I-14 in Texas

[bwana39]

I had some line by line comments. It is just easier to say it this way. If you tell a state like Texas (with financial means), to build a freeway and there is incentive both financial and prestige based, they will likely build it. There is a wholly different case for states like Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Even if you give them 80% of the funds to build a particular project, do they actually believe that they should expend the funds that would make up the balance(s) on the proposed project.

I HATE the idea of I-14 terminating at I-10 in deep SE Texas. Even when it is upgraded, I-10 will still be exceedingly busy across Louisiana, especially west of Lafayette.

Routing it South of lakes Livingston and Toledo Bend just adds Houston area traffic to the mix. In essence, it would complete an even further outer belt for the North of Houston. I can live with it going south of Toledo Bend due to Ft Polk. A better route might be across the lake. This is not as far-fetched as it might sound. The TX-21 / LA-6 bridge needs replacement in the not exceedingly distant future.  The marginal cost of a freeway bridge there, would likely be in line with the cost of replacing the existing bridge and a separate Freeway bridge across the Sabine south of the lake.

I think this road is far enough out (timewise) that changes can come and it MIGHT  go anywhere. I feel the same way about I-69 north of I-20 (or even North of Nacogdoches.) Arguing about routing is pointless and also the entire point.  Pointless in that it is so subject to change or to be unbuilt that it is beside the point. It is the point in the fact the discussion is on the table instead of behind closed doors. I will add that discussing changes to a proposed routing is far different that the fantasy where everywhere you can imagine is a road built to suit. 

The US-190 corridor could be like the US-80 corridor for I-20 and US-67 for I-30. At places the two are 20+ miles from their parent corridor. I certainly don't see I-14 following US-190 from Belton to Huntsville like I-69 seems to be following US-59 north of Houston.

Yes, I am looking at the grid, not at the political realities. 

As far as goes economic development in the freeways, The counties east of Rockwall County are no better off than they were before the freeway came through; perhaps worse. Likewise rural Arkansas.  Likewise I-20 east of Terrell. Longview and Tyler have oscillated, but not grown significantly. Mount Pleasant has not outgrown Paris despite Paris being 40+ miles from a freeway.

My honest thought is we need to make significant investments in cargo rail and much of the need for expanded highways would disappear. Absent that investment that is not going to happen, (which is as much because the railroads are in an income sweet spot that they don't want to change as anything else.) As long as all the various stakeholders are happy with the status quo in the rail and trucking industries, it is going to remain the same so we are going to need additional road miles for all the long haul trucks.

[SkyPesos]

^ Though unlike I-14 east of TX, I-69 have existing portions north of I-20, including the original section.

[Anthony_JK]

I guess this (I-14) might actually come to pass very slowly. 2050, 2060  for significant work beyond what is already there, maybe later for Louisiana , Mississippi, and Alabama. Few of us will live to see it.

LA 28 is already a divided expressway west of Alexandria. With I-14 on the book, Louisiana could expand the LA 28 / US 84 route from Alexandria to Ferriday to an expandable expressway. Ditto LA 8 west of Leesville to the Texas line. Then gradually upgrade the whole thing to interstate. Probably won't happen by 2060 but isn't inconceivable.

I still want to know how they get this through Alexandria/Pineville. Upgrade MacArthur Drive? Concurrence with I-49/Pineville Expressway? Full loop around Alexandria-Pineville?

I still say upgrading US 165/US 425 is a much greater priority. (After I-49 South and the Shreveport ICC, of course.)

