AARoads Forum

The scope of the I-14 project has expanded well beyond Copperas Cove and Belton. I decided to start a "catch-all" I-14 thread for Texas.

This Nov. 8 article (http://www.mrt.com/business/article/MDC-backs-MOTRAN-s-I-14-project-change-10599403.php) report that Midland may seek an amendment to the i-14 legislation which would change the western terminus to Midland.  Also, they want TxDOT to further study possible extensions of I-27 down to I-20, which might theoretically link to the I-14 extension:

Quote
The Midland Development Corp. in recent years has put much of its effort into developing the aerospace industry in the Tall City, but at Monday's monthly meeting, the MDC made clear its continued support for transportation on the ground.
The MDC voted unanimously to approve engaging in a promotional agreement with the Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance (MOTRAN) in the sum of $90,000, which is to be paid in two equal installments, first on Dec. 1 and again on April 1.
MOTRAN, whose main purpose is to create a trade corridor between Midland-Odessa to Chihuahua City in Mexico, has been active this year in the creation of Interstate 14, known as the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway System or "Ports to Forts."
The already-congressionally approved plan would create a terminus where I-10 meets U.S. Highway 190 at Iraan and create an interstate east through Central Texas to Fort Polk in Louisiana. MOTRAN is working to change the west terminus to connect with I-20 at State Highway 158 in Midland, instead, thus turning SH 158 and U.S. 87 between Midland and Brady into interstate highway. A change would require congressional approval.
MOTRAN Executive Director James Beauchamp said at Monday's meeting that this is a better use of transportation dollars because the roadway between Brady and Midland sees more than 1,100 trucks per day carrying frac sand on this corridor, and he estimates the frac sand traffic will grow to 2,000 per day in the next few years.
The area at US 190 and I-10 only sees 1,000 vehicles per day, Beauchamp said.
Another major benefit to changing the Forts to Ports plan is that it better connects Midland-Odessa to other major energy centers on the Gulf Coast and would provide easier access to Corpus Christi through an I-10 and I-37 feeder connector running south through San Antonio.
The MDC board showed its support for MOTRAN's I-14 plan by voting unanimously to support the re-designation at Monday's meeting. But the MDC doesn't have its sights only set on south Midland.
The MDC board voted unanimously to approve a resolution to request the Texas Department of Transportation to evaluate and study the extension of I-27, whose southern terminus is south of Lubbock. MDC will request TxDOT look at several possible routes beyond what was suggested in a 1997 study. That study showed a few possibilities where I-27 could have a terminus on I-10.
MOTRAN and MDC will ask TxDOT to pursue a study about possible routes in this area that will create a terminus at I-20.
Also at Monday's meeting, the board supported the creation of ready-to-go projects, such as finishing the eastern portion of Loop 250, so that it will be easier to fund these projects when federal and state money is available.

Here is a snip of the map accompanying the article:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_21_11_16_4_57_29.png)

Looks like all the Jade Helm FEMA camps will get connected with freeways...LOL!  On a more serious note, since I do not live in Texas, is an I-14 corridor worthwhile?  If so, I hope you get the whole shebang, sooner than later too.

Rick

That's some Porky Pig crap right there. I've said my peace about "I-14" and how that route should really be a Houston thru Austin to I-10 in West Texas past Fredricksburg kind of a thing. This little news story just seems to be a big solicitation for a whole lot of federal pork. And it's pork that most likely will not be awarded.

IMHO, the Belton to Copperas Cove corridor is just fine as it is. If it needs to be named as an Interstate highway, call it I-135. Don't waste a I-14 designation on it. There's no justification to build out such a route. The destinations along that corridor are not nearly big enough to warrant an Interstate.

OTOH, I will certainly agree I-27 needs to be extended, both North and South. But NOT through Midland. Point I-27 thru Big Spring and San Angelo. I think I-27 should meet I-10 in Junction, TX to create an Amarillo to San Antonio corridor. From there I-27 gets extended North through Dumas, TX and Boise City, OK and then sent up into SE Colorado thru Lamar and Kit Carson on the way to a connection in Limon with I-70. That would be a really beneficial addition to the Interstate highway system. This I-14 nonsense is a bunch of would be pork barrel indulgence. Central Texas needs other corridors built out to freeway quality more urgently than this I-14 concept garbage. TX-6 between Waco and College Station needs an Interstate quality upgrade far more than this I-14 nonsense. Both US-290 and TX-71 between metro Houston and Austin need freeway quality upgrades. This I-14 thing should really be way way down on the list of priorities.

I agree about an Interstate 14 following the US 290 corridor between Austin and Houston. The existing US 190 freeway should be a three-digit spur of Interstate 35, if it needs an Interstate designation at all.

290 between AUS and Elgin have been a "poor man's four lane" hwy for so long, TXDot must not  think its a priority. AUS-Houston does need to be upgraded.

Finding an alternate route from Amarillo to Houston is a great idea, and get some traffic off of I45 and 287.

I half agree about the three digit interstate on 190 between Cove and Belton. I believe I-14 should run north of Bryan and connect with I-10 at Beamont on the east side. On the west side split near San Angelo, turn 87 into I-27 and have I-14 end at Ft. Stockton at I-10. This routing would provide alternate Amarillo-Houston route and provide a route to have big trucks bypass San Antonio and Houston, providing a bypass like I-12 in Louisiana.

I could certainly imagine an Interstate quality Northern bypass of Houston leaving I-10 at Beaumont and following along or near the TX-105 corridor.

Once the route gets close to the US-59/I-69 corridor it could be a tough slog to build. However traffic levels along TX-105 between Montgomery, Conroe and Cleveland have grown pretty bad. TX DOT has some conservative plans to 4-lane TX-105 between Conroe and Cleveland. With fast growth spreading in that area it may really need a Navasota-Cleveland freeway/turnpike or at least the beginnings of one via a divided highway with wide median.

It would be cheaper to hook a "I-14" bypass of Houston into the Northern part of the Grand Parkway and then have it follow TX-249 toward Navasota. But that wouldn't solve as many problems.

The part of this "I-14" coming from the Killeen and Temple area is tougher to justify. The preliminary route they have drawn is really jagged. It is doing more to whore itself to every community possible in Central Texas without giving car drivers and truckers a reasonably straight path they would expect from an Interstate.

I still contend Austin needs a complete East-West Interstate, not just Austin to Houston. From I-10 Exit 477 in West Texas, thru Fredericksburg, Austin, Brenham, Hempstead and back down to I-10 at Exit 763 in Houston. US-290 will eventually claw its way out the Western side of Austin. I would prefer the route as "I-14" but "I-12" wouldn't be the end of the world. Still, I think TX-71 between Austin and Columbus (I-10) has a better shot of a freeway upgrade than this I-14 concept to connect some military bases, especially when the bases don't even need it.

Regarding Amarillo, that is an important transportation hub. It's certainly vital for freight rail. For a long time I've thought US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth should be upgraded to Interstate quality, with the upgrade going to Ennis and I-45. The I-32 designation has been mentioned for this corridor. Any bypass around Dallas-Fort Worth would probably have to involve the proposed Loop 9 corridor.

I have co-workers and other friends who like to drive to Houston by way of TX-6 from Waco through College Station. Houston will at least have an Interstate quality connection to College Station via the Tomball Tollway extension of TX-249 to Navasota.

This article (http://www.mrt.com/business/article/Is-a-southern-loop-on-the-way-10779034.php) reports that the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition is on board with having the west terminus at Loop 338 in Odessa (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.9033083,-102.210817,11z) and "that language has been filed":

Quote
Midland-Odessa is one step closer to getting a new interstate – and possibly a southern loop.
At its annual meeting Tuesday, the Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance, or MOTRAN, announced that Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition is on board with changing its plans and moving the western terminus of the upcoming Interstate 14 project to the Midland-Odessa area.
As previously reported, MOTRAN has pushed for a change to I-14's western terminus, which originally was planned to start at the junction of I-10 and U.S. Route 190 west of Iraan. MOTRAN President James Beauchamp said in his presentation that the I-14 coalition will pursue having the terminus start at Loop 338 in Odessa. The new interstate would run parallel with I-20 into Midland.
The Reporter-Telegram has reported in the past that I-14 could break off from I-20 at State Highway 158 and run south along U.S. Route 87 to Brady. However, according to an updated – though not final – map during the presentation, a new break-off point would be south of I-20 across from Loop 250 and curve toward and connect with SH 158, creating the western portion of a southern loop around the city.
The map also showed a roadway with a terminus at SH 158 extending eastward directly across from the west junction that curved north to I-20 with the eastern intersection with Loop 250, thus filling out the southern loop and creating a complete loop around the city.
Beauchamp said the new I-14 route would have about six times more traffic than the original route.
The route adjustment requires congressional approval, but "we've gotten (the change) retooled, and that language has been filed," Beauchamp said.
Beauchamp said it's important to have I-14 start in Odessa and continue into Midland. "That way, it is unquestionable that both communities will have access to the highway."  ....
– A broad look at I-27: I-27 is unique in the U.S. interstate system in that it has a terminus not connected to another interstate. Ports-to-Plains and MOTRAN are looking to fix that by having I-27 connect with I-20. The terminus point remains to be seen. Ports-to-Plains is pushing for a connection near Big Spring. MOTRAN, however, is asking for a complete study that evaluates U.S. Route 385, SH 349 and other routes for consideration.

The article also includes a photo of MOTRAN swag. This may or may not be a wonderful Christmas gift for a roadgeek:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_08_12_16_8_30_33.jpeg)

The highways were always great, in my opinion. As for the article, is it likely that this proposal of Interstate 14 will actually be constructed?

Quote from: Grzrd on December 08, 2016, 08:36:19 PM
This article (http://www.mrt.com/business/article/Is-a-southern-loop-on-the-way-10779034.php) reports that the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition is on board with having the west terminus at Loop 338 in Odessa (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.9033083,-102.210817,11z) and "that language has been filed":

Quote
Midland-Odessa is one step closer to getting a new interstate – and possibly a southern loop.
At its annual meeting Tuesday, the Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance, or MOTRAN, announced that Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition is on board with changing its plans and moving the western terminus of the upcoming Interstate 14 project to the Midland-Odessa area.
As previously reported, MOTRAN has pushed for a change to I-14's western terminus, which originally was planned to start at the junction of I-10 and U.S. Route 190 west of Iraan. MOTRAN President James Beauchamp said in his presentation that the I-14 coalition will pursue having the terminus start at Loop 338 in Odessa. The new interstate would run parallel with I-20 into Midland.
The Reporter-Telegram has reported in the past that I-14 could break off from I-20 at State Highway 158 and run south along U.S. Route 87 to Brady. However, according to an updated – though not final – map during the presentation, a new break-off point would be south of I-20 across from Loop 250 and curve toward and connect with SH 158, creating the western portion of a southern loop around the city.
The map also showed a roadway with a terminus at SH 158 extending eastward directly across from the west junction that curved north to I-20 with the eastern intersection with Loop 250, thus filling out the southern loop and creating a complete loop around the city.
Beauchamp said the new I-14 route would have about six times more traffic than the original route.
The route adjustment requires congressional approval, but "we've gotten (the change) retooled, and that language has been filed," Beauchamp said.
Beauchamp said it's important to have I-14 start in Odessa and continue into Midland. "That way, it is unquestionable that both communities will have access to the highway."  ....
– A broad look at I-27: I-27 is unique in the U.S. interstate system in that it has a terminus not connected to another interstate. Ports-to-Plains and MOTRAN are looking to fix that by having I-27 connect with I-20. The terminus point remains to be seen. Ports-to-Plains is pushing for a connection near Big Spring. MOTRAN, however, is asking for a complete study that evaluates U.S. Route 385, SH 349 and other routes for consideration.

The article also includes a photo of MOTRAN swag. This may or may not be a wonderful Christmas gift for a roadgeek:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_08_12_16_8_30_33.jpeg)

Ever since the I-14 (TX version) proposal was floated, I sort of figured that San Angelo would come into play -- that the original leg along or below US 190 down to I-10 was just a "placeholder", so to speak.  San Angelo is to TX what Fresno is to CA -- a sizeable burg (not at Fresno city's 500K, but still the center of its region) bypassed by the I-system.  Midland and/or Odessa are just trying to get some local projects done -- striking while the iron's reasonably hot.  Port-to-Plains has been batted around for decades without any progress, so the interests that be in W. Texas are simply trying to maneuver the newer I-14 proposal to their advantage (and if that provokes renewed interest in P-to-P, that's icing on their cake!).  But unless there's interest in placing I-14 along TX 71 through the heart of "hill country" (unlikely for a myriad of reasons), east of Brady the most feasible corridor remains along US 190.  However, if the full proposal gets legs, I for one wouldn't be at all surprised to see plans for corridor improvement along US 183 up to Lampasas to connect to the main I-14 trunk -- an effective (though a bit indirect) limited access route from Austin & environs to points west -- emptying out onto I-20 rather than I-10.  Austin to Houston would be addressed separately.

If I had to bet, I would bet connections between Austin and Houston will be built out long before this "I-14" concept.

I can understand people in Midland and Odessa wanting to cash in on this porky "I-14" thing. But the reality is money directed at that jaggy, crooked pipe dream will be money potentially taken away from unfinished road projects in Midland and Odessa. Loop 338, TX-191, Loop 250 and US-385 all need their own improvements.

San Angelo should be connected to the Interstate system. But I think an extension of I-27 through Big Spring is the best way to do it (via the Ports to Plains corridor effort). I also think I-44 should be extended from Wichita Falls to Abilene, if not to San Angelo. It's a point of debate where the road should go South of San Angelo. The Ports to Plains Corridor includes Del Rio. I think it would be cheaper and more beneficial to build it to Junction, TX (ending at I-10), creating a fairly direct link to San Antonio. The ports in Corpus Christi and Brownsville can be reached faster that way. How much NAFTA traffic crosses the border at Del Rio anyway?

There aren't any major destinations large enough along this proposed I-14 corridor to generate the traffic counts needed to justify building it through the hill country of West Texas. It would be pretty expensive to build the highway correctly -meaning building a more direct new terrain route rather than following existing roads along a very jagged, wasteful and ultimately pointless path.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 12, 2016, 11:47:26 AM
If I had to bet, I would bet connections between Austin and Houston will be built out long before this "I-14" concept.

I can understand people in Midland and Odessa wanting to cash in on this porky "I-14" thing. But the reality is money directed at that jaggy, crooked pipe dream will be money potentially taken away from unfinished road projects in Midland and Odessa. Loop 338, TX-191, Loop 250 and US-385 all need their own improvements.

San Angelo should be connected to the Interstate system. But I think an extension of I-27 through Big Spring is the best way to do it (via the Ports to Plains corridor effort). I also think I-44 should be extended from Wichita Falls to Abilene, if not to San Angelo. It's a point of debate where the road should go South of San Angelo. The Ports to Plains Corridor includes Del Rio. I think it would be cheaper and more beneficial to build it to Junction, TX (ending at I-10), creating a fairly direct link to San Antonio. The ports in Corpus Christi and Brownsville can be reached faster that way. How much NAFTA traffic crosses the border at Del Rio anyway?

There aren't any major destinations large enough along this proposed I-14 corridor to generate the traffic counts needed to justify building it through the hill country of West Texas. It would be pretty expensive to build the highway correctly -meaning building a more direct new terrain route rather than following existing roads along a very jagged, wasteful and ultimately pointless path.

For better or worse, like it or not, ad nauseum.........political will (particularly the regional variety) appears to prevail much more than "normal" deliberative methods when it comes to modern-day Interstate corridor placement.  Looking at W. Texas as a whole, the logical routings outlined in the above post are the ones that rationally should be planned and eventually constructed:  the original Port-to-Plains corridor using US 87 south from Lubbock to San Angelo, and US 277 south from there at least to Del Rio and probably on to  I-35 & Laredo.  The concept of following US 277 from San Angelo northeast to Wichita Falls via Abilene is also rational and should be considered.  At that point, San Angelo would have sufficient egress in all directions (but due east!) for all intents & purposes.  In addition, US 84 between I-20 and Lubbock, according to published data, is one of the commercially most heavily traveled non-Interstate corridors (not quite to CA 99 standards, but not too shabby indeed!) and probably, more than any other single W. Texas segment of highway, deserves consideration for I-status based on AADT/truck traffic alone. 

But interests in Lubbock & Abilene haven't been sufficiently active in the public arena to call attention to these matters; Midland-Odessa interests have been!.  Recall that soon after HPC 38 was legislated in the '90's, a study was commissioned to explore the possibilities of extending I-27 south to at least I-20.  It concluded that choosing one of the four available paths (intersecting I-20 at US 84, Big Spring, Midland, or Odessa) would not draw the traffic required to justify an Interstate facility because the dispersion of traffic at either Lubbock or Lamesa to the various destinations would continue at the expense of the selected corridor; and that spot improvements to US 84, TX 349, and US 87 should be the interim priority.  Of course, this didn't begin to satisfy the M-O folks; the 2005 Safetea-LU legislation (which brought us some 40 new HPC corridors) featured a rewrite of the original P-to-P language, specifying a western branch of HPC 38 using TX 158 from US 87 west into Midland before turning north along TX 349 to intersect the original US 87-based corridor at Lamesa.  They wanted a piece of that corridor and raised enough of a squawk that they got it.  When the legislation was enacted 11 years ago, I thought that eventually someone would propose a I-27W/I-27E split (encouraged by you-know-what further southeast!) via Midland and, alternately, Big Spring. 

However. it appears that the southern section of that corridor modification is being separately addressed as part of the nascent I-14 concept -- not surprising, considering the historical inaction on the P-to-P south of Lubbock.  It's more ego than egress at this point -- M-O (the "alpha" in this region), with San Angelo in tow, wants a 2nd interstate and is hitching their wagon to the I-14/HPC 84 concept to get it done.  Actually, from San Angelo east to I-35 at Belton, the existing US 87 and US 190 routes are reasonably direct already, with some deviation from a straight line to serve towns as well as optimally utilize topography.  The convolutions of the route occur east of I-35 all the way to the LA state line (it does resemble a broken saw blade!) -- but if it connects to Toll 249 into Houston, at least the portion east to Bryan will have some purpose (OK, maybe not directly to Waco).  Chances are that if this thing reaches fruition east of San Angelo it'll utilize as much of existing US 87 as possible to keep costs down; it'll probably have to deviate a bit more from US 190 in order to bypass the various towns along the corridor.

Yeah, it's cobbled together by political interests across the state -- but that's how things seem to get done these days.  Local interest groups are quite adept at two things:  getting local bond issues passed to cover any regional contribution to the project, and lobbying, lobbying,lobbying -- both at state and federal levels.  Let's put it this way -- if Lubbock, Big Spring, and San Angelo had been able to put the kind of effort into the original P-to-P corridor that is evidenced by the recent I-14 activity, there might be at least "Future I-27 Corridor" BGS's along US 87 and 277 right now!   

I still see a purpose for this interstate through Texas as an I-10 reliever bypassing Houston and San Antonio

Quote from: sparkerFor better or worse, like it or not, ad nauseum.........political will (particularly the regional variety) appears to prevail much more than "normal" deliberative methods when it comes to modern-day Interstate corridor placement.

When political will turns a highway's path into a jagged, sawtooth shape, adding a lot more miles (and cost) to the project then it's better not to build it in the first place.

If the proposed Interstate is only going to follow a patch work of existing roads then those roads should merely be upgraded as traffic needs increase on them. As it stands traffic counts on those existing roads in Central and West Texas aren't high enough to justify an Interstate quality upgrade.

It would be funny to see how well this I-14 pipe dream would progress if it had to do so only with Texas taxpayer dollars. There's no way it would get built. Hence slapping a "I-14" label on it and lobbying for lot of federal cash.

Quote from: sparkerActually, from San Angelo east to I-35 at Belton, the existing US 87 and US 190 routes are reasonably direct already, with some deviation from a straight line to serve towns as well as optimally utilize topography.

The path could still be improved. Good choices on bypass alignment around Brady, Rochelle, Richland Springs, San Saba, Lometa and Lampasas could straighten the route more.

Quote from: longhornI still see a purpose for this interstate through Texas as an I-10 reliever bypassing Houston and San Antonio

This "I-14" concept, as currently drawn, is placed too far North and has a far too jagged, distance-adding path for it to work as any kind of relief route for Houston and San Antonio. Given the choice I'd much rather drive through both of those cities and use the beltways in the worst case scenario.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2016, 12:13:59 PM

Quote from: sparkerFor better or worse, like it or not, ad nauseum.........political will (particularly the regional variety) appears to prevail much more than "normal" deliberative methods when it comes to modern-day Interstate corridor placement.

When political will turns a highway's path into a jagged, sawtooth shape, adding a lot more miles (and cost) to the project then it's better not to build it in the first place.

If the proposed Interstate is only going to follow a patch work of existing roads then those roads should merely be upgraded as traffic needs increase on them. As it stands traffic counts on those existing roads in Central and West Texas aren't high enough to justify an Interstate quality upgrade.

It would be funny to see how well this I-14 pipe dream would progress if it had to do so only with Texas taxpayer dollars. There's no way it would get built. Hence slapping a "I-14" label on it and lobbying for lot of federal cash.

Quote from: sparkerActually, from San Angelo east to I-35 at Belton, the existing US 87 and US 190 routes are reasonably direct already, with some deviation from a straight line to serve towns as well as optimally utilize topography.

The path could still be improved. Good choices on bypass alignment around Brady, Rochelle, Richland Springs, San Saba, Lometa and Lampasas could straighten the route more.

Quote from: longhornI still see a purpose for this interstate through Texas as an I-10 reliever bypassing Houston and San Antonio

This "I-14" concept, as currently drawn, is placed too far North and has a far too jagged, distance-adding path for it to work as any kind of relief route for Houston and San Antonio. Given the choice I'd much rather drive through both of those cities and use the beltways in the worst case scenario.

Lots of good points made here.  Any San Antonio "relief route" involving traversing metro Austin is probably not much "relief" given Austin's own traffic issues; while a bit convoluted and admittedly a bit farther north than optimal, a TX 249/I-14 via Temple/Belton and San Angelo might be an easier (in terms of existing/potential choke points) run than I-10 is now; considering the east-to-west nearly right-angle route that I-10 takes through S.A. -- and I-410 or even Loop 1604 isn't viable relief either much of the time.  When one backs off and looks at the entire I-14 corridor across the Gulf States, it doesn't function as much as relief for any one I-10 or I-20 metro slog as an alternate for long-distance E-W regional traffic that essentially avoids those metro choke points on the existing corridors.  Remember that the '56 Interstate network was largely laid out along existing highly-trafficked U.S. and state corridors (which in turn more often than not, at least in the Midwest and Plains states, followed the railroads' alignments) -- which meant a "connect-the-dots" approach to the metro areas within the larger region.  With those metro areas growing dramatically over the past six decades, it's not surprising that corridors traversing less-populated regions have been deployed or at least proposed to serve through/long-distance traffic -- as, yes, "relief routes" of sorts.  But without a dedicated funding mechanism for these, they tend to appear as if they were cobbled together by a committee -- which is invariably an apt description of the process to get a corridor designated in the first place (at least since the last major top-down Interstate additions of 1968).  One can argue whether the Interstate concept was intended to be a "build the original plan as close as feasible and then we're done" undertaking or a type of "organic" system to be augmented as need and/or demographics are considered.  The "bar" for determining which, if any, I-addition projects are to reach fruition seems to raise or lower depending upon whose hand is on the lever and how successfully they're framed the rationales for such activity.  Folks in TX and NC seem to have figured out how to "game" the process (having a cooperative or at worst neutral DOT certainly helps!), so corridors seem to blossom quite regularly from those quarters; the strategy of adding HPC's, with their promise of 80% federal input, is the current modus operandi of choice.  But, as the overall history of the Interstate system shows, plans can change, modify, or evaporate when it comes time to actually implement.  As far as I-14, as a strictly TX server or a multi-state routing, we shall just have to see..................       

Are we even certain that I-14 is going to exactly follow the jagged corridor shown on maps east of I-35? That may have been more of a "follow this route to this city and then this route to this city" type of corridor definition to give legislators a rough idea of where the road runs. I'm guessing there's no road that runs due east in that area because the road system is more of a skewed grid. (The county lines in that area are about 45° from N-S and E-W.)

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 14, 2016, 04:04:26 AM
Are we even certain that I-14 is going to exactly follow the jagged corridor shown on maps east of I-35? That may have been more of a "follow this route to this city and then this route to this city" type of corridor definition to give legislators a rough idea of where the road runs. I'm guessing there's no road that runs due east in that area because the road system is more of a skewed grid. (The county lines in that area are about 45° from N-S and E-W.)

East of I-35, there's absolutely nothing that has been written in stone re an I-14 alignment; the only reasonably safe bet is that it will pass near the College Station/Bryan area (population center + Texas A&M).  Scott is absolutely correct about the "skew" of the existing roads in the area; most of the major highways follow the major rail lines (TX 36 follows the Temple-Galveston/Houston main line, while TX 6/TX 14 is adjacent to the UP Dallas-Houston main (ex-SP).  These in turn more or less followed the river topology of the region.  However, except for the Texas exit point specified in the HPC 84 language (along TX 63 east of Jasper), the alignment of I-14 east of Bryan is even less defined -- and because that section has little value as a intra-TX metro connector, it is less likely to be prioritized in the near term. 

And since the route east of I-35 is not defined it may still be straighter route than the present 190 route now. Have a connection to I-10 at either Beaumont or Lake Charles and voila, the "Texas I-12" becomes viable. It would make for a better business case to build such a section first before continuing east.

In my humble opinion US-290 between Austin and Houston should be addressed as a higher priority than these I-14 concepts. If an "I-12" route can include that and even extend over to Beaumont that's cool. But even a Westward extension of US-290 as a superhighway to I-10 in West Texas should be a big priority.

Quote from: sparkerAny San Antonio "relief route" involving traversing metro Austin is probably not much "relief" given Austin's own traffic issues; while a bit convoluted and admittedly a bit farther north than optimal, a TX 249/I-14 via Temple/Belton and San Angelo might be an easier (in terms of existing/potential choke points) run than I-10 is now; considering the east-to-west nearly right-angle route that I-10 takes through S.A. -- and I-410 or even Loop 1604 isn't viable relief either much of the time.

That's too far North to drive for avoiding I-10. A bypass for I-10 traffic going around San Antonio would be far better shooting the gap between Austin and San Antonio, from the East beginning around Flatonia, hitting I-35 near San Marcos and reaching I-10 again at Kerrville. Bypassing Houston is another animal.

Metro Houston covers so much area. The northern quadrant of the Grand Parkway could function as one part of an Interstate bypass beginning around Beaumont. Huntsville is 45 miles North of the I-45/Grand Parkway interchange. That's one possible route for "I-14," with another alternative being Madisonville another 25 miles farther North on I-45. That's way too far for bypass functions for Houston and San Antonio.

Quote from: sparkerWhen one backs off and looks at the entire I-14 corridor across the Gulf States, it doesn't function as much as relief for any one I-10 or I-20 metro slog as an alternate for long-distance E-W regional traffic that essentially avoids those metro choke points on the existing corridors.

A true relief route doesn't stray far from the original route for which it is providing the relief or take the motorist way out of his way. This I-14 concept would add hundreds of miles to a trip for anyone avoiding cities on the I-10 or I-20 corridors.

Quote from: sparkerThe "bar" for determining which, if any, I-addition projects are to reach fruition seems to raise or lower depending upon whose hand is on the lever and how successfully they're framed the rationales for such activity.

Yeah, far be it the most obvious reason for building an Interstate highway: responding to traffic needs. It's probably a safe bet there is a lot more traffic on the US-290 corridor between Austin and Houston than there is any other route inside the I-45/I-35/I-10 triangle. Yet that route seems to be way down the list of priorities for super highway conversion.

I still think it's laughable for the I-14 highway backers to use military posts/bases as a justification for building this road. If Interstates so were vital to the Army, Air Force, etc. we would already have a North-South Interstate connection between Fort Hood in Killen and Fort Sill here in Lawton (with Sheppard AFB getting connected in Wichita Falls). There is a great deal of activity going on between Fort Hood and Fort Sill. Fort Bliss in El Paso is involved those operations. Maybe they need to extend I-44 from Wichita Falls to Lubbock and thru New Mexico to run to El Paso.
:-P

Quote from: sparkerEast of I-35, there's absolutely nothing that has been written in stone re an I-14 alignment; the only reasonably safe bet is that it will pass near the College Station/Bryan area (population center + Texas A&M).

Final alignments would only be "written in stone" after all of the EIS, public comment and FONSI process was finished. Nevertheless, comments from the highway's backers strongly suggest they would upgrade along existing highways as much as possible. I don't think they would illustrate such a jagged path through East Texas in all their concept maps otherwise.

There is also only so many potential paths I-14 could take through Central and East Texas. Aside from dodging existing development there are large lakes and wetlands areas North of those lakes to dodge (Lake Conroe, Lake Livingston, Lake Sam Rayburn, B. A. Steinhagen Lake, Toldeo Bend Resevoir).

Quote from: longhorn on December 14, 2016, 03:14:23 PM
And since the route east of I-35 is not defined it may still be straighter route than the present 190 route now. Have a connection to I-10 at either Beaumont or Lake Charles and voila, the "Texas I-12" becomes viable. It would make for a better business case to build such a section first before continuing east.

I'm not so sure about a Beaumont or Lake Charles connection. I-14 at its most "effective" needs to be as much a straight west-to-east connection through Central Texas and on to central Louisiana. If you really want to create a "Texas I-12", it would be better to use US 90 via the Crosby Freeway east of Houston to near Dawes, then go on new alignment north of Beaumont to meet with existing TX 12 near Deweyville, then upgrade TX 12/LA 12/US 190 all the way to Baton Rouge to connect with existing I-12. Then, you could justify running I-12 through US 290 to Austin (with either I-10 or I-610 being the connection between the two) and further west.

Personally, I'm with the consensus that only the freewayized portion of US 190 between Bryan and Fort Hood needs an I-shield (I-x35). Maybe upgrade 190 east to connect with an extended TX 249 tollway or an upgraded TX 6 or US 290. But more pressing priorities exist than this boondoggle.

I don't think there is much hope or even any need really to connect I-12 in Louisiana with another possible I-12 in Texas. We already have a few disconnected/duplicate 2-digit Interstates in the system (I-74, I-76, I-84, I-86, I-88) and potentially more (I-66 and I-87).

I could see US-90 between upgraded between Houston, Dayton and Beaumont, with a western connection from Dayton attaching into the Grand Parkway to get a bypass up over the northern part of Houston. Overall, if there will be new I-12 shields going up in Texas (and "I-14" is congressionally gobbled up by a bunch of pork barrel nonsense) those I-12 shields ought to be going up between Houston and Austin along the US-290 corridor. Running I-12 on the northern quadrant of the Grand Parkway would unite both roads, giving I-10 in coming from Louisiana a fairly straight shot at 2 million people in metro Austin.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 14, 2016, 07:53:12 PM
In my humble opinion US-290 between Austin and Houston should be addressed as a higher priority than these I-14 concepts.

A true relief route doesn't stray far from the original route for which it is providing the relief or take the motorist way out of his way. This I-14 concept would add hundreds of miles to a trip for anyone avoiding cities on the I-10 or I-20 corridors.

Wholeheartedly agree on the need for a direct Austin-Houston Interstate-grade connector; but always thought TX 71 via its Columbus junction with I-10 would be a more efficient routing than US 290.  Both options would require extensive upgrades, especially through the various towns along their alignments.  But I too can see a western I-12 being designated along such a route once fully deployed.  I'm just surprised that with all the other corridor activity in the general vicinity (including I-14)  that such a connector hasn't been added to the mix of proposals -- the need is certainly there -- but AFAIK, there hasn't been any groundswell emanating from Austin and environs toward this end -- at least not generally publicized.  I'd venture that some sort of specific proposal from regional interests would necessarily precede any formal proposal for an Austin eastward connector.

As far as the prospect of I-14 as a relief route is concerned -- I'll acknowledge that in its planned form (assuming the folks out west in M/O & San Angelo are successful at routing the corridor through their areas) it does function considerably better as a reliever of I-20 than I-10, since east of TX it veers up to the US 84 E-W alignment; its presumed junction with I-59 near Laurel is only 50 miles south of I-20 at that point.  A traveler, commercial or not, would need to weigh the somewhat longer aggregate distance vs. I-20 against any congestion-related delays along the more direct original route.  Also, if some sort of connector down to the Beaumont area from the more likely I-14 alignments in East Texas were to be considered, then I-14's role vis-à-vis I-10 might be enhanced -- but that's something to be more appropriately discussed in Fictional at this point.   

While it would be nice to have an Interstate that completely misses the three largest cities in TX (Houston and San Antonio to the south, and Dallas to the north), I see it as basically an east-west version of I-69, especially if the already-proposed I-14 in LA, MS, AL and GA is not built.

Interstates connect cities, not miss them. That's one of the big failings about the jagged corridor of the proposed "I-14." The road has no major connections. And its benefit to military bases is, at best, pretty sketchy.

One could try to argue Interstates do avoid big cities using examples like I-81 in Virginia and Pennsylvania or I-5 in Northern California. I-81 does bypass the Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia areas, but only to hook into I-78 and provide a direct route into the New York City metro area. That helps pull some traffic off I-95. I-5 in Northern California does some of the same thing, pulling traffic to/from Oregon and Washington away from the SF Bay Area and away from the Bakersfield/Fresno corridor. But it funnels into the L.A. area. US-101 and CA-99 compliment I-5. But all those roads are actually going somewhere significant even if they bypass another place of significance.

This I-14 idea in Texas does none of those things. Because the corridor is so jagged and so out of the way it can't work well at all as a bypass for the Houston, Austin or Dallas areas. In order to draw traffic onto that route, the road has to eventually lead directly to a big destination, like I-81 pointing directly at New York City (via I-78). There really is no other point of building "I-14" in Texas than legislating pork.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2016, 01:43:17 PM
Interstates connect cities, not miss them. That's one of the big failings about the jagged corridor of the proposed "I-14." The road has no major connections. And its benefit to military bases is, at best, pretty sketchy.

One could try to argue Interstates do avoid big cities using examples like I-81 in Virginia and Pennsylvania or I-5 in Northern California. I-81 does bypass the Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia areas, but only to hook into I-78 and provide a direct route into the New York City metro area. That helps pull some traffic off I-95. I-5 in Northern California does some of the same thing, pulling traffic to/from Oregon and Washington away from the SF Bay Area and away from the Bakersfield/Fresno corridor. But it funnels into the L.A. area. US-101 and CA-99 compliment I-5. But all those roads are actually going somewhere significant even if they bypass another place of significance.

This I-14 idea in Texas does none of those things. Because the corridor is so jagged and so out of the way it can't work well at all as a bypass for the Houston, Austin or Dallas areas. In order to draw traffic onto that route, the road has to eventually lead directly to a big destination, like I-81 pointing directly at New York City (via I-78). There really is no other point of building "I-14" in Texas than legislating pork.

I'll certainly agree that there are other corridors in TX that, according to present traffic numbers, would be better prioritized than anything along the various I-14 corridor iterations -- Ft. Worth to Amarillo, Austin to Houston, Lubbock south to I-10 -- these all have demonstrated interregional or interurban usage.  But I can also see what the interests promoting I-14 are attempting to do (more "earmark" than "pork", in this instance), namely, string together a corridor that serves heretofore secondary cities and metro regions -- those whose population base has increased since 1973, when Interstate augmentation became a matter of "bottom-up" activities from states & localities rather than the "top-down" Federally-based preconceived routings that characterized the original 1956 system and its 1968 additions.  In spite of the vagueness of the 2015 I-14 (HPC #84) authorizing legislation, it has become clear that there are a few entities that want to obtain or enhance Interstate service:  San Angelo, the Temple/Belton/Fort Hood extended metro area, and College Station/Bryan.  Of course, Midland-Odessa has injected itself into the mix as well as of late.  What is clear is that there's a pretty straight shot east of San Angelo to I-35 at Belton.  East of there, if one simply follows the US 190 path to Bryan, it is certainly a jagged path -- sort of looks like a rough-cut circular saw blade, in fact!  But the chances are that any alignment in this area will cut off a lot of the corners; a completed corridor stands as good a chance of being an efficient routing than it does as a series of right angles as US 190 is today. 

As far as actually going to an existing population center, it could be extrapolated that if the west end of the proposed I-14 corridor makes it to Midland/Odessa, it would then empty traffic onto westerly I-20, which will, via I-10 of course, make it to El Paso and points beyond.  And at Bryan/College Station the corridor will ostensibly intersect the extended TX Toll 249, which will take traffic straight into metro Houston.  As with I-81, it wouldn't itself get to the major metro areas in the region, but the facilities with which it connects would. 

Whether minor/secondary metro areas "deserve" Interstate service is a concept that will likely be volleyed back and forth in this forum without resolution.  Back in '56 the notion was that cities over 50K population would be served by the system; considering the population of the nation was at that time about half what it is today, it would be rational to suppose that 100K might be a more modern standard.  If applied to metro areas, San Angelo, Temple, and Bryan/State College would certainly fall within that criterion.  Collectively, they're promoting the I-14 corridor concept; the fact that they got it written into the U.S. Code last year speaks volumes.  My own guess is that sometime in the next 10-15 years there will be a few signed segments of I-14 across the state; most likely in & around those three metro areas cited above.  The rest of the corridor?....likely to be "back-burnered" until either more pressing statewide projects are addressed or if dedicated funding becomes available.  There might be a few bypasses built (Brady, Lampasas for example) as effective SIU's, but unless some event such as a high-level fundraiser by A & M alums can kickstart a 3P, most of the rural sections will go undeveloped for a very long time. 

I'm not a cheerleader for I-14 -- but I think I do understand why its various iterations have been proposed and why there's a "bandwagon" at all.  It might come to pass, it might not; it'll be interesting to see how it plays out down the line.   

Quote from: sparkerI'll certainly agree that there are other corridors in TX that, according to present traffic numbers, would be better prioritized than anything along the various I-14 corridor iterations -- Ft. Worth to Amarillo, Austin to Houston, Lubbock south to I-10 -- these all have demonstrated interregional or interurban usage.  But I can also see what the interests promoting I-14 are attempting to do (more "earmark" than "pork", in this instance), namely, string together a corridor that serves heretofore secondary cities and metro regions -- those whose population base has increased since 1973, when Interstate augmentation became a matter of "bottom-up" activities from states & localities rather than the "top-down" Federally-based preconceived routings that characterized the original 1956 system and its 1968 additions.

I still call the road would-be pork, and the backers of this "I-14" project will be lucky to get any earmarks to fund it.

The "top-down" view from the federal government and its pre-conceived Interstate route selections were drawn from a big picture, national view -which is really how the Interstate highway system is supposed to work. It's not supposed to be a hodge podge of crooked, mileage wasting routes twisting to the whims and demands of each political interest. If the Interstate system does that then you get a bunch of roads going to nowhere.

Quote from: sparkerIn spite of the vagueness of the 2015 I-14 (HPC #84) authorizing legislation, it has become clear that there are a few entities that want to obtain or enhance Interstate service:  San Angelo, the Temple/Belton/Fort Hood extended metro area, and College Station/Bryan.  Of course, Midland-Odessa has injected itself into the mix as well as of late.  What is clear is that there's a pretty straight shot east of San Angelo to I-35 at Belton.

Here's the problem: US-190 between San Angelo and Copperas Cove is picking up very little long distance traffic from elsewhere. That probably won't change with the road blown up to an Interstate-class facility. The traffic there is mostly local and region-specific.

A lot more of that corridor would already be divided 4-lane if the traffic counts were high enough. I'm sure the people in Midland-Odessa would like another East-West Interstate. But when those folks hop in their cars and drive hundreds of miles East they're almost always heading up I-20 to Dallas-Fort Worth. If they're heading to Austin they'll get on TX-71 at Brady and not bother going to Killeen. That road is mostly a dinky, winding 2-lane road most of the way. It grows to undivided 4-lane once it crosses US-281.

QuoteEast of there, if one simply follows the US 190 path to Bryan, it is certainly a jagged path -- sort of looks like a rough-cut circular saw blade, in fact!  But the chances are that any alignment in this area will cut off a lot of the corners; a completed corridor stands as good a chance of being an efficient routing than it does as a series of right angles as US 190 is today.

Look how crooked I-69 is being built in Southern Indiana and Kentucky. If that new Interstate could be built with such a jagged, time-wasting, fuel-wasting path I don't have much hope for this "I-14" concept to straighten out its jagged path either. The path for "I-14" looks pretty crooked on purpose, probably to try to come near as many towns as possible in Central Texas and get enough of a political bandwagon together there.

Quote from: sparkerAs far as actually going to an existing population center, it could be extrapolated that if the west end of the proposed I-14 corridor makes it to Midland/Odessa, it would then empty traffic onto westerly I-20, which will, via I-10 of course, make it to El Paso and points beyond.  And at Bryan/College Station the corridor will ostensibly intersect the extended TX Toll 249, which will take traffic straight into metro Houston.

An immense destination and source of traffic such as Houston would be a valuable feeder into such an East-West corridor, but only if I-10 didn't already present a shorter, more direct and toll free route for Houston traffic heading to El Paso or points beyond. A connection in San Angelo with a possible I-27 extension is also iffy. There are other faster more direct routes from Houston to the Texas panhandle and front range of the Rockies.

Quote from: sparkerWhether minor/secondary metro areas "deserve" Interstate service is a concept that will likely be volleyed back and forth in this forum without resolution.  Back in '56 the notion was that cities over 50K population would be served by the system; considering the population of the nation was at that time about half what it is today, it would be rational to suppose that 100K might be a more modern standard.

Cities and towns have been skirted or completely bypassed by Interstates in the past based on the big picture needs of the overall system for linking major destinations. Look at I-20 in East Texas for instance. It goes directly East to Shreveport rather than zig-zagging its way through Athens, Tyler, Longview and Marshall.

The United States has over a 100 million more people than it did in the early days of the Interstate system. Unfortunately it also now costs far more money to build new highways and there are far more legal and bureaucractic hurdles than ever. To top it off, our funding mechanism for highways and other major infrastructure projects is completely broken. We have a general public who seems to believe roads get built for nothing and they're already paying way too much in fuel taxes. But build that new Interstate in my town, by golly!

QuoteMy own guess is that sometime in the next 10-15 years there will be a few signed segments of I-14 across the state; most likely in & around those three metro areas cited above.  The rest of the corridor?....likely to be "back-burnered" until either more pressing statewide projects are addressed or if dedicated funding becomes available.  There might be a few bypasses built (Brady, Lampasas for example) as effective SIU's, but unless some event such as a high-level fundraiser by A & M alums can kickstart a 3P, most of the rural sections will go undeveloped for a very long time.

It's possible to crowd-source small projects, like raising money for a disabled child's life saving operation. Highways are just so painfully expensive they're way out of reach for any crowd sourcing efforts to be effective. Such a grass roots thing might even be undermined by new urbanists pitching sidewalk, bike path and green space projects instead. "Hey everyone! We'll hike to El Paso! It'll be fun!"

As San Angelo and other central Texas towns grow, I certainly expect to see some upgrades along the US-190 corridor, such as a freeway quality bypasses around Lampasas, Brady and San Saba. The US-190 freeway might be extended from Copperas Cove to Lampasas in the somewhat near future. I think the other segments to San Angelo will only get upgraded as needed.

I was actually attempting to be sarcastic in reference to the A&M alum "crowdsource"; never thought that anything similar would actually be a realistic approach.  And since New Urbanists tend, in my experience, to rarely venture beyond their chosen enclaves (essentially self-selection in practice), the thought of a bunch of them hiking to El Paso along US 190 or 87 to protest I-14 is pretty humorous!  Unless it directly affects their localized efforts, there's usually no outcry from that quarter.  Now the Sierra Club & other environmental activists -- that could be another story.  But the area in question being Texas, that might turn into a very short story indeed.

I'll just say one more thing re I-14:  If the political will to get it developed is persistent, then it'll likely be done sometime in the next 25-30 years -- at least as far east as a connection to Houston (Toll 249 being the likely candidate).  If not, then it'll join the list of corridors "without portfolio", so to speak -- just a line on a map.  Whether it's needed at all -- or should be prioritized -- is always open to debate -- but when all is said & done, politics -- local and regional -- will often prevail despite naysayers.   

Top-down Interstate planning did work well for the most part; it's too bad the door was effectively shut 40+ years ago for a need-based & well-vetted set of system additions; everything's done on a case-by-case basis, more often than not "bubbling up" from local activity.  A national approach would entail assured national funding -- and that seems less likely as time passes.  Unless some renewed "chargeability" factor is imbued into Interstate additions, it's likely -- and intuitive -- that politics will determine what gets built to what standard.  There's no planning entity out there with the clout of a MacDonald, and no budding Eisenhowers in the policy arena with the will and the capability of securing implementation.  Slogging along with localities snagging what they can in the way of service along the way appears to be the methodology of choice (or of last resort!) over the last three decades.  We'll all just have to watch and wait.   

Maybe the said corridor should be upgraded to freeway standards (if it is truly necessary) before giving it an Interstate designation.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 30, 2016, 06:06:23 PM
Maybe the said corridor should be upgraded to freeway standards (if it is truly necessary) before giving it an Interstate designation.

The designation was written into law in 2015 (HPC #84) along with the I-14 numbering.  However, the corridor language was quite vague; probably deliberately so in order to allow the various cities and towns in the general region the chance to get in on the action by inserting modifying clauses down the line (S.O.P. for such corridors).  Of course, no funding was attached (per usual HPC practice), so actually developing this -- or any -- HPC corridor, Interstate-specified or not, is an uncertain prospect.  In all likelihood, any freeway development along this corridor will be within the HPC 84/I-14 portfolio, whether in segments or as a whole.  Whether any such segments will receive I-14 signage is anyone's guess.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2016, 03:45:15 PM
The path for "I-14" looks pretty crooked on purpose, probably to try to come near as many towns as possible in Central Texas and get enough of a political bandwagon together there.

The path for I-14 is jagged because the path for US 190 is jagged through the region. It's an east-west route following the oblique Texas roadway grid. But you keep assuming that I-14 will follow US 190 mile through mile, while most reasonable people assume the ultimate routing will be much straighter.

Seems to me that the I-14 proposal is a placeholder in anticipation of growth throughout the region. If Texas continues to keep a strong economy and attract jobs, cities like Bryan, College Station, Waco, Temple and Killeen are poised for growth. They will become attractive to people who want to live and build a business in Texas but don't want to live or build in the major cities. I-14 makes more sense in the context of that sort of growth. The better the infrastructure within the Houston-DFW-SA triangle, the less need there is for people to live in those cities full-time. Lots of people will love to live out in the country yet only a few hours' drive from the megaplexes and their services.

Quote from: sparkerTop-down Interstate planning did work well for the most part; it's too bad the door was effectively shut 40+ years ago for a need-based & well-vetted set of system additions; everything's done on a case-by-case basis, more often than not "bubbling up" from local activity.  A national approach would entail assured national funding -- and that seems less likely as time passes.

I really have to laugh about "Americans" these days. They all talk a big game about patriotism, flag waving, mom and apple pie. But when the proverbial "rubber hits the road," when it comes to actually paying something out of pocket for the good of God and country these hypocrites decry it as socialism. So many "Americans" are utterly full of crap. Their elected policy-makers are equally full of crap. They'll blind voters with ideals of who is more patriotic, them or their political rivals. And then they'll steal from their state's highway fund, redirecting the money for their own selfish whims.

US Highways and Interstate Highways are both part of an "American" network. Not a tiny, little network serving only a local need. The big picture "top down" view has to take precidence over such a highway network.

Quote from: jbnvThe path for I-14 is jagged because the path for US 190 is jagged through the region. It's an east-west route following the oblique Texas roadway grid. But you keep assuming that I-14 will follow US 190 mile through mile, while most reasonable people assume the ultimate routing will be much straighter.

I'll once again put the spotlight on the I-69 corridor and its needlessly, counterproductive, crooked path as an example of "modern" Interstate highways now being built. They seem to be paved more to serve political whim rather than the larger needs of the Interstate highway network.

Yeah, I have very little hope at all of "I-14" in Texas having any sort of straight, direct corridor. If built, it will be built along similar to state and US highways following crooked routes defined by grids of farm and ranch land, unlike the more direct routes of Interstate paths from 40 years ago.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2016, 10:29:56 PM
I'll once again put the spotlight on the I-69 corridor and its needlessly, counterproductive, crooked path as an example of "modern" Interstate highways now being built. They seem to be paved more to serve political whim rather than the larger needs of the Interstate highway network.

That is your assumption. Let's wait for construction plans to come out.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2016, 10:29:56 PM
I really have to laugh about "Americans" these days. They all talk a big game about patriotism, flag waving, mom and apple pie. But when the proverbial "rubber hits the road," when it comes to actually paying something out of pocket for the good of God and country these hypocrites decry it as socialism. So many "Americans" are utterly full of crap. Their elected policy-makers are equally full of crap. They'll blind voters with ideals of who is more patriotic, them or their political rivals. And then they'll steal from their state's highway fund, redirecting the money for their own selfish whims.

the federal government is $20 trillion in debt with nothing to show for it. That money could have built thousands of miles of highways. People are tired of government demanding more and more tax money while it wastes and mismanages trillions. (I will agree with you that too many people are too lazy to stand up and hold elected officials accountable.)

Sorry for this rant, but:

Yes, the federal government is about $20 trillion in debt, with the debt load only going higher. Both the voters and policy makers are absolutely living in denial over what is driving up that debt. Instead they put all the blame on the usual scapegoats, like un-married young mothers in need of public assistance, minorities, poor people -mainly folks who don't vote often or contribute money to any campaigns.

Our nation's health care industrial complex is by far the biggest culprit in why government debt is out of control. It's a fake free market industry, wrapped in free market packaging but entirely dependent on the state to pay much of its outrageous, totally unregulated prices. When do you ever see doctors or hospitals actually competing against each other in terms of price, much less even show any prices up front? When does a drug company ever advertise prices on one of its countless national TV commercials? Without Medicare, Medicaid and a big chunk from Social Security America's so-called "free market" health care system would collapse. There is no way in hell that industry could maintain its lavish life style based only on what patients could afford to pay out of pocket. And I have to laugh at how the insurance industry is made out to be the bad guy in that situation. They're only caught in the middle between a patient needing care and a medical company charging way too much money for its services.

Not only has health care costs run up our national debt, they currently consume 17% of our nation's GDP. That's by far the highest rate of GDP spending on health care in the world. France is #2 at 12%. We'll pass 20% GDP soon if currently high inflation rates on health care costs stay at their current pace. But the health care industrial complex is very well connected and spends heavily funding political campaigns. It's quite the sacred cow.

Social Security is a huge liability, one whose math doesn't support itself. The average retiree uses up what he contributed to Social Security in just 3 years, but draws from the system at least 10 or more years. In 1945 there was a 40:1 ratio of workers to retirees drawing SS. In 1960 the ratio dropped to 5:1. The ratio fell to 3:1 in 2009 and is creeping lower (2.8:1 in 2013). Making matters worse the federal government from time to time "borrows" billions or even trillions of dollars from the trust fund to pay for other things.

We spend a hell of a lot of money on national defense. We're spending just about as much on interest payments for the national debt. We're spending about $100 billion per year keeping 2.2 million prisoners in jail, the majority of which are doing time for non violent drug offenses.

Discretionary spending makes up a tiny sliver in the pie chart that makes up all federal spending. But it's in that tiny sliver where all the politicians think they can make up for all that deficit spending. It's mass scale ignorance.

Too bad we elected a vestibule who won't fix anything.

Quote from: NE2 on January 02, 2017, 04:13:38 PM
Too bad we elected a shoehorn who won't fix anything.

Grow up.

I think it's safe to expect the incoming administration to blame the same poor, brown (and foreign) people for all the nation's ills. Meanwhile the situation will be business as usual, with nothing of any real substance being done. Just brinkmanship between the two major parties in achieving their top goal: absolutely single party rule and making that single party rule permanent. No difficult and likely unpopular decisions will be made regarding health care price regulation, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. It will just be more political kick-the-can, kicking any actual solution ideas years into the future for other administrations to handle.

Back to I-14, please, lest we stir up a political debate...

I honestly like the idea of Interstate 14, and I'm open to different routing ideas. This may start to dive into fictional highway territory, but this is what I think could potentially be a good idea: http://prntscr.com/dsfdic - have an Austin-Houston corridor consisting of I-14 and I-214, in which I-14 may connect to I-10 southwest of Fredericksburg - I-14 goes east from Austin to the Houston Metro Area, but it veers northeast onto the alignment of TX 99 (so long as it is up to interstate standards), with an Interstate 214 3di designation continuing on the alignment of US 290 into Houston. Also, I-14 is briefly concurrent with I-35 in downtown Austin. This serves the need for an interstate-standard corridor from Houston to Austin (both of which are up in the realm of the nation's largest cities), while I-14 traverses the northernmost suburbs, then becomes concurrent with I-69, then splits off east again for Louisiana to eventually tie in with its proposed route over there (and with that going on, and its proximity to I-10, perhaps have an I-x14 connect I-14 & I-10 in Beaumont). It sounds like it wouldn't hurt to have those military bases on the interstate system. This is where Interstate 18 can come in. Perhaps an I-18 corridor can take the designation of the US 190 freeway near Killeen and Temple. Going west, I-18 could eventually serve San Angelo, then eventually connect to I-10. I-18 could be concurrent with I-35 up to Waco, then an Interstate 18 corridor could suit the need for an interstate-standard corridor connecting Waco, College Station, and the Houston Metro Area. I could have the completely wrong idea, but I have tried to find a solution that satisfies as many of the insights I've read in this thread as possible. For US 190 near Fort Hood, a I-x35 interstate designation could also work out fine. Also, if the I-14 gets built as congressionally designated, it would at least be a placeholder in anticipation of growth throughout the region, as someone said earlier in this thread.

However they're routed, I think Texas would do very fine with a new I-14 corridor and a new I-18 corridor - and in addition to that as well, the talked-about I-27 extension (both ways). I think San Angelo could do well with Interstate 18 for an east-west interstate, and Interstate 27 for a north-south interstate. It also wouldn't hurt to extend I-44 to Abilene, or even to San Angelo.

In short, I think Interstate 14 sounds like an exciting idea, and I hope it is not too long until it is built, including in Texas.

EDIT: In that map, I meant to keep the red line of Interstate 214 going until reaching I-610, not stopping at TX 8.

I think you may have meant Texas 6 / FM 1960 Intersection............ :wave:

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 06, 2017, 07:12:34 PM
Perhaps an I-18 corridor can take the designation of the US 190 freeway near Killeen and Temple.

What is the point of this? (Simply reassigning I-14 to the US 290 corridor isn't enough.)

I thought that the original idea for the I-14 corridor was to provide a bypass of the I-10 corridor and provide east-west Interstate access to Central Texas, not to relieve I-10 or provide an alternative Houston-Austin or Temple-Waco-College Station-Hempstead-Houston corridor. If it's the former, then a combination of US 190 and new terrain route from Temple to College Station-Huntsville-Jasper-DeRidder would be more than suitable. Any Houston to Austin corridor (whether TX 71 or US 290 or any combination thereof) should be more of an western I-12 extension, perhaps using the Grand Parkway and new terrain to Beaumont, then TX 12/LA 12/US 190 to Baton Rouge to meet the North BTR Bypass and existing I-12.

As for I-27, anyone thought about tying it to an extended freeway upgrade of US 281 north of San Antonio? That could also serve as a proper western terminus of the existing US 190 freeway from Compress Cove to Kileen/Temple, and could also connect to both the US 181/Toll 181A freeway/tollway and the proposed upgrade of US (TX??) 195 north of Georgetown. Possibly a western bypass of Austin, too??

The I-14 concept wouldn't provide any kind of bypass or traffic relief functions for I-10 since it would not connect directly with I-10 at all. Plus the corridor runs way too far North for it to be worthwhile to I-10 traffic. That highway corridor through the middle of the "Texas Triangle" would have to stand on its own, trying to justify itself by levels of traffic moving between small cities in that region. I could maybe see an Interstate connecting Killeen to College Station and Hunstville. It's tougher to justify the corridor moving farther East and West from that.

The Austin-Houston US-290 corridor is clearly the one most in need of upgrading to Interstate quality. As an I-12 corridor, I don't think there's any need to connect it directly to the existing I-12 in Louisiana. The road would be just fine ending at I-610 in Houston, or at best extending along the North quadrant of the Grand Parkway and then on or parallel to US-90 to Beaumont.

An I-12 corridor running parallel to I-10 in Louisiana would be an extravagant luxury. The state has limited resources and other far higher priority highway projects, like all the I-49 related projects. I-69 is already a bad enough threat to suck resources away from I-49. And then I-14 is threatening to do the same thing. An I-12 concept would worsen the situation.

As for US-281 heading North out of San Antonio, that highway is not remotely on any sort of line that could logically connect to an extension of I-27. The very best, most straight route I-27 could manage is going through San Angelo and then going on a new terrain route to Junction, TX. From San Antonio I-10 is pointing directly at San Angelo and Big Spring. I-10 bends sharply at Junction. An I-27 terminus at Junction would create a relatively straight path all the way to Lamesa, TX where I-27 would then turn North into Lubbock.

Just wanted to mention everyone bringing up I-14 following hwy 190 trek from Temple to Hearne. There is another right of way available. The locals do not take 190 to Bryan, they take hwy 53 from Temple to Hearne. Its must straighter, 70 mph all the way and wide with wide shoulders for a farm road.

I would hope the I-14 idea between the Temple-Belton area and I-35 would take as much of a straight path as possible toward Bryan & College Station. But the pork barrel appearance of this effort and the route illustrations from its promoters suggest anything but a straight path. It would be funny in a grim way if they actually built I-14 between Temple and College Station in a jagged, saw tooth path and locals still kept using other roads to drive to the same places.

Coming from Belton, I would hope I-14 would choose a new terrain route to leave I-35 a little North of the FM-93 exit. The Interstate would skirt South of Temple and merge into US-190 around Heidenheimer.

At first glance I would expect I-14 to re-use the US-190/Loop 363 freeway on the South side of Temple. But that would involve building a new 4-level direct connect stack interchange between I-35 and US-190. I don't think there's enough room for that. Right now the two freeways cross each other with no direct connections. Traffic must exit to frontage roads. Existing properties are hugging very close to the intersection. A bunch of that property would likely need to be removed to make way for an upgraded interchange.

Either way, I expect this I-14 concept to run through/near Cameron. I just flatly disagree with drawings showing the route going down to Milano then back up to Hearne and then finally down to Bryan/College Station. It would be far better to build a new terrain route going directly from Cameron to Bryan.

I'm not convinced about Interstate 14. Does the corridor designated really need an Interstate along it? Has anyone done an analysis on what the daily traffic counts are corridor-wide? Until such efforts are performed, I'd say save the Interstate 14 designation for another corridor.

TxDOT seems pretty convinced.  They want to make it official.  On the agenda this month:

Bell and Coryell Counties - Consider the designation of a segment of the state highway system as I-14, concurrent with US 190 from the eastern junction of US 190 and Business US 190E in Copperas Cove to I-35 in Belton (MO)
This minute order designates a segment of the state highway system as I-14, concurrent with US 190 from the eastern junction of US 190 and Business US 190E in Copperas Cove to I-35 in Belton, a distance of approximately 25 miles. The Killeen-Temple Metropolitan Planning Organization, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2017/0126/agenda.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2017/0126/agenda.pdf)

Quote from: wxfree on January 18, 2017, 08:49:15 PM
TxDOT seems pretty convinced.  They want to make it official.  On the agenda this month:

Bell and Coryell Counties - Consider the designation of a segment of the state highway system as I-14, concurrent with US 190 from the eastern junction of US 190 and Business US 190E in Copperas Cove to I-35 in Belton (MO)
This minute order designates a segment of the state highway system as I-14, concurrent with US 190 from the eastern junction of US 190 and Business US 190E in Copperas Cove to I-35 in Belton, a distance of approximately 25 miles. The Killeen-Temple Metropolitan Planning Organization, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2017/0126/agenda.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2017/0126/agenda.pdf)

Didn't know FHWA had signed off on this since the AASHTO dismissal of the previous request.  Guess they're attempting to do a "letter of the law" (re the HPC 84/I-14 authorizing legislation of 2015) end run around the prior decision.  Seems like the intent here is to get a "nose through the door" type of activity concerning the corridor -- to establish a I-14 physical presence, so to speak, in the hope that it'll serve as a jumping-off point for other corridor segments.  If TxDOT concurs, it'll be interesting to see just where the next extending move occurs (east or west).   

Well if its official, I guess that is that. I'd still like to know whether the traffic counts along the corridor are worth the Interstate upgrade.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 19, 2017, 03:39:40 PM
Well if its official, I guess that is that. I'd still like to know whether the traffic counts along the corridor are worth the Interstate upgrade.

I can't give an opinion on that, but I can give you the facts.  That stretch of road has traffic counts from 50,000 to 95,000.  Just west of the west end, where a business route splits off, the count drops to below 40,000.

For further reference, you can see the counts on the Statewide Planning Map.  Select AADT in the menu.  Note that clicking on a count station will show the numbers from previous years.
http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html (http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html)

Those traffic counts between 50,000 and 90,000 are along the existing US-190 freeway through Killeen. The traffic counts on US-190 between Temple, Cameron, Milano and Hearne are far lower -just under 6,000. The TX-6 corridor between Waco and Bryan has quite a bit more traffic. It's close to 20,000 between Hearne and Bryan. It drops to around 8,000 between Waco and Hearne.

By the way, US-290 has 37,000 vehicles per day near the TX-6 split in Hempstead. It hovers between 15,000 and 30,000 the rest of the way to Austin. It has some higher totals than some other rural Interstates in Texas.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 19, 2017, 04:59:39 PM
Those traffic counts between 50,000 and 90,000 are along the existing US-190 freeway through Killeen. The traffic counts on US-190 between Temple, Cameron, Milano and Hearne are far lower -just under 6,000. The TX-6 corridor between Waco and Bryan has quite a bit more traffic. It's close to 20,000 between Hearne and Bryan. It drops to around 8,000 between Waco and Hearne.

By the way, US-290 has 37,000 vehicles per day near the TX-6 split in Hempstead. It hovers between 15,000 and 30,000 the rest of the way to Austin. It has some higher totals than some other rural Interstates in Texas.

Hearne (and the US 79 junction) seems to function as the northern edge of the more populated zone along TX 6; traffic past that point likely disperses along the crossing roads (including the turning US 190) with more than likely a fair amount veering off on TX 14 toward Dallas.  It's similar to the situation moving south from Lubbock, where SB traffic from I-27 will usually take the most direct path to major destinations, with no single "branch" (US 84, US 87 and/or TX 349, or US 62 & 385) collecting more than a share of the total southbound traffic.  Since both TX 6 to Waco and US 190 to Temple function as "branches" from the Houston-College Station-Hearne "trunk", one cannot expect any singular route to regularly feature the more-than-10K AADT usually considered minimal for Interstate-level development.  Since the potential I-14 corridor by statute needs to go near or through the Temple/Belton area, it's likely that any development won't actually follow the "sawtooth" profile presented by the current US 190 alignment (I'd guess a more or less direct line between Cameron and TX 6 south of Hearne would be most likely).  Whether a significant amount of the 8K traffic level on TX 6 north of Hearne would shift to a somewhat longer all-Interstate route via Temple is anyone's guess at this point (in my estimation, at best maybe 20% would shift). 

As I've said before, this portion of Texas has considerable political clout; if they want an Interstate freeway bisecting the "triangle", it'll probably happen sooner or later -- particularly if it ties in to a facility connecting it directly to the Houston metro area.  Except for A & M - Baylor games, there likely won't be much objection to piggybacking their plans onto the projected I-14 corridor via Temple, calculating that such plans, which have garnered supporters from other TX regions, is most likely to yield results than starting from scratch on a corridor with a more northerly trajectory.         

Quote from: sparker on January 19, 2017, 06:53:05 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 19, 2017, 04:59:39 PM
Those traffic counts between 50,000 and 90,000 are along the existing US-190 freeway through Killeen. The traffic counts on US-190 between Temple, Cameron, Milano and Hearne are far lower -just under 6,000. The TX-6 corridor between Waco and Bryan has quite a bit more traffic. It's close to 20,000 between Hearne and Bryan. It drops to around 8,000 between Waco and Hearne.

By the way, US-290 has 37,000 vehicles per day near the TX-6 split in Hempstead. It hovers between 15,000 and 30,000 the rest of the way to Austin. It has some higher totals than some other rural Interstates in Texas.

