That would mean that in order to clinch I-69 you would have to also do that random segment of I-94 that Congress also, for whatever reason, declared to be part of I-69 (which Indiana and Illinois DOTs quietly ignored, because it makes no sense). That is asinine.
Legislators don't have the responsibility of actually building or maintaining any roads, so there's lots of stuff they can decree that doesn't have any actual bearing on reality outside of their chamber.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 08, 2018, 03:38:05 AM
That would mean that in order to clinch I-69 you would have to also do that random segment of I-94 that Congress also, for whatever reason, declared to be part of I-69 (which Indiana and Illinois DOTs quietly ignored, because it makes no sense). That is asinine.
Legislators don't have the responsibility of actually building or maintaining any roads, so there's lots of stuff they can decree that doesn't have any actual bearing on reality outside of their chamber.
What? Part of I-94 is also I-69?
Quote from: bugo on April 08, 2018, 03:30:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 08, 2018, 03:38:05 AM
That would mean that in order to clinch I-69 you would have to also do that random segment of I-94 that Congress also, for whatever reason, declared to be part of I-69 (which Indiana and Illinois DOTs quietly ignored, because it makes no sense). That is asinine.
Legislators don't have the responsibility of actually building or maintaining any roads, so there's lots of stuff they can decree that doesn't have any actual bearing on reality outside of their chamber.
What? Part of I-94 is also I-69?
Between their interchange in Port Huron to the Bluewater Bridge.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 08, 2018, 03:38:05 AM
That would mean that in order to clinch I-69 you would have to also do that random segment of I-94 that Congress also, for whatever reason, declared to be part of I-69 (which Indiana and Illinois DOTs quietly ignored, because it makes no sense). That is asinine.
Legislators don't have the responsibility of actually building or maintaining any roads, so there's lots of stuff they can decree that doesn't have any actual bearing on reality outside of their chamber.
Why would Illinois have anything to do with I-69? I-69 never enters Illinois. The only part of I-69 and I-94 that run together is the last couple of miles after they interchange to the Bluewater Bridge in Port Huron.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 08, 2018, 03:32:11 PM
Quote from: bugo on April 08, 2018, 03:30:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 08, 2018, 03:38:05 AM
That would mean that in order to clinch I-69 you would have to also do that random segment of I-94 that Congress also, for whatever reason, declared to be part of I-69 (which Indiana and Illinois DOTs quietly ignored, because it makes no sense). That is asinine.
Legislators don't have the responsibility of actually building or maintaining any roads, so there's lots of stuff they can decree that doesn't have any actual bearing on reality outside of their chamber.
What? Part of I-94 is also I-69?
Between their interchange in Port Huron to the Bluewater Bridge.
How is that random? That concurrence is pretty tame.
I-69 pretty much does the Wisconsin Concurrency (don't end until it ends with another). Both interstates end at the border.
Quote from: Rothman on April 08, 2018, 08:17:20 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 08, 2018, 03:32:11 PM
Quote from: bugo on April 08, 2018, 03:30:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 08, 2018, 03:38:05 AM
That would mean that in order to clinch I-69 you would have to also do that random segment of I-94 that Congress also, for whatever reason, declared to be part of I-69 (which Indiana and Illinois DOTs quietly ignored, because it makes no sense). That is asinine.
Legislators don't have the responsibility of actually building or maintaining any roads, so there's lots of stuff they can decree that doesn't have any actual bearing on reality outside of their chamber.
What? Part of I-94 is also I-69?
Between their interchange in Port Huron to the Bluewater Bridge.
How is that random? That concurrence is pretty tame.
It's not random. It's been like that since I-69 was extended to Port Huron about 25 years ago.
Quote from: vdeane on April 08, 2018, 08:57:32 PM
For some reason, the legislatively defined corridor for I-69 includes all of I-94 east of Chicago.
http://www.peaktraffic.org/graphics/hpcfi.jpg
I don't understand that one. I-94 and I-69 intersect near Marshall, Michigan and run together in Port Huron, Michigan.
I-69 actually functions as a bypass of Detroit between Marshall and Port Huron. Traffic going from say Toronto to Chicago or vice versa would be much better off taking I-69 through Lansing and Flint to meet back up with I-94 in Port Huron vs. taking I-94 through Detroit. And I-94 isn't even the route to take into Detroit coming from the west, the best way to get to Detroit from the west is to break off I-94 at Ann Arbor and follow M-14 to it's eastern terminus with I-275 and I-96 and then continue on I-96 into Detroit. You can stay on I-94 though the difference is about 2 or 3 miles.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 08, 2018, 10:39:15 PMI don't understand that one.
That's been clear from your several posts getting the wrong end of the stick!
vdeane and Scott5114 are talking about the legislation-defined I-69. You are talking about signed I-69 / roads treated as I-69 by the FHWA/relevant state DOTs.
Legally,
all of I-94 east of Chicago is part of I-69. Really, just that little bit in Port Huron that you talk about is.
The point that was being made by pointing out the nonsense legal definition was that legal definitions are sometimes stupid!
Quote from: english si on April 09, 2018, 12:35:59 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 08, 2018, 10:39:15 PMI don't understand that one.
That's been clear from your several posts getting the wrong end of the stick!
vdeane and Scott5114 are talking about the legislation-defined I-69. You are talking about signed I-69 / roads treated as I-69 by the FHWA/relevant state DOTs.
Legally, all of I-94 east of Chicago is part of I-69. Really, just that little bit in Port Huron that you talk about is.
The point that was being made by pointing out the nonsense legal definition was that legal definitions are sometimes stupid!
I-69 goes nowhere near Chicago so no that doesn't make any sense to legally say that all of I-94 east of Chicago is part of I-69. I-69 intersects I-94 in Michigan near Marshall and crosses over it, doesn't multiplex with it at all. I-69 goes towards Fort Wayne and Lansing, I-94 goes towards Chicago and Detroit.
I wonder if that legal definition really means I-94 and I-69 were meant to be concurrent to Chicago, or if they were just defining a corridor of some sort (i.e., somehow I-69 as shielded will facilitate traffic to and from Chicago). That old legal definition that vdeane referred to goes all the way back to ISTEA, so I also wouldn't be surprised if the actual designation makes more sense.
On a state level, NYSDOT went through a fascination with "multimodal corridors" about a decade ago. Although they were where you'd expect, the corridor manager bristled when you called them by Interstate route. :D
Quote from: Rothman on April 09, 2018, 01:33:44 PM
I wonder if that legal definition really means I-94 and I-69 were meant to be concurrent to Chicago, or if they were just defining a corridor of some sort (i.e., somehow I-69 as shielded will facilitate traffic to and from Chicago). That old legal definition that vdeane referred to goes all the way back to ISTEA, so I also wouldn't be surprised if the actual designation makes more sense.
