FAQs

The TransAmerica Transportation Corridor was first conceived out of aspirations by Cape Girardeau and southeast Missouri natives in 1987, becoming listed as a High Priority Corridor by the ISTEA Act of 1991. The High Priority Corridor list was created as the national strategy for adding new interstates to the National Interstate Highway System after its formal completion in 1992.

There is no formal timeline for constructing the TransAmerica Corridor or Future I-66. Initially conceptualized in the late 1980s, it was put on hold in 2015. Current efforts (as of 2025) are rooted in advocacy and early feasibility work, with no confirmed dates or phases for design, funding, or construction.

The TransAmerica Transportation Corridor is all about allowing America to transport goods and people quickly along a single east-west corridor. This project will allow for the American economy to compete more effectively in the 21st century, with the Pacific markets of India and China entering our economy on the west coast, and the European Union and EEA entering our economy on the east coast. It will create an interstate spine linking I-70 and I-40 together into an interstate beltway across the continent. Locally, it will be effective in growing the rural communities along the corridor. For example, it will allow small farmers to commute to good paying jobs in our region with a minimum of time and effort

This has yet to be determined. Updating the 1994 TTC study will help identify the cost.

No. Much of the infrastructure for the TTC already exists from Paducah, KY to Washington, DC and Norfolk, VA as divided four-lane rural expressways with partial access control. Improved highways reduce wear on farm trucks, emergency response times, and fuel costs—all savings for taxpayers and rural families. An interstate spine will allow the 21st century American economy to take full advantage of its location in between the massive economies of Southeast Asia and the European Union.

No. Highways and interstates today use environmental impact statements (EIS) and public input to reduce impact (largely directed by state departments of transportation). We intend to use the model pioneered by Cananda on their Trans-Canadian Highway, which utilized wildlife crossings to preserve animal life. Their studies have shown a 96% reduction in large animal deaths, such as deer and elk with the use of these new crossings. These establish protected fencing leading to the wildlife crossings, and use landowner input to preserve hunting and conservation land. Most of the TransAmerica Corridor follows already established highways or divided four-lane rural expressways that exist today, reducing some the need for massive new construction projects to build highways where none exist. There are areas along the route where new tunnels or new divided four-lane highways will need to fill gaps.

No. Any land needed for a highway or interstate project must follow federal and state law, including fair compensation, public hearings, and property owner negotiations. No one is forced to sell without a legal process. Modern highway planning allows for flexibility. In many cases, the route can be adjusted to avoid homes or sensitive areas.

Most of the interstate will be conventional four lane highways, so this would place it at approximately 300 ft. – 350 ft. wide. Any electrical conduit may be added underground or to the side, as needed, which could possibly take it to approximately 400 ft. in some areas. It should be noted that the original study area size was 300 to 350 miles wide. This is not the same thing as the width of the actual corridor, once built. The study area helped to determine the route and its viability (1994), with the Congressionally approved statutory route language following (1995).

Absolutely not. “Foreign trade zones” (FTZs) are U.S.-run incentive zones used to attract American manufacturers and logistics companies. They reduce red tape and import/export fees for companies shipping raw materials in and products out. Kansas City, Memphis, Springfield, and St. Louis all have them. They don’t involve foreign control or ownership. They’re tools to make America more competitive—especially for rural areas trying to attract jobs.

No. (see above)

Local business leaders, economic development organizations, engineers, community groups, and citizens like you.

FTZs are tied to a specific U.S. Customs and Border Protection port of entry, not to a highway. Under current federal rules, a zone’s “service area” must stay within 60 miles or 90 minutes’ driving time of a single port of entry, it can cover a large area (in some parts of the country, an entire county), but it radiates out from that one port, not along a road. A corridor running over a thousand miles through multiple states would pass near many different ports of entry, each with its own separate zone, separate sponsoring organization, and separate state authorization. There is no legal mechanism for one continuous Foreign Trade Zone, or a 50-mile band, to run the length of an interstate corridor.

Even within an approved service area, individual sites still have to be separately designated and used for a specific purpose, a service area is not automatically a zone in its entirety.

A corridor-length, 50-mile-wide FTZ isn’t something TransAmerica Corridor, Inc. is choosing to pursue, and it isn’t something the law allows.

No. While the TransAmerica Corridor organization supports the transportation modes of Conventional Interstate and Electric Conduit, these are for the purpose of establishing the major coast-to-coast transportation route and aiding the connection across America’s electric grids, not for the establishment of a link of data centers. No such plan exists.

No. While water pipelines were foreseen in the multi-modal TTC feasibility study, these pipelines are not an active priority of the TAC organization.

The only transportation modes under consideration are Conventional Interstate and Electric Conduit. The idea of a multi-modal corridor is called a “super-corridor,” and no such example facility exists. The original TTC Feasibility Study (TransAmerica Transportation Corridor) envisioned this concept. It was shown to not be viable at the time. Another example of this concept was the Trans-Texas Corridor (2001-2010), but it was cancelled by the FHWA (it was a state-led concept and never added to the High Priority Corridors List).

No. It would take and Act of Congress to cancel any of the High Priority Corridors, strike any of them from the list, or alter them in any way. Nothing of the kind has happened (there have been amendments). Several EIS cancellations did happen, with at least one ROD recision, but in all cases these occurred primarily due to lack of funding.

The primary issue is funding. The other issue is that while the original organization behind the corridor (Interstate 66 Project, Inc.) developed an impressive coast to coast coalition, led by the efforts of Walt Wildman, this wasn’t maintained and slowly dissolved. Today the Interstate 66 Project, Inc. is branded as TransAmerica Corridor, Inc. Several other High Priority Corridors have developed coalitions over the years, such as Ports to Plains. With the TransAmerica Corridor organization now added to the CAFI Coalition, future federal funding could happen more easily with the Build America 250 Act. The TransAmerica Corridor is making progress on rebuilding its national coalition.

No. The High Priority Corridor List and its designated Future Interstate Corridors (and the Auxiliary Future Interstate List) are designed and controlled by the Congress of the United States of America.

Yes. It began partially by a plant manager at a local factory near Cape Girardeau with business leaders following the cause by 1987. It became a major initiative of the Regional Commerce and Growth Association (RCGA), until a national scale meeting was convened in St. Louis, Missouri in 1989 that started the Interstate 66 Project, Inc. organization, which was noted in the TransAmerica Transportation Corridor study in 1994. The group moved its headquarters to Wichita, Kansas for a few years, but the organization moved back to Cape Girardeau around 1995. The idea was promoted primarily by Congressman Bill Emerson (though several others joined him, notably Congressman Hal Rogers) from the late 1980s until he died in 1996. The Interstate 66 Project, Inc. organization was superseded by the TransAmerica Corridor, Inc. organization in 2010.

The authorized corridor (the part Congress has designated in law) currently ends in Kansas, just west of Wichita. The line shown continuing west from there, through to California, represents TransAmerica Corridor, Inc.’s advocacy proposal: the western extension we are asking Congress to add, not a route that has already been designated.

That proposed line is not arbitrary. It generally follows existing state highways and four-lane divided highways already on the ground, the same way the authorized eastern portion of the corridor was built around existing roads and infrastructure wherever possible. Showing the full coast-to-coast line is how TransAmerica Corridor, Inc. communicates the complete vision we’re advocating for (a true coast-to-coast freight corridor reaching San Diego) without breaking up the map into segments that obscure that goal.

Most of TransAmerica Corridor, Inc.’s maps show this full route as a single continuous line, for visual clarity rather than legal precision. The distinction between what Congress has already authorized (Norfolk, VA to just west of Wichita, KS) and what TransAmerica Corridor, Inc. is proposing to add (Kansas to California) is detailed in writing here, and is also shown visually on the CAFI Coalition’s corridor map, which TransAmerica Corridor, Inc. is a member of. Neither map represents a finished alignment, see the previous question for how alignments are actually determined once a corridor is authorized.

The maps on this site illustrate the federally authorized corridor (the general route Congress designated from Norfolk, Virginia to just west of Wichita, Kansas) not a final highway alignment. Our maps follow that authorized route closely, because that’s what they’re meant to show: where Congress has already directed this corridor to go in broad terms.

That authorization is not the same thing as a finished design. The actual alignment (the specific path the highway will follow on the ground) is determined later, by each state’s Department of Transportation, working within the logical termini and other requirements set by the Federal Highway Administration, including full environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). That process involves detailed engineering, environmental study, and public input.

The maps show where Congress said this corridor should generally go. They do not show, and cannot show, where the road will ultimately be built. That determination is years away and rests with the state DOTs and FHWA, not with TransAmerica Corridor, Inc.

No. TransAmerica Corridor, Inc.’s current mission and legislative work are focused entirely on completing and extending the East-West TransAmerica Corridor that Congress authorized in 1991.

A typical interstate right-of-way is a few hundred feet wide, the same as any other interstate in the country. The “50-mile” figure sometimes referenced online comes from a broad study area used in early-stage planning for data collection and environmental screening, not a proposed width for the road itself. A study area is where analysis happens, not where pavement goes.

No land acquisition is happening, or imminent, anywhere along the corridor. Right-of-way is only acquired after a specific alignment is selected, which only happens after years of environmental review (NEPA) and detailed engineering, work that has not yet begun. At this stage, TransAmerica Corridor, Inc.’s role is advocacy for funding and federal designation, not land selection.

In TransAmerica Corridor, Inc.’s early years, a Foreign Trade Zone was mentioned on an earlier version of our website as one possibility among many long-term ideas for the nation. It was never adopted, never pursued, and is not part of TransAmerica Corridor, Inc.’s mission or board-approved plan. As TransAmerica Corridor, Inc.’s focus sharpened, our work narrowed to what it is today: advocating for completion of the federally authorized highway corridor and the funding that comes with it.

The Somerset Northern Bypass is labeled as I-66 in the Kentucky Highway Plan 2026-2032, with the funding provided by Congressman Hal Rogers, who has been a long-time supporter of the I-66 Corridor.

West Virginia has several miles of the Coalfields Expressway under construction in 2026, just north of Welch.

The King Coal Highway (Future I-73) is under construction in several parts of southern West Virginia. Under the statutory route described by Congress, the East-West TransAmerica Corridor “shares a common corridor” with the I-73 statutory route from Welch to Williamson.