I-14 in Texas

[thisdj78]

Betweeen Austin and Houston US-290 appears to be farther along with Interstate quality improvements than the TX-71 corridor. 

I would say the opposite is true. In terms of limited access corridor, SH71 is further along with bypasses around all major towns along the way (Bastrop, Smithville and LaGrange). On 290, you still have Manor, Elgin, Giddings and the western part of Brenham that need bypasses.

The red lines below show parts of the highways that still need to be converted to limited access....by far 290 has more mileage that needs work:

[roadman65]

Looks like TexDOT signs I-14 onto the super two after Killeen despite it not being that road beyond the split of US 190 and US 190 Business and TX SH 9.   Also many ramps along I-14 are not yet signed for the interstate and the eastern part close to I-35 has no exit numbers yet.   

I am guessing its taking time to shield and number all the exits.  Ditto for I-369 in Texarkana as that designation is also only signed on the freeway and from the US 59 interchange as well as I-30.  US 80 and the other interchanges have only a US 59 shield at their ramps.

[longhorn]

Looks like TexDOT signs I-14 onto the super two after Killeen despite it not being that road beyond the split of US 190 and US 190 Business and TX SH 9.   Also many ramps along I-14 are not yet signed for the interstate and the eastern part close to I-35 has no exit numbers yet.   

I am guessing its taking time to shield and number all the exits.  Ditto for I-369 in Texarkana as that designation is also only signed on the freeway and from the US 59 interchange as well as I-30.  US 80 and the other interchanges have only a US 59 shield at their ramps.

Are you referring to this?
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1217192,-97.8523777,3a,60y,271.73h,89.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQt15CBBGz6zXhdIMH56yzw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The 190/BUS 190 split east of Copperas Cove? This is technically where I-14 ends though the sign shows it continuing on the CC bypass.

[Bobby5280]

Is there any time table when the second set of lanes will be added to the 4.5 miles of limited access Super 2 around the South side of Copperas Cove? And then there is the issue of where a potential I-14 could be built West of the intersection of US-190 and FM-2657. The ROW gets narrow past that intersection to Kempner and on over to Lampasas. I-14 would probably have to be built on a new alignment rather than attempt to upgrade that 16 miles of US-190. These are just the baby steps of trying to push that highway West.

Of course there are issues just as big (if not worse) for pushing I-14 through the Temple area and on toward College Station.

[longhorn]

Is there any time table when the second set of lanes will be added to the 4.5 miles of limited access Super 2 around the South side of Copperas Cove? And then there is the issue of where a potential I-14 could be built West of the intersection of US-190 and FM-2657. The ROW gets narrow past that intersection to Kempner and on over to Lampasas. I-14 would probably have to be built on a new alignment rather than attempt to upgrade that 16 miles of US-190. These are just the baby steps of trying to push that highway West.

The project was suppose to be four lanes, but reduced to two for cost and faster approval. The intersection with FM2657 was supposed to be an overpass, but again, a stop light was cheaper. The I-14 expansion through Killeen was greatly reduced compared to what TXDOT had plans for, again, it was about money and getting fast approvals.

The major push right now on I-14 is expansion to 3x3 lanes from Harker Heights to I-35 in Belton. Do not expect anything near term or long term west of Copperas Cove. The action will be east from Temple to I-45. There is alot of traffic from Central Texas area to Houston and to access I-10. At a minimum expect plans for an extension to highway 6 north of Bryan.
Of course there are issues just as big (if not worse) for pushing I-14 through the Temple area and on toward College Station.

Fixed quote - Alex

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^
As I've iterated previously, there are two separate interest groups promoting I-14:  the central "triangle" TX group, centered around Bryan (and probably consisting of quite a few A&M grads & boosters), who see the route as an enhancement of access to, alternately, Houston and the I-35 corridor.  The second group is the coalition of populated W. Texas areas, primarily San Angelo and Midland/Odessa; they have their own agenda, partly fomented by the historic inaction on the longstanding Port-to-Plains proposal; they see I-14 as an alternative form of connection to the rest of the Interstate system (and with M/O, an outlet to the southeast).  But since the P-to-P has been haltingly revived, it's likely that any corridor plans, be they labeled I-14 or I-27, will depend upon how the two backing groups can meld their concepts into something relatively efficient and non-duplicative.  So for the near term, the advantage lies with the "Triangle" folks; slicing I-14 across the midsection of the triangle and serving the Bryan/State College area in the process will likely see a substantive level of development before anything west of Lampasas -- at least until the corridors west of there are winnowed down to something doable and acceptable to the parties involved.  The practical endpoints of the eastern portion -- Temple and Huntsville, with Bryan/State College as an interim touch-point, have been established -- it's now down to the details.  Out west, not so much -- they're still dicking around with multiple corridors due to pressure from multiple congressional districts -- that will have to be resolved prior to any finalization of routing and/or further steps toward actually building something.   This whole process will be a fun if bumpy ride -- I only hope I'll be around to see how it washes out in the long run!

[RoadMaster09]

US-290 needs to be Interstate quality 100% of the way between Austin and the NW side of Houston. So far it's Interstate quality only about 1/3 of the way. A good case could be made for upgrading TX-71 from Austin to I-10 as well. The road is currently 4-laned the whole way with a few freeway bypasses along the way. Both corridors connect metros of 2 million and 6 million people.

A Temple-College Station-Huntsville corridor might be worthwhile turning into an Interstate, but not in the "W" shape the planners have it drawn on the maps. Still connections between Houston and Austin should rate as a bigger priority. Even the extension of the TX-249 toll road from Tomball to Navasota should be a higher priority.

Agreed that the connection of two major metros badly needs an Interstate-grade connection. However, the only number that fits that is a western I-12.

[sparker]

........And yet there hasn't been much of a peep emanating from Austin regarding a direct Interstate-grade connector.  By this time, it just might be concluded that the good Austinians don't really care if they can get to Houston 20 or 30 minutes faster than now.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if the prevailing attitude there is "if we make it easier for folks to get their butts over here, the line at Franklin's will just get even longer than it is now!"   

[thisdj78]

........And yet there hasn't been much of a peep emanating from Austin regarding a direct Interstate-grade connector.  By this time, it just might be concluded that the good Austinians don't really care if they can get to Houston 20 or 30 minutes faster than now.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if the prevailing attitude there is "if we make it easier for folks to get their butts over here, the line at Franklin's will just get even longer than it is now!"   

Upcoming work on SH71 east of Bergstrom Airport will make that reality closer. Once complete,  there will be no more stoplights between Austin and Bastrop which should cut a trip to Houston by about 15 minutes. After that, a bypass of Ellinger is needed and removal of a few at grade crossings.

[ethanhopkin14]

US-290 needs to be Interstate quality 100% of the way between Austin and the NW side of Houston. So far it's Interstate quality only about 1/3 of the way. A good case could be made for upgrading TX-71 from Austin to I-10 as well. The road is currently 4-laned the whole way with a few freeway bypasses along the way. Both corridors connect metros of 2 million and 6 million people.

A Temple-College Station-Huntsville corridor might be worthwhile turning into an Interstate, but not in the "W" shape the planners have it drawn on the maps. Still connections between Houston and Austin should rate as a bigger priority. Even the extension of the TX-249 toll road from Tomball to Navasota should be a higher priority.

The SH 71 Corridor upgraded to and interstate (I have been pushing for Interstate 18) makes more sense to me as an Austinite.  US 290 is slow and hard to get to from north and south Austin, plus SH 71 connected with US 290 west of Austin (Austin-Fredericksburg to Junction) would serve as not only a El Paso-Austin-Houston connection, but would inadvertently serve as a San Antonio bypass for I-10 long-haul traffic since that route is shorter.  SH 71 is s more direct route to Austin from I-10 then US 290 is from Austin to Houston. 

It would serve as 90 degree twist of I-35E and I-35W for the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, 

[sparker]

It's entirely possible that the choice between US 290 and the combination TX 71/I-10 route between Austin & Houston will come down to what the defined roles of the corridor would be:  (a) simply as a way to get between two large metro areas, or (b) as a "relief route", to divert Austin-bound traffic away from I-10 (which would end up benefiting San Antonio in the process).  If the former, it's likely the most cost-effective route would be via TX 71, as it requires less overall mileage requiring upgrade; if the latter, then US 290 would prevail, since the most regularly congested portion of I-10 is from Houston itself west to about Sealy -- not too far east of Columbus, where TX 71 diverges -- and incorporating that portion of I-10 into the Austin corridor wouldn't relieve that situation.  Not that US 290 from I-610 to Hempstead is a picnic; if an Austin-bound corridor eventually is deployed over 290, the easternmost section will certainly require a substantial capacity expansion. 

