AARoads Forum

Which one of these proposals (or in the case of US-290/TX-71 or US-287 considerations) you think is the nearest in the future?

Between the likes of I-69E, I-14, I-49, I-57, US-412/AR-612, and maybe even I-27W or US-290/TX-71 for future interstates (extensions)

I would vote Interstate 49 between Lafyette and New Orleans, since much of the corridor is already up to freeway standards. The only roadblock could be getting future Interstate 49 constructed within the city of Lafyette.

Indeed, it would probably be I-49 in LA. Nothing else is really moving along. I-49's corridor is well-defined.

Has the US 412 corridor interstate been confirmed as I-42 already?
It would seem weird to duplicate 42 when every number between 46 and 62 are available, but whatever.

Quote from: SkyPesos on November 10, 2023, 02:25:19 PM
Has the US 412 corridor interstate been confirmed as I-42 already?
It would seem weird to duplicate 42 when every number between 46 and 62 are available, but whatever.

Oklahoma proposed it, it's also apparently supposed to go further west from Tulsa to I-35 around the Fancy Dance Casino

Quote from: SkyPesos on November 10, 2023, 02:25:19 PM
Has the US 412 corridor interstate been confirmed as I-42 already?
It would seem weird to duplicate 42 when every number between 46 and 62 are available, but whatever.

It's what Oklahoma wants, but I'm not sure that AASHTO or the FHWA have actually approved it. They would be wise not to.

Quote from: jlam on November 10, 2023, 02:21:31 PM
Indeed, it would probably be I-49 in LA. Nothing else is really moving along. I-49's corridor is well-defined.

I get what you mean but Texas lately been wanting to get I-27 designates as quickly as possible
https://abc7amarillo.com/amp/news/local/progress-made-on-ports-to-plains-corridor-project-aimed-at-enhancing-transportation-and-safety-in-texas-panhandle-lauren-garduno-milton-pax-dumas-texas
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/update-on-the-ports-to-plains-corridor-naming-interstate-27/amp/

It also helps that US-87 from Lubbock all the way to San Angelo is already a 4-lane divided expressway with a recent Big Spring bypass to boot. And every remaining bypass to be done just so happens to involve I-27W.

Texas also just did a I-14 study between Temple to BCS and Huntsville not too along ago, whiling a Rogers bypass is being done (in case it isn't finished by now).

But those would be my runner-ups after I-49........those and US-412/AR-612 to an lesser extent.

Ok, who voted for I-69W?

Quote from: TheBox on November 10, 2023, 02:53:14 PM
Ok, who voted for I-69W?

Me having no idea what I was doing.  :bigass:

I voted US-290 and/or TX-71 between Austin and Houston. I-69 is the most "official" Interstate expansion project in Texas, but it's probably going to take at least another 20-40 years for it to be completed. I think TX DOT will be forced to do a lot of additional Interstate quality upgrades on the US-290 and TX-71 corridors in the near term due to the continued growth of the Houston and Austin metro areas. The spot upgrades (at grade intersections converted to freeway exits) are going to keep adding up until one or both of those corridors gets filled out to 100% limited access. They both may end up keeping their current highway designations (and not be labeled as Interstates) but I think they'll get fleshed out into Interstate quality faster than the other I-projects in Texas.

There's no question in my mind that "I-69E (US-77) bypasses around Refugio, Odem, and Riviera" will be done first. I-69E is high priority for TxDOT, and TxDOT is spending between $500 million and $1 billion per year on I-69 projects. The Riviera bypass is slated to start in 2027. Refugio has environmental clearance and Odem environmental process is underway.

I'll be surprised to see any of these other corridors done by 2040, and most won't have much work done by 2050. I-14 from Temple to Huntsville could possibly get underway in the 2030s.

As for I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans, I drove that section a few years ago and I was unpleasantly surprised at the huge amount of work that needs to be done. Much of the existing 4x4 divided sections are near the end of service life and need to be rebuilt. I haven't seen a recent estimate, but I'm thinking the interstate upgrade is in the $3 billion range. Louisiana has massive unfunded needs, and it will struggle just to get higher-priority projects like I-10 Lake Charles and a new Baton Rouge bridge done. I expect some progress on that section of I-49, mostly around Lafayette, but I just can't see the entire section getting done.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 10, 2023, 06:10:24 PM
I voted US-290 and/or TX-71 between Austin and Houston. I-69 is the most "official" Interstate expansion project in Texas, but it's probably going to take at least another 20-40 years for it to be completed. I think TX DOT will be forced to do a lot of additional Interstate quality upgrades on the US-290 and TX-71 corridors in the near term due to the continued growth of the Houston and Austin metro areas. The spot upgrades (at grade intersections converted to freeway exits) are going to keep adding up until one or both of those corridors gets filled out to 100% limited access. They both may end up keeping their current highway designations (and not be labeled as Interstates) but I think they'll get fleshed out into Interstate quality faster than the other I-projects in Texas.

They're about to do a Chappell Hill overpass/spot upgrade and a Brenham realignment, so there's that.

Chappell Hill overpass
(https://kwhi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Concept-2.jpg)

Brenham re-alignment
(https://i.imgur.com/OSTJibA.png)

Now if only they can work on a Giddings bypass, it's long overdue

At this point, I'm gonna replace I-69W with the more realistic I-69E (which has much more progress), because I can

And with the 2 votes still intact, speaking of whose the second guy who voted for I-69W?

EDIT: Also the I-27 options switched places as they still had no votes, and moved I-69W to the bottom

I-69W (US-59) from Goliad to Laredo
- 2 (14.3%)  Seems as likely as any of the others. I have never been there.

I-69 (US-59/US-84) from Nacogdoches to TX/LA state line
- 2 (14.3%) To The north side of Nacogdoches and maybe to North of Tenaha by 2030. To the state line is at least 25 years away if ever. Louisiana has ZERO interest//


I-27 (US-277/US-83) from San Angelo to Laredo
- 0 (0%)  This is a wish list road. 4-lane divided with bypsses and selected grade separation by 2050.

I-14 (US-190 and maybe TX-30?) from Temple to Bryan-College Station to Huntsville
- 2 (14.3%) This one may go fairly quickly , maybe by 2035.

US-290 or TX-71 from Houston/Columbus to Austin (to interstate standards)
- 1 (7.1%)  15-20 years, It could move up.

US-287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo (also to interstate standards)
- 0 (0%) My belief this is the most needed one in Texas, but still 30-35 years.  Just 4-lane divided with select grade separation is probably 20. (BTW, it is closer from DFW to LA going through Amarillo)

I-49 (US-90) from Lafayette to New Orleans
- 6 (42.9%)  If LA can get this financed, it is probably around a decade.


I-42 (US-412/AR-612) from OK/AR state line to east of NWA
- 1 (7.1%)   This one is probably the first one finished. Oklahoma has their part mostly done. Arkansas will play it like it is a bowl game at least through Springdale. Probably to the White River. Once I-49 and I-57 are finished, they will jump on this one.

I-27W (TX-349/TX-158) from Lamesa to Midland-Odessa to Sterling City
- 0 (0%)    I know this opinion is not popular, but it should skip Midland / Odessa and just follow US-87. 

I-369 (US-59) from Tenaha to Marshall to Texarkana  This one is probably finished before I-69 to I-20 probably before I-69 to I-49.

I like how I-57 via US 60 and US 67 is not a voting option

Quote from: ilpt4u on November 10, 2023, 08:30:38 PM
I like how I-57 via US 60 and US 67 is not a voting option

Shit which I forgot, thanks for reminding me

EDIT: added I-57

Quote from: bwana39 on November 10, 2023, 08:00:32 PM
I-69W (US-59) from Goliad to Laredo
- 2 (14.3%)  Seems as likely as any of the others. I have never been there.

I-69 (US-59/US-84) from Nacogdoches to TX/LA state line
- 2 (14.3%) To The north side of Nacogdoches and maybe to North of Tenaha by 2030. To the state line is at least 25 years away if ever. Louisiana has ZERO interest//


I-27 (US-277/US-83) from San Angelo to Laredo
- 0 (0%)  This is a wish list road. 4-lane divided with bypsses and selected grade separation by 2050.

I-14 (US-190 and maybe TX-30?) from Temple to Bryan-College Station to Huntsville
- 2 (14.3%) This one may go fairly quickly , maybe by 2035.

US-290 or TX-71 from Houston/Columbus to Austin (to interstate standards)
- 1 (7.1%)  15-20 years, It could move up.

US-287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo (also to interstate standards)
- 0 (0%) My belief this is the most needed one in Texas, but still 30-35 years.  Just 4-lane divided with select grade separation is probably 20. (BTW, it is closer from DFW to LA going through Amarillo)

I-49 (US-90) from Lafayette to New Orleans
- 6 (42.9%)  If LA can get this financed, it is probably around a decade.


I-42 (US-412/AR-612) from OK/AR state line to east of NWA
- 1 (7.1%)   This one is probably the first one finished. Oklahoma has their part mostly done. Arkansas will play it like it is a bowl game at least through Springdale. Probably to the White River. Once I-49 and I-57 are finished, they will jump on this one.

I-27W (TX-349/TX-158) from Lamesa to Midland-Odessa to Sterling City
- 0 (0%)    I know this opinion is not popular, but it should skip Midland / Odessa and just follow US-87. 

I-369 (US-59) from Tenaha to Marshall to Texarkana  This one is probably finished before I-69 to I-20 probably before I-69 to I-49.

