News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

I-14 in Louisiana

Started by Grzrd, October 25, 2016, 05:01:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bobby5280

#100
Quote from: SparkerThe point I was trying to make is that whether we critical types consider it a waste of money or not, the political types will get it built in time, provided they can apply their influence to the money sources.  But as long as they're doing it, it would be considerably more useful serving areas like San Angelo (about 150K metro) and Midland/Odessa (about 400K in total) rather than shunt off to I-10 near Junction or Sonora as per the original (and, even I'll acknowledge, stupid, wasteful concept).

The big question the politicians need to be asking themselves is "where is all the traffic headed?"

For local purposes, such as a freeway link between Midland and San Angelo, there is not enough traffic there to justify such a thing. If such a road was built as a toll road it would go bankrupt very quickly. Currently the road between Midland and San Angelo varies between 2-lane and undivided 4-lane. Due to this the primary intended value for I-14 in this region would be serving longer distance traffic. The problem is the route depicted for I-14 only carries most I-10 and I-20 traffic way the hell out of the way.

I understand the need for traffic avoiding congested areas in big cities. However, I have driven through Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston many times. Certain roads, such as I-20 along the southern portion the DFW metroplex or Loop 8 around Houston, already work pretty well bypassing the crushing traffic jams found elsewhere in those areas. If I'm driving cross country and have to pass through Dallas I would much rather take I-20 to skirt the South side than burn an extra tank of fuel and hours of extra time taking this I-14 thing.

Quote from: SparkerIf extended through the Triangle to serve the Houston area, it'll likely draw some through traffic looking to avoid San Antonio congestion (and the big "kink" in the I-10 alignment).

The I-14 segment through the Texas Triangle might pick up quite a bit of traffic between Fort Worth and Houston if the final alignment is built in a way that saves a lot of time over using TX-6 between Waco and Houston. If I-14 is built in that "W" shaped path from Temple over to freaking Madisonville of all places then I-14 will be a giant waste of time for long distance drivers. And it would have next to nothing for traffic counts if they put toll gates on it.

The "kink" in I-10 for San Antonio is justifiable. There are 2 million people in that metro area. Loop 1604 can bypass some of the worst traffic for long distance drivers.

As expensive as it would be to build a new Interstate through the hill & canyon country of West Texas, such a road needs to provide the maximum benefit to the most people. The US-290 thing, both East and West of Austin, is far more justifiable for billions of dollars worth of super highway development.


jbnv

If your suggestion for bypassing Houston or San Antonio is just to use 8 or 1604, you're missing the point. Cross-country drivers don't like the choice being between a direct but congested route through the city versus a broad circle around it. Beltways work out well for people who are changing direction. But nobody wants to take 180 degrees of a circle over a straight line. Especially if that circle has tolls. (If you're using Beltway 8 to get around Houston, you're most likely either paying tolls or slugging it out on the service road which defeats the purpose of taking the bypass.)

(Note that I am not arguing that I-14 will provide a reasonable bypass of San Antonio or Houston.)
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

NE2

Quote from: jbnv on May 02, 2017, 03:17:54 PM
If your suggestion for bypassing Houston or San Antonio is just to use 8 or 1604, you're missing the point. Cross-country drivers don't like the choice being between a direct but congested route through the city versus a broad circle around it. Beltways work out well for people who are changing direction. But nobody wants to take 180 degrees of a circle over a straight line.
I think you're missing that I-10 makes a right angle turn in San Antonio. 1604 is five miles shorter than I-10.
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".

jbnv

Quote from: NE2 on May 02, 2017, 03:37:26 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 02, 2017, 03:17:54 PM
If your suggestion for bypassing Houston or San Antonio is just to use 8 or 1604, you're missing the point. Cross-country drivers don't like the choice being between a direct but congested route through the city versus a broad circle around it. Beltways work out well for people who are changing direction. But nobody wants to take 180 degrees of a circle over a straight line.
I think you're missing that I-10 makes a right angle turn in San Antonio. 1604 is five miles shorter than I-10.

That I am. Thanks for the correction.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

sparker

Politicians, particularly those representing specific districts or regions, have no particular interest in asking where the traffic is going -- if the answer is likely "someone else's district".  They're asking "why isn't at least some of the traffic heading toward my constituents?"  They're not highway planners or engineers, nor do they make any pretense about functioning as such.  They're the folks who funnel the money into these projects (often by hook and/or crook); as such, the projects are largely "top-down" affairs with terms and criteria determined outside of the P.E./planning community.  I-14 is a prime example of this type of process.  Of course the now-infamous 25-mile signed segment of that road was built simply as an access spur from I-35 to serve the Ft. Hood support communities along US 190; it became a convenient place around which to plan the whole affair.  Fortunately, the projected path east and west from that area was relatively benign in terms of topography (skirting the worst of the TX hill country). 

I'm not saying that the political process by which corridors are planned and promoted these days is ideal -- far from it.  I'm just saying that in the current environment that virtually eliminates long-term sound planning, the choice is often a politically motivated and promulgated corridor or none at all -- and none at all isn't always an option to elected officials, regardless of external criticism.  I for one would like to see other TX corridors prioritized -- US 287 DFW/Amarillo, at least one variation of Austin-Houston, and a reasonable 2-headed extension (N and S) of the Port-to-Plains.  But on more than one occasion the dragon wins the fight -- and my instinct in that case, as I've iterated previously, is to hope that lemonade can be fashioned from the lemons at hand (hence the San Angelo-M/O option for the western reaches of I-14).  I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em!

Bobby5280

You're free to make lemons out of lemonade all you like with I-14. That's your choice. I'm not going to be convinced to like it. That's my choice. Building out that corridor is a giant waste of money. And it becomes an infuriating issue when we all know there's not much funding available for roads (not to mention the road building costs have rose to absolutely insane levels). The pet project of a group of politicians is going to steal funding away from other corridors far more in legitimate need of upgrading -like the previously mentioned Fort Worth to Amarillo stretch of US-287 or either of two major partial freeway corridors between Houston and Austin.

silverback1065

make it a 4 lane divided at grade highway, call it SR 14

jbnv

Quote from: silverback1065 on May 03, 2017, 10:21:38 AM
make it a 4 lane divided at grade highway, call it SR 14

In Louisiana or Texas? Louisiana already has a state route 14.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 02, 2017, 11:56:41 PM
You're free to make lemons out of lemonade all you like with I-14. That's your choice. I'm not going to be convinced to like it. That's my choice. Building out that corridor is a giant waste of money. And it becomes an infuriating issue when we all know there's not much funding available for roads (not to mention the road building costs have rose to absolutely insane levels). The pet project of a group of politicians is going to steal funding away from other corridors far more in legitimate need of upgrading -like the previously mentioned Fort Worth to Amarillo stretch of US-287 or either of two major partial freeway corridors between Houston and Austin.

The only problem is that there are no other projects in the works along those corridors mentioned -- so there's nothing else concrete from which to be "stealing" funding.  I'm not trying to convince anyone else to be enthusiastic about the I-14 project; the purpose of my various posts is to cast a bit of light on the situation that specific corridors, whether we as onlookers like it or not, are developed to fulfill local and regional political needs and desires; this is certainly one that fits that description.  Given that, it all becomes a matter of "tweaking" so the whole affair isn't a complete FUBAR (as it would be if the western reaches of the corridor would head toward I-10 rather than through some heretofore underserved populated areas).  If I-14 weren't several years into the planning stages -- and the effort hadn't been duplicated outside of Texas as it has now that Louisiana officials are getting into the act, then my instinct, as with other posters, would be to "head it off at the pass", so to speak -- kill it in before it grows.  But now that its backers -- and the folks in the territories through which it passes -- are expecting some form of action regarding I-14 corridor development, securing funding -- particularly as regards the Triangle segment(s), is in all likelihood a foregone conclusion. 

I'm certainly not giddy about I-14 -- but IMO as long as they're going to do it, they need to do it in a fashion that benefits the most people -- both potential corridor travelers as well as regional residents.  None of us have to like it; but if we've got to live with it down the line, it may as well be reasonably useful.   

silverback1065

Quote from: jbnv on May 03, 2017, 11:42:09 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 03, 2017, 10:21:38 AM
make it a 4 lane divided at grade highway, call it SR 14

In Louisiana or Texas? Louisiana already has a state route 14.

just texas

sparker

Quote from: silverback1065 on May 03, 2017, 12:07:26 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 03, 2017, 11:42:09 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 03, 2017, 10:21:38 AM
make it a 4 lane divided at grade highway, call it SR 14

In Louisiana or Texas? Louisiana already has a state route 14.

just texas

Which also has a SR 14 (actually beginning just north of Hearne, along the projected I-14 corridor).

silverback1065

Quote from: sparker on May 03, 2017, 03:40:39 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 03, 2017, 12:07:26 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 03, 2017, 11:42:09 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 03, 2017, 10:21:38 AM
make it a 4 lane divided at grade highway, call it SR 14

In Louisiana or Texas? Louisiana already has a state route 14.

just texas

Which also has a SR 14 (actually beginning just north of Hearne, along the projected I-14 corridor).
put a one in front of existing 14, if there's already a 114 get rid of it or make it the next available

jbnv

Quote from: silverback1065 on May 04, 2017, 10:22:10 AM
put a one in front of existing 14, if there's already a 114 get rid of it or make it the next available

I would think that someone with 2000 posts on this forum would be more familiar with how Texas rolls with highway numbering.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

silverback1065

Quote from: jbnv on May 04, 2017, 10:54:11 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 04, 2017, 10:22:10 AM
put a one in front of existing 14, if there's already a 114 get rid of it or make it the next available

I would think that someone with 2000 posts on this forum would be more familiar with how Texas rolls with highway numbering.

i don't live in or near texas, that's why

dfwmapper

Quote from: jbnv on May 02, 2017, 03:17:54 PM
If your suggestion for bypassing Houston or San Antonio is just to use 8 or 1604, you're missing the point. Cross-country drivers don't like the choice being between a direct but congested route through the city versus a broad circle around it. Beltways work out well for people who are changing direction. But nobody wants to take 180 degrees of a circle over a straight line. Especially if that circle has tolls. (If you're using Beltway 8 to get around Houston, you're most likely either paying tolls or slugging it out on the service road which defeats the purpose of taking the bypass.)

(Note that I am not arguing that I-14 will provide a reasonable bypass of San Antonio or Houston.)
Notwithstanding NE2's point that 1604 is the shorter route for through traffic in San Antonio, it's woefully underpowered for the traffic volumes it carries, and depending on the time of day and actual destination, using US 290 and SH 71 can be a better option for bypassing San Antonio. If some some political BS results in bypasses of Fredericksburg, Johnson City, and Dripping Springs, all the better.

Bobby5280

I would certainly put a greater priority on Interstate quality bypasses around Fredericksburg, Johnson City and Dripping Springs over doing crap along the proposed I-14 corridor. That would at least incrementally add to the big picture goal of giving Austin a complete East-West Interstate connection via an upgraded US-290 corridor.

Loop 1604 definitely needs to be improved. Too much of the freeway quality portion of it is only 2 lanes in each direction. The section on the East end of San Antonio between I-35 and I-10 has some at-grade intersections. A bunch of places in that region of Texas are way behind on corridor improvement. US-281 needs a lot of upgrade work. TX-46 from Boerne and I-10 over Eastward to New Braunfels and down to Sequin is getting more busy.

The Ghostbuster

Would it be possible to make the entire length of 1604 into a freeway? As for Interstate 14 existing in Louisiana, I don't think it will happen in our lifetimes. Is there any major need for an Interstate 14 in Louisiana?

Darkchylde

Not really. Outside of Alexandria, Cenla doesn't see a ton of east-west traffic. The existing roads were working well enough the last time I was out that way.

sparker

1604:  would take a lot of $$, a large portion of the southern half was laid atop existing roads with full access; a new-alignment freeway would likely be required there.  The northern & western portions are either freeway or "Texas Two-Step" (step 1: frontage roads, step 2: freeway lanes) alignment; that part wouldn't pose much of an issue.  The portion already freeway serves the northern side of town where most new housing development has occurred.

