TX: Ports to Plains corridor study

[JayhawkCO]

A straight diagonal from Fort Supply to Limon would serve nothing much in Kansas, meaning Kansas wouldn't be likely to support it. Cut north at Fort Supply to Dodge City, then over to Garden City, then to Limon, though, and now you might get Kansas's attention. That would serve the two major population centers in southwest Kansas, and tie into the US-54/400 corridor toward Wichita (remember the I-66 idea that caused US-400's creation?) It's less direct, sure, but serves more people.

Which is what I had said to Bobby in the other thread on this topic.  It doesn't matter that "if you build a straight shot interstate, it'll be quicker than 70->135->35".  No one is building this highway unless it serves the very few cities in the path (Liberal, Garden City, Lamar, La Junta, whatever).  Once you make the road curve to serve those cities, it ceases being any quicker than the current set up.  No state is spending millions of dollars to create a highway that either a) doesn't serve any population centers or b) doesn't speed up commerce.  I really feel like a lot of people who want to see this come to fruition have never been to southwest Kansas or southeast Colorado.  There is damn near nothing there.

It's the same reason we don't discuss an Albuquerque-Tucson interstate.  Would good would it serve?

Chris

[sparker]

And, yes, I think a OKC-Denver Interstate would be that much better if it extended from OKC to the Texarkana area, where it could connect with I-49. That would create a fairly direct Denver to New Orleans route. As Scott5114 said, the route would indeed be beneficial to Oklahoma. Right now we just have 2-lane OK-3 sort of serving that purpose in SE OK. For Texas traffic coming up from DFW and going to Denver the route up I-35 to this route going straight to Limon would probably be more direct than using US-287.

Would it be enough to upgrade the Indian Nation Turnpike to what it needs to get an interstate shield, then build something new terrain from there due east to connect to I-49 just northeast of the OK-TX-AR point?  Kind of a zig-zag diagonal, but still a diagonal accomplished on the cheap?

Expanding the volume of traffic on the Indian Nation turnpike would be a positive. This is kind of the problem I see with P2P. You build it and it still doesn't come.

Interestingly, the P2P poses an inverse situation re the other mostly N-S TX-backed corridor, I-69.  The center section (Shreveport-Memphis) of that composite corridor is widely considered to be the least useful and almost certainly the last section to be developed.  With the P2P/I-27 corridor, it's the middle section, roughly from I-10 (near Sonora, TX) into the northern Panhandle around Dumas, that is anticipated to host the greatest volume of traffic as both a "cutoff" from the San Antonio area and a connector between populated points in west TX (San Angelo, M/O/Big Spring, Lubbock).  The section south of there through Del Rio and on to Laredo will likely depend upon traffic originating elsewhere -- at one of the POE's or even seaports like Corpus -- to justify its existence.  The Permian will generate its own level of regional traffic to augment through movements; that will extend into the agricultural region north of there that extends well into the Panhandle.  But north of, say, Stratford the corridor will likely revert to a through-traffic conduit; there's little between TX and I-70 to churn up much in the way of local usage.  Now -- US 287 already carries a decent amount of commercial traffic from TX to Denver and vice-versa, particularly savvy truckers who are simply trying to not only avoid Raton Pass and its nasty grades but also the rolling congestion of Pueblo and Colorado Springs on I-25, which is definitely showing its age.  As long as they can do a consistent 65 out on the plains with only a few slow-speed obstacles, there will always be a commercial contingent who will favor that routing.  As iterated previously in this thread, the developmental scenario may see full Interstate development within TX (having your principal political backers within a state that constitutes 3/4 of the corridor really helps in that regard!) but a full build-out to that level might be a bit more "leisurely" north of the TX line -- possibly some super-2's, some 2-lane controlled-access sections, and even some 4-lane expressways (with a freeway bypass or two around the likes of Springfield and Lamar).  Probably looking at a 30-35-year timeline outside TX to get I-27 built & signed up to I-70 (unless some fiscal incentives to do so are dangled in front of ODOT and CDOT).     

