News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

I-14 in Georgia

Started by Grzrd, August 01, 2018, 11:41:56 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

froggie

^ MS may have a functionally smaller tax base, but they had enough support for a gas tax increase back in the 1980s that enabled them to build their 4-lane program, which included completing their portion of the I-22 corridor twenty years before Alabama did...last segment of the US 78 freeway in Mississippi was completed in 1994.  Granted, they had to upgrade the shoulders and the New Albany segment before they could sign it as I-22, but they got that done as well before Alabama finished.


Bobby5280

I-14 is mostly a pipe dream, pork barrel fantasy for much of its crooked, meandering route.

Just look at the glacial-pace of development going on with the extension of I-69 down to the Mexican border. That's a somewhat more legit corridor than I-14, especially the routes in Texas. Here we are roughly 20 years later after the project was started and the I-69 extension really only exists in a few scattered bits and pieces. A stub here, a stub there. And then there's that stupid L-shape thing in Kentucky, where they merely signed I-69 onto some routes built decades before.

I think I-14, at best, might exist only as a couple disconnected segments in different parts of the country, one bit in Texas and the other (maybe) in Georgia. We already have previous examples of permanently disconnected Interstates with the same number (I-76, I-84, I-86, I-88). That goes along with existing disconnected routes with plans of some degree to connect them (I-49, I-69 and long-shot I-74). Add to that plans of at least one new disconnected route, a North Carolina version of I-87. With all that said, two separated I-14 routes would seem fairly normal by current "standards."

Aside from the whole "I-14" effort, it's certainly justifiable to build an Interstate quality road between Columbus and Macon, as well as upgrading US-280 from Columbus to Opelika. Adding another another angle to involve Columbus, I would like to see I-22 extended from Birmingham to Jacksonville, FL via Columbus, Albany and Waycross, GA. That could make I-22 into a more useful long distance route. Outside of that, there's not much of the proposed I-14 route that's justifiable to build (other than creating an Interstate link between Montgomery and Meridian).

kevinb1994

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 26, 2019, 01:42:16 PM
I-14 is mostly a pipe dream, pork barrel fantasy for much of its crooked, meandering route.

Just look at the glacial-pace of development going on with the extension of I-69 down to the Mexican border. That's a somewhat more legit corridor than I-14, especially the routes in Texas. Here we are roughly 20 years later after the project was started and the I-69 extension really only exists in a few scattered bits and pieces. A stub here, a stub there. And then there's that stupid L-shape thing in Kentucky, where they merely signed I-69 onto some routes built decades before.

I think I-14, at best, might exist only as a couple disconnected segments in different parts of the country, one bit in Texas and the other (maybe) in Georgia. We already have previous examples of permanently disconnected Interstates with the same number (I-76, I-84, I-86, I-88). That goes along with existing disconnected routes with plans of some degree to connect them (I-49, I-69 and long-shot I-74). Add to that plans of at least one new disconnected route, a North Carolina version of I-87. With all that said, two separated I-14 routes would seem fairly normal by current "standards."

Aside from the whole "I-14" effort, it's certainly justifiable to build an Interstate quality road between Columbus and Macon, as well as upgrading US-280 from Columbus to Opelika. Adding another another angle to involve Columbus, I would like to see I-22 extended from Birmingham to Jacksonville, FL via Columbus, Albany and Waycross, GA. That could make I-22 into a more useful long distance route. Outside of that, there's not much of the proposed I-14 route that's justifiable to build (other than creating an Interstate link between Montgomery and Meridian).

I live in JAX and wonder how the heck I-22 would connect with our interstate setup here.

NE2

Quote from: sparker on March 26, 2019, 02:38:53 AM
^^^^^^^^^
The Columbus-Augusta corridor, including the segment of GA 88 cited above, is unsigned GRIP route 540;
It's signed now. http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=215.msg13049#msg13049
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

sparker

Quote from: froggie on March 26, 2019, 12:54:04 PM
^ MS may have a functionally smaller tax base, but they had enough support for a gas tax increase back in the 1980s that enabled them to build their 4-lane program, which included completing their portion of the I-22 corridor twenty years before Alabama did...last segment of the US 78 freeway in Mississippi was completed in 1994.  Granted, they had to upgrade the shoulders and the New Albany segment before they could sign it as I-22, but they got that done as well before Alabama finished.


Unfortunately, that was 30-40 years ago; it appears that today a relatively short and localized project such as I-269 is drain enough on the DOT's resources that not a lot is left for anything major -- certainly not sufficient to make any headway on their segment of I-69 beyond what's presently on the ground.  And as far as I-14 is concerned, it's at best merely a line on the map at present; the case has yet to be made for upgrades or rebuilding of US 84 as part of a major interregional corridor. 

Quote from: NE2 on March 26, 2019, 03:08:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 26, 2019, 02:38:53 AM
^^^^^^^^^
The Columbus-Augusta corridor, including the segment of GA 88 cited above, is unsigned GRIP route 540;
It's signed now. http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=215.msg13049#msg13049

Good to know; it joins 515 and 520 in that respect.  Surprised that GADOT hasn't signed Savannah-Augusta  with its GRIP 555 number, seeing that it's at least 4-lanes between the end points.

Bobby5280

Quote from: kevinb1994I live in JAX and wonder how the heck I-22 would connect with our interstate setup here.

If it followed US-82/GA-520 to Waycross the route could come down along or near US-1 and terminate at I-295 or multiplex on I-295 down to I-10. Or it could end at I-95 just North of Jacksonville International Airport. It's not necessary for it to end deep inside Jacksonville itself and there's little if any way a new terrain Interstate could even push through that way.

It's also a possible an extension of I-22 wouldn't necessarily reach Jacksonville, or even enter Florida. Another idea is extending the route down from Columbus to Albany but then going diagonal thru Moultrie and ending at I-75 in Valdosta. At that point I-75 is pretty much running on a diagonal parallel that's practically parallel to US-1 coming down from Waycross. Such a route might do more to benefit Florida cities farther South from Jacksonville.

kevinb1994

#56
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2019, 10:34:34 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994I live in JAX and wonder how the heck I-22 would connect with our interstate setup here.

If it followed US-82/GA-520 to Waycross the route could come down along or near US-1 and terminate at I-295 or multiplex on I-295 down to I-10. Or it could end at I-95 just North of Jacksonville International Airport. It's not necessary for it to end deep inside Jacksonville itself and there's little if any way a new terrain Interstate could even push through that way.

It's also a possible an extension of I-22 wouldn't necessarily reach Jacksonville, or even enter Florida. Another idea is extending the route down from Columbus to Albany but then going diagonal thru Moultrie and ending at I-75 in Valdosta. At that point I-75 is pretty much running on a diagonal parallel that's practically parallel to US-1 coming down from Waycross. Such a route might do more to benefit Florida cities farther South from Jacksonville.

Yeah Valdosta would work if there isn't a need for a direct Florida connection. Or if there is a need for a direct Florida connection, end it at I-295.

Bobby5280

There are spots along I-295 on the NW side of Jacksonville and plenty of open area North of the airport along I-95 where a conceptual I-22 interstate could connect without any problem. Just don't ask for the super highway to go inside of the I-295 loop.

But yeah, terminating the road at I-75 in/near Valdosta would pretty much accomplish the same thing. Driving from Columbus to Jacksonville the distance would be pretty similar either way, be it I-22 through Waycross or just ending it at Valdosta. But maybe the rich folks out in the Brunswick area might want I-22 to end there and pull strings in Congress to make it happen!

kevinb1994

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 28, 2019, 01:02:45 AM
There are spots along I-295 on the NW side of Jacksonville and plenty of open area North of the airport along I-95 where a conceptual I-22 interstate could connect without any problem. Just don't ask for the super highway to go inside of the I-295 loop.

But yeah, terminating the road at I-75 in/near Valdosta would pretty much accomplish the same thing. Driving from Columbus to Jacksonville the distance would be pretty similar either way, be it I-22 through Waycross or just ending it at Valdosta. But maybe the rich folks out in the Brunswick area might want I-22 to end there and pull strings in Congress to make it happen!

I don't see it terminating north of JAX Airport, but Brunswick may also work.

sparker

^^^^^^^^^
Seeing as how Brunswick has quite deliberately been promoting itself as a major container port due to its rail access, adding an Interstate corridor heading inland from the port area might be an idea that would likely infect any number of regional politicos.  However, a I-22 extension would face the same issues with an AL-based segment that would plague I-14 -- official state reticence about deploying any more new freeway corridor within the state.  Maybe after they finish the Birmingham upgrades -- and start to amortize the cost of such -- they might feel differently.  But for the near term, what's on the ground now in AL is likely to be what's on the ground for the next couple of decades.  But in the meantime, I for one wouldn't mind someone digging up the AADT of the US 82/GRIP 520 corridor at several places along the way just to ascertain whether there's enough traffic (and breaking out the commercial variety as well) to warrant any upgrades beyond the current facility. 

kevinb1994

Quote from: sparker on March 28, 2019, 02:30:46 AM
^^^^^^^^^
Seeing as how Brunswick has quite deliberately been promoting itself as a major container port due to its rail access, adding an Interstate corridor heading inland from the port area might be an idea that would likely infect any number of regional politicos.  However, a I-22 extension would face the same issues with an AL-based segment that would plague I-14 -- official state reticence about deploying any more new freeway corridor within the state.  Maybe after they finish the Birmingham upgrades -- and start to amortize the cost of such -- they might feel differently.  But for the near term, what's on the ground now in AL is likely to be what's on the ground for the next couple of decades.  But in the meantime, I for one wouldn't mind someone digging up the AADT of the US 82/GRIP 520 corridor at several places along the way just to ascertain whether there's enough traffic (and breaking out the commercial variety as well) to warrant any upgrades beyond the current facility.

Indeed that's true. Also, US 341 also runs to and from the Brunswick area.

Eth

#61
Quote from: sparker on March 28, 2019, 02:30:46 AMBut in the meantime, I for one wouldn't mind someone digging up the AADT of the US 82/GRIP 520 corridor at several places along the way just to ascertain whether there's enough traffic (and breaking out the commercial variety as well) to warrant any upgrades beyond the current facility. 

AADT values for some selected segments of GA 520 (2017 data; source):

Through Fort Benning: 12,500
North of Dawson on the standalone segment between US 280 and US 82: 6,680
Between Dawson and Albany: 16,200
Between Albany and Tifton: 10,700
Between Willacoochee and Pearson: 4,660
Between Waycross and Nahunta: 7,210
Just west of US 17: 9,700

Bobby5280

Quote from: sparkerBut in the meantime, I for one wouldn't mind someone digging up the AADT of the US 82/GRIP 520 corridor at several places along the way just to ascertain whether there's enough traffic (and breaking out the commercial variety as well) to warrant any upgrades beyond the current facility.

Since that's not already an Interstate-class corridor not a whole lot of long distance traffic uses it. It's no surprise the AADT values would be fairly low. Anyone driving really long distances, be it a personal vehicle or commercial truck, usually sticks to the Interstates whenever possible.

In its current form I-22 has somewhat limited regional value to it. A Memphis to North Florida diagonal would give long distance traffic moving between Florida's cities and the mid section of the nation a much more direct way of getting there, which is kind of what the Interstate highways are supposed to do.

And that gets back to why I dislike the proposed I-14 so much. I-14 does not connect to any major destinations. And it even fails to function as an alternative route for major Interstates like I-20 and I-10 due to its jagged, crooked, way the f*** out of the way path. The whole thing is pretty much pure pork designed to boost egos in a few places that are not major population or commerce centers. Resources spent developing I-14 would be better directed to more legitimate corridors. Texas has a bunch of corridors more deserving of attention than blowing billions of dollars on a Killeen to San Angelo route (with a dopey L-shape 90° bend down to Junction).

kevinb1994

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 28, 2019, 01:00:10 PM
Quote from: sparkerBut in the meantime, I for one wouldn't mind someone digging up the AADT of the US 82/GRIP 520 corridor at several places along the way just to ascertain whether there's enough traffic (and breaking out the commercial variety as well) to warrant any upgrades beyond the current facility.

Since that's not already an Interstate-class corridor not a whole lot of long distance traffic uses it. It's no surprise the AADT values would be fairly low. Anyone driving really long distances, be it a personal vehicle or commercial truck, usually sticks to the Interstates whenever possible.

In its current form I-22 has somewhat limited regional value to it. A Memphis to North Florida diagonal would give long distance traffic moving between Florida's cities and the mid section of the nation a much more direct way of getting there, which is kind of what the Interstate highways are supposed to do.

And that gets back to why I dislike the proposed I-14 so much. I-14 does not connect to any major destinations. And it even fails to function as an alternative route for major Interstates like I-20 and I-10 due to its jagged, crooked, way the f*** out of the way path. The whole thing is pretty much pure pork designed to boost egos in a few places that are not major population or commerce centers. Resources spent developing I-14 would be better directed to more legitimate corridors. Texas has a bunch of corridors more deserving of attention than blowing billions of dollars on a Killeen to San Angelo route (with a dopey L-shape 90° bend down to Junction).

Agreed, Texas should focus more on I-69, I-44, I-37, and I-27, for example.

hotdogPi

Quote from: kevinb1994 on March 28, 2019, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 28, 2019, 01:00:10 PM
Quote from: sparkerBut in the meantime, I for one wouldn't mind someone digging up the AADT of the US 82/GRIP 520 corridor at several places along the way just to ascertain whether there's enough traffic (and breaking out the commercial variety as well) to warrant any upgrades beyond the current facility.

Since that's not already an Interstate-class corridor not a whole lot of long distance traffic uses it. It's no surprise the AADT values would be fairly low. Anyone driving really long distances, be it a personal vehicle or commercial truck, usually sticks to the Interstates whenever possible.

In its current form I-22 has somewhat limited regional value to it. A Memphis to North Florida diagonal would give long distance traffic moving between Florida's cities and the mid section of the nation a much more direct way of getting there, which is kind of what the Interstate highways are supposed to do.

And that gets back to why I dislike the proposed I-14 so much. I-14 does not connect to any major destinations. And it even fails to function as an alternative route for major Interstates like I-20 and I-10 due to its jagged, crooked, way the f*** out of the way path. The whole thing is pretty much pure pork designed to boost egos in a few places that are not major population or commerce centers. Resources spent developing I-14 would be better directed to more legitimate corridors. Texas has a bunch of corridors more deserving of attention than blowing billions of dollars on a Killeen to San Angelo route (with a dopey L-shape 90° bend down to Junction).

Agreed, Texas should focus more on I-69, I-44, I-37, and I-27, for example.

Actually, I think there should be three corridors that would be focused on: US 287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo, a direct Austin to Houston route, and connecting Brownsville/McAllen to the rest of the system (which is already being done).
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US 1A, 13, 44, 50, 302
MA 22, 35, 40, 107, 109, 126, 141, 159
ME 22, 25, 26, 77, 100
NH 27, 111A(E); CA 133; NY 366; GA 42, 140; FL A1A, 7; CT 32; VT 2A, 5A; PA 3, 51, 60, QC 162, 165, 263; 🇬🇧A100, A3211, A3213, A3215, A4222; 🇫🇷95 D316

Lowest untraveled: 36

kevinb1994

Quote from: 1 on March 28, 2019, 03:56:00 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on March 28, 2019, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 28, 2019, 01:00:10 PM
Quote from: sparkerBut in the meantime, I for one wouldn't mind someone digging up the AADT of the US 82/GRIP 520 corridor at several places along the way just to ascertain whether there's enough traffic (and breaking out the commercial variety as well) to warrant any upgrades beyond the current facility.

Since that's not already an Interstate-class corridor not a whole lot of long distance traffic uses it. It's no surprise the AADT values would be fairly low. Anyone driving really long distances, be it a personal vehicle or commercial truck, usually sticks to the Interstates whenever possible.

In its current form I-22 has somewhat limited regional value to it. A Memphis to North Florida diagonal would give long distance traffic moving between Florida's cities and the mid section of the nation a much more direct way of getting there, which is kind of what the Interstate highways are supposed to do.

And that gets back to why I dislike the proposed I-14 so much. I-14 does not connect to any major destinations. And it even fails to function as an alternative route for major Interstates like I-20 and I-10 due to its jagged, crooked, way the f*** out of the way path. The whole thing is pretty much pure pork designed to boost egos in a few places that are not major population or commerce centers. Resources spent developing I-14 would be better directed to more legitimate corridors. Texas has a bunch of corridors more deserving of attention than blowing billions of dollars on a Killeen to San Angelo route (with a dopey L-shape 90° bend down to Junction).

Agreed, Texas should focus more on I-69, I-44, I-37, and I-27, for example.

Actually, I think there should be three corridors that would be focused on: US 287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo, a direct Austin to Houston route, and connecting Brownsville/McAllen to the rest of the system (which is already being done).

I just mentioned I-69, which is already being worked on to and from Brownsville/McAllen. 290 would work for a Austin to Houston route, and I agree about US 287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo.

Bobby5280

#66
IMHO, these three corridors: 1.: Corpus Christi down to Brownsville, 2.: Fort Worth to Amarillo and (last but certainly not least) 3.: Austin to Houston are by far the most important corridors in need of Interstate class upgrades. They rank way the hell above the I-14 nonsense. The only I-69 corridor I consider iffy at all is the "I-69C" segment, but the hardest parts of that corridor are already built.

Honestly, with the Austin metro having over 2 million people (and its city limits population about to pass the 1 million mark) and the Houston metro bulging at over 6 million it only makes sense for US-290 to be Interstate quality the whole way between those two giant sized metros. On top of that TX-71 between Austin and I-10 at Columbus, TX is more worthy of an Interstate upgrade than the I-14 stuff.

kevinb1994

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 29, 2019, 01:06:19 AM
IMHO, these three corridors: 1.: Corpus Christi down to Brownsville, 2.: Fort Worth to Amarillo and (last but certainly not least) 3.: Austin to Houston are by far the most important corridors in need of Interstate class upgrades. They rank way the hell above the I-14 nonsense. The only I-69 corridor I consider iffy at all is the "I-69C" segment, but that hardest parts of that corridor are already built.

Honestly, with the Austin metro having over 2 million people (and its city limits population about to pass the 1 million mark) and the Houston metro bulging at over 6 million it only makes sense for US-290 to be Interstate quality the whole way between those two giant sized metros. On top of that TX-71 between Austin and I-10 at Columbus, TX is more worth of an Interstate upgrade than the I-14 stuff.

Indeed, it shouldn't be less important than I-14.

sparker

#68
Quote from: kevinb1994 on March 29, 2019, 07:42:00 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 29, 2019, 01:06:19 AM
IMHO, these three corridors: 1.: Corpus Christi down to Brownsville, 2.: Fort Worth to Amarillo and (last but certainly not least) 3.: Austin to Houston are by far the most important corridors in need of Interstate class upgrades. They rank way the hell above the I-14 nonsense. The only I-69 corridor I consider iffy at all is the "I-69C" segment, but that hardest parts of that corridor are already built.

Honestly, with the Austin metro having over 2 million people (and its city limits population about to pass the 1 million mark) and the Houston metro bulging at over 6 million it only makes sense for US-290 to be Interstate quality the whole way between those two giant sized metros. On top of that TX-71 between Austin and I-10 at Columbus, TX is more worth of an Interstate upgrade than the I-14 stuff.

Indeed, it shouldn't be less important than I-14.

If Austin interests want an Interstate connecting to Houston -- or even to I-10 west of town -- they would have asked for it by now.  The fact they haven't speaks volumes about their actual interest in such.  Remember that today's corridor establishment methodology, like it or not, is a "bottom-up" process -- someone, generally a state DOT and/or localized MPO,  has to actually request a corridor in order for it to be considered.  The folks along the projected I-14 path did so a few years back and were persistent enough to get their project designated legislatively; I-14 is in the U.S. Code.  Of course, getting it funded is another story; only time will tell regarding that issue.  But pure reason, logic & merit have little to do with corridor projects these days (with a few fortunate exceptions); until there's a revival of national interest in such things -- hopefully with funding attached -- the present system -- for better or worse -- is what will be utilized. 

BTW, I make similar comments in reply #26 in the I-27/Lubbock thread in Mid-South.

Bobby5280

#69
Quote from: sparkerIf Austin interests want an Interstate connecting to Houston -- or even to I-10 west of town -- they would have asked for it by now. The fact they haven't speaks volumes about their actual interest in such. Remember that today's corridor establishment methodology, like it or not, is a "bottom-up" process -- someone, generally a state DOT and/or localized MPO,  has to actually request a corridor in order for it to be considered.  The folks along the projected I-14 path did so a few years back and were persistent enough to get their project designated legislatively; I-14 is in the U.S. Code.

First of all, how do you know that no one in Austin has asked for US-290 to be improved to Interstate standards?

Second, this is an issue that affects a lot more people than just residents of Austin. Someone who spends all his time in Austin might not care too much about the road between there and Houston. Austin proper has been getting a lot of local highway improvements lately. So residents within Austin might seem pretty content. US-290 is a larger, more regional and even national issue. It is certainly an issue for all the communities along US-290 between Austin and Houston. Austin and Houston are two major population centers, two of the top 10 most populated cities in the US. Both metros are continuing to add population rapidly. They're also two major generators of vehicle traffic and two major destinations of long distance vehicle traffic. Interstate highways are meant to move large volumes of traffic and commerce more efficiently and improve safety. Bits and pieces of US-290 between Austin and Houston are limited access, but a bunch of it is undivided 4-lane highway. As traffic volumes increase so does the opportunity of collisions with traffic turning onto or off the highway.

I've heard the pitch about I-14 before, that the way to build new Interstates is for politically connected people in the right places to basically do sleazy things to get an expensive superhighway built. Even when there is no legit reason to build the superhighway there. If the Interstate highway system started out being built in that manner we wouldn't even have a functional highway network. It would just be a disorganized mess of short disconnected routes built on whore-ish political favoritism. Even though this crap is happening with some modern highway projects it's something that should not be legitimized.

sparker

^^^^^^^^
I can't really fault some observers, including posters here, for holding the present process by which new Interstate corridors are designated -- and occasionally built -- in disdain.  But unfortunately for the last 46 years that bottom-up process has been embedded within Title 23 of the US Code -- the section dealing with transportation matters.  The '73 act that propagated this was an action taken by the Nixon administration (and pushed through Congress right before the Watergate affair unfolded); its purpose was a direct reaction to LBJ's "Great Society" programs, largely shepherded out of D.C. through various administrative apparati.  The Nixonian goal was to ensure that "top-down" program instigation wouldn't occur in the future -- that state and/or local agencies were to determine what federally-funded activities would happen in their jurisdictions.  Of course the political motivation was to truncate or limit federal social programs as extensively as possible -- but public works projects, including infrastructure, were swept up along with those -- no reiteration of such things as the '68 USDOT-initiated (with input from state DOT's, of course) batch of Interstate additions -- where the corridors were vetted and winnowed down by USDOT prior to that years' legislative action raising the mileage level by 1500 and specifying what made the final cut. 

But even with that centralized control of the process, certain politically-motivated corridors made it through the process, including what was called at the time "Everett Dirksen's Retirement Present to his Home Town" -- the original I-72 segment through Decatur (the then-Senate Minority Leader retired soon afterward).  Some would categorize I-88 in New York State in a similar category; Senators Jake Javits and Robert Kennedy championed the route as something that would potentially revitalize the "rust belt" area through which it traveled (after Kennedy's assasination his successor, Charles Goodell, picked up the torch).  While such demographically valid new Interstate segments such as the I-75 extension south into greater Miami and the I-15 southern extension to San Diego -- and the I-40 eastern segment in NC discussed elsewhere in this regional board -- were part of the '68 effort, the whole process was not purely neutral and merit-based -- politics played a significant role in the final product. 

Currently, it's as if that political aspect -- now devolved down to state and/or local levels -- is fully dictating the location and form of any new corridors.  Aside from concerning themselves with the technical part of the process -- making sure the corridors, however instigated, meet minimal physical and connectivity criteria -- the federal (or federally authorized) entities such as FHWA and even AASHTO have become functionally passive partners in the process.  They certainly don't have a general merit-based set of criteria regarding the corridors themselves; they merely pass technical judgment on what is provided to them by the parties involved with corridor creation -- state actors and their corresponding Congressional "conduits".   Sometimes these machinations have yielded "win-win" needed corridor concepts (I-22, I-49, the more useful segments of I-69, and arguably part of I-11); but some questionable routes have survived the process as well (I-14, the NC efforts to suck 80% funding for their intrastate freeway plans by the process of designating HPC's and tacking I-numbers to them).  The fact that an incorporated city of about 800K with a surrounding metro area over 2.5M like Austin doesn't have a direct Interstate to Texas' largest city attests to lack of concerted effort either from that city or TXDOT to do so;  given TXDOT's demonstrated willingness to accede to local political demands such a routing would be designated and likely well into the construction process if such a concerted effort were indeed forthcoming!

What seems to be implied within the criticism of the process is some sort of moratorium on new Interstate corridors until such time as a nationwide merit-based vetting system is re-established to functionally mimic the methodology of the original network -- with a renewal of the funding system as well.  By my count, we've had 23 Congresses since the one that pushed through the local devolution process -- and none so far has seen fit to reverse course and reassert centralized control (and criteria).  And given the current political situation, it'd be hard to identify a single politico with the guts to even suggest such a change.  So we as interested observers have a choice -- we take the bad with the good, suck it up, make our regular pithy comments about how politics has come to dominate the process -- and let the corridor development fall where it may (and still take pictures of any segments that actually come to pass!) -- or engage in a writing campaign -- or a series of such (not terribly difficult to do) -- trying to change said process into something a bit more reasonable.  While such actions may indeed be at best quixotic, at least they might yield some sense of self-satisfaction.   But I for one am well past getting overly irate about the injection of politics into transportation development -- there hasn't been a time in the 60+ years I've been following the subject that it hasn't been so!         

Rothman

I don't think it is a deep matter of centralized versus local control.  I think that most people just don't care about the numbering of interstate routes.  It just isn't and won't be a federal priority from where Congress sits.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

kevinb1994

Quote from: Rothman on March 30, 2019, 08:18:49 AM
I don't think it is a deep matter of centralized versus local control.  I think that most people just don't care about the numbering of interstate routes.  It just isn't and won't be a federal priority from where Congress sits.

So should we blame the majority of the American public for not being interested in the first place? Sounds like a moot point to me.

Rothman

Quote from: kevinb1994 on March 30, 2019, 09:05:04 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 30, 2019, 08:18:49 AM
I don't think it is a deep matter of centralized versus local control.  I think that most people just don't care about the numbering of interstate routes.  It just isn't and won't be a federal priority from where Congress sits.

So should we blame the majority of the American public for not being interested in the first place? Sounds like a moot point to me.

All I'm saying is that it's not a matter of Congress ensuring local control of anything.  I doubt this issue has even been on their radar at all.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

kevinb1994

Quote from: Rothman on March 30, 2019, 09:41:00 AM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on March 30, 2019, 09:05:04 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 30, 2019, 08:18:49 AM
I don't think it is a deep matter of centralized versus local control.  I think that most people just don't care about the numbering of interstate routes.  It just isn't and won't be a federal priority from where Congress sits.

So should we blame the majority of the American public for not being interested in the first place? Sounds like a moot point to me.

All I'm saying is that it's not a matter of Congress ensuring local control of anything.  I doubt this issue has even been on their radar at all.

Maybe, maybe not.



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.