AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: 1 on October 15, 2018, 12:31:01 PM

Title: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: 1 on October 15, 2018, 12:31:01 PM
1: Given CA 1, it would have to be in Washington, Oregon, or Alaska. I would put WA 16 and WA 3 combined as the most likely, with a renumbering of Anchorage's freeway as second most likely.
3: US 101 in California.
6: Given Texas's rapid Interstate construction, Austin to Houston despite being out of grid (using the number 18 is also out of grid once 14 is built). Laredo to Corpus Christi takes second place, but it would be redundant to the I-69 complex.
7: CA 99. They're not going to renumber I-82 just because it has a bad number.
9: Also CA 99. Of course, it cannot be both I-7 and I-9, but both numbers, considered individually, are more likely to be this corridor than any other corridor.
13: Salt Lake City metro, after it expands further.
18: Meridian, MS to Macon, GA via Montgomery, AL and Columbus, GA. Second place is Austin to Houston.
21: Provo to the I-80/US 189 junction. It's short, but it's more likely than a long-distance corridor in the middle of nowhere.
23: Same as 21.
28: NC wants more Interstates... but anything that would be I-28 is either I-74 (US 74 freeway segments) or parallel to the coast and therefore odd-numbered (Myrtle Beach to Wilmington). I say that Dallas–Amarillo wins this one.
31: The Dakotas don't need one, and anything in Texas would either be an I-27 or I-44 extension... I say the most likely is Dallas to Kansas City despite being out of grid (so is I-29, so it's not that unlikely) and being an obvious I-45 extension... maybe Kansas numbers it before Oklahoma does.
32: Same as 28.
33: Same as 31.
34: Same as 28 and 32. Decatur AL – Huntsville AL – Chattanooga TN would also be a possibility for any of these three numbers, but Dallas–Amarillo is more likely.
36: While it could be the same as 28, 32, and 34, the main difference here is that NC already asked for an I-36. Charlotte to Raleigh, which currently has an all-freeway route that isn't quite straight. (36 is also higher, which would discourage TX slightly.)
38: Same as 36. Texas would probably want a lower number for their Dallas–Amarillo corridor.
46: Cumberland Parkway in Kentucky. Second place is US 412 in Oklahoma.
47: See 31, with a much more fitting number this time.
48: Same as 46.
50: Same as 48. There are no places to put a long I-50.
51: Avenue of the Saints.
52: Western Kentucky Parkway and Bluegrass Parkway.
53: Avenue of the Saints.
54: No, it's not US 54, despite what FritzOwl says. Western Kentucky Parkway and Bluegrass Parkway.
56: Western Kentucky Parkway and Bluegrass Parkway. California could build something connecting US 101 to I-5, but probably not.
58: I-580 → I-58 is only a "fix" to I-238, not something that will actually happen. The most likely I-58 is US 58 east of Emporia, once it is established (I-41, I-74) that Interstates and US routes can continue as each other.
60: Western Kentucky Parkway and Bluegrass Parkway. A good I-60 would be the combination of I-44 and I-64, but they're not going to renumber those just to put a 60 in the grid.
61: US 61 prevents the Avenue of the Saints from being I-61... Meridian MS, Tupelo MS, Jackson TN, Union City TN.
62: Western Kentucky Parkway and Bluegrass Parkway, with Roanoke to Richmond in second place... or possibly combine both, although it's unlikely.
63: Same route as 61 listed above. I believe there's a non-roadgeek (but also not official) proposal to make this corridor I-63.
67: If NC decided not to duplicate numbers, I would say US 321 (already freeway), screw the grid. However, I'm still going to say this. 65 and 75 are multiples of 5, 69 would be really confusing, and it's west of their own 73 and 77, so that leaves just 67 and 71.
92: WI 29, with a NY-NH-VT-ME corridor in second place.
98: US 11 in New York along the Ontario border.

