I-14 in Texas

[sparker]

Is there plans to extend I-14 or something? Because if it current length is the entire route, it really should be I-x35 and not a separate interstate.

Right now there are 3 threads addressing I-14; specifically in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi -- three separate threads (but functioning as a virtual Venn diagram).  Also, the I-27/south of Lubbock thread touches on I-14 because of the convergence (and some duplication) of the corridors in the San Angelo/Midland-Odessa area.  Check 'em out; the coverage is pretty damn exhaustive!

[The Ghostbuster]

I expect the existing Interstate 14 in Texas will likely be the only one that will exist for a very long time for come.

[sparker]

I expect the existing Interstate 14 in Texas will likely be the only one that will exist for a very long time for come.

Probably right, at least referring to Texas' portion of the multistate proposed corridor rather than just the 25 miles currently open to traffic.  And within TX, it won't get east of I-45 in most of our lifetimes.  TX is the only state where there is support for the corridor that extends beyond political posturing; that support goes back to most of this decade (the corridor [HPC #84] was formally established in 2015) and has several TX cities as vocal backers -- pretty much the formula for actually getting an Interstate project off the ground these days, for better or worse.  Nevertheless, we're probably looking at a 25 or 30-year timeline -- at best -- for development from West TX through the Triangle to I-45, which would tie together the loci of support for the project. 

[hotdogPi]

Meridian-Montgomery-Columbus-Macon-Augusta could be I-14 (although 18 or a 16 extension is more likely), and some of that has already been proposed as a corridor without a specific number. (It could also become 20, with 22 being extended and 59 no longer having a huge overlap, but there's no point in renumbering for the sake of renumbering.)

[sparker]

Meridian-Montgomery-Columbus-Macon-Augusta could be I-14 (although 18 or a 16 extension is more likely), and some of that has already been proposed as a corridor without a specific number. (It could also become 20, with 22 being extended and 59 no longer having a huge overlap, but there's no point in renumbering for the sake of renumbering.)

Since AL has removed itself from the freeway development arena, any plans for I-14 involving facilities within that state are, for the present, dead in the water.  Some new-terrain facility from I-20 near the AL/GA line down to Macon (suggested earlier) as an Atlanta bypass might be feasible only because it's fully within GA -- but that would likely simply be an I-16 extension rather than anything to do with the I-14 concept.

[Anthony_JK]

I would say that except for some Alexandria interests wanting to upgrade the proposed Alexandria Beltway to freeway grade or wanting an W-E corridor north of I-10 that would be available in case global warming floods out I-10, I-14 is a dead issue here in Louisiana as well. I still don't see how you build that sucka through Alexandria-Pineville without a major money commitment or a elongated loop around A-P...and how do you handle getting I-14 through Vidalia-Ferriday-Natchez?

[sparker]

I would say that except for some Alexandria interests wanting to upgrade the proposed Alexandria Beltway to freeway grade or wanting an W-E corridor north of I-10 that would be available in case global warming floods out I-10, I-14 is a dead issue here in Louisiana as well. I still don't see how you build that sucka through Alexandria-Pineville without a major money commitment or a elongated loop around A-P...and how do you handle getting I-14 through Vidalia-Ferriday-Natchez?

I'd venture a guess that since it's unlikely that the I-14 corridor in TX will extend east of I-45 for the foreseeable future, there would be little or no pressure within LA to build anything from the TX line eastward without something with which to connect.  And I agree that taking such a corridor across the Mississippi River floodplain will be a major (meaning exceptionally expensive) PITA, since there's little chance of using the existing crossing without extensive razing of developed areas on either side of the bridges.  Add the fact that MS is perpetually broke (and blew what little wad they had on upgrading I-22 and building I-269) -- and thus an Interstate corridor along US 84, while potentially useful as a bad-weather alternate to coastal routes, would likely be kicked "down the road" , so to speak, for decades.  Of course, that won't stop politicians for showing and touting I-14 as a multistate line on various maps -- at least east to I-59 -- but "potential" won't compensate for the abject lack of funding or even prioritization of such a project.   

