With TxDOT studying not only studying I-27 extension/Ports to Plains corridor but also finally studying US-287 interstate corridor between Amarillo and DFW at least (they also studying even further from Corsicana to Beaumont but don't expect that anytime soon). That just leaves us with US-277 between Abilene and Wichita Falls as far as northwestern potential interstate corridors are concerned.
And to a lesser extent US-62 between El Paso and Lubbock, but that requires NM to do their part (between Carlsbad and Hobbs specifically) and that alone makes it a pipe-dream.
US-277 is surprisingly expressway standards aside from west of Wichita Falls up to Holiday, Haskell, and Anson. The latter two may as well need a bypass. Since it has the benefit of being upgraded before in the past.
Fictional
It's adequate as it is for the most part. Maybe an Anson bypass would be nice (and a bypass of all those businesses between Holliday and Wichita Falls), but nothing else. Texas has bigger fish to fry.
Wichita Falls had been cooperative in upgrading the roads through and around it. However, the last time I checked on the progress regarding the U.S. 277 ( called " U.S. 82 " in the studies, and STOP responding to everything as " Fictional " ... one of my topics was wrongfully moved instead of others doing their research about it. ) upgrades south of Wichita Falls is sadly there was some kind of opposition to it. ... not unlike the opposition for rail upgrades near Interstate 35 in Sanger.
Quote from: TheBox on August 17, 2024, 12:19:27 AMAnd to a lesser extent US-62 between El Paso and Lubbock, but that requires NM to do their part (between Carlsbad and Hobbs specifically) and that alone makes it a pipe-dream.
I would have adjusted course....
Put a ruler on El Paso and Kansas City, the ruler would pass close to Amarillo and Wichita (KS) -- connect the dots with an interstate! This would give drivers a direct connection between the Great Plains and the Desert Southwest.
And As for US-277, I always imagined extending I-44 farther south from Wichita Falls to Abilene, San Angelo, and Del Rio; and since the route would be extended more south than west, I say rename I-44 to something like I-31.
Quote from: jgb191 on August 17, 2024, 09:17:44 PMQuote from: TheBox on August 17, 2024, 12:19:27 AMAnd to a lesser extent US-62 between El Paso and Lubbock, but that requires NM to do their part (between Carlsbad and Hobbs specifically) and that alone makes it a pipe-dream.
I would have adjusted course....
Put a ruler on El Paso and Kansas City, the ruler would pass close to Amarillo and Wichita (KS) -- connect the dots with an interstate! This would give drivers a direct connection between the Great Plains and the Desert Southwest.
And As for US-277, I always imagined extending I-44 farther south from Wichita Falls to Abilene, San Angelo, and Del Rio; and since the route would be extended more south than west, I say rename I-44 to something like I-31.
I-27 / Ports-to-Plains corridor will cover the San Angelo to Del Rio range eventually.
The real boards are getting more cluttered up with this fictional stuff. It's hard enough to discern the wheat from the chaff on here (one recent road meet attendee called keeping up with AARoads "a chore," with the context meaning "no longer worth the trouble"). Just seems things have become more lax in this regard recently to the site's detriment.
If any thing is cluttering AA Roads Forums, is false positives about things being Fictional.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/wichita-falls/us82-wichita-falls.html
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/wfs/us-82-gap/092220-fact-sheet.pdf
Quote from: In_Correct on August 18, 2024, 02:09:19 AMIf any thing is cluttering AA Roads Forums, is false positives about things being Fictional.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/wichita-falls/us82-wichita-falls.html
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/wfs/us-82-gap/092220-fact-sheet.pdf
Your name is accurate. There's nothing here about a US 277 Interstate.
THAT IS ENOUGH. I DID NOT CREATE THIS TOPIC. I SIMPLY ANSWERED IT.
Quote from: In_Correct on August 18, 2024, 02:09:19 AMIf any thing is cluttering AA Roads Forums, is false positives about things being Fictional.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/wichita-falls/us82-wichita-falls.html
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/wfs/us-82-gap/092220-fact-sheet.pdf
Those are improvements to 5-lane "poor boys" and modern shoulders, not to freeway. Upgrades to freeway there are strictly conjecture, and thus worthy of 86'ing to Fictional.
QuoteAnd to a lesser extent US-62 between El Paso and Lubbock, but that requires NM to do their part (between Carlsbad and Hobbs specifically) and that alone makes it a pipe-dream.
Despite the title of the thread, THIS as quoted sounds like the only fictional part of the O.P. message. The rest of it is a description of a situation near Wichita Falls.
The "I-73 Updates" thread details upgrades to the US 23 corridor in Ohio—which is ostensibly not going to be part of I-73, at least not anytime soon. Why is this any different if there are other topics about the US 277 corridor to be discussed?
If someone wants to be presumptuous and say that these corridors could become interstates, whatever. The forum in 2013 wouldn't have screamed fictional at this person without providing any other meaningful content in their messages. That is objectively a better, more welcoming, and less elitist situation all around.
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 18, 2024, 02:07:59 PMThe "I-73 Updates" thread details upgrades to the US 23 corridor in Ohio—which is ostensibly not going to be part of I-73, at least not anytime soon. Why is this any different if there are other topics about the US 277 corridor to be discussed?
If someone wants to be presumptuous and say that these corridors could become interstates, whatever. The forum in 2013 wouldn't have screamed fictional at this person without providing any other meaningful content in their messages. That is objectively a better, more welcoming, and less elitist situation all around.
Because I-73 was a defined, official Interstate proposal, and this isn't.
I personally use AARoads much more to keep up on real transportation improvements than anything else (even moreso than making snarky comments on here). I spend much more time just perusing the "good stuff" in that regard: The informed discussions on those proposals and then their construction.
I do think fictional has its place -- not like it shouldn't exist at all, but mixing up boards with real and fictional dilutes the actual utility of the forum overall. We can be welcoming while promoting better organization of the threads.
(Endless useless discussions on what control cities "should" be is an entirely different unfortunate matter :D)
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2024, 04:19:19 PMQuote from: Molandfreak on August 18, 2024, 02:07:59 PMThe "I-73 Updates" thread details upgrades to the US 23 corridor in Ohio—which is ostensibly not going to be part of I-73, at least not anytime soon. Why is this any different if there are other topics about the US 277 corridor to be discussed?
If someone wants to be presumptuous and say that these corridors could become interstates, whatever. The forum in 2013 wouldn't have screamed fictional at this person without providing any other meaningful content in their messages. That is objectively a better, more welcoming, and less elitist situation all around.
Because I-73 was a defined, official Interstate proposal, and this isn't.
I personally use AARoads much more to keep up on real transportation improvements than anything else (even moreso than making snarky comments on here). I spend much more time just perusing the "good stuff" in that regard: The informed discussions on those proposals and then their construction.
I do think fictional has its place -- not like it shouldn't exist at all, but mixing up boards with real and fictional dilutes the actual utility of the forum overall. We can be welcoming while promoting better organization of the threads.
(Endless useless discussions on what control cities "should" be is an entirely different unfortunate matter :D)
But the way to do that is through reporting to the moderators, not screaming at the OP that they started a thread in the wrong board with good intentions.
I would agree that we should err on the side of extending grace and educational opportunities to those who don't prolifically post like some of us do. As far as using the forum to keep up with actual road improvements, I'd like to submit that there aren't a large enough number of road improvements nationally with the current funding and inflation levels to keep a site like this interesting to a large audience. It's far more that just civil engineers and DOT personnel that keep tabs on the site as road improvements are the infrastructure that make a significant part of our economy possible and efficient.
I'd also like to submit that a number of routes that many would like to classify as "Fictional" actually should be categorized as "logical" or "likely" extensions to the IHS, in varying degrees of likelihood. With a label like "Fictional", it makes it sound like threads within it are "pie in the sky" submissions with little to no likelihood, whereas, a number of things posted in it are rather observations regarding worthy connections that would benefit more than just local traffic but actually increase the efficiency of travel and commerce.
It would be useful for this site to come up with a new category in the "National Boards" for logical upgrades to the highway system. With all of the population migration of the last several years increasing the migration from the densely populated northeast and upper midwest towards the west and south, the inevitable result will be a need to invest federally in areas that were underrepresented in the 1950's when the original IHS was designed. And by federally invested, I mean 90/10, not 80/20. We have had some forward progress on earmarks/grants as of late because of "inflation reduction" that provide a little short term boost to some shovel ready things that have been planned since the IHS was "complete" in the eyes of those areas that were well represented in the first 3 decades of the IHS, but we've had 3 decades since of growth due to immigration on top of relocation due to economic opportunities as well as baby boomer retirements that have significantly changed the population of cities and states in the Sun Belt to the point of U.S. House of Representatives as well as Electoral College reapportionment in the last couple of censuses, with no slowdown in sight.
I spend way more than half my time on here perusing the discussions on actual infrastructure, so there evidently are enough official proposals, studies and projects out there. I'd say at least half the posts each day are related to real stuff.
What I'm most concerned about is my perceived decline of AARoads in general that I've heard expressed by other roadgeeks IRL, especially those more informed of the inner workings of the transportation sector, both public and private. To me, it's a huge pity that while AARoads remains a good source of information, having the fictional stuff dilute it by being mixed in causes a "AARoads is too much of a mess to sort out" negative reaction and reduces participation by those that actually know how projects actually progress from studies to scoping and through the development, design and construction processes. That's a significant potential loss, if it already isn't happening. (Fatigue felt by experts caused by feeling a need to "constantly" correct those that have common misunderstandings is a separate matter that I think is intractable given the overall characteristics of our community :D; just comes with the territory).
Anyway, I like your idea in concept, since my main concern is keeping the real from the fantasy separated in the forum in general.
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2024, 07:52:23 PMI spend way more than half my time on here perusing the discussions on actual infrastructure, so there evidently are enough official proposals, studies and projects out there. I'd say at least half the posts each day are related to real stuff.
What I'm most concerned about is my perceived decline of AARoads in general that I've heard expressed by other roadgeeks IRL, especially those more informed of the inner workings of the transportation sector, both public and private. To me, it's a huge pity that while AARoads remains a good source of information, having the fictional stuff dilute it by being mixed in causes a "AARoads is too much of a mess to sort out" negative reaction and reduces participation by those that actually know how projects actually progress from studies to scoping and through the development, design and construction processes. That's a significant potential loss, if it already isn't happening. (Fatigue felt by experts caused by feeling a need to "constantly" correct those that have common misunderstandings is a separate matter that I think is intractable given the overall characteristics of our community :D; just comes with the territory).
Anyway, I like your idea in concept, since my main concern is keeping the real from the fantasy separated in the forum in general.
Maybe the forum hit its Eternal September (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September).
The four lane upgrade TX DOT did to US-277 from Wichita Falls to Abilene in the 2005-2015 time frame was pretty significant. While there is no specific effort to turn the corridor into a fully Interstate-class facility the widening project certainly created the potential for such a thing to happen, perhaps eventually.
New bypasses at or near Interstate quality were built in Seymour, Goree, Munday, Haskell and Stamford. The Holliday bypass was already existing (and still not finished). Dundee and Weinert got more simple yet upgrade-able 4-lane divided bypasses. So far a "US-277 relief route" for Anson has remained in the planning stages.
In Wichita Falls there were some plans in the works to extend Kell Freeway farther West to the existing Holliday bypass. But those plans have pretty much fallen apart. Now it looks like a far more modest (or minimal) upgrade will happen along the existing US-82/277 highway between Holliday and Wichita Falls. Currently the road is 4-lane non-divided with no shoulders. IIRC the plan is to re-build the road as a 4-lane non-divided facility with a 5th center turn lane and some shoulders. There are driveways out the wazoo through there. It wouldn't surprise me if they lowered the speed limit and even added traffic signals at Parker Ranch Road, Clyde Morgan Road and the TX-258 intersection.
That part on the SE edge of Wichita Falls looks like ass. It's a bunch of old industrial businesses and junk along the road thru there. If TX DOT had been able to build a new terrain freeway bypass it would have helped Wichita Falls create a better looking Southwest gateway.
I'd like to see I-44 extended to Abilene and San Angelo, but such a thing ranks well down below other corridors in Texas, such as US-287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth. The I-27, I-14 and I-69 projects are already a lot to handle. I'm very skeptical about I-14 ever being fully built-out. Austin has two corridors to Houston that should be upgraded to Interstate quality. I don't think there are any official studies going on to improve either TX-71 or US-290 into Interstates. The US-84 corridor from Lubbock down to Sweetwater carries a hell of a lot of truck traffic. As Texas continues to add more residents (at the expense of other states like New York and California) the state will need to improve more of these highways, whether they're signed with Interstate shields or not.
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2024, 07:52:23 PMI spend way more than half my time on here perusing the discussions on actual infrastructure, so there evidently are enough official proposals, studies and projects out there. I'd say at least half the posts each day are related to real stuff.
What I'm most concerned about is my perceived decline of AARoads in general that I've heard expressed by other roadgeeks IRL, especially those more informed of the inner workings of the transportation sector, both public and private. To me, it's a huge pity that while AARoads remains a good source of information, having the fictional stuff dilute it by being mixed in causes a "AARoads is too much of a mess to sort out" negative reaction and reduces participation by those that actually know how projects actually progress from studies to scoping and through the development, design and construction processes. That's a significant potential loss, if it already isn't happening. (Fatigue felt by experts caused by feeling a need to "constantly" correct those that have common misunderstandings is a separate matter that I think is intractable given the overall characteristics of our community :D; just comes with the territory).
Anyway, I like your idea in concept, since my main concern is keeping the real from the fantasy separated in the forum in general.
Part of the problem is that while it's easy to see when something very obviously fictional is posted, the more "gray area" posts like this one are hard to spot unless you're familiar with the corridor and the agencies involved. That's to say nothing of the difficulty of categorizing something where the DOT is working on upgrades but maybe not necessarily of the kind the poster is thinking (e.g. four-lane improvements where they're posted as though it's becoming a freeway or Interstate), or things like I-11 where the state(s) involved claim(s) to want to build something, but the community is skeptical as to how committed it is to actually turning dirt.
If you see fictional content outside of the fictional forum, sending us a report is welcome, so we can move it. If the community at large finds the forum to be exhausting to keep up with in general due to this, perhaps it's a sign we need additional staff. Or it could just be that the forum is busy enough that one should not expect to be able to read the whole thing every day—I normally check the sections I'm most interested in, and rely on reports and the other moderators to know when trouble is brewing in the sections I don't frequent.
A big part of the problem is one person's judgment of what a "fictional" road or road project might be is very subjective.
Less than 20 years ago most of US-277 between Abilene and Wichita Falls was an ordinary 2 lane road. The only significant segment of 4-lane road was the stretch between Anson and Abilene. I can remember seeing that 4-lane road flanked by frontage roads when I was just a kid. The rest of the 4-lane upgrade work from Anson to Wichita Falls is a pretty recent thing. But going back 20 plus years ago if anyone was expressing their desire or opinion in a forum like this that US-277 should be turned into a 4-lane divided highway that could have been dismissed as a "fictional" idea.
Long before I started posting in this forum I thought US-287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth should be an Interstate highway. Some of that is based on real world experience of driving on that highway going back to the 1980's and seeing how things have changed in the decades since then. My driving experience and observations are certainly not "fictional." Things have built up to a point where TX DOT is now actually doing a real Interstate corridor study on it.
The population in the United States is not static. The numbers are still growing, although not as fast as in the past. There is a great deal of migration taking place. When certain regions, such as North Texas, are adding population at a rapid pace it's pretty easy to predict certain highways will need to be upgraded.
Whether there is an official project in the works or not is definitely not subjective at all.
Thread derailments are far more tedious than determining what is fictional and what is not.
Gatekeeping is, too. Especially some of the people here that look down on me because I've "only" been here ten years as opposed to fifteen.
Quote from: RothmanWhether there is an official project in the works or not is definitely not subjective at all.
Yes it is subjective. There is plenty of gray area.
All it takes for some highway corridor to be officially deemed a future Interstate corridor of some sort is politicians saying so. The corridor could be built out as an Interstate. Or it can remain unfunded and not get built. Lots of "high priority corridors" and "future Interstates" have remained in limbo for decades. Meanwhile some other highway corridor with a mixed bag of limited access segments and regular 4 lane segments can be quietly upgraded piece by piece until it's almost a full blown freeway without ever getting any kind of official fanfare.
This forum is open to talking about any highways, not just Interstates. The OP talked about the
potential of US-277 being upgraded to Interstate standards. No one has said the corridor would definitely be turned into an Interstate.
Knee jerk reactions stating "fictional" appear to ignore what has been done to the US-277 corridor from Wichita Falls to Abilene in recent years. If this was just some po-dunk insignificant highway why bother doing all those upgrades?
Between Abilene and Wichita Falls the US-277 corridor is almost entirely free flowing now. Aside from flashing yellow lights in a few locations the only real traffic light is at one intersection in Anson. If TX DOT wanted to upgrade that segment of US-277 to 100% limited access it wouldn't be all that hard to do. Most of the hardest parts (town bypasses) are already finished. I-44 also points into that corridor.
I don't know how more objective it can be than an official either saying they want it or not. That's not subjective at all.
Without something officially in the works, all you've got are forum participants being wistful about how a corridor should be. That's the definition of fictional.
In any matter, I found the proposal for a board devoted to such desired extensions to be a good one. Gets this stuff out of threads where reality should be the assumption, rather than a new forum member taking some roadgeek's opinion beyond what is even being officially discussed as fact.
Here is another example. There are no "official" proposals to convert either US-290 or TX-71 between Austin and Houston into signed Interstate highways. The same goes for US-290 going out the West side of the Austin metro to the US-281 corridor. Nevertheless, chances are very high those corridors are going to slowly transition into becoming Interstate-quality freeways, whether they're bestowed Interstate numbers or not. The increasing levels of traffic congestion and worsening safety issues is forcing TX DOT to build ever more grade separation projects at intersections along TX-71 and US-290 East of Austin. Those spot upgrades will eventually accumulate into longer stretches of freeway. At some point it will all end up being limited access just out of circumstance. They're attacking US-290 West of Austin in larger whole chunks (next stop Dripping Springs in this case).
Should all discussion of those corridors be confined to the Fictional board rather than this Mid-South board where most Texas road topics are discussed?
This thread does straddle the line between Mid-South and Fictional, but I don't think that this thread belongs in fictional. If you scroll down to page 30 on Texas' 2050 transportation plan below, you will find US 277 listed as an important corridor in the Texas Trunk System:
https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/docs/projects/slrtp/connecting-texas-2050-slrtp-508c.pdf
I don't think this merits speculation about plans for a potential interstate or freeway upgrade, but it does show that some upgrades are in the works for this route, which could merit a thread (emphasis on could).
Even though chances are slim US-277 from Wichita Falls to Abilene would be upgraded to full limited access the possibility for such a thing happening in the future is still plausible.
US-277 was upgraded from Wichita Falls to Anson as part of that Texas Trunk System effort. If the forecasts of population growth and traffic growth in the Texas Triangle and other parts of the state turn out to be accurate Texas' highway network will need much better relief routes. A great deal of commercial traffic will increasingly look for alternatives to I-35. I think US-281 and US-82 will become vital relief routes for the Austin and DFW metro areas.
Possible future industrial growth in Mexico may also dramatically increase the amounts of traffic on Texas' highways, particularly those which connect directly to border cities -such as US-277 and Del Rio. The leg from San Angelo to Del Rio is already part of the Future I-27 plan. Coming up from San Angelo US-277 points into I-44. That Interstate isn't very major at all between OKC and Wichita Falls, but I-44 is a pretty serious corridor from OKC to St Louis.
The main problem for US-277 in Texas is there are too many other corridors in greater need of improvements.
TXDOT studying upgrades to the US 277 corridor? That's real. Pontificating about whether it should be numbered I-32 or something else? That's fictional.
So far the only "pontificating" that has been happening in regard to that stretch of US-277 is notions of extending I-44 to Abilene (or farther to San Angelo and Future I-27). Not a very likely thing. But it is plausible in a long term view. There have been lawmakers in Oklahoma who have wanted to see I-44 extended at least to Abilene so it would connect into I-20. That was part of the idea of signing I-44 down to Wichita Falls in the early 1980's. But politicians in Oklahoma have only so much influence on their peers in Texas. If Mexico can overcome some of its problems (and if a bunch of Americans can stop doing so much illegal drugs) that nation will boom and make traffic on US-277 a whole lot more busy.
The "I-32" thing is more related to US-287.