I-14 in Texas

[djlynch]

Having travelled TX 71 to go to the Austin area, most recently two weekends ago, I disagree that TX 71 is less efficient than US 290. TX 71 has bypasses around or through La Grange and Bastrop. The fact that it is not as well-travelled can actually make it a more efficient route. And US 290 near Houston is construction hell for the immediate future.

Quite a lot of the new growth in the metro Houston area is happening on the north side of the city. That's aiming more traffic at the US-290 corridor. There's a lot more development happening directly on that corridor. The junction of TX-71 with I-10 is roughly 50 miles West of Houston. That might be acceptable for Austin-bound traffic coming from the Southern or far Western parts of the Houston metro. But all that traffic on the North side of the metro will just keep using US-290 even if TX-71 has an Interstate designation on it.

That depends on the Austin end of the route as well. From my house south of downtown, Google Maps has 71 as the preferred way to leave Austin going to anywhere in greater Houston, and the only way it routes me to 290 instead of I-10 is if I'm getting on the northern segment of the Grand Parkway. Even 290 itself east of SH6/FM1960 gets me routed on SH 71 to I-10 to the Sam Houston Tollway.

BTW, I don't think US-290 between Austin and Houston is all that crooked. OTOH, parts of a freeway upgrade would have to be built on new terrain alignments.

It's not so much between Houston and Austin, it's between Houston and west of Austin. Following the I-35 concurrency adds a bunch of miles.

[Bobby5280]

Holy moley!!!!  Look at all them corridors!  How's a poor ol' state supposed to choose?  And how the the hell did Beaumont get to be part of all this?  It's just.......all so confusing!  How did this mess get started in the first place?  .....fuggetaboudit, Jake.....it's just Texastown!

There's one word for what the power players are dreaming about: pork.

Also notice that a corridor spur down US 83 from Eden to Junction copies what several posters here have iterated is a proper Port-to-Plains alternative; how it got sucked into the planning for this E-W corridor must be an interesting story -- unless some of the corridor promoters actually read this forum (cue the "Twilight Zone" theme).

The "L" shape of the path from San Antonio down to Junction (eating up what could be I-27) is stupid. I'd prefer a I-27 extension from San Angelo to Junction (as opposed to going through Sonora to Del Rio) in order to create a direct corridor from San Antonio up to Lubbock and Amarillo (and potentially Denver). But running the road through Eden in an L-shape is NOT the way to do it. It's just another visual example of how this jagged, saw-tooth shape I-14 corridor is really screwed up. Nothing direct at all. It's like making a freeway corridor follow the squares of an agricultural section line road grid. But we gotta include every town within 50 miles of the corridor in the highway party! Porky porky pork!

[sparker]

Holy moley!!!!  Look at all them corridors!  How's a poor ol' state supposed to choose?  And how the the hell did Beaumont get to be part of all this?  It's just.......all so confusing!  How did this mess get started in the first place?  .....fuggetaboudit, Jake.....it's just Texastown!

There's one word for what the power players are dreaming about: pork.

Also notice that a corridor spur down US 83 from Eden to Junction copies what several posters here have iterated is a proper Port-to-Plains alternative; how it got sucked into the planning for this E-W corridor must be an interesting story -- unless some of the corridor promoters actually read this forum (cue the "Twilight Zone" theme).

The "L" shape of the path from San Antonio down to Junction (eating up what could be I-27) is stupid. I'd prefer a I-27 extension from San Angelo to Junction (as opposed to going through Sonora to Del Rio) in order to create a direct corridor from San Antonio up to Lubbock and Amarillo (and potentially Denver). But running the road through Eden in an L-shape is NOT the way to do it. It's just another visual example of how this jagged, saw-tooth shape I-14 corridor is really screwed up. Nothing direct at all. It's like making a freeway corridor follow the squares of an agricultural section line road grid. But we gotta include every town within 50 miles of the corridor in the highway party! Porky porky pork!

