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

[Henry]

Why not have it be an El Paso-Houston via Austin route? You've pretty much nailed down all of the major cities and the connections if you do that.

But why? Once you get west of the US 290/SH 71 separation (and especially past US 281), there just isn't the traffic volume to justify a full freeway.

Maybe not, but at least you'd be able to bypass San Antonio.

[TXtoNJ]

And now that 190 will be an interstate, maybe TxDot can fix the glaring omission in at the I-35 intersection in Belton. Nice I-35 to west 190/I-14 soon to open direct connector. So why in the world did TxDot not make a 190/I-14 to south I-35 connector? One has to get off to the accessroad, turn right to I-35's access road, then merge. Hopefully this budget oversight is fixed soon.

Likely because there isn't enough traffic to justify it. Killeen to Austin traffic is going to take SH 195.

[Grzrd]

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.

Here is a snip from a map of the five alternatives presented in the Expert Working Group's Report to Congress on the 14th Amendment Highway Corridor:

.... Alternative 1 is the "all interstate" option (I suppose it could also be called the "I-14 option") and has (in 2013 dollars) an estimated cost of $6.6 billion to $7.6 billion

This December 11 TV video includes a comment from a Fort Polk spokesperson regarding the potential benefit of I-14 being extended into SW Louisiana:

Interstate 14 will begin in West Texas and run through several Texas cities all the way to Jasper before ending at the Texas State highway 63 at the Sabine River.
I-14 could potentially impact Southwest Louisiana as there are plans for the highway to run into the Bayou State and connect to Fort Polk and beyond.
"Though it will take years to complete, I think this is great news for Fort Polk and the surrounding communities. A highway that enhances access across the state will make transportation easier not only for military convoys, but also Soldiers and families going to and from Fort Polk. We also have civilian and contract employees that travel I-14's proposed route. This will certainly make their lives easier by reducing commute times," Fort Polk Spokesperson Kim Reischling said.
The goal of the Interstate is to provide additional military deployment routes from the forts to ports.
If all of the proposed Interstate 14 is built, it would link 10 military installations from Texas to Georgia.

Accompanying the article is a map showing how I-14 in Texas, the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway in Louisiana, and the 14th Amendment Highway from Natchez, MS to Augusta, GA would link together:

[Anthony_JK]

Sorry, but Fort Polk and Alexandria is NOT Southwest Louisiana, it is Central Louisiana.

Also, based on Grzz's map, I wonder whether a better route would be rather than connecting Natchez and Montgomery (the latter would be served better by the US 80 upgrade between Meridian and Montgomery), just swing the highway SE near Hattiesburg to connect to Mobile and I-10? To me, that would be a more appropriate "I-14" corridor.

[Henry]

Sorry, but Fort Polk and Alexandria is NOT Southwest Louisiana, it is Central Louisiana.

Also, based on Grzz's map, I wonder whether a better route would be rather than connecting Natchez and Montgomery (the latter would be served better by the US 80 upgrade between Meridian and Montgomery), just swing the highway SE near Hattiesburg to connect to Mobile and I-10? To me, that would be a more appropriate "I-14" corridor.

I was thinking the exact same thing! Seeing that I-85 West is already earmarked for the US 80 upgrade, I could see the I-14 route being amended to serve Mobile instead of Montgomery and beyond. And I-12 already ends north of New Orleans when you meet the hypothetical I-14 Mobile corridor, so there's no conflict either.

[TXtoNJ]

Sorry, but Fort Polk and Alexandria is NOT Southwest Louisiana, it is Central Louisiana.

Also, based on Grzz's map, I wonder whether a better route would be rather than connecting Natchez and Montgomery (the latter would be served better by the US 80 upgrade between Meridian and Montgomery), just swing the highway SE near Hattiesburg to connect to Mobile and I-10? To me, that would be a more appropriate "I-14" corridor.

I was thinking the exact same thing! Seeing that I-85 West is already earmarked for the US 80 upgrade, I could see the I-14 route being amended to serve Mobile instead of Montgomery and beyond. And I-12 already ends north of New Orleans when you meet the hypothetical I-14 Mobile corridor, so there's no conflict either.

