I-14 in Texas

[TheBox]

From the TxDOT 2026 UTP thread

As far as I-14 is concerned

Other than the Temple, Bryan-College Station and Madisonville, it got several other pieces beyond those

US-190 Copperas Cove freeway upgrade, US-190 expansion from Lampassas to Lometa, and another freeway upgrade south of San Angelo.
It ain't much but still better than nothing.

There's also a US-277 freeway upgrade northeast of San Angelo, but idk if that's even related to the I-14/I-27 multiplex

[splashflash]

Interestingly, the US 83 leg between Eden and I-10 has significantly higher truck freight volumes than US 190 east or west of Eden.  See page 19 of the report.  From this, the connector to Abilene may be of greater significançe than the east-west I-14 route.

Interestingly traffic is probably moving between the San Antonio area and the Lubbock/Amarillo region in the Panhandle. Is the truck traffic counts greater going West of Eden or North of Eden?

Figure 17 and 18 of the US 287 Interstate Feasibility Study shows the Texas route freight volumes, as requested above.  The volumes north of Eden are greater, confirming US 83 has greater significance as a freight route than future I-14 or I-27 south of Lamisa.  Indeed, US 84 north of Roscoe has heavily outpunches future I-27 south of Lamisa, especially the I-27E leg. 

https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/statewide/us287/073125-feasilibility-study.pdf

[MaxConcrete]

Recent updates:

1. Bids were opened today to upgrade US 190 (I-14) to freeway standards in Copperas Cove. This project adds the westbound main lanes between both connections to Business 190.

Estimate: $127.9 million
Low bid by James Construction Group: $107.4 million (16.0% below estimate)


2. TxDOT has scheduled December public meetings for the I-14 Route Study from Copperas Cove to Lometa, which will be in coordination with the Lampasas relief route study.

[ElishaGOtis]

Given the upcoming public meetings, I thought I'd share this set of feedback TxDOT received for the Lampasas bypass portion of I-14. I found it absolutely awesome that the general public not only got to suggest routes for the bypass, but these suggestions were directly considered in the selection of the corridor study areas. https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/bwd/lampasas-relief-route/111722-exhibits.pdf

[Bobby5280]

I doubt Lampasas will get a complete freeway loop around the town. I think what will most likely be built is an Eastern bypass that connects to US-281 both North and South of town yet extends just a short distance farther Northwest to tie into US-183 on the NW side of Lampasas.

The bypass would start on US-281 around a mile South of the Lampasas High School complex, run due East crossing US-183 and then curve Northward to cross US-190 at a point just East of the Walmart store. The bypass would continue farther North across E Avenue J and then curve Westward, crossing US-281 near Lampasas Municipal Airport and then dove-tailing into US-183 near the Lampasas RV Ranch.

A US-281 bypass around the East side of Lampasas would help Interstate upgrade efforts along US-281. It would also provide a cleaner connection point for I-14 coming from the East. Most likely that would be on a new-terrain alignment rather than the existing narrow US-190 alignment coming into the East side of Lampasas.

[CoreySamson]

I doubt Lampasas will get a complete freeway loop around the town. I think what will most likely be built is an Eastern bypass that connects to US-281 both North and South of town yet extends just a short distance farther Northwest to tie into US-183 on the NW side of Lampasas.

The bypass would start on US-281 around a mile South of the Lampasas High School complex, run due East crossing US-183 and then curve Northward to cross US-190 at a point just East of the Walmart store. The bypass would continue farther North across E Avenue J and then curve Westward, crossing US-281 near Lampasas Municipal Airport and then dove-tailing into US-183 near the Lampasas RV Ranch.

A US-281 bypass around the East side of Lampasas would help Interstate upgrade efforts along US-281. It would also provide a cleaner connection point for I-14 coming from the East. Most likely that would be on a new-terrain alignment rather than the existing narrow US-190 alignment coming into the East side of Lampasas.

I could easily see a complete at-grade loop around Lampasas, similar to the ones in Crockett and Palestine in east Texas, with the way those study areas are laid out. However, I could see I-14 joining part of the loop as a freeway, similar to US 59 joins the loop as a freeway around Nacogdoches to bypass the town.

The end result would be a half freeway, half at grade loop, with interchanges at key intersections.

[Bobby5280]

If TX DOT builds a bypass or loop around Lampasas in a non-freeway configuration they'll need to at least secure enough ROW to allow the bypass to be upgraded in stages to eventual Interstate quality.

TX DOT and state legislators appear serious about extending I-14 West from the Killeen-Copperas Cove area. I expect the US-281 corridor between San Antonio and I-20 to draw greater amounts of traffic, using it as an alternative to I-35.

I'm skeptical about a loop being viable around the South and West sides of Lampasas. I think that loop quadrant would have the lowest demand from vehicles passing through Lampasas. The SW quadrant would probably be the most costly to build since there is a greater amount of homes and other properties West of the US-281 corridor. A bypass around the East side of Lampasas would have a lesser impact on existing properties.

[The Road Warrior]

I doubt Lampasas will get a complete freeway loop around the town. I think what will most likely be built is an Eastern bypass that connects to US-281 both North and South of town yet extends just a short distance farther Northwest to tie into US-183 on the NW side of Lampasas.

The bypass would start on US-281 around a mile South of the Lampasas High School complex, run due East crossing US-183 and then curve Northward to cross US-190 at a point just East of the Walmart store. The bypass would continue farther North across E Avenue J and then curve Westward, crossing US-281 near Lampasas Municipal Airport and then dove-tailing into US-183 near the Lampasas RV Ranch.

A US-281 bypass around the East side of Lampasas would help Interstate upgrade efforts along US-281. It would also provide a cleaner connection point for I-14 coming from the East. Most likely that would be on a new-terrain alignment rather than the existing narrow US-190 alignment coming into the East side of Lampasas.

If TX DOT builds a bypass or loop around Lampasas in a non-freeway configuration they'll need to at least secure enough ROW to allow the bypass to be upgraded in stages to eventual Interstate quality.

TX DOT and state legislators appear serious about extending I-14 West from the Killeen-Copperas Cove area. I expect the US-281 corridor between San Antonio and I-20 to draw greater amounts of traffic, using it as an alternative to I-35.

I'm skeptical about a loop being viable around the South and West sides of Lampasas. I think that loop quadrant would have the lowest demand from vehicles passing through Lampasas. The SW quadrant would probably be the most costly to build since there is a greater amount of homes and other properties West of the US-281 corridor. A bypass around the East side of Lampasas would have a lesser impact on existing properties.

If TX DOT builds a bypass or loop around Lampasas in a non-freeway configuration they'll need to at least secure enough ROW to allow the bypass to be upgraded in stages to eventual Interstate quality.

TX DOT and state legislators appear serious about extending I-14 West from the Killeen-Copperas Cove area. I expect the US-281 corridor between San Antonio and I-20 to draw greater amounts of traffic, using it as an alternative to I-35.

I'm skeptical about a loop being viable around the South and West sides of Lampasas. I think that loop quadrant would have the lowest demand from vehicles passing through Lampasas. The SW quadrant would probably be the most costly to build since there is a greater amount of homes and other properties West of the US-281 corridor. A bypass around the East side of Lampasas would have a lesser impact on existing properties.

I think the push will be to make the loop limited access, since it will almost certainly be partially integrated into I-14.  Building on the East side makes the most sense for that reason alone. The U.S. 281 corridor will become more important and will probably be upgraded eventually; its a direct link between San Antonio and Wichita Falls, and there are already plans to upgrade the portion north of San Antonio through Bulverde into a freeway.

Most like, they will tie the bypass into the extension of 1-14, turning U.S. 90 on both sides of Lampasas into limited access, and building a new freeway portion on the northeast side of the town. U.S. 281 will be routed on a new limited access portion to the south to the south before it forms a confluence with 1-14. The limited access portion wouldn't be too long and would terminate somewhere along the current U.S. 281. The confluence would only last as long at it takes to meet the current U.S.281 north of the city, which, other than rebuilding the interchange, wouldn't need much upgrades. They would terminate the freeway temporarily into the current U.S. 183.

[splashflash]

https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/brownwood/2025/i14-route-study-from-copperas-cove-to-lometa-120125.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PR3pIASxso

[Chris]

https://www.fox44news.com/news/local-news/bell-county/txdot-new-relief-route-to-open-north-of-rogers/

A new relief route opens around Rogers today, which is on US 190 southeast of Temple. Satellite imagery suggests that this is built to freeway standards (though the article mentions that it won't open fully until 2027).

Is this part of future I-14?

December 2024:

[The Ghostbuster]

Probably. I don't know that for sure, though.

[Bobby5280]

The bypass for Rogers is along the proposed I-14 route. What isn't clear is the line I-14 takes farther East once the route reaches the Cameron or Milano area. Will it take a direct path to the Bryan-College Station metro? Or will the route bounce up to Hearne, then down to Bryan and then back up to Madisonville in that W-shaped path that has been shown in a number of proposal maps? We won't know for certain until a final alignment is chosen. I'm hoping for a more direct route, namely the Milano-Bryan-Huntsville path.

[longhorn]

https://www.fox44news.com/news/local-news/bell-county/txdot-new-relief-route-to-open-north-of-rogers/

A new relief route opens around Rogers today, which is on US 190 southeast of Temple. Satellite imagery suggests that this is built to freeway standards (though the article mentions that it won't open fully until 2027).

Is this part of future I-14?

December 2024:

Yes, it will be a part of it when expansion to Bryan/CS begins.

[Anthony_JK]

I will repeat what I just said in another thread: I-14 is probably not going to be built east of the Sabine River. Neither Louisiana nor Mississippi have the funds or the urgency to build it; Louisiana's going to have its hands full already with finishing I-49 South and the Shreveport I-49 ICC....and then there will be the issue of the Mississippi River bridge in Baton Rouge (which is to me very bogus because it should be a proper I-10 southern freeway bypass rather than a connector between two already tight arterials (LA 1 and LA 30), and the potential of widening the I-10 Atchafalaya Basin viaduct. Far better to reroute it south to use US 287 to terminate at I-10 in Beaumont; and simply use 4-lane divided to the LA border.

[splashflash]

Not even at the Sabine River.  See below.

I-14 isn't progressing east of I-45 at this time.  The Sabine River Bridge replacement on Tx-63 / Louisiana 8, to be located south of the existing structure, only has two lanes.  It appears to be scheduled for 2027.  https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/beaumont/sh63-bridge.html
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/beaumont/2025/sh63la-8-from-sabine-river-fonsi.html

[Anthony_JK]

I'm probably guessing that they will use new alignments for I-14 that avoids that bridge, or, if they were smart, seized enough ROW for a second carriageway for future-proofing. But, I do agree....I-14 isn't going east of I-45 for a long time until Louisiana and Mississippi get in the act....and that's not happening.

[Bobby5280]

Right now they don't even have the alignment figured out for how I-14 will cross the Texas Triangle. Ultimately I-14 would proceed East of I-45 in Huntsville. But there isn't any agreement on how I-14 will go from Temple to Huntsville.

Will I-14 follow the stupid "W" shaped path that overlaps US-190 and meets I-45 in Madisonville? Or will it be a more direct route? The most direct route would involve a new-terrain alignment from Cameron to Bryan, followed by a new-terrain alignment from Bryan to Huntsville. TX-30 from College Station to Huntsville is not a very good road to upgrade in place to Interstate standards.

East of Huntsville I-14 would run into a pretty big obstacle at Lake Livingston. How that gets handled may determine how or even IF the I-14 corridor can move past I-45.

[bwana39]

Not even at the Sabine River.  See below.

I-14 isn't progressing east of I-45 at this time.  The Sabine River Bridge replacement on Tx-63 / Louisiana 8, to be located south of the existing structure, only has two lanes.  It appears to be scheduled for 2027.  https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/beaumont/sh63-bridge.html
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/beaumont/2025/sh63la-8-from-sabine-river-fonsi.html

Where exactly would I-14 even run? While mid Toledo Bend seems a good place, buttt.

I-14 has a good bit lower chance in Louisiana than I-69. I can honestly see I-57 in Ferriday (or maybe Alexandria) before I see I-14 in Ferriday or even Alexandria.

Why? Louisiana population (and therefore political power) is mostly below the 31st parallel. The primary goal of any new interstate in Louisiana is Hurricane evacuation. I-69 does little to aid it. I-14 would do very little to help it.

A freewas linking Baton Rouge, Natchez, Ferriday, and up to Pine Bluff (probably through Monroe) would be helpful to evacuation.

That does require a Mississippi River Crossing, but with waivers, the ones in Natchez will suffice. There would be 60 miles in Mississippi that might be a problem, but....

The Alexandria option would help some especially if it went all the way down to US-190

[Plutonic Panda]

A new congressional interstate funding bill really needs to be passed to help fund all these interstates.

[TheBox]

A new congressional interstate funding bill really needs to be passed to help fund all these interstates.

* I-14
* I-69 (+ I-69E, I-69C, I-69W, and I-369)
* I-2 (which I know is related to above)
* I-27 (+ I-27N, the other two are shorter and merge with each other)
* A interstate corridor for US-287 (between Amarillo and Ennis/Corsicana, if not Beaumont somehow)
* I-49
* I-57
* Another interstate corridor for US-412 (between Northwest Arkansas and Tulsa)
* Probably a interstate corridor for US-290 too (specifically for between Austin and Houston)

And that's just the new interstates in the central south, without diving into I-11, a interstate corridor for CA-99, or any of the North Carolina interstates

[splashflash]

Right now they don't even have the alignment figured out for how I-14 will cross the Texas Triangle. Ultimately I-14 would proceed East of I-45 in Huntsville. But there isn't any agreement on how I-14 will go from Temple to Huntsville.

Will I-14 follow the stupid "W" shaped path that overlaps US-190 and meets I-45 in Madisonville? Or will it be a more direct route? The most direct route would involve a new-terrain alignment from Cameron to Bryan, followed by a new-terrain alignment from Bryan to Huntsville. TX-30 from College Station to Huntsville is not a very good road to upgrade in place to Interstate standards.

East of Huntsville I-14 would run into a pretty big obstacle at Lake Livingston. How that gets handled may determine how or even IF the I-14 corridor can move past I-45.

As you stated in the US 287 thread, perhaps the route will go directly from Cameron to Hearne, avoiding the Milano 'v'. A Hearne relief route study is concurrently being conducted with three options of partial circles.  Maybe they'll choose the west-south combination and just stop I-14 at SH-6 and the Bryan I-214 loop for a good while.  https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/bry/sh6/Final%20Hearne%20Relief%20Route%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
That could leave one 'v' or a new route straight to Madisonville, if that were to occur in the far future.

[Anthony_JK]

Not even at the Sabine River.  See below.

I-14 isn't progressing east of I-45 at this time.  The Sabine River Bridge replacement on Tx-63 / Louisiana 8, to be located south of the existing structure, only has two lanes.  It appears to be scheduled for 2027.  https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/beaumont/sh63-bridge.html
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/beaumont/2025/sh63la-8-from-sabine-river-fonsi.html

Where exactly would I-14 even run? While mid Toledo Bend seems a good place, buttt.

I-14 has a good bit lower chance in Louisiana than I-69. I can honestly see I-57 in Ferriday (or maybe Alexandria) before I see I-14 in Ferriday or even Alexandria.

Why? Louisiana population (and therefore political power) is mostly below the 31st parallel. The primary goal of any new interstate in Louisiana is Hurricane evacuation. I-69 does little to aid it. I-14 would do very little to help it.

A freewas linking Baton Rouge, Natchez, Ferriday, and up to Pine Bluff (probably through Monroe) would be helpful to evacuation.

That does require a Mississippi River Crossing, but with waivers, the ones in Natchez will suffice. There would be 60 miles in Mississippi that might be a problem, but....

The Alexandria option would help some especially if it went all the way down to US-190

A freeway upgrade of US 61 from Baton Rouge to Natchez, then plowing a freeway through Natchez, Vidalia, and Ferriday, then upgrading US 425/former LA 137 through Rayville and Bastrop?? Not happening. Would really only work if I-14 was extended through Louisiana and Mississippi anyway. If Louisiana wants an additional hurricane evacuation route, upgrading US 165 from Lake Charles/Iowa through Alexandria and Monroe is a better buck bang. US 61 as a 4-lane divided between the I-110 junction to Natchez is adequate for its traffic for now.

[cenlaroads]

Traffic counts in Louisiana don't warrant building I-14 at all, and there are no growth trends that seem likely to change that.  Alexandria and Rapides Parish have fewer people than they did in 1980.  LA DOTD has something like $50 billion worth of megaprojects they would like to build, and all of them are more useful than I-14.

[bwana39]

Not even at the Sabine River.  See below.

I-14 isn't progressing east of I-45 at this time.  The Sabine River Bridge replacement on Tx-63 / Louisiana 8, to be located south of the existing structure, only has two lanes.  It appears to be scheduled for 2027.  https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/beaumont/sh63-bridge.html
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/beaumont/2025/sh63la-8-from-sabine-river-fonsi.html

Where exactly would I-14 even run? While mid Toledo Bend seems a good place, buttt.

I-14 has a good bit lower chance in Louisiana than I-69. I can honestly see I-57 in Ferriday (or maybe Alexandria) before I see I-14 in Ferriday or even Alexandria.

Why? Louisiana population (and therefore political power) is mostly below the 31st parallel. The primary goal of any new interstate in Louisiana is Hurricane evacuation. I-69 does little to aid it. I-14 would do very little to help it.

A freewas linking Baton Rouge, Natchez, Ferriday, and up to Pine Bluff (probably through Monroe) would be helpful to evacuation.

That does require a Mississippi River Crossing, but with waivers, the ones in Natchez will suffice. There would be 60 miles in Mississippi that might be a problem, but....

The Alexandria option would help some especially if it went all the way down to US-190

A freeway upgrade of US 61 from Baton Rouge to Natchez, then plowing a freeway through Natchez, Vidalia, and Ferriday, then upgrading US 425/former LA 137 through Rayville and Bastrop?? Not happening. Would really only work if I-14 was extended through Louisiana and Mississippi anyway. If Louisiana wants an additional hurricane evacuation route, upgrading US 165 from Lake Charles/Iowa through Alexandria and Monroe is a better buck bang. US 61 as a 4-lane divided between the I-110 junction to Natchez is adequate for its traffic for now.

I get the push for US-165 helps evacuate Lake Charles. Evacuation anything / everything in Louisiana east of Lafayette is minimal. The population just is not there. Unless you build the freeway from Monroe to Alex, it just creates a bottleneck on I-49 in ALex.

I agree that the I-57 to Ferriday os kind of pointless 300 days or so a year. Perhaps 355. It is all about evacuating New orleans and SE Louisiana.  Yes, I get that NOLA and Baton Rouge already get an inordinate share of the state's money.

I-14 stands a lower chance of being built in Louisiana Than a freeway from Cameron to Sabina Pass.

[PColumbus73]

I think the best way for I-14 to go east of Texas would be to overlap I-20 through Louisiana and Mississippi then follow US 80 to Montgomery, AL MAYBE a further extension to Macon, GA. Unless growth takes off in Alexandria or Hattiesburg, I-14 isn't really worth the investment as an alternative to Baton Rouge and the Atchafalaya Basin, but if Louisiana is struggling with their current list of projects, the money for I-14 would be better spent on I-10.