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
General comments re the last few replies:  Rail investments, given the fact that there is minimal regulation of the nation's (actually, the continent's rail lines, particularly in regards to how they use their physical "on-the-ground" facilities, i.e. their trackage networks, would be open-ended subsidies.  While not particularly profitable in relation to companies with less maintenance expenses, the seven major rail companies (KCS not having been absorbed as of yet) are flush enough to turn down public-sector funds that come with conditions not to their liking.  Absent reinstatement of the pre-1980 "common carrier" concepts, the imposition of which was and is widely considered to be responsible Tfor the industry's fiscal woes of the '60's and '70's despite the considerable intra-industry consolidation occurring then, there is little if any leverage to be used to move the short-haul cargo they don't really want from trucks to rail.  Rail management is savvy enough to realize that expansion and upgrades to the road system, with only indirect fiscal contribution from the rail industry through various forms of taxation, holds benefits to the "hub and spoke" system they've been cultivating in the 41 years since deregulation.   What can be expected of the industry is more of what has been occurring lately -- more dispersed locations where cargo, primarily in the form of containers, is transferred to and from trucks -- ameliorating, to some degree, the concentration of truck traffic at longstanding central hubs (such as BNSF's Saginaw yard north of Fort Worth and UP's facilities in northeast Houston) by providing alternate locations in smaller venues to effect the transfer process. 

As far as a potential Interstate network in LA and adjoining states is concerned, if I-14 is constructed east to at least Alexandria -- and I'd guess that some sort of Alexandria beltway would be involved -- it would be a natural outlet for any commercial traffic coming south down the US 165 and/or 425 corridor from central AR -- assuming the ultimate or even penultimate destination is somewhere along or near the Gulf Coast (Houston, the "chemical coast" southwest of there, or even Mexico).  If development of such a combination corridor precedes the completion of I-69 between TX and Memphis,  traffic patterns would likely develop that would draw movements away from I-69 through Shreveport.  I'd even prognosticate that much of the I-14 traffic between Livingston, TX and Alexandria, LA would turn north at the latter city rather than continue east to MS and the eastern Gulf States.  That particular section has the potential to be the most trafficked section of I-14 along the entire corridor.   

[bwana39]

I guess this (I-14) might actually come to pass very slowly. 2050, 2060  for significant work beyond what is already there, maybe later for Louisiana , Mississippi, and Alabama. Few of us will live to see it.

LA 28 is already a divided expressway west of Alexandria. With I-14 on the book, Louisiana could expand the LA 28 / US 84 route from Alexandria to Ferriday to an expandable expressway. Ditto LA 8 west of Leesville to the Texas line. Then gradually upgrade the whole thing to interstate. Probably won't happen by 2060 but isn't inconceivable.

I still want to know how they get this through Alexandria/Pineville. Upgrade MacArthur Drive? Concurrence with I-49/Pineville Expressway? Full loop around Alexandria-Pineville?

I still say upgrading US 165/US 425 is a much greater priority. (After I-49 South and the Shreveport ICC, of course.)

I agree with you. I actually believe the I-530 / I-57 corridor to Monroe (or perhaps Rayville or Delhi) will be completed sooner than later. US-165 to Alexandria (the originally proposed route for I-49) or US-425 to Natchez  would naturally be the next step. I really see either routing skirting Monroe to the east so either (or both ) extensions are possibilities.  For Louisiana, Hurricane evacuation is a priority. Both of these alternatives facilitate that. I-69 does not (for Louisiana) nor does I-14.

They are building the bridge across the Red River at US-71 / 165 already. There is freeway from there to LA-28 and LA-28 is mostly built with room for frontage roads. Alex is not the problem.

^ Though unlike I-14 east of TX, I-69 have existing portions north of I-20, including the original section.

I should have been more succinct, I-69 between Lufkin and Metro Memphis. There are a lot of ways to route it. The route in Arkansas or Louisiana could vary by up to a hundred miles.

[jbnv]

I should have been more succinct, I-69 between Lufkin and Metro Memphis. There are a lot of ways to route it. The route in Arkansas or Louisiana could vary by up to a hundred miles.

Or disappear before it's ever built. Again, Louisiana has virtually no reason to prioritize it anywhere near I-49 south, the Baton Rouge cluster, US 165 upgrades, even I-14. Put I-57 to Lake Charles in a bill and pass it, and you can consider I-69 DOA in Louisiana.

