Indyroads Wiki - User contributions [en]

File:UI Overview Map.png

2026-09-04T16:01:07Z

Indyroads: Indyroads uploaded a new version of File:UI Overview Map.png

Portal:Ultimate Interstates

2026-09-03T21:49:45Z

Indyroads:

__NOTOC__
[[File:UI Overview Map.png|frameless|upright=3|center]]
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]]

Portal:Ultimate Interstates

2026-09-03T21:48:08Z

Indyroads:

__NOTOC__
[[File:UI Overview Map.png|frameless|upright=3.00|center]]
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]]

File:UI Overview Map.png

2026-09-03T21:41:39Z

Indyroads:

Portal:Ultimate Interstates

2026-09-03T21:41:08Z

Indyroads:

__NOTOC__
[[File:UI Overview Map.png|frameless|center]]
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:Corridors 422 and 222

2026-08-29T18:27:06Z

Indyroads:

[[File:corridor422-222.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 422-222 Overview]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 422''' and '''Ultimate Interstate 222''' are proposed interstate auxiliary routes planned as part of a northern bypass loop in the Birmingham metropolitan area known as the ''' Birmingham Northern Beltline''' and unsigned '''Alabama Route 959'''. The planned route traverses northward from the intersection of Interstate 20/59 and the Southern Bypass (I-459) traveling northward towards its parent route (I-22) connecting with that route via a 2 mile spur. From there the route would continue northeastward connecting to I-65 in the north of the metro area at a new interchange, then curving eastward and southeastward connecting to I-59 in the northeast of the metro area at a new interchange.

===I-22 Interchange Challenges===
Due to geometric and terrain constraints where Ultimate Interstate 422 crosses its parent route, it was determined that it was unfeasible to construct an interchange there, and the connection will instead be made via a 2 mile interstate spur (I-222) located about 2 miles to the east of this junction. Meaning that some traffic will have to negotiate a 6 mile backtrack loop just to connect from I-422 north to I-22 west.

===Timeline and Funding===
The project is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System. The Northern Beltway, also known as '''Corridor X-1''', is the northern beltway component of the larger '''Corridor-X''' that eventually became Interstate 22. This section that is currently being planned as I-422 and I-222. The project is being planned in two main phases. The first phase connects I-65 and I-59 in the north and northeast. and the Second phase connects I-65 with I-22 and I-20/59 from the north to the southwest.

The project was originally conceived in the 1960's but had never really entered into the long-range planning until later on. At that time Birmingham was a much smaller metropolitan area and the beltway would not have been needed at that time. The goal of this project was to complete a full beltway loop around Birmingham to compliment the I-459 southern beltway. Eventually planning and funding was secured to begin construction in 2014 on the initial segment between AL-79 and AL-75 in the north metro near Pinson, however funding quickly ran out and construction stalled for nearly a decade. With new influx of federal funding constuction resumed in 2024 and is nearing completion as of fall 2026 on this first 2-mile segment. And with this new funding planning and environmental permits for construction of a second 9.5 mile segment from Pinson west to US-31 with construction to follow soon thereafter. The full buildout of the project will take more than a decade to be completed with some estimates stating it may not be completed until 2048 and others not until 2060.

The overall cost of the project is currently estimated to cost nearly 5.5 Billion dollars, making it the most expensive road project in Alabama and one of the most expensive in the country. Certainly with the long timeframe for this project, the cost could increase significantly if there are issues, delays, and further increases in material costs. With such a long buildout timeframe, terrain challenges, the potential for opposition, and environmental concerns, one might ask will the beltway ever be built to its full length; will it become a road to nowhere; or will it just connect I-65 to I-59 in the north and northeast.

<gallery>
File:example 422a.png|Initial Corridor X-1 Plan
File:example 422c.png|ALDOT Proposed Route
File:example 422b.png|Proposed Route With Phases
File:example 422d.jpg|Current Section (Nearing Completion)
File:example 422e.png|Current Section (Detailed)
File:example 422f.jpg|Northern Phase Construction Coming Soon
File:example 422g.jpg|Landowners Along the Beltline
</gallery>

===Environmental Concerns and Criticism===
Proponents of the project say the highway will improve emergency response times, boost regional economic development, and create thousands of jobs. But critics have highlighted several concerns regarding environmental impacts and citing the usual arguments that the project will just create urban sprawl and induce demand. The environmental concerns have some merit in that in order to construct the project there will be several watersheds impacted along the route which could bring concerns about fish habitat and drinking water impacts. The project will also no doubt have an impact on wildlife and forest habitats since the planned route traverses a fairly hilly and densely forested area. Then there is the cost. Some critics balk at the massive cost of the project calling it a 'unnecessary boondoggle' and arguing that this money could be better spent elsewhere, especially in light of the cuts that were made to other ALDOT projects due to funding shortfalls.
Then there is the consideration of those who stand to benefit from a large project like this being completed. Corporate landowners own large swaths of land in the area which would become much more desirable with freeway access, and lead to key development along the corridor. The largest landowner U.S. Steel has the most land and has a history of doing large scale residential and commercial land developments. Other major property owners also stand to potentially benefit similarly as property values increase along the corridor.

==Perceived Purpose and Need==
According to transportation planners and ALDOT, This corridor solves several transportation issues in that it provides a full beltway around the city connecting with the Southern Beltline to the southwest. However using this beltway benefits traffic mostly from the southwest to the northeast along the I20 and I-59 corridors providing bypasses for each. It also provides a releiver route for traffic heading along I-65 to and from the north into the metro area, as well as connecting to and from I-22 in the northwest. But for through traffic along I-65 passing north and south through the metro area the benefits are just not there. The beltline causes significant backtrack mileage if used and would not likely provide better relief than just staying on I-65 through the urban core.

==Indyroads Recommendation==
The Northern Beltline is surely an ambitious project, but it is uncertain if it really is worth the cost. Potentially it may make more sense to look at a shorter beltway across the north between I-22 and I-59 instead and then connecting it to I-20 to the east at some point in the future. Another option is to move it further out to travel through Jasper instead and end in Tuscaloosa instead to make it more of a regional bypass instead of a metro bypass. This would allow traffic to move efficiently with less induced sprawl along the corridor with it being further out. Also 'no-development' zones and interchange spacing could be used to help protect the rural areas further out to help curtail the potential for sprawl. I am usually in favor of freeway projects especially in areas where congestion is a problem, but I am not as excited about this one. As for the need for the project, there is a need for a better connection from I-65 in the north to I-20/59 in the southwest. Currently all traffic making this move must negotiate the downtown interchange and travel along the congested 20-59 corridor which is one reason I would support this project.

===Recommended Numbering===
Since the route favors I-59 and serves better as its bypass it makes more sense to number it accordingly as I-259, I-659, or I-859 instead since it loops back to its original alignment. The numbering would also complement well with existing I-459 differentiating it since it isn't a true 'loop' connecting at both ends. Indyroads recommends numbering it as I-859 fir that reason.

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

Ultimate Interstates:Corridors 422 and 222

2026-08-29T18:25:27Z

Indyroads: /* I-22 Interchange Challenges */

[[File:corridor422-222.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 422-222 Overview]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 422''' and '''Ultimate Interstate 222''' are proposed interstate auxiliary routes planned as part of a northern bypass loop in the Birmingham metropolitan area known as the ''' Birmingham Northern Beltline'''. The planned route traverses northward from the intersection of Interstate 20/59 and the Southern Bypass (I-459) traveling northward towards its parent route (I-22) connecting with that route via a 2 mile spur. From there the route would continue northeastward connecting to I-65 in the north of the metro area at a new interchange, then curving eastward and southeastward connecting to I-59 in the northeast of the metro area at a new interchange.

===I-22 Interchange Challenges===
Due to geometric and terrain constraints where Ultimate Interstate 422 crosses its parent route, it was determined that it was unfeasible to construct an interchange there, and the connection will instead be made via a 2 mile interstate spur (I-222) located about 2 miles to the east of this junction. Meaning that some traffic will have to negotiate a 6 mile backtrack loop just to connect from I-422 north to I-22 west.

===Timeline and Funding===
The project is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System. The Northern Beltway, also known as '''Corridor X-1''', is the northern beltway component of the larger '''Corridor-X''' that eventually became Interstate 22. This section that is currently being planned as I-422 and I-222. The project is being planned in two main phases. The first phase connects I-65 and I-59 in the north and northeast. and the Second phase connects I-65 with I-22 and I-20/59 from the north to the southwest.

The project was originally conceived in the 1960's but had never really entered into the long-range planning until later on. At that time Birmingham was a much smaller metropolitan area and the beltway would not have been needed at that time. The goal of this project was to complete a full beltway loop around Birmingham to compliment the I-459 southern beltway. Eventually planning and funding was secured to begin construction in 2014 on the initial segment between AL-79 and AL-75 in the north metro near Pinson, however funding quickly ran out and construction stalled for nearly a decade. With new influx of federal funding constuction resumed in 2024 and is nearing completion as of fall 2026 on this first 2-mile segment. And with this new funding planning and environmental permits for construction of a second 9.5 mile segment from Pinson west to US-31 with construction to follow soon thereafter. The full buildout of the project will take more than a decade to be completed with some estimates stating it may not be completed until 2048 and others not until 2060.

The overall cost of the project is currently estimated to cost nearly 5.5 Billion dollars, making it the most expensive road project in Alabama and one of the most expensive in the country. Certainly with the long timeframe for this project, the cost could increase significantly if there are issues, delays, and further increases in material costs. With such a long buildout timeframe, terrain challenges, the potential for opposition, and environmental concerns, one might ask will the beltway ever be built to its full length; will it become a road to nowhere; or will it just connect I-65 to I-59 in the north and northeast.

<gallery>
File:example 422a.png|Initial Corridor X-1 Plan
File:example 422c.png|ALDOT Proposed Route
File:example 422b.png|Proposed Route With Phases
File:example 422d.jpg|Current Section (Nearing Completion)
File:example 422e.png|Current Section (Detailed)
File:example 422f.jpg|Northern Phase Construction Coming Soon
File:example 422g.jpg|Landowners Along the Beltline
</gallery>

===Environmental Concerns and Criticism===
Proponents of the project say the highway will improve emergency response times, boost regional economic development, and create thousands of jobs. But critics have highlighted several concerns regarding environmental impacts and citing the usual arguments that the project will just create urban sprawl and induce demand. The environmental concerns have some merit in that in order to construct the project there will be several watersheds impacted along the route which could bring concerns about fish habitat and drinking water impacts. The project will also no doubt have an impact on wildlife and forest habitats since the planned route traverses a fairly hilly and densely forested area. Then there is the cost. Some critics balk at the massive cost of the project calling it a 'unnecessary boondoggle' and arguing that this money could be better spent elsewhere, especially in light of the cuts that were made to other ALDOT projects due to funding shortfalls.
Then there is the consideration of those who stand to benefit from a large project like this being completed. Corporate landowners own large swaths of land in the area which would become much more desirable with freeway access, and lead to key development along the corridor. The largest landowner U.S. Steel has the most land and has a history of doing large scale residential and commercial land developments. Other major property owners also stand to potentially benefit similarly as property values increase along the corridor.

==Perceived Purpose and Need==
According to transportation planners and ALDOT, This corridor solves several transportation issues in that it provides a full beltway around the city connecting with the Southern Beltline to the southwest. However using this beltway benefits traffic mostly from the southwest to the northeast along the I20 and I-59 corridors providing bypasses for each. It also provides a releiver route for traffic heading along I-65 to and from the north into the metro area, as well as connecting to and from I-22 in the northwest. But for through traffic along I-65 passing north and south through the metro area the benefits are just not there. The beltline causes significant backtrack mileage if used and would not likely provide better relief than just staying on I-65 through the urban core.

