AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: Grzrd on August 22, 2017, 08:54:07 PM

Title: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Grzrd on August 22, 2017, 08:54:07 PM
Here is a snip from a map of the five alternatives presented in the Expert Working Group's Report to Congress on the 14th Amendment Highway Corridor (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/section_1927/14th_amendment_highway/report_to_congress/report00.cfm#toc315267736):
(http://i.imgur.com/HkCua50.jpg)
Prior discussion in this thread (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4385.0).
Alternative 1 is the "all interstate" option (I suppose it could also be called the "I-14 option") and has (in 2013 dollars) an estimated cost of $6.6 billion to $7.6 billion (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/section_1927/14th_amendment_highway/report_to_congress/report05.cfm#toc315267758)
(above quote from Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14 (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11103.msg2111690#msg2111690) thread)

This August 20 article (http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2017/08/20/public-invited-to-legislative-breakfast-with-rep-harper/) shows that some Natchez local leaders, and perhaps a Mississippi legislator, are pushing the I-14 dream in Mississippi; they hope to get some money for it from the Trump infrastructure plan:

Quote
Natchez-Adams County Chamber of Commerce President Debbie Hudson ....
Third District Representative Gregg ... Harper is expected to give a 20-minute speech then be available for questions, Hudson said. Hudson said she expected one of the topics would be Interstate 14.
First proposed in 2005, the Interstate would come through Natchez on its path from Savannah,Ga. to El Paso, Texas. With President Donald Trump's focus on infrastructure, some local leaders hope the project could receive green light in the near future.

* note to mods - I put this in Mid-South board because of the discussion of I-14 In Texas ans Louisiana, and the only new terrain interstate planned for I-14 at the moment in Mississippi appears to be from Natchez to I-55 (the remainder would overlap with I-55, I-20, and I-20/59). It doesn't fit "north" Mississippi but it goes well with the other I-14 discussion.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: sparker on August 23, 2017, 07:23:01 PM
If either of alternatives #1 and #2 end up being selected, the most rational thing to do would be to terminate the I-14 designation at I-55 and consider the portion east to Alabama as simply expansion of I-20.  East of there (the US 80 corridor from I-20/59 to Montgomery and anything east from there to Macon, GA) I-16 would be the most appropriate designation. 

If alternative #3 is selected, then I-14 would be OK, if a little convoluted, with the multiplex with I-59 from Laurel, MS northeast to Cuba, AL.  A bit out of grid on the east end (Macon-Augusta) but, considering the more egregious grid-breaking in other locales, not completely obnoxious.  And with alternative #4, it would be likely that the Meridian-Montgomery corridor would retain its original I-85 extension designation (with the addition of I-14, that would be really convoluted!).

Alternative #5:  if that comes about, there will likely be pressure from SE Alabama (Dothan and vicinity) to extend the corridor eastward to serve that area.  East from there would be speculative:  Tallahassee or Albany could constitute possible routing choices; best such speculation remain a fictional exercise for the time being.

My thoughts:  It'll probably make it to Laurel, but anything beyond that may be a pipedream; the US 80 corridor, if constructed, will be as part of a separate regional concept.   
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Henry on August 24, 2017, 10:23:04 AM
I still don't think it makes any sense to terminate I-14 in Natchez, seeing that there's no other Interstate running through or around it. If somehow they can find a way to get it across LA and on to TX, then I'd be all for it. Also, I seriously hope they don't select the Meridian-Montgomery routing, as that would duplicate the planned I-85 extension which would work better as I-16 anyway. Macon-Augusta could use it, though, even if that is north of I-16 and thus a violation of the grid.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Brandon on August 24, 2017, 11:17:48 AM
If either of alternatives #1 and #2 end up being selected, the most rational thing to do would be to terminate the I-14 designation at I-55 and consider the portion east to Alabama as simply expansion of I-20.  East of there (the US 80 corridor from I-20/59 to Montgomery and anything east from there to Macon, GA) I-16 would be the most appropriate designation. 

One could route I-20 away from Birmingham and Atlanta using the southern route from Meridian to Augusta.  The part of I-20 from Birmingham to Augusta then becomes an eastward extension of I-22.  The part of I-20/59 between Meridian and Birmingham then just becomes I-59.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: sparker on August 24, 2017, 02:20:57 PM
If either of alternatives #1 and #2 end up being selected, the most rational thing to do would be to terminate the I-14 designation at I-55 and consider the portion east to Alabama as simply expansion of I-20.  East of there (the US 80 corridor from I-20/59 to Montgomery and anything east from there to Macon, GA) I-16 would be the most appropriate designation. 

One could route I-20 away from Birmingham and Atlanta using the southern route from Meridian to Augusta.  The part of I-20 from Birmingham to Augusta then becomes an eastward extension of I-22.  The part of I-20/59 between Meridian and Birmingham then just becomes I-59.

Except for Atlanta & associated interests pissing & moaning about losing a "major" interstate, the above idea's not too shabby at all!  Then I-14 could have its eastern terminus at Laurel/I-59 and serve what it will without anyone worrying too much about issues east of Montgomery. 
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: cjk374 on August 24, 2017, 04:20:29 PM
I would be very surprised if Louisiana ever broke ground to build one inch of I-14 in my lifetime. (of course I say the same thing about I-69 as well)
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: sparker on August 24, 2017, 04:50:58 PM
I would be very surprised if Louisiana ever broke ground to build one inch of I-14 in my lifetime. (of course I say the same thing about I-69 as well)

At this point, it's probably safe to say that LA's major concern will be I-49 -- particularly with the recent selection of the Shreveport in-city connector.  Unless an E-W Alexandria bypass advances to the forefront on sheer political will from the area, any I-14 signage will likely be, in the near term,  limited to "future corridor" BGS's along the divided portion of LA 28.  Any work on that corridor -- or I-69 north of I-20 -- will be preliminary stuff -- likely only on paper -- until I-49 -- both the Shreveport connection and a substantial amount of the southern extension (at least to I-310) -- is at least well under way as far as actual route completion or late-stage construction is concerned.  That's a priority -- as well it should be!  It'll probably be decades until TX builds out their I-14 connection; and MS hasn't even chimed in regarding exactly how they plan to tackle such a route (particularly with their finances in a sling!).  So, yes, there's little chance of seeing a bit of completed I-14 in LA in the first half of this century save any successful Alexandria-area bypass promotion effort.  IMO, actual I-14 deployment will remain an all-Texas affair for quite some time!     
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: aboges26 on August 25, 2017, 12:11:31 AM
I still don't think it makes any sense to terminate I-14 in Natchez, seeing that there's no other Interstate running through or around it. If somehow they can find a way to get it across LA and on to TX, then I'd be all for it. Also, I seriously hope they don't select the Meridian-Montgomery routing, as that would duplicate the planned I-85 extension which would work better as I-16 anyway. Macon-Augusta could use it, though, even if that is north of I-16 and thus a violation of the grid.

Ahem.

(https://www.interstate-guide.com/images014/i-014_corridor_map_july_2014.png)
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: sparker on August 25, 2017, 01:48:18 AM
I still don't think it makes any sense to terminate I-14 in Natchez, seeing that there's no other Interstate running through or around it. If somehow they can find a way to get it across LA and on to TX, then I'd be all for it. Also, I seriously hope they don't select the Meridian-Montgomery routing, as that would duplicate the planned I-85 extension which would work better as I-16 anyway. Macon-Augusta could use it, though, even if that is north of I-16 and thus a violation of the grid.

Ahem.

(https://www.interstate-guide.com/images014/i-014_corridor_map_july_2014.png)

I'd say the good judge is suffering from a military-industrial complex!  (yeah, that phrase dates me!)
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 30, 2017, 11:04:58 AM
I'd say the good judge is suffering from a military-industrial complex!  (yeah, that phrase dates me!)

But still highly prescient.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on August 30, 2017, 01:01:20 PM
I-14 appears to be another one of those corridors that is a solution looking for a problem.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 30, 2017, 01:14:44 PM
Wow what a colossal waste of taxpayer money on this one.  What is the need for this?
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: silverback1065 on August 30, 2017, 01:56:24 PM
Wow what a colossal waste of taxpayer money on this one.  What is the need for this?

for once we agree, this is a terrible idea! don't see mississippi ever being able to afford this
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: sparker on August 30, 2017, 03:45:47 PM
Anything east of I-45 (or I-69, not a lot of difference here) is strictly a speculative developmental concept, designed to draw potential businesses to the corridor zone by virtue of it being an Interstate corridor (and, putatively, able to attract foreign investment in such things as factories or distribution centers).  The original I-14 concept -- which didn't include anything west of LA -- was specifically promoted as a method to bring business to an area largely devoid of employment opportunities.  Latching on to the "connect-the-military-bases-dots" concept was a post-9/11 additional promotion ploy intended to bring regional folks with pro-military leanings into the fold of corridor backers.  In essence the entire original I-14 corridor across the Deep South was formulated by a loose coalition of congresspersons, state and local legislators and officials from the target area, and various chambers of commerce spread from Louisiana to Georgia. 

Ironically, the only place likely to see any actual I-14 deployment activity in the near term is Texas -- partially because there's much more actual distance between I-10 and I-20 in the central part of the state where a corridor might be sited, the state's record regarding getting projects under way (although completion to original plans might be questionable!), and the fact that enough folks along the potential corridor actually want it and are exercising whatever influence they have to get it done. 

Given the 2005 Katrina disaster in New Orleans and much of southern Louisiana -- and magnified by Harvey's destruction as this is written -- the concept of a lateral connector far enough north to be out of the main floodplain but close enough to serve as an inter-corridor transfer point for northward evacuees may not be a bad idea -- particularly if I-14 could serve as an interim "staging area" in such an emergency to optimize the distribution of those temporarily fleeing the storm's effects.  If it is built in TX the way its backers project, it would be an interesting "test bench" in the (inevitable) case of the next major regional storm disaster.   
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Grzrd on November 09, 2017, 08:58:52 PM
This August 20 article (http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2017/08/20/public-invited-to-legislative-breakfast-with-rep-harper/) shows that some Natchez local leaders, and perhaps a Mississippi legislator, are pushing the I-14 dream in Mississippi; they hope to get some money for it from the Trump infrastructure plan:
Quote
Natchez-Adams County Chamber of Commerce President Debbie Hudson ....
Third District Representative Gregg ... Harper is expected to give a 20-minute speech then be available for questions, Hudson said. Hudson said she expected one of the topics would be Interstate 14.
First proposed in 2005, the Interstate would come through Natchez on its path from Savannah,Ga. to El Paso, Texas. With President Donald Trump's focus on infrastructure, some local leaders hope the project could receive green light in the near future.

Mississippi is making steady progress on I-14: this November 8 article (http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2017/11/08/local-leaders-hopeful-about-new-interstate-that-could-pass-through-natchez/) indicates that local Natchez leaders recently attended a meeting with Texas and Louisiana officials, that they are to begin building support along the Natchez-Laurel corridor, and that they will be part of a three-state update to Washington officials in a couple of months.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: sparker on November 10, 2017, 03:47:13 AM
This August 20 article (http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2017/08/20/public-invited-to-legislative-breakfast-with-rep-harper/) shows that some Natchez local leaders, and perhaps a Mississippi legislator, are pushing the I-14 dream in Mississippi; they hope to get some money for it from the Trump infrastructure plan:
Quote
Natchez-Adams County Chamber of Commerce President Debbie Hudson ....
Third District Representative Gregg ... Harper is expected to give a 20-minute speech then be available for questions, Hudson said. Hudson said she expected one of the topics would be Interstate 14.
First proposed in 2005, the Interstate would come through Natchez on its path from Savannah,Ga. to El Paso, Texas. With President Donald Trump's focus on infrastructure, some local leaders hope the project could receive green light in the near future.

Mississippi is making steady progress on I-14: this November 8 article (http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2017/11/08/local-leaders-hopeful-about-new-interstate-that-could-pass-through-natchez/) indicates that local Natchez leaders recently attended a meeting with Texas and Louisiana officials, that they are to begin building support along the Natchez-Laurel corridor, and that they will be part of a three-state update to Washington officials in a couple of months.

The next logical step would be for the LA congressional delegation to request that existing HPC #75, which is LA 28 from Alexandria to Fort Polk, be designated as part of I-14 -- and extend it to the TX line to meet with HPC 84/I-14, designated back in 2015.  Anything east of Alexandria would likely require designation of a completely new corridor (along with the accompanying Interstate numerical designation; same process as the Texas version).  Probably a good thing that the effort will specify its eastern terminus at Laurel/I-59; anything east of there would be functionally duplicative of the Meridian-Montgomery corridor, which has been an on-and-off consideration for the better part of the last couple of decades as well as a I-85 western extension (again, on-and-off as far as actual planning efforts are concerned).
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: froggie on November 10, 2017, 07:33:08 AM
They can dream all they want, but the reality is very unlikely.  Of what little detail of Trump's Infrastructure Plan has been released, indications are that priority for dollars will go to localities willing to put up more their own money, or public-private partnerships (Trump has been big on those) which will basically mean tolls.  This corridor doesn't (and won't) even come close to the level of traffic necessary for tolls to be viable....not with a relatively uncongested I-20 to the north.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: silverback1065 on November 10, 2017, 08:14:41 AM
this highway will only exist in your dreams outside of texas
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Henry on November 10, 2017, 09:27:51 AM
This August 20 article (http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2017/08/20/public-invited-to-legislative-breakfast-with-rep-harper/) shows that some Natchez local leaders, and perhaps a Mississippi legislator, are pushing the I-14 dream in Mississippi; they hope to get some money for it from the Trump infrastructure plan:
Quote
Natchez-Adams County Chamber of Commerce President Debbie Hudson ....
Third District Representative Gregg ... Harper is expected to give a 20-minute speech then be available for questions, Hudson said. Hudson said she expected one of the topics would be Interstate 14.
First proposed in 2005, the Interstate would come through Natchez on its path from Savannah,Ga. to El Paso, Texas. With President Donald Trump's focus on infrastructure, some local leaders hope the project could receive green light in the near future.

Mississippi is making steady progress on I-14: this November 8 article (http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2017/11/08/local-leaders-hopeful-about-new-interstate-that-could-pass-through-natchez/) indicates that local Natchez leaders recently attended a meeting with Texas and Louisiana officials, that they are to begin building support along the Natchez-Laurel corridor, and that they will be part of a three-state update to Washington officials in a couple of months.

The next logical step would be for the LA congressional delegation to request that existing HPC #75, which is LA 28 from Alexandria to Fort Polk, be designated as part of I-14 -- and extend it to the TX line to meet with HPC 84/I-14, designated back in 2015.  Anything east of Alexandria would likely require designation of a completely new corridor (along with the accompanying Interstate numerical designation; same process as the Texas version).  Probably a good thing that the effort will specify its eastern terminus at Laurel/I-59; anything east of there would be functionally duplicative of the Meridian-Montgomery corridor, which has been an on-and-off consideration for the better part of the last couple of decades as well as a I-85 western extension (again, on-and-off as far as actual planning efforts are concerned).
Now if they could just get AL and GA (possibly SC) on board with this plan, they'd be all set!
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on November 10, 2017, 10:35:00 AM
It's kind of rediculious how many interstate projects Texas undertakes....smh
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 10, 2017, 11:48:53 AM
Yeah, the various I-69 routes in Texas total over 1000 miles of highway. Then there are corridors like US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo and US-69/75 headed North out of Dallas. Both of those are more worthy of further development and Interstate designation than the I-14 nonsense.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: sparker on November 11, 2017, 03:31:49 PM
It's kind of rediculious how many interstate projects Texas undertakes....smh
Yeah, the various I-69 routes in Texas total over 1000 miles of highway. Then there are corridors like US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo and US-69/75 headed North out of Dallas. Both of those are more worthy of further development and Interstate designation than the I-14 nonsense.

Well....under the current "system" (or lack thereof) regarding Interstate additions, the whole thing is relegated to a political process usually instigated by reasonably well-connected activists from a particular region; in the case of the I-69 "trident", this group was centered in the lower Rio Grande Valley; in the case of I-14, it was a string of similar groups arrayed from Midland/Odessa all the way across to Bryan/State College.  With I-69 (and this was back in the early '90's), there had been a longstanding Houston-based effort to get an Interstate corridor established from Houston to either Shreveport or Texarkana; those groups, often dormant, "hooked up" with the Rio Grande Valley folks and formed the "Alliance for I-69 Texas", snagged a couple of Congresspeople from districts along the various proposed corridors, and, voila', the I-69, including the south TX "cluster", became reality.  Eventually some level of funding became available, so over time bits & pieces of the corridor came into signed being.  The I-14 folks are currently attempting to emulate this concept; their first move was getting the Belton-Copperas Cove freeway signed as I-14 as more or less a "foothold".  I'm surprised folks in Wichita Falls, Childress, or other areas in the Red River region haven't attempted to foment similar activity around US 287 considering the existing stretches of freeway mileage along the eastern portion of that corridor. 

For better or worse, that's the way these corridors are planned and occasionally actually constructed these days.  TX interests, like those in NC (and IL back in the "good old days") have learned to manipulate and tweak the system to squirt out their pet projects; all they need to do is convince both U.S. legislators and state agencies that the project will produce both economic and political benefit (with the latter often being the factor that puts it over the top, so to speak).  Absent a cohesive, comprehensive, and consistent alternative process (and "no-build" doesn't buy much in the way of  votes or support) this methodology is likely to persist for at least the near term.   
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Scott5114 on November 12, 2017, 04:53:51 AM
Of what little detail of Trump's Infrastructure Plan has been released, indications are that priority for dollars will go to localities willing to put up more their own money, or public-private partnerships (Trump has been big on those) which will basically mean tolls.

Said infrastructure plan is probably DOA anyway. Trump hasn't really been much of an asset in getting any of the Republican wish-list through Congress, and there's no indication that Ryan or McConnell want to make it a priority before the midterms.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 12, 2017, 08:08:37 AM
This August 20 article (http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2017/08/20/public-invited-to-legislative-breakfast-with-rep-harper/) shows that some Natchez local leaders, and perhaps a Mississippi legislator, are pushing the I-14 dream in Mississippi; they hope to get some money for it from the Trump infrastructure plan:
Quote
Natchez-Adams County Chamber of Commerce President Debbie Hudson ....
Third District Representative Gregg ... Harper is expected to give a 20-minute speech then be available for questions, Hudson said. Hudson said she expected one of the topics would be Interstate 14.
First proposed in 2005, the Interstate would come through Natchez on its path from Savannah,Ga. to El Paso, Texas. With President Donald Trump's focus on infrastructure, some local leaders hope the project could receive green light in the near future.

Mississippi is making steady progress on I-14: this November 8 article (http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2017/11/08/local-leaders-hopeful-about-new-interstate-that-could-pass-through-natchez/) indicates that local Natchez leaders recently attended a meeting with Texas and Louisiana officials, that they are to begin building support along the Natchez-Laurel corridor, and that they will be part of a three-state update to Washington officials in a couple of months.

The next logical step would be for the LA congressional delegation to request that existing HPC #75, which is LA 28 from Alexandria to Fort Polk, be designated as part of I-14 -- and extend it to the TX line to meet with HPC 84/I-14, designated back in 2015.  Anything east of Alexandria would likely require designation of a completely new corridor (along with the accompanying Interstate numerical designation; same process as the Texas version).  Probably a good thing that the effort will specify its eastern terminus at Laurel/I-59; anything east of there would be functionally duplicative of the Meridian-Montgomery corridor, which has been an on-and-off consideration for the better part of the last couple of decades as well as a I-85 western extension (again, on-and-off as far as actual planning efforts are concerned).
Now if they could just get AL and GA (possibly SC) on board with this plan, they'd be all set!

Before LA can commit to anything related to this proposal, they better fund I-49 South and the Shreveport I-49 ICC and fix the I-10 BTR mess FIRST.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: LM117 on November 12, 2017, 08:24:28 AM
Of what little detail of Trump's Infrastructure Plan has been released, indications are that priority for dollars will go to localities willing to put up more their own money, or public-private partnerships (Trump has been big on those) which will basically mean tolls.

Said infrastructure plan is probably DOA anyway. Trump hasn't really been much of an asset in getting any of the Republican wish-list through Congress, and there's no indication that Ryan or McConnell want to make it a priority before the midterms.

Yeah, I don't see Congress taking up the issue now, especially after witnessing the beating the GOP took in Virginia.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: vdeane on November 12, 2017, 08:27:37 PM
Of what little detail of Trump's Infrastructure Plan has been released, indications are that priority for dollars will go to localities willing to put up more their own money, or public-private partnerships (Trump has been big on those) which will basically mean tolls.

Said infrastructure plan is probably DOA anyway. Trump hasn't really been much of an asset in getting any of the Republican wish-list through Congress, and there's no indication that Ryan or McConnell want to make it a priority before the midterms.
Plus Trump flip-flopped on PPPs when I-69 in Indiana blew up, and a key tax benefit for them may get cut in the tax plan.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: oscar on November 12, 2017, 08:47:16 PM
Of what little detail of Trump's Infrastructure Plan has been released, indications are that priority for dollars will go to localities willing to put up more their own money, or public-private partnerships (Trump has been big on those) which will basically mean tolls.

Said infrastructure plan is probably DOA anyway. Trump hasn't really been much of an asset in getting any of the Republican wish-list through Congress, and there's no indication that Ryan or McConnell want to make it a priority before the midterms.

Yeah, I don't see Congress taking up the issue now, especially after witnessing the beating the GOP took in Virginia.

OTOH, the GOP might want to get something big and non-controversial on the scoreboard before the mid-terms. Infrastructure spending is bi-partisan enough for that to be within the realm of possibility, though with lots of hand-waving by both sides about the parts of the deal they don't like.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Scott5114 on November 13, 2017, 01:33:06 AM
Of what little detail of Trump's Infrastructure Plan has been released, indications are that priority for dollars will go to localities willing to put up more their own money, or public-private partnerships (Trump has been big on those) which will basically mean tolls.

Said infrastructure plan is probably DOA anyway. Trump hasn't really been much of an asset in getting any of the Republican wish-list through Congress, and there's no indication that Ryan or McConnell want to make it a priority before the midterms.

Yeah, I don't see Congress taking up the issue now, especially after witnessing the beating the GOP took in Virginia.

OTOH, the GOP might want to get something big and non-controversial on the scoreboard before the mid-terms. Infrastructure spending is bi-partisan enough for that to be within the realm of possibility, though with lots of hand-waving by both sides about the parts of the deal they don't like.

It's possible, but much of the air in the room is currently being taken up by the push to get a tax bill together by Christmas. After that, regardless of how it goes, there won't be too much time to go before we head full-tilt into the midterms.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: sparker on November 13, 2017, 01:57:00 AM
Of what little detail of Trump's Infrastructure Plan has been released, indications are that priority for dollars will go to localities willing to put up more their own money, or public-private partnerships (Trump has been big on those) which will basically mean tolls.

Said infrastructure plan is probably DOA anyway. Trump hasn't really been much of an asset in getting any of the Republican wish-list through Congress, and there's no indication that Ryan or McConnell want to make it a priority before the midterms.

Yeah, I don't see Congress taking up the issue now, especially after witnessing the beating the GOP took in Virginia.

OTOH, the GOP might want to get something big and non-controversial on the scoreboard before the mid-terms. Infrastructure spending is bi-partisan enough for that to be within the realm of possibility, though with lots of hand-waving by both sides about the parts of the deal they don't like.

It's possible, but much of the air in the room is currently being taken up by the push to get a tax bill together by Christmas. After that, regardless of how it goes, there won't be too much time to go before we head full-tilt into the midterms.

With the midterms looming -- and both parties displaying severe rifts -- an infrastructure bill targeting road projects for the more rural areas and transit improvements for urban regions -- but with repair/refurbishment money spread around pretty evenly -- might pass muster and not raise fatal objections from any particular quarter (moderate ideological whining from all sides is to be expected!).  And with more congresspersons likely to see primary challengers than in previous years, a bit of timely pork to placate the local masses may well be in order; expect to see an infrastructure bill featuring a plethora of well-disguised earmarks, potentially including a bunch of new HPC's -- some of which will come with I-designations attached -- possibly a I-14 east extension across LA and MS at least as far as Laurel.  Cities with light or heavy rail would get extensions, new stations, grants for equipment, etc.; others would likely receive grants for more buses (for more/extended routes) and personnel, if history offers any clues.  Something for a big chunk of everyone -- it's gathered votes over the years regardless of ideological bent.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: froggie on November 13, 2017, 11:30:24 AM
That sort of specific project funding would require Congress to lift it's self-imposed ban on earmarks.  I'm not convinced that'll happen.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: sparker on November 13, 2017, 01:39:20 PM
That sort of specific project funding would require Congress to lift it's self-imposed ban on earmarks.  I'm not convinced that'll happen.

Earmarks can and have been disguised within legislative texts, particularly within budget reconciliation bills.  Adding HPC's to the existing compendium could be considered to be such an "earmark", as each one of these affects a particular area that may or may not correspond with a particular congressional district (or, if initiated within the Senate, an entire state).  Even with hyper-partisanship being the current norm, some in Congress still manage to steer projects and funding to their districts or states (the NC delegation seems to be particularly adept at this as regards highway corridors, on par with the TX group).  The trick is to not combine corridor designation with immediate funding requests -- just put the corridor in the nationwide list and slide it into the queue for funding down the line.  If anything, the process is akin to sleight-of hand; somehow a locally-beneficial project is framed as a matter of national interest.  Whether or not they function as such in reality, Interstate additions via the HPC designation process seem to largely pass the "smell test" within Congressional circles when framed as extensions of the overall national system. 
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Grzrd on December 23, 2017, 07:28:03 PM
This Dec. 16 article (http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2017/12/17/road-to-the-future-leaders-working-to-get-ball-rolling-on-interstate/) sets forth the game plan for Mississippi's efforts in 2018 to lay the groundwork for I-14. Of note is a January 8 meeting with MDOT Commissioner Tom King to gain his support for the project. Also, the current thinking is that there is no need to extend it past Laurel because Mississippi's interstate infrastructure is sufficient (although the door is left open for Alabama and Georgia to jump om board if they wish). The article implies interest by U.S. Senator Thad Cochran, which may advance it somewhat.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: sparker on December 24, 2017, 02:57:07 AM
This Dec. 16 article (http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2017/12/17/road-to-the-future-leaders-working-to-get-ball-rolling-on-interstate/) sets forth the game plan for Mississippi's efforts in 2018 to lay the groundwork for I-14. Of note is a January 8 meeting with MDOT Commissioner Tom King to gain his support for the project. Also, the current thinking is that there is no need to extend it past Laurel because Mississippi's interstate infrastructure is sufficient (although the door is left open for Alabama and Georgia to jump om board if they wish). The article implies interest by U.S. Senator Thad Cochran, which may advance it somewhat.

Is this effort a stand-alone MS undertaking? -- since it seems pointless for MS to commence planning unless similar efforts are at least under serious consideration in LA, as a functional "bridge" to the original TX concept.   
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Scott5114 on December 24, 2017, 05:35:13 AM
Is Cochran even going to be around for much longer, though? I've read some stories that imply he's not doing that well. Apparently there was an incident on the Senate floor where he was absentmindedly voting the wrong way for an amendment and only "corrected" his vote after someone in leadership went over to him to tell him they wanted him to vote the other way.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 24, 2017, 12:17:44 PM
This Dec. 16 article (http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2017/12/17/road-to-the-future-leaders-working-to-get-ball-rolling-on-interstate/) sets forth the game plan for Mississippi's efforts in 2018 to lay the groundwork for I-14. Of note is a January 8 meeting with MDOT Commissioner Tom King to gain his support for the project. Also, the current thinking is that there is no need to extend it past Laurel because Mississippi's interstate infrastructure is sufficient (although the door is left open for Alabama and Georgia to jump om board if they wish). The article implies interest by U.S. Senator Thad Cochran, which may advance it somewhat.

What I find interesting is how they would plan to cross this "I-14" into Louisiana. Using the existing US 84 bridges/corridor between Vidalia and Natchez would be prohibitively expensive due to the need for an interchange with US 61 replacing the current continuous flow intersection with US 84, plowing through downtown Vidalia and Ferriday, and probably upgrading the existing Mississippi River bridge (no shoulders??)

Could they probably seek a bypass route to the north which would pass north of Vidalia on a new bridge and hook up with US 425/US 84 north of Ferriday?  That route could also have some ramifications down the road for a possible Baton Rouge-Natchez-Bastrop corridor (I-53??) using US 61 and US 425.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: sparker on December 24, 2017, 06:09:07 PM
This Dec. 16 article (http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2017/12/17/road-to-the-future-leaders-working-to-get-ball-rolling-on-interstate/) sets forth the game plan for Mississippi's efforts in 2018 to lay the groundwork for I-14. Of note is a January 8 meeting with MDOT Commissioner Tom King to gain his support for the project. Also, the current thinking is that there is no need to extend it past Laurel because Mississippi's interstate infrastructure is sufficient (although the door is left open for Alabama and Georgia to jump om board if they wish). The article implies interest by U.S. Senator Thad Cochran, which may advance it somewhat.

What I find interesting is how they would plan to cross this "I-14" into Louisiana. Using the existing US 84 bridges/corridor between Vidalia and Natchez would be prohibitively expensive due to the need for an interchange with US 61 replacing the current continuous flow intersection with US 84, plowing through downtown Vidalia and Ferriday, and probably upgrading the existing Mississippi River bridge (no shoulders??)

Could they probably seek a bypass route to the north which would pass north of Vidalia on a new bridge and hook up with US 425/US 84 north of Ferriday?  That route could also have some ramifications down the road for a possible Baton Rouge-Natchez-Bastrop corridor (I-53??) using US 61 and US 425.

Looking at GE/GSV of the area around the present US 84 Mississippi River bridges, it seems like there would be more issues on the Vidalia side of the river than the Natchez side; a facility could veer north around the built-up area along US 84/425 east of the bridge without massive effect on improved property.  On the west side, the bridge sets down essentially in the middle of the town; any alignment short of a sharp turn to the north (to bypass the built-up area along the old RR alignment) would involve slicing right through central Vidalia.  But any alignment on either side of the river might be problematic due to the relatively saturated soil base found up and down the Mississippi River Delta region -- it would probably involve several construction phases to shore up the alignment prior to actually grading for a freeway facility (similar to I-5 between Stockton and Sacramento in CA).  But it's likely that planners on both sides of the river haven't gotten down to details as of yet; they're probably going to be content to get a corridor established first and worry about the actual alignment later.  I'd venture that a new bridge on new alignment will eventually be planned -- but in the meantime there would be a temporary through-town "interim" routing, picking up the freeway just east of Natchez and west of Vidalia, while planning and funding identification commences for the new bridge itself.  Right now, any such facility would face competition from the I-69 "Great River" bridge concept further north for both funding and attention; as that project would in all likelihood be further up the queue than a new I-14 project, it might be decades before I-14 makes it across the Mississippi without interruption -- unless (a) waivers can be obtained for the substandard current structures and (b) the cities affected by the deployment of a freeway in their midst come to an agreement regarding an in-town routing.  But all that is moot until the initial wherewithal to designate the I-14 corridor across LA and MS is forthcoming.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Grzrd on January 11, 2018, 12:47:40 PM
Of note is a January 8 meeting with MDOT Commissioner Tom King to gain his support for the project.

Not surprisingly, this January 9 article (http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2018/01/10/mississippi-transportation-commission-supports-designation-of-interstate-14/) reports that the Mississippi Transportation Commission voted unanimously to support the designation of I-14.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: sparker on January 11, 2018, 08:08:14 PM
Of note is a January 8 meeting with MDOT Commissioner Tom King to gain his support for the project.

Not surprisingly, this January 9 article (http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2018/01/10/mississippi-transportation-commission-supports-designation-of-interstate-14/) reports that the Mississippi Transportation Commission voted unanimously to support the designation of I-14.

And so it begins; if this becomes the official MS position (AFAIK they haven't finalized an exact corridor location as of yet), then LA will likely follow suit shortly.  And they'll have yet another "paper corridor", waiting for funds to actually do something about it.  If they haven't been able to extend I-69 down US 61, would a I-14 (ostensibly) along US 84 ever be actually budgeted much less built?   It'll take a lot more than lip service emanating from the jurisdictions to be served by I-14 to actually provoke any developmental action; scaring up federal bucks to prime the pump doesn't seem to be a viable strategy any longer -- regardless of promises from representatives. 
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 11, 2018, 11:40:21 PM
Of what little detail of Trump's Infrastructure Plan has been released, indications are that priority for dollars will go to localities willing to put up more their own money, or public-private partnerships (Trump has been big on those) which will basically mean tolls.

Said infrastructure plan is probably DOA anyway. Trump hasn't really been much of an asset in getting any of the Republican wish-list through Congress, and there's no indication that Ryan or McConnell want to make it a priority before the midterms.

Yeah, I don't see Congress taking up the issue now, especially after witnessing the beating the GOP took in Virginia.

OTOH, the GOP might want to get something big and non-controversial on the scoreboard before the mid-terms. Infrastructure spending is bi-partisan enough for that to be within the realm of possibility, though with lots of hand-waving by both sides about the parts of the deal they don't like.

It's possible, but much of the air in the room is currently being taken up by the push to get a tax bill together by Christmas. After that, regardless of how it goes, there won't be too much time to go before we head full-tilt into the midterms.

With the midterms looming -- and both parties displaying severe rifts -- an infrastructure bill targeting road projects for the more rural areas and transit improvements for urban regions -- but with repair/refurbishment money spread around pretty evenly -- might pass muster and not raise fatal objections from any particular quarter (moderate ideological whining from all sides is to be expected!).  And with more congresspersons likely to see primary challengers than in previous years, a bit of timely pork to placate the local masses may well be in order; expect to see an infrastructure bill featuring a plethora of well-disguised earmarks, potentially including a bunch of new HPC's -- some of which will come with I-designations attached -- possibly a I-14 east extension across LA and MS at least as far as Laurel.  Cities with light or heavy rail would get extensions, new stations, grants for equipment, etc.; others would likely receive grants for more buses (for more/extended routes) and personnel, if history offers any clues.  Something for a big chunk of everyone -- it's gathered votes over the years regardless of ideological bent.
I can't remember where I got this but I thought he said there would be 2-3 projects per state. Hopefully that turns out with a few adjustments.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Grzrd on August 26, 2018, 08:32:44 PM
Since I have posted the proposed legislation, H.R. 6111, (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6111/text?format=txt&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%226111%22%5D%7D&r=1) for Texas and Louisiana, I thought I would do so for Mississippi:

Quote
H. R. 6111
To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 with respect to high priority corridors on the National Highway System, and for other purposes. ....
This Act may be cited as the ``I-14 Expansion and Improvement Act of 2018''. ....
(a) Identification. ....
(3) Central mississippi corridor.--Section 1105(c) of the
        Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, as
        amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end
        the following:
            ``(92) The Central Mississippi Corridor 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 the logical terminus with
        Interstate Route 59 in the vicinity of Laurel, Mississippi.''.
....
The routes referred to in ... subsections .... (c)(92) [is] designated as Interstate Route I-14 and the States of ... Mississippi shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such routes as segments of future Interstate Route I-14.''.

Like Louisiana, not as ambitious as Texas.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: edwaleni on August 26, 2018, 10:59:34 PM
As I mentioned  in another I-14 chat.

The Texas route makes sense as a DFW/SA-Austin bypass-passthrough.

A route from Columbus GA to Augusta GA would be good, but it doesn't need  to be an Interstate type road.  A Super 4 arterial will do just fine.

The rest is overkill.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: sparker on August 27, 2018, 03:29:20 AM
Since I have posted the proposed legislation, H.R. 6111, (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6111/text?format=txt&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%226111%22%5D%7D&r=1) for Texas and Louisiana, I thought I would do so for Mississippi:

Quote
H. R. 6111
To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 with respect to high priority corridors on the National Highway System, and for other purposes. ....
This Act may be cited as the ``I-14 Expansion and Improvement Act of 2018''. ....
(a) Identification. ....
(3) Central mississippi corridor.--Section 1105(c) of the
        Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, as
        amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end
        the following:
            ``(92) The Central Mississippi Corridor 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 the logical terminus with
        Interstate Route 59 in the vicinity of Laurel, Mississippi.''.
....
The routes referred to in ... subsections .... (c)(92) [is] designated as Interstate Route I-14 and the States of ... Mississippi shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such routes as segments of future Interstate Route I-14.''.

Like Louisiana, not as ambitious as Texas.

3 out of 3!  Looks like the plans as conceived will indeed find their way onto the books -- if not onto the ground!  Wonder if this'll give that kid from UGA who wants to extend this whole thing through AL and GA a bit of a boost?  When this whole thing was conceived about 17 years ago I wouldn't have given it a snowball's chance in hell -- but here we go -- another unfunded mandate dependent upon backer perseverance and continuous political capital at both the state and federal level.  At least in MS there might be some upgradeable mileage along US 84 that'll make it a marginally simpler task!
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: froggie on August 28, 2018, 08:02:13 AM
Quote
At least in MS there might be some upgradeable mileage along US 84 that'll make it a marginally simpler task!

Emphasis on the "marginally".  Except for the bypasses and west of Bude, most of the US 84 4-laning just added two lanes adjacent to the older existing lanes and called it a day....no access management or anything line that.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: sparker on August 28, 2018, 01:12:04 PM
Quote
At least in MS there might be some upgradeable mileage along US 84 that'll make it a marginally simpler task!

Emphasis on the "marginally".  Except for the bypasses and west of Bude, most of the US 84 4-laning just added two lanes adjacent to the older existing lanes and called it a day....no access management or anything line that.

Ah, good old twinning!  I guess with severely limited funds, largely eliminating head-ons is as good a rationale for this as any (until some moron causes the first "T-bone" while crossing the other carriageway in hilly territory to get to one roadside business or the other).  But looking at US 84 shows a few readily convertible spots -- although most of it is as Adam describes -- non-access-controlled in any fashion (hence my "marginally" modifier!).  But given MS' limited capabilities regarding funding availability, this project is a long way off!   
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: froggie on August 29, 2018, 12:23:39 PM
^ They also have higher priorities at the state level...namely US 49 between Jackson and the Coast.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: sparker on August 29, 2018, 12:59:47 PM
^ They also have higher priorities at the state level...namely US 49 between Jackson and the Coast.


That corridor project seems to have slipped on and off the priority list for what seems like decades now.  Every time there's a hurricane or other weather-related incident on the MS coast, it seems to be reasserted as a priority as a high-capacity evacuation route -- but in the aftermath seems to slip back into "nice idea; we'd sure like to do it" mode (likely due to funding shortfalls).  From a point of pure regional utility, US 49 overshadows the I-14 concept by not a small margin; it's too bad that it hasn't been significantly advanced past the conceptual stage.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: froggie on August 29, 2018, 01:28:17 PM
It's been on the priority list consistently for over a decade now.  Talk of it is what wafts on and off, but it's consistently been a priority for the department.  The main problem, of course, is the money to pay for it.
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 29, 2018, 09:38:38 PM
How many years did it take for Mississippi to 4 lane US 61 (besides from Redwood to Leland)
Title: Re: I-14 in Mississippi
Post by: froggie on August 30, 2018, 08:50:56 AM
From the start of the 4-lane program?  About 15 give or take.