Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[codyg1985]

Somewhat related to I-22; the April 26th ALDOT letting has a project to widen Coalburg Road between I-22 and Daniel Payne Drive.

Coalburg Road is the last exit open on I-22 going eastbound. Right now it dumps traffic onto a two-lane road. Trucks aren't supposed to use I-22 past the US 78 exit in Graysville. This project may allow trucks to use the entire open stretch of I-22 once the widening project is finished, and should be a stop-gap solution until the I-22/I-65 interchange is complete.

[agentsteel53]

no state name?  both states are using the state name on new installs, no?

[codyg1985]

And here is another article about the I-22 signs going up. Apparently they will be going up in Walker County too.

[Grzrd]

It is indeed signed in Marion County only, for now (this is looking east at the MS/AL State Line

Thanks for great field confirmation on a rainy day! 

AASHTO recently said that Alabama has to wait until Mississippi submits an application, but this Mississippi DOT Press Release states that Mississippi has permission to designate US 78 as I-22 from the Alabama state line to US 45 in Tupelo:

... MDOT has been approved to designate this section of road, from the Alabama state line to Highway 45 in Tupelo, as Interstate 22.

Now, will Mississippi follow Alabama's lead?

[NE2]

Please move US 78 back to the old road.

[lordsutch]

Please move US 78 back to the old road.

The old road is discontinuous in two spots.  So good luck with that.

[froggie]

Impossible in at least two locations (Tenn-Tom and MS/AL line) due to the old road simply no longer existing.

[agentsteel53]

Please move US 78 back to the old road.

The old road is discontinuous in two spots.  So good luck with that.

it can be moved back on quite a few spots, then.  US-5 was blown away by I-91 in precisely one spot; it is simply multiplexed there.  the rest of it is independent routing.  78/22 can be done analogously.

[Grzrd]

From the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering Annual Meeting, It looks like I-22 was conditionally approved, pending approval from FHWA and application from Mississippi.

By not waiting on the application from Mississippi, Alabama did not wait for AASHTO approval before installing the signs.  On the other hand, an email response I received from MDOT today indicates they do indeed have FHWA approval and are simply waiting for AASHTO approval before signing the MS/AL state line to US 45 in Tupelo segment as I-22:

FHWA has approved the section between the State-line and US 45, but there is still one step left before we install signs. This will be taken up and voted on by the AASHTO Route Committee this spring. Once they approve, then we will be able to install signs.

[froggie]

it can be moved back on quite a few spots, then.  US-5 was blown away by I-91 in precisely one spot; it is simply multiplexed there.  the rest of it is independent routing.  78/22 can be done analogously.

Not if AASHTO is following their own standards.  Their policy on US route numbering states that US routes should be over the shortest routes and the best roads.  Existing US routes paralleling Interstates (i.e. your I-91/US 5 example) remain because their respective states never got around to moving them.  But since US 78 has moved to the freeway, it shouldn't go back.  For AASHTO to approve putting it back on the old road would be to go against their own policy.

[NE2]

Screw AASHTO. NC ignored them when moving US 117 off I-795.

[agentsteel53]

Not if AASHTO is following their own standards.  Their policy on US route numbering states that US routes should be over the shortest routes and the best roads.  Existing US routes paralleling Interstates (i.e. your I-91/US 5 example) remain because their respective states never got around to moving them.  But since US 78 has moved to the freeway, it shouldn't go back.  For AASHTO to approve putting it back on the old road would be to go against their own policy.

was this the policy when US-40 was moved onto I-70 in Ohio, and then moved back off, in the 1970s?

[NE2]

Existing US routes paralleling Interstates (i.e. your I-91/US 5 example) remain because their respective states never got around to moving them.

More like they chose not to move them (or moved them back in the early days, like US 1/I-95 in eastern Connecticut and Mr. Steel's US 40/I-70). AASHTO eventually admitted its mistake in trying to eliminate split-suffixed routes in the 1930s and 40s.

[lordsutch]

In this case, because US 78 ends in Memphis and it has multiple breaks in its route (in addition to the two physical breaks in the route, existing MS 178 is discontinuous in signage in both Holly Springs and Tupelo), the route is really redundant west of Birmingham and probably should be decommissioned or be moved to a more independently useful route.

At best I could see justification for putting US 78 back onto the AL 5-118 route east of US 43, where I-22 is not as closely parallel to the old US 78 routing.

[WashuOtaku]

Screw AASHTO. NC ignored them when moving US 117 off I-795.

NCDOT got an exception moving US 117 back on its old route when they created I-795, so bigger trucks can use the new freeway.

[NE2]

Screw AASHTO. NC ignored them when moving US 117 off I-795.

NCDOT got an exception moving US 117 back on its old route when they created I-795, so bigger trucks can use the new freeway.

Huh? They submitted the change to AASHTO but were denied.

[cjk374]

In this case, because US 78 ends in Memphis and it has multiple breaks in its route (in addition to the two physical breaks in the route, existing MS 178 is discontinuous in signage in both Holly Springs and Tupelo), the route is really redundant west of Birmingham and probably should be decommissioned or be moved to a more independently useful route.

At best I could see justification for putting US 78 back onto the AL 5-118 route east of US 43, where I-22 is not as closely parallel to the old US 78 routing.

IMHO, all interstates need a parallel route close by in case a detour is needed due to any blockages or hinderances on the interstate.

[lordsutch]

IMHO, all interstates need a parallel route close by in case a detour is needed due to any blockages or hinderances on the interstate.

I'm not saying MS 178 and AL 118 should be bulldozed and the earth salted so all traffic is forced to stay on I-22.  There's just no need to move US 78 back to the old route.

[froggie]

IMHO, all interstates need a parallel route close by in case a detour is needed due to any blockages or hinderances on the interstate.

I don't disagree, but as with lordsutch, there's no need for such a parallel route to be a US route.

[Alps]

In this case, because US 78 ends in Memphis and it has multiple breaks in its route (in addition to the two physical breaks in the route, existing MS 178 is discontinuous in signage in both Holly Springs and Tupelo), the route is really redundant west of Birmingham and probably should be decommissioned or be moved to a more independently useful route.

At best I could see justification for putting US 78 back onto the AL 5-118 route east of US 43, where I-22 is not as closely parallel to the old US 78 routing.

IMHO, all interstates need a parallel route close by in case a detour is needed due to any blockages or hinderances on the interstate.

IMHO, all highways need a parallel route close by in case a detour is needed. Oh, yeah, that'd be silly.

[NE2]

Not so silly. Connectivity is a very good thing no matter where you are.

[Alps]

Not so silly. Connectivity is a very good thing no matter where you are.

What I said is silly. Connectivity is not.

[Grzrd]

AL.com has posted a 21 photo gallery of April 15, 2013 work on the I-22/I-65 interchange.

[Charles2]

Why do I look at these pictures and think that there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the interchange will be completed by the announced target date of October, 2014?  It seems like every time I drive through this it's hard to see a lot of tangible progress.

[Bamaroadgeek]

Why do I look at these pictures and think that there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the interchange will be completed by the announced target date of October, 2014? 

Because there's not.