DFW: US 380 freeway in Collin and Denton counties

[Bobby5280]

They'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.

I 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.

[rte66man]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[Brian556]

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

[rte66man]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[MaxConcrete]

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

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.

[MaxConcrete]

Map from today's Dallas Morning News.



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.

[Revive 755]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[MaxConcrete]

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

[Road Hog]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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!

[In_Correct]

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

[Road Hog]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[DJStephens]

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?   

[MaxConcrete]

Any 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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[mgk920]

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



Mike

[austrini]

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.

[froggie]

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!

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.

[BrandonC_TX]

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!

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).

[sprjus4]

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!

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.

[BrandonC_TX]

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.