It seems that Congress has given the green light to I-14 to expand beyond Texas. Whether the states build it, that's up for grabs without more federal money, but the official designation is there now.
https://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2021/11/08/local-leaders-elated-at-passage-of-1-trillion-infrastructure-bill-that-includes-i-14/
https://www.magnoliastatelive.com/2021/11/06/1t-infrastructure-bill-awaiting-bidens-signature-will-kick-start-next-phase-of-interstate-14-through-mississippi/
Mississippi all but abandoned I-69, so I have similar expectations for this. There are a few things I could see that would provide more incentive to build this than I-69 though. For one, most of US 84 is extremely rural, so upgrading to a freeway could be done relatively easy. MDOT has already bypassed most of the towns along US 84 with expressway. There's already a 82 mile freeway from the junction with I-59 in Laurel to US 80 in Cuba, AL. Closer proximity to population centers (Natchez, Collins, Laurel, Meridian, Hattiesburg), and overall a better economy in this region of the state compared to the region that I-69 passes through.
I don't think the current bridges across the Mississippi River for US 84 in Natchez/Vidalia, LA are freeway grade so those would need upgrade/replacement. Bringing another proper freeway-grade facility into Laurel, especially from the west, would be challenging in my opinion due to development and fitting a proper stack interchange with flyovers into the I-59 alignment in Laurel would also be challenging.
What are the thoughts of the masses?
QuoteFor one, most of US 84 is extremely rural, so upgrading to a freeway could be done relatively easy.
Not necessarily. 84 may be rural, but it also has direct property access. The more rural areas along 84 have an acute lack of a road network which means providing alternative access to those properties becomes a lot more difficult and a lot more expensive.
Traffic volumes don't even warrant a 4-lane road along much of 84, let alone an Interstate. MDOT would do far better to use that money to improve 49 between Gulfport and Jackson...a corridor that actually DOES have the population and volumes to justify spending the money.
I don't know MS that well, but is I-14 actually needed in the state? It sits roughly 70-80 miles north of I-10, and 50-60 miles south of I-20, and doesn't pass through any sizable cities in the state, which are conditions that aren't really in favor of another E-W interstate through the state. I-20's AADT isn't that high either from the DOT map, at around 20k east of Jackson, and 30k west of Jackson.
The first place I would place I-14 in the southeast is the proposed Meridian-Montgomery interstate.
The second article doesn't say if there's any money attached to the designation in the bill, unless I missed it. First article is paywalled.
First article didn't mention it either, so I looked at the actual bill text. There are no specific earmarks or apportionments for I-14 from what I could tell.
That means it has to come out of the existing apportionments. Could be a long time before states can squeeze the work into their capital programs.
I don't know about LA or GA, but is AL still trying to get that I-85 westward (or southward) extension done? That would conflict with I-14 running along the same corridor, if I'm not mistaken, and the Fall Line Freeway is a misnomer, as it's not even close to being one, not to mention that it would be out of place in the grid between Macon and Augusta, with I-16 existing to serve Savannah. Perhaps a wait-and-see situation for the states to the east?
Quote from: Henry on November 09, 2021, 10:50:30 AM
I don't know about LA or GA, but is AL still trying to get that I-85 westward (or southward) extension done? That would conflict with I-14 running along the same corridor, if I'm not mistaken, and the Fall Line Freeway is a misnomer, as it's not even close to being one, not to mention that it would be out of place in the grid between Macon and Augusta, with I-16 existing to serve Savannah. Perhaps a wait-and-see situation for the states to the east?
Conflict? I saw a document labeling Meridian-Montgomery as proposed I-14. It's the same road.
You can make an argument for I-14 in certain parts of Texas, and there are a couple of areas where an upgrade of roadways would be nice in the other states, but for the most part, I don't see the entire project overall helping travel. To me, even some of the remote Arkansas/Louisiana/Mississippi parts of I-69 could have more benefit when done than I-14 as a whole.
Quote from: Henry on November 09, 2021, 10:50:30 AM
I don't know about LA or GA, but is AL still trying to get that I-85 westward (or southward) extension done? That would conflict with I-14 running along the same corridor, if I'm not mistaken, and the Fall Line Freeway is a misnomer, as it's not even close to being one, not to mention that it would be out of place in the grid between Macon and Augusta, with I-16 existing to serve Savannah. Perhaps a wait-and-see situation for the states to the east?
