Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBox]

...Off of the following:
*US-87 from Tahoka to San Angelo (below Lubbock), and from north of Amarillo to Duma and then to either Raton, NM or Limon, CO (where it merges to I-25, one way or another)
*TX-349/TX-158 from Lamesa to near Sterling City (I-27W)
*US-277/US-377 from San Angelo to Carrizo Springs
*US-83 from Carrizo Springs to merging into I-35 @ Botines?
NOTE: Expect and pay attention to potential bypasses, 4-lane upgrades, and/or overpass upgrades for any of these US routes


the recent Big Spring and Del Rio bypasses are also potentially part of the I-27 extension







News of I-27 extension is still going on, with March 2021 at the latest (https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/rep-jackson-backs-bill-to-prep-i-27-for-expansion), whiling I-14 is more or less short-lived cause of funding issues (for now) and will end up like I-27, before the extension plans ironically enough.

With all that being said, we wait for and watch the upgrades happen. 

[silverback1065]

...Off of the following:
*US-87 from Tahoka to San Angelo (below Lubbock), and from north of Amarillo to Duma and then to either Raton, NM (where it merges to I-25, one way or another)
*TX-349 from Lamesa to near Sterling City
*US-277 from San Angelo to Carrizo Springs
*US-83 from Carrizo Springs to merging into I-35 @ Botines?
NOTE: Expect and pay attention to potential bypasses, 4-lane upgrades, and/or overpass upgrades for any of these US routes


the recent Big Spring and Del Rio are also potentially part of the I-27 extension

News of I-27 extension is still going on, with March 2021 at the latest (https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/rep-jackson-backs-bill-to-prep-i-27-for-expansion), whiling I-14 is more or less short-lived and will end up like I-27, before the extension plans ironically enough.

With all that being said, we wait for and watch the upgrades happen. 

We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Pixel 5

[The Ghostbuster]

That would be news to Texas and North Carolina!

[TheBox]

That would be news to Texas and North Carolina!

why North Carolina?

don't you mean Colorado?

EDIT: i think you were talking about I-14, right? which has funding issues

[In_Correct]

...Off of the following:
*US-87 from Tahoka to San Angelo (below Lubbock), and from north of Amarillo to Duma and then to either Raton, NM (where it merges to I-25, one way or another)
*TX-349 from Lamesa to near Sterling City
*US-277 from San Angelo to Carrizo Springs
*US-83 from Carrizo Springs to merging into I-35 @ Botines?
NOTE: Expect and pay attention to potential bypasses, 4-lane upgrades, and/or overpass upgrades for any of these US routes


the recent Big Spring and Del Rio are also potentially part of the I-27 extension

News of I-27 extension is still going on, with March 2021 at the latest (https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/rep-jackson-backs-bill-to-prep-i-27-for-expansion), whiling I-14 is more or less short-lived and will end up like I-27, before the extension plans ironically enough.

With all that being said, we wait for and watch the upgrades happen. 

We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Pixel 5

What is ridiculous is that people continue to advocate for removal of Interstates instead of construction.

[sprjus4]

...Off of the following:
*US-87 from Tahoka to San Angelo (below Lubbock), and from north of Amarillo to Duma and then to either Raton, NM (where it merges to I-25, one way or another)
*TX-349 from Lamesa to near Sterling City
*US-277 from San Angelo to Carrizo Springs
*US-83 from Carrizo Springs to merging into I-35 @ Botines?
NOTE: Expect and pay attention to potential bypasses, 4-lane upgrades, and/or overpass upgrades for any of these US routes


the recent Big Spring and Del Rio are also potentially part of the I-27 extension

News of I-27 extension is still going on, with March 2021 at the latest (https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/rep-jackson-backs-bill-to-prep-i-27-for-expansion), whiling I-14 is more or less short-lived and will end up like I-27, before the extension plans ironically enough.

With all that being said, we wait for and watch the upgrades happen. 

We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Pixel 5

The corridor from north of I-10 does make sense - all of the eastern portion of Texas from Dallas to San Antonio to Houston lacks any direct interstate connection to the northwest.

From a system perspective, it does make some sense south of I-10 to Laredo as well, given it would connect that metro to the northwest, the only reasonable is questionable is merely low volumes.

[SkyPesos]

Is I-27 getting extended north, south or both ways? I only heard of a potential northern extension idea up to I-70 east of Denver, not an extension southward, though a southern extension would compliment the Denver link well.

