News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-14 in Texas

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

Previous topic - Next topic

sparker

I can see the I-14 corridor approaching Hearne; the best crossing site of the Brazos is right along US 79 and the parallel UP tracks, where they've channelized the river so as to provide a relatively narrow (and, of course, less expensive) distance to bridge.  Also, Cameron (the largest city between Temple/Belton and the TX 6 corridor) is pretty much right along a straight line.  But unless there's a huge locus of political power emanating from Milano (population well below 1K), it shouldn't be too difficult to "straightline" the corridor between Cameron and Hearne.  Once on the TX 6 corridor, any further eastward alignment would be determined later (TX 30 or thereabouts if they've got an ounce of intelligence, or US 190 if they don't!).  I'd venture a guess that the present convoluted alignment basically following US 190 between Temple and Bryan as shown on preliminary plans is there to assuage the landowners along the route; they'll deal with any that need to be affected by the actual alignment after all the surveying and title research is completed.  IMO, I-14 will do the following once east of metro Temple/Belton: follow US 190 as far as Cameron, cut straight across eastward to where US 79 crosses the Brazos and possibly twin that bridge, then skirt Hearne to the southwest and merge with TX 6 just south of town.  From a strictly fiscal standpoint, that minimizes and simplifies structural cost, particularly as regards the Brazos bridge. 

Lake Livingston:  a big arc either north or south of the lake itself.  I have some cousins with vacation property on the lake; and if they're typical of the folks who utilize the lake as such, acquisition of lakefront properties would likely be, in the aggregate, prohibitive as to cost; it might be best to instead plan on a bypass facility.


Bobby5280

The only way it would be good for I-14 to include Hearne in the routing is if indeed I-14 goes straight East from Cameron to Hearne, leaving out the wasteful zig-zag down to Milano.

The US-79 bridge across the Brazos is narrow and not remotely Interstate quality (narrow lanes, no shoulders). If/when I-14 crosses the Brazos it will be on a new Interstate quality bridge. Even if I-14 follows the US-79 alignment across the Brazos that whole bridge will have to be replaced.

Once I-14 is in the College Station metro the most direct yet least painful path to Huntsville needs to be identified. Farther South TX-DOT really needs to get on the stick about the TX-105 corridor between Navasota and Conroe. That's basically going to be the next outer "spoke" in Houston's growing super highway network, with I-14 between College Station and Huntsville yet another spoke.

Regarding Lake Livingston, I think it's possible to at least keep I-14 somewhat close to the existing US-190 corridor, close enough to be at least of some use to Onalaska, Blanchard and Livingston. If the I-14 alignment has to go too far to the North, practically skirting the town of Trinity then there would be no use running the highway to Huntsville -which would be a stupid shame.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 21, 2017, 09:21:49 PM
The only way it would be good for I-14 to include Hearne in the routing is if indeed I-14 goes straight East from Cameron to Hearne, leaving out the wasteful zig-zag down to Milano.

The US-79 bridge across the Brazos is narrow and not remotely Interstate quality (narrow lanes, no shoulders). If/when I-14 crosses the Brazos it will be on a new Interstate quality bridge. Even if I-14 follows the US-79 alignment across the Brazos that whole bridge will have to be replaced.

Once I-14 is in the College Station metro the most direct yet least painful path to Huntsville needs to be identified. Farther South TX-DOT really needs to get on the stick about the TX-105 corridor between Navasota and Conroe. That's basically going to be the next outer "spoke" in Houston's growing super highway network, with I-14 between College Station and Huntsville yet another spoke.

Regarding Lake Livingston, I think it's possible to at least keep I-14 somewhat close to the existing US-190 corridor, close enough to be at least of some use to Onalaska, Blanchard and Livingston. If the I-14 alignment has to go too far to the North, practically skirting the town of Trinity then there would be no use running the highway to Huntsville -which would be a stupid shame.

Regarding Hearne -- you read my mind!  I have been on the US 79 Brazos bridge, and fully agree it's substandard; my thoughts were to replace the bridge and "twin" it so that deliberately narrow river crossing zone could be utilized for both traffic on I-14 and US 79; a SW town bypass toward TX 6 would peel off after the bridge.

