AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: longhorn on December 11, 2013, 09:40:08 AM

Title: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on December 11, 2013, 09:40:08 AM
http://www.kxxv.com/story/23902696/local-cities-want-to-turn-us-highway-190-into-an-interstate

http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-014.html

In essence following what they are doing with I-69 through Texas. The group of cities and congressmen met last night to fast trak this. With 190 serving Ft. Hood it is expected to move quickly.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: lamsalfl on December 11, 2013, 09:51:06 AM
Devastating for my hopes of a route from Austin-Alexandria-Natchez-eastward
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: NE2 on December 11, 2013, 11:25:46 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Gettin%27_It_%28Album_Number_Ten%29.JPG)
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Brandon on December 11, 2013, 12:53:58 PM
If the "need" an I-number, then wouldn't I-335 or some such thing work better?

I say need in quotes as not every flipping freeway needs an I-number.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Henry on December 11, 2013, 01:08:48 PM
I could see this connecting to US 290, and eventually ending in Houston. But then, what would become of the previously proposed I-14 further east? (I-18 is the other unused number available, but I suspect they'd be forced to go with it if I-14 does go to Houston instead of staying north of it.)
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: US81 on December 11, 2013, 01:16:31 PM
I agree with Brandon, Copperas Cove to Belton is such a short distance (25mi), it should be a 3di.

Maybe we can still hope for I-14 to be Austin-Alexandria-Natchez "Gulf Coast Strategic Highway"...maybe....
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: NE2 on December 11, 2013, 01:26:15 PM
Looking at the Texas Trunk System (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/handouts/trunk.pdf) 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.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: 1995hoo on December 11, 2013, 01:31:39 PM
I was born in Copperas Cove but do not remember the area. My relatives all say it was like going to the end of the world. I'll have to see what they say about this one!
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: oscar on December 11, 2013, 01:33:10 PM
Contrary to the thread title, this seems to be just a dream of some local politicians and businessmen, with no apparent support so far from anyone with the power to make it happen.  It's early enough in the process to get strangled in the cradle, as it should be. 
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Mr. Matté on December 11, 2013, 01:33:26 PM
Doesn't sound like this is really "to be renamed" (at least just yet). Doesn't there have to be approval from AASHTO, et. al first?
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Brandon on December 11, 2013, 01:56:27 PM
Doesn't sound like this is really "to be renamed" (at least just yet). Doesn't there have to be approval from AASHTO, et. al first?

Usually, unless you're smart enough to Shuster it.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: FightingIrish on December 11, 2013, 02:17:32 PM
I could see this connecting to US 290, and eventually ending in Houston. But then, what would become of the previously proposed I-14 further east? (I-18 is the other unused number available, but I suspect they'd be forced to go with it if I-14 does go to Houston instead of staying north of it.)

The proposed eastern I-14 is so far a dream, and has a counterpart, the proposed I-3 in Georgia, which will likely never be built. I-14 has a slightly better chance, and also has the advantage of available corridors, military installations and use as a potential hurricane evacuation route. Still, it will be a long time before it will be built, if at all.

However, if the eastern I-14 gets up and going, one proposed routing extends into Texas along the US 190 corridor, so who knows?

http://www.gulfcoaststrategichighway.org/Artwork%20GC/i14%20map%2012.8.pdf

http://www.gulfcoaststrategichighway.org/Texas.html

As for US 190 as a stand-alone interstate, I can't see AASHTO going for a 2di on this thing. At least I-2 and the I-69s serve a purpose as NAFTA routes. The best this road will likely get is a 3di x35 designation.

Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on December 11, 2013, 03:21:16 PM
I believe it will be fast tracked, again, one word, Fort Hood. Hwy 190 is have been expanded to 6 lanes (yes, there is that much traffic, TxDOT states at certain times of the day 190 or Centex highway is busier than I-35) between CC and Killeen. Its presently being expanded to 6 lanes through Killeen to Harker Heights. With eventually being expanded 6 lanes all way to I-35. It is already at interstate levels construction wise.

I too was shocked, I imagined an I-135, I-335, or I-535. Not I-14, had to go research that one. Didn't even know it was planned.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Alps on December 11, 2013, 08:36:20 PM
Contrary to the thread title, this seems to be just a dream of some local politicians and businessmen, with no apparent support so far from anyone with the power to make it happen.  It's early enough in the process to get strangled in the cradle, as it should be. 
Remains to be seen. Hopefully someone along the line throws in an x35 instead.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 12, 2013, 01:15:01 PM
A 3-digit Interstate designation is easy to justify for the route between Belton (and I-35) through Harker Heights, Killeen, Fort Hood and Copperas Cove. However, even if you add in the "super-2" bypass currently being built around Copperas Cove the overall route is less than 30 miles in length.

Even though there are a couple other 2-digit routes in the Interstate system less than 30 miles in length, there are other corridors within Texas FAR more fitting to carry an I-14 designation than this one. I personally have always imagined I-14 being an upgrade of US-290 from Houston to Austin and then another upgrade west from Austin to I-10 near Junction. Some businesses in San Antonio might not like that since such a route might potentially be shorter in distance between Houston and El Paso than merely staying on I-10 the whole way.

I think US-290 is going to be built up in this manner eventually, whether it carries an Interstate highway designation or not. Google Earth has some brand new imagery (dated Oct. 30) that shows some clearing work for a 2 mile extension of the US-290 freeway in Austin from its current end at Joe Tanner Lane to the ACC Pinnacle Campus. The road is getting upgraded bit by bit.

Getting back to the topic, yes, it would make more sense to call this Fort Hood highway something like I-135, 335, etc.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: djlynch on January 18, 2014, 03:54:41 AM
The work in southwest Austin isn't an upgrade to freeway, because TxDOT hasn't been able to come up with the money to build it. It consists of two continuous flow intersections (at William Cannon and SH 71) and some doubling of left turn lanes. http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/austin/us290-intersections.html

I don't see 290 getting an upgrade west of suburban Austin, given TxDOT's finances. Bypassing Johnson City and Fredericksburg requires finding a way through/around some rough terrain (especially if they want to eliminate the jog/concurrency at US 281) and there's no way to widen the ROW through Hye, Stonewall, or Harper without obliterating the towns, which may require a new alignment.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 18, 2014, 02:29:46 PM
The work in southwest Austin isn't an upgrade to freeway, because TxDOT hasn't been able to come up with the money to build it. It consists of two continuous flow intersections (at William Cannon and SH 71) and some doubling of left turn lanes. http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/austin/us290-intersections.html

I don't see 290 getting an upgrade west of suburban Austin, given TxDOT's finances. Bypassing Johnson City and Fredericksburg requires finding a way through/around some rough terrain (especially if they want to eliminate the jog/concurrency at US 281) and there's no way to widen the ROW through Hye, Stonewall, or Harper without obliterating the towns, which may require a new alignment.

Yeah, but.....

I understand the western Austin extension is a difficult sell, but there are miles and miles of already built interstate highways through much worse terrain (see I-17, I-70 in Colorado and I-10 from Junction, TX to almost LA). If those interstates weren't built , how would we get across the country?   It is like the old railroads or manifest destiny; make it so because the best interest of the country is at stake here. Going through Austin along TX 71 and US 290 upgraded to an interstate as a bypass for Interstate 10 is better for the common good and for shipping reasons than staying on I-10.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: NE2 on March 18, 2014, 02:45:15 PM
Going via Austin saves only 9 miles over Loop 1604...
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Perfxion on March 18, 2014, 02:54:27 PM
Problem is that the state is crying broke. If anything, they will not do something that will cost more when the I-69 orgy is sucking funds dry. Grand Parkway construction through owned land, US290 freeway expansion, SH249 high extension, SH288 extension as well. And this is all just Houston. What money to buy, clear, and build a highway through land that would just be expensive?

Don't forget, we are in Texas, they aren't going to add a new tax for that.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Stephane Dumas on March 18, 2014, 03:17:55 PM
I won't be surprised to see new regional toll agencies popping up for some future projects or TXDOT decide to build some of these projects as toll roads.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 18, 2014, 04:47:19 PM
Going via Austin saves only 9 miles over Loop 1604...

Guess you haven't traveled 1604 recently. It is way outdated and far too heavily traveled to be used as a bypass.

But you are right. Why try having a bypass if all it will save is 9 miles through a traffic hell while at the same time giving two cities a much needed interstate connection if all it will save is 9 miles.  Hell, why have any bypasses. They only save a few miles and a few precious seconds so they are worthless. 

Last I checked there is a 12 mile difference between Interstates 35W and 35E in Texas and 1 mile difference between Interstates 35W and 35E in Minnesota. I think we should bulldoze the shorter of the two in each case since such a small difference in mileage would be a waste to have a bypass
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: NE2 on March 18, 2014, 05:19:58 PM
But Austin's freeways are completely empty.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: US 41 on March 18, 2014, 06:44:17 PM
(http://www.gulfcoaststrategichighway.org/Photos%20GC/i14%20GCSH%2012.08map.jpg)

Apparently this is the big idea.

Alabama should probably make the I-85 westward extension I-14.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: NE2 on March 18, 2014, 07:23:46 PM
I hope they put I-14 signs on I-10 west of Iraan.

(PS: a separate freeway paralleling I-10 between Iraan and Sonora is ducking fumb.)
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: US 41 on March 18, 2014, 07:40:13 PM
I-14 would most likely end at I-10 near Iraan. You never know though. When I-73 was being discussed in Michigan I heard they wanted to sign it with I-75 from Grayling to Sue St. Marie. I think I-73 was going to run up US 127. There could be a possibility of I-14 making it all the way to El Paso as shown on this map.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Perfxion on March 18, 2014, 08:10:23 PM
It isn't about a bypass, it's a bypass for traffic that doesn't need it. It's not like a bypass of NYC or something. It's to cut 9 miles on trans state traffic in an area where that pattern isn't there. Austin or college station being all freeway makes more sense to Houston. But not I-10 to I-10 via the busiest leg of Houston traffic
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 19, 2014, 09:25:42 AM
It isn't about a bypass, it's a bypass for traffic that doesn't need it. It's not like a bypass of NYC or something. It's to cut 9 miles on trans state traffic in an area where that pattern isn't there. Austin or college station being all freeway makes more sense to Houston. But not I-10 to I-10 via the busiest leg of Houston traffic

Then 6 lane I-10 from San Felipe to Columbus and be done with it.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Molandfreak on March 19, 2014, 11:44:23 AM
This seems like a mere attempt for Texas to become the state with the most 2dis.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Rover_0 on March 19, 2014, 12:19:43 PM
(http://www.gulfcoaststrategichighway.org/Photos%20GC/i14%20GCSH%2012.08map.jpg)

Apparently this is the big idea.

Alabama should probably make the I-85 westward extension I-14.
Although, if any major portion of I-14 happens (I-35 to I-10), I'd be more likely to number it I-16 (W) or I-18. Save 14 for Austin-Houston, if not an entire US-290 upgrade.

This seems like a mere attempt for Texas to become the state with the most 2dis.

I wouldn't doubt it. I-2 and this I-14 hold hope for a 2di spur in my neck of the woods. :P
 
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 19, 2014, 12:47:34 PM
This seems like a mere attempt for Texas to become the state with the most 2dis.

Yes.  Because Texas.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 19, 2014, 01:44:55 PM
I'd really love to know how in the hell they run this through Alexandria-Pineville. Upgrade MacArthur Drive to a freeway?? NOPE...businesses oppose it because I-49. Build a freeway loop around Alex-Pineville-Colfax?? Maybe...but with the Ft. Buhlow Bridge (US 71/165) being upgraded, does CenLA really need THREE major bridges across the Red River?? Just run it along I-49/Pineville Expressway?? Probably the most feasible and cost-beneficial option...but wouldn't that require a new all terrain route paralleling LA 28 from Leesville to Alex?? Same LA 28 that was just 4-laned last year??

Sorry, but I-14 isn't really needed, no matter how many military bases it may connect. Save the money for completing I-49 and the main legs of I-69.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: NE2 on March 19, 2014, 02:17:09 PM
I'd really love to know how in the hell they run this through Alexandria-Pineville. Upgrade MacArthur Drive to a freeway?? NOPE...businesses oppose it because I-49.
It's practically a freeway anyway (all you need is a couple overpasses on the main lanes), and the necessary ramps to get to the Pineville Expressway are high-speed flyovers (but they'd probably want to add a lane to I-49 and maybe braiding for the intermediate ramps). LA 28 right-of-way looks wide enough for frontage roads.

But yeah, it's pretty porky.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: english si on March 19, 2014, 06:59:17 PM
This seems like a mere attempt for Texas to become the state with the most 2dis.
If they wanted that, maybe they'd have numbered the southern legs of I-69 better? That said, I-2 does help them in this fight, given IL got a tiny bit of I-41 (TX I-49 will help too)

IL - 13: 24, 39, (41), 55, 57, 64, 70, 72, 74, 80, 88, 90, 94
TX - 12: 2, 10, 20, 27, 30, 35, 37, 40, 44, 45, (49), 69
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on March 24, 2014, 08:10:08 PM
Same LA 28 that was just 4-laned last year??
It will probably be 20 years or more before any of this is built in Louisiana. Plenty of time to get good use out of those four lanes.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Grzrd on May 31, 2014, 11:15:26 AM
A federal report details plans for a possible new interstate highway that would move traffic from Augusta through central Georgia and Alabama to Natchez, Miss.
The report on the proposed 14th Amendment Highway was obtained by The Telegraph newspaper of Macon under the Freedom of Information Act (http://bit.ly/AsVTbD).
Here is the EWG's Report to Congress (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/section_1927/14th_amendment_highway/report_to_congress/). The Executive Summary (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/section_1927/14th_amendment_highway/report_to_congress/report00.cfm#toc315267736) has a good map of the alternatives.
(above quote from 14th Amendment Highway ("I-14") (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4385.msg138370#msg138370) thread)

This May 7 TV video report (http://www.kbtx.com/news/local/headlines/New-Push-for-Interstate-Access-in-BCS-During-Washington-Trip-258187881.html) discusses a larger El Paso to Augusta vision:

Quote
there's an option known as Interstate 14 that would dart from El Paso to Augusta, Georgia, and, as drawn in a proposal, use existing roads running through Huntsville, Bryan/College Station, Hearne and on towards Bell County.
"One of the things for businesses looking to relocate, access is critical, and the interstate system is just like the gold standard," said Tom Wilkinson, the executive director of the Brazos Valley Council of Governments. "You're just struck off the list early on from any of the potential businesses because we don't have that."
Bryan/College Station is one of the largest metro areas in the country without interstate access.
Congressman Roger Williams, who represents District 25 to the northwest of the Brazos Valley, has committed to get the ball rolling in the House to authorize I-14.
He was one of the officials local leaders met with Tuesday.
"When we're talking highways, we're really in a good situation because it's a bipartisan thing, and we're all the same," he said, adding, "Urgency's important."
So far, I-14 has earned support from the Texas A&M System, and local leaders are in on the talks. But of course, as it so often here, whether these things get done likely come down to money and political road blocks local officials are encouraging folks here to break through.

I wonder if Congressman Williams envisions an El Paso to Natchez extension amendment to the currently existing 14th Amendment Highway legislation?

edit

At the very least, the 14th Amendment Highway legislation provided a major impetus for a TxDOT US 190/ I-10 Feasibility Study (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/us_190/final/summary_080212.pdf) (page 3/34 of pdf):

Quote
This study originated following the proposed interstate highway from Natchez, Mississippi to Augusta, Georgia, referred to as the 14th Amendment Highway, which was introduced into Federal congressional legislation in 2004. The study of the 14th Amendment Highway was eventually incorporated into the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005.

In addition, the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition was formed in 2001 to promote the need for improved access and connections to military installations along the US 190/I-10 corridor and regional highways that serve as deployment routes between the major army bases and designated ports along the Gulf Coast. These routes would be a continuation of the 14th Amendment Highway further west through Louisiana and Texas ... The primary route in Texas is the US 190/I-10 corridor which is the focus of this feasibility study.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 31, 2014, 09:13:37 PM

This seems like a mere attempt for Texas to become the state with the most 2dis.

Yes.  Because Texas.

Texas must be the richest country in the world behind Alanland. Maybe Texas should give some funds to Arkansas/Missouri so we can get I-49 built. That way Texas can have another 2di


iPhone
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: DevalDragon on June 01, 2014, 02:34:21 AM
This whole thing is amazingly stupid and not needed. As the wars over the past 10 years have shown, virtually no military vehicles were driven between military bases and the ports. The majority were shipped by rail, and the rest by commercial line haul trucks. There's no reason to build a new interstate to connect a bunch of military bases that don't need to be connected more than they are now.

Besides - we won't be at war forever. And movements to and from training facilities are done by rail, aside from the Reserve / Guard convoys. But you don't want military vehicles on Interstates anyway - they are not capable of highway speeds and just slow things down.

And I-335 is the best designation for the piece of highway that's being discussed. It won't get any longer.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Grzrd on July 15, 2014, 11:37:21 AM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas recently posted a slide presentation (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/John%20Thompson%20Presentation.TGR.7.8.2014.pdf) that begins with a slide showing the relationship of I-69 to I-14:

(http://i.imgur.com/6QaYu95.png)

Another slide indicates that a Congressional designation for I-14 similar to the designation for I-69 will be pursued:

(http://i.imgur.com/F46uB6Y.png)

Hmmmmmmm...... US 181 as Future I-14C or Future I-14S?  :happy:
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 15, 2014, 01:12:28 PM
Wow looks like all feel good legislation.  The road system in the corridor is more then adequate.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on July 16, 2014, 03:55:43 PM
I would settle just upgrading the road from Temple to Cameron to Milano. That two lane road 190/36 is the true bottleneck.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Grzrd on July 21, 2014, 01:13:07 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas recently posted a slide presentation (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/John%20Thompson%20Presentation.TGR.7.8.2014.pdf) ....
Another slide indicates that a Congressional designation for I-14 similar to the designation for I-69 will be pursued

It's worth mentioning that, in previously designating part of LA 28 as High Priority Corridor 75 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l75), Congress did not designate it as I-14:

Quote
The Louisiana 28 corridor from Fort Polk to Alexandria, Louisiana.

Of course, that may change with the new effort.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Grzrd on October 14, 2015, 01:28:04 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas recently posted a slide presentation (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/John%20Thompson%20Presentation.TGR.7.8.2014.pdf) ....
Another slide indicates that a Congressional designation for I-14 similar to the designation for I-69 will be pursued
It's worth mentioning that, in previously designating part of LA 28 as High Priority Corridor 75 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l75), Congress did not designate it as I-14:
Quote
The Louisiana 28 corridor from Fort Polk to Alexandria, Louisiana.
Of course, that may change with the new effort.

I recently noticed that Section 11204 of the draft House DRIVE Act bill, H.R. 22, (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/22/text#toc-id44fa5e16edd8483499c64790519cb977) designates the "Central Texas Corridor" as High Priority Corridor 83:

Quote
SEC. 11204. High priority corridors on the National Highway System.
Section 1105 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2031) is amended—
(1) in subsection (c) (105 Stat. 2032; 112 Stat. 190; 119 Stat. 1213)—  ....
(D) by adding at the end the following: ....
“(83) The Central Texas Corridor commencing at the logical terminus of Interstate 10, and generally following portions of United States Route 190 eastward passing in the vicinity Fort Hood, Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, Woodville, and to the logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing.”

The proposed legislative language does not designate the Central Texas Corridor as I-14, but it does seem intended as an initial step toward upgrading the corridor. It appears very unlikely that a long-term reauthorization will be enacted by the end of this month, but I suspect the effort to include the HPC 83 designation in a long-term bill will continue.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on October 15, 2015, 11:22:02 AM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas recently posted a slide presentation (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/John%20Thompson%20Presentation.TGR.7.8.2014.pdf) ....
Another slide indicates that a Congressional designation for I-14 similar to the designation for I-69 will be pursued
It's worth mentioning that, in previously designating part of LA 28 as High Priority Corridor 75 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l75), Congress did not designate it as I-14:
Quote
The Louisiana 28 corridor from Fort Polk to Alexandria, Louisiana.
Of course, that may change with the new effort.

I recently noticed that Section 11204 of the draft House DRIVE Act bill, H.R. 22, (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/22/text#toc-id44fa5e16edd8483499c64790519cb977) designates the "Central Texas Corridor" as High Priority Corridor 83:

Quote
SEC. 11204. High priority corridors on the National Highway System.
Section 1105 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2031) is amended—
(1) in subsection (c) (105 Stat. 2032; 112 Stat. 190; 119 Stat. 1213)—  ....
(D) by adding at the end the following: ....
“(83) The Central Texas Corridor commencing at the logical terminus of Interstate 10, and generally following portions of United States Route 190 eastward passing in the vicinity Fort Hood, Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, Woodville, and to the logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing.”

The proposed legislative language does not designate the Central Texas Corridor as I-14, but it does seem intended as an initial step toward upgrading the corridor. It appears very unlikely that a long-term reauthorization will be enacted by the end of this month, but I suspect the effort to include the HPC 83 designation in a long-term bill will continue.

Parts of 190 in Central Texas is already interstate grade. I would be happy with a four lane divided hwy between Temple and Bryan, then one could just take 6 down to 290 for a quicker and safer trip from central Texas to Houston.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 15, 2015, 02:52:17 PM
We probably won't see any Interstate 14 signs anywhere for quite some time.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Grzrd on November 05, 2015, 08:08:26 AM
I recently noticed that Section 11204 of the draft House DRIVE Act bill, H.R. 22, (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/22/text#toc-id44fa5e16edd8483499c64790519cb977) designates the "Central Texas Corridor" as High Priority Corridor 83 .... The proposed legislative language does not designate the Central Texas Corridor as I-14
Parts of 190 in Central Texas is already interstate grade.
We probably won't see any Interstate 14 signs anywhere for quite some time.

This political blog (http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/2015/11/05/house-ready-to-approve-325-billion-highway-bill/) reports that an amendment has been introduced to the current House version of a long-term reauthorization to designate the Central Texas Corridor as Future I-14:

Quote
After several long days of legislative work on the floor of the House, lawmakers are ready Thursday to give approval to a new long-term bill that authorizes fresh funding for road and bridge construction, the first big measure considered under the new leadership of Speaker Paul Ryan.
“We’re opening up the process,” Ryan said of the highway bill, as he emphasized there would be “lots of amendments.” ....
But when you dig down into the details of the amendments that reached the House floor over the past three days, it may seem to you that lawmakers were nibbling around the edges more than anything else.
The most newsworthy item may have been the House voting to reject a plan that would have allowed larger and heavier trucks on roads; but most other amendments were minor in nature, some more parochial.
Here’s a snapshot:
  Babin (R-TX) – Amendment No. 6 – Designates the Central Texas Corridor as the future Interstate Route I-14. ...

I get the sense that Congress may actually agree on and pass a long-term reauthorization by November 20. We may see Interstate 14 shields sooner than we had previously thought.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 05, 2015, 09:23:02 AM
If they are going to designate this corridor as Future I-14, then they will have to face the issue of how to route this future freeway through Alexandria. The proposed beltway now being considered around Alex is only going to be a 4-lane arterial; will they turn around and rebuild it as a freeway all of a sudden? Or, do they build a new outer loop bypass of I-49 and extend it eastward to connect with LA 28, then US 84.

And then, there is the issue of US 84/US 425 through Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez.

Of course, we are talking years if not decades from this becoming a reality, so, maybe this is all moot.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 05, 2015, 10:04:38 AM
I hope that the same folks supporting Congressional co-opting of administrative duties (like managing a highway numbering system) aren't the same ones that complain when the Executive Branch oversteps and legislates by fiat.  Just saying. 
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on November 05, 2015, 10:13:29 AM
The stretch from Copperas Cove to Belton is already interstate grade and six lanes for half of the distance. I could see intermediate signs throughout the stretch like they are doing with 69 now in Texas.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 05, 2015, 09:34:52 PM
The concept of "I-14" on those maps is one very crooked and very porky looking route. No major cities/destinations along any of it either. Texas' highway system has more important upgrade needs elsewhere.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: 1995hoo on November 05, 2015, 10:24:47 PM
I was born at Fort Hood and we lived in Copperas Cove at the time, though we moved to Virginia when I was one year old. I told my parents about this thread when I talked to them on the phone tonight and they were stunned. They can't fathom the idea of a highway bypass around the town, much less an Interstate highway, because they said when we lived there a lot of the streets were still unpaved!
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 06, 2015, 05:22:47 PM
I have an update to my October 15th comment on this thread: I don't think we'll see any Interstate 14 signs anytime soon, if ever.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: DevalDragon on November 20, 2015, 01:31:55 AM
Your parents would be amazed to see all that has changed. Copperas Cove now has freeway bypasses around 3/4 of the city and a population of 33,000+ people. When I moved there in 1992, the population was half of that and the bypasses were all talk.

I was born at Fort Hood and we lived in Copperas Cove at the time, though we moved to Virginia when I was one year old. I told my parents about this thread when I talked to them on the phone tonight and they were stunned. They can't fathom the idea of a highway bypass around the town, much less an Interstate highway, because they said when we lived there a lot of the streets were still unpaved!
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: andy3175 on December 06, 2015, 12:10:56 PM
I-14 in Texas is now named per federal legislation signed into law on Friday 12/4/2015:

http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fastact_xml.pdf

Establishment of High Priority Corridor #84 (Section 1416a):

Quote
(84) The Central Texas Corridor commencing at the logical terminus of Interstate Route 10, generally following portions of United States Route 190 eastward, passing in the vicinity Fort Hood, Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, and Woodville, to the logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing.

Identification of US 190 as a future Interstate route (Section 1416b):

Quote
(b) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ROUTE SEGMENTS ON INTERSTATE SYSTEM.—Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (109 Stat. 597; 118 Stat. 293; 119 Stat. 1213) is amended in the first sentence— ...

(c) ... The route referred to in subsection 12 (c)(84) is designated as Interstate Route I–14.

I wonder if this means that segments of US 190 that connect to the Interstate system currently could indeed be signed as Interstate 14 with the passage of this legislation?
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Alps on December 06, 2015, 12:58:15 PM
I-14 in Texas is now named per federal legislation signed into law on Friday 12/4/2015:

http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fastact_xml.pdf

Establishment of High Priority Corridor #84 (Section 1416a):

Quote
(84) The Central Texas Corridor commencing at the logical terminus of Interstate Route 10, generally following portions of United States Route 190 eastward, passing in the vicinity Fort Hood, Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, and Woodville, to the logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing.

Identification of US 190 as a future Interstate route (Section 1416b):

Quote
(b) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ROUTE SEGMENTS ON INTERSTATE SYSTEM.—Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (109 Stat. 597; 118 Stat. 293; 119 Stat. 1213) is amended in the first sentence— ...

(c) ... The route referred to in subsection 12 (c)(84) is designated as Interstate Route I–14.

I wonder if this means that segments of US 190 that connect to the Interstate system currently could indeed be signed as Interstate 14 with the passage of this legislation?
I fail to see how Highway 63 is a logical terminus for an Interstate. Of course, I fail to see how this is a logical Interstate, save for bypassing the greater Fort Hood/Temple area.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Revive 755 on December 06, 2015, 01:12:35 PM
^ I also fail to see why the eastern terminus is at some random state highway - it should either be at the future location of I-69, or continue into Louisiana and end at I-49 near Alexandria.

The western terminus does not seem logical either - they are simply going to follow US 190 and duplicate much of I-10?  IMHO they should have gone for a route through San Angelo and a western terminus somewhere on I-20.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: mvak36 on December 06, 2015, 02:10:46 PM
Is there a lot of traffic on this corridor? I could see the part from about Killeen to Huntsville maybe having enough traffic to justify having an interstate. The other parts I'm not sure about, but I guess I'll buy it if they extend this all the way to Georgia.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: aboges26 on December 06, 2015, 03:21:09 PM
Is there a lot of traffic on this corridor? I could see the part from about Killeen to Huntsville maybe having enough traffic to justify having an interstate. The other parts I'm not sure about, but I guess I'll buy it if they extend this all the way to Georgia.

That has to be the plan with the proposed terminus being basically on the Louisiana state line.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: english si on December 06, 2015, 03:33:53 PM
The terminus isn't at a random state highway, it's TX63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.0641148,-93.5219071,16z) or, in other words, the TX/LA border en route to Alexandria. Obviously they need to get Louisiana on board with the bit in their state or the terminus is pointless, but it's clear that TX want it, and LA doesn't yet.

This (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/30.8709072,-102.0912364/31.0640222,-93.5204312/@30.7332046,-102.5851553,6z/am=t/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) is the corridor. West of Brady it makes no sense at all - it either ought to drop the 30 miles south to I-10 near Junction, or head to San Angelo. Duplicating an interstate with another one running parallel about 30 miles to the north is understandable if you are in some densely populated area. But West Texas? Nah!
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: noelbotevera on December 06, 2015, 04:06:14 PM
The terminus isn't at a random state highway, it's TX63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.0641148,-93.5219071,16z) or, in other words, the TX/LA border en route to Alexandria. Obviously they need to get Louisiana on board with the bit in their state or the terminus is pointless, but it's clear that TX want it, and LA doesn't yet.

This (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/30.8709072,-102.0912364/31.0640222,-93.5204312/@30.7332046,-102.5851553,6z/am=t/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) is the corridor. West of Brady it makes no sense at all - it either ought to drop the 30 miles south to I-10 near Junction, or head to San Angelo. Duplicating an interstate with another one running parallel about 30 miles to the north is understandable if you are in some densely populated area. But West Texas? Nah!
Maybe make it run south to go through College Station and Austin or north to DFW. It'd then have a purpose as a backseat to I-10.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Grzrd on December 06, 2015, 04:35:15 PM
I wonder if this means that segments of US 190 that connect to the Interstate system currently could indeed be signed as Interstate 14 with the passage of this legislation?

FHWA needs to officially approve the section(s) connecting to the interstate system as being interstate-grade.  I think the section connecting to I-35 is the likeliest candidate (it is possible that TxDOT has already asked FHWA to do so).

In addition, since such segment(s) will be relatively short, TxDOT will probably want to co-designate I-14 with U.S. 190.  As a result, I think TxDOT will petition AASHTO for approval of the co-designation at AASHTO's May meeting (I don't think they have to do so, but they have done so with I-69 system co-designations).

Finally, once the above steps are completed, the Texas Transportation Commission will need to approve the I-14 designation.

Looking to I-369/ US 59 in Texarkana as an example, I think TxDOT will do the above quickly and I would not be surprised to see I-14 shields go up in Summer 2016.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: roadman65 on December 06, 2015, 04:50:22 PM
Speaking of I-14, is Georgia going to ever build the Columbus-Macon-Augusta freeway that is supposed to also have that particular number?

I know this question belongs in the Southeast forums, but being this would have the same number, I would assume that the number in GA is dead for it to be brought up in TX for another interstate proposal unless they do an I-76, I-86, I-88 thing with two completely different interstates using the same numbers.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on December 06, 2015, 05:25:43 PM
... but it's clear that TX want it, and LA doesn't yet.

We (Louisiana) already have major projects on the board. We need to finish I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans and through Shreveport. We have to do something about the I-10 bottleneck in Baton Rouge. Aside from the prestige of having another 2dI, and maybe some military benefit of having a direct link between Fort Hood and Fort Polk, I don't see offhand how this project is of such benefit to Louisiana as to take precedent over dozens of other projects.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: andy3175 on December 06, 2015, 11:26:28 PM
I fail to see how Highway 63 is a logical terminus for an Interstate. Of course, I fail to see how this is a logical Interstate, save for bypassing the greater Fort Hood/Temple area.

My guess is that somehow the I-14 Texas High priority corridor (#84) is going to link somehow with the Louisiana State Route 28 High Priority Corridor #75 (see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm for the legislative description and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hiprimap.cfm for a map ... but obviously this leaves gaps. East of there, I'm guessing I-14 would somehow link with High Priority Corridor #6 (US 80). I'll guess we'll just have to see, but the future Interstate designation is exclusively for the Texas portion, which I'm thinking means the Texas political caucus helped make happen.

And who knows where the money will come for any portion of I-14 to be built, especially with so many highway projects on the docket not just in Texas but also in Louisiana and points east.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Henry on December 07, 2015, 11:13:47 AM
Speaking of I-14, is Georgia going to ever build the Columbus-Macon-Augusta freeway that is supposed to also have that particular number?

I know this question belongs in the Southeast forums, but being this would have the same number, I would assume that the number in GA is dead for it to be brought up in TX for another interstate proposal unless they do an I-76, I-86, I-88 thing with two completely different interstates using the same numbers.
But they could easily connect the two sections if they wanted to, making it one continuous Interstate (and I'm sure Houston is close enough to Alexandria to warrant that connection). Otherwise, it would be just another I-74, with the NC and Cincinnati portions being disconnected, probably permanently.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2015, 03:15:08 PM
I'm sure it will be a long time before we see Interstate 14 shields outside of Texas.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on December 07, 2015, 03:25:34 PM
Again, there is a 30 mile stretch of 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton that can right now be renamed, it is interstate grade and half of the route is six lanes. To connect Temple to Bryan will be a biggie too. Even if the construction stopped at Hwy 6 north of Bryan, that would make the central Texas to Houston trip safer. Four lanes and divided highway all the way to Houston, a lot of traffic in that corridor.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: lordsutch on December 07, 2015, 05:29:59 PM
Speaking of I-14, is Georgia going to ever build the Columbus-Macon-Augusta freeway that is supposed to also have that particular number?

Seems unlikely. The political will (for better or worse) seems to be more in favor of a West Point-Macon four-lane corridor than an incremental upgrade of the Columbus-Macon-Augusta corridor to interstate standards.

Alabama is pushing the I-85 extension from Meridianish to Montgomery, which is effectively I-14 under another guise, but that's the only semi-serious project at this point (the tiny bit of the Montgomery Outer Loop that's had dirt turned on it being the only tangible result).
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2015, 12:32:18 AM
I think this I-14 thing is kind of a crooked, porky route that doesn't really serve the overall Interstate highway system well at all. The section off I-35 going into Killeen, Fort Hood and Copperas Cove is easily justifiable for Interstate designation. But that's basically a 3-digit route, not freaking I-14. Houston to Austin would make sense as I-14, not some little segment like this.

Going Eastward from the I-35 corridor the proposed I-14 route looks just as stupidly crooked as the I-69 segments in Kentucky and Southern Indiana. What good is building an Interstate highway that doesn't go directly to key destinations?

As to this Texas section of I-14 connecting to other potential I-14 sections farther East, I'm going to strongly doubt it. It would be like expecting I-88 in Upstate New York to connect with I-88 in Illinois. Or expecting I-74 North of the Ohio River to connect with I-74 in North Carolina.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: NE2 on December 08, 2015, 12:48:17 AM
Going Eastward from the I-35 corridor the proposed I-14 route looks just as stupidly crooked as the I-69 segments in Kentucky and Southern Indiana.
what
(http://i.imgur.com/WZSbhUJ.png)
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: english si on December 08, 2015, 06:07:06 AM
Going Eastward from the I-35 corridor the proposed I-14 route looks just as stupidly crooked as the I-69 segments in Kentucky and Southern Indiana.
what
(http://i.imgur.com/WZSbhUJ.png)
I showed long ago, in the relevant thread, that Indiana I-69 is the shortest road route between Indy and the bridge south of Evansville, save for in the Evansville area where it needs to pass around the urban area. This was in response to a guy from OK, so something must be in the water there.

Kentucky I-69 is arguably crooked, but the two-sides of the triangle that it undertakes aren't stupid as it adds but a few miles and saves 60 miles of construction!

Texas US190 has some zigs and zags east of I-35 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/31.050774,-97.447006/31.0640222,-93.5204312/@30.9836417,-96.4181109,8.5z/data=!4m19!4m18!1m15!3m4!1m2!1d-97.2128113!2d30.9356568!3s0x86450ef07f43c1ef:0x11c2105987119714!3m4!1m2!1d-96.501272!2d30.7845734!3s0x8645d38383218b99:0xb592f4036f7baa22!3m4!1m2!1d-96.0098219!2d30.9200852!3s0x86465cc18f94ea77:0x328f6c41988dc602!1m0!3e0) (eg going up to Herne), but the HPC is merely defining a corridor for upgrade and, save for between College Station and Huntsville (because US190 goes to Madisonville), is the shortest route there is.

Are the roads in OK bee-line straight or something?
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Henry on December 08, 2015, 11:07:07 AM
I-73 and I-74 in NC are definitely crooked, mainly because they tangle with each other in the middle, and probably will again in Myrtle Beach, SC.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2015, 01:27:21 PM
I think these newer roads are being built crooked largely over politics. The United States no longer has a big picture view on anything anymore. This nation is becoming less able to build big things.

Quote from: NE2
what
(http://i.imgur.com/WZSbhUJ.png)

Uh, wrong. You know good and well the actual path I-14 would run (if it ever actually gets built) would not have segments as straight as that.

Example, from an earlier page in this thread, showing a far more CROOKED path for I-14:
(http://i.imgur.com/F46uB6Y.png)

Quote from: english si
I showed long ago, in the relevant thread, that Indiana I-69 is the shortest road route between Indy and the bridge south of Evansville, save for in the Evansville area where it needs to pass around the urban area. This was in response to a guy from OK, so something must be in the water there.

I won't dispute I-69 is the shortest path between Indy and Evansville. The problem is I-69 could have been significantly shorter without all the crooked nonsense going on between Washington and Bloomington. There's a big 90 degree turn at Elnora, turning I-69 into an meandering East-West route for 20 miles before it makes another 90 degree turn near Hobbieville. And then we have a third 90 degree turn near Standford and then I-69 takes a semi-circular route until it dovetails into Route 37 in Clear Creek. That's a crooked freaking path. You're blind as a bat or living in denial if you don't see that.

I-69 goes about 30 miles out of its way with that backward L-shaped path it takes (cheaply) on existing roads between Evansville, ID and Paducah, KY. Again, that's a crooked path.

Quote from: english si
Are the roads in OK bee-line straight or something?

I-44, I-35 and I-40 all run much more direct paths than the crooked nonsense I-69 has going on in Southern Indiana and Kentucky (as well as a bunch of crooked, dogleg nonsense proposed for Mississippi and Arkansas).

Much of the rest of the Interstate highway system, as it as built between the 1950's and 1970's runs on much more direct paths than some of the newer roads that get slowly squeezed out at a very constipated pace.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: NE2 on December 08, 2015, 02:23:05 PM
Example, from an earlier page in this thread, showing a far more CROOKED path for I-14:
(http://i.imgur.com/F46uB6Y.png)
Those guys are lazy idiots.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Grzrd on December 08, 2015, 04:01:23 PM
I wonder if this means that segments of US 190 that connect to the Interstate system currently could indeed be signed as Interstate 14 with the passage of this legislation?
I would not be surprised to see I-14 shields go up in Summer 2016.

This December 8 article (http://www.kxxv.com/story/30695293/us-highway-190-to-renamed-designated-as-interstate-14) provides a more cautious estimate of having the review process necessary for the installation of I-14 shields on the Copperas Cove to Belton section "completed within the next year":

Quote
A stretch of US 190 serving the Fort Hood-Killeen area and extending approximately 25 miles west from Interstate 35 from Belton to Copperas Cove is already at interstate highway standard. It will be renamed as I-14 and added to the national interstate highway system once a technical review is completed and the new designation is approved by the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Texas Transportation Commission. That process could be completed within the next year.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: mvak36 on December 08, 2015, 04:07:59 PM

This December 8 article (http://www.kxxv.com/story/30695293/us-highway-190-to-renamed-designated-as-interstate-14) provides a more cautious estimate of having the review process necessary for the installation of I-14 shields on the Copperas Cove to Belton section "completed within the next year":

I suppose since the AASHTO meeting isn't till May (and all the other approvals needed as stated in that article), my guess is it'll probably be more likely the end of next year.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on December 08, 2015, 04:30:24 PM
Good, I hope 190 is renamed I-14, if only to keep cheap Bell county from laying that large aggregate down instead doing a proper repaving.

I must also add 190/36 from Temple to Heidenheimer is interstate grade too.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: aboges26 on December 08, 2015, 07:53:58 PM
Good, I hope 190 is renamed I-14, if only to keep cheap Bell county from laying that large aggregate down instead doing a proper repaving.

I must also add 190/36 from Temple to Heidenheimer is interstate grade too.

Unless Google Maps is far behind and I have missed a thread about an upgrade on the forum, US 190 is barely interstate grade between I-35 and S 1st Street in Temple, let alone, all the way to Heidenheimer.  Lots of at-grades and driveways, businesses such as Kolache Kitchen, etc.

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.068203,-97.3510393,1384m/data=!3m1!1e3

An extension of the current interstate-grade facility west of I-35 should be continued eastward straight to Heidenheimer to provide a southern bypass of Temple.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Gnutella on December 09, 2015, 02:01:24 AM
I would have routed I-14 through Austin, but that's just me.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: codyg1985 on December 09, 2015, 08:44:28 AM
I don't see how this interstate designation is even justified outside of the Temple area. I think Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia have zero interest in this thing.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: mvak36 on December 09, 2015, 11:19:56 AM
I suppose worst case it would an east-west interstate right through the middle of Texas (if it never gets built outside of it).
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 09, 2015, 02:21:57 PM
An Interstate link between Houston and Austin is easy to justify. Hell, the Austin area is big enough and important enough to justify building an Interstate highway West out of Austin by Fredericksburg all the way to I-10. Pretty much all along or near the US-290 corridor. That would be my idea of "I-14" or maybe another "I-12". Regardless of what the route is called, that's the most needed new Interstate corridor in Central Texas.

A lot of US-290 between Houston and Austin has already been upgraded to Interstate standards. US-290 is (slowly) being upgraded more and more heading West out of Austin.

TX-71 from Columbus, TX and I-10 up to Toll-130 in Austin is four laned much of the way with some freeway grade segments in Bastrop, Smithville and La Grange.

Outside of the Killen & Temple area US-190 doesn't have a whole lot of "in progress" upgrades that would develop into a logical East-West Interstate corridor. Between Temple and Huntsville US-190 runs a pretty damned crooked, distance wasting path. It's almost a "W" shape really. There's no need in running "I-14" from Cameron down to Milano and then back up to Hearne and then down to College Station. A new terrain route needs to span from Cameron DIRECT to College Station. Even with that said, "I-14" would be best if it bypassed around the North side of the College Station area and stayed on a new terrain route much of the way to Huntsville. Locking the corridor along US-190 the whole way is just plain stupid. And it might be even more costly to build considering all the businesses and residences built up alongside the highway much of the way.

This I-14 proposal is even harder to justify East of Huntsville, especially if it's just going to dead end at the Sabine River. There's hardly any traffic out there. On top of that TX DOT will have a pretty expensive new bridge to build over Lake Livingston, considering the current US-190 bridge is a smaller 2-lane bridge. Maybe "I-14" could go as far as Livingston and terminate at I-69. Past that there's no point unless it went all the way to Alexandria, LA.

Out west, San Angelo could possibly be a Western terminus for "I-14" if TX DOT could ever get I-27 extended down from Lubbock, through Big Spring, San Angelo and Junction, TX. That route would give the San Antonio region an effective North-South Interstate corridor into the Texas Panhandle, High plains and Rockies. If I-14 couldn't be built that far then it would be easier to turn it Southwest to Junction, TX and I-10.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 09, 2015, 03:36:26 PM
I don't see how this interstate designation is even justified outside of the Temple area. I think Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia have zero interest in this thing.

It's not. This is almost certainly a disguised jobs program wrapped up with Texas A&M graduates trying to get an interstate through College Station. Texas politics at their stupidest.

The only segment outside of Belton-Killeen that's even justifiable is the Livingston-Alexandria, LA segment, and that would only be as part of a longer corridor that connects to the Northeast via Jackson, MS.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: US71 on December 09, 2015, 05:31:40 PM
KCEN-TV  (http://www.kcentv.com/story/30695774/us-190-to-become-i-14) has a write-up about it. I read elsewhere that it will likely be 10-15 years before the roadway is completed.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 09, 2015, 06:39:01 PM
I don't see how this interstate designation is even justified outside of the Temple area. I think Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia have zero interest in this thing.

Probably that's true for Louisiana and Mississippi. Alabama does have a plan to extend I-85 westward from Montgomery to I-20/59; this would be part of the proposed I-14.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Rover_0 on December 09, 2015, 06:53:58 PM
^ I also fail to see why the eastern terminus is at some random state highway - it should either be at the future location of I-69, or continue into Louisiana and end at I-49 near Alexandria.

The western terminus does not seem logical either - they are simply going to follow US 190 and duplicate much of I-10?  IMHO they should have gone for a route through San Angelo and a western terminus somewhere on I-20.

Maybe sending I-14 to San Angelo and up to I-20 at Big Spring (via US-87) or Midland (US-87/TX-158) wouldn't be a bad idea.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 09, 2015, 07:05:39 PM
Going from San Angelo up to Big Spring would make more sense, at least in my opinion. Such a routing would be able to tie into a potential Southern extension of I-27 from Lubbock down to Big Spring. Of course, I'd like to see I-27 go South from San Angelo down diagonally down to Junction where it would tie into I-10. That would give Amarillo, Lubbock, Big Spring and San Angelo a direct Interstate quality path to San Antonio (and farther to the Gulf Coast via I-37). Such a corridor could then push Northward into Colorado, perhaps up to Kit Carson and Limon to complete a Denver to San Antonio corridor.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 09, 2015, 08:58:23 PM
At best, the current freeway portion of US 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton is deserving of an I-x35 spur designation. Everything else only deserves 4-laning, not freeway grade...and certainly not I-14.

The only way an I-14 would be feasible would be if the proposal included completely upgrading LA 28 through North Louisiana, as well as a freeway loop around Alexandria (or an upgrade of MacArthur Drive/US 71/US 165 to freeway standards), and a freeway through Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez along the US 425/US 84 corridor. With far more important priorities on the table (I-49 South, I-49 Shreveport ICC, Baton Rouge loop or improving I-10, maybe I-69 in NW LA), I can't see this corridor being an Interstate. 4-laning would be sufficient.

Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: dfwmapper on December 09, 2015, 09:55:40 PM
It's not. This is almost certainly a disguised jobs program wrapped up with Texas A&M graduates trying to get an interstate through College Station. Texas politics at their stupidest.
And no one in College Station gives a crap about a freeway connection to Temple. Houston, absolutely; I-45/Dallas, yes; Austin, maybe. Anything else, nah.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: noelbotevera on December 09, 2015, 10:17:58 PM
Why not have it be an El Paso-Houston via Austin route? You've pretty much nailed down all of the major cities and the connections if you do that.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: dfwmapper on December 09, 2015, 10:46:35 PM
Why not have it be an El Paso-Houston via Austin route? You've pretty much nailed down all of the major cities and the connections if you do that.
But why? Once you get west of the US 290/SH 71 separation (and especially past US 281), there just isn't the traffic volume to justify a full freeway.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: codyg1985 on December 10, 2015, 07:03:02 AM
I don't see how this interstate designation is even justified outside of the Temple area. I think Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia have zero interest in this thing.

Probably that's true for Louisiana and Mississippi. Alabama does have a plan to extend I-85 westward from Montgomery to I-20/59; this would be part of the proposed I-14.

I thought the proposed routing for I-14 followed US 84 across Mississippi and then made a diagonal from the MS/AL state line northeast to Montgomery?
Title: Texas new Interstate 14
Post by: Roadster on December 10, 2015, 07:27:38 AM
Texas will be getting a new Interstate.

Interstate 14 will be created (formerly known as Hwy 190 route) in the midsection of the state.  :hmmm:

 http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/Central-Texas-Corridor-Designated-As-Future-Interstate-360954771.html
Title: Re: Texas new Interstate 14
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 10, 2015, 08:13:46 AM
Texas will be getting a new Interstate.

Interstate 14 will be created (formerly known as Hwy 190 route) in the midsection of the state.

So, when will 14N, 14S, 14X, 14Y, and 14Z be prescribed?  :)
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Grzrd on December 10, 2015, 08:35:26 AM
I thought the proposed routing for I-14 followed US 84 across Mississippi and then made a diagonal from the MS/AL state line northeast to Montgomery?

Here is a snip from a map of the five alternatives presented in the Expert Working Group's Report to Congress on the 14th Amendment Highway Corridor (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/section_1927/14th_amendment_highway/report_to_congress/report00.cfm#toc315267736):

(http://i.imgur.com/HkCua50.jpg)

Prior discussion in this thread (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4385.0).

edit

Alternative 1 is the "all interstate" option (I suppose it could also be called the "I-14 option") and has (in 2013 dollars) an estimated cost of $6.6 billion to $7.6 billion (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/section_1927/14th_amendment_highway/report_to_congress/report05.cfm#toc315267758):

Quote
Alternative 1 (the all Interstate design) is by far the most costly alternative, with an estimated cost ranging from $6.6 to $7.6 billion, nearly double the cost of the next highest alternative. Alternative 1 requires the construction of over 178 miles of new roadway on new ROW, and about 97 miles of upgrades to existing highways to meet Interstate design standards.

Here is a snip from a table that breaks down the cost of Alternative 1 for each section:

(http://i.imgur.com/XAiqRC6.jpg)
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on December 10, 2015, 09:28:05 AM
Texas will be getting a new Interstate.

Interstate 14 will be created (formerly known as Hwy 190 route) in the midsection of the state.  :hmmm:

 http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/Central-Texas-Corridor-Designated-As-Future-Interstate-360954771.html

Interesting, per that article, 190 between CC and Temple could be renamed within the year..........Interesting.

I did not notice before the I-14 routing would follow 190 east of Cameron, that's dumb, its an unnecessary zig zag. However this is the area of the state that killed the Trans Texas Highway that would have relieved congested I-35, so the ability to acquire land by imminent domain may not be politically feasible.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on December 10, 2015, 09:37:46 AM
Ok, after some more research, it seems to be a done deal. Will be odd after years of saying, "190" to, "14", and seeing interstate shields.

http://kdhnews.com/military/u-s-to-be-renamed-interstate/article_4548540c-9dc4-11e5-bac4-efc9d4914c13.html

http://kdhnews.com/fort_hood_herald/opinion/on_the_record/it-s-official-interstate-will-be-coming-to-fort-hood/article_585cfeb2-9e91-11e5-9309-9fe214061895.html

I agree with one of the posts that its way past time for an interstate between Austin and Houston. In some areas, its absolutely dangerous to have that much traffic ( and there's a lot of it) moving at 70mph toward each other with just a double yellow line as the divider.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: halork on December 10, 2015, 09:48:49 AM
So, when will 14N, 14S, 14X, 14Y, and 14Z be prescribed?  :)

They blew it. I-14 should be I-10N.  :poke:
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on December 10, 2015, 10:59:58 AM
They blew it. I-14 should be I-10N.  :poke:

It's too far north to be a logical branch of I-10.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 10, 2015, 12:17:06 PM
Naming US-190 "I-14" from Copperas Cove, across Killeen & Fort Hood, to Belton & I-35 is all about pumping up the egos of a few connected politicians and pork-i-fying some agendas. That short segment of freeway may be all there is of "I-14" for many years to come. It will be a little like I-97 in Maryland, except the West end of it will just dangle out there in the sticks rather than end at any logical terminus. Texas has a lot of debt and they have bigger Interstate projects on the agenda, like I-69.

"I-14" could also make for a more messy looking map. I-10, I-20, I-40 and I-70 are somewhat evenly spaced. Then "I-14" will be thrown in there, with its porky, jaggy route. I wonder if the "W" shaped portion near College Station is there on purpose, perhaps as a tribute to our previous President. :-P

Quote from: longhorn
I agree with one of the posts that its way past time for an interstate between Austin and Houston. In some areas, its absolutely dangerous to have that much traffic (and there's a lot of it) moving at 70mph toward each other with just a double yellow line as the divider.

The traffic is heavy and with good reason, both Austin and Houston are big population centers. Austin now has over 900,000 residents living within its city limits and the Austin-Round Rock metro area has nearly 2 million people. And then there's Houston; it's city limits population is over 2.2 million people and metro population is 6.3 million. It is very easy to justify at least one all Interstate quality link between those two big destinations. Really, one could make a case for two Interstate quality connections, upgrading both US-290 and TX-74 to Interstate standards the whole way.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on December 11, 2015, 01:13:22 PM
And now that 190 will be an interstate, maybe TxDot can fix the glaring omission in at the I-35 intersection in Belton. Nice I-35 to west 190/I-14 soon to open direct connector. So why in the world did TxDot not make a 190/I-14 to south I-35 connector? One has to get off to the accessroad, turn right to I-35's access road, then merge. Hopefully this budget oversight is fixed soon.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Henry on December 11, 2015, 01:50:35 PM
Why not have it be an El Paso-Houston via Austin route? You've pretty much nailed down all of the major cities and the connections if you do that.
But why? Once you get west of the US 290/SH 71 separation (and especially past US 281), there just isn't the traffic volume to justify a full freeway.
Maybe not, but at least you'd be able to bypass San Antonio.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 11, 2015, 04:28:45 PM
And now that 190 will be an interstate, maybe TxDot can fix the glaring omission in at the I-35 intersection in Belton. Nice I-35 to west 190/I-14 soon to open direct connector. So why in the world did TxDot not make a 190/I-14 to south I-35 connector? One has to get off to the accessroad, turn right to I-35's access road, then merge. Hopefully this budget oversight is fixed soon.

Likely because there isn't enough traffic to justify it. Killeen to Austin traffic is going to take SH 195.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Grzrd on December 13, 2015, 11:34:58 AM
We (Louisiana) already have major projects on the board. We need to finish I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans and through Shreveport. We have to do something about the I-10 bottleneck in Baton Rouge. Aside from the prestige of having another 2dI, and maybe some military benefit of having a direct link between Fort Hood and Fort Polk, I don't see offhand how this project is of such benefit to Louisiana as to take precedent over dozens of other projects.
Here is a snip from a map of the five alternatives presented in the Expert Working Group's Report to Congress on the 14th Amendment Highway Corridor (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/section_1927/14th_amendment_highway/report_to_congress/report00.cfm#toc315267736):
(http://i.imgur.com/HkCua50.jpg)
.... Alternative 1 is the "all interstate" option (I suppose it could also be called the "I-14 option") and has (in 2013 dollars) an estimated cost of $6.6 billion to $7.6 billion (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/section_1927/14th_amendment_highway/report_to_congress/report05.cfm#toc315267758)

This December 11 TV video (http://www.kplctv.com/story/30730126/proposed-interstate-14-could-impact-southwest-louisiana) includes a comment from a Fort Polk spokesperson regarding the potential benefit of I-14 being extended into SW Louisiana:

Quote
Interstate 14 will begin in West Texas and run through several Texas cities all the way to Jasper before ending at the Texas State highway 63 at the Sabine River.
I-14 could potentially impact Southwest Louisiana as there are plans for the highway to run into the Bayou State and connect to Fort Polk and beyond.
"Though it will take years to complete, I think this is great news for Fort Polk and the surrounding communities. A highway that enhances access across the state will make transportation easier not only for military convoys, but also Soldiers and families going to and from Fort Polk. We also have civilian and contract employees that travel I-14's proposed route. This will certainly make their lives easier by reducing commute times," Fort Polk Spokesperson Kim Reischling said.
The goal of the Interstate is to provide additional military deployment routes from the forts to ports.
If all of the proposed Interstate 14 is built, it would link 10 military installations from Texas to Georgia.

Accompanying the article is a map showing how I-14 in Texas, the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway in Louisiana, and the 14th Amendment Highway from Natchez, MS to Augusta, GA would link together:

(http://i.imgur.com/eFiZCCY.jpg)
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 13, 2015, 12:07:47 PM
Sorry, but Fort Polk and Alexandria is NOT Southwest Louisiana, it is Central Louisiana.

Also, based on Grzz's map, I wonder whether a better route would be rather than connecting Natchez and Montgomery (the latter would be served better by the US 80 upgrade between Meridian and Montgomery), just swing the highway SE near Hattiesburg to connect to Mobile and I-10? To me, that would be a more appropriate "I-14" corridor.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Henry on December 14, 2015, 11:10:07 AM
Sorry, but Fort Polk and Alexandria is NOT Southwest Louisiana, it is Central Louisiana.

Also, based on Grzz's map, I wonder whether a better route would be rather than connecting Natchez and Montgomery (the latter would be served better by the US 80 upgrade between Meridian and Montgomery), just swing the highway SE near Hattiesburg to connect to Mobile and I-10? To me, that would be a more appropriate "I-14" corridor.
I was thinking the exact same thing! Seeing that I-85 West is already earmarked for the US 80 upgrade, I could see the I-14 route being amended to serve Mobile instead of Montgomery and beyond. And I-12 already ends north of New Orleans when you meet the hypothetical I-14 Mobile corridor, so there's no conflict either.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 14, 2015, 12:40:54 PM
Sorry, but Fort Polk and Alexandria is NOT Southwest Louisiana, it is Central Louisiana.

Also, based on Grzz's map, I wonder whether a better route would be rather than connecting Natchez and Montgomery (the latter would be served better by the US 80 upgrade between Meridian and Montgomery), just swing the highway SE near Hattiesburg to connect to Mobile and I-10? To me, that would be a more appropriate "I-14" corridor.
I was thinking the exact same thing! Seeing that I-85 West is already earmarked for the US 80 upgrade, I could see the I-14 route being amended to serve Mobile instead of Montgomery and beyond. And I-12 already ends north of New Orleans when you meet the hypothetical I-14 Mobile corridor, so there's no conflict either.

That doesn't make sense to me. The biggest economic benefit that this route will provide (biased though I may be) will be the reduction of shipping times between the Port of Houston and Atlanta/the Northeast by two to three hours or so, particularly by reducing I-10 traffic across Louisiana. That means going to Montgomery, especially if it's via Jackson.

Interesting that the map doesn't show Navy/Air Force installations.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: DNAguy on December 14, 2015, 02:04:51 PM
The more that I look at the Temple / Belton area, the more I feel like 35/14 should not be co-signed.

My thinking is that I 35 should be re-routed east of Temple from south of Loop 121 to Loop 363 @ current US190.

The 35 can follow the Loop 363 alignment back to original 35.

I 14 would exclusively follow the current section of 35 between Belton and Temple. I 14 would then pick 190 up again just south of downtown Temple.

The section of the old 35 can then become spur 135 and 335 or so.

Maybe I'm making things too complicated.

I don't know.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on December 14, 2015, 02:17:08 PM
My thinking is that I 35 should be re-routed east of Temple from south of Loop 121 to Loop 363 @ current US190.

The 35 can follow the Loop 363 alignment back to original 35.

I 14 would exclusively follow the current section of 35 between Belton and Temple. I 14 would then pick 190 up again just south of downtown Temple.

The section of the old 35 can then become spur 135 and 335 or so.

Maybe I'm making things too complicated.

Huh? What does this accomplish?
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on December 14, 2015, 02:29:42 PM
TxDot at one time looked at rerouting I-35 east of Temple..............Of course Temple would have none of that.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: DNAguy on December 17, 2015, 01:11:56 PM
My thinking is that I 35 should be re-routed east of Temple from south of Loop 121 to Loop 363 @ current US190.

The 35 can follow the Loop 363 alignment back to original 35.

I 14 would exclusively follow the current section of 35 between Belton and Temple. I 14 would then pick 190 up again just south of downtown Temple.

The section of the old 35 can then become spur 135 and 335 or so.

Maybe I'm making things too complicated.

Huh? What does this accomplish?

It would use mostly existing facilities while preventing dual routing on a section of current I35 that has minimal ROW to expand.

I 35 through temple is already busy and sees a heavy amount of traffic.

Merging east-west I14 traffic w/ north-south I35 sounds like an incredibly bad idea. Using the same alignment w/ segregation of the interstates would be a fine solution if there was enough ROW.

I don't believe there is enough ROW to add at least 2 lanes at grade on each side of current I35 while also providing exits, connections and frontage roads.

Maybe a grade separation / express routing of I 14 is the answer. I can't say I know enough about the area to grade that alternative, however.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: codyg1985 on December 17, 2015, 01:22:14 PM
I-35 through Temple is currently being widened, but I would tend to agree that cosigning it with I-14 would be a bad idea.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: aboges26 on December 18, 2015, 11:30:12 PM
My thinking is that I 35 should be re-routed east of Temple from south of Loop 121 to Loop 363 @ current US190.

The 35 can follow the Loop 363 alignment back to original 35.

I 14 would exclusively follow the current section of 35 between Belton and Temple. I 14 would then pick 190 up again just south of downtown Temple.

The section of the old 35 can then become spur 135 and 335 or so.

Maybe I'm making things too complicated.

Huh? What does this accomplish?

It would use mostly existing facilities while preventing dual routing on a section of current I35 that has minimal ROW to expand.

I 35 through temple is already busy and sees a heavy amount of traffic.

Merging east-west I14 traffic w/ north-south I35 sounds like an incredibly bad idea. Using the same alignment w/ segregation of the interstates would be a fine solution if there was enough ROW.

I don't believe there is enough ROW to add at least 2 lanes at grade on each side of current I35 while also providing exits, connections and frontage roads.

Maybe a grade separation / express routing of I 14 is the answer. I can't say I know enough about the area to grade that alternative, however.

(http://s11.postimg.org/dprj9knox/I_14_Temple_Area.png]http://s11.postimg.org/dprj9knox/I_14_Temple_Area.png)

I think that I-14 could get away with being multiplexed up I-35 then follow the US 190 corridor around the southern part of Temple for the near term, but once the whole interstate is built between I-35 and I-49 and the traffic starts flowing, then they will wish they did do something like my rendition of a directional I-14 corridor through the Temple/Belton area.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: english si on December 19, 2015, 05:10:28 AM
The route defined in law is a corridor - there's no reason why the plan has to exactly follow US190.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Grzrd on December 19, 2015, 10:58:31 AM
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted the November 20 I-27 Corridor Extension Study Presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/4c-presentation.pdf) that was presented to the Commission.  Here's a snip of a map of the corridor from the presentation (page 6/8 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/AC0dHWs.jpg)
(above quote from Ports-to-Plains Corridor update (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13771.msg2022056#msg2022056) thread)
Out west, San Angelo could possibly be a Western terminus for "I-14" if TX DOT could ever get I-27 extended down from Lubbock, through Big Spring, San Angelo and Junction, TX. That route would give the San Antonio region an effective North-South Interstate corridor into the Texas Panhandle, High plains and Rockies. If I-14 couldn't be built that far then it would be easier to turn it Southwest to Junction, TX and I-10.
So, when will 14N, 14S, 14X, 14Y, and 14Z be prescribed?  :)

This December 14 TV video (http://www.kvue.com/story/news/traffic/2015/12/14/new-interstate-14-could-boost-beltons-economy/77321080/) reports that a proposal exists to extend I-14 to Midland/ Odessa, which, in effect, would involve an "I-27 connector" from Brady to San Angelo (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2795406,-99.7949058,113672m/data=!3m1!1e3) (I-14N?), and then I-27's proposed route from San Angelo to Midland/ Odessa.  Here is a snip from the video:

(http://i.imgur.com/QL5lYXa.jpg)

San Angelo may wind up with two interstates.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on January 18, 2016, 09:38:08 AM
http://www.chron.com/news/transportation/article/Interstate-14-on-its-way-across-Texas-6684403.php

If the terminus gets moved from I-10 to Midland at I-20, I hope they expand I-45 from Huntsville to Houston, that would be the conduit to get from the panhandle to Houston.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 18, 2016, 11:29:39 AM
http://www.chron.com/news/transportation/article/Interstate-14-on-its-way-across-Texas-6684403.php

If the terminus gets moved from I-10 to Midland at I-20, I hope they expand I-45 from Huntsville to Houston, that would be the conduit to get from the panhandle to Houston.

Wouldn't upgrading US 290 from Houston to Austin work as well?

I still fail to see how all of this will get past Louisiana, as you still have to go through Leesville, Alexandria, and Vidalia/Natchez to make this a legitimate Interstate proposal.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 19, 2016, 04:59:20 PM
Maybe Interstate 14 could go down 290 to Houston. Does it really need to go beyond Texas?
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 19, 2016, 08:34:13 PM
The current concept of I-14 is a crooked, porky route. I see very little justification for it. There's even less justification when factoring in all the I-69 related projects in Texas as well as possible upgrades/extensions of I-2 and what all that will cost. At best, I could see an Interstate quality extension of US-190 from Copperas Cove to Lampasas, but that's about it.

If you start to draw an East-West line between Huntsville and College Station the Western portion of that route points to Austin, not Temple and Killeen.

Quote from: Anthony_JK
Wouldn't upgrading US 290 from Houston to Austin work as well?

That's the 2-lane/4-lane route in Central Texas that's the most justified in upgrading to Interstate quality. Nothing else in that region comes close to the US-290 corridor between Houston and Austin. That should really be "I-14" or "I-12" or just an Interstate quality US-290.

2nd place goes to TX-6 from its junction in Hempstead with TX-6 up through College Station and then Northwest up to Waco. At the very least TX-6 should be Interstate quality from Hempstead to College Station. It's worth mentioning plans are in the works to extend the TX-249 tollway from Tomball on Houston's NW side up through Magnolia and then to Navasota. That would create an all-superhighway link between College Station and Houston.

3rd place goes to TX-74 between Austin and the TX-74 intersection with I-10 in Columbus, TX. That route is pretty much all four-lane with some limited access segments already built.

4th place (or maybe 3rd or 2nd even) goes to US-290 West of Austin. The Austin area has about 2 million people. Over 900,000 live within Austin city limits. That's populous enough to justify an East-West Interstate corridor. I think Austin should have an Interstate extending due West that connects to I-10. Right now traffic heading West out of Austin has to travel a pretty crooked route.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 20, 2016, 09:08:15 PM
The current concept of I-14 is a crooked, porky route. I see very little justification for it. There's even less justification when factoring in all the I-69 related projects in Texas as well as possible upgrades/extensions of I-2 and what all that will cost. At best, I could see an Interstate quality extension of US-190 from Copperas Cove to Lampasas, but that's about it.

If you start to draw an East-West line between Huntsville and College Station the Western portion of that route points to Austin, not Temple and Killeen.

Quote from: Anthony_JK
Wouldn't upgrading US 290 from Houston to Austin work as well?

That's the 2-lane/4-lane route in Central Texas that's the most justified in upgrading to Interstate quality. Nothing else in that region comes close to the US-290 corridor between Houston and Austin. That should really be "I-14" or "I-12" or just an Interstate quality US-290.

Concur with that....I wouldn't mind making that a western I-12, and then extending it further west to meet I-10 near Junction.

Quote
2nd place goes to TX-6 from its junction in Hempstead with TX-6 up through College Station and then Northwest up to Waco. At the very least TX-6 should be Interstate quality from Hempstead to College Station. It's worth mentioning plans are in the works to extend the TX-249 tollway from Tomball on Houston's NW side up through Magnolia and then to Navasota. That would create an all-superhighway link between College Station and Houston.

I wonder if the ultimate plan for 249 would be to extend it all the way to Waco or incorporate TX 6?

Quote
3rd place goes to TX-74 between Austin and the TX-74 intersection with I-10 in Columbus, TX. That route is pretty much all four-lane with some limited access segments already built.

TX 71, not TX 74....but that could be upgraded with little difficulty, I'd think?

Quote
4th place (or maybe 3rd or 2nd even) goes to US-290 West of Austin. The Austin area has about 2 million people. Over 900,000 live within Austin city limits. That's populous enough to justify an East-West Interstate corridor. I think Austin should have an Interstate extending due West that connects to I-10. Right now traffic heading West out of Austin has to travel a pretty crooked route.

Concur on that, too. (See Point 1).
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: US 41 on January 20, 2016, 10:26:10 PM
It will be a long time before I-27 and I-14 meet in San Angelo (if they ever do). I'm surprised that there hasn't been any discussion yet of extending I-44 to San Angelo via Abilene. If both I-27 and I-2 are ever extended to Laredo maybe I-2 should be renumbered I-27. Why not make an I-6 from San Antonio to Eagle Pass as well (US 90, FM 481, US 57)? I read that there was going to be an interstate from Ft. Worth to Raton, NM, via Amarillo called I-32. I doubt it was true however, but I do like the idea.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 21, 2016, 06:19:49 PM
I think there has to be a bigger picture plan for I-27 in order to get it extended, something like a Denver to San Antonio corridor could help it along.

Regarding an I-44 extension, right now US-82 & 277 is getting converted from 2-lane to 4-lane between Wichita Falls and Abilene. Holliday, Seymour, Goree, Munday, Weinert, Haskell and Stamford all have new bypasses that are either Interstate quality or can be upgraded easily to it. Anson has a new 4 lane US-277 bypass in the works. With all the bypass stuff done it wouldn't take all that much to bring the rest of it up to Interstate standards if the powers that be really wanted to do so.

South of Abilene is a bigger question. Which corridor should be upgraded? US-277 or US-83 and US-67 going through Ballinger? Both are about the same distance and there's a lot of 2 lane road to upgrade. I'd be happy enough if I-44 connected to I-20 in Abilene. It think it's a much longer shot to get I-44 down to San Angelo. I think it would require I-27 going through there first.

Regarding "I-32" I definitely think US-287 ought to be upgraded to an Interstate facility from Amarillo to Fort Worth. There is a huge amount of truck traffic on that route. It's similar to US-69 in Eastern Oklahoma: a major trucking route that isn't an Interstate but probably should be for safety's sake. Going North from Amarillo is a tougher sell. I could see I-27 going North through Boise City, Lamar, Kit Carson and terminating at Limon for a Denver connection. "I-32" to Raton is a very long shot. I'm just happy that US-64/US-87 is finally 4-laned through there.

Quote from: Anthony_JK
I wonder if the ultimate plan for 249 would be to extend it all the way to Waco or incorporate TX 6?

It could be a long term goal. At the very least College Station needs an all limited access link to Houston. TX-249 is probably the best short term option. There is still a lot of traffic on TX-6 between Hempstead and Navasota. Lots of people on the western side of Houston's metro area are still going to take TX-6 to College Station even with a finished TX-249 toll road. They're not going to double back into Houston traffic just to get to the toll road.

Quote from: Anthony_JK
TX 71, not TX 74....but that could be upgraded with little difficulty, I'd think?

Whoops! I don't know why I goofed on that number.

It would not be too difficult to upgrade TX-71 between Columbus and Austin. It's already mostly limited access through the developed areas (Columbus, La Grange, Smithville, Bastrop). There are properties along the route that would have to be demolished to make room for a wider freeway though.

Lots of people would use US-290 between Houston and Austin, but a lot of people on Houston's west side use TX-71 instead to get to Austin for the same reasons TX-249 wouldn't pull all the traffic off TX-6. They're not going to double back through Houston. Little by little TX-71 will become an all limited access link between Houston and Austin.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on February 01, 2016, 03:26:13 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK
TX 71, not TX 74....but that could be upgraded with little difficulty, I'd think?

Whoops! I don't know why I goofed on that number.

It would not be too difficult to upgrade TX-71 between Columbus and Austin. It's already mostly limited access through the developed areas (Columbus, La Grange, Smithville, Bastrop). There are properties along the route that would have to be demolished to make room for a wider freeway though.

Lots of people would use US-290 between Houston and Austin, but a lot of people on Houston's west side use TX-71 instead to get to Austin for the same reasons TX-249 wouldn't pull all the traffic off TX-6. They're not going to double back through Houston. Little by little TX-71 will become an all limited access link between Houston and Austin.
[/quote]

Yes.  That's my proposed Interstate 18.  Using TX 71 from Columbus to Austin and US 290 from Austin to where 290 intersects Interstate 10 east of Junction.  It would serve both a interstate connection between Houston Austin and El Paso, and as a truck relief route for Interstate 10 through traffic.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Grzrd on February 24, 2016, 03:48:52 PM
... the 14th Amendment Highway legislation provided a major impetus for a TxDOT US 190/ I-10 Feasibility Study (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/us_190/final/summary_080212.pdf) (page 3/34 of pdf):
Quote
This study originated following the proposed interstate highway from Natchez, Mississippi to Augusta, Georgia, referred to as the 14th Amendment Highway, which was introduced into Federal congressional legislation in 2004. The study of the 14th Amendment Highway was eventually incorporated into the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005.
In addition, the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition was formed in 2001 to promote the need for improved access and connections to military installations along the US 190/I-10 corridor and regional highways that serve as deployment routes between the major army bases and designated ports along the Gulf Coast. These routes would be a continuation of the 14th Amendment Highway further west through Louisiana and Texas ... The primary route in Texas is the US 190/I-10 corridor which is the focus of this feasibility study.
This December 14 TV video (http://www.kvue.com/story/news/traffic/2015/12/14/new-interstate-14-could-boost-beltons-economy/77321080/) reports that a proposal exists to extend I-14 to Midland/ Odessa, which, in effect, would involve an "I-27 connector" from Brady to San Angelo (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2795406,-99.7949058,113672m/data=!3m1!1e3) (I-14N?), and then I-27's proposed route from San Angelo to Midland/ Odessa

This February 14 article (http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/local/updates-interstate-14-project-awaits-further-congressional-action-2b80541d-da89-1b2c-e053-0100007f6c-368798201.html) reports on the possibility of further congressional action to add U.S. 87/state Highway 158 to the I-14 Central Texas Corridor:

Quote
An updated map of Interstate 14 superimposed over existing roadways of Texas — including a potential route through San Angelo — was recently released by the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway System ....
Further congressional action will be needed to add U.S. 87/state Highway 158, which runs from Brady to Midland, to the I-14 Central Texas Corridor as a connection to I-20. Another potential segment is an alternate connection to I-10, extending from U.S. 190 west of Menard to Sonora.
The designated Central Texas Corridor would begin in West Texas and generally follow U.S. 190 through Killeen, Belton, Bryan-College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, Woodville and Jasper before terminating on state Highway 63 at the Sabine River.
Congress will ultimately decide whether I-14 will head west from U.S. 190 via I-20, through San Angelo and Midland, or via I-10, through Sonora.
The Texas Department of Transportation tries to maintain the existing footprint as much as possible, said Gary Bushell, consultant with the coalition.
"We want to cooperate with the wishes of local people," he said. "TxDOT wants to build roads where local people want roads, and we want to do the same thing." ....
A feasibility study of upgrading the U.S. 190 corridor prepared for the Texas Department of Transportation and completed in 2012 set the stage for designation of future Interstate 14 improvements by Congress. It recognized the benefits of a high-volume east-west highway that would serve a vast section of Texas between Interstate 20 and Interstate 10.

Here is a snip of a map from the article:

(http://i.imgur.com/BxuX5V1.png)
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: codyg1985 on February 25, 2016, 07:03:11 AM
To me an interstate to San Angelo would be a good idea.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Chris on February 25, 2016, 08:25:08 AM
http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html

Traffic volumes on much of the planned I-14 route west of Lampasas are really low. Even between Lampasas and Brady the traffic counts are under 2,000 vehicles a day for the most part. Not to mention west of Brady, where traffic volumes even dip under 1,000 vehicles per day, even dipping to 400 vehicles per day east of Eldorado. Traffic volumes between Brady and San Angelo don't reach 5,000 vehicles per day until you're almost in San Angelo.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on February 25, 2016, 09:23:44 AM
Where I-14 makes sense is as a bypass route around San Antonio and Houston.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Chris on February 25, 2016, 09:32:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 25, 2016, 09:39:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: wxfree on February 25, 2016, 02:47:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: NE2 on February 25, 2016, 04:03:08 PM
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: DNAguy on February 25, 2016, 05:14:17 PM
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
 :spin:  :crazy: X-( :pan: :rolleyes: :-o :confused: :wow: :colorful: :-D: :banghead: :hmmm: :awesomeface:
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2016, 03:28:04 PM
Quote from: codyg1985
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.

Quote from: jbnv
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.

Quote from: wxfree
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.

Quote from: DNAguy
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.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on February 26, 2016, 03:35:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Grzrd on March 28, 2016, 04:39:23 PM
This March 16 article (http://www.tdtnews.com/news/article_8946e7d0-ebf9-11e5-a1c9-03d87b5a40e9.html) 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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on March 28, 2016, 07:13:34 PM
Quote from: codyg1985
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.

Quote from: jbnv
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.

Quote from: wxfree
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.

Quote from: DNAguy
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.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on March 28, 2016, 09:07:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: silverback1065 on March 29, 2016, 09:09:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on March 29, 2016, 12:29:46 PM
This March 16 article (http://www.tdtnews.com/news/article_8946e7d0-ebf9-11e5-a1c9-03d87b5a40e9.html) 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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: wxfree on March 29, 2016, 01:48:54 PM
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 (https://goo.gl/maps/jmEb7JEF4wD2)
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2016, 03:49:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: NE2 on March 30, 2016, 01:57:07 AM
As for the western end, I'm open to suggestions.
http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=20.0
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on March 30, 2016, 02:38:30 PM
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 (https://goo.gl/maps/jmEb7JEF4wD2)

Thanks, I past by there once a week and never, never noticed that little driveway.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 30, 2016, 04:20:29 PM
Since it probably won't go any further west anytime soon, Fictional Highways is the best place to send it westward.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: silverback1065 on March 30, 2016, 07:30:12 PM
interstate overkill, does this really need to be an interstate?
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 30, 2016, 10:42:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: texaskdog on March 31, 2016, 12:13:31 PM
Looking at the Texas Trunk System (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/handouts/trunk.pdf) 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?
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on March 31, 2016, 12:35:59 PM
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. (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4385.0) Even the FHWA thinks it is ridiculous (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/section_1927/14th_amendment_highway/report_to_congress/).
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 01, 2016, 05:29:24 PM
Does that mean FHWA will disapprove giving the corridor the Interstate 14 designation?
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: NE2 on April 01, 2016, 07:20:40 PM
Does that mean FHWA will disapprove giving the corridor the Interstate 14 designation?
Does what?
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: rte66man on April 02, 2016, 07:32:47 PM
Looking at the Texas Trunk System (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/handouts/trunk.pdf) 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.....   :bigass:
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: texaskdog on April 11, 2016, 09:07:44 PM
http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html

Traffic volumes on much of the planned I-14 route west of Lampasas are really low. Even between Lampasas and Brady the traffic counts are under 2,000 vehicles a day for the most part. Not to mention west of Brady, where traffic volumes even dip under 1,000 vehicles per day, even dipping to 400 vehicles per day east of Eldorado. Traffic volumes between Brady and San Angelo don't reach 5,000 vehicles per day until you're almost in San Angelo.

Would be nice to have a freeway to drive on when we go west but really there is hardly any traffic out there.  But if we looked just at traffic I-10 would never have to have been built.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: texaskdog on April 11, 2016, 09:10:21 PM
Looking at the Texas Trunk System (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/handouts/trunk.pdf) 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.....   :bigass:


Amen, brother!
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 13, 2016, 11:37:23 AM
Like others in this thread, I'd like to see the rapidly-growing metropolis of Austin, TX to get its first east-west interstate, but it would probably make more sense following the US290 corridor, rather than US190.  That could be a good I-14.  Heck, TX-6 north from there to College Station can be a 3di of I-14 since a bunch of it is already a freeway.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on April 13, 2016, 12:49:24 PM
Like others in this thread, I'd like to see the rapidly-growing metropolis of Austin, TX to get its first east-west interstate, but it would probably make more sense following the US290 corridor, rather than US190.  That could be a good I-14.  Heck, TX-6 north from there to College Station can be a 3di of I-14 since a bunch of it is already a freeway.

The US 190 corridor through Texas is part of a multi-state I-14 corridor.  US 290 to Austin is more logically I-12.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 13, 2016, 03:50:35 PM
Does anyone believe that US 290 will also get an Interstate designation. I am somewhat skeptical. Personally, US 190 should be an I-X35 spur for starters, and should only become Interstate 14 if more of the freeway is designated and built to the east or the west.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: nolia_boi504 on April 13, 2016, 05:58:12 PM
Like others in this thread, I'd like to see the rapidly-growing metropolis of Austin, TX to get its first east-west interstate, but it would probably make more sense following the US290 corridor, rather than US190.  That could be a good I-14.  Heck, TX-6 north from there to College Station can be a 3di of I-14 since a bunch of it is already a freeway.

The US 190 corridor through Texas is part of a multi-state I-14 corridor.  US 290 to Austin is more logically I-12.
I-12 already exists in Louisiana so 190 cannot be signed the same unless I-12 cosigns I-10 west of Baton Rouge until it splits off again in Houston -- this doesn't make sense either. Personally I think the both TX and LA portions should be even numbered 3DI's as neither crosses state lines.

Nexus 5X
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 13, 2016, 06:48:57 PM
Like others in this thread, I'd like to see the rapidly-growing metropolis of Austin, TX to get its first east-west interstate, but it would probably make more sense following the US290 corridor, rather than US190.  That could be a good I-14.  Heck, TX-6 north from there to College Station can be a 3di of I-14 since a bunch of it is already a freeway.

The US 190 corridor through Texas is part of a multi-state I-14 corridor.  US 290 to Austin is more logically I-12.
My assumption was that we scrapped that idea, since it didn't really seem to get general appeal.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on April 14, 2016, 09:01:45 AM
I-12 already exists in Louisiana so 190 cannot be signed the same...

Which is why there is only one I-76, only one I-84, only one I-86, and only one I-88.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on April 14, 2016, 10:25:49 AM
Like others in this thread, I'd like to see the rapidly-growing metropolis of Austin, TX to get its first east-west interstate, but it would probably make more sense following the US290 corridor, rather than US190.  That could be a good I-14.  Heck, TX-6 north from there to College Station can be a 3di of I-14 since a bunch of it is already a freeway.

Good point, could see Tx6 down to 290 over to 610 being a 3 digit interstate too since that whole length is interstate quality.

Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Henry on April 14, 2016, 10:46:59 AM
Like others in this thread, I'd like to see the rapidly-growing metropolis of Austin, TX to get its first east-west interstate, but it would probably make more sense following the US290 corridor, rather than US190.  That could be a good I-14.  Heck, TX-6 north from there to College Station can be a 3di of I-14 since a bunch of it is already a freeway.

The US 190 corridor through Texas is part of a multi-state I-14 corridor.  US 290 to Austin is more logically I-12.
I-12 already exists in Louisiana so 190 cannot be signed the same unless I-12 cosigns I-10 west of Baton Rouge until it splits off again in Houston -- this doesn't make sense either. Personally I think the both TX and LA portions should be even numbered 3DI's as neither crosses state lines.

Nexus 5X

Try telling that to IN and OH, where I-80 and I-90 run together on the same road! And I already had the idea of making I-12 from Austin to Houston, with that I-10 concurrency in the middle, but yeah, these should be 3di's at most.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on April 14, 2016, 11:53:50 AM
There's no need to extend I-12 from Baton Rouge to Houston just to make US 290 part of it. The precedent for two separate interstates having the same 2DI has been established. If we can reuse 76, 84, 86 and 88, we can reuse 12.

Meanwhile, a proposal for a multistate Interstate 14 already exists, and US 190 in Bell County is part of it.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 14, 2016, 12:01:20 PM
There's no need to extend I-12 from Baton Rouge to Houston just to make US 290 part of it. The precedent for two separate interstates having the same 2DI has been established. If we can reuse 76, 84, 86 and 88, we can reuse 12.

Meanwhile, a proposal for a multistate Interstate 14 already exists, and US 190 in Bell County is part of it.

Now, if you upgraded US 190/LA 12/TX 12 from Vidor to BTR to Interstate standards, that could make an I-10/I-12 cosign from Houston to Vidor more palatable. Almost.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on April 14, 2016, 01:25:31 PM
Now, if you upgraded US 190/LA 12/TX 12 from Vidor to BTR to Interstate standards, that could make an I-10/I-12 cosign from Houston to Vidor more palatable. Almost.

That's not going to happen. There isn't enough traffic to justify it, and such an upgrade doesn't address the issues with that corridor.

Are there even plans for making TX 12 and LA 12 expressways? I heard talk about improving US 190 from Kinder to Eunice, but that's not all of 190.

The only way I can see 190/12/12 carrying an interstate designation is if the FHWA creates a class of highways that are considered part of the interstate system but aren't controlled-access expressways. Maybe with a black-and-white shield instead of the blue-and-red standard.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 14, 2016, 04:21:33 PM
Quote from: jbnv
The US 190 corridor through Texas is part of a multi-state I-14 corridor.

It's a multi-state corridor that connects no major destinations. A combination of 2-lane and 4-lane divided roads with at grade crossings would serve that corridor just fine. An Interstate highway through there is overkill. Plus the proposed Interstate follows a jagged, crooked, time wasting and distance wasting path. There's little efficiency for it to benefit long distance traffic.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster
Does anyone believe that US 290 will also get an Interstate designation. I am somewhat skeptical. Personally, US 190 should be an I-X35 spur for starters, and should only become Interstate 14 if more of the freeway is designated and built to the east or the west.

US-290 between Houston and Austin is a far more busy corridor than US-190. It's busy enough to justify being a full blown Interstate bearing a 2-digit designation like I-14. It's far more justifiable than the nonsensical, pork barrel proposal to the North. The road going into Killeen just needs to be a 3-digit I-35 spur, that's all. Metro Austin has around 2 million people and more than 900,000 live within Austin City Limits. More than 6 million people live in the Houston MSA, with over 2 million living within Houston city limits. US-290 is the primary, direct connection for both these cities.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on April 14, 2016, 09:41:41 PM
Quote from: jbnv
The US 190 corridor through Texas is part of a multi-state I-14 corridor.

It's a multi-state corridor that connects no major destinations. [1] A combination of 2-lane and 4-lane divided roads with at grade crossings would serve that corridor just fine. An Interstate highway through there is overkill. Plus the proposed Interstate follows a jagged, crooked, time wasting and distance wasting path. There's little efficiency for it to benefit long distance traffic. [2]

[1] So?

[2] US 190 is jagged and crooked. Doesn't mean that the interstate that will follow it will follow the existing route to a T.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2016, 05:04:11 PM
I reverse my skepticism on 290. Interstate 14 (if it goes further than what's proposed in Texas) should follow US 290 to Houston. Then maybe it should follow the US 90 Crosby Freeway out of Houston. I know this is Fictional Highways City, but it would be a legitimate Interstate Route IMHO.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: SquonkHunter on April 16, 2016, 03:12:19 PM
US-290 between Houston and Austin is a far more busy corridor than US-190. It's busy enough to justify being a full blown Interstate bearing a 2-digit designation like I-14. It's far more justifiable than the nonsensical, pork barrel proposal to the North. The road going into Killeen just needs to be a 3-digit I-35 spur, that's all. Metro Austin has around 2 million people and more than 900,000 live within Austin City Limits. More than 6 million people live in the Houston MSA, with over 2 million living within Houston city limits. US-290 is the primary, direct connection for both these cities.

I live not far off US-290 a ways east of Austin and travel it every day into Austin as part of my commute to work. Once you get east of Elgin, the roadway reverts to the old undivided, four 11-foot wide lanes with NO shoulders and the traffic volume and high speed makes for extremely deadly conditions, especially on weekends. Just last week there was yet another multiple fatality wreck near McDade. I could not count how many have died along the Elgin to Giddings section of US-290 in the 15+ years I have lived here. It is the last remaining stretch from Austin to Houston that is not at least a 4 lane divided highway if not a true controlled access freeway or tollway. An interstate designation would be reasonable but not absolutely necessary. What IS necessary is completion of the Elgin-Giddings gap ASAP. It really should have been done 20 years ago as the traffic count was high even back then.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 21, 2016, 01:40:02 AM
Regardless of wherever this silly "I-14" thing in Texas gets built (if it ever gets built), US-290 between Houston and Austin will be an extremely far more important corridor. That's really where "I-14" needs to be placed. This nonsense about a highway linking Killeen, TX to Alexandria, LA and maybe even going to Macon, GA is just a stupid waste of money. Such a route will never generate the traffic counts to justify it. It wouldn't even work as a proper relief route for I-20. That's the only stretch of the imagination I can see to make any sense of it. But long distance personal vehicle and commercial vehicle traffic going through Texas and the Deep South would more likely stick to I-20 and the more interesting and business-doing destinations along its path.

Quote from: jbnv
[1] So?

So let's waste billions of dollars on an Interstate highway in a corridor where there is absolutely zero justification for an Interstate highway?

Quote from: jbnv
[2] US 190 is jagged and crooked. Doesn't mean that the interstate that will follow it will follow the existing route to a T.

The illustrations from this pork barrel, vanity route show a very jagged, stupid, wasteful, totally not direct and not really going anywhere route. If there was any way to show it taking a more direct, efficient path I would have figured such a path would show up on these early illustrations and only get more and more jagged as court challenges progressed. This porky, jagged version of I-14 hasn't even gone to court yet and it's already jagged as hell. For all I know the final route will be doing loop-dee-loops back over on itself!
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on April 21, 2016, 10:21:46 AM
Dude. Chill.

Who said that any plans have actually been made to build the complete I-14 route? What money has been dedicated to it?

I'm certain that Texas is more interested in upgrading US 290 than in building I-14. The need is obvious.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on April 21, 2016, 10:24:13 AM
US-290 between Houston and Austin is a far more busy corridor than US-190. It's busy enough to justify being a full blown Interstate bearing a 2-digit designation like I-14. It's far more justifiable than the nonsensical, pork barrel proposal to the North. The road going into Killeen just needs to be a 3-digit I-35 spur, that's all. Metro Austin has around 2 million people and more than 900,000 live within Austin City Limits. More than 6 million people live in the Houston MSA, with over 2 million living within Houston city limits. US-290 is the primary, direct connection for both these cities.

I live not far off US-290 a ways east of Austin and travel it every day into Austin as part of my commute to work. Once you get east of Elgin, the roadway reverts to the old undivided, four 11-foot wide lanes with NO shoulders and the traffic volume and high speed makes for extremely deadly conditions, especially on weekends. Just last week there was yet another multiple fatality wreck near McDade. I could not count how many have died along the Elgin to Giddings section of US-290 in the 15+ years I have lived here. It is the last remaining stretch from Austin to Houston that is not at least a 4 lane divided highway if not a true controlled access freeway or tollway. An interstate designation would be reasonable but not absolutely necessary. What IS necessary is completion of the Elgin-Giddings gap ASAP. It really should have been done 20 years ago as the traffic count was high even back then.

That stretch on 290 is dangerous, why TxDot has not even come with concepts to fix or replace that part of 290 is strange. Maybe they see 71 as the main route Austinites use to get to Houston.

The 195 project is done between Killeen and Georgetown, its now four land divided highway and interstate grade around Florence. Before this, it was a crooked two lane road that so dangerous Ft Hood troops were forbidden by the base commander to be use it. TxDot pushed that project through, they should also do the same for that stretch on 290.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on April 21, 2016, 10:39:03 AM
That stretch on 290 is dangerous, why TxDot has not even come with concepts to fix or replace that part of 290 is strange. Maybe they see 71 as the main route Austinites use to get to Houston.

Perhaps something political is in play. I'd look at the counties and communities along the route, who's the chief executive of those communities, and the Congressmen and state senators/representatives. If those people can't give you a good reason for the lack of development, you can suspect something funny is going on.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: wxfree on April 21, 2016, 04:59:35 PM
They officially want to do this.

6. Transportation Planning
Bell and Coryell Counties - Authorize the submission of an application to the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to establish a 25-mile segment of US 190 as I-14 (MO)
In accordance with the procedures established by the Federal Highway Administration and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), this minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a segment of US 190 from the US 190/Business 190 junction in Copperas Cove to I-35 in Belton, Texas as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-14.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2016/0428/agenda.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2016/0428/agenda.pdf)
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on April 21, 2016, 06:08:21 PM
It's entirely possible that TxDOT has considered getting an I-12 designation for US 290. Maybe they are using the I-14 application as a test for applying for I-12.

Like it or not, they're sold on US 190 becoming I-14.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 21, 2016, 06:35:05 PM
They officially want to do this.

6. Transportation Planning
Bell and Coryell Counties - Authorize the submission of an application to the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to establish a 25-mile segment of US 190 as I-14 (MO)
In accordance with the procedures established by the Federal Highway Administration and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), this minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a segment of US 190 from the US 190/Business 190 junction in Copperas Cove to I-35 in Belton, Texas as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-14.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2016/0428/agenda.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2016/0428/agenda.pdf)

Dumb.  Even overlooking the idiotic choice in numbering (there's already an I-12!!), 25 miles just ain't enough.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: noelbotevera on April 21, 2016, 07:02:41 PM
They officially want to do this.

6. Transportation Planning
Bell and Coryell Counties - Authorize the submission of an application to the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to establish a 25-mile segment of US 190 as I-14 (MO)
In accordance with the procedures established by the Federal Highway Administration and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), this minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a segment of US 190 from the US 190/Business 190 junction in Copperas Cove to I-35 in Belton, Texas as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-14.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2016/0428/agenda.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2016/0428/agenda.pdf)

Dumb.  Even overlooking the idiotic choice in numbering (there's already an I-12!!), 25 miles just ain't enough.
What about I-2, with its amazing 47 miles in length?
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 22, 2016, 12:21:12 AM
Quote from: jbnv
Who said that any plans have actually been made to build the complete I-14 route? What money has been dedicated to it?

Just going by what has been posted in this forum regarding the topic it looks like certain well connected elites are pretty serious about converting this very porky, very wasteful, very unjustified "I-14" highway into a reality.

And, yes I agree 100%, Texas has many far more important super-highway priorities than this silly "I-14" concept. I have no problem calling it "I-135" or some other I-x35 variant. No problem at all. But it's crazy suggesting that sparse corridor as I-14.

US-290 between Houston and Austin is the most urgently needed new super-highway corridor. There just is no contest on this. I don't care if they call it I-14, I-12, I-10N or even keep it as US-290. But that corridor needs to be Interstate quality the entire way between Houston and Austin. That's the top long distance traffic priority for Central Texas.

Next one is Waco to Houston via College Station. Again, this "I-14" idea doesn't really come into play. TX-6 is a fairly high traffic corridor. It needs to be upgraded between Waco and College Station. Going farther South is a judgment call since plans call for the TX-249 toll road in NW Houston to be extended up to Navasota and the TX-6 corridor. That might forego upgrading TX-6 to freeway standards all the way down to the US-290 interchange at Hempstead.

Then there's all the I-69 related highway projects in East Texas and South Texas. A lot of projects.

And then there's other corridors in Texas that have been targeted for freeway style upgrades but never got them.

US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo is one of the most obvious. That is one very heavy trafficked corridor, one screaming for Interstate level upgrade. The "I-32" moniker has been suggested for that route. US-287 is only being improved in tiny segments. The latest development seems to be around Decatur, TX. It will be something if an Interstate level upgrade can actually happen through Decatur. US-287 has a lot of other segments with very wide ROW which would allow freeway level upgrades.

The Ports to Plains Corridor pretty much suggests I-27 be extended both North into Colorado and South down into South Texas. Establishing a Denver/Front Range Cities to Gulf Coast Interstate highway corridor would be a lot more worthwhile than some I-14 stupidity between Killeen and Alexandria, LA.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 22, 2016, 05:08:33 PM
I think Interstate 135 would be a far better number for this corridor than Interstate 14. Unless they upgrade US 290 to Interstate Standards from Austin to Houston, then duplex 14 with 35 for 53 miles from Austin to Belton.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 23, 2016, 12:33:14 PM

The Ports to Plains Corridor pretty much suggests I-27 be extended both North into Colorado and South down into South Texas. Establishing a Denver/Front Range Cities to Gulf Coast Interstate highway corridor would be a lot more worthwhile than some I-14 stupidity between Killeen and Alexandria, LA.

From the Louisiana perspective, I concur 120% on the boondoggleness of I-14. A 4-lane divided highway corridor should suffice for now. LA 28 is already 4 lanes from Leesville to Alexandria, and is being planned around the city through the Alexandria Beltway as a 4-lane arterial.

How exactly would you build I-14 through Alexandria, anyway? A bypass near the former England AFB with a new bridge across the Red River to Colfax? Through existing I-49 and the Pineville Expressway?? An upgraded MacArthur Drive via the new Fort Buhlow Bridge, then upgrading US 165?

Then you would have to upgrade LA 28 east of Pineville to Archie, then US 84 from there to Ferriday/Vidalia, then cross the Mississippi River to Natchez to upgrade US 84 there to US 61. Really??

Just keep it a freewayized US 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton and call it a day.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: wxfree on April 25, 2016, 04:15:58 PM
There's nothing very interesting in it, but here's the minute order that will be submitted for approval Thursday.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2016/0428/6.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2016/0428/6.pdf)
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 26, 2016, 12:49:57 AM
I hope the order gets denied.

There's no justification for I-14 to be named along this route. The traffic counts aren't there along this corridor. Texas has too many other priorities in the state. I think there's a better chance of The Great River Bridge getting built before the end of the decade along with Mississippi's portion of I-69 than this conceptual, would-be pork-laden I-14 route getting anywhere.

It's already pretty ridiculous that we have various disconnected, nonsensical, short Interstate routes like I-97 or little disconnected parts of I-73 and I-74 in North Carolina. This is congressional ego run amok. I wish the AASHTO had the ability to put their foot down and block this political silliness. It's going to end up costing taxpayers a fortune for roads that go hardly anywhere while more important corridors go neglected.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on April 26, 2016, 08:53:03 AM
All this whining and crying about the I-14 corridor is boring. Bobby5280, your last three posts basically said the same thing. We get it that you hate this idea. You're not adding anything to the discussion.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 26, 2016, 03:24:45 PM
What I have yet to see added to this discussion is any credible explanation why that corridor is worthy of being labeled "I-14," much less developed into Interstate quality any farther. It's a waste of an Interstate designation and threatens to be a giant waste of taxpayer money.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 26, 2016, 03:57:11 PM
Wasting taxpayer money seems to be what politicians like to do the most.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: lordsutch on April 26, 2016, 04:04:13 PM
1. I'm not certain that Interstate designations are a finite resource that we need to worry about conserving, except maybe in the edge case of 3di numbers for I-80 in California. Certainly if another I-14 is eventually needed further east, "western" I-14 won't be particularly problematic.

2. It may be the case in this instance that building the route to Interstate standards now, in the long run, is cheaper than building a rural expressway and then spot-upgrading over time.

3. That said I'd place a higher priority on the TX 71 or US 280 corridor to Austin and westward connectivity for Bryan/College Station. But I'd imagine TxDOT is much more likely to find private investors to foot the bill for a TX 71/US 280 upgrade or connections between Austin or Waco and College Station. If the revenue projections don't pan out, TxDOT gets a free or heavily discounted new-build highway if they are smart in how they structure the deal. The smart play is to use public money for the routes that don't have as strong of a private investment case, like I-14.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 27, 2016, 01:01:27 AM
290, not 280.


I'd think that the SH 249 toll road extension to Navasota would pretty much cover upgrading 290 at least there, wouldn't it? 71 wouldn't need much of an push to upgrade, since it's already expressway standard with freeway portions; and there's only one gap on 290 that would need to be filled?
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: english si on April 27, 2016, 03:14:43 AM
What I have yet to see added to this discussion is any credible explanation why that corridor is worthy of being labeled "I-14,"
You live in a democracy, not a bureaucracy, and elected politicians have voted to give that number to this corridor.

If you want to be ruled by so-called experts rather than have government of by and for the people, come move over here to the EU.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on April 27, 2016, 08:12:16 AM
You live in a democracy, not a bureaucracy, and elected politicians have voted to give that number to this corridor.

Actually, it's a representative republic, but your point still holds.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on April 27, 2016, 09:50:27 AM
To get pack on topic, I-14 signs may start appearing at the end of summer, but I thinking this fall.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Alex on April 28, 2016, 08:08:48 AM
An updated on IH 14 from Jeff:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-south/screen_shot_2016-04-25.jpg)
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: english si on April 28, 2016, 10:31:23 AM
The deadline for applications was last Monday (18th), so I would doubt they will get it in this time and will have to wait until the fall to apply.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Henry on April 28, 2016, 10:45:22 AM
Only in TX could they get away with signing I-2 and I-14 on short sections of highway that would be 3di's in most other states! We know that I-2 may eventually extend to Laredo, but are there any long-term plans for I-14, like connecting to LA or MS where the original corridor would be established?
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on April 28, 2016, 10:51:05 AM
[A]re there any long-term plans for I-14, like connecting to LA or MS where the original corridor would be established?

I'm not aware of any actual plans to build I-14 across Louisiana or Mississippi. It's certainly not a high priority for Louisiana.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: silverback1065 on April 28, 2016, 11:03:07 AM
[A]re there any long-term plans for I-14, like connecting to LA or MS where the original corridor would be established?

I'm not aware of any actual plans to build I-14 across Louisiana or Mississippi. It's certainly not a high priority for Louisiana.

it's the idea, i highly doubt it will ever happen though.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on April 28, 2016, 11:16:48 AM
[A]re there any long-term plans for I-14, like connecting to LA or MS where the original corridor would be established?

I'm not aware of any actual plans to build I-14 across Louisiana or Mississippi. It's certainly not a high priority for Louisiana.

it's the idea, i highly doubt it will ever happen though.

Somebody thought it was a good idea to build a new interstate from Indianapolis to the Rio Grande Valley, and others thought it was crazy. Yet here we are and its happening.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: NE2 on April 28, 2016, 11:42:29 AM
People can't read worth shit. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interstate_14&diff=716498520&oldid=713592231)
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 28, 2016, 01:38:39 PM
Quote from: english_si
You live in a democracy, not a bureaucracy, and elected politicians have voted to give that number to this corridor.

The numbering of a highway system should not be open to meddling by ego-driven politicians. The numbering assignment, approval, etc. should indeed be left in the hands of traffic engineers rather than some jack-ass trying to shift a bunch of wasteful pork barrel spending into his district.

Quote from: jbnv
Somebody thought it was a good idea to build a new interstate from Indianapolis to the Rio Grande Valley, and others thought it was crazy. Yet here we are and its happening.

Only parts of that one (I-69) are happening. We might all be dead and buried before it ever gets finished. The sections of I-69 that are actually getting built in Indiana, Kentucky and Arkansas are following very crooked, distance wasting paths. Who knows when, if ever, Mississippi will build its section? Same goes for the Great River Bridge crossing. Seems like a very distant pipe dream to me. Texas is the only state building parts of I-69 that are worth a damn. By the time I-69 ever gets completed, traffic coming from Mexico headed to the Northeast US will leave that twisty I-69 corridor for other far straighter, more direct Interstate routes before they leave Texas.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: mrose on May 12, 2016, 02:17:44 AM
1. I'm not certain that Interstate designations are a finite resource that we need to worry about conserving, except maybe in the edge case of 3di numbers for I-80 in California. Certainly if another I-14 is eventually needed further east, "western" I-14 won't be particularly problematic.

2. It may be the case in this instance that building the route to Interstate standards now, in the long run, is cheaper than building a rural expressway and then spot-upgrading over time.

3. That said I'd place a higher priority on the TX 71 or US 280 corridor to Austin and westward connectivity for Bryan/College Station. But I'd imagine TxDOT is much more likely to find private investors to foot the bill for a TX 71/US 280 upgrade or connections between Austin or Waco and College Station. If the revenue projections don't pan out, TxDOT gets a free or heavily discounted new-build highway if they are smart in how they structure the deal. The smart play is to use public money for the routes that don't have as strong of a private investment case, like I-14.

Agreed. It seems silly for any new E/W interstate in Texas not to include Austin.... for a city of its size, Austin has always seemed extremely underserved.

I've had a theoretical I-14 from Austin to Houston on my fictional maps for years and years.... it always made sense. Maybe the US 190 corridor is a useful one at some point, but it doesn't seem nearly as necessary as this one.



Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: texaskdog on May 12, 2016, 07:51:51 AM
I would put the freeway along TX 71 instead of 290, then it can be extended westward as well back to I-10...someday....once traffic increases.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 12, 2016, 11:48:28 AM
The rapid population growth in the Austin and Houston metro areas makes it pretty likely TX-71 and US-290 will both need to be upgraded to Interstate quality standards between I-35 and I-10. Both routes already have significant stretches of limited access freeway.

I think Austin is more than big enough a destination to justify its own East-West freeway going out West to meet I-10 (at Exit 477). US-290 could be upgraded from that point to near Fredericksburg. But from there to Johnson City and the final stretch to Austin a good amount of new terrain route might have to be built due to development next to the existing US-290 corridor. Meanwhile TX-DOT has been slowly pushing the US-290 freeway farther West out of Austin. That should improve the possibility quite a bit.

Meanwhile, if that 25 mile stretch of US-190 gets labeled at "I-14" it's pretty much going to stay stuck at that length for a very many years. At best, 5 miles could be added by getting the road fully upgraded to the edge of Copperas Cove. Texas just has way too many other road building priorities elsewhere.

2di Interstate designations on short Interstate stubs can be confusing to drivers. We're all accustomed to short Interstates having 3 digit labels. A 1 or 2 digit route is normally meant to travel a long distance, not a measly 30 miles.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on May 13, 2016, 11:48:31 AM
If the AUS-HOU corridor was such a high priority, one would think the representatives and senators representing these districts would make a push for Fed money to get it going. Looking at the progress of I-35 going through downtown Austin, for some reason roads are not a high priority.

I-14 did not happen in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 13, 2016, 01:32:01 PM
Quote from: Longhorn
If the AUS-HOU corridor was such a high priority, one would think the representatives and senators representing these districts would make a push for Fed money to get it going. Looking at the progress of I-35 going through downtown Austin, for some reason roads are not a high priority.

Politicians in that area are probably taking it for granted both US-290 and TX-71 will be upgraded to freeways for the entire length between I-10 and I-35. On the other hand the political wrangling around this stupid I-14 idea is having to take place simply because the idea is just so stupid.

Regarding I-35 in downtown Austin, that's just one project and it's the most difficult highway to upgrade in that area. Plenty of other freeways/tollways have been built there in the past 20 or so years and other upgrade projects are in progress or planned. They're just building out the projects that are more practical to build and putting off I-35 in downtown until they can get to it.

Quote from: Longhorn
I-14 did not happen in a vacuum.

No, not a vacuum. More like an environment of wasteful, pork-barrel, political cronyism. This I-14 proposal in Texas has absolutely nothing to do with responding to the needs of moving traffic and trends of traffic growth. The traffic counts are just not there to support it. Texas has at least half or dozen or more other corridors far more worthy of upgrading than this one.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on May 17, 2016, 11:02:10 AM
Quote from: Longhorn
I-14 did not happen in a vacuum.

No, not a vacuum. More like an environment of wasteful, pork-barrel, political cronyism. This I-14 proposal in Texas has absolutely nothing to do with responding to the needs of moving traffic and trends of traffic growth. The traffic counts are just not there to support it. Texas has at least half or dozen or more other corridors far more worthy of upgrading than this one.
[/quote]

You clearly don't get it.

Read this (http://babin.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=549).

Fort Hood is the largest military facility in Texas. Fort Hood not only sits right on the I-14 corridor but is a big part of the justification for I-14.

Texas wants a highway that connects Fort Hood to Fort Polk, other bases in the south and ultimately the Atlantic Ocean at Savannah. They want this highway to facilitate military deployment across the Southeast, and to improve connections between the ports of the Gulf Coast and these military facilities.

Why would Texas want a highway to facilitate military deployment across the Southeast? And want it enough to get Congress to designate a corridor for it?

Think about it...
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 17, 2016, 01:33:36 PM
Quote from: jbnv
You clearly don't get it.

Oh yes I do get it. The I-14 idea is still stupid. And trying to attach any strategic military use to it makes it even more stupid. The old fart politicians pushing this pork are wrongly using the military as a means for selling this project.

Despite the original name of the Interstate Highway system (the word "defense" was in there), such highways aren't very necessary for moving military hardware. I live next door to Fort Sill, home of the Army's Field Artillery School, Air Defense Artillery School, Army Basic training, etc. The Army moves a lot more heavy equipment in and out of the post using railroads and air cargo flights than they do putting anything on I-44. The same thing applies even more to Fort Hood. That post has an even bigger rail head and airport than Fort Sill, due to being home to the First Armored Division and First Cavalry Division. Another example is the Marine Corps' Repair Division on their base in Albany, GA. There's no Interstate highway there, yet they have everything from Humvees to M-1 Abrams tanks going in and out of their huge repair and maintenance facility (via rail mostly) on a routine basis. The railroads are more efficient than using highways for hauling really big loads of equipment. Air cargo flights deploy military hardware far faster than trying to truck it along a freeway.

If having these posts connected by Interstate highway was so important why hasn't an Interstate been built to connect Lawton and Killeen? There is a shit-ton of military activity going back and forth between Fort Hood and Fort Sill. Why isn't Lawton and Altus connected by an Interstate? It's just 50 miles between Fort Sill and Altus Air Force Base? The answer is such a highway is not needed -at least not for moving military hardware.

