I-14 in Texas

[Bobby5280]

At least there's exit numbers on I-2.

[sparker]

At least there's exit numbers on I-2.

And calibrated for a western terminus in Laredo, no less!  Maybe wishful thinking on the part of TxDOT -- or they know something we don't!?  My guess -- really long-range plans, likely tied to (a) lower Rio Grande Valley growth and/or (b) increased congestion at the Laredo-area border crossings (which is what, I thought, I-69C was supposed to alleviate via diversion to McAllen/Hidalgo).  I-2 may well be part of an effort to cover all contingencies re commercial border crossings. 

[The Ghostbuster]

We'll find out in the coming decades, if we all live that long.

[longhorn]

http://www.tdtnews.com/news/central_texas_news/article_aeb82317-eb3c-56ca-95f1-46c96be7ddbe.html

Further lane expansion from Killeen to Belton. This to the foot of Nolanville Hill. Don't know they just bid the project out to I-35 and lock in today's cost. The amount of car traffic from the Copperas Cove Killeen/Ft Hood to Temple area has skyrocketed.

[sparker]

http://www.tdtnews.com/news/central_texas_news/article_aeb82317-eb3c-56ca-95f1-46c96be7ddbe.html

Further lane expansion from Killeen to Belton. This to the foot of Nolanville Hill. Don't know they just bid the project out to I-35 and lock in today's cost. The amount of car traffic from the Copperas Cove Killeen/Ft Hood to Temple area has skyrocketed.

There was a reason -- aside from getting a "foot through the door" -- that the I-14 corridor backers pressed for their route's signage on the US 190 freeway -- they could make a case that regional traffic outside the main urban centers was increasing at much the same rate as that in the cities, thus bolstering their argument for corridor development.  Of course, they had Fort Hood going for them -- one of the few remaining military establishments that hasn't drastically pared down its facilities or purpose, supporting most of the region's population (the existing I-14 is their "main street"); additionally small manufacturing and warehousing facilities are relocating to the area (the costs there haven't reached that of DFW or even Austin/San Antonio) to save money.   If I-14 backers can press the case that such activity will extend east (or, less likely, west) from the existing signed section once the freeway is extended, such extension may occur sooner than later -- even though such prognostication may be based on less than highly robust data.  If the Temple-Harker-Copperas population spikes in the next several years, I-14's prospects across the "Triangle" should be correspondingly enhanced.  We'll just have to see how it all pans out in the next couple of decades.

[Bobby5280]

Even if Foot Hood can attract additional missions from other Army posts in locations where operational costs are considerably more expensive, Fort Hood is still very close to the I-35 corridor. It's a single location and not one that attracts a great deal of vehicle traffic. I-14 needs more going for it to expand substantially farther East and West. Best case scenario currently is I-14 extending to the College Station area and Huntsville as a outer regional bypass for Houston. I don't see it going farther than that for the time being.

Some proponents of I-14 have been pushing this corridor by wrapping themselves in the American flag and selling the route as a way of linking important military posts. If that was really the honest goal then why go with an East-West route? If helping the Army out was the goal there would be a direct Interstate linking Fort Hood with Fort Sill here in the Lawton, OK area. Sheppard AFB in Wichita Falls is right along the path of the US-281 corridor. Fictionally, US-281 from San Antonio up to Wichita Falls could rightfully be I-33. Anyway, there is a hell of a lot of military traffic and activity that goes on between Fort Hood and Fort Sill. The post here in the Lawton area is home to the Field Artillery school, the Air Defense Artillery School and is a busy Army basic training post. Fort Sill has great historical significance since it is pretty much the place where the Plains Indian Wars ended.

The Fort Hood, Killeen and Copperas Cove area is pretty busy. Meanwhile not far North here in OK the powers that be pretty much ignore the SW part of Oklahoma despite its significance in terms of military installations and manufacturing presence.

In addition to Fort Hood Lawton is also home to one of the world's largest tire manufacturing facilities, run by Goodyear. Several other large manufacturers operate West of town. They host thousands of very well paying jobs. Yet none of those facilities have easy, clean, direct access to I-44. That's a big problem to local street within Lawton as well as county roads outside of town.

Rogers Lane is a fake wannabe Interstate running between Lawton and Fort Sill. It's really just a glorified street, even if it now carries the US-62 designation. What's worse is the highway does not connect directly with the industrial park on Lawton's West side. As a result, most of the commercial traffic from those factories comes in and out from the South. The itty bitty county roads out there cannot handle the brutal load of all those trucks. And now roads like 82nd street have deteriorated so badly that they're now causing lots of very expensive damage to trucks. Goodyear is now making a lot of noise, demanding the road network be improved or else.

Lawton actually needs two new super highways. One being an Interstate quality upgrade of exiting Rogers Lane. The current street is dangerous in its design. The other highway needed is a Southern bypass of town connecting I-44 directly with the industrial park on the West side. Even if it is built initally as an upgrade-able Super 2, even with at-grade intersections, the bypass is badly needed.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Agree with the analysis of the future of I-14 in Texas; for the time being, developmental activity will be centered within the Triangle, but not east of I-45 unless the projected Beaumont "branch" becomes the de facto main line -- still, trying to circumvent Lake Livingston might be a tough task, considering the development around the lake and the potential NIMBY factor arising from such.  My guess it'll end at I-45 near Huntsville -- the last few miles of which will primarily be utilized for commercial traffic east of College Station if & when the TX 6/TX 249 "beeline" to Houston is operative, drawing off much of the non-commercial vehicles.   West of Copperas Cove the corridor's future is tied to both the persuasiveness of the San Angelo and M/O parties in selling that segment; job #1 is winnowing down the routings to one that actually might serve an actual purpose rather than being a political product (being it's TX, that may well be a tall order!).  I predict a 20 to 25-year timeline for Triangle development (including the TX 249 connection); add another 10-15 years for anything west of Copperas.  So by 2059 there should be an operative corridor from Midland to I-45  -- I'd be 110 then (an unlikely situation), so I'll probably never see it to fruition, much less drive it (unless autonomous cars are commonplace by then!).  So to posterity -- have fun playing with your new corridor, and try to actually use it from time to time!     

[longhorn]

I agree with the above posts about I-14 at most connecting to I-45 for the time being. It will facilitate easier travel from Central Texas to the Houston area and I-10.

The expansion between Killeen and Belton is long overdue with the StillHouse and Belton lakes area blowing up at an alarming rate. Live in a 2500 sq ft house in crowded Austin or live 55 minutes up north on the lake in a 4000 SQ ft house for the same money.

I understand the criticism of I-14 and its story being sold is sketchy. But the Central Texas area it runs though is growing by leaps and bounds and traffic numbers bear that out. By the way, they are expanding 190/36 (to be I-14) to freeway status halfway to Cameron from Temple.

[Bobby5280]

Widening I-14 to 3 lanes in each direction from Harker Heights (where the current 3-3 setup ends) to I-35 is a good idea. TX-195 from the South side of Killeen down to I-35 near Georgetown will likely have to be expanded into a full fledged freeway (or toll road) sometime in the near future. There's a big question on how to connect that and TX-201 (which runs by the regional airport) up into I-14. As both roads head North into Killeen toward I-14 they run into too much development in order to expanded along the existing ROWs. The needs of expanding TX-195 as well as extending the US-183 freeway farther North out of Austin towards Lampasas will compete for funding with I-14.

By the way, they are expanding 190/36 (to be I-14) to freeway status halfway to Cameron from Temple.

Cameron is along the proposed I-14 route -the last part of the alignment that makes any sense. There's that stupid "W" shaped nonsense East of it. The big question is how I-14 moves from Belton over to Cameron. If I-14 would run concurrent with I-35 up into Temple to then go along Loop 363 the existing volleyball interchange between I-35 & Loop 363 would be a major stumbling block. Making I-14 skirt South of Temple parallel to FM-1741 would be more do-able.

[longhorn]

Widening I-14 to 3 lanes in each direction from Harker Heights (where the current 3-3 setup ends) to I-35 is a good idea. TX-195 from the South side of Killeen down to I-35 near Georgetown will likely have to be expanded into a full fledged freeway (or toll road) sometime in the near future. There's a big question on how to connect that and TX-201 (which runs by the regional airport) up into I-14. As both roads head North into Killeen toward I-14 they run into too much development in order to expanded along the existing ROWs. The needs of expanding TX-195 as well as extending the US-183 freeway farther North out of Austin towards Lampasas will compete for funding with I-14.

