Indyroads Wiki - User contributions [en]

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]]

2026-06-01T07:15:58Z

2026-05-31T16:00:12Z

Indyroads:

{| style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0; border:1px solid #ddd;"
| style="width:10%; font-size:200%;" align="center" |
'''Featured Major Highway Projects''' 
|-
| style="width:10%; font-size:150%;" |
* Indiana - [[Clear Path 465/69|465/69 Northeast Project - Clear Path]]
* Indiana - [[US-52 @ 65 Interchange Project]] - '''COMING SOON'''
* Indiana - [[SR-37 Hamilton Parkway]] Noblesville/Fishers
* Indiana - [[465 Northwest]]
* California - [[Placer Parkway]] - '''UPDATED'''
* Kansas - [[69 Express]] - '''COMPLETE'''
* Kansas - [[Ultimate_Interstates:Corridor_45#Pittsburg_Bypass|69 Pittsburg Bypass]] - '''UPDATED'''
* Idaho - [[State Highway 16]]

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

Placer Parkway

2026-05-31T15:53:03Z

Indyroads: /* Update */

The Placer Parkway project has long been in the planning study and environmental assessment stages. This project began in its infancy in 1998 when the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) started studying alternatives to preserve right of way for a new expressway route in south placer county to address traffic congestion. Many may have even forgotten that the Placer Parkway was even being considered or would ever become a reality.

Placer Parkway was born from earlier studies of a [https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE102.html CA-102 reliever corridor] that was planned to relieve congestion on Interstate 80 between Sacramento and Auburn, the placer parkway would have addressed some of that congestion by shifting it from I-80 to CA-70/99 instead, then funneling the traffic on a this new parkway to the south placer region. This option creates its own undesirable outcomes in and of itself, including the concern for further urban sprawl and more stop-and-go congestion along the I-5 and CA70/99 corridors. This would require additional travel lanes along these facilities to be constructed to increase capacity. To combat this the PCTPA and the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) proposed that the new parkway route have a mandated no development buffer along its entire route to prevent further residential and commercial sprawl that could create more congestion.

==California State Route 102==
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:ca102.png|300px|2005 Corridor 102 Map]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| Proposed Highway 102 Circa 2005
|}
California State Route 201 has been a proposed highway route since the 1970s. Initially the parkway was planned to traverse from the I-5 and CA-70/99 Split near North Natomas CA then head east passing through Rio Linda, Foothill Farms, Citrus Heights, Orangevale running near Elkhorn Blvd and Greenback Lane. From there it would pass west of Folsom turning north along Folsom-Auburn Road and continuing to Auburn. This route would have connected to I-80 in two places. One in Foothill Farms and the other in Auburn. Eventually urban growth made this planned expressway unviable due to the inability to preserve right or way for the corridor and the corridor was shifted northward as shown in the 2005 state highway map. This northward routing largely paralleled I-80 to the west and would have been a potential alternative route for traffic to bypass the busy I-80 since it was a fairly straight routing from Auburn to North Natomas. This plan was likely dropped when it proved not to be feasable leading to the genesis of plans for what would become the Placer Parkway corridor preservation plan.

==Corridor Preservation Phase==
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:placerpkystudyarea.jpg|300px|Placer Parkway Study Map]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| Placer Parkway Study Area
|}
A Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) was completed in 2009 which identified alternatives for the parkway. The east end of the parkway initially was intended to terminate at the Sunset Blvd interchange with CA-65, that has since been moved further north to the Whitney Blvd interchange instead, and this interchange will not be a system (freeway-to-freeway) interchange either. The western end of the parkway will still terminate somewhere north of Riego Road and is expected to be constructed as a system interchange.

It appears that the corridor study was only intended to preserve the right of way needed to construct the corridor but not the corridor itself. The study identifies that it does not address traffic congestion on the routes it will connect to (CA-65 and CA-70/99), in fact instead it will funnel traffic to and from these routes leading to congestion points along each of the corridors, especially during peak periods. Currently residential and commercial growth is already taking place in the area where the parkway is intended to be constructed, so the parkway will no doubt see a fair amount of congestion almost immediately upon its opening to traffic. Construction of the planned 4-lane expressway will likely be inadequate to handle the traffic volumes that will likely accumulate quickly since 25 years of development has occurred in the north region since the project was first considered. Construction of a 6 lane highway and widening connecting freeways would better address congestion along the corridor. However the argument for a no-build option could solidly be considered.

==Corridor Construction & Planned Development==
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:placerpky.jpg|300px|Placer Parkway Corridor Map]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| Placer Parkway Proposed Route
|}

<gallery>
File:example 102a.jpg|Placer Parkway Phase 1 Buildout
File:example 102b.png|Proposed Placer Ranch Development
File:example 102c.png|Proposed Sunset Area Plan
File:example 102d.png|Proposed Amoruso Ranch Plan
File:example 102e.png|Proposed Sutter Pointe Area Plan
</gallery>

Additionally the first phase of the Parkway will only construct a portion of the parkway to Foothills Boulevard, making the initial corridor no more than a surface boulevard. This further casts doubt on the ultimate buildout of the corridor. Will it be built as a freeway or as a lesser express highway, will it be another SR-244 connector ramp to nowhere. There is a strong need for a east to west freeway along this route due to the growth that will be occurring along the route, but it will likely never be a traffic reliever for the congested I-80.