I would think that a south bypass of Lake Livingston would be much more useful -- and doable -- than anything to the north, which would involve a much broader "arc".  Also, I think you're onto something with the "expanding arc" concept re Houston expansion idioms -- they seem to have settled on a cyclical process of building an outer circle (first Loop 8, then TX 99, then........) and doing substantial infill out to that circle, adding or enhancing the "spokes" (e.g., Toll 249) as required.  Whether one sees that process as simply a better-planned version of urban sprawl or not, at least it supplies some measure of predictability, if not limitation.

rte66man

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 21, 2017, 09:21:49 PM
Farther South TX-DOT really needs to get on the stick about the TX-105 corridor between Navasota and Conroe. That's basically going to be the next outer "spoke" in Houston's growing super highway network, with I-14 between College Station and Huntsville yet another spoke.

If you look closely at the plans for the TX249 toll road, the western end is at TX105 well east of Navasota.  I would hope that means TxDOT has some long range plan to improve 105 west to Navasota at the least.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

TravelingBethelite

To me, it would seem like a waste of resources if any of current 290 is not used. (Feel free to skewer me.  :bigass:)
"Imprisoned by the freedom of the road!" - Ronnie Milsap
See my photos at: http://bit.ly/1Qi81ws

Now I decide where I go...

2018 Ford Fusion SE - proud new owner!

Bobby5280

US-290 between Austin and Houston is more likely to become a second I-12 since the ship has already sailed on the I-14 thing in Killeen. The US-190 corridor (on or near where I-14 is being developed) and towns like Bryan-College Station, Huntsville and Livingston are not close at all to the US-290 corridor. Central Texas and metro Houston has multiple corridors that could have new freeways or toll roads built on or parallel nearby.

FM-1488 & TX-242 between Magnolia and Woodbranch could have been turned into a freeway years ago, but so much development has gone up that the corridor can only be a mix of interchanges at busy intersections (like at I-45 and the new one at FM-149). The TX-105 corridor from Beaumont on West to Cleveland, Conroe, Navasota and Brenham could emerge as a new Interstate corridor -maybe a longer I-12 to Austin. Then there's the I-14 corridor a little farther North. The Grand Parkway, expansion of the Fort Bend Parkway, Westpark Tollway, I-69 and I-45 round up what's going on South of Houston. Long ago TX-6 could have been turned into a freeway corridor, but with so much development it's in the same situation as FM-1488 North of Houston, a mixed bag of interchanges, expressway-grade roads and busy stretches of traffic-light snarled highway.

silverback1065


longhorn

There is another way of getting to Bryan from Temple and its Tx 485. It starts a little east of Temple and ends at hwy 6 north of Hearne. 70mph running, two lane road with wide shoulders and not much elevation changes. Its the way a lot of locals get from Bryan to Central Texas avoiding the more danger 2095 from outside of Cameron to just outside of Hearne. No one actually goes down to Milano then back up to Hearne when trying to going from Temple to Bryan.

Unless you are Google maps which for some reason thinks that's the quickest way to get from Temple to Houston to zig zag and go through Hearne.

sparker

Quote from: longhorn on July 24, 2017, 10:50:43 AM
There is another way of getting to Bryan from Temple and its Tx 485. It starts a little east of Temple and ends at hwy 6 north of Hearne. 70mph running, two lane road with wide shoulders and not much elevation changes. Its the way a lot of locals get from Bryan to Central Texas avoiding the more danger 2095 from outside of Cameron to just outside of Hearne. No one actually goes down to Milano then back up to Hearne when trying to going from Temple to Bryan.

Unless you are Google maps which for some reason thinks that's the quickest way to get from Temple to Houston to zig zag and go through Hearne.

Wow -- that's odd.  One would think that Google would simply keep the driver on 36 down to Brenham and then shift to 290 into Houston -- the most direct route, considering the trajectory shift of TX 6 to essentially N-S between Navasota and Hempstead.  Never ceases to amaze me how there always seems to be glitches in Google routings!

rte66man

Quote from: longhorn on July 24, 2017, 10:50:43 AM
There is another way of getting to Bryan from Temple and its Tx 485. It starts a little east of Temple and ends at hwy 6 north of Hearne. 70mph running, two lane road with wide shoulders and not much elevation changes. Its the way a lot of locals get from Bryan to Central Texas avoiding the more danger 2095 from outside of Cameron to just outside of Hearne. No one actually goes down to Milano then back up to Hearne when trying to going from Temple to Bryan.

Unless you are Google maps which for some reason thinks that's the quickest way to get from Temple to Houston to zig zag and go through Hearne.


