I-14 in Texas

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

Previous topic - Next topic

MaxConcrete

Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 28, 2024, 06:15:40 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 28, 2024, 04:05:51 PMIf they are going to use the outer loop for I-14 to bypass B-CS, then what happens to the existing Inner Loop bypass and the existing TX 6 freeway through BC-S? Does that become I-214 and the outer bypass gets another number designation or remains numbered as is? And, can I assume that they will still make TX 6 freeway standard in order to fully connect B-CS into I-14 in both directions?

The B-CS "inner loop" is not currently a freeway and may never be a freeway. As noted in the meeting exhibit, it is the "thoroughfare plan inner loop". The west/south side consists of various roadways of various quality, little or none full freeway. The east/north side does not exist - it's just a line on a planning map.

If Loop I-214 is approved and moves forward, I think it will greatly reduce the likelihood of the inner loop ever being made into a freeway. The north/east side of the inner loop may never be built.

Well, I was wrong about the north/east side of the Bryan-College Station inner loop going on the back burner due to the proposed I-214 Loop.

An in-person public meeting is scheduled for the project. Brazos County also has an information page and a fact sheet.

References to the facility are a "roadway" and there's no indication of the possible ultimate planned size. But my impression is that it will not be a freeway. It would probably start as a two-lane road with sufficient right-of-way to add more lanes in the future. It will tie into William Fitch Parkway, which is an arterial street on a right-of-way usually between 100 and 200 feet.

Since the proposed I-214 loop is in the distant future and is far from a sure thing, it certainly makes sense to plan for this section of the inner loop.

www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com


roadman65

Between College Station and Huntsville will I-14 follow SH 30 to avoid an overlap with I-45? Or will it follow US 190 to Madisonville and overlap I-45 like the US route currently does?
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

MaxConcrete

Quote from: roadman65 on November 19, 2024, 10:37:19 AMBetween College Station and Huntsville will I-14 follow SH 30 to avoid an overlap with I-45? Or will it follow US 190 to Madisonville and overlap I-45 like the US route currently does?

There is not a recommended alternative at this time. See the map posted on this thread on June 27, 2024, to see the alternatives in contention, which include the Madisonville option (with I-45 overlap ) and two options going west from Huntsville.
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

roadman65

Quote from: Echostatic on June 27, 2024, 03:51:52 PMHere is a screenshot of the map on slide 10 for easier viewing.



I think going direct is the best. Madisonville is too far out.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

roadman65

From what someone said on here the only real concern is connecting Temple with College Station that Texas has in completing I-14.

I can see the current Super Two of US 190 at Copperas Cove getting widened there to extend the interstate another two three miles. Other than that I-14 will be in our lifetime from Copperas Cove to College Station.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

longhorn

Quote from: roadman65 on November 20, 2024, 08:26:29 AMFrom what someone said on here the only real concern is connecting Temple with College Station that Texas has in completing I-14.

I can see the current Super Two of US 190 at Copperas Cove getting widened there to extend the interstate another two three miles. Other than that I-14 will be in our lifetime from Copperas Cove to College Station.

Pretty much, and for political reasons Cameron cannot be left out. Once the connection from Temple to BCS is complete, I think the Texas contingent would be satisfied for a while. I-14 will extend about four miles west of Copperas Cove too. TxDot already discussed plans for it. Once done, I-14 will not be a priority in many minds.

Now if TxDot would fast track the Belton to Temple I-35/I-14 reconstruction. The idea of express lanes from Belton to temple is wonky but I think it would morph into the center express lanes being I-14 and the outer regular lanes will be I-35.

Bobby5280

Cameron is not an out-of-the-way location for I-14, unlike the towns of Milano, Hearne and Madisonville. A new terrain bypass will be needed to get around Cameron. And that new terrain bypass should remain on new terrain to the College Station area. The stupid W-shaped route shown on so many previous route maps needs to be put to bed.

Henry

Quote from: MaxConcrete on November 19, 2024, 11:08:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 19, 2024, 10:37:19 AMBetween College Station and Huntsville will I-14 follow SH 30 to avoid an overlap with I-45? Or will it follow US 190 to Madisonville and overlap I-45 like the US route currently does?

