I-69 Corridor

[Rothman]

If I-69 is really on I-94 east of Chicago then where does it go when it gets to Chicago? You'd be heading north into Chicago on SB I-69. My point is that I-69 doesn't even go in the direction of Chicago, south of Lansing it runs north and south, Chicago is west of where it intersects I-94.

It isn't and it doesn't. It's a corridor. Congress loves designating intermodal corridors. The I-69 corridor legislation simply includes a Chicago-Detroit-Sarnia corridor.

So it's basically the area that it's in? Sort of like a river's watershed?

Multimodal traffic flows between origins and destinations. 

It is little wonder corridor management has drifted into the background.  The entire initiative was never well-defined and was more quixotic than practical.

You'd be surprised. DOE is funding a bunch of stuff related to corridor management right now.

DOE?

USDOT had its laughable Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) initiative.  Glad the days where I was involved are over.

[cl94]

If I-69 is really on I-94 east of Chicago then where does it go when it gets to Chicago? You'd be heading north into Chicago on SB I-69. My point is that I-69 doesn't even go in the direction of Chicago, south of Lansing it runs north and south, Chicago is west of where it intersects I-94.

It isn't and it doesn't. It's a corridor. Congress loves designating intermodal corridors. The I-69 corridor legislation simply includes a Chicago-Detroit-Sarnia corridor.

So it's basically the area that it's in? Sort of like a river's watershed?

Multimodal traffic flows between origins and destinations. 

It is little wonder corridor management has drifted into the background.  The entire initiative was never well-defined and was more quixotic than practical.

You'd be surprised. DOE is funding a bunch of stuff related to corridor management right now.

DOE?

USDOT had its laughable Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) initiative.  Glad the days where I was involved are over.

Yes. US Department of Energy. They're looking into how to reduce energy use on corridors.

[bugo]

RE: I-69: Congress doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground, so I don't pay attention when they pass ridiculous laws like this one.

[Rothman]

If I-69 is really on I-94 east of Chicago then where does it go when it gets to Chicago? You'd be heading north into Chicago on SB I-69. My point is that I-69 doesn't even go in the direction of Chicago, south of Lansing it runs north and south, Chicago is west of where it intersects I-94.

It isn't and it doesn't. It's a corridor. Congress loves designating intermodal corridors. The I-69 corridor legislation simply includes a Chicago-Detroit-Sarnia corridor.

So it's basically the area that it's in? Sort of like a river's watershed?

Multimodal traffic flows between origins and destinations. 

It is little wonder corridor management has drifted into the background.  The entire initiative was never well-defined and was more quixotic than practical.

You'd be surprised. DOE is funding a bunch of stuff related to corridor management right now.

DOE?

USDOT had its laughable Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) initiative.  Glad the days where I was involved are over.

Yes. US Department of Energy. They're looking into how to reduce energy use on corridors.

*sigh*

[sparker]

Captain Obvious here:  the legislative placement of the I-69 designation along I-94 in MI, IN, and IL is simply a way to obtain funding for rehabilitation and/or expansion of I-94 under the I-69/HPC 18 corridor "umbrella" -- simply by claiming that I-94 is an egress point from I-69 to two major metro areas not on the main corridor (Detroit & Chicago, of course).  Just politicos from those areas trying to get in on what action there is pertaining to I-69 activities and any funding that may become available.  In a backhanded way, part of that makes sense -- I-69 from Marshall to the Bluewater Bridge into Canada is the most efficient commercial trucking route from Chicago to Toronto and/or Montreal -- given Detroit congestion and the Morounic activities (or lack thereof) regarding egress in and out of Canada in that metro area.  And I-94 is by default the most direct route from southward I-69 points to Detroit (although the improvements on US 24 from Fort Wayne to Toledo might just make that route a viable alternative, using I-469 and I-475 on either end!)

[ftballfan]

Off topic, but I feel the I-69 corridor should be two separate interstates. The part north of Memphis would remain I-69, while the part in Texas would become another 2di (I-47 would probably fit best). The proposed corridor in MS, AR, and parts of LA makes no sense and wouldn't save much time over existing interstates

[Scott5114]

Captain Obvious here:  the legislative placement of the I-69 designation along I-94 in MI, IN, and IL is simply a way to obtain funding for rehabilitation and/or expansion of I-94 under the I-69/HPC 18 corridor "umbrella" -- simply by claiming that I-94 is an egress point from I-69 to two major metro areas not on the main corridor (Detroit & Chicago, of course).  Just politicos from those areas trying to get in on what action there is pertaining to I-69 activities and any funding that may become available.

