AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The forum just turned ten years old! Where has all the time gone?

Author Topic: I-14 in Texas  (Read 35049 times)

Brian556

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2026
  • Location: Lewisville, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:38:47 AM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #250 on: August 22, 2018, 09:05:12 PM »

Interestingly, the NWS Ft Worth office used the wording "the I-14 corridor" in their forecast discussion this morning. That was a first
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5112
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:55 AM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #251 on: August 22, 2018, 09:41:34 PM »

Interestingly, the NWS Ft Worth office used the wording "the I-14 corridor" in their forecast discussion this morning. That was a first

Wonder if the NWS is considering the strictly US 190 corridor or the combination US 190/87 corridor via San Angelo as the defining location? 
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3418
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: November 16, 2018, 08:24:13 PM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #252 on: August 26, 2018, 08:07:20 PM »

It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.:-D
Your correct. Itís what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.
Any documentation/press releases/etc. to confirm this?

I took a look at the proposed legislation, H.R. 6111, and there is indeed an Interstate 14 North, Interstate 14 South, and Interstate !4 in Texas:

Quote
H. R. 6111
To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 with respect to high priority corridors on the National Highway System, and for other purposes ....
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``I-14 Expansion and Improvement Act
of 2018''.

SEC. 2. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

    (a) Identification.--
            (1) Central texas corridor.--Section 1105(c)(84) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is

amended to read as follows:
            ``(84) The Central Texas Corridor, including the route--
                    ``(A) commencing in the vicinity of Texas Highway
                338 in Odessa, Texas, running eastward generally
                following Interstate Route 20, connecting to Texas
                Highway 158 in the vicinity of Midland, Texas, then
                following Texas Highway 158 eastward to United States
                Route 87 and then following United States Route 87
                southeastward, passing in the vicinity of San Angelo,
                Texas, and connecting to United States Route 190 in the
                vicinity of Brady, Texas;
....
The route referred to in subsection (c)(84)(A) is designated as Interstate Route I-14 North and the State of Texas shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such route as future Interstate Route I-14 North.

a) Identification.--
            (1) Central texas corridor.--Section 1105(c)(84) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended to read as follows:

(B) commencing at the intersection of Interstate Route 10 and United States Route 190 in Pecos County, Texas, and following United States Route 190 to Brady, Texas;

The route referred to in subsection (c)(84)(B) is designated as Interstate Route I-14 South and the State of Texas shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such route as future Interstate Route I-14 South.

(a) Identification.--
           (1) Central texas corridor.--Section 1105(c)(84) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended to read as follows:

C) following portions of United States Route 190
                eastward, passing in the vicinity of Fort Hood,
                Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station,
                Huntsville, Livingston, Woodville, and Jasper, to the
                logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine
                River Bridge at Burrs Crossing;
                    ``(D) following United States Route 83 southward
                from the vicinity of Eden, Texas, to a logical
                connection to Interstate Route 10 at Junction, Texas;
                    ``(E) following United States Route 69 from
                Interstate Route 10 in Beaumont, Texas, north to United
                States Route 190 in the vicinity of Woodville, Texas;
                and
                    ``(F) following United States Route 96 from
                Interstate Route 10 in Beaumont, Texas, north to United
                States Route 190 in the vicinity of Jasper, Texas.''.
....
The routes referred to in subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), and (F) of subsection (c)(84) ... are designated as Interstate Route I-14 and the State of Texas ... shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such routes as segments of future Interstate Route I-14.''.

Seems like designating subsections D, E, and F as future Route I-14 will create a lot of confusion.
Logged

txstateends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1045
  • Location: north TX, near an interstate interchange and a US terminus
  • Last Login: February 16, 2019, 01:36:01 PM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #253 on: August 27, 2018, 01:52:05 AM »

This is getting more spidery than the south end(s) of I-69.
Logged
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5112
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:55 AM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #254 on: August 27, 2018, 03:15:12 AM »

It could be worse; the whole I-14 thing could've been another jumble of I-69 suffixes.:-D
Your correct. Itís what they are going with.
I-14N and I-14S.
Any documentation/press releases/etc. to confirm this?