Hearne (and the US 79 junction) seems to function as the northern edge of the more populated zone along TX 6; traffic past that point likely disperses along the crossing roads (including the turning US 190) with more than likely a fair amount veering off on TX 14 toward Dallas.  It's similar to the situation moving south from Lubbock, where SB traffic from I-27 will usually take the most direct path to major destinations, with no single "branch" (US 84, US 87 and/or TX 349, or US 62 & 385) collecting more than a share of the total southbound traffic.  Since both TX 6 to Waco and US 190 to Temple function as "branches" from the Houston-College Station-Hearne "trunk", one cannot expect any singular route to regularly feature the more-than-10K AADT usually considered minimal for Interstate-level development.  Since the potential I-14 corridor by statute needs to go near or through the Temple/Belton area, it's likely that any development won't actually follow the "sawtooth" profile presented by the current US 190 alignment (I'd guess a more or less direct line between Cameron and TX 6 south of Hearne would be most likely).  Whether a significant amount of the 8K traffic level on TX 6 north of Hearne would shift to a somewhat longer all-Interstate route via Temple is anyone's guess at this point (in my estimation, at best maybe 20% would shift). 

As I've said before, this portion of Texas has considerable political clout; if they want an Interstate freeway bisecting the "triangle", it'll probably happen sooner or later -- particularly if it ties in to a facility connecting it directly to the Houston metro area.  Except for A & M - Baylor games, there likely won't be much objection to piggybacking their plans onto the projected I-14 corridor via Temple, calculating that such plans, which have garnered supporters from other TX regions, is most likely to yield results than starting from scratch on a corridor with a more northerly trajectory.         

Don't forget hwy 53 between Temple and Hearne. There is a fair amount of traffic using that route to get to Bryan or points south bypassing Cameron and Milano.

http://kdhnews.com/news/local/highway-is-officially-interstate-highway-from-cove-to-belton/article_2d3c7c8c-e411-11e6-9a1a-6b59f7e5d836.html

Its official

It's about time. Runs from US 190 Business east of Copperas to I-35. Wikipedia was pretty quick to update it.

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on January 27, 2017, 12:12:21 PM
Runs from US 190 Business east of Copperas to I-35.

Here's a snip from the map of the 25-mile segment from the Minute Order (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2017/0126/5.pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_27_01_17_2_13_45.png)

Well, the nose is (officially) through the door.  It'll be interesting to see how the rest of the I-14 "body" actually ends up fitting into the TX (and possibly beyond) overall scheme -- and how it fits into other plans.   Particularly of interest is the Junction to Eden "connector" along US 83; that has the potential to serve as an alternative Port-to-Plains-related (I-27?) alignment if actually "adopted" as part of the I-14 cluster; some posters have suggested a scenario similar to this.  Also, the same map that indicated that connector also showed the toll facility that extends north from Austin parallel to US 183 as veering slightly east of that route toward Copperas Cove and Fort Hood rather than maintaining the 183 trajectory toward Lampasas.  The question would be whether anyone a bit closer to Austin-area planning efforts have more information about that possible connector?  If so, please chime in!  :hmmm:

Frankly, this segment looks like a I-781:  Just a highway to appease a military installation.

Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2017, 03:18:51 PM
Frankly, this segment looks like a I-781:  Just a highway to appease a military installation.

In the case of the original freeway, which dates back to the '80's, likely so.  The western extensions look like simply a case of a series of facilities intended to address new regional housing developments (this is one of the faster growing metro areas in TX).  The I-14 concept came later as a cross-state connector; the existing freeway was merely a convenient place to "stake a claim", so to speak.  We'll all just have to see what comes of this whole plan down the line.

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on January 27, 2017, 12:12:21 PM
It's about time. Runs from US 190 Business east of Copperas to I-35. Wikipedia was pretty quick to update it.

Because I found out from AARoads on Twitter :)

I still believe this I-14 road will likely be a travesty and boondoggle if it sticks with the very crooked, zig zag routing of US-190 through Central Texas. Lots of extra miles, lots of extra drive time and lots of extra wasted money. If TX DOT really wants to do this, they need to make I-14 go around the South side of Temple, to Cameron then directly to College Station and Huntsville. Adding angles to include Hearne and Madisonville is just plain stupid.

I have a hard time believing this road would ever extend past Huntsville at best. Building it out to Alexandria and Natchez are extreme long shots. Same thing goes for the western extensions as far as Midland.

Quote from: sparkerParticularly of interest is the Junction to Eden "connector" along US 83; that has the potential to serve as an alternative Port-to-Plains-related (I-27?) alignment if actually "adopted" as part of the I-14 cluster; some posters have suggested a scenario similar to this.

I'd suggested more of a direct route for I-27 from San Angelo to Junction on an entirely new terrain path. Taking the road to Eden adds a bunch of miles. It's almost as bad as sending I-27 directly South from San Angelo to meet I-10 at Sonora, and presumably go to the border at Del Rio and even possibly meet an extended I-2 there. Given how the new administration feels about Mexico I can imagine a lot of potential funding being denied for South Texas road projects, at least anything that helps traffic move more easily across the border.

QuoteI have a hard time believing this road would ever extend past Huntsville at best. Building it out to Alexandria and Natchez are extreme long shots. Same thing goes for the western extensions as far as Midland.

[/font]

If the ultimate concept of I-14 is to consolidate the TX/LA corridors with the proposed "14th Amendment Highway" in MS/AL/GA, than it's less of a long shot.

Have LA, MS, AL and GA actually shown any interest in I-14? Texas seems to be the only state jumping for it. I-73 was supposed to have run from South Carolina to Michigan and yet North Carolina is the only state that has actually built any of it. It makes me wonder if I-14 would run into a similar situation where Texas would be the only state to show any real interest and build it. :hmm:

I-14 would've been better suited for connecting Houston to Austin, and then back to I-10 in west Texas, IMO, since it would give Austin an interstate connection to the East and West coasts. The currently designated section of I-14 could've easily became an I-x35.

IMO, the likely near-to-middling-term scenario is this:  as the interests in W. Texas and the "Triangle" seem to be driving this corridor, it'll start out in Midland/Odessa, extend through San Angelo, Brady, Temple, and Bryan/State College -- and likely end there for the time being, transferring the bulk of its traffic to TX 249 toward Houston.  The "piney woods" segment into LA will remain on the table, so to speak, but unconstructed.  Some sort of connector to Austin will be made, whether it be via Lampasas or the Fort Hood area.  Whether another "mirror" Austin connector to the NE (via US 79?), hinted at in the planning maps, remains to be seen.  LA is having enough trouble with I-49, and I-69 is a mere zygote within the state at this point; putting a mid-state E-W corridor on their plate seems unlikely in the near term. 

Our 12-year-old poster is likely the only one of us who has a chance of seeing I-14 as a Texas-South Carolina corridor in their lifetime!

Quote from: LM117 on January 28, 2017, 05:47:24 AM
Have LA, MS, AL and GA actually shown any interest in I-14? Texas seems to be the only state jumping for it. I-73 was supposed to have run from South Carolina to Michigan and yet North Carolina is the only state that has actually built any of it. It makes me wonder if I-14 would run into a similar situation where Texas would be the only state to show any real interest and build it. :hmm:

I-14 would've been better suited for connecting Houston to Austin, and then back to I-10 in west Texas, IMO, since it would give Austin an interstate connection to the East and West coasts. The currently designated section of I-14 could've easily became an I-x35.

Well...the original plan for the "14th Amendment Highway" was to run from Natchez to Augusta, but since there's no Interstate highway going through Natchez, it was extended to end at I-49 in Alexandria. Plus, it was given the "I-14" designation. Even the association pitching the current I-14 route combines the two into one multistate corridor.

A connection from Austin to Houston via either US 290 or TX 71 makes perfect sense as an Interstate corridor, but probably not as I-14. I'd prefer that to be a western I-12, or just leave it as is.

Also, wasn't a "TTC-14" corridor using the current I-14 proposal among the initial Trans Texas Corridor proposals as a bypass of I-10 through Austin/Houston/Beaumont??

This is stupid.

Quote from: GeauxLSU on January 28, 2017, 12:29:17 PM
This is stupid.

It could had been worse, someone could had pushed to get I-99 in TX.  :-D :-D :spin: Sorry I couldn't resist.

Well, it looks like we are going to have to accept the newly designated Interstate 14 as it is. Surely they will come up with something to satisfy the need for an interstate-standard Houston-Austin corridor. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure if a western I-12 would be a good idea, as I think it might cause confusion due to being in such close proximity to the existing, eastern Interstate 12. I still think that corridor would work well as I-14, but it doesn't sound like it will turn out that way at all. With that said, I would suggest possibly an I-210 designation for the Houston-Austin corridor that would connect to I-10 again on the west side of Austin and San Antonio. Sure, it would be one hell of a long 3di, but we're running out of 2-digit options. Once again, I could be wrong - a western I-12 may not cause confusion at all, and if so, I'd be open to that idea, too. It sounds like the new Interstate 14 corridor is set in stone as it is, with the section from Belton to Copperas Cove being the first of it. I'm still excited about this, I just think that things could have been done a little better. With this meaning my proposed I-18 probably would not end up working out in Texas, this frees up an Interstate 18 designation for something like a Columbus-Macon-Augusta corridor in Georgia, of which this specific section of the proposed I-14 corridor would be a little more in the grid as an I-18 corridor, since much of it would run north of I-16 in Georgia. However it is routed, I hope to see I-14 come to fruition in its entirety within my lifetime.

Quote from: Anthony_JKIf the ultimate concept of I-14 is to consolidate the TX/LA corridors with the proposed "14th Amendment Highway" in MS/AL/GA, than it's less of a long shot.

Politicians can spam the idea all they want. Actually paying for it and building it is an entirely different matter.

There are numerous highway projects of much greater importance in Texas and Louisiana that need to be completed well ahead of this I-14 nonsense. Mississippi is too broke to fund their portion of I-69 and The Great River Bridge. They're having a hard enough time just trying to bring US-78 up to Interstate standards to sign it as I-22. This I-14 deal would be a much more costly project than any of those existing needs.

Alabama has long wanted an Interstate going West out of Montgomery to meet up with I-20 at the MS border. That span could just as easily be numbered as an extension of I-85 as any number of other concepts that have been floated through the years, like an I-16 extension or this I-14 idea. But, again, where is the funding coming from to built this?

Georgia has plenty of its own upgrade needs for existing highways, particularly in the metro Atlanta area.

Overall, this I-14 project looks like a giant, un-funded mandate. The route will be so crooked, if ever completed, that it won't draw very much traffic at all off the I-20 and I-10 corridors.

QuoteI-14 would've been better suited for connecting Houston to Austin, and then back to I-10 in west Texas, IMO, since it would give Austin an interstate connection to the East and West coasts. The currently designated section of I-14 could've easily became an I-x35.

Houston to Austin is a far more legitimate corridor to target with an Interstate highway upgrade. I guess now it will have to be another I-12 rather than I-14.

Quote from: adventurernumber1Surely they will come up with something to satisfy the need for an interstate-standard Houston-Austin corridor. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure if a western I-12 would be a good idea, as I think it might cause confusion due to being in such close proximity to the existing, eastern Interstate 12.

I don't see any problem with calling a Houston-Austin Interstate I-12. The Interstate system already has numerous duplicate 2di routes (I-74, I-76, I-84, I-88), disconnected 2di routes (I-49, I-69) and other additional duplicate routes that may be added to the system (I-66, I-87).

I think the Houston-Austin route is too long to carry a 3-digit designation. That corridor could easily be expanded both East (to Beaumont) and West (to the US-290/I-10 interchange in West Texas). The only alternative I see to "I-12" is a letter suffix route, like "I-10N." That would open a whole can of worms on how to treat the existing I-10 route. In the past certain Interstates like I-5, I-15, I-70 and I-80 had suffixed routes while they kept their parent number from being suffixed.

With hwy 71 out of Austin being upgraded to interstate status by the airport, Austin will have its interstate quality connection to Houston.

And no I do not expect I-14 to follow the crooked 190 routing to Bryan.

Are there any I-14 signs up yet?

I don't understand why this wasn't just signed as I-335.

It's also difficult to imagine traffic counts that justify a third E-W interstate in Texas west of US 377 and US 183.

Quote from: longhornWith hwy 71 out of Austin being upgraded to interstate status by the airport, Austin will have its interstate quality connection to Houston.

US-290 between Houston and Austin is in far greater need of being upgraded to Interstate standards than TX-71. There is considerably more traffic and towns along that route. US-290 comes into the Austin area closer to where a great deal of growth is taking place (Round Rock, Georgetown, Hutto, etc.). It's also a more direct route from Houston, especially for the more affluent areas on the North side of the Houston metro area.

What ever Interstate designation that could be applied to US-290 between Houston and Austin could be moved over to the Grand Parkway and a possible extension to Beaumont.

As gigantic as the metro areas are of both Houston and Austin (6 million and 2 million respectively) I think a good case could be made for upgrading both those stretches of US-290 and TX-71 to Interstate quality. Both roads already have a number of freeway quality or near freeway quality bypasses around a number of towns. Either of those routes is easier to justify upgrading than the I-14 route being proposed.

Quote from: longhornAnd no I do not expect I-14 to follow the crooked 190 routing to Bryan.

This is a politically motivated route, not one to actually improve the functions of the Interstate highway system. In trying to make as many political advocates happy, I do expect I-14 to ping pong itself through Central Texas in a crooked, saw tooth pattern.

I'm all for making I-14 go directly from Temple to Byran, with the route skirting Cameron and then having the road go directly to Huntsville. But that's not how any of the I-14 maps look. They're not going to leave out anyone on the US-190 corridor. So, from Cameron, the road will turn at Milano and needlessly go up to Hearne and then down to Bryan. From Bryan the road will illogically go up to Madisonville and then multiplex with I-45 down to Huntsville. That kind of routing is just stupid. But all of the I-14 campaign maps show that route. Hell, looking at how crooked I-69 is shaping up to be, among other strangely crooked freeway projects, I-14 through Central Texas could end up being even more crooked!

Quote from: mwb1848 on January 28, 2017, 06:46:48 PM
It's also difficult to imagine traffic counts that justify a third E-W interstate in Texas west of US 377 and US 183.

It's Midland/Odessa & San Angelo politics that's driving the western extension, not current AADT data. 

Quote from: longhorn on January 28, 2017, 04:52:53 PM
And no I do not expect I-14 to follow the crooked 190 routing to Bryan.

The only part of stand-alone US 190 between Temple & Bryan that's likely to actually be used as an I-14 alignment is the segment between Temple and Cameron.  East of there I'd fully expect a relatively straight shot east to TX 6 between Bryan & Hearne, crossing the Brazos River floodplain near (or at) US 79/190 east of Gause, where the river has been effectively channelized to accommodate the highway & RR bridges.  Now, if the corridor ever extends east of College Station, I'd expect to see a really crooked profile in order to avoid the various lakes and wooded thickets en route to Louisiana (both extensive grubbing and multilane bridges tend to make construction costs soar!). 

QuoteThe only part of stand-alone US 190 between Temple & Bryan that's likely to actually be used as an I-14 alignment is the segment between Temple and Cameron.  East of there I'd fully expect a relatively straight shot east to TX 6 between Bryan & Hearne, crossing the Brazos River floodplain near (or at) US 79/190 east of Gause, where the river has been effectively channelized to accommodate the highway & RR bridges.

Building I-14 between Temple and Bryan in as direct a path as possible is exactly what TX DOT should do, even if it means building a whole lot of new terrain roadway.

Unfortunately, as I have repeated so many times in the past, this is a political road. A direct I-14 path can be diverted by lots of promises to many communities and interests along the US-190 corridor. I can imagine interests in Hearne crying foul if I-14 goes directly from the Cameron area to Bryan.

QuoteNow, if the corridor ever extends east of College Station, I'd expect to see a really crooked profile in order to avoid the various lakes and wooded thickets en route to Louisiana (both extensive grubbing and multilane bridges tend to make construction costs soar!)

That all depends on I-14 trying to have a more direct path. For all we know the political interests driving I-14 could force this road to leave the TX-6 corridor on the North side of Bryan and parallel US-190 Northwest to Madisonville (which would be very stupid and wasteful).

I would prefer I-14 follow TX-6 through College Station and then spur off near Texas World Speedway toward Roans Prairie where it can then parallel TX-30 to Huntsville.

Building I-14 East of Huntsville will be politically complicated and possibly very costly. Lake Livingston is a tricky hurdle. The planning maps show the route using US-190. I would assume I-14 would re-use the US-190 crossing over Lake Livingston. But then there's the town of Onalaska right in the way. To me it looks like I-14 would have to be built North of that development on new terrain and new bridges over the lake and its river feeders.

Alexandria would love to have an east-west Interstate to etch its status as the Crossroads of Central Louisiana even further into stone.

One could argue that there is value in having an east-west corridor further inland in case something were to happen to the I-10/12 corridor (hurricane, rise in sea level, whatever). One could probably argue that there is national-defense value in a highway directly from Fort Hood to the Mississippi River via Fort Polk.

If we can get stuff made in Mexico instead of China, Texas becomes supreme in distribution of consume goods across the country. The more routes from Texas to the population centers of the States, the better.

Louisiana would show interest in I-14 for the same reason it would show interest in I-69: having cross-country routes pass through your state is good for business and tourism.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 28, 2017, 07:11:32 AM

Quote from: LM117 on January 28, 2017, 05:47:24 AM
Have LA, MS, AL and GA actually shown any interest in I-14? Texas seems to be the only state jumping for it. I-73 was supposed to have run from South Carolina to Michigan and yet North Carolina is the only state that has actually built any of it. It makes me wonder if I-14 would run into a similar situation where Texas would be the only state to show any real interest and build it. :hmm:

I-14 would've been better suited for connecting Houston to Austin, and then back to I-10 in west Texas, IMO, since it would give Austin an interstate connection to the East and West coasts. The currently designated section of I-14 could've easily became an I-x35.

Well...the original plan for the "14th Amendment Highway" was to run from Natchez to Augusta, but since there's no Interstate highway going through Natchez, it was extended to end at I-49 in Alexandria. Plus, it was given the "I-14" designation. Even the association pitching the current I-14 route combines the two into one multistate corridor.

A connection from Austin to Houston via either US 290 or TX 71 makes perfect sense as an Interstate corridor, but probably not as I-14. I'd prefer that to be a western I-12, or just leave it as is.

Also, wasn't a "TTC-14" corridor using the current I-14 proposal among the initial Trans Texas Corridor proposals as a bypass of I-10 through Austin/Houston/Beaumont??

Quote from: LM117 on January 28, 2017, 05:47:24 AM
Have LA, MS, AL and GA actually shown any interest in I-14? Texas seems to be the only state jumping for it.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina back in 2005-06, the concept of I-14 (along US 84) as a E-W cross-connector for the various N-S Gulf Coast evacuation routes, including being the location of emergency refugee/evacuation centers -- far enough inland to avoid the brunt of onshore storms but closer than I-20 -- was for a short time advanced; but that was short-lived, with more attention paid to the development of I-49 South as an alternative evacuation route.  Ten years later, I for one haven't heard word one from any quarter about I-14 serving that particular purpose despite its recent resurgence.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 29, 2017, 03:46:51 PM
Building I-14 between Temple and Bryan in as direct a path as possible is exactly what TX DOT should do, even if it means building a whole lot of new terrain roadway.

Unfortunately, as I have repeated so many times in the past, this is a political road. A direct I-14 path can be diverted by lots of promises to many communities and interests along the US-190 corridor. I can imagine interests in Hearne crying foul if I-14 goes directly from the Cameron area to Bryan.

Since the US 79 and UPRR bridges, where crossing the Brazos is most favorable in terms of construction ease, are only a few miles west of Hearne, it's likely that a relatively direct route will merge with TX 6 only a few miles south of that town as well -- essentially forming a bypass directly SW of the town.  That should satisfy Hearne interests; plowing up town-center businesses or disrupting the industrial areas arrayed along the 3 railroad lines converging on the town (Hearne has always been a major rail junction, originally with Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific lines; both are now UP properties) wouldn't be considered a "best interest" scenario -- a bypass skirting the edge of town should more than suffice.

Quote from: sparkerSince the US 79 and UPRR bridges, where crossing the Brazos is most favorable in terms of construction ease, are only a few miles west of Hearne, it's likely that a relatively direct route will merge with TX 6 only a few miles south of that town as well -- essentially forming a bypass directly SW of the town.  That should satisfy Hearne interests; plowing up town-center businesses or disrupting the industrial areas arrayed along the 3 railroad lines converging on the town (Hearne has always been a major rail junction, originally with Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific lines; both are now UP properties) wouldn't be considered a "best interest" scenario -- a bypass skirting the edge of town should more than suffice.

Driving from Cameron to Bryan via US-190 is 47 miles. If I-14 had a more direct route from Cameron to Bryan, skirting by the small towns of Gause and Mumford the stretch of highway would be only 29 miles in length. There are other narrow, easy to cross points along the Brazos River between Gause and Mumford.

Likewise, sending I-14 up to Madisonville and multiplexing with I-45 down to Huntsville adds another 10 miles to the route (62 miles total) versus having I-14 leave the College Station area for a more direct path to Huntsville.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 29, 2017, 09:32:34 PM
Driving from Cameron to Bryan via US-190 is 47 miles. If I-47 had a more direct route from Cameron to Bryan, skirting by the small towns of Gause and Mumford the stretch of highway would be only 29 miles in length. There are other narrow, easy to cross points along the Brazos River between Gause and Mumford.

I-14/47 multiplex?

Quote from: 1 on January 29, 2017, 10:03:17 PM
I-14/47 multiplex?

I-47: Wishful thinking for I-69 in TX? :awesomeface:

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 29, 2017, 03:46:51 PM
It's Midland/Odessa & San Angelo politics that's driving the western extension, not current AADT data. 

Thank you for jostling some things loose in my brain. I forgot that the Chair of the Texas Transportation Commission is from Tryon Lewis from Odessa.

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/administration/commission/lewis.html (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/administration/commission/lewis.html)

El Paso benefitted substantially during Ted Houghton's tenure as Chair of the TTC. He pushed major hometown projects like the Border West Expressway Project, Go10, and El Paso Streetcar Project.

QuoteI-14/47 multiplex?

Obviously that was a typo. :-P I had that "47 miles" thing on the brain when trying to type "I-14."

As for a fictional I-47 route, that could just as easily be the I-69 route in Texas, at least going from Houston to Shreveport (and Texarkana). Unless the federal government gets back into heavily funding major highway projects we will probably indeed all be long dead before I-69 is fully completed. I don't see all those disconnected segments getting joined together any time soon.

Quote from: Grzrd on January 27, 2017, 02:23:45 PM

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on January 27, 2017, 12:12:21 PM
Runs from US 190 Business east of Copperas to I-35.

Here's a snip from the map of the 25-mile segment from the Minute Order (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2017/0126/5.pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_27_01_17_2_13_45.png)

That's an interesting turnaround, given that AASHTO previously denied Texas' request to designate this section of US-190 as I-14 during its Spring Meeting last May.  So what caused them to change their minds?

Quote from: abqtraveler on January 30, 2017, 09:33:09 PM

Quote from: Grzrd on January 27, 2017, 02:23:45 PM

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on January 27, 2017, 12:12:21 PM
Runs from US 190 Business east of Copperas to I-35.

Here's a snip from the map of the 25-mile segment from the Minute Order (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2017/0126/5.pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_27_01_17_2_13_45.png)

That's an interesting turnaround, given that AASHTO previously denied Texas' request to designate this section of US-190 as I-14 during its Spring Meeting last May.  So what caused them to change their minds?

Congressionally legislated

Politicians are making a mockery of people with far more expertise at designing and managing highway networks. Those same politicians would probably rarely ever have to soil themselves with the commoner practice of actually driving significant distances on these routes. They're too busy flying above them in planes. So who cares how goofed up and illogical their "legislated" system may be?
:-/

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 31, 2017, 10:40:00 AM
Politicians are making a mockery of people with far more expertise at designing and managing highway networks. Those same politicians would probably rarely ever have to soil themselves with the commoner practice of actually driving significant distances on these routes. They're too busy flying above them in planes. So who cares how goofed up and illogical their "legislated" system may be?
:-/

We have to, because they are the ones who make the law. If you don't like how they legislate, you are perfectly free to vote them out in favor of those who support your alternative view. 

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 31, 2017, 10:44:15 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 31, 2017, 10:40:00 AM
Politicians are making a mockery of people with far more expertise at designing and managing highway networks. Those same politicians would probably rarely ever have to soil themselves with the commoner practice of actually driving significant distances on these routes. They're too busy flying above them in planes. So who cares how goofed up and illogical their "legislated" system may be?
:-/

We have to, because they are the ones who make the law. If you don't like how they legislate, you are perfectly free to vote them out in favor of those who support your alternative view.

We can't really vote them out for their ideas about I-14, as these views are usually less important than most other things the politicians believe in (people care about many things more than they do about Interstates).

Unless there is a more concrete plan to send this thing to the east, I see this as nothing more than a glorified 3di to a military base (see I-781 to Fort Drum and I-185 to Fort Benning).

I'd be more supportive of Interstate 14 if it had a more logical western terminus.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 31, 2017, 02:54:04 PM
I'd be more supportive of Interstate 14 if it had a more logical western terminus.

That's the end of the "interstate grade" route, so there fore Interstate 14 has to end there.

Quote from: The GhostbusterI'd be more supportive of Interstate 14 if it had a more logical western terminus.

I-14 will be one of those rare 2di routes that goes through no major cities on its entire route. And that's even if all the proposed route from George to West Texas is built rather than just the existing 25 miles of freeway.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 31, 2017, 03:33:27 PM

Quote from: The GhostbusterI'd be more supportive of Interstate 14 if it had a more logical western terminus.

I-14 will be one of those rare 2di routes that goes through no major cities on its entire route. And that's even if all the proposed route from George to West Texas is built rather than just the existing 25 miles of freeway.

San Angelo, Midland, and Odessa think they're major cities; compared to others out in the Permian, they are! -- the same applies to Temple and Bryan farther east.  And that outsized sense of self (and possibly entitlement) is what seems to drive projects like I-14 these days, for better or worse.  From a strictly rational point of view, the process is dysfunctional -- but it largely reflects the public sector environment of the times.   

With the interstate designation I hope they complete the I-35/I-14 interchange in Belton and add a connector for I-14 East to I-35 South flow. And while we are at it, expand the bypass around Copperas Cove to the original four divided lane freeway it was suppose to be (its on TxDot's website), and end the interstate on the west side of town.

As regards AUS-HOU corridor, yes, it needs to be brought up to interstate standards. I wander if Austin's anti highway attitude has anything to do with the slow pace action on this. TxDot must have some dusty plans somewhere in the closet.

Quote from: longhorn on January 31, 2017, 04:26:07 PM
As regards AUS-HOU corridor, yes, it needs to be brought up to interstate standards. I wander if Austin's anti highway attitude has anything to do with the slow pace action on this. TxDot must have some dusty plans somewhere in the closet.

The lack of in-state planning for a Austin-Houston connector might indeed have something to do with Austin's attitude as a metro area -- as interpreted by the remainder of the state.  Austin is a sociopolitical anomaly within the greater TX political arena, despite being the location where the state's politicos are required to congregate on a regular basis.  It just might be possible that by and large much of Texas doesn't give a shit whether an hour or so is shaved off a trip to and from Austin!  And this despite the presence of Franklin's, Stubb's and other great places to chow down!  I suppose -- as my late dad would say -- it's a matter of "cut off your nose to spite your face".  It might just be a while before US 290 or TX 71 sees Interstate- grade improvements!

Quote from: sparker on January 31, 2017, 04:47:25 PM

Quote from: longhorn on January 31, 2017, 04:26:07 PM
As regards AUS-HOU corridor, yes, it needs to be brought up to interstate standards. I wander if Austin's anti highway attitude has anything to do with the slow pace action on this. TxDot must have some dusty plans somewhere in the closet.

The lack of in-state planning for a Austin-Houston connector might indeed have something to do with Austin's attitude as a metro area -- as interpreted by the remainder of the state.  Austin is a sociopolitical anomaly within the greater TX political arena, despite being the location where the state's politicos are required to congregate on a regular basis.  It just might be possible that by and large much of Texas doesn't give a shit whether an hour or so is shaved off a trip to and from Austin!  And this despite the presence of Franklin's, Stubb's and other great places to chow down!  I suppose -- as my late dad would say -- it's a matter of "cut off your nose to spite your face".  It might just be a while before US 290 or TX 71 sees Interstate- grade improvements!

That's just it though - you're really not saving an hour. You might be saving 10, 15 minutes, top. Taking 10 to 71 is a fast enough route as it is.

The City of Austin and its residents don't really have any say in how TX DOT and other towns in Central Texas build up their roads. It's not in their jurisdiction. Austin's city limits barely cover the interchange between the interchange with US-290 and the TX-130 toll road. US-290 drops down to expressway quality in the town of Manor. The TX-130/TX-71 interchange is not within Austin city limits. TX DOT could upgrade either the US-290 or TX-71 corridors (or upgrade both) regardless of how loudly any residents in Austin complained about it.

Another thing to consider: there has been quite a lot of superhighway construction in Austin over the past 20 years and quite a bit more is on the books. TX-71 is in the process of being upgraded to a freeway by Austin's airport. A big upgrade project will take place on US-183 from US-290 down to the TX-71 interchange by the airport. The US-290 freeway on the West side of Austin will have another segment upgraded to superhighway quality past the TX-71 "Y" in Oak Hill. A little more of the TX-45 loop will be built. Perhaps Austin has a strong anti-freeway crowd. But it sure doesn't seem as powerful as it was in the past. Not with all these projects getting completed. I can still remember when Austin just had I-35 and a smaller portion of TX-1 as its only super highways.

Quote from: TXtoNJThat's just it though - you're really not saving an hour. You might be saving 10, 15 minutes, top. Taking 10 to 71 is a fast enough route as it is.

Upgrading US-290 between Houston and Austin has more to do with improving traffic safety and efficiency. That is major traffic corridor. It doesn't need to be tripped up by at-grade intersections and traffic signals in some cases. Thankfully most of the route has freeway quality or near freeway quality bypasses around many of the towns along the way.

At this point, if I were a mod, I'd break out the Austin-to-Houston situation into a separate thread from the I-14 discussion.  Perhaps a question as to which of the two routes extending east of Austin, US 290 or TX 71, would be more likely to be utilized as the basic alignment for an Interstate-grade connector might serve as a jumping-off subtopic.  Just a thought!

In my opinion the Austin-Houston corridor is relevant to the I-14 discussion, given it is by far the most obvious Interstate connection needed and not yet built in Central Texas. This I-14 effort is a big distraction from that, as well as a distraction from other highway improvement projects in the Lone Star State. I-14 poses the same problem in Louisiana; that state has far more important highway projects to complete.

Super highways have become terribly expensive to build, thanks to materials cost inflation that far exceeds the general inflation rate for the economy and wage growth and also thanks to a legal and regulatory environment that has made the planning process more difficult than ever before. Given the very difficult and very expensive environment it is incredibly wasteful to put that kind of effort into a highway that links no major cities and provides little if any strategic benefit to the military posts it seeks to connect.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 01, 2017, 09:58:30 AM
In my opinion the Austin-Houston corridor is relevant to the I-14 discussion, given it is by far the most obvious Interstate connection needed and not yet built in Central Texas. This I-14 effort is a big distraction from that, as well as a distraction from other highway improvement projects in the Lone Star State. I-14 poses the same problem in Louisiana; that state has far more important highway projects to complete.

Super highways have become terribly expensive to build, thanks to materials cost inflation that far exceeds the general inflation rate for the economy and wage growth and also thanks to a legal and regulatory environment that has made the planning process more difficult than ever before. Given the very difficult and very expensive environment it is incredibly wasteful to put that kind of effort into a highway that links no major cities and provides little if any strategic benefit to the military posts it seeks to connect.

Austin-Houston is to me a separate corridor from Houston-Hempstead-College Station-Bryan-Temple, which is closer to where proposed I-14 would run. Upgrading US 290 and/or TX 71 would probably resolve Austin's issues by itself.

Maybe I-14 is irrelevant as its own corridor in Texas, but as a interstate corridor linking CenTex, CenLA, MS, AL, and FL as a bypass for I-10? That would not be so minor. Even if it's a long time off from actual construction, it's not a bad idea to plan for the future.

Plus we're not considering what people who are actually in Texas anticipate about growth along that corridor. The Killeen-Temple-Belton area is growing rapidly. The whole DFW-SA-Houston triangle is poised for continued growth going into the future. There are strategic benefits to the corridor, even if those of us who aren't Texans can't see it. And Texas clearly sees value in having a direct path between Fort Hood and Fort Polk (insert conspiracy theory here).

We can agree that this thing isn't going to be built out any time soon. We will not agree that it is pork and nothing else.

Quote from: Anthony_JKAustin-Houston is to me a separate corridor from Houston-Hempstead-College Station-Bryan-Temple, which is closer to where proposed I-14 would run. Upgrading US 290 and/or TX 71 would probably resolve Austin's issues by itself.

The closest I-14 would come to Houston is Huntsville. That's quite a long, time consuming drive from Houston. It would not do much to serve metro Houston traffic, like say for instance offering a faster route to College Station. Right now most motorists are using US-290 and TX-6 for that drive. The TX-249 toll road will soak up some of that traffic once it is extended to Navasota.

Quote from: Anthony_JKMaybe I-14 is irrelevant as its own corridor in Texas, but as a interstate corridor linking CenTex, CenLA, MS, AL, and FL as a bypass for I-10? That would not be so minor. Even if it's a long time off from actual construction, it's not a bad idea to plan for the future.

I-14 offers little if any convenience at all as a bypass for I-10. The road is too far North and doesn't connect directly to I-10 at all. I might work better as a I-20 bypass, if not for a bunch of the crooked turns it makes. A bypass is supposed to save time. With the path going hundreds of miles out of the way I don't see any time savings offered at all over just staying on I-10 and I-20 and taking loop highways in big city metro areas if necessary.

Quote from: jbnvPlus we're not considering what people who are actually in Texas anticipate about growth along that corridor. The Killeen-Temple-Belton area is growing rapidly.

The Killeen area may be growing, but its growth rate is not nearly as fast as other cities in Texas -such as Austin for instance. The Austin metro passed the 2 million mark for the first time in 2015.

In the last US Census Bureau estimate Georgetown, TX (part of Austin's metro area) was ranked as the fastest growing city of 50,000 or higher in the United States. Its population grew 7.8% in just one year. New Braunfels (2), Frisco (4), Pearland (7) and Pflugerville (11) also rank in the current top 15 list of fastest growing cities in the US in terms of percentage increases in population. In total numeric increases Houston (2), San Antonio (4), Fort Worth (6), Dallas (7) and Austin (8) ranked that top 15 US cities list. New York City was at the top of that list with 55,211 residents added in just one year. Houston added 40,032.

Quote from: jbnvWe can agree that this thing isn't going to be built out any time soon. We will not agree that it is pork and nothing else.

This I-14 project is very frivolous compared to other projects in Texas and other parts of the South. This project is basically another "mouth to feed," possibly diverting road building funds from far more legitimate projects. In that vain, I'll certainly call it pork.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 01, 2017, 09:09:36 PM
The TX-249 toll road will soak up some of that traffic once it is extended to Navasota

Quote from: jbnvWe can agree that this thing isn't going to be built out any time soon. We will not agree that it is pork and nothing else.

This I-14 project is very frivolous compared to other projects in Texas and other parts of the South. This project is basically another "mouth to feed," possibly diverting road building funds from far more legitimate projects. In that vain, I'll certainly call it pork.

I'd say that at least 50-60% of traffic on I-14 west of College Station will shift to either TX 249 or, for shunpikers, the combination of TX 6 and US 290 to access Houston.  Subsequently, I'd anticipate that development of that corridor west of the College Station/Bryan area would be (in relative terms) expedited to provide the mid-state corridor (via San Angelo) that its backers desire.  As such, it functions as an intrastate SIU -- an E-W commercial route from Houston to points west.  The fact that it bypasses the 1M+ metro areas of San Antonio and Austin is likely considered a positive aspect of this route -- considerably less ensured congestion for cross-state (and TX is so wide that cross-state is virtually cross-country!) through traffic.  Comparing the mileage from the I-10/I-20 split in west TX to the west I-10/I-610 interchange in west TX (assuming a cutoff from Cameron to Hearne and the projected TX 249 alignment to Navasota) the I-20/I-14/TX 249 mid-state routing is about 593 miles compared with 577 directly on I-10, but without San Antonio congestion.  So distance is pretty much a wash, but the major metro avoidance renders it at least a competitive choice for cross-state traffic. 

I will have to hand it to the I-14 backers -- they did their homework, got TXDot on board, schmoozed their congressional critters, and cobbled together a corridor that satisfies both the "Triangle" interests plus West Texas voices -- and got it added to the federal HPC "family".  Aside from us roadgeeks who look longingly at US 290 or TX 71 and muse about what could have been, I haven't heard, or heard about, peep one from Austin-area interests -- or from anyone involved in TX transportation policy -- regarding elevating one or another Austin-Houston, or even Austin-west-to-I-10 potential corridors to Interstate status.  In pundit's words, "you've got to be in it to win it!"  As far as any E-W TX corridors are concerned, the I-14 folks are the only ones at the starting gate.   

And don't forget, this is Texas.  Brisket aside, they do love their pork; BBQ'd, pulled, roasted, fried, whatever.  Getting more of it is seen as an opportunity, not a waste; that attitude isn't likely to go away anytime soon.  That being said -- I still don't see much I-14 development east of College Station (or at least no farther than Huntsville) unless LA and states to the east get serious about their portions of the corridor.  If that isn't forthcoming, I-14 will remain a TX SIU for the foreseeable future.

That being said -- I still don't see much I-14 development east of College Station (or at least no farther than Huntsville) unless LA and states to the east get serious about their portions of the corridor.  If that isn't forthcoming, I-14 will remain a TX SIU for the foreseeable future.
[/quote]

Louisiana has significant incentive to work with Texas on infrastructure that goes through the heart of the state. Fort Polk could become a major player in the nation's military and defense infrastructure. The route could also opens opportunities for commercial shipping across the state. (Compare all this to I-69, which would provide very little benefit to Louisiana as a whole.)

Quote from: sparkerComparing the mileage from the I-10/I-20 split in west TX to the west I-10/I-610 interchange in west TX (assuming a cutoff from Cameron to Hearne and the projected TX 249 alignment to Navasota) the I-20/I-14/TX 249 mid-state routing is about 593 miles compared with 577 directly on I-10, but without San Antonio congestion.  So distance is pretty much a wash, but the major metro avoidance renders it at least a competitive choice for cross-state traffic.

Under the current illustrated routing of I-14, a drive from the I-10/I-20 split to the I-10/I-610 interchange (via Midland, Killeen, College Station and the proposed TX-249 extension to Navasota) would come out to 634 miles.

Getting that trip under 600 miles would require serious straightening of that saw tooth route currently proposed. Milano and Hearne would have to be dumped from the corridor in favor of a direct, new terrain route from Cameron to Bryan. That would save about 18 miles. A few miles could be shaved with bypassing Temple to the South with a Belton-Heidenheimer path near FM-1741. A little more mileage savings could be realized with Northern bypasses of Lampasas and Brady.

I-14 might have have to go well around San Angelo, adding more miles. US-87 would be difficult to convert into an Interstate from the US-67 Houston-Harte freeway up along Bryant Blvd out of the North end of town. A bunch of that property is run down looking and might not be too expensive to buy and remove. But political opposition is a big question mark. Such neighborhoods have stopped freeway projects before, even when the ROW was already available like Bruce Watkins Drive in Kansas City.

Quote from: sparkerI will have to hand it to the I-14 backers -- they did their homework, got TXDot on board, schmoozed their congressional critters, and cobbled together a corridor that satisfies both the "Triangle" interests plus West Texas voices -- and got it added to the federal HPC "family".  Aside from us roadgeeks who look longingly at US 290 or TX 71 and muse about what could have been, I haven't heard, or heard about, peep one from Austin-area interests -- or from anyone involved in TX transportation policy -- regarding elevating one or another Austin-Houston, or even Austin-west-to-I-10 potential corridors to Interstate status.  In pundit's words, "you've got to be in it to win it!"  As far as any E-W TX corridors are concerned, the I-14 folks are the only ones at the starting gate.

That only underscores the 100% porky situation with this I-14 thing. Additions to highway networks are supposed to serve traffic needs rather than be a reward for who did the best job at schmoozing. The hard angles all over the I-14 smell of political pandering to various towns to gain more backers. The hard 90 degree turns at Milano and Hearne are idiotic. And it's even more idiotic to make I-14 go from Bryan up to Madisonville and then multiplex with I-45 down to Huntsville. College Station and Huntsville need to be linked directly. These planners were either doing porky pandering or taking stupid pills when they plotted the I-14 route.

Even if peeps in Austin aren't crying loudly for an Interstate upgrade of US-290 from there to Houston the need still very obviously exists. TX-DOT has already been piece-meal building freeway quality or near-freeway quality bypasses around towns along both the US-290 and TX-71 corridors. That hasn't been happening so much in the towns along the I-14 path.

TX-6 between College Station and Waco is arguably a higher priority for an Interstate quality upgrade given the growth in both DFW and Houston metro areas, particularly the growth in Fort Worth lately. I know a lot of people who already drive to Waco and pick up TX-6 to avoid the traffic snarls on I-45 when driving to Houston.

Within the Houston metro area other corridors have to be improved. The Grand Parkway is a huge project. TX-105 from Navasota, thru Conroe to Cleveland is turning into a major suburban traffic corridor.

Quote from: sparkerAnd don't forget, this is Texas.  Brisket aside, they do love their pork; BBQ'd, pulled, roasted, fried, whatever.  Getting more of it is seen as an opportunity, not a waste; that attitude isn't likely to go away anytime soon.

The trouble is there is only so much highway funding to go around. Money spent on I-14 equals less money going to other corridors already well under development, like I-69 for example. A complete build-out of I-14 just within Texas from Midland to Huntsville would probably cost many billions of dollars.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 02, 2017, 11:47:06 AM



I-14 might have have to go well around San Angelo, adding more miles. US-87 would be difficult to convert into an Interstate from the US-67 Houston-Harte freeway up along Bryant Blvd out of the North end of town. A bunch of that property is run down looking and might not be too expensive to buy and remove. But political opposition is a big question mark. Such neighborhoods have stopped freeway projects before, even when the ROW was already available like Bruce Watkins Drive in Kansas City.

If you dig around enough, you'll find that TXDOT has a "relief route" (TXDOT-speak for bypass) planned for San Angelo that will leave US 87 on the northern edge of town, follow FM 2105 to US 277 on the northeast side on town, then head south on Loop 306 and connect to US 87 again on the southeast side of Podunk-on-the-Conchos. I don't think many people here in town realize that the planned bypass exists. They think that any Interstate would go through the center of town and bring "boom times and prosperity for all" (good for "bidness" you know). But then, people here in town had a collective orgasm when they heard San Angelo was going to get an Olive Garden.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 02, 2017, 11:47:06 AM
Under the current illustrated routing of I-14, a drive from the I-10/I-20 split to the I-10/I-610 interchange (via Midland, Killeen, College Station and the proposed TX-249 extension to Navasota) would come out to 634 miles.

Getting that trip under 600 miles would require serious straightening of that saw tooth route currently proposed.
But political opposition is a big question mark. Such neighborhoods have stopped freeway projects before, even when the ROW was already available like Bruce Watkins Drive in Kansas City.

I did calculate my 593-mile figure based upon geometric calculations of a cutoff from north of Cameron to a couple of miles south of Hearne, and a straight shot down the Toll 249 trajectory from Navasota; I don't doubt that there's another 40-odd travel miles in the unlikely event that the sawtooth profile shown on the map were to be followed. 

For better or worse, most corridors in most locations -- not only Texas -- are largely the product of political machination.  It would be wonderful if local MPO's could coordinate with state DOT's, determine local & regional needs, and then plan and execute projects to meet those needs absent political interference and misplaced prioritizations -- a real need-and-study-based system.  But it doesn't seem as this type of transaction is prevalent or forthcoming these days, largely because of the "gloom & doom" attitude among agencies in these times of funding shortfalls.  At best, agencies can and will undertake "spot" projects in an attempt to satisfy occasional "squeaky wheels" (e.g., the various town bypasses between Austin & Houston on both TX 71 and US 290). 

On the other hand, these same agencies are expected to deliver results that justify their existence (and reasonably satisfy the politicians who sit on their funding and oversight committees).  When a well-publicized plan with backing from recognized interests with clout appears -- the I-14 corridor proposal being a prime example of such -- the agencies will likely, unless the plans/proposals have garnered a significant level of negative reaction to the overall concept or even parts thereof, fall into line, with some planning efforts shifting from other priorities to that particular endeavor.  The presence of such a large-scale project lends credence to agency efforts, as it indicates to the public that yes, they're not only slogging along with their usual jobs but are exhibiting the foresight to plan for the future. 

The presence of the I-14 corridor -- and even signage as such appearing on the few completed segments -- doesn't necessarily mean that improvements elsewhere will cease; it's likely that US 290 and TX 71 will continue to be upgraded piece by piece; one or the other may actually be closer to a completed Interstate-grade facility before much of I-14 is even laid out. And I'd expect the I-14 backers, and TXDot, to be well aware that their corridor development is going to be a long process.  But to expedite such improvements to either of the Austin-Houston routes above & beyond what's being done piecemeal will require the sort of efforts exhibited by the I-14 backers -- make a case for Austin-Houston, acquire state-level backing, and go from there.  If I sound cynical about the situation where politically-backed top-down projects are advanced ahead of less-publicized but at least equally pressing needs elsewhere that haven't gathered such a level of visibility, then that's a categorization I'll just have to bear.  Unless a nationwide program on the order of the 1968 group of Interstate additions is forthcoming (yeah, right!), it's likely that political considerations -- and the "pork" emanating thereof -- will remain the driving force behind larger-scale highway projects.

Quote from: bmorrill on February 02, 2017, 03:32:03 PM
If you dig around enough, you'll find that TXDOT has a "relief route" (TXDOT-speak for bypass) planned for San Angelo that will leave US 87 on the northern edge of town, follow FM 2105 to US 277 on the northeast side on town, then head south on Loop 306 and connect to US 87 again on the southeast side of Podunk-on-the-Conchos. I don't think many people here in town realize that the planned bypass exists. They think that any Interstate would go through the center of town and bring "boom times and prosperity for all" (good for "bidness" you know). But then, people here in town had a collective orgasm when they heard San Angelo was going to get an Olive Garden.

If such a bypass is deployed, the US 67/SW loop combination would have 2 junctions with the bypass -- so if I-14 were to eventually utilize the new loop, the routes through town would be a likely x14 3di (in the "big C" manner of I-277 in Charlotte, NC).  Of course, if the Port-to-Plains comes to town as well in Interstate form, some other arrangement might be made (a subject for another thread).  But I do hope the good folks in San Angelo cleaned up after the Olive Garden incident! :biggrin:

That zigzag route is retarded.

Quote from: GeauxLSU on February 03, 2017, 03:41:59 AM
That zigzag route is retarded.

That zigzag route is the corridor identified for the new highway. It isn't the actual planned route.

How does anyone know for certain the I-14 route won't be built in that zig zag path?

The route illustrations the backers of I-14 have distributed over the past few years have never shown a direct path. It looks like their desire is to upgrade as much of the existing US-190 highway as possible or closely parallel it. They're trying to ping-pong the route to as many towns in Central Texas as possible to build support. On top of that, their maps show all sorts of connecting routes, some of which is listed as possible I-14 system routes. Get more towns on the band wagon.

The two stupid hard right turns at Milano and Hearne look like they're deliberately designed into the I-14 plan, since they show TX-79 coming from Austin as a feeder route into their I-14 system.

The next, larger problem, is just how bad the United States has become at building new highways in any sort of reasonably direct path. They're getting bent and twisted worse than ever by political influence and legal hurdles. Look at the crooked path of TX-130 compared to the far more straight path of I-35. In Southern Indiana I-69 is a joke for how indirect it is being built. And then the big L-shape I-69 takes in Kentucky, by using the Pennyrile Parkway and Western Kentucky Parkway, is pretty sad. They should be building a new terrain route from Henderson down to Calvert City. But re-using existing highways is cheap, and who cares if it adds over 30 miles to the drive?

Given all these different things taking place, I'm not optimistic I-14 will get straightened out into a more properly functional route.

I would imagine most people are guessing that it will be straightened because at this point in the process corridors are always subject to change. The parts of the process where exact routings are presented to the public and nailed down haven't been reached yet. An EIS has yet to be conducted.

With a corridor like this, you have to give a rough description of where the route is going to go so that people know what you're talking about. The easiest way to do it is to describe the existing routes that the corridor will generally follow. The problem is that the road grid in this part of Texas is skewed at a 45° angle, so any due E-W (or N-S for that matter) route defined in terms of existing highways will follow a zig-zag pattern. That doesn't necessarily mean that the final highway will be an in-place upgrade of the routes.

P.S. I know you are passionate about your views, but there is really no reason to post more or less the same opinion over and over. It gets slightly frustrating to read through the thread and read the same opinion expressed in a dozen posts by the same person.

Also, how does this affect you in Oklahoma? (It affects me since the I-14 corridor crosses Louisiana, and I have a personal interest in this route because my daughter lives in central Texas.)

How does I-14 affect me or anyone else in Oklahoma? Answer: at some point the backers of this pork-barrel Interstate highway project are going to want a good amount of federal money to fund construction. And that will be money diverted away from other highway projects. Even some here in Oklahoma. The Sooner State already gets treated like a red-headed step child for funding all sorts of infrastructure projects. So we're just supposed to sit here all quiet and polite while this political nonsense proceeds?

I'm really put off by the I-14 project in terms of the military aspect in which it is being sold. Fort Hood is an important Army post. But so is Fort Sill up here in the Lawton area. I don't see anyone rushing to improve the woefully deficient highway infrastructure surrounding that very important post. Fort Sill is adding more and more missions. The Army has spent more than $1 billion on new building construction aboard Fort Sill in the past few years (many new facilities, new post housing, etc.). But the highway system in Lawton-Fort Sill is a badly neglected joke. I-44 is very sub-standard where it passes the Polo Field and Key Gate areas of the post. It's very narrow and has inadequate shoulders. Rogers Lane, which cuts between Fort Sill and Lawton is a badly designed, glorified street that now carries the US-62 designation. I call it a fake Interstate. Deadly head-on collisions happen there from time to time. The road has no shoulders at all. It does have a lot of at grade intersections, some of which should have traffic signals.

I look at the highway situation with Fort Sill and compare that to what has been getting built up at other large military installations around the country. There's a lot of highway improvement going on elsewhere, but not here where at least some improvements need to be made. Even the state of Oklahoma has its priorities goofed up a good bit. Lawton is a much bigger town than Chickasha, but Chickasha is going to get a new Interstate quality bypass for US-81. Maybe when we have a bloody enough fatal accident on Rogers Lane here then the powers that be might wake up and start looking at some issues here. But we already have pedestrians getting mowed down on I-44 trying to jay-walk across the Interstate near Gore Blvd due to no pedestrian access there to cross from East and West sides of town that I-44 divides. So maybe even a multiple fatality accident might not mean anything to the folks in the state capitol.

Step 1: Stop treating the federal government like an ATM that somehow receives large amounts of money and dispenses it out to whoever manages to ask the loudest. That includes objecting loudly and proudly to them taking it from you in the first place. Money that Oklahomans make should stay in Oklahoma.

Step 2: Take up your state's situation with your state legislators and governor. If they refuse to listen, elect some who will.

More news articles on the project. Did not know that Fort Hood is Texas's largest single site employer. With the high cost of living in Austin many are moving to the Centex area.

http://kdhnews.com/business/interstate-will-have-significant-economic-impact-supporters-say/article_0f4d1dd6-eb4a-11e6-b7b1-1f0a7f93e567.html

Speaking of zigzagging routes, the new I-73/I-74 corridor is pretty messed up, especially near the coast. Why the hell did they have to bend I-74 back just to end at Myrtle Beach, instead of simply ending it at Wilmington? And routing I-73 north on I-81 before sending it back south on US 220 is also pure epic fail. Not to mention the piece in WV where it winds back and forth.

Quote from: longhorn on February 07, 2017, 09:39:32 AM
More news articles on the project. Did not know that Fort Hood is Texas's largest single site employer. With the high cost of living in Austin many are moving to the Centex area.
http://kdhnews.com/business/interstate-will-have-significant-economic-impact-supporters-say/article_0f4d1dd6-eb4a-11e6-b7b1-1f0a7f93e567.html

The article also sets forth TxDOT's next steps for I-14, including exploring an eastern expansion from Belton to Heidenheimer and Rogers (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.0127006,-97.3612927,28853m/data=!3m1!1e3):

Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation has future plans to expand and upgrade the corridor outside of the 25-mile area, including a continued expansion to six-lanes, continued operational upgrades such as frontage road U-turns and frontage road connections, expanding the Copperas Cove bypass to four lanes, and exploring an eastern extension from Belton to Heidenheimer and Rogers.

Expanding I-14 east from Belton to Heidenheimer is probably an acknowledgement of the difficult and expensive prospect of running I-14 up and down through Temple. Building a 4-level stack interchange at I-35 and Loop 363 isn't practical. The I-35 expansion project in Temple stops just short of this interchange.

A Southern I-14 bypass of Temple would at least remove one "zig" from the otherwise really zig-zaggy I-14 route.

Quote from: HenrySpeaking of zigzagging routes, the new I-73/I-74 corridor is pretty messed up, especially near the coast. Why the hell did they have to bend I-74 back just to end at Myrtle Beach, instead of simply ending it at Wilmington? And routing I-73 north on I-81 before sending it back south on US 220 is also pure epic fail. Not to mention the piece in WV where it winds back and forth.

The I-73 and I-74 projects in the Carolinas and Virginia are a clear illustration of just how difficult it has become to build a new highway, especially one with any reasonably direct path. If either route gets properly built-out in the Carolinas and Virginia they may do little to pull long distance traffic off other far more straight corridors like I-77. The crooked, winding paths reduce their appeal down just to local and immediate region traffic. The odd loop I-74 is making most of the way around Rockingham is pretty bad.

I, too, don't understand why I-74 would be sent to the Myrtle Beach area in such a crooked, backward fashion (along SC-22). I-73 is also supposed to go to Myrtle Beach perhaps along an upgraded SC-9. It would have made more sense to push I-74 to Wilmington. I always thought I-20 should have been extended from Florence, SC to Wilmington.

As for I-73 and its proposed wrong-way concurrency with I-81 from Roanoke to Christiansburg, I'm skeptical it will ever get built. The economy in the border areas between Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia only seems to be getting worse with the coal industry in free fall. It's going to be hard enough just getting I-73 into Roanoke.

Quote from: Grzrd on February 07, 2017, 09:58:07 AM

Quote from: longhorn on February 07, 2017, 09:39:32 AM
More news articles on the project. Did not know that Fort Hood is Texas's largest single site employer. With the high cost of living in Austin many are moving to the Centex area.
http://kdhnews.com/business/interstate-will-have-significant-economic-impact-supporters-say/article_0f4d1dd6-eb4a-11e6-b7b1-1f0a7f93e567.html

The article also sets forth TxDOT's next steps for I-14, including exploring an eastern expansion from Belton to Heidenheimer and Rogers (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.0127006,-97.3612927,28853m/data=!3m1!1e3):

Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation has future plans to expand and upgrade the corridor outside of the 25-mile area, including a continued expansion to six-lanes, continued operational upgrades such as frontage road U-turns and frontage road connections, expanding the Copperas Cove bypass to four lanes, and exploring an eastern extension from Belton to Heidenheimer and Rogers.

The six lane expansion from Killeen to Belton is sorely needed.

I-14 could follow Hwy 93 from Belton to Heidenhiemer. However connect to the south of Belton to I-35. There is already a new I-35 to 190 connector built last year. Trying to connect I-14 between Temple and Belton will run it into some subdivisions of on Temple's southside. So run I-14 south of 93 and connect I-14 to I-35 near loop 121 south of Belton.
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.0383943,-97.4411313,5340m/data=!3m1!1e3

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 07, 2017, 11:49:50 AMAs for I-73 and its proposed wrong-way concurrency with I-81 from Roanoke to Christiansburg, I'm skeptical it will ever get built. The economy in the border areas between Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia only seems to be getting worse with the coal industry in free fall. It's going to be hard enough just getting I-73 into Roanoke.

There's practically zero support for I-73 in VA at the state level. The cities/towns in that region of VA have been screaming for I-73, but they're at the bottom of the political totem pole. Since they have to compete with metro areas such as Northern VA, Richmond, and Hampton Roads, they stand no chance.

North Carolina is the only state that has actually shown interest and built a good chunk of their part of I-73.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 07, 2017, 11:49:50 AMI, too, don't understand why I-74 would be sent to the Myrtle Beach area in such a crooked, backward fashion (along SC-22). I-73 is also supposed to go to Myrtle Beach perhaps along an upgraded SC-9. It would have made more sense to push I-74 to Wilmington. I always thought I-20 should have been extended from Florence, SC to Wilmington.

Wilmington usually gets the shaft.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 07, 2017, 11:49:50 AM
Expanding I-14 east from Belton to Heidenheimer is probably an acknowledgement of the difficult and expensive prospect of running I-14 up and down through Temple. Building a 4-level stack interchange at I-35 and Loop 363 isn't practical. The I-35 expansion project in Temple stops just short of this interchange.

A Southern I-14 bypass of Temple would at least remove one "zig" from the otherwise really zig-zaggy I-14 route.

Quote from: HenrySpeaking of zigzagging routes, the new I-73/I-74 corridor is pretty messed up, especially near the coast. Why the hell did they have to bend I-74 back just to end at Myrtle Beach, instead of simply ending it at Wilmington? And routing I-73 north on I-81 before sending it back south on US 220 is also pure epic fail. Not to mention the piece in WV where it winds back and forth.

The I-73 and I-74 projects in the Carolinas and Virginia are a clear illustration of just how difficult it has become to build a new highway, especially one with any reasonably direct path. If either route gets properly built-out in the Carolinas and Virginia they may do little to pull long distance traffic off other far more straight corridors like I-77. The crooked, winding paths reduce their appeal down just to local and immediate region traffic. The odd loop I-74 is making most of the way around Rockingham is pretty bad.

I, too, don't understand why I-74 would be sent to the Myrtle Beach area in such a crooked, backward fashion (along SC-22). I-73 is also supposed to go to Myrtle Beach perhaps along an upgraded SC-9. It would have made more sense to push I-74 to Wilmington. I always thought I-20 should have been extended from Florence, SC to Wilmington.

As for I-73 and its proposed wrong-way concurrency with I-81 from Roanoke to Christiansburg, I'm skeptical it will ever get built. The economy in the border areas between Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia only seems to be getting worse with the coal industry in free fall. It's going to be hard enough just getting I-73 into Roanoke.

I don't mind the I-73 routing that runs from Roanoke to Myrtle Beach, but I DO NOT like the routing of I-74. I still don't understand why NC wants to route I-74 like that.. especially in the southeast part of NC... however I doubt I-74 will be routed to Myrtle Beach. They probably will end it in Wilmington or leave it unbuilt and have it end at I-95.

Quote from: longhornI-14 could follow Hwy 93 from Belton to Heidenhiemer. However connect to the south of Belton to I-35. There is already a new I-35 to 190 connector built last year. Trying to connect I-14 between Temple and Belton will run it into some subdivisions of on Temple's southside. So run I-14 south of 93 and connect I-14 to I-35 near loop 121 south of Belton.

There's a couple possible openings where I-14 can split off from I-35 just North of the recently re-built I-35/US-190 interchage, but yet still South of the FM-93 exit on I-35. Even if the road had to go North of the FM-93 exit it wouldn't have to go far. There's a more substantial clearing just North of some car dealerships and a Harley Davidson dealership. Either way, I-14 would indeed need to run parallel to the South of FM-93 at least until the TX-95 intersection with FM-93.

Quote from: StriderI don't mind the I-73 routing that runs from Roanoke to Myrtle Beach, but I DO NOT like the routing of I-74. I still don't understand why NC wants to route I-74 like that.. especially in the southeast part of NC... however I doubt I-74 will be routed to Myrtle Beach. They probably will end it in Wilmington or leave it un-built and have it end at I-95.

It would be easier and cheaper just to route I-74 into Wilmington. US-74 is mostly freeway quality between I-95 and Bolton, NC. There's only a few at grade intersections that NC DOT is removing one by one. I think the road just needs shoulder work done to bring it up to Interstate standards. The last 20 miles to Wilmington would need a combination of new bypasses and upgrades of existing US-74 to make the entire route limited access. This is certainly a much easier and cheaper prospect than the pending upgrades of I-42 and I-87 in North Carolina.

190..........errrr........I-14 will be widened eventually from Killeen to Belton. First phase start this fall.

http://kdhnews.com/harker_heights_herald/local/txdot-proposes-widening-highway-from-heights-to-belton-public-meeting/article_9007f6ea-de97-11e6-8f1f-0726dd84a732.html

  I-14 now officially open  (http://www.kxxv.com/story/35217555/highway-us-190-is-now-interstate-14#.WPv2QJuiz5k.twitter)

Quote from: US71 on April 22, 2017, 08:39:02 PM
 I-14 now officially open  (http://www.kxxv.com/story/35217555/highway-us-190-is-now-interstate-14#.WPv2QJuiz5k.twitter)

Go to the 0:39 mark of the video to see the first posted I-14 @ an intersection.

I noted this on the US 190 thread, but you can see some pictures of I-14 signs at the AARoads Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/posts/10155324455292948 (thanks to Jeff Royston).

Quote from: US71 on April 22, 2017, 08:39:02 PM
 I-14 now officially open  (http://www.kxxv.com/story/35217555/highway-us-190-is-now-interstate-14#.WPv2QJuiz5k.twitter)

Well -- pure political will emanating from central TX got 'er done (at least 25 miles out of ????).  Wonder where the next spate of activity on this corridor will be?  My money's on either Bryan/State College or way out west around Midland or San Angelo (a few miles here, a few miles there.......).  This'll be an interesting ride!

El Paso, TX to Savannah, GA???  Quite a bit of duplication and waste of money to go all of that way.  I can see some need for I-14 in Texas and part of Louisiana to go around Houston and San Antonio, but we are reaching towards I-69 expanded levels here.

Quote from: sparker on April 23, 2017, 05:15:41 AM
Well -- pure political will emanating from central TX got 'er done (at least 25 miles out of ????).  Wonder where the next spate of activity on this corridor will be?  My money's on either Bryan/State College or way out west around Midland or San Angelo (a few miles here, a few miles there.......).  This'll be an interesting ride!

Especially when they start talking to Louisiana about getting it to Alexandria and Natchez.

This could bury Louisiana's portion of I-69 once and for all. Louisiana wants this interstate and can argue that it needs it to take advantage of commerce from or to Texas. Texas can argue that I-14 gives them a better (or at least an alternate) freight corridor to the Mississippi River. On the other hand, I-69 gives Louisiana very little commercial benefit and doesn't connect any Louisiana cities other than a loose connection to Shreveport, which is already connected to major cities by other interstates. If Louisiana I-69 dies, Texas doesn't have to bother building it to Logansport; they can just route it down what is now I-369 and be done with it.

(I'm definitely not saying that any of this will happen any time soon.)

Quote from: Life in Paradise on April 23, 2017, 05:08:01 PM
El Paso, TX to Savannah, GA???  Quite a bit of duplication and waste of money to go all of that way.  I can see some need for I-14 in Texas and part of Louisiana to go around Houston and San Antonio, but we are reaching towards I-69 expanded levels here.

Quote from: jbnv on April 23, 2017, 06:19:06 PM

Quote from: sparker on April 23, 2017, 05:15:41 AM
Well -- pure political will emanating from central TX got 'er done (at least 25 miles out of ????).  Wonder where the next spate of activity on this corridor will be?  My money's on either Bryan/State College or way out west around Midland or San Angelo (a few miles here, a few miles there.......).  This'll be an interesting ride!

Especially when they start talking to Louisiana about getting it to Alexandria and Natchez.

This could bury Louisiana's portion of I-69 once and for all. Louisiana wants this interstate and can argue that it needs it to take advantage of commerce from or to Texas. Texas can argue that I-14 gives them a better (or at least an alternate) freight corridor to the Mississippi River. On the other hand, I-69 gives Louisiana very little commercial benefit and doesn't connect any Louisiana cities other than a loose connection to Shreveport, which is already connected to major cities by other interstates. If Louisiana I-69 dies, Texas doesn't have to bother building it to Logansport; they can just route it down what is now I-369 and be done with it.

(I'm definitely not saying that any of this will happen any time soon.)

