News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

I-14 in Texas

Started by Grzrd, November 21, 2016, 05:04:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Life in Paradise

El Paso, TX to Savannah, GA???  Quite a bit of duplication and waste of money to go all of that way.  I can see some need for I-14 in Texas and part of Louisiana to go around Houston and San Antonio, but we are reaching towards I-69 expanded levels here.


jbnv

Quote from: sparker on April 23, 2017, 05:15:41 AM
Well -- pure political will emanating from central TX got 'er done (at least 25 miles out of ????).  Wonder where the next spate of activity on this corridor will be?  My money's on either Bryan/State College or way out west around Midland or San Angelo (a few miles here, a few miles there.......).  This'll be an interesting ride!

Especially when they start talking to Louisiana about getting it to Alexandria and Natchez.

This could bury Louisiana's portion of I-69 once and for all. Louisiana wants this interstate and can argue that it needs it to take advantage of commerce from or to Texas. Texas can argue that I-14 gives them a better (or at least an alternate) freight corridor to the Mississippi River. On the other hand, I-69 gives Louisiana very little commercial benefit and doesn't connect any Louisiana cities other than a loose connection to Shreveport, which is already connected to major cities by other interstates. If Louisiana I-69 dies, Texas doesn't have to bother building it to Logansport; they can just route it down what is now I-369 and be done with it.

(I'm definitely not saying that any of this will happen any time soon.)
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

sparker

Quote from: Life in Paradise on April 23, 2017, 05:08:01 PM
El Paso, TX to Savannah, GA???  Quite a bit of duplication and waste of money to go all of that way.  I can see some need for I-14 in Texas and part of Louisiana to go around Houston and San Antonio, but we are reaching towards I-69 expanded levels here.
Quote from: jbnv on April 23, 2017, 06:19:06 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 23, 2017, 05:15:41 AM
Well -- pure political will emanating from central TX got 'er done (at least 25 miles out of ????).  Wonder where the next spate of activity on this corridor will be?  My money's on either Bryan/State College or way out west around Midland or San Angelo (a few miles here, a few miles there.......).  This'll be an interesting ride!

Especially when they start talking to Louisiana about getting it to Alexandria and Natchez.

This could bury Louisiana's portion of I-69 once and for all. Louisiana wants this interstate and can argue that it needs it to take advantage of commerce from or to Texas. Texas can argue that I-14 gives them a better (or at least an alternate) freight corridor to the Mississippi River. On the other hand, I-69 gives Louisiana very little commercial benefit and doesn't connect any Louisiana cities other than a loose connection to Shreveport, which is already connected to major cities by other interstates. If Louisiana I-69 dies, Texas doesn't have to bother building it to Logansport; they can just route it down what is now I-369 and be done with it.

(I'm definitely not saying that any of this will happen any time soon.)

Mentioning Savannah is simply hyperbole; the original I-14 "outline" (more that than a detailed plan) showed it using the Fall Line expressway to access Augusta, where it would ostensibly terminate at I-20.  I'm guessing it may get as far east as Laurel, MS; anywhere east of there would likely be duplicative -- particularly if an Interstate-grade facility is built along US 80 from I-20/59 to Montgomery.

As far as I-69 goes, I don't see LA completely abandoning its plans for that route, just "back-burnering" it outside a Red River crossing and approaches.  As long as AR is pushing its plans forward, any I-69 facility will need a place to go.  At the risk of delving a bit too far into the fictional area, I see two alternate possibilities:  abandoning I-69 west of Monticello and turning it south more or less along US 425 and US 165 to I-20 somewhere in the Monroe area, and then multiplexing it along I-20 west to Shreveport, where it would take off again toward Texas.  The second would be simply to extend it west in AR to the Texarkana area, where it would presumably link up with the I-369 alignment, with the latter becoming the new I-69 mainline (TX probably wouldn't mind that one bit!).  Yeah, it's a bit convoluted, but little about the I-69 corridor between Texas and Memphis isn't somewhat contrived.  The chances of that corridor being fully developed as originally planned are, IMO, slim & none.  All we can do is stay tuned! 

jbnv

Quote from: sparker on April 23, 2017, 08:10:06 PM
As far as I-69 goes, I don't see LA completely abandoning its plans for that route, just "back-burnering" it outside a Red River crossing and approaches.  As long as AR is pushing its plans forward, any I-69 facility will need a place to go.

