Spur 557 and U.S. 80 in Texas

[ethanhopkin14]

Why, when Interstate 20 was moved to its current alignment, did the Spur 557/U.S. 80 corridor from Terrell west to Dallas at I-30 (the old I-20 alignment) not retain an Interstate highway designation (like I-120)?  It already had an interstate designation so it shouldn't have been that hard to keep it an interstate, unless it was back in the transferring mileage days.  This is one thing that upsets me as a Texan about Texas highways.  Texas has so many instances where they could have used the blue and red shield and chose not to.  Is it some sort of Texas pride that we can build quality freeways without mommy and daddy's (the feds) help? Every other state I can think of would try keeping it an Interstate.  There are only two instances I can think of and that's Greensboro, NC and Sacramento, CA.

[usends]

Why, when Interstate 20 was moved to its current alignment, did the Spur 557/U.S. 80 corridor from Terrell west to Dallas at I-30 (the old I-20 alignment) not retain an Interstate highway designation (like I-120)? 

Hmm, interesting question.  I don't know, but one possibility is because, up until that time, the road was dual-signed as I-20/US 80, so when I-20 was rerouted they just removed the one designation and kept the other.  But it is a little surprising they didn't push for a new interstate designation, given the economic value that often seems to bring to a corridor.  And it seems like it would have made more sense to keep that all one designation, rather than breaking it up into 557 and 80.  I think I-320 or I-230 would've been the best options (playing off its connection between 20 and 30).  Then US 80 probably would've been truncated to the interchange just west of Terrell.

[MaxConcrete]

In the 1960s and probably into the 1970s there was a limit on the amount of mileage which could be designated as Interstate. When Interstate 37 was designated, it used up all available mileage in Texas, and the east loop 610 in Houston had to move forward as a state highway (and a lower federal reimbursement rate, a bad outcome for local budgets due to the expensive bridge). Eventually officials did get the interstate designation for the east Loop. A similar situation occurred on Interstate 345 in Dallas.

I don't know if maxed-out mileage for Interstate designation played a role in US 80. Interstate 20 between Dallas and Fort Worth (current corridor) was designated in 1964. Most likely the new route east of Dallas was approved at that time, although environmental studies of the new route did not start until 1975 and the freeway did not open until 1989.

Of course, at some point (1980s?) Congress designated specific routes as Interstate status, rather than giving states a certain amount of mileage. But the new designations usually don't come with money or earmarks, so the interstates are built over very long periods of time, if ever. (e.g. IH 49, IH 69)

[TheStranger]

In the 1960s and probably into the 1970s there was a limit on the amount of mileage which could be designated as Interstate. When Interstate 37 was designated, it used up all available mileage in Texas, and the east loop 610 in Houston had to move forward as a state highway (and a lower federal reimbursement rate, a bad outcome for local budgets due to the expensive bridge). Eventually officials did get the interstate designation for the east Loop. A similar situation occurred on Interstate 345 in Dallas.

A comparable situation occurred in Los Angeles in the 1960s, in which the chargeable federal mileage that comprised today's I-105/Glenn Anderson (Century) Freeway from LAX to I-605 was made up of mileage that was originally assigned to the following (note how many existing roads were covered by this, which is the parallel to the 557/US 80 example here) -

I-480 in San Francisco (built all the way to Broadway/Battery before protests halted SF freeway construction), downgraded to state route ca. 1968, then eliminated via demolition in 1991
I-280 along the Junipero Serra/Route 1 corridor in San Francisco, portion built as Route 1 between Font Boulevard and Daly City downgraded to state route.  280 instead rerouted via already-constructed freeway that was US 101 between Daly City and the Bayshore Freeway, and under-construction freeway that had been proposed as state route 82 extension and state route 87.
I-80 west of the Bay Bridge.  This included two still-existing sections of freeway: the Central Freeway all the way to Fell Street (which still existed up to 2005, before being rebuilt to end at Market instead) concurrent with US 101, and the San Francisco Skyway which was built as US 40 and US 50 ca. 1955 but continues to be signed as I-80 into the present day.
the original unsigned I-110 in downtown Los Angeles, assigned to former US 60/70/99 on the San Bernardino Freeway between US 101 and I-5.  Now part of the California definition of I-10, but not necessarily the actual FHWA definition of I-10.
the original unsigned I-105 in downtown Los Angeles, the portion of Santa Ana Freeway/US 101 between I-5 and the San Bernardino Freeway.  Predates the Interstate system by about 10-11 years, was always signed as US 101 and remains so today.

So in the case of I-20, the mileage that had been used for today's 557/80 probably was reassigned to the southern belt alignment that 20 takes today bypassing the heart of Dallas.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually, the chargeable mileage from I-80 and its "children" in S.F. was transferred to the rerouting of I-280 and I-680 in the San Jose/Milpitas area.  The previous I-280/680 routing over previous SSR 17 utilized facilities that were let prior to the 1/1/57 official Interstate start date, so they were "grandfathered" into the system and not counted as chargeable miles from the present 280/880/17 interchange in San Jose north to present CA 262 at the Warm Springs Blvd. intersection.  The rerouting was made possible by the availability of that chargeable mileage rejected by the city of San Francisco.  And I-105 (Century Freeway) was one of two CA routes added to the Interstate network with the national addition legislation of '68; the other was the I-15 southern extension to San Diego.  Both the original I-105 and I-110 east of downtown L.A. were also "grandfathered" into the system (and thus nonchargeable), having been operational well before the 1956 Interstate authorizing legislation.

It's entirely possible that TXDOT, once the decision was made to truncate US 80 in Dallas, simply elected to terminate the historic US route at another Interstate (30) in the eastern part of the metro area rather than at a 3di out at Terrell.  Given TXDOT's somewhat miserly attitude toward 3di's, not seeking Interstate status for the connector is hardly surprising.       

[-- US 175 --]

I think I've also heard before that the US 80 freeway and Spur 557 section needed upgrades if they were going to be up to current interstate standards.  I don't know if there's ever been any movement (since I-20 moved to the alignment further south) for the US 80/Spur 557 freeway section to get a new interstate designation.

[Bobby5280]

It is pretty odd US-80/Spur-557 is only 2 lanes in each direction from I-30 in Dallas out to the merge with I-20 in Terrell. It is a pretty outdated road too. Some of the bridges easily date back 50 years or more.

If TX DOT performed a big overhaul of that road and expanded it to at least 3 lanes in each direction I doubt they would pursue an Interstate designation. It seems as though Texas is perfectly happy sticking state highway numbers on new freeway/turnpike builds.

Texas has so many instances where they could have used the blue and red shield and chose not to.  Is it some sort of Texas pride that we can build quality freeways without mommy and daddy's (the feds) help? Every other state I can think of would try keeping it an Interstate.  There are only two instances I can think of and that's Greensboro, NC and Sacramento, CA.

I still don't understand why Caltrans won't put Interstate shields on I-905 in the San Diego area, sign the rest of CA-210 in San Bernadino as I-210 or CA-15 as I-15 South of I-8 in San Diego.

[TheStranger]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually, the chargeable mileage from I-80 and its "children" in S.F. was transferred to the rerouting of I-280 and I-680 in the San Jose/Milpitas area.  The previous I-280/680 routing over previous SSR 17 utilized facilities that were let prior to the 1/1/57 official Interstate start date, so they were "grandfathered" into the system and not counted as chargeable miles from the present 280/880/17 interchange in San Jose north to present CA 262 at the Warm Springs Blvd. intersection.  The rerouting was made possible by the availability of that chargeable mileage rejected by the city of San Francisco.  And I-105 (Century Freeway) was one of two CA routes added to the Interstate network with the national addition legislation of '68; the other was the I-15 southern extension to San Diego.  Both the original I-105 and I-110 east of downtown L.A. were also "grandfathered" into the system (and thus nonchargeable), having been operational well before the 1956 Interstate authorizing legislation.

https://www.cahighways.org/itypes.html specifically states actually that I-105 along the Century corridor used 10 chargeable miles originally in use in San Francisco pre-1968.

[ethanhopkin14]

It is pretty odd US-80/Spur-557 is only 2 lanes in each direction from I-30 in Dallas out to the merge with I-20 in Terrell. It is a pretty outdated road too. Some of the bridges easily date back 50 years or more.

If TX DOT performed a big overhaul of that road and expanded it to at least 3 lanes in each direction I doubt they would pursue an Interstate designation. It seems as though Texas is perfectly happy sticking state highway numbers on new freeway/turnpike builds.

Texas has so many instances where they could have used the blue and red shield and chose not to.  Is it some sort of Texas pride that we can build quality freeways without mommy and daddy's (the feds) help? Every other state I can think of would try keeping it an Interstate.  There are only two instances I can think of and that's Greensboro, NC and Sacramento, CA.

I still don't understand why Caltrans won't put Interstate shields on I-905 in the San Diego area, sign the rest of CA-210 in San Bernadino as I-210 or CA-15 as I-15 South of I-8 in San Diego.

Yes they do, and it drives me crazy.  Like it or not, the shield means something.  Not just to us roadgeeks, but everyone, even the two ditzy blondes driving to Spring Break taking selfies along the drive.  They don't know anything about standards, they don't know that on interstates you don't have blind turns and you have gentle turns, and overall the roads are safer, but they do know the red and blue shield means they are guaranteed a freeway (except I-180 in Wyoming), for better or worse.  They either know to take it for better results or stay away from it because the high speeds scare them.  I know everyone here is whatever about road designations because we know the roads, and we know what's a freeway and what's not by rote, but to 85-90% of the traveling public, everything that is not an interstate is an inferior route regardless if it's a freeway or a two lane road with no shoulder. A lot of Texas highways get overlooked because of the lack of the shield.   

[TheStranger]

It is pretty odd US-80/Spur-557 is only 2 lanes in each direction from I-30 in Dallas out to the merge with I-20 in Terrell. It is a pretty outdated road too. Some of the bridges easily date back 50 years or more.

If TX DOT performed a big overhaul of that road and expanded it to at least 3 lanes in each direction I doubt they would pursue an Interstate designation. It seems as though Texas is perfectly happy sticking state highway numbers on new freeway/turnpike builds.

Texas has so many instances where they could have used the blue and red shield and chose not to.  Is it some sort of Texas pride that we can build quality freeways without mommy and daddy's (the feds) help? Every other state I can think of would try keeping it an Interstate.  There are only two instances I can think of and that's Greensboro, NC and Sacramento, CA.

I still don't understand why Caltrans won't put Interstate shields on I-905 in the San Diego area, sign the rest of CA-210 in San Bernadino as I-210 or CA-15 as I-15 South of I-8 in San Diego.

Yes they do, and it drives me crazy.  Like it or not, the shield means something.  Not just to us roadgeeks, but everyone, even the two ditzy blondes driving to Spring Break taking selfies along the drive.  They don't know anything about standards, they don't know that on interstates you don't have blind turns and you have gentle turns, and overall the roads are safer, but they do know the red and blue shield means they are guaranteed a freeway (except I-180 in Wyoming), for better or worse.  They either know to take it for better results or stay away from it because the high speeds scare them.  I know everyone here is whatever about road designations because we know the roads, and we know what's a freeway and what's not by rote, but to 85-90% of the traveling public, everything that is not an interstate is an inferior route regardless if it's a freeway or a two lane road with no shoulder. A lot of Texas highways get overlooked because of the lack of the shield.   

Working off of this theme too:

IIRC didn't it take like 17 years for TN 840 to eventually be redesignated and signed as I-840?  (With detractors suggesting that the state route designation existed simply so Tennessee didn't have to deal with as much environmental red tape as if they had made it an Interstate from the start)

Even though the Interstate branding does absolutely have meaning to the public at large, I suspect that the DOTs in question (TxDOT, CalTrans, TNDOT) and others elsewhere (Arizona for instance with the state route freeways in Phoenix - one of which, AZ 51, was originally proposed as I-510) may be avoiding it in order to do route upgrades and freeway construction under their own timeframes/standards, especially with chargeable mileage no longer being a thing.

[sparker]

Even though the Interstate branding does absolutely have meaning to the public at large, I suspect that the DOTs in question (TxDOT, CalTrans, TNDOT) and others elsewhere (Arizona for instance with the state route freeways in Phoenix - one of which, AZ 51, was originally proposed as I-510) may be avoiding it in order to do route upgrades and freeway construction under their own timeframes/standards, especially with chargeable mileage no longer being a thing.

I would suspect that the above is it in a nutshell.  Even though future interstates sui generis are on the NHS system and thus eligible for up to 80% federal funding, it's coming up with the remaining 20% or more that is problematic at the state/local level.  And many of the things to be corrected in order to comply with Interstate standards are technical; the roadways are functioning quite well absent those "upgrades" (such as shoulder widening and, often, bridge width).  So to the DOT's its a matter of prioritization -- and unless there's a publicized push for Interstate status (like with NC), they see no need to expend funds to do the upgrades if there are, in their analysis, more pressing problems within their jurisdiction that need to be addressed.  And in CA, funds formerly directed to state-maintained routes alone are now allotted to streets and county roads as well, so there are always alternate uses for available funds.  So 15, 210, and 905 still have green spades (although to me they look more like oversized guitar picks!) -- although apparently some movement toward I-designation of 210 seems to be somewhere along the path to realization and might just happen sometime in the early 2020's.   

[Bobby5280]

The state government (and other entities) need to be doing something out there in the San Bernadino area. If designating the rest of CA-210 as I-210 could generate more business in San Bernadino then they ought to so it ASAP. San Bernadino is falling deeper into despair in the meantime.

[sparker]

The state government (and other entities) need to be doing something out there in the San Bernadino area. If designating the rest of CA-210 as I-210 could generate more business in San Bernadino then they ought to so it ASAP. San Bernadino is falling deeper into despair in the meantime.

San Bernardino had the problem of being very late in the game regarding attracting the type of warehouse/distribution business that has precipitated growth in the Inland Empire; part of that was that it was hemmed in by other cities that still had developable areas, such as Fontana and Rialto, both of which have grown and prospered by developing industry in their south areas and housing in the north up against the San Gabriel Mountain foothills (the latter generally straddling CA 210).  Even the college town of Redlands has gotten in on the action, with major warehousing sited north of I-10.  The only readily developable industrial space within San Bernardino itself is the former Norton AFB, which as originally planned was to be a major air freight hub (that never came about; Ontario beat them to the punch with longer runways and more open space around the facility) -- and the narrow space along the northern reaches of I-215 up toward Devore, itself hemmed in by the Cajon Creek floodplain to the west (which is prone to flash floods during winter rains).  And San Bernardino has the highest rate of poverty in the region; much of the city's budget has been directed at that issue rather than used to subsidize and attract commercial development with tax breaks and other "perks".  Those issues will persist regardless of the shield color and shape on 210.   Development can't and won't occur where there's little or no room to do so.   

[Brian556]

An interstate desigantion would also indicate to drivers that still navigate the old fashioned way that this is indeed an important freeway corridor.
Giving this corridor an interstate designation would also help with navigation because it would then have one number instead of two.

The signing off I-20 says "TO US 80", with no mention of SPUR 557, whitch to me is insufficient. Going eastbound on US 80, it used to say "TO I-20", but at least they fixed it to say EAST SPUR 557, TO I-20.

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

Another consideration is that the US 80-Spur 557 route is probably not up to current standards - it is an older freeway which obviously hasn't been upgraded much over the years (especially the 14'-15' overpasses east of Forney, and the East Fork Trinity River bridges).  It's hardly as antiquated as some older urban interstates elsewhere, but the design still reflects its 1950s origins. I guess in 1989 there was the possibility of the freeway being grandfathered into the IH system due to having been part of I-20, but that window has certainly now passed.

Of course this route should be an interstate, as it provides the most direct access to Dallas from the east. I-420 anyone? 

[wxfree]

Another consideration is that the US 80-Spur 557 route is probably not up to current standards - it is an older freeway which obviously hasn't been upgraded much over the years (especially the 14'-15' overpasses east of Forney, and the East Fork Trinity River bridges).  It's hardly as antiquated as some older urban interstates elsewhere, but the design still reflects its 1950s origins. I guess in 1989 there was the possibility of the freeway being grandfathered into the IH system due to having been part of I-20, but that window has certainly now passed.

Of course this route should be an interstate, as it provides the most direct access to Dallas from the east. I-420 anyone? 

I tend to be dismissive of Interstating roads just because they're freeways.  I like that TxDOT makes state and US freeways.  That tells drivers the difference between a road that remains a freeway, and those that either end in the metro area or downgrade either in or after leaving the metro area.  But that's a good point I hadn't thought of: it's the most direct route to Dallas from I-20, which doesn't quite go to Dallas, so Interstating may be warranted.  My first thought was that it could be I-130, but it doesn't go into a city from and I-30, but out of one.  So it should be an I-X20.

[Stephane Dumas]

What if TXDOT had labelled Spur 557 as "Business Route I-20"?

[Brian556]

What if TXDOT had labelled Spur 557 as "Business Route I-20"?

That wouldn't be logical. It would be counterproductive

[Bobby5280]

Spur-557 is only 4 miles long from the split with I-20 to the merge with US-80. That's hardly worth changing to an Interstate Business Spur designation, particularly with the road not really going into a town. I think the current signing on the road is pretty effective.

There has been a big surge in commercial development over the past couple years at the junction of I-20 and Spur-557. The huge Buc-cee's store was one of the first new things to get built there. Half a dozen or more new restaurants, a couple other stores and at least one new hotel line FM-148 between the two freeways. A new dine-in movie theater opened across from Buc-cee's. Several other large parcels are being developed. That location looks like it's going to fill-in even more with new businesses than the area around Tanger Outlets a couple miles East.

A full Interstate designation would simplify the naming of the US-80/Spur-557 combo freeway. But that would come at the risk of further truncating US-80 to where it meets Spur-557. I-30 East of Downtown Dallas is going to be significantly widened. That could put more traffic onto the US-80 freeway and force TX DOT to finally doing something serious about upgrading that freeway.

[ethanhopkin14]

Another consideration is that the US 80-Spur 557 route is probably not up to current standards - it is an older freeway which obviously hasn't been upgraded much over the years (especially the 14'-15' overpasses east of Forney, and the East Fork Trinity River bridges).  It's hardly as antiquated as some older urban interstates elsewhere, but the design still reflects its 1950s origins. I guess in 1989 there was the possibility of the freeway being grandfathered into the IH system due to having been part of I-20, but that window has certainly now passed.

Of course this route should be an interstate, as it provides the most direct access to Dallas from the east. I-420 anyone? 

I tend to be dismissive of Interstating roads just because they're freeways.  I like that TxDOT makes state and US freeways.  That tells drivers the difference between a road that remains a freeway, and those that either end in the metro area or downgrade either in or after leaving the metro area.  But that's a good point I hadn't thought of: it's the most direct route to Dallas from I-20, which doesn't quite go to Dallas, so Interstating may be warranted.  My first thought was that it could be I-130, but it doesn't go into a city from and I-30, but out of one.  So it should be an I-X20.

This was my original point to this thread.  Not only did t used to be an interstate so back when I-20 was rerouted it could have been grandfathered into the system since it used to carry an interstate designation, but mainly because I-20 "skits" both Dallas and Ft. Worth and the old I-20 designation is access to downtown without having to have an "L" routing.  In a sense, it is the perfect definition of an interstate spur.  Here is the main line that goes through the outskirts of the metro area so you can stay on the mainline if your destination is points beyond the metro areas and here is an I-X20 that services the downtown area if that is your final destination. 

I also like sub interstate freeways, except in situations where they can really help navigation.  Texas should have more 3dis because that would really help drivers understand that here are good, stopless and safe roads between these two destinations, and here is a loop or bypass of something.  A lot of times in Texas, you get " here is a loop or bypass of a city.  It not a 100% freeway; it's more line 75%.  It has 2 traffic lights and a railroad crossing, but hey!!  That's good enough right??"

[ethanhopkin14]

Spur-557 is only 4 miles long from the split with I-20 to the merge with US-80. That's hardly worth changing to an Interstate Business Spur designation, particularly with the road not really going into a town. I think the current signing on the road is pretty effective.

There has been a big surge in commercial development over the past couple years at the junction of I-20 and Spur-557. The huge Buc-cee's store was one of the first new things to get built there. Half a dozen or more new restaurants, a couple other stores and at least one new hotel line FM-148 between the two freeways. A new dine-in movie theater opened across from Buc-cee's. Several other large parcels are being developed. That location looks like it's going to fill-in even more with new businesses than the area around Tanger Outlets a couple miles East.

A full Interstate designation would simplify the naming of the US-80/Spur-557 combo freeway. But that would come at the risk of further truncating US-80 to where it meets Spur-557. I-30 East of Downtown Dallas is going to be significantly widened. That could put more traffic onto the US-80 freeway and force TX DOT to finally doing something serious about upgrading that freeway.

I am one of the few out there that doesn't shed too many tears about truncating U.S. Highways in favor of better highways.  The system is outdated and lowly anyway, so would anyone really cry that U.S. 80's western terminus got shifted from Dallas to Terrell when it was already truncated from San Diego to Dallas?

[In_Correct]

Truncating U.S. Highways is not much to cry about. They have truncated U.S. 75 near S.H. 366. They need to truncate it even further. Add a second Klyde Warren Park, Upgrade Interchanges, Make other upgrades, and keep only one designation: Intersate 45. And then "Interstate 45" will continue perhaps at U.S. 380. And then at U.S. 82. And then at U.S. 69. U.S. 75 used to go farther south but Interstate 45 has slowly "replaced" it. Even truncate U.S. 75 immediately north of Atoka and have U.S. 69 by itself continue south.

If people want to keep U.S. 75 around, then put it on Indian Nation Turnpike.

I all ready consider U.S. 81 truncated at Bowie. An Interstate Highway is not involved this time. But it does not seem necessary to continue U.S. 81 any farther south.

These corridors still exist. It's not like they are ripped out of the ground if they are truncated or decommissioned. Even U.S. 66 followed parts of Interstate 55, Interstate 44, and Interstate 40. Highways are either widened with upgrades (When this happens the route usually becomes a part of a different Highway System.) or a parallel route with a new designation is built. (When this happens the route becomes a Business Route, a State Highway, or it stays the same such as U.S. 77.)

If Highways are truncated because part of them become eligible for a different Highway System then it is too confusing to keep the same corridor multiple designations.

If any body wants to keep the same or similar lengths of a truncated highway, perhaps it can be rerouted to some corridor with no numbered designation or if a state highway was recently upgraded move the U.S. highway to there. (and then move the State Highway to some undesignated county road.)

[jbnv]

Another con about not truncating US highways is that it encourages states to keep obsolete US highways around. Take US 51, for example; it rides I-55 for 26 miles just so that it can go another three miles to terminate at US 61.

[TheStranger]

Another con about not truncating US highways is that it encourages states to keep obsolete US highways around. Take US 51, for example; it rides I-55 for 26 miles just so that it can go another three miles to terminate at US 61.

As one extreme of this:

Texas retaining US 85 while New Mexico does not sign it at all and Colorado doesn't sign it until Fountain, 129 miles north of the New Mexico state line.

Actually this is surprising enough given Texas being very trunaction-happy in the 80s and 90s.

[ethanhopkin14]

Another con about not truncating US highways is that it encourages states to keep obsolete US highways around. Take US 51, for example; it rides I-55 for 26 miles just so that it can go another three miles to terminate at US 61.

As one extreme of this:

Texas retaining US 85 while New Mexico does not sign it at all and Colorado doesn't sign it until Fountain, 129 miles north of the New Mexico state line.

Actually this is surprising enough given Texas being very trunaction-happy in the 80s and 90s.

I think Texas kept it because U.S. 85 follows a separate alignment through El Paso (Paisano Dr.).  It was a short enough distance that truncating it and getting a state highway designation was too much work.