News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

US 57 border to I-35: Interstate status not justified

Started by MaxConcrete, September 30, 2022, 12:04:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bobby5280

There are real plans to eliminate the last remaining driveways emptying into US-287 between Avondale and I-35W. That and other improvements to the US-287 main lanes there should be done within the next few years.

From Avondale up to Rhome and the TX-114 split is less clear. But that stretch of US-287 definitely needs to be fully Interstate quality. There is just enough ROW preserved to fill in the frontage road gaps. The US-287/TX-114 interchange may need some improvements; the current ramp designs are not all that great. TX-114 is threatening to turn into a big problem between the US-287 split and the Northwest ISD school complex. TX DOT should have reserved enough ROW for a full freeway facility. The existing 4-lane divided highway is threatening to be downgraded into a stupid-slow suburban street pigged with traffic signals. TX-114 is a major in/out access route for the DFW metro. It shouldn't be a reduced into a city street.

US-287 North of Rhome up to the southern edge of Decatur would be (for now) easy to upgrade to Interstate quality. Within Decatur US-287 is turning into a big, increasingly dangerous mess. There's just too much crap built right up onto the edge of the US-287 main lanes. The highway is busy through there, yet all sorts of traffic from businesses and side streets can just whip right out there into the highway. It's stupid how TX-DOT has let this situation persist for decades. They have more freeway upgrade plans drawn up for US-287 both North and South of Decatur. As far as I can tell they're not planning anything for US-287 within Decatur. TX-DOT needs to stop farting around on this.


sprjus4

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 02, 2022, 02:11:40 PM
Quote from: jgb191And get rid of that cloverleaf ramp at Brenham when continuing on US-290 Westbound while we're at it.

It's very likely if/when a US-290 freeway is extended West out of Brenham it will have to be built on a new terrain path. The existing road West of that partial cloverleaf interchange has too much development hugging close to the ROW.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/us290-brenham.html

Echostatic

Travelled in part or in full.

The Ghostbuster

Regardless of what happens in the US 290 corridor, I do not think an Interstate designation should be applied to 290. Then again, this is Texas, where every highway corridor has to become an Interstate.

Alps

I was talking to the president of ASCE today and he was talking about how I-30 was supposed to go through Starkville, home of MS State U. First I'd heard of that. Guess they didn't have the Texas attitude they needed.

US 89

Quote from: Alps on October 06, 2022, 09:29:05 PM
I was talking to the president of ASCE today and he was talking about how I-30 was supposed to go through Starkville, home of MS State U. First I'd heard of that. Guess they didn't have the Texas attitude they needed.

Heh. A better way from Little Rock to Jackson with a new Mississippi River bridge would be nice...

jgb191

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 04, 2022, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 02, 2022, 02:11:40 PM
Quote from: jgb191And get rid of that cloverleaf ramp at Brenham when continuing on US-290 Westbound while we're at it.

It's very likely if/when a US-290 freeway is extended West out of Brenham it will have to be built on a new terrain path. The existing road West of that partial cloverleaf interchange has too much development hugging close to the ROW.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/us290-brenham.html

Option B I think looks to be the best choice
Option E is also good
Option D looks alright but can also work
Option C looks very unorthodox
Option A no way Jose
We're so far south that we're not even considered "The South"

froggie

Quote from: Alps on October 06, 2022, 09:29:05 PM
I was talking to the president of ASCE today and he was talking about how I-30 was supposed to go through Starkville, home of MS State U. First I'd heard of that. Guess they didn't have the Texas attitude they needed.

I think that was just wishful thinking.  Nowhere have I seen any indication or study of I-30 going through Starkville, dating back to my time stationed there 20 years ago and digging through MDOT and state archives.  Even the 78,800 mile system that was part of the Interregional Highways report lacked an Interstate corridor across US 82 in Mississippi.

MikieTimT

Quote from: froggie on October 07, 2022, 08:44:10 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 06, 2022, 09:29:05 PM
I was talking to the president of ASCE today and he was talking about how I-30 was supposed to go through Starkville, home of MS State U. First I'd heard of that. Guess they didn't have the Texas attitude they needed.