Mapquest shows your route as the preferred choice.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

NE2

The Goog uses FM 485 too...
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

longhorn

That's an interesting change in algorithms, it used to send one to Milano then Hearne  to get to Houston.

The point is there are many ways to get I-14 to hwy 6, and not all of the include Cameron, though I would imagine Cameron would protest like crazy to be on the route.

sparker

Quote from: longhorn on July 26, 2017, 09:07:07 AM
That's an interesting change in algorithms, it used to send one to Milano then Hearne  to get to Houston.

The point is there are many ways to get I-14 to hwy 6, and not all of the include Cameron, though I would imagine Cameron would protest like crazy to be on the route.

The actual routing from I-35 to TX 6 will probably depend upon how the initial segment through or around Temple is configured.  Attempting to utilize the current US 190 alignment through town would involve turning the present 35/190 volleyball into at least a partial stack -- requiring a substantial amount of urbanized land acquisition; that alone may doom that particular option.   However, if by chance that corridor is selected, it's likely to be extended straight down 190, including the Heidenheimer bypass freeway.  If that's done, it's likely that Cameron interests will press for a continuation of the 190 alignment at least as far as their immediate area.  But if a new-terrain extension east of Belton is chosen, then all bets are off; something more resembling a straight line from Belton to Hearne might eventually be in the works, whining from the Cameron area notwithstanding.  If it's not too far off, maybe they could pull the "let's extend the city limits out to the new road" stunt and get some tax money from a Pilot or Hardees out there!  But as I've said before, it's likely that any alignment will include a Brazos crossing at or near the present US 79 bridge, since the effective channelization of the river there makes a long floodplain crossing unnecessary (even a routing more or less along FM 485 could easily be shunted down to that area once approaching the river).

Plutonic Panda

Will this route be extended west? My apologies if this has been covered here before, but San Angelo a town of 100k isn't connected to any interstates other than at grade highways it appears. A quick glance on Gmaps it's clear the distance is much shorter to I-10 or I-20.

sparker

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2017, 12:22:25 AM
Will this route be extended west? My apologies if this has been covered here before, but San Angelo a town of 100k isn't connected to any interstates other than at grade highways it appears. A quick glance on Gmaps it's clear the distance is much shorter to I-10 or I-20.

This has been covered in past thread posts, but there is a potential I-14 alignment backed by interests from both San Angelo and the Midland/Odessa area that extends the corridor west from Lampasas along US 190 to Brady, then west via US 87 through San Angelo to TX 158 near Sterling City, and then west to the Midland-Odessa metro region; this includes a southern loop around those cities, finally terminating at I-20.  The argument made by these groups is that such a corridor serves a greater population base than any alternate that terminates at I-10.  Much of the western reaches of this routing is already 4-lanes divided, although most of that is hardly limited-access; there's plenty of private access and cross traffic which will have to be addressed (or bypassed).  San Angelo has a small but disconnected network of freeways (and near-freeways!) that may be incorporated into planning efforts.  That city has been angling for an upgrade of the Port-to-Plains corridor for decades (the proposed I-14 segment from San Angelo to Midland is part of that corridor); at this point it's likely that their attention will be shifted to the E-W I-14 routing, as they see some momentum behind that project -- particularly after the initial designation/signing from Copperas Cove to Belton.  Time will tell how successful they are.

Bobby5280

I think hell will freeze over before I-14 is extended from Copperas Cove to San Angelo and Midland. Costs of building new Interstate highway are obscenely expensive. Most of this proposed route is very rural. I-14 is somewhat unique in that none of its proposed route goes through any major cities or even near any major cities. The best case for I-14 in the near term is another East-West super highway for the Texas triangle and its regional traffic. Spending billions on a highway just to go 170 miles from Copperas Cove to San Angelo and then another 110 miles to Midland? That's a pretty tall order for such sparse population, even with political connections trying to help the effort.

I still think if San Angelo is ever going to be connected into the Interstate highway system its best chance is an Southern extension of I-27 (from Lubbock thru Big Spring, San Angelo and terminating at I-10 either at Sonora or Junction. Sonora would be the routing if the road ultimately went to Del Rio. Junction would be the choice if I-27 was to point directly to San Antonio.

I could actually see San Angelo being a crossroads of both I-27 and I-44 (a lot of upgrade work to US-277 has gone on between Wichita Falls and Abilene).

