I-69 Corridor

[Rothman]

Question:  since the I-94 segment of HPC 18 is included in the overall description of that corridor -- and the numerical designation codicil to the corridor description legislatively assigns I-69 to the entire corridor (with HPC 20 tacked on for good measure) -- the very reason TX has taken the "East" and "Central" suffixes literally -- would that not mean that I-94 Chicago-Detroit is in fact also designated as I-69 in legal terms, the choice to not erect signage as such by AASHTO and/or FHWA notwithstanding?  From the normative interpretation of the designation language, unless that particular HPC 18 SIU is "broken out" and specifically excluded from the I-69 designation, it is considered part of the I-69 compendium regarding funding, prioritizations, etc. -- although likely never signed in the field as such.  I suppose we'll just have to wait until large-scale improvements to that stretch of I-94 occur, and then see if any of the acknowledgement signage refers to the HPC 18 corridor or I-69 itself. 

No.  Again, corridor definition does not equal interstate designation.  The "[I-69]" mentions in the law merely are noting that part of the corridor will include I-69.

When I was referring to "acknowledgement signage", I was decidedly not referring to any I-69 shields, reassurance or trailblazer, but simply the type of temporary signage ("project billboards", if you will) at or near construction sites that laundry-list the various sources of funding for the project at hand.  In this particular case, it would be interesting to see if references were made to High Priority Corridor #18, or something to the "I-69 corridor" on such signage.  Of course it would be ridiculous, plain & simple, to think that actual I-69 signage would even show up on I-94 apart from the junctions/multiplexes at Port Huron & Marshall.

The problem is that no federal construction funds were ever specifically authorized for high priority corridors.

[sparker]

Question:  since the I-94 segment of HPC 18 is included in the overall description of that corridor -- and the numerical designation codicil to the corridor description legislatively assigns I-69 to the entire corridor (with HPC 20 tacked on for good measure) -- the very reason TX has taken the "East" and "Central" suffixes literally -- would that not mean that I-94 Chicago-Detroit is in fact also designated as I-69 in legal terms, the choice to not erect signage as such by AASHTO and/or FHWA notwithstanding?  From the normative interpretation of the designation language, unless that particular HPC 18 SIU is "broken out" and specifically excluded from the I-69 designation, it is considered part of the I-69 compendium regarding funding, prioritizations, etc. -- although likely never signed in the field as such.  I suppose we'll just have to wait until large-scale improvements to that stretch of I-94 occur, and then see if any of the acknowledgement signage refers to the HPC 18 corridor or I-69 itself. 

No.  Again, corridor definition does not equal interstate designation.  The "[I-69]" mentions in the law merely are noting that part of the corridor will include I-69.

When I was referring to "acknowledgement signage", I was decidedly not referring to any I-69 shields, reassurance or trailblazer, but simply the type of temporary signage ("project billboards", if you will) at or near construction sites that laundry-list the various sources of funding for the project at hand.  In this particular case, it would be interesting to see if references were made to High Priority Corridor #18, or something to the "I-69 corridor" on such signage.  Of course it would be ridiculous, plain & simple, to think that actual I-69 signage would even show up on I-94 apart from the junctions/multiplexes at Port Huron & Marshall.

The problem is that no federal construction funds were ever specifically authorized for high priority corridors.

Quite correct.  However, HPC's are eligible for the maximum 80% Federal input (as with NHS/STRAHNET routes) -- but, as always, dependent upon the yearly Federal budget outlays.  Unlike the old Interstate pool, nothing is set in stone.  But it has become customary (at least in CA and OR) for "billboard" signage to be erected at construction sites with cites for the various funding sources, be they federal or local (more often than not in small print so drivers can't make out the specifics -- but it's there anyway!).  Often the local Congressperson or in some cases state legislator will get a mention as well.  Pretty much designed to let folks know where the money's coming from -- and who to either thank or blame!

[Rothman]

Sort of.

First, if we are talking about I-94 (or almost other designated interstate), it is actually eligible for 90% federal through NHPP.  Heck, could be 100% in Illinois or Indiana, which may earn toll credits as NY does, if they're applied to cover the match. Interstates can get 90% through NHPP because NHPP absorbed IM when the fund source was established.

Second, because HPCs never received additional funding through their own FHWA program code, there really isn't any real incentive for a state to point out that a project is on the HPC, especially since HPCs haven't been really amended or even mentioned since SAFETEA-LU -- there have been two major federal bills since then (MAP-21 and FAST).  States are just building them with their own usual federal funding within their annual obligation limitation.  I suppose states may just mention that the project is on an HPC to make it seem snazzier, perhaps, but I think it is unlikely.

[sparker]

Sort of.

First, if we are talking about I-94 (or almost other designated interstate), it is actually eligible for 90% federal through NHPP.  Heck, could be 100% in Illinois or Indiana, which may earn toll credits as NY does, if they're applied to cover the match. Interstates can get 90% through NHPP because NHPP absorbed IM when the fund source was established.

Second, because HPCs never received additional funding through their own FHWA program code, there really isn't any real incentive for a state to point out that a project is on the HPC, especially since HPCs haven't been really amended or even mentioned since SAFETEA-LU -- there have been two major federal bills since then (MAP-21 and FAST).  States are just building them with their own usual federal funding within their annual obligation limitation.  I suppose states may just mention that the project is on an HPC to make it seem snazzier, perhaps, but I think it is unlikely.

It's probably not the states or their DOT's that are the movers behind the "laundry-listing" of funding sources (regardless of how arcane they are) but rather the parties that feel they can benefit in some way (I would venture politically as the major factor here) from attachment to the project.  Maybe this is more a West Coast phenomenon, but I've seen state assembly/senate members cited on such signage, along with county supervisors or managers, who simply want to assume credit for the project's existence.  Perhaps making a direct connection between public-sector money being spent and highly visible projects would be considered a positive phenomenon for all but the most vehement anti-tax/spend advocates.   And citing a HPC or other funding "conduit" would be part of that process -- but only if that HPC had been reasonably well-publicized and received prior to actual deployment.

[Rothman]

As we discussed above, HPC isn't a funding conduit.  At best, it is now just a paper definition that states can use to appease the inconvenience of construction to the public: "This project is on a High Priority Corridor and therefore was very necessary!  It even has 'high priority' in its name!"

[vdeane]

Especially since a road important enough to be on a HPC is probably already on the NHS.

[sparker]

As we discussed above, HPC isn't a funding conduit.  At best, it is now just a paper definition that states can use to appease the inconvenience of construction to the public: "This project is on a High Priority Corridor and therefore was very necessary!  It even has 'high priority' in its name!"

Especially since a road important enough to be on a HPC is probably already on the NHS.

Most HPC's, particularly the more recent additions to the list, seem to be legislatively described to take advantage of existing facilities, especially if those feature improvements that can dovetail into the overall corridor.  And most if not all (except for some of the more vaguely worded regional "clusters") do coincide with NHS/STRAHNET routes.  That in itself implies maximum federal funding -- if and when specifically authorized.  And there's the rub -- 80% of zero is still zero.  And since time limits aren't appended to the HPC's, they're simply legislatively endorsed concepts -- unless someone figuratively picks up the ball and runs with it regarding appropriations.  With the I-69 corridor, this seems to have happened for virtually all of the corridor north of Dyersburg, TN (the presence of an upgradeable parkway system in KY has helped immeasurably) and to a more sporadic level within TX -- with the rest, except for the now-12-year-old Tunica I-69/MS 304 freeway and its I-269 "kissing cousin" -- effectively shunted to a back bench.  Dividing the overall corridor into SIU's has served as an indicator to levels of support -- those segments deemed to have local and/or regional value have been prioritized, while the more outlying connectors -- including, of course, most of the entire "middle" Shreveport-Memphis section -- are being addressed at what could be described as a leisurely pace -- most likely because they're seen as having less short-term impact.  Compounding the situation is that that is one area where there are few existing facilities that can be improved to serve as part of the route (and solve local issues in the process).  The I-69 corridor isn't the only "national" corridor to see this approach applied; I-73/74 famously has little or no support in the "Rust Belt", with the sole active developmental area in a region that is currently growing in both population and economic activity. 