I think that was just wishful thinking.  Nowhere have I seen any indication or study of I-30 going through Starkville, dating back to my time stationed there 20 years ago and digging through MDOT and state archives.  Even the 78,800 mile system that was part of the Interregional Highways report lacked an Interstate corridor across US 82 in Mississippi.

They didn't have US-82 in Arkansas as one either.  Funny thing, looking at that pie in the sky 79K map shows that Arkansas actually eventually will have what was in that version with currently progressing plans, except for US-65 and US-167.

bwana39

Quote from: Alps on October 06, 2022, 09:29:05 PM
I was talking to the president of ASCE today and he was talking about how I-30 was supposed to go through Starkville, home of MS State U. First I'd heard of that. Guess they didn't have the Texas attitude they needed.

For I-30 to grid correctly (on a blank slate) it should have followed US-82 at least from Birmingham (and likely skipping Tuscaloosa) to Texarkana. That would likely go through / near Starkville.   Perhaps even to  I-25. (and perhaps along US-60 to Phoenix... but the mountains)

I-20 should have skipped Birmingham and went through Montgomery.

I-30 should have gone to Atlanta and I-20 should have tracked closer to Columbus.

Dallas to LRA should have been a 3DI or at best not an X-0 Interstate.

The the realities of routing these interstates to economic centers and political strongholds undid the "Perfect Grid"  .
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Some one

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 06, 2022, 05:03:03 PM
Regardless of what happens in the US 290 corridor, I do not think an Interstate designation should be applied to 290. Then again, this is Texas, where every highway corridor has to become an Interstate.
Makes more sense than I-14 or whatever US 57 is gonna be. But I do agree that not every corridor needs to have an interstate shield slapped on it.

TheBox

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 04, 2022, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 02, 2022, 02:11:40 PM
Quote from: jgb191And get rid of that cloverleaf ramp at Brenham when continuing on US-290 Westbound while we're at it.

It's very likely if/when a US-290 freeway is extended West out of Brenham it will have to be built on a new terrain path. The existing road West of that partial cloverleaf interchange has too much development hugging close to the ROW.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/us290-brenham.html
Now when are they gonna focus on the Giddings bypass and the Elgin-Manor freeway/tollway overpasses?
Wake me up when they upgrade US-290 between the state's largest city and growing capital into expressway standards if it interstate standards.

Giddings bypass, Elgin bypass, and Elgin-Manor freeway/tollway when?

Bobby5280

Quote from: jgb191Option B I think looks to be the best choice
Option E is also good
Option D looks alright but can also work
Option C looks very unorthodox
Option A no way Jose

Option B looks like it could work in the short term. But it doesn't work out as great if the ultimate plan is to upgrade US-290 to Interstate standards along the existing ROW. Just West of the TX-36/US-290 interchange a lot of property hugs pretty close to the ROW. According to the map Option B would have to clear at least a few buildings just to work.

Option E looks like it would remove fewer buildings. Option D, while going a bit out of the way (going North and then curving back down into the US-290 ROW), would take the fewest number of buildings.

Quote from: TheBoxNow when are they gonna focus on the Giddings bypass and the Elgin-Manor freeway/tollway overpasses?

Are there any specific plans yet for a new terrain bypass around Giddings? TX DOT did a modest upgrade project on 8 miles of US-290 East of Giddings, but it's not Interstate quality. I still believe this road will need to be upgraded to Interstate quality, regardless if it is labeled by an Interstate shield or not.

MaxConcrete

The meeting video is now online  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSwKc8SpI0Q

The study concluded that Interstate status is not justified by current and future traffic. A four-lane divided highway is recommended. This is a a logical outcome.






OptionCostBenefit/cost ratio
4-lane undivided  $420 million  1.12
4-lane divided$510 million  1.3
Interstate$2 billion0.4
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

Alps

Quote from: MaxConcrete on October 13, 2022, 01:15:10 PM
The meeting video is now online  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSwKc8SpI0Q

The study concluded that Interstate status is not justified by current and future traffic. A four-lane divided highway is recommended. This is a a logical outcome.






OptionCostBenefit/cost ratio
4-lane undivided  $420 million  1.12
4-lane divided$510 million  1.3
Interstate$2 billion0.4
Similar benefit to parts 2 and 3 with only slight improvements.

DJStephens

#40
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 06, 2022, 05:03:03 PM
Regardless of what happens in the US 290 corridor, I do not think an Interstate designation should be applied to 290. Then again, this is Texas, where every highway corridor has to become an Interstate.

There's not enough conversions to 3 DI's.   Plenty of routes, statewide, that COULD have been developed in the last FIFTY years, to have become Interstates.   

1. El Paso.  could have had 110, 210, and 310 fully in place by now.  Cuidad Juarez cannot be ignored, there is a lot of cross-border international traffic, piling onto the El Paso highway network.  Metro region of 3 million plus now.   Work done since the beginning of the Rick Perry regime has been spotty, it's inconsistent, and numerous mistakes along with Waste is evident.  Lowered Design standards. Poor prioritization and decision-making.  Darn is pete rahn working as a consultant now??   (Clearview, architectural frills, landscaping etc.)  The "piece-mealing" more than anything else, is what stands out.   Possibly as much as 1.5 Billion squandered.  In El Paso county alone.   
   
2. Lubbock.  Loop 289 should have had an Interstate shield, 45 years ago.  With Volleyball removals.   
3. Odessa-Midland.  Big enough to have had at least a half Beltway, N of I-20 around both cities. 
4. San Antonio.  Why isn't the Charles Anderson Loop fully built out, with an I shield??   
5. Houston.  Several routes could have had the shield, most notably Beltway 8.   And US - 290. 
6. DFW.  Same possibilities as Houston, several routes in the metro could have had shields. 
7. Even Austin could have had supplementary routes.     

Bobby5280

#41
Texas is a state that is big enough, highly populous enough and in a vital enough location that lots of Interstate routes can be easily justified. The state has a bunch of non-Interstate highway corridors that could carry Interstate shields without question if they were fully upgraded. That's part of what makes this US-57 Eagle Pass-San Antonio thing such a head scratcher. There's a bunch of other corridors within Texas in more need of Interstate quality upgrades than this one.

Austin's city limits population as of the 2020 Census was 965,872. The MSA population is 2.2 million. There is a lot of important business and industry there. Austin also happens to be a popular regional tourist destination. All of this adds up to Austin being 100% absolutely worthy of having an Interstate corridor crossing it East-West.

US-290 absolutely should be Interstate quality from Houston to Austin as well as West out past Fredericksburg to I-10. Throw in TX-71 from Austin to Columbus for good measure. Add to that I-10 connections for New Braunfels and San Marcos. The San Antonio metro is growing rapidly as well. There could be Interstate shields all over the place in that region.

Even if TX DOT does convert a highway to Interstate standards more often than not the end result ends up carrying a US Highway or State Highway marker. There are numerous examples of this in the metros of DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo (Loop 335 in progress), etc. Even the swarm of small cities in far South Texas may end up having the same thing: state-named loop freeways connecting to I-2, I-69C and I-69E.

-- US 175 --

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 15, 2022, 11:41:02 AM.

Even if TX DOT does convert a highway to Interstate standards more often than not the end result ends up carrying a US Highway or State Highway marker. There are numerous examples of this in the metros of DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo (Loop 327 in progress), etc. Even the swarm of small cities in far South Texas may end up having the same thing: state-named loop freeways connecting to I-2, I-69C and I-69E.

*Loop 335 ?

Bobby5280

#43
Yeah, I should have wrote Loop 335. I think I had I-27 on the brain when I wrote that typo. When the loop is completed it could (in theory) carry a "I-427" shield. More likely it will just stay named as Loop 335.

thisdj78

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 15, 2022, 11:41:02 AM

US-290 absolutely should be Interstate quality from Houston to Austin as well as West out past Fredericksburg to I-10. Throw in TX-71 from Austin to Columbus for good measure. Add to that I-10 connections for New Braunfels and San Marcos. The San Antonio metro is growing rapidly as well. There could be Interstate shields all over the place in that region.

Even if TX DOT does convert a highway to Interstate standards more often than not the end result ends up carrying a US Highway or State Highway marker. There are numerous examples of this in the metros of DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo (Loop 335 in progress), etc. Even the swarm of small cities in far South Texas may end up having the same thing: state-named loop freeways connecting to I-2, I-69C and I-69E.

It's crazy to me that no state representative has pushed for an Interstate (or even just a full
limited access upgrade)  between Austin and Houston.

Rothman

Quote from: thisdj78 on October 18, 2022, 11:21:25 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 15, 2022, 11:41:02 AM

US-290 absolutely should be Interstate quality from Houston to Austin as well as West out past Fredericksburg to I-10. Throw in TX-71 from Austin to Columbus for good measure. Add to that I-10 connections for New Braunfels and San Marcos. The San Antonio metro is growing rapidly as well. There could be Interstate shields all over the place in that region.

Even if TX DOT does convert a highway to Interstate standards more often than not the end result ends up carrying a US Highway or State Highway marker. There are numerous examples of this in the metros of DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo (Loop 335 in progress), etc. Even the swarm of small cities in far South Texas may end up having the same thing: state-named loop freeways connecting to I-2, I-69C and I-69E.

It's crazy to me that no state representative has pushed for an Interstate (or even just a full
limited access upgrade)  between Austin and Houston.
That should be an indicator of the actual need.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

CoreySamson

Quote from: Rothman on October 18, 2022, 11:27:18 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 18, 2022, 11:21:25 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 15, 2022, 11:41:02 AM

US-290 absolutely should be Interstate quality from Houston to Austin as well as West out past Fredericksburg to I-10. Throw in TX-71 from Austin to Columbus for good measure. Add to that I-10 connections for New Braunfels and San Marcos. The San Antonio metro is growing rapidly as well. There could be Interstate shields all over the place in that region.

Even if TX DOT does convert a highway to Interstate standards more often than not the end result ends up carrying a US Highway or State Highway marker. There are numerous examples of this in the metros of DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo (Loop 335 in progress), etc. Even the swarm of small cities in far South Texas may end up having the same thing: state-named loop freeways connecting to I-2, I-69C and I-69E.

It's crazy to me that no state representative has pushed for an Interstate (or even just a full
limited access upgrade)  between Austin and Houston.
That should be an indicator of the actual need.
So apparently Texas needs an interstate on an empty two-lane road more than it needs a route connecting two of its largest 5 cities by that logic?
Buc-ee's and QuikTrip fanboy. Clincher of FM roads. Proponent of the TX U-turn.

My Route Log
My Clinches

Now on mobrule and Travel Mapping!

thisdj78

Quote from: Rothman on October 18, 2022, 11:27:18 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 18, 2022, 11:21:25 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 15, 2022, 11:41:02 AM

US-290 absolutely should be Interstate quality from Houston to Austin as well as West out past Fredericksburg to I-10. Throw in TX-71 from Austin to Columbus for good measure. Add to that I-10 connections for New Braunfels and San Marcos. The San Antonio metro is growing rapidly as well. There could be Interstate shields all over the place in that region.

Even if TX DOT does convert a highway to Interstate standards more often than not the end result ends up carrying a US Highway or State Highway marker. There are numerous examples of this in the metros of DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo (Loop 335 in progress), etc. Even the swarm of small cities in far South Texas may end up having the same thing: state-named loop freeways connecting to I-2, I-69C and I-69E.

It's crazy to me that no state representative has pushed for an Interstate (or even just a full
limited access upgrade)  between Austin and Houston.
That should be an indicator of the actual need.

Definitely more of a need than I-14.

Road Hog

It's not the name as much as the conceptualizing, followed by the funding, followed by the execution.

Functionally a SH spur in Denison works as well right now as a direct IH shot to Dallas.

Scott5114

Quote from: Rothman on October 18, 2022, 11:27:18 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 18, 2022, 11:21:25 PM
It's crazy to me that no state representative has pushed for an Interstate (or even just a full
limited access upgrade)  between Austin and Houston.
That should be an indicator of the actual need.

That assumes elected officials are rational actors whose only goal is providing the most benefit to their constituents.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.