I updated this poll a bit since it's initial inception with a few more options I added for you to talk about:
I-69E (US-77) - The last 3 bypasses being Refugio, Odem, and Riviera
I-57 (US-67/US-60) - Little Rock to AR/MO state line, and maybe even all the way to Sikeston if we're lucky

Alright here's my own rankings:
I-69E (my vote) > I-14 > I-57 > I-42/US-412/AR-612 > I-49 (it's only this low because it's Louisiana my dude) > US-290/TX-71 > I-27W > the rest

I wish I could put US-290/TX-71 higher

Honestly, my vote was for I-42 in Oklahoma/Arkansas...but in all reality, I believe that it will be I-57 done first.

I guess we'll all have to just wait and see which is completed first. Time will tell.

Please differentiate between "new / future" and "fictional." Some lines are getting blurred here.

Quote from: Road Hog on November 11, 2023, 09:35:33 PM
Please differentiate between "new / future" and "fictional." Some lines are getting blurred here.

Yeah, I would say "new/future interstates" and "non-interstate upgrades."

If I had to hanker a guess:

1) I-69E from Robstown to Brownsville
2) US 67/I-57 from Walnut Ridge to MO border/Popular Bluff
3) TX 71 from Austin to I-10 at Columbus
4) I-42/US 412 from OK/AR line to I-49 (including western half of Springdale Bypass (AR 612)
5) I-49 South through Lafayette/Broussard & through Patterson/Bayou Vista/Berwick

Caveat on 5) is whether funds might be diverted to cover missing costs for the I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge project since toll funding for the latter have been rejected. Or, they may decide to delay that project and divert funds to at least the Lafayette Connector/Broussard segments, then complete the segment through P/BV/Berwick to have controlled access all the way to Des Allemands; then slow roll the remaining sections to I-310 and the finished Westbank Expressway.

I don't think it's fictional because all the state's seem to want them.....or doing some planning......
How about 49 and 69 in AR  and 14 east of 45?
Those are dreams if we get more money?
This region seems to be the only one with big interstate plans or dreams.

At first glance "I-42" in AR/OK seems nearly complete, but there is actually a lot of work left to do.

A bypass around Siloam Springs is the biggest hurdle. A couple of public meetings have been held on the topic, but the whole thing still appears to be in the study phase. We're likely at least several years out from an alignment being selected and construction getting underway. And ODOT/OTA will have to build a connection to that bypass on the Oklahoma side of the border to Dripping Springs and the East End of the Cherokee Turnpike.

US-412 between I-44 in Tulsa and West end of the Cherokee Turnpike looks pretty easy to upgrade. But it's about 25 miles of road to upgrade. The ROW is mostly in place, but there is a slew of new exits to build and other at-grade intersections to bridge over or just cut off. Going West out of Tulsa the US-412 freeway has some deficient ramps and shoulders to address. The Cimarron Turnpike still has things that need to be fixed on it. All of those things take money to get done. The state government's policies will provide only a slow trickle of funding. So the work is going to take a long time to get completed. I wouldn't expect to see "I-42" signed completely between I-35 and I-49 before the mid-late 2030's.

Out of short segments of highway, I can see I-69E between Victoria and I-37 getting done within the next 10 years. It seems likely I-69 between the Houston and Corpus Christi area will be finished in the 2030's. Segments elsewhere will take decades longer unless the Federal government gets much more aggressive about funding these projects.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 12, 2023, 11:23:52 AM
Out of short segments of highway, I can see I-69E between Victoria and I-37 getting done within the next 10 years. It seems likely I-69 between the Houston and Corpus Christi area will be finished in the 2030's.

This seems a bit ambitious. I know they are working aggressively going south from Houston towards Wharton, but as far as I'm aware, there's no real progress between Victoria and I-37. Bypasses of Refugio and Odem are forthcoming, but are there any plans in the rural areas between?

Texas seems right now to be focusing on I-69E south of I-37 down to Raymondville.

I would love to see Corpus Christi to Houston eventually completed though. In the meantime, it is a well designed 4 lane divided highway with free-flow and a consistent 75 mph speed limit - outside of Odem and Refugio which will be addressed hopefully this decade.

Umm.. I-27W???? Texas is really proposing two branches of I-27? I thought that was only one... unless I am missing something (or falling behind).

"I-27W" is actually a serious proposal. The Ports to Plains Corridor has East and West legs going through Big Spring and the Midland-Odessa areas.

Quote from: sprjus4This seems a bit ambitious. I know they are working aggressively going south from Houston towards Wharton, but as far as I'm aware, there's no real progress between Victoria and I-37. Bypasses of Refugio and Odem are forthcoming, but are there any plans in the rural areas between?

10 years from now would be almost 2034.

The first I-69 work between I-37 and Victoria is the new I-37/US-77 interchange, currently under construction. The Odem project would cover much of the leg up to Sinton. US-77 would need some minor improvements on the existing freeway around Sinton. The Refugio project would cover the bypass around Refugio and upgrade project through Woodsboro. That wouldn't leave a whole lot left between I-37 and Victoria to upgrade. The remaining work would be easy since there's very little development next to the existing highway.