As for this strategic notion of being able to deploy US military units across a corridor in the Deep South, there's big problems with that idea. First you have the Posse Comitatus Act. It greatly restricts military movement within the country and explicitly forbids any administration to use our military to enforce domestic policy on our citizens. The only way how our military could be legally deployed into action within our borders was in case of an invasion. Such a scenario is highly unlikely. Any attempted invasion would run into many huge problems.

One of the original strategic uses meant for the Interstate highway system was rapid deployment of mobile nuclear missile launchers on heavy trucks. Those don't have the inter-continental range of a silo-based ICBM. There aren't any countries in our hemisphere we're tempted to nuke. So it's basically an outdated, cold war era idea. Most of our short-range, strategic nukes are deployed on ships, submarines and bombers. Our military has actually decommissioned thousands of nukes because they're not really needed.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: aboges26 on May 17, 2016, 10:40:53 PM
Quote from: jbnv
You clearly don't get it.

Oh yes I do get it. The I-14 idea is still stupid. And trying to attach any strategic military use to it makes it even more stupid. The old fart politicians pushing this pork are wrongly using the military as a means for selling this project.

Despite the original name of the Interstate Highway system (the word "defense" was in there), such highways aren't very necessary for moving military hardware. I live next door to Fort Sill, home of the Army's Field Artillery School, Air Defense Artillery School, Army Basic training, etc. The Army moves a lot more heavy equipment in and out of the post using railroads and air cargo flights than they do putting anything on I-44. The same thing applies even more to Fort Hood. That post has an even bigger rail head and airport than Fort Sill, due to being home to the First Armored Division and First Cavalry Division. Another example is the Marine Corps' Repair Division on their base in Albany, GA. There's no Interstate highway there, yet they have everything from Humvees to M-1 Abrams tanks going in and out of their huge repair and maintenance facility (via rail mostly) on a routine basis. The railroads are more efficient than using highways for hauling really big loads of equipment. Air cargo flights deploy military hardware far faster than trying to truck it along a freeway.

If having these posts connected by Interstate highway was so important why hasn't an Interstate been built to connect Lawton and Killeen? There is a shit-ton of military activity going back and forth between Fort Hood and Fort Sill. Why isn't Lawton and Altus connected by an Interstate? It's just 50 miles between Fort Sill and Altus Air Force Base? The answer is such a highway is not needed -at least not for moving military hardware.

As for this strategic notion of being able to deploy US military units across a corridor in the Deep South, there's big problems with that idea. First you have the Posse Comitatus Act. It greatly restricts military movement within the country and explicitly forbids any administration to use our military to enforce domestic policy on our citizens. The only way how our military could be legally deployed into action within our borders was in case of an invasion. Such a scenario is highly unlikely. Any attempted invasion would run into many huge problems.

One of the original strategic uses meant for the Interstate highway system was rapid deployment of mobile nuclear missile launchers on heavy trucks. Those don't have the inter-continental range of a silo-based ICBM. There aren't any countries in our hemisphere we're tempted to nuke. So it's basically an outdated, cold war era idea. Most of our short-range, strategic nukes are deployed on ships, submarines and bombers. Our military has actually decommissioned thousands of nukes because they're not really needed.

More so than rail, SHIPPING is the cheapest option.  The port of Beaumont is the busiest port handling US Military equipment.  Trucking things is sometimes more ideal than rail, and when it is, you are going to want to avoid Houston, Austin, San Antonio, etc.  The ease of passing through no large cities and having a clear route across the deep south that connects our Forts and Ports is what most civilians are missing.

I am going to hold my judgement until the experts, not the armchair roadgeeks and self-proclaimed "experts", say whether this is a good idea or not.  No crap our country's in debt up to its eyeballs, but I sure hate driving through Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, even Jackson and Birmingham.  I-14 would no doubt induce demand from long distance truckers and travelers alone, not to mention would be built on new terrain corridors that are NOT as crooked as US 190.

It's idiotic to ASS-UME that the interstate would follow every twist and turn of the US Highway that it is to replace.  It would be most cost effective to build straight-line wherever possible while still connecting the major points, so there is no need to proclaim that it is going to be crooked, because are you a DOT official working on the project?  Or are you assuming?

This interstate will not be built in the next 10 years and it is not going to be what breaks the bank (healthcare, social security, and CIVIL SERVANT SALARIES AND BENEFITS are sure more than an interstate ever could be).  If anyone has had to travel across central Texas at night, in the rain, worring about deer, hogs, or exotics crossing the roadway in front of you, then you would wish for the safety of an interstate highway to travel on.  When considering only current traffic counts you lose sight of the increased safety and mobility that your tax dollars would be funding.

Instead of griping over government "waste" on improved transportation, how about gripe over governmental overreach and debt in every other aspect of our lives (I would list some, but I digress).  If you have so much passion against I-14, then have passion against every other thing that taxpayer money goes towards, and instead of patting yourself on the back after posting something on the internet, how about you get involved in your community by starting an organized protest or something that is more constructive than complaining where road-interested individuals are just trying to find out the latest information on the current high profile projects.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: TXtoNJ on May 18, 2016, 08:37:18 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of the impetus for this highway is to get an interstate through Bryan/College Station, since Austin has one.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on May 18, 2016, 11:44:26 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of the impetus for this highway is to get an interstate through Bryan/College Station, since Austin has one.

Having a divided highway from Temple to Cameron to Hearne will allow Central Texas traffic to Houston a safer route. I too do not think it will follow the crooked 190 route to Hearne.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 12:00:57 PM
It's not going to follow the crooked US 190 route. The terrain is reasonably flat in that part of Texas.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 18, 2016, 03:28:26 PM
If this thread goes on much longer, our heads are probably going to explode.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: NE2 on May 18, 2016, 09:40:18 PM
If this thread goes on much longer, our heads are probably going to explode.
Then why do you keep it going with inane posts?
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2016, 10:23:07 PM
Quote from: aboges26
More so than rail, SHIPPING is the cheapest option.

Killeen and Fort Hood aren't near a shipping port.

Quote from: aboges26
The port of Beaumont is the busiest port handling US Military equipment.  Trucking things is sometimes more ideal than rail, and when it is, you are going to want to avoid Houston, Austin, San Antonio, etc.  The ease of passing through no large cities and having a clear route across the deep south that connects our Forts and Ports is what most civilians are missing.

Not much military equipment is suitable for moving from one post to another via truck. Trucking also works best for smaller loads going to a variety of places. Trucking also has a disadvantage in that a semi truck isn't as secure as a freight train. A truck or a ship isn't going to be as fast as a cargo plane when certain pieces of heavy military equipment need to be transported from the US to a foreign combat zone fast.

Quote from: aboges26
It's idiotic to ASS-UME that the interstate would follow every twist and turn of the US Highway that it is to replace.

Look at I-69. That's a freaking crooked, inefficient road. Look at the huge swing the Belle Vista Bypass is curving far away from US-71.

The United States can't seem to build a super highway fairly direct anymore. New highway paths are affected by NIMBY lawsuits, high property costs, environmental hurdles and politics. And this I-14 thing is all to do about politics. Various communities will demand the road go this way or that. So, while I-14 may not follow its proposed and very crooked path exactly, the route (if it's ever built) will definitely be a pretty crooked road.

Quote from: aboges26
This interstate will not be built in the next 10 years and it is not going to be what breaks the bank (healthcare, social security, and CIVIL SERVANT SALARIES AND BENEFITS are sure more than an interstate ever could be).  If anyone has had to travel across central Texas at night, in the rain, worring about deer, hogs, or exotics crossing the roadway in front of you, then you would wish for the safety of an interstate highway to travel on.  When considering only current traffic counts you lose sight of the increased safety and mobility that your tax dollars would be funding.

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia all have other important road projects that are a much higher priority than this I-14 crap.

Quote from: aboges26
Instead of griping over government "waste" on improved transportation, how about gripe over governmental overreach and debt in every other aspect of our lives (I would list some, but I digress).  If you have so much passion against I-14, then have passion against every other thing that taxpayer money goes towards, and instead of patting yourself on the back after posting something on the internet, how about you get involved in your community by starting an organized protest or something that is more constructive than complaining where road-interested individuals are just trying to find out the latest information on the current high profile projects.

That crap is irrelevant. We're talking about highway development projects. Not trying to put all the Democrats in prison, eliminate world hunger or any other topics. There's plenty of things eating up Federal and State budgets, leaving only so much for infrastructure projects like highways. If anything that makes the I-14 thing look even more wasteful.

Quote from: TXtoNJ
I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of the impetus for this highway is to get an interstate through Bryan/College Station, since Austin has one.

College Station is going to get connected to Houston's superhighway network by way of the TX-249 turnpike extension from Tomball to Navasota. From there one could make a better case of upgrading TX-6 to Interstate standards up to Waco than building the I-14 proposal.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: TXtoNJ on May 19, 2016, 07:35:37 AM
College Station is going to get connected to Houston's superhighway network by way of the TX-249 turnpike extension from Tomball to Navasota. From there one could make a better case of upgrading TX-6 to Interstate standards up to Waco than building the I-14 proposal.

My point is that Aggies want a full-blown interstate, darn it!
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: aboges26 on May 19, 2016, 09:38:47 PM
For those who are confused about why interstates are still relevant to the military as much as travelers, and why on earth interstates are the best thing for last minute shipment needs, please consult the following link that contains actual experts' knowledge.

http://babin.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=549 (http://babin.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=549)

Quote
Why is I-14 so important to military deployment?

The Army is heavily dependent upon commercial railroad transportation to move equipment, and I-14 is needed in part because of added stress on the railroads caused by the shale oil boom, Bushell said.

“Having to provide capacity for all the oil moving across the country, the railroads are busy,” he said. “They need alternatives and they may need (them) at short notice.”

This stress coupled with an increase in deployment training activity creates a need for the ability to move convoys by road versus rail, Bushell said.

And approving funding to improve transportation routes needed for U.S. military deployment should be a no-brainer.

"The Department of Defense relies on a robust system of rail, highway, air and
seaports to enable our deployment and redeployment to and from the United
States in order to achieve our national strategic objectives abroad,” said Lt. Col. Brad Bane, commander of the 842nd Transportation Battalion, which operates out of the Port of Beaumont. “Any improvements to our infrastructure will assist in better achieving these objectives."

Fort Hood is the largest active duty armored post in the United States Armed Services, according to the U.S. Army. Fort Hood covers a total of 340-square miles and supports multiple units, a corps headquarters and a robust mobilization mission. Fort Hood also trains and supports many smaller units and organizations vital to defense.

John Roby, director of corporate affairs for the Port of Beaumont, said existing routes between Fort Hood and the Port of Beaumont definitely need improvement.

“The port has direct links by rail to all major military installations, which is important for long-term large deployments,” Roby said. “However, it is important to also have safe, economical and efficient highway links between the bases and the port. The current highway routes to Fort Hood are not up to Interstate Highway standards,” Roby said. “These routes are on secondary roads and pass through many rural areas and small towns. Interstate 14 is designed to provide fast, efficient highway access between the port and major military installations in the Southwest.”

Although Bushell said Louisiana state funding is limited, he is currently in discussion with state officials about connecting I-14 to Fort Polk in Leesville, which Roby agreed would drastically improve military deployment routes from the fort to the Port of Beaumont.

“Fort Polk houses the nation's premier combat training center and is also home to the 3rd Brigade/10th Mountain Division, Fort Polk's lone Brigade Combat Team,” Roby said. “The installation recently survived almost intact in the Army's force reduction plan, which is a testament to its strategic importance. Connectivity to the Port of Beaumont is very important to Fort Polk. While the base has a direct rail link to the port, its location just 100 miles away from Beaumont reinforces the importance of a fast, efficient highway connection. Shipping military equipment between the port and fort is fastest by truck or convoy, which gives the military planners the ability to respond quickly to world affairs in the event of a crisis.”

Having the capability of carrying out a swift military response seems to be even more important following recent attacks by ISIS on France and San Bernardino.[\quote]
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on May 19, 2016, 10:05:51 PM
I can think of a rather nefarious reason why Texas would want a highway to facilitate military deployment across the Southeast...

(Not everyone would think this reason is nefarious...)
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: aboges26 on May 20, 2016, 12:07:24 AM
I can think of a rather nefarious reason why Texas would want a highway to facilitate military deployment across the Southeast...

(Not everyone would think this reason is nefarious...)

Do we need to put our tinfoil hats on?  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: rte66man on May 20, 2016, 01:08:18 AM
If this thread goes on much longer, our heads are probably going to explode.
Then why do you keep it going with inane posts?

 :clap: :clap: :clap:
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 20, 2016, 03:32:30 PM
Quote from: aboges26
For those who are confused about why interstates are still relevant to the military as much as travelers, and why on earth interstates are the best thing for last minute shipment needs, please consult the following link that contains actual experts' knowledge.

Rather than insulting me in a passive-aggressive manner, why don't you point out specifically where I'm wrong in my observations on how the military moves their personnel and gear?

That "article" you quoted is political puff piece that overlooks some pretty key details.

It claims this new "I-14" is needed due to shale oil boom. There's two problems with that. 1: The shale boom was already busted when that article was written (12-2015). 2: The shale boom isn't going on in Killeen. The freight rail traffic from the Permian Basin isn't going through Killeen.

Quote from: political article
“Having to provide capacity for all the oil moving across the country, the railroads are busy,” he said. “They need alternatives and they may need (them) at short notice.”

I literally laughed at that comment, especially the bold emphasis on it. As if this I-14 thing could ever be built "in short notice." What a crock.

It would take decades for that road to materialize. Even if all the funding for "I-14" came out of the DOD budget it would still take at least 10-20 years to build due to all the legal and environmental stuff that has to be done first. By the time the road was finished the military's strategic needs could be radically different. The reality is Texas and other Deep South states would have to cough up a bunch of the funding. They have only so much money they can spend on roads, yet have many "shovel ready" projects already in line. This "I-14" thing is a distraction from that.

Quote from: political article
This stress coupled with an increase in deployment training activity creates a need for the ability to move convoys by road versus rail, Bushell said.

I guess these guys aren't keeping up with current events. They obviously missed what happened at the last Base Closure and Realignment Commission sessions. The Army is cutting 40,000 soldiers. The entire military once again is in a draw-down phase. Fort Sill was one of only a couple Army posts that didn't get hit with major troop and civilian cuts. Other posts, like Fort Benning in Columbus, GA got hit hard; they're losing nearly 4,000 troops. Fort Polk is losing close to 400. BRAC reconvenes every couple or so years. So while a post like Fort Sill may have dodged a bullet this time, BRAC could hit it hard the next time.

Quote from: political article
"The Department of Defense relies on a robust system of rail, highway, air and
seaports to enable our deployment and redeployment to and from the United
States in order to achieve our national strategic objectives abroad,” said Lt. Col. Brad Bane, commander of the 842nd Transportation Battalion, which operates out of the Port of Beaumont. “Any improvements to our infrastructure will assist in better achieving these objectives."

Last time I checked, "I-14" isn't going to Beaumont, or any other port for that matter. Are they going to try pitching an upgrade to US-287 to Interstate quality standards between Beaumont and Lufkin or wherever "I-14" would cross US-287?
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: rte66man on May 20, 2016, 06:25:48 PM
I can think of a rather nefarious reason why Texas would want a highway to facilitate military deployment across the Southeast...

(Not everyone would think this reason is nefarious...)

ROTFLMAO   :bigass:
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: aboges26 on May 20, 2016, 08:43:12 PM
Quote from: aboges26
For those who are confused about why interstates are still relevant to the military as much as travelers, and why on earth interstates are the best thing for last minute shipment needs, please consult the following link that contains actual experts' knowledge.

Rather than insulting me in a passive-aggressive manner, why don't you point out specifically where I'm wrong in my observations on how the military moves their personnel and gear?

That "article" you quoted is political puff piece that overlooks some pretty key details.

It claims this new "I-14" is needed due to shale oil boom. There's two problems with that. 1: The shale boom was already busted when that article was written (12-2015). 2: The shale boom isn't going on in Killeen. The freight rail traffic from the Permian Basin isn't going through Killeen.

Quote from: political article
“Having to provide capacity for all the oil moving across the country, the railroads are busy,” he said. “They need alternatives and they may need (them) at short notice.”

I literally laughed at that comment, especially the bold emphasis on it. As if this I-14 thing could ever be built "in short notice." What a crock.

It would take decades for that road to materialize. Even if all the funding for "I-14" came out of the DOD budget it would still take at least 10-20 years to build due to all the legal and environmental stuff that has to be done first. By the time the road was finished the military's strategic needs could be radically different. The reality is Texas and other Deep South states would have to cough up a bunch of the funding. They have only so much money they can spend on roads, yet have many "shovel ready" projects already in line. This "I-14" thing is a distraction from that.

Quote from: political article
This stress coupled with an increase in deployment training activity creates a need for the ability to move convoys by road versus rail, Bushell said.

I guess these guys aren't keeping up with current events. They obviously missed what happened at the last Base Closure and Realignment Commission sessions. The Army is cutting 40,000 soldiers. The entire military once again is in a draw-down phase. Fort Sill was one of only a couple Army posts that didn't get hit with major troop and civilian cuts. Other posts, like Fort Benning in Columbus, GA got hit hard; they're losing nearly 4,000 troops. Fort Polk is losing close to 400. BRAC reconvenes every couple or so years. So while a post like Fort Sill may have dodged a bullet this time, BRAC could hit it hard the next time.

Quote from: political article
"The Department of Defense relies on a robust system of rail, highway, air and
seaports to enable our deployment and redeployment to and from the United
States in order to achieve our national strategic objectives abroad,” said Lt. Col. Brad Bane, commander of the 842nd Transportation Battalion, which operates out of the Port of Beaumont. “Any improvements to our infrastructure will assist in better achieving these objectives."

Last time I checked, "I-14" isn't going to Beaumont, or any other port for that matter. Are they going to try pitching an upgrade to US-287 to Interstate quality standards between Beaumont and Lufkin or wherever "I-14" would cross US-287?

I am insulting you no more than you are insulting the people directly affected by I-14 and the better transportation they stand to gain.  Neither of us can be completely right or wrong on how the military moves personnel and gear because #1 we are not experts and #2 common sense tells us that it is not a static "one size fits all" solution every time.  Even moves of similar goods can be cheaper and better suited to rail one year and then better suited to road the next (simple differential logistics analysis tells us this), it purely depends of factors beyond control (shale & oil boom one year then bust the next for instance) and even more details that are not always obvious to us lay people.

The article was no more of a puff piece than you constantly stating your narrow viewed opinions on I-14, not trying to insult you because it really is nothing against you personally, but your opinions are based on just that, a narrow and focused view on what matters to you, which I assume primarily are your tax dollars and the way the country gets things done.  I hear you and I have the same concerns, but maybe safer connecting transportation is not such a bad thing at the end of the day that we have to ceaselessly voice an opposing opinion on some internet forum where it does not matter, where people are just trying to get and share concrete information.  If you are so passionate against it, please write TxDOT and go to open houses regarding the corridor.  Let us know of what you learn in doing so regarding the corridor and any concrete information that you find out regarding the corridor.

I live in Lubbock and personally know people working in the oil industry and can say from first hand knowledge that as of 12-2015 new drilling was drastically cut but production was still running full steam with the hopes that the dip in prices was a short hiccup.  The shale boom has only hit in the last few months with companies going under, but even in Seminole, TX last weekend I saw a new drilling rig setup going to town on a new hole.  Again, I live in Lubbock which is on the BNSF rail line that connects to Alberta, Wyoming, Colorado, the northern Panhandle, eastern New Mexico, Sweetwater, Killeen, Houston, AND Beaumont and it is always jam paced with oil and wind equipment, rarely military items.  The oil coming from the Permian Basin is just a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the areas to the north and west of me.  The following maps illustrate the rail connectivity of Texas and of the BNSF network:

(http://mrscowan.us/Website%20images/Social%20Studies/RandomBitsOfInfo/Texas%20Railroads.gif)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/BNSF_Railway_system_map.svg)
The red being owned only by BNSF and the purple being lines that BNSF has trackage rights on.

Quote
“Having to provide capacity for all the oil moving across the country, the railroads are busy,” he said. “They need alternatives and they may need (them) at short notice.”

Your analysis of the above quote was very far off the point of the statement, the quote is indicating that the military needs alternatives for transportation because they may decide or realize the need to ship something at short notice, not indicating I-14 is to or will be built at short notice.

Texas is actually fine with coughing up money for its transportation needs, the passing of Props 1 and 7 recently which give TxDOT more funding are clear indicators of this.  I happily voted for them because I do my fair share of long distance traveling and appreciate a controlled access 75 mph road over a non controlled access 75 mph road.  If the desire for funding is there, then it is the DOT's job to seek all available avenues for funding and we can certainly hope for such diverse sources as the DOD.

Quote
I guess these guys aren't keeping up with current events. They obviously missed what happened at the last Base Closure and Realignment Commission sessions. The Army is cutting 40,000 soldiers. The entire military once again is in a draw-down phase. Fort Sill was one of only a couple Army posts that didn't get hit with major troop and civilian cuts. Other posts, like Fort Benning in Columbus, GA got hit hard; they're losing nearly 4,000 troops. Fort Polk is losing close to 400. BRAC reconvenes every couple or so years. So while a post like Fort Sill may have dodged a bullet this time, BRAC could hit it hard the next time.

These decisions, in my opinion, were completely political in nature and can easily change in 1-8 years.  Geopolitics can and most likely will check this in the next decade at the most.

Quote
Last time I checked, "I-14" isn't going to Beaumont, or any other port for that matter. Are they going to try pitching an upgrade to US-287 to Interstate quality standards between Beaumont and Lufkin or wherever "I-14" would cross US-287?

Nobody anywhere said that I-14 is going to Beaumont so I do not understand why you keep missing the point and throw this out there.  On every map proposal that I have seen is a connection from I-14 to Beaumont because of its focus on connecting "Forts to Ports".

(http://media.graytvinc.com/images/Interstate-14-Map.jpg)

Now to wrap up my comments, I want it to be clear to everyone that I am not completely behind this interstate proposal, but nor am I completely against it.  I am a "facts or GTFO" kind of guy and I am interested in the proposal because of its obvious benefits and cons.  I like to put myself in the shoes of people directly affected by things, such as the citizens of Monticello, AR who would surely want I-69 to be completed on its proposed route, but I sure look at the proposed map and think "wow isn't that a little crooked".  I do not post often on this forum because I only like to share facts that I know that are helpful and keep people updated, but I sure check this forum constantly to keep up with the latest road news because I drive long distance frequently and like to be informed on where I do go and would possibly go.  I am not an expert, just not a pessimist nor an optimist, I am somewhere in the middle but sure appreciate the safety that interstates provide and would like to see long term planning that could realizes corridors such as an I-14, an I-12 that runs through Austin on its way to Houston, and both a southern and northern extension of I-27 that connects to I-10 and Denver.  I am like most in that I do not want these projects to be completed irresponsibly in both financial and routing aspects because we as citizens deserve a government and its agencies to walk the line.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 21, 2016, 01:27:14 PM
Quote from: aboges26
I am insulting you no more than you are insulting the people directly affected by I-14 and the better transportation they stand to gain.

You inferred I was "confused" in a dismissive, off-putting manner -which is insulting.

You're claiming I'm insulting people along the potential I-14 corridor? This I-14 idea is an insult to a far greater number of Texans living along far more important transportation corridors.

You're in Lubbock. I'd much rather see I-27 extended both North and South than see this I-14 crap built. I'd rather see US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo converted into a full blown Interstate. I-69 construction is in progress, but there's dozens of segments that are un-funded. If I read the I-69 projects PDF from TX DOT correctly some of the projects aren't currently scheduled to let until 2060!. With such limited resources how in the hell is this I-14 scheme supposed to fit in with that? It's a damned waste.

Quote from: aboges26
Neither of us can be completely right or wrong on how the military moves personnel and gear because #1 we are not experts and #2 common sense tells us that it is not a static "one size fits all" solution every time.

I don't claim to be an "expert," but I have grown up and lived around the Marine Corps and US Army nearly all my life. I'm familiar with how posts/bases within the United States are run. I've watched closely as our military has transitioned from a conventional Cold War style force trying to prepare for World War III to one trying its best to adapt to all kinds of "irregular" warfare today. Stuff that changes rapdily and often requires a rapid response. There's a bunch of that big, heavy equipment the US Army no longer needs for modern threats. Want to complain about government waste? How about Congress continuing to buy things like M-1 Abrams tanks the Army doesn't need? The are hundreds of these tanks lined up in the desert like a tank dealership opened in the middle of nowhere. A bunch of the missions at Fort Hood are old style conventional force missions that may end up radically reduced in size. Some of the missions are going to be eliminated. This is a very contradictory picture from the one the politicians in Texas are selling with their idea of I-14 -one where they claim the military is growing in that area and increasing demand on the infrastructure.

Building an Interstate highway for the purpose of moving conventional military hardware is basically reliving fantasies from 1940's Germany. It's an out of date idea now.

I can understand the motivation of the politicians and other connected individuals in pushing this project. 15 years ago a bunch of people in my region, including Oklahoma's congressional delegation, were pushing pretty hard for the Crusader project. The Crusader was supposed to replace the old Paladin Howitzer. But the Army leaders didn't want it. Even though the Crusader was more modern and could do some amazing things in putting steel on target, the thing was way too big, way too expensive and not very portable. It was a Cold War era weapons system. Ultimately Donald Rumsfeld killed it, right before BAE Systems was supposed to go into production with it at a plant they were going to build in Elgin, OK -very close to Fort Sill. Lots of people in the Lawton area were very disappointed by the decision. Today the US Army's Field Artillery is still getting by just fine with the Paladin, but with some modern features added. Elgin, OK didn't dry up though. It's a growing town despite the loss of the Crusader.

Quote from: aboges26
The article was no more of a puff piece than you constantly stating your narrow viewed opinions on I-14, not trying to insult you because it really is nothing against you personally, but your opinions are based on just that, a narrow and focused view on what matters to you, which I assume primarily are your tax dollars and the way the country gets things done.

When an article posted on a politician's web site is littered with spin, inaccuracies and convenient omission of important facts that get in the way of his presentation, it's definitely a "puff piece." And that's putting it nicely.

I've been typing out my opinion on the matter, but I don't think it's "narrow viewed" at all. I'm at least coming this I-14 issue with specific facts to support my opinion against the project. Name the current road I-135 or whatever 3-digit designation they like and I'm perfectly agreeable to that.

Quote from: aboges26
I live in Lubbock and personally know people working in the oil industry and can say from first hand knowledge that as of 12-2015 new drilling was drastically cut but production was still running full steam with the hopes that the dip in prices was a short hiccup.  The shale boom has only hit in the last few months with companies going under, but even in Seminole, TX last weekend I saw a new drilling rig setup going to town on a new hole.

Oil has run on these boom-bust cycles for a long time. If anything, oil at $100 or more per barrel was the real hiccup. Oklahoma is looking at a budget shortfall of well over $1 billion because the dummies running our state government counted on $100 per barrel oil being the new normal. They passed all kinds of tax cuts, tax credits, etc. they couldn't afford. They forgot all about the big oil busts that happened in the early 1980's and then in the late 1990's. There was a lot of unusual circumstances that propelled oil up to $100 per barrel and even $150 per barrel. Those conditions aren't coming back any time soon. Oil may be able to hit the $50-$75 range per barrel if certain things go the right way. It has to be in that range just for shale operations to break even, and maybe even higher for the oil sands stuff in Canada.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: wxfree on May 25, 2016, 11:16:31 PM
AASHTO says no!  The number is not acceptable.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/5/5c/5cdc51ea50f12d6f/USRN_Meeting_Minutes_May25_2016.original.1464203915.pdf (https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/5/5c/5cdc51ea50f12d6f/USRN_Meeting_Minutes_May25_2016.original.1464203915.pdf)
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: LM117 on May 26, 2016, 12:00:51 AM
AASHTO says no!  The number is not acceptable.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/5/5c/5cdc51ea50f12d6f/USRN_Meeting_Minutes_May25_2016.original.1464203915.pdf (https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/5/5c/5cdc51ea50f12d6f/USRN_Meeting_Minutes_May25_2016.original.1464203915.pdf)

Paging Bobby5280... :bigass:
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 26, 2016, 01:27:30 AM
I won't gloat. But I am relieved AASHTO said "negative" to the numbering proposal. Unfortunately that might possibly not be the end of it.

The politicians involved in this could pull a "I-99" and have congress vote the "I-14" crap into law, which would force AASHTO to go along with the nonsense anyway. If more and more of those political numbering choices get made it will undermine any kind of remaining integrity in the numbering system. Might as well have hundreds of different "Highway 1" routes going all over the place.

Considering the AASHTO is giving "approval with conditions" to somewhat short, planned routes in North Carolina (I-42 and I-87), I could certainly see AASHTO offering the "I-18" designation, particularly if the current US-190 freeway gets extended West to dovetail into I-20. For now, the short segment just needs to carry a 3-digit Interstate designation, if it carries an Interstate designation at all.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: english si on May 26, 2016, 06:48:34 AM
I'm surprised that AASHTO didn't propose another number, like they did in NC. Presumably TX rejected the alternative number?
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: TXtoNJ on May 26, 2016, 08:30:06 AM
I'm surprised that AASHTO didn't propose another number, like they did in NC. Presumably TX rejected the alternative number?

Don't think local pols would settle for I-535. Probably need to drag the process out for political reasons.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: US71 on May 26, 2016, 08:47:14 AM
I'm surprised that AASHTO didn't propose another number, like they did in NC. Presumably TX rejected the alternative number?
There's a note on the ruling that suggests working together to find a suitable number
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on May 26, 2016, 08:51:32 AM
I'm surprised that AASHTO didn't propose another number, like they did in NC. Presumably TX rejected the alternative number?
There's a note on the ruling that suggests working together to find a suitable number

That won't happen. Texas sees the existing freeway as part of the proposed multi-state "Forts to Ports" I-14 corridor. Getting the I-14 designation for US 190 adds legitimacy to the corridor. A 3di does not.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Grzrd on May 26, 2016, 10:17:23 AM
Wasn't I-14 written into the FAST Act though? I was under the assumption that it would be accepted because of that.
It'll be interesting to see what number they choose, hopefully a spur off of I-35.
(above quote from May 2016 AASHTO SCOURN Meeting (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17917.msg2147178#msg2147178) thread)
I'm surprised that AASHTO didn't propose another number, like they did in NC. Presumably TX rejected the alternative number?

I think the Committee simply confused the North Carolina apple with the Texas orange.  The legislation designating the North Carolina corridors as future interstates did not specify numerical designations for those corridors; however, the legislation authorizing the Texas corridor specified an I-14 designation, which was included in the Texas application (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/Interstate_Routes_Binder.pdf) (p. 68/73 of pdf):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_26_05_16_10_08_03.png)

As I understand it, AASHTO only has authority to determine whether the dual designation with US 190 would be appropriate.  Neither AASHTO nor TxDOT has the authority to ignore Congressional legislation and choose a different number.  I suspect that this decision will be overturned at the Fall meeting.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 26, 2016, 11:51:52 AM
I hope the AASHTO's negative ruling on I-14 in Killeen is upheld rather than overturned. But the egos and insanity of politicians have a nasty way of infecting what should be a rational system. With nonsensical things like a 25 mile I-14 invading the system it opens up an argument to just eliminate the Interstate highway numbering system completely.

The bigger problem is there is NO MONEY for this I-14 concept. I wonder how well it would fly if the cost of this I-14 highway to link military installations came 100% entirely out of the Dept. of Defense budget. Honestly, if the highway is really that strategically important to the military why shouldn't it come out of their budget? The truth is the highway is only important to a select group of politicians and business people who want an East-West Interstate running through their sparsely populated areas. The military doesn't need it.

It's a sure bet DOD funding of I-14 wouldn't go over well at all, especially when the military is cutting costs, closing bases and reducing troop counts at existing bases. Military planners would quickly come out of the woodwork stating the highway would have no strategic benefit. Defense technology companies would chime in as well, seeing a road costing tens of billions of dollars being a threat to their piece of the DOD budget pie.

The reality is any money diverted to this I-14 thing will be money taken from other far more important highway projects in Texas and elsewhere. I think that's going to leave "I-14" stuck at its current 25 mile length for decades, if not permanently.

Quote
As I understand it, AASHTO only has authority to determine whether the dual designation with US 190 would be appropriate.  Neither AASHTO nor TxDOT has the authority to ignore Congressional legislation and choose a different number.  I suspect that this decision will be overturned at the Fall meeting.

Is it possible to get some of these road numbering "laws" struck down? Complaining about government over-reach is popular these days. But ego-driven congressmen and senators issuing highway numbers rather than the AASHTO is definitely an example of congressional over-reach.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Henry on May 26, 2016, 12:06:10 PM
Even at 25 miles, I-14 will be longer than I-97, and exist in multiple counties.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: US71 on May 27, 2016, 04:11:20 PM
When has money ever stopped Texas? I seem to remember they always "need" money, even if everyone else goes without

SGH-I337

Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: jbnv on April 22, 2017, 11:15:40 PM
Some posts in this thread have not aged very well...

Contrary to the thread title, this seems to be just a dream of some local politicians and businessmen, with no apparent support so far from anyone with the power to make it happen.  It's early enough in the process to get strangled in the cradle, as it should be.

We probably won't see any Interstate 14 signs anywhere for quite some time.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: andy3175 on April 23, 2017, 12:58:26 AM
Yes, Interstate 14 signs were placed today:

https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/posts/10155324455292948
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: longhorn on April 25, 2017, 05:40:31 PM
Yes, Interstate 14 signs were placed today:

https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/posts/10155324455292948


Have not seen any in the area yet, I will be on the look out for them. I wandered why some electronic maps already have 190 as I-14.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 26, 2017, 03:59:34 PM
So Interstate 14 is now signposted in Texas. I doubt it will ever be signposted in any other state.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 26, 2017, 04:37:16 PM
Never say never. Little disconnected Interstate highway stubs are the latest rage now, thanks to things like I-69 and previous examples like I-97. I kind of expect I-515 to get re-signed as I-11 once the Boulder City bypass is finished. And then we have existing duplicates/disconnects of I-69, I-74, I-76, I-84, I-88 and I-99 in different parts of the country as well as a planned duplicate of I-87 in North Carolina.

So, yeah, I can totally see a little spur of freeway in LA, MS, AL or GA getting "I-14" shields tacked onto it even though we may all be long dead before all of it gets connected. Or maybe we could get lucky and see a big revolution in how large infrastructure projects are developed.

In the post-war boom car travel was romanticized. I think that helped spur on the development of the Interstate highway system. I think there's an outside chance self-driving car technology could create another boom in car travel. If it takes off in a big way then maybe things like these new Interstate highway projects could get built in an acceptable amount of time. Under the current environment it will take many decades.
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: silverback1065 on April 26, 2017, 06:24:11 PM
Never say never. Little disconnected Interstate highway stubs are the latest rage now, thanks to things like I-69 and previous examples like I-97. I kind of expect I-515 to get re-signed as I-11 once the Boulder City bypass is finished. And then we have existing duplicates/disconnects of I-69, I-74, I-76, I-84, I-88 and I-99 in different parts of the country as well as a planned duplicate of I-87 in North Carolina.

So, yeah, I can totally see a little spur of freeway in LA, MS, AL or GA getting "I-14" shields tacked onto it even though we may all be long dead before all of it gets connected. Or maybe we could get lucky and see a big revolution in how large infrastructure projects are developed.

In the post-war boom car travel was romanticized. I think that helped spur on the development of the Interstate highway system. I think there's an outside chance self-driving car technology could create another boom in car travel. If it takes off in a big way then maybe things like these new Interstate highway projects could get built in an acceptable amount of time. Under the current environment it will take many decades.

some of those, like 76 were always planned to have gaps
Title: Re: Hwy 190 from Copperas Cove to Belton to be renamed I-14
Post by: compdude787 on April 28, 2017, 12:38:45 PM
In the post-war boom car travel was romanticized. I think that helped spur on the development of the Interstate highway system. I think there's an outside chance self-driving car technology could create another boom in car travel. If it takes off in a big way then maybe things like these new Interstate highway projects could get built in an acceptable amount of time. Under the current environment it will take many decades.

That might be a distinct possibility.