I-14 in Texas

[Bobby5280]

Hmm, this gets interesting, lets be realistic. I-14 between Temple and Bryan/CS will be first with a connector to I-45......somewhere. But if the next stage is a "connector" built to Beaumont, I could see this as an easy sales job.

I think it's a tough sell. It's one thing to get I-14 built from the Temple area down to College Station and over to Huntsville (hopefully deleting some of the "shark teeth" shaped angles on the route to make it at least somewhat straight). It's another to blow hundreds of millions of dollars on an extension through Lake Livingston to meet with the future I-69 corridor. It's another big leap still to blow even more money on an extension thru Woodville and Jasper over to the LA border. A spur down to Beaumont depends 100% on all those I-14 segments getting built.

Then there's the matter of other important corridors within the Texas triangle that are going to be competing for funding with I-14. I've talked repeatedly about US-290 between Houston and Austin. TX-71 is another big corridor with legit upgrade needs. Add the Grand Parkway and TX-105 in the Northern reaches of the greater Houston metro.

Out of North-South corridors, TX-6 from Waco down through College Station is often the route of choice for traffic coming from or thru Fort Worth to reach the Houston metro. TX-6 is turning into a relief route for I-45. Fort Worth has a city limits population of 874,000 people. Austin is bound to join the 1 million+ club of cities. With a decade or two Fort Worth could become the 5th city in Texas to break the 1 million population barrier. Traffic demand along TX-6 could increase dramatically once the Tomball Parkway (TX-249) is extended to Navasota.

[sparker]

Hmm, this gets interesting, lets be realistic. I-14 between Temple and Bryan/CS will be first with a connector to I-45......somewhere. But if the next stage is a "connector" built to Beaumont, I could see this as an easy sales job.

I think it's a tough sell. It's one thing to get I-14 built from the Temple area down to College Station and over to Huntsville (hopefully deleting some of the "shark teeth" shaped angles on the route to make it at least somewhat straight). It's another to blow hundreds of millions of dollars on an extension through Lake Livingston to meet with the future I-69 corridor. It's another big leap still to blow even more money on an extension thru Woodville and Jasper over to the LA border. A spur down to Beaumont depends 100% on all those I-14 segments getting built.

Then there's the matter of other important corridors within the Texas triangle that are going to be competing for funding with I-14. I've talked repeatedly about US-290 between Houston and Austin. TX-71 is another big corridor with legit upgrade needs. Add the Grand Parkway and TX-105 in the Northern reaches of the greater Houston metro.

Out of North-South corridors, TX-6 from Waco down through College Station is often the route of choice for traffic coming from or thru Fort Worth to reach the Houston metro. TX-6 is turning into a relief route for I-45. Fort Worth has a city limits population of 874,000 people. Austin is bound to join the 1 million+ club of cities. With a decade or two Fort Worth could become the 5th city in Texas to break the 1 million population barrier. Traffic demand along TX-6 could increase dramatically once the Tomball Parkway (TX-249) is extended to Navasota.

If & when I-14 gets completed between Temple and Huntsville, it's likely that quite a bit of that Fort Worth-Houston traffic will shunt over to that facility simply because of the lack of slogs through the intervening towns along TX 6.  And a fully completed (at least 4 lane) TX 249, toll or not, will be a godsend to the composite traffic counts on the Triangle I-14 segment -- although it would be expected that commercial traffic would "shunpike" it over to I-45 at Huntsville.  And I wholeheartedly agree that any freeway extension east of Huntsville will likely require circumventing Lake Livingston to the south -- giving that part of the corridor more of a "Houston outer bypass" feel than any sort of multistate corridor; as I've iterated before, that just might precipitate the prioritization of the Beaumont connector (since a southern route would decidedly shorten the overall distance between the E-W trunk and Beaumont) over an extension to the Sabine River (a la the I-69/369 situation farther north).  I'd go so far to say that unless LA interests actually put their money where their mouth is, such an extension through the piney woods is functionally dead in the water -- the Beaumont branch notwithstanding!  Again, this being TX and their penchant for looking after their regional interests (and other states be damned!), if I-14 itself ended up in Beaumont (or even Port Arthur for that matter) I for one wouldn't be too surprised!

