List of future Interstate Highways
| Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways | |
|---|---|
Shields for future Interstates | |
 Proposed Interstate Highways in December 2015 | |
| System information | |
| Formed | June 29, 1956[1] |
| Highway names | |
| Interstates | Interstate X (I-X) |
| System links | |
.svg)
.svg)
In the United States, future Interstate Highways include proposals to establish new mainline (one- and two-digit) routes to the Interstate Highway System. Included in this article are auxiliary Interstate Highways (designated by three-digit numbers) in varying stages of planning and construction, and the planned expansion of existing primary Interstate Highways.
Congressionally designated future Interstates
[edit]Several Congressional High Priority Corridors have been designated as future parts of the Interstate Highway System by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and amendments. By law, they will become interstates when built to Interstate standards and connected to other interstates.[2][3]
Interstate 3
[edit]
Future Interstate 3 | |
|---|---|
| Location | Savannah, GA – Knoxville, TN |
Interstate 3 is the proposed designation of an Interstate Highway Corridor under development in the Southeastern United States. It is planned to run from Savannah, Georgia, to Knoxville, Tennessee. Its number does not follow standard numbering conventions; under established numbering conventions, I-3 would normally run west of I-5 along the Pacific Coast. The unnumbered Interstate was established by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) legislation that also provided for Interstate 14. The "Interstate 3" designation has not been officially accepted by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), but is being used by the Georgia Department of Transportation and others to identify the highway. The number comes from the 3rd Infantry Division, which is based in Georgia. The exact route has not been finalized.[citation needed]
Interstate 7 or 9
[edit]Future Interstate 7 or | |
|---|---|
| Location | Wheeler Ridge–Sacramento, CA |
Interstate 7 or Interstate 9 has been proposed by Caltrans for State Route 99 in central California. It would go from the split with I-5 at Wheeler Ridge (Wheeler Ridge Interchange) north through Bakersfield and Fresno to Stockton, where the proposed route turns west via the SR 4 freeway to a terminus at I-5 in the central part of that city. An alternate proposed terminus is located at the I-5/US 50/Capital City Freeway junction in Sacramento, where the future Interstate, after continuing north from Stockton along Route 99, can turn west along the Capital City Freeway, already an Interstate route (unsigned I-305), to connect with I-5, which extends north toward Redding. This also serves as a connector to the existing northern portion of Highway 99. The future Interstate's prospects for development to appropriate standards are tied to the Caltrans "Route 99 Corridor Enhancement Master Plan"; this document posits that when and if Interstate status is conferred, the route will be designated either I-7 or I-9.[4]
In August 2005, with the passage of that year's SAFETEA-LU federal transportation legislation, SR 99 from Wheeler Ridge to Stockton and beyond to Sacramento was designated as High Priority Corridor 54, the California Farm-to-Market Corridor; this legislation also designated that corridor as a future segment of the Interstate System.[5]
Interstate 42 (North Carolina)
[edit]
Future Interstate 42 | |
|---|---|
| Location | Garner–Morehead City, NC |
| Length | 142 mi (229 km) |
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) added the US 70 corridor between Garner and Morehead City, North Carolina, to the Interstate system by defining it as, first, High Priority Corridor #82 and subsequently designating it as a future Interstate.[6] The Regional Transportation Alliance expected this corridor to be called I-46 or another suitable designation.[7] At a meeting in La Grange, North Carolina, on March 17, 2016, the Super 70 Corridor Commission recommended that the designation of I-50 be sought for the US 70 Interstate corridor. The rationale for the I-50 numerical selection was cited as a number not in conflict with either an existing Interstate designation or currently applied to a U.S. Highway within North Carolina.[8] This recommendation was forwarded to NCDOT for submission to AASHTO.
For the AASHTO Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering meeting in May 2016, NCDOT proposed I-36 for this route.[9] However, AASHTO instead designated the route as I-42.[10][11]
In March 2022, the Federal Highway Administration designated the 10-mile (16 km) Clayton Bypass and the 22-mile (35 km) Goldsboro Bypass, which have been built to Interstate Highway standards, formally as I-42 and NCDOT announced that the interstate would be signed by the end of the year.[12] This, however, was delayed due to several projects on I-40 and the need for NCDOT to remove the North Carolina Highway 42 (NC 42) designation in Clayton to avoid confusion between that route and I-42. NCDOT plans to redesignate the Clayton portion of NC 42 to NC 36 with I-42 being signed within a year after the redesignation.[13]
Interstate 42 (Oklahoma–Arkansas)
[edit]
Future Interstate 42 | |
|---|---|
| Location | Interstate 35 to Springdale, Arkansas |
| Length | 190 mi (310 km) |
On May 20, 2021, Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, introduced legislation to designate the portion of US-412 between I-35 in Noble County and I-49 in Springdale, Arkansas as future Interstate 42. (I-42)[14] [15] The bill, titled the "Future Interstate in Oklahoma and Arkansas Act" (S. 1766), was cosponsored by senators John Boozman and Tom Cotton, both Republicans of Arkansas. The senators' stated reasons for seeking an Interstate designation along the US-412 included encouraging economic development, expanding opportunities for employment in the region, making travel safer and shipping easier, attracting new businesses, and better connecting rural and urban communities. Other supporters of the measure include the mayor of Tulsa, G. T. Bynum, and the heads of both ODOT and the Arkansas Department of Transportation (ArDOT).[16] The language of the bill was later included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (H.R. 3684). Interstate 42 (I-42) was the proposed designation but was withdrawn.[17] ArDOT and ODOT later resubmitted the application to the Spring 2024 meeting; AASHTO approved the route as Interstate 42, conditional on it being upgraded to Interstate standards.[18]
Future Auxiliary Interstate Highways
[edit]Interstate 905
[edit]Interstate 905 in California is proposed to replace California State Route 905.
Interstate 310 (Mississippi)
[edit]Interstate 310 is a proposed Interstate in Mississippi. Construction was supposed to begin in 2008 but never occurred. Much of the land clearing was done.
Interstate 422
[edit]Interstate 422 is a proposed beltway in Birmingham. Interstate 422 won't directly connect to I-22 so therefore a new connector known as Interstate 222 is proposed. A timeline for construction to begin has not been established.[19]
Interstate 222
[edit]Interstate 365
[edit]Interstate 369 (Kentucky)
[edit]Interstate 569
[edit]In April 2019, the Western Kentucky Parkway was originally proposed as Interstate 369 before being changed Interstate 569 in December 2019 as the Audubon Parkway was proposed to be Interstate 369.
Interstate 169 (Tennessee)
[edit]Interstate 169 is proposed to run along Tennessee State Route 22 from Union City to Martin.
Interstate 274 (North Carolina)
[edit]Interstate 380 (Ohio)
[edit]Interstate 685 (Alabama)
[edit]Interstate 685 (North Carolina)
[edit]Interstate 490 (Illinois)
[edit]Interstate 795
[edit]See also
[edit]
- Interstate 11, a short Interstate Highway in Clark County, Nevada that is planned from Nogales, Arizona to the vicinity of Reno, Nevada.
- Interstate 66 (Kansas–Kentucky), proposed but later canceled
- Interstate 69, a partially constructed Interstate Highway consisting of 10 unconnected segments, plus an original continuous segment from Indianapolis to the Canadian border in Port Huron, Michigan. Plans include building a continuous Interstate Highway from the Mexican border in Brownsville, Texas to the Canadian border in Port Huron, Michigan.
- Interstate 73, an Interstate located entirely in North Carolina but with plans to run from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, to northern Michigan
- Interstate 87 (North Carolina), a short Interstate Highway in Raleigh, North Carolina that is planned to be extended northeast to Norfolk, Virginia.
- Interstate 99, a partially completed Interstate with 2 sections, one in southern New York and another in Central Pennsylvania. The current plan is for the segments to be connected by running concurrent with I-80, US 220, and US 15.
References
[edit]- ^ Weingroff, Richard F. (Summer 1996). "Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, Creating the Interstate System". Public Roads. 60 (1). Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 16, 2012.
- ^ United States Congress. "National Highway System Designation Act of 1995". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on September 4, 2015. Retrieved October 21, 2007.
- ^ Staff (May 2, 2006). "Future Interstates on the National Highway System Designated by Section 1105 of ISTEA as amended". Federal Highway Administration. Archived from the original on September 26, 2006.
- ^ "Chapter 3". Caltrans Route 99 Enhancement Plan (PDF). California Department of Transportation. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 4, 2010.
Interstate designation, under the current proposal, would apply to the 260-mile (420 km) segment between the junction of State Route 99 with I-5 south of Bakersfield to I-5 in Stockton using State Route 4 as the connector to I-5. Since there is an I-99 route currently in existence in Pennsylvania, it is anticipated that should designation be granted, the Route 99 designation would become I-7 or I-9 to satisfy Interstate numbering convention.
- ^ United States Congress. "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users". Library of Congress.
- ^ "An Act To authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes" (PDF). Congress.gov. January 6, 2015.
- ^ "A victory ten years in the making". RTA. Archived from the original on April 4, 2016. Retrieved February 29, 2016.
- ^ Wilson, Marcia R. (March 17, 2016). "Minutes and Summary" (PDF). La Grange, NC: Highway 70 Corridor Commission of North Carolina. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 23, 2016. Retrieved April 7, 2016.
- ^ "AASHTO Electronic Balloting System, View Ballot, Agenda and List of Applications, SM-2016" (PDF). AASHTO. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 10, 2016. Retrieved May 5, 2016.
- ^ Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering (May 24, 2016). "Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering" (PDF) (Report). Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 16, 2017. Retrieved May 26, 2016.
- ^ Siceloff, Bruce (May 25, 2016). "Future interstate highway names approved". News & Observer. Retrieved May 25, 2016.
- ^ Stradling, Richard (March 19, 2022). "Two sections of U.S. 70 in Eastern North Carolina join the interstate highway system". News & Observer.
- ^ Stradling, Richard (July 21, 2023). "Will '40/42' be a thing of the past? NCDOT plans to rename NC 42 in Johnston County". The News & Observer. Raleigh, NC. Retrieved July 21, 2023.
- ^ "Residents get clarity on plans for U.S. 412". Arkansas Democrat Gazette. June 14, 2024. Retrieved June 27, 2024.
- ^ "Siloam Springs residents speak out about interstate proposal". 40/29 News Sunrise. June 13, 2024. Retrieved June 27, 2024.
- ^ Della Rosa, Jeff (May 21, 2021). "U.S. legislators look to designate part of Highway 412 as 'future interstate'". Talk Business & Politics. Retrieved May 22, 2021.
- ^ "Final_Report_USRN_Fall_2023_R_1.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved July 4, 2024.
- ^ Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering (2024). "2024 Spring Meeting Report to the Council on Highways and Streets" (Report). Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Retrieved June 2, 2024 – via AASHTO Route Numbering Archive.
- ^ Blakely | 08.24.23, Will. "U.S. Rep. Palmer: Northern Beltline 'critical' for Alabama; Says I-65…". 1819 News. Retrieved July 1, 2024.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
External links
[edit]- Future Interstates and Potential Interstate Corridors at Interstate-Guide.com
- North Carolina's New and Future Interstates at Malmeroads.net
 Primary Interstate Highways | |
|---|---|
| Signed | |
| Unsigned | |
| Lists | |
| Other | |
Routes in italics are no longer a part of the system. Major Interstates are highlighted. | |