==Indyroads Recommendation==
The Northern Beltline is surely an ambitious project, but it is uncertain if it really is worth the cost. Potentially it may make more sense to look at a shorter beltway across the north between I-22 and I-59 instead and then connecting it to I-20 to the east at some point in the future. Another option is to move it further out to travel through Jasper instead and end in Tuscaloosa instead to make it more of a regional bypass instead of a metro bypass. This would allow traffic to move efficiently with less induced sprawl along the corridor with it being further out. Also 'no-development' zones and interchange spacing could be used to help protect the rural areas further out to help curtail the potential for sprawl. I am usually in favor of freeway projects especially in areas where congestion is a problem, but I am not as excited about this one. As for the need for the project, there is a need for a better connection from I-65 in the north to I-20/59 in the southwest. Currently all traffic making this move must negotiate the downtown interchange and travel along the congested 20-59 corridor which is one reason I would support this project.

===Recommended Numbering===
Since the route favors I-59 and serves better as its bypass it makes more sense to number it accordingly as I-259, I-659, or I-859 instead since it loops back to its original alignment. The numbering would also complement well with existing I-459 differentiating it since it isn't a true 'loop' connecting at both ends. Indyroads recommends numbering it as I-859 fir that reason.

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

Ultimate Interstates:Corridors 422 and 222

2026-08-29T18:24:56Z

Indyroads: /* Timeline and Funding */

[[File:corridor422-222.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 422-222 Overview]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 422''' and '''Ultimate Interstate 222''' are proposed interstate auxiliary routes planned as part of a northern bypass loop in the Birmingham metropolitan area known as the ''' Birmingham Northern Beltline'''. The planned route traverses northward from the intersection of Interstate 20/59 and the Southern Bypass (I-459) traveling northward towards its parent route (I-22) connecting with that route via a 2 mile spur. From there the route would continue northeastward connecting to I-65 in the north of the metro area at a new interchange, then curving eastward and southeastward connecting to I-59 in the northeast of the metro area at a new interchange.

====I-22 Interchange Challenges====
Due to geometric and terrain constraints where Ultimate Interstate 422 crosses its parent route, it was determined that it was unfeasible to construct an interchange there, and the connection will instead be made via a 2 mile interstate spur (I-222) located about 2 miles to the east of this junction. Meaning that some traffic will have to negotiate a 6 mile backtrack loop just to connect from I-422 north to I-22 west.

===Timeline and Funding===
The project is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System. The Northern Beltway, also known as '''Corridor X-1''', is the northern beltway component of the larger '''Corridor-X''' that eventually became Interstate 22. This section that is currently being planned as I-422 and I-222. The project is being planned in two main phases. The first phase connects I-65 and I-59 in the north and northeast. and the Second phase connects I-65 with I-22 and I-20/59 from the north to the southwest.

The project was originally conceived in the 1960's but had never really entered into the long-range planning until later on. At that time Birmingham was a much smaller metropolitan area and the beltway would not have been needed at that time. The goal of this project was to complete a full beltway loop around Birmingham to compliment the I-459 southern beltway. Eventually planning and funding was secured to begin construction in 2014 on the initial segment between AL-79 and AL-75 in the north metro near Pinson, however funding quickly ran out and construction stalled for nearly a decade. With new influx of federal funding constuction resumed in 2024 and is nearing completion as of fall 2026 on this first 2-mile segment. And with this new funding planning and environmental permits for construction of a second 9.5 mile segment from Pinson west to US-31 with construction to follow soon thereafter. The full buildout of the project will take more than a decade to be completed with some estimates stating it may not be completed until 2048 and others not until 2060.

The overall cost of the project is currently estimated to cost nearly 5.5 Billion dollars, making it the most expensive road project in Alabama and one of the most expensive in the country. Certainly with the long timeframe for this project, the cost could increase significantly if there are issues, delays, and further increases in material costs. With such a long buildout timeframe, terrain challenges, the potential for opposition, and environmental concerns, one might ask will the beltway ever be built to its full length; will it become a road to nowhere; or will it just connect I-65 to I-59 in the north and northeast.

<gallery>
File:example 422a.png|Initial Corridor X-1 Plan
File:example 422c.png|ALDOT Proposed Route
File:example 422b.png|Proposed Route With Phases
File:example 422d.jpg|Current Section (Nearing Completion)
File:example 422e.png|Current Section (Detailed)
File:example 422f.jpg|Northern Phase Construction Coming Soon
File:example 422g.jpg|Landowners Along the Beltline
</gallery>

===Environmental Concerns and Criticism===
Proponents of the project say the highway will improve emergency response times, boost regional economic development, and create thousands of jobs. But critics have highlighted several concerns regarding environmental impacts and citing the usual arguments that the project will just create urban sprawl and induce demand. The environmental concerns have some merit in that in order to construct the project there will be several watersheds impacted along the route which could bring concerns about fish habitat and drinking water impacts. The project will also no doubt have an impact on wildlife and forest habitats since the planned route traverses a fairly hilly and densely forested area. Then there is the cost. Some critics balk at the massive cost of the project calling it a 'unnecessary boondoggle' and arguing that this money could be better spent elsewhere, especially in light of the cuts that were made to other ALDOT projects due to funding shortfalls.
Then there is the consideration of those who stand to benefit from a large project like this being completed. Corporate landowners own large swaths of land in the area which would become much more desirable with freeway access, and lead to key development along the corridor. The largest landowner U.S. Steel has the most land and has a history of doing large scale residential and commercial land developments. Other major property owners also stand to potentially benefit similarly as property values increase along the corridor.

==Perceived Purpose and Need==
According to transportation planners and ALDOT, This corridor solves several transportation issues in that it provides a full beltway around the city connecting with the Southern Beltline to the southwest. However using this beltway benefits traffic mostly from the southwest to the northeast along the I20 and I-59 corridors providing bypasses for each. It also provides a releiver route for traffic heading along I-65 to and from the north into the metro area, as well as connecting to and from I-22 in the northwest. But for through traffic along I-65 passing north and south through the metro area the benefits are just not there. The beltline causes significant backtrack mileage if used and would not likely provide better relief than just staying on I-65 through the urban core.

==Indyroads Recommendation==
The Northern Beltline is surely an ambitious project, but it is uncertain if it really is worth the cost. Potentially it may make more sense to look at a shorter beltway across the north between I-22 and I-59 instead and then connecting it to I-20 to the east at some point in the future. Another option is to move it further out to travel through Jasper instead and end in Tuscaloosa instead to make it more of a regional bypass instead of a metro bypass. This would allow traffic to move efficiently with less induced sprawl along the corridor with it being further out. Also 'no-development' zones and interchange spacing could be used to help protect the rural areas further out to help curtail the potential for sprawl. I am usually in favor of freeway projects especially in areas where congestion is a problem, but I am not as excited about this one. As for the need for the project, there is a need for a better connection from I-65 in the north to I-20/59 in the southwest. Currently all traffic making this move must negotiate the downtown interchange and travel along the congested 20-59 corridor which is one reason I would support this project.

===Recommended Numbering===
Since the route favors I-59 and serves better as its bypass it makes more sense to number it accordingly as I-259, I-659, or I-859 instead since it loops back to its original alignment. The numbering would also complement well with existing I-459 differentiating it since it isn't a true 'loop' connecting at both ends. Indyroads recommends numbering it as I-859 fir that reason.

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

Ultimate Interstates:Corridors 422 and 222

2026-08-29T18:24:33Z

Indyroads:

[[File:corridor422-222.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 422-222 Overview]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 422''' and '''Ultimate Interstate 222''' are proposed interstate auxiliary routes planned as part of a northern bypass loop in the Birmingham metropolitan area known as the ''' Birmingham Northern Beltline'''. The planned route traverses northward from the intersection of Interstate 20/59 and the Southern Bypass (I-459) traveling northward towards its parent route (I-22) connecting with that route via a 2 mile spur. From there the route would continue northeastward connecting to I-65 in the north of the metro area at a new interchange, then curving eastward and southeastward connecting to I-59 in the northeast of the metro area at a new interchange.

====I-22 Interchange Challenges====
Due to geometric and terrain constraints where Ultimate Interstate 422 crosses its parent route, it was determined that it was unfeasible to construct an interchange there, and the connection will instead be made via a 2 mile interstate spur (I-222) located about 2 miles to the east of this junction. Meaning that some traffic will have to negotiate a 6 mile backtrack loop just to connect from I-422 north to I-22 west.

===Timeline and Funding===
<gallery>
File:example 422a.png|Initial Corridor X-1 Plan
File:example 422c.png|ALDOT Proposed Route
File:example 422b.png|Proposed Route With Phases
File:example 422d.jpg|Current Section (Nearing Completion)
File:example 422e.png|Current Section (Detailed)
File:example 422f.jpg|Northern Phase Construction Coming Soon
File:example 422g.jpg|Landowners Along the Beltline
</gallery>
The project is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System. The Northern Beltway, also known as '''Corridor X-1''', is the northern beltway component of the larger '''Corridor-X''' that eventually became Interstate 22. This section that is currently being planned as I-422 and I-222. The project is being planned in two main phases. The first phase connects I-65 and I-59 in the north and northeast. and the Second phase connects I-65 with I-22 and I-20/59 from the north to the southwest.

The project was originally conceived in the 1960's but had never really entered into the long-range planning until later on. At that time Birmingham was a much smaller metropolitan area and the beltway would not have been needed at that time. The goal of this project was to complete a full beltway loop around Birmingham to compliment the I-459 southern beltway. Eventually planning and funding was secured to begin construction in 2014 on the initial segment between AL-79 and AL-75 in the north metro near Pinson, however funding quickly ran out and construction stalled for nearly a decade. With new influx of federal funding constuction resumed in 2024 and is nearing completion as of fall 2026 on this first 2-mile segment. And with this new funding planning and environmental permits for construction of a second 9.5 mile segment from Pinson west to US-31 with construction to follow soon thereafter. The full buildout of the project will take more than a decade to be completed with some estimates stating it may not be completed until 2048 and others not until 2060.

The overall cost of the project is currently estimated to cost nearly 5.5 Billion dollars, making it the most expensive road project in Alabama and one of the most expensive in the country. Certainly with the long timeframe for this project, the cost could increase significantly if there are issues, delays, and further increases in material costs. With such a long buildout timeframe, terrain challenges, the potential for opposition, and environmental concerns, one might ask will the beltway ever be built to its full length; will it become a road to nowhere; or will it just connect I-65 to I-59 in the north and northeast.

===Environmental Concerns and Criticism===
Proponents of the project say the highway will improve emergency response times, boost regional economic development, and create thousands of jobs. But critics have highlighted several concerns regarding environmental impacts and citing the usual arguments that the project will just create urban sprawl and induce demand. The environmental concerns have some merit in that in order to construct the project there will be several watersheds impacted along the route which could bring concerns about fish habitat and drinking water impacts. The project will also no doubt have an impact on wildlife and forest habitats since the planned route traverses a fairly hilly and densely forested area. Then there is the cost. Some critics balk at the massive cost of the project calling it a 'unnecessary boondoggle' and arguing that this money could be better spent elsewhere, especially in light of the cuts that were made to other ALDOT projects due to funding shortfalls.
Then there is the consideration of those who stand to benefit from a large project like this being completed. Corporate landowners own large swaths of land in the area which would become much more desirable with freeway access, and lead to key development along the corridor. The largest landowner U.S. Steel has the most land and has a history of doing large scale residential and commercial land developments. Other major property owners also stand to potentially benefit similarly as property values increase along the corridor.

