News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-14 in Texas

Started by Grzrd, November 21, 2016, 05:04:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sparker

Quote from: Henry on August 15, 2017, 08:55:31 AM
So if I-14 were somehow built all the way to I-10, it would be over 300 miles long? Good to know.

If in indeed were to follow US 190 to its western terminus, then the mileage to the current east end at I-35 would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 300.  However, except for the Congressman through whose district US 190 travels, the possibility of that occurring are slim & none, as it's duplicative of I-10 at its western end.  The practical options are to angle it down to I-10 from Brady to Junction (the shortest route) or, as boosters from San Angelo and/or Midland/Odessa would have it, straight west from Brady along US 87 and TX 158 to I-20 near Midland.  The latter yields a mileage similar to that of the full US 190 alignment.

Quote from: longhorn on August 15, 2017, 11:13:47 AM
Thanks for the replies, so the mileage count is from west to east? Could it be they know where it will begin from the east?

Practically?  It could be the Bryan/State College area along TX 6 (if a connection to Houston via Toll 249 were to be made), I-45 near Huntsville, or I-69 near Livingston.  The route definition takes it to the LA state line along TX 63 east of Jasper, but that segment is likely decades away in terms of development -- and essentially contingent upon similar action regarding the I-14 corridor in Louisiana.  Where it will finally go eastward?  My own guess is Laurel, MS, at I-59; eastward from there is duplicative of other planning efforts, particularly the Meridian-Montgomery corridor along US 80.


longhorn

Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2017, 12:40:18 PM
Quote from: Henry on August 15, 2017, 08:55:31 AM
So if I-14 were somehow built all the way to I-10, it would be over 300 miles long? Good to know.

If in indeed were to follow US 190 to its western terminus, then the mileage to the current east end at I-35 would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 300.  However, except for the Congressman through whose district US 190 travels, the possibility of that occurring are slim & none, as it's duplicative of I-10 at its western end.  The practical options are to angle it down to I-10 from Brady to Junction (the shortest route) or, as boosters from San Angelo and/or Midland/Odessa would have it, straight west from Brady along US 87 and TX 158 to I-20 near Midland.  The latter yields a mileage similar to that of the full US 190 alignment.

Quote from: longhorn on August 15, 2017, 11:13:47 AM
Thanks for the replies, so the mileage count is from west to east? Could it be they know where it will begin from the east?

Practically?  It could be the Bryan/State College area along TX 6 (if a connection to Houston via Toll 249 were to be made), I-45 near Huntsville, or I-69 near Livingston.  The route definition takes it to the LA state line along TX 63 east of Jasper, but that segment is likely decades away in terms of development -- and essentially contingent upon similar action regarding the I-14 corridor in Louisiana.  Where it will finally go eastward?  My own guess is Laurel, MS, at I-59; eastward from there is duplicative of other planning efforts, particularly the Meridian-Montgomery corridor along US 80.

I meant could the mileage be counting from a hypothetical routing from the Texas/Louisiana border. Instead from the west.

sparker

Quote from: longhorn on August 15, 2017, 03:14:38 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2017, 12:40:18 PM
Quote from: Henry on August 15, 2017, 08:55:31 AM
So if I-14 were somehow built all the way to I-10, it would be over 300 miles long? Good to know.

If in indeed were to follow US 190 to its western terminus, then the mileage to the current east end at I-35 would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 300.  However, except for the Congressman through whose district US 190 travels, the possibility of that occurring are slim & none, as it's duplicative of I-10 at its western end.  The practical options are to angle it down to I-10 from Brady to Junction (the shortest route) or, as boosters from San Angelo and/or Midland/Odessa would have it, straight west from Brady along US 87 and TX 158 to I-20 near Midland.  The latter yields a mileage similar to that of the full US 190 alignment.

Quote from: longhorn on August 15, 2017, 11:13:47 AM
Thanks for the replies, so the mileage count is from west to east? Could it be they know where it will begin from the east?

Practically?  It could be the Bryan/State College area along TX 6 (if a connection to Houston via Toll 249 were to be made), I-45 near Huntsville, or I-69 near Livingston.  The route definition takes it to the LA state line along TX 63 east of Jasper, but that segment is likely decades away in terms of development -- and essentially contingent upon similar action regarding the I-14 corridor in Louisiana.  Where it will finally go eastward?  My own guess is Laurel, MS, at I-59; eastward from there is duplicative of other planning efforts, particularly the Meridian-Montgomery corridor along US 80.

