Redesignating US 190 as I-14

[Sparrow]

http://www.chron.com/news/transportation/article/Interstate-14-on-its-way-across-Texas-6684403.php

 

Central Texas is getting a new interstate. US 190 will be signed as I-14 in already up to standard sections as early as next year.

[august948]

That's going to be a very zig-zaggy interstate.  190 goes southeast from Temple, then turns northeast at Milano until Hearne, then turns southest again to College Station, then turns northeast again until it hits 45, then it turns southeast again (as 45) to Huntsville then it turns east until DeRidder, then turns due south to Ragley and then turns due east and goes off into Louisianna.

[JLWM8609]

That's going to be a very zig-zaggy interstate.  190 goes southeast from Temple, then turns northeast at Milano until Hearne, then turns southest again to College Station, then turns northeast again until it hits 45, then it turns southeast again (as 45) to Huntsville then it turns east until DeRidder, then turns due south to Ragley and then turns due east and goes off into Louisianna.

 

It's not going to follow US 190 for its entirety. It'll also follow other existing roads.

[IronTiger]

It's not going to follow US 190 for its entirety. It'll also follow other existing roads.

Yeah, the screwy way how it jogs slowly southeast until College Station, when it jogs up 21 to go south again, won't work. For starters, I imagine that it will go through FM 436 (from Killeen) since it I-35 takes part of the route, then build a bypass around Little River-Academy to Rogers, then following US-190 (roughly) to Cameron, then basically cutting southeast to Bryan, where it might take part of Highway 6 (sorry Hearne), then it would either make another "bypass" toward Highway 30 East, or cut east through Singleton (potential HSR connection?) to Huntsville, where (it appears) from Jasper that it would continue through TX-63/LA-8 to Fort Polk.

[ADCS]

I can't see how this is a good idea unless you're a rural politician looking for jobs once the gas patch runs dry, or an Aggie with an inferiority complex over Austin having an Interstate while College Station does not.

[JJxvi]

I bet this would follow 30 between B/CS and Huntsville rather than go back up to Madisonville like 190 does, which would put TCR's possible central station on this interstate.

[Sparrow]

Yeah, the screwy way how it jogs slowly southeast until College Station, when it jogs up 21 to go south again, won't work. For starters, I imagine that it will go through FM 436 (from Killeen) since it I-35 takes part of the route, then build a bypass around Little River-Academy to Rogers, then following US-190 (roughly) to Cameron, then basically cutting southeast to Bryan, where it might take part of Highway 6 (sorry Hearne), then it would either make another "bypass" toward Highway 30 East, or cut east through Singleton (potential HSR connection?) to Huntsville, where (it appears) from Jasper that it would continue through TX-63/LA-8 to Fort Polk.

 

Routing of I-14 near Temple would no doubt follow the existing 190 thru the city as they just recently upgraded this section to interstate standards. Dual signing I-35 for the five or so miles from Temple to Belton is the cost effective, pragmatic thing to do. The 40 or so miles of US 190 from the new Copperas Cove bypass eastward to Heidenheimer could be called I-14 immediately.

 

I'd eat my hat if this thing doesn't route from College Station to Huntsville by way of the new HSR station. Somewhere in that acreage around Shiro, Roans Prairie, and Singleton where a few hundred folks may live now, is going to be made a vast new city in very short order with a new interstate and a high speed rail station. I would be very, very surprised if we don't see the new rail station directly adjacent to I-14.

[IronTiger]

Routing of I-14 near Temple would no doubt follow the existing 190 thru the city as they just recently upgraded this section to interstate standards. Dual signing I-35 for the five or so miles from Temple to Belton is the cost effective, pragmatic thing to do. The 40 or so miles of US 190 from the new Copperas Cove bypass eastward to Heidenheimer could be called I-14 immediately.

 

 

Not even close. For starters, I don't think Interstates can be dual signed with other Interstates (AFAIK, Interstates cannot be dual-signed with each other, but can be dual-signed with US Highways, and US Highways can be dual-signed with State Highways).

 

Secondly, even if that were true, with the widening of Interstate 35 eating the remaining space between the frontage roads (and already built with new exits/entrances anyway), it would be difficult to make ramps to connect US-190 in Temple with I-35 (as it is). There is some empty ROW in the southwest part of the interchange, but it looks like it's for drainage purposes, not for future ramps.

 

Thirdly, the highway isn't completely grade separated to Heidenheimer. Just east of the Temple Mall it begins to go back to non-Interstate standards, then another 3 miles where it's not limited access (even a stoplight to boot).

[ADCS]

Not even close. For starters, I don't think Interstates can be dual signed with other Interstates (AFAIK, Interstates cannot be dual-signed with each other, but can be dual-signed with US Highways, and US Highways can be dual-signed with State Highways).

 

Secondly, even if that were true, with the widening of Interstate 35 eating the remaining space between the frontage roads (and already built with new exits/entrances anyway), it would be difficult to make ramps to connect US-190 in Temple with I-35 (as it is). There is some empty ROW in the southwest part of the interchange, but it looks like it's for drainage purposes, not for future ramps.

 

Thirdly, the highway isn't completely grade separated to Heidenheimer. Just east of the Temple Mall it begins to go back to non-Interstate standards, then another 3 miles where it's not limited access (even a stoplight to boot).

 

1. Untrue. 20/59 in MS/AL, 70/76 in PA, 80/90 in IN and OH, 90/94 in WI are all multiplexed over long distances. 75/85 in Atlanta are multiplexed in the manner proposed.

 

2. You can make ROW do whatever you want it to, the question is cost.

[IronTiger]

1. Untrue. 20/59 in MS/AL, 70/76 in PA, 80/90 in IN and OH, 90/94 in WI are all multiplexed over long distances. 75/85 in Atlanta are multiplexed in the manner proposed.

 

2. You can make ROW do whatever you want it to, the question is cost.

Funny you should mention Interstate 70 and 76....to go from Interstate 76E to 70S, even though 76 goes right over 70, you have to exit (through a tollroad) and deposited onto a surface road that goes through town, then go through two stoplights to get onto the Interstate again [breezewood, Pennsylvania]. So yes, I suppose examples exist technically, but I don't think that's how they're supposed to be.

 

Compounding this is the fact that Interstate 35 is busy enough already and is already well advanced into construction in its extra capacity added. To get from Killeen to say, Cameron, you have to jog up I-35 if you want to go east on 190, and even then, that "nice" part of US-190 is just a few miles in town (and that is their loop road).

[cspwal]

On the dual-signed interstate thing:

I-75/I-64 are dual signed outside Lexington KY https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0918376,-84.4773567,11.76z

I-35/I-410 are dual signed in San Antonio https://www.google.com/maps/@29.4809618,-98.3599459,12.34z

I-75/I-71 are dual signed south of Cincinatti https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9599493,-84.6211163,11.44z

 

Looking at the map, I suspect an I-14 would follow I-35 in Temple, but it could just as easily bypass Temple and intersect 35 where 190 splits off to the west. https://www.google.com/maps/@31.0681987,-97.4049968,13.46z

[DNAguy]

I'm curious if you'll see the same kind of opposition to this as you do with the HSR.

 

Somehow, I don't think you will.

 

I also think that while they'll try and stick to 190, you will see parts of this interstate taking land and straightening the route.

 

But hey, that's just me.

[cspwal]

This will definitely take land and more of it, unlikely to follow any existing easements, and won't face the same widespread opposition 

[ToryGattis]

I'm curious if you'll see the same kind of opposition to this as you do with the HSR.

 

Somehow, I don't think you will.

 

I also think that while they'll try and stick to 190, you will see parts of this interstate taking land and straightening the route.

 

But hey, that's just me.

 

Well, that's the difference between a nice road you can use yourself and a train just blowing through your land without a stop...

[BigFootsSocks]

Well, that's the difference between a nice road you can use yourself and a train just blowing through your land without a stop...

I don't think that's exactly what he meant in his comment, and you can't really reduce the issue down to such simple terms like that without looking a little ignorant.

[ToryGattis]

I don't think that's exactly what he meant in his comment, and you can't really reduce the issue down to such simple terms like that without looking a little ignorant.

 

Oh, I think you might be misunderstanding me.  I actually support both, but I understand why the landowners fight the HSR and not the road. Put simply, they directly benefit from using the road, and they don't from the HSR as long as there are no intermediate stops.  The HSR is pure cutting-their-land-in-half inconvenience for them (although the counties will get increased property taxes).  I think the HSR would be smart to negotiate the intermediate counties helping fund some intermediate stops for a few daily non-express/local-stop trains that would run each day. It would require short bypass tracks at the stops so the express Houston-Dallas trains could blow past them, but it might substantially ease the opposition.

[BigFootsSocks]

Oh ok I gotcha, yeah I don't see the issue with that. I would think we'd see that on the future for HSR, but it would be nice to have on the initial route.

[Sparrow]

Oh, I think you might be misunderstanding me.  I actually support both, but I understand why the landowners fight the HSR and not the road. Put simply, they directly benefit from using the road, and they don't from the HSR as long as there are no intermediate stops.  The HSR is pure cutting-their-land-in-half inconvenience for them (although the counties will get increased property taxes).  I think the HSR would be smart to negotiate the intermediate counties helping fund some intermediate stops for a few daily non-express/local-stop trains that would run each day. It would require short bypass tracks at the stops so the express Houston-Dallas trains could blow past them, but it might substantially ease the opposition.

 

I also support both projects--progress marches forward and onward.

 

However, I would think rural landowners would favor a rail line that will cut thru their land more so than a highway which may one day force them to move from their homestead due to development pressure. A rail line without a station does nothing to provide monetary causation for the landowner to sell his/her land. It all depends upon the motivation of the rural folk I suppose. If he's looking to make a pretty penny by selling his land, the highway is without question the way to go because it will provide access, which will lead to development pressure. On the other hand, if they hope to continue passing down the homestead generation after generation, the rail is the poison of choice because while it may startle the cows a bit, it would not be on any developer's radar without a station to provide access.

 

I think of it in Old West terms as allowing the city folk stranger who just wandered into town to be able to grab some grub and a drink at the saloon, but he best be on his way outta town before he takes a glance at pretty little Ellie Mae and even thinks about trying to hang up his hat. You can pass on thru, but don't even think about doing any more than that. If country folks want to preserve their way of life they should remain steadfast in opposition to any local station access.

 

That being said, not a chance I-14 has much stalwart opposition, it's nickname is "Forts to Ports" for crying out loud. I'm not sure the last time we've connected so well to Eisenhower's original aim of the Interstate Highway System--to provide for military readiness and mobility. My gut says this one will not only come to be without much opposition, but it will be come to be with much more haste than we are used to.   

[plumber2]

"Forts to ports" makes much more sense to me, because I can't imagine any one of our current congressional representatives openly supporting any tax funded project, unless it supports the military of course.