News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14

Started by longhorn, December 11, 2013, 09:40:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Ghostbuster

I have an update to my October 15th comment on this thread: I don't think we'll see any Interstate 14 signs anytime soon, if ever.


DevalDragon

Your parents would be amazed to see all that has changed. Copperas Cove now has freeway bypasses around 3/4 of the city and a population of 33,000+ people. When I moved there in 1992, the population was half of that and the bypasses were all talk.

Quote from: 1995hoo on November 05, 2015, 10:24:47 PM
I was born at Fort Hood and we lived in Copperas Cove at the time, though we moved to Virginia when I was one year old. I told my parents about this thread when I talked to them on the phone tonight and they were stunned. They can't fathom the idea of a highway bypass around the town, much less an Interstate highway, because they said when we lived there a lot of the streets were still unpaved!

andy3175

I-14 in Texas is now named per federal legislation signed into law on Friday 12/4/2015:

http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fastact_xml.pdf

Establishment of High Priority Corridor #84 (Section 1416a):

Quote(84) The Central Texas Corridor commencing at the logical terminus of Interstate Route 10, generally following portions of United States Route 190 eastward, passing in the vicinity Fort Hood, Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, and Woodville, to the logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing.

Identification of US 190 as a future Interstate route (Section 1416b):

Quote(b) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ROUTE SEGMENTS ON INTERSTATE SYSTEM.–Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (109 Stat. 597; 118 Stat. 293; 119 Stat. 1213) is amended in the first sentence– ...

(c) ... The route referred to in subsection 12 (c)(84) is designated as Interstate Route I—14.

I wonder if this means that segments of US 190 that connect to the Interstate system currently could indeed be signed as Interstate 14 with the passage of this legislation?
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Alps

Quote from: andy3175 on December 06, 2015, 12:10:56 PM
I-14 in Texas is now named per federal legislation signed into law on Friday 12/4/2015:

http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fastact_xml.pdf

Establishment of High Priority Corridor #84 (Section 1416a):

Quote(84) The Central Texas Corridor commencing at the logical terminus of Interstate Route 10, generally following portions of United States Route 190 eastward, passing in the vicinity Fort Hood, Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, and Woodville, to the logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing.

Identification of US 190 as a future Interstate route (Section 1416b):

Quote(b) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ROUTE SEGMENTS ON INTERSTATE SYSTEM.–Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (109 Stat. 597; 118 Stat. 293; 119 Stat. 1213) is amended in the first sentence– ...

(c) ... The route referred to in subsection 12 (c)(84) is designated as Interstate Route I—14.

I wonder if this means that segments of US 190 that connect to the Interstate system currently could indeed be signed as Interstate 14 with the passage of this legislation?
I fail to see how Highway 63 is a logical terminus for an Interstate. Of course, I fail to see how this is a logical Interstate, save for bypassing the greater Fort Hood/Temple area.

Revive 755

^ I also fail to see why the eastern terminus is at some random state highway - it should either be at the future location of I-69, or continue into Louisiana and end at I-49 near Alexandria.

The western terminus does not seem logical either - they are simply going to follow US 190 and duplicate much of I-10?  IMHO they should have gone for a route through San Angelo and a western terminus somewhere on I-20.

mvak36

Is there a lot of traffic on this corridor? I could see the part from about Killeen to Huntsville maybe having enough traffic to justify having an interstate. The other parts I'm not sure about, but I guess I'll buy it if they extend this all the way to Georgia.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

aboges26

Quote from: mvak36 on December 06, 2015, 02:10:46 PM
Is there a lot of traffic on this corridor? I could see the part from about Killeen to Huntsville maybe having enough traffic to justify having an interstate. The other parts I'm not sure about, but I guess I'll buy it if they extend this all the way to Georgia.

That has to be the plan with the proposed terminus being basically on the Louisiana state line.

english si

The terminus isn't at a random state highway, it's TX63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing or, in other words, the TX/LA border en route to Alexandria. Obviously they need to get Louisiana on board with the bit in their state or the terminus is pointless, but it's clear that TX want it, and LA doesn't yet.

This is the corridor. West of Brady it makes no sense at all - it either ought to drop the 30 miles south to I-10 near Junction, or head to San Angelo. Duplicating an interstate with another one running parallel about 30 miles to the north is understandable if you are in some densely populated area. But West Texas? Nah!

noelbotevera

Quote from: english si on December 06, 2015, 03:33:53 PM
The terminus isn't at a random state highway, it's TX63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing or, in other words, the TX/LA border en route to Alexandria. Obviously they need to get Louisiana on board with the bit in their state or the terminus is pointless, but it's clear that TX want it, and LA doesn't yet.

This is the corridor. West of Brady it makes no sense at all - it either ought to drop the 30 miles south to I-10 near Junction, or head to San Angelo. Duplicating an interstate with another one running parallel about 30 miles to the north is understandable if you are in some densely populated area. But West Texas? Nah!
Maybe make it run south to go through College Station and Austin or north to DFW. It'd then have a purpose as a backseat to I-10.