Even if Arkansas and Texas both build I-69 along the current corridor all the way to the Louisiana border, that doesn't compel Louisiana to put I-69 ahead of other needs or priorities. (See Missouri and I-49.)

Quote from: sparker on April 23, 2017, 08:10:06 PM
At the risk of delving a bit too far into the fictional area, I see two alternate possibilities:  abandoning I-69 west of Monticello and turning it south more or less along US 425 and US 165 to I-20 somewhere in the Monroe area, and then multiplexing it along I-20 west to Shreveport, where it would take off again toward Texas.

If Arkansas really wanted to build a(nother) interstate with Louisiana, they'd talk about extending I-530 south to Monroe then picking up US 165 to Lake Charles. That would actually get our attention like I-14 has. (Again, see I-49, which is marching forward albeit slowly in all three of its states.)

Quote from: sparker on April 23, 2017, 08:10:06 PM
Yeah, it's a bit convoluted, but little about the I-69 corridor between Texas and Memphis isn't somewhat contrived.  The chances of that corridor being fully developed as originally planned are, IMO, slim & none.  All we can do is stay tuned!

One thing that's not convoluted about it is creating a southwest bypass around Shreveport, Bossier City and Barksdale Base. I think we'll build that segment and nothing else. (And if we do build only that segment, I wouldn't bother calling it I-69. I-649 would make more sense.)
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

Interstate 69 Fan

Apparently I’m a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

The Ghostbuster

The Interstate 14 designation is a wasted number. It's only 8 miles longer than Interstate 97, and will not likely go any further east or west anytime soon.

longhorn

If they would just contruct the Temple to I-45 section first (making it easier to get from Central Texas to Houston and relieving 290 at Brenham), many here would be surprised at the traffic counts.

Bobby5280

I don't think I-14 will do anything to relieve traffic in Brenham. The proposed road is too far North. The main problem for Brenham is it's along the main drag between the Houston metro (6 million) and Austin metro (2 million), and too much of that main drag (US-290) is not Interstate quality. At best, I-14 could possibly draw some North-South traffic off TX-36. But that's only going to happen if I-14 is built with a much more straight path to College Station than the stupid "W" shape path depicted on the concept maps. Otherwise a lot of traffic from Temple may still keep coming down TX-36. It's a straighter shot.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 02, 2017, 01:26:51 PM
I don't think I-14 will do anything to relieve traffic in Brenham. The proposed road is too far North. The main problem for Brenham is it's along the main drag between the Houston metro (6 million) and Austin metro (2 million), and too much of that main drag (US-290) is not Interstate quality. At best, I-14 could possibly draw some North-South traffic off TX-36. But that's only going to happen if I-14 is built with a much more straight path to College Station than the stupid "W" shape path depicted on the concept maps. Otherwise a lot of traffic from Temple may still keep coming down TX-36. It's a straighter shot.

Within the Triangle, my guess is that the I-14 alignment will essentially stay on US 190 east to about Cameron, then take off in a relatively straight shot ESE to where US 79 crosses the Brazos -- primarily because the river has been channeled in that area, reducing the bridge cost.  It'll probably skirt Hearne to the SW before subsuming the TX 6 alignment through the College Station/Bryan area.  Just where it will diverge from there toward Huntsville has yet TBD; I'd guess it'll parallel TX 30 to the south, probably diverging from TX 6 somewhere north of Navasota so here's less new-terrain mileage to construct (and providing a junction point with an extended TX 249 to Houston).  East of Huntsville -- if that ever occurs -- is anyone's guess; whatever is eventually built will have to dodge lakes, dams, and towns en route to LA. 

