Why are they going to name Corridor X-1 Interstate 422? It will only connect with I-22 one time. It will connect with I-59 two times. So why not a Interstate Highway that is related with I-59 (e.g., I-259, I-659) since it is going to begin and end at Interstate 59? :hmmm:
Quote from: InterstatesRules445 on July 22, 2015, 07:20:14 PM
Why are they going to name Corridor X-1 Interstate 422? It will only connect with I-22 one time. It will connect with I-59 two times. So why not a Interstate Highway that is related with I-59 (e.g., I-259, I-659) since it is going to begin and end at Interstate 59? :hmmm:
If the idea of extending Corridor X-1 to I-20 again comes then it can be called Interstate 420. :awesomeface:
Maybe they want to promote the new interstate.
Probably. It is probably just so it can tie into the I-22 corridor. It is funny because even though the OP says it connectes with I-22 once it actually won't because I-222 is going to be the connection!
My only guess is that they didn't want to create an I-59/I-459 duplex between Trussville (where I-459 currently ends) and Argo (where I-422 will eventually end).
The surest way to delay completion of I-422 will be to hire the same company responsible for the I-65/I-22 interchange to construct any of the major interchanges along 422.
Maybe it was named that way since it is related to Corridor X which is I-22. It was going to be I-459, but then at some point internally it was called AL 959. And now it is I-422. There is also a short connector interstate proposed between I-22 and I-422 that would be called I-622. The terrain and the distance between existing exits makes a direct connection between the two interstates difficult.
I don't figure it will ever be finished. I'm not holding my breath.
Quote from: codyg1985 on July 23, 2015, 07:56:32 AM
Maybe it was named that way since it is related to Corridor X which is I-22. It was going to be I-459, but then at some point internally it was called AL 959. And now it is I-422. There is also a short connector interstate proposed between I-22 and I-422 that would be called I-622. The terrain and the distance between existing exits makes a direct connection between the two interstates difficult.
I don't figure it will ever be finished. I'm not holding my breath.
I-622? Did you mean I-222?
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 22, 2015, 07:28:34 PM
Quote from: InterstatesRules445 on July 22, 2015, 07:20:14 PM
Why are they going to name Corridor X-1 Interstate 422? It will only connect with I-22 one time. It will connect with I-59 two times. So why not a Interstate Highway that is related with I-59 (e.g., I-259, I-659) since it is going to begin and end at Interstate 59? :hmmm:
If the idea of extending Corridor X-1 to I-20 again comes then it can be called Interstate 420. :awesomeface:
Never thought of that. If I was the person to name the highway I would name it I-420. I think I-459 should had been named I-420 because I-20 is a more of a major Interstate highway, like I-485 was chosen over I-477 because I-85 is a more major Interstate Highway, and I-485 starts at I-77. :nod:
Personally I think it should have been Interstate 420, since 422 will need a spur Interstate Highway (222) to connect it with Interstate 22.
659 or 859 would have made more sense. Either that, or just extend 459 and let the 59/459 multiplex be damned.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 24, 2015, 05:20:42 PM
Personally I think it should have been Interstate 420, since 422 will need a spur Interstate Highway (222) to connect it with Interstate 22.
I-420 would be a frequent victim of sign theft, like routes numbered 13, 69 and 666 are. Which, along with community opposition, is why the two previous attempts (Monroe, LA and Atlanta) never got built.
Quote from: Charles2 on July 25, 2015, 09:32:14 PM
659 or 859 would have made more sense. Either that, or just extend 459 and let the 59/459 multiplex be damned.
I could go with either number. Them Birmingham could become Minneapolis South in this manner.
I believe 622 and 659 are off the table because of the way Alabama catalogs interstates - I-10 is AL 610, I-20 is AL 620, etc. The I-59 child routes are numbered in the manner they are to prevent duplication.
I echo the sentiment about just closing the loop on I-459, even if there's a multiplex with I-59. Of course if it were being built to Leeds/Moody at I-20, the multiplex could have been on I-20 instead.
Quote from: tidecat on July 29, 2015, 09:59:39 PM
I believe 622 and 659 are off the table because of the way Alabama catalogs interstates - I-10 is AL 610, I-20 is AL 620, etc. The I-59 child routes are numbered in the manner they are to prevent duplication.
I echo the sentiment about just closing the loop on I-459, even if there's a multiplex with I-59. Of course if it were being built to Leeds/Moody at I-20, the multiplex could have been on I-20 instead.
But if you did that, how would you renumber the existing stretch of I-459 between I-20 and I-59? 220? 320? 820?
Quote from: tidecat on July 29, 2015, 09:59:39 PM
I believe 622 and 659 are off the table because of the way Alabama catalogs interstates - I-10 is AL 610, I-20 is AL 620, etc. The I-59 child routes are numbered in the manner they are to prevent duplication.
I echo the sentiment about just closing the loop on I-459, even if there's a multiplex with I-59. Of course if it were being built to Leeds/Moody at I-20, the multiplex could have been on I-20 instead.
Once the I-85 bypass of Montgomery is finished, the existing portion that is inside the bypass will be renamed I-685.
Quote from: HenryI-420 would be a frequent victim of sign theft, like routes numbered 13, 69 and 666 are. Which, along with community opposition, is why the two previous attempts (Monroe, LA and Atlanta) never got built.
First, this is the first I've heard of persistent sign theft for routes numbered 13.
Second, NEITHER reason you cite is why I-420 Monroe was dropped. It was dropped because LaDOTD wanted to use that mileage in New Orleans instead.
Quote from: tidecatI believe 622 and 659 are off the table because of the way Alabama catalogs interstates - I-10 is AL 610, I-20 is AL 620, etc. The I-59 child routes are numbered in the manner they are to prevent duplication.
