This article (https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/latest-news/article215860365.html) reports on the efforts of a freshman at the University of Georgia to continue I-14 through Georgia and Alabama:
Quote
For more than nine months, Frank Lumpkin IV has been promoting the need and benefits of creating an Interstate 14 with a path that also would move traffic through the Columbus-Phenix City area.
The Columbus High graduate and University of Georgia student, who launched a nonprofit organization earlier this year with two Phenix City friends, Justus Armstrong and Carsen Story, now has a polished video to go with the efforts.
Its goal is simple: To draw attention to the proposed Interstate 14 and why it will help reduce poverty, create businesses and improve the lives of residents in communities along its route. The major highway eventually would stretch from west Texas across Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and into Georgia, where after "I always start out by saying the biggest thing holding this back is lack of awareness. We have to get the word out about this," Lumpkin said. "The politicians aren't going to listen unless the constituency base is for this project, and for that to happen, they have to know about it."
."I always start out by saying the biggest thing holding this back is lack of awareness. We have to get the word out about this," Lumpkin said. "The politicians aren't going to listen unless the constituency base is for this project, and for that to happen, they have to know about it."
There has been some success there, with Columbus Council having approved a resolution last fall supporting an Interstate 14. Russell County in Alabama also has given its stamp of approval. Lumpkin said he expects Macon to approve a resolution at some point, and he will be speaking to residents of Talbot County next week.
All of the Georgia cities and counties that Lumpkin's Youth Infrastructure Coalition is focusing on most intently are those along what is known as the Fall Line Freeway, which runs from Columbus through the Macon area and northeast Augusta.
"We're working on getting some very minor legislation passed in local communities," Lumpkin said. "This isn't going to be something that Congress just says we want to do. They're going to want approval from their constituents, and the local municipalities. What we're doing currently is going from local community to local community to local community that's on the I-14 route, and we're requesting that they pass resolutions advocating for Interstate 14."
The new video, called "My14" and produced by Columbus-based Naartjie Multimedia, lays out a logical, methodical case for why a new east-west interstate located between the existing east-west Interstates 20 and 10 is necessary to improve areas that have been economically depressed for decades.
"Whether you are young or old, if you live within 100 miles of the proposed route, completing or abandoning this project will impact your future. This highway is crucial and your support can guarantee its completion," a narrator tells viewers.
The promotional video notes that a federal study was commissioned in 2010 to explore alternative routes from Natchez, Miss., to Augusta, Ga., with the report presented to Congress.
It also said much of the infrastructure work already has been accomplished in the form of limited-access highways such as J.R. Allen Parkway in Columbus that could be converted to interstate standards with "minor modifications."
"So we're not so much building a new highway as we're taking what's already there, upgrading it, and connecting it to other roads," the video explains. "There will be little disruption in existing communities and minimal imminent domain land acquisition costs."
Lumpkin said he isn't sure what route the proposed I-14 could take after it leaves Montgomery, Ala., then hitches a ride on Interstate 85 north until moving eastward toward Columbus. It could be either U.S. Highway 80 near Tuskegee or U.S. Highway 280 in Opelika, both eventually funneling traffic through congested areas as they approach Phenix City.
On the topic of reducing poverty, the My14 video flashes a sign that proclaims: "The gateway to economic prosperity is lined with concrete and asphalt." The highway's proposed route moves through areas where median household incomes are significantly lower than the nation's average, it says.
"Economic prosperity comes from trade, and Interstate 14 is about connecting places," the narrator says in the video. "It will connect forts, it will connect ports, it will connect major cities. It will intersect 12 other interstate highways and a multitude of secondary routes. A robust transportation network that will improve access and destination traffic that will stop as needed for hotels,fast food, gas, etc., as well as local attractions like museums, theaters and historic sites."
Portions of the video show the whitewater course on the Chattahoochee River in the Columbus-Phenix City downtown area, as well the area around the National Infantry Museum, and aerial shots of Columbus Park Crossing and J.R. Allen Parkway.
"All of these businesses and more will benefit directly from the increased volume of consumers because it's cheaper to ship products along interstates. Warehousing and manufacturing firms seek locations connected to the grid," the video says. "This interstate will attract these sorts of businesses to the area surrounding I-14. And businesses already on the route can more easily expand their operations as they reap the benefits of enhanced connectivity."
Before closing, the clip ticks off even more benefits of an I-14. They include construction jobs along the route for its building and long-term maintenance. Military bases will be better connected to each other and training sites, as well as to ports from where they might deploy, it says. Finally, it notes that a new interstate will take some pressure off of existing corridors, with an implication that cities like Atlanta will be among the benefactors.
"This is the idea that I-14 encompasses," the video says in closing with quick clips of business people, a farmer, a truck driver, a fireman and families, all holding a mock Interstate 14 sign.
"Tell your friends about it. Tell your local representatives about it. And tell your state and national representatives that you want this road built," the clip says. "Every place on the I-14 route has nothing to lose, but so much to gain. This will be your interstate. Together, let's make I-14 a reality. The future of our region depends on it."
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_01_08_18_11_39_33.png)
He's a one-man booster group.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 01, 2018, 11:41:56 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_01_08_18_11_39_33.png)
He's a one-man booster group.
Great post, I always wondered what FritzOwl looks like. :bigass:
Just kidding, it's nice to see a young man who cares and I wish him well with his efforts here.
I remember the original I-14 proposal -- essentially an eastern extension of what's being proposed in TX, LA, and MS but extended into AL and approaching Montgomery from the southwest so as to utilize the proposed southern bypass of that city. IIRC, it featured a convoluted route east of Columbus along GA 26 -- which seemed a bit gratuitous (probably someone involved in the planning lived or owned property in that area), as there's an upgradeable (US 80/GA 96) corridor heading more directly toward Macon and the eastern portion of the Fall Line expressway. Personally, I'd be more inclined to consider this a western extension of I-16, with the eastern Fall Line receiving another designation. However, since the "I-85" extension along US 80 west of Montgomery toward I-20/59 seems to be in limbo these days, perhaps if Mr. Lumpkin's efforts were to encompass a revival of the original Laurel (MS)-Montgomery corridor concept it might gain some initial traction (whereas the original was just an unexplored line on a paper since the early '00's). I don't think the Congressperson who proposed the original I-14 alignment 15-odd years ago is still around (IIRC, he was also partially responsible for the fatally flawed "I-3" corridor plans), so it'll be interesting to see if a "bottom-up/grass roots" effort will provide more favorable results than the original concept.
I just hope he doesn't present a proposal with the term "imminent domain" within its text -- folks like him need to come off as both knowledgeable and credible in order to get their projects to the next level -- and silly mistakes can undermine the most earnest of efforts.
I wish the student luck. Since Interstate 14 seems unlikely to me outside of the existing route in Texas, he's going to need all the luck he can get.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2018, 05:44:36 PM
I wish the student luck. Since Interstate 14 seems unlikely to me outside of the existing route in Texas, he's going to need all the luck he can get.
If there's any place where the odds aren't
abjectly stacked against efforts of this sort, it's that section of the country between (and including) North Carolina and Texas. Except in the older inner cities (Memphis & New Orleans come to mind) there were never many consistent and/or vehement objections to Interstate development in general in the South (save the incredibly clueless I-3 proposal). Maybe it's a desire to "stick it" to those damn urbanist Yankees, or just a longstanding regional "car culture" rearing its head, but the record is quite clear -- if you want to get an Interstate corridor rolling, your odds increase as you near the Gulf (with FL being an outlier!).
Quote from: sparker on August 04, 2018, 02:33:54 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2018, 05:44:36 PM
I wish the student luck. Since Interstate 14 seems unlikely to me outside of the existing route in Texas, he's going to need all the luck he can get.