One reason I can think of why the maps released to the general public showing the "preliminary" I-14 corridor zig-zagging along existing routes is to avoid creating anxiety among those landowners along the potential route, particularly east of Cameron; if they had shown a "straight-line" alignment to the Hearne area, someone owning property in that area would have concluded that "shit, they're going to come right through my land" and possibly intitate a localized preemptive response that could have the effect of highly restricting the options as to just where the corridor could possibly go.  Better that TXDOT leave sleeping dogs lie until the corridor is funded and ready to go, then initiate whatever land acquisition measures are necessary to effect an efficient routing (i.e., just follow the longstanding process used in most jurisdictions).     

Bobby5280

I'm not so sure the I-14 planners drew the proposed path through the Texas Triangle just to put property owners' minds at ease. I recall when the Trans Texas Corridor thing was being sold to the public. The proposed paths of those routes were not really jagged or crooked at all. There was a few really odd corridor choices, but that was another issue (part of which ultimately doomed that whole effort).

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 03, 2017, 12:02:10 AM
I'm not so sure the I-14 planners drew the proposed path through the Texas Triangle just to put property owners' minds at ease. I recall when the Trans Texas Corridor thing was being sold to the public. The proposed paths of those routes were not really jagged or crooked at all. There was a few really odd corridor choices, but that was another issue (part of which ultimately doomed that whole effort).

The entire TX corridor concept -- blocks wide/multi-mode -- was likely doomed to failure from the start.  The level of eminent domain that would have had to be employed to complete the corridors as planned would provoke outcry and opposition to a level not seen outside of freeway efforts in major dense cities.  IIRC, there was a lot of that emanating from rural Texas when the first batch of TTC plans were publicized -- which was the basis for my speculation that showing corridors (including I-14 across the Triangle) "straightlined" before preliminary vetting of actual alignments took place might have the effect of reviving the blanket fears and subsequent opposition encountered with the overall TTC concept.  If I were in the shoes of the corridor's backers and/or TXDOT, I'd also tread lightly and only show the existing roads that would be ostensibly supplanted by the new corridor -- as a general rather than specific plan.

wxfree

The Trans-Texas Corridor was doomed from the start because of its magnitude.  I went to some public meetings in rural areas and people were very angry, torches-and-pitchforks angry.  I thought I was watching the beginning of a citizens' uprising.  (This is Texas, where we're never really all that far from that.)  The plan wouldn't just take land, it would split land.  In rural areas without dense road networks, there would be long detours to get to a road that went across the corridor, as most roads would just be broken.  Getting from one part of your land to the other would turn into a major outing in some areas.    Another huge liability was that the taking of land would be for private for-profit enterprise running toll roads and leasing right-of-way for utilities and rail lines.  This was never going to happen.  Rick Perry, the governor at the time who proposed the system, is from rural Texas and should have known that.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on November 21, 2016, 05:04:02 PM
This Nov. 8 article report that Midland may seek an amendment to the I-14 legislation which would change the western terminus to Midland.

How difficult is it to change a Congressionally designated corridor? This May 6 article reports that the folks in Midland are meeting some resistance from elected officials, both a Congressman whose district includes the current route and a U.S. Senator:

Quote
Talks have been bubbling in recent months about making major route changes to Interstate 14, but the primary organization behind the push says it's facing resistance from a West Texas representative and the state's senior senator.
Regional transportation lobby group Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance (MOTRAN) has pushed to change the congressionally approved western route of I-14
, also known as the Forts to Ports Highway and the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway System ....
The new designation requires congressional approval. But while MOTRAN has the support of U.S. Reps. Mike Conaway, Brian Babin and Roger Williams, MOTRAN President James Beauchamp has told the Reporter-Telegram he faces resistance from Rep. Will Hurd and Sen. John Cornyn.
"Currently, part of that U.S. 190 designation is in (Hurd's) district,"  Beauchamp said. "His office told me some of the people down there didn't want to give up that designation. But, again, when you look at the allocation of resources within these two districts, I think this is pretty much common sense."   ....
MOTRAN recently compiled data to make the case for moving the western terminus north to Midland-Odessa and San Angelo. Key items are:
The US 190 route will cost $1.539 billion, while the SH 158/US 87 route will cost $1.339 billion. Changing the route will yield a savings of nearly $200 million.
The designated route will serve 33,907 people, according to 2016 Texas Demographic Center data. The new route in the Midland-Odessa and San Angelo regions will serve 463,873 people, nearly 430,000 more people than the current designation.
Beauchamp said that interstate design should achieve two goals: move freight and connect people. "If your goal is to connect people and move freight, not only is our route cheaper, but it can connect a lot more people."  ....
A Cornyn spokeswoman told the Reporter-Telegram it wasn't accurate to say the senator opposes the relocation of I-14. "Sen. Cornyn is hopeful TxDOT and local stakeholders can quickly identify a solution that's best for all Texans."
Beauchamp responded: "The original designation of I-14 did not have the support or backing of TxDOT.  We have provided information detailing the cost savings, additional population, and traffic served by the proposed change.
"So for Sen. Cornyn to say that he is looking for TxDOT to solve this problem, created by Congress, is a cop-out. They need to solve this problem themselves, and we gave them a more viable option. I hope he understands that based on the safety data we have assembled, their inability to correct their own mistake will put countless lives in danger on our roadways because they prioritized the wrong project. I am sad for the lives that will be lost as officials in Washington, D.C., continue to play politics with our Texas highways."
Beauchamp said the Cornyn office initially encouraged the route redesignation.
As for Hurd, whose district runs from western San Antonio, though the Big Bend region to east El Paso, "(He) either needs to step out of the way or make a case for why the route should stay,"  Beauchamp said.

The Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition has a solution: make both interstate corridors:

Quote
Bushell said the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition supports the route change and that the lobby group this year will seek to amend the route itself through either the infrastructure bill or a standalone bill. The coalition's strategy isn't necessarily to remove the US 190 route; rather, it wants to see the SH 158/US 87 route added to the map. Ultimately, TxDOT will determine which route it wants designated for I-14, he said.

I-14N and I-14S, anyone?

sparker

Quote from: Grzrd on May 08, 2017, 01:01:07 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 21, 2016, 05:04:02 PM
This Nov. 8 article report that Midland may seek an amendment to the I-14 legislation which would change the western terminus to Midland.

How difficult is it to change a Congressionally designated corridor? This May 6 article reports that the folks in Midland are meeting some resistance from elected officials, both a Congressman whose district includes the current route and a U.S. Senator:

Quote
Talks have been bubbling in recent months about making major route changes to Interstate 14, but the primary organization behind the push says it's facing resistance from a West Texas representative and the state's senior senator.
Regional transportation lobby group Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance (MOTRAN) has pushed to change the congressionally approved western route of I-14
, also known as the Forts to Ports Highway and the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway System ....
The new designation requires congressional approval. But while MOTRAN has the support of U.S. Reps. Mike Conaway, Brian Babin and Roger Williams, MOTRAN President James Beauchamp has told the Reporter-Telegram he faces resistance from Rep. Will Hurd and Sen. John Cornyn.
"Currently, part of that U.S. 190 designation is in (Hurd's) district,"  Beauchamp said. "His office told me some of the people down there didn't want to give up that designation. But, again, when you look at the allocation of resources within these two districts, I think this is pretty much common sense."   ....
MOTRAN recently compiled data to make the case for moving the western terminus north to Midland-Odessa and San Angelo. Key items are:
The US 190 route will cost $1.539 billion, while the SH 158/US 87 route will cost $1.339 billion. Changing the route will yield a savings of nearly $200 million.
The designated route will serve 33,907 people, according to 2016 Texas Demographic Center data. The new route in the Midland-Odessa and San Angelo regions will serve 463,873 people, nearly 430,000 more people than the current designation.
Beauchamp said that interstate design should achieve two goals: move freight and connect people. "If your goal is to connect people and move freight, not only is our route cheaper, but it can connect a lot more people."  ....
A Cornyn spokeswoman told the Reporter-Telegram it wasn't accurate to say the senator opposes the relocation of I-14. "Sen. Cornyn is hopeful TxDOT and local stakeholders can quickly identify a solution that's best for all Texans."
Beauchamp responded: "The original designation of I-14 did not have the support or backing of TxDOT.  We have provided information detailing the cost savings, additional population, and traffic served by the proposed change.
"So for Sen. Cornyn to say that he is looking for TxDOT to solve this problem, created by Congress, is a cop-out. They need to solve this problem themselves, and we gave them a more viable option. I hope he understands that based on the safety data we have assembled, their inability to correct their own mistake will put countless lives in danger on our roadways because they prioritized the wrong project. I am sad for the lives that will be lost as officials in Washington, D.C., continue to play politics with our Texas highways."
Beauchamp said the Cornyn office initially encouraged the route redesignation.
As for Hurd, whose district runs from western San Antonio, though the Big Bend region to east El Paso, "(He) either needs to step out of the way or make a case for why the route should stay,"  Beauchamp said.

The Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition has a solution: make both interstate corridors:

Quote
Bushell said the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition supports the route change and that the lobby group this year will seek to amend the route itself through either the infrastructure bill or a standalone bill. The coalition's strategy isn't necessarily to remove the US 190 route; rather, it wants to see the SH 158/US 87 route added to the map. Ultimately, TxDOT will determine which route it wants designated for I-14, he said.

I-14N and I-14S, anyone?


In terms of service, there's no question that a M/O-San Angelo routing serves a greater population that simply running I-14 down along the western "add-on " extension of US 190 to I-10.  If this Hurd fellow (I'll refrain from referring to him by a 7-letter word starting with "a" and ending with "e") really wants some sort of facility in his neck of the woods, just do the obvious: extend the P-to-P from San Angelo down to Del Rio or even all the way to I-35 north of Laredo as an Interstate.  That'll go through his district and actually be a usable route. 

Politically motivated corridors -- or other projects, for that matter -- are often a double-edged sword; when push comes to shove, someone's ego gets tweaked or their bailiwick is ignored/rejected, and they get pissed.  Comes with the territory! :poke:

Grzrd

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 07, 2017, 11:49:50 AM
Expanding I-14 east from Belton to Heidenheimer is probably an acknowledgement of the difficult and expensive prospect of running I-14 up and down through Temple. Building a 4-level stack interchange at I-35 and Loop 363 isn't practical. The I-35 expansion project in Temple stops just short of this interchange.
A Southern I-14 bypass of Temple would at least remove one "zig" from the otherwise really zig-zaggy I-14 route.

This July 14 article reports that the Killeen-Temple MPO is studying a possible realignment of US 190/Future I-14 that would not be as dependent on I-35:

Quote
As Central Texas continues to grow, so too does the need for adequate roadways. The Killeen-Temple Metropolitan Plan- ning Organization held a meeting Friday to discuss a possible realignment of U.S. Highway 190.
Officials representing several local municipalities and school districts converged on the Civic Center in Rogers to provide input. The meeting is part of a year-long feasibility study to determine the need for an alternate east-west route through Bell County.
U.S. 190 – which eventually will be designated Interstate 14 – currently meets Interstate 35 in Belton, travels north to Loop 363 in Temple and then continues southeast along State Highway 36 to Rogers. The focus of the meeting was to find ways to limit the highway's dependence on I-35 and other major roadways by evaluating more efficient routes.
Participants broke into groups to discuss the various stages of the project. One possible solution would be to divert the highway south along FM 1670 in Belton before turning east to follow FM 436, avoiding a connection with I-35.
Another option would be to travel south on I-35 to connect directly to FM 436.

