-59, which would provide not only a smooth transition to another Interstate route, but also, a more complete northern bypass of downtown.
Something that, IMO, should be built anyway. Would provide a little bit of redundancy for Malfunction Junction too.
Quote from: froggie on April 11, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
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.
This article (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/04/routes_for_bypassing_downtown.html) indicates that ALDOT has not pursued the I-22 extension to I-20/59 near the airport because of concerns over the high cost of the environmental cleanup of contaminated materials that are in the path of the extension:
Quote
So if I-22 continued past I-65 and tied into I-20/59 near the airport, traffic traveling either direction between Atlanta and Memphis could bypass the downtown junction. Additionally, traffic coming south on I-65 and heading east toward Atlanta could take the spur, as could I-20/59 traffic heading north from Birmingham.
Depending on the alignment, that connector would be in the neighborhood of two or three miles long.
The problem is what you encounter in those two or three miles.
"We looked at that years ago," said Don Vaughn, ALDOT's chief engineer. "But you get into a heavy industrial area with contaminated materials and we could not get through there. If we stir it up, we clean it up, and there is too much through there."
Current plans call for ending I-22 at U.S. 31, just beyond its intersection with I-65. If it were to continue in a straight shot, it would soon run into a sprawling industrial complex owned by Walter Energy, which includes a plant that cooks coal into coke, an ingredient in the steel-making process.
Beyond that, the road would have to cut across at least a portion of either the Collegeville or Harriman Park neighborhoods. Both neighborhoods have long suffered the brunt of pollution from surrounding industry. And though such a route possibly could be engineered to provide those communities with a long-sought, quick and easy connection to the rest of the city, it also would bring an increased load of air pollution from automobile traffic.
There might be ways to twist the route through vacated industrial sites, but contamination might be present.
However, I believe the I-22 extension, even factoring in the cost of an environmental cleanup, would be much more cost-effective than the Northern Beltline.
Two other "intown bypass" options that the article discusses are (1) turning US 31 into a northern extension of the Elton B. Stephens Expressway, and (2) extending Finley Boulevard to connect with AL 79 near the airport:
Quote
Another seemingly direct line on the map would be to turn the existing U.S. 31 into a northern extension of the Elton B. Stephens Expressway, which would provide many of the same transit benefits as the I-22 extension. However, that project would face an impossibly tight squeeze between the former Carraway Hospital property and beyond that the North Birmingham business district, and it would require taking numerous homes and businesses.
A third option would be to create a downtown bypass by extending Finley Boulevard.
City planners have long considered the possibility of a secondary route that could take truck traffic from Finley's beginning near I-20/59 at Arkadelphia Road and connect it over to Alabama 79 near the airport.
The extension of Finley into Collegeville and beyond is being actively pursued, though the planned project would have a much smaller footprint than would be required for a true highway. The route also would cut across homes and potentially contaminated industrial sites.
Alabama is asking the AASHTO SCOH Committee on US Route Numbering (USRN) to approve both I-222 and I-422 designation proposals at their spring meeting next week. The proposals are outlined in a summary of the USRN agenda posted at http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf (http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf) and listed on page 11. Unfortunately, the links to the specific proposals are not working, perhaps by the meeting.
Being a follower of I-73, I'm sort of new to I-22, but it looks like I-222 is proposed to run 2.3 miles from I-422 near Brookside, AL back to I-422 north of Birmingham.
I-422 will run west and south 51 miles from I-59 northeast of Trussville to the I-20/59/I-459 interchange near Bessemer. Do you think SCOH might question an why an I-x59 may make more sense given the end points?
Quote from: bob7374 on May 08, 2012, 12:31:16 PM
Alabama is asking the AASHTO SCOH Committee on US Route Numbering (USRN) to approve both I-222 and I-422 designation proposals at their spring meeting next week. The proposals are outlined in a summary of the USRN agenda posted at http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf (http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf) and listed on page 11. Unfortunately, the links to the specific proposals are not working, perhaps by the meeting.
Being a follower of I-73, I'm sort of new to I-22, but it looks like I-222 is proposed to run 2.3 miles from I-422 near Brookside, AL back to I-422 north of Birmingham.
I-422 will run west and south 51 miles from I-59 northeast of Trussville to the I-20/59/I-459 interchange near Bessemer. Do you think SCOH might question an why an I-x59 may make more sense given the end points?
The I-222 road is a connector that will connect I-22 to I-422 (confused yet)? At first I-422 (also known as the Birmingham Northern Beltline or BNB) would have a conventional interchange with I-22, but to cut costs it was decided that instead of an interchange there would be a connector freeway to connect I-422 to I-22. I-422/BNB will cross I-22 with no interchange.
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.
It has now been moved into this thread that ALDOT is submitting a request to the AASHTO SCOH Committee (http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf) 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 (http://ballot.transportation.org/filedownload.aspx/?attachmentType=Item&ID=654) and I-222 (http://ballot.transportation.org/filedownload.aspx/?attachmentType=Item&ID=654) are separate requests.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 08, 2012, 12:31:16 PM
Alabama is asking the AASHTO SCOH Committee on US Route Numbering (USRN) to approve both I-222 and I-422 designation proposals at their spring meeting next week. The proposals are outlined in a summary of the USRN agenda posted at http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf (http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf) and listed on page 11. Unfortunately, the links to the specific proposals are not working, perhaps by the meeting.
I fucking hate links in PDFs. Here are the correct URLs:
http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=654 (I-222)
http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=655 (I-422)
Are there any signs up on Interstate 22 stating Interstate 22 between Memphis and Birmingham?
Quote from: sr641 on May 08, 2012, 04:31:59 PM
Are there any signs up on Interstate 22 stating Interstate 22 between Memphis and Birmingham?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=interstate+22+sign
Quote from: NE2 on May 08, 2012, 04:58:27 PM
Quote from: sr641 on May 08, 2012, 04:31:59 PM
Are there any signs up on Interstate 22 stating Interstate 22 between Memphis and Birmingham?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=interstate+22+sign
I wholeheartedly endorse this lmgtfication.
Quote from: sr641 on May 08, 2012, 04:31:59 PM
Are there any signs up on Interstate 22 stating Interstate 22 between Memphis and Birmingham?
Like this?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7053%2F7140449097_996a85c655_z_d.jpg&hash=5c01c8f9a9371c5627dbed63a571ec9f34f36f6c)
Quote from: US71 on May 08, 2012, 05:25:32 PM
Quote from: sr641 on May 08, 2012, 04:31:59 PM
Are there any signs up on Interstate 22 stating Interstate 22 between Memphis and Birmingham?
Like this?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7053%2F7140449097_996a85c655_z_d.jpg&hash=5c01c8f9a9371c5627dbed63a571ec9f34f36f6c)
So its not officially 22 yet; it's still a corridor. On google maps it says its an interstate now.
Quote from: sr641 on May 08, 2012, 05:29:07 PM
Quote from: US71 on May 08, 2012, 05:25:32 PM
Quote from: sr641 on May 08, 2012, 04:31:59 PM
Are there any signs up on Interstate 22 stating Interstate 22 between Memphis and Birmingham?
Like this?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7053%2F7140449097_996a85c655_z_d.jpg&hash=5c01c8f9a9371c5627dbed63a571ec9f34f36f6c)
So its not officially 22 yet; it's still a corridor. On google maps it says its an interstate now.
I meant like an Interstate 22 sign not a Future Interstate 22 sign but thanks for the great picture.
Quote from: sr641 on May 08, 2012, 05:29:07 PM
Quote from: US71 on May 08, 2012, 05:25:32 PM
Quote from: sr641 on May 08, 2012, 04:31:59 PM
Are there any signs up on Interstate 22 stating Interstate 22 between Memphis and Birmingham?
Like this?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7053%2F7140449097_996a85c655_z_d.jpg&hash=5c01c8f9a9371c5627dbed63a571ec9f34f36f6c)
So its not officially 22 yet; it's still a corridor. On google maps it says its an interstate now.
It also shows I-269 as active around Memphis, but it isn't. Google maps is not necessarily a reliable source of info.
Quote from: US71 on May 08, 2012, 05:37:42 PM
Quote from: sr641 on May 08, 2012, 05:29:07 PM
Quote from: US71 on May 08, 2012, 05:25:32 PM
Quote from: sr641 on May 08, 2012, 04:31:59 PM
Are there any signs up on Interstate 22 stating Interstate 22 between Memphis and Birmingham?
Like this?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7053%2F7140449097_996a85c655_z_d.jpg&hash=5c01c8f9a9371c5627dbed63a571ec9f34f36f6c)
So its not officially 22 yet; it's still a corridor. On google maps it says its an interstate now.
It also shows I-269 as active around Memphis, but it isn't. Google maps is not necessarily a reliable source of info.
Thanks I'll have to remember that. Which map company do you think produces the most accurate maps? I thought Rand Mcnally and Google did for a while.
Quote from: sr641 on May 08, 2012, 05:40:14 PM
Which map company do you think produces the most accurate maps? I thought Rand Mcnally and Google did for a while.
Based on the new 2013 Rand McNally Atlas, I wouln't depend on much of anything they show.
rte66man
Quote from: NE2 on May 08, 2012, 01:36:51 PM
http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf
Alabama: Future I-222 (Establish) USRN Application Future 222 9-27-2011.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=654)
Alabama: Future I-422 (Establish) USRN Application Future I - 422 9-27-11.pdf (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=655)
So much for any thought of completing I-459 as a loop, but why does I-422 go from 59 to 59? If it must have a different number, 259 would be most appropriate. I'm also not sure whether I-222 should really be I-122 - probably could go either way.
EDIT: Now that I saw this in the other thread, I acknowledge that Bob said it 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?
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on May 08, 2012, 07:30:31 PM
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?
100% agreed with your first point. It would seem that Alabama is serious about I-422, so I would expect to see work on it start in the next NN years, where N is somewhere under 3.
So I-422 could start somewhere under 33 years? I may live that long, hahaha, so it might be built in my lifetime after all.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on May 08, 2012, 08:20:03 PM
So I-422 could start somewhere under 33 years? I may live that long, hahaha, so it might be built in my lifetime after all.
As of September 2011, the Summary of Preliminary Analysis Conducted for the Reevaluation of Project HPP-1602(530)(529)(502)(531)(532) Birmingham Northern Beltline (http://aldotapps.dot.state.al.us/BNB/docs/Summary_TechStudyDocument_NorthernBeltline.pdf) set forth the ROW acquisition and construction schedule as follows (page 3/98 of pdf):
Quote
1.2.2 Status of ROW Acquisition and Construction Schedules
The only section of the project that has advanced to ROW acquisition is the SR 79 to SR 75 project. All ROW for this 3.4 mile section has been acquired. The schedules for ROW acquisition and construction are detailed in Table 1. The western sections of the project are in the long range plan and are not scheduled for ROW acquisition or construction in the next five years. The SR 79 to SR 75 section of the project would be the first to advance to construction with a date of 2012.
Table 1. ROW Acquisition and Construction Schedules
Project (Section) ROW Start CST Start
I-459/59/20 to CR 46 2031 2032
CR 46 to US 78 2031 2032
US 78 to CR 77/Mt. Olive Road 2024 2026
CR 77/Mt. Olive Road to I-65 2019/ 2021 2021/ 2022
I-65 to US 31 2013 2014
US 31 to SR 79 2013 2014/ 2015
SR 79 to SR 75 2007 2012
SR 75 to I-59 2025 Not Programmed
A map of the proposed I-222 in its entirety (it is called "I-22 Connector" on the map) is on page 16/98 of the pdf.
^ 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.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56I 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.
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 08, 2012, 01:06:37 PM
It has now been moved into this thread that ALDOT is submitting a request to the AASHTO SCOH Committee (http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf) 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 (http://ballot.transportation.org/filedownload.aspx/?attachmentType=Item&ID=654) and I-222 (http://ballot.transportation.org/filedownload.aspx/?attachmentType=Item&ID=654) 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.
Quote from: BamaZeus on May 09, 2012, 12:36:54 PM
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.
Or they could sign it much as I-865 near Indianapolis is.
Where are the termini of the Northern Beltline supposed to go? Will they correlate to either of the termini of I-459?
Quote from: Morriswa on May 11, 2012, 11:36:58 PM
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 https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=i0459al
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 08, 2012, 12:55:19 PM
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.
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 08, 2012, 12:55:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Tourian on May 17, 2012, 07:04:15 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 08, 2012, 12:55:19 PM
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.
Quote from: tidecat on May 12, 2012, 03:05:55 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 08, 2012, 12:55:19 PM
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.
Quote from: kurumi on May 18, 2012, 11:08:29 AM
Quote from: tidecat on May 12, 2012, 03:05:55 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 08, 2012, 12:55:19 PM
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.
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 (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/06/report_says_economic_benefits.html#incart_river_default)
Quote from: jdb1234 on June 20, 2012, 01:20:56 PM
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 (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/06/report_says_economic_benefits.html#incart_river_default)
The Center for Business and Economic Research fires back (http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2012/07/your_view_criticisms_of_ua_cen.html) with a strong response and a challenge to the
Birmingham News:
Quote
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
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.
This July 23 article (http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2012/07/transportation_bill_eliminates.html) 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:
Quote
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:
Quote from: froggie on April 11, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
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.
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
Quote from: Tourian on May 17, 2012, 07:04:15 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 08, 2012, 12:55:19 PM
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.
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on August 25, 2012, 05:18:03 PM
Quote from: Tourian on May 17, 2012, 07:04:15 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 08, 2012, 12:55:19 PM
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
Quote from: Grzrd on July 28, 2012, 10:54:01 AM
Quote
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.
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on August 25, 2012, 05:18:03 PM
I-422 does not exactly work if both termini are at I-59.
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 27, 2012, 08:15:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 27, 2012, 10:31:16 AM
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?
Quote from: Grzrd on July 28, 2012, 10:54:01 AM
This July 23 article (http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2012/07/transportation_bill_eliminates.html) 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
Quote from: Tourian on August 28, 2012, 01:21:18 PM
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 (http://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/adhs_status_report_2011/ADHS2011StatusReportAlabama.pdf), I wonder if they ever considered I-420 as the interstate designation:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWmHnK.jpg&hash=dabc1cf3d4deef8192f28afee56e0e9f6198acdd)
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. :sombrero:
Quote from: Tourian on May 17, 2012, 07:04:15 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 08, 2012, 12:55:19 PM
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!
Video attacks Southern Environmental Law Center for objections to Northern Beltline (http://blog.al.com/live/2012/10/video_attacks_southern_environ.html#incart_river)
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.
Quote from: NYYPhil777 on August 25, 2012, 05:18:03 PM
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?
Technically, I-105 in Los Angeles doesn't connect with its parent but instead with I-405, I-110, and I-605.
Yes. Lots of precedent.
Quote from: NE2 on November 29, 2012, 08:30:19 AM
Yes. Lots of precedent.
Yes any of the X78's in NYC. The lack of a direct connect between I-422 and 22 is a terrain issue. 2026 for a potential starting date is likely ambitious too...
I honestly don't expect to see this road finished in my lifetime. Maybe portions of it will be built, but with the expense of building in difficult terrain and the lack of revenue to build roads, I just don't see it being finished.
This December 19 TV video report (http://www.cbs42.com/content/localnews/story/Northern-Beltline-Concerns/tiw-I64r_USqlWCat8i8vg.cspx) includes a depiction of an "Alabama" I-422 shield and the startling revelation that the Beltline is being funded by the Appalachian Trail project ... :hmm:
It also points to the land holdings of US Steel, Drummond, and other large companies that might have an accelerated appreciation in value if the Beltline is built.
Quote from: Grzrd on December 22, 2012, 09:27:30 AM
This December 19 TV video report (http://www.cbs42.com/content/localnews/story/Northern-Beltline-Concerns/tiw-I64r_USqlWCat8i8vg.cspx) .... points to the land holdings of US Steel, Drummond, and other large companies that might have an accelerated appreciation in value if the Beltline is built.
This blog from DC.StreetsBlog.org (http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/01/28/meet-the-4-7-billion-birmingham-highway-only-cronyism-could-build/) is highly critical of the Northern Beltline and also points to the land holdings.
As expensive as the route is, I feel that the bypass would take some traffic off of the Birmingham interstates. How much isn't certain, but it should help, especially with the I-65 North to I-20/59 South movement, I-65 North to I-20 East, and possibly through I-65 traffic. Since through traffic modeling/truck traffic modeling is very hard to do, you can't just say that the models predict that it will do little to help traffic in the Birmingham area.
I am skeptical of the economic benefits of the road, however, at least those that would be tangible for everyday folks.
The beltway is not needed. The money could be spent on improving and if possible, widening I-65 and I-59/I-20 and some roads around the town. over $1 billion for the beltway.. I wouldn't want to spend that much just to build a beltway around the city.. especially with the terrain there. IMO.
If I had to choose between one and the other, I would choose rebuilding the existing interstates for sure, including rebuilding the I-20/59/65 interchange.
Though it seems to be dead at this point, extending I-22 to I-20/59 near the airport would do far more for traffic than the Northern Beltline ever would. I also don't think think there's enough traffic utilizing those through movements Cody mentioned for the Northern Beltline to make enough of a dent at Malfunction Junction. An I-22 extension would have much more of an impact at Malfunction Junction than the Northern Beltline, because it could also be used for in-metro travel as well as through traffic. Northern Beltline doesn't do anything for the in-metro traffic.
Quote from: froggie on February 02, 2013, 09:14:28 AM
Northern Beltline doesn't do anything for the in-metro traffic.
Why wouldn't it? People particularly heavy trucks can go around instead of coming through. If it doesn't help here, it doesn't help anywhere in an city with a complete loop.
QuoteWhy wouldn't it? People particularly heavy trucks can go around instead of coming through. If it doesn't help here, it doesn't help anywhere in an city with a complete loop.
Put another way, the Northern Beltline doesn't do squat for folks going from Adamsville to Mountain Brook. Or from Gardendale to Irondale. Or to/from just about any other location within 10 miles of downtown.
"Particularly heavy trucks" are not a significant part of metropolitan area traffic. You're not going to divert enough through traffic around town to alleviate the traffic issues within town.
I agree. Like others said, I am for extending I-22 to tie to the I-20/59 near the split (i know the cemetery is in the way at the split so it wouldn't make sense to tie I-22 directly at the trumpet interchange)
But, using that money to improve the malfunction junction should be done. Why the city didn't do that is beyond me. The interchange needs to be modified/improved.
I agree in that modifying Malfunction Junction would do more good than people know. Most of the wrecks are caused by people going too fast around the curves or having to quickly move onto a ramp. I'd like to think that by straightening it out, and maybe eliminating the left exits, that it would prevent any more trucks toppling over, and reduce some of the imminent danger throughout the intersection.
An example of the insanity: if you're coming from 65 south and want to go to the BJCC, you have about 1000 feet to successfully cross 5 lanes of traffic to get off at that first exit.
Myself, I've said before that I'd like to see 20/59 buried under the streets from Malfunction Junction past Red Mountain Expressway, maybe all the way past Tallapoosa St, and widened underground, but that's a pipe dream to be sure.
It also might benefit a potential I-22 junction near the airport. Like I've mentioned before, maybe you could go under the airport to make the connection at the 20/59 split and straighten out that curve as well. But, I don't know if you could even legally build a road under an airport like that with all the Homeland Security regulations, etc.
Quote from: BamaZeus on February 04, 2013, 12:21:57 PM
It also might benefit a potential I-22 junction near the airport. Like I've mentioned before, maybe you could go under the airport to make the connection at the 20/59 split and straighten out that curve as well. But, I don't know if you could even legally build a road under an airport like that with all the Homeland Security regulations, etc.
Roads pass under runways and taxiways all the time.
Hopefully whenever in the next 30 years the northern beltloop is built, it will attract commerce along the interstate itself, but I especially hope it will help boost the economy of towns of northwestern Jefferson county, as it has lagged in economic development and has hardly attracted any businesses, as compared to the southern portions of birmingham. I am from the NW part of Jefferson Co myself and I grow sick sometimes of seeing Hoover, Homewood, Mtn Brook, etc., have major businesses move into the area while areas such as Adamsville, Graysville, Brookside, etc., rarely see any businesses at all move into the area. This plays a major factor in why NW Jefferson Co is poorer than the rest of the county and hopefully I-422 will at least somewhat bring development around to this area. Most people that actually earn a decent amount of money in this area work in the southern or eastern portions of birmingham, because there are much more businesses and job opportunities there. It would be beneficial if major businesses would start popping up in this part of birmimgham, but it's probably not going to happen soon without I-422.
Frankly most of the benefits of the northern beltline could be achieved by just extending I-459 to I-65 north, making it possible for all Interstate traffic to bypass Malfunction Junction (I-22 thru traffic could just go up I-65 north to the extended I-459). A full belt really isn't necessary.
As for I-22 extending to I-20/59 (which probably would also help), you could probably pull it off by just continuing southeast from I-65; you don't need a direct tie-in with I-20 east, just meet up with 20/59 west of the airport and put in some C/D roads along that section to serve the airport and 40th Street exits. No need to tunnel under the airport or cemetery.
Quote from: rmshiflett on March 05, 2013, 09:34:14 PM
Hopefully whenever in the next 30 years the northern beltloop is built, it will attract commerce along the interstate itself, but I especially hope it will help boost the economy of towns of northwestern Jefferson county, as it has lagged in economic development and has hardly attracted any businesses, as compared to the southern portions of birmingham. I am from the NW part of Jefferson Co myself and I grow sick sometimes of seeing Hoover, Homewood, Mtn Brook, etc., have major businesses move into the area while areas such as Adamsville, Graysville, Brookside, etc., rarely see any businesses at all move into the area. This plays a major factor in why NW Jefferson Co is poorer than the rest of the county and hopefully I-422 will at least somewhat bring development around to this area. Most people that actually earn a decent amount of money in this area work in the southern or eastern portions of birmingham, because there are much more businesses and job opportunities there. It would be beneficial if major businesses would start popping up in this part of birmimgham, but it's probably not going to happen soon without I-422.
I grew up northwest of where you are from in Walker County, and I too grew jealous of seeing the SE portion of the Birmingham metro prosper while the side we are on suffered. Unfortunately, I think it will take more than a road to make things better. The drug/meth problem is a big problem that I think should be taken care of, but of course that lies beyond the scope of this thread and this forum.
I think I-459 did play a huge role in making the south suburbs of Birmingham what they are now, but I think the movement southward was already happening; I-459 just made it even more attractive. Even with I-22, I don't know what would come out that way unless someone with a lot of money was able to flatten a lot of land to build something on.
I think the biggest drawback to I-422 as it is planned now is that it is so far west and northwest of downtown Birmingham to really do anything to alleviate congestion through the city. And on top of that, the NE section of the planned route really doesn't serve a need, real or imagined, unless it were to extend down to I-20 in or around Leeds. I really doubt that a lot of travelers pass through Birmingham via I-65 southbound to take I-59 northbound towards Gadsden and Chattanooga.
There probably is a need for the NW section of the route, if for any other reason than to divert traffic out of downtown that might be heading from Tuscaloosa towards Huntsville and Nashville. Still, since so many of freight yards for the trucking companies are located near I-20/59 in Pratt City, it's doubtful that as many trucks would avail themselves of this route as one might expect.
QuoteI think the biggest drawback to I-422 as it is planned now is that it is so far west and northwest of downtown Birmingham to really do anything to alleviate congestion through the city.
Of course not. Its primary purpose is to spur development in northwest Jefferson County, not alleviate congestion. Anyone who argues otherwise is just blowing smoke.
QuoteAnd on top of that, the NE section of the planned route really doesn't serve a need, real or imagined, unless it were to extend down to I-20 in or around Leeds.
Concur, but even if it were extended to Leeds, extending I-22 southeast to I-20/59 would serve the same purpose. 3 miles vs. 30 miles...you do the math.
QuoteThere probably is a need for the NW section of the route, if for any other reason than to divert traffic out of downtown that might be heading from Tuscaloosa towards Huntsville and Nashville. Still, since so many of freight yards for the trucking companies are located near I-20/59 in Pratt City, it's doubtful that as many trucks would avail themselves of this route as one might expect.
Only if they were forced to...ala what they already require for I-20/59 through trucks, that they use I-459.
However, it'd be much cheaper and more cost-effective to smooth out the I-20/59 lane changes (either side of US 78 has always bothered me) and redo Malfunction Junction. That would provide much more benefit to EVERYBODY than building the NW part of the Beltline ever would.
Quote from: froggie on March 07, 2013, 07:39:33 PM
Only if they were forced to...ala what they already require for I-20/59 through trucks, that they use I-459.
However, it'd be much cheaper and more cost-effective to smooth out the I-20/59 lane changes (either side of US 78 has always bothered me) and redo Malfunction Junction. That would provide much more benefit to EVERYBODY than building the NW part of the Beltline ever would.
If only they would widen I-20/59 from Bessemer to Ensley. Six lanes would be nice; eight would be even better. And then take care of I-59 from East Lake to Trussville or beyond.
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2013, 07:49:00 PM
QuoteWhy wouldn't it? People particularly heavy trucks can go around instead of coming through. If it doesn't help here, it doesn't help anywhere in an city with a complete loop.
Put another way, the Northern Beltline doesn't do squat for folks going from Adamsville to Mountain Brook. Or from Gardendale to Irondale. Or to/from just about any other location within 10 miles of downtown.
"Particularly heavy trucks" are not a significant part of metropolitan area traffic. You're not going to divert enough through traffic around town to alleviate the traffic issues within town.
It is a bypass. It is not for metro area traffic. It is for people passing through from somewhere else to somewhere else outside the city or outside the state. So that means "particularly heavy trucks" and travelers from anywhere else.
Since you're bringing up an old comment, please re-read the second line of mine in that old comment you quoted. That is why the Northern Beltline is financially foolish.
Quote from: froggie on March 27, 2013, 11:04:04 PM
Since you're bringing up an old comment, please re-read the second line of mine in that old comment you quoted. That is why the Northern Beltline is financially foolish.
I responded to an old comment directed to me. It's not like I resurrected a dead thread. You don't build a bypass for the benefit of metro traffic, it is just a byproduct that it helps since you remove some interstate traffic from the junction and you then put up signs that let the truckers passing through know they HAVE to use it. So that helps everybody.
It doesn't help enough to be cost-effective. That's been my point since the get-go.
Quote from: Tourian on April 02, 2013, 05:38:49 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 27, 2013, 11:04:04 PM
Since you're bringing up an old comment, please re-read the second line of mine in that old comment you quoted. That is why the Northern Beltline is financially foolish.
I responded to an old comment directed to me. It's not like I resurrected a dead thread. You don't build a bypass for the benefit of metro traffic, it is just a byproduct that it helps since you remove some interstate traffic from the junction and you then put up signs that let the truckers passing through know they HAVE to use it. So that helps everybody.
I don't think it will remove some interstate traffic from the junction.. because going straight is usually faster and easier than going around the city unless it is to get to their destinations. It's more like a Belt Route (see I-215) than a beltway for I-22 travelers since it's I-422. But i'd just put I-22 on the beltline and have it extended to end at I-20. the remaining route between I-20/59/459 and the future I-22 can just remain I-422.
I still say that a bypass for I-65 through traffic is needed, and the Northern Beltline won't fix that because it is so far out of the way.
A few points against such a bypass:
- I don't think there's as much I-65 through traffic as some are thinking...certainly not enough to make the expense worthwhile. AT BEST, I-65 has maybe 10K of through traffic daily...likely less than that.
- Topography.
- Existing development that pretty much precludes any potential I-65 bypass that wouldn't have excessive mileage (more than 10 miles) over taking existing I-65. I-459 works for I-20/59 because it's only 2 miles longer than taking I-59 through town...and is actually a mile-and-a-half shorter than staying on I-20. You're just not going to get that for I-65.
Quote from: froggie on April 04, 2013, 11:21:28 AM
It doesn't help enough to be cost-effective. That's been my point since the get-go.
Right, right. They should just wait until it is desperately needed and by then ROW costs will be astronomical or impossible to secure and then people will say they shoulda built it years ago before traffic got so bad.
But what do I know, I just live here. You out of towners continue to weigh in on what Birmingham drivers do and do not need.
Does Alabama not have corridor protection like Illinois does so they can protect the ROW early and then build the facility a decade or two later?
Tourian: you're still completely missing my point. Bottom line: THE NORTHERN BELTLINE IS NOT NEEDED. To build it would be a complete waste of money...money that could be used to fix where the traffic problems REALLY are: in the middle of Birmingham (or on 280).
QuoteBut what do I know, I just live here. You out of towners continue to weigh in on what Birmingham drivers do and do not need.
Quite the isolationist attitude to have. But the fact that ALDOT is actively pursuing FEDERAL money in order to build it means that the Federal taxpayer should have an opportunity to weigh in. Get your local officials to stop seeking the Federal trough, and I'll stop "weighing in".
They force the through trucks to use it. So even if going straight through is quicker it will relieve stress.
The NB is needed because it creates a complete loop. No one ever suggests just making half of one because it is stupid. They never built it because a long time ago the governor of the state was a racist pig headed jerk that kept all interstate development out of Birmingham. Now we as a transportation hub are getting what we need.
This article (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2013/08/new_cost_estimate_puts_norther.html) reports that FHWA is now estimating the cost of completion for the Northern Beltline to be $5.45 billion; ALDOT still estimates the cost to be lower than $4.7 billion. Estimated completion date for the entire project is December 2048.
In other words, it's an even bigger waste of money now than ALDOT is predicting.
And it is still going forward and will be a big boost to the metro area. 4.7, 5.45 do I hear 6? Its chump change and irrelevant.
Quote from: Tourian on May 17, 2013, 04:26:19 PM
They force the through trucks to use it. So even if going straight through is quicker it will relieve stress.
The NB is needed because it creates a complete loop. No one ever suggests just making half of one because it is stupid. They never built it because a long time ago the governor of the state was a racist pig headed jerk that kept all interstate development out of Birmingham. Now we as a transportation hub are getting what we need.
So would the proposed Dixie Freeway in NOLA, the Baton Rouge Metro Loop, and the Lafayette Metro Expressway....and none of them have been built merely because "building half a loop is stupid". There are far, far better and more important priorities than a full loop around Birmingham....just as there are in Lafayette, BTR, and NOLA. Try taking off your rose colored spectacles for a bit.
All that's really needed (and that's a stretch...) is the NE quadrant to get I-65 trucks over to I-459. I'd rather they spend the money on US 280 or some other route where there's sufficient traffic demand.
I'd love to see the money spent on upgrading the I-65 corridor and US 280 through Birmingham metro.
QuoteAnd it is still going forward and will be a big boost to the metro area. 4.7, 5.45 do I hear 6? Its chump change and irrelevant.
$6B is not chump change, but you're right on one thing. The road is irrelevant. Also will not be even close to a boost to the metro area as you think it'll be.
QuoteAll that's really needed (and that's a stretch...) is the NE quadrant to get I-65 trucks over to I-459. I'd rather they spend the money on US 280 or some other route where there's sufficient traffic demand.
QuoteI'd love to see the money spent on upgrading the I-65 corridor and US 280 through Birmingham metro.
From what I figure, the $5B+ they want to spend on the Northern Beltline would adequately pay for a complete Malfunction Junction (I-20/59/65) overhaul, put the 20/59 viaduct downtown below-grade where it belongs, extend I-22 to I-20/59, widen the I-20 bridges east of 59, and major improvements to 280. Benefits *MUCH MORE* people than the Northern Beltline ever will.
Well its a good thing for us that your made up figures and opinions dont affect ALDOT.
I suppose you either didn't notice (or, more likely, don't care) that I'm NOT the only one on this forum saying the Northern Beltline isn't needed.
If the northern beltline is supposed to be completed by '48, I will either be dead or a decrepit old man by then (age 92). I first heard about plans for a northern bypass of Birmingham back in '83 when I was still in my 20's. So these days, it takes a virtual lifetime to get a road built from conception to ribbon cutting.
One of the problems I have with the BNB is that it is taking away money from other projects in Alabama that could qualify for ADHS funding. Here in Huntsville, the construction of the interchange of US 72/Corridor V at Moores Mill Road and Shields Road, which has been needed for over a decade, has been pushed back ten years, yet the project was targeted for ADHS funding prior to the passage of MAP-21 which should qualify the project for 100% federal funding. However, for some strange reason, this is not important enough for ALDOT to pursue. I suspect that money is targeted to go to the BNB as well. The interchange also costs a drop in the bucket compared to the BNB ($60 million versus $5.4 billion).
Quote from: froggie on August 22, 2013, 12:22:55 AM
I suppose you either didn't notice (or, more likely, don't care) that I'm NOT the only one on this forum saying the Northern Beltline isn't needed.
I dont care. What is this, third grade? If I dont get as many popularity votes as little Timmy I should go pout in the corner? Get real.
X and X-1 are the highest in state priorities. Nothing in Huntsvillr could possibly come close. This doesnt mean they will never do corridor V it just means not now. Give it 50 years perhaps.
QuoteI dont care. What is this, third grade? If I dont get as many popularity votes as little Timmy I should go pout in the corner? Get real.
Just pointing out that others share the same viewpoint as I do, while you seen fixated on me for some reason.
QuoteX and X-1 are the highest in state priorities. Nothing in Huntsvillr could possibly come close. This doesnt mean they will never do corridor V it just means not now. Give it 50 years perhaps.
X-1 is only a "priority" in terms of development. As has been pointed out both by me and several others, there are plenty of projects, including within Birmingham/Jefferson County alone, that would serve far more traffic than the Northern Beltline ever will. And could be done much less expensively.
If you want me to shut up about it (something you've said previously), convince your state to do the project *WITHOUT* Federal funding. If you need an example, look at the state above you. As long as Alabama is sucking on the Federal money teet for this project, Federal taxpayers can and should have a say on it.
This a forum. Your comments can be checked and challenged just like any one else's. No one is fixated on you and no one told you to shut up. On page 6 you made some lame comment about me responding to one of your "older" comments. I shouldve known then what was going on. But no more.
im glad x-1 is going forward and I hope the time to build it is less then anticipated.
Quote from: Tourian on April 19, 2013, 04:14:27 PM
Right, right. They should just wait until it is desperately needed and by then ROW costs will be astronomical or impossible to secure and then people will say they shoulda built it years ago before traffic got so bad.
But what do I know, I just live here. You out of towners continue to weigh in on what Birmingham drivers do and do not need.
I definitely agree. Road planning based primarily on present needs borders on incompetence; since it takes 10-20 years to build a road, if you build based on present needs, your road capacities will lag 10-20 years behind what you should have. I've seen this 20 year lag take place in some cities and towns and it doesn't turn out well; oftentimes when a new connection is needed the lane is covered with new housing, whereas 20 years prior it was farmland. Planning 20-30 years ahead is best IMO. In the few places that consistently stay on top of future traffic demand, the consensus about the road building is "it seems like too much but it really isn't".
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on August 22, 2013, 06:35:03 AM
If the northern beltline is supposed to be completed by '48, I will either be dead or a decrepit old man by then (age 92). I first heard about plans for a northern bypass of Birmingham back in '83 when I was still in my 20's. So these days, it takes a virtual lifetime to get a road built from conception to ribbon cutting.
65 years to build a road is a ridiculous length of time. TN 840 took 26 years to go from a gleam in Lamar Alexander's eye to a completed roadway, and it was built without any federal money. Phoenix's newer freeways were also built largely without federal funding. You would think that federal funding would speed up a project, but it seems that states have to go it alone to get anything done nowadays. Plus it keeps people like froggie who don't know anything about the area's transportation needs from whining about it.
To be fair the project has only gotten real momentum in the past five years and no work has been done. I22 OTOH took every bit of 35 years.
To see how Birmingham will benefit one just needs to look at a map and how all the communities grew and prospered around 459. In one direction. Its like were butted up against a bay or river. Fultondale, jasper, pinson etc are sleepy rural little podunk towns compared to Hoover, vestavia, trussville. For thesr places, just getting a travel center, a motel 6 and a CVS out on the bypass is going to be a huge boost to their revenue.
Huh? How will Birmingham benefit from the suburbs getting sprawl?
Without being a jerk, there were some nasty comments being lobbied by ADOT lobbyists on here. Let's give respect to some long-time forum and MTR members on here and stop being dicks.
That said, a northern bypass does nothing for Birmingham. It serves a rural and underdeveloped area and would only benefit suburbanites and a rural county seeking to develop more land for resource sucking sprawl. There, I said it. With all of the momentum that Birmingham has going for it right now, with quite a few urban development projects underway and others that will be coming online in the near future, I'm excited more for its urban core than anything.
Without 459 there would probably be no Summit which is in Birmingham city limits and may be no Galeria because the southern suburbs would not have developed enough to support them. To say that doesn't benefit birmingham is just flat out stupid. Now the northern half of the metro gets a shot at some growth. In this post banking housing bubble bust world we live in to assume the north half is just going to sprawl out of control is also dumb.
ross bridge, riverchase, grand river, liberty park, summit. All owe their existence to 459 and part of why Birmingham is a growing metro of 1.2 million and climbing. We need balanced growth. Not to keep pushing south towards clanton but more managable distances like pinson graysville and Fultondale.
Again though. If you dont live here you dont know and are ignorant to why the road is a high priority over whatever it is you are wishing was happening in your own state.
Quote from: Tourian on August 27, 2013, 10:11:57 AM
Without 459 there would probably be no Summit which is in Birmingham city limits and may be no Galeria because the southern suburbs would not have developed enough to support them. To say that doesn't benefit birmingham is just flat out stupid. Now the northern half of the metro gets a shot at some growth. In this post banking housing bubble bust world we live in to assume the north half is just going to sprawl out of control is also dumb.
ross bridge, riverchase, grand river, liberty park, summit. All owe their existence to 459 and part of why Birmingham is a growing metro of 1.2 million and climbing. We need balanced growth. Not to keep pushing south towards clanton but more managable distances like pinson graysville and Fultondale.
Again, how does a mall 13 miles from the city and does not support the city in the way of property and sales taxes - actually benefit Birmingham? How does houses in Hoover or Homewood support Birmingham's tax base?
Quote
Again though. If you dont live here you dont know and are ignorant to why the road is a high priority over whatever it is you are wishing was happening in your own state.
Don't be a dick. I never referred to any money being diverted to projects that I "wish[ed]" was happening in my "own state." I offer my opinion, as does others, and your comments are no more higher than anyone else.
So you need a lesson on the metro area core city/ suburb dynamic? Suburbs are not going away. As much as I like the idea of downtown growing back up not everyone is going to pick up and leave their homes and move into a loft downtown. So having a mall and suburbs for some of your people to live in who just happen to work downtown requires a bypass to make the citizens not have to drive that far. Forcing all those who want that lifestyle to live south of town is stupid especially when weve pushed into south shelby county. Theres west st clair and north jefferson and east walker county all nearby and untouched. Birmingham has annexed land around the 22/65 junction, they may move to or already have bid on key areas around this new bypass route.
To deny this is to be purposely dense and reeks of jealousy and ignorance. There, I said it.
Quote from: Tourian on August 27, 2013, 11:45:44 AM
So you need a lesson on the metro area core city/ suburb dynamic? Suburbs are not going away. As much as I like the idea of downtown growing back up not everyone is going to pick up and leave their homes and move into a loft downtown. So having a mall and suburbs for some of your people to live in who just happen to work downtown requires a bypass to make the citizens not have to drive that far. Forcing all those who want that lifestyle to live south of town is stupid especially when weve pushed into south shelby county. Theres west st clair and north jefferson and east walker county all nearby and untouched. Birmingham has annexed land around the 22/65 junction, they may move to or already have bid on key areas around this new bypass route.
To deny this is to be purposely dense and reeks of jealousy and ignorance. There, I said it.
The point that you are purposely dense and ignorant about is that Birmingham does not need a northern bypass for current or projected traffic patterns. All it will do is cut through undeveloped area and make it developed. Development is heading toward the south side of the city, and that's where highways should be upgraded.
The fact that development is heading to the south of the city is because of 459 which is what you are purposely blind to. 65 and 459 do not need 6 billion in upgrades. 280 is being improved right now as best as can be done. Only ignorant people from outside believe that 280 can be fixed or that the powers that be living there will allow it to be fixed by sinking it, making it into a toll road or elevating it or whatever you people can dream up. It isnt happening.
The north side of the metro needs this road and it looks like it is going to get it. So just deal with it.
QuoteThe fact that development is heading to the south of the city is because of 459 which is what you are purposely blind to.
No, that's exactly his point. As Sherman studies urban planning and Steve is a civil enginner, they're well aware of how development follows the Interstates, whether it's good or bad. Hence why they know what the Northern Beltline will do...spur sprawling development in northern Jefferson County (beyond what already exists in patches here and there). The Northern Beltline is not about traffic...it's all about development.
QuoteThe north side of the metro needs this road and it looks like it is going to get it.
That ALDOT depends *HEAVILY* on the Federal funding trough (which, last time I checked, was shrinking) and their own projections are for 2048 (20 years past what their projections were 10 years ago), it's a safe bet that this will be a very long time in coming if it even comes at all. They've been "actively pursuing" this for 15 years...at least as far back as when I was stationed in Meridian, MS (and making runs up and down I-59).
I do not believe things will sprawl out of control. It is just a fallacious opinion you hold that you think is fact. Suburban life is a reality that is not going away. Soon people will have the opportunity to live in a conveneient suburb mere minutes from downtown instead of pushing further from downtown into south shelby county. It is not good for a city metro to force its development further and further away from the core in ONE direction. People feel more of a disconnect and are less likely to come downtown for a Barons game or an event at the civic center or a visit a unique restaurant or whatever the further away they are.
More and more heavy industry is coming to
Alabama and more and more truck traffic with it and Birmingham is in the center of it. There is no model to suggest otherwise.
You guys just hate fact that Alabama is a welfare state and is getting some attention. The feds build roads to serve the whole country even states you dont like. It may even help people who have no intention of stopping here but just want drive through to one of your more worthy coveted donor states. Imagine that. Or imagine a stronger Alabama with more commercial or industrial development that is no longer sucking from the federal teat. Not going to happen with the attitude of never ever building anything we need here.
Tourian, you're the first person I've ever seen on this forum who thinks suburban sprawl is a good thing.
Or who believes that truck traffic will "more and more" come to Birmingham, when in fact, the opposite is true. Rail and containerized shipping has been growing at a fast pace, in part due to diesel prices, high labor costs with trucking goods around and highway capacities.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=freight-rail-back-to-the-future
"According to a 2009 study by the Federal Railroad Administration, rail fuel efficiency varies from 66 to 218 ton-kilometers per liter, whereas truck fuel efficiency ranges from 29 to 57 ton-kilometers per liter.
Moreover, the fuel efficiency of rail has been ramping up at a far faster rate than trucks. Between 1990 and 2006 rail efficiency improved by about 20 percent, or 1.1 percent annually."
"Further, as rail privately invested $40 billion in new infrastructure over the past five years, the trucking industry has suffered high fuel and labor prices–the two largest costs–which have forced it to contract since 2005. Accordingly, rail has gradually taken market share away from trucks since 1999."
"One double-stacked train can replace 300 trucks and save 285,000 liters of fuel on the 3,200-kilometer journey between Chicago and Los Angeles."
Etc. Etc.
--
Railroads are much safer: http://www.uprr.com/she/cts/rvtruck.shtml
--
Energy use is much higher in a truck (and airplane) than rail: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/eefig_ch5.htm
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eia.doe.gov%2Femeu%2Fefficiency%2Fimages%2Feefig_521.gif&hash=be8a830847fc8d6668b5d511192acf470c5d3bc7)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 28, 2013, 04:26:32 PM
Tourian, you're the first person I've ever seen on this forum who thinks suburban sprawl is a good thing.
Maybe the first to admit it, but I can think of several that probably emit nocturnally while dreaming about it.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 28, 2013, 04:34:11 PM
Or who believes that truck traffic will "more and more" come to Birmingham, when in fact, the opposite is true. Rail and containerized shipping has been growing at a fast pace, in part due to diesel prices, high labor costs with trucking goods around and highway capacities.
Does not Birmingham have a decent sized intermodal yard? If so, I can see how this will bring more truck traffic to Birmingham, but to/from the yard. A new bypass will not help that traffic, unlike for example, the building of the Illinana Expressway in Will County, Illinois. That one is specifically meant to go from the two very large intermodal yards eastward to I-65 in Indiana.
Now, if one of the railroads built an intermodal yard north of Birmingham, the northern bypass, or at least a part of it might make more sense.
Norfolk Southern operates the McCalla terminal, which can handle TOFC/COFC and STACK cars. It was under construction in this aerial (http://goo.gl/maps/tqLmn) but has opened.
CSX recently also opened an intermodal terminal in Bessemer, and BNSF also has one off of Finley Ave in Birmingham.
Sprawl is a fact and a reality and is unavoidable. Im just at peace with it. You guys are the ones saying it will be never ending and go out if control. The recession has taught us a few lessons and that type of unchecked growth isnt going happen again.
Yes there are intermodal facilities around town. Yes Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai and Airbus have or will have plants nearby. Yes their suppliers and possibly their competitor competitors will build here too. And yes that means more people and more vehicles and more development and more traffic.
until I stop seeing endless subdivisions, billboards for shady adjustable mortgages, SUVs taking up two compact-car spots in the parking lot... I will continue to believe that the recession hasn't taught us nearly enough.
Quote from: Tourian on August 28, 2013, 05:39:57 PM
Sprawl is a fact and a reality and is unavoidable. Im just at peace with it. You guys are the ones saying it will be never ending and go out if control. The recession has taught us a few lessons and that type of unchecked growth isnt going happen again.
Yes there are intermodal facilities around town. Yes Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai and Airbus have or will have plants nearby. Yes their suppliers and possibly their competitor competitors will build here too. And yes that means more people and more vehicles and more development and more traffic.
Sprawl will happen without freeways. I've watched it happen all through Lake and McHenry Counties, Illinois. There are no freeways there aside from the Tri-State Tollway along the eastern edge of Lake County. A freeway also does not mean development will suddenly sprout all along it. I-469 around Fort Wayne, Indiana is still fairly well underdeveloped as are a lot of rural freeways. Freeways and other roads need to follow the development patterns, and from what I can see from maps of Birmingham, Alabama, most of the development is east, west, and south of Birmingham due to the topography. Thus, any additional roads should be in those areas, I would think.
The northern beltline will serve the east the north and the west.
The south is well covered.
We are well aware of that.
Quote from: Tourian on August 28, 2013, 05:39:57 PM
Sprawl is a fact and a reality and is unavoidable. Im just at peace with it. You guys are the ones saying it will be never ending and go out if control. The recession has taught us a few lessons and that type of unchecked growth isnt going happen again.
Yes there are intermodal facilities around town. Yes Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai and Airbus have or will have plants nearby. Yes their suppliers and possibly their competitor competitors will build here too. And yes that means more people and more vehicles and more development and more traffic.
Cool your horses. I'm saying this as a site moderator.
Now then, it has nothing to do with sprawl being good or bad. It's
unnecessary. Alabama is looking to build a highway where there isn't demand. Most of us would rather see improvements made in areas where there is inadequate capacity to serve the existing demand, especially in this economic climate with limited dollars. Places like Texas are spending now instead of saving for the future, and they will eventually run into the same drastic shortfalls as states like NJ, PA, CA... In fact, you're even seeing it now with the paved roads returning to gravel. Plain and simple: if people and businesses want to move north, they will start to do so on the existing network until it starts to reach capacity, and then that will be an obvious indicator to come build a freeway. This is the formula for the lion's share of freeways that have already been built in this country. Don't do a WV and build four-lane highways from nowhere to nowhere. What WV is finding is that except for coal trucks, nothing's really happening along them. Waste of money and space.
So I'm not saying I-422 will induce sprawl. I'm saying that it's not WARRANTED because there's not ENOUGH sprawl. It will make the area sprawl a little faster, but it's the tail wagging the dog.
The biggest issue with the northern beltline is the terrain; even if you could justify it for sprawl (and, frankly, I don't think sprawl per se is particularly objectionable), the amount of developable land opened up by the beltline just doesn't correspond to the costs; like south of the city, the north side has a few valleys surrounded by a lot of rugged terrain that you can't build on without massive earthworks. Say what you will about the Montgomery loop, but at least the land it opens up for development is flat enough to build on (and the flatter terrain also makes the construction costs lower, also improving the benefit-cost ratio).
I dont consider arguments about what is or is not happening in other states to be valid reasons on what to do or not to do here.
Apparently the concern is to not wait any longer until data shows that the road is absolutely needed to satisfy all of you who have no vested interest in the state or its commerce. Because by then it will be too late. Alabamas leaders want to position us as a state that builds things and Birmingham is the transportation hub of it all.
The challenging terrain will make for a scenic drive. They said the terrain made the site of the current Summit undesirable. Good thing we didnt listen.
It's just not needed, simple and easy. But, again our government spends unnecessary money. The government takes the blame if we all go bankrupt.
Quote from: Tourian on August 28, 2013, 03:16:41 PM
I do not believe things will sprawl out of control. It is just a fallacious opinion you hold that you think is fact. Suburban life is a reality that is not going away. Soon people will have the opportunity to live in a conveneient suburb mere minutes from downtown instead of pushing further from downtown into south shelby county. It is not good for a city metro to force its development further and further away from the core in ONE direction. People feel more of a disconnect and are less likely to come downtown for a Barons game or an event at the civic center or a visit a unique restaurant or whatever the further away they are.
If you don't like sprawl, I'd think having new housing built 5 miles to the north of downtown would be better than having it all built 30 miles south of downtown. That is, if you actually care about sprawl and aren't just using it as an excuse for NIMBYism :paranoid:.
QuoteMore and more heavy industry is coming to
Alabama and more and more truck traffic with it and Birmingham is in the center of it. There is no model to suggest otherwise.
As the economy (hopefully) grows over the long run, truck traffic will increase even if rail captures a greater piece of the pie, because the pie is growing.
Quote from: Brandon on August 28, 2013, 05:51:18 PMSprawl will happen without freeways. I've watched it happen all through Lake and McHenry Counties, Illinois. There are no freeways there aside from the Tri-State Tollway along the eastern edge of Lake County. A freeway also does not mean development will suddenly sprout all along it. I-469 around Fort Wayne, Indiana is still fairly well underdeveloped as are a lot of rural freeways. Freeways and other roads need to follow the development patterns, and from what I can see from maps of Birmingham, Alabama, most of the development is east, west, and south of Birmingham due to the topography. Thus, any additional roads should be in those areas, I would think.
It's been demonstrated that cities sprawl with or without freeways, and sprawl doesn't always follow freeway corridors. I'm also of the opinion that it's much better for cities to sprawl with or along freeway corridors that can handle the traffic rather than two-lane country roads that become overloaded and difficult to expand.
Quote from: 31E on September 03, 2013, 12:30:48 PM
If you don't like sprawl, I'd think having new housing built 5 miles to the north of downtown would be better than having it all built 30 miles south of downtown. That is, if you actually care about sprawl and aren't just using it as an excuse for NIMBYism :paranoid:.
This makes no sense. I am FOR the beltline. I have stated that pushing in one direction is silly. We are not a bay or river city. Areas like Fultondale, Pinson and Adamsville could make very nice suburban alternatives that are a lot closer to downtown rather then Calera, Montevallo and Clanton. As it stands now the metro has sprawled down 65 that far.
As for more truck traffic, again yes I agree it will increase along with rail track. There are a few large intermodal yards here and a complete bypass will keep them out of the cities core junction.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approves permit for first segment of Northern Beltline: http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2013/09/us_army_corps_of_engineers_app.html
The first segment will be let for construction in November.
Quote from: codyg1985 on October 01, 2013, 08:05:45 AM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approves permit for first segment of Northern Beltline: http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2013/09/us_army_corps_of_engineers_app.html
The first segment will be let for construction in November.
Good to read that this will finally get going. Work was slated to start last year. See Grzrd's post upthread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2731.msg147724#msg147724
Quote from: Alex on October 01, 2013, 11:21:13 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on October 01, 2013, 08:05:45 AM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approves permit for first segment of Northern Beltline: http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2013/09/us_army_corps_of_engineers_app.html
The first segment will be let for construction in November.
Good to read that this will finally get going
Maybe not. Here comes the Southern Environmental Law Center! (http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/news/2013/10/25/northern-beltline-lawsuit-filed.html)
Quote
The permit being challenged by the lawsuit was the final hurdle needed for construction to begin. Gov. Robert Bentley said work on the project would begin in 2014, but a prolonged suit could prevent that from happening.
As a side note, the money ALDOT would have to gather to build the full Northern Beltline would easily pay for the proposal to build an I-20/59 bypass of downtown (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10598.0). Almost 3 times over, actually, per ALDOT cost estimates for such a downtown bypass.
Just sayin...
^ +1
Looking forward to when good ole boy backroom graft gets that garbage lawsuit tossed right on out.
The first segment of the project is on the letting schedule for November in a special letting.
Quote from: codyg1985 on October 26, 2013, 08:00:29 AM
The first segment of the project is on the letting schedule for November in a special letting.
Thanks for letting us know. :pan:
Interesting to me that there are only three bidders (http://alletting.dot.state.al.us/BidList/BIDNov2213.htm) tentatively interested in constructing the grade/drain for the first segment. Two are local contractors and the other is a contractor from Beckley, WV. With a project like this and with the amount of time the near final plans have been advertised on the ALDOT website, one would think that there would be way more bidders for this project. This makes me wonder if there are constructability issues that are preventing more contractors from bidding on the project?
Looks like now there are five additional bidders for this segment.
Saw this on the Northern Beltline Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/bhambeltline) page:
Federal Court Rules Against Black Warrior Riverkeeper Request for Preliminary Injunction to Block Construction of the Northern Beltline (http://northernbeltline.org/news/federal-court-rules-against-black-warrior-riverkeeper-request-for-preliminary-injunction-to-block-construction-of-the-northern-beltline/)
QuoteThis afternoon the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama Northern Division ruled against the Black Warrior Riverkeeper (BWR) in BWR's request for a preliminary injunction to block the start of construction for the Northern Beltline.
The BWR had requested the injunction, claiming that the start of construction on a 1.8 mile segment of the Northern Beltline joining State Roads 79 and 75 violated the National Environmental Policy Act requirements and that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CORPS) should have conducted an Environmental Impact Study for the entire 50.1 mile Northern Beltline project instead of only the first segment.
Good news. However I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear from Black Warrior...
Work will finally begin on Monday.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2014/02/northern_beltline_construction.html#incart_river_business
Construction began earlier this week on the first segment of I-422, between AL-75 and AL-79 near Palmerdale. Photos from al.com were posted today.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2014/02/northern_beltlines_first_segme.html#incart_river_default
Progress from construction between AL 75 and AL 79: http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2014/05/northern_beltline_construction_2.html#incart_river_default
I really want to go scope this area out soon. I am considering hosting another meet in the Birmingham area a year from October, or whenever the I-22/65 interchange is complete. Part of the meet would have a look at this construction.
I spotted this entry at a Wiki devoted to Birmingham
http://www.bhamwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Northern_Beltline
and the Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corridor_X-1
with few mention of the connector link between I-22 and I-422 numbered I-222
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on May 22, 2014, 05:36:31 PM
I spotted this entry at a Wiki devoted to Birmingham
http://www.bhamwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Northern_Beltline
and the Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corridor_X-1
with few mention of the connector link between I-22 and I-422 numbered I-222
It doesn't seem like those wiki pages have been updated with that information. The wikipedia page is way too optimistic on the completion date for sure.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJJ02u7p.jpg&hash=8b33c802f9ef82e72fbab496752ca2be08a5a685)
This is the beltline construction yesterday - AL 79 end.
Quote from: clong on August 15, 2014, 02:40:27 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJJ02u7p.jpg&hash=8b33c802f9ef82e72fbab496752ca2be08a5a685)
This is the beltline construction yesterday - AL 79 end.
Nice shot.
Curious, though: is this being done as a four-lane to start, or just as a super-2 for now (like BVB in NWA)?
O was looking the other day for the dashed lines that appear on google maps for this segment without success.
Quote from: MikeSantNY78 on August 18, 2014, 06:30:40 PM
Nice shot.
Curious, though: is this being done as a four-lane to start, or just as a super-2 for now (like BVB in NWA)?
It is being graded for six lanes, but only the grade and drain is being built now. The mainline bridges will be contracted out next, then finally the pavement will be contracted out.
More pictures from the construction of the Northern Beltline between AL 75 and AL 79: http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2014/09/northern_beltline_construction_1.html#incart_river
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on August 18, 2014, 07:40:01 PM
O was looking the other day for the dashed lines that appear on google maps for this segment without success.
Perhaps it's because Google Maps doesn't recognize any roads that are under construction, only those that are completed.
Quote from: Henry on September 11, 2014, 12:29:43 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on August 18, 2014, 07:40:01 PM
O was looking the other day for the dashed lines that appear on google maps for this segment without success.
Perhaps it's because Google Maps doesn't recognize any roads that are under construction, only those that are completed.
Actually not true. You can now find portions of the Pittsburgh Southern Beltway, New International Bridge and their approaches, The EOE complex along with the 294/57 interchange in Illinois and many other projects that are under construction indicated on google maps as dashed lines
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on September 11, 2014, 02:04:33 PM
Quote from: Henry on September 11, 2014, 12:29:43 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on August 18, 2014, 07:40:01 PM
O was looking the other day for the dashed lines that appear on google maps for this segment without success.
Perhaps it's because Google Maps doesn't recognize any roads that are under construction, only those that are completed.
Actually not true. You can now find portions of the Pittsburgh Southern Beltway, New International Bridge and their approaches, The EOE complex along with the 294/57 interchange in Illinois and many other projects that are under construction indicated on google maps as dashed lines
Is this a recent development? I've been on Google Maps before, and I've only seen the roads that are completed and open to traffic.
Yes, you have to zoom it really close enough to see the dashed lines. It is there.
Could I ask as a favor that you post a link to the map. I know it requires a large zoom, I just still could not find it.
QuoteYes, you have to zoom it really close enough to see the dashed lines. It is there.
I just checked, the Birmingham Beltline dashed lines are not there.
Updated photos from the construction for the grade and drain between AL 75 and AL 79: http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2014/10/northern_beltline_construction_2.html
Can you see any signs of work via google satellite yet?
A banking website has named the Northern Beltine the 7th largest boondoogle in the US:
The 7th biggest boondoggle in the U.S. is Alabama's (http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/11/the_7th_biggest_boondoggle_in.html)
Quote from: codyg1985 on November 30, 2015, 07:35:11 AM
A banking website has named the Northern Beltine the 7th largest boondoogle in the US:
The 7th biggest boondoggle in the U.S. is Alabama's (http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/11/the_7th_biggest_boondoggle_in.html)
Yea, we could use that 5 billion on Huntsville's northern bypass instead! :spin:
Though in all honesty, the 5 billion would be much better spent on a Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta freeway.
Heck, even in Birmingham several projects come to mind:
- Expanding I-65 through Birmingham metro
- Redoing I-20/59 either with a cut and cover tunnel through downtown or rerouting it around downtown
- Upgrading US 280 to a freeway
My biggest beef with the road, besides the cost, is the route it takes. It doesn't even really function as a good bypass unless you are going from I-20 Westbound to I-65 northbound, or I-65 southbound to I-20/59 westbound. A bypass for through I-65 traffic (traffic headed to the beach) would be great, but that would be very difficult to achieve.
Also, of interest to this thread, there is updated aerial imagery showing construction along the portion between AL 79 and Al 75: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7353253,-86.6786126,3759m/data=!3m1!1e3
Instead of building new roads, how about using that $5B (which in reality is much less since very little of the Northern Beltline is actually funded) to improve existing roads? Would directly benefit more people and spread to more areas of the state than just one or two corridors.
I'd also argue that, if that money actually existed and were to remain in the Birmingham area, there would be far more benefit to using it to reroute 20/59 out of downtown Birmingham than in building this Northern Beltline.
Yet another item of interest. ALDOT has created a website that talks about the beltway and the progress of the entire project. http://betterbeltline.org/
I figure that was only created because that was one thing that ALDOT had to do from one of the environmental lawsuits that was levied against them.
Quote from: froggie on November 30, 2015, 12:05:31 PM
Instead of building new roads, how about using that $5B (which in reality is much less since very little of the Northern Beltline is actually funded) to improve existing roads? Would directly benefit more people and spread to more areas of the state than just one or two corridors.
I'd also argue that, if that money actually existed and were to remain in the Birmingham area, there would be far more benefit to using it to reroute 20/59 out of downtown Birmingham than in building this Northern Beltline.
Either that or completely rebuild that Malfunction Junction.
Quote from: mvak36 on November 30, 2015, 12:17:59 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 30, 2015, 12:05:31 PM
Instead of building new roads, how about using that $5B (which in reality is much less since very little of the Northern Beltline is actually funded) to improve existing roads? Would directly benefit more people and spread to more areas of the state than just one or two corridors.
I'd also argue that, if that money actually existed and were to remain in the Birmingham area, there would be far more benefit to using it to reroute 20/59 out of downtown Birmingham than in building this Northern Beltline.
Either that or completely rebuild that Malfunction Junction.
The current plan for rebuilding I-20/59 through downtown actually calls for adding MORE ramps to Malfunction Junction.
Quote from: codyg1985 on November 30, 2015, 12:46:28 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on November 30, 2015, 12:17:59 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 30, 2015, 12:05:31 PM
Instead of building new roads, how about using that $5B (which in reality is much less since very little of the Northern Beltline is actually funded) to improve existing roads? Would directly benefit more people and spread to more areas of the state than just one or two corridors.
I'd also argue that, if that money actually existed and were to remain in the Birmingham area, there would be far more benefit to using it to reroute 20/59 out of downtown Birmingham than in building this Northern Beltline.
Either that or completely rebuild that Malfunction Junction.
The current plan for rebuilding I-20/59 through downtown actually calls for adding MORE ramps to Malfunction Junction.
Oh god. That interchange will be a mess when it's all said and done. :ded:
Quote from: froggie on November 30, 2015, 12:05:31 PM
Instead of building new roads, how about using that $5B (which in reality is much less since very little of the Northern Beltline is actually funded) to improve existing roads? Would directly benefit more people and spread to more areas of the state than just one or two corridors.
Or paying off Alabama's budget deficit.
Will the Interstate 20/59/65 interchange be reconstructed with right-handed only exit and entrance ramps?
As part of this upcoming project, no.
I sure miss the old days when proposed highways used to have a white dashed line denoting their routings, like Rand McNally used to have back in the 60s and 70s. As for the Northern Beltline, while I won't argue that it's badly needed, $5 billion is certainly too much for a project of its magnitude. This is where tolls would've helped funding-wise, but I read somewhere that AL has been opposed to them for years.
I think part of what's being forgotten here is that the project (at least the current portion) is 100% federally funded since the Northern Beltline is Appalachian Regional Commission Corridor X-1. So we can all have great ideas about better ways to use the money, but the bottom line is that this money is dedicated to this project and there's no guarantee that we would get any of it if ALDOT declined to build the Beltline.
How many want to bet that Interstate 422 won't be completed for decades to come, if ever?
Quote from: clongis 100% federally funded since the Northern Beltline is Appalachian Regional Commission Corridor X-1.
This means far less today than most people think. Congress got rid of having a dedicated ARC funding pot a few years ago. Sure, it's 100% Federally funded, but that's because Congress changed things to where states can use 100% Federal funding for a given ARC project...they no longer need to provide a state/local match. And that funding now comes from each state's NHS (National Highway System) allotment...there is no more ARC dedicated funding. So yeah, ALDOT could use "100% Federal funding" on the Northern Beltline. But that means they'd be pulling money from other potential projects on Alabama's Interstates and major 4 lane corridors (Interstates are automatically on the NHS...most of the state's 4 lane corridors are as well).
Quotebut the bottom line is that this money is dedicated to this project
No it's not, for the reasons I cited above.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 01, 2015, 04:26:24 PM
How many want to bet that Interstate 422 won't be completed for decades to come, if ever?
I have a feeling that you might be right.
Quote from: froggie on December 01, 2015, 08:17:36 PM
Quote from: clongis 100% federally funded since the Northern Beltline is Appalachian Regional Commission Corridor X-1.
This means far less today than most people think. Congress got rid of having a dedicated ARC funding pot a few years ago. Sure, it's 100% Federally funded, but that's because Congress changed things to where states can use 100% Federal funding for a given ARC project...they no longer need to provide a state/local match. And that funding now comes from each state's NHS (National Highway System) allotment...there is no more ARC dedicated funding. So yeah, ALDOT could use "100% Federal funding" on the Northern Beltline. But that means they'd be pulling money from other potential projects on Alabama's Interstates and major 4 lane corridors (Interstates are automatically on the NHS...most of the state's 4 lane corridors are as well).
Quotebut the bottom line is that this money is dedicated to this project
No it's not, for the reasons I cited above.
So, to clarify, would Alabama receive the same amount of federal funding/NHS allotment if they didn't have this project?
Correct, they'd receive the same amount. It's ALDOT's choice (probably pressured by the Governor and local politicians) to use their NHS allotment on the Northern Beltline. They don't receive any special funding anymore JUST for the Beltline.
Note however that Hillary Clinton, at least, has promised that she will restore a dedicated ARC funding stream if elected (whether she can deliver on this promise, of course, is a completely open question given that Congress has the power of the purse, not the president). If that happens, I'd imagine projects on the slow or back burner like the remainder of Corridor V (and maybe even the Interstate upgrade for the Batesville-Tupelo section - I'm not sure how that would interact with the 100% federal funding rule), I-99 north of I-80, and the Beltline will get renewed attention.
Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2015, 12:39:37 PM
Correct, they'd receive the same amount. It's ALDOT's choice (probably pressured by the Governor and local politicians) to use their NHS allotment on the Northern Beltline. They don't receive any special funding anymore JUST for the Beltline.
Admittedly, not knowing the inner workings of this process, I would have imagined that those states having ARC Corridors that haven't been completed would get somewhat of a bump in their NHS funding over the same state without the ARC Corridor. I now realize it isn't earmarked, just thought it would be more - even if only a slight bit.
QuoteInterstate upgrade for the Batesville-Tupelo section
Has this been suggested/proposed?
Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2015, 06:04:17 PM
QuoteInterstate upgrade for the Batesville-Tupelo section
Has this been suggested/proposed?
See high priority corridor 42 on this list: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcfitext.cfm (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcfitext.cfm)
Quote from: Grzrd on August 28, 2012, 09:31:18 PM
ARC map of Corridor X-1 (http://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/adhs_status_report_2011/ADHS2011StatusReportAlabama.pdf) ...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWmHnK.jpg&hash=dabc1cf3d4deef8192f28afee56e0e9f6198acdd)
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 ...
Quote from: codyg1985 on November 30, 2015, 12:01:26 PM
My biggest beef with the road, besides the cost, is the route it takes. It doesn't even really function as a good bypass ...
Quote from: lordsutch on December 02, 2015, 02:49:58 PM
Note however that Hillary Clinton, at least, has promised that she will restore a dedicated ARC funding stream if elected (whether she can deliver on this promise, of course, is a completely open question given that Congress has the power of the purse, not the president). If that happens, I'd imagine projects on the slow or back burner like the remainder of Corridor V (and maybe even the Interstate upgrade for the Batesville-Tupelo section - I'm not sure how that would interact with the 100% federal funding rule), I-99 north of I-80, and the Beltline will get renewed attention.
In terms of the Beltline, I would like to see renewed attention placed on the I-59 to I-20 section of Corridor X-1*. Doing so would help to create a good bypass for Atlanta-Memphis traffic.
edit
* Currently, Future I-422 has a terminus at I-59 (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOHSM2012%205-19-2012.pdf) and does not continue to I-20.
I still think the Birmingham North Beltline should have had a different number, since it will only have an indirect connection with Interstate 22.
At one point ALDOT internally referred to it as AL 959.
Extend it from I-59 to I-20 and it could be re-designated as I-420. :-o
I would agree Interstate 420 would be a better number. However, it is probably too late to renumber the BNB.
It was numbered I-422 at a recent AASHTO SCOH meeting. Also, the short leg between I-22 and I-422 will be I-222.
One has to wonder, why I-222 and I-422 when there are plenty of unused I-x20s and I-x59s available? Granted, those I-x22 numbers would work better if I-22 were extended further east into GA and possibly FL (however unlikely that may be), but seeing that neither end of the Northern Beltline will be at I-22, I find it kind of strange that they named it and the connector that way.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 03, 2015, 04:52:06 PM
I would agree Interstate 420 would be a better number. However, it is probably too late to renumber the BNB.
Come on man, you know good and well why they wouldn't name it that. Those signs would have to be welded on and electrified with 24hr guard.
Quote from: Tourian on December 04, 2015, 02:32:28 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 03, 2015, 04:52:06 PM
I would agree Interstate 420 would be a better number. However, it is probably too late to renumber the BNB.
Come on man, you know good and well why they wouldn't name it that. Those signs would have to be welded on and electrified with 24hr guard.
As per Colorado, just name it "I-419.99"...
If Corridor X-1 doesn't connect to I-20 on its east side (or eastern terminus), this will be rather silly.
If not 420, how about 220 or 259?
Quote from: Tourian on April 11, 2012, 11:02:08 AM
I don't see how extending I-22 would make a decent bypass or that it should be considered as an alternative. I think they should extend I-22 through the city so that it takes some load off of 280 and then run it on down to Columbus, GA and then eventually ending in Jacksonville, Fl. Then build the Northern belt too.
I think it would be cool for Jacksonville to have another interstate, but if you drive on US 1/23 and 82 across South Georgia there is not traffic to justify another interstate, maybe a bypass here or there
Quote from: formulanone on December 04, 2015, 02:47:51 PM
As per Colorado, just name it "I-419.99"...
Off-topic, I noticed last time I was on I-75 that FDOT has done the same thing (mile marker 419.9 has replaced mile marker 420).
It is named I-422 because from Interstates 20, 59, and 65, you take I-422 "FOR 22" and then you take I-222 "TO 22" for some movements from I-422.
Do you see what they did there now? The number choice is not to satisfy interstate auxiliary numbering conventions in the slightest, it is for simplicity in route finding and route number memorization for common drivers.
Quote from: aboges26 on December 06, 2015, 02:02:23 PM
It is named I-422 because from Interstates 20, 59, and 65, you take I-422 "FOR 22" and then you take I-222 "TO 22" for some movements from I-422.
Do you see what they did there now? The number choice is not to satisfy interstate auxiliary numbering conventions in the slightest, it is for simplicity in route finding and route number memorization for common drivers.
Well, now that I think of it, it does make sense in a way, and I like the cleverness behind the numbering schemes. Still, it doesn't look right from a traditional standpoint, for the most obvious reasons stated earlier.
I'm quite late to this so I may be saying the same thing someone else has said, but this project, really doesn't sound like a good idea. Why are they starting in the middle of nowhere? why not start as a spur off of 59 or 65?
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 07, 2015, 11:37:02 AM
I'm quite late to this so I may be saying the same thing someone else has said, but this project, really doesn't sound like a good idea. Why are they starting in the middle of nowhere? why not start as a spur off of 59 or 65?
Living in Birmingham, I'll take a stab with no documentation to support my opinion:
1. This area was one of the roughest terrain and bigger "environmental" concerns on the project
2. It does connect 2 state routes, so it would have some independent viability
3. It doesn't have an interstate connection, so that keeps the costs down some and is thus a good 1st piece of the project with this in mind...
4. I believe this is a flip of the Philadelphia Museum of Art thought process (where they built the sides and waited for public outcry/donations for the middle), build the middle and then it only makes sense to connect it since you've already built the middle. And once it's connected to one interstate, you might as well at least connect it to the other one...
It's the same logic that applied when Alabama half-assed the Corridor X/US 78 [now I-22] Jasper bypass by only completing it to AL 269. Of course, it didn't really work to accelerate things much in that case.
Quote from: lordsutch on December 07, 2015, 04:38:36 PM
It's the same logic that applied when Alabama half-assed the Corridor X/US 78 [now I-22] Jasper bypass by only completing it to AL 269. Of course, it didn't really work to accelerate things much in that case.
I don't know that they are trying to accelerate things when they take this approach, rather I believe they are trying to make sure they don't die on the drawing board.
Again I'm a late comer to this thread but, what is the sentiment about this project on here, and out in the public in Alabama?
I've lived in Birmingham all of my life, so I guess my perspective is based on living here for nearly 56 years.
At one time, I thought that a northern bypass similar to I-459 was a good idea. As the initial drawings came out, I began to have my doubts. In my mind, the only logical leg of the route is the one between I-65 and I-20/59 west/southbound, since it would alleviate some of the congestion through downtown. That being said, the proposed route is so far out of the way that it would add several (I'm not sure how many) miles to the trip, and furthermore, would not be to an advantage to truckers, since most of the freight yards in Birmingham are just off I-20/59 at Exits 120 and 121. (The proposed junction would be at milepost 106 for 20/59).
A better use of the monies for this project might be coming up with a workable solution for the U.S. 280 disaster.
Quote from: Charles2 on December 07, 2015, 09:00:20 PM
A better use of the monies for this project might be coming up with a workable solution for the U.S. 280 disaster.
And fixing "malfunction junction" (I-65 & I-20/I-59).
I think it is gigantic waste of money. A bypass would have been better built years ago when the original I-459 was built. Now that the route is pushed farther and farther out, it doesn't make sense as a bypass. It is a ploy for the landholders (mainly US Steel) to gain money from the state to build the road through their land. I think a bypass is a great idea, but not this iteration of it. Something built closer to the city would have more benefit, but there would also be as many issues with relocating residents and businesses with a route closer to the city as you would have building through the difficult terrain that the current route takes.
Another question is whether this bypass is too far out to reduce congestion on existing routes.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 09, 2015, 02:31:25 PM
Another question is whether this bypass is too far out to reduce congestion on existing routes.
Not a chance. There are no logical connections on the route as it stands now.
Building the route closer to the city would put it through people's homes. That wouldn't serve a purpose as a bypass. I do not see how anyone can look at that map and conclude that it has "no logical connections." There's critical thought and than there's just straight up bull headed contrarianism.
I bet the people sitting on 20/59 or even 459 this morning and yesterday wish we had that road.
The only way such a road would fully serve it's purputed purpose as a "bypass" is if no development happens along it. Odds of that happening? I'd say zilch.
Quote from: froggie on December 10, 2015, 07:36:12 PM
The only way such a road would fully serve it's purputed purpose as a "bypass" is if no development happens along it. Odds of that happening? I'd say zilch.
I'd put it at slim and none, and Slim just left the building. :)
Are they anywhere near putting another portion under contract?
Quote from: Charles2 on December 10, 2015, 09:56:33 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 10, 2015, 07:36:12 PM
The only way such a road would fully serve it's purputed purpose as a "bypass" is if no development happens along it. Odds of that happening? I'd say zilch.
I'd put it at slim and none, and Slim just left the building. :)
I will say that it would be more difficult to develop a lot of the land around the Beltline due to it being rugged. Still, it could happen around the spokes, especially around the northeast quadrant of the route where development is happening more.
Putting that sort of condition on such a road is specious and inane statement. This is the modern age of the automobile and this is not a rural route. There will be development.
QuotePutting that sort of condition on such a road is specious and inane statement. This is the modern age of the automobile and this is not a rural route. There will be development.
Then claiming that the road will serve as a bypass is just as "specious and inane" of a statement. Let's cut to the chase: this road isn't about being a bypass. This road is all about development.
Quote from: froggie on December 13, 2015, 02:09:17 PM
QuotePutting that sort of condition on such a road is specious and inane statement. This is the modern age of the automobile and this is not a rural route. There will be development.
Then claiming that the road will serve as a bypass is just as "specious and inane" of a statement. Let's cut to the chase: this road isn't about being a bypass. This road is all about development.
isn't that what every road is touted as, from a politicians perspective?
Not always. Often the politicians cite them as being to reduce traffic. But unless you limit access or limit growth along the new road, you're really not reducing traffic.
Quote from: Charles2 on December 10, 2015, 09:56:33 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 10, 2015, 07:36:12 PM
The only way such a road would fully serve it's purputed purpose as a "bypass" is if no development happens along it. Odds of that happening? I'd say zilch.
I'd put it at slim and none, and Slim just left the building. :)
AL 275 around Talladega, AL comes close as there's barely been any development along that bypass, but then again, that's probably because Talladega has been shrinking for the past several years.
Quote from: froggie on December 13, 2015, 02:09:17 PMPutting that sort of condition on such a road is specious and inane statement. This is the modern age of the automobile and this is not a rural route. There will be development.
What is to keep someone from using it as a bypass or as a detour?
Nothing. Two wrecks last week shut down 459 and 20/59 for hours each. People could have used the NB to get around. There is nothing specious about that. Just reality. But again, if you don't live here and have no skin in the game I guess its just something too tough to conceptualize.
Quote from: TourianBut again, if you don't live here and have no skin in the game I guess its just something too tough to conceptualize
Only if your state chooses to build it with their own money. But since they went as far as to get it designated as an Appalachian corridor payable 100% with Federal funding, every gas-buyer in the country has "skin in the game".
And just because I don't live down there now doesn't mean I'm not familiar with the area.
The benefits of a full circle bypass shouldn't have to be explained, or justified or debated. It should be automatically understood. Federal funding also means out of towners get to use it. It isn't just for Alabamians. That is what the Federal Interstate system is all about.
The "benefits" of a full circle bypass are also often overtouted. And in this case, would be obscenely expensive compared to the "benefits" provided.
Quote from: Tourian on December 15, 2015, 06:45:09 PM
Federal funding also means out of towners get to use it. It isn't just for Alabamians.
Huh? So...if a road is only state funded, out-of-staters can't use it? :D :pan:
Quote from: Tourian on December 15, 2015, 06:45:09 PM
The benefits of a full circle bypass shouldn't have to be explained, or justified or debated. It should be automatically understood. Federal funding also means out of towners get to use it. It isn't just for Alabamians. That is what the Federal Interstate system is all about.
Actually, it does...especially if other people are footing the bill for it, and it diverts precious funds from what are considered more important needs.
And, last time I checked, they weren't punishing out-of-state drivers for using state-funded roads; nor were they refunding their gas tax money.
Quote from: Rothman on December 16, 2015, 08:06:35 AM
Quote from: Tourian on December 15, 2015, 06:45:09 PM
Federal funding also means out of towners get to use it. It isn't just for Alabamians.
Huh? So...if a road is only state funded, out-of-staters can't use it? :D :pan:
No the inverse of a statement isnt always true. You are just twisting my words. Go back and read who I was replying to and why and not take my reply out of context.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 16, 2015, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: Tourian on December 15, 2015, 06:45:09 PM
The benefits of a full circle bypass shouldn't have to be explained, or justified or debated. It should be automatically understood. Federal funding also means out of towners get to use it. It isn't just for Alabamians. That is what the Federal Interstate system is all about.
Actually, it does...especially if other people are footing the bill for it, and it diverts precious funds from what are considered more important needs.
And, last time I checked, they weren't punishing out-of-state drivers for using state-funded roads; nor were they refunding their gas tax money.
Apparently Congress disagrees with you. As for the rest of your post. See the above.
Quote from: Tourian on December 16, 2015, 03:08:04 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 16, 2015, 08:06:35 AM
Quote from: Tourian on December 15, 2015, 06:45:09 PM
Federal funding also means out of towners get to use it. It isn't just for Alabamians.
Huh? So...if a road is only state funded, out-of-staters can't use it? :D :pan:
No the inverse of a statement isnt always true. You are just twisting my words. Go back and read who I was replying to and why and not take my reply out of context.
Okay...
QuoteThe benefits of a full circle bypass shouldn't have to be explained, or justified or debated. It should be automatically understood. Federal funding also means out of towners get to use it. It isn't just for Alabamians. That is what the Federal Interstate system is all about.
Yeah, read through it again and it still doesn't make sense to me. People just care about roads taking them to where they need to go. They don't care about the funding behind them, especially when you consider how much of FHWA's federal funding is used off the interstate system (I wouldn't be surprised if, here in NY, anyway, more federal funds are used off the interstate than on per FFY).
Quote from: Tourian on December 16, 2015, 03:08:55 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 16, 2015, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: Tourian on December 15, 2015, 06:45:09 PM
The benefits of a full circle bypass shouldn't have to be explained, or justified or debated. It should be automatically understood. Federal funding also means out of towners get to use it. It isn't just for Alabamians. That is what the Federal Interstate system is all about.
Actually, it does...especially if other people are footing the bill for it, and it diverts precious funds from what are considered more important needs.
And, last time I checked, they weren't punishing out-of-state drivers for using state-funded roads; nor were they refunding their gas tax money.
Apparently Congress disagrees with you. As for the rest of your post. See the above.
*citation needed*
Also, the Feds do fund other non-Interstate highways through the NHS.
That fact no more justifies the Birmingham Northern Beltline than it does the Baton Rouge Loop. But, whatever...you just be you.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 22, 2015, 02:36:55 PM
Quote from: Tourian on December 16, 2015, 03:08:55 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on December 16, 2015, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: Tourian on December 15, 2015, 06:45:09 PM
The benefits of a full circle bypass shouldn't have to be explained, or justified or debated. It should be automatically understood. Federal funding also means out of towners get to use it. It isn't just for Alabamians. That is what the Federal Interstate system is all about.
Actually, it does...especially if other people are footing the bill for it, and it diverts precious funds from what are considered more important needs.
And, last time I checked, they weren't punishing out-of-state drivers for using state-funded roads; nor were they refunding their gas tax money.
Apparently Congress disagrees with you. As for the rest of your post. See the above.
*citation needed*
Also, the Feds do fund other non-Interstate highways through the NHS.
...and off the NHS. The number of federal-aid eligible roads out there is quite considerable. A lot of Surface Transportation Program funding goes to non-NHS roads.
Such as ADHS routes, like Corridor V. The benefits of a full circle bypass should be explained, as the benefits are not all guaranteed or granted. Is one needed of Birmingham at such an extreme cost? It's still up for debate. What about Charleston, W.Va. where it's still debated every decade or so? Can Paducah, Ky. have a full circle bypass, too?
Nashville needs a full circle more so than Birmingham. Although of all the cities on I-65, the only one that actually has a bypass that connects to 65 on both ends is Indianapolis, although Louisville will join them in about 8-10 months.
The only benefit of Corridor X-1 in its current configuration is that it will be a shortcut for traffic making the I-65 South to I-20/59 Southwest connection (i.e., from Nashville to New Orleans). The eastern side isn't useful for Atlanta to Huntsville traffic as there are dramatically shorter non-interstate routes to connect to I-75 in Georgia. If one was headed from Atlanta to Cullman the eastern leg might work, but I-20, US 27, and US 278 may still be shorter.
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.
Louisville won't have a full "circle," nor will it. Nothing is planned for the west side at all.
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.
Louisville? Hop on a plane and return to Birmingham ASAP!
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.
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.
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.
Are there any other sections even on the radar for bidding?
No.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Okay forget the Interstate 420 numbering. How about numbering it Interstate 465?
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.
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.
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).
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...
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.
Maybe the Northern Beltline should have been un-numbered, or given a state highway designation.
My guess is they numbered it I-422 because it wouldn't connect to I-459 on its north end, but it would at its southern.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 29, 2016, 04:06:53 PM
Maybe the Northern Beltline should have been un-numbered, or given a state highway designation.
It was going to be State Route 959 at first but luckily got upgraded to be part of the Appalachian Development so it could get hooked in with Corridor X...it is now called Corridor X-1 and is fully federally funded.
Quote from: TourianIt was going to be State Route 959
Internal planning number. They've talked about making it an interstate for at least 15 years.
Quote...but luckily got upgraded to be part of the Appalachian Development so it could get hooked in with Corridor X
It was already going to connect to Corridor X. Becoming part of the ADHS did not change or "improve" that.
Quoteit is now called Corridor X-1 and is fully federally funded.
First part is correct. Second part is false. it is *NOT* fully funded...not by a longshot. What becoming part of the ADHS does is make it eligible to be paid for by 100% Federal funds...no state funds required. But it does not automatically add Federal funding to pay for the project. Because there is no longer a separate pot of ADHS funding, ALDOT must pull money from its normal Federal highway funding in order to pay for anything on the Northern Beltline. This means the Northern Beltline is competing for funding with the Interstates and the major cross-state highways like US 72, US 82, or US 231.
Sure they could put their Federal highway funding into building the Northern Beltline. But that would mean no Federal funding for widening or repaving the Interstates or other major highways for several years. This is in no small part why only a tiny portion of the Northern Beltline has made it to construction....because ALDOT doesn't have the money right now to build the rest.
According to ALDOT's site it is 100% federally funded. I shouldve known better that it was a lie and came here to check with you first.
betterbeltline.org
By "connect" with Corridor X I meant as far as funding was concerned. Not the obvious physical connection.
I think this is the relevant passage regarding 100% federal funding ... the FAQ answer is of course nuanced:
http://betterbeltline.org/faqs.php
QuoteWhere will the money come from?
Because Congress made the Appalachian Development (APD) Highway System a priority, any projects on the BNB that are authorized by September 30, 2050 are eligible for 100% Federal funding, with no requirement for matching funds from the State. The first phase of the Beltline was constructed using the remaining designated APD funds. Remaining APD projects will be funded from ALDOT's overall funding. Specific project funding is determined based upon available funding and needs assessment, among other considerations.
I guess I don't understand how the northern beltline can be "eligible for 100% Federal funding" yet remaining projects would be "funded from ALDOT's overall funding."
Quote from: andy3175 on January 18, 2017, 12:28:12 AM
I think this is the relevant passage regarding 100% federal funding ... the FAQ answer is of course nuanced:
http://betterbeltline.org/faqs.php
QuoteWhere will the money come from?
Because Congress made the Appalachian Development (APD) Highway System a priority, any projects on the BNB that are authorized by September 30, 2050 are eligible for 100% Federal funding, with no requirement for matching funds from the State. The first phase of the Beltline was constructed using the remaining designated APD funds. Remaining APD projects will be funded from ALDOT's overall funding. Specific project funding is determined based upon available funding and needs assessment, among other considerations.
I guess I don't understand how the northern beltline can be "eligible for 100% Federal funding" yet remaining projects would be "funded from ALDOT's overall funding."
I think what Froggie is referring to is that while the project is or can be 100% federally funded, the pot of money allocated to Alabama remains the same. So if money is spent on this project, then that takes away from other federal funding used to supplement the state funding for other projects across the state.
Say for example you wanted to build the bridges along the segment of the BNB between AL 79 and AL 75. Let's assume that project will cost around $30 million and that Alabama receives $500 million in federal funding per year. That means that $30 million in federal funding has to be given up on other projects across the state. Typically, other projects receive 80% federal funding and 20% state funding. That means that other projects across the state will have access to $470 million in federal funding instead of $500 million for that year.
That, and the exorbitant cost of building the BNB through rugged terrain is why the construction of the BNB is going along at a snail's pace and will continue to do so. There are more pressing needs across the state that, IMO, are way more important than the BNB.
I am wondering how it is 100% eligible. They're going to allow them to use HSIP to build it?
The only other situation I can think of offhand this early in the morning is to use toll credits, but Alabama doesn't get those.
Quote from: Rothman on January 18, 2017, 08:02:47 AM
I am wondering how it is 100% eligible. They're going to allow them to use HSIP to build it?
The only other situation I can think of offhand this early in the morning is to use toll credits, but Alabama doesn't get those.
All of the remaining APD system is eligible for 100% federal funding since TEA-21. Congress changed the law to eliminate the state match, but also eliminated the dedicated funding stream for APD, so states have no longer have an incentive to "use it or lose it" or prioritize APD projects over others.
Has the segment between state highways 75 and 79 been completed yet? Its completion date was said to be last fall.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2017, 04:04:10 PM
Has the segment between state highways 75 and 79 been completed yet? Its completion date was said to be last fall.
[/quote
No.
Thanks for the update. Does anyone know when this short segment might be completed?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 19, 2017, 03:35:19 PM
Thanks for the update. Does anyone know when this short segment might be completed?
Multiple choice:
1) When pigs fly.
2) When hell freezes over
3) The 12th of Never (and that's a long, long time)
Truth be told, this segment of road serves no redeeming purpose. (It can be argued that the same thing can be said for the entire route). It connects two routes in the least populated area of Jefferson County, and as it is, SR-75 and SR-79 come within less than a mile of directly intersecting each other about three miles south where the present construction is.
Quote from: Charles2 on January 19, 2017, 09:41:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 19, 2017, 03:35:19 PM
Thanks for the update. Does anyone know when this short segment might be completed?
Multiple choice:
1) When pigs fly.
2) When hell freezes over
3) The 12th of Never (and that's a long, long time)
Truth be told, this segment of road serves no redeeming purpose. (It can be argued that the same thing can be said for the entire route). It connects two routes in the least populated area of Jefferson County, and as it is, SR-75 and SR-79 come within less than a mile of directly intersecting each other about three miles south where the present construction is.
My money's on sometime within the next century and a half, eventually, and maybe.
Quote from: Charles2 on January 19, 2017, 09:41:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 19, 2017, 03:35:19 PM
Thanks for the update. Does anyone know when this short segment might be completed?
Multiple choice:
1) When pigs fly.
2) When hell freezes over
3) The 12th of Never (and that's a long, long time)
Truth be told, this segment of road serves no redeeming purpose. (It can be argued that the same thing can be said for the entire route). It connects two routes in the least populated area of Jefferson County, and as it is, SR-75 and SR-79 come within less than a mile of directly intersecting each other about three miles south where the present construction is.
:-D the current tiny segment that is under construction is such a bizarre place to start, what if this project gets cancelled or delayed significantly? this is just an overbuilt county road connector at this point!
