I-69 in TX

[Grzrd]

Bids were opened last week for the Driscoll Relief Route (bypass), which is just south of Corpus Christi. The winning bid is $118.3 million
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/07113202.htm ... US 77 in Driscoll is currently in an urban-style configuration with a center turn lane, and there is a traffic signal in the center of the city.
However there is another traffic signal a few miles south of Kingsville in Riviera, so after the bypass is complete there will still not be an uninterrupted route to the Rio Grande Valley. While most of the route between Riviera and Raymondville does not meet interstate standards, it is an uninhabited area with no traffic signals.

The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an article which explains that Riviera will need an approximate four-mile relief route.:

When the latest project is completed in about three years it will eliminate the traffic light at FM 665 in Driscoll, one of the two last stoplights on the 151-mile I-69E route between Corpus Christi and Brownsville. 
The other traffic light is at the key trucking intersection of US 77 and SH 285 in Riviera in southern Kleberg County, an intersection that is complicated by the railroad line adjacent to the existing highway lanes.  A 4-mile relief route is required at Riviera and right-of-way acquisition for that project has been underway for more than a year.  The project is considered under development but no schedule has yet been set for funding construction.

The article also describes how the Driscoll relief route, in conjunction with other projects, will complete a 31-mile section of I-69E interstate:

The Texas Transportation Commission has awarded a $118 million construction contract that will close a 9.5-mile gap in on the Interstate 69E route in Nueces County west of Corpus Christi.
The project will include the 4-mile US 77 relief route on the east side of Driscoll, a crossroads town between Corpus Christi and Kingsville.  It will create a continuous 31-mile interstate standard highway from Interstate 37 through Robstown, Driscoll, Bishop and Kingsville. 
The Corpus Christi to Kingsville section includes a 7-mile segment from Bishop to Kingsville completed in 2017 under a $79 million contract and a 3.2-mile segment south of Robstown that will be completed in the coming months under a $43 million contract.

Here is a map of the area:

[sparker]

As expected, the Alliance for I-69/Texas' system map shows I-369 as the continuation of the principal corridor north of Houston; the I-69 trunk into LA is shown as an ancillary segment.  This map makes their priorities crystal clear:  an Interstate corridor designed to convey south Texas traffic to either I-30 or, eventually, I-49 in Texarkana.  The segment extending into LA will likely not even be the subject of preliminary design & engineering until I-369 is either completed or fully let.     

[jbnv]

I'll be surprised if the I-69 segment through Louisiana ever is built. It's simply not a priority for Louisiana.

Texas has no incentive to make it a priority. They can just route the thing to Texarkana via the I-369 route.

I fully believe that I-14 from Temple to Alexandria will happen before I-69 through Louisiana.

[Bobby5280]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for I-14 to get built. I think the current, tiny little stub going into Killeen is all I-14 will be for many years. Ultimately I can see the highway skirting the College Station area on the way to Huntsville. I think there's little chance of it going East of I-45. There's probably not much chance of I-14 reaching San Angelo and Midland-Odessa anytime in the next few decades either. As far as Texas highways go, I think there's a better shot of US-281 getting turned into an I-35 relief Interstate from San Antonio on North.

[thefro]

I'll be surprised if the I-69 segment through Louisiana ever is built. It's simply not a priority for Louisiana.

Texas has no incentive to make it a priority. They can just route the thing to Texarkana via the I-369 route.

I do think the segment going from TX I-69 to Shreveport gets built.

I am skeptical of the rest of the route between Shreveport and Memphis getting built unless there's a big pot of federal money.

[inkyatari]

I am skeptical of the rest of the route between Shreveport and Memphis getting built unless there's a big pot of federal money.

I don't see any of that ever getting finished as well.  The route through there is, IMHO a solution waiting for a problem.

[jbnv]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for I-14 to get built.

Nobody's holding their breath waiting for I-14.

I do think the segment going from TX I-69 to Shreveport gets built.

What aim does that segment serve Texas? It's not needed to get to Shreveport. And what benefit does Shreveport give to Texas anyway? (I invoke I-14 because I believe Texas does have an interest in having multiple routes to the Mississippi River and Atlantic Ocean.)

[sparker]

Both I-69 and I-14 are predicated on the same structural concept:  a long multi-state corridor intended to serve areas where there are motivated backers of these routes willing and able to translate their wishes into political action and subsequently development, albeit with the current fiscal systems, over time.  Of course, by now we all know just who the movers & shakers are for I-69 -- the TX "Alliance" and the folks in southern Indiana -- everyone else is just along for the ride (almost certainly why KY elected to revamp existing facilities rather than construct new ones) and other states are addressing their segments at their leisure.  I-14 has a "motley crew" of folks clamoring for its development -- the Midland/Odessa contingent, San Angelo backers (likely sick & tired of waiting on the P-to-P that may or may not ever materialize), and the folks from the SA-Houston-DFW "triangle", who want an Interstate bisecting that area so they can continue to develop the interior with relative ease.  And now LA interests from the Fort Polk area have gotten in on the act -- and I have no doubt MS would just love to see a new Interstate corridor along US 84 -- but they really don't have the $$ to make it happen, so they'll live with a line on a paper for now.  But while the dynamics are similar to I-69; the actual manifestation of the plans isn't anywhere near as "set in stone" as anything along I-69.  Part of that is due to timing -- they're 20-odd years behind the "69 curve", and the usual suspects -- inflation, reprioritizations, and so forth have rendered corridor development increasingly difficult.  So I-14 may or may not get done; what form the final product will take is still way up in the air.   

[Bobby5280]

I-69, at least in Texas, has some big advantages at attracting funds for its projects over I-14. The key thing is I-69 will directly connect some major population centers with Interstate quality roads. An Interstate link between Houston and Corpus Christi is justifiable. Same goes for linking the Rio Grande Valley cluster of cities in far South Texas with the rest of the Interstate system. Over 1 million people live in those cities, there are major border crossings there, an important port and South Padre Island attracts a lot of tourists.

Houston to Texarkana is a slightly harder project to sell, but there lots of towns and small cities along the US-59 corridor. Port commerce from Houston needs another North-South Interstate route. I-69 will allow port truck traffic to bypass the DFW area yet stay on Interstate quality roads on the way to points in the North and Northeast US regions.

With that being said, I-69 in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi is much harder to justify when I-69/I-369 and I-30 serves the same purpose in an arguably straighter route. The I-49 and I-57 corridors will make I-369 more attractive to traffic coming from Houston.

I-14 doesn't offer the same "big picture" compliments to the larger Interstate highway system. That's probably why this is being pitched by politicians with the angle of linking military posts/bases. Most heavy military equipment gets moved by rail or by air. Not so much gets moved on the highways. And if Fort Hood really needed an Interstate link to another important Army post they would do better by upgrading US-281 to Interstate standards between Lampasas and Wichita Falls -that would provide a high speed road link between Fort Hood and Fort Sill here in Lawton. There's a lot more close activity going on between those two posts than with Fort Polk.

[tdindy88]

If Texas ever gets to the point where most of their stretch of I-69 is finished I wonder if it's possible to create a temporary I-69. Route I-69 up to Texarkana, truncate I-30 there and run I-69 along the current I-30 up to Little Rock and then multiplex I-69 with I-40 to Memphis (or further north on I-55 to I-155 if Tennessee's portion is not finished.) Probably a fictional highway situation but it made me wonder about the possibility. I-40 in Arkansas would likely need to be six-laned to handle the traffic I understand.

[Brooks]

I-40 in Arkansas would likely need to be six-laned to handle the traffic I understand.

This is already needed from North Little Rock to West Memphis. Truck traffic through there is insane and those two lanes fill up quickly when there's a wreck.

[jbnv]

With that being said, I-69 in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi is much harder to justify when I-69/I-369 and I-30 serves the same purpose in an arguably straighter route. The I-49 and I-57 corridors will make I-369 more attractive to traffic coming from Houston.

I-14 doesn't offer the same "big picture" compliments to the larger Interstate highway system. That's probably why this is being pitched by politicians with the angle of linking military posts/bases. Most heavy military equipment gets moved by rail or by air. Not so much gets moved on the highways. And if Fort Hood really needed an Interstate link to another important Army post they would do better by upgrading US-281 to Interstate standards between Lampasas and Wichita Falls -that would provide a high speed road link between Fort Hood and Fort Sill here in Lawton. There's a lot more close activity going on between those two posts than with Fort Polk.

