AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus  (Read 11996 times)

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3447
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: August 27, 2020, 03:56:45 PM
Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« on: September 26, 2013, 07:02:58 PM »

Some Democrats and Republicans appear to be cooperating in an effort to bring home some federal I-69 funding, presumably in the hope that I-69 will have a prominent role in the 2015 national freight plan*:

http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/grow-economy/us-congressman-blake-farenthold-launches-bipartisan-interstate-69-congressional-005905

I'm a little surprised that there does not appear to be a Louisiana member of the caucus, especially since SIU 15 in the metro Shreveport/Bossier City area should receive a Record of Decision in a few months. Arkansas does not appear to have a member, either. Maybe Louisiana and Arkansas both consider I-49 as a higher freight priority?

edit

The MAP-21 national freight plan was discussed at the recent Intermodal Freight Conference in Memphis:

http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2013/sep/26/economist-outlines-us-freight-network-at-intermodal-conference/#comments

Quote
The Intermodal Freight Transportation Institute at the University of Memphis welcomed a distinguished list of guest speakers to its seventh annual Intermodal Freight Conference at the FedEx Institute of Technology Tuesday, Sept. 24.
IFTI interim director Dan Pallme hosted the day’s events, which were capped off by an appearance from U.S. Department of Transportation chief economist Jack Wells.
Wells spoke to the group about freight planning provisions associated with the national MAP-21 transportation legislation, including the development of a national freight strategic plan by 2015.
“We are going to implement this as a multimodal plan,” Wells said. “MAP-21 defines a national freight network as a highway-only network, but we think it is important to have a multimodal approach to freight planning, whether it is at the state or national level.”

Wells expects the newly formed National Freight Advisory Committee to address issues facing various parts of the country.

* with up to 95% federal funding for interstate projects:

Quote
Prioritization of projects to improve freight movement
Authorizes DOT to allow a maximum Federal share of 95% for an Interstate System project (or of 90% for a non-Interstate System project) if the project makes a demonstrable improvement in the efficiency of freight movement and is identified in a State freight plan (as described in section 1118 of MAP-21). [§1116]
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 08:35:37 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10304
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: January 19, 2021, 09:42:58 PM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus Launched
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2013, 07:12:44 PM »

I would like to know which party wants the I-69 to go through, the Democrats or the Republicans? This day and age I cannot tell who does what as things that seem conservative are practiced by Liberals and some things that are liberal are coming out of the mouths of Limabaugh and company.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

HandsomeRob

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 34
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: November 30, 2016, 03:10:59 PM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus Launched
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2013, 08:02:52 PM »

I would like to know which party wants the I-69 to go through, the Democrats or the Republicans?

Some Democrats and Republicans appear to be cooperating in an effort to bring home some federal I-69 funding
Logged

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: April 02, 2020, 09:35:43 AM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus Launched
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2013, 12:20:41 AM »

AFAIK there was an I-69 Congressional Caucus before back in the mid-2000s; maybe this resurrected caucus will be more effective given that a lot more of the corridor is close to shovel-ready than it was back then.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3447
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: August 27, 2020, 03:56:45 PM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2014, 08:43:55 PM »

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article reports that local leaders from five states recently met with the Caucus, during which state-by-state updates were provided to the Congressional members.  Also, the new branding slogan appears to be "I-69 - North-South Connectivity in the Heartland":

« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 09:23:11 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11530
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:31:24 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2014, 08:35:14 PM »

"Proposed as Potential I-69 by Texas Segment Committees" - because the numbering in south Texas isn't screwed up enough.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1215
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: Today at 03:01:49 PM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2014, 10:38:13 PM »

I hope my hard earned tax money doesn't get wasted on some over reaching Fed project.   :angry:
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3535
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: November 27, 2019, 04:02:44 AM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2014, 05:49:45 AM »

"Proposed as Potential I-69 by Texas Segment Committees" - because the numbering in south Texas isn't screwed up enough.
A 3di, or I-6, presumably. It's not going to be I-69S, cause they'd have used that for I-2!

What's interesting is that they show spurs south of the KY/TN line, but not north of it... Surely some KY parkways are blue? Where's I-469?
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1215
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: Today at 03:01:49 PM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2014, 09:05:50 AM »

I notice that Nashville is highlighted but off the potential grid. I am sure they are just using it as a reference point but you know how politicians are.  They just may number I-24 with some number like I-69SE.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11530
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:31:24 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2014, 08:54:28 PM »

"Proposed as Potential I-69 by Texas Segment Committees" - because the numbering in south Texas isn't screwed up enough.
A 3di, or I-6, presumably. It's not going to be I-69S, cause they'd have used that for I-2!

What's interesting is that they show spurs south of the KY/TN line, but not north of it... Surely some KY parkways are blue? Where's I-469?
If they were doing things properly both I-69C and I-69E would be 3dis.  Seriously, why can't they be like other states and just pick a route and add some spurs?  Why build every mile of every proposed idea?  Next thing you know, they'll build the Immigration Freedomway and call it I-10S.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9878
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 11:48:58 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2014, 11:43:59 PM »

You know, having looked at this, I really question the need for I-369. Won't it be essentially redundant to I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana? If we're doing that, we may as well make US-69 in Kansas I-735, since it's pretty much the same situation.
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1215
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: Today at 03:01:49 PM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2014, 08:12:26 AM »

"Proposed as Potential I-69 by Texas Segment Committees" - because the numbering in south Texas isn't screwed up enough.
A 3di, or I-6, presumably. It's not going to be I-69S, cause they'd have used that for I-2!

What's interesting is that they show spurs south of the KY/TN line, but not north of it... Surely some KY parkways are blue? Where's I-469?
If they were doing things properly both I-69C and I-69E would be 3dis.  Seriously, why can't they be like other states and just pick a route and add some spurs?  Why build every mile of every proposed idea?  Next thing you know, they'll build the Immigration Freedomway and call it I-10S.
They could name it Reconquistidor Corridor.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10304
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: January 19, 2021, 09:42:58 PM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2014, 09:44:47 AM »


Some Democrats and Republicans appear to be cooperating in an effort to bring home some federal I-69 funding
[/quote]
You said it only some.  I am guessing now its not up for debate in the usual Dem verses Rep thing, so this I-69 is not a Conservative nor a Liberal idea in the stereotype world then, but  one can wonder too.  Some is not all though.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 39
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2014, 10:01:31 AM »

You said it only some.  I am guessing now its not up for debate in the usual Dem verses Rep thing, so this I-69 is not a Conservative nor a Liberal idea in the stereotype world then, but  one can wonder too.  Some is not all though.

this statement is perfectly coherent and I agree with all facets of it.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10938
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 07:28:02 PM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2014, 01:08:08 PM »

"Proposed as Potential I-69 by Texas Segment Committees" - because the numbering in south Texas isn't screwed up enough.
A 3di, or I-6, presumably. It's not going to be I-69S, cause they'd have used that for I-2!

What's interesting is that they show spurs south of the KY/TN line, but not north of it... Surely some KY parkways are blue? Where's I-469?
If they were doing things properly both I-69C and I-69E would be 3dis.  Seriously, why can't they be like other states and just pick a route and add some spurs?  Why build every mile of every proposed idea?  Next thing you know, they'll build the Immigration Freedomway and call it I-10S.
They could name it Reconquistidor Corridor.

Nah.  The Memorial Pork Barrel Pigway would be more appropriate.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

txstateends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: north TX, not far from an interstate interchange and a US terminus
  • Last Login: June 05, 2019, 11:30:28 AM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2014, 09:25:29 PM »

You know, having looked at this, I really question the need for I-369. Won't it be essentially redundant to I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana? If we're doing that, we may as well make US-69 in Kansas I-735, since it's pretty much the same situation.

This, if looked at with rose-colored redundancy glasses, might appear that you are correct sir, but remember that so many projects and areas are "where's my ____ freeway?" or "me too".  Examples: the 3 south TX I-69s (because 1 is apparently not enough to appease the other 2) or the 2 I-35 splits (because St. Paul and Fort Worth won't be satisfied with little interstate crumbs or sloppy seconds).  Also, there are too many examples of I'll-pat-your-back-if-you-pat-mine deals in Congress to count when it comes to funding and passage of bills for one legislator's 'necessary project'.  Plus, it's been the fantasy of many a local/state rep in east TX over the years to get US 59 freewayed/interstated.
Logged
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

Revive 755

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4178
  • Last Login: January 18, 2021, 10:40:29 PM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2014, 11:23:02 PM »

You know, having looked at this, I really question the need for I-369. Won't it be essentially redundant to I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana? If we're doing that, we may as well make US-69 in Kansas I-735, since it's pretty much the same situation.

Nah, make it I-49W depending upon where the southern terminus ends up  :sombrero:.
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4980
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 06:24:40 PM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2014, 03:34:15 AM »

Hey, there are still 23 letters left that could be branches of I-69!
Logged

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10938
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 07:28:02 PM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2014, 11:37:49 AM »

Hey, there are still 23 letters left that could be branches of I-69!

Don't give them any ideas!  :pan:
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10304
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: January 19, 2021, 09:42:58 PM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2014, 12:11:43 PM »

Whatever it is, its all just numbers.  Whether you call it I-69E, I-69J, or even I-37 it all is a freeway that serves a certain purpose.

I think we can all agree that we can still serve the two North American neighbors of ours without using the I-69 designation completely along with its branches and suffixes. 
« Last Edit: June 28, 2014, 12:13:50 PM by roadman65 »
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2382
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: January 07, 2021, 09:07:15 AM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2014, 09:07:10 PM »

An "I-69 Caucus" eh?
I bet they'd get more membership if they dropped the "I" from the name.

<rimshot>

(Because of all the infidelity, you see...)


I shutter to think what the outcome would be if the interstate highway system was being considered by the US Congress in it's contemporary form.  There'd be I-69's everywhere, meandering between nowhere and nothing with like 10 letter-suffixed branches going through every Walmart-ville.  Half of the bill would be tax cuts.  Another quarter would be transit subsidies.  There'd be lots of interstates in states with no people.  You can forget about any orderly grid with individual representatives fighting over numbers deemed arbitrarily important.  ("Interstate 1" would run through every congressional district in the country.)
Then the whole thing would be held up in courts for the next 2 decades.
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11530
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:31:24 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #21 on: June 29, 2014, 07:22:54 PM »

It wasn't as terribly different then.  Ike didn't want urban interstates.  They were originally pork barrel spending to get the bill through congress.  He didn't even know about them until construction on now-I-395 was well underway because he was in the hospital when the bill passed.

The numbering is orderly only because nobody had yet given congress the idea to sign numbers into law.  But even then, the US route system had already been ruined by every podunk town demanding their own US highway (at least in states like Pennsylvania), logical numbering be damned.  And US 66 was only born because of a fight between Kentucky and the rest of the country over the path of US 60 (and nobody wanting US 62).
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3447
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: August 27, 2020, 03:56:45 PM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2014, 02:59:40 PM »

Atkins North America has completed its I-69 Innovative Financing Study Final Findings and the Executive Summary.  In the Final Findings, it is noted that the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge is essentially ready to begin construction once funding for it is identified (page 9/122 of pdf; page 4 of document)
The Final Findings conclude that, in addition to tolls and other bonding mechanisms, significant federal financial assistance will be needed (page 50/122 of pdf; page 45 of document):
Quote
... it appears that significant Federal assistance will be required to advance development of the I‐69 corridor, particularly given the high cost of the bridges across the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers that are keys to ensuring connectivity throughout the corridor. This report identifies several FHWA funding programs that could potentially be used to support development of the corridor.
(above quote from I-69 Mississippi River Bridge thread)

This article reports that the Caucus is working with BridgeLink to identify funding for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge:

Quote
BridgeLink is working with the I-69 Caucus in Washington, D.C., including U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky and U.S. Rep. Larry Bucshon of Indiana, to find funds for the I-69 bridge project.

This July 15 article reports that, elsewhere in Washington, D.C., there appears to be bipartisan support for a return of earmarks:

Quote
The House Rules Committee – where the majority party always wins and the votes always split along party lines – was the setting Monday evening for a momentary bipartisan call to bring back earmarks as a way to lubricate passage of transportation bills.
Earmarks – money in authorization or appropriations bills that was targeted to benefit a specific congressional district or a particular project – were banned by the House in 2011.
During debate on the rule for the bill authorizing federal highway and transit programs through next May, Rep. Jim McGovern, D- Mass., and Rep. Tom Cole, R – Okla., agreed that the whole business of transportation funding would go so much easier if House members could just get their earmarks back.

Perhaps the I-69 Caucus will be able to craft an earmark for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge in several years ......... and the I-69 Mississippi River Bridge in several decades............
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3447
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: August 27, 2020, 03:56:45 PM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2015, 10:49:27 PM »

Some Democrats and Republicans appear to be cooperating in an effort to bring home some federal I-69 funding ... :
http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/grow-economy/us-congressman-blake-farenthold-launches-bipartisan-interstate-69-congressional-005905
AFAIK there was an I-69 Congressional Caucus before back in the mid-2000s; maybe this resurrected caucus will be more effective given that a lot more of the corridor is close to shovel-ready than it was back then.

We now have a new Congress, but this article reports that the six Congressmen who formed the 2013 Caucus are all still in office and have re-launched the I-69 Caucus:

Quote
Today, Feb. 5, 2015, Congressman Ed Whitfield (KY-01), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power joined five of his colleagues in re-launching the bipartisan Interstate 69 Congressional Caucus to raise awareness of the strategic importance of I-69 as a freight corridor. Congressman Whitfield will serve as a co-chair of this caucus with Congressman Henry Cuellar (TX-28), Congressman Blake Farenthold (TX-27), Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-09), Congressman Larry Bucshon (IN-08), and Congressman Bennie Thompson (MS-02).
Specifically, the caucus' mission is to advance the development of I-69
, and to enhance the regional mobility, and the safety of the traveling public ....

However, it looks like neither Arkansas nor Louisiana currently has a member in the Caucus.
Logged

I-39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1333
  • Last Login: January 18, 2021, 04:30:11 PM
Re: Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2015, 07:39:48 PM »

What is the current estimate on finishing the entire I-69 corridor?

This and the I-49 corridor should get priority funding in any future highway bill.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.