Question: are there any existing studies intended to determine which of the two potential Interstate corridors is currently favored by drivers -- broken down into commercial and general samples?  Something tells me not (although I would be pleasantly surprised if there actually was something out there!), since Austin interests don't seem all that interested in expediting development of such a corridor -- and studies do cost significant money -- and are generally a prerequisite to any actual physical development.   And that's the difference between an Austin-Houston corridor and I-14 across the Triangle -- there are parties putting money into the preliminary stages of the latter, while the former goes largely unaddressed.  Like the old adage goes -- money talks, bullshit (in this case, official inaction) walks!     

[MaxConcrete]

Question: are there any existing studies intended to determine which of the two potential Interstate corridors is currently favored by drivers -- broken down into commercial and general samples?     

No, I'm not aware of any studies on the corridor.

In fact, I don't recall ever seeing/hearing any official communication (government or business group) promoting the idea of upgrading US 290 or SH 71 to an interstate, or to full interstate standards. My view is that the suggestions/speculation for a Houston-Austin interstate is strictly limited to this AARoads forum.

A Houston-Austin interstate-quality highway would make much more sense than some of the pie-in-the-sky interstate proposals which are being promoted by official entities, for example I-27 extension, I-14 and some of I-69 (mainly I-69W).

On a related note, I drove the US 290 corridor from Houston to Austin recently, and construction is just underway to upgrade 4-lane-undivided sections to 4-lane divided, including substantially increasing the ROW width. (There will be one remaining 4-lane-undivided section maybe 5-10 miles after the work in progress is done.) But it is just making the highway consistent with adjacent 4-lane divided sections, and is not limited-access. It's my expectation that US 290 between Hempstead and Elgin will never be more than a 4-lane divided highway (except for the short freeway section at Brenham). The main slowdown point is Giddings, and there are no projects in the TxDOT UTP (10-year-plan) for the Giddings area.

Since the cost of upgrading SH 71 to Interstate standards would be much lower than upgrading US 290, I would expect SH 71 to be upgraded if there ever is a push for full limited access between Houston and Austin.

[jbnv]

if an Austin-bound corridor eventually is deployed over 290, the easternmost section will certainly require a substantial capacity expansion. 

Does this include the massive rebuild and expansion of 290 in metro Houston that has already taken place this decade?

[thisdj78]

Question: are there any existing studies intended to determine which of the two potential Interstate corridors is currently favored by drivers -- broken down into commercial and general samples?     

Since the cost of upgrading SH 71 to Interstate standards would be much lower than upgrading US 290, I would expect SH 71 to be upgraded if there ever is a push for full limited access between Houston and Austin.

There are plans to eliminate the remaining stop lights between Bastrop and the 130 toll.

Not sure if the plans include removing all other at grade crossings, but it will put 71 much closer to being completely limited access.

[thisdj78]

Info on the SH71 plans:

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/austin/sh-71-east-corridor-study.html

[sparker]

Info on the SH71 plans:

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/austin/sh-71-east-corridor-study.html

From the info given, this sounds more like a local improvement out to Bastrop -- essentially considering that town as an Austin exurb and TX 71 as a local artery to be improved to benefit commuter traffic within the MPO.  I know -- "baby steps" -- but until some sort of comprehensive plan for a full-length treatment of TX 71 (or US 290, for that matter) specifically as an interregional corridor is proffered, it's likely that whatever is done will be in the realm of Austin-area localized congestion relief. 

[thisdj78]

Info on the SH71 plans:

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/austin/sh-71-east-corridor-study.html

From the info given, this sounds more like a local improvement out to Bastrop -- essentially considering that town as an Austin exurb and TX 71 as a local artery to be improved to benefit commuter traffic within the MPO.  I know -- "baby steps" -- but until some sort of comprehensive plan for a full-length treatment of TX 71 (or US 290, for that matter) specifically as an interregional corridor is proffered, it's likely that whatever is done will be in the realm of Austin-area localized congestion relief.

