News:

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

Main Menu

I-14 in Louisiana

Started by Grzrd, October 25, 2016, 05:01:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Anthony_JK

Quote from: silverback1065 on January 05, 2017, 11:14:20 AM
isn't i-10 in either lake charles or baton rouge in desperate need for a new, wider bridge?

The I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge is scheduled for a total rebuild as part of widening I-10 through Lake Charles to 6 lanes. They are bogged up in a major remediation of a hazardous waste site on the west approach of the bridge near Westlake....and of course, getting the funding.

The I-10 Mississippi River Bridge into BTR really could use a twin span....but that would be so prohibitively expensive. A bypass bridge south of there near Addis is now in the works. Also, there are the Baton Rouge Bypass and BUMP proposals to ease the deadlock on I-10/I-12 through BTR.


Anthony_JK

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2017, 01:24:07 PM

I think most of the path is pretty obvious for where LaDOTD would have to direct "I-14" if it was ever built. There isn't much problem with LA-28 coming into Alexandria from the West. It's 4-lane divided with frontage roads and/or property set backs far enough to fit new frontage roads.

Like you said, MacArthur Drive could be upgraded to Interstate standard fairly easily. It has frontage roads all the way from where it hits I-49 on South and North sides of town. That Masonic Circle thing is the only thing getting in the way of a freeway conversion. I would see no loss in getting rid of that thing. It's just a disorganized clump of trees in there. And the square is not exactly surrounded by A-list properties either.

Going East from I-49 is a tougher decision. US-71 has a new Red River bridge crossing and freeway upgrade to the Shreveport/Monroe Hwy split. But there would be a lot of property standing in the way of an East Exit out of Alexandria, plus another freeway to freeway interchange to build with US-167. It might be easier to multiplex "I-14" from the I-49/US-71 interchange down to the I-49/US-167 interchange downtown and then have "I-14" use the US-167 freeway to get over the Red River. At some point along US-167 a new terrain freeway would have to split from US-167 to point the road toward Natchez.

Now, if the plans to upgrade US 165 into a full freeway through Alexandria are for real, and they do include MacArthur Drive, then that problem would be solved. Problem is, you would have to raze plenty of ROW to make it happen, especially from the US 71 split in Pineville northeastward. Not to mention upgrading the interchange with the Pineville Expressway and building through Tioga.

That's why I favor building a new bypass around Tioga/Pineville/western Alexandria that would tie into both ends of I-49 and a possible US 165 upgrade to Lake Charles, and could serve as an northern I-14 bypass, too. LA 28 through the Alexandria Beltway can be preserved as an arterial through route.

Most businesses fronting MacArthur Drive don't want that road upgraded to freeway because they figure I-49 serves that purpose, and they don't want the loss of business that direct access brings.

Quote
Quote from: cjk374Louisiana really has no business trying to dream of any new highway (14 or 69) until they are 100% finished with I-49 & get some serious rehab projects funded (BR bypass, I-12 widening completed, interstate overpass replacements...most overpasses over I-20 are almost 60 years old and are crumbling).

I-49 related projects really do have to take a high priority. The Shreveport ICC has to be built. The I-49 upgrade through Lafayette and Broussard has to get done. An "I-14" distraction could help out opponents of the highway project in Lafayette. There's still a lot of I-49 work to do on the West Bank next to New Orleans.

I'm thinking that LADOTD is looking at I-14 as a very long-term project more than rushing it to completion now. They are totally committed to I-49 South and the Baton Rouge mess, so I don't see any distractions.

Quote
Quote from: silverback1065isn't i-10 in either lake charles or baton rouge in desperate need for a new, wider bridge?

Both could stand to be wider. The I-10 bridge over the Mississippi in Baton Rouge is 6 lanes, but with no shoulders at all. The bridge in Lake Charles is only 4 lanes wide with no shoulders at all. Either one will unfortunately be very expensive to replace.

See my previous comment here on the Calcasieu and Mississippi River I-10 bridges.

Bobby5280

US-165 is hopelessly boxed in with development from Masonic Circle on South three miles until it opens up into a divided 4 lane facility. I don't see LaDOTD upgrading that stretch of road to Interstate standards. US-165 is also boxed in NE of Alexandria in Kingsville. They might be able to push the new freeway from the US-71/US-165 split over to the Pineville Expressway (US-167). That might also involve bulldozing the Kmart building and other stuff at that interchange.

I don't know why any businesses would have objections to converting MacArthur Drive to a full blown freeway. It has one exit at Jackson Street. What's the problem with adding a few more? It would sure cut down on all the stupid stop lights for thru traffic. It would probably reduce fender benders as well. I've driven through Alexandria a few times and I think those at grade intersections along MacArthur are a complete cluster#$@&. The frontage roads hop between one way and two way operation. Businesses along that road might think the access is better now, but the whole thing would work far more smoothly as a freeway with one way frontage roads and Texas style U-turns at the exit intersections.

The most expensive part of converting MacArthur Drive and LA-28 inside Alexandria to Interstate quality would be a T-interchange where the two roads meet. Right now it's a freaky odd, cheap at-grade intersection in the size footprint of a freeway T-interchange.

Building a brand new bypass around Pineville and Tioga East of Alexandria (as part of a larger beltway) would be really expensive, especially if it connects to I-49 both North and South of the city. Two brand new Red River crossings would be needed. If this "I-14" idea simply upgraded existing roads along LA-28 and MacArthur it could pick from one of two existing Red River bridges before getting out of town to the East. I think it would be far easier/cheaper to do using US-167. That road is freeway quality from I-49 up to Timber Trails several miles North. Choosing where to break East from US-167 for "I-14" to follow is the tricky part. The industrial area just past where the Red River Bridge ends might be a possibility.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2017, 05:31:51 PM
US-165 is hopelessly boxed in with development from Masonic Circle on South three miles until it opens up into a divided 4 lane facility. I don't see LaDOTD upgrading that stretch of road to Interstate standards. US-165 is also boxed in NE of Alexandria in Kingsville. They might be able to push the new freeway from the US-71/US-165 split over to the Pineville Expressway (US-167). That might also involve bulldozing the Kmart building and other stuff at that interchange.

You solve that problem by building a new-terrain route for US 165 bypassing Woodworth to the west, then following the Union Pacific Railroad line to where I-49 bends east, then re-routing US 165 down I-49 to the current US 71/MacArthur Drive interchange. You could also start the western bypass of I-49 there, too...which could also serve as a bypass for both I-14 and US 165.

The big issue with using Coliseum Boulevard and MacArthur Drive is that you would still have to find some way to connect US 165 to meet LA 28 east. If LADOTD is indeed serious about a future Alexandria-Monroe freeway along the US 165 corridor, there are only 2 viable options: upgrading US 165 through Kingsville, Tioga and Ball, or a western bypass using a new Red River bridge near England Air Park with a connection to an extended Pineville Expressway. I'm not sure doubling back down MacArthur Drive to either the proposed Beltway or even the current south I-49 interchange would be viable, and there are really no options unless the current north interchange between I-49 and MacArthur Drive near the Fort Buhlow Bridge was made fully directional and I-49 widened between there and the Pineville Expressway terminus.

QuoteI don't know why any businesses would have objections to converting MacArthur Drive to a full blown freeway. It has one exit at Jackson Street. What's the problem with adding a few more? It would sure cut down on all the stupid stop lights for thru traffic. It would probably reduce fender benders as well. I've driven through Alexandria a few times and I think those at grade intersections along MacArthur are a complete cluster#$@&. The frontage roads hop between one way and two way operation. Businesses along that road might think the access is better now, but the whole thing would work far more smoothly as a freeway with one way frontage roads and Texas style U-turns at the exit intersections.

I agree wholeheartedly that MacArthur Drive should be a full freeway with one-way frontage roads between the I-49 termini (with an extension through the US 71 split to the Pineville Expressway interchange, with needed upgrades to eliminate the at-grade connections there).

QuoteThe most expensive part of converting MacArthur Drive and LA-28 inside Alexandria to Interstate quality would be a T-interchange where the two roads meet. Right now it's a freaky odd, cheap at-grade intersection in the size footprint of a freeway T-interchange.

The solution to that is to use direct connectors between the LA 28 West/Future I-14 and MacArthur Drive mainlanes, and a conventional slip-ramp diamond with the frontage roads to connect the Coliseum Blvd. frontage roads with Murray Street.

QuoteBuilding a brand new bypass around Pineville and Tioga East of Alexandria (as part of a larger beltway) would be really expensive, especially if it connects to I-49 both North and South of the city. Two brand new Red River crossings would be needed. If this "I-14" idea simply upgraded existing roads along LA-28 and MacArthur it could pick from one of two existing Red River bridges before getting out of town to the East. I think it would be far easier/cheaper to do using US-167. That road is freeway quality from I-49 up to Timber Trails several miles North. Choosing where to break East from US-167 for "I-14" to follow is the tricky part. The industrial area just past where the Red River Bridge ends might be a possibility.

As I said earlier, if you upgrade the north interchange between I-49 and MacArthur Drive to become fully directional, you could push I-14 though a brief wrong-way concurrence with I-49 to the Pineville Expressway exit, then use the latter with a new route replacing the current breakout of LA 28 east at Holloway Prairie Road. More likely, though, is that the Alexandria Beltway will become both the new route of LA 28 AND the proposed upgraded freeway route for I-14.


jbnv

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2017, 01:24:07 PM
Quote from: silverback1065isn't i-10 in either lake charles or baton rouge in desperate need for a new, wider bridge?

Both could stand to be wider. The I-10 bridge over the Mississippi in Baton Rouge is 6 lanes, but with no shoulders at all. The bridge in Lake Charles is only 4 lanes wide with no shoulders at all. Either one will unfortunately be very expensive to replace.

silverback1065, you're thinking of Lake Charles. The Mississippi River Bridge doesn't need to be replaced, though Baton Rouge needs an alternate route around Baton Rouge for through traffic.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on January 04, 2017, 01:34:09 PM
This article, although cautioning that actual construction is probably decades away, reports that LaDOTD is still planning a route and that state congressmen are still working to get the route federally designated

This Feb. 3 article reports that the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition is lobbying for a route in Louisiana (not sure how this is working with LaDOTD's plans on developing the route):

Quote
.... the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition ....
Coalition members are also seeking congressional approval for an I-14 corridor component that would run across Central Louisiana from the Sabine River to the Mississippi River. The route would generally follow Louisiana Route 8 and Louisiana Route 28 eastward to Leesville and Fort Polk and then run to I-49 at Alexandria and Pineville. The proposed designation would then go east on Louisiana Route 28 to Archie and then on U.S. 84 to the river bridge connecting Vidalia, Louisiana, and Natchez, Mississippi.

sparker

Quote from: Grzrd on February 08, 2017, 03:40:34 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 04, 2017, 01:34:09 PM
This article, although cautioning that actual construction is probably decades away, reports that LaDOTD is still planning a route and that state congressmen are still working to get the route federally designated

This Feb. 3 article reports that the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition is lobbying for a route in Louisiana (not sure how this is working with LaDOTD's plans on developing the route):

Quote
.... the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition ....
Coalition members are also seeking congressional approval for an I-14 corridor component that would run across Central Louisiana from the Sabine River to the Mississippi River. The route would generally follow Louisiana Route 8 and Louisiana Route 28 eastward to Leesville and Fort Polk and then run to I-49 at Alexandria and Pineville. The proposed designation would then go east on Louisiana Route 28 to Archie and then on U.S. 84 to the river bridge connecting Vidalia, Louisiana, and Natchez, Mississippi.

The previous I-14 "14th Amendment Highway" proposal dating from the late '90's had its functional west end at Natchez; is there any active counterpart in MS and/or AL pressing for an eastern extension of the proposed LA alignment?  IIRC, the original proposal posited an alignment extended east along US 84 through MS and extending  into Alabama before turning northeast on a new-terrain route to the Montgomery area.  Is that proposal still being considered -- particularly in light of the presence of the seemingly on-and-off proposal for a western extension of I-85, which might be considered to be a duplication of development effort?  One would think that any cross-LA corridor would need somewhere to go after crossing the Mississippi River to maintain sufficient traffic potential.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: sparker on February 08, 2017, 06:28:28 PM

The previous I-14 "14th Amendment Highway" proposal dating from the late '90's had its functional west end at Natchez; is there any active counterpart in MS and/or AL pressing for an eastern extension of the proposed LA alignment?  IIRC, the original proposal posited an alignment extended east along US 84 through MS and extending  into Alabama before turning northeast on a new-terrain route to the Montgomery area.  Is that proposal still being considered -- particularly in light of the presence of the seemingly on-and-off proposal for a western extension of I-85, which might be considered to be a duplication of development effort?  One would think that any cross-LA corridor would need somewhere to go after crossing the Mississippi River to maintain sufficient traffic potential.

From all that I've heard and seen, the proposed I-14 corridor east of Natchez would not connect with an upgraded US 80 to Montgomery (that would be more a proposed "I-16" extension from Meridian through Montgomery/Auburn-Opelika/Tuskeegee/Columbus/Augusta corridor), but would swing more SE through southern Alabama to connect Enterprise and Dothan and Waycross, GA to the Interstate system. That would make it a very interesting I-10 relief route through the southern US.

I still fail to see, though, how they are going to push this through Alexandria without a bypass. Is the Alexandria Beltway being planned with future freeway upgradability? Or, will this have to be jerry-rigged through via an upgraded MacArthur Drive/I-49/Pineville Expressway?

froggie

Hard to say.  Took me until now just to find a map showing possible Beltway locations.

cjk374


Quote
.... the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition ....
The proposed designation would then go east on Louisiana Route 28 to Archie and then on U.S. 84 to the river bridge connecting Vidalia, Louisiana, and Natchez, Mississippi.

That particular crossing of the Big Muddy is not interstate grade. Also, US 84/US 425 is an urban boulevard east of the river to the junction of US 61/US 98. This is a bad & expensive idea for any interstate route.
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

sparker

Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 09, 2017, 05:43:30 AM
From all that I've heard and seen, the proposed I-14 corridor east of Natchez would not connect with an upgraded US 80 to Montgomery (that would be more a proposed "I-16" extension from Meridian through Montgomery/Auburn-Opelika/Tuskeegee/Columbus/Augusta corridor), but would swing more SE through southern Alabama to connect Enterprise and Dothan and Waycross, GA to the Interstate system. That would make it a very interesting I-10 relief route through the southern US.

The I-85 extension west along US 80 from Montgomery to I-20/59 near Cuba, AL (via Selma and Demopolis) was a completely separate concept from the original I-14 routing, which entered AL from the west along US 84 and veering NE from that route immediately after crossing US 43 at Grove Hill.  The previously cited corridor struck out directly from Grove Hill to Camden, subsequently following AL 21 northeast to Hayneville before heading east on a new-terrain route to intersect I-65 near where the then-proposed AL 108 (I-85) Montgomery Bypass crossed.  East from there it would utilize the bypass before generally following US 80 east into GA.

I had heard rumblings about a Dothan reroute, but nothing concrete to date. 

codyg1985

As far as I know, Alabama has little interest in I-14. There also has been very little on extending I-85 west to I-20/59 in Cuba, AL, except for the first portion of the Montgomery Outer Loop opening.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

sparker

Quote from: codyg1985 on February 14, 2017, 08:53:07 AM
As far as I know, Alabama has little interest in I-14. There also has been very little on extending I-85 west to I-20/59 in Cuba, AL, except for the first portion of the Montgomery Outer Loop opening.

It's more than likely that any I-14 extension across LA and exiting into MS near Natchez would simply extend across US 84 (with appropriate upgrading) as far as I-59 at Laurel -- and end there for the foreseeable future; the Alabama portion only exists within planning documents from 15+ years ago and would require significant new-terrain construction, including bridges over navigable rivers -- hardly a cost-effective endeavor.  Unless there's a politically-motivated push for such a routing (an emulation of the TX process), IMO you won't see I-14 shields in Alabama.

andy3175

Quote from: sparker on February 14, 2017, 05:09:13 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 14, 2017, 08:53:07 AM
As far as I know, Alabama has little interest in I-14. There also has been very little on extending I-85 west to I-20/59 in Cuba, AL, except for the first portion of the Montgomery Outer Loop opening.

It's more than likely that any I-14 extension across LA and exiting into MS near Natchez would simply extend across US 84 (with appropriate upgrading) as far as I-59 at Laurel -- and end there for the foreseeable future; the Alabama portion only exists within planning documents from 15+ years ago and would require significant new-terrain construction, including bridges over navigable rivers -- hardly a cost-effective endeavor.  Unless there's a politically-motivated push for such a routing (an emulation of the TX process), IMO you won't see I-14 shields in Alabama.

Does the I-85 extension proposal match the proposed I-14 alignment? If so, would I-14 overlay I-85 (current and proposed) across Alabama? Or does it plan to take another route?
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

codyg1985

Quote from: andy3175 on February 16, 2017, 12:11:43 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 14, 2017, 05:09:13 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 14, 2017, 08:53:07 AM
As far as I know, Alabama has little interest in I-14. There also has been very little on extending I-85 west to I-20/59 in Cuba, AL, except for the first portion of the Montgomery Outer Loop opening.

It's more than likely that any I-14 extension across LA and exiting into MS near Natchez would simply extend across US 84 (with appropriate upgrading) as far as I-59 at Laurel -- and end there for the foreseeable future; the Alabama portion only exists within planning documents from 15+ years ago and would require significant new-terrain construction, including bridges over navigable rivers -- hardly a cost-effective endeavor.  Unless there's a politically-motivated push for such a routing (an emulation of the TX process), IMO you won't see I-14 shields in Alabama.

Does the I-85 extension proposal match the proposed I-14 alignment? If so, would I-14 overlay I-85 (current and proposed) across Alabama? Or does it plan to take another route?

I think there are two schools of thought: one which would have I-14 multiplex with I-59 from Laurel to Cuba, AL and follow the I-85 extension alignment. Another would have I-14 follow US 84 into Alabama and then take a new terrain route into Montgomery. I would imagine the latter route would be routed near Grove Hill and Camden.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

mvak36

Quote from: codyg1985 on February 16, 2017, 07:59:43 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on February 16, 2017, 12:11:43 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 14, 2017, 05:09:13 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 14, 2017, 08:53:07 AM
As far as I know, Alabama has little interest in I-14. There also has been very little on extending I-85 west to I-20/59 in Cuba, AL, except for the first portion of the Montgomery Outer Loop opening.

It's more than likely that any I-14 extension across LA and exiting into MS near Natchez would simply extend across US 84 (with appropriate upgrading) as far as I-59 at Laurel -- and end there for the foreseeable future; the Alabama portion only exists within planning documents from 15+ years ago and would require significant new-terrain construction, including bridges over navigable rivers -- hardly a cost-effective endeavor.  Unless there's a politically-motivated push for such a routing (an emulation of the TX process), IMO you won't see I-14 shields in Alabama.

Does the I-85 extension proposal match the proposed I-14 alignment? If so, would I-14 overlay I-85 (current and proposed) across Alabama? Or does it plan to take another route?

I think there are two schools of thought: one which would have I-14 multiplex with I-59 from Laurel to Cuba, AL and follow the I-85 extension alignment. Another would have I-14 follow US 84 into Alabama and then take a new terrain route into Montgomery. I would imagine the latter route would be routed near Grove Hill and Camden.

If they do the first one, do you think they would do a long multiplex with 85 and 14? I'm not sure it's needed.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

Grzrd

#41
Quote from: andy3175 on February 16, 2017, 12:11:43 AM
Does the I-85 extension proposal match the proposed I-14 alignment? If so, would I-14 overlay I-85 (current and proposed) across Alabama? Or does it plan to take another route?

The Executive Summary of the Expert Working Group's Report to Congress discusses the five alternatives and the consideration of the I-85 extension:

Quote
In identifying alternative conceptual alignments for the 14th Amendment Highway, priority consideration was given to utilizing existing highways to the maximum extent possible. The study identified several significant highway projects located in the Corridor that are currently either under construction or designated in specific State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP). All planning and construction costs associated with these projects were excluded from the cost estimates. These highway projects include:
I-85 Extension in Alabama,
Montgomery Outer Loop in Alabama,
Gordon Bypass (Fall Line Freeway) in Georgia,
Milledgeville Bypass (Fall Line Freeway) in Georgia, and
Widening of SR 243 between the Gordon and Milledgeville Bypasses in Georgia

Anthony_JK

Very interesting, indeed.

Personally, I'd rather the US 80 upgrade and the segments of the "14th Amendment Highway" east of Meridian carry another standalone designation (such as probably "I-18" or "I-16"), or even have the "I-85 extension" and I-85 to Atlanta probably become a new alignment for I-20, eliminating the concurrence with I-59 to Tuscaloosa and Birmingham altogether.

I'd prefer I-14 to go south of Montgomery altogether along US 84, giving Interstate access to Enterprise and Dothan, then across southern Georgia through Waycross to end at I-75 south of Macon. That would make the whole of I-14 a viable bypass alternative for I-10 through the Gulf Coast. You could also have a spur to serve either Pensacola or Tallahasse.

Bobby5280



In this area of the country (MS, AL, GA) it all depends on the super highway links most in need to build.

Opelika to Columbus and Macon is a corridor worthy of upgrading to Interstate quality. Macon to Augusta is a bit of a reach. There currently is not really good, straight way to travel between those two cities, but it's not likely an I-14 upgrade would travel in a more straight, new terrain route. It would re-use a lot of existing roads like the Fall Line Freeway (which isn't really a freeway).

Out of these I-14 concept alignments I'm leaning most in favor of Alternative 1, despite all the concurrences with other highways that would occur (like a 3-way mash-up of I-20, I-59 and I-14 from Meridian, MS to Cuba, AL). It would provide a better, slightly more direct route between Natchez and Jackson. It would serve the same purpose as a proposed I-85 extension from Montgomery to Cuba, AL.

QuoteI'd prefer I-14 to go south of Montgomery altogether along US 84, giving Interstate access to Enterprise and Dothan, then across southern Georgia through Waycross to end at I-75 south of Macon. That would make the whole of I-14 a viable bypass alternative for I-10 through the Gulf Coast. You could also have a spur to serve either Pensacola or Tallahasse.

I don't think there's enough people living along the US-84 corridor in Southern Alabama to justify spending billions on an Interstate upgrade there. Both Enterprise and Dothan have their own loop expressways main roads in and out of town too encroached with development for any Interstate upgrades to be possible. An I-14 routing through there would have to be built as an outer bypass away from both towns, something that might be very unpopular with local businesses there.

There are other areas in that region more worthy of super highway upgrades. I think GA-520 between Columbus, GA and Albany, GA should be improved to Interstate quality. Bigger than that, I really think I-22 should run from Memphis to Jacksonville via Birmingham, Opelika, Columbus, Albany, Tifton and Waycross. That would improve long distance highway travel in the Deep South more than an I-14 bypass running on a route few long distance travelers would ever use.

sparker

If a I-14 corridor along US 84 across AL and possibly southern GA is not forthcoming, then truncating it at I-59 at Laurel, MS would be the best bet IF the "I-85" extension along US 80 west of Montgomery were to be finalized in its place.  And, as suggested previously, that whole corridor east to Macon would be more appropriate as a westerly I-16 extension.  Macon-Augusta would be dealt with separately and independently.

The Ghostbuster

I'm skeptical that Interstate 14 in Louisiana and Mississippi will be built. If it is, it should probably be an extension of Interstate 85.

sparker

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 16, 2017, 05:56:59 PM
I'm skeptical that Interstate 14 in Louisiana and Mississippi will be built. If it is, it should probably be an extension of Interstate 85.

The sole planned extension of I-85 was planned to extend more or less due west from Montgomery along US 80 via Selma, terminating at I-20/59 near Cuba, AL; it never entered MS, much less LA.  It would be pointless to extend that designation along any potential I-14 alignment SW of Montgomery, in the unlikely event that such a route is ever developed, even in place of the original Selma route. 

Bobby5280

The problem is Interstate 85 is an odd numbered route, meant more for North-South directions. It's not an appropriate number for East-West highways. The proposed extension alone to Cuba, AL is really pushing the limit, especially with the route number running into I-20 there and Atlanta.

Regarding the suggestion to renumber I-20 and I-85, I really don't like that idea at all. The numbers on those routes are long established. There would be more than just traffic signs to change. It would affect a lot of businesses with how they list their locations in marketing materials. All that would have to be scrapped. A major numerical change in route numbering might confuse the crap out of a lot of drivers.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 16, 2017, 06:12:20 PM
The problem is Interstate 85 is an odd numbered route, meant more for North-South directions. It's not an appropriate number for East-West highways. The proposed extension alone to Cuba, AL is really pushing the limit, especially with the route number running into I-20 there and Atlanta.

Regarding the suggestion to renumber I-20 and I-85, I really don't like that idea at all. The numbers on those routes are long established. There would be more than just traffic signs to change. It would affect a lot of businesses with how they list their locations in marketing materials. All that would have to be scrapped. A major numerical change in route numbering might confuse the crap out of a lot of drivers.

Wholeheartedly agree.  Never liked the idea of I-85 extending more east-west that it already is!  While I originally sort of liked the idea of building the extension, signing it and I-85 Montgomery-Atlanta as I-20 (and Birmingham-Atlanta an extension of I-22), the issue of regional route recognition as well as the cost of re-signing has led me to a change of mind here.  Since there's an existing HPC (#6) covering the entire US 80 corridor east of Cuba, AL -- it's not difficult (from any other standpoint than cost) to see a I-16 western extension here, which, as I've iterated previously, would be the most appropriate designation from a grid and regional standpoint.   

Sykotyk

US80 needs to be a freeway. Or at least the few towns along it bypassed.

Even if US80 is upgraded, I still think Alternate 3, 4, or 5 is the best option between Natchez and Macon. Keeping as much traffic OFF I-20 for as much as possible helps alleviate that stretch. Using I-59 north to Cuba to US80 works, and the stretch between Laurel and I-65 south of Montgomery is most definitely overkill if US80 is also upgraded.

East of Macon, though, the best route is Alternate 3 or 5. There's quite a bit of freeway/expressway along that stretch that can be utilized and along the US 1 corridor. Alt1 looks to be a new terrain route, which seems excessive. When I go to Florida, I've driven US1 through Georgia several times. And also the four-lane GA88 stretch to Macon once.  It's an enjoyable, leisurely drive as most traffic is funneled to 75 or 95.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.