The farther I-69 progress moves Southwest of Houston the easier it's going to be. Very little new ROW has to be acquired. I remember the US-71>I-49 upgrade in Southwest Missouri was a similar situation and it seemed to go relatively quickly since much of the work was in rural territory.

Of course, politics can either speed up or slow down the pace of progress. So that's a wild card.

Quote from: Strider on November 12, 2023, 09:57:04 PM
Umm.. I-27W???? Texas is really proposing two branches of I-27? I thought that was only one... unless I am missing something (or falling behind).

You heard of the US-87 Big Spring bypass? That'll be I-27E

They split and reunite at Lemesa north of I-20 and Sterling City south of I-20

And as I said before, US-87 from south of Lubbock all the way to San Angelo is already a 4-lane divided expressway (even when there's work TBD it's very doable), aside from the Lemesa and Sterling bypasses which just so happen to involve future I-27W

Quote from: pj3970 on November 11, 2023, 02:26:03 PM
Honestly, my vote was for I-42 in Oklahoma/Arkansas...but in all reality, I believe that it will be I-57 done first.

Siloam Springs will be the big obstacle to that occurring.   

I believe for I-49 it will be north of Texarkana to Dequeen rather than Shreveport or even US 90 from Lafayette to NOLA.

I also believe east of I-310 will be the last for when they get the Lafayette eastward segments done as with a connection to I-310 you don't need to go all the way to the Crescent City Connection to have a freeway to New Orleans from the north.

Quote from: roadman65 on November 13, 2023, 11:38:27 AM
I believe for I-49 it will be north of Texarkana to Dequeen rather than Shreveport or even US 90 from Lafayette to NOLA.

I also believe east of I-310 will be the last for when they get the Lafayette eastward segments done as with a connection to I-310 you don't need to go all the way to the Crescent City Connection to have a freeway to New Orleans from the north.

Are you saying I-49 will be completed to DeQueen before it is built through Shreveport (the ICC)?

As to I-49 ending at I-310 or even the Long bridge; the point of the road is to have an additional hurricane evacuation route. On here we tend to look at fair weather transportation needs. The state of Louisiana is looking at a balance of transportation needs versus hurricane evacuation. The connection to the CCC and central New Orleans is a goodly part of this need. From a transportation (truck) perspective, I-310 or even the HPL is more than sufficient, Either would create a good bypass of Baton Rouge.

My prediction is US-59 between Rosenburg and Victoria completed first before anything else on that poll list.  Within a couple years Houston to Wharton shall be upgraded to interstate standards; the Jackson County Airport to the other side of Edna bypass (southwest end) is already up to interstate standards, so very little if anything at all needs work traversing the town of Edna (more on that in my next paragraph).  And then South of Victoria I predict US-77 south to Brownsville will be done before continuing on US-59 to Laredo since US-77 is a lot closer to interstate standards than US-59.  Bypasses will eventually be done around Refugio, Odem, and Riviera; and overpasses will be built over McFaddin, Woodsboro, and Ricardo; Refugio bypass will be the final piece of the puzzle since the town is a major stopping point a great deal of traffic for fuel, food, rest, etc.  Traffic need Refugio and that town still needs traffic for now.

Regarding US-59 between Victoria and Jackson County Airport.  I have a feeling that this stretch might be next on the upgrade list after the Wharton/Hungerford upgrade.  Only thing needed is to close the few crossovers between the mainlanes and either build an overpass for the Jackson County Airport or reroute the airport access road to align with the Cordele exit.  The overpasses at Cordele, Inez, and El Toro are already built to standards.

Quote from: bwana39 on November 13, 2023, 01:57:03 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on November 13, 2023, 11:38:27 AM
I believe for I-49 it will be north of Texarkana to Dequeen rather than Shreveport or even US 90 from Lafayette to NOLA.

I also believe east of I-310 will be the last for when they get the Lafayette eastward segments done as with a connection to I-310 you don't need to go all the way to the Crescent City Connection to have a freeway to New Orleans from the north.

Are you saying I-49 will be completed to DeQueen before it is built through Shreveport (the ICC)?

As to I-49 ending at I-310 or even the Long bridge; the point of the road is to have an additional hurricane evacuation route. On here we tend to look at fair weather transportation needs. The state of Louisiana is looking at a balance of transportation needs versus hurricane evacuation. The connection to the CCC and central New Orleans is a goodly part of this need. From a transportation (truck) perspective, I-310 or even the HPL is more than sufficient, Either would create a good bypass of Baton Rouge.

I'm not against the Westbank Expressway being I-49. First of all it would end the non business designation of US 90 Business. Second and more practical, I believe in its intent. However I don't see LADOT building it top priority east of I-310. I see them upgrading US 90 from east of Houma to I-310 as very few obstacles in the way, but east of I-310 it's arterial with businesses along the route. I could very well see them stopping at I-310 like Tennessee stopping I-69 at Dyersburg instead of continuing it to Memphis due to I-155 and I-55 being a freeway to Memphis already.

