Editing Interstate 69 (section)

===Extended route===
[[File:Interstate 69 sign near Laredo, TX IMG 6059.JPG|thumb|The current US&nbsp;59 will become I-69W; picture taken east of Laredo, Texas]]
[[Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act]] (ISTEA) of 1991 included two [[High Priority Corridor]]s that would later become parts of a proposed crosscountry extension of I-69:<ref>{{cite web |url = http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:HR02950: |title = H.R.2950 |publisher = Thomas.loc.gov |access-date = January 13, 2012 |archive-date = December 15, 2012 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121215195446/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:HR02950: |url-status = dead }}</ref>
* (18) Corridor from [[Indianapolis]], to [[Memphis, Tennessee]], via [[Evansville, Indiana]].
* (20) US&nbsp;59 Corridor from the [[Mexico–United States border|Mexican border]] in [[Laredo, Texas]], through [[Houston]], to the vicinity of [[Texarkana, Texas]].
Corridor&nbsp;18 was extended southwest to Houston, where it connected to Corridor&nbsp;20, by the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993; the new definition read "Corridor from Indianapolis, Indiana, through Evansville, Indiana, Memphis, Tennessee, [[Shreveport, Louisiana|Shreveport]]/[[Bossier City, Louisiana|Bossier, Louisiana]], and to Houston, Texas."<ref>{{cite web |url = http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:HR05518: |title = H.R. 5518 |publisher = Thomas.loc.gov |access-date = January 13, 2012 |archive-date = December 15, 2012 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121215202742/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:HR05518: |url-status = dead }}</ref> The [[National Highway System Designation Act of 1995]] made further amendments to the description of Corridor&nbsp;18, specifying that it would serve [[Mississippi]] and [[Arkansas]], extending it south to the Mexican border in the [[Lower Rio Grande Valley]] and adding a short connection at [[Brownsville, Texas]]. This act also specified that Corridors&nbsp;18 and 20 were "future parts of the [[Interstate Highway System|Interstate System]]" to become actual Interstates when built to [[Interstate Highway standards]] and connected to other Interstates. Although the act designated Corridor&nbsp;9 as [[Interstate 99|I-99]], no number was assigned to Corridors&nbsp;18 and 20 yet.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:s.00440: |title = S.440 |publisher = Thomas.loc.gov |date = February 16, 1995 |access-date = January 13, 2012 |archive-date = September 4, 2015 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150904093813/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:s.00440: |url-status = dead }}</ref>

The [[Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century]] (TEA-21), enacted in 1998, greatly expanded the definition of Corridor&nbsp;18 to include the existing I-69, as well as I-94 between Port Huron, Michigan, and [[Chicago]]. A connection to Pine Bluff, Arkansas, was added, and the extension to the Lower Rio Grande Valley was detailed as splitting into two routes just south of [[Victoria, Texas|Victoria]], one following US&nbsp;77 and the other following US&nbsp;59 and US&nbsp;281 to the Rio Grande.<!--mention Dickey Split study?--> This act also assigned the I-69 designation to Corridors&nbsp;18 and 20, with the branches on US&nbsp;77, US&nbsp;281, and US&nbsp;59 to the Rio Grande being "Interstate&nbsp;69 East", "Interstate&nbsp;69 Central", and "Interstate&nbsp;69 West", respectively.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.r.02400: |title = H.R. 2400 |publisher = Thomas.loc.gov |access-date = January 13, 2012 |archive-date = December 16, 2012 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121216061246/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.r.02400: |url-status = dead }}</ref> With TEA-21, the I-69 extension took shape and remains today as those segments.<ref>{{cite web |author = Staff |publisher = Federal Highway Administration |url = http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/nhs/hipricorridors/hpcor.html |title = NHS High Priority Corridors Description |access-date = August 31, 2007 |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070210080756/http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/nhs/hipricorridors/hpcor.html |archive-date = February 10, 2007 }}</ref>

In 2000, Corridors&nbsp;18 and 20 were split into 32&nbsp;SIUs as part of the I-69 (Corridor&nbsp;18) Special Environmental Study.<ref name=SES>{{cite report |title = I-69 (Corridor 18) Special Environmental Study |date = February 7, 2000 }}</ref> In Texas, it was originally envisioned that private firms will [[Build–operate–transfer|build, operate, then transfer]] portions of the highway to the state after a specified period of time. Lawmakers in Kentucky once considered a bill that would authorize the re-tolling of three parkways slated to become part of I-69.{{Citation needed|date=March 2015}}

====Opposition and controversy====
The construction of the I-69 extension beyond Indianapolis has angered environmentalists. In particular, the southern portion of the route in Indiana would run through wetlands, existing farmland, and forested areas, and cut through geologically sensitive [[karst]] topography, which environmentalists argue threatens to pollute underground water systems and harm the [[rare species]] that live there.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.elpc.org/transportation/interstate69/index.php |title = Indiana I-69 |publisher = ELPC |access-date = January 13, 2012 |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080626034249/http://www.elpc.org/transportation/interstate69/index.php |archive-date = June 26, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = The World This Week: Nafty Business: 'Super Corridor' will pave over the heart of America |last = Bisbort |first = Alan |work = The Valley Advocate |url = http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=4476 |access-date = December 3, 2007 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071201150110/http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=4476 |archive-date = December 1, 2007 |url-status = dead }}</ref> [[Fiscal conservative]]s also oppose completion of I-69, arguing that federal legislation establishing the I-69 corridor amounts to an [[unfunded mandate]] imposed by the federal government upon the states through which the highway will travel, as the legislation requires states to pursue construction of their portions of I-69 but provides no funding mechanism to cover its estimated $25-billion cost, thereby leaving cash-strapped states to figure out how to finance its construction. Three states (Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee) have publicly stated they will not build their sections of I-69 until Congress appropriates funds to complete environmental studies, design, and construction in each state.{{Citation needed|date=July 2018}}