Last year I made a thread about US-290 between Austin and Houston which I should've done years ago, so I thought it only makes sense to do the same with US-287 between Fort Worth and Wichita Falls if not Amarillo (even if most of it is already expressway standards/limited access by now)
Okay. What about it?
US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth has been discussed from time to time in various other discussion threads. It sometimes comes up in discussions about the Ports to Plains Corridor. I would very much like to see this corridor upgraded to Interstate standards, partly because I drive on it on a somewhat frequent basis. There is a great deal of commercial truck traffic on this highway. To me the traffic levels feel pretty similar to driving on any other rural Interstate highway.
Only some portions of US-287 between Wichita Falls and Fort Worth are limited access. Most of the highway is 4-lane divided with at-grade intersections.
On the bright side some segments would be very easy to upgrade to limited access. From Wichita Falls to Bowie US-287 has a median big enough to add new freeway main lanes and use the existing road as frontage roads. The town of Bellevue is one exception. It would take some pretty creative design work to squeeze a freeway through there without erasing half the town. As easy as the Wichita Falls to Bowie segment would be to upgrade to Interstate quality nothing is being done about it.
The only segment of US-287 that is getting any attention at all is the one between the I-35W split and the split with TX-114 in Rhome. Progress on that is very frustratingly slow. I don't know what the hell the problem is with TX DOT and their sheer lack of attention on this corridor. It's just stupid. Barely a mile West of the I-35W split US-287 dumps down to NOT Interstate quality. Immediately past the Harmon Road exit various driveways and streets make contact with the US-287 main lanes. That even includes new streets like Heritage Trace Parkway. Commercial and residential development is EXPLODING in this area North of Fort Worth. Supposedly TX DOT is supposed to build new frontage roads to cut off a lot of this crap from the main lanes. Still, as of Summer 2023 zero is happening. But new housing subdivisions, new logistical warehouses and retail developments keep plopping down month after month, year after year. TX DOT has to stop farting around already and get US-287 upgraded into Interstate quality at least up to the TX-114 interchange. They're going to get motorists killed in otherwise preventable accidents if they keep screwing around. You can't have people making at-grade right and left turns out into a busy near-freeway where people are speeding like hell. As the population level continues to boom in that locale the chances of high speed T-bone collisions are only going to increase dramatically.
US-287 from Rhome up to the Southern edge of Decatur would be an easy upgrade. Some small segments are getting new freeway exits. US-287 within Decatur is a freaking mess. That really needs to be converted to limited access. But that's not going to be easy to do since too much property is hugging too close to the main lanes. This is another one where TX DOT needs to deal with the problem sooner rather than later.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: money flows to rural highways which have strong political advocacy for improvements.
US 290 between Houston and Austin has a separate thread. The reason the highway has seen few improvements is because it has no political advocacy.
Interstate 69 has had strong political advocacy for a long time. It gets between $500 million and $1 billion per year in contracts for interstate upgrades.
Port to Plains corridor has strong political advocacy. Even though interstate status makes no sense in sparsely populated west Texas, TxDOT is proceeding with preliminary planning.
TxDOT has just solicited for a consultant to do comprehensive corridor analysis. See the map on page 9, and notice that US 287 is not included, but many routes in sparsely populated west Texas are included.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/083123/presentation.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/083123/presentation.pdf)
Which brings me to the topic of US 287. It has no advocacy (that I'm aware of). It is not a priority corridor for TxDOT. There are minimal improvements planned in the 10-year UTP. In the Amarillo, Childress and Wichita Falls district, the only listed projects are maintenance.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/081823-2024utp.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/081823-2024utp.pdf)
In my view, in 2050 US 287 north of Decatur will look mostly the same as it is today. Realistically, the only improvements we can hope for is maybe a bypass or two, but I'm not aware of any in the planning phase.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 03, 2023, 02:10:14 PM
Okay. What about it?
Yah, it's already a thread, here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18789.0
Quote from: MaxConcrete on September 03, 2023, 10:16:07 PM
Which brings me to the topic of US 287. It has no advocacy (that I'm aware of). It is not a priority corridor for TxDOT. There are minimal improvements planned in the 10-year UTP. In the Amarillo, Childress and Wichita Falls district, the only listed projects are maintenance.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/081823-2024utp.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/081823-2024utp.pdf)
In my view, in 2050 US 287 north of Decatur will look mostly the same as it is today. Realistically, the only improvements we can hope for is maybe a bypass or two, but I'm not aware of any in the planning phase.
The section around Harmon Road (south of Rhome) and Haslet Road should get some love as it is in the Fort Worth district and studies are ongoing. Those studies have all been referenced in the threads, https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18789.0, https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26379.0, and others.
TxDOT is holding a public meeting in Midlothian Sept. 14 on a project to add frontage roads on US 287 in Ellis County. Here's the link to the public notice:
https://www.midlothian.tx.us/DocumentCenter/View/15871/TxDOT-Sept-Public-Meeting-about-US-287-Service-Roads-
Regarding the US 81/287 concurrency from I-35W to Bowie, TxDOT uses US 81, not US 287 in their annual UTP reports. I find their use of US 81 distinguishes the segment well as further southeast, there is quite a bit of work occurring on US 287 as shown in the reply above, near or within the Fort Worth district.
There was ongoing thread discussion about this segment last year.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31785.msg2755267#msg2755267
Quote from: MaxConcreteI've said it before and I'll say it again: money flows to rural highways which have strong political advocacy for improvements.
Political advocacy can help push through highway improvements
or even block a highway project from happening. But this is a situation that goes beyond political advocacy. It's a matter of people at agencies like TX DOT opening their freaking eyes.
It's as if these people think nothing has changed in the DFW region over the past 20 years.
Development is exploding along US-287 and TX-114 from Rhome to the East and Southeast. Both of those highways need to be brought up to Interstate standards from the Rhome split to their interchanges with I-35W. US-287 as least has a chance to get upgraded into a freeway from I-35W to the South side of Decatur since it has enough ROW in place to make it happen. Building out continuous frontage roads would be a good start. TX-114 between US-287 and I-35W is a tighter squeeze. That road is facing just as urgent a situation as US-287. While US-287 North of Fort Worth is getting utterly surrounded by new residential subdivisions TX-114 is seeing a boom in new logistical warehouses. In either case it means a lot more new traffic turning onto these highways from at-grade intersections.
TX-DOT has an expensive mess on its hands having to deal with US-380 between Denton and McKinney. In the past TX DOT was pretty good at planning ahead with corridor development. That's visible from how US-287 was built going Southeast out of Wichita Falls; there's a wide median big enough to hold new freeway main lanes at a future time. They could have easily done something similar with that section of US-380 back in the early 1990's when it was already obvious new development in DFW was rapidly spreading in that direction. Instead, they sat on their hands, doing nothing. TX DOT is going to be facing similar messes with US-287 and TX-114 if they don't start getting proactive.
Will the NTE Texpress lanes be expanded to create US-287 Texpress Lanes or will only the free lanes be expanded?
I don't expect any express lanes to be built on US-287 going Northwest of the I-35W split. As that area North of Fort Worth continues to blow up with residential and commercial development US-287 will have to be expanded to at least a 3x3 lanes configuration, if not 4x4. There is enough room to do that. I think it would be really stupid if they pulled an I-820 stunt and built a 2x2x2x2 facility. It would be a tight squeeze and gain nothing over a 4x4 configuration.