I meant could the mileage be counting from a hypothetical routing from the Texas/Louisiana border. Instead from the west.

Not really; Interstate mileage is standardized from south to north and west to east.  There's no indication that the mileage of I-14 would be calculated any differently. 

longhorn

Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2017, 04:56:35 PM
Quote from: longhorn on August 15, 2017, 03:14:38 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2017, 12:40:18 PM
Quote from: Henry on August 15, 2017, 08:55:31 AM
So if I-14 were somehow built all the way to I-10, it would be over 300 miles long? Good to know.

If in indeed were to follow US 190 to its western terminus, then the mileage to the current east end at I-35 would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 300.  However, except for the Congressman through whose district US 190 travels, the possibility of that occurring are slim & none, as it's duplicative of I-10 at its western end.  The practical options are to angle it down to I-10 from Brady to Junction (the shortest route) or, as boosters from San Angelo and/or Midland/Odessa would have it, straight west from Brady along US 87 and TX 158 to I-20 near Midland.  The latter yields a mileage similar to that of the full US 190 alignment.

Quote from: longhorn on August 15, 2017, 11:13:47 AM
Thanks for the replies, so the mileage count is from west to east? Could it be they know where it will begin from the east?

Practically?  It could be the Bryan/State College area along TX 6 (if a connection to Houston via Toll 249 were to be made), I-45 near Huntsville, or I-69 near Livingston.  The route definition takes it to the LA state line along TX 63 east of Jasper, but that segment is likely decades away in terms of development -- and essentially contingent upon similar action regarding the I-14 corridor in Louisiana.  Where it will finally go eastward?  My own guess is Laurel, MS, at I-59; eastward from there is duplicative of other planning efforts, particularly the Meridian-Montgomery corridor along US 80.

I meant could the mileage be counting from a hypothetical routing from the Texas/Louisiana border. Instead from the west.

Not really; Interstate mileage is standardized from south to north and west to east.  There's no indication that the mileage of I-14 would be calculated any differently. 

Ok, thanks.

MaxConcrete

A public meeting is scheduled to consider new alignments east of IH 35

Alignments under study
https://ktmpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/190_route_board.pdf

Meeting document
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/wac/us190-feasibility-study/110717-fact-sheet.pdf

Meeting announcement
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/waco/113017.html

I always want to see the straightest, most efficient alignment. It appears to be infeasible to continue US 190 directly eastward from IH 35 because the area east of IH 35 is heavily developed, so these options go either to the north or south. Both the Blue, Brown and Aqua alignments seem acceptable from the efficiency perspective. Blue and Brown would require a multiplex on IH 35, and Aqua does not. Even though Aqua is slightly longer, it avoids intermingling on IH 35 so it is my preferred choice.
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

Bobby5280

I like the Blue and Brown routes that utilize FM 93. Both are almost identical, except for the difference in how the routes merge into US-190 at/near the FM-93 interchange. I'm not sure I understand the potential impacts to natural resources posed by the Blue route. I'm guessing it has to do with a creek near the FM-93/US-190 interchange. There is a sewage treatment plant off FM-93 nearly a mile East of I-35. I don't know if highway construction would risk any disruption of service there.

I think the biggest difficulty with the Blue and Brown routes is building a new I-35/I-14 interchange at/near the FM-93 exit on I-35. A few existing businesses would have to be cleared to make room for the interchange.

The Blue & Brown routes would multiplex I-35 & I-14 for a little over a mile. The big concern here would be traffic weaving issues. But they could keep the weaving to a minimum by widening I-35 to 5 lanes in each direction through that mix-master. The thru lanes of I-35 would be 3 lanes in each direction on the inside and two I-14 lanes would flank them on the outside.

The Aqua route might be the least disruptive in terms of clearing existing homes and businesses. But it is a crooked route and would require a new freeway to freeway interchange. Texas likes building directional stack interchanges, but they're freaky expensive. Work is still needed on the existing I-35/I-14 interchange (it's missing a EB I-14 to SB I-35 ramp).

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 10, 2017, 01:38:30 PM
I like the Blue and Brown routes that utilize FM 93. Both are almost identical, except for the difference in how the routes merge into US-190 at/near the FM-93 interchange. I'm not sure I understand the potential impacts to natural resources posed by the Blue route. I'm guessing it has to do with a creek near the FM-93/US-190 interchange. There is a sewage treatment plant off FM-93 nearly a mile East of I-35. I don't know if highway construction would risk any disruption of service there.

I think the biggest difficulty with the Blue and Brown routes is building a new I-35/I-14 interchange at/near the FM-93 exit on I-35. A few existing businesses would have to be cleared to make room for the interchange.

The Blue & Brown routes would multiplex I-35 & I-14 for a little over a mile. The big concern here would be traffic weaving issues. But they could keep the weaving to a minimum by widening I-35 to 5 lanes in each direction through that mix-master. The thru lanes of I-35 would be 3 lanes in each direction on the inside and two I-14 lanes would flank them on the outside.

The Aqua route might be the least disruptive in terms of clearing existing homes and businesses. But it is a crooked route and would require a new freeway to freeway interchange. Texas likes building directional stack interchanges, but they're freaky expensive. Work is still needed on the existing I-35/I-14 interchange (it's missing a EB I-14 to SB I-35 ramp).

TXDOT has done dual alignments previously, most prominently at the I-10/I-45 interchange in Houston, so running a I-14 alignment concurrent with a mile or so of I-35, except for the adjoining property taking that would be required for such a facility, would be within their "wheelhouse".  Following the US 190 alignment up into Temple would require a complete revamping of the current "volleyball" 35/190 interchange there; the central-city location would likely make TXDOT, for cost considerations, think twice about condemning nearby properties to install flyovers there.  My guess: either the Blue or Brown alignments will make the final cut.

longhorn

#207
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 10, 2017, 01:38:30 PM
I like the Blue and Brown routes that utilize FM 93. Both are almost identical, except for the difference in how the routes merge into US-190 at/near the FM-93 interchange. I'm not sure I understand the potential impacts to natural resources posed by the Blue route. I'm guessing it has to do with a creek near the FM-93/US-190 interchange. There is a sewage treatment plant off FM-93 nearly a mile East of I-35. I don't know if highway construction would risk any disruption of service there.

I think the biggest difficulty with the Blue and Brown routes is building a new I-35/I-14 interchange at/near the FM-93 exit on I-35. A few existing businesses would have to be cleared to make room for the interchange.

The Blue & Brown routes would multiplex I-35 & I-14 for a little over a mile. The big concern here would be traffic weaving issues. But they could keep the weaving to a minimum by widening I-35 to 5 lanes in each direction through that mix-master. The thru lanes of I-35 would be 3 lanes in each direction on the inside and two I-14 lanes would flank them on the outside.

The Aqua route might be the least disruptive in terms of clearing existing homes and businesses. But it is a crooked route and would require a new freeway to freeway interchange. Texas likes building directional stack interchanges, but they're freaky expensive. Work is still needed on the existing I-35/I-14 interchange (it's missing a EB I-14 to SB I-35 ramp).

The issues for blue and brown are spot on. Not sure where one would put the interchange at the Tx93 site. There are newly built car dealerships in that area where it used to be cornfields.

The Black route looks the most preferable. There is already a direct connector from I-35N to I-14/190 west, and there is space for a I-14E to I-35S connector. More room south of Belton to build another interchange for I-14/190 to head east.

Fixed quote. - rmf67

djlynch

The thing that I keep wondering with blue and brown is how closely they would follow that dogleg where 93 turns north just before hitting I-35. If it weren't for the fact that the only building in the way is a fairly large church, going around the built-up area immediately south of that intersection by following the creek would seem like a good idea.

sparker

Quote from: djlynch on December 27, 2017, 01:36:11 PM
The thing that I keep wondering with blue and brown is how closely they would follow that dogleg where 93 turns north just before hitting I-35. If it weren't for the fact that the only building in the way is a fairly large church, going around the built-up area immediately south of that intersection by following the creek would seem like a good idea.

Since new Interstate-grade freeway alignments tend to be deployed in as straight a line as feasible, with higher-radius curves when necessary -- the chances are that in some fashion the existing "dogleg" would be cut off or bypassed to effect route efficiency.  It's sort of like the "sawtooth" profile US 190 follows across east-central TX -- any Interstate corridor would almost certainly slice across much of that profile if the purpose is to serve the larger cities in that general area, such as Temple, Bryan, and State College (the latter two with an existing freeway bypass that would likely, at least partially, be included in the I-14 corridor plans).   Quite a few of the major roads in the "Triangle" follow rail lines or old grant lines; there's little reason to believe that a cross-state Interstate corridor would track these closely.

Grzrd

A new piece of legislation to watch. This July 18 article reports that a U.S. Congressional delegation from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi has introduced the I-14 Expansion and Improvement Act of 2018 legislation:

Quote
A U.S. Congressional delegation from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi has introduced legislation that would expand the congressionally designated Interstate 14 corridor across the three states.
U.S. Rep. Brian Babin (TX-36), a member of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, introduced the I-14 Expansion and Improvement Act of 2018 legislation. Joining Babin as original co-sponsors of the bill are Reps. Mike Conaway (TX-11), John Carter (TX-31), Roger Williams (TX-25), Kevin Brady (TX-8), Mike Johnson (LA-4), Ralph Abraham (LA-5), and Gregg Harper (MS-3). Other co-sponsors are expected to join ....
This legislation builds upon the original designation, written by Babin as part of the 2015 FAST Act highway bill, of the Central Texas Corridor as the future I-14, and does not eliminate any currently authorized routes, according to a press release from the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition. It also authorizes the new interstate route using the general pattern of existing roads and highways, but leaves the final determination about the exact path of the route with state and local officials who know their communities best ....

Here is the latest map with the additions:




vdeane

Great, more suffixed interstates in Texas!</sarcasm>
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

LM117

I-14 should've been used to connect Houtson to Austin, and then to I-10 somewhere between Kerville and Junction.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

jbnv

Quote from: LM117 on July 31, 2018, 01:55:21 PM
I-14 should've been used to connect Houtson to Austin, and then to I-10 somewhere between Kerville and Junction.

If they ever complete the upgrade of US 290 they can slap I-12 on it. (Yes, even with discontinuity.)
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

sparker

Quote from: jbnv on July 31, 2018, 01:58:23 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 31, 2018, 01:55:21 PM
I-14 should've been used to connect Houtson to Austin, and then to I-10 somewhere between Kerville and Junction.

If they ever complete the upgrade of US 290 they can slap I-12 on it. (Yes, even with discontinuity.)

A number of posters have suggested something similar, but along TX 71 and merging with I-10 at Columbus. 

Bobby5280

I've suggested I-12 numerous times as a designation for an Interstate quality upgrade between Houston and Austin, as well as from Austin out West to meet up with I-10 again. The 2 million metro population of Austin makes such a thing justifiable. I would have preferred I-14 be applied to that corridor, but I-12 would be the next best thing. Yes, there would be a gap between the I-12 in Louisiana and this one. The original Louisiana I-12 would be quite a bit shorter than this Texas version. The Texas version could be made even longer still by routing I-12 along the Northern part of the Grand Parkway and creating an extension on or parallel to US-90 over to Beaumont.

TX-71 runs East from Austin to meet up with I-10 at Columbus, TX -which is about the halfway point on I-10 between San Antonio and Houston. It's not as efficient and well traveled a route as US-290. Various freeway quality upgrades have taken place on that part of TX-71. If it were to ever carry an Interstate designation a 3-digit route would be fine.

jbnv

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 31, 2018, 05:03:17 PM
I've suggested I-12 numerous times as a designation for an Interstate quality upgrade between Houston and Austin, as well as from Austin out West to meet up with I-10 again. The 2 million metro population of Austin makes such a thing justifiable. I would have preferred I-14 be applied to that corridor, but I-12 would be the next best thing. Yes, there would be a gap between the I-12 in Louisiana and this one. The original Louisiana I-12 would be quite a bit shorter than this Texas version. The Texas version could be made even longer still by routing I-12 along the Northern part of the Grand Parkway and creating an extension on or parallel to US-90 over to Beaumont.

And if we want to go into pure fantasy land, that extension could be further extended along TX 12, LA 12 and US 190 all the way to Baton Rouge, then down I-110 to meet up with the current I-12. (You're hardly the first to visualize this.)

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 31, 2018, 05:03:17 PM
TX-71 runs East from Austin to meet up with I-10 at Columbus, TX -which is about the halfway point on I-10 between San Antonio and Houston. It's not as efficient and well traveled a route as US-290. Various freeway quality upgrades have taken place on that part of TX-71. If it were to ever carry an Interstate designation a 3-digit route would be fine.

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.

I do agree that TX 71 would be a good candidate for a 3di. However, 71 has a freeway route directly across I-35, whereas 290 has to jog along I-35 to cross the city. Looking at the topography of the area, I would project the following route for an "Interstate 12" from I-10 through the Austin area to Houston:

* Roughly following US 290 from I-10 eastward.
* Heading into Austin, either following TX 71 or piggybacking on the future extension of TX 45 south of Austin.
* From TX 45/130, following TX 71 to Bastrop, using the existing bypass.
* East of Bastrop, here's where it could get interesting. I could see the route either following TX 71 to I-10, or following TX 21 to US 290, with 290 for the rest of the route to Houston. 

I do not believe that Texas would route I-12 on the crooked US 290 route *and* have a 3di on 71. More likely we'd see another suffixing--most likely "12N" and "12S."
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

US 89

Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 01:40:27 PM
Great, more suffixed interstates in Texas!</sarcasm>

FTFY. :-D

vdeane

Quote from: US 89 on July 31, 2018, 07:56:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 01:40:27 PM
Great, more suffixed interstates in Texas!</sarcasm>

FTFY. :-D
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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Bobby5280

Quote from: jbnvAnd if we want to go into pure fantasy land, that extension could be further extended along TX 12, LA 12 and US 190 all the way to Baton Rouge, then down I-110 to meet up with the current I-12. (You're hardly the first to visualize this.)

A freeway parallel to I-10 between Houston and Beaumont (on or near US-90) can be justified. Another freeway doing that in Louisiana is far more difficult to sell due to lower population. The only thing it would do is make a map look more "neat" in terms of an Interstate (I-12) not having an annoying gap. If that was the ultimate goal I'd remove the I-12 designation from the short highway North of Lake Ponchatrain and re-name it a 3-digit I-10 route.

Quote from: jbnvHaving 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.

As fast as the Austin and San Antonio MSA's are growing, particularly the cities between them like New Braunfels and San Marcos, TX DOT is going to have to start planning other "spoke" freeways between I-35 and I-10. They're going to need a freeway or toll road between New Braunfels and Seguin. TX-80 between San Marcos and Luling may end up needing serious upgrades if growth trends in that region continue.

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.

Quote from: jbnvI do not believe that Texas would route I-12 on the crooked US 290 route *and* have a 3di on 71. More likely we'd see another suffixing--most likely "12N" and "12S."

Considering how the federal government currently operates regarding these highways it's actually possible or even fairly likely that US-290 between Austin & Houston and TX-71 between Austin and Columbus (JCT I-10) would both eventually be upgraded to full Interstate quality yet continue carrying their current US and state highway designations. Texas has a growing number of a freeways and toll roads not carrying Interstate designations at all.

nolia_boi504

How about US90 from Beaumont to Houston. Co-sign with 610 North loop and continue on 290 west to Austin?

Nexus 5X


Bobby5280

I think I-610 is too loaded down with traffic as it is to add in regional/long distance traffic from a potential I-12 multiplex. US-90 hits the East side of I-610 at the I-10 interchange as well.

I think it would be better for longer distance traffic if a Texas I-12 served as a Northern bypass of Houston, taking traffic headed for places like Austin away from central Houston. Coming from Beaumont, this version of I-12 could leave the US-90 corridor and join the Grand Parkway just West of Dayton, TX. I-12 could follow the North part of that toll road loop around over the Western outskirts of metro Houston to meet up with US-290 there and then proceed toward Austin.

sparker

#222
Quote from: Grzrd on July 31, 2018, 11:06:57 AM




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!

Seriously -- whoever decided to present all these corridors at once without first deciding on a "spine" for I-14 had their head firmly planted in a place where they could view their own hemorrhoids!  All this will do is provoke rivalries and arguments among the local TX politicos regardless of the merits of any particular corridor.  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).  This process is the reverse of the usual corridor-promoting methodology; usually corridor concepts are vetted by the various parties involved in or affected by the impending results; several are proposed and discarded, and eventually one is left standing (see the I-11 process in Northern NV).  That serves as the "spine"; eventually, spurs, connectors, and loops are added to the mix to either enhance the prospects for timely development and/or to mollify those who feel their choices were omitted from the process. 

In this case, the folks behind the Ports-to-Plains concept should be howling and stomping their feet about now; even suggesting a N-S alternative to the previously chosen P-to-P path from San Angelo south to Del Rio and beyond might well be considered encroachment upon the parvenu of that corridor's backers -- who've been around (albeit at times dormant) a hell of a lot longer than the I-14 folks.  Appropriating some of the wind from their sails might create loggerheads at one group or the other's next San Angelo-area meeting. 

If anyone wants to get this general concept off the ground in West Texas (by that I mean anything west of I-35), the two groups promoting their separate but inevitably interlocked corridors should combine forces and produce a feasible plan to advance the proposed regional network in a way that would benefit the most regional residents as well as enhance regional connectivity.  I'd start by eliminating as much unnecessary crap as possible; that would include the "original" Mid-Texas US 190-based corridor west of Brady; also, the Junction-Echo "spur".  I would add one spur:  from Lampasas down US 183 to Austin (using whatever limited-access facilities are already built along that routing).  After nailing down the San Angelo option as the principal "spine" of the corridor, I'd then divide what's left into phases:  get the basic trunks built to where they function as efficient interregional connectors in Phase One, do about half of what's left to do in Phase Two, and "fill in the gaps" in the third and final phase.  Here, Phase One is relatively simple:  extend I-27 south from Lubbock straight down US 87 through Big Spring to San Angelo, then take the corridor south on US 277 to I-10 at Sonora.  While not the more-direct-to-San Antonio route that one down US 83 would be, it satisfies the P-to-P qualifications, which posit an eventual corridor to Del Rio and then Laredo, by constructing the part of that corridor between I-10 and Lubbock.  I-14 would begin in San Angelo and head east along US 87 to Brady, then continuing east along US 190 via Lampasas to I-35 at Belton.  East of there, the first phase would carry the route as far as I-45; this would satisfy the needs/desires of regional backers from the "Triangle" .  Also, I'd complete the Austin-Lampasas corridor to both provide more direct access to this corridor from the Austin metroplex and subsequently raising the aggregate number of users.  Those two corridor "spines" make up the totality of the first phase.

The second phase would take I-27 south to Del Rio and on to Laredo; I-14 would be extended in both directions; partially multiplexed with I-27 NW of San Angelo before diverging onto TX 158 (per the northern option cited on the map) to Midland and a terminus at I-20.  Eastward would take it out of the state; how far this particular phase would go would, of course, depend upon the plans and fiscal capabilities of LADOT and MSDOT.  The map shows it extending to I-59 at Laurel, MS; this is a logical dispersal point allowing an efficient traffic "shunt" up to I-20 -- anything farther is a concept not explored in the last decade or so (unless it simply overtakes the long-proposed "I-85" extension to Montgomery).  Depending upon the other states' schedules, their segments may well extend into the "third phase" timeframe of this concept. 

The I-27 P-to-P corridor south of San Angelo would obviate the illustrated Eden-Junction/US 83 alignment; the "forks" heading down to Beaumont and possibly Port Arthur could be winnowed down to one spur, number TBD at the time of development.  But that should be reserved for the 3rd and final phase; getting the trunks across west and central TX is job #1 here.  The frills (obviously motivated by local political pressure) can wait.  I'm a bit surprised that some sort of spur, possibly along the Toll 249 alignment, was not proposed from Houston out to State College/Bryan; that would seem to be a desirable connector to & from greater Houston, enhancing access to the center of the "Triangle" from that urban center. 

Stephane Dumas

Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 08:00:07 PM
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? ;)

hotdogPi

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 01, 2018, 08:52:23 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 08:00:07 PM
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? ;)

Suffixed US highways, except for 6N, 9W, and 1½ miles of 25E, are splits that return to their parent, as are both I-35E/W splits. I-69W/C/E is not, and it should not exist.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.