TxDOT's Transportation Planning and Programming Division is conducting the US 287 Corridor Interstate Feasibility Study to evaluate the feasibility of upgrading the US 287 corridor to interstate freeway design standards. The corridor follows US 287 statewide from Port Arthur and I-10 in Beaumont to Future I-27 in Amarillo. The study will determine if there is sufficient freight traffic and economic benefits along the corridor to warrant a full interstate freeway. Once the feasibility study is completed, if the route has sufficiently high traffic/economical benefit versus financial/environmental/social costs, TXDOT will request an interstate designation from AASHTO and proceed with an administratively approved future interstate project from the U.S. DOT/FWHA. The Texas Congressional delegation has not committed to creating a future interstate corridor along U.S. 287 as of this date at it did for Future I-27 and Future I-14. TXDOT U.S. 287 Interstate Conversion Feasibility Study Website (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/statewide/us287-corridor-interstate-feasibility-study.html) TXDOT U.S. 287 Interstate Conversion Fact Sheet (https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/docs/projects/us-287-fact-sheet.pdf)
(https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/images/projects/us287-corridor-study-map-061224.png)
Official study site (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)
The northwest and central segments of this route make a ton of sense as an interstate corridor (especially considering it's part of the DFW-Denver corridor), but the southeast segment seems redundant to I-45.
Quote from: webny99 on December 03, 2024, 09:48:00 AM...but the southeast segment seems redundant to I-45.
I don't think it's redundant to extend to Corsicana; it would fortify a direct route to Ft. Worth from the Houston area. Having driven between Corsicana and Ft. Worth, getting rid of those at-grade crossovers, expanding to six-lanes, and adding access roads along would be even more beneficial for that direct route.
Quote from: jgb191 on December 03, 2024, 10:03:28 AMQuote from: webny99 on December 03, 2024, 09:48:00 AM...but the southeast segment seems redundant to I-45.
I don't think it's redundant to extend to Corsicana; it would fortify a direct route to Ft. Worth from the Houston area. Having driven between Corsicana and Ft. Worth, getting rid of those at-grade crossovers, expanding to six-lanes, and adding access roads along would be even more beneficial for that direct route.
I think that redundancy is the intent south of DFW, if I had to guess. That could be especially useful for hurricane evacuation purposes. Not only that, but it gives an alternative route to south AL/MS and Florida from DFW rather than relying on I-20/US-98 or I-49.
I'm a fan of this proposal, maybe less enthusiastic about the number I-18 (maybe a duplicate 24 or new 28 could work better?) but it works nonetheless. :cool:
The Fort Worth to Amarillo segment is a must-have item. It carries a lot of truck traffic. The segment also has higher AADT counts than I-27 between Amarillo and Lubbock. The AADT levels rise considerably from Wichita Falls down to Fort Worth.
I agree the segment going SE from Corsicana is redundant to I-45. Texas has so many future Interstate corridors already. The state is huge and has an enormous population, but it can still afford to build only so many super highways. They'll have to prioritize.
I'm baffled at why it has been taking decades to properly upgrade US-287 within the DFW metroplex. The segment from the I-45 interchange in Ennis up thru the US-380 interchange in Decatur should have been a priority item 20 years ago. Now development growth is blowing up on the North and Northwest side of Fort Worth. A staggering amount of huge logistics facilities have been built North of Fort Worth.
The pavement on US-287 immediately NW of the I-35W interchange is in bad shape. Thankfully, a 3x3 lanes freeway upgrade project is finally scheduled to handle that from I-35W to Avondale-Haslet Road. An additional US-287 freeway upgrade project is planned from the Avondale-Haslet Road interchange up to the TX-114 interchange.
TX-114 between US-287 and I-35W is another sorely needed freeway upgrade.
It could be a pain in the ass upgrading US-287 thru Decatur. But it really needs to be done. The current setup is a hodge-podge mess that's probably only going to get more and more dangerous as regional growth continues. Some businesses next to the highway may need to be removed. At the very least some parking lots would get a "haircut." An Interstate thru Decatur may need to be in a 3x3 configuration with flanking frontage roads. And the interchange with US-380 will eventually need to be a directional stack. The current setup with tight loop ramps and at-grade intersections isn't going to fly over the long term. US-380 is yet another future super highway corridor.
The funny thing is upgrades to US-287 from Amarillo down to Decatur would be fairly easy and could be built rather quickly. Several towns along the way would need new-terrain bypasses though (Claude, Clarendon, Memphis, Childress, Quanah and Chillicothe). Upgrades could happen in-place elsewhere (Lelia Lake, Hedley, Goodlett, Bellevue). There are existing freeway segments in Vernon, Oklaunion, Electra, Iowa Park, Henrietta, Bowie and Alvord.