Right now TX DOT just has to focus on getting the minimal basic things accomplished. The damned frontage roads need to be completed up to Avondale already. That is 20+ years overdue. Then they need to finish the frontage roads up to the TX-114 interchange in Rhome. That's also badly overdue. And they also have to get cracking on the incomplete frontage roads between Rhome and Decatur. Bare minimum, US-287 needs to be Interstate quality between the I-35W split and South edge of Decatur.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 10, 2023, 04:05:04 PM
I don't expect any express lanes to be built on US-287 going Northwest of the I-35W split. As that area North of Fort Worth continues to blow up with residential and commercial development US-287 will have to be expanded to at least a 3x3 lanes configuration, if not 4x4. There is enough room to do that. I think it would be really stupid if they pulled an I-820 stunt and built a 2x2x2x2 facility. It would be a tight squeeze and gain nothing over a 4x4 configuration.
Right now TX DOT just has to focus on getting the minimal basic things accomplished. The damned frontage roads need to be completed up to Avondale already. That is 20+ years overdue. Then they need to finish the frontage roads up to the TX-114 interchange in Rhome. That's also badly overdue. And they also have to get cracking on the incomplete frontage roads between Rhome and Decatur. Bare minimum, US-287 needs to be Interstate quality between the I-35W split and South edge of Decatur.
And that stretch is easy pickings yet, as Max mentioned upthread, they do not appear to have a champion or other political stoke to get things started at anytime before 2030 at the earliest.
Yeah, I suppose they'll just fart around, dragging their feet until enough fatal accidents happen along that stretch. It's stupidly dangerous having a bunch of driveways and side streets making direct contact with the US-287 main lanes.
Quote from: rte66man on September 10, 2023, 04:13:03 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 10, 2023, 04:05:04 PM
I don't expect any express lanes to be built on US-287 going Northwest of the I-35W split. As that area North of Fort Worth continues to blow up with residential and commercial development US-287 will have to be expanded to at least a 3x3 lanes configuration, if not 4x4. There is enough room to do that. I think it would be really stupid if they pulled an I-820 stunt and built a 2x2x2x2 facility. It would be a tight squeeze and gain nothing over a 4x4 configuration.
Right now TX DOT just has to focus on getting the minimal basic things accomplished. The damned frontage roads need to be completed up to Avondale already. That is 20+ years overdue. Then they need to finish the frontage roads up to the TX-114 interchange in Rhome. That's also badly overdue. And they also have to get cracking on the incomplete frontage roads between Rhome and Decatur. Bare minimum, US-287 needs to be Interstate quality between the I-35W split and South edge of Decatur.
And that stretch is easy pickings yet, as Max mentioned upthread, they do not appear to have a champion or other political stoke to get things started at anytime before 2030 at the earliest.
It does seem there are some political juices moving, according to this article:
https://fortworthreport.org/2023/09/11/u-s-81-287-reconstruction-to-tackle-northwest-tarrant-county-population-boom/
"The impact of the project is so significant that it's considered the second highest priority project in TxDOT's Fort Worth district behind the billion-dollar Southeast Connector project.
"Construction along U.S. 81/U.S. 287 is set to start in 2026 and be completed in 2030.
"In order to do that, the agency has applied to receive a Mega Grant to close the gap on the missing $115 million to fully fund the project.
"The project is about to be fully environmentally cleared, and it recently received a major boost in state funding as part of TxDOT's 2024 Unified Transportation Plan. Funding adjustment opened up an additional $74.6 million. However, $115 million in funding still needs to be acquired.
The total price tag for the corridor reconstruction is $344 million.
The problem is that between Wichita Falls and Amarillo, there's no local constituency for improving the route. The majority of traffic is headed to Amarillo or Denver, and improvements would just kill the towns faster than they're dying already. Politicians in Texas are extremely hesitant to use Austin's power to run roughshod over rural local interests (just look at the last decade of Texas Central Railway), so this is enough to put the brakes on any corridor concepts.
I'm surprised that the US 81/287 freeway from Interstate 35W northwestward is still just a four lane freeway. I would have thought the freeway would have been expanded to six or eight lanes well before now.
The elevated 287 in Wichita Falls is interesting, why so wide between north and southbound lanes?
Surprised I-44 ( east west, I know) does not just run back to FTW. At least the stretch between Wichita Falls and FTW will be an interstate planned freeway and get more funding.
Quote from: splashflashThe total price tag for the corridor reconstruction is $344 million.
According to the article this is only covering the US-287 segment from I-35W to Avondale-Haslet Road. That's only a little more than halfway to the US-287/TX-114 split. With that price tag I'm guessing it involves re-building the US-287 main lanes (and hopefully expanding it from 2x2 to at least 3x3). The existing US-287 highway from I-35W going Northwest is in freaking lousy shape. It's all badly patched together.
Quote from: TXtoNJThe problem is that between Wichita Falls and Amarillo, there's no local constituency for improving the route.
Such a thing shouldn't be necessary. US-287 being Interstate quality from DFW to Amarillo is beneficial to long distance traffic moving between major metro areas. People and businesses in the Metroplex would gain a lot of benefit from that highway segment being improved to limited access.
As for the towns in between, most will be fine (relatively speaking). Bowie still exists despite US-287 bypassing it to the South. Same goes for Henrietta. Really, between Wichita Falls and Decatur most of the towns were already bypassed by freeway segments a long time ago. Bellevue is an exception.
West of Wichita Falls other towns like Iowa Park, Electra, Harold, Oklaunion and Vernon have limited access bypasses. They would not be adversely affected by a full Interstate quality upgrade of US-287. If anything, those towns might attract more highway travel oriented businesses. Those towns need any kind of boost they can get.
Farther West the short freeway bypasses disappear. Some of the towns along the way are tiny enough that hardly any kind of bypass would be needed. Childress and Memphis would need substantial new terrain bypasses. Bypasses wouldn't have to go all that far around Claude, Clarendon and Quanah.
A lot of the road side businesses are chain restaurants and convenience stores. Those can relocate to a new bypass route fairly easily.
Quote from: The GhostbusterI'm surprised the the US 81/287 freeway from Interstate 35W northwestward is still just a four lane freeway.
Yeah, that's why I've been complaining about TX DOT being asleep at the wheel when it comes to this region of the metroplex. They're getting totally caught off guard,
just like what happened with US-380 between Denton and McKinney. Derpy, derpy, derp!!!
Quote from: LonghornThe elevated 287 in Wichita Falls is interesting, why so wide between north and southbound lanes?
Because the elevated highway had to be built over existing downtown city streets. The ends of the old Central Freeway split two blocks apart in a old Texas-style downtown configuration. There are similar splits at the end of I-27 in Amarillo and the end of I-35 in Laredo. The split in Wichita Falls was short enough that building an elevated freeway was feasible.
Texas politics just doesn't work that way
Texas politics certainly doesn't give two shits about infrastructure lately. Now it's just a constant culture war bitch-fest.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 20, 2023, 11:03:54 PM
Texas politics certainly doesn't give two shits about infrastructure lately. Now it's just a constant culture war bitch-fest.
That's just about everywhere in America nowadays.