Mentioning Savannah is simply hyperbole; the original I-14 "outline" (more that than a detailed plan) showed it using the Fall Line expressway to access Augusta, where it would ostensibly terminate at I-20.  I'm guessing it may get as far east as Laurel, MS; anywhere east of there would likely be duplicative -- particularly if an Interstate-grade facility is built along US 80 from I-20/59 to Montgomery.

As far as I-69 goes, I don't see LA completely abandoning its plans for that route, just "back-burnering" it outside a Red River crossing and approaches.  As long as AR is pushing its plans forward, any I-69 facility will need a place to go.  At the risk of delving a bit too far into the fictional area, I see two alternate possibilities:  abandoning I-69 west of Monticello and turning it south more or less along US 425 and US 165 to I-20 somewhere in the Monroe area, and then multiplexing it along I-20 west to Shreveport, where it would take off again toward Texas.  The second would be simply to extend it west in AR to the Texarkana area, where it would presumably link up with the I-369 alignment, with the latter becoming the new I-69 mainline (TX probably wouldn't mind that one bit!).  Yeah, it's a bit convoluted, but little about the I-69 corridor between Texas and Memphis isn't somewhat contrived.  The chances of that corridor being fully developed as originally planned are, IMO, slim & none.  All we can do is stay tuned! 

Quote from: sparker on April 23, 2017, 08:10:06 PM
As far as I-69 goes, I don't see LA completely abandoning its plans for that route, just "back-burnering" it outside a Red River crossing and approaches.  As long as AR is pushing its plans forward, any I-69 facility will need a place to go.

Even if Arkansas and Texas both build I-69 along the current corridor all the way to the Louisiana border, that doesn't compel Louisiana to put I-69 ahead of other needs or priorities. (See Missouri and I-49.)

Quote from: sparker on April 23, 2017, 08:10:06 PM
At the risk of delving a bit too far into the fictional area, I see two alternate possibilities:  abandoning I-69 west of Monticello and turning it south more or less along US 425 and US 165 to I-20 somewhere in the Monroe area, and then multiplexing it along I-20 west to Shreveport, where it would take off again toward Texas.

If Arkansas really wanted to build a(nother) interstate with Louisiana, they'd talk about extending I-530 south to Monroe then picking up US 165 to Lake Charles. That would actually get our attention like I-14 has. (Again, see I-49, which is marching forward albeit slowly in all three of its states.)

Quote from: sparker on April 23, 2017, 08:10:06 PM
Yeah, it's a bit convoluted, but little about the I-69 corridor between Texas and Memphis isn't somewhat contrived.  The chances of that corridor being fully developed as originally planned are, IMO, slim & none.  All we can do is stay tuned!

One thing that's not convoluted about it is creating a southwest bypass around Shreveport, Bossier City and Barksdale Base. I think we'll build that segment and nothing else. (And if we do build only that segment, I wouldn't bother calling it I-69. I-649 would make more sense.)

Interstate 14 is signed!
http://kdhnews.com/military/interstate-through-killeen-officials-celebrate-the-new-i/article_eeae9be8-2836-11e7-a5a8-dfaddf62ae82.html
I still do wish that Google Maps would put I-14 up. :/

The Interstate 14 designation is a wasted number. It's only 8 miles longer than Interstate 97, and will not likely go any further east or west anytime soon.

If they would just contruct the Temple to I-45 section first (making it easier to get from Central Texas to Houston and relieving 290 at Brenham), many here would be surprised at the traffic counts.

I don't think I-14 will do anything to relieve traffic in Brenham. The proposed road is too far North. The main problem for Brenham is it's along the main drag between the Houston metro (6 million) and Austin metro (2 million), and too much of that main drag (US-290) is not Interstate quality. At best, I-14 could possibly draw some North-South traffic off TX-36. But that's only going to happen if I-14 is built with a much more straight path to College Station than the stupid "W" shape path depicted on the concept maps. Otherwise a lot of traffic from Temple may still keep coming down TX-36. It's a straighter shot.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 02, 2017, 01:26:51 PM
I don't think I-14 will do anything to relieve traffic in Brenham. The proposed road is too far North. The main problem for Brenham is it's along the main drag between the Houston metro (6 million) and Austin metro (2 million), and too much of that main drag (US-290) is not Interstate quality. At best, I-14 could possibly draw some North-South traffic off TX-36. But that's only going to happen if I-14 is built with a much more straight path to College Station than the stupid "W" shape path depicted on the concept maps. Otherwise a lot of traffic from Temple may still keep coming down TX-36. It's a straighter shot.

Within the Triangle, my guess is that the I-14 alignment will essentially stay on US 190 east to about Cameron, then take off in a relatively straight shot ESE to where US 79 crosses the Brazos -- primarily because the river has been channeled in that area, reducing the bridge cost.  It'll probably skirt Hearne to the SW before subsuming the TX 6 alignment through the College Station/Bryan area.  Just where it will diverge from there toward Huntsville has yet TBD; I'd guess it'll parallel TX 30 to the south, probably diverging from TX 6 somewhere north of Navasota so here's less new-terrain mileage to construct (and providing a junction point with an extended TX 249 to Houston).  East of Huntsville -- if that ever occurs -- is anyone's guess; whatever is eventually built will have to dodge lakes, dams, and towns en route to LA. 

One reason I can think of why the maps released to the general public showing the "preliminary" I-14 corridor zig-zagging along existing routes is to avoid creating anxiety among those landowners along the potential route, particularly east of Cameron; if they had shown a "straight-line" alignment to the Hearne area, someone owning property in that area would have concluded that "shit, they're going to come right through my land" and possibly intitate a localized preemptive response that could have the effect of highly restricting the options as to just where the corridor could possibly go.  Better that TXDOT leave sleeping dogs lie until the corridor is funded and ready to go, then initiate whatever land acquisition measures are necessary to effect an efficient routing (i.e., just follow the longstanding process used in most jurisdictions).     

I'm not so sure the I-14 planners drew the proposed path through the Texas Triangle just to put property owners' minds at ease. I recall when the Trans Texas Corridor thing was being sold to the public. The proposed paths of those routes were not really jagged or crooked at all. There was a few really odd corridor choices, but that was another issue (part of which ultimately doomed that whole effort).

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 03, 2017, 12:02:10 AM
I'm not so sure the I-14 planners drew the proposed path through the Texas Triangle just to put property owners' minds at ease. I recall when the Trans Texas Corridor thing was being sold to the public. The proposed paths of those routes were not really jagged or crooked at all. There was a few really odd corridor choices, but that was another issue (part of which ultimately doomed that whole effort).

The entire TX corridor concept -- blocks wide/multi-mode -- was likely doomed to failure from the start.  The level of eminent domain that would have had to be employed to complete the corridors as planned would provoke outcry and opposition to a level not seen outside of freeway efforts in major dense cities.  IIRC, there was a lot of that emanating from rural Texas when the first batch of TTC plans were publicized -- which was the basis for my speculation that showing corridors (including I-14 across the Triangle) "straightlined" before preliminary vetting of actual alignments took place might have the effect of reviving the blanket fears and subsequent opposition encountered with the overall TTC concept.  If I were in the shoes of the corridor's backers and/or TXDOT, I'd also tread lightly and only show the existing roads that would be ostensibly supplanted by the new corridor -- as a general rather than specific plan.

The Trans-Texas Corridor was doomed from the start because of its magnitude.  I went to some public meetings in rural areas and people were very angry, torches-and-pitchforks angry.  I thought I was watching the beginning of a citizens' uprising.  (This is Texas, where we're never really all that far from that.)  The plan wouldn't just take land, it would split land.  In rural areas without dense road networks, there would be long detours to get to a road that went across the corridor, as most roads would just be broken.  Getting from one part of your land to the other would turn into a major outing in some areas.    Another huge liability was that the taking of land would be for private for-profit enterprise running toll roads and leasing right-of-way for utilities and rail lines.  This was never going to happen.  Rick Perry, the governor at the time who proposed the system, is from rural Texas and should have known that.

Quote from: Grzrd on November 21, 2016, 05:04:02 PM
This Nov. 8 article (http://www.mrt.com/business/article/MDC-backs-MOTRAN-s-I-14-project-change-10599403.php) report that Midland may seek an amendment to the I-14 legislation which would change the western terminus to Midland.

How difficult is it to change a Congressionally designated corridor? This May 6 article (http://www.mrt.com/news/article/MOTRAN-calls-for-changes-in-I-14-route-11127394.php) reports that the folks in Midland are meeting some resistance from elected officials, both a Congressman whose district includes the current route and a U.S. Senator:

Quote
Talks have been bubbling in recent months about making major route changes to Interstate 14, but the primary organization behind the push says it's facing resistance from a West Texas representative and the state's senior senator.
Regional transportation lobby group Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance (MOTRAN) has pushed to change the congressionally approved western route of I-14, also known as the Forts to Ports Highway and the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway System ....
The new designation requires congressional approval. But while MOTRAN has the support of U.S. Reps. Mike Conaway, Brian Babin and Roger Williams, MOTRAN President James Beauchamp has told the Reporter-Telegram he faces resistance from Rep. Will Hurd and Sen. John Cornyn.
"Currently, part of that U.S. 190 designation is in (Hurd's) district,"  Beauchamp said. "His office told me some of the people down there didn't want to give up that designation. But, again, when you look at the allocation of resources within these two districts, I think this is pretty much common sense."   ....
MOTRAN recently compiled data to make the case for moving the western terminus north to Midland-Odessa and San Angelo. Key items are:
– The US 190 route will cost $1.539 billion, while the SH 158/US 87 route will cost $1.339 billion. Changing the route will yield a savings of nearly $200 million.
– The designated route will serve 33,907 people, according to 2016 Texas Demographic Center data. The new route in the Midland-Odessa and San Angelo regions will serve 463,873 people, nearly 430,000 more people than the current designation.
Beauchamp said that interstate design should achieve two goals: move freight and connect people. "If your goal is to connect people and move freight, not only is our route cheaper, but it can connect a lot more people."  ....
A Cornyn spokeswoman told the Reporter-Telegram it wasn't accurate to say the senator opposes the relocation of I-14. "Sen. Cornyn is hopeful TxDOT and local stakeholders can quickly identify a solution that's best for all Texans."
Beauchamp responded: "The original designation of I-14 did not have the support or backing of TxDOT.  We have provided information detailing the cost savings, additional population, and traffic served by the proposed change.
"So for Sen. Cornyn to say that he is looking for TxDOT to solve this problem, created by Congress, is a cop-out. They need to solve this problem themselves, and we gave them a more viable option. I hope he understands that based on the safety data we have assembled, their inability to correct their own mistake will put countless lives in danger on our roadways because they prioritized the wrong project. I am sad for the lives that will be lost as officials in Washington, D.C., continue to play politics with our Texas highways."
Beauchamp said the Cornyn office initially encouraged the route redesignation.
As for Hurd, whose district runs from western San Antonio, though the Big Bend region to east El Paso, "(He) either needs to step out of the way or make a case for why the route should stay,"  Beauchamp said.

The Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition has a solution: make both interstate corridors:

Quote
Bushell said the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition supports the route change and that the lobby group this year will seek to amend the route itself through either the infrastructure bill or a standalone bill. The coalition's strategy isn't necessarily to remove the US 190 route; rather, it wants to see the SH 158/US 87 route added to the map. Ultimately, TxDOT will determine which route it wants designated for I-14, he said.

I-14N and I-14S, anyone?

Quote from: Grzrd on May 08, 2017, 01:01:07 PM

Quote from: Grzrd on November 21, 2016, 05:04:02 PM
This Nov. 8 article (http://www.mrt.com/business/article/MDC-backs-MOTRAN-s-I-14-project-change-10599403.php) report that Midland may seek an amendment to the I-14 legislation which would change the western terminus to Midland.

How difficult is it to change a Congressionally designated corridor? This May 6 article (http://www.mrt.com/news/article/MOTRAN-calls-for-changes-in-I-14-route-11127394.php) reports that the folks in Midland are meeting some resistance from elected officials, both a Congressman whose district includes the current route and a U.S. Senator:

Quote
Talks have been bubbling in recent months about making major route changes to Interstate 14, but the primary organization behind the push says it's facing resistance from a West Texas representative and the state's senior senator.
Regional transportation lobby group Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance (MOTRAN) has pushed to change the congressionally approved western route of I-14, also known as the Forts to Ports Highway and the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway System ....
The new designation requires congressional approval. But while MOTRAN has the support of U.S. Reps. Mike Conaway, Brian Babin and Roger Williams, MOTRAN President James Beauchamp has told the Reporter-Telegram he faces resistance from Rep. Will Hurd and Sen. John Cornyn.
"Currently, part of that U.S. 190 designation is in (Hurd's) district,"  Beauchamp said. "His office told me some of the people down there didn't want to give up that designation. But, again, when you look at the allocation of resources within these two districts, I think this is pretty much common sense."   ....
MOTRAN recently compiled data to make the case for moving the western terminus north to Midland-Odessa and San Angelo. Key items are:
– The US 190 route will cost $1.539 billion, while the SH 158/US 87 route will cost $1.339 billion. Changing the route will yield a savings of nearly $200 million.
– The designated route will serve 33,907 people, according to 2016 Texas Demographic Center data. The new route in the Midland-Odessa and San Angelo regions will serve 463,873 people, nearly 430,000 more people than the current designation.
Beauchamp said that interstate design should achieve two goals: move freight and connect people. "If your goal is to connect people and move freight, not only is our route cheaper, but it can connect a lot more people."  ....
A Cornyn spokeswoman told the Reporter-Telegram it wasn't accurate to say the senator opposes the relocation of I-14. "Sen. Cornyn is hopeful TxDOT and local stakeholders can quickly identify a solution that's best for all Texans."
Beauchamp responded: "The original designation of I-14 did not have the support or backing of TxDOT.  We have provided information detailing the cost savings, additional population, and traffic served by the proposed change.
"So for Sen. Cornyn to say that he is looking for TxDOT to solve this problem, created by Congress, is a cop-out. They need to solve this problem themselves, and we gave them a more viable option. I hope he understands that based on the safety data we have assembled, their inability to correct their own mistake will put countless lives in danger on our roadways because they prioritized the wrong project. I am sad for the lives that will be lost as officials in Washington, D.C., continue to play politics with our Texas highways."
Beauchamp said the Cornyn office initially encouraged the route redesignation.
As for Hurd, whose district runs from western San Antonio, though the Big Bend region to east El Paso, "(He) either needs to step out of the way or make a case for why the route should stay,"  Beauchamp said.

The Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition has a solution: make both interstate corridors:

Quote
Bushell said the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition supports the route change and that the lobby group this year will seek to amend the route itself through either the infrastructure bill or a standalone bill. The coalition's strategy isn't necessarily to remove the US 190 route; rather, it wants to see the SH 158/US 87 route added to the map. Ultimately, TxDOT will determine which route it wants designated for I-14, he said.

I-14N and I-14S, anyone?

In terms of service, there's no question that a M/O-San Angelo routing serves a greater population that simply running I-14 down along the western "add-on " extension of US 190 to I-10.  If this Hurd fellow (I'll refrain from referring to him by a 7-letter word starting with "a" and ending with "e") really wants some sort of facility in his neck of the woods, just do the obvious: extend the P-to-P from San Angelo down to Del Rio or even all the way to I-35 north of Laredo as an Interstate.  That'll go through his district and actually be a usable route. 

Politically motivated corridors -- or other projects, for that matter -- are often a double-edged sword; when push comes to shove, someone's ego gets tweaked or their bailiwick is ignored/rejected, and they get pissed.  Comes with the territory! :poke:

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 07, 2017, 11:49:50 AM
Expanding I-14 east from Belton to Heidenheimer is probably an acknowledgement of the difficult and expensive prospect of running I-14 up and down through Temple. Building a 4-level stack interchange at I-35 and Loop 363 isn't practical. The I-35 expansion project in Temple stops just short of this interchange.
A Southern I-14 bypass of Temple would at least remove one "zig" from the otherwise really zig-zaggy I-14 route.

This July 14 article (http://www.tdtnews.com/news/article_a0e95924-6914-11e7-831a-276ed40fb1a4.html) reports that the Killeen-Temple MPO is studying a possible realignment of US 190/Future I-14 that would not be as dependent on I-35:

Quote
As Central Texas continues to grow, so too does the need for adequate roadways. The Killeen-Temple Metropolitan Plan- ning Organization held a meeting Friday to discuss a possible realignment of U.S. Highway 190.
Officials representing several local municipalities and school districts converged on the Civic Center in Rogers to provide input. The meeting is part of a year-long feasibility study to determine the need for an alternate east-west route through Bell County.
U.S. 190 – which eventually will be designated Interstate 14 – currently meets Interstate 35 in Belton, travels north to Loop 363 in Temple and then continues southeast along State Highway 36 to Rogers. The focus of the meeting was to find ways to limit the highway's dependence on I-35 and other major roadways by evaluating more efficient routes.
Participants broke into groups to discuss the various stages of the project. One possible solution would be to divert the highway south along FM 1670 in Belton before turning east to follow FM 436, avoiding a connection with I-35.
Another option would be to travel south on I-35 to connect directly to FM 436.
"If we extend down I-35 to connect to (FM 436) and have an interchange there, that would actually work,"  Andy Atlas of consulting firm CP&Y said. "People's expectations of where U.S. 190 is today would continue and you would use existing infrastructure. You wouldn't have to build west of I-35. We're probably talking about 1.5 to 2 miles (along I-35)."
Another popular option would be to use FM 93 as a more direct, existing route.
"When you're driving FM 93, it's relatively undeveloped until you get to 31st Street. We think we should continue studying FM 93,"  Atlas said. "It's a direct route and it's in the vicinity of where a lot of development is happening. If we're going to look at something in that vicinity, FM 93 is the only option we have really. We can avoid bisecting communities."
The working group will hold two more meetings in the coming months, as well as a public forum in the fall to complete the feasibility study.
The results of the study, however, don't guarantee that a project will eventually commence.
"There's currently no money directly identified for either U.S. 190 or the continuation of the I-14 project,"  TxDOT representative Michel Bolin said.
But because a portion of U.S. 190 west of I-35 has been designated as I-14, Bolin said U.S. 190 would be a high priority if funding becomes available.

Here is a snip of a map of the study area:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_18_07_17_3_15_08.png)

Does anyone really see Texas's Interstate 14 going any further east or further west. Count me as skeptical.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2017, 03:52:24 PM
Does anyone really see Texas's Interstate 14 going any further east or further west. Count me as skeptical.

East will probably be done sooner than later because of both political influence and growth within the "Triangle"; I earlier speculated that it would get to Bryan/State College, tie in with the existing TX 6 facility, which in turn is slated to connect to the TX 249 toll road facility extending north from metro Houston.  Once that connection is made, the intra-Triangle raison d'etre has been accomplished -- an alternative connection from Houston -- via State College -- to I-35 between Austin and DFW.  Anything to the east of TX 6 -- save a possible connection to I-45 along TX 30 -- will likely be a much longer-term proposition.  Same goes with anything west of the existing signed I-14 facility -- folks from San Angelo and Midland/Odessa will have to nail down, legislatively, a routing that takes I-14 west to serve their areas, resisting any pressure for a direct connection SW to I-10.  If that happens, it'll be a matter of shaking funds loose.  I wouldn't expect to see a finished W. Texas facility there for at least 20-25 years.   

College Station is plausible.

I-45 to US281 is possible.

Beyond that is preposterous.

Quote from: english si on July 18, 2017, 04:30:37 PM
College Station is plausible.

I-45 to US281 is possible.

Beyond that is preposterous.

I'll be the first to acknowledge that any Interstate corridor west of Lampasas will be the result of mainly political activity from areas that would potentially be served by such a corridor.  But in these days of "bottom-up" road planning, that's how corridors are laid out, planned, and eventually deployed.  Someone somewhere feels deprived since they don't have an Interstate serving them -- and if the outcry is amplified to where it's loud and consistent enough, it gets the attention of folks who can at least assist in making something happen.  That's precisely what's happening here.  Midland/Odessa want a direct connection southeast; San Angelo simply wants Interstate service and has built a batch of local freeways ostensibly to accommodate such, and the towns & rural areas between San Angelo and Lampasas would just be glad to provide commercial services at interchanges. 

Save a massive national effort to "fill in the gaps" of the Interstate network (something that hasn't happened for 49 years and counting), this is, despite criticism from outside sources, how any project of this type proceeds.  Unbiased assessments of actual need -- ideally how project priorities are determined -- are no longer a part of a process that has been in essence "hijacked" by localized political considerations.  I can't think of a DOT or local planning agency who wants to be put in this position, but here in the good old USA -- and this has persisted regardless of national administration or the presence of the various transportation bills piled one atop another since 1991 -- it's now a matter of the political standing and who can "snake" a concept through the planning and fiscal maze.   

Quote from: english si on July 18, 2017, 04:30:37 PM
College Station is plausible.

I-45 to US281 is possible.

Beyond that is preposterous.

I don't think it would be that implausible to extend it east of I-45 to the future I-69 corridor.

Quote from: Grzrd on July 18, 2017, 03:20:31 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 07, 2017, 11:49:50 AM
Expanding I-14 east from Belton to Heidenheimer is probably an acknowledgement of the difficult and expensive prospect of running I-14 up and down through Temple. Building a 4-level stack interchange at I-35 and Loop 363 isn't practical. The I-35 expansion project in Temple stops just short of this interchange.
A Southern I-14 bypass of Temple would at least remove one "zig" from the otherwise really zig-zaggy I-14 route.

This July 14 article (http://www.tdtnews.com/news/article_a0e95924-6914-11e7-831a-276ed40fb1a4.html) reports that the Killeen-Temple MPO is studying a possible realignment of US 190/Future I-14 that would not be as dependent on I-35:

Quote
As Central Texas continues to grow, so too does the need for adequate roadways. The Killeen-Temple Metropolitan Plan- ning Organization held a meeting Friday to discuss a possible realignment of U.S. Highway 190.
Officials representing several local municipalities and school districts converged on the Civic Center in Rogers to provide input. The meeting is part of a year-long feasibility study to determine the need for an alternate east-west route through Bell County.
U.S. 190 — which eventually will be designated Interstate 14 — currently meets Interstate 35 in Belton, travels north to Loop 363 in Temple and then continues southeast along State Highway 36 to Rogers. The focus of the meeting was to find ways to limit the highway’s dependence on I-35 and other major roadways by evaluating more efficient routes.
Participants broke into groups to discuss the various stages of the project. One possible solution would be to divert the highway south along FM 1670 in Belton before turning east to follow FM 436, avoiding a connection with I-35.
Another option would be to travel south on I-35 to connect directly to FM 436.
"If we extend down I-35 to connect to (FM 436) and have an interchange there, that would actually work,” Andy Atlas of consulting firm CP&Y said. “People’s expectations of where U.S. 190 is today would continue and you would use existing infrastructure. You wouldn’t have to build west of I-35. We’re probably talking about 1.5 to 2 miles (along I-35).”
Another popular option would be to use FM 93 as a more direct, existing route.
“When you’re driving FM 93, it’s relatively undeveloped until you get to 31st Street. We think we should continue studying FM 93,” Atlas said. “It’s a direct route and it’s in the vicinity of where a lot of development is happening. If we’re going to look at something in that vicinity, FM 93 is the only option we have really. We can avoid bisecting communities.”
The working group will hold two more meetings in the coming months, as well as a public forum in the fall to complete the feasibility study.
The results of the study, however, don’t guarantee that a project will eventually commence.
“There’s currently no money directly identified for either U.S. 190 or the continuation of the I-14 project,” TxDOT representative Michel Bolin said.
But because a portion of U.S. 190 west of I-35 has been designated as I-14, Bolin said U.S. 190 would be a high priority if funding becomes available.

Here is a snip of a map of the study area:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_18_07_17_3_15_08.png)

Most people from Killeen/Ft Hood  take hwy 93 from Belton Hidehiemer and connect with 190/36 there. Skips the traffic in Temple.

I see I-14 just to north of Bryan and stopping at I -45. Another way for those in Central Texas to get to Houston and relieve 290 from Brenham.

Quote from: Revive 755 on July 18, 2017, 06:21:27 PM

Quote from: english si on July 18, 2017, 04:30:37 PM
College Station is plausible.

I-45 to US281 is possible.

Beyond that is preposterous.

I don't think it would be that implausible to extend it east of I-45 to the future I-69 corridor.

If a way can be found to circumnavigate Lake Livingston in a cost-effective manner, then yes, the I-69/US 59 corridor would be an appropriate (and some would posit temporary) "stopping point" for the E-W I-14 corridor.  It would take concrete corresponding action from within Louisiana to prompt development of anything east of there. 

Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2017, 04:46:41 AM

Quote from: Revive 755 on July 18, 2017, 06:21:27 PM

Quote from: english si on July 18, 2017, 04:30:37 PM
College Station is plausible.

I-45 to US281 is possible.

Beyond that is preposterous.

I don't think it would be that implausible to extend it east of I-45 to the future I-69 corridor.

If a way can be found to circumnavigate Lake Livingston in a cost-effective manner, then yes, the I-69/US 59 corridor would be an appropriate (and some would posit temporary) "stopping point" for the E-W I-14 corridor.  It would take concrete corresponding action from within Louisiana to prompt development of anything east of there. 

Well, there is the proposed I-14 that is to continue all the way to Augusta, GA...

Quote from: Henry on July 19, 2017, 10:16:03 AM

Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2017, 04:46:41 AM

Quote from: Revive 755 on July 18, 2017, 06:21:27 PM

Quote from: english si on July 18, 2017, 04:30:37 PM
College Station is plausible.

I-45 to US281 is possible.

Beyond that is preposterous.

I don't think it would be that implausible to extend it east of I-45 to the future I-69 corridor.

If a way can be found to circumnavigate Lake Livingston in a cost-effective manner, then yes, the I-69/US 59 corridor would be an appropriate (and some would posit temporary) "stopping point" for the E-W I-14 corridor.  It would take concrete corresponding action from within Louisiana to prompt development of anything east of there. 

Well, there is the proposed I-14 that is to continue all the way to Augusta, GA...

Proposed -- but in the loosest sense possible.  Never has even been suggested as an HPC; it's essentially duplicative of the "I-85" extension west of Montgomery once eastward past I-59, and essentially tracks what would be a western I-16 extension in east Alabama and west Georgia.  Unless some presently unseen political force can ram something through across the US 84 corridor in AL, the probability of I-14 extending east of MS is slim & none.  Macon-Augusta is being built as a GRIP expressway; enhancing it to full freeway would be dependent upon traffic counts once the route is completed between I-75 and I-520 -- and even that would be decades away.

I can see I-14 getting built from the current terminus in Belton to College Station. The big question is what alignment will the highway take to fill that gap? I'm hoping for as direct a route as possible: upgrading or going parallel to US-190 down to Cameron, then building a new terrain route directly to the North side of College Station.

Planners instead have I-14 following the current, stupid, zaggy, US-190 route. From Cameron go almost due South to Milano, hard 90° turn at Milano, another hard 90° turn at Hearne, another hard 90° turn at Bryan and yet another hard 90° turn at Madisonville where I-14 would needlessly multiplex with I-45 down to Huntsville. I-14 would make a big "W" shape through central Texas. But it gets more towns and political influence connected to the Interstate! Yay!

They need to cut out all the extra towns and mileage and go for as straight a shot as possible from Belton to College Station and then Huntsville. Even if it means building a bunch of new terrain Interstate. They're going to have to build mostly new terrain roadway regardless of alignment. There's lot of homes, businesses, driveways, etc. along existing US-190.

Quote from: english siI-45 to US281 is possible.

I think development of I-14 out to the US-281 junction in Lampasas depends a little on further development of the US-281 corridor. Several miles of US-281 will be converted into freeway North of San Antonio. There's a few different freeway style exits and key intersections. Some portions of US-281 have a large median able to hold future freeway lanes. But it will probably be a long time before US-281 turns into a full blown relief corridor for I-35. Meanwhile TX DOT needs to add a second set of freeway lanes for I-14 in Copperas Cove.

Quote from: sparkerIf a way can be found to circumnavigate Lake Livingston in a cost-effective manner, then yes, the I-69/US 59 corridor would be an appropriate (and some would posit temporary) "stopping point" for the E-W I-14 corridor.  It would take concrete corresponding action from within Louisiana to prompt development of anything east of there.

That's a tricky situation from both environmental concerns and existing properties along US-190 near Lake Livingston. I think if I-14 were to pass through there an upgrade of US-190 itself would be impossible. The super highway would have to cross the Trinity River at least a couple miles or so North of existing US-190 and meet I-69 a few miles North of Livingston.

I can see the I-14 corridor approaching Hearne; the best crossing site of the Brazos is right along US 79 and the parallel UP tracks, where they've channelized the river so as to provide a relatively narrow (and, of course, less expensive) distance to bridge.  Also, Cameron (the largest city between Temple/Belton and the TX 6 corridor) is pretty much right along a straight line.  But unless there's a huge locus of political power emanating from Milano (population well below 1K), it shouldn't be too difficult to "straightline" the corridor between Cameron and Hearne.  Once on the TX 6 corridor, any further eastward alignment would be determined later (TX 30 or thereabouts if they've got an ounce of intelligence, or US 190 if they don't!).  I'd venture a guess that the present convoluted alignment basically following US 190 between Temple and Bryan as shown on preliminary plans is there to assuage the landowners along the route; they'll deal with any that need to be affected by the actual alignment after all the surveying and title research is completed.  IMO, I-14 will do the following once east of metro Temple/Belton: follow US 190 as far as Cameron, cut straight across eastward to where US 79 crosses the Brazos and possibly twin that bridge, then skirt Hearne to the southwest and merge with TX 6 just south of town.  From a strictly fiscal standpoint, that minimizes and simplifies structural cost, particularly as regards the Brazos bridge. 

Lake Livingston:  a big arc either north or south of the lake itself.  I have some cousins with vacation property on the lake; and if they're typical of the folks who utilize the lake as such, acquisition of lakefront properties would likely be, in the aggregate, prohibitive as to cost; it might be best to instead plan on a bypass facility.

The only way it would be good for I-14 to include Hearne in the routing is if indeed I-14 goes straight East from Cameron to Hearne, leaving out the wasteful zig-zag down to Milano.

The US-79 bridge across the Brazos is narrow and not remotely Interstate quality (narrow lanes, no shoulders). If/when I-14 crosses the Brazos it will be on a new Interstate quality bridge. Even if I-14 follows the US-79 alignment across the Brazos that whole bridge will have to be replaced.

Once I-14 is in the College Station metro the most direct yet least painful path to Huntsville needs to be identified. Farther South TX-DOT really needs to get on the stick about the TX-105 corridor between Navasota and Conroe. That's basically going to be the next outer "spoke" in Houston's growing super highway network, with I-14 between College Station and Huntsville yet another spoke.

Regarding Lake Livingston, I think it's possible to at least keep I-14 somewhat close to the existing US-190 corridor, close enough to be at least of some use to Onalaska, Blanchard and Livingston. If the I-14 alignment has to go too far to the North, practically skirting the town of Trinity then there would be no use running the highway to Huntsville -which would be a stupid shame.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 21, 2017, 09:21:49 PM
The only way it would be good for I-14 to include Hearne in the routing is if indeed I-14 goes straight East from Cameron to Hearne, leaving out the wasteful zig-zag down to Milano.

The US-79 bridge across the Brazos is narrow and not remotely Interstate quality (narrow lanes, no shoulders). If/when I-14 crosses the Brazos it will be on a new Interstate quality bridge. Even if I-14 follows the US-79 alignment across the Brazos that whole bridge will have to be replaced.

Once I-14 is in the College Station metro the most direct yet least painful path to Huntsville needs to be identified. Farther South TX-DOT really needs to get on the stick about the TX-105 corridor between Navasota and Conroe. That's basically going to be the next outer "spoke" in Houston's growing super highway network, with I-14 between College Station and Huntsville yet another spoke.

Regarding Lake Livingston, I think it's possible to at least keep I-14 somewhat close to the existing US-190 corridor, close enough to be at least of some use to Onalaska, Blanchard and Livingston. If the I-14 alignment has to go too far to the North, practically skirting the town of Trinity then there would be no use running the highway to Huntsville -which would be a stupid shame.

Regarding Hearne -- you read my mind!  I have been on the US 79 Brazos bridge, and fully agree it's substandard; my thoughts were to replace the bridge and "twin" it so that deliberately narrow river crossing zone could be utilized for both traffic on I-14 and US 79; a SW town bypass toward TX 6 would peel off after the bridge.

I would think that a south bypass of Lake Livingston would be much more useful -- and doable -- than anything to the north, which would involve a much broader "arc".  Also, I think you're onto something with the "expanding arc" concept re Houston expansion idioms -- they seem to have settled on a cyclical process of building an outer circle (first Loop 8, then TX 99, then........) and doing substantial infill out to that circle, adding or enhancing the "spokes" (e.g., Toll 249) as required.  Whether one sees that process as simply a better-planned version of urban sprawl or not, at least it supplies some measure of predictability, if not limitation.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 21, 2017, 09:21:49 PM
Farther South TX-DOT really needs to get on the stick about the TX-105 corridor between Navasota and Conroe. That's basically going to be the next outer "spoke" in Houston's growing super highway network, with I-14 between College Station and Huntsville yet another spoke.

If you look closely at the plans for the TX249 toll road, the western end is at TX105 well east of Navasota.  I would hope that means TxDOT has some long range plan to improve 105 west to Navasota at the least.

To me, it would seem like a waste of resources if any of current 290 is not used. (Feel free to skewer me.  :bigass:)

US-290 between Austin and Houston is more likely to become a second I-12 since the ship has already sailed on the I-14 thing in Killeen. The US-190 corridor (on or near where I-14 is being developed) and towns like Bryan-College Station, Huntsville and Livingston are not close at all to the US-290 corridor. Central Texas and metro Houston has multiple corridors that could have new freeways or toll roads built on or parallel nearby.

FM-1488 & TX-242 between Magnolia and Woodbranch could have been turned into a freeway years ago, but so much development has gone up that the corridor can only be a mix of interchanges at busy intersections (like at I-45 and the new one at FM-149). The TX-105 corridor from Beaumont on West to Cleveland, Conroe, Navasota and Brenham could emerge as a new Interstate corridor -maybe a longer I-12 to Austin. Then there's the I-14 corridor a little farther North. The Grand Parkway, expansion of the Fort Bend Parkway, Westpark Tollway, I-69 and I-45 round up what's going on South of Houston. Long ago TX-6 could have been turned into a freeway corridor, but with so much development it's in the same situation as FM-1488 North of Houston, a mixed bag of interchanges, expressway-grade roads and busy stretches of traffic-light snarled highway.

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on May 01, 2017, 01:04:36 PM
Interstate 14 is signed!
http://kdhnews.com/military/interstate-through-killeen-officials-celebrate-the-new-i/article_eeae9be8-2836-11e7-a5a8-dfaddf62ae82.html
I still do wish that Google Maps would put I-14 up. :/

it's there now, any shield pics?

There is another way of getting to Bryan from Temple and its Tx 485. It starts a little east of Temple and ends at hwy 6 north of Hearne. 70mph running, two lane road with wide shoulders and not much elevation changes. Its the way a lot of locals get from Bryan to Central Texas avoiding the more danger 2095 from outside of Cameron to just outside of Hearne. No one actually goes down to Milano then back up to Hearne when trying to going from Temple to Bryan.

Unless you are Google maps which for some reason thinks that's the quickest way to get from Temple to Houston to zig zag and go through Hearne.

Quote from: longhorn on July 24, 2017, 10:50:43 AM
There is another way of getting to Bryan from Temple and its Tx 485. It starts a little east of Temple and ends at hwy 6 north of Hearne. 70mph running, two lane road with wide shoulders and not much elevation changes. Its the way a lot of locals get from Bryan to Central Texas avoiding the more danger 2095 from outside of Cameron to just outside of Hearne. No one actually goes down to Milano then back up to Hearne when trying to going from Temple to Bryan.

Unless you are Google maps which for some reason thinks that's the quickest way to get from Temple to Houston to zig zag and go through Hearne.

Wow -- that's odd.  One would think that Google would simply keep the driver on 36 down to Brenham and then shift to 290 into Houston -- the most direct route, considering the trajectory shift of TX 6 to essentially N-S between Navasota and Hempstead.  Never ceases to amaze me how there always seems to be glitches in Google routings!

Quote from: longhorn on July 24, 2017, 10:50:43 AM
There is another way of getting to Bryan from Temple and its Tx 485. It starts a little east of Temple and ends at hwy 6 north of Hearne. 70mph running, two lane road with wide shoulders and not much elevation changes. Its the way a lot of locals get from Bryan to Central Texas avoiding the more danger 2095 from outside of Cameron to just outside of Hearne. No one actually goes down to Milano then back up to Hearne when trying to going from Temple to Bryan.

Unless you are Google maps which for some reason thinks that's the quickest way to get from Temple to Houston to zig zag and go through Hearne.

Mapquest shows your route as the preferred choice.

The Goog uses FM 485 too...

That's an interesting change in algorithms, it used to send one to Milano then Hearne  to get to Houston.

The point is there are many ways to get I-14 to hwy 6, and not all of the include Cameron, though I would imagine Cameron would protest like crazy to be on the route.

Quote from: longhorn on July 26, 2017, 09:07:07 AM
That's an interesting change in algorithms, it used to send one to Milano then Hearne  to get to Houston.

The point is there are many ways to get I-14 to hwy 6, and not all of the include Cameron, though I would imagine Cameron would protest like crazy to be on the route.

The actual routing from I-35 to TX 6 will probably depend upon how the initial segment through or around Temple is configured.  Attempting to utilize the current US 190 alignment through town would involve turning the present 35/190 volleyball into at least a partial stack -- requiring a substantial amount of urbanized land acquisition; that alone may doom that particular option.   However, if by chance that corridor is selected, it's likely to be extended straight down 190, including the Heidenheimer bypass freeway.  If that's done, it's likely that Cameron interests will press for a continuation of the 190 alignment at least as far as their immediate area.  But if a new-terrain extension east of Belton is chosen, then all bets are off; something more resembling a straight line from Belton to Hearne might eventually be in the works, whining from the Cameron area notwithstanding.  If it's not too far off, maybe they could pull the "let's extend the city limits out to the new road" stunt and get some tax money from a Pilot or Hardees out there!  But as I've said before, it's likely that any alignment will include a Brazos crossing at or near the present US 79 bridge, since the effective channelization of the river there makes a long floodplain crossing unnecessary (even a routing more or less along FM 485 could easily be shunted down to that area once approaching the river).

Will this route be extended west? My apologies if this has been covered here before, but San Angelo a town of 100k isn't connected to any interstates other than at grade highways it appears. A quick glance on Gmaps it's clear the distance is much shorter to I-10 or I-20.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2017, 12:22:25 AM
Will this route be extended west? My apologies if this has been covered here before, but San Angelo a town of 100k isn't connected to any interstates other than at grade highways it appears. A quick glance on Gmaps it's clear the distance is much shorter to I-10 or I-20.

This has been covered in past thread posts, but there is a potential I-14 alignment backed by interests from both San Angelo and the Midland/Odessa area that extends the corridor west from Lampasas along US 190 to Brady, then west via US 87 through San Angelo to TX 158 near Sterling City, and then west to the Midland-Odessa metro region; this includes a southern loop around those cities, finally terminating at I-20.  The argument made by these groups is that such a corridor serves a greater population base than any alternate that terminates at I-10.  Much of the western reaches of this routing is already 4-lanes divided, although most of that is hardly limited-access; there's plenty of private access and cross traffic which will have to be addressed (or bypassed).  San Angelo has a small but disconnected network of freeways (and near-freeways!) that may be incorporated into planning efforts.  That city has been angling for an upgrade of the Port-to-Plains corridor for decades (the proposed I-14 segment from San Angelo to Midland is part of that corridor); at this point it's likely that their attention will be shifted to the E-W I-14 routing, as they see some momentum behind that project -- particularly after the initial designation/signing from Copperas Cove to Belton.  Time will tell how successful they are.

I think hell will freeze over before I-14 is extended from Copperas Cove to San Angelo and Midland. Costs of building new Interstate highway are obscenely expensive. Most of this proposed route is very rural. I-14 is somewhat unique in that none of its proposed route goes through any major cities or even near any major cities. The best case for I-14 in the near term is another East-West super highway for the Texas triangle and its regional traffic. Spending billions on a highway just to go 170 miles from Copperas Cove to San Angelo and then another 110 miles to Midland? That's a pretty tall order for such sparse population, even with political connections trying to help the effort.

I still think if San Angelo is ever going to be connected into the Interstate highway system its best chance is an Southern extension of I-27 (from Lubbock thru Big Spring, San Angelo and terminating at I-10 either at Sonora or Junction. Sonora would be the routing if the road ultimately went to Del Rio. Junction would be the choice if I-27 was to point directly to San Antonio.

I could actually see San Angelo being a crossroads of both I-27 and I-44 (a lot of upgrade work to US-277 has gone on between Wichita Falls and Abilene).

Quote from: sparkerHowever, if by chance that corridor is selected, it's likely to be extended straight down 190, including the Heidenheimer bypass freeway.  If that's done, it's likely that Cameron interests will press for a continuation of the 190 alignment at least as far as their immediate area.  But if a new-terrain extension east of Belton is chosen, then all bets are off; something more resembling a straight line from Belton to Hearne might eventually be in the works, whining from the Cameron area notwithstanding.

I wouldn't mind seeing a more direct route from Heidenheimer straight over to Hearne, skirting Cameron, Rogers and Buckholts to the North. US-190 drops to 2 lanes outside of Heidenheimer. Due to development alongside existing US-190 a new terrain route would be needed for I-14. Making the road even more straight going to Hearne might save money on construction costs and make the resulting road more productive to use.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 27, 2017, 03:49:36 PM
I think hell will freeze over before I-14 is extended from Copperas Cove to San Angelo and Midland. Costs of building new Interstate highway are obscenely expensive. Most of this proposed route is very rural. I-14 is somewhat unique in that none of its proposed route goes through any major cities or even near any major cities. The best case for I-14 in the near term is another East-West super highway for the Texas triangle and its regional traffic. Spending billions on a highway just to go 170 miles from Copperas Cove to San Angelo and then another 110 miles to Midland? That's a pretty tall order for such sparse population, even with political connections trying to help the effort.

I still think if San Angelo is ever going to be connected into the Interstate highway system its best chance is an Southern extension of I-27 (from Lubbock thru Big Spring, San Angelo and terminating at I-10 either at Sonora or Junction. Sonora would be the routing if the road ultimately went to Del Rio. Junction would be the choice if I-27 was to point directly to San Antonio.

I could actually see San Angelo being a crossroads of both I-27 and I-44 (a lot of upgrade work to US-277 has gone on between Wichita Falls and Abilene).

Quote from: sparkerHowever, if by chance that corridor is selected, it's likely to be extended straight down 190, including the Heidenheimer bypass freeway.  If that's done, it's likely that Cameron interests will press for a continuation of the 190 alignment at least as far as their immediate area.  But if a new-terrain extension east of Belton is chosen, then all bets are off; something more resembling a straight line from Belton to Hearne might eventually be in the works, whining from the Cameron area notwithstanding.

I wouldn't mind seeing a more direct route from Heidenheimer straight over to Hearne, skirting Cameron, Rogers and Buckholts to the North. US-190 drops to 2 lanes outside of Heidenheimer. Due to development alongside existing US-190 a new terrain route would be needed for I-14. Making the road even more straight going to Hearne might save money on construction costs and make the resulting road more productive to use.

Looks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree about whether political action/pressure will eventually take I-14 out San Angelo way.  I do think I-44 will eventually be extended to Abilene, but taking that particular corridor further SW to San Angelo might not be the most effective way to connect that city to eastward points.  As far as I-27 goes, while the most efficient route for the P-to-P corridor is straight through Big Spring, for better or worse most of the region's political power emanates from Midland-Odessa (they got the western "branch" of the P-to-P down 349 then back across on 158 designated back in '05), so in all likelihood there will be pressure to divert the corridor through Midland.  At that point, I don't really think anyone from either San Angelo or Midland gives a shit what number -- 14 or 27 -- would be applied to a route connecting the two cities -- as long as it gets done.  My point has been that right now the developmental momentum is with the east-west corridor, so that's what's on the mind of "boosters" from the cities potentially on either of the corridors; decades of inaction on P-to-P seem to have made these folks cynical as to its future prospects. 

Regarding any potential I-14 routing along US 190 -- I'd concur that anything east of Heidenheimer would be problematic because of (a) the sizeable number of private access points to the existing highway and (b) the parallel BNSF rail line, which limits both the location and design parameters of any limited-access facility (out here in CA the same situation has affected the upgrades of CA 99).  Thus, if I were to place a bet it would be on a new-terrain alignment possibly from the east end of the Heidenheimer bypass east to Hearne or directly east from Belton. 

Quote from: sparkerLooks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree about whether political action/pressure will eventually take I-14 out San Angelo way. I do think I-44 will eventually be extended to Abilene, but taking that particular corridor further SW to San Angelo might not be the most effective way to connect that city to eastward points. As far as I-27 goes, while the most efficient route for the P-to-P corridor is straight through Big Spring, for better or worse most of the region's political power emanates from Midland-Odessa (they got the western "branch" of the P-to-P down 349 then back across on 158 designated back in '05), so in all likelihood there will be pressure to divert the corridor through Midland.

Regarding I-44, having the route travel to or through San Angelo is not about San Angelo itself. It's about the functions of the overall Interstate highway system. When the US-277 improvement project from Abilene to Wichita Falls was first started there was buzz about I-44 becoming another NAFTA corridor by extending it down to Del Rio. Such a corridor could relieve some of the NAFTA traffic on I-35. I-44 is an important diagonal route in the Interstate system. A diagonal running from Del Rio to St. Louis would be pretty big.

The bigger picture functions of the Interstate system are where both I-14 and a westward diversion of an I-27 extension both run into trouble. I-14 doesn't really go anywhere big and important. The routing doesn't even work as a functional reliever of traffic on I-20 or I-10. A larger extension of I-27 would be about giving Denver and other Front Range cities an Interstate connecting directly to the Gulf Coast and some large cities along the way (like San Antonio) while avoiding mountain passes. Midland doesn't fit directly into a Denver-San Antonio corridor.

I would love to see I-44 extended. TxDOT seems to have a bunch of projects to undertake as far as rural interstates go.

BTW, I hope Dunkirk was good. Seeing it at the Chinese Theatre next weekend.

The best place to see Dunkirk is an IMAX theater showing the movie via a 15-perf 70mm film print. I think the Chinese Theater in L.A. is only set up for digital projection. It may be the new 4K laser system, but it's still just digital. More than 3/4 of the movie was filmed with the IMAX 70mm film cameras. That yields a taller 1.4:1 aspect ratio image. Much higher resolution than any digital stuff can deliver. And the digital stuff is going to crop into the imagery. I was actually surprised to see how much of the movie was filmed in true IMAX 70mm format. We actually watched it twice, first in classic 5-perf 70mm at LOOK Cinemas in Addison and then 15/70mm at the Cinemark theater. I liked the Cinemark presentation more, although I'm friends with the guy who installed his own 5/70mm gear at LOOK and 2 Studio Movie Grill locations in the DFW area. Dunkirk was shot primarily with IMAX film in mind. It's more difficult to watch on more rectangular screens because some of the imagery (such as Tom Hardy playing a British pilot) is shot really close. With the IMAX 70mm frame it's easier to take in all the scenery.

I'm quite the film geek. So I try to do what I can to support a real film presentation effort when I can. I went out of my way to watch The Hateful Eight when it was shown in anamorphic Ultra Panavision 70mm. My girlfriend and I watched Interstellar twice, once in 5/70mm at LOOK in Dallas and then in 15/70mm at the Bob Bullock IMAX theater in Austin. I was sad to see that was the last real IMAX movie to play there. They installed the new "IMAX with Lasers" thingie after that show. I've heard people complain about a bad rainbow speckle problem with the new 4K IMAX Laser projection system. One friend said it was like a magical unicorn barfed on the screen. I've seen other high-end laser projection, like the 6P RGB dual 4K laser projection in Dolby Cinema screens. No really obvious speckle there. Still, I love a real 70mm show whenever such a thing happens, which these days seems to be a dying thing.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 27, 2017, 11:14:30 PM

Quote from: sparkerLooks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree about whether political action/pressure will eventually take I-14 out San Angelo way. I do think I-44 will eventually be extended to Abilene, but taking that particular corridor further SW to San Angelo might not be the most effective way to connect that city to eastward points. As far as I-27 goes, while the most efficient route for the P-to-P corridor is straight through Big Spring, for better or worse most of the region's political power emanates from Midland-Odessa (they got the western "branch" of the P-to-P down 349 then back across on 158 designated back in '05), so in all likelihood there will be pressure to divert the corridor through Midland.

Regarding I-44, having the route travel to or through San Angelo is not about San Angelo itself. It's about the functions of the overall Interstate highway system. When the US-277 improvement project from Abilene to Wichita Falls was first started there was buzz about I-44 becoming another NAFTA corridor by extending it down to Del Rio. Such a corridor could relieve some of the NAFTA traffic on I-35. I-44 is an important diagonal route in the Interstate system. A diagonal running from Del Rio to St. Louis would be pretty big.

The bigger picture functions of the Interstate system are where both I-14 and a westward diversion of an I-27 extension both run into trouble. I-14 doesn't really go anywhere big and important. The routing doesn't even work as a functional reliever of traffic on I-20 or I-10. A larger extension of I-27 would be about giving Denver and other Front Range cities an Interstate connecting directly to the Gulf Coast and some large cities along the way (like San Antonio) while avoiding mountain passes. Midland doesn't fit directly into a Denver-San Antonio corridor.

Unfortunately, most routing decisions in TX end up being controlled by a view of the individual trees rather than the whole forest!  IMHO, the optimal outcome in west TX, given what's happening, would be this:  I-27 would be extended straight down US 87 via Big Spring to San Angelo, then south to I-10 at Sonora (via US 277) -- the original P-to-P alignment.  I-14 would be brought west via Brady and Eden to San Angelo, where it would terminate -- or, if M/O pisses & moans enough to get their way, multiplex up 87 to 158, then head west to those cities as per their localized plans.  I'd also take I-27 up US 87 to Raton, NM (I-25); that would serve as a "feeder" into the west TX network. 

The above would function reasonably well -- particularly if the I-14 extension into the Triangle is developed within much the same time frame.  Even though a tad indirect, what it does accomplish is using the I-14 corridor to expedite Front Range-Gulf traffic (particularly to greater Houston) while avoiding DFW and San Antonio chokepoints.  For that purpose, I-14's avoidance of Austin would be a blessing (currently in disguise!).  And -- if TX congressional folks can conjure up some of their historic funding "magic", Del Rio, Laredo, and even Corpus Christi might be in the mix as well with a southern P-to-P extension coupled with the I-69 "branch" along TX 44.  I'll acknowledge that's a lot of stuff piled on the proverbial plate -- but if any jurisdiction can pull it off, it would be Texas! 

While metro-centric "point-to-point"  Interstate corridors still remain the prevalent routing defaults,  "relief routes" deliberately aligned to avoid sizeable urban areas (possibly except for their temini) will probably be programmed, particularly when multiple such "metroplexes" occupy a single region -- as is the case in TX.  The primary drawback to the traditional "connect-the-dots" corridor planning efforts is the fact that the dots grow up to be big bad chokepoints over time.  But back when the original Interstate system was in the planning stages, very few folks expected a Wild West backwater like San Antonio to feature a city population in excess of 1M and a metro figure well over double that!  The concept of avoiding such a place (even, ironically, to expedite travel to an even more densely populated area like Houston) by taking measures like the trajectory of I-14 piercing the heart of the "triangle" will likely gain more traction as urban congestion continues to grow in severity as well as expand outwards.  Intuitively, planners and observers like we forum contributors have become inculcated into the traditional inter-urban connector (the development of corridors such as I-49 and I-22 attest to that), but with urban growth patterns spreading into formerly secondary or "flyover" metro regions, IMO we'll see more and more "relief" corridors that seemingly don't connect much at all deployed to address the endemic growth of the resulting chokepoints.         

dunkirk was good, christopher nolan doesn't know how to make a bad movie

I'm confused. What do I-14 and Dunkirk have in common? As far as I can tell, nothing.

Quote from: 1 on July 29, 2017, 07:06:36 PMI'm confused. What do I-14 and Dunkirk have in common? As far as I can tell, nothing.

Indeed. I've just got back from seeing it, and I'm surprised to find it mentioned in this thread, let alone a post entirely about how and why it's better in IMAX (don't worry if you can't - my local multiplex filled with teenagers was perfectly fine).

Perhaps we can use it as an illustration? Here's a big budget passion project, but even it cannot work on the scale desired (as was said in the film there were 400,000 people needing evacuation, yet it felt like about a tenth of that. There were also hundreds of planes, not just over ten, etc, etc.). Lets say I-14 in west TX gets to be a big budget passion project - instead of a couple of hundred miles of interstate, the big budget and the passion is only going to stretch to 20-25.

In the film, the smallness and closeness works really well despite the vastness and importance of the subject matter*. I'm not sure it would with a road, but I'm more making this comment about the film, rather than the road.

*Most British reviews had to make a comment about it being odd that this hasn't been a film done many times - it's one of the really important moments in British history and part of the definition of Britishness - that in the lowest ebb, we come together and make a success of retreat.

I enjoyed the post about Dunkirk.

Quote from: english si on July 29, 2017, 07:40:10 PM

Quote from: 1 on July 29, 2017, 07:06:36 PMI'm confused. What do I-14 and Dunkirk have in common? As far as I can tell, nothing.

Indeed. I've just got back from seeing it, and I'm surprised to find it mentioned in this thread, let alone a post entirely about how and why it's better in IMAX (don't worry if you can't - my local multiplex filled with teenagers was perfectly fine).

Perhaps we can use it as an illustration? Here's a big budget passion project, but even it cannot work on the scale desired (as was said in the film there were 400,000 people needing evacuation, yet it felt like about a tenth of that. There were also hundreds of planes, not just over ten, etc, etc.). Lets say I-14 in west TX gets to be a big budget passion project - instead of a couple of hundred miles of interstate, the big budget and the passion is only going to stretch to 20-25.

In the film, the smallness and closeness works really well despite the vastness and importance of the subject matter*. I'm not sure it would with a road, but I'm more making this comment about the film, rather than the road.

*Most British reviews had to make a comment about it being odd that this hasn't been a film done many times - it's one of the really important moments in British history and part of the definition of Britishness - that in the lowest ebb, we come together and make a success of retreat.

As far as I-14 being considered a "passion" project, it could be said that most modern Interstate addition corridors qualify as such -- I-22 was the similar project for folks in Tupelo, MS and Jasper, AL as both a way to get to their nearest metro giants as well as a potential economic boost (partially fulfilled by the Toyota plant outside Tupelo); I-49 was the project of just about everyone in the affected area who could read a map!  For better or worse, I-14 is the "passion project" of groups of folks arrayed along its potential alignment from West Texas to the LA state line, with the most persistent of these located in the DFW-San Antonio-Houston "triangle", along with voices from San Angelo and Midland/Odessa.  While clearly less impressive -- and vital -- when viewed from the outside, the inverse rings as truth from a more localized POV.  It's already reached the 25-mile point as cited in the above post; anything else will be a product of persistence -- to the point of outright passion -- on the part of the corridor's backers.  We'll just have to see if such dedication produces the desired results. 

Quote from: sparkerUnfortunately, most routing decisions in TX end up being controlled by a view of the individual trees rather than the whole forest! IMHO, the optimal outcome in west TX, given what's happening, would be this: I-27 would be extended straight down US 87 via Big Spring to San Angelo, then south to I-10 at Sonora (via US 277) -- the original P-to-P alignment. I-14 would be brought west via Brady and Eden to San Angelo, where it would terminate -- or, if M/O pisses & moans enough to get their way, multiplex up 87 to 158, then head west to those cities as per their localized plans. I'd also take I-27 up US 87 to Raton, NM (I-25); that would serve as a "feeder" into the west TX network.

The current US-87/US-64 four lane expressway through Northern New Mexico does a good enough job without needing to be converted into an Interstate. There's not enough traffic on it now to justify an Interstate conversion. I drive that route regularly on road trips from my home to Colorado Springs to visit family. The road was dangerous as a 2-lane route. I'm happy the 4-lane upgrade is almost complete. The one thing missing right now is a 4-lane upgrade in the Texas Panhandle between Dumas and Hartley.

US-287 going North out of the Texas Panhandle is another leg of the original Ports to Plains Corridor. US-287 needs to be upgraded to four lane expressway standards all the way to I-70 at Limon, CO at the very least. An Interstate-level upgrade through there would be better. Either upgrade would give long distance traffic, particularly heavy truck traffic, a useful bypass of the Raton Pass and other tricky territory along I-25 and the Front Range.

Quote from: sparkerThe above would function reasonably well -- particularly if the I-14 extension into the Triangle is developed within much the same time frame. Even though a tad indirect, what it does accomplish is using the I-14 corridor to expedite Front Range-Gulf traffic (particularly to greater Houston) while avoiding DFW and San Antonio chokepoints.  For that purpose, I-14's avoidance of Austin would be a blessing (currently in disguise!). And -- if TX congressional folks can conjure up some of their historic funding "magic", Del Rio, Laredo, and even Corpus Christi might be in the mix as well with a southern P-to-P extension coupled with the I-69 "branch" along TX 44. I'll acknowledge that's a lot of stuff piled on the proverbial plate -- but if any jurisdiction can pull it off, it would be Texas!

The proposed I-14 corridor does not figure in to current commercial traffic patterns between the Gulf Coast and Colorado. It doesn't even work within a fully finished Ports to Plains Corridor either.

US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo is a very heavy trucking route and one that has more business being upgraded to Interstate standards than any of this I-14 stuff. That won't change at all, even if the entire (and unlikely) I-14 route would ever be built. The routing is far too out of the way for it to work as a bypass of Houston, Dallas or even Austin. And at some point the damned Interstate actually has to go somewhere important. Most commercial traffic is coming from big destinations and headed to big destinations.

Quote from: sparkerAs far as I-14 being considered a "passion" project, it could be said that most modern Interstate addition corridors qualify as such -- I-22 was the similar project for folks in Tupelo, MS and Jasper, AL as both a way to get to their nearest metro giants as well as a potential economic boost (partially fulfilled by the Toyota plant outside Tupelo); I-49 was the project of just about everyone in the affected area who could read a map!  For better or worse, I-14 is the "passion project" of groups of folks arrayed along its potential alignment from West Texas to the LA state line, with the most persistent of these located in the DFW-San Antonio-Houston "triangle", along with voices from San Angelo and Midland/Odessa.  While clearly less impressive -- and vital -- when viewed from the outside, the inverse rings as truth from a more localized POV.  It's already reached the 25-mile point as cited in the above post; anything else will be a product of persistence -- to the point of outright passion -- on the part of the corridor's backers.  We'll just have to see if such dedication produces the desired results.

There are big differences with I-22 and I-49. Those Interstates actually go to places of significance. A completed I-49 would become an important N-S route, especially connecting into I-29. Just as I-49 was extended, I could certainly see I-22 being extended Southeast to Columbus, Albany and ultimately Jacksonville. Further, I could see that diagonal corridor run along I-555 and extended up to Springfield and Wichita -maybe even Pueblo and Grand Junction. The Interstate system is missing some key SE-NW diagonal routes. I'd like to see one from OKC to Denver.

I-14 does not compliment the larger Interstate highway system in that manner. It doesn't even work as a good bypass, like I-81 bypassing the DC/Baltimore and Philadelphia areas, but then that's because it feeds directly into I-78 pointing directly at NYC. I-14 does not dove-tail neatly from one major corridor into another like that.

That was precisely my point!  Locally-initiated passion about a project can produced mixed results -- I-22 and I-49 filled -- or will fill -- longstanding interregional gaps.  I-14, as currently outlined, is less about connecting metro area A with metro area B -- but its avoidance of those areas may be an asset it itself, giving the corridor an identity as an alternate to those Interstates that by original design serve metro areas that have come to function as "chokepoints" or at least gauntlets to the traffic that passes through them en route to elsewhere.  While I agree with the sentiment above regarding how appropriate US 287 (Amarillo-DFW) is as a potential Interstate corridor, my worry is that it may be a corridor strictly for DFW origin/destination; traffic heading elsewhere (Houston, for example) will have to slog through DFW, which not only slows down commerce but also adds to the present localized load.  Unless an outer "ring" is established around that metro complex (which has expanded, particularly to the north, to almost obviate the possibility of such a facility) -- and that ring won't be subsumed by exurban growth to the point that it's useless as a bypass -- adding another Interstate corridor to the mix might indeed be an exercise in futility. 

As I've stated before, a "corridor to nowhere" (although San Angelo folks may get up in arms about such a characterization!) may actually function as a solution to the "chokepoint" problem -- while hardly direct, a I-14/TX-Toll 249 combined corridor could funnel E-W traffic aimed at Houston and the Gulf Coast away from San Antonio -- as well as NW-SE traffic from Amarillo (particularly if any I-27 southern extension avoids Midland!)  Speeds could be maintained for the most part -- and amenities would be found along the route, courtesy of the towns along the corridor.  The corridor would be at that point doing double-duty -- as a long-distance relief route, and as a connector between mid-sized metro areas in West Texas and within the Triangle.

Since a discussion of such unplanned (but patently obvious) potential Interstate corridors such as one along US 287 is popping up in this regional discussion, I'll probably be formulating a more comprehensive (though hardly Fritz-like!) Texas plan over in Fictional in the next few weeks (time and personal schedule permitting).  It'll include both plans that have been posited by various agencies and activists (including I-14) as well as a few variances and "tweaks" that might be useful -- taking into consideration where the impetus for some of these corridor concepts originate.  Stay tuned -- it's likely Austin will be in the mix --although not how some might consider intuitive!   

I still think it should have been a 3-digit spur route of Interstate 35.

I'm still not buying I-14 as having any bypass value for avoiding traffic in Houston, DFW, Austin and San Antonio. There's two deal-breaking problems.

All of these cities have functional super highway quality bypasses in the form of loop highways or parallel routes. I've driven in these cities many times. While they're indeed notorious for almost legendary level traffic jams, those jams are frequently taking place in or near the city cores. Traveling from Lawton to Florida I've skirted the South side of DFW using I-20 without it being a parking lot like parts of the LBJ Freeway. The GWB Turnpike can save time getting around the NE side of Dallas. TX-114 thru Grapevine moves pretty well now that its massive expansion is complete. Things will get easier still once the upgrade on I-35W in Fort Worth is complete. Traffic in Houston can be terrible. But the Loop 8 and Grand Parkway toll roads are useful bypasses to avoid central Houston. Austin only has a useful North-South bypass parallel to I-35. There is no good East-West corridor leading out of Austin to the West. I-14 won't change that. It would take less time and fuel to just use US-290 to get to I-10 and points farther West like El Paso rather than go North to take a jaggedy hump of a route.

I-14 is just too far out of the way, requiring way too much time, way too much fuel (which costs too much money) to make the out of the way journey worth it. I would never wind up on that corridor unless I had to drive from one small city to another along that corridor. I'm not going to go 200 miles or more out of the way to use such a route when there are shorter, less expensive, less time consuming choices available. If I-14 is ever fully built it will only have decent traffic counts inside the Texas Triangle and be desolate outside the triangle.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 31, 2017, 07:51:01 PM
I'm still not buying I-14 as having any bypass value for avoiding traffic in Houston, DFW, Austin and San Antonio. There's two deal-breaking problems.

All of these cities have functional super highway quality bypasses in the form of loop highways or parallel routes. I've driven in these cities many times. While they're indeed notorious for almost legendary level traffic jams, those jams are frequently taking place in or near the city cores. Traveling from Lawton to Florida I've skirted the South side of DFW using I-20 without it being a parking lot like parts of the LBJ Freeway. The GWB Turnpike can save time getting around the NE side of Dallas. TX-114 thru Grapevine moves pretty well now that its massive expansion is complete. Things will get easier still once the upgrade on I-35W in Fort Worth is complete. Traffic in Houston can be terrible. But the Loop 8 and Grand Parkway toll roads are useful bypasses to avoid central Houston. Austin only has a useful North-South bypass parallel to I-35. There is no good East-West corridor leading out of Austin to the West. I-14 won't change that. It would take less time and fuel to just use US-290 to get to I-10 and points farther West like El Paso rather than go North to take a jaggedy hump of a route.

I-14 is just too far out of the way, requiring way too much time, way too much fuel (which costs too much money) to make the out of the way journey worth it. I would never wind up on that corridor unless I had to drive from one small city to another along that corridor. I'm not going to go 200 miles or more out of the way to use such a route when there are shorter, less expensive, less time consuming choices available. If I-14 is ever fully built it will only have decent traffic counts inside the Texas Triangle and be desolate outside the triangle.