That doesn't make sense to me. The biggest economic benefit that this route will provide (biased though I may be) will be the reduction of shipping times between the Port of Houston and Atlanta/the Northeast by two to three hours or so, particularly by reducing I-10 traffic across Louisiana. That means going to Montgomery, especially if it's via Jackson.

Interesting that the map doesn't show Navy/Air Force installations.

[DNAguy]

The more that I look at the Temple / Belton area, the more I feel like 35/14 should not be co-signed.

My thinking is that I 35 should be re-routed east of Temple from south of Loop 121 to Loop 363 @ current US190.

The 35 can follow the Loop 363 alignment back to original 35.

I 14 would exclusively follow the current section of 35 between Belton and Temple. I 14 would then pick 190 up again just south of downtown Temple.

The section of the old 35 can then become spur 135 and 335 or so.

Maybe I'm making things too complicated.

I don't know.

Just a thought.

[jbnv]

My thinking is that I 35 should be re-routed east of Temple from south of Loop 121 to Loop 363 @ current US190.

The 35 can follow the Loop 363 alignment back to original 35.

I 14 would exclusively follow the current section of 35 between Belton and Temple. I 14 would then pick 190 up again just south of downtown Temple.

The section of the old 35 can then become spur 135 and 335 or so.

Maybe I'm making things too complicated.

Huh? What does this accomplish?

[longhorn]

TxDot at one time looked at rerouting I-35 east of Temple..............Of course Temple would have none of that.

[DNAguy]

My thinking is that I 35 should be re-routed east of Temple from south of Loop 121 to Loop 363 @ current US190.

The 35 can follow the Loop 363 alignment back to original 35.

I 14 would exclusively follow the current section of 35 between Belton and Temple. I 14 would then pick 190 up again just south of downtown Temple.

The section of the old 35 can then become spur 135 and 335 or so.

Maybe I'm making things too complicated.

Huh? What does this accomplish?

It would use mostly existing facilities while preventing dual routing on a section of current I35 that has minimal ROW to expand.

I 35 through temple is already busy and sees a heavy amount of traffic.

Merging east-west I14 traffic w/ north-south I35 sounds like an incredibly bad idea. Using the same alignment w/ segregation of the interstates would be a fine solution if there was enough ROW.

I don't believe there is enough ROW to add at least 2 lanes at grade on each side of current I35 while also providing exits, connections and frontage roads.

Maybe a grade separation / express routing of I 14 is the answer. I can't say I know enough about the area to grade that alternative, however.

[codyg1985]

I-35 through Temple is currently being widened, but I would tend to agree that cosigning it with I-14 would be a bad idea.

[aboges26]

My thinking is that I 35 should be re-routed east of Temple from south of Loop 121 to Loop 363 @ current US190.

The 35 can follow the Loop 363 alignment back to original 35.

I 14 would exclusively follow the current section of 35 between Belton and Temple. I 14 would then pick 190 up again just south of downtown Temple.

The section of the old 35 can then become spur 135 and 335 or so.

Maybe I'm making things too complicated.

Huh? What does this accomplish?

It would use mostly existing facilities while preventing dual routing on a section of current I35 that has minimal ROW to expand.

I 35 through temple is already busy and sees a heavy amount of traffic.

Merging east-west I14 traffic w/ north-south I35 sounds like an incredibly bad idea. Using the same alignment w/ segregation of the interstates would be a fine solution if there was enough ROW.

I don't believe there is enough ROW to add at least 2 lanes at grade on each side of current I35 while also providing exits, connections and frontage roads.

Maybe a grade separation / express routing of I 14 is the answer. I can't say I know enough about the area to grade that alternative, however.

I think that I-14 could get away with being multiplexed up I-35 then follow the US 190 corridor around the southern part of Temple for the near term, but once the whole interstate is built between I-35 and I-49 and the traffic starts flowing, then they will wish they did do something like my rendition of a directional I-14 corridor through the Temple/Belton area.

[english si]

The route defined in law is a corridor - there's no reason why the plan has to exactly follow US190.