The Texans know their pork and like it (their penchant for brisket notwithstanding!).  We all know it and recognize it, but applying our internal a priori concepts to such a statewide activity is like banging one's head against the wall -- and I, for one, ain't no masochist!  They're going to keep developing and building their long-distance corridors regardless of anyone outside of the area not served by such a facility yelling and screaming foul!  IMO, what we as observers can do is make suggestions as how the corridors they've outlined can be optimized to serve as many folks -- and regional needs -- as possible.  As far as the Eden cutoff is concerned, Bobby's made the point on previous occasions that a diagonal San Angelo-Junction alignment would be optimal to direct traffic toward San Antonio.  But my previous post, on which he's commenting, was an entreaty for a joint view of both corridors planned for West Texas -- the Port-to-Plains I-27 and I-14, and how to optimize their interaction within a workable network.  Because I included that corridor in the discussion -- and it has a specific set of points to serve within its description, including both San Angelo and Del Rio, I took that segment of the composite corridor that way; optimizing traffic down to San Antonio wasn't part of either corridor's "brief" -- although, despite it not being completely direct, something down US 277 from San Angelo to Sonora is a hell of a lot better than anything that exists today when it comes to that San Antonio connection.  BTW, one thing to notice is that Texas alignments tend to stick to existing routes rather than posit new-terrain routings; perhaps their misadventure with the Rick Perry half-mile-wide corridor concepts that tended to eat huge swaths of land wherever they were laid out has intimidated both the promoters of the newer and more pointed corridors like I-14; they avoid anything that looks like it includes massive property acquisition.  However, when actually deploying the routes, they'll pick the more efficient path; the "zigzag" I-14 stuff in the Triangle will get straightened out a bit in the final plans (the selection process of the corridor segment east of Belton/Temple is an indicator of where their head's at in this case).  Expect something between Temple and Hearne that cuts off a few corners (although they'll probably cross the Brazos floodplain along US 79, since the river is largely channelized at that point).

[US71]

Should we take bets on if I-14 is finished before I-49, I-57, I-69 or I-72 ?   

[TXtoNJ]

Having travelled TX 71 to go to the Austin area, most recently two weekends ago, I disagree that TX 71 is less efficient than US 290. TX 71 has bypasses around or through La Grange and Bastrop. The fact that it is not as well-travelled can actually make it a more efficient route. And US 290 near Houston is construction hell for the immediate future.

Quite a lot of the new growth in the metro Houston area is happening on the north side of the city. That's aiming more traffic at the US-290 corridor. There's a lot more development happening directly on that corridor. The junction of TX-71 with I-10 is roughly 50 miles West of Houston. That might be acceptable for Austin-bound traffic coming from the Southern or far Western parts of the Houston metro. But all that traffic on the North side of the metro will just keep using US-290 even if TX-71 has an Interstate designation on it.

That depends on the Austin end of the route as well. From my house south of downtown, Google Maps has 71 as the preferred way to leave Austin going to anywhere in greater Houston, and the only way it routes me to 290 instead of I-10 is if I'm getting on the northern segment of the Grand Parkway. Even 290 itself east of SH6/FM1960 gets me routed on SH 71 to I-10 to the Sam Houston Tollway.

You're 100% correct. I-10 to 71 has been the main route from everywhere south of 1960 to Austin for a long time. 290 to Hempstead is seen more as a way to get to College Station, Waco, or Brenham. The lights around Manor, in particular, are a big deterrent to taking 290.

[sparker]

Should we take bets on if I-14 is finished before I-49, I-57, I-69 or I-72 ?   

Sure!  I'll claim the "low field"; i.e., behind all of the above (for the full Midland-to-I-59 corridor).  For the TX part east to at least I-45, I'd put it behind I-49 & 57 and more or less dead even with I-69; unless MO gets a shitload of funding, I-72 will be a laggard. 

[vdeane]

Suffixed interstates are a scourge upon humanity.  A route should have ONE alignment, such that you can clinch it in one uniform drive from one end to the other (ignoring things like gas and bathroom breaks), and not split in two.

Does Suffixed US Highways are a scourge too?

I hate those too.  I do not like the idea of routes splitting and whatnot at all.  However, the interstate suffixes were otherwise phased out by AASHTO and FHWA.  The US route numbering system, however, was never modified to remove them, unlike the interstates.

[sparker]

Suffixed interstates are a scourge upon humanity.  A route should have ONE alignment, such that you can clinch it in one uniform drive from one end to the other (ignoring things like gas and bathroom breaks), and not split in two.

Does Suffixed US Highways are a scourge too?

I hate those too.  I do not like the idea of routes splitting and whatnot at all.  However, the interstate suffixes were otherwise phased out by AASHTO and FHWA.  The US route numbering system, however, was never modified to remove them, unlike the interstates.

Nevertheless, Congressfolks can and do override AASHTO and/or FHWA internal criteria; that's how the E-C-W branches of I-69 came about.  Actually, the directional references were originally simply "placeholders" within the original legislation, designed to describe the relative orientation of the branches -- but both the Alliance for I-69/Texas and their cohorts at TXDOT took a truly literalist view of the legislation, hence the field-posted suffixed shields (with more to come).   

[triplemultiplex]

It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.

[sparker]

It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.

Unlikely; they'll have enough trouble deciding on a main "spine" corridor considering intrastate regional rivalries.  My money's on a San Angelo-serving route; those folks have been uber-hungry for an Interstate for around 50 years!

[The Ghostbuster]

I still think US 190 should have gotten a 3-digit Interstate designation. I kinda doubt Interstate 14 will be extended in either direction any time soon. Although, I could be wrong since I've only been in Texas once in my life, back in late 1995.

[sparker]

I still think US 190 should have gotten a 3-digit Interstate designation. I kinda doubt Interstate 14 will be extended in either direction any time soon. Although, I could be wrong since I've only been in Texas once in my life, back in late 1995.

That wasn't going to happen in any case.  The freeway, in some form, has been around as a Ft. Hood server for several decades; if it were to be considered as an x35, that would have occurred a while back.  The I-14 designation came about because the promoters of that corridor wanted to (a) get a "foothold" on a portion of the corridor to show that they were serious folks, and (b) foment envy from other places the projected corridor would be serving to get them to "join the parade" regarding getting the whole damn thing designated and developed.  This sort of thing seems to be a budding Texas idiom -- with a few miles of I-369 signed, a few more of I-14, and the initial section of I-2 (although at 47 miles it nearly doubles the combined mileage of the first two).  Welcome to TX, where staking a claim is a way of life!

[Interstate 69 Fan]

It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.

Your correct. It's what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.

[sparker]

It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.

Your correct. It's what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.

Any documentation/press releases/etc. to confirm this?  It's difficult to think that there's enough political support for a I-14 route straight out US 190 vis-à-vis an alignment serving San Angelo and Midland/Odessa to warrant two distinct branches; the population difference alone mitigates for the northern corridor.  But then again, did anyone back in 1990 think there would ever be an Interstate route down US 281 south of George West?  Welcome to Texas-style planning! 

[cjk374]

It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.

Your correct. It's what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.

Any documentation/press releases/etc. to confirm this?  It's difficult to think that there's enough political support for a I-14 route straight out US 190 vis-à-vis an alignment serving San Angelo and Midland/Odessa to warrant two distinct branches; the population difference alone mitigates for the northern corridor.  But then again, did anyone back in 1990 think there would ever be an Interstate route down US 281 south of George West?  Welcome to Texas-style planning! 

.

But you gotta give Texas-style planning credit...they are building interstates while 47 other states can't even afford to draw lines on a map.

[hotdogPi]

It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.

Your correct. It's what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.

Any documentation/press releases/etc. to confirm this?  It's difficult to think that there's enough political support for a I-14 route straight out US 190 vis-à-vis an alignment serving San Angelo and Midland/Odessa to warrant two distinct branches; the population difference alone mitigates for the northern corridor.  But then again, did anyone back in 1990 think there would ever be an Interstate route down US 281 south of George West?  Welcome to Texas-style planning! 

.

But you gotta give Texas-style planning credit...they are building interstates while 47 other states can't even afford to draw lines on a map.

Which two are you excluding? Alaska (which doesn't need any more freeways) and North Carolina (which is doing the same as Texas)?

[longhorn]

The government has some idea of the route of this highway, because there are already mile markers and exits with numbers. Would like to know the exact route they are basing these numbers on east or west of I-14 in Central Texas.

[hotdogPi]

The government has some idea of the route of this highway, because there are already mile markers and exits with numbers. Would like to know the exact route they are basing these numbers on east or west of I-14 in Central Texas.

Numbered exits follow US 190's mile markers.

[sparker]

The government has some idea of the route of this highway, because there are already mile markers and exits with numbers. Would like to know the exact route they are basing these numbers on east or west of I-14 in Central Texas.

Numbered exits follow US 190's mile markers.

The use of the US 190 mileposts and corresponding exit numbers is an interim measure.  But since it's approximately the same distance from the end of the signed I-14 freeway at Copperas Cove to both the west end of US 190 and somewhere around Midland, where the northern corridor option is intended to intersect I-20 -- even if the numbers eventually changed, it probably wouldn't be by very much. 

[cjk374]

It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.

Your correct. It's what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.

Any documentation/press releases/etc. to confirm this?  It's difficult to think that there's enough political support for a I-14 route straight out US 190 vis-à-vis an alignment serving San Angelo and Midland/Odessa to warrant two distinct branches; the population difference alone mitigates for the northern corridor.  But then again, did anyone back in 1990 think there would ever be an Interstate route down US 281 south of George West?  Welcome to Texas-style planning! 

.

But you gotta give Texas-style planning credit...they are building interstates while 47 other states can't even afford to draw lines on a map.

Which two are you excluding? Alaska (which doesn't need any more freeways) and North Carolina (which is doing the same as Texas)?

I was just counting the contiguous 48 states. I didn't think AK or HI were building interstates.

[silverback1065]

It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.

Your correct. It's what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.

Any documentation/press releases/etc. to confirm this?  It's difficult to think that there's enough political support for a I-14 route straight out US 190 vis-à-vis an alignment serving San Angelo and Midland/Odessa to warrant two distinct branches; the population difference alone mitigates for the northern corridor.  But then again, did anyone back in 1990 think there would ever be an Interstate route down US 281 south of George West?  Welcome to Texas-style planning! 

.

But you gotta give Texas-style planning credit...they are building interstates while 47 other states can't even afford to draw lines on a map.

Which two are you excluding? Alaska (which doesn't need any more freeways) and North Carolina (which is doing the same as Texas)?

I was just counting the contiguous 48 states. I didn't think AK or HI were building interstates.

I-H1, H2, H3, and H201

[sparker]

I was just counting the contiguous 48 states. I didn't think AK or HI were building interstates.

I-H1, H2, H3, and H201

I think the reference was to current Interstate development, not what's on the ground presently.  The HI interstate contingent has been built to the designated maximum; it doesn't look like any additions to or expansion of the system is forthcoming.

[wxfree]

In a modestly interesting non-highway development, the National Weather Service office in Fort Worth made reference to this road today.  Weather people use highways to describe areas for obvious reasons. I don't read every forecast discussion, but this is the first time I've noticed I-14 in one.

"Convection was continuing to decay across Central Texas south of the I-14 corridor early this morning in the vicinity of an old frontal boundary."  It's a sign of increasing societal awareness of the new designation, using it for purposes other than travel or road interest, including geographical awareness in terms of where one lives in relation to the road.

[longhorn]

In a modestly interesting non-highway development, the National Weather Service office in Fort Worth made reference to this road today.  Weather people use highways to describe areas for obvious reasons. I don't read every forecast discussion, but this is the first time I've noticed I-14 in one.

"Convection was continuing to decay across Central Texas south of the I-14 corridor early this morning in the vicinity of an old frontal boundary."  It's a sign of increasing societal awareness of the new designation, using it for purposes other than travel or road interest, including geographical awareness in terms of where one lives in relation to the road.

Interesting, alot of locals, still say," highway 190" or "Centex Expressway" but lately the news has been referring to it as, "I-14".

[sparker]

In a modestly interesting non-highway development, the National Weather Service office in Fort Worth made reference to this road today.  Weather people use highways to describe areas for obvious reasons. I don't read every forecast discussion, but this is the first time I've noticed I-14 in one.

"Convection was continuing to decay across Central Texas south of the I-14 corridor early this morning in the vicinity of an old frontal boundary."  It's a sign of increasing societal awareness of the new designation, using it for purposes other than travel or road interest, including geographical awareness in terms of where one lives in relation to the road.

Interesting, alot of locals, still say," highway 190" or "Centex Expressway" but lately the news has been referring to it as, "I-14".

Of course -- repeat it enough times and it'll become idiomatic.  Enough parties in Central TX want to see this corridor developed, so they enlist the local media as supporters of their program.  It's not just a Texas thing -- such tactics are widespread -- but this state seems to have been particularly effective at it; securing I-14 in the common lexicon is a wholly expected initial step.