U.S. 287 Corridor Interstate Feasibility Study in Texas

Started by FutureInterstateCorridors, December 03, 2024, 03:23:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

FutureInterstateCorridors

TxDOT's Transportation Planning and Programming Division is conducting the US 287 Corridor Interstate Feasibility Study to evaluate the feasibility of upgrading the US 287 corridor to interstate freeway design standards. The corridor follows US 287 statewide from Port Arthur and I-10 in Beaumont to Future I-27 in Amarillo.  The study will determine if there is sufficient freight traffic and economic benefits along the corridor to warrant a full interstate freeway.  Once the feasibility study is completed, if the route has sufficiently high traffic/economical benefit versus financial/environmental/social costs, TXDOT will request an interstate designation from AASHTO and proceed with an administratively approved future interstate project from the U.S. DOT/FWHA.  The Texas Congressional delegation has not committed to creating a future interstate corridor along U.S. 287 as of this date at it did for Future I-27 and Future I-14.  TXDOT U.S. 287 Interstate Conversion Feasibility Study Website  TXDOT U.S. 287 Interstate Conversion Fact Sheet



MaxConcrete

www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

webny99

The northwest and central segments of this route make a ton of sense as an interstate corridor (especially considering it's part of the DFW-Denver corridor), but the southeast segment seems redundant to I-45.

jgb191

Quote from: webny99 on December 03, 2024, 09:48:00 AM...but the southeast segment seems redundant to I-45.


I don't think it's redundant to extend to Corsicana; it would fortify a direct route to Ft. Worth from the Houston area.  Having driven between Corsicana and Ft. Worth, getting rid of those at-grade crossovers, expanding to six-lanes, and adding access roads along would be even more beneficial for that direct route.
We're so far south that we're not even considered "The South"

ElishaGOtis

Quote from: jgb191 on December 03, 2024, 10:03:28 AM
Quote from: webny99 on December 03, 2024, 09:48:00 AM...but the southeast segment seems redundant to I-45.


I don't think it's redundant to extend to Corsicana; it would fortify a direct route to Ft. Worth from the Houston area.  Having driven between Corsicana and Ft. Worth, getting rid of those at-grade crossovers, expanding to six-lanes, and adding access roads along would be even more beneficial for that direct route.

I think that redundancy is the intent south of DFW, if I had to guess. That could be especially useful for hurricane evacuation purposes. Not only that, but it gives an alternative route to south AL/MS and Florida from DFW rather than relying on I-20/US-98 or I-49.

I'm a fan of this proposal, maybe less enthusiastic about the number I-18 (maybe a duplicate 24 or new 28 could work better?) but it works nonetheless.  :cool:
I can drive 55 ONLY when it makes sense.

NOTE: Opinions expressed here on AARoads are solely my own and do not represent or reflect the statements, opinions, or decisions of any agency. Any official information I share will be quoted from another source.

Bobby5280

#5
The Fort Worth to Amarillo segment is a must-have item. It carries a lot of truck traffic. The segment also has higher AADT counts than I-27 between Amarillo and Lubbock. The AADT levels rise considerably from Wichita Falls down to Fort Worth.

I agree the segment going SE from Corsicana is redundant to I-45. Texas has so many future Interstate corridors already. The state is huge and has an enormous population, but it can still afford to build only so many super highways. They'll have to prioritize.

I'm baffled at why it has been taking decades to properly upgrade US-287 within the DFW metroplex. The segment from the I-45 interchange in Ennis up thru the US-380 interchange in Decatur should have been a priority item 20 years ago. Now development growth is blowing up on the North and Northwest side of Fort Worth. A staggering amount of huge logistics facilities have been built North of Fort Worth.

The pavement on US-287 immediately NW of the I-35W interchange is in bad shape. Thankfully, a 3x3 lanes freeway upgrade project is finally scheduled to handle that from I-35W to Avondale-Haslet Road. An additional US-287 freeway upgrade project is planned from the Avondale-Haslet Road interchange up to the TX-114 interchange. TX-114 between US-287 and I-35W is another sorely needed freeway upgrade.

It could be a pain in the ass upgrading US-287 thru Decatur. But it really needs to be done. The current setup is a hodge-podge mess that's probably only going to get more and more dangerous as regional growth continues. Some businesses next to the highway may need to be removed. At the very least some parking lots would get a "haircut." An Interstate thru Decatur may need to be in a 3x3 configuration with flanking frontage roads. And the interchange with US-380 will eventually need to be a directional stack. The current setup with tight loop ramps and at-grade intersections isn't going to fly over the long term. US-380 is yet another future super highway corridor.

The funny thing is upgrades to US-287 from Amarillo down to Decatur would be fairly easy and could be built rather quickly. Several towns along the way would need new-terrain bypasses though (Claude, Clarendon, Memphis, Childress, Quanah and Chillicothe). Upgrades could happen in-place elsewhere (Lelia Lake, Hedley, Goodlett, Bellevue). There are existing freeway segments in Vernon, Oklaunion, Electra, Iowa Park, Henrietta, Bowie and Alvord.

Quote from: ElishaGOtisI'm a fan of this proposal, maybe less enthusiastic about the number I-18

Where is "I-18" mentioned (other than from the original poster)?

I think "I-32" would be a much better choice. Most of the route would be North of I-30. I think there's very little chance the Corsicana-Beaumont segment would ever be built. The Amarillo-Fort Worth segment appears more likely (and more feasible). Plus, I can see the potential for US-82 eventually being upgraded into an Interstate from Henrietta across to New Boston (an "I-34" idea). It would be a serious regional East-West bypass North of the DFW metroplex. Yeah, US-82 is yet another corridor North of DFW that needs serious upgrade work. The Gainesville-Sherman segments already needs to be an Interstate quality route.

webny99

Quote from: jgb191 on December 03, 2024, 10:03:28 AM
Quote...but the southeast segment seems redundant to I-45.


I don't think it's redundant to extend to Corsicana; it would fortify a direct route to Ft. Worth from the Houston area.  Having driven between Corsicana and Ft. Worth, getting rid of those at-grade crossovers, expanding to six-lanes, and adding access roads along would be even more beneficial for that direct route.

Very true, although that stretch between Fort Worth and Corsicana would be included in the central segment, not the southeast segment.

Bobby5280

Corsicana is along I-45. US-287 overlaps I-45 between Ennis and Corsicana.

hotdogPi

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 03, 2024, 03:23:22 AMCurrent Federal laws and AASHTO policies for interstate designation number the highway based on the lowest available number.

How did I not know this?
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US 13, 50
MA 22, 35, 40, 53, 107, 109, 126, 141, 159
NH 27, 78, 111A(E); CA 90; NY 366; GA 42, 140; FL A1A, 7; CT 32, 320; VT 2A, 5A; PA 3, 51, 60, WA 202; QC 162, 165, 263; 🇬🇧A100, A3211, A3213, A3215, A4222; 🇫🇷95 D316

Lowest untraveled: 36

NE2

Quote from: hotdogPi on December 03, 2024, 11:29:19 AM
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 03, 2024, 03:23:22 AMCurrent Federal laws and AASHTO policies for interstate designation number the highway based on the lowest available number.

How did I not know this?

Because you don't spend enough time with LLM hallucinations.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Plutonic Panda

It would seem to me the obvious first part of this it needs to be built as Bobby said between Fort Worth and Amarillo.

Bobby5280

Quote from: hotdogPiHow did I not know this?

Based on certain recent Interstate route number choices I'm doubting this lowest number available thing is actually a rule. Even if it turned out to be true it's easily overridden by action from lawmakers, hence why the I-99 designation was used in an illogical place.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaIt would seem to me the obvious first part of this it needs to be built as Bobby said between Fort Worth and Amarillo.

The Amarillo-Fort Worth segment is the "low hanging fruit" portion of the US-287 future Interstate study area. It's already 4-lane divided, has several freeway segments and features many areas where enough ROW is in place to hold a freeway and even continuous frontage roads. That section would have the most immediate positive impact for the larger highway system compared with other parts of the corridor.

Most of US-287 going SE from Corsicana is ordinary 2-lane road. There are only brief stretches of 4-lane divided highway between Corsicana and Beaumont. Some segments of 4-lane non-divided highway exist along the way, but not for long distances.

The point is any Interstate highway going from Corsicana to Beaumont would have to be built almost entirely on new terrain. Not much of the existing US-287 highway in that segment can be upgraded in place. I think that situation would lead to more legal and budgetary hurdles as well as issues with Draft EIS and final EIS stages. The Amarillo-Fort Worth segment could get built a lot faster since so much of the upgrade work can take place within the existing ROW.

splashflash

Quote from: webny99 on December 03, 2024, 10:52:32 AM
Quote from: jgb191 on December 03, 2024, 10:03:28 AM
Quote...but the southeast segment seems redundant to I-45.


I don't think it's redundant to extend to Corsicana; it would fortify a direct route to Ft. Worth from the Houston area.  Having driven between Corsicana and Ft. Worth, getting rid of those at-grade crossovers, expanding to six-lanes, and adding access roads along would be even more beneficial for that direct route.

Very true, although that stretch between Fort Worth and Corsicana would be included in the central segment, not the southeast segment.


Southeast segment

Would it not make more sense for the southeast segment to follow US 175 to Jacksonville, and then US 69 to Lufkin at future I-69?  Those roads are much advanced in being widened compared to US 287.  The routing through Dallas - Fort Worth would surely have to follow ring roads and such, but US 287 interlines with multiple other interstates (I-35, I-20, I-45) regardless.

jgb191

For what it is worth, I would not mind seeing US 69/96/287 terminated at I-10 in Beaumont, and the remaining route to Pt. Arthur renamed as a 3Di (perhaps I-110 or I-310).
We're so far south that we're not even considered "The South"

Bobby5280

Quote from: splashflashWould it not make more sense for the southeast segment to follow US 175 to Jacksonville, and then US 69 to Lufkin at future I-69?

US-175 is roughly 20 or so miles Northeast of the US-287 corridor as both highways run SE of the Dallas area.

Perhaps a good argument could be made for upgrading US-175 to current Interstate standards from I-20 in Dallas to Loop 7 in Athens for the purpose of serving regional traffic needs. A complete Interstate quality upgrade wouldn't be easy since there is quite a mixed bag of 4-lane highway types between Kaufman and Athens. The 5-lane non-divided segment in Eustace would have to be bypassed with a new route.

Building an Interstate spur any farther SE would be a tough sell, just like it's a tough sell for upgrading US-287 to Interstate standards SE of Corsicana. Lots of mediums sized towns are scattered all around East Texas. A new Interstate going thru there isn't going to serve most of those towns any better than I-45, I-20 or Future I-69.

hobsini2

I-32 would be the logical number for 287 in my opinion.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

Molandfreak

This should tie in with the future upgrades of US 87 north of Amarillo. Future I-27N should then drop its suffix.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PMAASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

splashflash

Quote from: jgb191 on December 03, 2024, 02:30:42 PMFor what it is worth, I would not mind seeing US 69/96/287 terminated at I-10 in Beaumont, and the remaining route to Pt. Arthur renamed as a 3Di (perhaps I-110 or I-310).
TxDot is interested in a limited access highway north to at least Kountze.  https://engagetxdot.mysocialpinpoint.com/us-69-lumberton-kountze-project-update and https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/beaumont/2024/us69-lumberton-kountze-relief-route-040224.html

How about the existing freeway and planned freeway to the north of Beaumont? Do you think it should get a 3di too?  Maybe at least to the US 96 / US 287 and US 69 split?

NE2

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 03, 2024, 03:58:54 PMAASHTO policies are to number interstates with the lowest number available based on the most southern or western interstate the future interstate terminates at or near, which in this case is I-10 in the south and I-27 in the west.
Where does this misconception come from?
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Molandfreak

Quote from: NE2 on December 03, 2024, 05:11:03 PM
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 03, 2024, 03:58:54 PMAASHTO policies are to number interstates with the lowest number available based on the most southern or western interstate the future interstate terminates at or near, which in this case is I-10 in the south and I-27 in the west.
Where does this misconception come from?
If it were true, the southern I-87 and the western I-42 wouldn't have been approved.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PMAASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

Bobby5280

#20
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridorsWill AARoad.com fans like to see U.S. 287 from Amarillo to Ft Worth converted to an interstate, TXDOT is more interested in connecting the ports in Southeast Texas [Beaumont and Port Arthur] with a truck freight interstate corridor to the Future I-27 Ports-to-Plains Corridor, bypassing the traffic congestion in Dallas and Houston.

Most oil and gas product is sent via pipe not commercial truck. If the oil and gas industry in Beaumont and Port Arthur was sending a really large amount of commercial traffic up the US-287 corridor the segment from Corsicana to Beaumont would already be a minimum of 4-lanes, not mostly 2-lane.

And what is the proof to back up this claim TX DOT would make a Corsicana-Beaumont super highway corridor a higher priority than Amarillo-Fort Worth? Who at TX DOT is saying that?

It's pretty easy to make the case for US-287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth being upgraded to Interstate standards. Amarillo is a major road and rail hub. The DFW metroplex is home to nearly 8 million people. As I've said earlier, that segment of US-287 would be relatively easy to upgrade (much more so than the Corsicana-Beaumont segment).

As for hurricane evacuation routes go I've never heard of US-287 going North out of Beaumont being completely jammed up. But other corridors going out of Houston do get slammed. At any rate, US-287 from Beaumont up to Woodville is penciled in as a possible North-South leg of the I-14 project. But odds look pretty slim I-14 would be built any farther East than I-45 at Huntsville.

achilles765

Quote from: jgb191 on December 03, 2024, 02:30:42 PMFor what it is worth, I would not mind seeing US 69/96/287 terminated at I-10 in Beaumont, and the remaining route to Pt. Arthur renamed as a 3Di (perhaps I-110 or I-310).

Given that it is so far east, I would prefer I-910

I also have a wild pipe dream of seeing Spur 330 and SH 146 upgraded to Interstate 710
I love freeways and roads in any state but Texas will always be first in my heart

05danper42842

US 287 could unofficially become the southern section of the DFW Regional Outer Loop once the Kaufman County Outer Loop Extension from I-20 to US 287 over I-45 gets evaluated and considered.
https://www.canva.com/design/DAGYSS_3lKY/2rV7ifZlHRBKZu-WadsF9A/view?utm_content=DAGYSS_3lKY&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=editor
Daniel Perez

Wait don't Scroll! Come on and visit Mesquite BBQ since 1959 in Downtown Mesquite.
Level 4 Waze Editor
OSM Editor
Has the most up-to-date information regarding roads and other projects in Mesquite.

Bobby5280

The Kaufman County Outer Loop is more likely going to end up as part of Loop 9. Portions of that Loop are already being built South of Dallas and to the North of where US-287 passes thru towns like Midlothian and Ennis. US-287 is its own corridor it shouldn't serve double duty as part of Loop 9.

Henry

#24
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 03, 2024, 10:27:49 AM
Quote from: ElishaGOtisI'm a fan of this proposal, maybe less enthusiastic about the number I-18

Where is "I-18" mentioned (other than from the original poster)?

I think "I-32" would be a much better choice. Most of the route would be North of I-30. I think there's very little chance the Corsicana-Beaumont segment would ever be built. The Amarillo-Fort Worth segment appears more likely (and more feasible). Plus, I can see the potential for US-82 eventually being upgraded into an Interstate from Henrietta across to New Boston (an "I-34" idea). It would be a serious regional East-West bypass North of the DFW metroplex. Yeah, US-82 is yet another corridor North of DFW that needs serious upgrade work. The Gainesville-Sherman segments already needs to be an Interstate quality route.
An even better idea would be to combine the US 287 and US 82 corridors into one single number, and have the remainder into Ft. Worth become a spur off said number. Other than I-30, no even I-3x routes are currently in use, so any of those will do. But I-32 and I-34 are my top two choices for this proposal; hopefully, we'll have one of those numbers get chosen in the end.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!



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.