I took a look at the proposed legislation, H.R. 6111, and there is indeed an Interstate 14 North, Interstate 14 South, and Interstate !4 in Texas:

Quote
H. R. 6111
To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 with respect to high priority corridors on the National Highway System, and for other purposes ....
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``I-14 Expansion and Improvement Act
of 2018''.

SEC. 2. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

    (a) Identification.--
            (1) Central texas corridor.--Section 1105(c)(84) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is

amended to read as follows:
            ``(84) The Central Texas Corridor, including the route--
                    ``(A) commencing in the vicinity of Texas Highway
                338 in Odessa, Texas, running eastward generally
                following Interstate Route 20, connecting to Texas
                Highway 158 in the vicinity of Midland, Texas, then
                following Texas Highway 158 eastward to United States
                Route 87 and then following United States Route 87
                southeastward, passing in the vicinity of San Angelo,
                Texas, and connecting to United States Route 190 in the
                vicinity of Brady, Texas;
....
The route referred to in subsection (c)(84)(A) is designated as Interstate Route I-14 North and the State of Texas shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such route as future Interstate Route I-14 North.

a) Identification.--
            (1) Central texas corridor.--Section 1105(c)(84) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended to read as follows:

(B) commencing at the intersection of Interstate Route 10 and United States Route 190 in Pecos County, Texas, and following United States Route 190 to Brady, Texas;

The route referred to in subsection (c)(84)(B) is designated as Interstate Route I-14 South and the State of Texas shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such route as future Interstate Route I-14 South.

(a) Identification.--
           (1) Central texas corridor.--Section 1105(c)(84) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended to read as follows:

C) following portions of United States Route 190
                eastward, passing in the vicinity of Fort Hood,
                Killeen, Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station,
                Huntsville, Livingston, Woodville, and Jasper, to the
                logical terminus of Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine
                River Bridge at Burrs Crossing;
                    ``(D) following United States Route 83 southward
                from the vicinity of Eden, Texas, to a logical
                connection to Interstate Route 10 at Junction, Texas;
                    ``(E) following United States Route 69 from
                Interstate Route 10 in Beaumont, Texas, north to United
                States Route 190 in the vicinity of Woodville, Texas;
                and
                    ``(F) following United States Route 96 from
                Interstate Route 10 in Beaumont, Texas, north to United
                States Route 190 in the vicinity of Jasper, Texas.''.
....
The routes referred to in subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), and (F) of subsection (c)(84) ... are designated as Interstate Route I-14 and the State of Texas ... shall erect signs, as appropriate and as approved by the Secretary, identifying such routes as segments of future Interstate Route I-14.''.

Seems like designating subsections D, E, and F as future Route I-14 will create a lot of confusion.

Holy shit.......and this isn't even April 1st!  Well, since they carved I-369 out of a formally designated I-69 segment, it looks like we've probably got I-114, I-214, and I-314 accounted for (the middle one the Eden/US 83 connector to I-10 and the other two the Beaumont access "twins" on US 69 & 96.  Looks like everyone wants a piece of this particular pie.
My question is:  who wrote this mess and who's running with it?  If they're one and the same, they need a dose of reality pronto (along with a thorough ass-kicking!).  :verymad:

OK, I've calmed down just a bit -- let's assess the situation as to what probably transpired to produce these results.  Although the north & south corridors are only a hair over 20 miles apart at the US 83 connection point, they're in two separate congressional districts (TX gerrymandering at work!); and IIRC the congressman representing the district including the town of Menard promised them I-14 would serve them, while groups in San Angelo, about 12 times the size of the smaller city, fully expected, with the aid and abetting from Midland/Odessa backers, the corridor to go through their region.  Since someone had to lose with a stark choice, the choice was made not to choose but to go with both legs (and they wonder how I-69C came to pass?  Same basic dynamics!). 

And what about the US 83 connector?  Apparently the folks in the area just aren't convinced that the Port-to-Plains project will ever leap from paper to reality, so the next best thing for M/O and San Angelo -- a reasonably efficient corridor segment getting them to San Antonio -- is included in the plans (I'll guess eventually I-214 -- unless they get "suffix fever" and do a "I-14W" or something equally obnoxious).   

IMO eventually reality will set in and the I-14S segment will be constructed from Brady to Menard, meeting the N-S connector along US 83, but will end there (with the I-14S designation extended south to Junction; the north part would remain I-214 or whatever is eventually selected). 

