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

[Bobby5280]

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.

Politicians in that area are probably taking it for granted both US-290 and TX-71 will be upgraded to freeways for the entire length between I-10 and I-35. On the other hand the political wrangling around this stupid I-14 idea is having to take place simply because the idea is just so stupid.

Regarding I-35 in downtown Austin, that's just one project and it's the most difficult highway to upgrade in that area. Plenty of other freeways/tollways have been built there in the past 20 or so years and other upgrade projects are in progress or planned. They're just building out the projects that are more practical to build and putting off I-35 in downtown until they can get to it.

I-14 did not happen in a vacuum.

No, not a vacuum. More like an environment of wasteful, pork-barrel, political cronyism. This I-14 proposal in Texas has absolutely nothing to do with responding to the needs of moving traffic and trends of traffic growth. The traffic counts are just not there to support it. Texas has at least half or dozen or more other corridors far more worthy of upgrading than this one.

[jbnv]

I-14 did not happen in a vacuum.

No, not a vacuum. More like an environment of wasteful, pork-barrel, political cronyism. This I-14 proposal in Texas has absolutely nothing to do with responding to the needs of moving traffic and trends of traffic growth. The traffic counts are just not there to support it. Texas has at least half or dozen or more other corridors far more worthy of upgrading than this one.

[/quote]

You clearly don't get it.

Read this.

Fort Hood is the largest military facility in Texas. Fort Hood not only sits right on the I-14 corridor but is a big part of the justification for I-14.

Texas wants a highway that connects Fort Hood to Fort Polk, other bases in the south and ultimately the Atlantic Ocean at Savannah. They want this highway to facilitate military deployment across the Southeast, and to improve connections between the ports of the Gulf Coast and these military facilities.

Why would Texas want a highway to facilitate military deployment across the Southeast? And want it enough to get Congress to designate a corridor for it?

Think about it...

[Bobby5280]

You clearly don't get it.

Oh yes I do get it. The I-14 idea is still stupid. And trying to attach any strategic military use to it makes it even more stupid. The old fart politicians pushing this pork are wrongly using the military as a means for selling this project.

Despite the original name of the Interstate Highway system (the word "defense" was in there), such highways aren't very necessary for moving military hardware. I live next door to Fort Sill, home of the Army's Field Artillery School, Air Defense Artillery School, Army Basic training, etc. The Army moves a lot more heavy equipment in and out of the post using railroads and air cargo flights than they do putting anything on I-44. The same thing applies even more to Fort Hood. That post has an even bigger rail head and airport than Fort Sill, due to being home to the First Armored Division and First Cavalry Division. Another example is the Marine Corps' Repair Division on their base in Albany, GA. There's no Interstate highway there, yet they have everything from Humvees to M-1 Abrams tanks going in and out of their huge repair and maintenance facility (via rail mostly) on a routine basis. The railroads are more efficient than using highways for hauling really big loads of equipment. Air cargo flights deploy military hardware far faster than trying to truck it along a freeway.

If having these posts connected by Interstate highway was so important why hasn't an Interstate been built to connect Lawton and Killeen? There is a shit-ton of military activity going back and forth between Fort Hood and Fort Sill. Why isn't Lawton and Altus connected by an Interstate? It's just 50 miles between Fort Sill and Altus Air Force Base? The answer is such a highway is not needed -at least not for moving military hardware.

As for this strategic notion of being able to deploy US military units across a corridor in the Deep South, there's big problems with that idea. First you have the Posse Comitatus Act. It greatly restricts military movement within the country and explicitly forbids any administration to use our military to enforce domestic policy on our citizens. The only way how our military could be legally deployed into action within our borders was in case of an invasion. Such a scenario is highly unlikely. Any attempted invasion would run into many huge problems.

One of the original strategic uses meant for the Interstate highway system was rapid deployment of mobile nuclear missile launchers on heavy trucks. Those don't have the inter-continental range of a silo-based ICBM. There aren't any countries in our hemisphere we're tempted to nuke. So it's basically an outdated, cold war era idea. Most of our short-range, strategic nukes are deployed on ships, submarines and bombers. Our military has actually decommissioned thousands of nukes because they're not really needed.