Quote from: ElishaGOtisI'm a fan of this proposal, maybe less enthusiastic about the number I-18
Where is "I-18" mentioned (other than from the original poster)?
I think "I-32" would be a much better choice. Most of the route would be North of I-30. I think there's very little chance the Corsicana-Beaumont segment would ever be built. The Amarillo-Fort Worth segment appears more likely (and more feasible). Plus, I can see the potential for US-82 eventually being upgraded into an Interstate from Henrietta across to New Boston (an "I-34" idea). It would be a serious regional East-West bypass North of the DFW metroplex. Yeah, US-82 is yet another corridor North of DFW that needs serious upgrade work. The Gainesville-Sherman segments already needs to be an Interstate quality route.
Quote from: jgb191 on December 03, 2024, 10:03:28 AMQuote...but the southeast segment seems redundant to I-45.
I don't think it's redundant to extend to Corsicana; it would fortify a direct route to Ft. Worth from the Houston area. Having driven between Corsicana and Ft. Worth, getting rid of those at-grade crossovers, expanding to six-lanes, and adding access roads along would be even more beneficial for that direct route.
Very true, although that stretch between Fort Worth and Corsicana would be included in the central segment, not the southeast segment.
Corsicana is along I-45. US-287 overlaps I-45 between Ennis and Corsicana.
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 03, 2024, 03:23:22 AMCurrent Federal laws and AASHTO policies for interstate designation number the highway based on the lowest available number.
How did I not know this?
Quote from: hotdogPi on December 03, 2024, 11:29:19 AMQuote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 03, 2024, 03:23:22 AMCurrent Federal laws and AASHTO policies for interstate designation number the highway based on the lowest available number.
How did I not know this?
Because you don't spend enough time with LLM hallucinations.
It would seem to me the obvious first part of this it needs to be built as Bobby said between Fort Worth and Amarillo.
Quote from: hotdogPiHow did I not know this?
Based on certain recent Interstate route number choices I'm doubting this
lowest number available thing is actually a rule. Even if it turned out to be true it's easily overridden by action from lawmakers, hence why the I-99 designation was used in an illogical place.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaIt would seem to me the obvious first part of this it needs to be built as Bobby said between Fort Worth and Amarillo.
The Amarillo-Fort Worth segment is the "low hanging fruit" portion of the US-287 future Interstate study area. It's already 4-lane divided, has several freeway segments and features many areas where enough ROW is in place to hold a freeway and even continuous frontage roads. That section would have the most immediate positive impact for the larger highway system compared with other parts of the corridor.
Most of US-287 going SE from Corsicana is ordinary 2-lane road. There are only brief stretches of 4-lane divided highway between Corsicana and Beaumont. Some segments of 4-lane non-divided highway exist along the way, but not for long distances.
The point is any Interstate highway going from Corsicana to Beaumont would have to be built almost entirely on new terrain. Not much of the existing US-287 highway in that segment can be upgraded in place. I think that situation would lead to more legal and budgetary hurdles as well as issues with Draft EIS and final EIS stages. The Amarillo-Fort Worth segment could get built a lot faster since so much of the upgrade work can take place within the existing ROW.
Quote from: webny99 on December 03, 2024, 10:52:32 AMQuote from: jgb191 on December 03, 2024, 10:03:28 AMQuote...but the southeast segment seems redundant to I-45.
I don't think it's redundant to extend to Corsicana; it would fortify a direct route to Ft. Worth from the Houston area. Having driven between Corsicana and Ft. Worth, getting rid of those at-grade crossovers, expanding to six-lanes, and adding access roads along would be even more beneficial for that direct route.
Very true, although that stretch between Fort Worth and Corsicana would be included in the central segment, not the southeast segment.
Southeast segmentWould it not make more sense for the southeast segment to follow US 175 to Jacksonville, and then US 69 to Lufkin at future I-69? Those roads are much advanced in being widened compared to US 287. The routing through Dallas - Fort Worth would surely have to follow ring roads and such, but US 287 interlines with multiple other interstates (I-35, I-20, I-45) regardless.
For what it is worth, I would not mind seeing US 69/96/287 terminated at I-10 in Beaumont, and the remaining route to Pt. Arthur renamed as a 3Di (perhaps I-110 or I-310).
Quote from: splashflashWould it not make more sense for the southeast segment to follow US 175 to Jacksonville, and then US 69 to Lufkin at future I-69?
US-175 is roughly 20 or so miles Northeast of the US-287 corridor as both highways run SE of the Dallas area.