I prefer Fall Line Four Lane myself. :bigass:
Georgia DOT's Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan (http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/Freight/GeorgiaFreight/Task%205_Recommendations.pdf) found that a four-lane corridor between LaGrange and Macon would be an extremely good idea, with a ludicrously favorable benefit-cost ratio. That was largely because trucks could use it and US 27 to bypass Atlanta. No way it'll ever happen, but I'd like to see a study of a full-blown freeway between LaGrange and Bolingbroke, just north of where I-475 meets I-75. I think it'd perform well, and I think it'd be a better route for I-14 than upgrading or replacing the existing non-freeway route of GA 540 west of I-75.
This project seems like it would be helpful for easing the freight bottlenecks that are in the news so much these days. Taking one of the two existing East West Interstates takes you through either Dallas-Fort Worth and Atlanta or San Antonio, Houston, and Jacksonville. Skipping that congestion must shave several hours off the trip.
The Interstate 14 proposed in 2005 always seemed like a pipe dream to me (same with the wrongly-numbered Interstate 3 proposal, which is probably why nothing has become of them in the 16 years since). The farthest east I see Texas's Interstate 14 getting is Interstate 49 in Alexandria, LA, and I'd be very surprised if it ever leaves Texas.
Quote from: froggie on November 09, 2021, 01:04:04 AM
QuoteFor one, most of US 84 is extremely rural, so upgrading to a freeway could be done relatively easy.
Not necessarily. 84 may be rural, but it also has direct property access. The more rural areas along 84 have an acute lack of a road network which means providing alternative access to those properties becomes a lot more difficult and a lot more expensive.
Traffic volumes don't even warrant a 4-lane road along much of 84, let alone an Interstate. MDOT would do far better to use that money to improve 49 between Gulfport and Jackson...a corridor that actually DOES have the population and volumes to justify spending the money.
I don't know if it's been mentioned in either article, but a San Angelo news website said that a spur interstate is proposed to connect to the Port of Gulfport. There's been talk of that for quite a while. I even remember reading about a proposed Jackson-to-Gulfport interstate before Katrina struck. Perhaps, this will tie into I-14?
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 09, 2021, 01:14:34 AM
I don't know MS that well, but is I-14 actually needed in the state? It sits roughly 70-80 miles north of I-10, and 50-60 miles south of I-20, and doesn't pass through any sizable cities in the state, which are conditions that aren't really in favor of another E-W interstate through the state. I-20's AADT isn't that high either from the DOT map, at around 20k east of Jackson, and 30k west of Jackson.
The first place I would place I-14 in the southeast is the proposed Meridian-Montgomery interstate.
I-14 could serve as an alternate route for travel in the event that a hurricane threatens the Gulf Coast region.
Quote from: golden eagle on November 17, 2021, 12:46:24 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 09, 2021, 01:04:04 AM
QuoteFor one, most of US 84 is extremely rural, so upgrading to a freeway could be done relatively easy.
Not necessarily. 84 may be rural, but it also has direct property access. The more rural areas along 84 have an acute lack of a road network which means providing alternative access to those properties becomes a lot more difficult and a lot more expensive.
Traffic volumes don't even warrant a 4-lane road along much of 84, let alone an Interstate. MDOT would do far better to use that money to improve 49 between Gulfport and Jackson...a corridor that actually DOES have the population and volumes to justify spending the money.
I don't know if it's been mentioned in either article, but a San Angelo news website said that a spur interstate is proposed to connect to the Port of Gulfport. There's been talk of that for quite a while. I even remember reading about a proposed Jackson-to-Gulfport interstate before Katrina struck. Perhaps, this will tie into I-14?
Looking at the map it'll just be between Gulfport and I-59 in Hattiesburg. I can't imagine it being anything more than an I-X59 honestly since it's less than 70 miles between the two.
For the rest of the route, I just can't imagine it being beneficial between I-45 and Columbus, GA. I get the idea of building an Augusta-Columbus Interstate to bypass Atlanta and Central TX could use an East-west route. But the rest of the route really just hugs I-20 in a way that I think will be a waste.
golden eagle, the Interstate spur you mention is Interstate 310: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_310_(Mississippi). As the page says, construction was to begin in 2008, but never did, and I have a feeling 310 will never be constructed. This swath of land is likely all that will ever exist of Interstate 310 in Gulfport: https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3994983,-89.1174788,3988m/data=!3m1!1e3.