By the way, they are expanding 190/36 (to be I-14) to freeway status halfway to Cameron from Temple.

Cameron is along the proposed I-14 route -the last part of the alignment that makes any sense. There's that stupid "W" shaped nonsense East of it. The big question is how I-14 moves from Belton over to Cameron. If I-14 would run concurrent with I-35 up into Temple to then go along Loop 363 the existing volleyball interchange between I-35 & Loop 363 would be a major stumbling block. Making I-14 skirt South of Temple parallel to FM-1741 would be more do-able.

Can't find the link but I-14 will go south on I-35 then diverge south of Belton East and connect to the present 190/36 highway.

In regards 201, Stagecoach/Clear Creek Rd, it being planned to continue to I-35, offering a parallel route from 195  to I-35. With the growth around Salado, it will be needed too. Yes, so many needs competing for so few dollars.

Fixed quote. - rmf67

[sparker]

Widening I-14 to 3 lanes in each direction from Harker Heights (where the current 3-3 setup ends) to I-35 is a good idea. TX-195 from the South side of Killeen down to I-35 near Georgetown will likely have to be expanded into a full fledged freeway (or toll road) sometime in the near future. There's a big question on how to connect that and TX-201 (which runs by the regional airport) up into I-14. As both roads head North into Killeen toward I-14 they run into too much development in order to expanded along the existing ROWs. The needs of expanding TX-195 as well as extending the US-183 freeway farther North out of Austin towards Lampasas will compete for funding with I-14.

By the way, they are expanding 190/36 (to be I-14) to freeway status halfway to Cameron from Temple.

Cameron is along the proposed I-14 route -the last part of the alignment that makes any sense. There's that stupid "W" shaped nonsense East of it. The big question is how I-14 moves from Belton over to Cameron. If I-14 would run concurrent with I-35 up into Temple to then go along Loop 363 the existing volleyball interchange between I-35 & Loop 363 would be a major stumbling block. Making I-14 skirt South of Temple parallel to FM-1741 would be more do-able.

Can't find the link but I-14 will go south on I-35 then diverge south of Belton East and connect to the present 190/36 highway.

In regards 201, Stagecoach/Clear Creek Rd, it being planned to continue to I-35, offering a parallel route from 195  to I-35. With the growth around Salado, it will be needed too. Yes, so many needs competing for so few dollars.

Fixed quote. - rmf67

Avoiding the US 190 alignment at and east of I-35 seems like a wise choice, particularly considering the dense development at the present volleyball interchange between the two routes in Temple.  At least in this instance TxDOT intends to deviate from a route strictly following US 190; let's see if they follow that up with a direct connection from Cameron east to US 79/190 at the Brazos River crossing west of Hearne. 

[MaxConcrete]

Top of page 5
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf

TxDOT is slated to select a consultant for the entire segment from Killeen to Huntsville in January. Per the normal process, I expect the study to start with an array of candidate alignments and then pick a recommended alignment, probably in 2-3 years.

"Schematic/Environmental  Schematic/Environmental services for the Bryan District: US 190 Regional Corridor Study - Huntsville to Killeen"

One possible scenario is to follow SH 6 north of Bryan/College Station and incorporate the much-needed Hearne bypass into this project. I'm thinking Rockdale will also lobby hard to get it near their area, since they need something to promote economic development after the closure of Alcoa and the power plant. It's probably near certain that it will go near Bryan/College Station, but a direct path to Huntsville would keep in on the north side of the area.

[sprjus4]

Top of page 5
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf

TxDOT is slated to select a consultant for the entire segment from Killeen to Huntsville in January. Per the normal process, I expect the study to start with an array of candidate alignments and then pick a recommended alignment, probably in 2-3 years.

"Schematic/Environmental  Schematic/Environmental services for the Bryan District: US 190 Regional Corridor Study - Huntsville to Killeen"

One possible scenario is to follow SH 6 north of Bryan/College Station and incorporate the much-needed Hearne bypass into this project. I'm thinking Rockdale will also lobby hard to get it near their area, since they need something to promote economic development after the closure of Alcoa and the power plant. It's probably near certain that it will go near Bryan/College Station, but a direct path to Huntsville would keep in on the north side of the area.

This one will be good.

And we still can't get an interstate highway linking Austin & Houston along SH-71 or US-290?

[sparker]

Top of page 5
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf

TxDOT is slated to select a consultant for the entire segment from Killeen to Huntsville in January. Per the normal process, I expect the study to start with an array of candidate alignments and then pick a recommended alignment, probably in 2-3 years.

"Schematic/Environmental  Schematic/Environmental services for the Bryan District: US 190 Regional Corridor Study - Huntsville to Killeen"

One possible scenario is to follow SH 6 north of Bryan/College Station and incorporate the much-needed Hearne bypass into this project. I'm thinking Rockdale will also lobby hard to get it near their area, since they need something to promote economic development after the closure of Alcoa and the power plant. It's probably near certain that it will go near Bryan/College Station, but a direct path to Huntsville would keep in on the north side of the area.

This one will be good.

And we still can't get an interstate highway linking Austin & Houston along SH-71 or US-290?

If parties from the Austin area would press/lobby for a direct Houston connection, it would likely be added to the queue of TX Interstate projects.  But AFAIK there's been no official requests for even studies for such a route much less efforts to identify an appropriate corridor alignment.  To reiterate a cliche':  you've gotta be in it to win it! -- and so far, no one's in anything -- or seems to have much interest in the concept. 

[thisdj78]

Top of page 5
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf

TxDOT is slated to select a consultant for the entire segment from Killeen to Huntsville in January. Per the normal process, I expect the study to start with an array of candidate alignments and then pick a recommended alignment, probably in 2-3 years.

"Schematic/Environmental  Schematic/Environmental services for the Bryan District: US 190 Regional Corridor Study - Huntsville to Killeen"

One possible scenario is to follow SH 6 north of Bryan/College Station and incorporate the much-needed Hearne bypass into this project. I'm thinking Rockdale will also lobby hard to get it near their area, since they need something to promote economic development after the closure of Alcoa and the power plant. It's probably near certain that it will go near Bryan/College Station, but a direct path to Huntsville would keep in on the north side of the area.

This one will be good.

And we still can't get an interstate highway linking Austin & Houston along SH-71 or US-290?

If parties from the Austin area would press/lobby for a direct Houston connection, it would likely be added to the queue of TX Interstate projects.  But AFAIK there's been no official requests for even studies for such a route much less efforts to identify an appropriate corridor alignment.  To reiterate a cliche':  you've gotta be in it to win it! -- and so far, no one's in anything -- or seems to have much interest in the concept.

Maybe we need to start a petition 😎

[longhorn]

Top of page 5
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf

TxDOT is slated to select a consultant for the entire segment from Killeen to Huntsville in January. Per the normal process, I expect the study to start with an array of candidate alignments and then pick a recommended alignment, probably in 2-3 years.

"Schematic/Environmental  Schematic/Environmental services for the Bryan District: US 190 Regional Corridor Study - Huntsville to Killeen"

One possible scenario is to follow SH 6 north of Bryan/College Station and incorporate the much-needed Hearne bypass into this project. I'm thinking Rockdale will also lobby hard to get it near their area, since they need something to promote economic development after the closure of Alcoa and the power plant. It's probably near certain that it will go near Bryan/College Station, but a direct path to Huntsville would keep in on the north side of the area.

This one will be good.

And we still can't get an interstate highway linking Austin & Houston along SH-71 or US-290?

If parties from the Austin area would press/lobby for a direct Houston connection, it would likely be added to the queue of TX Interstate projects.  But AFAIK there's been no official requests for even studies for such a route much less efforts to identify an appropriate corridor alignment.  To reiterate a cliche':  you've gotta be in it to win it! -- and so far, no one's in anything -- or seems to have much interest in the concept. 

Bingo, apparently the parties at both ends of 290 and those in the middle are not motivated enough to move TxDot to do something about it.

Houston has expanded 290 to cover its suburbs, Austin is not exactly Highway friendly, and surprisingly there have not been head on accidents in the poor man four lane section of 290 just outside of Manor. So no action.

I-14 just between I-35 and I-45 will spur major growth in the Brazos Valley.

[Bobby5280]

TxDOT is slated to select a consultant for the entire segment from Killeen to Huntsville in January. Per the normal process, I expect the study to start with an array of candidate alignments and then pick a recommended alignment, probably in 2-3 years.

Here's a bit of "consulting" they can have for free: please don't pick an alignment in that stupid "W" shape commonly shown all that sales/lobbying maps for I-14. Such an alignment would waste a lot of money on lots of unnecessary mileage and cost motorists a LOT of extra, wasted time taking the route. The route needs to be as direct as possible for it to be of any use.

If parties from the Austin area would press/lobby for a direct Houston connection, it would likely be added to the queue of TX Interstate projects.

As part of having to re-hash this old argument again, here's the thing about big cities like Austin: they only care about highway projects in their immediate vicinity. They don't care one iota about road projects happening out in rural areas, even if it connects to their city. They're only concerned about projects that will improve traffic flow in town.

Texas has been spending a huge amount of money on super highway projects, but the vast majority of that money has been getting spent on major urban projects, with the biggest projects happening in Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, and even Austin. For all the anti-roads reputation Austin attracts, the city has some major highway expansion projects in progress (like US-183) and others planned (US-290 freeway extension). There's a lot of fighting over what to do with I-35 in Austin, but something is going to happen, whether that freeway is expanded or other freeways nearby get expanded to draw long distance traffic away from downtown.

Meanwhile, development of the broader I-69 corridor has been happening at a pace that would make glaciers seem fast. There's lots of plans and presentations, but no funding. I-14 will probably be in the same predicament. Very little of anything new has been built in relation to I-14; most of it is still the same old US-190 freeway that was already there for a long time.

Killeen to Huntsville is not a major point A to point B corridor. Even if I-14 could be expanded out West to San Angelo and Midland as well as on East to Alexandria and into Mississippi there are zero destinations on that route that rank remotely even close to Austin and Houston. The only way I-14 is going to spur any development inside the Texas triangle is by way of the route acting as yet another partial outer loop for far exhurbs of Houston. But there's no chance of it drawing lots of long distance traffic away from I-10 or I-20.

Austin is more than big enough in terms of population and traffic demands to deserve its own dedicated East-West Interstate corridor. Killeen getting one over Austin would be like Lawton here in Oklahoma getting I-40 rather than Oklahoma City. It's freaking absurd.

Connecting Houston and Austin directly with a stoplight-free, super highway corridor is more of a state-wide and nation-wide issue than one of local politics. The Interstate highway system functions as a nation-wide network of super highways. It's not a bunch of random local bypasses and what not just strung together. Designing additions to the Interstate highway system in that manner is wasteful.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
To that end, has anyone actually inquired with TxDOT regarding whether any plans (originating in Austin or elsewhere) for a Austin-Houston Interstate connector have ever reached a stage beyond mere speculation?  On paper, it's a slam dunk; Austin's rapidly heading toward 1M within city limits and well over double that for their metro area, it's the state capital, and the arguable center of the state's technological base.   Phoenix-to-Vegas, move over; these (Houston/Austin) are the largest metro areas lacking direct Interstate connection.  A "western" I-12 along TX 71 or (IMO, preferably) US 290 should by all measures have been in the planning hopper decades ago.  So, given the fact that the state and parties within are deploying or planning Interstate freeways seemingly everywhere but Austin (OK, 287 DFW>Amarillo's been given short shrift as well), what gives?   Where's the a priori set of values that automatically elevate areas such as Austin to deserving of service? 

The short-form answer is simply it hasn't been there for close to a half-century -- hoist on the pitard of diffused authority and responsibility for large-scale ventures such as an new Interstate corridor.  Everything is done piecemeal these days; the heady times after 1956 when it seemed like there was purpose and order to such things is relegated to hindsight.  One could attempt to identify just when this all began -- was it the beginning of the urban freeway revolt starting on the East Coast in Boston and spreading to San Francisco in the mid-to-late '60's; was it the Nixonian "block grant" measures of the following decade that, in the wake of reaction in some circles to the "Great Society" programs originating in the Sixties, essentially shifted the decision-making power from the national to the local; or was it simply a lack of specific interest in the concept of automobile travel that permeated the original Interstate era?   It's probably all of the above, plus more -- there is just no national interest in renewing a comprehensive updating of the Interstate network.  Conversely, despite this lack of top-down direction, there's also no moratorium on system additions;  to do so would be politically infeasible -- outside of certain sociopolitical circles (and the regions where they hold sway) building freeways remains popular in terms of both service and the jobs that the construction projects provide.   Given all this, the decisions regarding where to deploy these facilities falls to a process of essentially throwing a number of ingredients into a virtual "blender" -- predilections of the state's DOT, political will emanating from localites and their more vehement (and often well-funded) backers, deference shown these entities by US representatives from these states -- getting the various corridors on record by placing them in the queue for potential federal input up to 80%.

All that is what happened in regards to I-14:  Triangle and West Texas interests were outspoken in their expressed wishes for an Interstate freeway connecting East and West Texas between I-10 and I-20, TxDOT has been generally supportive of these local efforts, and in 2015 High Priority Corridor #84 was added to that compendium, which specified that the corridor, once built to appropriate standards, would be designated as I-14.   Of course, Austin was left out of the process; the reasons for which aren't clear; it might be simple avoidance of the area's infamous traffic issues, possible unwillingness of local Austin interest groups to join in the process (or the funding needed to sustain the initial corridor push), or, simply, folks from the Temple-Killeen area stepped up and pointed out the presence of the US 190 freeway near Fort Hood and its value as an "anchor" from which to extend the corridor in two directions (Oh, to have been the proverbial "fly on the wall" during the preliminary corridor discussions!).  In any instance, something happened and the corridor's profile specified Temple rather than Austin (or even Waco, for that matter) as the intersection point with the N-S I-35 intercity arterial.   Whether it was a process of one set of players shouting louder than others, a lack of interest on the part of Austin backers -- and the subsequent willingness of TxDOT to let the determinations "gel" before backing the finalized basic I-14 concept -- or something a bit more sinister regarding how Austin is perceived by other parts of the state,  the process yielded the corridor concept on record today.   And yes, the concept needs to be "tweaked" quite a bit to become a reasonable and viable facility.  But pretty much everyone in TX is on board with the basic corridor -- and not a peep from Austin interests to the contrary. 

What is hinted at in other posts is some sort of "rationality" process whereby all of the above can be jettisoned in favor of a determination of perceived needs -- in short, a revitalization of the "point-to-point" characteristics of the original Interstate system, brought up to 2019 demographics.  Under such a process Austin, as the largest area lacking a connection to another major population centers (read Houston) would automatically have resources directed toward achieving such connection before "secondary" regional desires (read I-14 for this) are considered or developed.  Possibly a good idea -- but such a mechanism doesn't presently exist, and hasn't since the end of the "chargeable" Interstate era.  There's no national push for such a process and, in reality, hasn't been since 1956 -- one could reasonably argue that the '68 chargeable additions were a mixed bag -- some actually filled needs that had become apparent in the first dozen years of system deployment, while others were clearly motivated by political maneuvering.  But five years later the process was turned on its head, and any future system planning became dispersed.  Today, Interstate development -- where it occurs -- isn't part of a perfect, or even rational, process -- it's where localized needs and wishes are successfully promoted.   And unless there's a sea change in national priorities, this is the way such things will be done for the foreseeable future.   

I'm reminded of an old cartoon I saw pinned to a wall about 30 years ago:  an obviously sated dragon is lying back, picking his teeth with a lance, while a suit of armor lies scattered in pieces around him -- with the caption "Sometimes the dragon wins".  One may decry the development of some corridors as at best suboptimal and, more perjoratively, wasteful -- but sometimes they're the only game in town, located in an outpost rather than the "center of the action", so to speak.  But OTOH, the fact that any Interstate corridor activity is going on at all is in a small sense encouraging -- maybe a functional equivalent of the very useful I-22 and I-49 might be lurking somewhere (US 287, I'm looking at you!).  It takes a lot of will and perseverance to get these things off the ground in the current environment; even with "suboptimal" efforts, I'll give them at least grudging respect! 

[sprjus4]

Here's a bit of "consulting" they can have for free: please don't pick an alignment in that stupid "W" shape commonly shown all that sales/lobbying maps for I-14. Such an alignment would waste a lot of money on lots of unnecessary mileage and cost motorists a LOT of extra, wasted time taking the route. The route needs to be as direct as possible for it to be of any use.

I think the alignment we see on maps is a rough routing following existing roads. The interstate will generally follow that path, but a more straighter routing likely.

For example, and this is a rough estimate, the blue represents the current "W" shape routing on maps, the red represents where I think the interstate would really end up being built, in that general path, but much straighter.

For all the anti-roads reputation Austin attracts, the city has some major highway expansion projects in progress (like US-183) and others planned (US-290 freeway extension). There's a lot of fighting over what to do with I-35 in Austin, but something is going to happen, whether that freeway is expanded or other freeways nearby get expanded to draw long distance traffic away from downtown.

One of the projects regarding your last point currently under construction is expanding a 20 mile section of TX-130 from 4 to 6 lanes. That stretch between TX-45 North and TX-71 has traffic issues as the outer suburbs grow, and it's an appropriate project to keep traffic flowing at the 80 mph speed limit. I've driven it a few times avoiding central Austin during peak hours, and it's a lot of stop-go through there. It's certainly still better than I-35 thru central Austin, but needs and is getting fixed.

Meanwhile, development of the broader I-69 corridor has been happening at a pace that would make glaciers seem fast. There's lots of plans and presentations, but no funding.

I think we'll be seeing a lot in the way of I-69 projects this upcoming decade. 40 miles south of Kendleton (the freeway is currently under construction all the way down there) is planned and partially funded, a 40 mile segment connecting Falfarrius to the northern end of I-69C in the Valley is funded, and projects to extend I-69E down to south of Rivera, plus a bypass of that town, from Kingsville is funded. Lots of smaller projects are also funded north of Houston heading up US-59, all in the next decade.

Connecting Houston and Austin directly with a stoplight-free, super highway corridor is more of a state-wide and nation-wide issue than one of local politics. The Interstate highway system functions as a nation-wide network of super highways. It's not a bunch of random local bypasses and what not just strung together. Designing additions to the Interstate highway system in that manner is wasteful.

Agreed. At least something like I-69 has merit, a solid plan, and is being properly designed and built as segments are funded with the long-distance, not local, concept in mind.

[Bobby5280]

What is hinted at in other posts is some sort of "rationality" process whereby all of the above can be jettisoned in favor of a determination of perceived needs -- in short, a revitalization of the "point-to-point" characteristics of the original Interstate system, brought up to 2019 demographics.

That description is a bit over-simplified. But, yes, the situation essentially needs to return to the previous model in order to maintation a functional, rational, national highway network. If highway development has to be about blowing billions of dollars on political pork, on crooked corridors whose justification for upgrading is very questionable then there's no use spending any money on upgrades at all. The highway network needs to be improved where it is legitimately needed, not mis-appropriated where some lobbyist campaigns for it.

Over the past 50 years one hell of a lot population migration has taken place. The original make-up of the Interstate highway system was heavily loaded towards the Northeast states. The United States is quite a bit different now from what it was when the Interstate highway system was first proposed. For example, Detroit was one of the largest, most economically vibrant cities in the nation back in the 1950's. Austin was relatively tiny then. Today, after roughly 40 years of misery, Detroit is trying to make a comeback, but it has fallen well out of the "club" of million+ population cities. Meanwhile the Austin metro is one of the fastest growing in the nation. I was skimming through the new FBI UCR database on 2018 crime statistics (to see how Lawton scored) and noticed Austin's latest population estimate there was 975,000.

I think the alignment we see on maps is a rough routing following existing roads. The interstate will generally follow that path, but a more straighter routing likely.

I wish I shared your optimism, but I wouldn't be surprised if the I-14 corridor was bent to the jagged extremes shown in those proposals, complete with all the town names at the corners of the ping pong, pinball path. The far from straight nature of I-69 in Southern Indiana and Kentucky is a hint of what could come to pass with I-14 within the Texas Triangle.

[vdeane]

That description is a bit over-simplified. But, yes, the situation essentially needs to return to the previous model in order to maintation a functional, rational, national highway network. If highway development has to be about blowing billions of dollars on political pork, on crooked corridors whose justification for upgrading is very questionable then there's no use spending any money on upgrades at all. The highway network needs to be improved where it is legitimately needed, not mis-appropriated where some lobbyist campaigns for it.

I'd go so far as to say that all additions/active proposals since the 1960s additions need to be reviewed on the basis of national/regional merit.  Those that pass would be added to the chargeable system (complete with dedicated funding for construction/maintenance), with possible number adjustments where needed to make the system more coherent.  The rest would be deleted from the system and the states would have a deadline to remove the signs.

[The Ghostbuster]

Are Interstate 14's eastern and western extensions going to be built anytime soon? Maybe the state should focus on completing Interstate 69 (and its spurs) before tackling Interstate 14's extensions.

[sparker]

That description is a bit over-simplified. But, yes, the situation essentially needs to return to the previous model in order to maintation a functional, rational, national highway network. If highway development has to be about blowing billions of dollars on political pork, on crooked corridors whose justification for upgrading is very questionable then there's no use spending any money on upgrades at all. The highway network needs to be improved where it is legitimately needed, not mis-appropriated where some lobbyist campaigns for it.

I'd go so far as to say that all additions/active proposals since the 1960s additions need to be reviewed on the basis of national/regional merit.  Those that pass would be added to the chargeable system (complete with dedicated funding for construction/maintenance), with possible number adjustments where needed to make the system more coherent.  The rest would be deleted from the system and the states would have a deadline to remove the signs.

That's not going to happen -- period!  "Should", as in application (or re-application, for that matter) of a priori standards, would require unraveling 46 years of case-by-case process, exacerbated for the last 28 years by the current favored method of piggybacking new Interstates on HPC's, and getting the designation into either the periodic omnibus legislative efforts (ISTEA, SAFETEA-LU, etc.) or simply inserted into yearly budgets -- and the ability to do so -- stealthily --  is prized in Congressional circles.  Even though there's a visible and well-publicized effort to eliminate or at least minimize "pork",  there's still the "back-channel" methods of "bringing home the bacon".  And whether it can or cannot be bolstered by actual data, the perception among many cities and regions is that a facility bearing the Interstate shield will attract commercial investment -- particularly in the distribution/warehousing sector -- to that area.   This concept has permeated the efforts in some heretofore "single industry" areas, such as West Texas; they're seeing the decline in the use of fossil fuels looming ahead -- and there's only so much petroleum that is required for the production of lubrication or polymers; folks there are looking for a "plan B".  To that end, a conduit through central TX to the ports of Houston and Port Arthur, coupled with Panamax prospects, is part of their long-range planning schemes.  And since San Angelo isn't on a major rail line (M/O is), the provision of efficient truck access is considered a prerequisite to their efforts.   And the fact that the Port-to-Plains corridor has been the subject of decades of procrastination and "on-again-off-again" plans and studies -- without much in the way of improvements outside San Angelo itself -- cynicism regarding the prospects for that decidedly more valuable corridor has shifted regional hopes over to I-14. 

Are Interstate 14's eastern and western extensions going to be built anytime soon? Maybe the state should focus on completing Interstate 69 (and its spurs) before tackling Interstate 14's extensions.

Look upthread a bit; the latest info indicates that the "Triangle" portion between Belton/Killeen and Huntsville (ostensibly via College Station) will be the subject of an upcoming alignment study.  That part will likely be the first to be done -- probably in 25-30 years.  West of Copperas Cove is a bit more dicey -- there are multiple corridor concepts all clustered into one massive "overkill"; practically, it'll either dip down to I-10 between Junction & Sonora or head west via Brady to San Angelo, where it will either meet up with a revitalized P-to-P mostly N-S route or extend on to terminate at I-20 at Midland/Odessa.  That needs to be resolved before any westward planning can commence. 

[TXtoNJ]

My best guess is the corridor will follow FM 93 to Heidenheimer, 190 to past Cameron, FM 2095 to Gause, a new alignment to Benchley, 6 to College Station, and 30 to Huntsville.

[sparker]

My best guess is the corridor will follow FM 93 to Heidenheimer, 190 to past Cameron, FM 2095 to Gause, a new alignment to Benchley, 6 to College Station, and 30 to Huntsville.

That's probably a fair assessment of the final alignment, with the possibility of staying within a mile and a half of the present 79/190 Brazos crossing to avoid the oxbows downstream and possibly remaining on TX 6 SE of College Station -- before swinging east toward Huntsville -- to avoid the housing areas along TX 30 east of town as well as take advantage of an existing facility as much as possible.