Grzrd

Quote from: andy3175 on December 06, 2015, 12:10:56 PM
I wonder if this means that segments of US 190 that connect to the Interstate system currently could indeed be signed as Interstate 14 with the passage of this legislation?

FHWA needs to officially approve the section(s) connecting to the interstate system as being interstate-grade.  I think the section connecting to I-35 is the likeliest candidate (it is possible that TxDOT has already asked FHWA to do so).

In addition, since such segment(s) will be relatively short, TxDOT will probably want to co-designate I-14 with U.S. 190.  As a result, I think TxDOT will petition AASHTO for approval of the co-designation at AASHTO's May meeting (I don't think they have to do so, but they have done so with I-69 system co-designations).

Finally, once the above steps are completed, the Texas Transportation Commission will need to approve the I-14 designation.

Looking to I-369/ US 59 in Texarkana as an example, I think TxDOT will do the above quickly and I would not be surprised to see I-14 shields go up in Summer 2016.

roadman65

#60
Speaking of I-14, is Georgia going to ever build the Columbus-Macon-Augusta freeway that is supposed to also have that particular number?

I know this question belongs in the Southeast forums, but being this would have the same number, I would assume that the number in GA is dead for it to be brought up in TX for another interstate proposal unless they do an I-76, I-86, I-88 thing with two completely different interstates using the same numbers.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

jbnv

Quote from: english si on December 06, 2015, 03:33:53 PM
... but it's clear that TX want it, and LA doesn't yet.

We (Louisiana) already have major projects on the board. We need to finish I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans and through Shreveport. We have to do something about the I-10 bottleneck in Baton Rouge. Aside from the prestige of having another 2dI, and maybe some military benefit of having a direct link between Fort Hood and Fort Polk, I don't see offhand how this project is of such benefit to Louisiana as to take precedent over dozens of other projects.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

andy3175

Quote from: Alps on December 06, 2015, 12:58:15 PM
I fail to see how Highway 63 is a logical terminus for an Interstate. Of course, I fail to see how this is a logical Interstate, save for bypassing the greater Fort Hood/Temple area.

My guess is that somehow the I-14 Texas High priority corridor (#84) is going to link somehow with the Louisiana State Route 28 High Priority Corridor #75 (see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm for the legislative description and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hiprimap.cfm for a map ... but obviously this leaves gaps. East of there, I'm guessing I-14 would somehow link with High Priority Corridor #6 (US 80). I'll guess we'll just have to see, but the future Interstate designation is exclusively for the Texas portion, which I'm thinking means the Texas political caucus helped make happen.

And who knows where the money will come for any portion of I-14 to be built, especially with so many highway projects on the docket not just in Texas but also in Louisiana and points east.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Henry

Quote from: roadman65 on December 06, 2015, 04:50:22 PM
Speaking of I-14, is Georgia going to ever build the Columbus-Macon-Augusta freeway that is supposed to also have that particular number?

I know this question belongs in the Southeast forums, but being this would have the same number, I would assume that the number in GA is dead for it to be brought up in TX for another interstate proposal unless they do an I-76, I-86, I-88 thing with two completely different interstates using the same numbers.
But they could easily connect the two sections if they wanted to, making it one continuous Interstate (and I'm sure Houston is close enough to Alexandria to warrant that connection). Otherwise, it would be just another I-74, with the NC and Cincinnati portions being disconnected, probably permanently.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

The Ghostbuster

I'm sure it will be a long time before we see Interstate 14 shields outside of Texas.

longhorn

Again, there is a 30 mile stretch of 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton that can right now be renamed, it is interstate grade and half of the route is six lanes. To connect Temple to Bryan will be a biggie too. Even if the construction stopped at Hwy 6 north of Bryan, that would make the central Texas to Houston trip safer. Four lanes and divided highway all the way to Houston, a lot of traffic in that corridor.

lordsutch

Quote from: roadman65 on December 06, 2015, 04:50:22 PM
Speaking of I-14, is Georgia going to ever build the Columbus-Macon-Augusta freeway that is supposed to also have that particular number?

Seems unlikely. The political will (for better or worse) seems to be more in favor of a West Point-Macon four-lane corridor than an incremental upgrade of the Columbus-Macon-Augusta corridor to interstate standards.

Alabama is pushing the I-85 extension from Meridianish to Montgomery, which is effectively I-14 under another guise, but that's the only semi-serious project at this point (the tiny bit of the Montgomery Outer Loop that's had dirt turned on it being the only tangible result).

Bobby5280

I think this I-14 thing is kind of a crooked, porky route that doesn't really serve the overall Interstate highway system well at all. The section off I-35 going into Killeen, Fort Hood and Copperas Cove is easily justifiable for Interstate designation. But that's basically a 3-digit route, not freaking I-14. Houston to Austin would make sense as I-14, not some little segment like this.

