I-69 Corridor

[Scott5114]

That would mean that in order to clinch I-69 you would have to also do that random segment of I-94 that Congress also, for whatever reason, declared to be part of I-69 (which Indiana and Illinois DOTs quietly ignored, because it makes no sense). That is asinine.

Legislators don't have the responsibility of actually building or maintaining any roads, so there's lots of stuff they can decree that doesn't have any actual bearing on reality outside of their chamber.

[bugo]

That would mean that in order to clinch I-69 you would have to also do that random segment of I-94 that Congress also, for whatever reason, declared to be part of I-69 (which Indiana and Illinois DOTs quietly ignored, because it makes no sense). That is asinine.

Legislators don't have the responsibility of actually building or maintaining any roads, so there's lots of stuff they can decree that doesn't have any actual bearing on reality outside of their chamber.

What? Part of I-94 is also I-69?

[Flint1979]

That would mean that in order to clinch I-69 you would have to also do that random segment of I-94 that Congress also, for whatever reason, declared to be part of I-69 (which Indiana and Illinois DOTs quietly ignored, because it makes no sense). That is asinine.

Legislators don't have the responsibility of actually building or maintaining any roads, so there's lots of stuff they can decree that doesn't have any actual bearing on reality outside of their chamber.

What? Part of I-94 is also I-69?

Between their interchange in Port Huron to the Bluewater Bridge.

[Flint1979]

That would mean that in order to clinch I-69 you would have to also do that random segment of I-94 that Congress also, for whatever reason, declared to be part of I-69 (which Indiana and Illinois DOTs quietly ignored, because it makes no sense). That is asinine.

Legislators don't have the responsibility of actually building or maintaining any roads, so there's lots of stuff they can decree that doesn't have any actual bearing on reality outside of their chamber.

Why would Illinois have anything to do with I-69? I-69 never enters Illinois. The only part of I-69 and I-94 that run together is the last couple of miles after they interchange to the Bluewater Bridge in Port Huron.

[Rothman]

That would mean that in order to clinch I-69 you would have to also do that random segment of I-94 that Congress also, for whatever reason, declared to be part of I-69 (which Indiana and Illinois DOTs quietly ignored, because it makes no sense). That is asinine.

Legislators don't have the responsibility of actually building or maintaining any roads, so there's lots of stuff they can decree that doesn't have any actual bearing on reality outside of their chamber.

What? Part of I-94 is also I-69?

Between their interchange in Port Huron to the Bluewater Bridge.

How is that random?  That concurrence is pretty tame.

[SSOWorld]

I-69 pretty much does the Wisconsin Concurrency (don't end until it ends with another).  Both interstates end at the border.

[Flint1979]

That would mean that in order to clinch I-69 you would have to also do that random segment of I-94 that Congress also, for whatever reason, declared to be part of I-69 (which Indiana and Illinois DOTs quietly ignored, because it makes no sense). That is asinine.

Legislators don't have the responsibility of actually building or maintaining any roads, so there's lots of stuff they can decree that doesn't have any actual bearing on reality outside of their chamber.

What? Part of I-94 is also I-69?

Between their interchange in Port Huron to the Bluewater Bridge.

How is that random?  That concurrence is pretty tame.

It's not random. It's been like that since I-69 was extended to Port Huron about 25 years ago.

[Flint1979]

For some reason, the legislatively defined corridor for I-69 includes all of I-94 east of Chicago.
http://www.peaktraffic.org/graphics/hpcfi.jpg

I don't understand that one. I-94 and I-69 intersect near Marshall, Michigan and run together in Port Huron, Michigan.

I-69 actually functions as a bypass of Detroit between Marshall and Port Huron. Traffic going from say Toronto to Chicago or vice versa would be much better off taking I-69 through Lansing and Flint to meet back up with I-94 in Port Huron vs. taking I-94 through Detroit. And I-94 isn't even the route to take into Detroit coming from the west, the best way to get to Detroit from the west is to break off I-94 at Ann Arbor and follow M-14 to it's eastern terminus with I-275 and I-96 and then continue on I-96 into Detroit. You can stay on I-94 though the difference is about 2 or 3 miles.

