US-277 potential intrastate standard corridor between Abilene and Wichita Falls

Started by TheBox, August 17, 2024, 12:19:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

TheBox

With TxDOT studying not only studying I-27 extension/Ports to Plains corridor but also finally studying US-287 interstate corridor between Amarillo and DFW at least (they also studying even further from Corsicana to Beaumont but don't expect that anytime soon). That just leaves us with US-277 between Abilene and Wichita Falls as far as northwestern potential interstate corridors are concerned.

And to a lesser extent US-62 between El Paso and Lubbock, but that requires NM to do their part (between Carlsbad and Hobbs specifically) and that alone makes it a pipe-dream.

US-277 is surprisingly expressway standards aside from west of Wichita Falls up to Holiday, Haskell, and Anson. The latter two may as well need a bypass. Since it has the benefit of being upgraded before in the past.
Wake me up when they upgrade US-290 between the state's largest city and growing capital into expressway standards if it interstate standards.

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


NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

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

CoreySamson

It's adequate as it is for the most part. Maybe an Anson bypass would be nice (and a bypass of all those businesses between Holliday and Wichita Falls), but nothing else. Texas has bigger fish to fry.
Buc-ee's and QuikTrip fanboy. Clincher of FM roads. Proponent of the TX U-turn. Budding theologian.

Route Log
Clinches
Counties
Travel Mapping

In_Correct

Wichita Falls had been cooperative in upgrading the roads through and around it. However, the last time I checked on the progress regarding the U.S. 277 ( called " U.S. 82 " in the studies, and STOP responding to everything as " Fictional " ... one of my topics was wrongfully moved instead of others doing their research about it. ) upgrades south of Wichita Falls is sadly there was some kind of opposition to it. ... not unlike the opposition for rail upgrades near Interstate 35 in Sanger.
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

jgb191

Quote from: TheBox on August 17, 2024, 12:19:27 AMAnd to a lesser extent US-62 between El Paso and Lubbock, but that requires NM to do their part (between Carlsbad and Hobbs specifically) and that alone makes it a pipe-dream.


I would have adjusted course....

Put a ruler on El Paso and Kansas City, the ruler would pass close to Amarillo and Wichita (KS) -- connect the dots with an interstate!  This would give drivers a direct connection between the Great Plains and the Desert Southwest.

And As for US-277, I always imagined extending I-44 farther south from Wichita Falls to Abilene, San Angelo, and Del Rio; and since the route would be extended more south than west, I say rename I-44 to something like I-31.
We're so far south that we're not even considered "The South"

TheBox

Quote from: jgb191 on August 17, 2024, 09:17:44 PM
Quote from: TheBox on August 17, 2024, 12:19:27 AMAnd to a lesser extent US-62 between El Paso and Lubbock, but that requires NM to do their part (between Carlsbad and Hobbs specifically) and that alone makes it a pipe-dream.


I would have adjusted course....

Put a ruler on El Paso and Kansas City, the ruler would pass close to Amarillo and Wichita (KS) -- connect the dots with an interstate!  This would give drivers a direct connection between the Great Plains and the Desert Southwest.

And As for US-277, I always imagined extending I-44 farther south from Wichita Falls to Abilene, San Angelo, and Del Rio; and since the route would be extended more south than west, I say rename I-44 to something like I-31.

I-27 / Ports-to-Plains corridor will cover the San Angelo to Del Rio range eventually.
Wake me up when they upgrade US-290 between the state's largest city and growing capital into expressway standards if it interstate standards.

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

Rothman

The real boards are getting more cluttered up with this fictional stuff. It's hard enough to discern the wheat from the chaff on here (one recent road meet attendee called keeping up with AARoads "a chore," with the context meaning "no longer worth the trouble").  Just seems things have become more lax in this regard recently to the site's detriment.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

In_Correct

Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

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

In_Correct

THAT IS ENOUGH. I DID NOT CREATE THIS TOPIC. I SIMPLY ANSWERED IT.
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: In_Correct on August 18, 2024, 02:09:19 AMIf any thing is cluttering AA Roads Forums, is false positives about things being Fictional.

https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/wichita-falls/us82-wichita-falls.html

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/wfs/us-82-gap/092220-fact-sheet.pdf
Those are improvements to 5-lane "poor boys" and modern shoulders, not to freeway. Upgrades to freeway there are strictly conjecture, and thus worthy of 86'ing to Fictional. 

In_Correct


QuoteAnd to a lesser extent US-62 between El Paso and Lubbock, but that requires NM to do their part (between Carlsbad and Hobbs specifically) and that alone makes it a pipe-dream.


Despite the title of the thread, THIS as quoted sounds like the only fictional part of the O.P. message. The rest of it is a description of a situation near Wichita Falls.

Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

Molandfreak

The "I-73 Updates" thread details upgrades to the US 23 corridor in Ohio—which is ostensibly not going to be part of I-73, at least not anytime soon. Why is this any different if there are other topics about the US 277 corridor to be discussed?

If someone wants to be presumptuous and say that these corridors could become interstates, whatever. The forum in 2013 wouldn't have screamed fictional at this person without providing any other meaningful content in their messages. That is objectively a better, more welcoming, and less elitist situation all around.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PMAASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

Rothman

Quote from: Molandfreak on August 18, 2024, 02:07:59 PMThe "I-73 Updates" thread details upgrades to the US 23 corridor in Ohio—which is ostensibly not going to be part of I-73, at least not anytime soon. Why is this any different if there are other topics about the US 277 corridor to be discussed?

If someone wants to be presumptuous and say that these corridors could become interstates, whatever. The forum in 2013 wouldn't have screamed fictional at this person without providing any other meaningful content in their messages. That is objectively a better, more welcoming, and less elitist situation all around.

Because I-73 was a defined, official Interstate proposal, and this isn't.

I personally use AARoads much more to keep up on real transportation improvements than anything else (even moreso than making snarky comments on here).  I spend much more time just perusing the "good stuff" in that regard:  The informed discussions on those proposals and then their construction.

I do think fictional has its place -- not like it shouldn't exist at all, but mixing up boards with real and fictional dilutes the actual utility of the forum overall.  We can be welcoming while promoting better organization of the threads.

(Endless useless discussions on what control cities "should" be is an entirely different unfortunate matter :D)
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Molandfreak

Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2024, 04:19:19 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 18, 2024, 02:07:59 PMThe "I-73 Updates" thread details upgrades to the US 23 corridor in Ohio—which is ostensibly not going to be part of I-73, at least not anytime soon. Why is this any different if there are other topics about the US 277 corridor to be discussed?

If someone wants to be presumptuous and say that these corridors could become interstates, whatever. The forum in 2013 wouldn't have screamed fictional at this person without providing any other meaningful content in their messages. That is objectively a better, more welcoming, and less elitist situation all around.

Because I-73 was a defined, official Interstate proposal, and this isn't.

I personally use AARoads much more to keep up on real transportation improvements than anything else (even moreso than making snarky comments on here).  I spend much more time just perusing the "good stuff" in that regard:  The informed discussions on those proposals and then their construction.

I do think fictional has its place -- not like it shouldn't exist at all, but mixing up boards with real and fictional dilutes the actual utility of the forum overall.  We can be welcoming while promoting better organization of the threads.

(Endless useless discussions on what control cities "should" be is an entirely different unfortunate matter :D)
But the way to do that is through reporting to the moderators, not screaming at the OP that they started a thread in the wrong board with good intentions.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PMAASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

MikieTimT

I would agree that we should err on the side of extending grace and educational opportunities to those who don't prolifically post like some of us do.  As far as using the forum to keep up with actual road improvements, I'd like to submit that there aren't a large enough number of road improvements nationally with the current funding and inflation levels to keep a site like this interesting to a large audience.  It's far more that just civil engineers and DOT personnel that keep tabs on the site as road improvements are the infrastructure that make a significant part of our economy possible and efficient.

I'd also like to submit that a number of routes that many would like to classify as "Fictional" actually should be categorized as "logical" or "likely" extensions to the IHS, in varying degrees of likelihood.  With a label like "Fictional", it makes it sound like threads within it are "pie in the sky" submissions with little to no likelihood, whereas, a number of things posted in it are rather observations regarding worthy connections that would benefit more than just local traffic but actually increase the efficiency of travel and commerce.

It would be useful for this site to come up with a new category in the "National Boards" for logical upgrades to the highway system.  With all of the population migration of the last several years increasing the migration from the densely populated northeast and upper midwest towards the west and south, the inevitable result will be a need to invest federally in areas that were underrepresented in the 1950's when the original IHS was designed.  And by federally invested, I mean 90/10, not 80/20.  We have had some forward progress on earmarks/grants as of late because of "inflation reduction" that provide a little short term boost to some shovel ready things that have been planned since the IHS was "complete" in the eyes of those areas that were well represented in the first 3 decades of the IHS, but we've had 3 decades since of growth due to immigration on top of relocation due to economic opportunities as well as baby boomer retirements that have significantly changed the population of cities and states in the Sun Belt to the point of U.S. House of Representatives as well as Electoral College reapportionment in the last couple of censuses, with no slowdown in sight.

Rothman

I spend way more than half my time on here perusing the discussions on actual infrastructure, so there evidently are enough official proposals, studies and projects out there.  I'd say at least half the posts each day are related to real stuff.

What I'm most concerned about is my perceived decline of AARoads in general that I've heard expressed by other roadgeeks IRL, especially those more informed of the inner workings of the transportation sector, both public and private.  To me, it's a huge pity that while AARoads remains a good source of information, having the fictional stuff dilute it by being mixed in causes a "AARoads is too much of a mess to sort out" negative reaction and reduces participation by those that actually know how projects actually progress from studies to scoping and through the development, design and construction processes.  That's a significant potential loss, if it already isn't happening.  (Fatigue felt by experts caused by feeling a need to "constantly" correct those that have common misunderstandings is a separate matter that I think is intractable given the overall characteristics of our community :D; just comes with the territory).

Anyway, I like your idea in concept, since my main concern is keeping the real from the fantasy separated in the forum in general.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

vdeane

Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2024, 07:52:23 PMI spend way more than half my time on here perusing the discussions on actual infrastructure, so there evidently are enough official proposals, studies and projects out there.  I'd say at least half the posts each day are related to real stuff.

What I'm most concerned about is my perceived decline of AARoads in general that I've heard expressed by other roadgeeks IRL, especially those more informed of the inner workings of the transportation sector, both public and private.  To me, it's a huge pity that while AARoads remains a good source of information, having the fictional stuff dilute it by being mixed in causes a "AARoads is too much of a mess to sort out" negative reaction and reduces participation by those that actually know how projects actually progress from studies to scoping and through the development, design and construction processes.  That's a significant potential loss, if it already isn't happening.  (Fatigue felt by experts caused by feeling a need to "constantly" correct those that have common misunderstandings is a separate matter that I think is intractable given the overall characteristics of our community :D; just comes with the territory).

Anyway, I like your idea in concept, since my main concern is keeping the real from the fantasy separated in the forum in general.
Maybe the forum hit its Eternal September.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Bobby5280

The four lane upgrade TX DOT did to US-277 from Wichita Falls to Abilene in the 2005-2015 time frame was pretty significant. While there is no specific effort to turn the corridor into a fully Interstate-class facility the widening project certainly created the potential for such a thing to happen, perhaps eventually.

New bypasses at or near Interstate quality were built in Seymour, Goree, Munday, Haskell and Stamford. The Holliday bypass was already existing (and still not finished). Dundee and Weinert got more simple yet upgrade-able 4-lane divided bypasses. So far a "US-277 relief route" for Anson has remained in the planning stages.

In Wichita Falls there were some plans in the works to extend Kell Freeway farther West to the existing Holliday bypass. But those plans have pretty much fallen apart. Now it looks like a far more modest (or minimal) upgrade will happen along the existing US-82/277 highway between Holliday and Wichita Falls. Currently the road is 4-lane non-divided with no shoulders. IIRC the plan is to re-build the road as a 4-lane non-divided facility with a 5th center turn lane and some shoulders. There are driveways out the wazoo through there. It wouldn't surprise me if they lowered the speed limit and even added traffic signals at Parker Ranch Road, Clyde Morgan Road and the TX-258 intersection.

That part on the SE edge of Wichita Falls looks like ass. It's a bunch of old industrial businesses and junk along the road thru there. If TX DOT had been able to build a new terrain freeway bypass it would have helped Wichita Falls create a better looking Southwest gateway.

I'd like to see I-44 extended to Abilene and San Angelo, but such a thing ranks well down below other corridors in Texas, such as US-287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth. The I-27, I-14 and I-69 projects are already a lot to handle. I'm very skeptical about I-14 ever being fully built-out. Austin has two corridors to Houston that should be upgraded to Interstate quality. I don't think there are any official studies going on to improve either TX-71 or US-290 into Interstates. The US-84 corridor from Lubbock down to Sweetwater carries a hell of a lot of truck traffic. As Texas continues to add more residents (at the expense of other states like New York and California) the state will need to improve more of these highways, whether they're signed with Interstate shields or not.

Scott5114

Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2024, 07:52:23 PMI spend way more than half my time on here perusing the discussions on actual infrastructure, so there evidently are enough official proposals, studies and projects out there.  I'd say at least half the posts each day are related to real stuff.

What I'm most concerned about is my perceived decline of AARoads in general that I've heard expressed by other roadgeeks IRL, especially those more informed of the inner workings of the transportation sector, both public and private.  To me, it's a huge pity that while AARoads remains a good source of information, having the fictional stuff dilute it by being mixed in causes a "AARoads is too much of a mess to sort out" negative reaction and reduces participation by those that actually know how projects actually progress from studies to scoping and through the development, design and construction processes.  That's a significant potential loss, if it already isn't happening.  (Fatigue felt by experts caused by feeling a need to "constantly" correct those that have common misunderstandings is a separate matter that I think is intractable given the overall characteristics of our community :D; just comes with the territory).

Anyway, I like your idea in concept, since my main concern is keeping the real from the fantasy separated in the forum in general.

Part of the problem is that while it's easy to see when something very obviously fictional is posted, the more "gray area" posts like this one are hard to spot unless you're familiar with the corridor and the agencies involved. That's to say nothing of the difficulty of categorizing something where the DOT is working on upgrades but maybe not necessarily of the kind the poster is thinking (e.g. four-lane improvements where they're posted as though it's becoming a freeway or Interstate), or things like I-11 where the state(s) involved claim(s) to want to build something, but the community is skeptical as to how committed it is to actually turning dirt.

If you see fictional content outside of the fictional forum, sending us a report is welcome, so we can move it. If the community at large finds the forum to be exhausting to keep up with in general due to this, perhaps it's a sign we need additional staff. Or it could just be that the forum is busy enough that one should not expect to be able to read the whole thing every day—I normally check the sections I'm most interested in, and rely on reports and the other moderators to know when trouble is brewing in the sections I don't frequent.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Bobby5280

A big part of the problem is one person's judgment of what a "fictional" road or road project might be is very subjective.

Less than 20 years ago most of US-277 between Abilene and Wichita Falls was an ordinary 2 lane road. The only significant segment of 4-lane road was the stretch between Anson and Abilene. I can remember seeing that 4-lane road flanked by frontage roads when I was just a kid. The rest of the 4-lane upgrade work from Anson to Wichita Falls is a pretty recent thing. But going back 20 plus years ago if anyone was expressing their desire or opinion in a forum like this that US-277 should be turned into a 4-lane divided highway that could have been dismissed as a "fictional" idea.

Long before I started posting in this forum I thought US-287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth should be an Interstate highway. Some of that is based on real world experience of driving on that highway going back to the 1980's and seeing how things have changed in the decades since then. My driving experience and observations are certainly not "fictional." Things have built up to a point where TX DOT is now actually doing a real Interstate corridor study on it.

The population in the United States is not static. The numbers are still growing, although not as fast as in the past. There is a great deal of migration taking place. When certain regions, such as North Texas, are adding population at a rapid pace it's pretty easy to predict certain highways will need to be upgraded.

Rothman

Whether there is an official project in the works or not is definitely not subjective at all.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

SectorZ

Thread derailments are far more tedious than determining what is fictional and what is not.

Gatekeeping is, too. Especially some of the people here that look down on me because I've "only" been here ten years as opposed to fifteen.

Bobby5280

Quote from: RothmanWhether there is an official project in the works or not is definitely not subjective at all.

Yes it is subjective. There is plenty of gray area.

All it takes for some highway corridor to be officially deemed a future Interstate corridor of some sort is politicians saying so. The corridor could be built out as an Interstate. Or it can remain unfunded and not get built. Lots of "high priority corridors" and "future Interstates" have remained in limbo for decades. Meanwhile some other highway corridor with a mixed bag of limited access segments and regular 4 lane segments can be quietly upgraded piece by piece until it's almost a full blown freeway without ever getting any kind of official fanfare.

This forum is open to talking about any highways, not just Interstates. The OP talked about the potential of US-277 being upgraded to Interstate standards. No one has said the corridor would definitely be turned into an Interstate.

Knee jerk reactions stating "fictional" appear to ignore what has been done to the US-277 corridor from Wichita Falls to Abilene in recent years. If this was just some po-dunk insignificant highway why bother doing all those upgrades?

Between Abilene and Wichita Falls the US-277 corridor is almost entirely free flowing now. Aside from flashing yellow lights in a few locations the only real traffic light is at one intersection in Anson. If TX DOT wanted to upgrade that segment of US-277 to 100% limited access it wouldn't be all that hard to do. Most of the hardest parts (town bypasses) are already finished. I-44 also points into that corridor.

Rothman

I don't know how more objective it can be than an official either saying they want it or not.  That's not subjective at all.

Without something officially in the works, all you've got are forum participants being wistful about how a corridor should be.  That's the definition of fictional.

In any matter, I found the proposal for a board devoted to such desired extensions to be a good one.  Gets this stuff out of threads where reality should be the assumption, rather than a new forum member taking some roadgeek's opinion beyond what is even being officially discussed as fact.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.



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