I-14 in Texas

[djlynch]

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.

Round Rock would actually be the big exception to my "I-14 won't do much for the Austin area" thinking, because US 79 to Milano or Hearne is a reasonably straight shot. The big thing in my mind that's missing from The Triangle is a good route to the northeast out of Austin and San Antonio that doesn't involve going through Dallas or Houston. An upgrade to SH 21 from US 290 at Paige (or preferably all the way back at San Marcos) to Bryan tying into I-14 and then I-69 and I-369 would take some of the pressure off of I-35 and I-10. It doesn't even need to be full freeway the whole way. Just something similar to SH 71 between Bastrop and Columbus where interchanges and bypasses get most of the cross traffic out of the way so you can maintain the 65/70/75-mph limit.

[bwana39]

I think everyone is missing the point of I-14 existing at all.  All it is about is the state proving it supports FT Hood.  I highly doubt since I-14 is complete from Copperas Cove to I-35 that there is any priority whatsoever in extending it. 

[Bobby5280]

I think there is at least some legitimacy with extending I-14 to the Bryan-College Station area and then over to Huntsville. The PR angle of the highway doing the "we support the troops" mantra is kind of lame. If connecting Army posts with freeways was of strategic importance they would more likely upgrade US-281 into an Interstate to help link Fort Sill in Oklahoma with Food Hood in Texas.

If I-14 was fully built-out from the Midland-Odessa to San Angelo, Killeen, College Station, Huntsville and points farther East it could help the route serve as a regional trunk/bypass route for long distance commerce. I-81 works as a kind of relief route for I-95.

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).

I think pushing the route South of Lake Livingston poses just as many problems as running it directly over the existing US-190 alignment. There are a few different housing areas around the South edge of the lake and at the foot of the dam. An I-14 Southern bypass of the lake would have to be built perhaps a couple of miles South of the dam, if not farther. This wouldn't be a bad thing if I-14 was going to run from Huntsville down to the Beaumont-Port Arthur area. It would be a more direct path for such an alternative. But if I-14 is meant to go East to Alexandria it would be a pretty substantial detour to go around the lake only to come back up to the North again.

There are a few potential places just North of the existing US-190 corridor where a new I-14 bridge crossing could be built. Up in those areas it wouldn't visually impact the nicer looking parts of the lake to the South of the existing US-190 bridge. If TX DOT sold the project the right way they might be able to dress up the bridge where it looks a little nicer, have a couple clearances more friendly to boats and maybe even a pedestrian path and overlooks where people could fish off the bridge. The existing US-190 bridge is just two lanes with hardly any shoulders and zero room for anyone on foot.

Edit: Since a more direct College Station to Huntsville route alternative of I-14 would likely enter Huntsville on the North side (near the large prison complex system) that would make it easier to route a new terrain path over to an optimal crossing over the North half of Lake Livingston.

Round Rock would actually be the big exception to my "I-14 won't do much for the Austin area" thinking, because US 79 to Milano or Hearne is a reasonably straight shot. The big thing in my mind that's missing from The Triangle is a good route to the northeast out of Austin and San Antonio that doesn't involve going through Dallas or Houston.

What major destination for Austin traffic would justify an Interstate route going Northeast out that city yet bypassing Dallas? I don't really see Austin-to-Tyler as a major corridor worth spending billions to upgrade into Interstate quality. US-79 is probably just fine as it is. Sharply angling I-14 down to hit Milano and ping-pong up to Hearne isn't going to help matters much either. It would only hamstring the effectiveness of a more direct I-14 route. Killeen-College Station-Huntsville is the real deal there.

[bwana39]

1) The PR if you will angle is all about BRACC. While we aren't in the throes of a BRAC right now, when I-14 was in the works, it was expected.  Make the base in-expendable to the military.  If you had ever been involved in Base retention efforts, you might understand.  It is about making Ft Hood look great for the future. A road to nowhere wouldn't have been out of the question.

2) Texas as a rule doesn't do significant runs of new routing on  rural roads. I am not even going to guess where it might go after Bryan / College Station. My guess Conroe not Huntsville. Go into the edge of the Houston Urban area to spite itself

2) Austin wasn't much more than an afterthought until the nineties as government blossomed.  Yes, it is a huge urban sprawl now, but it is viewed as an island, not a destination nor a beginning point. You go through Austin in spite of Austin's search for relevance.

[sparker]

1) The PR if you will angle is all about BRACC. While we aren't in the throes of a BRAC right now, when I-14 was in the works, it was expected.  Make the base in-expendable to the military.  If you had ever been involved in Base retention efforts, you might understand.  It is about making Ft Hood look great for the future. A road to nowhere wouldn't have been out of the question.

2) Texas as a rule doesn't do significant runs of new routing on  rural roads. I am not even going to guess where it might go after Bryan / College Station. My guess Conroe not Huntsville. Go into the edge of the Houston Urban area to spite itself

2) Austin wasn't much more than an afterthought until the nineties as government blossomed.  Yes, it is a huge urban sprawl now, but it is viewed as an island, not a destination nor a beginning point. You go through Austin in spite of Austin's search for relevance.

I'd surmise that it's the other way around -- the presence of Ft. Hood enhances the viability of I-14, not the other way around.   Remember that I-14 is a developmental corridor, intended to brighten the commercial prospects of the areas it will serve rather than simply providing access to them.  That was already there with the US 190 freeway that was upgraded to the sole extant I-14 section a few years back.  The driving force for the corridor has always emanated from the "Triangle", particularly Bryan/College Station, and areas of West Texas currently some distance from an Interstate, particularly San Angelo.  If the extant 190 freeway were the whole point of the matter, it could have been designated a x35 -- even if TxDOT isn't terribly fond of Interstate spur routes -- at least without prodding (e.g. I-169 down in the Rio Grande Valley).  No -- the I-14 corridor concept was and is all about providing a facility along which commercial development can occur; the existing freeway from I-35 to Copperas Cove was simply a convenient place to "lay anchor" for the project. 

But that is a good if a bit overstated observation regarding Austin.  Ever since I-10 was routed down TX 27 and US 87 to San Antonio rather than remain on US 290, there have been roadgeeks looking at Austin as a hugely underserved city deserving of Interstate connections east and west (I was myself sporadically within those ranks).  Part of that is the city's (and its surrounding area's) outsized growth over the last few decades.  But it seems that Austin residents are largely indifferent to that iteration of the connectivity concept -- they, and by extension their elected officials -- have been largely silent regarding any pressing need to develop more direct Interstate-grade connections east to Houston or west to I-10.  Their attention, when visible, seems to be more localized in nature -- improving access within their metro area rather than forging new connections to more distant locations.  Austin is iconoclastic in contrast with other Texas metro areas; whether that's due to their position as a relatively liberal bastion bolstered by being the seat of state government as well as the site of a major research university can be debated -- but they have managed to set themselves apart from much of the rest of the state by their willingness to embrace tolls and other urbanist-approved (or even initiated) methods to address their transportation requirements (although DFW has adopted the toll concept as well -- although probably for different reasons).  Getting from point "A" to point "B" within their metro area appears to have been prioritized over getting from one metro area to another.  For the most part, Austin folks appear to be quite content with using TX 71 or even US 290 -- as is -- when they have to schlep over to Houston for one reason or another.  If over time pressure builds to install an Interstate-grade facility heading east, that pressure is more likely to come from the intervening areas (Bastrop, anyone?) than Austin itself or interests within that city.

[Bobby5280]

The PR if you will angle is all about BRACC. While we aren't in the throes of a BRAC right now, when I-14 was in the works, it was expected.  Make the base in-expendable to the military.

Having been raised in a military family, along with living in a "military town" (Lawton) since the early 1990's, I'm pretty familiar with Base Realignment and Closure committee proceedings.

About 15 or so years ago there was a lot of worry here BRAC proceedings in Washington would gut many of the missions at Fort Sill. But the post here has remained somewhat stable. Some missions have come and gone, but Fort Sill added the Air Defense Artillery School (moved here from Fort Bliss). Several defense technology companies, such as Raytheon, do a lot of testing work here. They have a land-based Phalanx cannon system (a large scale chain-based machine gun that cycles 6000 rounds per minute). It's something else to hear one of those burp out a gun blast from miles away. Last night I don't know what Fort Sill was blowing up, but it was rattling my windows! Fort Sill is a pretty important Army post in terms of Army history. It's pretty much where the last chapter of the Plains Indian Wars ended. The grave of Geronimo is aboard Fort Sill. We have highways and other sites named after Quanah Parker (who I think is really a bigger legend than Geronimo). Fort Sill has another additional advantage to the Army: lower living costs in the area off post (saves money on BAQ expenses) and lower costs of doing business.

Anyway, with all the talk of Fort Sill and it managing to survive BRAC sessions, Fort Hood ranks a peg above Fort Sill in terms of importance of the US Army. Fort Hood is one of the very last posts I would ever expect the Army to close, much less reduce at all in terms of missions.

Texas as a rule doesn't do significant runs of new routing on rural roads. I am not even going to guess where it might go after Bryan / College Station. My guess Conroe not Huntsville.

There is no practical path to build I-14 direct from College Station to Conroe. Lake Conroe is one big obstacle. All the expensive housing development along and close to the lake's edge is another. The TX-105 corridor is completely overrun with development.

Honestly the Grand Parkway is really the only super highway that's going to be able to span East-West through that general vicinity. No other East-West superhighway between it and I-14 will be able to be built due to all the high priced properties that exist in that region. And even if there was a credible path to extend I-14 from College Station to Conroe it would pretty much duplicate efforts of extending the Tomball Parkway to Navasota.

Austin wasn't much more than an afterthought until the nineties as government blossomed.  Yes, it is a huge urban sprawl now, but it is viewed as an island, not a destination nor a beginning point. You go through Austin in spite of Austin's search for relevance.

Austin is the state capitol of Texas and it has been a pretty big city for a very long time. And now the Austin-San Antonio region is pretty much the fastest growing area of the US. The Austin metro has 2 million people. Same for San Antonio. Both combined have close to 5 million. Even though Austin is huge, I don't see many of its residents itching to go to Tyler as opposed to the DFW area or Houston (or even College Station for that matter). For the Austin area improving the links between it and Houston appear to be of far greater importance than anything to do with I-14. I think US-290, TX-71 and TX-6 should all be greater priorities for improvement.

But it seems that Austin residents are largely indifferent to that iteration of the connectivity concept -- they, and by extension their elected officials -- have been largely silent regarding any pressing need to develop more direct Interstate-grade connections east to Houston or west to I-10.

First of all, not everyone in Austin is a tofu-eating liberal who hates cars. Really, you can't get around most places in the Austin metro without a personal motor vehicle. That's one thing. But this notion you keep repeating, implying any regional or national superhighway connections are solely up to local Austin residents and their "campaign efforts" is ridiculous. Interstate-class highways serve more than just the people who live in a particular destination city. They also serve all the people and businesses who have to drive to and from that city. The needs for proper, adequate highway connections in and out of Austin are bigger than just the people in Austin. The locals in Austin only have a say at blocking highway projects in their city limits. If TX DOT decides it is going to turn US-290 or TX-71 between Austin and Houston into Interstate quality roads the avocado toast eating contingent in Austin can't really do much to stop it. At some point improving aspects of safety and effective movement of traffic and commerce has to take priority over the cause of getting everyone to pedal a bicycle when taking a long road trip.

[bwana39]

You're right, there isn"t a good direct route to Conroe. My guess would be SH6 to the south then over.

[Anthony_JK]

US 190 takes a pretty long shift north-south along US 171 from Leesville to Ragley before turning east to cross Kinder/Basile/Eunice/Opelousas et. al.


Unless you plan on upgrading US 171 between Lake Charles and Shreveport, that's not really feasible, and not what the original I-14/14th Amendment Corridor folks intended.


Any upgrade of US 190 east of Ragley would be better suited as an I-12 extension, also overlaying LA/TX 12 through DeQuincy to I-10 at Vidor.


Also, really not needed, since 190 could be 4-laned from Kinder east to where the existing 4-lane starts west of Eunice.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
Yeah, I have yapped about Austin's reluctance to initate any action regarding Interstate connectivity to Houston and elsewhere on repeated occasion -- but that's not to imply that they have some sort of veto power over such activity; by no means would that be the case.  What I am implying -- actually stating -- is that the history of post-chargeable Interstate corridors in TX shows one particular commonality -- the impetus for such has started with an actor or group of such located somewhere along the proposed corridor actually getting out there and getting their hands dirty formulating proposals and promotion for these corridors.  Sure, TxDOT and their political handlers could elect on their own to initiate a Houston-Austin corridor either along TX 71, US 290, or some variant or combination of those -- but that just hasn't happened.  Interstate corridors in this state are shepherded by groups like the Houston-based Alliance for I-69/Texas, which has worked with TxDOT, various members of the state's congressional delegation, and state legislators to ensure that steady progress on the I-69 "family" is maintained.  Of course, they represent Houston interests who would benefit from both an northeast and southwest Interstate-grade egress facility from their city -- essentially filling in what was ignored back in 1956-57.   The I-14 backers are decidedly less organized and have yet to be responsible for a single mile of freeway that wasn't there when they started their process -- but at least they're getting formal alignment studies done in relatively prompt fashion as a first step toward actual construction.   But my point is that TxDOT doesn't initiate these projects by themselves even though they have the prerogative to do so; they have repeatedly let specific promotional groups take the lead, and are content to expedite these groups' interests as long as they maintain the "push" for action.   Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that at about 850K residents in incorporated Austin and a like amount in the surrounding 'burbs that there hasn't been more of a push for connections to elsewhere, particularly the obvious routes to Houston but also improvements to routes that might prove useful in bypassing DFW and other congested areas of the state (hey, this is TX -- and even liberals here have cars & the occasional truck or two -- it isn't NYC!), like an upgrade of US 79, for instance.   But consistent and coordinated activity toward such a project -- a prerequisite to actual successful action -- just hasn't happened -- and there doesn't seem to be any sign that such is imminent or even the subject of rumblings or chatter. 

It would be nice if public agencies could and would, on their own, initiate activities to address unfulfilled needs even if the localities that would benefit from such activities fail to act on their own -- but there are political realities that need to be considered;  this is a nominal "red state" that tends, in the aggregate, to view raising public funds for such endeavors as either unnecessary or even wasteful.   An agency chief who would suggest spending several billion dollars to not only do the corridors planned presently but also several others (the Austin servers discussed here, US 287 Ft. Worth>Amarillo, the P-to-P, et. al.) would be excoriated as being a "tax-and-spend" bureaucrat.  But if outside groups take the lead and garner support within the state, then TxDOT can be seen as simply expediting the process -- in other words, just doing their job responding to perceived public preferences. 

[bwana39]

OK, if I am going to play fantasy, here is the route.

US 190 from Temple to Bryan / College Station. (Sure would try to do some new routing in Milam County)
TX 30  to Huntsville
US 190 to Jasper
TX 63 to LA State Line
From TX State Line LA 8
LA 8 to Leesville (and Ft Polk)
LA 28 to Alexandria
Through Alexandria / Pineville
Back on LA 28 to Archie (US 84)
US 84 to Ferriday and Natchez MS.

Reason it will NOT happen. Louisiana cannot afford what they have in the works / immediate needs.  In Texas it doesn't really service ANY population center of over 500K.

[The Ghostbuster]

I think Interstate 14 should be an Interstate 20-to-Interstate 45 route. Nothing more!

[sprjus4]

I think Interstate 14 should be an Interstate 20-to-Interstate 45 route. Nothing more!

East of I-45, it could conceptually continue eastward along the US-190 corridor intersecting I-69, then turning southeast along US-287 and ending at I-10 in Beaumont, avoiding Houston for I-14 <-> I-10 traffic.

The segment from Meridian to Augusta via Montgomery, Columbus, and Macon (the Meridian <-> Montgomery segment being studied as an I-85 extension a decade ago) is also another corridor that would be a reasonable route, maybe not as I-14, but another interstate highway.

The portion between Meridian and Livingston / Woodville through Louisiana and Mississippi doesn't connect any major population centers that aren't already linked through other interstate highways (I-65, I-10, I-20, etc.) and the most that would be needed is a 4-lane divided highway which exists in a lot of areas. Not to mention, what are the odds those states will ever find such funding to construct such roadway.

[sparker]

I think Interstate 14 should be an Interstate 20-to-Interstate 45 route. Nothing more!

East of I-45, it could conceptually continue eastward along the US-190 corridor intersecting I-69, then turning southeast along US-287 and ending at I-10 in Beaumont, avoiding Houston for I-14 <-> I-10 traffic.

The segment from Meridian to Augusta via Montgomery, Columbus, and Macon (the Meridian <-> Montgomery segment being studied as an I-85 extension a decade ago) is also another corridor that would be a reasonable route, maybe not as I-14, but another interstate highway.

The portion between Meridian and Livingston / Woodville through Louisiana and Mississippi doesn't connect any major population centers that aren't already linked through other interstate highways (I-65, I-10, I-20, etc.) and the most that would be needed is a 4-lane divided highway which exists in a lot of areas. Not to mention, what are the odds those states will ever find such funding to construct such roadway.

Chances are that in most of our lifetimes I-14 won't get out of Texas.  The ghostbuster is essentially right -- it'll likely (by itself or as an adjunct to a revived Port-to-Plains) get to Midland, TX, one of the areas promoting the corridor along with San Angelo slightly to the southeast.  It'll be a Midland-San Angelo-Temple-Bryan-Huntsville facility in about 30 years or so.  East of I-45 will depend upon local support from that corner of the state -- a corner that has already suggested a branch down to Beaumont, which may end up as the I-14 "main line" if LA and/or MS won't or can't pony up the requisite funding for their portions (AL is already out of the picture, so any potential corridor would likely just terminate at I-59).  Actually, a Beaumont-San Angelo/Midland corridor might be useful for commercial traffic looking to avoid Houston and San Antonio traffic issues; the lack of substantial metro areas along the corridor may be a backhanded saving grace!  That concept would be enhanced further if renewed activity on the Port-to-Plains (I-27) corridor were to transpire -- an additional source and/or outlet for I-14 traffic -- it could become a major commercial conduit in spite of itself!   

[Bobby5280]

You're right, there isn"t a good direct route to Conroe. My guess would be SH6 to the south then over.

Once the Tomball Parkway is completed to TX-6 there will be at least one good, direct super-highway path from College Station into the Houston area. TX-6 itself is going to need more and more upgrades. I think Waco to Bryan has to be a priority and then extending South to US-290 and maybe even I-10.

It would be nice if public agencies could and would, on their own, initiate activities to address unfulfilled needs even if the localities that would benefit from such activities fail to act on their own -- but there are political realities that need to be considered;  this is a nominal "red state" that tends, in the aggregate, to view raising public funds for such endeavors as either unnecessary or even wasteful.

The Interstate highway system was started by a Republican President. Texans like their cars and they do seem to like the fact their super highways are bigger in scale than many other areas of the US. Many Texans are conservative and don't like taxes, but they like toll road even less. So that's quite a conundrum and contradiction -kind of like how Texas has no state income tax but boy do you make up for that in property taxes!

As much as Texas has grown in population (and continues to grow rapidly) many corridors are in very legit need of upgrades.

There is absolutely zero denying the fact US-290 between Houston and Austin needs full Interstate-quality upgrading. A great deal of work on US-290 has been done leading up to the split with TX-6. Other spot upgrades have happened elsewhere on the corridor. In Austin some big projects are planned on US-290 going Westward out of town. So it's not like TX DOT is ignoring the US-290 corridor. They're making upgrades where they can be made. The only difference is there is no overall big picture plan currently to upgrade the entire corridor. The same can be said for the TX-71 corridor. San Marcos and New Braunfels are growing rapidly and will need more than just I-35 as an inlet/outlet. Highway "spokes" near or along TX-46 and TX-80 must be improved from those cities to I-10. Further, the TX-46 corridor is emerging as a Northern partial outer loop corridor for San Antonio. US-287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo is long overdue for improvement.

Attitudes about "tax and spend" can change on things like roads. Right now we have this coronavirus crisis creating all kinds of turmoil and threatening to send the economy into a tail spin. One thing the government can do when things go South is get a lot of big public works projects going to help jump start the economy. Building new roads or upgrading existing roads is "progress" citizens and taxpayers can see.

I think Interstate 14 should be an Interstate 20-to-Interstate 45 route. Nothing more!

Over the next 30 or so years I think I-14, at best will run from Copperas Cove to Huntsville in some manner. And that's it. Perhaps it could get extended as far West as Lampasas (and US-281).

If I-14 is ever extended as far West as I-20 in the Midland-Odessa area then the East end should at least have some Interstate quality connection going into Beaumont-Port Arthur. That is if it's not extended farther East thru Louisiana. It would be even more beneficial to "oil patch" activity as well as helping the highway serve as a regional, long distance I-10 bypass for commercial traffic to avoid the San Antonio and Houston areas. If I-14 only ended in Huntsville a bunch of that traffic would have to get down into the Houston area to connect with I-10. Traffic on I-45 starts getting hairy as far North as Conroe. By the time you get down to The Woodlands to connect with the Grand Parkway I-45 at that point is prone to soul-crushing traffic jams.

[thisdj78]

There is no practical path to build I-14 direct from College Station to Conroe. Lake Conroe is one big obstacle. All the expensive housing development along and close to the lake's edge is another. The TX-105 corridor is completely overrun with development.

Actually, there is ROW along 105 all the way from Navasota to 336 west of Conroe. Yes there is a lot of development along this route, but if you look at satellite imagery, all of the driveways to business etc, are a little longer vs right up on the road. Looks to me like they planned for 105 to be expanded to limited access at some point.

[Rothman]

The Republican Party of the 1950s was a separate species to the one today.  Back then, they supported labor unions, just as one example...

[Verlanka]

I think Interstate 14 should be an Interstate 20-to-Interstate 45 route. Nothing more!

That will happen about 50 years from now.

[bwana39]

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!).     

There has been discussion to upgrade US190 to four lane with minimal at grade intersections. 55 MPH Minimum. No traffic signals. This has mainly been during discussion of the upgrade / replacement of the Atchafalaya bridges on I-10.  Some have suggested it as a redundant freeway to I-10. IE EXTEND I-12 to I-49 (or to Alexandria via the US-71 Corridor for the really ambitious.)

Has been MINIMAL if any discussion of a Freeway going farther west than Opelousas in the south.

[Anthony_JK]

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!).     

There has been discussion to upgrade US190 to four lane with minimal at grade intersections. 55 MPH Minimum. No traffic signals. This has mainly been during discussion of the upgrade / replacement of the Atchafalaya bridges on I-10.  Some have suggested it as a redundant freeway to I-10. IE EXTEND I-12 to I-49 (or to Alexandria via the US-71 Corridor for the really ambitious.)

Has been MINIMAL if any discussion of a Freeway going farther west than Opelousas in the south.

Really?? I've heard no such discussion of any freeway or any serious upgrade to US 190 east of Opelousas from LADOTD or anyone else.

Besides that, lots of luck removing the traffic lights in Port Barre, Livonia, and Erwinville. Cops there gotta get their revenue somehow.


Also, while there could be some access modification via J-turns on the segment from the LA 1 (west) intersection just west of Erwinville to the LA 415 divergence interchange, the remainder of US 190 from there west to Opelousas is either too narrow with a K-rail median (foot of the Morganza Floodway bridge near Louisa to LA 1); narrow with a small barrier median (Morganza Spillway bridge to Atchafalaya River bridge at Krotz Springs) or regular 4-divided rural with NO real access control (Krotz Springs to Opelousas).

Making that section a freeway or even a serious at-grade expressway would take some doing...and also, since 190 generally follows the Union Pacific RR main line from 'Da Op to Livonia (and a spur line the rest of the way to Lobdell/LA 415), it would be quite a task to get the ROW to even build a freeway there. But, then again, if they get any more serious accidents on I-10 at the Swamp Freeway segment, it may not matter but for the funding.



If I-14 is actually built in Louisiana, the current proposal (LA 28, loop around Alexandria, LA, LA 28 to US 84 to Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez is the preferred route.


(OK, sorry for the thread divergence, since this was originally about I-14 in Texas.)

[Bobby5280]

Actually, there is ROW along 105 all the way from Navasota to 336 west of Conroe. Yes there is a lot of development along this route, but if you look at satellite imagery, all of the driveways to business etc, are a little longer vs right up on the road. Looks to me like they planned for 105 to be expanded to limited access at some point.

It's possible to do a freeway upgrade of TX-105 (or build something closely parallel) between Navasota and Montgomery. But TX-105 between Montgomery and Conroe does not look like it can be upgraded into a freeway flanked by frontage roads without either buying and clearing a bunch of properties or building an elevated highway structure along the center line with frontage roads partially tucked underneath.

While it might look like there is enough room to add frontage roads alongside TX-105 in that area the road has to include room for other things, like water drainage systems as well as room for various types of slip ramps between the main lanes and frontage roads. The way the satellite imagery looks all that drainage would have to be built underneath the frontage roads. And then the frontage roads themselves are going to eat into at least some of the business parking lots.

TX-105 is a very busy corridor already, maybe even busy enough to need freeway upgrades along some segments. Such an upgrade is technically possible, but it will involve a lot of politically unpopular choices, like building elevated structures in some places.

[thisdj78]

Actually, there is ROW along 105 all the way from Navasota to 336 west of Conroe. Yes there is a lot of development along this route, but if you look at satellite imagery, all of the driveways to business etc, are a little longer vs right up on the road. Looks to me like they planned for 105 to be expanded to limited access at some point.

It's possible to do a freeway upgrade of TX-105 (or build something closely parallel) between Navasota and Montgomery. But TX-105 between Montgomery and Conroe does not look like it can be upgraded into a freeway flanked by frontage roads without either buying and clearing a bunch of properties or building an elevated highway structure along the center line with frontage roads partially tucked underneath.

While it might look like there is enough room to add frontage roads alongside TX-105 in that area the road has to include room for other things, like water drainage systems as well as room for various types of slip ramps between the main lanes and frontage roads. The way the satellite imagery looks all that drainage would have to be built underneath the frontage roads. And then the frontage roads themselves are going to eat into at least some of the business parking lots.

TX-105 is a very busy corridor already, maybe even busy enough to need freeway upgrades along some segments. Such an upgrade is technically possible, but it will involve a lot of politically unpopular choices, like building elevated structures in some places.

I feel like cities in TX have built freeways with frontage roads in less ROW even without impacting adjacent properties. I took a snapshot of one of the more congested segments of 105 and that ROW is pretty wide (considering the amount of businesses in the area). Also consider that the existing highway is 7 lanes already. Reminds me of what TX-199 NW of Fort Worth was like before they expanded it:

[armadillo speedbump]

105 appears to have a 190' to 220+' ROW between the Montgomery and Conroe loop roads.  That's room to build at least a super street like US 90A is between I-610 and west of Beltway 8 (southwest side of Houston.)  Basically non-stop 55 mph, median wall, grade separations at all intersections, but also with curb cuts to businesses (no feeder roads except at overpasses.)  That's good enough if the ROW doesn't fit an actual freeway with frontage roads. 

The south end of the 336 Conroe loop is similar.  Perhaps they could shortcut 105 to 336 on the west side using the electric utility corridor.  336 north's ROW looks too narrow, maybe less than 100' in sections, and a lot of the 105 traffic both east and west of Conroe is headed south to Houston.  Montgomery's Lone Star Parkway looks similarly capable, though they might choose the yet unbuilt southern half of the loop for a 105 reroute.

Not everything has to be a mega-expensive interstate.  And IIRC, the newest Montgomery County master thoroughfare plan on the Houston-Galveston Area Council website doesn't have 105 designated as a future freeway/tollway corridor.  I hope that isn't because of NIMBY opposition.  105 can get congested and that area will continue to grow.

[Bobby5280]

If TX DOT were to upgrade that portion of TX-105 into an urban freeway configuration the main lanes would need no less than 3 lanes in each direction, plus inner and outer shoulders. Built to Interstate standards that's going to be 110' to 120' to start. The frontage roads would have to be at least 2 lanes in each direction, costing another 48' of width. Plus there has to be room for turn lanes, Texas U-turn ramps and enough space between the main lanes and frontage road to give slip ramps a safe transition. It might be mathematically possible to squeeze all of that within a 220' wide ROW, but it wouldn't be an optimal arrangement. The ROWs of other Texas 6-lane freeways flanked by frontage roads can be 300' to 480' in width.

These property constraints, combined with a lot of high priced residential real estate nearby, has me thinking that part of TX-105 is a no-go for freeway upgrades. It's really the only East-West corridor between the Grand Parkway and future I-14 corridor that has any shot of being turned into a freeway (or toll road).

[sparker]

Even if the LA and MS proposed sections of I-14 were jettisoned, it's unlikely I-14 would be dragged down TX 6 all the way to Navasota and then over TX 105 to Conroe and ultimately Beaumont, simply because 105 is essentially the outer limits of north Houston development -- and property acquisition would be problematic or even prohibitive (cost + NIMBY's).  The Beaumont "branch" as originally illustrated diverged from the main US 190-based I-14 corridor east of Livingston and headed southeast more or less along FM 943 and then straight down US 69/287 to Beaumont.  Such an alignment would avoid the Houston 'burbs while allowing use of the existing US 69/96/287 freeway north of I-10 as a cost-saving measure.  If I-14 stays a fully TX corridor -- and the wherewithal still exists regarding extension east of I-45, then running it down to Beaumont would be the most rational option; preserving its bypass nature by not pressing it into "double duty" as a suburban server would seem reasonable.

[Bobby5280]

I can most definitely see the eventual need (or need already) of an Interstate class super highway directly linking Navasota, Conroe and Cleveland on the Northern fringes of the Houston metro. But I-14 is NOT meant to serve that regional traffic need. I-14 needs to link Killeen, College Station and Huntsville as originally intended (but in as direct a path as possible). TX-105 is a whole other ball of wax. As the Houston metro area continues to grow it will need various highway corridors improved or have new super highways built parallel to the corridors already over-run with development. TX-105 is one of those looming corridor needs.

The TX-105 corridor resembles the US-380 corridor in the DFW area between Denton and McKinney in certain ways. And it's now facing the same problems as the need grows to build a superhighway in that area. Regionally, a very good case can be made to upgrade TX-105 into a super highway from Navasota clear over to the Beaumont area. Certain segments of TX-105 can be upgraded without much trouble. But as I said, the segment between Montgomery and Conroe would be a big challenge to upgrade along the existing alignment. Much of TX-105 between Conroe and Cleveland is a 2-lane route closely flanked by development in many spot. Not an easy upgrade to do there. A new terrain path to the South, perhaps near or parallel to the rail corridor would be more do-able. West of Conore I think the FM-2854 corridor presents a better upgrade opportunity.