I-14 in Texas

[roadman65]

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.

[sparker]

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). 

[longhorn]

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.

[longhorn]

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

[sprjus4]

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

[longhorn]

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)

[nexus73]

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

[3467]

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?

[Scott5114]

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.

[MaxConcrete]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[sparker]

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).   

[Bobby5280]

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).

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.

The 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.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
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.   

[Bobby5280]

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.

[sprjus4]

^

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.

[Scott5114]

Freaking hell, slide 15 shows an I-14N and I-14S.

[thisdj78]

Freaking hell, slide 15 shows an I-14N and I-14S.

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.

[Bobby5280]

A 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.

Freaking 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.

[sparker]

A 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.

Freaking 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!   

[Bobby5280]

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.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
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!     

[BrandonC_TX]

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).

[sparker]

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. 

[sturmde]

^^^^^^^^^^
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.