I'll be among those acknowledging that even with the San Angelo service potential, I-14's probable AADT at, say Brady or Eden, won't be substantially greater than that of the desolate I-10 to the south.  Like most E-W Great Plains corridors, including I-90 and I-94 in the Dakotas, there will be sections of exceptionally sparse traffic.  I certainly don't see the corridor as the best option for the region -- just the one that is currently receiving attention and support -- and the sole projected corridor in the central-west Texas area that stands a chance in hell of being developed.  Yeah, it's out of the way for anything besides its own trajectory, being largely based on a freeway facility intended to serve Fort Hood and the adjacent support cities. 

But I've dealt with TX I-corridor backers on a professional consulting basis, and they're a persistent -- and highly focused -- bunch.  Their modus operandi invariably follows a pattern:  (1) get the areas potentially serviced by their corridor concept on board not only as official backers but virtual cheerleaders, (2) get the attention of a congressperson or two and have them shepherd a HPC authorization, with an Interstate designation attached, in either an omnibus transportation act or a yearly authorization bill, (3) get an initial segment signed ASAP to gather the public interest: Traveler inquiry:  "Interstate 14?  Where does that go?"  Corridor backer answer "I'm glad you asked me that"............accompanied by maps, brochures, and other literature touting the corridor and its advantages and benefits (most of this done electronically, of course!).  This is how I-69E, I-69C, and I-2 got both their signage and, at least for the 69 variants, a sense of fait accompli regarding corridor progress.  That has served as a model, at least within TX, for any future corridor activity.  I-14's activity has, with the signage west of Belton, reached the third stage.  As I said in a previous post, I'm not evaluating the merits of the corridor itself -- just the probability that it will be developed to a larger degree if not in accordance with the full cross-state plans. 

It should be noted that Texas Interstate backers learned their lesson from the saga of the Port-to-Plains corridor and its potential as an I-27 southern extension.  Back in the mid-'90's -- right after the NHS act of '95 -- those backers, including the cities of Lubbock and Big Springs -- who at that time simply envisioned a I-27 extension down to I-20 -- chose the "conventional" commissioned-study approach, hiring the Wilbur Smith organization to evaluate the options -- which resulted in the finding that south of Lubbock traffic split into 3 1/2 legs of a trident -- the US 62/385 corridor to Odessa, the US 87 corridor to Lamesa -- splitting again into TX 349 to Midland and US 87 to Big Spring, and US 84 toward Abilene.  The Smith report concluded that while US 84 was the most highly-trafficked of the bunch by a moderate margin, the remaining traffic was split almost equally in thirds once at I-20; the recommendation was that since no one branch had enough traffic to warrant an Interstate, that none should be built.  They never entertained the notion that some traffic may shift to an Interstate corridor once constructed.  The failure of the "study" approach to yield positive results stuck in the craw of in-state corridor boosters; they subsequently ditched that method, employing the alternate publicity-based segmented approach and achieving success with it regarding the I-69 corridor cluster.  And that success engenders, for better or worse, like activities with other corridors; I-14 just happened to be the first of these to be considered because of Triangle pressure for a central access Interstate; and taking it west via US 190 and probably US 87 is simply an extension of that concept, abetted by San Angelo and M/O.

Subsequent TX Interstate proposals, probably involving US 287 and something accessing Austin (if the locals in that city don't shout it down!), will probably follow in the footsteps of I-69 and I-14, at least as far as methodology is concerned.  Publicize the corridor, designate the corridor, get signage for as much of the corridor as one can (and "future" signage elsewhere), and then develop the rest of the corridor over time.  Whether attributable to Texas pride or simply the inability to take "no" for an answer, this will probably serve as a model for most such future proposals.   

I noticed mile makers on I-14 near Fort  Hood. It read 278  miles. Count down to where though?

Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2017, 02:56:07 PM
That was precisely my point!  Locally-initiated passion about a project can produced mixed results -- I-22 and I-49 filled -- or will fill -- longstanding interregional gaps.  I-14, as currently outlined, is less about connecting metro area A with metro area B -- but its avoidance of those areas may be an asset it itself, giving the corridor an identity as an alternate to those Interstates that by original design serve metro areas that have come to function as "chokepoints" or at least gauntlets to the traffic that passes through them en route to elsewhere.  While I agree with the sentiment above regarding how appropriate US 287 (Amarillo-DFW) is as a potential Interstate corridor, my worry is that it may be a corridor strictly for DFW origin/destination; traffic heading elsewhere (Houston, for example) will have to slog through DFW, which not only slows down commerce but also adds to the present localized load.  Unless an outer "ring" is established around that metro complex (which has expanded, particularly to the north, to almost obviate the possibility of such a facility) -- and that ring won't be subsumed by exurban growth to the point that it's useless as a bypass -- adding another Interstate corridor to the mix might indeed be an exercise in futility. 

As I've stated before, a "corridor to nowhere" (although San Angelo folks may get up in arms about such a characterization!) may actually function as a solution to the "chokepoint" problem -- while hardly direct, a I-14/TX-Toll 249 combined corridor could funnel E-W traffic aimed at Houston and the Gulf Coast away from San Antonio -- as well as NW-SE traffic from Amarillo (particularly if any I-27 southern extension avoids Midland!)  Speeds could be maintained for the most part -- and amenities would be found along the route, courtesy of the towns along the corridor.  The corridor would be at that point doing double-duty -- as a long-distance relief route, and as a connector between mid-sized metro areas in West Texas and within the Triangle.

Since a discussion of such unplanned (but patently obvious) potential Interstate corridors such as one along US 287 is popping up in this regional discussion, I'll probably be formulating a more comprehensive (though hardly Fritz-like!) Texas plan over in Fictional in the next few weeks (time and personal schedule permitting).  It'll include both plans that have been posited by various agencies and activists (including I-14) as well as a few variances and "tweaks" that might be useful -- taking into consideration where the impetus for some of these corridor concepts originate.  Stay tuned -- it's likely Austin will be in the mix --although not how some might consider intuitive!   

Something else to keep in mind - once 69 is complete up to Livingston, the 14 corridor will be the primary route from Houston to central Mississippi, and thus the entire East Coast north of Florida. It would cut about 100 miles or so off the current fastest route, a substantial savings.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 02, 2017, 10:33:25 AM
Something else to keep in mind - once 69 is complete up to Livingston, the 14 corridor will be the primary route from Houston to central Mississippi, and thus the entire East Coast north of Florida. It would cut about 100 miles or so off the current fastest route, a substantial savings.

Wait what? How is I-69 to I-14 that much shorter than I-10 to I-59?

Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2017, 12:18:24 PM

Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 02, 2017, 10:33:25 AM
Something else to keep in mind - once 69 is complete up to Livingston, the 14 corridor will be the primary route from Houston to central Mississippi, and thus the entire East Coast north of Florida. It would cut about 100 miles or so off the current fastest route, a substantial savings.

Wait what? How is I-69 to I-14 that much shorter than I-10 to I-59?

It isn't!  Considering I-12 as part of the equation, it's essentially the sides of a parallelogram; functionally equidistant.  The sole advantage of a I-14 corridor would be less potential en route congestion due to less/smaller metro areas encountered.   

Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2017, 04:28:44 PM

Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2017, 12:18:24 PM

Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 02, 2017, 10:33:25 AM
Something else to keep in mind - once 69 is complete up to Livingston, the 14 corridor will be the primary route from Houston to central Mississippi, and thus the entire East Coast north of Florida. It would cut about 100 miles or so off the current fastest route, a substantial savings.

Wait what? How is I-69 to I-14 that much shorter than I-10 to I-59?

It isn't!  Considering I-12 as part of the equation, it's essentially the sides of a parallelogram; functionally equidistant.  The sole advantage of a I-14 corridor would be less potential en route congestion due to less/smaller metro areas encountered.   

Better angles on the way to Laurel, MS. And I misspoke - it's only about a 50 mile distance, but that's 45 minutes at highway speed.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 03, 2017, 09:39:55 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2017, 04:28:44 PM

Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2017, 12:18:24 PM

Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 02, 2017, 10:33:25 AM
Something else to keep in mind - once 69 is complete up to Livingston, the 14 corridor will be the primary route from Houston to central Mississippi, and thus the entire East Coast north of Florida. It would cut about 100 miles or so off the current fastest route, a substantial savings.

Wait what? How is I-69 to I-14 that much shorter than I-10 to I-59?

It isn't!  Considering I-12 as part of the equation, it's essentially the sides of a parallelogram; functionally equidistant.  The sole advantage of a I-14 corridor would be less potential en route congestion due to less/smaller metro areas encountered.   

Better angles on the way to Laurel, MS. And I misspoke - it's only about a 50 mile distance, but that's 45 minutes at highway speed.

Somewhat correct -- kind of forgot about the projected section of I-14 across LA that "tilts" north slightly eastward along LA 28.  However, even that's partially offset by the similar angles of I-10 through Beaumont, TX and between Lafayette and Baton Rouge.  May not be a complete wash, but it's pretty close on a practical basis.

Quote from: longhorn on August 02, 2017, 09:31:02 AM
I noticed mile makers on I-14 near Fort  Hood. It read 278  miles. Count down to where though?

Are those mile markers simply left over from US 190?

Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 04, 2017, 06:21:41 PM

Quote from: longhorn on August 02, 2017, 09:31:02 AM
I noticed mile makers on I-14 near Fort  Hood. It read 278  miles. Count down to where though?

Are those mile markers simply left over from US 190?

That lines up quite accurately with the mileage from the west end of US 190 at I-10 in Pecos County; they likely do reflect US 190's composite mileage.

But aren't milemarkers on non-interstate highways in Texas rare at best, if not non-existent?

Non-Interstate highways don't get mile markers, but they get reference markers, which are somewhat based on mileage.  US 190 reference marker 560, which is about two miles east of the end of Business US 190 in Copperas Cove, is 278.405 miles from the beginning of US 190.

Quote from: wxfree on August 04, 2017, 11:19:57 PM
Non-Interstate highways don't get mile markers, but they get reference markers, which are somewhat based on mileage.  US 190 reference marker 560, which is about two miles east of the end of Business US 190 in Copperas Cove, is 278.405 miles from the beginning of US 190.

In that case, I'll take an educated guess that the mileposts on I-14 are simply placeholders until the final alignment to the west is determined.  Since the western terminus of US 190 is almost directly south of Midland, where speculation as well as political activity has placed the west end of the nascent Interstate, the mileage as presently posted may be relatively close to what will actually exist down the line.   

Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 03, 2017, 09:39:55 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2017, 04:28:44 PM

Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2017, 12:18:24 PM

Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 02, 2017, 10:33:25 AM
Something else to keep in mind - once 69 is complete up to Livingston, the 14 corridor will be the primary route from Houston to central Mississippi, and thus the entire East Coast north of Florida. It would cut about 100 miles or so off the current fastest route, a substantial savings.

Wait what? How is I-69 to I-14 that much shorter than I-10 to I-59?

It isn't!  Considering I-12 as part of the equation, it's essentially the sides of a parallelogram; functionally equidistant.  The sole advantage of a I-14 corridor would be less potential en route congestion due to less/smaller metro areas encountered.   

Better angles on the way to Laurel, MS. And I misspoke - it's only about a 50 mile distance, but that's 45 minutes at highway speed.

Houston to Laurel via 10/59 is 466 miles. Via I-69/14 is...456 miles! Such a saving!

Quote from: NE2 on August 05, 2017, 12:34:11 AM

Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 03, 2017, 09:39:55 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2017, 04:28:44 PM

Quote from: NE2 on August 02, 2017, 12:18:24 PM

Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 02, 2017, 10:33:25 AM
Something else to keep in mind - once 69 is complete up to Livingston, the 14 corridor will be the primary route from Houston to central Mississippi, and thus the entire East Coast north of Florida. It would cut about 100 miles or so off the current fastest route, a substantial savings.

Wait what? How is I-69 to I-14 that much shorter than I-10 to I-59?

It isn't!  Considering I-12 as part of the equation, it's essentially the sides of a parallelogram; functionally equidistant.  The sole advantage of a I-14 corridor would be less potential en route congestion due to less/smaller metro areas encountered.   

Better angles on the way to Laurel, MS. And I misspoke - it's only about a 50 mile distance, but that's 45 minutes at highway speed.

Houston to Laurel via 10/59 is 466 miles. Via I-69/14 is...456 miles! Such a saving!

I figure about a buck and a quarter in gas.  Now -- to find a place to spend those newfound riches in Laurel, MS! :D

There are mile markers on I-14 starting in the 270s. What are they measuring if I-14 is only 30 miles long?

Quote from: longhorn on August 14, 2017, 10:38:12 AM
There are mile markers on I-14 starting in the 270s. What are they measuring if I-14 is only 30 miles long?

US 190

either that, or they have an idea on where it will eventually end?

Quote from: silverback1065 on August 14, 2017, 06:01:53 PM
either that, or they have an idea on where it will eventually end?

Numbers in the 270's or 280's would be accurate for both the present US 190 alignment as well as an I-14 alignment ending somewhere around the Midland/Odessa area.  Some shorter shunts over to I-10 have been suggested, intersecting that route anywhere from Junction to Sonora, but those would imply a shorter overall mileage.  My guess is that they're just using US 190 mileage until the alignment to the west is finalized. 

So if I-14 were somehow built all the way to I-10, it would be over 300 miles long? Good to know.

Thanks for the replies, so the mileage count is from west to east? Could it be they know where it will begin from the east?

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

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

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

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

Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2017, 12:40:18 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: longhorn on August 15, 2017, 03:14:38 PM

Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2017, 12:40:18 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2017, 04:56:35 PM

Quote from: longhorn on August 15, 2017, 03:14:38 PM

Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2017, 12:40:18 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67

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

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

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

A new piece of legislation to watch. This July 18 article (https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/delegation-introduces-legislation-to-designate-i-14-corridor-in-three-states/41228) reports that a U.S. Congressional delegation from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi has introduced the I-14 Expansion and Improvement Act of 2018 legislation:

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

Here is the latest map with the additions:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_31_07_18_11_03_38.png)

Great, more suffixed interstates in Texas!</sarcasm>

I-14 should've been used to connect Houtson to Austin, and then to I-10 somewhere between Kerville and Junction.

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

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

Quote from: jbnv on July 31, 2018, 01:58:23 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having travelled TX 71 to go to the Austin area, most recently two weekends ago, I disagree that TX 71 is less efficient than US 290. TX 71 has bypasses around or through La Grange and Bastrop. The fact that it is not as well-travelled can actually make it a more efficient route. And US 290 near Houston is construction hell for the immediate future.

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

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

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

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

FTFY. :-D

Quote from: US 89 on July 31, 2018, 07:56:07 PM

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

FTFY. :-D

Suffixed interstates are a scourge upon humanity.  A route should have ONE alignment, such that you can clinch it in one uniform drive from one end to the other (ignoring things like gas and bathroom breaks), and not split in two.

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

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

Quote from: jbnvHaving travelled TX 71 to go to the Austin area, most recently two weekends ago, I disagree that TX 71 is less efficient than US 290. TX 71 has bypasses around or through La Grange and Bastrop. The fact that it is not as well-travelled can actually make it a more efficient route. And US 290 near Houston is construction hell for the immediate future.

Quite a lot of the new growth in the metro Houston area is happening on the north side of the city. That's aiming more traffic at the US-290 corridor. There's a lot more development happening directly on that corridor. The junction of TX-71 with I-10 is roughly 50 miles West of Houston. That might be acceptable for Austin-bound traffic coming from the Southern or far Western parts of the Houston metro. But all that traffic on the North side of the metro will just keep using US-290 even if TX-71 has an Interstate designation on it.

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

BTW, I don't think US-290 between Austin and Houston is all that crooked. OTOH, parts of a freeway upgrade would have to be built on new terrain alignments.

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

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

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

Nexus 5X

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

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

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

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_31_07_18_11_03_38.png)

Holy moley!!!!  Look at all them corridors!  How's a poor ol' state supposed to choose?  And how the the hell did Beaumont get to be part of all this?  It's just.......all so confusing!  How did this mess get started in the first place?  .....fuggetaboudit, Jake.....it's just Texastown!

Seriously -- whoever decided to present all these corridors at once without first deciding on a "spine" for I-14 had their head firmly planted in a place where they could view their own hemorrhoids!  All this will do is provoke rivalries and arguments among the local TX politicos regardless of the merits of any particular corridor.  Also notice that a corridor spur down US 83 from Eden to Junction copies what several posters here have iterated is a proper Port-to-Plains alternative; how it got sucked into the planning for this E-W corridor must be an interesting story -- unless some of the corridor promoters actually read this forum (cue the "Twilight Zone" theme).  This process is the reverse of the usual corridor-promoting methodology; usually corridor concepts are vetted by the various parties involved in or affected by the impending results; several are proposed and discarded, and eventually one is left standing (see the I-11 process in Northern NV).  That serves as the "spine"; eventually, spurs, connectors, and loops are added to the mix to either enhance the prospects for timely development and/or to mollify those who feel their choices were omitted from the process. 

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

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

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

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

Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 08:00:07 PM
Suffixed interstates are a scourge upon humanity.  A route should have ONE alignment, such that you can clinch it in one uniform drive from one end to the other (ignoring things like gas and bathroom breaks), and not split in two.

Does Suffixed US Highways are a scourge too? ;)

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 01, 2018, 08:52:23 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 08:00:07 PM
Suffixed interstates are a scourge upon humanity.  A route should have ONE alignment, such that you can clinch it in one uniform drive from one end to the other (ignoring things like gas and bathroom breaks), and not split in two.

Does Suffixed US Highways are a scourge too? ;)

Suffixed US highways, except for 6N, 9W, and 1½ miles of 25E, are splits that return to their parent, as are both I-35E/W splits. I-69W/C/E is not, and it should not exist.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 31, 2018, 08:12:53 PM

Quote from: jbnvHaving travelled TX 71 to go to the Austin area, most recently two weekends ago, I disagree that TX 71 is less efficient than US 290. TX 71 has bypasses around or through La Grange and Bastrop. The fact that it is not as well-travelled can actually make it a more efficient route. And US 290 near Houston is construction hell for the immediate future.

Quite a lot of the new growth in the metro Houston area is happening on the north side of the city. That's aiming more traffic at the US-290 corridor. There's a lot more development happening directly on that corridor. The junction of TX-71 with I-10 is roughly 50 miles West of Houston. That might be acceptable for Austin-bound traffic coming from the Southern or far Western parts of the Houston metro. But all that traffic on the North side of the metro will just keep using US-290 even if TX-71 has an Interstate designation on it.

That depends on the Austin end of the route as well. From my house south of downtown, Google Maps has 71 as the preferred way to leave Austin going to anywhere in greater Houston, and the only way it routes me to 290 instead of I-10 is if I'm getting on the northern segment of the Grand Parkway. Even 290 itself east of SH6/FM1960 gets me routed on SH 71 to I-10 to the Sam Houston Tollway.

QuoteBTW, I don't think US-290 between Austin and Houston is all that crooked. OTOH, parts of a freeway upgrade would have to be built on new terrain alignments.

It's not so much between Houston and Austin, it's between Houston and west of Austin. Following the I-35 concurrency adds a bunch of miles.

Quote from: sparkerHoly moley!!!!  Look at all them corridors!  How's a poor ol' state supposed to choose?  And how the the hell did Beaumont get to be part of all this?  It's just.......all so confusing!  How did this mess get started in the first place?  .....fuggetaboudit, Jake.....it's just Texastown!

There's one word for what the power players are dreaming about: pork.

Quote from: sparkerAlso notice that a corridor spur down US 83 from Eden to Junction copies what several posters here have iterated is a proper Port-to-Plains alternative; how it got sucked into the planning for this E-W corridor must be an interesting story -- unless some of the corridor promoters actually read this forum (cue the "Twilight Zone" theme).

The "L" shape of the path from San Antonio down to Junction (eating up what could be I-27) is stupid. I'd prefer a I-27 extension from San Angelo to Junction (as opposed to going through Sonora to Del Rio) in order to create a direct corridor from San Antonio up to Lubbock and Amarillo (and potentially Denver). But running the road through Eden in an L-shape is NOT the way to do it. It's just another visual example of how this jagged, saw-tooth shape I-14 corridor is really screwed up. Nothing direct at all. It's like making a freeway corridor follow the squares of an agricultural section line road grid. But we gotta include every town within 50 miles of the corridor in the highway party! Porky porky pork!

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 01, 2018, 12:16:56 PM

Quote from: sparkerHoly moley!!!!  Look at all them corridors!  How's a poor ol' state supposed to choose?  And how the the hell did Beaumont get to be part of all this?  It's just.......all so confusing!  How did this mess get started in the first place?  .....fuggetaboudit, Jake.....it's just Texastown!

There's one word for what the power players are dreaming about: pork.

Quote from: sparkerAlso notice that a corridor spur down US 83 from Eden to Junction copies what several posters here have iterated is a proper Port-to-Plains alternative; how it got sucked into the planning for this E-W corridor must be an interesting story -- unless some of the corridor promoters actually read this forum (cue the "Twilight Zone" theme).

The "L" shape of the path from San Antonio down to Junction (eating up what could be I-27) is stupid. I'd prefer a I-27 extension from San Angelo to Junction (as opposed to going through Sonora to Del Rio) in order to create a direct corridor from San Antonio up to Lubbock and Amarillo (and potentially Denver). But running the road through Eden in an L-shape is NOT the way to do it. It's just another visual example of how this jagged, saw-tooth shape I-14 corridor is really screwed up. Nothing direct at all. It's like making a freeway corridor follow the squares of an agricultural section line road grid. But we gotta include every town within 50 miles of the corridor in the highway party! Porky porky pork!

The Texans know their pork and like it (their penchant for brisket notwithstanding!).  We all know it and recognize it, but applying our internal a priori concepts to such a statewide activity is like banging one's head against the wall -- and I, for one, ain't no masochist!  They're going to keep developing and building their long-distance corridors regardless of anyone outside of the area not served by such a facility yelling and screaming foul!  IMO, what we as observers can do is make suggestions as how the corridors they've outlined can be optimized to serve as many folks -- and regional needs -- as possible.  As far as the Eden cutoff is concerned, Bobby's made the point on previous occasions that a diagonal San Angelo-Junction alignment would be optimal to direct traffic toward San Antonio.  But my previous post, on which he's commenting, was an entreaty for a joint view of both corridors planned for West Texas -- the Port-to-Plains I-27 and I-14, and how to optimize their interaction within a workable network.  Because I included that corridor in the discussion -- and it has a specific set of points to serve within its description, including both San Angelo and Del Rio, I took that segment of the composite corridor that way; optimizing traffic down to San Antonio wasn't part of either corridor's "brief" -- although, despite it not being completely direct, something down US 277 from San Angelo to Sonora is a hell of a lot better than anything that exists today when it comes to that San Antonio connection.  BTW, one thing to notice is that Texas alignments tend to stick to existing routes rather than posit new-terrain routings; perhaps their misadventure with the Rick Perry half-mile-wide corridor concepts that tended to eat huge swaths of land wherever they were laid out has intimidated both the promoters of the newer and more pointed corridors like I-14; they avoid anything that looks like it includes massive property acquisition.  However, when actually deploying the routes, they'll pick the more efficient path; the "zigzag" I-14 stuff in the Triangle will get straightened out a bit in the final plans (the selection process of the corridor segment east of Belton/Temple is an indicator of where their head's at in this case).  Expect something between Temple and Hearne that cuts off a few corners (although they'll probably cross the Brazos floodplain along US 79, since the river is largely channelized at that point).

Should we take bets on if I-14 is finished before I-49, I-57, I-69 or I-72 ?  ;)  :-D

Quote from: djlynch on August 01, 2018, 10:40:16 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 31, 2018, 08:12:53 PM

Quote from: jbnvHaving travelled TX 71 to go to the Austin area, most recently two weekends ago, I disagree that TX 71 is less efficient than US 290. TX 71 has bypasses around or through La Grange and Bastrop. The fact that it is not as well-travelled can actually make it a more efficient route. And US 290 near Houston is construction hell for the immediate future.

Quite a lot of the new growth in the metro Houston area is happening on the north side of the city. That's aiming more traffic at the US-290 corridor. There's a lot more development happening directly on that corridor. The junction of TX-71 with I-10 is roughly 50 miles West of Houston. That might be acceptable for Austin-bound traffic coming from the Southern or far Western parts of the Houston metro. But all that traffic on the North side of the metro will just keep using US-290 even if TX-71 has an Interstate designation on it.

That depends on the Austin end of the route as well. From my house south of downtown, Google Maps has 71 as the preferred way to leave Austin going to anywhere in greater Houston, and the only way it routes me to 290 instead of I-10 is if I'm getting on the northern segment of the Grand Parkway. Even 290 itself east of SH6/FM1960 gets me routed on SH 71 to I-10 to the Sam Houston Tollway.

You're 100% correct. I-10 to 71 has been the main route from everywhere south of 1960 to Austin for a long time. 290 to Hempstead is seen more as a way to get to College Station, Waco, or Brenham. The lights around Manor, in particular, are a big deterrent to taking 290.

Quote from: US71 on August 01, 2018, 01:39:01 PM
Should we take bets on if I-14 is finished before I-49, I-57, I-69 or I-72 ?  ;)  :-D

Sure!  I'll claim the "low field"; i.e., behind all of the above (for the full Midland-to-I-59 corridor).  For the TX part east to at least I-45, I'd put it behind I-49 & 57 and more or less dead even with I-69; unless MO gets a shitload of funding, I-72 will be a laggard. 

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 01, 2018, 08:52:23 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 08:00:07 PM
Suffixed interstates are a scourge upon humanity.  A route should have ONE alignment, such that you can clinch it in one uniform drive from one end to the other (ignoring things like gas and bathroom breaks), and not split in two.

Does Suffixed US Highways are a scourge too? ;)

I hate those too.  I do not like the idea of routes splitting and whatnot at all.  However, the interstate suffixes were otherwise phased out by AASHTO and FHWA.  The US route numbering system, however, was never modified to remove them, unlike the interstates.

Quote from: vdeane on August 02, 2018, 10:04:31 PM

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 01, 2018, 08:52:23 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 08:00:07 PM
Suffixed interstates are a scourge upon humanity.  A route should have ONE alignment, such that you can clinch it in one uniform drive from one end to the other (ignoring things like gas and bathroom breaks), and not split in two.

Does Suffixed US Highways are a scourge too? ;)

I hate those too.  I do not like the idea of routes splitting and whatnot at all.  However, the interstate suffixes were otherwise phased out by AASHTO and FHWA.  The US route numbering system, however, was never modified to remove them, unlike the interstates.

Nevertheless, Congressfolks can and do override AASHTO and/or FHWA internal criteria; that's how the E-C-W branches of I-69 came about.  Actually, the directional references were originally simply "placeholders" within the original legislation, designed to describe the relative orientation of the branches -- but both the Alliance for I-69/Texas and their cohorts at TXDOT took a truly literalist view of the legislation, hence the field-posted suffixed shields (with more to come).   

It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.
:-D

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 03, 2018, 02:30:12 PM
It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.
:-D

Unlikely; they'll have enough trouble deciding on a main "spine" corridor considering intrastate regional rivalries.  My money's on a San Angelo-serving route; those folks have been uber-hungry for an Interstate for around 50 years!

I still think US 190 should have gotten a 3-digit Interstate designation. I kinda doubt Interstate 14 will be extended in either direction any time soon. Although, I could be wrong since I've only been in Texas once in my life, back in late 1995.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2018, 05:50:45 PM
I still think US 190 should have gotten a 3-digit Interstate designation. I kinda doubt Interstate 14 will be extended in either direction any time soon. Although, I could be wrong since I've only been in Texas once in my life, back in late 1995.

That wasn't going to happen in any case.  The freeway, in some form, has been around as a Ft. Hood server for several decades; if it were to be considered as an x35, that would have occurred a while back.  The I-14 designation came about because the promoters of that corridor wanted to (a) get a "foothold" on a portion of the corridor to show that they were serious folks, and (b) foment envy from other places the projected corridor would be serving to get them to "join the parade" regarding getting the whole damn thing designated and developed.  This sort of thing seems to be a budding Texas idiom -- with a few miles of I-369 signed, a few more of I-14, and the initial section of I-2 (although at 47 miles it nearly doubles the combined mileage of the first two).  Welcome to TX, where staking a claim is a way of life!

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 03, 2018, 02:30:12 PM
It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.
:-D

Your correct. It's what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 10, 2018, 01:26:16 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 03, 2018, 02:30:12 PM
It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.
:-D

Your correct. It's what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.

Any documentation/press releases/etc. to confirm this?  It's difficult to think that there's enough political support for a I-14 route straight out US 190 vis-à-vis an alignment serving San Angelo and Midland/Odessa to warrant two distinct branches; the population difference alone mitigates for the northern corridor.  But then again, did anyone back in 1990 think there would ever be an Interstate route down US 281 south of George West?  Welcome to Texas-style planning! 

Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2018, 06:37:03 PM

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 10, 2018, 01:26:16 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 03, 2018, 02:30:12 PM
It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.
:-D

Your correct. It's what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.

Any documentation/press releases/etc. to confirm this?  It's difficult to think that there's enough political support for a I-14 route straight out US 190 vis-à-vis an alignment serving San Angelo and Midland/Odessa to warrant two distinct branches; the population difference alone mitigates for the northern corridor.  But then again, did anyone back in 1990 think there would ever be an Interstate route down US 281 south of George West?  Welcome to Texas-style planning! 

.

But you gotta give Texas-style planning credit...they are building interstates while 47 other states can't even afford to draw lines on a map.

Quote from: cjk374 on August 11, 2018, 10:00:55 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2018, 06:37:03 PM

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 10, 2018, 01:26:16 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 03, 2018, 02:30:12 PM
It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.
:-D

Your correct. It's what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.

Any documentation/press releases/etc. to confirm this?  It's difficult to think that there's enough political support for a I-14 route straight out US 190 vis-à-vis an alignment serving San Angelo and Midland/Odessa to warrant two distinct branches; the population difference alone mitigates for the northern corridor.  But then again, did anyone back in 1990 think there would ever be an Interstate route down US 281 south of George West?  Welcome to Texas-style planning! 

.

But you gotta give Texas-style planning credit...they are building interstates while 47 other states can't even afford to draw lines on a map.

Which two are you excluding? Alaska (which doesn't need any more freeways) and North Carolina (which is doing the same as Texas)?

The government has some idea of the route of this highway, because there are already mile markers and exits with numbers. Would like to know the exact route they are basing these numbers on east or west of I-14 in Central Texas.

Quote from: longhorn on August 11, 2018, 03:16:28 PM
The government has some idea of the route of this highway, because there are already mile markers and exits with numbers. Would like to know the exact route they are basing these numbers on east or west of I-14 in Central Texas.

Numbered exits follow US 190's mile markers.

Quote from: 1 on August 11, 2018, 03:20:05 PM

Quote from: longhorn on August 11, 2018, 03:16:28 PM
The government has some idea of the route of this highway, because there are already mile markers and exits with numbers. Would like to know the exact route they are basing these numbers on east or west of I-14 in Central Texas.

Numbered exits follow US 190's mile markers.

The use of the US 190 mileposts and corresponding exit numbers is an interim measure.  But since it's approximately the same distance from the end of the signed I-14 freeway at Copperas Cove to both the west end of US 190 and somewhere around Midland, where the northern corridor option is intended to intersect I-20 -- even if the numbers eventually changed, it probably wouldn't be by very much. 

Quote from: 1 on August 11, 2018, 10:04:00 AM

Quote from: cjk374 on August 11, 2018, 10:00:55 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2018, 06:37:03 PM

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 10, 2018, 01:26:16 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 03, 2018, 02:30:12 PM
It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.
:-D

Your correct. It's what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.

Any documentation/press releases/etc. to confirm this?  It's difficult to think that there's enough political support for a I-14 route straight out US 190 vis-à-vis an alignment serving San Angelo and Midland/Odessa to warrant two distinct branches; the population difference alone mitigates for the northern corridor.  But then again, did anyone back in 1990 think there would ever be an Interstate route down US 281 south of George West?  Welcome to Texas-style planning! 

.

But you gotta give Texas-style planning credit...they are building interstates while 47 other states can't even afford to draw lines on a map.

Which two are you excluding? Alaska (which doesn't need any more freeways) and North Carolina (which is doing the same as Texas)?

I was just counting the contiguous 48 states. I didn't think AK or HI were building interstates.

Quote from: cjk374 on August 11, 2018, 04:52:02 PM

Quote from: 1 on August 11, 2018, 10:04:00 AM

Quote from: cjk374 on August 11, 2018, 10:00:55 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2018, 06:37:03 PM

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 10, 2018, 01:26:16 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 03, 2018, 02:30:12 PM
It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.
:-D

Your correct. It's what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.

Any documentation/press releases/etc. to confirm this?  It's difficult to think that there's enough political support for a I-14 route straight out US 190 vis-à-vis an alignment serving San Angelo and Midland/Odessa to warrant two distinct branches; the population difference alone mitigates for the northern corridor.  But then again, did anyone back in 1990 think there would ever be an Interstate route down US 281 south of George West?  Welcome to Texas-style planning! 

.

But you gotta give Texas-style planning credit...they are building interstates while 47 other states can't even afford to draw lines on a map.

Which two are you excluding? Alaska (which doesn't need any more freeways) and North Carolina (which is doing the same as Texas)?

I was just counting the contiguous 48 states. I didn't think AK or HI were building interstates.

I-H1, H2, H3, and H201

Quote from: silverback1065 on August 13, 2018, 12:01:31 PM

Quote from: cjk374 on August 11, 2018, 04:52:02 PM
I was just counting the contiguous 48 states. I didn't think AK or HI were building interstates.

I-H1, H2, H3, and H201

I think the reference was to current Interstate development, not what's on the ground presently.  The HI interstate contingent has been built to the designated maximum; it doesn't look like any additions to or expansion of the system is forthcoming.

In a modestly interesting non-highway development, the National Weather Service office in Fort Worth made reference to this road today.  Weather people use highways to describe areas for obvious reasons. I don't read every forecast discussion, but this is the first time I've noticed I-14 in one.

"Convection was continuing to decay across Central Texas south of the I-14 corridor early this morning in the vicinity of an old frontal boundary."  It's a sign of increasing societal awareness of the new designation, using it for purposes other than travel or road interest, including geographical awareness in terms of where one lives in relation to the road.

Quote from: wxfree on August 22, 2018, 08:01:24 AM
In a modestly interesting non-highway development, the National Weather Service office in Fort Worth made reference to this road today.  Weather people use highways to describe areas for obvious reasons. I don't read every forecast discussion, but this is the first time I've noticed I-14 in one.

"Convection was continuing to decay across Central Texas south of the I-14 corridor early this morning in the vicinity of an old frontal boundary."  It's a sign of increasing societal awareness of the new designation, using it for purposes other than travel or road interest, including geographical awareness in terms of where one lives in relation to the road.

Interesting, alot of locals, still say," highway 190" or "Centex Expressway" but lately the news has been referring to it as, "I-14".

Quote from: longhorn on August 22, 2018, 11:01:52 AM

Quote from: wxfree on August 22, 2018, 08:01:24 AM
In a modestly interesting non-highway development, the National Weather Service office in Fort Worth made reference to this road today.  Weather people use highways to describe areas for obvious reasons. I don't read every forecast discussion, but this is the first time I've noticed I-14 in one.

"Convection was continuing to decay across Central Texas south of the I-14 corridor early this morning in the vicinity of an old frontal boundary."  It's a sign of increasing societal awareness of the new designation, using it for purposes other than travel or road interest, including geographical awareness in terms of where one lives in relation to the road.

Interesting, alot of locals, still say," highway 190" or "Centex Expressway" but lately the news has been referring to it as, "I-14".

Of course -- repeat it enough times and it'll become idiomatic.  Enough parties in Central TX want to see this corridor developed, so they enlist the local media as supporters of their program.  It's not just a Texas thing -- such tactics are widespread -- but this state seems to have been particularly effective at it; securing I-14 in the common lexicon is a wholly expected initial step.

Interestingly, the NWS Ft Worth office used the wording "the I-14 corridor" in their forecast discussion this morning. That was a first

Quote from: Brian556 on August 22, 2018, 09:05:12 PM
Interestingly, the NWS Ft Worth office used the wording "the I-14 corridor" in their forecast discussion this morning. That was a first

Wonder if the NWS is considering the strictly US 190 corridor or the combination US 190/87 corridor via San Angelo as the defining location? 

Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2018, 06:37:03 PM

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 10, 2018, 01:26:16 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 03, 2018, 02:30:12 PM
It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.:-D

Your correct. It's what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.

Any documentation/press releases/etc. to confirm this?

I took a look at 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) and there is indeed an Interstate 14 North, Interstate 14 South, and Interstate !4 in Texas:

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 ....
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``I-14 Expansion and Improvement Act
of 2018''.

SEC. 2. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

    (a) Identification.--
            (1) Central texas corridor.--Section 1105(c)(84) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is

amended to read as follows:
            ``(84) The Central Texas Corridor, including the route--
                    ``(A) commencing in the vicinity of Texas Highway
                338 in Odessa, Texas, running eastward generally
                following Interstate Route 20, connecting to Texas
                Highway 158 in the vicinity of Midland, Texas, then
                following Texas Highway 158 eastward to United States
                Route 87 and then following United States Route 87
                southeastward, passing in the vicinity of San Angelo,
                Texas, and connecting to United States Route 190 in the
                vicinity of Brady, Texas;
....
The route referred to in subsection (c)(84)(A) is designated as Interstate Route I-14 North and the State of Texas shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such route as future Interstate Route I-14 North.

---

a) Identification.--
            (1) Central texas corridor.--Section 1105(c)(84) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended to read as follows:

(B) commencing at the intersection of Interstate Route 10 and United States Route 190 in Pecos County, Texas, and following United States Route 190 to Brady, Texas;

The route referred to in subsection (c)(84)(B) is designated as Interstate Route I-14 South and the State of Texas shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such route as future Interstate Route I-14 South.

---

(a) Identification.--
           (1) Central texas corridor.--Section 1105(c)(84) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended to read as follows:

C) following portions of United States Route 190
                eastward, passing in the vicinity of Fort Hood,
                Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station,
                Huntsville, Livingston, Woodville, and Jasper, to the
                logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine
                River Bridge at Burrs Crossing;
                    ``(D) following United States Route 83 southward
                from the vicinity of Eden, Texas, to a logical
                connection to Interstate Route 10 at Junction, Texas;
                    ``(E) following United States Route 69 from
                Interstate Route 10 in Beaumont, Texas, north to United
                States Route 190 in the vicinity of Woodville, Texas;
                and
                    ``(F) following United States Route 96 from
                Interstate Route 10 in Beaumont, Texas, north to United
                States Route 190 in the vicinity of Jasper, Texas.''.
....
The routes referred to in subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), and (F) of subsection (c)(84) ... are designated as Interstate Route I-14 and the State of Texas ... shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such routes as segments of future Interstate Route I-14.''.

Seems like designating subsections D, E, and F as future Route I-14 will create a lot of confusion.

This is getting more spidery than the south end(s) of I-69.

Quote from: Grzrd on August 26, 2018, 08:07:20 PM

Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2018, 06:37:03 PM

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 10, 2018, 01:26:16 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 03, 2018, 02:30:12 PM
It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.:-D

Your correct. It's what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.

Any documentation/press releases/etc. to confirm this?

I took a look at 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) and there is indeed an Interstate 14 North, Interstate 14 South, and Interstate !4 in Texas:

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 ....
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``I-14 Expansion and Improvement Act
of 2018''.

SEC. 2. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

    (a) Identification.--
            (1) Central texas corridor.--Section 1105(c)(84) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is

amended to read as follows:
            ``(84) The Central Texas Corridor, including the route--
                    ``(A) commencing in the vicinity of Texas Highway
                338 in Odessa, Texas, running eastward generally
                following Interstate Route 20, connecting to Texas
                Highway 158 in the vicinity of Midland, Texas, then
                following Texas Highway 158 eastward to United States
                Route 87 and then following United States Route 87
                southeastward, passing in the vicinity of San Angelo,
                Texas, and connecting to United States Route 190 in the
                vicinity of Brady, Texas;
....
The route referred to in subsection (c)(84)(A) is designated as Interstate Route I-14 North and the State of Texas shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such route as future Interstate Route I-14 North.

---

a) Identification.--
            (1) Central texas corridor.--Section 1105(c)(84) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended to read as follows:

(B) commencing at the intersection of Interstate Route 10 and United States Route 190 in Pecos County, Texas, and following United States Route 190 to Brady, Texas;

The route referred to in subsection (c)(84)(B) is designated as Interstate Route I-14 South and the State of Texas shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such route as future Interstate Route I-14 South.

---

(a) Identification.--
           (1) Central texas corridor.--Section 1105(c)(84) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended to read as follows:

C) following portions of United States Route 190
                eastward, passing in the vicinity of Fort Hood,
                Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station,
                Huntsville, Livingston, Woodville, and Jasper, to the
                logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine
                River Bridge at Burrs Crossing;
                    ``(D) following United States Route 83 southward
                from the vicinity of Eden, Texas, to a logical
                connection to Interstate Route 10 at Junction, Texas;
                    ``(E) following United States Route 69 from
                Interstate Route 10 in Beaumont, Texas, north to United
                States Route 190 in the vicinity of Woodville, Texas;
                and
                    ``(F) following United States Route 96 from
                Interstate Route 10 in Beaumont, Texas, north to United
                States Route 190 in the vicinity of Jasper, Texas.''.
....
The routes referred to in subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), and (F) of subsection (c)(84) ... are designated as Interstate Route I-14 and the State of Texas ... shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such routes as segments of future Interstate Route I-14.''.

Seems like designating subsections D, E, and F as future Route I-14 will create a lot of confusion.

Holy shit.......and this isn't even April 1st!  Well, since they carved I-369 out of a formally designated I-69 segment, it looks like we've probably got I-114, I-214, and I-314 accounted for (the middle one the Eden/US 83 connector to I-10 and the other two the Beaumont access "twins" on US 69 & 96.  Looks like everyone wants a piece of this particular pie.
My question is:  who wrote this mess and who's running with it?  If they're one and the same, they need a dose of reality pronto (along with a thorough ass-kicking!).  :verymad:

OK, I've calmed down just a bit -- let's assess the situation as to what probably transpired to produce these results.  Although the north & south corridors are only a hair over 20 miles apart at the US 83 connection point, they're in two separate congressional districts (TX gerrymandering at work!); and IIRC the congressman representing the district including the town of Menard promised them I-14 would serve them, while groups in San Angelo, about 12 times the size of the smaller city, fully expected, with the aid and abetting from Midland/Odessa backers, the corridor to go through their region.  Since someone had to lose with a stark choice, the choice was made not to choose but to go with both legs (and they wonder how I-69C came to pass?  Same basic dynamics!). 

And what about the US 83 connector?  Apparently the folks in the area just aren't convinced that the Port-to-Plains project will ever leap from paper to reality, so the next best thing for M/O and San Angelo -- a reasonably efficient corridor segment getting them to San Antonio -- is included in the plans (I'll guess eventually I-214 -- unless they get "suffix fever" and do a "I-14W" or something equally obnoxious).   

IMO eventually reality will set in and the I-14S segment will be constructed from Brady to Menard, meeting the N-S connector along US 83, but will end there (with the I-14S designation extended south to Junction; the north part would remain I-214 or whatever is eventually selected). 

But the legislation's author should be informed in no uncertain terms that separate designations for the aforementioned Eden-Junction connector and both legs of the Beaumont connection should be included within the legislation's text.  At this point, trying to whittle down the N-S split is likely politically infeasible.  Obviously the chutzpa endemic to the I-69 process is contagious and has infected the I-14 efforts as well.  I suppose all that can be said at this point is:  forget about it, posters..........it's just Texastown!   :-P

leave it to texas to be still pursuing these stupid lettered routes. 

Quote from: silverback1065 on August 27, 2018, 07:33:01 AM
leave it to texas to be still pursuing these stupid lettered routes. 

At least there's no "I-14C".....so far! :sombrero:

Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2018, 05:24:17 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on August 27, 2018, 07:33:01 AM
leave it to texas to be still pursuing these stupid lettered routes. 

At least there's no "I-14C".....so far! :sombrero:

I-69C is the one part of I-69 that I don’t agree with at all.

I think it’s pointless. Make it a 3-digit like I-269.

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 31, 2018, 10:10:33 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2018, 05:24:17 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on August 27, 2018, 07:33:01 AM
leave it to texas to be still pursuing these stupid lettered routes. 

At least there's no "I-14C".....so far! :sombrero:

I-69C is the one part of I-69 that I don't agree with at all.

I think it's pointless. Make it a 3-digit like I-269.

I used to think that too. And then I saw this map:

(https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/images/lo_res_jpg/nhslnghultrktraf2015.jpg)

Quote from: US 89 on August 31, 2018, 10:54:08 AM

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 31, 2018, 10:10:33 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2018, 05:24:17 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on August 27, 2018, 07:33:01 AM
leave it to texas to be still pursuing these stupid lettered routes. 

At least there's no "I-14C".....so far! :sombrero:

I-69C is the one part of I-69 that I don't agree with at all.

I think it's pointless. Make it a 3-digit like I-269.

I used to think that too. And then I saw this map:

(https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/images/lo_res_jpg/nhslnghultrktraf2015.jpg)

Oh okay. I-69C is needed, but just call it "I-69"  the C isn't needed.

^^^^^^
What's intriguing is with the commercial traffic levels indicated for US 84 between Sweetwater and Lubbock no one has seriously considered it a candidate for Interstate inclusion; the Port-to-Plains corridor concept goes through either Midland or Big Spring instead.  It appears that WB I-20 traffic essentially splits to continue on I-20 or head toward Lubbock on US 84.  Also, there is a considerable traffic drop right around Junction WB on I-10; this "dovetails" into the I-14 "branch" up US 83 to Eden, where it would merge with "I-14N" toward San Angelo.  As traffic from the smaller border crossing points west of Laredo (Eagle Pass & Del Rio) doesn't seem to register as significant on this 2015 map, it's simply possible that there's just not enough cross-border traffic occurring at those two points (they aren't the most efficient of locations in relation to distribution hubs) to warrant upgrades of that section of the P-to-P that is intended to connect them -- not even to divided/expressway status.  Since it is likely that the bulk of commercial traffic will continue to use the POE's from Laredo downstream -- and some of that is obviously spilling over onto I-10 WB out of San Antonio, that I-14/US 83 branch might in fact be pretty damn useful -- provided some developmental activity on the P-to-P north of San Angelo takes place.

At the risk of easing into fictional territory, perhaps a corridor extending due north from San Angelo (maybe close to TX 70) and merging with the US 84 diagonal route from I-20 to Lubbock might be, with the Junction-Eden sub-corridor, a neat little N-S West Texas corridor (an extension/reroute of I-27, perhaps) that "kills two birds with one stone" in terms of upgrading an already used commercial path (US 84) and connecting it with what's being planned under the I-14 umbrella.  Alternately, that "branch" could simply be extended up US 83 to Abilene and then "jog" over to the US 84 corridor.  The basic idea here is to optimize the regional utility of what's on the table re I-14 by reconciling it with corridors that have demonstrated traffic flow.

Quote from: US 89 on August 31, 2018, 10:54:08 AM

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 31, 2018, 10:10:33 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2018, 05:24:17 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on August 27, 2018, 07:33:01 AM
leave it to texas to be still pursuing these stupid lettered routes. 

At least there's no "I-14C".....so far! :sombrero:

I-69C is the one part of I-69 that I don't agree with at all.

I think it's pointless. Make it a 3-digit like I-269.

I used to think that too. And then I saw this map:

(https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/images/lo_res_jpg/nhslnghultrktraf2015.jpg)

The map provides good support of extending I-27 southeast along US 84, also "I-61" along US 49 southeast from Jackson MS and "I-98" from Green bay to Eau Claire WI.

Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 31, 2018, 07:22:46 PM

Quote from: US 89 on August 31, 2018, 10:54:08 AM

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 31, 2018, 10:10:33 AM

Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2018, 05:24:17 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on August 27, 2018, 07:33:01 AM
leave it to texas to be still pursuing these stupid lettered routes. 

At least there's no "I-14C".....so far! :sombrero:

I-69C is the one part of I-69 that I don't agree with at all.

I think it's pointless. Make it a 3-digit like I-269.

I used to think that too. And then I saw this map:

The map provides good support of extending I-27 southeast along US 84, also "I-61" along US 49 southeast from Jackson MS and "I-98" from Green bay to Eau Claire WI.

Also, I didn't realize there was that much truck traffic on I-80 east of Des Moines. I always thought that I-70 in Missouri and I-40 in Arkansas had more.

the 2 spots that surprised me:

I-80 - Quad Cities to Omaha - especially Des Moines
I-40 - Memphis to Little Rock

What didn't surprise me;

Everything coming out of Mexico north through Texas, now I know why they want I-69 so bad. Get that traffic away from the Austin/DFW corridor.

Roads that don't make sense:

I-57 extension to Little Rock

Quote from: edwaleni on August 31, 2018, 11:53:24 PM
the 2 spots that surprised me:

I-80 - Quad Cities to Omaha - especially Des Moines
I-40 - Memphis to Little Rock

What didn't surprise me;

Everything coming out of Mexico north through Texas, now I know why they want I-69 so bad. Get that traffic away from the Austin/DFW corridor.

Roads that don't make sense:

I-57 extension to Little Rock

I think they want to do the 57 extension so that they can get some trucks off of 40 between Little Rock and Memphis. But 40 still needs to be widened no matter what happens with the 57 extension.


iPhone

Quote from: edwaleni on August 31, 2018, 11:53:24 PM
the 2 spots that surprised me:

I-80 - Quad Cities to Omaha - especially Des Moines
I-40 - Memphis to Little Rock

What didn't surprise me;

Everything coming out of Mexico north through Texas, now I know why they want I-69 so bad. Get that traffic away from the Austin/DFW corridor.

Roads that don't make sense:

I-57 extension to Little Rock

Juxtapose the section of I-40 between Little Rock & Memphis and the I-57 extension north of Little Rock, and you'll see why that corridor is in process -- I-40 is overused, and an I-57 extension will at least take some of the traffic heading to Chicagoland and other Great Lakes destinations off that congested stretch.  Right now, not a lot of commercial traffic uses the US 67/60 combination because (a) the last section of the freeway south of Walnut Ridge was opened only last year, and hasn't as of yet become "imprinted" in the commercial lexicon, and (b) a good portion of the remainder still slogs through NE Arkansas towns, slowing down the overall travel time.  For the time being, truckers are still taking their chances on I-40 east of LR -- probably the smarter of those are timing their travel on that stretch to avoid the peak traffic periods.  Essentially I-57 is intended to be both a "shortcut" from east TX to Chicago as well as a relief route for I-40 traffic heading in that general direction.

Quote from: sparker on August 31, 2018, 05:53:17 PM
^^^^^^
What's intriguing is with the commercial traffic levels indicated for US 84 between Sweetwater and Lubbock no one has seriously considered it a candidate for Interstate inclusion; the Port-to-Plains corridor concept goes through either Midland or Big Spring instead.  It appears that WB I-20 traffic essentially splits to continue on I-20 or head toward Lubbock on US 84.  Also, there is a considerable traffic drop right around Junction WB on I-10; this "dovetails" into the I-14 "branch" up US 83 to Eden, where it would merge with "I-14N" toward San Angelo.  As traffic from the smaller border crossing points west of Laredo (Eagle Pass & Del Rio) doesn't seem to register as significant on this 2015 map, it's simply possible that there's just not enough cross-border traffic occurring at those two points (they aren't the most efficient of locations in relation to distribution hubs) to warrant upgrades of that section of the P-to-P that is intended to connect them -- not even to divided/expressway status.  Since it is likely that the bulk of commercial traffic will continue to use the POE's from Laredo downstream -- and some of that is obviously spilling over onto I-10 WB out of San Antonio, that I-14/US 83 branch might in fact be pretty damn useful -- provided some developmental activity on the P-to-P north of San Angelo takes place.

At the risk of easing into fictional territory, perhaps a corridor extending due north from San Angelo (maybe close to TX 70) and merging with the US 84 diagonal route from I-20 to Lubbock might be, with the Junction-Eden sub-corridor, a neat little N-S West Texas corridor (an extension/reroute of I-27, perhaps) that "kills two birds with one stone" in terms of upgrading an already used commercial path (US 84) and connecting it with what's being planned under the I-14 umbrella.  Alternately, that "branch" could simply be extended up US 83 to Abilene and then "jog" over to the US 84 corridor.  The basic idea here is to optimize the regional utility of what's on the table re I-14 by reconciling it with corridors that have demonstrated traffic flow.

I-27 will never take the US 84 path to Sweetwater.  The infrastructure for a southerly extension of I-27 south on US 87 out of Lubbock is in place as the US 87 freeway continues for several miles south of I-27's end at 82nd Street (the first exit south of the southern Loop 289 interchange) and after that it is a 75 mph expressway with more than enough ROW and set backs to convert to an interstate except for in Lamesa.  A Lamesa bypass has been in the works for awhile with locals holding it up as long as possible to keep the traffic coming through town to more easily allow travelers the ability patronize their businesses.

In all likelihood, if US 84 is upgraded and an interstate designation is pursued, it would either be an I-27 spur or a an E-W interstate designation of its own to have the possibility of it becoming a Lubbock - Albuquerque interstate corridor to the west.

^^^^^^
That's probably a correct assumption; it is widely assumed that I-27 will head down one of the P-to-P branches (Big Spring or Midland) toward San Angelo; what happens to that corridor south of there is anyone's guess at this time.  Renewed interest in the P-to-P seems, at least for the present, to be overshadowed by the designation activity surrounding the I-14 "cluster" (never though I'd be referring to I-14 in that way!), which seems to have taken the air out of the sails of the P-to-P.  But if there's really little or no traffic south of I-10, then the I-14 "branch" along US 83 might serve as a reasonable extension of I-27, particularly if extended through Big Spring; it could readily multiplex with the nascent I-14N from Sterling City to Eden, then down to I-10.  The chances are that such a routing would see a hell of a lot more traffic (commercial/interregional) than something via Del Rio. 

US 84 indeed could be considered a separate corridor between I-20 and Lubbock; something like I-28 could potentially be applied -- but for the time being, it seems to be doing quite well as is.  And from the commercial traffic-count map, there's little NW of Lubbock to suggest that an Interstate extension to I-40 somewhere in NM (Tucumcari? Santa Rosa?) would be warranted.  Interestingly, south of Pueblo, I-25 traffic seems to lighten considerably -- possibly because commercial traffic to the Panhandle or other TX points south of there takes off east toward US 287 to avoid Raton grades -- and because there's not much in the way of traffic generators between Pueblo and about Dumas in Texas to interfere with the traversal of that region.  That could make at least a minimal case for future consideration of an improved corridor (at least divided) between Pueblo and Amarillo that doesn't involve Raton Pass.  Yeah, I know NM just finished twinning US 87 southeast of Raton -- but it's questionable whether that is sufficient to entice trucks to remain on that routing. 

Quote from: sparker on September 01, 2018, 04:57:39 PM
^^^^^^
That's probably a correct assumption; it is widely assumed that I-27 will head down one of the P-to-P branches (Big Spring or Midland) toward San Angelo; what happens to that corridor south of there is anyone's guess at this time.  Renewed interest in the P-to-P seems, at least for the present, to be overshadowed by the designation activity surrounding the I-14 "cluster" (never though I'd be referring to I-14 in that way!), which seems to have taken the air out of the sails of the P-to-P.  But if there's really little or no traffic south of I-10, then the I-14 "branch" along US 83 might serve as a reasonable extension of I-27, particularly if extended through Big Spring; it could readily multiplex with the nascent I-14N from Sterling City to Eden, then down to I-10.  The chances are that such a routing would see a hell of a lot more traffic (commercial/interregional) than something via Del Rio. 

US 84 indeed could be considered a separate corridor between I-20 and Lubbock; something like I-28 could potentially be applied -- but for the time being, it seems to be doing quite well as is.  And from the commercial traffic-count map, there's little NW of Lubbock to suggest that an Interstate extension to I-40 somewhere in NM (Tucumcari? Santa Rosa?) would be warranted.  Interestingly, south of Pueblo, I-25 traffic seems to lighten considerably -- possibly because commercial traffic to the Panhandle or other TX points south of there takes off east toward US 287 to avoid Raton grades -- and because there's not much in the way of traffic generators between Pueblo and about Dumas in Texas to interfere with the traversal of that region.  That could make at least a minimal case for future consideration of an improved corridor (at least divided) between Pueblo and Amarillo that doesn't involve Raton Pass.  Yeah, I know NM just finished twinning US 87 southeast of Raton -- but it's questionable whether that is sufficient to entice trucks to remain on that routing.

US 84 sees its fair share of traffic between Lubbock and Santa Rosa and should be divided at the least from Clovis to Santa Rosa to improve safety with a high-speed controlled-access bypass thrown in around Clovis.  The non-bypassed towns along US 84 in Texas would probably resist bypasses for now like Lamesa.  Albuquerque/Santa Fe traffic destined for any Texas destination other than DFW and Amarillo end up going through Lubbock, and the reverse, and there is quite a bit of travel and interstate commerce between Texas and New Mexico.

Many Lubbock-ites go to New Mexico on vacation and even for the weekend and you see noticeable surges on US 84 on weekends when Texas Tech is in session that can make the Fort Sumner - Clovis stretch downright dangerous with people trying to drive Texas speeds on a 65 mph two lane that is clogged with long lines of traffic behind people doing the speed limit which creates many dangerous passing scenarios.  That particular stretch of road is reminiscent of NM 44 before it was upgraded and became a rerouted extension of US 550, just without the interesting topography.

Quote from: aboges26 on September 02, 2018, 12:19:20 AM
Many Lubbock-ites go to New Mexico on vacation and even for the weekend and you see noticeable surges on US 84 on weekends when Texas Tech is in session that can make the Fort Sumner - Clovis stretch downright dangerous with people trying to drive Texas speeds on a 65 mph two lane that is clogged with long lines of traffic behind people doing the speed limit which creates many dangerous passing scenarios.  That particular stretch of road is reminiscent of NM 44 before it was upgraded and became a rerouted extension of US 550, just without the interesting topography.

When I went through there earlier this summer, I didn't really have too much of a problem on the Fort Sumner-Clovis portion of the route. I was surprised it hadn't been four-laned yet, given that NM seems to be good about widening busy rural highways like US 87, 285, 491, and 550. But from what I remember, the Fort Sumner-Santa Rosa portion was far worse, because that section had a lot more trucks.

Quote from: US 89 on September 02, 2018, 12:26:49 AM

Quote from: aboges26 on September 02, 2018, 12:19:20 AM
Many Lubbock-ites go to New Mexico on vacation and even for the weekend and you see noticeable surges on US 84 on weekends when Texas Tech is in session that can make the Fort Sumner - Clovis stretch downright dangerous with people trying to drive Texas speeds on a 65 mph two lane that is clogged with long lines of traffic behind people doing the speed limit which creates many dangerous passing scenarios.  That particular stretch of road is reminiscent of NM 44 before it was upgraded and became a rerouted extension of US 550, just without the interesting topography.

When I went through there earlier this summer, I didn't really have too much of a problem on the Fort Sumner-Clovis portion of the route. I was surprised it hadn't been four-laned yet, given that NM seems to be good about widening busy rural highways like US 87, 285, 491, and 550. But from what I remember, the Fort Sumner-Santa Rosa portion was far worse, because that section had a lot more trucks.

It is a neglected rural highway, that is for sure.  I do not believe I have ever heard grumblings of an upgrade proposal and that is probably because of its schizophrenic traffic regimes -- it's desolate for the most part with steady decent amount of truck traffic, but weekends during the daylight and evening hours see the dangerous conditions I described.

^^^^^^^
While that portion of US 84 between I-20 and Lubbock likely warrants an Interstate upgrade because of its high commercial traffic load, the segment of the route northwest from Lubbock to I-40 near Santa Rosa, while somewhat heavily trafficked, would likely be a candidate for an expressway level upgrade, including bypasses of the towns along the TX segment lacking such, a longer bypass encompassing Texline and Clovis, bypassing Melrose, and a "cutoff" around Fort Sumner.  It wouldn't be a stretch for those bypasses to be full freeway; if the corridor's improvements eventually result in traffic levels warranting such, upgrading to Interstate status wouldn't be out of the question down the line. 

Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 31, 2018, 07:22:46 PM
The map provides good support of extending I-27 southeast along US 84, also "I-61" along US 49 southeast from Jackson MS and "I-98" from Green bay to Eau Claire WI.

Why would Mississippi want an Interstate 61 when they already have US 61? More likely it would be I-255 or I-x10.

Quote from: jbnv on September 02, 2018, 12:19:34 PM

Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 31, 2018, 07:22:46 PM
The map provides good support of extending I-27 southeast along US 84, also "I-61" along US 49 southeast from Jackson MS and "I-98" from Green bay to Eau Claire WI.

Why would Mississippi want an Interstate 61 when they already have US 61? More likely it would be I-255 or I-x10.

Given the choice, state DOT's -- and their political handlers -- will almost always prefer a 2di "trunk" route over a 3di number that is generally considered an "auxiliary" designation; there is a difference in cachet when utilizing the presence of such a route to attract business to a region.  While, of course, there are long outflung 3di's (135, 476, and the nascent 369), they're anomalies designated because other numbers weren't available (although 135 could easily be 31 or 33, and 369, at [eventually] 115 miles was selected for largely political reasons).  It's pretty clear that unlike the U.S. highway system, long 3di's were never intended to be part of the regular network.  In regards to MS, US 49 could very well be a reasonable 2nd/southern section of I-57, which would be grid-appropriate.  Of course, if a new trunk designation were sought and a "61" duplication might not pass muster, it's entirely possible I-63 could be applied, as there are no conflicts associated with that number. 

Is there plans to extend I-14 or something? Because if it current length is the entire route, it really should be I-x35 and not a separate interstate.

Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 02, 2019, 10:14:52 PM
Is there plans to extend I-14 or something? Because if it current length is the entire route, it really should be I-x35 and not a separate interstate.

Right now there are 3 threads addressing I-14; specifically in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi -- three separate threads (but functioning as a virtual Venn diagram).  Also, the I-27/south of Lubbock thread touches on I-14 because of the convergence (and some duplication) of the corridors in the San Angelo/Midland-Odessa area.  Check 'em out; the coverage is pretty damn exhaustive!

I expect the existing Interstate 14 in Texas will likely be the only one that will exist for a very long time for come.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2019, 03:03:45 PM
I expect the existing Interstate 14 in Texas will likely be the only one that will exist for a very long time for come.

Probably right, at least referring to Texas' portion of the multistate proposed corridor rather than just the 25 miles currently open to traffic.  And within TX, it won't get east of I-45 in most of our lifetimes.  TX is the only state where there is support for the corridor that extends beyond political posturing; that support goes back to most of this decade (the corridor [HPC #84] was formally established in 2015) and has several TX cities as vocal backers -- pretty much the formula for actually getting an Interstate project off the ground these days, for better or worse.  Nevertheless, we're probably looking at a 25 or 30-year timeline -- at best -- for development from West TX through the Triangle to I-45, which would tie together the loci of support for the project. 

Meridian-Montgomery-Columbus-Macon-Augusta could be I-14 (although 18 or a 16 extension is more likely), and some of that has already been proposed as a corridor without a specific number. (It could also become 20, with 22 being extended and 59 no longer having a huge overlap, but there's no point in renumbering for the sake of renumbering.)

Quote from: 1 on May 04, 2019, 03:47:27 PM
Meridian-Montgomery-Columbus-Macon-Augusta could be I-14 (although 18 or a 16 extension is more likely), and some of that has already been proposed as a corridor without a specific number. (It could also become 20, with 22 being extended and 59 no longer having a huge overlap, but there's no point in renumbering for the sake of renumbering.)

Since AL has removed itself from the freeway development arena, any plans for I-14 involving facilities within that state are, for the present, dead in the water.  Some new-terrain facility from I-20 near the AL/GA line down to Macon (suggested earlier) as an Atlanta bypass might be feasible only because it's fully within GA -- but that would likely simply be an I-16 extension rather than anything to do with the I-14 concept.

I would say that except for some Alexandria interests wanting to upgrade the proposed Alexandria Beltway to freeway grade or wanting an W-E corridor north of I-10 that would be available in case global warming floods out I-10, I-14 is a dead issue here in Louisiana as well. I still don't see how you build that sucka through Alexandria-Pineville without a major money commitment or a elongated loop around A-P...and how do you handle getting I-14 through Vidalia-Ferriday-Natchez?

Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 05, 2019, 03:49:31 AM
I would say that except for some Alexandria interests wanting to upgrade the proposed Alexandria Beltway to freeway grade or wanting an W-E corridor north of I-10 that would be available in case global warming floods out I-10, I-14 is a dead issue here in Louisiana as well. I still don't see how you build that sucka through Alexandria-Pineville without a major money commitment or a elongated loop around A-P...and how do you handle getting I-14 through Vidalia-Ferriday-Natchez?

