Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14

[Bobby5280]

Who said that any plans have actually been made to build the complete I-14 route? What money has been dedicated to it?

Just going by what has been posted in this forum regarding the topic it looks like certain well connected elites are pretty serious about converting this very porky, very wasteful, very unjustified "I-14" highway into a reality.

And, yes I agree 100%, Texas has many far more important super-highway priorities than this silly "I-14" concept. I have no problem calling it "I-135" or some other I-x35 variant. No problem at all. But it's crazy suggesting that sparse corridor as I-14.

US-290 between Houston and Austin is the most urgently needed new super-highway corridor. There just is no contest on this. I don't care if they call it I-14, I-12, I-10N or even keep it as US-290. But that corridor needs to be Interstate quality the entire way between Houston and Austin. That's the top long distance traffic priority for Central Texas.

Next one is Waco to Houston via College Station. Again, this "I-14" idea doesn't really come into play. TX-6 is a fairly high traffic corridor. It needs to be upgraded between Waco and College Station. Going farther South is a judgment call since plans call for the TX-249 toll road in NW Houston to be extended up to Navasota and the TX-6 corridor. That might forego upgrading TX-6 to freeway standards all the way down to the US-290 interchange at Hempstead.

Then there's all the I-69 related highway projects in East Texas and South Texas. A lot of projects.

And then there's other corridors in Texas that have been targeted for freeway style upgrades but never got them.

US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo is one of the most obvious. That is one very heavy trafficked corridor, one screaming for Interstate level upgrade. The "I-32" moniker has been suggested for that route. US-287 is only being improved in tiny segments. The latest development seems to be around Decatur, TX. It will be something if an Interstate level upgrade can actually happen through Decatur. US-287 has a lot of other segments with very wide ROW which would allow freeway level upgrades.

The Ports to Plains Corridor pretty much suggests I-27 be extended both North into Colorado and South down into South Texas. Establishing a Denver/Front Range Cities to Gulf Coast Interstate highway corridor would be a lot more worthwhile than some I-14 stupidity between Killeen and Alexandria, LA.

[The Ghostbuster]

I think Interstate 135 would be a far better number for this corridor than Interstate 14. Unless they upgrade US 290 to Interstate Standards from Austin to Houston, then duplex 14 with 35 for 53 miles from Austin to Belton.

[Anthony_JK]

The Ports to Plains Corridor pretty much suggests I-27 be extended both North into Colorado and South down into South Texas. Establishing a Denver/Front Range Cities to Gulf Coast Interstate highway corridor would be a lot more worthwhile than some I-14 stupidity between Killeen and Alexandria, LA.

From the Louisiana perspective, I concur 120% on the boondoggleness of I-14. A 4-lane divided highway corridor should suffice for now. LA 28 is already 4 lanes from Leesville to Alexandria, and is being planned around the city through the Alexandria Beltway as a 4-lane arterial.

How exactly would you build I-14 through Alexandria, anyway? A bypass near the former England AFB with a new bridge across the Red River to Colfax? Through existing I-49 and the Pineville Expressway?? An upgraded MacArthur Drive via the new Fort Buhlow Bridge, then upgrading US 165?

Then you would have to upgrade LA 28 east of Pineville to Archie, then US 84 from there to Ferriday/Vidalia, then cross the Mississippi River to Natchez to upgrade US 84 there to US 61. Really??

Just keep it a freewayized US 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton and call it a day.

[wxfree]

There's nothing very interesting in it, but here's the minute order that will be submitted for approval Thursday.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2016/0428/6.pdf

[Bobby5280]

I hope the order gets denied.

There's no justification for I-14 to be named along this route. The traffic counts aren't there along this corridor. Texas has too many other priorities in the state. I think there's a better chance of The Great River Bridge getting built before the end of the decade along with Mississippi's portion of I-69 than this conceptual, would-be pork-laden I-14 route getting anywhere.

It's already pretty ridiculous that we have various disconnected, nonsensical, short Interstate routes like I-97 or little disconnected parts of I-73 and I-74 in North Carolina. This is congressional ego run amok. I wish the AASHTO had the ability to put their foot down and block this political silliness. It's going to end up costing taxpayers a fortune for roads that go hardly anywhere while more important corridors go neglected.

[jbnv]

All this whining and crying about the I-14 corridor is boring. Bobby5280, your last three posts basically said the same thing. We get it that you hate this idea. You're not adding anything to the discussion.

[Bobby5280]

What I have yet to see added to this discussion is any credible explanation why that corridor is worthy of being labeled "I-14," much less developed into Interstate quality any farther. It's a waste of an Interstate designation and threatens to be a giant waste of taxpayer money.

[The Ghostbuster]

Wasting taxpayer money seems to be what politicians like to do the most.

[lordsutch]

1. I'm not certain that Interstate designations are a finite resource that we need to worry about conserving, except maybe in the edge case of 3di numbers for I-80 in California. Certainly if another I-14 is eventually needed further east, "western" I-14 won't be particularly problematic.

2. It may be the case in this instance that building the route to Interstate standards now, in the long run, is cheaper than building a rural expressway and then spot-upgrading over time.

3. That said I'd place a higher priority on the TX 71 or US 280 corridor to Austin and westward connectivity for Bryan/College Station. But I'd imagine TxDOT is much more likely to find private investors to foot the bill for a TX 71/US 280 upgrade or connections between Austin or Waco and College Station. If the revenue projections don't pan out, TxDOT gets a free or heavily discounted new-build highway if they are smart in how they structure the deal. The smart play is to use public money for the routes that don't have as strong of a private investment case, like I-14.

[Anthony_JK]

290, not 280.


I'd think that the SH 249 toll road extension to Navasota would pretty much cover upgrading 290 at least there, wouldn't it? 71 wouldn't need much of an push to upgrade, since it's already expressway standard with freeway portions; and there's only one gap on 290 that would need to be filled?

[english si]

What I have yet to see added to this discussion is any credible explanation why that corridor is worthy of being labeled "I-14,"

You live in a democracy, not a bureaucracy, and elected politicians have voted to give that number to this corridor.

If you want to be ruled by so-called experts rather than have government of by and for the people, come move over here to the EU.

[jbnv]

You live in a democracy, not a bureaucracy, and elected politicians have voted to give that number to this corridor.

Actually, it's a representative republic, but your point still holds.

[longhorn]

To get pack on topic, I-14 signs may start appearing at the end of summer, but I thinking this fall.

[Alex]

An updated on IH 14 from Jeff:

[english si]

The deadline for applications was last Monday (18th), so I would doubt they will get it in this time and will have to wait until the fall to apply.

[Henry]

Only in TX could they get away with signing I-2 and I-14 on short sections of highway that would be 3di's in most other states! We know that I-2 may eventually extend to Laredo, but are there any long-term plans for I-14, like connecting to LA or MS where the original corridor would be established?

[jbnv]

[A]re there any long-term plans for I-14, like connecting to LA or MS where the original corridor would be established?

I'm not aware of any actual plans to build I-14 across Louisiana or Mississippi. It's certainly not a high priority for Louisiana.

[silverback1065]

[A]re there any long-term plans for I-14, like connecting to LA or MS where the original corridor would be established?

I'm not aware of any actual plans to build I-14 across Louisiana or Mississippi. It's certainly not a high priority for Louisiana.

it's the idea, i highly doubt it will ever happen though.

[jbnv]

[A]re there any long-term plans for I-14, like connecting to LA or MS where the original corridor would be established?

I'm not aware of any actual plans to build I-14 across Louisiana or Mississippi. It's certainly not a high priority for Louisiana.

it's the idea, i highly doubt it will ever happen though.

Somebody thought it was a good idea to build a new interstate from Indianapolis to the Rio Grande Valley, and others thought it was crazy. Yet here we are and its happening.