But the legislation's author should be informed in no uncertain terms that separate designations for the aforementioned Eden-Junction connector and both legs of the Beaumont connection should be included within the legislation's text.  At this point, trying to whittle down the N-S split is likely politically infeasible.  Obviously the chutzpa endemic to the I-69 process is contagious and has infected the I-14 efforts as well.  I suppose all that can be said at this point is:  forget about it, posters..........it's just Texastown!   :-P
« Last Edit: August 27, 2018, 03:17:40 AM by sparker »
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2870
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: February 15, 2019, 06:06:03 PM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #255 on: August 27, 2018, 07:33:01 AM »

leave it to texas to be still pursuing these stupid lettered routes. 
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5112
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:55 AM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #256 on: August 30, 2018, 05:24:17 PM »

leave it to texas to be still pursuing these stupid lettered routes. 

At least there's no "I-14C".....so far! :sombrero:
Logged

Interstate 69 Fan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 448
  • You cannot deny that I-69 will never be completed.

  • Age: 16
  • Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Last Login: February 15, 2019, 12:42:25 PM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #257 on: August 31, 2018, 10:10:33 AM »

leave it to texas to be still pursuing these stupid lettered routes. 

At least there's no "I-14C".....so far! :sombrero:
I-69C is the one part of I-69 that I don’t agree with at all.

I think it’s pointless. Make it a 3-digit like I-269.
Logged
Apparently Iím a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1747
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT/Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:37:44 AM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #258 on: August 31, 2018, 10:54:08 AM »

leave it to texas to be still pursuing these stupid lettered routes. 

At least there's no "I-14C".....so far! :sombrero:
I-69C is the one part of I-69 that I donít agree with at all.

I think itís pointless. Make it a 3-digit like I-269.

I used to think that too. And then I saw this map:

Logged
Interstate clinches: 14, 82, 215 (UT), 225, 345, 444, 575
US clinches: 491, 550

Flickr
Imgur

Interstate 69 Fan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 448
  • You cannot deny that I-69 will never be completed.

  • Age: 16
  • Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Last Login: February 15, 2019, 12:42:25 PM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #259 on: August 31, 2018, 02:29:00 PM »

leave it to texas to be still pursuing these stupid lettered routes. 

At least there's no "I-14C".....so far! :sombrero:
I-69C is the one part of I-69 that I donít agree with at all.

I think itís pointless. Make it a 3-digit like I-269.

I used to think that too. And then I saw this map:


Oh okay. I-69C is needed, but just call it ďI-69Ē the C isnít needed.
Logged
Apparently Iím a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5112
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:55 AM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #260 on: August 31, 2018, 05:53:17 PM »

^^^^^^
What's intriguing is with the commercial traffic levels indicated for US 84 between Sweetwater and Lubbock no one has seriously considered it a candidate for Interstate inclusion; the Port-to-Plains corridor concept goes through either Midland or Big Spring instead.  It appears that WB I-20 traffic essentially splits to continue on I-20 or head toward Lubbock on US 84.  Also, there is a considerable traffic drop right around Junction WB on I-10; this "dovetails" into the I-14 "branch" up US 83 to Eden, where it would merge with "I-14N" toward San Angelo.  As traffic from the smaller border crossing points west of Laredo (Eagle Pass & Del Rio) doesn't seem to register as significant on this 2015 map, it's simply possible that there's just not enough cross-border traffic occurring at those two points (they aren't the most efficient of locations in relation to distribution hubs) to warrant upgrades of that section of the P-to-P that is intended to connect them -- not even to divided/expressway status.  Since it is likely that the bulk of commercial traffic will continue to use the POE's from Laredo downstream -- and some of that is obviously spilling over onto I-10 WB out of San Antonio, that I-14/US 83 branch might in fact be pretty damn useful -- provided some developmental activity on the P-to-P north of San Angelo takes place.

At the risk of easing into fictional territory, perhaps a corridor extending due north from San Angelo (maybe close to TX 70) and merging with the US 84 diagonal route from I-20 to Lubbock might be, with the Junction-Eden sub-corridor, a neat little N-S West Texas corridor (an extension/reroute of I-27, perhaps) that "kills two birds with one stone" in terms of upgrading an already used commercial path (US 84) and connecting it with what's being planned under the I-14 umbrella.  Alternately, that "branch" could simply be extended up US 83 to Abilene and then "jog" over to the US 84 corridor.  The basic idea here is to optimize the regional utility of what's on the table re I-14 by reconciling it with corridors that have demonstrated traffic flow.
Logged

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 501
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: February 16, 2019, 06:46:34 PM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #261 on: August 31, 2018, 07:22:46 PM »

leave it to texas to be still pursuing these stupid lettered routes. 

At least there's no "I-14C".....so far! :sombrero:
I-69C is the one part of I-69 that I donít agree with at all.

I think itís pointless. Make it a 3-digit like I-269.

I used to think that too. And then I saw this map:


The map provides good support of extending I-27 southeast along US 84, also "I-61" along US 49 southeast from Jackson MS and "I-98" from Green bay to Eau Claire WI.
Logged

mvak36

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 685
  • 2016 WS champs!!!!

  • Last Login: February 15, 2019, 10:06:16 PM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #262 on: August 31, 2018, 10:09:10 PM »

leave it to texas to be still pursuing these stupid lettered routes. 

At least there's no "I-14C".....so far! :sombrero:
I-69C is the one part of I-69 that I donít agree with at all.

I think itís pointless. Make it a 3-digit like I-269.

I used to think that too. And then I saw this map:

The map provides good support of extending I-27 southeast along US 84, also "I-61" along US 49 southeast from Jackson MS and "I-98" from Green bay to Eau Claire WI.

Also, I didn't realize there was that much truck traffic on I-80 east of Des Moines. I always thought that I-70 in Missouri and I-40 in Arkansas had more.
Logged
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 345
  • Last Login: Today at 12:30:41 AM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #263 on: August 31, 2018, 11:53:24 PM »

the 2 spots that surprised me:

I-80 - Quad Cities to Omaha - especially Des Moines
I-40 - Memphis to Little Rock

What didn't surprise me;

Everything coming out of Mexico north through Texas, now I know why they want I-69 so bad. Get that traffic away from the Austin/DFW corridor.

Roads that don't make sense:

I-57 extension to Little Rock
Logged

mvak36

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 685
  • 2016 WS champs!!!!

  • Last Login: February 15, 2019, 10:06:16 PM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #264 on: September 01, 2018, 01:14:53 AM »

the 2 spots that surprised me:

I-80 - Quad Cities to Omaha - especially Des Moines
I-40 - Memphis to Little Rock

What didn't surprise me;

Everything coming out of Mexico north through Texas, now I know why they want I-69 so bad. Get that traffic away from the Austin/DFW corridor.

Roads that don't make sense:

I-57 extension to Little Rock
I think they want to do the 57 extension so that they can get some trucks off of 40 between Little Rock and Memphis. But 40 still needs to be widened no matter what happens with the 57 extension.


iPhone
Logged
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5112
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:55 AM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #265 on: September 01, 2018, 02:52:32 PM »

the 2 spots that surprised me:

I-80 - Quad Cities to Omaha - especially Des Moines
I-40 - Memphis to Little Rock

What didn't surprise me;

Everything coming out of Mexico north through Texas, now I know why they want I-69 so bad. Get that traffic away from the Austin/DFW corridor.

Roads that don't make sense:

I-57 extension to Little Rock

Juxtapose the section of I-40 between Little Rock & Memphis and the I-57 extension north of Little Rock, and you'll see why that corridor is in process -- I-40 is overused, and an I-57 extension will at least take some of the traffic heading to Chicagoland and other Great Lakes destinations off that congested stretch.  Right now, not a lot of commercial traffic uses the US 67/60 combination because (a) the last section of the freeway south of Walnut Ridge was opened only last year, and hasn't as of yet become "imprinted" in the commercial lexicon, and (b) a good portion of the remainder still slogs through NE Arkansas towns, slowing down the overall travel time.  For the time being, truckers are still taking their chances on I-40 east of LR -- probably the smarter of those are timing their travel on that stretch to avoid the peak traffic periods.  Essentially I-57 is intended to be both a "shortcut" from east TX to Chicago as well as a relief route for I-40 traffic heading in that general direction.
Logged

aboges26

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 124
  • GIS Enthusiast / Canyon Country Adventurer