Well, yes. But the whole reason this discussion started–which the thread split doesn't make clear–was the result of an assertion that in order to clinch the Washington State highway system, one would have to clinch various routes which have not been built, but for which an unfunded mandate exists in state law.  I was attempting to use the I-69/I-94 designation as a rhetorical device illustrating that–

RE: I-69: Congress doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground, so I don't pay attention when they pass ridiculous laws like this one.

–is probably the proper attitude to have in route clinching, precisely because of shenanigans like this. But the I-69 designation over I-94 is apparently not as well known as I thought it was, and now here we are.

[US 89]

The definition of I-69 is a corridor definition. And yes, it's a multimodal corridor. Everything on that image is a corridor.

Tell that to Texas.

Not sure what is meant by this.

Note the existence of I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W.  IMO only one of these should be I-69.

The 69 number should go to I-69W, since that follows the US 59 corridor that I-69 uses through the rest of Texas. 69C and 69E should become I-x69 (or even x02) routes.

RE: I-69: Congress doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground, so I don't pay attention when they pass ridiculous laws like this one.

—is probably the proper attitude to have in route clinching, precisely because of shenanigans like this. But the I-69 designation over I-94 is apparently not as well known as I thought it was, and now here we are.

If the road hasn’t been built, then there’s nothing to clinch. Who cares what the law says if there isn’t even a road?
As another example, UT 131 is currently defined to run across a bridge that hasn’t been built yet. Until that bridge is built, I’m not going to worry about clinching it.

[Rothman]

Captain Obvious here:  the legislative placement of the I-69 designation along I-94 in MI, IN, and IL is simply a way to obtain funding for rehabilitation and/or expansion of I-94 under the I-69/HPC 18 corridor "umbrella" -- simply by claiming that I-94 is an egress point from I-69 to two major metro areas not on the main corridor (Detroit & Chicago, of course).  Just politicos from those areas trying to get in on what action there is pertaining to I-69 activities and any funding that may become available.

Well, yes. But the whole reason this discussion started–which the thread split doesn't make clear–was the result of an assertion that in order to clinch the Washington State highway system, one would have to clinch various routes which have not been built, but for which an unfunded mandate exists in state law.  I was attempting to use the I-69/I-94 designation as a rhetorical device illustrating that–

RE: I-69: Congress doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground, so I don't pay attention when they pass ridiculous laws like this one.

–is probably the proper attitude to have in route clinching, precisely because of shenanigans like this. But the I-69 designation over I-94 is apparently not as well known as I thought it was, and now here we are.

I-69 isn't designated over I-94, per the FHWA link to the legislation I provided previously.  Corridor definition does not equal interstate designation.

[froggie]

^ This is correct.  Even if Congress designates a given corridor as an Interstate corridor...even as far as giving it a number, it is still up to FHWA as to when that corridor (or segment) is actually added to the Interstate system.  In this case, while the I-94 corridor may have been designated I-69 by Congress, FHWA can (and has) still decree(d) that it is I-94, not I-69.

[Henry]

^ This is correct.  Even if Congress designates a given corridor as an Interstate corridor...even as far as giving it a number, it is still up to FHWA as to when that corridor (or segment) is actually added to the Interstate system.  In this case, while the I-94 corridor may have been designated I-69 by Congress, FHWA can (and has) still decree(d) that it is I-94, not I-69.

Case in point: I-73 and I-74, especially in WV. Although these two numbers have been designated on US 52, it's still US 52 because it functions well as a surface expressway. Just because a future number has been added to an existing highway does not mean that it will become one in the future. We could wait 100 years and not get a single mile of I-73/I-74 built there.

[hbelkins]

^ This is correct.  Even if Congress designates a given corridor as an Interstate corridor...even as far as giving it a number, it is still up to FHWA as to when that corridor (or segment) is actually added to the Interstate system.  In this case, while the I-94 corridor may have been designated I-69 by Congress, FHWA can (and has) still decree(d) that it is I-94, not I-69.

