Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sparker]

I was actually attempting to be sarcastic in reference to the A&M alum "crowdsource"; never thought that anything similar would actually be a realistic approach.  And since New Urbanists tend, in my experience, to rarely venture beyond their chosen enclaves (essentially self-selection in practice), the thought of a bunch of them hiking to El Paso along US 190 or 87 to protest I-14 is pretty humorous!  Unless it directly affects their localized efforts, there's usually no outcry from that quarter.  Now the Sierra Club & other environmental activists -- that could be another story.  But the area in question being Texas, that might turn into a very short story indeed.

I'll just say one more thing re I-14:  If the political will to get it developed is persistent, then it'll likely be done sometime in the next 25-30 years -- at least as far east as a connection to Houston (Toll 249 being the likely candidate).  If not, then it'll join the list of corridors "without portfolio", so to speak -- just a line on a map.  Whether it's needed at all -- or should be prioritized -- is always open to debate -- but when all is said & done, politics -- local and regional -- will often prevail despite naysayers.   

Top-down Interstate planning did work well for the most part; it's too bad the door was effectively shut 40+ years ago for a need-based & well-vetted set of system additions; everything's done on a case-by-case basis, more often than not "bubbling up" from local activity.  A national approach would entail assured national funding -- and that seems less likely as time passes.  Unless some renewed "chargeability" factor is imbued into Interstate additions, it's likely -- and intuitive -- that politics will determine what gets built to what standard.  There's no planning entity out there with the clout of a MacDonald, and no budding Eisenhowers in the policy arena with the will and the capability of securing implementation.  Slogging along with localities snagging what they can in the way of service along the way appears to be the methodology of choice (or of last resort!) over the last three decades.  We'll all just have to watch and wait.   

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe the said corridor should be upgraded to freeway standards (if it is truly necessary) before giving it an Interstate designation.

[sparker]

Maybe the said corridor should be upgraded to freeway standards (if it is truly necessary) before giving it an Interstate designation.

The designation was written into law in 2015 (HPC #84) along with the I-14 numbering.  However, the corridor language was quite vague; probably deliberately so in order to allow the various cities and towns in the general region the chance to get in on the action by inserting modifying clauses down the line (S.O.P. for such corridors).  Of course, no funding was attached (per usual HPC practice), so actually developing this -- or any -- HPC corridor, Interstate-specified or not, is an uncertain prospect.  In all likelihood, any freeway development along this corridor will be within the HPC 84/I-14 portfolio, whether in segments or as a whole.  Whether any such segments will receive I-14 signage is anyone's guess.

[jbnv]

The path for "I-14" looks pretty crooked on purpose, probably to try to come near as many towns as possible in Central Texas and get enough of a political bandwagon together there.

The path for I-14 is jagged because the path for US 190 is jagged through the region. It's an east-west route following the oblique Texas roadway grid. But you keep assuming that I-14 will follow US 190 mile through mile, while most reasonable people assume the ultimate routing will be much straighter.

Seems to me that the I-14 proposal is a placeholder in anticipation of growth throughout the region. If Texas continues to keep a strong economy and attract jobs, cities like Bryan, College Station, Waco, Temple and Killeen are poised for growth. They will become attractive to people who want to live and build a business in Texas but don't want to live or build in the major cities. I-14 makes more sense in the context of that sort of growth. The better the infrastructure within the Houston-DFW-SA triangle, the less need there is for people to live in those cities full-time. Lots of people will love to live out in the country yet only a few hours' drive from the megaplexes and their services.

[Bobby5280]

Top-down Interstate planning did work well for the most part; it's too bad the door was effectively shut 40+ years ago for a need-based & well-vetted set of system additions; everything's done on a case-by-case basis, more often than not "bubbling up" from local activity.  A national approach would entail assured national funding -- and that seems less likely as time passes.

I really have to laugh about "Americans" these days. They all talk a big game about patriotism, flag waving, mom and apple pie. But when the proverbial "rubber hits the road," when it comes to actually paying something out of pocket for the good of God and country these hypocrites decry it as socialism. So many "Americans" are utterly full of crap. Their elected policy-makers are equally full of crap. They'll blind voters with ideals of who is more patriotic, them or their political rivals. And then they'll steal from their state's highway fund, redirecting the money for their own selfish whims.