[NE2]

People can't read worth shit.

[Bobby5280]

You live in a democracy, not a bureaucracy, and elected politicians have voted to give that number to this corridor.

The numbering of a highway system should not be open to meddling by ego-driven politicians. The numbering assignment, approval, etc. should indeed be left in the hands of traffic engineers rather than some jack-ass trying to shift a bunch of wasteful pork barrel spending into his district.

Somebody thought it was a good idea to build a new interstate from Indianapolis to the Rio Grande Valley, and others thought it was crazy. Yet here we are and its happening.

Only parts of that one (I-69) are happening. We might all be dead and buried before it ever gets finished. The sections of I-69 that are actually getting built in Indiana, Kentucky and Arkansas are following very crooked, distance wasting paths. Who knows when, if ever, Mississippi will build its section? Same goes for the Great River Bridge crossing. Seems like a very distant pipe dream to me. Texas is the only state building parts of I-69 that are worth a damn. By the time I-69 ever gets completed, traffic coming from Mexico headed to the Northeast US will leave that twisty I-69 corridor for other far straighter, more direct Interstate routes before they leave Texas.

[mrose]

1. I'm not certain that Interstate designations are a finite resource that we need to worry about conserving, except maybe in the edge case of 3di numbers for I-80 in California. Certainly if another I-14 is eventually needed further east, "western" I-14 won't be particularly problematic.

2. It may be the case in this instance that building the route to Interstate standards now, in the long run, is cheaper than building a rural expressway and then spot-upgrading over time.

3. That said I'd place a higher priority on the TX 71 or US 280 corridor to Austin and westward connectivity for Bryan/College Station. But I'd imagine TxDOT is much more likely to find private investors to foot the bill for a TX 71/US 280 upgrade or connections between Austin or Waco and College Station. If the revenue projections don't pan out, TxDOT gets a free or heavily discounted new-build highway if they are smart in how they structure the deal. The smart play is to use public money for the routes that don't have as strong of a private investment case, like I-14.

Agreed. It seems silly for any new E/W interstate in Texas not to include Austin.... for a city of its size, Austin has always seemed extremely underserved.

I've had a theoretical I-14 from Austin to Houston on my fictional maps for years and years.... it always made sense. Maybe the US 190 corridor is a useful one at some point, but it doesn't seem nearly as necessary as this one.

[texaskdog]

I would put the freeway along TX 71 instead of 290, then it can be extended westward as well back to I-10...someday....once traffic increases.

[Bobby5280]

The rapid population growth in the Austin and Houston metro areas makes it pretty likely TX-71 and US-290 will both need to be upgraded to Interstate quality standards between I-35 and I-10. Both routes already have significant stretches of limited access freeway.

I think Austin is more than big enough a destination to justify its own East-West freeway going out West to meet I-10 (at Exit 477). US-290 could be upgraded from that point to near Fredericksburg. But from there to Johnson City and the final stretch to Austin a good amount of new terrain route might have to be built due to development next to the existing US-290 corridor. Meanwhile TX-DOT has been slowly pushing the US-290 freeway farther West out of Austin. That should improve the possibility quite a bit.

Meanwhile, if that 25 mile stretch of US-190 gets labeled at "I-14" it's pretty much going to stay stuck at that length for a very many years. At best, 5 miles could be added by getting the road fully upgraded to the edge of Copperas Cove. Texas just has way too many other road building priorities elsewhere.

2di Interstate designations on short Interstate stubs can be confusing to drivers. We're all accustomed to short Interstates having 3 digit labels. A 1 or 2 digit route is normally meant to travel a long distance, not a measly 30 miles.

[longhorn]

If the AUS-HOU corridor was such a high priority, one would think the representatives and senators representing these districts would make a push for Fed money to get it going. Looking at the progress of I-35 going through downtown Austin, for some reason roads are not a high priority.

I-14 did not happen in a vacuum.