[silverback1065]

we don't need any more new terrain interstates, we can barely maintain what we have!

[motorola870]

Eh this corridor seems like a road to nowhere. But then again US277 could be made into I44 from Wichita Falls to Abilene.

[Bobby5280]

If & when I-14 gets completed between Temple and Huntsville, it's likely that quite a bit of that Fort Worth-Houston traffic will shunt over to that facility simply because of the lack of slogs through the intervening towns along TX 6.

With I-14 there is a whole lot more if than [/i]when[/i] regarding any completion of that route to Huntsville. And the possibility of Huntsville being baked in the I-14 pork pie is only good if I-14 gets extended across to Livingston. Inside of the Texas triangle the route is slated to end at Madisonville, 25 miles NW of Huntsville. There's no reason to multiplex I-14 with I-45 along that stretch unless the road goes farther east.

As long as the proposed route is shaped with angled zig-zags like the ones on Charlie Brown's shirt the route won't do squat to pull traffic off TX-6.

I would like TX-6 better if it was a fully limited access route between Waco and Bryan. But I wouldn't call that part of the drive a slog. There's a couple stop lights in Hearne and Calvert. It's a freeway through the Bryan-College Station area. I've driven it plenty of times on drives down to Houston and had enough bad experiences with jams on I-45 to appreciate the alternative.

Eh this corridor seems like a road to nowhere. But then again US277 could be made into I44 from Wichita Falls to Abilene.

The act of extending I-44 from Wichita Falls down to I-20 would be far more beneficial to the big picture, national function of the Interstate highway system than this I-14 stuff.

[Henry]

Wow, I-14 is starting to make even less sense than ever!

[Anthony_JK]

The only bit of sense the entirity of I-14 would make would be as an alternative should I-10 go under water under climate change. Otherwise, it's just pork.

San Angelo can get sufficient coverage under an I-27 extension. Temple and College Station can be served by a US 290 or SH 249 upgrade to greater Houston. US 69 can be four laned from Lumberton to meet I-69 at Lufkin. SH 71 can be freewayized to serve the Houston-Austin corridor.

Completing the I-69/I-369 collossus needs to be the main focus, not this pipedream.

[sprjus4]

The only bit of sense the entirity of I-14 would make would be as an alternative should I-10 go under water under climate change. Otherwise, it's just pork.

It's all pork. I-14 and the idea of I-10 going underwater.

[sparker]

The only bit of sense the entirity of I-14 would make would be as an alternative should I-10 go under water under climate change. Otherwise, it's just pork.

It's all pork. I-14 and the idea of I-10 going underwater.

Even I've acknowledged that there's more pork than actual substance in the I-14 plans, even the halfway useful segment bisecting the Triangle.  But despite that characterization, it's something that, because of the politics involved, will likely be built over the next couple of decades; it's not going away regardless of how many times we can apply derogatory terminology to the corridor and the corresponding planning efforts.  All we can do aside from interminably repeating the notion that it shouldn't really exist in the first place is to try to suggest ways to make that pork feed as many travelers and regional residents as possible.  And, at least IMO, that means (a) forwarding the idea of straightening out the cross-Triangle path as much as possible (that map showing the pathway following all of US 190 was simply an illustration of the current dominant route between the end points, not the final path the corridor will follow).  The only three points that the corridor will almost certainly serve are Cameron, Hearne, and College Station/Bryan; and the second one because it's the logical place to cross the Brazos floodplain (the RR's figured that one out a century ago!).  And (b) get rid of that blatantly dumbass "route split" west of Brady and shoot the corridor straight toward San Angelo, where it would intersect and functionally terminate at the somewhat more rational P-to-P corridor.         

The bit about I-10 "going underwater" actually arose from one of the original I-14 proposals -- well east of TX -- back in the early 2000's when the E-W corridor was initially proposed.  The series of Gulf storms culminating in '05's Katrina for a brief moment prompted renewed interest in a "relief" corridor to serve as an alternative when I-10 was out of service because of damaged/destroyed bridges and berms.  Of course, that concept eventually faded away, although backers of eastern I-14 extensions in LA & MS have brought it up from time to time.  Obviously, AL didn't buy into the concept; their decision to avoid future freeway construction has, for the time being, sealed I-14's fate east of I-59 (not that it was going to get that far in the near future anyway!).   

