Why have they not gone ahead and at minimum renumber or duplex US67 from I35E to Ward Road in Midlothian TX as a interstate it is completely grade separated and they have a permanent Jersey Barrier installed. Also US287 maybe has 10 to 15 miles to finish to be interstate grade. They have finished a makeshift interchange at SH360 and they are planning on removing the last traffic signal between Fort Worth and Ennis in 2019 with an interchange being constructed at walnut grove/plainview rd. I know they need to rebuild the US287 business interchange at Waxahachie on the west side as it is a left entrance ramp with no dedicated lane. To be honest if they want to extend the interstate to I35W on US67 they would have to build a bypass of Venus and Alvarado as they have a duplex setup but it is heavily developed and in Alvarado they have the original 2 lane as a business route and the reroute is a 4 lane traffic signal laden road with stores and businesses.
For the past couple or so decades Texas hasn't been very inclined at all to apply Interstate numbers to new freeways or toll roads in the state. There is the I-69 system (a pseudo-national effort), I-2 (arguably part of the I-69 effort) and the itty bitty stub of I-14. But a lot of new urban freeway and toll road projects in Texas have not gained Interstate route numbers. They've held onto US highway designations or even "toll" variants of state highways.
I would certainly like to see US-287 converted into a full blown Interstate from the I-45 interchange in Ennis all the way to I-40 in Amarillo. I personally like "I-32" for that. But chances are actually strong any conversion may just stay designated as US-287, especially if TX DOT has to scrounge up much of the funding itself.
It seems pretty clear TX DOT wants US-287 up to Interstate standards at least from I-45 at Ennis up to TX-114 at Rhome. Bare minimum it really needs to be an Interstate up to US-380 in Decatur. Past the other side of Decatur freeway upgrades to Wichita Falls and Amarillo won't be too difficult. Short freeway segments in Alvord, Sunset-Bowie, Henrietta, Iowa Park, Electra, Harrold, Oklaunion and Vernon will ease the upgrade burden. There's still several other towns along US-287 that will need new bypasses even if the entire route is never fully upgraded.
US-67 probably has less chance of gaining an Interstate designation, even if the road is completely converted to a freeway Southwest down to Cleburne. One problem is parts of the existing US-67 freeway segments are not up to current Interstate standards (narrow shoulders in some places and no shoulders on some bridges in South Dallas). On the bright side there is a decent amount of upgrade work happening (south of I-20).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 30, 2019, 12:53:37 AM
For the past couple or so decades Texas hasn't been very inclined at all to apply Interstate numbers to new freeways or toll roads in the state. There is the I-69 system (a pseudo-national effort), I-2 (arguably part of the I-69 effort) and the itty bitty stub of I-14. But a lot of new urban freeway and toll road projects in Texas have not gained Interstate route numbers. They've held onto US highway designations or even "toll" variants of state highways.
I would certainly like to see US-287 converted into a full blown Interstate from the I-45 interchange in Ennis all the way to I-40 in Amarillo. I personally like "I-32" for that. But chances are actually strong any conversion may just stay designated as US-287, especially if TX DOT has to scrounge up much of the funding itself.
It seems pretty clear TX DOT wants US-287 up to Interstate standards at least from I-45 at Ennis up to TX-114 at Rhome. Bare minimum it really needs to be an Interstate up to US-380 in Decatur. Past the other side of Decatur freeway upgrades to Wichita Falls and Amarillo won't be too difficult. Short freeway segments in Alvord, Sunset-Bowie, Henrietta, Iowa Park, Electra, Harrold, Oklaunion and Vernon will ease the upgrade burden. There's still several other towns along US-287 that will need new bypasses even if the entire route is never fully upgraded.
US-67 probably has less chance of gaining an Interstate designation, even if the road is completely converted to a freeway Southwest down to Cleburne. One problem is parts of the existing US-67 freeway segments are not up to current Interstate standards (narrow shoulders in some places and no shoulders on some bridges in South Dallas). On the bright side there is a decent amount of upgrade work happening (south of I-20).
well I am thinking they will be upgrading from I20 to I35E in the next few years the road is just unsafe. Especially forcing a HOV lane down the road.
Seeing that I-69 is set in stone (along with I-49 across the border to the east), there's not much need for an Interstate along US 287. As for US 67, I might envision this as an I-31 or I-33, but for the time being, it's fine as it is, and thus I see no need to upgrade either (with I-35 doing the job).
Quote from: Henry on April 30, 2019, 10:27:46 AM
Seeing that I-69 is set in stone (along with I-49 across the border to the east), there's not much need for an Interstate along US 287. As for US 67, I might envision this as an I-31 or I-33, but for the time being, it's fine as it is, and thus I see no need to upgrade either (with I-35 doing the job).
IMO, 287 from where it splits off from I45 at Ennis west to Amarillo should be an interstate. The amount of truck traffic warrants it.
What's the point of changing the route number that's been around for decades if there's no longer 90% federal funding to charge?
US 287 from Oklahoma to Fort Worth, and US 67 from Dallas to San Angelo and from McCamey to Presidio are on the trunk highway system. This means that there's a long-term goal of upgrading them to at least four lane divided highways (although five-lane is an acceptable alternative for lightly traveled sections).
Isn't this best suited in Fictional Highways?
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 30, 2019, 10:25:22 PM
Isn't this best suited in Fictional Highways?
This is not a fictional situation there seems to be a need for an upgrade was curious if all of these bypasses since 2001 are for a future corridor. U.S. 287 used to only have 3 bypasses from interstate 20 to interstate 45. Now they have 4 and a major stack interchange in Midlothian with plans for future flyover ramps at U.S. 67 and U.S. 287. U.S. 67 business was retired in favor of BUS 287 and a portion became Spur 73 from south of town to BUS 287 and there is a flyover connector from Spur 73 south to U.S. 67 south. No southbound exit or northbound entrance. Also U.S. 287 is a designated Hurricane evacuation route to Fort Worth from Ennis.
How about we just leave the existing designations on Texas highways alone, thank you very much.
Quote from: motorola870 on May 01, 2019, 04:42:46 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 30, 2019, 10:25:22 PM
Isn't this best suited in Fictional Highways?
This is not a fictional situation there seems to be a need for an upgrade was curious if all of these bypasses since 2001 are for a future corridor. U.S. 287 used to only have 3 bypasses from interstate 20 to interstate 45. Now they have 4 and a major stack interchange in Midlothian with plans for future flyover ramps at U.S. 67 and U.S. 287. U.S. 67 business was retired in favor of BUS 287 and a portion became Spur 73 from south of town to BUS 287 and there is a flyover connector from Spur 73 south to U.S. 67 south. No southbound exit or northbound entrance. Also U.S. 287 is a designated Hurricane evacuation route to Fort Worth from Ennis.
There may be a need for it, but it's technically considered "Fictional Highways" on the forum if it's not a real proposal. If the roads are indeed designated as future interstate highways or there's official talk of designating them interstates, then I'd be wrong. But if it's just an idea, even the most realistic and reasonable concepts created by somebody on this forum, it's still considered to be under "Fictional Highways".
Quote from: In_Correct on May 01, 2019, 05:01:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 30, 2019, 10:25:22 PM
Isn't this best suited in Fictional Highways?
No.
Do you have a link to the article or plan to convert US 67 / US 287 into an interstate highway?
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 01, 2019, 05:38:31 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on May 01, 2019, 05:01:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 30, 2019, 10:25:22 PM
Isn't this best suited in Fictional Highways?
No.
Do you have a link to the article or plan to convert US 67 / US 287 into an interstate highway?
http://www.tex21.net/single-post/2016/12/30/Join-TEX-21-in-Austin-push-towards-interstate-status-for-US287
But seriously, why is this a burr under your saddle? Just ignore the thread.
AFAIK there are no specific official plans to apply Interstate highway designations to US-287 or US-67 in Texas. However various upgrades on portions of both roads in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are in progress or planned. If US-67 were given any kind of Interstate designation in the DFW area a Dallas to Cleburne spur would only be worthy of a 3 digit spur Interstate designation, not something like "I-31" or "I-33."
The US-287 project freeway upgrade project in Ennis is overdue. Hopefully they'll reconfigure the I-45/US-287 interchange sometime in the near future to replace that tight cloverleaf loop with a new flyover ramp. A couple projects are in the works to fill in missing frontage road segments along US-287 NW of the I-35W split North of Fort Worth to get rid of at-grade driveways and street intersections with US-287. I can't remember where I saw it but there is a plan to convert a portion of US-287 to Interstate quality on the North side of Decatur.
If only they can get the portion through Decatur upgraded.
Quote from: rte66manIMO, 287 from where it splits off from I45 at Ennis west to Amarillo should be an interstate. The amount of truck traffic warrants it.
Why this section of US-287 isn't included in the list of High Priority Corridors is baffling. The same goes the for US-75 corridor going North out of Dallas to McAlester and the US-69 leg from McAlester up to Big Cabin. There's probably even more heavy truck traffic on that route. Anti-immigrant furor aside, there's still a great deal of commerce moving between the US and Mexico on the highways. The same goes for port traffic moving inland from the Texas portion of the Gulf Coast. Add to that 6 million people in the Houston metro and 7 million in DFW along with a couple major cities nearby in Oklahoma. That generates a lot of car and truck traffic on the connecting roads.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 30, 2019, 03:35:32 PM
What's the point of changing the route number that's been around for decades if there's no longer 90% federal funding to charge?
If they are not going to truncate or reroute U.S. 81, renumbering this other multiple designation corridor as Interstate 32 also helps. (I do not like multiple designations.)
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 01, 2019, 08:24:17 PM
A couple projects are in the works to fill in missing frontage road segments along US-287 NW of the I-35W split North of Fort Worth to get rid of at-grade driveways and street intersections with US-287. I can't remember where I saw it but there is a plan to convert a portion of US-287 to Interstate quality on the North side of Decatur. If only they can get the portion through Decatur upgraded.
Quote from: rte66manIMO, 287 from where it splits off from I45 at Ennis west to Amarillo should be an interstate. The amount of truck traffic warrants it.
Why this section of US-287 isn't included in the list of High Priority Corridors is baffling.
Some open houses are scheduled soon:
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/fort-worth/us81-us287-wise.html https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/fort-worth/052622.htmlProposed Improvements
Reconstruction from a four-lane rural highway to a four-lane, controlled-access highway with a grade-separated crossing at NRS Ranch Road
An interim project is proposed which will implement crossover improvements and add acceleration/deceleration lanes to improve safety ahead of the proposed project
The existing right of way width is 350 feet. The proposed project is anticipated to require approximately 1.35 acres of new right of way. Approximately 0.48 acres of temporary construction easements and zero acres of permanent drainage easements would be required. New denial of access would be required along the frontage roads from adjacent properties at new ramp junctions. Although additional right-of-way is required, no residential or non-residential structures would be displaced.
Construction cost
The anticipated construction cost is $39,500,000.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/fort-worth/us81-avondale.htmlhttps://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/fort-worth/111419.htmlProposed Project Improvements
The proposed project would:
Add one inside mainlane in each direction
Construct new continuous one-way frontage roads
Convert existing two-way frontage roads to one-way frontage roads
The existing interchanges would be reconstructed. Willow Springs Road would be reconstructed to cross under the US 81/ US 287 mainlanes, an interchange is proposed at Heritage Trace Parkway, and Wagley Robertson Road would be connected to the proposed frontage roads. Entrance and exit ramp locations would be adjusted to provide more efficient access to adjacent land uses. Additional right of way and denial of access at ramp locations would be necessary to accommodate the proposed improvements.
The first project at Harmon Road and North Tarrant Parkway would construct frontage roads north of Harmon Road to west of IH 35W. The project would consist of one northbound exit ramp to North Tarrant Parkway, two southbound ramps to and from North Tarrant Parkway/Harmon Road. Bridges would be constructed at Harmon Road and North Tarrant Parkway, along with intersection signals
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 01, 2019, 08:24:17 PM
AFAIK there are no specific official plans to apply Interstate highway designations to US-287 or US-67 in Texas. However various upgrades on portions of both roads in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are in progress or planned. If US-67 were given any kind of Interstate designation in the DFW area a Dallas to Cleburne spur would only be worthy of a 3 digit spur Interstate designation, not something like "I-31" or "I-33."
The US-287 project freeway upgrade project in Ennis is overdue. Hopefully they'll reconfigure the I-45/US-287 interchange sometime in the near future to replace that tight cloverleaf loop with a new flyover ramp. A couple projects are in the works to fill in missing frontage road segments along US-287 NW of the I-35W split North of Fort Worth to get rid of at-grade driveways and street intersections with US-287. I can't remember where I saw it but there is a plan to convert a portion of US-287 to Interstate quality on the North side of Decatur. If only they can get the portion through Decatur upgraded.
Quote from: rte66manIMO, 287 from where it splits off from I45 at Ennis west to Amarillo should be an interstate. The amount of truck traffic warrants it.
Why this section of US-287 isn't included in the list of High Priority Corridors is baffling. The same goes the for US-75 corridor going North out of Dallas to McAlester and the US-69 leg from McAlester up to Big Cabin. There's probably even more heavy truck traffic on that route. Anti-immigrant furor aside, there's still a great deal of commerce moving between the US and Mexico on the highways. The same goes for port traffic moving inland from the Texas portion of the Gulf Coast. Add to that 6 million people in the Houston metro and 7 million in DFW along with a couple major cities nearby in Oklahoma. That generates a lot of car and truck traffic on the connecting roads.
High priority corridors are constructs. of multi-state coalitions in the US House of Representatives and to a lesser extent the US Senate. I-14 which likely will NEVER be built out is one of those. From Rhome to Amarillo is ONE STATE. A maximum of 3 Reps and MOST of it is in ONE congressional district. While US-67 goes across a few more congressional districts the Alvarado to Presidio segment of US-67 is all in Texas too.
On the fantasy / not fantasy issue. I AGREE it is total fantasy (or wishful thinking) that there might be an urge to upgrade and label US -287 or US-67 as Interstate Highways. On the other hand, Texas is making incremental upgrades (especially to US-287) that will likely be controlled access freeways within a couple of decades.
I would be completely onboard with turning US 287 between Ennis and Ft. Worth into an interstate highway. The main reason is to give drivers from the Houston area a direct route into both Dallas and Ft. Worth; much like drivers from Austin and San Antonio have direct routes to both.
Another reason is if a driver from Amarillo, Wichita Falls, Abilene, or Ft. Worth wants to drive to Houston, that driver can bypass Dallas entirely instead of having to drive through both cities.
Quote from: jgb191 on May 24, 2022, 12:56:13 AM
I would be completely onboard with turning US 287 between Ennis and Ft. Worth into an interstate highway. The main reason is to give drivers from the Houston area a direct route into both Dallas and Ft. Worth; much like drivers from Austin and San Antonio have direct routes to both.
Another reason is if a driver from Amarillo, Wichita Falls, Abilene, or Ft. Worth wants to drive to Houston, that driver can bypass Dallas entirely instead of having to drive through both cities.
As it is, US-287 is all freeway in Tarrant County. After you pass TX-360 (Toll) going southbound it is a lesser road (mostly 4-land divided with at grade intersections. ) I don't foresee an Interstate number, but probably full freeway within a decade or so to I-35E and perhaps I-45. Likewise for US67 from Midlothian to Alvarado.
Texas has no real romance with renumbering roads just because they upgrade them to freeway.
It's a foregone conclusion US-287 between Fort Worth and Ennis (I-45) will be fully upgraded to Interstate standards. The road will still likely carry the US-287 label for a long time. The only way I see that portion of US-287 being renamed as an Interstate is if US-287 is fully upgraded to Interstate standards between Fort Worth and Amarillo. That needs to happen by the way.
Upgrade projects have been on-going with US-287 between Fort Worth and I-45. The US-287 bypass project for Ennis was recently completed (now visible in Google Earth btw). So that's all freeway now. The interchange with I-45 still sucks though. I can't stand tight cloverleaf loop for SB US-287 to NB-I-45. That's a tight loop. Another short upgrade project just East of Midlothian was just finished. There was a traffic light on US-287 at Plainview Road. That's now a freeway exit.
There are still plenty of at-grade intersections and driveways connecting directly to the US-287 main lanes between Mansfield and Ennis. Slowly each one is being chipped away. A major expansion project is planned for the junction of US-287, I-20 and I-820. I think once that is finished it will put a lot more pressure on finishing upgrade work with US-287 farther South to Ennis.
Meanwhile US-287 going North of Fort Worth is just as much a problem. At least some upgrade work has been taking place. But certain zones are getting dicey, such as US-287 inside Decatur and just North of that town. Motorists have to pay attention going through there. Lots and lots of store front driveways as well as some streets connect directly to the US-287 main lanes. There is still a traffic signal at Old Chico Road. US-287 inside Decatur is a mess. And it's not much better a couple or so miles North of there. All that trash needs to be fixed.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 24, 2022, 10:25:25 PM
The interchange with I-45 still sucks though. I can't stand tight cloverleaf loop for SB US-287 to NB-I-45. That's a tight loop.
Truly though, how much traffic is using that movement?
And additionally, that's a relatively large radius loop holding a 35 mph design speed. It seems plenty fine. Besides possibly widening the ramps between I-45 North and US-287 and vice versa (the major movement) from 1 to 2 lanes, I'd say it's an adequate interchange.
Quote from: splashflash on May 23, 2022, 10:11:42 AM
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/fort-worth/us81-avondale.html
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/fort-worth/111419.html
Proposed Project Improvements
The proposed project would:
Add one inside mainlane in each direction
Construct new continuous one-way frontage roads
Convert existing two-way frontage roads to one-way frontage roads
The existing interchanges would be reconstructed. Willow Springs Road would be reconstructed to cross under the US 81/ US 287 mainlanes, an interchange is proposed at Heritage Trace Parkway, and Wagley Robertson Road would be connected to the proposed frontage roads. Entrance and exit ramp locations would be adjusted to provide more efficient access to adjacent land uses. Additional right of way and denial of access at ramp locations would be necessary to accommodate the proposed improvements.
The first project at Harmon Road and North Tarrant Parkway would construct frontage roads north of Harmon Road to west of IH 35W. The project would consist of one northbound exit ramp to North Tarrant Parkway, two southbound ramps to and from North Tarrant Parkway/Harmon Road. Bridges would be constructed at Harmon Road and North Tarrant Parkway, along with intersection signals
Thank you for posting the links.
I'm quite happy that TXDOT will replace those cheap, lazy, stupid, undercapacity roundabouts on Bonds Ranch Road. The east side ones aren't too bad, but the west one is tiny radius one lane joke. It frequently bogs down, and with 3 dozen long trains a day blocking the adjacent crossing the backup can take 10+ minutes to clear out. But par for the course in poorly planned north Tarrant County and north Fort Worth. Not sure why the whole area is such a disjointed cluster, years behind on keeping with the massive growth they've been encouraging. The south and west sides of the city and county have handled growth and road expansion pretty well, so it is inexcusable why the north side is so botched.
More good news seeing that they'll finally connect Heritage Trace Pky across 287 (though again, the city and county have let developers build out further west without connecting and extending Heritage TP. Doesn't look like they have room for a bridge over the railroad tracks a couple of miles to the west, given the home and street layout already built. There is zero chance the RR will allow conventional road crossing, as that is one of the few places where they can park trains for hours waiting to get into their Haslet yard.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/ftw/us81-us287/111419-presentation.pdf
Interesting options to correct the botched N. Tarrant Pky. Harmon Rd interchange with 287. Any of them but the admittedly low capacity roundabouts that are inappropriate for such an increasingly high volume set of roads. Don't repeat the Bonds Ranch mistake!
Though I'm guessing it will drag out as long or longer than the many years snail's pace expansion of Blue Mound Rd.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 30, 2019, 03:35:32 PM
What’s the point of changing the route number that’s been around for decades if there’s no longer 90% federal funding to charge?
As I have said about other Texas corridors that need interstate upgrades, labeling it as an interstate forces TxDOT's hand is why. If you say "US-287 needs to be a freeway between Amarillo and Ennis", TxDOT will put some bypasses, make some grade-separated intersections, but leave the driveways directly connecting the highway and leave the sharp curves and blind hills. Texas is real bad about trying to throw together a poor man's freeway. It would be an expressway, but still inadequate for long haul trucking. Forcing it to have an interstate designation forces interstate quality. They can talk all they want about saying they want to upgrade US-287 to interstate standards, but if there is a corner to cut, they will cut it. Giving it an interstate designation holds their feet to the fire.
My vote is also Interstate 32.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 25, 2022, 01:49:43 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 30, 2019, 03:35:32 PM
What's the point of changing the route number that's been around for decades if there's no longer 90% federal funding to charge?
As I have said about other Texas corridors that need interstate upgrades, labeling it as an interstate forces TxDOT's hand is why. If you say "US-287 needs to be a freeway between Amarillo and Ennis", TxDOT will put some bypasses, make some divided intersections, but leave the driveways directly connecting the highway and leave the sharp curves and blind hills. Texas is real bad about trying to throw together a poor man's freeway. It would be an expressway, but still inadequate for long haul trucking. Forcing it to have an interstate designation forces interstate quality. They can talk all they want about saying they want to upgrade US-287 to interstate standards, but if there is a corner to cut, they will cut it. Giving it an interstate designation holds their feet to the fire.
My vote is also Interstate 32.
Sounds like WV. That is why the expressway upgrade along the I-73/74 corridor near the KY Line and The whole US 48 thing.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 25, 2022, 01:49:43 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 30, 2019, 03:35:32 PM
What's the point of changing the route number that's been around for decades if there's no longer 90% federal funding to charge?
As I have said about other Texas corridors that need interstate upgrades, labeling it as an interstate forces TxDOT's hand is why. If you say "US-287 needs to be a freeway between Amarillo and Ennis", TxDOT will put some bypasses, make some grade-separated intersections, but leave the driveways directly connecting the highway and leave the sharp curves and blind hills. Texas is real bad about trying to throw together a poor man's freeway. It would be an expressway, but still inadequate for long haul trucking. Forcing it to have an interstate designation forces interstate quality. They can talk all they want about saying they want to upgrade US-287 to interstate standards, but if there is a corner to cut, they will cut it. Giving it an interstate designation holds their feet to the fire.
My vote is also Interstate 32.
I-69 has been a thing for 30 years, and interstate quality hasn't been "forced" yet - it's been mostly piecemeal bypasses
Quote from: TXtoNJ on May 25, 2022, 03:55:47 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 25, 2022, 01:49:43 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 30, 2019, 03:35:32 PM
What's the point of changing the route number that's been around for decades if there's no longer 90% federal funding to charge?
As I have said about other Texas corridors that need interstate upgrades, labeling it as an interstate forces TxDOT's hand is why. If you say "US-287 needs to be a freeway between Amarillo and Ennis", TxDOT will put some bypasses, make some grade-separated intersections, but leave the driveways directly connecting the highway and leave the sharp curves and blind hills. Texas is real bad about trying to throw together a poor man's freeway. It would be an expressway, but still inadequate for long haul trucking. Forcing it to have an interstate designation forces interstate quality. They can talk all they want about saying they want to upgrade US-287 to interstate standards, but if there is a corner to cut, they will cut it. Giving it an interstate designation holds their feet to the fire.
My vote is also Interstate 32.
I-69 has been a thing for 30 years, and interstate quality hasn't been "forced" yet - it's been mostly piecemeal bypasses
But it is still slated to be a full interstate. I am not referring to time. I am referring to when they officially walk away from a project. It make take 40 years, but they will have to make it an interstate. No driveways, no blind hills and no rando intersections that are "okay the way they are" because it involves an overpass or construction of a frontage road. It may take them forever, but the project, when done will be an interstate.
That seems to be a common theme on this board. I say I want a corridor to be an interstate; the detractors talk about how long it will take. I am okay with that. Maybe the future generations benefit from it and I never do. The time it takes doesn't detract me. I live in a town that just started a construction project 8 months ago that had been promised for almost 40 years. I understand the snails pace, but without the interstate designation, these projects we fantasize about simply won't happen. Not today, not 40 years from now. Not without the pressure of making it an interstate. TxDOT will not do it unless they have to.
In the interim, yes it will be a hodgepodge, but I am talking about the endgame.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 30, 2019, 03:35:32 PM
It would be an expressway, but still inadequate for long haul trucking.
Long haul trucking. It is what is wrong with our transportation system. I am not going to suggest that everything could be shipped via rail . It can't. Lots and lots of stuff can that isn't. The rail companies were incentivized to minimize what they ship.
If we got 35% of the LONG HAUL trucks off the road, we could cut our rural highway construction in half or more. Part of the answer is to put freight back on the rails.
Over the past 30 years vastly more miles of existing railroad tracks have been ripped out of the ground and decommissioned than new tracks installed. Companies like BNSF and Union Pacific have used a lot of technology improvements, such as (edit) Precision Scheduled Railroading, to get the most efficiency out of single track rail lines and avoid having to double-track a busy existing line. The Fort Worth-Amarillo segment of BNSF's Wichita Falls subdivision is very busy, but it's mostly a single track line with numerous sidings.
It costs a lot of money to build new freight rail lines. They're typically built with far milder grades than highways. Raton Pass (3.5% grade) and Cajon Pass (3.4%) have about the steepest gradients of major railroad lines. Interstates can allow grades up to 6%. The point is railroad tracks can't be built everywhere. They're certainly not going to get re-built in a lot of small towns that have had railroad tracks removed. Those connections won't give enough of a return on the investment. If anything we'll probably see more consolidation of the rail network, with the remaining lines getting more upgrades.
Our rural highways probably need similar consolidation. Rural areas are losing population like crazy. At least some roads are needed out there for other purposes like agriculture and energy businesses. But I think the grid that's out there in the sticks, like here in Oklahoma, seems like a bit of overkill. There's a huge number of bridges and other associated stuff that goes with all those section line roads.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 25, 2022, 04:18:44 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 30, 2019, 03:35:32 PM
It would be an expressway, but still inadequate for long haul trucking.
Long haul trucking. It is what is wrong with our transportation system. I am not going to suggest that everything could be shipped via rail . It can't. Lots and lots of stuff can that isn't. The rail companies were incentivized to minimize what they ship.
If we got 35% of the LONG HAUL trucks off the road, we could cut our rural highway construction in half or more. Part of the answer is to put freight back on the rails.
This, 100%. After the holding companies took over, everything has been stripped down to bare bones for maximum profitability. Long-haul trucks are a menace on the highways right now, and that's absolutely because that freight is not on steel.
So....remove some (if not all) Interstate highway corridors and replace them with long-haul freight and high-speed passenger rail corridors?
That's ultimately what some New Urbanists are shooting for.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14I live in a town that just started a construction project 8 months ago that had been promised for almost 40 years..
Are you referring to the Oak Hill Y project?
Quote from: thisdj78 on May 26, 2022, 05:07:16 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14I live in a town that just started a construction project 8 months ago that had been promised for almost 40 years..
Are you referring to the Oak Hill Y project?
Yes
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2022, 01:16:12 PM
So....remove some (if not all) Interstate highway corridors and replace them with long-haul freight and high-speed passenger rail corridors?
That's ultimately what some New Urbanists are shooting for.
Absolutely
not remove anything. Just figure out how not to have to build so much additional.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 26, 2022, 06:16:20 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2022, 01:16:12 PM
So....remove some (if not all) Interstate highway corridors and replace them with long-haul freight and high-speed passenger rail corridors?
That's ultimately what some New Urbanists are shooting for.
Absolutely not remove anything. Just figure out how not to have to build so much additional.
Naaah....I have openly heard some of the more ardent New Urbanists who do want to remove freeways in total and replace them with rail corridors. Not all, of course, but some of the loudest of them.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2022, 06:37:18 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 26, 2022, 06:16:20 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2022, 01:16:12 PM
So....remove some (if not all) Interstate highway corridors and replace them with long-haul freight and high-speed passenger rail corridors?
That's ultimately what some New Urbanists are shooting for.
Absolutely not remove anything. Just figure out how not to have to build so much additional.
Naaah....I have openly heard some of the more ardent New Urbanists who do want to remove freeways in total and replace them with rail corridors. Not all, of course, but some of the loudest of them.
Because it works in Europe.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 26, 2022, 06:38:43 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2022, 06:37:18 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 26, 2022, 06:16:20 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2022, 01:16:12 PM
So....remove some (if not all) Interstate highway corridors and replace them with long-haul freight and high-speed passenger rail corridors?
That's ultimately what some New Urbanists are shooting for.
Absolutely not remove anything. Just figure out how not to have to build so much additional.
Naaah....I have openly heard some of the more ardent New Urbanists who do want to remove freeways in total and replace them with rail corridors. Not all, of course, but some of the loudest of them.
Because it works in Europe.
Europe is not the US. Much more established rail corridors, fundamentally different land use policies, and people do not want to give up their cars and trucks.
I'm for more balanced public transport, but I'm also a realist about what most Americans want. Use public transit to reduce gridlock and ultimately transform our system, but be realistic about it.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2022, 06:45:54 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 26, 2022, 06:38:43 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2022, 06:37:18 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 26, 2022, 06:16:20 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2022, 01:16:12 PM
So....remove some (if not all) Interstate highway corridors and replace them with long-haul freight and high-speed passenger rail corridors?
That's ultimately what some New Urbanists are shooting for.
Absolutely not remove anything. Just figure out how not to have to build so much additional.
Naaah....I have openly heard some of the more ardent New Urbanists who do want to remove freeways in total and replace them with rail corridors. Not all, of course, but some of the loudest of them.
Because it works in Europe.
Europe is not the US. Much more established rail corridors, fundamentally different land use policies, and people do not want to give up their cars and trucks.
I'm for more balanced public transport, but I'm also a realist about what most Americans want. Use public transit to reduce gridlock and ultimately transform our system, but be realistic about it.
Sorry, I guess you didn't pickup that I was being sarcastic. It's okay.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 26, 2022, 07:10:47 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2022, 06:45:54 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 26, 2022, 06:38:43 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2022, 06:37:18 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 26, 2022, 06:16:20 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 26, 2022, 01:16:12 PM
So....remove some (if not all) Interstate highway corridors and replace them with long-haul freight and high-speed passenger rail corridors?
That's ultimately what some New Urbanists are shooting for.
Absolutely not remove anything. Just figure out how not to have to build so much additional.
Naaah....I have openly heard some of the more ardent New Urbanists who do want to remove freeways in total and replace them with rail corridors. Not all, of course, but some of the loudest of them.
Because it works in Europe.
Europe is not the US. Much more established rail corridors, fundamentally different land use policies, and people do not want to give up their cars and trucks.
I'm for more balanced public transport, but I'm also a realist about what most Americans want. Use public transit to reduce gridlock and ultimately transform our system, but be realistic about it.
Sorry, I guess you didn't pickup that I was being sarcastic. It's okay.
Sarcasm or not, the US actually has a much higher proportion of freight moved by rail. Passengers is another story.
Comparing the US to Europe is an extremely Apples to Oranges thing. By the way just about every European country has super highway networks. The only exception is remote locations like Iceland. Also, the super highways get built about as close to city centers as is feasible. Not all the way into downtown, but not very far either.
European cities are more densely packed and have a far greater mix of property types because all those cities are much older. Modern American-style methods of zoning weren't perfected until deep into the 20th century, hundreds of years after many of those European cities were first established. The only reason why those European cities are doing anything "innovative" at making the most use out of limited space is just out of sheer necessity. American cities didn't have such geometry imposed. American cities were far more free to be built out in methods both good and very bad.
Regarding trucking and removing 35% of long haul trucks from the highways there is a lot of trucks not on the roads now. The trucking industry has a major shortage of drivers. Perhaps one of the reasons why there is such a shortage is many people are finding out being a long haul truck driver can be a really horribly shitty job:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phieTCxQRLA
Then there's the crushing price of diesel fuel and shortages of various items. Both factors are going to keep even more trucks parked.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 30, 2019, 12:53:37 AM
It seems pretty clear TX DOT wants US-287 up to Interstate standards at least from I-45 at Ennis up to TX-114 at Rhome.
Some closures of at-grade crossings in Midlothian are being discussed. https://www.focusdailynews.com/midlothian-city-council-discusses-upcoming-median-closures-along-us-highway-287/
Council discussed the closures of additional existing median openings and other improvements along US Highway 287. This discussion was in preparation for an upcoming workshop meeting with the Texas Department of Transportation regarding closures and possible turnarounds as necessary.
The council had directed staff earlier this month to schedule a meeting with TxDOT to discuss the proposed closure of three additional existing median openings. These openings are located between Presidential Parkway and Rex Odom Drive. The meeting will be held on February 7 in order for council to get a consensus on the closures and any other improvements along US Highway 287.
TxDOT has said they want to close these additional median openings because of the ongoing development in the area, which is leading to increased traffic on the US Highway 287 corridor in the city. There have been a number of accidents at the various median openings along this highway, including a fatality at one of the new median openings that TxDOT is proposing be closed.
Staff said these closings are temporary. Closing them will offer safety while the frontage road is under construction. TxDOT would like the support of the city regarding these closures and will include these closures as part of their cable barrier project beginning this year.
Council discussed various options for closures and turnarounds for further conversation with TxDOT during the time period of the temporary closures. Mayor Pro Tem Justin Coffman said "I think it is important for us to advocate as a unified voice to TxDOT. My opinion is there needs to be further solution and not just shutting them down carte blanche, but looking at the situation, and evaluating them (the closures) and doing what is best for Firefly Gardens, Creekside Church of Christ and our airport. So, if a Michigan Turnaround is the best option I would like for us to ask for that."
https://www.focusdailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/287-median-closings-1536x1128.png
They really need to stop farting around get the friggin' US-287 frontage roads completed between Midlothian and Waxahachie (as well as the rest of US-287 between I-20 and I-45). It is nice they recently eliminated a traffic light on US-287 via the newly completed Plainview Road exit. But that's just a piece-meal fix for a bigger problem. People in the DFW metroplex drive on that segment of US-287 as if it was already an Interstate. The foot dragging on eliminating the at-grade intersections and driveways is leading to more accidents and even some fatalities.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 27, 2023, 05:33:24 PM
They really need to stop farting around get the friggin' US-287 frontage roads completed between Midlothian and Waxahachie (as well as the rest of US-287 between I-20 and I-45). It is nice they recently eliminated a traffic light on US-287 via the newly completed Plainview Road exit. But that's just a piece-meal fix for a bigger problem. People in the DFW metroplex drive on that segment of US-287 as if it was already an Interstate. The foot dragging on eliminating the at-grade intersections and driveways is leading to more accidents and even some fatalities.
When I argue for interstate upgrades on any corridor, this is usually my thinking. You have an expressway that people drive on like it were a freeway. Thats not going to cut it. People will die.
Yep. And anyone who has done a decent amount of driving in the DFW area would know lots of people in that region drive like bats out of hell. When I drive to DFW from the Lawton area it's as if I have to get my brain adjusted to a different mind set by the time I reach the outskirts of Decatur. Gotta be prepared for vehicles blasting past my pickup as if I was standing still. And the "po po" is out there in force if I feel stupid enough to try going as fast as the speed demons.
The problem with US-287 in the DFW region is so much of it "feels" like an Interstate, but with the random at-grade intersections and driveways thrown in. Dallas style driving combined with "Cletus" pulling his pickup and trailer directly out into the main lanes from some side road doesn't make for a good combination. Just getting the frontage roads completed would remove a lot of those high speed conflicts.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 27, 2023, 05:33:24 PM
They really need to stop farting around get the friggin' US-287 frontage roads completed between Midlothian and Waxahachie (as well as the rest of US-287 between I-20 and I-45). It is nice they recently eliminated a traffic light on US-287 via the newly completed Plainview Road exit. But that's just a piece-meal fix for a bigger problem. People in the DFW metroplex drive on that segment of US-287 as if it was already an Interstate. The foot dragging on eliminating the at-grade intersections and driveways is leading to more accidents and even some fatalities.
They are already planning on the frontage roads. They had workshop for the corridor a couple of years back for the entire corridor between Arlington and Ennis. Frontage roads are in the works but the development is coming too fast and they need to grade separate already in between SH360 and US67. Prairie Ridge Blvd is becoming busier as they finally started building housing additions that it connects to and the brand new apartment complex by pandera lake that just happened to have the road that it connects to US287 have a tie in at a crossover. The section in Midlothian definitely needs the cross overs closed and construction of frontage roads. The crashes and the deaths that happened with the wrong way driver crash near the Whataburger just southeast of Walnut Ridge/Plainview pretty much are a reason to close the crossovers. They are also talking about potentially modifying the slip merge ramp for northbound 287 from 287 Business on the west side of Waxahachie. I can see why it isn't a safe merge and you have to yield to faster traffic in the left lane as the freeway is about to end in Sardis. that would be an easy modification and just close the ramp and make northbound traffic take a right at the two-way frontage road that leads to the northbound frontage road on the other side of 287.
Quote from: splashflash on January 27, 2023, 03:38:57 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 30, 2019, 12:53:37 AM
It seems pretty clear TX DOT wants US-287 up to Interstate standards at least from I-45 at Ennis up to TX-114 at Rhome.
Some closures of at-grade crossings in Midlothian are being discussed. https://www.focusdailynews.com/midlothian-city-council-discusses-upcoming-median-closures-along-us-highway-287/
Council discussed the closures of additional existing median openings and other improvements along US Highway 287. This discussion was in preparation for an upcoming workshop meeting with the Texas Department of Transportation regarding closures and possible turnarounds as necessary.
The council had directed staff earlier this month to schedule a meeting with TxDOT to discuss the proposed closure of three additional existing median openings. These openings are located between Presidential Parkway and Rex Odom Drive. The meeting will be held on February 7 in order for council to get a consensus on the closures and any other improvements along US Highway 287.
TxDOT has said they want to close these additional median openings because of the ongoing development in the area, which is leading to increased traffic on the US Highway 287 corridor in the city. There have been a number of accidents at the various median openings along this highway, including a fatality at one of the new median openings that TxDOT is proposing be closed.
Staff said these closings are temporary. Closing them will offer safety while the frontage road is under construction. TxDOT would like the support of the city regarding these closures and will include these closures as part of their cable barrier project beginning this year.
Council discussed various options for closures and turnarounds for further conversation with TxDOT during the time period of the temporary closures. Mayor Pro Tem Justin Coffman said "I think it is important for us to advocate as a unified voice to TxDOT. My opinion is there needs to be further solution and not just shutting them down carte blanche, but looking at the situation, and evaluating them (the closures) and doing what is best for Firefly Gardens, Creekside Church of Christ and our airport. So, if a Michigan Turnaround is the best option I would like for us to ask for that."
https://www.focusdailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/287-median-closings-1536x1128.png
I don't see TXDOT doing Michigan turn arounds on this stretch and would cause more issues with having to have a traffic light at the turn arounds and considering TXDOT is planning on frontage roads and full controlled grade separation through midlothian. I don't see Michigan left turns being added to support traffic to such few businesses if needed those accessing these businesses could use existing turn arounds at Walnut grove for norhbound traffic and southbound traffic can turnaround at the under pass at 287 business in Waxahachie until the grade separations occur at the airport cross over. They are going to have to get used to it when service roads are built.
Does Texas have any "Michigan Turnarounds" on its highways? IMHO, installing Michigan U-Turns along any part of US-287 between I-20 and I-45 would be flat out dangerous. It would take no time at all for fatal t-bone accidents to happen.
Aren't there certain speed limit standards for where Michigan U-turns are installed? They don't seem like a good idea in areas where vehicles are whizzing by on the thru lanes at 70mph (even if the posted speed limit is 55mph).
TX DOT is already pretty good at building freeway intersections with Texas U-Turns, allowing frontage road traffic to hop over to the opposing frontage road without waiting at two traffic signals. They're also usually pretty good at building bridges over some other streets and even installing pedestrian bridges over the highway.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 30, 2023, 01:00:42 PM
Does Texas have any "Michigan Turnarounds" on its highways? IMHO, installing Michigan U-Turns along any part of US-287 between I-20 and I-45 would be flat out dangerous. It would take no time at all for fatal t-bone accidents to happen.
Aren't there certain speed limit standards for where Michigan U-turns are installed? They don't seem like a good idea in areas where vehicles are whizzing by on the thru lanes at 70mph (even if the posted speed limit is 55mph).
TX DOT is already pretty good at building freeway intersections with Texas U-Turns, allowing frontage road traffic to hop over to the opposing frontage road without waiting at two traffic signals. They're also usually pretty good at building bridges over some other streets and even installing pedestrian bridges over the highway.
IIRC, there was at one time a proposal for the US 281 upgrade north of San Antonio for an interim "superstreet" design which would have included "Michigan Lefts" (or, as they are called here in Louisiana, "J-turns") as a placeholder so to speak until they built it out as a fully controlled access tollway. When they found the funding to do the upgrade toll-free, though, they nixed the superstreet design and went straight to freeway.
Also....isn't the proposal for Loop 360 in Austin sort of a superstreet design, but with interchanges at major intersections?
IMHO, Loop 360 is just a divided city street. It does have two freeway style exits along its path. It also has around 20 traffic signal controlled intersections along its path too. I think it would need more grade separations and other improvements before it could be comparable to a "super street" such as US-1 between Trenton and New Brunswick.
Quote from: rte66man on April 30, 2019, 03:28:50 PM
Quote from: Henry on April 30, 2019, 10:27:46 AM
Seeing that I-69 is set in stone (along with I-49 across the border to the east), there's not much need for an Interstate along US 287. As for US 67, I might envision this as an I-31 or I-33, but for the time being, it's fine as it is, and thus I see no need to upgrade either (with I-35 doing the job).
IMO, 287 from where it splits off from I45 at Ennis west to Amarillo should be an interstate. The amount of truck traffic warrants it.
I take back what I said earlier about US 287. And I'm sorry that I wasn't specific enough on what section I was referring to, which is here in DFW. The rest of the route to Amarillo definitely deserves an Interstate corridor, mainly for the purpose of giving I-44 a better ending in Wichita Falls.
Apparently TXDOT is in the process of closing off and modifying crossovers along US287 from east of SH360 to Waxahachie Bus287 split. They have closed off multiple crossovers and modified the Prairie Ridge Crossover. No northbound traffic can cross over at US287 to go northbound must take a right on southbound US287 and make a U-turn at the next crossover south of Prairie Ridge. Also they already have closed off the crossover that the Padera Lake Apartment development was hooked into which I'm shocked they did now traffic must enter and exit the development going northbound only. They closed off all of the crossovers just south of the Bus 287 split on the east side of Midlothian up until you get to the Walnut Grove/Plainview exit after that they haven't closed off anything between there and the Bus287 split on the east side of Waxahachie.
I think TX DOT is just going to have to complete the continuous frontage roads along US-287 from the TX-360 interchange clear down to Ennis. There are decent segments of frontage roads along this stretch of US-287. But there are also way too many gaps. Given the pace of commercial and residential development in that area it looks like completed frontage roads are a foregone necessity.
I have obtained some information from TxDOT on the shutdown of crossovers. All the at-grade crossovers from Walnut Grove west to the Johnson County line will be closed and either existing interchanges or "Michigan lefts" will be utilized. What I was told didn't include from Walnut Grove east to Waxahachie, but I've heard crossovers there are next in the crosshairs.
I drive the Arlington to Waxahachie stretch of 287 pretty often, and can confirm that lots of crossovers have been closed. I can also confirm that people drive 80+ on there no matter what the speed limit is :-D
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 16, 2023, 08:38:55 PM
I think TX DOT is just going to have to complete the continuous frontage roads along US-287 from the TX-360 interchange clear down to Ennis. There are decent segments of frontage roads along this stretch of US-287. But there are also way too many gaps. Given the pace of commercial and residential development in that area it looks like completed frontage roads are a foregone necessity.
It is already in the works. They had an open house a few years back on this project they already have the plans drawn up for where the overpasses are going and yes there will be continuous frontage roads where possible. I believe the cross over change is just a temporary change so they don't have to install traffic signals at certain places due to how the traffic levels are increasing with the new residential areas going up in Mansfield, Midlothian and Waxahachie.
https://www.focusdailynews.com/txdot-is-proposing-improvements-to-us-hwy-287-from-us-67-to-business-287-in-midlothian/
The proposed project includes constructing new two-lane northbound and southbound US 287 frontage roads with a six- foot sidewalk on the southbound side and a ten-foot shared-use path for bicyclists and pedestrians on the northbound side, new access ramps, and new grade separated interchanges. The project is approximately 8.3 miles long. The existing right of way is 250 feet and the proposed right of way ranges between 274 and 342 feet.
Meetings start in June. Two non-residential buildings proposed to be demolished to make way for project.