I read/heard this too years ago. Since then, with my own research into Alabama highways, I've begun to conclude that this was just a "roadgeek legend". Then, as cody just noted, you have a planned I-685 in the Montgomery area, so that would be a checkmark against this "internal Interstate cataloging" argument.
Quote from: froggie on July 31, 2015, 12:45:04 AM
Quote from: tidecatI believe 622 and 659 are off the table because of the way Alabama catalogs interstates - I-10 is AL 610, I-20 is AL 620, etc. The I-59 child routes are numbered in the manner they are to prevent duplication.
I read/heard this too years ago. Since then, with my own research into Alabama highways, I've begun to conclude that this was just a "roadgeek legend". Then, as cody just noted, you have a planned I-685 in the Montgomery area, so that would be a checkmark against this "internal Interstate cataloging" argument.
ALDOT doesn't seem to have too big of a problem with duplication anyways, especially since we have both I-20 and AL 20 and I-65 and AL 65.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 31, 2015, 11:31:58 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 31, 2015, 12:45:04 AM
Quote from: tidecatI believe 622 and 659 are off the table because of the way Alabama catalogs interstates - I-10 is AL 610, I-20 is AL 620, etc. The I-59 child routes are numbered in the manner they are to prevent duplication.
I read/heard this too years ago. Since then, with my own research into Alabama highways, I've begun to conclude that this was just a "roadgeek legend". Then, as cody just noted, you have a planned I-685 in the Montgomery area, so that would be a checkmark against this "internal Interstate cataloging" argument.
ALDOT doesn't seem to have too big of a problem with duplication anyways, especially since we have both I-20 and AL 20 and I-65 and AL 65.
Truth be told, every 2-di Interstate in Alabama has SR duplicate.
Actually, the thing that is the best counterargument to the AL 6xx theory is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_State_Route_165
If I-165 were to have a different catalog number, I'm not sure what it would be. Interestingly, there is also an AL 210, and I-165 was originally proposed as I-210. AL 165 is only 33 miles long, so it's not like it would be that difficult to renumber.
I thought maybe it had to do with how the funding was secured. Since it began as being an extra earmark under Corridor X, as X-1, they named it 422 so that it would seem to relate to 22 as closely as possible to help keep the money rolling in and not raise the eyebrows of less than diligent congressmen and women.
According to Wikipedia, Interstate 422 will not be completed until 2048. That's a long time to wait.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2015, 03:10:27 PM
According to Wikipedia, Interstate 422 will not be completed until 2048. That's a long time to wait.
I don't think it will ever be completed.
To paraphrase a quote from Walt Disney...Interstate(s) [422] will not be done as long as there is sheer human delay lift in the world. :-D
Also-According to the 2016 RmcN atlas, I-22 is open in the state of Alabama.
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 03, 2015, 03:50:06 PM
Also-According to the 2016 RmcN atlas, I-22 is open in the state of Alabama.
They assumed it would be open. We here in the Birmingham area assumed it would be open last year. We all know what happens when you assume, don't we? :bigass:
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 03, 2015, 03:11:15 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2015, 03:10:27 PM
According to Wikipedia, Interstate 422 will not be completed until 2048. That's a long time to wait.
I don't think it will ever be completed.
But it will still be six months before I-22 is completed.
Quote from: tidecat on August 04, 2015, 10:21:18 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 03, 2015, 03:11:15 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2015, 03:10:27 PM
According to Wikipedia, Interstate 422 will not be completed until 2048. That's a long time to wait.
I don't think it will ever be completed.
But it will still be six months before I-22 is completed.
Or before a workable solution to US 280 is completed.
Quote from: Charles2 on August 04, 2015, 11:26:45 PM
Quote from: tidecat on August 04, 2015, 10:21:18 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 03, 2015, 03:11:15 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2015, 03:10:27 PM
According to Wikipedia, Interstate 422 will not be completed until 2048. That's a long time to wait.
I don't think it will ever be completed.
But it will still be six months before I-22 is completed.
Or before a workable solution to US 280 is completed.
Or before the I-85 extension is completed. And I will be 78 by then.
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 03, 2015, 03:11:15 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2015, 03:10:27 PM
According to Wikipedia, Interstate 422 will not be completed until 2048. That's a long time to wait.
I don't think it will ever be completed.
It will be finished before that Atlanta-Huntsville-Memphis highway will....
I think 422 construction will pick up with more segments under construction at the same time as soon as some of these major projects are completed and off the board, IE the 22 exchange, the 20/59 bridges and Malfunction Junction modification.
ALDOT's top priority state wide seems to be the I-20/59 bridge replacement, from what I can tell.
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 05, 2015, 02:42:07 PM
ALDOT's top priority state wide seems to be the I-20/59 bridge replacement, from what I can tell.
And goodness knows, it needs it. Every time I drive across it, I pray that I make it across.
What is the status of this project?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 12, 2021, 10:43:39 AM
What is the status of this project?
Which one are we talking about? O(h)DOT or PennDOT?
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 12, 2021, 11:26:36 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 12, 2021, 10:43:39 AM
What is the status of this project?
Which one are we talking about? O(h)DOT or PennDOT?
I-422, not US 422. (I made the same mistake at first.)
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 12, 2021, 10:43:39 AM
What is the status of this project?
According to the STIP plan: FY 2020/2021 stream/wetland mitigation credits, FY 2021 preliminary engineering for the bridge and base/pave portion of the section between SR-79 and SR-75 (the grade and drain has been completed for a few years already), FY 2023 build two pairs of mainline bridges between SR-79 and SR-75 including the two ramp bridges for the east-facing SR-79 ramps. The base and pave CN (construction) for that section does not appear in the STIP. As with all projects, these fiscal year dates are subject to change due to funding.