I-14 in Texas

[bwana39]

Adequate? You've gotta be kidding. Austin is literally the only large metro area in the United States with a MSA population of over 2 million people that is not served by both North-South and East-West super highway corridors. But you insist on diverting any East-West Interstate corridor development to an area with a comparatively TINY population. That's completely nuts.

If ordinary 4-lane divided non-freeway routes are good enough to serve East-West movements thru Austin we might as well down-grade I-10 thru San Antonio. The Austin metro is just as populous as the San Antonio metro and the city limits population of Austin is growing faster than San Antonio. If the current trend holds Austin will pass San Antonio in city limits population.

I-10 between San Antonio and Houston at its lowest point has 33,500 AADT, we can assume that's an average volume for metro to metro traffic.
SH-71 between Austin and I-10 at its lowest point has 11,900 AADT.
US-290 between Austin and Houston at its lowest point has 12,500 AADT.

Poor comparison between I-10 and SH-71 / US-290, significantly more traffic.

I'm not saying there should be no improvements to the two corridors. The freeways should continue to be extended east as the region grows outward, and the remaining towns on the corridors should be bypassed. Once a 65 - 75 mph divided highway with zero traffic signals is established, the corridor would be more than adequate. In the long term, a freeway would be ideal, but is not a necessity at this point.

If the two corridors were combined to one roadway, presumably they would carry around 24,000 AADT, and even then a 4 lane divided 65 - 75 mph expressway with zero traffic signals and town bypasses would be adequate with a freeway the long-term vision.

US-190 does have a crooked zig-zag route through the Texas Triangle. The US-290 and TX-71 corridors between Austin and Houston are far more direct than that even with the bypasses around towns[/b]. Some of those bypasses are already freeways. US-290 and TX-71 don't run on a "W" shape or saw-tooth shape like US-190. Both corridors would be relatively easy to upgrade. And both corridors are direct links between two metros that are in the top 10 of the nation's largest metros. I don't see how Killeen trumps that.

First off, the current US-190 corridor is a zig-zag. The proposal for I-14 would generally follow this, but in an alignment that is significantly straighter.

US-190 between Temple and College Station at its lowest point has 7,800 AADT, not much less than the Austin - Houston corridors. The College Station / Bryan metro of 270,000 population has 4 lane divided highways going to Austin, Houston, and Waco. They lack 4 lane access to the Killeen / Temple / Fort Hood metro of 460,000 along with to Huntsville of 40,000. Because of its crooked alignment, a 4 lane divided highway would likely be built on new location on a straight alignment, avoiding the towns in the process, and you have I-14.

The US-190 / Future I-14 corridor is more inadequate than US-290 or SH-71 are, and rightfully is a higher priority.

Here is the one real dilemma TXDOT tends to follow existing roads. A reroute for a road that is NOT a tollway is virtually unheard of beyond loops around smaller towns since the 1970's. Giving US190 corridor the reroute it needs is unprecedented in this era.  US82 / SH56 between Honey Grove and Whitesboro is the only exception to this I can think of.   

[sprjus4]

Here is the one real dilemma TXDOT tends to follow existing roads. A reroute for a road that is NOT a tollway is virtually unheard of beyond loops around smaller towns since the 1970's. Giving US190 corridor the reroute it needs is unprecedented in this era.  US82 / SH56 between Honey Grove and Whitesboro is the only exception to this I can think of.

Not to mention, any TxDOT new location facilities in rural areas always end up starting as super-2 freeways.

Unless serious funding is enabled, I'm predicting a super-2 freeway for an initial build, potentially tolled. Won't be signed as interstate highway.

Obviously, the ultimate / ideal goal is a 4-lane interstate highway without tolls.

[sparker]

Here is the one real dilemma TXDOT tends to follow existing roads. A reroute for a road that is NOT a tollway is virtually unheard of beyond loops around smaller towns since the 1970's. Giving US190 corridor the reroute it needs is unprecedented in this era.  US82 / SH56 between Honey Grove and Whitesboro is the only exception to this I can think of.

Not to mention, any TxDOT new location facilities in rural areas always end up starting as super-2 freeways.

Unless serious funding is enabled, I'm predicting a super-2 freeway for an initial build, potentially tolled. Won't be signed as interstate highway.

Obviously, the ultimate / ideal goal is a 4-lane interstate highway without tolls.