Perhaps a good argument could be made for upgrading US-175 to current Interstate standards from I-20 in Dallas to Loop 7 in Athens for the purpose of serving regional traffic needs. A complete Interstate quality upgrade wouldn't be easy since there is quite a mixed bag of 4-lane highway types between Kaufman and Athens. The 5-lane non-divided segment in Eustace would have to be bypassed with a new route.
Building an Interstate spur any farther SE would be a tough sell, just like it's a tough sell for upgrading US-287 to Interstate standards SE of Corsicana. Lots of mediums sized towns are scattered all around East Texas. A new Interstate going thru there isn't going to serve most of those towns any better than I-45, I-20 or Future I-69.
I-32 would be the logical number for 287 in my opinion.
This should tie in with the future upgrades of US 87 north of Amarillo. Future I-27N should then drop its suffix.
Quote from: jgb191 on December 03, 2024, 02:30:42 PMFor what it is worth, I would not mind seeing US 69/96/287 terminated at I-10 in Beaumont, and the remaining route to Pt. Arthur renamed as a 3Di (perhaps I-110 or I-310).
TxDot is interested in a limited access highway north to at least Kountze. https://engagetxdot.mysocialpinpoint.com/us-69-lumberton-kountze-project-update and https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/beaumont/2024/us69-lumberton-kountze-relief-route-040224.html
How about the existing freeway and planned freeway to the north of Beaumont? Do you think it should get a 3di too? Maybe at least to the US 96 / US 287 and US 69 split?
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 03, 2024, 03:58:54 PMAASHTO policies are to number interstates with the lowest number available based on the most southern or western interstate the future interstate terminates at or near, which in this case is I-10 in the south and I-27 in the west.
Where does this misconception come from?
Quote from: NE2 on December 03, 2024, 05:11:03 PMQuote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 03, 2024, 03:58:54 PMAASHTO policies are to number interstates with the lowest number available based on the most southern or western interstate the future interstate terminates at or near, which in this case is I-10 in the south and I-27 in the west.
Where does this misconception come from?
If it were true, the southern I-87 and the western I-42 wouldn't have been approved.
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridorsWill AARoad.com fans like to see U.S. 287 from Amarillo to Ft Worth converted to an interstate, TXDOT is more interested in connecting the ports in Southeast Texas [Beaumont and Port Arthur] with a truck freight interstate corridor to the Future I-27 Ports-to-Plains Corridor, bypassing the traffic congestion in Dallas and Houston.
Most oil and gas product is sent via pipe not commercial truck. If the oil and gas industry in Beaumont and Port Arthur was sending a really large amount of commercial traffic up the US-287 corridor the segment from Corsicana to Beaumont would already be a minimum of 4-lanes, not mostly 2-lane.
And what is the proof to back up this claim TX DOT would make a Corsicana-Beaumont super highway corridor a higher priority than Amarillo-Fort Worth? Who at TX DOT is saying that?
It's pretty easy to make the case for US-287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth being upgraded to Interstate standards. Amarillo is a major road and rail hub. The DFW metroplex is home to nearly 8 million people. As I've said earlier, that segment of US-287 would be relatively easy to upgrade (much more so than the Corsicana-Beaumont segment).
As for hurricane evacuation routes go I've never heard of US-287 going North out of Beaumont being completely jammed up. But other corridors going out of Houston do get slammed. At any rate, US-287 from Beaumont up to Woodville is
penciled in as a possible North-South leg of the I-14 project. But odds look pretty slim I-14 would be built any farther East than I-45 at Huntsville.
Quote from: jgb191 on December 03, 2024, 02:30:42 PMFor what it is worth, I would not mind seeing US 69/96/287 terminated at I-10 in Beaumont, and the remaining route to Pt. Arthur renamed as a 3Di (perhaps I-110 or I-310).
Given that it is so far east, I would prefer I-910
I also have a wild pipe dream of seeing Spur 330 and SH 146 upgraded to Interstate 710
US 287 could unofficially become the southern section of the DFW Regional Outer Loop once the Kaufman County Outer Loop Extension from I-20 to US 287 over I-45 gets evaluated and considered.
https://www.canva.com/design/DAGYSS_3lKY/2rV7ifZlHRBKZu-WadsF9A/view?utm_content=DAGYSS_3lKY&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=editor (https://www.canva.com/design/DAGYSS_3lKY/2rV7ifZlHRBKZu-WadsF9A/view?utm_content=DAGYSS_3lKY&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=editor)
The Kaufman County Outer Loop is more likely going to end up as part of Loop 9. Portions of that Loop are already being built South of Dallas and to the North of where US-287 passes thru towns like Midlothian and Ennis. US-287 is its own corridor it shouldn't serve double duty as part of Loop 9.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 03, 2024, 10:27:49 AMQuote from: ElishaGOtisI'm a fan of this proposal, maybe less enthusiastic about the number I-18
Where is "I-18" mentioned (other than from the original poster)?