[sprjus4]

The section south of there through Del Rio and on to Laredo will likely depend upon traffic originating elsewhere -- at one of the POE's or even seaports like Corpus -- to justify its existence.

Traffic from Corpus Christi is still going to have a faster and more direct route following I-37 and I-10 via San Antonio... as for the Valley, there could some potential if and only if I-2 / I-27 is constructed as a full interstate highway between McAllen, Laredo, Del Rio, and I-10. Otherwise, the winner is still going to be I-69E/C, I-37, and I-10 via San Antonio.

I still see very little warrant for any interstate highway between Laredo and I-10... perhaps a cutoff between I-35 and I-10 along the SH-173 corridor between Kerrville and Devine corridor if a connection between I-10 West and I-35 South is warranted, but that's about it.

The only segment that has the true warrants to be constructed to interstate highway standards and signed as I-27 is between I-10 and I-70 or I-25.

[Scott5114]

A straight diagonal from Fort Supply to Limon would serve nothing much in Kansas, meaning Kansas wouldn't be likely to support it. Cut north at Fort Supply to Dodge City, then over to Garden City, then to Limon, though, and now you might get Kansas's attention. That would serve the two major population centers in southwest Kansas, and tie into the US-54/400 corridor toward Wichita (remember the I-66 idea that caused US-400's creation?) It's less direct, sure, but serves more people.

Which is what I had said to Bobby in the other thread on this topic.  It doesn't matter that "if you build a straight shot interstate, it'll be quicker than 70->135->35".  No one is building this highway unless it serves the very few cities in the path (Liberal, Garden City, Lamar, La Junta, whatever).  Once you make the road curve to serve those cities, it ceases being any quicker than the current set up.  No state is spending millions of dollars to create a highway that either a) doesn't serve any population centers or b) doesn't speed up commerce.

I did the math on a previous page and came up with an hour time savings on a path that serves Dodge-Garden.

[JayhawkCO]

I did the math on a previous page and came up with an hour time savings on a path that serves Dodge-Garden.

But that was also entering Colorado and not routing through any SE Colorado cities, so why would Colorado pay for that?  It doesn't help Colorado enough. 

Chris

[rte66man]

BUMP!!

Looks like TxDOT got some real $$$ in the Infrastructure Act to move forward on planning.

https://www.fox34.com/2023/01/19/funding-secured-ports-to-plains-corridor-projects/

Funding secured for Ports-to-Plains Corridor projects


By Joshua Ramirez
Published: Jan. 18, 2023 at 6:49 PM CST

LUBBOCK, Texas (KCBD) - New funding is secure for the future of the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor.

Those federal dollars will be crucial in bringing the Ports-to-Plains Corridor from concept to construction. The grants will fund multiple studies throughout Congressional District 19. Chairman of the Ports-to-Plains alliance, John Osborne, says it's the next step in making the corridor a reality. "Without those planning dollars, you can never get to the construction side."  Osborne said.

Those funds will now be available since President Biden signed the 2023 Omnibus Appropriations Bill at the end of December. In addition to the $1.6 million Lubbock congressman Jodey Arrington requested, TxDOT will add another $400,000 in funding. That will foot the bill for project feasibility, preliminary design, and environmental studies. "That $2 million will actually go to help fund as much of those studies as possible,"  Osborne said

Once the studies are completed, the project can go into a unified transportation plan to determine when construction can begin. "The fact that we've got planning dollars coming into the Ports-to-Plains Corridor is really important to help TxDOT fast track those projects into the UTP plan,"  Osborne said. Those projects are already benefiting the Hub City, but Osborne says the City of Lubbock will continue to benefit for decades to come. "We'll also see over the course of the next 50 and 100 years the opportunity to continue to grow and expand our city,"  Osborne said. "Because of that trade route being opened up."