Case in point: I-73 and I-74, especially in WV. Although these two numbers have been designated on US 52, it's still US 52 because it functions well as a surface expressway. Just because a future number has been added to an existing highway does not mean that it will become one in the future. We could wait 100 years and not get a single mile of I-73/I-74 built there.

The odds of a four-lane being built from Bluefield to Huntington grow smaller with every passing day, but it's quite obvious that if the road is ever built, it won't be a full freeway, but will be a surface route.

[vdeane]

The 69 number should go to I-69W, since that follows the US 59 corridor that I-69 uses through the rest of Texas. 69C and 69E should become I-x69 (or even x02) routes.

I'd make I-69E and extension of I-37 and leave I-69C a US route.

[Rothman]

^ This is correct.  Even if Congress designates a given corridor as an Interstate corridor...even as far as giving it a number, it is still up to FHWA as to when that corridor (or segment) is actually added to the Interstate system.  In this case, while the I-94 corridor may have been designated I-69 by Congress, FHWA can (and has) still decree(d) that it is I-94, not I-69.

I'd go even further given the language in the law and say that Congress didn't even designate the discussed section of I-94 as I-69.  The I-69, both current and future, we all know and love is simply part of the much broader High Priority Corridor 18 (Port Huron to Texas).  I-94 is also a part of that corridor.  But, I-69 is not designated on I-94 to Chicago.

[sparker]

Question:  since the I-94 segment of HPC 18 is included in the overall description of that corridor -- and the numerical designation codicil to the corridor description legislatively assigns I-69 to the entire corridor (with HPC 20 tacked on for good measure) -- the very reason TX has taken the "East" and "Central" suffixes literally -- would that not mean that I-94 Chicago-Detroit is in fact also designated as I-69 in legal terms, the choice to not erect signage as such by AASHTO and/or FHWA notwithstanding?  From the normative interpretation of the designation language, unless that particular HPC 18 SIU is "broken out" and specifically excluded from the I-69 designation, it is considered part of the I-69 compendium regarding funding, prioritizations, etc. -- although likely never signed in the field as such.  I suppose we'll just have to wait until large-scale improvements to that stretch of I-94 occur, and then see if any of the acknowledgement signage refers to the HPC 18 corridor or I-69 itself. 

[MCRoads]

The definition of I-69 is a corridor definition. And yes, it's a multimodal corridor. Everything on that image is a corridor.

Tell that to Texas.

Not sure what is meant by this.

Note the existence of I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W.  IMO only one of these should be I-69.

Why is tex(ass) doing this anyway? Be happy with 35 E and 35 W. There is a reason why the FHWA stopped this. It is confusing and unnecessary. The only reason why I 35 was spared is because it (kind of) makes sense. (even still, I would make one of them a 3di.)

[US 89]

The 69 number should go to I-69W, since that follows the US 59 corridor that I-69 uses through the rest of Texas. 69C and 69E should become I-x69 (or even x02) routes.

I'd make I-69E and extension of I-37 and leave I-69C a US route.

Totally forgot about I-37.

Why is tex(ass) doing this anyway? Be happy with 35 E and 35 W. There is a reason why the FHWA stopped this. It is confusing and unnecessary. The only reason why I 35 was spared is because it (kind of) makes sense. (even still, I would make one of them a 3di.)

At this point, you can't make either branch of I-35 a 3di, unless you really want to piss off whichever city you take mainline 35 out of.

[adventurernumber1]

The definition of I-69 is a corridor definition. And yes, it's a multimodal corridor. Everything on that image is a corridor.

Tell that to Texas.

Not sure what is meant by this.

Note the existence of I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W.  IMO only one of these should be I-69.

Why is tex(ass) doing this anyway? Be happy with 35 E and 35 W. There is a reason why the FHWA stopped this. It is confusing and unnecessary. The only reason why I 35 was spared is because it (kind of) makes sense. (even still, I would make one of them a 3di.)

I'm actually fine with both pairs of I-35W and I-35E (one in Dallas/Fort Worth, the other in Minneapolis/St. Paul), and I've never had a problem with them. However, I am not for the idea of any new suffixed interstates, so I am opposed to the I-69W/C/E clustermess (regarding that, my personal solution is to make I-69W an I-6, and there should not be both a I-69C and I-69E (two interstates) going down to south Texas - it should be one interstate that is either I-69 or I-47 (the latter working as long as it eventually went east of I-45 up all the way to Shreveport, so it wouldn't be out of the grid)). However, interestingly, I actually love and am perfectly fine with suffixed US Routes. I've always thought those were pretty cool.