On a state level, NYSDOT went through a fascination with "multimodal corridors" about a decade ago. Although they were where you'd expect, the corridor manager bristled when you called them by Interstate route. :D
vdeane's link shows it interchanging with itself. It obviously wasn't meant to be signed this way.
The definition of I-69 is a corridor definition. And yes, it's a multimodal corridor. Everything on that image is a corridor.
Quote from: cl94 on April 09, 2018, 02:14:33 PM
The definition of I-69 is a corridor definition. And yes, it's a multimodal corridor. Everything on that image is a corridor.
Tell that to Texas.
Quote from: vdeane on April 09, 2018, 06:50:31 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 09, 2018, 02:14:33 PM
The definition of I-69 is a corridor definition. And yes, it's a multimodal corridor. Everything on that image is a corridor.
Tell that to Texas.
Not sure what is meant by this.
Quote from: Rothman on April 09, 2018, 10:50:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 09, 2018, 06:50:31 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 09, 2018, 02:14:33 PM
The definition of I-69 is a corridor definition. And yes, it's a multimodal corridor. Everything on that image is a corridor.
Tell that to Texas.
Not sure what is meant by this.
I think he means it's not really a
corridor, per se, because the final result is intended to have three branches.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 09, 2018, 12:49:55 PM
Quote from: english si on April 09, 2018, 12:35:59 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 08, 2018, 10:39:15 PMI don't understand that one.
That's been clear from your several posts getting the wrong end of the stick!
vdeane and Scott5114 are talking about the legislation-defined I-69. You are talking about signed I-69 / roads treated as I-69 by the FHWA/relevant state DOTs.
Legally, all of I-94 east of Chicago is part of I-69. Really, just that little bit in Port Huron that you talk about is.
The point that was being made by pointing out the nonsense legal definition was that legal definitions are sometimes stupid!
I-69 goes nowhere near Chicago so no that doesn't make any sense to legally say that all of I-94 east of Chicago is part of I-69. I-69 intersects I-94 in Michigan near Marshall and crosses over it, doesn't multiplex with it at all. I-69 goes towards Fort Wayne and Lansing, I-94 goes towards Chicago and Detroit.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense to anyone here in reality. But in that alternate universe lovingly depicted on the back of the $50 bill, Congress passed a law declaring all of I-94 east of Chicago to be part of I-69. So yes, I-69 does in fact go near Chicago, if you take the definition as outlined in law as the authority on what is and isn't I-69. Except that's stupid, because it would make a mockery of using the I-69 designation as the navigational aid it's intended to be. So MDOT, InDOT, and IDOT have all done the sensible thing and pretended that Congress never said that.
The point being, no roadgeek would consider it necessary to travel that segment of I-94 to consider I-69 clinched, because it has no basis in reality.* Likewise, then, the Washington legislature declaring a SR-168 where no state highway actually exists should be treated similarly. Someone could claim a clinch of the entire Washington state highway system and safely ignore SR-168.
*Note that, on the surface, this would seem to question the legitimacy of unsigned routes. Unsigned routes are, however, generally actually maintained by the agency that administers the system, and as a result often have ample documentation. They usually–but not always–have no other designations but the hidden one, which exists to normalize a route which would otherwise have a null reference. Even I-444, which would probably be the best analogue to the I-94 situation (Interstate silently concurrent with other routes) is fully denoted on Oklahoma DOT resources, and the control sections that make up the Interstate are duly numbered "444-72-92" and "444-72-94".
I am with cl94 here: Vdeane provided a corridor definition which clearly states that it includes already signed interstates. "Corridor" has a separate meaning from interstate designation, branches notwithstanding. Therefore, this idea that I-69 has an actual unsigned concurrency with I-94 to Chicago is one that I find dubious without more proof to the contrary, especially since we have had a bunch of federal bills since ISTEA.
ETA: The ISTEA section (1105) is not concerning interstate designation, but rather corridor definition. From what I read in the corridor definition, it can easily be interpreted that it includes I-69 in Corridor 18's definition, but I-69 does not represent the totality of the corridor.
See: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 10, 2018, 05:30:51 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 09, 2018, 12:49:55 PM
Quote from: english si on April 09, 2018, 12:35:59 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 08, 2018, 10:39:15 PMI don't understand that one.
That's been clear from your several posts getting the wrong end of the stick!
vdeane and Scott5114 are talking about the legislation-defined I-69. You are talking about signed I-69 / roads treated as I-69 by the FHWA/relevant state DOTs.
Legally, all of I-94 east of Chicago is part of I-69. Really, just that little bit in Port Huron that you talk about is.
The point that was being made by pointing out the nonsense legal definition was that legal definitions are sometimes stupid!
I-69 goes nowhere near Chicago so no that doesn't make any sense to legally say that all of I-94 east of Chicago is part of I-69. I-69 intersects I-94 in Michigan near Marshall and crosses over it, doesn't multiplex with it at all. I-69 goes towards Fort Wayne and Lansing, I-94 goes towards Chicago and Detroit.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense to anyone here in reality. But in that alternate universe lovingly depicted on the back of the $50 bill, Congress passed a law declaring all of I-94 east of Chicago to be part of I-69. So yes, I-69 does in fact go near Chicago, if you take the definition as outlined in law as the authority on what is and isn't I-69. Except that's stupid, because it would make a mockery of using the I-69 designation as the navigational aid it's intended to be. So MDOT, InDOT, and IDOT have all done the sensible thing and pretended that Congress never said that.
The point being, no roadgeek would consider it necessary to travel that segment of I-94 to consider I-69 clinched, because it has no basis in reality.* Likewise, then, the Washington legislature declaring a SR-168 where no state highway actually exists should be treated similarly. Someone could claim a clinch of the entire Washington state highway system and safely ignore SR-168.
*Note that, on the surface, this would seem to question the legitimacy of unsigned routes. Unsigned routes are, however, generally actually maintained by the agency that administers the system, and as a result often have ample documentation. They usually–but not always–have no other designations but the hidden one, which exists to normalize a route which would otherwise have a null reference. Even I-444, which would probably be the best analogue to the I-94 situation (Interstate silently concurrent with other routes) is fully denoted on Oklahoma DOT resources, and the control sections that make up the Interstate are duly numbered "444-72-92" and "444-72-94".
I have traveled between Saginaw, MI and Chicago several times. There is no I-69 signage anywhere on I-94 so therefore I would not consider that a part of I-69 regardless of who said what. There are several unsigned routes and to me those don't really exist either because there is no signage letting you know that you are on said highway. I-69 only intersects with I-94 there and both highways go there own direction. It doesn't make any sense at all to consider all of I-94 east of Chicago a part of I-69.
If I-69 is really on I-94 east of Chicago then where does it go when it gets to Chicago? You'd be heading north into Chicago on SB I-69. My point is that I-69 doesn't even go in the direction of Chicago, south of Lansing it runs north and south, Chicago is west of where it intersects I-94.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 10, 2018, 01:00:11 PM
If I-69 is really on I-94 east of Chicago then where does it go when it gets to Chicago? You'd be heading north into Chicago on SB I-69. My point is that I-69 doesn't even go in the direction of Chicago, south of Lansing it runs north and south, Chicago is west of where it intersects I-94.