There is not a recommended alternative at this time. See the map posted on this thread on June 27, 2024, to see the alternatives in contention, which include the Madisonville option (with I-45 overlap ) and two options going west from Huntsville.
Besides, the I-45 overlap is inevitable, no matter which alignment I-14 takes. What I'd like, though, is for the route to be as straight as possible.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

roadman65

Following TX 31 is more direct than what US 190 runs anyhow.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

sprjus4

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 20, 2024, 10:01:40 PMCameron is not an out-of-the-way location for I-14, unlike the towns of Milano, Hearne and Madisonville. A new terrain bypass will be needed to get around Cameron. And that new terrain bypass should remain on new terrain to the College Station area. The stupid W-shaped route shown on so many previous route maps needs to be put to bed.
Considering it isn't on the proposed alternatives... I think it was put to bed quite a while ago. I'm not sure it was ever an option.

Quote from: Echostatic on June 27, 2024, 03:51:52 PM

roadman65

Quote from: longhorn on November 20, 2024, 09:37:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 20, 2024, 08:26:29 AMFrom what someone said on here the only real concern is connecting Temple with College Station that Texas has in completing I-14.

I can see the current Super Two of US 190 at Copperas Cove getting widened there to extend the interstate another two three miles. Other than that I-14 will be in our lifetime from Copperas Cove to College Station.

Pretty much, and for political reasons Cameron cannot be left out. Once the connection from Temple to BCS is complete, I think the Texas contingent would be satisfied for a while. I-14 will extend about four miles west of Copperas Cove too. TxDot already discussed plans for it. Once done, I-14 will not be a priority in many minds.

Now if TxDot would fast track the Belton to Temple I-35/I-14 reconstruction. The idea of express lanes from Belton to temple is wonky but I think it would morph into the center express lanes being I-14 and the outer regular lanes will be I-35.

So it would extend to Kempner then?
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Bobby5280

Quote from: sprjus4Considering it isn't on the proposed alternatives... I think it was put to bed quite a while ago. I'm not sure it was ever an option.

That "opportunity areas" map shows Milano, Hearne and Madisonville still on the table.

longhorn

Quote from: roadman65 on November 22, 2024, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: longhorn on November 20, 2024, 09:37:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 20, 2024, 08:26:29 AMFrom what someone said on here the only real concern is connecting Temple with College Station that Texas has in completing I-14.

I can see the current Super Two of US 190 at Copperas Cove getting widened there to extend the interstate another two three miles. Other than that I-14 will be in our lifetime from Copperas Cove to College Station.

Pretty much, and for political reasons Cameron cannot be left out. Once the connection from Temple to BCS is complete, I think the Texas contingent would be satisfied for a while. I-14 will extend about four miles west of Copperas Cove too. TxDot already discussed plans for it. Once done, I-14 will not be a priority in many minds.

Now if TxDot would fast track the Belton to Temple I-35/I-14 reconstruction. The idea of express lanes from Belton to temple is wonky but I think it would morph into the center express lanes being I-14 and the outer regular lanes will be I-35.

So it would extend to Kempner then?

It will start or end a mile or two from Kempner.

Bobby5280

Has TX DOT done any studies for I-14 as it would apply to the US-190 corridor immediately West of the FM-2657 intersection? It's no big deal widening US-190 to a proper 4-lane divided Interstate up to that point on the West side of Copperas Cove. Going from that point to Kempner along the existing US-190 alignment will involve buying and removing a dozen or so small businesses and homes built too close to the highway.

I-14 would have to bypass Kempner unless TX DOT could manage to relocate all the businesses along the North side of the highway going thru town. It's not a big loss taking out a Dollar General store. But there is a cluster of other local businesses and even a couple homes between the highway and rail line.

Lampasas will need its own partial loop to accommodate I-14, not to mention an improving US-281 corridor coming up from San Antonio.

sprjus4

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 23, 2024, 02:22:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4Considering it isn't on the proposed alternatives... I think it was put to bed quite a while ago. I'm not sure it was ever an option.

