Regional Boards > Mid-South
I-14 in Texas
J N Winkler:
--- Quote from: cjk374 on November 24, 2022, 11:54:03 AM ---https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19223.0
This will fit here nicely.
If any state can & will create a new interstate, split into 2 halves, and 9 loops & spurs all ready to go all at once.....it's Texas.
--- End quote ---
Topics now merged. --J N Winkler
armadillo speedbump:
--- Quote from: longhorn on November 27, 2022, 11:18:47 PM ---It is freeway capable from I -35 to Heidenheimer, except for a small portion by the Temple college that can easily have an interchange built in that area. The latest TxDot plans had ramps planned for the I-35/360 interchange. It will be the route of I-14 going east out of Temple. Kind of disappointing but it saves money. Due to other priorities, TxDot is slow walking this freeway expansion. There is a lot of traffic from Cameron to Temple so expanding that section is a no brainer and will be MUUUUUUCH safer and everyone gets to dodge the speed trap called Rogers.
My guess at Cameron the route shoots over south of Hearne and stops. It gives CenTex a safer and faster route to Houston. No way do I ever seeing I-14 making it to the eastern state line.
--- End quote ---
Yep.
It would only take about 23 miles of new ROW and less than 16 miles of 4-laning or upgrades for TXDOT to finish a south of Rogers to south of Hearne cutoff for Temple to Houston traffic. Start with a bypass around the south side of Cameron, shares the US 77/190 bridge over the Little River, run straight east from the 190 curve south of the 77 intersection to US 79 west of the Brazos, 5 miles of upgraded 79 to south of the airport and then less than 2 miles of bypass to Hwy 6 just south of Hearne. Add 2-3 miles of bypass around Buckholts, about 8 total miles on either side to 4-lane, plus 1.5 miles of upgrade in east Temple and you'd have at least 4 lanes of free flow all the way from Houston to Temple, Killeen, and Copperas Cove. A huge improvement and good enough.
The far east end could also double for part of a Hwy 6 and US 79 bypass of Hearne. Would just need 4 more miles of new ROW to run east of the airport north then east to the 6/79 split. Combine with about a 3 mile Calvert bypass, an overpass and 1 mile of lane shift west at Riesel, and direct connectors in Waco to I-35, and you get at least 4 lanes of free flow from Fort Worth to Houston. Again, good enough. Far cheaper and thus could be finished at least a decade before a true freeway total upgrade would get built in either corridor. Probably multiple decades.
We really need a separate national designation similar to the "Interstate" system for 4-lane free flowing (no stoplights or stop signs) highways. "Expressway System" would work. E-14 instead of I-14 for such segments. That would help with selling cost effective solutions to satisfy the chamber of commerce/politicians who want the interstate type labels that help with economic development/bragging rights.
-- US 175 --:
--- Quote from: armadillo speedbump on December 01, 2022, 12:37:01 PM ---
We really need a separate national designation similar to the "Interstate" system for 4-lane free flowing (no stoplights or stop signs) highways. "Expressway System" would work. E-14 instead of I-14 for such segments. That would help with selling cost effective solutions to satisfy the chamber of commerce/politicians who want the interstate type labels that help with economic development/bragging rights.
--- End quote ---
Sounds like it could be an eventually good idea (much of US 175 has gotten to this condition since its widenings), but would there ever be any kind of national/federal backing behind it?
Bobby5280:
I think adding another highway designation type would only add confusion and not yield any of the desired marketing benefits.
For one thing, there is no "ceiling" on how good or big a section of state highway or US highway can be built. There are plenty of examples across the country of super highways matching Interstate standards but are signed as US highways or state highways instead. Some new expressway standard of highway network would fall somewhere in the middle of that.
It's a hard enough challenge to keep lawmakers from goofing up the standards of Interstate highways. There are numerous locations around the country where segments of Interstate highways aren't really living up to that standard: at-grade intersections, driveway access or absurd configurations like Breezewood. A "free flowing" but not limited access highway network would be even more prone to compromises. "Does the 4-lane highway really need to be divided? Does it really need to be four lanes? Can't we get away with having stop lights every now and then?" Basically they'll want to erect the fancy new signs on anything, just to save a buck.
As to helping with economic development, I don't see how an expressway designation is going to help. Ordinary people understand the differences between limited access super highways and the lesser types of highways. Interstates have their own "brand." I strongly doubt the public is going to see a new expressway standard as somehow being equal in stature to Interstates, even if various DOTs erect big green signs and other window dressing on regular highways without controlled access. Interstates have enough of their own branding value that we see people in forums like this wishing for freeways and toll roads carrying state or US highway designations would be re-named as Interstates.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version