Bellevue concrete wall extension
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/wichita-falls/us287-clay-county-111623.html
TXDOT has an upcoming public hearing for road resurfacing and concrete barrier extension in Bellevue. It's a pity a bypass isn't being investigated.
Woo hoo. More concrete Jersey barrier segments. Yeah, that'll make me want to hang a hard turn off US-287 to gas-up at prices 30¢ per gallon higher than stores in Wichita Falls.
I'm kind of surprised Bellevue hasn't dried up in the years since the porno video store on the West side of town closed. Not that the video store was a major employer. The town doesn't look like it's adding any new residents and the people still living there are getting older and older.
I could understand TX DOT playing a waiting game with Bellevue (wait until enough residents die off so an Interstate upgrade can more cheaply plow straight thru). But it looks more like TX DOT isn't even looking at that corridor at all.
According to the census numbers of Wikipedia, you are correct.
Historical population
Census Pop. Note %±
1910 699 —
1920 782 11.9%
1930 546 −30.2%
1940 503 −7.9%
1950 418 −16.9%
1960 309 −26.1%
1970 323 4.5%
1980 352 9.0%
1990 333 −5.4%
2000 386 15.9%
2010 362 −6.2%
2019 (est.) 347 [2] −4.1%
I don't know how Bellevue manages to still have a public school. Not only that, the school has been undergoing a major renovation lately. As small as Bellevue is I would have figured any school age kids would be forced to attend schools in either Bowie or Henrietta. That may eventually happen.
Either way, I think an expansion of US-287 to Interstate standards thru Bellevue on the existing alignment is definitely do-able. There isn't a lot of available space between the highway and the BNSF freight rail tracks. Property by the Southbound lanes would have to be acquired.
The properties next to the faux frontage road look like they could be bought and cleared pretty easily. The few homes next to the highway look like they're ready for the wrecking ball. The owners might welcome being bought out. The commercial businesses could likely re-build with the money they're given. An Interstate quality upgrade and visual facelift along the new frontage roads could potentially help reverse the town's steady decline.
It would probably be less expensive for TX DOT to upgrade US-287 straight through Bellevue on the existing alignment rather than build a new terrain bypass around town.
I had no idea Texas was this serious about it becoming an interstate. Are we thinking I-18? This would be welcome.
(https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/statewide/us287-corridor-interstate-feasibility-study/_jcr_content/root/responsivegrid_1551407878/image.coreimg.png/1701884530182/us-287-corridor-study-map.png)
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/statewide/us287-corridor-interstate-feasibility-study.html?fbclid=IwAR2gUCPyue_f2TznK2yrh9dXIyT96uLXlIx9HYPR1bNH1ZMNsIwSjla4lNw_aem_Ac2_eCfGrHuPG7xjh7Uq9LwOrBAQbL6KLik9H5GuymBM8QbTegRS8QIPD9B-HWgFbuM
TIL US 67 kept its number across the Mexican border
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 16, 2023, 01:33:28 PM
I had no idea Texas was this serious about it becoming an interstate. Are we thinking I-18? This would be welcome.
Wow, that's news to me. Definitely good news, since that corridor was not included in a recent consultant solicitation to study priority corridors (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/083123/presentation.pdf).
I think a recommendation for interstate standards for the full corridor would be unrealistic, considering that the I-69 system will take another 30 years to be completed, and both I-14 and Port-to-Plains are being positioned to get funding.
A more realistic recommendation is for limited-access status on high-traffic sections, mainly Corsicana to west of Wichita Falls. West of Wichita Falls needs bypasses around urban sections (e.g. Childress). Southeast of Corsicana should have a minimum of 4x4 divided. There is already a study (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/bmt/us69-lumberton-kountze/050223-factsheet.pdf) in progress (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/beaumont/us69-lumberton-kountze-relief-route-050423.html) for a new 20-mile-long freeway along the corridor north of Beaumont.
Yes I definitely think the most needed section atm is between Amarillo and Dallas with the primarily focus being Wichita Falls and Fort Worth. I was shocked to see this as well.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 16, 2023, 01:33:28 PM
I had no idea Texas was this serious about it becoming an interstate. Are we thinking I-18? This would be welcome.
I don't think all of US-287 would be designated as I-18 if it were upgraded to interstate standards for its entire length through Texas. I could see I-18 being applied to the stretch between Beaumont and Fort Worth. From Fort Worth to Amarillo, I would guess I-32, 34, 36, or 38. North of Amarillo, US-287 is already identified as a branch of Future I-27.
In reality, interstate designation for the entire US-287 corridor will be a long way off. I could see TxDOT prioritizing the removal of any remaining traffic lights between Fort Worth and Amarillo, which are mainly located along the 130-mile stretch between Chillicothe and Claude, but I don't see the entire corridor being brought up to interstate standards.
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 16, 2023, 04:10:06 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 16, 2023, 01:33:28 PM
I had no idea Texas was this serious about it becoming an interstate. Are we thinking I-18? This would be welcome.
I don't think all of US-287 would be designated as I-18 if it were upgraded to interstate standards for its entire length through Texas. I could see I-18 being applied to the stretch between Beaumont and Fort Worth. From Fort Worth to Amarillo, I would guess I-32, 34, 36, or 38. North of Amarillo, US-287 is already identified as a branch of Future I-27.
In reality, interstate designation for the entire US-287 corridor will be a long way off. I could see TxDOT prioritizing the removal of any remaining traffic lights between Fort Worth and Amarillo, which are mainly located along the 130-mile stretch between Chillicothe and Claude, but I don't see the entire corridor being brought up to interstate standards.
I hope common sense prevails here and whatever designation is applied to US 287 between DFW and Amarillo is continued to Raton, while mainline I-27 should go north into Colorado instead of the 27N branch if it is ever upgraded.
I'm skeptical about the US-287 segment between Dallas and Beaumont needing to be converted to Interstate quality. Although there is an outside chance US-287 from Beaumont up to Woodville (US-190) could be converted if all that I-14 stuff becomes reality.
The main focus of a US-287 Interstate feasibility study should be Fort Worth to Amarillo. The DFW metro is big enough to be worthy of a second Interstate going West out of the metro (with this one going to I-40). The stuff North of Amarillo would fall into Ports to Plains Corridor territory.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaAre we thinking I-18?
No. The US-287 segment from Fort Worth to Amarillo is North of I-20 and I-30. I think "I-32" would be a much better designation. I think "I-34" from Wichita Falls to Texarkana (or Henrietta to New Boston actually) is a real possibility if the DFW metro keeps on growing.
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 16, 2023, 04:47:53 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 16, 2023, 04:10:06 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 16, 2023, 01:33:28 PM
I had no idea Texas was this serious about it becoming an interstate. Are we thinking I-18? This would be welcome.
I don't think all of US-287 would be designated as I-18 if it were upgraded to interstate standards for its entire length through Texas. I could see I-18 being applied to the stretch between Beaumont and Fort Worth. From Fort Worth to Amarillo, I would guess I-32, 34, 36, or 38. North of Amarillo, US-287 is already identified as a branch of Future I-27.
In reality, interstate designation for the entire US-287 corridor will be a long way off. I could see TxDOT prioritizing the removal of any remaining traffic lights between Fort Worth and Amarillo, which are mainly located along the 130-mile stretch between Chillicothe and Claude, but I don't see the entire corridor being brought up to interstate standards.