[SoCal Kid]

This thread I made is talking about the I-14 that is in Texas, pretty new. Was signed in 2017. I'm not sure about plans to extend it. If the entire route is supposed to be its current alignment, I-14 should be a I-35 spur.

[sprjus4]

This thread I made is talking about the I-14 that is in Texas, pretty new. Was signed in 2017. I'm not sure about plans to extend it. If the entire route is supposed to be its current alignment, I-14 should be a I-35 spur.

I-14 is planned to run between I-20 in West Texas and I-20 at Augusta, GA. It's not just a short stretch in Texas.

[FightingIrish]

This thread I made is talking about the I-14 that is in Texas, pretty new. Was signed in 2017. I'm not sure about plans to extend it. If the entire route is supposed to be its current alignment, I-14 should be a I-35 spur.

I-14 is planned to run between I-20 in West Texas and I-20 at Augusta, GA. It's not just a short stretch in Texas.

That's the "Wishful Thinking Highway." The number and corridor were slapped on congressional legislation as pork, with only the very vaguest idea about how or where exactly to build it. A few Georgia politicians like it, but Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana so far have no interest in building it. And they're the ones footing the bill. So, it's basically a short I-35 stub in Texas serving a few lower-tier cities. Should have been a 3di.

[SoCal Kid]

This thread I made is talking about the I-14 that is in Texas, pretty new. Was signed in 2017. I'm not sure about plans to extend it. If the entire route is supposed to be its current alignment, I-14 should be a I-35 spur.

I-14 is planned to run between I-20 in West Texas and I-20 at Augusta, GA. It's not just a short stretch in Texas.

That's the "Wishful Thinking Highway." The number and corridor were slapped on congressional legislation as pork, with only the very vaguest idea about how or where exactly to build it. A few Georgia politicians like it, but Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana so far have no interest in building it. And they're the ones footing the bill. So, it's basically a short I-35 stub in Texas serving a few lower-tier cities. Should have been a 3di.

What I said, maybe temporary signage until it can be built farther

[rickmastfan67]

This thread I made is talking about the I-14 that is in Texas, pretty new. Was signed in 2017.

I merged it into the original I-14 Texas thread.  Next time, please take a couple of seconds to see if there's a thread about the same subject on the first page or 2 of a section and post in it if at all possible.

[SoCal Kid]

This thread I made is talking about the I-14 that is in Texas, pretty new. Was signed in 2017.

I merged it into the original I-14 Texas thread.  Next time, please take a couple of seconds to see if there's a thread about the same subject on the first page or 2 of a section and post in it if at all possible.

Hehe yea sorry bout that   

[mrose]

How does a Houston-Austin route not get more priority than this?

[longhorn]

How does a Houston-Austin route not get more priority than this?

Because there are two ways to go from Austin to Houston. Except for a miles stretch of poor man's four lane stretch on 290, its divided highway either way.

[Bobby5280]

US-290 needs to be Interstate quality 100% of the way between Austin and the NW side of Houston. So far it's Interstate quality only about 1/3 of the way. A good case could be made for upgrading TX-71 from Austin to I-10 as well. The road is currently 4-laned the whole way with a few freeway bypasses along the way. Both corridors connect metros of 2 million and 6 million people.

A Temple-College Station-Huntsville corridor might be worthwhile turning into an Interstate, but not in the "W" shape the planners have it drawn on the maps. Still connections between Houston and Austin should rate as a bigger priority. Even the extension of the TX-249 toll road from Tomball to Navasota should be a higher priority.

[sparker]

How does a Houston-Austin route not get more priority than this?

Basically because Austin hasn't requested a E-W corridor connecting that city to (or at least toward) Houston.  The unwritten rule, at least in TX (but applicable elsewhere as well) is that "you've gotta be in it to win it".  I'm certain that if such a request were made, there would at least be studies done regarding the most appropriate corridor to upgrade (be it TX 71 or US 290) -- but so far, nothing official has been on the horizon. 

[Bobby5280]

Again, how do you know no one in Austin has requested US-290 being an Interstate quality route all the way to the Houston metro? What substantiates that claim?

Additionally, this is something that is not entirely up to people in Austin alone. Interests in Houston would have just as much say on how that corridor should be further improved as anyone in Austin. Then there's all the towns between the two giant sized metros being directly affected by the heavy traffic. Brenham has a partial freeway bypass but still needs additional upgrades to US-290 to the East and West of town to improve safety. Giddings and Elgin will need new bypasses around town. Some smaller towns along the way (like Carmine) will have easier upgrade situations due to partial or full frontage roads being present already.

If future highways are tailored to the whims of pork barrel sluts and real estate speculators it will undermine the overall big picture functions of our state-wide and national highway networks. Routes designed with ulterior motives, working against the interests of motorists, will yield serious consequences. We already have a serious "retail apocalypse" taking place and worsening all the time. Highways that don't carry people from point A to point B effectively will be yet another thing encouraging people to stay at home, do more shopping online at home and not leave home to be entertained.

[FightingIrish]

How does a Houston-Austin route not get more priority than this?

Basically because Austin hasn't requested a E-W corridor connecting that city to (or at least toward) Houston.  The unwritten rule, at least in TX (but applicable elsewhere as well) is that "you've gotta be in it to win it".  I'm certain that if such a request were made, there would at least be studies done regarding the most appropriate corridor to upgrade (be it TX 71 or US 290) -- but so far, nothing official has been on the horizon.

Politicians have pushed for it, but the other politicians elsewhere in the state have been more aggressive with it.

The easiest way to get a straight interstate connection between Houston and Austin is a simple upgrade of TX 71, with an x10 banner slapped on it. That's pretty direct between those two cities. Probably cheaper and easier than doing it to US 290.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
As far as I can determine, any push for an improved Austin-Houston connection has emanated from the latter city rather than the former; Austin seems content to maintain their -- at least in relation to the remainder of the state -- own iconoclastic subculture, bolstered by (a) the presence of state government and its staff (b) U of T (c) the influx of tech firms to the general region, bringing non-traditional concepts into the state.  I might add (d) its status as the center of modern Texas cuisine, including, of course, barbecue.  OK, (e) Hippie Hollow.  I would venture a guess that many of the proponents of an Interstate-grade eastward connector are Houston-area state representatives who desire a more efficient way home after a legislative session.  But so far they haven't put state money where their wishes lie.  And Bobby's completely right -- connectivity is the proverbial two-way street; folks who need to access Austin deserve as much say about the facilities in & out of the area as do Austin residents.  But both the local MPO and TxDOT seem to be preoccupied with toll facilities out in the burbs, sinking/capping I-35, and bitching about UP freight traffic through downtown -- all of which seems to constitute the TX version of urbanism; making Houston access a little easier seems way down the priority list of both the locals and the state. 

I'll put this out there:  if any TX poster or anyone with an intimate connection to the TX planning circles knows of any actual existing official plans -- emanating from anywhere -- for comprehensive improvements to either US 290 or TX 71 east of Austin, please enlighten the rest of us.         

[thisdj78]

There are plans to remove all remaining stop lights on SH-71 between the 130 Toll and Bastrop:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox7austin.com/amp/news/local-news/dozens-of-businesses-likely-to-be-displaced-by-sh-71-construction

Once that is complete, the only major hurdle from being a completely limited access corridor (aside from the rural at-grade intersections) is in Ellinger, which may end up needing a bypass.

[Bobby5280]

The easiest way to get a straight interstate connection between Houston and Austin is a simple upgrade of TX 71, with an x10 banner slapped on it. That's pretty direct between those two cities. Probably cheaper and easier than doing it to US 290.

The major drawback of upgrading TX-71 (and doing nothing with US-290) is it ignores all the rapid development on the North side of the Houston metro as well as the Northern reaches of Austin. All that traffic on the Northern sides of both metros will keep using US-290 regardless if TX-71 is upgraded fully to an Interstate highway. Add to that the possibility of traffic using the combination of the Grand Parkway and US-290 to bypass central Houston to reach Austin. That gets into the whole Texas 1-12 possibility (something that could start at US-90 in Beaumont, run along the Northern quadrant of the Grand Parkway and then go to Austin).

As I've said before there's still a case for doing further upgrades of TX-71 between Austin the Columbus, TX. But that kind of upgrade would be more beneficial for traffic coming from areas of Houston South of I-10.

[longhorn]

Well TXDOT is about to make I-10 three lanes minimum between Houston and San Antonio, but I would not want to move AUS-HOU traffic on it. 290 is the better choice, as is the above idea to create a bypass Interstate like I-12 from Beaumont to Austin continuing on to I-10

In regards I-14, I can see in the immediate future extending it from Temple to I-45 via Bryan. So Central Texas will have an easier route to Houston and points east.  And there are some noises being made of trying to get it extended west from Copperas Cove to Lampasas.

[sparker]

The easiest way to get a straight interstate connection between Houston and Austin is a simple upgrade of TX 71, with an x10 banner slapped on it. That's pretty direct between those two cities. Probably cheaper and easier than doing it to US 290.

The major drawback of upgrading TX-71 (and doing nothing with US-290) is it ignores all the rapid development on the North side of the Houston metro as well as the Northern reaches of Austin. All that traffic on the Northern sides of both metros will keep using US-290 regardless if TX-71 is upgraded fully to an Interstate highway. Add to that the possibility of traffic using the combination of the Grand Parkway and US-290 to bypass central Houston to reach Austin. That gets into the whole Texas 1-12 possibility (something that could start at US-90 in Beaumont, run along the Northern quadrant of the Grand Parkway and then go to Austin).

As I've said before there's still a case for doing further upgrades of TX-71 between Austin the Columbus, TX. But that kind of upgrade would be more beneficial for traffic coming from areas of Houston South of I-10.

Well TXDOT is about to make I-10 three lanes minimum between Houston and San Antonio, but I would not want to move AUS-HOU traffic on it. 290 is the better choice, as is the above idea to create a bypass Interstate like I-12 from Beaumont to Austin continuing on to I-10

In regards I-14, I can see in the immediate future extending it from Temple to I-45 via Bryan. So Central Texas will have an easier route to Houston and points east.  And there are some noises being made of trying to get it extended west from Copperas Cove to Lampasas.

Another drawback regarding TX 71 as a primary Austin-Houston connector is the current state of the road itself; for much of its length it was simply expanded to 4 lanes/divided via the "twinning" process; most of the private access points remain (although that situation is considerably worse on the western end rather than the section near Columbus), particularly on the rural segments.  Compounding that problem (which will be an expensive fix because of the political "diciness" of the access issue) is the fact that those sporadic segments that have already been brought up to freeway standards are quite narrow; while today's traffic might require no more than a 2+2 facility; down the line a capacity increase may be appropriate -- and that would be an exceptionally costly prospect.  Finally, dumping Austin traffic onto I-10 might, in relatively short order, even overwhelm a 3+3 configuration such as presently proposed; if 71 is ever chosen as the principal corridor here; 8 lanes on I-10 east of Columbus might just be necessary sooner than later.

Of course, US 290 features much of the same as TX 71 in regards to the existing facility.  But much of that route will require new-terrain mileage, whereas 71 would likely be upgraded within the bounds of the present ROW.  That in itself is, in the longer term, a much better method, as a new facility designed to be upgradeable would obviate obsolescence -- something that couldn't be assured with a TX 71-based corridor. 

[Bobby5280]

Betweeen Austin and Houston US-290 appears to be farther along with Interstate quality improvements than the TX-71 corridor. US-290 in Houston has had a number of major improvements in recent years and now is a 3-3 configuration outside the Grand Parkway to the Fields Store Rd exit in Waller. I think US-290 will eventually be at least 3 lanes in both directions all the way to the TX-6 split in Hempstead.

If US-290 is converted into a freeway between Hempstead and Austin it is likely at least some of the road would have to run on a new terrain path. The West side of Brenham is one example where that would appear necessary. However, new terrain paths have to be weighed against the cost of upgrading existing segments of road and buying/clearing properties in the way. It's pretty common for highway widening projects to clear some properties or even a bunch. Look at the current I-35 expansion in Temple for instance. From Hempstead to Brenham I don't see US-290 deviating from its existing path. Some properties would have to be cleared, but I think a 4-lane freeway with frontage roads could be squeezed in the existing ROW along much of the the stretch between Brenham and Hempstead.