Indyroads Wiki - User contributions [en]

Environmental Impact Studies...A Waste of Money?

2026-01-15T22:11:05Z

Indyroads:

The question must be asked... Are Environmental Impact Studies a Waste of Money?

Arguably there is a solid principal of counting the cost of any project and investigating the impacts that planned projects may have, such as economic, engineering, social, mobility, property, and environmental impacts. Yet in some states these seem to have become a way to significantly delay—or even completely derail—new transportation projects from coming to fruition in the first place. Why? Because of the red tape involved in the process of new projects. Looking at California as the definitive text case for this type of thing are organizations whose sole mission is to circumvent progress in the state towards addressing congestion and improving transportation. Targeted mainly at projects that are seen as car-dependent. Yet these efforts have also been used to delay and prevent even mass transit projects from going forward. Not to mention the immense costs of the studies and the preparation of EIS/EIR reports. And after all of that cost invested by state departments of transportation, project stakeholders, study firms, the project could be stopped completely in its tracks resulting in a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. For successfully completed transportation projects however these can range from a respectable 10% of the overall cost of the project to in some cases more than 25% depending on the issues identified, and the impacts addressed. This is a huge cost.

===Environmental Red tape===
California is perhaps the most glaring example. Numerous organizations exist with the explicit goal of slowing or stopping projects they view as 'car‑dependent', and their efforts at obstruction have extended even to mass‑transit proposals. The price tag for preparing EIS/EIR documents is enormous, and after millions of taxpayer dollars are spent by transportation departments, consultants, and stakeholders, a project can still be halted entirely wasting all that money. For projects that do move forward, environmental review can account for anywhere from 10% to more than 25% of total project cost—a staggering share.

In many cases, particularly in California, EIS/EIR reviews appear to overly prioritize ecological concerns above all else, pushing economic and social impact considerations to the margins. Groups such as the Sierra Club have also turned to the courts to block projects on environmental grounds, tying much needed projects up in months or years of court proceedings adding further delays, substantially increasing costs, and lending greater uncertainty as to whether these projects will ever be completed.

===High Speed Rail Boondoggle===
The ongoing saga of California’s High‑Speed Rail project illustrates the tension. As many have been seeing in the news, there has been intense scrutiny on the California High Speed rail project, which would be the first of its kind in the nation to bring true high-speed rail—with speeds up to 220MPH (or 350 km/h)—to the United States. It could serve as a national model for future rail corridors, serving as an important milestone in seeing other similar high-speed projects around the US. Environmentalists and politicians alike seem to consistently lament America's love affair with automobiles and desire to see alternative methods of transportation developed that will bring people out of their cars and into other modes of transportation. While high speed rail and mass transit will not 'fix' this issue, they could go a long way toward providing viable alternatives to nationwide travel and commuting which could potentially reduce the time that some people spend driving in their cars.

Arguably HSR California's critics are not just fighting on ecological grounds, the issue has drawn national attention for the billions and billions of dollars spent to address legal battles over property rights, construction contracts, and alleged fraud and waste. But the battles have resulted in several key segments of the project being severely delayed and even significantly downgraded in areas where they would be most important. In fact the sections going up the Peninsula which was originally going to be high-speed will instead be constructed mostly at-grade and at lower track speeds, all over environmental concerns. Additionally, the segment to be built over the Tehachapi mountains to feed into Los Angeles and the Southland is questionable at best at this point. Lawsuits and improperly forecasted cost estimates have all but killed this project, and now in this politically charged environment, with the Trump administration pulling key funding, the overall project is in Jeopardy.

But let's not kid ourselves. In our vast nation there is little likelihood that automobiles will ever go away aside from "Scotty" beaming us from one place to another using transporters, like in Star Trek, Sure autonomous vehicles are coming, and that requires all new infrastructure to make that happen, but individual methods of conveyance via passenger vehicles are not going anywhere anytime soon.

===A Balanced Solution===
I am not arguing that we should do away with EIS/EIR studies, but that they be reformed or revamped in such a way that they cannot be used to inequitably tie up projects in so much red tape that they die. In Portland, Oregon for instance, the new Columbia River Crossing to Vancouver, replacing the aging and outdated Interstate Bridge from Hayden Island was nearly killed, only to be resurrected at the last minute. Yet we must also remember the days when Transportation planners acted carte blanche, bulldozing through neighborhoods and environmentally sensitive areas to build expressways. Many of these neighborhoods were economically depressed or had large ethnic minority populations. Leading to the famous Freeway revolts that happened in many cities in the US, Including Portland, OR and San Fransisco. Ultimately this is why the EPA was created, which instituted the EIS/EIR process. It was a safety net to stop what would have been unnecessary or destructive transportation projects from being built. Just look at old planning maps for Portland and San Francisco from the 50's and 60's and you can see how ambitious the planners were. Even transportation visionaries like Robert Moses became highway crazed and went to far with their ambitious plans, in some cases creating highways to nowhere.

Arguably some areas are better without the planned expressways that would have littered the landscape especially in San Francisco and Portland which would have been carved up into pieces with the numerous freeways that were proposed. Most everyone was glad to see the Embarcadero and Central Freeways come down in San Francisco following the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, However this left the Golden Gate forever severed from the rest of the regional highway system, forcing interstate and regional traffic to negotiate city streets in one of the most densely compacted cities in America. Not Ideal.

So where is the happy medium? Where can both sides agree? Is there a way to still have the safeguards that impact studies provide while still allowing needed transportation projects to go forward, while also keeping costs low? I certainly hope so.

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Opinion]]
[[Category:Indiana]]

Indiana Tolling

2026-01-15T20:09:38Z

Indyroads: /* Welcome to Indiana - Now Pay Up! */

=Welcome to Indiana - Now Pay Up!=

Could this become a reality for the Hoosier state. What a way to roll out the welcome mat. Many states have toll roads. The most would be states like Florida and New York which have their thruways and turnpikes, but even there, there are more freeways than tollways in these states. Additionally, tollways are seen as a longer distance means of travel and typically are not meant to serve commuters which many of Indiana's existing interstates do. Indiana already has an image issue when it comes to travel and tourism, and the last thing that we want to do is to discourage people from visiting our state because of having to pay tolls everywhere they travel. Kentucky removed tolls from its parkways to open up its state and has some of the best freeways in the country. In fact, they have nearly upgraded I-65 to 6 lanes through the entire state, a massive feat that will set them far ahead of their neighbors and ensure that Kentucky is open to commerce. Indiana needs to follow suit but do it without tolls.

==The problem with tolling==
===Tolling is a regressive tax===
Tolling is a tax. Albeit a use tax, but it is still a tax. what makes it regressive is that those that have the highest incomes are least affected financially by the tolls than those who have the lowest incomes. Some people that have a hard time being able to keep gas in the car will now have to drive additional miles and avoid the toll roads to avoid having to pay the exorbitant tolls proposed by the state. Sure initially they seem small but $0.50 a mile adds up quickly and on a 15 mile trip that is $7.50 toll one way in just one trip. Even at $0.25 per mile it would be $3.25 for that same trip. And would that really close the highway funding gap as the state claims. Not likely. What is not factored in is the cost to collect the tolls. Electronic tolling systems still require employees in call centers ran by third party companies that will charge the state a share of the tolls collected as a fee in collecting them. Not only that but the tolling gantries have to be installed at several million dollars around the state.

===Tolling would be done on freeways already paid for with taxpayer money.===
If anyone doesn't see an issue with this I cannot see why. The interstate highways that the state legislature is studying placing tolls on have long been paid for and even upgrades have been completed and paid for. In addition, tolling a highway such as I-65 and then diverting that money to a state road project far away in a remote part of the state away from I-65 would be a misuse of the tolls collected along that highway. Shouldn't the money collected there be only allowed for use on the road collected? It's common sense. Are we really going to get into a situation where we lease away our highways to a consortium so that we can repair our dilapidating infrastructure.

===Why penalize people for mismanagement and deferred maintenance===
So where did the road funds go. What is the state doing to guarantee that there is money in the budget to repair and replace and even upgrade the roads we have but also add roads we need. That question would stymie us all I am afraid. What happened to federal aid dollars that came in to help build new projects. The reality is people do not clamor and protest for roads. They do that for government benefits and welfare, healthcare and disability. Don't get me wrong there are some that legitimately need access to social programs, but if we overspend in those areas and have too much fraud waste and abuse then it's no wonder that there isn't any money left for roads and transportation.

===When in dire need go after their pocketbooks===
It seems that whenever faced with a crisis that government's first response it to raise taxes or propose new fees (taxes), or now try to turn free paid for roads into revenue generating "toll" (tax) roads. Why not try cutting spending in the transportation budget or looking at other state budgets to see where money can be trimmed so that it can be allocated more appropriately into where it will benefit the people the greatest. With safer, more efficient, and better roads.

==Taking Action==
The reality is we can take action but it requires you. If you don't want to have to pay potentially thousands of dollars a year in tolls you need to let your state assemblymember and senator know, and contact the governor's office. Write letters if you have to telling them you adamantly oppose open tolling on freeways in the state.

==Can tolling be a benefit?==
===Not opposed to all Toll Roads===
Tolling when used in the right ways can be a beneficial source of income or help pay off construction costs related to new capitol investments (new road projects) or major upgrades to a highway.
===Areas where tolling can be used===
Tolling can be used on brand new highway projects like bypasses or new expressways where construction bonds are issued to help pay for the cost of construction. For dedicated lanes such a HOT lanes or HOV-toll lanes. These lanes allow people to carpool for reduced or no toll but opens the road to those not carpooling that need access for a free.Areas where constructions bonds were issued to pay for road projects.

==May 2025 Update==
As of May 2025 Indiana's current Governor Mike Braun has revived the idea of adding tolls to I-70 and I-65 throughout the entire state "to make up for infrastructure revenue shortfall" as reported by [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUKJpp_mGnQ CBS4 Indy] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI5rAix-Z7s WTHR] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APoHeqXGZUM FOX59]. We have already laid out the case why we do not support adding tolls to highways already constructed with federal funds, and the negative impact they would have to the lower tax brackets. But we also are opposed to increasing the already high gas tax as well, which is in the higher tier in the nation compared to other states.

==January 2026 Update==
In January 2026, Indiana moved another step closer to implementing tolls, with particular attention on Interstate 70 as it crosses the Hoosier State. Supporters of the proposal—including the governor and several prominent Republicans—argue that motorists can drive from Illinois to Ohio without ever stopping in Indiana to purchase fuel or use traveler services, resulting in lost revenue for local businesses and reduced tax income for the state. They contend that these drivers use Indiana’s roads without contributing to their upkeep. The same concern is raised about long‑haul truckers, who often pass through the state without engaging local services, though they do pay IFTA taxes to the states they travel through.

The debate has drawn strong voices on both sides. Proponents maintain that Indiana is missing out on significant potential revenue from pass‑through traffic that spends money in neighboring states instead. Opponents, however, warn that tolling could push drivers onto local roads and alternate highways—routes the interstate system was designed to relieve—creating congestion and safety concerns. They also highlight the financial strain tolls could place on commuters and lower‑income Hoosiers who currently rely on the interstate at no cost and who already contribute through gasoline and sales taxes.

More on this at [https://wsbt.com/news/local/plan-to-turn-i-70-into-toll-road-officials-projects-improvements-traffic-drivers-no-timline-funding-issues-charging-indot-indiana WSTB 22], [https://www.wthr.com/article/news/politics/tolls-on-i-70-state-moves-forward-to-raise-money-by-tolling-the-interstate-crider-highway-indot-funding-braun-federal-highway-administration/531-be3aab7a-0baf-479d-a36f-5a773a873dcd WTHR-13], and [https://fox59.com/indianapolitics/braun-seeks-to-turn-i-70-into-toll-road/ FOX 59]

[[Category:Indiana]][[Category:Articles]]

Indiana Tolling

2026-01-14T22:48:43Z

Indyroads:

=Welcome to Indiana - Now Pay Up!=

Could this become a reality for the Hoosier state. What a way to roll out the welcome mat. Many states have toll roads. The most would be states like Florida and New York which have their thruways and turnpikes, but even there, there are more freeways then tollways in these states. And tollways are seen as a long distance means of travel and typically do not serve commuters which many of Indiana's existing interstates do. Indiana already has an image issue when it comes to travel and tourism, and the last thing that we want to do is to discourage people from visiting our state because of having to pay tolls everywhere they travel. Kentucky removed tolls from it's parkways to open up its state and has some of the best freeways in the country. In fact they have nearly upgraded I-65 to 6 lanes through the entire state, a massive feat that will set them far ahead of their neighbors and ensure that Kentucky is open to commerce. Indiana needs to follow suit, but do it without tolls.

==The problem with tolling==
===Tolling is a regressive tax===
Tolling is a tax. Albeit a use tax, but it is still a tax. what makes it regressive is that those that have the highest incomes are least affected financially by the tolls than those who have the lowest incomes. Some people that have a hard time being able to keep gas in the car will now have to drive additional miles and avoid the toll roads to avoid having to pay the exorbitant tolls proposed by the state. Sure initially they seem small but $0.50 a mile adds up quickly and on a 15 mile trip that is $7.50 toll one way in just one trip. Even at $0.25 per mile it would be $3.25 for that same trip. And would that really close the highway funding gap as the state claims. Not likely. What is not factored in is the cost to collect the tolls. Electronic tolling systems still require employees in call centers ran by third party companies that will charge the state a share of the tolls collected as a fee in collecting them. Not only that but the tolling gantries have to be installed at several million dollars around the state.

===Tolling would be done on freeways already paid for with taxpayer money.===
If anyone doesn't see an issue with this I cannot see why. The interstate highways that the state legislature is studying placing tolls on have long been paid for and even upgrades have been completed and paid for. In addition, tolling a highway such as I-65 and then diverting that money to a state road project far away in a remote part of the state away from I-65 would be a misuse of the tolls collected along that highway. Shouldn't the money collected there be only allowed for use on the road collected? It's common sense. Are we really going to get into a situation where we lease away our highways to a consortium so that we can repair our dilapidating infrastructure.

===Why penalize people for mismanagement and deferred maintenance===
So where did the road funds go. What is the state doing to guarantee that there is money in the budget to repair and replace and even upgrade the roads we have but also add roads we need. That question would stymie us all I am afraid. What happened to federal aid dollars that came in to help build new projects. The reality is people do not clamor and protest for roads. They do that for government benefits and welfare, healthcare and disability. Don't get me wrong there are some that legitimately need access to social programs, but if we overspend in those areas and have too much fraud waste and abuse then it's no wonder that there isn't any money left for roads and transportation.

===When in dire need go after their pocketbooks===
It seems that whenever faced with a crisis that government's first response it to raise taxes or propose new fees (taxes), or now try to turn free paid for roads into revenue generating "toll" (tax) roads. Why not try cutting spending in the transportation budget or looking at other state budgets to see where money can be trimmed so that it can be allocated more appropriately into where it will benefit the people the greatest. With safer, more efficient, and better roads.

==Taking Action==
The reality is we can take action but it requires you. If you don't want to have to pay potentially thousands of dollars a year in tolls you need to let your state assemblymember and senator know, and contact the governor's office. Write letters if you have to telling them you adamantly oppose open tolling on freeways in the state.

==Can tolling be a benefit?==
===Not opposed to all Toll Roads===
Tolling when used in the right ways can be a beneficial source of income or help pay off construction costs related to new capitol investments (new road projects) or major upgrades to a highway.
===Areas where tolling can be used===
Tolling can be used on brand new highway projects like bypasses or new expressways where construction bonds are issued to help pay for the cost of construction. For dedicated lanes such a HOT lanes or HOV-toll lanes. These lanes allow people to carpool for reduced or no toll but opens the road to those not carpooling that need access for a free.Areas where constructions bonds were issued to pay for road projects.

==May 2025 Update==
As of May 2025 Indiana's current Governor Mike Braun has revived the idea of adding tolls to I-70 and I-65 throughout the entire state "to make up for infrastructure revenue shortfall" as reported by [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUKJpp_mGnQ CBS4 Indy] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI5rAix-Z7s WTHR] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APoHeqXGZUM FOX59]. We have already laid out the case why we do not support adding tolls to highways already constructed with federal funds, and the negative impact they would have to the lower tax brackets. But we also are opposed to increasing the already high gas tax as well, which is in the higher tier in the nation compared to other states.

==January 2026 Update==
In January 2026, Indiana moved another step closer to implementing tolls, with particular attention on Interstate 70 as it crosses the Hoosier State. Supporters of the proposal—including the governor and several prominent Republicans—argue that motorists can drive from Illinois to Ohio without ever stopping in Indiana to purchase fuel or use traveler services, resulting in lost revenue for local businesses and reduced tax income for the state. They contend that these drivers use Indiana’s roads without contributing to their upkeep. The same concern is raised about long‑haul truckers, who often pass through the state without engaging local services, though they do pay IFTA taxes to the states they travel through.

The debate has drawn strong voices on both sides. Proponents maintain that Indiana is missing out on significant potential revenue from pass‑through traffic that spends money in neighboring states instead. Opponents, however, warn that tolling could push drivers onto local roads and alternate highways—routes the interstate system was designed to relieve—creating congestion and safety concerns. They also highlight the financial strain tolls could place on commuters and lower‑income Hoosiers who currently rely on the interstate at no cost and who already contribute through gasoline and sales taxes.

More on this at [https://wsbt.com/news/local/plan-to-turn-i-70-into-toll-road-officials-projects-improvements-traffic-drivers-no-timline-funding-issues-charging-indot-indiana WSTB 22], [https://www.wthr.com/article/news/politics/tolls-on-i-70-state-moves-forward-to-raise-money-by-tolling-the-interstate-crider-highway-indot-funding-braun-federal-highway-administration/531-be3aab7a-0baf-479d-a36f-5a773a873dcd WTHR-13], and [https://fox59.com/indianapolitics/braun-seeks-to-turn-i-70-into-toll-road/ FOX 59]

[[Category:Indiana]][[Category:Articles]]

Ultimate Interstates:Interstate 26 Gap-Closure

2025-11-06T17:03:14Z

Indyroads:

[[File:I26-gapx.png|thumb|upright=.8|I-26 Gap Location Map]]

The '''Ultimate Interstate 26 Gap-Closure''' is a proposed upgrade underway to upgrade a section of the US highway 23 freeway highway located north of I-240 in Asheville to Mars Hill, NC. This freeway also carries the US-19, US-25, and US-70 designations along this route. The Gap-Closure would upgrade several interchanges along the route that have tight geometry and short merging areas that currently do not meet the existing interstate highway standards. This section of the highway is already signed as "FUTURE" Interstate 26. In conjunction with this project is a major upgrade to the crossing of the French Broad river in Asheville to address a major bottleneck and weaving situation that exists at the crossing.

==Purpose and Need==
This project would fix the current gap problem that exists along I-26 providing route continuity for the greater I-26 route.

This project entails the following:
* I-26 Connector Project - [https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/asheville-i-26-connector/Pages/default.aspx visit NCDOT] for more information.
* US-23 Upgrades to Interstate Standards from Mars Hill, NC to Asheville, NC

==Grandfathering Option==
One could make the argument that this segment of FUTURE I-26 should be grandfathered in, as it is already locally seen as I-26 in advance of the proposed upgrades, and that it exists as I-26 both north and south of the "gap" area. Its signing with FUTURE banners also lends credence to this as well. This would allow the route to already be officially established and then time can then be taken later on to upgrade the worst offending interchanges to improve safety while leaving other non-compliant interchanges that do not impact safety as they are. This could help reduce the cost of the gap closure by allowing the state to pick and choose which interchanges need the priority over others.

==Numbering Issues==
Interstate 26 creates a numbering anomaly with the interstate system. The route predominantly travels north to south, crossing from I-81 in Tennessee, through North Carolina, and then ending at Charleston in South Carolina, yet the route has an even number and is signed as an East-West route. This can create some confusion as a result. This is a situation where suffixed interstates would have been helpful in the numbering convention. In this case signing I-26 as I-77W would be a more logical option here. There are only 3 places in the interstate system that allow suffixed numbering (I-35 E/W in Texas, I-35 E/W in Minnesota, and I-69 E/C/W in Texas). But it should be allowed elsewhere where it makes sense, especially when other numbers are unavailable. One case in point is I-35 in Kansas/Missouri, A split routing would have made sense here due to the split that occurs between the Turnpike at Emporia and ends in downtown Kansas City. I-35 could have then followed the turnpike, with I-35E following the more eastern route through Olathe, Overland Park, and Shawnee-Mission. Other examples could include the New Jersey turnpike with its eastern and western routings along I-95, and I-5 in the central valley of California with I-5W following the westside freeway and I-5E following CA-99 from Mettler to Sacramento. One might argue that suffixed numbers would cause confusion, however, the evidence provided by the allowed suffixes in both the US highway system, and the Interstate system would prove otherwise.

==Plausibility==
Since the I-26 corridor is already marked with "FUTURE" banners, it looks like the project has a high likelihood of being completed. It remains to be seen how long it will take to reconstruct the interchanges in question.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Western US]]

Ultimate Interstates:Interstate 26 Gap-Closure

2025-11-06T17:02:06Z

Indyroads:

[[File:I26-gapx.png|I-26 Gap Location Map]]

The '''Ultimate Interstate 26 Gap-Closure''' is a proposed upgrade underway to upgrade a section of the US highway 23 freeway highway located north of I-240 in Asheville to Mars Hill, NC. This freeway also carries the US-19, US-25, and US-70 designations along this route. The Gap-Closure would upgrade several interchanges along the route that have tight geometry and short merging areas that currently do not meet the existing interstate highway standards. This section of the highway is already signed as "FUTURE" Interstate 26. In conjunction with this project is a major upgrade to the crossing of the French Broad river in Asheville to address a major bottleneck and weaving situation that exists at the crossing.

==Purpose and Need==
This project would fix the current gap problem that exists along I-26 providing route continuity for the greater I-26 route.

This project entails the following:
* I-26 Connector Project - [https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/asheville-i-26-connector/Pages/default.aspx visit NCDOT] for more information.
* US-23 Upgrades to Interstate Standards from Mars Hill, NC to Asheville, NC

==Grandfathering Option==
One could make the argument that this segment of FUTURE I-26 should be grandfathered in, as it is already locally seen as I-26 in advance of the proposed upgrades, and that it exists as I-26 both north and south of the "gap" area. Its signing with FUTURE banners also lends credence to this as well. This would allow the route to already be officially established and then time can then be taken later on to upgrade the worst offending interchanges to improve safety while leaving other non-compliant interchanges that do not impact safety as they are. This could help reduce the cost of the gap closure by allowing the state to pick and choose which interchanges need the priority over others.

==Numbering Issues==
Interstate 26 creates a numbering anomaly with the interstate system. The route predominantly travels north to south, crossing from I-81 in Tennessee, through North Carolina, and then ending at Charleston in South Carolina, yet the route has an even number and is signed as an East-West route. This can create some confusion as a result. This is a situation where suffixed interstates would have been helpful in the numbering convention. In this case signing I-26 as I-77W would be a more logical option here. There are only 3 places in the interstate system that allow suffixed numbering (I-35 E/W in Texas, I-35 E/W in Minnesota, and I-69 E/C/W in Texas). But it should be allowed elsewhere where it makes sense, especially when other numbers are unavailable. One case in point is I-35 in Kansas/Missouri, A split routing would have made sense here due to the split that occurs between the Turnpike at Emporia and ends in downtown Kansas City. I-35 could have then followed the turnpike, with I-35E following the more eastern route through Olathe, Overland Park, and Shawnee-Mission. Other examples could include the New Jersey turnpike with its eastern and western routings along I-95, and I-5 in the central valley of California with I-5W following the westside freeway and I-5E following CA-99 from Mettler to Sacramento. One might argue that suffixed numbers would cause confusion, however, the evidence provided by the allowed suffixes in both the US highway system, and the Interstate system would prove otherwise.