[Bobby5280]

It's going to be a long time before I-27 is ever extended North of Amarillo. There is some potential and even planning work done for bringing US-87/287 up to Interstate standards into Dumas. There has been talk about a West bypass around town; not everyone in Dumas wants it though, but they don't like all the truck traffic through the middle of town either. An I-27 upgrade up to Stratford, TX would not be all that difficult.

I think routing an Interstate from Amarillo to Raton is a non-starter. New Mexico isn't going to have any of it. The existing 4-lane US-64/87 is already sufficient for the most part; it just needs better shoulders and pavement. The only realistic path for I-27 Northward is going up to Boise City, Lamar, Kit Carson and Limon.

A Southern extension would happen first. It's more justifiable. Big Spring has its loop going around town. San Angelo needs to be connected. Obviously the Midland-Odessa metro opens the door for a I-27W/I-27E situation.

[FightingIrish]

...Off of the following:
*US-87 from Tahoka to San Angelo (below Lubbock), and from north of Amarillo to Duma and then to either Raton, NM (where it merges to I-25, one way or another)
*TX-349 from Lamesa to near Sterling City
*US-277 from San Angelo to Carrizo Springs
*US-83 from Carrizo Springs to merging into I-35 @ Botines?
NOTE: Expect and pay attention to potential bypasses, 4-lane upgrades, and/or overpass upgrades for any of these US routes


the recent Big Spring and Del Rio are also potentially part of the I-27 extension

News of I-27 extension is still going on, with March 2021 at the latest (https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/rep-jackson-backs-bill-to-prep-i-27-for-expansion), whiling I-14 is more or less short-lived and will end up like I-27, before the extension plans ironically enough.

With all that being said, we wait for and watch the upgrades happen. 

We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Pixel 5

The corridor from north of I-10 does make sense - all of the eastern portion of Texas from Dallas to San Antonio to Houston lacks any direct interstate connection to the northwest.

From a system perspective, it does make some sense south of I-10 to Laredo as well, given it would connect that metro to the northwest, the only reasonable is questionable is merely low volumes.

This routing would actually give an alternate truck routing away from the crowded I-35 corridor. Most of the road north of I-40 has more regional interest.

[Scott5114]

We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Franklin D. Roosevelt, what are you doing on this road forum?

[bwana39]

We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Pixel 5

I agree with you. I frankly prefer a 4-lane divided highway with grade separations at major intersections and true freeway bypasses around all of the towns in many of the rural areas.  It should be able to be signed and safely traveled at 70 to 75 mph EVERYWHERE.

Some of these roads eventually will need to be fully access controlled. Others will not.  Do it a little bit at a time then see if it needs a full interstate QUALITY road.

[Bobby5280]

Since 1990 Texas has had a long range plan to develop a "trunk system" of 4 lane divided highways. One feature of the plan was building bypasses around towns or thru routes on existing alignments that would either be freeways or upgradeable to freeways. The US-277 project between Wichita Falls and Abilene is one example of this trunk highway concept. One nice aspect to this plan is the resulting hybrid freeway/expressway roads would have segments easier to upgrade to Interstate quality later if needed.

Some of the corridors we frequently mention, such as this topic of US-87 in relation to I-27, were included in the Phase 1 plan trunk system plan.

A 4-lane divided highway is certainly going to be safer and more efficient at moving traffic than a mere 2-lane road. However 4-lane divided highways still have plenty of conflict points from vehicles turning onto the highway from at-grade streets or driveways. The conflict points are enhanced when thru traffic is moving at speeds of 70mph or more.

I think US-87 through most of the Panhandle down to far South Texas needs to be Interstate quality. Amarillo, Lubbock, Big Spring, Midland-Odessa, San Angelo, Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo form a pretty valuable commercial traffic corridor -one that would be even better connected to the Front Range cities in Colorado.

Statements that suggest Texas is trying to be North Carolina by frivolously signing new Interstates is just ridiculous. Texas is a gigantic state and its existing Interstate quality routes are spaced much farther apart than many states farther East. Texas is also home to four of the biggest urban MSA's in the nation, with Austin & San Antonio effectively merging into one huge MSA. Texas is continuing to add population at a fast rate, some of which is being drawn from the West Coast and Northeast. All that adds up to Texas needing to beef up its highways in a big way. Not every "trunk route" in Texas is worthy of an Interstate upgrade. But there is at least half a dozen corridors in Texas definitely worthy of Interstate upgrades.

[In_Correct]

We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Pixel 5

I agree with you. I frankly prefer a 4-lane divided highway with grade separations at major intersections and true freeway bypasses around all of the towns in many of the rural areas.  It should be able to be signed and safely traveled at 70 to 75 mph EVERYWHERE.

Some of these roads eventually will need to be fully access controlled. Others will not.  Do it a little bit at a time then see if it needs a full interstate QUALITY road.

It is not a new Designation. It is simply an extension of Interstate 27 which has not been extended in Decades. The current appearance of Interstate 27 makes it seem as it ought to be a 3 Digit instead? They want to extend Interstate 27 or it would have been named an X40 ... Also even though they had changed an old alignment of Interstate 540 to become a part of Interstate 49.

[ethanhopkin14]

Since 1990 Texas has had a long range plan to develop a "trunk system" of 4 lane divided highways. One feature of the plan was building bypasses around towns or thru routes on existing alignments that would either be freeways or upgradeable to freeways. The US-277 project between Wichita Falls and Abilene is one example of this trunk highway concept. One nice aspect to this plan is the resulting hybrid freeway/expressway roads would have segments easier to upgrade to Interstate quality later if needed.

Some of the corridors we frequently mention, such as this topic of US-87 in relation to I-27, were included in the Phase 1 plan trunk system plan.

A 4-lane divided highway is certainly going to be safer and more efficient at moving traffic than a mere 2-lane road. However 4-lane divided highways still have plenty of conflict points from vehicles turning onto the highway from at-grade streets or driveways. The conflict points are enhanced when thru traffic is moving at speeds of 70mph or more.

I think US-87 through most of the Panhandle down to far South Texas needs to be Interstate quality. Amarillo, Lubbock, Big Spring, Midland-Odessa, San Angelo, Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo form a pretty valuable commercial traffic corridor -one that would be even better connected to the Front Range cities in Colorado.

Statements that suggest Texas is trying to be North Carolina by frivolously signing new Interstates is just ridiculous. Texas is a gigantic state and its existing Interstate quality routes are spaced much farther apart than many states farther East. Texas is also home to four of the biggest urban MSA's in the nation, with Austin & San Antonio effectively merging into one huge MSA. Texas is continuing to add population at a fast rate, some of which is being drawn from the West Coast and Northeast. All that adds up to Texas needing to beef up its highways in a big way. Not every "trunk route" in Texas is worthy of an Interstate upgrade. But there is at least half a dozen corridors in Texas definitely worthy of Interstate upgrades.

The biggest problem I have with the Texas trunk system is if you are a driver that is not familiar with the areas that have the bypasses (exacerbated by fatigue) you can easily fall into the trap of not knowing where the freeway ends and the expressway begins seeing how you have a 4-lane divided highway in both cases.  It can be quite problematic driving 70 mph and having limited access then suddenly you have a pickup with a trailer pulling into the road from a right angle.  The discrepancy in speed is deadly, and that's one of the biggest reasons why the interstate system exists.  I know lots of people on this forum say a 4-lane rural expressway is "good enough", but I find it to be very scary.  It looks, feels and smells like a freeway so it's easy to relax and feel safe when instead you should be on high alert. 

This system is one of the reasons I am so onboard to construct many miles of rural freeway in Texas.  Simply put, the current setup is dangerous.  I am not saying don't have bypasses, but it's never handled correctly.  A lot of time with small town bypasses in Texas, there is not an "END FREEWAY" assembly.  There are some in the state, but Texas does a very bad job of that crucial detail.  It should be one of three setups:

1. 4-lane expressway with town freeway bypasses, but very well marked where the freeway begins and ends and every crossover between freeway sections clearly marked.

2. Freeway bypasses with undivided highways outside the bypasses.  I hate that too, but it will keep people alert where the freeway ends/begins.

3. Make the whole thing a freeway which is the safest.

[sprjus4]

Statements that suggest Texas is trying to be North Carolina by frivolously signing new Interstates is just ridiculous. Texas is a gigantic state and its existing Interstate quality routes are spaced much farther apart than many states farther East. Texas is also home to four of the biggest urban MSA's in the nation, with Austin & San Antonio effectively merging into one huge MSA. Texas is continuing to add population at a fast rate, some of which is being drawn from the West Coast and Northeast. All that adds up to Texas needing to beef up its highways in a big way. Not every "trunk route" in Texas is worthy of an Interstate upgrade. But there is at least half a dozen corridors in Texas definitely worthy of Interstate upgrades.