I'd venture a guess that since it's unlikely that the I-14 corridor in TX will extend east of I-45 for the foreseeable future, there would be little or no pressure within LA to build anything from the TX line eastward without something with which to connect.  And I agree that taking such a corridor across the Mississippi River floodplain will be a major (meaning exceptionally expensive) PITA, since there's little chance of using the existing crossing without extensive razing of developed areas on either side of the bridges.  Add the fact that MS is perpetually broke (and blew what little wad they had on upgrading I-22 and building I-269) -- and thus an Interstate corridor along US 84, while potentially useful as a bad-weather alternate to coastal routes, would likely be kicked "down the road" , so to speak, for decades.  Of course, that won't stop politicians for showing and touting I-14 as a multistate line on various maps -- at least east to I-59 -- but "potential" won't compensate for the abject lack of funding or even prioritization of such a project.   

This thread I made is talking about the I-14 that is in Texas, pretty new. Was signed in 2017. I'm not sure about plans to extend it. If the entire route is supposed to be its current alignment, I-14 should be a I-35 spur.

Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 05, 2019, 08:27:35 PM
This thread I made is talking about the I-14 that is in Texas, pretty new. Was signed in 2017. I'm not sure about plans to extend it. If the entire route is supposed to be its current alignment, I-14 should be a I-35 spur.

I-14 is planned to run between I-20 in West Texas and I-20 at Augusta, GA. It's not just a short stretch in Texas.

(https://advancelocal-adapter-image-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/image.al.com/home/bama-media/width600/img/news_impact/photo/interstate-14png-dd91ebc5082da0ae.png)

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 05, 2019, 08:32:09 PM

Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 05, 2019, 08:27:35 PM
This thread I made is talking about the I-14 that is in Texas, pretty new. Was signed in 2017. I'm not sure about plans to extend it. If the entire route is supposed to be its current alignment, I-14 should be a I-35 spur.

I-14 is planned to run between I-20 in West Texas and I-20 at Augusta, GA. It's not just a short stretch in Texas.

(https://advancelocal-adapter-image-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/image.al.com/home/bama-media/width600/img/news_impact/photo/interstate-14png-dd91ebc5082da0ae.png)

That's the "Wishful Thinking Highway." The number and corridor were slapped on congressional legislation as pork, with only the very vaguest idea about how or where exactly to build it. A few Georgia politicians like it, but Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana so far have no interest in building it. And they're the ones footing the bill. So, it's basically a short I-35 stub in Texas serving a few lower-tier cities. Should have been a 3di.

Quote from: FightingIrish on May 05, 2019, 09:42:46 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 05, 2019, 08:32:09 PM

Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 05, 2019, 08:27:35 PM
This thread I made is talking about the I-14 that is in Texas, pretty new. Was signed in 2017. I'm not sure about plans to extend it. If the entire route is supposed to be its current alignment, I-14 should be a I-35 spur.

I-14 is planned to run between I-20 in West Texas and I-20 at Augusta, GA. It's not just a short stretch in Texas.

(https://advancelocal-adapter-image-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/image.al.com/home/bama-media/width600/img/news_impact/photo/interstate-14png-dd91ebc5082da0ae.png)

That's the "Wishful Thinking Highway." The number and corridor were slapped on congressional legislation as pork, with only the very vaguest idea about how or where exactly to build it. A few Georgia politicians like it, but Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana so far have no interest in building it. And they're the ones footing the bill. So, it's basically a short I-35 stub in Texas serving a few lower-tier cities. Should have been a 3di.

What I said, maybe temporary signage until it can be built farther

Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 05, 2019, 08:27:35 PM
This thread I made is talking about the I-14 that is in Texas, pretty new. Was signed in 2017.

I merged it into the original I-14 Texas thread.  Next time, please take a couple of seconds to see if there's a thread about the same subject on the first page or 2 of a section and post in it if at all possible. :)

Quote from: rickmastfan67 on May 06, 2019, 12:00:36 AM

Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 05, 2019, 08:27:35 PM
This thread I made is talking about the I-14 that is in Texas, pretty new. Was signed in 2017.

I merged it into the original I-14 Texas thread.  Next time, please take a couple of seconds to see if there's a thread about the same subject on the first page or 2 of a section and post in it if at all possible. :)

Hehe yea sorry bout that   :spin:

How does a Houston-Austin route not get more priority than this?

Quote from: mrose on May 06, 2019, 04:20:39 AM
How does a Houston-Austin route not get more priority than this?

Because there are two ways to go from Austin to Houston. Except for a miles stretch of poor man's four lane stretch on 290, its divided highway either way.

US-290 needs to be Interstate quality 100% of the way between Austin and the NW side of Houston. So far it's Interstate quality only about 1/3 of the way. A good case could be made for upgrading TX-71 from Austin to I-10 as well. The road is currently 4-laned the whole way with a few freeway bypasses along the way. Both corridors connect metros of 2 million and 6 million people.

A Temple-College Station-Huntsville corridor might be worthwhile turning into an Interstate, but not in the "W" shape the planners have it drawn on the maps. Still connections between Houston and Austin should rate as a bigger priority. Even the extension of the TX-249 toll road from Tomball to Navasota should be a higher priority.

Quote from: mrose on May 06, 2019, 04:20:39 AM
How does a Houston-Austin route not get more priority than this?

Basically because Austin hasn't requested a E-W corridor connecting that city to (or at least toward) Houston.  The unwritten rule, at least in TX (but applicable elsewhere as well) is that "you've gotta be in it to win it".  I'm certain that if such a request were made, there would at least be studies done regarding the most appropriate corridor to upgrade (be it TX 71 or US 290) -- but so far, nothing official has been on the horizon. 

Again, how do you know no one in Austin has requested US-290 being an Interstate quality route all the way to the Houston metro? What substantiates that claim?

Additionally, this is something that is not entirely up to people in Austin alone. Interests in Houston would have just as much say on how that corridor should be further improved as anyone in Austin. Then there's all the towns between the two giant sized metros being directly affected by the heavy traffic. Brenham has a partial freeway bypass but still needs additional upgrades to US-290 to the East and West of town to improve safety. Giddings and Elgin will need new bypasses around town. Some smaller towns along the way (like Carmine) will have easier upgrade situations due to partial or full frontage roads being present already.

If future highways are tailored to the whims of pork barrel sluts and real estate speculators it will undermine the overall big picture functions of our state-wide and national highway networks. Routes designed with ulterior motives, working against the interests of motorists, will yield serious consequences. We already have a serious "retail apocalypse" taking place and worsening all the time. Highways that don't carry people from point A to point B effectively will be yet another thing encouraging people to stay at home, do more shopping online at home and not leave home to be entertained.

Quote from: sparker on May 06, 2019, 06:43:05 PM

Quote from: mrose on May 06, 2019, 04:20:39 AM
How does a Houston-Austin route not get more priority than this?

Basically because Austin hasn't requested a E-W corridor connecting that city to (or at least toward) Houston.  The unwritten rule, at least in TX (but applicable elsewhere as well) is that "you've gotta be in it to win it".  I'm certain that if such a request were made, there would at least be studies done regarding the most appropriate corridor to upgrade (be it TX 71 or US 290) -- but so far, nothing official has been on the horizon.

Politicians have pushed for it, but the other politicians elsewhere in the state have been more aggressive with it.

The easiest way to get a straight interstate connection between Houston and Austin is a simple upgrade of TX 71, with an x10 banner slapped on it. That's pretty direct between those two cities. Probably cheaper and easier than doing it to US 290.

^^^^^^^^^
As far as I can determine, any push for an improved Austin-Houston connection has emanated from the latter city rather than the former; Austin seems content to maintain their -- at least in relation to the remainder of the state -- own iconoclastic subculture, bolstered by (a) the presence of state government and its staff (b) U of T (c) the influx of tech firms to the general region, bringing non-traditional concepts into the state.  I might add (d) its status as the center of modern Texas cuisine, including, of course, barbecue.  OK, (e) Hippie Hollow.  I would venture a guess that many of the proponents of an Interstate-grade eastward connector are Houston-area state representatives who desire a more efficient way home after a legislative session.  But so far they haven't put state money where their wishes lie.  And Bobby's completely right -- connectivity is the proverbial two-way street; folks who need to access Austin deserve as much say about the facilities in & out of the area as do Austin residents.  But both the local MPO and TxDOT seem to be preoccupied with toll facilities out in the burbs, sinking/capping I-35, and bitching about UP freight traffic through downtown -- all of which seems to constitute the TX version of urbanism; making Houston access a little easier seems way down the priority list of both the locals and the state. 

I'll put this out there:  if any TX poster or anyone with an intimate connection to the TX planning circles knows of any actual existing official plans -- emanating from anywhere -- for comprehensive improvements to either US 290 or TX 71 east of Austin, please enlighten the rest of us.         

There are plans to remove all remaining stop lights on SH-71 between the 130 Toll and Bastrop:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox7austin.com/amp/news/local-news/dozens-of-businesses-likely-to-be-displaced-by-sh-71-construction

Once that is complete, the only major hurdle from being a completely limited access corridor (aside from the rural at-grade intersections) is in Ellinger, which may end up needing a bypass.

Quote from: FightingIrishThe easiest way to get a straight interstate connection between Houston and Austin is a simple upgrade of TX 71, with an x10 banner slapped on it. That's pretty direct between those two cities. Probably cheaper and easier than doing it to US 290.

The major drawback of upgrading TX-71 (and doing nothing with US-290) is it ignores all the rapid development on the North side of the Houston metro as well as the Northern reaches of Austin. All that traffic on the Northern sides of both metros will keep using US-290 regardless if TX-71 is upgraded fully to an Interstate highway. Add to that the possibility of traffic using the combination of the Grand Parkway and US-290 to bypass central Houston to reach Austin. That gets into the whole Texas 1-12 possibility (something that could start at US-90 in Beaumont, run along the Northern quadrant of the Grand Parkway and then go to Austin).

As I've said before there's still a case for doing further upgrades of TX-71 between Austin the Columbus, TX. But that kind of upgrade would be more beneficial for traffic coming from areas of Houston South of I-10.

Well TXDOT is about to make I-10 three lanes minimum between Houston and San Antonio, but I would not want to move AUS-HOU traffic on it. 290 is the better choice, as is the above idea to create a bypass Interstate like I-12 from Beaumont to Austin continuing on to I-10

In regards I-14, I can see in the immediate future extending it from Temple to I-45 via Bryan. So Central Texas will have an easier route to Houston and points east.  And there are some noises being made of trying to get it extended west from Copperas Cove to Lampasas.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 07, 2019, 11:24:02 AM

Quote from: FightingIrishThe easiest way to get a straight interstate connection between Houston and Austin is a simple upgrade of TX 71, with an x10 banner slapped on it. That's pretty direct between those two cities. Probably cheaper and easier than doing it to US 290.

The major drawback of upgrading TX-71 (and doing nothing with US-290) is it ignores all the rapid development on the North side of the Houston metro as well as the Northern reaches of Austin. All that traffic on the Northern sides of both metros will keep using US-290 regardless if TX-71 is upgraded fully to an Interstate highway. Add to that the possibility of traffic using the combination of the Grand Parkway and US-290 to bypass central Houston to reach Austin. That gets into the whole Texas 1-12 possibility (something that could start at US-90 in Beaumont, run along the Northern quadrant of the Grand Parkway and then go to Austin).

As I've said before there's still a case for doing further upgrades of TX-71 between Austin the Columbus, TX. But that kind of upgrade would be more beneficial for traffic coming from areas of Houston South of I-10.

Quote from: longhorn on May 07, 2019, 11:35:36 AM
Well TXDOT is about to make I-10 three lanes minimum between Houston and San Antonio, but I would not want to move AUS-HOU traffic on it. 290 is the better choice, as is the above idea to create a bypass Interstate like I-12 from Beaumont to Austin continuing on to I-10

In regards I-14, I can see in the immediate future extending it from Temple to I-45 via Bryan. So Central Texas will have an easier route to Houston and points east.  And there are some noises being made of trying to get it extended west from Copperas Cove to Lampasas.

Another drawback regarding TX 71 as a primary Austin-Houston connector is the current state of the road itself; for much of its length it was simply expanded to 4 lanes/divided via the "twinning" process; most of the private access points remain (although that situation is considerably worse on the western end rather than the section near Columbus), particularly on the rural segments.  Compounding that problem (which will be an expensive fix because of the political "diciness" of the access issue) is the fact that those sporadic segments that have already been brought up to freeway standards are quite narrow; while today's traffic might require no more than a 2+2 facility; down the line a capacity increase may be appropriate -- and that would be an exceptionally costly prospect.  Finally, dumping Austin traffic onto I-10 might, in relatively short order, even overwhelm a 3+3 configuration such as presently proposed; if 71 is ever chosen as the principal corridor here; 8 lanes on I-10 east of Columbus might just be necessary sooner than later.

Of course, US 290 features much of the same as TX 71 in regards to the existing facility.  But much of that route will require new-terrain mileage, whereas 71 would likely be upgraded within the bounds of the present ROW.  That in itself is, in the longer term, a much better method, as a new facility designed to be upgradeable would obviate obsolescence -- something that couldn't be assured with a TX 71-based corridor. 

Betweeen Austin and Houston US-290 appears to be farther along with Interstate quality improvements than the TX-71 corridor. US-290 in Houston has had a number of major improvements in recent years and now is a 3-3 configuration outside the Grand Parkway to the Fields Store Rd exit in Waller. I think US-290 will eventually be at least 3 lanes in both directions all the way to the TX-6 split in Hempstead.

If US-290 is converted into a freeway between Hempstead and Austin it is likely at least some of the road would have to run on a new terrain path. The West side of Brenham is one example where that would appear necessary. However, new terrain paths have to be weighed against the cost of upgrading existing segments of road and buying/clearing properties in the way. It's pretty common for highway widening projects to clear some properties or even a bunch. Look at the current I-35 expansion in Temple for instance. From Hempstead to Brenham I don't see US-290 deviating from its existing path. Some properties would have to be cleared, but I think a 4-lane freeway with frontage roads could be squeezed in the existing ROW along much of the the stretch between Brenham and Hempstead.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 07, 2019, 02:41:03 PM
Betweeen Austin and Houston US-290 appears to be farther along with Interstate quality improvements than the TX-71 corridor. 

I would say the opposite is true. In terms of limited access corridor, SH71 is further along with bypasses around all major towns along the way (Bastrop, Smithville and LaGrange). On 290, you still have Manor, Elgin, Giddings and the western part of Brenham that need bypasses.

The red lines below show parts of the highways that still need to be converted to limited access....by far 290 has more mileage that needs work:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi66.tinypic.com%2Fi5dqi0.jpg&hash=ffbd1da9bb39df4742fceb28cdeca8b15ceaff19)

Looks like TexDOT signs I-14 onto the super two after Killeen despite it not being that road beyond the split of US 190 and US 190 Business and TX SH 9.   Also many ramps along I-14 are not yet signed for the interstate and the eastern part close to I-35 has no exit numbers yet.   

I am guessing its taking time to shield and number all the exits.  Ditto for I-369 in Texarkana as that designation is also only signed on the freeway and from the US 59 interchange as well as I-30.  US 80 and the other interchanges have only a US 59 shield at their ramps.

Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2019, 10:22:09 AM
Looks like TexDOT signs I-14 onto the super two after Killeen despite it not being that road beyond the split of US 190 and US 190 Business and TX SH 9.   Also many ramps along I-14 are not yet signed for the interstate and the eastern part close to I-35 has no exit numbers yet.   

I am guessing its taking time to shield and number all the exits.  Ditto for I-369 in Texarkana as that designation is also only signed on the freeway and from the US 59 interchange as well as I-30.  US 80 and the other interchanges have only a US 59 shield at their ramps.

Are you referring to this?
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1217192,-97.8523777,3a,60y,271.73h,89.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQt15CBBGz6zXhdIMH56yzw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The 190/BUS 190 split east of Copperas Cove? This is technically where I-14 ends though the sign shows it continuing on the CC bypass.

Is there any time table when the second set of lanes will be added to the 4.5 miles of limited access Super 2 around the South side of Copperas Cove? And then there is the issue of where a potential I-14 could be built West of the intersection of US-190 and FM-2657. The ROW gets narrow past that intersection to Kempner and on over to Lampasas. I-14 would probably have to be built on a new alignment rather than attempt to upgrade that 16 miles of US-190. These are just the baby steps of trying to push that highway West.

Of course there are issues just as big (if not worse) for pushing I-14 through the Temple area and on toward College Station.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 01, 2019, 06:47:33 PM
Is there any time table when the second set of lanes will be added to the 4.5 miles of limited access Super 2 around the South side of Copperas Cove? And then there is the issue of where a potential I-14 could be built West of the intersection of US-190 and FM-2657. The ROW gets narrow past that intersection to Kempner and on over to Lampasas. I-14 would probably have to be built on a new alignment rather than attempt to upgrade that 16 miles of US-190. These are just the baby steps of trying to push that highway West.

The project was suppose to be four lanes, but reduced to two for cost and faster approval. The intersection with FM2657 was supposed to be an overpass, but again, a stop light was cheaper. The I-14 expansion through Killeen was greatly reduced compared to what TXDOT had plans for, again, it was about money and getting fast approvals.

The major push right now on I-14 is expansion to 3x3 lanes from Harker Heights to I-35 in Belton. Do not expect anything near term or long term west of Copperas Cove. The action will be east from Temple to I-45. There is alot of traffic from Central Texas area to Houston and to access I-10. At a minimum expect plans for an extension to highway 6 north of Bryan.
Of course there are issues just as big (if not worse) for pushing I-14 through the Temple area and on toward College Station.

Fixed quote - Alex

^^^^^^^^^^^
As I've iterated previously, there are two separate interest groups promoting I-14:  the central "triangle" TX group, centered around Bryan (and probably consisting of quite a few A&M grads & boosters), who see the route as an enhancement of access to, alternately, Houston and the I-35 corridor.  The second group is the coalition of populated W. Texas areas, primarily San Angelo and Midland/Odessa; they have their own agenda, partly fomented by the historic inaction on the longstanding Port-to-Plains proposal; they see I-14 as an alternative form of connection to the rest of the Interstate system (and with M/O, an outlet to the southeast).  But since the P-to-P has been haltingly revived, it's likely that any corridor plans, be they labeled I-14 or I-27, will depend upon how the two backing groups can meld their concepts into something relatively efficient and non-duplicative.  So for the near term, the advantage lies with the "Triangle" folks; slicing I-14 across the midsection of the triangle and serving the Bryan/State College area in the process will likely see a substantive level of development before anything west of Lampasas -- at least until the corridors west of there are winnowed down to something doable and acceptable to the parties involved.  The practical endpoints of the eastern portion -- Temple and Huntsville, with Bryan/State College as an interim touch-point, have been established -- it's now down to the details.  Out west, not so much -- they're still dicking around with multiple corridors due to pressure from multiple congressional districts -- that will have to be resolved prior to any finalization of routing and/or further steps toward actually building something.   This whole process will be a fun if bumpy ride -- I only hope I'll be around to see how it washes out in the long run!

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 06, 2019, 03:57:02 PM
US-290 needs to be Interstate quality 100% of the way between Austin and the NW side of Houston. So far it's Interstate quality only about 1/3 of the way. A good case could be made for upgrading TX-71 from Austin to I-10 as well. The road is currently 4-laned the whole way with a few freeway bypasses along the way. Both corridors connect metros of 2 million and 6 million people.

A Temple-College Station-Huntsville corridor might be worthwhile turning into an Interstate, but not in the "W" shape the planners have it drawn on the maps. Still connections between Houston and Austin should rate as a bigger priority. Even the extension of the TX-249 toll road from Tomball to Navasota should be a higher priority.

Agreed that the connection of two major metros badly needs an Interstate-grade connection. However, the only number that fits that is a western I-12.

........And yet there hasn't been much of a peep emanating from Austin regarding a direct Interstate-grade connector.  By this time, it just might be concluded that the good Austinians don't really care if they can get to Houston 20 or 30 minutes faster than now.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if the prevailing attitude there is "if we make it easier for folks to get their butts over here, the line at Franklin's will just get even longer than it is now!"   :sombrero:

Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2019, 08:56:58 PM
........And yet there hasn't been much of a peep emanating from Austin regarding a direct Interstate-grade connector.  By this time, it just might be concluded that the good Austinians don't really care if they can get to Houston 20 or 30 minutes faster than now.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if the prevailing attitude there is "if we make it easier for folks to get their butts over here, the line at Franklin's will just get even longer than it is now!"   :sombrero:

Upcoming work on SH71 east of Bergstrom Airport will make that reality closer. Once complete,  there will be no more stoplights between Austin and Bastrop which should cut a trip to Houston by about 15 minutes. After that, a bypass of Ellinger is needed and removal of a few at grade crossings.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 06, 2019, 03:57:02 PM
US-290 needs to be Interstate quality 100% of the way between Austin and the NW side of Houston. So far it's Interstate quality only about 1/3 of the way. A good case could be made for upgrading TX-71 from Austin to I-10 as well. The road is currently 4-laned the whole way with a few freeway bypasses along the way. Both corridors connect metros of 2 million and 6 million people.

A Temple-College Station-Huntsville corridor might be worthwhile turning into an Interstate, but not in the "W" shape the planners have it drawn on the maps. Still connections between Houston and Austin should rate as a bigger priority. Even the extension of the TX-249 toll road from Tomball to Navasota should be a higher priority.

The SH 71 Corridor upgraded to and interstate (I have been pushing for Interstate 18) makes more sense to me as an Austinite.  US 290 is slow and hard to get to from north and south Austin, plus SH 71 connected with US 290 west of Austin (Austin-Fredericksburg to Junction) would serve as not only a El Paso-Austin-Houston connection, but would inadvertently serve as a San Antonio bypass for I-10 long-haul traffic since that route is shorter.  SH 71 is s more direct route to Austin from I-10 then US 290 is from Austin to Houston. 

It would serve as 90 degree twist of I-35E and I-35W for the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, 

It's entirely possible that the choice between US 290 and the combination TX 71/I-10 route between Austin & Houston will come down to what the defined roles of the corridor would be:  (a) simply as a way to get between two large metro areas, or (b) as a "relief route", to divert Austin-bound traffic away from I-10 (which would end up benefiting San Antonio in the process).  If the former, it's likely the most cost-effective route would be via TX 71, as it requires less overall mileage requiring upgrade; if the latter, then US 290 would prevail, since the most regularly congested portion of I-10 is from Houston itself west to about Sealy -- not too far east of Columbus, where TX 71 diverges -- and incorporating that portion of I-10 into the Austin corridor wouldn't relieve that situation.  Not that US 290 from I-610 to Hempstead is a picnic; if an Austin-bound corridor eventually is deployed over 290, the easternmost section will certainly require a substantial capacity expansion. 

Question: are there any existing studies intended to determine which of the two potential Interstate corridors is currently favored by drivers -- broken down into commercial and general samples?  Something tells me not (although I would be pleasantly surprised if there actually was something out there!), since Austin interests don't seem all that interested in expediting development of such a corridor -- and studies do cost significant money -- and are generally a prerequisite to any actual physical development.   And that's the difference between an Austin-Houston corridor and I-14 across the Triangle -- there are parties putting money into the preliminary stages of the latter, while the former goes largely unaddressed.  Like the old adage goes -- money talks, bullshit (in this case, official inaction) walks!     

Quote from: sparker on July 01, 2019, 01:52:33 PM
Question: are there any existing studies intended to determine which of the two potential Interstate corridors is currently favored by drivers -- broken down into commercial and general samples?     

No, I'm not aware of any studies on the corridor.

In fact, I don't recall ever seeing/hearing any official communication (government or business group) promoting the idea of upgrading US 290 or SH 71 to an interstate, or to full interstate standards. My view is that the suggestions/speculation for a Houston-Austin interstate is strictly limited to this AARoads forum.

A Houston-Austin interstate-quality highway would make much more sense than some of the pie-in-the-sky interstate proposals which are being promoted by official entities, for example I-27 extension, I-14 and some of I-69 (mainly I-69W).

On a related note, I drove the US 290 corridor from Houston to Austin recently, and construction is just underway to upgrade 4-lane-undivided sections to 4-lane divided, including substantially increasing the ROW width. (There will be one remaining 4-lane-undivided section maybe 5-10 miles after the work in progress is done.) But it is just making the highway consistent with adjacent 4-lane divided sections, and is not limited-access. It's my expectation that US 290 between Hempstead and Elgin will never be more than a 4-lane divided highway (except for the short freeway section at Brenham). The main slowdown point is Giddings, and there are no projects in the TxDOT UTP (10-year-plan) for the Giddings area.

Since the cost of upgrading SH 71 to Interstate standards would be much lower than upgrading US 290, I would expect SH 71 to be upgraded if there ever is a push for full limited access between Houston and Austin.

Quote from: sparker on July 01, 2019, 01:52:33 PM
if an Austin-bound corridor eventually is deployed over 290, the easternmost section will certainly require a substantial capacity expansion. 

Does this include the massive rebuild and expansion of 290 in metro Houston that has already taken place this decade?

Quote from: MaxConcrete on July 01, 2019, 04:33:07 PM

Quote from: sparker on July 01, 2019, 01:52:33 PM
Question: are there any existing studies intended to determine which of the two potential Interstate corridors is currently favored by drivers -- broken down into commercial and general samples?     

Since the cost of upgrading SH 71 to Interstate standards would be much lower than upgrading US 290, I would expect SH 71 to be upgraded if there ever is a push for full limited access between Houston and Austin.

There are plans to eliminate the remaining stop lights between Bastrop and the 130 toll.

Not sure if the plans include removing all other at grade crossings, but it will put 71 much closer to being completely limited access.

Info on the SH71 plans:

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/austin/sh-71-east-corridor-study.html

Quote from: thisdj78 on July 01, 2019, 09:33:52 PM
Info on the SH71 plans:

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/austin/sh-71-east-corridor-study.html

From the info given, this sounds more like a local improvement out to Bastrop -- essentially considering that town as an Austin exurb and TX 71 as a local artery to be improved to benefit commuter traffic within the MPO.  I know -- "baby steps" -- but until some sort of comprehensive plan for a full-length treatment of TX 71 (or US 290, for that matter) specifically as an interregional corridor is proffered, it's likely that whatever is done will be in the realm of Austin-area localized congestion relief. 

Quote from: sparker on July 01, 2019, 11:32:55 PM

Quote from: thisdj78 on July 01, 2019, 09:33:52 PM
Info on the SH71 plans:

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/austin/sh-71-east-corridor-study.html

From the info given, this sounds more like a local improvement out to Bastrop -- essentially considering that town as an Austin exurb and TX 71 as a local artery to be improved to benefit commuter traffic within the MPO.  I know -- "baby steps" -- but until some sort of comprehensive plan for a full-length treatment of TX 71 (or US 290, for that matter) specifically as an interregional corridor is proffered, it's likely that whatever is done will be in the realm of Austin-area localized congestion relief.

Yes it is, but it is a big baby step. The improvements could shave off 15+ minutes between Austin and Houston. So I consider that stretch a big hurdle in becoming 100% full access.

If a TX-71 full interstate buildout between Austin and Houston was pursued, how would the stupid two-lane toll freeway "bypass" constructed near the TX-130 interchange be upgraded to be a seamless 4-lane freeway movement? Not really seeing how that could be expanded into a four-lane facility.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1984018,-97.6302211,3865m/data=!3m1!1e3

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 12:01:46 AM
If a TX-71 full interstate buildout between Austin and Houston was pursued, how would the stupid two-lane toll freeway "bypass" constructed near the TX-130 interchange be upgraded to be a seamless 4-lane freeway movement? Not really seeing how that could be expanded into a four-lane facility.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1984018,-97.6302211,3865m/data=!3m1!1e3

Double-deck it and hope it's not near a fault line!

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 12:01:46 AM
If a TX-71 full interstate buildout between Austin and Houston was pursued, how would the stupid two-lane toll freeway "bypass" constructed near the TX-130 interchange be upgraded to be a seamless 4-lane freeway movement? Not really seeing how that could be expanded into a four-lane facility.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1984018,-97.6302211,3865m/data=!3m1!1e3

The current bridge would eventually become the eastbound lanes. The additional lanes would be built as a separate bridge for westbound traffic, the ROW is there for the expansion.

While its baffling that 290 has not been upgraded all these years, decades really. It has no bearing on I-14 and its plans. Apparently TxDot does not see it as an urgent issue or the NIMBYS in the small towns along the way has let their state congressmen know they like it as is.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14The SH 71 Corridor upgraded to and interstate (I have been pushing for Interstate 18) makes more sense to me as an Austinite.  US 290 is slow and hard to get to from north and south Austin, plus SH 71 connected with US 290 west of Austin (Austin-Fredericksburg to Junction) would serve as not only a El Paso-Austin-Houston connection, but would inadvertently serve as a San Antonio bypass for I-10 long-haul traffic since that route is shorter.  SH 71 is s more direct route to Austin from I-10 then US 290 is from Austin to Houston.

It would be easier/cheaper to upgrade TX-71 between Austin and Columbus, TX. But such an upgrade would be of no benefit to Austin-bound traffic coming from the Northern parts of the Houston metro. That's where most of the growth is taking place. There's a lot of development activity out West in places like Katy, Cinco Ranch, etc. But more is happening North and in higher dollar value, higher income segments. US-290 is the main pathway to Austin for those residents.

I'm not against upgrading TX-71 to full Interstate standards. As big as both the Houston and Austin metros are, and considering how fast they're growing, I don't think it's out of line to suggest both US-290 and TX-71 may both eventually have to be upgraded to full Interstate standards. On top of that there are other corridor "spokes" between I-10 and I-35 TX DOT will have to watch and likely develop as the space between Austin and San Antonio rapidly fills in with development. Places like San Marcos and New Braunfels are among the fastest growing cities in the US. TX-80 between San Marcos and Luling (I-10) is mostly a dinky 2 lane road now. TX-46 between New Braunfels and Seguin is an undivided 4-lane road.

Regarding the function of either corridor as a bypass route for long distance traffic, TX-71 would certainly help long distance traffic bypass San Antonio, if the US-290 corridor was improved West of Austin to I-10. That also depends on the TX-45 toll road getting properly completed. The 3.5 mile gap between I-35 and FM-1626 (where the new orphan segment of TX-45 ends) has to be filled in. Plus the Western end of TX-45 has to be extended out West to meet US-290. And then US-290 itself needs to be improved. There are plans to extend the US-290 freeway West about 3.5 miles. But it really has to get out past Dripping Springs to get into more "easy" expansion territory.

US-290 in conjunction with the Grand Parkway can function as a bypass for Houston. It would really be great as a relief route if the US-90 corridor between Beaumont and Dayton was upgraded. The TX-71 concept would put traffic bypassing San Antonio on a path to the center of Houston.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 02, 2019, 02:00:18 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14The SH 71 Corridor upgraded to and interstate (I have been pushing for Interstate 18) makes more sense to me as an Austinite.  US 290 is slow and hard to get to from north and south Austin, plus SH 71 connected with US 290 west of Austin (Austin-Fredericksburg to Junction) would serve as not only a El Paso-Austin-Houston connection, but would inadvertently serve as a San Antonio bypass for I-10 long-haul traffic since that route is shorter.  SH 71 is s more direct route to Austin from I-10 then US 290 is from Austin to Houston.

It would be easier/cheaper to upgrade TX-71 between Austin and Columbus, TX. But such an upgrade would be of no benefit to Austin-bound traffic coming from the Northern parts of the Houston metro. That's where most of the growth is taking place. There's a lot of development activity out West in places like Katy, Cinco Ranch, etc. But more is happening North and in higher dollar value, higher income segments. US-290 is the main pathway to Austin for those residents.

I'm not against upgrading TX-71 to full Interstate standards. As big as both the Houston and Austin metros are, and considering how fast they're growing, I don't think it's out of line to suggest both US-290 and TX-71 may both eventually have to be upgraded to full Interstate standards. On top of that there are other corridor "spokes" between I-10 and I-35 TX DOT will have to watch and likely develop as the space between Austin and San Antonio rapidly fills in with development. Places like San Marcos and New Braunfels are among the fastest growing cities in the US. TX-80 between San Marcos and Luling (I-10) is mostly a dinky 2 lane road now. TX-46 between New Braunfels and Seguin is an undivided 4-lane road.

Regarding the function of either corridor as a bypass route for long distance traffic, TX-71 would certainly help long distance traffic bypass San Antonio, if the US-290 corridor was improved West of Austin to I-10. That also depends on the TX-45 toll road getting properly completed. The 3.5 mile gap between I-35 and FM-1626 (where the new orphan segment of TX-45 ends) has to be filled in. Plus the Western end of TX-45 has to be extended out West to meet US-290. And then US-290 itself needs to be improved. There are plans to extend the US-290 freeway West about 3.5 miles. But it really has to get out past Dripping Springs to get into more "easy" expansion territory.

US-290 in conjunction with the Grand Parkway can function as a bypass for Houston. It would really be great as a relief route if the US-90 corridor between Beaumont and Dayton was upgraded. The TX-71 concept would put traffic bypassing San Antonio on a path to the center of Houston.

Even as a pusher of the SH 71 corridor being an interstate, I agree with everything you just said.  I have been pushing for 71 since it would be the cheaper, faster, less damaging upgrade (except some parts west of Austin on US 290) of the corridors, but you are correct, both 290 and 71 need to be upgraded, and the combination of 290 to 90 to Beaumont would be a good Houston by pass, and the 71 corridor would be a San Antonio bypass to keep everyone from going way south for long haul westbound traffic.  I want to beat some bushes, but I just don't know where to start.  I have written Texas congressmen, but I guess I just have to keep writing. 

^^^^^^^^^
If you're from Austin, the only congressmen to whom you should be writing are your own as well as anyone from the districts along TX 71 and US 290 (including the portion west of Austin all the way to I-10).  Having personally dealt with the Alliance for I-69/Texas, it has become clear that the representatives are almost exclusively interested in those projects within their own districts -- which accounts for the "clusterfuck" in West Texas that is the I-14 multiple-corridor concept ("you get a corridor, you get a corridor.......everyone gets a corridor!")  And now that the Port-to-Plains has been tentatively revived, attention from anyone west of Brady and Junction is on that project.  So concentrate any efforts on those who can claim credit for "bringing home the bacon", so to speak!

Quote from: sparker on July 02, 2019, 08:08:07 PM
^^^^^^^^^
If you're from Austin, the only congressmen to whom you should be writing are your own as well as anyone from the districts along TX 71 and US 290 (including the portion west of Austin all the way to I-10).  Having personally dealt with the Alliance for I-69/Texas, it has become clear that the representatives are almost exclusively interested in those projects within their own districts -- which accounts for the "clusterfuck" in West Texas that is the I-14 multiple-corridor concept ("you get a corridor, you get a corridor.......everyone gets a corridor!")  And now that the Port-to-Plains has been tentatively revived, attention from anyone west of Brady and Junction is on that project.  So concentrate any efforts on those who can claim credit for "bringing home the bacon", so to speak!

I thought North Carolina was bad  :banghead:

Four I-69s, and now multiple I-14s?

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 03:44:07 AM

Quote from: sparker on July 02, 2019, 08:08:07 PM
^^^^^^^^^
If you're from Austin, the only congressmen to whom you should be writing are your own as well as anyone from the districts along TX 71 and US 290 (including the portion west of Austin all the way to I-10).  Having personally dealt with the Alliance for I-69/Texas, it has become clear that the representatives are almost exclusively interested in those projects within their own districts -- which accounts for the "clusterfuck" in West Texas that is the I-14 multiple-corridor concept ("you get a corridor, you get a corridor.......everyone gets a corridor!")  And now that the Port-to-Plains has been tentatively revived, attention from anyone west of Brady and Junction is on that project.  So concentrate any efforts on those who can claim credit for "bringing home the bacon", so to speak!

I thought North Carolina was bad  :banghead:

Four I-69s, and now multiple I-14s?

Probably multiple fantasies and dreams of I-14, maybe.  If they even get 1 actual I-14, they'd be really lucky.  IMO, there's more chance of furthering I-27 (and maybe even an I-44 extension from Wichita Falls) than whatever ends up being I-14.  Even the interstating of US 287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth is really of more use and value than anything that results of the I-14 mess.

Quote from: -- US 175 -- on July 03, 2019, 04:36:38 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 03:44:07 AM

Quote from: sparker on July 02, 2019, 08:08:07 PM
^^^^^^^^^
If you're from Austin, the only congressmen to whom you should be writing are your own as well as anyone from the districts along TX 71 and US 290 (including the portion west of Austin all the way to I-10).  Having personally dealt with the Alliance for I-69/Texas, it has become clear that the representatives are almost exclusively interested in those projects within their own districts -- which accounts for the "clusterfuck" in West Texas that is the I-14 multiple-corridor concept ("you get a corridor, you get a corridor.......everyone gets a corridor!")  And now that the Port-to-Plains has been tentatively revived, attention from anyone west of Brady and Junction is on that project.  So concentrate any efforts on those who can claim credit for "bringing home the bacon", so to speak!

I thought North Carolina was bad  :banghead:

Four I-69s, and now multiple I-14s?

Probably multiple fantasies and dreams of I-14, maybe.  If they even get 1 actual I-14, they'd be really lucky.  IMO, there's more chance of furthering I-27 (and maybe even an I-44 extension from Wichita Falls) than whatever ends up being I-14.  Even the interstating of US 287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth is really of more use and value than anything that results of the I-14 mess.

The I-14 backers nailed down their basic corridor concept -- at least within TX -- by getting HPC #84, with the I-14 designation attached, into the US Code via a 2015 bit of legislation.   That particular sort of action has become de rigeur as a prerequisite for new Interstate corridors in recent years.  If the Port-to-Plains revival is serious, expect to see a similar extension for I-27 legislatively attached to the HPC #38 description -- which has been around for a couple of decades -- in the near future.   So, as far as a recognized albeit future Interstate corridor is concerned, besides the I-69 "family", I-14 is about it for the present within TX.  In short, the corridor's backers, in & out of Congress, were able to put the proverbial camel's nose through the tent opening regarding that route.  Sorting out the little internecine feuds between adjoining West Texas congressional districts will be the next step before any further activity out that way takes place; it's entirely possible that the addition of the P-to-P/potential I-27 concept to the mix might actually instigate some progress with both corridors simply because with the combination plans just about every congressional district from Midland/Odessa down to Laredo gets a "piece of the action" with one or both projects (San Angelo makes out like a bandit here!).  Right now it's something of a multi-ring circus in search of a ringmaster.  At least it has the potential to be an interesting show! 

Quote from: -- US 175 -- on July 03, 2019, 04:36:38 AM
If they even get 1 actual I-14, they'd be really lucky.  IMO, there's more chance of furthering I-27 (and maybe even an I-44 extension from Wichita Falls) than whatever ends up being I-14.  Even the interstating of US 287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth is really of more use and value than anything that results of the I-14 mess.

I-14 already exists (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Killeen,+TX/@31.0605689,-97.6278561,11z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86454b8fc898535d:0x794b81f7d1633fda!8m2!3d31.1171194!4d-97.7277959). And if you actually draw out the proposed route, you see that there is quite a bit of utility in that route as a bypass around Houston and Beaumont.

Quote from: jbnv on July 03, 2019, 09:42:52 AM

Quote from: -- US 175 -- on July 03, 2019, 04:36:38 AM
If they even get 1 actual I-14, they'd be really lucky.  IMO, there's more chance of furthering I-27 (and maybe even an I-44 extension from Wichita Falls) than whatever ends up being I-14.  Even the interstating of US 287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth is really of more use and value than anything that results of the I-14 mess.

I-14 already exists (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Killeen,+TX/@31.0605689,-97.6278561,11z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86454b8fc898535d:0x794b81f7d1633fda!8m2!3d31.1171194!4d-97.7277959). And if you actually draw out the proposed route, you see that there is quite a bit of utility in that route as a bypass around Houston and Beaumont.

They slapped a shield on an existing interstate standard highway. US 175 is referring to new construction.

IMO, a corridor from Junction to Houston via US 290, along with the completion of TX-45 as a toll bypass of Austin, and TX-99 as a toll bypass of Houston, would satisfy this goal and allow travelers in the end a more direct route, and bypassing San Antonio, Austin, and Houston. That's money well better spent, and it provides east-west interstate access for Austin.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 10:15:49 AM

Quote from: jbnv on July 03, 2019, 09:42:52 AM

Quote from: -- US 175 -- on July 03, 2019, 04:36:38 AM
If they even get 1 actual I-14, they'd be really lucky.  IMO, there's more chance of furthering I-27 (and maybe even an I-44 extension from Wichita Falls) than whatever ends up being I-14.  Even the interstating of US 287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth is really of more use and value than anything that results of the I-14 mess.

I-14 already exists (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Killeen,+TX/@31.0605689,-97.6278561,11z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86454b8fc898535d:0x794b81f7d1633fda!8m2!3d31.1171194!4d-97.7277959). And if you actually draw out the proposed route, you see that there is quite a bit of utility in that route as a bypass around Houston and Beaumont.

They slapped a shield on an existing interstate standard highway. US 175 is referring to new construction.

IMO, a corridor from Junction to Houston via US 290, along with the completion of TX-45 as a toll bypass of Austin, and TX-99 as a toll bypass of Houston, would satisfy this goal and allow travelers in the end a more direct route, and bypassing San Antonio, Austin, and Houston. That's money well better spent, and it provides east-west interstate access for Austin.

It's unlikely that I-14 will get east of -- at furthest -- I-69 in any of our lifetimes; it may well not extend east of I-45.  The push for that corridor consists of parties in the "Triangle" (DFW-Houston-San Antonio) who want a bisecting Interstate to serve the State College/Bryan area and provide a more direct route to Houston from central points on I-35 (Waco, Temple).  Re any Austin corridor:  as I've long said, if parties in that city want a corridor, all they have to do is ask for one; with their population figures, it probably would be a slam dunk!  But unlike the good old chargeable Interstate years, there's no central planner looking at the overall situation and determining where corridors would be appropriate; these days, the individual regions are on their own and need to take the initiative.  The folks backing the I-14 corridor farther north aren't going to be magnanimous and say "please take the funding we fought for and build your Austin-Houston corridor instead"; the $$ appropriated to their project is theirs; any Austin servers will require a separate and unique effort.  Like it or not, the first rule of getting funding for these corridor projects is to show up and ask for it!  The I-14 folks did just that -- and are now somewhere within the planning process, which would be expedited if they could get their West Texas shit together and deal with (meaning take a chainsaw to) the "multi-corridor" 14N/14S concept.  Let the districts along the border have their Port-to-Plains/I-27 extension; it'll give them something to crow about -- route I-14 to San Angelo and be done with it; I-27 can take it from there! 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 02, 2019, 02:00:18 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14The SH 71 Corridor upgraded to and interstate (I have been pushing for Interstate 18) makes more sense to me as an Austinite.  US 290 is slow and hard to get to from north and south Austin, plus SH 71 connected with US 290 west of Austin (Austin-Fredericksburg to Junction) would serve as not only a El Paso-Austin-Houston connection, but would inadvertently serve as a San Antonio bypass for I-10 long-haul traffic since that route is shorter.  SH 71 is s more direct route to Austin from I-10 then US 290 is from Austin to Houston.

It would be easier/cheaper to upgrade TX-71 between Austin and Columbus, TX. But such an upgrade would be of no benefit to Austin-bound traffic coming from the Northern parts of the Houston metro. That's where most of the growth is taking place. There's a lot of development activity out West in places like Katy, Cinco Ranch, etc. But more is happening North and in higher dollar value, higher income segments. US-290 is the main pathway to Austin for those residents.

I'm not against upgrading TX-71 to full Interstate standards. As big as both the Houston and Austin metros are, and considering how fast they're growing, I don't think it's out of line to suggest both US-290 and TX-71 may both eventually have to be upgraded to full Interstate standards. On top of that there are other corridor "spokes" between I-10 and I-35 TX DOT will have to watch and likely develop as the space between Austin and San Antonio rapidly fills in with development. Places like San Marcos and New Braunfels are among the fastest growing cities in the US. TX-80 between San Marcos and Luling (I-10) is mostly a dinky 2 lane road now. TX-46 between New Braunfels and Seguin is an undivided 4-lane road.

Regarding the function of either corridor as a bypass route for long distance traffic, TX-71 would certainly help long distance traffic bypass San Antonio, if the US-290 corridor was improved West of Austin to I-10. That also depends on the TX-45 toll road getting properly completed. The 3.5 mile gap between I-35 and FM-1626 (where the new orphan segment of TX-45 ends) has to be filled in. Plus the Western end of TX-45 has to be extended out West to meet US-290. And then US-290 itself needs to be improved. There are plans to extend the US-290 freeway West about 3.5 miles. But it really has to get out past Dripping Springs to get into more "easy" expansion territory.

US-290 in conjunction with the Grand Parkway can function as a bypass for Houston. It would really be great as a relief route if the US-90 corridor between Beaumont and Dayton was upgraded. The TX-71 concept would put traffic bypassing San Antonio on a path to the center of Houston.

I just drove on 290 between Austin and Houston this evening and there's a lot of construction activity to convert the undivided sections to divided. Of course, no grade separation, so with that said....I think it will be a long time (a few decades) before they convert it to a limited access highway.

On the other hand, upcoming work on 71 is including grade separated intersections.

Quote from: thisdj78 on July 03, 2019, 11:51:58 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 02, 2019, 02:00:18 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14The SH 71 Corridor upgraded to and interstate (I have been pushing for Interstate 18) makes more sense to me as an Austinite.  US 290 is slow and hard to get to from north and south Austin, plus SH 71 connected with US 290 west of Austin (Austin-Fredericksburg to Junction) would serve as not only a El Paso-Austin-Houston connection, but would inadvertently serve as a San Antonio bypass for I-10 long-haul traffic since that route is shorter.  SH 71 is s more direct route to Austin from I-10 then US 290 is from Austin to Houston.

It would be easier/cheaper to upgrade TX-71 between Austin and Columbus, TX. But such an upgrade would be of no benefit to Austin-bound traffic coming from the Northern parts of the Houston metro. That's where most of the growth is taking place. There's a lot of development activity out West in places like Katy, Cinco Ranch, etc. But more is happening North and in higher dollar value, higher income segments. US-290 is the main pathway to Austin for those residents.

I'm not against upgrading TX-71 to full Interstate standards. As big as both the Houston and Austin metros are, and considering how fast they're growing, I don't think it's out of line to suggest both US-290 and TX-71 may both eventually have to be upgraded to full Interstate standards. On top of that there are other corridor "spokes" between I-10 and I-35 TX DOT will have to watch and likely develop as the space between Austin and San Antonio rapidly fills in with development. Places like San Marcos and New Braunfels are among the fastest growing cities in the US. TX-80 between San Marcos and Luling (I-10) is mostly a dinky 2 lane road now. TX-46 between New Braunfels and Seguin is an undivided 4-lane road.

Regarding the function of either corridor as a bypass route for long distance traffic, TX-71 would certainly help long distance traffic bypass San Antonio, if the US-290 corridor was improved West of Austin to I-10. That also depends on the TX-45 toll road getting properly completed. The 3.5 mile gap between I-35 and FM-1626 (where the new orphan segment of TX-45 ends) has to be filled in. Plus the Western end of TX-45 has to be extended out West to meet US-290. And then US-290 itself needs to be improved. There are plans to extend the US-290 freeway West about 3.5 miles. But it really has to get out past Dripping Springs to get into more "easy" expansion territory.

US-290 in conjunction with the Grand Parkway can function as a bypass for Houston. It would really be great as a relief route if the US-90 corridor between Beaumont and Dayton was upgraded. The TX-71 concept would put traffic bypassing San Antonio on a path to the center of Houston.

I just drove on 290 between Austin and Houston this evening and there's a lot of construction activity to convert the undivided sections to divided. Of course, no grade separation, so with that said....I think it will be a long time (a few decades) before they convert it to a limited access highway.

On the other hand, upcoming work on 71 is including grade separated intersections.

With it being divided at least, the next phase can be to complete bypasses around every town, and to extend the Brenham Bypass westward. With that, you can create an expressway design between Austin and Houston on US-290 - 75 mph divided highway with no traffic signals, no slow downs, no interruptions, bypasses around every town, and full continuity. Then later on, construct frontage roads and elevate the divided portions of US-290 over selected cross roads with bridges and construct slip-on and slip-off ramps - and boom - limited-access freeway.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 02:05:08 AM
With it being divided at least, the next phase can be to complete bypasses around every town, and to extend the Brenham Bypass westward. With that, you can create an expressway design between Austin and Houston on US-290 - 75 mph divided highway with no traffic signals, no slow downs, no interruptions, bypasses around every town, and full continuity. Then later on, construct frontage roads and elevate the divided portions of US-290 over selected cross roads with bridges and construct slip-on and slip-off ramps - and boom - limited-access freeway.

The problem with a multi-phase approach such as described above is time -- the various phases would be done, sit for a while, and then the next phase will commence, probably haltingly (particularly if funding is eked out rather than awarded in large blocks).  Your grandchildren would likely be the first to drive on a fully limited access facility under such a program. 

Quote from: thisdj78 on July 03, 2019, 11:51:58 PM
I just drove on 290 between Austin and Houston this evening and there's a lot of construction activity to convert the undivided sections to divided. Of course, no grade separation, so with that said....I think it will be a long time (a few decades) before they convert it to a limited access highway. . .

As a local resident and frequent traveller on this section it is good to see the upgrading of US 290 between Elgin and Giddings finally beginning. Too many years overdue. The ROW was purchased many years ago but sat unused. This 4 lane undivided section is very dangerous and has had many fatal accidents over the years. Very high traffic volume, especially on weekends and holidays. IIRC, this is the last segment between Austin and Houston that is not at least a divided roadway.  While a full-fledged limited access freeway would be preferable, at least this will be some improvement.

Quote from: sparker on July 04, 2019, 04:59:33 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 02:05:08 AM
With it being divided at least, the next phase can be to complete bypasses around every town, and to extend the Brenham Bypass westward. With that, you can create an expressway design between Austin and Houston on US-290 - 75 mph divided highway with no traffic signals, no slow downs, no interruptions, bypasses around every town, and full continuity. Then later on, construct frontage roads and elevate the divided portions of US-290 over selected cross roads with bridges and construct slip-on and slip-off ramps - and boom - limited-access freeway.

The problem with a multi-phase approach such as described above is time -- the various phases would be done, sit for a while, and then the next phase will commence, probably haltingly (particularly if funding is eked out rather than awarded in large blocks).  Your grandchildren would likely be the first to drive on a fully limited access facility under such a program.

I would love for it to get done in one string. But unfortunately, with the amount of funding there is today, that's not that possible. I'd rather it get completed to a continuous 65 - 75 mph divided expressway with town bypasses and no stop lights if anything at all. That should be the priority. In the future, as traffic demands grow, then expand it to a freeway.

US-59 / US-77 is an expressway between Houston and Refugio, 75 mph speed limit, no stop lights, continuity, and town bypasses - it's an easy stress free drive, it feels like a freeway - interstate speeds, high quality road design, etc. The only difference is there's driveway connections and minor cross streets. Major junctions would have interchanges. That is a lot cheaper than a full freeway and would satisfy the need for now at least.

And just like US-59 / US-77 is planned to be expanded to Interstate 69, the same can happen with an expressway US-290 in the future.

Push will eventually give way to shove regarding improvement of US-290 between Austin and Houston. The continuing rapid population growth of both metro areas will FORCE the upgrades to happen. I think it's pretty baffling US-290 isn't already a full blown Interstate quality highway between the two cities.

In addition to US-290 and TX-71, as well as the corridors to I-10 from San Marcos and New Braunfels, a number of corridors North of Houston will eventually have to be upgraded in response to growth. There's already the planned extension of the Tomball Parkway (TX-249) up to Navasota. That would give College Station a non-stop Interstate quality link to Houston. There's new Google Earth imagery dated 4/1/19 showing clearing all the way up to Todd Mission. FM-1488 between Magnolia and The Woodlands is getting very busy. It's mostly undivided 4-lane road. So much development has grown around it that the road may not be possible to upgrade further. The TX-105 corridor from Navasota to Conroe and Cleveland may eventually need to be upgraded. There's at least a chance to preserve ROW there for future 4-lane or freeway expansion.

With all the development activity and growing traffic demands going on in the Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio metros (not to mention growth in places like El Paso or the Rio Grande Valley) it's tough for even long established projects like I-69 to make much progress. That's what makes the porky push for I-14 to seem especially ridiculous.

Temple to College Station and then perhaps Huntsville is about all that can be currently justified for I-14. Considering the suburban Houston growth, it would be easy to argue that Navasota-Conroe-Cleveland is a bigger priority in terms of moving traffic.

^^^^^^^^
Except for nascent housing areas between Austin and Bastrop, it seems as if Austin has cast its connectivity lot with the other cities arrayed along I-35 from San Antonio up to Temple; improving connections to Houston does not seem to be high on Austin-area priority lists -- perhaps Austin and its denizens just don't feel that they have much in common with Houston -- in a sociopolitical and/or socioeconomic sense.  The opposite seems to be driving the Triangle backers of the current I-14 configuration -- they want that Houston connection, whether via I-45 from Huntsville or a TX 249/TX 6 composite corridor southeast of Bryan, and they allied with their West Texas counterparts and the folks who've been backing a cross-Gulf States corridor for years to get the corridor on the books.  That being said, I don't see any I-14 development outside the Triangle happening in my own lifetime (I'm pushing 70, so take that with a grain of salt!).  In that respect I'm in complete agreement with Bobby. 

Question:  is a potential Navasota-Conroe-Cleveland corridor something that is getting looks within official TX transportation circles?   If extended east to Beaumont and southwest to somewhere in the vicinity of Brenham, it might well be a stand-alone Houston bypass (the Brenham connection would, of course, tie in to a US 290-based Austin corridor if that ever came to pass). 

Quote from: sparkerExcept for nascent housing areas between Austin and Bastrop, it seems as if Austin has cast its connectivity lot with the other cities arrayed along I-35 from San Antonio up to Temple; improving connections to Houston does not seem to be high on Austin-area priority lists -- perhaps Austin and its denizens just don't feel that they have much in common with Houston -- in a sociopolitical and/or socioeconomic sense.

Anti-roads citizens in Austin don't really have much of a say in how roads are improved outside Austin city limits. At least not in terms of blocking efforts to improve the state-wide (and national) highway network.

Upgrading highways like US-290 and TX-71 is just as much to help flow of traffic and safety of towns between Houston and Austin as much as it is to benefit the motorists who travel those roads to major destinations. Quite a few of those motorists are long distance travelers, including a bunch of commercial truckers. Improvements are continuing on both corridors, albeit in piece-meal, spot-upgrade fashion. The new freeway exit of TX-71 and TX-95 in Bastrop was recently completed. Some other freeway exits along that route were recent upgrades. As traffic levels increase, and crash rates increase along with them, pressure will increase to remove more at grade turns and intersections along those two very busy highways, if not eliminate all the at-grade turns completely.

Quote from: sparkerThe opposite seems to be driving the Triangle backers of the current I-14 configuration -- they want that Houston connection, whether via I-45 from Huntsville or a TX 249/TX 6 composite corridor southeast of Bryan, and they allied with their West Texas counterparts and the folks who've been backing a cross-Gulf States corridor for years to get the corridor on the books.

One problem is the thing they're wanting is not a functional connection to Houston, or even a bypass of it. The currently proposed route of I-14 thru the Texas Triangle doesn't even go to Huntsville. The path ping-pongs from Cameron down to Milano, a 90° turn up to Hearne then a 90° degree turn down to Bryan and then, for some stupidly odd reason, another 90° turn up to Madisonville, which is more than 25 NW of Huntsville. The Huntsville area only gets included in the I-14 parade if I-14 is multiplexed with I-45 that whole way, provided if I-14 was ever built east of Huntsville. Adding to the comedy is all the proposed "me too" branches off I-14 being added to the pork parade, many of which are far lower priorities in terms of traffic movement in Texas.

Quote from: sparkerQuestion: is a potential Navasota-Conroe-Cleveland corridor something that is getting looks within official TX transportation circles? If extended east to Beaumont and southwest to somewhere in the vicinity of Brenham, it might well be a stand-alone Houston bypass (the Brenham connection would, of course, tie in to a US 290-based Austin corridor if that ever came to pass).

I'm sure the TX-105 corridor has to be on TX-DOT's radar screens. The segment between Montgomery and Conroe is a very busy 6-lane undivided street. The road switches between 2-lane and 4-lane undivided the rest of the way West to Navasota and East to Cleveland. TX-105 has a Super-2 bypass South of Cleveland. The South half of Loop 336 in Conroe would have to be incorporated into a Navasota-Cleveland project. Any super highway link spanning those suburbs would need to have pretty substantial amounts of the road built on new terrain alignments. A lot of the existing TX-105 corridor is pretty covered up in development. I think TX-DOT will have to start planning something big sooner than later otherwise they're not going to be able to build anything at all.

Here's a concept for a US-290 "expressway" I created.

Approximately 27 miles of new location freeway would be needed, along with 8 miles of upgrading the existing roadway to freeway.

In the end, a consistent 65 - 75 mph expressway between I-35 and I-610 would be created with town bypasses and no traffic signals.

At $25 million per mile, this would cost $875 million, and at $50 million per mile, $1.75 billion.

Parts of it especially outside of Austin could become an extension of the existing toll road.

This would not create a full freeway, but rather a free-flowing corridor at interstate speeds.

For the 90 miles, a full freeway upgrade would likely cost between $2.25 billion - $4.5 billion. This semi-upgrade would accommodate a future build out, as the improved sections would be built to full freeway standards.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HRsTJF4gd149v-uNeIYheL4Fnoga0RHq&usp=sharing

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 05, 2019, 02:17:31 PM
One problem is the thing they're wanting is not a functional connection to Houston, or even a bypass of it. The currently proposed route of I-14 thru the Texas Triangle doesn't even go to Huntsville. The path ping-pongs from Cameron down to Milano, a 90° turn up to Hearne then a 90° degree turn down to Bryan and then, for some stupidly odd reason, another 90° turn up to Madisonville, which is more than 25 NW of Huntsville. The Huntsville area only gets included in the I-14 parade if I-14 is multiplexed with I-45 that whole way, provided if I-14 was ever built east of Huntsville. Adding to the comedy is all the proposed "me too" branches off I-14 being added to the pork parade, many of which are far lower priorities in terms of traffic movement in Texas.

Looks like someone is taking the "first edition" preliminary map showing I-14 sitting atop US 190, including all its convolutions, from I-35 to I-45 as unmitigated "gospel truth"!  I'll take an educated guess that the final route will at least cut off the corner between Cameron and the Brazos River floodplain west of Hearne, since (a) those are the towns of substantial size along 190 that would be able to successfully press for some sort of service, and (b) that floodplain is at its narrowest near the US 79/190 and adjacent UPRR crossings, so that immediate zone will likely be pressed into service for I-14 as well.  Hearne will likely get a bit of a bypass to the SE connecting 79/190 and 190/TX 6 and will simply segue onto the existing TX 6 freeway through Bryan and College Station.  And I'd also expect a direct connection between Texas A&M and Huntsville -- if nothing else but to expedite the flow of present and former Aggies from Houston to the campus area (seeing as how A&M alums are very much overrepresented in state government as well as within business enterprises in the general vicinity, including metro Houston).  They're going to want to make egress from the campus area to both the east/southeast and west as short and efficient as feasible; a "zig-zag" route strictly along existing US 190 wouldn't accomplish that goal.

As for Austin not having much influence outside their own immediate area when it comes to putting the kibosh on certain concepts -- that is probably a correct analysis.  But while they might piss & moan about a Houston connector freeway west of TX 130 -- and be able to influence decisions about that segment of such a corridor, the remainder of such intercity plans still need "champions" who will actively engage in the lobbying and even "schmoozing" necessary to initially get it off the ground.  And, at least from the lack of activity toward such an end within Austin circles, their participation in the planning and eventual deployment of a Houston connecting corridor can't be considered a certainty.  Impetus for such a corridor may well have to come from either the other end (Houston) or one of the areas in between.  It that occurs, and the selling of the project meets with success, I for one certainly wouldn't expect much in the way of organized opposition to such a corridor outside the usual roving sideshow of BANANA types.  It's not so much that they don't want an Interstate-grade direct path to Houston, it's just that one can't expect much in the way of enthusiasm from that quarter either.  Maybe I'm just an old cynical fart, but for the past 45 years I've seen the possibility for even highly warranted expansion of Interstate mileage largely hinge on political considerations (I-22 was almost derailed back around 2001-02 by Trent Lott's impolitic misfortunes until Alabama interests took over point and resurrected it later).  The lifeblood of politicos is to a large degree delivering projects -- and subsequently money inflow -- to their constituency; if that constituency is indifferent to a concept -- regardless of its historic and/or obvious merits -- there's little to be gained by devoting time and effort to it.  Not a pretty or altruistic picture, but simply how such things tend to work in this day & age.  Even if the salient points of such a project are in the realm of safety: "you'll be a lot safer when driving to Houston if the roadway is constructed to Interstate standards -- just look at the stats!", the response just might be "uhhh......we don't need to go to Houston all that much; why should we care?  Indifference is a harder hurdle to get past than outright opposition; at least with the latter one can formulate a viable argument.  At this point, the burden of planning & promoting Austin-Houston will in all likelihood have to emanate from somewhere where they feel they have a "dog in the race", so to speak. 

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 05, 2019, 03:00:23 PM
Here's a concept for a US-290 "expressway" I created.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HRsTJF4gd149v-uNeIYheL4Fnoga0RHq&usp=sharing

That's a nice plan. The Giddings, Elgin and Brenham bypasses would be very nice to have.

But as far as I know, the only location receiving any planning attention is the cloverleaf on the east side of Brenham (see link). Concept B seems like the only reasonable option, and I wonder what prompted the crazy C concept. Study at this location just started, so it's probably 10-20 years before anything happens.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/bry/us290-brenham/032719-us290-concepts.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/bry/us290-brenham/032719-us290-concepts.pdf)

As Sparker notes, any corridor-wide improvement plan would need political and business community support, and I don't know of any organized support for US 290. (I-69, I-27 Port-to-Plains and I-14 do have political support.) So to echo Sparker: I don't see much of anything happening for the indefinite future.

The I-10 expansion between west Houston (Brookshire) and Columbus is already happening and all work should be underway within a few years. The next job estimated at $151 million is scheduled to go to bid in October. As others have noted, SH 71 will be upgraded to freeway status between Austin and Bastrop.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/austin.htm#027102049 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/austin.htm#027102049)

My view is that I'll be very happy to see the planned IH-10 and SH 71 work done, hopefully by the mid 2020s. Any other corridor improvements in my lifetime would be an unexpected bonus (I'm 52).

Quote from: MaxConcrete on July 05, 2019, 07:36:38 PM
As others have noted, SH 71 will be upgraded to expressway status between Austin and Bastrop.

FTFY. While all of the traffic signals will be replaced by select interchanges and frontage roads specifically at those locations, private driveways and minor cross roads will still be permitted, the frontage roads aren't going to go the entire corridor. Nonetheless, it's a welcome improvement that will create a freeway-like corridor with constant 65 - 75 mph speed limits, and no interruptions.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 02, 2019, 02:00:18 PM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14The SH 71 Corridor upgraded to and interstate (I have been pushing for Interstate 18) makes more sense to me as an Austinite.  US 290 is slow and hard to get to from north and south Austin, plus SH 71 connected with US 290 west of Austin (Austin-Fredericksburg to Junction) would serve as not only a El Paso-Austin-Houston connection, but would inadvertently serve as a San Antonio bypass for I-10 long-haul traffic since that route is shorter.  SH 71 is s more direct route to Austin from I-10 then US 290 is from Austin to Houston.

It would be easier/cheaper to upgrade TX-71 between Austin and Columbus, TX. But such an upgrade would be of no benefit to Austin-bound traffic coming from the Northern parts of the Houston metro. That's where most of the growth is taking place. There's a lot of development activity out West in places like Katy, Cinco Ranch, etc. But more is happening North and in higher dollar value, higher income segments. US-290 is the main pathway to Austin for those residents.

I'm not against upgrading TX-71 to full Interstate standards. As big as both the Houston and Austin metros are, and considering how fast they're growing, I don't think it's out of line to suggest both US-290 and TX-71 may both eventually have to be upgraded to full Interstate standards. On top of that there are other corridor "spokes" between I-10 and I-35 TX DOT will have to watch and likely develop as the space between Austin and San Antonio rapidly fills in with development. Places like San Marcos and New Braunfels are among the fastest growing cities in the US. TX-80 between San Marcos and Luling (I-10) is mostly a dinky 2 lane road now. TX-46 between New Braunfels and Seguin is an undivided 4-lane road.