[SkyPesos]

I-369/I-30/I-40 could act as a temporary I-69 between Lufkin and Memphis. Actually, if you're going to areas on I-69 from Indianapolis northward, I-369/I-30/I-57(incl future intension)/I-70 would probably be faster than staying on I-69 the entire time, and I think the I-57 extension would be completed long before I-69 in AR.

[jbnv]

I-369/I-30/I-40 could act as a temporary I-69 between Lufkin and Memphis. Actually, if you're going to areas on I-69 from Indianapolis northward, I-369/I-30/I-57(incl future intension)/I-70 would probably be faster than staying on I-69 the entire time, and I think the I-57 extension would be completed long before I-69 in AR.

If I had god powers, I'd enshrine I-57 via US 165 to Lake Charles, cancel I-69 in Louisiana and Arkansas, and let Texas upgrade US 59 / I-369 to  I-69.  All of I-69 north of Memphis remains as is. We end up with two separate Interstates 69, but that ship has already sailed.  That's probably the best Arkansas and Texas can hole for (like Texas cares) because Louisiana isn't building I-69.

[sprjus4]

I-369/I-30/I-40 could act as a temporary I-69 between Lufkin and Memphis. Actually, if you're going to areas on I-69 from Indianapolis northward, I-369/I-30/I-57(incl future intension)/I-70 would probably be faster than staying on I-69 the entire time, and I think the I-57 extension would be completed long before I-69 in AR.

Ehh, I've looked at either alignment, each would be roughly around the same travel time.

I'd easily take a completed I-69 over I-30 and I-40 given the large amounts of truck traffic. Either that, or each route needs to be widened to 6 lanes throughout the state. Either way, something needs to happen. The existing travel conditions on the corridor is not acceptable for a free-flowing rural interstate highway with the amounts of truck traffic they get.

[ethanhopkin14]

Lets pretend I-14 is built today, from Odessa to Montgomery.  What do you think would be the long-haul trucking advantage of taking the corridor over the existing ones? (I-10, I-20)  I am not saying its completely unwarranted because I think an interstate bypassing Houston and New Orleans is a good idea, I am just trying to see how it will effect a truck driving from Los Angeles to Atlanta (for example).

[hotdogPi]

Lets pretend I-14 is built today, from Odessa to Montgomery.  What do you think would be the long-haul trucking advantage of taking the corridor over the existing ones? (I-10, I-20)  I am not saying its completely unwarranted because I think an interstate bypassing Houston and New Orleans is a good idea, I am just trying to see how it will effect a truck driving from Los Angeles to Atlanta (for example).

When they get to Meridian, they will have two choices, Birmingham and Montgomery. If one of the two is backed up considerably, they can choose the other to avoid the backup.

[Henry]

I could see it as a good alternative between I-10 and I-20, even though it does not serve any major population centers that the other two do. Augusta, Macon, Columbus and Montgomery would be a decent start, but then it's all small towns after that. OTOH, at least those towns will have a great opportunity to develop like they never have before.

[ethanhopkin14]

Lets pretend I-14 is built today, from Odessa to Montgomery.  What do you think would be the long-haul trucking advantage of taking the corridor over the existing ones? (I-10, I-20)  I am not saying its completely unwarranted because I think an interstate bypassing Houston and New Orleans is a good idea, I am just trying to see how it will effect a truck driving from Los Angeles to Atlanta (for example).

When they get to Meridian, they will have two choices, Birmingham and Montgomery. If one of the two is backed up considerably, they can choose the other to avoid the backup.

That's not what I mean.  I meant, say you are west on I-10 and you are driving to an east destination on I-10, would you take the I-20 split up to Odessa to take I-14 to then wind back down to I-10 after you have bypassed San Antonio, Houston and New Orleans, or would you just stay on the same freeway that has been there the whole time?  Or you are in Las Cruces and are driving to Atlanta.  Do you take I-14 to avoid the Metroplex and Shreveport (in this example, I-14 terminates in Montgomery, so it would be just a simple transfer to I-85 to get to Atlanta)?  I-20 takes you straight to Atlanta, always has always will.  I am playing devils advocate a bit here just to see the long range effects I-14 would have. 

To me the alignment is more of a regional route than a long range route, though it will be constructed like a long range route. 

[Anthony_JK]

I agree with you. I actually believe the I-530 / I-57 corridor to Monroe (or perhaps Rayville or Delhi) will be completed sooner than later. US-165 to Alexandria (the originally proposed route for I-49) or US-425 to Natchez  would naturally be the next step. I really see either routing skirting Monroe to the east so either (or both ) extensions are possibilities.  For Louisiana, Hurricane evacuation is a priority. Both of these alternatives facilitate that. I-69 does not (for Louisiana) nor does I-14.

They are building the bridge across the Red River at US-71 / 165 already. There is freeway from there to LA-28 and LA-28 is mostly built with room for frontage roads. Alex is not the problem.

^ Though unlike I-14 east of TX, I-69 have existing portions north of I-20, including the original section.

I should have been more succinct, I-69 between Lufkin and Metro Memphis. There are a lot of ways to route it. The route in Arkansas or Louisiana could vary by up to a hundred miles.

Uhhhh....wrong on US 165 being the original routing for I-49. The latter was always planned to be an Lafayette to Shreveport (via Opelousas, Alexandria and Natchitoches) freeway using US 167 (Lafayette to Opelousas, then roughly US 71 (although a new terrain route along the Bayou Cocodrie Diversion Channel and west of US 71 near Meeker was ultimately selected to avoid farmland) to Alexandria, and then along LA 1 bypassing Natchitoches to Shreveport. The US 165 upgrade was proposed as a separate project.


The new US 71 bridge that replaced the OK Allen Bridge across the Red River is nice, but US 71-165 there is not even freeway standard; there is an at-grade intersection at Rainbow Drive between that bridge and the divergence of US 71; that serves as both access to the city of Pineville and Buhlow Lake Park. Also, the Third Street intersection on the south terminus of the bridge would have to be upgraded to an interchange as well.


I don't even think LA 28 even connects to US 165 north of MacArthur Drive, so unless there was a total upgrade of MacArthur Drive all the way to near Ball with a spur exit to meet LA 28 near Ball or Tioga, either a very costly beltway requiring another Red River bridge near England Air Park or a routing using an upgraded MacArthur Drive from Coliseum Boulevard to I-49 to the existing Pineville Expressway with a connection to an upgraded LA 28 East would be needed for I-14 to get through Alex.

[ITB]

The proposed routing of I-14 is detailed in the Congressional Record, and that can be found here. To find it, use your Find in This Page function and search under the number "2300." That's will take you to the pertinent Amendment. It was approved on a voice vote.

[sparker]

The proposed routing of I-14 is detailed in the Congressional Record, and that can be found here. To find it, use your Find in This Page function and search under the number "2300." That's will take you to the pertinent Amendment. It was approved on a voice vote.

The language of the amendment not only specifies I-14 from Brady, TX all the way to Augusta, GA but also the previous N/S split in West Texas.  There's also a I-214 loop for Bryan/College Station (go, Aggies!); probably have A&M alums to thank for that.  But other unrelated corridors were made HPC's/future Interstates, albeit without specified numbers with one exception:  the Cumberland Parkway in KY as I-365.  The US 412-based route from I-35 through Tulsa to I-49 in AR was shoehorned in as well, along with US 421 in NC from Greensboro to Dunn at I-95.  Looks like the I-14 extension became a "dumping bin" for a multi-regional (all in the South, to no surprise) corridor designation fest.  I'll look more closely at the language later today and comment if necessary; but I think it pretty much speaks for itself -- lotsa Interstate-related earmarks inserted into the omnibus transportation bill.  Oh well, that's essentially the way things are done these days, warrant or not!

[jbnv]

I could see it as a good alternative between I-10 and I-20, even though it does not serve any major population centers that the other two do. Augusta, Macon, Columbus and Montgomery would be a decent start, but then it's all small towns after that.

It will be news to Alexandria, Bryan/College Station and Temple/Belton/Killeen/Fort Hood that they are "small towns."

[bwana39]

I could see it as a good alternative between I-10 and I-20, even though it does not serve any major population centers that the other two do. Augusta, Macon, Columbus and Montgomery would be a decent start, but then it's all small towns after that. OTOH, at least those towns will have a great opportunity to develop like they never have before.

My real experience is I-20 and I-30 in Texas. The towns along both of them have continued to decline. There has been minimal if any real growth along either outside roadside retail which benefits their communities with sales taxes and low-paying jobs. Not really the kind of economic development you want.

[bwana39]

The proposed routing of I-14 is detailed in the Congressional Record, and that can be found here. To find it, use your Find in This Page function and search under the number "2300." That's will take you to the pertinent Amendment. It was approved on a voice vote.

The language of the amendment not only specifies I-14 from Brady, TX all the way to Augusta, GA but also the previous N/S split in West Texas.  There's also a I-214 loop for Bryan/College Station (go, Aggies!); probably have A&M alums to thank for that.  But other unrelated corridors were made HPC's/future Interstates, albeit without specified numbers with one exception:  the Cumberland Parkway in KY as I-365.  The US 412-based route from I-35 through Tulsa to I-49 in AR was shoehorned in as well, along with US 421 in NC from Greensboro to Dunn at I-95.  Looks like the I-14 extension became a "dumping bin" for a multi-regional (all in the South, to no surprise) corridor designation fest.  I'll look more closely at the language later today and comment if necessary; but I think it pretty much speaks for itself -- lotsa Interstate-related earmarks inserted into the omnibus transportation bill.  Oh well, that's essentially the way things are done these days, warrant or not!

Just because someone in congress proposes something and doesn't fully fund it makes it about as sure as someone posting it on the fantasy roads board here.  It may give the effort some legitimacy,  but it is only as legitimate as those who actually decide where to spend undesignated highway funding say it is.

If the earmarks happen, it might actually happen. If they don't, it is as sure as planning a silver anniversary party on your wedding day. Maybe less.

[NE2]

(green is future Interstate, red is other nearby new corridors)

The proposed routing of I-14 is detailed in the Congressional Record, and that can be found here. To find it, use your Find in This Page function and search under the number "2300." That's will take you to the pertinent Amendment. It was approved on a voice vote.

Beginning  on  page  440,  strike  line  19  and  all that follows through page 443, line 14, and insert the following:
(a) HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS.–Section 1105(c)  of  the  Intermodal  Surface  Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102—240;  105  Stat.  2032;  133  Stat.  3018)  is  amended–
(1) by striking paragraph (84) and inserting the following:
"˜"˜(84) The Central Texas Corridor, including the route–
"˜"˜(A)  commencing  in  the  vicinity  of  Texas  Highway  338  in  Odessa,  Texas,  running  eastward generally following Interstate Route 20, connecting  to  Texas  Highway  158  in  the  vicinity of Midland, Texas, then following Texas Highway 158 eastward to United States Route  87  and  then  following  United  States  Route 87 southeastward, passing in the vicinity  of  San  Angelo,  Texas,  and  connecting  to  United  States  Route  190  in  the  vicinity  of  Brady, Texas;
"˜"˜(B)  commencing  at  the  intersection  of  Interstate Route 10 and United States Route 190  in  Pecos  County,  Texas,  and  following  United States Route 190 to Brady, Texas;
"˜"˜(C)  following  portions  of  United  States  Route 190 eastward, passing in the vicinity of Fort  Hood,  Killeen,  Belton,  Temple,  Bryan,  College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, Woodville,  and  Jasper,  to  the  logical  terminus  of  Texas  Highway  63  at  the  Sabine  River Bridge at Burrs Crossing and including a loop generally encircling Bryan/College Station, Texas;
"˜"˜(D) following United States Route 83 southward  from  the  vicinity  of  Eden,  Texas,  to  a  logical  connection  to  Interstate  Route  10 at Junction, Texas;
"˜"˜(E) following United States Route 69 from Interstate Route 10 in Beaumont, Texas, north  to  United  States  Route  190  in  the  vicinity of Woodville, Texas;
"˜"˜(F) following United States Route 96 from Interstate Route 10 in Beaumont, Texas, north  to  United  States  Route  190  in  the  vicinity of Jasper, Texas; and
"˜"˜(G)  following  United  States  Route  190,  State  Highway  305,  and  United  States  Route  385  from  Interstate  Route  10  in  Pecos  County, Texas, to Interstate 20 at Odessa, Texas.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
"˜"˜(92) United States Route 421 from the interchange with Interstate Route 85 in Greensboro, North Carolina, to the interchange  with  Interstate  Route  95  in  Dunn,  North Carolina.
"˜"˜(93)  The  South  Mississippi  Corridor  from  the  Louisiana  and  Mississippi  border  near  Natchez, Mississippi, to Gulfport, Mississippi, shall generally follow–
"˜"˜(A) United States Route 84 from the Louisiana  border  at  the  Mississippi  River  passing  in  the  vicinity  of  Natchez,  Brookhaven,  Monticello, Prentiss, and Collins, Mississippi,  to  the  logical  terminus  with  Interstate Route 59 in the vicinity of Laurel, Mississippi,  and  continuing  on  Interstate  Route  59  south  to  the  vicinity  of  Hattiesburg,  Mississippi; and
"˜"˜(B) United States Route 49 from the vicinity of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, south to Interstate  Route  10  in  the  vicinity  of  Gulfport, Mississippi, following Mississippi Route 601 south and terminating near the Mississippi State Port at Gulfport.
"˜"˜(94) The Kosciusko to Gulf Coast corridor commencing at the logical terminus of Interstate Route 55 near Vaiden, Mississippi, running south and passing east of the vicinity of the  Jackson  Urbanized  Area,  connecting  to  United States Route 49 north of Hattiesburg, Mississippi,  and  generally  following  United  States Route 49 to a logical connection with Interstate  Route  10  in  the  vicinity  of  Gulfport, Mississippi.
"˜"˜(95) The Interstate Route 22 spur from the vicinity of Tupelo, Mississippi, running south generally along United States Route 45 to the vicinity of Shannon, Mississippi.
"˜"˜(96) The route that generally follows United States Route 412 from its intersection with  Interstate  Route  35  in  Noble  County,  Oklahoma, passing through Tulsa, Oklahoma, to its intersection with Interstate Route 49 in Springdale, Arkansas.
"˜"˜(97)  The  Louie  B.  Nunn  Cumberland  Expressway  from  the  interchange  with  Interstate  Route  65  in  Barren  County,  Kentucky,  east  to  the  interchange  with  United  States  Highway 27 in Somerset, Kentucky.
"˜"˜(98) The route that generally follows State  Route  7  from  Grenada,  Mississippi,  to  Holly Springs, Mississippi, passing in the vicinity  of  Coffeeville,  Water  Valley,  Oxford,  and Abbeville, Mississippi, to its logical connection  with  Interstate  Route  22  in  the  vicinity of Holly Springs, Mississippi.
"˜"˜(99)  The  Central  Louisiana  Corridor  commencing at the logical terminus of Louisiana Highway  8  at  the  Sabine  River  Bridge  at  Burrs  Crossing  and  generally  following  portions  of  Louisiana  Highway  8  to  Leesville,  Louisiana,  and  then  eastward  on  Louisiana  Highway  28,  passing  in  the  vicinity  of  Alexandria, Pineville, Walters, and Archie, to the logical terminus of United States Route 84 at the Mississippi River Bridge at Vidalia, Louisiana.
"˜"˜(100) The Central Mississippi Corridor, including the route–
"˜"˜(A)  commencing  at  the  logical  terminus  of  United  States  Route  84  at  the  Mississippi  River  and  then  generally  following  portions  of  United  States  Route  84  passing  in  the  vicinity  of  Natchez,  Brookhaven,  Monticello,  Prentiss,  and  Collins,  to  Interstate  Route  59  in  the  vicinity  of  Laurel,  Mississippi,  and  continuing  on  Interstate  Route  59  north  to  Interstate  Route  20  and  on  Interstate  Route  20  to  the  Mississippi—Alabama  State  border;  and
"˜"˜(B) commencing in the vicinity of Laurel, Mississippi, running south on Interstate Route 59 to United States Route 98 in the vicinity  of  Hattiesburg,  connecting  to  United  States Route 49 south then following United States Route 49 south to Interstate Route 10 in the vicinity of Gulfport and following Mississippi Route 601 southerly terminating near  the  Mississippi  State  Port  at  Gulfport. 
"˜"˜(101)  The  Middle  Alabama  Corridor  including the route–
"˜"˜(A) beginning at the Alabama—Mississippi border  generally  following  portions  of  I—20  until  following  a  new  interstate  extension  paralleling  United  States  Highway  80,  specifically–
"˜"˜(B) crossing Alabama Route 28 near Coatopa, Alabama, traveling eastward crossing  United  States  Highway  43  and  Alabama  Route 69 near Selma, Alabama, traveling eastwards  closely  paralleling  United  States  Highway  80  to  the  south  crossing  over  Alabama Routes 22, 41, and 21, until its intersection with I—65 near Hope Hull, Alabama;
"˜"˜(C)  continuing  east  along  the  proposed  Montgomery Outer Loop south of Montgomery,  Alabama  where  it  would  next  join  with I—85 east of Montgomery, Alabama;
"˜"˜(D) continuing along I—85 east bound until its  intersection  with  United  States  Highway  280  near  Opelika,  Alabama  or  United  States  Highway 80 near Tuskegee, Alabama;
"˜"˜(E)  generally  following  the  most  expedient  route  until  intersecting  with  existing  United  States  Highway  80  (JR  Allen  Parkway)  through  Phenix  City  until  continuing  into Columbus, Georgia.
"˜"˜(102) The Middle Georgia Corridor including the route–
"˜"˜(A) beginning at the Alabama—Georgia Border generally following the Fall Line Freeway from Columbus, Georgia to Augusta, Georgia, specifically–
"˜"˜(B)  travelling  along  United  States  Route  80  (JR  Allen  Parkway)  through  Columbus,  Georgia and near Fort Benning, Georgia, east to Talbot County, Georgia where it would  follow  Georgia  Route  96,  then  commencing  on  Georgia  Route  49C  (Fort  Valley  Bypass)  to  Georgia  Route  49  (Peach  Parkway) to its intersection with Interstate Route 75 in Byron, Georgia;
"˜"˜(C) continuing north along Interstate Route 75 through Warner Robins and Macon, Georgia where it would meet Interstate Route  16,  then  following  Interstate  Route  16  east  it  would  next  join  United  States  Route  80 and then onto State Route 57;
"˜"˜(D) commencing with State Route 57 which turns into State Route 24 near Milledgeville, Georgia would then bypass Wrens, Georgia with a newly constructed bypass, and after the bypass it would join United States Route 1 near Fort Gordon into Augusta,  Georgia  where  it  will  terminate  at  Interstate Route 520.''.
(b) DESIGNATION AS FUTURE INTERSTATES.–
Section  1105(e)(5)(A)  of  the  Intermodal  Surface  Transportation  Efficiency  Act  of  1991  (Public  Law  102—240;  109  Stat.  597;  133  Stat.  3018) is amended in the first sentence–
(1)  by  inserting  "˜"˜subsection  (c)(84),''  after  "˜"˜subsection (c)(83),''; and
(2) by striking "˜"˜and subsection (c)(91)'' and inserting "˜"˜subsection (c)(91), subsection (c)(92), subsection (c)(93)(A), subsection (c)(94),  subsection  (c)(95),  subsection  (c)(96),  subsection (c)(97), subsection (c)(99), subsection  (c)(100),  subsection  (c)(101),  and  subsection (c)(102)''.
(c) NUMBERING OF PARKWAY.–Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law  102—240;  109  Stat.  598;  133  Stat.  3018)  is  amended–
(1)  by  striking  the  fifteenth  sentence  and  inserting  the  following:  "˜"˜The  route  referred  to  in  subsection  (c)(84)(A)  is  designated  as  Interstate  Route  I—14  North.  The  route  referred to in subsection (c)(84)(B) is designated  as  Interstate  Route  I—14  South.  The  Bryan/College  Station,  Texas  loop  referred  to  in  subsection  (c)(84)(C)  is  designated  as  Interstate Route I—214.''; and
(2)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following:  "˜"˜The route referred to in subsection (c)(97) is designated as Interstate Route I—365. The routes  referred  to  in  subsections  (c)(84)(C),  (c)(99),  (c)(100),  (c)(101),  and  (c)(102)  are  designated  as  Interstate  Route  I—14.  The  routes  referred to in subparagraphs (D), (E), (F), and (G) of subsection (c)(84) and subparagraph (B) of subsection (c)(100) shall each be given separate Interstate route numbers.''.

