I-14 in Texas

[Rothman]

^^^^^^^^^^
The "connect the forts" aspect of I-14 was always an obviously dubious attempt to replicate one of the rationales used to justify the expense and effort of the original Interstate "mission" -- optimization of national defense logistics.   But since Alabama has pulled out of the Interstate game, the two Georgia forts cited in the early versions of I-14, Benning and Gordon, are no longer in the mix.   I'm sorry, but a roadway connecting just two such facilities -- Hood and Polk -- isn't by any measure a military necessity or even convenience.   If that were the case, then I-11 out west could be similarly promoted as an upgrade of the pathway between Luke and Nellis AFB's -- and the extension to I-80 justified by its potential service to Creech AFB, the Hawthorne Army ammo dump, and Fallon NAS (hey -- 3 armed services in one fell swoop!).  Possibly the military references are to divert attention away from what I-14 essentially is -- a developmental corridor, intended to act as an additional lure to businesses (particularly overseas interests looking for locations for distribution and/or warehousing), particularly in regards to San Angelo, the Fort Hood/Temple area, and Bryan/College Station.   And West Texas towns may be looking down the road to when fossil fuels become more and more a pariah -- and they need to do something with all that infrastructure presently purposed for servicing the oil extraction industry.  It certainly won't happen overnight -- or tomorrow -- but it will eventually be a reality.  Can't blame the folks out there for covering the bases -- and their asses in the process!   

Well, the undersold aspect of a long I-14 is this:  It's a perpendicular hurricane relief road for the whole Gulf Coast.  It provides a route parallel to I-10 in the event of serious damage and flooding through Houston, near the TX/LA border, near Baton Rouge, etc.  It also gives Temple/Round Rock/Austin an E/W "escape" route for whatever reason it might need.  And connecting the major land grant institution of A&M is a good concept in and of itself.  Land grants prosper even more when on an Interstate-level corridor.  What's now a major haul of traffic in and out of A&M for events like graduation... and of course football... it's hell.  Auburn University in Alabama is seeing major growth now because of the combination of being a land grant AND being on I-85.  Clemson also.  Ohio State benefits from being at a major node with 70 and 71.  Penn State might someday see benefit from I-99 (I kid, they actually HAVE improved access for students from in-state having a better and safer way there.)  Purdue always had an advantage over IU because of I-74 until now that Bloomington is getting I-69.  So, there are other benefits that should have been put forward beyond defense.

I find all of the benefits listed in this post exaggerated, except for maybe some A&M traffic relief.  But, saying that Purdue has an advantage over IU due to having interstate access is a bit much.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
The "connect the forts" aspect of I-14 was always an obviously dubious attempt to replicate one of the rationales used to justify the expense and effort of the original Interstate "mission" -- optimization of national defense logistics.   But since Alabama has pulled out of the Interstate game, the two Georgia forts cited in the early versions of I-14, Benning and Gordon, are no longer in the mix.   I'm sorry, but a roadway connecting just two such facilities -- Hood and Polk -- isn't by any measure a military necessity or even convenience.   If that were the case, then I-11 out west could be similarly promoted as an upgrade of the pathway between Luke and Nellis AFB's -- and the extension to I-80 justified by its potential service to Creech AFB, the Hawthorne Army ammo dump, and Fallon NAS (hey -- 3 armed services in one fell swoop!).  Possibly the military references are to divert attention away from what I-14 essentially is -- a developmental corridor, intended to act as an additional lure to businesses (particularly overseas interests looking for locations for distribution and/or warehousing), particularly in regards to San Angelo, the Fort Hood/Temple area, and Bryan/College Station.   And West Texas towns may be looking down the road to when fossil fuels become more and more a pariah -- and they need to do something with all that infrastructure presently purposed for servicing the oil extraction industry.  It certainly won't happen overnight -- or tomorrow -- but it will eventually be a reality.  Can't blame the folks out there for covering the bases -- and their asses in the process!   

Well, the undersold aspect of a long I-14 is this:  It's a perpendicular hurricane relief road for the whole Gulf Coast.  It provides a route parallel to I-10 in the event of serious damage and flooding through Houston, near the TX/LA border, near Baton Rouge, etc.  It also gives Temple/Round Rock/Austin an E/W "escape" route for whatever reason it might need.  And connecting the major land grant institution of A&M is a good concept in and of itself.  Land grants prosper even more when on an Interstate-level corridor.  What's now a major haul of traffic in and out of A&M for events like graduation... and of course football... it's hell.  Auburn University in Alabama is seeing major growth now because of the combination of being a land grant AND being on I-85.  Clemson also.  Ohio State benefits from being at a major node with 70 and 71.  Penn State might someday see benefit from I-99 (I kid, they actually HAVE improved access for students from in-state having a better and safer way there.)  Purdue always had an advantage over IU because of I-74 until now that Bloomington is getting I-69.  So, there are other benefits that should have been put forward beyond defense.

I find all of the benefits listed in this post exaggerated, except for maybe some A&M traffic relief.  But, saying that Purdue has an advantage over IU due to having interstate access is a bit much.

It's possible that I-14 would provide some additional flexibility in the event of a mass evacuation inland because of a weather event; it would allow lateral movements (as necessary) between the N-S corridors utilized as the principal evacuee conduits, aiding in dispersal.  Perhaps an intelligent option would be to have some adjoining (or even within the median) spaces reserved for temporary evacuation housing; this would be particularly useful along the I-14 segments following LA 28 and US 84 in LA and MS.  That being said, the route itself would be helpful, not a matter of life or death.  And the only significant college along the corridor is A&M (and maybe Angelo State if it eventually makes it out there!), so that's hardly a viable rationale for the corridor.   Attempting to conjure up altruistic or public-service rationales when those are spurious at best is a bit disingenuous; it's simply intended to serve an area heretofore unserved by the Interstate network, supported by parties in those regions.  Its prospects live or die by that continuous support and TxDOT prioritization; time will tell if that will be enough to sustain continued developmental action.

[Finrod]

Purdue always had an advantage over IU because of I-74 until now that Bloomington is getting I-69.  So, there are other benefits that should have been put forward beyond defense.

Minor correction here, Purdue is on I-65, not I-74.  Purdue would also be on I-72 if the state of Indiana ever gets around to making US 24/SR 25 an actual interstate instead of just another 4-lane.

[The Ghostbuster]

If Interstate 14 is extended west of Copperas Cove, could they at least modify the US 190/Business 190 interchange so that it is Business 190 that exits the roadway, while the main lanes follow US 190's route?

[dfwmapper]

A routing via Madisonville would provide better access to/from Dallas and College Station.

That's nonsense. Traffic coming down from Dallas to College Station already has a shorter, more direct route by taking I-35 to Waco and then TX-6 the rest of the way. Taking I-45 down to Madisonville and then that version of I-14 back West would be a back-tracking "L" shape.

Only Fort Worth is typically faster via I-35E. Dallas to B/CS is almost always faster via I-45. Depending on traffic, SH 14 to SH 6, US 79 to FM 39 to US 190/SH 21, or OSR (when it's not closed for construction) to FM 39 to US 190/SH 21 might be the best.

[armadillo speedbump]

Yes, downtown Dallas to College Station would be less than 5 miles longer via a Madisonville I-14 than via Waco.  Once the I-45 3rd lane is finally finished it will be a no-brainer option for the east side of DFW, avoiding the stoplights, lower speed limits, and Riesel speed trap south of Waco.  (Would be nice to see Hwy 6 upgraded with bypasses for Riesel, Hearne, and Calvert, but are any of those far advanced or even in the planning pipeline?)  And long term it's better to funnel that traffic into the relatively slow growth I-45 corridor than piling it onto the booming I-35.

The vast majority of the Houston metro is going to access BCS and I-14 west of there via either Hwy 6 or the Aggie Tollway (249) once it makes it to Navasota.  With 105 feeding it Conroe traffic, I don't really see that much added utility of routing 14 to Huntsville instead of via Madisonville.  Probably no time savings except for Willis and north, but there's a huge national forest between there and Huntsville that will serve as an effective urban growth boundary.  I wouldn't be surprised if their modeling shows more traffic from DFW on the Madisonville option than from Houston on the Huntsville option.

It seems like i-14 is for a long time going to be a low-volume pork dog east of BCS.  So routing through Madisonville at least gives more value for the BCS-Huntsville portion.

I get that money grows on trees for our basement experts on everything, but take a look at actual census data.  Southeast Texas east of the Houston area is barely growing, and the population is actually shrinking in some areas.  Refinery expansions are nice but they are often offset by other losses.  Unlike many other areas of Texas, the likely future growth just isn't there to justify all these crisscrossing freeway proposals.  I could see Huntsville-Livingston-Beaumont for its ability to better connect SE TX and SW LA with DFW.  But no real need for a long time east of Woodville or northeast from Beaumont.  Let the latter happen when and where demand is there, not as some piling on pork.