Regarding the function of either corridor as a bypass route for long distance traffic, TX-71 would certainly help long distance traffic bypass San Antonio, if the US-290 corridor was improved West of Austin to I-10. That also depends on the TX-45 toll road getting properly completed. The 3.5 mile gap between I-35 and FM-1626 (where the new orphan segment of TX-45 ends) has to be filled in. Plus the Western end of TX-45 has to be extended out West to meet US-290. And then US-290 itself needs to be improved. There are plans to extend the US-290 freeway West about 3.5 miles. But it really has to get out past Dripping Springs to get into more "easy" expansion territory.

US-290 in conjunction with the Grand Parkway can function as a bypass for Houston. It would really be great as a relief route if the US-90 corridor between Beaumont and Dayton was upgraded. The TX-71 concept would put traffic bypassing San Antonio on a path to the center of Houston.

I have thought about this, and though I agree with what you are saying, the only rebuttal is you are thinking of this (SH 71 corridor) as an outright San Antonio bypass and thinking Houston is more deserving. This is not so much a bypass of a major metropolitan area as it is a bypass of a major metropolitan area where the main through route goes unnaturally out of its way to get to said major metropolitan area. Two examples come to mind and they are both on I-10, New Orleans and Phoenix where I-10 goes out of its way to service these areas and have bypasses because of them (I-12 and I-8, SH-85 respectively). Traveling from east to west, I-10 goes way south to get to San Antonio and then leaving San Antonio you are traveling north for nearly 100 miles before you start heading west. The SH-71/US 290 corridor corrects this unnatural bend for long range travel while servicing Austin at the same time. I-10 is pretty much a straight shot through Houston so a loop (which Houston will soon have 4 to choose from) pretty much serves the bypass situation. This is the same as I-35E and I-35W where everyone knows I-35W is the fastest way through for long haul traffic. In addition the the Columbus to Houston expansion to at least 6 lanes, this really doesn't dump more traffic into downtown Houston.

^^^^^^^^^^^
And that in a nutshell is a telling difference between the TX 71 and US 290 potential Austin-Houston corridors:  TX 71 simply dumps Houston-bound traffic onto I-10; traffic going that way must endure the "slog" that is I-10/Katy Freeway in the west part of metro Houston (from I-10, the northern bypasses add substantial N-S mileage to any trip beyond the metro area).  US 290 at least has the potential to tie more directly into any of the northern bypasses of Houston; if 290 itself is improved as far as TX 6 (the end of the existing freeway radiating from NW Houston) that would take care of that traffic going to Houston, while a connection to the 99 loop provides at least for the present a partial northern bypass of the area -- and the previously discussed TX 105-based bypass might be an even more useful corridor.  Austin, even as a stand-alone metro area, is enough of a traffic generator/destination for eastward movement not only to and from Houston but for areas well beyond that metro region;  concentrating on a TX 71 improvement would put that traffic on a beeline for Houston without much in the way of consideration for traffic intended for points east of there.  A US 290-based corridor would be considerably more versatile in terms of interregional service for Austin in that it more easily accesses the present (99) and potential future (105) corridors that would divert traffic for eastern points around Houston -- while being close-in enough to provide that metro service option as well. 

At that point, the various projects in central TX could be considered to be "layered" bypasses:  if ever extended west along US 290, a corridor incorporating that highway on both sides of Austin -- plus any of the northern Houston bypasses or bypass concepts -- could be an effective bypass of both San Antonio and Houston -- but through Austin, which is already becoming a "bottleneck" in its own right (at close to 1M, there's little or no doubt about that!).  But then there's I-14, which pretty much bypasses it all, serving mostly metro areas in low 6 figures -- relatively ideal for a long-distance commercial corridor.   While all this sounds like one hell of a lot of projects to accommodate; the growth in TX warrants a multifaceted approach to commercial/interregional mobility -- and at least TX hasn't shied away from such large-scale concepts.     

Quote from: ethanhopkin14I have thought about this, and though I agree with what you are saying, the only rebuttal is you are thinking of this (SH 71 corridor) as an outright San Antonio bypass and thinking Houston is more deserving.

US-290 West of Austin is a critical link to make any San Antonio bypass concept work. Otherwise long distance travelers might as well just use the North portion of Loop-1604 to get around San Antonio. Serious upgrades are going to be needed to TX-46 from Seguin up to New Braunfels and West out to Boerne to meet I-10. That's just for metro San Antonio. An Interstate quality highway along or near US-290 West out of Austin over to Fredericksburg and then I-10 would make I-quality upgrades of either TX-71 or US-290 far more valuable to the state/national highway network.

I'm not really saying one corridor is more deserving of being upgraded than the other. Certainly not a zero-sum game approach where one road's upgrade comes at the expense of the other. Both TX-71 and US-290 East of Austin have legit reasons for being upgraded to Interstate quality. But both roads cannot serve all of the needs of traffic heading out of Austin toward Houston. The Houston metro is just too big. The traffic going to the rapidly growing Northern reaches of the Houston metro is going to stay on US-290, even if TX-71 is converted into full Interstate quality. Those drivers aren't going to take TX-71 to wind up Katy Freeway and then have to back-track North, likely along even more miles of toll roads, to get up to places like The Woodlands.

Quote from: sparkerBut while they might piss & moan about a Houston connector freeway west of TX 130 -- and be able to influence decisions about that segment of such a corridor, the remainder of such intercity plans still need "champions" who will actively engage in the lobbying and even "schmoozing" necessary to initially get it off the ground.

Serious or fatal vehicle collisions are a major factor at influencing highway upgrades outside of big cities. It's that and responding to the growth trends of traffic levels on a particular road. Schmoozing does its part on getting roads and bridges built to nowhere. But we wouldn't have a functional highway network at all, and not even an Interstate system, if getting results was determined most by political schmoozing.

When one considers current politics in Texas it makes the I-14 campaign look even more like wishful thinking. There has been a backlash against toll roads in Texas, and probably with some good reason. The toll rates per mile are quite a bit higher than here in Oklahoma. At the same time the state's politics won't allow for major hikes in gasoline taxes to fund pie in the sky projects like I-14, much less far more established projects like I-69. The federal government is mostly AWOL on these efforts, leaving states with more of the funding burden.

Meanwhile Houston and Austin both continue to grow and the traffic counts on corridors between these two major cities only stands to grow as well. Funding isn't available for any massive projects. So TX DOT is stuck having to pick and choose what it can build, much of it in the form of spot upgrades, like converting a single at grade intersection along US-290 or TX-71 into a freeway style exit. We're going to see a lot more of those spot upgrades on both corridors. Maybe if enough spot upgrades accumulate it will give way to filling in the gaps between each upgrade site.

^^^^^^^^^^
"Schmoozing" has been around a lot longer than just the post-chargeable era; at least two of the routes that were part of the 1968 1500-mile addition package were specifically shepherded by notable political figures of the era:  the late Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-IL, and minority leader for many terms) ushered the original I-72 from Springfield to Champaign/Urbana as a tip of the hat to his hometown of Decatur, more or less at the route's midpoint.  Since he was to retire in a couple of years, he viewed the route as a sort of "swan song".    And I-88 in upstate NY was championed by both of the state's senators, Jacob Javits and Bobby Kennedy; it was more of a "make-work" concept than a vitally needed corridor -- although it was to some degree sold as a way to get from the I-81 corridor to central New England.  But upstate was hurting financially at the time (well into the "rust belt" age) -- and projects such as I-88 were viewed as a way to address that problem.

I-72 in Illinois and I-88 in New York (or more recent examples like I-68 in West Virginia) are arguably porky routes, but they didn't come at the expense of other in-progress Interstate projects. Under the current funding environment there's very little money to go around to already proposed projects, even within Texas alone. Funding one project on I-14 would erase funding for other projects in the state. I think it's going to be a big struggle just to get a leg of I-14 extended into the College Station area.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 11, 2019, 01:46:43 PM
(or more recent examples like I-68 in West Virginia)

I-68 in West Virginia and Maryland was originally a regular freeway and built as such. It wasn't until the very end they designated the entire completed corridor as an interstate highway (I-68) in the early 90s.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 03:16:16 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 11, 2019, 01:46:43 PM
(or more recent examples like I-68 in West Virginia)

I-68 in West Virginia and Maryland was originally a regular freeway and built as such. It wasn't until the very end they designated the entire completed corridor as an interstate highway (I-68) in the early 90s.

I-68 (former 2nd iteration of US 48) was an ARC corridor that was elevated to freeway status by both WV and MD; it was completed from I-79 to Cumberland by 1989 and east over Sideling Hill to I-70 by 1991, at which time it was proposed an accepted as I-68 (despite the decidedly substandard 40mph segment through Cumberland). 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 11, 2019, 01:46:43 PM
I-72 in Illinois and I-88 in New York (or more recent examples like I-68 in West Virginia) are arguably porky routes, but they didn't come at the expense of other in-progress Interstate projects. Under the current funding environment there's very little money to go around to already proposed projects, even within Texas alone. Funding one project on I-14 would erase funding for other projects in the state. I think it's going to be a big struggle just to get a leg of I-14 extended into the College Station area.

Right now I-14, aside from the operational segment from I-35 to Copperas Cove, is in the study phase; AFAIK there's not a finalized alignment either east nor west of the existing facility, so no funds have been spent for ROW purchase or any other physical activity -- just studies.  OTOH, the only other active new Interstate project in Texas, I-69 and its suffixed siblings (and I-2, for that matter) are much farther along in the planning and deployment processes; they'll likely be substantively completed (with the probable exception of I-2) -- at least south of Houston -- well before the first I-14 project is let.  I for one, given the Houston-based I-69 backers' aims, am quite surprised to not see more prioritization given to the Houston-Texarkana (69/369) stretch, since an Interstate-grade outlet to the northeast was and is one of their primary objectives -- but that's a subject that needs to be discussed in the I-69/Texas thread.  It'll be interesting to see if the latest push for the I-27/Port-to-Plains corridor gains traction -- and whether (a) its support groups start competing with the I-14 folks to see who can get the most $$ directed toward them, or (b) start working with those same folks on a composite regional corridor plan that isn't duplicative or just plain gratuitous. 

I don't expect any cooperation, collaboration, etc between I-14 backers and people pushing improvements to the Ports to Plains Corridor (with possible extensions of I-27 in the long term). The two corridors serve very different purposes. I-14 has only limited reach in Texas between one military base and only small to medium sized cities at best on the proposed route. The Ports to Plains corridor provides a somewhat more direct connection from Colorado's Front Range cities down to the Gulf of Mexico. Cities like Amarillo, Lubbock and Laredo are along the path as well as the growing Rio Grande Valley region in the far South end of Texas. The P2P Corridor would provide a faster connection between Denver and San Antonio.

The factors that hurt the P2P Corridor are sheer long distance of the thing and that a bunch of it is in sparsely populated rural areas. Plenty of people would think a 2-lane road is good enough for many parts of the route. One of my girlfriend's friends was killed in a head on collision North of Boise City a few years ago. So I'm definitely NOT among the crowd who thinks 2 lanes is good enough. That stretch of US-287 is still just 2 lanes. All elements of the P2P Corridor should be upgraded to at least of 4-lane divided expressway standards. IMHO, the 4-lane expressway upgrades ought to be built with enough ROW to allow conversion to Interstate quality at later dates.

^^^^^^^^^
One would think that the P-to-P concept, extensive as it was regarding overall mileage and reach, could have been handled along the Q: "How to eat an elephant?" A: "One bite at a time!" approach -- but that was tried about 20 years ago with a simple proposal to extend I-27 down the original corridor branch to I-20 at Big Spring.  The study that was commissioned by TXDOT regarding that proposal was carried out by the Wilbur Smith consultancy, which came back with the conclusion that traffic from Lubbock south to I-20 was split among too many corridors (from W to E, 62/385 to Odessa, 87/349 to Midland, 87 straight down to Big Spring, and 84 to Roscoe) and that an Interstate route over any corridor wouldn't be warranted because the traffic volume on any single corridor was relatively slight.  No consideration was given to the concept that if an Interstate were to be constructed on a given corridor -- particularly one of the central choices using at least some of US 87 -- that some of the traffic presently using one of the other alternatives would then elect to instead utilize the improved corridor, raising its volume to an appropriate level.   Since the Smith group had a reputation for producing negative recommendations relative to other well-known firms (such as Parsons Brinckerhoff), P-to-P backers were somewhat disillusioned at TXDOT for selecting them; it indicated that, at least at the time, TXDOT really wasn't particularly interested in P-to-P development.  Thus the dormancy regarding active pursuit of corridor activity commenced; the recent revival in interest after nearly 2 decades appears to be a collective effort of the metro areas and towns arrayed along the route (Del Rio, San Angelo, M/O, and Lubbock itself) to enhance W. Texas regional connectivity, whereas the prior effort was primarily Lubbock looking for an Interstate-grade southern outlet. 

Despite factors such as the tragic story Bobby relates, it may be a difficult task to get OK and CO to actively participate in corridor development north of Amarillo or even Dumas; the NM improvements to US 87 may be sufficient to convince corridor planners to utilize the Raton branch of the P-to-P/HPC #38 rather than straight up US 287 into CO if that state indicates that it's willing to take part in the effort.  Or it may be a western version of the NC/VA situation seen with both the I-73 and I-87 proposals:  any planning efforts may well stop right at the TX state line.  The corridor has been in existence for two dozen years now; sometimes it has seemed that we are the only ones particularly interested in its progress!       

The failure of the Ports to Plains Corridor to "gel" really falls back on the absence of the federal government at being a guiding force on it. Corridors like this will go nowhere without a big picture, national-scope view of the situation.

Obviously the negative judgments from the Wilbur Smith consultancy are a result of them having a stunted view of the I-27 corridor. If the ultimate goal was only a short extension from Lubbock to a choice of 3 cities along I-20 (Midland, Big Spring or Roscoe) then, yes, there was no legit reason to bother upgrading anything. The current roads as they exist now work just fine. If one bothers to think bigger, such as Denver to San Antonio via Amarillo and Lubbock, then the idea of extending I-27 looks more legit. Interstates are ultimately supposed to connect major destinations and allow high volumes of traffic to move between them.

Just on the safety angle, some parts of US-287 should at least be upgraded to 4-lane divided on a few stretches ASAP. ODOT needs to upgrade US-287 to 4-lane divided North of Boise City up to the Colorado state line. It pisses me off they haven't done so already. ODOT and OTA have done other upgrades to roads in response to highway tragedies. OK-49 in Medicine Park was 4-laned to stop collisions there. OTA installed the concrete Jersey barrier on I-44 in the 1990's from Medicine Park up to the MO border following a multi vehicle head on collision that killed several people in Elgin. I refuse to drive on that stretch of US-287 on road trips up to Colorado. I always go to Raton instead. At least US-64/87 is four laned the whole way in that direction.

And CDOT needs to 4-lane US-287 from the OK border up to until the road straightens out just South of Campo. But CDOT drags its feet at upgrading rural roads. People can be getting killed continually in grisly head-on collsions along certain highways in Colorado, such as US-24 on the East side of Colorado Springs. CDOT does little more than maybe stringing up a flashing yellow signal over an intersection. Their travel and turn lane designs along US-24 are baffling.

Quote from: sparker on July 12, 2019, 04:13:23 AM
Or it may be a western version of the NC/VA situation seen with both the I-73 and I-87 proposals:  any planning efforts may well stop right at the TX state line.

If the Martinsville Southern Connector is built, that may creep I-73 up to Martinsville, VA.

Once I-87 is completed to the state line, VDOT may well choose to extend it to I-64, especially if it draws additional traffic.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:32:59 PM

Quote from: sparker on July 12, 2019, 04:13:23 AM
Or it may be a western version of the NC/VA situation seen with both the I-73 and I-87 proposals:  any planning efforts may well stop right at the TX state line.

If the Martinsville Southern Connector is built, that may creep I-73 up to Martinsville, VA.

Once I-87 is completed to the state line, VDOT may well choose to extend it to I-64, especially if it draws additional traffic.

Of course, the point to which I referred is moot if the 2nd state cooperates with the initial state regarding continuation across the line; if VDOT is seriously considering the I-73 extension from the state line to at least the US 58 bypass, then that's at least the "baby steps" needed to break the ice, so to speak.  For I-87, we'll just have to see what transpires over the next few years.   

Quote from: sparker on July 12, 2019, 04:46:22 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:32:59 PM

Quote from: sparker on July 12, 2019, 04:13:23 AM
Or it may be a western version of the NC/VA situation seen with both the I-73 and I-87 proposals:  any planning efforts may well stop right at the TX state line.

If the Martinsville Southern Connector is built, that may creep I-73 up to Martinsville, VA.

Once I-87 is completed to the state line, VDOT may well choose to extend it to I-64, especially if it draws additional traffic.

Of course, the point to which I referred is moot if the 2nd state cooperates with the initial state regarding continuation across the line; if VDOT is seriously considering the I-73 extension from the state line to at least the US 58 bypass, then that's at least the "baby steps" needed to break the ice, so to speak.  For I-87, we'll just have to see what transpires over the next few years.

Well the preferred alternative for the Martinsville Southern Connector was just released, and I saw it a few minutes ago, and can safely now say it's not getting built anytime soon.

Cost Estimate - $616 million for 7 miles.

(https://i.ibb.co/c1Ht6PM/Martinsville-Connector71219-Alt-C.png)

This is Texas, not North Carolina (although the two states seem to have similar plans for new roads). Any discussion about Interstate 73 and Interstate 87 in North Carolina should be regulated to their proper threads in the Southeast Regional Board. At any rate, I don't see Interstate 14 being extended or leaving Texas anytime soon, let alone being a continuous route from Texas all the way to Georgia.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 12, 2019, 05:17:01 PM
This is Texas, not North Carolina (although the two states seem to have similar plans for new roads). Any discussion about Interstate 73 and Interstate 87 in North Carolina should be regulated to their proper threads in the Southeast Regional Board. At any rate, I don't see Interstate 14 being extended or leaving Texas anytime soon, let alone being a continuous route from Texas all the way to Georgia.

No -- Alabama put the kibosh on any extension east of I-59 this last year by jettisoning essentially all their existing freeway corridor plans, including the so-called I-85 extension westward along US 80 from Montgomery to I-20/59.  Although there have been rumblings in LA regarding I-14 via Fort Polk and Alexandria, so far no legislation to match the 2015 Texas HPC #84 concept that authorized I-14 in the first place has emerged from the LA congressional delegation; the corridor as described simply ends at the TX/LA state line.  But as previously projected, the only part of I-14 that has any chance of full development within the near term is an eastern extension of the present signed section from I-35 to I-45 via Bryan/College Station.  East of there -- at least past I-69 -- is pointless absent concurrent action from LA; west of there is presently a multi-branch political football that will need to be resolved and winnowed down before any further action would be forthcoming.

Nevertheless, when discussing potential Interstate corridor plans that cross state lines, a "compare & contrast" analytical approach to how other states are handling similar situations is relevant; the above analysis regarding the easternmost planned/legislated section of I-14 approaching the LA state line employed a rudimentary form of this sort of discussion -- whether a route duly authorized if unfunded warrants an extension to the state line even if the adjoining state has declined to meet it with its own project?  In the case of I-14, the rational answer is a resounding "no"; although some value might be obtained by extending the corridor between I-45 and I-69, the costs (given the intervening lake and terrain) of doing so would likely outweigh the benefits.  And since access from the central TX "triangle" to Houston is a primary objective of the corridor's more vehement backers, once it reaches I-45 as an effective path to metro Houston the enthusiasm for further development will likely wane.  There's probably not enough potential traffic from the nascent I-69 corridor that would peel off and head over I-14 (save a few staunch Aggie alums!) to warrant even that relatively short extension.  Copperas Cove to Huntsville -- that's the most I'd expect to see developed in my lifetime!     

Yes I do also agree that the highways need to be 4 laned. Connectivity is one reason. But Safety is another reason. And with the Oklahoma Panhandle, there should not be that many roads to finish, so they should just finish them all ready. Toll them if necessary. I will happily drive the toll roads.

Quote from: In_Correct on July 14, 2019, 09:30:20 AM
Yes I do also agree that the highways need to be 4 laned. Connectivity is one reason. But Safety is another reason. And with the Oklahoma Panhandle, there should not be that many roads to finish, so they should just finish them all ready. Toll them if necessary. I will happily drive the toll roads.

The OK toll road authority is unlikely to consider a short toll road along US 287 isolated from their other facilities; the best chance that road has for improvement to 4-lane limited access is the usual modern method -- take the existing HPC #38 designation, get a congressman from along the corridor to append  a corresponding Interstate designation (in this case, undoubtedly a new I-27 section) and insert it into a recurring funding bill, and start lobbying for specific project funding.   Since this section of the P-to-P traverses 3 states, some sort of coordinated effort from representatives from each state certainly wouldn't hurt the cause.   It's how the nascent I-14 got its start, as did I-22, I-11, and other recent system additions; in a time of generally dysfunctional governance, this approach (often decried as "pork" by observers not directly in the path of these corridors) is often, despite is convoluted nature, the only way to get projects off the ground.  The alternative of slapping tolls on facilities usually involves a PPP approach; and TX in particular is, for good reason, quite wary of that methodology these days.   And in these days, a revisiting of a coordinated (and chargeable!) multi-corridor Interstate addition program stands as much chance of success as an ice cube on a Phoenix sidewalk in August!     

https://www.12newsnow.com/article/traffic/interstate-14-may-be-coming-to-beaumont/502-4aef09b1-ad19-4de0-90e4-23231302ffd5

Beaumont wants a piece of the action......Now things get interesting. Some of you may get the I-10 bypass after all, just in a different direction.

Ummm....how?

US 69/96 is already freeway standard from the interchange with I-10 to where 69 and 96 split near Lumberton. Four-laning either one to connect with I-69 would be suitable enough.

Quote from: longhorn on August 21, 2019, 11:49:33 AM
https://www.12newsnow.com/article/traffic/interstate-14-may-be-coming-to-beaumont/502-4aef09b1-ad19-4de0-90e4-23231302ffd5

Beaumont wants a piece of the action......Now things get interesting. Some of you may get the I-10 bypass after all, just in a different direction.

Just another long term wish. I don't see this I-14 highway getting built anytime soon. If we had unlimited money, I'm all for it. But in reality, on a limited budget, it's a low priority.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 21, 2019, 12:01:41 PM
Ummm....how?

US 69/96 is already freeway standard from the interchange with I-10 to where 69 and 96 split near Lumberton. Four-laning either one to connect with I-69 would be suitable enough.

Likely a spur from I-14 branching off to Beaumont.

I also notice from the map from the news article that Alabama is no longer part of the route they are seeking.  It ends at I-59 at Laurel, MS.

Given that Mississippi is broke and can't even get I-69 built, why are they even still pursuing I-14 there?

Mississippi has its plate full just with the I-69 stuff near Memphis and its part of the Great River Bridge. Any stuff with I-14 would be way down the list of priorities.

I don't see I-14 getting East of Huntsville, much less making it to the Future I-69 corridor at Livingston. Lake Livingston is going to be a big hurdle.

Regarding Beaumont, I-14 would have to be built at least to Woodville or Jasper to allow construction of a 40+ mile spur down toward the Beaumont area. I don't see much justification of upgrading US-287/69 to Interstate quality North of the split with TX-96 in Lumberton. Any such upgrade would require a new terrain bypass due to development hugging too closely to the highway corridor.

Out of highways in the Beaumont area worth upgrading to Interstate quality, US-90 going West out of Beaumont should be the highest priority, IMHO. An Interstate quality upgrade from Beaumont to the Grand Parkway could move a bunch of I-10 traffic otherwise bound for Austin well North of the downtown Houston area.

TX-73 from I-10 @ Winnie over to Port Arthur is divided 4-lane with a couple freeway segments. That corridor could be upgraded into a larger 3-digit I-10 loop (meeting back up with I-10 just West of Pinehurst & Orange, TX). Such a route could help with heavy truck traffic from oil refineries as well as aid in hurricane evacuation.

Back to I-14, I think the route is going to see enough difficulty just getting built inside the Texas Triangle. The current route drawn on the maps is utter nonsense (the jagged "W" shape route), obviously drawn to politically include as many towns as possible on the route. Meanwhile other outer loop and spoke corridors nearby in Houston are going to be competing for highway development resources. The Grand Parkway is already a big priority. TX-105 from Navasota to Conroe and then Cleveland is seeing a lot of development along its corridor. The Tomball Parkway (TX-249) will eventually be extended to TX-6 near College Station.

I think the proponents of I-14 within the Texas Triangle need to get their act together ASAP and get a proper, logical corridor figured out. If it only follows along the existing US-190 route then there's no reason to build the freaking highway at all. A new Interstate needs to yield some improvements, like a more direct route to the major destination. That should start with dumping Madisonville and a 25 mile long multiplex with I-45 off the route. Build the damned thing direct between College Station and Huntsville. The same goes for the leg between Cameron and Hearne. Dump Milano and bypass Hearne to the South to get to Bryan & College Station more direct.

^^^^^^^^^^
Likely outcome as previously predicted:  I-14 cuts off Cameron-Hearne, uses (more or less) TX 30 between Bryan/College Station and Huntsville in order to utilize as much of the TX 6 alignment as possible.  East of Huntsville is still problematic (as Bobby said, Lake Livingston poses a big obstacle re both the lake and the housing arrayed around it); a Beaumont option might provoke some interest in bypassing the lake to the south to shorten the distance there.  Although the map -- which still shows that stupid "14S/14N" arrangement out in W. Texas (although the Congressman that pushed for the more southerly but less populated/necessary branch via US 190 has announced his retirement, so that branch might eventually be deleted along with him!) -- indicates the Beaumont connection as a branch of the I-14 trunk, unless LA and possibly MS' plans for the corridor advance beyond mere speculation, something shunting the corridor down to Beaumont (and maybe even past there to a Port Arthur terminus) might be as far east as the I-14 "family" ever gets -- and the primary designation may well eventually shift down there rather than east to a Sabine River crossing that won't go anywhere.  That would be in keeping with Texas' main concern being highways within its boundaries (a la the I-69/369 prioritization up in the state's NE corner); such a routing would offer a Houston bypass and provide a direct route for I-10 traffic to veer off through the "Triangle" (and potentially beyond).   That rationale is probably sufficient to at least get preliminary studies underway regarding Huntsville-Beaumont.   

Quote from: sparker on August 21, 2019, 06:03:07 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
Likely outcome as previously predicted:  I-14 cuts off Cameron-Hearne, uses (more or less) TX 30 between Bryan/College Station and Huntsville in order to utilize as much of the TX 6 alignment as possible.  East of Huntsville is still problematic (as Bobby said, Lake Livingston poses a big obstacle re both the lake and the housing arrayed around it); a Beaumont option might provoke some interest in bypassing the lake to the south to shorten the distance there.  Although the map -- which still shows that stupid "14S/14N" arrangement out in W. Texas (although the Congressman that pushed for the more southerly but less populated/necessary branch via US 190 has announced his retirement, so that branch might eventually be deleted along with him!) -- indicates the Beaumont connection as a branch of the I-14 trunk, unless LA and possibly MS' plans for the corridor advance beyond mere speculation, something shunting the corridor down to Beaumont (and maybe even past there to a Port Arthur terminus) might be as far east as the I-14 "family" ever gets -- and the primary designation may well eventually shift down there rather than east to a Sabine River crossing that won't go anywhere.  That would be in keeping with Texas' main concern being highways within its boundaries (a la the I-69/369 prioritization up in the state's NE corner); such a routing would offer a Houston bypass and provide a direct route for I-10 traffic to veer off through the "Triangle" (and potentially beyond).   That rationale is probably sufficient to at least get preliminary studies underway regarding Huntsville-Beaumont.   

Or they can just leave it as is and expand it westward as they progress on widening US190. Terminus could be Abilene or Midland/Odessa. An intrastate route to connect West Texas to the Central Texas Corridor isn't a bad idea. I mean we have I2 in the RGV. I14 could be just like I12 in Louisiana.

I-12 is really a straight I-10 bypass of New Orleans. The road really ought to have a 3-digit I-10 related number rather than I-12.

Unlike I-12 in Louisiana, I-14 in Texas directly connects no major destinations. Killeen to San Angelo or Midland is not exactly a high traffic corridor or one that directly connects thru to long distance destinations (like I-12). At best, I-14 thru the central Texas Triangle, will work as a Northern partial outer loop for the Houston metro.

^^^^^^^^^^^
Somehow, the fact that it doesn't directly serve one of the major TX metro areas may be I-14's salient point, particularly in a role as a bypass of everything along the I-10 corridor (at least from San Antonio east).  Sure, it doesn't serve the one central TX city lacking any E-W Interstate service, Austin -- but that city is rife with traffic issues to the point that attempting to route a E-W corridor through there for any purpose except a bidirectional accessway from Austin itself is a self-defeating concept.  With San Angelo, Temple, and Bryan/State College as the major population centers traversed by the I-14 corridor as presently proposed, the entire corridor -- even the part west of I-35 -- serves as a relatively traffic-free way to get from Houston and points east to far West Texas (and, if corresponding P-to-P/I-27 development takes place, Lubbock and the Panhandle as well) without having to deal with San Antonio, Austin, DFW, or any other existing chokepoints.  I-14 makes sense as a relief route rather than a simple set of lines connecting population centers.  TX already has that -- I-10 east of SA, I-35 as a whole, I-45, and even much of I-20.  The fact that the west TX section of I-10 was routed through a lot of nothing (I always thought that it was odd to shoot it west via old US 290 rather than through San Angelo and by the now-defunct Goodfellow AFB -- but that's what old Tom MacDonald and friends came up with in the '40's, so it stuck!) is itself something of an anomaly -- but then it was the only stretch of original TX Interstate that didn't follow a major rail line -- hence the lack of population centers along that segment.  Maybe they were just trying to avoid having to build a major bridge across the Pecos gorge along US 90 farther south (that would have at least gone through Del Rio), and 290 didn't have much in the way of mountains along the pathway (neither does US 87 through San Angelo, for that matter). 

But realistically any plans for I-14 west of its present west terminus are likely to be dependent upon what eventually occurs regarding the I-27/Port-to-Plains various proposals -- and how a viable network can be cobbled out of the two corridors' routings.   Part of that sentiment arises from the fact that the original US 190 route through another lot of nothing west of Brady was due to the influence of representative Hurd, in whose district that "branch" lies -- and who recently announced his retirement.  If a I-27 proposal makes it in to his district (which hugs the US/Mexico border), the southern I-14 won't be a political necessity, and a San Angelo-based routing will prevail -- giving Hurd's successor a check in the "win" column for their P-to-P segment rather than any unnecessary E-W routing through Menard along US 190.  Since corridors these days are inherently political animals (like it or not!), the presence of two largely overlapping proposals has, if skillfully manipulated, the chance of yielding some semblance of order and rationality.  The trick is to step back, defocus, and look at the whole potential West Texas network as a "forest" rather than a bunch of disparate "trees", and rearrange the overall picture into (a) one that yields the most effective overall network for the area and (b) in doing so gives the various political players their own reason for claiming victory.  In this case that entails I-27/P-to-P along US 87 south to San Angelo (with it "split" alignments via Big Spring and Midland intact) and then US 277 south of there to Del Rio and then on toward Laredo, and I-14 west via Brady and US 87 directly to San Angelo.  Multiple congressional districts will get their pet projects -- and the west Texas Interstate network gels into something that serves both long-distance as well as local interests.   

Quote from: sparkerSomehow, the fact that it doesn't directly serve one of the major TX metro areas may be I-14's salient point, particularly in a role as a bypass of everything along the I-10 corridor (at least from San Antonio east).  Sure, it doesn't serve the one central TX city lacking any E-W Interstate service, Austin -- but that city is rife with traffic issues to the point that attempting to route a E-W corridor through there for any purpose except a bidirectional accessway from Austin itself is a self-defeating concept.

Going back to the 1980's Austin only had I-35 and a portion of the Mopac Expressway, basically two unconnected North-South freeways. 30 years later Austin has far more in the way of freeways and toll roads. Phoenix was in a similar situation. If a city grows beyond a certain population level that eventually requires major improvements and additions to the road network.

People in Austin can be against road building and improvement only so much. The vast majority of people there still get around town primarily by car. No one likes being stuck in traffic jams. At some point even the most hardcore anti-roads people have to relent and agree to allow something new to be built. With that being said there are big road improvement projects in progress, such as the US-183 freeway conversion within Austin. Other big projects are planned, like a Northern extension of the US-183A toll road North out of Austin and a western extension of the US-290 freeway.

If Austin keeps growing like it has been, and if other rapidly growing areas between Austin and San Antonio keep up their pace it's going to be a foregone conclusion that Austin will need East-West highway corridors with far greater traffic capacity and efficiency. That means US-290 out to the West and likely both US-290 and TX-71 out to the East will need new freeway or toll road conversions. TX DOT needs to plan for it sooner than later. One bright side is US-290 runs South of the most expensive Hill Country real estate developments. But there is all sorts of new stuff going up in the Dripping Springs area. TX DOT needs to get ahead of that stuff pronto.

Quote from: sparkerWith San Angelo, Temple, and Bryan/State College as the major population centers traversed by the I-14 corridor as presently proposed, the entire corridor -- even the part west of I-35 -- serves as a relatively traffic-free way to get from Houston and points east to far West Texas (and, if corresponding P-to-P/I-27 development takes place, Lubbock and the Panhandle as well) without having to deal with San Antonio, Austin, DFW, or any other existing chokepoints.

Traffic originating or coming through Houston has to go way North just to meet up with the proposed, jagged I-14 route. The proposed route is anything but direct. That ruins any traffic free, time-saving advantage over just staying on I-10. There is just no credible way that I-14 could serve as a relief route for I-10. It's not difficult getting through San Antonio, especially if one sets their driving schedule to avoid peak rush hour times.

Quote from: sparkerThe fact that the west TX section of I-10 was routed through a lot of nothing (I always thought that it was odd to shoot it west via old US 290 rather than through San Angelo and by the now-defunct Goodfellow AFB -- but that's what old Tom MacDonald and friends came up with in the '40's, so it stuck!) is itself something of an anomaly -- but then it was the only stretch of original TX Interstate that didn't follow a major rail line -- hence the lack of population centers along that segment.

San Angelo had fewer people then. And the main "big picture" interest with I-10 in West Texas was linking San Antonio and El Paso with as efficient a highway as possible. A dog-leg turn up to San Angelo wasn't in the cards back then. If they were to go about building I-10 from scratch today it would probably do a ping-pong pork barrel bounce all over the damn place, hitting every possible town in the area code, adding another 200 miles to an already very long drive.

Quote from: sparkerSince corridors these days are inherently political animals (like it or not!), the presence of two largely overlapping proposals has, if skillfully manipulated, the chance of yielding some semblance of order and rationality.  The trick is to step back, defocus, and look at the whole potential West Texas network as a "forest" rather than a bunch of disparate "trees", and rearrange the overall picture into (a) one that yields the most effective overall network for the area and (b) in doing so gives the various political players their own reason for claiming victory.

Given the importance of the oil business as well as serving the biggest cities out in that part of Texas, I would have to say I-27 would have a better shot at getting something built either to the Midland-Odessa area (down from Lubbock) and/or San Angelo. The current North end of I-27 terminates at one of America's most busy freight rail hubs. Not everything the oil industry uses or produces gets pumped through pipelines. For intra-state commerce I think extending I-27 down as far as Laredo (and extending I-2 up to meet it) matters more than building I-14. It's going to do more to generate and facilitate business.

^^^^^^^^^^
Scoping out the efficacy of a Houston-to-the I-10/20 split trip via the potential I-14 versus existing I-10 does show that a trip up I-45 to Huntsville before turning west on the corridor -- and making the assumption that the corridor will do the rational thing and (a) go directly between Huntsville & College Station and (b) "cut the corner" between Hearne and Cameron -- if extended to San Angelo and on to I-20 at Midland, the distance is some 635 miles versus about 584 right down I-10; the difference would be halved if the 249 toll facility were to be completed out to the Navasota area as ultimately planned.  And Bobby is correct -- if one has the luxury of picking & choosing when San Antonio would be traversed, the existing routing is just fine -- but if not, it's essentially a wash between the two corridors -- some extra miles in exchange for the avoidance of urban congestion. 

There is no doubt that corridors such as I-14 -- whether they receive federal designation as this one did, or not -- are born of pork served up by local interests looking to expedite development by enticing warehousing and distribution centers along the routes (although our current president might not care much for the targets of those efforts!).  But by now that should be "old hat";  the odds don't favor a reiteration of "master planned" corridors or anything reeking of federal chargability, for that matter.   So locals either resign themselves to do without or engage in the manipulations required to advance their corridor from a line on a map to a working facility.  Absent an unforeseen bout of asceticism among cities and/or regions, that's what is SOP these days.  The best one can hope for is that as much fat as possible is trimmed from any particular piece of that pork.  With the case of the combined West Texas corridor concepts, there's a shitload left to trim; the only chance that a rational network will emerge is for a joint effort by the backers of each to provide a clear view of what will accomplish regional goals but function as cost-effectively as feasible.       

 Hmm, this gets interesting, lets be realistic. I-14 between Temple and Bryan/CS will be first with a connector to I-45......somewhere. But if the next stage is a "connector" built to Beaumont, I could see this as an easy sales job. It connects the Metroplex and Central Texas with I-10 and bypasses Houston. Is it necessary? Of course  not, but I could such a route being popular.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 01, 2019, 06:47:33 PM
Is there any time table when the second set of lanes will be added to the 4.5 miles of limited access Super 2 around the South side of Copperas Cove?

Per the TxDOT Project Tracker  (http://apps.dot.state.tx.us/apps-cq/project_tracker/), widening 5.12 miles of the Copperas Cove bypass, estimated to cost $39.3 million, will begin within the next four years. Completion is to be determined.

Quote from: longhorn on August 26, 2019, 09:42:54 AM
Hmm, this gets interesting, lets be realistic. I-14 between Temple and Bryan/CS will be first with a connector to I-45......somewhere. But if the next stage is a "connector" built to Beaumont, I could see this as an easy sales job. It connects the Metroplex and Central Texas with I-10 and bypasses Houston. Is it necessary? Of course  not, but I could such a route being popular.

If a I-14-related connector between Beaumont and Huntsville is considered for development, the local viewpoint of the project might well be as just another edition of the various "rings" around greater Houston -- maybe the outermost, in practical terms.  At this point, most freeway/Interstate projects in the eastern portion of TX (the I-69 cluster notwithstanding) will likely be configured as "relief routes" rather than simple point-to-point connectors between metro areas; the object will be to circumvent congestion rather than funnel even more traffic into the chokepoints.  That may in part account for the lack of enthusiasm within Austin for direct E-W connection to I-10 and/or the Houston area; local officials and residents witnessing congestion on a daily basis translate that into a skepticism regarding additional access points.  Even though I-35 is the only Interstate serving Austin, its contribution to the traffic problem may be considered more than enough to avoid adding to the load with more inbound facilities; any civic pride that could be bolstered by adding a E-W Interstate to the mix gets swamped by the reality of regular local congestion.   

Quote from: LonghornHmm, this gets interesting, lets be realistic. I-14 between Temple and Bryan/CS will be first with a connector to I-45......somewhere. But if the next stage is a "connector" built to Beaumont, I could see this as an easy sales job.

I think it's a tough sell. It's one thing to get I-14 built from the Temple area down to College Station and over to Huntsville (hopefully deleting some of the "shark teeth" shaped angles on the route to make it at least somewhat straight). It's another to blow hundreds of millions of dollars on an extension through Lake Livingston to meet with the future I-69 corridor. It's another big leap still to blow even more money on an extension thru Woodville and Jasper over to the LA border. A spur down to Beaumont depends 100% on all those I-14 segments getting built.

Then there's the matter of other important corridors within the Texas triangle that are going to be competing for funding with I-14. I've talked repeatedly about US-290 between Houston and Austin. TX-71 is another big corridor with legit upgrade needs. Add the Grand Parkway and TX-105 in the Northern reaches of the greater Houston metro.

Out of North-South corridors, TX-6 from Waco down through College Station is often the route of choice for traffic coming from or thru Fort Worth to reach the Houston metro. TX-6 is turning into a relief route for I-45. Fort Worth has a city limits population of 874,000 people. Austin is bound to join the 1 million+ club of cities. With a decade or two Fort Worth could become the 5th city in Texas to break the 1 million population barrier. Traffic demand along TX-6 could increase dramatically once the Tomball Parkway (TX-249) is extended to Navasota.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 26, 2019, 02:57:24 PM

Quote from: LonghornHmm, this gets interesting, lets be realistic. I-14 between Temple and Bryan/CS will be first with a connector to I-45......somewhere. But if the next stage is a "connector" built to Beaumont, I could see this as an easy sales job.

I think it's a tough sell. It's one thing to get I-14 built from the Temple area down to College Station and over to Huntsville (hopefully deleting some of the "shark teeth" shaped angles on the route to make it at least somewhat straight). It's another to blow hundreds of millions of dollars on an extension through Lake Livingston to meet with the future I-69 corridor. It's another big leap still to blow even more money on an extension thru Woodville and Jasper over to the LA border. A spur down to Beaumont depends 100% on all those I-14 segments getting built.

Then there's the matter of other important corridors within the Texas triangle that are going to be competing for funding with I-14. I've talked repeatedly about US-290 between Houston and Austin. TX-71 is another big corridor with legit upgrade needs. Add the Grand Parkway and TX-105 in the Northern reaches of the greater Houston metro.

Out of North-South corridors, TX-6 from Waco down through College Station is often the route of choice for traffic coming from or thru Fort Worth to reach the Houston metro. TX-6 is turning into a relief route for I-45. Fort Worth has a city limits population of 874,000 people. Austin is bound to join the 1 million+ club of cities. With a decade or two Fort Worth could become the 5th city in Texas to break the 1 million population barrier. Traffic demand along TX-6 could increase dramatically once the Tomball Parkway (TX-249) is extended to Navasota.

If & when I-14 gets completed between Temple and Huntsville, it's likely that quite a bit of that Fort Worth-Houston traffic will shunt over to that facility simply because of the lack of slogs through the intervening towns along TX 6.  And a fully completed (at least 4 lane) TX 249, toll or not, will be a godsend to the composite traffic counts on the Triangle I-14 segment -- although it would be expected that commercial traffic would "shunpike" it over to I-45 at Huntsville.  And I wholeheartedly agree that any freeway extension east of Huntsville will likely require circumventing Lake Livingston to the south -- giving that part of the corridor more of a "Houston outer bypass" feel than any sort of multistate corridor; as I've iterated before, that just might precipitate the prioritization of the Beaumont connector (since a southern route would decidedly shorten the overall distance between the E-W trunk and Beaumont) over an extension to the Sabine River (a la the I-69/369 situation farther north).  I'd go so far to say that unless LA interests actually put their money where their mouth is, such an extension through the piney woods is functionally dead in the water -- the Beaumont branch notwithstanding!  Again, this being TX and their penchant for looking after their regional interests (and other states be damned!), if I-14 itself ended up in Beaumont (or even Port Arthur for that matter) I for one wouldn't be too surprised!

we don't need any more new terrain interstates, we can barely maintain what we have!

Eh this corridor seems like a road to nowhere. But then again US277 could be made into I44 from Wichita Falls to Abilene.

Quote from: sparkerIf & when I-14 gets completed between Temple and Huntsville, it's likely that quite a bit of that Fort Worth-Houston traffic will shunt over to that facility simply because of the lack of slogs through the intervening towns along TX 6.

With I-14 there is a whole lot more if than [/i]when[/i] regarding any completion of that route to Huntsville. And the possibility of Huntsville being baked in the I-14 pork pie is only good if I-14 gets extended across to Livingston. Inside of the Texas triangle the route is slated to end at Madisonville, 25 miles NW of Huntsville. There's no reason to multiplex I-14 with I-45 along that stretch unless the road goes farther east.

As long as the proposed route is shaped with angled zig-zags like the ones on Charlie Brown's shirt the route won't do squat to pull traffic off TX-6.

I would like TX-6 better if it was a fully limited access route between Waco and Bryan. But I wouldn't call that part of the drive a slog. There's a couple stop lights in Hearne and Calvert. It's a freeway through the Bryan-College Station area. I've driven it plenty of times on drives down to Houston and had enough bad experiences with jams on I-45 to appreciate the alternative.

Quote from: motorola870Eh this corridor seems like a road to nowhere. But then again US277 could be made into I44 from Wichita Falls to Abilene.

The act of extending I-44 from Wichita Falls down to I-20 would be far more beneficial to the big picture, national function of the Interstate highway system than this I-14 stuff.

Wow, I-14 is starting to make even less sense than ever!

The only bit of sense the entirity of I-14 would make would be as an alternative should I-10 go under water under climate change. Otherwise, it's just pork.

San Angelo can get sufficient coverage under an I-27 extension. Temple and College Station can be served by a US 290 or SH 249 upgrade to greater Houston. US 69 can be four laned from Lumberton to meet I-69 at Lufkin. SH 71 can be freewayized to serve the Houston-Austin corridor.

Completing the I-69/I-369 collossus needs to be the main focus, not this pipedream.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 28, 2019, 12:57:28 AM
The only bit of sense the entirity of I-14 would make would be as an alternative should I-10 go under water under climate change. Otherwise, it's just pork.

It's all pork. I-14 and the idea of I-10 going underwater.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 28, 2019, 01:10:22 AM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 28, 2019, 12:57:28 AM
The only bit of sense the entirity of I-14 would make would be as an alternative should I-10 go under water under climate change. Otherwise, it's just pork.

It's all pork. I-14 and the idea of I-10 going underwater.

Even I've acknowledged that there's more pork than actual substance in the I-14 plans, even the halfway useful segment bisecting the Triangle.  But despite that characterization, it's something that, because of the politics involved, will likely be built over the next couple of decades; it's not going away regardless of how many times we can apply derogatory terminology to the corridor and the corresponding planning efforts.  All we can do aside from interminably repeating the notion that it shouldn't really exist in the first place is to try to suggest ways to make that pork feed as many travelers and regional residents as possible.  And, at least IMO, that means (a) forwarding the idea of straightening out the cross-Triangle path as much as possible (that map showing the pathway following all of US 190 was simply an illustration of the current dominant route between the end points, not the final path the corridor will follow).  The only three points that the corridor will almost certainly serve are Cameron, Hearne, and College Station/Bryan; and the second one because it's the logical place to cross the Brazos floodplain (the RR's figured that one out a century ago!).  And (b) get rid of that blatantly dumbass "route split" west of Brady and shoot the corridor straight toward San Angelo, where it would intersect and functionally terminate at the somewhat more rational P-to-P corridor.         

The bit about I-10 "going underwater" actually arose from one of the original I-14 proposals -- well east of TX -- back in the early 2000's when the E-W corridor was initially proposed.  The series of Gulf storms culminating in '05's Katrina for a brief moment prompted renewed interest in a "relief" corridor to serve as an alternative when I-10 was out of service because of damaged/destroyed bridges and berms.  Of course, that concept eventually faded away, although backers of eastern I-14 extensions in LA & MS have brought it up from time to time.  Obviously, AL didn't buy into the concept; their decision to avoid future freeway construction has, for the time being, sealed I-14's fate east of I-59 (not that it was going to get that far in the near future anyway!).   

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 28, 2019, 01:10:22 AM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 28, 2019, 12:57:28 AM
The only bit of sense the entirity of I-14 would make would be as an alternative should I-10 go under water under climate change. Otherwise, it's just pork.

It's all pork. I-14 and the idea of I-10 going underwater.

already happened in houston

Quote from: silverback1065 on August 29, 2019, 07:09:23 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 28, 2019, 01:10:22 AM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 28, 2019, 12:57:28 AM
The only bit of sense the entirity of I-14 would make would be as an alternative should I-10 go under water under climate change. Otherwise, it's just pork.

It's all pork. I-14 and the idea of I-10 going underwater.

already happened in houston

Well, due to a major hurricane that sat over Houston for days on end dumping continuous amounts of rain. I'm referring to the pork that the entire coast will be underwater by 2050 or whatever under "climate change".

I'd number proposed Interstate 14N as Interstate 18 (since that designation is not being used, unlike 12 and 16), and proposed Interstate 14S would be mainline Interstate 14. Of course that assumes that Interstates 14N and 14S need to be constructed in their proposed entirety, which I strongly disbelieve. When are they ever going to give the "pork" back to the farmers?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2019, 05:21:30 PM
I'd number proposed Interstate 14N as Interstate 18 (since that designation is not being used, unlike 12 and 16), and proposed Interstate 14S would be mainline Interstate 14. Of course that assumes that Interstates 14N and 14S need to be constructed in their proposed entirety, which I strongly disbelieve. When are they ever going to give the "pork" back to the farmers?

Honestly TXDOT needs to actually take into consideration the small towns they risk destroying by bypassing them and all the traffic shifting out of town. looking at this proposed routing to San Angelo honestly they would better better off just following US183 north out Lometa to Brownwood and then send it up US84 to interstate 20. The reasoning looking at the proposed routing it will affect a lot small towns that probably would lose a lot of local business while brownwood would benefit more from a bypass when San Angelo has full fledged grade separation already built. There also seems to be way more tiny town bypasses needed to be built than heading to Abilene. Yes there are a few but not as many as the San Angelo alternative.

Quote from: motorola870 on August 31, 2019, 06:31:59 AM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2019, 05:21:30 PM
I'd number proposed Interstate 14N as Interstate 18 (since that designation is not being used, unlike 12 and 16), and proposed Interstate 14S would be mainline Interstate 14. Of course that assumes that Interstates 14N and 14S need to be constructed in their proposed entirety, which I strongly disbelieve. When are they ever going to give the "pork" back to the farmers?

Honestly TXDOT needs to actually take into consideration the small towns they risk destroying by bypassing them and all the traffic shifting out of town. looking at this proposed routing to San Angelo honestly they would better better off just following US183 north out Lometa to Brownwood and then send it up US84 to interstate 20. The reasoning looking at the proposed routing it will affect a lot small towns that probably would lose a lot of local business while brownwood would benefit more from a bypass when San Angelo has full fledged grade separation already built. There also seems to be way more tiny town bypasses needed to be built than heading to Abilene. Yes there are a few but not as many as the San Angelo alternative. They keep screaming Odessa but I don't see how it would be cost effective. Not to mention Abilene already has grade separation on the loops I don't this interstate really has any need for being built other than a few congress critters wanting a interstate in their backyard. I mean heck the section of U.S. 287 from Amarillo to Ennis has more traffic than this and doesn't even qualify yet as an interstate but we want to send a interstate through rural Texas with very low traffic counts. They now are in the planning stages of having U.S. 287 full grade separated south of I20 to I45 with frontages roads from I20 to I45 which I believe should be the first section of the fabled interstate 32. At the current present they have built all of the bypasses not to mention it is a hurricane evacuation route.

Quote from: motorola870 on August 31, 2019, 07:02:44 AM

Quote from: motorola870 on August 31, 2019, 06:31:59 AM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2019, 05:21:30 PM
I'd number proposed Interstate 14N as Interstate 18 (since that designation is not being used, unlike 12 and 16), and proposed Interstate 14S would be mainline Interstate 14. Of course that assumes that Interstates 14N and 14S need to be constructed in their proposed entirety, which I strongly disbelieve. When are they ever going to give the "pork" back to the farmers?

Honestly TXDOT needs to actually take into consideration the small towns they risk destroying by bypassing them and all the traffic shifting out of town. looking at this proposed routing to San Angelo honestly they would better better off just following US183 north out Lometa to Brownwood and then send it up US84 to interstate 20. The reasoning looking at the proposed routing it will affect a lot small towns that probably would lose a lot of local business while brownwood would benefit more from a bypass when San Angelo has full fledged grade separation already built. There also seems to be way more tiny town bypasses needed to be built than heading to Abilene. Yes there are a few but not as many as the San Angelo alternative. They keep screaming Odessa but I don't see how it would be cost effective. Not to mention Abilene already has grade separation on the loops I don't this interstate really has any need for being built other than a few congress critters wanting a interstate in their backyard. I mean heck the section of U.S. 287 from Amarillo to Ennis has more traffic than this and doesn't even qualify yet as an interstate but we want to send a interstate through rural Texas with very low traffic counts. They now are in the planning stages of having U.S. 287 full grade separated south of I20 to I45 with frontages roads from I20 to I45 which I believe should be the first section of the fabled interstate 32. At the current present they have built all of the bypasses not to mention it is a hurricane evacuation route.

The N/S split doesn't need to exist; it's only there for 2 reasons:  the original HPC #84 authorizing legislation (2015) was so brief regarding its descriptive language that it simply stated US 190 as the basic route.  The second reason stems from the first:  the "north" corridor along US 87 traverses one congressional district, while the US 190 "branch" to the south crosses another -- and both congresspersons wanted a piece of the porkpie for their district.  The congressman from the southern district (Hurd) is retiring next year; it's unclear whether his successor will be as concerned with this issue, particularly in light of the renewed interest in the Port-to-Plains corridor, which would also cross Hurd's district along US 277.   Realistically, I-14 should follow the path of population west of Brady, which means US 87 via Eden to San Angelo, the largest city along the corridor (except for Midland/Odessa, which is along a part of the projected corridor duplicated by Port-to-Plains/I-27).

But the chances are any extension of I-14 west of Lampasas is well off into the distant future; the developmental concentration is where most of the political interest is regarding the corridor, and that's the "Triangle" anchored by San Antonio, Houston, and DFW.  They've been angling for their own Interstate cutting across it for decades -- as long as it serves Bryan/College Station in the process.  The I-14 proposal does so, so it's now a matter of (a) cobbling up an exact alignment and (b) identifying funding.  Earlier posts discussed the potential for anything east of I-45 at Huntsville; the general consensus is that it won't happen unless the corridor is shifted somewhat south around Lake Livingston -- at which point it's more of a northern Houston "arc" than a central TX E-W arterial; and since E. TX politicos have inserted their fingers into the development process, there's now a designated Beaumont "branch", which, if TX historical methodology prevails, might just be prioritized over the I-14 "trunk" that heads to the state line east of Jasper.   But again all this is simply speculative right now; TxDOT and their promotional affiliates are still concentrating on I-69 and its various iterations; that's where the money is going (aside from localized projects in the major urban areas) for the near term.  Shaking loose I-14 funding may not occur for a decade or two, with the initial batch of $$ going to studies and possibly some preliminary ROW acquisition once an actual alignment is selected.  It's unlikely any significant construction save the upgrades around Copperas Cove will commence before 2030 at the earliest.   But enough locals are vested in this concept to eventually get the ball rolling, at least within the Triangle if not further west.   

Is I-14's only purpose to serve Fort Hood?

Quote from: dariusb on September 06, 2019, 09:12:50 PM
Is I-14's only purpose to serve Fort Hood?

Until any remaining portions are funded and constructed, the answer is yes.  But it'll likely be extended east before anything west of Lampasas is even given serious study; the intrastate political support is considerably greater for a cross-Triangle alignment than one westward toward San Angelo; the precise western corridor extension alignment needs to "gel" prior to any other activity taking place.  Chances are, even with clamoring from San Angelo and Midland/Odessa, nothing will be done out that far for at least 15-20 years -- probably more.  Not something to hold one's breath over.

Quote from: dariusb on September 06, 2019, 09:12:50 PM
Is I-14's only purpose to serve Fort Hood?

no it's to waste money that could go to more useful roads.   :-D

Quote from: silverback1065 on September 07, 2019, 02:00:38 PM

Quote from: dariusb on September 06, 2019, 09:12:50 PM
Is I-14's only purpose to serve Fort Hood?

no it's to waste money that could go to more useful roads.   :-D

All well & good -- provided those roads (and/or the concepts to upgrade them) have some level of support -- both with the backing of interests which ostensibly would be advanced by such road development, and the compliance of the governing agencies (here, TxDOT) so the damn things can actually get built.  Re I-14:  various posters have opined that better usages for whatever funds are or will be expended on that corridor would be such things as an Austin egress corridor east toward Houston and west connecting to I-10 -- or the upgrading of US 287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo to Interstate standards (seeing as it's one of the principal non-Interstate commercial corridors in the region).  While the rationale here may be arguable and/or reasonable, the reality is that so far no parties have proffered plans for these corridors.  And since we're no longer in an era where routes can be selected primarily on the basis of merit  (the end of that 90% federal chargeability effectively truncated that concept), system expansion has been thrown into the political and economic arenas.  But the overriding working adage here is "you gotta be in it to win it".  It all comes down to: I-14 has political and official support, the alternately suggested (here) corridors don't; the funding is far from fungible.  So as long as the Interstate shield is seen as a "good thing" to communities and regions (except in urban enclaves, of course) in terms of enhanced access and salability, corridors that might otherwise never have seen the light of day will be promoted to the extent that their backers can leverage their influence.  Without a cadre of Triangle developers -- and some disgruntled citizenry out West -- I-14 would still be one of those remaining unused Interstate designations.   Now -- if reality creeps in regarding anything east of the Triangle -- plans may change (that's been discussed extensively before in this thread; no need to reiterate here).  The bottom line is that it may take the better part of the next few decades, but there will in all likelihood be an I-14 strung across the Triangle between Temple and Huntsville and passing through the Bryan/College Station area, with a western "tail" knocking on Lampasas' door.  Probably nothing east or west of there for an additional decade or so, with westerly development having the advantage of more vocal backing (and arguably easier deployment).  All we observers can do is wait, watch, and comment/criticize/blither!     

Well, if you're entexased, you can take part in the political process and kick your Congressman around until he puts his support behind whichever corridor you like, or you get him kicked out of office. For the rest of us, though...

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 06:02:13 AM
Well, if you're entexased, you can take part in the political process and kick your Congressman around until he puts his support behind whichever corridor you like, or you get him kicked out of office. For the rest of us, though...

Hey -- enough TX congressfolks are resigning this term to make any future considerations questionable -- best to wait until 2021 before deciding where to apply pressure or cajoling.  But funny thing -- most of the criticism of TX corridors emanates from observers outside the state borders!   It's like people are expecting carefully considered studies, polling of local citizenry, and adherence to the type of standards common from 1956-2000 (when most of the original system had been deployed).  The present structure favors politically motivated corridors -- in fact, it comes close to demanding them -- so unless somehow a moratorium is placed on new Interstate corridors until such time that a national expansion effort replicating the '68 additions (which themselves were hardly apolitical!) is instituted -- and fat chance that such will happen with the current political environment -- we'll all just have to put up with what is proferred and simply put our two cents' worth in regarding minimizing any egregious aspects.   And as I've averred before -- the blame for all this goes back 46 years with Nixon and his cohorts effectively terminating many top-down programs in favor of the "block grant" approach, a methodology largely in place today.     

GMSV from November 2018 show exit numbers at 289 & west, and no numbers at 290 & east.
I'm guessing TXDOT was in the process of installing them at the time.
What's the status now; are there more numbers out there in the field?

Interstate 14's exits are numbered via US 190's mileage. I doubt they will be renumbered anytime soon.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 12, 2019, 02:38:37 PM
Interstate 14's exits are numbered via US 190's mileage. I doubt they will be renumbered anytime soon.

Unless the eventual route of I-14 is truncated in San Angelo, it's likely that TxDOT won't need to change the numbers; the mileage to Midland (at/near the junction of I-20 and TX 158) approximates the mileage to the western terminus of US 190.  But the whole situation is moot until a final alignment is selected -- and it doesn't look like that's in the cards anytime soon.

And yet they still can't put exit numbers on I-69E between I-37 and Robstown, and once the Driscoll Bypass is completed, down to Kingsville.

At least there's exit numbers on I-2.
:D

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 12, 2019, 11:29:50 PM
At least there's exit numbers on I-2.
:D

And calibrated for a western terminus in Laredo, no less!  Maybe wishful thinking on the part of TxDOT -- or they know something we don't!?  My guess -- really long-range plans, likely tied to (a) lower Rio Grande Valley growth and/or (b) increased congestion at the Laredo-area border crossings (which is what, I thought, I-69C was supposed to alleviate via diversion to McAllen/Hidalgo).  I-2 may well be part of an effort to cover all contingencies re commercial border crossings. 

We'll find out in the coming decades, if we all live that long.

http://www.tdtnews.com/news/central_texas_news/article_aeb82317-eb3c-56ca-95f1-46c96be7ddbe.html

Further lane expansion from Killeen to Belton. This to the foot of Nolanville Hill. Don't know they just bid the project out to I-35 and lock in today's cost. The amount of car traffic from the Copperas Cove Killeen/Ft Hood to Temple area has skyrocketed.

Quote from: longhorn on October 03, 2019, 03:09:43 PM
http://www.tdtnews.com/news/central_texas_news/article_aeb82317-eb3c-56ca-95f1-46c96be7ddbe.html

Further lane expansion from Killeen to Belton. This to the foot of Nolanville Hill. Don't know they just bid the project out to I-35 and lock in today's cost. The amount of car traffic from the Copperas Cove Killeen/Ft Hood to Temple area has skyrocketed.

There was a reason -- aside from getting a "foot through the door" -- that the I-14 corridor backers pressed for their route's signage on the US 190 freeway -- they could make a case that regional traffic outside the main urban centers was increasing at much the same rate as that in the cities, thus bolstering their argument for corridor development.  Of course, they had Fort Hood going for them -- one of the few remaining military establishments that hasn't drastically pared down its facilities or purpose, supporting most of the region's population (the existing I-14 is their "main street"); additionally small manufacturing and warehousing facilities are relocating to the area (the costs there haven't reached that of DFW or even Austin/San Antonio) to save money.   If I-14 backers can press the case that such activity will extend east (or, less likely, west) from the existing signed section once the freeway is extended, such extension may occur sooner than later -- even though such prognostication may be based on less than highly robust data.  If the Temple-Harker-Copperas population spikes in the next several years, I-14's prospects across the "Triangle" should be correspondingly enhanced.  We'll just have to see how it all pans out in the next couple of decades.

Even if Foot Hood can attract additional missions from other Army posts in locations where operational costs are considerably more expensive, Fort Hood is still very close to the I-35 corridor. It's a single location and not one that attracts a great deal of vehicle traffic. I-14 needs more going for it to expand substantially farther East and West. Best case scenario currently is I-14 extending to the College Station area and Huntsville as a outer regional bypass for Houston. I don't see it going farther than that for the time being.

Some proponents of I-14 have been pushing this corridor by wrapping themselves in the American flag and selling the route as a way of linking important military posts. If that was really the honest goal then why go with an East-West route? If helping the Army out was the goal there would be a direct Interstate linking Fort Hood with Fort Sill here in the Lawton, OK area. Sheppard AFB in Wichita Falls is right along the path of the US-281 corridor. Fictionally, US-281 from San Antonio up to Wichita Falls could rightfully be I-33. Anyway, there is a hell of a lot of military traffic and activity that goes on between Fort Hood and Fort Sill. The post here in the Lawton area is home to the Field Artillery school, the Air Defense Artillery School and is a busy Army basic training post. Fort Sill has great historical significance since it is pretty much the place where the Plains Indian Wars ended.

The Fort Hood, Killeen and Copperas Cove area is pretty busy. Meanwhile not far North here in OK the powers that be pretty much ignore the SW part of Oklahoma despite its significance in terms of military installations and manufacturing presence.

In addition to Fort Hood Lawton is also home to one of the world's largest tire manufacturing facilities, run by Goodyear. Several other large manufacturers operate West of town. They host thousands of very well paying jobs. Yet none of those facilities have easy, clean, direct access to I-44. That's a big problem to local street within Lawton as well as county roads outside of town.

Rogers Lane is a fake wannabe Interstate running between Lawton and Fort Sill. It's really just a glorified street, even if it now carries the US-62 designation. What's worse is the highway does not connect directly with the industrial park on Lawton's West side. As a result, most of the commercial traffic from those factories comes in and out from the South. The itty bitty county roads out there cannot handle the brutal load of all those trucks. And now roads like 82nd street have deteriorated so badly that they're now causing lots of very expensive damage to trucks. Goodyear is now making a lot of noise, demanding the road network be improved or else.

Lawton actually needs two new super highways. One being an Interstate quality upgrade of exiting Rogers Lane. The current street is dangerous in its design. The other highway needed is a Southern bypass of town connecting I-44 directly with the industrial park on the West side. Even if it is built initally as an upgrade-able Super 2, even with at-grade intersections, the bypass is badly needed.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Agree with the analysis of the future of I-14 in Texas; for the time being, developmental activity will be centered within the Triangle, but not east of I-45 unless the projected Beaumont "branch" becomes the de facto main line -- still, trying to circumvent Lake Livingston might be a tough task, considering the development around the lake and the potential NIMBY factor arising from such.  My guess it'll end at I-45 near Huntsville -- the last few miles of which will primarily be utilized for commercial traffic east of College Station if & when the TX 6/TX 249 "beeline" to Houston is operative, drawing off much of the non-commercial vehicles.   West of Copperas Cove the corridor's future is tied to both the persuasiveness of the San Angelo and M/O parties in selling that segment; job #1 is winnowing down the routings to one that actually might serve an actual purpose rather than being a political product (being it's TX, that may well be a tall order!).  I predict a 20 to 25-year timeline for Triangle development (including the TX 249 connection); add another 10-15 years for anything west of Copperas.  So by 2059 there should be an operative corridor from Midland to I-45  :rolleyes: -- I'd be 110 then (an unlikely situation), so I'll probably never see it to fruition, much less drive it (unless autonomous cars are commonplace by then!).  So to posterity -- have fun playing with your new corridor, and try to actually use it from time to time!     