That "opportunity areas" map shows Milano, Hearne and Madisonville still on the table.
Yes, because each of those areas has an alternative route passing through them. The "W" route (which is simply the existing route) is not an alternative.

longhorn

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 24, 2024, 09:00:47 AMHas TX DOT done any studies for I-14 as it would apply to the US-190 corridor immediately West of the FM-2657 intersection? It's no big deal widening US-190 to a proper 4-lane divided Interstate up to that point on the West side of Copperas Cove. Going from that point to Kempner along the existing US-190 alignment will involve buying and removing a dozen or so small businesses and homes built too close to the highway.

I-14 would have to bypass Kempner unless TX DOT could manage to relocate all the businesses along the North side of the highway going thru town. It's not a big loss taking out a Dollar General store. But there is a cluster of other local businesses and even a couple homes between the highway and rail line.

Lampasas will need its own partial loop to accommodate I-14, not to mention an improving US-281 corridor coming up from San Antonio.

I have not seen any. IMO, once the expansion around Copperas Cove is done, the Belton/Temple I-14/I-35 rebuild, and I-14 out of Temple connects to College Station, this project will be dormant for decades.

roadman65

That's the best way to get an interstate going is to start bypassing the towns with limited access freeways. Once they get that, it will show Austin that the corridor is worthy of an interstate being built and connect the bypasses later.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

jtespi

Hey everyone, I'd like to move the discussion to I-14 in West Texas.

While I know this is in the very preliminary planning stages, does anyone know why TxDOT chose to omit a link between Fort Stockton and Monahans/Odessa?

Below is an image that I annotated from Future 2 on Page 12 of the Interstate 14 System Implementation Plan from TxDOT (2024).

Why is TxDOT's plan to build an additional Interstate link between Odessa and Iraan via McCamey (following existing US-385 and FM-305)? Wouldn't a better option be to upgrade Texas 18 between Fort Stockton and Monahans to Interstate standards? I circled this in red highlighter on the map.

On the own map, TxDOT has TX-18 designated blue as an International Corridor (a funneling of US-67 traffic going to/from the Ojinaga/Presidio POE to the I-27 corridor).

If TxDOT is for some reason dead set on giving McCamey an Interstate link, then shouldn't there be a short link on the rest of US-385 between just east of Fort Stockton and McCamey? I drew this with a red line on the image below.

I'd say a lot more traffic, both local (including passenger cars) and long distance uses TX-18 to go between Fort Stockton and Monahans (the Permian Basin) instead of US-385 via McCamey which is less direct. TX-18 is also a shorter link between I-10 and I-20.

US-385 and FM-305 shouldn't be upgraded to an Interstate at all, it would just be a duplicate link that funnels traffic from the Permian Basin to Sonora and the future I-27 (current US-277) corridor down to Del Rio. A better link would be future I-14/I-27W from Midland to San Angelo then future I-27 (current US-277) down to Sonora and Del Rio. Traffic that's in the far west Permian Basin can use the link on TX-18 to get down to I-10 by Fort Stockton and stay on I-10 until Sonora.

What do you all think?


splashflash

#818
Thanks for the link (new, I believe) to the posted plan. https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/docs/tpp/i-14-system-in-texas/i-14-system-texas-implementation-plan.pdf

If I-14 were not built west past Lampasas for many years, US 385 would make sense for I-10 traffic going from south-central Texas to Odessa/Midland rather than backtracking along the state route you propose.

From page 69 of the report: "Implementing the I-14 system in Texas will be a decades-long initiative. Of the approximate 1,027 miles of roadway that would ultimately comprise the I-14 System in Texas, excluding approximately 78 miles of existing interstate highways (I-14, I-20, I-35, I-45) that would be part of the system, about 949 miles remain to be constructed to meet interstate standards. There are only 25 miles that has been designated as interstate and signed as I-14 between Belton and Copperas Cove. As there is no dedicated funding to develop the I-14 system, each project will have to compete with other statewide projects for construction funding. TxDOT and the Texas Transportation Commission must continually balance competing interests throughout the state, while making the best use of the funding TxDOT receives from federal, state and local sources."