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Farmington, NM
  • Last Login: December 22, 2018, 10:47:49 PM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #266 on: September 01, 2018, 02:58:43 PM »

^^^^^^
What's intriguing is with the commercial traffic levels indicated for US 84 between Sweetwater and Lubbock no one has seriously considered it a candidate for Interstate inclusion; the Port-to-Plains corridor concept goes through either Midland or Big Spring instead.  It appears that WB I-20 traffic essentially splits to continue on I-20 or head toward Lubbock on US 84.  Also, there is a considerable traffic drop right around Junction WB on I-10; this "dovetails" into the I-14 "branch" up US 83 to Eden, where it would merge with "I-14N" toward San Angelo.  As traffic from the smaller border crossing points west of Laredo (Eagle Pass & Del Rio) doesn't seem to register as significant on this 2015 map, it's simply possible that there's just not enough cross-border traffic occurring at those two points (they aren't the most efficient of locations in relation to distribution hubs) to warrant upgrades of that section of the P-to-P that is intended to connect them -- not even to divided/expressway status.  Since it is likely that the bulk of commercial traffic will continue to use the POE's from Laredo downstream -- and some of that is obviously spilling over onto I-10 WB out of San Antonio, that I-14/US 83 branch might in fact be pretty damn useful -- provided some developmental activity on the P-to-P north of San Angelo takes place.

At the risk of easing into fictional territory, perhaps a corridor extending due north from San Angelo (maybe close to TX 70) and merging with the US 84 diagonal route from I-20 to Lubbock might be, with the Junction-Eden sub-corridor, a neat little N-S West Texas corridor (an extension/reroute of I-27, perhaps) that "kills two birds with one stone" in terms of upgrading an already used commercial path (US 84) and connecting it with what's being planned under the I-14 umbrella.  Alternately, that "branch" could simply be extended up US 83 to Abilene and then "jog" over to the US 84 corridor.  The basic idea here is to optimize the regional utility of what's on the table re I-14 by reconciling it with corridors that have demonstrated traffic flow.

I-27 will never take the US 84 path to Sweetwater.  The infrastructure for a southerly extension of I-27 south on US 87 out of Lubbock is in place as the US 87 freeway continues for several miles south of I-27's end at 82nd Street (the first exit south of the southern Loop 289 interchange) and after that it is a 75 mph expressway with more than enough ROW and set backs to convert to an interstate except for in Lamesa.  A Lamesa bypass has been in the works for awhile with locals holding it up as long as possible to keep the traffic coming through town to more easily allow travelers the ability patronize their businesses.

In all likelihood, if US 84 is upgraded and an interstate designation is pursued, it would either be an I-27 spur or a an E-W interstate designation of its own to have the possibility of it becoming a Lubbock - Albuquerque interstate corridor to the west.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5112
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:55 AM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #267 on: September 01, 2018, 04:57:39 PM »

^^^^^^
That's probably a correct assumption; it is widely assumed that I-27 will head down one of the P-to-P branches (Big Spring or Midland) toward San Angelo; what happens to that corridor south of there is anyone's guess at this time.  Renewed interest in the P-to-P seems, at least for the present, to be overshadowed by the designation activity surrounding the I-14 "cluster" (never though I'd be referring to I-14 in that way!), which seems to have taken the air out of the sails of the P-to-P.  But if there's really little or no traffic south of I-10, then the I-14 "branch" along US 83 might serve as a reasonable extension of I-27, particularly if extended through Big Spring; it could readily multiplex with the nascent I-14N from Sterling City to Eden, then down to I-10.  The chances are that such a routing would see a hell of a lot more traffic (commercial/interregional) than something via Del Rio. 