==Perceived Purpose and Need==
According to transportation planners and ALDOT, This corridor solves several transportation issues in that it provides a full beltway around the city connecting with the Southern Beltline to the southwest. However using this beltway benefits traffic mostly from the southwest to the northeast along the I20 and I-59 corridors providing bypasses for each. It also provides a releiver route for traffic heading along I-65 to and from the north into the metro area, as well as connecting to and from I-22 in the northwest. But for through traffic along I-65 passing north and south through the metro area the benefits are just not there. The beltline causes significant backtrack mileage if used and would not likely provide better relief than just staying on I-65 through the urban core.

==Indyroads Recommendation==
The Northern Beltline is surely an ambitious project, but it is uncertain if it really is worth the cost. Potentially it may make more sense to look at a shorter beltway across the north between I-22 and I-59 instead and then connecting it to I-20 to the east at some point in the future. Another option is to move it further out to travel through Jasper instead and end in Tuscaloosa instead to make it more of a regional bypass instead of a metro bypass. This would allow traffic to move efficiently with less induced sprawl along the corridor with it being further out. Also 'no-development' zones and interchange spacing could be used to help protect the rural areas further out to help curtail the potential for sprawl. I am usually in favor of freeway projects especially in areas where congestion is a problem, but I am not as excited about this one. As for the need for the project, there is a need for a better connection from I-65 in the north to I-20/59 in the southwest. Currently all traffic making this move must negotiate the downtown interchange and travel along the congested 20-59 corridor which is one reason I would support this project.

===Recommended Numbering===
Since the route favors I-59 and serves better as its bypass it makes more sense to number it accordingly as I-259, I-659, or I-859 instead since it loops back to its original alignment. The numbering would also complement well with existing I-459 differentiating it since it isn't a true 'loop' connecting at both ends. Indyroads recommends numbering it as I-859 fir that reason.

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

File:Example 422g.jpg

2026-08-29T18:18:47Z

Indyroads:

File:Example 422f.jpg

2026-08-29T18:18:01Z

Indyroads: Courtesy ALDOT and Courtesy AL.com

== Summary ==
Courtesy ALDOT and Courtesy AL.com

File:Example 422e.png

2026-08-29T18:17:06Z

Indyroads:

File:Example 422d.jpg

2026-08-29T18:16:51Z

Indyroads:

Ultimate Interstates:Corridors 422 and 222

2026-08-29T18:16:38Z

Indyroads: /* I-22 Interchange */

[[File:corridor422-222.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 422-222 Overview]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 422''' and '''Ultimate Interstate 222''' are proposed interstate auxiliary routes planned as part of a northern bypass loop in the Birmingham metropolitan area. The planned route traverses northward from the intersection of Interstate 20/59 and the Southern Bypass (I-459) traveling northward towards its parent route (I-22) connecting with that route via a 2 mile spur. From there the route would continue northeastward connecting to I-65 in the north of the metro area at a new interchange, then curving eastward and southeastward connecting to I-59 in the northeast of the metro area at a new interchange.

===I-22 Interchange===
Due to geometric and terrain constraints where Ultimate Interstate 422 crosses its parent route, it was determined that it was unfeasible to construct an interchange there, and the connection will instead be made via a 2 mile interstate spur (I-222) located about 2 miles to the east of this junction. Meaning that some traffic will have to negotiate a 6 mile backtrack loop just to connect from I-422 north to I-22 west.

<gallery>
File:example 422a.png|Initial Corridor X-1 Plan
File:example 422c.png|ALDOT Proposed Route
File:example 422b.png|Proposed Route With Phases
File:example 422d.jpg|Current Section (Nearing Completion)
File:example 422e.png|Current Section (Detailed)
File:example 422f.jpg|Northern Phase Construction Coming Soon
File:example 422g.jpg|Landowners Along the Beltline
</gallery>

===Timeline and Funding===
The project is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System. The Northern Beltway, also known as '''Corridor X-1''', is the northern beltway component of the larger '''Corridor-X''' that eventually became Interstate 22. This section that is currently being planned as I-422 and I-222. The project is being planned in two main phases. The first phase connects I-65 and I-59 in the north and northeast. and the Second phase connects I-65 with I-22 and I-20/59 from the north to the southwest.

The project was originally conceived in the 1960's but had never really entered into the long-range planning until later on. At that time Birmingham was a much smaller metropolitan area and the beltway would not have been needed at that time. The goal of this project was to complete a full beltway loop around Birmingham to compliment the I-459 southern beltway. Eventually planning and funding was secured to begin construction in 2014 on the initial segment between AL-79 and AL-75 in the north metro near Pinson, however funding quickly ran out and construction stalled for nearly a decade. With new influx of federal funding constuction resumed in 2024 and is nearing completion as of fall 2026 on this first 2-mile segment. And with this new funding planning and environmental permits for construction of a second 9.5 mile segment from Pinson west to US-31 with construction to follow soon thereafter. The full buildout of the project will take more than a decade to be completed with some estimates stating it may not be completed until 2048 and others not until 2060.

The overall cost of the project is currently estimated to cost nearly 5.5 Billion dollars, making it the most expensive road project in Alabama and one of the most expensive in the country. Certainly with the long timeframe for this project, the cost could increase significantly if there are issues, delays, and further increases in material costs. With such a long buildout timeframe, terrain challenges, the potential for opposition, and environmental concerns, one might ask will the beltway ever be built to its full length; will it become a road to nowhere; or will it just connect I-65 to I-59 in the north and northeast.

===Environmental Concerns and Criticism===
Proponents of the project say the highway will improve emergency response times, boost regional economic development, and create thousands of jobs. But critics have highlighted several concerns regarding environmental impacts and citing the usual arguments that the project will just create urban sprawl and induce demand. The environmental concerns have some merit in that in order to construct the project there will be several watersheds impacted along the route which could bring concerns about fish habitat and drinking water impacts. The project will also no doubt have an impact on wildlife and forest habitats since the planned route traverses a fairly hilly and densely forested area. Then there is the cost. Some critics balk at the massive cost of the project calling it a 'unnecessary boondoggle' and arguing that this money could be better spent elsewhere, especially in light of the cuts that were made to other ALDOT projects due to funding shortfalls.
Then there is the consideration of those who stand to benefit from a large project like this being completed. Corporate landowners own large swaths of land in the area which would become much more desirable with freeway access, and lead to key development along the corridor. The largest landowner U.S. Steel has the most land and has a history of doing large scale residential and commercial land developments. Other major property owners also stand to potentially benefit similarly as property values increase along the corridor.

==Perceived Purpose and Need==
According to transportation planners and ALDOT, This corridor solves several transportation issues in that it provides a full beltway around the city connecting with the Southern Beltline to the southwest. However using this beltway benefits traffic mostly from the southwest to the northeast along the I20 and I-59 corridors providing bypasses for each. It also provides a releiver route for traffic heading along I-65 to and from the north into the metro area, as well as connecting to and from I-22 in the northwest. But for through traffic along I-65 passing north and south through the metro area the benefits are just not there. The beltline causes significant backtrack mileage if used and would not likely provide better relief than just staying on I-65 through the urban core.

==Indyroads Recommendation==
The Northern Beltline is surely an ambitious project, but it is uncertain if it really is worth the cost. Potentially it may make more sense to look at a shorter beltway across the north between I-22 and I-59 instead and then connecting it to I-20 to the east at some point in the future. Another option is to move it further out to travel through Jasper instead and end in Tuscaloosa instead to make it more of a regional bypass instead of a metro bypass. This would allow traffic to move efficiently with less induced sprawl along the corridor with it being further out. Also 'no-development' zones and interchange spacing could be used to help protect the rural areas further out to help curtail the potential for sprawl. I am usually in favor of freeway projects especially in areas where congestion is a problem, but I am not as excited about this one. As for the need for the project, there is a need for a better connection from I-65 in the north to I-20/59 in the southwest. Currently all traffic making this move must negotiate the downtown interchange and travel along the congested 20-59 corridor which is one reason I would support this project.

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

Ultimate Interstates:Corridors 422 and 222

2026-08-29T18:15:14Z

Indyroads: /* I-22 Interchange */

[[File:corridor422-222.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 422-222 Overview]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 422''' and '''Ultimate Interstate 222''' are proposed interstate auxiliary routes planned as part of a northern bypass loop in the Birmingham metropolitan area. The planned route traverses northward from the intersection of Interstate 20/59 and the Southern Bypass (I-459) traveling northward towards its parent route (I-22) connecting with that route via a 2 mile spur. From there the route would continue northeastward connecting to I-65 in the north of the metro area at a new interchange, then curving eastward and southeastward connecting to I-59 in the northeast of the metro area at a new interchange.

===I-22 Interchange===
Due to geometric and terrain constraints where Ultimate Interstate 422 crosses its parent route, it was determined that it was unfeasible to construct an interchange there, and the connection will instead be made via a 2 mile interstate spur (I-222) located about 2 miles to the east of this junction. Meaning that some traffic will have to negotiate a 6 mile backtrack loop just to connect from I-422 north to I-22 west.

<gallery>
File:example 422a.png|Initial Corridor X-1 Plan
File:example 422c.png|ALDOT Proposed Route
File:example 422b.png|Proposed Route With Phases
File:example 422d.png|Currently Section (Nearing Completion)
File:example 422e.jpg|Northern Phase Construction Coming Soon
File:example 422f.jpg|Landowners Along the Beltline
</gallery>

===Timeline and Funding===
The project is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System. The Northern Beltway, also known as '''Corridor X-1''', is the northern beltway component of the larger '''Corridor-X''' that eventually became Interstate 22. This section that is currently being planned as I-422 and I-222. The project is being planned in two main phases. The first phase connects I-65 and I-59 in the north and northeast. and the Second phase connects I-65 with I-22 and I-20/59 from the north to the southwest.

The project was originally conceived in the 1960's but had never really entered into the long-range planning until later on. At that time Birmingham was a much smaller metropolitan area and the beltway would not have been needed at that time. The goal of this project was to complete a full beltway loop around Birmingham to compliment the I-459 southern beltway. Eventually planning and funding was secured to begin construction in 2014 on the initial segment between AL-79 and AL-75 in the north metro near Pinson, however funding quickly ran out and construction stalled for nearly a decade. With new influx of federal funding constuction resumed in 2024 and is nearing completion as of fall 2026 on this first 2-mile segment. And with this new funding planning and environmental permits for construction of a second 9.5 mile segment from Pinson west to US-31 with construction to follow soon thereafter. The full buildout of the project will take more than a decade to be completed with some estimates stating it may not be completed until 2048 and others not until 2060.

The overall cost of the project is currently estimated to cost nearly 5.5 Billion dollars, making it the most expensive road project in Alabama and one of the most expensive in the country. Certainly with the long timeframe for this project, the cost could increase significantly if there are issues, delays, and further increases in material costs. With such a long buildout timeframe, terrain challenges, the potential for opposition, and environmental concerns, one might ask will the beltway ever be built to its full length; will it become a road to nowhere; or will it just connect I-65 to I-59 in the north and northeast.

===Environmental Concerns and Criticism===
Proponents of the project say the highway will improve emergency response times, boost regional economic development, and create thousands of jobs. But critics have highlighted several concerns regarding environmental impacts and citing the usual arguments that the project will just create urban sprawl and induce demand. The environmental concerns have some merit in that in order to construct the project there will be several watersheds impacted along the route which could bring concerns about fish habitat and drinking water impacts. The project will also no doubt have an impact on wildlife and forest habitats since the planned route traverses a fairly hilly and densely forested area. Then there is the cost. Some critics balk at the massive cost of the project calling it a 'unnecessary boondoggle' and arguing that this money could be better spent elsewhere, especially in light of the cuts that were made to other ALDOT projects due to funding shortfalls.
Then there is the consideration of those who stand to benefit from a large project like this being completed. Corporate landowners own large swaths of land in the area which would become much more desirable with freeway access, and lead to key development along the corridor. The largest landowner U.S. Steel has the most land and has a history of doing large scale residential and commercial land developments. Other major property owners also stand to potentially benefit similarly as property values increase along the corridor.