US Highways and Interstate Highways are both part of an "American" network. Not a tiny, little network serving only a local need. The big picture "top down" view has to take precidence over such a highway network.

The path for I-14 is jagged because the path for US 190 is jagged through the region. It's an east-west route following the oblique Texas roadway grid. But you keep assuming that I-14 will follow US 190 mile through mile, while most reasonable people assume the ultimate routing will be much straighter.

I'll once again put the spotlight on the I-69 corridor and its needlessly, counterproductive, crooked path as an example of "modern" Interstate highways now being built. They seem to be paved more to serve political whim rather than the larger needs of the Interstate highway network.

Yeah, I have very little hope at all of "I-14" in Texas having any sort of straight, direct corridor. If built, it will be built along similar to state and US highways following crooked routes defined by grids of farm and ranch land, unlike the more direct routes of Interstate paths from 40 years ago.

[jbnv]

I'll once again put the spotlight on the I-69 corridor and its needlessly, counterproductive, crooked path as an example of "modern" Interstate highways now being built. They seem to be paved more to serve political whim rather than the larger needs of the Interstate highway network.

That is your assumption. Let's wait for construction plans to come out.

I really have to laugh about "Americans" these days. They all talk a big game about patriotism, flag waving, mom and apple pie. But when the proverbial "rubber hits the road," when it comes to actually paying something out of pocket for the good of God and country these hypocrites decry it as socialism. So many "Americans" are utterly full of crap. Their elected policy-makers are equally full of crap. They'll blind voters with ideals of who is more patriotic, them or their political rivals. And then they'll steal from their state's highway fund, redirecting the money for their own selfish whims.

the federal government is $20 trillion in debt with nothing to show for it. That money could have built thousands of miles of highways. People are tired of government demanding more and more tax money while it wastes and mismanages trillions. (I will agree with you that too many people are too lazy to stand up and hold elected officials accountable.)

[Bobby5280]

Sorry for this rant, but:

Yes, the federal government is about $20 trillion in debt, with the debt load only going higher. Both the voters and policy makers are absolutely living in denial over what is driving up that debt. Instead they put all the blame on the usual scapegoats, like un-married young mothers in need of public assistance, minorities, poor people -mainly folks who don't vote often or contribute money to any campaigns.

Our nation's health care industrial complex is by far the biggest culprit in why government debt is out of control. It's a fake free market industry, wrapped in free market packaging but entirely dependent on the state to pay much of its outrageous, totally unregulated prices. When do you ever see doctors or hospitals actually competing against each other in terms of price, much less even show any prices up front? When does a drug company ever advertise prices on one of its countless national TV commercials? Without Medicare, Medicaid and a big chunk from Social Security America's so-called "free market" health care system would collapse. There is no way in hell that industry could maintain its lavish life style based only on what patients could afford to pay out of pocket. And I have to laugh at how the insurance industry is made out to be the bad guy in that situation. They're only caught in the middle between a patient needing care and a medical company charging way too much money for its services.

Not only has health care costs run up our national debt, they currently consume 17% of our nation's GDP. That's by far the highest rate of GDP spending on health care in the world. France is #2 at 12%. We'll pass 20% GDP soon if currently high inflation rates on health care costs stay at their current pace. But the health care industrial complex is very well connected and spends heavily funding political campaigns. It's quite the sacred cow.

Social Security is a huge liability, one whose math doesn't support itself. The average retiree uses up what he contributed to Social Security in just 3 years, but draws from the system at least 10 or more years. In 1945 there was a 40:1 ratio of workers to retirees drawing SS. In 1960 the ratio dropped to 5:1. The ratio fell to 3:1 in 2009 and is creeping lower (2.8:1 in 2013). Making matters worse the federal government from time to time "borrows" billions or even trillions of dollars from the trust fund to pay for other things.

We spend a hell of a lot of money on national defense. We're spending just about as much on interest payments for the national debt. We're spending about $100 billion per year keeping 2.2 million prisoners in jail, the majority of which are doing time for non violent drug offenses.

Discretionary spending makes up a tiny sliver in the pie chart that makes up all federal spending. But it's in that tiny sliver where all the politicians think they can make up for all that deficit spending. It's mass scale ignorance.

[NE2]

Too bad we elected a vestibule who won't fix anything.

