Print

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

[Henry]

AFAIK, this I-66 would not be connected to the one in VA and DC. And I always thought it was a stupid number to begin with, seeing that all of it is south of I-64. Not to mention that it was doomed from the start when other states decided not to get on board with the idea of a cross-country freeway carrying an iconic route number that once belonged to a certain Chicago-Los Angeles highway. No even number between 46 and 62 is currently in use, so if they insisted on a 2di for this corridor, any of those numbers would work.

That being said, I'm in support of an I-x65 in the area.

[sprjus4]

^

I thought at one point the I-66 plan called for connecting to the original.

As far as location of a potential route, would probably overlap a majority of I-64 and I-79 through West Virginia, then along Corridor H, which is more or less the current route between them (though current routing follows I-75 and I-64 via Lexington, assuming I-66 would be new terrain between I-75 and I-64 somewhere near Huntington)

[zzcarp]

^

I thought at one point the I-66 plan called for connecting to the original.

As far as location of a potential route, would probably overlap a majority of I-64 and I-79 through West Virginia, then along Corridor H, which is more or less the current route between them (though current routing follows I-75 and I-64 via Lexington, assuming I-66 would be new terrain between I-75 and I-64 somewhere near Huntington)

My understanding is that when it was proposed it would be routed from the Cumberland Parkway to Beckley, WV using the Hal Rodgers Parkway east of I-75, then following KY 80 to US 23 near Prestonsburg, then south on US 23 to US 119, then north on US 119 to US 52/Future I-73/74, then southeast on US 52 et al, and finally northeast along the future Coalfields Expressway. From Beckley, they could overlap it on I-64 to I-81 then I-81 to extant I-66.

If it used Corridor H instead, it could go north from Beckley along US 19 to I-79 to Corridor H.

As I-73/74 is essentially dead in WV, it's unlikely we'll ever see any of this happen.

[The Ghostbuster]

I always thought constructing the Interstate 66 though Kentucky proposal was always a long shot. As all of you are likely aware, the Interstate 66 proposal was originally to have stretched from Interstates 73/74 in West Virginia all the way westward to California. A better designation for such a highway probably would have been Interstate 50 or 60. Anyway, the portion west of Wichita, Kansas was the first to be axed, and ultimately, the rest of 66 was canceled as well. It was likely too ambitious of a proposal to ever see the light of day.

[hbelkins]

There are theoretical plans still out there for a new-terrain freeway from Hazard to West Virginia via Pikeville. This would be separate construction from existing KY 80 and US 119.

[sparker]

There are theoretical plans still out there for a new-terrain freeway from Hazard to West Virginia via Pikeville. This would be separate construction from existing KY 80 and US 119.

IIRC, the original HPC #3 was to exit the Rogers ROW east of Hazard and head on a highly-specified path (guess someone had property to sell!) that eventually crossed US 23 and paralleled US 119 on a path about a dozen miles south before crossing into WV near Matewan, where it was to join the proposed HPC #5/I-73/74 alignment roughly paralleling US 52 (aka the King Coal expressway).  From there the prospects were indeed vague; some speculation had it "piggybacking" on the Coalfields east of Welch to Beckley, heading up US 19 (aka ARC "L") to I-79, multiplexing with that to Weston, then subsuming ARC "H" to the west terminus of extant I-66 in VA.  Other speculation simply MPX'd with I-64 and 81 to the same point; others terminated the I-66 number at Matewan and added the outlying HPC #3 segment from Roanoke to Hampton Roads over US 460 as a separate Interstate (62?).  But all were at best speculation; AFAIK there were no formal studies nor political requests for any specific alignment once the corridor entered WV.  HPC #3, occasionally dubbed the "Transamerica" corridor, since its path from Wichita, KS east to the KY/WV line largely copied that of the late '80's Fresno to D.C. concept, was indeed described with likely deliberate vagueness -- except in KY, where the path was highly specified as to what towns would be served -- the hallmark of a politically-motivated project.  Clearly the level of backing for that 1990's-era description fell off over the ensuing decades to a point where the concept was no longer viable as a whole.  The only indication that it existed at all has been the presence of "Future I-66" signage on the Cumberland.

[silverback1065]

i-73 will never exist outside of nc imo.

[Roadsguy]

i-73 will never exist outside of nc imo.

VA is still moving slowly but surely toward completing the Martinsville Southern Connector (I'm not holding my breath, but it's nowhere near dead), so I do expect to see I-73 make it at least up to US 58 once NCDOT upgrades US 220 between NC 68 and the VA state line (which they're waiting for VDOT to finish the MSC before they extend I-73 further north).

SC, though, I'm not getting my hopes up for.

