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: I-14 in Mississippi  (Read 6172 times)

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10203
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 01:15:31 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #25 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.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6612
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: August 20, 2019, 10:08:46 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #26 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.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8074
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:05 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #27 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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5851
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:54:51 PM
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #28 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.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 10702
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 04:51:52 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #29 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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5851
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:54:51 PM
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #30 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. 
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #31 on: December 23, 2017, 07:28:03 PM »

This Dec. 16 article 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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5851
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:54:51 PM
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #32 on: December 24, 2017, 02:57:07 AM »

This Dec. 16 article 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.   
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8074
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:05 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #33 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.
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1326
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: August 21, 2019, 12:02:45 PM
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #34 on: December 24, 2017, 12:17:44 PM »

This Dec. 16 article 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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5851
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:54:51 PM
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #35 on: December 24, 2017, 06:09:07 PM »

This Dec. 16 article 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.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #36 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 reports that the Mississippi Transportation Commission voted unanimously to support the designation of I-14.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5851
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:54:51 PM
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #37 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 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. 
Logged

Hurricane Rex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1371
  • Speed 75 or bust. Keep on traveling.

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Sherwood Oregon (Dec, Jun-Sep), Corvallis, Oregon (Oct, Nov, Jan-May)
  • Last Login: August 12, 2019, 12:56:06 PM
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #38 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.
Logged
ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #39 on: August 26, 2018, 08:32:44 PM »

Since I have posted the proposed legislation, H.R. 6111, 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.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 459
  • Last Login: Today at 12:26:09 AM
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #40 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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5851
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:54:51 PM
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #41 on: August 27, 2018, 03:29:20 AM »

Since I have posted the proposed legislation, H.R. 6111, 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!
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 10702
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 04:51:52 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #42 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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5851
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:54:51 PM
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #43 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!   
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 10702
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 04:51:52 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #44 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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5851
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:54:51 PM
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #45 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.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 10702
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 04:51:52 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #46 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.
Logged

Hot Rod Hootenanny

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1806
  • Diplomat of Solid Sound

  • Age: 44
  • Location: Middle of Nowhere, Ohio
  • Last Login: Today at 11:25:31 AM
    • 20th Century roadfan material
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #47 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)
Logged
SAVE AAROADS!! ONLY TALK ABOUT ROADS!

froggie

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 10702
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 04:51:52 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-14 in Mississippi
« Reply #48 on: August 30, 2018, 08:50:56 AM »

From the start of the 4-lane program?  About 15 give or take.
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.