[jbnv]

Too bad we elected a shoehorn who won't fix anything.

Grow up.

[Bobby5280]

I think it's safe to expect the incoming administration to blame the same poor, brown (and foreign) people for all the nation's ills. Meanwhile the situation will be business as usual, with nothing of any real substance being done. Just brinkmanship between the two major parties in achieving their top goal: absolutely single party rule and making that single party rule permanent. No difficult and likely unpopular decisions will be made regarding health care price regulation, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. It will just be more political kick-the-can, kicking any actual solution ideas years into the future for other administrations to handle.

[Scott5114]

Back to I-14, please, lest we stir up a political debate...

[adventurernumber1]

I honestly like the idea of Interstate 14, and I'm open to different routing ideas. This may start to dive into fictional highway territory, but this is what I think could potentially be a good idea: http://prntscr.com/dsfdic - have an Austin-Houston corridor consisting of I-14 and I-214, in which I-14 may connect to I-10 southwest of Fredericksburg - I-14 goes east from Austin to the Houston Metro Area, but it veers northeast onto the alignment of TX 99 (so long as it is up to interstate standards), with an Interstate 214 3di designation continuing on the alignment of US 290 into Houston. Also, I-14 is briefly concurrent with I-35 in downtown Austin. This serves the need for an interstate-standard corridor from Houston to Austin (both of which are up in the realm of the nation's largest cities), while I-14 traverses the northernmost suburbs, then becomes concurrent with I-69, then splits off east again for Louisiana to eventually tie in with its proposed route over there (and with that going on, and its proximity to I-10, perhaps have an I-x14 connect I-14 & I-10 in Beaumont). It sounds like it wouldn't hurt to have those military bases on the interstate system. This is where Interstate 18 can come in. Perhaps an I-18 corridor can take the designation of the US 190 freeway near Killeen and Temple. Going west, I-18 could eventually serve San Angelo, then eventually connect to I-10. I-18 could be concurrent with I-35 up to Waco, then an Interstate 18 corridor could suit the need for an interstate-standard corridor connecting Waco, College Station, and the Houston Metro Area. I could have the completely wrong idea, but I have tried to find a solution that satisfies as many of the insights I've read in this thread as possible. For US 190 near Fort Hood, a I-x35 interstate designation could also work out fine. Also, if the I-14 gets built as congressionally designated, it would at least be a placeholder in anticipation of growth throughout the region, as someone said earlier in this thread.

However they're routed, I think Texas would do very fine with a new I-14 corridor and a new I-18 corridor - and in addition to that as well, the talked-about I-27 extension (both ways). I think San Angelo could do well with Interstate 18 for an east-west interstate, and Interstate 27 for a north-south interstate. It also wouldn't hurt to extend I-44 to Abilene, or even to San Angelo.

In short, I think Interstate 14 sounds like an exciting idea, and I hope it is not too long until it is built, including in Texas.

EDIT: In that map, I meant to keep the red line of Interstate 214 going until reaching I-610, not stopping at TX 8.

[ski-man]

I think you may have meant Texas 6 / FM 1960 Intersection............

[jbnv]

Perhaps an I-18 corridor can take the designation of the US 190 freeway near Killeen and Temple.

What is the point of this? (Simply reassigning I-14 to the US 290 corridor isn't enough.)

[Anthony_JK]

I thought that the original idea for the I-14 corridor was to provide a bypass of the I-10 corridor and provide east-west Interstate access to Central Texas, not to relieve I-10 or provide an alternative Houston-Austin or Temple-Waco-College Station-Hempstead-Houston corridor. If it's the former, then a combination of US 190 and new terrain route from Temple to College Station-Huntsville-Jasper-DeRidder would be more than suitable. Any Houston to Austin corridor (whether TX 71 or US 290 or any combination thereof) should be more of an western I-12 extension, perhaps using the Grand Parkway and new terrain to Beaumont, then TX 12/LA 12/US 190 to Baton Rouge to meet the North BTR Bypass and existing I-12.

As for I-27, anyone thought about tying it to an extended freeway upgrade of US 281 north of San Antonio? That could also serve as a proper western terminus of the existing US 190 freeway from Compress Cove to Kileen/Temple, and could also connect to both the US 181/Toll 181A freeway/tollway and the proposed upgrade of US (TX??) 195 north of Georgetown. Possibly a western bypass of Austin, too??