[aboges26]

You clearly don't get it.

Oh yes I do get it. The I-14 idea is still stupid. And trying to attach any strategic military use to it makes it even more stupid. The old fart politicians pushing this pork are wrongly using the military as a means for selling this project.

Despite the original name of the Interstate Highway system (the word "defense" was in there), such highways aren't very necessary for moving military hardware. I live next door to Fort Sill, home of the Army's Field Artillery School, Air Defense Artillery School, Army Basic training, etc. The Army moves a lot more heavy equipment in and out of the post using railroads and air cargo flights than they do putting anything on I-44. The same thing applies even more to Fort Hood. That post has an even bigger rail head and airport than Fort Sill, due to being home to the First Armored Division and First Cavalry Division. Another example is the Marine Corps' Repair Division on their base in Albany, GA. There's no Interstate highway there, yet they have everything from Humvees to M-1 Abrams tanks going in and out of their huge repair and maintenance facility (via rail mostly) on a routine basis. The railroads are more efficient than using highways for hauling really big loads of equipment. Air cargo flights deploy military hardware far faster than trying to truck it along a freeway.

If having these posts connected by Interstate highway was so important why hasn't an Interstate been built to connect Lawton and Killeen? There is a shit-ton of military activity going back and forth between Fort Hood and Fort Sill. Why isn't Lawton and Altus connected by an Interstate? It's just 50 miles between Fort Sill and Altus Air Force Base? The answer is such a highway is not needed -at least not for moving military hardware.

As for this strategic notion of being able to deploy US military units across a corridor in the Deep South, there's big problems with that idea. First you have the Posse Comitatus Act. It greatly restricts military movement within the country and explicitly forbids any administration to use our military to enforce domestic policy on our citizens. The only way how our military could be legally deployed into action within our borders was in case of an invasion. Such a scenario is highly unlikely. Any attempted invasion would run into many huge problems.

One of the original strategic uses meant for the Interstate highway system was rapid deployment of mobile nuclear missile launchers on heavy trucks. Those don't have the inter-continental range of a silo-based ICBM. There aren't any countries in our hemisphere we're tempted to nuke. So it's basically an outdated, cold war era idea. Most of our short-range, strategic nukes are deployed on ships, submarines and bombers. Our military has actually decommissioned thousands of nukes because they're not really needed.

More so than rail, SHIPPING is the cheapest option.  The port of Beaumont is the busiest port handling US Military equipment.  Trucking things is sometimes more ideal than rail, and when it is, you are going to want to avoid Houston, Austin, San Antonio, etc.  The ease of passing through no large cities and having a clear route across the deep south that connects our Forts and Ports is what most civilians are missing.

I am going to hold my judgement until the experts, not the armchair roadgeeks and self-proclaimed "experts", say whether this is a good idea or not.  No crap our country's in debt up to its eyeballs, but I sure hate driving through Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, even Jackson and Birmingham.  I-14 would no doubt induce demand from long distance truckers and travelers alone, not to mention would be built on new terrain corridors that are NOT as crooked as US 190.

It's idiotic to ASS-UME that the interstate would follow every twist and turn of the US Highway that it is to replace.  It would be most cost effective to build straight-line wherever possible while still connecting the major points, so there is no need to proclaim that it is going to be crooked, because are you a DOT official working on the project?  Or are you assuming?

This interstate will not be built in the next 10 years and it is not going to be what breaks the bank (healthcare, social security, and CIVIL SERVANT SALARIES AND BENEFITS are sure more than an interstate ever could be).  If anyone has had to travel across central Texas at night, in the rain, worring about deer, hogs, or exotics crossing the roadway in front of you, then you would wish for the safety of an interstate highway to travel on.  When considering only current traffic counts you lose sight of the increased safety and mobility that your tax dollars would be funding.