I agree with the above posts about I-14 at most connecting to I-45 for the time being. It will facilitate easier travel from Central Texas to the Houston area and I-10.

The expansion between Killeen and Belton is long overdue with the StillHouse and Belton lakes area blowing up at an alarming rate. Live in a 2500 sq ft house in crowded Austin or live 55 minutes up north on the lake in a 4000 SQ ft house for the same money.

I understand the criticism of I-14 and its story being sold is sketchy. But the Central Texas area it runs though is growing by leaps and bounds and traffic numbers bear that out. By the way, they are expanding 190/36 (to be I-14) to freeway status halfway to Cameron from Temple.

Widening I-14 to 3 lanes in each direction from Harker Heights (where the current 3-3 setup ends) to I-35 is a good idea. TX-195 from the South side of Killeen down to I-35 near Georgetown will likely have to be expanded into a full fledged freeway (or toll road) sometime in the near future. There's a big question on how to connect that and TX-201 (which runs by the regional airport) up into I-14. As both roads head North into Killeen toward I-14 they run into too much development in order to expanded along the existing ROWs. The needs of expanding TX-195 as well as extending the US-183 freeway farther North out of Austin towards Lampasas will compete for funding with I-14.

Quote from: longhornBy the way, they are expanding 190/36 (to be I-14) to freeway status halfway to Cameron from Temple.

Cameron is along the proposed I-14 route -the last part of the alignment that makes any sense. There's that stupid "W" shaped nonsense East of it. The big question is how I-14 moves from Belton over to Cameron. If I-14 would run concurrent with I-35 up into Temple to then go along Loop 363 the existing volleyball interchange between I-35 & Loop 363 would be a major stumbling block. Making I-14 skirt South of Temple parallel to FM-1741 would be more do-able.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 04, 2019, 01:52:01 PM
Widening I-14 to 3 lanes in each direction from Harker Heights (where the current 3-3 setup ends) to I-35 is a good idea. TX-195 from the South side of Killeen down to I-35 near Georgetown will likely have to be expanded into a full fledged freeway (or toll road) sometime in the near future. There's a big question on how to connect that and TX-201 (which runs by the regional airport) up into I-14. As both roads head North into Killeen toward I-14 they run into too much development in order to expanded along the existing ROWs. The needs of expanding TX-195 as well as extending the US-183 freeway farther North out of Austin towards Lampasas will compete for funding with I-14.

Quote from: longhornBy the way, they are expanding 190/36 (to be I-14) to freeway status halfway to Cameron from Temple.

Cameron is along the proposed I-14 route -the last part of the alignment that makes any sense. There's that stupid "W" shaped nonsense East of it. The big question is how I-14 moves from Belton over to Cameron. If I-14 would run concurrent with I-35 up into Temple to then go along Loop 363 the existing volleyball interchange between I-35 & Loop 363 would be a major stumbling block. Making I-14 skirt South of Temple parallel to FM-1741 would be more do-able.

Can't find the link but I-14 will go south on I-35 then diverge south of Belton East and connect to the present 190/36 highway.

In regards 201, Stagecoach/Clear Creek Rd, it being planned to continue to I-35, offering a parallel route from 195  to I-35. With the growth around Salado, it will be needed too. Yes, so many needs competing for so few dollars.

Fixed quote. - rmf67

Quote from: longhorn on October 04, 2019, 05:34:39 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 04, 2019, 01:52:01 PM
Widening I-14 to 3 lanes in each direction from Harker Heights (where the current 3-3 setup ends) to I-35 is a good idea. TX-195 from the South side of Killeen down to I-35 near Georgetown will likely have to be expanded into a full fledged freeway (or toll road) sometime in the near future. There's a big question on how to connect that and TX-201 (which runs by the regional airport) up into I-14. As both roads head North into Killeen toward I-14 they run into too much development in order to expanded along the existing ROWs. The needs of expanding TX-195 as well as extending the US-183 freeway farther North out of Austin towards Lampasas will compete for funding with I-14.

Quote from: longhornBy the way, they are expanding 190/36 (to be I-14) to freeway status halfway to Cameron from Temple.

Cameron is along the proposed I-14 route -the last part of the alignment that makes any sense. There's that stupid "W" shaped nonsense East of it. The big question is how I-14 moves from Belton over to Cameron. If I-14 would run concurrent with I-35 up into Temple to then go along Loop 363 the existing volleyball interchange between I-35 & Loop 363 would be a major stumbling block. Making I-14 skirt South of Temple parallel to FM-1741 would be more do-able.

Can't find the link but I-14 will go south on I-35 then diverge south of Belton East and connect to the present 190/36 highway.

In regards 201, Stagecoach/Clear Creek Rd, it being planned to continue to I-35, offering a parallel route from 195  to I-35. With the growth around Salado, it will be needed too. Yes, so many needs competing for so few dollars.

Fixed quote. - rmf67

Avoiding the US 190 alignment at and east of I-35 seems like a wise choice, particularly considering the dense development at the present volleyball interchange between the two routes in Temple.  At least in this instance TxDOT intends to deviate from a route strictly following US 190; let's see if they follow that up with a direct connection from Cameron east to US 79/190 at the Brazos River crossing west of Hearne. 

Top of page 5
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf (https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf)

TxDOT is slated to select a consultant for the entire segment from Killeen to Huntsville in January. Per the normal process, I expect the study to start with an array of candidate alignments and then pick a recommended alignment, probably in 2-3 years.

"Schematic/Environmental  Schematic/Environmental services for the Bryan District: US 190 Regional Corridor Study - Huntsville to Killeen"

One possible scenario is to follow SH 6 north of Bryan/College Station and incorporate the much-needed Hearne bypass into this project. I'm thinking Rockdale will also lobby hard to get it near their area, since they need something to promote economic development after the closure of Alcoa and the power plant. It's probably near certain that it will go near Bryan/College Station, but a direct path to Huntsville would keep in on the north side of the area.

Quote from: MaxConcrete on October 07, 2019, 10:59:28 PM
Top of page 5
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf (https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf)

TxDOT is slated to select a consultant for the entire segment from Killeen to Huntsville in January. Per the normal process, I expect the study to start with an array of candidate alignments and then pick a recommended alignment, probably in 2-3 years.

"Schematic/Environmental  Schematic/Environmental services for the Bryan District: US 190 Regional Corridor Study - Huntsville to Killeen"

One possible scenario is to follow SH 6 north of Bryan/College Station and incorporate the much-needed Hearne bypass into this project. I'm thinking Rockdale will also lobby hard to get it near their area, since they need something to promote economic development after the closure of Alcoa and the power plant. It's probably near certain that it will go near Bryan/College Station, but a direct path to Huntsville would keep in on the north side of the area.

This one will be good.

And we still can't get an interstate highway linking Austin & Houston along SH-71 or US-290?

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 07, 2019, 11:28:15 PM

Quote from: MaxConcrete on October 07, 2019, 10:59:28 PM
Top of page 5
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf (https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf)

TxDOT is slated to select a consultant for the entire segment from Killeen to Huntsville in January. Per the normal process, I expect the study to start with an array of candidate alignments and then pick a recommended alignment, probably in 2-3 years.

"Schematic/Environmental  Schematic/Environmental services for the Bryan District: US 190 Regional Corridor Study - Huntsville to Killeen"

One possible scenario is to follow SH 6 north of Bryan/College Station and incorporate the much-needed Hearne bypass into this project. I'm thinking Rockdale will also lobby hard to get it near their area, since they need something to promote economic development after the closure of Alcoa and the power plant. It's probably near certain that it will go near Bryan/College Station, but a direct path to Huntsville would keep in on the north side of the area.

This one will be good.

And we still can't get an interstate highway linking Austin & Houston along SH-71 or US-290?

If parties from the Austin area would press/lobby for a direct Houston connection, it would likely be added to the queue of TX Interstate projects.  But AFAIK there's been no official requests for even studies for such a route much less efforts to identify an appropriate corridor alignment.  To reiterate a cliche':  you've gotta be in it to win it! -- and so far, no one's in anything -- or seems to have much interest in the concept. 

Quote from: sparker on October 08, 2019, 12:38:59 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 07, 2019, 11:28:15 PM

Quote from: MaxConcrete on October 07, 2019, 10:59:28 PM
Top of page 5
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf (https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf)

TxDOT is slated to select a consultant for the entire segment from Killeen to Huntsville in January. Per the normal process, I expect the study to start with an array of candidate alignments and then pick a recommended alignment, probably in 2-3 years.

"Schematic/Environmental  Schematic/Environmental services for the Bryan District: US 190 Regional Corridor Study - Huntsville to Killeen"

One possible scenario is to follow SH 6 north of Bryan/College Station and incorporate the much-needed Hearne bypass into this project. I'm thinking Rockdale will also lobby hard to get it near their area, since they need something to promote economic development after the closure of Alcoa and the power plant. It's probably near certain that it will go near Bryan/College Station, but a direct path to Huntsville would keep in on the north side of the area.

This one will be good.

And we still can't get an interstate highway linking Austin & Houston along SH-71 or US-290?

If parties from the Austin area would press/lobby for a direct Houston connection, it would likely be added to the queue of TX Interstate projects.  But AFAIK there's been no official requests for even studies for such a route much less efforts to identify an appropriate corridor alignment.  To reiterate a cliche':  you've gotta be in it to win it! -- and so far, no one's in anything -- or seems to have much interest in the concept.

Maybe we need to start a petition 😎

Quote from: sparker on October 08, 2019, 12:38:59 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 07, 2019, 11:28:15 PM

Quote from: MaxConcrete on October 07, 2019, 10:59:28 PM
Top of page 5
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf (https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf)

TxDOT is slated to select a consultant for the entire segment from Killeen to Huntsville in January. Per the normal process, I expect the study to start with an array of candidate alignments and then pick a recommended alignment, probably in 2-3 years.

"Schematic/Environmental  Schematic/Environmental services for the Bryan District: US 190 Regional Corridor Study - Huntsville to Killeen"

One possible scenario is to follow SH 6 north of Bryan/College Station and incorporate the much-needed Hearne bypass into this project. I'm thinking Rockdale will also lobby hard to get it near their area, since they need something to promote economic development after the closure of Alcoa and the power plant. It's probably near certain that it will go near Bryan/College Station, but a direct path to Huntsville would keep in on the north side of the area.

This one will be good.

And we still can't get an interstate highway linking Austin & Houston along SH-71 or US-290?

If parties from the Austin area would press/lobby for a direct Houston connection, it would likely be added to the queue of TX Interstate projects.  But AFAIK there's been no official requests for even studies for such a route much less efforts to identify an appropriate corridor alignment.  To reiterate a cliche':  you've gotta be in it to win it! -- and so far, no one's in anything -- or seems to have much interest in the concept. 

Bingo, apparently the parties at both ends of 290 and those in the middle are not motivated enough to move TxDot to do something about it.

Houston has expanded 290 to cover its suburbs, Austin is not exactly Highway friendly, and surprisingly there have not been head on accidents in the poor man four lane section of 290 just outside of Manor. So no action.

I-14 just between I-35 and I-45 will spur major growth in the Brazos Valley.

Quote from: MaxConcreteTxDOT is slated to select a consultant for the entire segment from Killeen to Huntsville in January. Per the normal process, I expect the study to start with an array of candidate alignments and then pick a recommended alignment, probably in 2-3 years.

Here's a bit of "consulting" they can have for free: please don't pick an alignment in that stupid "W" shape commonly shown all that sales/lobbying maps for I-14. Such an alignment would waste a lot of money on lots of unnecessary mileage and cost motorists a LOT of extra, wasted time taking the route. The route needs to be as direct as possible for it to be of any use.

Quote from: sparkerIf parties from the Austin area would press/lobby for a direct Houston connection, it would likely be added to the queue of TX Interstate projects.

As part of having to re-hash this old argument again, here's the thing about big cities like Austin: they only care about highway projects in their immediate vicinity. They don't care one iota about road projects happening out in rural areas, even if it connects to their city. They're only concerned about projects that will improve traffic flow in town.

Texas has been spending a huge amount of money on super highway projects, but the vast majority of that money has been getting spent on major urban projects, with the biggest projects happening in Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, and even Austin. For all the anti-roads reputation Austin attracts, the city has some major highway expansion projects in progress (like US-183) and others planned (US-290 freeway extension). There's a lot of fighting over what to do with I-35 in Austin, but something is going to happen, whether that freeway is expanded or other freeways nearby get expanded to draw long distance traffic away from downtown.

Meanwhile, development of the broader I-69 corridor has been happening at a pace that would make glaciers seem fast. There's lots of plans and presentations, but no funding. I-14 will probably be in the same predicament. Very little of anything new has been built in relation to I-14; most of it is still the same old US-190 freeway that was already there for a long time.

Killeen to Huntsville is not a major point A to point B corridor. Even if I-14 could be expanded out West to San Angelo and Midland as well as on East to Alexandria and into Mississippi there are zero destinations on that route that rank remotely even close to Austin and Houston. The only way I-14 is going to spur any development inside the Texas triangle is by way of the route acting as yet another partial outer loop for far exhurbs of Houston. But there's no chance of it drawing lots of long distance traffic away from I-10 or I-20.

Austin is more than big enough in terms of population and traffic demands to deserve its own dedicated East-West Interstate corridor. Killeen getting one over Austin would be like Lawton here in Oklahoma getting I-40 rather than Oklahoma City. It's freaking absurd.

Connecting Houston and Austin directly with a stoplight-free, super highway corridor is more of a state-wide and nation-wide issue than one of local politics. The Interstate highway system functions as a nation-wide network of super highways. It's not a bunch of random local bypasses and what not just strung together. Designing additions to the Interstate highway system in that manner is wasteful.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
To that end, has anyone actually inquired with TxDOT regarding whether any plans (originating in Austin or elsewhere) for a Austin-Houston Interstate connector have ever reached a stage beyond mere speculation?  On paper, it's a slam dunk; Austin's rapidly heading toward 1M within city limits and well over double that for their metro area, it's the state capital, and the arguable center of the state's technological base.   Phoenix-to-Vegas, move over; these (Houston/Austin) are the largest metro areas lacking direct Interstate connection.  A "western" I-12 along TX 71 or (IMO, preferably) US 290 should by all measures have been in the planning hopper decades ago.  So, given the fact that the state and parties within are deploying or planning Interstate freeways seemingly everywhere but Austin (OK, 287 DFW>Amarillo's been given short shrift as well), what gives?   Where's the a priori set of values that automatically elevate areas such as Austin to deserving of service? 

The short-form answer is simply it hasn't been there for close to a half-century -- hoist on the pitard of diffused authority and responsibility for large-scale ventures such as an new Interstate corridor.  Everything is done piecemeal these days; the heady times after 1956 when it seemed like there was purpose and order to such things is relegated to hindsight.  One could attempt to identify just when this all began -- was it the beginning of the urban freeway revolt starting on the East Coast in Boston and spreading to San Francisco in the mid-to-late '60's; was it the Nixonian "block grant" measures of the following decade that, in the wake of reaction in some circles to the "Great Society" programs originating in the Sixties, essentially shifted the decision-making power from the national to the local; or was it simply a lack of specific interest in the concept of automobile travel that permeated the original Interstate era?   It's probably all of the above, plus more -- there is just no national interest in renewing a comprehensive updating of the Interstate network.  Conversely, despite this lack of top-down direction, there's also no moratorium on system additions;  to do so would be politically infeasible -- outside of certain sociopolitical circles (and the regions where they hold sway) building freeways remains popular in terms of both service and the jobs that the construction projects provide.   Given all this, the decisions regarding where to deploy these facilities falls to a process of essentially throwing a number of ingredients into a virtual "blender" -- predilections of the state's DOT, political will emanating from localites and their more vehement (and often well-funded) backers, deference shown these entities by US representatives from these states -- getting the various corridors on record by placing them in the queue for potential federal input up to 80%.

All that is what happened in regards to I-14:  Triangle and West Texas interests were outspoken in their expressed wishes for an Interstate freeway connecting East and West Texas between I-10 and I-20, TxDOT has been generally supportive of these local efforts, and in 2015 High Priority Corridor #84 was added to that compendium, which specified that the corridor, once built to appropriate standards, would be designated as I-14.   Of course, Austin was left out of the process; the reasons for which aren't clear; it might be simple avoidance of the area's infamous traffic issues, possible unwillingness of local Austin interest groups to join in the process (or the funding needed to sustain the initial corridor push), or, simply, folks from the Temple-Killeen area stepped up and pointed out the presence of the US 190 freeway near Fort Hood and its value as an "anchor" from which to extend the corridor in two directions (Oh, to have been the proverbial "fly on the wall" during the preliminary corridor discussions!).  In any instance, something happened and the corridor's profile specified Temple rather than Austin (or even Waco, for that matter) as the intersection point with the N-S I-35 intercity arterial.   Whether it was a process of one set of players shouting louder than others, a lack of interest on the part of Austin backers -- and the subsequent willingness of TxDOT to let the determinations "gel" before backing the finalized basic I-14 concept -- or something a bit more sinister regarding how Austin is perceived by other parts of the state,  the process yielded the corridor concept on record today.   And yes, the concept needs to be "tweaked" quite a bit to become a reasonable and viable facility.  But pretty much everyone in TX is on board with the basic corridor -- and not a peep from Austin interests to the contrary. 

What is hinted at in other posts is some sort of "rationality" process whereby all of the above can be jettisoned in favor of a determination of perceived needs -- in short, a revitalization of the "point-to-point" characteristics of the original Interstate system, brought up to 2019 demographics.  Under such a process Austin, as the largest area lacking a connection to another major population centers (read Houston) would automatically have resources directed toward achieving such connection before "secondary" regional desires (read I-14 for this) are considered or developed.  Possibly a good idea -- but such a mechanism doesn't presently exist, and hasn't since the end of the "chargeable" Interstate era.  There's no national push for such a process and, in reality, hasn't been since 1956 -- one could reasonably argue that the '68 chargeable additions were a mixed bag -- some actually filled needs that had become apparent in the first dozen years of system deployment, while others were clearly motivated by political maneuvering.  But five years later the process was turned on its head, and any future system planning became dispersed.  Today, Interstate development -- where it occurs -- isn't part of a perfect, or even rational, process -- it's where localized needs and wishes are successfully promoted.   And unless there's a sea change in national priorities, this is the way such things will be done for the foreseeable future.   

I'm reminded of an old cartoon I saw pinned to a wall about 30 years ago:  an obviously sated dragon is lying back, picking his teeth with a lance, while a suit of armor lies scattered in pieces around him -- with the caption "Sometimes the dragon wins".  One may decry the development of some corridors as at best suboptimal and, more perjoratively, wasteful -- but sometimes they're the only game in town, located in an outpost rather than the "center of the action", so to speak.  But OTOH, the fact that any Interstate corridor activity is going on at all is in a small sense encouraging -- maybe a functional equivalent of the very useful I-22 and I-49 might be lurking somewhere (US 287, I'm looking at you!).  It takes a lot of will and perseverance to get these things off the ground in the current environment; even with "suboptimal" efforts, I'll give them at least grudging respect! 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 09, 2019, 12:41:33 AM
Here's a bit of "consulting" they can have for free: please don't pick an alignment in that stupid "W" shape commonly shown all that sales/lobbying maps for I-14. Such an alignment would waste a lot of money on lots of unnecessary mileage and cost motorists a LOT of extra, wasted time taking the route. The route needs to be as direct as possible for it to be of any use.

I think the alignment we see on maps is a rough routing following existing roads. The interstate will generally follow that path, but a more straighter routing likely.

For example, and this is a rough estimate, the blue represents the current "W" shape routing on maps, the red represents where I think the interstate would really end up being built, in that general path, but much straighter.

(https://i.ibb.co/09C0rhN/I14-I35to-I45.png)

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 09, 2019, 12:41:33 AM
For all the anti-roads reputation Austin attracts, the city has some major highway expansion projects in progress (like US-183) and others planned (US-290 freeway extension). There's a lot of fighting over what to do with I-35 in Austin, but something is going to happen, whether that freeway is expanded or other freeways nearby get expanded to draw long distance traffic away from downtown.

One of the projects regarding your last point currently under construction is expanding a 20 mile section of TX-130 from 4 to 6 lanes. That stretch between TX-45 North and TX-71 has traffic issues as the outer suburbs grow, and it's an appropriate project to keep traffic flowing at the 80 mph speed limit. I've driven it a few times avoiding central Austin during peak hours, and it's a lot of stop-go through there. It's certainly still better than I-35 thru central Austin, but needs and is getting fixed.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 09, 2019, 12:41:33 AM
Meanwhile, development of the broader I-69 corridor has been happening at a pace that would make glaciers seem fast. There's lots of plans and presentations, but no funding.

I think we'll be seeing a lot in the way of I-69 projects this upcoming decade. 40 miles south of Kendleton (the freeway is currently under construction all the way down there) is planned and partially funded, a 40 mile segment connecting Falfarrius to the northern end of I-69C in the Valley is funded, and projects to extend I-69E down to south of Rivera, plus a bypass of that town, from Kingsville is funded. Lots of smaller projects are also funded north of Houston heading up US-59, all in the next decade.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 09, 2019, 12:41:33 AM
Connecting Houston and Austin directly with a stoplight-free, super highway corridor is more of a state-wide and nation-wide issue than one of local politics. The Interstate highway system functions as a nation-wide network of super highways. It's not a bunch of random local bypasses and what not just strung together. Designing additions to the Interstate highway system in that manner is wasteful.

Agreed. At least something like I-69 has merit, a solid plan, and is being properly designed and built as segments are funded with the long-distance, not local, concept in mind.

Quote from: sparkerWhat is hinted at in other posts is some sort of "rationality" process whereby all of the above can be jettisoned in favor of a determination of perceived needs -- in short, a revitalization of the "point-to-point" characteristics of the original Interstate system, brought up to 2019 demographics.

That description is a bit over-simplified. But, yes, the situation essentially needs to return to the previous model in order to maintation a functional, rational, national highway network. If highway development has to be about blowing billions of dollars on political pork, on crooked corridors whose justification for upgrading is very questionable then there's no use spending any money on upgrades at all. The highway network needs to be improved where it is legitimately needed, not mis-appropriated where some lobbyist campaigns for it.

Over the past 50 years one hell of a lot population migration has taken place. The original make-up of the Interstate highway system was heavily loaded towards the Northeast states. The United States is quite a bit different now from what it was when the Interstate highway system was first proposed. For example, Detroit was one of the largest, most economically vibrant cities in the nation back in the 1950's. Austin was relatively tiny then. Today, after roughly 40 years of misery, Detroit is trying to make a comeback, but it has fallen well out of the "club" of million+ population cities. Meanwhile the Austin metro is one of the fastest growing in the nation. I was skimming through the new FBI UCR database on 2018 crime statistics (to see how Lawton scored) and noticed Austin's latest population estimate there was 975,000.

Quote from: sprjust4I think the alignment we see on maps is a rough routing following existing roads. The interstate will generally follow that path, but a more straighter routing likely.

I wish I shared your optimism, but I wouldn't be surprised if the I-14 corridor was bent to the jagged extremes shown in those proposals, complete with all the town names at the corners of the ping pong, pinball path. The far from straight nature of I-69 in Southern Indiana and Kentucky is a hint of what could come to pass with I-14 within the Texas Triangle.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 09, 2019, 11:17:56 PM
That description is a bit over-simplified. But, yes, the situation essentially needs to return to the previous model in order to maintation a functional, rational, national highway network. If highway development has to be about blowing billions of dollars on political pork, on crooked corridors whose justification for upgrading is very questionable then there's no use spending any money on upgrades at all. The highway network needs to be improved where it is legitimately needed, not mis-appropriated where some lobbyist campaigns for it.

I'd go so far as to say that all additions/active proposals since the 1960s additions need to be reviewed on the basis of national/regional merit.  Those that pass would be added to the chargeable system (complete with dedicated funding for construction/maintenance), with possible number adjustments where needed to make the system more coherent.  The rest would be deleted from the system and the states would have a deadline to remove the signs.

Are Interstate 14's eastern and western extensions going to be built anytime soon? Maybe the state should focus on completing Interstate 69 (and its spurs) before tackling Interstate 14's extensions.

Quote from: vdeane on October 10, 2019, 01:13:04 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 09, 2019, 11:17:56 PM
That description is a bit over-simplified. But, yes, the situation essentially needs to return to the previous model in order to maintation a functional, rational, national highway network. If highway development has to be about blowing billions of dollars on political pork, on crooked corridors whose justification for upgrading is very questionable then there's no use spending any money on upgrades at all. The highway network needs to be improved where it is legitimately needed, not mis-appropriated where some lobbyist campaigns for it.

I'd go so far as to say that all additions/active proposals since the 1960s additions need to be reviewed on the basis of national/regional merit.  Those that pass would be added to the chargeable system (complete with dedicated funding for construction/maintenance), with possible number adjustments where needed to make the system more coherent.  The rest would be deleted from the system and the states would have a deadline to remove the signs.

That's not going to happen -- period!  "Should", as in application (or re-application, for that matter) of a priori standards, would require unraveling 46 years of case-by-case process, exacerbated for the last 28 years by the current favored method of piggybacking new Interstates on HPC's, and getting the designation into either the periodic omnibus legislative efforts (ISTEA, SAFETEA-LU, etc.) or simply inserted into yearly budgets -- and the ability to do so -- stealthily --  is prized in Congressional circles.  Even though there's a visible and well-publicized effort to eliminate or at least minimize "pork",  there's still the "back-channel" methods of "bringing home the bacon".  And whether it can or cannot be bolstered by actual data, the perception among many cities and regions is that a facility bearing the Interstate shield will attract commercial investment -- particularly in the distribution/warehousing sector -- to that area.   This concept has permeated the efforts in some heretofore "single industry" areas, such as West Texas; they're seeing the decline in the use of fossil fuels looming ahead -- and there's only so much petroleum that is required for the production of lubrication or polymers; folks there are looking for a "plan B".  To that end, a conduit through central TX to the ports of Houston and Port Arthur, coupled with Panamax prospects, is part of their long-range planning schemes.  And since San Angelo isn't on a major rail line (M/O is), the provision of efficient truck access is considered a prerequisite to their efforts.   And the fact that the Port-to-Plains corridor has been the subject of decades of procrastination and "on-again-off-again" plans and studies -- without much in the way of improvements outside San Angelo itself -- cynicism regarding the prospects for that decidedly more valuable corridor has shifted regional hopes over to I-14. 

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 10, 2019, 02:02:30 PM
Are Interstate 14's eastern and western extensions going to be built anytime soon? Maybe the state should focus on completing Interstate 69 (and its spurs) before tackling Interstate 14's extensions.

Look upthread a bit; the latest info indicates that the "Triangle" portion between Belton/Killeen and Huntsville (ostensibly via College Station) will be the subject of an upcoming alignment study.  That part will likely be the first to be done -- probably in 25-30 years.  West of Copperas Cove is a bit more dicey -- there are multiple corridor concepts all clustered into one massive "overkill"; practically, it'll either dip down to I-10 between Junction & Sonora or head west via Brady to San Angelo, where it will either meet up with a revitalized P-to-P mostly N-S route or extend on to terminate at I-20 at Midland/Odessa.  That needs to be resolved before any westward planning can commence. 

My best guess is the corridor will follow FM 93 to Heidenheimer, 190 to past Cameron, FM 2095 to Gause, a new alignment to Benchley, 6 to College Station, and 30 to Huntsville.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 25, 2019, 02:46:23 PM
My best guess is the corridor will follow FM 93 to Heidenheimer, 190 to past Cameron, FM 2095 to Gause, a new alignment to Benchley, 6 to College Station, and 30 to Huntsville.

That's probably a fair assessment of the final alignment, with the possibility of staying within a mile and a half of the present 79/190 Brazos crossing to avoid the oxbows downstream and possibly remaining on TX 6 SE of College Station -- before swinging east toward Huntsville -- to avoid the housing areas along TX 30 east of town as well as take advantage of an existing facility as much as possible. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/49125811917/in/dateposted-public/
What to expect when TexDOT extends IH 14 to the west of its current terminus.  A high viaduct above a gorge of some sort just east of FM Road 116.

Quote from: roadman65 on November 26, 2019, 11:35:59 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/49125811917/in/dateposted-public/
What to expect when TexDOT extends IH 14 to the west of its current terminus.  A high viaduct above a gorge of some sort just east of FM Road 116.

Since any further western development of I-14 will impinge on the northeast corner of Texas' "hill country", a freeway resembling that shown in the picture (expanded to at least 2+2, of course) is to be expected.  If and when it gets out to Lampasas, I for one wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the US 183 toll facility extended north to meet it (with greater Austin development expanding in that direction as well). 

Quote from: roadman65 on November 26, 2019, 11:35:59 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/49125811917/in/dateposted-public/
What to expect when TexDOT extends IH 14 to the west of its current terminus.  A high viaduct above a gorge of some sort just east of FM Road 116.

That is the two lane bypass around Copperas Cove. TxDot has plans starting soon to add the other two lanes. Looking at the picture it will be too the right. When they built it, they cleared enough right a way for the other two lanes. Should be a quick and cheap addition. Except for the interchange at FM 2657.

Quote from: roadman65 on November 26, 2019, 11:35:59 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/49125811917/in/dateposted-public/
What to expect when TexDOT extends IH 14 to the west of its current terminus.  A high viaduct above a gorge of some sort just east of FM Road 116.

Same view, its a nice scenic view crossing the bridge. Again the other lanes will be to the right.

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1008861,-97.8924915,3a,75y,256.06h,87.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swidpNy9TBP8SBNZ_3deJmA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwidpNy9TBP8SBNZ_3deJmA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D255.74223%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

According to TxDOT, I-14 already goes on the bypass (I know, it really doesn't)

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1216946,-97.8526026,3a,48.2y,260.12h,85.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skm1Y5RTvUABUdhV0RZW3fA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 27, 2019, 05:25:56 PM
According to TxDOT, I-14 already goes on the bypass (I know, it really doesn't)

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1216946,-97.8526026,3a,48.2y,260.12h,85.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skm1Y5RTvUABUdhV0RZW3fA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

When I pass through there I get a chuckle every time I see it.

By the way, that bridge you see in front of you will be the westbound lanes and the east bound bridge will be built next too it.

(Thanks bringing the mi spelled bride......errrr........bridge to my attention) :-D :-D :-D

Quote from: longhorn on November 27, 2019, 05:33:45 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 27, 2019, 05:25:56 PM
According to TxDOT, I-14 already goes on the bypass (I know, it really doesn't)

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1216946,-97.8526026,3a,48.2y,260.12h,85.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skm1Y5RTvUABUdhV0RZW3fA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

When I pass through there I get a chuckle every time I see it.

By the way, that bride you see in front of you will be the westbound lanes and the east bound bridge will be built next too it.

Bride...LOL!  Married spans indeed!

Everyone makes typos but not every typo comes across as humorous, thus this post :-)

Rick

It could be autocorrect which is gets really obnoxious on my tablet.
Is that lovely bride bridge just last ....last that is autocorrect changing past the current west end of 14?

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 27, 2019, 05:25:56 PM
According to TxDOT, I-14 already goes on the bypass (I know, it really doesn't)

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1216946,-97.8526026,3a,48.2y,260.12h,85.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skm1Y5RTvUABUdhV0RZW3fA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

If I remember correctly this is the very last mention of I-14 going westbound. There's no END sign or anything. But this feels very much like the end, so when I reached this bridge, I knew I had clinched I-14.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/021820/presentation.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/021820/presentation.pdf)

See maps of interest on pages 15, 20 and 21.

The map on page 20 shows the west half of corridor to be direct between Bryan and Rogers (near Temple). That's good news.

The east half looks less promising, with a possible route through Madisonville and also a potentially inefficient route for traffic connecting to Houston, going north of Huntsville then swerving back south. But it is possible to get an efficient alignment within the corridor bounds by connecting on the south side of Huntsville. The Madisonville route would be beneficial for traffic between Bryan/College Station and Dallas (via IH 45).

The map on 21 appears be be purely illustrative.

The bad news is that the route study is slated to take six years.

Quote from: MaxConcrete on February 19, 2020, 08:04:45 PM
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/021820/presentation.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/021820/presentation.pdf)

See maps of interest on pages 15, 20 and 21.

The map on page 20 shows the west half of corridor to be direct between Bryan and Rogers (near Temple). That's good news.

The east half looks less promising, with a possible route through Madisonville and also a potentially inefficient route for traffic connecting to Houston, going north of Huntsville then swerving back south. But it is possible to get an efficient alignment within the corridor bounds by connecting on the south side of Huntsville.

The map on 21 appears be be purely illustrative.

The bad news is that the route study is slated to take six years.

I figured from the beginning that zig-zag route was merely for reference and that a new road would be much straighter.

Most of the updated news sounds promising -- getting rid of the Milano "corner" via a more direct routing was always key to a reasonably efficient corridor; crossing the Brazos somewhere near Hearne was pretty much a given because of the river's channelization through the area.  Retention of the Madisonville option was a bit of a surprise -- but I'm going to take a guess that such a route would expedite a bypass of Lake Livingston to the north if and when an eastern extension past I-45 were planned -- although that variant disadvantages traffic from Houston to Temple and vice-versa.   Also, if the more northerly option were to be selected, the tentative plans for a branch down to Beaumont might be jeopardized.   It'll be interesting to follow the ongoing planning process to ascertain which priorities will prevail -- favoring an intrastate format with greater Houston as a traffic generator/destination (enhanced, of course, by an I-45 junction near Huntsville) or adhering to the longstanding multi-state plan extending the corridor east into LA and MS (east from there is presently out of the question).   

Quote from: MaxConcreteThe east half looks less promising, with a possible route through Madisonville and also a potentially inefficient route for traffic connecting to Houston, going north of Huntsville then swerving back south. But it is possible to get an efficient alignment within the corridor bounds by connecting on the south side of Huntsville. The Madisonville route would be beneficial for traffic between Bryan/College Station and Dallas (via IH 45).

It does indeed look promising that the East half of this segment would pick a fairly direct route from Rogers (or Cameron) to Bryan/College Station. It would (hopefully) do away with the silly ricochet movements, bouncing to Milano and Hearne.

BTW, this part of I-14 would have to be built on new terrain from the freeway bypass at Heidenheimer all the way to the TX-6 freeway in Bryan. There's no point in trying to upgrade existing 2 lane segments of US-190 along the way. The only part that could be re-usable at all is the 4-lane bridge over the Little River on the East side of Cameron. But even that looks iffy considering the inner left shoulder on those bridges is pretty narrow.

On Page 21 of the presentation PDF they appear to show the routing from College Station direct to Huntsville as the preferred option in Red and Blue lines. Madisonville is still an option in an Orange line, a really stupid one IMHO. I-14 would basically have a big "V" shape inside the Texas Triangle with the Madisonville routing. Huntsville is still the better choice even concerning farther Eastward extension of I-14. US-190 is a busier corridor to Jasper. There are more towns of significance along the way.

Regarding the routing to Huntsville, it looks like it's more palatable to hook I-14 into I-45 on the North side of town near the airport and prison complex. The Elkins Lake golf course and residential development would be quite a road block for I-14 to meet I-45 on the South side.

Quote from: MaxConcreteThe bad news is that the route study is slated to take six years.

I don't understand why something like this has to take six years to study. As fast as areas of the Texas Triangle are adding population the last thing TX DOT can afford to do is piddle around while developers gobble up all the ROW needed to build this project.

^^^^^^^^^^
It's a reasonably good bet that I-14 will intersect I-45 near Huntsville rather than Madisonville; 2 of the 3 corridor options specify such a routing.   Also, the history of other TX corridors, particularly I-69, show quite clearly that TxDOT and its political counterparts tend to prioritize routings that serve their own state rather than long-term multistate plans;  the I-369/69 progress to date well illustrates this.  Since much of the exurban growth around Houston is to the north of the city,  a Bryan-Huntsville route would be considerably more useful to provide feeder service to & from that area than something thirty miles to the north.   

I don't see any advantage of the Madisonville routing of I-14 even on a multi-state perspective. And that's presuming TX DOT would choose to continue I-14 to the East from Madisonville rather than the more likely option of multiplexing it with I-45 down to Huntsville. Alexandria, LA would be the next actual city along I-14 to the East of the I-45 corridor. I'm pretty sure more traffic coming from Central LA and farther east would be using I-14 to get to destinations like College Station and Huntsville and other East Texas towns along the US-190 corridor, as well as using the highway as a means of entering the Northern Houston metro suburbs.

They just need to knock Madisonville off that options list.

^

A routing via Madisonville would provide better access to/from Dallas and College Station.

Granted though, on a regional and statewide scale, the routing via Huntsville makes more sense.

---

Edit: Looking on a map, the routing through Madisonville would involve 12 less miles of construction needed, and only add 10 miles to a Houston <-> Temple routing via I-45 and I-14. Timewise, would still be faster taking the 10 additional mile I-14 over TX-30 considering a 75 mph speed limit on the former. Worthwhile to consider, as the routing would still connect, -and- serve College Station to Dallas traffic as well, knocking two birds out with one stone. It may look odd on a map, but would provide more utility than a more direct routing for College Station traffic and access to I-45 to the north. The Houston <-> College Station connection will still likely be made via US-290 and SH-6 even if I-14 is constructed via Madisonville or Huntsville. Besides 19 miles between US-290 and Navasota that is 65 mph (8 miles) and 75 mph (10 miles) divided highway that would be a worthwhile upgrade in the future, along with US-290 or SH-71 to Austin, that routing is built to full freeway standards.

Freaking hell, slide 15 shows an I-14N and I-14S.

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 21, 2020, 12:47:16 AM
Freaking hell, slide 15 shows an I-14N and I-14S.

(https://i.imgur.com/wihGlVR.jpg)

If anything, the I-14 South on this map should actually be the I-14 route and I-14 South should go the opposite way, starting at Brady going SE along SH71 all the way to I-10 in Columbus. That would solve the lack of Austin-Houston Interstate problem.

Quote from: sprjus4A routing via Madisonville would provide better access to/from Dallas and College Station.

That's nonsense. Traffic coming down from Dallas to College Station already has a shorter, more direct route by taking I-35 to Waco and then TX-6 the rest of the way. Taking I-45 down to Madisonville and then that version of I-14 back West would be a back-tracking "L" shape.

Quote from: Scott5114Freaking hell, slide 15 shows an I-14N and I-14S.

Yeah, that's the old piggy pork map of jagged routes and politcal wishful thinking. Lots of out of the way L-shapes all over the place on it. The conceptual I-14 routes in West Texas conflict with Ports to Plains Corridor efforts, not to mention the regional traffic needs of the Austin area.

I could see I-14 going from Killeen to Midland via San Angelo. But the South leg following US-190 is basically a road through nowhere; the existing 2 lane road probably works just fine. For the cost involved, there would be a hell of a lot more benefit upgrading the US-290 corridor West out of Austin over to I-10 West of Fredericksburg. The route West from Austin to I-10 wouldn't be nearly as long, it would serve a lot more people and go through towns of more significance along the way.

The Eden to Junction thing is pretty dopey. The Ports to Plains Corridor already had a proposed route from San Angelo going down to Sonora and Del Rio. I think San Angelo to Junction would actually be a better thing (giving Amarillo, Lubbock and Midland-Odessa traffic a direct shot to the San Antonio metro). But the Ports to Plains concept is more about moving traffic and commerce from the Rocky Mountains down to ports in far South Texas. There's no way both an N-S extension of I-27 along the US-277 corridor and a N-S spur of I-14 going from Eden to Junction are going to get built just 40 miles apart from each other. One of the route upgrades would have to be eliminated.

As stupidly much as this Interstate stuff costs to build anymore I don't expect I-14 to get extended farther West of Copperas Cove or maybe Lampasas and the US-281 corridor any time soon. If it's going to take them 6 years just to study the I-14 route inside the Texas Triangle it's probably going to be 30 years or more before any I-14 shields start popping up in the Midland area or even San Angelo.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2020, 11:50:57 AM

Quote from: sprjus4A routing via Madisonville would provide better access to/from Dallas and College Station.

That's nonsense. Traffic coming down from Dallas to College Station already has a shorter, more direct route by taking I-35 to Waco and then TX-6 the rest of the way. Taking I-45 down to Madisonville and then that version of I-14 back West would be a back-tracking "L" shape.

Quote from: Scott5114Freaking hell, slide 15 shows an I-14N and I-14S.

Yeah, that's the old piggy pork map of jagged routes and politcal wishful thinking. Lots of out of the way L-shapes all over the place on it. The conceptual I-14 routes in West Texas conflict with Ports to Plains Corridor efforts, not to mention the regional traffic needs of the Austin area.

I could see I-14 going from Killeen to Midland via San Angelo. But the South leg following US-190 is basically a road through nowhere; the existing 2 lane road probably works just fine. For the cost involved, there would be a hell of a lot more benefit upgrading the US-290 corridor West out of Austin over to I-10 West of Fredericksburg. The route West from Austin to I-10 wouldn't be nearly as long, it would serve a lot more people and go through towns of more significance along the way.

The Eden to Junction thing is pretty dopey. The Ports to Plains Corridor already had a proposed route from San Angelo going down to Sonora and Del Rio. I think San Angelo to Junction would actually be a better thing (giving Amarillo, Lubbock and Midland-Odessa traffic a direct shot to the San Antonio metro). But the Ports to Plains concept is more about moving traffic and commerce from the Rocky Mountains down to ports in far South Texas. There's no way both an N-S extension of I-27 along the US-277 corridor and a N-S spur of I-14 going from Eden to Junction are going to get built just 40 miles apart from each other. One of the route upgrades would have to be eliminated.

As stupidly much as this Interstate stuff costs to build anymore I don't expect I-14 to get extended farther West of Copperas Cove or maybe Lampasas and the US-281 corridor any time soon. If it's going to take them 6 years just to study the I-14 route inside the Texas Triangle it's probably going to be 30 years or more before any I-14 shields start popping up in the Midland area or even San Angelo.

The "I-14S" option along US 190 (which gives NV's US 50 a run for its money as the "loneliest road!") was at the request of congressman Hurd simply because it traverses his district, which terminates between the US 190 and US 87 (S vs. N) "branches".  He opted out of his seat this electoral cycle, so it's possible that some sense of sanity will prevail (hope against hope!) and that a single San Angelo-based corridor will prevail.  That N-S connector down US 83 was a "stopgap" by San Angelo-based interests, put into the mix because they were getting tired of procrastination on the Port-to-Plains corridor (HPC #38) and wanted a connector to San Antonio and points south put into the I-14 composite "book".   But recent chatter about that corridor being revived would likely override the US 83-based N/S connector; contrarily, if the P-to-P planning efforts go back into hibernation, it could persist as per its original purpose.   But regardless of all this, West Texas corridor plans have a tendency to pile up on shelves somewhere, hoping to be rescued by one study or another that indicates present or even future need for such.  West of Lampasas, it's still all up in the air!   

Improvements need to be made out in West Texas, and the "oil patch" in particular, because the old, outdated roads are getting beat to $#!+ by all the heavy trucks serving the oil business. The Permian Basin is literally pumping more oil (and natural gas) than anywhere else in the world. So it's long overdue that the region stops being treated like some kind of back-water territory.

I-27 needs to be extended South, as envisioned many years before this I-14 thing took flight. Despite the noise coming from the White House, our routes to and from the Mexican border need to be improved. Far South Texas is gaining population just about as fast as the DFW, Houston and Austin-San Antonio regions. Laredo beat Lubbock to the 250,000 population mark. It's not exactly a frivolous thing building a new super highway corridor along the Rio Grande down to the Gulf.

The proponents of I-14 often characterize this highway as something that helps military posts. If helping the troops at Fort Hood in Killeen was really the goal then these politicians would have been all about upgrading the US-281 corridor from San Antonio up to Wichita Falls to Interstate quality. Fort Sill next to Lawton is far more of a "sister" Army Post to Fort Hood than freaking Fort Polk clear over in Louisiana. Far more activity moves between Fort Sill and Fort Hood. Then there's Joint Base San Antonio, comprising Fort Sam Houston, Lackland AFB and Randolph AFB. Wichita Falls is home to Sheppard AFB. Altus AFB (home to a whole lot of C17 cargo jets) is less than an hour West of Lawton. So I'm really not impressed with comparisons of the US-190 corridor for its military posts compared to what's along US-281. But, hell, if TX DOT would just bother upgrading US-287 to Interstate quality between Fort Worth and Wichita Falls at the very least, if not pushing it all the way to Amarillo and I-40, it could make some things easier. Nevertheless, the US-281 corridor will eventually have to serve as a relief route for an already very busy I-35.

^^^^^^^^^^
The "connect the forts" aspect of I-14 was always an obviously dubious attempt to replicate one of the rationales used to justify the expense and effort of the original Interstate "mission" -- optimization of national defense logistics.   But since Alabama has pulled out of the Interstate game, the two Georgia forts cited in the early versions of I-14, Benning and Gordon, are no longer in the mix.   I'm sorry, but a roadway connecting just two such facilities -- Hood and Polk -- isn't by any measure a military necessity or even convenience.   If that were the case, then I-11 out west could be similarly promoted as an upgrade of the pathway between Luke and Nellis AFB's -- and the extension to I-80 justified by its potential service to Creech AFB, the Hawthorne Army ammo dump, and Fallon NAS (hey -- 3 armed services in one fell swoop!).  Possibly the military references are to divert attention away from what I-14 essentially is -- a developmental corridor, intended to act as an additional lure to businesses (particularly overseas interests looking for locations for distribution and/or warehousing), particularly in regards to San Angelo, the Fort Hood/Temple area, and Bryan/College Station.   And West Texas towns may be looking down the road to when fossil fuels become more and more a pariah -- and they need to do something with all that infrastructure presently purposed for servicing the oil extraction industry.  It certainly won't happen overnight -- or tomorrow -- but it will eventually be a reality.  Can't blame the folks out there for covering the bases -- and their asses in the process!     

It will be nice when San Angelo and (hopefully) Bryan-College Station gets Interstate access, as these are among the largest cities in Texas not linked to the Interstate system.  I-14 should be going closer to the Bryan-College Station area I would say, though if I-14 follows US-190 it should be getting to Bryan at least.  Another potential route that should be considered would involve upgrading SH-47 Riverside Parkway to Interstate standards, then connecting SH-47 to SH-40 (William D. Fitch Parkway), problem is that William Fitch east of SH-6 passes through a neighborhood.  If taking the Riverside/William Fitch route, I-14 could then follow the SH-30 corridor over to Huntsville.  West of Bryan-College Station, a freeway on new alignment could be built from Riverside Parkway's northern terminus at SH-21 up to US-190 around Milano, or I-14 could follow the SH-21 corridor to a point anywhere between there and Caldwell (and if going to Caldwell then follow the SH-36 corridor to Milano, though a new alignment would be more direct).

Quote from: BrandonC_TX on February 22, 2020, 03:31:33 AM
It will be nice when San Angelo and (hopefully) Bryan-College Station gets Interstate access, as these are among the largest cities in Texas not linked to the Interstate system.  I-14 should be going closer to the Bryan-College Station area I would say, though if I-14 follows US-190 it should be getting to Bryan at least.  Another potential route that should be considered would involve upgrading SH-47 Riverside Parkway to Interstate standards, then connecting SH-47 to SH-40 (William D. Fitch Parkway), problem is that William Fitch east of SH-6 passes through a neighborhood.  If taking the Riverside/William Fitch route, I-14 could then follow the SH-30 corridor over to Huntsville.  West of Bryan-College Station, a freeway on new alignment could be built from Riverside Parkway's northern terminus at SH-21 up to US-190 around Milano, or I-14 could follow the SH-21 corridor to a point anywhere between there and Caldwell (and if going to Caldwell then follow the SH-36 corridor to Milano, though a new alignment would be more direct).

Still think TxDOT will try to utilize as much of the TX 6 alignment as possible -- partially for sake of economy re construction/ROW acquisition costs, and also to serve as much of the Bryan/College Station/Navasota metro area as possible -- political considerations as well as potential maximization of usage will likely figure in to the equation.  My guess is that it'll diverge from TX 6 near the Speedway and head east from there. 

Quote from: sparker on February 22, 2020, 03:09:14 AM
^^^^^^^^^^
The "connect the forts" aspect of I-14 was always an obviously dubious attempt to replicate one of the rationales used to justify the expense and effort of the original Interstate "mission" -- optimization of national defense logistics.   But since Alabama has pulled out of the Interstate game, the two Georgia forts cited in the early versions of I-14, Benning and Gordon, are no longer in the mix.   I'm sorry, but a roadway connecting just two such facilities -- Hood and Polk -- isn't by any measure a military necessity or even convenience.   If that were the case, then I-11 out west could be similarly promoted as an upgrade of the pathway between Luke and Nellis AFB's -- and the extension to I-80 justified by its potential service to Creech AFB, the Hawthorne Army ammo dump, and Fallon NAS (hey -- 3 armed services in one fell swoop!).  Possibly the military references are to divert attention away from what I-14 essentially is -- a developmental corridor, intended to act as an additional lure to businesses (particularly overseas interests looking for locations for distribution and/or warehousing), particularly in regards to San Angelo, the Fort Hood/Temple area, and Bryan/College Station.   And West Texas towns may be looking down the road to when fossil fuels become more and more a pariah -- and they need to do something with all that infrastructure presently purposed for servicing the oil extraction industry.  It certainly won't happen overnight -- or tomorrow -- but it will eventually be a reality.  Can't blame the folks out there for covering the bases -- and their asses in the process!   

Well, the undersold aspect of a long I-14 is this:  It's a perpendicular hurricane relief road for the whole Gulf Coast.  It provides a route parallel to I-10 in the event of serious damage and flooding through Houston, near the TX/LA border, near Baton Rouge, etc.  It also gives Temple/Round Rock/Austin an E/W "escape" route for whatever reason it might need.  And connecting the major land grant institution of A&M is a good concept in and of itself.  Land grants prosper even more when on an Interstate-level corridor.  What's now a major haul of traffic in and out of A&M for events like graduation... and of course football... it's hell.  Auburn University in Alabama is seeing major growth now because of the combination of being a land grant AND being on I-85.  Clemson also.  Ohio State benefits from being at a major node with 70 and 71.  Penn State might someday see benefit from I-99 (I kid, they actually HAVE improved access for students from in-state having a better and safer way there.)  Purdue always had an advantage over IU because of I-74 until now that Bloomington is getting I-69.  So, there are other benefits that should have been put forward beyond defense.

Quote from: sturmde on February 22, 2020, 02:37:47 PM

Quote from: sparker on February 22, 2020, 03:09:14 AM
^^^^^^^^^^
The "connect the forts" aspect of I-14 was always an obviously dubious attempt to replicate one of the rationales used to justify the expense and effort of the original Interstate "mission" -- optimization of national defense logistics.   But since Alabama has pulled out of the Interstate game, the two Georgia forts cited in the early versions of I-14, Benning and Gordon, are no longer in the mix.   I'm sorry, but a roadway connecting just two such facilities -- Hood and Polk -- isn't by any measure a military necessity or even convenience.   If that were the case, then I-11 out west could be similarly promoted as an upgrade of the pathway between Luke and Nellis AFB's -- and the extension to I-80 justified by its potential service to Creech AFB, the Hawthorne Army ammo dump, and Fallon NAS (hey -- 3 armed services in one fell swoop!).  Possibly the military references are to divert attention away from what I-14 essentially is -- a developmental corridor, intended to act as an additional lure to businesses (particularly overseas interests looking for locations for distribution and/or warehousing), particularly in regards to San Angelo, the Fort Hood/Temple area, and Bryan/College Station.   And West Texas towns may be looking down the road to when fossil fuels become more and more a pariah -- and they need to do something with all that infrastructure presently purposed for servicing the oil extraction industry.  It certainly won't happen overnight -- or tomorrow -- but it will eventually be a reality.  Can't blame the folks out there for covering the bases -- and their asses in the process!   

Well, the undersold aspect of a long I-14 is this:  It's a perpendicular hurricane relief road for the whole Gulf Coast.  It provides a route parallel to I-10 in the event of serious damage and flooding through Houston, near the TX/LA border, near Baton Rouge, etc.  It also gives Temple/Round Rock/Austin an E/W "escape" route for whatever reason it might need.  And connecting the major land grant institution of A&M is a good concept in and of itself.  Land grants prosper even more when on an Interstate-level corridor.  What's now a major haul of traffic in and out of A&M for events like graduation... and of course football... it's hell.  Auburn University in Alabama is seeing major growth now because of the combination of being a land grant AND being on I-85.  Clemson also.  Ohio State benefits from being at a major node with 70 and 71.  Penn State might someday see benefit from I-99 (I kid, they actually HAVE improved access for students from in-state having a better and safer way there.)  Purdue always had an advantage over IU because of I-74 until now that Bloomington is getting I-69.  So, there are other benefits that should have been put forward beyond defense.

I find all of the benefits listed in this post exaggerated, except for maybe some A&M traffic relief.  But, saying that Purdue has an advantage over IU due to having interstate access is a bit much.

Quote from: Rothman on February 22, 2020, 11:41:50 PM

Quote from: sturmde on February 22, 2020, 02:37:47 PM

Quote from: sparker on February 22, 2020, 03:09:14 AM
^^^^^^^^^^
The "connect the forts" aspect of I-14 was always an obviously dubious attempt to replicate one of the rationales used to justify the expense and effort of the original Interstate "mission" -- optimization of national defense logistics.   But since Alabama has pulled out of the Interstate game, the two Georgia forts cited in the early versions of I-14, Benning and Gordon, are no longer in the mix.   I'm sorry, but a roadway connecting just two such facilities -- Hood and Polk -- isn't by any measure a military necessity or even convenience.   If that were the case, then I-11 out west could be similarly promoted as an upgrade of the pathway between Luke and Nellis AFB's -- and the extension to I-80 justified by its potential service to Creech AFB, the Hawthorne Army ammo dump, and Fallon NAS (hey -- 3 armed services in one fell swoop!).  Possibly the military references are to divert attention away from what I-14 essentially is -- a developmental corridor, intended to act as an additional lure to businesses (particularly overseas interests looking for locations for distribution and/or warehousing), particularly in regards to San Angelo, the Fort Hood/Temple area, and Bryan/College Station.   And West Texas towns may be looking down the road to when fossil fuels become more and more a pariah -- and they need to do something with all that infrastructure presently purposed for servicing the oil extraction industry.  It certainly won't happen overnight -- or tomorrow -- but it will eventually be a reality.  Can't blame the folks out there for covering the bases -- and their asses in the process!   

Well, the undersold aspect of a long I-14 is this:  It's a perpendicular hurricane relief road for the whole Gulf Coast.  It provides a route parallel to I-10 in the event of serious damage and flooding through Houston, near the TX/LA border, near Baton Rouge, etc.  It also gives Temple/Round Rock/Austin an E/W "escape" route for whatever reason it might need.  And connecting the major land grant institution of A&M is a good concept in and of itself.  Land grants prosper even more when on an Interstate-level corridor.  What's now a major haul of traffic in and out of A&M for events like graduation... and of course football... it's hell.  Auburn University in Alabama is seeing major growth now because of the combination of being a land grant AND being on I-85.  Clemson also.  Ohio State benefits from being at a major node with 70 and 71.  Penn State might someday see benefit from I-99 (I kid, they actually HAVE improved access for students from in-state having a better and safer way there.)  Purdue always had an advantage over IU because of I-74 until now that Bloomington is getting I-69.  So, there are other benefits that should have been put forward beyond defense.

I find all of the benefits listed in this post exaggerated, except for maybe some A&M traffic relief.  But, saying that Purdue has an advantage over IU due to having interstate access is a bit much.

It's possible that I-14 would provide some additional flexibility in the event of a mass evacuation inland because of a weather event; it would allow lateral movements (as necessary) between the N-S corridors utilized as the principal evacuee conduits, aiding in dispersal.  Perhaps an intelligent option would be to have some adjoining (or even within the median) spaces reserved for temporary evacuation housing; this would be particularly useful along the I-14 segments following LA 28 and US 84 in LA and MS.  That being said, the route itself would be helpful, not a matter of life or death.  And the only significant college along the corridor is A&M (and maybe Angelo State if it eventually makes it out there!), so that's hardly a viable rationale for the corridor.   Attempting to conjure up altruistic or public-service rationales when those are spurious at best is a bit disingenuous; it's simply intended to serve an area heretofore unserved by the Interstate network, supported by parties in those regions.  Its prospects live or die by that continuous support and TxDOT prioritization; time will tell if that will be enough to sustain continued developmental action.

Quote from: sturmde on February 22, 2020, 02:37:47 PM
Purdue always had an advantage over IU because of I-74 until now that Bloomington is getting I-69.  So, there are other benefits that should have been put forward beyond defense.

Minor correction here, Purdue is on I-65, not I-74.  Purdue would also be on I-72 if the state of Indiana ever gets around to making US 24/SR 25 an actual interstate instead of just another 4-lane.

If Interstate 14 is extended west of Copperas Cove, could they at least modify the US 190/Business 190 interchange so that it is Business 190 that exits the roadway, while the main lanes follow US 190's route?

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2020, 11:50:57 AM

Quote from: sprjus4A routing via Madisonville would provide better access to/from Dallas and College Station.

That's nonsense. Traffic coming down from Dallas to College Station already has a shorter, more direct route by taking I-35 to Waco and then TX-6 the rest of the way. Taking I-45 down to Madisonville and then that version of I-14 back West would be a back-tracking "L" shape.

Only Fort Worth is typically faster via I-35E. Dallas to B/CS is almost always faster via I-45. Depending on traffic, SH 14 to SH 6, US 79 to FM 39 to US 190/SH 21, or OSR (when it's not closed for construction) to FM 39 to US 190/SH 21 might be the best.

Yes, downtown Dallas to College Station would be less than 5 miles longer via a Madisonville I-14 than via Waco.  Once the I-45 3rd lane is finally finished it will be a no-brainer option for the east side of DFW, avoiding the stoplights, lower speed limits, and Riesel speed trap south of Waco.  (Would be nice to see Hwy 6 upgraded with bypasses for Riesel, Hearne, and Calvert, but are any of those far advanced or even in the planning pipeline?)  And long term it's better to funnel that traffic into the relatively slow growth I-45 corridor than piling it onto the booming I-35.

The vast majority of the Houston metro is going to access BCS and I-14 west of there via either Hwy 6 or the Aggie Tollway (249) once it makes it to Navasota.  With 105 feeding it Conroe traffic, I don't really see that much added utility of routing 14 to Huntsville instead of via Madisonville.  Probably no time savings except for Willis and north, but there's a huge national forest between there and Huntsville that will serve as an effective urban growth boundary.  I wouldn't be surprised if their modeling shows more traffic from DFW on the Madisonville option than from Houston on the Huntsville option.

It seems like i-14 is for a long time going to be a low-volume pork dog east of BCS.  So routing through Madisonville at least gives more value for the BCS-Huntsville portion.

I get that money grows on trees for our basement experts on everything, but take a look at actual census data.  Southeast Texas east of the Houston area is barely growing, and the population is actually shrinking in some areas.  Refinery expansions are nice but they are often offset by other losses.  Unlike many other areas of Texas, the likely future growth just isn't there to justify all these crisscrossing freeway proposals.  I could see Huntsville-Livingston-Beaumont for its ability to better connect SE TX and SW LA with DFW.  But no real need for a long time east of Woodville or northeast from Beaumont.  Let the latter happen when and where demand is there, not as some piling on pork.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 24, 2020, 04:45:29 PM
If Interstate 14 is extended west of Copperas Cove, could they at least modify the US 190/Business 190 interchange so that it is Business 190 that exits the roadway, while the main lanes follow US 190's route?

If you are referring to the interchange on the east side of Copperas Cove, know that it is not finished until they add lanes to the bypass, then per TXDOT original plans two lanes will continue to Copperas Cove and two lanes around the bypass.


https://www.coveleaderpress.com/news/ktmpo-gives-nod-fund-widening-us-190-bypass

Quote from: armadillo speedbump on February 26, 2020, 02:35:29 AM
Yes, downtown Dallas to College Station would be less than 5 miles longer via a Madisonville I-14 than via Waco.  Once the I-45 3rd lane is finally finished it will be a no-brainer option for the east side of DFW, avoiding the stoplights, lower speed limits, and Riesel speed trap south of Waco.  (Would be nice to see Hwy 6 upgraded with bypasses for Riesel, Hearne, and Calvert, but are any of those far advanced or even in the planning pipeline?)  And long term it's better to funnel that traffic into the relatively slow growth I-45 corridor than piling it onto the booming I-35.

The vast majority of the Houston metro is going to access BCS and I-14 west of there via either Hwy 6 or the Aggie Tollway (249) once it makes it to Navasota.  With 105 feeding it Conroe traffic, I don't really see that much added utility of routing 14 to Huntsville instead of via Madisonville.  Probably no time savings except for Willis and north, but there's a huge national forest between there and Huntsville that will serve as an effective urban growth boundary.  I wouldn't be surprised if their modeling shows more traffic from DFW on the Madisonville option than from Houston on the Huntsville option.

It seems like i-14 is for a long time going to be a low-volume pork dog east of BCS.  So routing through Madisonville at least gives more value for the BCS-Huntsville portion.

I get that money grows on trees for our basement experts on everything, but take a look at actual census data.  Southeast Texas east of the Houston area is barely growing, and the population is actually shrinking in some areas.  Refinery expansions are nice but they are often offset by other losses.  Unlike many other areas of Texas, the likely future growth just isn't there to justify all these crisscrossing freeway proposals.  I could see Huntsville-Livingston-Beaumont for its ability to better connect SE TX and SW LA with DFW.  But no real need for a long time east of Woodville or northeast from Beaumont.  Let the latter happen when and where demand is there, not as some piling on pork.

Something tells me that expediting the DFW-B/CS traffic pattern isn't a driving force behind I-14 through the middle of the "Triangle";  Houston (whose metro area seems to be consistently expanding northward) and environs are considered more of a target than prioritizing the right-angle turn that the Madisonville option would offer for DFW originating/bound traffic.  Yeah, it does give A&M folks a pathway to DFW that avoids the various pitfalls found on TX 6 and/or TX 14 (speed traps, etc.) -- but the original composite I-14 corridor plans, once the zig-zag US 190 alignment is obviated, do extend the corridor east from the Huntsville area rather than Madisonville, which projected a multiplex on I-45 between the towns.  What it'll likely come down to is whether TxDOT planners prioritize B/CS>Houston as the principal traffic generator and destination (and supposing that commercial traffic -- and a fair portion of "civilian" drivers -- will elect to shunpike the tolled TX 249 and simply take I-45 to I-14 and then over).  If so, look for one of the Huntsville options to prevail.  About the only rationale for selecting Madisonville would be if hordes of DFW-based A&M students, parents and alumni vocally pressed for the northern option for their benefit.   The other reason to stay north -- avoidance of Lake Livingston (especially since there's a considerable amount of housing arrayed along the south side of the lake, which lies directly east of Huntsville) -- which comes into play if I-14 is actually extended east of I-45 -- would be tied largely to the plans shown a couple of years ago that include a Beaumont "branch" and/or interest by LA regarding continuing the corridor in that state. 

That being said, anything east of I-45 would be a long way off into the future; given what's already on their plate, I wouldn't expect LA to show any near-term interest in a mid-state E-W corridor through Alexandria, and MS just plain can't afford it!   My guess is that I-14 will, at least in the foreseeable future, be a "Triangle" -based facility; it'll expand west (if politically supported) before it goes east in any significant fashion.       

^

The main connection between Houston and College Station would continue to be SH-6 and US-290, which with a 16 mile exception that is only 65 - 75 mph four-lane divided highway, is all freeway, and is significantly shorter than an I-45 to I-14 at Huntsville routing. The Tomball Tollway (if ever completed as a 4-lane freeway all the way to SH-6) would provide an even more direct route, though for now US-290 and SH-6 will be the preferred option, and toll free. It's only a matter of time until that remaining 16 mile stretch be upgraded to freeway standards as the stretch from College Station to Navasota was in the past couple of decades.