Two other federal grants worth a total of $4 million were also approved, along with another million from TxDOT, to help fund construction related to Loop 88. The first will bring part of FM 1585 from Avenue U to half a mile east of Highway 87 up to interstate standard. The second will eventually connect Highway 87 to Loop 88 and convert two miles of the highway from 114th Street to 146th to interstate standard as well.

[StogieGuy7]

I know a lot of you cite current traffic studies; however, I appreciate that these folks are planning for future growth. And it's pretty reasonable to expect that the areas on either end of this corridor will grow significantly over time. Hard to say now, but planners also ask for the moon and stars up front and often end up with just enough to build what they wanted in the first place, which could be a somewhat reduced, yet useful corridor.

[JayhawkCO]

I know a lot of you cite current traffic studies; however, I appreciate that these folks are planning for future growth. And it's pretty reasonable to expect that the areas on either end of this corridor will grow significantly over time. Hard to say now, but planners also ask for the moon and stars up front and often end up with just enough to build what they wanted in the first place, which could be a somewhat reduced, yet useful corridor.

And it's pretty reasonable to expect the areas in between either end to lose population significantly over time.

[Bobby5280]

Tiny po-dunk towns along the way will likely lose population (just like tiny towns are losing residents across the nation). However, the Ports to Plains Corridor does pass through some significant population centers between Denver and Laredo. That helps make the corridor more justifiable to build.

Lubbock and Amarillo are both growing. Big Spring and San Angelo are big enough they're not suffering the same problems facing tiny towns. Plus a new super highway corridor may attract more development to those places. The same could apply to Del Rio and Eagle Pass. Then there's the oil and gas business in the Permian Basin. Lots of trucks and other company vehicles move all over that region. A new Interstate would improve movement of that traffic out there.

It's still questionable if Midland will get a "I-27W" leg from the Ports to Plains Corridor. But the city is at least intended to be the West terminus for I-14. That would effectively build out half of that I-27W leg by default. If the Ports to Plains Corridor is fully built-out it's more likely I-27 would just be signed thru Big Spring. I-14 would come up to Midland from the San Angelo area. A spur from the North side of Midland to Lamesa would probably just carry a 3-digit Interstate designation (or just continue being signed as TX-349).

[bwana39]

It is the Ports to Plains Corridor Study

Not the Ports to Plains Interstate Highway Study

While there is a significant number who will suggest that this is the ONLY alternative, there are several things that might happen.

The whole monte. Interstate or interstate equivalent all the way from IH-70 to Laredo (or even Interstate 2) including splits going Through Midland, Odessa, or Abilene or maybe all three.

A straight shot Interstate or Interstate equivalent mostly following US-87 through Big Spring again all the way from I-70 to Mexico.

Nothing the route remains basically as it is with repairs and minor upgrades as population and traffic changes.  Simply the " NO BUILD" option. 

I believe the study will show that it needs to mostly be four laned. It needs some loops and bypasses to get around particularly the smaller towns. 

This is a study to see what is needed. Not a study to rubber stamp a NGO agency's desire to increase the value of scrubby land into commercial property.

[Bobby5280]

First of all, that "scrubby land" out there generates a shit-ton of oil and natural gas. There is a hell of a lot of industrial activity associated with it. That means lots of commercial trucks pulling out onto various roads.

Also, that "scrubby land" is not desolate like Northern Nevada. Obviously Amarillo, Lubbock and Midland-Odessa are the biggest population centers within the corridor. Around 120,000 people live in the San Angelo metro; it's one of the biggest cities in the US to not have any Interstate connections at all. There's several other towns along the way in the 30,000 population range.

And then the other consideration is the Ports to Plains Corridor is NOT meant to be a local service road. It's more of a big picture corridor helping to move goods more efficiently to/from major population centers and ports. The cities along the Front Range of the Colorado Rockies is a major population center. The cluster of cities in far South Texas is another. Laredo and Brownsville are both major ports. The corridor doesn't need to ping-pong connect to every town in the region (which is why the main line goes thru Big Spring and not Midland).

