AARoads Forum

Quote from: Grzrd on December 13, 2015, 11:34:58 AM
This December 11 TV video (http://www.kplctv.com/story/30730126/proposed-interstate-14-could-impact-southwest-louisiana) includes a comment from a Fort Polk spokesperson regarding the potential benefit of I-14 being extended into SW Louisiana

(above quote form Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11103.msg2112491#msg2112491) thread)

This article (http://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/local/alexandria/2016/10/24/could-alexandria-have-second-interstate/92358224/) reports that LaDOTD is planning a route and that Senator Bill Cassidy is working on legislation to designate I-14 in Louisiana:

Quote
Texas took the first step towards establishing I-14 when its portion of the project was included in the federal transportation bill passed in December ....
It's the same action stakeholders in Central Louisiana are pushing the state to take.
Though they are not asking for money at this time, having a route designated through Louisiana will put the state in position to lobby for funds when they do become available.
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has begun work to map a possible route, while Louisiana's delegation in Congress, led by Sen. Bill Cassidy's office, is working towards getting the future state corridor federally recognized ....
The most likely route through Louisiana would start at Highway 8 at a new bridge over the Sabine River (the bridge is currently closed and needs to be replaced, anyway). The Highway 8 route would take the interstate into Leesville, where it would connect with Fort Polk.
From there, I-14 would follow the route of Highway 28 West to the Alexandria area, then Highway 28 East towards Jonesville. U.S. Highway 84 and U.S. Highway 425 could provide a natural route to the Mississippi border from there ....
One of the big issues will be how the future interstate connects through Alexandria/Pineville.
"It's not too big an issue until you get to the urbanized areas, where the town has built up," said Matt Johns, executive director of the Rapides Area Planning Commission. "That's where it can get real expensive. You end up paying so much for right of way that the cost to go around the urban area might be cheaper."
Fortunately, there's already a plan for that.
The Central Louisiana Regional Beltway was conceived as a transportation and utility corridor around the Alexandria/Pineville area, linking major corridors going in and out of the area and spurring residential, commercial and industrial growth. Though it's in the early planning stages, the southern loop of the beltway, connecting Highway 28 East and West, has received high priority in the state's transportation planning.
"I think we have to look at the possibility that three of our projects – I-14, the Beltway and Sugarhouse Road – could be the same project," Johns said ....
However beneficial its supporters think I-14 could be, don't look for it to happen quickly. Stakeholders are looking at the interstate at being at least a 20-to-30-year project.
"Unless something unforeseen occurs, this will be an incremental deal," Morris said. "You'll see stretches where two-lanes become four-lanes and four-lanes are improved, until hopefully one day we have an interstate."

Here is a snip of the map accompanying the article:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_25_10_16_5_40_42.jpeg)

---

Quote from: Grzrd on December 10, 2015, 08:35:26 AM
Here is a snip from a map of the five alternatives presented in the Expert Working Group's Report to Congress on the 14th Amendment Highway Corridor (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/section_1927/14th_amendment_highway/report_to_congress/report00.cfm#toc315267736):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHkCua50.jpg&hash=68cf3e6d2419a1b99a89d48b7a682afdb61c8d4f)
Prior discussion in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4385.0).
Alternative 1 is the "all interstate" option (I suppose it could also be called the "I-14 option") and has (in 2013 dollars) an estimated cost of $6.6 billion to $7.6 billion (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/section_1927/14th_amendment_highway/report_to_congress/report05.cfm#toc315267758)

(above quote from Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11103.msg2111690#msg2111690) thread)

Texas already has its route chosen and Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia already have the above interstate option.

Alternative 3 seems to make the most sense to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't expect much of Interstate 14 to actually be constructed.

There's too many other routes in greater need of development in Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas. I think it's a long shot much of I-69 will be built between East Texas and the Mississippi River. And that weighs as a higher priority than this "I-14" concept.

Louisiana has to do all it can to get I-49 finished without getting side-tracked by I-14, or even I-69. Arkansas has the same priority issues with I-49 and I-69.

Texas has its priorities with I-69. There's a hell of a lot of it still left to build. Add to that the numerous freeway/tollway projects it has on the table in metro Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso, Amarillo, Brownsville-McAllen. Add to that other corridors that are increasingly in need of super highway upgrades, like US-290, TX-71 and TX-6 in Central Texas. Texas doesn't have enough money to fund all those projects. I don't see how "I-14" can be piled into the mix unless that I-14 label gets applied to a more legit corridor like US-290 between Houston and Austin.

What I want to know is how in the hell some of these I-14 Louisiana advocates think they will get this freeway through Alexandria via the Beltway that will be initially built only as a 4-lane divided highway. You really think they will be able to get away with upgrading Sugar House Road to a freeway and connect it properly with existing I-49 and MacArthurDrive?? Where will the new crossing of the Red River be? How will you get this new freeway through Leesville or Archie? Or, through Ferriday?

A 4-lane LA 28/US 84 is more than suitable enough. As Bobby5280 said, there's more than enough in Louisiana's docket with finishing I-49 South, the Shreveport I-49 ICC, and fixing BTR's mess. I'd even put a US 165 freeway upgrade from Lake Charles/Iowa to Monroe/Bastrop/Monticello ahead of this "I-14" boondoggle.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 26, 2016, 08:57:11 AM
What I want to know is how in the hell some of these I-14 Louisiana advocates think they will get this freeway through Alexandria via the Beltway that will be initially built only as a 4-lane divided highway. You really think they will be able to get away with upgrading Sugar House Road to a freeway and connect it properly with existing I-49 and MacArthurDrive?? Where will the new crossing of the Red River be? How will you get this new freeway through Leesville or Archie? Or, through Ferriday?

A 4-lane LA 28/US 84 is more than suitable enough. As Bobby5280 said, there's more than enough in Louisiana's docket with finishing I-49 South, the Shreveport I-49 ICC, and fixing BTR's mess. I'd even put a US 165 freeway upgrade from Lake Charles/Iowa to Monroe/Bastrop/Monticello ahead of this "I-14" boondoggle.

i agree, I-14 doesn't seem to be necessary at all.

Didn't the feds deny the "I-14" designation to that short stretch of US-190 freeway in Texas just recently? This during the time when North Carolina was getting awarded I-42 and I-87 designations for future freeways. I suppose there's still a chance some meddling congressmen will pull a Bud Shuster style stunt and get I-14 written into law for that small segment of road, rather than place the designation in a more legit place.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 27, 2016, 10:44:46 AM
Didn't the feds deny the "I-14" designation to that short stretch of US-190 freeway in Texas just recently? This during the time when North Carolina was getting awarded I-42 and I-87 designations for future freeways. I suppose there's still a chance some meddling congressmen will pull a Bud Shuster style stunt and get I-14 written into law for that small segment of road, rather than place the designation in a more legit place.

Actually -- it was legislatively designated, number and all, back in 2015, as an addition to the high-priority corridor compendium.  The short freeway section west of Belton was denied signage because of lack of connectivity to much of anything at its western end; serving the south side of Fort Hood wasn't considered sufficient as a rationale.  It's very much a "future" corridor concept; I, for one, don't see much I-14 development in my own lifetime -- right now, it's a number attached to a vague line on a regional map, and will probably remain so for some time to come.

The really funny thing is that in Central Texas, inside the I-35/I-45/I-10 Texas Triangle, that I-14 concept is way down the list of corridors likely to be fleshed out as fully limited access freeways or toll roads in the next 20 or so years.

I can certain see Austin effectively getting two East-West super-highway corridors to Houston, US-290 being the primary one, but also TX-71 from Austin to Columbus, TX where it meets I-10. Both corridors already have significant freeway development. If Austin's population growth keeps going at its current trends the city limits population will surpass the 1 million mark within the next few years, making it the 4th city in Texas with over million people. Metro population is much more staggering, around 6 million for metro Houston and around 2 million for Austin. That's more than big enough to demand direct freeway links.

Waco to Houston via College Station is another corridor that seems likely for a superhighway upgrade. College Station is at least going to be connected to Houston's super highway system via the TX-249 toll road expansion once it reaches Navasota. Upgrading TX-6 to a super highway between College Station and Waco would be more difficult to justify. But it could serve as an alternative super-highway link between Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston.

By comparison, "I-14" doesn't really link to any major destinations. I could maybe see a Temple to College Station highway since there isn't a very direct link between the two small cities. But I still don't think that's good enough to use up a 2 digit Interstate designation, if it even carries an Interstate number at all.

Ugh, I read a local article (Alexandria, LA) recently that proposed this in central Louisiana. I'm with the above views on our state. Finishing I-49 south as well as ICC through Shreveport and other projects are way more important on the list of road projects than this pipe dream. The article I read even said parts of LA 28 west of Alexandria were already up to interstate standards, which isn't true. It's 4 lane divided but not interstate. LA 28 is really the only east-west thoroughfare for this area, and now that it is 4 laned to the west and at 65 mph it serves us just fine. To the east it could be 4 laned further out from Pineville, but I doubt it will ever be expanded over the wildlife management area in Lasalle Parish.

If they could ever get the corridor upgraded it would have to dodge South of the Sabine National Forest, Toledo Bend Reservoir, Lake Sam Rayburn, Angelina National Forest, etc. In Texas, that would force this "I-14" pipe dream near or through College Station, Huntsville and Jasper. In Louisiana the road would have to go near Leesville and follow the LA-28 corridor to Alexandria. I'm sure some right wing partisans would just love sticking it to "bunny hugger" environmentalists by forcing a super highway through the areas I mentioned, but doing so would be cost prohibitive along with hopelessly controversial. Forget about "I-14" going through Lufkin. If LA-8 and TX-63 are running through a wildlife management area near the border that would just add to the controversy and dim the chances of this "I-14" concept further. There's too many other roads elsewhere that in more legit need of upgrading. In the case of US-290 and TX-71 between Austin and Houston those upgrades wouldn't be very difficult to complete.

I wonder why Texas would want a superhighway from Fort Hood to the Mississippi River, and perhaps on to the Atlantic Ocean...

There's little, if any, strategic military significance for such a road through there. The Mississippi River and New Orleans area has no major US Naval ports. There was a Navy base in Belle Chasse, but that was a small Naval Air Station. My family lived on that base a couple years when I was a teenager. Now it's home to a Coast Guard facility and some other government related stuff.

If the US Army needs to move heavy equipment to port in large volumes from Fort Hood to ships in port they're going to move that gear by rail. Fort Hood has a lot of railroad built through it and its rail lines have fairly direct access to the port in Galveston. For a lot of the smaller volume runs typically seen with current types of modern warfare, they're flying the equipment in things like C-17 cargo jets.

I'll see MLRS rocket launcher trucks on I-44 here in Oklahoma from time to time, but any notion that the Interstate highways are a primary way of moving military gear is badly out of date. That's a World War II era idea. And even then rail transport was a far more dominant way of moving artillery pieces, tanks, etc. from military posts to ports.

I think Interstate 14 has as much likelihood of being constructed as that Interstate 3 proposal out east.

Here's what I think will happen re any I-14 development:  TX, wanting to improve their mid-state network, will build it from Temple east to around College Station, where it will tie in to the under-development TX 249 toll facility, completing a Temple-to-Houston routing serving Texas A & M.  West of Temple, it's likely -- for political reasons -- that any routing will head via the most efficient path to San Angelo (the largest TX metro area w/o Interstate service).  Without delving too much into Fictional, there's a lot of possibilities -- depending upon who has influence at what time -- for a mid-state/I-14 corridor.  But extending east through the pines to & through LA?  That's probably not in the cards for the foreseeable future.  I don't see LA DOT prioritizing a cross-state facility that will have limited traffic potential unless all the other Gulf states make a concerted effort to follow suit -- and can identify and secure some sort of dedicated funding stream. 

I think San Angelo's best hope of getting connected into the Interstate highway system is via the Ports to Plains corridor and a possible Southerly extension of I-27. The I-27 corridor could become a Denver-San Antonio corridor rather than its current Lubbock to Amarillo arrangement. There is quite a bit of planning going on to extend I-27. For instance public meetings have been ongoing regarding a Dumas bypass. The trick is getting the funding to extend I-27. The big cities in the Texas triangle are leaving very little road funding for projects in West Texas.

I don't see why anyone would give a shit about linking Temple to anywhere. If you're going to improve connections to College Station, then keep moving forward with SH 249, bypass Hearne (preferably to the west and also serving as a bypass for both US 79 and US 190) and Calvert on SH 6, 4 lane SH 14 from SH 6 to Richland, and bypass Caldwell on SH 21.

Quote from: dfwmapper on November 02, 2016, 10:31:49 PM
I don't see why anyone would give a shit about linking Temple to anywhere. If you're going to improve connections to College Station, then keep moving forward with SH 249, bypass Hearne (preferably to the west and also serving as a bypass for both US 79 and US 190) and Calvert on SH 6, 4 lane SH 14 from SH 6 to Richland, and bypass Caldwell on SH 21.

Temple is the nearest sizeable metro area along I-35; making the connection to a Bryan/College Station and on to Houston facility there minimizes the mileage of new construction -- assuming a facility loosely following US 190, US 79, and TX 6 bypassing both Cameron and Hearne.  While not the more direct route that a Richland or Waco server would provide for DFW to A&M traffic, it does tie into existing E-W plans -- which may in time indicate that such a corridor will actually be built -- and it's not horribly out of the way as a route to & from North Texas.   From what I've ascertained, TXDOT intends, over time, to build such a facility as part of its overall plans for the "Triangle" rather than perform spot improvements such as sporadic bypasses or twinning of existing routes.   

Nevertheless, as I mentioned in a previous post to this thread, IMO once a through connector from I-35 to Houston via College Station is effectively complete, it's likely that any eastern extension will be "back-burnered" unless a regional groundswell for development of such a corridor is experienced.  As has been demonstrated with other projects (the segment of I-69 extending into LA and to date largely ignored by TXDOT serves as an example), TX tends to its own needs -- here, the perceived internal need to enhance connectivity within a portion of the state far outweighs any interest in participating in a speculative multi-state project regardless of the fact that their own representatives cobbled up the I-14 cross-state plans to begin with!

Quote from: Grzrd on October 25, 2016, 05:01:33 PM
This article (http://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/local/alexandria/2016/10/24/could-alexandria-have-second-interstate/92358224/) reports that LaDOTD is planning a route and that Senator Bill Cassidy is working on legislation to designate I-14 in Louisiana

This article (http://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/2017/01/02/coliseum-opening-make-news-2017/96007416/), although cautioning that actual construction is probably decades away, reports that LaDOTD is still planning a route and that state congressmen are still working to get the route federally designated:

Quote
►Interstate 14
The dreamed of east-west interstate that would run from Texas to Georgia, cutting right through Central Louisiana, is likely decades away. But stakeholders are pushing to lay the groundwork so that when funding does become available, Louisiana is ready.
The state Department of Transportation and Development is working on mapping a corridor that would almost certainly include Louisiana Highways 28 East and West, while local stakeholders are working with state congressmen to get a route federally designated.

We'll probably find out in a few decades whether this is or isn't a pipe dream.

I still fail to see how they are going to get this through Alexandria-Pineville. The proposed Alexandria Beltway was originally conceived to be an arterial, not an Interstate freeway; if they attempt to freewayize the southern portion, then that would mean huge interchanges needed with both MacArthur Drive and I-49 in very close range to each other.

Wouldn't it be better to just upgrade MacArthur Drive and US 165 to freeway standards, get rid of that wack Masonic Circle and replace it with a real interchange, and upgrade Coliseum Boulevard up to MacArthur Drive?

Or...simply build a loop bypass of I-49 around Alexandria from where I-49 bends east to meet US 71, around to near England Air Park east of Boyce; then extend it across the Red River on a new bridge west of the Fort Buhlow Bridge they just completed, then turn east near Tioga and Colfax to cross US 165 before reconnecting with LA 28. Leave the Beltway as an arterial through route through downtown.