[Grzrd]

The Texas Transportation Commission has posted the November 20 I-27 Corridor Extension Study Presentation that was presented to the Commission.  Here's a snip of a map of the corridor from the presentation (page 6/8 of pdf):

(above quote from Ports-to-Plains Corridor update thread)

Out west, San Angelo could possibly be a Western terminus for "I-14" if TX DOT could ever get I-27 extended down from Lubbock, through Big Spring, San Angelo and Junction, TX. That route would give the San Antonio region an effective North-South Interstate corridor into the Texas Panhandle, High plains and Rockies. If I-14 couldn't be built that far then it would be easier to turn it Southwest to Junction, TX and I-10.

So, when will 14N, 14S, 14X, 14Y, and 14Z be prescribed? 

This December 14 TV video reports that a proposal exists to extend I-14 to Midland/ Odessa, which, in effect, would involve an "I-27 connector" from Brady to San Angelo (I-14N?), and then I-27's proposed route from San Angelo to Midland/ Odessa.  Here is a snip from the video:



San Angelo may wind up with two interstates.

[longhorn]

http://www.chron.com/news/transportation/article/Interstate-14-on-its-way-across-Texas-6684403.php

If the terminus gets moved from I-10 to Midland at I-20, I hope they expand I-45 from Huntsville to Houston, that would be the conduit to get from the panhandle to Houston.

[Anthony_JK]

http://www.chron.com/news/transportation/article/Interstate-14-on-its-way-across-Texas-6684403.php

If the terminus gets moved from I-10 to Midland at I-20, I hope they expand I-45 from Huntsville to Houston, that would be the conduit to get from the panhandle to Houston.

Wouldn't upgrading US 290 from Houston to Austin work as well?

I still fail to see how all of this will get past Louisiana, as you still have to go through Leesville, Alexandria, and Vidalia/Natchez to make this a legitimate Interstate proposal.

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe Interstate 14 could go down 290 to Houston. Does it really need to go beyond Texas?

[Bobby5280]

The current concept of I-14 is a crooked, porky route. I see very little justification for it. There's even less justification when factoring in all the I-69 related projects in Texas as well as possible upgrades/extensions of I-2 and what all that will cost. At best, I could see an Interstate quality extension of US-190 from Copperas Cove to Lampasas, but that's about it.

If you start to draw an East-West line between Huntsville and College Station the Western portion of that route points to Austin, not Temple and Killeen.

Wouldn't upgrading US 290 from Houston to Austin work as well?

That's the 2-lane/4-lane route in Central Texas that's the most justified in upgrading to Interstate quality. Nothing else in that region comes close to the US-290 corridor between Houston and Austin. That should really be "I-14" or "I-12" or just an Interstate quality US-290.

2nd place goes to TX-6 from its junction in Hempstead with TX-6 up through College Station and then Northwest up to Waco. At the very least TX-6 should be Interstate quality from Hempstead to College Station. It's worth mentioning plans are in the works to extend the TX-249 tollway from Tomball on Houston's NW side up through Magnolia and then to Navasota. That would create an all-superhighway link between College Station and Houston.

3rd place goes to TX-74 between Austin and the TX-74 intersection with I-10 in Columbus, TX. That route is pretty much all four-lane with some limited access segments already built.

4th place (or maybe 3rd or 2nd even) goes to US-290 West of Austin. The Austin area has about 2 million people. Over 900,000 live within Austin city limits. That's populous enough to justify an East-West Interstate corridor. I think Austin should have an Interstate extending due West that connects to I-10. Right now traffic heading West out of Austin has to travel a pretty crooked route.

[Anthony_JK]

The current concept of I-14 is a crooked, porky route. I see very little justification for it. There's even less justification when factoring in all the I-69 related projects in Texas as well as possible upgrades/extensions of I-2 and what all that will cost. At best, I could see an Interstate quality extension of US-190 from Copperas Cove to Lampasas, but that's about it.

If you start to draw an East-West line between Huntsville and College Station the Western portion of that route points to Austin, not Temple and Killeen.

Wouldn't upgrading US 290 from Houston to Austin work as well?

That's the 2-lane/4-lane route in Central Texas that's the most justified in upgrading to Interstate quality. Nothing else in that region comes close to the US-290 corridor between Houston and Austin. That should really be "I-14" or "I-12" or just an Interstate quality US-290.