Not saying either won't be built all the way eventually, but at the present moment top priorities will be to at least get 'em connected to freeways already built to other area interstates.

Quote from: roadman65 on November 13, 2023, 04:26:01 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on November 13, 2023, 01:57:03 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on November 13, 2023, 11:38:27 AM
I believe for I-49 it will be north of Texarkana to Dequeen rather than Shreveport or even US 90 from Lafayette to NOLA.

I also believe east of I-310 will be the last for when they get the Lafayette eastward segments done as with a connection to I-310 you don't need to go all the way to the Crescent City Connection to have a freeway to New Orleans from the north.

Are you saying I-49 will be completed to DeQueen before it is built through Shreveport (the ICC)?

As to I-49 ending at I-310 or even the Long bridge; the point of the road is to have an additional hurricane evacuation route. On here we tend to look at fair weather transportation needs. The state of Louisiana is looking at a balance of transportation needs versus hurricane evacuation. The connection to the CCC and central New Orleans is a goodly part of this need. From a transportation (truck) perspective, I-310 or even the HPL is more than sufficient, Either would create a good bypass of Baton Rouge.

I'm not against the Westbank Expressway being I-49. First of all it would end the non business designation of US 90 Business. Second and more practical, I believe in its intent. However I don't see LADOT building it top priority east of I-310. I see them upgrading US 90 from east of Houma to I-310 as very few obstacles in the way, but east of I-310 it's arterial with businesses along the route. I could very well see them stopping at I-310 like Tennessee stopping I-69 at Dyersburg instead of continuing it to Memphis due to I-155 and I-55 being a freeway to Memphis already.

Not saying either won't be built all the way eventually, but at the present moment top priorities will be to at least get 'em connected to freeways already built to other area interstates.

The Boutte (I-310) to West Bank Expressway segment will probably be the final segment of I-49 South to be built, since having a connection with an extension of I-310 to reach I-10 west of NOLA will do well as a internim.

There was a major controversy originally on how to run I-49 South through Boutte, though. The original plans had the freeway with its own dedicated connectors terminating I-310, and the original I-310 south of the LA 3127 interchange downgraded to non-limited access and ending at a conventional intersection with US 90, and then I-49 would run along the BNSF railroad line just north of US 90 prior to rejoining the 90 ROW before Willowdale Boulevard. Local officials in St. Charles Parish, however, raised holy Hell about that, and insisted on bypassing I-49 well south of Boutte, with an extension of existing I-310/LA 3137 terminating in a directional Y interchange. That alternative was considered DOA by FHWA/LADOTD because it would pass through very sensitive wetlands and a federal wildlife reserve area. Ultimately, they reached a compromise: An extension of I-310/LA 3137 to an interchange with I-49, then the routing along the BNSF, but with the railroad realigned slightly to the north to allow enough ROW without expensive bridging.

Quote from: roadman65 on November 13, 2023, 04:26:01 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on November 13, 2023, 01:57:03 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on November 13, 2023, 11:38:27 AM
I believe for I-49 it will be north of Texarkana to Dequeen rather than Shreveport or even US 90 from Lafayette to NOLA.

I also believe east of I-310 will be the last for when they get the Lafayette eastward segments done as with a connection to I-310 you don't need to go all the way to the Crescent City Connection to have a freeway to New Orleans from the north.

Are you saying I-49 will be completed to DeQueen before it is built through Shreveport (the ICC)?

As to I-49 ending at I-310 or even the Long bridge; the point of the road is to have an additional hurricane evacuation route. On here we tend to look at fair weather transportation needs. The state of Louisiana is looking at a balance of transportation needs versus hurricane evacuation. The connection to the CCC and central New Orleans is a goodly part of this need. From a transportation (truck) perspective, I-310 or even the HPL is more than sufficient, Either would create a good bypass of Baton Rouge.

I'm not against the Westbank Expressway being I-49. First of all it would end the non business designation of US 90 Business. Second and more practical, I believe in its intent. However I don't see LADOT building it top priority east of I-310. I see them upgrading US 90 from east of Houma to I-310 as very few obstacles in the way, but east of I-310 it's arterial with businesses along the route. I could very well see them stopping at I-310 like Tennessee stopping I-69 at Dyersburg instead of continuing it to Memphis due to I-155 and I-55 being a freeway to Memphis already.

Not saying either won't be built all the way eventually, but at the present moment top priorities will be to at least get 'em connected to freeways already built to other area interstates.

Just like I can't see them not building a Dyersburg to Memphis segment of I-69 because that would completely bypass Greater Memphis and/or overwhelm the existing crossings of I-55 and I-40 (unless you planned on extending the northern segment of I-269 across the Mississippi to connect with existing I-55), I can't see them not completing I-49 South all the way to NOLA. They do have some leeway to delay the I-310 to West Bank segment since a connection to I-310 would provide adequate Interstate access in the internim, but I can't see NOLA agreeing to not finishing it the full distance.