That leaves the Madisonville routing which would actually serve good use for the College Station to Dallas routing as that's currently the quickest route. Additionally, that routing is shorter and would involve less construction compared to going to Huntsville.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 26, 2020, 07:14:53 PM
^

The main connection between Houston and College Station would continue to be SH-6 and US-290, which with a 16 mile exception that is only 65 - 75 mph four-lane divided highway, is all freeway, and is significantly shorter than an I-45 to I-14 at Huntsville routing. The Tomball Tollway (if ever completed as a 4-lane freeway all the way to SH-6) would provide an even more direct route, though for now US-290 and SH-6 will be the preferred option, and toll free. It's only a matter of time until that remaining 16 mile stretch be upgraded to freeway standards as the stretch from College Station to Navasota was in the past couple of decades.

That leaves the Madisonville routing which would actually serve good use for the College Station to Dallas routing as that's currently the quickest route. Additionally, that routing is shorter and would involve less construction compared to going to Huntsville.

The choice of corridor between TX 6 and I-45 may well come down to cost differentials -- running I-14 along the existing TX 6 ROW for some distance or peeling it off toward I-45 along US 190 toward Madisonville, saving possibly a couple of miles for the interim distance.   I'm sure TxDOT will examine the C/B sheet for all alternatives, collect opinions and preferences from parties of interest (the political aspect of all this), and then select one of the three options presented based on a composite of all of the above.  Another thing to consider -- if 249 is extended all the way to the Navasota area, improving TX 6 southward to meet it might well become a localized priority -- so that route would probably be upgraded in any instance.   IMO, either I-14 option is satisfactory -- but if I were making a wager, I'd still bet on an alignment closer to Huntsville than Madisonville simply because the whole shooting match is significantly closer to Houston than DFW -- with more vocal/local interests tipping the balance.     

The most logical path to me would be a new-terrain alignment between the Brazos crossing near Hearne and North Zulch tying in to the North Zulch bypass, then following US 190/SH 21 to I-45, including the future Madisonville bypass. SH 6 south to Navasota can be an odd I-x14 following some upgrades, and old US 190 between North Zulch and Bryan can be an even I-x14 with some upgrades and probably a new-terrain alignment to hit an interchange probably north of the current one.

^

That could be a good compromise. I-14 points towards Madisonville to serve a greater traffic load than a Huntsville routing would, but at the same time provide an I-x14 connector between Bryan and US-290. This obviously though would entail either US-290 between SH-6 and I-610 becoming part of that I-x14, or a separate 2d interstate highway eventually slated to run to Austin along US-290.

Not seeing a reason to convert US-190 into an I-x14 though. I-14 could dip to serve the Bryan / College Station area before continuing north.

Here's a concept. Red represents I-14, blue represents US-290 interstate highway, green represents SH-6 interstate highway spur. The US-290 interstate highwaty would serve Austin <-> Houston traffic, I-14 would serve east-west traffic via Bryan / College Station, and the SH-6 interstate highway spur would serve traffic from Houston to the northwest towards Bryan / College Station, Temple, Killeen, etc. This would also give Bryan / College Station an east-west interstate highway and a southern interstate highway to Houston. You could go further and keep the SH-6 interstate highway going up to Waco as well.
(https://i.ibb.co/FKvK2gt/US290-I14-SH6.png)

I believe the plan is to keep the Brazos crossing near Hearne as both the main channel and floodplain are relatively narrow there compared to points further south. Yours would create an extremely long (read: expensive) crossing. With global warming increasing the likelihood of major flooding, any new construction, especially an Interstate, needs to be done with that in mind.

Quote from: dfwmapper on February 26, 2020, 10:04:19 PM
I believe the plan is to keep the Brazos crossing near Hearne as both the main channel and floodplain are relatively narrow there compared to points further south. Yours would create an extremely long (read: expensive) crossing. With global warming increasing the likelihood of major flooding, any new construction, especially an Interstate, needs to be done with that in mind.

My example was a rough alignment just to show a conceptual map with three different interstate highways. Obviously specific sections like that would be closely analyzed with those factors in mind.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 26, 2020, 10:13:54 PM

Quote from: dfwmapper on February 26, 2020, 10:04:19 PM
I believe the plan is to keep the Brazos crossing near Hearne as both the main channel and floodplain are relatively narrow there compared to points further south. Yours would create an extremely long (read: expensive) crossing. With global warming increasing the likelihood of major flooding, any new construction, especially an Interstate, needs to be done with that in mind.

My example was a rough alignment just to show a conceptual map with three different interstate highways. Obviously specific sections like that would be closely analyzed with those factors in mind.

Actually, the plan pictured is a damn good idea.  :thumbsup: All that would be needed is a little northward "kink" at the point the main I-14 route crosses the Brazos floodplain; anything within a couple of miles of the US 79/190 or the parallel UP bridges would work just fine -- just stay away from the oxbows farther south.  But the concept of a US 290-based Houston-Austin interstate needs to be sold to both the folks in Austin as well as TxDOT -- particularly since there are current plans to expand I-10 east of Columbus, indicating that they're expecting Austin-bound traffic to simply peel off onto TX 71 there; a new competing facility farther north might conflict with their interregional concepts. 

What's shown is as close to ideal as possible -- the new composite 6/290 route providing efficient service down to Houston, while I-14 east to I-45 creates a right-angle to the latter route, so DFW traffic as well as that originating in the northern Houston exurbs can be reasonably served.  Combine that with an extended 249 for those who don't mind forking over their $$ for a "bee-line" route, and the regional needs are served for the foreseeable future.  Idea:  ascertain the main I-14 backers from the B/CS area and forward this to them (with a copy to TxDOT).  Since US 290 is completed as a freeway out to the TX 6 junction, the remainder of any Austin-bound route could be pursued more at leisure than as an integral part of Houston-B/CS traffic needs. 

Quote from: sturmdeWell, the undersold aspect of a long I-14 is this:  It's a perpendicular hurricane relief road for the whole Gulf Coast.  It provides a route parallel to I-10 in the event of serious damage and flooding through Houston, near the TX/LA border, near Baton Rouge, etc.

US-190 is already a parallel hurricane relief route for I-10 in Louisiana and far East Texas in the event I-10 is closed or even damaged due to hurricanes. US-190 may not be an Interstate, but it isn't very far from I-10 and it runs on higher ground for the most part.

Quote from: sturmdeIt also gives Temple/Round Rock/Austin an E/W "escape" route for whatever reason it might need.

I-14 doesn't serve the Round Rock and Austin areas in any practical sense, much less any sort of function as an evacuation route for severe weather. East-West traffic going to/from the Austin metro will be using US-290 or TX-71.

Quote from: armadillo speedbumpYes, downtown Dallas to College Station would be less than 5 miles longer via a Madisonville I-14 than via Waco. Once the I-45 3rd lane is finally finished it will be a no-brainer option for the east side of DFW, avoiding the stoplights, lower speed limits, and Riesel speed trap south of Waco.  (Would be nice to see Hwy 6 upgraded with bypasses for Riesel, Hearne, and Calvert, but are any of those far advanced or even in the planning pipeline?)  And long term it's better to funnel that traffic into the relatively slow growth I-45 corridor than piling it onto the booming I-35.

If it was up to me I'd have TX-6 upgraded to a complete Interstate quality freeway from College Station to Waco. And it would be a higher priority than I-14.

The big sales pitch for I-14 intended it to be a longer distance corridor rather than some crooked, angled thing biased for some traffic from Dallas. Honestly, if I'm going to use I-45 South out of Dallas to get to College Station I'm just not going to go all the way to Madisonville and back-track. The shortest route coming from I-45 is the TX-14 Exit at Richland and then taking TX-14 South until it ends at TX-6.

Quote from: armadillo speedbumpThe vast majority of the Houston metro is going to access BCS and I-14 west of there via either Hwy 6 or the Aggie Tollway (249) once it makes it to Navasota.  With 105 feeding it Conroe traffic, I don't really see that much added utility of routing 14 to Huntsville instead of via Madisonville.  Probably no time savings except for Willis and north, but there's a huge national forest between there and Huntsville that will serve as an effective urban growth boundary.  I wouldn't be surprised if their modeling shows more traffic from DFW on the Madisonville option than from Houston on the Huntsville option.

I really don't think people from Dallas or Houston are going to be using I-14 to reach College Station, regardless if it is routed to Madisonville or directly from College Station to Huntsville. Drivers from both cities have other shorter distance options. I-14 is only going to help move traffic between smaller cities in the middle of the Texas Triangle like College Station and Copperas Cove.

Routing I-14 directly from College Station to Huntsville could help move traffic in the far North exhurbs of Houston as well as allow Central Texas traffic to avoid Houston. As Houston continues to grow, and its suburbs spread North, other East-West corridors in the northern reaches of the Houston metro will have to be improved or will need regional alternatives. The TX-105 corridor linking Navasota, Conroe and Cleveland is already getting badly covered up and encroached with development. The same goes for FM-1488 and TX-242 around The Woodlands. There doesn't appear to be any place between those corridors where any freeway-quality relief routes could be built. I-14 from College Station to Huntsville could end up being the only limited access East-West corridor North of the Grand Parkway.

Lake Conroe, the Sam Houston National Forest and wetlands area is a big barrier for further development North of the TX-105 corridor and South of Huntsville. If I-14 was routed directly from College Station to Huntsville I think it would connect on the North side of Huntsville closer to the airport and prison complexes. The woods and wetlands areas (along with some higher priced homes) on the South side of Huntsville would be avoided.

Quote from: armadillo speedbumpI get that money grows on trees for our basement experts on everything, but take a look at actual census data.  Southeast Texas east of the Houston area is barely growing, and the population is actually shrinking in some areas.  Refinery expansions are nice but they are often offset by other losses.  Unlike many other areas of Texas, the likely future growth just isn't there to justify all these crisscrossing freeway proposals.

The Houston metro overall is still growing at a significant rate. The fastest growth is happening over in the Austin area and suburbs Southwest of it (New Braunfels, San Marcos). I've repeatedly said the US-290 and TX-71 corridors both should be greater priorities than I-14 due to both US-290 and TX-71 directly linking rapidly growing areas. The same even holds true for TX-6. There's a lot of traffic moving between DFW and Houston via that route as an alternative to I-45 (and the jams that frequently happen on I-45 in the Northern suburbs of Houston).

Quote from: dfwmapperI believe the plan is to keep the Brazos crossing near Hearne as both the main channel and floodplain are relatively narrow there compared to points further south.

The topography around the US-79 Brazos crossing doesn't look any different than the 4 lane TX-21 crossing farther South. That flood plain must not be all that much of a flood plain with major rail lines and a big rail yard built in the middle of it (just North of the little town of Mumford). Not to mention there's a lot of oil drilling pump jacks scattered throughout that area. FM-50, FM-1687 and other section line roads cut through that area.

At the very least I-14 shouldn't be ping-pong bouncing to Milano and Hearne as depicted in the original maps (leading to that awful, jagged "W" shaped path). The route needs to smooth out the corners wherever possible.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 27, 2020, 03:06:39 PM
If it was up to me I'd have TX-6 upgraded to a complete Interstate quality freeway from College Station to Waco. And it would be a higher priority than I-14.

The big sales pitch for I-14 intended it to be a longer distance corridor rather than some crooked, angled thing biased for some traffic from Dallas. Honestly, if I'm going to use I-45 South out of Dallas to get to College Station I'm just not going to go all the way to Madisonville and back-track. The shortest route coming from I-45 is the TX-14 Exit at Richland and then taking TX-14 South until it ends at TX-6.

Why build a straight-shot corridor to serve little traffic rather than align it strategically to pick up the most traffic as possible? That's exactly what a routing to Madisonville would do, capturing College Station <-> Dallas drivers. One to Huntsville would eliminate that completely, involve more construction (longer distance, not taking advantage of I-45's diagonal routing), and serve less traffic.

The routing you suggests currently takes 2 hours 50 minutes and 172 miles. A routing following I-45 to Madisonville then to College Station along I-14 would take 2 hours 42 minutes and 188 miles.

I-45 to I-14 will become the preferred Dallas to College Station routing, all interstate highway and 8 minutes faster vs. 60 miles of 2-lane road that passes through 4 towns and 35 miles of 4-lane divided highway that passes through an additional 2 towns.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 27, 2020, 03:06:39 PM
I really don't think people from Dallas or Houston are going to be using I-14 to reach College Station, regardless if it is routed to Madisonville or directly from College Station to Huntsville. Drivers from both cities have other shorter distance options. I-14 is only going to help move traffic between smaller cities in the middle of the Texas Triangle like College Station and Copperas Cove.

The routing you suggests (SH-14 and SH-6) currently takes 2 hours 50 minutes and 172 miles. A routing following I-45 to Madisonville then to College Station along I-14 would take 2 hours 42 minutes and 188 miles.

I-45 to I-14 will become the preferred Dallas to College Station routing, all interstate highway and 8 minutes faster vs. 60 miles of 2-lane road that passes through 4 towns and 35 miles of 4-lane divided highway that passes through an additional 2 towns.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 27, 2020, 03:06:39 PM
Routing I-14 directly from College Station to Huntsville could help move traffic in the far North exhurbs of Houston as well as allow Central Texas traffic to avoid Houston. As Houston continues to grow, and its suburbs spread North, other East-West corridors in the northern reaches of the Houston metro will have to be improved or will need regional alternatives. The TX-105 corridor linking Navasota, Conroe and Cleveland is already getting badly covered up and encroached with development. The same goes for FM-1488 and TX-242 around The Woodlands. There doesn't appear to be any place between those corridors where any freeway-quality relief routes could be built. I-14 from College Station to Huntsville could end up being the only limited access East-West corridor North of the Grand Parkway.

Except I-14 would still serve this movement even if built to Madisonville. The current routing to Huntsville takes 1 hour, 54 miles and is 2-lane roadway passing through 2 towns. Taking I-45 from Huntsville to an I-14 at Madisonville then to College Station would take 57 minutes, 65 miles if built, passing through no towns and is all interstate highway.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 27, 2020, 03:06:39 PM
I've repeatedly said the US-290 and TX-71 corridors both should be greater priorities than I-14 due to both US-290 and TX-71 directly linking rapidly growing areas. The same even holds true for TX-6. There's a lot of traffic moving between DFW and Houston via that route as an alternative to I-45 (and the jams that frequently happen on I-45 in the Northern suburbs of Houston).

I generally agree, but keep this in mind. The roadway between I-35 and I-45 is a jagged, 2-lane roadway that passes through 6 towns. On the other hand, SH-71 and US-290 are 4-lane divided 75 mph highways that pass through 1 or 2 towns each. With the construction, both routes will at least have 4-lane connections.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 27, 2020, 03:06:39 PM
At the very least I-14 shouldn't be ping-pong bouncing to Milano and Hearne as depicted in the original maps (leading to that awful, jagged "W" shaped path). The route needs to smooth out the corners wherever possible.

It -won't- as been repeated numerous times here.

Quote from: sparker on February 27, 2020, 01:42:12 PM
But the concept of a US 290-based Houston-Austin interstate needs to be sold to both the folks in Austin as well as TxDOT -- particularly since there are current plans to expand I-10 east of Columbus, indicating that they're expecting Austin-bound traffic to simply peel off onto TX 71 there; a new competing facility farther north might conflict with their interregional concepts. 

I-10 is being expanded to 6 lanes all the way from San Antonio to Houston. SH 71 just makes for a logical endpoint for that particular segment. Based on TxDOT AADT numbers, about 1/4 of the traffic on I-10 east of SH 71 is going to/coming from SH 71.

^
I-10 is getting ready to be expanded further west an additional 20 miles to US-77 at Schulenburg to 6 lanes.

Quote from: MaxConcrete on February 24, 2020, 07:50:48 PM
TxDOT posted a solicitation for a consultant to prepare the plans for widening to 3x3 from Columbus to Schulenberg, about 20 miles.

The schematic is posted with the solicitation
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/solicitations/4305/schematics.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/solicitations/4305/schematics.pdf)

Observations:
* The main lane design is 100% per TxDOT's modern template: 3x3 with full interior and exterior shoulders, no median, center concrete barrier
* There is a strange diversion from the existing alignment about 1 mile east of US 90. The reason appears to be for smoothing the curve at this location. The diversion is about 1 mile long. Maybe that curve is accident-prone? This seems especially strange since the curve could have been smoothed on the north side, with much less right-of-way acquisition. Maybe the nearby railroad crossing was a design factor.
* Between CR 210 and CR 220, a forested area between the main lanes and frontage road is eliminated by relocating the frontage road to be alongside the main lanes. This eliminates the only location of natural foliage within the right-of-way on this section of IH 10.

Quote from: sprjus4Why build a straight-shot corridor to serve little traffic rather than align it strategically to pick up the most traffic as possible? That's exactly what a routing to Madisonville would do, capturing College Station <-> Dallas drivers.

I think that's a stretch. As I said in my last post, Dallas traffic taking I-45 to reach College Station is going to exit I-45 in Richland, not farther South and out of the way in Madisonville. TX-14 coming off I-45 is the fastest way for Eastern DFW traffic to get to the College Station area. It's shorter in milage than going down to Madisonville and doing a big L shaped back-track path. Everyone else in the central to West sides of the DFW metro will take I-35 to TX-6 in Waco. Hell, there's a lot of traffic from DFW and farther North that takes TX-6 as a backdoor path into the Houston area.

The purpose of I-14 isn't giving Dallas traffic a faster way to get to College Station. If that was the real purpose then TX-14 from Richland to the TX-6 "Y" at Hammond would be brought up to Interstate standards and TX-6 upgraded right along with it.

Right now I-14 is supposed to provide a direct link between the Killeen area and College Station. The long term, big picture goal of I-14 is a new long distance Interstate directly linking Midland, San Angelo, Killeen, College Station, Huntsville, Alexandria and points farther East. It's not supposed to work like a very far away 3-digit Interstate route for East Dallas traffic.

Madisonville is not a significant destination. The same goes for towns like Hearne and Milano. I-14 will not be worth building at all if it is routed on a jagged, idiotic "W" shape path through the Texas triangle. I'm willing to bet more traffic moves between the College Station area and Huntsville than it does with Madisonville.

Quote from: Bobby5280At the very least I-14 shouldn't be ping-pong bouncing to Milano and Hearne as depicted in the original maps (leading to that awful, jagged "W" shaped path). The route needs to smooth out the corners wherever possible.

Quote from: sprjus4It -won't- as been repeated numerous times here.

Diverting I-14 from College Station to Madisonville rather than a direct path to Huntsville will help create that "W" shape route. Enough angled turns will have the path of I-14 looking like the saw-tooth stripe on Charlie Brown's shirt. Even if I-14 can be built in a direct path from the Cameron area to Bryan and College Station, routing it up to Madisonville still turns it into a V-shaped route. That still sucks.

^^^^^^^^^^^
The expedition of traffic flow from DFW to B/CS is only a secondary consideration when evaluating the Madisonville vs. Huntsville junctions with I-45.  The real advantage of Madisonville -- considered strictly from what can be expected from the full I-14 concept -- is that it bypasses Lake Livingston to the north where there are fewer developed properties to be acquired as well as less water-crossing structure to be built.  A Huntsville alignment -- if an extension farther east is considered -- would probably have to include a southern arc around the lake and its dam; it's unlikely that TxDOT would consider a lengthy bridge over the lake itself if one could be avoided.   Developing this route would also provide benefits regarding the Beaumont "branch" proposed a couple of years back -- it would certainly make it shorter and thus less costly. 

Each routing option comes with a set of benefits; obviously Houston and environs would reap more of these if the Huntsville option was chosen.  The benefits to be derived from the Madisonville option are somewhat more vague -- giving DFW traffic an all-freeway option to B/CS would not likely be sufficient to sway the decision makers in that direction.   If the alignment of the eastern extension into LA remains a major factor, then a northern arc around Lake Livingston might afford the opportunity to ruffle the fewest feathers via both construction cost and ROW acquisition (although it would be a somewhat longer segment over to Woodville and Jasper).  All this is stuff to be hashed out by TxDOT planners and their political handlers, who'll certainly have more detailed information than we all get from maps and our various sources.   But right now it comes down to the fact that preliminarily there were two options heading to somewhere around Huntsville versus one to Madisonville;  the odds favor the prioritization of the former. 

Quote from: sparkerThe expedition of traffic flow from DFW to B/CS is only a secondary consideration when evaluating the Madisonville vs. Huntsville junctions with I-45.  The real advantage of Madisonville -- considered strictly from what can be expected from the full I-14 concept -- is that it bypasses Lake Livingston to the north where there are fewer developed properties to be acquired as well as less water-crossing structure to be built.

But none of the planning maps show that. They don't show I-14 continuing directly West of Madisonville. The maps all suggest I-14 will be routed to Huntsville in some manner. One version (what I prefer) is going direct from College Station to Huntsville. The other version is bouncing it up to Madisonville and then co-signing I-14 with I-45 for 25 miles down to Huntsville.

The concept of routing I-14 to the West of Madisonville has its own problems. First, it bypasses Huntsville (a town of much greater regional significance than Madisonville, which is quite a bit smaller). Some other towns East of Huntsville, like Livingston, would be bypassed. There are wetlands areas to the North of Lake Livingston. I-14 would have to be built on an entirely new-terrain path from Madisonville to Woodville or even Jasper.

^^^^^^^^^^
As said previously, the odds are 2-to-1 that I-14 will stay on TX 6 to somewhere around the TX 30 junction or a bit south of there and then diverge east toward Huntsville.  And while it is correct that there are no published plans for a north-of-Lake-Livingston routing, any extension over to I-69 or farther east will in all likelihood involve quite a bit of new-terrain alignment; following US 190 closely east of Huntsville would likely provoke opposition (of the NIMBY variety) from the folks residing along the existing corridor (which features some lengthy bridges over the lake); bypassing the lake to the south would probably be the optimal option (although wetlands seem to be the rule rather than the exception in that neck of the woods).  My take on a northern arc around the lake is simply speculation as to alternatives that could be considered if a crossing at or south of US 190 becomes problematic. 

I'm wondering will I-14 follow Hwy 190 in Louisiana?

Quote from: dariusb on March 10, 2020, 10:24:37 PM
I'm wondering will I-14 follow Hwy 190 in Louisiana?

The last time any plans were forward about a I-14 alignment in LA it essentially followed LA 28 through Alexandria, segueing onto US 84 and crossing the Mississippi at Natchez.  Running it anywhere near the US 190 route, which takes a huge southward jog down US 171, would be pointless -- and likely hasn't even been presented as an option in LA planning circles.   The only way I-14 would ever head that far south is if plans east of TX are dropped, and Texas' portion of the corridor is shunted down to Beaumont via a branch touted in the latest composite plans (IMO if that happens I-14 may as well be extended down to Port Arthur!).     

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 27, 2020, 03:06:39 PM

Quote from: sturmdeIt also gives Temple/Round Rock/Austin an E/W "escape" route for whatever reason it might need.

I-14 doesn't serve the Round Rock and Austin areas in any practical sense, much less any sort of function as an evacuation route for severe weather. East-West traffic going to/from the Austin metro will be using US-290 or TX-71.

Round Rock would actually be the big exception to my "I-14 won't do much for the Austin area" thinking, because US 79 to Milano or Hearne is a reasonably straight shot. The big thing in my mind that's missing from The Triangle is a good route to the northeast out of Austin and San Antonio that doesn't involve going through Dallas or Houston. An upgrade to SH 21 from US 290 at Paige (or preferably all the way back at San Marcos) to Bryan tying into I-14 and then I-69 and I-369 would take some of the pressure off of I-35 and I-10. It doesn't even need to be full freeway the whole way. Just something similar to SH 71 between Bastrop and Columbus where interchanges and bypasses get most of the cross traffic out of the way so you can maintain the 65/70/75-mph limit.

I think everyone is missing the point of I-14 existing at all.  All it is about is the state proving it supports FT Hood.  I highly doubt since I-14 is complete from Copperas Cove to I-35 that there is any priority whatsoever in extending it. 

I think there is at least some legitimacy with extending I-14 to the Bryan-College Station area and then over to Huntsville. The PR angle of the highway doing the "we support the troops" mantra is kind of lame. If connecting Army posts with freeways was of strategic importance they would more likely upgrade US-281 into an Interstate to help link Fort Sill in Oklahoma with Food Hood in Texas.

If I-14 was fully built-out from the Midland-Odessa to San Angelo, Killeen, College Station, Huntsville and points farther East it could help the route serve as a regional trunk/bypass route for long distance commerce. I-81 works as a kind of relief route for I-95.

Quote from: sparkerAs said previously, the odds are 2-to-1 that I-14 will stay on TX 6 to somewhere around the TX 30 junction or a bit south of there and then diverge east toward Huntsville.  And while it is correct that there are no published plans for a north-of-Lake-Livingston routing, any extension over to I-69 or farther east will in all likelihood involve quite a bit of new-terrain alignment; following US 190 closely east of Huntsville would likely provoke opposition (of the NIMBY variety) from the folks residing along the existing corridor (which features some lengthy bridges over the lake); bypassing the lake to the south would probably be the optimal option (although wetlands seem to be the rule rather than the exception in that neck of the woods).

I think pushing the route South of Lake Livingston poses just as many problems as running it directly over the existing US-190 alignment. There are a few different housing areas around the South edge of the lake and at the foot of the dam. An I-14 Southern bypass of the lake would have to be built perhaps a couple of miles South of the dam, if not farther. This wouldn't be a bad thing if I-14 was going to run from Huntsville down to the Beaumont-Port Arthur area. It would be a more direct path for such an alternative. But if I-14 is meant to go East to Alexandria it would be a pretty substantial detour to go around the lake only to come back up to the North again.

There are a few potential places just North of the existing US-190 corridor where a new I-14 bridge crossing could be built. Up in those areas it wouldn't visually impact the nicer looking parts of the lake to the South of the existing US-190 bridge. If TX DOT sold the project the right way they might be able to dress up the bridge where it looks a little nicer, have a couple clearances more friendly to boats and maybe even a pedestrian path and overlooks where people could fish off the bridge. The existing US-190 bridge is just two lanes with hardly any shoulders and zero room for anyone on foot.

Edit: Since a more direct College Station to Huntsville route alternative of I-14 would likely enter Huntsville on the North side (near the large prison complex system) that would make it easier to route a new terrain path over to an optimal crossing over the North half of Lake Livingston.

Quote from: djlynchRound Rock would actually be the big exception to my "I-14 won't do much for the Austin area" thinking, because US 79 to Milano or Hearne is a reasonably straight shot. The big thing in my mind that's missing from The Triangle is a good route to the northeast out of Austin and San Antonio that doesn't involve going through Dallas or Houston.

What major destination for Austin traffic would justify an Interstate route going Northeast out that city yet bypassing Dallas? I don't really see Austin-to-Tyler as a major corridor worth spending billions to upgrade into Interstate quality. US-79 is probably just fine as it is. Sharply angling I-14 down to hit Milano and ping-pong up to Hearne isn't going to help matters much either. It would only hamstring the effectiveness of a more direct I-14 route. Killeen-College Station-Huntsville is the real deal there.

1) The PR if you will angle is all about BRACC. While we aren't in the throes of a BRAC right now, when I-14 was in the works, it was expected.  Make the base in-expendable to the military.  If you had ever been involved in Base retention efforts, you might understand.  It is about making Ft Hood look great for the future. A road to nowhere wouldn't have been out of the question.

2) Texas as a rule doesn't do significant runs of new routing on  rural roads. I am not even going to guess where it might go after Bryan / College Station. My guess Conroe not Huntsville. Go into the edge of the Houston Urban area to spite itself

2) Austin wasn't much more than an afterthought until the nineties as government blossomed.  Yes, it is a huge urban sprawl now, but it is viewed as an island, not a destination nor a beginning point. You go through Austin in spite of Austin's search for relevance.

Quote from: bwana39 on March 11, 2020, 05:34:05 PM
1) The PR if you will angle is all about BRACC. While we aren't in the throes of a BRAC right now, when I-14 was in the works, it was expected.  Make the base in-expendable to the military.  If you had ever been involved in Base retention efforts, you might understand.  It is about making Ft Hood look great for the future. A road to nowhere wouldn't have been out of the question.

2) Texas as a rule doesn't do significant runs of new routing on  rural roads. I am not even going to guess where it might go after Bryan / College Station. My guess Conroe not Huntsville. Go into the edge of the Houston Urban area to spite itself

2) Austin wasn't much more than an afterthought until the nineties as government blossomed.  Yes, it is a huge urban sprawl now, but it is viewed as an island, not a destination nor a beginning point. You go through Austin in spite of Austin's search for relevance.

I'd surmise that it's the other way around -- the presence of Ft. Hood enhances the viability of I-14, not the other way around.   Remember that I-14 is a developmental corridor, intended to brighten the commercial prospects of the areas it will serve rather than simply providing access to them.  That was already there with the US 190 freeway that was upgraded to the sole extant I-14 section a few years back.  The driving force for the corridor has always emanated from the "Triangle", particularly Bryan/College Station, and areas of West Texas currently some distance from an Interstate, particularly San Angelo.  If the extant 190 freeway were the whole point of the matter, it could have been designated a x35 -- even if TxDOT isn't terribly fond of Interstate spur routes -- at least without prodding (e.g. I-169 down in the Rio Grande Valley).  No -- the I-14 corridor concept was and is all about providing a facility along which commercial development can occur; the existing freeway from I-35 to Copperas Cove was simply a convenient place to "lay anchor" for the project. 

But that is a good if a bit overstated observation regarding Austin.  Ever since I-10 was routed down TX 27 and US 87 to San Antonio rather than remain on US 290, there have been roadgeeks looking at Austin as a hugely underserved city deserving of Interstate connections east and west (I was myself sporadically within those ranks).  Part of that is the city's (and its surrounding area's) outsized growth over the last few decades.  But it seems that Austin residents are largely indifferent to that iteration of the connectivity concept -- they, and by extension their elected officials -- have been largely silent regarding any pressing need to develop more direct Interstate-grade connections east to Houston or west to I-10.  Their attention, when visible, seems to be more localized in nature -- improving access within their metro area rather than forging new connections to more distant locations.  Austin is iconoclastic in contrast with other Texas metro areas; whether that's due to their position as a relatively liberal bastion bolstered by being the seat of state government as well as the site of a major research university can be debated -- but they have managed to set themselves apart from much of the rest of the state by their willingness to embrace tolls and other urbanist-approved (or even initiated) methods to address their transportation requirements (although DFW has adopted the toll concept as well -- although probably for different reasons).  Getting from point "A" to point "B" within their metro area appears to have been prioritized over getting from one metro area to another.  For the most part, Austin folks appear to be quite content with using TX 71 or even US 290 -- as is -- when they have to schlep over to Houston for one reason or another.  If over time pressure builds to install an Interstate-grade facility heading east, that pressure is more likely to come from the intervening areas (Bastrop, anyone?) than Austin itself or interests within that city.

Quote from: bwana39The PR if you will angle is all about BRACC. While we aren't in the throes of a BRAC right now, when I-14 was in the works, it was expected.  Make the base in-expendable to the military.

Having been raised in a military family, along with living in a "military town" (Lawton) since the early 1990's, I'm pretty familiar with Base Realignment and Closure committee proceedings.

About 15 or so years ago there was a lot of worry here BRAC proceedings in Washington would gut many of the missions at Fort Sill. But the post here has remained somewhat stable. Some missions have come and gone, but Fort Sill added the Air Defense Artillery School (moved here from Fort Bliss). Several defense technology companies, such as Raytheon, do a lot of testing work here. They have a land-based Phalanx cannon system (a large scale chain-based machine gun that cycles 6000 rounds per minute). It's something else to hear one of those burp out a gun blast from miles away. Last night I don't know what Fort Sill was blowing up, but it was rattling my windows! Fort Sill is a pretty important Army post in terms of Army history. It's pretty much where the last chapter of the Plains Indian Wars ended. The grave of Geronimo is aboard Fort Sill. We have highways and other sites named after Quanah Parker (who I think is really a bigger legend than Geronimo). Fort Sill has another additional advantage to the Army: lower living costs in the area off post (saves money on BAQ expenses) and lower costs of doing business.

Anyway, with all the talk of Fort Sill and it managing to survive BRAC sessions, Fort Hood ranks a peg above Fort Sill in terms of importance of the US Army. Fort Hood is one of the very last posts I would ever expect the Army to close, much less reduce at all in terms of missions.

Quote from: bwana39Texas as a rule doesn't do significant runs of new routing on rural roads. I am not even going to guess where it might go after Bryan / College Station. My guess Conroe not Huntsville.

There is no practical path to build I-14 direct from College Station to Conroe. Lake Conroe is one big obstacle. All the expensive housing development along and close to the lake's edge is another. The TX-105 corridor is completely overrun with development.

Honestly the Grand Parkway is really the only super highway that's going to be able to span East-West through that general vicinity. No other East-West superhighway between it and I-14 will be able to be built due to all the high priced properties that exist in that region. And even if there was a credible path to extend I-14 from College Station to Conroe it would pretty much duplicate efforts of extending the Tomball Parkway to Navasota.

Quote from: bwana39Austin wasn't much more than an afterthought until the nineties as government blossomed.  Yes, it is a huge urban sprawl now, but it is viewed as an island, not a destination nor a beginning point. You go through Austin in spite of Austin's search for relevance.

Austin is the state capitol of Texas and it has been a pretty big city for a very long time. And now the Austin-San Antonio region is pretty much the fastest growing area of the US. The Austin metro has 2 million people. Same for San Antonio. Both combined have close to 5 million. Even though Austin is huge, I don't see many of its residents itching to go to Tyler as opposed to the DFW area or Houston (or even College Station for that matter). For the Austin area improving the links between it and Houston appear to be of far greater importance than anything to do with I-14. I think US-290, TX-71 and TX-6 should all be greater priorities for improvement.

Quote from: sparkerBut it seems that Austin residents are largely indifferent to that iteration of the connectivity concept -- they, and by extension their elected officials -- have been largely silent regarding any pressing need to develop more direct Interstate-grade connections east to Houston or west to I-10.

First of all, not everyone in Austin is a tofu-eating liberal who hates cars. Really, you can't get around most places in the Austin metro without a personal motor vehicle. That's one thing. But this notion you keep repeating, implying any regional or national superhighway connections are solely up to local Austin residents and their "campaign efforts" is ridiculous. Interstate-class highways serve more than just the people who live in a particular destination city. They also serve all the people and businesses who have to drive to and from that city. The needs for proper, adequate highway connections in and out of Austin are bigger than just the people in Austin. The locals in Austin only have a say at blocking highway projects in their city limits. If TX DOT decides it is going to turn US-290 or TX-71 between Austin and Houston into Interstate quality roads the avocado toast eating contingent in Austin can't really do much to stop it. At some point improving aspects of safety and effective movement of traffic and commerce has to take priority over the cause of getting everyone to pedal a bicycle when taking a long road trip.

You're right, there isn"t a good direct route to Conroe. My guess would be SH6 to the south then over.

US 190 takes a pretty long shift north-south along US 171 from Leesville to Ragley before turning east to cross Kinder/Basile/Eunice/Opelousas et. al.


Unless you plan on upgrading US 171 between Lake Charles and Shreveport, that's not really feasible, and not what the original I-14/14th Amendment Corridor folks intended.


Any upgrade of US 190 east of Ragley would be better suited as an I-12 extension, also overlaying LA/TX 12 through DeQuincy to I-10 at Vidor.


Also, really not needed, since 190 could be 4-laned from Kinder east to where the existing 4-lane starts west of Eunice.

^^^^^^^^^
Yeah, I have yapped about Austin's reluctance to initate any action regarding Interstate connectivity to Houston and elsewhere on repeated occasion -- but that's not to imply that they have some sort of veto power over such activity; by no means would that be the case.  What I am implying -- actually stating -- is that the history of post-chargeable Interstate corridors in TX shows one particular commonality -- the impetus for such has started with an actor or group of such located somewhere along the proposed corridor actually getting out there and getting their hands dirty formulating proposals and promotion for these corridors.  Sure, TxDOT and their political handlers could elect on their own to initiate a Houston-Austin corridor either along TX 71, US 290, or some variant or combination of those -- but that just hasn't happened.  Interstate corridors in this state are shepherded by groups like the Houston-based Alliance for I-69/Texas, which has worked with TxDOT, various members of the state's congressional delegation, and state legislators to ensure that steady progress on the I-69 "family" is maintained.  Of course, they represent Houston interests who would benefit from both an northeast and southwest Interstate-grade egress facility from their city -- essentially filling in what was ignored back in 1956-57.   The I-14 backers are decidedly less organized and have yet to be responsible for a single mile of freeway that wasn't there when they started their process -- but at least they're getting formal alignment studies done in relatively prompt fashion as a first step toward actual construction.   But my point is that TxDOT doesn't initiate these projects by themselves even though they have the prerogative to do so; they have repeatedly let specific promotional groups take the lead, and are content to expedite these groups' interests as long as they maintain the "push" for action.   Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that at about 850K residents in incorporated Austin and a like amount in the surrounding 'burbs that there hasn't been more of a push for connections to elsewhere, particularly the obvious routes to Houston but also improvements to routes that might prove useful in bypassing DFW and other congested areas of the state (hey, this is TX -- and even liberals here have cars & the occasional truck or two -- it isn't NYC!), like an upgrade of US 79, for instance.   But consistent and coordinated activity toward such a project -- a prerequisite to actual successful action -- just hasn't happened -- and there doesn't seem to be any sign that such is imminent or even the subject of rumblings or chatter. 

It would be nice if public agencies could and would, on their own, initiate activities to address unfulfilled needs even if the localities that would benefit from such activities fail to act on their own -- but there are political realities that need to be considered;  this is a nominal "red state" that tends, in the aggregate, to view raising public funds for such endeavors as either unnecessary or even wasteful.   An agency chief who would suggest spending several billion dollars to not only do the corridors planned presently but also several others (the Austin servers discussed here, US 287 Ft. Worth>Amarillo, the P-to-P, et. al.) would be excoriated as being a "tax-and-spend" bureaucrat.  But if outside groups take the lead and garner support within the state, then TxDOT can be seen as simply expediting the process -- in other words, just doing their job responding to perceived public preferences. 

OK, if I am going to play fantasy, here is the route.

US 190 from Temple to Bryan / College Station. (Sure would try to do some new routing in Milam County)
TX 30  to Huntsville
US 190 to Jasper
TX 63 to LA State Line
From TX State Line LA 8
LA 8 to Leesville (and Ft Polk)
LA 28 to Alexandria
Through Alexandria / Pineville
Back on LA 28 to Archie (US 84)
US 84 to Ferriday and Natchez MS.

Reason it will NOT happen. Louisiana cannot afford what they have in the works / immediate needs.  In Texas it doesn't really service ANY population center of over 500K.

I think Interstate 14 should be an Interstate 20-to-Interstate 45 route. Nothing more!

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 12, 2020, 04:22:02 PM
I think Interstate 14 should be an Interstate 20-to-Interstate 45 route. Nothing more!

East of I-45, it could conceptually continue eastward along the US-190 corridor intersecting I-69, then turning southeast along US-287 and ending at I-10 in Beaumont, avoiding Houston for I-14 <-> I-10 traffic.

The segment from Meridian to Augusta via Montgomery, Columbus, and Macon (the Meridian <-> Montgomery segment being studied as an I-85 extension a decade ago) is also another corridor that would be a reasonable route, maybe not as I-14, but another interstate highway.

The portion between Meridian and Livingston / Woodville through Louisiana and Mississippi doesn't connect any major population centers that aren't already linked through other interstate highways (I-65, I-10, I-20, etc.) and the most that would be needed is a 4-lane divided highway which exists in a lot of areas. Not to mention, what are the odds those states will ever find such funding to construct such roadway.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 12, 2020, 04:37:49 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 12, 2020, 04:22:02 PM
I think Interstate 14 should be an Interstate 20-to-Interstate 45 route. Nothing more!

East of I-45, it could conceptually continue eastward along the US-190 corridor intersecting I-69, then turning southeast along US-287 and ending at I-10 in Beaumont, avoiding Houston for I-14 <-> I-10 traffic.

The segment from Meridian to Augusta via Montgomery, Columbus, and Macon (the Meridian <-> Montgomery segment being studied as an I-85 extension a decade ago) is also another corridor that would be a reasonable route, maybe not as I-14, but another interstate highway.

The portion between Meridian and Livingston / Woodville through Louisiana and Mississippi doesn't connect any major population centers that aren't already linked through other interstate highways (I-65, I-10, I-20, etc.) and the most that would be needed is a 4-lane divided highway which exists in a lot of areas. Not to mention, what are the odds those states will ever find such funding to construct such roadway.

Chances are that in most of our lifetimes I-14 won't get out of Texas.  The ghostbuster is essentially right -- it'll likely (by itself or as an adjunct to a revived Port-to-Plains) get to Midland, TX, one of the areas promoting the corridor along with San Angelo slightly to the southeast.  It'll be a Midland-San Angelo-Temple-Bryan-Huntsville facility in about 30 years or so.  East of I-45 will depend upon local support from that corner of the state -- a corner that has already suggested a branch down to Beaumont, which may end up as the I-14 "main line" if LA and/or MS won't or can't pony up the requisite funding for their portions (AL is already out of the picture, so any potential corridor would likely just terminate at I-59).  Actually, a Beaumont-San Angelo/Midland corridor might be useful for commercial traffic looking to avoid Houston and San Antonio traffic issues; the lack of substantial metro areas along the corridor may be a backhanded saving grace!  That concept would be enhanced further if renewed activity on the Port-to-Plains (I-27) corridor were to transpire -- an additional source and/or outlet for I-14 traffic -- it could become a major commercial conduit in spite of itself!   

Quote from: bwana39You're right, there isn"t a good direct route to Conroe. My guess would be SH6 to the south then over.

Once the Tomball Parkway is completed to TX-6 there will be at least one good, direct super-highway path from College Station into the Houston area. TX-6 itself is going to need more and more upgrades. I think Waco to Bryan has to be a priority and then extending South to US-290 and maybe even I-10.

Quote from: sparkerIt would be nice if public agencies could and would, on their own, initiate activities to address unfulfilled needs even if the localities that would benefit from such activities fail to act on their own -- but there are political realities that need to be considered;  this is a nominal "red state" that tends, in the aggregate, to view raising public funds for such endeavors as either unnecessary or even wasteful.

The Interstate highway system was started by a Republican President. Texans like their cars and they do seem to like the fact their super highways are bigger in scale than many other areas of the US. Many Texans are conservative and don't like taxes, but they like toll road even less. So that's quite a conundrum and contradiction -kind of like how Texas has no state income tax but boy do you make up for that in property taxes!

As much as Texas has grown in population (and continues to grow rapidly) many corridors are in very legit need of upgrades.

There is absolutely zero denying the fact US-290 between Houston and Austin needs full Interstate-quality upgrading. A great deal of work on US-290 has been done leading up to the split with TX-6. Other spot upgrades have happened elsewhere on the corridor. In Austin some big projects are planned on US-290 going Westward out of town. So it's not like TX DOT is ignoring the US-290 corridor. They're making upgrades where they can be made. The only difference is there is no overall big picture plan currently to upgrade the entire corridor. The same can be said for the TX-71 corridor. San Marcos and New Braunfels are growing rapidly and will need more than just I-35 as an inlet/outlet. Highway "spokes" near or along TX-46 and TX-80 must be improved from those cities to I-10. Further, the TX-46 corridor is emerging as a Northern partial outer loop corridor for San Antonio. US-287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo is long overdue for improvement.

Attitudes about "tax and spend" can change on things like roads. Right now we have this coronavirus crisis creating all kinds of turmoil and threatening to send the economy into a tail spin. One thing the government can do when things go South is get a lot of big public works projects going to help jump start the economy. Building new roads or upgrading existing roads is "progress" citizens and taxpayers can see.

Quote from: The GhostbusterI think Interstate 14 should be an Interstate 20-to-Interstate 45 route. Nothing more!

Over the next 30 or so years I think I-14, at best will run from Copperas Cove to Huntsville in some manner. And that's it. Perhaps it could get extended as far West as Lampasas (and US-281).

If I-14 is ever extended as far West as I-20 in the Midland-Odessa area then the East end should at least have some Interstate quality connection going into Beaumont-Port Arthur. That is if it's not extended farther East thru Louisiana. It would be even more beneficial to "oil patch" activity as well as helping the highway serve as a regional, long distance I-10 bypass for commercial traffic to avoid the San Antonio and Houston areas. If I-14 only ended in Huntsville a bunch of that traffic would have to get down into the Houston area to connect with I-10. Traffic on I-45 starts getting hairy as far North as Conroe. By the time you get down to The Woodlands to connect with the Grand Parkway I-45 at that point is prone to soul-crushing traffic jams.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 12, 2020, 01:19:49 AM

There is no practical path to build I-14 direct from College Station to Conroe. Lake Conroe is one big obstacle. All the expensive housing development along and close to the lake's edge is another. The TX-105 corridor is completely overrun with development.

Actually, there is ROW along 105 all the way from Navasota to 336 west of Conroe. Yes there is a lot of development along this route, but if you look at satellite imagery, all of the driveways to business etc, are a little longer vs right up on the road. Looks to me like they planned for 105 to be expanded to limited access at some point.

The Republican Party of the 1950s was a separate species to the one today.  Back then, they supported labor unions, just as one example...

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 12, 2020, 04:22:02 PM
I think Interstate 14 should be an Interstate 20-to-Interstate 45 route. Nothing more!

That will happen about 50 years from now.

Quote from: sparker on March 11, 2020, 03:27:19 AM

Quote from: dariusb on March 10, 2020, 10:24:37 PM
I'm wondering will I-14 follow Hwy 190 in Louisiana?

The last time any plans were forward about a I-14 alignment in LA it essentially followed LA 28 through Alexandria, segueing onto US 84 and crossing the Mississippi at Natchez.  Running it anywhere near the US 190 route, which takes a huge southward jog down US 171, would be pointless -- and likely hasn't even been presented as an option in LA planning circles.   The only way I-14 would ever head that far south is if plans east of TX are dropped, and Texas' portion of the corridor is shunted down to Beaumont via a branch touted in the latest composite plans (IMO if that happens I-14 may as well be extended down to Port Arthur!).     

There has been discussion to upgrade US190 to four lane with minimal at grade intersections. 55 MPH Minimum. No traffic signals. This has mainly been during discussion of the upgrade / replacement of the Atchafalaya bridges on I-10.  Some have suggested it as a redundant freeway to I-10. IE EXTEND I-12 to I-49 (or to Alexandria via the US-71 Corridor for the really ambitious.)

Has been MINIMAL if any discussion of a Freeway going farther west than Opelousas in the south.

Quote from: bwana39 on March 13, 2020, 12:25:56 PM

Quote from: sparker on March 11, 2020, 03:27:19 AM

Quote from: dariusb on March 10, 2020, 10:24:37 PM
I'm wondering will I-14 follow Hwy 190 in Louisiana?

The last time any plans were forward about a I-14 alignment in LA it essentially followed LA 28 through Alexandria, segueing onto US 84 and crossing the Mississippi at Natchez.  Running it anywhere near the US 190 route, which takes a huge southward jog down US 171, would be pointless -- and likely hasn't even been presented as an option in LA planning circles.   The only way I-14 would ever head that far south is if plans east of TX are dropped, and Texas' portion of the corridor is shunted down to Beaumont via a branch touted in the latest composite plans (IMO if that happens I-14 may as well be extended down to Port Arthur!).     

There has been discussion to upgrade US190 to four lane with minimal at grade intersections. 55 MPH Minimum. No traffic signals. This has mainly been during discussion of the upgrade / replacement of the Atchafalaya bridges on I-10.  Some have suggested it as a redundant freeway to I-10. IE EXTEND I-12 to I-49 (or to Alexandria via the US-71 Corridor for the really ambitious.)

Has been MINIMAL if any discussion of a Freeway going farther west than Opelousas in the south.

Really?? I've heard no such discussion of any freeway or any serious upgrade to US 190 east of Opelousas from LADOTD or anyone else.

Besides that, lots of luck removing the traffic lights in Port Barre, Livonia, and Erwinville. Cops there gotta get their revenue somehow.


Also, while there could be some access modification via J-turns on the segment from the LA 1 (west) intersection just west of Erwinville to the LA 415 divergence interchange, the remainder of US 190 from there west to Opelousas is either too narrow with a K-rail median (foot of the Morganza Floodway bridge near Louisa to LA 1); narrow with a small barrier median (Morganza Spillway bridge to Atchafalaya River bridge at Krotz Springs) or regular 4-divided rural with NO real access control (Krotz Springs to Opelousas).

Making that section a freeway or even a serious at-grade expressway would take some doing...and also, since 190 generally follows the Union Pacific RR main line from 'Da Op to Livonia (and a spur line the rest of the way to Lobdell/LA 415), it would be quite a task to get the ROW to even build a freeway there. But, then again, if they get any more serious accidents on I-10 at the Swamp Freeway segment, it may not matter but for the funding.



If I-14 is actually built in Louisiana, the current proposal (LA 28, loop around Alexandria, LA, LA 28 to US 84 to Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez is the preferred route.


(OK, sorry for the thread divergence, since this was originally about I-14 in Texas.)

Quote from: thisdj78Actually, there is ROW along 105 all the way from Navasota to 336 west of Conroe. Yes there is a lot of development along this route, but if you look at satellite imagery, all of the driveways to business etc, are a little longer vs right up on the road. Looks to me like they planned for 105 to be expanded to limited access at some point.

It's possible to do a freeway upgrade of TX-105 (or build something closely parallel) between Navasota and Montgomery. But TX-105 between Montgomery and Conroe does not look like it can be upgraded into a freeway flanked by frontage roads without either buying and clearing a bunch of properties or building an elevated highway structure along the center line with frontage roads partially tucked underneath.

While it might look like there is enough room to add frontage roads alongside TX-105 in that area the road has to include room for other things, like water drainage systems as well as room for various types of slip ramps between the main lanes and frontage roads. The way the satellite imagery looks all that drainage would have to be built underneath the frontage roads. And then the frontage roads themselves are going to eat into at least some of the business parking lots.

TX-105 is a very busy corridor already, maybe even busy enough to need freeway upgrades along some segments. Such an upgrade is technically possible, but it will involve a lot of politically unpopular choices, like building elevated structures in some places.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 14, 2020, 07:12:59 PM

Quote from: thisdj78Actually, there is ROW along 105 all the way from Navasota to 336 west of Conroe. Yes there is a lot of development along this route, but if you look at satellite imagery, all of the driveways to business etc, are a little longer vs right up on the road. Looks to me like they planned for 105 to be expanded to limited access at some point.

It's possible to do a freeway upgrade of TX-105 (or build something closely parallel) between Navasota and Montgomery. But TX-105 between Montgomery and Conroe does not look like it can be upgraded into a freeway flanked by frontage roads without either buying and clearing a bunch of properties or building an elevated highway structure along the center line with frontage roads partially tucked underneath.

While it might look like there is enough room to add frontage roads alongside TX-105 in that area the road has to include room for other things, like water drainage systems as well as room for various types of slip ramps between the main lanes and frontage roads. The way the satellite imagery looks all that drainage would have to be built underneath the frontage roads. And then the frontage roads themselves are going to eat into at least some of the business parking lots.

TX-105 is a very busy corridor already, maybe even busy enough to need freeway upgrades along some segments. Such an upgrade is technically possible, but it will involve a lot of politically unpopular choices, like building elevated structures in some places.

I feel like cities in TX have built freeways with frontage roads in less ROW even without impacting adjacent properties. I took a snapshot of one of the more congested segments of 105 and that ROW is pretty wide (considering the amount of businesses in the area). Also consider that the existing highway is 7 lanes already. Reminds me of what TX-199 NW of Fort Worth was like before they expanded it:

105 appears to have a 190' to 220+' ROW between the Montgomery and Conroe loop roads.  That's room to build at least a super street like US 90A is between I-610 and west of Beltway 8 (southwest side of Houston.)  Basically non-stop 55 mph, median wall, grade separations at all intersections, but also with curb cuts to businesses (no feeder roads except at overpasses.)  That's good enough if the ROW doesn't fit an actual freeway with frontage roads. 

The south end of the 336 Conroe loop is similar.  Perhaps they could shortcut 105 to 336 on the west side using the electric utility corridor.  336 north's ROW looks too narrow, maybe less than 100' in sections, and a lot of the 105 traffic both east and west of Conroe is headed south to Houston.  Montgomery's Lone Star Parkway looks similarly capable, though they might choose the yet unbuilt southern half of the loop for a 105 reroute.

Not everything has to be a mega-expensive interstate.  And IIRC, the newest Montgomery County master thoroughfare plan on the Houston-Galveston Area Council website doesn't have 105 designated as a future freeway/tollway corridor.  I hope that isn't because of NIMBY opposition.  105 can get congested and that area will continue to grow.

If TX DOT were to upgrade that portion of TX-105 into an urban freeway configuration the main lanes would need no less than 3 lanes in each direction, plus inner and outer shoulders. Built to Interstate standards that's going to be 110' to 120' to start. The frontage roads would have to be at least 2 lanes in each direction, costing another 48' of width. Plus there has to be room for turn lanes, Texas U-turn ramps and enough space between the main lanes and frontage road to give slip ramps a safe transition. It might be mathematically possible to squeeze all of that within a 220' wide ROW, but it wouldn't be an optimal arrangement. The ROWs of other Texas 6-lane freeways flanked by frontage roads can be 300' to 480' in width.

These property constraints, combined with a lot of high priced residential real estate nearby, has me thinking that part of TX-105 is a no-go for freeway upgrades. It's really the only East-West corridor between the Grand Parkway and future I-14 corridor that has any shot of being turned into a freeway (or toll road).

Even if the LA and MS proposed sections of I-14 were jettisoned, it's unlikely I-14 would be dragged down TX 6 all the way to Navasota and then over TX 105 to Conroe and ultimately Beaumont, simply because 105 is essentially the outer limits of north Houston development -- and property acquisition would be problematic or even prohibitive (cost + NIMBY's).  The Beaumont "branch" as originally illustrated diverged from the main US 190-based I-14 corridor east of Livingston and headed southeast more or less along FM 943 and then straight down US 69/287 to Beaumont.  Such an alignment would avoid the Houston 'burbs while allowing use of the existing US 69/96/287 freeway north of I-10 as a cost-saving measure.  If I-14 stays a fully TX corridor -- and the wherewithal still exists regarding extension east of I-45, then running it down to Beaumont would be the most rational option; preserving its bypass nature by not pressing it into "double duty" as a suburban server would seem reasonable.

I can most definitely see the eventual need (or need already) of an Interstate class super highway directly linking Navasota, Conroe and Cleveland on the Northern fringes of the Houston metro. But I-14 is NOT meant to serve that regional traffic need. I-14 needs to link Killeen, College Station and Huntsville as originally intended (but in as direct a path as possible). TX-105 is a whole other ball of wax. As the Houston metro area continues to grow it will need various highway corridors improved or have new super highways built parallel to the corridors already over-run with development. TX-105 is one of those looming corridor needs.

The TX-105 corridor resembles the US-380 corridor in the DFW area between Denton and McKinney in certain ways. And it's now facing the same problems as the need grows to build a superhighway in that area. Regionally, a very good case can be made to upgrade TX-105 into a super highway from Navasota clear over to the Beaumont area. Certain segments of TX-105 can be upgraded without much trouble. But as I said, the segment between Montgomery and Conroe would be a big challenge to upgrade along the existing alignment. Much of TX-105 between Conroe and Cleveland is a 2-lane route closely flanked by development in many spot. Not an easy upgrade to do there. A new terrain path to the South, perhaps near or parallel to the rail corridor would be more do-able. West of Conore I think the FM-2854 corridor presents a better upgrade opportunity.

Quote from: dfwmapper on February 26, 2020, 10:04:19 PM
I believe the plan is to keep the Brazos crossing near Hearne as both the main channel and floodplain are relatively narrow there compared to points further south. Yours would create an extremely long (read: expensive) crossing. With global warming increasing the likelihood of major flooding, any new construction, especially an Interstate, needs to be done with that in mind.

If you believe global warming.  they've been saying we have 10 years left for the last 30, I think we're good.

Quote from: texaskdog on March 17, 2020, 04:30:55 PM

Quote from: dfwmapper on February 26, 2020, 10:04:19 PM
I believe the plan is to keep the Brazos crossing near Hearne as both the main channel and floodplain are relatively narrow there compared to points further south. Yours would create an extremely long (read: expensive) crossing. With global warming increasing the likelihood of major flooding, any new construction, especially an Interstate, needs to be done with that in mind.

If you believe global warming.  they've been saying we have 10 years left for the last 30, I think we're good.

:nod:

There is no magic number of years that we must stop everything by. The more we wait, the worse it gets, but there's no such thing as "we only have 10 years before we all die". Human extinction is far down the list of changes, but if we don't do anything to fix global warming for the next 50 years, we will see some other changes that are still quite major, such as extinction of many species, flooded coastlines (a few feet, not the 200 that some were predicting), and increased intensity of hurricanes. We're already seeing some changes.

Responses should be made with actual arguments, not name-calling.

If the last 50 years are any indication, there's not going to be "major"  changes. Things are changing, that's for sure, but not near the extent that's often claimed to build up hysteria. For example, the entire east coast is not going to be underwater in 50 years. Sea level rise may occur to some extent (2-3 ft) but not to the extreme levels many believe.

There's also the belief all of these issues are human created. Again, this may be true to a certain extent, but could this also not be a natural occurrence? Cycles like this have happened in Earth's history and will continue into the future. To say human's have caused climate change is a stretch. It's always been happening, and it's just continuing its course.

If the oceans rise 3 feet in 50 years (I don't know the exact numbers), and the trend continues, they will be up approximately 60 feet in 1000 years. It will be quite bad, but it doesn't seem that way looking at just our lifetimes.

Also, it's definitely human caused. The change in temperature that we've seen in the last 100 years is by far the most it has been in any 100-year period. Cycles are much slower, taking at least 1000 years for any change like the one in our lifetime. (There are some faster-moving cycles, and this is the reason why temperatures in 1940-1970 stayed the same instead of increasing, but since we have data from 1880 to now, it cancels out over long periods of time.)

Quote from: NE2 on March 17, 2020, 06:37:03 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on March 17, 2020, 04:30:55 PM
If you believe global warming.  they've been saying we have 10 years left for the last 30, I think we're good.

Idiot.

Chicken little

Quote from: texaskdog on March 17, 2020, 08:32:54 PM

Quote from: NE2 on March 17, 2020, 06:37:03 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on March 17, 2020, 04:30:55 PM
If you believe global warming.  they've been saying we have 10 years left for the last 30, I think we're good.

Idiot.

Chicken little

Wait...they were saying 10 years left until what now?

Quote from: 1 on March 17, 2020, 07:42:24 PM
If the oceans rise 3 feet in 50 years (I don't know the exact numbers), and the trend continues, they will be up approximately 60 feet in 1000 years. It will be quite bad, but it doesn't seem that way looking at just our lifetimes.

Also, it's definitely human caused. The change in temperature that we've seen in the last 100 years is by far the most it has been in any 100-year period. Cycles are much slower, taking at least 1000 years for any change like the one in our lifetime. (There are some faster-moving cycles, and this is the reason why temperatures in 1940-1970 stayed the same instead of increasing, but since we have data from 1880 to now, it cancels out over long periods of time.)

ah, no.  they had a global cooling and the average went down 20 degrees BEFORE we had cars, I believe it was the middle ages.  also there was something called the ice age, where we had glaciers down to Wisconsin.  and then volcanos.  nothing we can do will remotely compare to what nature dishes out.  plus the doom and gloomers have been saying 10-12 years for over 30 years. 

Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2020, 08:33:57 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on March 17, 2020, 08:32:54 PM

Quote from: NE2 on March 17, 2020, 06:37:03 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on March 17, 2020, 04:30:55 PM
If you believe global warming.  they've been saying we have 10 years left for the last 30, I think we're good.

Idiot.

Chicken little

Wait...they were saying 10 years left until what now?

UNTIL WE ALL DIE>>>>BECAUSE YOU DRIVE YOUR CAR TO WORK.  Keep in mind al gore built a house on the ocean, Bloomberg owns several helicopters, Leonardo didouchebag flies a private jet to go pick up an award and tells you not to drive a car.  We have a candidate for senate who says she's "fighting climate change" in a commercial while she's flying a helicopter.   you know what....I don't litter...I often pick up the trash of others.  I bring my own bags to the store.  I combine trips.  I work from home when I can.  I'm way more of an environmentalist than those phonies will ever be.  Yes we need to clean the rivers, and keep factories from polluting, but we also need to stop being hypocrites. 

*citation needed*

Quote from: texaskdog on March 17, 2020, 08:37:45 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2020, 08:33:57 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on March 17, 2020, 08:32:54 PM

Quote from: NE2 on March 17, 2020, 06:37:03 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on March 17, 2020, 04:30:55 PM
If you believe global warming.  they've been saying we have 10 years left for the last 30, I think we're good.

Idiot.

Chicken little

Wait...they were saying 10 years left until what now?

UNTIL WE ALL DIE>>>>BECAUSE YOU DRIVE YOUR CAR TO WORK.  Keep in mind al gore built a house on the ocean, Bloomberg owns several helicopters, Leonardo didouchebag flies a private jet to go pick up an award and tells you not to drive a car.  We have a candidate for senate who says she's "fighting climate change" in a commercial while she's flying a helicopter.   you know what....I don't litter...I often pick up the trash of others.  I bring my own bags to the store.  I combine trips.  I work from home when I can.  I'm way more of an environmentalist than those phonies will ever be.  Yes we need to clean the rivers, and keep factories from polluting, but we also need to stop being hypocrites.

This ^

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2020, 10:23:07 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on March 17, 2020, 08:37:45 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2020, 08:33:57 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on March 17, 2020, 08:32:54 PM

Quote from: NE2 on March 17, 2020, 06:37:03 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on March 17, 2020, 04:30:55 PM
If you believe global warming.  they've been saying we have 10 years left for the last 30, I think we're good.

Idiot.

Chicken little

Wait...they were saying 10 years left until what now?

UNTIL WE ALL DIE>>>>BECAUSE YOU DRIVE YOUR CAR TO WORK.  Keep in mind al gore built a house on the ocean, Bloomberg owns several helicopters, Leonardo didouchebag flies a private jet to go pick up an award and tells you not to drive a car.  We have a candidate for senate who says she's "fighting climate change" in a commercial while she's flying a helicopter.   you know what....I don't litter...I often pick up the trash of others.  I bring my own bags to the store.  I combine trips.  I work from home when I can.  I'm way more of an environmentalist than those phonies will ever be.  Yes we need to clean the rivers, and keep factories from polluting, but we also need to stop being hypocrites.

This ^

Wait...so Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and Bloomberg are the ones we should turn to for expertise?  Or, because they're hypocrites, manmade climate change isn't real?

Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2020, 10:31:49 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2020, 10:23:07 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on March 17, 2020, 08:37:45 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2020, 08:33:57 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on March 17, 2020, 08:32:54 PM

Quote from: NE2 on March 17, 2020, 06:37:03 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on March 17, 2020, 04:30:55 PM
If you believe global warming.  they've been saying we have 10 years left for the last 30, I think we're good.

Idiot.

Chicken little

Wait...they were saying 10 years left until what now?

UNTIL WE ALL DIE>>>>BECAUSE YOU DRIVE YOUR CAR TO WORK.  Keep in mind al gore built a house on the ocean, Bloomberg owns several helicopters, Leonardo didouchebag flies a private jet to go pick up an award and tells you not to drive a car.  We have a candidate for senate who says she's "fighting climate change" in a commercial while she's flying a helicopter.   you know what....I don't litter...I often pick up the trash of others.  I bring my own bags to the store.  I combine trips.  I work from home when I can.  I'm way more of an environmentalist than those phonies will ever be.  Yes we need to clean the rivers, and keep factories from polluting, but we also need to stop being hypocrites.

This ^

Wait...so Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and Bloomberg are the ones we should turn to for expertise?  Or, because they're hypocrites, manmade climate change isn't real?

No, but those are some examples of the people / hypocrites (along with many others politicians with an agenda & money flowing their way) who blow the situation out of proportion and drive hysteria about the situation.

I'm not saying it's not real, but it's certainly not to the levels it's often said to be and people are overreacting as a result out of ignorance. For instance, there's people who truly believe the Earth will end in 10 - 15 years if we don't spend trillions of dollars tomorrow to go green. That's another thing - the politicians who drive hysteria seem to want trillions of dollars poured into the cause to "save the Earth" often using fear-mongering to get support of ignorant people.

Who believes that the world will end in ten to fifteen years if we don't take serious measures now?

Even if we do stop it, things will continue to get worse, but not nearly as much as if we don't do anything. Glaciers take time to melt, and record highs and 100-year floods don't occur every year. Anyone saying "we have 10 years" was saying that we have 10 years before death is inevitable, not 10 years before we die instantly. 10 is too low, though.

We also need a thread split.