Is Interstate 14 Dead? (Temple: installation, best, place)

[columbusgacity.]

How do we not know that the fall line freeway is slowly being coverted into I14. For what i read the fall line freeway will become I14 they are just slowly doing upgrades too hide it from metro atlantians.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by Craziaskowboi

Texas ****ed up by choosing not to build I-14 through Austin.

From my understanding, they've been trying to get an Interstate system connection with Ft. Hood for a while. It's going to connect many military bases I believe.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by Craziaskowboi

Texas ****ed up by choosing not to build I-14 through Austin.

It doesn't line up with I-14 eastward. The state of Texas has already four laned US 290 east and west of Austin from central Houston on the eastern end to Fredricksburg on the western side where it nicely aligns with I-10. It has been upgraded to limited access interstate standard about 1/4 of the way westward out of Houston and east and west of I-35 in Austin (it does overlay I-35 in the center of Austin to cross the Colorado River).

It wouldn't take much to upgrade it to interstate standard between Austin and Houston and the state has been gradually doing that. There are a half dozen small towns or so that it would probably need to bypass to get to full interstate standard. South and west of Austin might be more problematic, especially around Dripping Springs, but this route could conceivably be equivalent to an interstate. Perhaps it could be I-10N and the section going thru San Antonio re-dubbed I-10S, in the same vein I-35 divides into E and W sectors thru Dallas and Fort Worth respectively. Or pick up the I-12 label as the alternate northern route for I-10 as is done in Louisiana.

[WanderingImport]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

It doesn't line up with I-14 eastward. The state of Texas has already four laned US 290 east and west of Austin from central Houston on the eastern end to Fredricksburg on the western side where it nicely aligns with I-10. It has been upgraded to limited access interstate standard about 1/4 of the way westward out of Houston and east and west of I-35 in Austin (it does overlay I-35 in the center of Austin to cross the Colorado River).

It wouldn't take much to upgrade it to interstate standard between Austin and Houston and the state has been gradually doing that. There are a half dozen small towns or so that it would probably need to bypass to get to full interstate standard. South and west of Austin might be more problematic, especially around Dripping Springs, but this route could conceivably be equivalent to an interstate. Perhaps it could be I-10N and the section going thru San Antonio re-dubbed I-10S, in the same vein I-35 divides into E and W sectors thru Dallas and Fort Worth respectively. Or pick up the I-12 label as the alternate northern route for I-10 as is done in Louisiana.

But wouldn't your theoretical I-12 in Texas need to eventually connect to the I-12 in Louisiana for it to politically pass (or something like that. I don't know the correct terminology). I-69 is split up presently in parts throughout the country, but the ultimate plan is to connect them all together.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by WanderingImport

But wouldn't your theoretical I-12 in Texas need to eventually connect to the I-12 in Louisiana for it to politically pass (or something like that. I don't know the correct terminology). I-69 is split up presently in parts throughout the country, but the ultimate plan is to connect them all together.

I am sure you are right. I've always felt that using one of the single or double digit numbers set aside for major interstates being wasted on this stretch in Louisiana was a joke. I-10 should have been divided into N and S sectors like I-35 E and W thru DFW. The I-35 split is much longer on either side than I-12 in Louisiana. As I-12 actually is a straight line with the portions of I-10 leading up to it on the east and the west, it would have made more sense to dub the loop through NO as a 3 digit spur. But the powers that be in NO surely wanted the prestige of a single digit coast to coast interstate ending in 0 to be in their jurisdiction.

My suggestion of renaming this stretch of US 290 as I-12 would be an anomaly in the overall system of course, but it is such a wasted number as is, don't think it would upset the apple cart if it were used twice, and in both instances as a northern alternative to I-10. But if we must be purists, then I-12 in LA is more of a northern bypass of NO (even in reality it is the true 1-10 and is what anyone doing "inter-state" travel would use) and should be renamed 210 or 410 or any of the even numbered starting 3 digit bypass numbers.

And as far as repeating interstate numbers go, there are several repeated 3 digit spurs and bypasses that don't align. I-295 might take the cake, I found examples of it as bypasses in Jacksonville, Richmond, DC, New York, Providence and even a stretch that isn't an urban bypass in Maine. At least 6 examples of that name being used.

And then there is the confusing mess of the designation of I-73/74 being used in North Carolina. Still haven't figured out how that is supposed to connect with those interstates in the midwest.

But we are off topic. Sorry, map nerd on the loose, someone corral him....

[demonta4]

What's the difference between a limited access state freeway and a full interstate. What would be the issue with converting the current fall line freeway to I 14.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by demonta4

What's the difference between a limited access state freeway and a full interstate. What would be the issue with converting the current fall line freeway to I 14.

Limited access to what point? Some limited access can main no curb cuts but still at grade crossings for intersections. An interstate has certain parameters that must be met to be an interstate. The fall line freeway is not limited access to the standards of the interstate highway system.

Now a highway can be built to interstate highway standards and not be labeled as an interstate. Georgia 400 is interstate grade up to Cumming, but then isn't past that where you have at grade intersections with traffic lights from Cumming northward. I 575 becomes a partially limited access highway north of the Cherokee County line but that is where it's interstate designation ends. Same with I 985 past Gainesville.

The Fall Line Freeway would have to have every at grade crossing converted to a full separated interchange to be considered a Freeway. In other words, it would have to have hundreds of millions spent to make it so.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

It doesn't line up with I-14 eastward. The state of Texas has already four laned US 290 east and west of Austin from central Houston on the eastern end to Fredricksburg on the western side where it nicely aligns with I-10. It has been upgraded to limited access interstate standard about 1/4 of the way westward out of Houston and east and west of I-35 in Austin (it does overlay I-35 in the center of Austin to cross the Colorado River).

It wouldn't take much to upgrade it to interstate standard between Austin and Houston and the state has been gradually doing that. There are a half dozen small towns or so that it would probably need to bypass to get to full interstate standard. South and west of Austin might be more problematic, especially around Dripping Springs, but this route could conceivably be equivalent to an interstate. Perhaps it could be I-10N and the section going thru San Antonio re-dubbed I-10S, in the same vein I-35 divides into E and W sectors thru Dallas and Fort Worth respectively. Or pick up the I-12 label as the alternate northern route for I-10 as is done in Louisiana.

It could just head up to College Station from 290 near Brenham and line up with the eastern portion.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

I am sure you are right. I've always felt that using one of the single or double digit numbers set aside for major interstates being wasted on this stretch in Louisiana was a joke. I-10 should have been divided into N and S sectors like I-35 E and W thru DFW. The I-35 split is much longer on either side than I-12 in Louisiana. As I-12 actually is a straight line with the portions of I-10 leading up to it on the east and the west, it would have made more sense to dub the loop through NO as a 3 digit spur. But the powers that be in NO surely wanted the prestige of a single digit coast to coast interstate ending in 0 to be in their jurisdiction.

My suggestion of renaming this stretch of US 290 as I-12 would be an anomaly in the overall system of course, but it is such a wasted number as is, don't think it would upset the apple cart if it were used twice, and in both instances as a northern alternative to I-10. But if we must be purists, then I-12 in LA is more of a northern bypass of NO (even in reality it is the true 1-10 and is what anyone doing "inter-state" travel would use) and should be renamed 210 or 410 or any of the even numbered starting 3 digit bypass numbers.

And as far as repeating interstate numbers go, there are several repeated 3 digit spurs and bypasses that don't align. I-295 might take the cake, I found examples of it as bypasses in Jacksonville, Richmond, DC, New York, Providence and even a stretch that isn't an urban bypass in Maine. At least 6 examples of that name being used.

And then there is the confusing mess of the designation of I-73/74 being used in North Carolina. Still haven't figured out how that is supposed to connect with those interstates in the midwest.

But we are off topic. Sorry, map nerd on the loose, someone corral him....

I-73/74 really do connect if ever built. 73/74 would run together from Huntington, WV nearly to Virginia after coming from Columbus and Cincinnati.

I thought I-14 s/b I-16. I-16 only runs from Savannah to Macon. At Macon it is where I-14 runs east towards Alabama.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by bu2

I-73/74 really do connect if ever built. 73/74 would run together from Huntington, WV nearly to Virginia after coming from Columbus and Cincinnati.

I thought I-14 s/b I-16. I-16 only runs from Savannah to Macon. At Macon it is where I-14 runs east towards Alabama.

I need to see that I-74/73 alignment on a map. I know it is supposed to ultimately connect with interstates already labeled that in Ohio, but I can't see it in my head. And why both numbers, still don't have that figured out. I can plot I-69 from Texas to Indiana, that makes sense.

As for I-14/16 why not dub it I-16 all the way across? It is the connection over to Augusta that gave it a separate number on the proposed interstate list.