This does not belong in Fictional. This is a thread about predicting the future, not creating our own routes.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: froggie on October 15, 2018, 12:33:59 PM
Mods, this should probably be in Fictional, since several of the corridors "1" suggests are nothing more than Pipe Dream.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: vdeane on October 15, 2018, 12:51:55 PM
Fritz Owl, is that you in disguise?
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: 1 on October 15, 2018, 01:03:38 PM
Fritz Owl, is that you in disguise?

I'm not FritzOwl.
1. FritzOwl only posts in Fictional.
2. FritzOwl is mostly consistent across threads. If this was FritzOwl, it would change his entire plan.
3. Note the lack of Interstates in WY/MT/ND/SD and other sparsely populated places. Most of the routes listed above are either already freeway or highly needed freeway corridors.

Keep in mind that some numbers are unlikely to ever be used, so while it's extremely unlikely, it's still the most likely of the possible corridors to have that number.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: hbelkins on October 15, 2018, 01:18:46 PM
I always thought the WK/BG combination would make a good I-58. And I thought that long before I-69 ate a third of the WK.

The other Kentucky parkways are good candidates for 3di's.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: oscar on October 15, 2018, 01:29:34 PM
1: Given CA 1, it would have to be in Washington, Oregon, or Alaska. I would put WA 16 and WA 3 combined as the most likely, with a renumbering of Anchorage's freeway as second most likely.

One of Anchorage's freeways is already part of unsigned Interstate A-1. If it's ever signed, it would likely be posted as such (or as A1), consistent with how Hawaii's H- Interstates are signed. That leaves I-1 available for use elsewhere.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: Max Rockatansky on October 15, 2018, 02:00:16 PM
Personally I’d say I-1 for US 101 north of San Francisco and I-3 for south.  If I-9 ever were a thing the US 395 corridor is a good fit. 
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: sparker on October 15, 2018, 02:21:00 PM
Out of the 33 remaining in the unused pool (35 if extended to I-101), there are only a handful that'll likely to be utilized during at least my lifetime (or by 2035 in actuarial years!):

36:  The US 74 corridor in NC; Columbus-Charlotte-Rockingham (bypassing Charlotte w/I-485).  NC can't resist it; they've tried to use that number before -- but it's actually appropriate here.
9:  The next CA SJ Valley congressman (Jeff Denham, come on down!) to get in electoral hot water will likely propose this for CA 99 (Wheeler Ridge-Sacramento) as a "looky here, see what I've done!" action.  It's already a designated future Interstate, so it's not "out of the blue", so to speak.  Caltrans'll bitch, but eventually erect signs -- and try to take some credit for it!
67:  I know right now the US 31>I-67 concept is dormant, but eventually enough of the corridor will be done that the idea will regain traction -- especially if MI finishes the most recent iteration of the US 31 to I-94/196 connector.  Grand Rapids or bust!
56:  A conditional entry, dependent upon plans for an east-end connector to either I-64 or I-75: the remainder of the WKY and Bluegrass (or Ford/Collins, if you will); can't see those remaining effectively unsigned (except to in-state cognoscienti) when much of the rest is going Interstate.  HB will likely pipe in on this; I do prefer 56 to 58 simply because of the proximity of US 58.
98: WI 29; Elk Mound (I-94) to Green Bay (I-41).  Likely for both situational (freeway or upgradeable expressway; new interchange with I-41) & political reasons (well, maybe not for Scott Walker!).
51: AOS (US 61, MO/IA 27, I-380, etc.).  Semi-adequate as it is (except for Hannibal & Waterloo area), likely to be advanced/developed as a political measure -- but only if MO can find a way out of their fiscal doldrums.

Really can't think of any others that either could be applied relatively readily or would have impetus to do so; there are some extensions of existing routes, of course, but that isn't the exercise here. 
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: kphoger on October 15, 2018, 02:31:17 PM
This does not belong in Fictional. This is a thread about predicting the future, not creating our own routes.

Mods, this should probably be in Fictional, since several of the corridors "1" suggests are nothing more than Pipe Dream.

1, you didn't say please.
froggie, quit tattling on your brother.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: oscar on October 15, 2018, 02:42:46 PM
Personally I’d say I-1 for US 101 north of San Francisco and I-3 for south.  If I-9 ever were a thing the US 395 corridor is a good fit.

Since California doesn't allow route number duplication (and people there aren't used to it, unlike some eastern states), the state would need to renumber state routes to make room for the new Interstate numbers. CA 3, CA 7, and CA 9 could be renumbered without much fuss, but CA 1 is too big a deal to make its renumbering anywhere near likely.

The short CA 7 would be easiest to renumber, making I-7 a little more likely as a new number for CA 99 than I-9.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: index on October 15, 2018, 03:32:44 PM
Elaborate on 13? The SLC area already seems pretty well-connected, even with potential for growth.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: Max Rockatansky on October 15, 2018, 03:34:06 PM
Personally I’d say I-1 for US 101 north of San Francisco and I-3 for south.  If I-9 ever were a thing the US 395 corridor is a good fit.

Since California doesn't allow route number duplication (and people there aren't used to it, unlike some eastern states), the state would need to renumber state routes to make room for the new Interstate numbers. CA 3, CA 7, and CA 9 could be renumbered without much fuss, but CA 1 is too big a deal to make its renumbering anywhere near likely.

The short CA 7 would be easiest to renumber, making I-7 a little more likely as a new number for CA 99 than I-9.

If anything the I-80 Business Loop proves that there are legislative Loop holes to allow a route to be signed something different than its definition...either my answer was totally assumptive and one I have zero delusion of ever happening.  I’m totally in agreement with 7 on the CA 99 corridor instead of 9.  9 is a more significant CA Route and there ought to be room in the Interstate system if I-580/US 395 was ever spun off into a 2d. 
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: jon daly on October 15, 2018, 07:28:41 PM
This does not belong in Fictional. This is a thread about predicting the future, not creating our own routes.

Mods, this should probably be in Fictional, since several of the corridors "1" suggests are nothing more than Pipe Dream.

1, you didn't say please.
froggie, quit tattling on your brother.

I'm amazed people care so much about which topics go on which boards. Maybe this is because I don't navigate by subforum; instead I click the links for unread posts since last visit or replies to my posts.

If they upgrade US-101 to an interstate, may I irrationally suggest I-pi?
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: dvferyance on October 15, 2018, 08:07:57 PM
1 Doesn't it already exist in Hawaii?
3 US 101 between San Fran and LA
6 No place it could go other than Mexico
7 CA 99 from near Bakersfield to Sacramento
9 A renumbered I-82
13 no idea
18 Georgia and Alabama along US 82
21 Nothing sticks out
23 Ditto as 21
28 no clue
31 I-135 in Kansas could extened it to Lincoln NE
32 Northern Texas maybe perhaps along US 380
33 Could use it to get rid of the I-35 suffixes so  that both cities get a mainline interstate
34 A renumbered I-74 in NC
36 Same as 34
38 Again nothing clear
46 Renumber I-87 in NC
47 I-69 in TX if I-69 is never connected
48 Could alos work as a renumberd I-87
50 Likely would never be used beacue of US 50
51 Avenue of the Saints
52 No idea
53 The propsed I-69 in Mississippi if it never gets that far
54 Who knows
56 Could use it for the remanider of the Western Kentucky Parkway
58 Same as 56
60 Same as 50 I-64 could have been I-60 but isn't due to the conflict with US 60
61 Along US 43 in Alabama
62 Southern Virginia along US 460 or perhaps the Bert Combs Mountian Parkway in Kentucky
63 Same as 61
67 US 31 and I-196 Indianapolis to Grand Rapids
92 US 20 in Iowa
98 US 2 in North Dakota
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: oscar on October 15, 2018, 08:16:09 PM
1 Doesn't it already exist in Hawaii?

Hawaii has H-1. Alaska has (unsigned) A-1. Puerto Rico has (unsigned) PRI-1.

All three are parts of distinct Interstate networks, added after the main Interstate network was established in the 1950s. None of them get in the way of a mainland I-1.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: Beltway on October 15, 2018, 09:10:04 PM
1 Doesn't it already exist in Hawaii?
Hawaii has H-1. Alaska has (unsigned) A-1. Puerto Rico has (unsigned) PRI-1.
All three are parts of distinct Interstate networks, added after the main Interstate network was established in the 1950s. None of them get in the way of a mainland I-1.

There was an official proposal for a I-H4 --
http://www.hawaiihighways.com/proposed-Interstate-H4-report.pdf

Likewise the mainland already had an I-4.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: kphoger on October 15, 2018, 09:10:21 PM
None of them get in the way of a mainland I-1.

...any more than Interstate H-2 gets in the way of Interstate 2.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: Revive 755 on October 15, 2018, 09:47:54 PM
51: AOS (US 61, MO/IA 27, I-380, etc.).  Semi-adequate as it is (except for Hannibal & Waterloo area), likely to be advanced/developed as a political measure -- but only if MO can find a way out of their fiscal doldrums.

I'm still thinking the 2di for the AOTS (likely I-51 or I-53) will appear in Iowa first - possibly when the Waterloo to I-35 segment starts getting closer to being 100 percent freeway.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on October 15, 2018, 11:48:20 PM
None of them get in the way of a mainland I-1.

...any more than Interstate H-2 gets in the way of Interstate 2.

I-2 is so irrelevant I think most people here forget it exists. :)

I forget about it too!
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: Occidental Tourist on October 16, 2018, 12:02:31 AM
I-9 or I-13 for a full freeway international freight corridor from I-10 in Indio to Mexicali.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: sparker on October 16, 2018, 02:46:41 AM
I-9 or I-13 for a full freeway international freight corridor from I-10 in Indio to Mexicali.

Hey, if it'll help get the Westmorland bypass built, then I-13 might be feasible.  Most of the expressway along CA 111, CA 78, and CA 86 meets Interstate geometric standards (it's CA's closest equivalent to the classic upper-Midwest expressway/freeway facility, with some interchanges but mostly at-grade intersections).  I've used that combination many times as a long-range Phoenix bypass -- if you realize that you're going to hit PHX anywhere near commute times, it's one hell of a lot quicker to use this expressway to get from I-10 to I-8 and vice-versa for congestion avoidance. 
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: Henry on October 16, 2018, 09:52:57 AM
If you read my NAHIC thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21952.0), then you've seen me introduce a bunch of new numbers, and where I feel that they should go in the grid.

In retrospect, part of I-99 to Greensboro should be an extended I-83, I-97 should go all the way to Ocean City, and I-99 should be on the coast from New York to Savannah (with the current one being eliminated completely). Oh, and one of my new 2di's near Kansas City would be better off an extended I-29.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: dvferyance on October 17, 2018, 04:53:02 PM
1 Doesn't it already exist in Hawaii?

Hawaii has H-1. Alaska has (unsigned) A-1. Puerto Rico has (unsigned) PRI-1.

All three are parts of distinct Interstate networks, added after the main Interstate network was established in the 1950s. None of them get in the way of a mainland I-1.
I can't see any possible place for an I-1 to go. US 101 in CA would have to be I-3 because of CA-1.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: roadman65 on October 17, 2018, 06:08:21 PM
1 Doesn't it already exist in Hawaii?

Hawaii has H-1. Alaska has (unsigned) A-1. Puerto Rico has (unsigned) PRI-1.

All three are parts of distinct Interstate networks, added after the main Interstate network was established in the 1950s. None of them get in the way of a mainland I-1.
I can't see any possible place for an I-1 to go. US 101 in CA would have to be I-3 because of CA-1.
Have you been to Wisconsin or North Carolina lately? :D
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: sparker on October 18, 2018, 03:34:42 AM
1 Doesn't it already exist in Hawaii?

Hawaii has H-1. Alaska has (unsigned) A-1. Puerto Rico has (unsigned) PRI-1.

All three are parts of distinct Interstate networks, added after the main Interstate network was established in the 1950s. None of them get in the way of a mainland I-1.
I can't see any possible place for an I-1 to go. US 101 in CA would have to be I-3 because of CA-1.
Have you been to Wisconsin or North Carolina lately? :D

The DOT's in both WI and NC tend to go along with multiple designations within a state; Caltrans definitely does not.  Adding that to their general reluctance to designate or sign new Interstate mileage, the chances of an "I-1" ever occurring in CA are very remote indeed!
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: Flint1979 on October 18, 2018, 09:51:21 AM
1 Doesn't it already exist in Hawaii?

Hawaii has H-1. Alaska has (unsigned) A-1. Puerto Rico has (unsigned) PRI-1.

All three are parts of distinct Interstate networks, added after the main Interstate network was established in the 1950s. None of them get in the way of a mainland I-1.
I can't see any possible place for an I-1 to go. US 101 in CA would have to be I-3 because of CA-1.
Have you been to Wisconsin or North Carolina lately? :D
Caltrans never reuses a number twice regardless if it's for an Interstate, US Highway or State Highway. So for example I-5 is used for an Interstate so they won't use route 5 for a State highway. US highway there already is a US-5 in New England.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: paulthemapguy on October 18, 2018, 09:56:16 AM
0.  If we for some reason we don't like the "H" designations in Hawaii, I'd put this on I-H1.
1.  Anchorage to Wasilla, AK.  Or maybe a replacement for I-H3
3.  I-505 and I-880 in CA, plus US101 from San Jose to Los Angeles.
6.  I-69W, which absolutely should not have an odd number.
7.  CA-14
9.  CA-99
13.  Calexico to Indio
14.  US290 (shhh the one by Killeen doesn't exist)
18.  US190 corridor (aka current I-14)
21 & 23. I have no idea
28. I-44 SW of OK City if it gets extended west to Lubbock or points west.
31. I-135 in KS
32. Replaces I-30 because they decided I-85 would be better with an even number, I-30
33. I-35W in MN
34. US74 from Wilmington west to I-26.  The I-74 designation in NC can piss off.
36. US70 corridor east of Raleigh, aka current I-42.  When I-40 east of Raleigh gets removed
from its current north-south routing and uses US64 instead, this will make sense.
38.  US264 east of Raleigh (again, if I-40 gets moved to US64 this will make sense)
42.  US421 west from Winston Salem, NC
46.  Cimarron, Muskogee Tpk. Plus Broken Arrow Expy in OK.
47.  Avenue of the Saints
48.  Cumberland Pkwy and Hal Rogers Pkwy
51.  US51 in WI/IL, aka current I-39
52.  Something in CA probably.
53.  I-41 when I-57 gets routed to replace I-43 north of Milwaukee
54.  US58 corridor in VA
56.  Western Kentucky Pkwy
58.  I-580 and I-205 in CA
60.  I-64 if US60 gets a renumbered.  I envisioned an I-60 from Utah to St. Louis to Virginia Beach to eliminate the duplicity of even numbers like I-76
61.  Natcher and Audobon Pkwys.
62.  New number for I-76 in CO if I-70 becomes I-60
63.  US41/IN-63 from Evansville N through Terre Haute to Chicagoland, or maybe Lafayette
67.  US31 north of Indianapolis to I-196 to Grand Rapids, then US131 north to Cadillac, MI
92.  NH-101 and I-89, hoping for some kind of floating bridge west from the Burlington, VT area across Lake Champlain, as unlikely as it sounds
98.  WI-29
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: mrsman on October 18, 2018, 08:06:04 PM
I-9 or I-13 for a full freeway international freight corridor from I-10 in Indio to Mexicali.

Hey, if it'll help get the Westmorland bypass built, then I-13 might be feasible.  Most of the expressway along CA 111, CA 78, and CA 86 meets Interstate geometric standards (it's CA's closest equivalent to the classic upper-Midwest expressway/freeway facility, with some interchanges but mostly at-grade intersections).  I've used that combination many times as a long-range Phoenix bypass -- if you realize that you're going to hit PHX anywhere near commute times, it's one hell of a lot quicker to use this expressway to get from I-10 to I-8 and vice-versa for congestion avoidance.
I strongly favor having one number for the Indio calexico corridor.  If the whole thing is interstate quality, let it be 13 as suggested.  If not, let's pick one state number and avoid the current confusion.

Nexus 5X

Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: sparker on October 19, 2018, 04:07:45 AM
^^^^^^^^
Ironically, the reality is that the Indio-Calexico corridor (aka CA's "mini-NAFTA" route) may get more chopped-up, designation-wise, than it is today.  The section of CA 86 between CA 111 southeast of El Centro to Brawley is reportedly up on the chopping block for relinquishment; it's been effectively bypassed a few miles to the east by the CA 111 expressway, part of the continuum that includes the Brawley Bypass (shared by CA 111 and CA 78).  Once the relinquishment occurs, CA 86 becomes a useless multiplex south of its current west junction with CA 78.  It probably won't happen until Westmorland is bypassed -- but the chances are that CA 86 will eventually be truncated back to that junction, with CA 78 being the sole signed number SE from there to CA 111 east of Brawley.  As of late, Caltrans hasn't seemed that interested in maintaining continuously numbered through routes statewide -- something that has been discussed and decried in this forum for some time now. 

Since the "NAFTA" route also includes the relatively new CA 7 corridor extending south from I-8 to the Mexican border east of Calexico and intended to serve as the principal truck customs corridor in the region, it wouldn't be a stretch to envision the entire 111/78/86 routing -- if it is ever decided to deploy a single number for the corridor -- as being renumbered as CA 7 -- if Caltrans ever regains its sense of propriety regarding such things.  And thus by extension -- if the completed expressway is ever slated for an Interstate upgrade, simply changing the signage to I-7 wouldn't be a stretch either! (although "I-13" would be slightly less annoying, grid-wise).  But any such action would be decades away at best.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: DandyDan on October 19, 2018, 09:04:40 AM
I personally like the idea of I-33 taking over the Sioux City/Twin Cities corridor. It could be extended to Lincoln, NE as well. The Iowa section that is now IA 60 could revert to its original number.
Title: Re: Where do you think each unused 2di Interstate number is most likely?
Post by: sparker on October 19, 2018, 07:31:59 PM
I personally like the idea of I-33 taking over the Sioux City/Twin Cities corridor. It could be extended to Lincoln, NE as well. The Iowa section that is now IA 60 could revert to its original number.

........and that's the number I neglected to include in my original "likely" batch -- but further south -- at least initially.  For something more short-term, I figured I-33 as replacing I-135 from Wichita to I-70, and extending north along US 81 to I-80 near York; much of the route is upgradeable (Concordia will require a bypass, of course), and it provides access from I-80 south while avoiding Denver and KC chokepoints respectively.  And the 2005 "Safetea-LU" HPC corridor additions included a branch up 135 and 81 to Norfolk before turning NE along NE 35 to Sioux City.  The routing described above along US 75, MSR 60, and US 169 would be a logical extension of that corridor.  However, snaking it along the Minnesota River from Mankato to the Twin Cities might entail quite a few environmental issues requiring a new-terrain bypass route out of the river "bottomland".  While not a "slam dunk", so to speak, the southernmost portion (south of I-80) of this overall corridor concept would be considerably more feasible, development-wise, than the remainder to the north.