The ultimate buildout of the corridor will be as a 4-lane expressway with 2 quadrant cloverleaf interchanges planned along the length of the corridor with interchanges proposed at Foothills Blvd, Fiddyment Road, Westbrook Blvd, Pleasant Grove Road, and a future new interchange at the planned Sutter Pointe development and the route then terminating at the CA-70/99 interchange.

As you can see a number of planned developments are proposed for the area immediately adjacent to the parkway. These include the Sunset Area Plan, Placer Ranch, and Amoruso Ranch to start. Further westward development is also expected in West Roseville, Curry Creek and Sierra Vista which could necessitate additional interchanges at a potential northward extension of Santucci Blvd (Watt Ave) and Brewer Rd. Future major development is also planned in southern Sutter County at the west end of the corridor. The Sutter Pointe Specific plan details over 7500 acres of development along the Placer Parkway and CA-70/99 corridors.

Ultimately the parkway was sold with the idea of growth moratoriums indented to combat urban sprawl and create traffic relief for travelers from Roseville, Rocklin and Lincoln to Sacramento and points west. As with any potential highspeed corridor. the allure for developers to cash in on the potential windfall of the conversion of farm and ranch land into suburban landscapes is too strong. Thusly instead of relieving congestion, the placer parkway will simply provide access to these new planned developments. The inclusion of larger areas of open space is barely conciliatory considering the sprawl generated by the promise of a new freeway. One must ask. Was it right to propose the corridor in the first place since it does not serve the purpose for which it will be constructed.

The real question to ask is. Will it ever be built, and if so will it be built to freeway standards. I would imagine that Placer County's slow progress in building a 1.5 mile segment of the 15 mile parkway that will not even be to freeway standards lends one to think that the eventual buildout of the corridor will be less than freeway status, leading to costly later upgrades in the future to bring it up to freeway standards. There are many planned corridors that the Sacramento region has needed, such as the SR-244 and SR-143 freeway corridors to create a partial belt around the east side of Sacramento. That ship has long sailed, and honestly, the community that it would have gone through doesn't seem to miss it.
==Updates==
<gallery>
File:example 102a.jpg|Figure 1 - Previous Phase 1 Design
File:example 102f.jpg|Figure 2 - New Phase 1 Alignment
File:example 102g.jpg|Figure 3 - New Phase 1 Rendering
</gallery>
===May 2026 Update===
As noted above, the long‑term vision for developing this corridor as a free‑running expressway is now in serious doubt. The original plan called for a fully grade‑separated freeway between SR‑99 and SR‑65, creating a high‑speed, signal‑free route across the northern portion of the region. That vision appears to be slipping away. Meanwhile, development in South Placer continues at a rapid pace regardless of the corridor’s status, further complicating the project’s future. The Amoruso Ranch development, for example, is moving forward aggressively—partly in anticipation of the freeway, but also because growth in the area is accelerating with or without it. This is especially true in the highly desirable South Placer area, where amenities and premium retail continue to attract new residents. It’s worth remembering that when the parkway was first conceived, planners envisioned a growth‑control buffer around the corridor to prevent exactly the kind of sprawl that is now occurring.

The examples above make it clear that the project’s scope has shifted once again. The Placer Parkway is now envisioned as a four‑lane surface arterial, with the alignment shifted south of the original freeway corridor, as shown in Figure 2. This change further undermines confidence that the corridor will ever be built as a true freeway. Additionally, the planned SR‑65 interchange is a standard service interchange with traffic signals at both ends, rather than a system‑to‑system connection. This design will inevitably introduce delays. At a minimum, county planners and Caltrans should consider upgrading the interchange to a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI), which would significantly improve traffic flow.

Indyroads maintains that the corridor should be constructed as a limited‑access, grade‑separated freeway with a median, consistent with other major highways in the state. Incorporating modern interchange designs—such as Diverging Diamonds or Roundabout Diamond (“dogbone”) interchanges—would further improve traffic operations and reduce the ramp congestion typical of traditional California parclo designs. One additional consideration: the county could explore financing the project through toll‑revenue bonds, creating a tolled corridor. This approach could accelerate construction and provide a viable funding mechanism. Tolls could be removed once the bonds are repaid.

Ultimately, growth in the region will continue regardless of the parkway’s fate. As with the missed opportunity to extend the Eastside Highway (SR‑65) southward to provide a second relief route for the increasingly congested SR‑99, the window to build this corridor as originally envisioned is closing quickly.

==More Information==
*[https://www.placer.ca.gov/1655/Placer-Parkway Placer Parkway Phase 1 - Placer County]
*[https://www.pctpa.net/placer-parkway-documents Placer Parkway Documents - PCTPA]
*[https://www.suttercounty.org/government/county-departments/development-services/planning-services/sutter-pointe-specific-plan Sutter Pointe Specific Plan - Sutter County]
*[https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE102.html California Highways.org - Route 102]
*[https://www.onsiteobserver.com/placer-parkways-first-phase-set-to-break-ground-in-2026/ Onsite Observer ''Placer Parkway’s first phase set to break ground in 2026.'']
*[https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/rocklin/long-awaited-placer-parkway-project-approved-after-decades-of-planning/103-7669ea7e-260e-4a92-8459-3cf33afb3851 ABC10 - ''Long awaited Placer Parkway project approved after decades of planning.'']