Instead of griping over government "waste" on improved transportation, how about gripe over governmental overreach and debt in every other aspect of our lives (I would list some, but I digress).  If you have so much passion against I-14, then have passion against every other thing that taxpayer money goes towards, and instead of patting yourself on the back after posting something on the internet, how about you get involved in your community by starting an organized protest or something that is more constructive than complaining where road-interested individuals are just trying to find out the latest information on the current high profile projects.

[TXtoNJ]

I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of the impetus for this highway is to get an interstate through Bryan/College Station, since Austin has one.

[longhorn]

I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of the impetus for this highway is to get an interstate through Bryan/College Station, since Austin has one.

Having a divided highway from Temple to Cameron to Hearne will allow Central Texas traffic to Houston a safer route. I too do not think it will follow the crooked 190 route to Hearne.

[jbnv]

It's not going to follow the crooked US 190 route. The terrain is reasonably flat in that part of Texas.

[The Ghostbuster]

If this thread goes on much longer, our heads are probably going to explode.

[NE2]

If this thread goes on much longer, our heads are probably going to explode.

Then why do you keep it going with inane posts?

[Bobby5280]

More so than rail, SHIPPING is the cheapest option.

Killeen and Fort Hood aren't near a shipping port.

The port of Beaumont is the busiest port handling US Military equipment.  Trucking things is sometimes more ideal than rail, and when it is, you are going to want to avoid Houston, Austin, San Antonio, etc.  The ease of passing through no large cities and having a clear route across the deep south that connects our Forts and Ports is what most civilians are missing.

Not much military equipment is suitable for moving from one post to another via truck. Trucking also works best for smaller loads going to a variety of places. Trucking also has a disadvantage in that a semi truck isn't as secure as a freight train. A truck or a ship isn't going to be as fast as a cargo plane when certain pieces of heavy military equipment need to be transported from the US to a foreign combat zone fast.

It's idiotic to ASS-UME that the interstate would follow every twist and turn of the US Highway that it is to replace.

Look at I-69. That's a freaking crooked, inefficient road. Look at the huge swing the Belle Vista Bypass is curving far away from US-71.

The United States can't seem to build a super highway fairly direct anymore. New highway paths are affected by NIMBY lawsuits, high property costs, environmental hurdles and politics. And this I-14 thing is all to do about politics. Various communities will demand the road go this way or that. So, while I-14 may not follow its proposed and very crooked path exactly, the route (if it's ever built) will definitely be a pretty crooked road.

This interstate will not be built in the next 10 years and it is not going to be what breaks the bank (healthcare, social security, and CIVIL SERVANT SALARIES AND BENEFITS are sure more than an interstate ever could be).  If anyone has had to travel across central Texas at night, in the rain, worring about deer, hogs, or exotics crossing the roadway in front of you, then you would wish for the safety of an interstate highway to travel on.  When considering only current traffic counts you lose sight of the increased safety and mobility that your tax dollars would be funding.

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia all have other important road projects that are a much higher priority than this I-14 crap.

Instead of griping over government "waste" on improved transportation, how about gripe over governmental overreach and debt in every other aspect of our lives (I would list some, but I digress).  If you have so much passion against I-14, then have passion against every other thing that taxpayer money goes towards, and instead of patting yourself on the back after posting something on the internet, how about you get involved in your community by starting an organized protest or something that is more constructive than complaining where road-interested individuals are just trying to find out the latest information on the current high profile projects.

That crap is irrelevant. We're talking about highway development projects. Not trying to put all the Democrats in prison, eliminate world hunger or any other topics. There's plenty of things eating up Federal and State budgets, leaving only so much for infrastructure projects like highways. If anything that makes the I-14 thing look even more wasteful.

I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of the impetus for this highway is to get an interstate through Bryan/College Station, since Austin has one.

College Station is going to get connected to Houston's superhighway network by way of the TX-249 turnpike extension from Tomball to Navasota. From there one could make a better case of upgrading TX-6 to Interstate standards up to Waco than building the I-14 proposal.