Although getting the Raceland to I-310 segment done would be easier, it does come with complications. The original plan was to bypass Des Allemands and Paradis to the south and then cross over to the north of US 90 for the dedicated connection with I-310, with the entire freeway elevated on viaduct. That was rejected for obvious financial reasons; the current plan is to overlay and hijack the current section of US 90 through Des Allemands by upgrading the existing US 90 bridge over Bayou Des Allemands, then borrow the existing US 90 ROW from east of Des Allemands to near Paradis, then briefly bypassing Paradis to the south before junctioning with the I-310 extension. The main issue here is that local access to the old US 90 would be cut off by I-49 taking over its ROW, and that has locals fuming for some kind of either frontage/access road for reconnecting old US 90 or shifting the ROW for I-49 further south and keeping old US 90 for the locals.

That's the word I was looking for. For I-69 from Dyersburg to Memphis has I-155 as an interim solution until Tennessee decides when to complete their part of the Canada to Mexico corridor. Heck they can't even finish the Union City or Troy bypasses or redo the South Fulton interchange at US 45/45E/45W/51 junction.

Tennessee puts that highway on back burner for sure just as MS, AR, LA, and TX ( east of US 59). Maybe our great grandkids might see I-69 completed, but south of Dyersburg and east of US 59 we're not going to see I-69 built.

Quote from: roadman65 on November 13, 2023, 07:27:50 PM
That's the word I was looking for. For I-69 from Dyersburg to Memphis has I-155 as an interim solution until Tennessee decides when to complete their part of the Canada to Mexico corridor. Heck they can't even finish the Union City or Troy bypasses or redo the South Fulton interchange at US 45/45E/45W/51 junction.

Tennessee puts that highway on back burner for sure just as MS, AR, LA, and TX ( east of US 59). Maybe our great grandkids might see I-69 completed, but south of Dyersburg and east of US 59 we're not going to see I-69 built.

TDOT is opening the Union City bypass in the next few weeks and has projects in the 2024–26 STIP for both Troy and the state line interface, so it would seem that there's more progress than you'd think. South of Dyersburg is more questionable, but US 51 between Millington and the Hatchie River is getting increasingly built up and will probably need to be bypassed in the next decade or so.

Hopefully all of them will eventually be completed, even if it takes 50 or more years to complete them all.

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 10, 2023, 02:35:53 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on November 10, 2023, 02:25:19 PM
Has the US 412 corridor interstate been confirmed as I-42 already?
It would seem weird to duplicate 42 when every number between 46 and 62 are available, but whatever.

It's what Oklahoma wants, but I'm not sure that AASHTO or the FHWA have actually approved it. They would be wise not to.

I was surprised that Arkansas signed onto the number as well.  I'll just be glad to see it completed, hopefully before I have to be driven everywhere.

Where's I-69C?

(BTW, my vote is on I-57 in AR.)

Quote from: Henry on November 14, 2023, 11:01:37 PM
Where's I-69C?

(BTW, my vote is on I-57 in AR.)

It's the redheaded stepchild  :-D

Quote from: DJStephens on November 13, 2023, 11:12:58 AM

Quote from: pj3970 on November 11, 2023, 02:26:03 PM
Honestly, my vote was for I-42 in Oklahoma/Arkansas...but in all reality, I believe that it will be I-57 done first.

Siloam Springs will be the big obstacle to that occurring.

We'll be to the 3rd PEL meeting with alternatives available by the Mar/Apr public involvement meeting, so we'll see what they come up with on alternatives for bypassing Siloam Springs.  Funding is going to be the tricky part for both states.  Arkansas is starting the western leg of AR-612 next year with a 2026 completion.  After that, we'll see what the alternatives are at that same public involvement meeting for the leg between the Siloam Springs Bypass and the Springdale Northern Bypass.  Probably new terrain builds as well as eliminating at-grade intersections with overpasses/access roads on the existing divided US-412 as a cheaper alternative.

It appears that the request for US-412 to become I-42 were withdrawn, both from Arkansas and Oklahoma.  We can only hope that this it due to the number being duplicitous of the facility in North Carolina that would never have logical connection, no matter how far into the future we look.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29375.msg2888852#msg2888852 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29375.msg2888852#msg2888852)

Quote from: MikieTimT on December 07, 2023, 02:40:19 AM
It appears that the request for US-412 to become I-42 were withdrawn, both from Arkansas and Oklahoma.  We can only hope that this it due to the number being duplicitous of the facility in North Carolina that would never have logical connection, no matter how far into the future we look.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29375.msg2888852#msg2888852 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29375.msg2888852#msg2888852)

And that leaves us with only the unused I-46 and I-48 left.
I-40 and I-45 are the majors, with I-42 (as you said), I-44, and I-49 existing else where.