It isn't and it doesn't.
It's a corridor. Congress loves designating intermodal corridors. The I-69 corridor legislation simply includes a Chicago-Detroit-Sarnia corridor.
Quote from: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 01:02:55 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 10, 2018, 01:00:11 PM
If I-69 is really on I-94 east of Chicago then where does it go when it gets to Chicago? You'd be heading north into Chicago on SB I-69. My point is that I-69 doesn't even go in the direction of Chicago, south of Lansing it runs north and south, Chicago is west of where it intersects I-94.
It isn't and it doesn't. It's a corridor. Congress loves designating intermodal corridors. The I-69 corridor legislation simply includes a Chicago-Detroit-Sarnia corridor.
So it's basically the area that it's in? Sort of like a river's watershed?
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 10, 2018, 01:07:30 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 01:02:55 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 10, 2018, 01:00:11 PM
If I-69 is really on I-94 east of Chicago then where does it go when it gets to Chicago? You'd be heading north into Chicago on SB I-69. My point is that I-69 doesn't even go in the direction of Chicago, south of Lansing it runs north and south, Chicago is west of where it intersects I-94.
It isn't and it doesn't. It's a corridor. Congress loves designating intermodal corridors. The I-69 corridor legislation simply includes a Chicago-Detroit-Sarnia corridor.
So it's basically the area that it's in? Sort of like a river's watershed?
Multimodal traffic flows between origins and destinations.
It is little wonder corridor management has drifted into the background. The entire initiative was never well-defined and was more quixotic than practical.
Quote from: Rothman on April 10, 2018, 05:20:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 10, 2018, 01:07:30 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 01:02:55 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 10, 2018, 01:00:11 PM
If I-69 is really on I-94 east of Chicago then where does it go when it gets to Chicago? You'd be heading north into Chicago on SB I-69. My point is that I-69 doesn't even go in the direction of Chicago, south of Lansing it runs north and south, Chicago is west of where it intersects I-94.
It isn't and it doesn't. It's a corridor. Congress loves designating intermodal corridors. The I-69 corridor legislation simply includes a Chicago-Detroit-Sarnia corridor.
So it's basically the area that it's in? Sort of like a river's watershed?
Multimodal traffic flows between origins and destinations.
It is little wonder corridor management has drifted into the background. The entire initiative was never well-defined and was more quixotic than practical.
You'd be surprised. DOE is funding a bunch of stuff related to corridor management right now.
Quote from: Rothman on April 09, 2018, 10:50:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 09, 2018, 06:50:31 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 09, 2018, 02:14:33 PM
The definition of I-69 is a corridor definition. And yes, it's a multimodal corridor. Everything on that image is a corridor.
Tell that to Texas.
Not sure what is meant by this.
Note the existence of I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W. IMO only one of these should be I-69.
Quote from: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 05:40:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 10, 2018, 05:20:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 10, 2018, 01:07:30 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 01:02:55 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 10, 2018, 01:00:11 PM
If I-69 is really on I-94 east of Chicago then where does it go when it gets to Chicago? You'd be heading north into Chicago on SB I-69. My point is that I-69 doesn't even go in the direction of Chicago, south of Lansing it runs north and south, Chicago is west of where it intersects I-94.
It isn't and it doesn't. It's a corridor. Congress loves designating intermodal corridors. The I-69 corridor legislation simply includes a Chicago-Detroit-Sarnia corridor.
So it's basically the area that it's in? Sort of like a river's watershed?
Multimodal traffic flows between origins and destinations.
It is little wonder corridor management has drifted into the background. The entire initiative was never well-defined and was more quixotic than practical.
You'd be surprised. DOE is funding a bunch of stuff related to corridor management right now.
DOE?
USDOT had its laughable Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) initiative. Glad the days where I was involved are over.
Quote from: Rothman on April 10, 2018, 06:39:12 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 05:40:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 10, 2018, 05:20:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 10, 2018, 01:07:30 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 01:02:55 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 10, 2018, 01:00:11 PM
If I-69 is really on I-94 east of Chicago then where does it go when it gets to Chicago? You'd be heading north into Chicago on SB I-69. My point is that I-69 doesn't even go in the direction of Chicago, south of Lansing it runs north and south, Chicago is west of where it intersects I-94.
It isn't and it doesn't. It's a corridor. Congress loves designating intermodal corridors. The I-69 corridor legislation simply includes a Chicago-Detroit-Sarnia corridor.
So it's basically the area that it's in? Sort of like a river's watershed?
Multimodal traffic flows between origins and destinations.
It is little wonder corridor management has drifted into the background. The entire initiative was never well-defined and was more quixotic than practical.
You'd be surprised. DOE is funding a bunch of stuff related to corridor management right now.
DOE?
USDOT had its laughable Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) initiative. Glad the days where I was involved are over.
Yes. US Department of Energy. They're looking into how to reduce energy use on corridors.
RE: I-69: Congress doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground, so I don't pay attention when they pass ridiculous laws like this one.
Quote from: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 06:40:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 10, 2018, 06:39:12 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 05:40:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 10, 2018, 05:20:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 10, 2018, 01:07:30 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 10, 2018, 01:02:55 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 10, 2018, 01:00:11 PM
If I-69 is really on I-94 east of Chicago then where does it go when it gets to Chicago? You'd be heading north into Chicago on SB I-69. My point is that I-69 doesn't even go in the direction of Chicago, south of Lansing it runs north and south, Chicago is west of where it intersects I-94.
It isn't and it doesn't. It's a corridor. Congress loves designating intermodal corridors. The I-69 corridor legislation simply includes a Chicago-Detroit-Sarnia corridor.
So it's basically the area that it's in? Sort of like a river's watershed?
Multimodal traffic flows between origins and destinations.
It is little wonder corridor management has drifted into the background. The entire initiative was never well-defined and was more quixotic than practical.
You'd be surprised. DOE is funding a bunch of stuff related to corridor management right now.
DOE?
USDOT had its laughable Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) initiative. Glad the days where I was involved are over.
Yes. US Department of Energy. They're looking into how to reduce energy use on corridors.
*sigh*
Captain Obvious here: the legislative placement of the I-69 designation along I-94 in MI, IN, and IL is simply a way to obtain funding for rehabilitation and/or expansion of I-94 under the I-69/HPC 18 corridor "umbrella" -- simply by claiming that I-94 is an egress point from I-69 to two major metro areas not on the main corridor (Detroit & Chicago, of course). Just politicos from those areas trying to get in on what action there is pertaining to I-69 activities and any funding that may become available. In a backhanded way, part of that makes sense -- I-69 from Marshall to the Bluewater Bridge into Canada is the most efficient commercial trucking route from Chicago to Toronto and/or Montreal -- given Detroit congestion and the Morounic activities (or lack thereof) regarding egress in and out of Canada in that metro area. And I-94 is by default the most direct route from southward I-69 points to Detroit (although the improvements on US 24 from Fort Wayne to Toledo might just make that route a viable alternative, using I-469 and I-475 on either end!)