If there's any place where the odds aren't abjectly stacked against efforts of this sort, it's that section of the country between (and including) North Carolina and Texas. Except in the older inner cities (Memphis & New Orleans come to mind) there were never many consistent and/or vehement objections to Interstate development in general in the South (save the incredibly clueless I-3 proposal). Maybe it's a desire to "stick it" to those damn urbanist Yankees, or just a longstanding regional "car culture" rearing its head, but the record is quite clear -- if you want to get an Interstate corridor rolling, your odds increase as you near the Gulf (with FL being an outlier!).
Considering that the only new freeway development in Georgia since 2000 not carried out by county DOTs is the GA 316 upgrade, which can be generously described as glacial, I wouldn't be holding my breath on this one.
Quote from: Eth on August 04, 2018, 01:11:18 PM
Considering that the only new freeway development in Georgia since 2000 not carried out by county DOTs is the GA 316 upgrade, which can be generously described as glacial, I wouldn't be holding my breath on this one.
Yeah, the kid's definitely got an uphill battle in front of him. The only real path to success here is for him to get as many of the original corridor promoters (if still around & active) behind him, provided they've maintained their "connections". Also -- if he can get folks connected to Ft. Benning in his corner (it being the most prominent military establishment in the region -- and as such the singular exception to the "McGuffin" that is connectivity between various bases) it may give him additional traction. Still, never an easy row to hoe!
https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/08/a_new_interstate_for_alabama_p.html
Here more on the I-14 talks. it includes Texas and it meets near I-10.
Quote from: bing101 on August 07, 2018, 10:47:43 PM
https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/08/a_new_interstate_for_alabama_p.html
Here more on the I-14 talks. it includes Texas and it meets near I-10.
Looks as if the newfound emphasis on an eastern (past I-59) extension of I-14 is simply an appropriation of the long-dormant I-85 western extension from Montgomery to I-20/59 via Selma along with a multiplex with I-59 in MS (as if that route isn't multiplexed enough!). From a fiscal POV, it makes more sense than a completely new-terrain corridor SW of Montgomery, as at least
some of US 80 might be feasible for upgrades, since much of the 4-lane facility is relatively recent, including the high-level bridge over the navigable Tombigbee River. Also, there is likely documentation of the initial planning efforts for the old I-85 concept, so the I-14 planners won't have to start from scratch.
^ The I-85 extension got as far as a Draft EIS, but I don't think they ever finished a final EIS. ALDOT would have to revisit that for any "I-14".
Just a quick thought that the Savannah port expansion might necessitate this corridor, as alternatives to IH 10 and IH 20. I wish they would provide more North/South routes through north Florida and Georgia to alleviate summer/hurricane traffic. But thats a different issue...
Quote from: froggie on August 08, 2018, 04:12:52 PM
^ The I-85 extension got as far as a Draft EIS, but I don't think they ever finished a final EIS. ALDOT would have to revisit that for any "I-14".
That would be pretty much a given, seeing as how the major push for the "I-85" extension occurred between 12 and 18 years ago. Also, since development of the southern Montgomery bypass corridor has been seemingly stalled, revisiting
that project may well be a prerequisite to any planning of the westerly extension along US 80. As a side note: if a I-14 corridor is indeed routed over that bypass, then the plans to reroute the I-85 mainline over it (largely as part of the previously planned western extension) and redesignate the present in-town segment of I-85 as I-685 will likely also require revisiting, unless I-85 is simply multiplexed with I-14 west to its I-65 terminus.
^ Was a bit more recent than that. The I-85 Draft EIS was completed in 2010.
Quote from: froggie on August 08, 2018, 07:06:17 PM
^ Was a bit more recent than that. The I-85 Draft EIS was completed in 2010.
Sounds like the EIS was completed well after most of the hubbub about the extension had died down; hadn't heard much about significant activities, promotional or otherwise, after about 2008 or so. But I've got a question regarding the Montgomery bypass; the connection to I-85 was made several years ago, but with little more than a "stub end" extending south from the interchange. Were the plans (a) put on hold pending funding identification, (b) stopped because of political opposition, (c) postponed until the disposition of the I-85 extension was addressed? (or any combination of the above). If anyone can shed light on this situation, please do!
A
Quote from: froggie on August 09, 2018, 06:40:22 AM
A
Thanks, sort of figured as much. Addressed this in more detail in one of the other I-14 threads (looks like we've now got at least 3 of those going!); Mr. Lumpkin and associates have their work cut out for them. Hope they're stockpiling plenty of Aleve; they're going to need it!
If this highway gets built, then it should be numbered I-18, not I-14.
Quote from: Gnutella on August 15, 2018, 03:44:03 AM
If this highway gets built, then it should be numbered I-18, not I-14.
The chances of it getting built anytime in the next 25 years are miniscule; but it's possible that the portion in AL (following US 80) and GA might be considered a logical western extension of I-16, since it would take yet another I-59 multiplex to shunt I-14 up from its east-from TX trajectory along US 84 through south-central MS. But what it'll be designated is a matter for posterity; if it's I-16, then if and when the Fall Line from Macon to Augusta is brought up to Interstate standards, that could conceivably be I-18 (particularly if GA were ever to catch "NC Fever"!).
If I could build an I-14, then it'd be built from Midland, TX to Brunswick, GA.
^^^^^
Mr. Lumpkin and his friends had better have a miracle up their sleeve when dealing with Alabama; that state just functionally cancelled every "future but not immediate" freeway project via the EIS recission route; the only things left are the I-422 Birmingham bypass and the AL 108 Montgomery bypass (the latter simply stopped due to funding shortfalls). The I-85 extension west of Montgomery to I-20/59 near Cuba -- which was to be utilized as part of the Lumpkin-suggested corridor -- was among the corridors effectively cancelled.
Given this development it might be more germane if this gentleman's group concentrated on getting a Columbus-Macon in-state corridor developed, possibly as a I-16 westward extension, and then consider the eastern Fall Line from Macon to Augusta as a separate route (maybe I-18?). His concept may fare better, at least in the short haul, as a purely GA undertaking.
This Oct. 5 article (http://baptistmessage.com/caucus-created-to-expand-interstate-14-through-cenla/) reports that an initial bipartisan I-14 Caucus has been created to follow up on the proposed legislation of HR 6111, but with the interesting twist that it includes a legislator from Georgia (even though Georgia is not included in the legislation):
Quote
Congressmen Ralph Abraham, M.D., R-Alto, and Brian Babin, R-Texas, have created a bipartisan I-14 Caucus with the goal of expanding Interstate 14 through Central Louisiana.
This news follows the announcement this summer of legislation, HR 6111, the I-14 Expansion and Improvement Act of 2018, to designate existing roads into the congressionally designated I-14 corridor to include communities from Midland, Texas, to Laurel, Mississippi within a strategic corridor effectively connecting military bases from El Paso, Texas, to Charleston, South Carolina, with strategic ports where military equipment can be shipped in support of our armed forces deployed around the world ....
But the interstate will extend through Mississippi and Alabama and continue to Augusta, Georgia, where it would connect, presumably, with Interstate 20 which connects with Interstate 26 to the Atlantic Coast.
Charter members of the caucus include congressmen from Texas, Louisiana and Georgia, but it is anticipated that Mississippi and Alabama lawmakers will join the coalition, too, as military readiness for bases in their states will benefit as well ....
Joining Dr. Abraham and Babin as charter members of the I-14 Caucus are U.S. Reps. Drew Ferguson, R-Ga.; Roger Williams, R-Texas; Mike Conaway, R-Texas; Bill Flores, R-Texas; Mike Johnson, R-La.; Gene Green, D-Texas; and John Carter, R-Texas.
The college student has his first politician on board for his excellent adventure. It is interesting that Mississippi does not have a member on the Caucus even though the legislation included that state.
Which Interstate do you all think will be completed in its entirety first? Interstate 14 or Interstate 69?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 11, 2018, 04:57:48 PM
Which Interstate do you all think will be completed in its entirety first? Interstate 14 or Interstate 69?
Put it this way: I can see the reason for I-69 (although I don't know if we really needed all three of the W/C/E spurs in Texas). I don't see why we need I-14.
I completely agree with you US 89. Interstate 14 outside of Texas seems like a pipe dream to me.
^^^^^^^^
With one unfunded corridor (I-69) already on the back burner due to funding shortfalls, it's likely the position of MS (both its DOT or any other state entity involved in such activities) is to simply let others plan as many corridors as they like within their state -- knowing full well that nothing will be done without funds from external sources -- and when and if such occurs, it will jurisdictionally fall to them to actually deploy the facility. Right now there's little they can or will do -- and I-14 in MS is slated to follow an existing cross-state arterial (US 84) closely in any case -- so without the funding to even conduct studies regarding corridor specifics, MS is probably electing to sit back and let these ad hoc committees and "caucuses" do their thing; they'll get officially involved when there's reason to do so (read: available $$$$ !).
I-14 resolution passes the Georgia House; still waiting on approval from the Senate:
https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2019/03/21/georgia-house-passes-interstate-14-resolution.html
Quote from: MantyMadTown on March 22, 2019, 08:24:54 PM
I-14 resolution passes the Georgia House; still waiting on approval from the Senate:
https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2019/03/21/georgia-house-passes-interstate-14-resolution.html
And here goes GA down
that rabbit hole again. If they choose to pull a NC and do their portion absent any cooperation from adjoining states, they'll have a Columbus to Augusta corridor, probably aligned along the existing GRIP routes with a Macon bypass added into the mix. But the chances of AL going along with their portion of that corridor -- seeing as how they just scuttled the US 80 (I-85) plans west of Montgomery -- are at this time slim and none. And something tells me the other I-14 states have no intention of pooling their funds (MS functionally has none!) to subsidize an AL routing. Even if the full GA legislature approves this plan, it probably won't become reality in many of our lifetimes -- certainly not something over which to hold one's breath! :rolleyes:
Quote from: sparker on March 22, 2019, 08:58:06 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on March 22, 2019, 08:24:54 PM
I-14 resolution passes the Georgia House; still waiting on approval from the Senate:
https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2019/03/21/georgia-house-passes-interstate-14-resolution.html
And here goes GA down that rabbit hole again. If they choose to pull a NC and do their portion absent any cooperation from adjoining states, they'll have a Columbus to Augusta corridor, probably aligned along the existing GRIP routes with a Macon bypass added into the mix. But the chances of AL going along with their portion of that corridor -- seeing as how they just scuttled the US 80 (I-85) plans west of Montgomery -- are at this time slim and none. And something tells me the other I-14 states have no intention of pooling their funds (MS functionally has none!) to subsidize an AL routing. Even if the full GA legislature approves this plan, it probably won't become reality in many of our lifetimes -- certainly not something over which to hold one's breath! :rolleyes:
That's not to say the portion in Georgia can't be built if Alabama is not willing to contribute for its portion. A Columbus to Augusta interstate still has its own merits, such as bypassing Atlanta.
^ For who? Such an Interstate, for traffic going west of Columbus to Montgomery or Mobile, would dump drivers onto a 2-lane US 80. If the intent is to bypass Atlanta with this type of road, it doesn't make sense without Alabama upgrading US 80.
Quote from: froggie on March 23, 2019, 11:53:49 AM
^ For who? Such an Interstate, for traffic going west of Columbus to Montgomery or Mobile, would dump drivers onto a 2-lane US 80. If the intent is to bypass Atlanta with this type of road, it doesn't make sense without Alabama upgrading US 80.
US 280/431 to I-85 is only 4 miles farther than US 80 and AL 186 (and, according to Google, 3 minutes faster). Upgrading US 80 would be preferable, certainly, but I wouldn't call this useless by any means.
The Atlanta area needs this! Anyway to keep trucks, and bypass traffic away from Atlanta I'm all for. We just need another north/south cooridor. I wish they would modify US 27 to interstate grade...
Quote from: Eth on March 23, 2019, 12:19:23 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 23, 2019, 11:53:49 AM
^ For who? Such an Interstate, for traffic going west of Columbus to Montgomery or Mobile, would dump drivers onto a 2-lane US 80. If the intent is to bypass Atlanta with this type of road, it doesn't make sense without Alabama upgrading US 80.
US 280/431 to I-85 is only 4 miles farther than US 80 and AL 186 (and, according to Google, 3 minutes faster). Upgrading US 80 would be preferable, certainly, but I wouldn't call this useless by any means.
The issue in AL is a virtual moratorium on new Interstate-grade freeway construction; hey, they took long enough on the 65/22 interchange and now they've certainly got their hands full (but pocketbook being emptied!) with the 20/59 rebuild in downtown Birmingham. And remember that AL is a state that is historically/politically tax-averse; doing what's in the chute right now is about all that they can handle at this time. The fact that the 280/431 corridor cuts a few miles off the distance between the end of the current freeway in Phenix City and I-85 is in reality neither here nor there;
neither routing is going to show up on ALDOT's radar in the foreseeable future as a potential freeway. A new cross-GA/I-14 corridor would be just that -- but with only limited value as a long-distance Atlanta bypass.
Quote from: sparker on March 23, 2019, 03:34:03 PMThe fact that the 280/431 corridor cuts a few miles off the distance between the end of the current freeway in Phenix City and I-85 is in reality neither here nor there; neither routing is going to show up on ALDOT's radar in the foreseeable future as a potential freeway.
I really just meant that as a response to froggie's statement about being dumped onto two-lane US 80, pointing out that there's an existing and better four-lane option.
Maybe after I-14 in Georgia gets built Alabama would be willing to upgrade US 280 to I-85.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on March 23, 2019, 05:53:24 PM
Maybe after I-14 in Georgia gets built Alabama would be willing to upgrade US 280 to I-85.
By the time I-14 gets built within GA (not likely within a decade or two), there could possibly be political changes in AL that would have the effect of providing sufficient funding for new freeway corridors there. Or it could go the other way. For the present the chances of I-14 east of I-59 or west of Columbus, GA are slim and none -- and slim has left the building!
Quote from: sparker on March 23, 2019, 10:17:35 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on March 23, 2019, 05:53:24 PM
Maybe after I-14 in Georgia gets built Alabama would be willing to upgrade US 280 to I-85.
By the time I-14 gets built within GA (not likely within a decade or two), there could possibly be political changes in AL that would have the effect of providing sufficient funding for new freeway corridors there. Or it could go the other way. For the present the chances of I-14 east of I-59 or west of Columbus, GA are slim and none -- and slim has left the building!
Seriously, have you been to Alabama, the changes even being suggested are not going to happen, they'll be happy with I-22 for now before I-14, besides Louisiana has to build theirs first.
You're right slim left the building got on a plane and went to Canada.
Quote from: goobnav on March 24, 2019, 05:46:20 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 23, 2019, 10:17:35 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on March 23, 2019, 05:53:24 PM
Maybe after I-14 in Georgia gets built Alabama would be willing to upgrade US 280 to I-85.
By the time I-14 gets built within GA (not likely within a decade or two), there could possibly be political changes in AL that would have the effect of providing sufficient funding for new freeway corridors there. Or it could go the other way. For the present the chances of I-14 east of I-59 or west of Columbus, GA are slim and none -- and slim has left the building!
Seriously, have you been to Alabama, the changes even being suggested are not going to happen, they'll be happy with I-22 for now before I-14, besides Louisiana has to build theirs first.
You're right slim left the building got on a plane and went to Canada.
The Saints have a better chance of winning 6 Superbowls than I-14 has of even being considered in LA.
The time to have discussed this idea was twenty years ago, before the entire corridor was improved as a four lane divided at-grade facility, including the construction of significant sections on new alignment.
Here's an idea, though: I just asked Google how to get from Tuskegee to Macon, and one of the alternate routes was via GA 109 and US 41, cutting across Georgia from LaGrange to Forsyth and entering Macon on I-75. That route is only six miles and eight minutes longer than the obvious route via GA 96 near Columbus.
The Freight Logistics Plan (https://45tkhs2ch4042kf51f1akcju-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Ga-Freight-Logistics-Report.pdf) that GDOT released in 2010 recommended a four-lane corridor from LaGrange to Macon, apparently as an improvement of existing GA 109 and 74. It was expected that it'd also serve truck traffic to and from I-20 in Alabama via the already-widened US 27 corridor. The benefit/cost ratio calculated for the project was 18:1, making it an outlier among the projects evaluated.
I haven't heard anything more about it in a while (and I wouldn't be surprised if the evaluation I mentioned was flawed in some way), but if people are seriously interested in this I-14 corridor, running it via a new LaGrange-Forsyth corridor is worth considering, IMO.
EDIT: I just found out that GDOT did a study of a LaGrange-Macon corridor (http://www.dot.ga.gov/buildsmart/studies/documents/ccg/special%20study%20-%20macon%20to%20lagrange%20connection.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3OXBrW5hUP0eNPe-G_usGE_msNgGsdV9GLPD3Vqxulj7qCOyk7_QDxShA), though it assumed widening and/or otherwise improving existing GA 109 and GA 74 all the way to I-475. Unsurprisingly, the proper time frame for major upgrades west of the 109-74 split at Woodbury is "never." The to-me-obvious alternative of going directly from Woodbury to I-75 between Forsyth and Bolingbroke wasn't considered, surely due to cost and the related feasibility of incremental implementation.
Quote from: cjk374 on March 24, 2019, 06:37:54 AM
Quote from: goobnav on March 24, 2019, 05:46:20 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 23, 2019, 10:17:35 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on March 23, 2019, 05:53:24 PM
Maybe after I-14 in Georgia gets built Alabama would be willing to upgrade US 280 to I-85.
By the time I-14 gets built within GA (not likely within a decade or two), there could possibly be political changes in AL that would have the effect of providing sufficient funding for new freeway corridors there. Or it could go the other way. For the present the chances of I-14 east of I-59 or west of Columbus, GA are slim and none -- and slim has left the building!
Seriously, have you been to Alabama, the changes even being suggested are not going to happen, they'll be happy with I-22 for now before I-14, besides Louisiana has to build theirs first.
You're right slim left the building got on a plane and went to Canada.
The Saints have a better chance of winning 6 Superbowls than I-14 has of even being considered in LA.
I highly doubt the Saints are going to win 6 Super Bowls even. The Saints have been wildly amazing these last 2 seasons, and it's not going to last when Drew Brees retires. It's hard enough getting the Saints to even another one with their recent playoff disappointments.
Quote from: cjk374 on March 24, 2019, 06:37:54 AM
Quote from: goobnav on March 24, 2019, 05:46:20 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 23, 2019, 10:17:35 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on March 23, 2019, 05:53:24 PM
Maybe after I-14 in Georgia gets built Alabama would be willing to upgrade US 280 to I-85.
By the time I-14 gets built within GA (not likely within a decade or two), there could possibly be political changes in AL that would have the effect of providing sufficient funding for new freeway corridors there. Or it could go the other way. For the present the chances of I-14 east of I-59 or west of Columbus, GA are slim and none -- and slim has left the building!
Seriously, have you been to Alabama, the changes even being suggested are not going to happen, they'll be happy with I-22 for now before I-14, besides Louisiana has to build theirs first.
You're right slim left the building got on a plane and went to Canada.
The Saints have a better chance of winning 6 Superbowls than I-14 has of even being considered in LA.
As I mentioned above, the situation in AL
could go the other way and the present tax-averse environment could persist or become even more so. Time will tell -- but it's not something about which to hold one's breath. As far as LA is concerned -- if TX plans bring a facility to the Sabine River border with TX, LA might well consider an extension -- even if it only gets to Alexandria (I-49) rather than completely across the state, which would be pointless unless similar plans were promulgated in MS, including upgrades/replacement of the Natchez bridges. But if by some currently unforeseen miracle MS elects to build I-14 along the US 84 corridor, the odds of it getting past Laurel/I-59 without some reciprocal action within AL are currently nil. That's the trouble with multi-state corridors -- too many ducks to line up in a row. Even if GA passes their legislation, that'll only leave 2 out of 5 states where there is any
manifested interest in an I-14 corridor project -- and those states are at the ends of the whole concept! It'll likely be a functional reiteration of the I-73/74 composite corridor concept -- only 3 states have even considered the project (fortunately they're at one end, even though only one has managed to cobble up some actual working facilities), but the other 3 at the NW end have washed their hands of the idea, with little if any chance of near-term revival.
Ironically -- for an
Interstate system -- the current methodology for creating additions favors
intrastate corridor concepts -- ones that can be deployed unilaterally by states inclined to do so absent action from their neighboring jurisdictions. But those states will continue to do so despite the probability that some of their efforts won't produce the intended results due to disinterest or lower prioritization outside their parvenu -- as long as they perceive some internal benefit from such. Luckily, some multi-state corridors (I-22, I-49 to a large extent) have managed to gather some measure of support from each of the states through which they travel and have been completed or have had relatively long segments built to date. Whether that was simply luck of the draw regarding the attitudes of the states themselves or internal teeth-gritting regarding getting the projects off the ground can be analyzed and/or debated -- but it's an indication that corridors
can be done if enough support --
spread out so it permeates the whole corridor length -- is present. For a number of these latter-day/"aftermarket" plans, that's clearly not the case!
I-18, bitches! :angry:
Quote from: Gnutella on March 25, 2019, 12:16:38 AM
I-18, bitches! :angry:
If the two I-14 projects (TX, GA) aren't going to be connected together, then I-18
would be a highly appropriate designation for the eastern segment, particularly since half of it would be north of I-16.
Quote from: sparker on March 25, 2019, 01:23:09 AM
Quote from: Gnutella on March 25, 2019, 12:16:38 AM
I-18, bitches! :angry:
If the two I-14 projects (TX, GA) aren't going to be connected together, then I-18 would be a highly appropriate designation for the eastern segment, particularly since half of it would be north of I-16.
Still hoping for a connection from Columbus to I-85.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on March 25, 2019, 02:19:26 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 25, 2019, 01:23:09 AM
Quote from: Gnutella on March 25, 2019, 12:16:38 AM
I-18, bitches! :angry:
If the two I-14 projects (TX, GA) aren't going to be connected together, then I-18 would be a highly appropriate designation for the eastern segment, particularly since half of it would be north of I-16.
Still hoping for a connection from Columbus to I-85.
I'm guessing this means a connection westward in AL; a northward connection (expediting Columbus-Atlanta traffic) is made via I-185. I suppose some sort of E-W connector could be cobbled up from I-185 west to I-85 near West Point, keeping such a project within GA rather than the reticent AL -- but whether projected traffic would warrant such a facility is doubtful. In that respect Columbus has the misfortune of being located along a border shared with a state that seemingly has no intention of being part of GA's intrastate planning efforts (if indeed legislated); unless GA intends to gift AL the funds for a connection, it's simply an impasse.
This is a pipe dream.
If Georgia is really serious, then fund it yourself, build it to I standards and file for your reimbursement. (and wait in line)
There isn't much political support (outside of Georgia) for a road that will benefit the ports of Georgia at the expense of Mobile.
Georgia is going to have to find Alabama something in return besides losing football games if they want to see this happen.
I noticed that GDOT over the past few decades widened part of GA 88 west of Wrens. I take that is to be part of the I-14 corridor and their way of getting support for it. Then US 1 widening from Wrens to Augusta is also part of where it would run as well as being it needs to support Fort Gordon which is on US 1 proper.
I am all for this, but I do believe that it will become a two segment interstate as from the tone here from both MS and AL it will be almost a half a century before those states build it.
So it will end up joining the ranks of I-74 and I-69 and be just a discontinuous freeway for several hundred miles.
^^^^^^^^^
The Columbus-Augusta corridor, including the segment of GA 88 cited above, is unsigned GRIP route 540; primarily intended for construction to expressway standards. Besides a Macon bypass -- likely serving Warner-Robins in the process -- most of the corridor, while substantially divided highway, will require extensive upgrades before meeting Interstate standards. Actually the original I-14 proposal from the very early 2000's did specify the Macon-Augusta portion of GRIP 540, although it made a significant detour between Columbus and Macon via GA 26 (likely a political sop or payback) -- something that likely won't happen again due to the presence of an upgradable facility via GA 96. This latest effort seems like a fanciful effort to revive the concept -- but without the cooperation of AL, it'll be just another intrastate project with potential R/W/B signage. In any case, it'll be intriguing to see how it all shakes out over time -- and whether GA joins NC in the pantheon of Eastern Seaboard states engaging in unilateral Interstate planning.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 25, 2019, 11:30:45 PM
I noticed that GDOT over the past few decades widened part of GA 88 west of Wrens. I take that is to be part of the I-14 corridor and their way of getting support for it. Then US 1 widening from Wrens to Augusta is also part of where it would run as well as being it needs to support Fort Gordon which is on US 1 proper.
I am all for this, but I do believe that it will become a two segment interstate as from the tone here from both MS and AL it will be almost a half a century before those states build it.
So it will end up joining the ranks of I-74 and I-69 and be just a discontinuous freeway for several hundred miles.
The Fall Line Freeway already provides a decent divided-highway route between Augusta (almost) and Macon (almost). It meanders a bit along the way but probably meets the needs for travel between those points. A better connection from I-16 at/near Macon and with I-520 (probably) at Augusta would improve the usefulness of this highway.
It would be nice if Georgia would look at improvements between Augusta and Valdosta (I-77 extension, basically) to provide an alternative to I-77/I-26/I-95 and/or I-4 or other routes to reach the west coast of Florida.
Too bad the Gulf Coast states are already hindering any possibility of connecting it to the short stub in TX.
Quote from: Henry on March 26, 2019, 10:18:17 AM
Too bad the Gulf Coast states are already hindering any possibility of connecting it to the short stub in TX.
Well, in large part the blame/responsibility for that can be laid at the hands of tax aversion within both states (getting any sort of revenue stream going is like pulling teeth -- but with less productive results) -- and, in the case of MS, a considerably smaller functional tax base to begin with (even if they raised gas/sales taxes like has been done in other jurisdictions, the aggregate amount would be decidedly less). AL milked ARC and invoked HPC status to get I-22 completed; once that was done, their appetite for new freeways seemed to be sated -- despite the longstanding "I-85" extension project west of Montgomery, which was formally dropped, along with AL's share of the Dothan connector to I-10, last year.
^ 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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
^^^^^^^^^
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.
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.
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 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/shapefiles.cfm)):
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
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
^^^^^^^^
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
The actual numbering is functionally moot; the controversies more often arise from the perception of certain corridors as being formulated and promoted more from local political pressure rather than a thorough determination of (a) actual need and/or (b) national connectivity. What I've tried to point out is that the system for doing so currently favors the political approach; while Congress can and does deal with the legislation required to establish these corridors, doing so -- unless there's some sort of PR issue -- is almost always a matter of "rubber-stamping" legislation forwarded by a single representative or a regionally-based group of those. Appending such legislation to a yearly USDOT funding bill is the principal modus operandi regarding such actions. Overall, the issues are not on the radar of Congess at large -- the body is simply a conduit for localized action reaching the level of national designation. In short, they want to get these corridors "on the books"; once that's done, everything subsequent to that can move as fast -- or, alternately, as glacially -- as developmental machinations proceed.
I don't care about the numbering so much as the amount of taxpayer money being mis-directed to a project that has no legit reason to exist, much less be a funding priority over other infrastructure projects that are in progress.
The I-14 number is effectively
turned and burned in Texas. I don't care if US-290 between Austin and Houston remains as US-290 or gains an Interstate route marker. But it is clearly a corridor very much worth upgrading to Interstate quality. I think I-12 would work just fine as a designation. I don't care if it is disconnected from the I-12 route in Louisiana. We already have several previously existing examples of duplicated route numbers not connected to each other. An I-12 route going thru Austin would not be out of the norm.
Quote from: sparkerI 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.
That 1973 legislation had its own effect. Yet quite a bit of Interstate highway mileage was built after 1973, and in fairly normal, direct routing fashion. Nevertheless conservative efforts to undermine federal control of national infrastructure projects is one of the basic reasons why the United States has no ability to build something like a nation-wide high speed rail network. If legislation like Nixon's law had been passed in the late 1940's the entire Interstate highway system might not even exist today. The Interstate highway system is a
national highway network. That network needs to be designed and maintained with that kind of big picture view.
I contend the situation with road building has grown considerably worse just within these past 20 years, with the situation worsening even still during this decade.
Not too many voters like pork barrel spending. I consider I-14 to be a very porky project. But it's something that isn't funded at this point. In 2011 the 112th Congress effectively banned earmarks. There was good reason for that to happen; the practice of funding earmarks was abused for decades. I remember President Reagan campaigning to get Line Item Veto power. The ban on earmarks has delivered a very nasty consequence few probably expected. I believe it has played a major role in allowing partisan zealots to take over both the Republican and Democratic parties. That's because legislators now have very little deal-making power where it counts. There is little incentive for a congressman to reach across the aisle to do any deal making with a member of the opposing party or even work with members of his own party. The reality is that it usually takes some
"you scratch my back, I scratch yours" persuasion to push through big projects, such as a proposed highway that will cross multiple state lines.
This is something that actually works against the chances of I-14 having any substantial segments completed. With lawmakers having far less incentive to make deals with each other civil discourse in politics has gone right out the window. Now it's a contest of which loud mouth can shout the loudest on the congressional floor or on the 24-hour cable "news" channels (which I refer to as "anger pornography"). We're getting horrible, extremist candidates now. People who shout into their own echo chambers of fans to confirm their own bias. Our President regularly has political rallies for his "base." Nobody did that before. But with real behind the scenes deal making ability being hamstrung or just eliminated our political process has now turned into a contest of propaganda. The potential on this stuff is kind of scary.
Quote from: sparkerThe 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!.
The US Census 2018 population estimate for Austin is 931,830. The city is on the verge of joining the million-plus club. It will be the fourth city in Texas to do so. California has 3 such cities (LA, San Diego and San Jose being the newest entry).
Next, Texas is a big state with 28 million+ taxpayers. But the state can afford to spend only so much on highways. It does not have an unlimited pool of resources. Texas doesn't have the money to upgrade every road that needs it. Multiple projects in the DFW and Houston metros have cost billions of dollars to build and there's still a lot more work to do in those urban metros. Add more urban projects from Austin, San Antonio, El Paso and other locations into the mix. Texas' burden for building I-69 is far larger than any other state along the proposed route by a very wide margin. They have a lot more miles of new super highway to build. TX DOT has been building dozens of little spot upgrades of highways all over the state, such as the brief segments of limited access highway on US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene. That's something I think could or should become an extension of I-44.
I don't think TX DOT or city fathers in Austin have deliberately ignored the situation with US-290. There's only so much the state has to spend on it. For now they've been doing major upgrade work on US-290 going out of Houston. Another big US-290 project is proposed for the West side of Austin. The state probably won't fill in the obvious gap between Austin and Houston with a real super highway unless the feds wake up and provide more help.
Quote from: sparkerSo 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!
The problem is a new super highway spanning upwards of 1000 miles or more, such as the proposed I-14 thing, will cost tens of billions of dollars to be built. I wouldn't sweat the I-14 nonsense if highways were inexpensive to build and funding was plentiful. Unfortunately the reverse is the case. Super highways are extremely expensive (and time consuming) to build in the United States. And there is very limited funding to build any new routes. So if someone is going to steer taxpayer money away from other projects and into a new super highway project there had better be a legit need to build the thing.
^^^^^^^^
One of the intrinsic problems of today's developmental transportation picture is that because of that limited funding, localities -- particularly those who presently lack not only Interstate service but a longstanding isolation from most transportation corridors (San Angelo comes to mind here) -- promulgate a "local booster" mentality (probably not, at least in TX, unrelated to the atmosphere surrounding high-school football rivalries), where a generally secondary city -- one maybe in six figures, population-wise, but not approaching the level of Austin or even the DFW 'burbs, sees itself as an aggrieved party and foments enough ruckus to attract the attention of the congressional delegations serving the region. The I-14 corridor has a few of those -- M/O, San Angelo, greater Temple/Belton, and Bryan/College Station. Dismissable individually, when they whine in unison, they attract attention -- or certainly did so back in 2015, when the corridor concept gelled into the HPC #84/I-14 authorizing legislation. Now -- I'd wager that a pretty sizeable number of posters who follow both Interstate development and TX issues have at one time or another looked at the Amarillo-DFW US 287 corridor -- particularly those of us who have driven that route repeatedly -- and have seen a "natural" fit for a regional Interstate -- a relatively high AADT on the current route -- and one dominated by commercial traffic. But the problem is that there is but one major 100K+ urban player along the route -- Wichita Falls, already served (albeit marginally!) by I-44 -- although not as a connection to other TX points. But they're busy building out their local freeway system; forging a connection to other state points doesn't seem to have the same cachet to them as it does to Midland, San Angelo, or Bryan. And even though truck traffic rumbles through their city centers, there doesn't seem to be much of a call to action from Quanah, Childress, and the other small towns along US 287. Again, there's not much clamor for an upgrade to that corridor although by all terms of measurement it's probably the TX corridor most deserving of Interstate upgrades -- but the political clout that tends to form around mid-size cities just hasn't happened there as it has regarding the I-14 corridor.
And that brings us to one of the other factors favoring the "squeaky wheel" approach to development -- the allotment and distribution of federal funding on a year-to-year basis. Every prospective project and its coterie of backers is lined up with their hands out like the orphanage kids in "Oliver": "Please, sir, may I have another.....year of funding?" The first of their tasks is to simply show up and ask for the money. There will invariably be some level of funds available; an existing project with vetted paperwork -- regardless of where it it or exactly how many citizens will be served -- stands a significantly better chance of getting through the process than something that even exhibits more meritorious rationale -- but is either insufficiently "written up" or is well back in line behind other corridor concepts that got to the party earlier. A marginally valuable corridor with a great set of paperwork will almost inevitably be prioritized over a patently obvious corridor with little but lip service. And because some funding will be doled out yearly, a lesser corridor might get some bucks for either spot improvements that may lead to bigger things down the line, or $$ for studies intended to winnow down the alignment and other technical options. Hopefully any such monies allotted to the I-14 corridor will produce a routing that'll cut across the "sawtooth" US 190 profile across the Triangle (baby steps!). At this point one can only hope that this lemon will yield a fair amount of lemonade! :eyebrow:
Apparently, upgrading US 290 has to interstate has been brought up by members of Congress in the past. Not sure if there's still any kind of aggressive push, though.
https://m.chron.com/neighborhood/cyfair-news/article/Officials-favoring-upgrade-by-TXDOT-2180292.php
Quote from: FightingIrish on March 31, 2019, 06:18:16 PM
Apparently, upgrading US 290 has to interstate has been brought up by members of Congress in the past. Not sure if there's still any kind of aggressive push, though.
https://m.chron.com/neighborhood/cyfair-news/article/Officials-favoring-upgrade-by-TXDOT-2180292.php
That promotional idea, now 7 1/2 years old, appears to only pertain to US 290 immediately west of I-610 in greater Houston -- ostensibly to the effective end of the freeway at the TX 6 junction at Hempstead. The language of the proposal seems to favor a X10 "spur" designation rather than an integral part of a longer corridor west to Austin. It's a bit humorous if not bizarre that whoever wrote this presentation seemed to be surprised by the then-recent signage of I-69E along US 77 between I-37 and TX 44; the author seems to think of that as a spur of I-37 rather than part of a larger corridor concept -- which in itself goes to show that even people who get themselves involved in these sort of things have a less-than-comprehensive knowledge base (or possibly lack of awareness of their own environment). The inference in the article is
"why can't we have one of these too?" From the lack of inaction toward that particular goal over nearly 8 years' time, it's clear the idea just didn't get much traction.
Quote from: sparker on April 01, 2019, 03:08:41 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on March 31, 2019, 06:18:16 PM
Apparently, upgrading US 290 has to interstate has been brought up by members of Congress in the past. Not sure if there's still any kind of aggressive push, though.
https://m.chron.com/neighborhood/cyfair-news/article/Officials-favoring-upgrade-by-TXDOT-2180292.php
That promotional idea, now 7 1/2 years old, appears to only pertain to US 290 immediately west of I-610 in greater Houston -- ostensibly to the effective end of the freeway at the TX 6 junction at Hempstead. The language of the proposal seems to favor a X10 "spur" designation rather than an integral part of a longer corridor west to Austin. It's a bit humorous if not bizarre that whoever wrote this presentation seemed to be surprised by the then-recent signage of I-69E along US 77 between I-37 and TX 44; the author seems to think of that as a spur of I-37 rather than part of a larger corridor concept -- which in itself goes to show that even people who get themselves involved in these sort of things have a less-than-comprehensive knowledge base (or possibly lack of awareness of their own environment). The inference in the article is "why can't we have one of these too?" From the lack of inaction toward that particular goal over nearly 8 years' time, it's clear the idea just didn't get much traction.
I wonder if this corridor would be a spur of say, I-10 or I-35, instead of a 2di such as a western version of I-12, if it ever becomes an interstate.
^^^^^^^^^
If a Houston-Austin Interstate connector is ever proposed and promoted, it could either utilize US 290 or TX 71 to the south. The latter would, of course, require much less in the way of mileage, since it would use I-10 for much of the distance between the two metro areas -- and because it's mostly divided expressway, would be considerably easier to upgrade. But, as I've averred previously, never underestimate the political will of mid-size TX towns; Hempstead or Bastrop could start bleating about non-inclusion in a potential corridor, which might shift the attention a bit to the north. But all this is speculation -- so far, despite the longstanding lack of regional connectivity, there haven't been any concrete moves toward any activity toward designating much less actually constructing such a corridor -- a necessary first step these days!
TX DOT has been upgrading parts of both US-290 and TX-71 between Austin and Houston, albeit in piecemeal fashion. It's not like they're sitting back doing nothing with either corridor. If there is a question of which corridor do you upgrade if only one can be upgraded, I think US-290 is the more important one. it ties in better with other routes like the Grand Parkway for regional or long distance traffic looking to bypass Houston. Given the population of both metros, traffic and commerce moving between them both of those corridors are logically more justified to upgrade into freeways than the I-14 stuff. The issues of who does lobbying work better is pretty absurd compared to actual traffic movement needs. I-14 is mostly an unnecessary extravagance.
^^^^^^^^
Not that logical justification carries much weight within the current developmental environment -- but if enough piecemeal upgrades were to occur along either TX 71 or US 290, someone either at TXDOT or the Austin-area MPO might sit up and take notice -- and elect to take advantage of something that's already underway and actually propose a comprehensive upgrade plan that may possibly include an Interstate designation as "icing on the cake". That's usually one of the only current viable alternatives to political machination -- actually get a sizeable portion of a corridor done, then keep pointing to it until attention is attracted. It's essentially presenting a corridor concept as a virtual fait accompli!
Ummmm....isn't this a discussion of a possible future I-14 in Georgia?? Shouldn't discussion about Texas' portion of Future I-14 be moved back to Mid-South and this discussion here brought back to Georgia?
Talk about derailing discussion... :pan: :pan: :pan:
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 02, 2019, 06:17:48 AM
Ummmm....isn't this a discussion of a possible future I-14 in Georgia?? Shouldn't discussion about Texas' portion of Future I-14 be moved back to Mid-South and this discussion here brought back to Georgia?
Talk about derailing discussion... :pan: :pan: :pan:
More like dislocation! Point taken -- there's already enough about I-14/TX in that regional section. But the notion explored earlier about building out most of a corridor prior to seeking an Interstate designation -- the
fait accompli may well apply to the facilities projected to be included in the GA corridor portion, much of which features appropriate geometry. Sporadic upgrading with grade separations, frontage roads, and the like -- may precede an actual designation effort (particularly on the relatively new segments of the Macon-Augusta stretch).
Looking more into it, the coalition's route idea would be best suited as an extended I-16.
That said, I-14 would be good too along the US 84 corridor at least as far east as Valdosta (via Dothan, AL). Has that been considered at all for an Interstate route?
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on May 31, 2019, 12:52:19 AM
Looking more into it, the coalition's route idea would be best suited as an extended I-16.
That said, I-14 would be good too along the US 84 corridor at least as far east as Valdosta (via Dothan, AL). Has that been considered at all for an Interstate route?
No, I don't think so.
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on May 31, 2019, 12:52:19 AM
Looking more into it, the coalition's route idea would be best suited as an extended I-16.
That said, I-14 would be good too along the US 84 corridor at least as far east as Valdosta (via Dothan, AL). Has that been considered at all for an Interstate route?
Anything east of I-59 (ostensibly at Laurel, MS) would have to rely on the arguably questionable principle of induced demand to succeed -- there's just not much in the way of traffic aside from local usage until one gets to Dothan -- and then
that's just FL-bound traffic off US 231 from Montgomery using it as a shortcut to Tallahassee. And Alabama has in recent months effectively decreed that I-22 and its Birmingham-area offspring (maybe!) will be the last new freeways that state will pay for (unless Montgomery politicos can resurrect the AL 108 loop). The long-proposed corridor from Montgomery west to I-20/59 was deleted along with every other proposal languishing on the state DOT books (it's like that state has hired Mr. Peabody and his "wayback machine" to return -- in many ways -- to a pre-'56 condition). Thus any proposal involving a corridor across AL is dead in the water unless a political sea change is forthcoming.
That being said, a few folks -- including some contributors here -- have taken the military-base connection aspect of I-14 to include Ft. Rucker, near Enterprise, AL along US 84 -- and have suggested extending the route east to serve that facility (and Dothan in the process). But such concepts haven't gained any traction, official or otherwise; there just isn't the traffic base to warrant a corridor in that area. And in GA, both US 82 and US 84 E-W corridors across the state's southern tier are mostly 4-lanes divided; those would seem more than adequate to serve both current and foreseeable traffic volumes (with a few town bypasses as needed down the line).
Quote from: sparkerAnd in GA, both US 82 and US 84 E-W corridors across the state's southern tier are mostly 4-lanes divided
Not really. Aside from about 7 miles between Union Springs and AL 51, 82 has no 4 lane between 231 and Eufaula. Likewise, the only notable stretch of 4 lane on 84 west of Andalusia (once past the AL 55 split) is its Grove Hill bypass.
The only corridor that has enough traffic to potentially warrant an Interstate and still serve Fort Rucker isn't 84...it's 231. But as you noted, it would require a sea change in both the political climate and the fiscal climate.
Quote from: froggie on June 01, 2019, 09:26:28 AM
Quote from: sparkerAnd in GA, both US 82 and US 84 E-W corridors across the state's southern tier are mostly 4-lanes divided
Not really. Aside from about 7 miles between Union Springs and AL 51, 82 has no 4 lane between 231 and Eufaula. Likewise, the only notable stretch of 4 lane on 84 west of Andalusia (once past the AL 55 split) is its Grove Hill bypass.
The only corridor that has enough traffic to potentially warrant an Interstate and still serve Fort Rucker isn't 84...it's 231. But as you noted, it would require a sea change in both the political climate and the fiscal climate.
I was talking about GA's segment of both US 82 and US 84, not the section in Alabama. And part of US 84 west of Waycross is still 2-lane -- hence the term "mostly". But it looks like GDOT has been incrementally twinning both routes over time -- which should be more than adequate for at least the near term.
In compete agreement about traffic flow on US 231 being likely to warrant further development of that corridor; the only part of US 84 that could function as a corollary (or beneficiary) in that regard is the section
east of Dothan -- at least as far as Bainbridge, GA. Shortcuts to FL, if they're efficient enough, should intrinsically draw traffic; the US 84/US 27 continuum in SW GA functions well, with US 231 as a "feeder", to funnel traffic down the west coast of the FL peninsula (used it myself at one point for just that purpose!).
And yes, the Dothan outer circle is full of commercial development, features plenty of signals, and is a general PITA! But it's AL -- and little if anything will be done to ameliorate the situation.
Quote from: sparker on May 31, 2019, 05:09:49 AM
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on May 31, 2019, 12:52:19 AM
Looking more into it, the coalition's route idea would be best suited as an extended I-16.
That said, I-14 would be good too along the US 84 corridor at least as far east as Valdosta (via Dothan, AL). Has that been considered at all for an Interstate route?
Anything east of I-59 (ostensibly at Laurel, MS) would have to rely on the arguably questionable principle of induced demand to succeed -- there's just not much in the way of traffic aside from local usage until one gets to Dothan -- and then that's just FL-bound traffic off US 231 from Montgomery using it as a shortcut to Tallahassee. And Alabama has in recent months effectively decreed that I-22 and its Birmingham-area offspring (maybe!) will be the last new freeways that state will pay for (unless Montgomery politicos can resurrect the AL 108 loop). The long-proposed corridor from Montgomery west to I-20/59 was deleted along with every other proposal languishing on the state DOT books (it's like that state has hired Mr. Peabody and his "wayback machine" to return -- in many ways -- to a pre-'56 condition). Thus any proposal involving a corridor across AL is dead in the water unless a political sea change is forthcoming.
That being said, a few folks -- including some contributors here -- have taken the military-base connection aspect of I-14 to include Ft. Rucker, near Enterprise, AL along US 84 -- and have suggested extending the route east to serve that facility (and Dothan in the process). But such concepts haven't gained any traction, official or otherwise; there just isn't the traffic base to warrant a corridor in that area. And in GA, both US 82 and US 84 E-W corridors across the state's southern tier are mostly 4-lanes divided; those would seem more than adequate to serve both current and foreseeable traffic volumes (with a few town bypasses as needed down the line).
You're right; I am shocked how low traffic counts are in Alabama on US 84 (under 2,000 on some sections) and not until Elba does it pick up. I know it's 4 lanes through a good part of Georgia.
^^ Totally missed that you were referring to Georgia and not Alabama.
The remaining segment of 2-lane 84 west of Waycross is in part because that segment also sees considerably low traffic volumes, as does most of US 82 between Eufaula and GA 520 at Dawson (also 2 lanes). Even a good chunk of what HAS been widened on 82 and 84 sees less than 5,000 vpd...82 from Willacoochee to Waresboro and 84 from Naylor to Waycross
^^^^^^^^
That stretch of US 82 west of GRIP 520 will probably not be a candidate for expansion in the near term; most traffic is heading toward or coming from Columbus via 520. The 82/520 cosigned section, simply because of its routing between Albany and Waycross, is a prime E-W commercial corridor to the ports of Brunswick and Jacksonville (which is why it is the corridor of choice for I-22 east extension pipedreams). Now -- how far GDOT will go to accommodate such traffic in the future (I'd guess they'd start with the occasional town bypass) is just a matter of conjecture and certainly would be a product of demonstrated increasing traffic flow, particularly of the commercial variety.
As a side note, I'd guess that if GDOT were to concentrate their cross-state efforts on one specific corridor, it would be 82/520 rather than US 84 to the south simply because of how it juxtaposes with the rest of the regional arteries.