Yes it is, but it is a big baby step. The improvements could shave off 15+ minutes between Austin and Houston. So I consider that stretch a big hurdle in becoming 100% full access.

[sprjus4]

If a TX-71 full interstate buildout between Austin and Houston was pursued, how would the stupid two-lane toll freeway "bypass" constructed near the TX-130 interchange be upgraded to be a seamless 4-lane freeway movement? Not really seeing how that could be expanded into a four-lane facility.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1984018,-97.6302211,3865m/data=!3m1!1e3

[sparker]

If a TX-71 full interstate buildout between Austin and Houston was pursued, how would the stupid two-lane toll freeway "bypass" constructed near the TX-130 interchange be upgraded to be a seamless 4-lane freeway movement? Not really seeing how that could be expanded into a four-lane facility.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1984018,-97.6302211,3865m/data=!3m1!1e3

Double-deck it and hope it's not near a fault line!

[thisdj78]

If a TX-71 full interstate buildout between Austin and Houston was pursued, how would the stupid two-lane toll freeway "bypass" constructed near the TX-130 interchange be upgraded to be a seamless 4-lane freeway movement? Not really seeing how that could be expanded into a four-lane facility.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1984018,-97.6302211,3865m/data=!3m1!1e3

The current bridge would eventually become the eastbound lanes. The additional lanes would be built as a separate bridge for westbound traffic, the ROW is there for the expansion.

[longhorn]

While its baffling that 290 has not been upgraded all these years, decades really. It has no bearing on I-14 and its plans. Apparently TxDot does not see it as an urgent issue or the NIMBYS in the small towns along the way has let their state congressmen know they like it as is.

[Bobby5280]

The SH 71 Corridor upgraded to and interstate (I have been pushing for Interstate 18) makes more sense to me as an Austinite.  US 290 is slow and hard to get to from north and south Austin, plus SH 71 connected with US 290 west of Austin (Austin-Fredericksburg to Junction) would serve as not only a El Paso-Austin-Houston connection, but would inadvertently serve as a San Antonio bypass for I-10 long-haul traffic since that route is shorter.  SH 71 is s more direct route to Austin from I-10 then US 290 is from Austin to Houston.

It would be easier/cheaper to upgrade TX-71 between Austin and Columbus, TX. But such an upgrade would be of no benefit to Austin-bound traffic coming from the Northern parts of the Houston metro. That's where most of the growth is taking place. There's a lot of development activity out West in places like Katy, Cinco Ranch, etc. But more is happening North and in higher dollar value, higher income segments. US-290 is the main pathway to Austin for those residents.

I'm not against upgrading TX-71 to full Interstate standards. As big as both the Houston and Austin metros are, and considering how fast they're growing, I don't think it's out of line to suggest both US-290 and TX-71 may both eventually have to be upgraded to full Interstate standards. On top of that there are other corridor "spokes" between I-10 and I-35 TX DOT will have to watch and likely develop as the space between Austin and San Antonio rapidly fills in with development. Places like San Marcos and New Braunfels are among the fastest growing cities in the US. TX-80 between San Marcos and Luling (I-10) is mostly a dinky 2 lane road now. TX-46 between New Braunfels and Seguin is an undivided 4-lane road.

Regarding the function of either corridor as a bypass route for long distance traffic, TX-71 would certainly help long distance traffic bypass San Antonio, if the US-290 corridor was improved West of Austin to I-10. That also depends on the TX-45 toll road getting properly completed. The 3.5 mile gap between I-35 and FM-1626 (where the new orphan segment of TX-45 ends) has to be filled in. Plus the Western end of TX-45 has to be extended out West to meet US-290. And then US-290 itself needs to be improved. There are plans to extend the US-290 freeway West about 3.5 miles. But it really has to get out past Dripping Springs to get into more "easy" expansion territory.

US-290 in conjunction with the Grand Parkway can function as a bypass for Houston. It would really be great as a relief route if the US-90 corridor between Beaumont and Dayton was upgraded. The TX-71 concept would put traffic bypassing San Antonio on a path to the center of Houston.

