I-14 in Louisiana

[Bobby5280]

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!

[LM117]

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

[silverback1065]

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. 

[sparker]

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.

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

[jbnv]

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.

[sparker]

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.   

[LM117]

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

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.

[Bobby5280]

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[sparker]

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. 

[Bobby5280]

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.

[wdcrft63]

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?

[sparker]

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!

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

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

I 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.

[jbnv]

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?

[lordsutch]

Also, where did this come from?

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.)

[ColossalBlocks]

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.

[Revive 755]

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.

What'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)

[sparker]

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. 

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.       

[silverback1065]

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

[sparker]

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. 

[Bobby5280]

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.

[sparker]

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.   

[Bobby5280]

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.

[sparker]

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.