Quote from: sparkerHowever, if by chance that corridor is selected, it's likely to be extended straight down 190, including the Heidenheimer bypass freeway.  If that's done, it's likely that Cameron interests will press for a continuation of the 190 alignment at least as far as their immediate area.  But if a new-terrain extension east of Belton is chosen, then all bets are off; something more resembling a straight line from Belton to Hearne might eventually be in the works, whining from the Cameron area notwithstanding.

I wouldn't mind seeing a more direct route from Heidenheimer straight over to Hearne, skirting Cameron, Rogers and Buckholts to the North. US-190 drops to 2 lanes outside of Heidenheimer. Due to development alongside existing US-190 a new terrain route would be needed for I-14. Making the road even more straight going to Hearne might save money on construction costs and make the resulting road more productive to use.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 27, 2017, 03:49:36 PM
I think hell will freeze over before I-14 is extended from Copperas Cove to San Angelo and Midland. Costs of building new Interstate highway are obscenely expensive. Most of this proposed route is very rural. I-14 is somewhat unique in that none of its proposed route goes through any major cities or even near any major cities. The best case for I-14 in the near term is another East-West super highway for the Texas triangle and its regional traffic. Spending billions on a highway just to go 170 miles from Copperas Cove to San Angelo and then another 110 miles to Midland? That's a pretty tall order for such sparse population, even with political connections trying to help the effort.

I still think if San Angelo is ever going to be connected into the Interstate highway system its best chance is an Southern extension of I-27 (from Lubbock thru Big Spring, San Angelo and terminating at I-10 either at Sonora or Junction. Sonora would be the routing if the road ultimately went to Del Rio. Junction would be the choice if I-27 was to point directly to San Antonio.

I could actually see San Angelo being a crossroads of both I-27 and I-44 (a lot of upgrade work to US-277 has gone on between Wichita Falls and Abilene).

Quote from: sparkerHowever, if by chance that corridor is selected, it's likely to be extended straight down 190, including the Heidenheimer bypass freeway.  If that's done, it's likely that Cameron interests will press for a continuation of the 190 alignment at least as far as their immediate area.  But if a new-terrain extension east of Belton is chosen, then all bets are off; something more resembling a straight line from Belton to Hearne might eventually be in the works, whining from the Cameron area notwithstanding.

I wouldn't mind seeing a more direct route from Heidenheimer straight over to Hearne, skirting Cameron, Rogers and Buckholts to the North. US-190 drops to 2 lanes outside of Heidenheimer. Due to development alongside existing US-190 a new terrain route would be needed for I-14. Making the road even more straight going to Hearne might save money on construction costs and make the resulting road more productive to use.

Looks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree about whether political action/pressure will eventually take I-14 out San Angelo way.  I do think I-44 will eventually be extended to Abilene, but taking that particular corridor further SW to San Angelo might not be the most effective way to connect that city to eastward points.  As far as I-27 goes, while the most efficient route for the P-to-P corridor is straight through Big Spring, for better or worse most of the region's political power emanates from Midland-Odessa (they got the western "branch" of the P-to-P down 349 then back across on 158 designated back in '05), so in all likelihood there will be pressure to divert the corridor through Midland.  At that point, I don't really think anyone from either San Angelo or Midland gives a shit what number -- 14 or 27 -- would be applied to a route connecting the two cities -- as long as it gets done.  My point has been that right now the developmental momentum is with the east-west corridor, so that's what's on the mind of "boosters" from the cities potentially on either of the corridors; decades of inaction on P-to-P seem to have made these folks cynical as to its future prospects. 

Regarding any potential I-14 routing along US 190 -- I'd concur that anything east of Heidenheimer would be problematic because of (a) the sizeable number of private access points to the existing highway and (b) the parallel BNSF rail line, which limits both the location and design parameters of any limited-access facility (out here in CA the same situation has affected the upgrades of CA 99).  Thus, if I were to place a bet it would be on a new-terrain alignment possibly from the east end of the Heidenheimer bypass east to Hearne or directly east from Belton. 

Bobby5280

Quote from: sparkerLooks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree about whether political action/pressure will eventually take I-14 out San Angelo way. I do think I-44 will eventually be extended to Abilene, but taking that particular corridor further SW to San Angelo might not be the most effective way to connect that city to eastward points. As far as I-27 goes, while the most efficient route for the P-to-P corridor is straight through Big Spring, for better or worse most of the region's political power emanates from Midland-Odessa (they got the western "branch" of the P-to-P down 349 then back across on 158 designated back in '05), so in all likelihood there will be pressure to divert the corridor through Midland.

