Interstate 369

[Bobby5280]

A TOTSO for I-69 in Tehana wouldn't surprise me either. In the end it's all going to depend on the alignment I-69 and I-369 take thru or around Tehana. Proposed I-69 is almost running West-to-East thru Tehana (along the US-59 corridor before Tehana and US-84 after). I-369 takes a turn to the left (North) from there. If I-369 were to keep the main thru lanes with that turn and I-69 was given a TOTSO in that interchange it would be quite a statement.

[sparker]

A TOTSO for I-69 in Tehana wouldn't surprise me either. In the end it's all going to depend on the alignment I-69 and I-369 take thru or around Tehana. Proposed I-69 is almost running West-to-East thru Tehana (along the US-59 corridor before Tehana and US-84 after). I-369 takes a turn to the left (North) from there. If I-369 were to keep the main thru lanes with that turn and I-69 was given a TOTSO in that interchange it would be quite a statement.

I-69's not likely to go directly east along US 84; every projection I've seen bypasses Tenaha to the north and takes a pretty straight shot toward Stonewall (LA), going around the top end of the lake, which makes sense from an economic standpoint (smaller bridge = lower cost).  If those projections hold, then a semi-directional "Y" interchange might just be a part of the plans (build the flyover bridge when TX and LA can agree on a developmental timetable).  Out here in CA we're pretty accustomed to TOTSO's (NB I-5 at CA 99, Wheeler Ridge; NB I-5 at I-580, Westley; EB I-80, West Sacramento); so they're not necessarily perceived as egregious as some may claim.

[txstateends]

Does an Interstate really need to be built along the US 59 corridor between Texarkana and Tenaha? Maybe existing US 59 could be upgraded instead. Or if a freeway needs to be built, they could just leave it US 59, at least until the entire freeway is completed.

From what I've heard over the years, there's been long desire on the part of many (locals and state level) to make US 59 in east TX into an interstate.  I'm sure, if there had only been the I-69 -going-into-LA plan originally, there would have certainly been movements afoot to add a later extra Tenaha-Texarkana interstate component of some kind.  Now the real unnecessary-ness comes with that ridiculous tie-in between Tyler's Loop 49, a future Longview outer loop, and I-369.  Absolutely superfluous, when I-20 is already there and is plenty of existing W-E connection to Tyler and Longview from I-369.

[Bobby5280]

I-69's not likely to go directly east along US 84; every projection I've seen bypasses Tenaha to the north and takes a pretty straight shot toward Stonewall (LA), going around the top end of the lake, which makes sense from an economic standpoint (smaller bridge = lower cost).

What map are you looking at? There's no lake just to the South of Stonewall, LA. But the Sabine River feeds into the huge Toldeo Bend Reservoir just South of Logansport. Logansport is where I-69 is currently proposed to cross into Louisiana from Texas. This PDF map from TX DOT (along with a US-84 notation) shows it pretty clearly:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/i-69/i69-status-map.pdf

How they get I-69 thru or around Logansport is another matter. A new 2-lane bridge over the Sabine was recently finished. But that new ROW for US-84 isn't nearly wide enough to squeeze I-69 thru it. So it's likely the freeway would be built a few blocks North. I-69 can't go far at all North of Logansport since there is a bunch of swamp land both North and South of town.

Stonewall, LA may be one of the towns I-69 passes through to get to the outskirts of Shreveport.

Now the real unnecessary-ness comes with that ridiculous tie-in between Tyler's Loop 49, a future Longview outer loop, and I-369.  Absolutely superfluous, when I-20 is already there and is plenty of existing W-E connection to Tyler and Longview from I-369.

I'm not sure if they'll ever get that that TX-49 turnpike fully built out. Currently TX-49 is just a 2 lane toll road that functions as a bypass for US-69 traffic to get around Tyler. I have no idea when or if they'll build the second carriageway just for the partial loop around Tyler, much less extend it farther East to Longview. Attaching it into I-369 just seems like wishful thinking. I-20 shoots a far more straight path through that region, and it has no toll gates.

[sparker]

What map are you looking at? There's no lake just to the South of Stonewall, LA. But the Sabine River feeds into the huge Toldeo Bend Reservoir just South of Logansport. Logansport is where I-69 is currently proposed to cross into Louisiana from Texas. This PDF map from TX DOT (along with a US-84 notation) shows it pretty clearly:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/i-69/i69-status-map.pdf

The 2019 McNally standard-variety atlas shows a lake north of US 84/Logansport along the upper Sabine River; it's "pinched" at Logansport; the map makes it look like a northern arm of Toledo Bend.  If that's inaccurate, then so be it; that detail notwithstanding, most of the projections I've seen shoot 69 northeast from a point on US 59 a few miles west of Tenaha and making a reasonably straight shot toward Stonewall rather than tracing US 84 east from there into LA. 