US 84 indeed could be considered a separate corridor between I-20 and Lubbock; something like I-28 could potentially be applied -- but for the time being, it seems to be doing quite well as is.  And from the commercial traffic-count map, there's little NW of Lubbock to suggest that an Interstate extension to I-40 somewhere in NM (Tucumcari? Santa Rosa?) would be warranted.  Interestingly, south of Pueblo, I-25 traffic seems to lighten considerably -- possibly because commercial traffic to the Panhandle or other TX points south of there takes off east toward US 287 to avoid Raton grades -- and because there's not much in the way of traffic generators between Pueblo and about Dumas in Texas to interfere with the traversal of that region.  That could make at least a minimal case for future consideration of an improved corridor (at least divided) between Pueblo and Amarillo that doesn't involve Raton Pass.  Yeah, I know NM just finished twinning US 87 southeast of Raton -- but it's questionable whether that is sufficient to entice trucks to remain on that routing. 
« Last Edit: September 01, 2018, 11:48:08 PM by sparker »
Logged

aboges26

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 124
  • GIS Enthusiast / Canyon Country Adventurer

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Farmington, NM
  • Last Login: December 22, 2018, 10:47:49 PM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #268 on: September 02, 2018, 12:19:20 AM »

^^^^^^
That's probably a correct assumption; it is widely assumed that I-27 will head down one of the P-to-P branches (Big Spring or Midland) toward San Angelo; what happens to that corridor south of there is anyone's guess at this time.  Renewed interest in the P-to-P seems, at least for the present, to be overshadowed by the designation activity surrounding the I-14 "cluster" (never though I'd be referring to I-14 in that way!), which seems to have taken the air out of the sails of the P-to-P.  But if there's really little or no traffic south of I-10, then the I-14 "branch" along US 83 might serve as a reasonable extension of I-27, particularly if extended through Big Spring; it could readily multiplex with the nascent I-14N from Sterling City to Eden, then down to I-10.  The chances are that such a routing would see a hell of a lot more traffic (commercial/interregional) than something via Del Rio. 

US 84 indeed could be considered a separate corridor between I-20 and Lubbock; something like I-28 could potentially be applied -- but for the time being, it seems to be doing quite well as is.  And from the commercial traffic-count map, there's little NW of Lubbock to suggest that an Interstate extension to I-40 somewhere in NM (Tucumcari? Santa Rosa?) would be warranted.  Interestingly, south of Pueblo, I-25 traffic seems to lighten considerably -- possibly because commercial traffic to the Panhandle or other TX points south of there takes off east toward US 287 to avoid Raton grades -- and because there's not much in the way of traffic generators between Pueblo and about Dumas in Texas to interfere with the traversal of that region.  That could make at least a minimal case for future consideration of an improved corridor (at least divided) between Pueblo and Amarillo that doesn't involve Raton Pass.  Yeah, I know NM just finished twinning US 87 southeast of Raton -- but it's questionable whether that is sufficient to entice trucks to remain on that routing.

US 84 sees its fair share of traffic between Lubbock and Santa Rosa and should be divided at the least from Clovis to Santa Rosa to improve safety with a high-speed controlled-access bypass thrown in around Clovis.  The non-bypassed towns along US 84 in Texas would probably resist bypasses for now like Lamesa.  Albuquerque/Santa Fe traffic destined for any Texas destination other than DFW and Amarillo end up going through Lubbock, and the reverse, and there is quite a bit of travel and interstate commerce between Texas and New Mexico.

Many Lubbock-ites go to New Mexico on vacation and even for the weekend and you see noticeable surges on US 84 on weekends when Texas Tech is in session that can make the Fort Sumner - Clovis stretch downright dangerous with people trying to drive Texas speeds on a 65 mph two lane that is clogged with long lines of traffic behind people doing the speed limit which creates many dangerous passing scenarios.  That particular stretch of road is reminiscent of NM 44 before it was upgraded and became a rerouted extension of US 550, just without the interesting topography.
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1747
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT/Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:37:44 AM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #269 on: September 02, 2018, 12:26:49 AM »

Many Lubbock-ites go to New Mexico on vacation and even for the weekend and you see noticeable surges on US 84 on weekends when Texas Tech is in session that can make the Fort Sumner - Clovis stretch downright dangerous with people trying to drive Texas speeds on a 65 mph two lane that is clogged with long lines of traffic behind people doing the speed limit which creates many dangerous passing scenarios.  That particular stretch of road is reminiscent of NM 44 before it was upgraded and became a rerouted extension of US 550, just without the interesting topography.

