AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-14 in Louisiana  (Read 17944 times)

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1506
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:13:00 AM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #50 on: February 20, 2017, 11:45:55 PM »

I have no problem with building an Interstate between Cuba, AL to Montgomery (upgrading US-80).

I don't think I-20 in Mississippi is loaded down with traffic. I think it would be cheaper to add another lane in each direction to I-20 if needed rather than build another new terrain East-West Interstate across much of Mississippi.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5129
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:46:56 AM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #51 on: February 21, 2017, 06:28:55 AM »

I have no problem with building an Interstate between Cuba, AL to Montgomery (upgrading US-80).

I don't think I-20 in Mississippi is loaded down with traffic. I think it would be cheaper to add another lane in each direction to I-20 if needed rather than build another new terrain East-West Interstate across much of Mississippi.

If I-14 were to be deployed across MS, it would likely be as an upgrade to existing US 84 (except perhaps within the larger towns along the route) rather than a long-distance new-terrain alignment.  Much of that route is upgradeable divided highway with occasional private access points that could be addressed by frontage roads or shunting to other surface roads. 
Logged

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1972
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 09:19:13 PM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #52 on: February 21, 2017, 06:47:20 AM »

I have no problem with building an Interstate between Cuba, AL to Montgomery (upgrading US-80).

I don't think I-20 in Mississippi is loaded down with traffic. I think it would be cheaper to add another lane in each direction to I-20 if needed rather than build another new terrain East-West Interstate across much of Mississippi.

If I-14 were to be deployed across MS, it would likely be as an upgrade to existing US 84 (except perhaps within the larger towns along the route) rather than a long-distance new-terrain alignment.  Much of that route is upgradeable divided highway with occasional private access points that could be addressed by frontage roads or shunting to other surface roads. 

Building the frontage roads wouldn't be much of a problem between Natchez & Bude (where US 98 & 84 split. I can't speak about 84 east of there because I haven't driven there.)  There are many sections of old US 84 still in use through the smaller towns and some unused pieces of pavement in the bushes...complete with painted stripes!
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5129
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:46:56 AM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #53 on: February 22, 2017, 04:25:07 PM »

I have no problem with building an Interstate between Cuba, AL to Montgomery (upgrading US-80).

I don't think I-20 in Mississippi is loaded down with traffic. I think it would be cheaper to add another lane in each direction to I-20 if needed rather than build another new terrain East-West Interstate across much of Mississippi.

If I-14 were to be deployed across MS, it would likely be as an upgrade to existing US 84 (except perhaps within the larger towns along the route) rather than a long-distance new-terrain alignment.  Much of that route is upgradeable divided highway with occasional private access points that could be addressed by frontage roads or shunting to other surface roads. 

Building the frontage roads wouldn't be much of a problem between Natchez & Bude (where US 98 & 84 split. I can't speak about 84 east of there because I haven't driven there.)  There are many sections of old US 84 still in use through the smaller towns and some unused pieces of pavement in the bushes...complete with painted stripes!

My earlier opinion was based on a Google Maps overview of US 84 across the state as far as Laurel.  There seems to be sufficient easement for frontage roads along most of the route, except in or near the larger towns, as cited previously.  There, other arrangements would, of course, need to be made (bypasses, berms, etc.).  IMO it would be doable, albeit requiring some placation of roadside businesses in and around populous areas.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2769
  • Visionary

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 12:22:46 PM
    • Personal Site
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #54 on: February 22, 2017, 07:45:06 PM »

My earlier opinion was based on a Google Maps overview of US 84 across the state as far as Laurel.  There seems to be sufficient easement for frontage roads along most of the route, except in or near the larger towns, as cited previously.  There, other arrangements would, of course, need to be made (bypasses, berms, etc.).  IMO it would be doable, albeit requiring some placation of roadside businesses in and around populous areas.

I just looked at it myself. You could actually have it jump on I-59 to get through Laurel, then continue following US 84 to Alabama.
Logged
Keep Clearview, lose the government bureaucracies and the politicians who enable them.
US Redo | Louisiana Redo | Route Challenge | Photos

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1281
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 12:05:20 PM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #55 on: February 22, 2017, 08:23:32 PM »

Going back to Louisiana for a bit....

I still have some doubt about using the proposed Alexandria Beltway as the routing for I-14 through Alexandria, especially since the beltway is proposed to be merely an arterial. Right now, the current point of the beltway crossing MacArthur Drive and I-49 is dangerously close to that large interchange between I-49 and MacArthur Drive/US 71-167.

What would be wrong with having I-14 use LA 28 to just near England Air Park, then break off to the southeast on new alignment to connect with I-49 near the curve west of US 71, then using I-49 to just past the MacArthur interchange, then breaking off from I-49 near Sugarhouse Road to go northeast across the Red River as an east bypass?

This would "freewayize" the southern and eastern perimeter of the Alexandria Beltway, add a needed east-west bypass of Alexandria, and avoid having to plow through existing neighborhoods to build an arterial route. 

Am I crazy, or is this a good idea?
Logged

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1972
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 09:19:13 PM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #56 on: February 22, 2017, 08:40:35 PM »

Going back to Louisiana for a bit....

I still have some doubt about using the proposed Alexandria Beltway as the routing for I-14 through Alexandria, especially since the beltway is proposed to be merely an arterial. Right now, the current point of the beltway crossing MacArthur Drive and I-49 is dangerously close to that large interchange between I-49 and MacArthur Drive/US 71-167.

What would be wrong with having I-14 use LA 28 to just near England Air Park, then break off to the southeast on new alignment to connect with I-49 near the curve west of US 71, then using I-49 to just past the MacArthur interchange, then breaking off from I-49 near Sugarhouse Road to go northeast across the Red River as an east bypass?

This would "freewayize" the southern and eastern perimeter of the Alexandria Beltway, add a needed east-west bypass of Alexandria, and avoid having to plow through existing neighborhoods to build an arterial route. 

Am I crazy, or is this a good idea?

Sounds like a good idea...if I have it right in my mind:

I'm guessing the turn near England Air Park would take place about where LA 1243 meets LA 28?

Then have it follow LA 28 to Archie & follow/take over US 84 after the northeast turn from Sugarhouse?
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2769
  • Visionary

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 12:22:46 PM
    • Personal Site
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #57 on: February 22, 2017, 11:04:47 PM »

I still have some doubt about using the proposed Alexandria Beltway as the routing for I-14 through Alexandria, especially since the beltway is proposed to be merely an arterial.

Who says that the beltway has to be entirely arterial or entirely freeway? Part of it could be freeway or freeway-ready to accommodate I-14, and the rest could be arterial or wide-median to accommodate a future freeway. (Or all of it could be built with a wide median, Texas-style.)
Logged
Keep Clearview, lose the government bureaucracies and the politicians who enable them.
US Redo | Louisiana Redo | Route Challenge | Photos

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1281
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 12:05:20 PM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #58 on: February 24, 2017, 12:08:30 PM »

I still have some doubt about using the proposed Alexandria Beltway as the routing for I-14 through Alexandria, especially since the beltway is proposed to be merely an arterial.

Who says that the beltway has to be entirely arterial or entirely freeway? Part of it could be freeway or freeway-ready to accommodate I-14, and the rest could be arterial or wide-median to accommodate a future freeway. (Or all of it could be built with a wide median, Texas-style.)

If the basic idea is to use LA 1234 and Sugar House Road for the Beltway, then there's no way in Hell they can get the ROW for a future freeway in there. Not with all those direct connections to driveways and the narrow ROW.

They would be better served to connect any routing of I-14 to I-49 just south of Alex to the curve just east of MacArthur Drive, then branch off just NE of the MacArthur Drive interchange. You could still keep the segment of the Beltway between LA 28 and the Sugar House Road/MacArthur Drive intersection as an arterial, and connect it to the freeway segment east of there to cross the Red River and go further NE to meet existing LA 28.
Logged

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2049
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 11:05:53 PM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #59 on: February 25, 2017, 08:52:21 AM »

I don't think I-20 in Mississippi is loaded down with traffic. I think it would be cheaper to add another lane in each direction to I-20 if needed rather than build another new terrain East-West Interstate across much of Mississippi.

It isn't, save maybe for west of Jackson or along the I-20/59 multiplex.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3418
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: November 16, 2018, 08:24:13 PM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #60 on: April 24, 2017, 01:55:31 PM »

This April 18 article reprts that the chair of the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition was in Alexandria recently drumming up support for I-14:

Quote
"If you look at the whole project and think about a total dollar value, You're going to be overwhelmed," said John Thompson, chair of the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition. "You have to eat that elephant one bite at a time. That might mean one overpass. One four-laning project that might be only 10 miles long."
The Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition is made up of communities that support the development of I-14. Thompson, a former judge in Polk County, Texas, who grew up in Jena, was in Alexandria Monday to drum up support from area stakeholders.
Originally conceived as a way to link some of the South's most important military installations with each other and with deployment assets like ports and airports, the highway would also be an economic asset and boost ease of travel by giving Central Louisiana an east-west interstate.
"We have the north-south corridor with (Interstate 49)," said Deborah Randolph, president of the Central Louisiana Chamber of Commerce. "We think this project is critical to the future of Fort Polk, as well as an enhancement to economic development in our region."
Congress has designated I-14's route through Texas, where it will run from west of Fort Hood to a new bridge over the Sabine River connecting to La. Highway 8 near Leesville. A 25-mile stretch anchored by Fort Hood will officially become the first part of I-14 in a ceremony this weekend ....
The next step is for state leaders to work with Congress to get the I-14 route through Louisiana approved, so when funds do become available for parts of the project, the state can apply for them.
The most likely route through Louisiana would follow La. Highway 28 from Leesville, looping around the urbanized areas of Alexandria/Pineville to pick up Highway 28 again east of Pineville, then continue east to the border with Mississippi near Vidalia.
....
There are challenges, including whether there's an appetite in Louisiana to provide the large matching funds for a new highway when so many of the state's roads need upgrading.
"This is a long-term project," Randolph said. "Obviously, we're going to start with the (new Sabine River bridge) and go piece by piece. Overall, it's probably a 30-year effort."
"A lot of us will never see it built," Thompson said.
"Money today is tight, especially in Texas and Louisiana with oil and gas prices. But you can't quit planning. You can't give up your vision of what the future's going to look like or there isn't going to be a future."

A new Sabine River bridge seems as good as place to start as any.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2875
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 06:13:31 PM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #61 on: April 24, 2017, 03:57:40 PM »

Are we to the point now where we're just building interstates, just because?  I mean outside of texas, what's the point of this thing?  do any of these people think Miss can pay for this?  they can't even build 69! which is another useless route in that area.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1506
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:13:00 AM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #62 on: April 24, 2017, 09:14:25 PM »

I can think of a number of different significant corridors elsewhere in the nation that would be more appropriate to lay down a new Interstate than this one.

I think there is virtually no chance I-14 will ever be built the entire length of its proposed El Paso to Savannah path. At best we might see a couple disconnected segments, like one in Texas and another perhaps in Alabama and/or Georgia. I can see it maybe getting built from Copperas Cove thru College Station and over to Huntsville within the next 20 years. That's about it. During that period I think there's a better chance of US-290 being upgraded to Interstate standards the entire way between Austin and Houston -especially if the Austin area and region between it and San Antonio continue to grow like crazy.
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1281
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 12:05:20 PM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #63 on: April 24, 2017, 11:30:50 PM »

This April 18 article reprts that the chair of the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition was in Alexandria recently drumming up support for I-14:

Quote

"If you look at the whole project and think about a total dollar value, You're going to be overwhelmed," said John Thompson, chair of the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition. "You have to eat that elephant one bite at a time. That might mean one overpass. One four-laning project that might be only 10 miles long."
The Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition is made up of communities that support the development of I-14. Thompson, a former judge in Polk County, Texas, who grew up in Jena, was in Alexandria Monday to drum up support from area stakeholders.
Originally conceived as a way to link some of the South's most important military installations with each other and with deployment assets like ports and airports, the highway would also be an economic asset and boost ease of travel by giving Central Louisiana an east-west interstate.
"We have the north-south corridor with (Interstate 49)," said Deborah Randolph, president of the Central Louisiana Chamber of Commerce. "We think this project is critical to the future of Fort Polk, as well as an enhancement to economic development in our region."
Congress has designated I-14's route through Texas, where it will run from west of Fort Hood to a new bridge over the Sabine River connecting to La. Highway 8 near Leesville. A 25-mile stretch anchored by Fort Hood will officially become the first part of I-14 in a ceremony this weekend ....
The next step is for state leaders to work with Congress to get the I-14 route through Louisiana approved, so when funds do become available for parts of the project, the state can apply for them.
The most likely route through Louisiana would follow La. Highway 28 from Leesville, looping around the urbanized areas of Alexandria/Pineville to pick up Highway 28 again east of Pineville, then continue east to the border with Mississippi near Vidalia.
....
There are challenges, including whether there's an appetite in Louisiana to provide the large matching funds for a new highway when so many of the state's roads need upgrading.
"This is a long-term project," Randolph said. "Obviously, we're going to start with the (new Sabine River bridge) and go piece by piece. Overall, it's probably a 30-year effort."
"A lot of us will never see it built," Thompson said.
"Money today is tight, especially in Texas and Louisiana with oil and gas prices. But you can't quit planning. You can't give up your vision of what the future's going to look like or there isn't going to be a future."

A new Sabine River bridge seems as good as place to start as any.




Gee...I understand the value of thinking ahead, but can we please complete I-49 and fix the I-10 bottleneck through BTR FIRST????

Logged

cenlaroads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 58
  • Last Login: February 13, 2019, 11:56:24 AM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #64 on: April 25, 2017, 01:20:59 AM »

The current 4-lane sections of this corridor, LA 28 between Leesville and Alexandria and US 84 in eastern LA, have nowhere near enough traffic to justify an interstate through this region.  Every one of the dozens of times I have driven between Alexandria and Leesville, there have been maybe 2 or 3 cars within a half mile of me, ahead or behind.

The last statewide transportation plan update had over $40 billion worth of "megaprojects" listed, and I would wager that every one of them is more necessary and justified that building I-14 through Louisiana.  Not to mention the $12 billion (or whatever it is) backlog of maintenance.
Logged

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2049
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 11:05:53 PM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #65 on: April 25, 2017, 07:48:05 AM »

I think there is virtually no chance I-14 will ever be built the entire length of its proposed El Paso to Savannah path. At best we might see a couple disconnected segments, like one in Texas and another perhaps in Alabama and/or Georgia. I can see it maybe getting built from Copperas Cove thru College Station and over to Huntsville within the next 20 years. That's about it. During that period I think there's a better chance of US-290 being upgraded to Interstate standards the entire way between Austin and Houston -especially if the Austin area and region between it and San Antonio continue to grow like crazy.

As far as I know, Alabama has little interest in I-14. The closest thing Alabama has interest in that corridor in is the I-85 western extension along the US 80 corridor, and it has been years since any headway has been made on that. Other than the Birmingham Northern Beltline and perhaps the Montgomery Outer Loop and an interstate connection between Dothan and I-10, there aren't any other Alabama interstate corridors that are remotely being considered at this time.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1506
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:13:00 AM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #66 on: April 25, 2017, 11:44:02 AM »

US-80 between Cuba, AL and Montgomery is what I would refer to as Alabama's segment of I-14, if not an extension of I-85 or I-16. It's the only new East-West corridor of significant length in Alabama that has any long term chance of being built. A new I-14 corridor built farther South to a town like Dothan would not be justifiable. I would much rather see the I-85 extension from Montgomery be built or an I-22 extension SE from Birmingham to Columbus, GA; Albany, GA and Tifton, GA (I-75). If the patriotic pork barrel theme is about linking military installations with Interstate quality corridors you have Fort Benning in Columbus and the Marine Corps Repair Division in Albany.

Right now I-14 can only be best justified as a Central Texas highway. And that's only going to be decent if the road can be built in a reasonably straight path rather than the shark tooth path from Cameron, NE up to Hearne, SE to Bryan, NE to Madisonville and multiplexed with I-45 to Huntsville. Ugh. I really hope they don't build the road along that path. Just go straight from Cameron to Bryan and then on over to Huntsville. Most of I-14 in this area will have to be built on a new terrain path anyway. Most of the existing roads charted to be upgraded to Interstate quality in that area have too much residential/commercial development along side, not to mention railroad lines and other utilities encroaching the right of way.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5129
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:46:56 AM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #67 on: April 25, 2017, 05:16:07 PM »

US-80 between Cuba, AL and Montgomery is what I would refer to as Alabama's segment of I-14, if not an extension of I-85 or I-16. It's the only new East-West corridor of significant length in Alabama that has any long term chance of being built. A new I-14 corridor built farther South to a town like Dothan would not be justifiable. I would much rather see the I-85 extension from Montgomery be built or an I-22 extension SE from Birmingham to Columbus, GA; Albany, GA and Tifton, GA (I-75). If the patriotic pork barrel theme is about linking military installations with Interstate quality corridors you have Fort Benning in Columbus and the Marine Corps Repair Division in Albany.

Right now I-14 can only be best justified as a Central Texas highway. And that's only going to be decent if the road can be built in a reasonably straight path rather than the shark tooth path from Cameron, NE up to Hearne, SE to Bryan, NE to Madisonville and multiplexed with I-45 to Huntsville. Ugh. I really hope they don't build the road along that path. Just go straight from Cameron to Bryan and then on over to Huntsville. Most of I-14 in this area will have to be built on a new terrain path anyway. Most of the existing roads charted to be upgraded to Interstate quality in that area have too much residential/commercial development along side, not to mention railroad lines and other utilities encroaching the right of way.

The existence of the on-again-off-again I-whatever along US 80 west of Montgomery is the principal reason for my thought that a cross-MS I-14 won't get east of I-59 at Laurel; if the US 80 AL facility is built, a further I-14 extension to the Montgomery area (per the original posited plans) would be at best redundant and at worst wasteful. 

Also, as regards TX, I've always thought that for the time being development of I-14 east of Temple will be directed toward providing a path through the "Triangle" toward Houston and connecting somewhere around Navasota with the Toll-249 extension toward that metro area; while a connection east from the Bryan/State College area toward Huntsville (maybe paralleling TX 30) might be in the works, once a Houston-Temple connection is completed (that serves the A&M populace) much of the wind will go out of the sails, so to speak -- with the eastern segment through the "piney woods" eking itself out gradually as funding allows.   
Logged

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: January 03, 2019, 01:34:05 AM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #68 on: April 25, 2017, 05:27:49 PM »

I think there's a decent case for a better connection from Montgomery to Phenix City/Columbus than the existing US 80 and US 280, along with a few limited access connections further east (extension of the US 80 Columbus bypass and better east-west connectivity around Macon) and upgrades for a few substandard sections of the Fall Line Freeway corridor to bypass Byron, Wrens, and Reynolds, but there isn't really much justification for an interstate designation, even for economic development.

As for the GA 520 corridor from Columbus via Albany to Tifton well, it really is pretty much fine as-is. Again it could well use a better tie-in at I-75, but GDOT tends to be bad at that sort of thing.
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4560
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: February 15, 2019, 02:10:01 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #69 on: April 25, 2017, 10:48:50 PM »

FWIW, I see this corridor as a western extension of I-16, with any remaining piece being renamed to an I-x16 spur. I-85 certainly makes no sense for its routing (except for the Durham-Petersburg segment), but then again, did it ever?
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5129
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:46:56 AM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #70 on: April 26, 2017, 12:03:27 AM »

FWIW, I see this corridor as a western extension of I-16, with any remaining piece being renamed to an I-x16 spur. I-85 certainly makes no sense for its routing (except for the Durham-Petersburg segment), but then again, did it ever?

If by "this corridor" you're referring to the greater US 80 (and GA 96) Macon-Columbus-Montgomery-Cuba (AL) routing, then yes, the most appropriate designation would be I-16 as a western extension of the existing route.  I-14's E-W trajectory is situated well south of that of the above.  What would happen to the "southernmost" 40-odd miles of I-85 would likely be determined after the E-W corridor was completed (right now any speculation should be relegated to the fictional realm).  As the extended "I-16" corridor is, along with the existing Macon-Savannah segment, part of a singular high priority corridor (#6), it's more likely than not that any Interstate-related activity will reflect that singularity -- especially since the impetus surrounding the extension west of Montgomery, long dubbed "I-85", seems to have subsided in the last several years -- and a "reboot" might well include a more appropriate number.  The extended corridor, along with the Macon-Augusta "Fall Line" project, forms a usable Atlanta E-W bypass (IMO, any bypass of that particular metro region would be useful); that, along with support from regional political boosters, might revive the US 80 upgrading.   
Logged

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2049
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 11:05:53 PM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #71 on: April 26, 2017, 07:55:34 AM »

According to this article, The MOL may be shelved for a while.

Quote
Officials also revealed that the plug has been pulled on some of the plans for the Montgomery Outer Loop project due to funding.

“There's clearly not enough money that's going to be available or not foreseen right now to have that project in the work program. They've been asked to take it out of their regional long range transportation plan. So the only projects right now that are in the Outer Loop are the ones currently under construction into the Pike Road area. The other projects to extend it around to the west towards 231 are no longer in the work program,” added Carroll.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1506
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:13:00 AM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #72 on: April 26, 2017, 11:42:19 AM »

It's a shame the Montgomery Outer Loop has been shelved indefinitely. That would be the most practical solution for adding an Interstate link between Montogomery and Meridian. US-80 immediately West of I-65 in Montogomery has quite a few properties built fairly close to it. It would be tricky upgrading that stretch of highway to Interstate standards. At least a few properties would have to be demolished to make room for it.

Quote
Also, as regards TX, I've always thought that for the time being development of I-14 east of Temple will be directed toward providing a path through the "Triangle" toward Houston and connecting somewhere around Navasota with the Toll-249 extension toward that metro area; while a connection east from the Bryan/State College area toward Huntsville (maybe paralleling TX 30) might be in the works, once a Houston-Temple connection is completed (that serves the A&M populace) much of the wind will go out of the sails, so to speak -- with the eastern segment through the "piney woods" eking itself out gradually as funding allows.

I think additional "rings" and "spokes" for the metro Houston super highway network are a foregone conclusion whether or not anyone likes freeways and toll roads. College Station to Huntsville (along or near TX-30) would be a suitable segment of I-14. The TX-105 corridor from Navasota to Conroe is getting covered up with development fast, especially near Lake Conroe. I could see a freeway or toll road being built from Navasota to Conroe and over to Cleveland. If TX DOT wants to build a super highway through there they have already fallen way way behind.

These additional "rings" and "spokes" in rapidly developing areas like Houston are excruciatingly expensive to build, so expensive they're busting the overall budget for long distance, major route development. This nation's highway network has more needs than just serving local commuter traffic. Long distance travel for both commercial vehicles and personal vehicles is very important. I think long distance vehicle travel is only going to grow more important and popular in the coming years when self-driving vehicle technology is able to be sold to the public.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5129
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:46:56 AM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #73 on: April 26, 2017, 03:38:48 PM »

These additional "rings" and "spokes" in rapidly developing areas like Houston are excruciatingly expensive to build, so expensive they're busting the overall budget for long distance, major route development. This nation's highway network has more needs than just serving local commuter traffic. Long distance travel for both commercial vehicles and personal vehicles is very important. I think long distance vehicle travel is only going to grow more important and popular in the coming years when self-driving vehicle technology is able to be sold to the public.

This!  One of the consequences of consolidation of state highway agencies into omnibus transportation entities is that the squeakiest of wheels tends to be the focus of the most attention, followed by issues where private developmental dollars are in play.  In states with extensive metro areas like California, Texas, Illinois et. al., that "squeakiest" wheel in invariably the commute situation in and around those metro areas.  How that is addressed can make or break a transportation agency's reputation (as well as the careers of upper management!).  That's why, out in SoCal, multiple millions were spent on the Devore I-15/215 interchange to eliminate a TOTSO on I-15 while providing an additional through lane on each leg -- the perceived needs of commuter traffic to the High Desert exurbs carried the day, while a route in the same Caltrans operating district (8) carrying an outsized percentage of heavy long-distance trucks -- but decidedly not any significant commuter traffic (CA 58) remains in part a 2-lane perennial slog, as improvement projects proceed one at a time every few years or so. 

The same thing applies to Texas and its penchant for widely dispersed and outflung exurban living.  As Houston's "orbit" expands, so does the demand for road facilities to serve them.  As the ongoing fulfillment of those demands continues, the in-state funds available for transportation improvement -- the usual TX bravado notwithstanding -- become scarce when interregional needs arise.  In order to "shave off" some portion of the funding pot, backers of the more rural long-distance routes, such as I-14, resort to a virtual series of "stunts" like the 2015 adoption of a "placeholder" routing as High Priority Corridor #84 and last week's erection of I-14 signs on the Belton-Copperas Cove freeway -- in order to call attention to their project.  It's a "hey, we're here and we're serious about this" type of action.  From the record so far, Texas interests have been able to do just that successfully more than not, provided they can amass a following in state government and secure the cooperation of local congresspersons (even nominally recalcitrant TX Republicans can often find value in these "back-door" earmarks).  I'd say the "Triangle" portion of I-14 will be developed in 15-20 years, anything west of I-35 or east of I-45 may well be a long-term concern unless there's an effective political clamor for timely development. 
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2027
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 01:59:20 PM
Re: I-14 in Louisiana
« Reply #74 on: April 26, 2017, 03:57:59 PM »

Maybe the Interstate 14 concept should be shelved. Outside of a small piece in Texas, I kind of doubt much of the Interstate will see the light of day.
Logged

 


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.