Regarding I-44, having the route travel to or through San Angelo is not about San Angelo itself. It's about the functions of the overall Interstate highway system. When the US-277 improvement project from Abilene to Wichita Falls was first started there was buzz about I-44 becoming another NAFTA corridor by extending it down to Del Rio. Such a corridor could relieve some of the NAFTA traffic on I-35. I-44 is an important diagonal route in the Interstate system. A diagonal running from Del Rio to St. Louis would be pretty big.

The bigger picture functions of the Interstate system are where both I-14 and a westward diversion of an I-27 extension both run into trouble. I-14 doesn't really go anywhere big and important. The routing doesn't even work as a functional reliever of traffic on I-20 or I-10. A larger extension of I-27 would be about giving Denver and other Front Range cities an Interstate connecting directly to the Gulf Coast and some large cities along the way (like San Antonio) while avoiding mountain passes. Midland doesn't fit directly into a Denver-San Antonio corridor.

Plutonic Panda

I would love to see I-44 extended. TxDOT seems to have a bunch of projects to undertake as far as rural interstates go.

BTW, I hope Dunkirk was good. Seeing it at the Chinese Theatre next weekend.

Bobby5280

The best place to see Dunkirk is an IMAX theater showing the movie via a 15-perf 70mm film print. I think the Chinese Theater in L.A. is only set up for digital projection. It may be the new 4K laser system, but it's still just digital. More than 3/4 of the movie was filmed with the IMAX 70mm film cameras. That yields a taller 1.4:1 aspect ratio image. Much higher resolution than any digital stuff can deliver. And the digital stuff is going to crop into the imagery. I was actually surprised to see how much of the movie was filmed in true IMAX 70mm format. We actually watched it twice, first in classic 5-perf 70mm at LOOK Cinemas in Addison and then 15/70mm at the Cinemark theater. I liked the Cinemark presentation more, although I'm friends with the guy who installed his own 5/70mm gear at LOOK and 2 Studio Movie Grill locations in the DFW area. Dunkirk was shot primarily with IMAX film in mind. It's more difficult to watch on more rectangular screens because some of the imagery (such as Tom Hardy playing a British pilot) is shot really close. With the IMAX 70mm frame it's easier to take in all the scenery.

I'm quite the film geek. So I try to do what I can to support a real film presentation effort when I can. I went out of my way to watch The Hateful Eight when it was shown in anamorphic Ultra Panavision 70mm. My girlfriend and I watched Interstellar twice, once in 5/70mm at LOOK in Dallas and then in 15/70mm at the Bob Bullock IMAX theater in Austin. I was sad to see that was the last real IMAX movie to play there. They installed the new "IMAX with Lasers" thingie after that show. I've heard people complain about a bad rainbow speckle problem with the new 4K IMAX Laser projection system. One friend said it was like a magical unicorn barfed on the screen. I've seen other high-end laser projection, like the 6P RGB dual 4K laser projection in Dolby Cinema screens. No really obvious speckle there. Still, I love a real 70mm show whenever such a thing happens, which these days seems to be a dying thing.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 27, 2017, 11:14:30 PM
Quote from: sparkerLooks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree about whether political action/pressure will eventually take I-14 out San Angelo way. I do think I-44 will eventually be extended to Abilene, but taking that particular corridor further SW to San Angelo might not be the most effective way to connect that city to eastward points. As far as I-27 goes, while the most efficient route for the P-to-P corridor is straight through Big Spring, for better or worse most of the region's political power emanates from Midland-Odessa (they got the western "branch" of the P-to-P down 349 then back across on 158 designated back in '05), so in all likelihood there will be pressure to divert the corridor through Midland.

Regarding I-44, having the route travel to or through San Angelo is not about San Angelo itself. It's about the functions of the overall Interstate highway system. When the US-277 improvement project from Abilene to Wichita Falls was first started there was buzz about I-44 becoming another NAFTA corridor by extending it down to Del Rio. Such a corridor could relieve some of the NAFTA traffic on I-35. I-44 is an important diagonal route in the Interstate system. A diagonal running from Del Rio to St. Louis would be pretty big.