OK..I'll stop before this gets too much into Fictional territory.

Louisiana really has no business trying to dream of any new highway (14 or 69) until they are 100% finished with I-49 & get some serious rehab projects funded (BR bypass, I-12 widening completed, interstate overpass replacements...most overpasses over I-20 are almost 60 years old and are crumbling).

isn't i-10 in either lake charles or baton rouge in desperate need for a new, wider bridge?

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 05, 2017, 12:56:12 AM
I still fail to see how they are going to get this through Alexandria-Pineville. The proposed Alexandria Beltway was originally conceived to be an arterial, not an Interstate freeway; if they attempt to freewayize the southern portion, then that would mean huge interchanges needed with both MacArthur Drive and I-49 in very close range to each other.

Wouldn't it be better to just upgrade MacArthur Drive and US 165 to freeway standards, get rid of that wack Masonic Circle and replace it with a real interchange, and upgrade Coliseum Boulevard up to MacArthur Drive?

Or...simply build a loop bypass of I-49 around Alexandria from where I-49 bends east to meet US 71, around to near England Air Park east of Boyce; then extend it across the Red River on a new bridge west of the Fort Buhlow Bridge they just completed, then turn east near Tioga and Colfax to cross US 165 before reconnecting with LA 28. Leave the Beltway as an arterial through route through downtown.

OK..I'll stop before this gets too much into Fictional territory.

what the hell is up with that masonic circle area? it isn't even a circle! it's clearly a square, and seemingly unnecessary altogether

Quote from: Anthony_JKI still fail to see how they are going to get this through Alexandria-Pineville.

I think most of the path is pretty obvious for where LaDOTD would have to direct "I-14" if it was ever built. There isn't much problem with LA-28 coming into Alexandria from the West. It's 4-lane divided with frontage roads and/or property set backs far enough to fit new frontage roads.

Like you said, MacArthur Drive could be upgraded to Interstate standard fairly easily. It has frontage roads all the way from where it hits I-49 on South and North sides of town. That Masonic Circle thing is the only thing getting in the way of a freeway conversion. I would see no loss in getting rid of that thing. It's just a disorganized clump of trees in there. And the square is not exactly surrounded by A-list properties either.

Going East from I-49 is a tougher decision. US-71 has a new Red River bridge crossing and freeway upgrade to the Shreveport/Monroe Hwy split. But there would be a lot of property standing in the way of an East Exit out of Alexandria, plus another freeway to freeway interchange to build with US-167. It might be easier to multiplex "I-14" from the I-49/US-71 interchange down to the I-49/US-167 interchange downtown and then have "I-14" use the US-167 freeway to get over the Red River. At some point along US-167 a new terrain freeway would have to split from US-167 to point the road toward Natchez.

Quote from: cjk374Louisiana really has no business trying to dream of any new highway (14 or 69) until they are 100% finished with I-49 & get some serious rehab projects funded (BR bypass, I-12 widening completed, interstate overpass replacements...most overpasses over I-20 are almost 60 years old and are crumbling).

I-49 related projects really do have to take a high priority. The Shreveport ICC has to be built. The I-49 upgrade through Lafayette and Broussard has to get done. An "I-14" distraction could help out opponents of the highway project in Lafayette. There's still a lot of I-49 work to do on the West Bank next to New Orleans.

Quote from: silverback1065isn't i-10 in either lake charles or baton rouge in desperate need for a new, wider bridge?

Both could stand to be wider. The I-10 bridge over the Mississippi in Baton Rouge is 6 lanes, but with no shoulders at all. The bridge in Lake Charles is only 4 lanes wide with no shoulders at all. Either one will unfortunately be very expensive to replace.

On a side note, I laughed when I saw the cost of the new "world's highest bridge" in China. The Beipanjiang Bridge soars 1,854 feet above a river gorge. They opened the bridge to traffic yesterday. The huge suspension bridge reportedly cost $144 million. If the same thing was built here in the US it would have easily cost 20 times as much.

Quote from: silverback1065 on January 05, 2017, 11:14:20 AM
isn't i-10 in either lake charles or baton rouge in desperate need for a new, wider bridge?

The I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge is scheduled for a total rebuild as part of widening I-10 through Lake Charles to 6 lanes. They are bogged up in a major remediation of a hazardous waste site on the west approach of the bridge near Westlake....and of course, getting the funding.

The I-10 Mississippi River Bridge into BTR really could use a twin span....but that would be so prohibitively expensive. A bypass bridge south of there near Addis is now in the works. Also, there are the Baton Rouge Bypass and BUMP proposals to ease the deadlock on I-10/I-12 through BTR.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2017, 01:24:07 PM

I think most of the path is pretty obvious for where LaDOTD would have to direct "I-14" if it was ever built. There isn't much problem with LA-28 coming into Alexandria from the West. It's 4-lane divided with frontage roads and/or property set backs far enough to fit new frontage roads.

Like you said, MacArthur Drive could be upgraded to Interstate standard fairly easily. It has frontage roads all the way from where it hits I-49 on South and North sides of town. That Masonic Circle thing is the only thing getting in the way of a freeway conversion. I would see no loss in getting rid of that thing. It's just a disorganized clump of trees in there. And the square is not exactly surrounded by A-list properties either.

Going East from I-49 is a tougher decision. US-71 has a new Red River bridge crossing and freeway upgrade to the Shreveport/Monroe Hwy split. But there would be a lot of property standing in the way of an East Exit out of Alexandria, plus another freeway to freeway interchange to build with US-167. It might be easier to multiplex "I-14" from the I-49/US-71 interchange down to the I-49/US-167 interchange downtown and then have "I-14" use the US-167 freeway to get over the Red River. At some point along US-167 a new terrain freeway would have to split from US-167 to point the road toward Natchez.

Now, if the plans to upgrade US 165 into a full freeway through Alexandria are for real, and they do include MacArthur Drive, then that problem would be solved. Problem is, you would have to raze plenty of ROW to make it happen, especially from the US 71 split in Pineville northeastward. Not to mention upgrading the interchange with the Pineville Expressway and building through Tioga.

That's why I favor building a new bypass around Tioga/Pineville/western Alexandria that would tie into both ends of I-49 and a possible US 165 upgrade to Lake Charles, and could serve as an northern I-14 bypass, too. LA 28 through the Alexandria Beltway can be preserved as an arterial through route.

Most businesses fronting MacArthur Drive don't want that road upgraded to freeway because they figure I-49 serves that purpose, and they don't want the loss of business that direct access brings.

Quote

Quote from: cjk374Louisiana really has no business trying to dream of any new highway (14 or 69) until they are 100% finished with I-49 & get some serious rehab projects funded (BR bypass, I-12 widening completed, interstate overpass replacements...most overpasses over I-20 are almost 60 years old and are crumbling).

I-49 related projects really do have to take a high priority. The Shreveport ICC has to be built. The I-49 upgrade through Lafayette and Broussard has to get done. An "I-14" distraction could help out opponents of the highway project in Lafayette. There's still a lot of I-49 work to do on the West Bank next to New Orleans.

I'm thinking that LADOTD is looking at I-14 as a very long-term project more than rushing it to completion now. They are totally committed to I-49 South and the Baton Rouge mess, so I don't see any distractions.

Quote

Quote from: silverback1065isn't i-10 in either lake charles or baton rouge in desperate need for a new, wider bridge?

Both could stand to be wider. The I-10 bridge over the Mississippi in Baton Rouge is 6 lanes, but with no shoulders at all. The bridge in Lake Charles is only 4 lanes wide with no shoulders at all. Either one will unfortunately be very expensive to replace.

See my previous comment here on the Calcasieu and Mississippi River I-10 bridges.

US-165 is hopelessly boxed in with development from Masonic Circle on South three miles until it opens up into a divided 4 lane facility. I don't see LaDOTD upgrading that stretch of road to Interstate standards. US-165 is also boxed in NE of Alexandria in Kingsville. They might be able to push the new freeway from the US-71/US-165 split over to the Pineville Expressway (US-167). That might also involve bulldozing the Kmart building and other stuff at that interchange.

I don't know why any businesses would have objections to converting MacArthur Drive to a full blown freeway. It has one exit at Jackson Street. What's the problem with adding a few more? It would sure cut down on all the stupid stop lights for thru traffic. It would probably reduce fender benders as well. I've driven through Alexandria a few times and I think those at grade intersections along MacArthur are a complete cluster#$@&. The frontage roads hop between one way and two way operation. Businesses along that road might think the access is better now, but the whole thing would work far more smoothly as a freeway with one way frontage roads and Texas style U-turns at the exit intersections.

The most expensive part of converting MacArthur Drive and LA-28 inside Alexandria to Interstate quality would be a T-interchange where the two roads meet. Right now it's a freaky odd, cheap at-grade intersection in the size footprint of a freeway T-interchange.

Building a brand new bypass around Pineville and Tioga East of Alexandria (as part of a larger beltway) would be really expensive, especially if it connects to I-49 both North and South of the city. Two brand new Red River crossings would be needed. If this "I-14" idea simply upgraded existing roads along LA-28 and MacArthur it could pick from one of two existing Red River bridges before getting out of town to the East. I think it would be far easier/cheaper to do using US-167. That road is freeway quality from I-49 up to Timber Trails several miles North. Choosing where to break East from US-167 for "I-14" to follow is the tricky part. The industrial area just past where the Red River Bridge ends might be a possibility.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2017, 05:31:51 PM
US-165 is hopelessly boxed in with development from Masonic Circle on South three miles until it opens up into a divided 4 lane facility. I don't see LaDOTD upgrading that stretch of road to Interstate standards. US-165 is also boxed in NE of Alexandria in Kingsville. They might be able to push the new freeway from the US-71/US-165 split over to the Pineville Expressway (US-167). That might also involve bulldozing the Kmart building and other stuff at that interchange.

You solve that problem by building a new-terrain route for US 165 bypassing Woodworth to the west, then following the Union Pacific Railroad line to where I-49 bends east, then re-routing US 165 down I-49 to the current US 71/MacArthur Drive interchange. You could also start the western bypass of I-49 there, too...which could also serve as a bypass for both I-14 and US 165.

The big issue with using Coliseum Boulevard and MacArthur Drive is that you would still have to find some way to connect US 165 to meet LA 28 east. If LADOTD is indeed serious about a future Alexandria-Monroe freeway along the US 165 corridor, there are only 2 viable options: upgrading US 165 through Kingsville, Tioga and Ball, or a western bypass using a new Red River bridge near England Air Park with a connection to an extended Pineville Expressway. I'm not sure doubling back down MacArthur Drive to either the proposed Beltway or even the current south I-49 interchange would be viable, and there are really no options unless the current north interchange between I-49 and MacArthur Drive near the Fort Buhlow Bridge was made fully directional and I-49 widened between there and the Pineville Expressway terminus.

QuoteI don't know why any businesses would have objections to converting MacArthur Drive to a full blown freeway. It has one exit at Jackson Street. What's the problem with adding a few more? It would sure cut down on all the stupid stop lights for thru traffic. It would probably reduce fender benders as well. I've driven through Alexandria a few times and I think those at grade intersections along MacArthur are a complete cluster#$@&. The frontage roads hop between one way and two way operation. Businesses along that road might think the access is better now, but the whole thing would work far more smoothly as a freeway with one way frontage roads and Texas style U-turns at the exit intersections.

I agree wholeheartedly that MacArthur Drive should be a full freeway with one-way frontage roads between the I-49 termini (with an extension through the US 71 split to the Pineville Expressway interchange, with needed upgrades to eliminate the at-grade connections there).

QuoteThe most expensive part of converting MacArthur Drive and LA-28 inside Alexandria to Interstate quality would be a T-interchange where the two roads meet. Right now it's a freaky odd, cheap at-grade intersection in the size footprint of a freeway T-interchange.

The solution to that is to use direct connectors between the LA 28 West/Future I-14 and MacArthur Drive mainlanes, and a conventional slip-ramp diamond with the frontage roads to connect the Coliseum Blvd. frontage roads with Murray Street.

QuoteBuilding a brand new bypass around Pineville and Tioga East of Alexandria (as part of a larger beltway) would be really expensive, especially if it connects to I-49 both North and South of the city. Two brand new Red River crossings would be needed. If this "I-14" idea simply upgraded existing roads along LA-28 and MacArthur it could pick from one of two existing Red River bridges before getting out of town to the East. I think it would be far easier/cheaper to do using US-167. That road is freeway quality from I-49 up to Timber Trails several miles North. Choosing where to break East from US-167 for "I-14" to follow is the tricky part. The industrial area just past where the Red River Bridge ends might be a possibility.

As I said earlier, if you upgrade the north interchange between I-49 and MacArthur Drive to become fully directional, you could push I-14 though a brief wrong-way concurrence with I-49 to the Pineville Expressway exit, then use the latter with a new route replacing the current breakout of LA 28 east at Holloway Prairie Road. More likely, though, is that the Alexandria Beltway will become both the new route of LA 28 AND the proposed upgraded freeway route for I-14.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2017, 01:24:07 PM

Quote from: silverback1065isn't i-10 in either lake charles or baton rouge in desperate need for a new, wider bridge?

Both could stand to be wider. The I-10 bridge over the Mississippi in Baton Rouge is 6 lanes, but with no shoulders at all. The bridge in Lake Charles is only 4 lanes wide with no shoulders at all. Either one will unfortunately be very expensive to replace.

silverback1065, you're thinking of Lake Charles. The Mississippi River Bridge doesn't need to be replaced, though Baton Rouge needs an alternate route around Baton Rouge for through traffic.

Quote from: Grzrd on January 04, 2017, 01:34:09 PM
This article (http://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/2017/01/02/coliseum-opening-make-news-2017/96007416/), although cautioning that actual construction is probably decades away, reports that LaDOTD is still planning a route and that state congressmen are still working to get the route federally designated

This Feb. 3 article (http://www.gosanangelo.com/story/news/2017/02/03/state-designates-first-portion--14/97457924/) reports that the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition is lobbying for a route in Louisiana (not sure how this is working with LaDOTD's plans on developing the route):

Quote
.... the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition ....
Coalition members are also seeking congressional approval for an I-14 corridor component that would run across Central Louisiana from the Sabine River to the Mississippi River. The route would generally follow Louisiana Route 8 and Louisiana Route 28 eastward to Leesville and Fort Polk and then run to I-49 at Alexandria and Pineville. The proposed designation would then go east on Louisiana Route 28 to Archie and then on U.S. 84 to the river bridge connecting Vidalia, Louisiana, and Natchez, Mississippi.

Quote from: Grzrd on February 08, 2017, 03:40:34 PM

Quote from: Grzrd on January 04, 2017, 01:34:09 PM
This article (http://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/2017/01/02/coliseum-opening-make-news-2017/96007416/), although cautioning that actual construction is probably decades away, reports that LaDOTD is still planning a route and that state congressmen are still working to get the route federally designated

This Feb. 3 article (http://www.gosanangelo.com/story/news/2017/02/03/state-designates-first-portion--14/97457924/) reports that the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition is lobbying for a route in Louisiana (not sure how this is working with LaDOTD's plans on developing the route):

Quote
.... the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition ....
Coalition members are also seeking congressional approval for an I-14 corridor component that would run across Central Louisiana from the Sabine River to the Mississippi River. The route would generally follow Louisiana Route 8 and Louisiana Route 28 eastward to Leesville and Fort Polk and then run to I-49 at Alexandria and Pineville. The proposed designation would then go east on Louisiana Route 28 to Archie and then on U.S. 84 to the river bridge connecting Vidalia, Louisiana, and Natchez, Mississippi.

The previous I-14 "14th Amendment Highway" proposal dating from the late '90's had its functional west end at Natchez; is there any active counterpart in MS and/or AL pressing for an eastern extension of the proposed LA alignment?  IIRC, the original proposal posited an alignment extended east along US 84 through MS and extending  into Alabama before turning northeast on a new-terrain route to the Montgomery area.  Is that proposal still being considered -- particularly in light of the presence of the seemingly on-and-off proposal for a western extension of I-85, which might be considered to be a duplication of development effort?  One would think that any cross-LA corridor would need somewhere to go after crossing the Mississippi River to maintain sufficient traffic potential.

Quote from: sparker on February 08, 2017, 06:28:28 PM

The previous I-14 "14th Amendment Highway" proposal dating from the late '90's had its functional west end at Natchez; is there any active counterpart in MS and/or AL pressing for an eastern extension of the proposed LA alignment?  IIRC, the original proposal posited an alignment extended east along US 84 through MS and extending  into Alabama before turning northeast on a new-terrain route to the Montgomery area.  Is that proposal still being considered -- particularly in light of the presence of the seemingly on-and-off proposal for a western extension of I-85, which might be considered to be a duplication of development effort?  One would think that any cross-LA corridor would need somewhere to go after crossing the Mississippi River to maintain sufficient traffic potential.

From all that I've heard and seen, the proposed I-14 corridor east of Natchez would not connect with an upgraded US 80 to Montgomery (that would be more a proposed "I-16" extension from Meridian through Montgomery/Auburn-Opelika/Tuskeegee/Columbus/Augusta corridor), but would swing more SE through southern Alabama to connect Enterprise and Dothan and Waycross, GA to the Interstate system. That would make it a very interesting I-10 relief route through the southern US.

I still fail to see, though, how they are going to push this through Alexandria without a bypass. Is the Alexandria Beltway being planned with future freeway upgradability? Or, will this have to be jerry-rigged through via an upgraded MacArthur Drive/I-49/Pineville Expressway?

Hard to say.  Took me until now just to find a map showing possible Beltway locations (http://www.rapc.info/Transportation/Maps/Beltway.pdf).

Quote
.... the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition ....
The proposed designation would then go east on Louisiana Route 28 to Archie and then on U.S. 84 to the river bridge connecting Vidalia, Louisiana, and Natchez, Mississippi.

That particular crossing of the Big Muddy is not interstate grade. Also, US 84/US 425 is an urban boulevard east of the river to the junction of US 61/US 98. This is a bad & expensive idea for any interstate route.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 09, 2017, 05:43:30 AM
From all that I've heard and seen, the proposed I-14 corridor east of Natchez would not connect with an upgraded US 80 to Montgomery (that would be more a proposed "I-16" extension from Meridian through Montgomery/Auburn-Opelika/Tuskeegee/Columbus/Augusta corridor), but would swing more SE through southern Alabama to connect Enterprise and Dothan and Waycross, GA to the Interstate system. That would make it a very interesting I-10 relief route through the southern US.

The I-85 extension west along US 80 from Montgomery to I-20/59 near Cuba, AL (via Selma and Demopolis) was a completely separate concept from the original I-14 routing, which entered AL from the west along US 84 and veering NE from that route immediately after crossing US 43 at Grove Hill.  The previously cited corridor struck out directly from Grove Hill to Camden, subsequently following AL 21 northeast to Hayneville before heading east on a new-terrain route to intersect I-65 near where the then-proposed AL 108 (I-85) Montgomery Bypass crossed.  East from there it would utilize the bypass before generally following US 80 east into GA.

I had heard rumblings about a Dothan reroute, but nothing concrete to date. 

As far as I know, Alabama has little interest in I-14. There also has been very little on extending I-85 west to I-20/59 in Cuba, AL, except for the first portion of the Montgomery Outer Loop opening.

Quote from: codyg1985 on February 14, 2017, 08:53:07 AM
As far as I know, Alabama has little interest in I-14. There also has been very little on extending I-85 west to I-20/59 in Cuba, AL, except for the first portion of the Montgomery Outer Loop opening.

It's more than likely that any I-14 extension across LA and exiting into MS near Natchez would simply extend across US 84 (with appropriate upgrading) as far as I-59 at Laurel -- and end there for the foreseeable future; the Alabama portion only exists within planning documents from 15+ years ago and would require significant new-terrain construction, including bridges over navigable rivers -- hardly a cost-effective endeavor.  Unless there's a politically-motivated push for such a routing (an emulation of the TX process), IMO you won't see I-14 shields in Alabama.

Quote from: sparker on February 14, 2017, 05:09:13 PM

Quote from: codyg1985 on February 14, 2017, 08:53:07 AM
As far as I know, Alabama has little interest in I-14. There also has been very little on extending I-85 west to I-20/59 in Cuba, AL, except for the first portion of the Montgomery Outer Loop opening.

It's more than likely that any I-14 extension across LA and exiting into MS near Natchez would simply extend across US 84 (with appropriate upgrading) as far as I-59 at Laurel -- and end there for the foreseeable future; the Alabama portion only exists within planning documents from 15+ years ago and would require significant new-terrain construction, including bridges over navigable rivers -- hardly a cost-effective endeavor.  Unless there's a politically-motivated push for such a routing (an emulation of the TX process), IMO you won't see I-14 shields in Alabama.

Does the I-85 extension proposal match the proposed I-14 alignment? If so, would I-14 overlay I-85 (current and proposed) across Alabama? Or does it plan to take another route?

Quote from: andy3175 on February 16, 2017, 12:11:43 AM

Quote from: sparker on February 14, 2017, 05:09:13 PM

Quote from: codyg1985 on February 14, 2017, 08:53:07 AM
As far as I know, Alabama has little interest in I-14. There also has been very little on extending I-85 west to I-20/59 in Cuba, AL, except for the first portion of the Montgomery Outer Loop opening.

It's more than likely that any I-14 extension across LA and exiting into MS near Natchez would simply extend across US 84 (with appropriate upgrading) as far as I-59 at Laurel -- and end there for the foreseeable future; the Alabama portion only exists within planning documents from 15+ years ago and would require significant new-terrain construction, including bridges over navigable rivers -- hardly a cost-effective endeavor.  Unless there's a politically-motivated push for such a routing (an emulation of the TX process), IMO you won't see I-14 shields in Alabama.

Does the I-85 extension proposal match the proposed I-14 alignment? If so, would I-14 overlay I-85 (current and proposed) across Alabama? Or does it plan to take another route?

I think there are two schools of thought: one which would have I-14 multiplex with I-59 from Laurel to Cuba, AL and follow the I-85 extension alignment. Another would have I-14 follow US 84 into Alabama (https://www.facebook.com/205514722809260/photos/a.803514943009232.1073741825.205514722809260/1101718689855521/?type=1&theater) and then take a new terrain route into Montgomery. I would imagine the latter route would be routed near Grove Hill and Camden.

Quote from: codyg1985 on February 16, 2017, 07:59:43 AM

Quote from: andy3175 on February 16, 2017, 12:11:43 AM

Quote from: sparker on February 14, 2017, 05:09:13 PM

Quote from: codyg1985 on February 14, 2017, 08:53:07 AM
As far as I know, Alabama has little interest in I-14. There also has been very little on extending I-85 west to I-20/59 in Cuba, AL, except for the first portion of the Montgomery Outer Loop opening.

It's more than likely that any I-14 extension across LA and exiting into MS near Natchez would simply extend across US 84 (with appropriate upgrading) as far as I-59 at Laurel -- and end there for the foreseeable future; the Alabama portion only exists within planning documents from 15+ years ago and would require significant new-terrain construction, including bridges over navigable rivers -- hardly a cost-effective endeavor.  Unless there's a politically-motivated push for such a routing (an emulation of the TX process), IMO you won't see I-14 shields in Alabama.

Does the I-85 extension proposal match the proposed I-14 alignment? If so, would I-14 overlay I-85 (current and proposed) across Alabama? Or does it plan to take another route?

I think there are two schools of thought: one which would have I-14 multiplex with I-59 from Laurel to Cuba, AL and follow the I-85 extension alignment. Another would have I-14 follow US 84 into Alabama (https://www.facebook.com/205514722809260/photos/a.803514943009232.1073741825.205514722809260/1101718689855521/?type=1&theater) and then take a new terrain route into Montgomery. I would imagine the latter route would be routed near Grove Hill and Camden.

If they do the first one, do you think they would do a long multiplex with 85 and 14? I'm not sure it's needed.

Quote from: andy3175 on February 16, 2017, 12:11:43 AM
Does the I-85 extension proposal match the proposed I-14 alignment? If so, would I-14 overlay I-85 (current and proposed) across Alabama? Or does it plan to take another route?

The Executive Summary of the Expert Working Group's Report to Congress (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/section_1927/14th_amendment_highway/report_to_congress/report00.cfm#toc315267736) discusses the five alternatives and the consideration of the I-85 extension:

Quote
In identifying alternative conceptual alignments for the 14th Amendment Highway, priority consideration was given to utilizing existing highways to the maximum extent possible. The study identified several significant highway projects located in the Corridor that are currently either under construction or designated in specific State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP). All planning and construction costs associated with these projects were excluded from the cost estimates. These highway projects include:
I-85 Extension in Alabama,
Montgomery Outer Loop in Alabama,
Gordon Bypass (Fall Line Freeway) in Georgia,
Milledgeville Bypass (Fall Line Freeway) in Georgia, and
Widening of SR 243 between the Gordon and Milledgeville Bypasses in Georgia

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHkCua50.jpg&hash=68cf3e6d2419a1b99a89d48b7a682afdb61c8d4f)

Very interesting, indeed.

Personally, I'd rather the US 80 upgrade and the segments of the "14th Amendment Highway" east of Meridian carry another standalone designation (such as probably "I-18" or "I-16"), or even have the "I-85 extension" and I-85 to Atlanta probably become a new alignment for I-20, eliminating the concurrence with I-59 to Tuscaloosa and Birmingham altogether.

I'd prefer I-14 to go south of Montgomery altogether along US 84, giving Interstate access to Enterprise and Dothan, then across southern Georgia through Waycross to end at I-75 south of Macon. That would make the whole of I-14 a viable bypass alternative for I-10 through the Gulf Coast. You could also have a spur to serve either Pensacola or Tallahasse.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHkCua50.jpg&hash=68cf3e6d2419a1b99a89d48b7a682afdb61c8d4f)

In this area of the country (MS, AL, GA) it all depends on the super highway links most in need to build.

Opelika to Columbus and Macon is a corridor worthy of upgrading to Interstate quality. Macon to Augusta is a bit of a reach. There currently is not really good, straight way to travel between those two cities, but it's not likely an I-14 upgrade would travel in a more straight, new terrain route. It would re-use a lot of existing roads like the Fall Line Freeway (which isn't really a freeway).

Out of these I-14 concept alignments I'm leaning most in favor of Alternative 1, despite all the concurrences with other highways that would occur (like a 3-way mash-up of I-20, I-59 and I-14 from Meridian, MS to Cuba, AL). It would provide a better, slightly more direct route between Natchez and Jackson. It would serve the same purpose as a proposed I-85 extension from Montgomery to Cuba, AL.

QuoteI'd prefer I-14 to go south of Montgomery altogether along US 84, giving Interstate access to Enterprise and Dothan, then across southern Georgia through Waycross to end at I-75 south of Macon. That would make the whole of I-14 a viable bypass alternative for I-10 through the Gulf Coast. You could also have a spur to serve either Pensacola or Tallahasse.

I don't think there's enough people living along the US-84 corridor in Southern Alabama to justify spending billions on an Interstate upgrade there. Both Enterprise and Dothan have their own loop expressways main roads in and out of town too encroached with development for any Interstate upgrades to be possible. An I-14 routing through there would have to be built as an outer bypass away from both towns, something that might be very unpopular with local businesses there.

There are other areas in that region more worthy of super highway upgrades. I think GA-520 between Columbus, GA and Albany, GA should be improved to Interstate quality. Bigger than that, I really think I-22 should run from Memphis to Jacksonville via Birmingham, Opelika, Columbus, Albany, Tifton and Waycross. That would improve long distance highway travel in the Deep South more than an I-14 bypass running on a route few long distance travelers would ever use.

If a I-14 corridor along US 84 across AL and possibly southern GA is not forthcoming, then truncating it at I-59 at Laurel, MS would be the best bet IF the "I-85" extension along US 80 west of Montgomery were to be finalized in its place.  And, as suggested previously, that whole corridor east to Macon would be more appropriate as a westerly I-16 extension.  Macon-Augusta would be dealt with separately and independently.

I'm skeptical that Interstate 14 in Louisiana and Mississippi will be built. If it is, it should probably be an extension of Interstate 85.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 16, 2017, 05:56:59 PM
I'm skeptical that Interstate 14 in Louisiana and Mississippi will be built. If it is, it should probably be an extension of Interstate 85.

The sole planned extension of I-85 was planned to extend more or less due west from Montgomery along US 80 via Selma, terminating at I-20/59 near Cuba, AL; it never entered MS, much less LA.  It would be pointless to extend that designation along any potential I-14 alignment SW of Montgomery, in the unlikely event that such a route is ever developed, even in place of the original Selma route. 

The problem is Interstate 85 is an odd numbered route, meant more for North-South directions. It's not an appropriate number for East-West highways. The proposed extension alone to Cuba, AL is really pushing the limit, especially with the route number running into I-20 there and Atlanta.

Regarding the suggestion to renumber I-20 and I-85, I really don't like that idea at all. The numbers on those routes are long established. There would be more than just traffic signs to change. It would affect a lot of businesses with how they list their locations in marketing materials. All that would have to be scrapped. A major numerical change in route numbering might confuse the crap out of a lot of drivers.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 16, 2017, 06:12:20 PM
The problem is Interstate 85 is an odd numbered route, meant more for North-South directions. It's not an appropriate number for East-West highways. The proposed extension alone to Cuba, AL is really pushing the limit, especially with the route number running into I-20 there and Atlanta.

Regarding the suggestion to renumber I-20 and I-85, I really don't like that idea at all. The numbers on those routes are long established. There would be more than just traffic signs to change. It would affect a lot of businesses with how they list their locations in marketing materials. All that would have to be scrapped. A major numerical change in route numbering might confuse the crap out of a lot of drivers.

Wholeheartedly agree.  Never liked the idea of I-85 extending more east-west that it already is!  While I originally sort of liked the idea of building the extension, signing it and I-85 Montgomery-Atlanta as I-20 (and Birmingham-Atlanta an extension of I-22), the issue of regional route recognition as well as the cost of re-signing has led me to a change of mind here.  Since there's an existing HPC (#6) covering the entire US 80 corridor east of Cuba, AL -- it's not difficult (from any other standpoint than cost) to see a I-16 western extension here, which, as I've iterated previously, would be the most appropriate designation from a grid and regional standpoint.   

US80 needs to be a freeway. Or at least the few towns along it bypassed.

Even if US80 is upgraded, I still think Alternate 3, 4, or 5 is the best option between Natchez and Macon. Keeping as much traffic OFF I-20 for as much as possible helps alleviate that stretch. Using I-59 north to Cuba to US80 works, and the stretch between Laurel and I-65 south of Montgomery is most definitely overkill if US80 is also upgraded.

East of Macon, though, the best route is Alternate 3 or 5. There's quite a bit of freeway/expressway along that stretch that can be utilized and along the US 1 corridor. Alt1 looks to be a new terrain route, which seems excessive. When I go to Florida, I've driven US1 through Georgia several times. And also the four-lane GA88 stretch to Macon once.  It's an enjoyable, leisurely drive as most traffic is funneled to 75 or 95.

I have no problem with building an Interstate between Cuba, AL to Montgomery (upgrading US-80).

I don't think I-20 in Mississippi is loaded down with traffic. I think it would be cheaper to add another lane in each direction to I-20 if needed rather than build another new terrain East-West Interstate across much of Mississippi.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 20, 2017, 11:45:55 PM
I have no problem with building an Interstate between Cuba, AL to Montgomery (upgrading US-80).

I don't think I-20 in Mississippi is loaded down with traffic. I think it would be cheaper to add another lane in each direction to I-20 if needed rather than build another new terrain East-West Interstate across much of Mississippi.

If I-14 were to be deployed across MS, it would likely be as an upgrade to existing US 84 (except perhaps within the larger towns along the route) rather than a long-distance new-terrain alignment.  Much of that route is upgradeable divided highway with occasional private access points that could be addressed by frontage roads or shunting to other surface roads. 

Quote from: sparker on February 21, 2017, 06:28:55 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 20, 2017, 11:45:55 PM
I have no problem with building an Interstate between Cuba, AL to Montgomery (upgrading US-80).

I don't think I-20 in Mississippi is loaded down with traffic. I think it would be cheaper to add another lane in each direction to I-20 if needed rather than build another new terrain East-West Interstate across much of Mississippi.

If I-14 were to be deployed across MS, it would likely be as an upgrade to existing US 84 (except perhaps within the larger towns along the route) rather than a long-distance new-terrain alignment.  Much of that route is upgradeable divided highway with occasional private access points that could be addressed by frontage roads or shunting to other surface roads. 

Building the frontage roads wouldn't be much of a problem between Natchez & Bude (where US 98 & 84 split. I can't speak about 84 east of there because I haven't driven there.)  There are many sections of old US 84 still in use through the smaller towns and some unused pieces of pavement in the bushes...complete with painted stripes!

Quote from: cjk374 on February 21, 2017, 06:47:20 AM

Quote from: sparker on February 21, 2017, 06:28:55 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 20, 2017, 11:45:55 PM
I have no problem with building an Interstate between Cuba, AL to Montgomery (upgrading US-80).

I don't think I-20 in Mississippi is loaded down with traffic. I think it would be cheaper to add another lane in each direction to I-20 if needed rather than build another new terrain East-West Interstate across much of Mississippi.

If I-14 were to be deployed across MS, it would likely be as an upgrade to existing US 84 (except perhaps within the larger towns along the route) rather than a long-distance new-terrain alignment.  Much of that route is upgradeable divided highway with occasional private access points that could be addressed by frontage roads or shunting to other surface roads. 

Building the frontage roads wouldn't be much of a problem between Natchez & Bude (where US 98 & 84 split. I can't speak about 84 east of there because I haven't driven there.)  There are many sections of old US 84 still in use through the smaller towns and some unused pieces of pavement in the bushes...complete with painted stripes!

My earlier opinion was based on a Google Maps overview of US 84 across the state as far as Laurel.  There seems to be sufficient easement for frontage roads along most of the route, except in or near the larger towns, as cited previously.  There, other arrangements would, of course, need to be made (bypasses, berms, etc.).  IMO it would be doable, albeit requiring some placation of roadside businesses in and around populous areas.

Quote from: sparker on February 22, 2017, 04:25:07 PM
My earlier opinion was based on a Google Maps overview of US 84 across the state as far as Laurel.  There seems to be sufficient easement for frontage roads along most of the route, except in or near the larger towns, as cited previously.  There, other arrangements would, of course, need to be made (bypasses, berms, etc.).  IMO it would be doable, albeit requiring some placation of roadside businesses in and around populous areas.

I just looked at it myself. You could actually have it jump on I-59 to get through Laurel, then continue following US 84 to Alabama.

Going back to Louisiana for a bit....

I still have some doubt about using the proposed Alexandria Beltway as the routing for I-14 through Alexandria, especially since the beltway is proposed to be merely an arterial. Right now, the current point of the beltway crossing MacArthur Drive and I-49 is dangerously close to that large interchange between I-49 and MacArthur Drive/US 71-167.

What would be wrong with having I-14 use LA 28 to just near England Air Park, then break off to the southeast on new alignment to connect with I-49 near the curve west of US 71, then using I-49 to just past the MacArthur interchange, then breaking off from I-49 near Sugarhouse Road to go northeast across the Red River as an east bypass?

This would "freewayize" the southern and eastern perimeter of the Alexandria Beltway, add a needed east-west bypass of Alexandria, and avoid having to plow through existing neighborhoods to build an arterial route. 

Am I crazy, or is this a good idea?

Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 22, 2017, 08:23:32 PM
Going back to Louisiana for a bit....

I still have some doubt about using the proposed Alexandria Beltway as the routing for I-14 through Alexandria, especially since the beltway is proposed to be merely an arterial. Right now, the current point of the beltway crossing MacArthur Drive and I-49 is dangerously close to that large interchange between I-49 and MacArthur Drive/US 71-167.

What would be wrong with having I-14 use LA 28 to just near England Air Park, then break off to the southeast on new alignment to connect with I-49 near the curve west of US 71, then using I-49 to just past the MacArthur interchange, then breaking off from I-49 near Sugarhouse Road to go northeast across the Red River as an east bypass?

This would "freewayize" the southern and eastern perimeter of the Alexandria Beltway, add a needed east-west bypass of Alexandria, and avoid having to plow through existing neighborhoods to build an arterial route. 

Am I crazy, or is this a good idea?

Sounds like a good idea...if I have it right in my mind:

I'm guessing the turn near England Air Park would take place about where LA 1243 meets LA 28?

Then have it follow LA 28 to Archie & follow/take over US 84 after the northeast turn from Sugarhouse?

Quote from: cjk374 on February 22, 2017, 08:40:35 PM
I still have some doubt about using the proposed Alexandria Beltway as the routing for I-14 through Alexandria, especially since the beltway is proposed to be merely an arterial.

Who says that the beltway has to be entirely arterial or entirely freeway? Part of it could be freeway or freeway-ready to accommodate I-14, and the rest could be arterial or wide-median to accommodate a future freeway. (Or all of it could be built with a wide median, Texas-style.)

Quote from: jbnv on February 22, 2017, 11:04:47 PM

Quote from: cjk374 on February 22, 2017, 08:40:35 PM
I still have some doubt about using the proposed Alexandria Beltway as the routing for I-14 through Alexandria, especially since the beltway is proposed to be merely an arterial.

Who says that the beltway has to be entirely arterial or entirely freeway? Part of it could be freeway or freeway-ready to accommodate I-14, and the rest could be arterial or wide-median to accommodate a future freeway. (Or all of it could be built with a wide median, Texas-style.)

If the basic idea is to use LA 1234 and Sugar House Road for the Beltway, then there's no way in Hell they can get the ROW for a future freeway in there. Not with all those direct connections to driveways and the narrow ROW.

They would be better served to connect any routing of I-14 to I-49 just south of Alex to the curve just east of MacArthur Drive, then branch off just NE of the MacArthur Drive interchange. You could still keep the segment of the Beltway between LA 28 and the Sugar House Road/MacArthur Drive intersection as an arterial, and connect it to the freeway segment east of there to cross the Red River and go further NE to meet existing LA 28.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 20, 2017, 11:45:55 PM
I don't think I-20 in Mississippi is loaded down with traffic. I think it would be cheaper to add another lane in each direction to I-20 if needed rather than build another new terrain East-West Interstate across much of Mississippi.

It isn't, save maybe for west of Jackson or along the I-20/59 multiplex.

This April 18 article (http://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/local/2017/04/18/what-take-build-new-highway-through-cenla/100579796/) reprts that the chair of the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition was in Alexandria recently drumming up support for I-14:

Quote
"If you look at the whole project and think about a total dollar value, You're going to be overwhelmed," said John Thompson, chair of the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition. "You have to eat that elephant one bite at a time. That might mean one overpass. One four-laning project that might be only 10 miles long."
The Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition is made up of communities that support the development of I-14. Thompson, a former judge in Polk County, Texas, who grew up in Jena, was in Alexandria Monday to drum up support from area stakeholders.
Originally conceived as a way to link some of the South's most important military installations with each other and with deployment assets like ports and airports, the highway would also be an economic asset and boost ease of travel by giving Central Louisiana an east-west interstate.
"We have the north-south corridor with (Interstate 49)," said Deborah Randolph, president of the Central Louisiana Chamber of Commerce. "We think this project is critical to the future of Fort Polk, as well as an enhancement to economic development in our region."
Congress has designated I-14's route through Texas, where it will run from west of Fort Hood to a new bridge over the Sabine River connecting to La. Highway 8 near Leesville. A 25-mile stretch anchored by Fort Hood will officially become the first part of I-14 in a ceremony this weekend ....
The next step is for state leaders to work with Congress to get the I-14 route through Louisiana approved, so when funds do become available for parts of the project, the state can apply for them.
The most likely route through Louisiana would follow La. Highway 28 from Leesville, looping around the urbanized areas of Alexandria/Pineville to pick up Highway 28 again east of Pineville, then continue east to the border with Mississippi near Vidalia. ....
There are challenges, including whether there's an appetite in Louisiana to provide the large matching funds for a new highway when so many of the state's roads need upgrading.
"This is a long-term project," Randolph said. "Obviously, we're going to start with the (new Sabine River bridge) and go piece by piece. Overall, it's probably a 30-year effort."
"A lot of us will never see it built," Thompson said. "Money today is tight, especially in Texas and Louisiana with oil and gas prices. But you can't quit planning. You can't give up your vision of what the future's going to look like or there isn't going to be a future."

A new Sabine River bridge seems as good as place to start as any.

Are we to the point now where we're just building interstates, just because?  I mean outside of texas, what's the point of this thing?  do any of these people think Miss can pay for this?  they can't even build 69! which is another useless route in that area.

I can think of a number of different significant corridors elsewhere in the nation that would be more appropriate to lay down a new Interstate than this one.

I think there is virtually no chance I-14 will ever be built the entire length of its proposed El Paso to Savannah path. At best we might see a couple disconnected segments, like one in Texas and another perhaps in Alabama and/or Georgia. I can see it maybe getting built from Copperas Cove thru College Station and over to Huntsville within the next 20 years. That's about it. During that period I think there's a better chance of US-290 being upgraded to Interstate standards the entire way between Austin and Houston -especially if the Austin area and region between it and San Antonio continue to grow like crazy.

Quote from: Grzrd on April 24, 2017, 01:55:31 PM
This April 18 article (http://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/local/2017/04/18/what-take-build-new-highway-through-cenla/100579796/) reprts that the chair of the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition was in Alexandria recently drumming up support for I-14:

Quote

"If you look at the whole project and think about a total dollar value, You're going to be overwhelmed," said John Thompson, chair of the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition. "You have to eat that elephant one bite at a time. That might mean one overpass. One four-laning project that might be only 10 miles long."
The Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition is made up of communities that support the development of I-14. Thompson, a former judge in Polk County, Texas, who grew up in Jena, was in Alexandria Monday to drum up support from area stakeholders.
Originally conceived as a way to link some of the South's most important military installations with each other and with deployment assets like ports and airports, the highway would also be an economic asset and boost ease of travel by giving Central Louisiana an east-west interstate.
"We have the north-south corridor with (Interstate 49)," said Deborah Randolph, president of the Central Louisiana Chamber of Commerce. "We think this project is critical to the future of Fort Polk, as well as an enhancement to economic development in our region."
Congress has designated I-14's route through Texas, where it will run from west of Fort Hood to a new bridge over the Sabine River connecting to La. Highway 8 near Leesville. A 25-mile stretch anchored by Fort Hood will officially become the first part of I-14 in a ceremony this weekend ....
The next step is for state leaders to work with Congress to get the I-14 route through Louisiana approved, so when funds do become available for parts of the project, the state can apply for them.
The most likely route through Louisiana would follow La. Highway 28 from Leesville, looping around the urbanized areas of Alexandria/Pineville to pick up Highway 28 again east of Pineville, then continue east to the border with Mississippi near Vidalia. ....
There are challenges, including whether there's an appetite in Louisiana to provide the large matching funds for a new highway when so many of the state's roads need upgrading.
"This is a long-term project," Randolph said. "Obviously, we're going to start with the (new Sabine River bridge) and go piece by piece. Overall, it's probably a 30-year effort."
"A lot of us will never see it built," Thompson said. "Money today is tight, especially in Texas and Louisiana with oil and gas prices. But you can't quit planning. You can't give up your vision of what the future's going to look like or there isn't going to be a future."

A new Sabine River bridge seems as good as place to start as any.

Gee...I understand the value of thinking ahead, but can we please complete I-49 and fix the I-10 bottleneck through BTR FIRST????

The current 4-lane sections of this corridor, LA 28 between Leesville and Alexandria and US 84 in eastern LA, have nowhere near enough traffic to justify an interstate through this region.  Every one of the dozens of times I have driven between Alexandria and Leesville, there have been maybe 2 or 3 cars within a half mile of me, ahead or behind.

The last statewide transportation plan update had over $40 billion worth of "megaprojects" listed, and I would wager that every one of them is more necessary and justified that building I-14 through Louisiana.  Not to mention the $12 billion (or whatever it is) backlog of maintenance.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 24, 2017, 09:14:25 PM
I think there is virtually no chance I-14 will ever be built the entire length of its proposed El Paso to Savannah path. At best we might see a couple disconnected segments, like one in Texas and another perhaps in Alabama and/or Georgia. I can see it maybe getting built from Copperas Cove thru College Station and over to Huntsville within the next 20 years. That's about it. During that period I think there's a better chance of US-290 being upgraded to Interstate standards the entire way between Austin and Houston -especially if the Austin area and region between it and San Antonio continue to grow like crazy.

As far as I know, Alabama has little interest in I-14. The closest thing Alabama has interest in that corridor in is the I-85 western extension along the US 80 corridor, and it has been years since any headway has been made on that. Other than the Birmingham Northern Beltline and perhaps the Montgomery Outer Loop and an interstate connection between Dothan and I-10, there aren't any other Alabama interstate corridors that are remotely being considered at this time.

US-80 between Cuba, AL and Montgomery is what I would refer to as Alabama's segment of I-14, if not an extension of I-85 or I-16. It's the only new East-West corridor of significant length in Alabama that has any long term chance of being built. A new I-14 corridor built farther South to a town like Dothan would not be justifiable. I would much rather see the I-85 extension from Montgomery be built or an I-22 extension SE from Birmingham to Columbus, GA; Albany, GA and Tifton, GA (I-75). If the patriotic pork barrel theme is about linking military installations with Interstate quality corridors you have Fort Benning in Columbus and the Marine Corps Repair Division in Albany.

Right now I-14 can only be best justified as a Central Texas highway. And that's only going to be decent if the road can be built in a reasonably straight path rather than the shark tooth path from Cameron, NE up to Hearne, SE to Bryan, NE to Madisonville and multiplexed with I-45 to Huntsville. Ugh. I really hope they don't build the road along that path. Just go straight from Cameron to Bryan and then on over to Huntsville. Most of I-14 in this area will have to be built on a new terrain path anyway. Most of the existing roads charted to be upgraded to Interstate quality in that area have too much residential/commercial development along side, not to mention railroad lines and other utilities encroaching the right of way.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 25, 2017, 11:44:02 AM
US-80 between Cuba, AL and Montgomery is what I would refer to as Alabama's segment of I-14, if not an extension of I-85 or I-16. It's the only new East-West corridor of significant length in Alabama that has any long term chance of being built. A new I-14 corridor built farther South to a town like Dothan would not be justifiable. I would much rather see the I-85 extension from Montgomery be built or an I-22 extension SE from Birmingham to Columbus, GA; Albany, GA and Tifton, GA (I-75). If the patriotic pork barrel theme is about linking military installations with Interstate quality corridors you have Fort Benning in Columbus and the Marine Corps Repair Division in Albany.

Right now I-14 can only be best justified as a Central Texas highway. And that's only going to be decent if the road can be built in a reasonably straight path rather than the shark tooth path from Cameron, NE up to Hearne, SE to Bryan, NE to Madisonville and multiplexed with I-45 to Huntsville. Ugh. I really hope they don't build the road along that path. Just go straight from Cameron to Bryan and then on over to Huntsville. Most of I-14 in this area will have to be built on a new terrain path anyway. Most of the existing roads charted to be upgraded to Interstate quality in that area have too much residential/commercial development along side, not to mention railroad lines and other utilities encroaching the right of way.

The existence of the on-again-off-again I-whatever along US 80 west of Montgomery is the principal reason for my thought that a cross-MS I-14 won't get east of I-59 at Laurel; if the US 80 AL facility is built, a further I-14 extension to the Montgomery area (per the original posited plans) would be at best redundant and at worst wasteful. 

Also, as regards TX, I've always thought that for the time being development of I-14 east of Temple will be directed toward providing a path through the "Triangle" toward Houston and connecting somewhere around Navasota with the Toll-249 extension toward that metro area; while a connection east from the Bryan/State College area toward Huntsville (maybe paralleling TX 30) might be in the works, once a Houston-Temple connection is completed (that serves the A&M populace) much of the wind will go out of the sails, so to speak -- with the eastern segment through the "piney woods" eking itself out gradually as funding allows.   

I think there's a decent case for a better connection from Montgomery to Phenix City/Columbus than the existing US 80 and US 280, along with a few limited access connections further east (extension of the US 80 Columbus bypass and better east-west connectivity around Macon) and upgrades for a few substandard sections of the Fall Line Freeway corridor to bypass Byron, Wrens, and Reynolds, but there isn't really much justification for an interstate designation, even for economic development.

As for the GA 520 corridor from Columbus via Albany to Tifton well, it really is pretty much fine as-is. Again it could well use a better tie-in at I-75, but GDOT tends to be bad at that sort of thing.

FWIW, I see this corridor as a western extension of I-16, with any remaining piece being renamed to an I-x16 spur. I-85 certainly makes no sense for its routing (except for the Durham-Petersburg segment), but then again, did it ever?

Quote from: Henry on April 25, 2017, 10:48:50 PM
FWIW, I see this corridor as a western extension of I-16, with any remaining piece being renamed to an I-x16 spur. I-85 certainly makes no sense for its routing (except for the Durham-Petersburg segment), but then again, did it ever?

If by "this corridor" you're referring to the greater US 80 (and GA 96) Macon-Columbus-Montgomery-Cuba (AL) routing, then yes, the most appropriate designation would be I-16 as a western extension of the existing route.  I-14's E-W trajectory is situated well south of that of the above.  What would happen to the "southernmost" 40-odd miles of I-85 would likely be determined after the E-W corridor was completed (right now any speculation should be relegated to the fictional realm).  As the extended "I-16" corridor is, along with the existing Macon-Savannah segment, part of a singular high priority corridor (#6), it's more likely than not that any Interstate-related activity will reflect that singularity -- especially since the impetus surrounding the extension west of Montgomery, long dubbed "I-85", seems to have subsided in the last several years -- and a "reboot" might well include a more appropriate number.  The extended corridor, along with the Macon-Augusta "Fall Line" project, forms a usable Atlanta E-W bypass (IMO, any bypass of that particular metro region would be useful); that, along with support from regional political boosters, might revive the US 80 upgrading.   

According to this article (http://www.wsfa.com/story/35072049/interstate-65-85-projects-in-works-in-al-long-range-transportation-plan), The MOL may be shelved for a while.

QuoteOfficials also revealed that the plug has been pulled on some of the plans for the Montgomery Outer Loop project due to funding.

"There's clearly not enough money that's going to be available or not foreseen right now to have that project in the work program. They've been asked to take it out of their regional long range transportation plan. So the only projects right now that are in the Outer Loop are the ones currently under construction into the Pike Road area. The other projects to extend it around to the west towards 231 are no longer in the work program,"  added Carroll.

It's a shame the Montgomery Outer Loop has been shelved indefinitely. That would be the most practical solution for adding an Interstate link between Montogomery and Meridian. US-80 immediately West of I-65 in Montogomery has quite a few properties built fairly close to it. It would be tricky upgrading that stretch of highway to Interstate standards. At least a few properties would have to be demolished to make room for it.

QuoteAlso, as regards TX, I've always thought that for the time being development of I-14 east of Temple will be directed toward providing a path through the "Triangle" toward Houston and connecting somewhere around Navasota with the Toll-249 extension toward that metro area; while a connection east from the Bryan/State College area toward Huntsville (maybe paralleling TX 30) might be in the works, once a Houston-Temple connection is completed (that serves the A&M populace) much of the wind will go out of the sails, so to speak -- with the eastern segment through the "piney woods" eking itself out gradually as funding allows.

I think additional "rings" and "spokes" for the metro Houston super highway network are a foregone conclusion whether or not anyone likes freeways and toll roads. College Station to Huntsville (along or near TX-30) would be a suitable segment of I-14. The TX-105 corridor from Navasota to Conroe is getting covered up with development fast, especially near Lake Conroe. I could see a freeway or toll road being built from Navasota to Conroe and over to Cleveland. If TX DOT wants to build a super highway through there they have already fallen way way behind.

These additional "rings" and "spokes" in rapidly developing areas like Houston are excruciatingly expensive to build, so expensive they're busting the overall budget for long distance, major route development. This nation's highway network has more needs than just serving local commuter traffic. Long distance travel for both commercial vehicles and personal vehicles is very important. I think long distance vehicle travel is only going to grow more important and popular in the coming years when self-driving vehicle technology is able to be sold to the public.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 26, 2017, 11:42:19 AM
These additional "rings" and "spokes" in rapidly developing areas like Houston are excruciatingly expensive to build, so expensive they're busting the overall budget for long distance, major route development. This nation's highway network has more needs than just serving local commuter traffic. Long distance travel for both commercial vehicles and personal vehicles is very important. I think long distance vehicle travel is only going to grow more important and popular in the coming years when self-driving vehicle technology is able to be sold to the public.

This!  One of the consequences of consolidation of state highway agencies into omnibus transportation entities is that the squeakiest of wheels tends to be the focus of the most attention, followed by issues where private developmental dollars are in play.  In states with extensive metro areas like California, Texas, Illinois et. al., that "squeakiest" wheel in invariably the commute situation in and around those metro areas.  How that is addressed can make or break a transportation agency's reputation (as well as the careers of upper management!).  That's why, out in SoCal, multiple millions were spent on the Devore I-15/215 interchange to eliminate a TOTSO on I-15 while providing an additional through lane on each leg -- the perceived needs of commuter traffic to the High Desert exurbs carried the day, while a route in the same Caltrans operating district (8) carrying an outsized percentage of heavy long-distance trucks -- but decidedly not any significant commuter traffic (CA 58) remains in part a 2-lane perennial slog, as improvement projects proceed one at a time every few years or so. 

The same thing applies to Texas and its penchant for widely dispersed and outflung exurban living.  As Houston's "orbit" expands, so does the demand for road facilities to serve them.  As the ongoing fulfillment of those demands continues, the in-state funds available for transportation improvement -- the usual TX bravado notwithstanding -- become scarce when interregional needs arise.  In order to "shave off" some portion of the funding pot, backers of the more rural long-distance routes, such as I-14, resort to a virtual series of "stunts" like the 2015 adoption of a "placeholder" routing as High Priority Corridor #84 and last week's erection of I-14 signs on the Belton-Copperas Cove freeway -- in order to call attention to their project.  It's a "hey, we're here and we're serious about this" type of action.  From the record so far, Texas interests have been able to do just that successfully more than not, provided they can amass a following in state government and secure the cooperation of local congresspersons (even nominally recalcitrant TX Republicans can often find value in these "back-door" earmarks).  I'd say the "Triangle" portion of I-14 will be developed in 15-20 years, anything west of I-35 or east of I-45 may well be a long-term concern unless there's an effective political clamor for timely development. 

Maybe the Interstate 14 concept should be shelved. Outside of a small piece in Texas, I kind of doubt much of the Interstate will see the light of day.

Signing a 25 mile stretch of US-190 as "I-14" will certainly be a head-scratcher for a lot of average car drivers. It may be even more confusing if other disconnected segments signed as "I-14" start appearing in other places in Central Texas, like the College Station to Huntsville corridor. Short stubs like this kind of ruin the perceived value of having an Interstate highway pass through a town or city. It seems kind of fake until a more substantial portion of the corridor is built.

Highway corridor development today is pretty strange compared to how it was 40 years ago. I can remember when Interstate highways were being laid down at a far faster pace than today. They weren't built to the standards we have today, but at least the damned projects were getting finished (and getting built in reasonably straight paths).

We have all this advanced technology, new tools for engineering and construction, yet our nation has become downright pathetic in our ability to build big things. The prices have shot through the stratosphere and the legal/regulatory process has become totally suffocating. At this rate we'll start having to pay a fee and file a draft EIS just to go to the bathroom to take a leak!

I-14 reminds me of I-73. They both have little chance of existing outside of the state they originated in.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 26, 2017, 04:15:22 PM
Signing a 25 mile stretch of US-190 as "I-14" will certainly be a head-scratcher for a lot of average car drivers. It may be even more confusing if other disconnected segments signed as "I-14" start appearing in other places in Central Texas, like the College Station to Huntsville corridor. Short stubs like this kind of ruin the perceived value of having an Interstate highway pass through a town or city. It seems kind of fake until a more substantial portion of the corridor is built.

Highway corridor development today is pretty strange compared to how it was 40 years ago. I can remember when Interstate highways were being laid down at a far faster pace than today. They weren't built to the standards we have today, but at least the damned projects were getting finished (and getting built in reasonably straight paths).

We have all this advanced technology, new tools for engineering and construction, yet our nation has become downright pathetic in our ability to build big things. The prices have shot through the stratosphere and the legal/regulatory process has become totally suffocating. At this rate we'll start having to pay a fee and file a draft EIS just to go to the bathroom to take a leak!

the answer to your statement is simple, money, the government cared about infrastructure back when the interstates were first built.  now they don't care. 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 26, 2017, 04:15:22 PM
Signing a 25 mile stretch of US-190 as "I-14" will certainly be a head-scratcher for a lot of average car drivers. It may be even more confusing if other disconnected segments signed as "I-14" start appearing in other places in Central Texas, like the College Station to Huntsville corridor. Short stubs like this kind of ruin the perceived value of having an Interstate highway pass through a town or city. It seems kind of fake until a more substantial portion of the corridor is built.

Highway corridor development today is pretty strange compared to how it was 40 years ago. I can remember when Interstate highways were being laid down at a far faster pace than today. They weren't built to the standards we have today, but at least the damned projects were getting finished (and getting built in reasonably straight paths).

We have all this advanced technology, new tools for engineering and construction, yet our nation has become downright pathetic in our ability to build big things. The prices have shot through the stratosphere and the legal/regulatory process has become totally suffocating. At this rate we'll start having to pay a fee and file a draft EIS just to go to the bathroom to take a leak!

With the current rules in place re segment signage, it's sort of like the first time I took a cross-country (LA-St. Louis) trip with my parents when I was 10.  We crossed Kansas on US 40 and encountered 3 separate segments of completed I-70 near Russell, Abilene, and the Kansas Turnpike between Topeka and KC.  Having separate segments of an under-development Interstate shouldn't be all that confusing to most drivers unless they extrapolate that an Interstate automatically means a lengthy & continuous facility (and if they do, it'll certainly be a learning opportunity!). 

As I said in a prior post, the nascent I-14 signage on the Belton-Copperas segment is essentially a publicity stunt designed to call attention to not only the corridor's existence but also to promote development of the remainder of the corridor.

Quote from: LM117 on April 26, 2017, 05:32:11 PM
I-14 reminds me of I-73. They both have little chance of existing outside of the state they originated in.

Yeah, but this is Texas.  If developed between Midland/Odessa and I-45, that's still around 450+ miles (more than I-22 and I-41 combined).  The nose is through the door; the blood is in the water -- for TX development advocates, that's more than enough to get the ball rolling on further corridor activity.  Since there's existing freeway segments in both the San Angelo and State College/Bryan areas, I for one wouldn't be at all surprised to see more I-14 reassurance shields posted in those areas by the end of the decade.   

It's all pure political will.  To paraphrase the closing line of an all-time great flick:
       Forget it, Jake.......it's Texas :cool:

Quote from: sparker on April 26, 2017, 07:05:24 PM
If developed between Midland/Odessa and I-45, that's still around 450+ miles (more than I-22 and I-41 combined).

And that's before any part of it is developed in Louisiana, the subject of this thread. I'm pretty sure we'll get at least a Future I-14 designation out of this.

Quote from: jbnv on April 26, 2017, 09:04:19 PM

Quote from: sparker on April 26, 2017, 07:05:24 PM
If developed between Midland/Odessa and I-45, that's still around 450+ miles (more than I-22 and I-41 combined).

And that's before any part of it is developed in Louisiana, the subject of this thread. I'm pretty sure we'll get at least a Future I-14 designation out of this.

If your area Congress critters are even mildly competent, then the stretch of LA 28 between Leesville and Alexandria should receive "Future I-14" BGS's sometime in the near future -- all they have to do is to revise the HPC 75 legislation to (a) extend the corridor over LA 8 to the TX state line (to meet its corridor 84) and (b) attach an I-14 designation to the original SAFETEA-LU ('05) legislation that authorized that corridor.  Anything east of Alexandria will likely require legislation that modifies/extends HPC 75 in that direction -- or a completely new corridor designation; if the intent is to further extend I-14 into MS, coordinating with the delegation from that state would be necessary as well.  However, that may be problematic in itself, as MS seems to have not as of yet solidified a pathway for that route; straight along US 84, a diagonal to Jackson, or terminating somewhere along I-55 seem to be the previously forwarded options.  Might take them a while to figure out just where they want their portion of the corridor to go east of Natchez -- so LA's corridor might just stop at the Mississippi River for the time being.   

Quote from: sparker on April 26, 2017, 07:05:24 PM

Quote from: LM117 on April 26, 2017, 05:32:11 PM
I-14 reminds me of I-73. They both have little chance of existing outside of the state they originated in.

Yeah, but this is Texas.  If developed between Midland/Odessa and I-45, that's still around 450+ miles (more than I-22 and I-41 combined).  The nose is through the door; the blood is in the water -- for TX development advocates, that's more than enough to get the ball rolling on further corridor activity.  Since there's existing freeway segments in both the San Angelo and State College/Bryan areas, I for one wouldn't be at all surprised to see more I-14 reassurance shields posted in those areas by the end of the decade.   

It's all pure political will.  To paraphrase the closing line of an all-time great flick:
       Forget it, Jake.......it's Texas :cool:

True, but it's a good idea IMO to gauge the level of interest (or lack of) in other states before pursuing an interstate that is supposed to cross state lines. Otherwise you'll just end up with disjointed segments like I-73 and I-74. Virginia's politics have prevented I-73 from getting built over the past 20+ years (and counting) and South Carolina wants the feds to pay for I-73 because they're too cheap to fix their damn funding issues. North Carolina is the only state that has built I-73. Texas might run into similar problems with getting I-14 across state lines.

I think the I-14 designation should've went to a corridor linking Houston to Austin and then back to I-10 in west Texas, similar to the I-10/I-12 setup in Louisiana.

Quote from: sparkerSince there's existing freeway segments in both the San Angelo and State College/Bryan areas, I for one wouldn't be at all surprised to see more I-14 reassurance shields posted in those areas by the end of the decade.

It's one thing to post signs like "Future I-14 Corridor" along highways in places like San Angelo or Alexandria. It's another thing to label a freeway hardly any longer than an average 3-digit Interstate as a 2-digit Interstate.

From when I was barely elementary school age I can recall yet to be built segments of freeways like I-10 in West Texas or I-240 in Oklahoma City. I also remember disconnected segments of I-49 in Louisiana back in the 1980's. The difference from then versus now is that efforts back then were extremely far more focused on finishing the road. If you encountered a gap in a certain highway like I-70 the understanding was that gap would be filled reasonably soon. It wasn't possibly a permanent thing like today. And if a gap stood for a long time, like the last section of I-70 connecting to I-15 in Utah, there was good reason (like engineering through and around a bunch of mountains). The Lafayette to Shreveport segment of I-49 seemed pretty slow to get built back then compared to previous decades of Interstate construction. Today the pace is just a pathetic, overly expensive crawl.

Quote from: LM117True, but it's a good idea IMO to gauge the level of interest (or lack of) in other states before pursuing an interstate that is supposed to cross state lines. Otherwise you'll just end up with disjointed segments like I-73 and I-74. Virginia's politics have prevented I-73 from getting built over the past 20+ years (and counting) and South Carolina wants the feds to pay for I-73 because they're too cheap to fix their damn funding issues. North Carolina is the only state that has built I-73. Texas might run into similar problems with getting I-14 across state lines.

This is one of the reasons why I thought it was stupid for that 25 mile segment of US-190 in Texas to be signed as I-14. What other states are honestly going to participate in developing that corridor? More often than not new Interstate highways being added to the system are Intra-state highways. The damned road should have been signed as I-135 for the time being and then changed later to a 2-digit route as the corridor took shape. We have previous examples of this, like I-540 being re-named I-49 in Arkansas.

Quote from: LM117I think the I-14 designation should've went to a corridor linking Houston to Austin and then back to I-10 in west Texas, similar to the I-10/I-12 setup in Louisiana.

I-14 is a more significant route number than something like I-18. The Houston to Austin corridor is a major highway link for two giant sized metro areas. I would have preferred this Fort Hood Interstate to use the I-18 designation since some concepts of the route have it merging into I-20.

As it stands, I guess US-290 between Austin and Houston could eventually become another I-12.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 27, 2017, 03:59:10 PM
As it stands, I guess US-290 between Austin and Houston could eventually become another I-12.

That, or TX 71 south of there (particularly if overall cost is a major part of the picture).  If I-14 gets developed as its West Texas backers project (via San Angelo & Midland), then what happens west of Austin may become interesting -- perhaps the 183 toll road will extend to Lampasas to meet the new cross-state route, giving Austin a limited-access route west -- at least partially obviating the need for a connection from Austin west to I-10. 

US-290 between Austin and Houston is more busy than TX-71. It's the main route traffic from central and northern parts of the Houston metro takes to Austin. TX-71 would be easier to upgrade since there would be fewer miles of highway to upgrade. Both routes may eventually be filled in as Interstate quality whether they carry Interstate markers or not.

The US-183 toll road North out of Austin would not be great as a Westbound exit for Austin traffic headed to places like El Paso and beyond. Even if it connects to a completed I-14 going all the way to Midland the route still runs substantially out of the way versus just taking US-290 West to Junction and I-10.

Quote from: LM117 on April 26, 2017, 05:32:11 PM
I-14 reminds me of I-73. They both have little chance of existing outside of the state they originated in.

I do see a difference between I-73 and I-14. I-73 was clearly planned as a multi-state project, and North Carolina can't be blamed that the other states backed out or stood on the sidelines. Plus there's still a decent chance the highway will be extended into Virginia and South Carolina. Did any state other than Texas participate in planning I-14?

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 27, 2017, 06:20:40 PM
The US-183 toll road North out of Austin would not be great as a Westbound exit for Austin traffic headed to places like El Paso and beyond. Even if it connects to a completed I-14 going all the way to Midland the route still runs substantially out of the way versus just taking US-290 West to Junction and I-10.

I'll be the first one to concede that a direct route west more or less along US 290 to I-10 would be the ideal choice if the intended destination was either Fort Stockton or El Paso.  However, if I-14 is built and routed via San Angelo and Midland/Odessa, using that isn't a horribly bad alternative (albeit a few miles farther).  It also provides efficient access from Austin to those interim locations as well as El Paso and other I-10 points.  Right now the developmental momentum is with the I-14 corridor; while an Austin-Houston direct connection is -- and has been for quite some time -- one of the more necessary but overlooked Interstate additions in the country, impetus for a similar direct connection to the west has always been considerably less (except in road discussion arenas like this one).  The way I look at it, it's a glass half full -- using a Lampasas/Brady/San Angelo/Midland corridor to provide some measure of western access to the greater Austin area -- if that's what's likely to be built in the foreseeable future -- is better than waiting for a more efficient/direct corridor that may never come.  In other words, don't dismiss the doable just because it's not the ideal!  Besides -- in this case, for travelers heading westward from Austin, there's probably a better chance of getting a decent meal in a larger metro area like San Angelo or M/O than anywhere along US 290 and I-10! :D

P.S. -- let's try to return TX I-14 discussions to that thread if we can!

Pulling this back to Louisiana....


Once again, I still fail to see how this route goes through Alexandria as a freeway. Unless they make the proposed Alexandria Beltway compatible for a future upgrade, the only other course I see is this:


1) Upgrade LA 28 to freeway up to the MacArthur Drive intersection.
2) Upgrade MacArthur Drive to Interstate standards between the Masonic Circle and the approach to the new Red River bridge.
3) Wrong-way concurrency down I-49 to the current Pineville Expressway freeway.
4) New alignment freeway from the Pineville Expressway NE along LA 28.


Either that, or force a new alignment freeway from existing LA 28 south and east to where I-49 hooks east just west of the south MacArthur Drive interchange, and just overlay I-49 up to the Pineville Expressway interchange near downtown.


I still say that the best approach is simply a new loop bypass of I-49 and a possible future I-51 along US 165 that would wrap around Alexandria, Pineville, and Ball, and then extend east to LA 28. That's way beyond Fictional/pipe dream territory.


I know this is long term, but I-49 South, the Shreveport I-49 ICC, and BTR need help NOW.

Quote from: Anthony_JK1) Upgrade LA 28 to freeway up to the MacArthur Drive intersection.
2) Upgrade MacArthur Drive to Interstate standards between the Masonic Circle and the approach to the new Red River bridge.
3) Wrong-way concurrency down I-49 to the current Pineville Expressway freeway.
4) New alignment freeway from the Pineville Expressway NE along LA 28.

The first 3 points on the list are very do-able. Property along LA 28/Coliseum Blvd West of Alexandria is set back at a far enough distance that frontage road and freeway main lanes could be added without taking more than a handful of properties. There are more existing property conflicts farther West in little towns like Gardner. Leesville would need a bypass.

Across the Red River from Alexandria the I-14 route would indeed need to spur off the Pineville Expressway onto a new terrain path to get the highway pointed toward Natchez.

Quote from: Anthony_JKI know this is long term, but I-49 South, the Shreveport I-49 ICC, and BTR need help NOW.

Which is why the now-signed part of I-14 in Texas should have first been signed as I-135.

Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 27, 2017, 06:43:08 PM
Did any state other than Texas participate in planning I-14?

Louisiana. See the first post in this thread.

Also, where did this come from?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic3.therichestimages.com%2Fcdn%2F1500%2F900%2F90%2Fcw%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2FInterstate-14.jpg&hash=fca7bece249252d65603e130fd80fac321394920)

Quote from: jbnv on April 28, 2017, 05:11:54 PM
Also, where did this come from?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic3.therichestimages.com%2Fcdn%2F1500%2F900%2F90%2Fcw%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2FInterstate-14.jpg&hash=fca7bece249252d65603e130fd80fac321394920)

Someone who doesn't know Robins AFB is spelled with one 'b', for starters. Regardless it must date back to when the Trans-Texas Corridor was a "thing," since it talks about its "dedicated freight element." (They also missed NAS Meridian, assuming the goal was to highlight military facilities that I-14 would serve.)

I-14 is a stupidly horrible idea. Not to mention there are already routes in the same directions north and south of it. What's next? Extending I-16 to Nashville? Blegh.

Quote from: ColossalBlocks on April 29, 2017, 09:46:25 PM
I-14 is a stupidly horrible idea. Not to mention there are already routes in the same directions north and south of it.

While parts of I-14 don't appear to be warranted, I certainly think an east-west route that bypasses Atlanta might not be a bad investment.

Quote from: ColossalBlocks on April 29, 2017, 09:46:25 PMWhat's next? Extending I-16 to Nashville? Blegh.

If it were to run to the west of Atlanta and stop at I-59, I'd certainly love to have it.  Might take some pressure off I-75 between Atlanta and Macon as well.

(edited to fix quoting error)

That big old map in the above posts notwithstanding, if and when a corridor connects I-20/59 near the MS/AL line east via Montgomery and Columbus to Macon, my bets would be with it ending up as a western extension of I-16; IMO I-14 won't get east of MS. 

Quote from: Revive 755 on April 29, 2017, 10:50:52 PM
If it were to run to the west of Atlanta and stop at I-59, I'd certainly love to have it.  Might take some pressure off I-75 between Atlanta and Macon as well.

Anything that presents the potential to divert traffic away from metro Atlanta has, FWIW, my blessing (driven in that mess enough to challenge my sanity!).  Providing an alternative to I-20 is as good a start as anything; a combination of the Fall Line east of Macon (to Augusta) and an enhanced US 80 (GA 96) corridor west of there could only help!  If the Fall Line route is functionally developed to at least expressway standards, it could attract E-W commercial traffic from the ports of Charleston and even Wilmington; Savannah-originating traffic would use I-16 as per present practice.       

the portion west of 35 is a good idea, it could connect with 20 in between odessa and midland, and shoot straight north as an extension of i-27

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 30, 2017, 02:33:34 PM
the portion west of 35 is a good idea, it could connect with 20 in between odessa and midland, and shoot straight north as an extension of i-27

Something tells me that Midland/Odessa promoters are angling for something resembling that idea by suggesting the I-14 revision via San Angelo and intersecting I-20 at M/O.  There's already a Port-to-Plains corridor "branch" that uses TX 158 between Sterling City and Midland before turning north onto TX 349 to rejoin the original US 87-based corridor (via Big Spring) at Lamesa.  If they can get definitive action on the I-14 segment of this branch, it's likely they'll also press for a I-27 extension that uses a Lamesa-Midland/TX 349 routing rather than the straight shot down US 87.  As the major "metro area" in the Permian, they probably figure they'll be able to prioritize their interests within the regional planning scheme -- and, like most TX advocates, are ready to apply whatever clout they can muster to make that happen. 

Actually, I've got a suggestion for the mods -- why not consolidate all the I-14 Mid-South threads into one, since the discussion doesn't seem to be differentiating between the states involved. 

I don't think the traffic counts are remotely there to justify building the proposed segment of I-14 between Copperas Cove and San Angelo (much less building it all the way to Midland). The route addition doesn't do enough to benefit the whole of the Interstate system -meaning this route isn't going to draw much traffic at all away from the I-20 and I-10 corridors.

The same thing goes for proposed I-14 in Louisiana and farther East. At best, I-14 is only going to be beneficial to the population growth in the Texas Triangle.

As for I-27 extensions, that route would still be best following along or near the US-87 corridor through Big Spring and San Angelo on down to I-10 for building in a San Antonio to Denver corridor. Backtracking the route to Midland would add a lot of extra mileage.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 01, 2017, 11:48:21 AM
I don't think the traffic counts are remotely there to justify building the proposed segment of I-14 between Copperas Cove and San Angelo (much less building it all the way to Midland). The route addition doesn't do enough to benefit the whole of the Interstate system -meaning this route isn't going to draw much traffic at all away from the I-20 and I-10 corridors.

The same thing goes for proposed I-14 in Louisiana and farther East. At best, I-14 is only going to be beneficial to the population growth in the Texas Triangle.

As for I-27 extensions, that route would still be best following along or near the US-87 corridor through Big Spring and San Angelo on down to I-10 for building in a San Antonio to Denver corridor. Backtracking the route to Midland would add a lot of extra mileage.

Of course the traffic counts aren't there.  The whole concept of the I-14 corridor in west Texas is to potentially induce increased traffic by providing an alternate corridor between Houston and the Triangle and San Angelo/Midland/Odessa -- one that will, in the minds of the backers of this project, draw traffic that would otherwise stay on I-10 through San Antonio and then westward through relatively empty territory en route to El Paso.  They're trying to draw attention (and subsequently business opportunity) to San Angelo and M/O.  The same thing applies to any I-27 southern extension; the M/O "boosters" are attempting to realign the P-to-P corridor through their area rather than the more direct Big Spring/US 87 route.  We posters could jump up and down for years decrying such corridors as illogical, wasteful, unnecessary, etc.......but the plain fact is that there's a lot of folks in that region who want these corridors developed as "connect-the-dot" facilities between the areas of interest -- and they've got the political clout to do so.  Whether that translates into available funding has yet to be determined.  But for West Texas, the corridors being promoted are pretty much the only game in town.  It's a matter of attempting to make some palatable lemonade out of the lemons that are available -- if a corridor can be "tweaked" to serve a populace historically bypassed (e.g., San Angelo), then the corridor may have at least a smidgen of justification (probably not enough to satisfy the naysayers here, but enough to make it a politically feasible project).  The interests in that region want their road; and in the long run they'll probably get it.   

If I'm driving on a long distance road trip I am almost always trying to drive the shortest and/or most efficient path from point A to point B. The I-14 concept does not accomplish that for long distance I-10 and I-20 traffic. The route is just too far out of the way. Even worse, the I-14 concept route is so freaking jaggy that it wastefully adds even more miles to a trip just on its own.

The only traffic I-14 will attract is vehicles headed to any of the small to medium sized towns along its path. It has no major population centers along its path.

Political movers and shakers could possibly get I-14 built just as it is charted along its crooked path, ping-ponging between various towns to please other political folks. They might even get any future extension of I-27 re-routed out west to Midland Odessa. But the fact remains the vast majority of drivers are going to stick to their preferred, more direct routes, making concepts like this I-14 deal a giant waste of money.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 01, 2017, 10:56:45 PM
If I'm driving on a long distance road trip I am almost always trying to drive the shortest and/or most efficient path from point A to point B. The I-14 concept does not accomplish that for long distance I-10 and I-20 traffic. The route is just too far out of the way. Even worse, the I-14 concept route is so freaking jaggy that it wastefully adds even more miles to a trip just on its own.

The only traffic I-14 will attract is vehicles headed to any of the small to medium sized towns along its path. It has no major population centers along its path.

Political movers and shakers could possibly get I-14 built just as it is charted along its crooked path, ping-ponging between various towns to please other political folks. They might even get any future extension of I-27 re-routed out west to Midland Odessa. But the fact remains the vast majority of drivers are going to stick to their preferred, more direct routes, making concepts like this I-14 deal a giant waste of money.

The point I was trying to make is that whether we critical types consider it a waste of money or not, the political types will get it built in time, provided they can apply their influence to the money sources.  But as long as they're doing it, it would be considerably more useful serving areas like San Angelo (about 150K metro) and Midland/Odessa (about 400K in total) rather than shunt off to I-10 near Junction or Sonora as per the original (and, even I'll acknowledge, stupid, wasteful concept).  If extended through the Triangle to serve the Houston area, it'll likely draw some through traffic looking to avoid San Antonio congestion (and the big "kink" in the I-10 alignment).  And if the 183 toll road can be extended up to Lampasas to meet the E-W corridor, it'll probably get a bit of traffic toward that city from not only I-10 and I-20 (via Midland) but also from the Panhandle (while US 287 would be a worthy Interstate-grade upgrade, it is such primarily as a DFW connector rather than an efficient way to get to the Gulf coast).  At this point, being a "relief" route avoiding the major (<1M) metro areas is in itself a corridor rationale; serving some interim metro areas is an added bonus.

Quote from: SparkerThe point I was trying to make is that whether we critical types consider it a waste of money or not, the political types will get it built in time, provided they can apply their influence to the money sources.  But as long as they're doing it, it would be considerably more useful serving areas like San Angelo (about 150K metro) and Midland/Odessa (about 400K in total) rather than shunt off to I-10 near Junction or Sonora as per the original (and, even I'll acknowledge, stupid, wasteful concept).

The big question the politicians need to be asking themselves is "where is all the traffic headed?"

For local purposes, such as a freeway link between Midland and San Angelo, there is not enough traffic there to justify such a thing. If such a road was built as a toll road it would go bankrupt very quickly. Currently the road between Midland and San Angelo varies between 2-lane and undivided 4-lane. Due to this the primary intended value for I-14 in this region would be serving longer distance traffic. The problem is the route depicted for I-14 only carries most I-10 and I-20 traffic way the hell out of the way.

I understand the need for traffic avoiding congested areas in big cities. However, I have driven through Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston many times. Certain roads, such as I-20 along the southern portion the DFW metroplex or Loop 8 around Houston, already work pretty well bypassing the crushing traffic jams found elsewhere in those areas. If I'm driving cross country and have to pass through Dallas I would much rather take I-20 to skirt the South side than burn an extra tank of fuel and hours of extra time taking this I-14 thing.

Quote from: SparkerIf extended through the Triangle to serve the Houston area, it'll likely draw some through traffic looking to avoid San Antonio congestion (and the big "kink" in the I-10 alignment).

The I-14 segment through the Texas Triangle might pick up quite a bit of traffic between Fort Worth and Houston if the final alignment is built in a way that saves a lot of time over using TX-6 between Waco and Houston. If I-14 is built in that "W" shaped path from Temple over to freaking Madisonville of all places then I-14 will be a giant waste of time for long distance drivers. And it would have next to nothing for traffic counts if they put toll gates on it.

The "kink" in I-10 for San Antonio is justifiable. There are 2 million people in that metro area. Loop 1604 can bypass some of the worst traffic for long distance drivers.

As expensive as it would be to build a new Interstate through the hill & canyon country of West Texas, such a road needs to provide the maximum benefit to the most people. The US-290 thing, both East and West of Austin, is far more justifiable for billions of dollars worth of super highway development.

If your suggestion for bypassing Houston or San Antonio is just to use 8 or 1604, you're missing the point. Cross-country drivers don't like the choice being between a direct but congested route through the city versus a broad circle around it. Beltways work out well for people who are changing direction. But nobody wants to take 180 degrees of a circle over a straight line. Especially if that circle has tolls. (If you're using Beltway 8 to get around Houston, you're most likely either paying tolls or slugging it out on the service road which defeats the purpose of taking the bypass.)

(Note that I am not arguing that I-14 will provide a reasonable bypass of San Antonio or Houston.)

Quote from: jbnv on May 02, 2017, 03:17:54 PM
If your suggestion for bypassing Houston or San Antonio is just to use 8 or 1604, you're missing the point. Cross-country drivers don't like the choice being between a direct but congested route through the city versus a broad circle around it. Beltways work out well for people who are changing direction. But nobody wants to take 180 degrees of a circle over a straight line.

I think you're missing that I-10 makes a right angle turn in San Antonio. 1604 is five miles shorter than I-10.

Quote from: NE2 on May 02, 2017, 03:37:26 PM

Quote from: jbnv on May 02, 2017, 03:17:54 PM
If your suggestion for bypassing Houston or San Antonio is just to use 8 or 1604, you're missing the point. Cross-country drivers don't like the choice being between a direct but congested route through the city versus a broad circle around it. Beltways work out well for people who are changing direction. But nobody wants to take 180 degrees of a circle over a straight line.

I think you're missing that I-10 makes a right angle turn in San Antonio. 1604 is five miles shorter than I-10.

That I am. Thanks for the correction.

Politicians, particularly those representing specific districts or regions, have no particular interest in asking where the traffic is going -- if the answer is likely "someone else's district".  They're asking "why isn't at least some of the traffic heading toward my constituents?"  They're not highway planners or engineers, nor do they make any pretense about functioning as such.  They're the folks who funnel the money into these projects (often by hook and/or crook); as such, the projects are largely "top-down" affairs with terms and criteria determined outside of the P.E./planning community.  I-14 is a prime example of this type of process.  Of course the now-infamous 25-mile signed segment of that road was built simply as an access spur from I-35 to serve the Ft. Hood support communities along US 190; it became a convenient place around which to plan the whole affair.  Fortunately, the projected path east and west from that area was relatively benign in terms of topography (skirting the worst of the TX hill country). 

I'm not saying that the political process by which corridors are planned and promoted these days is ideal -- far from it.  I'm just saying that in the current environment that virtually eliminates long-term sound planning, the choice is often a politically motivated and promulgated corridor or none at all -- and none at all isn't always an option to elected officials, regardless of external criticism.  I for one would like to see other TX corridors prioritized -- US 287 DFW/Amarillo, at least one variation of Austin-Houston, and a reasonable 2-headed extension (N and S) of the Port-to-Plains.  But on more than one occasion the dragon wins the fight -- and my instinct in that case, as I've iterated previously, is to hope that lemonade can be fashioned from the lemons at hand (hence the San Angelo-M/O option for the western reaches of I-14).  I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em!

You're free to make lemons out of lemonade all you like with I-14. That's your choice. I'm not going to be convinced to like it. That's my choice. Building out that corridor is a giant waste of money. And it becomes an infuriating issue when we all know there's not much funding available for roads (not to mention the road building costs have rose to absolutely insane levels). The pet project of a group of politicians is going to steal funding away from other corridors far more in legitimate need of upgrading -like the previously mentioned Fort Worth to Amarillo stretch of US-287 or either of two major partial freeway corridors between Houston and Austin.

make it a 4 lane divided at grade highway, call it SR 14

Quote from: silverback1065 on May 03, 2017, 10:21:38 AM
make it a 4 lane divided at grade highway, call it SR 14

In Louisiana or Texas? Louisiana already has a state route 14.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 02, 2017, 11:56:41 PM
You're free to make lemons out of lemonade all you like with I-14. That's your choice. I'm not going to be convinced to like it. That's my choice. Building out that corridor is a giant waste of money. And it becomes an infuriating issue when we all know there's not much funding available for roads (not to mention the road building costs have rose to absolutely insane levels). The pet project of a group of politicians is going to steal funding away from other corridors far more in legitimate need of upgrading -like the previously mentioned Fort Worth to Amarillo stretch of US-287 or either of two major partial freeway corridors between Houston and Austin.

The only problem is that there are no other projects in the works along those corridors mentioned -- so there's nothing else concrete from which to be "stealing" funding.  I'm not trying to convince anyone else to be enthusiastic about the I-14 project; the purpose of my various posts is to cast a bit of light on the situation that specific corridors, whether we as onlookers like it or not, are developed to fulfill local and regional political needs and desires; this is certainly one that fits that description.  Given that, it all becomes a matter of "tweaking" so the whole affair isn't a complete FUBAR (as it would be if the western reaches of the corridor would head toward I-10 rather than through some heretofore underserved populated areas).  If I-14 weren't several years into the planning stages -- and the effort hadn't been duplicated outside of Texas as it has now that Louisiana officials are getting into the act, then my instinct, as with other posters, would be to "head it off at the pass", so to speak -- kill it in before it grows.  But now that its backers -- and the folks in the territories through which it passes -- are expecting some form of action regarding I-14 corridor development, securing funding -- particularly as regards the Triangle segment(s), is in all likelihood a foregone conclusion. 

I'm certainly not giddy about I-14 -- but IMO as long as they're going to do it, they need to do it in a fashion that benefits the most people -- both potential corridor travelers as well as regional residents.  None of us have to like it; but if we've got to live with it down the line, it may as well be reasonably useful.   

Quote from: jbnv on May 03, 2017, 11:42:09 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on May 03, 2017, 10:21:38 AM
make it a 4 lane divided at grade highway, call it SR 14

In Louisiana or Texas? Louisiana already has a state route 14.

just texas

Quote from: silverback1065 on May 03, 2017, 12:07:26 PM

Quote from: jbnv on May 03, 2017, 11:42:09 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on May 03, 2017, 10:21:38 AM
make it a 4 lane divided at grade highway, call it SR 14

In Louisiana or Texas? Louisiana already has a state route 14.

just texas

Which also has a SR 14 (actually beginning just north of Hearne, along the projected I-14 corridor).

Quote from: sparker on May 03, 2017, 03:40:39 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on May 03, 2017, 12:07:26 PM

Quote from: jbnv on May 03, 2017, 11:42:09 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on May 03, 2017, 10:21:38 AM
make it a 4 lane divided at grade highway, call it SR 14

In Louisiana or Texas? Louisiana already has a state route 14.

just texas

Which also has a SR 14 (actually beginning just north of Hearne, along the projected I-14 corridor).

put a one in front of existing 14, if there's already a 114 get rid of it or make it the next available

Quote from: silverback1065 on May 04, 2017, 10:22:10 AM
put a one in front of existing 14, if there's already a 114 get rid of it or make it the next available

I would think that someone with 2000 posts on this forum would be more familiar with how Texas rolls with highway numbering.

Quote from: jbnv on May 04, 2017, 10:54:11 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on May 04, 2017, 10:22:10 AM
put a one in front of existing 14, if there's already a 114 get rid of it or make it the next available

I would think that someone with 2000 posts on this forum would be more familiar with how Texas rolls with highway numbering.

i don't live in or near texas, that's why

Quote from: jbnv on May 02, 2017, 03:17:54 PM
If your suggestion for bypassing Houston or San Antonio is just to use 8 or 1604, you're missing the point. Cross-country drivers don't like the choice being between a direct but congested route through the city versus a broad circle around it. Beltways work out well for people who are changing direction. But nobody wants to take 180 degrees of a circle over a straight line. Especially if that circle has tolls. (If you're using Beltway 8 to get around Houston, you're most likely either paying tolls or slugging it out on the service road which defeats the purpose of taking the bypass.)

(Note that I am not arguing that I-14 will provide a reasonable bypass of San Antonio or Houston.)

Notwithstanding NE2's point that 1604 is the shorter route for through traffic in San Antonio, it's woefully underpowered for the traffic volumes it carries, and depending on the time of day and actual destination, using US 290 and SH 71 can be a better option for bypassing San Antonio. If some some political BS results in bypasses of Fredericksburg, Johnson City, and Dripping Springs, all the better.

I would certainly put a greater priority on Interstate quality bypasses around Fredericksburg, Johnson City and Dripping Springs over doing crap along the proposed I-14 corridor. That would at least incrementally add to the big picture goal of giving Austin a complete East-West Interstate connection via an upgraded US-290 corridor.

Loop 1604 definitely needs to be improved. Too much of the freeway quality portion of it is only 2 lanes in each direction. The section on the East end of San Antonio between I-35 and I-10 has some at-grade intersections. A bunch of places in that region of Texas are way behind on corridor improvement. US-281 needs a lot of upgrade work. TX-46 from Boerne and I-10 over Eastward to New Braunfels and down to Sequin is getting more busy.

Would it be possible to make the entire length of 1604 into a freeway? As for Interstate 14 existing in Louisiana, I don't think it will happen in our lifetimes. Is there any major need for an Interstate 14 in Louisiana?

Not really. Outside of Alexandria, Cenla doesn't see a ton of east-west traffic. The existing roads were working well enough the last time I was out that way.

1604:  would take a lot of $$, a large portion of the southern half was laid atop existing roads with full access; a new-alignment freeway would likely be required there.  The northern & western portions are either freeway or "Texas Two-Step" (step 1: frontage roads, step 2: freeway lanes) alignment; that part wouldn't pose much of an issue.  The portion already freeway serves the northern side of town where most new housing development has occurred.

I-14/LA:  Probably not within a 20-25-year window -- although just about any freeway project in the state is often touted as a "hurricane relief route"; a cross-state facility could be publicized as a way to connect the other routes radiating out from N.O. and the rest of the Gulf Coast.  Likely there will be "Future I-14" signs along divided segments of LA 28 between Leesville and Alexandria; but that's probably all for the near term unless some unforeseen funding source comes into play.

Upshot:  probably not in my lifetime; potentially yours!

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 05, 2017, 04:34:06 PM
Would it be possible to make the entire length of 1604 into a freeway?

Not needed. 1604 essentially carries no traffic on the southwest 1/3 between I-35 and I-10. The remaining 2/3 is scheduled for upgrades, while will be enough for the non-upgraded parts. What's really needed is upgrading the northern quarter between I-10 (W) and I-35 (N), which is 4 lanes but really ought to be 6.

The Northern half of Loop 1604 can be upgraded to as much as 4 lanes in both directions without having to expand ROW. A lot of upgrade work is in progress on the Western side. The Eastern quadrant, at least down to I-10, needs freeway upgrades. But at least the ROW is there for the most part already. The Eastern side of Loop 1604 can be upgraded to Interstate quality down to the intersection with US-87 relatively easy.

I disagree a new terrain path would be needed for converting Loop 1604 to freeway quality on the Southern half of the loop. Most of the road already has wide set-backs on either the right or left side of the road, leaving enough room for a future 4 lane freeway. The only difficult stretch is on the Western side below US-90 down to I-37. There isn't a whole lot of property adjacent to Loop 1604. Also a new-terrain path through that area would probably be just as disruptive and take as much property as an expansion along the existing Loop 1604 corridor.

This January 2 editorial (http://www.thetowntalk.com/story/opinion/2018/01/03/time-start-road-14/990393001/) encourages Louisiana's congressional delegation to authorize a corridor for I-14 as soon as possible:

Quote
But for any of those benefits to happen, Congress must first authorize a designated route through Louisiana. That requires a commitment from state officials, from the DOTD to local leaders and the state's Congressional delegation. At this point, it looks as though Louisiana leaders are all on-board.
Local chamber leaders and others will be meeting later this month in Washington, D.C. to urge Congress to authorize a route through Louisiana. We encourage our Congressional delegation to push the issue and get the Congressional authorization needed as soon as possible.
We can clearly see the value of the project and the tremendous benefits I-14 can have for Central Louisiana. Ideally, we would love to have those benefits today, but we understand projects of this magnitude take decades to complete. Which makes it that much more important to to get started on that path today. Just knowing that it is coming would be a benefit to the region.

I still think that LA needs to focus more on finishing I-49 South and the I-49 ICC through Shreveport and fix the bottleneck of I-10/I-12 through Baton Rouge before even thinking of I-14. But, that's only me.

I'm not opposed to lawmakers and planners identifying a preferred alignment of I-14 through Central Louisiana. They can even go so far as securing ROW in some places and doing upgrades, such as adding frontage roads along LA-28 on the West side of Alexandria. That doesn't cost so much to do and does get the ball rolling. But building the actual freeway will consume a great deal of tax dollars and there's only so much of that available for roads. Gotta stick to priorities, like finishing I-49.

Part of the likely I-14 corridor is already a high-priority corridor (LA 28 from Alexandria west to Ft. Polk, HPC #75); it would be relatively easy for any one or more of the LA congressional delegation to extend it west to the TX line to meet their I-14 corridor and east to the Mississippi River crossing along US 84.  But that particular activity will accomplish the same as any "future Interstate" corridor -- it gives future planners a place to put such a thing.  But absent funding, the corridor/designation will just be a line on a piece of paper; at best, I-14 will be another item in a queue that already includes I-49 South, the Inner City I-49 segment in Shreveport, I-69, and possibly any number of locally prioritized projects, including a N-S US 165/425 route that someone somewhere might want to "Interstate-ize" down the line.

Another I-14 question would be whether LA will seek a joint corridor with MS -- and, if they do, whether it would be put on hold until MS decides just where the corridor works best for them -- straight across US 84 to Laurel, angled up toward Jackson, or along US 98 toward Hattiesburg. 

Quote from: sparker on January 10, 2018, 04:53:48 PM
Part of the likely I-14 corridor is already a high-priority corridor (LA 28 from Alexandria west to Ft. Polk, HPC #75); it would be relatively easy for any one or more of the LA congressional delegation to extend it west to the TX line to meet their I-14 corridor and east to the Mississippi River crossing along US 84.  But that particular activity will accomplish the same as any "future Interstate" corridor -- it gives future planners a place to put such a thing.  But absent funding, the corridor/designation will just be a line on a piece of paper; at best, I-14 will be another item in a queue that already includes I-49 South, the Inner City I-49 segment in Shreveport, I-69, and possibly any number of locally prioritized projects, including a N-S US 165/425 route that someone somewhere might want to "Interstate-ize" down the line.

Another I-14 question would be whether LA will seek a joint corridor with MS -- and, if they do, whether it would be put on hold until MS decides just where the corridor works best for them -- straight across US 84 to Laurel, angled up toward Jackson, or along US 98 toward Hattiesburg.

mississippi barely has any money to build their useless section of 69, what makes you think they can come up with money to build the even more useless 14?

Quote from: silverback1065 on January 10, 2018, 07:13:02 PM
mississippi barely has any money to build their useless section of 69, what makes you think they can come up with money to build the even more useless 14?

I have zero illusions that MS has the money to buy much more than signage for their share of I-269 much less more than one outstanding Interstate corridor.  But at the federal level, their congresspeople can -- and probably will in due course -- designate such a corridor -- so the state can erect MGS's alongside US 84 (or wherever!) indicating that this is a "future I-14 corridor" -- and those same politicos will be present when the first such sign is erected.  Remember -- the I-69 corridor as a whole has been around for 23 years now, as has the I-73/74 composite corridor further southeast.  Designation is the easy part; deployment -- not so much!  It's a game of taking credit for a general concept, then kicking the can down the road when it comes to fruition; the next batch of representatives will have to deal with getting the first 80% into the project, while the state will invariably struggle with its remaining share.  The only new Interstates designated since the early '90's that have significant drivable mileage are either those that actually provide connections that weren't there before (I-22, I-49), had substantial existing freeway miles and were amenable to ready upgrading (I-22  and I-49 again plus I-41 and the western portion of eastern I-86), or were in a jurisdiction (read NC & TX) where such activities are commonplace (I-73/74; the progress on the rest [I-42, I-87] hasn't yet been terribly substantial).  Unless there's a clear & present need, it's all about location, location, location! 

The state of Texas can build its part of I-14 from Fort Hood across to the Eastern TX border (hopefully without all the STUPID giant saw tooth zig zags in the route :banghead:). Then that can be built Eastward to Alexandria. That would be enough for my liking. Still, I want to see I-49 finished in LA and would take that as a high priority over building I-14. In Texas I think several projects would be bigger priorities than I-14 thru Central Texas. I-69 in East Texas and South Texas has already been a long running project. Then there's other corridors that deserve upgrades more than this I-14 thing. Houston-Austin via US-290 is a bigger issue. East Houston-Austin via TX-71 is even a bigger priority for Interstate style upgrading. I'll even throw out my own personal want: US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo getting a complete freeway upgrade (it freaking needs it).

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 11, 2018, 12:03:36 AM
The state of Texas can build its part of I-14 from Fort Hood across to the Eastern TX border (hopefully without all the STUPID giant saw tooth zig zags in the route :banghead:). Then that can be built Eastward to Alexandria. That would be enough for my liking. Still, I want to see I-49 finished in LA and would take that as a high priority over building I-14. In Texas I think several projects would be bigger priorities than I-14 thru Central Texas. I-69 in East Texas and South Texas has already been a long running project. Then there's other corridors that deserve upgrades more than this I-14 thing. Houston-Austin via US-290 is a bigger issue. East Houston-Austin via TX-71 is even a bigger priority for Interstate style upgrading. I'll even throw out my own personal want: US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo getting a complete freeway upgrade (it freaking needs it).

Nothing will happen regarding Austin access without Austin interests pressing for such a connection; AFAIK there haven't been any official or even preliminary moves made from those quarters.  I've always thought TX 71 would make a fine western I-12 -- but so far, no one with any clout in Austin seems to be in any hurry to improve their Houston connection.  Fully agree with the US 287 assessment -- I've been on that road so many times slogging through Childress and Quanah (Chillicothe was fun way back when when Santa Fe was running huge oil trains up from Sweetwater -- but not since the line was severed); given the level of trucks, it should be a natural for Interstate consideration (west extension of I-30, folks!).  But it seems TX interests have their mind set on other things; too bad!

Freeway upgrades of US-290 and TX-71 between Houston and Austin would not really involve the City of Austin itself. Neither route hits within its city limits. So it's not like they can block either effort. Right now both routes are being upgraded very slowly, piece-meal fashion to Interstate quality. I think US-290 is a higher priority route than TX-71. It certainly serves a lot more people. Yet TX-71 has heavy enough traffic to warrant significant freeway quality upgrades in towns like Bastrop.

US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo is definitely worthy of a full blown Interstate upgrade, clear from I-40 in Amarillo down to the junction with I-45 South of Dallas. But that's another one very slowly being upgraded piece meal style. I've seen plans on the books for freeway quality upgrades both North and South of Decatur. But it doesn't look like anyone has tried tackling the issue of upgrading US-287 inside Decatur itself.

With all that stuff going on, with all the existing needs present, the whole I-14 thing seems like an extravagant and arguably wasteful luxury. I'd say to TX and LA: reserve ROW along the corridor the best you can. Enforce property set backs. But actual freeway building has higher priorities elsewhere.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 11, 2018, 01:29:18 AM
Freeway upgrades of US-290 and TX-71 between Houston and Austin would not really involve the City of Austin itself. Neither route hits within its city limits. So it's not like they can block either effort. Right now both routes are being upgraded very slowly, piece-meal fashion to Interstate quality. I think US-290 is a higher priority route than TX-71. It certainly serves a lot more people. Yet TX-71 has heavy enough traffic to warrant significant freeway quality upgrades in towns like Bastrop.

US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo is definitely worthy of a full blown Interstate upgrade, clear from I-40 in Amarillo down to the junction with I-45 South of Dallas. But that's another one very slowly being upgraded piece meal style. I've seen plans on the books for freeway quality upgrades both North and South of Decatur. But it doesn't look like anyone has tried tackling the issue of upgrading US-287 inside Decatur itself.

With all that stuff going on, with all the existing needs present, the whole I-14 thing seems like an extravagant and arguably wasteful luxury. I'd say to TX and LA: reserve ROW along the corridor the best you can. Enforce property set backs. But actual freeway building has higher priorities elsewhere.

I don't think it's a matter of anyone in and around Austin attempting to block a freeway connection to Houston; it's more the fact that no one there seems to consider it enough of a priority to even bring it up for discussion, much less promote it.  And Texas, as far as corridor development goes, seems to pay attention to where locals are pointing -- which is why the Temple/Fort Hood region was able to secure the I-14 foothold in their area -- [/i]they requested it![/i]  Relative merit seems to play second fiddle in Texas; getting the PR machine rolling seems to be the initial step in any corridor-related process (a concept pioneered by the Alliance for I-69/Texas!).  Not pretty, but seemingly effective!

In the Texas thread, I posted the proposed legislation, H.R. 6111, (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6111/text?format=txt&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%226111%22%5D%7D&r=1) for the corridor through Texas, and I thought I would do the same for Louisiana:

Quote
H. R. 6111
To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 with respect to high priority corridors on the National Highway System, and for other purposes ....
This Act may be cited as the ``I-14 Expansion and Improvement Act of 2018''. ....
(a) Identification. ....
(2) Central louisiana corridor.--Section 1105(c) of the
        Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is
        amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(91) The Central Louisiana Corridor commencing at the
        logical terminus of Louisiana Highway 8 at the Sabine River
        Bridge at Burrs Crossing and generally following portions of
        Louisiana Highway 8 to Leesville, Louisiana, and then eastward
        on Louisiana Highway 28, passing in the vicinity of Alexandria,
        Pineville, Walters, and Archie, to the logical terminus of
        United States Route 84 at the Mississippi River Bridge at
        Vidalia, Louisiana.''
....
The routes referred to in ... subsections (c)(91) ... [is] designated as Interstate Route I-14 and the States of Louisiana,... shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such routes as segments of future Interstate Route I-14.''.

Not quite as ambitious as Texas.

I still want to know how they are going to pass this through Alexandria-Pineville.

There are three options I know of:

1) The proposed Alexandria Beltway, but that's going to be built initially as an surface arterial with little or no access control. How will they preserve the corridor for future upgrading to freeway standards?

2) Using the Cottingham Expressway (LA 28) to MacArthur Drive, then MacArthur to the I-49 North interchange, then a wrong-way concurrency along I-49 to the Pineville Expressway, then that road to a new terrain route along LA 28 to Archie. Much cheaper due to existing ROW, but maybe condusive to upgrade the entirity of MacArthur Drive between tie I-49 interchanges (or even extend further north to the US 71-165 split in Pineville)?

3) A new outer loop of the Alexandria-Pineville area, with connections between I-49 north near Boyce, US 165, I-49 just south/west of US 71, and a new terrain route with new Red River bridge heading towards Bentley, Tioga, and Ball, and a southern crossing of the Red near where the recently built KCS railroad bridge is. That would be the most expensive and the most sprawl-inducing, but it would be perfect for handling both I-14 and any potential freeway along US 165 through the area as well; plus, it would free up MacArthur Drive from being upgraded.

We will see what we will see...I guess.

i would be shocked to see a single foot of i-14 in louisiana for the next 50 years.

Why not an inner-city connector from PMacArthur Drive to the Pineville Expressway?

Barring that, my money's on #2. There won't be much need for a route specifically for I-14 through Alexandria.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 27, 2018, 02:39:17 AM
There are three options I know of:

1) The proposed Alexandria Beltway, but that's going to be built initially as an surface arterial with little or no access control. How will they preserve the corridor for future upgrading to freeway standards?

2) Using the Cottingham Expressway (LA 28) to MacArthur Drive, then MacArthur to the I-49 North interchange, then a wrong-way concurrency along I-49 to the Pineville Expressway, then that road to a new terrain route along LA 28 to Archie. Much cheaper due to existing ROW, but maybe condusive to upgrade the entirity of MacArthur Drive between tie I-49 interchanges (or even extend further north to the US 71-165 split in Pineville)?

3) A new outer loop of the Alexandria-Pineville area, with connections between I-49 north near Boyce, US 165, I-49 just south/west of US 71, and a new terrain route with new Red River bridge heading towards Bentley, Tioga, and Ball, and a southern crossing of the Red near where the recently built KCS railroad bridge is. That would be the most expensive and the most sprawl-inducing, but it would be perfect for handling both I-14 and any potential freeway along US 165 through the area as well; plus, it would free up MacArthur Drive from being upgraded.

We will see what we will see...I guess.

How likely are we to see an Interstate 14 in Louisiana? Or Mississippi? Or Alabama? Or even Georgia? I know about the 2005 14th Amendment Highway federal designation, but I'd be shocked if Interstate 14 ever sees the light of day outside the one in Texas.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 27, 2018, 04:53:09 PM
How likely are we to see an Interstate 14 in Louisiana? Or Mississippi? Or Alabama? Or even Georgia? I know about the 2005 14th Amendment Highway federal designation, but I'd be shocked if Interstate 14 ever sees the light of day outside the one in Texas.

As I mentioned in the corresponding I-14/MS thread, the only party promoting I-14 east of Laurel, MS is that kid from UGA who wants to overtake the old I-85 extension west of Montgomery and tack it on to a Montgomery-Columbus-Macon-Augusta corridor (essentially the GA "Fall Line" concept extended west into AL) to create a full-width corridor across the "Deep South" -- but with a shitload of multiplexes in the process (I-59, I-85, etc.).  That concept is probably a pipedream unless he can harangue some AL or GA Congressperson to cobble up the equivalent of the "HR 6111" legislation which is authorizing at least the corridor concept in three states.  But even if that occurs, the chances of that overall corridor segment reaching anything near completion in most of our lifetimes (at 68, certainly not mine!!!!) are slim indeed.   

I bumped this thread that has Scott Parker, one of my favourite site scribes, as the author of the  most recent preceding comment.

https://www.nola.com/news/new-interstate-14-construction-timeline-unclear-in-louisiana/article_41d4effa-6775-11ee-852b-b3aef91abbf2.html

The Burr Ferry Bridge is scheduled to be replaced starting next year, a quarter mile downstream of the existing depression era steel truss bridge. It will be built to interstate standards, though only two lane, and aligns with the I-14 interstate (5 of them) route.

This article has small town Louisiana Mayor of Jonesville echoing Bobby about potential revitalization effects induced by a new interstate.

....

Malcolm Morris hopes the urgency shown by Texas officials will spur Louisiana to action.

"When they say they gotta build a highway in Texas, everybody starts getting ready because it's going to happen," he chuckled. "In Louisiana, you say 'OK, sure.'"

Malcolm Morris, a proponent for the construction of I-14, is pictured Monday, October 9, 2023, near the bridge over the Sabine River at the Louisiana-Texas border in Burr Ferry, La.  Well, in the article at least. MHe is 76 years old and longtime I-14 proponent.

Burr Ferry is the first step in his hope coming to fruition. The bridge is slated for replacement, which will start next year. The new version, about a quarter mile to the south of the current structure, will be up to interstate-highway standards and will eventually serve two lanes of I-14.

Once the new bridge is in place, Morris hopes it will help kick start I-14 plans. According to the designation, I-14 would roughly follow Louisiana 8 from Burr Ferry to Leesville, then probably track along Louisiana 28 to Alexandria, where it is also eagerly anticipated.
...

Randolph and others in Central Louisiana think a new interstate could help boost Central Louisiana's burgeoning clean energy sector and help diversify the region's struggling economies by making it easier to lure new manufacturers and other big job creators.

...

Jonesville is on US 84.

"Our roads are bad, our infrastructure is bad, everything is bad," she said. "You name it, we need it ... We've basically been drying up."

An interstate nearby could save the town, she said.

"If we could just get some traffic to come through here, if we get people to just stop in our little town," she said. "If we get somebody to build a Burger King, a McDonalds, anything ... we could grow again."

The path through Alex is pretty much there. It is mostly mapped out. It will have to have Texas style service roads, but the room is there for them.

On the other hand, The legislature does not have any appetite for a new Interstate that has zero use in Hurricane evacuation.

Quote from: splashflash on October 26, 2023, 10:43:20 AM

Jonesville is on US 84.

"Our roads are bad, our infrastructure is bad, everything is bad," she said. "You name it, we need it ... We've basically been drying up."

An interstate nearby could save the town, she said.

"If we could just get some traffic to come through here, if we get people to just stop in our little town," she said. "If we get somebody to build a Burger King, a McDonalds, anything ... we could grow again."

Narrator:  The Burger King did not save the town.

Locally in Alexandria, LA they could at least start getting some work done on a freeway corridor I-14 could use (once the Interstate is ever eventually built thru Alexandria).

The main thing needed is limited access outlets going West and East out of Alexandria. LA-28 going West out of Alexandria is freeway-ready. Frontage Roads next to LA-28 end at Windemere Blvd, but businesses are on set-backs provided a ROW more than 300' wide. That's enough room for new frontage roads, slip ramps and even a widening of the main lanes to a 3x3 configuration.

They could improve US-71/US-165 to Interstate standards through the central part of Alexandria, pretty much without needing to acquire any additional ROW. East of the I-49/US-71 interchange it might start getting a little tricky. But a freeway upgrade following US-165 up to the Proctor & Gamble factory and Camp Beauregard Nat'l Guard Post still looks do-able. A few properties might have to be acquired and cleared, but they could built the Eastern freeway outlet along LA-116 out by the Alexandria Esler Regional Airport. Then the freeway could merge into the LA-28 corridor near Holloway. I think that's a better potential I-14 route alternative than trying to force I-14 along the US-167 corridor by downtown Alexandria.