I-14 in Texas

[Bobby5280]

Since the US 79 and UPRR bridges, where crossing the Brazos is most favorable in terms of construction ease, are only a few miles west of Hearne, it's likely that a relatively direct route will merge with TX 6 only a few miles south of that town as well -- essentially forming a bypass directly SW of the town.  That should satisfy Hearne interests; plowing up town-center businesses or disrupting the industrial areas arrayed along the 3 railroad lines converging on the town (Hearne has always been a major rail junction, originally with Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific lines; both are now UP properties) wouldn't be considered a "best interest" scenario -- a bypass skirting the edge of town should more than suffice.

Driving from Cameron to Bryan via US-190 is 47 miles. If I-14 had a more direct route from Cameron to Bryan, skirting by the small towns of Gause and Mumford the stretch of highway would be only 29 miles in length. There are other narrow, easy to cross points along the Brazos River between Gause and Mumford.

Likewise, sending I-14 up to Madisonville and multiplexing with I-45 down to Huntsville adds another 10 miles to the route (62 miles total) versus having I-14 leave the College Station area for a more direct path to Huntsville.

[hotdogPi]

Driving from Cameron to Bryan via US-190 is 47 miles. If I-47 had a more direct route from Cameron to Bryan, skirting by the small towns of Gause and Mumford the stretch of highway would be only 29 miles in length. There are other narrow, easy to cross points along the Brazos River between Gause and Mumford.

I-14/47 multiplex?

[sparker]

I-14/47 multiplex?

I-47: Wishful thinking for I-69 in TX?

[mwb1848]

It's Midland/Odessa & San Angelo politics that's driving the western extension, not current AADT data. 

Thank you for jostling some things loose in my brain. I forgot that the Chair of the Texas Transportation Commission is from Tryon Lewis from Odessa.

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/administration/commission/lewis.html

El Paso benefitted substantially during Ted Houghton's tenure as Chair of the TTC. He pushed major hometown projects like the Border West Expressway Project, Go10, and El Paso Streetcar Project.

[Bobby5280]

I-14/47 multiplex?

Obviously that was a typo. I had that "47 miles" thing on the brain when trying to type "I-14."

As for a fictional I-47 route, that could just as easily be the I-69 route in Texas, at least going from Houston to Shreveport (and Texarkana). Unless the federal government gets back into heavily funding major highway projects we will probably indeed all be long dead before I-69 is fully completed. I don't see all those disconnected segments getting joined together any time soon.

[abqtraveler]

Runs from US 190 Business east of Copperas to I-35.

Here's a snip from the map of the 25-mile segment from the Minute Order:

That's an interesting turnaround, given that AASHTO previously denied Texas' request to designate this section of US-190 as I-14 during its Spring Meeting last May.  So what caused them to change their minds?

[CanesFan27]

Runs from US 190 Business east of Copperas to I-35.

Here's a snip from the map of the 25-mile segment from the Minute Order:

That's an interesting turnaround, given that AASHTO previously denied Texas' request to designate this section of US-190 as I-14 during its Spring Meeting last May.  So what caused them to change their minds?

Congressionally legislated

[Bobby5280]

Politicians are making a mockery of people with far more expertise at designing and managing highway networks. Those same politicians would probably rarely ever have to soil themselves with the commoner practice of actually driving significant distances on these routes. They're too busy flying above them in planes. So who cares how goofed up and illogical their "legislated" system may be?

[Anthony_JK]

Politicians are making a mockery of people with far more expertise at designing and managing highway networks. Those same politicians would probably rarely ever have to soil themselves with the commoner practice of actually driving significant distances on these routes. They're too busy flying above them in planes. So who cares how goofed up and illogical their "legislated" system may be?

We have to, because they are the ones who make the law. If you don't like how they legislate, you are perfectly free to vote them out in favor of those who support your alternative view. 

[hotdogPi]

Politicians are making a mockery of people with far more expertise at designing and managing highway networks. Those same politicians would probably rarely ever have to soil themselves with the commoner practice of actually driving significant distances on these routes. They're too busy flying above them in planes. So who cares how goofed up and illogical their "legislated" system may be?

We have to, because they are the ones who make the law. If you don't like how they legislate, you are perfectly free to vote them out in favor of those who support your alternative view.

We can't really vote them out for their ideas about I-14, as these views are usually less important than most other things the politicians believe in (people care about many things more than they do about Interstates).

[Henry]

Unless there is a more concrete plan to send this thing to the east, I see this as nothing more than a glorified 3di to a military base (see I-781 to Fort Drum and I-185 to Fort Benning).

[The Ghostbuster]

I'd be more supportive of Interstate 14 if it had a more logical western terminus.

[Interstate 69 Fan]

I'd be more supportive of Interstate 14 if it had a more logical western terminus.

That's the end of the "interstate grade" route, so there fore Interstate 14 has to end there.

[Bobby5280]

I'd be more supportive of Interstate 14 if it had a more logical western terminus.

I-14 will be one of those rare 2di routes that goes through no major cities on its entire route. And that's even if all the proposed route from George to West Texas is built rather than just the existing 25 miles of freeway.

[sparker]

I'd be more supportive of Interstate 14 if it had a more logical western terminus.

I-14 will be one of those rare 2di routes that goes through no major cities on its entire route. And that's even if all the proposed route from George to West Texas is built rather than just the existing 25 miles of freeway.

San Angelo, Midland, and Odessa think they're major cities; compared to others out in the Permian, they are! -- the same applies to Temple and Bryan farther east.  And that outsized sense of self (and possibly entitlement) is what seems to drive projects like I-14 these days, for better or worse.  From a strictly rational point of view, the process is dysfunctional -- but it largely reflects the public sector environment of the times.   

[longhorn]

With the interstate designation I hope they complete the I-35/I-14 interchange in Belton and add a connector for I-14 East to I-35 South flow. And while we are at it, expand the bypass around Copperas Cove to the original four divided lane freeway it was suppose to be (its on TxDot's website), and end the interstate on the west side of town.

As regards AUS-HOU corridor, yes, it needs to be brought up to interstate standards. I wander if Austin's anti highway attitude has anything to do with the slow pace action on this. TxDot must have some dusty plans somewhere in the closet.

[sparker]

As regards AUS-HOU corridor, yes, it needs to be brought up to interstate standards. I wander if Austin's anti highway attitude has anything to do with the slow pace action on this. TxDot must have some dusty plans somewhere in the closet.

The lack of in-state planning for a Austin-Houston connector might indeed have something to do with Austin's attitude as a metro area -- as interpreted by the remainder of the state.  Austin is a sociopolitical anomaly within the greater TX political arena, despite being the location where the state's politicos are required to congregate on a regular basis.  It just might be possible that by and large much of Texas doesn't give a shit whether an hour or so is shaved off a trip to and from Austin!  And this despite the presence of Franklin's, Stubb's and other great places to chow down!  I suppose -- as my late dad would say -- it's a matter of "cut off your nose to spite your face".  It might just be a while before US 290 or TX 71 sees Interstate- grade improvements!

[TXtoNJ]

As regards AUS-HOU corridor, yes, it needs to be brought up to interstate standards. I wander if Austin's anti highway attitude has anything to do with the slow pace action on this. TxDot must have some dusty plans somewhere in the closet.

The lack of in-state planning for a Austin-Houston connector might indeed have something to do with Austin's attitude as a metro area -- as interpreted by the remainder of the state.  Austin is a sociopolitical anomaly within the greater TX political arena, despite being the location where the state's politicos are required to congregate on a regular basis.  It just might be possible that by and large much of Texas doesn't give a shit whether an hour or so is shaved off a trip to and from Austin!  And this despite the presence of Franklin's, Stubb's and other great places to chow down!  I suppose -- as my late dad would say -- it's a matter of "cut off your nose to spite your face".  It might just be a while before US 290 or TX 71 sees Interstate- grade improvements!

That's just it though - you're really not saving an hour. You might be saving 10, 15 minutes, top. Taking 10 to 71 is a fast enough route as it is.

[Bobby5280]

The City of Austin and its residents don't really have any say in how TX DOT and other towns in Central Texas build up their roads. It's not in their jurisdiction. Austin's city limits barely cover the interchange between the interchange with US-290 and the TX-130 toll road. US-290 drops down to expressway quality in the town of Manor. The TX-130/TX-71 interchange is not within Austin city limits. TX DOT could upgrade either the US-290 or TX-71 corridors (or upgrade both) regardless of how loudly any residents in Austin complained about it.

Another thing to consider: there has been quite a lot of superhighway construction in Austin over the past 20 years and quite a bit more is on the books. TX-71 is in the process of being upgraded to a freeway by Austin's airport. A big upgrade project will take place on US-183 from US-290 down to the TX-71 interchange by the airport. The US-290 freeway on the West side of Austin will have another segment upgraded to superhighway quality past the TX-71 "Y" in Oak Hill. A little more of the TX-45 loop will be built. Perhaps Austin has a strong anti-freeway crowd. But it sure doesn't seem as powerful as it was in the past. Not with all these projects getting completed. I can still remember when Austin just had I-35 and a smaller portion of TX-1 as its only super highways.

That's just it though - you're really not saving an hour. You might be saving 10, 15 minutes, top. Taking 10 to 71 is a fast enough route as it is.

Upgrading US-290 between Houston and Austin has more to do with improving traffic safety and efficiency. That is major traffic corridor. It doesn't need to be tripped up by at-grade intersections and traffic signals in some cases. Thankfully most of the route has freeway quality or near freeway quality bypasses around many of the towns along the way.

[sparker]

At this point, if I were a mod, I'd break out the Austin-to-Houston situation into a separate thread from the I-14 discussion.  Perhaps a question as to which of the two routes extending east of Austin, US 290 or TX 71, would be more likely to be utilized as the basic alignment for an Interstate-grade connector might serve as a jumping-off subtopic.  Just a thought!

[Bobby5280]

In my opinion the Austin-Houston corridor is relevant to the I-14 discussion, given it is by far the most obvious Interstate connection needed and not yet built in Central Texas. This I-14 effort is a big distraction from that, as well as a distraction from other highway improvement projects in the Lone Star State. I-14 poses the same problem in Louisiana; that state has far more important highway projects to complete.

Super highways have become terribly expensive to build, thanks to materials cost inflation that far exceeds the general inflation rate for the economy and wage growth and also thanks to a legal and regulatory environment that has made the planning process more difficult than ever before. Given the very difficult and very expensive environment it is incredibly wasteful to put that kind of effort into a highway that links no major cities and provides little if any strategic benefit to the military posts it seeks to connect.

[Anthony_JK]

In my opinion the Austin-Houston corridor is relevant to the I-14 discussion, given it is by far the most obvious Interstate connection needed and not yet built in Central Texas. This I-14 effort is a big distraction from that, as well as a distraction from other highway improvement projects in the Lone Star State. I-14 poses the same problem in Louisiana; that state has far more important highway projects to complete.

Super highways have become terribly expensive to build, thanks to materials cost inflation that far exceeds the general inflation rate for the economy and wage growth and also thanks to a legal and regulatory environment that has made the planning process more difficult than ever before. Given the very difficult and very expensive environment it is incredibly wasteful to put that kind of effort into a highway that links no major cities and provides little if any strategic benefit to the military posts it seeks to connect.

Austin-Houston is to me a separate corridor from Houston-Hempstead-College Station-Bryan-Temple, which is closer to where proposed I-14 would run. Upgrading US 290 and/or TX 71 would probably resolve Austin's issues by itself.

Maybe I-14 is irrelevant as its own corridor in Texas, but as a interstate corridor linking CenTex, CenLA, MS, AL, and FL as a bypass for I-10? That would not be so minor. Even if it's a long time off from actual construction, it's not a bad idea to plan for the future.

[jbnv]

Plus we're not considering what people who are actually in Texas anticipate about growth along that corridor. The Killeen-Temple-Belton area is growing rapidly. The whole DFW-SA-Houston triangle is poised for continued growth going into the future. There are strategic benefits to the corridor, even if those of us who aren't Texans can't see it. And Texas clearly sees value in having a direct path between Fort Hood and Fort Polk (insert conspiracy theory here).

We can agree that this thing isn't going to be built out any time soon. We will not agree that it is pork and nothing else.

[Bobby5280]

Austin-Houston is to me a separate corridor from Houston-Hempstead-College Station-Bryan-Temple, which is closer to where proposed I-14 would run. Upgrading US 290 and/or TX 71 would probably resolve Austin's issues by itself.

The closest I-14 would come to Houston is Huntsville. That's quite a long, time consuming drive from Houston. It would not do much to serve metro Houston traffic, like say for instance offering a faster route to College Station. Right now most motorists are using US-290 and TX-6 for that drive. The TX-249 toll road will soak up some of that traffic once it is extended to Navasota.

Maybe I-14 is irrelevant as its own corridor in Texas, but as a interstate corridor linking CenTex, CenLA, MS, AL, and FL as a bypass for I-10? That would not be so minor. Even if it's a long time off from actual construction, it's not a bad idea to plan for the future.

I-14 offers little if any convenience at all as a bypass for I-10. The road is too far North and doesn't connect directly to I-10 at all. I might work better as a I-20 bypass, if not for a bunch of the crooked turns it makes. A bypass is supposed to save time. With the path going hundreds of miles out of the way I don't see any time savings offered at all over just staying on I-10 and I-20 and taking loop highways in big city metro areas if necessary.

Plus we're not considering what people who are actually in Texas anticipate about growth along that corridor. The Killeen-Temple-Belton area is growing rapidly.

The Killeen area may be growing, but its growth rate is not nearly as fast as other cities in Texas -such as Austin for instance. The Austin metro passed the 2 million mark for the first time in 2015.

In the last US Census Bureau estimate Georgetown, TX (part of Austin's metro area) was ranked as the fastest growing city of 50,000 or higher in the United States. Its population grew 7.8% in just one year. New Braunfels (2), Frisco (4), Pearland (7) and Pflugerville (11) also rank in the current top 15 list of fastest growing cities in the US in terms of percentage increases in population. In total numeric increases Houston (2), San Antonio (4), Fort Worth (6), Dallas (7) and Austin (8) ranked that top 15 US cities list. New York City was at the top of that list with 55,211 residents added in just one year. Houston added 40,032.

We can agree that this thing isn't going to be built out any time soon. We will not agree that it is pork and nothing else.

This I-14 project is very frivolous compared to other projects in Texas and other parts of the South. This project is basically another "mouth to feed," possibly diverting road building funds from far more legitimate projects. In that vain, I'll certainly call it pork.

[sparker]

The TX-249 toll road will soak up some of that traffic once it is extended to Navasota

We can agree that this thing isn't going to be built out any time soon. We will not agree that it is pork and nothing else.

This I-14 project is very frivolous compared to other projects in Texas and other parts of the South. This project is basically another "mouth to feed," possibly diverting road building funds from far more legitimate projects. In that vain, I'll certainly call it pork.

I'd say that at least 50-60% of traffic on I-14 west of College Station will shift to either TX 249 or, for shunpikers, the combination of TX 6 and US 290 to access Houston.  Subsequently, I'd anticipate that development of that corridor west of the College Station/Bryan area would be (in relative terms) expedited to provide the mid-state corridor (via San Angelo) that its backers desire.  As such, it functions as an intrastate SIU -- an E-W commercial route from Houston to points west.  The fact that it bypasses the 1M+ metro areas of San Antonio and Austin is likely considered a positive aspect of this route -- considerably less ensured congestion for cross-state (and TX is so wide that cross-state is virtually cross-country!) through traffic.  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. 

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.   

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.  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.