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

[jbnv]

Where I-14 makes sense is as a bypass route around San Antonio and Houston.

[Chris]

But how much traffic would actually use that as a bypass? Present day traffic volumes on I-10 west of San Antonio are really low, they hardly exceed 10,000 vehicles per day on a 370 mile stretch from Van Horn to Kerrville.

[paulthemapguy]

Where I-14 makes sense is as a bypass route around San Antonio and Houston.

So would that agree with the idea of putting I-14 on the US290 corridor?  I could see that working out between Austin and Houston.  Austin doesn't really have a big east-west highway to serve it.  I agree with the sentiment I am tending to see in this thread, that a 2di on US190 in Texas would be insane.  Give it a 3di designation.  The nearest odd x35 designation is all the way north in Wichita, KS.

[wxfree]

US 190 from San Saba to I-10 is one of my favorite routes to west Texas.  It has long stretches of open highway with high speed and no traffic.  The "Potential additional I-14 route" to the southwest on the map shown above is basically along RM 864, another road I know well.  I laugh at the idea of an Interstate along either route.  I-10 is justified because it's part of a trans-continental highway and was built to system standards.  Having two parallel superhighways in such desolate country is absurd.

This highway would make a good addition to Austin, and a good route from there to Houston.  It could have a direct route to I-10 east of Kerrville.  A branch to Midland could start from I-10.  It wouldn't be as direct a route, but it would reduce the new mileage of desolate freeways.

Using US 190 to get a 20 mile head start, and having that as an excuse to move the highway from where it's needed to where it isn't needed, is stupid.  We should build something that makes sense, and not base the whole project on including a freeway that doesn't need to be any longer.

I'd say a freeway from Austin to Houston is actually warranted.  Freewayizing US 290 for that length may even warrant an Interstate designation.  A branch west to I-10 is debatable.  A more direct connection would be nice.  Further north, Waco-to-Fort Stockton traffic doesn't need its own Interstate.  Highway upgrades, repeated passing lanes or four-lane divided, from Austin to Midland, would be reasonable.  A freeway is not.  Building an Interstate from Jasper to Iraan just because a short piece of it is already freeway is the stupidest serious road-related idea I've ever heard.

[NE2]

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/us_190/final/summary_080212.pdf

Even TXDOT's "total freeway" options (p. 21) don't go all the way to the west end of US 190. That's just reading too much into the legislative description.

Based on 2040 traffic needs, no additional travel lanes are warranted on the section of US 190 from its junction with I-10 west of Iraan to US 281 in Lampasas (West US 190). The existing two-lane facility will accommodate the 2040 projected travel demand within these limits.

In the West US 190 Section, the Freeway Options 1 and 2 and the Fort to Port Options 1 and 2 alternatives scored the best (these were closely followed by the Mobility/Safety Options 1 and 2). This is primarily due to upgrading US 190 to a freeway in this section which resulted in better mobility (travel time and speed) compared to other alternatives that included upgrading to a four-lane highway. However, this section currently carries nominal traffic and therefore the projected volumes, even when upgraded to a freeway, carried the lowest projected travel demand in 2040 compared to other sections.

For the West US 190 Section, the Total Four-Lane Option 3 scored the best since it was the shortest improvement corridor (utilizes US 83) with a four-lane highway typical section.

It was determined that various alternatives for improving the entire corridor to a freeway and/or four-lane divided highway was not economically viable. However, mobility and safety issues were identified along the corridor. As a result, potential localized transportation improvements were identified to address these needs.

The need for passing lanes were evaluated for existing two-lane roadways based on projected traffic volumes.

[DNAguy]

It has been said earlier in this thread and darn near in the previous post.... but I-14 along 190 is completely and utterly dumb.

We don't have enough $ to maintain the roads we have now and we're going to build this? We haven't complete all the elements of I69 and we're going to start another ambitious state-crossing interstate project? We have two, Million+ people+ MPO's (Houston and Austin) not connected by an interstate and we're going to try and build this? I can go on, as other have before me.