[hbelkins]

There was quite a political fight in Kentucky over where I-66 would run. There were several news stories about it which were referenced on one of the HPC pages (perhaps even AA Roads' page; I don't remember, as the page was written back in the MTR days). The battle was between a couple of congressmen, Hal Rogers and (I think) Scotty Baesler. The 6th District representative (Lexington) wanted the I-66 designation to run concurrently with I-64 and the Bluegrass Parkway, although it's doubtful that success would have translated into a BG Parkway extension. Rogers wanted upgrades to the Daniel Boone Parkway and a new-terrain route between Hazard, Pikeville, and West Virginia. Rogers eventually won and the Kentucky routing was written into the law.

[amroad17]

I would like to see I-50 in place of an I-x65.  Allow me to give some reasons I believe this.

1.  There isn't a KY 50.  US 50 does not enter Kentucky.  This can allow Kentucky to possibly apply for an I-50 designation along the Cumberland Parkway.
2.  Where else could an I-50 be used?  Nowhere else in the grid except maybe if US 58 in Virginia or if the US 158 corridor in North Carolina were ever upgraded to Interstate status, however unlikely.
3.  By using I-50, it gives the highway a bit of "status", instead of it being just a spur of I-65.

If I-50 were to become reality, as of now it would be 88 miles long--currently ending at US 27 north of Somerset.  However, with the planned extension of the Cumberland Parkway possibly out to the KY 80-KY 461 intersection, I-50 could be designated at least to that point.  And if KYTC ever decided to upgrade the KY 80 corridor the rest of the way to I-75 in London, I-50 could be used.  This would make I-50 approximately 120 miles.

Now I know that X0 Interstate highways are usually reserved for major east-west freeways.  However, as I stated above, where else could an I-50 be designated?  Unless there was a major Interstate beginning in someplace like Hayti, MO, using current I-155, the US 51/future I-69 freeway to Fulton or Mayville, KY, then new construction in southern Kentucky and southern Virginia (or northern North Carolina), there is no clear-cut highway to place an I-50 on with the exception of the Cumberland Parkway.

Comments and opinions are most welcome.  Thanks in advance.

[sparker]

I would like to see I-50 in place of an I-x65.  Allow me to give some reasons I believe this.

1.  There isn't a KY 50.  US 50 does not enter Kentucky.  This can allow Kentucky to possibly apply for an I-50 designation along the Cumberland Parkway.
2.  Where else could an I-50 be used?  Nowhere else in the grid except maybe if US 58 in Virginia or if the US 158 corridor in North Carolina were ever upgraded to Interstate status, however unlikely.
3.  By using I-50, it gives the highway a bit of "status", instead of it being just a spur of I-65.

If I-50 were to become reality, as of now it would be 88 miles long--currently ending at US 27 north of Somerset.  However, with the planned extension of the Cumberland Parkway possibly out to the KY 80-KY 461 intersection, I-50 could be designated at least to that point.  And if KYTC ever decided to upgrade the KY 80 corridor the rest of the way to I-75 in London, I-50 could be used.  This would make I-50 approximately 120 miles.

Now I know that X0 Interstate highways are usually reserved for major east-west freeways.  However, as I stated above, where else could an I-50 be designated?  Unless there was a major Interstate beginning in someplace like Hayti, MO, using current I-155, the US 51/future I-69 freeway to Fulton or Mayville, KY, then new construction in southern Kentucky and southern Virginia (or northern North Carolina), there is no clear-cut highway to place an I-50 on with the exception of the Cumberland Parkway.

Comments and opinions are most welcome.  Thanks in advance.

Agreed that the former I-66 corridor would be one of the more logical places to locate a I-50, along with the US 412 corridor from I-35 to I-49 in OK and NWA.  But it's not as if the number is chafing at the bit to be located somewhere; that's sort of putting the proverbial cart before the horse.  Let's first see if it's politically and fiscally feasible for the Cumberland corridor to extend east to at least I-75 or even farther eastward via an upgraded Rogers parkway (where it would go at its east end would have to be determined as well, otherwise this is simply a fictional endeavor).   Personally, if a composite corridor as discussed upthread incorporating the Audubon and Natcher parkways into a continuous corridor with the Cumberland as a continuation, then maybe a I-50 or other available even-numbered designation could be appropriate.  But unless it is configured to connect disparate regions (even within one state) the 3di approach currently being contemplated for the Cumberland is more than adequate. 

[Avalanchez71]

Announced yesterday (link to congressional press release)

More pork by Kentucky.

[sparker]

Announced yesterday (link to congressional press release)

More pork by Kentucky.

.......mmm.....pork!

[Dirt Roads]

Announced yesterday (link to congressional press release)

More pork by Kentucky.