[english si]

I don't understand that one.

That's been clear from your several posts getting the wrong end of the stick!

vdeane and Scott5114 are talking about the legislation-defined I-69. You are talking about signed I-69 / roads treated as I-69 by the FHWA/relevant state DOTs.

Legally, all of I-94 east of Chicago is part of I-69. Really, just that little bit in Port Huron that you talk about is.

The point that was being made by pointing out the nonsense legal definition was that legal definitions are sometimes stupid!

[Flint1979]

I don't understand that one.

That's been clear from your several posts getting the wrong end of the stick!

vdeane and Scott5114 are talking about the legislation-defined I-69. You are talking about signed I-69 / roads treated as I-69 by the FHWA/relevant state DOTs.

Legally, all of I-94 east of Chicago is part of I-69. Really, just that little bit in Port Huron that you talk about is.

The point that was being made by pointing out the nonsense legal definition was that legal definitions are sometimes stupid!

I-69 goes nowhere near Chicago so no that doesn't make any sense to legally say that all of I-94 east of Chicago is part of I-69. I-69 intersects I-94 in Michigan near Marshall and crosses over it, doesn't multiplex with it at all. I-69 goes towards Fort Wayne and Lansing, I-94 goes towards Chicago and Detroit.

[Rothman]

I wonder if that legal definition really means I-94 and I-69 were meant to be concurrent to Chicago, or if they were just defining a corridor of some sort (i.e., somehow I-69 as shielded will facilitate traffic to and from Chicago).  That old legal definition that vdeane referred to goes all the way back to ISTEA, so I also wouldn't be surprised if the actual designation makes more sense.

On a state level, NYSDOT went through a fascination with "multimodal corridors" about a decade ago.  Although they were where you'd expect, the corridor manager bristled when you called them by Interstate route.

[hotdogPi]

I wonder if that legal definition really means I-94 and I-69 were meant to be concurrent to Chicago, or if they were just defining a corridor of some sort (i.e., somehow I-69 as shielded will facilitate traffic to and from Chicago).  That old legal definition that vdeane referred to goes all the way back to ISTEA, so I also wouldn't be surprised if the actual designation makes more sense.

On a state level, NYSDOT went through a fascination with "multimodal corridors" about a decade ago.  Although they were where you'd expect, the corridor manager bristled when you called them by Interstate route.

vdeane's link shows it interchanging with itself. It obviously wasn't meant to be signed this way.

[cl94]

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

[vdeane]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[MNHighwayMan]

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.

I think he means it's not really a corridor, per se, because the final result is intended to have three branches.

[Scott5114]

I don't understand that one.

That's been clear from your several posts getting the wrong end of the stick!

vdeane and Scott5114 are talking about the legislation-defined I-69. You are talking about signed I-69 / roads treated as I-69 by the FHWA/relevant state DOTs.

Legally, all of I-94 east of Chicago is part of I-69. Really, just that little bit in Port Huron that you talk about is.

The point that was being made by pointing out the nonsense legal definition was that legal definitions are sometimes stupid!

I-69 goes nowhere near Chicago so no that doesn't make any sense to legally say that all of I-94 east of Chicago is part of I-69. I-69 intersects I-94 in Michigan near Marshall and crosses over it, doesn't multiplex with it at all. I-69 goes towards Fort Wayne and Lansing, I-94 goes towards Chicago and Detroit.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to anyone here in reality. But in that alternate universe lovingly depicted on the back of the $50 bill, Congress passed a law declaring all of I-94 east of Chicago to be part of I-69. So yes, I-69 does in fact go near Chicago, if you take the definition as outlined in law as the authority on what is and isn't I-69. Except that's stupid, because it would make a mockery of using the I-69 designation as the navigational aid it's intended to be. So MDOT, InDOT, and IDOT have all done the sensible thing and pretended that Congress never said that.