[[Category:California]][[Category:Visions]]

Main Page/Major Highway Projects

2026-05-31T15:51:07Z

Indyroads:

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

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

69 Express

2026-05-31T15:49:09Z

Indyroads:

69 Express is a project located on US Highway 69 which will construct an express toll lane (ETL) from 103rd street south to just north of 151st Street in the city of Overland Park Kansas.

The project will reconstruct a new single toll lane in the median of the northbound and southbound lanes of the expressway. This will include direct express toll lane access at Blue Valley Parkway. Once completed and opened the managed lane will have overhead tolling gantries installed to collect tolls to users of the lane at specific entry points. Toll pricing will be demand based and will be higher during higher congestion periods. At this time there does not seem to be an HOV (toll free or reduced toll) option associated with this project for HOV users (2 or more vehicle occupancy). The project is slated to be completed in 2025. Tolling is anticipated to remain in place until 2037 or 2042.

Southbound features of this project include:
*Southbound Managed express lane entrance at 103rd street (left lane becomes managed express toll lane)
*Managed express lane access to 135th Street
*Direct Managed express lane access lane from Blue Valley Parkway
*Managed express lane access from mainline lanes just south of Blue Valley Parkway
Managed express lane ends north of 151st Street - access to mainline lanes

Northbound features of this project include:
*Managed lane begins north of 151st Street - managed lane access
*Northbound direct managed express lane exit to Blue Valley Parkway
*Northbound managed express lane entrance/exit just north of Blue Valley parkway interchange
*Managed express lane ends at 103rd Street - becomes a regular mixed use freeway lane

==167th Street==
Additionally the 167th Street interchange is also being upgraded from a half-access interchange to a full-access interchange with a dog-bone roundabout configuration. Currently 167th street is only accessible via a southbound offramp and northbound onramp. This upgrade will complete access to and from the south and improve intersection operations of anticipated higher traffic volumes as the area continues to grow. 167th Street in the area will be also widened to 4 lanes.

==Update and Project Completion==

This project is now substantially complete. Tolling has begun and the lanes are fully automated for use with the K-Tag and interoperable tags from TX, OK, and FL. License plates will pay a higher toll. It remains to be seen i the tolling will end once the bonds are paid off, or how long it will be before additional capacity is needed along the corridor. I can see potentially needing to extend the toll express lane to end at 167th street in the next few years as drivers begin using the tolled lane to avoid congestion during peak periods.

The new interchange at 167th street is also now substantially complete with landscaping work remaining in the roundabout and ramp approaches, so some lane closures might remain until that work is complete.

==More Information==
[https://69express.ksdot.gov/ KSDOT 69 Express]

[[Category:Kansas]][[Category:Projects]]

File:Example 102g.jpg

2026-05-31T15:41:26Z

Indyroads:

Placer Parkway

2026-05-31T15:41:04Z

Indyroads: /* Update */

The Placer Parkway project has long been in the planning study and environmental assessment stages. This project began in its infancy in 1998 when the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) started studying alternatives to preserve right of way for a new expressway route in south placer county to address traffic congestion. Many may have even forgotten that the Placer Parkway was even being considered or would ever become a reality.

Placer Parkway was born from earlier studies of a [https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE102.html CA-102 reliever corridor] that was planned to relieve congestion on Interstate 80 between Sacramento and Auburn, the placer parkway would have addressed some of that congestion by shifting it from I-80 to CA-70/99 instead, then funneling the traffic on a this new parkway to the south placer region. This option creates its own undesirable outcomes in and of itself, including the concern for further urban sprawl and more stop-and-go congestion along the I-5 and CA70/99 corridors. This would require additional travel lanes along these facilities to be constructed to increase capacity. To combat this the PCTPA and the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) proposed that the new parkway route have a mandated no development buffer along its entire route to prevent further residential and commercial sprawl that could create more congestion.

==California State Route 102==
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:ca102.png|300px|2005 Corridor 102 Map]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| Proposed Highway 102 Circa 2005
|}
California State Route 201 has been a proposed highway route since the 1970s. Initially the parkway was planned to traverse from the I-5 and CA-70/99 Split near North Natomas CA then head east passing through Rio Linda, Foothill Farms, Citrus Heights, Orangevale running near Elkhorn Blvd and Greenback Lane. From there it would pass west of Folsom turning north along Folsom-Auburn Road and continuing to Auburn. This route would have connected to I-80 in two places. One in Foothill Farms and the other in Auburn. Eventually urban growth made this planned expressway unviable due to the inability to preserve right or way for the corridor and the corridor was shifted northward as shown in the 2005 state highway map. This northward routing largely paralleled I-80 to the west and would have been a potential alternative route for traffic to bypass the busy I-80 since it was a fairly straight routing from Auburn to North Natomas. This plan was likely dropped when it proved not to be feasable leading to the genesis of plans for what would become the Placer Parkway corridor preservation plan.

==Corridor Preservation Phase==
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:placerpkystudyarea.jpg|300px|Placer Parkway Study Map]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| Placer Parkway Study Area
|}
A Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) was completed in 2009 which identified alternatives for the parkway. The east end of the parkway initially was intended to terminate at the Sunset Blvd interchange with CA-65, that has since been moved further north to the Whitney Blvd interchange instead, and this interchange will not be a system (freeway-to-freeway) interchange either. The western end of the parkway will still terminate somewhere north of Riego Road and is expected to be constructed as a system interchange.

It appears that the corridor study was only intended to preserve the right of way needed to construct the corridor but not the corridor itself. The study identifies that it does not address traffic congestion on the routes it will connect to (CA-65 and CA-70/99), in fact instead it will funnel traffic to and from these routes leading to congestion points along each of the corridors, especially during peak periods. Currently residential and commercial growth is already taking place in the area where the parkway is intended to be constructed, so the parkway will no doubt see a fair amount of congestion almost immediately upon its opening to traffic. Construction of the planned 4-lane expressway will likely be inadequate to handle the traffic volumes that will likely accumulate quickly since 25 years of development has occurred in the north region since the project was first considered. Construction of a 6 lane highway and widening connecting freeways would better address congestion along the corridor. However the argument for a no-build option could solidly be considered.

==Corridor Construction & Planned Development==
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:placerpky.jpg|300px|Placer Parkway Corridor Map]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| Placer Parkway Proposed Route
|}

<gallery>
File:example 102a.jpg|Placer Parkway Phase 1 Buildout
File:example 102b.png|Proposed Placer Ranch Development
File:example 102c.png|Proposed Sunset Area Plan
File:example 102d.png|Proposed Amoruso Ranch Plan
File:example 102e.png|Proposed Sutter Pointe Area Plan
</gallery>

Additionally the first phase of the Parkway will only construct a portion of the parkway to Foothills Boulevard, making the initial corridor no more than a surface boulevard. This further casts doubt on the ultimate buildout of the corridor. Will it be built as a freeway or as a lesser express highway, will it be another SR-244 connector ramp to nowhere. There is a strong need for a east to west freeway along this route due to the growth that will be occurring along the route, but it will likely never be a traffic reliever for the congested I-80.

The ultimate buildout of the corridor will be as a 4-lane expressway with 2 quadrant cloverleaf interchanges planned along the length of the corridor with interchanges proposed at Foothills Blvd, Fiddyment Road, Westbrook Blvd, Pleasant Grove Road, and a future new interchange at the planned Sutter Pointe development and the route then terminating at the CA-70/99 interchange.

As you can see a number of planned developments are proposed for the area immediately adjacent to the parkway. These include the Sunset Area Plan, Placer Ranch, and Amoruso Ranch to start. Further westward development is also expected in West Roseville, Curry Creek and Sierra Vista which could necessitate additional interchanges at a potential northward extension of Santucci Blvd (Watt Ave) and Brewer Rd. Future major development is also planned in southern Sutter County at the west end of the corridor. The Sutter Pointe Specific plan details over 7500 acres of development along the Placer Parkway and CA-70/99 corridors.

Ultimately the parkway was sold with the idea of growth moratoriums indented to combat urban sprawl and create traffic relief for travelers from Roseville, Rocklin and Lincoln to Sacramento and points west. As with any potential highspeed corridor. the allure for developers to cash in on the potential windfall of the conversion of farm and ranch land into suburban landscapes is too strong. Thusly instead of relieving congestion, the placer parkway will simply provide access to these new planned developments. The inclusion of larger areas of open space is barely conciliatory considering the sprawl generated by the promise of a new freeway. One must ask. Was it right to propose the corridor in the first place since it does not serve the purpose for which it will be constructed.

The real question to ask is. Will it ever be built, and if so will it be built to freeway standards. I would imagine that Placer County's slow progress in building a 1.5 mile segment of the 15 mile parkway that will not even be to freeway standards lends one to think that the eventual buildout of the corridor will be less than freeway status, leading to costly later upgrades in the future to bring it up to freeway standards. There are many planned corridors that the Sacramento region has needed, such as the SR-244 and SR-143 freeway corridors to create a partial belt around the east side of Sacramento. That ship has long sailed, and honestly, the community that it would have gone through doesn't seem to miss it.
==Update==
<gallery>
File:example 102a.jpg|Figure 1 - Previous Phase 1 Design
File:example 102f.jpg|Figure 2 - New Phase 1 Alignment
File:example 102g.jpg|Figure 3 - New Phase 1 Rendering
</gallery>

As noted above, the long‑term vision for developing this corridor as a free‑running expressway is now in serious doubt. The original plan called for a fully grade‑separated freeway between SR‑99 and SR‑65, creating a high‑speed, signal‑free route across the northern portion of the region. That vision appears to be slipping away. Meanwhile, development in South Placer continues at a rapid pace regardless of the corridor’s status, further complicating the project’s future. The Amoruso Ranch development, for example, is moving forward aggressively—partly in anticipation of the freeway, but also because growth in the area is accelerating with or without it. This is especially true in the highly desirable South Placer area, where amenities and premium retail continue to attract new residents. It’s worth remembering that when the parkway was first conceived, planners envisioned a growth‑control buffer around the corridor to prevent exactly the kind of sprawl that is now occurring.

The examples above make it clear that the project’s scope has shifted once again. The Placer Parkway is now envisioned as a four‑lane surface arterial, with the alignment shifted south of the original freeway corridor, as shown in Figure 2. This change further undermines confidence that the corridor will ever be built as a true freeway. Additionally, the planned SR‑65 interchange is a standard service interchange with traffic signals at both ends, rather than a system‑to‑system connection. This design will inevitably introduce delays. At a minimum, county planners and Caltrans should consider upgrading the interchange to a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI), which would significantly improve traffic flow.

Indyroads maintains that the corridor should be constructed as a limited‑access, grade‑separated freeway with a median, consistent with other major highways in the state. Incorporating modern interchange designs—such as Diverging Diamonds or Roundabout Diamond (“dogbone”) interchanges—would further improve traffic operations and reduce the ramp congestion typical of traditional California parclo designs. One additional consideration: the county could explore financing the project through toll‑revenue bonds, creating a tolled corridor. This approach could accelerate construction and provide a viable funding mechanism. Tolls could be removed once the bonds are repaid.

Ultimately, growth in the region will continue regardless of the parkway’s fate. As with the missed opportunity to extend the Eastside Highway (SR‑65) southward to provide a second relief route for the increasingly congested SR‑99, the window to build this corridor as originally envisioned is closing quickly.

==More Information==
*[https://www.placer.ca.gov/1655/Placer-Parkway Placer Parkway Phase 1 - Placer County]
*[https://www.pctpa.net/placer-parkway-documents Placer Parkway Documents - PCTPA]
*[https://www.suttercounty.org/government/county-departments/development-services/planning-services/sutter-pointe-specific-plan Sutter Pointe Specific Plan - Sutter County]
*[https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE102.html California Highways.org - Route 102]
*[https://www.onsiteobserver.com/placer-parkways-first-phase-set-to-break-ground-in-2026/ Onsite Observer ''Placer Parkway’s first phase set to break ground in 2026.'']
*[https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/rocklin/long-awaited-placer-parkway-project-approved-after-decades-of-planning/103-7669ea7e-260e-4a92-8459-3cf33afb3851 ABC10 - ''Long awaited Placer Parkway project approved after decades of planning.'']

[[Category:California]][[Category:Visions]]

Main Page/Major Highway Projects

2026-05-31T15:39:56Z

Indyroads:

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

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

Placer Parkway

2026-05-31T07:04:02Z

Indyroads:

The Placer Parkway project has long been in the planning study and environmental assessment stages. This project began in its infancy in 1998 when the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) started studying alternatives to preserve right of way for a new expressway route in south placer county to address traffic congestion. Many may have even forgotten that the Placer Parkway was even being considered or would ever become a reality.

Placer Parkway was born from earlier studies of a [https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE102.html CA-102 reliever corridor] that was planned to relieve congestion on Interstate 80 between Sacramento and Auburn, the placer parkway would have addressed some of that congestion by shifting it from I-80 to CA-70/99 instead, then funneling the traffic on a this new parkway to the south placer region. This option creates its own undesirable outcomes in and of itself, including the concern for further urban sprawl and more stop-and-go congestion along the I-5 and CA70/99 corridors. This would require additional travel lanes along these facilities to be constructed to increase capacity. To combat this the PCTPA and the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) proposed that the new parkway route have a mandated no development buffer along its entire route to prevent further residential and commercial sprawl that could create more congestion.

==California State Route 102==
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:ca102.png|300px|2005 Corridor 102 Map]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| Proposed Highway 102 Circa 2005
|}
California State Route 201 has been a proposed highway route since the 1970s. Initially the parkway was planned to traverse from the I-5 and CA-70/99 Split near North Natomas CA then head east passing through Rio Linda, Foothill Farms, Citrus Heights, Orangevale running near Elkhorn Blvd and Greenback Lane. From there it would pass west of Folsom turning north along Folsom-Auburn Road and continuing to Auburn. This route would have connected to I-80 in two places. One in Foothill Farms and the other in Auburn. Eventually urban growth made this planned expressway unviable due to the inability to preserve right or way for the corridor and the corridor was shifted northward as shown in the 2005 state highway map. This northward routing largely paralleled I-80 to the west and would have been a potential alternative route for traffic to bypass the busy I-80 since it was a fairly straight routing from Auburn to North Natomas. This plan was likely dropped when it proved not to be feasable leading to the genesis of plans for what would become the Placer Parkway corridor preservation plan.

==Corridor Preservation Phase==
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:placerpkystudyarea.jpg|300px|Placer Parkway Study Map]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| Placer Parkway Study Area
|}
A Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) was completed in 2009 which identified alternatives for the parkway. The east end of the parkway initially was intended to terminate at the Sunset Blvd interchange with CA-65, that has since been moved further north to the Whitney Blvd interchange instead, and this interchange will not be a system (freeway-to-freeway) interchange either. The western end of the parkway will still terminate somewhere north of Riego Road and is expected to be constructed as a system interchange.

It appears that the corridor study was only intended to preserve the right of way needed to construct the corridor but not the corridor itself. The study identifies that it does not address traffic congestion on the routes it will connect to (CA-65 and CA-70/99), in fact instead it will funnel traffic to and from these routes leading to congestion points along each of the corridors, especially during peak periods. Currently residential and commercial growth is already taking place in the area where the parkway is intended to be constructed, so the parkway will no doubt see a fair amount of congestion almost immediately upon its opening to traffic. Construction of the planned 4-lane expressway will likely be inadequate to handle the traffic volumes that will likely accumulate quickly since 25 years of development has occurred in the north region since the project was first considered. Construction of a 6 lane highway and widening connecting freeways would better address congestion along the corridor. However the argument for a no-build option could solidly be considered.

==Corridor Construction & Planned Development==
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:placerpky.jpg|300px|Placer Parkway Corridor Map]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| Placer Parkway Proposed Route
|}

<gallery>
File:example 102a.jpg|Placer Parkway Phase 1 Buildout
File:example 102b.png|Proposed Placer Ranch Development
File:example 102c.png|Proposed Sunset Area Plan
File:example 102d.png|Proposed Amoruso Ranch Plan
File:example 102e.png|Proposed Sutter Pointe Area Plan
</gallery>

Additionally the first phase of the Parkway will only construct a portion of the parkway to Foothills Boulevard, making the initial corridor no more than a surface boulevard. This further casts doubt on the ultimate buildout of the corridor. Will it be built as a freeway or as a lesser express highway, will it be another SR-244 connector ramp to nowhere. There is a strong need for a east to west freeway along this route due to the growth that will be occurring along the route, but it will likely never be a traffic reliever for the congested I-80.

The ultimate buildout of the corridor will be as a 4-lane expressway with 2 quadrant cloverleaf interchanges planned along the length of the corridor with interchanges proposed at Foothills Blvd, Fiddyment Road, Westbrook Blvd, Pleasant Grove Road, and a future new interchange at the planned Sutter Pointe development and the route then terminating at the CA-70/99 interchange.

As you can see a number of planned developments are proposed for the area immediately adjacent to the parkway. These include the Sunset Area Plan, Placer Ranch, and Amoruso Ranch to start. Further westward development is also expected in West Roseville, Curry Creek and Sierra Vista which could necessitate additional interchanges at a potential northward extension of Santucci Blvd (Watt Ave) and Brewer Rd. Future major development is also planned in southern Sutter County at the west end of the corridor. The Sutter Pointe Specific plan details over 7500 acres of development along the Placer Parkway and CA-70/99 corridors.

Ultimately the parkway was sold with the idea of growth moratoriums indented to combat urban sprawl and create traffic relief for travelers from Roseville, Rocklin and Lincoln to Sacramento and points west. As with any potential highspeed corridor. the allure for developers to cash in on the potential windfall of the conversion of farm and ranch land into suburban landscapes is too strong. Thusly instead of relieving congestion, the placer parkway will simply provide access to these new planned developments. The inclusion of larger areas of open space is barely conciliatory considering the sprawl generated by the promise of a new freeway. One must ask. Was it right to propose the corridor in the first place since it does not serve the purpose for which it will be constructed.

The real question to ask is. Will it ever be built, and if so will it be built to freeway standards. I would imagine that Placer County's slow progress in building a 1.5 mile segment of the 15 mile parkway that will not even be to freeway standards lends one to think that the eventual buildout of the corridor will be less than freeway status, leading to costly later upgrades in the future to bring it up to freeway standards. There are many planned corridors that the Sacramento region has needed, such as the SR-244 and SR-143 freeway corridors to create a partial belt around the east side of Sacramento. That ship has long sailed, and honestly, the community that it would have gone through doesn't seem to miss it.
==Update==
<gallery>
File:example 102a.jpg|Figure 1 - Previous Phase 1 Design
File:example 102f.jpg|Figure 2 - New Phase 1 Alignment
</gallery>

As noted above, the long‑term vision for developing this corridor as a free‑running expressway is now in serious doubt. The original plan called for a fully grade‑separated freeway between SR‑99 and SR‑65, creating a high‑speed, signal‑free route across the northern portion of the region. That vision appears to be slipping away. Meanwhile, development in South Placer continues at a rapid pace regardless of the corridor’s status, further complicating the project’s future. The Amoruso Ranch development, for example, is moving forward aggressively—partly in anticipation of the freeway, but also because growth in the area is accelerating with or without it. This is especially true in the highly desirable South Placer area, where amenities and premium retail continue to attract new residents. It’s worth remembering that when the parkway was first conceived, planners envisioned a growth‑control buffer around the corridor to prevent exactly the kind of sprawl that is now occurring.

The examples above make it clear that the project’s scope has shifted once again. The Placer Parkway is now envisioned as a four‑lane surface arterial, with the alignment shifted south of the original freeway corridor, as shown in Figure 2. This change further undermines confidence that the corridor will ever be built as a true freeway. Additionally, the planned SR‑65 interchange is a standard service interchange with traffic signals at both ends, rather than a system‑to‑system connection. This design will inevitably introduce delays. At a minimum, county planners and Caltrans should consider upgrading the interchange to a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI), which would significantly improve traffic flow.

Indyroads maintains that the corridor should be constructed as a limited‑access, grade‑separated freeway with a median, consistent with other major highways in the state. Incorporating modern interchange designs—such as Diverging Diamonds or Roundabout Diamond (“dogbone”) interchanges—would further improve traffic operations and reduce the ramp congestion typical of traditional California parclo designs. One additional consideration: the county could explore financing the project through toll‑revenue bonds, creating a tolled corridor. This approach could accelerate construction and provide a viable funding mechanism. Tolls could be removed once the bonds are repaid.

Ultimately, growth in the region will continue regardless of the parkway’s fate. As with the missed opportunity to extend the Eastside Highway (SR‑65) southward to provide a second relief route for the increasingly congested SR‑99, the window to build this corridor as originally envisioned is closing quickly.

==More Information==
*[https://www.placer.ca.gov/1655/Placer-Parkway Placer Parkway Phase 1 - Placer County]
*[https://www.pctpa.net/placer-parkway-documents Placer Parkway Documents - PCTPA]
*[https://www.suttercounty.org/government/county-departments/development-services/planning-services/sutter-pointe-specific-plan Sutter Pointe Specific Plan - Sutter County]
*[https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE102.html California Highways.org - Route 102]
*[https://www.onsiteobserver.com/placer-parkways-first-phase-set-to-break-ground-in-2026/ Onsite Observer ''Placer Parkway’s first phase set to break ground in 2026.'']
*[https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/rocklin/long-awaited-placer-parkway-project-approved-after-decades-of-planning/103-7669ea7e-260e-4a92-8459-3cf33afb3851 ABC10 - ''Long awaited Placer Parkway project approved after decades of planning.'']

[[Category:California]][[Category:Visions]]

Placer Parkway

2026-05-31T06:55:04Z

Indyroads:

The Placer Parkway project has long been in the planning study and environmental assessment stages. This project began in its infancy in 1998 when the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) started studying alternatives to preserve right of way for a new expressway route in south placer county to address traffic congestion. Many may have even forgotten that the Placer Parkway was even being considered or would ever become a reality.

Placer Parkway was born from earlier studies of a [https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE102.html CA-102 reliever corridor] that was planned to relieve congestion on Interstate 80 between Sacramento and Auburn, the placer parkway would have addressed some of that congestion by shifting it from I-80 to CA-70/99 instead, then funneling the traffic on a this new parkway to the south placer region. This option creates its own undesirable outcomes in and of itself, including the concern for further urban sprawl and more stop-and-go congestion along the I-5 and CA70/99 corridors. This would require additional added travel lanes along these facilities to be constructed to increase capacity. To combat this the PCTPA and the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) proposed that the new parkway route have a mandated no development buffer along its entire route to prevent further residential and commercial sprawl that could create more congestion.

==California State Route 102==
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:ca102.png|300px|2005 Corridor 102 Map]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| Proposed Highway 102 Circa 2005
|}
California State Route 201 has been a proposed highway route since the 1970s. Initially the parkway was planned to traverse from the I-5 and CA-70/99 Split near North Natomas CA then head east passing through Rio Linda, Foothill Farms, Citrus Heights, Orangevale running near Elkhorn Blvd and Greenback Lane. From there it would pass west of Folsom turning north along Folsom-Auburn Road and continuing to Auburn. This route would have connected to I-80 in two places. One in Foothill Farms and the other in Auburn. Eventually urban growth made this planned expressway unviable due to the inability to preserve right or way for the corridor and the corridor was shifted northward as shown in the 2005 state highway map. This northward routing largely paralleled I-80 to the west and would have been a potential alternative route for traffic to bypass the busy I-80 since it was a fairly straight routing from Auburn to North Natomas. This plan was likely dropped when it proved not to be feasable leading to the genesis of plans for what would become the Placer Parkway corridor preservation plan.

==Corridor Preservation Phase==
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:placerpkystudyarea.jpg|300px|Placer Parkway Study Map]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| Placer Parkway Study Area
|}
A Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) was completed in 2009 which identified alternatives for the parkway. The east end of the parkway initially was intended to terminate at the Sunset Blvd interchange with CA-65, that has since been moved further north to the Whitney Blvd interchange instead, and this interchange will not be a system (freeway-to-freeway) interchange either. The western end of the parkway will still terminate somewhere north of Riego Road and is expected to be constructed as a system interchange.

It appears that the corridor study was only intended to preserve the right of way needed to construct the corridor but not the corridor itself. The study identifies that it does not address traffic congestion on the routes it will connect to (CA-65 and CA-70/99), in fact instead it will funnel traffic to and from these routes leading to congestion points along each of the corridors, especially during peak periods. Currently residential and commercial growth is already taking place in the area where the parkway is intended to be constructed, so the parkway will no doubt see a fair amount of congestion almost immediately upon its opening to traffic. Construction of the planned 4-lane expressway will likely be inadequate to handle the traffic volumes that will likely accumulate quickly since 25 years of development has occurred in the north region since the project was first considered. Construction of a 6 lane highway and widening connecting freeways would better address congestion along the corridor. However the argument for a no-build option could solidly be considered.

==Corridor Construction & Planned Development==
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="border-spacing: 2px; border: 1px solid darkgray;"
|- border="0" style="text-align: center"
| [[File:placerpky.jpg|300px|Placer Parkway Corridor Map]]
|- style="text-align: center"
| Placer Parkway Proposed Route
|}

<gallery>
File:example 102a.jpg|Placer Parkway Phase 1 Buildout
File:example 102b.png|Proposed Placer Ranch Development
File:example 102c.png|Proposed Sunset Area Plan
File:example 102d.png|Proposed Amoruso Ranch Plan
File:example 102e.png|Proposed Sutter Pointe Area Plan
</gallery>

Additionally the first phase of the Parkway will only construct a portion of the parkway to Foothills Boulevard, making the initial corridor no more than a surface boulevard. This further casts doubt on the ultimate buildout of the corridor. Will it be built as a freeway or as a lesser express highway, will it be another SR-244 connector ramp to nowhere. There is a strong need for a east to west freeway along this route due to the growth that will be occurring along the route, but it will likely never be a traffic reliever for the congested I-80.

The ultimate buildout of the corridor will be as a 4-lane expressway with 2 quadrant cloverleaf interchanges planned along the length of the corridor with interchanges proposed at Foothills Blvd, Fiddyment Road, Westbrook Blvd, Pleasant Grove Road, and a future new interchange at the planned Sutter Pointe development and the route then terminating at the CA-70/99 interchange.

As you can see a number of planned developments are proposed for the area immediately adjacent to the parkway. These include the Sunset Area Plan, Placer Ranch, and Amoruso Ranch to start. Further westward development is also expected in West Roseville, Curry Creek and Sierra Vista which could necessitate additional interchanges at a potential northward extension of Santucci Blvd (Watt Ave) and Brewer Rd. Future major development is also planned in southern Sutter County at the west end of the corridor. The Sutter Pointe Specific plan details over 7500 acres of development along the Placer Parkway and CA-70/99 corridors.

Ultimately the parkway was sold with the idea of growth moratoriums indented to combat urban sprawl and create traffic relief for travelers from Roseville, Rocklin and Lincoln to Sacramento and points west. As with any potential highspeed corridor. the allure for developers to cash in on the potential windfall of the conversion of farm and ranch land into suburban landscapes is too strong. Thusly instead of relieving congestion, the placer parkway will simply provide access to these new planned developments. The inclusion of larger areas of open space is barely conciliatory considering the sprawl generated by the promise of a new freeway. One must ask. Was it right to propose the corridor in the first place since it does not serve the purpose for which it will be constructed.

The real question to ask is. Will it ever be built, and if so will it be built to freeway standards. I would imagine that Placer County's slow progress in building a 1.5 mile segment of the 15 mile parkway that will not even be to freeway standards lends one to think that the eventual buildout of the corridor will be less than freeway status, leading to costly later upgrades in the future to bring it up to freeway standards. There are many planned corridors that the Sacramento region has needed, such as the SR-244 and SR-143 freeway corridors to create a partial belt around the east side of Sacramento. That ship has long sailed, and honestly, the community that it would have gone through doesn't seem to miss it.
==Update==
<gallery>
File:example 102a.jpg|Figure 1 - Previous Phase 1 Design
File:example 102f.jpg|Figure 2 - New Phase 1 Alignment
</gallery>

As noted above, the long‑term vision for developing this corridor as a free‑running expressway is now in serious doubt. The original plan called for a fully grade‑separated freeway between SR‑99 and SR‑65, creating a high‑speed, signal‑free route across the northern portion of the region. That vision appears to be slipping away. Meanwhile, development in South Placer continues at a rapid pace regardless of the corridor’s status, further complicating the project’s future. The Amoruso Ranch development, for example, is moving forward aggressively—partly in anticipation of the freeway, but also because growth in the area is accelerating with or without it. This is especially true in the highly desirable South Placer area, where amenities and premium retail continue to attract new residents. It’s worth remembering that when the parkway was first conceived, planners envisioned a growth‑control buffer around the corridor to prevent exactly the kind of sprawl that is now occurring.

The examples above make it clear that the project’s scope has shifted once again. The Placer Parkway is now envisioned as a four‑lane surface arterial, with the alignment shifted south of the original freeway corridor, as shown in Figure 2. This change further undermines confidence that the corridor will ever be built as a true freeway. Additionally, the planned SR‑65 interchange is a standard service interchange with traffic signals at both ends, rather than a system‑to‑system connection. This design will inevitably introduce delays. At a minimum, county planners and Caltrans should consider upgrading the interchange to a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI), which would significantly improve traffic flow.

Indyroads maintains that the corridor should be constructed as a limited‑access, grade‑separated freeway with a median, consistent with other major highways in the state. Incorporating modern interchange designs—such as Diverging Diamonds or Roundabout Diamond (“dogbone”) interchanges—would further improve traffic operations and reduce the ramp congestion typical of traditional California parclo designs. One additional consideration: the county could explore financing the project through toll‑revenue bonds, creating a tolled corridor. This approach could accelerate construction and provide a viable funding mechanism. Tolls could be removed once the bonds are repaid.

Ultimately, growth in the region will continue regardless of the parkway’s fate. As with the missed opportunity to extend the Eastside Highway (SR‑65) southward to provide a second relief route for the increasingly congested SR‑99, the window to build this corridor as originally envisioned is closing quickly.

==More Information==
*[https://www.placer.ca.gov/1655/Placer-Parkway Placer Parkway Phase 1 - Placer County]
*[https://www.pctpa.net/placer-parkway-documents Placer Parkway Documents - PCTPA]
*[https://www.suttercounty.org/government/county-departments/development-services/planning-services/sutter-pointe-specific-plan Sutter Pointe Specific Plan - Sutter County]
*[https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE102.html California Highways.org - Route 102]
*[https://www.onsiteobserver.com/placer-parkways-first-phase-set-to-break-ground-in-2026/ Onsite Observer ''Placer Parkway’s first phase set to break ground in 2026.'']
*[https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/rocklin/long-awaited-placer-parkway-project-approved-after-decades-of-planning/103-7669ea7e-260e-4a92-8459-3cf33afb3851 ABC10 - ''Long awaited Placer Parkway project approved after decades of planning.'']

[[Category:California]][[Category:Visions]]

2025-11-06T17:01:44Z

Indyroads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:I26-gapx.png

2025-11-06T16:59:27Z

Indyroads:

Ultimate Interstates:Interstate 26 Gap-Closure

2025-11-05T18:54:37Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Portal:Ultimate Interstates

2025-11-05T16:44:46Z

Indyroads:

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

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

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

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

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

Ultimate Interstates:High Desert Conceptual Corridor

2025-11-05T16:34:54Z

Indyroads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:HDC-CAx.png

2025-11-05T16:32:40Z

Indyroads: