News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-14 in Texas

Started by Grzrd, November 21, 2016, 05:04:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SkyPesos

I-14S is more FritzOwlish than about half of FritzOwl's proposals. At least 14N connects to the Midland/Odessa area, and then you can use I-20 west to get to I-10. 14S pretty much connects to I-10 from middle of nowhere to middle of nowhere.

Also what happened to "no more suffixed interstates"? The I-70 suffixed split in DC and Baltimore makes much more sense than the I-14 split, as it serves two large metro areas, which I-14 doesn't with the split.


sparker

Quote from: vdeane on August 05, 2021, 09:23:47 PM
Sigh... more suffix madness.  Why must Congress continue to ruin the numbering of my beloved interstate system?  Pretty soon it will be as bad as the US routes! :ded:

So many roads to nowhere in west Texas, too.  I-14N makes sense, I can see I-14S if they want to make a San Antonio and Houston bypass, but what the heck is up with those north-south routes?

Hey -- even with the "trident" 69 split and these two (gag!) I-14 branches (I'd call the south one a twig!) -- PLUS the possibility of a P2P/I-27 split that would have the effect of 2 multiplexed suffixed routes (14N & 27W), it's still not as bad as the original 1958 Interstate numbering scheme, with 80N hitting I-5 some 600 miles north of 80! -- and other splits of 70, 80, and even, for a while 90 -- with most of them "single-ended", not returning to the parent.  At least, except for the MN 35E/W splits, the phenomenon is confined to Texas; no sign of the practice being contagious -- no "delta variants" to spread to NC, IL, or other states historically prone to commissioning new Interstate corridors.  Although personally I think it's kinda silly, it's just Texas being Texas; iconoclastic to the end!

Scott5114

#577
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 05, 2021, 09:31:39 PM
Also what happened to "no more suffixed interstates"? The I-70 suffixed split in DC and Baltimore makes much more sense than the I-14 split, as it serves two large metro areas, which I-14 doesn't with the split.

The people making these suffixed interstates are more powerful than the people who made the "no suffixed interstates" rules.

Nobody in Congress actually wrote Interstate or U.S. routes into laws in the early days. (The same is not true of state legislatures, of course.) The first instance I know of is Rep. Wes Watkins of Oklahoma writing an extension of US-377 into a bill in 1987. More famously, in 1995 Rep. Bud Shuster of Pennsylvania wrote I-99 into law. Once Congressmen found out from Bud's example that they could do that, well, we were off to the races. In fact, just to show you how normal it is now, back in the day people in the community used to curse Bud up and down for inflicting I-99 on us, and pretty much everyone knew his name for being the man responsible for its nonstandard numbering. And yet, despite I-69W/C/E being arguably stupider and more confusing to motorists than that, I have not once heard anyone call out whichever Texas rep offered the amendment that got that designation scheme set in stone!
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

bwana39

This resolution from a laundry list of stuff on a consent calendar which is primarily to put statements on the record for a given MC to make them look good at home. It is kind of like the philanderer who never misses church. Surely he is upstanding, he is always at church (or surely he supports us see what he PASSED). Consent agendas are not where anything of note is passed.

There are as many spurs and stubs as there are main route miles.

I agree that LA-28 does NOT meet US-165 on the Pineville side. There is plenty of land to connect them out east of town. LA-116 is a likely corridor.

As far as Alexandria / Pineville, look at the satellite imagery. The backbone of the freeway is there from west on LA-28 to the US-165 / US-167 intersection (and on up US-167 until it splits with US-71.)

Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Plutonic Panda

I think suffixes like E-W work well in places like DFW or the twin cities but I-14 or I-69 make no sense to me. I wonder if they could get away with an X14 for the lower portion through San Angelo.

sprjus4

^ Agreed. I don't even see US-281 functionally apart of the I-69 system, if anything it's a "split"  off of I-37 that warrants its own 2di designation.

I-69E should be the mainline I-69... and I-69W who knows.

sparker

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 05, 2021, 10:57:20 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 05, 2021, 09:31:39 PM
Also what happened to "no more suffixed interstates"? The I-70 suffixed split in DC and Baltimore makes much more sense than the I-14 split, as it serves two large metro areas, which I-14 doesn't with the split.

The people making these suffixed interstates are more powerful than the people who made the "no suffixed interstates" rules.

Nobody in Congress actually wrote Interstate or U.S. routes into laws in the early days. (The same is not true of state legislatures, of course.) The first instance I know of is Rep. Wes Watkins of Oklahoma writing an extension of US-377 into a bill in 1987. More famously, in 1995 Rep. Bud Shuster of Pennsylvania wrote I-99 into law. Once Congressmen found out from Bud's example that they could do that, well, we were off to the races. In fact, just to show you how normal it is now, back in the day people in the community used to curse Bud up and down for inflicting I-99 on us, and pretty much everyone knew his name for being the man responsible for its nonstandard numbering. And yet, despite I-69W/C/E being arguably stupider and more confusing to motorists than that, I have not once heard anyone call out whichever Texas rep offered the amendment that got that designation scheme set in stone!

Well, before 1991's ISTEA there were no high-priority corridors to serve as designated places to apply future funding; it took everyone all of 4 years to start designating some of these as Interstates, starting with the NHS act of 1995.  The big "omnibus" bills like the two mentioned here were the vehicle of choice for such actions until about 2002, when an enterprising LA congressman inserted a new HPC (#44, the Port Fourchon access road, aka LA 1) into the next yearly USDOT outlay bill.  The following year that method was used to establish HPC #45 and also designate it I-22, the first Interstate project to use the yearly outlay "add-on" method (FY 2004).  That opened up the sluices, but first another omnibus bill, 2005's SAFETEA-LU, was famous/notorious for introducing 35 new HPC's, including a few with the "future Interstate" add-on codicil (but with actual numbers TBD).  The process lay dormant for 7 more years, but over the years 2012-2016 the congressional designation method was used for several new Interstate corridors, including some added to the roster by tacking an Interstate number to a previously approved HPC (e.g. I-87 to HPC #13, one of the original ISTEA batch), a departure from the norm of co-designating a new corridor and Interstate in one fell swoop.  The Trump years saw no new HPC's nor new Interstates designated; but it certainly looks like the current infrastructure bill is serving as a vehicle for making up for lost time!  I'm surprised P2P wasn't shoehorned in there someplace (but the process is still in progress, so it may yet be). 

Quote from: bwana39 on August 05, 2021, 11:03:04 PM
There are as many spurs and stubs as there are main route miles.

If the P2P/I-27 corridor is included in this or future legislation, expect the I-14 "spur" along US 83 between Junction and Eden to at least be shelved if not outright deleted; its function (connecting San Angelo and the west end of I-14 to the existing I-10 route to San Antonio) essentially duplicated by the Sonora-San Angelo section of the P2P along US 277.



 

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2021, 09:45:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 05, 2021, 09:23:47 PM
Sigh... more suffix madness.  Why must Congress continue to ruin the numbering of my beloved interstate system?  Pretty soon it will be as bad as the US routes! :ded:

So many roads to nowhere in west Texas, too.  I-14N makes sense, I can see I-14S if they want to make a San Antonio and Houston bypass, but what the heck is up with those north-south routes?

Hey -- even with the "trident" 69 split and these two (gag!) I-14 branches (I'd call the south one a twig!) -- PLUS the possibility of a P2P/I-27 split that would have the effect of 2 multiplexed suffixed routes (14N & 27W), it's still not as bad as the original 1958 Interstate numbering scheme, with 80N hitting I-5 some 600 miles north of 80! -- and other splits of 70, 80, and even, for a while 90 -- with most of them "single-ended", not returning to the parent.  At least, except for the MN 35E/W splits, the phenomenon is confined to Texas; no sign of the practice being contagious -- no "delta variants" to spread to NC, IL, or other states historically prone to commissioning new Interstate corridors.  Although personally I think it's kinda silly, it's just Texas being Texas; iconoclastic to the end!

Downtown San Angelo will have NORTH BL-27E and WEST BL-14N.  The leg going due south from about Mason to Junction could be I-27EE14SE!!

SkyPesos

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 06, 2021, 11:03:59 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2021, 09:45:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 05, 2021, 09:23:47 PM
Sigh... more suffix madness.  Why must Congress continue to ruin the numbering of my beloved interstate system?  Pretty soon it will be as bad as the US routes! :ded:

So many roads to nowhere in west Texas, too.  I-14N makes sense, I can see I-14S if they want to make a San Antonio and Houston bypass, but what the heck is up with those north-south routes?

Hey -- even with the "trident" 69 split and these two (gag!) I-14 branches (I'd call the south one a twig!) -- PLUS the possibility of a P2P/I-27 split that would have the effect of 2 multiplexed suffixed routes (14N & 27W), it's still not as bad as the original 1958 Interstate numbering scheme, with 80N hitting I-5 some 600 miles north of 80! -- and other splits of 70, 80, and even, for a while 90 -- with most of them "single-ended", not returning to the parent.  At least, except for the MN 35E/W splits, the phenomenon is confined to Texas; no sign of the practice being contagious -- no "delta variants" to spread to NC, IL, or other states historically prone to commissioning new Interstate corridors.  Although personally I think it's kinda silly, it's just Texas being Texas; iconoclastic to the end!

Downtown San Angelo will have NORTH BL-27E and WEST BL-14N.  The leg going due south from about Mason to Junction could be I-27EE14SE!!
Reminds me of this: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10974

I-35

Interstate 14 is getting quite the boost with the Senate infrastructure bill.

QuoteThe U.S. Senate this week unanimously approved an amendment adding congressional authorization of the full I-14 five-state corridor expansion to the pending Bipartisan Infrastructure Package.

https://m.dailyleader.com/2021/08/08/five-state-i-14-approved-by-senate/

(more at link)

bwana39

Quote from: I-35 on August 09, 2021, 08:37:22 PM
Interstate 14 is getting quite the boost with the Senate infrastructure bill.

QuoteThe U.S. Senate this week unanimously approved an amendment adding congressional authorization of the full I-14 five-state corridor expansion to the pending Bipartisan Infrastructure Package.

https://m.dailyleader.com/2021/08/08/five-state-i-14-approved-by-senate/

(more at link)

Yes and we have already spent lots of time making fun of how they did it. I am not a great fan of any of it, but others on here are. I think the real problem even the proponents have is all of the spurs, business loops, and almost unrelated stuff is in this.

The one thing I would say is this was only a consent agenda item. It only says that the US Congress supports it from a conceptual idea. HOWEVER this resolution has no funding attached to it. It has no mandate to use any existing funding on it AND if I am not mistaken, this particular group of consent agenda items aren't even intended to be law. This resolution is not even on a group to be sent to Biden to approve or reject.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

GreenLanternCorps

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 06, 2021, 11:03:59 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2021, 09:45:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 05, 2021, 09:23:47 PM
Sigh... more suffix madness.  Why must Congress continue to ruin the numbering of my beloved interstate system?  Pretty soon it will be as bad as the US routes! :ded:

So many roads to nowhere in west Texas, too.  I-14N makes sense, I can see I-14S if they want to make a San Antonio and Houston bypass, but what the heck is up with those north-south routes?

Hey -- even with the "trident" 69 split and these two (gag!) I-14 branches (I'd call the south one a twig!) -- PLUS the possibility of a P2P/I-27 split that would have the effect of 2 multiplexed suffixed routes (14N & 27W), it's still not as bad as the original 1958 Interstate numbering scheme, with 80N hitting I-5 some 600 miles north of 80! -- and other splits of 70, 80, and even, for a while 90 -- with most of them "single-ended", not returning to the parent.  At least, except for the MN 35E/W splits, the phenomenon is confined to Texas; no sign of the practice being contagious -- no "delta variants" to spread to NC, IL, or other states historically prone to commissioning new Interstate corridors.  Although personally I think it's kinda silly, it's just Texas being Texas; iconoclastic to the end!

Downtown San Angelo will have NORTH BL-27E and WEST BL-14N.  The leg going due south from about Mason to Junction could be I-27EE14SE!!

It's not safe to post your password...

MikieTimT

Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on August 09, 2021, 08:49:42 PM
It's not safe to post your password...

Reminds me of the greatest Mel Brooks space spoof of all time.

"Alright I'll tell, I'll tell.  The password is......1......2......3......4......5."

Rothman

Quote from: MikieTimT on August 10, 2021, 08:25:25 AM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on August 09, 2021, 08:49:42 PM
It's not safe to post your password...

Reminds me of the greatest Mel Brooks space spoof of all time.

"Alright I'll tell, I'll tell.  The password is......1......2......3......4......5."
That's the combination for my luggage.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Thegeet

Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on August 09, 2021, 08:49:42 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 06, 2021, 11:03:59 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2021, 09:45:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 05, 2021, 09:23:47 PM
Sigh... more suffix madness.  Why must Congress continue to ruin the numbering of my beloved interstate system?  Pretty soon it will be as bad as the US routes! :ded:

So many roads to nowhere in west Texas, too.  I-14N makes sense, I can see I-14S if they want to make a San Antonio and Houston bypass, but what the heck is up with those north-south routes?

Hey -- even with the "trident" 69 split and these two (gag!) I-14 branches (I'd call the south one a twig!) -- PLUS the possibility of a P2P/I-27 split that would have the effect of 2 multiplexed suffixed routes (14N & 27W), it's still not as bad as the original 1958 Interstate numbering scheme, with 80N hitting I-5 some 600 miles north of 80! -- and other splits of 70, 80, and even, for a while 90 -- with most of them "single-ended", not returning to the parent.  At least, except for the MN 35E/W splits, the phenomenon is confined to Texas; no sign of the practice being contagious -- no "delta variants" to spread to NC, IL, or other states historically prone to commissioning new Interstate corridors.  Although personally I think it's kinda silly, it's just Texas being Texas; iconoclastic to the end!

Downtown San Angelo will have NORTH BL-27E and WEST BL-14N.  The leg going due south from about Mason to Junction could be I-27EE14SE!!

It's not safe to post your password...
I didn't see any passwords.

sparker

Quote from: Thegeet on August 10, 2021, 09:50:32 AM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on August 09, 2021, 08:49:42 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 06, 2021, 11:03:59 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2021, 09:45:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 05, 2021, 09:23:47 PM
Sigh... more suffix madness.  Why must Congress continue to ruin the numbering of my beloved interstate system?  Pretty soon it will be as bad as the US routes! :ded:

So many roads to nowhere in west Texas, too.  I-14N makes sense, I can see I-14S if they want to make a San Antonio and Houston bypass, but what the heck is up with those north-south routes?

Hey -- even with the "trident" 69 split and these two (gag!) I-14 branches (I'd call the south one a twig!) -- PLUS the possibility of a P2P/I-27 split that would have the effect of 2 multiplexed suffixed routes (14N & 27W), it's still not as bad as the original 1958 Interstate numbering scheme, with 80N hitting I-5 some 600 miles north of 80! -- and other splits of 70, 80, and even, for a while 90 -- with most of them "single-ended", not returning to the parent.  At least, except for the MN 35E/W splits, the phenomenon is confined to Texas; no sign of the practice being contagious -- no "delta variants" to spread to NC, IL, or other states historically prone to commissioning new Interstate corridors.  Although personally I think it's kinda silly, it's just Texas being Texas; iconoclastic to the end!

Downtown San Angelo will have NORTH BL-27E and WEST BL-14N.  The leg going due south from about Mason to Junction could be I-27EE14SE!!

It's not safe to post your password...
I didn't see any passwords.

It's a snarky comment about computer-generated passwords -- like the "interim" sort a site supplies you when you've forgotten your real password -- generally a quasi-random combination of numbers & letters (and the occasional symbol) -- resembling the I-27/I-14 combinations spoofed here.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: sparker on August 10, 2021, 01:53:59 PM

It's a snarky comment about computer-generated passwords -- like the "interim" sort a site supplies you when you've forgotten your real password -- generally a quasi-random combination of numbers & letters (and the occasional symbol) -- resembling the I-27/I-14 combinations spoofed here.

Sorry you had to explain the joke.

Anyhoo, I am dying to see a suffixed interstate route with more than one cardinal direction!! :spin:

yakra

Shh! Don't give THEM any more ideas! :colorful:
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

Avalanchez71

It appears that the coveted interstate from Austin to Houston still only is on paper per FritzOwl.  FritzOwl must have been the consultant on this one.

achilles765

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 10, 2021, 03:26:52 PM
It appears that the coveted interstate from Austin to Houston still only is on paper per FritzOwl.  FritzOwl must have been the consultant on this one.

And that is insane to me. Why they are choosing to send interstate 14 through the middle of nowhere in the center of the state instead of a routing that connects Austin to Houston is beyond me. At least a spur or something between the two or a brand new number. Hell I would even settle for a long multiplex with interstate 12 and interstate 10 from Baton Rouge to Houston then out 290 to Austin. 
I love freeways and roads in any state but Texas will always be first in my heart

achilles765

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 06, 2021, 12:48:23 AM
I think suffixes like E-W work well in places like DFW or the twin cities but I-14 or I-69 make no sense to me. I wonder if they could get away with an X14 for the lower portion through San Angelo.

While I kinda like how unique and weird the interstate 69 trident is in Texas, and how it is another little quirk we will have, I don't totally understand the need for it either. It makes sense in DFW and Minn/St Paul because those are twin cities not that far apart. But the valley is not twin cities. It's a bunch of small ones. Choosing where to route the branches is crazy and Laredo isn't even part of the valley.
Interstate 69E should be Interstate 69, Interstate 69C should be 337, and interstate 69W should be like interstate 569 or something.
Interstate 14 definitely don't need to happen. That's southern France should be like 114 or something
I love freeways and roads in any state but Texas will always be first in my heart

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: achilles765 on August 10, 2021, 03:41:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 06, 2021, 12:48:23 AM
I think suffixes like E-W work well in places like DFW or the twin cities but I-14 or I-69 make no sense to me. I wonder if they could get away with an X14 for the lower portion through San Angelo.

While I kinda like how unique and weird the interstate 69 trident is in Texas, and how it is another little quirk we will have, I don't totally understand the need for it either. It makes sense in DFW and Minn/St Paul because those are twin cities not that far apart. But the valley is not twin cities. It's a bunch of small ones. Choosing where to route the branches is crazy and Laredo isn't even part of the valley.
Interstate 69E should be Interstate 69, Interstate 69C should be 337, and interstate 69W should be like interstate 569 or something.
Interstate 14 definitely don't need to happen. That's southern France should be like 114 or something

It makes me mad because I liked how the suffixes made I-35 unique.  Now it's a footnote. 

sparker

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 10, 2021, 03:26:52 PM
It appears that the coveted interstate from Austin to Houston still only is on paper per FritzOwl.  FritzOwl must have been the consultant on this one.

Fritz is to a rationally configured Interstate system as a modern "splashes everywhere" abstract artist is to Rembrandt.  Nevertheless, Houston-Austin is one of those nagging little "gaps" in the system that for some odd reason has escaped the attention of the myriad in-state "corridor entrepreneurs" who have been busy with the likes of I-69, I-14, P2P, etc.  Maybe there's a good deal of intrinsic commercial traffic between the two points, but I'm guessing, from having visited both cities, that if you asked a Houston citizen whether they really needed a quicker way to get to Austin -- or vice-versa -- you'd get some pretty funny looks!  Besides us roadgeeks, it's probably only commercial drivers who consistently have any sort of stake here -- and that doesn't portend well for a public-pressure impetus for such a project. 


Scott5114

Well, that, and if you're a political leader in Houston or Austin, you've got a lot of stuff on your plate. The mayor of San Angelo probably has nothing better to do but try and bug members of Congress to build an Interstate through their town.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

jbnv

Quote from: achilles765 on August 10, 2021, 03:35:59 PM
Hell I would even settle for a long multiplex with interstate 12 and interstate 10 from Baton Rouge to Houston then out 290 to Austin.

You're talking about a multiplex that would be about as long itself as the combined amount of non-multiplexed route. Let it go. If US 290 is promoted to I-12 nobody will care that it isn't connected to Louisiana's I-12.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.