Off topic, but I feel the I-69 corridor should be two separate interstates. The part north of Memphis would remain I-69, while the part in Texas would become another 2di (I-47 would probably fit best). The proposed corridor in MS, AR, and parts of LA makes no sense and wouldn't save much time over existing interstates
Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2018, 04:51:19 PM
Captain Obvious here: the legislative placement of the I-69 designation along I-94 in MI, IN, and IL is simply a way to obtain funding for rehabilitation and/or expansion of I-94 under the I-69/HPC 18 corridor "umbrella" -- simply by claiming that I-94 is an egress point from I-69 to two major metro areas not on the main corridor (Detroit & Chicago, of course). Just politicos from those areas trying to get in on what action there is pertaining to I-69 activities and any funding that may become available.
Well, yes. But the whole reason this discussion started–which the thread split doesn't make clear–was the result of an assertion that in order to clinch the Washington State highway system, one would have to clinch various routes which have not been built, but for which an unfunded mandate exists in state law. I was attempting to use the I-69/I-94 designation as a rhetorical device illustrating that–
Quote from: bugo on April 10, 2018, 07:58:13 PM
RE: I-69: Congress doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground, so I don't pay attention when they pass ridiculous laws like this one.
–is probably the proper attitude to have in route clinching, precisely because of shenanigans like this. But the I-69 designation over I-94 is apparently not as well known as I thought it was, and now here we are.
Quote from: vdeane on April 10, 2018, 06:33:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 09, 2018, 10:50:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 09, 2018, 06:50:31 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 09, 2018, 02:14:33 PM
The definition of I-69 is a corridor definition. And yes, it's a multimodal corridor. Everything on that image is a corridor.
Tell that to Texas.
Not sure what is meant by this.
Note the existence of I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W. IMO only one of these should be I-69.
The 69 number should go to I-69W, since that follows the US 59 corridor that I-69 uses through the rest of Texas. 69C and 69E should become I-x69 (or even x02) routes.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 12, 2018, 12:20:18 AM
Quote from: bugo on April 10, 2018, 07:58:13 PM
RE: I-69: Congress doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground, so I don't pay attention when they pass ridiculous laws like this one.
—is probably the proper attitude to have in route clinching, precisely because of shenanigans like this. But the I-69 designation over I-94 is apparently not as well known as I thought it was, and now here we are.
If the road hasn’t been built, then there’s nothing to clinch. Who cares what the law says if there isn’t even a road?
As another example, UT 131 is currently defined to run across a bridge that hasn’t been built yet. Until that bridge is built, I’m not going to worry about clinching it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 12, 2018, 12:20:18 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2018, 04:51:19 PM
Captain Obvious here: the legislative placement of the I-69 designation along I-94 in MI, IN, and IL is simply a way to obtain funding for rehabilitation and/or expansion of I-94 under the I-69/HPC 18 corridor "umbrella" -- simply by claiming that I-94 is an egress point from I-69 to two major metro areas not on the main corridor (Detroit & Chicago, of course). Just politicos from those areas trying to get in on what action there is pertaining to I-69 activities and any funding that may become available.
Well, yes. But the whole reason this discussion started–which the thread split doesn't make clear–was the result of an assertion that in order to clinch the Washington State highway system, one would have to clinch various routes which have not been built, but for which an unfunded mandate exists in state law. I was attempting to use the I-69/I-94 designation as a rhetorical device illustrating that–
Quote from: bugo on April 10, 2018, 07:58:13 PM
RE: I-69: Congress doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground, so I don't pay attention when they pass ridiculous laws like this one.
–is probably the proper attitude to have in route clinching, precisely because of shenanigans like this. But the I-69 designation over I-94 is apparently not as well known as I thought it was, and now here we are.
I-69 isn't designated over I-94, per the FHWA link to the legislation I provided previously. Corridor definition does not equal interstate designation.
^ This is correct. Even if Congress designates a given corridor as an Interstate corridor...even as far as giving it a number, it is still up to FHWA as to when that corridor (or segment) is actually added to the Interstate system. In this case, while the I-94 corridor may have been designated I-69 by Congress, FHWA can (and has) still decree(d) that it is I-94, not I-69.
Quote from: froggie on April 12, 2018, 07:20:34 AM
^ This is correct. Even if Congress designates a given corridor as an Interstate corridor...even as far as giving it a number, it is still up to FHWA as to when that corridor (or segment) is actually added to the Interstate system. In this case, while the I-94 corridor may have been designated I-69 by Congress, FHWA can (and has) still decree(d) that it is I-94, not I-69.
Case in point: I-73 and I-74, especially in WV. Although these two numbers have been designated on US 52, it's still US 52 because it functions well as a surface expressway. Just because a future number has been added to an existing highway does not mean that it will become one in the future. We could wait 100 years and not get a single mile of I-73/I-74 built there.
Quote from: Henry on April 12, 2018, 09:08:10 AM
Quote from: froggie on April 12, 2018, 07:20:34 AM
^ This is correct. Even if Congress designates a given corridor as an Interstate corridor...even as far as giving it a number, it is still up to FHWA as to when that corridor (or segment) is actually added to the Interstate system. In this case, while the I-94 corridor may have been designated I-69 by Congress, FHWA can (and has) still decree(d) that it is I-94, not I-69.
Case in point: I-73 and I-74, especially in WV. Although these two numbers have been designated on US 52, it's still US 52 because it functions well as a surface expressway. Just because a future number has been added to an existing highway does not mean that it will become one in the future. We could wait 100 years and not get a single mile of I-73/I-74 built there.
The odds of a four-lane being built from Bluefield to Huntington grow smaller with every passing day, but it's quite obvious that if the road is ever built, it won't be a full freeway, but will be a surface route.
Quote from: roadguy2 on April 12, 2018, 12:28:23 AM
The 69 number should go to I-69W, since that follows the US 59 corridor that I-69 uses through the rest of Texas. 69C and 69E should become I-x69 (or even x02) routes.
I'd make I-69E and extension of I-37 and leave I-69C a US route.
Quote from: froggie on April 12, 2018, 07:20:34 AM
^ This is correct. Even if Congress designates a given corridor as an Interstate corridor...even as far as giving it a number, it is still up to FHWA as to when that corridor (or segment) is actually added to the Interstate system. In this case, while the I-94 corridor may have been designated I-69 by Congress, FHWA can (and has) still decree(d) that it is I-94, not I-69.