I hope common sense prevails here and whatever designation is applied to US 287 between DFW and Amarillo is continued to Raton, while mainline I-27 should go north into Colorado instead of the 27N branch if it is ever upgraded.
It's Texas. May as well rename the state to Suffixland at this point.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2023, 08:30:38 PM
I'm skeptical about the US-287 segment between Dallas and Beaumont needing to be converted to Interstate quality. Although there is an outside chance US-287 from Beaumont up to Woodville (US-190) could be converted if all that I-14 stuff becomes reality.
The main focus of a US-287 Interstate feasibility study should be Fort Worth to Amarillo. The DFW metro is big enough to be worthy of a second Interstate going West out of the metro (with this one going to I-40). The stuff North of Amarillo would fall into Ports to Plains Corridor territory.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaAre we thinking I-18?
No. The US-287 segment from Fort Worth to Amarillo is North of I-20 and I-30. I think "I-32" would be a much better designation. I think "I-34 from Wichita Falls to Texarkana (or Henrietta to New Boston actually) is a real possibility if the DFW metro keeps on growing.
Agreed - Dallas to Beaumont seems kinda redundant with I-45 to me. Of course, this is Texas - maybe that part can be I-45E.
I'd love to see Amarillo to Fort Worth, however. It would take care of that weird dead end on I-44 quite nicely.
The 2025 study completion date falls before the Tarrant-Wise County 287 projects are tentatively scheduled - for 2026.
The central segment of US 287 has traffic counts justifying interstate designation in short order. It could be argued to be worthier of interstate stats than other Congress-designated corridors in the state. Whether any federal money appears is quite another question.
Quote from: vdeaneI'd love to see Amarillo to Fort Worth, however. It would take care of that weird dead end on I-44 quite nicely.
Yeah, I-44 would have something of a more proper end if US-287 was upgraded to Interstate quality thru Wichita Falls. Although I-44 is signed past US-287 down to the Broad/Holliday Street overheads.
One thing I want to see is I-44 extended from Wichita Falls down to Abilene and I-20 if not farther South to San Angelo and an eventual meeting with an extended I-27. That would actually be a better thing, especially if I-27 was extended down to Del Rio and Laredo. The end result would be really great for commercial trucking between Mexico and the US.
Instead of Amarillo to Fort Worth, I'd say the priority zone should be extended south to Ennis at I-45. That whole stretch from Fort Worth to Ennis is teeming with suburban growth, and it's THE route from Houston and points east to the Panhandle and beyond.
Quote from: debragga on December 17, 2023, 01:41:41 AM
Instead of Amarillo to Fort Worth, I'd say the priority zone should be extended south to Ennis at I-45. That whole stretch from Fort Worth to Ennis is teeming with suburban growth, and it's THE route from Houston and points east to the Panhandle and beyond.
I think they could get away with a 3di for either I20 or I45 for the segment from I20 to I45 in Ennis. Make US287 an Interstate from Amarillo to Ennis? The original corridor brought up to congress back in 2017 has been shortened with I27 and I27N being designated. I don't know if the section from I35W to I820 would be up to interstate standards because that section was originally built in the 60s while everything south of I20 was built beginning in the 70s. I could see I120 or I145 as a spur route due to the traffic counts in that section but it would require bringing the Waxahachie bypass into compliance for interstate standards and that would require that merge slip ramp for traffic coming from Bus 287 out of Waxahachie that merges from the left at the end of the bypass going northbound to either be rebuilt or eliminated (this is already being looked at for modification or removal) with bringing the entire corridor between I20 and I45 as grade separated with continuous frontage roads.
Quote from: debraggaInstead of Amarillo to Fort Worth, I'd say the priority zone should be extended south to Ennis at I-45.
They already working on the segment of US-287 between I-20 and I-45. I'm not a fan of that tight trumpet interchange with I-45. But that could be an interim solution. Anyway, the freeway South around Ennis is a recent project. There are other grade separation projects in the works.
With that being said, I think TX DOT and other state agencies have been slow-walking progress on that part of the US-287 corridor. There is a lot of residential growth in the Mansfield and Midlothian areas.
The Southeast Connector project is a pretty big upgrade for US-287 in the I-20/I-820 zone. I think that will make it more urgent to upgrade the rest of US-287 to I-45 up to Interstate standards
and maybe even do some widening to 3x3 configuration.Nevertheless, the need for upgrading US-287 to Interstate standards North of Fort Worth is still going to be there regardless of what happens South of I-20. It's a problem that has to be remedied ASAP, not decades from now.
They at least have the intention of bringing the 8 miles of US-287 from I-35W to Avondale-Haslet Road up to Interstate quality. But they need to push another 6 miles farther up to TX-114 very soon as well. Then there's the 13 miles between Rhome and Decatur. Some portions of that road have freeway exits already. A bunch of it can be upgraded very easily without having to buy any new ROW.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 17, 2023, 03:45:11 PM
I'm not a fan of that tight trumpet interchange with I-45. But that could be an interim solution.
What exactly is the issue with it?
The tight SB US-287 to NB I-45 cloverleaf ramp has a design speed of only 35mph.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 17, 2023, 05:09:59 PM
The tight SB US-287 to NB I-45 cloverleaf ramp has a design speed of only 35mph.
And... what exactly is the issue with it? That is significantly higher design than most loop ramps, which are tighter and have a 25 mph design.
Not to mention, I don't imagine the traffic volumes are anywhere high enough to justify a high speed flyover.
I think TxDOT should focus on upgrading US 287 from Amarillo to Dallas-FT Worth area. Isn't that road one of the major trucking traffic? I don't live in Texas but if somebody knows of this, feel free to correct me.
Quote from: Strider on December 18, 2023, 12:32:06 AM
I think TxDOT should focus on upgrading US 287 from Amarillo to Dallas-FT Worth area. Isn't that road one of the major trucking traffic? I don't live in Texas but if somebody knows of this, feel free to correct me.
Yes,
US-287 is really busy. Lots of trucks. It is MOSTLY divided 2X2. THe real issue is that it still goes through most of the towns with low speed limits and traffic signals. A freeway would be best, but just bypassing the small to medium sized towns would be an immeasurable improvement.
I drove 287 from DFW to Amarillo last year. Based on what I remember from that, a Childress bypass alone would be really nice, and should be first priority regardless of any larger scale interstate upgrades.
I would generally agree, the priority should be constructing limited access bypass routes around the small towns, eliminating all traffic signals between I-35W and I-40, and allowing a free-flow with a minimum of a 65 mph speed limit.
Any rural interstate upgrades (frontage roads, minor interchanges, etc.) would be a lower priority.
Quote from: bwana39US-287 is really busy. Lots of trucks. It is MOSTLY divided 2X2. THe real issue is that it still goes through most of the towns with low speed limits and traffic signals. A freeway would be best, but just bypassing the small to medium sized towns would be an immeasurable improvement.
Several towns along the way already have bypasses that are at/near Interstate quality. East of Wichita Falls there are bypasses for Jolly, Henrietta and the longer freeway segment from Bowie to Alvord. West of Wichita Falls there are bypasses for Iowa Park, Electra, Harrold, Oklaunion and Vernon. Additionally, a lot of US-287 between towns would be easy to upgrade, with little if any extra ROW required. A project to upgrade US-287 to Interstate standards would be working with a pretty substantial head start.
But US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo does have its obstacles.
I think Decatur is the
most difficult nut to crack. Upgrading the existing roadway to Interstate standards looks like the best option (as opposed to a bypass around town). But it will require buying and clearing at least a couple dozen or more commercial properties to make room for main lanes and continuous frontage roads. Some businesses might get by with their parking lots "getting a haircut." With DFW Metroplex growth spreading farther Northwest the Decatur situation will grow more urgent.
Childress and other towns West of Wichita Falls need their own bypasses. But I wouldn't expect any of that to happen until some real plans are put into action following this corridor study.
It's happening! (Attention Bobby5280)
TxDOT is studying the US 287 corridor from Beaumont to Amarillo for interstate status.
Study link (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/statewide/us287-corridor-interstate-feasibility-study.html)
(https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/images/projects/us287-corridor-study-map-061224.png)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GVBrm00XgAACBkF?format=jpg)
https://x.com/TxDOT/status/1824076166296117430
That is in fact, great news. That map doesn't mention I-2 however is no further extension planned? I didn't realize that I-27 was going to straddle the border that far SE. That's a lot of interstate mileage Texas is planning to build. I wonder how long it'll take for that all to come to fruition.
I would say that this interstate proposal at least between Dallas and Amarillo should be a higher priority than a lot of what is planned.
Now Texas just needs "plans" to extend I-44 and an intestate or freeway between Austin and Houston.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 15, 2024, 02:02:57 PMThat is in fact, great news. That map doesn't mention I-2 however is no further extension planned? I didn't realize that I-27 was going to straddle the border that far SE. That's a lot of interstate mileage Texas is planning to build. I wonder how long it'll take for that all to come to fruition.
I would say that this interstate proposal at least between Dallas and Amarillo should be a higher priority than a lot of what is planned.
Now Texas just needs "plans" to extend I-44 and an intestate or freeway between Austin and Houston.
They also didn't draw I-69 to LA from Tenaha, so that could be an oversight (or not?) like the I-2 corridor. By the looks of the valley, the mapper/s care more about labeling the border crossings than labeling I-2.
Meanwhile, it's about ----g time that US 287 was at least brought up and looked at. Fort Worth <=> Amarillo should have already had something working or done *long* before I-14's possibility was a gleam in anyone's eye.
(NY has studied the Rooftop multiple times...) :D
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on August 15, 2024, 06:42:40 PMMeanwhile, it's about ----g time that US 287 was at least brought up and looked at. Fort Worth <=> Amarillo should have already had something working or done *long* before I-14's possibility was a gleam in anyone's eye.
All the more reason to hope for something in the 30s, or even I-28! I'd prefer they make this I-32, though.
It's great news they're actually launching a formal Interstate study on the US-287 corridor. But the proverbial push was turning into a shove with regards to the Fort Worth-Dectaur segment. That chunk has been very long overdue for a full Interstate quality upgrade. It's just nuts how many new housing subdivisions and giant logistics buildings have been going up North and Northwest of Fort Worth. There is so much growth happening that they not only desperately need to bring US-287 up to Interstate status in that area, but they also need to upgrade TX-114 to Interstate quality to US-287 in Rhome.
The Fort Worth-Amarillo segment of US-287 built up as an Interstate highway would be highly valuable to the big picture functions of the overall Interstate system. DFW would have an equivalent diagonal East-West route alternative to I-20.
I don't think there is nearly as much need for an Interstate running from Ennis down to Beaumont. If I-14 was to be fully completed into Louisiana the freeway going North out of Beaumont could be extended to meet it. Otherwise, I think the focus should be I-40 in Amarillo down to I-45 in Ennis.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 15, 2024, 02:02:57 PMThat map doesn't mention I-2 however is no further extension planned?
Is I-2 officially planned to be extended to Laredo?
The exit numbers along the existing segment of I-2 certainly suggest an eventual extension to Laredo.
Then we have to consider all the other corridor planning and study activity currently in the works. They're looking at a bypass of Sullivan City, which would extend the La Joya bypass farther West. A corridor is being planned as a Northern bypass from Rio Grande City over to Roma. That cluster of small cities and towns is not included as part of the Rio Grande Valley metro from McAllen over to Brownsville (which has over 1 million people). If I-2 gets extended to Roma that would be about the halfway point to Laredo.
Laredo itself is a fairly large city. It has over 200,000 people. IIRC the city has the busiest inland border crossing in the US, at least in terms of commercial traffic, if not overall. Brownsville is a serious port city. I-2 would provide a better connection between the two.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2024, 12:00:46 AMThe exit numbers along the existing segment of I-2 certainly suggest an eventual extension to Laredo.
Then we have to consider all the other corridor planning and study activity currently in the works. They're looking at a bypass of Sullivan City, which would extend the La Joya bypass farther West. A corridor is being planned as a Northern bypass from Rio Grande City over to Roma. That cluster of small cities and towns is not included as part of the Rio Grande Valley metro from McAllen over to Brownsville (which has over 1 million people). If I-2 gets extended to Roma that would be about the halfway point to Laredo.
Laredo itself is a fairly large city. It has over 200,000 people. IIRC the city has the busiest inland border crossing in the US, at least in terms of commercial traffic, if not overall. Brownsville is a serious port city. I-2 would provide a better connection between the two.
But again, there's no official plan to extend I-2.
Quote from: Henry on August 15, 2024, 10:57:34 PMQuote from: -- US 175 -- on August 15, 2024, 06:42:40 PMMeanwhile, it's about ----g time that US 287 was at least brought up and looked at. Fort Worth <=> Amarillo should have already had something working or done *long* before I-14's possibility was a gleam in anyone's eye.
All the more reason to hope for something in the 30s, or even I-28! I'd prefer they make this I-32, though.
Seems like a running theme in the IHS to have 2DI I-2* even routes as NW<->SE running routes, so I-28 would be perfect. Sure would be nice of ANY of these would span more than a couple of states, however.
I don't like "I-28" as a number for the US-287 corridor. It's North of I-30. The only way "I-28" would make any sense is if the segment from Corsicana to Beaumont was ever built. I think chances are very slim for that happening. Much of existing US-287 going SE from Corsicana is a 2 lane route.
I think "I-32" is a far better choice. It's the first step above I-30. Plus it would leave room for "I-34" as a possibility for the US-82 corridor on the Northern fringes of the DFW region. US-82 from Henrietta to New Boston may end up functioning as a serious regional bypass for DFW. One scenario would be trucks coming down from the Rockies and heading to the Gulf Coast. They would be driving along "I-32", but rather than go straight thru DFW they might take "I-34" across to Texarkana to connect with I-49. The Northeast US has a number of Interstates that work as regional bypasses of major cities. The DFW metro has close to 8 million people. That's pretty major.
Quote from: sprjus4But again, there's no official plan to extend I-2.
Still, it looks like they doing that anyway.