I-14/LA:  Probably not within a 20-25-year window -- although just about any freeway project in the state is often touted as a "hurricane relief route"; a cross-state facility could be publicized as a way to connect the other routes radiating out from N.O. and the rest of the Gulf Coast.  Likely there will be "Future I-14" signs along divided segments of LA 28 between Leesville and Alexandria; but that's probably all for the near term unless some unforeseen funding source comes into play.

Upshot:  probably not in my lifetime; potentially yours!

dfwmapper

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 05, 2017, 04:34:06 PM
Would it be possible to make the entire length of 1604 into a freeway?
Not needed. 1604 essentially carries no traffic on the southwest 1/3 between I-35 and I-10. The remaining 2/3 is scheduled for upgrades, while will be enough for the non-upgraded parts. What's really needed is upgrading the northern quarter between I-10 (W) and I-35 (N), which is 4 lanes but really ought to be 6.

Bobby5280

The Northern half of Loop 1604 can be upgraded to as much as 4 lanes in both directions without having to expand ROW. A lot of upgrade work is in progress on the Western side. The Eastern quadrant, at least down to I-10, needs freeway upgrades. But at least the ROW is there for the most part already. The Eastern side of Loop 1604 can be upgraded to Interstate quality down to the intersection with US-87 relatively easy.

I disagree a new terrain path would be needed for converting Loop 1604 to freeway quality on the Southern half of the loop. Most of the road already has wide set-backs on either the right or left side of the road, leaving enough room for a future 4 lane freeway. The only difficult stretch is on the Western side below US-90 down to I-37. There isn't a whole lot of property adjacent to Loop 1604. Also a new-terrain path through that area would probably be just as disruptive and take as much property as an expansion along the existing Loop 1604 corridor.

Grzrd

This January 2 editorial encourages Louisiana's congressional delegation to authorize a corridor for I-14 as soon as possible:

Quote
But for any of those benefits to happen, Congress must first authorize a designated route through Louisiana. That requires a commitment from state officials, from the DOTD to local leaders and the state's Congressional delegation. At this point, it looks as though Louisiana leaders are all on-board.
Local chamber leaders and others will be meeting later this month in Washington, D.C. to urge Congress to authorize a route through Louisiana. We encourage our Congressional delegation to push the issue and get the Congressional authorization needed as soon as possible.
We can clearly see the value of the project and the tremendous benefits I-14 can have for Central Louisiana. Ideally, we would love to have those benefits today, but we understand projects of this magnitude take decades to complete. Which makes it that much more important to to get started on that path today. Just knowing that it is coming would be a benefit to the region.

Anthony_JK

I still think that LA needs to focus more on finishing I-49 South and the I-49 ICC through Shreveport and fix the bottleneck of I-10/I-12 through Baton Rouge before even thinking of I-14. But, that's only me.

Bobby5280

I'm not opposed to lawmakers and planners identifying a preferred alignment of I-14 through Central Louisiana. They can even go so far as securing ROW in some places and doing upgrades, such as adding frontage roads along LA-28 on the West side of Alexandria. That doesn't cost so much to do and does get the ball rolling. But building the actual freeway will consume a great deal of tax dollars and there's only so much of that available for roads. Gotta stick to priorities, like finishing I-49.

sparker

Part of the likely I-14 corridor is already a high-priority corridor (LA 28 from Alexandria west to Ft. Polk, HPC #75); it would be relatively easy for any one or more of the LA congressional delegation to extend it west to the TX line to meet their I-14 corridor and east to the Mississippi River crossing along US 84.  But that particular activity will accomplish the same as any "future Interstate" corridor -- it gives future planners a place to put such a thing.  But absent funding, the corridor/designation will just be a line on a piece of paper; at best, I-14 will be another item in a queue that already includes I-49 South, the Inner City I-49 segment in Shreveport, I-69, and possibly any number of locally prioritized projects, including a N-S US 165/425 route that someone somewhere might want to "Interstate-ize" down the line.

Another I-14 question would be whether LA will seek a joint corridor with MS -- and, if they do, whether it would be put on hold until MS decides just where the corridor works best for them -- straight across US 84 to Laurel, angled up toward Jackson, or along US 98 toward Hattiesburg. 



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.