Here's the thing -- if TxDOT was intending on simply following US 190 -- which was itself zig-zagged along a series of existing diagonally-oriented state highways when it was commissioned -- there would have been some sort of announcement to that effect issued.  Instead, there's an extensive (likely 5-7 years) study regarding a viable route, one that will certainly serve the two most populous towns/cities along the route -- Cameron and the Bryan/College Station area.  The rest is up for grabs, so to speak; the issue of crossing the Brazos floodplain has been hacked about in this thread for a while -- but the consensus is that it'll skirt Hearne on the southwest and intersect TX 6 at or near the end of the freeway section close to the OSR junction.  Now where it goes from there toward I-45 is also TBD, with much pissing and moaning within this forum about the efficacy of the various options.   But it'll likely be 2026 or so before any of us know (unless any of us has a "fly on the wall" in TxDOT) exactly what the corridor's alignment will be.  My guess -- they'll "straightline" Cameron to the Brazos crossing as much as possible and generally follow TX 30 from B/CS to I-45 a bit north of Huntsville. 

Getting back to the "zig-zag" nature of US 190 -- and the fact that it's due to the orientation of the regional state highway network which it overlays and multiplexes with (it's never alone between I-35 and I-45, mpx'ing with, respectively, TX 36, US 79, TX 6, and TX 21!) which is largely diagonal in nature.  That alone has rendered it a pretty damn ridiculous way to get across the Triangle; it seems that the I-14 backers are attempting to remedy this by laying down a E-W corridor that corrects the problem.  But their original map of a few years back was, from a publicity standpoint, one of the more inept attempts to outline the corridor's value, since they simply took a highlight marker and followed US 190 -- but I'll chalk that one up to a combination of inexperience and the time factor involved in getting a presentation ready for the 2016 authorization batch.  In short, the presentation was, in effect "these are the endpoints, this is the existing route, we'll go from there!"  If they would have had some foresight, they would have overlaid a straight line between Temple and College Station -- and then another over to Huntsville -- over the convoluted US 190 alignment to show what the ideal would be like -- with the likely outcome posited as something between the existing and direct routes. 

The folks backing I-14 are attempting to do what the longstanding I-69 "team" has been doing for the past quarter-century; since it was about 2014-15 before they commenced their effort, I'd expect about the same overall progress on I-14 in 2040 that is present with the I-69 corridor cluster today, starting (after alignment finalization) with a southern Temple bypass and upgrading of that portion of TX 6 that it will overlay.  I'd guess Cameron-Hearne, including a Brazos bridge, would be the final leg to be built.  That, not including the bridge, would be a likely candidate for an initial Super-2 facility.  As far as tolls go, that's probably not in the cards -- although an extension of TX 249, which could segue onto toll lanes along TX 6 from Navasota to College Station, may come close.  But figure on 2050 as a reasonably safe bet for I-14 completion across the Triangle (I'll be 101, so one of you younger folks will have to drive me over it!).          

[wdcrft63]

Breaking news: The Senate has just amended the Infrastructure bill to designate the I-14 route from Texas to Georgia. The amendment was cosponsored by Cruz (R-TX) and Warnock (D-GA). The amendment did not add any designated funding, it only requires designation of the route. Passed unanimously by voice vote.

[thisdj78]

Breaking news: The Senate has just amended the Infrastructure bill to designate the I-14 route from Texas to Georgia. The amendment was cosponsored by Cruz (R-TX) and Warnock (D-GA). The amendment did not add any designated funding, it only requires designation of the route. Passed unanimously by voice vote.

Hey, if a highway can get those two to work together, I'm all for it.

[sparker]

Breaking news: The Senate has just amended the Infrastructure bill to designate the I-14 route from Texas to Georgia. The amendment was cosponsored by Cruz (R-TX) and Warnock (D-GA). The amendment did not add any designated funding, it only requires designation of the route. Passed unanimously by voice vote.

Hey, if a highway can get those two to work together, I'm all for it.

I wonder if the AL senators were awake during that voice vote, considering the state's virtual moratorium on freeway building (must have blown their wad on I-22!) -- or just simply ignored internal state policy and reinstated that interregional plan from the early 2000's.  Sure would like to see a map of the proposed corridor and/or any options to see how it might differ (if in any way) from what was proposed 20 years ago -- which had some truly weird convolutions, particularly in AL and GA! 

Nonetheless, the combination of those particular -- normally polar opposites -- senators is at least amusing.  Critics of the I-14 corridor concept in general will probably chalk it up to a common preference for pulled pork!

[bwana39]

Breaking news: The Senate has just amended the Infrastructure bill to designate the I-14 route from Texas to Georgia. The amendment was cosponsored by Cruz (R-TX) and Warnock (D-GA). The amendment did not add any designated funding, it only requires designation of the route. Passed unanimously by voice vote.