Out of all the proposed Interstate corridors in Texas, I think I-2 has better chances of being fully built out to Laredo than I-14 going to San Angelo or I-27 going North of Dumas or even Amarillo. Far South Texas has a surprisingly large population. Add to that all of the border and port commerce. On top of that add in the tourism angle via Padre Island.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2024, 10:46:53 AMI don't like "I-28" as a number for the US-287 corridor. It's North of I-30. The only way "I-28" would make any sense is if the segment from Corsicana to Beaumont was ever built. I think chances are very slim for that happening. Much of existing US-287 going SE from Corsicana is a 2 lane route.
I think "I-32" is a far better choice. It's the first step above I-30. Plus it would leave room for "I-34" as a possibility for the US-82 corridor on the Northern fringes of the DFW region. US-82 from Henrietta to New Boston may end up functioning as a serious regional bypass for DFW. One scenario would be trucks coming down from the Rockies and heading to the Gulf Coast. They would be driving along "I-32", but rather than go straight thru DFW they might take "I-34" across to Texarkana to connect with I-49. The Northeast US has a number of Interstates that work as regional bypasses of major cities. The DFW metro has close to 8 million people. That's pretty major.
Quote from: sprjus4But again, there's no official plan to extend I-2.
Still, it looks like they doing that anyway.
Out of all the proposed Interstate corridors in Texas, I think I-2 has better chances of being fully built out to Laredo than I-14 going to San Angelo or I-27 going North of Dumas or even Amarillo. Far South Texas has a surprisingly large population. Add to that all of the border and port commerce. On top of that add in the tourism angle via Padre Island.
They are studying the route all the way down to Beaumont, so it'll potentially intersect I-10, well south of I-20 as well. There isn't going to be a grid compliant number for a diagonal with the mileage they're studying. They've already got a "standard" going with the other I-2* even numbered Interstates on diagonals.
TX DOT can study the Corsicana-Beaumont segment of US-287 if they want to do so. I strongly doubt any Interstate would ever be built along that full length, particularly from Corsicana going farther Southeast. I can see US-287 from Beaumont up to maybe Woodville getting built as an Interstate, but that's only if the whole I-14 thing gets fleshed out. I'm skeptical I-14 will be built much at all outside the Texas Triangle.
Even if the Corsicana-Beaumont segment of US-287 was upgraded to Interstate standards, that's much more of a North-South route. The Fort Worth-Amarillo segment is runs more East-West. An even number designation makes sense there, but not "I-28."
I'm skeptical of how much an interstate upgrade from Fort Worth to Amarillo would meaningfully improve along that stretch. The entire corridor is already four-lane divided and flows pretty well in my experience.
There are a number of towns west of Wichita Falls that could use a bypass - Childress and Quanah in particular come to mind - but I just don't see a full interstate upgrade along the whole stretch being worth the cost.
Quote from: US 89 on August 17, 2024, 11:16:06 AMI'm skeptical of how much an interstate upgrade from Fort Worth to Amarillo would meaningfully improve along that stretch. The entire corridor is already four-lane divided and flows pretty well in my experience.
There are a number of towns west of Wichita Falls that could use a bypass - Childress and Quanah in particular come to mind - but I just don't see a full interstate upgrade along the whole stretch being worth the cost.
If you are referring to U.S. 287, not so in my experience. It must be 6 laned with continuous one way frontage roads. And every thing else costs much more than road construction.
Quote from: In_Correct on August 17, 2024, 01:14:21 PMQuote from: US 89 on August 17, 2024, 11:16:06 AMI'm skeptical of how much an interstate upgrade from Fort Worth to Amarillo would meaningfully improve along that stretch. The entire corridor is already four-lane divided and flows pretty well in my experience.
There are a number of towns west of Wichita Falls that could use a bypass - Childress and Quanah in particular come to mind - but I just don't see a full interstate upgrade along the whole stretch being worth the cost.
If you are referring to U.S. 287, not so in my experience. It must be 6 laned with continuous one way frontage roads. And every thing else costs much more than road construction.
6 lanes from Fort Worth all the way to I-40 on the Panhandle? Sure... that's realistic.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 17, 2024, 09:36:47 PMQuote from: In_Correct on August 17, 2024, 01:14:21 PMQuote from: US 89 on August 17, 2024, 11:16:06 AMI'm skeptical of how much an interstate upgrade from Fort Worth to Amarillo would meaningfully improve along that stretch. The entire corridor is already four-lane divided and flows pretty well in my experience.
There are a number of towns west of Wichita Falls that could use a bypass - Childress and Quanah in particular come to mind - but I just don't see a full interstate upgrade along the whole stretch being worth the cost.
If you are referring to U.S. 287, not so in my experience. It must be 6 laned with continuous one way frontage roads. And every thing else costs much more than road construction.
6 lanes from Fort Worth all the way to I-40 on the Panhandle? Sure... that's realistic.
Don't forget the continuous one-way frontage roads, to serve all that dense development along it (https://maps.app.goo.gl/N49TNgH3qKyCMRER8)...
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 17, 2024, 09:36:47 PMQuote from: In_Correct on August 17, 2024, 01:14:21 PMQuote from: US 89 on August 17, 2024, 11:16:06 AMI'm skeptical of how much an interstate upgrade from Fort Worth to Amarillo would meaningfully improve along that stretch. The entire corridor is already four-lane divided and flows pretty well in my experience.
There are a number of towns west of Wichita Falls that could use a bypass - Childress and Quanah in particular come to mind - but I just don't see a full interstate upgrade along the whole stretch being worth the cost.
If you are referring to U.S. 287, not so in my experience. It must be 6 laned with continuous one way frontage roads. And every thing else costs much more than road construction.
6 lanes from Fort Worth all the way to I-40 on the Panhandle? Sure... that's realistic.
Not that it'll happen, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. If any Vinny would pull it off It would be Texas.
This configuration as I proposed is needed between north of Fort Worth and Decatur ( or perhaps Wichita Falls ultimately ) ...
US-287 needs to be a 3x3 facility from the I-35W split up through Decatur. Then it can drop down to a 2x2 freeway. Traffic counts are certainly heavy enough to justify a rural Interstate upgrade from Wichita Falls down to Fort Worth. It gets a little iffy West of Wichita Falls. But then again the AADT counts on US-287 between Wichita Falls and Amarillo are often higher than the numbers on I-27. Plus there simply is a pretty serious amount of heavy truck traffic on that highway.
US 287 between Witchita Falls and Amarillo has seen some grisly fatalities. The justification for more grade separations is high because of the high volume of truck traffic and the overall base level.
It's about time. US 287 already has enough traffic on it from DFW to Amarillo. Call it a westward extension of Interstate 30.
Quote from: Robinsml on August 18, 2024, 09:22:54 PMIt's about time. US 287 already has enough traffic on it from DFW to Amarillo. Call it a westward extension of Interstate 30.
Probably the most logical extension of I-30 possible.
If the US 287 corridor ever gets an Interstate designation, it should be numbered Interstate 32 (or 34, 36, or 38). The Interstate Guide's Future Routes page says Roads and Bridges magazine once suggested the Interstate 32 designation for the corridor (pending upgrades, of course): https://www.aaroads.com/interstate-guide/future/#032.
I don't like the idea of numbering a US-287 Interstate as "I-30." That would turn I-30 into a V-shaped route with both ends hitting I-40. That would be weird. If I-30 was going to be extended I would have preferred it to run over what is now being called I-57 up to Sikeston. I-30 may be short, but it's still very much a major Interstate route.
