Print

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

[Rover_0]

I-22 reassurance markers seem to be in place pretty much throughout the Alabama portion, and in Walker County they seem to have displaced US 78 signs completely

And for visible proof of this, taken yesterday while enroute to Augusta, GA (8/24/13):

Now look what you've made me do...I'm now listening to Sultans of Swing!

Anyways, I keep wondering if US-78 eventually gets decommissioned west of Birmingham.

[froggie]

While driving towards Memphis on U.S. 78, I saw 4 sets of 3 column bridge piers in a construction zone about 8-9 miles SE of the 302 Olive Branch/Southhaven exit. Is that where they are planning the intersection on I-22 and I-269?

That's probably the location, especially if it was near the DeSoto/Marshall County line.

[Tomahawkin]

Yes it was abt 2 miles after the West Byhalia exit heading SE on US 78. I saw it in the daytime yesterday and it seems they are just doing the preliminary stages of the interchange.

Also The multiple Bridgework (To make the Bridges comply with interstate standards) near the Oxford Area still has a lot left. that Project probably wont be complete til Spring 2014

[Charles2]

The latest photos of the I-22/I-65 interchange, posted online today at al.com (The Birmingham News):

http://photos.al.com/birmingham-news/2013/09/i-65_i-22_interchange_construc_27.html#incart_photo

[msunat97]

Thanks for the link Charles2.  Looks like they are still a year or more away.

[Charles2]

I drove out there today to take a look at the progress.  Judging from the fact that some of the permanent sign gantries are in place on what will eventually be the northbound c/d lanes from the new Daniel Payne Drive (41st Avenue) on-ramp, as well as the amount of pavement on both the c/d lanes as well as the new northbound lanes, my guess is we're not too far from all traffic being diverted onto the new pavement, while the old roadway (nb and sb) undergoes its makeover.  It probably won't be until traffic is diverted from the existing lanes that the remainder of the old 47th Avenue overpass can be demolished.

North of the new interchange is a mess, and that's charitable.  I'm sure that the wet weather we had in the Birmingham area this summer has put the project further behind than they would have liked.  Like many others, I don't see how the project can be completed by next October as they originally projected.  My guess is that it will be in January or February of '15.

[codyg1985]

What does it look like at the overpass to US 31 where they had to remove soil to accommodate the C-D lanes? I'm guessing that is where a lot of the mess is.

[Grzrd]

What about the western end of I-22? ... Do we know yet precisely where the western terminus of 22 will be, and does anyone know the latest construction status there?

You can always send I-22 up I-269 to SR 385.

While recently looking at the FHWA corridors in regard to I-49, I noticed that FHWA's position is that I-22 is the Congessionally mandated designation for High Priority Corridor 45:

45.The United States Route 78 Corridor from Memphis, Tennessee, to Corridor X of the Appalachian Development Highway System near Fulton, Mississippi, and Corridor X of the Appalachian Development Highway System extending from near Fulton, Mississippi, to near Birmingham, Alabama. [I-22]

How strict will FHWA's interpretation of the language be with the mandate of "the United States Route 78 Corridor from Memphis, Tennessee ..."?  Would a terminus along US 78 at I-269 suffice?  Would FHWA be OK with NE2's suggestion to enter Memphis via TN 385?

For comparison's sake, I-49's current northern teminus at I-435 is within the Kansas City city limits, thus meeting the "Kansas City" requirement of High Priority Corridor 72:

72.The North-South corridor, along Interstate Route 49 North, from Kansas City, Missouri, to Shreveport, Louisiana.

A closer comparison may be with Laredo and I-69. High Priority Corridor 20 requires:

20.United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. [I-69]

If I interpret Google Maps correctly, the current US 59/Loop 20 interchange is within Laredo's city limits, which would comply with the statute (at the other end, an interchange with I-30 near the TexAmericas Center (located in New Boston, west of the Texarkana city limits) may have already been contemplated as reflected by the language "to the vicinity of Texarkana").  OTOH it looks like a new connector from Loop 20 to US 59 outside of the city limits would make sense, and by a common-sense standard would be an exception that would comply with the "United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo" requirement.

Am I nitpicking? Probably. However, FHWA might nitpick, too.

[NE2]

If we're going to nitpick, then I-49 South is nonsense: "United States Route 90 from I-49 in Lafayette, Louisiana, to I-10 in New Orleans."

[Charles2]

What does it look like at the overpass to US 31 where they had to remove soil to accommodate the C-D lanes? I'm guessing that is where a lot of the mess is.