Concur with that....I wouldn't mind making that a western I-12, and then extending it further west to meet I-10 near Junction.

2nd place goes to TX-6 from its junction in Hempstead with TX-6 up through College Station and then Northwest up to Waco. At the very least TX-6 should be Interstate quality from Hempstead to College Station. It's worth mentioning plans are in the works to extend the TX-249 tollway from Tomball on Houston's NW side up through Magnolia and then to Navasota. That would create an all-superhighway link between College Station and Houston.

I wonder if the ultimate plan for 249 would be to extend it all the way to Waco or incorporate TX 6?

3rd place goes to TX-74 between Austin and the TX-74 intersection with I-10 in Columbus, TX. That route is pretty much all four-lane with some limited access segments already built.

TX 71, not TX 74....but that could be upgraded with little difficulty, I'd think?

4th place (or maybe 3rd or 2nd even) goes to US-290 West of Austin. The Austin area has about 2 million people. Over 900,000 live within Austin city limits. That's populous enough to justify an East-West Interstate corridor. I think Austin should have an Interstate extending due West that connects to I-10. Right now traffic heading West out of Austin has to travel a pretty crooked route.

Concur on that, too. (See Point 1).

[US 41]

It will be a long time before I-27 and I-14 meet in San Angelo (if they ever do). I'm surprised that there hasn't been any discussion yet of extending I-44 to San Angelo via Abilene. If both I-27 and I-2 are ever extended to Laredo maybe I-2 should be renumbered I-27. Why not make an I-6 from San Antonio to Eagle Pass as well (US 90, FM 481, US 57)? I read that there was going to be an interstate from Ft. Worth to Raton, NM, via Amarillo called I-32. I doubt it was true however, but I do like the idea.

[Bobby5280]

I think there has to be a bigger picture plan for I-27 in order to get it extended, something like a Denver to San Antonio corridor could help it along.

Regarding an I-44 extension, right now US-82 & 277 is getting converted from 2-lane to 4-lane between Wichita Falls and Abilene. Holliday, Seymour, Goree, Munday, Weinert, Haskell and Stamford all have new bypasses that are either Interstate quality or can be upgraded easily to it. Anson has a new 4 lane US-277 bypass in the works. With all the bypass stuff done it wouldn't take all that much to bring the rest of it up to Interstate standards if the powers that be really wanted to do so.

South of Abilene is a bigger question. Which corridor should be upgraded? US-277 or US-83 and US-67 going through Ballinger? Both are about the same distance and there's a lot of 2 lane road to upgrade. I'd be happy enough if I-44 connected to I-20 in Abilene. It think it's a much longer shot to get I-44 down to San Angelo. I think it would require I-27 going through there first.

Regarding "I-32" I definitely think US-287 ought to be upgraded to an Interstate facility from Amarillo to Fort Worth. There is a huge amount of truck traffic on that route. It's similar to US-69 in Eastern Oklahoma: a major trucking route that isn't an Interstate but probably should be for safety's sake. Going North from Amarillo is a tougher sell. I could see I-27 going North through Boise City, Lamar, Kit Carson and terminating at Limon for a Denver connection. "I-32" to Raton is a very long shot. I'm just happy that US-64/US-87 is finally 4-laned through there.

I wonder if the ultimate plan for 249 would be to extend it all the way to Waco or incorporate TX 6?

It could be a long term goal. At the very least College Station needs an all limited access link to Houston. TX-249 is probably the best short term option. There is still a lot of traffic on TX-6 between Hempstead and Navasota. Lots of people on the western side of Houston's metro area are still going to take TX-6 to College Station even with a finished TX-249 toll road. They're not going to double back into Houston traffic just to get to the toll road.

TX 71, not TX 74....but that could be upgraded with little difficulty, I'd think?

Whoops! I don't know why I goofed on that number.

It would not be too difficult to upgrade TX-71 between Columbus and Austin. It's already mostly limited access through the developed areas (Columbus, La Grange, Smithville, Bastrop). There are properties along the route that would have to be demolished to make room for a wider freeway though.

Lots of people would use US-290 between Houston and Austin, but a lot of people on Houston's west side use TX-71 instead to get to Austin for the same reasons TX-249 wouldn't pull all the traffic off TX-6. They're not going to double back through Houston. Little by little TX-71 will become an all limited access link between Houston and Austin.

[ethanhopkin14]

TX 71, not TX 74....but that could be upgraded with little difficulty, I'd think?

Whoops! I don't know why I goofed on that number.

It would not be too difficult to upgrade TX-71 between Columbus and Austin. It's already mostly limited access through the developed areas (Columbus, La Grange, Smithville, Bastrop). There are properties along the route that would have to be demolished to make room for a wider freeway though.

Lots of people would use US-290 between Houston and Austin, but a lot of people on Houston's west side use TX-71 instead to get to Austin for the same reasons TX-249 wouldn't pull all the traffic off TX-6. They're not going to double back through Houston. Little by little TX-71 will become an all limited access link between Houston and Austin.
[/quote]

Yes.  That's my proposed Interstate 18.  Using TX 71 from Columbus to Austin and US 290 from Austin to where 290 intersects Interstate 10 east of Junction.  It would serve both a interstate connection between Houston Austin and El Paso, and as a truck relief route for Interstate 10 through traffic.

[Grzrd]

... the 14th Amendment Highway legislation provided a major impetus for a TxDOT US 190/ I-10 Feasibility Study (page 3/34 of pdf):

This study originated following the proposed interstate highway from Natchez, Mississippi to Augusta, Georgia, referred to as the 14th Amendment Highway, which was introduced into Federal congressional legislation in 2004. The study of the 14th Amendment Highway was eventually incorporated into the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005.
In addition, the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition was formed in 2001 to promote the need for improved access and connections to military installations along the US 190/I-10 corridor and regional highways that serve as deployment routes between the major army bases and designated ports along the Gulf Coast. These routes would be a continuation of the 14th Amendment Highway further west through Louisiana and Texas ... The primary route in Texas is the US 190/I-10 corridor which is the focus of this feasibility study.

This December 14 TV video reports that a proposal exists to extend I-14 to Midland/ Odessa, which, in effect, would involve an "I-27 connector" from Brady to San Angelo (I-14N?), and then I-27's proposed route from San Angelo to Midland/ Odessa

This February 14 article reports on the possibility of further congressional action to add U.S. 87/state Highway 158 to the I-14 Central Texas Corridor:

An updated map of Interstate 14 superimposed over existing roadways of Texas – including a potential route through San Angelo – was recently released by the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway System ....
Further congressional action will be needed to add U.S. 87/state Highway 158, which runs from Brady to Midland, to the I-14 Central Texas Corridor as a connection to I-20. Another potential segment is an alternate connection to I-10, extending from U.S. 190 west of Menard to Sonora.
The designated Central Texas Corridor would begin in West Texas and generally follow U.S. 190 through Killeen, Belton, Bryan-College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, Woodville and Jasper before terminating on state Highway 63 at the Sabine River.
Congress will ultimately decide whether I-14 will head west from U.S. 190 via I-20, through San Angelo and Midland, or via I-10, through Sonora.
The Texas Department of Transportation tries to maintain the existing footprint as much as possible, said Gary Bushell, consultant with the coalition.
"We want to cooperate with the wishes of local people," he said. "TxDOT wants to build roads where local people want roads, and we want to do the same thing." ....
A feasibility study of upgrading the U.S. 190 corridor prepared for the Texas Department of Transportation and completed in 2012 set the stage for designation of future Interstate 14 improvements by Congress. It recognized the benefits of a high-volume east-west highway that would serve a vast section of Texas between Interstate 20 and Interstate 10.

Here is a snip of a map from the article:

[codyg1985]

To me an interstate to San Angelo would be a good idea.

[Chris]

http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html

Traffic volumes on much of the planned I-14 route west of Lampasas are really low. Even between Lampasas and Brady the traffic counts are under 2,000 vehicles a day for the most part. Not to mention west of Brady, where traffic volumes even dip under 1,000 vehicles per day, even dipping to 400 vehicles per day east of Eldorado. Traffic volumes between Brady and San Angelo don't reach 5,000 vehicles per day until you're almost in San Angelo.