The bigger picture functions of the Interstate system are where both I-14 and a westward diversion of an I-27 extension both run into trouble. I-14 doesn't really go anywhere big and important. The routing doesn't even work as a functional reliever of traffic on I-20 or I-10. A larger extension of I-27 would be about giving Denver and other Front Range cities an Interstate connecting directly to the Gulf Coast and some large cities along the way (like San Antonio) while avoiding mountain passes. Midland doesn't fit directly into a Denver-San Antonio corridor.

Unfortunately, most routing decisions in TX end up being controlled by a view of the individual trees rather than the whole forest!  IMHO, the optimal outcome in west TX, given what's happening, would be this:  I-27 would be extended straight down US 87 via Big Spring to San Angelo, then south to I-10 at Sonora (via US 277) -- the original P-to-P alignment.  I-14 would be brought west via Brady and Eden to San Angelo, where it would terminate -- or, if M/O pisses & moans enough to get their way, multiplex up 87 to 158, then head west to those cities as per their localized plans.  I'd also take I-27 up US 87 to Raton, NM (I-25); that would serve as a "feeder" into the west TX network. 

The above would function reasonably well -- particularly if the I-14 extension into the Triangle is developed within much the same time frame.  Even though a tad indirect, what it does accomplish is using the I-14 corridor to expedite Front Range-Gulf traffic (particularly to greater Houston) while avoiding DFW and San Antonio chokepoints.  For that purpose, I-14's avoidance of Austin would be a blessing (currently in disguise!).  And -- if TX congressional folks can conjure up some of their historic funding "magic", Del Rio, Laredo, and even Corpus Christi might be in the mix as well with a southern P-to-P extension coupled with the I-69 "branch" along TX 44.  I'll acknowledge that's a lot of stuff piled on the proverbial plate -- but if any jurisdiction can pull it off, it would be Texas! 

While metro-centric "point-to-point"  Interstate corridors still remain the prevalent routing defaults,  "relief routes" deliberately aligned to avoid sizeable urban areas (possibly except for their temini) will probably be programmed, particularly when multiple such "metroplexes" occupy a single region -- as is the case in TX.  The primary drawback to the traditional "connect-the-dots" corridor planning efforts is the fact that the dots grow up to be big bad chokepoints over time.  But back when the original Interstate system was in the planning stages, very few folks expected a Wild West backwater like San Antonio to feature a city population in excess of 1M and a metro figure well over double that!  The concept of avoiding such a place (even, ironically, to expedite travel to an even more densely populated area like Houston) by taking measures like the trajectory of I-14 piercing the heart of the "triangle" will likely gain more traction as urban congestion continues to grow in severity as well as expand outwards.  Intuitively, planners and observers like we forum contributors have become inculcated into the traditional inter-urban connector (the development of corridors such as I-49 and I-22 attest to that), but with urban growth patterns spreading into formerly secondary or "flyover" metro regions, IMO we'll see more and more "relief" corridors that seemingly don't connect much at all deployed to address the endemic growth of the resulting chokepoints.         

silverback1065

dunkirk was good, christopher nolan doesn't know how to make a bad movie

hotdogPi

I'm confused. What do I-14 and Dunkirk have in common? As far as I can tell, nothing.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

english si

Quote from: 1 on July 29, 2017, 07:06:36 PMI'm confused. What do I-14 and Dunkirk have in common? As far as I can tell, nothing.
Indeed. I've just got back from seeing it, and I'm surprised to find it mentioned in this thread, let alone a post entirely about how and why it's better in IMAX (don't worry if you can't - my local multiplex filled with teenagers was perfectly fine).

Perhaps we can use it as an illustration? Here's a big budget passion project, but even it cannot work on the scale desired (as was said in the film there were 400,000 people needing evacuation, yet it felt like about a tenth of that. There were also hundreds of planes, not just over ten, etc, etc.). Lets say I-14 in west TX gets to be a big budget passion project - instead of a couple of hundred miles of interstate, the big budget and the passion is only going to stretch to 20-25.

In the film, the smallness and closeness works really well despite the vastness and importance of the subject matter*. I'm not sure it would with a road, but I'm more making this comment about the film, rather than the road.

*Most British reviews had to make a comment about it being odd that this hasn't been a film done many times - it's one of the really important moments in British history and part of the definition of Britishness - that in the lowest ebb, we come together and make a success of retreat.

Plutonic Panda

I enjoyed the post about Dunkirk.



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.