[edwaleni]

Is I-69 in doubt? Louisiana thinks I-369 will drain off the need and get I-69 cancelled in LA and AR by setting up traffic through I-30.

http://bossierpress.com/is-i-69-in-doubt/

Complaints about Texas and I-369.

Is the future I-69 that could run through Bossier and Caddo Parishes now in doubt of bypassing the area altogether? Bossier City Mayor Lorenz "Lo"  Walker said it's a possibility.
Walker is the VP for Louisiana, and previous president, for the I-69 Coalition. He said that if the route does skip Louisiana, it would be down to some upgrades made across the border in the state's neighbor.

The project was divided up into what are known as SIU (segments of independent utility) that can be built by states individually to link up with the overall project. The current segments that run through Louisiana, specifically in Bossier and Caddo Parishes, are SIU-14, from the Arkansas state line to Haughton, SIU-15, from Haughton to Stonewall, and SIU 16, from Stonewall to Tenaha, Texas.

These segments are the priority corridor outlined by the I-69 coalition.
But Texas is ignoring SIU 16 and instead is upgrading I-59, which could prove to be an alternative that could be then designated as the route for I-69.

"My concern is no work is being done on SIU 16 from Stonewall to Tenaha, Texas,"  said Walker. "Texas is doing great work but they're not getting the environmental study done on that section."

Walker noted that although the last segment starts at Stonewall and runs to the state line, it is Texas' responsibility. "They have a committee, but they're not paying attention to that one segment that connects them with the Arkansas and Louisiana segment,"  Walker said.
He is also concerned of a developing pattern where commercial traffic is bypassing the approved corridor. Memphis, Tenn., is a major transportation center for freight with traffic coming out of there along I-30 straight into US Hwy. 59 in Texas.

"If that pattern keeps going then it is established and they'll bypass southeast Arkansas and Louisiana,"  Walker explained. "Credit to Texas, they're putting their money where their mouth is by upgrading to interstate standards."

"There are signs up in Texarkana that say "˜I-69' right now,"  Walker said.
Moreover, Walker said he fears that the cost of a new bridge over the Mississippi River could cause the route to change.

"The cost of that bridge is $1.2 billion and I can see in the future where, politically, because of the expense, that bridge won't be built. And then the Arkansas links would be bypassed and it would mess up the Louisiana links,"  he explained.

So what can be done to try and ensure Louisiana isn't frozen out? Walker said the best option would be to build a segment. Specifically, one that would be of use until it can be tied into the project at-large.

He recommended SIU-15 that would run from Haughton to the Port of Caddo-Bossier, saying, "If we could come up with the construction money, we could build SIU-15 from Haughton through the Port, and that segment would be another bridge over the Red River, which would also provide us a tie-in to I-49."

Mayor Walker sent a letter to Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Secretary Dr. Shawn Wilson on June 14 requesting a Record of Decision on SIU-16. Walker also noted the state has completed records of decision for SIU-14 and -15.

However, he noted that the area is fortunate to be included on the corridor. He noted that the state only has to fund 20 percent of the cost, and while vital to the area, the portion is only 95 miles.

"It's a lot less expensive because we have such a small portion and it still keeps us tied in,"  Walker said. With the much discussed infrastructure bill of President Donald Trump's administration, Walker notes it could help make the project a reality. But he said ominously that the money is a waste if that last segment isn't given attention.

"No doubt it could benefit the whole program. But if we don't get our records of decision and environmental studies done, there's no construction. If we get that done, then we can get some of the money our president is talking about."

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
You mean it's taken LA I-69 supporters this long to realize that TX interests are concentrating on the I-69/369 composite corridor and "back-burnering" the mainline connector into LA?  Mayor Walker is certainly in the "glass half empty" crowd on this one; fearful that once that all-TX section is in operation, Memphis-bound traffic will simply use it and the existing I-30/40 corridor.  Actually, that possibility -- and the additional traffic poured onto those extant E-W routes -- is what will likely be the "last straw" that finally gets the midsection of I-69 built, bridge and all.  Just about everyone here on this forum has posited that Shreveport-Memphis was the least vital and most tenuous segment of the full corridor -- and for good and obvious reasons.  But congestion on the route through Little Rock -- and the dearth of efficient alternatives that don't require through-town slogs on surface facilities -- are and will be the driving forces behind the eventual development of the LA/AR/MS section of I-69. 

