U.S. 287 Corridor Interstate Feasibility Study in Texas

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

Previous topic - Next topic

vdeane

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 03, 2024, 03:58:54 PMAASHTO policies are to number interstates with the lowest number available based on the most southern or western interstate the future interstate terminates at or near
[citation needed]
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.


Road Hog

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 03, 2024, 09:12:59 PMThe Kaufman County Outer Loop is more likely going to end up as part of Loop 9. Portions of that Loop are already being built South of Dallas and to the North of where US-287 passes thru towns like Midlothian and Ennis. US-287 is its own corridor it shouldn't serve double duty as part of Loop 9.

It is likely, though, that Loop 9 will intersect with US 287 and 360 Tollway at some point in Northwest Ellis County to create more mobility.

Basically the whole northwestern quadrant of Ellis County is Midlothian ISD, and they better buckle up because they're getting a bunch of Grand Prairie kids in the next 10-15 years.

Bobby5280

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridorsThe fact sheet published by TXDOT explains that the US 287 corridor from Port Arthur to Future I-27 serves as a major connection route for freight traffic

The AADT counts on much of US-287 between Corsicana and Beaumont hover in the 2500 area. That doesn't make it seem like much of a major connection to me.

US-175 going SE out of Dallas has AADT levels above 50,000 and is still near 30,000 at Kaufman. The levels drop to 16,000 by the time US-175 reaches Athens. The levels are cut in half (or less) past Athens. A good argument can be made for creating an Interstate spur from I-20 to Athens, but not any farther than that.

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridorsTherefore U.S. 287 from I-35W to Future I-27 could become either Future I-28 or I-32 and south of Ft Worth from I-20 to I-10 could be numbered Future I-18, the correct numbers for the existing Interstate numbering grid.

US-287 itself is a North-South highway. The route from Port Arthur and Beaumont up to Corsicana is far more of a North-South road than East-West. If that road was ever going to get an Interstate number something like "I-47" would make a lot more sense than "I-18." But the traffic counts aren't there to even justify a standard 4-lane upgrade, much less spend far more on an Interstate upgrade.

The Fort Worth-Amarillo segment of US-287 does run much more East-West. An even-numbered Interstate designation would make more sense there. The segment is also largely North of I-30. An I-28 designation wouldn't be as logical as I-32, I-34 (or even I-36 for that matter). I'd prefer the same Interstate number run from I-40 in Amarillo down to I-45 in Ennis. It would be better for route number consistency for that corridor thru Fort Worth. And it's also because I think there's virtually no chance an Interstate is ever getting built from Corsicana to Beaumont.

Bobby5280

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridorsCongress still created the I-27 corridor and today Texas Congressmen are making sure Future I-27 gets funded.

The Ports to Plains Corridor as a complete Interstate highway is largely an unfunded mandate. Lawmakers (mostly in Texas) have expressed their desire to extend I-27. More than 20 years have passed since the Ports to Plains Corridor was established. Since then hardly anything has been built. There's a new bypass around Big Spring that's near Interstate quality. The US-87 freeway is getting extended a bit farther South of Lubbock. Amarillo is working on its freeway loop, which I-27 would overlap. Outside of those few projects hardly anything else has been done.

There has been considerably more progress on I-69 in Texas. But that, too, is also a 20+ year old project. And it's disappointing to see just how much of it is still left to be built. Then there's that whole I-14 thing.

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridorsYou will see that if Congress enters the picture to create a future interstate corridor along U.S. 287, the City of Dallas will want U.S. 175 included as an interstate feeder branch to the future interstate along U.S. 287.

US-175 does not cross paths with US-287.

Henry

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 04, 2024, 09:49:17 PM
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridorsCongress still created the I-27 corridor and today Texas Congressmen are making sure Future I-27 gets funded.

The Ports to Plains Corridor as a complete Interstate highway is largely an unfunded mandate. Lawmakers (mostly in Texas) have expressed their desire to extend I-27. More than 20 years have passed since the Ports to Plains Corridor was established. Since then hardly anything has been built. There's a new bypass around Big Spring that's near Interstate quality. The US-87 freeway is getting extended a bit farther South of Lubbock. Amarillo is working on its freeway loop, which I-27 would overlap. Outside of those few projects hardly anything else has been done.

There has been considerably more progress on I-69 in Texas. But that, too, is also a 20+ year old project. And it's disappointing to see just how much of it is still left to be built. Then there's that whole I-14 thing.

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridorsYou will see that if Congress enters the picture to create a future interstate corridor along U.S. 287, the City of Dallas will want U.S. 175 included as an interstate feeder branch to the future interstate along U.S. 287.

US-175 does not cross paths with US-287.
I-2 also has a long way to go before it is completed. Out of the three (including I-14 and I-69), chances are that it'll be done first, as the shortest one in the group.

I-45 represents the historic route of US 75, so US 175 would technically meet its parent in downtown Dallas.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

jgb191

Quote from: splashflash on December 03, 2024, 04:15:00 PMHow about the existing freeway and planned freeway to the north of Beaumont? Do you think it should get a 3di too?  Maybe at least to the US 96 / US 287 and US 69 split?

Sure, why not a full 3Di route between Pt. Arthur and Lumberton....the US-69 & US 96 southern terminus can end at their merger in Lumberton, then multiplex with I-10 for a couple of miles and then branching off towards Pt. Arthur.  I believe most of that stretch is already full freeway.

As an aside, while we're at Beaumont would there be enough right of way to construct a new US-90 freeway extending westward towards Liberty from current interchange (I-10/US-69) and then merge with the current US-90 somewhere near the Beaumont Municipal Airport.  The stretch of (I believe it's called) Calder or College Street could be redesignated as Business US-90.
We're so far south that we're not even considered "The South"

vdeane

Quote from: Henry on December 04, 2024, 09:57:47 PMI-2 also has a long way to go before it is completed. Out of the three (including I-14 and I-69), chances are that it'll be done first, as the shortest one in the group.
And yet it's not even in the map posted towards the beginning of this thread.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

english si

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 03, 2024, 03:58:54 PMThis project is entirely an initiative of TXDOT.  It is not a Congressionally mandated or designated future interstate corridor like I-69, I-27, and I-14 which were given their interstate number designation in the federal law that created the corridors.
And the next time there's a bill that would allow for the creation of new High Priority Corridors?

It's not like Texas doesn't have the clout in Congress to get such things added...

Should also point out that federal law isn't required to get a new interstate - eg the new I-335, I-344 and soon-to-be I-490 are not HPCs with mandated interstate designation. Even if states threw in a lot of their future interstates (even spurs) into the IIJA, creating about 20 new HPCs, that doesn't mean that that is the way it has to be done.

And being an HPC with a designated number is no guarantee of priority - NC has got a lot more of I-587 opened than I-87, for instance.

edwaleni

I have driven US-287 from DFW to Amarillo.

While it is already a 4 lane non-interstate highway the whole way, it is deader than a doornail west of Vernon to Amarillo.

So unless it is supposed to be a supplement to the Ports to Plains deal (Beaumont as the port), I don't see the use of tagging an I number to it.

webny99

Quote from: edwaleni on December 05, 2024, 09:22:38 AMI have driven US-287 from DFW to Amarillo.

While it is already a 4 lane non-interstate highway the whole way, it is deader than a doornail west of Vernon to Amarillo.

So unless it is supposed to be a supplement to the Ports to Plains deal (Beaumont as the port), I don't see the use of tagging an I number to it.

The area it passes through may be dead, and I would agree that it is, but that doesn't mean there isn't significant truck and other long distance traffic passing through. In addition to DFW-Amarillo, it also forms part of a larger corridor connecting Denver and Houston.

05danper42842

Loop 9 will never intersect US 287 or 360 Tollway. It was originally meant to fill in the gap of the PGBT Toll that goes around. US 287 is more of a connector to the Kaufman Outer Loop Extension.
Daniel Perez

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

edwaleni

Quote from: webny99 on December 05, 2024, 10:17:24 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on December 05, 2024, 09:22:38 AMI have driven US-287 from DFW to Amarillo.

While it is already a 4 lane non-interstate highway the whole way, it is deader than a doornail west of Vernon to Amarillo.

So unless it is supposed to be a supplement to the Ports to Plains deal (Beaumont as the port), I don't see the use of tagging an I number to it.

The area it passes through may be dead, and I would agree that it is, but that doesn't mean there isn't significant truck and other long distance traffic passing through. In addition to DFW-Amarillo, it also forms part of a larger corridor connecting Denver and Houston.


I was referring to the amount of traffic. Some ranch trucks, periodic long haul. Very rare west of Nelson.

Bobby5280

#37
Quote from: edwaleniWhile it is already a 4 lane non-interstate highway the whole way, it is deader than a doornail west of Vernon to Amarillo.

I don't really agree that. I've driven the route many times, mainly the Memphis-Amarillo segment on road trips between Lawton and Colorado and then the Wichita Falls-Fort Worth segment for closer visits to DFW.

Traffic levels on that segment of US-287 can be sparse at certain times of day or night. It also can depend on what day(s) of the week one is driving on that route. But anecdotally I typically see more vehicles on that part of US-287 than I do on I-44 between Wichita Falls and Lawton. A lot of those vehicles on US-287 are big commercial trucks. The AADT counts on US-287 between Vernon and Amarillo are mostly above 12,000. That's better than some portions of the existing I-27. The AADT numbers on US-287 start going well above 12,000 East of Wichita Falls (18,000 in Henrietta, 25,000 East of Bowie, over 30,000 in Decatur, over 80,000 near the I-35W interchange).

mrose

Amarillo to DFW has always felt like a no-brainer to me but it was also surprising how 287 still goes right through most of these towns. The bypasses will be the brunt of the work needed.

Bobby5280

I don't expect the federal government to go pulling up Interstate sign posts on various unfinished corridors. Work on I-69 has been on-going for more than 20 years and it still has decades ahead before it's going to be finished.

If US-287 was to get an Interstate designation I think we may see the same kinds of dangling spurs currently present with I-69. The first portion would probably get signed in the Fort Worth area and slowly move Northwest to (and hopefully beyond) Decatur. A segment could get signed in the Wichita Falls area since I-44 currently ends there. A signed Wichita Falls branch could spread as far as Vernon pretty quickly if they can get frontage roads extended in various places to cut off driveway access to the main lanes.

Quote from: mroseAmarillo to DFW has always felt like a no-brainer to me but it was also surprising how 287 still goes right through most of these towns. The bypasses will be the brunt of the work needed.

On the bright side several towns already have freeway bypasses. A couple towns have situations where it wouldn't be difficult to upgrade US-287 along the existing ROW. Bigger towns along the way, such as Childress, would need new terrain bypasses.

The hardest work of upgrading US-287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth up to Interstate standards is going to be in the DFW region. Decatur might be the toughest nut to crack (although none of the businesses next to the existing highway are anything to write home about). The stretch between US-380 up to Alvord will be a tight squeeze fitting frontage roads and main lanes together. But it's do-able.

vdeane

That "25 year" rule actually pertains to the special exemption I-69 got to designate sections that aren't yet connected to the rest of the interstate system; it's the deadline to get them connected.  It's not about how long it takes to build the whole corridor.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Voyager

Quote from: MaxConcrete on December 03, 2024, 09:40:22 AMOfficial study site.



Wow I had no idea Texas had gone so interstate wild lately, thought that was just North Carolina.
AARoads Forum Original

TheStranger

Quote from: Voyager on December 06, 2024, 01:23:51 PMWow I had no idea Texas had gone so interstate wild lately, thought that was just North Carolina.

Just in the last 15 years or so:

- I-69 including I-69W/I-69C/I-69E, and I-369.  (Plus the short I-169 in the RGV)
- I-14 (though only very little of that exists right now)
- the recently approved I-27 extensions, including the planned I-27W/E split near Midland and the I-27N concept going into Oklahoma
- I-2 (which isn't even shown on the above map)
- The small segment of I-49 planned north of Texarkana that would briefly enter Texas

Prior to that though, the I-635 extension was the last new Interstate addition for quite some time - this is different from North Carolina having a consistent mix of expansion/addition with the I-40 extension east and the Greensboro auxiliary routes, before the latest rounds of Interstate submissions.
Chris Sampang

Bobby5280

Texas is a much bigger state. The proposed routes cover quite a bit more mileage. The upshot is quite a bit of the build burden is in relatively flat, open rural areas. North Carolina has more in the way of dense woodlands, hills and even mountainous areas.

One thing not shown on that future Interstate corridors map for Texas: the other freeways (and toll roads) that will end up needing to be built in the Texas Triangle, thru Austin and parts of the greater Houston metro. I still see US-290 and TX-71 being built out to full Interstate quality, and probably at a faster pace than segments of I-14.

05danper42842

NCTCOG is proposing a new STRAHNET Route that new route will be US 287 from I-20 to I-45.
Daniel Perez

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

edwaleni

Quote from: TheStranger on December 06, 2024, 02:56:09 PM- the recently approved I-27 extensions, including the planned I-27W/E split near Midland and the I-27N concept going into Oklahoma


Small correction. I-27N will never see Oklahoma. It will extend to New Mexico and end in Raton.

vdeane

Quote from: edwaleni on December 07, 2024, 01:34:13 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 06, 2024, 02:56:09 PM- the recently approved I-27 extensions, including the planned I-27W/E split near Midland and the I-27N concept going into Oklahoma


Small correction. I-27N will never see Oklahoma. It will extend to New Mexico and end in Raton.
That's mainline I-27, not I-27N.  I-27N is the spur to the Oklahoma border.

Realistically, anything labeled I-27 isn't likely to exist outside of Texas.  New Mexico isn't exactly building new interstates either.
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 07, 2024, 12:45:33 AMThe 25-year limit of US Code 23, Chapter 1, Sec. 139 specifically applies when the FHWA administratively creates the future interstate corridor.  It gives the FHWA the option to remove the interstate designation if the state transportation department cannot complete construction.  When Congress creates corridors, such as the case of I-69, I-49, I-14, and I-27, the interstate designation exists by law until Congress repeals the designation.  Neither the AASHTO nor FHWA would try to remove the designation, which is why the Congressionally assigned number remain on the "books" by law which is still the case for I-66 in Kentucky and I-73/I-74 in West Virginia, and Ohio, and I-73 in Virginia even though Virginia has cancelled any further study of I-73.  If the state funds an interstate-standard freeway using their own state budget, they can sign the highway with the interstate number assigned to the corridor, however the Federal government is not obligated to fund any part of highway. However, it's not likely Congress will waste time having a floor debate about the issue of an interstate number.  Congress delegates the final decision of assigning numbers at the discretion of the FHWA and AASHTO. The FHWA always has the option to create the future interstate corridor if the state transportation department is able to start construction after the 25-year period.  This prevents situations of leaving an interstate designation perpetually on the FHWA lists of interstate designations, allowing FHWA the option to assign the interstate number to another corridor that has more of a chance to be completed.

Most people don't realize that the AASHTO and FHWA have the option to assign the same number to an Interstate Route and U.S. Route in a state by decommissioning the U.S. Route number.  The Bureau of Public Roads did this when it assigned the number to Interstate 40 by decommissioning U.S. Route 40 in California.  The AASHTO, with FHWA approval, has a history of changing route numbers for both Interstates Routes and U.S. Routes by decommissioning the number.   
Section 139 doesn't appear to have anything to do with that.  Section 103 does make a similar mention, but that is with respect to future interstate corridors, not to sections that are already designated and signed with the red, white, and blue shield.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/docs/title23usc.pdf
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Bobby5280

That "I-27N" idea is so stupid. The signs would look very odd to anyone driving South on I-27N.

If mainline I-27 was built to Texline and then a spur of I-27 was built North of Dumas to (probably) Stratford the spur should get a 3-digit I-x27 designation. It's only 32 miles from Dumas to Stratford and 48 miles from Dumas to the OK panhandle border. That's short enough for a standard 3 digit route.

Unless New Mexico and Colorado get on board in a big way with promoting Interstate highway construction for the Ports to Plains Corridor I don't realistically see I-27 get any farther North than Dumas.

TheStranger

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2024, 01:36:14 PMThat "I-27N" idea is so stupid. The signs would look very odd to anyone driving South on I-27N.

I am suddenly reminded of when...I-86 in Idaho was originally proposed as...I-15W.
Chris Sampang

PColumbus73

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2024, 01:36:14 PMThat "I-27N" idea is so stupid. The signs would look very odd to anyone driving South on I-27N.

If mainline I-27 was built to Texline and then a spur of I-27 was built North of Dumas to (probably) Stratford the spur should get a 3-digit I-x27 designation. It's only 32 miles from Dumas to Stratford and 48 miles from Dumas to the OK panhandle border. That's short enough for a standard 3 digit route.

Unless New Mexico and Colorado get on board in a big way with promoting Interstate highway construction for the Ports to Plains Corridor I don't realistically see I-27 get any farther North than Dumas.

Just reinforces to me that politicians shouldn't be in the business of assigning interstate numbers. Would be nice if it were interpreted as a 'spur of I-27' rather than forcing the readopting of suffixed routes.



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.