If the criteria for building an Interstate highway required there to be major cities every 100-200 miles a whole lot of the existing Interstate highway system would not be built. None of them would run completely from one end of the country to the other.

I believe the study will show that it needs to mostly be four laned. It needs some loops and bypasses to get around particularly the smaller towns.

That pretty much describes the existing highway from San Angelo up to Stratford in the TX Panhandle. It's all four-laned, most of it divided. There are a few limited access exits scattered along the way. Big Spring has a new freeway bypass. Amarillo's freeway loop is in progress. Lubbock's loop could use some improvement.

South of San Angelo US-87 is mostly 2-laned all the way to Del Rio. The road is pretty hilly and curvy between Sonora and Del Rio. I wouldn't like driving on that road in its existing configuration. Great recipe for a head-on collision. I already refuse to take US-287 into SE Colorado because that 2-lane road is indeed dangerous.

[bwana39]

Also, that "scrubby land" is not desolate like Northern Nevada. Obviously Amarillo, Lubbock and Midland-Odessa are the biggest population centers within the corridor.

The scrubby land I was describing was not meant to place judgement on the permian basin , the RGV, or any place in particular. There is scrubby land in the lush verdant east Texas region as well.

The scrubbly land I was discussing could just as well have been the intersection of US-82 and I-30 circa 1965. The intersection of US-287 and I-69 outside of Corrigan, or yes, an intersection of US-180 and US-87 (or I-27) on the east side of Lamesa. The point being that this land at the intersections of a freeway becomes exponentially more valuable.

This increase of value is much of what the regional highway groups are searching for. It isn't increased safety. There might be nominal desire to create jobs. Any way you look at it is building loops around town creates new commercial property. If a city supports building a loop . land speculators or investors control the rhetoric. If a city opposes the building of a loop, it is likely the small business owners whose establishments will be bypassed control the rhetoric.

I hate being Debbie Downer, but as much as the majority want highway improvement for transportation's sake, that is not the prevailing wisdom(?) in these small and midsized towns.

[Bobby5280]

This increase of value is much of what the regional highway groups are searching for. It isn't increased safety.

I disagree with that. Certain safety issues I hate along the US-287 corridor going North thru the Panhandles of TX & OK into CO as well as the US-87 corridor going down to Del Rio could be fixed simply by turning the existing 2-lane roads into a 4-lane divided configuration.

The other factor is moving commerce more effectively between the Front Range and the Gulf Coast. Cities along the Front Range of the Rockies have been growing pretty significantly. The old status quo highway setup from when those cities were much smaller isn't cutting it anymore. Those cities need limited access connections to the South and Southeast other than just I-25 and I-70.

I'm skeptical about towns using future Interstate highways as drivers for economic development. That really comes down to location, location and location. Still, a city such as Amarillo could make out really big if I-27 was extended North to the Denver area and down to Laredo. That would put Amarillo in an even more prime spot for logistical distribution center activity.

[bwana39]

This increase of value is much of what the regional highway groups are searching for. It isn't increased safety.

I disagree with that. Certain safety issues I hate along the US-287 corridor going North thru the Panhandles of TX & OK into CO as well as the US-87 corridor going down to Del Rio could be fixed simply by turning the existing 2-lane roads into a 4-lane divided configuration.

The other factor is moving commerce more effectively between the Front Range and the Gulf Coast. Cities along the Front Range of the Rockies have been growing pretty significantly. The old status quo highway setup from when those cities were much smaller isn't cutting it anymore. Those cities need limited access connections to the South and Southeast other than just I-25 and I-70.

I'm skeptical about towns using future Interstate highways as drivers for economic development. That really comes down to location, location and location. Still, a city such as Amarillo could make out really big if I-27 was extended North to the Denver area and down to Laredo. That would put Amarillo in an even more prime spot for logistical distribution center activity.

The point I was trying to make was that the local groups who are clamoring for new interstates are in solely for economic development and gave my strong opinion of what said groups goals are and are not.

I agree fully that most of this could be fixed could be fixed simply by turning the existing 2-lane roads into a 4-lane divided configuration. with some bypasses / loops and over / underpasses at significant intersections (most if not all state highways including FM's and select city & county roads.)

While I think an interstate would be nice, trading cars every year would be nice for me. On the other hand, economically it may not be feasible.

[Bobby5280]

The very least they can do is secure the ROW needed to make any upgrades to 4-lane divided for fully limited access feasible.

Texas used to be really good at doing that. They would upgrade a 2-lane highway to 4-lane divided with a huge median that could hold a freeway years or decades later. Stretches of US-287 between Wichita Falls and Fort Worth were built like that. In some other cases they would just have a wide swath of ROW alongside a 2-lane road. A bunch of US-82 between Sherman and Paris was like that, in various stages of Super-2 configuration. The upgraded more and more intersections to limited access. Lately they've been adding in the second pair of lanes.

TX DOT (along with ODOT and CDOT) need to be doing this kind of work with the Ports to Plains Corridor. They need to get big on ROW preservation. Another thing they need to do when upgrading 2-lane sections to 4-lane divided is improving the highway geometry and sight lines -basically making the main lanes Interstate grade without necessarily making it limited access. Blind curves and rises can be pretty hazardous if there are at-grade intersections, driveways or dirt roads connecting directly to the main lanes.

[bwana39]

The very least they can do is secure the ROW needed to make any upgrades to 4-lane divided for fully limited access feasible.

Texas used to be really good at doing that. They would upgrade a 2-lane highway to 4-lane divided with a huge median that could hold a freeway years or decades later. Stretches of US-287 between Wichita Falls and Fort Worth were built like that. In some other cases they would just have a wide swath of ROW alongside a 2-lane road. A bunch of US-82 between Sherman and Paris was like that, in various stages of Super-2 configuration. The upgraded more and more intersections to limited access. Lately they've been adding in the second pair of lanes.

TX DOT (along with ODOT and CDOT) need to be doing this kind of work with the Ports to Plains Corridor. They need to get big on ROW preservation. Another thing they need to do when upgrading 2-lane sections to 4-lane divided is improving the highway geometry and sight lines -basically making the main lanes Interstate grade without necessarily making it limited access. Blind curves and rises can be pretty hazardous if there are at-grade intersections, driveways or dirt roads connecting directly to the main lanes.

While they tend to use it more in transitional urban and suburban areas They would upgrade a 2-lane highway to 4-lane divided with a huge median that could hold a freeway years or decades later. is just building the frontage roads first and being able to build the main lanes at a later date. There are advantages to both; that and building the main lanes first and then the frontage roads later. The primary advantage to the frontage lanes first then the main lanes is that the connections to adjacent properties are already tied in and there is less disturbance when the overpasses and lanes are built between the existent frontage roads.

The primary advantage to building the main lanes along the center is there is a smaller path to mow. In a lot of cases, when they buy the entire ROW and only build a smaller initial facility, they allow the original landholders to use (and maintain) the parts along the perimeter. This is generally the case for agricultural land. I could see some places where it might apply in more urban areas in a case by case basis.  Even when the land is separated / fenced from the original property, it doesn't have to be cleared, mowed,and maintained until it is time for construction activities to proceed.

In the case of Texas, they GENERALLY spread expansions from a center 35' (more or less) from the left or right of a 2-laned road in rural areas. 25' in developed suburban areas.  (The ideal depressed median is from 48' to 78'.)

[abqtraveler]

The very least they can do is secure the ROW needed to make any upgrades to 4-lane divided for fully limited access feasible.