"If we extend down I-35 to connect to (FM 436) and have an interchange there, that would actually work,"  Andy Atlas of consulting firm CP&Y said. "People's expectations of where U.S. 190 is today would continue and you would use existing infrastructure. You wouldn't have to build west of I-35. We're probably talking about 1.5 to 2 miles (along I-35)."
Another popular option would be to use FM 93 as a more direct, existing route.
"When you're driving FM 93, it's relatively undeveloped until you get to 31st Street. We think we should continue studying FM 93,"  Atlas said. "It's a direct route and it's in the vicinity of where a lot of development is happening. If we're going to look at something in that vicinity, FM 93 is the only option we have really. We can avoid bisecting communities."
The working group will hold two more meetings in the coming months, as well as a public forum in the fall to complete the feasibility study.
The results of the study, however, don't guarantee that a project will eventually commence.
"There's currently no money directly identified for either U.S. 190 or the continuation of the I-14 project,"  TxDOT representative Michel Bolin said.
But because a portion of U.S. 190 west of I-35 has been designated as I-14, Bolin said U.S. 190 would be a high priority if funding becomes available.

Here is a snip of a map of the study area:


The Ghostbuster

Does anyone really see Texas's Interstate 14 going any further east or further west. Count me as skeptical.

sparker

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2017, 03:52:24 PM
Does anyone really see Texas's Interstate 14 going any further east or further west. Count me as skeptical.

East will probably be done sooner than later because of both political influence and growth within the "Triangle"; I earlier speculated that it would get to Bryan/State College, tie in with the existing TX 6 facility, which in turn is slated to connect to the TX 249 toll road facility extending north from metro Houston.  Once that connection is made, the intra-Triangle raison d'etre has been accomplished -- an alternative connection from Houston -- via State College -- to I-35 between Austin and DFW.  Anything to the east of TX 6 -- save a possible connection to I-45 along TX 30 -- will likely be a much longer-term proposition.  Same goes with anything west of the existing signed I-14 facility -- folks from San Angelo and Midland/Odessa will have to nail down, legislatively, a routing that takes I-14 west to serve their areas, resisting any pressure for a direct connection SW to I-10.  If that happens, it'll be a matter of shaking funds loose.  I wouldn't expect to see a finished W. Texas facility there for at least 20-25 years.   

english si

College Station is plausible.

I-45 to US281 is possible.

Beyond that is preposterous.

sparker

Quote from: english si on July 18, 2017, 04:30:37 PM
College Station is plausible.

I-45 to US281 is possible.

Beyond that is preposterous.

I'll be the first to acknowledge that any Interstate corridor west of Lampasas will be the result of mainly political activity from areas that would potentially be served by such a corridor.  But in these days of "bottom-up" road planning, that's how corridors are laid out, planned, and eventually deployed.  Someone somewhere feels deprived since they don't have an Interstate serving them -- and if the outcry is amplified to where it's loud and consistent enough, it gets the attention of folks who can at least assist in making something happen.  That's precisely what's happening here.  Midland/Odessa want a direct connection southeast; San Angelo simply wants Interstate service and has built a batch of local freeways ostensibly to accommodate such, and the towns & rural areas between San Angelo and Lampasas would just be glad to provide commercial services at interchanges. 

Save a massive national effort to "fill in the gaps" of the Interstate network (something that hasn't happened for 49 years and counting), this is, despite criticism from outside sources, how any project of this type proceeds.  Unbiased assessments of actual need -- ideally how project priorities are determined -- are no longer a part of a process that has been in essence "hijacked" by localized political considerations.  I can't think of a DOT or local planning agency who wants to be put in this position, but here in the good old USA -- and this has persisted regardless of national administration or the presence of the various transportation bills piled one atop another since 1991 -- it's now a matter of the political standing and who can "snake" a concept through the planning and fiscal maze.   

Revive 755

Quote from: english si on July 18, 2017, 04:30:37 PM
College Station is plausible.

I-45 to US281 is possible.

Beyond that is preposterous.

I don't think it would be that implausible to extend it east of I-45 to the future I-69 corridor.

longhorn

Quote from: Grzrd on July 18, 2017, 03:20:31 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 07, 2017, 11:49:50 AM
Expanding I-14 east from Belton to Heidenheimer is probably an acknowledgement of the difficult and expensive prospect of running I-14 up and down through Temple. Building a 4-level stack interchange at I-35 and Loop 363 isn't practical. The I-35 expansion project in Temple stops just short of this interchange.
A Southern I-14 bypass of Temple would at least remove one "zig" from the otherwise really zig-zaggy I-14 route.

This July 14 article reports that the Killeen-Temple MPO is studying a possible realignment of US 190/Future I-14 that would not be as dependent on I-35:

Quote
As Central Texas continues to grow, so too does the need for adequate roadways. The Killeen-Temple Metropolitan Plan- ning Organization held a meeting Friday to discuss a possible realignment of U.S. Highway 190.
Officials representing several local municipalities and school districts converged on the Civic Center in Rogers to provide input. The meeting is part of a year-long feasibility study to determine the need for an alternate east-west route through Bell County.
U.S. 190 — which eventually will be designated Interstate 14 — currently meets Interstate 35 in Belton, travels north to Loop 363 in Temple and then continues southeast along State Highway 36 to Rogers. The focus of the meeting was to find ways to limit the highway’s dependence on I-35 and other major roadways by evaluating more efficient routes.
Participants broke into groups to discuss the various stages of the project. One possible solution would be to divert the highway south along FM 1670 in Belton before turning east to follow FM 436, avoiding a connection with I-35.
Another option would be to travel south on I-35 to connect directly to FM 436.

"If we extend down I-35 to connect to (FM 436) and have an interchange there, that would actually work,” Andy Atlas of consulting firm CP&Y said. “People’s expectations of where U.S. 190 is today would continue and you would use existing infrastructure. You wouldn’t have to build west of I-35. We’re probably talking about 1.5 to 2 miles (along I-35).”
Another popular option would be to use FM 93 as a more direct, existing route.
“When you’re driving FM 93, it’s relatively undeveloped until you get to 31st Street. We think we should continue studying FM 93,” Atlas said. “It’s a direct route and it’s in the vicinity of where a lot of development is happening. If we’re going to look at something in that vicinity, FM 93 is the only option we have really. We can avoid bisecting communities.”
The working group will hold two more meetings in the coming months, as well as a public forum in the fall to complete the feasibility study.
The results of the study, however, don’t guarantee that a project will eventually commence.
“There’s currently no money directly identified for either U.S. 190 or the continuation of the I-14 project,” TxDOT representative Michel Bolin said.
But because a portion of U.S. 190 west of I-35 has been designated as I-14, Bolin said U.S. 190 would be a high priority if funding becomes available.

Here is a snip of a map of the study area:



Most people from Killeen/Ft Hood  take hwy 93 from Belton Hidehiemer and connect with 190/36 there. Skips the traffic in Temple.

I see I-14 just to north of Bryan and stopping at I -45. Another way for those in Central Texas to get to Houston and relieve 290 from Brenham.

sparker

Quote from: Revive 755 on July 18, 2017, 06:21:27 PM
Quote from: english si on July 18, 2017, 04:30:37 PM
College Station is plausible.

I-45 to US281 is possible.

Beyond that is preposterous.

I don't think it would be that implausible to extend it east of I-45 to the future I-69 corridor.

If a way can be found to circumnavigate Lake Livingston in a cost-effective manner, then yes, the I-69/US 59 corridor would be an appropriate (and some would posit temporary) "stopping point" for the E-W I-14 corridor.  It would take concrete corresponding action from within Louisiana to prompt development of anything east of there. 

Henry

Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2017, 04:46:41 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 18, 2017, 06:21:27 PM
Quote from: english si on July 18, 2017, 04:30:37 PM
College Station is plausible.

I-45 to US281 is possible.

Beyond that is preposterous.

I don't think it would be that implausible to extend it east of I-45 to the future I-69 corridor.

If a way can be found to circumnavigate Lake Livingston in a cost-effective manner, then yes, the I-69/US 59 corridor would be an appropriate (and some would posit temporary) "stopping point" for the E-W I-14 corridor.  It would take concrete corresponding action from within Louisiana to prompt development of anything east of there. 
Well, there is the proposed I-14 that is to continue all the way to Augusta, GA...
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

sparker

Quote from: Henry on July 19, 2017, 10:16:03 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2017, 04:46:41 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 18, 2017, 06:21:27 PM
Quote from: english si on July 18, 2017, 04:30:37 PM
College Station is plausible.

I-45 to US281 is possible.

Beyond that is preposterous.

I don't think it would be that implausible to extend it east of I-45 to the future I-69 corridor.

If a way can be found to circumnavigate Lake Livingston in a cost-effective manner, then yes, the I-69/US 59 corridor would be an appropriate (and some would posit temporary) "stopping point" for the E-W I-14 corridor.  It would take concrete corresponding action from within Louisiana to prompt development of anything east of there. 
Well, there is the proposed I-14 that is to continue all the way to Augusta, GA...

Proposed -- but in the loosest sense possible.  Never has even been suggested as an HPC; it's essentially duplicative of the "I-85" extension west of Montgomery once eastward past I-59, and essentially tracks what would be a western I-16 extension in east Alabama and west Georgia.  Unless some presently unseen political force can ram something through across the US 84 corridor in AL, the probability of I-14 extending east of MS is slim & none.  Macon-Augusta is being built as a GRIP expressway; enhancing it to full freeway would be dependent upon traffic counts once the route is completed between I-75 and I-520 -- and even that would be decades away.

Bobby5280

#149
I can see I-14 getting built from the current terminus in Belton to College Station. The big question is what alignment will the highway take to fill that gap? I'm hoping for as direct a route as possible: upgrading or going parallel to US-190 down to Cameron, then building a new terrain route directly to the North side of College Station.

Planners instead have I-14 following the current, stupid, zaggy, US-190 route. From Cameron go almost due South to Milano, hard 90° turn at Milano, another hard 90° turn at Hearne, another hard 90° turn at Bryan and yet another hard 90° turn at Madisonville where I-14 would needlessly multiplex with I-45 down to Huntsville. I-14 would make a big "W" shape through central Texas. But it gets more towns and political influence connected to the Interstate! Yay!

They need to cut out all the extra towns and mileage and go for as straight a shot as possible from Belton to College Station and then Huntsville. Even if it means building a bunch of new terrain Interstate. They're going to have to build mostly new terrain roadway regardless of alignment. There's lot of homes, businesses, driveways, etc. along existing US-190.

Quote from: english siI-45 to US281 is possible.

I think development of I-14 out to the US-281 junction in Lampasas depends a little on further development of the US-281 corridor. Several miles of US-281 will be converted into freeway North of San Antonio. There's a few different freeway style exits and key intersections. Some portions of US-281 have a large median able to hold future freeway lanes. But it will probably be a long time before US-281 turns into a full blown relief corridor for I-35. Meanwhile TX DOT needs to add a second set of freeway lanes for I-14 in Copperas Cove.

Quote from: sparkerIf a way can be found to circumnavigate Lake Livingston in a cost-effective manner, then yes, the I-69/US 59 corridor would be an appropriate (and some would posit temporary) "stopping point" for the E-W I-14 corridor.  It would take concrete corresponding action from within Louisiana to prompt development of anything east of there.

That's a tricky situation from both environmental concerns and existing properties along US-190 near Lake Livingston. I think if I-14 were to pass through there an upgrade of US-190 itself would be impossible. The super highway would have to cross the Trinity River at least a couple miles or so North of existing US-190 and meet I-69 a few miles North of Livingston.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.