It could be surmised that the purpose of any HPC legislation, specifically unfunded as it is, is to give the proponents of any particular corridor concept an "umbrella" under which to acquire the additional political and fiscal support that it requires to achieve viability -- it becomes a convenient "catch-all" for the project at hand, whether it involves regional road improvements or a nascent Interstate corridor.

[Rothman]

As we discussed above, HPC isn't a funding conduit.  At best, it is now just a paper definition that states can use to appease the inconvenience of construction to the public: "This project is on a High Priority Corridor and therefore was very necessary!  It even has 'high priority' in its name!"

Especially since a road important enough to be on a HPC is probably already on the NHS.

Most HPC's, particularly the more recent additions to the list, seem to be legislatively described to take advantage of existing facilities, especially if those feature improvements that can dovetail into the overall corridor.  And most if not all (except for some of the more vaguely worded regional "clusters") do coincide with NHS/STRAHNET routes.  That in itself implies maximum federal funding -- if and when specifically authorized.  And there's the rub -- 80% of zero is still zero.  And since time limits aren't appended to the HPC's, they're simply legislatively endorsed concepts -- unless someone figuratively picks up the ball and runs with it regarding appropriations.  With the I-69 corridor, this seems to have happened for virtually all of the corridor north of Dyersburg, TN (the presence of an upgradeable parkway system in KY has helped immeasurably) and to a more sporadic level within TX -- with the rest, except for the now-12-year-old Tunica I-69/MS 304 freeway and its I-269 "kissing cousin" -- effectively shunted to a back bench.  Dividing the overall corridor into SIU's has served as an indicator to levels of support -- those segments deemed to have local and/or regional value have been prioritized, while the more outlying connectors -- including, of course, most of the entire "middle" Shreveport-Memphis section -- are being addressed at what could be described as a leisurely pace -- most likely because they're seen as having less short-term impact.  Compounding the situation is that that is one area where there are few existing facilities that can be improved to serve as part of the route (and solve local issues in the process).  The I-69 corridor isn't the only "national" corridor to see this approach applied; I-73/74 famously has little or no support in the "Rust Belt", with the sole active developmental area in a region that is currently growing in both population and economic activity. 

It could be surmised that the purpose of any HPC legislation, specifically unfunded as it is, is to give the proponents of any particular corridor concept an "umbrella" under which to acquire the additional political and fiscal support that it requires to achieve viability -- it becomes a convenient "catch-all" for the project at hand, whether it involves regional road improvements or a nascent Interstate corridor.

Heh, I don't know if you realize that we're mostly in agreement or not.

But, you do need to re-read my post on what maximum federal funding can actually consist of (up to 100%; you're hung up on this 80%, which is sort of a default percentage, but meeting eligibility requirements can increase the percentage).  Also, no FHWA funding is dependent upon STRAHNET.  It's all dependent upon other various system definitions (e.g., on/off NHS, on/off Fed-Aid System, Interstates as defined at an arbitrary date, etc.), but at least in my double-digit-in-years career at NYSDOT, no one has ever worried about STRAHNET when it comes to federal-aid eligibility.

Regarding your quote, though: "It could be surmised that the purpose of any HPC legislation, specifically unfunded as it is, is to give the proponents of any particular corridor concept an "umbrella" under which to acquire the additional political and fiscal support..."  That's contradictory.  It's unfunded and therefore offers no fiscal support.  MAP-21 and FAST did not mention the HPCs at all, so the legislative support is ineffectual (so, the old, amended definitions are there...so what?  No money, no meaning behind them).  The "umbrella" of which you speak just isn't there anymore, really.  HPCs are yesterday's news and when the construction funds didn't materialize, congresspeople just said, "Oh well" and moved on, as is evident by MAP-21 and FAST. 

So, like I said, states that have some P.R. person that got excited about them can certain slap the mention on a roadside sign at a construction site, but there's really not much point to that other than, like I said before, to just try to soften the inconvenience of having to slow down for the work zone that happens to be within one of them.

[sparker]

Regarding your quote, though: "It could be surmised that the purpose of any HPC legislation, specifically unfunded as it is, is to give the proponents of any particular corridor concept an "umbrella" under which to acquire the additional political and fiscal support..."  That's contradictory.  It's unfunded and therefore offers no fiscal support.  MAP-21 and FAST did not mention the HPCs at all, so the legislative support is ineffectual (so, the old, amended definitions are there...so what?  No money, no meaning behind them).  The "umbrella" of which you speak just isn't there anymore, really.  HPCs are yesterday's news and when the construction funds didn't materialize, congresspeople just said, "Oh well" and moved on, as is evident by MAP-21 and FAST. 

So, like I said, states that have some P.R. person that got excited about them can certain slap the mention on a roadside sign at a construction site, but there's really not much point to that other than, like I said before, to just try to soften the inconvenience of having to slow down for the work zone that happens to be within one of them.

And yet HPC's, old news or not, are still being utilized as the basis for new Interstates: e.g., the "revival" of HPC #13, one of the original ISTEA-origin routes, as I-87.  And new ones have been tacked on to the list specifically as "hosts" for completely new Interstate corridors (I-14, I-42).  But you do make a point -- many of the HPC's legislated from 1991 through 2005 have lay dormant -- and largely forgotten.  But as long as they're still on the books, from time to time someone will dig one or more up to serve as justification ("hey, people have been calling for this to happen for a really long time") for renewed or revived action regarding specific projects.  But as far as ongoing projects such as I-69 are concerned, the longer the time between the inception of the original authorizing legislation (it's been 23 years now) and any current project manifestations the less likely any reference will be made to the original HPC concept -- and it's likely most of the Congressional folks involved in the original legislation aren't around to pat themselves on the back when some portion of the corridor actually reaches fruition.  But I'd be willing to wager that "fast-track" projects with shorter-term horizons such as those found in NC will list each & every piece of legislation -- and their author(s) -- that made it possible.  Citing a 20-something-year-old piece of legislation draws yawns; getting a 2016 corridor segment opened to traffic by 2021 is much more publicly impressive. 

And, BTW, I certainly didn't mean to imply that HPC's even promise or even imply one penny of financial support -- but that at times they -- at least some of the more active ones of the bunch -- can be used as a vehicle to call attention to a corridor or regional concept in order for project backers to seriously hunt down such support.  And I do realize that some Federal programs supply more then 80% to projects; I was simply using that figure as a historical "benchmark" as to expectations, minimal or otherwise.       

[Rothman]

Regarding your quote, though: "It could be surmised that the purpose of any HPC legislation, specifically unfunded as it is, is to give the proponents of any particular corridor concept an "umbrella" under which to acquire the additional political and fiscal support..."  That's contradictory.  It's unfunded and therefore offers no fiscal support.  MAP-21 and FAST did not mention the HPCs at all, so the legislative support is ineffectual (so, the old, amended definitions are there...so what?  No money, no meaning behind them).  The "umbrella" of which you speak just isn't there anymore, really.  HPCs are yesterday's news and when the construction funds didn't materialize, congresspeople just said, "Oh well" and moved on, as is evident by MAP-21 and FAST. 

So, like I said, states that have some P.R. person that got excited about them can certain slap the mention on a roadside sign at a construction site, but there's really not much point to that other than, like I said before, to just try to soften the inconvenience of having to slow down for the work zone that happens to be within one of them.

And yet HPC's, old news or not, are still being utilized as the basis for new Interstates: e.g., the "revival" of HPC #13, one of the original ISTEA-origin routes, as I-87.  And new ones have been tacked on to the list specifically as "hosts" for completely new Interstate corridors (I-14, I-42).

We're getting into chicken-and-the-egg territory.  HPCs were not the basis for new interstates.  Rather, interest groups that wanted the new interstates were looking for ways to get them funded long before the legislation was signed into law.  HPCs were just one of the ways they tried -- and so far failed -- to get additional federal funding for them.  In other words, whoever wanted the new routes lobbied their representatives, either through themselves or other groups, and just one of the results were these defined corridors, in hopes that Congress would also authorize additional funding for them. 

The new interstates/corridors are, in a few cases progressing, and in a lot of cases just sitting around waiting for funding.  The basis resides in those that desire the new or expanded facilities (especially if they have gone so far to include then on their STIPs), rather than quixotic legislation that hasn't amounted to much in reality.

[sparker]

I'll be the first to acknowledge that outside of a few notable corridor successes, the HPC compendium has proven far more successful in identifying areas where there is local support for some sort of systemic improvement or expansion, with the result being a "spot" project here & there.  The full-corridor concept has only produced significant success in a limited number of cases -- maybe 20 of the 90-odd HPC's on the books (with I-22 and I-49 being examples of the more successful of these).  I-69 seems to fall into a "middle" ground; it's deployed where local support can and has translated into monetary action and not where support falls into the "lip service" category.  Any newer additions (the ones starting in the #80's) use the system as a convenient vehicle by which to get one's foot in the door; past that, the HPC definitions become largely decorative "guidelines" waiting for the parties that sponsored the legislation to amass the $$ necessary to implement something that eventually may or may not resemble the original concept.  If that does occur by chance or good fortune, those involved will make damn sure their name is posted all over the project via the aforementioned "billboards" or other PR means; if they secured the original HPC into the books, that'll show up on their publicly posted "resume'" as well.  It's the age-old "your taxpayer dollars at work.......courtesy of (fill in the blank)!"     

[Rothman]

We'll wait for that "if" to happen, then.

[sparker]

Whether an HPC concept finds success or not often seems to depend upon the "ducks being lined up in a row".  If a corridor has broad support, funding seems to make its way to the various projects required to reach fruition (I-22 and most of I-49).  If the support is localized or confined to a region (I-73/74, I-69) then it's likely to see deployment in that region but run into difficulties when tentacles to adjoining areas are planned.  Corridors laid on top of already high-functioning facilities (I-86/east, CA 99) have demonstrated to be a mixed bag -- while they're considered relatively easy to complete -- at least where property acquisition is concerned -- the fact that they're "up and running" as is tends to mitigate against their prioritization (although I-41 is there to serve as an outlier in that regard).  And, of course, the (relatively) new-terrain corridors touted as intercity connections (I-11) seem to require constant attention in order to maintain even a scant level of development; the prospects for those are inevitably in flux.  Then there are the purely speculative corridors (HPC 8 and 51 in the Midwest come to mind) which may, down the line, call attention to the need for "spot" improvements (town bypasses, safety measures, etc.) but which will likely never produce a longer and/or continuous freeway or expressway facility.

Some HPC's were intrinsically stronger in regards to both their perceived need and their broad political support than others; those are the ones that have been or are being built presently (or at least budgeted).  They're "idea vehicles" -- no more, no less.  However, they're not, as a genre, DOA -- although some of them could be readily classified as passe', or at least past their "sell by" date.  But as long as they're still considered within the Congressional arena as a viable vehicle to introduce, among other projects, new Interstate corridors, additional ones will likely be eked out from time to time as manifestations of political will.

[Rothman]

Yep.  Paper tigers.