Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bing101]

https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/08/a_new_interstate_for_alabama_p.html




Here is the talks that included Alabama.

[Bobby5280]

Their map is showing a whole hell of a lot of wishful thinking. A freeway from Meridian to Montgomery is certainly justifiable. I think Montgomery, Columbus (GA) and Macon ought to be directly linked by a freeway corridor. The stuff in Central Louisiana and Mississippi as well as West Texas is far more difficult to justify, especially with several other national corridors under development that are far more worthy than this pork barrel thing.

[TheHighwayMan394]

Louisiana still has I-49 and I-69 in front of this. Why do we keep piling more interstates on jurisdictions with no ability to build them?

[sparker]

https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/08/a_new_interstate_for_alabama_p.html




Here is the talks that included Alabama.

Their map is showing a whole hell of a lot of wishful thinking. A freeway from Meridian to Montgomery is certainly justifiable. I think Montgomery, Columbus (GA) and Macon ought to be directly linked by a freeway corridor. The stuff in Central Louisiana and Mississippi as well as West Texas is far more difficult to justify, especially with several other national corridors under development that are far more worthy than this pork barrel thing.

Interesting that the promoters of the eastern part of the corridor showed an original iteration of the TX potion of the proposed corridor (the one with the single trunk down US 190 via Menard); my guess is that they really didn't care about anything west of the Mississippi River but just wanted to show the corridor as extending off the edge of the map! (El Paso?!).  Nevertheless, a corridor along US 80 (a logical western extension of I-16, IMO; but it looks like this'll have to do as far as promotional purposes go).  The whole thing is a revisiting of the I-69 process -- hopefully minus any semblance of the "Texas Trident" at one end; the Meridian-Macon-Augusta segment is a bit like I-69's Indy-Evansville; providing service to at least one substantial metro area (Evansville vs. Columbus, GA) with only a tenuous connection to the Interstate network, a central section (Huntsville, TX to Laurel, MS) with likely scant traffic and a Mississippi River crossing with which to contend, and a 3rd section (I-45 west to I-35) with a lot of local political support.  West of there (including the sole signed segment) could be a simple connection to I-10 at Junction, taking it out US 190 through a whole lot of nothing just to make a point, or taking it WNW along US 87 to San Angelo -- considering the clamor arising from that city plus its neighbors to the NW, Midland/Odessa, that would seem to be the "trending" selection.  And, yes, a lot of it is "pork" -- but if you load that pork down with a shitload of BBQ sauce (the metaphor here is the potential for commercial development along the corridor) it becomes palatable and actually quite desirable to those inclined to hop on the promotional bandwagon. 

My prediction -- like I-69, it'll get developed where the immediate impacts would be felt most -- the "Texas Triangle" from I-35 to I-45 via Bryan/State College and the eastern section from at least Meridian to Macon (whether GADOT wants to sink any more money into the Fall Line to Augusta in the near term is questionable; they just got the expressway section across the Oconee River floodplain completed at great expense).  But the other sections -- West Texas (as soon as they figure out exactly where they want it to go) and I-45 to I-59? -- consigned to a fate similar to Tenaha-Tunica with I-69:  the can will be kicked down the road for some time to come, with a few "spot" projects, probably within shouting distance of Alexandria, LA, completed to make it look like something is actually taking place (a la the Monticello bypass on 69).   Full corridor completion?  Well past 2050, unless a concerted effort takes place across the five states involved -- and despite the UGA student's efforts and sporadic entreaties from various TX points, a "whole-corridor" approach has yet to materialize; don't expect much consistent I-14 progress unless it does. 

Louisiana still has I-49 and I-69 in front of this. Why do we keep piling more interstates on jurisdictions with no ability to build them?

We certainly don't; the push for these generally is fomented internally by groups within these states themselves.  The process started with I-69 and I-73/74 back in '95:  define a corridor, attach an Interstate designation, and then attempt to identify funding.  It worked with I-22 -- generally because most of the work was already done by the time the designation process was undertaken.  The HPC process in this regard is like a wallet without any cash -- it has plenty of I.D., but it needs to be supplied with funding; the hope is to catch anything falling in its direction.   

[cjk374]

Louisiana still has I-49 and I-69 in front of this. Why do we keep piling more interstates on jurisdictions with no ability to build them?