McConnell, Guthrie, Rogers, Comer Introduce Cumberland Parkway Legislation
Washington, September 24, 2020

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and  Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), along with Congressman Hal Rogers (KY-05) and Congressman James Comer (KY-01), today introduced legislation to begin the process of designating the Louie B. Nunn Cumberland Parkway as a federal spur of Interstate-65.

"Federal spur of Interstate-65".  When did CalRog move to Kentucky?

[sparker]

Announced yesterday (link to congressional press release)

More pork by Kentucky.

McConnell, Guthrie, Rogers, Comer Introduce Cumberland Parkway Legislation
Washington, September 24, 2020

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and  Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), along with Congressman Hal Rogers (KY-05) and Congressman James Comer (KY-01), today introduced legislation to begin the process of designating the Louie B. Nunn Cumberland Parkway as a federal spur of Interstate-65.

"Federal spur of Interstate-65".  When did CalRog move to Kentucky?

Related question:  what ever happened to McConnell's previous proposal to designate the WKY from I-69 over to Natcher/I-165 as I-569?  Dropped because of lack of interest or simple disbelief that a designation wouldn't extend all the way to I-65?  (Still think a I-71 extension is optimal for that facility.)

[seicer]

Announced yesterday (link to congressional press release)

More pork by Kentucky.

And? With powerful senators and representatives comes ... more money. As much as I loathe McConnell, losing him would mean the loss of money for our state. All states have "pork" - it's only derogatory if you don't benefit from it

[hbelkins]

Announced yesterday (link to congressional press release)

More pork by Kentucky.

And? With powerful senators and representatives comes ... more money. As much as I loathe McConnell, losing him would mean the loss of money for our state. All states have "pork" - it's only derogatory if you don't benefit from it

Not really "pork." The improvements are probably going to be done anyway, with or without Interstate signage. The legislation just writes the number into law and takes AASHTO out of the equation.

[Rothman]

Announced yesterday (link to congressional press release)

More pork by Kentucky.

And? With powerful senators and representatives comes ... more money. As much as I loathe McConnell, losing him would mean the loss of money for our state. All states have "pork" - it's only derogatory if you don't benefit from it

Pfft.  And I'd bet you complained about Senator Ted Kennedy's propensity for fattening Massachusetts with pork.

Hypocrisy abounds.

[seicer]

Announced yesterday (link to congressional press release)

More pork by Kentucky.

And? With powerful senators and representatives comes ... more money. As much as I loathe McConnell, losing him would mean the loss of money for our state. All states have "pork" - it's only derogatory if you don't benefit from it

Pfft.  And I'd bet you complained about Senator Ted Kennedy's propensity for fattening Massachusetts with pork.

Hypocrisy abounds.

No, I never did but thanks for the assumption. I did complain about the massive cost overruns with the Big Dig project - but so did most others. And I still complain about waste in other states - but hey, if your state benefits, it benefits unless it truly has no return on investment.

[sprjus4]

^

I wouldn't call completing safety upgrades along the Cumberland Parkway - an existing, mostly interstate standard 70 mph freeway - "pork". The only investment is some blue and red shields to replace some older shields. Not a big invest, easy to return on.

On a separate note, I'm curious as to why Kentucky has not installed cable guardrail along most of their parkways given high speeds, narrow medians, and now interstate designations. I believe they exist on the original routes such as I-24.

[hbelkins]

On a separate note, I'm curious as to why Kentucky has not installed cable guardrail along most of their parkways given high speeds, narrow medians, and now interstate designations. I believe they exist on the original routes such as I-24.

Warrants for crossover crashes probably not met.

[amroad17]

KYTC could be proactive about this instead of reactive.  However, whether or not to have cable median guardrails depends on available funds and study numbers, apparently.   

My I-50 idea would, of course, depend on a high probability that the Cumberland (Louie B. Nunn--did not mention that in my prior post) Parkway would be extended to at least I-75.  If there is a slim to no chance, then an I-x65 (365?) will be it--and it looks like it will be that way based on the posts above.

[seicer]

Generally, the median widths on Kentucky's parkways and interstates are wide enough that cross-median crashes are rare. It's prohibitively expensive to install them on all highways because of the expense and rationale. The state of West Virginia, for instance, began installing them in the highest risk locations where accidents were the highest - in the curviest, most trafficked interstate corridors before moving down the list.

[sprjus4]

^ From driving through West Virginia this summer, I do indeed recall numerous segments along I-64 east of I-77 and along I-79 with median guardrail installation underway.

[ctkatz]

the only thing that upsets me is that the state has an official policy of removing the parkway name in exchange for an interstate designation.