[longhorn]

If Interstate 14 is extended west of Copperas Cove, could they at least modify the US 190/Business 190 interchange so that it is Business 190 that exits the roadway, while the main lanes follow US 190's route?

If you are referring to the interchange on the east side of Copperas Cove, know that it is not finished until they add lanes to the bypass, then per TXDOT original plans two lanes will continue to Copperas Cove and two lanes around the bypass.


https://www.coveleaderpress.com/news/ktmpo-gives-nod-fund-widening-us-190-bypass

[sparker]

Yes, downtown Dallas to College Station would be less than 5 miles longer via a Madisonville I-14 than via Waco.  Once the I-45 3rd lane is finally finished it will be a no-brainer option for the east side of DFW, avoiding the stoplights, lower speed limits, and Riesel speed trap south of Waco.  (Would be nice to see Hwy 6 upgraded with bypasses for Riesel, Hearne, and Calvert, but are any of those far advanced or even in the planning pipeline?)  And long term it's better to funnel that traffic into the relatively slow growth I-45 corridor than piling it onto the booming I-35.

The vast majority of the Houston metro is going to access BCS and I-14 west of there via either Hwy 6 or the Aggie Tollway (249) once it makes it to Navasota.  With 105 feeding it Conroe traffic, I don't really see that much added utility of routing 14 to Huntsville instead of via Madisonville.  Probably no time savings except for Willis and north, but there's a huge national forest between there and Huntsville that will serve as an effective urban growth boundary.  I wouldn't be surprised if their modeling shows more traffic from DFW on the Madisonville option than from Houston on the Huntsville option.

It seems like i-14 is for a long time going to be a low-volume pork dog east of BCS.  So routing through Madisonville at least gives more value for the BCS-Huntsville portion.

I get that money grows on trees for our basement experts on everything, but take a look at actual census data.  Southeast Texas east of the Houston area is barely growing, and the population is actually shrinking in some areas.  Refinery expansions are nice but they are often offset by other losses.  Unlike many other areas of Texas, the likely future growth just isn't there to justify all these crisscrossing freeway proposals.  I could see Huntsville-Livingston-Beaumont for its ability to better connect SE TX and SW LA with DFW.  But no real need for a long time east of Woodville or northeast from Beaumont.  Let the latter happen when and where demand is there, not as some piling on pork.

Something tells me that expediting the DFW-B/CS traffic pattern isn't a driving force behind I-14 through the middle of the "Triangle";  Houston (whose metro area seems to be consistently expanding northward) and environs are considered more of a target than prioritizing the right-angle turn that the Madisonville option would offer for DFW originating/bound traffic.  Yeah, it does give A&M folks a pathway to DFW that avoids the various pitfalls found on TX 6 and/or TX 14 (speed traps, etc.) -- but the original composite I-14 corridor plans, once the zig-zag US 190 alignment is obviated, do extend the corridor east from the Huntsville area rather than Madisonville, which projected a multiplex on I-45 between the towns.  What it'll likely come down to is whether TxDOT planners prioritize B/CS>Houston as the principal traffic generator and destination (and supposing that commercial traffic -- and a fair portion of "civilian" drivers -- will elect to shunpike the tolled TX 249 and simply take I-45 to I-14 and then over).  If so, look for one of the Huntsville options to prevail.  About the only rationale for selecting Madisonville would be if hordes of DFW-based A&M students, parents and alumni vocally pressed for the northern option for their benefit.   The other reason to stay north -- avoidance of Lake Livingston (especially since there's a considerable amount of housing arrayed along the south side of the lake, which lies directly east of Huntsville) -- which comes into play if I-14 is actually extended east of I-45 -- would be tied largely to the plans shown a couple of years ago that include a Beaumont "branch" and/or interest by LA regarding continuing the corridor in that state. 

That being said, anything east of I-45 would be a long way off into the future; given what's already on their plate, I wouldn't expect LA to show any near-term interest in a mid-state E-W corridor through Alexandria, and MS just plain can't afford it!   My guess is that I-14 will, at least in the foreseeable future, be a "Triangle" -based facility; it'll expand west (if politically supported) before it goes east in any significant fashion.       

[sprjus4]

^

The main connection between Houston and College Station would continue to be SH-6 and US-290, which with a 16 mile exception that is only 65 - 75 mph four-lane divided highway, is all freeway, and is significantly shorter than an I-45 to I-14 at Huntsville routing. The Tomball Tollway (if ever completed as a 4-lane freeway all the way to SH-6) would provide an even more direct route, though for now US-290 and SH-6 will be the preferred option, and toll free. It's only a matter of time until that remaining 16 mile stretch be upgraded to freeway standards as the stretch from College Station to Navasota was in the past couple of decades.

That leaves the Madisonville routing which would actually serve good use for the College Station to Dallas routing as that's currently the quickest route. Additionally, that routing is shorter and would involve less construction compared to going to Huntsville.

[sparker]

^

The main connection between Houston and College Station would continue to be SH-6 and US-290, which with a 16 mile exception that is only 65 - 75 mph four-lane divided highway, is all freeway, and is significantly shorter than an I-45 to I-14 at Huntsville routing. The Tomball Tollway (if ever completed as a 4-lane freeway all the way to SH-6) would provide an even more direct route, though for now US-290 and SH-6 will be the preferred option, and toll free. It's only a matter of time until that remaining 16 mile stretch be upgraded to freeway standards as the stretch from College Station to Navasota was in the past couple of decades.

That leaves the Madisonville routing which would actually serve good use for the College Station to Dallas routing as that's currently the quickest route. Additionally, that routing is shorter and would involve less construction compared to going to Huntsville.

The choice of corridor between TX 6 and I-45 may well come down to cost differentials -- running I-14 along the existing TX 6 ROW for some distance or peeling it off toward I-45 along US 190 toward Madisonville, saving possibly a couple of miles for the interim distance.   I'm sure TxDOT will examine the C/B sheet for all alternatives, collect opinions and preferences from parties of interest (the political aspect of all this), and then select one of the three options presented based on a composite of all of the above.  Another thing to consider -- if 249 is extended all the way to the Navasota area, improving TX 6 southward to meet it might well become a localized priority -- so that route would probably be upgraded in any instance.   IMO, either I-14 option is satisfactory -- but if I were making a wager, I'd still bet on an alignment closer to Huntsville than Madisonville simply because the whole shooting match is significantly closer to Houston than DFW -- with more vocal/local interests tipping the balance.     

[dfwmapper]

The most logical path to me would be a new-terrain alignment between the Brazos crossing near Hearne and North Zulch tying in to the North Zulch bypass, then following US 190/SH 21 to I-45, including the future Madisonville bypass. SH 6 south to Navasota can be an odd I-x14 following some upgrades, and old US 190 between North Zulch and Bryan can be an even I-x14 with some upgrades and probably a new-terrain alignment to hit an interchange probably north of the current one.

[sprjus4]

^

That could be a good compromise. I-14 points towards Madisonville to serve a greater traffic load than a Huntsville routing would, but at the same time provide an I-x14 connector between Bryan and US-290. This obviously though would entail either US-290 between SH-6 and I-610 becoming part of that I-x14, or a separate 2d interstate highway eventually slated to run to Austin along US-290.

Not seeing a reason to convert US-190 into an I-x14 though. I-14 could dip to serve the Bryan / College Station area before continuing north.

Here's a concept. Red represents I-14, blue represents US-290 interstate highway, green represents SH-6 interstate highway spur. The US-290 interstate highwaty would serve Austin <-> Houston traffic, I-14 would serve east-west traffic via Bryan / College Station, and the SH-6 interstate highway spur would serve traffic from Houston to the northwest towards Bryan / College Station, Temple, Killeen, etc. This would also give Bryan / College Station an east-west interstate highway and a southern interstate highway to Houston. You could go further and keep the SH-6 interstate highway going up to Waco as well.

[dfwmapper]

I believe the plan is to keep the Brazos crossing near Hearne as both the main channel and floodplain are relatively narrow there compared to points further south. Yours would create an extremely long (read: expensive) crossing. With global warming increasing the likelihood of major flooding, any new construction, especially an Interstate, needs to be done with that in mind.

[sprjus4]

I believe the plan is to keep the Brazos crossing near Hearne as both the main channel and floodplain are relatively narrow there compared to points further south. Yours would create an extremely long (read: expensive) crossing. With global warming increasing the likelihood of major flooding, any new construction, especially an Interstate, needs to be done with that in mind.

My example was a rough alignment just to show a conceptual map with three different interstate highways. Obviously specific sections like that would be closely analyzed with those factors in mind.

[sparker]

I believe the plan is to keep the Brazos crossing near Hearne as both the main channel and floodplain are relatively narrow there compared to points further south. Yours would create an extremely long (read: expensive) crossing. With global warming increasing the likelihood of major flooding, any new construction, especially an Interstate, needs to be done with that in mind.

My example was a rough alignment just to show a conceptual map with three different interstate highways. Obviously specific sections like that would be closely analyzed with those factors in mind.

Actually, the plan pictured is a damn good idea.  All that would be needed is a little northward "kink" at the point the main I-14 route crosses the Brazos floodplain; anything within a couple of miles of the US 79/190 or the parallel UP bridges would work just fine -- just stay away from the oxbows farther south.  But the concept of a US 290-based Houston-Austin interstate needs to be sold to both the folks in Austin as well as TxDOT -- particularly since there are current plans to expand I-10 east of Columbus, indicating that they're expecting Austin-bound traffic to simply peel off onto TX 71 there; a new competing facility farther north might conflict with their interregional concepts. 

What's shown is as close to ideal as possible -- the new composite 6/290 route providing efficient service down to Houston, while I-14 east to I-45 creates a right-angle to the latter route, so DFW traffic as well as that originating in the northern Houston exurbs can be reasonably served.  Combine that with an extended 249 for those who don't mind forking over their $$ for a "bee-line" route, and the regional needs are served for the foreseeable future.  Idea:  ascertain the main I-14 backers from the B/CS area and forward this to them (with a copy to TxDOT).  Since US 290 is completed as a freeway out to the TX 6 junction, the remainder of any Austin-bound route could be pursued more at leisure than as an integral part of Houston-B/CS traffic needs. 

[Bobby5280]

Well, the undersold aspect of a long I-14 is this:  It's a perpendicular hurricane relief road for the whole Gulf Coast.  It provides a route parallel to I-10 in the event of serious damage and flooding through Houston, near the TX/LA border, near Baton Rouge, etc.

US-190 is already a parallel hurricane relief route for I-10 in Louisiana and far East Texas in the event I-10 is closed or even damaged due to hurricanes. US-190 may not be an Interstate, but it isn't very far from I-10 and it runs on higher ground for the most part.

It also gives Temple/Round Rock/Austin an E/W "escape" route for whatever reason it might need.

I-14 doesn't serve the Round Rock and Austin areas in any practical sense, much less any sort of function as an evacuation route for severe weather. East-West traffic going to/from the Austin metro will be using US-290 or TX-71.

Yes, downtown Dallas to College Station would be less than 5 miles longer via a Madisonville I-14 than via Waco. Once the I-45 3rd lane is finally finished it will be a no-brainer option for the east side of DFW, avoiding the stoplights, lower speed limits, and Riesel speed trap south of Waco.  (Would be nice to see Hwy 6 upgraded with bypasses for Riesel, Hearne, and Calvert, but are any of those far advanced or even in the planning pipeline?)  And long term it's better to funnel that traffic into the relatively slow growth I-45 corridor than piling it onto the booming I-35.

If it was up to me I'd have TX-6 upgraded to a complete Interstate quality freeway from College Station to Waco. And it would be a higher priority than I-14.

The big sales pitch for I-14 intended it to be a longer distance corridor rather than some crooked, angled thing biased for some traffic from Dallas. Honestly, if I'm going to use I-45 South out of Dallas to get to College Station I'm just not going to go all the way to Madisonville and back-track. The shortest route coming from I-45 is the TX-14 Exit at Richland and then taking TX-14 South until it ends at TX-6.

The vast majority of the Houston metro is going to access BCS and I-14 west of there via either Hwy 6 or the Aggie Tollway (249) once it makes it to Navasota.  With 105 feeding it Conroe traffic, I don't really see that much added utility of routing 14 to Huntsville instead of via Madisonville.  Probably no time savings except for Willis and north, but there's a huge national forest between there and Huntsville that will serve as an effective urban growth boundary.  I wouldn't be surprised if their modeling shows more traffic from DFW on the Madisonville option than from Houston on the Huntsville option.

I really don't think people from Dallas or Houston are going to be using I-14 to reach College Station, regardless if it is routed to Madisonville or directly from College Station to Huntsville. Drivers from both cities have other shorter distance options. I-14 is only going to help move traffic between smaller cities in the middle of the Texas Triangle like College Station and Copperas Cove.

Routing I-14 directly from College Station to Huntsville could help move traffic in the far North exhurbs of Houston as well as allow Central Texas traffic to avoid Houston. As Houston continues to grow, and its suburbs spread North, other East-West corridors in the northern reaches of the Houston metro will have to be improved or will need regional alternatives. The TX-105 corridor linking Navasota, Conroe and Cleveland is already getting badly covered up and encroached with development. The same goes for FM-1488 and TX-242 around The Woodlands. There doesn't appear to be any place between those corridors where any freeway-quality relief routes could be built. I-14 from College Station to Huntsville could end up being the only limited access East-West corridor North of the Grand Parkway.

Lake Conroe, the Sam Houston National Forest and wetlands area is a big barrier for further development North of the TX-105 corridor and South of Huntsville. If I-14 was routed directly from College Station to Huntsville I think it would connect on the North side of Huntsville closer to the airport and prison complexes. The woods and wetlands areas (along with some higher priced homes) on the South side of Huntsville would be avoided.

I get that money grows on trees for our basement experts on everything, but take a look at actual census data.  Southeast Texas east of the Houston area is barely growing, and the population is actually shrinking in some areas.  Refinery expansions are nice but they are often offset by other losses.  Unlike many other areas of Texas, the likely future growth just isn't there to justify all these crisscrossing freeway proposals.

The Houston metro overall is still growing at a significant rate. The fastest growth is happening over in the Austin area and suburbs Southwest of it (New Braunfels, San Marcos). I've repeatedly said the US-290 and TX-71 corridors both should be greater priorities than I-14 due to both US-290 and TX-71 directly linking rapidly growing areas. The same even holds true for TX-6. There's a lot of traffic moving between DFW and Houston via that route as an alternative to I-45 (and the jams that frequently happen on I-45 in the Northern suburbs of Houston).

I believe the plan is to keep the Brazos crossing near Hearne as both the main channel and floodplain are relatively narrow there compared to points further south.

The topography around the US-79 Brazos crossing doesn't look any different than the 4 lane TX-21 crossing farther South. That flood plain must not be all that much of a flood plain with major rail lines and a big rail yard built in the middle of it (just North of the little town of Mumford). Not to mention there's a lot of oil drilling pump jacks scattered throughout that area. FM-50, FM-1687 and other section line roads cut through that area.

At the very least I-14 shouldn't be ping-pong bouncing to Milano and Hearne as depicted in the original maps (leading to that awful, jagged "W" shaped path). The route needs to smooth out the corners wherever possible.

[sprjus4]

If it was up to me I'd have TX-6 upgraded to a complete Interstate quality freeway from College Station to Waco. And it would be a higher priority than I-14.

The big sales pitch for I-14 intended it to be a longer distance corridor rather than some crooked, angled thing biased for some traffic from Dallas. Honestly, if I'm going to use I-45 South out of Dallas to get to College Station I'm just not going to go all the way to Madisonville and back-track. The shortest route coming from I-45 is the TX-14 Exit at Richland and then taking TX-14 South until it ends at TX-6.

Why build a straight-shot corridor to serve little traffic rather than align it strategically to pick up the most traffic as possible? That's exactly what a routing to Madisonville would do, capturing College Station <-> Dallas drivers. One to Huntsville would eliminate that completely, involve more construction (longer distance, not taking advantage of I-45's diagonal routing), and serve less traffic.

The routing you suggests currently takes 2 hours 50 minutes and 172 miles. A routing following I-45 to Madisonville then to College Station along I-14 would take 2 hours 42 minutes and 188 miles.

I-45 to I-14 will become the preferred Dallas to College Station routing, all interstate highway and 8 minutes faster vs. 60 miles of 2-lane road that passes through 4 towns and 35 miles of 4-lane divided highway that passes through an additional 2 towns.

I really don't think people from Dallas or Houston are going to be using I-14 to reach College Station, regardless if it is routed to Madisonville or directly from College Station to Huntsville. Drivers from both cities have other shorter distance options. I-14 is only going to help move traffic between smaller cities in the middle of the Texas Triangle like College Station and Copperas Cove.

The routing you suggests (SH-14 and SH-6) currently takes 2 hours 50 minutes and 172 miles. A routing following I-45 to Madisonville then to College Station along I-14 would take 2 hours 42 minutes and 188 miles.

I-45 to I-14 will become the preferred Dallas to College Station routing, all interstate highway and 8 minutes faster vs. 60 miles of 2-lane road that passes through 4 towns and 35 miles of 4-lane divided highway that passes through an additional 2 towns.

Routing I-14 directly from College Station to Huntsville could help move traffic in the far North exhurbs of Houston as well as allow Central Texas traffic to avoid Houston. As Houston continues to grow, and its suburbs spread North, other East-West corridors in the northern reaches of the Houston metro will have to be improved or will need regional alternatives. The TX-105 corridor linking Navasota, Conroe and Cleveland is already getting badly covered up and encroached with development. The same goes for FM-1488 and TX-242 around The Woodlands. There doesn't appear to be any place between those corridors where any freeway-quality relief routes could be built. I-14 from College Station to Huntsville could end up being the only limited access East-West corridor North of the Grand Parkway.

Except I-14 would still serve this movement even if built to Madisonville. The current routing to Huntsville takes 1 hour, 54 miles and is 2-lane roadway passing through 2 towns. Taking I-45 from Huntsville to an I-14 at Madisonville then to College Station would take 57 minutes, 65 miles if built, passing through no towns and is all interstate highway.

I've repeatedly said the US-290 and TX-71 corridors both should be greater priorities than I-14 due to both US-290 and TX-71 directly linking rapidly growing areas. The same even holds true for TX-6. There's a lot of traffic moving between DFW and Houston via that route as an alternative to I-45 (and the jams that frequently happen on I-45 in the Northern suburbs of Houston).

I generally agree, but keep this in mind. The roadway between I-35 and I-45 is a jagged, 2-lane roadway that passes through 6 towns. On the other hand, SH-71 and US-290 are 4-lane divided 75 mph highways that pass through 1 or 2 towns each. With the construction, both routes will at least have 4-lane connections.

At the very least I-14 shouldn't be ping-pong bouncing to Milano and Hearne as depicted in the original maps (leading to that awful, jagged "W" shaped path). The route needs to smooth out the corners wherever possible.

It -won't- as been repeated numerous times here.

[dfwmapper]

But the concept of a US 290-based Houston-Austin interstate needs to be sold to both the folks in Austin as well as TxDOT -- particularly since there are current plans to expand I-10 east of Columbus, indicating that they're expecting Austin-bound traffic to simply peel off onto TX 71 there; a new competing facility farther north might conflict with their interregional concepts. 

I-10 is being expanded to 6 lanes all the way from San Antonio to Houston. SH 71 just makes for a logical endpoint for that particular segment. Based on TxDOT AADT numbers, about 1/4 of the traffic on I-10 east of SH 71 is going to/coming from SH 71.

[sprjus4]

^
I-10 is getting ready to be expanded further west an additional 20 miles to US-77 at Schulenburg to 6 lanes.

TxDOT posted a solicitation for a consultant to prepare the plans for widening to 3x3 from Columbus to Schulenberg, about 20 miles.

The schematic is posted with the solicitation
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/solicitations/4305/schematics.pdf

Observations:
* The main lane design is 100% per TxDOT's modern template: 3x3 with full interior and exterior shoulders, no median, center concrete barrier
* There is a strange diversion from the existing alignment about 1 mile east of US 90. The reason appears to be for smoothing the curve at this location. The diversion is about 1 mile long. Maybe that curve is accident-prone? This seems especially strange since the curve could have been smoothed on the north side, with much less right-of-way acquisition. Maybe the nearby railroad crossing was a design factor.
* Between CR 210 and CR 220, a forested area between the main lanes and frontage road is eliminated by relocating the frontage road to be alongside the main lanes. This eliminates the only location of natural foliage within the right-of-way on this section of IH 10.

[Bobby5280]

Why build a straight-shot corridor to serve little traffic rather than align it strategically to pick up the most traffic as possible? That's exactly what a routing to Madisonville would do, capturing College Station <-> Dallas drivers.

I think that's a stretch. As I said in my last post, Dallas traffic taking I-45 to reach College Station is going to exit I-45 in Richland, not farther South and out of the way in Madisonville. TX-14 coming off I-45 is the fastest way for Eastern DFW traffic to get to the College Station area. It's shorter in milage than going down to Madisonville and doing a big L shaped back-track path. Everyone else in the central to West sides of the DFW metro will take I-35 to TX-6 in Waco. Hell, there's a lot of traffic from DFW and farther North that takes TX-6 as a backdoor path into the Houston area.

The purpose of I-14 isn't giving Dallas traffic a faster way to get to College Station. If that was the real purpose then TX-14 from Richland to the TX-6 "Y" at Hammond would be brought up to Interstate standards and TX-6 upgraded right along with it.

Right now I-14 is supposed to provide a direct link between the Killeen area and College Station. The long term, big picture goal of I-14 is a new long distance Interstate directly linking Midland, San Angelo, Killeen, College Station, Huntsville, Alexandria and points farther East. It's not supposed to work like a very far away 3-digit Interstate route for East Dallas traffic.

Madisonville is not a significant destination. The same goes for towns like Hearne and Milano. I-14 will not be worth building at all if it is routed on a jagged, idiotic "W" shape path through the Texas triangle. I'm willing to bet more traffic moves between the College Station area and Huntsville than it does with Madisonville.

At the very least I-14 shouldn't be ping-pong bouncing to Milano and Hearne as depicted in the original maps (leading to that awful, jagged "W" shaped path). The route needs to smooth out the corners wherever possible.

It -won't- as been repeated numerous times here.

Diverting I-14 from College Station to Madisonville rather than a direct path to Huntsville will help create that "W" shape route. Enough angled turns will have the path of I-14 looking like the saw-tooth stripe on Charlie Brown's shirt. Even if I-14 can be built in a direct path from the Cameron area to Bryan and College Station, routing it up to Madisonville still turns it into a V-shaped route. That still sucks.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^
The expedition of traffic flow from DFW to B/CS is only a secondary consideration when evaluating the Madisonville vs. Huntsville junctions with I-45.  The real advantage of Madisonville -- considered strictly from what can be expected from the full I-14 concept -- is that it bypasses Lake Livingston to the north where there are fewer developed properties to be acquired as well as less water-crossing structure to be built.  A Huntsville alignment -- if an extension farther east is considered -- would probably have to include a southern arc around the lake and its dam; it's unlikely that TxDOT would consider a lengthy bridge over the lake itself if one could be avoided.   Developing this route would also provide benefits regarding the Beaumont "branch" proposed a couple of years back -- it would certainly make it shorter and thus less costly. 

Each routing option comes with a set of benefits; obviously Houston and environs would reap more of these if the Huntsville option was chosen.  The benefits to be derived from the Madisonville option are somewhat more vague -- giving DFW traffic an all-freeway option to B/CS would not likely be sufficient to sway the decision makers in that direction.   If the alignment of the eastern extension into LA remains a major factor, then a northern arc around Lake Livingston might afford the opportunity to ruffle the fewest feathers via both construction cost and ROW acquisition (although it would be a somewhat longer segment over to Woodville and Jasper).  All this is stuff to be hashed out by TxDOT planners and their political handlers, who'll certainly have more detailed information than we all get from maps and our various sources.   But right now it comes down to the fact that preliminarily there were two options heading to somewhere around Huntsville versus one to Madisonville;  the odds favor the prioritization of the former. 

[Bobby5280]

The expedition of traffic flow from DFW to B/CS is only a secondary consideration when evaluating the Madisonville vs. Huntsville junctions with I-45.  The real advantage of Madisonville -- considered strictly from what can be expected from the full I-14 concept -- is that it bypasses Lake Livingston to the north where there are fewer developed properties to be acquired as well as less water-crossing structure to be built.

But none of the planning maps show that. They don't show I-14 continuing directly West of Madisonville. The maps all suggest I-14 will be routed to Huntsville in some manner. One version (what I prefer) is going direct from College Station to Huntsville. The other version is bouncing it up to Madisonville and then co-signing I-14 with I-45 for 25 miles down to Huntsville.

The concept of routing I-14 to the West of Madisonville has its own problems. First, it bypasses Huntsville (a town of much greater regional significance than Madisonville, which is quite a bit smaller). Some other towns East of Huntsville, like Livingston, would be bypassed. There are wetlands areas to the North of Lake Livingston. I-14 would have to be built on an entirely new-terrain path from Madisonville to Woodville or even Jasper.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
As said previously, the odds are 2-to-1 that I-14 will stay on TX 6 to somewhere around the TX 30 junction or a bit south of there and then diverge east toward Huntsville.  And while it is correct that there are no published plans for a north-of-Lake-Livingston routing, any extension over to I-69 or farther east will in all likelihood involve quite a bit of new-terrain alignment; following US 190 closely east of Huntsville would likely provoke opposition (of the NIMBY variety) from the folks residing along the existing corridor (which features some lengthy bridges over the lake); bypassing the lake to the south would probably be the optimal option (although wetlands seem to be the rule rather than the exception in that neck of the woods).  My take on a northern arc around the lake is simply speculation as to alternatives that could be considered if a crossing at or south of US 190 becomes problematic. 

[dariusb]

I'm wondering will I-14 follow Hwy 190 in Louisiana?

[sparker]

I'm wondering will I-14 follow Hwy 190 in Louisiana?

The last time any plans were forward about a I-14 alignment in LA it essentially followed LA 28 through Alexandria, segueing onto US 84 and crossing the Mississippi at Natchez.  Running it anywhere near the US 190 route, which takes a huge southward jog down US 171, would be pointless -- and likely hasn't even been presented as an option in LA planning circles.   The only way I-14 would ever head that far south is if plans east of TX are dropped, and Texas' portion of the corridor is shunted down to Beaumont via a branch touted in the latest composite plans (IMO if that happens I-14 may as well be extended down to Port Arthur!).