A triple multiplex with I-59 and I-20 is both silly and unnecessary. The I-14 corridor should end at I-59, and the parts in Alabama and Georgia should be I-18.
Quote from: golden eagle on November 17, 2021, 03:37:28 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 09, 2021, 01:14:34 AM
I don't know MS that well, but is I-14 actually needed in the state? It sits roughly 70-80 miles north of I-10, and 50-60 miles south of I-20, and doesn't pass through any sizable cities in the state, which are conditions that aren't really in favor of another E-W interstate through the state. I-20's AADT isn't that high either from the DOT map, at around 20k east of Jackson, and 30k west of Jackson.
The first place I would place I-14 in the southeast is the proposed Meridian-Montgomery interstate.
I-14 could serve as an alternate route for travel in the event that a hurricane threatens the Gulf Coast region.
It is as a whole predominately east west. To really get away from a hurricane you generally prefer to go in a northerly direction. . While the real devastation happens at one point, hundreds of miles are often within the forecast of landfall and the hurricane itself generally wields a path fifty or more miles wide. An east / west route is not nearly as effective as a N/ S one.
Quote from: Tom958 on November 25, 2021, 09:27:12 PM
A triple multiplex with I-59 and I-20 is both silly and unnecessary. The I-14 corridor should end at I-59, and the parts in Alabama and Georgia should be I-18.
Save the I-18 number for Austin-Houston, whenever that becomes an interstate.
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 25, 2021, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on November 25, 2021, 09:27:12 PM
A triple multiplex with I-59 and I-20 is both silly and unnecessary. The I-14 corridor should end at I-59, and the parts in Alabama and Georgia should be I-18.
Save the I-18 number for Austin-Houston, whenever that becomes an interstate.
That portion can be a spur off I-35 - call it 335 or 535 or whatever. That would save I-18 for something more substantial.
Quote from: DenverBrian on November 25, 2021, 11:46:21 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 25, 2021, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on November 25, 2021, 09:27:12 PM
A triple multiplex with I-59 and I-20 is both silly and unnecessary. The I-14 corridor should end at I-59, and the parts in Alabama and Georgia should be I-18.
Save the I-18 number for Austin-Houston, whenever that becomes an interstate.
That portion can be a spur off I-35 - call it 335 or 535 or whatever. That would save I-18 for something more substantial.
Or don't bother, because I-14, 18, whatever won't be built in Alabama or Georgia.
Quote from: DenverBrian on November 25, 2021, 11:46:21 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 25, 2021, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on November 25, 2021, 09:27:12 PM
A triple multiplex with I-59 and I-20 is both silly and unnecessary. The I-14 corridor should end at I-59, and the parts in Alabama and Georgia should be I-18.
Save the I-18 number for Austin-Houston, whenever that becomes an interstate.
That portion can be a spur off I-35 - call it 335 or 535 or whatever. That would save I-18 for something more substantial.
I guess I don't see 2di status as something that has be one of length. Houston and Austin are #4 and #10 in the nation by population. Being in the same state, why not get a 2di?
iPhone
Quote from: bassoon1986 on November 26, 2021, 12:28:44 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on November 25, 2021, 11:46:21 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 25, 2021, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on November 25, 2021, 09:27:12 PM
A triple multiplex with I-59 and I-20 is both silly and unnecessary. The I-14 corridor should end at I-59, and the parts in Alabama and Georgia should be I-18.
Save the I-18 number for Austin-Houston, whenever that becomes an interstate.
That portion can be a spur off I-35 - call it 335 or 535 or whatever. That would save I-18 for something more substantial.
I guess I don't see 2di status as something that has be one of length. Houston and Austin are #4 and #10 in the nation by population. Being in the same state, why not get a 2di?
In that case, how about I-12?
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 29, 2021, 01:27:05 AM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on November 26, 2021, 12:28:44 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on November 25, 2021, 11:46:21 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 25, 2021, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on November 25, 2021, 09:27:12 PM
A triple multiplex with I-59 and I-20 is both silly and unnecessary. The I-14 corridor should end at I-59, and the parts in Alabama and Georgia should be I-18.
Save the I-18 number for Austin-Houston, whenever that becomes an interstate.
That portion can be a spur off I-35 - call it 335 or 535 or whatever. That would save I-18 for something more substantial.
I guess I don't see 2di status as something that has be one of length. Houston and Austin are #4 and #10 in the nation by population. Being in the same state, why not get a 2di?
In that case, how about I-12?
I-12 is an even more ridiculous case of a 2di, already taken north of New Orleans by a freeway that SHOULD be I-210 or some such.
^ I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88 all say hi to your "already taken" comment...
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 29, 2021, 01:27:05 AM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on November 26, 2021, 12:28:44 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on November 25, 2021, 11:46:21 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 25, 2021, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on November 25, 2021, 09:27:12 PM
A triple multiplex with I-59 and I-20 is both silly and unnecessary. The I-14 corridor should end at I-59, and the parts in Alabama and Georgia should be I-18.
Save the I-18 number for Austin-Houston, whenever that becomes an interstate.
That portion can be a spur off I-35 - call it 335 or 535 or whatever. That would save I-18 for something more substantial.
I guess I don't see 2di status as something that has be one of length. Houston and Austin are #4 and #10 in the nation by population. Being in the same state, why not get a 2di?
In that case, how about I-12?
I'm probably a little biased with I-12. I'm from Louisiana and it doesn't bother me. It's basically the shorter route that avoids New Orleans. I don't really care that it or the current I-10 from Baton Rouge to Slidell isn't a 3di.
My main thing was if the general consensus is that a 2di needs to be in a place of importance then Austin to Houston having a 2di should be fine regardless of it being less than 200 miles.
iPhone
Quote from: froggie on November 29, 2021, 02:05:49 PM
^ I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88 all say hi to your "already taken" comment...
Just because we already have rule breakers doesn't mean we need more of them. In fact, were I in charge, we'd get rid of the duplicates (also, you can add I-74 to that list, given that the portion in Ohio and West Virginia will never be built).
Whether you like duplicates or not, the fact remains that there is FHWA- and AASHTO-approved precedent for them.
Quote from: froggie on November 30, 2021, 10:33:20 AM
Whether you like duplicates or not, the fact remains that there is FHWA- and AASHTO-approved precedent for them.
Meaning that when you approve everything, you stand for nothing.
Quote from: DenverBrian on November 30, 2021, 05:07:46 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 30, 2021, 10:33:20 AM
Whether you like duplicates or not, the fact remains that there is FHWA- and AASHTO-approved precedent for them.
Meaning that when you approve everything, you stand for nothing.
Just for the record, North Carolina didn't ask for the I-74 designation (Congress did that) or the I-87 designation (AASHO did that one, breaking their own rule). Given how many 2di designations are not assigned, there's no reason to have the duplications, although the price to be paid would be numbers that strain or break the grid (for example, the western I-76 could be something like I-62).
Quote from: wdcrft63 on November 30, 2021, 06:28:39 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on November 30, 2021, 05:07:46 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 30, 2021, 10:33:20 AM
Whether you like duplicates or not, the fact remains that there is FHWA- and AASHTO-approved precedent for them.
Meaning that when you approve everything, you stand for nothing.
Just for the record, North Carolina didn't ask for the I-74 designation (Congress did that) or the I-87 designation (AASHO did that one, breaking their own rule). Given how many 2di designations are not assigned, there's no reason to have the duplications, although the price to be paid would be numbers that strain or break the grid (for example, the western I-76 could be something like I-62).
They did, however, ask for I-89 (which would have been another duplicate) on a corridor that's really east-west overall, even by the "parallel to the coast = north-south" system used in that part of the country.
The western I-76 designation at least has some rationale behind it (it tied into the Bicentennial and Colorado's Centennial in 1976). In the past couple of decades, there have been 2di designations that have had absolutely ZERO rationale, with far more rational alternate designations readily available.
And in the spirit of supporting rationale, I'd be fully supportive if the western I-76 was reassigned as, say, I-780 or some such, because in reality, it's a spur into a city.
Quote from: froggie on November 09, 2021, 01:04:04 AM
QuoteFor one, most of US 84 is extremely rural, so upgrading to a freeway could be done relatively easy.
Not necessarily. 84 may be rural, but it also has direct property access. The more rural areas along 84 have an acute lack of a road network which means providing alternative access to those properties becomes a lot more difficult and a lot more expensive.
