I-14 in Georgia

[sparker]

The actual numbering is functionally moot; the controversies more often arise from the perception of certain corridors as being formulated and promoted more from local political pressure rather than a thorough determination of (a) actual need and/or (b) national connectivity.  What I've tried to point out is that the system for doing so currently favors the political approach; while Congress can and does deal with the legislation required to establish these corridors, doing so -- unless there's some sort of PR issue -- is almost always a matter of "rubber-stamping" legislation forwarded by a single representative or a regionally-based group of those.  Appending such legislation to a yearly USDOT funding bill is the principal modus operandi regarding such actions.  Overall, the issues are not on the radar of Congess at large -- the body is simply a conduit for localized action reaching the level of national designation.  In short, they want to get these corridors "on the books"; once that's done, everything subsequent to that can move as fast -- or, alternately, as glacially -- as developmental machinations proceed. 

[Bobby5280]

I don't care about the numbering so much as the amount of taxpayer money being mis-directed to a project that has no legit reason to exist, much less be a funding priority over other infrastructure projects that are in progress.

The I-14 number is effectively turned and burned in Texas. I don't care if US-290 between Austin and Houston remains as US-290 or gains an Interstate route marker. But it is clearly a corridor very much worth upgrading to Interstate quality. I think I-12 would work just fine as a designation. I don't care if it is disconnected from the I-12 route in Louisiana. We already have several previously existing examples of duplicated route numbers not connected to each other. An I-12 route going thru Austin would not be out of the norm.

I can't really fault some observers, including posters here, for holding the present process by which new Interstate corridors are designated -- and occasionally built -- in disdain.  But unfortunately for the last 46 years that bottom-up process has been embedded within Title 23 of the US Code -- the section dealing with transportation matters.  The '73 act that propagated this was an action taken by the Nixon administration (and pushed through Congress right before the Watergate affair unfolded); its purpose was a direct reaction to LBJ's "Great Society" programs, largely shepherded out of D.C. through various administrative apparati.  The Nixonian goal was to ensure that "top-down" program instigation wouldn't occur in the future -- that state and/or local agencies were to determine what federally-funded activities would happen in their jurisdictions.

That 1973 legislation had its own effect. Yet quite a bit of Interstate highway mileage was built after 1973, and in fairly normal, direct routing fashion. Nevertheless conservative efforts to undermine federal control of national infrastructure projects is one of the basic reasons why the United States has no ability to build something like a nation-wide high speed rail network. If legislation like Nixon's law had been passed in the late 1940's the entire Interstate highway system might not even exist today. The Interstate highway system is a national highway network. That network needs to be designed and maintained with that kind of big picture view.

I contend the situation with road building has grown considerably worse just within these past 20 years, with the situation worsening even still during this decade.

Not too many voters like pork barrel spending. I consider I-14 to be a very porky project. But it's something that isn't funded at this point. In 2011 the 112th Congress effectively banned earmarks. There was good reason for that to happen; the practice of funding earmarks was abused for decades. I remember President Reagan campaigning to get Line Item Veto power. The ban on earmarks has delivered a very nasty consequence few probably expected. I believe it has played a major role in allowing partisan zealots to take over both the Republican and Democratic parties. That's because legislators now have very little deal-making power where it counts. There is little incentive for a congressman to reach across the aisle to do any deal making with a member of the opposing party or even work with members of his own party. The reality is that it usually takes some "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" persuasion to push through big projects, such as a proposed highway that will cross multiple state lines. This is something that actually works against the chances of I-14 having any substantial segments completed. With lawmakers having far less incentive to make deals with each other civil discourse in politics has gone right out the window. Now it's a contest of which loud mouth can shout the loudest on the congressional floor or on the 24-hour cable "news" channels (which I refer to as "anger pornography"). We're getting horrible, extremist candidates now. People who shout into their own echo chambers of fans to confirm their own bias. Our President regularly has political rallies for his "base." Nobody did that before. But with real behind the scenes deal making ability being hamstrung or just eliminated our political process has now turned into a contest of propaganda. The potential on this stuff is kind of scary.

The fact that an incorporated city of about 800K with a surrounding metro area over 2.5M like Austin doesn't have a direct Interstate to Texas' largest city attests to lack of concerted effort either from that city or TXDOT to do so;  given TXDOT's demonstrated willingness to accede to local political demands such a routing would be designated and likely well into the construction process if such a concerted effort were indeed forthcoming!.