[silverback1065]

The only bit of sense the entirity of I-14 would make would be as an alternative should I-10 go under water under climate change. Otherwise, it's just pork.

It's all pork. I-14 and the idea of I-10 going underwater.

already happened in houston

[sprjus4]

The only bit of sense the entirity of I-14 would make would be as an alternative should I-10 go under water under climate change. Otherwise, it's just pork.

It's all pork. I-14 and the idea of I-10 going underwater.

already happened in houston

Well, due to a major hurricane that sat over Houston for days on end dumping continuous amounts of rain. I'm referring to the pork that the entire coast will be underwater by 2050 or whatever under "climate change".

[The Ghostbuster]

I'd number proposed Interstate 14N as Interstate 18 (since that designation is not being used, unlike 12 and 16), and proposed Interstate 14S would be mainline Interstate 14. Of course that assumes that Interstates 14N and 14S need to be constructed in their proposed entirety, which I strongly disbelieve. When are they ever going to give the "pork" back to the farmers?

[motorola870]

I'd number proposed Interstate 14N as Interstate 18 (since that designation is not being used, unlike 12 and 16), and proposed Interstate 14S would be mainline Interstate 14. Of course that assumes that Interstates 14N and 14S need to be constructed in their proposed entirety, which I strongly disbelieve. When are they ever going to give the "pork" back to the farmers?

Honestly TXDOT needs to actually take into consideration the small towns they risk destroying by bypassing them and all the traffic shifting out of town. looking at this proposed routing to San Angelo honestly they would better better off just following US183 north out Lometa to Brownwood and then send it up US84 to interstate 20. The reasoning looking at the proposed routing it will affect a lot small towns that probably would lose a lot of local business while brownwood would benefit more from a bypass when San Angelo has full fledged grade separation already built. There also seems to be way more tiny town bypasses needed to be built than heading to Abilene. Yes there are a few but not as many as the San Angelo alternative.

[motorola870]

I'd number proposed Interstate 14N as Interstate 18 (since that designation is not being used, unlike 12 and 16), and proposed Interstate 14S would be mainline Interstate 14. Of course that assumes that Interstates 14N and 14S need to be constructed in their proposed entirety, which I strongly disbelieve. When are they ever going to give the "pork" back to the farmers?

Honestly TXDOT needs to actually take into consideration the small towns they risk destroying by bypassing them and all the traffic shifting out of town. looking at this proposed routing to San Angelo honestly they would better better off just following US183 north out Lometa to Brownwood and then send it up US84 to interstate 20. The reasoning looking at the proposed routing it will affect a lot small towns that probably would lose a lot of local business while brownwood would benefit more from a bypass when San Angelo has full fledged grade separation already built. There also seems to be way more tiny town bypasses needed to be built than heading to Abilene. Yes there are a few but not as many as the San Angelo alternative. They keep screaming Odessa but I don't see how it would be cost effective. Not to mention Abilene already has grade separation on the loops I don't this interstate really has any need for being built other than a few congress critters wanting a interstate in their backyard. I mean heck the section of U.S. 287 from Amarillo to Ennis has more traffic than this and doesn't even qualify yet as an interstate but we want to send a interstate through rural Texas with very low traffic counts. They now are in the planning stages of having U.S. 287 full grade separated south of I20 to I45 with frontages roads from I20 to I45 which I believe should be the first section of the fabled interstate 32. At the current present they have built all of the bypasses not to mention it is a hurricane evacuation route.

[sparker]

I'd number proposed Interstate 14N as Interstate 18 (since that designation is not being used, unlike 12 and 16), and proposed Interstate 14S would be mainline Interstate 14. Of course that assumes that Interstates 14N and 14S need to be constructed in their proposed entirety, which I strongly disbelieve. When are they ever going to give the "pork" back to the farmers?

Honestly TXDOT needs to actually take into consideration the small towns they risk destroying by bypassing them and all the traffic shifting out of town. looking at this proposed routing to San Angelo honestly they would better better off just following US183 north out Lometa to Brownwood and then send it up US84 to interstate 20. The reasoning looking at the proposed routing it will affect a lot small towns that probably would lose a lot of local business while brownwood would benefit more from a bypass when San Angelo has full fledged grade separation already built. There also seems to be way more tiny town bypasses needed to be built than heading to Abilene. Yes there are a few but not as many as the San Angelo alternative. They keep screaming Odessa but I don't see how it would be cost effective. Not to mention Abilene already has grade separation on the loops I don't this interstate really has any need for being built other than a few congress critters wanting a interstate in their backyard. I mean heck the section of U.S. 287 from Amarillo to Ennis has more traffic than this and doesn't even qualify yet as an interstate but we want to send a interstate through rural Texas with very low traffic counts. They now are in the planning stages of having U.S. 287 full grade separated south of I20 to I45 with frontages roads from I20 to I45 which I believe should be the first section of the fabled interstate 32. At the current present they have built all of the bypasses not to mention it is a hurricane evacuation route.

The N/S split doesn't need to exist; it's only there for 2 reasons:  the original HPC #84 authorizing legislation (2015) was so brief regarding its descriptive language that it simply stated US 190 as the basic route.  The second reason stems from the first:  the "north" corridor along US 87 traverses one congressional district, while the US 190 "branch" to the south crosses another -- and both congresspersons wanted a piece of the porkpie for their district.  The congressman from the southern district (Hurd) is retiring next year; it's unclear whether his successor will be as concerned with this issue, particularly in light of the renewed interest in the Port-to-Plains corridor, which would also cross Hurd's district along US 277.   Realistically, I-14 should follow the path of population west of Brady, which means US 87 via Eden to San Angelo, the largest city along the corridor (except for Midland/Odessa, which is along a part of the projected corridor duplicated by Port-to-Plains/I-27).

But the chances are any extension of I-14 west of Lampasas is well off into the distant future; the developmental concentration is where most of the political interest is regarding the corridor, and that's the "Triangle" anchored by San Antonio, Houston, and DFW.  They've been angling for their own Interstate cutting across it for decades -- as long as it serves Bryan/College Station in the process.  The I-14 proposal does so, so it's now a matter of (a) cobbling up an exact alignment and (b) identifying funding.  Earlier posts discussed the potential for anything east of I-45 at Huntsville; the general consensus is that it won't happen unless the corridor is shifted somewhat south around Lake Livingston -- at which point it's more of a northern Houston "arc" than a central TX E-W arterial; and since E. TX politicos have inserted their fingers into the development process, there's now a designated Beaumont "branch", which, if TX historical methodology prevails, might just be prioritized over the I-14 "trunk" that heads to the state line east of Jasper.   But again all this is simply speculative right now; TxDOT and their promotional affiliates are still concentrating on I-69 and its various iterations; that's where the money is going (aside from localized projects in the major urban areas) for the near term.  Shaking loose I-14 funding may not occur for a decade or two, with the initial batch of $$ going to studies and possibly some preliminary ROW acquisition once an actual alignment is selected.  It's unlikely any significant construction save the upgrades around Copperas Cove will commence before 2030 at the earliest.   But enough locals are vested in this concept to eventually get the ball rolling, at least within the Triangle if not further west.   

[dariusb]

Is I-14's only purpose to serve Fort Hood?

[sparker]

Is I-14's only purpose to serve Fort Hood?

Until any remaining portions are funded and constructed, the answer is yes.  But it'll likely be extended east before anything west of Lampasas is even given serious study; the intrastate political support is considerably greater for a cross-Triangle alignment than one westward toward San Angelo; the precise western corridor extension alignment needs to "gel" prior to any other activity taking place.  Chances are, even with clamoring from San Angelo and Midland/Odessa, nothing will be done out that far for at least 15-20 years -- probably more.  Not something to hold one's breath over.

[silverback1065]

Is I-14's only purpose to serve Fort Hood?

no it's to waste money that could go to more useful roads.   

[sparker]

Is I-14's only purpose to serve Fort Hood?

no it's to waste money that could go to more useful roads.   

All well & good -- provided those roads (and/or the concepts to upgrade them) have some level of support -- both with the backing of interests which ostensibly would be advanced by such road development, and the compliance of the governing agencies (here, TxDOT) so the damn things can actually get built.  Re I-14:  various posters have opined that better usages for whatever funds are or will be expended on that corridor would be such things as an Austin egress corridor east toward Houston and west connecting to I-10 -- or the upgrading of US 287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo to Interstate standards (seeing as it's one of the principal non-Interstate commercial corridors in the region).  While the rationale here may be arguable and/or reasonable, the reality is that so far no parties have proffered plans for these corridors.  And since we're no longer in an era where routes can be selected primarily on the basis of merit  (the end of that 90% federal chargeability effectively truncated that concept), system expansion has been thrown into the political and economic arenas.  But the overriding working adage here is "you gotta be in it to win it".  It all comes down to: I-14 has political and official support, the alternately suggested (here) corridors don't; the funding is far from fungible.  So as long as the Interstate shield is seen as a "good thing" to communities and regions (except in urban enclaves, of course) in terms of enhanced access and salability, corridors that might otherwise never have seen the light of day will be promoted to the extent that their backers can leverage their influence.  Without a cadre of Triangle developers -- and some disgruntled citizenry out West -- I-14 would still be one of those remaining unused Interstate designations.   Now -- if reality creeps in regarding anything east of the Triangle -- plans may change (that's been discussed extensively before in this thread; no need to reiterate here).  The bottom line is that it may take the better part of the next few decades, but there will in all likelihood be an I-14 strung across the Triangle between Temple and Huntsville and passing through the Bryan/College Station area, with a western "tail" knocking on Lampasas' door.  Probably nothing east or west of there for an additional decade or so, with westerly development having the advantage of more vocal backing (and arguably easier deployment).  All we observers can do is wait, watch, and comment/criticize/blither!     

[Scott5114]

Well, if you're entexased, you can take part in the political process and kick your Congressman around until he puts his support behind whichever corridor you like, or you get him kicked out of office. For the rest of us, though...

[sparker]

Well, if you're entexased, you can take part in the political process and kick your Congressman around until he puts his support behind whichever corridor you like, or you get him kicked out of office. For the rest of us, though...

Hey -- enough TX congressfolks are resigning this term to make any future considerations questionable -- best to wait until 2021 before deciding where to apply pressure or cajoling.  But funny thing -- most of the criticism of TX corridors emanates from observers outside the state borders!   It's like people are expecting carefully considered studies, polling of local citizenry, and adherence to the type of standards common from 1956-2000 (when most of the original system had been deployed).  The present structure favors politically motivated corridors -- in fact, it comes close to demanding them -- so unless somehow a moratorium is placed on new Interstate corridors until such time that a national expansion effort replicating the '68 additions (which themselves were hardly apolitical!) is instituted -- and fat chance that such will happen with the current political environment -- we'll all just have to put up with what is proferred and simply put our two cents' worth in regarding minimizing any egregious aspects.   And as I've averred before -- the blame for all this goes back 46 years with Nixon and his cohorts effectively terminating many top-down programs in favor of the "block grant" approach, a methodology largely in place today.     

[yakra]

GMSV from November 2018 show exit numbers at 289 & west, and no numbers at 290 & east.
I'm guessing TXDOT was in the process of installing them at the time.
What's the status now; are there more numbers out there in the field?

[The Ghostbuster]

Interstate 14's exits are numbered via US 190's mileage. I doubt they will be renumbered anytime soon.

[sparker]

Interstate 14's exits are numbered via US 190's mileage. I doubt they will be renumbered anytime soon.

Unless the eventual route of I-14 is truncated in San Angelo, it's likely that TxDOT won't need to change the numbers; the mileage to Midland (at/near the junction of I-20 and TX 158) approximates the mileage to the western terminus of US 190.  But the whole situation is moot until a final alignment is selected -- and it doesn't look like that's in the cards anytime soon.

[sprjus4]

And yet they still can't put exit numbers on I-69E between I-37 and Robstown, and once the Driscoll Bypass is completed, down to Kingsville.