I-14 in Texas

[The Ghostbuster]

Will the TX 9/Business 190 interchange be modified so traffic doesn't have to exit to remain on US 190/future Interstate 14?

[motorola870]

I don't even think they have it on the drawing board right now to upgrade the Copperas Cove super 2
The bridge that takes the traffic onto the super 2 going westbound is 2 lanes wide all they are going to do is add a second lane in the median to enable  two thru lanes on to the bypass when it comes time to twin the super 2 and I don't even think I14 would be extended west of the current terminus until the at grade crossing of Bus 190 and 190 on the west side of Copperas cove is upgraded as part of a twinning the super 2.

[rte66man]

I don't even think they have it on the drawing board right now to upgrade the Copperas Cove super 2
The bridge that takes the traffic onto the super 2 going westbound is 2 lanes wide all they are going to do is add a second lane in the median to enable  two thru lanes on to the bypass when it comes time to twin the super 2 and I don't even think I14 would be extended west of the current terminus until the at grade crossing of Bus 190 and 190 on the west side of Copperas cove is upgraded as part of a twinning the super 2.

And you said all that in one breath......

[longhorn]

I don't even think they have it on the drawing board right now to upgrade the Copperas Cove super 2
The bridge that takes the traffic onto the super 2 going westbound is 2 lanes wide all they are going to do is add a second lane in the median to enable  two thru lanes on to the bypass when it comes time to twin the super 2 and I don't even think I14 would be extended west of the current terminus until the at grade crossing of Bus 190 and 190 on the west side of Copperas cove is upgraded as part of a twinning the super 2.

Actually...............Its only two miles and its from the west side of Copperas Cove heading west but Txdot wants to add a couple of overpasses and divided hwy. Now it makes no sense to do this and not touch the 190/2657 stoplight interchange and expand the Super two while they are at it. But then again, its TxDot.

https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/brownwood/us190-lampasas-county.html

https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/brownwood/061523-us190.html

[bwana39]

Will the TX 9/Business 190 interchange be modified so traffic doesn’t have to exit to remain on US 190/future Interstate 14?

So what you want is a "correct" stay right to remain on US-190. IE veer right to turn left.  What you are saying is to spend $20M for a standardized geometry when a 100% functional option is there already.

I went and looked closer. This intersection has a correct through staying left but the I-14 WB to US-190 WB (which May become I-14) uses a single lane exit ramp.  If the traffic demand is high enough, this should be upgraded to full mainlanes regardless of the numbering. If it doesn't.....

This is one of the reasons that Texas tends to NOT associate IH numbers in freeway upgrades.

[The Ghostbuster]

I'll take the answer to my question to be a no.

[bwana39]

I'll take the answer to my question to be a no.

In this case, I would say yes it should. Probably the same time, they expand the road to four lanes.

[longhorn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc2QxlfsbI0&t=749s

Video of the project.

[longhorn]

https://kdhnews.com/news/local/txdot-considering-190-freeway-west-of-cove-rural-residents-not-happy/article_6df5648e-0d57-11ee-9fb5-f38db49652ae.html

Apparently the bypass around Copperas Cove is being looked at for expansion from 2 lanes to 4. It would extend I-14 west of Copperas Cove.

[hobsini2]

TxDOT has scheduled a meeting to extend the freeway 2.3 miles west of Copperas Cove.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/brownwood/061523-us190.html

Map
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/bwd/us-190-at-big-divide/052423-project-location-map-w-logo.pdf

The Copperas Cove bypass is a super-2, so presumably it will be upgraded to freeway standards before or at the same time as the new extension.

Separately, preliminary study is underway to determine the alignment of a freeway loop around Lampasas, 14 miles to the west. It seems logical to eventually extend the US 190 (I-14) freeway to the Lampasas loop.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/brownwood/lampasas-relief-route-111722.html

About time they look into a bypass loop of Lampasas. To me, the logical corridor to start would be starting at US 281 south of County 1002 and work around the east side to meet up with US 183 & 190 east of County 1045. I would have interchanges with US 281/Bus US 281, US 183, US 190, FM 580 Ave J, US 281/Bus US 281 Key Ave & US 183/190. I don't think it needs to be a full loop though.

[Bobby5280]

I think it makes sense TX DOT is considering a full loop around Lampasas. 3 different US highway corridors converge in Lampasas. Plus there are other roads, like FM-580 to consider. The town and immediate area is expected to grow dramatically. Bare minimum, I think the relief route would have to be a little more than a half loop around the East side of town, starting at the US-281 corridor South of town and wrapping over to US-190/US-183 to the Northwest of town.

It's not enough to just have a simple bypass of US-190 skirting around the NE quadrant of town. The US-281 corridor is going to evolve as more of a North-South relief route for I-35. I can easily see US-281 being upgraded to Interstate standards farther North out of metro San Antonio up to the US-290 corridor in Johnson City. It wouldn't be that much of a reach to extend it up to I-14.

[longhorn]

TxDOT seeks public comment on I-14 expansion projects

https://kdhnews.com/news/local/txdot-seeks-public-comment-on-i-14-expansion-projects/article_238c5d40-2b38-11ee-a806-430a88c2b66a.html

A portion of road from I-14 to Farm-to-Market Road 2657 in Copperas Cove – referred to as the Highway 190 bypass – is being prepared for expansion in the coming years. The project for that stretch of road, proposed to be expanded from two lanes to four, could be let for bids in the near future, city officials have said this year.

Updated map
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/kdhnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/f9/ff92de86-2b38-11ee-92d9-b7c35837a5de/64c049e619d97.pdf.pdf

[longhorn]

https://txdot.mysocialpinpoint.com/i14systems

TxDot I-14 website

[ethanhopkin14]

https://txdot.mysocialpinpoint.com/i14systems

TxDot I-14 website

I-214 is a square!  lol!  Those 90 degree turns will be fun!

[CoreySamson]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a point for building that I-14 south idea at all. The other spurs, maybe, but if the biggest town you're serving with a redundant route has less than 2000 people, why on earth should you build it?

[ethanhopkin14]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a point for building that I-14 south idea at all. The other spurs, maybe, but if the biggest town you're serving with a redundant route has less than 2000 people, why on earth should you build it?

Because, Interstate.

[sprjus4]

Not sure the US-190 "I-14 South"  is needed. The US-385 connection would be a good interim project to connect I-10 (San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Houston, etc.) to the Midland-Odessa metro with only around 70 miles of new construction / upgrades.

The US-83 leg is redundant to the proposed I-27 along US-277. IMO, the only one that is needed is US-83, and it should be the routing of I-27 - terminating at I-10. I-27 is not that useful / necessary south of I-10 IMO.

[thisdj78]

https://txdot.mysocialpinpoint.com/i14systems

TxDot I-14 website

I-214 is a square!  lol!  Those 90 degree turns will be fun!

Lol, guess they didn't have the ability to curve lines in their software.

Anyway, I wonder if Riverside Pkwy/SH47 will be part of that bypass.

[Bobby5280]

The US-83 leg is redundant to the proposed I-27 along US-277. IMO, the only one that is needed is US-83, and it should be the routing of I-27 - terminating at I-10. I-27 is not that useful / necessary south of I-10 IMO.

Yeah, I don't see that US-83 thing to Junction getting built unless the possible South extension of I-27 is routed along it. The only point of sending I-27 down the US-277 corridor South of San Angelo is for the corridor to reach the border at Del Rio (or even go farther South from there to Laredo). I think a good argument could be made for pointing the I-27 corridor going out of San Angelo more in the direction of San Antonio (via a new terrain route from San Angelo to Junction).

I see the planners are still showing that W shaped nonsense for the I-14 path inside the Texas Triangle.

[sprjus4]

I see the planners are still showing that W shaped nonsense for the I-14 path inside the Texas Triangle.

That is because the existing routes form a crooked routing. More than likely, this segment would be constructed on a new terrain alignment in a much straighter path.

[Bobby5280]

I don't know if they're actually going to do that. I sense they'll actually try to build I-14 in that idiotic, porky, saw-tooth shaped route. That way they can "connect" as many towns as possible to I-14 for the political hand-greasing slant of it.

If this section of I-14 was ever going to be more straightened out into a more direct route from Temple to Bryan/College Station to Huntsville I think they would have started reflecting that on the maps by now (including the interactive map on that web site mentioned a few posts earlier). They still show I-14 sticking closely to the US-190 alignment, ping-ponging down to Milano, up to Hearne, down to Byran and then up to Madisonville and then a 25 mile or so overlay with I-45 before reaching Huntsville.

[J N Winkler]

I don't know if they're actually going to do that. I sense they'll actually try to build I-14 in that idiotic, porky, saw-tooth shaped route. That way they can "connect" as many towns as possible to I-14 for the political hand-greasing slant of it.

If this section of I-14 was ever going to be more straightened out into a more direct route from Temple to Bryan/College Station to Huntsville I think they would have started reflecting that on the maps by now (including the interactive map on that web site mentioned a few posts earlier). They still show I-14 sticking closely to the US-190 alignment, ping-ponging down to Milano, up to Hearne, down to Bryan and then up to Madisonville and then a 25 mile or so overlay with I-45 before reaching Huntsville.

I am not so sure.  Bryan/College Station (combined population of about 200,000) and Huntsville (population just under 50,000) are far and away more important alignment controls than Hearne and Madisonville, whose respective populations do not exceed 5,000.

I think the main obstacle to a direct connection between Bryan/College Station and Huntsville is the heavy traffic demand in the US 190 corridor between the former and Madisonville--AADT is consistently above 10,000 VPD from Bryan/College Station to the FM 39 intersection due south of Normangee.  Much of this length is already four-lane divided.  An origin/destination study would clarify whether traffic would benefit more from a Huntsville beeline or an Interstate-quality connection to I-45 at Madisonville.

[bwana39]

I don't know if they're actually going to do that. I sense they'll actually try to build I-14 in that idiotic, porky, saw-tooth shaped route. That way they can "connect" as many towns as possible to I-14 for the political hand-greasing slant of it.

If this section of I-14 was ever going to be more straightened out into a more direct route from Temple to Bryan/College Station to Huntsville I think they would have started reflecting that on the maps by now (including the interactive map on that web site mentioned a few posts earlier). They still show I-14 sticking closely to the US-190 alignment, ping-ponging down to Milano, up to Hearne, down to Bryan and then up to Madisonville and then a 25 mile or so overlay with I-45 before reaching Huntsville.

.

I am not so sure.  Bryan/College Station (combined population of about 200,000) and Huntsville (population just under 50,000) are far and away more important alignment controls than Hearne and Madisonville, whose respective populations do not exceed 5,000.

I think the main obstacle to a direct connection between Bryan/College Station and Huntsville is the heavy traffic demand in the US 190 corridor between the former and Madisonville--AADT is consistently above 10,000 VPD from Bryan/College Station to the FM 39 intersection due south of Normangee.  Much of this length is already four-lane divided.  An origin/destination study would clarify whether traffic would benefit more from a Huntsville beeline or an Interstate-quality connection to I-45 at Madisonville.

I think just about everyone agrees that it will not go to Madisonville. Perhaps a ROUGH TX-30 route or perhaps go on to Navasota and follow TX-105 to I-10. Except for the buildup, 105 is the better route.

The traffic between Madisonville & Bryan is traffic from Dallas and traffic from Shreveport or Texarkana. The point about Normangee makes this point. Traffic comes from US-79 and I-45 via FM-39 and travels Bryan. South bound traffic almost exclusively travels either directly to Huntsville or to through Navasota if they are going to Houston.

If it goes to Madisonville, it will end there. That will only happen if there is freeway all the way from College Station to Houston.

[longhorn]

Since this will eventually be I-14 , there is a detour north and south of Rogers as construction continues on the bypass. TxDot has moved traffic to the new right of way between Rogers and outskirts of Heidenheimer. As the old road bed has been scraped up.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.9480194,-97.2457188,772m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu

[MaxConcrete]

TxDOT has scheduled 6 public meetings in the corridor from Huntsville westward.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings.html

The news (at least to me) is that the I-214 loop around Bryan-College Station is now officially part of the study.

Additionally, the Study will include an evaluation of the more recently designated future Loop I-214, which is expected to co-align with I-14 around Bryan College Station.
...
In November 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) designated the I-14 System in Texas for further development, along with Loop I-214 around the Cities of Bryan and College Station. Because this loop is located entirely within the Study area and expected to overlap with I-14 as it passes through the Bryan-College Station area, evaluation of Loop I-214 will be included as part of the I-14 Study.

This probably explains why a meeting is being held in Navasota, which is far south of the main corridor. The loop study area shown in the link and image below extends to within a few miles of Navasota.

https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/i14-corridor-study.html


Here is another data sheet. According to this document, after 3 years of study the feasible corridors will be identified, and the preferred route will be identified at the end of the 7-year process.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/bry/i14/032723-i-14-fact-sheet.pdf

Since there is no obvious alignment and so many factors in play, I think it will be very difficult to identify a politically and environmentally feasible route. I'm also wondering about the strength of local support and/or opposition.

The I-214 loop alignment is going to be especially difficult to identify. Bryan-College Station is a long and slender area on a northwest-to-southeast axis along SH 6, which doesn't easily accommodate a loop. The Brazos River complicates alignments to the west. Texas A&M will surely be influential in deciding if it comes near the campus (SH 49 or FM 2818), or is far away from the campus. The meeting documents suggest that I-14 could follow I-214 for a distance. The path of least resistance could be to use existing routes as much as possible.