[Rothman]

Question:  since the I-94 segment of HPC 18 is included in the overall description of that corridor -- and the numerical designation codicil to the corridor description legislatively assigns I-69 to the entire corridor (with HPC 20 tacked on for good measure) -- the very reason TX has taken the "East" and "Central" suffixes literally -- would that not mean that I-94 Chicago-Detroit is in fact also designated as I-69 in legal terms, the choice to not erect signage as such by AASHTO and/or FHWA notwithstanding?  From the normative interpretation of the designation language, unless that particular HPC 18 SIU is "broken out" and specifically excluded from the I-69 designation, it is considered part of the I-69 compendium regarding funding, prioritizations, etc. -- although likely never signed in the field as such.  I suppose we'll just have to wait until large-scale improvements to that stretch of I-94 occur, and then see if any of the acknowledgement signage refers to the HPC 18 corridor or I-69 itself. 

No.  Again, corridor definition does not equal interstate designation.  The "[I-69]" mentions in the law merely are noting that part of the corridor will include I-69.

[NE2]

I'm pretty sure there's another law that says that the entirety of HPC 18 and HPC 20 are I-69, and that the states must post signs whenever a piece has been improved to Interstate standards and connected to another Interstate.

[Rothman]

[citation needed]

[NE2]

From TEA-21:

(i) DESIGNATION- The routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69. A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central. The State of Texas shall erect signs identifying such routes as segments of future Interstate Route I-69.

Illinois and Michigan are in violation of federal law.

[Rothman]

We are mixing up ISTEA and TEA-21.  Will have to check it out.

ETA:  You linked to the Conference Report rather than the actual law.

...

Although TEA-21 had the designation paragraph in it as noted at one point, a whole slew of amendments have been made to the High Priority Corridors outside of main federal bills, as FHWA notes in the link I originally provided:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm

A general summary is also provided by FHWA (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/), showing that the whole High Priority Corridors initiative fizzled.  Although some original study or planning funds were provided in early acts, states did get excited over the prospects of additional funding, which is why the whole list got amended with SAFETEA-LU with a whole bunch of crap.  The funding never materialized.

From FHWA's implementation of the federal laws, the designations only pertained to future interstates, rather than the portions of the corridors in which existing interstates existed.  Therefore, the portion of I-94 that heads off to Chicago has no current official designation of a concurrent I-69 in their view of the various amendments that have occurred over the years.

[NE2]

We are mixing up ISTEA and TEA-21.  Will have to check it out.

ETA:  You linked to the Conference Report rather than the actual law.

WTF? I linked to "H.R.2400 - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century". Click on the tab that says 'Text (7)' and it gives you the text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2400/text

[sparker]

Question:  since the I-94 segment of HPC 18 is included in the overall description of that corridor -- and the numerical designation codicil to the corridor description legislatively assigns I-69 to the entire corridor (with HPC 20 tacked on for good measure) -- the very reason TX has taken the "East" and "Central" suffixes literally -- would that not mean that I-94 Chicago-Detroit is in fact also designated as I-69 in legal terms, the choice to not erect signage as such by AASHTO and/or FHWA notwithstanding?  From the normative interpretation of the designation language, unless that particular HPC 18 SIU is "broken out" and specifically excluded from the I-69 designation, it is considered part of the I-69 compendium regarding funding, prioritizations, etc. -- although likely never signed in the field as such.  I suppose we'll just have to wait until large-scale improvements to that stretch of I-94 occur, and then see if any of the acknowledgement signage refers to the HPC 18 corridor or I-69 itself. 

No.  Again, corridor definition does not equal interstate designation.  The "[I-69]" mentions in the law merely are noting that part of the corridor will include I-69.

When I was referring to "acknowledgement signage", I was decidedly not referring to any I-69 shields, reassurance or trailblazer, but simply the type of temporary signage ("project billboards", if you will) at or near construction sites that laundry-list the various sources of funding for the project at hand.  In this particular case, it would be interesting to see if references were made to High Priority Corridor #18, or something to the "I-69 corridor" on such signage.  Of course it would be ridiculous, plain & simple, to think that actual I-69 signage would even show up on I-94 apart from the junctions/multiplexes at Port Huron & Marshall.