Sure there's also the unused I-41, I-43, and I-47 but much like the aforementioned I-45 and I-49 those are odd and thus vertically N/S, they (or just I-x45) can also be saved for a hypothetical I-45 extension branch from it at McAlister, OK via Indian Nation Turnpike, whiling said hypothical I-45 goes straight to Big Cabin and then Kansas City via US-69, but that's getting to fictional territory at that point.

Quote from: TheBox on December 07, 2023, 08:22:13 AM

Quote from: MikieTimT on December 07, 2023, 02:40:19 AM
It appears that the request for US-412 to become I-42 were withdrawn, both from Arkansas and Oklahoma.  We can only hope that this it due to the number being duplicitous of the facility in North Carolina that would never have logical connection, no matter how far into the future we look.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29375.msg2888852#msg2888852 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29375.msg2888852#msg2888852)

And that leaves us with only the unused I-46 and I-48 left.
I-40 and I-45 are the majors, with I-42 (as you said), I-44, and I-49 existing else where.

Sure there's also the unused I-41, I-43, and I-47 but much like the aforementioned I-45 and I-49 those are odd and thus vertically N/S, they (or just I-x45) can also be saved for a hypothetical I-45 extension branch from it at McAlister, OK via Indian Nation Turnpike, whiling said hypothical I-45 goes straight to Big Cabin and then Kansas City via US-69, but that's getting to fictional territory at that point.

For US-412, any even number between 40 and 64 is fair game. Odd numbers indicate north-south, those aren't happening here period.

Avoiding unnecessary duplication, it could be I-46, I-48, I-50, I-52, I-54, I-56, I-58, I-60, or I-62.

I have my doubts about I-50 or I-60... I personally would like to see "I-58" applied to US-58 in Virginia if said route as ever upgraded, but that is certainly not a reason for this US-412 corridor to take "first dibs".

Quote from: TheBox on December 07, 2023, 08:22:13 AM

Quote from: MikieTimT on December 07, 2023, 02:40:19 AM
It appears that the request for US-412 to become I-42 were withdrawn, both from Arkansas and Oklahoma.  We can only hope that this it due to the number being duplicitous of the facility in North Carolina that would never have logical connection, no matter how far into the future we look.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29375.msg2888852#msg2888852 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29375.msg2888852#msg2888852)

And that leaves us with only the unused I-46 and I-48 left.
I-40 and I-45 are the majors, with I-42 (as you said), I-44, and I-49 existing else where.

Sure there's also the unused I-41, I-43, and I-47 but much like the aforementioned I-45 and I-49 those are odd and thus vertically N/S, they (or just I-x45) can also be saved for a hypothetical I-45 extension branch from it at McAlister, OK via Indian Nation Turnpike, whiling said hypothical I-45 goes straight to Big Cabin and then Kansas City via US-69, but that's getting to fictional territory at that point.

I-41 and I-43 are alive and well in Wisconsin.

I liked the Interstate 46 designation for the US 412 corridor. As for implementing an Interstate 47, I would have liked to see that designation follow the Interstate 369 corridor. In any event, I believe that the Interstate 42 designation might be resubmitted to AASTHO at a later date, though there is no guarantee it will be approved.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 03:12:50 PM
I liked the Interstate 46 designation for the US 412 corridor. As for implementing an Interstate 47, I would have liked to see that designation follow the Interstate 369 corridor. In any event, I believe that the Interstate 42 designation might be resubmitted to AASTHO at a later date, though there is no guarantee it will be approved.

Remember, I-42 was withdrawn before the most recent AASHTO meeting (though approval had been given with a condition), so the resubmission will most likely be under a new number. The "condition" part most likely refers to the renumbering; look at the two latest additions in NC (I-42 and I-87, both of which had other numbers for consideration before settling on their current designations).

Among the polls listed, I predict US-290 from Houston to Austin.

I would like to add a project worth considering.  Instead of I-69W from Victoria to Laredo, I'd like to see an interstate highway from Corpus Christi to Laredo running along or parallel to TX-44 from Corpus Christi to Freer and then US-59 from there to Laredo.  Already at IH-standards from Corpus Christi to approaching Robstown (including bypassing around Clarkwood), it's still mostly a four-lane divided highway from there to San Diego (TX).  Bypasses around Robstown, Agua Dulce, Alice/San Diego, and Freer would be needed, and would need an overpass or two through Banquete.  This highway has been talked about since the late 1990's among locals along the way.  Getting around Robstown and Alice would be a great time-saver.  Driving through Alice can sometimes take over a quarter-hour on TX-44 for only a five-mile stretch.

Quote from: jgb191 on December 08, 2023, 09:36:05 PM
Among the polls listed, I predict US-290 from Houston to Austin.