The point being, no roadgeek would consider it necessary to travel that segment of I-94 to consider I-69 clinched, because it has no basis in reality.* Likewise, then, the Washington legislature declaring a SR-168 where no state highway actually exists should be treated similarly. Someone could claim a clinch of the entire Washington state highway system and safely ignore SR-168.

*Note that, on the surface, this would seem to question the legitimacy of unsigned routes. Unsigned routes are, however, generally actually maintained by the agency that administers the system, and as a result often have ample documentation. They usually–but not always–have no other designations but the hidden one, which exists to normalize a route which would otherwise have a null reference. Even I-444, which would probably be the best analogue to the I-94 situation (Interstate silently concurrent with other routes) is fully denoted on Oklahoma DOT resources, and the control sections that make up the Interstate are duly numbered "444-72-92" and "444-72-94".

[Rothman]

I am with cl94 here:  Vdeane provided a corridor definition which clearly states that it includes already signed interstates. "Corridor" has a separate meaning from interstate designation, branches notwithstanding.  Therefore, this idea that I-69 has an actual unsigned concurrency with I-94 to Chicago is one that I find dubious without more proof to the contrary, especially since we have had a bunch of federal bills since ISTEA.

ETA:  The ISTEA section (1105) is not concerning interstate designation, but rather corridor definition.  From what I read in the corridor definition, it can easily be interpreted that it includes I-69 in Corridor 18's definition, but I-69 does not represent the totality of the corridor.

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

[Flint1979]

I don't understand that one.

That's been clear from your several posts getting the wrong end of the stick!

vdeane and Scott5114 are talking about the legislation-defined I-69. You are talking about signed I-69 / roads treated as I-69 by the FHWA/relevant state DOTs.

Legally, all of I-94 east of Chicago is part of I-69. Really, just that little bit in Port Huron that you talk about is.

The point that was being made by pointing out the nonsense legal definition was that legal definitions are sometimes stupid!

I-69 goes nowhere near Chicago so no that doesn't make any sense to legally say that all of I-94 east of Chicago is part of I-69. I-69 intersects I-94 in Michigan near Marshall and crosses over it, doesn't multiplex with it at all. I-69 goes towards Fort Wayne and Lansing, I-94 goes towards Chicago and Detroit.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to anyone here in reality. But in that alternate universe lovingly depicted on the back of the $50 bill, Congress passed a law declaring all of I-94 east of Chicago to be part of I-69. So yes, I-69 does in fact go near Chicago, if you take the definition as outlined in law as the authority on what is and isn't I-69. Except that's stupid, because it would make a mockery of using the I-69 designation as the navigational aid it's intended to be. So MDOT, InDOT, and IDOT have all done the sensible thing and pretended that Congress never said that.

The point being, no roadgeek would consider it necessary to travel that segment of I-94 to consider I-69 clinched, because it has no basis in reality.* Likewise, then, the Washington legislature declaring a SR-168 where no state highway actually exists should be treated similarly. Someone could claim a clinch of the entire Washington state highway system and safely ignore SR-168.

*Note that, on the surface, this would seem to question the legitimacy of unsigned routes. Unsigned routes are, however, generally actually maintained by the agency that administers the system, and as a result often have ample documentation. They usually–but not always–have no other designations but the hidden one, which exists to normalize a route which would otherwise have a null reference. Even I-444, which would probably be the best analogue to the I-94 situation (Interstate silently concurrent with other routes) is fully denoted on Oklahoma DOT resources, and the control sections that make up the Interstate are duly numbered "444-72-92" and "444-72-94".

I have traveled between Saginaw, MI and Chicago several times. There is no I-69 signage anywhere on I-94 so therefore I would not consider that a part of I-69 regardless of who said what. There are several unsigned routes and to me those don't really exist either because there is no signage letting you know that you are on said highway. I-69 only intersects with I-94 there and both highways go there own direction. It doesn't make any sense at all to consider all of I-94 east of Chicago a part of I-69.

[Flint1979]

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.

[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.

[Flint1979]

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?

[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.

[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.

[vdeane]

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.