Traffic volumes don't even warrant a 4-lane road along much of 84, let alone an Interstate. MDOT would do far better to use that money to improve 49 between Gulfport and Jackson...a corridor that actually DOES have the population and volumes to justify spending the money.
US-49 is clearly a much higher priority to the Legislature and MDOT than any other cross-country project.
I agree fully. I-14 past Texas is a non-starter. My opinions on the whole corridor priority list and I-14 "proposal" is below. You might need to read the whole thread that it came from for more context.
Quote from: bwana39 on January 17, 2022, 06:21:20 PM
Quote from: yakra on January 17, 2022, 03:32:38 PM
That section of the article cites https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm
This list however written into the federal register is just a "serving suggestion". Some parts of it will be built to order. Some will be built with wide variance. Some will not be built at all. Many things not on the list WILL be built.
It is like me deciding that I will buy myself a new Ford Explorer in 2026. I may not need a car that year. I may not can afford a new car that year. Ford may not offer Explorer. I may choose to go with a completely different make and model.
It used to be that there was restricted funding attached to the projects on this list. Today, the greatest majority of the highway funding comes in the form of unrestricted grants.
Simply put, absent large percentage restricted funds from Washington, neither I-14 nor I-69 will ever get built as proposed in Mississippi. Mississippi would possibly play ball with I-69 in Desoto County.
Upgrading US-84 significantly would fall behind US-278 from Oxford to Tupelo (and perhaps Batesville) and US-82 from Starkville to the Alabama state line (and maybe even to Greenville).
New bridges at Natchez are not a happening thing. The WB bridge is clearly too narrow for the standards, but it would not be significantly worse than a handful of legacy bridges that have waivers crossing major rivers on the interstate system. The eastbound span has the same width as all of the 1960's-1980's bridges built for the interstates. While I really do not see I-14 ever getting built across either Louisiana or Mississippi, these bridges are not dealbreakers. A waiver could / would be obtained.
What is the point of I-14 in Mississippi. It seems like a complete waste.
There is not much of a point for I-14 outside of the Texas Triangle.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 07, 2022, 07:04:24 PM
There is not much of a point for I-14 outside of the Texas Triangle.
I've said it several times before, but Meridian-Montgomery-Columbus-Macon-Augusta is useful.
^ Have you ever been down there? I've been on much of that corridor...Meridian-Montgomery barely has enough traffic to warrant 4 lanes, let alone a full Interstate, and from what I recall of my time there Columbus-Augusta isn't any different. And there isn't enough long-haul traffic needing to avoid Atlanta at such long distances to warrant the expense.
Quote from: froggie on February 08, 2022, 12:16:25 AM
^ Have you ever been down there? I've been on much of that corridor...Meridian-Montgomery barely has enough traffic to warrant 4 lanes, let alone a full Interstate, and from what I recall of my time there Columbus-Augusta isn't any different. And there isn't enough long-haul traffic needing to avoid Atlanta at such long distances to warrant the expense.
US 80 is a ghost town from Meridian to Montgomery... save for some very minor traffic through towns like Demopolis, US 80 is dead and you can easily set the cruise at 75mph across there and never worry about anything.
Even if Interstate 14 never makes it out of Texas, are there any plans to build any more of the AL 108 (future Interstate 85) bypass of Montgomery anytime soon? The present route from Interstate 85 to AL 110 seems like a useless spur route at present. Also, it is said that if Interstate 85 is one day rerouted onto the bypass, existing 85 would become Interstate 685. Is this accurate?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 08, 2022, 05:20:01 PM
Even if Interstate 14 never makes it out of Texas, are there any plans to build any more of the AL 108 (future Interstate 85) bypass of Montgomery anytime soon? The present route from Interstate 85 to AL 110 seems like a useless spur route at present. Also, it is said that if Interstate 85 is one day rerouted onto the bypass, existing 85 would become Interstate 685. Is this accurate?
All of that was to have happened. However finances put the kibosh on such plans. Plus US 80 is pretty much four-laned/65 mph to MGM from Cuba, save that part through Uniontown.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 08, 2022, 05:20:01 PM
Even if Interstate 14 never makes it out of Texas, are there any plans to build any more of the AL 108 (future Interstate 85) bypass of Montgomery anytime soon? The present route from Interstate 85 to AL 110 seems like a useless spur route at present. Also, it is said that if Interstate 85 is one day rerouted onto the bypass, existing 85 would become Interstate 685. Is this accurate?
The current STIP plan shows another grade/drain/bridge project going south 3.8 miles from the current southern terminus being scheduled for FY 2023. Whether it stays there or not is to be seen, it used to be in FY 2021 last i checked then it looks like it got pushed back. And yes, existing I-85 west of the outer loop will become I-685 whenever the outer loop finally reaches I-65.
Quote from: HemiCRZ on February 08, 2022, 10:57:51 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 08, 2022, 12:16:25 AM
^ Have you ever been down there? I've been on much of that corridor...Meridian-Montgomery barely has enough traffic to warrant 4 lanes, let alone a full Interstate, and from what I recall of my time there Columbus-Augusta isn't any different. And there isn't enough long-haul traffic needing to avoid Atlanta at such long distances to warrant the expense.
US 80 is a ghost town from Meridian to Montgomery... save for some very minor traffic through towns like Demopolis, US 80 is dead and you can easily set the cruise at 75mph across there and never worry about anything.
I haven't been "down there" and I hear what folks are saying about limited traffic today. But I tend to be a bit of a "big picture" guy. Looking at the national map, i can make an argument that the Meridian-Mongomery-Columbus-Augusta route would be a useful addition to the national system; providing a through route that avoids Atlanta it should attract a lot of traffic that doesn't exist today. OTOH, I don't think the LA-MS section of the I-14 route is particularly useful and I agree with those who don't see it getting built.
If an Interstate is ever built from Montgomery westward, it should be an extension of Interstate 85. Anything else is probably a "Fictional Highways" thread.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 24, 2022, 03:43:28 PM
If an Interstate is ever built from Montgomery westward, it should be an extension of Interstate 85. Anything else is probably a "Fictional Highways" thread.
That doesn't really make sense to me. I-85 is an x5 Interstate. It really shouldn't have that much east west travel. It certainly looks more fitting for an I-16 extension though.
Many years ago in a fictional post I proposed I-20 going Meridian, Montgomery, Columbus, Atlanta and I-85 going Florida coast, Dothan, Columbus, Atlanta.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 24, 2022, 04:43:30 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 24, 2022, 03:43:28 PM
If an Interstate is ever built from Montgomery westward, it should be an extension of Interstate 85. Anything else is probably a "Fictional Highways" thread.
That doesn't really make sense to me. I-85 is an x5 Interstate. It really shouldn't have that much east west travel. It certainly looks more fitting for an I-16 extension though.
Until it was scrubbed a few years ago due to lack of funding (not to mention lack of traffic demand), ALDOT was indeed studying and planning an I-85 extension west of Montgomery to I-20/59 near Cuba, AL.
I would agree it'd be more appropriate as I-16. But that's straying into Fictional territory.
Quote from: froggie on March 25, 2022, 12:45:27 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 24, 2022, 04:43:30 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 24, 2022, 03:43:28 PM
If an Interstate is ever built from Montgomery westward, it should be an extension of Interstate 85. Anything else is probably a "Fictional Highways" thread.
That doesn't really make sense to me. I-85 is an x5 Interstate. It really shouldn't have that much east west travel. It certainly looks more fitting for an I-16 extension though.
Until it was scrubbed a few years ago due to lack of funding (not to mention lack of traffic demand), ALDOT was indeed studying and planning an I-85 extension west of Montgomery to I-20/59 near Cuba, AL.
I would agree it'd be more appropriate as I-16. But that's straying into Fictional territory.
It is not scrubbed. I-85 extension is still being planned. Just lack of funding put that extension in the back burner for time being. It is NOT scrubbed.
Actually, it DID get scrubbed. FHWA and ALDOT rescinded it in 2018.
It has since morphed into today's Interstate 14 proposal which essentially follows the same corridor.
Quote from: froggie on March 25, 2022, 05:38:49 PM
Actually, it DID get scrubbed. FHWA and ALDOT rescinded it in 2018.
It has since morphed into today's Interstate 14 proposal which essentially follows the same corridor.
A proof or it didn't happen.
For starters, you can look at the maps of the planned I-14 and see that it follows the same corridor between I-20/59 and Montgomery (included in the news articles in the OP and other places (https://www.al.com/politics/2021/08/plans-for-alabamas-newest-interstate-i-14-progress-in-us-senate.html) on the web).
Meanwhile, here is the Federal Register notice (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/08/29/2018-18670/rescinding-the-notice-of-intent-for-an-environmental-impact-statement-multiple-counties-alabama) where FHWA, in cooperation with ALDOT, rescinded the EIS for the I-85 extension in 2018. No EIS means no extension. Of course, this rescision means that with I-14 now written into legislation (see above news articles), ALDOT will have to start the environmental process over.
Quote from: froggie on March 26, 2022, 09:02:27 AM
For starters, you can look at the maps of the planned I-14 and see that it follows the same corridor between I-20/59 and Montgomery (included in the news articles in the OP and other places (https://www.al.com/politics/2021/08/plans-for-alabamas-newest-interstate-i-14-progress-in-us-senate.html) on the web).
Meanwhile, here is the Federal Register notice (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/08/29/2018-18670/rescinding-the-notice-of-intent-for-an-environmental-impact-statement-multiple-counties-alabama) where FHWA, in cooperation with ALDOT, rescinded the EIS for the I-85 extension in 2018. No EIS means no extension. Of course, this rescision means that with I-14 now written into legislation (see above news articles), ALDOT will have to start the environmental process over.
Quote from: froggie on March 26, 2022, 09:02:27 AM
For starters, you can look at the maps of the planned I-14 and see that it follows the same corridor between I-20/59 and Montgomery (included in the news articles in the OP and other places (https://www.al.com/politics/2021/08/plans-for-alabamas-newest-interstate-i-14-progress-in-us-senate.html) on the web).
Meanwhile, here is the Federal Register notice (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/08/29/2018-18670/rescinding-the-notice-of-intent-for-an-environmental-impact-statement-multiple-counties-alabama) where FHWA, in cooperation with ALDOT, rescinded the EIS for the I-85 extension in 2018. No EIS means no extension. Of course, this rescision means that with I-14 now written into legislation (see above news articles), ALDOT will have to start the environmental process over.
Looks like it was rescinded when FHWA started.cracking down on their "10-year PE" deadline. Once you authorize PE, you have ten years to get to construction or ROW acquisition or you have to pay the funding back (ROW.gives you a lot more time...20 years, I believe). You can apply for an extension.
US 84 is an important enough corridor for freight into a decent part of Mississppi, but the 4 lane highway it currently has does a good enough job handling the traffic, and it's not overwhelming by any means. The bypass of Collins that was completed a decade (I think) ago does a good job too of handling the bottlenecks. The only real kink in the whole route across the state in my opinion is probably the intersection with MS 15 in Laurel. It's a mess.
There is enough clear space in Laurel to maybe do a bypass and come out around near Perkins Street... there's not a crazy high amount of housing developments through there, but a bypass would entail the building of multiple bridges across Horse Creek and Tallahoma Creek, as well as the destruction of a museum, a golf course, an animal shelter, and the Jones County School District's transportation department.
US 49 could better use a freeway makeover, but there are some annoying issues they'd have to take care of, and there probably isn't a single way to connect it to I-10 that doesn't involve the destruction of large amounts of housing. The old proposals of MS 601 all seemed to include corridors that followed roughly along Old Highway 49 (The original US 49 alignment) and if you've ever been through that area you know there are a ton of communities that have built up alongside it.
I do think the US is pretty much Interstated out at this point, and almost all future four-lane highways can be upgrades of existing two-lane roads, with at-grade intersections and movement into and out of towns as needed.
I personally would rather see us create a coast-to-coast I-66 with double sets of dual lanes - inside ones for trucks only; outside ones for cars with no speed limit.
Quote from: MoiraPrime on May 16, 2022, 01:43:12 PM
US 84 is an important enough corridor for freight into a decent part of Mississppi, but the 4 lane highway it currently has does a good enough job handling the traffic, and it's not overwhelming by any means. The bypass of Collins that was completed a decade (I think) ago does a good job too of handling the bottlenecks. The only real kink in the whole route across the state in my opinion is probably the intersection with MS 15 in Laurel. It's a mess.
There is enough clear space in Laurel to maybe do a bypass and come out around near Perkins Street... there's not a crazy high amount of housing developments through there, but a bypass would entail the building of multiple bridges across Horse Creek and Tallahoma Creek, as well as the destruction of a museum, a golf course, an animal shelter, and the Jones County School District's transportation department.