I truncated your post to stay on task, which is comparing the I-69 connector in Louisiana to I-14. I agree completely that it makes more sense to take I-69 through the I-369/I-30/I-40 route than through the new territory. The Louisiana-Arkansas routing is mostly wishful thinking and ego stroking for southern Arkansas.

As for I-14, the key question is this: Why is a link to Fort Polk and central Louisiana important to Fort Hood in particular and Texas in general? Ford Polk is a lot closer to the Gulf of Mexico than either Fort Hood or Fort Sill. We're more likely to be attacked by an enemy from without than from within. So it makes sense to have easy access to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico.

The current best route from Fort Hood to the Gulf passes through several small towns and directly through Houston, Beaumont and Lake Charles. I-14 would bypass all of that. I-14 can go all the way to the Atlantic Ocean without passing through any major cities at all (except maybe Alexandria). It's far enough inland that it would be less threatened by an external invader. That sounds strategic to me. However, I have no experience with the military. Feel free to correct me if it's irrelevant.

I-69 exists to serve the interior. I-14 would exist to serve the exterior. As a coastal state, Louisiana is better served by focusing on projects that help the exterior. I-49 to New Orleans does that. Fixing I-10 through Baton Rouge does that. The short part of I-69 through north Louisiana would not do that.

[Anthony_JK]

With that being said, I-69 in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi is much harder to justify when I-69/I-369 and I-30 serves the same purpose in an arguably straighter route. The I-49 and I-57 corridors will make I-369 more attractive to traffic coming from Houston.

I-14 doesn't offer the same "big picture" compliments to the larger Interstate highway system. That's probably why this is being pitched by politicians with the angle of linking military posts/bases. Most heavy military equipment gets moved by rail or by air. Not so much gets moved on the highways. And if Fort Hood really needed an Interstate link to another important Army post they would do better by upgrading US-281 to Interstate standards between Lampasas and Wichita Falls -that would provide a high speed road link between Fort Hood and Fort Sill here in Lawton. There's a lot more close activity going on between those two posts than with Fort Polk.

I truncated your post to stay on task, which is comparing the I-69 connector in Louisiana to I-14. I agree completely that it makes more sense to take I-69 through the I-369/I-30/I-40 route than through the new territory. The Louisiana-Arkansas routing is mostly wishful thinking and ego stroking for southern Arkansas.

As for I-14, the key question is this: Why is a link to Fort Polk and central Louisiana important to Fort Hood in particular and Texas in general? Ford Polk is a lot closer to the Gulf of Mexico than either Fort Hood or Fort Sill. We're more likely to be attacked by an enemy from without than from within. So it makes sense to have easy access to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico.

The current best route from Fort Hood to the Gulf passes through several small towns and directly through Houston, Beaumont and Lake Charles. I-14 would bypass all of that. I-14 can go all the way to the Atlantic Ocean without passing through any major cities at all (except maybe Alexandria). It's far enough inland that it would be less threatened by an external invader. That sounds strategic to me. However, I have no experience with the military. Feel free to correct me if it's irrelevant.

I-69 exists to serve the interior. I-14 would exist to serve the exterior. As a coastal state, Louisiana is better served by focusing on projects that help the exterior. I-49 to New Orleans does that. Fixing I-10 through Baton Rouge does that. The short part of I-69 through north Louisiana would not do that.

Here's where I disagree with you on I-69 and eliminating the Tenaha-Memphis segment.

I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock and I-40 from NLR to Memphis already carry a huge load, even with widening to 3x3 ongoing and the AR 440 bypass around Little Rock. I don't think that you'd want to add an additional load to that with I-69 interregional traffic just to save $$$$.

Also, there's the issue of bypassing Memphis, particular if you expand this truncated route to include I-40 to I-55 North at West Memphis to I-155 at Dyersburg. How do you connect the city of Memphis to this if you completely bypass them? How do you connect I-22 to this? A new Southern Crossing through Tunica? And, what happens to I-269, which loses its connection to its parent?

I agree that TX wants to get that SoTX/Houston/Texarkana corridor finished pronto to get maximum benefit, and that the Tenaha-Shreveport-Monticello-Tunica segment of I-69 will be put on ice for a while. But, Shreveport has plenty of skin in this game to lose if they lose I-69; they lose the only Interstate access to their main port, and they lose an opportunity to complete their Inner Loop. Also, South AR would probably want the growth that the originally approved path for I-69 would bring to their region.

Yeah, there are far bigger priorities for LA right now (I-10 though BTR, I-49 South, Lafayette Connector, Shreveport ICC...and I'd add to that I-10 through Lake Charles and the Calcasieu River Bridge and 3x3'ing I-10 from the Texas line to the Atchafalaya Swamp elevated section). But putting I-69 through LA/AR/MS in cold storage for now is not the same as eliminating it altogether; it simply means doing planning and environmental studies for now and holding steady for the future when funds may become available.

I-14...I'm a "meh" on that. I still don't see the need for an expensive Interstate corridor bisecting the north, and there's still the issue of how you get that sucka through Alexandria/Pineville and Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez. I still say that a Lake Charles-Alexandria-Monroe-Bastrop-Monticello (Super I-69 Extender) freeway would have more bang for the bucks...but, that's only me.

[jbnv]

I-69 exists to serve the interior. I-14 would exist to serve the exterior. As a coastal state, Louisiana is better served by focusing on projects that help the exterior. I-49 to New Orleans does that. Fixing I-10 through Baton Rouge does that. The short part of I-69 through north Louisiana would not do that.

I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock and I-40 from NLR to Memphis already carry a huge load, even with widening to 3x3 ongoing and the AR 440 bypass around Little Rock. I don't think that you'd want to add an additional load to that with I-69 interregional traffic just to save $$$$.

How much additional traffic is I-69 going to create? The traffic will be there (or not be there) whether or not I-69 routes through Little Rock or through nowhere.

Shreveport has plenty of skin in this game to lose if they lose I-69; they lose the only Interstate access to their main port, and they lose an opportunity to complete their Inner Loop. Also, South AR would probably want the growth that the originally approved path for I-69 would bring to their region.

But does Shreveport have the clout to win it in Baton Rouge? I've never lived in north Louisiana (aside from 2 school years at LSMSA) so I have no idea what the economy is like up there. A quick search suggests it's not exactly booming: industry is gone and the main draw are casinos. They need a better argument for I-69 than "I-69 is going to bring more cross-country traffic through here." I asked this question earlier: What benefit does the Louisiana-Arkansas route bring to Texas that the Little Rock route does not? If they can't argue that it brings long-term benefit beyond being a pass-through, they have little chance of winning against projects from the south at the Capitol.

I-14...I'm a "meh" on that. I still don't see the need for an expensive Interstate corridor bisecting the north, and there's still the issue of how you get that sucka through Alexandria/Pineville and Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez. I still say that a Lake Charles-Alexandria-Monroe-Bastrop-Monticello (Super I-69 Extender) freeway would have more bang for the bucks...but, that's only me.

Funny that you should bring up that corridor. Because if I were a south Louisiana legislator, and I wanted to make friends in central and north Louisiana, I'd pitch them the US 165 corridor, not I-69. An interstate along that route (presumably an extension of I-57) would strengthen the bond between Lake Charles and Monroe, link provide an alternate route for northbound traffic from Texas, link that area to St. Louis and Chicago (I-57), and improve hurricane evacuation. I-69 provides little or none of those benefits.

The advantage of I-14 over I-69 and the US 165 corridor is that it gives Texas a reason to invest in Louisiana. Texas does not need I-69 to go through Louisiana.

[707]

Satellite photographs of US 59 in El Campo seem to show the southern part of US 59 around the city under construction to Interstate standards. Can anyone tell me if the construction is finished or still ongoing?

https://binged.it/2LWQTga

[Anthony_JK]

I-69 exists to serve the interior. I-14 would exist to serve the exterior. As a coastal state, Louisiana is better served by focusing on projects that help the exterior. I-49 to New Orleans does that. Fixing I-10 through Baton Rouge does that. The short part of I-69 through north Louisiana would not do that.

I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock and I-40 from NLR to Memphis already carry a huge load, even with widening to 3x3 ongoing and the AR 440 bypass around Little Rock. I don't think that you'd want to add an additional load to that with I-69 interregional traffic just to save $$$$.

How much additional traffic is I-69 going to create? The traffic will be there (or not be there) whether or not I-69 routes through Little Rock or through nowhere.

Enough to add to the corridor that's already stressed with DFW-LR-Memphis traffic. You are adding the additional traffic from heavy trucks from Texarkana NE through Little Rock, and then up I-40 which is already crammed even as it's being widened.

Plus, I-69 is a national High Priority corridor that will ease the load of traffic from SoTX/Houston northeastward. I'm guessing Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee will have plenty to say about abandoning that corridor.

Shreveport has plenty of skin in this game to lose if they lose I-69; they lose the only Interstate access to their main port, and they lose an opportunity to complete their Inner Loop. Also, South AR would probably want the growth that the originally approved path for I-69 would bring to their region.

But does Shreveport have the clout to win it in Baton Rouge? I've never lived in north Louisiana (aside from 2 school years at LSMSA) so I have no idea what the economy is like up there. A quick search suggests it's not exactly booming: industry is gone and the main draw are casinos. They need a better argument for I-69 than "I-69 is going to bring more cross-country traffic through here." I asked this question earlier: What benefit does the Louisiana-Arkansas route bring to Texas that the Little Rock route does not? If they can't argue that it brings long-term benefit beyond being a pass-through, they have little chance of winning against projects from the south at the Capitol.

Maybe right now I-69 in LA should be a lower priority, but I'm talking about the future here. Texas should not be the sole mediator in determining the final route for I-69; it's already set by Congressional fiat. There is still plenty of time to develop a funding plan, since the upgrades for the I-69 system in Texas will be ongoing for quite a while.

I-14...I'm a "meh" on that. I still don't see the need for an expensive Interstate corridor bisecting the north, and there's still the issue of how you get that sucka through Alexandria/Pineville and Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez. I still say that a Lake Charles-Alexandria-Monroe-Bastrop-Monticello (Super I-69 Extender) freeway would have more bang for the bucks...but, that's only me.

Funny that you should bring up that corridor. Because if I were a south Louisiana legislator, and I wanted to make friends in central and north Louisiana, I'd pitch them the US 165 corridor, not I-69. An interstate along that route (presumably an extension of I-57) would strengthen the bond between Lake Charles and Monroe, link provide an alternate route for northbound traffic from Texas, link that area to St. Louis and Chicago (I-57), and improve hurricane evacuation. I-69 provides little or none of those benefits.

I've been pitching a US 165/US 465 freeway upgrade for the past 10 years for local and statewide benefits (alternative hurricane evac route; adds a SW/NE tangent to the LA freeway system; could be a "Super I-69/I-530 Extender"). If it was actually built, I could agree with removing the Tenaha to Memphis segment (or truncating it to end at the "Extender"), because at least an alternative relief corridor would exist for traffic and goods from SoTX/LA to the north and east. Until that happens, though, I'd rather any corridor that adds relief.

Like I said before, Texas might not need the Tenaha to Memphis segment, but it is locked in as part of the original agreement to merge HPC Corridor #18 (the overall I-69 extension from South Texas to Indy) and HPC Corridor #20 (the US 59 upgrade from Laredo to Texarkana). All of the states involved in this corridor have input here, not just Texas; they should have as much a say over the final product.

The advantage of I-14 over I-69 and the US 165 corridor is that it gives Texas a reason to invest in Louisiana. Texas does not need I-69 to go through Louisiana.

IIRC, I-14 was originally designed as an interregional corridor to link military bases throughout the South, along with energizing the Black Belt corridor through MS, AL, and GA. Initially it was to terminate at Natchez, but when they discovered that that wasn't possible because there was no Interstate there to terminate it at, they extended it to I-49 at Alexandria. That, along with the original Trans-Texas Corridor plans for a toll route along the US 190 corridor, is more likely the spur for I-14. It's still up for grabs how TX will develop I-14; it will take years of study and acquisition before the final alignments are established and built. That's plenty of time to prioritize more needed projects.

The key element here is patience, and the willingness to allow the process to develop on its own. Rushing to pull I-69 onto I-30/I-40 (and I-55/I-155) and to build I-14 just to save money and spite LA and AR seems to me counterproductive to that consensus.

[Anthony_JK]

As expected, the Alliance for I-69/Texas' system map shows I-369 as the continuation of the principal corridor north of Houston; the I-69 trunk into LA is shown as an ancillary segment.  This map makes their priorities crystal clear:  an Interstate corridor designed to convey south Texas traffic to either I-30 or, eventually, I-49 in Texarkana.  The segment extending into LA will likely not even be the subject of preliminary design & engineering until I-369 is either completed or fully let.     

It should be noted though:

The map is dated 2015, so I'm sure updates are in order.

That map also shows the I-69 segment into LA as an upgrade of US 84; I'm more than sure that a new terrain route will be used for this route and the connection between I-69 and I-369 near Tenaha.

LADOTD and the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG, the MPO for Shreveport/Bossier) has been trying for years to get Texas to cofund an EIS/preliminary engineering for the Tenaha-Logansport-Stonewall segment of I-69 (SIU #13??), but has gotten stonewalled (pun not intended) by TXDOT. It's obvious that they also fear that if Texas is emphasizing I-369, Shreveport would get bypassed out of the benefits of that highway....and they are not too happy about that. Even with the main priority of the I-49 ICC.

[sparker]

As expected, the Alliance for I-69/Texas' system map shows I-369 as the continuation of the principal corridor north of Houston; the I-69 trunk into LA is shown as an ancillary segment.  This map makes their priorities crystal clear:  an Interstate corridor designed to convey south Texas traffic to either I-30 or, eventually, I-49 in Texarkana.  The segment extending into LA will likely not even be the subject of preliminary design & engineering until I-369 is either completed or fully let.     

It should be noted though:

The map is dated 2015, so I'm sure updates are in order.

That map also shows the I-69 segment into LA as an upgrade of US 84; I'm more than sure that a new terrain route will be used for this route and the connection between I-69 and I-369 near Tenaha.

LADOTD and the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG, the MPO for Shreveport/Bossier) has been trying for years to get Texas to cofund an EIS/preliminary engineering for the Tenaha-Logansport-Stonewall segment of I-69 (SIU #13??), but has gotten stonewalled (pun not intended) by TXDOT. It's obvious that they also fear that if Texas is emphasizing I-369, Shreveport would get bypassed out of the benefits of that highway....and they are not too happy about that. Even with the main priority of the I-49 ICC.

The Alliance's I-69/I-369 line, if anything, is even thicker now with the level of planning for the latter route through Marshall and southwest of Texarkana.   But you're right about US 84 itself not necessarily being the actual route of the I-69 path into LA; until recently, everything I've seen showed the corridor diverging from US 84 just east of Timpson and crossing US 59 again just north of Woods in order to avoid the northern reaches of Toledo Bend reservoir; that also puts it on a more direct line toward Stonewall (nice pun reference there!).  I would imagine that LADOT is doing a substantial amount of eye-rolling in regards to TXDOT's reticence on actually engaging in planning for that particular SIU -- but I'd guess that a Tenaha bypass/"shortcut" pathway is somewhere on the TX agenda if not in the very preliminary planning stages -- figuring out just where the 69/369 division point will be will affect the overall efficiency as well as the cost structure of, eventually, both corridor branches -- and it'll have to be done sooner rather than later.  That should give LADOT at least some idea as to where TXDOT's "head is at" regarding at least the trajectory of the main I-69 segment. 

[thefro]

The key element here is patience, and the willingness to allow the process to develop on its own. Rushing to pull I-69 onto I-30/I-40 (and I-55/I-155) and to build I-14 just to save money and spite LA and AR seems to me counterproductive to that consensus.

Exactly.  We're looking at the very least ~10 years before Indianapolis to Dyersburg is "complete", and I suspect the Texas side will take quite a bit longer just due to the sheer mileage of roads that need to be upgraded.

Realistically that's something that should be revisited around 2035-2040.

[Bobby5280]

Regarding traffic loads along I-30 and I-40 they're only going to keep increasing even without an additional induced load coming from a completed I-369/I-69 in Texas. I think it's actually possible I-57 could be finished between Little Rock and Sikeston before the I-69 segments in East Texas are built. That may provide at least some relief for the I-40 corridor between Little Rock and Memphis. Still, more widening will be needed on I-30 and I-40.

If I-69 is built through Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi I don't think it will draw a great deal of traffic from I-30 and I-40 in Arkansas due to its really crooked path. Funding the Great River Bridge is a critical hurdle. Without that the corridor's value is pretty useless. Considering the rate of construction cost inflation getting that bridge built across the Mississippi should have been one of the first priorities. If the plan is to slowly build I-69 toward that river crossing (from Memphis downward in MS and from West to East in AR) the bridge cost could multiply in the mean time.

As for I-14, the key question is this: Why is a link to Fort Polk and central Louisiana important to Fort Hood in particular and Texas in general? Ford Polk is a lot closer to the Gulf of Mexico than either Fort Hood or Fort Sill. We're more likely to be attacked by an enemy from without than from within. So it makes sense to have easy access to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico.

I can't help but scoff at the idea of a foreign power trying to conduct a ground invasion of the United States. Our Navy and Air Force would make any attempt to establish a beach-head an extremely suicidal attempt. Even if an enemy power could get out of the water and push inland it might face one heck of an insurgency from American civilians along with the dire threat from our troops.

Even if an enemy invasion was possible, relying on roads to move military equipment is an out of date concept. Our forces have been transforming to be able to project power rapidly to any part of the globe in less than 24 hours and adapting to all sorts of irregular threats (terrorism, insurgency, cyber warfare, etc). A road like I-14 doesn't really fit in with that. The road is really a pork-barrel endeavor. Its jagged, indirect path proposed thru central Texas (to include as many towns as possible into the party) makes that very clear.

Strategically a super-highway is a pretty vulnerable thing. A few well placed bombs or missiles striking key bridges or interchanges would sever the connections it provides. Super-highways are very costly and take a very long time to build. Even with an emergency situation, like the I-40 bridge collapse in Webbers Falls, OK, fast-track repair for just one river crossing would take at least a couple months.

Air and sea transport are more critical to modern conventional military strategy. An aircraft carrier task force is a very effective point to the end of our spear. Then we have to consider all sorts of other irregular threats to our elements of our nation's infrastructure. A new highway that will take decades to build out won't help with any of those needs. Highways are primarily for moving people and commerce.

[sparker]

The military aspect of the I-14 corridor is simply a "McGuffin" -- something for segments of the public (and their like-minded representatives) to latch on to while the real reason for the deployment of such a corridor -- development of the adjacent areas -- is only tacitly acknowledged.  If such a corridor had been ever considered a real necessity, it would have been included in the initial Interstate system plans, simply because that was also the time that LBJ, then an up-and-coming Texas senator (and eventually majority leader) was able and eager  to get almost countless USAF bases deployed statewide, bringing huge $$ amounts into the state, and while a substantial amount of those were or are in and around San Antonio, there were a few along the (now) I-14 corridor, including Goodfellow near San Angelo -- for decades a mainstay for military intelligence training and operations. 

[MaxConcrete]

Bids were opened today to upgrade 4.6 miles to 3x3 full freeway with frontage roads. This section is just south of Cleveland, which is about 40 miles north of downtown Houston. This section currently is a four-lane divided highway with no slowdowns, so this does not eliminate any problem areas, but does continue the program to achieve full interstate standards.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/09073201.htm

WIDEN TO 6 MAIN LANES WITH FRONTAGE ROADS
From:   SOUTH END OF CLEVELAND BYPASS   
To:   MONTGOMERY COUNTY LINE   
Estimate   $108,030,552.43   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $102,150,732.13   -5.44%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C.
Bidder 2   $105,991,025.38   -1.89%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 3   $116,821,065.25   +8.14%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4   $118,609,174.31   +9.79%   JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION, A SOUTHLAND COMPANY

[Bobby5280]

This is a years overdue upgrade. Especially with Cleveland being a control city on many of the I-69 signs in the Houston area. At the very least I-69 should be full Interstate quality through Cleveland, TX.

[FreewayDan]

This is a years overdue upgrade. Especially with Cleveland being a control city on many of the I-69 signs in the Houston area. At the very least I-69 should be full Interstate quality through Cleveland, TX.

The US 59 freeway bypass in Cleveland was completed close to 30 years ago.

[Bobby5280]

I wasn't talking about the bypass in Cleveland, TX itself. I was talking about the 3.5 mile long Non-Interstate quality gap on US-59 (Future I-69) between the South side of Cleveland and the actual current end of I-69 at Fostoria Road.