==Plausibility==
Since the I-26 corridor is already marked with "FUTURE" banners, it looks like the project has a high likelihood of being completed. It remains to be seen how long it will take to reconstruct the interchanges in question.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Western US]]

Ultimate Interstates:Interstate 26 Gap-Closure

2025-11-06T17:01:44Z

Indyroads:

[[File:I26-gapx.png|thumb|upright=.5|I-26 Gap Location Map]]

The '''Ultimate Interstate 26 Gap-Closure''' is a proposed upgrade underway to upgrade a section of the US highway 23 freeway highway located north of I-240 in Asheville to Mars Hill, NC. This freeway also carries the US-19, US-25, and US-70 designations along this route. The Gap-Closure would upgrade several interchanges along the route that have tight geometry and short merging areas that currently do not meet the existing interstate highway standards. This section of the highway is already signed as "FUTURE" Interstate 26. In conjunction with this project is a major upgrade to the crossing of the French Broad river in Asheville to address a major bottleneck and weaving situation that exists at the crossing.

==Purpose and Need==
This project would fix the current gap problem that exists along I-26 providing route continuity for the greater I-26 route.

This project entails the following:
* I-26 Connector Project - [https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/asheville-i-26-connector/Pages/default.aspx visit NCDOT] for more information.
* US-23 Upgrades to Interstate Standards from Mars Hill, NC to Asheville, NC

==Grandfathering Option==
One could make the argument that this segment of FUTURE I-26 should be grandfathered in, as it is already locally seen as I-26 in advance of the proposed upgrades, and that it exists as I-26 both north and south of the "gap" area. Its signing with FUTURE banners also lends credence to this as well. This would allow the route to already be officially established and then time can then be taken later on to upgrade the worst offending interchanges to improve safety while leaving other non-compliant interchanges that do not impact safety as they are. This could help reduce the cost of the gap closure by allowing the state to pick and choose which interchanges need the priority over others.

==Numbering Issues==
Interstate 26 creates a numbering anomaly with the interstate system. The route predominantly travels north to south, crossing from I-81 in Tennessee, through North Carolina, and then ending at Charleston in South Carolina, yet the route has an even number and is signed as an East-West route. This can create some confusion as a result. This is a situation where suffixed interstates would have been helpful in the numbering convention. In this case signing I-26 as I-77W would be a more logical option here. There are only 3 places in the interstate system that allow suffixed numbering (I-35 E/W in Texas, I-35 E/W in Minnesota, and I-69 E/C/W in Texas). But it should be allowed elsewhere where it makes sense, especially when other numbers are unavailable. One case in point is I-35 in Kansas/Missouri, A split routing would have made sense here due to the split that occurs between the Turnpike at Emporia and ends in downtown Kansas City. I-35 could have then followed the turnpike, with I-35E following the more eastern route through Olathe, Overland Park, and Shawnee-Mission. Other examples could include the New Jersey turnpike with its eastern and western routings along I-95, and I-5 in the central valley of California with I-5W following the westside freeway and I-5E following CA-99 from Mettler to Sacramento. One might argue that suffixed numbers would cause confusion, however, the evidence provided by the allowed suffixes in both the US highway system, and the Interstate system would prove otherwise.

==Plausibility==
Since the I-26 corridor is already marked with "FUTURE" banners, it looks like the project has a high likelihood of being completed. It remains to be seen how long it will take to reconstruct the interchanges in question.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Western US]]

File:I26-gapx.png

2025-11-06T16:59:27Z

Indyroads:

Ultimate Interstates:Interstate 26 Gap-Closure

2025-11-05T18:54:37Z

Indyroads: Created page with "I-26 Gap Location Map The '''Ultimate Interstate 26 Gap-Closure''' is a proposed upgrade underway to upgrade a section of the US highway 23 freeway highway located north of I-240 in Asheville to Mars Hill, NC. This freeway also carries the US-19, US-25, and US-70 designations along this route. The Gap-Closure would upgrade several interchanges along the route that have tight geometry and short merging areas that currently do not mee..."

[[File:I26-gapx.png|thumb|upright=1|I-26 Gap Location Map]]

The '''Ultimate Interstate 26 Gap-Closure''' is a proposed upgrade underway to upgrade a section of the US highway 23 freeway highway located north of I-240 in Asheville to Mars Hill, NC. This freeway also carries the US-19, US-25, and US-70 designations along this route. The Gap-Closure would upgrade several interchanges along the route that have tight geometry and short merging areas that currently do not meet the existing interstate highway standards. This section of the highway is already signed as "FUTURE" Interstate 26. In conjunction with this project is a major upgrade to the crossing of the French Broad river in Asheville to address a major bottleneck and weaving situation that exists at the crossing.

==Purpose and Need==
This project would fix the current gap problem that exists along I-26 providing route continuity for the greater I-26 route.

This project entails the following:
* I-26 Connector Project - [https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/asheville-i-26-connector/Pages/default.aspx visit NCDOT] for more information.
* US-23 Upgrades to Interstate Standards from Mars Hill, NC to Asheville, NC

==Grandfathering Option==
One could make the argument that this segment of FUTURE I-26 should be grandfathered in, as it is already locally seen as I-26 in advance of the proposed upgrades, and that it exists as I-26 both north and south of the "gap" area. Its signing with FUTURE banners also lends credence to this as well. This would allow the route to already be officially established and then time can then be taken later on to upgrade the worst offending interchanges to improve safety while leaving other non-compliant interchanges that do not impact safety as they are. This could help reduce the cost of the gap closure by allowing the state to pick and choose which interchanges need the priority over others.

==Numbering Issues==
Interstate 26 creates a numbering anomaly with the interstate system. The route predominantly travels north to south, crossing from I-81 in Tennessee, through North Carolina, and then ending at Charleston in South Carolina, yet the route has an even number and is signed as an East-West route. This can create some confusion as a result. This is a situation where suffixed interstates would have been helpful in the numbering convention. In this case signing I-26 as I-77W would be a more logical option here. There are only 3 places in the interstate system that allow suffixed numbering (I-35 E/W in Texas, I-35 E/W in Minnesota, and I-69 E/C/W in Texas). But it should be allowed elsewhere where it makes sense, especially when other numbers are unavailable. One case in point is I-35 in Kansas/Missouri, A split routing would have made sense here due to the split that occurs between the Turnpike at Emporia and ends in downtown Kansas City. I-35 could have then followed the turnpike, with I-35E following the more eastern route through Olathe, Overland Park, and Shawnee-Mission. Other examples could include the New Jersey turnpike with its eastern and western routings along I-95, and I-5 in the central valley of California with I-5W following the westside freeway and I-5E following CA-99 from Mettler to Sacramento. One might argue that suffixed numbers would cause confusion, however, the evidence provided by the allowed suffixes in both the US highway system, and the Interstate system would prove otherwise.

==Plausibility==
Since the I-26 corridor is already marked with "FUTURE" banners, it looks like the project has a high likelihood of being completed. It remains to be seen how long it will take to reconstruct the interchanges in question.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Western US]]

Portal:Ultimate Interstates

2025-11-05T16:44:46Z

Indyroads:

__NOTOC__
These pages detail the Indyroads "Ultimate Interstate" plans for the United States
<div style="column-count:3;-moz-column-count:3;-webkit-column-count:3">

==Major Ultimate Corridors==
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 2|Corridor 2]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 9|Corridor 9]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Corridor 11]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 14|Corridor 14]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Interstate 26 Gap-Closure|Interstate 26 Gap-Closure]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:I-27 Extension|I-27 Extension]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:I-30/57 Extension|I-30 Extension]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:I-40 Extension|I-40 Extension]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:I-44 Extension|I-44 Extension]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:I-30/57 Extension|I-57 Extension]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 69|Corridor 69]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:I-70 Extension|I-70 Extension]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 76|Corridor 76]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:I-84 Extension|I-84 Extension]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:North Carolina Interstates|North Carolina Interstates]]

==Major Auxiliary Corridors==
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 110 (Pensacola)|Corridor 110-Florida]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridors 422 and 222|Corridors 422 and 222]]
*[[Ultimate_Interstates:I-27_Extension|Corridor 276-Colorado]]
*[[Ultimate_Interstates:I-27_Extension|Corridor 670-Colorado]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 808|Corridor 808-California]]

==Conceptual/Hypothetical Corridors==
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 1|Corridor 1]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 31|Corridor 31]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 32 (West)|Corridor 32]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 51|Corridor 51]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 61|Corridor 61]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 67|Corridor 67]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 73/74|Corridor 73/74]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 76|I-76 Extension]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 98|Corridor 98]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 101|Corridor 101]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:High Desert Conceptual Corridor|California High Desert Corridor]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Southern Oregon Corridor|Southern Oregon Corridor]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Tri-State Corridors|Tri-State Corridors]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Interstate Renumbering|Chicago Interstate Renumbering]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Florida Gulf Supercorridor|Florida Gulf Supercorridor]]
*[[Ultimate Interstates:Greater Atlanta Loop|Greater Atlanta Loop]]

</div>
[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]]

Ultimate Interstates:High Desert Conceptual Corridor

2025-11-05T16:34:54Z

Indyroads:

[[File:Corridor HDCx.png|thumb|upright=1|High Desert Corridors Map]]
[[File:HDC-CAx.png|thumb|upright=1|HDC Central California Map]]

The '''High Desert Ultimate Interstate Corridors''' are a group of ''conceptual'' interstate highway corridors following along sections of CA-14; US-395 and US-6 connecting the Southern California (Los Angeles/San Diego) megalopolis to Interstates 70, 80 and the planned [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] corridor. This would provide direct connections to many major intermountain cities including Reno, Boise, Salt Lake City, and Denver and provide better connections to intermountain states of Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.

==Routing==
This conceptual corridor consists of several segments.

===Eastern Sierra Corridor===
The '''Eastern Sierra Corridor''' is a predominantly north-south corridor that would upgrade California State Route 14 and portions of US-395 From East of the Tehachapi mountains and along the Eastern Sierra range from Newhall, CA to Bishop, CA, ultimately connecting to the planned planned [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] corridor near Coaldale, NV. Beginning at I-5 in the south the route follows the Antelope Valley Freeway (CA-14) northward from Santa Clarita, CA and through the Antelope Valley toward Mojave, CA intersecting with planned I-40 extension (current CA-58). It then continues north along CA-14 upgrading it to interstate standards and eventually merging with the US-395 corridor near Ridgecrest, CA. From there it continues north along an upgraded US-395 through the Owens Valley and into Bishop, CA. Bypassing Bishop to the east, the corridor would then follow an upgraded US-6 eastward until it reaches the [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] corridor.

Being along the east side of the Sierra range this route would connect many small cities together within Inyo, Mono and eastern Kern counties and open up opportunities to economic development along the corridor. Currently US-395 is one of America's great back roads and is very scenic with many natural resources, national parks and nature activities. Additionally having another north south corridor to complement the existing interstate system and provide an inland route away from busier more congested central valley cities is desirable.

===Great Basin Corridor===
The '''Great Basin Corridor''' is a predominantly east-west corridor that would upgrade sections of US-6 from Tonopah, NV to Ely, NV and the potential westward extension of [[Ultimate Interstates:I-70 Extension|I-70]] This corridor would serve a sparsely populated and largely remote section of central Nevada, but would provide more direct service between the eastern and central US and Central California.

With the Nevada desert being relatively sparsely populated, arguably, it does not make as much sense to build a 4-lane interstate along this segment unless there is an ultimate goal of creating a new corridor across the central Sierra Nevada range. Ultimately the need to build any corridor across these remote areas of the Great Basin would be to facilitate connections to I-80 or a new crossing of the Sierras. One could argue that construction of such a route would create induced demand, however the offset would be from potential fuel savings of a more direct route and less congestion than found on other routes, additionally, there could be a strategic national benefit due providing better connectivity to military and government installations in the area.

===Mid-Sierra Corridor===
As part of this plan a longshot possibility is the construction of a much needed '''Mid-Sierra Ultimate Interstate Corridor''' to provide interstate level connections to the California central valley, Fresno, and provide access to the bay area from the south. While construction of such a crossing would prove to be controversial and difficult, it would provide a second high quality mountain crossing in northern California offering relief for the heavily used I-80 corridor to the north and improving commerce and industry not only in Fresno and the central valley, but also along the eastern Sierra and the Great Basin. Should a Mid-Sierra crossing even be a possibility it would likely need to be a tolled road, utilize tunnel infrastructure and come with very strict environmental moratoriums to prevent sprawl and preserve the natural beauty of the mid-Sierra range, much of which is inaccessible to vehicles.

===Loneliest Road Corridor===
The [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] would largely traverse along or nearby the existing US-50 from Fernley, NV to an eastern connection with I-70 via Holden, UT or cove Fort, UT. See the [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] article for more information.

==Interstate Number Designation==
Several options are possible for an interstate designation for the corridor:

===I-13===
I-13 is probably the only potential number for the '''Eastern Sierra Corridor''' since it is a north south corridor and I-9 is already proposed as the route number to replace California 99 in the central valley. The I-13 designation would be located west of Interstate 15, yet it still violates the interstate convention in that it would lie west of proposed I-11. Should I-13 also be used on the Great Basin Corridor to Ely it would make more sense and at least that portion would lie within the interstate convention, even though that section is an east west section. If that were to happen, it could pave the way for a potential northward extension of I-13 from Ely to Twin Falls, ID following along the US-93 corridor.

===I-62 or I-58===
I-62 or I-58 are also possible route numbers for the '''Great Basin corridor''' and potentially the '''Mid-Sierra Corridor''' due to falling between I-70 and I-40. There may also be other numbers that can be chosen that fall between I-40 and I-70.

===I-70===
Ultimately the '''Great Basin Corridor''' could be numbered as I-70 if the northern alternative for I-70 through Fallon and Fernley, NV was not chosen. This would lead to I-70 ending in Tonopah or Bishop which could pave the way for a possible westward extension of I-70 via a '''Mid-Sierra Corridor''' over the central Sierras to serve the city of Fresno and making an additional connection to the central valley and the south bay.

==Alternate Routings==
Since the corridor is comprised of two segments they could be built or numbered independently, or just one or the other could be constructed based on traffic needs. Ultimately segment one (Eastern Sierra Corridor) makes more sense since it is a higher traffic corridor than segment two (US-6) and would connect southern California with the northwest and northern intermountain states very easily, especially if I-11 is built north of Las Vegas.

==Potential Auxiliary Routes==
This largely would depend on the route numbers chosen if built. One possible auxiliary route could be I-613 which could be constructed to replace the lower section of US-395 from Ridgecrest, CA down to Victorville connecting with I-15 and I-40. Another could be a potential spur heading south from the Mid-Sierra corridor along CA-41 to Fresno.

==Plausibility==
Ultimately these conceptual corridors are just that, conceptual. These are purely hypothetical long-shot possibilities of various considerations for an ultimate western buildout of the interstate system. It never hurts to dream about the possibilities of the future, since you never know if there was someday a time where such routes would be useful. While at this time the need is minimal, over time the need for an interstate quality corridor along one or more of these sections may become more imminent. Until then, it is not as likely that we will see such a corridor for several decades.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Western US]]

File:HDC-CAx.png

2025-11-05T16:32:40Z

Indyroads:

Ultimate Interstates:High Desert Conceptual Corridor

2025-11-05T16:07:59Z

Indyroads:

[[File:Corridor HDCx.png|thumb|upright=1|High Desert Corridors Map]]
[[File:HDC-CAx.png|thumb|upright=1|HDC Central California Map]]

The '''High Desert Ultimate Interstate Corridors''' are a group of ''conceptual'' interstate highway corridors following along sections of CA-14; US-395 and US-6 connecting the Southern California (Los Angeles/San Diego) megalopolis to Interstates 70, 80 and the planned [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] corridor. This would provide direct connections to many major intermountain cities including Reno, Boise, Salt Lake City, and Denver and provide better connections to intermountain states of Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.

==Routing==
This conceptual corridor consists of several segments.

===Eastern Sierra Corridor===
The '''Eastern Sierra Corridor''' is a predominantly north-south corridor that would upgrade California State Route 14 and portions of US-395 From East of the Tehachapi mountains and along the Eastern Sierra range from Newhall, CA to Bishop, CA, ultimately connecting to the planned planned [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] corridor near Coaldale, NV. Beginning at I-5 in the south the route follows the Antelope Valley Freeway (CA-14) northward from Santa Clarita, CA and through the Antelope Valley toward Mojave, CA intersecting with planned I-40 extension (current CA-58). It then continues north along CA-14 upgrading it to interstate standards and eventually merging with the US-395 corridor near Ridgecrest, CA. From there it continues north along an upgraded US-395 through the Owens Valley and into Bishop, CA. Bypassing Bishop to the east, the corridor would then follow an upgraded US-6 eastward until it reaches the [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] corridor.

Being along the east side of the Sierra range this route would connect many small cities together within Inyo, Mono and eastern Kern counties and open up opportunities to economic development along the corridor. Currently US-395 is one of America's great back roads and is very scenic with many natural resources, national parks and nature activities. Additionally having another north south corridor to complement the existing interstate system and provide an inland route away from busier more congested central valley cities is desirable.

===Great Basin Corridor===
The '''Great Basin Corridor''' is a predominantly east-west corridor that would upgrade sections of US-6 from Tonopah, NV to Ely, NV and the potential westward extension of [[Ultimate Interstates:I-70 Extension|I-70]] This corridor would serve a sparsely populated and largely remote section of central Nevada, but would provide more direct service between the eastern and central US and Central California.

With the Nevada desert being relatively sparsely populated, arguably, it does not make as much sense to build a 4-lane interstate along this segment unless there is an ultimate goal of creating a new corridor across the central Sierra Nevada range. Ultimately the need to build any corridor across these remote areas of the Great Basin would be to facilitate connections to I-80 or a new crossing of the Sierras. One could argue that construction of such a route would create induced demand, however the offset would be from potential fuel savings of a more direct route and less congestion than found on other routes, additionally, there could be a strategic national benefit due providing better connectivity to military and government installations in the area.

===Mid-Sierra Corridor===
As part of this plan a longshot possibility is the construction of a much needed '''Mid-Sierra Ultimate Interstate Corridor''' to provide interstate level connections to the California central valley, Fresno, and provide access to the bay area from the south. While construction of such a crossing would prove to be controversial and difficult, it would provide a second high quality mountain crossing in northern California offering relief for the heavily used I-80 corridor to the north and improving commerce and industry not only in Fresno and the central valley, but also along the eastern Sierra and the Great Basin. Should a Mid-Sierra crossing even be a possibility it would likely need to be a tolled road, utilize tunnel infrastructure and come with very strict environmental moratoriums to prevent sprawl and preserve the natural beauty of the mid-Sierra range, much of which is inaccessible to vehicles.

===Loneliest Road Corridor===
The [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] would largely traverse along or nearby the existing US-50 from Fernley, NV to an eastern connection with I-70 via Holden, UT or cove Fort, UT. See the [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] article for more information.

==Interstate Number Designation==
Several options are possible for an interstate designation for the corridor:

===I-13===
I-13 is probably the only potential number for the '''Eastern Sierra Corridor''' since it is a north south corridor and I-9 is already proposed as the route number to replace California 99 in the central valley. The I-13 designation would be located west of Interstate 15, yet it still violates the interstate convention in that it would lie west of proposed I-11. Should I-13 also be used on the Great Basin Corridor to Ely it would make more sense and at least that portion would lie within the interstate convention, even though that section is an east west section. If that were to happen, it could pave the way for a potential northward extension of I-13 from Ely to Twin Falls, ID following along the US-93 corridor.

===I-62 or I-58===
I-62 or I-58 are also possible route numbers for the '''Great Basin corridor''' and potentially the '''Mid-Sierra Corridor''' due to falling between I-70 and I-40. There may also be other numbers that can be chosen that fall between I-40 and I-70.

===I-70===
Ultimately the '''Great Basin Corridor''' could be numbered as I-70 if the northern alternative for I-70 through Fallon and Fernley, NV was not chosen. This would lead to I-70 ending in Tonopah or Bishop which could pave the way for a possible westward extension of I-70 via a '''Mid-Sierra Corridor''' over the central Sierras to serve the city of Fresno and making an additional connection to the central valley and the south bay.

==Alternate Routings==
Since the corridor is comprised of two segments they could be built or numbered independently, or just one or the other could be constructed based on traffic needs. Ultimately segment one (Eastern Sierra Corridor) makes more sense since it is a higher traffic corridor than segment two (US-6) and would connect southern California with the northwest and northern intermountain states very easily, especially if I-11 is built north of Las Vegas.

==Potential Auxiliary Routes==
This largely would depend on the route numbers chosen if built. One possible auxiliary route could be I-613 which could be constructed to replace the lower section of US-395 from Ridgecrest, CA down to Victorville connecting with I-15 and I-40.

==Plausibility==
Ultimately these conceptual corridors are just that, conceptual. These are purely hypothetical long-shot possibilities of various considerations for an ultimate western buildout of the interstate system. It never hurts to dream about the possibilities of the future, since you never know if there was someday a time where such routes would be useful. While at this time the need is minimal, over time the need for an interstate quality corridor along one or more of these sections may become more imminent. Until then, it is not as likely that we will see such a corridor for several decades.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Western US]]

Ultimate Interstates:High Desert Conceptual Corridor

2025-11-04T22:32:43Z

Indyroads:

[[File:Corridor HDCx.png|thumb|upright=1|High Desert Corridors Map]]
[[File:cencalmap.png|thumb|upright=0.5|Central California Map]]
[[File:socalmap.png|thumb|upright=0.5|Southern California Map]]
[[File:rtomap.png|thumb|upright=0.5|Western Nevada Map]]

The '''High Desert Ultimate Interstate Corridors''' are a group of ''conceptual'' interstate highway corridors following along sections of CA-14; US-395 and US-6 connecting the Southern California (Los Angeles/San Diego) megalopolis to Interstates 70, 80 and the planned [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] corridor. This would provide direct connections to many major intermountain cities including Reno, Boise, Salt Lake City, and Denver and provide better connections to intermountain states of Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.

==Routing==
This conceptual corridor consists of several segments.

===Eastern Sierra Corridor===
The '''Eastern Sierra Corridor''' is a predominantly north-south corridor that would upgrade California State Route 14 and portions of US-395 From East of the Tehachapi mountains and along the Eastern Sierra range from Newhall, CA to Bishop, CA, ultimately connecting to the planned planned [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] corridor near Coaldale, NV. Beginning at I-5 in the south the route follows the Antelope Valley Freeway (CA-14) northward from Santa Clarita, CA and through the Antelope Valley toward Mojave, CA intersecting with planned I-40 extension (current CA-58). It then continues north along CA-14 upgrading it to interstate standards and eventually merging with the US-395 corridor near Ridgecrest, CA. From there it continues north along an upgraded US-395 through the Owens Valley and into Bishop, CA. Bypassing Bishop to the east, the corridor would then follow an upgraded US-6 eastward until it reaches the [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] corridor.

Being along the east side of the Sierra range this route would connect many small cities together within Inyo, Mono and eastern Kern counties and open up opportunities to economic development along the corridor. Currently US-395 is one of America's great back roads and is very scenic with many natural resources, national parks and nature activities. Additionally having another north south corridor to complement the existing interstate system and provide an inland route away from busier more congested central valley cities is desirable.

===Great Basin Corridor===
The '''Great Basin Corridor''' is a predominantly east-west corridor that would upgrade sections of US-6 from Tonopah, NV to Ely, NV and the potential westward extension of [[Ultimate Interstates:I-70 Extension|I-70]] This corridor would serve a sparsely populated and largely remote section of central Nevada, but would provide more direct service between the eastern and central US and Central California.

With the Nevada desert being relatively sparsely populated, arguably, it does not make as much sense to build a 4-lane interstate along this segment unless there is an ultimate goal of creating a new corridor across the central Sierra Nevada range. Ultimately the need to build any corridor across these remote areas of the Great Basin would be to facilitate connections to I-80 or a new crossing of the Sierras. One could argue that construction of such a route would create induced demand, however the offset would be from potential fuel savings of a more direct route and less congestion than found on other routes, additionally, there could be a strategic national benefit due providing better connectivity to military and government installations in the area.

===Mid-Sierra Corridor===
As part of this plan a longshot possibility is the construction of a much needed '''Mid-Sierra Ultimate Interstate Corridor''' to provide interstate level connections to the California central valley, Fresno, and provide access to the bay area from the south. While construction of such a crossing would prove to be controversial and difficult, it would provide a second high quality mountain crossing in northern California offering relief for the heavily used I-80 corridor to the north and improving commerce and industry not only in Fresno and the central valley, but also along the eastern Sierra and the Great Basin. Should a Mid-Sierra crossing even be a possibility it would likely need to be a tolled road, utilize tunnel infrastructure and come with very strict environmental moratoriums to prevent sprawl and preserve the natural beauty of the mid-Sierra range, much of which is inaccessible to vehicles.

===Loneliest Road Corridor===
The [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] would largely traverse along or nearby the existing US-50 from Fernley, NV to an eastern connection with I-70 via Holden, UT or cove Fort, UT. See the [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] article for more information.

==Interstate Number Designation==
Several options are possible for an interstate designation for the corridor:

===I-13===
I-13 is probably the only potential number for the '''Eastern Sierra Corridor''' since it is a north south corridor and I-9 is already proposed as the route number to replace California 99 in the central valley. The I-13 designation would be located west of Interstate 15, yet it still violates the interstate convention in that it would lie west of proposed I-11. Should I-13 also be used on the Great Basin Corridor to Ely it would make more sense and at least that portion would lie within the interstate convention, even though that section is an east west section. If that were to happen, it could pave the way for a potential northward extension of I-13 from Ely to Twin Falls, ID following along the US-93 corridor.

===I-62 or I-58===
I-62 or I-58 are also possible route numbers for the '''Great Basin corridor''' and potentially the '''Mid-Sierra Corridor''' due to falling between I-70 and I-40. There may also be other numbers that can be chosen that fall between I-40 and I-70.

===I-70===
Ultimately the '''Great Basin Corridor''' could be numbered as I-70 if the northern alternative for I-70 through Fallon and Fernley, NV was not chosen. This would lead to I-70 ending in Tonopah or Bishop which could pave the way for a possible westward extension of I-70 via a '''Mid-Sierra Corridor''' over the central Sierras to serve the city of Fresno and making an additional connection to the central valley and the south bay.

==Alternate Routings==
Since the corridor is comprised of two segments they could be built or numbered independently, or just one or the other could be constructed based on traffic needs. Ultimately segment one (Eastern Sierra Corridor) makes more sense since it is a higher traffic corridor than segment two (US-6) and would connect southern California with the northwest and northern intermountain states very easily, especially if I-11 is built north of Las Vegas.

==Potential Auxiliary Routes==
This largely would depend on the route numbers chosen if built. One possible auxiliary route could be I-613 which could be constructed to replace the lower section of US-395 from Ridgecrest, CA down to Victorville connecting with I-15 and I-40.

==Plausibility==
Ultimately these conceptual corridors are just that, conceptual. These are purely hypothetical long-shot possibilities of various considerations for an ultimate western buildout of the interstate system. It never hurts to dream about the possibilities of the future, since you never know if there was someday a time where such routes would be useful. While at this time the need is minimal, over time the need for an interstate quality corridor along one or more of these sections may become more imminent. Until then, it is not as likely that we will see such a corridor for several decades.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Western US]]

File:Corridor HDCx.png

2025-11-04T20:33:44Z

Indyroads:

Ultimate Interstates:High Desert Conceptual Corridor

2025-11-04T20:30:50Z

Indyroads:

Ultimate Interstates:High Desert Conceptual Corridor

2025-11-04T20:30:31Z

Indyroads:

[[File:Corridor HDCx.png|thumb|upright=0.5|High Desert Corridors Map]]
[[File:cencalmap.png|thumb|upright=0.5|Central California Map]]
[[File:socalmap.png|thumb|upright=0.5|Southern California Map]]
[[File:rtomap.png|thumb|upright=0.5|Western Nevada Map]]

The '''High Desert Ultimate Interstate Corridor''' is a conceptual interstate highway corridor following along sections of CA-14; US-395 and US-6 connecting the Southern California (Los Angeles/San Diego) megapolitan area to Interstate 70, and Interstate 80 via a new [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] corridor. This would provide direct connections to many major intermountain cities including Reno, Boise, Salt Lake City, Denver and better connections to intermountain states such as Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.

==Routing==
This conceptual corridor consists of two segments.

===Segment One | Eastern Sierra Corridor===
Segment one would begin at I-5 in the south following along the CA-14 Antelope Valley Freeway from Santa Clarita, CA and travelling northward through the Antelope Valley and connecting with planned I-40 extension north of Mojave, CA. It would continue north from there along CA-14 where it would eventually merge with the US-395 corridor and continue north through the Owens Valley and Bishop, CA. From there the corridor would then follow US-6 eastward until it reaches the planned [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11|Interstate 11]] corridor near Coaldale, NV.

===Segment Two | Great Basin Corridor===
Segment two would continue east from there to Bishop and continue eastward along US-6 from Tonopah, NV traveling to Ely, NV and joining with the possible westward extension of [[Ultimate Interstates:I-70 Extension|I-70]]

==Interstate Number Designation==
Several options are possible for an interstate designation for the corridor:

===I-70===
Ultimately the interstate could be numbered as I-70 if the northern alternative for I-70 through Fallon and Fernley, NV are not chosen. Having I-70 end in Tonopah or Bishop could pave the way for a possible extension of I-70 over the central Sierras to serve the city of Fresno and the south bay.

===I-13===
The route could also be numbered as I-13 since it would be located west of Interstate 15 and would be mostly a north south corridor through the region. The route could be numbered as I-13 on just the first segment from Santa Clarita to I-11 or could be continued on to segment 2 to Ely. Choosing this number would allow the route to be extended northward from Ely to Twin Falls, ID following along the US-93 corridor.

===I-62 or I-58===
I-62 or I-58 is also a possibility for the eastern leg between Tonopah and Ely as well as it falls between I-70 and I-40 and would not be a primary interstate designation. There are other numbers that can be chosen that fall between I-40 and I-70.

==Alternate Routings==
Since the corridor is comprised of two segments they could be built or numbered independently, or just one or the other could be constructed based on traffic needs. Ultimately segment one (Eastern Sierra Corridor) makes more sense since it is a higher traffic corridor than segment two (US-6) and would connect southern california with the northwest and northern intermountain states very easily, especially if I-11 is built north of Las Vegas.

==Purpose and Need==
===Segment One===
Being along the east side of the Sierra range this route would connect many small cities together within Inyo, Mono and eastern Kern counties and open up opportunities to economic development along the corridor. Currently US-395 is one of America's great back roads and is very scenic with many natural resources, national parks and nature activities. Additionally having another north south corridor to compliment the existing interstate system and provide an inland route away from busier more congested central valley cities is desirable.

===Segment Two===
With the Nevada desert being relatively sparsely populated it does not make as much sense to build a 4 lane interstate along this segment unless there is an ultimate goal of creating a new corridor across the central Sierra Nevada range. Ultimately the need to build any corridor across these remote areas of the Great Basin would be to facilitate connections to I-80 or a new crossing of the Sierras.

==Potential Auxiliary Routes==
If built possible a possible auxiliary route (I-613) could be constructed to replace the lower section of US-395 from Ridgecrest, CA down to Victorville connecting with I-15 and I-40.

==Plausibility==
This corridor is an option for consideration to an ultimate western plan of the eventual buildout of the interstate system. While at this time the need is minimal over time the need for an interstate quality corridor along this section will become more iminent. However with that being said it is not as likely that we will see such a corridor for several decades.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Western US]]

Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11

2025-11-03T22:54:18Z

Indyroads: /* Purpose and Need */

[[File:corridor11.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 11 Overview]]
[[File:phx.jpg|thumb|upright|Phoenix Metro Map]]
[[File:lasvegas.png|thumb|upright|Las Vegas Metro Map]]
[[File:corridor11rtox.png|thumb|upright|Reno/Fallon Map]]
[[File:swidaho.png|thumb|upright|Boise Metro Map]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 11''' is a proposed interstate corridor that originates from from Nogales, Arizona I-11 travels north into Nevada crossing the new Colorado River Bridge near Hoover Dam. Then continues north via Reno or Fallon NV potentially along one of two corridors. US-95 toward Boise and Spokane or US-395 from Reno through Burns to Pasco WA. This interstate would replace existing sections of US-93, US-95 and potentially I-515 and sections of I-19 and US-395.

==Current I-11 Status and Development==
Interstate 11 is currently open to traffic from the Arizona-Nevada State line near the Hoover Dam. The route passes through the cities of Boulder City, Henderson, and Las Vagas. The route reaches its current northern terminus at Nevada SR-157 junction at Kyle Canyon on the northwestern edge of the Las Vegas Metro area. The route is intended to extended further north and south from its current routing.

===Las Vegas Metro===
Several potential I-11 routings in Las Vegas were considered in the Las Vegas Metro. One possible option included using parts of CC-215 and I-215 around the west side of the metro area. Another option was to construct a new route south of I-215 to connect to I-15 then continue northward to US-95. Some believed that is because both Clark County and NDOT preferred a bypass routing rather than going directly through downtown Las Vegas due to very heavy congestion during peak periods.

However, after opposition to these alternatives, the routing through downtown Las Vegas was chosen, replacing I-515 in its entirety. The route continues north along US-95 until it reaches Nevada State Route 157 due to the freeway already being constructed to interstate standards. The NDOT plans on upgrading the corridor northward from there heading towards Tonopah bypassing small towns along the way. The I-515 designation was officially retired in May 2024 with new I-11 shields having since been installed along the route.

Ultimately, Indyroads believes that the best route has been chosen since it provides the best route continuity northward through the region. Additionally, the I-215/CC-215 bypass will still serve as a viable option for drivers wanting to bypass busy downtown traffic during peak periods.

===Arizona===
In Arizona the route is also in development and has posted Future I-11 sings along US-93 located north of Wickenburg to the state line. South of Wickenburg there are many options for a potential routing of the ultimate I-11 corridor as you will see below. A bypass project in Kingman Arizona will construct a new system interchange at I-40 as part of this project. There are also bypass projects in the works near Wickenburg. Unfortunately, it will take a lengthy amount of time to upgrade the Arizona segments of US-93 to Interstate standards.

===Canamex Corridor===
Interstate 11 is now being planned as a new Canamex Corridor, linking freight traffic from Mexico to Canada, while serving important US destinations in the process. If constructed to its fullest extent, the I-11 would become a third Canamex corridor in the west (in addition to the extant I-5 and I-15 corridors). Planners would like this route to connect from the Nogales border crossing to connecting major metro areas such as Tucson, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Reno, and potentially Portland, Boise, Seattle or Spokane in the north. The route would link to British Columbia even possibly Calgary, depending on whether I-11 is routed along US-395 or US-95 north of I-80.

As shown on the map above, Indyroads believes a route favoring the Idaho Panhandle and the Spokane/Coeur D'Alene Metro area would be the best option, since it would serve currently underserved parts of the US and Cananda, as well as route through the port city of Lewiston, ID. The route could ultimately connect to TCH-1 (the major east west frieght corridor between Vancouver and Calgary) in either Kamloops or Kelowna, BC.

==Proposed Routings in Arizona==
Several proposals for the routing of the ultimate buildout of I-11 have been proposed. Looking at the various maps and news articles about the subject over the last 5-10 years it seems that many groups have some skin in the game. Originally intended to be a connection route from Phoenix to Las Vegas, the options have ballooned from there to an ultimate extension southward to Nogales AZ as a north american trade route that would continue all the way from Mexico to Canada at a yet to be determined canadian border crossing. [http://i11study.com/arizona/map.asp I-11 Study website]

<gallery>
File:example 11a.png|Proposed Routing in Arizona
File:example 11b.jpg|Greater Phoenix/Tuscon Metro - Image depicts various routing options
File:example 11c.png|Tucson routing detail showing possible I-110 connection south of Tucson
File:example 11d.jpg|Recommended Build Alternative
File:example 11e.png|Hassayampa Freeway Proposals
File:example 11f.jpg|Recommended Build Alternative - Alternative routes shown
</gallery>

===Tucson-Three Points Proposal===
One proposal has the route beginning to the south of Tucson at Interstate 19 and would travel westward toward Three Points and eventually northward with a connection spur back to I-10 in the Avra Valley from there the route connects to the proposed Hassayampa freeway or I-8 and continuing to Gila Bend, Arizona I-11 travels northward generally following (or to the east) of AZ route 85 connecting I-8 and I-10 west of the Phoenix metropolitan area.

===Hassayampa Freeway Proposal===
this route would beginning somewhere north of Tucson at a junction along I-10 north of the I-8/I-10 junction then travelling westward and eventually northward to connect to I-10 near SR-86 then continue toward Wickenburg AZ where it would connect to US-93. There are some options showing connections via I-8 instead of I-10, ans well as another option showing I-11 continuing eastward along a new route bypassing the Tucson metro to the north and connecting back to I-10 somewhere southeast of Tucson.

===Combined Route Proposal===
This proposed route would take elements of both the Hassayampa and Tucson routings and combine them into one proposed route. the PDF linked [[here]] gives the best description of the proposed routing and potential options. This routing as with others has some opposition due to the fact that it would travel largely in undeveloped desert regions and have an impact on the environment. Some conservation groups have addressed concerns about the routing of the new interstate in areas located west of Tucson.

==Routing options Nevada and Northward==
This segment of freeway can serve as a bypass for traffic around the Phoenix metro area via I-11 south to I-8 east to tucson. From there the corridor travels along new terrain located to the west of the White Tank Mountains until it reaches US-60. (Other proposals show I-11 using the southernmost segment of the new Loop 303 between US-60 and I-10 instead.) Since ultimate interstate 11 runs north and south west of the greater Phoenix metro area it is able to avoid costly right of way encroachments that would prevent construction. The route then turns northwest following US-60 to Wickenburg and then following US-93 north until it reaches I-40. From there I-11 continues north along US-93 until it crosses into Nevada at the new Hoover Dam Bridge. Once into Nevada I-11 would follow US-93 and then I-515 northward to I-15 in Las Vegas then terminating at the I-15 interchange.

==Potential Northern Routes==
North of Las Vegas the route will generally follow US-95 northward throughout the state north to a split somewhere south of Fallon NV.
===Reno/Pasco===
This route would head westward toward Minden and then would head north through Carson City and Reno then roughly follow the US-395 corridor through Oregon and then end at I-84 near the I-82 junction. It is possible that I-82 could then be redesignated as I-11. This option is not shown on the overview map above since the route through the Boise Metro would be preferred instead.

===Boise/Spokane===
This route would continue north through Fallon to I-80. From there it would be cosigned with I-80 from Fallon Junction to Winnemucca before continuing north along US-95 into Oregon. Eventually the route continues north toward Boise and Lewiston eventually ending in Spokane. This option is preferred by Indyroads as it would provide a more direct connection to Boise and the canadian border via the US-95 corridor.

<gallery>
File:example 11g.jpg|Proposed Routings Thru Nevada
File:example 11h.jpg|I-11 Route Options in Northern Nevada
File:example 11i.jpg|I-11 Route Options in Metro Las Vegas
</gallery>

==Indyroads Recommended Routing==
The route would begin at I-8 in Gila Bend AZ continuing north along AZ-86. Travel on a new terrain route to Wickenburg AZ then along the US-93 corridor through northern Arizona and connect to the exising I-11 in nevada. Once into Nevada I-11 would follow US-93 and then I-515 northward to I-15 in Las Vegas. North of Las Vegas the route would generally follow US-95 northward throughout the state north through Fallon then connecting to I-80. I-11 would be cosigned with I-80 from Fallon Junction to Winnemucca before continuing north along US-95 into Oregon. At McDermott NV I-11 would cross into Oregon from there it would likely follow US-95 north to Burns Junction then west to Jordan Valley. The route instead could a more direct easterly alternate routing from McDermitt over new terrain toward Jordan Valley and Idaho. From Jordan Valley the highway would travel possibly on either side of the state line until it turns northeastward along US-95 into Idaho a short distance north of Jordan Valley. Once in Idaho the route could either follow US-95 along the west side of the treasure valley or could connect to the future planned treasure valley bypass north to Caldwell and I-84, Then Continuing north on US-95 through Payette then north to Lewiston. An alternate route could also travel north along ID highway 16 through Emmett and along new terrain through the Indian Valley where it would rejoin US-95 south of Council,ID. This alternate has met some opposition as well although it would provide a safer more direct route north from Boise. From Lewiston it continues northwestward to the US-195 where it enters Washington. Once in Washington I-11 would generally follow US 195 through Pullman before terminating in Spokane WA.

==Purpose and Need==
This corridor solves several transportation issues. First it provides a connection from Phoenix to Las Vegas, Connects Las Vegas to Reno, and connects Sacramento and Reno to Boise, Lewiston, Spokane, and the Idaho Panhandle. Additionally there is a high volume of truck and commercial traffic along several sections of this corridor necessitates the corridor.

In Arizona, The biggest need is to complete the connection from the Hoover Dam to Kingman Arizona to complete the gap in case the highway is not extended further south to connect to Phoenix. Extending it to the Phoenix metro would then also improve interstate travel from Phoenix/Tucson to Las Vegas and close the gap on a vital connection to I-15 and Salt Lake City. South of the Phoenix Metro it may be better served to route I-11 to Sonoyta, Sonora eventually leading to the port city of Puerto Peñasco which could be further developed into a deep-water port as well as providing a relief route for I-19.

From Nevada northward, The corridor has already been approved and extended through Las Vegas replacing what was I-515 and then extending further northward to the Kyle Canyon Interchange. the current plan is for US-95 to continue to be upgraded in sections continuing the Interstate northward towards Either Carson City or Fallon where it could then connect to Reno or I-80 north of Fallon. The routing north of I-80 is much less certain. Some options including upgrading US-395 northward into California and Oregon while others favor an eastward route heading north from Winnemucca along US-95 with varying routes from there. Of these options, the better option is one that favors a connection to Boise, ID and the treasure valley with that being a possible terminus for the route, however the route could also continue up the panhandle toward Spokane/Coeur d'Alene instead, however this would require significant new right of way development through environmentally sensitive areas in western Idaho, and is much less likely to happen. Even if just the Winnemucca to Boise route was constructed, this would represent a significant milestone and close another major gap in the western interstate system.

==Alternate Routings==
Near Hawthorne Nevada instead of turning north directly to Fallon NV the route could continue northeast on a new alignment generally following the state border with California or the ultimate interstate planned extension of I-580 and then follow US-395 to Reno where it would be Cosigned with I-80 back to its original alignment towards Winnemucca. The I-11 section heading Due north through Fallon to I-80 would then become the I-211 bypass.

I-11 could also take a more direct northerly path through the heart of Nevada traveling around various military ranges and then directly to Winnemucca where it continues north to Oregon and Idaho. This routing would reduce mileage however it travels through largely uninhabited lands and is not a practical routing to connect Phoenix or Las Vegas to Reno.
North of Winnemucca I-11 could take amore direct northeasterly route directly to Boise, however construction costs of such a new terrain highway would be likely astronomical and negate any savings of the more direct route. Additionally upgrading the existing route would significantly improve travel times.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Western US]]

Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45

2025-06-16T21:57:23Z

Indyroads: /* Pittsburg Bypass */

[[File:corridor45.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 45 Overview]]
[[File:corridor45EKSx.png|thumb|upright|Eastern Kansas Detail Map]]
[[File:corridor45NEOKx.png|thumb|upright|Quad State Detail Map]]
[[File:corridor45COKx.png|thumb|upright|Central Oklahoma Detail Map]]
[[File:corridor45PITTx.png|thumb|upright|Pittsburg, KS Bypass]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 45''' is a proposed interstate corridor that extends I-45 north from Dallas, Texas to Overland Park, Kansas via the Tulsa Metro area.

==Current I-45 Status and Development==
'''Interstate 45''' is a major Interstate Highway that is currently located entirely within the U.S. state of Texas. Considering I-45's rather short length as a transcontinental interstate corridor (due to its x5 numbering) it is of vital importance since it connects the major metropolitan areas Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston/Galveston. Discussion in the past of extending I-45 northward has not taken alot of traction however existing corridor development to the north would make upgrading the corridor northward more favorable, Much of US-75 north of Dallas is already grade separated expressway and at or near interstate standards. Moving up into Oklahoma however, there are some sections of US-75 and US-69 that are not yet at interstate standards but there are many upgraded expressway and freeway sections that would allow for possible up conversion to interstate standards with some bypasses needed around some cities. Further north in Kansas some sections would need to be constructed on new terrain while others would improve existing 2 and 4 lane highways. North of Fort Scott however, the US-69 highway is already at interstate standards.

==Indyroads Recommended Routing==
The recommended routing as shown in the maps would extend I-45 northward along unsigned I-345 (replacing it) and would continue north along US-75 toward the Oklahoma Border where it picks up US-69 (in Denison, TX). The route would then continue to follow US-69/75 northward to Atoka, OK. From there the highway would continue along the US-69 routing through McAlester and Muskogee, OK ultimately reaching I-44 (Will Rogers Turnpike) near Big Cabin, OK. The route would follow along I-44 for approximately 30 miles to Miami, OK. From there the route would follow along or near OK-69A towards Picher, OK and Baxter Springs, KS, following near US-69 ALT and then north along or near US-69 toward Pittsburg and Ft Scott, KS bypassing both cities. From there it would continue up the US-69 freeway north to Overland Park, KS terminating at I-35 in Lenexa, KS.

==Auxiliary Routes==
'''Ultimate Interstate 145''' is an auxiliary interstate route that would connect Tulsa, OK to I-45 near McAlester, OK using the northern section of the Indian Nation Turnpike (OK-75) and continuing north along the US-75 freeway/expressway into Tulsa, OK terminating at I-244.

==Purpose and Need==
Ideally offering this connection would provide a better through route to Kansas City, St. Louis, and the northern plains cities that currently must use the existing I-35 corridor. Additionally, many cities along the corridor would benefit from the positive economic impact of having a major north south interstate corridor passing through. This corridor, in conjunction with the other planned interstate corridors, such as I-69, I-49, and I-42 (OK-AR)) would improve interconnectability as well providing alternatives for long distance traffic to have more direct access to some destinations, while bypassing other congested metro areas resulting in energy savings and less pollution.

==Alternate Routings==
Alternate routings are represented by the dotted blue or magenta lines.

*'''Alternative Routing 1'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Follows I-44 and rejoins Ultimate Interstate 45 at Miami, OK
*'''Alternative Routing 2'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Follows US-169 north of Tulsa to Iola, KS then heads west near US-54 and rejoins Ultimate Interstate 45 at Ft Scott, KS
*'''Alternative Routing 3'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Follows along US-169 north of Tulsa into Kansas then terminates at I-35 near Olathe, KS
*'''Alternative Routing 1A'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Diverts to a possible alternate routing near Okmulgee, OK traversing along a new expressway alignment to the Creek Turnpike (OK-364) near Broken Arrow, OK
**From there it Follows the Creek Turnpike (OK-345) northward until it reaches I-44 east of Tulsa.
**From there it Follows I-44 and rejoins Ultimate Interstate 45 at Miami, OK

==Proposed Improvements==
===Pittsburg Bypass===
The '''Crawford County Corridor''' is a proposed freeway bypass project being proposed by KDOT to improve US-69 from 1 to 3 miles north of Arma to US-400 south of Pittsburg. Initially Four proposed alignments were being studied for improvements to the highway in Crawford County. Of the 4 options the second western option was chosen as the preferred option due to less right of way encroachments at the north and south ends of the project. A connecting road from the south end of the project would have then tied the new bypass to the existing route about 1 mile south of US-400/K-171. The bypass project was moving forward until the cities of Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg Kansas passed resolutions removing their support of the western bypass option citing concerns about the impact of the western alignment of the route and asking the state to reconsider the routing. The cities are concerned about possible negative economic impacts of moving the highway further away. These cities prefer a more centralized alternative instead. As a result, the state is going back to the study phase to consider different possible alternatives. The map to the right shows the 4 potential alternatives considered. However, it remains to be seen in the next 2 years what will come out of the study going forward.

*'''Western Routing'''
**Option 1 Begins in the north from 1/2 mile north of 650th Ave curving off to the west to about 2 miles west of existing US-69 bypassing Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg before ending at US-400 at the Crawford/Cherokee county line, 1/2 mile west of the Kansas Crossing casino.
**Option 2 Begins in the north from just south of 670th Ave curving off to the west to about 2 miles west of existing US-69 bypassing Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg before ending at US-400 at the Crawford/Cherokee county line 1 mile west of the Kansas Crossing casino. This option became the preferred option for the bypass.
**the proposed interchanges for the western options are:
***640th Ave
***K-47 (620th Ave)
***US-160 (590th Ave)
***570th Ave/West Atkinson Ave
***K-126 (W 4th St)
***520th Ave
***US-400/K-171 (End of Freeway)

*'''Central Routing'''
**follows along the existing routing to approximately 1/2 mile west of the existing routing
**the proposed interchanges for the central option are:
***N West St/Business 69
***K-47 (620th Ave)
***US-160 (590th Ave)
***W Atkinson Ave
***K-126 (W 4th St)
***Business 69/Broadway
***US-400/K-171 (End of Freeway)

*'''Eastern Routing'''
**Begins in the north from 1/2 mile north of 650th Ave curving off to the east to about 1-3 miles east of existing US-69 following a meandering route around the east sides of Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg before rejoining the existing US-69 alignment 1/4 mile south of the Crawford/Cherokee county line.
**the proposed interchanges for the eastern option are:
***E South St/640th Ave
***K-47 (620th Ave)
***US-160 (590th Ave)
***E Atkinson Ave/570th Ave
***K-126 (E 4th St)
***Business 69/Broadway
***US-400/K-171

====April 2025 Update====
KDOT has been continuing to go back to having open houses to determine the needs for the corridor as well as being able to address some of the concerns brought up by local residents, stakeholders, crawford county and city governments invested in process. Because of this the immediate focus of the corridor study has changed regarding immediate and potential minor improvements to be made through 2030. This corridor had been under study and planning for full freeway upgrade with preliminary plans dating all the way back to 1999, with the initial EIS/EIR study completed in 2012 with a finding of no significant inpact (FONSI) and plans to proceed with the project in late 2023. The resulting outcry and withdrawal of support from several cities has stymied the project leaving the freeway with an uncertain future and KDOT making the following statement:

<blockquote>"KDOT is currently planning upgrades to some of the traffic signals, as well as speed feedback signs. Aside from these, there are no plans for this stretch of U.S. 69 highway. KDOT wants to collect community input and analyze updated traffic and crash data before making any decisions."</blockquote>

This could leave the door open potentially for a freeway in the future, but based on the statement and details available on the project website, it appears that this may be in the distant future. One can only assume if that means 2040 or 2050 or beyond. At any rate we remain steadfast in our support of a full limited access freeway corridor maintained from I-35 to I-44 in eastern Kansas, and this includes construction of this segment as a freeway.

You can read more about the project from the [https://www.ksdot.gov/projects/southeast-kansas-projects/u-s-69-highway-study-in-crawford-county-2024 KDOT US69 Crawford County Study Website]

====June 2025 Update====

KDOT has come back with its final concepts for improvements to be made to the Pittsburg to Arma corridor totaling an expected cost of $43 Million dollars to 'upgrade' the corridor and improve safety between 2026 to 2029. These improvements will provide a little relief to addressing the congestion and safety considerations along the corridor by partially restricting access along certain portions of the route, including RIRO (Right-in/Right-Out) access, the construction of 1 of 3 planned roundabouts, installation of additional traffic signage, signalized interchanges, and rumble strips. 2 additional roundabouts, 2 sweeping right (right turn channelization) ramps, and the addition of left turn and right turn acceeration and deceleration lanes are still being considered in the future and have yet to be funded for construction.

So, we have went from being nearly ready to start major construction of a long-needed freeway bypass that would have enhanced the region and would have been completed substantially by 2030 to now a handful of significantly inadequate minor improvements with a significantly hefty price tag. Ultimately, some of these improvements are needed, such as a roundabout at North Broadway and Atkinson for one. But this will not improve interstate commerce, it will not create the 4-lane freeway corridor originally imagined by KDOT when the northern portions of the expressway were constructed and opened. This effectively leaves US-69 as a dead-end in northern Crawford County because from there interstate traffic must then negotiate a network of narrow and congested 2-lane roads to continue further south. This is dissapointing to say the least.

Hopefully KDOT still has the greater vision of constructing the 4-lane through the region long term and is just addressing local concerns on the short term. By having capitulated so far to the cities of Arma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg they have set the area up to miss out on the benefits of being connected to a major commercial corridor. Something that neighboring Missouri took advantage of when they upgraded the US-71 corridor to what is now I-49. This has undoubtedly had a positive impact on cities along the corridor including Carthage, Lamar, Nevada, Butler, Appleton City, and Harrisonville. Benefits that could also bring similar growth to cities like Baxter Springs, Pittsburg, Arma, Fort Scott, and Pleasanton.

===Fort Scott Bypass===
[[File:corridor45FSx.png|thumb|upright|Fort Scott, KS Bypass]]
The '''Fort Scott Bypass''' is a preliminarily proposed freeway bypass project being considered by KDOT to improve US-69 from 1 mile north of Fort Scott to K-7/US69 Junction approximately 5 miles south of Fort Scott traveling around the east side of the city. The potential alignment shown in the illustration is for illustration purposes only depicting a possible location of the bypass route, as nothing has officially been proposed along the corridor.

Recent improvements to the US69 mainline between Wall Street and 18th were just completed in 2023 along a previously improved expressway section that would be difficult to upgrade to a full freeway for several reasons. First is the tight geometry due to several curves along this section of expressway, secondly, the expressway abruptly ends at the south end curving on to main street leaving no option for extending the expressway further south. Third, converting intersections at 3rd Street, 6th Street, and 12th Street to grade separated crossings or intersections would also be difficult due to elevation issues and lack of room to build bridge approaches without elevating the expressway. It does appear that at one time the extension of this expressway was planned further southward. Evidence of this is visibileif you look at what appears to be an exit ramp built into the East National Ave bridge at the south end and noticeably vacant land located to the immediate southeast where the expressway would have likely curved to the southeast then crossing the railroad tracks and continuing south.

Should a bypass be constructed potential exits would likely be constructed at:
* US-54 West/US-69 Business/K-7 on the north end
* Wall Street/US-54 East
* Jayhawk Rd
* K-7/US69 Business in the south as the bypass reconnects to the existing routing in the south.
* Partial interchange at Grand Road

Construction of the bypass is most definitely needed in order to fulfill the goal of having a full interstate quality freeway from Kansas City to Interstate 44 through southeast Kansas, which if completed could become part of the Interstate 45 corridor if it is ever extended north of Dallas. While there is concerns and some opposition to it due to the potential threat of economic decline, such as has been witnessed in smaller towns like Pleasanton, there are ways to mitigate this and promote the city as a regional center, thus protecting its commerce and keeping it a destination city, rather than a town to just drive around on your way to somewhere else. These same concerns are also part of the reason why there has been much consternation regarding the freeway bypasses proposed around Pittsburg and Frontenac. It remains to be seen if attempts move forward with the bypass will come however it looks like it will be several years if not decades before a Fort Scott bypass could become a reality.

===Fort Scott to Arma===
Upgrades were completed along US69 from the K-7 junction south of Fort Scott to Arma constructing the 2-lane segment into a 4-lane expressway with at grade intersections spaced 1 mile apart. Plans also call for the eventual upgrade of the corridor to full freeway standards with limited access grade separation and property access maintained by the use of frontage roads to connect to interchanges along the corridor

The proposed upgrades to freeway standard include:
* Connect to the planned Pittsburg Bypass (Crawford County Corridor) south of the 680th Ave intersection
* Upgrade 680th Ave to a standard diamond interchange
* Close access at 690th Ave - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via adjoining roads
* Grade separation at 700th Ave
* Upgrade 710th Ave to a standard diamond interchange
* Grade separation at 720th Ave
* Close access at 730th Ave - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via adjoining roads
* Close access at Birch Rd - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via adjoining roads
* Grade separation at Cavalry Rd
* Close access at Deer Rd - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via frontage/adjoining roads
* Upgrade Eagle Rd to a standard diamond interchange
* Close access at Fern Rd - Access via frontage road
* Grand Rd access would remain at grade (likely to be upgraded in the future or due to long range planning for a Fort Scott bypass)

Officially the state opted to move forward with the upgradable expressway for the time being due to the expressway meeting the traffic needs for the foreseeable future. However right of way has been preserved for the ultimate upgrade of the highway to full freeway standards possibly by 2040.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Midwest US]]

Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45

2025-05-29T23:06:59Z

Indyroads:

[[File:corridor45.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 45 Overview]]
[[File:corridor45EKSx.png|thumb|upright|Eastern Kansas Detail Map]]
[[File:corridor45NEOKx.png|thumb|upright|Quad State Detail Map]]
[[File:corridor45COKx.png|thumb|upright|Central Oklahoma Detail Map]]
[[File:corridor45PITTx.png|thumb|upright|Pittsburg, KS Bypass]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 45''' is a proposed interstate corridor that extends I-45 north from Dallas, Texas to Overland Park, Kansas via the Tulsa Metro area.

==Current I-45 Status and Development==
'''Interstate 45''' is a major Interstate Highway that is currently located entirely within the U.S. state of Texas. Considering I-45's rather short length as a transcontinental interstate corridor (due to its x5 numbering) it is of vital importance since it connects the major metropolitan areas Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston/Galveston. Discussion in the past of extending I-45 northward has not taken alot of traction however existing corridor development to the north would make upgrading the corridor northward more favorable, Much of US-75 north of Dallas is already grade separated expressway and at or near interstate standards. Moving up into Oklahoma however, there are some sections of US-75 and US-69 that are not yet at interstate standards but there are many upgraded expressway and freeway sections that would allow for possible up conversion to interstate standards with some bypasses needed around some cities. Further north in Kansas some sections would need to be constructed on new terrain while others would improve existing 2 and 4 lane highways. North of Fort Scott however, the US-69 highway is already at interstate standards.

==Indyroads Recommended Routing==
The recommended routing as shown in the maps would extend I-45 northward along unsigned I-345 (replacing it) and would continue north along US-75 toward the Oklahoma Border where it picks up US-69 (in Denison, TX). The route would then continue to follow US-69/75 northward to Atoka, OK. From there the highway would continue along the US-69 routing through McAlester and Muskogee, OK ultimately reaching I-44 (Will Rogers Turnpike) near Big Cabin, OK. The route would follow along I-44 for approximately 30 miles to Miami, OK. From there the route would follow along or near OK-69A towards Picher, OK and Baxter Springs, KS, following near US-69 ALT and then north along or near US-69 toward Pittsburg and Ft Scott, KS bypassing both cities. From there it would continue up the US-69 freeway north to Overland Park, KS terminating at I-35 in Lenexa, KS.

==Auxiliary Routes==
'''Ultimate Interstate 145''' is an auxiliary interstate route that would connect Tulsa, OK to I-45 near McAlester, OK using the northern section of the Indian Nation Turnpike (OK-75) and continuing north along the US-75 freeway/expressway into Tulsa, OK terminating at I-244.

==Purpose and Need==
Ideally offering this connection would provide a better through route to Kansas City, St. Louis, and the northern plains cities that currently must use the existing I-35 corridor. Additionally, many cities along the corridor would benefit from the positive economic impact of having a major north south interstate corridor passing through. This corridor, in conjunction with the other planned interstate corridors, such as I-69, I-49, and I-42 (OK-AR)) would improve interconnectability as well providing alternatives for long distance traffic to have more direct access to some destinations, while bypassing other congested metro areas resulting in energy savings and less pollution.

==Alternate Routings==
Alternate routings are represented by the dotted blue or magenta lines.

*'''Alternative Routing 1'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Follows I-44 and rejoins Ultimate Interstate 45 at Miami, OK
*'''Alternative Routing 2'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Follows US-169 north of Tulsa to Iola, KS then heads west near US-54 and rejoins Ultimate Interstate 45 at Ft Scott, KS
*'''Alternative Routing 3'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Follows along US-169 north of Tulsa into Kansas then terminates at I-35 near Olathe, KS
*'''Alternative Routing 1A'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Diverts to a possible alternate routing near Okmulgee, OK traversing along a new expressway alignment to the Creek Turnpike (OK-364) near Broken Arrow, OK
**From there it Follows the Creek Turnpike (OK-345) northward until it reaches I-44 east of Tulsa.
**From there it Follows I-44 and rejoins Ultimate Interstate 45 at Miami, OK

==Proposed Improvements==
===Pittsburg Bypass===
The '''Crawford County Corridor''' is a proposed freeway bypass project being proposed by KDOT to improve US-69 from 1 to 3 miles north of Arma to US-400 south of Pittsburg. Initially Four proposed alignments were being studied for improvements to the highway in Crawford County. Of the 4 options the second western option was chosen as the preferred option due to less right of way encroachments at the north and south ends of the project. A connecting road from the south end of the project would have then tied the new bypass to the existing route about 1 mile south of US-400/K-171. The bypass project was moving forward until the cities of Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg Kansas passed resolutions removing their support of the western bypass option citing concerns about the impact of the western alignment of the route and asking the state to reconsider the routing. The cities are concerned about possible negative economic impacts of moving the highway further away. These cities prefer a more centralized alternative instead. As a result, the state is going back to the study phase to consider different possible alternatives. The map to the right shows the 4 potential alternatives considered. However, it remains to be seen in the next 2 years what will come out of the study going forward.

*'''Western Routing'''
**Option 1 Begins in the north from 1/2 mile north of 650th Ave curving off to the west to about 2 miles west of existing US-69 bypassing Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg before ending at US-400 at the Crawford/Cherokee county line, 1/2 mile west of the Kansas Crossing casino.
**Option 2 Begins in the north from just south of 670th Ave curving off to the west to about 2 miles west of existing US-69 bypassing Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg before ending at US-400 at the Crawford/Cherokee county line 1 mile west of the Kansas Crossing casino. This option became the preferred option for the bypass.
**the proposed interchanges for the western options are:
***640th Ave
***K-47 (620th Ave)
***US-160 (590th Ave)
***570th Ave/West Atkinson Ave
***K-126 (W 4th St)
***520th Ave
***US-400/K-171 (End of Freeway)

*'''Central Routing'''
**follows along the existing routing to approximately 1/2 mile west of the existing routing
**the proposed interchanges for the central option are:
***N West St/Business 69
***K-47 (620th Ave)
***US-160 (590th Ave)
***W Atkinson Ave
***K-126 (W 4th St)
***Business 69/Broadway
***US-400/K-171 (End of Freeway)

*'''Eastern Routing'''
**Begins in the north from 1/2 mile north of 650th Ave curving off to the east to about 1-3 miles east of existing US-69 following a meandering route around the east sides of Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg before rejoining the existing US-69 alignment 1/4 mile south of the Crawford/Cherokee county line.
**the proposed interchanges for the eastern option are:
***E South St/640th Ave
***K-47 (620th Ave)
***US-160 (590th Ave)
***E Atkinson Ave/570th Ave
***K-126 (E 4th St)
***Business 69/Broadway
***US-400/K-171

====2024/2025 Update====
KDOT has been continuing to go back to having open houses to determine the needs for the corridor as well as being able to address some of the concerns brought up by local residents, stakeholders, crawford county and city governments invested in process. Because of this the immediate focus of the corridor study has changed regarding immediate and potential minor improvements to be made through 2030. This corridor had been under study and planning for full freeway upgrade with preliminary plans dating all the way back to 1999, with the initial EIS/EIR study completed in 2012 with a finding of no significant inpact (FONSI) and plans to proceed with the project in late 2023. The resulting outcry and withdrawal of support from several cities has stymied the project leaving the freeway with an uncertain future and KDOT making the following statement:

<blockquote>"KDOT is currently planning upgrades to some of the traffic signals, as well as speed feedback signs. Aside from these, there are no plans for this stretch of U.S. 69 highway. KDOT wants to collect community input and analyze updated traffic and crash data before making any decisions."</blockquote>

This could leave the door open potentially for a freeway in the future, but based on the statement and details available on the project website, it appears that this may be in the distant future. One can only assume if that means 2040 or 2050 or beyond. At any rate we remain steadfast in our support of a full limited access freeway corridor maintained from I-35 to I-44 in eastern Kansas, and this includes construction of this segment as a freeway.

You can read more about the project from the [https://www.ksdot.gov/projects/southeast-kansas-projects/u-s-69-highway-study-in-crawford-county-2024 KDOT US69 Crawford County Study Website]

===Fort Scott Bypass===
[[File:corridor45FSx.png|thumb|upright|Fort Scott, KS Bypass]]
The '''Fort Scott Bypass''' is a preliminarily proposed freeway bypass project being considered by KDOT to improve US-69 from 1 mile north of Fort Scott to K-7/US69 Junction approximately 5 miles south of Fort Scott traveling around the east side of the city. The potential alignment shown in the illustration is for illustration purposes only depicting a possible location of the bypass route, as nothing has officially been proposed along the corridor.

Recent improvements to the US69 mainline between Wall Street and 18th were just completed in 2023 along a previously improved expressway section that would be difficult to upgrade to a full freeway for several reasons. First is the tight geometry due to several curves along this section of expressway, secondly, the expressway abruptly ends at the south end curving on to main street leaving no option for extending the expressway further south. Third, converting intersections at 3rd Street, 6th Street, and 12th Street to grade separated crossings or intersections would also be difficult due to elevation issues and lack of room to build bridge approaches without elevating the expressway. It does appear that at one time the extension of this expressway was planned further southward. Evidence of this is visibileif you look at what appears to be an exit ramp built into the East National Ave bridge at the south end and noticeably vacant land located to the immediate southeast where the expressway would have likely curved to the southeast then crossing the railroad tracks and continuing south.

Should a bypass be constructed potential exits would likely be constructed at:
* US-54 West/US-69 Business/K-7 on the north end
* Wall Street/US-54 East
* Jayhawk Rd
* K-7/US69 Business in the south as the bypass reconnects to the existing routing in the south.
* Partial interchange at Grand Road

Construction of the bypass is most definitely needed in order to fulfill the goal of having a full interstate quality freeway from Kansas City to Interstate 44 through southeast Kansas, which if completed could become part of the Interstate 45 corridor if it is ever extended north of Dallas. While there is concerns and some opposition to it due to the potential threat of economic decline, such as has been witnessed in smaller towns like Pleasanton, there are ways to mitigate this and promote the city as a regional center, thus protecting its commerce and keeping it a destination city, rather than a town to just drive around on your way to somewhere else. These same concerns are also part of the reason why there has been much consternation regarding the freeway bypasses proposed around Pittsburg and Frontenac. It remains to be seen if attempts move forward with the bypass will come however it looks like it will be several years if not decades before a Fort Scott bypass could become a reality.

===Fort Scott to Arma===
Upgrades were completed along US69 from the K-7 junction south of Fort Scott to Arma constructing the 2-lane segment into a 4-lane expressway with at grade intersections spaced 1 mile apart. Plans also call for the eventual upgrade of the corridor to full freeway standards with limited access grade separation and property access maintained by the use of frontage roads to connect to interchanges along the corridor

The proposed upgrades to freeway standard include:
* Connect to the planned Pittsburg Bypass (Crawford County Corridor) south of the 680th Ave intersection
* Upgrade 680th Ave to a standard diamond interchange
* Close access at 690th Ave - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via adjoining roads
* Grade separation at 700th Ave
* Upgrade 710th Ave to a standard diamond interchange
* Grade separation at 720th Ave
* Close access at 730th Ave - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via adjoining roads
* Close access at Birch Rd - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via adjoining roads
* Grade separation at Cavalry Rd
* Close access at Deer Rd - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via frontage/adjoining roads
* Upgrade Eagle Rd to a standard diamond interchange
* Close access at Fern Rd - Access via frontage road
* Grand Rd access would remain at grade (likely to be upgraded in the future or due to long range planning for a Fort Scott bypass)

Officially the state opted to move forward with the upgradable expressway for the time being due to the expressway meeting the traffic needs for the foreseeable future. However right of way has been preserved for the ultimate upgrade of the highway to full freeway standards possibly by 2040.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Midwest US]]

Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45

2025-05-29T23:04:42Z

Indyroads:

[[File:corridor45.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 45 Overview]]
[[File:corridor45EKSx.png|thumb|upright|Eastern Kansas Detail Map]]
[[File:corridor45NEOKx.png|thumb|upright|Quad State Detail Map]]
[[File:corridor45COKx.png|thumb|upright|Central Oklahoma Detail Map]]
[[File:corridor45PITTx.png|thumb|upright|Pittsburg, KS Bypass]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 45''' is a proposed interstate corridor that extends I-45 north from Dallas, Texas to Overland Park, Kansas via the Tulsa Metro area.

==Current I-45 Status and Development==
'''Interstate 45''' is a major Interstate Highway that is currently located entirely within the U.S. state of Texas. Considering I-45's rather short length as a transcontinental interstate corridor (due to its x5 numbering) it is of vital importance since it connects the major metropolitan areas Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston/Galveston. Discussion in the past of extending I-45 northward has not taken alot of traction however existing corridor development to the north would make upgrading the corridor northward more favorable, Much of US-75 north of Dallas is already grade separated expressway and at or near interstate standards. Moving up into Oklahoma however, there are some sections of US-75 and US-69 that are not yet at interstate standards but there are many upgraded expressway and freeway sections that would allow for possible up conversion to interstate standards with some bypasses needed around some cities. Further north in Kansas some sections would need to be constructed on new terrain while others would improve existing 2 and 4 lane highways. North of Fort Scott however, the US-69 highway is already at interstate standards.

==Indyroads Recommended Routing==
The recommended routing as shown in the maps would extend I-45 northward along unsigned I-345 (replacing it) and would continue north along US-75 toward the Oklahoma Border where it picks up US-69 (in Denison, TX). The route would then continue to follow US-69/75 northward to Atoka, OK. From there the highway would continue along the US-69 routing through McAlester and Muskogee, OK ultimately reaching I-44 (Will Rogers Turnpike) near Big Cabin, OK. The route would follow along I-44 for approximately 30 miles to Miami, OK. From there the route would follow along or near OK-69A towards Picher, OK and Baxter Springs, KS, following near US-69 ALT and then north along or near US-69 toward Pittsburg and Ft Scott, KS bypassing both cities. From there it would continue up the US-69 freeway north to Overland Park, KS terminating at I-35 in Lenexa, KS.

==Auxiliary Routes==
'''Ultimate Interstate 145''' is an auxiliary interstate route that would connect Tulsa, OK to I-45 near McAlester, OK using the northern section of the Indian Nation Turnpike (OK-75) and continuing north along the US-75 freeway/expressway into Tulsa, OK terminating at I-244.

==Purpose and Need==
Ideally offering this connection would provide a better through route to Kansas City, St. Louis, and the northern plains cities that currently must use the existing I-35 corridor. Additionally, many cities along the corridor would benefit from the positive economic impact of having a major north south interstate corridor passing through. This corridor, in conjunction with the other planned interstate corridors, such as I-69, I-49, and I-42 (OK-AR)) would improve interconnectability as well providing alternatives for long distance traffic to have more direct access to some destinations, while bypassing other congested metro areas resulting in energy savings and less pollution.

