I-14 in Texas

[splashflash]

The candidate site for the SpaceX Terafab at the Gibbons Creek Reservoir is located near the potential alignments for I-14 and I-214. It is also very close to the proposed high speed rail station.

I marked the candidate site on the latest map of feasible I-14 corridors, and added the Texas High Speed Rail alignment.

Public hearing announcement

If this candidate site is selected and the Terafab project moves forward, it would probably expedite parts of the I-14 project, especially the east loop I-214.

Full size map


The area xxiues are on board.

https://wtaw.com/resolutions-for-continued-support-of-interstate-14-before-the-bryan-and-college-station-city-councils/

[abqtraveler]

TxDot is building those tall night lights along I-14 in Killeen. The same ones that are along I-35 from Georgetown to San Marcos.

TxDOT really likes their high-mast lighting. They just installed a whole bunch of high-mast light fixtures on I-40 through Amarillo.

[-- US 175 --]

TxDot is building those tall night lights along I-14 in Killeen. The same ones that are along I-35 from Georgetown to San Marcos.

TxDOT really likes their high-mast lighting. They just installed a whole bunch of high-mast light fixtures on I-40 through Amarillo.

They've just had a couple at the I-27/I-40 interchange previously.  Hope the poles were placed securely -- the wind up there is no joke.

[Great Lakes Roads]

I-14 Route Study from Copperas Cove to Lometa

Following public comments and local stakeholder feedback, TxDOT reviewed the route concepts and narrowed them down two preliminary alternatives to be carried forward in the study, shown in this slide. Both alternatives begin slightly west of County Road 4808 on US 190 and continue westward until going north, just outside of the city limits of Lampasas. Alternative 1 represented in orange, goes slightly north of Lampasas, crossing the railroad and East Avenue J before curving west to cross US 281, just south of the airport. From there, the route connects with US 183. Alternative 2, highlighted in blue, curves north to cross the railroad, East Avenue J, County Road 3420, and County Road 3421 before curving west to cross US 281 near Little Lucy Creek, north of the airport. From there, the route curves southwest to cross County Road 2200, County Road 2001, and the railroad to connect with US 183. After connecting with US 183, both Alternatives follow existing US 183 to the project terminus at Lometa. Alternative 1 is 30.5 miles long, and Alternative 2 is 31.5 miles long.

[splashflash]

I-14 Central Texas Corridor Study
Open house public meetings with a virtual option - 3rd meeting
Virtual: Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2026, at 4:30 p.m. through Sept. 10, 2026

https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/bryan/2026/i14-central-texas-corridor-study-081126.html

Meeting materials can be viewed online starting at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2026.

[Great Lakes Roads]

https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/waco/2026/i14-extension-080526.html

The I-35 improvements in Bell County stretch eight miles from south of Loop 121 in Belton to Loop 363/US 190/SH 36 in Temple. The proposed improvements include: improving the I-14/US 190/I-35 system interchanges; widening I-35 in Segment 1; and improving overall safety, connectivity and mobility. Currently, the existing typical section along this corridor of I-35 includes three general-purpose lanes and two frontage road lanes in each direction; the proposed typical section would include, in each direction, an additional general-purpose lane for a total of four general-purpose lanes, two express lanes, two to three through lanes and a shared-use path. Segment 1 is part of a larger project that will extend I-14 from its current terminus in Belton to BU 190 in Rogers, comprising a total of three segments.

I-35 will go from 3x3 to 4x2x2x4 (I believe the original plans was more ambitious at 4x3x3x4)...

[MaxConcrete]

Schematics and presentations are posted on the meeting site.

Observations

• The project has been downsized to lessen impacts and the right-of-way requirement. Typical ROW width is reduced from 500 feet to 470 feet. Required ROW is reduced by 26 acres, which is a 15% reduction.
• The I-35 express lanes are reduced from 6 to 4. However, at least one extra regular lane is added in most of the length, mainly in the northbound/eastbound direction. For about 2.2 miles east of the west interchange at I-14 the project is 5-2-2-6, with 6 lanes northbound/eastbound. So there's generally a net loss of only one lane.
• In the previous design there were connections between I-14 and the I-35 express lanes at the west interchange. These are gone. Now all three lanes of eastbound I-14 merge into the I-35 regular lanes, necessitating the sixth lane mentioned above. For the previous public meeting I submitted a public comment about having express lane connections at the west interchange but not the east. (Why not both west and east?) It turns out they got rid of the west connection.
• There are new connections to Central Avenue to improve access to downtown Belton, including a long exit ramp over 6th Avenue in the southbound/westbound westbound direction, and a new loop connector and "jug handle" in the northbound/eastbound direction.
• At the east I-14 interchange, radius of ramps is reduced to reduce ROW requirement. They still appear to be at least 55mph ramps.
• Some exits are more logical now. For example, in the previous design going eastbound/northbound at the east I-14 interchange, the inner two lanes exited to I-14. In the new design, the outer 2 lanes exit to I-14.

Even with the downsizing, this is still a very impressive project. It appears to be nearly fully funded in the UTP, but I think ROW clearance will take years.

[Plutonic Panda]

That's a better update. I really like to see highways built as large as possible. Hopefully they stick with this iteration and don't further downsize it.

[Great Lakes Roads]

https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/bryan/2026/i14-central-texas-corridor-study-081126.html

6 public meetings on I-14 from Rogers in Bell County to Huntsville in Walker County.

-5 alignment options for the western segment between Rogers and Hearne.
-5 alignment options for the eastern segment between Bryan/College Station and Madisonville/Huntsville.
-4 alignment options for the central segment, loop around Bryan/College Station.

[MaxConcrete]

Full size    Official PDF with alignments


Observations

• There's a huge number of possible permutations for the recommended alignment using the alternatives. The recommended alignment could be mostly straight and efficient, or it could be terribly swerving and inefficient.
• The Madisonville option of the east alternatives is still alive. This is unexpected to me.
• The south option of the west alternatives (though Caldwell and Milano) has been eliminated.
• The east conceptual alternative along SH 30 appears to cross through or very close to the potential footprint of the SpaceX Terafab. Apparently there has not been coordination with Terafab.
• I think TxDOT needs to re-evaluate the alternatives in the area of Terafab to serve it, because it will be a traffic generator.

[-- US 175 --]

Funny that a map from TxDOT would show 45 as a US highway instead of an interstate.

[The Ghostbuster]

If they listed it as US 75, it would've been historically accurate. I've noticed they don't always get the shields right when they post State, US, and Interstate Highways on brochures.

[splashflash]

https://www.kwtx.com/2026/08/21/tx-dot-studies-routes-i-14-central-texas-corridor-rogers-huntsville-cameron-prepares-proposed-changes/

"Ginger Watkins, economic development director for the city and with the Cameron Industrial Foundation, said the city has a preferred route, Route 5.

Coming off of US 190 and coming on the west side of Cameron looping up to 485 at some point we did define a route that provides the best opportunity for Cameron to grow, the best topography and as close in as possible," Watkins said.

Watkins said Route 5 would help Cameron grow while helping alleviate traffic from semis and freight trucks.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm posting this here because this seems to be really the only state where interstate 14 is making any progress, but nonetheless the effort to get it extended to Georgia is making headlines:

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/new-interstate-stretching-texas-georgia-could-lower-commute-times-study/K2Z3XS6CNVGXZB4RQ5ZAHFUUAU/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwdGRleAUZH_pwZG9mBWZkaWQWUOnvPJm7s2QRry-2kU1iakc9NlPHeWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkCjY2Mjg1NjgzNzkAAR4BkKpExJNLnWKEVt3lG4bpTFag0llmoaXjYqfW5dWn0qBeb9Ni3_CvQFfuBg_aem_Sd-hNUzlDwppaeToWQM9Kw#Echobox=1789563350

Personally, I don't see any point in doing this unless Congress funds building the entire thing at once and not doing some piecemeal fashion that'll take 50 years. There's no way states like Louisiana. or Mississippi will have the additional funds to build a new interstate.

[Plutonic Panda]

I don't know the needs of the states outside of Texas, but I can't imagine Louisiana could even stomach the thought of spending a single penny given the backlog of maintenance and the other mega projects they're taking on.

Not sure about Alabama, but I don't think Mississippi is flush with cash. I could maybe see some interstate corridor designation in Alabama with some bypasses in certain areas.

I don't see why Georgia would be interested at all. unless all the other states get on board with a serious plan to get this thing built. It would be like Oregon building interstate 11. before Nevada and arizona builds their entire portion.

[silverback1065]

Louisiana doesn't have the money to build 69, 10 needs a TON of work, and they seem to care the most about 49 right now.

[Rothman]

Louisiana doesn't have the money to build 69, 10 needs a TON of work, and they seem to care the most about 49 right now.

Yeah, all the I-10 problems in Louisiana are immense, but Louisiana's federal apportionments should take all that infrastructure into account to some degree, although with every year we're getting further and further away from the last time the Feds actually refreshed the data and used the data-driven apportionment formulas (at least 2012, but might have been 2009...too lazy to check right now...).

Makes me wonder if they have a lack of first-instance funding available, despite the fact federal reimbursements are probably nowhere near where they need to be for their needs.

[Plutonic Panda]

Louisiana doesn't have the money to build 69, 10 needs a TON of work, and they seem to care the most about 49 right now.

You cant understate just how much work I-10 needs. That in on itself should be a national priority.

[MaxConcrete]

Louisiana doesn't have the money to build 69, 10 needs a TON of work, and they seem to care the most about 49 right now.

Louisiana has huge needs and faces huge challenges.

• The population of Louisiana is only 4.6 million and not growing.
• Per capita income is below the US average. (= less tax revenue)
• The cost of highways is high due to the unusually large number of bridges required, including super-expensive Mississippi River crossings and swamp crossings such as the I-10 Atchafalaya causeway.
• Aging infrastructure needs major investment, for example I-49 between New Orleans and Lafayette can't just have missing sections built, many existing sections need to be rebuilt.
• Today's construction costs are sky-high compared to 50 and 60 years ago (even adjusting for inflation). As a hypothetical scenario, suppose it is 1956 and Louisiana was about to build its interstate system with 90% federal funding but at today's construction costs (adjusted to 1956 using the CPI, not the construction cost index). I don't think it would be possible for Louisiana to cover the 10% local share.

For comparison, the Houston area has a population of 8 million with high incomes. Even so, Houston relies heavily on toll roads and struggles to fund major projects like NHHIP (10+ billion), I-10 San Jacinto River bridge ($1 billion) and many other freeway projects (I-10 Brookshire, SH 35, SH 288, etc).

[Anthony_JK]

I'm posting this here because this seems to be really the only state where interstate 14 is making any progress, but nonetheless the effort to get it extended to Georgia is making headlines:

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/new-interstate-stretching-texas-georgia-could-lower-commute-times-study/K2Z3XS6CNVGXZB4RQ5ZAHFUUAU/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwdGRleAUZH_pwZG9mBWZkaWQWUOnvPJm7s2QRry-2kU1iakc9NlPHeWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkCjY2Mjg1NjgzNzkAAR4BkKpExJNLnWKEVt3lG4bpTFag0llmoaXjYqfW5dWn0qBeb9Ni3_CvQFfuBg_aem_Sd-hNUzlDwppaeToWQM9Kw#Echobox=1789563350

Personally, I don't see any point in doing this unless Congress funds building the entire thing at once and not doing some piecemeal fashion that'll take 50 years. There's no way states like Louisiana. or Mississippi will have the additional funds to build a new interstate.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Outside of Texas, I-14 is deader than a doornail. Especially in Louisiana.

Just how in Thee Hell are they going to route it through Alexandria?? An upgraded MacArthur Drive and LA 28?? An Alexandria Beltway that hasn't even been built, and even if so built won't be initially upgradable to I standards, let alone an expressway?? A true Alexandria bypass (the original idea for I-49 before Alex locals and business interests had it rerouted through the city) with a new Red River bridge between Boyce and MacArthur Drive?? Cosigning with I-49 then running through the Pineville Expressway??

All those options costs $$$$ that Louisiana does not have. Finishing I-49 South to NOLA/I-49 Lafayette Connector, building the I-49 ICC through Shreveport, completing the replacement I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge in Lake Charles, and building a real I-10 southern bypass connecting to a new Mississippi River bridge closer to Addis or Plaquemine should be the main focus of LADOTD at this time. 4-laning LA 28 East of Pineville to Archie and US 84 from Archie to US 425 in Ferriday is more than sufficient enough.

[Bobby5280]

I can't see I-14 being completed as originally envisioned. In the best case scenario (or just bad depending on the point of view) we might end up with two disconnected I-14 segments, one in Texas and one in Georgia.

The situation in Louisiana absolutely demands a shit-load of federal funding help. Take I-10 for instance. That is one of the most important NATIONAL highway corridors. It's not a fucking state highway. So if those long bridges across the Atchafalaya Swamp need to be re-built a wider 3x3 lanes roadways the Goddamn federal government needs to pony up nearly all, if not 100% of the funding. The same goes for some of the other aging I-10 and I-55 bridges over swamp land in Louisiana. Any who tries suggesting Louisiana taxpayers foot that bill on their own is an idiot.

I think the I-49 South project is also pretty important for a number of reasons. That one needs a lot more federal help too.

I-69 is the only proposed/in-progress corridor in Louisiana where I think the federal government can get away with slow-rolling things. BUT, if various power-brokers in TX, LA, AR, MS, TN and KY want I-69 to be finished they need to lobby a hell of a lot harder to get the federal government to take charge with the big picture. Otherwise it will never get completed. Mississippi will need pretty much all its portion of I-69 funded by the feds. Other states along the way will need a lot of funding help too.

Anyway, with all those other Deep South corridor "mouths" in need of feeding it's tough to see where I-14 can fit in with that.

[Rothman]

The situation in Louisiana absolutely demands a shit-load of federal funding help. Take I-10 for instance. That is one of the most important NATIONAL highway corridors. It's not a fucking state highway. So if those long bridges across the Atchafalaya Swamp need to be re-built a wider 3x3 lanes roadways the Goddamn federal government needs to pony up nearly all, if not 100% of the funding.

Pfft.  LA will get 90%.  Everyone gets 90%.

[Bobby5280]

Pfft.  LA will get 90%.  Everyone gets 90%

That's not the impression I get.

[Rothman]

Pfft.  LA will get 90%.  Everyone gets 90%

That's not the impression I get.

You keep on Bobbying, Bobby.

[splashflash]

The $1.5T Department of War budget might be rewritten to force that entity to pay for I-14 upgrades between bases.

https://gulfcoaststrategichighway.org/Artwork%20GC/I-14CoalitionMap2023.9.jpg

TxDOT is managing the Burr's Ferry Bridge replacement across the Sabine River.  https://www.permits.performance.gov/permitting-project/dot-projects/sh-63-sabine-river-bridge-replacement  It appears to not be replacing the old 1930s bridge with a four lane design, squashing prospects of an I-14 project for decades unless federal money were to be available.  Fort Polk is not that far away...
https://www.bing.com/maps/search?FORM=HDRSC6&q=fort+polk&cp=31.118767%7E-93.273765&lvl=12.1&style=r