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

[froggie]

Interstate upgrade for the Batesville-Tupelo section

Has this been suggested/proposed?

[lordsutch]

Interstate 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

[Grzrd]

ARC map of Corridor X-1 ...

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 ...

My biggest beef with the road, besides the cost, is the route it takes. It doesn't even really function as a good bypass ...

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 and does not continue to I-20.

[The Ghostbuster]

I still think the Birmingham North Beltline should have had a different number, since it will only have an indirect connection with Interstate 22.

[codyg1985]

At one point ALDOT internally referred to it as AL 959.

[Grzrd]

Extend it from I-59 to I-20 and it could be re-designated as I-420. 

[The Ghostbuster]

I would agree Interstate 420 would be a better number. However, it is probably too late to renumber the BNB.

[codyg1985]

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.

[Henry]

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.

[Tourian]

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.

[formulanone]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

If not 420, how about 220 or 259?

[jwolfer]

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

[lordsutch]

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).

[aboges26]

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.

[Henry]

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.

[silverback1065]

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?

[clong]

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...

[lordsutch]

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.

[clong]

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.

[silverback1065]

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?

[Charles2]

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.

[freebrickproductions]

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).

[codyg1985]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

Another question is whether this bypass is too far out to reduce congestion on existing routes.