==Perceived Purpose and Need==
According to transportation planners and ALDOT, This corridor solves several transportation issues in that it provides a full beltway around the city connecting with the Southern Beltline to the southwest. However using this beltway benefits traffic mostly from the southwest to the northeast along the I20 and I-59 corridors providing bypasses for each. It also provides a releiver route for traffic heading along I-65 to and from the north into the metro area, as well as connecting to and from I-22 in the northwest. But for through traffic along I-65 passing north and south through the metro area the benefits are just not there. The beltline causes significant backtrack mileage if used and would not likely provide better relief than just staying on I-65 through the urban core.

==Indyroads Recommendation==
The Northern Beltline is surely an ambitious project, but it is uncertain if it really is worth the cost. Potentially it may make more sense to look at a shorter beltway across the north between I-22 and I-59 instead and then connecting it to I-20 to the east at some point in the future. Another option is to move it further out to travel through Jasper instead and end in Tuscaloosa instead to make it more of a regional bypass instead of a metro bypass. This would allow traffic to move efficiently with less induced sprawl along the corridor with it being further out. Also 'no-development' zones and interchange spacing could be used to help protect the rural areas further out to help curtail the potential for sprawl. I am usually in favor of freeway projects especially in areas where congestion is a problem, but I am not as excited about this one. As for the need for the project, there is a need for a better connection from I-65 in the north to I-20/59 in the southwest. Currently all traffic making this move must negotiate the downtown interchange and travel along the congested 20-59 corridor which is one reason I would support this project.

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

File:Example 422c.png

2026-08-29T18:13:55Z

Indyroads:

File:Example 422b.png

2026-08-29T18:12:43Z

Indyroads:

Ultimate Interstates:Corridors 422 and 222

2026-08-29T18:12:20Z

Indyroads: /* I-22 Interchange */

[[File:corridor422-222.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 422-222 Overview]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 422''' and '''Ultimate Interstate 222''' are proposed interstate auxiliary routes planned as part of a northern bypass loop in the Birmingham metropolitan area. The planned route traverses northward from the intersection of Interstate 20/59 and the Southern Bypass (I-459) traveling northward towards its parent route (I-22) connecting with that route via a 2 mile spur. From there the route would continue northeastward connecting to I-65 in the north of the metro area at a new interchange, then curving eastward and southeastward connecting to I-59 in the northeast of the metro area at a new interchange.

===I-22 Interchange===
Due to geometric and terrain constraints where Ultimate Interstate 422 crosses its parent route, it was determined that it was unfeasible to construct an interchange there, and the connection will instead be made via a 2 mile interstate spur (I-222) located about 2 miles to the east of this junction. Meaning that some traffic will have to negotiate a 6 mile backtrack loop just to connect from I-422 north to I-22 west.

<gallery>
File:example 422a.png|Initial Corridor X-1 Plan
File:example 422b.png|ALDOT Proposed Route
File:example 422c.png|Proposed Route Phases
File:example 422d.png|Currently Section (Nearing Completion)
File:example 422e.jpg|Northern Phase Construction Coming Soon
File:example 422f.jpg|Landowners Along the Beltline
</gallery>

===Timeline and Funding===
The project is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System. The Northern Beltway, also known as '''Corridor X-1''', is the northern beltway component of the larger '''Corridor-X''' that eventually became Interstate 22. This section that is currently being planned as I-422 and I-222. The project is being planned in two main phases. The first phase connects I-65 and I-59 in the north and northeast. and the Second phase connects I-65 with I-22 and I-20/59 from the north to the southwest.

The project was originally conceived in the 1960's but had never really entered into the long-range planning until later on. At that time Birmingham was a much smaller metropolitan area and the beltway would not have been needed at that time. The goal of this project was to complete a full beltway loop around Birmingham to compliment the I-459 southern beltway. Eventually planning and funding was secured to begin construction in 2014 on the initial segment between AL-79 and AL-75 in the north metro near Pinson, however funding quickly ran out and construction stalled for nearly a decade. With new influx of federal funding constuction resumed in 2024 and is nearing completion as of fall 2026 on this first 2-mile segment. And with this new funding planning and environmental permits for construction of a second 9.5 mile segment from Pinson west to US-31 with construction to follow soon thereafter. The full buildout of the project will take more than a decade to be completed with some estimates stating it may not be completed until 2048 and others not until 2060.

The overall cost of the project is currently estimated to cost nearly 5.5 Billion dollars, making it the most expensive road project in Alabama and one of the most expensive in the country. Certainly with the long timeframe for this project, the cost could increase significantly if there are issues, delays, and further increases in material costs. With such a long buildout timeframe, terrain challenges, the potential for opposition, and environmental concerns, one might ask will the beltway ever be built to its full length; will it become a road to nowhere; or will it just connect I-65 to I-59 in the north and northeast.

===Environmental Concerns and Criticism===
Proponents of the project say the highway will improve emergency response times, boost regional economic development, and create thousands of jobs. But critics have highlighted several concerns regarding environmental impacts and citing the usual arguments that the project will just create urban sprawl and induce demand. The environmental concerns have some merit in that in order to construct the project there will be several watersheds impacted along the route which could bring concerns about fish habitat and drinking water impacts. The project will also no doubt have an impact on wildlife and forest habitats since the planned route traverses a fairly hilly and densely forested area. Then there is the cost. Some critics balk at the massive cost of the project calling it a 'unnecessary boondoggle' and arguing that this money could be better spent elsewhere, especially in light of the cuts that were made to other ALDOT projects due to funding shortfalls.
Then there is the consideration of those who stand to benefit from a large project like this being completed. Corporate landowners own large swaths of land in the area which would become much more desirable with freeway access, and lead to key development along the corridor. The largest landowner U.S. Steel has the most land and has a history of doing large scale residential and commercial land developments. Other major property owners also stand to potentially benefit similarly as property values increase along the corridor.

==Perceived Purpose and Need==
According to transportation planners and ALDOT, This corridor solves several transportation issues in that it provides a full beltway around the city connecting with the Southern Beltline to the southwest. However using this beltway benefits traffic mostly from the southwest to the northeast along the I20 and I-59 corridors providing bypasses for each. It also provides a releiver route for traffic heading along I-65 to and from the north into the metro area, as well as connecting to and from I-22 in the northwest. But for through traffic along I-65 passing north and south through the metro area the benefits are just not there. The beltline causes significant backtrack mileage if used and would not likely provide better relief than just staying on I-65 through the urban core.

==Indyroads Recommendation==
The Northern Beltline is surely an ambitious project, but it is uncertain if it really is worth the cost. Potentially it may make more sense to look at a shorter beltway across the north between I-22 and I-59 instead and then connecting it to I-20 to the east at some point in the future. Another option is to move it further out to travel through Jasper instead and end in Tuscaloosa instead to make it more of a regional bypass instead of a metro bypass. This would allow traffic to move efficiently with less induced sprawl along the corridor with it being further out. Also 'no-development' zones and interchange spacing could be used to help protect the rural areas further out to help curtail the potential for sprawl. I am usually in favor of freeway projects especially in areas where congestion is a problem, but I am not as excited about this one. As for the need for the project, there is a need for a better connection from I-65 in the north to I-20/59 in the southwest. Currently all traffic making this move must negotiate the downtown interchange and travel along the congested 20-59 corridor which is one reason I would support this project.

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

File:Example 422a.png

2026-08-29T18:08:13Z

Indyroads:

Ultimate Interstates:Corridors 422 and 222

2026-08-29T18:07:53Z

Indyroads: /* I-22 Interchange */

[[File:corridor422-222.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 422-222 Overview]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 422''' and '''Ultimate Interstate 222''' are proposed interstate auxiliary routes planned as part of a northern bypass loop in the Birmingham metropolitan area. The planned route traverses northward from the intersection of Interstate 20/59 and the Southern Bypass (I-459) traveling northward towards its parent route (I-22) connecting with that route via a 2 mile spur. From there the route would continue northeastward connecting to I-65 in the north of the metro area at a new interchange, then curving eastward and southeastward connecting to I-59 in the northeast of the metro area at a new interchange.

===I-22 Interchange===
Due to geometric and terrain constraints where Ultimate Interstate 422 crosses its parent route, it was determined that it was unfeasible to construct an interchange there, and the connection will instead be made via a 2 mile interstate spur (I-222) located about 2 miles to the east of this junction. Meaning that some traffic will have to negotiate a 6 mile backtrack loop just to connect from I-422 north to I-22 west.

<gallery>
File:example 422a.png|Initial Corridor X-1 Plan
File:example 422b.jpg|ALDOT Proposed route
File:example 422c.png|Currently constructed section (Nearing Completion)
File:example 422d.jpg|Construction Underway Soon (Next Phase)
</gallery>

===Timeline and Funding===
The project is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System. The Northern Beltway, also known as '''Corridor X-1''', is the northern beltway component of the larger '''Corridor-X''' that eventually became Interstate 22. This section that is currently being planned as I-422 and I-222. The project is being planned in two main phases. The first phase connects I-65 and I-59 in the north and northeast. and the Second phase connects I-65 with I-22 and I-20/59 from the north to the southwest.

The project was originally conceived in the 1960's but had never really entered into the long-range planning until later on. At that time Birmingham was a much smaller metropolitan area and the beltway would not have been needed at that time. The goal of this project was to complete a full beltway loop around Birmingham to compliment the I-459 southern beltway. Eventually planning and funding was secured to begin construction in 2014 on the initial segment between AL-79 and AL-75 in the north metro near Pinson, however funding quickly ran out and construction stalled for nearly a decade. With new influx of federal funding constuction resumed in 2024 and is nearing completion as of fall 2026 on this first 2-mile segment. And with this new funding planning and environmental permits for construction of a second 9.5 mile segment from Pinson west to US-31 with construction to follow soon thereafter. The full buildout of the project will take more than a decade to be completed with some estimates stating it may not be completed until 2048 and others not until 2060.

The overall cost of the project is currently estimated to cost nearly 5.5 Billion dollars, making it the most expensive road project in Alabama and one of the most expensive in the country. Certainly with the long timeframe for this project, the cost could increase significantly if there are issues, delays, and further increases in material costs. With such a long buildout timeframe, terrain challenges, the potential for opposition, and environmental concerns, one might ask will the beltway ever be built to its full length; will it become a road to nowhere; or will it just connect I-65 to I-59 in the north and northeast.

===Environmental Concerns and Criticism===
Proponents of the project say the highway will improve emergency response times, boost regional economic development, and create thousands of jobs. But critics have highlighted several concerns regarding environmental impacts and citing the usual arguments that the project will just create urban sprawl and induce demand. The environmental concerns have some merit in that in order to construct the project there will be several watersheds impacted along the route which could bring concerns about fish habitat and drinking water impacts. The project will also no doubt have an impact on wildlife and forest habitats since the planned route traverses a fairly hilly and densely forested area. Then there is the cost. Some critics balk at the massive cost of the project calling it a 'unnecessary boondoggle' and arguing that this money could be better spent elsewhere, especially in light of the cuts that were made to other ALDOT projects due to funding shortfalls.
Then there is the consideration of those who stand to benefit from a large project like this being completed. Corporate landowners own large swaths of land in the area which would become much more desirable with freeway access, and lead to key development along the corridor. The largest landowner U.S. Steel has the most land and has a history of doing large scale residential and commercial land developments. Other major property owners also stand to potentially benefit similarly as property values increase along the corridor.

