Interstate 22

Started by Snappyjack, January 26, 2009, 11:56:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Avalanchez71

You are talking about four states that have kept the US Highways going.  The main arguement is that it provides for through alternative routing in case an alertnate may be needed. 


lordsutch

As has been noted repeatedly before in this very thread, (a) moving US routes back onto inferior parallel routes, after they've been relocated onto a freeway, violates AASHTO policy and (b) the former US 78 routing in Mississippi is physically discontinuous in two places (and no longer signed as a state route in two others).

In this day and age of GPS-based routing, traffic diverted off an Interstate doesn't need a continuous route number to follow to avoid a short-term disruption, and in the event of a longer term diversion a TEMP I-22 (or TEMP I-20 east of Birmingham) would need to be signed for traffic getting around the closed section anyway.

froggie

Quote from: Avalanchez71You are talking about four states that have kept the US Highways going.  The main arguement is that it provides for through alternative routing in case an alertnate may be needed.

However, in the vast majority of those states cases, they kept the U.S. route on the old roadway and didn't move it to the freeway/Interstate.  US 78 is a different situation, and as lordsutch noted, AASHTO would be violating their own policies if they approved moving US 78 back to the old roadway.

Quote from: lordsutchIn this day and age of GPS-based routing, traffic diverted off an Interstate doesn't need a continuous route number to follow to avoid a short-term disruption,

This.  And even if there was a desire for a signed route number, there's absolutely no reason why it would need to be a U.S. route.

Tourian

#1028
It has been known locally as 78 for a long time, so I don't get how changing it to 4 in Alabama would improve the situation unless it violates a rule, and even then it would be a disservice I think to be forced to do that because of the familiarity of the number 78. Alabama can formally (re)name it "Bankhead Hwy" and brand it as such more prominently, that would make more sense than bringing "4" out of the mothball/stealth closet to me.

lordsutch

Quote from: Tourian on July 09, 2016, 11:47:58 AM
It has been known locally as 78 for a long time, so I don't get how changing it to 4 in Alabama would improve the situation unless it violates a rule, and even then it would be a disservice I think to be forced to do that because of the familiarity of the number 78. Alabama can formally (re)name it "Bankhead Hwy" and brand it as such more prominently, that would make more sense than bringing "4" out of the mothball/stealth closet to me.

Most of the route that's now part of I-22 hasn't been posted as part of US 78 for years, and none of it needs to be AL 4 west of Birmingham since there are existing, signed numbers in place already (AL 5 southeast of Jasper, AL 118 west of Jasper to Winfield, US 43 to Hamilton, and AL 74).

Charles2

Quote from: lordsutch on July 09, 2016, 07:58:55 PM
Quote from: Tourian on July 09, 2016, 11:47:58 AM
It has been known locally as 78 for a long time, so I don't get how changing it to 4 in Alabama would improve the situation unless it violates a rule, and even then it would be a disservice I think to be forced to do that because of the familiarity of the number 78. Alabama can formally (re)name it "Bankhead Hwy" and brand it as such more prominently, that would make more sense than bringing "4" out of the mothball/stealth closet to me.

Most of the route that's now part of I-22 hasn't been posted as part of US 78 for years, and none of it needs to be AL 4 west of Birmingham since there are existing, signed numbers in place already (AL 5 southeast of Jasper, AL 118 west of Jasper to Winfield, US 43 to Hamilton, and AL 74).

Agreed.  Then again, Alabama needs to do away with all internal control routes on U.S. routes, since no state and US route numbers are duplicated.

Avalanchez71

The whole moving a route back onto the former routes has already been approved several times.  This just occurred not to long ago in NC.  They moved US 117 back off of I-795 back to the old alignment.  TN moved US 31E off of I-65 back onto Gallatin Pike.

hbelkins

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 08, 2016, 04:42:16 PM
You are talking about four states that have kept the US Highways going.  The main arguement is that it provides for through alternative routing in case an alertnate may be needed.

How likely is it going to be that a singularly numbered lengthy alternate route through multiple states will be necessary?


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

LM117

Quote from: froggie on July 09, 2016, 07:56:43 AMUS 78 is a different situation, and as lordsutch noted, AASHTO would be violating their own policies if they approved moving US 78 back to the old roadway.

It wouldn't be the first time they went against their own rules. AASHTO approved moving US-117 in NC back to it's old alignment between Goldsboro and US-301 in Wilson and decommissioning US-117 Alternate after I-795 was signed.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/USRNDecisiononNCAM2008Resubmissions.pdf
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

Avalanchez71

Same thing in TN.  US 31E was moved off of I-65 and SR 386 and back on to a surface street, Gallatin Pike.

froggie

QuoteIt wouldn't be the first time they went against their own rules. AASHTO approved moving US-117 in NC back to it's old alignment between Goldsboro and US-301 in Wilson and decommissioning US-117 Alternate after I-795 was signed.

Yes, I'm aware of that, and Avalachez also mentioned it.  This one may be a technicality, though, as ALT 117 was still technically a US route.  Not familiar enough with the Gallatin Pike scenario but yes it does appear they went against their own policy.  Not that that makes it right to do so, however.

But that has no bearing on the point myself and others made upthread about how you don't necessary need the parallel alternative route to be a US route.

jdb1234

#1036
Quote from: froggie on July 11, 2016, 09:15:19 AM
QuoteIt wouldn't be the first time they went against their own rules. AASHTO approved moving US-117 in NC back to it's old alignment between Goldsboro and US-301 in Wilson and decommissioning US-117 Alternate after I-795 was signed.

Yes, I'm aware of that, and Avalachez also mentioned it.  This one may be a technicality, though, as ALT 117 was still technically a US route.  Not familiar enough with the Gallatin Pike scenario but yes it does appear they went against their own policy.  Not that that makes it right to do so, however.

But that has no bearing on the point myself and others made upthread about how you don't necessary need the parallel alternative route to be a US route.


Unless something has changed, the old route of US 78 in Alabama should still be US 78 Alternate, of course it has never been signed that way.

lordsutch

Quote from: jdb1234 on July 11, 2016, 10:16:26 AM
Unless something has changed, the old route of US 78 in Alabama should still be US 78 Alternate, of course it has never been signed that way.

I don't believe AASHTO actually approved that proposal by Alabama, hence why it's never been signed. (It wouldn't surprise me if some of the other examples up-thread weren't approved by, or ever even submitted to, AASHTO either.)

jdb1234

Quote from: lordsutch on July 11, 2016, 12:39:35 PM
Quote from: jdb1234 on July 11, 2016, 10:16:26 AM
Unless something has changed, the old route of US 78 in Alabama should still be US 78 Alternate, of course it has never been signed that way.

I don't believe AASHTO actually approved that proposal by Alabama, hence why it's never been signed. (It wouldn't surprise me if some of the other examples up-thread weren't approved by, or ever even submitted to, AASHTO either.)

The stretch from Birmingham to Jasper was approved in 2004 and then from Jasper to Hamilton in 2005.  That is, according to the AASHTO meetings archive.

Tourian

Quote from: lordsutch on July 09, 2016, 07:58:55 PM
Most of the route that's now part of I-22 hasn't been posted as part of US 78 for years, and none of it needs to be AL 4 west of Birmingham since there are existing, signed numbers in place already (AL 5 southeast of Jasper, AL 118 west of Jasper to Winfield, US 43 to Hamilton, and AL 74).

What I am suggesting is to still let "5" be 5, but it is 78 all the way through Birmingham and beyond and then changes to 5 just as it crosses over 22 north of Graysville. So my suggestion means let it be cosigned with I-22 all the way to Memphis, where they call it 78 and Lamar Ave. I do not understand why this relatively small section warrants it to be changed or decommissioned just because 22 now exists to some people. If it devalues 22 (to be cosigned with a highway) as an interstate and/or is just nor proper procedure, I suppose I understand that too, but everybody knew going in that 22, was always going to be a super upgrade of 78 to get traffic efficiently between Birmingham and Memphis.

codyg1985

Quote from: Tourian on July 11, 2016, 05:06:03 PM
I suppose I understand that too, but everybody knew going in that 22, was always going to be a super upgrade of 78 to get traffic efficiently between Birmingham and Memphis.

But the original intent for the entire corridor was to move US 78 onto the freeway once it was built. The freeway had mostly been built well before it was even thought of being designated as I-22.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

Avalanchez71

Quote from: jdb1234 on July 11, 2016, 12:58:10 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on July 11, 2016, 12:39:35 PM
Quote from: jdb1234 on July 11, 2016, 10:16:26 AM
Unless something has changed, the old route of US 78 in Alabama should still be US 78 Alternate, of course it has never been signed that way.

I don't believe AASHTO actually approved that proposal by Alabama, hence why it's never been signed. (It wouldn't surprise me if some of the other examples up-thread weren't approved by, or ever even submitted to, AASHTO either.)

The stretch from Birmingham to Jasper was approved in 2004 and then from Jasper to Hamilton in 2005.  That is, according to the AASHTO meetings archive.

Why wasn't this signed in the field?

MikeTheActuary

I drove the I-22 from Birmingham to Memphis Sunday, as part of a 7 day family business roadtrip I'm on.

A few observations:

In Alabama, for the reassurance sign assemblies, it looks like they just swapped out the old blue US 78 trailblazers and replaced them with I-22 shields.  There is no indication of US 78 existing on that alignment; it's now I-22/AL 4 (Corridor X).  However, in Mississippi, it looked like they just added an I-22 trailblazer either before or after the existing reassurance assemblies.

We popped off I-22 to get gas and make a bio break at Alabama exit 85, still signed as US 78 (the old 4 lane Bankhead Highway).  There really needs to be a requirement about signing distance to advertised services, and perhaps a tighter standard about how distant services may be to get signed, since we drove several miles to find the advertised gas station.  Returning, the exit from west bound US 78 to westbound I-22 is still mostly signed as being to US 78/AL 4/Corridor X.  It wouldn't surprise me if I-22 is thinly signed at several interchanges in Alabama.

Back in the day, I mostly didn't need to stop on US 78 between Memphis and Birmingham.  However, this trip I was traveling with my wife, who has health problems, and since the night before was a short one, I was consuming a significant amount of caffeine Saturday.  Those facts conspire to instill an appreciation for how sparse the services really are along I-22 in Alabama.  There are signs of new construction at some interchanges, however.

At the future interchange with I-269, I-22 westbound simply disappears.  No "END" sign....you just simply stop seeing I-22 trailblazers.   It could be my imagination, but much of the US 78 freeway between I-269 and the TN state line seems like it hasn't been upgraded since it was constructed, and I'd wonder if it would meet current Interstate standards.  I could be mistaken, however, some stretches of I-22 didn't seem significantly upgraded from what I remember as a frequent traveler of that highway 20ish years ago.

The I-22/I-269/US 78 interchange should be a nice one when complete.  It looked like the major overpasses and earth-moving for the interchange were done.

20ish years ago, I normally didn't take US 78 all the way into Memphis; I instead used TN 385 out to wherever it was built, and then local roads to cut down to US 78.  However, being a mindless follower of the GPS, I allowed myself to follow US 78 all the way up to Airways in Memphis.  There is a lot of development along Lamar between I-240 and the state line, including a large intermodal facility.  You really have to travel that stretch of road to gain a full appreciation for why TDOT is in no hurry to upgrade the road to interstate standards.  I'm sure that some of the panhandlers appreciate TDOT not being up to that challenge.  Since I'll probably be a regular traveler of that corridor again in a few months....I'm looking forward to I-269 being completed between I-22 and TN 385.

The legion of mindless followers of GPS might explain why traffic on I-22 between Jasper and Birmingham seemed so light.  My car's on-board navigation system doesn't know about I-22 and simply chose to be unhappy while traveling an allegedly nonexistent road.  I wonder if usage will seem low until the various satnav database updates propagate out into the wild.

lordsutch

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on July 11, 2016, 10:06:22 PM
Back in the day, I mostly didn't need to stop on US 78 between Memphis and Birmingham.  However, this trip I was traveling with my wife, who has health problems, and since the night before was a short one, I was consuming a significant amount of caffeine Saturday.  Those facts conspire to instill an appreciation for how sparse the services really are along I-22 in Alabama.  There are signs of new construction at some interchanges, however.

Some of this is a function of I-22 being of much more recent vintage in Alabama; except for the Hamilton bypass, I-22 in Mississippi was basically complete before much of substance happened in Alabama. That said the lack of development and lack of rest areas combine to make it a drive where planning ahead helps.

Quote
It could be my imagination, but much of the US 78 freeway between I-269 and the TN state line seems like it hasn't been upgraded since it was constructed, and I'd wonder if it would meet current Interstate standards.  I could be mistaken, however, some stretches of I-22 didn't seem significantly upgraded from what I remember as a frequent traveler of that highway 20ish years ago.