I was on what was once GA 88 west of Wrens which is now signed for the future I-14 as GA 540. Thought it was odd at first but when I seen that it follows US 1 east of Wrens and GA 88 picks up there to go east to Matthews, I figured it is part of the I-14 push.
Then in Augusta GA 540 is signed only to the west (south) on US 1 from I-520 so that confirmed my suspicions about it all.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 14, 2019, 11:50:42 PM
I was on what was once GA 88 west of Wrens which is now signed for the future I-14 as GA 540. Thought it was odd at first but when I seen that it follows US 1 east of Wrens and GA 88 picks up there to go east to Matthews, I figured it is part of the I-14 push.
Then in Augusta GA 540 is signed only to the west (south) on US 1 from I-520 so that confirmed my suspicions about it all.
The Georgia GRIP network consists of several cross-state "improved" (meaning at least twinned) corridors; the most prominent of these are 520 between Columbus and Brunswick (most of which is multiplexed with US 82 and 280) and 540 between, again, Columbus and Augusta. While GDOT is in the process of signing the corridor portion east of Macon, the western section, along (mostly) GA 96, GA 49, and US 80, has yet to receive GRIP-540 signage. But the entire GRIP system, including some facilities that remain 2 lanes, is a separate entity -- with its own HPC designation (#62) covering the entire in-state network -- from the sporadically-considered I-14 (which, in its original planned iteration circa 2002, mostly utilized GA 26 across the western portion of the state -- likely a politically-motivated detour). GRIP-540 from the outskirts of Macon east to Augusta is an actual designated entity -- not merely a "placeholder" for an outflung I-14 section. If sometime in the near future GDOT wishes to pursue an Interstate from Columbus to Augusta via Macon, they're going to be on their own, so to speak -- the effort, unless AL exhibits a "sea change" and jettisons their freeway moratorium, will simply end at the state line. Presently the chances of a GA section of I-14 joining the TX-based effort are slim & none, even if LA and MS join
that particular party.
But for the time being, GA 540 will likely remain the operative designation of the Columbus-Macon-Augusta corridor; an eastern I-14 remains a pipedream. But so does GRIP 540 as a cross-state entity; a southern Macon bypass remains to be planned & built.
GA 88 signs west of Wrens are all gone in favor of this new GRIP route. I imagine that GA 24 is been resigned too! So you are saying that it is not signed west of Macon and along I-75 and I-16 where part of this Fall Line Freeway is designated.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 19, 2019, 10:28:42 PM
GA 88 signs west of Wrens are all gone in favor of this new GRIP route. I imagine that GA 24 is been resigned too! So you are saying that it is not signed west of Macon and along I-75 and I-16 where part of this Fall Line Freeway is designated.
AFAIK, none of GRIP 540 between Columbus and I-75 (aka US 80, GA 96, and GA 49) carries 540 signage as of yet; the original designations remain posted. It is and has been my understanding that a connection between (former) GA 57 east of Macon and I-75 at or near the GA 49 interchange near Byron, likely some form of controlled-access facility, has been in the works for some time now. Although it could conceivably happen, it's unlikely that GDOT will sign 540 over the "temporary" Macon-area routing of I-16 and I-75, particularly since they're in the process of rebuilding the 75/16 interchange. If anyone has information to the contrary, please let us know! Considering the short time it took GDOT to sign 540 from Macon to Wrens after the route was completed, it's surprising that the segment between Columbus and I-75 hasn't received similar treatment; it was upgraded and/or twinned well before the section east of Macon was finished.
GA 540 is signed west of Macon
https://goo.gl/maps/vfbsap87SgN4Wh4T6
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 21, 2019, 06:58:09 AM
GA 540 is signed west of Macon
https://goo.gl/maps/vfbsap87SgN4Wh4T6
Thanks for the info & the picture -- now I'm
less surprised than yesterday! Curiously, the GA 540 sign shown is "cookie-cutter" GA SR issue rather than the embellished type seen on GRIP 515 north of Atlanta. Question: even without the "bridge" between east and west sections, is 540 indicated on BGS' from I-75 and/or I-16?
Quote from: sparker on October 21, 2019, 03:30:49 PM
Curiously, the GA 540 sign shown is "cookie-cutter" GA SR issue rather than the embellished type seen on GRIP 515 north of Atlanta.
Fairly certain the colored shields on GA 515 and 520 are there because those routes are ADHS corridors. 515 is Corridor A, and 520 is unofficial Corridor Z.
Quote from: US 89 on October 22, 2019, 05:17:43 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 21, 2019, 03:30:49 PM
Curiously, the GA 540 sign shown is "cookie-cutter" GA SR issue rather than the embellished type seen on GRIP 515 north of Atlanta.
Fairly certain the colored shields on GA 515 and 520 are there because those routes are ADHS corridors. 515 is Corridor A, and 520 is unofficial Corridor Z.
That makes perfect sense, considering that Corridor X/US 78 reassurance shield signage was similarly "embellished" prior to the deployment of I-22 shields. Thanks for clearing up this issue.
Georgia DOT: I-14 project not a good investment
ATLANTA – Georgia motorists looking for a faster way to get across the state between Columbus and Augusta will have to wait a long time – if ever – for a solution.
A newly released study of options for moving freight through Georgia by the state Department of Transportation (DOT) has concluded that a plan to build the Peach State's first interstate highway since the 1960s would not be a good return on investment.
Traffic projections show the proposed Interstate 14 likely would carry only an average of 3,000 trucks per day, well below the average daily flow of 11,000 to 18,000 trucks on Georgia's existing interstates.
https://capitol-beat.org/2024/01/georgia-dot-i-14-project-not-a-good-investment/
...
The good news for Harbison and other I-14 backers is that the DOT isn't giving up on the project completely.
"Because the I-14 project shows some benefit under the KPIs (Key Performance Indicators), a corridor study to further evaluate its feasibility would enable a more comprehensive understanding of the construction practicalities ... as well as more specific project costs," the report stated.
It is pretty obvious that Interstate 14 likely would never be completed as proposed in 2005. I think we'll be lucky if existing Interstate 14 ever makes it out of the state of Texas. Maybe upgrading existing roads in Georgia to four lanes, and adding interchanges, grade-separations, and cul-de-sacs to those roads will suffice.
Why Interstate 14 Will NEVER Be Built Outside of Texas, by Mileage Mike. It's not a very good video, but it exists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5jStvNl0Ws
The video isn't too awfully bad. It just doesn't offer much of any new information. I do agree with "Mileage Mike" the chances of I-14 being built outside of Texas are extremely slim or just no chance at all.
Additionally, a bunch of the proposed I-14 route in Texas will probably never be built either. The existing Interstate from I-35 to Copperas Cove merely re-signed an existing freeway that had been around for decades. The only "new" things related to the I-14 corridor in that region are a bypass of Heidenheimer built a decade ago and a Rogers bypass currently under construction. Improvements to I-35 in that area dwarf I-14 efforts.
I can only imagine I-14 being completed to Midland IF efforts to extend I-27 go anywhere and those I-27W/I-27E routes are built. I-14 could overlap the leg from Midland to San Angelo. The gap from San Angelo to Copperas Cove won't be a high priority to fill.
Within the next 20 years I think I-14 may only get completed from Temple to College Station. I think the TX-249 toll road has better chances to be improved and extended into the TX-6 corridor.
Mileage Mike repeated how lawmakers have pitched I-14 as a way of linking military bases/posts. If an Interstate would actually help military operations it would make more sense to build an Interstate from Fort Hood (aka Fort Cavazos) up to Fort Sill in Oklahoma. Lots of Army people travel back and forth between both posts. Plus there's Sheppard AFB in Wichita Falls and Altus AFB a short drive West of Lawton/Fort Sill. Then there's a bunch of military stuff in San Antonio. US-281 connects all of that.