I-14 in Texas

[jbnv]

That being said -- I still don't see much I-14 development east of College Station (or at least no farther than Huntsville) unless LA and states to the east get serious about their portions of the corridor.  If that isn't forthcoming, I-14 will remain a TX SIU for the foreseeable future.
[/quote]

Louisiana has significant incentive to work with Texas on infrastructure that goes through the heart of the state. Fort Polk could become a major player in the nation's military and defense infrastructure. The route could also opens opportunities for commercial shipping across the state. (Compare all this to I-69, which would provide very little benefit to Louisiana as a whole.)

[Bobby5280]

Comparing the mileage from the I-10/I-20 split in west TX to the west I-10/I-610 interchange in west TX (assuming a cutoff from Cameron to Hearne and the projected TX 249 alignment to Navasota) the I-20/I-14/TX 249 mid-state routing is about 593 miles compared with 577 directly on I-10, but without San Antonio congestion.  So distance is pretty much a wash, but the major metro avoidance renders it at least a competitive choice for cross-state traffic.

Under the current illustrated routing of I-14, a drive from the I-10/I-20 split to the I-10/I-610 interchange (via Midland, Killeen, College Station and the proposed TX-249 extension to Navasota) would come out to 634 miles.

Getting that trip under 600 miles would require serious straightening of that saw tooth route currently proposed. Milano and Hearne would have to be dumped from the corridor in favor of a direct, new terrain route from Cameron to Bryan. That would save about 18 miles. A few miles could be shaved with bypassing Temple to the South with a Belton-Heidenheimer path near FM-1741. A little more mileage savings could be realized with Northern bypasses of Lampasas and Brady.

I-14 might have have to go well around San Angelo, adding more miles. US-87 would be difficult to convert into an Interstate from the US-67 Houston-Harte freeway up along Bryant Blvd out of the North end of town. A bunch of that property is run down looking and might not be too expensive to buy and remove. But political opposition is a big question mark. Such neighborhoods have stopped freeway projects before, even when the ROW was already available like Bruce Watkins Drive in Kansas City.

I will have to hand it to the I-14 backers -- they did their homework, got TXDot on board, schmoozed their congressional critters, and cobbled together a corridor that satisfies both the "Triangle" interests plus West Texas voices -- and got it added to the federal HPC "family".  Aside from us roadgeeks who look longingly at US 290 or TX 71 and muse about what could have been, I haven't heard, or heard about, peep one from Austin-area interests -- or from anyone involved in TX transportation policy -- regarding elevating one or another Austin-Houston, or even Austin-west-to-I-10 potential corridors to Interstate status.  In pundit's words, "you've got to be in it to win it!"  As far as any E-W TX corridors are concerned, the I-14 folks are the only ones at the starting gate.

That only underscores the 100% porky situation with this I-14 thing. Additions to highway networks are supposed to serve traffic needs rather than be a reward for who did the best job at schmoozing. The hard angles all over the I-14 smell of political pandering to various towns to gain more backers. The hard 90 degree turns at Milano and Hearne are idiotic. And it's even more idiotic to make I-14 go from Bryan up to Madisonville and then multiplex with I-45 down to Huntsville. College Station and Huntsville need to be linked directly. These planners were either doing porky pandering or taking stupid pills when they plotted the I-14 route.

Even if peeps in Austin aren't crying loudly for an Interstate upgrade of US-290 from there to Houston the need still very obviously exists. TX-DOT has already been piece-meal building freeway quality or near-freeway quality bypasses around towns along both the US-290 and TX-71 corridors. That hasn't been happening so much in the towns along the I-14 path.

TX-6 between College Station and Waco is arguably a higher priority for an Interstate quality upgrade given the growth in both DFW and Houston metro areas, particularly the growth in Fort Worth lately. I know a lot of people who already drive to Waco and pick up TX-6 to avoid the traffic snarls on I-45 when driving to Houston.

Within the Houston metro area other corridors have to be improved. The Grand Parkway is a huge project. TX-105 from Navasota, thru Conroe to Cleveland is turning into a major suburban traffic corridor.

And don't forget, this is Texas.  Brisket aside, they do love their pork; BBQ'd, pulled, roasted, fried, whatever.  Getting more of it is seen as an opportunity, not a waste; that attitude isn't likely to go away anytime soon.

The trouble is there is only so much highway funding to go around. Money spent on I-14 equals less money going to other corridors already well under development, like I-69 for example. A complete build-out of I-14 just within Texas from Midland to Huntsville would probably cost many billions of dollars.

[bmorrill]

I-14 might have have to go well around San Angelo, adding more miles. US-87 would be difficult to convert into an Interstate from the US-67 Houston-Harte freeway up along Bryant Blvd out of the North end of town. A bunch of that property is run down looking and might not be too expensive to buy and remove. But political opposition is a big question mark. Such neighborhoods have stopped freeway projects before, even when the ROW was already available like Bruce Watkins Drive in Kansas City.

If you dig around enough, you'll find that TXDOT has a "relief route" (TXDOT-speak for bypass) planned for San Angelo that will leave US 87 on the northern edge of town, follow FM 2105 to US 277 on the northeast side on town, then head south on Loop 306 and connect to US 87 again on the southeast side of Podunk-on-the-Conchos. I don't think many people here in town realize that the planned bypass exists. They think that any Interstate would go through the center of town and bring "boom times and prosperity for all" (good for "bidness" you know). But then, people here in town had a collective orgasm when they heard San Angelo was going to get an Olive Garden.

[sparker]

Under the current illustrated routing of I-14, a drive from the I-10/I-20 split to the I-10/I-610 interchange (via Midland, Killeen, College Station and the proposed TX-249 extension to Navasota) would come out to 634 miles.

Getting that trip under 600 miles would require serious straightening of that saw tooth route currently proposed.
But political opposition is a big question mark. Such neighborhoods have stopped freeway projects before, even when the ROW was already available like Bruce Watkins Drive in Kansas City.

I did calculate my 593-mile figure based upon geometric calculations of a cutoff from north of Cameron to a couple of miles south of Hearne, and a straight shot down the Toll 249 trajectory from Navasota; I don't doubt that there's another 40-odd travel miles in the unlikely event that the sawtooth profile shown on the map were to be followed. 

For better or worse, most corridors in most locations -- not only Texas -- are largely the product of political machination.  It would be wonderful if local MPO's could coordinate with state DOT's, determine local & regional needs, and then plan and execute projects to meet those needs absent political interference and misplaced prioritizations -- a real need-and-study-based system.  But it doesn't seem as this type of transaction is prevalent or forthcoming these days, largely because of the "gloom & doom" attitude among agencies in these times of funding shortfalls.  At best, agencies can and will undertake "spot" projects in an attempt to satisfy occasional "squeaky wheels" (e.g., the various town bypasses between Austin & Houston on both TX 71 and US 290). 

On the other hand, these same agencies are expected to deliver results that justify their existence (and reasonably satisfy the politicians who sit on their funding and oversight committees).  When a well-publicized plan with backing from recognized interests with clout appears -- the I-14 corridor proposal being a prime example of such -- the agencies will likely, unless the plans/proposals have garnered a significant level of negative reaction to the overall concept or even parts thereof, fall into line, with some planning efforts shifting from other priorities to that particular endeavor.  The presence of such a large-scale project lends credence to agency efforts, as it indicates to the public that yes, they're not only slogging along with their usual jobs but are exhibiting the foresight to plan for the future. 

The presence of the I-14 corridor -- and even signage as such appearing on the few completed segments -- doesn't necessarily mean that improvements elsewhere will cease; it's likely that US 290 and TX 71 will continue to be upgraded piece by piece; one or the other may actually be closer to a completed Interstate-grade facility before much of I-14 is even laid out. And I'd expect the I-14 backers, and TXDot, to be well aware that their corridor development is going to be a long process.  But to expedite such improvements to either of the Austin-Houston routes above & beyond what's being done piecemeal will require the sort of efforts exhibited by the I-14 backers -- make a case for Austin-Houston, acquire state-level backing, and go from there.  If I sound cynical about the situation where politically-backed top-down projects are advanced ahead of less-publicized but at least equally pressing needs elsewhere that haven't gathered such a level of visibility, then that's a categorization I'll just have to bear.  Unless a nationwide program on the order of the 1968 group of Interstate additions is forthcoming (yeah, right!), it's likely that political considerations -- and the "pork" emanating thereof -- will remain the driving force behind larger-scale highway projects.

If you dig around enough, you'll find that TXDOT has a "relief route" (TXDOT-speak for bypass) planned for San Angelo that will leave US 87 on the northern edge of town, follow FM 2105 to US 277 on the northeast side on town, then head south on Loop 306 and connect to US 87 again on the southeast side of Podunk-on-the-Conchos. I don't think many people here in town realize that the planned bypass exists. They think that any Interstate would go through the center of town and bring "boom times and prosperity for all" (good for "bidness" you know). But then, people here in town had a collective orgasm when they heard San Angelo was going to get an Olive Garden.

If such a bypass is deployed, the US 67/SW loop combination would have 2 junctions with the bypass -- so if I-14 were to eventually utilize the new loop, the routes through town would be a likely x14 3di (in the "big C" manner of I-277 in Charlotte, NC).  Of course, if the Port-to-Plains comes to town as well in Interstate form, some other arrangement might be made (a subject for another thread).  But I do hope the good folks in San Angelo cleaned up after the Olive Garden incident!

[GeauxLSU]

That zigzag route is retarded.

[jbnv]

That zigzag route is retarded.

That zigzag route is the corridor identified for the new highway. It isn't the actual planned route.

[Bobby5280]

How does anyone know for certain the I-14 route won't be built in that zig zag path?

The route illustrations the backers of I-14 have distributed over the past few years have never shown a direct path. It looks like their desire is to upgrade as much of the existing US-190 highway as possible or closely parallel it. They're trying to ping-pong the route to as many towns in Central Texas as possible to build support. On top of that, their maps show all sorts of connecting routes, some of which is listed as possible I-14 system routes. Get more towns on the band wagon.

The two stupid hard right turns at Milano and Hearne look like they're deliberately designed into the I-14 plan, since they show TX-79 coming from Austin as a feeder route into their I-14 system.

The next, larger problem, is just how bad the United States has become at building new highways in any sort of reasonably direct path. They're getting bent and twisted worse than ever by political influence and legal hurdles. Look at the crooked path of TX-130 compared to the far more straight path of I-35. In Southern Indiana I-69 is a joke for how indirect it is being built. And then the big L-shape I-69 takes in Kentucky, by using the Pennyrile Parkway and Western Kentucky Parkway, is pretty sad. They should be building a new terrain route from Henderson down to Calvert City. But re-using existing highways is cheap, and who cares if it adds over 30 miles to the drive?

Given all these different things taking place, I'm not optimistic I-14 will get straightened out into a more properly functional route.

[Scott5114]

I would imagine most people are guessing that it will be straightened because at this point in the process corridors are always subject to change. The parts of the process where exact routings are presented to the public and nailed down haven't been reached yet. An EIS has yet to be conducted.

With a corridor like this, you have to give a rough description of where the route is going to go so that people know what you're talking about. The easiest way to do it is to describe the existing routes that the corridor will generally follow. The problem is that the road grid in this part of Texas is skewed at a 45° angle, so any due E-W (or N-S for that matter) route defined in terms of existing highways will follow a zig-zag pattern. That doesn't necessarily mean that the final highway will be an in-place upgrade of the routes.

P.S. I know you are passionate about your views, but there is really no reason to post more or less the same opinion over and over. It gets slightly frustrating to read through the thread and read the same opinion expressed in a dozen posts by the same person.

[jbnv]

Also, how does this affect you in Oklahoma? (It affects me since the I-14 corridor crosses Louisiana, and I have a personal interest in this route because my daughter lives in central Texas.)

[Bobby5280]

How does I-14 affect me or anyone else in Oklahoma? Answer: at some point the backers of this pork-barrel Interstate highway project are going to want a good amount of federal money to fund construction. And that will be money diverted away from other highway projects. Even some here in Oklahoma. The Sooner State already gets treated like a red-headed step child for funding all sorts of infrastructure projects. So we're just supposed to sit here all quiet and polite while this political nonsense proceeds?

I'm really put off by the I-14 project in terms of the military aspect in which it is being sold. Fort Hood is an important Army post. But so is Fort Sill up here in the Lawton area. I don't see anyone rushing to improve the woefully deficient highway infrastructure surrounding that very important post. Fort Sill is adding more and more missions. The Army has spent more than $1 billion on new building construction aboard Fort Sill in the past few years (many new facilities, new post housing, etc.). But the highway system in Lawton-Fort Sill is a badly neglected joke. I-44 is very sub-standard where it passes the Polo Field and Key Gate areas of the post. It's very narrow and has inadequate shoulders. Rogers Lane, which cuts between Fort Sill and Lawton is a badly designed, glorified street that now carries the US-62 designation. I call it a fake Interstate. Deadly head-on collisions happen there from time to time. The road has no shoulders at all. It does have a lot of at grade intersections, some of which should have traffic signals.

I look at the highway situation with Fort Sill and compare that to what has been getting built up at other large military installations around the country. There's a lot of highway improvement going on elsewhere, but not here where at least some improvements need to be made. Even the state of Oklahoma has its priorities goofed up a good bit. Lawton is a much bigger town than Chickasha, but Chickasha is going to get a new Interstate quality bypass for US-81. Maybe when we have a bloody enough fatal accident on Rogers Lane here then the powers that be might wake up and start looking at some issues here. But we already have pedestrians getting mowed down on I-44 trying to jay-walk across the Interstate near Gore Blvd due to no pedestrian access there to cross from East and West sides of town that I-44 divides. So maybe even a multiple fatality accident might not mean anything to the folks in the state capitol.

[jbnv]

Step 1: Stop treating the federal government like an ATM that somehow receives large amounts of money and dispenses it out to whoever manages to ask the loudest. That includes objecting loudly and proudly to them taking it from you in the first place. Money that Oklahomans make should stay in Oklahoma.

Step 2: Take up your state's situation with your state legislators and governor. If they refuse to listen, elect some who will.

[longhorn]

More news articles on the project. Did not know that Fort Hood is Texas's largest single site employer. With the high cost of living in Austin many are moving to the Centex area.

http://kdhnews.com/business/interstate-will-have-significant-economic-impact-supporters-say/article_0f4d1dd6-eb4a-11e6-b7b1-1f0a7f93e567.html

[Henry]

Speaking of zigzagging routes, the new I-73/I-74 corridor is pretty messed up, especially near the coast. Why the hell did they have to bend I-74 back just to end at Myrtle Beach, instead of simply ending it at Wilmington? And routing I-73 north on I-81 before sending it back south on US 220 is also pure epic fail. Not to mention the piece in WV where it winds back and forth.

[Grzrd]

More news articles on the project. Did not know that Fort Hood is Texas's largest single site employer. With the high cost of living in Austin many are moving to the Centex area.
http://kdhnews.com/business/interstate-will-have-significant-economic-impact-supporters-say/article_0f4d1dd6-eb4a-11e6-b7b1-1f0a7f93e567.html

The article also sets forth TxDOT's next steps for I-14, including exploring an eastern expansion from Belton to Heidenheimer and Rogers:

The Texas Department of Transportation has future plans to expand and upgrade the corridor outside of the 25-mile area, including a continued expansion to six-lanes, continued operational upgrades such as frontage road U-turns and frontage road connections, expanding the Copperas Cove bypass to four lanes, and exploring an eastern extension from Belton to Heidenheimer and Rogers.

[Bobby5280]

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.

Speaking of zigzagging routes, the new I-73/I-74 corridor is pretty messed up, especially near the coast. Why the hell did they have to bend I-74 back just to end at Myrtle Beach, instead of simply ending it at Wilmington? And routing I-73 north on I-81 before sending it back south on US 220 is also pure epic fail. Not to mention the piece in WV where it winds back and forth.

The I-73 and I-74 projects in the Carolinas and Virginia are a clear illustration of just how difficult it has become to build a new highway, especially one with any reasonably direct path. If either route gets properly built-out in the Carolinas and Virginia they may do little to pull long distance traffic off other far more straight corridors like I-77. The crooked, winding paths reduce their appeal down just to local and immediate region traffic. The odd loop I-74 is making most of the way around Rockingham is pretty bad.

I, too, don't understand why I-74 would be sent to the Myrtle Beach area in such a crooked, backward fashion (along SC-22). I-73 is also supposed to go to Myrtle Beach perhaps along an upgraded SC-9. It would have made more sense to push I-74 to Wilmington. I always thought I-20 should have been extended from Florence, SC to Wilmington.

As for I-73 and its proposed wrong-way concurrency with I-81 from Roanoke to Christiansburg, I'm skeptical it will ever get built. The economy in the border areas between Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia only seems to be getting worse with the coal industry in free fall. It's going to be hard enough just getting I-73 into Roanoke.

[longhorn]

More news articles on the project. Did not know that Fort Hood is Texas's largest single site employer. With the high cost of living in Austin many are moving to the Centex area.
http://kdhnews.com/business/interstate-will-have-significant-economic-impact-supporters-say/article_0f4d1dd6-eb4a-11e6-b7b1-1f0a7f93e567.html

The article also sets forth TxDOT's next steps for I-14, including exploring an eastern expansion from Belton to Heidenheimer and Rogers:

The Texas Department of Transportation has future plans to expand and upgrade the corridor outside of the 25-mile area, including a continued expansion to six-lanes, continued operational upgrades such as frontage road U-turns and frontage road connections, expanding the Copperas Cove bypass to four lanes, and exploring an eastern extension from Belton to Heidenheimer and Rogers.

The six lane expansion from Killeen to Belton is sorely needed.

I-14 could follow Hwy 93 from Belton to Heidenhiemer. However connect to the south of Belton to I-35. There is already a new I-35 to 190 connector built last year. Trying to connect I-14 between Temple and Belton will run it into some subdivisions of on Temple's southside. So run I-14 south of 93 and connect I-14 to I-35 near loop 121 south of Belton.
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.0383943,-97.4411313,5340m/data=!3m1!1e3

[LM117]

As for I-73 and its proposed wrong-way concurrency with I-81 from Roanoke to Christiansburg, I'm skeptical it will ever get built. The economy in the border areas between Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia only seems to be getting worse with the coal industry in free fall. It's going to be hard enough just getting I-73 into Roanoke.

There's practically zero support for I-73 in VA at the state level. The cities/towns in that region of VA have been screaming for I-73, but they're at the bottom of the political totem pole. Since they have to compete with metro areas such as Northern VA, Richmond, and Hampton Roads, they stand no chance.

North Carolina is the only state that has actually shown interest and built a good chunk of their part of I-73.

[LM117]

I, too, don't understand why I-74 would be sent to the Myrtle Beach area in such a crooked, backward fashion (along SC-22). I-73 is also supposed to go to Myrtle Beach perhaps along an upgraded SC-9. It would have made more sense to push I-74 to Wilmington. I always thought I-20 should have been extended from Florence, SC to Wilmington.

Wilmington usually gets the shaft.

[Strider]

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.

Speaking of zigzagging routes, the new I-73/I-74 corridor is pretty messed up, especially near the coast. Why the hell did they have to bend I-74 back just to end at Myrtle Beach, instead of simply ending it at Wilmington? And routing I-73 north on I-81 before sending it back south on US 220 is also pure epic fail. Not to mention the piece in WV where it winds back and forth.

The I-73 and I-74 projects in the Carolinas and Virginia are a clear illustration of just how difficult it has become to build a new highway, especially one with any reasonably direct path. If either route gets properly built-out in the Carolinas and Virginia they may do little to pull long distance traffic off other far more straight corridors like I-77. The crooked, winding paths reduce their appeal down just to local and immediate region traffic. The odd loop I-74 is making most of the way around Rockingham is pretty bad.

I, too, don't understand why I-74 would be sent to the Myrtle Beach area in such a crooked, backward fashion (along SC-22). I-73 is also supposed to go to Myrtle Beach perhaps along an upgraded SC-9. It would have made more sense to push I-74 to Wilmington. I always thought I-20 should have been extended from Florence, SC to Wilmington.

As for I-73 and its proposed wrong-way concurrency with I-81 from Roanoke to Christiansburg, I'm skeptical it will ever get built. The economy in the border areas between Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia only seems to be getting worse with the coal industry in free fall. It's going to be hard enough just getting I-73 into Roanoke.

I don't mind the I-73 routing that runs from Roanoke to Myrtle Beach, but I DO NOT like the routing of I-74. I still don't understand why NC wants to route I-74 like that.. especially in the southeast part of NC... however I doubt I-74 will be routed to Myrtle Beach. They probably will end it in Wilmington or leave it unbuilt and have it end at I-95.

[Bobby5280]

I-14 could follow Hwy 93 from Belton to Heidenhiemer. However connect to the south of Belton to I-35. There is already a new I-35 to 190 connector built last year. Trying to connect I-14 between Temple and Belton will run it into some subdivisions of on Temple's southside. So run I-14 south of 93 and connect I-14 to I-35 near loop 121 south of Belton.

There's a couple possible openings where I-14 can split off from I-35 just North of the recently re-built I-35/US-190 interchage, but yet still South of the FM-93 exit on I-35. Even if the road had to go North of the FM-93 exit it wouldn't have to go far. There's a more substantial clearing just North of some car dealerships and a Harley Davidson dealership. Either way, I-14 would indeed need to run parallel to the South of FM-93 at least until the TX-95 intersection with FM-93.

I don't mind the I-73 routing that runs from Roanoke to Myrtle Beach, but I DO NOT like the routing of I-74. I still don't understand why NC wants to route I-74 like that.. especially in the southeast part of NC... however I doubt I-74 will be routed to Myrtle Beach. They probably will end it in Wilmington or leave it un-built and have it end at I-95.

It would be easier and cheaper just to route I-74 into Wilmington. US-74 is mostly freeway quality between I-95 and Bolton, NC. There's only a few at grade intersections that NC DOT is removing one by one. I think the road just needs shoulder work done to bring it up to Interstate standards. The last 20 miles to Wilmington would need a combination of new bypasses and upgrades of existing US-74 to make the entire route limited access. This is certainly a much easier and cheaper prospect than the pending upgrades of I-42 and I-87 in North Carolina.

[longhorn]

190..........errrr........I-14 will be widened eventually from Killeen to Belton. First phase start this fall.

http://kdhnews.com/harker_heights_herald/local/txdot-proposes-widening-highway-from-heights-to-belton-public-meeting/article_9007f6ea-de97-11e6-8f1f-0726dd84a732.html

[US71]

  I-14 now officially open

[rickmastfan67]

I-14 now officially open

Go to the 0:39 mark of the video to see the first posted I-14 @ an intersection.

[andy3175]

I noted this on the US 190 thread, but you can see some pictures of I-14 signs at the AARoads Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/posts/10155324455292948 (thanks to Jeff Royston).

[sparker]

I-14 now officially open

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!