Quote from: lordsutch on January 18, 2017, 01:42:32 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 18, 2017, 08:02:47 AM
I am wondering how it is 100% eligible. They're going to allow them to use HSIP to build it?
The only other situation I can think of offhand this early in the morning is to use toll credits, but Alabama doesn't get those.
All of the remaining APD system is eligible for 100% federal funding since TEA-21. Congress changed the law to eliminate the state match, but also eliminated the dedicated funding stream for APD, so states have no longer have an incentive to "use it or lose it" or prioritize APD projects over others.
Heh. Forgot that some states have little bits and pieces left on the ADHS to complete.
So, as long as a project is on the old ADHS, it's eligible for 100% federal funding, no matter the source? That's a little something of an incentive, although since it would be a hit to their overall OL, it's still a question of whether they'd want to use it on the ADHS or not.
Will someone explain to me why this road is needed, especially for the potential cost and time for construction? I just don't see any benefit to it. Upgrading malfunction junction to a stack or something similar and widening 65 and 20/59 through downtown and the suburbs would be a much better use of funds in my opinion.
My guess is that the Birmingham Northern Beltline is to more-or-less provide a complete beltway around the Birmingham area. Perhaps upgrading existing freeways would have been more beneficial, but unfortunately, we're not the ones who make the decisions about projects like these.
One of the issues I've noticed with Birmingham's freeway network is that there is no way for traffic going north and south on I-65 to bypass downtown Birmingham since I-459 doesn't connect back around to I-65 on the north side of the city. I guess that's what this project is trying to solve.
Quote from: ukfan758 on April 07, 2017, 04:45:22 PM
Will someone explain to me why this road is needed, especially for the potential cost and time for construction? I just don't see any benefit to it. Upgrading malfunction junction to a stack or something similar and widening 65 and 20/59 through downtown and the suburbs would be a much better use of funds in my opinion.
It isn't needed (except to fulfill the ambitions of the far-north suburbs to be the next Hoover), although at least the I-65 to I-59 section will allow through trucks to be routed away from downtown if it's ever built. Extending I-22 east to the vicinity of the I-20/59 interchange would have also produced similar benefits, but ALDOT has shelved that idea in favor of the beltline for whatever reason.
Quote from: lordsutchExtending I-22 east to the vicinity of the I-20/59 interchange would have also produced similar benefits, but ALDOT has shelved that idea in favor of the beltline for whatever reason.
A lot of pollution and SuperFund sites in the way of any I-22 extension, as I understand it.
Quote from: froggie on April 07, 2017, 09:16:29 PM
Quote from: lordsutchExtending I-22 east to the vicinity of the I-20/59 interchange would have also produced similar benefits, but ALDOT has shelved that idea in favor of the beltline for whatever reason.
A lot of pollution and SuperFund sites in the way of any I-22 extension, as I understand it.
Is ERP Coke by chance on that list? If not, which businesses along there probably are?
Quote from: ukfan758 on April 07, 2017, 11:14:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 07, 2017, 09:16:29 PM
Quote from: lordsutchExtending I-22 east to the vicinity of the I-20/59 interchange would have also produced similar benefits, but ALDOT has shelved that idea in favor of the beltline for whatever reason.
A lot of pollution and SuperFund sites in the way of any I-22 extension, as I understand it.
Is ERP Coke by chance on that list? If not, which businesses along there probably are?
Let's see -- there's an airport, a coal/coke loading/offloading facility, and a railroad yard between the east end of I-22 and the I-20/59 east interchange. One facility to be circumvented and another two posing serious environmental cleanup issues. Don't see that happening anytime soon -- hence slim & none on the chances for a direct 22-east-20 connection.
A new study suggests the Northern Beltline would cause a $2.67 million economic impact each year in the Birmingham area and create about 14,000 jobs with an average salary of more than $61,000 -- an amount higher than the median Alabama income. The study was done by the Appalachian Regional Commission.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/07/northern_beltline_to_make_267.html
So it has a 1000 year ROI. What are we waiting for.
More than that. If you're basing it on that annual economic impact and the estimated cost (on the order of $5-6 billion), you're looking at closer to a 2000 year ROI.
I see your 2000, and raise you a 5000 year ROI! :D
Anybody want to try for 10,000?
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 20, 2017, 06:31:36 PM
:-D the current tiny segment that is under construction is such a bizarre place to start, what if this project gets cancelled or delayed significantly? this is just an overbuilt county road connector at this point!
Where would be the best place to start?
Quote from: barcncpt44 on July 31, 2017, 11:06:14 PM
A new study suggests the Northern Beltline would cause a $2.67 million economic impact each year in the Birmingham area and create about 14,000 jobs with an average salary of more than $61,000 -- an amount higher than the median Alabama income. The study was done by the Appalachian Regional Commission.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/07/northern_beltline_to_make_267.html
The article actually states a $26.7 billion impact in the first ten years, making it $2.67 billion per year.
The study defies belief. Must have been funded by USX. :bigass:
David
In 2054...
* I would be 94.
* My brothers would be 92 and 79.
* My daughter will be 57.
* My niece will be 58.
* My nephews will be 56 and 42.
Hope the kids will enjoy the ride!
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2017, 04:04:10 PM
Has the segment between state highways 75 and 79 been completed yet? Its completion date was said to be last fall.
The grade and drain is finished, but there are multiple bridges that have to be built next and then a separate paving contract would be let. I don't think even this short segment will see traffic anytime soon.
One thing that is special about this segment is that it traverses a small mountain so maybe ALDOT wanted to get that one out of the way?
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 06, 2017, 10:06:24 AMThe grade and drain is finished, but there are multiple bridges that have to be built next and then a separate paving contract would be let. I don't think even this short segment will see traffic anytime soon.
It puzzles me how sometimes ALDoT will partially construct a highway in this manner and then let it sit for a couple of years before resuming work. (I think they also did this on the Gadsden east bypass.)
When they resume, don't they have to spend money fixing erosion that occurs during the fallow years when there's no pavement or vegetation?
I also think some dot entities are learning to get the grading for the most enviromentally disrupting section under contract first and get it out of the way.
Quote from: bigdave on August 07, 2017, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 06, 2017, 10:06:24 AMThe grade and drain is finished, but there are multiple bridges that have to be built next and then a separate paving contract would be let. I don't think even this short segment will see traffic anytime soon.
It puzzles me how sometimes ALDoT will partially construct a highway in this manner and then let it sit for a couple of years before resuming work. (I think they also did this on the Gadsden east bypass.)
When they resume, don't they have to spend money fixing erosion that occurs during the fallow years when there's no pavement or vegetation?
The uncompleted AL 13 four-lane near Phil Campbell has been sitting like that for about 15 years now. It is a road to nowhere right now (and will probably be for some time).
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on August 07, 2017, 10:58:41 AM
I also think some dot entities are learning to get the grading for the most enviromentally disrupting section under contract first and get it out of the way.
This section was definitely one of the more environmentally disrupting sections. It is also why the bridges that will need to be built will be longer and higher than normal.
Quote from: bigdave on August 07, 2017, 10:39:25 AM
When they resume, don't they have to spend money fixing erosion that occurs during the fallow years when there's no pavement or vegetation?
I wonder the same thing.
Not surprisingly, work on the bypass has been halted until at least 2019.
http://www.wbrc.com/story/36135333/aldot-says-northern-beltline-construction-stopped-until-2019
I'm almost certain that at this point, this thread is longer than the current amount of road that we're discussing that's been built...
Quote from: freebrickproductions on August 15, 2017, 01:16:22 PM
I'm almost certain that at this point, this thread is longer than the current amount of road that we're discussing that's been built...
You would be correct since there at this point in time there is 1.34 miles that is graded, but not paved and missing other items such as bridges. :bigass: So my opinion is that zero miles have actually been "built."
For that matter, I didn't think it was "news" that the next phase didn't start for two years.
Yet the ARC projects a $2.67 billion (yes that's billion with a B) per year impact once the entire thing is built. I have to think that's completely a work of fiction unless the ARC expects Zimbabwe level inflation between now and 2054.
I'm wondering how much of I-65 could be three-laned between Huntsville and Mobile for the over $5 billion (yes that's billion with a B) cost for this gift to the large landowners of JeffCo.
They really should just finish the 1.75 mile section as a new alignment of AL 151 and call it a day. I remember when I was in my early 20's 15 years ago and thought I would get to drive to my grandmothers house in Rock Creek on the "North section of 459" and save 20 minutes of driving. She died 5 years ago and my kids will probably never drive on it.
If the eastern leg between I-65 and I-59 is built then it would provide a bypass for I-65 through traffic.
^ Theoretically, yes. But given the extra distance plus the grades along 459, no sane trucker (and few regular drivers) would actually use it as such. It would be over 45 miles long, compared to roughly 23 miles along existing I-65. I-65 delays would have to reach 30+ minutes (assuming no delay along 459) for such a bypass route starts becoming worthwhile.
Quote from: froggie on August 17, 2017, 09:15:04 AM
^ Theoretically, yes. But given the extra distance plus the grades along 459, no sane trucker (and few regular drivers) would actually use it as such. It would be over 45 miles long, compared to roughly 23 miles along existing I-65. I-65 delays would have to reach 30+ minutes (assuming no delay along 459) for such a bypass route starts becoming worthwhile.
Except ALDOT already bans through trucks inside I-459 except for I-65 north (and I-22) traffic. They could extend the ban to all through trucks if they complete the NE quadrant.
Not that they ever will unless billions of dollars suddenly parachute in from Washington, although that's only likely if APD ever becomes a dedicated pot of money again.
Quote from: lordsutch on August 17, 2017, 05:02:09 PM
Except ALDOT already bans through trucks inside I-459 except for I-65 north (and I-22) traffic. They could extend the ban to all through trucks if they complete the NE quadrant.
Exactly.
Do I possibly hear a southern "Goat Path Expressway"?
ALDOT projects to have the project done by 2054. Are they referring to this short section or the entirety of I-422 and I-222? :-P
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 07, 2017, 11:21:58 AM
Quote from: bigdave on August 07, 2017, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 06, 2017, 10:06:24 AMThe grade and drain is finished, but there are multiple bridges that have to be built next and then a separate paving contract would be let. I don't think even this short segment will see traffic anytime soon.
It puzzles me how sometimes ALDoT will partially construct a highway in this manner and then let it sit for a couple of years before resuming work. (I think they also did this on the Gadsden east bypass.)
When they resume, don't they have to spend money fixing erosion that occurs during the fallow years when there's no pavement or vegetation?
The uncompleted AL 13 four-lane near Phil Campbell has been sitting like that for about 15 years now. It is a road to nowhere right now (and probably will be for some time).
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on August 07, 2017, 10:58:41 AM
I also think some dot entities are learning to get the grading for the most enviromentally disrupting section under contract first and get it out of the way.
This section was definitely one of the more environmentally disrupting sections. It is also why the bridges that will need to be built will be longer and higher than normal.
I'm sorry. Alabama
does have their own version of a "Goat Path Expressway"! Just checked it out on Google Maps. What is the reason that it was never completed?
this really sounds like a colossal waste of money
It probably is. $5.445 billion for a 52 mile roadway is quite a steep price tag.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 25, 2017, 03:36:46 PM
It probably is. $5.445 billion for a 52 mile roadway is quite a steep price tag.
$104 million per mile. That is very expensive, indeed. It may prove to be true given the rugged terrain it is traversing and if ALDOT elects to build the entire thing with six lanes instead of four.
It would be somewhat useful for bypass traffic, but to cut down on expenses then perhaps interchanges should be built only at major spokes (I-20/59, AL 269, I-22, I-65, AL 75, and I-59) while the other interchanges are built later. Also, build out to four lanes but provide enough space for six and build the bridges wide enough for six. Of course, since it is being built in the name of economic development (whatever that means), then it is either full-blown sprawl-inducing bypass or nothing.
The incremental cost of 4 lanes versus 6 is not what's inflating the price tag. Much of that cost is due to the level of blasting and excavation that would have to take place regardless of how many lanes are built.
Even if they went 4 lanes with minimal interchanges as Cody suggests, I doubt the price tag would drop much below $4 billion, if at all...
Just reading that the new transportation budget passed today has $30 million earmarked for 422, work will resume. Cant imagine alot getting done for that amount though.
https://abc3340.com/news/local/ivey-says-birmingham-northern-beltline-construction-to-resume
QuoteALDOT originally projected the entire project to cost $5.3 billion and be completed by 2054.
Heh.
I would assume that 30 million will go to ROW acquisition and clearing of the land until the state gets more funding...
this sounds like the dumbest project ever.
I wonder how much traffic would theoretically use future Interstate 422 (and 222) compared to existing Interstate 459? If it is built in full (a big if at this point), I hope it does not turn out to be an underutilized boondoggle.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2019, 03:59:42 PM
I hope it does not turn out to be an underutilized boondoggle.
VA-895 in Richmond.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2019, 03:59:42 PM
I wonder how much traffic would theoretically use future Interstate 422 (and 222) compared to existing Interstate 459? If it is built in full (a big if at this point), I hope it does not turn out to be an underutilized boondoggle.
i feel like that's a virtual guarantee. What was the reason for this project anyway? is traffic really that bad?
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 22, 2019, 05:42:16 PM
this sounds like the dumbest project ever.
North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas just said, "Hold my beer!"
Quote from: goobnav on December 25, 2019, 06:55:09 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 23, 2019, 04:05:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2019, 03:59:42 PM
I hope it does not turn out to be an underutilized boondoggle.
VA-895 in Richmond.
Shhhhh!!! Don't tell Beltway. :)
It's not a matter of that, the road went bankrupt and traffic & toll revenue was far below projections.
Pocahontas Parkway (Route 895) - The Toll Road That Failed (http://www.virginiaplaces.org/transportation/pocaparkway.html)
The 2-mile segment between I-95 and VA-5 segment that was expected to carry significant numbers connecting developments on the east side of the James River only carries 17,000 AADT, and the 5-mile segment continuing to I-295 carries only 6,000 AADT.
Then they built a 2-mile 4-lane airport connector road with two grade separations connecting the airport with VA-895 about 5-7 years ago, and that road carries virtually no traffic.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 25, 2019, 12:37:19 PM
Quote from: goobnav on December 25, 2019, 06:55:09 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 23, 2019, 04:05:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2019, 03:59:42 PM
I hope it does not turn out to be an underutilized boondoggle.
VA-895 in Richmond.
Shhhhh!!! Don't tell Beltway. :)
It's not a matter of that, the road went bankrupt and traffic & toll revenue was far below projections.
Pocahontas Parkway (Route 895) - The Toll Road That Failed (http://www.virginiaplaces.org/transportation/pocaparkway.html)
The 2-mile segment between I-95 and VA-5 segment that was expected to carry significant numbers connecting developments on the east side of the James River only carries 17,000 AADT, and the 5-mile segment continuing to I-295 carries only 6,000 AADT.
Then they built a 2-mile 4-lane airport connector road with two grade separations connecting the airport with VA-895 about 5-7 years ago, and that road carries virtually no traffic.
Saw that happening when they built it, with the free alternative of I-64 just up the road. Was redundant.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2019, 03:59:42 PM
I wonder how much traffic would theoretically use future Interstate 422 (and 222) compared to existing Interstate 459? If it is built in full (a big if at this point), I hope it does not turn out to be an underutilized boondoggle.