As a native Texas, I'm all about big ideas and big infrastructure.... but even I have my limits. This project can best be explained via emoticon
  :

[Bobby5280]

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

Yeah, but not along this congressional pork barrel legislation route. I'm certain US-190 and US-87, the routes connecting Killeen and San Angelo, are serving traffic needs just fine. And they're mostly 2-lane roads. Overall, the proposed I-14 corridor in Texas would be a giant waste of money. It wouldn't quite be a road to nowhere, but it would be costly overkill for such a limited corridor.

San Angelo could be attached to the Interstate highway system in a couple different ways. There has been talk of extending I-27 South from Lubbock down through San Angelo and then on to Del Rio. I think it would make more sense for I-27 to run from San Angelo diagonally to Junction, TX. This would create a fairly direct Interstate corridor linking Corpus Christi, San Antonio, San Angelo, Big Spring, Lubbock and Amarillo. This would be a whole lot more useful than a dopey, porky I-14 in central Texas.

Where I-14 makes sense is as a bypass route around San Antonio and Houston.

I-14 makes the most sense as a Houston to Austin connection via US-290. I would go farther and say Austin needs an Interstate highway going West, basically along or near US-290 until is dovetails into I-10.

I'd say a freeway from Austin to Houston is actually warranted. Freewayizing US 290 for that length may even warrant an Interstate designation. A branch west to I-10 is debatable.

It's tough to say for certain, but Austin alone has over 900,000 residents just within its city limits and about another million within its metro area. In other areas of the United States that's more than enough population to justify North-South and East-West Interstates crossing each other. I think a new Interstate running West from Austin to Fredericksburg and over to I-10 would get quite a bit of use, even as a toll road.

We don't have enough $ to maintain the roads we have now and we're going to build this? We haven't complete all the elements of I69 and we're going to start another ambitious state-crossing interstate project?

Texas has several current projects and at least a few possible Interstate upgrade projects that are far easier to justify than this porky I-14 via Killeen garbage.

I-69 represents most of the big, current Interstate upgrade projects in South and East Texas.

I-27 is part of the Ports to Plains corridor. I think extending it up into Colorado would be a good thing. Extending it South to Junction, TX would be the easiest way to get the logical route going to the Gulf Coast (via I-10 & I-37 thru San Antonio and Corpus Christi). Routing I-27 South from San Angelo to Del Rio and still getting it to the coast involves another Interstate project, I-2.

It's fairly easy to make a case for extending I-2 up to Laredo, not to mention finishing the I-69W and I-69E routes. About 1.5 million people live in the far South end of Texas. Building I-2 past Laredo up to Eagle Pass and Del Rio couldn't be justified with local traffic counts, but only as a much larger long distance corridor for port traffic headed toward West Texas oil fields and population centers in Rockies. That's the only way how both I-27 and I-2 to Del Rio would work.

I-32 has been suggested as an upgrade of US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo. There is a great deal of heavy truck traffic on this route. Some portions are already Interstate grade and some other portions have wide medians big enough for future freeway upgrades.

I-44 currently ends in Wichita Falls. US-277 has been upgraded between Wichita Falls and Abilene with limited access bypasses of Holliday, Seymour, Munday, Haskell and Stamford. The rest is being four-laned. That route could be upgraded to Interstate quality without much difficulty. Building South to a future I-27 in San Angelo would take more work.

I almost forgot about a Waco to Houston route, via TX-6 from Waco down through College Station and Navasota and then TX-249 from Navasota into Houston.

[jbnv]

Where I-14 makes sense is as a bypass route around San Antonio and Houston.

I meant the I-14 route as proposed by the Texas legislators. I did not mean which route should be assigned I-14.

[Grzrd]

This March 16 article reports that TxDOT is in the process of submitting a report to FHWA for approval of a 25 mile section US 190 through Bell County for approval as interstate-grade, with the two major issues being an existing driveway and a grade in excess of 5% along a short section; also, all of the necessary approvals for the I-14 designation and installation of I-14 shields could take place by late 2016:

The process of re-designating a 25-mile span of U.S. Highway 190 through Bell County as Interstate 14 is underway, officials with the Killeen-Temple Metropolitan Planning Organization learned Wednesday.
Bobby Littlefield, Waco district engineer for the Texas Department of Transportation, told the group's Transportation Planning Policy Board that before officials can unveil new signs, they are looking into two issues before submitting a report for review.
The first issue is a vertical grade of which they need to get a section of the corridor re-classed from a rural to an urban section.
"Urban interstate standard is 5 percent maximum vertical grade. ... We do have a 5.7 percent grade in that eastbound lane approximately 1.4 miles west of State Highway 201,"  Littlefield said.
The second issue is an existing driveway between Clear Creek Road and Bell Tower Drive that serves an Atmos Energy substation.
"There can't be any driveway connections that connect to main lanes,"  he said. "They can connect to front-age roads, but not main lanes. We are working with Fort Hood and we feel like they can get that removed here in the next few weeks,"  Littlefield said.
Littlefield said that if they do not quite meet the requirements, they can still be granted a design exception.
The next step in the process is to finalize a technical assessment report for the 25-mile section for review by the Federal Highway Administration and submit it by the end of March.
"It is pretty much ready to go,"  he said. "We are waiting on the driveway removal to wrap it up."
Littlefield said that if Fort Hood is able to remove the driveway before then, they will not have to mention it in the report.
Littlefield said they also are waiting on the Texas Transportation Commission to approve the designation in addition to submitting an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Littlefield said they also are waiting on the Texas Transportation Commission to approve the designation in addition to submitting an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
"They meet twice a year and consider a lot of geometric and designation issues,"  he said. "But if we can get action maybe by April, we can possibly make their spring meeting. If not, it would carry over into their fall meeting."
Once the report is submitted and receives approval from the commission and the association of transportation officials, the process of requesting approval from the Federal Highway Association office in Washington, D.C., begins, and Littlefield said that could drag out for several months,
"If we are able to gain all of the approvals, then we can actually officially sign the route as Interstate 14 possibly as early as late 2016, if not sometime early 2017,"  he said.
That is when the formal and physical designation will take place with sign placement.

[MikeSantNY78]

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

Yeah, but not along this congressional pork barrel legislation route. I'm certain US-190 and US-87, the routes connecting Killeen and San Angelo, are serving traffic needs just fine. And they're mostly 2-lane roads. Overall, the proposed I-14 corridor in Texas would be a giant waste of money. It wouldn't quite be a road to nowhere, but it would be costly overkill for such a limited corridor.

San Angelo could be attached to the Interstate highway system in a couple different ways. There has been talk of extending I-27 South from Lubbock down through San Angelo and then on to Del Rio. I think it would make more sense for I-27 to run from San Angelo diagonally to Junction, TX. This would create a fairly direct Interstate corridor linking Corpus Christi, San Antonio, San Angelo, Big Spring, Lubbock and Amarillo. This would be a whole lot more useful than a dopey, porky I-14 in central Texas.

Where I-14 makes sense is as a bypass route around San Antonio and Houston.

I-14 makes the most sense as a Houston to Austin connection via US-290. I would go farther and say Austin needs an Interstate highway going West, basically along or near US-290 until is dovetails into I-10.

I'd say a freeway from Austin to Houston is actually warranted. Freewayizing US 290 for that length may even warrant an Interstate designation. A branch west to I-10 is debatable.

It's tough to say for certain, but Austin alone has over 900,000 residents just within its city limits and about another million within its metro area. In other areas of the United States that's more than enough population to justify North-South and East-West Interstates crossing each other. I think a new Interstate running West from Austin to Fredericksburg and over to I-10 would get quite a bit of use, even as a toll road.

We don't have enough $ to maintain the roads we have now and we're going to build this? We haven't complete all the elements of I69 and we're going to start another ambitious state-crossing interstate project?

Texas has several current projects and at least a few possible Interstate upgrade projects that are far easier to justify than this porky I-14 via Killeen garbage.

I-69 represents most of the big, current Interstate upgrade projects in South and East Texas.

I-27 is part of the Ports to Plains corridor. I think extending it up into Colorado would be a good thing. Extending it South to Junction, TX would be the easiest way to get the logical route going to the Gulf Coast (via I-10 & I-37 thru San Antonio and Corpus Christi). Routing I-27 South from San Angelo to Del Rio and still getting it to the coast involves another Interstate project, I-2.

It's fairly easy to make a case for extending I-2 up to Laredo, not to mention finishing the I-69W and I-69E routes. About 1.5 million people live in the far South end of Texas. Building I-2 past Laredo up to Eagle Pass and Del Rio couldn't be justified with local traffic counts, but only as a much larger long distance corridor for port traffic headed toward West Texas oil fields and population centers in Rockies. That's the only way how both I-27 and I-2 to Del Rio would work.

I-32 has been suggested as an upgrade of US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo. There is a great deal of heavy truck traffic on this route. Some portions are already Interstate grade and some other portions have wide medians big enough for future freeway upgrades.

I-44 currently ends in Wichita Falls. US-277 has been upgraded between Wichita Falls and Abilene with limited access bypasses of Holliday, Seymour, Munday, Haskell and Stamford. The rest is being four-laned. That route could be upgraded to Interstate quality without much difficulty. Building South to a future I-27 in San Angelo would take more work.

I almost forgot about a Waco to Houston route, via TX-6 from Waco down through College Station and Navasota and then TX-249 from Navasota into Houston.

Could this tie into the future I-14/14th Amendment Hwy proposal to link Augusta, GA with Natchez, MS/Alexandria, LA (I-49)? Leesville, Jasper, Livingston (and I-69),  Bryan/CS, and Cameron are all that would remain for a connection, with (admittedly) some new terrain routing required.  Long range, I know, but still doable.

[jbnv]

Could this tie into the future I-14/14th Amendment Hwy proposal to link Augusta, GA with Natchez, MS/Alexandria, LA (I-49)? Leesville, Jasper, Livingston (and I-69),  Bryan/CS, and Cameron are all that would remain for a connection, with (admittedly) some new terrain routing required.  Long range, I know, but still doable.

Reading the whole thread is generally a good idea.

[silverback1065]

Kind of crazy that this stub will be signed within the next few months, I don't see this being built any time soon, 69 is more important.

[longhorn]

This March 16 article reports that TxDOT is in the process of submitting a report to FHWA for approval of a 25 mile section US 190 through Bell County for approval as interstate-grade, with the two major issues being an existing driveway and a grade in excess of 5% along a short section; also, all of the necessary approvals for the I-14 designation and installation of I-14 shields could take place by late 2016:

The process of re-designating a 25-mile span of U.S. Highway 190 through Bell County as Interstate 14 is underway, officials with the Killeen-Temple Metropolitan Planning Organization learned Wednesday.
Bobby Littlefield, Waco district engineer for the Texas Department of Transportation, told the group’s Transportation Planning Policy Board that before officials can unveil new signs, they are looking into two issues before submitting a report for review.
The first issue is a vertical grade of which they need to get a section of the corridor re-classed from a rural to an urban section.
“Urban interstate standard is 5 percent maximum vertical grade. … We do have a 5.7 percent grade in that eastbound lane approximately 1.4 miles west of State Highway 201,” Littlefield said.
The second issue is an existing driveway between Clear Creek Road and Bell Tower Drive that serves an Atmos Energy substation.
“There can’t be any driveway connections that connect to main lanes,” he said. “They can connect to front-age roads, but not main lanes. We are working with Fort Hood and we feel like they can get that removed here in the next few weeks,” Littlefield said.
Littlefield said that if they do not quite meet the requirements, they can still be granted a design exception.
The next step in the process is to finalize a technical assessment report for the 25-mile section for review by the Federal Highway Administration and submit it by the end of March.
“It is pretty much ready to go,” he said. “We are waiting on the driveway removal to wrap it up.”
Littlefield said that if Fort Hood is able to remove the driveway before then, they will not have to mention it in the report.
Littlefield said they also are waiting on the Texas Transportation Commission to approve the designation in addition to submitting an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Littlefield said they also are waiting on the Texas Transportation Commission to approve the designation in addition to submitting an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
“They meet twice a year and consider a lot of geometric and designation issues,” he said. “But if we can get action maybe by April, we can possibly make their spring meeting. If not, it would carry over into their fall meeting.”
Once the report is submitted and receives approval from the commission and the association of transportation officials, the process of requesting approval from the Federal Highway Association office in Washington, D.C., begins, and Littlefield said that could drag out for several months,
“If we are able to gain all of the approvals, then we can actually officially sign the route as Interstate 14 possibly as early as late 2016, if not sometime early 2017,” he said.
That is when the formal and physical designation will take place with sign placement.

The 5 percent grade must be Nolanville hill, its actually a fault line, no way around fixing that. And I don't know what the guy is talking about when he states there is a road connecting to the main highway between Clear Creek and Bell tower, there is no roadway connecting to the main road. Ft Hood is one side and Central Texas College on the other. What substation?

Surprised they did not find a direct connection from 190 to I35 south in Belton NOT to be a problem.

[wxfree]

Out of curiosity, I looked for that driveway after reading the article.  It's as described, a small drive leading to a power substation.

https://goo.gl/maps/jmEb7JEF4wD2

[The Ghostbuster]

Once Interstate 14 is signposted along US 190, where will the Interstate go from there. On the east end, I think it should connect with the existing US 290 freeway and follow 290 to its eastern terminus at Interstate 610. As for the western end, I'm open to suggestions.

[NE2]

As for the western end, I'm open to suggestions.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=20.0

[longhorn]

Out of curiosity, I looked for that driveway after reading the article.  It's as described, a small drive leading to a power substation.

https://goo.gl/maps/jmEb7JEF4wD2

Thanks, I past by there once a week and never, never noticed that little driveway.

[The Ghostbuster]

Since it probably won't go any further west anytime soon, Fictional Highways is the best place to send it westward.

[silverback1065]

interstate overkill, does this really need to be an interstate?

[Bobby5280]

Yeah, something among these choices: I-135, I-335, I-535, I-735, I-935.

Calling it I-14 is not quite as ridiculous as I-97 in Maryland, but the road's length is barely half as long as the current length of I-2. At least I-2 has some logical sense of being extended. This I-14 idea is just absurd.

[texaskdog]

Looking at the Texas Trunk System map, the most likely eastern extension would be US 190 to College Station (though they might go more directly to Hearne), then SH 6 and SH 249 to Houston.

Who would want to go to College Station?

[jbnv]

Calling it I-14 is not quite as ridiculous as I-97 in Maryland, but the road's length is barely half as long as the current length of I-2. At least I-2 has some logical sense of being extended. This I-14 idea is just absurd.

Yeah, the idea of I-14 being anything more than just a short route in Texas is a mere fantasy. Total fiction. Even the FHWA thinks it is ridiculous.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does that mean FHWA will disapprove giving the corridor the Interstate 14 designation?

[NE2]

Does that mean FHWA will disapprove giving the corridor the Interstate 14 designation?

Does what?

[rte66man]

Looking at the Texas Trunk System map, the most likely eastern extension would be US 190 to College Station (though they might go more directly to Hearne), then SH 6 and SH 249 to Houston.

Who would want to go to College Station?

Don't want to go TO there, rather want to go THRU there on the way to something better.....