==Perceived Purpose and Need==
According to transportation planners and ALDOT, This corridor solves several transportation issues in that it provides a full beltway around the city connecting with the Southern Beltline to the southwest. However using this beltway benefits traffic mostly from the southwest to the northeast along the I20 and I-59 corridors providing bypasses for each. It also provides a releiver route for traffic heading along I-65 to and from the north into the metro area, as well as connecting to and from I-22 in the northwest. But for through traffic along I-65 passing north and south through the metro area the benefits are just not there. The beltline causes significant backtrack mileage if used and would not likely provide better relief than just staying on I-65 through the urban core.

==Indyroads Recommendation==
The Northern Beltline is surely an ambitious project, but it is uncertain if it really is worth the cost. Potentially it may make more sense to look at a shorter beltway across the north between I-22 and I-59 instead and then connecting it to I-20 to the east at some point in the future. Another option is to move it further out to travel through Jasper instead and end in Tuscaloosa instead to make it more of a regional bypass instead of a metro bypass. This would allow traffic to move efficiently with less induced sprawl along the corridor with it being further out. Also 'no-development' zones and interchange spacing could be used to help protect the rural areas further out to help curtail the potential for sprawl. I am usually in favor of freeway projects especially in areas where congestion is a problem, but I am not as excited about this one. As for the need for the project, there is a need for a better connection from I-65 in the north to I-20/59 in the southwest. Currently all traffic making this move must negotiate the downtown interchange and travel along the congested 20-59 corridor which is one reason I would support this project.

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

File:Corridor422-222.png

2026-08-29T18:06:40Z

Indyroads:

Ultimate Interstates:Corridors 422 and 222

2026-08-29T18:06:13Z

Indyroads: Created page with "Corridor 422-222 Overview '''Ultimate Interstate 422''' and '''Ultimate Interstate 222''' are proposed interstate auxiliary routes planned as part of a northern bypass loop in the Birmingham metropolitan area. The planned route traverses northward from the intersection of Interstate 20/59 and the Southern Bypass (I-459) traveling northward towards its parent route (I-22) connecting with that route via a 2 mile spur. From there..."

[[File:corridor422-222.png|thumb|upright|Corridor 422-222 Overview]]

'''Ultimate Interstate 422''' and '''Ultimate Interstate 222''' are proposed interstate auxiliary routes planned as part of a northern bypass loop in the Birmingham metropolitan area. The planned route traverses northward from the intersection of Interstate 20/59 and the Southern Bypass (I-459) traveling northward towards its parent route (I-22) connecting with that route via a 2 mile spur. From there the route would continue northeastward connecting to I-65 in the north of the metro area at a new interchange, then curving eastward and southeastward connecting to I-59 in the northeast of the metro area at a new interchange.

===I-22 Interchange===
Due to geometric and terrain constraints where Ultimate Interstate 422 crosses its parent route, it was determined that it was unfeasible to construct an interchange there, and the connection will instead be made via a 2 mile interstate spur (I-222) located about 2 miles to the east of this junction. Meaning that some traffic will have to negotiate a 6 mile backtrack loop just to connect from I-422 north to I-22 west.

<gallery>
File:example 422a.png|Initial Corridor X-1 Plan
File:example 422b.jpg|ALDOT Proposed route
File:example 422c.png|Currently constructed section
File:example 422d.jpg|Construction Underway
</gallery>

===Timeline and Funding===
The project is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System. The Northern Beltway, also known as '''Corridor X-1''', is the northern beltway component of the larger '''Corridor-X''' that eventually became Interstate 22. This section that is currently being planned as I-422 and I-222. The project is being planned in two main phases. The first phase connects I-65 and I-59 in the north and northeast. and the Second phase connects I-65 with I-22 and I-20/59 from the north to the southwest.

The project was originally conceived in the 1960's but had never really entered into the long-range planning until later on. At that time Birmingham was a much smaller metropolitan area and the beltway would not have been needed at that time. The goal of this project was to complete a full beltway loop around Birmingham to compliment the I-459 southern beltway. Eventually planning and funding was secured to begin construction in 2014 on the initial segment between AL-79 and AL-75 in the north metro near Pinson, however funding quickly ran out and construction stalled for nearly a decade. With new influx of federal funding constuction resumed in 2024 and is nearing completion as of fall 2026 on this first 2-mile segment. And with this new funding planning and environmental permits for construction of a second 9.5 mile segment from Pinson west to US-31 with construction to follow soon thereafter. The full buildout of the project will take more than a decade to be completed with some estimates stating it may not be completed until 2048 and others not until 2060.

The overall cost of the project is currently estimated to cost nearly 5.5 Billion dollars, making it the most expensive road project in Alabama and one of the most expensive in the country. Certainly with the long timeframe for this project, the cost could increase significantly if there are issues, delays, and further increases in material costs. With such a long buildout timeframe, terrain challenges, the potential for opposition, and environmental concerns, one might ask will the beltway ever be built to its full length; will it become a road to nowhere; or will it just connect I-65 to I-59 in the north and northeast.

===Environmental Concerns and Criticism===
Proponents of the project say the highway will improve emergency response times, boost regional economic development, and create thousands of jobs. But critics have highlighted several concerns regarding environmental impacts and citing the usual arguments that the project will just create urban sprawl and induce demand. The environmental concerns have some merit in that in order to construct the project there will be several watersheds impacted along the route which could bring concerns about fish habitat and drinking water impacts. The project will also no doubt have an impact on wildlife and forest habitats since the planned route traverses a fairly hilly and densely forested area. Then there is the cost. Some critics balk at the massive cost of the project calling it a 'unnecessary boondoggle' and arguing that this money could be better spent elsewhere, especially in light of the cuts that were made to other ALDOT projects due to funding shortfalls.
Then there is the consideration of those who stand to benefit from a large project like this being completed. Corporate landowners own large swaths of land in the area which would become much more desirable with freeway access, and lead to key development along the corridor. The largest landowner U.S. Steel has the most land and has a history of doing large scale residential and commercial land developments. Other major property owners also stand to potentially benefit similarly as property values increase along the corridor.

==Perceived Purpose and Need==
According to transportation planners and ALDOT, This corridor solves several transportation issues in that it provides a full beltway around the city connecting with the Southern Beltline to the southwest. However using this beltway benefits traffic mostly from the southwest to the northeast along the I20 and I-59 corridors providing bypasses for each. It also provides a releiver route for traffic heading along I-65 to and from the north into the metro area, as well as connecting to and from I-22 in the northwest. But for through traffic along I-65 passing north and south through the metro area the benefits are just not there. The beltline causes significant backtrack mileage if used and would not likely provide better relief than just staying on I-65 through the urban core.

==Indyroads Recommendation==
The Northern Beltline is surely an ambitious project, but it is uncertain if it really is worth the cost. Potentially it may make more sense to look at a shorter beltway across the north between I-22 and I-59 instead and then connecting it to I-20 to the east at some point in the future. Another option is to move it further out to travel through Jasper instead and end in Tuscaloosa instead to make it more of a regional bypass instead of a metro bypass. This would allow traffic to move efficiently with less induced sprawl along the corridor with it being further out. Also 'no-development' zones and interchange spacing could be used to help protect the rural areas further out to help curtail the potential for sprawl. I am usually in favor of freeway projects especially in areas where congestion is a problem, but I am not as excited about this one. As for the need for the project, there is a need for a better connection from I-65 in the north to I-20/59 in the southwest. Currently all traffic making this move must negotiate the downtown interchange and travel along the congested 20-59 corridor which is one reason I would support this project.

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

Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 11

2026-08-21T17:36:53Z

Indyroads:

[[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.

===Idaho Funding Challenges===
The likelihood of seeing Interstate 11 extended into Idaho into the future has become increasingly less likely, as recently as June/July 2026 transportation investment took a major hit delaying many major transportation projects in the pipeline for at least 7 years. Many of the projects in the ITIP (Idaho Transportation Investment Program) a seven-year transportation planning and budgeting tool were moved into the early or unfunded group instead focusing on maintaining the existing network. Why? Budget funding shortfall. With as much in migration into the state as Idaho has seen as people flee higher cost of living in places like California, Oregon, and Washington state, there just isnt enough public funding to go around. The state budget, which comes from taxes collected in the state, only has so much money to go around, and facing a half-billion dollar deficit the governor and legislature made the difficult decision to not allow the state to go into debt. This cut over a quarter-billion dollars from the state transportation budget.

This move sidelines and delays many of the state's transportation initiatives including 4-laning US-95 throughout Idaho, a move that could bring I-11 closer to reality in Idaho. The ION highway between Winnemucca and the Treasure Valley is of the utmost importance. This section has needed to be upgraded to interstate standards for more than 2 decades. And now with northern Idaho and the panhandle continuing to grow, expanding US-95's throughput and safety is even more critical.

The other option is to look to the neighboring states to the west (Oregon and Washington) to see where they might consider partnering in investing into a potential Interstate corridor adjacent to the US-95 corridor. This too could be a viable option for making this connection northward. What may need to happen is to look at creative ways to fund transportation investment including the possibility of using tolling infrastructure to help pay for transportation investments so that the state does not have to increase tax burden in license fees and gas taxes. Road usage fees are a easy way to implement, and tolling can easily be removed once the bonds are paid off.

<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 11

2026-08-21T17:33:24Z

Indyroads: /* Routing options Nevada and Northward */

[[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.

===Idaho Funding Challenges===
The likelihood of seeing Interstate 11 extended into Idaho into the future has become increasingly less likely, as recently as June/July 2026 transportation investment took a major hit delaying many major transportation projects in the pipeline for at least 7 years. Many of the projects in the ITIP (Idaho Transportation Investment Program) a seven-year transportation planning and budgeting tool were moved into the early or unfunded group instead focusing on maintaining the existing network. Why? Budget funding shortfall. With as much in migration into the state as Idaho has seen as people flee higher cost of living in places like California, Oregon, and Washington state, there just isnt enough public funding to go around. The state budget, which comes from taxes collected in the state, only has so much money to go around, and facing a half-billion dollar deficit the governor and legislature made the difficult decision to not allow the state to go into debt. This cut over a quarter-billion dollars from the state transportation budget.

This move sidelines and delays many of the state's transportation initiatives including 4-laning US-95 throughout Idaho, a move that could bring I-11 closer to reality in Idaho. The ION highway between Winnemucca and the Treasure Valley is of the utmost importance. This section has needed to be upgraded to interstate standards for more than 2 decades. And now with northern Idaho and the panhandle continuing to grow, expanding US-95's throughput and safety is even more critical.

The other option is to look to the neighboring states to the west (Oregon and Washington) to see where they might consider partnering in investing into a potential Interstate corridor adjacent to the US-95 corridor. This too could be a viable option for making this connection northward. What may need to happen is to look at creative ways to fund transportation investment including the possibility of using tolling infrastructure to help pay for transportation investments so that the state does not have to increase tax burden in license fees and gas taxes. Road usage fees are a easy way to implement, and tolling can easily be removed once the bonds are paid off.

==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

2026-07-03T03:39:01Z

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]]

'''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.

This 'Ultimate Interstate' could potentially be extended southward to Hugo, OK which would bring the entire Indian Nation Turnpike into the interstate system.

'''Ultimate Interstate 345''' is an auxiliary interstate route that would connect Tulsa, OK to I-40 near Webbers Falls, OK by redesignating the entire Muskogee Turnpike (currently OK-351) as an interstate highway. The Oklahoma Department of Highways has applied and is seeking final approvals to sign this route as Interstate 343. This is problematic however since the route does not connect to Interstate 43 (Which is located in Wisconsin). This seems to be more of a novelty designation similar to the I-238 designation in California that also does not conform to numbering conventions. Considering our 'Ultimate Interstate' proposal to extend I-45 northward through the area, Interstate 345 would be a more logical choice for renumbering this road and as such Indyroads recommends amending the route number to I-345 instead.

Additionally, the I-345 route could be extended further northwestward to end at either I-44 in Central Tulsa or at I-244 downtown.

==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.

==Corridor 45 Alternate Routings==
There are also 4 possible recommended alternate routings are represented by the dotted blue or magenta lines on the map. All routings below are described running from South to North, and each of the alternatives share the same routing from Dallas through Tulsa OK as follows:
*''Ultimate Interstate 45'' would follow its proposed routing along sections of US-75 and US-69 from Dallas, TX to the Indian Nation Turnpike (OK-75) junction near McAlester, OK.
*From there all of the alternatives deviate from the ''ultimate routing'' instead following the Indian Nation TPK (OK-75) and then US-75 North from McAlester, OK to Tulsa, OK (what is proposed as ''Ultimate Interstate 145'').

Starting in Tulsa OK, each of the alternates deviate from one another as described below:

*'''Alternative Routing 1''' follows I-44 from Tulsa OK and rejoins the Proposed ''Ultimate Interstate 45'' routing northward into Kansas from a new junction near Miami, OK.
*'''Alternative Routing 1A''' diverts to a new freeway/tollway route from US-75 near Okmulgee, OK on a new alignment to the Creek Turnpike (OK-364) near Broken Arrow, OK, then following the Creek Turnpike (OK-345) northward until it reaches and rejoins I-44 east of Tulsa. From there it Follows I-44 and rejoins the Proposed ''Ultimate Interstate 45'' routing northward into Kansas from a new junction near Miami, OK
*'''Alternative Routing 2''' routes its way through Tulsa continuing northward as it follows US-169 north of Tulsa to Iola, KS then heads eastward near US-54 and rejoins the proposed ''Ultimate Interstate 45'' as it heads northward along the US-69 freeway near Ft Scott, KS.
*'''Alternative Routing 3''' starts similarly to alternative 2 routing through Tulsa and heading northward along US-169 through Chanute, KS and Iola, KS but stays on US-169 as it routes through Garnett, KS and Paola, KS before terminating at a new interchange I-35 in Olathe, KS. Alternative 3 is the only one that does not rejoin the original ''ultimate'' route.

Alternatives 1 and 1A could also serve as an East West Split of ''Corridor 45''. With the western alternative being signed as I-45W and the eastern routing through Muskogee being signed as I-45E.

==Proposed Improvements==
[[File:corridor45PITTx.png|thumb|upright|Pittsburg, KS Bypass]]
===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

2026-07-03T03:30:27Z

Indyroads: /* Auxiliary Routes */

[[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.

This 'Ultimate Interstate' could potentially be extended southward to Hugo, OK which would bring the entire Indian Nation Turnpike into the interstate system.

'''Ultimate Interstate 345''' is an auxiliary interstate route that would connect Tulsa, OK to I-40 near Webbers Falls, OK by redesignating the entire Muskogee Turnpike (currently OK-351) as an interstate highway. The Oklahoma Department of Highways has applied and is seeking final approvals to sign this route as Interstate 343. This is problematic however since the route does not connect to Interstate 43 (Which is located in Wisconsin). This seems to be more of a novelty designation similar to the I-238 designation in California that also does not conform to numbering conventions. Considering our 'Ultimate Interstate' proposal to extend I-45 northward through the area, Interstate 345 would be a more logical choice for renumbering this road and as such Indyroads recommends amending the route number to I-345 instead.

Additionally, the I-345 route could be extended further northwestward to end at either I-44 in Central Tulsa or at I-244 downtown.

==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.

==Corridor 45 Alternate Routings==
There are also 4 possible recommended alternate routings are represented by the dotted blue or magenta lines on the map. All routings below are described running from South to North, and each of the alternatives share the same routing from Dallas through Tulsa OK as follows:
*''Ultimate Interstate 45'' would follow its proposed routing along sections of US-75 and US-69 from Dallas, TX to the Indian Nation Turnpike (OK-75) junction near McAlester, OK.
*From there all of the alternatives deviate from the ''ultimate routing'' instead following the Indian Nation TPK (OK-75) and then US-75 North from McAlester, OK to Tulsa, OK (what is proposed as ''Ultimate Interstate 145'').

Starting in Tulsa OK, each of the alternates deviate from one another as described below:

*'''Alternative Routing 1''' follows I-44 from Tulsa OK and rejoins the Proposed ''Ultimate Interstate 45'' routing northward into Kansas from a new junction near Miami, OK.
*'''Alternative Routing 1A''' diverts to a new freeway/tollway route from US-75 near Okmulgee, OK on a new alignment to the Creek Turnpike (OK-364) near Broken Arrow, OK, then following the Creek Turnpike (OK-345) northward until it reaches and rejoins I-44 east of Tulsa. From there it Follows I-44 and rejoins the Proposed ''Ultimate Interstate 45'' routing northward into Kansas from a new junction near Miami, OK
*'''Alternative Routing 2''' routes its way through Tulsa continuing northward as it follows US-169 north of Tulsa to Iola, KS then heads eastward near US-54 and rejoins the proposed ''Ultimate Interstate 45'' as it heads northward along the US-69 freeway near Ft Scott, KS.
*'''Alternative Routing 3''' starts similarly to alternative 2 routing through Tulsa and heading northward along US-169 through Chanute, KS and Iola, KS but stays on US-169 as it routes through Garnett, KS and Paola, KS before terminating at a new interchange I-35 in Olathe, KS. Alternative 3 is the only one that does not rejoin the original ''ultimate'' route.

Alternatives 1 and 1A could also serve as an East West Split of ''Corridor 45''. With the western alternative being signed as I-45W and the eastern routing through Muskogee being signed as I-45E.

==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

2026-07-03T03:29:02Z

Indyroads: /* Auxiliary Routes */

[[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.

This 'Ultimate Interstate' could potentially be extended southward to Hugo, OK which would bring the entire Indian Nation Turnpike into the interstate system.

'''Ultimate Interstate 345''' is an auxiliary interstate route that would connect Tulsa, OK to I-40 near Webbers Falls, OK by redesignating the entire Cherokee Turnpike (currently OK-351) as an interstate highway. The Oklahoma Department of Highways has applied and is seeking final approvals to sign this route as Interstate 343. This is problematic however since the route does not connect to Interstate 43 (Which is located in Wisconsin). This seems to be more of a novelty designation similar to the I-238 designation in California that also does not conform to numbering conventions. Considering our 'Ultimate Interstate' proposal to extend I-45 northward through the area, Interstate 345 would be a more logical choice for renumbering this road and as such Indyroads recommends amending the route number to I-345 instead.

Additionally, the I-345 route could be extended further northwestward to end at either I-44 in Central Tulsa or at I-244 downtown.

==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.

==Corridor 45 Alternate Routings==
There are also 4 possible recommended alternate routings are represented by the dotted blue or magenta lines on the map. All routings below are described running from South to North, and each of the alternatives share the same routing from Dallas through Tulsa OK as follows:
*''Ultimate Interstate 45'' would follow its proposed routing along sections of US-75 and US-69 from Dallas, TX to the Indian Nation Turnpike (OK-75) junction near McAlester, OK.
*From there all of the alternatives deviate from the ''ultimate routing'' instead following the Indian Nation TPK (OK-75) and then US-75 North from McAlester, OK to Tulsa, OK (what is proposed as ''Ultimate Interstate 145'').

Starting in Tulsa OK, each of the alternates deviate from one another as described below:

*'''Alternative Routing 1''' follows I-44 from Tulsa OK and rejoins the Proposed ''Ultimate Interstate 45'' routing northward into Kansas from a new junction near Miami, OK.
*'''Alternative Routing 1A''' diverts to a new freeway/tollway route from US-75 near Okmulgee, OK on a new alignment to the Creek Turnpike (OK-364) near Broken Arrow, OK, then following the Creek Turnpike (OK-345) northward until it reaches and rejoins I-44 east of Tulsa. From there it Follows I-44 and rejoins the Proposed ''Ultimate Interstate 45'' routing northward into Kansas from a new junction near Miami, OK
*'''Alternative Routing 2''' routes its way through Tulsa continuing northward as it follows US-169 north of Tulsa to Iola, KS then heads eastward near US-54 and rejoins the proposed ''Ultimate Interstate 45'' as it heads northward along the US-69 freeway near Ft Scott, KS.
*'''Alternative Routing 3''' starts similarly to alternative 2 routing through Tulsa and heading northward along US-169 through Chanute, KS and Iola, KS but stays on US-169 as it routes through Garnett, KS and Paola, KS before terminating at a new interchange I-35 in Olathe, KS. Alternative 3 is the only one that does not rejoin the original ''ultimate'' route.

Alternatives 1 and 1A could also serve as an East West Split of ''Corridor 45''. With the western alternative being signed as I-45W and the eastern routing through Muskogee being signed as I-45E.

==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]]

File:Corridor45NEOKx.png

2026-07-03T03:17:57Z

Indyroads: Indyroads uploaded a new version of File:Corridor45NEOKx.png

File:Corridor45COKx.png

2026-07-03T03:16:26Z

Indyroads: Indyroads uploaded a new version of File:Corridor45COKx.png

Ultimate Interstates:Corridor 45

2026-06-15T20:23:01Z

Indyroads: /* Corridor 45 Alternate Routings */

[[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.

==Corridor 45 Alternate Routings==
There are also 4 possible recommended alternate routings are represented by the dotted blue or magenta lines on the map. All routings below are described running from South to North, and each of the alternatives share the same routing from Dallas through Tulsa OK as follows:
*''Ultimate Interstate 45'' would follow its proposed routing along sections of US-75 and US-69 from Dallas, TX to the Indian Nation Turnpike (OK-75) junction near McAlester, OK.
*From there all of the alternatives deviate from the ''ultimate routing'' instead following the Indian Nation TPK (OK-75) and then US-75 North from McAlester, OK to Tulsa, OK (what is proposed as ''Ultimate Interstate 145'').

Starting in Tulsa OK, each of the alternates deviate from one another as described below:

*'''Alternative Routing 1''' follows I-44 from Tulsa OK and rejoins the Proposed ''Ultimate Interstate 45'' routing northward into Kansas from a new junction near Miami, OK.
*'''Alternative Routing 1A''' diverts to a new freeway/tollway route from US-75 near Okmulgee, OK on a new alignment to the Creek Turnpike (OK-364) near Broken Arrow, OK, then following the Creek Turnpike (OK-345) northward until it reaches and rejoins I-44 east of Tulsa. From there it Follows I-44 and rejoins the Proposed ''Ultimate Interstate 45'' routing northward into Kansas from a new junction near Miami, OK
*'''Alternative Routing 2''' routes its way through Tulsa continuing northward as it follows US-169 north of Tulsa to Iola, KS then heads eastward near US-54 and rejoins the proposed ''Ultimate Interstate 45'' as it heads northward along the US-69 freeway near Ft Scott, KS.
*'''Alternative Routing 3''' starts similarly to alternative 2 routing through Tulsa and heading northward along US-169 through Chanute, KS and Iola, KS but stays on US-169 as it routes through Garnett, KS and Paola, KS before terminating at a new interchange I-35 in Olathe, KS. Alternative 3 is the only one that does not rejoin the original ''ultimate'' route.

Alternatives 1 and 1A could also serve as an East West Split of ''Corridor 45''. With the western alternative being signed as I-45W and the eastern routing through Muskogee being signed as I-45E.

==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

2026-06-15T20:18:11Z

Indyroads: /* Alternate Routings */

[[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.