[Bobby5280]

The I-14 concept wouldn't provide any kind of bypass or traffic relief functions for I-10 since it would not connect directly with I-10 at all. Plus the corridor runs way too far North for it to be worthwhile to I-10 traffic. That highway corridor through the middle of the "Texas Triangle" would have to stand on its own, trying to justify itself by levels of traffic moving between small cities in that region. I could maybe see an Interstate connecting Killeen to College Station and Hunstville. It's tougher to justify the corridor moving farther East and West from that.

The Austin-Houston US-290 corridor is clearly the one most in need of upgrading to Interstate quality. As an I-12 corridor, I don't think there's any need to connect it directly to the existing I-12 in Louisiana. The road would be just fine ending at I-610 in Houston, or at best extending along the North quadrant of the Grand Parkway and then on or parallel to US-90 to Beaumont.

An I-12 corridor running parallel to I-10 in Louisiana would be an extravagant luxury. The state has limited resources and other far higher priority highway projects, like all the I-49 related projects. I-69 is already a bad enough threat to suck resources away from I-49. And then I-14 is threatening to do the same thing. An I-12 concept would worsen the situation.

As for US-281 heading North out of San Antonio, that highway is not remotely on any sort of line that could logically connect to an extension of I-27. The very best, most straight route I-27 could manage is going through San Angelo and then going on a new terrain route to Junction, TX. From San Antonio I-10 is pointing directly at San Angelo and Big Spring. I-10 bends sharply at Junction. An I-27 terminus at Junction would create a relatively straight path all the way to Lamesa, TX where I-27 would then turn North into Lubbock.

[longhorn]

Just wanted to mention everyone bringing up I-14 following hwy 190 trek from Temple to Hearne. There is another right of way available. The locals do not take 190 to Bryan, they take hwy 53 from Temple to Hearne. Its must straighter, 70 mph all the way and wide with wide shoulders for a farm road.

[Bobby5280]

I would hope the I-14 idea between the Temple-Belton area and I-35 would take as much of a straight path as possible toward Bryan & College Station. But the pork barrel appearance of this effort and the route illustrations from its promoters suggest anything but a straight path. It would be funny in a grim way if they actually built I-14 between Temple and College Station in a jagged, saw tooth path and locals still kept using other roads to drive to the same places.

Coming from Belton, I would hope I-14 would choose a new terrain route to leave I-35 a little North of the FM-93 exit. The Interstate would skirt South of Temple and merge into US-190 around Heidenheimer.

At first glance I would expect I-14 to re-use the US-190/Loop 363 freeway on the South side of Temple. But that would involve building a new 4-level direct connect stack interchange between I-35 and US-190. I don't think there's enough room for that. Right now the two freeways cross each other with no direct connections. Traffic must exit to frontage roads. Existing properties are hugging very close to the intersection. A bunch of that property would likely need to be removed to make way for an upgraded interchange.

Either way, I expect this I-14 concept to run through/near Cameron. I just flatly disagree with drawings showing the route going down to Milano then back up to Hearne and then finally down to Bryan/College Station. It would be far better to build a new terrain route going directly from Cameron to Bryan.

[The Ghostbuster]

I'm not convinced about Interstate 14. Does the corridor designated really need an Interstate along it? Has anyone done an analysis on what the daily traffic counts are corridor-wide? Until such efforts are performed, I'd say save the Interstate 14 designation for another corridor.

[wxfree]

TxDOT seems pretty convinced.  They want to make it official.  On the agenda this month:

Bell and Coryell Counties - Consider the designation of a segment of the state highway system as I-14, concurrent with US 190 from the eastern junction of US 190 and Business US 190E in Copperas Cove to I-35 in Belton (MO)
This minute order designates a segment of the state highway system as I-14, concurrent with US 190 from the eastern junction of US 190 and Business US 190E in Copperas Cove to I-35 in Belton, a distance of approximately 25 miles. The Killeen-Temple Metropolitan Planning Organization, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2017/0126/agenda.pdf

[sparker]

TxDOT seems pretty convinced.  They want to make it official.  On the agenda this month:

Bell and Coryell Counties - Consider the designation of a segment of the state highway system as I-14, concurrent with US 190 from the eastern junction of US 190 and Business US 190E in Copperas Cove to I-35 in Belton (MO)
This minute order designates a segment of the state highway system as I-14, concurrent with US 190 from the eastern junction of US 190 and Business US 190E in Copperas Cove to I-35 in Belton, a distance of approximately 25 miles. The Killeen-Temple Metropolitan Planning Organization, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2017/0126/agenda.pdf

Didn't know FHWA had signed off on this since the AASHTO dismissal of the previous request.  Guess they're attempting to do a "letter of the law" (re the HPC 84/I-14 authorizing legislation of 2015) end run around the prior decision.  Seems like the intent here is to get a "nose through the door" type of activity concerning the corridor -- to establish a I-14 physical presence, so to speak, in the hope that it'll serve as a jumping-off point for other corridor segments.  If TxDOT concurs, it'll be interesting to see just where the next extending move occurs (east or west).   

[The Ghostbuster]

Well if its official, I guess that is that. I'd still like to know whether the traffic counts along the corridor are worth the Interstate upgrade.

[wxfree]

Well if its official, I guess that is that. I'd still like to know whether the traffic counts along the corridor are worth the Interstate upgrade.

I can't give an opinion on that, but I can give you the facts.  That stretch of road has traffic counts from 50,000 to 95,000.  Just west of the west end, where a business route splits off, the count drops to below 40,000.

For further reference, you can see the counts on the Statewide Planning Map.  Select AADT in the menu.  Note that clicking on a count station will show the numbers from previous years.
http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html

[Bobby5280]

Those traffic counts between 50,000 and 90,000 are along the existing US-190 freeway through Killeen. The traffic counts on US-190 between Temple, Cameron, Milano and Hearne are far lower -just under 6,000. The TX-6 corridor between Waco and Bryan has quite a bit more traffic. It's close to 20,000 between Hearne and Bryan. It drops to around 8,000 between Waco and Hearne.

By the way, US-290 has 37,000 vehicles per day near the TX-6 split in Hempstead. It hovers between 15,000 and 30,000 the rest of the way to Austin. It has some higher totals than some other rural Interstates in Texas.

[sparker]

Those traffic counts between 50,000 and 90,000 are along the existing US-190 freeway through Killeen. The traffic counts on US-190 between Temple, Cameron, Milano and Hearne are far lower -just under 6,000. The TX-6 corridor between Waco and Bryan has quite a bit more traffic. It's close to 20,000 between Hearne and Bryan. It drops to around 8,000 between Waco and Hearne.

By the way, US-290 has 37,000 vehicles per day near the TX-6 split in Hempstead. It hovers between 15,000 and 30,000 the rest of the way to Austin. It has some higher totals than some other rural Interstates in Texas.

Hearne (and the US 79 junction) seems to function as the northern edge of the more populated zone along TX 6; traffic past that point likely disperses along the crossing roads (including the turning US 190) with more than likely a fair amount veering off on TX 14 toward Dallas.  It's similar to the situation moving south from Lubbock, where SB traffic from I-27 will usually take the most direct path to major destinations, with no single "branch" (US 84, US 87 and/or TX 349, or US 62 & 385) collecting more than a share of the total southbound traffic.  Since both TX 6 to Waco and US 190 to Temple function as "branches" from the Houston-College Station-Hearne "trunk", one cannot expect any singular route to regularly feature the more-than-10K AADT usually considered minimal for Interstate-level development.  Since the potential I-14 corridor by statute needs to go near or through the Temple/Belton area, it's likely that any development won't actually follow the "sawtooth" profile presented by the current US 190 alignment (I'd guess a more or less direct line between Cameron and TX 6 south of Hearne would be most likely).  Whether a significant amount of the 8K traffic level on TX 6 north of Hearne would shift to a somewhat longer all-Interstate route via Temple is anyone's guess at this point (in my estimation, at best maybe 20% would shift). 

As I've said before, this portion of Texas has considerable political clout; if they want an Interstate freeway bisecting the "triangle", it'll probably happen sooner or later -- particularly if it ties in to a facility connecting it directly to the Houston metro area.  Except for A & M - Baylor games, there likely won't be much objection to piggybacking their plans onto the projected I-14 corridor via Temple, calculating that such plans, which have garnered supporters from other TX regions, is most likely to yield results than starting from scratch on a corridor with a more northerly trajectory.