I-49 is close to being finished here in Louisiana (especially when compared to Arkansas). It will be completed before I retire (16 years left).

If I-69's routing wasn't so convoluted south of Memphis, I would support it more. But the money saved by not building 69 as Congress wants it can be put to building a more useful route. The Arkansas River needs a new bridge built to carry I-49 over it. Dispose of 69, you have funding faster.

I-14 is a bit different. Alexandria could use an east-west interstate. Right now LA 28 performs this task as best as it can. The rest of I-14 would go through rural farmland until Ferriday-Vidalia-Natchez. I can see more of a use for I-14 than I-69.

But first things first...FINISH I-49!!

[sparker]

Louisiana still has I-49 and I-69 in front of this. Why do we keep piling more interstates on jurisdictions with no ability to build them?

I-49 is close to being finished here in Louisiana (especially when compared to Arkansas). It will be completed before I retire (16 years left).

If I-69's routing wasn't so convoluted south of Memphis, I would support it more. But the money saved by not building 69 as Congress wants it can be put to building a more useful route. The Arkansas River needs a new bridge built to carry I-49 over it. Dispose of 69, you have funding faster.

I-14 is a bit different. Alexandria could use an east-west interstate. Right now LA 28 performs this task as best as it can. The rest of I-14 would go through rural farmland until Ferriday-Vidalia-Natchez. I can see more of a use for I-14 than I-69.

But first things first...FINISH I-49!!

I-69 won't be "disposed of"; southern AR interests will not let that happen.  Delayed/"back-burnered"?  Very likely.  Probably the only thing that'll happen within AR regarding I-69 is (a) a completion of the east side of the Monticello bypass, already in progress, as a 2-lane expressway, (b) extension of that facility in that form to US 65 near McGehee (in the planning process), and (c) completion of the AR 530 extension to Monticello to meet (a) above, also either built or in process, but again to 2-lane expressway standards.  The section angling down to LA will likely be the last to be built with the possible exception of the Great River bridge.  And, yes, I-49 will be prioritized -- at least to the point of getting the Arkansas River bridge built and at least some sections of Texarkana-Ft. Smith done (likely bypasses of Mena and possibly De Queen).  Significant progress will likely need to be made on I-49 before anything regarding a finished Interstate-grade facility is even started re I-69. 

[edwaleni]

ALDOT already has plans to change the route of I-85 as part of the Montgomery Bypass to the south of town.  Eventually they want the new route further west once I-85 heads south, and run all the way to Selma and eventually meet I-20 at Meridian.

You can see it already started as AL-108.

The only way I see this route working is from Junction, Texas east around Austin/Round Rock to Alexandria as an I-10 reliever for San Antonio and Houston. And perhaps a connection east of Natchez/Brookhaven.

Having just driven the South Georgia Parkway (GA-520), there is very little traffic east of Columbus until you get to Albany.  I just can't figure out why people think southern Georgia needs more major E-W arterials when the ones they have are barely used.

So I can't really say I-14 is plausible east of Columbus/Phenix City.  If they are think it could be an E-W Atlanta Bypass, a simple improved route from Columbus to Macon would solve that. You don't need to go all the way to Augusta.

Building a highway can provide a short burst of economic development, but other than highway department & truck stop employment, unless there are commercial or natural resources nearby, no new road will bring in business on its own.

[sparker]

ALDOT already has plans to change the route of I-85 as part of the Montgomery Bypass to the south of town.  Eventually they want the new route further west once I-85 heads south, and run all the way to Selma and eventually meet I-20 at Meridian.

You can see it already started as AL-108.

The only way I see this route working is from Junction, Texas east around Austin/Round Rock to Alexandria as an I-10 reliever for San Antonio and Houston. And perhaps a connection east of Natchez/Brookhaven.

Having just driven the South Georgia Parkway (GA-520), there is very little traffic east of Columbus until you get to Albany.  I just can't figure out why people think southern Georgia needs more major E-W arterials when the ones they have are barely used.

So I can't really say I-14 is plausible east of Columbus/Phenix City.  If they are think it could be an E-W Atlanta Bypass, a simple improved route from Columbus to Macon would solve that. You don't need to go all the way to Augusta.

