Talk:Interstate 69

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of the U.S. Interstate Highway WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Interstate Highway System in the US. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Indiana, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Indiana.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is part of WikiProject Michigan, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Michigan.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
  • Was there ever any previous attempt from MDOT or some other highway organizations to truncate I-69 on the highway between Grayling, MI and Lansing, MI on what is now known as U.S. Highway 127? --SuperDude 20:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Apparently, this was never addressed, but I may as well now; I-69 was never on the (now-)US-127 corridor. When it was extended from Charlotte in the 70s, it went straight to Flint, junctioning with—and its new terminus passing—what was then US-27 (which I believe is what you may be talking about, and whose northern terminus has been truncated at Fort Wayne) by a good 40 miles. —IW4UTC 16:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Having recently visited USA for the first time and seen the "future corridor" signs to the southwest of Houston, Texas I have been surfing the net and found out about the planned Canada to Mexico I-69. I feel this should be mentioned in the introduction to this article, not just under "Notes" and "External Links". --PeterR 16:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • The final route of I-69 from Indianapolis to Evansville has not been settled and is still being hottly debated in Indiana. There have been several acts of vandalism in recent weeks related to the expansion. I updated the notes to reflect this.

Contents

[edit] Expansion (merge?)

  • I think that the proposed expansion route needs to have its own section or sub-section, aside from the notes. I also think the expansion route notes need to be better ordered and perhaps start in Indianapolis and move south to the mexican border (north to south) instead of the way it is currently arranged (south to north)
    • I've added a new section; the geographic ordering, I guess, is a matter of preference. Lordsutch 06:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As a side comment, I've added merge tags from Southern Indiana Toll Road; as an entirely future route, it seems more proper to have it in this article as a section. —Rob (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with the idea of a merge; the SITR will not really be distinct from I-69, and probably does not merit a separate article.--Lordsutch 03:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm. No real consensus here. We'll keep the article and I'll add a {{main}} tag. —Rob (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be nice if there was a map provided of the proposed expansion routing. MarkMascolino 04:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MS stretch already open!?

Then why in the heck isn't it showing up on Google or Rand McNally, even under construction dashes? --KHill-LTown 06:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Beats me... MDOT doesn't even show it on its maps. But it's there, and thousands of people have driven it. Lordsutch 06:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't realize it was already signed. --NE2 06:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Is I-69 completed between the MS/TN state line and the MS-304 junction? This map seems to suggest it is, but I'm assuming it's just a signed duplex with 55? I'm lookin to update the map I made and need to know what exactly is completed and open in MS. Cheers! Stratosphere (U T) 03:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
From the photos, it doesn't look like it's signed along I-55. --NE2 03:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No, the concurrency is not signed; I don't think MDOT and TDOT have the authority to do that until the SIU 9 environmental study receives its Record of Decision from FHWA (probably at least a year off). --Lordsutch 23:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Cool thanks. Stratosphere (U T) 23:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't think FHWA approval was needed to post an overlap, only AASHTO approval. The overlap would add no Interstate mileage, so there would be nothing for FHWA to approve. --NE2 00:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the actual routing of I-69 along the whole SIU isn't technically approved yet by FHWA; they could still say no to the unbuilt section between Millington and Memphis, necessitating a change in the remainder of the route. --Lordsutch 03:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The FHWA should be issuing their Record of Decision on SIU 9 within the next month or two, after the public gets its chance to look at the final EIS that was presented in December 2006. Technically, MDOT and TDOT can begin erecting I-69 and I-269 signs along the existing freeways (I-55, I-240, and TN-385), once the Record of Decision is entered into the Federal Register. In actuality, however, TDOT and MDOT might wait to install I-69/I-269 signs until the unbuilt portions are finished. --Wxstorm

[edit] Temporary I-164 Designation in S. Indiana

Below is an excerpt of my e-mail reply explaining the possibility of the southernmost segment of I-69 (SIU 3) being temporarily signed as I-164.

The southernmost segment of I-69 in Indiana possibly being signed temporarily as I-164 is speculation at this time. Logically, it makes sense because the new section will not yet connect to any other portions of I-69, but it will start at the I-164 terminus and continue north for 13 miles. My thought is that once the remaining sections further north are built, tying into the existing I-69 at Indianapolis, the entire route will then be signed as I-69.
Signing a proposed Interstate route temporarily as a 3-digit spur of another Interstate is actually quite common, since the FHWA and AASHTO try to avoid having many discontinuous segments with the same 2-digit route number, which would be the case with I-69.
A similar approach is being taken with the Interstate 49 extension north to Kansas City and south to New Orleans: One section of I-49 west of New Orleans has been temporarily designated as I-310, and another segment in Arkansas has the temporary designation of I-540. Like I-164 in Indiana, I-310 and I-540 will be re-designated as I-49 once additional segments connecting it to the existing I-49 are built. --Wxstorm

[edit] SIU 3 SAFETEA funding

The article states in SIU 3 that "Congress allocated an additional $58 million in the 2005 SAFETEA-LU authorization to begin upgrading State Road 37 to a full expressway between Indianapolis and Bloomington." Would someone please confirm this? Thank you.

AMDS 18:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInterstate_69_a117.html"