The US Census 2018 population estimate for Austin is 931,830. The city is on the verge of joining the million-plus club. It will be the fourth city in Texas to do so. California has 3 such cities (LA, San Diego and San Jose being the newest entry).

Next, Texas is a big state with 28 million+ taxpayers. But the state can afford to spend only so much on highways. It does not have an unlimited pool of resources. Texas doesn't have the money to upgrade every road that needs it. Multiple projects in the DFW and Houston metros have cost billions of dollars to build and there's still a lot more work to do in those urban metros. Add more urban projects from Austin, San Antonio, El Paso and other locations into the mix. Texas' burden for building I-69 is far larger than any other state along the proposed route by a very wide margin. They have a lot more miles of new super highway to build. TX DOT has been building dozens of little spot upgrades of highways all over the state, such as the brief segments of limited access highway on US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene. That's something I think could or should become an extension of I-44.

I don't think TX DOT or city fathers in Austin have deliberately ignored the situation with US-290. There's only so much the state has to spend on it. For now they've been doing major upgrade work on US-290 going out of Houston. Another big US-290 project is proposed for the West side of Austin. The state probably won't fill in the obvious gap between Austin and Houston with a real super highway unless the feds wake up and provide more help.

So we as interested observers have a choice -- we take the bad with the good, suck it up, make our regular pithy comments about how politics has come to dominate the process -- and let the corridor development fall where it may (and still take pictures of any segments that actually come to pass!) -- or engage in a writing campaign -- or a series of such (not terribly difficult to do) -- trying to change said process into something a bit more reasonable. While such actions may indeed be at best quixotic, at least they might yield some sense of self-satisfaction. But I for one am well past getting overly irate about the injection of politics into transportation development -- there hasn't been a time in the 60+ years I've been following the subject that it hasn't been so!

The problem is a new super highway spanning upwards of 1000 miles or more, such as the proposed I-14 thing, will cost tens of billions of dollars to be built. I wouldn't sweat the I-14 nonsense if highways were inexpensive to build and funding was plentiful. Unfortunately the reverse is the case. Super highways are extremely expensive (and time consuming) to build in the United States. And there is very limited funding to build any new routes. So if someone is going to steer taxpayer money away from other projects and into a new super highway project there had better be a legit need to build the thing.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
One of the intrinsic problems of today's developmental transportation picture is that because of that limited funding, localities -- particularly those who presently lack not only Interstate service but a longstanding isolation from most transportation corridors (San Angelo comes to mind here) -- promulgate a "local booster" mentality (probably not, at least in TX, unrelated to the atmosphere surrounding high-school football rivalries), where a generally secondary city -- one maybe in six figures, population-wise, but not approaching the level of Austin or even the DFW 'burbs, sees itself as an aggrieved party and foments enough ruckus to attract the attention of the congressional delegations serving the region.  The I-14 corridor has a few of those -- M/O, San Angelo, greater Temple/Belton, and Bryan/College Station.  Dismissable individually, when they whine in unison, they attract attention -- or certainly did so back in 2015, when the corridor concept gelled into the HPC #84/I-14 authorizing legislation.  Now -- I'd wager that a pretty sizeable number of posters who follow both Interstate development and TX issues have at one time or another looked at the Amarillo-DFW US 287 corridor -- particularly those of us who have driven that route repeatedly -- and have seen a "natural" fit for a regional Interstate -- a relatively high AADT on the current route -- and one dominated by commercial traffic.  But the problem is that there is but one major 100K+ urban player along the route -- Wichita Falls, already served (albeit marginally!) by I-44 -- although not as a connection to other TX points.  But they're busy building out their local freeway system; forging a connection to other state points doesn't seem to have the same cachet to them as it does to Midland, San Angelo, or Bryan.  And even though truck traffic rumbles through their city centers, there doesn't seem to be much of a call to action from Quanah, Childress, and the other small towns along US 287.  Again, there's not much clamor for an upgrade to that corridor although by all terms of measurement it's probably the TX corridor most deserving of Interstate upgrades -- but the political clout that tends to form around mid-size cities just hasn't happened there as it has regarding the I-14 corridor. 

And that brings us to one of the other factors favoring the "squeaky wheel" approach to development -- the allotment and distribution of federal funding on a year-to-year basis.  Every prospective project and its coterie of backers is lined up with their hands out like the orphanage kids in "Oliver": "Please, sir, may I have another.....year of funding?"  The first of their tasks is to simply show up and ask for the money.  There will invariably be some level of funds available; an existing project with vetted paperwork -- regardless of where it it or exactly how many citizens will be served -- stands a significantly better chance of getting through the process than something that even exhibits more meritorious rationale -- but is either insufficiently "written up" or is well back in line behind other corridor concepts that got to the party earlier.  A marginally valuable corridor with a great set of paperwork will almost inevitably be prioritized over a patently obvious corridor with little but lip service.  And because some funding will be doled out yearly, a lesser corridor might get some bucks for either spot improvements that may lead to bigger things down the line, or $$ for studies intended to winnow down the alignment and other technical options.  Hopefully any such monies allotted to the I-14 corridor will produce a routing that'll cut across the "sawtooth" US 190 profile across the Triangle (baby steps!).  At this point one can only hope that this lemon will yield a fair amount of lemonade!     

[FightingIrish]

Apparently, upgrading US 290 has to interstate has been brought up by members of Congress in the past. Not sure if there's still any kind of aggressive push, though.

https://m.chron.com/neighborhood/cyfair-news/article/Officials-favoring-upgrade-by-TXDOT-2180292.php

[sparker]

Apparently, upgrading US 290 has to interstate has been brought up by members of Congress in the past. Not sure if there's still any kind of aggressive push, though.

https://m.chron.com/neighborhood/cyfair-news/article/Officials-favoring-upgrade-by-TXDOT-2180292.php

That promotional idea, now 7 1/2 years old, appears to only pertain to US 290 immediately west of I-610 in greater Houston -- ostensibly to the effective end of the freeway at the TX 6 junction at Hempstead.  The language of the proposal seems to favor a X10 "spur" designation rather than an integral part of a longer corridor west to Austin.  It's a bit humorous if not bizarre that whoever wrote this presentation seemed to be surprised by the then-recent signage of I-69E along US 77 between I-37 and TX 44; the author seems to think of that as a spur of I-37 rather than part of a larger corridor concept -- which in itself goes to show that even people who get themselves involved in these sort of things have a less-than-comprehensive knowledge base (or possibly lack of awareness of their own environment).  The inference in the article is "why can't we have one of these too?"  From the lack of inaction toward that particular goal over nearly 8 years' time, it's clear the idea just didn't get much traction. 

[MantyMadTown]

Apparently, upgrading US 290 has to interstate has been brought up by members of Congress in the past. Not sure if there's still any kind of aggressive push, though.

https://m.chron.com/neighborhood/cyfair-news/article/Officials-favoring-upgrade-by-TXDOT-2180292.php

That promotional idea, now 7 1/2 years old, appears to only pertain to US 290 immediately west of I-610 in greater Houston -- ostensibly to the effective end of the freeway at the TX 6 junction at Hempstead.  The language of the proposal seems to favor a X10 "spur" designation rather than an integral part of a longer corridor west to Austin.  It's a bit humorous if not bizarre that whoever wrote this presentation seemed to be surprised by the then-recent signage of I-69E along US 77 between I-37 and TX 44; the author seems to think of that as a spur of I-37 rather than part of a larger corridor concept -- which in itself goes to show that even people who get themselves involved in these sort of things have a less-than-comprehensive knowledge base (or possibly lack of awareness of their own environment).  The inference in the article is "why can't we have one of these too?"  From the lack of inaction toward that particular goal over nearly 8 years' time, it's clear the idea just didn't get much traction.

I wonder if this corridor would be a spur of say, I-10 or I-35, instead of a 2di such as a western version of I-12, if it ever becomes an interstate.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
If a Houston-Austin Interstate connector is ever proposed and promoted, it could either utilize US 290 or TX 71 to the south.  The latter would, of course, require much less in the way of mileage, since it would use I-10 for much of the distance between the two metro areas -- and because it's mostly divided expressway, would be considerably easier to upgrade.  But, as I've averred previously, never underestimate the political will of mid-size TX towns; Hempstead or Bastrop could start bleating about non-inclusion in a potential corridor, which might shift the attention a bit to the north.  But all this is speculation -- so far, despite the longstanding lack of regional connectivity, there haven't been any concrete moves toward any activity toward designating much less actually constructing such a corridor -- a necessary first step these days!

[Bobby5280]

TX DOT has been upgrading parts of both US-290 and TX-71 between Austin and Houston, albeit in piecemeal fashion. It's not like they're sitting back doing nothing with either corridor. If there is a question of which corridor do you upgrade if only one can be upgraded, I think US-290 is the more important one. it ties in better with other routes like the Grand Parkway for regional or long distance traffic looking to bypass Houston. Given the population of both metros, traffic and commerce moving between them both of those corridors are logically more justified to upgrade into freeways than the I-14 stuff. The issues of who does lobbying work better is pretty absurd compared to actual traffic movement needs. I-14 is mostly an unnecessary extravagance.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Not that logical justification carries much weight within the current developmental environment -- but if enough piecemeal upgrades were to occur along either TX 71 or US 290, someone either at TXDOT or the Austin-area MPO might sit up and take notice -- and elect to take advantage of something that's already underway and actually propose a comprehensive upgrade plan that may possibly include an Interstate designation as "icing on the cake".  That's usually one of the only current viable alternatives to political machination -- actually get a sizeable portion of a corridor done, then keep pointing to it until attention is attracted.  It's essentially presenting a corridor concept as a virtual fait accompli! 

[Anthony_JK]

Ummmm....isn't this a discussion of a possible future I-14 in Georgia?? Shouldn't discussion about Texas' portion of Future I-14 be moved back to Mid-South and this discussion here brought back to Georgia?


Talk about derailing discussion... 

[sparker]

Ummmm....isn't this a discussion of a possible future I-14 in Georgia?? Shouldn't discussion about Texas' portion of Future I-14 be moved back to Mid-South and this discussion here brought back to Georgia?


Talk about derailing discussion... 

More like dislocation!  Point taken -- there's already enough about I-14/TX in that regional section.  But the notion explored earlier about building out most of a corridor prior to seeking an Interstate designation -- the fait accompli may well apply to the facilities projected to be included in the GA corridor portion, much of which features appropriate geometry.   Sporadic upgrading with grade separations, frontage roads, and the like -- may precede an actual designation effort (particularly on the relatively new segments of the Macon-Augusta stretch). 

[RoadMaster09]

Looking more into it, the coalition's route idea would be best suited as an extended I-16.

That said, I-14 would be good too along the US 84 corridor at least as far east as Valdosta (via Dothan, AL). Has that been considered at all for an Interstate route?

[kevinb1994]

Looking more into it, the coalition's route idea would be best suited as an extended I-16.

That said, I-14 would be good too along the US 84 corridor at least as far east as Valdosta (via Dothan, AL). Has that been considered at all for an Interstate route?

No, I don't think so.

[sparker]

Looking more into it, the coalition's route idea would be best suited as an extended I-16.

That said, I-14 would be good too along the US 84 corridor at least as far east as Valdosta (via Dothan, AL). Has that been considered at all for an Interstate route?

Anything east of I-59 (ostensibly at Laurel, MS) would have to rely on the arguably questionable principle of induced demand to succeed -- there's just not much in the way of traffic aside from local usage until one gets to Dothan -- and then that's just FL-bound traffic off US 231 from Montgomery using it as a shortcut to Tallahassee.  And Alabama has in recent months effectively decreed that I-22 and its Birmingham-area offspring (maybe!) will be the last new freeways that state will pay for (unless Montgomery politicos can resurrect the AL 108 loop).  The long-proposed corridor from Montgomery west to I-20/59 was deleted along with every other proposal languishing on the state DOT books (it's like that state has hired Mr. Peabody and his "wayback machine" to return -- in many ways -- to a pre-'56 condition).  Thus any proposal involving a corridor across AL is dead in the water unless a political sea change is forthcoming. 

That being said, a few folks -- including some contributors here -- have taken the military-base connection aspect of I-14 to include Ft. Rucker, near Enterprise, AL along US 84 -- and have suggested extending the route east to serve that facility (and Dothan in the process).  But such concepts haven't gained any traction, official or otherwise; there just isn't the traffic base to warrant a corridor in that area.  And in GA, both US 82 and US 84 E-W corridors across the state's southern tier are mostly 4-lanes divided; those would seem more than adequate to serve both current and foreseeable traffic volumes (with a few town bypasses as needed down the line).         

[froggie]

And in GA, both US 82 and US 84 E-W corridors across the state's southern tier are mostly 4-lanes divided

Not really.  Aside from about 7 miles between Union Springs and AL 51, 82 has no 4 lane between 231 and Eufaula.  Likewise, the only notable stretch of 4 lane on 84 west of Andalusia (once past the AL 55 split) is its Grove Hill bypass.

The only corridor that has enough traffic to potentially warrant an Interstate and still serve Fort Rucker isn't 84...it's 231.  But as you noted, it would require a sea change in both the political climate and the fiscal climate.

[sparker]

And in GA, both US 82 and US 84 E-W corridors across the state's southern tier are mostly 4-lanes divided

Not really.  Aside from about 7 miles between Union Springs and AL 51, 82 has no 4 lane between 231 and Eufaula.  Likewise, the only notable stretch of 4 lane on 84 west of Andalusia (once past the AL 55 split) is its Grove Hill bypass.

The only corridor that has enough traffic to potentially warrant an Interstate and still serve Fort Rucker isn't 84...it's 231.  But as you noted, it would require a sea change in both the political climate and the fiscal climate.

I was talking about GA's segment of both US 82 and US 84, not the section in Alabama.  And part of US 84 west of Waycross is still 2-lane -- hence the term "mostly".  But it looks like GDOT has been incrementally twinning both routes over time -- which should be more than adequate for at least the near term. 

In compete agreement about traffic flow on US 231 being likely to warrant further development of that corridor; the only part of US 84 that could function as a corollary (or beneficiary) in that regard is the section east of Dothan -- at least as far as Bainbridge, GA.  Shortcuts to FL, if they're efficient enough, should intrinsically draw traffic; the US 84/US 27 continuum in SW GA functions well, with US 231 as a "feeder", to funnel traffic down the west coast of the FL peninsula (used it myself at one point for just that purpose!). 

And yes, the Dothan outer circle is full of commercial development, features plenty of signals, and is a general PITA!  But it's AL -- and little if anything will be done to ameliorate the situation.     

[RoadMaster09]

Looking more into it, the coalition's route idea would be best suited as an extended I-16.

That said, I-14 would be good too along the US 84 corridor at least as far east as Valdosta (via Dothan, AL). Has that been considered at all for an Interstate route?

Anything east of I-59 (ostensibly at Laurel, MS) would have to rely on the arguably questionable principle of induced demand to succeed -- there's just not much in the way of traffic aside from local usage until one gets to Dothan -- and then that's just FL-bound traffic off US 231 from Montgomery using it as a shortcut to Tallahassee.  And Alabama has in recent months effectively decreed that I-22 and its Birmingham-area offspring (maybe!) will be the last new freeways that state will pay for (unless Montgomery politicos can resurrect the AL 108 loop).  The long-proposed corridor from Montgomery west to I-20/59 was deleted along with every other proposal languishing on the state DOT books (it's like that state has hired Mr. Peabody and his "wayback machine" to return -- in many ways -- to a pre-'56 condition).  Thus any proposal involving a corridor across AL is dead in the water unless a political sea change is forthcoming. 

That being said, a few folks -- including some contributors here -- have taken the military-base connection aspect of I-14 to include Ft. Rucker, near Enterprise, AL along US 84 -- and have suggested extending the route east to serve that facility (and Dothan in the process).  But such concepts haven't gained any traction, official or otherwise; there just isn't the traffic base to warrant a corridor in that area.  And in GA, both US 82 and US 84 E-W corridors across the state's southern tier are mostly 4-lanes divided; those would seem more than adequate to serve both current and foreseeable traffic volumes (with a few town bypasses as needed down the line).       

You're right; I am shocked how low traffic counts are in Alabama on US 84 (under 2,000 on some sections) and not until Elba does it pick up. I know it's 4 lanes through a good part of Georgia.

[froggie]

^^ Totally missed that you were referring to Georgia and not Alabama.

The remaining segment of 2-lane 84 west of Waycross is in part because that segment also sees considerably low traffic volumes, as does most of US 82 between Eufaula and GA 520 at Dawson (also 2 lanes).  Even a good chunk of what HAS been widened on 82 and 84 sees less than 5,000 vpd...82 from Willacoochee to Waresboro and 84 from Naylor to Waycross

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
That stretch of US 82 west of GRIP 520 will probably not be a candidate for expansion in the near term; most traffic is heading toward or coming from Columbus via 520.  The 82/520 cosigned section, simply because of its routing between Albany and Waycross, is a prime E-W commercial corridor to the ports of Brunswick and Jacksonville (which is why it is the corridor of choice for I-22 east extension pipedreams).  Now -- how far GDOT will go to accommodate such traffic in the future (I'd guess they'd start with the occasional town bypass) is just a matter of conjecture and certainly would be a product of demonstrated increasing traffic flow, particularly of the commercial variety.

As a side note, I'd guess that if GDOT were to concentrate their cross-state efforts on one specific corridor, it would be 82/520 rather than US 84 to the south simply because of how it juxtaposes with the rest of the regional arteries.   

[roadman65]

I was on what was once GA 88 west of Wrens which is now signed for the future I-14 as GA 540.   Thought it was odd at first but when I seen that it follows US 1 east of Wrens and GA 88 picks up there to go east to Matthews, I figured it is part of the I-14 push.

Then in Augusta GA 540 is signed only to the west (south) on US 1 from I-520 so that confirmed my suspicions about it all.

[sparker]

I was on what was once GA 88 west of Wrens which is now signed for the future I-14 as GA 540.   Thought it was odd at first but when I seen that it follows US 1 east of Wrens and GA 88 picks up there to go east to Matthews, I figured it is part of the I-14 push.

Then in Augusta GA 540 is signed only to the west (south) on US 1 from I-520 so that confirmed my suspicions about it all.

The Georgia GRIP network consists of several cross-state "improved" (meaning at least twinned) corridors; the most prominent of these are 520 between Columbus and Brunswick (most of which is multiplexed with US 82 and 280) and 540 between, again, Columbus and Augusta.  While GDOT is in the process of signing the corridor portion east of Macon, the western section, along (mostly) GA 96, GA 49, and US 80, has yet to receive GRIP-540 signage.  But the entire GRIP system, including some facilities that remain 2 lanes, is a separate entity -- with its own HPC designation (#62) covering the entire in-state network -- from the sporadically-considered I-14 (which, in its original planned iteration circa 2002, mostly utilized GA 26 across the western portion of the state -- likely a politically-motivated detour).  GRIP-540 from the outskirts of Macon east to Augusta is an actual designated entity -- not merely a "placeholder" for an outflung I-14 section.    If sometime in the near future GDOT wishes to pursue an Interstate from Columbus to Augusta via Macon, they're going to be on their own, so to speak -- the effort, unless AL exhibits a "sea change" and jettisons their freeway moratorium, will simply end at the state line.  Presently the chances of a GA section of I-14 joining the TX-based effort are slim & none, even if LA and MS join that particular party. 

But for the time being, GA 540 will likely remain the operative designation of the Columbus-Macon-Augusta corridor; an eastern I-14 remains a pipedream.    But so does GRIP 540 as a cross-state entity; a southern Macon bypass remains to be planned & built.

[roadman65]

GA 88 signs west of Wrens are all gone in favor of this new GRIP route.  I imagine that GA 24 is been resigned too!  So you are saying that it is not signed west of Macon and along I-75 and I-16 where part of this Fall Line Freeway is designated.

[sparker]

GA 88 signs west of Wrens are all gone in favor of this new GRIP route.  I imagine that GA 24 is been resigned too!  So you are saying that it is not signed west of Macon and along I-75 and I-16 where part of this Fall Line Freeway is designated.

AFAIK, none of GRIP 540 between Columbus and I-75 (aka US 80, GA 96, and GA 49) carries 540 signage as of yet; the original designations remain posted.  It is and has been my understanding that a connection between (former) GA 57 east of Macon and I-75 at or near the GA 49 interchange near Byron, likely some form of controlled-access facility, has been in the works for some time now.   Although it could conceivably happen, it's unlikely that GDOT will sign 540 over the "temporary" Macon-area routing of I-16 and I-75, particularly since they're in the process of rebuilding the 75/16 interchange.  If anyone has information to the contrary, please let us know!  Considering the short time it took GDOT to sign 540 from Macon to Wrens after the route was completed, it's surprising that the segment between Columbus and I-75 hasn't received similar treatment; it was upgraded and/or twinned well before the section east of Macon was finished. 

[Mapmikey]

GA 540 is signed west of Macon
https://goo.gl/maps/vfbsap87SgN4Wh4T6

[sparker]

GA 540 is signed west of Macon
https://goo.gl/maps/vfbsap87SgN4Wh4T6

Thanks for the info & the picture -- now I'm less surprised than yesterday!  Curiously, the GA 540 sign shown is "cookie-cutter" GA SR issue rather than the embellished type seen on GRIP 515 north of Atlanta.  Question: even without the "bridge" between east and west sections, is 540 indicated on BGS' from I-75 and/or I-16?