Hey, if a highway can get those two to work together, I'm all for it.

Alabama has nothing to worry about. They can rest assured the Mississippi will keep them in the clear .

I wonder if the AL senators were awake during that voice vote, considering the state's virtual moratorium on freeway building (must have blown their wad on I-22!) -- or just simply ignored internal state policy and reinstated that interregional plan from the early 2000's.  Sure would like to see a map of the proposed corridor and/or any options to see how it might differ (if in any way) from what was proposed 20 years ago -- which had some truly weird convolutions, particularly in AL and GA! 

Nonetheless, the combination of those particular -- normally polar opposites -- senators is at least amusing.  Critics of the I-14 corridor concept in general will probably chalk it up to a common preference for pulled pork!

[SkyPesos]

Breaking news: The Senate has just amended the Infrastructure bill to designate the I-14 route from Texas to Georgia. The amendment was cosponsored by Cruz (R-TX) and Warnock (D-GA). The amendment did not add any designated funding, it only requires designation of the route. Passed unanimously by voice vote.

How many of FritzOwl's interstates will the Infrastructure bill include then?

Also, it seems like I-14 is continuing the tradition of x4 interstates being somewhat major long interstates, like I-94, I-84 and I-64.

[wdcrft63]

According to Cruz the amendment includes the requirement that I-14 will extend on the west to Midland-Odessa. His statement does not include any other route information but it does endorse the idea of connecting military bases.

[armadillo speedbump]

According to Cruz the amendment includes the requirement that I-14 will extend on the west to Midland-Odessa. His statement does not include any other route information but it does endorse the idea of connecting military bases.

99% of the time a ridiculous argument.  These hundreds of millions of dollars projects usually might save maybe 10 minutes on trips made a few times per year.  And large scale deployments typically move by slower, but more cost effective, rail. 

We aren't losing a war because there wasn't another freeway from Odessa to South Carolina.

But we all know dishonest chamber of commerce types and politicians will throw up every kind of bullcrap argument they can think of.  I'm sure the favorite, "Hurricane evacuation!" will also be touted.  "Must reach Odessa, cuz storm surge!"

[sparker]

According to Cruz the amendment includes the requirement that I-14 will extend on the west to Midland-Odessa. His statement does not include any other route information but it does endorse the idea of connecting military bases.

Well, at least that requirement deals with the ridiculous extension west of Brady on US 190 -- literally a road to functionally nowhere except a point on I-10.  Now it'll essentially "piggyback" on the P2P branch from San Angelo to M/O; somewhere down the line they'll actually decide what signage it'll get (27W or 14 -- or maybe both!?).  All that being said, don't expect much in the way of actual physical development for 10-15 years west of Lampasas. 

[silverback1065]

makes sense for 14 to go through san angelo then and at 20 in between midland and odessa, then shoot north as an extended 27.

[hotdogPi]

The corridor I really want to see (with any number) is Meridian-Montgomery-Columbus-Macon-Augusta.

[US 89]

The corridor I really want to see (with any number) is Meridian-Montgomery-Columbus-Macon-Augusta.

The Georgia portion of that corridor already exists as the Fall Line Freeway (SR 540). Despite its name, it is mostly a four-lane divided expressway with a small handful of two-lane sections - though it does connect all three of Georgia's major fall-line cities.

[ethanhopkin14]

According to Cruz the amendment includes the requirement that I-14 will extend on the west to Midland-Odessa. His statement does not include any other route information but it does endorse the idea of connecting military bases.

Well, at least that requirement deals with the ridiculous extension west of Brady on US 190 -- literally a road to functionally nowhere except a point on I-10.  Now it'll essentially "piggyback" on the P2P branch from San Angelo to M/O; somewhere down the line they'll actually decide what signage it'll get (27W or 14 -- or maybe both!?).  All that being said, don't expect much in the way of actual physical development for 10-15 years west of Lampasas.

I-27W14N

San Angelo will be the new RGV.  Going from zero to two interstates overnight. 

[SkyPesos]

According to Cruz the amendment includes the requirement that I-14 will extend on the west to Midland-Odessa. His statement does not include any other route information but it does endorse the idea of connecting military bases.

Well, at least that requirement deals with the ridiculous extension west of Brady on US 190 -- literally a road to functionally nowhere except a point on I-10.  Now it'll essentially "piggyback" on the P2P branch from San Angelo to M/O; somewhere down the line they'll actually decide what signage it'll get (27W or 14 -- or maybe both!?).  All that being said, don't expect much in the way of actual physical development for 10-15 years west of Lampasas.

I-27W14N

San Angelo will be the new RGV.  Going from zero to two interstates overnight.

Fictional here, but it's possible for them to get from zero to three overnight. I-44 extension there via Abilene!

[Henry]

The corridor I really want to see (with any number) is Meridian-Montgomery-Columbus-Macon-Augusta.

The Georgia portion of that corridor already exists as the Fall Line Freeway (SR 540). Despite its name, it is mostly a four-lane divided expressway with a small handful of two-lane sections - though it does connect all three of Georgia's major fall-line cities.

Also, the Meridian-Montgomery segment conflicts with plans for an I-85 extension. With I-685 set to replace the rerouted I-85 in Montgomery, chances are that the 3di will be renumbered to an I-x14 if the people who advocated for I-14 get their way. And if so, it'll end up like I-130 in Texarkana, which got subsumed by I-49 when the latter Interstate got extended north from Shreveport.

[ethanhopkin14]

The corridor I really want to see (with any number) is Meridian-Montgomery-Columbus-Macon-Augusta.

The Georgia portion of that corridor already exists as the Fall Line Freeway (SR 540). Despite its name, it is mostly a four-lane divided expressway with a small handful of two-lane sections - though it does connect all three of Georgia's major fall-line cities.

Also, the Meridian-Montgomery segment conflicts with plans for an I-85 extension. With I-685 set to replace the rerouted I-85 in Montgomery, chances are that the 3di will be renumbered to an I-x14 if the people who advocated for I-14 get their way. And if so, it'll end up like I-130 in Texarkana, which got subsumed by I-49 when the latter Interstate got extended north from Shreveport.

They really should route I-85 on I-185 at Phenix City, send it south to Dothan and terminate in Panama City, renumbering I-85 from La Grange to Montgomery as I-14.  That piece is mostly east-west.  Two thing would happen, it would help the Emerald Coast have a quicker north-south evacuation route, and it would make I-10 connect to all I-X5 interstates (which is the most important thing).

[ethanhopkin14]

According to Cruz the amendment includes the requirement that I-14 will extend on the west to Midland-Odessa. His statement does not include any other route information but it does endorse the idea of connecting military bases.

Well, at least that requirement deals with the ridiculous extension west of Brady on US 190 -- literally a road to functionally nowhere except a point on I-10.  Now it'll essentially "piggyback" on the P2P branch from San Angelo to M/O; somewhere down the line they'll actually decide what signage it'll get (27W or 14 -- or maybe both!?).  All that being said, don't expect much in the way of actual physical development for 10-15 years west of Lampasas.

I-27W14N

San Angelo will be the new RGV.  Going from zero to two interstates overnight.

Fictional here, but it's possible for them to get from zero to three overnight. I-44 extension there via Abilene!

I want it.  At least to Abilene, though I want San Angelo.  I-44 and I-27 terminating randomly are my two biggest pet peeves in the system!

[sparker]

The corridor I really want to see (with any number) is Meridian-Montgomery-Columbus-Macon-Augusta.

The Georgia portion of that corridor already exists as the Fall Line Freeway (SR 540). Despite its name, it is mostly a four-lane divided expressway with a small handful of two-lane sections - though it does connect all three of Georgia's major fall-line cities.

From Columbus to the Macon area, the original plan circa 2001 decidedly did not use GRIP 540, but instead veered SE on US 27/280/GRIP 520 to the Cussetta area, where it turned east along GA 26 to I-75.  Wonder if someone relatively influential within the state had some property along that corridor that they wanted to sell? -- or wanted to divert potential online business to one or another of the towns along the routing.  Something tells me that, since GRIP 540 is now signed as such from Columbus to Augusta, it'll simply follow that route, including the long-discussed Macon bypass; upgrading that corridor to Interstate standards would be more feasible than detouring on a new-terrain alignment some twenty miles to the south. 

[TXtoNJ]

According to Cruz the amendment includes the requirement that I-14 will extend on the west to Midland-Odessa. His statement does not include any other route information but it does endorse the idea of connecting military bases.

Well, at least that requirement deals with the ridiculous extension west of Brady on US 190 -- literally a road to functionally nowhere except a point on I-10.  Now it'll essentially "piggyback" on the P2P branch from San Angelo to M/O; somewhere down the line they'll actually decide what signage it'll get (27W or 14 -- or maybe both!?).  All that being said, don't expect much in the way of actual physical development for 10-15 years west of Lampasas.

I-27W14N

San Angelo will be the new RGV.  Going from zero to two interstates overnight.

Fictional here, but it's possible for them to get from zero to three overnight. I-44 extension there via Abilene!

I want it.  At least to Abilene, though I want San Angelo.  I-44 and I-27 terminating randomly are my two biggest pet peeves in the system!

There's got to be a better practical justification than lines on a map.

[bwana39]

I guess this (I-14) might actually come to pass very slowly. 2050, 2060  for significant work beyond what is already there, maybe later for Louisiana , Mississippi, and Alabama. Few of us will live to see it.

It doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

Honestly I-37 to Lampasas to meet I-14  then on to meet US-67 near Hico and follow US67 to at least Cleburne. Where it would meet the Chisolm trail PKWY and an expanded US-67 seems like a greater need.

If I-14 were to go to Crocket then Nacogdoches and connect to I-69 /I-369  instead of going southward toward Huntsville it might be a good route. 

US-290 and SH-71 really carry the West / East traffic to Houston. Both will eventually be full freeways.  The real need for traffic relief is from South to North to relieve the I-35 corridor.

[jbnv]

I guess this (I-14) might actually come to pass very slowly. 2050, 2060  for significant work beyond what is already there, maybe later for Louisiana , Mississippi, and Alabama. Few of us will live to see it.

LA 28 is already a divided expressway west of Alexandria. With I-14 on the book, Louisiana could expand the LA 28 / US 84 route from Alexandria to Ferriday to an expandable expressway. Ditto LA 8 west of Leesville to the Texas line. Then gradually upgrade the whole thing to interstate. Probably won't happen by 2060 but isn't inconceivable.

[Thegeet]

Which next segment do y'all think will be designated I-14 the soonest?

[sparker]

I guess this (I-14) might actually come to pass very slowly. 2050, 2060  for significant work beyond what is already there, maybe later for Louisiana , Mississippi, and Alabama. Few of us will live to see it.

It doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

Honestly I-37 to Lampasas to meet I-14  then on to meet US-67 near Hico and follow US67 to at least Cleburne. Where it would meet the Chisolm trail PKWY and an expanded US-67 seems like a greater need.

If I-14 were to go to Crocket then Nacogdoches and connect to I-69 /I-369  instead of going southward toward Huntsville it might be a good route. 

US-290 and SH-71 really carry the West / East traffic to Houston. Both will eventually be full freeways.  The real need for traffic relief is from South to North to relieve the I-35 corridor.

In reality, the total I-14 corridor -- from San Angelo all the way to Augusta -- is as much an economic development corridor as one intended to provide connectivity.  The segment across MS (ostensibly along US 84) bisects a historically economically distressed area, as does the original west AL route that made a functional "beeline" from Coffeeville to I-65 south of Montgomery via Camden -- through another depressed region.  Of course east of Montgomery, the purpose was to put Columbus on a E-W corridor, something groused about locally since the Interstate system's inception; the original backing for the corridor some 20-odd years ago came from the congresspersons representing Columbus and Macon districts.  That being said, it's just as likely that I-14 will continue east along US 84 in MS, but "jog" up I-59 to east of Meridian before striking out east along US 80 in a similar fashion to the abortive I-85 extension west of Montgomery that was shelved years ago.  This'll probably be done for fiscal reasons; it would be easier -- and less costly -- to upgrade the divided sections of US 80 and bypass a few towns than construct a new-terrain freeway requiring high-level bridges over the Tenn-Tom waterway and the navigable Alabama River. 

In any case, the path through east Texas, specified in the HPC #84 language, is, with this designated eastern extension, solidified along US 190 from Huntsville to Jasper and TX 63 east of there into LA.  While a strictly TX-bound corridor would have been better served curving down to Beaumont, that will likely be relegated to a potential branch rather than an alternate main trunk.  But all this is moot until the whole fucking thing gets through Congress (and there seem to still be several snags, although corridor projects such as this may well aid in getting "red-meat" representatives on board). 

And although a number of posters have suggested an Interstate corridor following US 281 from San Antonio up to DFW and/or Wichita Falls as a relief route for increasingly congested I-35, that suggestion doesn't appear to have reached the ears of anyone in a position to implement such a concept.  Perhaps if any of the present and planned improvements to I-35 become themselves overwhelmed by traffic in the near term such a proposal might be positively received -- but with other corridors already ahead of it in the state queue, its support mechanism would have to be at least loud and persistent to gain any sort of traction.

Which next segment do y'all think will be designated I-14 the soonest?

My meager funds are on the TX 6 freeway through Bryan and College Station -- or, with this amendment, part of the San Angelo bypass freeway.  Neither connects directly to another Interstate, so waivers similar to that utilized with I-69E/69C/2 in the RGV would need to be obtained.