I think "I-32" would be a much better choice. Most of the route would be North of I-30. I think there's very little chance the Corsicana-Beaumont segment would ever be built. The Amarillo-Fort Worth segment appears more likely (and more feasible). Plus, I can see the potential for US-82 eventually being upgraded into an Interstate from Henrietta across to New Boston (an "I-34" idea). It would be a serious regional East-West bypass North of the DFW metroplex. Yeah, US-82 is yet another corridor North of DFW that needs serious upgrade work. The Gainesville-Sherman segments already needs to be an Interstate quality route.
An even better idea would be to combine the US 287 and US 82 corridors into one single number, and have the remainder into Ft. Worth become a spur off said number. Other than I-30, no even I-3x routes are currently in use, so any of those will do. But I-32 and I-34 are my top two choices for this proposal; hopefully, we'll have one of those numbers get chosen in the end.
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 03, 2024, 03:58:54 PMAASHTO policies are to number interstates with the lowest number available based on the most southern or western interstate the future interstate terminates at or near
[citation needed]
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 03, 2024, 09:12:59 PMThe Kaufman County Outer Loop is more likely going to end up as part of Loop 9. Portions of that Loop are already being built South of Dallas and to the North of where US-287 passes thru towns like Midlothian and Ennis. US-287 is its own corridor it shouldn't serve double duty as part of Loop 9.
It is likely, though, that Loop 9 will intersect with US 287 and 360 Tollway at some point in Northwest Ellis County to create more mobility.
Basically the whole northwestern quadrant of Ellis County is Midlothian ISD, and they better buckle up because they're getting a bunch of Grand Prairie kids in the next 10-15 years.
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridorsThe fact sheet published by TXDOT explains that the US 287 corridor from Port Arthur to Future I-27 serves as a major connection route for freight traffic
The AADT counts on much of US-287 between Corsicana and Beaumont hover in the 2500 area. That doesn't make it seem like much of a major connection to me.
US-175 going SE out of Dallas has AADT levels above 50,000 and is still near 30,000 at Kaufman. The levels drop to 16,000 by the time US-175 reaches Athens. The levels are cut in half (or less) past Athens. A good argument can be made for creating an Interstate spur from I-20 to Athens, but not any farther than that.
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridorsTherefore U.S. 287 from I-35W to Future I-27 could become either Future I-28 or I-32 and south of Ft Worth from I-20 to I-10 could be numbered Future I-18, the correct numbers for the existing Interstate numbering grid.
US-287 itself is a North-South highway. The route from Port Arthur and Beaumont up to Corsicana is far more of a North-South road than East-West. If that road was ever going to get an Interstate number something like "I-47" would make a lot more sense than "I-18." But the traffic counts aren't there to even justify a standard 4-lane upgrade, much less spend far more on an Interstate upgrade.
The Fort Worth-Amarillo segment of US-287 does run much more East-West. An even-numbered Interstate designation would make more sense there. The segment is also largely North of I-30. An I-28 designation wouldn't be as logical as I-32, I-34
(or even I-36 for that matter). I'd prefer the same Interstate number run from I-40 in Amarillo down to I-45 in Ennis. It would be better for route number consistency for that corridor thru Fort Worth. And it's also because I think there's virtually no chance an Interstate is ever getting built from Corsicana to Beaumont.
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridorsCongress still created the I-27 corridor and today Texas Congressmen are making sure Future I-27 gets funded.
The Ports to Plains Corridor
as a complete Interstate highway is largely an unfunded mandate. Lawmakers (mostly in Texas) have expressed their desire to extend I-27. More than 20 years have passed since the Ports to Plains Corridor was established. Since then hardly anything has been built. There's a new bypass around Big Spring that's near Interstate quality. The US-87 freeway is getting extended a bit farther South of Lubbock. Amarillo is working on its freeway loop, which I-27 would overlap. Outside of those few projects hardly anything else has been done.
There has been considerably more progress on I-69 in Texas. But that, too, is also a 20+ year old project. And it's disappointing to see just how much of it is still left to be built. Then there's that whole I-14 thing.
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridorsYou will see that if Congress enters the picture to create a future interstate corridor along U.S. 287, the City of Dallas will want U.S. 175 included as an interstate feeder branch to the future interstate along U.S. 287.