[ethanhopkin14]

The SH 71 Corridor upgraded to and interstate (I have been pushing for Interstate 18) makes more sense to me as an Austinite.  US 290 is slow and hard to get to from north and south Austin, plus SH 71 connected with US 290 west of Austin (Austin-Fredericksburg to Junction) would serve as not only a El Paso-Austin-Houston connection, but would inadvertently serve as a San Antonio bypass for I-10 long-haul traffic since that route is shorter.  SH 71 is s more direct route to Austin from I-10 then US 290 is from Austin to Houston.

It would be easier/cheaper to upgrade TX-71 between Austin and Columbus, TX. But such an upgrade would be of no benefit to Austin-bound traffic coming from the Northern parts of the Houston metro. That's where most of the growth is taking place. There's a lot of development activity out West in places like Katy, Cinco Ranch, etc. But more is happening North and in higher dollar value, higher income segments. US-290 is the main pathway to Austin for those residents.

I'm not against upgrading TX-71 to full Interstate standards. As big as both the Houston and Austin metros are, and considering how fast they're growing, I don't think it's out of line to suggest both US-290 and TX-71 may both eventually have to be upgraded to full Interstate standards. On top of that there are other corridor "spokes" between I-10 and I-35 TX DOT will have to watch and likely develop as the space between Austin and San Antonio rapidly fills in with development. Places like San Marcos and New Braunfels are among the fastest growing cities in the US. TX-80 between San Marcos and Luling (I-10) is mostly a dinky 2 lane road now. TX-46 between New Braunfels and Seguin is an undivided 4-lane road.

Regarding the function of either corridor as a bypass route for long distance traffic, TX-71 would certainly help long distance traffic bypass San Antonio, if the US-290 corridor was improved West of Austin to I-10. That also depends on the TX-45 toll road getting properly completed. The 3.5 mile gap between I-35 and FM-1626 (where the new orphan segment of TX-45 ends) has to be filled in. Plus the Western end of TX-45 has to be extended out West to meet US-290. And then US-290 itself needs to be improved. There are plans to extend the US-290 freeway West about 3.5 miles. But it really has to get out past Dripping Springs to get into more "easy" expansion territory.

US-290 in conjunction with the Grand Parkway can function as a bypass for Houston. It would really be great as a relief route if the US-90 corridor between Beaumont and Dayton was upgraded. The TX-71 concept would put traffic bypassing San Antonio on a path to the center of Houston.

Even as a pusher of the SH 71 corridor being an interstate, I agree with everything you just said.  I have been pushing for 71 since it would be the cheaper, faster, less damaging upgrade (except some parts west of Austin on US 290) of the corridors, but you are correct, both 290 and 71 need to be upgraded, and the combination of 290 to 90 to Beaumont would be a good Houston by pass, and the 71 corridor would be a San Antonio bypass to keep everyone from going way south for long haul westbound traffic.  I want to beat some bushes, but I just don't know where to start.  I have written Texas congressmen, but I guess I just have to keep writing. 

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
If you're from Austin, the only congressmen to whom you should be writing are your own as well as anyone from the districts along TX 71 and US 290 (including the portion west of Austin all the way to I-10).  Having personally dealt with the Alliance for I-69/Texas, it has become clear that the representatives are almost exclusively interested in those projects within their own districts -- which accounts for the "clusterfuck" in West Texas that is the I-14 multiple-corridor concept ("you get a corridor, you get a corridor.......everyone gets a corridor!")  And now that the Port-to-Plains has been tentatively revived, attention from anyone west of Brady and Junction is on that project.  So concentrate any efforts on those who can claim credit for "bringing home the bacon", so to speak!

[sprjus4]

^^^^^^^^^
If you're from Austin, the only congressmen to whom you should be writing are your own as well as anyone from the districts along TX 71 and US 290 (including the portion west of Austin all the way to I-10).  Having personally dealt with the Alliance for I-69/Texas, it has become clear that the representatives are almost exclusively interested in those projects within their own districts -- which accounts for the "clusterfuck" in West Texas that is the I-14 multiple-corridor concept ("you get a corridor, you get a corridor.......everyone gets a corridor!")  And now that the Port-to-Plains has been tentatively revived, attention from anyone west of Brady and Junction is on that project.  So concentrate any efforts on those who can claim credit for "bringing home the bacon", so to speak!

I thought North Carolina was bad 

Four I-69s, and now multiple I-14s?