Texas used to be really good at doing that. They would upgrade a 2-lane highway to 4-lane divided with a huge median that could hold a freeway years or decades later. Stretches of US-287 between Wichita Falls and Fort Worth were built like that. In some other cases they would just have a wide swath of ROW alongside a 2-lane road. A bunch of US-82 between Sherman and Paris was like that, in various stages of Super-2 configuration. The upgraded more and more intersections to limited access. Lately they've been adding in the second pair of lanes.

TX DOT (along with ODOT and CDOT) need to be doing this kind of work with the Ports to Plains Corridor. They need to get big on ROW preservation. Another thing they need to do when upgrading 2-lane sections to 4-lane divided is improving the highway geometry and sight lines -basically making the main lanes Interstate grade without necessarily making it limited access. Blind curves and rises can be pretty hazardous if there are at-grade intersections, driveways or dirt roads connecting directly to the main lanes.

Before they could do any of that, they would need to complete all of their NEPA work done. Given the length of the corridor, I would expect that TxDOT, ODOT, CDOT, and NMDOT would have to work together and perform a two-tier NEPA analysis, like what was done for I-69 in Indiana (I think Texas took a 2 tier approach for their portion of I-69 as well). The Tier I EIS and ROD would approve the general corridor. The broader corridor would then be divided up into smaller segments of independent utility, each with its own Tier II NEPA study. Only after the Tier II RODs are issued can the respective states acquire property for the ROW, assuming funding is available for ROW acquisition by that point.

[Bobby5280]

Despite the Ports to Plains Corridor being a national highway project all the work done thus far points to TX DOT, ODOT and CDOT trying to build out the corridor in a very piece-meal (and stupid) fashion.

It would make 100% perfect sense for them to get all the NEPA paperwork done up front and then work on future steps, like securing ROW, then re-locating utilities, etc. But it appears they don't want to fart around with any of that leg work until they are forced to do so. The problem is if they wait until then the whole job is going to be far more difficult, if not impossible. And maybe that's what some of the bureaucrats want: a no-build option made by default due to procrastination.

[bwana39]

Despite the Ports to Plains Corridor being a national highway project all the work done thus far points to TX DOT, ODOT and CDOT trying to build out the corridor in a very piece-meal (and stupid) fashion.

It would make 100% perfect sense for them to get all the NEPA paperwork done up front and then work on future steps, like securing ROW, then re-locating utilities, etc. But it appears they don't want to fart around with any of that leg work until they are forced to do so. The problem is if they wait until then the whole job is going to be far more difficult, if not impossible. And maybe that's what some of the bureaucrats want: a no-build option made by default due to procrastination.

All roadbuilding in the US is done by the local DOT's. Each have their own agendas and their own way of doing things. While once they start construction, there are some minimums they have to adhere to (based on the branding of the highway SH,US, IH) they pretty much get to do what they want, when they want, and how they want.  As much as we would like a cognizant plan to build out these freeways, the fact there is no requirement to do anything in particular and very little guidance from congress to do anything. Just like someone mentioned above, the feds sent $1.6 million. Texas chipped in $400K. 80% federal funding, 20% TXDOT.

I am going to add one thing here. 2 million wouldn't pay the engineering to decide what property to buy for the ROW in a single county.

While construction expense is out the roof, engineering (consultant and in-house) expense dwarfs constructions costs, period.

[vdeane]

^ It's worth noting that states don't have full freedom to do things "when they want".  Once a project is designed, it has to go out to construction within a certain amount of time, or the state is forced to pay back the design money to the feds.  And a NEPA evaluation can't be too far before construction, either.  So no "just get NEPA done and buy ROW and then sit on the project until the money is available for construction".

[Rothman]

^ It's worth noting that states don't have full freedom to do things "when they want".  Once a project is designed, it has to go out to construction within a certain amount of time, or the state is forced to pay back the design money to the feds.  And a NEPA evaluation can't be too far before construction, either.  So no "just get NEPA done and buy ROW and then sit on the project until the money is available for construction".