Building a highway can provide a short burst of economic development, but other than highway department & truck stop employment, unless there are commercial or natural resources nearby, no new road will bring in business on its own.

The I-14 concept in Alabama is simply to subsume the old I-85 extension concept and deploy I-14 along or parallel to US 80 from the Montgomery area west to I-20/59.  Under this scenario, I-85 would either (a) multiplex with I-14 east of Montgomery as well as over the AL 108 bypass to I-65, where it would terminate, or (b) multiplex with I-14 as above, but where I-14 would turn south and west along AL 108, it would continue on its present course and terminate at I-65 near downtown, or (c) simply terminate at I-14 near Tuskegee. 

The TX alignment described above is an Austin E-W connector, not the I-14 corridor.  Yeah, I know that some think Austin's lack of such a connector should be addressed prior to/instead of the present I-14 path via Temple and Belton -- but so far it seems that there is no movement in Austin to effect such a connection.  That's basically how things are done in Texas; those who ask for and promote corridors tend to get them; those that don't don't -- period!  A corridor along US 190, at least east of Brady, is being promoted by three sets of parties -- from the "Triangle" (DFW/San Antonio/Houston), led by those who want a developmental corridor bisecting the area (and likely Aggie alums!), from San Angelo, which has shifted its attention from a Port-to-Plains N-S corridor which historically was "studied to death" (which is what happens when agencies hire Wilbur "No Build" Smith Co. to do a feasibility study; that firm is where regional hopes go to perish!) to the E-W I-14; they're joined by their neighbors to the west, the Midland/Odessa MPO, which has been angling for such a route directly to Central Texas for years.  That being said, if San Angelo and M/O end up being a corridor too far, simply angling I-14 SW to Junction from Brady would be the next best (and most cost-effective) option.

The sole reason for extending I-14 to Augusta is to take advantage of the GRIP 540/"Fall Line" expressway -- and to provide a through-traffic alternative that would relieve I-20 through the region via a route that avoids metro Atlanta.  Absent the segment between Macon and Augusta, the only real function of the proposed route through Columbus is as an effective extension of I-16 (if that were the goal, then an I-16 extension to Montgomery and Meridian would have likely advanced beyond the "roadgeek fantasy" stage by now.   

[longhorn]

It's still funny to see mileage markers on I-14 between Copperas Cove and Belton and wandering what route are they imagining to come up with the mileage.

[LM117]

As anyone could’ve guessed, ALDOT basically says that I-14 is DOA.

https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/08/no_funds_plans_i14_alabama.html

[sparker]

As anyone could’ve guessed, ALDOT basically says that I-14 is DOA.

https://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/08/no_funds_plans_i14_alabama.html

Except for NC and TX, state DOT's generally have a dismissive response to corridor concepts conceived elsewhere (here, by a UGA student up in Athens, one state over).  Back in the early '00's, it took action by its own Sen. Shelby to "kickstart" the completion of I-22; the initial plans (and initial construction) originated -- you guessed it -- one state over, in MS, as a Trent Lott-backed project.  It wasn't until Shelby, at the urging of constituents along that corridor, got the authorizing legislation through in 2004 that the corridor as a whole got its I-status (although ALDOT previously had no problem building what was already in place on that corridor with ARC funds). 

At this point, the previous push for the I-85 west extension is functionally dormant; ALDOT has just "kicked the can down the road" on that project as well as the adjunct Montgomery/AL 108 bypass.  I suppose they just don't have the wherewithal -- political or fiscal -- to reinstate that project (as I-14 or whatever!).  As previously stated, the student proposing this concept, along with his cohorts, has a tough hill to climb -- and getting ALDOT on board probably won't happen in the near -- or even medium -- term; they have plenty of other projects in the queue needing attention.  The US 80 corridor has been "in play" for various concepts for decades -- and nothing except for the AL 108 "stub" from I-85 has materialized to date -- which should give anyone proposing a revisiting of the concept some idea where ALDOT's "head is at" regarding this.  Given that, if they want to continue banging their collective heads against the wall, that's their concern.  Bottom line -- I don't see I-14 extending east of Laurel, MS within the next 40-50 years.

And the UGA I-14 promoters still have GADOT with which to contend.  I wish them luck; they'll certainly need it.