I'd go even further given the language in the law and say that Congress didn't even designate the discussed section of I-94 as I-69. The I-69, both current and future, we all know and love is simply part of the much broader High Priority Corridor 18 (Port Huron to Texas). I-94 is also a part of that corridor. But, I-69 is not designated on I-94 to Chicago.
Question: since the I-94 segment of HPC 18 is included in the overall description of that corridor -- and the numerical designation codicil to the corridor description legislatively assigns I-69 to the entire corridor (with HPC 20 tacked on for good measure) -- the very reason TX has taken the "East" and "Central" suffixes literally -- would that not mean that I-94 Chicago-Detroit is in fact also designated as I-69 in legal terms, the choice to not erect signage as such by AASHTO and/or FHWA notwithstanding? From the normative interpretation of the designation language, unless that particular HPC 18 SIU is "broken out" and specifically excluded from the I-69 designation, it is considered part of the I-69 compendium regarding funding, prioritizations, etc. -- although likely never signed in the field as such. I suppose we'll just have to wait until large-scale improvements to that stretch of I-94 occur, and then see if any of the acknowledgement signage refers to the HPC 18 corridor or I-69 itself.
Quote from: vdeane on April 10, 2018, 06:33:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 09, 2018, 10:50:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 09, 2018, 06:50:31 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 09, 2018, 02:14:33 PM
The definition of I-69 is a corridor definition. And yes, it's a multimodal corridor. Everything on that image is a corridor.
Tell that to Texas.
Not sure what is meant by this.
Note the existence of I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W. IMO only one of these should be I-69.
Why is tex(ass) doing this anyway? Be happy with 35 E and 35 W. There is a reason why the FHWA stopped this. It is confusing and unnecessary. The only reason why I 35 was spared is because it (kind of) makes sense. (even still, I would make one of them a 3di.)
Quote from: vdeane on April 12, 2018, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on April 12, 2018, 12:28:23 AM
The 69 number should go to I-69W, since that follows the US 59 corridor that I-69 uses through the rest of Texas. 69C and 69E should become I-x69 (or even x02) routes.
I'd make I-69E and extension of I-37 and leave I-69C a US route.
Totally forgot about I-37.
Quote from: MCRoads on April 12, 2018, 06:26:58 PM
Why is tex(ass) doing this anyway? Be happy with 35 E and 35 W. There is a reason why the FHWA stopped this. It is confusing and unnecessary. The only reason why I 35 was spared is because it (kind of) makes sense. (even still, I would make one of them a 3di.)
At this point, you can't make either branch of I-35 a 3di, unless you really want to piss off whichever city you take mainline 35 out of.
Quote from: MCRoads on April 12, 2018, 06:26:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 10, 2018, 06:33:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 09, 2018, 10:50:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 09, 2018, 06:50:31 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 09, 2018, 02:14:33 PM
The definition of I-69 is a corridor definition. And yes, it's a multimodal corridor. Everything on that image is a corridor.
Tell that to Texas.
Not sure what is meant by this.
Note the existence of I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W. IMO only one of these should be I-69.
Why is tex(ass) doing this anyway? Be happy with 35 E and 35 W. There is a reason why the FHWA stopped this. It is confusing and unnecessary. The only reason why I 35 was spared is because it (kind of) makes sense. (even still, I would make one of them a 3di.)
I'm actually fine with both pairs of I-35W and I-35E (one in Dallas/Fort Worth, the other in Minneapolis/St. Paul), and I've never had a problem with them. However, I am not for the idea of any new suffixed interstates, so I am opposed to the I-69W/C/E clustermess (regarding that, my personal solution is to make I-69W an I-6, and there should not be both a I-69C and I-69E (two interstates) going down to south Texas - it should be one interstate that is either I-69 or I-47 (the latter working as long as it eventually went east of I-45 up all the way to Shreveport, so it wouldn't be out of the grid)). However, interestingly, I actually love and am perfectly fine with suffixed
US Routes. I've always thought those were pretty cool.
Quote from: sparker on April 12, 2018, 04:50:55 PM
Question: since the I-94 segment of HPC 18 is included in the overall description of that corridor -- and the numerical designation codicil to the corridor description legislatively assigns I-69 to the entire corridor (with HPC 20 tacked on for good measure) -- the very reason TX has taken the "East" and "Central" suffixes literally -- would that not mean that I-94 Chicago-Detroit is in fact also designated as I-69 in legal terms, the choice to not erect signage as such by AASHTO and/or FHWA notwithstanding? From the normative interpretation of the designation language, unless that particular HPC 18 SIU is "broken out" and specifically excluded from the I-69 designation, it is considered part of the I-69 compendium regarding funding, prioritizations, etc. -- although likely never signed in the field as such. I suppose we'll just have to wait until large-scale improvements to that stretch of I-94 occur, and then see if any of the acknowledgement signage refers to the HPC 18 corridor or I-69 itself.
No. Again, corridor definition does not equal interstate designation. The "[I-69]" mentions in the law merely are noting that part of the corridor will include I-69.
I'm pretty sure there's another law that says that the entirety of HPC 18 and HPC 20 are I-69, and that the states must post signs whenever a piece has been improved to Interstate standards and connected to another Interstate.
[citation needed]
From TEA-21 (http://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/02400):
Quote(i) DESIGNATION- The routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69. A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central. The State of Texas shall erect signs identifying such routes as segments of future Interstate Route I-69.
Illinois and Michigan are in violation of federal law.
We are mixing up ISTEA and TEA-21. Will have to check it out.
ETA: You linked to the Conference Report rather than the actual law.
...
Although TEA-21 had the designation paragraph in it as noted at one point, a whole slew of amendments have been made to the High Priority Corridors outside of main federal bills, as FHWA notes in the link I originally provided:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm
A general summary is also provided by FHWA (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/), showing that the whole High Priority Corridors initiative fizzled. Although some original study or planning funds were provided in early acts, states did get excited over the prospects of additional funding, which is why the whole list got amended with SAFETEA-LU with a whole bunch of crap. The funding never materialized.
From FHWA's implementation of the federal laws, the designations only pertained to future interstates, rather than the portions of the corridors in which existing interstates existed. Therefore, the portion of I-94 that heads off to Chicago has no current official designation of a concurrent I-69 in their view of the various amendments that have occurred over the years.
Quote from: Rothman on April 13, 2018, 10:46:09 AM
We are mixing up ISTEA and TEA-21. Will have to check it out.
ETA: You linked to the Conference Report rather than the actual law.