US-175 does not cross paths with US-287.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 04, 2024, 09:49:17 PMQuote from: FutureInterstateCorridorsCongress still created the I-27 corridor and today Texas Congressmen are making sure Future I-27 gets funded.
The Ports to Plains Corridor as a complete Interstate highway is largely an unfunded mandate. Lawmakers (mostly in Texas) have expressed their desire to extend I-27. More than 20 years have passed since the Ports to Plains Corridor was established. Since then hardly anything has been built. There's a new bypass around Big Spring that's near Interstate quality. The US-87 freeway is getting extended a bit farther South of Lubbock. Amarillo is working on its freeway loop, which I-27 would overlap. Outside of those few projects hardly anything else has been done.
There has been considerably more progress on I-69 in Texas. But that, too, is also a 20+ year old project. And it's disappointing to see just how much of it is still left to be built. Then there's that whole I-14 thing.
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridorsYou will see that if Congress enters the picture to create a future interstate corridor along U.S. 287, the City of Dallas will want U.S. 175 included as an interstate feeder branch to the future interstate along U.S. 287.
US-175 does not cross paths with US-287.
I-2 also has a long way to go before it is completed. Out of the three (including I-14 and I-69), chances are that it'll be done first, as the shortest one in the group.
I-45 represents the historic route of US 75, so US 175 would technically meet its parent in downtown Dallas.
Quote from: splashflash on December 03, 2024, 04:15:00 PMHow about the existing freeway and planned freeway to the north of Beaumont? Do you think it should get a 3di too? Maybe at least to the US 96 / US 287 and US 69 split?
Sure, why not a full 3Di route between Pt. Arthur and Lumberton....the US-69 & US 96 southern terminus can end at their merger in Lumberton, then multiplex with I-10 for a couple of miles and then branching off towards Pt. Arthur. I believe most of that stretch is already full freeway.
As an aside, while we're at Beaumont would there be enough right of way to construct a new US-90 freeway extending westward towards Liberty from current interchange (I-10/US-69) and then merge with the current US-90 somewhere near the Beaumont Municipal Airport. The stretch of (I believe it's called) Calder or College Street could be redesignated as Business US-90.
Quote from: Henry on December 04, 2024, 09:57:47 PMI-2 also has a long way to go before it is completed. Out of the three (including I-14 and I-69), chances are that it'll be done first, as the shortest one in the group.
And yet it's not even in the map posted towards the beginning of this thread.
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 03, 2024, 03:58:54 PMThis project is entirely an initiative of TXDOT. It is not a Congressionally mandated or designated future interstate corridor like I-69, I-27, and I-14 which were given their interstate number designation in the federal law that created the corridors.
And the next time there's a bill that would allow for the creation of new High Priority Corridors?
It's not like Texas doesn't have the clout in Congress to get such things added...
Should also point out that federal law isn't required to get a new interstate - eg the new I-335, I-344 and soon-to-be I-490 are not HPCs with mandated interstate designation. Even if states threw in a lot of their future interstates (even spurs) into the IIJA, creating about 20 new HPCs, that doesn't mean that that is the way it has to be done.
And being an HPC with a designated number is no guarantee of priority - NC has got a lot more of I-587 opened than I-87, for instance.
I have driven US-287 from DFW to Amarillo.
While it is already a 4 lane non-interstate highway the whole way, it is deader than a doornail west of Vernon to Amarillo.
So unless it is supposed to be a supplement to the Ports to Plains deal (Beaumont as the port), I don't see the use of tagging an I number to it.
Quote from: edwaleni on December 05, 2024, 09:22:38 AMI have driven US-287 from DFW to Amarillo.
While it is already a 4 lane non-interstate highway the whole way, it is deader than a doornail west of Vernon to Amarillo.
So unless it is supposed to be a supplement to the Ports to Plains deal (Beaumont as the port), I don't see the use of tagging an I number to it.
The area it passes through may be dead, and I would agree that it is, but that doesn't mean there isn't significant truck and other long distance traffic passing through. In addition to DFW-Amarillo, it also forms part of a larger corridor connecting Denver and Houston.
Loop 9 will never intersect US 287 or 360 Tollway. It was originally meant to fill in the gap of the PGBT Toll that goes around. US 287 is more of a connector to the Kaufman Outer Loop Extension.
Quote from: webny99 on December 05, 2024, 10:17:24 AMQuote from: edwaleni on December 05, 2024, 09:22:38 AMI have driven US-287 from DFW to Amarillo.
While it is already a 4 lane non-interstate highway the whole way, it is deader than a doornail west of Vernon to Amarillo.
So unless it is supposed to be a supplement to the Ports to Plains deal (Beaumont as the port), I don't see the use of tagging an I number to it.
The area it passes through may be dead, and I would agree that it is, but that doesn't mean there isn't significant truck and other long distance traffic passing through. In addition to DFW-Amarillo, it also forms part of a larger corridor connecting Denver and Houston.
I was referring to the amount of traffic. Some ranch trucks, periodic long haul. Very rare west of Nelson.
Quote from: edwaleniWhile it is already a 4 lane non-interstate highway the whole way, it is deader than a doornail west of Vernon to Amarillo.
I don't really agree that. I've driven the route many times, mainly the Memphis-Amarillo segment on road trips between Lawton and Colorado and then the Wichita Falls-Fort Worth segment for closer visits to DFW.
Traffic levels on that segment of US-287 can be sparse at certain times of day
or night. It also can depend on what day(s) of the week one is driving on that route. But anecdotally I typically see more vehicles on that part of US-287 than I do on I-44 between Wichita Falls and Lawton. A lot of those vehicles on US-287 are big commercial trucks. The AADT counts on US-287 between Vernon and Amarillo are mostly above 12,000. That's better than some portions of the existing I-27. The AADT numbers on US-287 start going well above 12,000 East of Wichita Falls (18,000 in Henrietta, 25,000 East of Bowie, over 30,000 in Decatur, over 80,000 near the I-35W interchange).
Amarillo to DFW has always felt like a no-brainer to me but it was also surprising how 287 still goes right through most of these towns. The bypasses will be the brunt of the work needed.
I don't expect the federal government to go pulling up Interstate sign posts on various unfinished corridors. Work on I-69 has been on-going for more than 20 years and it still has decades ahead before it's going to be finished.
If US-287 was to get an Interstate designation I think we may see the same kinds of dangling spurs currently present with I-69. The first portion would probably get signed in the Fort Worth area and slowly move Northwest to
(and hopefully beyond) Decatur. A segment could get signed in the Wichita Falls area since I-44 currently ends there. A signed Wichita Falls branch could spread as far as Vernon pretty quickly if they can get frontage roads extended in various places to cut off driveway access to the main lanes.
Quote from: mroseAmarillo to DFW has always felt like a no-brainer to me but it was also surprising how 287 still goes right through most of these towns. The bypasses will be the brunt of the work needed.
On the bright side several towns already have freeway bypasses. A couple towns have situations where it wouldn't be difficult to upgrade US-287 along the existing ROW. Bigger towns along the way, such as Childress, would need new terrain bypasses.
The hardest work of upgrading US-287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth up to Interstate standards is going to be in the DFW region. Decatur might be the toughest nut to crack (although none of the businesses next to the existing highway are anything to write home about). The stretch between US-380 up to Alvord will be a tight squeeze fitting frontage roads and main lanes together. But it's do-able.
That "25 year" rule actually pertains to the special exemption I-69 got to designate sections that aren't yet connected to the rest of the interstate system; it's the deadline to get them connected. It's not about how long it takes to build the whole corridor.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on December 03, 2024, 09:40:22 AMOfficial study site (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)
Wow I had no idea Texas had gone so interstate wild lately, thought that was just North Carolina.
Quote from: Voyager on December 06, 2024, 01:23:51 PMWow I had no idea Texas had gone so interstate wild lately, thought that was just North Carolina.
Just in the last 15 years or so:
- I-69 including I-69W/I-69C/I-69E, and I-369. (Plus the short I-169 in the RGV)
- I-14 (though only very little of that exists right now)
- the recently approved I-27 extensions, including the planned I-27W/E split near Midland and the I-27N concept going into Oklahoma
- I-2 (which isn't even shown on the above map)
- The small segment of I-49 planned north of Texarkana that would briefly enter Texas
Prior to that though, the I-635 extension was the last new Interstate addition for quite some time - this is different from North Carolina having a consistent mix of expansion/addition with the I-40 extension east and the Greensboro auxiliary routes, before the latest rounds of Interstate submissions.
Texas is a much bigger state. The proposed routes cover quite a bit more mileage. The upshot is quite a bit of the build burden is in relatively flat, open rural areas. North Carolina has more in the way of dense woodlands, hills and even mountainous areas.
One thing not shown on that future Interstate corridors map for Texas: the other freeways (and toll roads) that will end up needing to be built in the Texas Triangle, thru Austin and parts of the greater Houston metro. I still see US-290 and TX-71 being built out to full Interstate quality, and probably at a faster pace than segments of I-14.
NCTCOG is proposing a new STRAHNET Route that new route will be US 287 from I-20 to I-45.
Quote from: TheStranger on December 06, 2024, 02:56:09 PM- the recently approved I-27 extensions, including the planned I-27W/E split near Midland and the I-27N concept going into Oklahoma
Small correction. I-27N will never see Oklahoma. It will extend to New Mexico and end in Raton.
Quote from: edwaleni on December 07, 2024, 01:34:13 AMQuote from: TheStranger on December 06, 2024, 02:56:09 PM- the recently approved I-27 extensions, including the planned I-27W/E split near Midland and the I-27N concept going into Oklahoma
Small correction. I-27N will never see Oklahoma. It will extend to New Mexico and end in Raton.
That's mainline I-27, not I-27N. I-27N is the spur to the Oklahoma border.
Realistically, anything labeled I-27 isn't likely to exist outside of Texas. New Mexico isn't exactly building new interstates either.
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 07, 2024, 12:45:33 AMThe 25-year limit of US Code 23, Chapter 1, Sec. 139 specifically applies when the FHWA administratively creates the future interstate corridor. It gives the FHWA the option to remove the interstate designation if the state transportation department cannot complete construction. When Congress creates corridors, such as the case of I-69, I-49, I-14, and I-27, the interstate designation exists by law until Congress repeals the designation. Neither the AASHTO nor FHWA would try to remove the designation, which is why the Congressionally assigned number remain on the "books" by law which is still the case for I-66 in Kentucky and I-73/I-74 in West Virginia, and Ohio, and I-73 in Virginia even though Virginia has cancelled any further study of I-73. If the state funds an interstate-standard freeway using their own state budget, they can sign the highway with the interstate number assigned to the corridor, however the Federal government is not obligated to fund any part of highway. However, it's not likely Congress will waste time having a floor debate about the issue of an interstate number. Congress delegates the final decision of assigning numbers at the discretion of the FHWA and AASHTO. The FHWA always has the option to create the future interstate corridor if the state transportation department is able to start construction after the 25-year period. This prevents situations of leaving an interstate designation perpetually on the FHWA lists of interstate designations, allowing FHWA the option to assign the interstate number to another corridor that has more of a chance to be completed.
Most people don't realize that the AASHTO and FHWA have the option to assign the same number to an Interstate Route and U.S. Route in a state by decommissioning the U.S. Route number. The Bureau of Public Roads did this when it assigned the number to Interstate 40 by decommissioning U.S. Route 40 in California. The AASHTO, with FHWA approval, has a history of changing route numbers for both Interstates Routes and U.S. Routes by decommissioning the number.
Section 139 doesn't appear to have anything to do with that. Section 103 does make a similar mention, but that is with respect to future interstate corridors, not to sections that are already designated and signed with the red, white, and blue shield.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/docs/title23usc.pdf
That "I-27N" idea is so stupid. The signs would look very odd to anyone driving South on I-27N.
If mainline I-27 was built to Texline and then a spur of I-27 was built North of Dumas to (probably) Stratford the spur should get a 3-digit I-x27 designation. It's only 32 miles from Dumas to Stratford and 48 miles from Dumas to the OK panhandle border. That's short enough for a standard 3 digit route.
Unless New Mexico and Colorado get on board in a big way with promoting Interstate highway construction for the Ports to Plains Corridor I don't realistically see I-27 get any farther North than Dumas.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2024, 01:36:14 PMThat "I-27N" idea is so stupid. The signs would look very odd to anyone driving South on I-27N.
I am suddenly reminded of when...I-86 in Idaho was originally proposed as...I-15W.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2024, 01:36:14 PMThat "I-27N" idea is so stupid. The signs would look very odd to anyone driving South on I-27N.
If mainline I-27 was built to Texline and then a spur of I-27 was built North of Dumas to (probably) Stratford the spur should get a 3-digit I-x27 designation. It's only 32 miles from Dumas to Stratford and 48 miles from Dumas to the OK panhandle border. That's short enough for a standard 3 digit route.
Unless New Mexico and Colorado get on board in a big way with promoting Interstate highway construction for the Ports to Plains Corridor I don't realistically see I-27 get any farther North than Dumas.
Just reinforces to me that politicians shouldn't be in the business of assigning interstate numbers. Would be nice if it were interpreted as a 'spur of I-27' rather than forcing the readopting of suffixed routes.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on December 09, 2024, 11:11:59 AMJust reinforces to me that politicians shouldn't be in the business of assigning interstate numbers. Would be nice if it were interpreted as a 'spur of I-27' rather than forcing the readopting of suffixed routes.
I think TXDOT originally intended that but then someone decided to can that idea and interpret the statutes literally. The first section of I-69E to open near I-37 was originally signed as I-69 alone.