==Alternate Routings==
Alternate routings are represented by the dotted blue or magenta lines.

*'''Alternative Routing 1'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Follows I-44 and rejoins Ultimate Interstate 45 at Miami, OK
*'''Alternative Routing 2'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Follows US-169 north of Tulsa to Iola, KS then heads west near US-54 and rejoins Ultimate Interstate 45 at Ft Scott, KS
*'''Alternative Routing 3'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Follows along US-169 north of Tulsa into Kansas then terminates at I-35 near Olathe, KS
*'''Alternative Routing 1A'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Diverts to a possible alternate routing near Okmulgee, OK traversing along a new expressway alignment to the Creek Turnpike (OK-364) near Broken Arrow, OK
**From there it Follows the Creek Turnpike (OK-345) northward until it reaches I-44 east of Tulsa.
**From there it Follows I-44 and rejoins Ultimate Interstate 45 at Miami, OK

==Proposed Improvements==
===Pittsburg Bypass===
The '''Crawford County Corridor''' is a proposed freeway bypass project being proposed by KDOT to improve US-69 from 1 to 3 miles north of Arma to US-400 south of Pittsburg. Initially Four proposed alignments were being studied for improvements to the highway in Crawford County. Of the 4 options the second western option was chosen as the preferred option due to less right of way encroachments at the north and south ends of the project. A connecting road from the south end of the project would have then tied the new bypass to the existing route about 1 mile south of US-400/K-171. The bypass project was moving forward until the cities of Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg Kansas passed resolutions removing their support of the western bypass option citing concerns about the impact of the western alignment of the route and asking the state to reconsider the routing. The cities are concerned about possible negative economic impacts of moving the highway further away. These cities prefer a more centralized alternative instead. As a result, the state is going back to the study phase to consider different possible alternatives. The map to the right shows the 4 potential alternatives considered. However, it remains to be seen in the next 2 years what will come out of the study going forward.

*'''Western Routing'''
**Option 1 Begins in the north from 1/2 mile north of 650th Ave curving off to the west to about 2 miles west of existing US-69 bypassing Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg before ending at US-400 at the Crawford/Cherokee county line, 1/2 mile west of the Kansas Crossing casino.
**Option 2 Begins in the north from just south of 670th Ave curving off to the west to about 2 miles west of existing US-69 bypassing Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg before ending at US-400 at the Crawford/Cherokee county line 1 mile west of the Kansas Crossing casino. This option became the preferred option for the bypass.
**the proposed interchanges for the western options are:
***640th Ave
***K-47 (620th Ave)
***US-160 (590th Ave)
***570th Ave/West Atkinson Ave
***K-126 (W 4th St)
***520th Ave
***US-400/K-171 (End of Freeway)

*'''Central Routing'''
**follows along the existing routing to approximately 1/2 mile west of the existing routing
**the proposed interchanges for the central option are:
***N West St/Business 69
***K-47 (620th Ave)
***US-160 (590th Ave)
***W Atkinson Ave
***K-126 (W 4th St)
***Business 69/Broadway
***US-400/K-171 (End of Freeway)

*'''Eastern Routing'''
**Begins in the north from 1/2 mile north of 650th Ave curving off to the east to about 1-3 miles east of existing US-69 following a meandering route around the east sides of Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg before rejoining the existing US-69 alignment 1/4 mile south of the Crawford/Cherokee county line.
**the proposed interchanges for the eastern option are:
***E South St/640th Ave
***K-47 (620th Ave)
***US-160 (590th Ave)
***E Atkinson Ave/570th Ave
***K-126 (E 4th St)
***Business 69/Broadway
***US-400/K-171

====2024/2025 Update====
KDOT has been continuing to go back to having open houses to determine the needs for the corridor as well as being able to address some of the concerns brought up by local residents, stakeholders, crawford county and city governments invested in process. Because of this the immediate focus of the corridor study has changed regarding immediate and potential minor improvements to be made through 2030. This corridor had been under study and planning for full freeway upgrade with preliminary plans dating all the way back to 1999, with the initial EIS/EIR study completed in 2012 with a finding of no significant inpact (FONSI) and plans to proceed with the project in late 2023. The resulting outcry and withdrawal of support from several cities has stymied the project leaving the freeway with an uncertain future and KDOT making the following statement:

"KDOT is currently planning upgrades to some of the traffic signals, as well as speed feedback signs. Aside from these, there are no plans for this stretch of U.S. 69 highway. KDOT wants to collect community input and analyze updated traffic and crash data before making any decisions."

This could leave the door open potentially for a freeway in the future, but based on the statement and details available on the project website, it appears that this may be in the distant future. One can only assume if that means 2040 or 2050 or beyond. At any rate we remain steadfast in our support of a full limited access freeway corridor maintained from I-35 to I-44 in eastern Kansas, and this includes construction of this segment as a freeway.

You can read more about the project from the [https://www.ksdot.gov/projects/southeast-kansas-projects/u-s-69-highway-study-in-crawford-county-2024 KDOT US69 Crawford County Study Website]

===Fort Scott Bypass===
[[File:corridor45FSx.png|thumb|upright|Fort Scott, KS Bypass]]
The '''Fort Scott Bypass''' is a preliminarily proposed freeway bypass project being considered by KDOT to improve US-69 from 1 mile north of Fort Scott to K-7/US69 Junction approximately 5 miles south of Fort Scott traveling around the east side of the city. The potential alignment shown in the illustration is for illustration purposes only depicting a possible location of the bypass route, as nothing has officially been proposed along the corridor.

Recent improvements to the US69 mainline between Wall Street and 18th were just completed in 2023 along a previously improved expressway section that would be difficult to upgrade to a full freeway for several reasons. First is the tight geometry due to several curves along this section of expressway, secondly, the expressway abruptly ends at the south end curving on to main street leaving no option for extending the expressway further south. Third, converting intersections at 3rd Street, 6th Street, and 12th Street to grade separated crossings or intersections would also be difficult due to elevation issues and lack of room to build bridge approaches without elevating the expressway. It does appear that at one time the extension of this expressway was planned further southward. Evidence of this is visibileif you look at what appears to be an exit ramp built into the East National Ave bridge at the south end and noticeably vacant land located to the immediate southeast where the expressway would have likely curved to the southeast then crossing the railroad tracks and continuing south.

Should a bypass be constructed potential exits would likely be constructed at:
* US-54 West/US-69 Business/K-7 on the north end
* Wall Street/US-54 East
* Jayhawk Rd
* K-7/US69 Business in the south as the bypass reconnects to the existing routing in the south.
* Partial interchange at Grand Road

Construction of the bypass is most definitely needed in order to fulfill the goal of having a full interstate quality freeway from Kansas City to Interstate 44 through southeast Kansas, which if completed could become part of the Interstate 45 corridor if it is ever extended north of Dallas. While there is concerns and some opposition to it due to the potential threat of economic decline, such as has been witnessed in smaller towns like Pleasanton, there are ways to mitigate this and promote the city as a regional center, thus protecting its commerce and keeping it a destination city, rather than a town to just drive around on your way to somewhere else. These same concerns are also part of the reason why there has been much consternation regarding the freeway bypasses proposed around Pittsburg and Frontenac. It remains to be seen if attempts move forward with the bypass will come however it looks like it will be several years if not decades before a Fort Scott bypass could become a reality.

===Fort Scott to Arma===
Upgrades were completed along US69 from the K-7 junction south of Fort Scott to Arma constructing the 2-lane segment into a 4-lane expressway with at grade intersections spaced 1 mile apart. Plans also call for the eventual upgrade of the corridor to full freeway standards with limited access grade separation and property access maintained by the use of frontage roads to connect to interchanges along the corridor

The proposed upgrades to freeway standard include:
* Connect to the planned Pittsburg Bypass (Crawford County Corridor) south of the 680th Ave intersection
* Upgrade 680th Ave to a standard diamond interchange
* Close access at 690th Ave - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via adjoining roads
* Grade separation at 700th Ave
* Upgrade 710th Ave to a standard diamond interchange
* Grade separation at 720th Ave
* Close access at 730th Ave - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via adjoining roads
* Close access at Birch Rd - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via adjoining roads
* Grade separation at Cavalry Rd
* Close access at Deer Rd - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via frontage/adjoining roads
* Upgrade Eagle Rd to a standard diamond interchange
* Close access at Fern Rd - Access via frontage road
* Grand Rd access would remain at grade (likely to be upgraded in the future or due to long range planning for a Fort Scott bypass)

Officially the state opted to move forward with the upgradable expressway for the time being due to the expressway meeting the traffic needs for the foreseeable future. However right of way has been preserved for the ultimate upgrade of the highway to full freeway standards possibly by 2040.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Midwest US]]

Main Page/Major Highway Projects

2025-05-29T23:02:05Z

Indyroads:

{| style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0; border:1px solid #ddd;"
| style="width:10%; font-size:200%;" align="center" |
'''Featured Major Highway Projects''' 
|-
| style="width:10%; font-size:150%;" |
* Indiana - [[Clear Path 465/69|465/69 Northeast Project - Clear Path]]
* Indiana - [[65/70 North Split|65/70 North Split Reconstruction]]
* Indiana - [[SR-37 Hamilton Parkway]] Noblesville/Fishers
* Indiana - [[465 Northwest]]
* California - [[Placer Parkway]]
* Kansas - [[69 Express]]
* Kansas - [[Ultimate_Interstates:Corridor_45#Pittsburg_Bypass|69 Pittsburg Bypass]] - '''UPDATED'''
* Idaho - [[State Highway 16]]

*'''[[Portal:Projects|More...]]'''
|}

Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45

2025-05-29T23:00:55Z

Indyroads:

[[File:corridor45.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 45 Overview]]
[[File:corridor45EKSx.png|thumb|upright|Eastern Kansas Detail Map]]
[[File:corridor45NEOKx.png|thumb|upright|Quad State Detail Map]]
[[File:corridor45COKx.png|thumb|upright|Central Oklahoma Detail Map]]
[[File:corridor45PITTx.png|thumb|upright|Pittsburg, KS Bypass]]
[[File:corridor45FSx.png|thumb|upright|Fort Scott, KS Bypass]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 45''' is a proposed interstate corridor that extends I-45 north from Dallas, Texas to Overland Park, Kansas via the Tulsa Metro area.

==Current I-45 Status and Development==
'''Interstate 45''' is a major Interstate Highway that is currently located entirely within the U.S. state of Texas. Considering I-45's rather short length as a transcontinental interstate corridor (due to its x5 numbering) it is of vital importance since it connects the major metropolitan areas Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston/Galveston. Discussion in the past of extending I-45 northward has not taken alot of traction however existing corridor development to the north would make upgrading the corridor northward more favorable, Much of US-75 north of Dallas is already grade separated expressway and at or near interstate standards. Moving up into Oklahoma however, there are some sections of US-75 and US-69 that are not yet at interstate standards but there are many upgraded expressway and freeway sections that would allow for possible up conversion to interstate standards with some bypasses needed around some cities. Further north in Kansas some sections would need to be constructed on new terrain while others would improve existing 2 and 4 lane highways. North of Fort Scott however, the US-69 highway is already at interstate standards.

==Indyroads Recommended Routing==
The recommended routing as shown in the maps would extend I-45 northward along unsigned I-345 (replacing it) and would continue north along US-75 toward the Oklahoma Border where it picks up US-69 (in Denison, TX). The route would then continue to follow US-69/75 northward to Atoka, OK. From there the highway would continue along the US-69 routing through McAlester and Muskogee, OK ultimately reaching I-44 (Will Rogers Turnpike) near Big Cabin, OK. The route would follow along I-44 for approximately 30 miles to Miami, OK. From there the route would follow along or near OK-69A towards Picher, OK and Baxter Springs, KS, following near US-69 ALT and then north along or near US-69 toward Pittsburg and Ft Scott, KS bypassing both cities. From there it would continue up the US-69 freeway north to Overland Park, KS terminating at I-35 in Lenexa, KS.

==Auxiliary Routes==
'''Ultimate Interstate 145''' is an auxiliary interstate route that would connect Tulsa, OK to I-45 near McAlester, OK using the northern section of the Indian Nation Turnpike (OK-75) and continuing north along the US-75 freeway/expressway into Tulsa, OK terminating at I-244.

==Purpose and Need==
Ideally offering this connection would provide a better through route to Kansas City, St. Louis, and the northern plains cities that currently must use the existing I-35 corridor. Additionally, many cities along the corridor would benefit from the positive economic impact of having a major north south interstate corridor passing through. This corridor, in conjunction with the other planned interstate corridors, such as I-69, I-49, and I-42 (OK-AR)) would improve interconnectability as well providing alternatives for long distance traffic to have more direct access to some destinations, while bypassing other congested metro areas resulting in energy savings and less pollution.

==Alternate Routings==
Alternate routings are represented by the dotted blue or magenta lines.

*'''Alternative Routing 1'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Follows I-44 and rejoins Ultimate Interstate 45 at Miami, OK
*'''Alternative Routing 2'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Follows US-169 north of Tulsa to Iola, KS then heads west near US-54 and rejoins Ultimate Interstate 45 at Ft Scott, KS
*'''Alternative Routing 3'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Follows along US-169 north of Tulsa into Kansas then terminates at I-35 near Olathe, KS
*'''Alternative Routing 1A'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Diverts to a possible alternate routing near Okmulgee, OK traversing along a new expressway alignment to the Creek Turnpike (OK-364) near Broken Arrow, OK
**From there it Follows the Creek Turnpike (OK-345) northward until it reaches I-44 east of Tulsa.
**From there it Follows I-44 and rejoins Ultimate Interstate 45 at Miami, OK

==Proposed Improvements==
===Pittsburg Bypass===
The '''Crawford County Corridor''' is a proposed freeway bypass project being proposed by KDOT to improve US-69 from 1 to 3 miles north of Arma to US-400 south of Pittsburg. Initially Four proposed alignments were being studied for improvements to the highway in Crawford County. Of the 4 options the second western option was chosen as the preferred option due to less right of way encroachments at the north and south ends of the project. A connecting road from the south end of the project would have then tied the new bypass to the existing route about 1 mile south of US-400/K-171. The bypass project was moving forward until the cities of Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg Kansas passed resolutions removing their support of the western bypass option citing concerns about the impact of the western alignment of the route and asking the state to reconsider the routing. The cities are concerned about possible negative economic impacts of moving the highway further away. These cities prefer a more centralized alternative instead. As a result, the state is going back to the study phase to consider different possible alternatives. The map to the right shows the 4 potential alternatives considered. However, it remains to be seen in the next 2 years what will come out of the study going forward.

*'''Western Routing'''
**Option 1 Begins in the north from 1/2 mile north of 650th Ave curving off to the west to about 2 miles west of existing US-69 bypassing Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg before ending at US-400 at the Crawford/Cherokee county line, 1/2 mile west of the Kansas Crossing casino.
**Option 2 Begins in the north from just south of 670th Ave curving off to the west to about 2 miles west of existing US-69 bypassing Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg before ending at US-400 at the Crawford/Cherokee county line 1 mile west of the Kansas Crossing casino. This option became the preferred option for the bypass.
**the proposed interchanges for the western options are:
***640th Ave
***K-47 (620th Ave)
***US-160 (590th Ave)
***570th Ave/West Atkinson Ave
***K-126 (W 4th St)
***520th Ave
***US-400/K-171 (End of Freeway)

*'''Central Routing'''
**follows along the existing routing to approximately 1/2 mile west of the existing routing
**the proposed interchanges for the central option are:
***N West St/Business 69
***K-47 (620th Ave)
***US-160 (590th Ave)
***W Atkinson Ave
***K-126 (W 4th St)
***Business 69/Broadway
***US-400/K-171 (End of Freeway)

*'''Eastern Routing'''
**Begins in the north from 1/2 mile north of 650th Ave curving off to the east to about 1-3 miles east of existing US-69 following a meandering route around the east sides of Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg before rejoining the existing US-69 alignment 1/4 mile south of the Crawford/Cherokee county line.
**the proposed interchanges for the eastern option are:
***E South St/640th Ave
***K-47 (620th Ave)
***US-160 (590th Ave)
***E Atkinson Ave/570th Ave
***K-126 (E 4th St)
***Business 69/Broadway
***US-400/K-171

====2024/2025 Update====
KDOT has been continuing to go back to having open houses to determine the needs for the corridor as well as being able to address some of the concerns brought up by local residents, stakeholders, crawford county and city governments invested in process. Because of this the immediate focus of the corridor study has changed regarding immediate and potential minor improvements to be made through 2030. This corridor had been under study and planning for full freeway upgrade with preliminary plans dating all the way back to 1999, with the initial EIS/EIR study completed in 2012 with a finding of no significant inpact (FONSI) and plans to proceed with the project in late 2023. The resulting outcry and withdrawal of support from several cities has stymied the project leaving the freeway with an uncertain future and KDOT making the following statement:

"KDOT is currently planning upgrades to some of the traffic signals, as well as speed feedback signs. Aside from these, there are no plans for this stretch of U.S. 69 highway. KDOT wants to collect community input and analyze updated traffic and crash data before making any decisions."

This could leave the door open potentially for a freeway in the future, but based on the statement and details available on the project website, it appears that this may be in the distant future. One can only assume if that means 2040 or 2050 or beyond. At any rate we remain steadfast in our support of a full limited access freeway corridor maintained from I-35 to I-44 in eastern Kansas, and this includes construction of this segment as a freeway.

===Fort Scott Bypass===
The '''Fort Scott Bypass''' is a preliminarily proposed freeway bypass project being considered by KDOT to improve US-69 from 1 mile north of Fort Scott to K-7/US69 Junction approximately 5 miles south of Fort Scott traveling around the east side of the city. The potential alignment shown in the illustration is for illustration purposes only depicting a possible location of the bypass route, as nothing has officially been proposed along the corridor.

Recent improvements to the US69 mainline between Wall Street and 18th were just completed in 2023 along a previously improved expressway section that would be difficult to upgrade to a full freeway for several reasons. First is the tight geometry due to several curves along this section of expressway, secondly, the expressway abruptly ends at the south end curving on to main street leaving no option for extending the expressway further south. Third, converting intersections at 3rd Street, 6th Street, and 12th Street to grade separated crossings or intersections would also be difficult due to elevation issues and lack of room to build bridge approaches without elevating the expressway. It does appear that at one time the extension of this expressway was planned further southward. Evidence of this is visibileif you look at what appears to be an exit ramp built into the East National Ave bridge at the south end and noticeably vacant land located to the immediate southeast where the expressway would have likely curved to the southeast then crossing the railroad tracks and continuing south.

Should a bypass be constructed potential exits would likely be constructed at:
* US-54 West/US-69 Business/K-7 on the north end
* Wall Street/US-54 East
* Jayhawk Rd
* K-7/US69 Business in the south as the bypass reconnects to the existing routing in the south.
* Partial interchange at Grand Road

Construction of the bypass is most definitely needed in order to fulfill the goal of having a full interstate quality freeway from Kansas City to Interstate 44 through southeast Kansas, which if completed could become part of the Interstate 45 corridor if it is ever extended north of Dallas. While there is concerns and some opposition to it due to the potential threat of economic decline, such as has been witnessed in smaller towns like Pleasanton, there are ways to mitigate this and promote the city as a regional center, thus protecting its commerce and keeping it a destination city, rather than a town to just drive around on your way to somewhere else. These same concerns are also part of the reason why there has been much consternation regarding the freeway bypasses proposed around Pittsburg and Frontenac. It remains to be seen if attempts move forward with the bypass will come however it looks like it will be several years if not decades before a Fort Scott bypass could become a reality.

===Fort Scott to Arma===
Upgrades were completed along US69 from the K-7 junction south of Fort Scott to Arma constructing the 2-lane segment into a 4-lane expressway with at grade intersections spaced 1 mile apart. Plans also call for the eventual upgrade of the corridor to full freeway standards with limited access grade separation and property access maintained by the use of frontage roads to connect to interchanges along the corridor

The proposed upgrades to freeway standard include:
* Connect to the planned Pittsburg Bypass (Crawford County Corridor) south of the 680th Ave intersection
* Upgrade 680th Ave to a standard diamond interchange
* Close access at 690th Ave - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via adjoining roads
* Grade separation at 700th Ave
* Upgrade 710th Ave to a standard diamond interchange
* Grade separation at 720th Ave
* Close access at 730th Ave - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via adjoining roads
* Close access at Birch Rd - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via adjoining roads
* Grade separation at Cavalry Rd
* Close access at Deer Rd - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via frontage/adjoining roads
* Upgrade Eagle Rd to a standard diamond interchange
* Close access at Fern Rd - Access via frontage road
* Grand Rd access would remain at grade (likely to be upgraded in the future or due to long range planning for a Fort Scott bypass)

Officially the state opted to move forward with the upgradable expressway for the time being due to the expressway meeting the traffic needs for the foreseeable future. However right of way has been preserved for the ultimate upgrade of the highway to full freeway standards possibly by 2040.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Midwest US]]

Indiana Tolling

2025-05-29T19:39:34Z

Indyroads:

=Welcome to Indiana - Now Pay Up!=

Could this become a reality for the Hoosier state. What a way to roll out the welcome mat. Many states have toll roads. The most would be states like Florida and New York which have their thruways and turnpikes, but even there, there are more freeways then tollways in these states. And tollways are seen as a long distance means of travel and typically do not serve commuters which many of Indiana's existing interstates do. Indiana already has an image issue when it comes to travel and tourism, and the last thing that we want to do is to discourage people from visiting our state because of having to pay tolls everywhere they travel. Kentucky removed tolls from it's parkways to open up its state and has some of the best freeways in the country. In fact they have nearly upgraded I-65 to 6 lanes through the entire state, a massive feat that will set them far ahead of their neighbors and ensure that Kentucky is open to commerce. Indiana needs to follow suit, but do it without tolls.

==The problem with tolling==
===Tolling is a regressive tax===
Tolling is a tax. Albeit a use tax, but it is still a tax. what makes it regressive is that those that have the highest incomes are least affected financially by the tolls than those who have the lowest incomes. Some people that have a hard time being able to keep gas in the car will now have to drive additional miles and avoid the toll roads to avoid having to pay the exorbitant tolls proposed by the state. Sure initially they seem small but $0.50 a mile adds up quickly and on a 15 mile trip that is $7.50 toll one way in just one trip. Even at $0.25 per mile it would be $3.25 for that same trip. And would that really close the highway funding gap as the state claims. Not likely. What is not factored in is the cost to collect the tolls. Electronic tolling systems still require employees in call centers ran by third party companies that will charge the state a share of the tolls collected as a fee in collecting them. Not only that but the tolling gantries have to be installed at several million dollars around the state.

===Tolling would be done on freeways already paid for with taxpayer money.===
If anyone doesn't see an issue with this I cannot see why. The interstate highways that the state legislature is studying placing tolls on have long been paid for and even upgrades have been completed and paid for. In addition, tolling a highway such as I-65 and then diverting that money to a state road project far away in a remote part of the state away from I-65 would be a misuse of the tolls collected along that highway. Shouldn't the money collected there be only allowed for use on the road collected? It's common sense. Are we really going to get into a situation where we lease away our highways to a consortium so that we can repair our dilapidating infrastructure.

===Why penalize people for mismanagement and deferred maintenance===
So where did the road funds go. What is the state doing to guarantee that there is money in the budget to repair and replace and even upgrade the roads we have but also add roads we need. That question would stymie us all I am afraid. What happened to federal aid dollars that came in to help build new projects. The reality is people do not clamor and protest for roads. They do that for government benefits and welfare, healthcare and disability. Don't get me wrong there are some that legitimately need access to social programs, but if we overspend in those areas and have too much fraud waste and abuse then it's no wonder that there isn't any money left for roads and transportation.

===When in dire need go after their pocketbooks===
It seems that whenever faced with a crisis that government's first response it to raise taxes or propose new fees (taxes), or now try to turn free paid for roads into revenue generating "toll" (tax) roads. Why not try cutting spending in the transportation budget or looking at other state budgets to see where money can be trimmed so that it can be allocated more appropriately into where it will benefit the people the greatest. With safer, more efficient, and better roads.

==Taking Action==
The reality is we can take action but it requires you. If you don't want to have to pay potentially thousands of dollars a year in tolls you need to let your state assemblymember and senator know, and contact the governor's office. Write letters if you have to telling them you adamantly oppose open tolling on freeways in the state.

==Can tolling be a benefit?==
===Not opposed to all Toll Roads===
Tolling when used in the right ways can be a beneficial source of income or help pay off construction costs related to new capitol investments (new road projects) or major upgrades to a highway.
===Areas where tolling can be used===
Tolling can be used on brand new highway projects like bypasses or new expressways where construction bonds are issued to help pay for the cost of construction. For dedicated lanes such a HOT lanes or HOV-toll lanes. These lanes allow people to carpool for reduced or no toll but opens the road to those not carpooling that need access for a free.Areas where constructions bonds were issued to pay for road projects.

==May 2025 Update==
With in the last 2 weeks Indiana's new Governor Mike Braun has revived the idea of adding tolls to I-70 and I-65 throughout the entire state "to make up for infrastructure revenue shortfall" as reported by [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUKJpp_mGnQ CBS4 Indy] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI5rAix-Z7s WTHR] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APoHeqXGZUM FOX59]. We have already laid out the case why we do not support adding tolls to highways already constructed with federal funds, and the negative impact they would have to the lower tax brackets. But we also are opposed to increasing the already high gas tax as well, which is in the higher tier in the nation compared to other states.

[[Category:Indiana]][[Category:Articles]]

Indiana Tolling

2025-05-29T19:38:07Z

Indyroads:

=Welcome to Indiana - Now Pay up=

Could this become a reality for the Hoosier state. What a way to roll out the welcome mat. Many states have toll roads. The most would be states like Florida and New York which have their thruways and turnpikes, but even there, there are more freeways then tollways in these states. And tollways are seen as a long distance means of travel and typically do not serve commuters which many of Indiana's existing interstates do. Indiana already has an image issue when it comes to travel and tourism, and the last thing that we want to do is to discourage people from visiting our state because of having to pay tolls everywhere they travel. Kentucky removed tolls from it's parkways to open up its state and has some of the best freeways in the country. In fact they have nearly upgraded I-65 to 6 lanes through the entire state, a massive feat that will set them far ahead of their neighbors and ensure that Kentucky is open to commerce. Indiana needs to follow suit, but do it without tolls.

==The problem with tolling==
===Tolling is a regressive tax===
Tolling is a tax. Albeit a use tax, but it is still a tax. what makes it regressive is that those that have the highest incomes are least affected financially by the tolls than those who have the lowest incomes. Some people that have a hard time being able to keep gas in the car will now have to drive additional miles and avoid the toll roads to avoid having to pay the exorbitant tolls proposed by the state. Sure initially they seem small but $0.50 a mile adds up quickly and on a 15 mile trip that is $7.50 toll one way in just one trip. Even at $0.25 per mile it would be $3.25 for that same trip. And would that really close the highway funding gap as the state claims. Not likely. What is not factored in is the cost to collect the tolls. Electronic tolling systems still require employees in call centers ran by third party companies that will charge the state a share of the tolls collected as a fee in collecting them. Not only that but the tolling gantries have to be installed at several million dollars around the state.

===Tolling would be done on freeways already paid for with taxpayer money.===
If anyone doesn't see an issue with this I cannot see why. The interstate highways that the state legislature is studying placing tolls on have long been paid for and even upgrades have been completed and paid for. In addition, tolling a highway such as I-65 and then diverting that money to a state road project far away in a remote part of the state away from I-65 would be a misuse of the tolls collected along that highway. Shouldn't the money collected there be only allowed for use on the road collected? It's common sense. Are we really going to get into a situation where we lease away our highways to a consortium so that we can repair our dilapidating infrastructure.

===Why penalize people for mismanagement and deferred maintenance===
So where did the road funds go. What is the state doing to guarantee that there is money in the budget to repair and replace and even upgrade the roads we have but also add roads we need. That question would stymie us all I am afraid. What happened to federal aid dollars that came in to help build new projects. The reality is people do not clamor and protest for roads. They do that for government benefits and welfare, healthcare and disability. Don't get me wrong there are some that legitimately need access to social programs, but if we overspend in those areas and have too much fraud waste and abuse then it's no wonder that there isn't any money left for roads and transportation.

===When in dire need go after their pocketbooks===
It seems that whenever faced with a crisis that government's first response it to raise taxes or propose new fees (taxes), or now try to turn free paid for roads into revenue generating "toll" (tax) roads. Why not try cutting spending in the transportation budget or looking at other state budgets to see where money can be trimmed so that it can be allocated more appropriately into where it will benefit the people the greatest. With safer, more efficient, and better roads.

==Taking Action==
The reality is we can take action but it requires you. If you don't want to have to pay potentially thousands of dollars a year in tolls you need to let your state assemblymember and senator know, and contact the governor's office. Write letters if you have to telling them you adamantly oppose open tolling on freeways in the state.

==Can tolling be a benefit?==
===Not opposed to all Toll Roads===
Tolling when used in the right ways can be a beneficial source of income or help pay off construction costs related to new capitol investments (new road projects) or major upgrades to a highway.
===Areas where tolling can be used===
Tolling can be used on brand new highway projects like bypasses or new expressways where construction bonds are issued to help pay for the cost of construction. For dedicated lanes such a HOT lanes or HOV-toll lanes. These lanes allow people to carpool for reduced or no toll but opens the road to those not carpooling that need access for a free.Areas where constructions bonds were issued to pay for road projects.

==May 2025 Update==
With in the last 2 weeks Indiana's new Governor Mike Braun has revived the idea of adding tolls to I-70 and I-65 throughout the entire state "to make up for infrastructure revenue shortfall" as reported by [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUKJpp_mGnQ CBS4 Indy][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI5rAix-Z7s WTHR] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APoHeqXGZUM FOX59]. We have already laid out the case why we do not support adding tolls to highways already constructed with federal funds, and the negative impact they would have to the lower tax brackets. But we also are opposed to increasing the already high gas tax as well, which is in the higher tier in the nation compared to other states.

[[Category:Indiana]][[Category:Articles]]

Main Page/FeaturedArticles

2025-05-29T19:26:48Z

Indyroads:

{| style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0; border:1px solid #ddd;"
| style="width:10%; font-size:200%;" align="center" |
'''Articles''' 
|-
| style="width:10%; font-size:150%;" |
* Indiana - [[Indiana Tolling|Interstate Tolling]] - '''UPDATED'''
* [[Environmental Impact Studies...A Waste of Money?|EIR-EIS A Waste of Money]] - '''NEW'''
* Kansas- [[Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Tax Proposal]]
* Indiana - [[Ramp Metering|Is it Time for Ramp Metering in Indianapolis?]]
* Indiana - [[Northern Interchange Project|Lebanon Northern Interchange Feasability Study]]
* Indiana - [[Northside Strangler Interchange]]
* [[Restoring Left Lane Etiquette]]
* [[Lane Controls|Lane Control Signaling, Why it may Just be a Good Thing.]]
*'''[[:Category:Articles|More...]]'''
|}

Main Page/Highway Visions

2025-05-29T19:25:46Z

Indyroads:

{| style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0; border:1px solid #ddd;"
| style="width:10%; font-size:200%;" align="center" |
'''Visions''' 
|-
| style="width:10%; font-size:150%;" |
* Kansas - [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45#Fort Scott Bypass|US-69 Fort Scott Bypass]] - '''NEW'''
* Indiana - [[Indianapolis Metro Visions]]
* Indiana - [[Corridors in Motion 32]]
* Indiana - [[Corridors in Motion 231]]
* Indiana - [[US-36 Rockville Parkway]]
* [[Ultimate_Interstates:Corridors_7_and_9|Ultimate Interstates 7 & 9]]
* [[Ultimate_Interstates:Corridor_11|Ultimate Interstate 11]]
* [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45|Ultimate Interstate 45]] - '''UPDATED'''
* [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 69|Ultimate Interstate 69]]
*'''[[Portal:Visions|More...]]'''
|}

Main Page/Highway Visions

2025-05-29T19:24:24Z

Indyroads:

{| style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0; border:1px solid #ddd;"
| style="width:10%; font-size:200%;" align="center" |
'''Visions''' 
|-
| style="width:10%; font-size:150%;" |
* Kansas - [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45#Fort Scott Bypass|US-69 Fort Scott Bypass]] - '''NEW'''
* Indiana - [[Indianapolis Metro Visions]]
* Indiana - [[Corridors in Motion 32]]
* Indiana - [[Corridors in Motion 231]]
* Indiana - [[US-36 Rockville Parkway]]
* [[Ultimate_Interstates:Corridors_7_and_9|Ultimate Interstates 7 & 9]]
* [[Ultimate_Interstates:Corridor_11|Ultimate Interstate 11]]
* [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45|Ultimate Interstate 45]]
* [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 69|Ultimate Interstate 69]]
*'''[[Portal:Visions|More...]]'''
|}

Main Page/FeaturedArticles

2025-05-29T19:23:37Z

Indyroads:

{| style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0; border:1px solid #ddd;"
| style="width:10%; font-size:200%;" align="center" |
'''Articles''' 
|-
| style="width:10%; font-size:150%;" |
* Indiana - [[Indiana Tolling|Interstate Tolling]] - '''UPDATE'''
* [[Environmental Impact Studies...A Waste of Money?|EIR-EIS A Waste of Money]] - '''NEW'''
* Kansas- [[Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Tax Proposal]]
* Indiana - [[Ramp Metering|Is it Time for Ramp Metering in Indianapolis?]]
* Indiana - [[Northern Interchange Project|Lebanon Northern Interchange Feasability Study]]
* Indiana - [[Northside Strangler Interchange]]
* [[Restoring Left Lane Etiquette]]
* [[Lane Controls|Lane Control Signaling, Why it may Just be a Good Thing.]]
*'''[[:Category:Articles|More...]]'''
|}

Environmental Impact Studies...A Waste of Money?

2025-05-29T19:22:42Z

Indyroads: Created page with "The question must be asked... Are Environmental Impact Studies a Waste of Money? Arguably there is a solid principal of counting the cost of any project and investigating the impacts that planned projects may have, such as economic, engineering, social, mobility, property, and yes even environmental impacts. However in some states these seem to have become a way to significantly delay or even prevent new transportation projects from coming to fruition in the first place..."

The question must be asked... Are Environmental Impact Studies a Waste of Money?

Arguably there is a solid principal of counting the cost of any project and investigating the impacts that planned projects may have, such as economic, engineering, social, mobility, property, and yes even environmental impacts. However in some states these seem to have become a way to significantly delay or even prevent new transportation projects from coming to fruition in the first place. Why? Because of the red tape involved in the process of new projects. Looking at California as the definitive text case for this type of thing are organizations whose sole mission is to circumvent progress in the state towards addressing congestion and improving transportation. Targeted mainly at projects that are seen as car-dependent. Yet these efforts have also been used to delay and prevent even mass transit projects from going forward. Not to mention the immense costs of the studies and the preparation of EIS/EIR reports. And after all of that cost invested by state departments of transportation, project stakeholders, study firms, the project could be stopped completely in its tracks resulting in a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. For successfully completed transportation projects however these can range from a respectable 10% of the overall cost of the project to in some cases more than 25% depending on the issues identified, and the impacts addressed. This is a huge cost.

It seems in some cases, most predominantly in California, that EIS/EIR statements have a sole environmental or ecological focus, while placing other important factors such as the economic or social impact of projects a distant second. Additionally, organizations such as the Sierra Club have even used the court system to block projects on environmental grounds.

Additionally, there has been intense scrutiny on the ever continuing California High Speed rail project, which would be the first of its kind in the nation to bring true high speed rail (speeds up to 220MPH or 350 km/h) to the united states, which can serve as an important milestone in seeing other similar high speed projects around the US in the future. Environmentalists and politicians alike seem to consistently lament America's love affair with automobiles and desire to see alternative methods of transportation developed that will bring people out of their cars. While high speed rail and mass transit will not 'fix' this issue, they could go a long way toward providing viable alternatives to nationwide travel and commuting which could potentially reduce the time that some people spend driving in their cars.

But let's not kid ourselves. In our vast nation there is little likelihood that automobiles will ever go away aside from "Scotty" beaming us from one place to another using transporters, like in Star Trek, Sure autonomous vehicles are coming, and that requires all new infrastructure to make that happen, but individual methods of conveyance are not going anywhere.

I am not arguing that we should do away with EIS/EIR studies, but that they be reformed or revamped in such a way that they cannot be used to inequitably tie up projects in so much red tape that they die. In Portland, Oregon for instance, the new Columbia River Crossing to Vancouver, replacing the aging and outdated Interstate Bridge from Hayden Island was nearly killed, only to be resurrected at the last minute. Yet we must also remember the days when Transportation planners acted carte blanche, bulldozing through neighborhoods and environmentally sensitive areas to build expressways. Many of these neighborhoods were economically depressed or had large ethnic minority populations. Leading to the famous Freeway revolts that happened in many cities in the US, Including Portland, OR and San Fransisco. Ultimately this is why the EPA was created, which instituted the EIS/EIR process. It was a safety net to stop what would have been unnecessary or destructive transportation projects from being built. Just look at old planning maps for Portland and San Francisco from the 50's and 60's and you can see how ambitious the planners were. Even transportation visionaries like Robert Moses became highway crazed and went to far with their ambitious plans, in some cases creating highways to nowhere.

Arguably some areas are better without the planned expressways that would have littered the landscape especially in San Francisco and Portland which would have been carved up into pieces with the numerous freeways that were proposed. Most everyone was glad to see the Embarcadero and Central Freeways come down in San Francisco following the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, However this left the Golden Gate forever severed from the rest of the regional highway system, forcing interstate and regional traffic to negotiate city streets in one of the most densely compacted cities in America. Not Ideal.

So where is the happy medium? Where can both sides agree? Is there a way to still have the safeguards that impact studies provide while still allowing needed transportation projects to go forward, while also keeping costs low? I certainly hope so.

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Opinion]]
[[Category:Indiana]]

Main Page/FeaturedArticles

2025-05-29T18:35:47Z

Indyroads:

{| style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0; border:1px solid #ddd;"
| style="width:10%; font-size:200%;" align="center" |
'''Articles''' 
|-
| style="width:10%; font-size:150%;" |
* Indiana - [[Indiana Tolling|Interstate Tolling]] - '''UPDATE'''
* Kansas- [[Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Tax Proposal]]
* Indiana - [[Ramp Metering|Is it Time for Ramp Metering in Indianapolis?]]
* Indiana - [[Northern Interchange Project|Lebanon Northern Interchange Feasability Study]]
* Indiana - [[Northside Strangler Interchange]]
* [[Restoring Left Lane Etiquette]]
* [[Lane Controls|Lane Control Signaling, Why it may Just be a Good Thing.]]
* [[Environmental Impact Studies...A Waste of Money?|EIR-EIS A Waste of Money]]
*'''[[:Category:Articles|More...]]'''
|}

Main Page/Highway Visions

2025-05-29T00:19:37Z

Indyroads:

{| style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0; border:1px solid #ddd;"
| style="width:10%; font-size:200%;" align="center" |
'''Visions''' 
|-
| style="width:10%; font-size:150%;" |
* Indiana - [[Indianapolis Metro Visions]]
* Indiana - [[Corridors in Motion 32]]
* Indiana - [[Corridors in Motion 231]]
* Indiana - [[US-36 Rockville Parkway]]
* Kansas - [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45#Fort Scott Bypass|US-69 Fort Scott Bypass]]
* [[Ultimate_Interstates:Corridors_7_and_9|Ultimate Interstates 7 & 9]]
* [[Ultimate_Interstates:Corridor_11|Ultimate Interstate 11]]
* [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45|Ultimate Interstate 45]]
* [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 69|Ultimate Interstate 69]]
*'''[[Portal:Visions|More...]]'''
|}

Main Page/Highway Visions

2025-05-29T00:19:16Z

Indyroads:

{| style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0; border:1px solid #ddd;"
| style="width:10%; font-size:200%;" align="center" |
'''Visions''' 
|-
| style="width:10%; font-size:150%;" |
* Indiana - [[Indianapolis Metro Visions]]
* Indiana - [[Corridors in Motion 32]]
* Indiana - [[Corridors in Motion 231]]
* Indiana - [[US-36 Rockville Parkway]]
* Indiana - [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45#Fort Scott Bypass|US-69 Fort Scott Bypass]]
* [[Ultimate_Interstates:Corridors_7_and_9|Ultimate Interstates 7 & 9]]
* [[Ultimate_Interstates:Corridor_11|Ultimate Interstate 11]]
* [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45|Ultimate Interstate 45]]
* [[Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 69|Ultimate Interstate 69]]
*'''[[Portal:Visions|More...]]'''
|}

File:Corridor45FSx.png

2025-05-28T16:42:34Z

Indyroads:

Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45

2025-05-28T16:41:49Z

Indyroads:

[[File:corridor45.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 45 Overview]]
[[File:corridor45EKSx.png|thumb|upright|Eastern Kansas Detail Map]]
[[File:corridor45NEOKx.png|thumb|upright|Quad State Detail Map]]
[[File:corridor45COKx.png|thumb|upright|Central Oklahoma Detail Map]]
[[File:corridor45PITTx.png|thumb|upright|Pittsburg, KS Bypass]]
[[File:corridor45FSx.png|thumb|upright|Fort Scott, KS Bypass]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 45''' is a proposed interstate corridor that extends I-45 north from Dallas, Texas to Overland Park, Kansas via the Tulsa Metro area.

==Current I-45 Status and Development==
'''Interstate 45''' is a major Interstate Highway that is currently located entirely within the U.S. state of Texas. Considering I-45's rather short length as a transcontinental interstate corridor (due to its x5 numbering) it is of vital importance since it connects the major metropolitan areas Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston/Galveston. Discussion in the past of extending I-45 northward has not taken alot of traction however existing corridor development to the north would make upgrading the corridor northward more favorable, Much of US-75 north of Dallas is already grade separated expressway and at or near interstate standards. Moving up into Oklahoma however, there are some sections of US-75 and US-69 that are not yet at interstate standards but there are many upgraded expressway and freeway sections that would allow for possible up conversion to interstate standards with some bypasses needed around some cities. Further north in Kansas some sections would need to be constructed on new terrain while others would improve existing 2 and 4 lane highways. North of Fort Scott however, the US-69 highway is already at interstate standards.

==Indyroads Recommended Routing==
The recommended routing as shown in the maps would extend I-45 northward along unsigned I-345 (replacing it) and would continue north along US-75 toward the Oklahoma Border where it picks up US-69 (in Denison, TX). The route would then continue to follow US-69/75 northward to Atoka, OK. From there the highway would continue along the US-69 routing through McAlester and Muskogee, OK ultimately reaching I-44 (Will Rogers Turnpike) near Big Cabin, OK. The route would follow along I-44 for approximately 30 miles to Miami, OK. From there the route would follow along or near OK-69A towards Picher, OK and Baxter Springs, KS, following near US-69 ALT and then north along or near US-69 toward Pittsburg and Ft Scott, KS bypassing both cities. From there it would continue up the US-69 freeway north to Overland Park, KS terminating at I-35 in Lenexa, KS.

==Auxiliary Routes==
'''Ultimate Interstate 145''' is an auxiliary interstate route that would connect Tulsa, OK to I-45 near McAlester, OK using the northern section of the Indian Nation Turnpike (OK-75) and continuing north along the US-75 freeway/expressway into Tulsa, OK terminating at I-244.

==Purpose and Need==
Ideally offering this connection would provide a better through route to Kansas City, St. Louis, and the northern plains cities that currently must use the existing I-35 corridor. Additionally, many cities along the corridor would benefit from the positive economic impact of having a major north south interstate corridor passing through. This corridor, in conjunction with the other planned interstate corridors, such as I-69, I-49, and I-42 (OK-AR)) would improve interconnectability as well providing alternatives for long distance traffic to have more direct access to some destinations, while bypassing other congested metro areas resulting in energy savings and less pollution.

==Alternate Routings==
Alternate routings are represented by the dotted blue or magenta lines.

*'''Alternative Routing 1'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Follows I-44 and rejoins Ultimate Interstate 45 at Miami, OK
*'''Alternative Routing 2'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Follows US-169 north of Tulsa to Iola, KS then heads west near US-54 and rejoins Ultimate Interstate 45 at Ft Scott, KS
*'''Alternative Routing 3'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Follows along US-169 north of Tulsa into Kansas then terminates at I-35 near Olathe, KS
*'''Alternative Routing 1A'''
**Follows Ultimate Interstate 145 from McAlester to Tulsa (Indian Nation Tpk/US-75)
**Diverts to a possible alternate routing near Okmulgee, OK traversing along a new expressway alignment to the Creek Turnpike (OK-364) near Broken Arrow, OK
**From there it Follows the Creek Turnpike (OK-345) northward until it reaches I-44 east of Tulsa.
**From there it Follows I-44 and rejoins Ultimate Interstate 45 at Miami, OK

==Proposed Improvements==
===Pittsburg Bypass===
The '''Crawford County Corridor''' is a proposed freeway bypass project being proposed by KDOT to improve US-69 from 1 to 3 miles north of Arma to US-400 south of Pittsburg. Initially Four proposed alignments were being studied for improvements to the highway in Crawford County. Of the 4 options the second western option was chosen as the preferred option due to less right of way encroachments at the north and south ends of the project. A connecting road from the south end of the project would have then tied the new bypass to the existing route about 1 mile south of US-400/K-171. The bypass project was moving forward until the cities of Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg Kansas passed resolutions removing their support of the western bypass option citing concerns about the impact of the western alignment of the route and asking the state to reconsider the routing. The cities are concerned about possible negative economic impacts of moving the highway further away. These cities prefer a more centralized alternative instead. As a result, the state is going back to the study phase to consider different possible alternatives. The map to the right shows the 4 potential alternatives considered. However, it remains to be seen in the next 2 years what will come out of the study going forward.

*'''Western Routing'''
**Option 1 Begins in the north from 1/2 mile north of 650th Ave curving off to the west to about 2 miles west of existing US-69 bypassing Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg before ending at US-400 at the Crawford/Cherokee county line, 1/2 mile west of the Kansas Crossing casino.
**Option 2 Begins in the north from just south of 670th Ave curving off to the west to about 2 miles west of existing US-69 bypassing Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg before ending at US-400 at the Crawford/Cherokee county line 1 mile west of the Kansas Crossing casino. This option became the preferred option for the bypass.
**the proposed interchanges for the western options are:
***640th Ave
***K-47 (620th Ave)
***US-160 (590th Ave)
***570th Ave/West Atkinson Ave
***K-126 (W 4th St)
***520th Ave
***US-400/K-171 (End of Freeway)

*'''Central Routing'''
**follows along the existing routing to approximately 1/2 mile west of the existing routing
**the proposed interchanges for the central option are:
***N West St/Business 69
***K-47 (620th Ave)
***US-160 (590th Ave)
***W Atkinson Ave
***K-126 (W 4th St)
***Business 69/Broadway
***US-400/K-171 (End of Freeway)

*'''Eastern Routing'''
**Begins in the north from 1/2 mile north of 650th Ave curving off to the east to about 1-3 miles east of existing US-69 following a meandering route around the east sides of Alma, Frontenac, and Pittsburg before rejoining the existing US-69 alignment 1/4 mile south of the Crawford/Cherokee county line.
**the proposed interchanges for the eastern option are:
***E South St/640th Ave
***K-47 (620th Ave)
***US-160 (590th Ave)
***E Atkinson Ave/570th Ave
***K-126 (E 4th St)
***Business 69/Broadway
***US-400/K-171
===Fort Scott Bypass===
The '''Fort Scott Bypass''' is a preliminarily proposed freeway bypass project being considered by KDOT to improve US-69 from 1 mile north of Fort Scott to K-7/US69 Junction approximately 5 miles south of Fort Scott traveling around the east side of the city. The potential alignment shown in the illustration is for illustration purposes only depicting a possible location of the bypass route, as nothing has officially been proposed along the corridor.

Recent improvements to the US69 mainline between Wall Street and 18th were just completed in 2023 along a previously improved expressway section that would be difficult to upgrade to a full freeway for several reasons. First is the tight geometry due to several curves along this section of expressway, secondly, the expressway abruptly ends at the south end curving on to main street leaving no option for extending the expressway further south. Third, converting intersections at 3rd Street, 6th Street, and 12th Street to grade separated crossings or intersections would also be difficult due to elevation issues and lack of room to build bridge approaches without elevating the expressway. It does appear that at one time the extension of this expressway was planned further southward. Evidence of this is visibileif you look at what appears to be an exit ramp built into the East National Ave bridge at the south end and noticeably vacant land located to the immediate southeast where the expressway would have likely curved to the southeast then crossing the railroad tracks and continuing south.

Should a bypass be constructed potential exits would likely be constructed at:
* US-54 West/US-69 Business/K-7 on the north end
* Wall Street/US-54 East
* Jayhawk Rd
* K-7/US69 Business in the south as the bypass reconnects to the existing routing in the south.
* Partial interchange at Grand Road

Construction of the bypass is most definitely needed in order to fulfill the goal of having a full interstate quality freeway from Kansas City to Interstate 44 through southeast Kansas, which if completed could become part of the Interstate 45 corridor if it is ever extended north of Dallas. While there is concerns and some opposition to it due to the potential threat of economic decline, such as has been witnessed in smaller towns like Pleasanton, there are ways to mitigate this and promote the city as a regional center, thus protecting its commerce and keeping it a destination city, rather than a town to just drive around on your way to somewhere else. These same concerns are also part of the reason why there has been much consternation regarding the freeway bypasses proposed around Pittsburg and Frontenac. It remains to be seen if attempts move forward with the bypass will come however it looks like it will be several years if not decades before a Fort Scott bypass could become a reality.

===Fort Scott to Arma===
Upgrades were completed along US69 from the K-7 junction south of Fort Scott to Arma constructing the 2-lane segment into a 4-lane expressway with at grade intersections spaced 1 mile apart. Plans also call for the eventual upgrade of the corridor to full freeway standards with limited access grade separation and property access maintained by the use of frontage roads to connect to interchanges along the corridor

The proposed upgrades to freeway standard include:
* Connect to the planned Pittsburg Bypass (Crawford County Corridor) south of the 680th Ave intersection
* Upgrade 680th Ave to a standard diamond interchange
* Close access at 690th Ave - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via adjoining roads
* Grade separation at 700th Ave
* Upgrade 710th Ave to a standard diamond interchange
* Grade separation at 720th Ave
* Close access at 730th Ave - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via adjoining roads
* Close access at Birch Rd - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via adjoining roads
* Grade separation at Cavalry Rd
* Close access at Deer Rd - Convert to cul-de-sac/access via frontage/adjoining roads
* Upgrade Eagle Rd to a standard diamond interchange
* Close access at Fern Rd - Access via frontage road
* Grand Rd access would remain at grade (likely to be upgraded in the future or due to long range planning for a Fort Scott bypass)

Officially the state opted to move forward with the upgradable expressway for the time being due to the expressway meeting the traffic needs for the foreseeable future. However right of way has been preserved for the ultimate upgrade of the highway to full freeway standards possibly by 2040.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Midwest US]]

I-35/635 Turkey Creek Interchange

2024-12-13T18:59:33Z

Indyroads:

'''The Turkey Creek Interchange''' is a partial system interchange between I-35, I-635 and US-69 located in northern Johnson County Kansas. The interchange is constructed as a three-quarter interchange with several diagonal ramps, many of which are located in the median area of I-35. The partial interchange serves movements from north and southbound I-35 both to and from I-635, from US 69 northbound to I-635 or I-35 northbound, and southbound I-35 or I635 to US 69 Southbound. Currently there is no connection to I-35 South from US 69 North or from I-35 North to US 69 South.

==Current Intersection Conditions and Safety Concerns==
This interchange has not had any significant upgrades since it was opened to traffic in 1975. Since then, the area around the interchange has become significantly urbanized and there has been significant growth in the region. Due to the current geometric configuration of the interchange, the increase in traffic volume has led to several safety concerns. These safety concerns arise due to tight merging areas, dangerous weaving conditions, and limited lane throughput causing traffic to back up onto interstates 35 and 635 and leading to a high risk of traffic incidents, injury and traffic fatalities. Additionally, some of the ramps have very tight curves on them leading to a higher risk of vehicles overturning or leaving the roadway. Due to these safety concerns and geometric deficiencies of the interchange it is clear that operational improvements are needed to improve the geometric design of the interchange, Improve the interchange capacity to favor southbound I-635 movements to I-35 south and northbound I-635 movements from I-35 north.

==Indyroads Recommended Improvements==
Improvements recommended for the interchange would require a significant investment and would probably require at least 2 to 3 construction seasons to complete. Indyroads recommends fast tracking the project in order to reduce closures and quick delivery of the project. The interchange would remain as a partial three-quarter interchange as connections to and from the south and west will not be made, although modifying the design could allow for these ramps to be added.

<gallery mode=packed heights="180px">
File:35-635 IC Existing.png|Current Interchange Layout
File:35-635 IC Proposed.png|Proposed Primary Design
File:35-635 IC Proposed2.png|Proposed Twin Flyover Design
</gallery>

===Primary Alternative===
The major components of the project include:
*Realigning the main northbound and southbound lanes of I-35 to a center alignment maintaining 3 through lanes in each direction.
*Construction of new southbound flyover ramps to I-35 from the I-635 mainline.
**3 lanes total with 2 dedicated lanes to I-35 South and one lane to I-35 North
*Routing US 69 along I-35 and relinquishing the route designation along Metcalf Ave
*Constructing new connector roads to and from I-635 to Metcalf Avenue
**New slip ramps will maintain connection to Merriam Drive
**New flyovers will connect I-35 South to Metcalf Ave and Metcalf Ave to I-35 North

===Twin Flyover Alternative===
A second upgrade option would maintain most of the current ramp configuration instead constructing 2 north to south centerline flyover ramps that would connect to and from I-35 towards the south in the centerline to and from I-635 to the north also in the centerline. One downside to this configuration, however, is that access to and from Merriam Drive would not be maintained to these new flyover ramps. This is a small disadvantage however since traffic needing access to Merriam Drive can use the Antioch Road exit instead. Another disadvantage to this design is that it does not eliminate the 2 left-hand exits from I-35 South or some of the tight ramp geometry that exists in the remaining unimproved ramps. Although it does address the dangerous weaving and merging area that exists on northbound I-35. The benefit however would be savings in both the cost of construction as well as disruption, since less of the interchange would need to be modified to create this new traffic pattern, and it still maintains high traffic flow to and from Metcalf Avenue to I-635 and to and from I-35 to the south, addressing the projects main 2 objectives.

==Purpose and Need==
The tight ramps at the interchange create choke points for travelers along segments of I-35 and I-635 approaching the interchange. Through traffic is less affected, however when traffic from ramps backs up to the interstate, it causes traffic jams and increases the probability of rear end collisions, especially during peak commute periods. Upgrading the interchange would facilitate better traffic movements between I-35 to and from the south to I-635 by making these main ramps larger and more direct and would still maintain the direct access from I-635 to Metcalf Avenue. These traffic movements make up the 2 highest volumes that pass through the intersection. Additionally, Traffic movements to Metcalf Ave both to and from I-35 to the north would improve for local and regional traffic in Mission, North Overland Park, Prairie Village and other nearby communities that use Metcalf Avenue to access downtown Kansas City via I-35. These upgrades would reduce the likelihood of slowdowns and eliminate the dangerous merges and left exits that exist currently, moving exiting traffic to the right.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Kansas]][[Category:KC Metro]]

I-35/635 Turkey Creek Interchange

2024-12-13T18:42:34Z

Indyroads: /* Twin Flyover Alternative */

'''The Turkey Creek Interchange''' is a partial system interchange between I-35, I-635 and US-69 located in northern Johnson County Kansas. The interchange is constructed as a three-quarter interchange with several diagonal ramps, many of which are located in the median area of I-35. The partial interchange serves movements from north and southbound I-35 both to and from I-635, from US 69 northbound to I-635 or I-35 northbound, and southbound I-35 or I635 to US 69 Southbound. Currently there is no connection to I-35 South from US 69 North or from I-35 North to US 69 South.

<gallery>
File:35-635 IC Existing.png|Current Interchange Layout
File:35-635 IC Proposed.png|Proposed Primary Design
File:35-635 IC Proposed2.png|Proposed Twin Flyover Design
</gallery>

==Current Intersection Conditions and Safety Concerns==
This interchange has not had any significant upgrades since it was opened to traffic in 1975. Since then, the area around the interchange has become significantly urbanized and there has been significant growth in the region. Due to the current geometric configuration of the interchange, the increase in traffic volume has led to several safety concerns. These safety concerns arise due to tight merging areas, dangerous weaving conditions, and limited lane throughput causing traffic to back up onto interstates 35 and 635 and leading to a high risk of traffic incidents, injury and traffic fatalities. Additionally, some of the ramps have very tight curves on them leading to a higher risk of vehicles overturning or leaving the roadway. Due to these safety concerns and geometric deficiencies of the interchange it is clear that operational improvements are needed to improve the geometric design of the interchange, Improve the interchange capacity to favor southbound I-635 movements to I-35 south and northbound I-635 movements from I-35 north.

==Indyroads Recommended Improvements==
Improvements recommended for the interchange would require a significant investment and would probably require at least 2 to 3 construction seasons to complete. Indyroads recommends fast tracking the project in order to reduce closures and quick delivery of the project. The interchange would remain as a partial three-quarter interchange as connections to and from the south and west will not be made, although modifying the design could allow for these ramps to be added.

===Primary Alternative===
The major components of the project include:
*Realigning the main northbound and southbound lanes of I-35 to a center alignment maintaining 3 through lanes in each direction.
*Construction of new southbound flyover ramps to I-35 from the I-635 mainline.
**3 lanes total with 2 dedicated lanes to I-35 South and one lane to I-35 North
*Routing US 69 along I-35 and relinquishing the route designation along Metcalf Ave
*Constructing new connector roads to and from I-635 to Metcalf Avenue
**New slip ramps will maintain connection to Merriam Drive
**New flyovers will connect I-35 South to Metcalf Ave and Metcalf Ave to I-35 North

===Twin Flyover Alternative===
A second upgrade option would maintain most of the current ramp configuration instead constructing 2 north to south centerline flyover ramps that would connect to and from I-35 towards the south in the centerline to and from I-635 to the north also in the centerline. One downside to this configuration, however, is that access to and from Merriam Drive would not be maintained to these new flyover ramps. This is a small disadvantage however since traffic needing access to Merriam Drive can use the Antioch Road exit instead. Another disadvantage to this design is that it does not eliminate the 2 left-hand exits from I-35 South or some of the tight ramp geometry that exists in the remaining unimproved ramps. Although it does address the dangerous weaving and merging area that exists on northbound I-35. The benefit however would be savings in both the cost of construction as well as disruption, since less of the interchange would need to be modified to create this new traffic pattern, and it still maintains high traffic flow to and from Metcalf Avenue to I-635 and to and from I-35 to the south, addressing the projects main 2 objectives.

==Purpose and Need==
The tight ramps at the interchange create choke points for travelers along segments of I-35 and I-635 approaching the interchange. Through traffic is less affected, however when traffic from ramps backs up to the interstate, it causes traffic jams and increases the probability of rear end collisions, especially during peak commute periods. Upgrading the interchange would facilitate better traffic movements between I-35 to and from the south to I-635 by making these main ramps larger and more direct and would still maintain the direct access from I-635 to Metcalf Avenue. These traffic movements make up the 2 highest volumes that pass through the intersection. Additionally, Traffic movements to Metcalf Ave both to and from I-35 to the north would improve for local and regional traffic in Mission, North Overland Park, Prairie Village and other nearby communities that use Metcalf Avenue to access downtown Kansas City via I-35. These upgrades would reduce the likelihood of slowdowns and eliminate the dangerous merges and left exits that exist currently, moving exiting traffic to the right.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Kansas]][[Category:KC Metro]]

File:35-635 IC Proposed2.png

2024-12-13T18:34:49Z

Indyroads:

File:35-635 IC Proposed.png

2024-12-13T18:34:27Z

Indyroads: Indyroads uploaded a new version of File:35-635 IC Proposed.png

I-35/635 Turkey Creek Interchange

2024-12-13T18:34:07Z

Indyroads:

'''The Turkey Creek Interchange''' is a partial system interchange between I-35, I-635 and US-69 located in northern Johnson County Kansas. The interchange is constructed as a three-quarter interchange with several diagonal ramps, many of which are located in the median area of I-35. The partial interchange serves movements from north and southbound I-35 both to and from I-635, from US 69 northbound to I-635 or I-35 northbound, and southbound I-35 or I635 to US 69 Southbound. Currently there is no connection to I-35 South from US 69 North or from I-35 North to US 69 South.

<gallery>
File:35-635 IC Existing.png|Current Interchange Layout
File:35-635 IC Proposed.png|Proposed Primary Design
File:35-635 IC Proposed2.png|Proposed Twin Flyover Design
</gallery>

==Current Intersection Conditions and Safety Concerns==
This interchange has not had any significant upgrades since it was opened to traffic in 1975. Since then, the area around the interchange has become significantly urbanized and there has been significant growth in the region. Due to the current geometric configuration of the interchange, the increase in traffic volume has led to several safety concerns. These safety concerns arise due to tight merging areas, dangerous weaving conditions, and limited lane throughput causing traffic to back up onto interstates 35 and 635 and leading to a high risk of traffic incidents, injury and traffic fatalities. Additionally, some of the ramps have very tight curves on them leading to a higher risk of vehicles overturning or leaving the roadway. Due to these safety concerns and geometric deficiencies of the interchange it is clear that operational improvements are needed to improve the geometric design of the interchange, Improve the interchange capacity to favor southbound I-635 movements to I-35 south and northbound I-635 movements from I-35 north.

==Indyroads Recommended Improvements==
Improvements recommended for the interchange would require a significant investment and would probably require at least 2 to 3 construction seasons to complete. Indyroads recommends fast tracking the project in order to reduce closures and quick delivery of the project. The interchange would remain as a partial three-quarter interchange as connections to and from the south and west will not be made, although modifying the design could allow for these ramps to be added.

===Primary Alternative===
The major components of the project include:
*Realigning the main northbound and southbound lanes of I-35 to a center alignment maintaining 3 through lanes in each direction.
*Construction of new southbound flyover ramps to I-35 from the I-635 mainline.
**3 lanes total with 2 dedicated lanes to I-35 South and one lane to I-35 North
*Routing US 69 along I-35 and relinquishing the route designation along Metcalf Ave
*Constructing new connector roads to and from I-635 to Metcalf Avenue
**New slip ramps will maintain connection to Merriam Drive
**New flyovers will connect I-35 South to Metcalf Ave and Metcalf Ave to I-35 North

===Twin Flyover Alternative===
A second upgrade option would maintain most of the current ramp configuration instead constructing 2 north to south centerline flyover ramps that would connect to and from I-35 south in the centerline to and from I-635 to the north also in the centerline. One downside to this configuration however, is that access to Merriam Drive would not be maintained to these flyover ramps. This is a small disadvantage however since traffic needing access to Merriam Drive can use the Antioch Road exit instead. The benefit however would be savings in both the cost of construction as well as disruption, since less of the interchange would need to be modified to create this new traffic pattern.

==Purpose and Need==
The tight ramps at the interchange create choke points for travelers along segments of I-35 and I-635 approaching the interchange. Through traffic is less affected, however when traffic from ramps backs up to the interstate, it causes traffic jams and increases the probability of rear end collisions, especially during peak commute periods. Upgrading the interchange would facilitate better traffic movements between I-35 to and from the south to I-635 by making these main ramps larger and more direct and would still maintain the direct access from I-635 to Metcalf Avenue. These traffic movements make up the 2 highest volumes that pass through the intersection. Additionally, Traffic movements to Metcalf Ave both to and from I-35 to the north would improve for local and regional traffic in Mission, North Overland Park, Prairie Village and other nearby communities that use Metcalf Avenue to access downtown Kansas City via I-35. These upgrades would reduce the likelihood of slowdowns and eliminate the dangerous merges and left exits that exist currently, moving exiting traffic to the right.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Kansas]][[Category:KC Metro]]

File:35-635 IC Proposed.png

2024-12-13T15:00:56Z

Indyroads:

File:35-635 IC Existing.png

2024-12-12T21:48:53Z

Indyroads:

I-35/635 Turkey Creek Interchange

2024-12-12T21:45:51Z

Indyroads:

I-35/635 Turkey Creek Interchange

2024-12-12T21:28:27Z

Indyroads: Created page with "'''The Turkey Creek Interchange''' is a partial system interchange between I-35, I-635 and US-69 located in northern Johnson County Kansas. The interchange is constructed as a three-quarter interchange with several diagonal ramps, many of which are located in the median area of I-35. The partial interchange serves movements from north and southbound I-35 both to and from I-635, from US 69 northbound to I-635 or I-35 northbound, and southbound I-35 or I635 to US 69 Southb..."

Portal:Kansas Visions

2024-12-12T16:57:40Z

Indyroads: Created page with " These pages detail recommended improvements for Kansas roadways. These "'''Visions'''" that are needed can really help improve the infrastructure of the state, but the state hasn't identified or proposed plans as of yet. Most of these focus on Eastern Kansas from the I-135 corridor eastward, as most of western Kansas is fairly rural and does not experience the types of congestion seen in the eastern part of the state. ==Visions for Kansas== Listed below are projects t..."

These pages detail recommended improvements for Kansas roadways. These "'''Visions'''" that are needed can really help improve the infrastructure of the state, but the state hasn't identified or proposed plans as of yet. Most of these focus on Eastern Kansas from the I-135 corridor eastward, as most of western Kansas is fairly rural and does not experience the types of congestion seen in the eastern part of the state.

==Visions for Kansas==
Listed below are projects throughout the state recommended for improvement or construction by Indyroads. Priority projects that need attention are:

===[[I-35/635 Turkey Creek Interchange]]===
This project visualizes a complete redesign of the Turkey Creek Interchange to address major safety issues, tight turn radiuses, left-handed exits and merges, weaving conflicts, and intersection spacing. This interchange has not had a major redesign and upgrade since its initial construction and is in need of major improvements to facilitate better traffic flow.

===[[Ultimate_Interstates:Corridor_45|Interstate 45]]===
A proposed [[Ultimate_Interstates:Corridor_45|interstate corridor]] upgrade to US-69 along the east edge of Kansas. This would be a northward extension of I-45 from Dallas, Texas to Overland Park.

[[Category:Visions]]
[[Category:Kansas]]

Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11

2024-09-17T19:01:21Z

Indyroads: /* Current I-11 Status and Development */

[[File:corridor11.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 11 Overview]]
[[File:phx.jpg|thumb|upright|Phoenix Metro Map]]
[[File:lasvegas.png|thumb|upright|Las Vegas Metro Map]]
[[File:corridor11rtox.png|thumb|upright|Reno/Fallon Map]]
[[File:swidaho.png|thumb|upright|Boise Metro Map]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 11''' is a proposed interstate corridor that originates from from Nogales, Arizona I-11 travels north into Nevada crossing the new Colorado River Bridge near Hoover Dam. Then continues north via Reno or Fallon NV potentially along one of two corridors. US-95 toward Boise and Spokane or US-395 from Reno through Burns to Pasco WA. This interstate would replace existing sections of US-93, US-95 and potentially I-515 and sections of I-19 and US-395.

==Current I-11 Status and Development==
Interstate 11 is currently open to traffic from the Arizona-Nevada State line near the Hoover Dam. The route passes through the cities of Boulder City, Henderson, and Las Vagas. The route reaches its current northern terminus at Nevada SR-157 junction at Kyle Canyon on the northwestern edge of the Las Vegas Metro area. The route is intended to extended further north and south from its current routing.

===Las Vegas Metro===
Several potential I-11 routings in Las Vegas were considered in the Las Vegas Metro. One possible option included using parts of CC-215 and I-215 around the west side of the metro area. Another option was to construct a new route south of I-215 to connect to I-15 then continue northward to US-95. Some believed that is because both Clark County and NDOT preferred a bypass routing rather than going directly through downtown Las Vegas due to very heavy congestion during peak periods.

However, after opposition to these alternatives, the routing through downtown Las Vegas was chosen, replacing I-515 in its entirety. The route continues north along US-95 until it reaches Nevada State Route 157 due to the freeway already being constructed to interstate standards. The NDOT plans on upgrading the corridor northward from there heading towards Tonopah bypassing small towns along the way. The I-515 designation was officially retired in May 2024 with new I-11 shields having since been installed along the route.

Ultimately, Indyroads believes that the best route has been chosen since it provides the best route continuity northward through the region. Additionally, the I-215/CC-215 bypass will still serve as a viable option for drivers wanting to bypass busy downtown traffic during peak periods.

===Arizona===
In Arizona the route is also in development and has posted Future I-11 sings along US-93 located north of Wickenburg to the state line. South of Wickenburg there are many options for a potential routing of the ultimate I-11 corridor as you will see below. A bypass project in Kingman Arizona will construct a new system interchange at I-40 as part of this project. There are also bypass projects in the works near Wickenburg. Unfortunately, it will take a lengthy amount of time to upgrade the Arizona segments of US-93 to Interstate standards.

===Canamex Corridor===
Interstate 11 is now being planned as a new Canamex Corridor, linking freight traffic from Mexico to Canada, while serving important US destinations in the process. If constructed to its fullest extent, the I-11 would become a third Canamex corridor in the west (in addition to the extant I-5 and I-15 corridors). Planners would like this route to connect from the Nogales border crossing to connecting major metro areas such as Tucson, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Reno, and potentially Portland, Boise, Seattle or Spokane in the north. The route would link to British Columbia even possibly Calgary, depending on whether I-11 is routed along US-395 or US-95 north of I-80.

As shown on the map above, Indyroads believes a route favoring the Idaho Panhandle and the Spokane/Coeur D'Alene Metro area would be the best option, since it would serve currently underserved parts of the US and Cananda, as well as route through the port city of Lewiston, ID. The route could ultimately connect to TCH-1 (the major east west frieght corridor between Vancouver and Calgary) in either Kamloops or Kelowna, BC.

==Proposed Routings in Arizona==
Several proposals for the routing of the ultimate buildout of I-11 have been proposed. Looking at the various maps and news articles about the subject over the last 5-10 years it seems that many groups have some skin in the game. Originally intended to be a connection route from Phoenix to Las Vegas, the options have ballooned from there to an ultimate extension southward to Nogales AZ as a north american trade route that would continue all the way from Mexico to Canada at a yet to be determined canadian border crossing. [http://i11study.com/arizona/map.asp I-11 Study website]

<gallery>
File:example 11a.png|Proposed Routing in Arizona
File:example 11b.jpg|Greater Phoenix/Tuscon Metro - Image depicts various routing options
File:example 11c.png|Tucson routing detail showing possible I-110 connection south of Tucson
File:example 11d.jpg|Recommended Build Alternative
File:example 11e.png|Hassayampa Freeway Proposals
File:example 11f.jpg|Recommended Build Alternative - Alternative routes shown
</gallery>

===Tucson-Three Points Proposal===
One proposal has the route beginning to the south of Tucson at Interstate 19 and would travel westward toward Three Points and eventually northward with a connection spur back to I-10 in the Avra Valley from there the route connects to the proposed Hassayampa freeway or I-8 and continuing to Gila Bend, Arizona I-11 travels northward generally following (or to the east) of AZ route 85 connecting I-8 and I-10 west of the Phoenix metropolitan area.

===Hassayampa Freeway Proposal===
this route would beginning somewhere north of Tucson at a junction along I-10 north of the I-8/I-10 junction then travelling westward and eventually northward to connect to I-10 near SR-86 then continue toward Wickenburg AZ where it would connect to US-93. There are some options showing connections via I-8 instead of I-10, ans well as another option showing I-11 continuing eastward along a new route bypassing the Tucson metro to the north and connecting back to I-10 somewhere southeast of Tucson.

===Combined Route Proposal===
This proposed route would take elements of both the Hassayampa and Tucson routings and combine them into one proposed route. the PDF linked [[here]] gives the best description of the proposed routing and potential options. This routing as with others has some opposition due to the fact that it would travel largely in undeveloped desert regions and have an impact on the environment. Some conservation groups have addressed concerns about the routing of the new interstate in areas located west of Tucson.

==Routing options Nevada and Northward==
This segment of freeway can serve as a bypass for traffic around the Phoenix metro area via I-11 south to I-8 east to tucson. From there the corridor travels along new terrain located to the west of the White Tank Mountains until it reaches US-60. (Other proposals show I-11 using the southernmost segment of the new Loop 303 between US-60 and I-10 instead.) Since ultimate interstate 11 runs north and south west of the greater Phoenix metro area it is able to avoid costly right of way encroachments that would prevent construction. The route then turns northwest following US-60 to Wickenburg and then following US-93 north until it reaches I-40. From there I-11 continues north along US-93 until it crosses into Nevada at the new Hoover Dam Bridge. Once into Nevada I-11 would follow US-93 and then I-515 northward to I-15 in Las Vegas then terminating at the I-15 interchange.

==Potential Northern Routes==
North of Las Vegas the route will generally follow US-95 northward throughout the state north to a split somewhere south of Fallon NV.
===Reno/Pasco===
This route would head westward toward Minden and then would head north through Carson City and Reno then roughly follow the US-395 corridor through Oregon and then end at I-84 near the I-82 junction. It is possible that I-82 could then be redesignated as I-11. This option is not shown on the overview map above since the route through the Boise Metro would be preferred instead.

===Boise/Spokane===
This route would continue north through Fallon to I-80. From there it would be cosigned with I-80 from Fallon Junction to Winnemucca before continuing north along US-95 into Oregon. Eventually the route continues north toward Boise and Lewiston eventually ending in Spokane. This option is preferred by Indyroads as it would provide a more direct connection to Boise and the canadian border via the US-95 corridor.

<gallery>
File:example 11g.jpg|Proposed Routings Thru Nevada
File:example 11h.jpg|I-11 Route Options in Northern Nevada
File:example 11i.jpg|I-11 Route Options in Metro Las Vegas
</gallery>

==Indyroads Recommended Routing==
The route would begin at I-8 in Gila Bend AZ continuing north along AZ-86. Travel on a new terrain route to Wickenburg AZ then along the US-93 corridor through northern Arizona and connect to the exising I-11 in nevada. Once into Nevada I-11 would follow US-93 and then I-515 northward to I-15 in Las Vegas. North of Las Vegas the route would generally follow US-95 northward throughout the state north through Fallon then connecting to I-80. I-11 would be cosigned with I-80 from Fallon Junction to Winnemucca before continuing north along US-95 into Oregon. At McDermott NV I-11 would cross into Oregon from there it would likely follow US-95 north to Burns Junction then west to Jordan Valley. The route instead could a more direct easterly alternate routing from McDermitt over new terrain toward Jordan Valley and Idaho. From Jordan Valley the highway would travel possibly on either side of the state line until it turns northeastward along US-95 into Idaho a short distance north of Jordan Valley. Once in Idaho the route could either follow US-95 along the west side of the treasure valley or could connect to the future planned treasure valley bypass north to Caldwell and I-84, Then Continuing north on US-95 through Payette then north to Lewiston. An alternate route could also travel north along ID highway 16 through Emmett and along new terrain through the Indian Valley where it would rejoin US-95 south of Council,ID. This alternate has met some opposition as well although it would provide a safer more direct route north from Boise. From Lewiston it continues northwestward to the US-195 where it enters Washington. Once in Washington I-11 would generally follow US 195 through Pullman before terminating in Spokane WA.

==Purpose and Need==
This corridor solves several transportation issues. First it provides a connection from Phoenix to Las Vegas, Connects Las Vegas to Reno, and connects Sacramento and Reno to Boise, Lewiston, Spokane, and the Idaho Panhandle. Additionally there is a high volume of truck and commercial traffic along several sections of this corridor necessitates the corridor.

==Alternate Routings==
Near Hawthorne Nevada instead of turning north directly to Fallon NV the route could continue northeast on a new alignment generally following the state border with California or the ultimate interstate planned extension of I-580 and then follow US-395 to Reno where it would be Cosigned with I-80 back to its original alignment towards Winnemucca. The I-11 section heading Due north through Fallon to I-80 would then become the I-211 bypass.

I-11 could also take a more direct northerly path through the heart of Nevada traveling around various military ranges and then directly to Winnemucca where it continues north to Oregon and Idaho. This routing would reduce mileage however it travels through largely uninhabited lands and is not a practical routing to connect Phoenix or Las Vegas to Reno.
North of Winnemucca I-11 could take amore direct northeasterly route directly to Boise, however construction costs of such a new terrain highway would be likely astronomical and negate any savings of the more direct route. Additionally upgrading the existing route would significantly improve travel times.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Western US]]

Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11

2024-09-17T18:20:57Z

Indyroads: /* Las Vegas Metro */

[[File:corridor11.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 11 Overview]]
[[File:phx.jpg|thumb|upright|Phoenix Metro Map]]
[[File:lasvegas.png|thumb|upright|Las Vegas Metro Map]]
[[File:corridor11rtox.png|thumb|upright|Reno/Fallon Map]]
[[File:swidaho.png|thumb|upright|Boise Metro Map]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 11''' is a proposed interstate corridor that originates from from Nogales, Arizona I-11 travels north into Nevada crossing the new Colorado River Bridge near Hoover Dam. Then continues north via Reno or Fallon NV potentially along one of two corridors. US-95 toward Boise and Spokane or US-395 from Reno through Burns to Pasco WA. This interstate would replace existing sections of US-93, US-95 and potentially I-515 and sections of I-19 and US-395.

==Current I-11 Status and Development==
Interstate 11 is currently open to traffic from the I-215/I-515 junction and travels southward along the US-93 corridor via the Boulder City Bypass and ends at the state line at the Colorado River Bridge near Hoover Dam.
===Las Vegas Metro===
Several potential I-11 routings in Las Vegas were considered in the Las Vegas Metro. One possible option included using parts of CC-215 and I-215 around the west side of the metro area. Another option was to construct a new route south of I-215 to connect to I-15 then continue northward to US-95. Some believed that is because both Clark County and NDOT preferred a bypass routing rather than going directly through downtown Las Vegas due to very heavy congestion during peak periods.

However, after opposition to these alternatives, the routing through downtown Las Vegas was chosen, replacing I-515 in its entirety. The route continues north along US-95 until it reaches Nevada State Route 157 due to the freeway already being constructed to interstate standards. The NDOT plans on upgrading the corridor northward from there heading towards Tonopah bypassing small towns along the way. The I-515 designation was officially retired in May 2024 with new I-11 shields having since been installed along the route.

Ultimately, Indyroads believes that the best route has been chosen since it provides the best route continuity northward through the region. Additionally, the I-215/CC-215 bypass will still serve as a viable option for drivers wanting to bypass busy downtown traffic during peak periods.

===Arizona===
In Arizona the route is also in development and has posted Future I-11 sings along US-93 located north of Wickenburg to the state line. South of Wickenburg there are many options for a potential routing of the ultimate I-11 corridor as you will see below.

==Proposed Routings in Arizona==
Several proposals for the routing of the ultimate buildout of I-11 have been proposed. Looking at the various maps and news articles about the subject over the last 5-10 years it seems that many groups have some skin in the game. Originally intended to be a connection route from Phoenix to Las Vegas, the options have ballooned from there to an ultimate extension southward to Nogales AZ as a north american trade route that would continue all the way from Mexico to Canada at a yet to be determined canadian border crossing. [http://i11study.com/arizona/map.asp I-11 Study website]

<gallery>
File:example 11a.png|Proposed Routing in Arizona
File:example 11b.jpg|Greater Phoenix/Tuscon Metro - Image depicts various routing options
File:example 11c.png|Tucson routing detail showing possible I-110 connection south of Tucson
File:example 11d.jpg|Recommended Build Alternative
File:example 11e.png|Hassayampa Freeway Proposals
File:example 11f.jpg|Recommended Build Alternative - Alternative routes shown
</gallery>

===Tucson-Three Points Proposal===
One proposal has the route beginning to the south of Tucson at Interstate 19 and would travel westward toward Three Points and eventually northward with a connection spur back to I-10 in the Avra Valley from there the route connects to the proposed Hassayampa freeway or I-8 and continuing to Gila Bend, Arizona I-11 travels northward generally following (or to the east) of AZ route 85 connecting I-8 and I-10 west of the Phoenix metropolitan area.

===Hassayampa Freeway Proposal===
this route would beginning somewhere north of Tucson at a junction along I-10 north of the I-8/I-10 junction then travelling westward and eventually northward to connect to I-10 near SR-86 then continue toward Wickenburg AZ where it would connect to US-93. There are some options showing connections via I-8 instead of I-10, ans well as another option showing I-11 continuing eastward along a new route bypassing the Tucson metro to the north and connecting back to I-10 somewhere southeast of Tucson.

===Combined Route Proposal===
This proposed route would take elements of both the Hassayampa and Tucson routings and combine them into one proposed route. the PDF linked [[here]] gives the best description of the proposed routing and potential options. This routing as with others has some opposition due to the fact that it would travel largely in undeveloped desert regions and have an impact on the environment. Some conservation groups have addressed concerns about the routing of the new interstate in areas located west of Tucson.

==Routing options Nevada and Northward==
This segment of freeway can serve as a bypass for traffic around the Phoenix metro area via I-11 south to I-8 east to tucson. From there the corridor travels along new terrain located to the west of the White Tank Mountains until it reaches US-60. (Other proposals show I-11 using the southernmost segment of the new Loop 303 between US-60 and I-10 instead.) Since ultimate interstate 11 runs north and south west of the greater Phoenix metro area it is able to avoid costly right of way encroachments that would prevent construction. The route then turns northwest following US-60 to Wickenburg and then following US-93 north until it reaches I-40. From there I-11 continues north along US-93 until it crosses into Nevada at the new Hoover Dam Bridge. Once into Nevada I-11 would follow US-93 and then I-515 northward to I-15 in Las Vegas then terminating at the I-15 interchange.

==Potential Northern Routes==
North of Las Vegas the route will generally follow US-95 northward throughout the state north to a split somewhere south of Fallon NV.
===Reno/Pasco===
This route would head westward toward Minden and then would head north through Carson City and Reno then roughly follow the US-395 corridor through Oregon and then end at I-84 near the I-82 junction. It is possible that I-82 could then be redesignated as I-11. This option is not shown on the overview map above since the route through the Boise Metro would be preferred instead.

===Boise/Spokane===
This route would continue north through Fallon to I-80. From there it would be cosigned with I-80 from Fallon Junction to Winnemucca before continuing north along US-95 into Oregon. Eventually the route continues north toward Boise and Lewiston eventually ending in Spokane. This option is preferred by Indyroads as it would provide a more direct connection to Boise and the canadian border via the US-95 corridor.

<gallery>
File:example 11g.jpg|Proposed Routings Thru Nevada
File:example 11h.jpg|I-11 Route Options in Northern Nevada
File:example 11i.jpg|I-11 Route Options in Metro Las Vegas
</gallery>

==Indyroads Recommended Routing==
The route would begin at I-8 in Gila Bend AZ continuing north along AZ-86. Travel on a new terrain route to Wickenburg AZ then along the US-93 corridor through northern Arizona and connect to the exising I-11 in nevada. Once into Nevada I-11 would follow US-93 and then I-515 northward to I-15 in Las Vegas. North of Las Vegas the route would generally follow US-95 northward throughout the state north through Fallon then connecting to I-80. I-11 would be cosigned with I-80 from Fallon Junction to Winnemucca before continuing north along US-95 into Oregon. At McDermott NV I-11 would cross into Oregon from there it would likely follow US-95 north to Burns Junction then west to Jordan Valley. The route instead could a more direct easterly alternate routing from McDermitt over new terrain toward Jordan Valley and Idaho. From Jordan Valley the highway would travel possibly on either side of the state line until it turns northeastward along US-95 into Idaho a short distance north of Jordan Valley. Once in Idaho the route could either follow US-95 along the west side of the treasure valley or could connect to the future planned treasure valley bypass north to Caldwell and I-84, Then Continuing north on US-95 through Payette then north to Lewiston. An alternate route could also travel north along ID highway 16 through Emmett and along new terrain through the Indian Valley where it would rejoin US-95 south of Council,ID. This alternate has met some opposition as well although it would provide a safer more direct route north from Boise. From Lewiston it continues northwestward to the US-195 where it enters Washington. Once in Washington I-11 would generally follow US 195 through Pullman before terminating in Spokane WA.

==Purpose and Need==
This corridor solves several transportation issues. First it provides a connection from Phoenix to Las Vegas, Connects Las Vegas to Reno, and connects Sacramento and Reno to Boise, Lewiston, Spokane, and the Idaho Panhandle. Additionally there is a high volume of truck and commercial traffic along several sections of this corridor necessitates the corridor.

==Alternate Routings==
Near Hawthorne Nevada instead of turning north directly to Fallon NV the route could continue northeast on a new alignment generally following the state border with California or the ultimate interstate planned extension of I-580 and then follow US-395 to Reno where it would be Cosigned with I-80 back to its original alignment towards Winnemucca. The I-11 section heading Due north through Fallon to I-80 would then become the I-211 bypass.

I-11 could also take a more direct northerly path through the heart of Nevada traveling around various military ranges and then directly to Winnemucca where it continues north to Oregon and Idaho. This routing would reduce mileage however it travels through largely uninhabited lands and is not a practical routing to connect Phoenix or Las Vegas to Reno.
North of Winnemucca I-11 could take amore direct northeasterly route directly to Boise, however construction costs of such a new terrain highway would be likely astronomical and negate any savings of the more direct route. Additionally upgrading the existing route would significantly improve travel times.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Western US]]

Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11

2024-09-17T18:15:46Z

Indyroads: /* Las Vegas Metro */

[[File:corridor11.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 11 Overview]]
[[File:phx.jpg|thumb|upright|Phoenix Metro Map]]
[[File:lasvegas.png|thumb|upright|Las Vegas Metro Map]]
[[File:corridor11rtox.png|thumb|upright|Reno/Fallon Map]]
[[File:swidaho.png|thumb|upright|Boise Metro Map]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 11''' is a proposed interstate corridor that originates from from Nogales, Arizona I-11 travels north into Nevada crossing the new Colorado River Bridge near Hoover Dam. Then continues north via Reno or Fallon NV potentially along one of two corridors. US-95 toward Boise and Spokane or US-395 from Reno through Burns to Pasco WA. This interstate would replace existing sections of US-93, US-95 and potentially I-515 and sections of I-19 and US-395.

==Current I-11 Status and Development==
Interstate 11 is currently open to traffic from the I-215/I-515 junction and travels southward along the US-93 corridor via the Boulder City Bypass and ends at the state line at the Colorado River Bridge near Hoover Dam.
===Las Vegas Metro===
Several potential I-11 routings in Las Vegas were considered in the Las Vegas Metro. One possible option included using parts of CC-215 and I-215 around the west side of the metro area. Another option was to construct a new route south of I-215 to connect to I-15 then continue northward to US-95. Some believed that is because both Clark County and NDOT preferred a bypass routing using the 215 bypass rather than going directly through downtown Las Vegas due to very heavy congestion during peak periods. However, after opposition to these alternatives, the routing through downtown Las Vegas was chosen, replacing I-515 in its entirety. the route continues north along US-95 until it reaches NV-157 due to the freeway already being at interstate standards. The NDOT plans on upgrading the corridor northward from there heading towards Tonopah bypassing small towns along the way. The I-515 designation was officially retried in May 2024 with the new I-11 shields being installed along the route. Ultimately the best route has been chosen since it provides the best route continuity northward through the region. Additionally, the I-215/CC-215 bypass serves as a viable option for drivers wanting to bypass busy downtown traffic during peak periods.

===Arizona===
In Arizona the route is also in development and has posted Future I-11 sings along US-93 located north of Wickenburg to the state line. South of Wickenburg there are many options for a potential routing of the ultimate I-11 corridor as you will see below.

==Proposed Routings in Arizona==
Several proposals for the routing of the ultimate buildout of I-11 have been proposed. Looking at the various maps and news articles about the subject over the last 5-10 years it seems that many groups have some skin in the game. Originally intended to be a connection route from Phoenix to Las Vegas, the options have ballooned from there to an ultimate extension southward to Nogales AZ as a north american trade route that would continue all the way from Mexico to Canada at a yet to be determined canadian border crossing. [http://i11study.com/arizona/map.asp I-11 Study website]

<gallery>
File:example 11a.png|Proposed Routing in Arizona
File:example 11b.jpg|Greater Phoenix/Tuscon Metro - Image depicts various routing options
File:example 11c.png|Tucson routing detail showing possible I-110 connection south of Tucson
File:example 11d.jpg|Recommended Build Alternative
File:example 11e.png|Hassayampa Freeway Proposals
File:example 11f.jpg|Recommended Build Alternative - Alternative routes shown
</gallery>

===Tucson-Three Points Proposal===
One proposal has the route beginning to the south of Tucson at Interstate 19 and would travel westward toward Three Points and eventually northward with a connection spur back to I-10 in the Avra Valley from there the route connects to the proposed Hassayampa freeway or I-8 and continuing to Gila Bend, Arizona I-11 travels northward generally following (or to the east) of AZ route 85 connecting I-8 and I-10 west of the Phoenix metropolitan area.

===Hassayampa Freeway Proposal===
this route would beginning somewhere north of Tucson at a junction along I-10 north of the I-8/I-10 junction then travelling westward and eventually northward to connect to I-10 near SR-86 then continue toward Wickenburg AZ where it would connect to US-93. There are some options showing connections via I-8 instead of I-10, ans well as another option showing I-11 continuing eastward along a new route bypassing the Tucson metro to the north and connecting back to I-10 somewhere southeast of Tucson.

===Combined Route Proposal===
This proposed route would take elements of both the Hassayampa and Tucson routings and combine them into one proposed route. the PDF linked [[here]] gives the best description of the proposed routing and potential options. This routing as with others has some opposition due to the fact that it would travel largely in undeveloped desert regions and have an impact on the environment. Some conservation groups have addressed concerns about the routing of the new interstate in areas located west of Tucson.

==Routing options Nevada and Northward==
This segment of freeway can serve as a bypass for traffic around the Phoenix metro area via I-11 south to I-8 east to tucson. From there the corridor travels along new terrain located to the west of the White Tank Mountains until it reaches US-60. (Other proposals show I-11 using the southernmost segment of the new Loop 303 between US-60 and I-10 instead.) Since ultimate interstate 11 runs north and south west of the greater Phoenix metro area it is able to avoid costly right of way encroachments that would prevent construction. The route then turns northwest following US-60 to Wickenburg and then following US-93 north until it reaches I-40. From there I-11 continues north along US-93 until it crosses into Nevada at the new Hoover Dam Bridge. Once into Nevada I-11 would follow US-93 and then I-515 northward to I-15 in Las Vegas then terminating at the I-15 interchange.

==Potential Northern Routes==
North of Las Vegas the route will generally follow US-95 northward throughout the state north to a split somewhere south of Fallon NV.
===Reno/Pasco===
This route would head westward toward Minden and then would head north through Carson City and Reno then roughly follow the US-395 corridor through Oregon and then end at I-84 near the I-82 junction. It is possible that I-82 could then be redesignated as I-11. This option is not shown on the overview map above since the route through the Boise Metro would be preferred instead.

===Boise/Spokane===
This route would continue north through Fallon to I-80. From there it would be cosigned with I-80 from Fallon Junction to Winnemucca before continuing north along US-95 into Oregon. Eventually the route continues north toward Boise and Lewiston eventually ending in Spokane. This option is preferred by Indyroads as it would provide a more direct connection to Boise and the canadian border via the US-95 corridor.

<gallery>
File:example 11g.jpg|Proposed Routings Thru Nevada
File:example 11h.jpg|I-11 Route Options in Northern Nevada
File:example 11i.jpg|I-11 Route Options in Metro Las Vegas
</gallery>

==Indyroads Recommended Routing==
The route would begin at I-8 in Gila Bend AZ continuing north along AZ-86. Travel on a new terrain route to Wickenburg AZ then along the US-93 corridor through northern Arizona and connect to the exising I-11 in nevada. Once into Nevada I-11 would follow US-93 and then I-515 northward to I-15 in Las Vegas. North of Las Vegas the route would generally follow US-95 northward throughout the state north through Fallon then connecting to I-80. I-11 would be cosigned with I-80 from Fallon Junction to Winnemucca before continuing north along US-95 into Oregon. At McDermott NV I-11 would cross into Oregon from there it would likely follow US-95 north to Burns Junction then west to Jordan Valley. The route instead could a more direct easterly alternate routing from McDermitt over new terrain toward Jordan Valley and Idaho. From Jordan Valley the highway would travel possibly on either side of the state line until it turns northeastward along US-95 into Idaho a short distance north of Jordan Valley. Once in Idaho the route could either follow US-95 along the west side of the treasure valley or could connect to the future planned treasure valley bypass north to Caldwell and I-84, Then Continuing north on US-95 through Payette then north to Lewiston. An alternate route could also travel north along ID highway 16 through Emmett and along new terrain through the Indian Valley where it would rejoin US-95 south of Council,ID. This alternate has met some opposition as well although it would provide a safer more direct route north from Boise. From Lewiston it continues northwestward to the US-195 where it enters Washington. Once in Washington I-11 would generally follow US 195 through Pullman before terminating in Spokane WA.

==Purpose and Need==
This corridor solves several transportation issues. First it provides a connection from Phoenix to Las Vegas, Connects Las Vegas to Reno, and connects Sacramento and Reno to Boise, Lewiston, Spokane, and the Idaho Panhandle. Additionally there is a high volume of truck and commercial traffic along several sections of this corridor necessitates the corridor.

==Alternate Routings==
Near Hawthorne Nevada instead of turning north directly to Fallon NV the route could continue northeast on a new alignment generally following the state border with California or the ultimate interstate planned extension of I-580 and then follow US-395 to Reno where it would be Cosigned with I-80 back to its original alignment towards Winnemucca. The I-11 section heading Due north through Fallon to I-80 would then become the I-211 bypass.

I-11 could also take a more direct northerly path through the heart of Nevada traveling around various military ranges and then directly to Winnemucca where it continues north to Oregon and Idaho. This routing would reduce mileage however it travels through largely uninhabited lands and is not a practical routing to connect Phoenix or Las Vegas to Reno.
North of Winnemucca I-11 could take amore direct northeasterly route directly to Boise, however construction costs of such a new terrain highway would be likely astronomical and negate any savings of the more direct route. Additionally upgrading the existing route would significantly improve travel times.

[[Category:Ultimate Interstates]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Western US]]

Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45

2024-05-31T19:25:50Z

Indyroads:

Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45

2024-05-31T18:13:08Z

Indyroads: /* Fort Scott to Arma */

Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45

2024-05-31T18:12:24Z

Indyroads: