Print

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

[TXtoNJ]

What’s the point of changing the route number that’s been around for decades if there’s no longer 90% federal funding to charge?

As I have said about other Texas corridors that need interstate upgrades, labeling it as an interstate forces TxDOT's hand is why.  If you say "US-287 needs to be a freeway between Amarillo and Ennis", TxDOT will put some bypasses, make some grade-separated intersections, but leave the driveways directly connecting the highway and leave the sharp curves and blind hills.  Texas is real bad about trying to throw together a poor man's freeway.  It would be an expressway, but still inadequate for long haul trucking.  Forcing it to have an interstate designation forces interstate quality.  They can talk all they want about saying they want to upgrade US-287 to interstate standards, but if there is a corner to cut, they will cut it.  Giving it an interstate designation holds their feet to the fire.

My vote is also Interstate 32.   

I-69 has been a thing for 30 years, and interstate quality hasn't been "forced" yet - it's been mostly piecemeal bypasses

[ethanhopkin14]

What’s the point of changing the route number that’s been around for decades if there’s no longer 90% federal funding to charge?

As I have said about other Texas corridors that need interstate upgrades, labeling it as an interstate forces TxDOT's hand is why.  If you say "US-287 needs to be a freeway between Amarillo and Ennis", TxDOT will put some bypasses, make some grade-separated intersections, but leave the driveways directly connecting the highway and leave the sharp curves and blind hills.  Texas is real bad about trying to throw together a poor man's freeway.  It would be an expressway, but still inadequate for long haul trucking.  Forcing it to have an interstate designation forces interstate quality.  They can talk all they want about saying they want to upgrade US-287 to interstate standards, but if there is a corner to cut, they will cut it.  Giving it an interstate designation holds their feet to the fire.

My vote is also Interstate 32.   

I-69 has been a thing for 30 years, and interstate quality hasn't been "forced" yet - it's been mostly piecemeal bypasses

But it is still slated to be a full interstate.  I am not referring to time.  I am referring to when they officially walk away from a project.  It make take 40 years, but they will have to make it an interstate.  No driveways, no blind hills and no rando intersections that are "okay the way they are" because it involves an overpass or construction of a frontage road.  It may take them forever, but the project, when done will be an interstate. 

That seems to be a common theme on this board.  I say I want a corridor to be an interstate; the detractors talk about how long it will take.  I am okay with that.  Maybe the future generations benefit from it and I never do.  The time it takes doesn't detract me.   I live in a town that just started a construction project 8 months ago that had been promised for almost 40 years.  I understand the snails pace, but without the interstate designation, these projects we fantasize about simply won't happen.  Not today, not 40 years from now.  Not without the pressure of making it an interstate.  TxDOT will not do it unless they have to. 

In the interim, yes it will be a hodgepodge, but I am talking about the endgame. 

[bwana39]

It would be an expressway, but still inadequate for long haul trucking. 

Long haul trucking. It is what is wrong with our transportation system. I am not going to suggest that everything could be shipped via rail . It can't.  Lots and lots of stuff can that isn't. The rail companies were incentivized to minimize what they ship.

If we got 35% of the LONG HAUL trucks off the road, we could cut our rural highway construction in half or more. Part of the answer is to put freight back on the rails.

[Bobby5280]

Over the past 30 years vastly more miles of existing railroad tracks have been ripped out of the ground and decommissioned than new tracks installed. Companies like BNSF and Union Pacific have used a lot of technology improvements, such as Positive Train Control, to get the most efficiency out of single track rail lines and avoid having to double-track a busy existing line. The Fort Worth-Amarillo segment of BNSF's Wichita Falls subdivision is very busy, but it's mostly a single track line with numerous sidings.

It costs a lot of money to build new freight rail lines. They're typically built with far milder grades than highways. Raton Pass (3.5% grade) and Cajon Pass (3.4%) have about the steepest gradients of major railroad lines. Interstates can allow grades up to 6%. The point is railroad tracks can't be built everywhere. They're certainly not going to get re-built in a lot of small towns that have had railroad tracks removed. Those connections won't give enough of a return on the investment. If anything we'll probably see more consolidation of the rail network, with the remaining lines getting more upgrades.

Our rural highways probably need similar consolidation. Rural areas are losing population like crazy. At least some roads are needed out there for other purposes like agriculture and energy businesses. But I think the grid that's out there in the sticks, like here in Oklahoma, seems like a bit of overkill. There's a huge number of bridges and other associated stuff that goes with all those section line roads.

[TXtoNJ]

It would be an expressway, but still inadequate for long haul trucking. 

Long haul trucking. It is what is wrong with our transportation system. I am not going to suggest that everything could be shipped via rail . It can't.  Lots and lots of stuff can that isn't. The rail companies were incentivized to minimize what they ship.

If we got 35% of the LONG HAUL trucks off the road, we could cut our rural highway construction in half or more. Part of the answer is to put freight back on the rails.

This, 100%. After the holding companies took over, everything has been stripped down to bare bones for maximum profitability. Long-haul trucks are a menace on the highways right now, and that's absolutely because that freight is not on steel.

[Anthony_JK]

So....remove some (if not all) Interstate highway corridors and replace them with long-haul freight and high-speed passenger rail corridors?

That's ultimately what some New Urbanists are shooting for.

[thisdj78]

I live in a town that just started a construction project 8 months ago that had been promised for almost 40 years..

Are you referring to the Oak Hill Y project?

[ethanhopkin14]

I live in a town that just started a construction project 8 months ago that had been promised for almost 40 years..

Are you referring to the Oak Hill Y project?

Yes

[bwana39]

So....remove some (if not all) Interstate highway corridors and replace them with long-haul freight and high-speed passenger rail corridors?

That's ultimately what some New Urbanists are shooting for.

Absolutely not remove anything. Just figure out how not to have to build so much additional. 

[Anthony_JK]

So....remove some (if not all) Interstate highway corridors and replace them with long-haul freight and high-speed passenger rail corridors?

That's ultimately what some New Urbanists are shooting for.

Absolutely not remove anything. Just figure out how not to have to build so much additional. 

Naaah....I have openly heard some of the more ardent New Urbanists who do want to remove freeways in total and replace them with rail corridors. Not all, of course, but some of the loudest of them.

[ethanhopkin14]

So....remove some (if not all) Interstate highway corridors and replace them with long-haul freight and high-speed passenger rail corridors?

That's ultimately what some New Urbanists are shooting for.

Absolutely not remove anything. Just figure out how not to have to build so much additional. 

Naaah....I have openly heard some of the more ardent New Urbanists who do want to remove freeways in total and replace them with rail corridors. Not all, of course, but some of the loudest of them.

Because it works in Europe.

[Anthony_JK]

So....remove some (if not all) Interstate highway corridors and replace them with long-haul freight and high-speed passenger rail corridors?

That's ultimately what some New Urbanists are shooting for.

Absolutely not remove anything. Just figure out how not to have to build so much additional. 

Naaah....I have openly heard some of the more ardent New Urbanists who do want to remove freeways in total and replace them with rail corridors. Not all, of course, but some of the loudest of them.

Because it works in Europe.

Europe is not the US. Much more established rail corridors, fundamentally different land use policies, and people do not want to give up their cars and trucks.

I'm for more balanced public transport, but I'm also a realist about what most Americans want. Use public transit to reduce gridlock and ultimately transform our system, but be realistic about it.

[ethanhopkin14]

So....remove some (if not all) Interstate highway corridors and replace them with long-haul freight and high-speed passenger rail corridors?

That's ultimately what some New Urbanists are shooting for.

Absolutely not remove anything. Just figure out how not to have to build so much additional. 

Naaah....I have openly heard some of the more ardent New Urbanists who do want to remove freeways in total and replace them with rail corridors. Not all, of course, but some of the loudest of them.

Because it works in Europe.

Europe is not the US. Much more established rail corridors, fundamentally different land use policies, and people do not want to give up their cars and trucks.

I'm for more balanced public transport, but I'm also a realist about what most Americans want. Use public transit to reduce gridlock and ultimately transform our system, but be realistic about it.

Sorry, I guess you didn't pickup that I was being sarcastic.  It's okay. 

[splashflash]

So....remove some (if not all) Interstate highway corridors and replace them with long-haul freight and high-speed passenger rail corridors?

That's ultimately what some New Urbanists are shooting for.

Absolutely not remove anything. Just figure out how not to have to build so much additional. 

Naaah....I have openly heard some of the more ardent New Urbanists who do want to remove freeways in total and replace them with rail corridors. Not all, of course, but some of the loudest of them.

Because it works in Europe.

Europe is not the US. Much more established rail corridors, fundamentally different land use policies, and people do not want to give up their cars and trucks.

I'm for more balanced public transport, but I'm also a realist about what most Americans want. Use public transit to reduce gridlock and ultimately transform our system, but be realistic about it.

Sorry, I guess you didn't pickup that I was being sarcastic.  It's okay.

Sarcasm or not, the US actually has a much higher proportion of freight moved by rail.  Passengers is another story.

[Bobby5280]

Comparing the US to Europe is an extremely Apples to Oranges thing. By the way just about every European country has super highway networks. The only exception is remote locations like Iceland. Also, the super highways get built about as close to city centers as is feasible. Not all the way into downtown, but not very far either.

European cities are more densely packed and have a far greater mix of property types because all those cities are much older. Modern American-style methods of zoning weren't perfected until deep into the 20th century, hundreds of years after many of those European cities were first established. The only reason why those European cities are doing anything "innovative" at making the most use out of limited space is just out of sheer necessity. American cities didn't have such geometry imposed. American cities were far more free to be built out in methods both good and very bad.

Regarding trucking and removing 35% of long haul trucks from the highways there is a lot of trucks not on the roads now. The trucking industry has a major shortage of drivers. Perhaps one of the reasons why there is such a shortage is many people are finding out being a long haul truck driver can be a really horribly shitty job:

Then there's the crushing price of diesel fuel and shortages of various items. Both factors are going to keep even more trucks parked.

[splashflash]

It seems pretty clear TX DOT wants US-287 up to Interstate standards at least from I-45 at Ennis up to TX-114 at Rhome.

Some closures of at-grade crossings in Midlothian are being discussed. https://www.focusdailynews.com/midlothian-city-council-discusses-upcoming-median-closures-along-us-highway-287/

Council discussed the closures of additional existing median openings and other improvements along US Highway 287. This discussion was in preparation for an upcoming workshop meeting with the Texas Department of Transportation regarding closures and possible turnarounds as necessary.

The council had directed staff earlier this month to schedule a meeting with TxDOT to discuss the proposed closure of three additional existing median openings. These openings are located between Presidential Parkway and Rex Odom Drive.  The meeting will be held on February 7 in order for council to get a consensus on the closures and any other improvements along US Highway 287.

TxDOT has said they want to close these additional median openings because of the ongoing development in the area, which is leading to increased traffic on the US Highway 287 corridor in the city.  There have been a number of accidents at the various median openings along this highway, including a fatality at one of the new median openings that TxDOT is proposing be closed.

Staff said these closings are temporary. Closing them will offer safety while the frontage road is under construction. TxDOT would like the support of the city regarding these closures and will include these closures as part of their cable barrier project beginning this year.

Council discussed various options for closures and turnarounds for further conversation with TxDOT during the time period of the temporary closures. Mayor Pro Tem Justin Coffman said “I think it is important for us to advocate as a unified voice to TxDOT. My opinion is there needs to be further solution and not just shutting them down carte blanche, but looking at the situation, and evaluating them (the closures) and doing what is best for Firefly Gardens, Creekside Church of Christ and our airport. So, if a Michigan Turnaround is the best option I would like for us to ask for that.”

https://www.focusdailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/287-median-closings-1536x1128.png

[Bobby5280]

They really need to stop farting around get the friggin' US-287 frontage roads completed between Midlothian and Waxahachie (as well as the rest of US-287 between I-20 and I-45). It is nice they recently eliminated a traffic light on US-287 via the newly completed Plainview Road exit. But that's just a piece-meal fix for a bigger problem. People in the DFW metroplex drive on that segment of US-287 as if it was already an Interstate. The foot dragging on eliminating the at-grade intersections and driveways is leading to more accidents and even some fatalities.

[ethanhopkin14]

They really need to stop farting around get the friggin' US-287 frontage roads completed between Midlothian and Waxahachie (as well as the rest of US-287 between I-20 and I-45). It is nice they recently eliminated a traffic light on US-287 via the newly completed Plainview Road exit. But that's just a piece-meal fix for a bigger problem. People in the DFW metroplex drive on that segment of US-287 as if it was already an Interstate. The foot dragging on eliminating the at-grade intersections and driveways is leading to more accidents and even some fatalities.

When I argue for interstate upgrades on any corridor, this is usually my thinking.  You have an expressway that people drive on like it were a freeway.  Thats not going to cut it.  People will die. 

[Bobby5280]

Yep. And anyone who has done a decent amount of driving in the DFW area would know lots of people in that region drive like bats out of hell. When I drive to DFW from the Lawton area it's as if I have to get my brain adjusted to a different mind set by the time I reach the outskirts of Decatur. Gotta be prepared for vehicles blasting past my pickup as if I was standing still. And the "po po" is out there in force if I feel stupid enough to try going as fast as the speed demons.

The problem with US-287 in the DFW region is so much of it "feels" like an Interstate, but with the random at-grade intersections and driveways thrown in. Dallas style driving combined with "Cletus" pulling his pickup and trailer directly out into the main lanes from some side road doesn't make for a good combination. Just getting the frontage roads completed would remove a lot of those high speed conflicts.

[motorola870]

They really need to stop farting around get the friggin' US-287 frontage roads completed between Midlothian and Waxahachie (as well as the rest of US-287 between I-20 and I-45). It is nice they recently eliminated a traffic light on US-287 via the newly completed Plainview Road exit. But that's just a piece-meal fix for a bigger problem. People in the DFW metroplex drive on that segment of US-287 as if it was already an Interstate. The foot dragging on eliminating the at-grade intersections and driveways is leading to more accidents and even some fatalities.

They are already planning on the frontage roads. They had workshop for the corridor a couple of years back for the entire corridor between Arlington and Ennis. Frontage roads are in the works but the development is coming too fast and they need to grade separate already in between SH360 and US67. Prairie Ridge Blvd is becoming busier as they finally started building housing additions that it connects to and the brand new apartment complex by pandera lake that just happened to have the road that it connects to US287 have a tie in at a crossover. The section in Midlothian definitely needs the cross overs closed and construction of frontage roads. The crashes and the deaths that happened with the wrong way driver crash near the Whataburger just southeast of Walnut Ridge/Plainview pretty much are a reason to close the crossovers. They are also talking about potentially modifying the slip merge ramp for northbound 287 from 287 Business on the west side of Waxahachie. I can see why it isn't a safe merge and you have to yield to faster traffic in the left lane as the freeway is about to end in Sardis. that would be an easy modification and just close the ramp and make northbound traffic take a right at the two-way frontage road that leads to the northbound frontage road on the other side of 287.

[motorola870]

It seems pretty clear TX DOT wants US-287 up to Interstate standards at least from I-45 at Ennis up to TX-114 at Rhome.

Some closures of at-grade crossings in Midlothian are being discussed. https://www.focusdailynews.com/midlothian-city-council-discusses-upcoming-median-closures-along-us-highway-287/

Council discussed the closures of additional existing median openings and other improvements along US Highway 287. This discussion was in preparation for an upcoming workshop meeting with the Texas Department of Transportation regarding closures and possible turnarounds as necessary.

The council had directed staff earlier this month to schedule a meeting with TxDOT to discuss the proposed closure of three additional existing median openings. These openings are located between Presidential Parkway and Rex Odom Drive.  The meeting will be held on February 7 in order for council to get a consensus on the closures and any other improvements along US Highway 287.

TxDOT has said they want to close these additional median openings because of the ongoing development in the area, which is leading to increased traffic on the US Highway 287 corridor in the city.  There have been a number of accidents at the various median openings along this highway, including a fatality at one of the new median openings that TxDOT is proposing be closed.

Staff said these closings are temporary. Closing them will offer safety while the frontage road is under construction. TxDOT would like the support of the city regarding these closures and will include these closures as part of their cable barrier project beginning this year.

Council discussed various options for closures and turnarounds for further conversation with TxDOT during the time period of the temporary closures. Mayor Pro Tem Justin Coffman said “I think it is important for us to advocate as a unified voice to TxDOT. My opinion is there needs to be further solution and not just shutting them down carte blanche, but looking at the situation, and evaluating them (the closures) and doing what is best for Firefly Gardens, Creekside Church of Christ and our airport. So, if a Michigan Turnaround is the best option I would like for us to ask for that.”

https://www.focusdailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/287-median-closings-1536x1128.png

I don't see TXDOT doing Michigan turn arounds on this stretch and would cause more issues with having to have a traffic light at the turn arounds and considering TXDOT is planning on frontage roads and full controlled grade separation through midlothian. I don't see Michigan left turns being added to support traffic to such few businesses if needed those accessing these businesses could use existing turn arounds at Walnut grove for norhbound traffic and southbound traffic can turnaround at the under pass at 287 business in Waxahachie until the grade separations occur at the airport cross over. They are going to have to get used to it when service roads are built.

[Bobby5280]

Does Texas have any "Michigan Turnarounds" on its highways? IMHO, installing Michigan U-Turns along any part of US-287 between I-20 and I-45 would be flat out dangerous. It would take no time at all for fatal t-bone accidents to happen.

Aren't there certain speed limit standards for where Michigan U-turns are installed? They don't seem like a good idea in areas where vehicles are whizzing by on the thru lanes at 70mph (even if the posted speed limit is 55mph).

TX DOT is already pretty good at building freeway intersections with Texas U-Turns, allowing frontage road traffic to hop over to the opposing frontage road without waiting at two traffic signals. They're also usually pretty good at building bridges over some other streets and even installing pedestrian bridges over the highway.

[Anthony_JK]

Does Texas have any "Michigan Turnarounds" on its highways? IMHO, installing Michigan U-Turns along any part of US-287 between I-20 and I-45 would be flat out dangerous. It would take no time at all for fatal t-bone accidents to happen.

Aren't there certain speed limit standards for where Michigan U-turns are installed? They don't seem like a good idea in areas where vehicles are whizzing by on the thru lanes at 70mph (even if the posted speed limit is 55mph).

TX DOT is already pretty good at building freeway intersections with Texas U-Turns, allowing frontage road traffic to hop over to the opposing frontage road without waiting at two traffic signals. They're also usually pretty good at building bridges over some other streets and even installing pedestrian bridges over the highway.

IIRC, there was at one time a proposal for the US 281 upgrade north of San Antonio for an interim "superstreet" design which would have included "Michigan Lefts" (or, as they are called here in Louisiana, "J-turns") as a placeholder so to speak until they built it out as a fully controlled access tollway. When they found the funding to do the upgrade toll-free, though, they nixed the superstreet design and went straight to freeway.

Also....isn't the proposal for Loop 360 in Austin sort of a superstreet design, but with interchanges at major intersections?

[Bobby5280]

IMHO, Loop 360 is just a divided city street. It does have two freeway style exits along its path. It also has around 20 traffic signal controlled intersections along its path too. I think it would need more grade separations and other improvements before it could be comparable to a "super street" such as US-1 between Trenton and New Brunswick.

[Henry]

Seeing that I-69 is set in stone (along with I-49 across the border to the east), there's not much need for an Interstate along US 287. As for US 67, I might envision this as an I-31 or I-33, but for the time being, it's fine as it is, and thus I see no need to upgrade either (with I-35 doing the job).

IMO, 287 from where it splits off from I45 at Ennis west to Amarillo should be an interstate. The amount of truck traffic warrants it.

I take back what I said earlier about US 287. And I'm sorry that I wasn't specific enough on what section I was referring to, which is here in DFW. The rest of the route to Amarillo definitely deserves an Interstate corridor, mainly for the purpose of giving I-44 a better ending in Wichita Falls.