Bobby5280

Quote from: jtespiWhile I know this is in the very preliminary planning stages, does anyone know why TxDOT chose to omit a link between Fort Stockton and Monahans/Odessa?

Odessa has just over 100,000 residents. Fort Stockton, TX has a population of less than 10,000. That doesn't exactly rate an Interstate corridor.

A bunch of those proposed "legs" branching off of the I-14 main route have very little chance of ever being built. Even the bulk of I-14 itself faces a very murky future.

CoreySamson

If I was the one in charge of the I-14/I-27 mess in west TX, the only branches I would build would be I-14 from Midland to Lampasas via San Angelo, I-27 from Lubbock to wherever its southern terminus is supposed to be (I like Junction as a potential terminus), and an I-127 branching from I-27 near Lamesa to Midland. Everything else is pork.
Buc-ee's and QuikTrip fanboy. Clincher of FM roads. Proponent of the TX U-turn. Budding theologian.

Route Log
Clinches
Counties
Travel Mapping

ElishaGOtis

I did a trip along the future I-14 / I-14N corridor last spring, and much of the corridor was minimally ready at best. Some portions are 4-lane divided with a few freeway sections (I.e. Brady to San Angelo), but a large chunk is still a classic 2 or 4 lane undivided highway. It will take a lot to upgrade that corridor, but thankfully it's planned to be an upgrade rather than a mostly-greenfield build.

One thing I will mention is that the majority of the route is unsurprisingly 75mph in the rural areas. As someone from Florida used to lower speed limits, an Interstate Highway wouldn't be much a time-saver (unless they do an 80+ design which is beyond unlikely), but it would definitely improve safety and future capacity. It'd definitely beat having to slow down to 30 at every town along the way  :-P
I can drive 55 ONLY when it makes sense.

NOTE: Opinions expressed here on AARoads are solely my own and do not represent or reflect the statements, opinions, or decisions of any agency. Any official information I share will be quoted from another source.

splashflash

I
Quote from: CoreySamson on June 02, 2025, 03:13:27 PMIf I was the one in charge of the I-14/I-27 mess in west TX, the only branches I would build would be I-14 from Midland to Lampasas via San Angelo, I-27 from Lubbock to wherever its southern terminus is supposed to be (I like Junction as a potential terminus), and an I-127 branching from I-27 near Lamesa to Midland. Everything else is pork.
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.

sprjus4

Quote from: splashflash on June 02, 2025, 07:22:03 PMI
Quote from: CoreySamson on June 02, 2025, 03:13:27 PMIf I was the one in charge of the I-14/I-27 mess in west TX, the only branches I would build would be I-14 from Midland to Lampasas via San Angelo, I-27 from Lubbock to wherever its southern terminus is supposed to be (I like Junction as a potential terminus), and an I-127 branching from I-27 near Lamesa to Midland. Everything else is pork.
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.
Realistically, if the pork that is I-27 south of I-10 didn't exist, I-27 should follow the US-87 and US-83 corridor to Junction and terminate at I-10.

That is where most traffic is going because it provides access from I-10 to the US-87 corridor going west, and vice versa.

US-277 south of San Angelo, and beyond I-10 does not warrant any upgrade to an interstate highway.

Bobby5280

Quote from: ElishaGOtisOne thing I will mention is that the majority of the route is unsurprisingly 75mph in the rural areas. As someone from Florida used to lower speed limits, an Interstate Highway wouldn't be much a time-saver (unless they do an 80+ design which is beyond unlikely), but it would definitely improve safety and future capacity. It'd definitely beat having to slow down to 30 at every town along the way  :-P

A true Interstate highway would overcome the speed traps in po-dunk towns along the way. Speed limits might still drop from 80-75 down to the 65-55 range, but that's far better than a 75 speed dropping down to 30 in quick stages.

Safety is the biggest improvement. An Interstate would eliminate most chances of a head-on collision (if cable barriers are present). At grade intersections and driveways would be eliminated, removing the risk of vehicles making hard turns from a stop directly into high speed travel lanes.

Quote from: SplashFlashInterestingly, 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.

That truck 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?



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