That reminds me of some old talks about a Laurel bypass who was once suggested as a reroute of I-59 as well. http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/laurel-bypass.htm
I think an Interstate 14 along the US 84 corridor has about as much likelihood of being constructed as Interstate 3 does from Knoxville, TN to Savannah, GA. Interstate 14 should only be constructed in Texas and maybe Louisiana. Constructing 14 any further east would be redundant.
Quote from: MoiraPrime on May 16, 2022, 01:43:12 PM
The bypass of Collins that was completed a decade (I think) ago does a good job too of handling the bottlenecks.
2009
QuoteThe only real kink in the whole route across the state in my opinion is probably the intersection with MS 15 in Laurel. It's a mess.
Agreed.
QuoteThere is enough clear space in Laurel to maybe do a bypass and come out around near Perkins Street... there's not a crazy high amount of housing developments through there, but a bypass would entail the building of multiple bridges across Horse Creek and Tallahoma Creek, as well as the destruction of a museum, a golf course, an animal shelter, and the Jones County School District's transportation department.
It depends on how they route it. Some of the impacts you cite would be possible but I don't think all of them would occur.
It should be noted that MDOT (and its predecessor) have studied basically that same alignment since at least the mid 1970s. A Draft EIS was issued in 1979 and I know the alignment remained on MDOT's books at least into the early 2000s. I do not know the current status. This is the same study I reference in the Laurel Bypass alternatives webpage that Stephane linked to.
Quote from: froggie on May 16, 2022, 07:41:33 PM
It should be noted that MDOT (and its predecessor) have studied basically that same alignment since at least the mid 1970s. A Draft EIS was issued in 1979 and I know the alignment remained on MDOT's books at least into the early 2000s. I do not know the current status. This is the same study I reference in the Laurel Bypass alternatives webpage that Stephane linked to.
For what it's worth, the US 84 bypass still shows as "Proposed" on the MDOT Linear reference model data that can be found in MARIS, but I did tweet them a while back about if there were any current plans about it, and they said there weren't. https://twitter.com/MississippiDOT/status/1402675622216974337
Quote from: froggie on February 08, 2022, 12:16:25 AM
^ Have you ever been down there? I've been on much of that corridor...Meridian-Montgomery barely has enough traffic to warrant 4 lanes, let alone a full Interstate, and from what I recall of my time there Columbus-Augusta isn't any different. And there isn't enough long-haul traffic needing to avoid Atlanta at such long distances to warrant the expense.
At least the Columbus-Macon(ish) section seems to have been picking up more traffic in recent years, particularly trucks, and US 280 gets pretty heavy traffic from I-85 to Columbus. The lack of any crossing of the Ocmulgee River between downtown Macon and south of Warner Robins is also a real pain, particularly when anything goes wrong on I-16 through Macon. Particularly with Hyundai coming to sorta-kinda-Savannah, I think there's enough to justify at least connecting I-85 to I-16, even if we're only talking about bypassing the congested bits and flush median sections and a few interchanges for now.
The Fall Line Freeway should go south of Macon and intersect near Sgoda Rd and I 16 east of Macon. I like the idea of a 4 lane road across central Georgia but there needs to be a better connection for truck traffic connected from the port of Savannah heading to West Georgia.
Sen. Warnock's FY2024 earmark requests (https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/congressionally-directed-spending-requests-fy2024-chart) include two apparent requests for money related to I-14: $118 million toward safety upgrades on J.R. Allen Parkway in Columbus "to upgrade roadways to Interstate standards" and $285 million toward a "Midland bypass," a project I can find absolutely no information on from either GDOT or the Columbus/Phenix City MPO but based on geography and the description "to alleviate truck traffic from Atlanta and expand the capacity of the Port of Savannah" would suggest an extension of the J.R. Allen Parkway freeway east to bypass the Beaver Run section of US 80 at the end of the existing freeway.
I didn't see anything obvious in the other senate or house earmark requests.
I'm totally on board with this. A corridor that would run from Macon thru Columbus all the way to interstate 85 would reduce trucks in the Atlanta area 25-35 percent if I had to guesstimate. Problem is that IH 65 from Montgomery to Birmingham would need widening as it needs it now. AL-Dot should be proactive in making IH 65, 6 to 8 lanes total but that's not going to happen til next decade at the earliest...