WTF? I linked to "H.R.2400 - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century". Click on the tab that says 'Text (7)' and it gives you the text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2400/text
Quote from: Rothman on April 12, 2018, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 12, 2018, 04:50:55 PM
Question: since the I-94 segment of HPC 18 is included in the overall description of that corridor -- and the numerical designation codicil to the corridor description legislatively assigns I-69 to the entire corridor (with HPC 20 tacked on for good measure) -- the very reason TX has taken the "East" and "Central" suffixes literally -- would that not mean that I-94 Chicago-Detroit is in fact also designated as I-69 in legal terms, the choice to not erect signage as such by AASHTO and/or FHWA notwithstanding? From the normative interpretation of the designation language, unless that particular HPC 18 SIU is "broken out" and specifically excluded from the I-69 designation, it is considered part of the I-69 compendium regarding funding, prioritizations, etc. -- although likely never signed in the field as such. I suppose we'll just have to wait until large-scale improvements to that stretch of I-94 occur, and then see if any of the acknowledgement signage refers to the HPC 18 corridor or I-69 itself.
No. Again, corridor definition does not equal interstate designation. The "[I-69]" mentions in the law merely are noting that part of the corridor will include I-69.
When I was referring to "acknowledgement signage", I was decidedly not referring to any I-69 shields, reassurance or trailblazer, but simply the type of temporary signage ("project billboards", if you will) at or near construction sites that laundry-list the various sources of funding for the project at hand. In this particular case, it would be interesting to see if references were made to High Priority Corridor #18, or something to the "I-69 corridor" on such signage. Of course it would be ridiculous, plain & simple, to think that actual I-69 signage would even show up on I-94 apart from the junctions/multiplexes at Port Huron & Marshall.
Quote from: sparker on April 13, 2018, 04:19:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 12, 2018, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 12, 2018, 04:50:55 PM
Question: since the I-94 segment of HPC 18 is included in the overall description of that corridor -- and the numerical designation codicil to the corridor description legislatively assigns I-69 to the entire corridor (with HPC 20 tacked on for good measure) -- the very reason TX has taken the "East" and "Central" suffixes literally -- would that not mean that I-94 Chicago-Detroit is in fact also designated as I-69 in legal terms, the choice to not erect signage as such by AASHTO and/or FHWA notwithstanding? From the normative interpretation of the designation language, unless that particular HPC 18 SIU is "broken out" and specifically excluded from the I-69 designation, it is considered part of the I-69 compendium regarding funding, prioritizations, etc. -- although likely never signed in the field as such. I suppose we'll just have to wait until large-scale improvements to that stretch of I-94 occur, and then see if any of the acknowledgement signage refers to the HPC 18 corridor or I-69 itself.
No. Again, corridor definition does not equal interstate designation. The "[I-69]" mentions in the law merely are noting that part of the corridor will include I-69.
When I was referring to "acknowledgement signage", I was decidedly not referring to any I-69 shields, reassurance or trailblazer, but simply the type of temporary signage ("project billboards", if you will) at or near construction sites that laundry-list the various sources of funding for the project at hand. In this particular case, it would be interesting to see if references were made to High Priority Corridor #18, or something to the "I-69 corridor" on such signage. Of course it would be ridiculous, plain & simple, to think that actual I-69 signage would even show up on I-94 apart from the junctions/multiplexes at Port Huron & Marshall.
The problem is that no federal construction funds were ever specifically authorized for high priority corridors.
Quote from: Rothman on April 13, 2018, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 13, 2018, 04:19:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 12, 2018, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 12, 2018, 04:50:55 PM
Question: since the I-94 segment of HPC 18 is included in the overall description of that corridor -- and the numerical designation codicil to the corridor description legislatively assigns I-69 to the entire corridor (with HPC 20 tacked on for good measure) -- the very reason TX has taken the "East" and "Central" suffixes literally -- would that not mean that I-94 Chicago-Detroit is in fact also designated as I-69 in legal terms, the choice to not erect signage as such by AASHTO and/or FHWA notwithstanding? From the normative interpretation of the designation language, unless that particular HPC 18 SIU is "broken out" and specifically excluded from the I-69 designation, it is considered part of the I-69 compendium regarding funding, prioritizations, etc. -- although likely never signed in the field as such. I suppose we'll just have to wait until large-scale improvements to that stretch of I-94 occur, and then see if any of the acknowledgement signage refers to the HPC 18 corridor or I-69 itself.
No. Again, corridor definition does not equal interstate designation. The "[I-69]" mentions in the law merely are noting that part of the corridor will include I-69.
When I was referring to "acknowledgement signage", I was decidedly not referring to any I-69 shields, reassurance or trailblazer, but simply the type of temporary signage ("project billboards", if you will) at or near construction sites that laundry-list the various sources of funding for the project at hand. In this particular case, it would be interesting to see if references were made to High Priority Corridor #18, or something to the "I-69 corridor" on such signage. Of course it would be ridiculous, plain & simple, to think that actual I-69 signage would even show up on I-94 apart from the junctions/multiplexes at Port Huron & Marshall.
The problem is that no federal construction funds were ever specifically authorized for high priority corridors.
Quite correct. However, HPC's are eligible for the maximum 80% Federal input (as with NHS/STRAHNET routes) -- but, as always, dependent upon the yearly Federal budget outlays. Unlike the old Interstate pool, nothing is set in stone. But it has become customary (at least in CA and OR) for "billboard" signage to be erected at construction sites with cites for the various funding sources, be they federal or local (more often than not in small print so drivers can't make out the specifics -- but it's there anyway!). Often the local Congressperson or in some cases state legislator will get a mention as well. Pretty much designed to let folks know where the money's coming from -- and who to either thank or blame!
Sort of.
First, if we are talking about I-94 (or almost other designated interstate), it is actually eligible for 90% federal through NHPP. Heck, could be 100% in Illinois or Indiana, which may earn toll credits as NY does, if they're applied to cover the match. Interstates can get 90% through NHPP because NHPP absorbed IM when the fund source was established.
Second, because HPCs never received additional funding through their own FHWA program code, there really isn't any real incentive for a state to point out that a project is on the HPC, especially since HPCs haven't been really amended or even mentioned since SAFETEA-LU -- there have been two major federal bills since then (MAP-21 and FAST). States are just building them with their own usual federal funding within their annual obligation limitation. I suppose states may just mention that the project is on an HPC to make it seem snazzier, perhaps, but I think it is unlikely.
Quote from: Rothman on April 14, 2018, 03:43:58 PM
Sort of.
First, if we are talking about I-94 (or almost other designated interstate), it is actually eligible for 90% federal through NHPP. Heck, could be 100% in Illinois or Indiana, which may earn toll credits as NY does, if they're applied to cover the match. Interstates can get 90% through NHPP because NHPP absorbed IM when the fund source was established.
Second, because HPCs never received additional funding through their own FHWA program code, there really isn't any real incentive for a state to point out that a project is on the HPC, especially since HPCs haven't been really amended or even mentioned since SAFETEA-LU -- there have been two major federal bills since then (MAP-21 and FAST). States are just building them with their own usual federal funding within their annual obligation limitation. I suppose states may just mention that the project is on an HPC to make it seem snazzier, perhaps, but I think it is unlikely.