If US-287 does get an Interstate designation I'm hoping I-32 wins out.
Knowing Texas, it'll probably end up being I-27S. Gotta have all the suffixes!
My first thought was that it doesn't need an Interstate number. The TxDOT web page only mentions rebuilding the road to Interstate standards. I like that they're not obsessed with putting red white and blue signs on every stretch of freeway. But, this is a long stretch between two significant cities, much of which is rural. In my mind, that covers the purpose of the Interstate system more than a bypass of a major city. A state highway could perform the same function, and a freeway is justified due to the traffic level and urban nature of the area. Long freeways across rural areas connecting distant cities is the most fundamental purpose of the Interstate system, especially if the cities happen to be in different states.
As for numbers, I prefer to make silly suggestions that are only suitable if you look at it strangely. Make it I-27, which would run south out of Amarillo in both directions and fit in the grid. Another idea is I-45, which already tilts northwest. Run it along I-30 and I-35W to connect the two pieces. This wouldn't get it out of Texas, but it would make it a lot longer and connect to a different piece of the Interstate system, one that's in Texas only because of the odd shape and doesn't connect to the rest of the Texas Interstates. If we want a suffix, call it I-20N, since it's kind of a mirror image, running west from Fort Worth, tilted north instead of south, and ending at another Interstate that continues to the western states.
I like the idea of making this an interstate because the way the western end of I-44 is just dangling with no connection to the interstate system despite being nowhere near a coast or border is annoying.
I think the segment of US-287 from Ennis (I-45) to Amarillo (I-40) is an increasingly important connection for the overall Interstate highway system. DFW is the 4th most populated metro in the US. If Chicago keeps losing population DFW will rise to #3 behind NY and LA.
They're not planning on adding an Interstate designation to the US 67 corridor from Dallas southwestward towards Cleburne, are they? Wait a second, this is Texas. An Interstate designation could pop up anywhere, even in places where it doesn't make sense.
It would be a tall order to upgrade all of US-67 on the South fringe of the DFW metro up to Interstate standards. The segment from Midlothian (US-287) up to downtown Dallas is going to get more and more busy. It's easy to imagine the existing 2x2 lane segments from Midlothian on North getting widened to 3x3 or even 4x4. Going SW of Midlothian the freeway turns into a mostly 4-lane divided route with lots of development crowding it in various places. It would be difficult and costly to turn it into a continuous freeway all the way to Cleburne.
US67 is already 3x3 from the split with 35E past the I-20 interchange to just past Wintergreen Rd. It looks like it is being expanded from there to Belt Line Rd
It would make sense for them to expand the US-67 freeway down to Midlothian and US-287. US-67 starts turning into a mess of sorts a little farther Southwest from there, starting at Venus. The zone from I-35W/Alvarado on West to Keene looks like it would be pretty challenging to turn into a freeway.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 21, 2024, 12:00:51 PMThey're not planning on adding an Interstate designation to the US 67 corridor from Dallas southwestward towards Cleburne, are they? Wait a second, this is Texas. An Interstate designation could pop up anywhere, even in places where it doesn't make sense.
I'm sure the city fathers in Midlothian (I think there is one mother on the city council there) would delight in there being 2 I-shields crisscrossing their city. But the 67 segment is at best a 3DI to Alvarado. 287 has better staying power.
WFFA has a news report and video (https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/haslet-texas-population-growth-fort-worth-development-housing-us-287/287-fd059723-3fa3-4777-bd90-4960adeaefae?ref=exit-recirc) about Haslet and the US 287 project just north of the I-35W split.
Remaining vacant land in Haslet is rapidly being transformed into subdivisions.
The article says that the first project on US 287 is scheduled to receive bids in late 2026, and subsequent phases are not yet scheduled. However, the TxDOT UTP shows multiple projects funded and scheduled for FY 2025-2028.
It's just idiotic how state lawmakers have let the situation on US-287 get this bad and yet still have nothing actually in progress to fix it. Any moron could have seen this coming 20 damned years ago. It has been just that obvious.
Even without the population boom on the North and Northwest sides of Fort Worth upgrading US-287 to Interstate quality from the I-35W split up to Rhome and even Decatur has been badly needed since at least the late 1990's.
TX DOT and lawmakers may get a grace period of time to deal with this problem if the nation's housing industry goes into a steep downturn (and hatefully high home prices are just egging it on to burst that price bubble). Effects of a bad recession last only so long. IIRC, growth in the DFW Metroplex didn't pause for long, if at all, in the late 2000's when the last housing price bubble exploded.
The difference is pretty crazy when you're driving on I-35W going North out of Fort Worth and then get on US-287 going toward Wichita Falls. The existing US-287 road looks like beaten up crap compared to the re-build of I-35W. It's just 4 lanes and it's falling apart.
Quote from: Road Hog on August 23, 2024, 12:39:08 AMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on August 21, 2024, 12:00:51 PMThey're not planning on adding an Interstate designation to the US 67 corridor from Dallas southwestward towards Cleburne, are they? Wait a second, this is Texas. An Interstate designation could pop up anywhere, even in places where it doesn't make sense.
I'm sure the city fathers in Midlothian (I think there is one mother on the city council there) would delight in there being 2 I-shields crisscrossing their city. But the 67 segment is at best a 3DI to Alvarado. 287 has better staying power.
If they did a 3-di from I35E to I35W I would call it I535 as the states in between Minnesota and Texas have used every other number up besides I735.
Are they going to do bypasses around Venus and Alvarado to make a Interstate possible or just sign it from the US287 intersection to I35E if it were to happen?
I had a thread on here a while back mentioning the potential of 287 and 67 in the metro becoming 3-di.
I still believe US-287 from the I-45 interchange in Ennis up to I-40 in Amarillo has 2-digit Interstate route potential. An upgraded US-67 from Dallas down thru Midlothian and farther Southwest would only work as a 3-digit route.
Aside from the I-69 and I-14 efforts Texas has a long history of not applying Interstate route numbers to new freeways. I think it's fairly likely if US-67 was fully upgraded to Interstate standards from Dallas down to Cleburne the route would probably still be called US-67.
In regard to possible bypasses of Venus and Alvarado, I don't think that would happen. It's more likely US-67 would get upgraded to Interstate standards along the current alignment. The problem with bypasses is planners would have a hard time making the proposed bypass alignments avoid hitting a lot of residential homes. It's the lesser of two evils to widen the existing alignment. Most of the existing buildings affected would be commercial chain stores. It's easier to re-build those things than a bunch of family homes.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 07, 2024, 03:12:24 PMI still believe US-287 from the I-45 interchange in Ennis up to I-40 in Amarillo has 2-digit Interstate route potential. An upgraded US-67 from Dallas down thru Midlothian and farther Southwest would only work as a 3-digit route.
Aside from the I-69 and I-14 efforts Texas has a long history of not applying Interstate route numbers to new freeways. I think it's fairly likely if US-67 was fully upgraded to Interstate standards from Dallas down to Cleburne the route would probably still be called US-67.
In regard to possible bypasses of Venus and Alvarado, I don't think that would happen. It's more likely US-67 would get upgraded to Interstate standards along the current alignment. The problem with bypasses is planners would have a hard time making the proposed bypass alignments avoid hitting a lot of residential homes. It's the lesser of two evils to widen the existing alignment. Most of the existing buildings affected would be commercial chain stores. It's easier to re-build those things than a bunch of family homes.
The problem with Venus and Alvarado not getting bypasses is you are looking at taking out pretty much all of the Restaurants in both of those cities are plopped down right up to the road. There still is room for a small bypass section of Venus around the FM157 section but the land is filling fast. Alvarado may need to do some weird configuration where they have elevated main lanes and keeping frontage lanes for businesses there isn't much room for a freeway through there and TXDOT has waited too long to do a short bypass they would have to do a multi mile loop to bypass the town.
There was some rumblings that they are looking at building a stack interchange at I35W and US67 but looking at the existing properties along that they are looking at having to potentially demolish the CVS, Quiktrip and a carwash to have direct connecting ramps.
Quote from: motorola870The problem with Venus and Alvarado not getting bypasses is you are looking at taking out pretty much all of the Restaurants in both of those cities are plopped down right up to the road.
Are any of those restaurants and other commercial businesses unique in any way? Most are chain businesses. It's not a new thing for a national or regional chain to shut down an existing location and build new elsewhere. This is essentially what is happening along parts of US-380 between Denton and McKinney. Commercial businesses that build up in the corner of a volleyball interchange with two super highways should know better about the risk they're taking.
Around a dozen commercial businesses (mostly chain restaurants and convenience stores) are built into three corners of the intersection of I-35W and TX-114. They'll all have to be demolished
when TX DOT finally builds a 5-level stack interchange there. Those businesses won't have a leg to stand on if they want to fight an eminent domain action in court. The Buc-ee's location looks like it is far enough away from the intersection to avoid harm. However a flyover ramp may clip the NE edge of its parking lot.
It's far less disruptive to remove a bunch of commercial businesses and build a new freeway (or wider freeway) along the existing road. It's far more harmful to displace family homes. We all know how unreasonably bad the current real estate market is currently. Anyone who has lived in their home for a considerable amount of time and either paid it off or locked in a low interest rate would face very difficult hardship being forced to move. The
fair market value money they receive for their house wouldn't buy much in this very price-inflated market. They would probably be forced to buy (or even rent) a home in a more distant location.
See the stack flyover at US-281 / Loop 1604 in San Antonio. You could probably squeeze in a stack interchange at I-35 / SH-114 without having to take any businesses outright.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 07, 2024, 03:12:24 PMAside from the I-69 and I-14 efforts Texas has a long history of not applying Interstate route numbers to new freeways. I think it's fairly likely if US-67 was fully upgraded to Interstate standards from Dallas down to Cleburne the route would probably still be called US-67.
That's because I-14, I-69, and let's add I-27 to that as well, are congressionally-designated corridors. The others that TxDOT are upgrading are not, and may not be upgraded to full interstate standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 15, 2024, 09:06:58 PMSee the stack flyover at US-281 / Loop 1604 in San Antonio. You could probably squeeze in a stack interchange at I-35 / SH-114 without having to take any businesses outright.
I could see there being a possibility of building ramps on the northern part of the interchange. A ramp from I-35W southbound to TX-114 westbound would be easy since the Speedway has a lot of open land. I could see them possibly squeezing in a ramp to connect TX-114 east to I-35W north. However, the rest would be super tricky without taking out businesses, especially a TX-114 Eastbound to I-35W southbound connection.
I wonder though if a full stack is needed, or if only certain connections would need to be built. TX-170/Alliance Gateway already kind of serves as a connection from TX-114 Westbound to I-35W southbound, and vice versa. The interchange in my opinion could have an interchange without a westbound to southbound ramp (as well as a northbound to eastbound ramp)
I think if a freeway to freeway interchange ended up being built between TX-114 & I-35W it would (eventually) feature ramps serving all eight directions.
One factor to consider is the demographics of people living in the immediate area (Trophy Club, Westlake, Roanoke, all the new subdivisions getting built West of I-35W, etc). A lot of people with money live in that area and more are moving there. I don't think those people would like a partial (cheaper) interchange.
The other factors: traffic levels on the existing frontage roads is getting worse with the growing amount of retail businesses, restaurants, etc. The explosion of growth in giant logistics warehouses being built in that area is another traffic generator. The I-35/TX-114 interchange also serves as an access point for Alliance Airport. The thru traffic needs to be separated on freeway main lanes and freeway directional ramps rather than being forced into local frontage road traffic.
Finally, the partial interchange of TX-170 and I-35W is more than 5 miles South of the I-35W/TX-114 interchange. There are other freeway to freeway interchanges in DFW (including full stacks) that are spaced closer together than that.
I still think around a dozen chain businesses built into the corners of the I-35W/TX-114 interchange would be removed if a 5-level stack was built there. It would be quite an engineering trick to be able to offset the center of a stack interchange over the vacant NW quadrant of land. Such a thing would likely require a cast-segmental design with fewer bridge piers and longer spans. Texas rarely ever builds anything like that. Most Texas freeway interchanges are the blocky Stonehenge looking variety.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 19, 2024, 11:00:02 PMI think the segment of US-287 from Ennis (I-45) to Amarillo (I-40) is an increasingly important connection for the overall Interstate highway system. DFW is the 4th most populated metro in the US. If Chicago keeps losing population DFW will rise to #3 behind NY and LA.
Using the stats from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area
From 2020 to 2023 Dallas made up about 36% of the gap between itself and Chicago. That would put Dallas on track to pass Chicago for 3rd by 2030. Houston isn't far behind Dallas and back-of-the-envelope math has Houston passing Chicago for 4th by 2040 or so.
Check out Atlanta at 6th, having passed DC, Philly, and Miami just in the last three years.
Thank God.
https://www.wcmessenger.com/articles/txdot-expected-to-nix-u-s-287-stoplight-plans/
"Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has a new, temporary solution to improve safety on U.S. 81/287 near Rhome — and it doesn't include a stoplight.
"In lieu of a traffic signal, TxDOT is preparing to enhance illumination, signage and warnings on U.S. 81/287 at County Road 4838, County Road 4840 and Ramhorn Hill Road.
...
"The change comes after a local plea to expedite an overpass at the intersection instead of installing the traffic light. In a February letter to TxDOT signed by 19 municipal and county officials, House District 64 Rep. Andy Hopper (R-Decatur) asked TxDOT to reconsider the traffic signal, citing unnecessary congestion and delays.
"The letter was in response to TxDOT announcing the traffic signal plan in 2024 as part of a series of fixes to Wise County's U.S. 287 problem.
Yeah, a traffic signal is the opposite of what's needed at that intersection. The proper solution would be an Interstate quality freeway segment with 3x3 lanes leading to a new Y interchange with TX-114 just to the North.
There is no question US-287 between I-35W and TX-114 needs to brought up fully to Interstate standards ASAP. The housing market and US economy are both on shaky ground. But that situation won't last forever. Plus the people who are leaving the city of Dallas over cost issues are often just relocating to outer areas of the DFW region. That means the growth pressures being put on US-287 to the NW of Fort Worth probably aren't going to let up.
Additionally, US-287 between Rhome and Decatur needs to be improved to Interstate standards. And the city of Decatur had better already be working on plans for US-287 to be converted into an Interstate-class freeway thru town.