==Corridor 45 Alternate Routings==
There are also 4 possible recommended alternate routings are represented by the dotted blue or magenta lines on the map. All routings below are described running from South to North, and each of the alternatives share the same routing from Dallas through Tulsa OK as follows:
*''Ultimate Interstate 45'' would follow its proposed routing along sections of US-75 and US-69 from Dallas, TX to the Indian Nation Turnpike (OK-75) junction near McAlester, OK.
*From there all of the alternatives deviate from the ''ultimate routing'' instead following the Indian Nation TPK (OK-75) and then US-75 North from McAlester, OK to Tulsa, OK (what is proposed as ''Ultimate Interstate 145'').

Starting in Tulsa OK, each of the alternates deviate from one another as shown below:

*'''Alternative Routing 1''' follows I-44 from Tulsa OK and rejoins the Proposed ''Ultimate Interstate 45'' routing northward into Kansas from a new junction near Miami, OK
*'''Alternative Routing 1A''' diverts to a new freeway/tollway route from US-75 near Okmulgee, OK on a new alignment to the Creek Turnpike (OK-364) near Broken Arrow, OK, then following the Creek Turnpike (OK-345) northward until it reaches and rejoins I-44 east of Tulsa. From there it Follows I-44 and rejoins the Proposed ''Ultimate Interstate 45'' routing northward into Kansas from a new junction near Miami, OK
*'''Alternative Routing 2''' routes its way through Tulsa continuing northward as it follows US-169 north of Tulsa to Iola, KS then heads eastward near US-54 and rejoins the proposed ''Ultimate Interstate 45'' as it heads northward along the US-69 freeway near Ft Scott, KS.
*'''Alternative Routing 3''' starts similarly to alternative 2 routing through Tulsa and heading northward along US-169 through Chanute, KS and Iola, KS but stays on US-169 as it routes through Garnett, KS and Paola, KS before terminating at a new interchange I-35 in Olathe, KS. Alternative 3 is the only one that does not rejoin the original ''ultimate'' route.

==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]]

SR-37 Hamilton Parkway

2026-06-02T07:17:33Z

Indyroads:

Will reconstruct the existing at grade expressway into a grade separated parkway expressway with interchanges. Construction funding is slated for fiscal year 2019 and 2020 which means construction could begin as soon as 2020 but with a project of this magnitude it could be up to 10 phases of construction and several years to complete. The plan is to upgrade SR-37 from a surface expressway to a 4-lane parkway with controlled access interchanges landscaping and parkway features. Below is a list of the proposed improvements:

*Phase 1 (2017-2025) - Completed 2025
**126th Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps
**131st Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps/collector Road
**135th Street - right in/right out interchange with diagonal ramps (no bridge crossing or underpass)
**141st Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps
**146th Street (Campus Parkway) - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps

*Phase 2 (2027-2032)
**Greenfield Avenue - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Proposed
**Town and Country Blvd/Stoney Creek Rd - hybrid interchange with roundabouts and crossover connection route - Proposed
**Pleasant Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Proposed
**Connor Street (SR-32) - modified hybrid teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps and slip ramps - Cherry Street ramps will provide connection to and from Connor Street connect - Proposed

{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:SR37Nob.png|700px|Roll Plot]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| SR-37 Noblesville Project Map
|}
===More Information===
*[https://www.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/999/SR-37-Project-Information Hamilton County Highway Department]
*[https://www.in.gov/indot/about-indot/central-office/welcome-to-the-greenfield-district/state-road-37-improvement-project-in-noblesville/ INDOT SR-37 Improvements Page]
*[https://www.in.gov/indot/files/SR-37-Plan-View-Roll-Plot_Jordan-Yaney.pdf Roll Plot PDF - Phase 2 Improvements (INDOT)]
*[https://37thrives.com/ 37 Thrives]
*[https://www.wthr.com/article/news/local/noblesville-state-road-37-construction-improvement-project/531-8cfec7a4-a346-4659-9f7e-2c7b07f87ef1 WTHR13 05/08/2026]

[[Category:Indiana]][[Category:Projects]]

SR-37 Hamilton Parkway

2026-06-02T07:16:26Z

Indyroads: /* More Information */

Will reconstruct the existing at grade expressway into a grade separated parkway expressway with interchanges. Construction funding is slated for fiscal year 2019 and 2020 which means construction could begin as soon as 2020 but with a project of this magnitude it could be up to 10 phases of construction and several years to complete. The plan is to upgrade SR-37 from a surface expressway to a 4-lane parkway with controlled access interchanges landscaping and parkway features. Below is a list of the proposed improvements:
*Phase 1 (2017-2025)
**126th Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Completed 2020
**131st Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps/collector Road - Completed 2022
**135th Street - right in/right out interchange with diagonal ramps (no bridge crossing or underpass) - Completed
**141st Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Completed 2025
**146th Street (Campus Parkway) - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Completed 2023
*Phase 2 (2027-2032)
**Greenfield Avenue - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Proposed
**Town and Country Blvd/Stoney Creek Rd - hybrid interchange with roundabouts and crossover connection route - Proposed
**Pleasant Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Proposed
**Connor Street (SR-32) - modified hybrid teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps and slip ramps - Cherry Street ramps will provide connection to and from Connor Street connect - Proposed
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:SR37Nob.png|700px|Roll Plot]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| SR-37 Noblesville Project Map
|}
===More Information===
*[https://www.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/999/SR-37-Project-Information Hamilton County Highway Department]
*[https://www.in.gov/indot/about-indot/central-office/welcome-to-the-greenfield-district/state-road-37-improvement-project-in-noblesville/ INDOT SR-37 Improvements Page]
*[https://www.in.gov/indot/files/SR-37-Plan-View-Roll-Plot_Jordan-Yaney.pdf Roll Plot PDF - Phase 2 Improvements (INDOT)]
*[https://37thrives.com/ 37 Thrives]
*[https://www.wthr.com/article/news/local/noblesville-state-road-37-construction-improvement-project/531-8cfec7a4-a346-4659-9f7e-2c7b07f87ef1 WTHR13 05/08/2026]

[[Category:Indiana]][[Category:Projects]]

File:SR37Nob.png

2026-06-02T07:12:04Z

Indyroads:

SR-37 Hamilton Parkway

2026-06-02T07:11:47Z

Indyroads:

Will reconstruct the existing at grade expressway into a grade separated parkway expressway with interchanges. Construction funding is slated for fiscal year 2019 and 2020 which means construction could begin as soon as 2020 but with a project of this magnitude it could be up to 10 phases of construction and several years to complete. The plan is to upgrade SR-37 from a surface expressway to a 4-lane parkway with controlled access interchanges landscaping and parkway features. Below is a list of the proposed improvements:
*Phase 1 (2017-2025)
**126th Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Completed 2020
**131st Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps/collector Road - Completed 2022
**135th Street - right in/right out interchange with diagonal ramps (no bridge crossing or underpass) - Completed
**141st Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Completed 2025
**146th Street (Campus Parkway) - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Completed 2023
*Phase 2 (2027-2032)
**Greenfield Avenue - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Proposed
**Town and Country Blvd/Stoney Creek Rd - hybrid interchange with roundabouts and crossover connection route - Proposed
**Pleasant Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Proposed
**Connor Street (SR-32) - modified hybrid teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps and slip ramps - Cherry Street ramps will provide connection to and from Connor Street connect - Proposed
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:SR37Nob.png|700px|Roll Plot]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| SR-37 Noblesville Project Map
|}
===More Information===
*[https://www.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/999/SR-37-Project-Information Hamilton County Highway Department]
*[https://www.in.gov/indot/about-indot/central-office/welcome-to-the-greenfield-district/state-road-37-improvement-project-in-noblesville/ INDOT SR-37 Improvements Page]
*[https://www.in.gov/indot/files/SR-37-Plan-View-Roll-Plot_Jordan-Yaney.pdf Roll Plot PDF - Phase 2 Improvements (INDOT)]
*[https://37thrives.com/ 37 Thrives]

[[Category:Indiana]][[Category:Projects]]

SR-37 Hamilton Parkway

2026-06-02T07:11:06Z

Indyroads:

Will reconstruct the existing at grade expressway into a grade separated parkway expressway with interchanges. Construction funding is slated for fiscal year 2019 and 2020 which means construction could begin as soon as 2020 but with a project of this magnitude it could be up to 10 phases of construction and several years to complete. The plan is to upgrade SR-37 from a surface expressway to a 4-lane parkway with controlled access interchanges landscaping and parkway features. Below is a list of the proposed improvements:
*Phase 1 (2017-2025)
**126th Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Completed 2020
**131st Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps/collector Road - Completed 2022
**135th Street - right in/right out interchange with diagonal ramps (no bridge crossing or underpass) - Completed
**141st Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Completed 2025
**146th Street (Campus Parkway) - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Completed 2023
*Phase 2 (2027-2032)
**Greenfield Avenue - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Proposed
**Town and Country Blvd/Stoney Creek Rd - hybrid interchange with roundabouts and crossover connection route - Proposed
**Pleasant Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Proposed
**Connor Street (SR-32) - modified hybrid teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps and slip ramps - Cherry Street ramps will provide connection to and from Connor Street connect - Proposed
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:SR37Nob.jpg|700px|Roll Plot]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| SR-37 Noblesville Project Map
|}
===More Information===
*[https://www.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/999/SR-37-Project-Information Hamilton County Highway Department]
*[https://www.in.gov/indot/about-indot/central-office/welcome-to-the-greenfield-district/state-road-37-improvement-project-in-noblesville/ INDOT SR-37 Improvements Page]
*[https://www.in.gov/indot/files/SR-37-Plan-View-Roll-Plot_Jordan-Yaney.pdf Roll Plot PDF - Phase 2 Improvements (INDOT)]
*[https://37thrives.com/ 37 Thrives]

[[Category:Indiana]][[Category:Projects]]

SR-37 Hamilton Parkway

2026-06-02T07:06:08Z

Indyroads:

Will reconstruct the existing at grade expressway into a grade separated parkway expressway with interchanges. Construction funding is slated for fiscal year 2019 and 2020 which means construction could begin as soon as 2020 but with a project of this magnitude it could be up to 10 phases of construction and several years to complete. The plan is to upgrade SR-37 from a surface expressway to a 4-lane parkway with controlled access interchanges landscaping and parkway features. Below is a list of the proposed improvements:
*Phase 1 (2017-2025)
**126th Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Completed 2020
**131st Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps/collector Road - Completed 2022
**135th Street - right in/right out interchange with diagonal ramps (no bridge crossing or underpass) - Completed
**141st Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Completed 2025
**146th Street (Campus Parkway) - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Completed 2023
*Phase 2 (2027-2032)
**Greenfield Avenue - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Proposed
**Town and Country Blvd/Stoney Creek Rd - hybrid interchange with roundabouts and crossover connection route - Proposed
**Pleasant Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Proposed
**Connor Street (SR-32) - modified hybrid teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps and slip ramps - Cherry Street ramps will provide connection to and from Connor Street connect - Proposed

===More Information===
*[https://www.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/999/SR-37-Project-Information Hamilton County Highway Department]
*[https://www.in.gov/indot/about-indot/central-office/welcome-to-the-greenfield-district/state-road-37-improvement-project-in-noblesville/ INDOT SR-37 Improvements Page]
*[https://www.in.gov/indot/files/SR-37-Plan-View-Roll-Plot_Jordan-Yaney.pdf Roll Plot PDF - Phase 2 Improvements (INDOT)]
*[https://37thrives.com/ 37 Thrives]

[[Category:Indiana]][[Category:Projects]]

SR-37 Hamilton Parkway

2026-06-02T07:04:14Z

Indyroads:

Will reconstruct the existing at grade expressway into a grade separated parkway expressway with interchanges. Construction funding is slated for fiscal year 2019 and 2020 which means construction could begin as soon as 2020 but with a project of this magnitude it could be up to 10 phases of construction and several years to complete. The plan is to upgrade SR-37 from a surface expressway to a 4-lane parkway with controlled access interchanges landscaping and parkway features. Below is a list of the proposed improvements:
*Phase 1 (2017-2025)
**126th Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Completed 2020
**131st Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps/collector Road - Completed 2022
**135th Street - right in/right out interchange with diagonal ramps (no bridge crossing or underpass) - Completed
**141st Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Completed 2025
**146th Street (Campus Parkway) - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Completed 2023
*Phase 2 (2027-2032)
**Greenfield Avenue - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Proposed
**Town and Country Blvd/Stoney Creek Rd - hybrid interchange with roundabouts and crossover connection route - Proposed
**Pleasant Street - teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps - Proposed
**Connor Street (SR-32) - modified hybrid teardrop roundabout interchange and diagonal on/off ramps and slip ramps - Cherry Street ramps will provide connection to and from Connor Street connect - Proposed

===More Information===
*[https://www.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/999/SR-37-Project-Information Hamilton County Highway Department]
*[https://www.in.gov/indot/about-indot/central-office/welcome-to-the-greenfield-district/state-road-37-improvement-project-in-noblesville/ INDOT SR-37 Improvements Page]
*[https://37thrives.com/ 37 Thrives]

[[Category:Indiana]][[Category:Projects]]

Main Page/Major Highway Projects

2026-06-01T07:23:42Z

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''' <br>
|-
| style="width:10%; font-size:150%;" |
* Indiana - [[Clear Path 465/69|465/69 Northeast Project - Clear Path]]
* Indiana - [[US-52 @ 65 Interchange Project]] - <span style="color:red">'''NEW'''</span>
* Indiana - [[SR-37 Hamilton Parkway]] Noblesville/Fishers
* Indiana - [[465 Northwest]]
* California - [[Placer Parkway]] - <span style="color:red">'''UPDATED'''</span>
* Kansas - [[69 Express]] - <span style="color:green">'''COMPLETE'''</span>
* Kansas - [[Ultimate_Interstates:Corridor_45#Pittsburg_Bypass|69 Pittsburg Bypass]] - <span style="color:red">'''UPDATED'''</span>
* Idaho - [[State Highway 16]]

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

US-52 @ 65 Interchange Project

2026-06-01T07:23:05Z

Indyroads: /* LEAP District */

The Project known as US-52 @ 65, or the Lebanon Northern Interchange project will construct and realign US-52 to the north at a new interchange 3/10ths of a mile north of the CR 300N overpass on I-65 in Boone County. The interchange planned is a Crossover Diamond (also known as a Diverging Diamond) interchange.

==Project Map and Description==
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:52at65-exhibit-1.jpg|300px|Preferred Alternative]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| New Interchange Selected Alternative
|}
As seen in the interchange diagram, US-52 will curve eastward about 4/10ths of a mile west of CR 300N near Prairie Creek and continuing to a new interchange at I-65. The crossover diamond interchange design is the best alternative since it will help facilitate the movement of traffic onto and off of I-65 in both directions, as most traffic will not be through traffic. It also provides access to the new Eli Lilly development located to the northeast, as well as providing another alternative for a potential connection to SR-39 so that it can be relinquished through the city of Lebanon.

The ultimate routing east of a potential SR-39 connector has not yet been determined or released. New connecting roads and roundabouts have already been constructed or are under construction in conjunction with this project.

To the south, the existing US‑52 ramps will be fully removed, and the current alignment of Old US‑52 will be downgraded to a surface street. This roadway may also be reconfigured to serve as a connection to the planned LEAP District development located west of I‑65, which continues to expand as part of Indiana’s long‑term economic strategy. Old US-52 could also be reconfigured to serve as a gateway for the LEAP district (see below).

==LEAP District Connection==
<gallery>
File:52at65-exhibit-2.jpg|Old US 52 Interchange Closure
File:example 5265a.jpg|Conceptual LEAP District Map
File:example 5265b.jpg|Conceptual LEAP District Rendering
</gallery>

The LEAP District is envisioned as a major, long‑term economic development zone, most of which lies west of I‑65. The US‑52 @ I‑65 interchange project is being designed with that future growth in mind. As a part of this project, the old US‑52 roadway could be reconfigured to serve as a northern gateway to the Mixed-Use Village located in the heart of the LEAP District. LEAP which is short for Limitless Exploration Advanced Pace, is an advanced innovation district which will feature several advanced manufacturing companies and technology mega-sites along the SR-32 and US-52 corridors. The Eli Lily Manufacturing facility located northeast of the new interchange is part of this new district.

The new crossover diamond interchange at US‑52 and I‑65 is not only about improving interstate access—it also repositions the regional road network to support the LEAP District’s growth by providing mutiple access routes into the development. Additionally, this will provide improved North–South Mobility through the new multi-use village between SR-32 and US-52. This will provide a cleaner, more efficient link between Lebanon, the Eli Lilly development, and the LEAP District.

==Updates==

==More Information==
*[https://www.52at65.com/ 52 @ 65 Website]
*[https://iedc.in.gov/leap-lebanon Indiana IEDC Website]
*[https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2025/02/24/leap-spending-nears-1b-with-projected-budget-unknown/ Indiana Capitol Chronicle Article]

[[Category:Indiana]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Projects]]

US-52 @ 65 Interchange Project

2026-06-01T07:21:43Z

Indyroads: /* More Information */

The Project known as US-52 @ 65, or the Lebanon Northern Interchange project will construct and realign US-52 to the north at a new interchange 3/10ths of a mile north of the CR 300N overpass on I-65 in Boone County. The interchange planned is a Crossover Diamond (also known as a Diverging Diamond) interchange.

==Project Map and Description==
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:52at65-exhibit-1.jpg|300px|Preferred Alternative]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| New Interchange Selected Alternative
|}
As seen in the interchange diagram, US-52 will curve eastward about 4/10ths of a mile west of CR 300N near Prairie Creek and continuing to a new interchange at I-65. The crossover diamond interchange design is the best alternative since it will help facilitate the movement of traffic onto and off of I-65 in both directions, as most traffic will not be through traffic. It also provides access to the new Eli Lilly development located to the northeast, as well as providing another alternative for a potential connection to SR-39 so that it can be relinquished through the city of Lebanon.

The ultimate routing east of a potential SR-39 connector has not yet been determined or released. New connecting roads and roundabouts have already been constructed or are under construction in conjunction with this project.

To the south, the existing US‑52 ramps will be fully removed, and the current alignment of Old US‑52 will be downgraded to a surface street. This roadway may also be reconfigured to serve as a connection to the planned LEAP District development located west of I‑65, which continues to expand as part of Indiana’s long‑term economic strategy. Old US-52 could also be reconfigured to serve as a gateway for the LEAP district (see below).

==LEAP District==
<gallery>
File:52at65-exhibit-2.jpg|Old US 52 Interchange Closure
File:example 5265a.jpg|Conceptual LEAP District Map
File:example 5265b.jpg|Conceptual LEAP District Rendering
</gallery>

The LEAP District is envisioned as a major, long‑term economic development zone, most of which lies west of I‑65. The US‑52 @ I‑65 interchange project is being designed with that future growth in mind. As a part of this project, the old US‑52 roadway could be reconfigured to serve as a northern gateway to the Mixed-Use Village located in the heart of the LEAP District. LEAP which is short for Limitless Exploration Advanced Pace, is an advanced innovation district which will feature several advanced manufacturing companies and technology mega-sites along the SR-32 and US-52 corridors. The Eli Lily Manufacturing facility located northeast of the new interchange is part of this new district.

The new crossover diamond interchange at US‑52 and I‑65 is not only about improving interstate access—it also repositions the regional road network to support the LEAP District’s growth by providing mutiple access routes into the development. Additionally, this will provide improved North–South Mobility through the new multi-use village between SR-32 and US-52. This will provide a cleaner, more efficient link between Lebanon, the Eli Lilly development, and the LEAP District.

==Updates==

==More Information==
*[https://www.52at65.com/ 52 @ 65 Website]
*[https://iedc.in.gov/leap-lebanon Indiana IEDC Website]
*[https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2025/02/24/leap-spending-nears-1b-with-projected-budget-unknown/ Indiana Capitol Chronicle Article]

[[Category:Indiana]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Projects]]

US-52 @ 65 Interchange Project

2026-06-01T07:15:58Z

Indyroads:

The Project known as US-52 @ 65, or the Lebanon Northern Interchange project will construct and realign US-52 to the north at a new interchange 3/10ths of a mile north of the CR 300N overpass on I-65 in Boone County. The interchange planned is a Crossover Diamond (also known as a Diverging Diamond) interchange.

==Project Map and Description==
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:52at65-exhibit-1.jpg|300px|Preferred Alternative]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| New Interchange Selected Alternative
|}
As seen in the interchange diagram, US-52 will curve eastward about 4/10ths of a mile west of CR 300N near Prairie Creek and continuing to a new interchange at I-65. The crossover diamond interchange design is the best alternative since it will help facilitate the movement of traffic onto and off of I-65 in both directions, as most traffic will not be through traffic. It also provides access to the new Eli Lilly development located to the northeast, as well as providing another alternative for a potential connection to SR-39 so that it can be relinquished through the city of Lebanon.

The ultimate routing east of a potential SR-39 connector has not yet been determined or released. New connecting roads and roundabouts have already been constructed or are under construction in conjunction with this project.

To the south, the existing US‑52 ramps will be fully removed, and the current alignment of Old US‑52 will be downgraded to a surface street. This roadway may also be reconfigured to serve as a connection to the planned LEAP District development located west of I‑65, which continues to expand as part of Indiana’s long‑term economic strategy. Old US-52 could also be reconfigured to serve as a gateway for the LEAP district (see below).

==LEAP District==
<gallery>
File:52at65-exhibit-2.jpg|Old US 52 Interchange Closure
File:example 5265a.jpg|Conceptual LEAP District Map
File:example 5265b.jpg|Conceptual LEAP District Rendering
</gallery>

The LEAP District is envisioned as a major, long‑term economic development zone, most of which lies west of I‑65. The US‑52 @ I‑65 interchange project is being designed with that future growth in mind. As a part of this project, the old US‑52 roadway could be reconfigured to serve as a northern gateway to the Mixed-Use Village located in the heart of the LEAP District. LEAP which is short for Limitless Exploration Advanced Pace, is an advanced innovation district which will feature several advanced manufacturing companies and technology mega-sites along the SR-32 and US-52 corridors. The Eli Lily Manufacturing facility located northeast of the new interchange is part of this new district.

The new crossover diamond interchange at US‑52 and I‑65 is not only about improving interstate access—it also repositions the regional road network to support the LEAP District’s growth by providing mutiple access routes into the development. Additionally, this will provide improved North–South Mobility through the new multi-use village between SR-32 and US-52. This will provide a cleaner, more efficient link between Lebanon, the Eli Lilly development, and the LEAP District.

==Updates==

==More Information==
*'''coming soon'''

[[Category:Indiana]][[Category:Visions]][[Category:Projects]]

File:Example 5265b.jpg

2026-06-01T06:58:47Z

Indyroads:

File:Example 5265a.jpg

2026-06-01T06:57:12Z

Indyroads:

US-52 @ 65 Interchange Project

2026-06-01T06:56:47Z

Indyroads:

US-52 @ 65 Interchange Project

2026-06-01T06:36:07Z

Indyroads: /* Project Map and Description */

File:52at65-exhibit-2.jpg

2026-06-01T06:29:00Z

Indyroads:

US-52 @ 65 Interchange Project

2026-06-01T06:28:39Z

Indyroads: /* Project Map and Description */

US-52 @ 65 Interchange Project

2026-06-01T06:27:50Z

Indyroads: /* Project Map and Description */

File:52at65-exhibit-1.jpg

2026-06-01T06:20:18Z

Indyroads: