I-14 in Texas

[sparker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bobby5280]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sparker]

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

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

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

[The Ghostbuster]

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

[Bobby5280]

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

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

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

[sparker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[longhorn]

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

[TXtoNJ]

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

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

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

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

[NE2]

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

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

[sparker]

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

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

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

[TXtoNJ]

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

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

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

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

[sparker]

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

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

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

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

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

[wdcrft63]

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

Are those mile markers simply left over from US 190?

[sparker]

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

Are those mile markers simply left over from US 190?

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

[cjk374]

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

[wxfree]

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

[sparker]

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

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

[NE2]

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

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

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

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

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

[sparker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[longhorn]

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

[hotdogPi]

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

US 190

[silverback1065]

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

[sparker]

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

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

[Henry]

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

[longhorn]

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