When I went through there earlier this summer, I didn't really have too much of a problem on the Fort Sumner-Clovis portion of the route. I was surprised it hadn't been four-laned yet, given that NM seems to be good about widening busy rural highways like US 87, 285, 491, and 550. But from what I remember, the Fort Sumner-Santa Rosa portion was far worse, because that section had a lot more trucks.
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14, 82, 215 (UT), 225, 345, 444, 575
US clinches: 491, 550

Flickr
Imgur

aboges26

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 124
  • GIS Enthusiast / Canyon Country Adventurer

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Farmington, NM
  • Last Login: December 22, 2018, 10:47:49 PM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #270 on: September 02, 2018, 12:37:39 AM »

Many Lubbock-ites go to New Mexico on vacation and even for the weekend and you see noticeable surges on US 84 on weekends when Texas Tech is in session that can make the Fort Sumner - Clovis stretch downright dangerous with people trying to drive Texas speeds on a 65 mph two lane that is clogged with long lines of traffic behind people doing the speed limit which creates many dangerous passing scenarios.  That particular stretch of road is reminiscent of NM 44 before it was upgraded and became a rerouted extension of US 550, just without the interesting topography.

When I went through there earlier this summer, I didn't really have too much of a problem on the Fort Sumner-Clovis portion of the route. I was surprised it hadn't been four-laned yet, given that NM seems to be good about widening busy rural highways like US 87, 285, 491, and 550. But from what I remember, the Fort Sumner-Santa Rosa portion was far worse, because that section had a lot more trucks.

It is a neglected rural highway, that is for sure.  I do not believe I have ever heard grumblings of an upgrade proposal and that is probably because of its schizophrenic traffic regimes -- it's desolate for the most part with steady decent amount of truck traffic, but weekends during the daylight and evening hours see the dangerous conditions I described.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5112
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:55 AM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #271 on: September 02, 2018, 02:31:36 AM »

^^^^^^^
While that portion of US 84 between I-20 and Lubbock likely warrants an Interstate upgrade because of its high commercial traffic load, the segment of the route northwest from Lubbock to I-40 near Santa Rosa, while somewhat heavily trafficked, would likely be a candidate for an expressway level upgrade, including bypasses of the towns along the TX segment lacking such, a longer bypass encompassing Texline and Clovis, bypassing Melrose, and a "cutoff" around Fort Sumner.  It wouldn't be a stretch for those bypasses to be full freeway; if the corridor's improvements eventually result in traffic levels warranting such, upgrading to Interstate status wouldn't be out of the question down the line. 
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2764
  • Visionary

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: February 15, 2019, 05:35:41 PM
    • Personal Site
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #272 on: September 02, 2018, 12:19:34 PM »

The map provides good support of extending I-27 southeast along US 84, also "I-61" along US 49 southeast from Jackson MS and "I-98" from Green bay to Eau Claire WI.

Why would Mississippi want an Interstate 61 when they already have US 61? More likely it would be I-255 or I-x10.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2018, 09:16:58 PM by jbnv »
Logged
Keep Clearview, lose the government bureaucracies and the politicians who enable them.
US Redo | Louisiana Redo | Route Challenge | Photos

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5112
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:55 AM
Re: I-14 in Texas
« Reply #273 on: September 03, 2018, 03:52:10 AM »

The map provides good support of extending I-27 southeast along US 84, also "I-61" along US 49 southeast from Jackson MS and "I-98" from Green bay to Eau Claire WI.

Why would Mississippi want an Interstate 61 when they already have US 61? More likely it would be I-255 or I-x10.

Given the choice, state DOT's -- and their political handlers -- will almost always prefer a 2di "trunk" route over a 3di number that is generally considered an "auxiliary" designation; there is a difference in cachet when utilizing the presence of such a route to attract business to a region.  While, of course, there are long outflung 3di's (135, 476, and the nascent 369), they're anomalies designated because other numbers weren't available (although 135 could easily be 31 or 33, and 369, at [eventually] 115 miles was selected for largely political reasons).  It's pretty clear that unlike the U.S. highway system, long 3di's were never intended to be part of the regular network.  In regards to MS, US 49 could very well be a reasonable 2nd/southern section of I-57, which would be grid-appropriate.  Of course, if a new trunk designation were sought and a "61" duplication might not pass muster, it's entirely possible I-63 could be applied, as there are no conflicts associated with that number. 
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.