AARoads Forum

All the options under study are now online
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/us-highways/us-380-feasibility-studies (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/us-highways/us-380-feasibility-studies)

The main surprise is that all options feature a freeway on the east side of Mckinney, a northward extension of SH 5 which for most options runs along the west side of McKinney airport. This connection will somewhat mitigate the alignment inefficiency of all the north bypass options.

The green and pink options follow the existing US 380 alignment (I don't know why there are two options, maybe they vary in terms of being on the north or south side of the existing road.)

The other options all have swerving bypasses, generally about 2 miles north of McKinney and Princeton, and 1 mile south of Farmersville. I think the blue option is the best of the bypasses, since it forms the cleanest loop around McKinney. (Red also forms a loop, but it is a crazy alignment. Yellow connects to the north side of the loop.)

I hesitate to predict the outcome, since I have no idea who has the most influence (neighborhoods, City of Mckinney, Collin County, TxDOT).
I prefer the green/pink option on existing US 380 since it is the most efficient and direct. But I don't know if you can get it through McKinney due to opposition.
If I was compelled to make a prediction, I'm thinking it will be Blue in the McKinney area and either blue or green/pink east of McKinney.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/collin-county/2018/04/26/txdot-gives-nervous-collin-county-residents-look-possible-routes-freeway-relieve-us-380-traffic (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/collin-county/2018/04/26/txdot-gives-nervous-collin-county-residents-look-possible-routes-freeway-relieve-us-380-traffic)

A Draft Environmental Assessment has also been published for US 380 in Denton County: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/dallas/0424180.html

In this plan US 380 would be expanded to six lanes from Denton to the Collin County line, but will have only partial grade-separation, so it won't be a freeway.

QuoteNew grade separations are planned at Legacy Drive, Teel Parkway, Navo Road, Farm-to-Market (FM) 423, and FM 720. Existing bridges at Little Elm Creek and Doe Branch would be widened.

More coverage:

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Plans-for-Controversial-Bypass-Revealed-in-McKinney-481019101.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DFWBrand

Any Rural People In Collin County should not expect any Rural Life in Collin County. Collin County is growing. Also, Rural People must know that if you want to live a Rural Life, almost every body else does also. This means they will be surrounded by neighbors and a septic system. The worst of both worlds. And also perhaps expensive electricity, expensive groceries, expensive commute, and expensive Internet. But with expansion in Collin County and even more increase in future, there will not be any Rural Areas in Collin County.

But if U.S. 380 has many opposition from every proposed alignment, perhaps they should upgrade the existing alignment similar to U.S. 287 in Decatur.

Are there actual plans to upgrade US-287 inside Decatur to a real freeway? I've seen plans for a US-287 freeway upgrade from the US-380 interchange to about a mile North of there, but nothing south of that intersection into Decatur. Existing US-287 through there sort of works like a freeway, but has all kinds of driveways and other junk connecting into the main lanes. A new freeway style exit was recently completed on the South side of Decatur.

Regarding US-380 between Denton and McKinney, I agree it's a fantasy for anyone to think they protect some kind of isolated farm life style in that area. In more rural parts of the country that kind of existence is becoming harder to afford due to the cost of infrastructure, utilities, lack of good quality Internet access, etc. More and more people are going to get pushed into cities whether they like it or not.

It's really too bad TX DOT and planners in Colin and Denton counties didn't at least widen US-380 twenty years ago. In the 1990's US-380 between Denton and McKinney was barely developed at all. They could have easily turned US-380 into a divided 4-lane highway with a big median for a future freeway. Such a thing was still do-able in 2005. Since then business and residential development has simply exploded. The short freeway upgrade they're doing from the DNT to Preston Road is one of the few areas that hasn't been swallowed up with development.

I think some parts of US-380 can be upgraded to a freeway. Doc Creek & FM-423 on East to about FM-2478 (N Custer Rd) might still be do-able. I think upgrading US-380 through McKinney would end up being too expensive and disruptive. Residents would not stand for an elevated freeway. An at-grade freeway would eat a lot of existing properties. New freeway bypasses leaving US-380 would be necessary to get through both Denton and McKinney.

Another angle:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/collin-county/2018/04/30/impact-homes-business-possible-us-380-relief-routes-unclear-collin-county-keeps-growing-txdot-says

Bigger article, looking at the bigger picture of more-roads-more-sprawl:
https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2018/05/what-the-latest-highway-fight-says-about-future-of-the-dfw-region/

The one thing the "higher density" living proponents just can't seem to get past is EXTREME COST of mass transit systems for those philosophies of living. Sure, building a freeway is pretty expensive. But freeways seem like a cheap bargain compared to the prices of light rail and subway systems. Those things are very ridiculous. On top of that, we have a douche-bag class-based society where anyone able to avoid mass transit to make himself look more affluent will do so. And I'm throwing out that one as a voice of experience from living in New York City for 5 years. Plenty of douches there would never soil themselves with riding the subway or a city bus. They had to at least be in a cab or car service if they weren't driving their own vehicles.

At the same time, I have a very difficult time finding sympathy for TX DOT as well as the Collin and Denton County governments for being so dead asleep at the wheel on development of US-380. I have lived in this Red River region for nearly 25 years. As far back as 1993 any idiot could have predicted US-380 was going to need some serious expansion. The very least thing they could have done was the same thing they did with TX-121 between Lewisville and McKinney over 20 years ago: build a wide 4-lane divided expressway with at-grade intersections, but with a huge median. Today TX-121 has a big super highway in the middle of it where that blank median used to be. The same thing should have been done with US-380. And I'll give you another. A bunch of US-82 needs the very same treatment, at the very least between Gainesville and Sherman (if not from Sherman clear over to Paris, TX).

About 10 miles of US-380 between Denton and McKinney could still be converted into a superhighway without much trouble (because there is still room to build). But screw this waiting 5 or more years crap. TX DOT needs to get on the stick pronto and at least grab the ROW from short-sighted developers. It's clear both Denton and McKinney would have to be looped with freeways rather than have them run right through the middle where corridors are too narrow and over-developed.

Inside either city as well as other parts of Collin and Denton counties traffic engineers will have to get more creative about filtering traffic. It's one thing to have a nice, speedy freeway. But a key thing that causes traffic backups that back up onto the freeways is what happens on the surface streets. Better planning has to happen there. Really busy intersections need grade separation or even freeway style interchanges rather than traffic signals. Driveways that spill out onto the main thoroughfares have to be far more tightly controlled and limited. Any major street should have as few driveways and intersections as possible. An optimum 4-lane expressway with at-grade intersections will only have intersections at traffic signals spaced a mile or more apart. Neighborhoods and shopping centers adjacent to the expressway would be more self-contained with fewer entrances and exits. Traffic would filter itself in a more controlled manner. With a well enough designed setup some areas of an urban or suburban center could even avoid the need of building a far more costly freeway if traffic was managed more intelligently.

Some North Dallas neighborhoods and shopping center developments do a decent job of limiting & filtering traffic entrance and exit onto major thoroughfares. Development in many parts of Houston is older and thus not nearly as advanced in terms of traffic engineering. Far more surface streets and driveways are dumping traffic directly out onto main streets and highways in an uncontrolled manner. That leads to those Houston traffic jams that can occur any time of day (or night) and which fuel nightmares. One accident on a surface street near a freeway exit could lead to a snarl that blocks traffic on the freeway itself. I've personally been through that scenario.

The point with all this is freeways alone will not un-snarl traffic in the metroplex. DFW is still very much a car-centric metro and will be for many years to come. That's a call-back to that class argument about who uses mass transit. I wasn't too proud to use the bus, ferries and subway when I lived in NYC but I knew others who wouldn't do that. Douchebags. But that's reality. People love their cars. Street layouts have to be designed better to handle it. Planners need to grow a much stronger backbone and enforce some damned rules on development. Business douches can't just build a driveway entrance wherever they like. The streets and highways have to work like a circulatory system for business. That requires intelligent planning from building high capacity, high speed freeways and toll roads down to surface street networks that work far more efficiently than some stupid, dopey grid where everything craps out directly onto the main drag.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 02, 2018, 01:38:59 AMThe one thing the "higher density" living proponents just can't seem to get past is EXTREME COST of mass transit systems for those philosophies of living.

People don't move to Collin County in search of high-density living. If they were, they'd be moving to San Francisco, Downtown Seattle or Manhattan. People actually want these affordable, detached single-family houses. These high-density, anti-suburban advocates are so out of touch with reality...

It's nice to have the privilege to be insulated from the effects of your choices.

Funny enough, I posted about part of this corridor 5 years ago:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8740.msg203503#msg203503

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 02, 2018, 01:38:59 AM
The one thing the "higher density" living proponents just can't seem to get past is EXTREME COST of mass transit systems for those philosophies of living. Sure, building a freeway is pretty expensive. But freeways seem like a cheap bargain compared to the prices of light rail and subway systems. Those things are very ridiculous. On top of that, we have a douche-bag class-based society where anyone able to avoid mass transit to make himself look more affluent will do so. And I'm throwing out that one as a voice of experience from living in New York City for 5 years. Plenty of douches there would never soil themselves with riding the subway or a city bus. They had to at least be in a cab or car service if they weren't driving their own vehicles.

At the same time, I have a very difficult time finding sympathy for TX DOT as well as the Collin and Denton County governments for being so dead asleep at the wheel on development of US-380. I have lived in this Red River region for nearly 25 years. As far back as 1993 any idiot could have predicted US-380 was going to need some serious expansion. The very least thing they could have done was the same thing they did with TX-121 between Lewisville and McKinney over 20 years ago: build a wide 4-lane divided expressway with at-grade intersections, but with a huge median. Today TX-121 has a big super highway in the middle of it where that blank median used to be. The same thing should have been done with US-380. And I'll give you another. A bunch of US-82 needs the very same treatment, at the very least between Gainesville and Sherman (if not from Sherman clear over to Paris, TX).

About 10 miles of US-380 between Denton and McKinney could still be converted into a superhighway without much trouble (because there is still room to build). But screw this waiting 5 or more years crap. TX DOT needs to get on the stick pronto and at least grab the ROW from short-sighted developers. It's clear both Denton and McKinney would have to be looped with freeways rather than have them run right through the middle where corridors are too narrow and over-developed.

Inside either city as well as other parts of Collin and Denton counties traffic engineers will have to get more creative about filtering traffic. It's one thing to have a nice, speedy freeway. But a key thing that causes traffic backups that back up onto the freeways is what happens on the surface streets. Better planning has to happen there. Really busy intersections need grade separation or even freeway style interchanges rather than traffic signals. Driveways that spill out onto the main thoroughfares have to be far more tightly controlled and limited. Any major street should have as few driveways and intersections as possible. An optimum 4-lane expressway with at-grade intersections will only have intersections at traffic signals spaced a mile or more apart. Neighborhoods and shopping centers adjacent to the expressway would be more self-contained with fewer entrances and exits. Traffic would filter itself in a more controlled manner. With a well enough designed setup some areas of an urban or suburban center could even avoid the need of building a far more costly freeway if traffic was managed more intelligently.

Some North Dallas neighborhoods and shopping center developments do a decent job of limiting & filtering traffic entrance and exit onto major thoroughfares. Development in many parts of Houston is older and thus not nearly as advanced in terms of traffic engineering. Far more surface streets and driveways are dumping traffic directly out onto main streets and highways in an uncontrolled manner. That leads to those Houston traffic jams that can occur any time of day (or night) and which fuel nightmares. One accident on a surface street near a freeway exit could lead to a snarl that blocks traffic on the freeway itself. I've personally been through that scenario.

The point with all this is freeways alone will not un-snarl traffic in the metroplex. DFW is still very much a car-centric metro and will be for many years to come. That's a call-back to that class argument about who uses mass transit. I wasn't too proud to use the bus, ferries and subway when I lived in NYC but I knew others who wouldn't do that. Douchebags. But that's reality. People love their cars. Street layouts have to be designed better to handle it. Planners need to grow a much stronger backbone and enforce some damned rules on development. Business douches can't just build a driveway entrance wherever they like. The streets and highways have to work like a circulatory system for business. That requires intelligent planning from building high capacity, high speed freeways and toll roads down to surface street networks that work far more efficiently than some stupid, dopey grid where everything craps out directly onto the main drag.

I love how you are so straight forward about things.

SH 121 between Denton and McKinney was 4-lane divided (with standard non-wide median) in Denton Co, but somewhere in Collin County, it was only two lanes before becoming a freeway. And, boy was it awful.

Now county commissioners in Collin Co. want voters to pass a $750 million transportation bond, but only part of it would help US 380.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Collin-Co-Commissioners-Eye-750-Million-Transportation-Bond-481900381.html?

Quote from: txstateends on May 07, 2018, 10:55:44 AM
Now county commissioners in Collin Co. want voters to pass a $750 million transportation bond, but only part of it would help US 380.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Collin-Co-Commissioners-Eye-750-Million-Transportation-Bond-481900381.html?

Well, the eastern leg of the Collin County Outer Loop is in the works already, at least with some frontage road segments. Maybe that highway should be expedited to handle both needs.

Around 50 residents showed up for info and debate about the US 380 possible bypass plan.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/mckinney/2018/06/16/us-380-bypass-options-bring-uncertainty-long-range-plan-mckinneys-future

A free US 380 freeway around north McKinney would just about make the Collin County Outer Loop redundant and unworkable. Methinks the city and county need to sit down and compare notes.

The newest refinements were revealed tonight at the public meeting

http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/us-highways/us-380-feasibility-studies (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/us-highways/us-380-feasibility-studies)

Highlights

• Public comments strongly support the freeway by a 3:1 margin. There also appears to be strong support for an alignment along the existing US 380.
• There are now two remaining alignment candidates: Existing US 380 (Green alignment) and the Red Alignment, which has the bypass route around McKinney, Princeton and Farmersville. It appears any or none of the bypasses could ultimately be recommended.
• Corridor right-of-way widths have been reduced to typically be between 330 and 350 feet. While this is unfortunate, it is probably a necessary trade-off to get the project built with available funding. However, the Green alignment shows a section of extremely narrow right-of-way between Custer and Ridge roads, which looks too narrow to support a freeway but could be the 240-foot-wide ROW depiction shown in the presentation.
• The Green alignment through McKinney would be depressed in a trench from US 75 to SH 5, about 1.5 miles. There would still be a very substantial right-of-way clearance.
• For the Spur 399 extension connection in the vicinity of McKinney airport, both options (east and west of the airport) are still candidates.
• Overall cost for the options ranges between $2.12 and $2.46 billion, with the Green options about 8-10% more expensive.

The Green option has a lower environmental impact but far more business displacements (about 10 times as many). Most of the criteria rating icons favor the Red Alignment. Economic development is also cited as a decision factor, and that favors the Red Alignment since it crosses more vacant land and would promote more economic development.  That rationale was used for the selection of the longer alignment for the northeast Bush Turnpike.

Quote from: MaxConcrete on October 05, 2018, 12:17:27 AM
The newest refinements were revealed tonight at the public meeting

http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/us-highways/us-380-feasibility-studies (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/us-highways/us-380-feasibility-studies)

Highlights

• Public comments strongly support the freeway by a 3:1 margin. There also appears to be strong support for an alignment along the existing US 380.
• There are now two remaining alignment candidates: Existing US 380 (Green alignment) and the Red Alignment, which has the bypass route around McKinney, Princeton and Farmersville. It appears any or none of the bypasses could ultimately be recommended.
• Corridor right-of-way widths have been reduced to typically be between 330 and 350 feet. While this is unfortunate, it is probably a necessary trade-off to get the project built with available funding. However, the Green alignment shows a section of extremely narrow right-of-way between Custer and Ridge roads, which looks too narrow to support a freeway but could be the 240-foot-wide ROW depiction shown in the presentation.
• The Green alignment through McKinney would be depressed in a trench from US 75 to SH 5, about 1.5 miles. There would still be a very substantial right-of-way clearance.
• For the Spur 399 extension connection in the vicinity of McKinney airport, both options (east and west of the airport) are still candidates.
• Overall cost for the options ranges between $2.12 and $2.46 billion, with the Green options about 8-10% more expensive.

The Green option has a lower environmental impact but far more business displacements (about 10 times as many). Most of the criteria rating icons favor the Red Alignment. Economic development is also cited as a decision factor, and that favors the Red Alignment since it crosses more vacant land and would promote more economic development.  That rationale was used for the selection of the longer alignment for the northeast Bush Turnpike.

I am very surprised that they would even consider using the existing alignment thru McKinney, given the amount of ROW clearance needed.

Also, this link is only for Collin Co. Have they done any public meetings for Denton County?

I, too, am surprised the "green" alternative of using the existing US-380 alignment would be considered. On the other hand, the "red" alternative is not without its problems. The red alignment would take far fewer properties; however, much of those properties would be private/residential. That could actually be more touchy than bulldozing a bunch of businesses next to an existing busy highway. Displacing commercial businesses for a new freeway/tollway just takes paying the business owners enough for the property and perhaps to relocate. They're not going to have the same sentimental attachment to a workplace as one does for a home.

Regarding the narrow 240-wide ROW, that's still plenty wide for a freeway. There are existing stretches of Interstate highway that squeeze through about half that corridor width. The first couple miles of I-88 in Binghamton, NY is a good example. That one has just two lanes in each direction, but it is flanked by frontage roads too. To get a little extra breathing room they could either elevate or trench the main lanes for a stretch and have them partially hand over or under the frontage roads. North Central Expressway in Dallas has a couple of stretches where the frontage roads hang over the main lanes. I could see them hanging frontage roads over main lanes through central McKinney, if not capping over the freeway completely.

Another strike against the red alignment is it takes 380 within just a couple of miles of the planned Collin County Outer Loop. Two very expensive east-west corridors so close to each other will not be a good look for taxpayers.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 02, 2018, 01:38:59 AM
The streets and highways have to work like a circulatory system for business. That requires intelligent planning from building high capacity, high speed freeways and toll roads down to surface street networks that work far more efficiently than some stupid, dopey grid where everything craps out directly onto the main drag.

A gridiron is what has "saved" locations such as Albuquerque, Tucson, and Phoenix (pre 1990) from being completely choked by traffic without planning for additional freeway mileage other than the bare minimum.   Based on the Chicago model, four to six lanes wide, intersections with other arterials exactly one mile apart.   

And not just having a grid, but designing the grid intelligently.  Traffic is fine if spread out, not when everyone is using the same freeway.  At grade expressways are so much cheaper, I wish they were used more.

Nexus 5X

They are having constant accidents with frequent fatalities on US 380 in eastern Denton County. They residents in the area are all very upset about it and are signing a petition to TxDOT to fix it. Pretty much all the residents in this area are new, and their moving to the area caused the problem.

Quote from: Brian556 on December 03, 2018, 12:11:16 AM
They are having constant accidents with frequent fatalities on US 380 in eastern Denton County. They residents in the area are all very upset about it and are signing a petition to TxDOT to fix it. Pretty much all the residents in this area are new, and their moving to the area caused the problem.

So -- is the issue with US 380 that it is not a freeway, or is simply inadequate for its current situation?  Has there been a determination of LOS for the most problematic stretch of highway?  If this is indeed a rapidly growing area -- with a correspondingly increasing tax base -- the problem should be to a large extent self-solving (unless politics, local and otherwise, intervenes).  It has seemed that the expansion of metro DFW has been largely northward via infill between the more established towns (Denton, Frisco, McKinney), encouraged by the placement or expansion of N-S arteries (free and toll) connecting the nascent development to the regional core.  It's not at all surprising that US 380 is now serving multiple roles as the principal E-W artery through the developing region; while a freeway may be the most obvious solution, unless ROW has been reserved by agreement between developers and the various jurisdictions, selecting an alignment and getting it built may be problematic. 

Quote from: sparkerSo -- is the issue with US 380 that it is not a freeway, or is simply inadequate for its current situation?

Both.

Adding to the problem is the lack of certain safety features along stretches of US-380. The road is a 5-lane undivided urban style street going West from Dallas North Tollway into Denton. Some of the intersections have traffic signals and street lights. Many other intersections (and driveways) are not lighted. That can be a big problem at night. Significant stretches of the road (the ones that would be easiest to upgrade into a freeway) are really dark at night. Combine that with the bright glare of lots of oncoming headlights in the opposing lanes. The situation makes it difficult to see a car whip out in front of you, either turning right or going across the lanes to turn left. There's no median barrier. Just a center turn lane.

It's shouldn't surprise anyone that the rate of serious and fatal collisions would increase on that part of US-380. Lots of big subdivisions are adding big numbers of homes nearby.

The obvious short term "cheap" solution is adding street lights and at least flashing yellow signals at intersections along US-380 currently not lighted and not controlled. That might cut down on some of the fatal collisions. But really the US-380 corridor needs a massive Interstate quality upgrade from Decatur & US-287 clear over to Greenville and I-30. The upgrade has to start with Denton to McKinney and stretch out to Decatur and Greenville. In the long term that's going to be a vital East-West corridor for North Texas and the North half of the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex. TX DOT can't wait until all this development is surrounding Lake Ray Roberts (north of Denton) with big tracts of McMansions. They should have been starting work on this corridor 20+ years ago. It was obvious back then that this situation was coming.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 03, 2018, 12:25:34 PM

Quote from: sparkerSo -- is the issue with US 380 that it is not a freeway, or is simply inadequate for its current situation?

Both.

Adding to the problem is the lack of certain safety features along stretches of US-380. The road is a 5-lane undivided urban style street going West from Dallas North Tollway into Denton. Some of the intersections have traffic signals and street lights. Many other intersections (and driveways) are not lighted. That can be a big problem at night. Significant stretches of the road (the ones that would be easiest to upgrade into a freeway) are really dark at night. Combine that with the bright glare of lots of oncoming headlights in the opposing lanes. The situation makes it difficult to see a car whip out in front of you, either turning right or going across the lanes to turn left. There's no median barrier. Just a center turn lane.

It's shouldn't surprise anyone that the rate of serious and fatal collisions would increase on that part of US-380. Lots of big subdivisions are adding big numbers of homes nearby.

The obvious short term "cheap" solution is adding street lights and at least flashing yellow signals at intersections along US-380 currently not lighted and not controlled. That might cut down on some of the fatal collisions. But really the US-380 corridor needs a massive Interstate quality upgrade from Decatur & US-287 clear over to Greenville and I-30. The upgrade has to start with Denton to McKinney and stretch out to Decatur and Greenville. In the long term that's going to be a vital East-West corridor for North Texas and the North half of the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex. TX DOT can't wait until all this development is surrounding Lake Ray Roberts (north of Denton) with big tracts of McMansions. They should have been starting work on this corridor 20+ years ago. It was obvious back then that this situation was coming.

Either something along this route or paralleling it should have been part of something that DFW has been sorely lacking for decades -- an outer Interstate-grade loop around the entire metro complex -- and the cojones to clamp down on development around such a loop in order to preserve its role as a bypass rather than a location for activities that would invariably lead to congestion.  However, given the current pressing situation in the north part of the metro area, getting a freeway (or at least a freeway between I-35 and US 75 and an expressway east and west of there to US 287 on the west and I-30 on the east) down the 380 corridor is long overdue.  Let's just hope there's enough undeveloped land left to efficiently deploy such a facility -- and enough local & state resolve to get it done!

All it would have taken was altering US-380 using the same formula that had been applied to several other highways in the North Texas region and many other places in the state. That formula is the familiar 4-lane divided highway with a huge median big enough to hold a freeway to be built later, decades later if need be.

They don't even have to four-lane a highway to apply this approach. There's a couple short portions of the proposed Colin County Outer Loop corridor North of McKinney that consist only of a 2-lane road with a big swath of vacant land to the left or right of the roadway. The key thing is simply buying up and securing enough ROW well in advance of development. US-380 should have been turned into a 4-lane highway with freeway sized median back in the late 1980's or early 1990's. TX DOT could have done that for relatively little money back then. Thanks to procrastination they're looking at spending a lot more. If they keep dragging their feet they won't be able to do anything at all about the problem. Everything along that corridor will be bottled up in just a few years.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 03, 2018, 12:25:34 PM

Quote from: sparkerSo -- is the issue with US 380 that it is not a freeway, or is simply inadequate for its current situation?

Both.

Adding to the problem is the lack of certain safety features along stretches of US-380. The road is a 5-lane undivided urban style street going West from Dallas North Tollway into Denton. Some of the intersections have traffic signals and street lights. Many other intersections (and driveways) are not lighted. That can be a big problem at night. Significant stretches of the road (the ones that would be easiest to upgrade into a freeway) are really dark at night. Combine that with the bright glare of lots of oncoming headlights in the opposing lanes. The situation makes it difficult to see a car whip out in front of you, either turning right or going across the lanes to turn left. There's no median barrier. Just a center turn lane.

It's shouldn't surprise anyone that the rate of serious and fatal collisions would increase on that part of US-380. Lots of big subdivisions are adding big numbers of homes nearby.

The obvious short term "cheap" solution is adding street lights and at least flashing yellow signals at intersections along US-380 currently not lighted and not controlled. That might cut down on some of the fatal collisions. But really the US-380 corridor needs a massive Interstate quality upgrade from Decatur & US-287 clear over to Greenville and I-30. The upgrade has to start with Denton to McKinney and stretch out to Decatur and Greenville. In the long term that's going to be a vital East-West corridor for North Texas and the North half of the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex. TX DOT can't wait until all this development is surrounding Lake Ray Roberts (north of Denton) with big tracts of McMansions. They should have been starting work on this corridor 20+ years ago. It was obvious back then that this situation was coming.

TxDOT always fails to proivide street lights on major arterials. Its like that in Flower Mound, and it makes driving at night there miserable. Oklahoma, which has far less riches, is very good about street lighting.

The safety problems on US 380 include entire neighborhoods with no traffic signal to get out onto 380, excessivly high speed limit, Heavy truck traffic, which creates issues because its hard for them to stop for red lights in time on high-speed roadways. It also sounds like there is issues with driveway traffic confilcting with other driveway and side street traffic due to intersection proximity issues.Also, there have been head-on collisions, which I dont blame the road for since there is a center turn lane seperation opposing traffic.

Yeah, that last part (head on collisions) is largely due to other factors. There's always the threat of drunk drivers (especially at night). People who compulsively play with their phones while driving can easily drift into the opposing lanes. And then there's the careless/stupid drivers who break suddenly to turn, maybe even without a turn signal. The next car is unable to stop in time and rams the car ahead of them. Sometimes that car gets launched into the oncoming lanes.

Basically that center turn lane along US-380 is a pretty bad idea. It might be acceptable within Denton (where both street lights and a slow speed limit are present). Outside of Denton to the DNT much of that road needs a physical Jersey barrier in place, along with more lighting. And, yeah, maybe the speed limit needs to be dropped. That's all in the short term. But with the volume of traffic, including heavy truck traffic, a full blown freeway or toll road upgrade should be in the works.

The ship has sailed on making 380 a full freeway between Denton and Princeton. The Collin County Outer Loop is the obvious alternative and hopefully with the bond issue being approved, that will help it to end up being non-tolled.

I would like this just to bypass I-35W to access north Dallas area. I would like it even better if they'd extend the NDT to connect with I-35 maybe at Sanger or even better Gainesville.

Quote from: Road Hog on December 14, 2018, 08:40:17 PM
The ship has sailed on making 380 a full freeway between Denton and Princeton. The Collin County Outer Loop is the obvious alternative and hopefully with the bond issue being approved, that will help it to end up being non-tolled.

This is pretty out of the box/fantasy thinking, but down the line if the situation ever calls for it, they could do a cut and cover method for a toll road underneath the current road with a strip open in the median to allow for ventilation. It wouldn't really be a tunnel but a freeway almost completely covered by a surface road except for a small strip in the middle. I'm not sure if this has ever been done before.

Obviously this would be overkill now as it wouldn't be cheap, but the room is there. Could be an idea down the line.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 17, 2018, 06:59:44 AM

Quote from: Road Hog on December 14, 2018, 08:40:17 PM
The ship has sailed on making 380 a full freeway between Denton and Princeton. The Collin County Outer Loop is the obvious alternative and hopefully with the bond issue being approved, that will help it to end up being non-tolled.

This is pretty out of the box/fantasy thinking, but down the line if the situation ever calls for it, they could do a cut and cover method for a toll road underneath the current road with a strip open in the median to allow for ventilation. It wouldn't really be a tunnel but a freeway almost completely covered by a surface road except for a small strip in the middle. I'm not sure if this has ever been done before.

Large sections of the LBJ between 35E and 75

Quote from: Road HogThe ship has sailed on making 380 a full freeway between Denton and Princeton. The Collin County Outer Loop is the obvious alternative and hopefully with the bond issue being approved, that will help it to end up being non-tolled.

I don't think the ship has sailed as long as things like the "green" alignment are still on the table in US-380 Collin County Feasibility Study. That would push a new freeway right through the middle of McKinney on the existing US-380 alignment. Obviously it would have to be built in some kind of depressed trench, possibly with side streets or service roads partially hanging over it. Just repeating what I wrote on page 1, the other alignments being studied (like the "red" alignment) could run into their own problems, NIMBY opposition from rural/residential property owners being the most likely issue.

Some parts of US-380 between Denton and McKinney will have to be upgraded to some form of freeway regardless if the Collin County Outer Loop is ever built or not. Safety issues are getting worse on the existing road.

Quote from: rte66man on December 17, 2018, 04:49:11 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 17, 2018, 06:59:44 AM

Quote from: Road Hog on December 14, 2018, 08:40:17 PM
The ship has sailed on making 380 a full freeway between Denton and Princeton. The Collin County Outer Loop is the obvious alternative and hopefully with the bond issue being approved, that will help it to end up being non-tolled.

This is pretty out of the box/fantasy thinking, but down the line if the situation ever calls for it, they could do a cut and cover method for a toll road underneath the current road with a strip open in the median to allow for ventilation. It wouldn't really be a tunnel but a freeway almost completely covered by a surface road except for a small strip in the middle. I'm not sure if this has ever been done before.

Large sections of the LBJ between 35E and 75

My idea would be a bit different than LBJ as the entire freeway would be below grade almost in a tunnel. The width of the median along the 380 through most of Denton is about the width the open gap would be to prevent the costly ventilation systems tunnels require. I can't think of anywhere I've been or know about where this setup is in place.

It's similar to what I'd like to see 39th. St expressway in OKC become from SH-74 to Kilpatrick. 4-4 below grade and the street above 3-3.

Current U.S. 380 is outdated and should be upgraded as much as possible. When things such as having the main lanes below the frontage roads become necessary, then the alternative tolled alignment should be constructed and connect Loop 288.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaMy idea would be a bit different than LBJ as the entire freeway would be below grade almost in a tunnel. The width of the median along the 380 through most of Denton is about the width the open gap would be to prevent the costly ventilation systems tunnels require. I can't think of anywhere I've been or know about where this setup is in place.

I can't think of any place in the United States where a completely trenched and covered freeway runs for more than a couple or so blocks. The stretch on Woodall Rodgers Freeway in downtown Dallas spans just 3 blocks. I-90 in Seattle goes into one tunnel 5/8 mile long under Sam Smith Park and another tunnel 1/2 mile long under the Park on the Lid. But I think those function as full blown tunnels. US-380 runs for 5 miles in Denton between I-35 and Loop 288. The segment in McKinney that would need to be trenched (and potentially capped) is half that length. Either one would be really expensive to trench, much less cap partially or completely. New Urbanists would love being able to bury and hide a freeway. Taxpayers would hate the construction cost.

Ventilation is one thing. Digging out a huge trench for a new freeway/turnpike is a huge logistical hurdle. There would be one heck of a tangle worth of utilities to relocate for the dig. Water, sewer, electrical, Internet, etc. Then there's the issue of drainage. The project would be painfully disruptive for years. I still remember the aggravation caused by the N Central Expressway project in Dallas. I think the LBJ Freeway expansion went a little more smoothly. The pain would be traded off for tremendous relief once the project was finished.

By the way, the Collin County Outer Loop intersection with US-75 is over 7 miles directly North of existing US-380 in McKinney. That's a long way away for a proposed new toll road to act as a functional bypass for US-380. Just for reference LBJ Freeway and the PGBT are about 5-6 miles apart on the North side of Dallas.

GSV shows new US 380 bridge over Dallas Pkwy. The bridge is way longer than normal. They made the bridge longer instead of using dirt fill approach ramps. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2186721,-96.8189502,3a,85.4y,263.9h,92.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suIeI1RJqqh-5hGTIYv-MpA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2186721,-96.8189502,3a,85.4y,263.9h,92.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suIeI1RJqqh-5hGTIYv-MpA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Quote from: Brian556 on January 09, 2019, 11:32:18 PM
GSV shows new US 380 bridge over Dallas Pkwy. The bridge is way longer than normal. They made the bridge longer instead of using dirt fill approach ramps. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2186721,-96.8189502,3a,85.4y,263.9h,92.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suIeI1RJqqh-5hGTIYv-MpA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2186721,-96.8189502,3a,85.4y,263.9h,92.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suIeI1RJqqh-5hGTIYv-MpA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

That looks like it is wider than a 3x3 config

Quote from: Brian556 on December 03, 2018, 03:38:40 PM
TxDOT always fails to proivide street lights on major arterials. Its like that in Flower Mound, and it makes driving at night there miserable. Oklahoma, which has far less riches, is very good about street lighting.

Yes and no. We're good about installing it, but miserly when it comes to maintaining it. Many of the lights are out in OKC because the wiring has been stolen from them and they're getting fixed Any Day Now. When it comes to state highways, it doesn't help that ODOT contracts light maintenance out to the electric company, so there's always bureaucratic buck-passing when it comes to getting lights fixed.

This does vary by municipality. Norman is usually pretty well lit.

Quote from: Brian556 on January 09, 2019, 11:32:18 PM
GSV shows new US 380 bridge over Dallas Pkwy. The bridge is way longer than normal. They made the bridge longer instead of using dirt fill approach ramps. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2186721,-96.8189502,3a,85.4y,263.9h,92.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suIeI1RJqqh-5hGTIYv-MpA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2186721,-96.8189502,3a,85.4y,263.9h,92.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suIeI1RJqqh-5hGTIYv-MpA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

That's often done when the ground is prone to waterlogging (high water table, for instance); since the total weight of a berm greatly exceeds the load of a bridge through its bents -- and a berm could be undermined by ground water -- extending the bridge structure as an alternative has been a longstanding method for dealing with that issue.

Believe the covered "central artery" in Boston is close to a mile long.  Completely buried in their "big dig"  Which cost close to $15 billion.   That is including the third harbor tunnel and the above ground connections though - such as the charles river crossing and connections to previous elevated structures.   

Quote from: DJStephens on January 10, 2019, 07:43:05 PM
Believe the covered "central artery" in Boston is close to a mile long.  Completely buried in their "big dig"  Which cost close to $15 billion.   That is including the third harbor tunnel and the above ground connections though - such as the charles river crossing and connections to previous elevated structures.

If you're posting this in response to my idea, that isn't remotely comparable to this scenario.

Quote from: sparker on January 10, 2019, 04:16:11 PM

Quote from: Brian556 on January 09, 2019, 11:32:18 PM
GSV shows new US 380 bridge over Dallas Pkwy. The bridge is way longer than normal. They made the bridge longer instead of using dirt fill approach ramps. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2186721,-96.8189502,3a,85.4y,263.9h,92.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suIeI1RJqqh-5hGTIYv-MpA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2186721,-96.8189502,3a,85.4y,263.9h,92.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suIeI1RJqqh-5hGTIYv-MpA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

That's often done when the ground is prone to waterlogging (high water table, for instance); since the total weight of a berm greatly exceeds the load of a bridge through its bents -- and a berm could be undermined by ground water -- extending the bridge structure as an alternative has been a longstanding method for dealing with that issue.

That is not an issue in this area

There's going to be a lot of unused under-bridge ROW there.  I wonder if TxDOT is thinking of some kind of storage there (equipment, piles of sand/gravel/etc), or if there would be a future park & ride use like what happened with the CityLine-Bush DART station parking lot that was put together after the Bush Turnpike/US 75 interchange was built.  Other than those possibilities, I can't see why there's that much extra space underneath.

I think the long bridge over Dallas Parkway is there to provide plenty of flexibility on how they might expand the Dallas North Tollway in the future. Right now there's enough room for the toll road extension to fit between the frontage roads. But if they needed to do a major expansion and accommodate separated express and local lanes, as well as move the frontage roads out farther apart the new US-380 bridges over the zone would allow it. I would imagine a new 4 level directional stack interchange would be in the works once the DNT is extended.

Denton County Feasibility Study - Possible alignments map:
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US380_PM1_RollPlot.pdf (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US380_PM1_RollPlot.pdf)

Right now TxDOT is saying that they plan to start construction in 2021 to upgrade US 380 in E Denton Co to a 6-lane urban arterial expressway, with interchanges at some FM roads.

I think there is a good chance of this being cancelled.

I also had another thought. With the planned US 380 freeway taking over N Loop 288, that has major implications for the I-35/ Loop 288 (Future US 380) interchange. I say its possible that there could be a stack there someday.

That sucks if it gets canceled. If Texas doesn't stay on the ball traffic will surely get much worse than it has been.

They're not going to slap an Interstate designation on the proposed US 380 freeway, are they?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 26, 2019, 04:56:40 PM
They're not going to slap an Interstate designation on the proposed US 380 freeway, are they?

If any part of US 380 were eyed for interstating, there would be so much upgrading/updating to do.  Now if the outer loop thing further out were considered, I could see it.  Nothing to change out, not as many toes to step on out there.  As toll-happy as TX has been lately, they'd just as soon toll the outer loop as interstate it.

Quote from: The GhostbusterThey're not going to slap an Interstate designation on the proposed US 380 freeway, are they?

I don't think an Interstate designation would be likely for this super-highway corridor between Denton and McKinney. Even though the main focus is providing a faster, more efficient, higher capacity route for US-380 it's possible much of existing US-380 may remain pretty much as is. Much of the super-highway link between Denton and McKinney may end up being built parallel to US-380.

Even if all of US-380 between Denton and McKinney was upgraded into a freeway (or a toll road) it would probably still carry the US-380 designation. That's just going off examples of freeways and toll roads elsewhere in the state.

Quote from: Brian556I think there is a good chance of this being cancelled.

I don't think TX DOT has any choice about building an Interstate-quality link between Denton and McKinney. They have to build a new super-highway link between the two cities somewhere. There is too much developmental growth and too much traffic for that segment of US-380 to remain as is. Any modest upgrades involving traffic lights, driveways and other stuff is going to be a non-starter.

Ideas I think could be cancelled are ones like the concept of converting US-380 into a freeway straight through McKinney. That's going to be a tough one.

It sucks that they have to deal with the burden of improving the US-380 corridor along with planning for the Collin County Outer Loop and even needing to get the ball rolling for US-82 between Gainesville and Sherman. But that's the price of having a megapolis of over 7 million people that continues to add more residents at a fast pace. I'm a bit concerned about water supply issues for that region, partly because it might mean more lawsuits between Texas and Oklahoma over rights to water up here.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2019, 06:49:29 PM
It sucks that they have to deal with the burden of improving the US-380 corridor along with planning for the Collin County Outer Loop and even needing to get the ball rolling for US-82 between Gainesville and Sherman. But that's the price of having a megapolis of over 7 million people that continues to add more residents at a fast pace. I'm a bit concerned about water supply issues for that region, partly because it might mean more lawsuits between Texas and Oklahoma over rights to water up here.

This really gets me angry.  What makes Texas think they have ANY rights to water in Oklahoma?  Oooh, let's sue OK for rights to Blue River water, etc.  Besides, the tribes have a very large say in all water rights.  I doubt they care whether TX gets any water or not.

Texas thinks it can push Oklahoma around since it's a smaller state with far less clout on the national level. Giant metros like Dallas-Fort Worth think they can push around smaller and poorer towns in Oklahoma for some of the same reasons. They use the rationale that anything that flows into the Red River is theirs to take. In the past they've tried claiming rights to Lawton's own reservoirs (Lake Lawtonka and Lake Ellsworth) since they're part of the Cache Creek system that flows into the Red River. They've attempted the same with Waurika Lake since Beaver Creek flows into the Red River. Hell, Lawton had to make deals with Stephens & Cotton County to be able to draw from Waurika Lake in times of water emergencies. But the cities in Texas think they can ram-rod their desires right on through.

The way I feel about it is Texas is a huge damned state. They have more than enough space to create big new reservoirs if needed. None of Texas' taxpayers contributed anything to the cost and effort of creating Waurika Lake or any other reservoir in Oklahoma.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2019, 10:55:45 PM
Texas thinks it can push Oklahoma around since it's a smaller state with far less clout on the national level. Giant metros like Dallas-Fort Worth think they can push around smaller and poorer towns in Oklahoma for some of the same reasons. They use the rationale that anything that flows into the Red River is theirs to take. In the past they've tried claiming rights to Lawton's own reservoirs (Lake Lawtonka and Lake Ellsworth) since they're part of the Cache Creek system that flows into the Red River. They've attempted the same with Waurika Lake since Beaver Creek flows into the Red River. Hell, Lawton had to make deals with Stephens & Cotton County to be able to draw from Waurika Lake in times of water emergencies. But the cities in Texas think they can ram-rod their desires right on through.

The way I feel about it is Texas is a huge damned state. They have more than enough space to create big new reservoirs if needed. None of Texas' taxpayers contributed anything to the cost and effort of creating Waurika Lake or any other reservoir in Oklahoma.

Georgia is currently trying to move the state line north so that they can tap the Tennessee River at Nickajack Lake, W of Chattanooga.
And, yes, this kind of stunt is BS. They need to stop people from moving in, but they aint got enough dam sense to do that, because their only concern is lining the pockets of themselves and other wealthy people Capitalism is the problem here

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2019, 10:55:45 PM
Texas thinks it can push Oklahoma around since it's a smaller state with far less clout on the national level. Giant metros like Dallas-Fort Worth think they can push around smaller and poorer towns in Oklahoma for some of the same reasons. They use the rationale that anything that flows into the Red River is theirs to take. In the past they've tried claiming rights to Lawton's own reservoirs (Lake Lawtonka and Lake Ellsworth) since they're part of the Cache Creek system that flows into the Red River. They've attempted the same with Waurika Lake since Beaver Creek flows into the Red River. Hell, Lawton had to make deals with Stephens & Cotton County to be able to draw from Waurika Lake in times of water emergencies. But the cities in Texas think they can ram-rod their desires right on through.

When Waurika Lake was built by the Corps, a number of entities both city and county were dunned for the cost.  Their rights to draw water were based on the amount they paid.  If Lawton wanted more than their allocation, I'm sure they had to pay for it by "rebating" to those entities.

I don't know the specifics of the arrangement. But Lawton certainly isn't getting water from Waurika Lake for nothing. Several years ago Lawton had to build a new water treatment plant on the Southeast side of town to add additional water capacity (I think 20 million gallons per day on top of the 40 million the treatment plant at Medicine Park provides). Lawton was starting to strain the limits of its existing supply and needed more supply capacity for attracting new business and being able to handle potential growth. Thankfully voters approved the water treatment plant project. Pumping water up from Waurika Lake is still a last resort though. It has to get pumped up into Lake Ellsworth and then drawn from there. Lake Lawtonka is the primary water source for Lawton since that lake is deeper and doesn't lose as much from evaporation as Ellsworth.

Adjustments to alignment options will be revealed at meetings on March 21 and 28.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/03/20/txdot-unveil-new-tweaks-us-380-makeover-wary-citizens-high-alert (https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/03/20/txdot-unveil-new-tweaks-us-380-makeover-wary-citizens-high-alert)

From the article, it's difficult to determine what/where the new options will be. It is unclear to me if the northeast McKinney change is the connector around McKinney airport or the US 380 alignment. The changes in Walnut Grove area appear to be changes to the bypass route, which suggests to me that the bypass option may be the leading alignment option and it is being tweaked.

The article reports that 14,000 public comments were received in response to the meetings in 2018.

Map from today's Dallas Morning News.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20190330-us-380-routes.png&hash=d557d7c5a21d9afe50db7f0dba796d40d690a7bb)

As I mentioned previoiusly, the fact that they are tweaking the bypass routes suggests to me that the bypass option is going to be selected. I hope I'm wrong, because from the transportation efficiency perspective the existing US 380 alignment is much better.

If they are going to consider a bypass, maybe they should consider a longer bypass that reconnects to US 380 east of Farmersville.  It would make for a better alignment in case Princeton needs a bypass someday, and would eliminate any future issues with crossing Lavon Lake.

Even though it would be nice to upgrade the existing US-380 alignment into a freeway with a direct, straight path I don't think it's going to be practical. The zone immediately around US-75 is pretty densely developed. They would either have to build an elevated freeway over the existing US-380 surface lanes or tunnel underneath. And then a freeway to freeway interchange there would require flyover ramps going over business parking lots and buildings or complete removal of those businesses on the four corners of the interchange.

I could still see some bits and pieces of US-380 between Custer Rd and US-75 given little doses of limited access treatment in order to move traffic through more efficiently.

One side benefit to making a new US-380 freeway bypassing McKinney just to the North: it would help any motorists on US-380 heading for TX-121 going NE out of the metroplex to get to that interchange much faster.

As expected, the bypass route is recommended. I still had some hope of the Green (existing 380 alignment) being selected, but it didn't happen. The alignment is highly inefficient for traveling east-west along 380, and also highly inefficient for connections between US 75 toward the south and US 380 toward the west. The construction costs in the presentation document for the McKinney bypass don't look correct to me: I don't understand the Green Alignment being $2-2.2 billion and the "Green alignment north shift" being $1.2 billion. It seems like the $2-2.2 billion is for the entire Green corridor, not just the McKinney bypass. It's not clear to me how much less expensive the Red A/D is compared to Green.

Nearly all new alignment routes in Texas take highly inefficient routes these days; it's just a sign of the times. In North Texas, the longer alignments through undeveloped areas are viewed favorably because the new routes will promote development in the adjacent areas. The only good news is that the shorter, more efficient route was selected on the west side of McKinney airport. This also provides an efficient connection from US 75 toward the south and US 380 toward the east.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/us-highways/us-380-collin-county-feasibility-study (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/us-highways/us-380-collin-county-feasibility-study)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2Frecommended-alignment.jpg&hash=1fb6e32cfae116ff03a146edb069ff7ecadabf83)

Not a fan of that at all. You can't tell me there isn't enough undeveloped land to round off all those 90° zig-zags.

Yeah, those 90° turns West of McKinney are especially lousy. It's a downgrade from the alignment concepts shown 3 posts earlier. I wonder if the turns will have 30mph speed limits!
:-D

That alignment would make more sense if it was extended through Denton County.

In my opinion TxDOT should just go ahead and expedite the Outer Loop as the alternative route to 380, and leave 380 as an arterial. The Outer Loop will run just a few miles north and comes pretty close to where the planned northern swing of 380 goes.

The little bit of the Collin County Outer Loop that exists North of McKinney is about 8 miles North of US-380. That's a pretty big mileage gap for something that would serve as a bypass for US-380 traffic. The North-South gaps between LBJ Freeway, The Bush Turnpike and the TX-121 toll road aren't that wide.

The US-380 corridor between Denton and McKinney needs to be upgraded to a freeway as much as possible on the current ROW, preferably with bypasses to the North only around Denton and McKinney. The pace of development in that region will make both the Collin County Outer Loop and an upgraded US-380 corridor a necessity.

Quote from: In_Correct on April 27, 2018, 12:25:04 PM
Any Rural People In Collin County should not expect any Rural Life in Collin County. Collin County is growing. Also, Rural People must know that if you want to live a Rural Life, almost every body else does also. This means they will be surrounded by neighbors and a septic system. The worst of both worlds. And also perhaps expensive electricity, expensive groceries, expensive commute, and expensive Internet. But with expansion in Collin County and even more increase in future, there will not be any Rural Areas in Collin County.

But if U.S. 380 has many opposition from every proposed alignment, perhaps they should upgrade the existing alignment similar to U.S. 287 in Decatur.

That crazy north bypass will go a long way to help destroy any remaining "rural character" in said Collin County.   Any groups gearing up to fight this?  And or to keep improvements on existing corridor?   

QuoteAny groups gearing up to fight this?  And or to keep improvements on existing corridor?   

As for the US 380 alignment, there are groups strongly opposed to both the McKinney bypass route and using the existing US 380 route. No surprise: TxDOT appears to have chosen the path of least opposition.

The Collin County Outer Loop has been in the planning phase since 2002, with more activity to move the project forward in the last few years. I'm not aware of any opposition. The outer loop is far enough in the rural area to not incite any opposition. I spoke to a rancher last year whose property is near the alignment of the outer parkway in northeast Collin County. He was hoping that construction would proceed sooner rather than later so he could sell his property for a nice financial gain and then move to a more rural area in Hunt County to the east. Unlucky for him, it will probably be a long time before there is any construction on the northeast section.

The primary thing that needs to happen with the Collin County Outer Loop right now is corridor preservation. They already have a small start on it North of McKinney, and I think they're taking the right approach: a 2-lane road with cleared future freeway ROW off to the side. It's the cheapest way to get the ball rolling. If the planners mess around and don't at least establish the ROW their future plans for the corridor, years or decades from now, will be totally shot.

In regards to people wanting to live in spaces with "rural character," all I can do is laugh at any notion of that taking place within 50-100 miles of the DFW metro. Traffic on the main arterials is heavy. At night if you walk outside a house anywhere close to the metro the sky will be glowing from all the urban stuff in the distance.

My advice to anyone wanting a living space with rural character: get a home in a mostly rural state nowhere close to a big city, like Montana or something. It's stupid for anyone to expect that and then plant stakes in the growth path of one of America's biggest and fastest growing metros.

In planner parlance, that is called the 'Drawbridge' - "We're here, now let's raise the drawbridge".

:rolleyes:

Mike

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 10, 2019, 11:22:14 AM
The primary thing that needs to happen with the Collin County Outer Loop right now is corridor preservation.

I work on this project and the ROW acquisition is mostly complete now. It's not all been mapped, but the $$ is mostly spent for it. The US 380 bypass does not have any ROW acquisition yet.

(https://i.imgur.com/2YBgRWL.jpg)

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 07, 2019, 02:47:42 PM
Yeah, those 90° turns West of McKinney are especially lousy. It's a downgrade from the alignment concepts shown 3 posts earlier. I wonder if the turns will have 30mph speed limits!
:-D

I know I'm replying to a comment from almost a year ago, but I conceptualized this bypass in GIS and came up with a roughly 65 MPH design speed for those curves with 2% superelevation.

Quote from: froggie on March 20, 2020, 03:17:56 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 07, 2019, 02:47:42 PM
Yeah, those 90° turns West of McKinney are especially lousy. It's a downgrade from the alignment concepts shown 3 posts earlier. I wonder if the turns will have 30mph speed limits!
:-D

I know I'm replying to a comment from almost a year ago, but I conceptualized this bypass in GIS and came up with a roughly 65 MPH design speed for those curves with 2% superelevation.

If the design speed winds up being 65 MPH, then the actual speed limit would likely have to be 50 or 55 in that area.  Very few freeways in the DFW area have speed limits that low, and even when they are this low, drivers routinely drive 10+ MPH over the speed limit.  To my understanding, most DFW freeways (and toll roads) have posted speed limits between 60-70 MPH.  Although such a curve could get drivers' attention, I have a feeling many drivers could wind up exceeding the design speed in that area, and those curves could become quite accident-prone.

NTTA, for instance, tried a 50 MPH speed limit on the Chisholm Trail Parkway in Fort Worth, on the segment between I-20 and I-30.  No one drove the speed limit, and they ultimately gave in and increased the speed limit to 60 on that section.  But the design speed of that road probably allowed them to have that flexibility to increase the speed limit if needed (but I did think the design speed of that section of the CTP was a little lower than expected, those curves on the bridge over the railroad yard at Hulen Street seem a little sharp).  And note that the Fort Worth side of the Metroplex generally has slightly lower speed limits than the Dallas side (US 75, for example, has a 70 MPH speed limit even south of 635).

Quote from: BrandonC_TX on March 20, 2020, 05:24:09 PM

Quote from: froggie on March 20, 2020, 03:17:56 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 07, 2019, 02:47:42 PM
Yeah, those 90° turns West of McKinney are especially lousy. It's a downgrade from the alignment concepts shown 3 posts earlier. I wonder if the turns will have 30mph speed limits!
:-D

I know I'm replying to a comment from almost a year ago, but I conceptualized this bypass in GIS and came up with a roughly 65 MPH design speed for those curves with 2% superelevation.

If the design speed winds up being 65 MPH, then the actual speed limit would likely have to be 50 or 55 in that area.  Very few freeways in the DFW area have speed limits that low, and even when they are this low, drivers routinely drive 10+ MPH over the speed limit.  To my understanding, most DFW freeways (and toll roads) have posted speed limits between 60-70 MPH.  Although such a curve could get drivers' attention, I have a feeling many drivers could wind up exceeding the design speed in that area, and those curves could become quite accident-prone.

Speed limit 70 - 75 mph, advisory speed of 65 mph.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 20, 2020, 05:26:52 PM
Speed limit 70 - 75 mph, advisory speed of 65 mph.

Could work, but a lower posted speed limit might be needed to more profoundly affect driving habits approaching these curves.  The straight sections could definitely work with a posted speed limit of 70 MPH though.

Quote from: rte66man on February 26, 2019, 06:54:27 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2019, 06:49:29 PM
It sucks that they have to deal with the burden of improving the US-380 corridor along with planning for the Collin County Outer Loop and even needing to get the ball rolling for US-82 between Gainesville and Sherman. But that's the price of having a megapolis of over 7 million people that continues to add more residents at a fast pace. I'm a bit concerned about water supply issues for that region, partly because it might mean more lawsuits between Texas and Oklahoma over rights to water up here.

This really gets me angry.  What makes Texas think they have ANY rights to water in Oklahoma?  Oooh, let's sue OK for rights to Blue River water, etc.  Besides, the tribes have a very large say in all water rights.  I doubt they care whether TX gets any water or not.

Most of the water issues is Texas wanting to get the water before it reaches the Red River (or Lake Texoma). Once it reaches the lake the salinity goes up. The irony, is it is the same water and they are willing to pay  a premium to not have to deal with the salinity. The irony is that it reaches the lake unused.

Quote from: bwana39 on March 20, 2020, 09:40:14 PM

Quote from: rte66man on February 26, 2019, 06:54:27 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2019, 06:49:29 PM
It sucks that they have to deal with the burden of improving the US-380 corridor along with planning for the Collin County Outer Loop and even needing to get the ball rolling for US-82 between Gainesville and Sherman. But that's the price of having a megapolis of over 7 million people that continues to add more residents at a fast pace. I'm a bit concerned about water supply issues for that region, partly because it might mean more lawsuits between Texas and Oklahoma over rights to water up here.

This really gets me angry.  What makes Texas think they have ANY rights to water in Oklahoma?  Oooh, let's sue OK for rights to Blue River water, etc.  Besides, the tribes have a very large say in all water rights.  I doubt they care whether TX gets any water or not.

Most of the water issues is Texas wanting to get the water before it reaches the Red River (or Lake Texoma). Once it reaches the lake the salinity goes up. The irony, is it is the same water and they are willing to pay  a premium to not have to deal with the salinity. The irony is that it reaches the lake unused.

Not ironical at all.  The Blue River is the last free-flowing river in eastern OK.  I'm all for progress but I don't want to see it dammed up just so the DFW metroplex can continue its unchecked growth. There needs to be a certain amount of water flowing into the Red River for the exact reason you mentioned (salinity). If Texas really wants OK water, they can work a deal out with the Choctaws for rights to Sardis Lake water.  Maybe then the Corps could get their money back for construction costs (but that's another story).

Or Texas can build more lakes and build more rivers so the population can continue to increase and sprawl out. And then the roads & bridges can be upgraded.

Quote from: rte66man on March 24, 2020, 01:45:50 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on March 20, 2020, 09:40:14 PM

Quote from: rte66man on February 26, 2019, 06:54:27 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2019, 06:49:29 PM
It sucks that they have to deal with the burden of improving the US-380 corridor along with planning for the Collin County Outer Loop and even needing to get the ball rolling for US-82 between Gainesville and Sherman. But that's the price of having a megapolis of over 7 million people that continues to add more residents at a fast pace. I'm a bit concerned about water supply issues for that region, partly because it might mean more lawsuits between Texas and Oklahoma over rights to water up here.

This really gets me angry.  What makes Texas think they have ANY rights to water in Oklahoma?  Oooh, let's sue OK for rights to Blue River water, etc.  Besides, the tribes have a very large say in all water rights.  I doubt they care whether TX gets any water or not.

Most of the water issues is Texas wanting to get the water before it reaches the Red River (or Lake Texoma). Once it reaches the lake the salinity goes up. The irony, is it is the same water and they are willing to pay  a premium to not have to deal with the salinity. The irony is that it reaches the lake unused.

Not ironical at all.  The Blue River is the last free-flowing river in eastern OK.  I'm all for progress but I don't want to see it dammed up just so the DFW metroplex can continue its unchecked growth. There needs to be a certain amount of water flowing into the Red River for the exact reason you mentioned (salinity). If Texas really wants OK water, they can work a deal out with the Choctaws for rights to Sardis Lake water.  Maybe then the Corps could get their money back for construction costs (but that's another story).

Well, the Glover River while much shorter is free flowing as well.

The issue with the Blue is about GROUNDWATER withdrawal. I actually was talking about the Washita around Madill.

As to the suits, they have been about Oklahoma entities trying to lease water rights to North Texas water utilities and other Oklahoma entities suing to stop it.  They aren't even trying to sell said water rights, they are trying to lease them. If they ever need them in the future, they can reclaim them.

This said, I am conceptually mixed on this. I agree with the Oklahoma soverignity and at the same time, it is about using unused resources with minimal disruption of the community.

If Oklahoma makes money by leasing water to Texas, Oklahoma can use the money to build and improve and upgrade the roads and bridges.

The Collin County Study is completed. Its shows bypasses at Princeton and Farmersville.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keepitmovingdallas.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocs%2FUS%2520380_Feasibility%2520Studies_MAP.jpg&hash=72ee7341efcd8bb4e94a31003592933dc6856f4f)
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/us-highways/us-380-collin-and-denton-county (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/us-highways/us-380-collin-and-denton-county)

In a related development, the draft 2021 TxDOT UTP includes $1.1 billion in new funding for the yellow-orange section between between McKinney and Farmersville.
See page 87
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/tpp/utp/2021-utp.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/tpp/utp/2021-utp.pdf)

This is a nice "win" for the project because expected future revenue for the UTP was reduced, so relatively few new projects were added in this year's document, and this is one of the largest new funding commitments. (Of course, I-35 in Austin is a big commitment, but technically it was an amendment to the 2020 UTP). However, $478 million is listed as "Remaining funding TBD", and future funding is expected to sustain more reductions.

Is there any time table when the new US-380 super highway segments may begin construction? As each year passes new big chunks of development are plopping down in that area. TX DOT will have to start securing ROW in earnest just to preserve the desired corridor.

How far along are the Denton County studies for US-380? It's going to be interesting to see what recommendation they make to connect a new US-380 super highway from the Dallas North Tollway into Loop 288 in Denton. The zone near just west of the DNT can be upgraded to a freeway pretty easily along the existing ROW. But it the corridor gets pretty tight after that.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 23, 2020, 06:15:38 PM
Is there any time table when the new US-380 super highway segments may begin construction? As each year passes new big chunks of development are plopping down in that area. TX DOT will have to start securing ROW in earnest just to preserve the desired corridor.

How far along are the Denton County studies for US-380? It's going to be interesting to see what recommendation they make to connect a new US-380 super highway from the Dallas North Tollway into Loop 288 in Denton. The zone near just west of the DNT can be upgraded to a freeway pretty easily along the existing ROW. But it the corridor gets pretty tight after that.

I'm quite sure all the right-of-way in Collin is now being protected from development. Collin County voters approved $600 million for the project in 2018, and my perception is that most of that funding is slated for right-of-way expenses. Also, the recommended alignment was selected mostly to place the highway on undeveloped property, which is why it has so many curves and twists. The last I heard/read was that construction is expected between 2025 and 2030.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2018/11/07/collin-county-voters-say-yes-to-750-million-in-bonds-for-road-projects/ (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2018/11/07/collin-county-voters-say-yes-to-750-million-in-bonds-for-road-projects/)

But I share your concern about the Denton County section. In 2019 there was a feasibility study in progress, but the web site has not been updated in 18 months, which makes me wonder if there is some kind of issue blocking progress or maybe the study was suspended.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US380_PM1_Presentation_Slides.pdf (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US380_PM1_Presentation_Slides.pdf)

There is a $160 million non-freeway widening slated for bidding in May 2021, from the DNT to US 377. That project will widen US 380 to six lanes and add five grade separations, but it will not be a freeway. So that seems to suggest that if there is going to be a US 380 freeway in Denton Country, it will be on a new alignment to the north.
https://news.dentoncounty.gov/2020/01/30/us-380-widening-plans-complete-project-fully-funded/ (https://news.dentoncounty.gov/2020/01/30/us-380-widening-plans-complete-project-fully-funded/)
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2021/denton.htm#013510050 (https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2021/denton.htm#013510050)

Grade separations at key intersections along US-380 is better than nothing. Still, it's kind of disappointing. They should have started improving the US-380 corridor 20 years ago. It was already very obvious the direction of development was heading that way back in the mid to late 1990's. Now US-82 between Gainesville and Sherman is in a similar situation now.

Even if TX DOT (or other road building authorities) plan to build a new East-West super highway between the DNT and Loop 288 in Denton on a new alignment North of current US-380 their options for such a new alignment are disappearing fast. I wonder about other DFW area projects like the Colin County Outer Loop.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 23, 2020, 11:34:49 PM
Grade separations at key intersections along US-380 is better than nothing. Still, it's kind of disappointing. They should have started improving the US-380 corridor 20 years ago. It was already very obvious the direction of development was heading that way back in the mid to late 1990's. Now US-82 between Gainesville and Sherman is in a similar situation now.

Even if TX DOT (or other road building authorities) plan to build a new East-West super highway between the DNT and Loop 288 in Denton on a new alignment North of current US-380 their options for such a new alignment are disappearing fast. I wonder about other DFW area projects like the Colin County Outer Loop.

More in between Gainesville and Whitesboro.

...

Perhaps U.S. 380 should go on the Outer Loop.

The final route candidates for the US 380 Freeway in Denton County are now posted on the public meeting site.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/dallas/120220.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/dallas/120220.html)
Presentation with maps
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US%20380%20Denton%20County%20Feasibility%20Study_VPM%20Presentation_FINAL.pdf (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US%20380%20Denton%20County%20Feasibility%20Study_VPM%20Presentation_FINAL.pdf)

All the route options except blue are totally ridiculous for serving trips on the US 380 corridor. Vastly indirect, winding like a snake and highly inefficient. All except the blue option are either on the Outer Loop alignment, or within 1 mile of it.  It looks like they mostly discarded the original universe of options, since all except blue don't even match to a universe option.

I have a bad feeling that one of the absurd alignments will be selected. One reason is that there is already a $160 million improvement project on the existing (blue) alignment scheduled to receive bids in May, and selecting the blue alignment would likely require that work to be torn out. Another reason is that in North Texas, ridiculous alignments are often justified by saying they'll promote development in undeveloped areas, or that they'll serve unserved areas (as opposed to using an existing corridor).

Since the Orange and Teal alignments are actually on the outer loop alignment, and the purple and yellow alignments are within one mile of the outer loop alignment, they are all redundant with the outer loop. If the blue option is not selected, my view is that they should just go ahead and build it on the outer loop alignment, which means the teal alignment. That would also cover the route 428 freeway, which is in Denton's long term plan.

Of course I hope the blue option is selected. My only glimmer of hope is that on the Evaluation Criteria matrix it has the least impact on the floodplain and greenbelt, and also the least residential displacements. And since environmental impact weighs so heavily, that could be a deciding factor.

The "Right of Way to be acquired" numbers appear to be off by a factor of 10. The numbers seem reasonable if you divide by 10. A 400-foot-wide corridor requires around 50 acres per mile, but most of the options use some existing right-of-way, so the average needed would be less than 50, and blue needs only about 24 acres per mile, far less than the others, which could also help it win.

I'll hope for the best and prepare for the worst when the final decision is rendered.

The blue alignment seems like a no brainer. It might also be prudent to build the teal alignment even with a blue alignment built.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 02, 2020, 08:17:06 PM
The blue alignment seems like a no brainer. It might also be prudent to build the teal alignment even with a blue alignment built.

The blue alignment would seem to be a no-brainer, but reasonable logic is not necessarily used in these modern alignment studies. We can't expect reasonable logic to prevail.

The outer loop (teal alignment) is part of the regional long-term and will probably be built eventually. Emphasize probably and eventually. But if an alignment close to the outer loop (but not on it) is selected, for example some combination of purple and/or orange, it could cause the outer loop to lose its independent utility, and lose its justification for being built.

Quote from: MaxConcrete on December 02, 2020, 08:30:20 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 02, 2020, 08:17:06 PM
The blue alignment seems like a no brainer. It might also be prudent to build the teal alignment even with a blue alignment built.

The blue alignment would seem to be a no-brainer, but reasonable logic is not necessarily used in these modern alignment studies. We can't expect reasonable logic to prevail.

The outer loop (teal alignment) is part of the regional long-term and will probably be built eventually. Emphasize probably and eventually. But if an alignment close to the outer loop (but not on it) is selected, for example some combination of purple and/or orange, it could cause the outer loop to lose its independent utility, and lose its justification for being built.

I do have some hope though as there is a survey and they mention the very same thing you do about the teal alignment being built even with another alignment built. I can't imagine any other alignment chosen besides blue where they still decide to build the teal alignment so that gives some glimmer of hope the blue alignment will in fact be the chosen one. It's also among the least expensive and most direct(less miles). They would be crazy not to choose it.

The proposed Blue alignment for US-380 really is the only option that makes any sense. So many new housing developments are eating away big chunks of potential ROW land both North and South of the existing US-380 corridor. The pace of real estate development is rapid enough that any of the wildly crooked, indirect route proposals (yellow, purple, orange or teal) would probably end up being every bit as difficult to build as the far more direct Blue route.

The Blue route would definitely require the purchase and removal of existing (and fairly new) commercial properties along one side (or even both sides) of US-380. I think clearing commercial properties is going to be easier (less controversial) to do than bulldozing through a relatively new subdivision of McMansion homes.

The Blue route also has another advantage: FEWER miles of road to build.

The other proposed routes come so close to the Outer Loop it almost creates and either-or situation for either corridor. A couple of the route options overlap portions of the Dallas North Tollway and/or the Outer Loop extension.

Enough growth is happening in that region that "either-or" for US-380 vs the Outer Loop is not a sensible option. It would be like going a few miles South and going back in time to make everyone choose between the Bush Turnpike and TX-121 toll road for which superhighway to keep and which one to never build. Both turned out to be extremely necessary. There are just as many miles separating US-380 and the Outer Loop corridor as the Bush Turnpike and TX-121.

I think they need to figure out some way how to get the Blue option for US-380 turned into a reality or just not bother with it at all. Further, various planning bodies need to stop farting around in regards to the Outer Loop corridor. They had better get the minimum of a Super 2 established ASAP to get ROW acquisition moving. Otherwise it will be a hopeless fantasy to build. AND they need to be looking hard at US-82 farther to the North.

Folks in Celina and Aubrey will really love the teal alignment. It basically extends the Outer Loop west and runs 380 up the Tollway. I sure hope these concurrent segments are free. It might also spark faster work on the Outer Loop at least to 75.

https://communityimpact.com/dallas-fort-worth/mckinney/government/2020/12/15/city-council-recommends-potential-us-380-alignment-through-mckinney/ (https://communityimpact.com/dallas-fort-worth/mckinney/government/2020/12/15/city-council-recommends-potential-us-380-alignment-through-mckinney/)

McKinney is promoting a a different alignment on the west end of the Collin County section, the alignment B shown below. The article says McKinney reaffirmed its opposition to a freeway on the existing 380 alignment. TxDOT is holding a scoping session this month about the alignment. I'm thinking there's a good chance the B option could be adopted since it follows a corridor of undeveloped land.

(https://communityimpact.com/uploads/images/2020/12/15/106274.jpg)

Put me down for B_E_C. The fewer sharp corners, the better.

B and F should both be built.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 10, 2021, 12:52:06 AM
B and F should both be built.

B, E, and C should be the freeway route.

US 380 on option F is already a landlocked 3x3 arterial with a median no wider than needed for left turn lanes for most of the corridor west of US 75 to Coit Road. Hard to see much more that can be done in most of that stretch without major business and residential displacements. Even connecting option B back into the existing corridor will create significant issues around Coit Road.

Quote from: r15-1 on January 19, 2021, 01:02:11 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 10, 2021, 12:52:06 AM
B and F should both be built.

B, E, and C should be the freeway route.

US 380 on option F is already a landlocked 3x3 arterial with a median no wider than needed for left turn lanes for most of the corridor west of US 75 to Coit Road. Hard to see much more that can be done in most of that stretch without major business and residential displacements. Even connecting option B back into the existing corridor will create significant issues around Coit Road.

McKinney Big Dig  :bigass:

I wonder if B, E, and C are ultimately chosen if TxDOT will opt to do any spot upgrades along the current 380 like grade separations where possible or perhaps a Jersey style median and RIRO for most spots. Not sure if that would be good for the area or discourage development.

The combination of the "B" "E" and "C" segments would be the least crappy of the bypass alternatives around the busiest part of McKinney (the US-75/US-380 intersection). The farthest North "peak" of the "B" segment is about 2.5 miles North of the existing US-380 alignment. That's not too terribly bad.

Still, even if the existing US-380 alignment cannot be fully upgraded to Interstate standards, it will be increasingly necessary to do major improvements along the route anyway. Some intersections need grade separations for thru traffic. I think some other street outlets and drive ways need to be cut-off from the US-380 main lanes.

US-380 is currently a slog anywhere within half a mile of the US-75 interchange. There's lots of traffic lights closely spaced together and tons of driveways and other side streets dumping traffic directly onto US-380 with no filtering at all. It would be really nice if there was some kind of elevated 4-lane structure that carried thru US-380 traffic over the US-75 interchange and dodge possibly half a dozen or more traffic signals along the way.

^

Improvements along US-380 could involve a jersey freeway-like design such like the one used along US-90 Alt outside Houston. RIRO driveways and minor roads, no median crossovers, and grade separations at crossroads to eliminate signals.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/29.6155676,-95.5463129/29.6770708,-95.4279803/@29.6486409,-95.4884621,13913m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0

A grade separation in the existing corridor at the Coit Road intersection is a must to prevent a major bottleneck there. Eastbound and westbound flyover ramps to connect to and from the B-E-C freeway alignment should be part of that grade separation just east of Coit Road.

Even if the grade separation doesn't continue further east of the freeway split, getting traffic onto and off of the new freeway alignment smoothly has to be a top priority.

And there should be enough room in the existing corridor to continue the freeway west of Coit Road past Preston Road and the Dallas North Tollway almost to SH 423 before it gets landlocked again.   

The meeting video is now online (a day early) and the other online items including presentation should be online tomorrow. https://www.drive380.com/coitfm1827 (https://www.drive380.com/coitfm1827)
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL8-adbE5U8
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL8-adbE5U8)
The video is long. The only difference in the options being considered as compared to the recommended alignment of the feasibility study are at the east and west ends.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20210120-screenshot.jpg&hash=7de2f99e549af3e79ca85391724c4aba43cc5ac0)

At the east end, the video narration mentions that alignment D, which is recommended by the feasibility study, will be more expensive to build than alignment C, and D will have greater environmental impact than C. That leads me to think alignment C is probably going to be favored. Alignment C does cause a problem with interfacing into the Spur 399 connection, which is the purple section in the map below. If C is selected, I'm thinking Spur 399 will need to be realigned on the east side of the airport. A separate study will consider Spur 399.

The video mentions that the E alignment has been refined since the feasibility study, which suggests it is a sure thing.

On the west end, the video does not mention any problems with A or B, but the City of McKinney favors B.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20210120-screenshot-feasiblity-study.jpg&hash=993ec4272ad5ce250c21116cd4eb1df33ed3eb17)

Quote from: r15-IA grade separation in the existing corridor at the Coit Road intersection is a must to prevent a major bottleneck there. Eastbound and westbound flyover ramps to connect to and from the B-E-C freeway alignment should be part of that grade separation just east of Coit Road.

The intersection of Coit Road and US-380 looks like it will be turned into a freeway interchange since all the freeway route alternatives run over that spot. The US-380 intersection with the Dallas North Tollway is basically the starting point of the whole she-bang. The freeway upgrade should be able to stretch to the Coit Road intersection fairly easy and go maybe a couple miles west of the DNT toward Denton.

The bigger question is what will happen at major intersections along US-380 closer to McKinney and Denton? Several grade separations along the way are being discussed and have been illustrated. The end result could bring those parts of US-380 closer to "Jersey Freeway" standards. But really that's only going to be able to work as an interim solution. Remember commuters in 'Jersey have more options than driving on US-1. Services like commuter rail are far less developed in DFW.

This area North of Dallas and Fort Worth is just going to keep adding more and more new residents and businesses, putting ever more strain on the main arterials like US-380, even if there is a freeway (or toll road) bypass around McKinney and Denton. There may be plenty of opposition to upgrade US-380 to an Interstate quality freeway thru the middle of McKinney and Denton. But as more and more traffic piles onto that route it will force more and more upgrades. That means more grade separations, removals of driveways, more side streets being cut off and/or adding segments of frontage roads. 100% limited access on US-380 could be an eventual development, even if it takes 20-30 years.

Personally I think the Sam Rayburn needs to be extended past Airport Road to Princeton. I don't think 380 alone will be enough to serve traffic there in a very few years.

Yeah, extending the Sam Rayburn toll road farther East to meet up with the US-380 corridor in Princeton would be a good idea. Long term: I think the US-380 corridor needs an Interstate upgrade between McKinney and Greenville, where US-380 meets up with I-30. The TX-121 toll road already feeds into the US-380 corridor to some degree. An extension to the toll road would move the traffic more efficiently and get more of it off the surface streets.

There are some obstacles just after the point where the TX-121 toll road ends, Spur 399 really, as it turns into McDonald Street. There is a large, former landfill near the corner of McDonald Street and the recently 4-laned FM-546/Harry McKillop Blvd. Just South of the landfill: the Heard Natural Science Museum and Wildlife Sanctuary. And then there is a bunch of McMansions and park land South of that. Any possible freeway/toll-road alignment has to somehow thread its way North of the former landfill and then somehow get around the airport and over to US-380.

TxDOT has posted materials for the Spur 399 public meeting.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/Spur399PublicMeeting (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/Spur399PublicMeeting)

This is part of the EIS process in which the two previously identified alternatives are being studied in more detail. There's no news in this meeting. However, the information provided makes me think there is a very high probability that the orange alignment, east of the airport, will be selected, especially because the City of McKinney is "strongly opposed to a freeway west of the airport". However, another influence not mentioned in the materials is the alignment of US 380 freeway north of the existing US 380. It probably would be desirable for Spur 399 to connect to the US 380 freeway at the point where the US 380 freeway will veer north. (See map shown 25 seconds into the presentation video.)

Both options are expensive, possibly due to 2+ miles of bridges on each option.

Purple option, west of airport: 4.4 miles long, 117 acres ROW required, $601 million. It will displace a large Amazon distribution facility.
Orange option, east of the airport: 6.25 miles long, 233 acres ROW required, $706 million.

The alignment recommendation is expected in summer 2022.

The agenda for next week's TxDOT commission meeting lists eminent domain for 130 parcels for US 380 in Collin County. This is by far the most eminent domain action on a specific route that I've seen in a single month. This means the project is moving full speed ahead. I'm assuming that all the parcels are east of McKinney where the project is already funded and the route is finalized. When the specific parcels are identified (after the meeting), I'll update this post.

See pages 9-12
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2021/1130/agenda.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2021/1130/agenda.pdf)

UPDATE: the details about these US 380 parcels are now available, and it turns out that nearly all of the parcels are along the existing US 380 through the city of Princeton. This is not the alignment of the planned freeway, since the freeway will be on a bypass north of the city. These parcels are mostly very small, 500 to 2000 square feet, to widen the corridor by about 15 feet. This is surprising, since there is plenty of space available to add a third lane in each direction if needed. Maybe this strip of land is to accommodate a shared use trail, to extend the trail that already exists east of North 4th Street. This would a very large number of parcels to acquire for a shared use trail.

The recommended alignment for US 380 in Denton County is now posted on the meeting web site
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3 (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3)
Presentation with maps
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US%20380%20Denton%20County%20Feasibility%20Study_PM%203%20Presentation_FINAL.pdf (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US%20380%20Denton%20County%20Feasibility%20Study_PM%203%20Presentation_FINAL.pdf)

Good news!! The existing US 380 (blue option) is the recommended alignment. In fact, a section of the blue option that was shown to run just south of the existing US 380 at Spiritas Ranch has been shifted to be back on the existing alignment. This means the recommended alignment is the straightest and most efficient possible. The only downside is that substantial right-of-way clearance will be needed, mostly fuel stations, convenience stores, fast food restaurants and strip centers. No residential displacements are needed, which is why it remained feasible.

The other alternatives considered (yellow, purple and orange) were ridiculous, but we've seen TxDOT select highly inefficient alignments for other freeways, so there was no assurance the logical choice would be made.

The outer loop alignment (teal) will continue to be studied and is now slated to connect to IH 35. It appears that the route 428 alignment has been removed from consideration as a freeway. That's disappointing, because I think it will be needed.

The YouTube presentation says that work will likely start with the connection to Loop 288 (which is a greenfield route), then proceed to build the frontage roads, and eventually the main lanes.

Now that the route has been identified, look for a building boom of more strip developments along existing 380 within the ROW footprint as landowners look to "cash in."

Quote from: Road Hog on November 30, 2021, 11:37:16 PM
Now that the route has been identified, look for a building boom of more strip developments along existing 380 within the ROW footprint as landowners look to "cash in."

This thing should be freeway all the way from I-30 (Greenville) to Decatur (US-287).
.

Quote from: Road Hog on November 30, 2021, 11:37:16 PM
Now that the route has been identified, look for a building boom of more strip developments along existing 380 within the ROW footprint as landowners look to "cash in."

At least Texas has high property taxes that penalize speculators.

Quote from: MaxConcreteThe outer loop alignment (teal) will continue to be studied and is now slated to connect to IH 35. It appears that the route 428 alignment has been removed from consideration as a freeway. That's disappointing, because I think it will be needed.

Yeah, the suburbs North of Dallas and Fort Worth just keep growing. With or without an upgraded US-380 and a parallel super highway a few miles North (the teal corridor on Page 14) the new housing subdivisions are just going to keep plopping in that region, gobbling up big chunks of land quickly.

Much of FM-428 between the Denton Loop and FM-2153 is undeveloped. But it's easy to see the beginnings of a growth trend there. In a few years it may look like areas around US-287 Northwest of Fort Worth: blowing up like crazy with new housing. TX DOT had better at least secure enough ROW so FM-428 can be upgraded into a wide surface street with 2 or 3 lanes in each direction. It's just a 2-lane route currently.

The Teal corridor on Page 14 of the PDF looks like it will be part of the larger DFW outer loop. It looks like it would tie into the Colin County Outer Loop.

If TX DOT can pull this off US-380 will be a pretty good corridor between Denton and the Dallas North Tollway. The more tricky thing is what will be done with US-380 going East into McKinney. It looks like the final version of that corridor may be quite a bit more curvy.

Quote from: MaxConcrete on November 30, 2021, 08:07:52 PM
The recommended alignment for US 380 in Denton County is now posted on the meeting web site
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3 (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3)
Presentation with maps
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US%20380%20Denton%20County%20Feasibility%20Study_PM%203%20Presentation_FINAL.pdf (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US%20380%20Denton%20County%20Feasibility%20Study_PM%203%20Presentation_FINAL.pdf)

Good news!! The existing US 380 (blue option) is the recommended alignment. In fact, a section of the blue option that was shown to run just south of the existing US 380 at Spiritas Ranch has been shifted to be back on the existing alignment. This means the recommended alignment is the straightest and most efficient possible. The only downside is that substantial right-of-way clearance will be needed, mostly fuel stations, convenience stores, fast food restaurants and strip centers. No residential displacements are needed, which is why it remained feasible.

The other alternatives considered (yellow, purple and orange) were ridiculous, but we've seen TxDOT select highly inefficient alignments for other freeways, so there was no assurance the logical choice would be made.

The outer loop alignment (teal) will continue to be studied and is now slated to connect to IH 35. It appears that the route 428 alignment has been removed from consideration as a freeway. That's disappointing, because I think it will be needed.

The YouTube presentation says that work will likely start with the connection to Loop 288 (which is a greenfield route), then proceed to build the frontage roads, and eventually the main lanes.

The blue option was the only logical choice. I sure is nice to see common sense prevail.

I'm glad northern DFW is getting a new east-west freeway that isn't tolled.

Quote from: kernals12 on December 01, 2021, 04:57:04 PM

Quote from: Road Hog on November 30, 2021, 11:37:16 PM
Now that the route has been identified, look for a building boom of more strip developments along existing 380 within the ROW footprint as landowners look to "cash in."

At least Texas has high property taxes that penalize speculators.

In some cases yes, in others no. You can still get agricultural exemptions on much of it and put straw owners in the houses and claim homestead exemptions. Even with high property taxes, you don't plan on holding them long enough for the taxes to matter.

Quote from: bwana39 on December 02, 2021, 12:55:03 AM

Quote from: kernals12 on December 01, 2021, 04:57:04 PM

Quote from: Road Hog on November 30, 2021, 11:37:16 PM
Now that the route has been identified, look for a building boom of more strip developments along existing 380 within the ROW footprint as landowners look to "cash in."

At least Texas has high property taxes that penalize speculators.

In some cases yes, in others no. You can still get agricultural exemptions on much of it and put straw owners in the houses and claim homestead exemptions. Even with high property taxes, you don't plan on holding them long enough for the taxes to matter.

The Cost of those property taxes are capitalized in the value of the property, so it does matter

This is excellent news but I still think they should build the teal outer loop alignment.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 02, 2021, 12:23:44 PM
This is excellent news but I still think they should build the teal outer loop alignment.

They will be building both the 380 freeway and the outer loop.

Quote from: thisdj78 on December 02, 2021, 01:52:59 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 02, 2021, 12:23:44 PM
This is excellent news but I still think they should build the teal outer loop alignment.

They will be building both the 380 freeway and the outer loop.

Oh very nice I had missed that.

Quote from: kernals12 on December 02, 2021, 11:42:31 AM

Quote from: bwana39 on December 02, 2021, 12:55:03 AM

Quote from: kernals12 on December 01, 2021, 04:57:04 PM

Quote from: Road Hog on November 30, 2021, 11:37:16 PM
Now that the route has been identified, look for a building boom of more strip developments along existing 380 within the ROW footprint as landowners look to "cash in."

At least Texas has high property taxes that penalize speculators.

In some cases yes, in others no. You can still get agricultural exemptions on much of it and put straw owners in the houses and claim homestead exemptions. Even with high property taxes, you don't plan on holding them long enough for the taxes to matter.

The Cost of those property taxes are capitalized in the value of the property, so it does matter

Yes, you capitalize the tax expense IF you make the sale. If you are speculating, your property may not be in the actual ROW and the TAX EXPENSE adds nothing to the value of the property that may or may not increase in value.

Quote from: Brian556 on December 01, 2021, 09:02:59 PM

Quote from: MaxConcrete on November 30, 2021, 08:07:52 PM
The recommended alignment for US 380 in Denton County is now posted on the meeting web site
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3 (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3)
Presentation with maps
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US%20380%20Denton%20County%20Feasibility%20Study_PM%203%20Presentation_FINAL.pdf (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US%20380%20Denton%20County%20Feasibility%20Study_PM%203%20Presentation_FINAL.pdf)

Good news!! The existing US 380 (blue option) is the recommended alignment. In fact, a section of the blue option that was shown to run just south of the existing US 380 at Spiritas Ranch has been shifted to be back on the existing alignment. This means the recommended alignment is the straightest and most efficient possible. The only downside is that substantial right-of-way clearance will be needed, mostly fuel stations, convenience stores, fast food restaurants and strip centers. No residential displacements are needed, which is why it remained feasible.

The other alternatives considered (yellow, purple and orange) were ridiculous, but we've seen TxDOT select highly inefficient alignments for other freeways, so there was no assurance the logical choice would be made.

The outer loop alignment (teal) will continue to be studied and is now slated to connect to IH 35. It appears that the route 428 alignment has been removed from consideration as a freeway. That's disappointing, because I think it will be needed.

The YouTube presentation says that work will likely start with the connection to Loop 288 (which is a greenfield route), then proceed to build the frontage roads, and eventually the main lanes.

The blue option was the only logical choice. I sure is nice to see common sense prevail.

Agreed.  Have no dog in this fight, but it makes sense to upgrade what they already have.   Some of the turns on the orange and purple alignments were crazy.  What is the "Spiritas Ranch" - some kind of agricultural holdout in a rapidly sub-urbanizing area?   

Quote from: DJStephens on December 02, 2021, 10:27:34 PM

Quote from: Brian556 on December 01, 2021, 09:02:59 PM

Quote from: MaxConcrete on November 30, 2021, 08:07:52 PM
The recommended alignment for US 380 in Denton County is now posted on the meeting web site
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3 (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3)
Presentation with maps
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US%20380%20Denton%20County%20Feasibility%20Study_PM%203%20Presentation_FINAL.pdf (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US%20380%20Denton%20County%20Feasibility%20Study_PM%203%20Presentation_FINAL.pdf)

Good news!! The existing US 380 (blue option) is the recommended alignment. In fact, a section of the blue option that was shown to run just south of the existing US 380 at Spiritas Ranch has been shifted to be back on the existing alignment. This means the recommended alignment is the straightest and most efficient possible. The only downside is that substantial right-of-way clearance will be needed, mostly fuel stations, convenience stores, fast food restaurants and strip centers. No residential displacements are needed, which is why it remained feasible.

The other alternatives considered (yellow, purple and orange) were ridiculous, but we've seen TxDOT select highly inefficient alignments for other freeways, so there was no assurance the logical choice would be made.

The outer loop alignment (teal) will continue to be studied and is now slated to connect to IH 35. It appears that the route 428 alignment has been removed from consideration as a freeway. That's disappointing, because I think it will be needed.

The YouTube presentation says that work will likely start with the connection to Loop 288 (which is a greenfield route), then proceed to build the frontage roads, and eventually the main lanes.

The blue option was the only logical choice. I sure is nice to see common sense prevail.

Agreed.  Have no dog in this fight, but it makes sense to upgrade what they already have.   Some of the turns on the orange and purple alignments were crazy.  What is the "Spiritas Ranch" - some kind of agricultural holdout in a rapidly sub-urbanizing area?

It's a big housing development planned on the Little Elm side (south side) of 380.

https://starlocalmedia.com/littleelmjournal/news/little-elm-council-approves-agreement-for-2-100-home-spiritas-ranch-project/article_86f0bff6-6737-11eb-9694-978000754f66.html

It's a weird "no man's land" area: Little Elm city limits, Denton ISD, Aubrey mailing address and Prosper landline phone numbers.

ADD: I have a full kennel of dogs in this fight. I want dirt to start turning yesterday. I've noticed just in the last six months a huge increase in traffic in my area. It shouldn't take an hour to get from McKinney to Denton.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 01, 2021, 07:02:35 PM

Quote from: MaxConcreteThe outer loop alignment (teal) will continue to be studied and is now slated to connect to IH 35. It appears that the route 428 alignment has been removed from consideration as a freeway. That's disappointing, because I think it will be needed.

Yeah, the suburbs North of Dallas and Fort Worth just keep growing. With or without an upgraded US-380 and a parallel super highway a few miles North (the teal corridor on Page 14) the new housing subdivisions are just going to keep plopping in that region, gobbling up big chunks of land quickly.

Much of FM-428 between the Denton Loop and FM-2153 is undeveloped. But it's easy to see the beginnings of a growth trend there. In a few years it may look like areas around US-287 Northwest of Fort Worth: blowing up like crazy with new housing. TX DOT had better at least secure enough ROW so FM-428 can be upgraded into a wide surface street with 2 or 3 lanes in each direction. It's just a 2-lane route currently.

The Teal corridor on Page 14 of the PDF looks like it will be part of the larger DFW outer loop. It looks like it would tie into the Colin County Outer Loop.

If TX DOT can pull this off US-380 will be a pretty good corridor between Denton and the Dallas North Tollway. The more tricky thing is what will be done with US-380 going East into McKinney. It looks like the final version of that corridor may be quite a bit more curvy.

Quote

In a few years it may look like areas around US-287 Northwest of Fort Worth: blowing up like crazy with new housing. TX DOT had better at least secure enough ROW so FM-428 can be upgraded into a wide surface street with 2 or 3 lanes in each direction. It's just a 2-lane route currently.

Every Highway in Collin County, Denton County, and Wise County needs to be widened yesterday.

Quote from: kernals12 on December 01, 2021, 09:17:38 PM
I'm glad northern DFW is getting a new east-west freeway that isn't tolled.

They ought to keep every thing simple and build the Toll Roads.

Quote from: DJStephens on December 02, 2021, 10:27:34 PM

Quote from: Brian556 on December 01, 2021, 09:02:59 PM

Quote from: MaxConcrete on November 30, 2021, 08:07:52 PM
The recommended alignment for US 380 in Denton County is now posted on the meeting web site
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3
Presentation with maps
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US%20380%20Denton%20County%20Feasibility%20Study_PM%203%20Presentation_FINAL.pdf

Good news!! The existing US 380 (blue option) is the recommended alignment. In fact, a section of the blue option that was shown to run just south of the existing US 380 at Spiritas Ranch has been shifted to be back on the existing alignment. This means the recommended alignment is the straightest and most efficient possible. The only downside is that substantial right-of-way clearance will be needed, mostly fuel stations, convenience stores, fast food restaurants and strip centers. No residential displacements are needed, which is why it remained feasible.

The other alternatives considered (yellow, purple and orange) were ridiculous, but we've seen TxDOT select highly inefficient alignments for other freeways, so there was no assurance the logical choice would be made.

The outer loop alignment (teal) will continue to be studied and is now slated to connect to IH 35. It appears that the route 428 alignment has been removed from consideration as a freeway. That's disappointing, because I think it will be needed.

The YouTube presentation says that work will likely start with the connection to Loop 288 (which is a greenfield route), then proceed to build the frontage roads, and eventually the main lanes.

The blue option was the only logical choice. I sure is nice to see common sense prevail.

Agreed.  Have no dog in this fight, but it makes sense to upgrade what they already have.   Some of the turns on the orange and purple alignments were crazy.  What is the "Spiritas Ranch" - some kind of agricultural holdout in a rapidly sub-urbanizing area?   

Ranch is a Generic Designation in Texas.

Quote from: Road Hog on December 03, 2021, 12:37:08 AM

Quote from: DJStephens on December 02, 2021, 10:27:34 PM

Quote from: Brian556 on December 01, 2021, 09:02:59 PM

Quote from: MaxConcrete on November 30, 2021, 08:07:52 PM
The recommended alignment for US 380 in Denton County is now posted on the meeting web site
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3
Presentation with maps
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/0135-10-061_US%20380%20Denton%20County%20Feasibility%20Study_PM%203%20Presentation_FINAL.pdf

Good news!! The existing US 380 (blue option) is the recommended alignment. In fact, a section of the blue option that was shown to run just south of the existing US 380 at Spiritas Ranch has been shifted to be back on the existing alignment. This means the recommended alignment is the straightest and most efficient possible. The only downside is that substantial right-of-way clearance will be needed, mostly fuel stations, convenience stores, fast food restaurants and strip centers. No residential displacements are needed, which is why it remained feasible.

The other alternatives considered (yellow, purple and orange) were ridiculous, but we've seen TxDOT select highly inefficient alignments for other freeways, so there was no assurance the logical choice would be made.

The outer loop alignment (teal) will continue to be studied and is now slated to connect to IH 35. It appears that the route 428 alignment has been removed from consideration as a freeway. That's disappointing, because I think it will be needed.

The YouTube presentation says that work will likely start with the connection to Loop 288 (which is a greenfield route), then proceed to build the frontage roads, and eventually the main lanes.

The blue option was the only logical choice. I sure is nice to see common sense prevail.

Agreed.  Have no dog in this fight, but it makes sense to upgrade what they already have.   Some of the turns on the orange and purple alignments were crazy.  What is the "Spiritas Ranch" - some kind of agricultural holdout in a rapidly sub-urbanizing area?

It's a big housing development planned on the Little Elm side (south side) of 380.

https://starlocalmedia.com/littleelmjournal/news/little-elm-council-approves-agreement-for-2-100-home-spiritas-ranch-project/article_86f0bff6-6737-11eb-9694-978000754f66.html

It's a weird "no man's land" area: Little Elm city limits, Denton ISD, Aubrey mailing address and Prosper landline phone numbers.

ADD: I have a full kennel of dogs in this fight. I want dirt to start turning yesterday. I've noticed just in the last six months a huge increase in traffic in my area. It shouldn't take an hour to get from McKinney to Denton.

Quote

It's a weird "no man's land" area: Little Elm city limits, Denton ISD, Aubrey mailing address and Prosper landline phone numbers.

This reminds me of the area between Denton and Lewisville where the area is known by billions and billions of names. Even the same streets have different names. These include but are not limited to: Corinth, Flower Mound, Hickory Creek, Highland Village, and Lake Dallas. I simply refer to the area nearest to Denton as Corinth and the area nearest to Lewisville as Flower Mound.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/construction-begins-monday-three-year-project-improve-traffic-us-380/287-b0936e3b-312a-4c1a-993d-146c42c34381

Getting started on the Denton County portion.

That should be a good start. Once that segment gets going I think it will create increasing pressure to get the additional segments built thru or around Denton and McKinney.

I thought that was just upgrading the road to a divided highway. I didn't think they were already getting started on the freeway. I would've thought such a project would be bigger nees.

TX DOT should have started planning for a freeway upgrade of US-380 between Denton and McKinney back in the early 1990's. The work they're starting is more than 20 years overdue. Some of the existing 4-lane and 6-lane portions weren't upgraded from 2-lanes into that until the late 1990's going into the early 2000's. If they hadn't piddled around the freeway upgrade would have been able to follow along more of US-380. And much of the work would be finished already. The Denton and McKinney segments are going to go bending all over the place.

US-82 farther North between Gainesville and Sherman is currently threatening to turn into a similar mess. At least US-82 is limited access going thru Sherman.

I'm not as worried about US 82 in Grayson County because it has a sufficient ROW footprint already as an expressway. There are driveways and grade intersections for sure west of US 75, but there are options for a remedy. TxDOT planned a little better east of Sherman and to the Lamar County line.

The stretch of US-82 between US-377 (Whitesboro) and US-75 (Sherman) isn't too bad for now. The segment of US-82 between Gainesville and Whitesboro is more of a mess, particularly the area immediately East of Gainesville to the intersection with FM-678. The "US 82 Relief Route" TX DOT studied years ago had less to do with moving thru traffic on US-82 and more to do with North-South traffic on I-35.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 12, 2022, 02:18:56 PM
The stretch of US-82 between US-377 (Whitesboro) and US-75 (Sherman) isn't too bad for now. The segment of US-82 between Gainesville and Whitesboro is more of a mess, particularly the area immediately East of Gainesville to the intersection with FM-678. The "US 82 Relief Route" TX DOT studied years ago had less to do with moving thru traffic on US-82 and more to do with North-South traffic on I-35.

Actually the entirety of US-82 between the two ends of SH-56 (the former routing of US-82) has ROW for 2x2 mainlanes as well as through frontage roads on both sides. To be exact from the Cooke County line to the Lamar County Line. (On the west end that is about a mile past SH-56 on the east they are pretty much at the same place. ) The ROW is there even at Whitesboro HS. Some of the access will wind up changing, but the ROW is there. 

Cooke County is a different story. Likewise Lamar.

That's a sort of different way of saying what I said. US-82 is a mess from Gainesville (in Cooke County) going East to the Grayson County line just West of Whitesboro. It would be much more simple to upgrade US-82 within Grayson County since all the ROW is there. Farther East into Fannin County isn't bad either. The segment of US-82 going into Paris, TX isn't nearly as upgrade-ready. But it's not nearly as much of a mess as what's going on at the East side of Gainesville. Any thru freeway upgrades of US-82 in Gainesville will likely require a new terrain freeway bypass. A partial or full loop around Gainesville will probably be the eventual outcome.

TxDOT now recommends a freeway alignment for US 380 in Denton County:

https://communityimpact.com/dallas-fort-worth/frisco/transportation/2022/01/12/txdot-officials-recommend-freeway-alignment-for-us-380-in-denton-county/ (https://communityimpact.com/dallas-fort-worth/frisco/transportation/2022/01/12/txdot-officials-recommend-freeway-alignment-for-us-380-in-denton-county/)

Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on January 15, 2022, 04:28:48 AM
TxDOT now recommends a freeway alignment for US 380 in Denton County:

https://communityimpact.com/dallas-fort-worth/frisco/transportation/2022/01/12/txdot-officials-recommend-freeway-alignment-for-us-380-in-denton-county/ (https://communityimpact.com/dallas-fort-worth/frisco/transportation/2022/01/12/txdot-officials-recommend-freeway-alignment-for-us-380-in-denton-county/)

It is past recommendation...

Quote from: bwana39 on January 10, 2022, 08:09:34 AM
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/construction-begins-monday-three-year-project-improve-traffic-us-380/287-b0936e3b-312a-4c1a-993d-146c42c34381

Getting started on the Denton County portion.

Quote from: bwana39 on January 15, 2022, 10:50:20 AM

Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on January 15, 2022, 04:28:48 AM
TxDOT now recommends a freeway alignment for US 380 in Denton County:

https://communityimpact.com/dallas-fort-worth/frisco/transportation/2022/01/12/txdot-officials-recommend-freeway-alignment-for-us-380-in-denton-county/ (https://communityimpact.com/dallas-fort-worth/frisco/transportation/2022/01/12/txdot-officials-recommend-freeway-alignment-for-us-380-in-denton-county/)

It is past recommendation...

Quote from: bwana39 on January 10, 2022, 08:09:34 AM
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/construction-begins-monday-three-year-project-improve-traffic-us-380/287-b0936e3b-312a-4c1a-993d-146c42c34381

Getting started on the Denton County portion.

I'll be darned, they are actually constructing 10 miles of the US 380 freeway. The area needs it for sure, after the traffic increases.

There seems to be confusion here: the current construction project will widen 380 and construct 5 grade separations. It will not turn 380 into a freeway.

Quote from: kernals12 on January 15, 2022, 09:32:02 PM
There seems to be confusion here: the current construction project will widen 380 and construct 5 grade separations. It will not turn 380 into a freeway.

I originally thought that none of US 380 in Texas was a freeway, maybe for that instance I should've sticked to my first instinct. However, TxDOT recommends to upgrade US 380 into a freeway.

^ The current project is grade separations and widening.

In the future, they recommend a full freeway.

Articles are written by those w/o a construction or engineering background.  Details are sparse.   While not intimate with the area, was in Denton last spring, and evidence of growth and real estate activity was widespread.   They really should have seen this coming, years, if not three decades ago. 

Quote from: DJStephens on January 16, 2022, 11:17:53 AM
Articles are written by those w/o a construction or engineering background.  Details are sparse.   While not intimate with the area, was in Denton last spring, and evidence of growth and real estate activity was widespread.   They really should have seen this coming, years, if not three decades ago.

If they built it 3 decades ago, it almost certainly would've been as a tollway.

A public meeting was held yesterday. http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380EISPublicMeeting (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380EISPublicMeeting)
This meeting focused on the remaining options for the McKinney bypass.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keepitmovingdallas.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocs%2FWelcome_0.jpg&hash=f6de01f328b9c91628881f327fe7d8a386ea9aa4)

Observations

• The planned freeway is 4x4 with continuous frontage roads for the entire length
• Segment E, which is the final alignment, has a very long elevated section at US 75 mainly due to the Trinity flood plain, but also due to road crossings. It is about 3 miles long and the frontage roads are also elevated. Looking at the schematic, you can see the abundance of elevated structures especially east of US 75. This is going to be expensive.
• Segment D is on elevated structures for its entire length due to being in the Trinity flood plain. This is an expensive option.
• The interchange at US 75 is a four-level interchange. Both directions of frontage roads go through the interchange, but they don't intersect.
• I think the the B-E-C is most likely to be recommended
• The recommended alternative will be revealed in early 2023. Earliest construction start is 2026.

By "elevated," was it stated whether it's mostly berm or mostly bridge? (I'm sure there will be both, of course.)

Quote from: Road Hog on March 23, 2022, 09:21:41 PM
By "elevated," was it stated whether it's mostly berm or mostly bridge? (I'm sure there will be both, of course.)

Looking at the schematic, all elevated structures are shown as bridges. The schematic shows the pier positions, leaving no doubt it is a bridge.

Hopefully the B-E-C option will be selected. The "A" and "D" options are just too crooked. "B" and "C" are more gradual and could either allow higher speeds or just be safer at normal speeds.

I like how they're proposing it as a 4x4 lane configuration. I was worried it might be built as 3x3 or even 3x3 but striped as 2x2. Hopefully there will be at least some space left over in the ROW for later upgrades to 5x5.

They'd be wise to build the bridge to easily be expanded to a 5x5.

As long as some of the bridges may be it could be too much of an extravagance to build them out with 5x5 potential capacity but stripe them as 4x4 lanes. We'll just have to see how it pans out. My main hope is they're able to just build the damned thing (as well as the other US-380 upgrade projects West of this one).

I'm quite glad this will be a freeway. With the combination of the DNT, 121, and PGBT, it's quite difficult to get around the northern suburbs without using toll roads. A freeway will be a nice change of pace.

Quote from: Cerlin on March 24, 2022, 05:20:59 PM
I'm quite glad this will be a freeway. With the combination of the DNT, 121, and PGBT, it's quite difficult to get around the northern suburbs without using toll roads. A freeway will be a nice change of pace.

A toll road is still a freeway.

The term freeway does not indicate whether a road has tolls or not. It's referring to the design of the road, fully controlled access, free of obstructions, etc.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 24, 2022, 06:23:26 PM

Quote from: Cerlin on March 24, 2022, 05:20:59 PM
I'm quite glad this will be a freeway. With the combination of the DNT, 121, and PGBT, it's quite difficult to get around the northern suburbs without using toll roads. A freeway will be a nice change of pace.

A toll road is still a freeway.

The term freeway does not indicate whether a road has tolls or not. It's referring to the design of the road, fully controlled access, free of obstructions, etc.

Whoops. Let me clarify. I'm quite glad this will be a freeway without tolls. With the combination of the DNT, 121, and PGBT, it's quite difficult to get around the northern suburbs without using toll roads. A freeway without tolls will be a nice change of pace. Given the language of all the TXDOT reports, it doesn't appear as if they are putting tolls on it.

Quote from: MaxConcrete on March 23, 2022, 08:44:39 PM
A public meeting was held yesterday. http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380EISPublicMeeting (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380EISPublicMeeting)
This meeting focused on the remaining options for the McKinney bypass.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keepitmovingdallas.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocs%2FWelcome_0.jpg&hash=f6de01f328b9c91628881f327fe7d8a386ea9aa4)

Observations

• The planned freeway is 4x4 with continuous frontage roads for the entire length
• Segment E, which is the final alignment, has a very long elevated section at US 75 mainly due to the Trinity flood plain, but also due to road crossings. It is about 3 miles long and the frontage roads are also elevated. Looking at the schematic, you can see the abundance of elevated structures especially east of US 75. This is going to be expensive.
• Segment D is on elevated structures for its entire length due to being in the Trinity flood plain. This is an expensive option.
• The interchange at US 75 is a four-level interchange. Both directions of frontage roads go through the interchange, but they don't intersect.
• I think the the B-E-C is most likely to be recommended
• The recommended alternative will be revealed in early 2023. Earliest construction start is 2026.

&

Quote from: Road Hog on March 23, 2022, 09:21:41 PM
By "elevated," was it stated whether it's mostly berm or mostly bridge? (I'm sure there will be both, of course.)

&

Quote from: MaxConcrete on March 23, 2022, 09:33:37 PM

Quote from: Road Hog on March 23, 2022, 09:21:41 PM
By "elevated," was it stated whether it's mostly berm or mostly bridge? (I'm sure there will be both, of course.)

Looking at the schematic, all elevated structures are shown as bridges. The schematic shows the pier positions, leaving no doubt it is a bridge.

I can hear them all ready:

"Oh No! Not A Bridge! Not Another Unstylish Bridge!!".

Toll It Now, to keep this Beautiful Bridge safe, and to Thrush The Protestors.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 24, 2022, 12:14:22 AM
As long as some of the bridges may be it could be too much of an extravagance to build them out with 5x5 potential capacity but stripe them as 4x4 lanes. We'll just have to see how it pans out. My main hope is they're able to just build the damned thing (as well as the other US-380 upgrade projects West of this one).

If they reach a point where this freeway is suffering major congestion, they can always de-toll the Sam Rayburn Tollway.

Quote from: kernals12 on March 25, 2022, 12:56:13 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 24, 2022, 12:14:22 AM
As long as some of the bridges may be it could be too much of an extravagance to build them out with 5x5 potential capacity but stripe them as 4x4 lanes. We'll just have to see how it pans out. My main hope is they're able to just build the damned thing (as well as the other US-380 upgrade projects West of this one).

If they reach a point where this freeway is suffering major congestion, they can always de-toll the Sam Rayburn Tollway.

Could they simply widen this Beautiful Bridge after constructed? They did that to U.S. 82 Over Interstate 35 so that they could add Turnaround Lanes.

As far as another future east-west traffic relief corridor, progress is progressing on the progression of the Collin County Outer Loop a few miles north. At least one frontage road will be complete across Celina in about a year. I want to see an extension to US 75 ASAP.

One of the first pieces of ROW reserved for the Colin County Outer Loop was connected to US-75 ten years ago. The road spans from US-75 on East to TX-121.

Quote from: Road Hog on March 25, 2022, 11:27:18 PM
As far as another future east-west traffic relief corridor, progress is progressing on the progression of the Collin County Outer Loop a few miles north. At least one frontage road will be complete across Celina in about a year. I want to see an extension to US 75 ASAP.

It looks like this outer loop is going to run very close to the McKinney Bypass

So far 2-lane portions of Segments 1 and 3 of the Colin County Outer Loop have been built. The 2 lane sections were built just to establish the corridor's foot print and secure ROW. Those existing 2-lane segments will probably act as parts of the frontage roads later. The whole route (which is part of the larger Loop 9 project) is shown here:
https://www.collincountytx.gov/mobility/pages/outerloop.aspx

A report about the opposition to alignment B.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/2022/04/07/us-380-highway-bypass-plan-faces-opposition-in-north-collin-county-heres-a-look-at-the-plans/ (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/2022/04/07/us-380-highway-bypass-plan-faces-opposition-in-north-collin-county-heres-a-look-at-the-plans/)

(https://cdn.thinglink.me/api/image/1568407288140529665/2560/2560/scaletowidth?e=Po9RvtFdRHFuLvFb3Ucowd)

Quote from: MaxConcrete on April 11, 2022, 10:32:16 PM
A report about the opposition to alignment B.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/2022/04/07/us-380-highway-bypass-plan-faces-opposition-in-north-collin-county-heres-a-look-at-the-plans/ (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/2022/04/07/us-380-highway-bypass-plan-faces-opposition-in-north-collin-county-heres-a-look-at-the-plans/)

(https://cdn.thinglink.me/api/image/1568407288140529665/2560/2560/scaletowidth?e=Po9RvtFdRHFuLvFb3Ucowd)

If that horse farm wasn't taken for this project then at some point in the future, property taxes would force it out of business.

And there's plenty of other land for residential development nearby. And if this freeway isn't built, then this development is going to lead to a traffic apocalypse.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 25, 2022, 11:32:26 PM
One of the first pieces of ROW reserved for the Colin County Outer Loop was connected to US-75 ten years ago. The road spans from US-75 on East to TX-121.

I'm talking about a connection to 75 from the opposite side.

This "bypass" idea should be scrapped, and focus put on improving US - 380 itself, painful as it may be.   The northern bypass'  proximity to the Collin county outer loop makes it redundant.   

Quote from: DJStephens on April 12, 2022, 11:47:34 PM
This "bypass" idea should be scrapped, and focus put on improving US - 380 itself, painful as it may be.   The northern bypass'  proximity to the Collin county outer loop makes it redundant.   

I disagree. They need all the fully controlled access roads they can get here.

TX DOT goofed around for over 20 years doing nothing with the US-380 corridor between Denton and McKinney when it was clear to everyone that highway would have to be converted into a freeway at some point in the future. Now TX DOT and everyone else involved is looking at a lot of painful choices. Growth in the Northern reaches of the DFW metroplex shows no signs of slowing. New arrivals from the West Coast and Northeast US keep arriving all the time. So many people are arriving that the scope of that future US-380 freeway corridor needs to be expanded from just Denton-McKinney to a larger Decatur-Denton-McKinney-Greenville project.

TX DOT used to be really good at securing the ROW of future freeway corridors, typically building divided surface streets with huge medians. That policy created a hard-line physical barrier against any developer hijinks and other wavering political BS.

US-380 needs to be upgraded to an Interstate class freeway on as much of the existing ROW as possible. I think segments B, E and C for the proposed McKinney bypass is an acceptable solution. The US-380 main line through the middle of McKinney is just too overrun with development. A long elevated freeway is the only thing that could possibly work there. The four corners of the US-380/US-75 interchange are totally blocked in with development, making it impossible to build a directional interchange there without removing at least a couple dozen businesses.

Also, I think the McKinney bypass is far enough South from the Colin County Outer Loop that they would not be redundant. Further, TX DOT needs to get on the stick about US-82 between Gainesville and Sherman.

Does the dallasnews.com story mean that a US 380 freeway might not be constructed, given that opposition has sprung up against some of the alternatives for the McKinley Bypass?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 13, 2022, 09:58:48 PM
Does the dallasnews.com story mean that a US 380 freeway might not be constructed, given that opposition has sprung up against some of the alternatives for the McKinley Bypass?

No, I don't think the project is at risk. It is virtually certain to proceed, in my opinion.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 13, 2022, 11:23:40 AM
TX DOT goofed around for over 20 years doing nothing with the US-380 corridor between Denton and McKinney when it was clear to everyone that highway would have to be converted into a freeway at some point in the future. Now TX DOT and everyone else involved is looking at a lot of painful choices. Growth in the Northern reaches of the DFW metroplex shows no signs of slowing. New arrivals from the West Coast and Northeast US keep arriving all the time. So many people are arriving that the scope of that future US-380 freeway corridor needs to be expanded from just Denton-McKinney to a larger Decatur-Denton-McKinney-Greenville project.

TX DOT used to be really good at securing the ROW of future freeway corridors, typically building divided surface streets with huge medians. That policy created a hard-line physical barrier against any developer hijinks and other wavering political BS.

US-380 needs to be upgraded to an Interstate class freeway on as much of the existing ROW as possible. I think segments B, E and C for the proposed McKinney bypass is an acceptable solution. The US-380 main line through the middle of McKinney is just too overrun with development. A long elevated freeway is the only thing that could possibly work there. The four corners of the US-380/US-75 interchange are totally blocked in with development, making it impossible to build a directional interchange there without removing at least a couple dozen businesses.

Also, I think the McKinney bypass is far enough South from the Colin County Outer Loop that they would not be redundant. Further, TX DOT needs to get on the stick about US-82 between Gainesville and Sherman.

All very good points.   As stated before, have no "dog in this fight" but am of opinion you need to fix what you have, and not create a curvy inefficient alignment through developing residential areas.  Decision making, planning, and design standards have dropped since the beginning of the Rick Perry administration, have seen it personally, up close, in El Paso County.   Despite infusion of vast sums of money.   
     A good friend of mine, recently re-located from Wisconsin to the Whitesboro TX area.   West of Sherman.  Was able to purchase 5 +/- acres of land for a very good price, far cheaper than in most parts of Wisconsin.   Already has a house and a shop up.   Am guessing Property taxes there are better than the oppressive levels of El Paso County in far W Texas.   
     Probably that US - 82 corridor is becoming like US - 380 W of I-35 W, lined with "ranchettes" and semi rural horse properties.   

US-82 between Gainesville and Sherman is starting to fill in with development. The 8 miles of US-82 from I-35 on East to Oak Ridge is already a hopeless mess. Any Interstate quality upgrade there would have to be built on new terrain. Around Whitesboro the existing US-82 highway is more salvageable. US-82 is limited access going through Sherman. But the volleyball interchange at US-75 is blocked in with development at the corners. A 5-level stack interchange would be more expensive to build there thanks to all the properties on those corners that will have to be bought and cleared.

Ultimately US-82 in that region, going from the Wichita Falls to Texarkana area, could work as an important East-West regional bypass for DFW. As the metroplex keeps adding more residents such a bypass will become more important. The metroplex will likely surpass the 8 million mark in population before 2030. Meanwhile the US-380 corridor will end up being an urban freeway/turnpike.

A big part of the legal process is "having standing" to pursue litigation. With Section B on 380 I see very few people who have "standing" – that is, property or homes in the path of it. Just being a city resident isn't going to fly. I think Section B gets approved.

The "having standing" part is a factor that would likely favor the OTA in its efforts to build two new turnpikes in the Southern part of the OKC metro. It's just too bad the local city governments and TX DOT didn't do enough, like, um, 20 years ago, to avoid these otherwise avoidable problems with US-380. They should have seen this coming like that bright light in the railroad tunnel.

Wouldn't the property developers of the proposed residentials have some standing in any possible lawsuits, since their property would be directly taken by the project?

Also, couldn't Prosper claim loss of potential property value from the aftereffects of constructing that particular alignment of US 380?

Then again, far more folks in McKinney would be impacted by a direct upgrade of 380 through the city, so it may be a case of Prosper getting on the short straw. Chances of any lawsuit being successful, without some major environmental impacts or significant takings, is practically slim to none.

Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 16, 2022, 12:47:06 PM
Wouldn't the property developers of the proposed residentials have some standing in any possible lawsuits, since their property would be directly taken by the project?

Also, couldn't Prosper claim loss of potential property value from the aftereffects of constructing that particular alignment of US 380?

Then again, far more folks in McKinney would be impacted by a direct upgrade of 380 through the city, so it may be a case of Prosper getting on the short straw. Chances of any lawsuit being successful, without some major environmental impacts or significant takings, is practically slim to none.

I would assume the increase in land value in Prosper from a new freeway would be multiples more than the value of the land taken for that freeway.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 16, 2022, 12:30:25 AM
The "having standing" part is a factor that would likely favor the OTA in its efforts to build two new turnpikes in the Southern part of the OKC metro. It's just too bad the local city governments and TX DOT didn't do enough, like, um, 20 years ago, to avoid these otherwise avoidable problems with US-380. They should have seen this coming like that bright light in the railroad tunnel.

Agreed, you have stated, more than once, the banality of OK/OKC governments in failing to plan for a coherent southern beltway, of OKC, whether it being a Toll facility (Kilpatrick) or a freeway.   Would suspect Texas has fallen into the same trap - the one of a failure to plan.   They used to construct these parallel frontages with wide medians in areas (Wichita Falls as a prime example), and at some point seemed to stop doing so, as a matter of course, in development prone areas.   For heavens sakes, these people have degrees, many/some on the masters' level in planning and engineering.  What on earth were they doing?   

^^^ Texas has done good planning at times though. It's hard to say the same for ODOT.

Quote from: DJStephensFor heavens sakes, these people have degrees, many/some on the masters' level in planning and engineering.  What on earth were they doing?

I think the problem is law makers choosing to do things on the cheap and only good enough to get by in the short term while they're in office. There is always a constant push to find ways to cut taxes in order to pander to voters. Anything that could be seen as an extravagance gets cut. Apparently the concept of building a divided street with a median large enough to hold a freeway to be built years or decades later is now seen as a waste of money. Law makers no longer seem to be concerned about long term future planning or a big picture view of anything. They appear only to be concerned about issues that directly affect their next re-election bid.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 17, 2022, 06:53:42 PM

Quote from: DJStephensFor heavens sakes, these people have degrees, many/some on the masters' level in planning and engineering.  What on earth were they doing?

I think the problem is law makers choosing to do things on the cheap and only good enough to get by in the short term while they're in office. There is always a constant push to find ways to cut taxes in order to pander to voters. Anything that could be seen as an extravagance gets cut. Apparently the concept of building a divided street with a median large enough to hold a freeway to be built years or decades later is now seen as a waste of money. Law makers no longer seem to be concerned about long term future planning or a big picture view of anything. They appear only to be concerned about issues that directly affect their next re-election bid.

This is EXACTLY why you no longer see the frontage roads with wide medians.  When you combine term limits with a shortage of funds to cover too many projects, few if any lawmakers want to 'waste' funds on ROW. They won't be here to see the end benefits of forward planning.

Yeah, if the law maker isn't going to be in office long enough to be there for the ribbon cutting and thus be able to take credit for the whole damned thing he's not going to be very interested in supporting the project in the first place.

That factor is one thing that makes me nervous about the OTA's Access Oklahoma plan. It's a 15 year thing. That's a whole lot of time and extended opportunity for term-limited politicians to try de-railing the plan. It's certain some will come after it via the "let's get rid of the tolls" campaign angle (and don't tell voters about the giant fuel tax hike that will happen as a result). So many law makers are whores.

TxDOT will be holding a public meeting about *widening* US 380 In Collin County on May 10. It just so happens I'll be in the area on that day. Should I go?  :bigass:

http://www.ntxe-news.com/artman/publish/article_128846.shtml

Quote from: kernals12 on April 20, 2022, 09:40:23 AM
TxDOT will be holding a public meeting about *widening* US 380 In Collin County on May 10. It just so happens I'll be in the area on that day. Should I go?  :bigass:

http://www.ntxe-news.com/artman/publish/article_128846.shtml

Do it. Prosper and Frisco will benefit greatly.

Quote from: Cerlin on April 20, 2022, 12:06:46 PM

Quote from: kernals12 on April 20, 2022, 09:40:23 AM
TxDOT will be holding a public meeting about *widening* US 380 In Collin County on May 10. It just so happens I'll be in the area on that day. Should I go?  :bigass:

http://www.ntxe-news.com/artman/publish/article_128846.shtml

Do it. Prosper and Frisco will benefit greatly.

I'm not planning on making any comments because I don't want to make a spectacle of myself, but I've never been to this type of meeting

http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380Farmersville

Public Meeting was held tonight about the portion between CR 560 and CR 699 at the Hunt County Border, bypassing Farmersville.

Public meeting materials including schematics are posted. The section covered by this meeting is from 2 miles west of the DNT to 4 miles east of DNT. The alignment is along the existing 380 for this section, and nearly all right-of-way acquisition is along the south side of the existing road.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380ProsperFriscoWidening (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380ProsperFriscoWidening)

Observations:

• Freeway is only 3x3 on this section. But there is a 32-foot-wide median to add the fourth lane in the future.
• Frontage roads are continuous. However, some frontage road sections have only two lanes.
• 5-level interchange planned at DNT
• 3-level interchange planned at Preston Road, with Preston main lanes on the second level.
• The presentation says "proposed right-of-way width of 245 to 522 feet". Scaling from the schematic, the right-of-way looks like it is typically 380 feet wide where the schematic has a full freeway (as opposed to the transition zones at the ends). The right-of way around the DNT and between the DNT and Preston is in the range of 450 to 500 feet.
• It will be ready for construction to start in 2026

Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 10, 2022, 08:59:25 PM
Public meeting materials including schematics are posted. The section covered by this meeting is from 2 miles west of the DNT to 4 miles east of DNT. The alignment is along the existing 380 for this section, and nearly all right-of-way acquisition is along the south side of the existing road.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380ProsperFriscoWidening (http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380ProsperFriscoWidening)

Observations:

• Freeway is only 3x3 on this section. But there is a 32-foot-wide median to add the fourth lane in the future.
• Frontage roads are continuous. However, some frontage road sections have only two lanes.
• 5-level interchange planned at DNT
• 3-level interchange planned at Preston Road, with Preston main lanes on the second level.
• The presentation says "proposed right-of-way width of 245 to 522 feet". Scaling from the schematic, the right-of-way looks like it is typically 380 feet wide where the schematic has a full freeway (as opposed to the transition zones at the ends). The right-of way around the DNT and between the DNT and Preston is in the range of 450 to 500 feet.
• It will be ready for construction to start in 2026

As I said in the "DFW Projects" thread, I almost went to this meeting but I was worried people would get the wrong idea about a grown man travelling alone in a car with Illinois plates at a school building.

Yeah, it's too bad the upgrade to US-380 won't initially be built as a 4x4 configuration. At least the highway design allows room for a fourth lane to be added on the inner left in the future. They'll be forced to add that extra lane too in short order. Then they might have to add some elevated express lanes after that.

I don't mind the volleyball interchange at Preston Road since Preston Road isn't a real freeway. Preston Road has a traffic signal just North of its existing interchange with US-380.

If TX DOT can get things going soon on ROW acquisition this project will secure a pretty big chunk of the overall US-380 upgrade between Denton and McKinney. And it may help give the bypass projects for Denton and McKinney some extra momentum.

Local media coverage leading up to the public hearing:

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/traffic/txdot-holds-public-hearing-in-prosper-on-u-s-380-plan/2963823/
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/txdot-public-meetings-on-proposed-changes-to-hwy-380-in-collin-denton-counties/287-16beb11f-dc8c-49d4-a75f-10a497dc7e0b

TxDOT has scheduled a meeting for Spur 399.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/dallas/spur-399-extension.html (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/dallas/spur-399-extension.html)

The announcement doesn't explicitly say that the orange alternative was selected. However, matching the right-of-way requirement (366.1 acres) and the number of displacements, it is clear the the orange alternative is selected.

The orange alternative goes around the south and east sides of the airport. This is the expected result, based on McKinney's opposition to the purple alternative on the west side of the airport.

https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/Spur399PublicMeeting (https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/Spur399PublicMeeting)

This document (posted today, page 49) lists 2032 as the start date for construction. I was hoping it would start sooner.
https://www.nctcog.org/getmedia/0ca9a7b1-d838-48ec-aab1-a22c25c2ac6f/agendapacketrtc10132022.pdf?ext=.pdf

Page 46 of that document lists 2028 as the construction start of the US 380 McKinney bypass. Cost for the bypass is listed at $844 million, including $417 million for right-of-way. The ROW cost seems high, especially since the main point of the long bypass was to find the path of least resistance (and presumably least ROW cost).

Public hearings to be held for US 380 bypass alignment, study results in McKinney

https://communityimpact.com/dallas-fort-worth/mckinney/transportation/2023/01/16/public-hearings-to-be-held-for-us-380-bypass-alignment-study-results-in-mckinney/

Quote from: MaxConcrete on October 07, 2022, 11:08:17 PM
TxDOT has scheduled a meeting for Spur 399.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/dallas/spur-399-extension.html (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/dallas/spur-399-extension.html)

The announcement doesn't explicitly say that the orange alternative was selected. However, matching the right-of-way requirement (366.1 acres) and the number of displacements, it is clear the the orange alternative is selected.

The orange alternative goes around the south and east sides of the airport. This is the expected result, based on McKinney's opposition to the purple alternative on the west side of the airport.

https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/Spur399PublicMeeting (https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/Spur399PublicMeeting)

This document (posted today, page 49) lists 2032 as the start date for construction. I was hoping it would start sooner.
https://www.nctcog.org/getmedia/0ca9a7b1-d838-48ec-aab1-a22c25c2ac6f/agendapacketrtc10132022.pdf?ext=.pdf

Page 46 of that document lists 2028 as the construction start of the US 380 McKinney bypass. Cost for the bypass is listed at $844 million, including $417 million for right-of-way. The ROW cost seems high, especially since the main point of the long bypass was to find the path of least resistance (and presumably least ROW cost).

The Spur 399 project around the south runway of McKinney Intergalactic Airport is a placeholder for a future Sam Rayburn Tollway extension to Princeton.

Little surprise on the routing just based on the obstacles present (several salvage yards as well as the airport). That map is almost identical on the west end to one I dummied up years ago. I expected the SRT to be extended a lot farther east than just from Airport Road in Mickeytown.

Alignment A-E-C is the recommended alternative. It's a surprise for A to be chosen over B, since it seemed like B had more support and was added as an option due to public and government input. But this is Texas, and TxDOT often likes to choose the most winding and indirect alignments, and option A qualifies since it has the two sharp curves and is longer.

Option C (over option D) was expected since D is in the flood plain and would have required long elevated structures, and the selection of the preferred alignment for Spur 399 is on the east side of the airport.

(https://thinglink-data-prod.global.ssl.fastly.net/scene/1674580314426441731/14137ecdcd6c17119316cbcf71a1eb91/image.jpg)

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2023/01/24/txdot-to-hold-public-hearings-for-controversial-collin-county-us-380-bypass-alignment/ (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2023/01/24/txdot-to-hold-public-hearings-for-controversial-collin-county-us-380-bypass-alignment/)

QuoteTxDOT is recommending its Blue Alternative plan, which is composed of Segments A, E and C of the proposed bypass ...

Draft EIS.
https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380EIS (https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380EIS)
Here is the rationale for selecting Segment A, on page 2-38

QuoteSegment A was a component of the Recommended Alignment in the Feasibility Study. Segment A would
displace fewer homes in comparison to Segment B and would avoid displacing numerous proposed residences
under construction west of N. Custer Road within the Town of Prosper. Segment A also had greater support
from the public than Segment B.

Quote from: MaxConcreteAlignment A-E-C is the recommended alternative. It's a surprise for A to be chosen over B, since it seemed like B had more support and was added as an option due to public and government input.

Well that sucks. I was hoping for the B-E-C option.

Quote from: MaxConcreteBut this is Texas, and TxDOT often likes to choose the most winding and indirect alignments, and option A qualifies since it has the two sharp curves and is longer.

A longer route might mean being able to add more toll gates along the route length. Cha-ching!

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 26, 2023, 12:38:28 PM
A longer route might mean being able to add more toll gates along the route length. Cha-ching!

The project is planned to be a freeway with no tolls.

But on page 2.39, the estimated cost is stated to be $3.022 Billion. It may take a long time to get conventional funding. Historically, toll roads (Bush, Sam Rayburn, Chisholm Trail, SH 360 South) have been built because the wait for conventional funding would have been too long.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 26, 2023, 12:38:28 PM

Quote from: MaxConcreteAlignment A-E-C is the recommended alternative. It's a surprise for A to be chosen over B, since it seemed like B had more support and was added as an option due to public and government input.

Well that sucks. I was hoping for the B-E-C option.

Sounds like the folks in Prosper raised enough hell over Alignment B passing through their school property to flip TXDOT over.

Quote

Quote from: MaxConcreteBut this is Texas, and TxDOT often likes to choose the most winding and indirect alignments, and option A qualifies since it has the two sharp curves and is longer.

A longer route might mean being able to add more toll gates along the route length. Cha-ching!

No tolls on this proposed freeway, also, isn't it too close to the proposed Colin County tollway?

$3 billion? For a half loop around a mid-size suburb? Yeesh!

I imagine a good chunk of that cost would be a future stack interchange with US-75 (as well as "Y" interchanges at either end of the half loop). Still, that cost amount is pretty shocking.

Option E basically supplants Laud Howell Parkway, which was to be the northern connector between Prosper/Celina and northern McKinney.

If that's the case, if I were a traffic planner, I just meet the Collin County Outer Loop in the middle and share a common interchange with 75 to save money. The separation at that point is maybe 2 miles.

Stupid question, but is 380 to US287 slated on any list or plan to upgrade the entire stretch to freeway / interstate standards.

I know 287 is more important from Dallas to Amarillo. And I thought I read somewhere that that road is a hypothetical I 32.

But a US 380 as I34 or or I230 and US287 as I 32 to Amarillo would seem to make sense.

Quote from: Road Hog on January 27, 2023, 02:14:05 AM
Option E basically supplants Laud Howell Parkway, which was to be the northern connector between Prosper/Celina and northern McKinney.

If that's the case, if I were a traffic planner, I just meet the Collin County Outer Loop in the middle and share a common interchange with 75 to save money. The separation at that point is maybe 2 miles.

By 2050, Collin and Denton Counties are forecast to have as many people as Dallas and Tarrant Counties did just a few decades ago. There are 3 east west freeways connecting Dallas and Fort Worth, so at least 2 freeways connecting Collin and Denton seems reasonable.

Quote from: MaxConcrete on January 26, 2023, 05:48:40 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 26, 2023, 12:38:28 PM
A longer route might mean being able to add more toll gates along the route length. Cha-ching!

The project is planned to be a freeway with no tolls.

But on page 2.39, the estimated cost is stated to be $3.022 Billion. It may take a long time to get conventional funding. Historically, toll roads (Bush, Sam Rayburn, Chisholm Trail, SH 360 South) have been built because the wait for conventional funding would have been too long.

Collin County could levy a sales tax to pay for highway improvements.

Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2023, 09:52:12 AM

Quote from: MaxConcrete on January 26, 2023, 05:48:40 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 26, 2023, 12:38:28 PM
A longer route might mean being able to add more toll gates along the route length. Cha-ching!

The project is planned to be a freeway with no tolls.

But on page 2.39, the estimated cost is stated to be $3.022 Billion. It may take a long time to get conventional funding. Historically, toll roads (Bush, Sam Rayburn, Chisholm Trail, SH 360 South) have been built because the wait for conventional funding would have been too long.

Collin County could levy a sales tax to pay for highway improvements.

No the only thing you can pay for with the transportation sales tax surcharge is public transit. This one doesn't quite do it. They COULD sell bonds and pay for it with ad valorem taxes on property. Property taxes are already "too high" according to the people in Collin. county.

Property taxes are high all across Texas thanks to the state having no state income tax. They make up for it by goosing property tax rates.

IMHO, the roads need to be paid for via gasoline taxes -at least while the vast majority of vehicles on the highways are powered by gasoline.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 28, 2023, 02:00:06 PM
Property taxes are high all across Texas thanks to the state having no state income tax. They make up for it by goosing property tax rates.

IMHO, the roads need to be paid for via gasoline taxes -at least while the vast majority of vehicles on the highways are powered by gasoline.

Has there ever been an inkling of a beginning of a property tax revolt in Texas?  Something similar to California's Proposition 13 (1978)?   Lived in El Paso briefly in mid nineties, was going to buy a home, but decided to move N slightly across the border to Las Cruces, in part, due to the excessive property tax rate.   With the Tex-Dot waste I've observed, there really needs to be belt-tightening.   

I don't know if there has been any real organized push in recent years to change property tax laws in Texas. In one respect I wonder if quite a few Texans actually prefer the setup (as opposed to a state income tax). Some school districts appear to do very well by that system, judging by some of the football stadiums and campus-like environments I see in some locales. The only factor I can see competing with it is the conservative push to privatize public education and/or divert a lot of education funding into charter & private schools. Texas is increasingly shifting from red to "purple," so I don't know what kinds of chances those efforts may have in the long term.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 30, 2023, 10:22:14 PM
I don't know if there has been any real organized push in recent years to change property tax laws in Texas. In one respect I wonder if quite a few Texans actually prefer the setup (as opposed to a state income tax). Some school districts appear to do very well by that system, judging by some of the football stadiums and campus-like environments I see in some locales. The only factor I can see competing with it is the conservative push to privatize public education and/or divert a lot of education funding into charter & private schools. Texas is increasingly shifting from red to "purple," so I don't know what kinds of chances those efforts may have in the long term.

It is ironic why SOME school districts seem to do so well.

Several years ago Texas passed a plan called Robinhood. There was an equation that cash flush districts sent money to TEA and TEA then distributed it to poorer school districts.  Texas school budgets contain two elements. Operations & Maintenance and then there is Capital Improvements. Operations and maintenance is exactly what it sounds like. It pays for staff, operational expense, and ongoing maintenance.   Capital Improvements is what it sounds like. Building buildings and FOOTBALL Fields.

Here is where the rub comes in. There are limits for the O&M expenditures. So a percentage of the ad valorem taxes that exceeds the allowable O&M budget has to go to TEA. There is a MINIMUM tax rate districts have to collect. They cannot just collect less. Someone figured out that you could defeat Robinhood by using up the balance in bonded indebtedness. So the richer school districts went to town spending capital improvement money.... ( I think it took litigation to allow the districts to keep the money "so they could pay their bills.")

Quote from: bwana39 on January 31, 2023, 05:44:39 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 30, 2023, 10:22:14 PM
I don't know if there has been any real organized push in recent years to change property tax laws in Texas. In one respect I wonder if quite a few Texans actually prefer the setup (as opposed to a state income tax). Some school districts appear to do very well by that system, judging by some of the football stadiums and campus-like environments I see in some locales. The only factor I can see competing with it is the conservative push to privatize public education and/or divert a lot of education funding into charter & private schools. Texas is increasingly shifting from red to "purple," so I don't know what kinds of chances those efforts may have in the long term.

It is ironic why SOME school districts seem to do so well.

Several years ago Texas passed a plan called Robinhood. There was an equation that cash flush districts sent money to TEA and TEA then distributed it to poorer school districts.  Texas school budgets contain two elements. Operations & Maintenance and then there is Capital Improvements. Operations and maintenance is exactly what it sounds like. It pays for staff, operational expense, and ongoing maintenance.   Capital Improvements is what it sounds like. Building buildings and FOOTBALL Fields.

Here is where the rub comes in. There are limits for the O&M expenditures. So a percentage of the ad valorem taxes that exceeds the allowable O&M budget has to go to TEA. There is a MINIMUM tax rate districts have to collect. They cannot just collect less. Someone figured out that you could defeat Robinhood by using up the balance in bonded indebtedness. So the richer school districts went to town spending capital improvement money.... ( I think it took litigation to allow the districts to keep the money "so they could pay their bills.")

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 30, 2023, 10:22:14 PM
I don't know if there has been any real organized push in recent years to change property tax laws in Texas. In one respect I wonder if quite a few Texans actually prefer the setup (as opposed to a state income tax). Some school districts appear to do very well by that system, judging by some of the football stadiums and campus-like environments I see in some locales. The only factor I can see competing with it is the conservative push to privatize public education and/or divert a lot of education funding into charter & private schools. Texas is increasingly shifting from red to "purple," so I don't know what kinds of chances those efforts may have in the long term.

Guys, this is definitely getting into off-topic politics

Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2023, 10:24:59 PM

Quote from: bwana39 on January 31, 2023, 05:44:39 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 30, 2023, 10:22:14 PM
I don't know if there has been any real organized push in recent years to change property tax laws in Texas. In one respect I wonder if quite a few Texans actually prefer the setup (as opposed to a state income tax). Some school districts appear to do very well by that system, judging by some of the football stadiums and campus-like environments I see in some locales. The only factor I can see competing with it is the conservative push to privatize public education and/or divert a lot of education funding into charter & private schools. Texas is increasingly shifting from red to "purple," so I don't know what kinds of chances those efforts may have in the long term.

It is ironic why SOME school districts seem to do so well.

Several years ago Texas passed a plan called Robinhood. There was an equation that cash flush districts sent money to TEA and TEA then distributed it to poorer school districts.  Texas school budgets contain two elements. Operations & Maintenance and then there is Capital Improvements. Operations and maintenance is exactly what it sounds like. It pays for staff, operational expense, and ongoing maintenance.   Capital Improvements is what it sounds like. Building buildings and FOOTBALL Fields.

Here is where the rub comes in. There are limits for the O&M expenditures. So a percentage of the ad valorem taxes that exceeds the allowable O&M budget has to go to TEA. There is a MINIMUM tax rate districts have to collect. They cannot just collect less. Someone figured out that you could defeat Robinhood by using up the balance in bonded indebtedness. So the richer school districts went to town spending capital improvement money.... ( I think it took litigation to allow the districts to keep the money "so they could pay their bills.")

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 30, 2023, 10:22:14 PM
I don't know if there has been any real organized push in recent years to change property tax laws in Texas. In one respect I wonder if quite a few Texans actually prefer the setup (as opposed to a state income tax). Some school districts appear to do very well by that system, judging by some of the football stadiums and campus-like environments I see in some locales. The only factor I can see competing with it is the conservative push to privatize public education and/or divert a lot of education funding into charter & private schools. Texas is increasingly shifting from red to "purple," so I don't know what kinds of chances those efforts may have in the long term.

Guys, this is definitely getting into off-topic politics

Roads are at the end of the day political.

But I agree property tax discussions are not germane here.

Property tax talk no going away.

The EA for the westernmost section is posted
https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380ProsperFriscoWidening (https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380ProsperFriscoWidening)

Highlights

• Section is 5.9 miles, from 2.3 miles west of the Dallas North Tollway to 3.6 miles east of DNT
• Estimated cost is $842 million, which is $143 million per mile
• Freeway is mostly 3x3, except at the DNT where there are additional lanes. There is a continous 32-foot-wide median to add two lanes in the future.
• 5-level interchange at DNT
• Right-of-way width is mostly between 350 and 360 feet, with a much wider section over 500 feet wide adjacent to the DNT on both sides of DNT. The ROW width is narrow (around 370 feet) at Preston road for no apparent reason - there is plenty of vacant land. Of course I would rather see a minimum 400 foot wide corridor, but due to the lack of planning to preserve the corridor some compromises needed to be made.
• There is a three-level interchange at Preston, with US 380 on the top level.
• For all of the corridor except the far east end, all ROW acquisition (152 acres) is on the south side due to a City of Irving easement on the north side of US 380 for most of this section, all except the far east end. The easement is around 100 feet wide and has a 6-foot water main.
• Frontage roads have high-capacity designs at intersections.
• Overall the schematic looks good.

It's easy to understand why they can't extend the US-380 freeway any farther West than Teel Parkway / Championship Drive. US-380 has become pretty covered up with retail development (and landscaping) just West of that intersection. Of course the entire surrounding area in that location has been blockaded by residential development. Any hopes for extending a US-380 freeway farther West closer to Denton would pretty much have to be built as an elevated structure above the existing highway.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 07, 2023, 02:35:00 PM
It's easy to understand why they can't extend the US-380 freeway any farther West than Teel Parkway / Championship Drive. US-380 has become pretty covered up with retail development (and landscaping) just West of that intersection. Of course the entire surrounding area in that location has been blockaded by residential development. Any hopes for extending a US-380 freeway farther West closer to Denton would pretty much have to be built as an elevated structure above the existing highway.

The landscaping and sidewalks look like they're on the US-380 ROW, so I imagine that is an easier barrier to overcome. The retail locations look like they sit back far enough that they would just need to sacrifice some of the outer parking lot that lines the ROW. It would be tight but possible.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 07, 2023, 02:35:00 PM
It's easy to understand why they can't extend the US-380 freeway any farther West than Teel Parkway / Championship Drive. US-380 has become pretty covered up with retail development (and landscaping) just West of that intersection. Of course the entire surrounding area in that location has been blockaded by residential development. Any hopes for extending a US-380 freeway farther West closer to Denton would pretty much have to be built as an elevated structure above the existing highway.

The study for US 380 in Denton County (from west of DNT to Denton) revealed its recommendation in November 2021. A new freeway on the existing alignment is the selected option, which was the best possible outcome of the study.

https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3 (https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3)

The presentation at the link above says the corridor will be 350 to 400 feet wide. You can view the schematics and see how the corridor is threaded between existing development and also displaces numerous strip malls, gas stations and fast food restaurants.

However, this freeway won't happen anytime soon. It is not in the NCTCOG 2045 plan. The proposed Denton County Outer Parkway, which is farther north and connects into the Collin County Outer Loop (which already has some frontage roads), is slated to be built in the 2030s. Of course, priorities can change. I'm thinking US 380 in Denton County may get built sooner if funding is available, or it could be tolled.

McKinney is about to put a bond proposal to build a commercial passenger terminal up for a vote this May.
This is coming on the heels of the Universal Kiddie amusement park and hotel announcement. These openings would likely coincide with each other. That puts 380  near US 75 in the crosshair for some immediate attention.

Quote from: MaxConcreteHowever, this freeway won't happen anytime soon. It is not in the NCTCOG 2045 plan. The proposed Denton County Outer Parkway, which is farther north and connects into the Collin County Outer Loop (which already has some frontage roads), is slated to be built in the 2030s. Of course, priorities can change. I'm thinking US 380 in Denton County may get built sooner if funding is available, or it could be tolled.

Of course I've repeated this mantra many times before: the more years they put off building the freeway the more difficult and costly the project will end up being. I'm sure officials at TX DOT are well aware of this truth. Officials in Denton and Collin County governments are likely aware of it as well.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that area of the DFW metroplex is still growing rapidly. Their US-380 study from Loop 288 in Denton to the US-380 intersection with Legacy Drive is going to have a fairly short shelf life of accuracy.

When looking at the five roll plots showing the proposed freeway's path, it does show a significant number of existing (and somewhat new) commercial properties will have to be bought and cleared out of the wider ROW. It's very doubtful Denton County Commissioners are imposing any restrictions on any new development projects that want to hug right up on the existing US-380 ROW. When looking at Google Earth time line imagery the 6/2022 image shows a shit ton of new development going in immediately West of the Tell Parkway/Championship Drive intersection. It's all getting built up next to the current ROW and utility easement. It's all but certain far more properties will be built next to US-380 between now and the 2040's. Hell, there could be tall office buildings lining parts of the road for all we know. Local elected leaders don't care so much about a highway that could potentially be built 20 years from now. They care more about making property deals now and are more than willing to make short-sighted concessions to close those deals.

The Collin County Outer Loop will not be able to function as a replacement for a US-380 freeway. That would be as if someone expected the Bush Turnpike (TX-190) to replace the Sam Rayburn Tollway (TX-121). The portion of the proposed Collin County Outer Loop going North of McKinney is around 7 miles North of US-380.

The East End of the proposed US-380 freeway segment halfway between Denton and McKinney ends at Lakewood Drive. Even if/when a US-380 bypass is built North around McKinney I could see them still being forced to upgrade the remaining "University Drive" farther East. The freeway could be extended farther East across the intersections with Custer Road, Stonebridge Drive and Ridge Road. It could go even far across Lake Forest Drive and Hardin Blvd. It's mostly commercial properties lining the road through there. Even Raytheon's property on the South side of US-380/University Dr has a pretty good bit of open space. They could almost, but not quite make a US-380 freeway reach US-75.

TxDOT recently released a fly-through video. Doesn't look too bad, even if I despise any form of a loop for 380.

https://youtu.be/uRYj_BgIHIo

Is TXDOT going to sign 380 business through McKinney or is University just going to be a city street?

Quote from: motorola870 on February 26, 2023, 01:14:22 AM
Is TXDOT going to sign 380 business through McKinney or is University just going to be a city street?

If the flyover video is any indication, it will just be University Blvd, a city street.

Nice US5 shield at 2:50 in the video.........

Quote from: rte66man on February 27, 2023, 10:53:54 AM
Nice US5 shield at 2:50 in the video.........

Looks like we could imagine some jokes about US-5 being extended from New England to Texas now, lol. ;)

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 09, 2023, 12:17:12 PM
Nevertheless, the fact remains that area of the DFW metroplex is still growing rapidly.

Here's 20 years of northward growth. Imagine what it would look like in 2040.

And what traffic would be like on US 380 by that time. Probably similar to the Sam Rayburn Tollway, which needed to be expanded within a decade of completion.

(https://i.imgur.com/M8yRhTe.gif)

In the early 2000s there was practically no development along US 380, even in McKinney it was pretty minimal west of US 75. Though I think they would've needed to bypass McKinney on a new alignment even if they did preserve a right of way west of US 75.

Given that both Frisco and McKinney now have a population of 200,000 each, and with Celina apparently having a build-out scenario of 380,000 people, a continuous freeway to I-30 could be warranted.

TxDOT has also released a design for US 380 at Farmersville.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU8m2umhA98

That map is mesmerizing.

Lots has changed since 2000 for sure. US 380, SH 121 and SH 289 were still mostly 2-lane then, Stonebriar Mall was being built in the middle of stinking nowhere and the DNT stopped at SH 121. McKinney, Frisco and Prosper all still had one high school.

I think the growth caught TxDOT napping and they've been playing catch-up ever since.

(That rectangle that doesn't change in the middle is the Brinkmann Ranch in Frisco. It used to be the Box Ranch and they filmed some early episodes of Dallas there. The mansion burned down mysteriously in 1987.)

There is still a little bit of Frisco to build out, but the Universal project will take care of that. Prosper is kind of landlocked and will fill out quickly. Everything else north of 380 is fair game right now once interest rates drop a little.

Putting this here. Mods, please move if appropriate:

Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions Spur 399 Extension Project in Texas
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-05-09/pdf/2023-09760.pdf

Quote
The Spur 399 Extension Project will construct an eight-lane freeway with frontage roads
connecting US 75 with US 380. The project will add one travel lane in each direction and an exit ramp within the
existing SH 5 corridor extending from the US 75/SH 5/SRT—SH 121 junction to approximately 1,500 feet south of the
intersection of FM 546/Harry McKillop Boulevard and SH 5. The project will then extend Spur 399 east on new
location crossing Airport Drive/Old Mill Road and continuing further east and south around the southern end of the
Airport, then turning north near CR 317 to connect to US 380 east of the Airport.
The project is approximately 6.25 miles in length.

In 1980, the 3 freeways connecting Dallas and Fort Worth, I-20, I-30, and SH 183, were completed and Dallas and Tarrant Counties had a combined total of 2.4 million people.

Today, Collin and Denton Counties have a combined total of 2.1 million people and a lot more to come in the decades ahead. 2 freeways is definitely warranted.

East-west freeway corridors will also help create more balanced growth, bringing in more industrial and commercial development, and reducing the need to commute to Dallas or Fort Worth.

I don't think 380 will ever become a full freeway, at least not like the one that TXDOT showed in their early models. There's too much development along the existing road, and building a traditional freeway like Texas likes to build them would destroy almost all of it. The time to prepare for such a thing was decades ago. Now, most communities would probably oppose it because of the high levels of construction.

Quote from: The Road Warrior on June 14, 2023, 04:52:14 PM
I don't think 380 will ever become a full freeway, at least not like the one that TXDOT showed in their early models. There's too much development along the existing road, and building a traditional freeway like Texas likes to build them would destroy almost all of it. The time to prepare for such a thing was decades ago. Now, most communities would probably oppose it because of the high levels of construction.

View the schematics on this page, which show the planned right-of-way.
https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3 (https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3)

Nearly all the displacements are commercial properties like strip centers, fast food restaurants and fuel stations. Residential displacements are minimal - it appears to be less than 10 properties. Between Paloma Creek Blvd and FM 1385, the alignment swerves around the existing right-of-way to minimize displacements and avoid the high school.

Communities generally don't mind displacement of lower-tier commercial properties. I think there is a very high probability this will be built, > 90%. It will take a while, however, probably starting no sooner than the mid 2030s. US 380 in Collin County is proceeding first. The Denton County Outer Loop is currently slated to be built before US 380 in Denton County.

Public meeting materials for Loop 288 in Denton and its connection into US 380 are available
https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/state-highways/SL288East (https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/state-highways/SL288East)

Observations

• 3x3 main lanes and 2x2 frontage roads
• The project includes about 2.3 miles of US 380 on the east end of the project. On the west end, the project does not reach I-35, it ends about 0.5 miles east of I-35.
• There is a new alignment at the east end at the connection to US 380. The original, feasibility study alignment lacked frontage roads. The new alignment is further north and includes continuous frontage roads. The new alignment is much better, but has more displacements.
• Most of the alignment has a wide right-of-way, 350 to 400 feet, with an interior median wide enough for two additional lanes. However, there is a short, very narrow section west of Stuart Road, so narrow that the 10 total lanes barely fit. This is the result of a high-voltage right-of-way on the north side and a neighborhood on the south side.
• 190 acres of new right-of-way required.
• Estimated cost is $922 million. Earliest construction start is 2028.

It will be interesting to see how this project dove-tails into the other efforts to expand US-380 Eastward to the Dallas North Tollway and farther toward McKinney. Hopefully all of those various projects will be in some stage of construction by 2030.

The draft UTP, slated to be approved by the TxDOT commission next week, has retracted $490 million from US 380 and Spur 399 that was included in an earlier draft. The Dallas Morning News reported on this
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2023/08/11/us-380-spur-399-funding-hey-txdot-wheres-our-490-million/ (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2023/08/11/us-380-spur-399-funding-hey-txdot-wheres-our-490-million/)

This was the subject of a long discussion at last week's NCTCOG RTC meeting. See agenda item 5
https://nctcog.new.swagit.com/videos/268937 (https://nctcog.new.swagit.com/videos/268937)

However, the TxDOT Dallas director assured officials that pre-construction work including right-of-way acquisition and engineering is continuing at full speed.

These projects appear to be caught in an arcane administrative issue relating to categories of funding. In short, these projects were funded by category 12 funds, and TxDOT has exceeded the legal limit for category 12 obligations, so TxDOT had to make cuts.

QuoteU.S. 380, Spur 399 funding: Hey TxDOT, where's our $490 million?
Collin County Commissioners want assurance there will be no construction delays based on money

That's why alarm bells went off when commissioners learned TxDOT removed $490 million in funding for U.S. 380 and Spur 399 right-of-way projects.

Clarence Daugherty, director of engineering for the county, said the funds were included in the May draft of the 2024 Unified Transportation Program, TxDOT's 10-year plan to guide transportation development across the state. But, when the proposed final draft came out, the amount was reduced by $129 million and $361 million for U.S. 380 and Spur 399, respectively.

"The 2024 UTP proposes to reduce funding from two projects on new rights-of-way in Collin County, which totals $490 million,"  according to the letter. "We urge the Texas Transportation Commission and TxDOT keep full funding on U.S. 380 and Spur 399 in Collin County."

(https://thinglink-data-prod.global.ssl.fastly.net/scene/1746638381460226725/b409411935aaa6e08a349938a8890409/image.jpg)

Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 14, 2023, 08:52:12 PM

Quote from: The Road Warrior on June 14, 2023, 04:52:14 PM
I don't think 380 will ever become a full freeway, at least not like the one that TXDOT showed in their early models. There's too much development along the existing road, and building a traditional freeway like Texas likes to build them would destroy almost all of it. The time to prepare for such a thing was decades ago. Now, most communities would probably oppose it because of the high levels of construction.

View the schematics on this page, which show the planned right-of-way.
https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3 (https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380DentonPM3)

Nearly all the displacements are commercial properties like strip centers, fast food restaurants and fuel stations. Residential displacements are minimal - it appears to be less than 10 properties. Between Paloma Creek Blvd and FM 1385, the alignment swerves around the existing right-of-way to minimize displacements and avoid the high school.

Communities generally don't mind displacement of lower-tier commercial properties. I think there is a very high probability this will be built, > 90%. It will take a while, however, probably starting no sooner than the mid 2030s. US 380 in Collin County is proceeding first. The Denton County Outer Loop is currently slated to be built before US 380 in Denton County.

That's the thing though. That's nearly all of the commercial properties on 380. And they are the only commercial properties within miles of many of these neighborhoods due to sprawling development. And for some of these small towns (looking at you Crossroads) this is literally all of the commerce in the entire town.

The US-380 freeway upgrade from Loop 288 to the DNT isn't going to erase all the existing commercial properties along the way. The proposed freeway alignment expands mostly to the South of the current US-380 ROW. That leaves the commercial properties on the North side of the road intact. Some parking lots and driveways may be altered though.

The proposed freeway alignment does swing Northward to avoid the Ray Braswell High School complex. But what is that going to erase? Mostly chain restaurant buildings, such as a Starbucks, Slim Chickens and Qdoba location.

This highway upgrade isn't going to take out a Walmart Supercenter (or any of the satellite stores in front of it). The restaurants on the South side of the road will have to be rebuilt. At least for the time being it looks like there is room for them to rebuild a couple hundred feet farther South. Considering the population and traffic growth that is going to happen, I would imagine the executives of these chain stores would welcome it. The end result will mean for traffic for their businesses. More money.

There have been far more disruptive freeway expansion projects than this. The Katy Freeway project on the West side of Houston was one for the record books. I'm also not going to shed a tear for a carbon copy chain restaurant store getting demolished. It's not like a family getting forced out of their home and having to find someplace new to live. These retail and restaurant chains are often demolishing and re-building their stores anyway. Their branding and store layouts change. Competition is incredibly fierce these days. It's bad for business for a chain restaurant location to look "old."

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 09, 2023, 12:44:11 PM
The proposed freeway alignment does swing Northward to avoid the Ray Braswell High School complex. But what is that going to erase? Mostly chain restaurant buildings, such as a Starbucks, Slim Chickens and Qdoba location.

This highway upgrade isn't going to take out a Walmart Supercenter (or any of the satellite stores in front of it). The restaurants on the South side of the road will have to be rebuilt. At least for the time being it looks like there is room for them to rebuild a couple hundred feet farther South. Considering the population and traffic growth that is going to happen, I would imagine the executives of these chain stores would welcome it. The end result will mean for traffic for their businesses. More money.

I would think that businesses would be opposed to a freeway. All of the traffic jams occurring on adjacent roads to their businesses are probably beneficial as many people will get frustrated and tired and will stop at the fast-food chain to help hold them over until they're through the traffic.

If a freeway was built, people would have less of an incentive to have to go through all the work of exiting to get to the store. If they're already cruising at 70+ miles an hour, they don't have much of a reason to stop. I would imagine business owners showing strong opposition to expanding US-380 into a freeway for these reasons and the fact that some businesses will lose property to the ROW.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 09, 2023, 12:44:11 PM
There have been far more disruptive freeway expansion projects than this. The Katy Freeway project on the West side of Houston was one for the record books. I'm also not going to shed a tear for a carbon copy chain restaurant store getting demolished. It's not like a family getting forced out of their home and having to find someplace new to live. These retail and restaurant chains are often demolishing and re-building their stores anyway. Their branding and store layouts change. Competition is incredibly fierce these days. It's bad for business for a chain restaurant location to look "old."

Store locations looking old is a good argument, but in the case of US-380 almost all the businesses have sprung up within the last decade, so everything that is there is already nice and new.

I'm less likely to get out and go frequent businesses when I'm already pissed off about traffic congestion. I'd be more likely to stop and frequent one of the business along a road that doesn't have a lot of congestion given the fact that I'll have more time to do so.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 09, 2023, 06:21:54 PM
I'm less likely to get out and go frequent businesses when I'm already pissed off about traffic congestion. I'd be more likely to stop and freak, one of business along a road that doesn't have a lot of congestion given the fact that I'll have more time to do so.

Yeah, good point. I would agree with that on a road with low traffic. However, I still think a freeway still hurts businesses alongside service roads as they can be hard to access. For example, a McDonalds on an eastbound service road would be annoying to get to for a person traveling in the westbound freeway lanes. This annoyance may cause that person to not go to that store.

Of course, McDonalds is a bad example because there are so many of them, but in the case of a smaller chain or a small business, this could be harmful compared to an at-grade intersection where access would be easier and more convenient.

An at grade intersection is never convenient.  ...

Also I needed to get on a freeway yet decided not to until the traffic started flowing again.  So I did stop at a business and stayed there ... I imagine I would do the same if there is a traffic problem on The Interstate. 

As for business being on only one side ... Perhaps the perfect solution would be to build Archways. The Archways would need to span both the main lanes and be outside of The Frontage Roads. And / Or build duplicate restaurants some where on the other side also.

Quote from: BJ59I would think that businesses would be opposed to a freeway. All of the traffic jams occurring on adjacent roads to their businesses are probably beneficial as many people will get frustrated and tired and will stop at the fast-food chain to help hold them over until they're through the traffic.

Nearly all the businesses that would be affected along that stretch of US-380 are national chain stores. They're not small businesses with only one location. It's not going to hurt any of these chains by having one of their locations taken off line for perhaps a year. I'm sure TX DOT will make deals with these chains to help them rebuild outside of the proposed ROW.

Quote from: BJ59If a freeway was built, people would have less of an incentive to have to go through all the work of exiting to get to the store.

I don't agree. The new freeway will have a much higher traffic capacity. It will make it easier for motorists to get to and from a specific store or restaurant. They're not going to be stuck going through nearly as many traffic signals. There is a lot of surface street intersections in the DFW metro where the traffic lights seem to take forever to go through one cycle.

If US-380 is upgraded to a freeway between Loop 288 and the DNT it will make that area much more attractive to more new businesses.

Here's another point... how many of those stopping are truly "long distance"  travelers? I would imagine in this area, the majority of the customer base are local residents living in the surrounding suburbs. They are going to keep going to that business, regardless of a traffic signal or overpass.

The nice thing about having a freeway flanked by frontage roads: the people who live in the immediate area can stick to the frontage roads. The faster, thru traffic on the main travel lanes is separated from the slower moving local traffic. That is a far safer situation than having both local neighborhood traffic and long distance traffic thrown into the mix together.

Quote from: In_Correct on September 09, 2023, 08:12:02 PM
An at grade intersection is never convenient.  ...

Also I needed to get on a freeway yet decided not to until the traffic started flowing again.  So I did stop at a business and stayed there ... I imagine I would do the same if there is a traffic problem on The Interstate. 

As for business being on only one side ... Perhaps the perfect solution would be to build Archways. The Archways would need to span both the main lanes and be outside of The Frontage Roads. And / Or build duplicate restaurants some where on the other side also.

Can you get Homestyle Cookies on these Archways?

The official FEIS was posted today for the section around the north of McKinney.
Notice: https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/public-hearings/2023/notice-of-availability-of-final-environmental-impact-statement-feis-and-recor-1 (https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/public-hearings/2023/notice-of-availability-of-final-environmental-impact-statement-feis-and-recor-1)
EIS: https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380EIS (https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380EIS)

The main document contains a huge amount of analysis of the options.

I had not previously seen a schematic of the interface between Spur 399 and US 380. It is on page 14 of the schematics. It looks good.
https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/APPENDIX%20B%20-%20Design%20Schematic%20-%20Preferred%20Alternative-BLUE.pdf (https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/sites/default/files/docs/APPENDIX%20B%20-%20Design%20Schematic%20-%20Preferred%20Alternative-BLUE.pdf)

Yeah the "Y" interchange for the US-380 freeway and Spur 399 freeway looks interesting. If they build it as the plans in the PDF show, the ramps are going to be pretty wide. They're showing a Westbound US-380 ramp to Spur 399 three lanes wide. All of the ramps in the interchange are at least 2 lanes wide.

This month's eminent domain (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2024/0117/11.pdf) listing has 250 parcels for US 380. I don't think I've ever seen this many parcels for a specific project in a single month. Obviously this means that ROW acquisition is proceeding at full speed.

I have not reviewed any details of the parcels since the document has 2898 pages.

The statewide list includes 9 properties for NHHIP, which is less than previous months, which have had substantial eminent domain for NHHIP.

At the NCTCOG meeting last week, a Collin County representative announced that Collin County Commisioners Court approved $250 million to pay for all utility relocations for the US 380 project in Collin County. This funding ensures there are no delays relating to utility relocation.

The representative mentioned that TxDOT is proceeding with right-of-way acquisition at unprecedented speed, saying "they are setting new records in terms of acquisition of right-of-way faster than they ever have any other project in the state."

The representative called US 380 a "$8 billion project".

He called on the TxDOT and the NCTCOG RTC to allocate the remaining funding needed for construction.

Discussion starts at 1:13:10 in the video (https://nctcog.new.swagit.com/videos/296909)

Quote from: MaxConcrete on February 15, 2024, 09:16:45 AM
At the NCTCOG meeting last week, a Collin County representative announced that Collin County Commisioners Court approved $250 million to pay for all utility relocations for the US 380 project in Collin County. This funding ensures there are no delays relating to utility relocation.

The representative mentioned that TxDOT is proceeding with right-of-way acquisition at unprecedented speed, saying "they are setting new records in terms of acquisition of right-of-way faster than they ever have any other project in the state."

The representative called US 380 a "$8 billion project".

He called on the TxDOT and the NCTCOG RTC to allocate the remaining funding needed for construction.

Discussion starts at 1:13:10 in the video (https://nctcog.new.swagit.com/videos/296909)

$8 billion?! That seems very, very high for a mostly greenfield project.

$8 billion probably refers to the entire freeway corridor spanning across Denton and McKinney. Most of that isn't greenfield work, but conversion of the existing US-380 corridor and removal of a lot of existing properties (not to mention ridiculous amounts of utilities to relocate). At least 2 new five-level directional stacks will be built (at junctions with the DNT and US-75).

I haven't driven from OKC to the Frisco/McKinney area in over 16 years until today. 380 is so congested now that Google Maps had me taking US82 to 289. I remapped this tonight but earlier today when I actually drove it, it was nearly 30 minutes quicker vs. I-35 to US380:

(https://i.ibb.co/qm7N8cT/IMG-1721.jpg)

You must have timed the traffic signals on TX-289 really well. Or it's a statement of just how badly clogged US-380 is getting.

There's well over a dozen traffic signaled intersections along TX-289 in the 16 mile stretch from Gunter down to the US-380 volleyball interchange in Prosper. It's pretty shocking how much Prosper has "blown up" with development going North of US-380 in the past 15 years.

Forget Prosper, those traffic lights on TX 289 are at least decently optimized and there are only a few. (Prosper is only 3 miles wide from north to south.)

There are already 10 signals along 289 in Celina alone from north to south:

• CR 134 (in front of CHS)

• Lynn Stambaugh Blvd.

• FM 455 (leading to downtown)

• Sunset Blvd. (in front of Brookshire's Supermarket)

• Celina Fire Station No. 1

• Glendenning Parkway

• Collin County Outer Loop

• Punk Carter Blvd.

• John Campbell Drive

• Frontier Blvd. (on Prosper line)

More signals are absolutely coming. Celina has a much bigger boner for traffic signals than Prosper seems to.

I was counting all the traffic signals on TX-289 from US-380 going up thru Prosper and Celina up to where the last signals seem to be in Gunter.