Going Eastward from the I-35 corridor the proposed I-14 route looks just as stupidly crooked as the I-69 segments in Kentucky and Southern Indiana. What good is building an Interstate highway that doesn't go directly to key destinations?

As to this Texas section of I-14 connecting to other potential I-14 sections farther East, I'm going to strongly doubt it. It would be like expecting I-88 in Upstate New York to connect with I-88 in Illinois. Or expecting I-74 North of the Ohio River to connect with I-74 in North Carolina.

NE2

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2015, 12:32:18 AM
Going Eastward from the I-35 corridor the proposed I-14 route looks just as stupidly crooked as the I-69 segments in Kentucky and Southern Indiana.
what
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

english si

Quote from: NE2 on December 08, 2015, 12:48:17 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2015, 12:32:18 AM
Going Eastward from the I-35 corridor the proposed I-14 route looks just as stupidly crooked as the I-69 segments in Kentucky and Southern Indiana.
what

I showed long ago, in the relevant thread, that Indiana I-69 is the shortest road route between Indy and the bridge south of Evansville, save for in the Evansville area where it needs to pass around the urban area. This was in response to a guy from OK, so something must be in the water there.

Kentucky I-69 is arguably crooked, but the two-sides of the triangle that it undertakes aren't stupid as it adds but a few miles and saves 60 miles of construction!

Texas US190 has some zigs and zags east of I-35 (eg going up to Herne), but the HPC is merely defining a corridor for upgrade and, save for between College Station and Huntsville (because US190 goes to Madisonville), is the shortest route there is.

Are the roads in OK bee-line straight or something?

Henry

I-73 and I-74 in NC are definitely crooked, mainly because they tangle with each other in the middle, and probably will again in Myrtle Beach, SC.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Bobby5280

I think these newer roads are being built crooked largely over politics. The United States no longer has a big picture view on anything anymore. This nation is becoming less able to build big things.

Quote from: NE2what


Uh, wrong. You know good and well the actual path I-14 would run (if it ever actually gets built) would not have segments as straight as that.

Example, from an earlier page in this thread, showing a far more CROOKED path for I-14:


Quote from: english siI showed long ago, in the relevant thread, that Indiana I-69 is the shortest road route between Indy and the bridge south of Evansville, save for in the Evansville area where it needs to pass around the urban area. This was in response to a guy from OK, so something must be in the water there.

I won't dispute I-69 is the shortest path between Indy and Evansville. The problem is I-69 could have been significantly shorter without all the crooked nonsense going on between Washington and Bloomington. There's a big 90 degree turn at Elnora, turning I-69 into an meandering East-West route for 20 miles before it makes another 90 degree turn near Hobbieville. And then we have a third 90 degree turn near Standford and then I-69 takes a semi-circular route until it dovetails into Route 37 in Clear Creek. That's a crooked freaking path. You're blind as a bat or living in denial if you don't see that.

I-69 goes about 30 miles out of its way with that backward L-shaped path it takes (cheaply) on existing roads between Evansville, ID and Paducah, KY. Again, that's a crooked path.

Quote from: english siAre the roads in OK bee-line straight or something?

I-44, I-35 and I-40 all run much more direct paths than the crooked nonsense I-69 has going on in Southern Indiana and Kentucky (as well as a bunch of crooked, dogleg nonsense proposed for Mississippi and Arkansas).

Much of the rest of the Interstate highway system, as it as built between the 1950's and 1970's runs on much more direct paths than some of the newer roads that get slowly squeezed out at a very constipated pace.

NE2

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2015, 01:27:21 PM
Example, from an earlier page in this thread, showing a far more CROOKED path for I-14:

Those guys are lazy idiots.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on December 06, 2015, 04:35:15 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on December 06, 2015, 12:10:56 PM
I wonder if this means that segments of US 190 that connect to the Interstate system currently could indeed be signed as Interstate 14 with the passage of this legislation?
I would not be surprised to see I-14 shields go up in Summer 2016.

This December 8 article provides a more cautious estimate of having the review process necessary for the installation of I-14 shields on the Copperas Cove to Belton section "completed within the next year":

Quote
A stretch of US 190 serving the Fort Hood-Killeen area and extending approximately 25 miles west from Interstate 35 from Belton to Copperas Cove is already at interstate highway standard. It will be renamed as I-14 and added to the national interstate highway system once a technical review is completed and the new designation is approved by the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Texas Transportation Commission. That process could be completed within the next year.

mvak36

Quote from: Grzrd on December 08, 2015, 04:01:23 PM

This December 8 article provides a more cautious estimate of having the review process necessary for the installation of I-14 shields on the Copperas Cove to Belton section "completed within the next year":

I suppose since the AASHTO meeting isn't till May (and all the other approvals needed as stated in that article), my guess is it'll probably be more likely the end of next year.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary



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