The shoulders were paved but beyond that MDOT didn't do much to the existing route except through New Albany (of course most of it is of recent enough vintage that MDOT was building it to near-current AASHTO rural freeway standards anyway). West of I-269 US 78 isn't particularly substandard except some narrow bridge shoulders due to being one of the earliest sections built.

Quote
The legion of mindless followers of GPS might explain why traffic on I-22 between Jasper and Birmingham seemed so light.  My car's on-board navigation system doesn't know about I-22 and simply chose to be unhappy while traveling an allegedly nonexistent road.  I wonder if usage will seem low until the various satnav database updates propagate out into the wild.

Definitely a possibility, although Google Maps has been up-to-date since almost the day it opened. The OSM updates don't seem to have gotten into Scout yet though.

froggie

QuoteI-22 in Mississippi was basically complete before much of substance happened in Alabama.

In no small part because Mississippi put a good chunk of state dollars into it's segment, rather than fully wait for the Feds like Alabama did.

codyg1985

#1045
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on July 11, 2016, 10:06:22 PM
In Alabama, for the reassurance sign assemblies, it looks like they just swapped out the old blue US 78 trailblazers and replaced them with I-22 shields.  There is no indication of US 78 existing on that alignment; it's now I-22/AL 4 (Corridor X).  However, in Mississippi, it looked like they just added an I-22 trailblazer either before or after the existing reassurance assemblies.

Last time I was on I-22 in Marion County, the US 78 signs were still in place, and I-22 was signed fairly well along the mainline and at the interchanges. In Walker County and in Jefferson County up to Graysville, I-22 has replaced the US 78 shields with no additional US 78 shields, or the US 78 shields were not replaced.

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on July 11, 2016, 10:06:22 PM
We popped off I-22 to get gas and make a bio break at Alabama exit 85, still signed as US 78 (the old 4 lane Bankhead Highway).  There really needs to be a requirement about signing distance to advertised services, and perhaps a tighter standard about how distant services may be to get signed, since we drove several miles to find the advertised gas station

Alabama has been getting extremely lax with posting specific service information off of freeway exits. Often I see nothing more than a sign on the freeway itself saying that the service can be found off of the exit. No directional arrows on the ramps, and certainly no distance to the service. I guess ALDOT thinks that with the advent of GPS and maps, this service is no longer needed as much.

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on July 11, 2016, 10:06:22 PM
At the future interchange with I-269, I-22 westbound simply disappears.  No "END" sign....you just simply stop seeing I-22 trailblazers.   It could be my imagination, but much of the US 78 freeway between I-269 and the TN state line seems like it hasn't been upgraded since it was constructed, and I'd wonder if it would meet current Interstate standards.  I could be mistaken, however, some stretches of I-22 didn't seem significantly upgraded from what I remember as a frequent traveler of that highway 20ish years ago.

There used to be a "FUTURE I-22 CORRIDOR" sign posted along US 78 just southeast of the TN state line, so I think it was the intention to sign the entire thing as I-22 before the AASHTO application was submitted.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

lordsutch

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on July 11, 2016, 10:06:22 PM
At the future interchange with I-269, I-22 westbound simply disappears.  No "END" sign....you just simply stop seeing I-22 trailblazers.

TrevorB dug up the signage plans for I-269; on page 50 of the PDF, it shows that the Begin/End I-22 signs are part of the paving/signage contract. You can also see some of the other signage.

Georgia

I-22 is still the only place where i have gone #2 on the side of a road due to lack of services in western Alabama.
Had lunch in Tupelo and something did not sit right with my stomach.

that said, the services are coming slowly but surely.  I would have never dreamed of seeing that Holiday Inn opened on exit 26? a few years ago. 

Rothman

Quote from: Georgia on July 14, 2016, 10:07:37 AM
I-22 is still the only place where i have gone #2 on the side of a road due to lack of services in western Alabama.
Had lunch in Tupelo and something did not sit right with my stomach.


TMI!
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

rte66man

Quote from: Georgia on July 14, 2016, 10:07:37 AM
I-22 is still the only place where i have gone #2 on the side of a road due to lack of services in western Alabama.
Had lunch in Tupelo and something did not sit right with my stomach.

Now THAT is a true bio break!
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra



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