Talk:Future Interstate Highways
|WikiProject U.S. Roads||(Rated List-class, High-importance)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on October 10, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.|
- 1 Name
- 2 City Lists
- 3 Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate System
- 4 Legislation paragraph
- 5 Interstate 22
- 6 Move
- 7 I-101???
- 8 I-28
- 9 I-92
- 10 US 52 in MN and I-98
- 11 Future I-30 following US-67 to North Carolina??
- 12 Interstate 1 (California)
- 13 Interstate 67?
- 14 I-45
- 15 Interstate 69
- 16 Interstate 9
- Yeah, and they'll get major potholes while doing so. A few large cracks in the longer ones. --SPUI (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
How about the proposed I-69 corridor from the Mexican border in Texas all the way to the Canadian border in Michigan? --PeterR 17:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is meant for newly proposed numbers, though I can see the point of including those too. Probably just as a short mention of each with a link to the main article for more. --SPUI (talk) 19:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've seen at least three other serious proposals for Interstate 67 in Indiana, Michigan, and Alabama (http://www.interstate-guide.com/future.html#067 ); it would make sense to mention them all here; the Pennsylvania proposal is not etched in stone as of yet. Mhking (talk) 21:11, 21 Nov 2005 (EST)
- Agreed - and those are much better proposals too (and both could co-exist as a northern and southern I-67). The northeast I-67 would seriously fall out of the grid (and IMO, it is poorly placed - a better route would take it via US-22/322 and US-15). CrazyC83 23:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think that the city lists are not necessary in this article; they are conjecture at best. As a result, unless we can get some consensus otherwise, I'm going to remove the lists. --Mhking 17:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate System
I reworked this paragraph (2nd one). It does not need to recite SAFETEA-LU or any other bill to get the point across. Other bills can be included there as well. -Fnlayson 00:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I found http://birmingham.bizjournals.com/birmingham/stories/2003/07/21/daily43.html relating to I-22 and Corridor X. That news site has quite a bit of information about it; searching "Interstate 22" or "Corridor X" will turn up quite a few results. 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Interstate 22 is almost completed along the US route 78 from Birmingham to Tupelo, Miss. and will run all the way to Memphis, Tenn.
I heard of other proposed Interstate routes in US congress in the early 2000's within the number 2s come to my mind: I-2, I-21 and I-23 proposed in the Southwestern United States. The freeways will connect with two other US-Mexican border towns: Douglas/Agua Prieta with I-10 in Cochise county, Arizona and Columbus/Palomas with I-10 in Deming, New Mexico. But the so-called "NAFTA" highway are California state routes 86 & 111, both the old two-laned roads are former US routes 88 & 99 from Calexico/Mexicali to I-10 near Indio, California. There is no "I-2" marker designation, unless it was given to Hawaiian interstate H-2 in the Oahu island, and Mexican route 2 follows the US-Mexican border from Tijuana by San Diego to Matamoros near Brownsville is sometimes referred to as "NorteAmericana Route 2". + 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
This article was moved to "List of proposed Interstate Highways". I don't think it is a list. It has some short sections, but that's not like a list. Also, there was no discussion on that. So I moved it back. -Fnlayson 22:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Where is it???
Is this referenced somewhere or is this a joke? By definition, it would be a spur of I-1 (which doesn't exist) DAWGinRoswell 03:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I-101 was proposed by some as a highway basically connecting Philadelphia, PA to Norfolk, VA directly along the Delmarva Peninsula. It does not exist, it hasn't even been formally proposed - it's just a suggested number (roughly analagous to US Highway 101, which likewise is numbered as if it's an auxiliary of US 1, but is considered a main highway in its own right instead). The reason 101 was picked is because 99 and 97 are already in use; the highest two-digit odd number not already in use is, in fact, 67. 101 makes more sense than 67 does, even if it makes less sense, numerically, than renumbering existing 97 (x95) and/or 99 (x80), and then using that freed up number to use for the Delmarva corridor. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
This looks like a prank. Very north-south alignment, but an even number. Grammatical errors galore (which invite a copy-editor to fix up and make evermore accepted). If I-28 is real in legislation as claimed herein, then prove it via quoting chapter & verse (i.e., identifying title, paragraph, section) from the legislation. —optikos (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- The closest thing to the route described for "I-28" on the ISTEA in I-69. Since it is unsourced and dubious, it can be just removed. I support that. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'd also like to add that this purported I-28's purported freeway connection from Detroit into Canada, Highway 98, is a road which hasn't been part of the Ontario highway system since 1970. It exists only as a series of county roads which doesn't even extend a quarter of the purported distance to Toronto, and it will never be reassumed by the province or converted into a freeway, because its purpose was wholly superseded by Highway 401 — and from absolutely any point along the former Highway 98's entire route, the 401 is literally within walking distance, which is why 98 was decommed in the first place. Hoax city. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
See East-West Highway (New England) and its discussion page for background.
I'm hesitant to add I-92 to this article, as I wouldn't be able to authoritatively say much about it other than what's in East-West Highway (New England). My main concern over adding "I-92" is that I don't know of any source saying the that number is still under consideration for the proposed route. --Tckma (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
US 52 in MN and I-98
The section on US 52 reeks of OR: the only referenced item is that the highway is being built to Interstate Highway standards, but that does not mean that it will automatically become an Interstate Highway at some point in the future. Thus, I have removed that section. As for I-98, the lone source given is a local organization's letter trying to drum up support for a proposed highway. The I-98 designation used by them is in no way official and thus shouldn't be presented as such here. Also, unless there are formal plans for this highway that have been taken to a state or national level, none of what the organization says is official and is completely and wholly subject to change. As a result, I've dropped that section as well. If more concrete and reliable sources can be found, feel free to readd the sections, but based solely on what's currently provided in terms of sourcing neither belongs here. –03:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
A Proposal of Mine for I-98 (west)
What about an Interstate in the Michigan UP that goes from Sault St. Marie to Missoula, Montana? It would go through Duluth, MN, Grand Forks,ND, Minot, ND, Williston, ND, Great Falls, MT, and ends at I-90 in Missoula? Also, it would make sense for I-39 to be extended to meet this proposal in Ironwood, MI, and an interstate to connect I-94 in Bismarck to the proposal in Minot. -- Deweypants 7:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- The article is for actual, official proposals not just ideas that individual people have. That would be considered WP:OR at best. Bitmapped (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Future I-30 following US-67 to North Carolina??
US-67 does not go to North Carolina; it instead goes North thru St Louis and then further north without ever crossing the Mississipi River. So any future extenstion of I-30 can't possibly just use US-67 to get to North Carolina. Jon (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Interstate 1 (California)
This seems unlikely. San Francisco will almost certainly never slice through itself with an additional freeway, and I imagine there's little impetus to upgrade any remaining expressway sections (especially where there really isn't room to do so, such as over the Cuesta Grade). Besides, it would require that California's iconic Highway 1 change its number, since the state doesn't duplicate route numbers between different designations (unless they're part of the same road, as with Interstates and State Routes 110 and 210). There's not really much point to it anyway--an upgrade to Interstate designation won't change the fact that going between Los Angeles and the Bay Area via 101, while much prettier, is inherently not as direct as going via I-5 . Trovise (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I-5 is boring as hell, and there are far fewer places to stop for food and gas than on 101. Besides, what's wrong with calling it I-3? Corvus cornixtalk 00:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
If you would take a look at the William H. Natcher Parkway page, you will see a listing for Interstate 67. Is this a true listing? Is this the same listing as the US 31 listing on this page? Allen (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I-67 is not mentioned on the Natcher Parkway article now. I see I-65, I-66, and I-69 mentioned there though. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Before you replied, User:Imzadi1979 removed it as a "copyright violation". However, I have found a link about a study of the possible road: http://indianaeconomicdigest.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&subsectionID=227&articleID=62930. Allen (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- The information that was added by an IP to the article was a copy/paste from a chamber of commerce flyer; copyright law doesn't require a copyright notice on a work for protections to attach, so it was a copyright violation to add that much content in that manner. As for additional proposals for I-67, it may be possible to expand the current section to state that there are groups advocating for the designation in additional locations, but until FHWA or a DOT gets behind the idea, I don't think we have enough to split the article out. Imzadi 1979 → 00:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The part about I-45 being extended is fanciful speculation, not verifiable or factual. I've removed it. See Talk:Interstate_45#Nonsense_about_US_75_becoming_I-45 for more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
"Proposed I-69 route has experts divided," Fort Wayne News-Sentinel http://fwnextweb1.fortwayne.com/ns/projects/nafta/naftai.php Interesting that this is titled under NAFTA, and it is dated 1999. Perhaps people were drawing connections to NAFTA and movement of things from Michigan to the South.
- No, a "stub" of I-69 hasn't been completed; the original I-69 was completed in the late 1980s. Since then, the powers that be came up with the "NAFTA Superhighway" concept, and I-69 is being extended southward from Indianapolis to Texas. This page is for unbuilt/unopened or otherwise not-yet-designated Interstate Highways in total, not extensions. Imzadi 1979 → 17:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The listed source does not indicate a preference for numbering this route as I-9 or I-7; in fact, the footnote leaves out part of the quote:
-The footnote here says "...it is anticipated that should designation be granted, the Route 99 designation would become I-9 to satisfy Interstate numbering convention."
-The actual source document says "...it is anticipated that should designation be granted, the Route 99 designation would become I-7 or I-9 to satisfy Interstate numbering convention." (emphasis added)
And this is completely my opinion, but why would Caltrans choose to take 9 away from a route that has had it for 80 years and connects two significant urban areas, as opposed to 7, which has been on a much shorter, more rural route for under 25 years?
However, I will refrain from editing this (although I did edit the CA-99 page) if someone can point me to another Caltrans source that says they definitely prefer I-9 over I-7.