What LA corridor backers need to do is make a little trip down to Houston and meet with their TX counterparts, assure them that they do understand why TX is prioritizing completion of 369 over the LA "crossover" SIU -- but also be steadfast in holding them to not only the concept of that SIU but also a timetable to at least submit plans to build such -- that LA plans for at least the Shreveport bypass depend upon some action on TXDOT's part.  In short, LA interests, including LADOT, need to hold TX's feet to the fire on this one -- no wimping out -- but also no whining and finger-pointing if they don't assertively pursue their interests.  It's not a bridge game -- they know exactly what cards the other party holds -- but LA (or AR, for that matter) needs to remind the TX folks that a I-30/40/Texarkana routing is simply a stop-gap; eventually it'll be LOS D or F along most of the route -- and that the full I-69 corridor is a way for them to hedge their bets -- for the low, low price of planning 15-20 miles of corridor from Tenaha to the state line. 

[Bobby5280]

While the Tehana to Logansport segment of I-69 may be relatively easy to build compared to many other segments, it won't carry a "low low price." Per mile cost of new Interstate is pretty ridiculous these days. As long as the federal government continues to take a fairly hands-off approach, letting states plan and build out these corridors only as they can manage, the individual states will make the needs of cities within their borders the top priority.

Movers and shakers in Louisiana can try to hold their Texas counterparts' feet to the fire. But what leverage do they have to force Texas to build the Tehana to Logansport segment before building I-369 up to Texarkana? This situation is exactly why the federal government needs to be more involved with I-69 and prioritizing where federal money will be spent. Another good question is how much of Texas' own taxpayer money is having to be spent on their segments of I-69 versus federal money? The greater a percentage Texas has to fund on these projects equates to Texas doing more to prioritize its own needs than that of other states.

As far as Arkansas goes I think the state is already split on which road projects should be a greater priority. I think the folks up in the booming Northwest Arkansas region might rather see I-369 to Texarkana finished first. It would create a greater push to get I-49 finished between Texarkana and Fort Smith.

IMHO, if the planners in Louisiana are going to raise hell over I-69 system projects happening outside their state (like I-369) I think they ought to direct their hell raising toward getting the Great River Bridge funded and built ASAP. As each year passes the cost of building the Great River Bridge will keep creeping up and up and up. I really think the Shreveport to Memphis segment of I-69 is dead in the water as long as that bridge remains an issue. And if they want that corridor to be a reliever route for I-30 and I-40 it will be critical for the bridge NOT to have tolls on it. If it costs a trucker $20 or $30 to cross that bridge he'll just stick with using I-40 to cross the Mississippi.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
"Low, low price" was simply rhetorical, referring to the relatively short distance between Tenaha and the LA state line in comparison with the remainder of the TX portion of I-69 (and including the I-369 "spur").  Interstate-grade facilities never have been the cheapest to construct and never will be!   And of course TX doesn't have to accede to entreaties from other states -- but it's in their best long-term interest to do so.   Also, internally AR has to balance the political interests from the relatively prosperous NWA region (which, if I-49 were to exhibit progress between Texarkana and Fort Smith, would surely benefit from a completed I-369) and the long-neglected "flatlands" in the southern portion of the state -- one of the longstanding driving factors regarding the routing of the I-69 corridor. 

I am in complete agreement with Bobby regarding the Great River bridge; it needs to be planned & funded before much else along the I-69 midsection occurs.  While AR is gradually completing initial 2-lane segments of their corridor segment -- seemingly aimed more toward local service than anything else -- any such activity in MS has been conspicuous by its absence -- not even upgrades of US 61 in anticipation of actual I-69 construction.  My guess is that besides the state's seemingly perpetual funding crisis the official stance is to wait until here's a compelling reason to actually build their segment -- likely the presence of the new bridge -- or at least concrete plans accompanied by a schedule to build it. 

[Bobby5280]

Unless the federal government steps in with a major infrastructure program, funds 90% or more of the Great River Bridge project and puts it on a development fast track, I don't see the bridge being built for decades to come. I don't see much hope for the feds stepping in, regardless of which political party is running things. One party can only seem to think about selling tax cuts (along with cuts to government, services, etc). The other party might be keen on an infrastructure program, but given many of those representatives are from more urban districts they might not actually like highways and choose to divert attention to mass transit and other more seemingly environmental friendly efforts.

I don't remember the details on how much the states of Arkansas and Mississippi are each expected to contribute to fund the bridge (in addition to the federal government), but each carry an equal burden worth hundreds of millions. Mississippi doesn't have that kind of money to spend on a new bridge. The state's growth outlook isn't great. In 2017 its economic growth ranked 46th in the nation. The population growth rate there is only .3%, one of the slowest in the nation. Mississippi has the highest percentage of African American residents in the country (37%). Over 1 in 5 people in Mississippi live in poverty. Meanwhile the state government is cutting all kinds of services, like public education. It's not exactly a great environment to attract and retain skilled workers planning to raise families or people looking at starting small businesses.

And of course TX doesn't have to accede to entreaties from other states -- but it's in their best long-term interest to do so.

As long as the Great River Bridge remains at a dead end I think it's in Texas' best interest to prioritize building out I-369. With no bridge a choice by TX DOT to prioritize the Tenaha to Logansport segment would effectively be TX DOT favoring Shreveport over in-state cities along US-59 like Carthage, Marshall, Atlanta and Texarkana. The only thing the Tenaha to Logansport segment has going for it at all is a relatively short distance, roughly 15 miles. Compare that to a distance of 110-120 miles for I-369 from Tenaha to Texarkana. But 15 miles is still significant. It's about 15 miles from Tenaha to Carthage.

A bunch of this is all academic though. The reality is TX DOT has hundreds of miles worth of I-69 elsewhere in the state to build. I-69E and I-69C have to be important priorities of their own, given the huge population down in the Rio Grande Valley. Laredo is a very important trade crossing, making I-69W a priority too. Then there's the situation around metro Houston.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Agreed in general.  The Alliance for I-69/Texas and TXDOT, the prime conjoined movers regarding anything on any I-69 & related corridors within the state, have their priorities -- and the one thing they have going for them regarding I-369 is the fact that they can solely control the agenda -- that extended corridor is totally within their jurisdiction -- they can make unilateral decisions without having to coordinate or even consult anyone else.  Of course they're going to carry "Job One" -- a northeast outlet from Houston to as many other routes (in this case, either I-20 or I-30) as possible in-state.  And the potential to hook up with I-49 at (hopefully, for them) about the time that Texarkana-Fort Smith comes "on line", so to speak, is icing on that particular cake.  I have no illusions that any player within TX will continue to prioritize the Texarkana connection -- you play the cards you're dealt!

But -- OTOH -- the I-69 corridor isn't the only "borderline" issue TX will have to deal with in the not-too-distant term.  They're having to negotiate subsidies from AR regarding the portion of I-49 that lies within their state (but has little service use for them unless the west Texarkana loop becomes reality); eventually (probably not in my lifetime, though) they'll have to deal with LADOT and the various LA-based interests regarding I-14.  At least engaging with their LA counterparts regarding the relatively short portion of I-69 east of I-369 -- maybe just to ascertain the location of the projected facility so LA can start preliminary work on their section in earnest.  That'll keep relations between TX entities at those of the adjoining states at least north of cordial for the time being.   In other words, all TX has to do is pick a location -- but not lift a single fucking shovel; let LA get the Shreveport bypass SIU under way -- and maybe do property acquisition and possibly grubbing down to the state line for the SIU shared with TX.  And after I-369 is busy carrying trucks to and from I-20 and I-30, then TXDOT might well consider actually building their segment (Job 2 -- or 3 -- or 4?!).  But the inevitable "I-69 ENDS/BEGIN I-369" BGS or discrete sign cluster (and its SB counterpart) will probably be in service for several years before that happens.

[djlynch]

But the inevitable "I-69 ENDS/BEGIN I-369" BGS or discrete sign cluster (and its SB counterpart) will probably be in service for several years before that happens.

Given that this is TxDOT that we're talking about, the 69 signs will just disappear and you'll get a reassurance marker and/or a pull-through sign informing you that you're now on 369 (or vice-versa).

[Bobby5280]

I think this image is a good example to show how far off the rails the United States has become at planning new super highway corridors. Check out just how CROOKED the proposed path of I-69 is through Louisiana. Then check out how STRAIGHT all the other highways are around it. I-20 takes a fairly direct East-West path across Northern Louisiana. Most of the other non-Interstate routes have reasonably direct routes unless they're dodging something due to topography. The I-69 route looks like a bunch of bypass loops all strung together. I'm not sure if my intestines have that many turns! When you add the mileage of this crooked route to the crooked ones planned in Arkansas and Mississippi it would be very lucky if the Tenaha-Memphis segment of I-69 had any mileage savings at all versus the I-369/I-30/I-40 route from Tenaha to Memphis. The I-69 route might actually be substantially longer. And then there's the possibility of an expensive toll bridge over the Mississippi being thrown into the mix.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
I can see the rationale for some of the I-69 twists and turns around the developed areas south of Shreveport, as well as how it snakes around the east end of Barksdale AFB -- but the portion north of I-20 does appear to be a bit gratuitous -- as if the corridor is being manipulated to either (a) serve specific towns or subregions or, alternately (b) avoid specific areas.  Without engaging in conspiracy theory, I for one smell political influence wielding quite a bit of influence here; considering the maneuvering that has gone on elsewhere regarding the layout of this corridor (e.g. the Tunica service in MS; shifting the IN portion to go through Bloomington; the very existence of I-69C) such things are certainly not surprising.  But the saving grace is that since that portion will likely be among the last to see development, what is presently posited may well be more preliminary than final -- and that some economically-oriented "straightening out" might well be in the cards down the line.  Only time will tell.

[edwaleni]

I think this image is a good example to show how far off the rails the United States has become at planning new super highway corridors. Check out just how CROOKED the proposed path of I-69 is through Louisiana. Then check out how STRAIGHT all the other highways are around it. I-20 takes a fairly direct East-West path across Northern Louisiana. Most of the other non-Interstate routes have reasonably direct routes unless they're dodging something due to topography. The I-69 route looks like a bunch of bypass loops all strung together. I'm not sure if my intestines have that many turns! When you add the mileage of this crooked route to the crooked ones planned in Arkansas and Mississippi it would be very lucky if the Tenaha-Memphis segment of I-69 had any mileage savings at all versus the I-369/I-30/I-40 route from Tenaha to Memphis. The I-69 route might actually be substantially longer. And then there's the possibility of an expensive toll bridge over the Mississippi being thrown into the mix.

Since the ROW hasn't been acquired yet, this map is a somewhat generalized view of where they expect the road to go.

Also the width of the red hash is very out of scale to the map itself, so any directional changes will appear somewhat distorted.

The Arkansas planning maps show I-69 going east and south around El Dorado, not west, so that just tells you how approximate these things are.

[dcharlie]

This document shows it going to the west of El Dorado.  https://www.arkansashighways.com/FastLane/2016/I69/FASTLANE%20I-69%20PROJECT%202016%20FINAL.pdf

Do you have a link for a map showing it to the east?  I would love to see all the possibilities.

[edwaleni]

This document shows it going to the west of El Dorado.  https://www.arkansashighways.com/FastLane/2016/I69/FASTLANE%20I-69%20PROJECT%202016%20FINAL.pdf

Do you have a link for a map showing it to the east?  I would love to see all the possibilities.

In the ArDOT EIS for I-69, 4 corridors were identified for SIU 13. 

http://www.arkansashighways.com/environmental/environmental_studies/020471/AR%20I-69%20Final%20EIS.pdf



2 go north of El Dorado, 2 go south.  Corridor C is the one I see in the planning docs because it aligns with the Monticello Bypass, which ArDOT has committed to back to McGehee for I-69 funding in 2020.

I know all the wikis and highway sites all say SIU 13 will go north of El Dorado, but per this document, ArDOT committed to the southern route when they tied it directly to the Monticello Bypass.

They could change their minds and tie C to A south of Warren as part of the AR-530 extension and still take it north of El Dorado.

But I imagine it will be another 10 years before they actually make a decision on it.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
With the emphasis on Monticello-McGehee, a choice promulgated by local interests, it's become pretty obvious that anything along I-69 SW of the AR 530 junction won't see development in the near term; the section from Monticello down to I-20 is probably in a dead heat with the Great River bridge for the last section of the corridor to ever see development.  With less local impact and/or benefit than any other of the corridor's SIU's, there's little regional support for timely deployment. 

[compdude787]

Geez, all those corridors are so jagged! I'm amazed that not a single one of those alternatives is something close to a straight line.

[sparker]

Geez, all those corridors are so jagged! I'm amazed that not a single one of those alternatives is something close to a straight line.

Local politics affecting planning efforts; trying to please any number of folks/constituents who, alternately, want an Interstate freeway in their area, primarily for potential economic benefits or don't want it for one or more of many reasons. 

[cjk374]

Is a "straight-line route" even possible for any new route nowadays minus anything political? With all of the new environmental rules on the books that never existed in the 50s & 60s, I'm not sure a new route would be able to be straight-shot anymore.

[Bobby5280]

Environmental restrictions are one thing. I think the real thing making new Interstate routes so wastefully jagged is mostly politics. It's the combination of NIMBY's blocking the highway from certain areas and other sweetheart deals bending the route in illogical directions.

We also can't forget planners looking for the cheapest alignments to build, trying to avoid having to buy up and demolish properties along the proposed ROW. And then we really have to add piss poor planning and developers taking advantage of that. Want to build a new super highway corridor along a specific path advertised to the public, yet take decades to get the job done? Well, there's lots of real estate developers all too happy to build new crap all over that corridor, creating a very expensive situation for the government.

One example I love to trash repeatedly (because it absolutely deserves it) is the Kilpatrick Turnpike extension in the Oklahoma City metro. The turnpike should have been extended directly South along S Sara Rd thru Mustang back in the late 1990's when the rest of the Kilpatrick was being built to I-40. Either that or the ROW should have been bought and reserved. Plenty of space was available then. Instead the state and local governments did NOTHING to plan for the future. They let developers build all sorts of new housing additions, schools and other retail businesses all over that very obvious corridor. So now we have an "extension" of the Kilpatrick that will only be of use to people living right along its path rather than any regional drivers. The road is 100% garbage for anyone who doesn't live in Mustang. And I'm sure its AADT counts when completed will be crap. The numbers sure won't compare to the volume of the Kilpatrick North of I-40. The Kilpatrick Turnpike should have been a large outer loop going from Edmond, down thru Yukon and Mustang and then over to Norman. Now such a thing will be all but impossible to build. Not unless the ODOT or the OTA want to spend a crazy fortune buying and demolishing a bunch of property to build the road through.

Selfishness and lack of any big picture view on things is why new Interstate corridors are so crooked. We have these same no-big-picture issues affecting a bunch of other things in the United States as well. I am really pessimistic about where this country is headed over the next 20 years if these trends are not stopped. As long as we have a bunch of rich old farts twisting everything to benefit only them we will see our future get more and more bleak.

[The Ghostbuster]

I think new Interstate corridors should be implemented ONLY in places where there is sufficient traffic demand. Otherwise, it is likely just wasteful pork.

[Rick Powell]

I think new Interstate corridors should be implemented ONLY in places where there is sufficient traffic demand. Otherwise, it is likely just wasteful pork.

The Catch-22 is that, where there is high traffic demand, the route will likely be like threading a needle to minimize the impacts to all the environmental resources and populated areas, if it is even possible. Unless an undisturbed corridor has been preserved, which is relatively rare.

[sparker]

I think new Interstate corridors should be implemented ONLY in places where there is sufficient traffic demand. Otherwise, it is likely just wasteful pork.

The Catch-22 is that, where there is high traffic demand, the route will likely be like threading a needle to minimize the impacts to all the environmental resources and populated areas, if it is even possible. Unless an undisturbed corridor has been preserved, which is relatively rare.

Aside from that, many newer Interstate corridors have been predicated on projected rather than current demand, with the idea that deploying the corridors before there's no room for them -- if there's sufficient probability that the areas served will eventually yield high traffic volumes -- can not only be built relatively efficiently but keep ahead of inflationary forces.  That's the rationale behind I-11 in general; the fact that, at least with the original 2012-designated section, it connects & serves two large metro areas which ostensibly will supply the requisite traffic over time.  With only a few exceptions (e.g., parts of the nascent I-42 corridor in NC) there is rarely enough present-day traffic to warrant -- beyond criticism -- an Interstate facility over most of the currently planned corridors.  But considering the influx into certain areas of the country (N. NV as a residential alternative to high CA costs; NW Arkansas, the Rio Grande Valley), state and local planners (and their political backers) are simply betting on themselves via these new corridors.  And yes, it's to some degree pork -- until such time that it actually provides efficient transportation to the growing area(s).  But the naysayers to this type of speculation have one thing on their side -- there's only so much $$ to go around, so at any time such corridors will only number in the low single digits.