I think it would ease travelers from Atlanta to Huntsville or Nashville between I-20 and I-65, but I'm not sure how much time it would really save.
I don't think the NW quadrant heading back to I-22 then to I-65 is going to have that much traffic for a very long time. I don't see that many vehicles turning onto I-22.
If the proposed roadway had not been given an Interstate designation from the get-go, would it have been possible, in the interim, to build the road as a two lane roadway with expansion to four lanes if/when such is warranted? I ask this because if the proposed BNB is built, and turns out to be an underutilized roadway, two lanes would probably be sufficient capacity.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 25, 2019, 12:37:19 PM
Quote from: goobnav on December 25, 2019, 06:55:09 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 23, 2019, 04:05:46 PM
VA-895 in Richmond.
Shhhhh!!! Don't tell Beltway. :)
It's not a matter of that, the road went bankrupt and traffic & toll revenue was far below projections.
Pocahontas Parkway (Route 895) - The Toll Road That Failed (http://www.virginiaplaces.org/transportation/pocaparkway.html)
The 2-mile segment between I-95 and VA-5 segment that was expected to carry significant numbers connecting developments on the east side of the James River only carries 17,000 AADT, and the 5-mile segment continuing to I-295 carries only 6,000 AADT.
That article is at least 10 years old.
Meanwhile the highway won't be moved somewhere else, the bonds are being fully serviced, and it has been carrying decent volumes since it was opened in 2002. It is a quite useful highway to connect between South Richmond, Chesterfield County, southern Henrico County, without having to detour thru downtown Richmond on I-95 and I-64, or my case it would mean using the RMTA expressways that have a lower but still substantial toll.
Interstate functions (it should be I-895) --
I-295 provides an outer Richmond bypass for east-west I-64 traffic, and I-295 provides an outer Richmond-Petersburg bypass for north-south I-95 traffic, and I-295 also provides an outer Richmond bypass for traffic between I-95 north of the city and I-64 east of the city. Until Route 895 opened in September 2002, a major missing link in the Richmond regional Interstate beltway was the connection between I-95 north of Richmond and I-85 south of Petersburg; the through traffic needed to follow I-95 and I-85, passing through downtown Richmond, if it wanted to stay on Interstate highways. Now that Route 895 is open, the I-95/I-85 through traffic has a freeway bypass around Richmond, using Route 895 and I-295 (given that a section of I-95 will be used between I-85 and Route 895). There is another Interstate function of Route 895 that was not served before Route 895 existed, the Richmond freeway bypass for traffic traveling between the I-85 corridor and the section of I-64 from east of Richmond to Williamsburg.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 25, 2019, 12:37:19 PM
Then they built a 2-mile 4-lane airport connector road with two grade separations connecting the airport with VA-895 about 5-7 years ago, and that road carries virtually no traffic.
Also useful with the aforementioned places west of the river wanting to connect to the airport and east end area around the airport. The AADT is about 5,000. Part of its intent is to support industrial development.
Quote from: formulanone on January 22, 2020, 08:23:01 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2019, 03:59:42 PM
I wonder how much traffic would theoretically use future Interstate 422 (and 222) compared to existing Interstate 459? If it is built in full (a big if at this point), I hope it does not turn out to be an underutilized boondoggle.
I think it would ease travelers from Atlanta to Huntsville or Nashville between I-20 and I-65, but I'm not sure how much time it would really save.
I don't think the NW quadrant heading back to I-22 then to I-65 is going to have that much traffic for a very long time. I don't see that many vehicles turning onto I-22.
someone going from Atlanta to Nashville isnt going to go through Birmingham anyways unless they live in far west metro Atlanta. that traffic would be almost nil in my mind.
Quote from: Beltway on January 22, 2020, 10:48:11 PM
That article is at least 10 years old.
Except it was published after 2015.
The roadway on the grand scheme of things was largely a failure. It provides all those things you mention, except almost nobody actually uses it. With only 6,000 AADT, a 2-lane road would've sufficed. Thru traffic from I-85 uses I-95 thru the city, and traffic to I-64 can use the short VA-10 to cut over to I-295. I'd say that latter movement might be the biggest regional use of the road, for those that opt to pay $4.50 to save 2 minutes, asides from local traffic.
I'm surprised the airport connector even gets 5,000 AADT. Still very low, considering the roadway is 4-lanes with two grade separations. Again, easily could've been a two-lane road with at-grade crossings, even at the tracks.
Expectation vs. reality really shows with this project, both the freeway itself, and the airport connector.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 11:15:23 PM
The roadway on the grand scheme of things was largely a failure. It provides all those things you mention, except almost nobody actually uses it. With only 6,000 AADT, a 2-lane road would've sufficed.
You yourself said 17,000. That is on the main part between I-95 and Laburnum Avenue including the river crossing. That is a substantial amount that provides a more direct route for them as well as not having to overload the other routes on either side (I-95, I-64. I-95, VA-10, I-295).
Two Richmond middle circumferentials --
VA-150 and Route 895 to I-295
VA-150 and Route 895 and 4-lane arterial Laburnum Avenue.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 11:15:23 PM
Thru traffic from I-85 uses I-95 thru the city, and traffic to I-64 can use the short VA-10 to cut over to I-295. I'd say that latter movement might be the biggest regional use of the road, for those that opt to pay $4.50 to save 2 minutes, asides from local traffic.
I use it as an extension of Chippenham Parkway to the airport area, to I-64 East to Hampton, and to western New Kent County.
Especially helpful in peak hours when backups and/or slowdowns can happen on the route thru the city (I-64, I-95, VA-195, VA-76) and they also have $1.40 in tolls.
Clearly worth the $4.50 for the times that I use it. Smooth sailing all the way.
It carries enough traffic to support itself and it provides favorable service to the various users.
I make regular use of it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 11:15:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 22, 2020, 10:48:11 PM
That article is at least 10 years old.
Except it was published after 2015.
The roadway on the grand scheme of things was largely a failure. It provides all those things you mention, except almost nobody actually uses it. With only 6,000 AADT, a 2-lane road would've sufficed. Thru traffic from I-85 uses I-95 thru the city, and traffic to I-64 can use the short VA-10 to cut over to I-295. I'd say that latter movement might be the biggest regional use of the road, for those that opt to pay $4.50 to save 2 minutes, asides from local traffic.
I'm surprised the airport connector even gets 5,000 AADT. Still very low, considering the roadway is 4-lanes with two grade separations. Again, easily could've been a two-lane road with at-grade crossings, even at the tracks.
Expectation vs. reality really shows with this project, both the freeway itself, and the airport connector.
It's a simple solution to increase traffic on 895- just increase the speed limit to 75 or 80.
Quote from: X99 on January 23, 2020, 10:18:15 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 11:15:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 22, 2020, 10:48:11 PM
That article is at least 10 years old.
Except it was published after 2015.
The roadway on the grand scheme of things was largely a failure. It provides all those things you mention, except almost nobody actually uses it. With only 6,000 AADT, a 2-lane road would've sufficed. Thru traffic from I-85 uses I-95 thru the city, and traffic to I-64 can use the short VA-10 to cut over to I-295. I'd say that latter movement might be the biggest regional use of the road, for those that opt to pay $4.50 to save 2 minutes, asides from local traffic.
I'm surprised the airport connector even gets 5,000 AADT. Still very low, considering the roadway is 4-lanes with two grade separations. Again, easily could've been a two-lane road with at-grade crossings, even at the tracks.
Expectation vs. reality really shows with this project, both the freeway itself, and the airport connector.
It's a simple solution to increase traffic on 895- just increase the speed limit to 75 or 80.
Expectation vs. reality. Probably wouldn't do much. One proposal for the US-460 toll road between Suffolk and Petersburg that never got built would've included a 75 mph speed limit to attract more traffic. I'm not sure how much more traffic it would attract, but it could some since it's long-distance. Reality is most people would drive 75-80 mph regardless. VA-895 isn't even 10 miles long. They tried the 85 mph speed limit on TX-130 southeast of Austin to attract more traffic, and it barely has. A fun road to drive though, and avoids I-35 at the same time.
The speed limit is already 65 mph, and it's easy to drive 70 mph - 75 mph.
I could see increasing it to 70 mph.
Quote from: Georgia on January 22, 2020, 11:15:05 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 22, 2020, 08:23:01 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2019, 03:59:42 PM
I wonder how much traffic would theoretically use future Interstate 422 (and 222) compared to existing Interstate 459? If it is built in full (a big if at this point), I hope it does not turn out to be an underutilized boondoggle.
I think it would ease travelers from Atlanta to Huntsville or Nashville between I-20 and I-65, but I'm not sure how much time it would really save.
I don't think the NW quadrant heading back to I-22 then to I-65 is going to have that much traffic for a very long time. I don't see that many vehicles turning onto I-22.
someone going from Atlanta to Nashville isnt going to go through Birmingham anyways unless they live in far west metro Atlanta. that traffic would be almost nil in my mind.
Selfishly, it would help me. But not many others.
I suppose Atlanta—Nashville would be better handled by I-24 and I-75, though Chattanooga is a knot.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2019, 03:59:42 PM
I wonder how much traffic would theoretically use future Interstate 422 (and 222) compared to existing Interstate 459? If it is built in full (a big if at this point), I hope it does not turn out to be an underutilized boondoggle.
Seeing the 222 number reminded me of a riddle posed by the Riddler from the Batman TV show from the Sixties.
"When it time like a train? When it's two to two!".
Rick
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 23, 2020, 10:35:59 AM
I could see increasing it to 70 mph.
Route 895 could indeed be 70 mph.
My strategy all along has been to do that, and designate it as Interstate 895, as it should be and originally was planned to be.
Those two things would at least attract -some- additional traffic.
Quote from: Beltway on January 23, 2020, 04:39:58 PM
Those two things would at least attract -some- additional traffic.
I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2019, 03:59:42 PM
I wonder how much traffic would theoretically use future Interstate 422 (and 222) compared to existing Interstate 459? If it is built in full (a big if at this point), I hope it does not turn out to be an underutilized boondoggle.
459 goes through/nearby Birmingham's largest grouping and most affluent suburbs, of which many can credit their growth due to 459 being there. You can see how the metro spread south because of it. So no, comparing its use to 422 at any point in the forseeable future is not a fair contest.
I agree. I think 459 gets widened before anything happens to 422. IH 65 south of Birmingham is even a more pressing need IMO
Quote from: Tourian on January 29, 2020, 04:15:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2019, 03:59:42 PM
I wonder how much traffic would theoretically use future Interstate 422 (and 222) compared to existing Interstate 459? If it is built in full (a big if at this point), I hope it does not turn out to be an underutilized boondoggle.
459 goes through/nearby Birmingham's largest grouping and most affluent suburbs, of which many can credit their growth due to 459 being there. You can see how the metro spread south because of it. So no, comparing its use to 422 at any point in the forseeable future is not a fair contest.
I believe those in support of building 422 would hope similar growth would happen in the northern suburbs and development would take off in the western portion of the county.
422 from I-65 to I-59 would be helpful as commerical traffic from all points could then avoid the city center.
The infrastructure bill could mean $369 million to go towards the construction of the beltline: https://abc3340.com/news/local/us-infrastructure-bill-could-mean-future-progress-on-jefferson-county-northern-beltline
So they'll get maybe 3 miles done? Not worth it.
Per the article, scheduled completion of the beltway is 2054, wow.
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on December 24, 2019, 04:18:07 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 22, 2019, 05:42:16 PM
this sounds like the dumbest project ever.
North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas just said, "Hold my beer!"
Hey now, throwing Texas in there isn't fair, All of our new routes make sense and serve a valid purpose.
^ In fairness, as does most of North Carolina's.
I-74 south of Bolton might be the exception there, however... but I don't think that project will ever come to fruition.
Quote from: tjcreasy on August 26, 2021, 02:42:46 PM
Per the article, scheduled completion of the beltway is 2054, wow.
It started back in 2014, so the project's going to take 40 years.
Forty, damn, YEARS!!!By comparison, even the pre-1991 Interstates didn't take that long to be completed, and they were 42,500 miles compared to 52 miles for a northern loop around Birmingham.
Quote from: Henry on August 26, 2021, 09:13:29 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on August 26, 2021, 02:42:46 PM
Per the article, scheduled completion of the beltway is 2054, wow.
It started back in 2014, so the project's going to take 40 years. Forty, damn, YEARS!!!
By comparison, even the pre-1991 Interstates didn't take that long to be completed, and they were 42,500 miles compared to 52 miles for a northern loop around Birmingham.
It's a combination of rugged terrain and lack of funding compared to before 1991 which is why they think it won't be until 2054 when it's done. Then you have to ask whether it's even worth the cost.
You could take the $350 million and widen a 20 to 30 mile or so stretch of I-65, which is badly needed.
I'm still scratching my head as to why the stretch started near Pinson still isn't done.
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 26, 2021, 09:19:26 PM
Quote from: Henry on August 26, 2021, 09:13:29 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on August 26, 2021, 02:42:46 PM
Per the article, scheduled completion of the beltway is 2054, wow.
It started back in 2014, so the project's going to take 40 years. Forty, damn, YEARS!!!
By comparison, even the pre-1991 Interstates didn't take that long to be completed, and they were 42,500 miles compared to 52 miles for a northern loop around Birmingham.
It's a combination of rugged terrain and lack of funding compared to before 1991 which is why they think it won't be until 2054 when it's done. Then you have to ask whether it's even worth the cost.
You could take the $350 million and widen a 20 to 30 mile or so stretch of I-65, which is badly needed.
I believe the $350 million allocation is dedicated to the ADHS program exclusively, so you wouldn't be able to transfer to such project.
But if you could, the biggest need would probably be the I-10 Mobile River Bayway project.
Quote from: Henry on August 26, 2021, 09:13:29 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on August 26, 2021, 02:42:46 PM
Per the article, scheduled completion of the beltway is 2054, wow.
It started back in 2014, so the project's going to take 40 years. Forty, damn, YEARS!!!
That'll be slightly longer than I-476 in suburban Philly (37 years), but not as long as I-670 through Columbus (48 years)
Well, I-64 in West Virginia was built between 1960 and 1988 - which is 48 years, too.
Hilariously off on my numbers :pan:
Quote from: seicer on August 27, 2021, 07:10:37 PM
Well, I-64 in West Virginia was built between 1960 and 1988 - which is 48 years, too.
You misspoke a little; it only took 28 years for that to be completed.
Quote from: Henry on August 27, 2021, 07:16:11 PM
Quote from: seicer on August 27, 2021, 07:10:37 PM
Well, I-64 in West Virginia was built between 1960 and 1988 - which is 48 years, too.
You misspoke a little; it only took 28 years for that to be completed.
Hey, we Californians aren't slouches in that department, either. The first section of I-5 (built after the Interstate legislation) opened in 1957; the last segment to be completed in the state wasn't until 1992. 35 years -- it would have likely been longer if the DOH hadn't prioritized getting the urban sections done as soon as possible, avoiding -- at least in greater L.A. and San Diego -- the controversies that doomed Interstate freeways elsewhere (this pertains to essentially all Interstate mileage in current D7/8/11/12).