It's probably not the states or their DOT's that are the movers behind the "laundry-listing" of funding sources (regardless of how arcane they are) but rather the parties that feel they can benefit in some way (I would venture politically as the major factor here) from attachment to the project. Maybe this is more a West Coast phenomenon, but I've seen state assembly/senate members cited on such signage, along with county supervisors or managers, who simply want to assume credit for the project's existence. Perhaps making a direct connection between public-sector money being spent and highly visible projects would be considered a positive phenomenon for all but the most vehement anti-tax/spend advocates. And citing a HPC or other funding "conduit" would be part of that process -- but only if that HPC had been reasonably well-publicized and received prior to actual deployment.
As we discussed above, HPC isn't a funding conduit. At best, it is now just a paper definition that states can use to appease the inconvenience of construction to the public: "This project is on a High Priority Corridor and therefore was very necessary! It even has 'high priority' in its name!"
Especially since a road important enough to be on a HPC is probably already on the NHS.
Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 09:02:12 AM
As we discussed above, HPC isn't a funding conduit. At best, it is now just a paper definition that states can use to appease the inconvenience of construction to the public: "This project is on a High Priority Corridor and therefore was very necessary! It even has 'high priority' in its name!"
Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2018, 06:17:34 PM
Especially since a road important enough to be on a HPC is probably already on the NHS.
Most HPC's, particularly the more recent additions to the list, seem to be legislatively described to take advantage of existing facilities, especially if those feature improvements that can dovetail into the overall corridor. And most if not all (except for some of the more vaguely worded regional "clusters")
do coincide with NHS/STRAHNET routes. That in itself implies maximum federal funding --
if and when specifically authorized. And there's the rub -- 80% of zero is still zero. And since time limits aren't appended to the HPC's, they're simply legislatively endorsed concepts -- unless someone figuratively picks up the ball and runs with it regarding appropriations. With the I-69 corridor, this seems to have happened for virtually all of the corridor north of Dyersburg, TN (the presence of an upgradeable parkway system in KY has helped immeasurably) and to a more sporadic level within TX -- with the rest, except for the now-12-year-old Tunica I-69/MS 304 freeway and its I-269 "kissing cousin" -- effectively shunted to a back bench. Dividing the overall corridor into SIU's has served as an indicator to levels of support -- those segments deemed to have local and/or regional value have been prioritized, while the more outlying connectors -- including, of course, most of the entire "middle" Shreveport-Memphis section -- are being addressed at what could be described as a leisurely pace -- most likely because they're seen as having less short-term impact. Compounding the situation is that that is one area where there are few existing facilities that can be improved to serve as part of the route (and solve local issues in the process). The I-69 corridor isn't the only "national" corridor to see this approach applied; I-73/74 famously has little or no support in the "Rust Belt", with the sole active developmental area in a region that is currently growing in both population and economic activity.
It could be surmised that the purpose of any HPC legislation, specifically unfunded as it is, is to give the proponents of any particular corridor concept an "umbrella" under which to acquire the additional political and fiscal support that it requires to achieve viability -- it becomes a convenient "catch-all" for the project at hand, whether it involves regional road improvements or a nascent Interstate corridor.
Quote from: sparker on April 15, 2018, 08:39:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 09:02:12 AM
As we discussed above, HPC isn't a funding conduit. At best, it is now just a paper definition that states can use to appease the inconvenience of construction to the public: "This project is on a High Priority Corridor and therefore was very necessary! It even has 'high priority' in its name!"
Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2018, 06:17:34 PM
Especially since a road important enough to be on a HPC is probably already on the NHS.
Most HPC's, particularly the more recent additions to the list, seem to be legislatively described to take advantage of existing facilities, especially if those feature improvements that can dovetail into the overall corridor. And most if not all (except for some of the more vaguely worded regional "clusters") do coincide with NHS/STRAHNET routes. That in itself implies maximum federal funding -- if and when specifically authorized. And there's the rub -- 80% of zero is still zero. And since time limits aren't appended to the HPC's, they're simply legislatively endorsed concepts -- unless someone figuratively picks up the ball and runs with it regarding appropriations. With the I-69 corridor, this seems to have happened for virtually all of the corridor north of Dyersburg, TN (the presence of an upgradeable parkway system in KY has helped immeasurably) and to a more sporadic level within TX -- with the rest, except for the now-12-year-old Tunica I-69/MS 304 freeway and its I-269 "kissing cousin" -- effectively shunted to a back bench. Dividing the overall corridor into SIU's has served as an indicator to levels of support -- those segments deemed to have local and/or regional value have been prioritized, while the more outlying connectors -- including, of course, most of the entire "middle" Shreveport-Memphis section -- are being addressed at what could be described as a leisurely pace -- most likely because they're seen as having less short-term impact. Compounding the situation is that that is one area where there are few existing facilities that can be improved to serve as part of the route (and solve local issues in the process). The I-69 corridor isn't the only "national" corridor to see this approach applied; I-73/74 famously has little or no support in the "Rust Belt", with the sole active developmental area in a region that is currently growing in both population and economic activity.
It could be surmised that the purpose of any HPC legislation, specifically unfunded as it is, is to give the proponents of any particular corridor concept an "umbrella" under which to acquire the additional political and fiscal support that it requires to achieve viability -- it becomes a convenient "catch-all" for the project at hand, whether it involves regional road improvements or a nascent Interstate corridor.
Heh, I don't know if you realize that we're mostly in agreement or not. :D
But, you do need to re-read my post on what maximum federal funding can actually consist of (up to 100%; you're hung up on this 80%, which is sort of a default percentage, but meeting eligibility requirements can increase the percentage). Also, no FHWA funding is dependent upon STRAHNET. It's all dependent upon other various system definitions (e.g., on/off NHS, on/off Fed-Aid System, Interstates as defined at an arbitrary date, etc.), but at least in my double-digit-in-years career at NYSDOT, no one has ever worried about STRAHNET when it comes to federal-aid eligibility.
Regarding your quote, though: "It could be surmised that the purpose of any HPC legislation, specifically unfunded as it is, is to give the proponents of any particular corridor concept an "umbrella" under which to acquire the additional political and fiscal support..." That's contradictory. It's unfunded and therefore offers no fiscal support. MAP-21 and FAST did not mention the HPCs at all, so the legislative support is ineffectual (so, the old, amended definitions are there...so what? No money, no meaning behind them). The "umbrella" of which you speak just isn't there anymore, really. HPCs are yesterday's news and when the construction funds didn't materialize, congresspeople just said, "Oh well" and moved on, as is evident by MAP-21 and FAST.
So, like I said, states that have some P.R. person that got excited about them can certain slap the mention on a roadside sign at a construction site, but there's really not much point to that other than, like I said before, to just try to soften the inconvenience of having to slow down for the work zone that happens to be within one of them.
Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 09:58:31 PM
Regarding your quote, though: "It could be surmised that the purpose of any HPC legislation, specifically unfunded as it is, is to give the proponents of any particular corridor concept an "umbrella" under which to acquire the additional political and fiscal support..." That's contradictory. It's unfunded and therefore offers no fiscal support. MAP-21 and FAST did not mention the HPCs at all, so the legislative support is ineffectual (so, the old, amended definitions are there...so what? No money, no meaning behind them). The "umbrella" of which you speak just isn't there anymore, really. HPCs are yesterday's news and when the construction funds didn't materialize, congresspeople just said, "Oh well" and moved on, as is evident by MAP-21 and FAST.
So, like I said, states that have some P.R. person that got excited about them can certain slap the mention on a roadside sign at a construction site, but there's really not much point to that other than, like I said before, to just try to soften the inconvenience of having to slow down for the work zone that happens to be within one of them.
And yet HPC's, old news or not, are still being utilized as the basis for new Interstates: e.g., the "revival" of HPC #13, one of the original ISTEA-origin routes, as I-87. And new ones have been tacked on to the list specifically as "hosts" for completely new Interstate corridors (I-14, I-42). But you do make a point -- many of the HPC's legislated from 1991 through 2005 have lay dormant -- and largely forgotten. But as long as they're still on the books, from time to time someone will dig one or more up to serve as justification
("hey, people have been calling for this to happen for a really long time") for renewed or revived action regarding specific projects. But as far as ongoing projects such as I-69 are concerned, the longer the time between the inception of the original authorizing legislation (it's been 23 years now) and any current project manifestations the less likely any reference will be made to the original HPC concept -- and it's likely most of the Congressional folks involved in the original legislation aren't around to pat themselves on the back when some portion of the corridor actually reaches fruition. But I'd be willing to wager that "fast-track" projects with shorter-term horizons such as those found in NC will list each & every piece of legislation -- and their author(s) -- that made it possible. Citing a 20-something-year-old piece of legislation draws yawns; getting a 2016 corridor segment opened to traffic by 2021 is much more publicly impressive.
And, BTW, I certainly didn't mean to imply that HPC's even
promise or even
imply one penny of financial support -- but that at times they -- at least some of the more active ones of the bunch -- can be used as a vehicle to call attention to a corridor or regional concept
in order for project backers to seriously hunt down such support. And I do realize that some Federal programs supply more then 80% to projects; I was simply using that figure as a historical "benchmark" as to expectations, minimal or otherwise.
Quote from: sparker on April 16, 2018, 02:02:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 15, 2018, 09:58:31 PM
Regarding your quote, though: "It could be surmised that the purpose of any HPC legislation, specifically unfunded as it is, is to give the proponents of any particular corridor concept an "umbrella" under which to acquire the additional political and fiscal support..." That's contradictory. It's unfunded and therefore offers no fiscal support. MAP-21 and FAST did not mention the HPCs at all, so the legislative support is ineffectual (so, the old, amended definitions are there...so what? No money, no meaning behind them). The "umbrella" of which you speak just isn't there anymore, really. HPCs are yesterday's news and when the construction funds didn't materialize, congresspeople just said, "Oh well" and moved on, as is evident by MAP-21 and FAST.
So, like I said, states that have some P.R. person that got excited about them can certain slap the mention on a roadside sign at a construction site, but there's really not much point to that other than, like I said before, to just try to soften the inconvenience of having to slow down for the work zone that happens to be within one of them.
And yet HPC's, old news or not, are still being utilized as the basis for new Interstates: e.g., the "revival" of HPC #13, one of the original ISTEA-origin routes, as I-87. And new ones have been tacked on to the list specifically as "hosts" for completely new Interstate corridors (I-14, I-42).
We're getting into chicken-and-the-egg territory. HPCs were not the basis for new interstates. Rather, interest groups that wanted the new interstates were looking for ways to get them funded long before the legislation was signed into law. HPCs were just one of the ways they tried -- and so far failed -- to get additional federal funding for them. In other words, whoever wanted the new routes lobbied their representatives, either through themselves or other groups, and just one of the results were these defined corridors, in hopes that Congress would also authorize additional funding for them.
The new interstates/corridors are, in a few cases progressing, and in a lot of cases just sitting around waiting for funding. The basis resides in those that desire the new or expanded facilities (especially if they have gone so far to include then on their STIPs), rather than quixotic legislation that hasn't amounted to much in reality.
I'll be the first to acknowledge that outside of a few notable corridor successes, the HPC compendium has proven far more successful in identifying areas where there is local support for some sort of systemic improvement or expansion, with the result being a "spot" project here & there. The full-corridor concept has only produced significant success in a limited number of cases -- maybe 20 of the 90-odd HPC's on the books (with I-22 and I-49 being examples of the more successful of these). I-69 seems to fall into a "middle" ground; it's deployed where local support can and has translated into monetary action and not where support falls into the "lip service" category. Any newer additions (the ones starting in the #80's) use the system as a convenient vehicle by which to get one's foot in the door; past that, the HPC definitions become largely decorative "guidelines" waiting for the parties that sponsored the legislation to amass the $$ necessary to implement something that eventually may or may not resemble the original concept. If that does occur by chance or good fortune, those involved will make damn sure their name is posted all over the project via the aforementioned "billboards" or other PR means; if they secured the original HPC into the books, that'll show up on their publicly posted "resume'" as well. It's the age-old "your taxpayer dollars at work.......courtesy of (fill in the blank)!"
We'll wait for that "if" to happen, then.
Whether an HPC concept finds success or not often seems to depend upon the "ducks being lined up in a row". If a corridor has broad support, funding seems to make its way to the various projects required to reach fruition (I-22 and most of I-49). If the support is localized or confined to a region (I-73/74, I-69) then it's likely to see deployment in that region but run into difficulties when tentacles to adjoining areas are planned. Corridors laid on top of already high-functioning facilities (I-86/east, CA 99) have demonstrated to be a mixed bag -- while they're considered relatively easy to complete -- at least where property acquisition is concerned -- the fact that they're "up and running" as is tends to mitigate against their prioritization (although I-41 is there to serve as an outlier in that regard). And, of course, the (relatively) new-terrain corridors touted as intercity connections (I-11) seem to require constant attention in order to maintain even a scant level of development; the prospects for those are inevitably in flux. Then there are the purely speculative corridors (HPC 8 and 51 in the Midwest come to mind) which may, down the line, call attention to the need for "spot" improvements (town bypasses, safety measures, etc.) but which will likely never produce a longer and/or continuous freeway or expressway facility.
Some HPC's were intrinsically stronger in regards to both their perceived need and their broad political support than others; those are the ones that have been or are being built presently (or at least budgeted). They're "idea vehicles" -- no more, no less. However, they're not, as a genre, DOA -- although some of them could be readily classified as passe', or at least past their "sell by" date. But as long as they're still considered within the Congressional arena as a viable vehicle to introduce, among other projects, new Interstate corridors, additional ones will likely be eked out from time to time as manifestations of political will.
Yep. Paper tigers.