[Plutonic Panda]

I like it and I wonder if you built a spur to connect back to I-10 in the east around Tallahassee would be worthwhile to get some traffic off of I-10 and a potential detour/relief route for hurricane evacuations.

[triplemultiplex]

I-14: connecting no one to nothing.

[ethanhopkin14]

I-14: connecting no one to nothing.

I am actually trying not to think this way by asking the implications overall throughout the corridor, but I just can't seem to find a reason other than it helps some of these regional areas.  If it were built today, I can see a very empty freeway in certain spots. 

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, at least they left out the weird-ass detour along GA 26.  But the "road to nowhere" along US 190 west of Brady is retained --and even strangely extended north back to Odessa.  Someone with a shitload of clout must hail from that region -- or they're looking for projects to employ folks when the petroleum cash cow runs out.  Looks like both "I-14S" and "I-14N" will end up at M/O, even though the legal definition of the "S" branch only includes the US 190 segment.  Personally, I would have designated Meridian-Montgomery-Columbus-Macon as a I-16 extension and the rest of the Fall Line NE to Augusta as I-18, but, like with the I-69 "family", the backers obviously want to create a corridor "identity" as a national reference.   I suppose the relative success of I-69 deployment (as compared with other corridors designated back in the '90's) is providing a template for current -- and future -- similar designation efforts. 

It'll be interesting to see if there's any attempt to attach x14's to the various branches prior to actual physical developmental activities -- or if the "open-ended" nature of the designation language will open any of them up to new 2di possibilities -- like I-31 for the N-S branch along US 83 or I-63 for the MS-based corridors.  This is going to be one interesting process -- we'll have to see if any political actors in the affected states start earmarking funds for actual construction.
 
Finally -- looks like NC got in on the action in an unexpected way -- this might be the reiteration of the "I-36" designation that was shot down for what's now I-42.  Guess traffic's such a problem in the Triangle that the need/desire for a relief route reared its head! 

[vdeane]

Sigh... more suffix madness.  Why must Congress continue to ruin the numbering of my beloved interstate system?  Pretty soon it will be as bad as the US routes!

So many roads to nowhere in west Texas, too.  I-14N makes sense, I can see I-14S if they want to make a San Antonio and Houston bypass, but what the heck is up with those north-south routes?