That's a mess as well.  If I had to guess, it won't open in tandem with the I-22/I-65 interchange.

[Grzrd]

How strict will FHWA's interpretation of the language be with the mandate of "the United States Route 78 Corridor from Memphis, Tennessee ..."?  Would a terminus along US 78 at I-269 suffice?

I recently emailed MDOT in pursuit of answers to the above questions. I think the answer is that an I-22 western terminus at I-269 is still strongly under consideration.  Also, MDOT currently estimates the reconstruction of the US 78/MS 15 interchange at New Albany to be completed in early 2014 and a new interchange at Coley Road west of Tupelo is scheduled to be let in November.  Regarding the western terminus question, here are my question and MDOT's answer (you interpret the answer):

Q: In looking at FHWA's website it looks like Congress has specified the corridor for I-22: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l45 "45.The United States Route 78 Corridor from Memphis, Tennessee, to Corridor X of the Appalachian Development Highway System near Fulton, Mississippi, and Corridor X of the Appalachian Development Highway System extending from near Fulton, Mississippi, to near Birmingham, Alabama. [I-22]" With that language in mind, it appears that MDOT will need to sign US 78 as I-22 all of the way to the state line once US 78 is interstate-grade. Is that MDOT's current plan? Also, in a related fashion, when does MDOT anticipate that all of the US 78 upgrade- to I-22 projects will be completed, in particular the work around New Albany?
 
A: MDOT’s current plan is to sign the entire length of US 78 as I-22. There is ongoing work to complete I-269 from I-55 to the Tennessee State Line around the eastern side of the Memphis metro area. There is still an open discussion as to where the western terminus of I-22 will be. It will most likely be at the interchange of US 78 and I-269, but this has not been finalized. MDOT is also going to let a project in November to construct a new interchange on US 78 @ Coley Road near Tupelo. Also, the reconstruction of the US 78 / MS 15 interchange at New Albany is scheduled for completion in early 2014.
With all this in mind, it may be a few more years before the transition of US 78 to I-22 is complete.

Two questions:

(1) Looking at the Google map, it appears that Coley Road is intended to serve as some type of a northern and western bypass of Tupelo. Does anyone have some good info on the plans for Coley Road?

(2) This will probably eventually be a "welcome back to work" question for someone at FHWA, but here it is: Assuming US 78 is interstate-grade from the TN state line to I-269, would FHWA permit MDOT to only designate US 78 from the AL state line to I-269 as I-22?  Or, would FHWA make it an "all or nothing" proposition for MDOT?

[NE2]

Would FHWA permit NCDOT to only designate parts of I-73 and I-74? Oh wait, they have.

[Grzrd]

Would FHWA permit NCDOT to only designate parts of I-73 and I-74? Oh wait, they have.

Interesting. Which interstate-grade designated sections are connected to interstate-grade non-designated sections?

[NE2]

Would FHWA permit NCDOT to only designate parts of I-73 and I-74? Oh wait, they have.

Interesting. Which interstate-grade designated sections are connected to interstate-grade non-designated sections?

Future I-73/I-840 north of I-40 is new construction, so presumably up to Interstate standards. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/north_carolina/greensboro_nc.pdf shows it as I-73, but currently it's signed future north of I-40: http://people.duke.edu/~rmalme/i73seg4.html#seg5

[Grzrd]

Would FHWA permit NCDOT to only designate parts of I-73 and I-74? Oh wait, they have.

Interesting. Which interstate-grade designated sections are connected to interstate-grade non-designated sections?

Future I-73/I-840 north of I-40 is new construction, so presumably up to Interstate standards. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/north_carolina/greensboro_nc.pdf shows it as I-73, but currently it's signed future north of I-40: http://people.duke.edu/~rmalme/i73seg4.html#seg5

Do you have a non-3di concurrency example?

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/north_carolina/greensboro_nc.pdf shows it as I-73, but currently it's signed future north of I-40: http://people.duke.edu/~rmalme/i73seg4.html#seg5

Because of the new official routing of I-73 discussed above, the route of this proposed section changed as well from its first conception. Originally, I-73 was to use I-40 to get from the NC 68 interchange to the US 220 freeway. This route had I-73 following I-40 along its current path to near the current Chimney Rock Road exit where it would then take the route of the Greensboro Urban Loop (Painter Blvd.). Now the I-73 route will use Bryan Blvd, a divided highway but not up to interstate standards its whole length (see above), and then I-73 will join the Loop 3.5 miles north of I-40 and travel south (with the highway being signed as Future I-73/ Future I-840, for now)

[codyg1985]

How strict will FHWA's interpretation of the language be with the mandate of "the United States Route 78 Corridor from Memphis, Tennessee ..."?  Would a terminus along US 78 at I-269 suffice?

I recently emailed MDOT in pursuit of answers to the above questions. I think the answer is that an I-22 western terminus at I-269 is still strongly under consideration.  Also, MDOT currently estimates the reconstruction of the US 78/MS 15 interchange at New Albany to be completed in early 2014 and a new interchange at Coley Road west of Tupelo is scheduled to be let in November.  Regarding the western terminus question, here are my question and MDOT's answer (you interpret the answer):

Q: In looking at FHWA's website it looks like Congress has specified the corridor for I-22: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l45 "45.The United States Route 78 Corridor from Memphis, Tennessee, to Corridor X of the Appalachian Development Highway System near Fulton, Mississippi, and Corridor X of the Appalachian Development Highway System extending from near Fulton, Mississippi, to near Birmingham, Alabama. [I-22]" With that language in mind, it appears that MDOT will need to sign US 78 as I-22 all of the way to the state line once US 78 is interstate-grade. Is that MDOT's current plan? Also, in a related fashion, when does MDOT anticipate that all of the US 78 upgrade- to I-22 projects will be completed, in particular the work around New Albany?
 
A: MDOT’s current plan is to sign the entire length of US 78 as I-22. There is ongoing work to complete I-269 from I-55 to the Tennessee State Line around the eastern side of the Memphis metro area. There is still an open discussion as to where the western terminus of I-22 will be. It will most likely be at the interchange of US 78 and I-269, but this has not been finalized. MDOT is also going to let a project in November to construct a new interchange on US 78 @ Coley Road near Tupelo. Also, the reconstruction of the US 78 / MS 15 interchange at New Albany is scheduled for completion in early 2014.
With all this in mind, it may be a few more years before the transition of US 78 to I-22 is complete.

Two questions:

(1) Looking at the Google map, it appears that Coley Road is intended to serve as some type of a northern and western bypass of Tupelo. Does anyone have some good info on the plans for Coley Road?

(2) This will probably eventually be a "welcome back to work" question for someone at FHWA, but here it is: Assuming US 78 is interstate-grade from the TN state line to I-269, would FHWA permit MDOT to only designate US 78 from the AL state line to I-269 as I-22?  Or, would FHWA make it an "all or nothing" proposition for MDOT?

1) If I had to guess, this is probably to make access to the Tupelo Regional Airport easier for I-22 traffic (for marketability purposes), but it also does connect to Barnes Crossing area, so it may also help in regards to improving access to that once the Natchez Trace grade separation is built.  You are probably right that it may serve as a bypass of sorts.

2) I-26 around the Tri-Cities area of TN is a precedent of an interstate going past another interstate (I-81) to end at a non-interstate. I'm not sure off-hand of a precedent of leaving part of a freeway not designated an interstate.

[NE2]

Do you have a shrubbery?

What does I-840 have to do with it? It too is a future route.

2) I-26 around the Tri-Cities area of TN is a precedent of an interstate going past another interstate (I-81) to end at a non-interstate. I'm not sure off-hand of a precedent of leaving part of a freeway not designated an interstate.

*ahem* I-26 is an example of that, with the stub of US 23 beyond US 11W not being I-26.

So is future I-495 NC. And I-795 NC. And I-49 MO. The last should satisfy all anality about HPC definitions. But be sure to apply the same anality to "United States Route 90 from I-49 in Lafayette, Louisiana, to I-10 in New Orleans".

[codyg1985]

Google Street View has been updated to show construction progress along I-22/US 78 in New Albany: http://goo.gl/maps/Epe4B

[Grzrd]

*ahem* I-26 is an example of that, with the stub of US 23 beyond US 11W not being I-26.

Nope. That section of US 23 is not a Congressionally designated part of I-26, whereas US 78 "from Memphis, Tennessee ..." is a Congressionally designated part of I-22. BIG difference, which you know (or should know).

be sure to apply the same anality to "United States Route 90 from I-49 in Lafayette, Louisiana, to I-10 in New Orleans".

What are you talking about? Congress does not mandate an interstate number in the above-quoted definition, whereas it does in regard to I-22, a certain section of I-26,  I-49, I-69, I-69C, I-69E, I-73, and I-74. SO WHAT if US 90 from I-49 in Lafayette to New Orleans is a HPC Corridor?

And I-49 MO. The last should satisfy all anality about HPC definitions.

Do you really think MoDOT and AHTD have completed the Bella Vista Bypass? OF COURSE NOT. US 78 from the TN state line is already presumably interstate-grade and is designation-ready. There is no point in my trying to provide further explanation ...

[lordsutch]

(1) Looking at the Google map, it appears that Coley Road is intended to serve as some type of a northern and western bypass of Tupelo. Does anyone have some good info on the plans for Coley Road?

(2) This will probably eventually be a "welcome back to work" question for someone at FHWA, but here it is: Assuming US 78 is interstate-grade from the TN state line to I-269, would FHWA permit MDOT to only designate US 78 from the AL state line to I-269 as I-22?  Or, would FHWA make it an "all or nothing" proposition for MDOT?

1. There's an environmental assessment for the Coley Road/Barnes Crossing Road project on MDOT's FTP site. Basically it would add a partial loop around Tupelo, and also make access to the mall area from US 78 and western Tupelo easier. Most of the work is already done except the overpasses of the Trace (under construction - there will not be any access to the Trace) and the US 78 interchange.

2. Since FHWA probably won't approve a terminus of I-22 at the state line or slightly beyond it at the current end of fully-controlled access, I don't see how not redesignating the part that can't be I-22 as I-22 would bother FHWA. Certainly there's precedent for a 2di ending at a 3di.

Besides which, Corridor 45 is defined as the "US 78 Corridor," which is distinct from "US 78." Both I-269 + I-55, or I-269 alone, would be within the "US 78 Corridor" and connect US 78 with Memphis, Tennessee (I-269 goes through a small sliver of Memphis that follows US 64 east to the Fayette County line). You'd have a continuous Interstate from Memphis to Birmingham, even with I-22 ending at I-269 - it just wouldn't be all numbered I-22, which I don't think is legally required.

The only (anal) legal justification I can see that might permit FHWA to approve a near state-line terminus under the HPC definition is if Memphis were to annex the 100' or so of the US 78 freeway in Tennessee, which would literally mean I-22 was starting in Memphis. This area is within Memphis' annexation reserve but I don't believe there are any current plans to annex it since there's not much there and Memphis would then be responsible for some of the payment to maintain that section of US 78.

In any event someone with standing (i.e. probably not a random roadgeek upset about the aesthetics of route numbering) would have to care enough to sue to successfully disagree with whatever FHWA decides, and they probably can justify any reasonable scenario here.

[Anthony_JK]

But be sure to apply the same anality to "United States Route 90 from I-49 in Lafayette, Louisiana, to I-10 in New Orleans".

Ummm..that's possibly more of an accidental glitch than anything purely anal. US 90, of course, does not connect with existing I-49 directly via the Evangeline Thruway, but the Thruway does serve to connect I-49/US 167 north of I-10 with US 90 south and east of Lafayette. The overlap of US 167 and US 90 takes place between Mudd Ave/Cameron Street (where US 90 diverges to the W) and Johnston Street (where US 167 diverges to the SW). That's probably why they named the project in Lafayette proper "The I-49 Connector" and planned it as a stand alone project independent from the upgrade of US 90 southward and eastward from there.

It's pretty obvious, though, that once the I-49 Connector is fully funded (or an alternative corridor such as Teche Ridge or a western bypass is developed) that the whole shebang at least to I-310 or all the way to I-10 in downtown NOLA will be designated as I-49. They've been calling the whole project "I-49 South" for eons now...why would they change??

[Tourian]

Morning news traffic updates are starting to report delays regarding the work on connecting the two interstates so things must have taken another crucial step forward.

[Charles2]

Morning news traffic updates are starting to report delays regarding the work on connecting the two interstates so things must have taken another crucial step forward.

Wonder how much longer it will be before NB and SB I-65 are detoured onto the new pavement?

[Revive 755]

2. Since FHWA probably won't approve a terminus of I-22 at the state line or slightly beyond it at the current end of fully-controlled access, I don't see how not redesignating the part that can't be I-22 as I-22 would bother FHWA. Certainly there's precedent for a 2di ending at a 3di.

Given FHWA's approval of an illogical termini for I-41 in Illinois just beyond the Wisconsin border, I don't see why FHWA couldn't allow I-22 to end just inside Tennessee.

[codyg1985]

Morning news traffic updates are starting to report delays regarding the work on connecting the two interstates so things must have taken another crucial step forward.

Wonder how much longer it will be before NB and SB I-65 are detoured onto the new pavement?

I heard a rumor that it will be next March.