Agreed, and it’s funny to me, because all the proposed corridors for North Carolina also make logical sense for interstate upgrade, for reasons whether it be connectivity, safety, etc.

But no one actually pays attention to the details, they hear “new interstate” and repeat the same pattern of complaining.

[In_Correct]

I also agree. Avenues be placed temporarily between The Bypasses and The Boulevards as long as they have Right Of Way preserved for future upgrades. Unfortunately, Wichita Falls does not.

They need to preserve plenty of space for these:

https://i.imgur.com/XBAJ74O.jpg

On the other hand, at least Wichita Falls constructed grade separations in the middle of town to steer away from stupid at grade Highways that go through town as stupid at grade one way pairs with buildings in the middle of them.

[Bobby5280]

In the case of Wichita Falls, one thing I find extremely unfortunate is their "plan" for improving US-82/277 between the current West end of Kell Freeway and the Holliday Bypass. Rather than the original plan to build an Interstate quality connector from Kell to the Holliday Bypass they're now going to do a very modest widening project on the existing road. The existing 4-lane undivided segment of Seymour Highway will be 4-lane undivided, but with a center turn lane. That's it.

The property owners along that stretch didn't want to be bypassed by a new freeway. But the property owners are mostly small industrial and agri-business shops. It makes for a very ugly entrance into the West side of Wichita Falls. I don't know what it would have hurt to bypass those corrugated metal buildings with a freeway. It's not like they're restaurants or retailers trying to attract customers off the street.

The biggest problem I have with the Texas trunk system is if you are a driver that is not familiar with the areas that have the bypasses (exacerbated by fatigue) you can easily fall into the trap of not knowing where the freeway ends and the expressway begins seeing how you have a 4-lane divided highway in both cases.  It can be quite problematic driving 70 mph and having limited access then suddenly you have a pickup with a trailer pulling into the road form a right angle.  The discrepancy in speed is deadly, and that's one of the biggest reasons why the interstate system exists.  I know lots of people on this forum say a 4-lane rural expressway is "good enough", but I find it to be very scary.  It looks, feels and smells like a freeway so it's easy to relax and feel safe when instead you should be on high alert.

Texas used to be big on posting "Freeway Ends" signs ahead of where a freeway was about to downgrade into an ordinary 2-lane or 4-lane highway. They also need to do additional things to improve safety along 4-lane divided highways. At-grade intersections with 4-lane highways needs to be greatly limited. The intersections that are allowed need to be in easily visible locations, properly signed and lighted at night.

I think one of the biggest dangers is at-grade intersections near or just beyond the crest of a hill. If some farmer in a pickup truck hauling a trailer whips out into the main lanes of a 4-lane divided highway you can at least change lanes, slow down, etc if you see him pulling into the road up ahead. But if he is beyond the crest of a hill that's a recipe for disaster. 4-lane divided highways need ample shoulders or even acceleration lanes in some of these cases.

[bwana39]

In the case of Wichita Falls, one thing I find extremely unfortunate is their "plan" for improving US-82/277 between the current West end of Kell Freeway and the Holliday Bypass. Rather than the original plan to build an Interstate quality connector from Kell to the Holliday Bypass they're now going to do a very modest widening project on the existing road. The existing 4-lane undivided segment of Seymour Highway will be 4-lane undivided, but with a center turn lane. That's it.

The property owners along that stretch didn't want to be bypassed by a new freeway. But the property owners are mostly small industrial and agri-business shops. It makes for a very ugly entrance into the West side of Wichita Falls. I don't know what it would have hurt to bypass those corrugated metal buildings with a freeway. It's not like they're restaurants or retailers trying to attract customers off the street.

The biggest problem I have with the Texas trunk system is if you are a driver that is not familiar with the areas that have the bypasses (exacerbated by fatigue) you can easily fall into the trap of not knowing where the freeway ends and the expressway begins seeing how you have a 4-lane divided highway in both cases.  It can be quite problematic driving 70 mph and having limited access then suddenly you have a pickup with a trailer pulling into the road form a right angle.  The discrepancy in speed is deadly, and that's one of the biggest reasons why the interstate system exists.  I know lots of people on this forum say a 4-lane rural expressway is "good enough", but I find it to be very scary.  It looks, feels and smells like a freeway so it's easy to relax and feel safe when instead you should be on high alert.

Texas used to be big on posting "Freeway Ends" signs ahead of where a freeway was about to downgrade into an ordinary 2-lane or 4-lane highway. They also need to do additional things to improve safety along 4-lane divided highways. At-grade intersections with 4-lane highways needs to be greatly limited. The intersections that are allowed need to be in easily visible locations, properly signed and lighted at night.

I think one of the biggest dangers is at-grade intersections near or just beyond the crest of a hill. If some farmer in a pickup truck hauling a trailer whips out into the main lanes of a 4-lane divided highway you can at least change lanes, slow down, etc if you see him pulling into the road up ahead. But if he is beyond the crest of a hill that's a recipe for disaster. 4-lane divided highways need ample shoulders or even acceleration lanes in some of these cases.

The part of US-82 between the Lamar County Line and a point west of SH-121 near Bonham has better left turn lanes on the crossovers on the four lane divided highway. They have a significant length.   The 4-lane is open and construction is almost through.  GSV still shows the two lane.

[silverback1065]

"port to plains" just seems like a slim excuse to build another interstate we don't really need. just like 69 from memphis to texas, marginally useful. what evidence has been presented that we need to spend billions doing this? will it really impact trade at all? sounds like bs to me.

[MikieTimT]

"port to plains" just seems like a slim excuse to build another interstate we don't really need. just like 69 from memphis to texas, marginally useful. what evidence has been presented that we need to spend billions doing this? will it really impact trade at all? sounds like bs to me.

Coming from Indiana, where there is marginal growth, if any at all, I can understand the view that what we have for Interstates is good enough.  Indiana has an adequate system for its population already and can't justify tax expenditures that don't directly benefit themselves.  There are large swathes of the U.S. where that is truly the case, and those that make this argument are undoubtedly from one of those areas, or one where population has started decreasing, which means that the Interstate system in certain areas may truly be or become overbuilt.

However, there are areas in the country where rapid growth is occurring where the original mileage of the Interstate Highway System didn't connect at the time as it was deemed unnecessary or prohibitively expensive.  Texas, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, and certain pockets all around the South and West are booming with growth right now, which means that we either wait until the LOS of every road in the high growth areas falls to D or F, or we plan for the growth and address it whenever there is opportunity and make logical connections between MSAs which will inevitably increase in trade and traffic between them.  The stereotypical view of we shouldn't make changes until the AADT reaches an arbitrary threshold doesn't facilitate the commerce that we desperately need right now to dig the economy and our livelihoods back out of the convulsion that it just experienced.  Infrastructure expenditure almost always provides a multiplier effect to the investment, unless it truly is "pork".  However, just because it doesn't happen in our backyards, doesn't necessarily make the expenditure "pork."  Besides, Texas as a state has lots of mileage of state highways which are Interstate grade which they don't request Interstate designation for, likely because they don't want the feds dictating what happens with the road.  Kind of like their electrical grid, for better or worse.

[ethanhopkin14]

"port to plains" just seems like a slim excuse to build another interstate we don't really need. just like 69 from memphis to texas, marginally useful. what evidence has been presented that we need to spend billions doing this? will it really impact trade at all? sounds like bs to me.

I am going to try to not be the guy that says "I hate it when someone halfway across the country tells me the road I sit in traffic in every day is 'perfectly fine' and doesn't need an upgrade", but I guess I just did. 

Bottom line is Texas can't keep up with the growth the state has been experiencing, largely due to it's own fault.  They tried for as long as they possibly could to pass off their infrastructure meeting bare minimum requirements.  The truth to life is, no matter what your goal is, you will just miss the mark (the old saying aim for the stars so you will hit the moon).  When you shoot for the bare minimum, you will fall short of that too, making a very inadequate product. All those 4-laned interstates between major cites are becoming nightmares to upgrade to multi lane freeways, some just 6-lanes and that's 20 years too late.   The same can be said about regular highways that were once pretty good but are now stupidly sub standard.  I am still pushing for the SH-71 to US 290 corridor through Austin to become an interstate.  I think of all the projects, that one makes the most sense.

Texas has grown in ways I have a hard time fathoming.  The hour drive from Austin to San Antonio that used to take an hour can take up to three now.  You can't book camping at a state park anymore within a 200 mile radius of Austin, San Antonio, Houston or The Metropex unless it's months in advance (which is most of the state parks in Texas).  Stuff that used to have a smattering of people now have waiting lists and require reservations.  South by Southwest used to be a local film and music festival that is now an international event.  This state basically can't keep up with the growth.  A lot of times it's suffocating.  Places I used to go to to "get away" now have tons of people.  There is a reason people say that Texas roads are constantly in the state of repair.  It's because they constantly need upgrading.  The growth has been going on for three decades now, and right now it's gotten to the point it's just too much.

[abqtraveler]

"port to plains" just seems like a slim excuse to build another interstate we don't really need. just like 69 from memphis to texas, marginally useful. what evidence has been presented that we need to spend billions doing this? will it really impact trade at all? sounds like bs to me.

Coming from Indiana, where there is marginal growth, if any at all, I can understand the view that what we have for Interstates is good enough.  Indiana has an adequate system for its population already and can't justify tax expenditures that don't directly benefit themselves.  There are large swathes of the U.S. where that is truly the case, and those that make this argument are undoubtedly from one of those areas, or one where population has started decreasing, which means that the Interstate system in certain areas may truly be or become overbuilt.

However, there are areas in the country where rapid growth is occurring where the original mileage of the Interstate Highway System didn't connect at the time as it was deemed unnecessary or prohibitively expensive.  Texas, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, and certain pockets all around the South and West are booming with growth right now, which means that we either wait until the LOS of every road in the high growth areas falls to D or F, or we plan for the growth and address it whenever there is opportunity and make logical connections between MSAs which will inevitably increase in trade and traffic between them.  The stereotypical view of we shouldn't make changes until the AADT reaches an arbitrary threshold doesn't facilitate the commerce that we desperately need right now to dig the economy and our livelihoods back out of the convulsion that it just experienced.  Infrastructure expenditure almost always provides a multiplier effect to the investment, unless it truly is "pork".  However, just because it doesn't happen in our backyards, doesn't necessarily make the expenditure "pork."  Besides, Texas as a state has lots of mileage of state highways which are Interstate grade which they don't request Interstate designation for, likely because they don't want the feds dictating what happens with the road.  Kind of like their electrical grid, for better or worse.

And to your point, in states that are experiencing large population declines (Michigan sticks out as a shining example, but this would apply to just about anywhere in the Rust Belt), officials should consider either removing or downgrading freeways that were built at a time when the population for a given area peaked, but are now underutilized with the ensuing population decline. For example, as the abandoned neighborhoods that cover large swaths of the Detroit metro area are bulldozed--some of that land reverting back to farming--it would make sense to officials to take a hard look at the region's expansive freeway network and decide which ones should be kept and which ones should be either downgraded to surface roads or removed entirely to reduce the state's recurring costs for maintaining these highways. It would follow the same model in other parts of Michigan where underutilized paved roads were reverted back to dirt or gravel to save money on upkeep. 

Aside from long-haul highways that make up strategic national corridors, freeway building and removal should be based on population trends within a given area.

[silverback1065]

let me clarify, i was referring to the portion outside of texas. why does there need to be an interstate in that part of colorado and montana and the dakotas? your growth argument doesn't seem to apply there at all!

[TXtoNJ]

Texas used to be big on posting "Freeway Ends" signs ahead of where a freeway was about to downgrade into an ordinary 2-lane or 4-lane highway.

Fair point. Texas has really, really cheapened out on the signage in recent decades (probably because of stretched budgets). I do think California-style "Freeway Entrance" and "End Freeway" signs would be a useful safety improvement (hey, you could even incorporate the Vienna motorway symbol if you wanted to!)

[ethanhopkin14]

let me clarify, i was referring to the portion outside of texas. why does there need to be an interstate in that part of colorado and montana and the dakotas? your growth argument doesn't seem to apply there at all!

Stuff gotta go somewhere.  If that was the constant conversation during the original interstate plan, we wouldn't have I-86 in Idaho, and we would have never built most of the western parts of I-40 and I-10.  The freeways go through some of the most desolate parts of the country, yes, but as a whole they need to be there.  The interstate system is all about the big picture, not whether or not this particular 100 acre area needs a freeway or not.  Los Angeles needed a link to Phoenix, Houston, New Orleans and Jacksonville, so I-10 was built.  What you get in the process are freeways in the middle of nowhere, but thems the breaks.