I would like to add a project worth considering.  Instead of I-69W from Victoria to Laredo, I'd like to see an interstate highway from Corpus Christi to Laredo running along or parallel to TX-44 from Corpus Christi to Freer and then US-59 from there to Laredo.  Already at IH-standards from Corpus Christi to approaching Robstown (including bypassing around Clarkwood), it's still mostly a four-lane divided highway from there to San Diego (TX).  Bypasses around Robstown, Agua Dulce, Alice/San Diego, and Freer would be needed, and would need an overpass or two through Banquete.  This highway has been talked about since the late 1990's among locals along the way.  Getting around Robstown and Alice would be a great time-saver.  Driving through Alice can sometimes take over a quarter-hour on TX-44 for only a five-mile stretch.

Isn't/wasn't that part of the I-69 system with potentially the speculated interstate designation I-6?

Yeah, the maps drawn up by groups such as the Alliance for I-69 do show a "leg" of the I-69 system running from Freer thru Alice and to Robstown. The Interstate would patch into the new freeway being built between Robstown and Corpus Christi.

I don't know about the "I-6" designation since the route would be relatively short and it would be yet another Texas intra-state. On the other hand, there isn't anywhere else in the contiguous 48 states where an I-6 route could be built. At any rate, it could be a long time before the Freer-Corpus Christi freeway gets built, even though there are legit arguments for it. Laredo is the busiest in-land port of entry in the US and Corpus Christi is a significant Gulf port city. An Interstate linking the two would help move commerce better. Plus Laredo is a pretty good sized city now and Corpus Christi isn't all that small either.

If they did use I-6 for that route I'd hope they would leave room for extending it over the new bridge and Corpus Christi Bay and then farther East. They could extend it along TX-35 by Aransas Pass and Rockport. A tunnel-bridge combo could get the road across Copano Bay. The point is the TX-35 corridor could be developed to serve port towns like Port Lavaca as well as work as another alternative route for hurricane evacuation.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 09, 2023, 11:20:34 AM
If they did use I-6 for that route I'd hope they would leave room for extending it over the new bridge and Corpus Christi Bay and then farther East. They could extend it along TX-35 by Aransas Pass and Rockport. A tunnel-bridge combo could get the road across Copano Bay. The point is the TX-35 corridor could be developed to serve port towns like Port Lavaca as well as work as another alternative route for hurricane evacuation.

This is definitely far fictional, and is not necessary at all. US-59 / US-77 handles the traffic more than adequately and is to be upgraded into the mainline of I-69.

Building a parallel freeway plus a multi-billion dollar bridge-tunnel is fantasy land.

Quote from: TheBox on December 09, 2023, 08:42:08 AM

Quote from: jgb191 on December 08, 2023, 09:36:05 PM
Among the polls listed, I predict US-290 from Houston to Austin.

I would like to add a project worth considering.  Instead of I-69W from Victoria to Laredo, I'd like to see an interstate highway from Corpus Christi to Laredo running along or parallel to TX-44 from Corpus Christi to Freer and then US-59 from there to Laredo.  Already at IH-standards from Corpus Christi to approaching Robstown (including bypassing around Clarkwood), it's still mostly a four-lane divided highway from there to San Diego (TX).  Bypasses around Robstown, Agua Dulce, Alice/San Diego, and Freer would be needed, and would need an overpass or two through Banquete.  This highway has been talked about since the late 1990's among locals along the way.  Getting around Robstown and Alice would be a great time-saver.  Driving through Alice can sometimes take over a quarter-hour on TX-44 for only a five-mile stretch.

Isn't/wasn't that part of the I-69 system with potentially the speculated interstate designation I-6?

I would have called it I-4 because it hovers similar latitudes as I-4 across the Florida peninsula.  But I don't remember it being apart of the I-69 corridor.

IMHO, the Interstate 69W corridor should have gotten the Interstate 6 designation, with 69C being a 3di of either Interstate 2 or Interstate 37. 69E should have been the mainline 69 corridor.

If memory from my childhood and teenage years serves me best:  from all the local news and city/county newspapers, I have heard that I-37 was originally going to be extended from Calallen to Brownsville, and the Calallen to the C.C. Bay segment a part of the Corpus Christi to Laredo interstate back around 1990 or so.  Then early 1990s, the need for Houston to Brownsville segment arose and then plans adjusted to upgrade US-59 from Houston to Victoria, and US-77 from Victoria to Brownsville as one interstate highway, then late 1990s that segment was then to be included in the I-69 extension from Indiana to Mexico.  In fact until a decade ago, Brownsville had been the control city for direction and mileage on US-77 out of Victoria until it changed to Corpus Christi only several years ago.

Also sometime during 1990s, a proposed split just south of Kingsville would branch into two interstates, one to Brownsville (keeping on US-77) and the other to McAllen by building a new highway to just north of Falfurrias (maybe around Premont), and then getting on US-281.  Then I heard of another proposition to upgrade the length of US-281 from I-37 at Three Rivers.