[TXtoNJ]

College Station is going to get connected to Houston's superhighway network by way of the TX-249 turnpike extension from Tomball to Navasota. From there one could make a better case of upgrading TX-6 to Interstate standards up to Waco than building the I-14 proposal.

My point is that Aggies want a full-blown interstate, darn it!

[aboges26]

For those who are confused about why interstates are still relevant to the military as much as travelers, and why on earth interstates are the best thing for last minute shipment needs, please consult the following link that contains actual experts' knowledge.

http://babin.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=549

Why is I-14 so important to military deployment?

The Army is heavily dependent upon commercial railroad transportation to move equipment, and I-14 is needed in part because of added stress on the railroads caused by the shale oil boom, Bushell said.

"Having to provide capacity for all the oil moving across the country, the railroads are busy,"  he said. "They need alternatives and they may need (them) at short notice."

This stress coupled with an increase in deployment training activity creates a need for the ability to move convoys by road versus rail, Bushell said.

And approving funding to improve transportation routes needed for U.S. military deployment should be a no-brainer.

"The Department of Defense relies on a robust system of rail, highway, air and
seaports to enable our deployment and redeployment to and from the United
States in order to achieve our national strategic objectives abroad,"  said Lt. Col. Brad Bane, commander of the 842nd Transportation Battalion, which operates out of the Port of Beaumont. "Any improvements to our infrastructure will assist in better achieving these objectives."

Fort Hood is the largest active duty armored post in the United States Armed Services, according to the U.S. Army. Fort Hood covers a total of 340-square miles and supports multiple units, a corps headquarters and a robust mobilization mission. Fort Hood also trains and supports many smaller units and organizations vital to defense.

John Roby, director of corporate affairs for the Port of Beaumont, said existing routes between Fort Hood and the Port of Beaumont definitely need improvement.

"The port has direct links by rail to all major military installations, which is important for long-term large deployments,"  Roby said. "However, it is important to also have safe, economical and efficient highway links between the bases and the port. The current highway routes to Fort Hood are not up to Interstate Highway standards,"  Roby said. "These routes are on secondary roads and pass through many rural areas and small towns. Interstate 14 is designed to provide fast, efficient highway access between the port and major military installations in the Southwest."

Although Bushell said Louisiana state funding is limited, he is currently in discussion with state officials about connecting I-14 to Fort Polk in Leesville, which Roby agreed would drastically improve military deployment routes from the fort to the Port of Beaumont.

"Fort Polk houses the nation's premier combat training center and is also home to the 3rd Brigade/10th Mountain Division, Fort Polk's lone Brigade Combat Team,"  Roby said. "The installation recently survived almost intact in the Army's force reduction plan, which is a testament to its strategic importance. Connectivity to the Port of Beaumont is very important to Fort Polk. While the base has a direct rail link to the port, its location just 100 miles away from Beaumont reinforces the importance of a fast, efficient highway connection. Shipping military equipment between the port and fort is fastest by truck or convoy, which gives the military planners the ability to respond quickly to world affairs in the event of a crisis."

Having the capability of carrying out a swift military response seems to be even more important following recent attacks by ISIS on France and San Bernardino.[\quote]

[jbnv]

I can think of a rather nefarious reason why Texas would want a highway to facilitate military deployment across the Southeast...

(Not everyone would think this reason is nefarious...)

[aboges26]

I can think of a rather nefarious reason why Texas would want a highway to facilitate military deployment across the Southeast...

(Not everyone would think this reason is nefarious...)

Do we need to put our tinfoil hats on? 

[rte66man]

If this thread goes on much longer, our heads are probably going to explode.

Then why do you keep it going with inane posts?

[Bobby5280]

For those who are confused about why interstates are still relevant to the military as much as travelers, and why on earth interstates are the best thing for last minute shipment needs, please consult the following link that contains actual experts' knowledge.

Rather than insulting me in a passive-aggressive manner, why don't you point out specifically where I'm wrong in my observations on how the military moves their personnel and gear?

That "article" you quoted is political puff piece that overlooks some pretty key details.

It claims this new "I-14" is needed due to shale oil boom. There's two problems with that. 1: The shale boom was already busted when that article was written (12-2015). 2: The shale boom isn't going on in Killeen. The freight rail traffic from the Permian Basin isn't going through Killeen.

"Having to provide capacity for all the oil moving across the country, the railroads are busy,"  he said. "They need alternatives and they may need (them) at short notice."

I literally laughed at that comment, especially the bold emphasis on it. As if this I-14 thing could ever be built "in short notice." What a crock.

It would take decades for that road to materialize. Even if all the funding for "I-14" came out of the DOD budget it would still take at least 10-20 years to build due to all the legal and environmental stuff that has to be done first. By the time the road was finished the military's strategic needs could be radically different. The reality is Texas and other Deep South states would have to cough up a bunch of the funding. They have only so much money they can spend on roads, yet have many "shovel ready" projects already in line. This "I-14" thing is a distraction from that.

This stress coupled with an increase in deployment training activity creates a need for the ability to move convoys by road versus rail, Bushell said.

I guess these guys aren't keeping up with current events. They obviously missed what happened at the last Base Closure and Realignment Commission sessions. The Army is cutting 40,000 soldiers. The entire military once again is in a draw-down phase. Fort Sill was one of only a couple Army posts that didn't get hit with major troop and civilian cuts. Other posts, like Fort Benning in Columbus, GA got hit hard; they're losing nearly 4,000 troops. Fort Polk is losing close to 400. BRAC reconvenes every couple or so years. So while a post like Fort Sill may have dodged a bullet this time, BRAC could hit it hard the next time.

"The Department of Defense relies on a robust system of rail, highway, air and
seaports to enable our deployment and redeployment to and from the United
States in order to achieve our national strategic objectives abroad,"  said Lt. Col. Brad Bane, commander of the 842nd Transportation Battalion, which operates out of the Port of Beaumont. "Any improvements to our infrastructure will assist in better achieving these objectives."

Last time I checked, "I-14" isn't going to Beaumont, or any other port for that matter. Are they going to try pitching an upgrade to US-287 to Interstate quality standards between Beaumont and Lufkin or wherever "I-14" would cross US-287?

[rte66man]

I can think of a rather nefarious reason why Texas would want a highway to facilitate military deployment across the Southeast...

(Not everyone would think this reason is nefarious...)

ROTFLMAO   

[aboges26]

For those who are confused about why interstates are still relevant to the military as much as travelers, and why on earth interstates are the best thing for last minute shipment needs, please consult the following link that contains actual experts' knowledge.

Rather than insulting me in a passive-aggressive manner, why don't you point out specifically where I'm wrong in my observations on how the military moves their personnel and gear?

That "article" you quoted is political puff piece that overlooks some pretty key details.

It claims this new "I-14" is needed due to shale oil boom. There's two problems with that. 1: The shale boom was already busted when that article was written (12-2015). 2: The shale boom isn't going on in Killeen. The freight rail traffic from the Permian Basin isn't going through Killeen.

“Having to provide capacity for all the oil moving across the country, the railroads are busy,” he said. “They need alternatives and they may need (them) at short notice.”

I literally laughed at that comment, especially the bold emphasis on it. As if this I-14 thing could ever be built "in short notice." What a crock.

It would take decades for that road to materialize. Even if all the funding for "I-14" came out of the DOD budget it would still take at least 10-20 years to build due to all the legal and environmental stuff that has to be done first. By the time the road was finished the military's strategic needs could be radically different. The reality is Texas and other Deep South states would have to cough up a bunch of the funding. They have only so much money they can spend on roads, yet have many "shovel ready" projects already in line. This "I-14" thing is a distraction from that.

This stress coupled with an increase in deployment training activity creates a need for the ability to move convoys by road versus rail, Bushell said.

I guess these guys aren't keeping up with current events. They obviously missed what happened at the last Base Closure and Realignment Commission sessions. The Army is cutting 40,000 soldiers. The entire military once again is in a draw-down phase. Fort Sill was one of only a couple Army posts that didn't get hit with major troop and civilian cuts. Other posts, like Fort Benning in Columbus, GA got hit hard; they're losing nearly 4,000 troops. Fort Polk is losing close to 400. BRAC reconvenes every couple or so years. So while a post like Fort Sill may have dodged a bullet this time, BRAC could hit it hard the next time.

"The Department of Defense relies on a robust system of rail, highway, air and
seaports to enable our deployment and redeployment to and from the United
States in order to achieve our national strategic objectives abroad,” said Lt. Col. Brad Bane, commander of the 842nd Transportation Battalion, which operates out of the Port of Beaumont. “Any improvements to our infrastructure will assist in better achieving these objectives."

Last time I checked, "I-14" isn't going to Beaumont, or any other port for that matter. Are they going to try pitching an upgrade to US-287 to Interstate quality standards between Beaumont and Lufkin or wherever "I-14" would cross US-287?

I am insulting you no more than you are insulting the people directly affected by I-14 and the better transportation they stand to gain.  Neither of us can be completely right or wrong on how the military moves personnel and gear because #1 we are not experts and #2 common sense tells us that it is not a static "one size fits all" solution every time.  Even moves of similar goods can be cheaper and better suited to rail one year and then better suited to road the next (simple differential logistics analysis tells us this), it purely depends of factors beyond control (shale & oil boom one year then bust the next for instance) and even more details that are not always obvious to us lay people.

The article was no more of a puff piece than you constantly stating your narrow viewed opinions on I-14, not trying to insult you because it really is nothing against you personally, but your opinions are based on just that, a narrow and focused view on what matters to you, which I assume primarily are your tax dollars and the way the country gets things done.  I hear you and I have the same concerns, but maybe safer connecting transportation is not such a bad thing at the end of the day that we have to ceaselessly voice an opposing opinion on some internet forum where it does not matter, where people are just trying to get and share concrete information.  If you are so passionate against it, please write TxDOT and go to open houses regarding the corridor.  Let us know of what you learn in doing so regarding the corridor and any concrete information that you find out regarding the corridor.

I live in Lubbock and personally know people working in the oil industry and can say from first hand knowledge that as of 12-2015 new drilling was drastically cut but production was still running full steam with the hopes that the dip in prices was a short hiccup.  The shale boom has only hit in the last few months with companies going under, but even in Seminole, TX last weekend I saw a new drilling rig setup going to town on a new hole.  Again, I live in Lubbock which is on the BNSF rail line that connects to Alberta, Wyoming, Colorado, the northern Panhandle, eastern New Mexico, Sweetwater, Killeen, Houston, AND Beaumont and it is always jam paced with oil and wind equipment, rarely military items.  The oil coming from the Permian Basin is just a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the areas to the north and west of me.  The following maps illustrate the rail connectivity of Texas and of the BNSF network:




The red being owned only by BNSF and the purple being lines that BNSF has trackage rights on.

“Having to provide capacity for all the oil moving across the country, the railroads are busy,” he said. “They need alternatives and they may need (them) at short notice.”

Your analysis of the above quote was very far off the point of the statement, the quote is indicating that the military needs alternatives for transportation because they may decide or realize the need to ship something at short notice, not indicating I-14 is to or will be built at short notice.

Texas is actually fine with coughing up money for its transportation needs, the passing of Props 1 and 7 recently which give TxDOT more funding are clear indicators of this.  I happily voted for them because I do my fair share of long distance traveling and appreciate a controlled access 75 mph road over a non controlled access 75 mph road.  If the desire for funding is there, then it is the DOT's job to seek all available avenues for funding and we can certainly hope for such diverse sources as the DOD.

I guess these guys aren't keeping up with current events. They obviously missed what happened at the last Base Closure and Realignment Commission sessions. The Army is cutting 40,000 soldiers. The entire military once again is in a draw-down phase. Fort Sill was one of only a couple Army posts that didn't get hit with major troop and civilian cuts. Other posts, like Fort Benning in Columbus, GA got hit hard; they're losing nearly 4,000 troops. Fort Polk is losing close to 400. BRAC reconvenes every couple or so years. So while a post like Fort Sill may have dodged a bullet this time, BRAC could hit it hard the next time.

These decisions, in my opinion, were completely political in nature and can easily change in 1-8 years.  Geopolitics can and most likely will check this in the next decade at the most.

Last time I checked, "I-14" isn't going to Beaumont, or any other port for that matter. Are they going to try pitching an upgrade to US-287 to Interstate quality standards between Beaumont and Lufkin or wherever "I-14" would cross US-287?

Nobody anywhere said that I-14 is going to Beaumont so I do not understand why you keep missing the point and throw this out there.  On every map proposal that I have seen is a connection from I-14 to Beaumont because of its focus on connecting "Forts to Ports".



Now to wrap up my comments, I want it to be clear to everyone that I am not completely behind this interstate proposal, but nor am I completely against it.  I am a "facts or GTFO" kind of guy and I am interested in the proposal because of its obvious benefits and cons.  I like to put myself in the shoes of people directly affected by things, such as the citizens of Monticello, AR who would surely want I-69 to be completed on its proposed route, but I sure look at the proposed map and think "wow isn't that a little crooked".  I do not post often on this forum because I only like to share facts that I know that are helpful and keep people updated, but I sure check this forum constantly to keep up with the latest road news because I drive long distance frequently and like to be informed on where I do go and would possibly go.  I am not an expert, just not a pessimist nor an optimist, I am somewhere in the middle but sure appreciate the safety that interstates provide and would like to see long term planning that could realizes corridors such as an I-14, an I-12 that runs through Austin on its way to Houston, and both a southern and northern extension of I-27 that connects to I-10 and Denver.  I am like most in that I do not want these projects to be completed irresponsibly in both financial and routing aspects because we as citizens deserve a government and its agencies to walk the line.

[Bobby5280]

I am insulting you no more than you are insulting the people directly affected by I-14 and the better transportation they stand to gain.

You inferred I was "confused" in a dismissive, off-putting manner -which is insulting.

You're claiming I'm insulting people along the potential I-14 corridor? This I-14 idea is an insult to a far greater number of Texans living along far more important transportation corridors.

You're in Lubbock. I'd much rather see I-27 extended both North and South than see this I-14 crap built. I'd rather see US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo converted into a full blown Interstate. I-69 construction is in progress, but there's dozens of segments that are un-funded. If I read the I-69 projects PDF from TX DOT correctly some of the projects aren't currently scheduled to let until 2060!. With such limited resources how in the hell is this I-14 scheme supposed to fit in with that? It's a damned waste.

Neither of us can be completely right or wrong on how the military moves personnel and gear because #1 we are not experts and #2 common sense tells us that it is not a static "one size fits all" solution every time.

I don't claim to be an "expert," but I have grown up and lived around the Marine Corps and US Army nearly all my life. I'm familiar with how posts/bases within the United States are run. I've watched closely as our military has transitioned from a conventional Cold War style force trying to prepare for World War III to one trying its best to adapt to all kinds of "irregular" warfare today. Stuff that changes rapdily and often requires a rapid response. There's a bunch of that big, heavy equipment the US Army no longer needs for modern threats. Want to complain about government waste? How about Congress continuing to buy things like M-1 Abrams tanks the Army doesn't need? The are hundreds of these tanks lined up in the desert like a tank dealership opened in the middle of nowhere. A bunch of the missions at Fort Hood are old style conventional force missions that may end up radically reduced in size. Some of the missions are going to be eliminated. This is a very contradictory picture from the one the politicians in Texas are selling with their idea of I-14 -one where they claim the military is growing in that area and increasing demand on the infrastructure.

Building an Interstate highway for the purpose of moving conventional military hardware is basically reliving fantasies from 1940's Germany. It's an out of date idea now.

I can understand the motivation of the politicians and other connected individuals in pushing this project. 15 years ago a bunch of people in my region, including Oklahoma's congressional delegation, were pushing pretty hard for the Crusader project. The Crusader was supposed to replace the old Paladin Howitzer. But the Army leaders didn't want it. Even though the Crusader was more modern and could do some amazing things in putting steel on target, the thing was way too big, way too expensive and not very portable. It was a Cold War era weapons system. Ultimately Donald Rumsfeld killed it, right before BAE Systems was supposed to go into production with it at a plant they were going to build in Elgin, OK -very close to Fort Sill. Lots of people in the Lawton area were very disappointed by the decision. Today the US Army's Field Artillery is still getting by just fine with the Paladin, but with some modern features added. Elgin, OK didn't dry up though. It's a growing town despite the loss of the Crusader.

The article was no more of a puff piece than you constantly stating your narrow viewed opinions on I-14, not trying to insult you because it really is nothing against you personally, but your opinions are based on just that, a narrow and focused view on what matters to you, which I assume primarily are your tax dollars and the way the country gets things done.

When an article posted on a politician's web site is littered with spin, inaccuracies and convenient omission of important facts that get in the way of his presentation, it's definitely a "puff piece." And that's putting it nicely.

I've been typing out my opinion on the matter, but I don't think it's "narrow viewed" at all. I'm at least coming this I-14 issue with specific facts to support my opinion against the project. Name the current road I-135 or whatever 3-digit designation they like and I'm perfectly agreeable to that.

I live in Lubbock and personally know people working in the oil industry and can say from first hand knowledge that as of 12-2015 new drilling was drastically cut but production was still running full steam with the hopes that the dip in prices was a short hiccup.  The shale boom has only hit in the last few months with companies going under, but even in Seminole, TX last weekend I saw a new drilling rig setup going to town on a new hole.

Oil has run on these boom-bust cycles for a long time. If anything, oil at $100 or more per barrel was the real hiccup. Oklahoma is looking at a budget shortfall of well over $1 billion because the dummies running our state government counted on $100 per barrel oil being the new normal. They passed all kinds of tax cuts, tax credits, etc. they couldn't afford. They forgot all about the big oil busts that happened in the early 1980's and then in the late 1990's. There was a lot of unusual circumstances that propelled oil up to $100 per barrel and even $150 per barrel. Those conditions aren't coming back any time soon. Oil may be able to hit the $50-$75 range per barrel if certain things go the right way. It has to be in that range just for shale operations to break even, and maybe even higher for the oil sands stuff in Canada.

[wxfree]

AASHTO says no!  The number is not acceptable.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/5/5c/5cdc51ea50f12d6f/USRN_Meeting_Minutes_May25_2016.original.1464203915.pdf

[LM117]

AASHTO says no!  The number is not acceptable.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/5/5c/5cdc51ea50f12d6f/USRN_Meeting_Minutes_May25_2016.original.1464203915.pdf

Paging Bobby5280...

[Bobby5280]

I won't gloat. But I am relieved AASHTO said "negative" to the numbering proposal. Unfortunately that might possibly not be the end of it.

The politicians involved in this could pull a "I-99" and have congress vote the "I-14" crap into law, which would force AASHTO to go along with the nonsense anyway. If more and more of those political numbering choices get made it will undermine any kind of remaining integrity in the numbering system. Might as well have hundreds of different "Highway 1" routes going all over the place.

Considering the AASHTO is giving "approval with conditions" to somewhat short, planned routes in North Carolina (I-42 and I-87), I could certainly see AASHTO offering the "I-18" designation, particularly if the current US-190 freeway gets extended West to dovetail into I-20. For now, the short segment just needs to carry a 3-digit Interstate designation, if it carries an Interstate designation at all.

[english si]

I'm surprised that AASHTO didn't propose another number, like they did in NC. Presumably TX rejected the alternative number?

[TXtoNJ]

I'm surprised that AASHTO didn't propose another number, like they did in NC. Presumably TX rejected the alternative number?

Don't think local pols would settle for I-535. Probably need to drag the process out for political reasons.

[US71]

I'm surprised that AASHTO didn't propose another number, like they did in NC. Presumably TX rejected the alternative number?

There's a note on the ruling that suggests working together to find a suitable number