Good point.  DOT environmental units probably spend half their time updating expired docs.

However, FHWA has become more lax on the 10-Year PE rule.  I am sure they still keep an eye on it, but even they got sick of dealing with reviewing the justifications and other associated busywork.

(personal opinion expressed)

[abqtraveler]

^ It's worth noting that states don't have full freedom to do things "when they want".  Once a project is designed, it has to go out to construction within a certain amount of time, or the state is forced to pay back the design money to the feds.  And a NEPA evaluation can't be too far before construction, either.  So no "just get NEPA done and buy ROW and then sit on the project until the money is available for construction".

To that point, the FHWA has been withholding approval of EISs and RODs until the DOT overseeing the project presents a financial plan showing how they plan to fund all elements of the project from design to ROW acquisition and construction. The FHWA is requiring the financial plan to be included with the NEPA documentation so projects don't languish for years or decades while they await funding.

[Revive 755]

^ It's worth noting that states don't have full freedom to do things "when they want".  Once a project is designed, it has to go out to construction within a certain amount of time, or the state is forced to pay back the design money to the feds.  And a NEPA evaluation can't be too far before construction, either.  So no "just get NEPA done and buy ROW and then sit on the project until the money is available for construction".

Good point.  DOT environmental units probably spend half their time updating expired docs.

However, FHWA has become more lax on the 10-Year PE rule.  I am sure they still keep an eye on it, but even they got sick of dealing with reviewing the justifications and other associated busywork.

(personal opinion expressed)

I seem to recall hearing there was something in the transportation bill passed in the last few years that loosened up some of the time restrictions.

[Rothman]

^ It's worth noting that states don't have full freedom to do things "when they want".  Once a project is designed, it has to go out to construction within a certain amount of time, or the state is forced to pay back the design money to the feds.  And a NEPA evaluation can't be too far before construction, either.  So no "just get NEPA done and buy ROW and then sit on the project until the money is available for construction".

To that point, the FHWA has been withholding approval of EISs and RODs until the DOT overseeing the project presents a financial plan showing how they plan to fund all elements of the project from design to ROW acquisition and construction. The FHWA is requiring the financial plan to be included with the NEPA documentation so projects don't languish for years or decades while they await funding.

This is normal procedure for FHWA, so it's hard to characterize it as being "held up."

[abqtraveler]

^ It's worth noting that states don't have full freedom to do things "when they want".  Once a project is designed, it has to go out to construction within a certain amount of time, or the state is forced to pay back the design money to the feds.  And a NEPA evaluation can't be too far before construction, either.  So no "just get NEPA done and buy ROW and then sit on the project until the money is available for construction".

To that point, the FHWA has been withholding approval of EISs and RODs until the DOT overseeing the project presents a financial plan showing how they plan to fund all elements of the project from design to ROW acquisition and construction. The FHWA is requiring the financial plan to be included with the NEPA documentation so projects don't languish for years or decades while they await funding.

This is normal procedure for FHWA, so it's hard to characterize it as being "held up."

From what I've seen, the FHWA has become more stringent on requiring the financial plan within the past 15-20 years that shows that the state will fund and build the project within a reasonable amount of time. It's interesting that a lot of folks don't realize that an approved EIS/ROD has a "shelf life," at least unofficially, if not officially. If the project sits dormant for too long after the EIS and ROD are approved, the responsible agency will have to go back and "re-evaluate" the approved EIS/ROD and determine if either a Supplemental EIS or even a new EIS would be required before the project could proceed.

I'm thinking this could certainly be the case for Mississippi's section of I-69, whose EIS and ROD were approved over 10 years ago, or the Charles W. Dean Bridge, for which the EIS and ROD were approved back in 2004; not not even a shovel-full of dirt has been moved for either of these projects due to lack of funding. These are the kind of things the FHWA is trying to avoid by requiring the lead agencies to show that funding has been secured before they approve the EIS and ROD.