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2024, 12:55:31 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on December 09, 2024, 11:11:59 AMJust reinforces to me that politicians shouldn't be in the business of assigning interstate numbers. Would be nice if it were interpreted as a 'spur of I-27' rather than forcing the readopting of suffixed routes.
I think TXDOT originally intended that but then someone decided to can that idea and interpret the statutes literally. The first section of I-69E to open near I-37 was originally signed as I-69 alone.
I remember the reason for I-69E/C/W was that everyone in the Rio Grande Valley wanted I-69 and not an X69.
I don't mind the suffix letters being used on Interstate routes that are substantially long, like over 100 miles or more. The three E-C-W I-69 routes qualify there. But a good argument can be made for giving such routes their own dedicated Interstate number (such as I-37 for I-69E and I-33 for I-69C).
The I-27N thing is just illogical. North-South signed Interstates are supposed to get East-West suffixes if they split. The E-W thing is even proposed for the Midland-Big Spring split of future I-27. An East-West signed Interstate would get N-S suffixes, such as the former I-80N (now I-84). A North-South signed highway with a "North" suffix is just damned stupid looking. It's considerably worse than two highways overlapping each other in a wrong way concurrency (like I-81 and I-77 in Virginia).
Suffixed routes are more of an administrative choice. Texas is not short of interstate numbers considering I-2 and 14 exist without consequence. What irks me is how self-serving these newly proposed suffixed routes are. I-27N or I-69E weren't chosen because they would be navigationally superior, but something catchy a politician can market to their districts.
I agree that The 69s could have been numbered something else to satisfy everyone, although US 77 and 281 are close enough that it should be one or the other, preferably US 77. I-69W could have been I-6.
But who exactly will I-27N serve? Will it just dead-end at US 54? If there's no plans from Oklahoma, Kansas, or Colorado, then 27N is just a vanity project.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on December 09, 2024, 03:13:51 PMSuffixed routes are more of an administrative choice. Texas is not short of interstate numbers considering I-2 and 14 exist without consequence. What irks me is how self-serving these newly proposed suffixed routes are. I-27N or I-69E weren't chosen because they would be navigationally superior, but something catchy a politician can market to their districts.
I agree that The 69s could have been numbered something else to satisfy everyone, although US 77 and 281 are close enough that it should be one or the other, preferably US 77. I-69W could have been I-6.
But who exactly will I-27N serve? Will it just dead-end at US 54? If there's no plans from Oklahoma, Kansas, or Colorado, then 27N is just a vanity project.
I find situations like this funny, where the state thinks every new freeway needs an interstate number, despite having several non-interstate freeways in the big metros.
Ideally, I-69W would be I-6, I-69C would be I-69, I-69E would be I-37, US-287 would be an even 2di and I-27 would extend north and south without suffixes.
Quote from: I-55 on December 09, 2024, 04:16:06 PMIdeally, I-69W would be I-6, I-69C would be I-69, I-69E would be I-37, US-287 would be an even 2di and I-27 would extend north and south without suffixes.
IIRC, the I-27E/I-27W split near Midland was originally proposed as a I-27/I-227 situation.
ALSO...apparently at one point part of what is now planned as I-27W was going to be incorporated into a "I-14 North"
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/statewide/i-14-system-in-texas/050923-i-14-system-in-texas-map.pdf
The Interstate 14S leg should be mainline Interstate 14, and the Interstate 14N leg should be Interstate 18. Also, the 27 and 227 designations should have been maintained (same with the 327 designation for 27N). 69E should have been mainline 69, 69C should have been Interstate 202, and I agree 69W should have been Interstate 6.
Realistically, some of these suffixed Interstate routes will probably never be built. I think the odds are pretty slim on the "I-27N" thing, considering the sparse AADT numbers on US-287 to the North of Dumas. Not exactly Interstate Worthy traffic counts. It's going to be difficult enough just upgrading US-287 to Interstate standards up to Dumas.
Perhaps the situation would be different if Oklahoma and Colorado had serious upgrade plans for their portions of US-287. That might attract greater levels of commercial and personal vehicle traffic. But right now US-287 crossing the OK border into Colorado just sucks. I refuse to take that way going to Colorado Springs. I might feel different if it was 4-lane divided with a barrier separated median. Until then I'm sticking with the route thru Raton. That route isn't exactly great either, but it's at least a 4-lane divided highway the entire way.
The "I-14S" concept happening is about as long as long shots get. It may take decades just to get a primary I-14 route built out to Midland.
IMHO, mainline I-69 should have gone to Laredo. It's the busiest inland "port" for commercial traffic in the nation. The branches going down to McAllen and Brownsville could have had the 2 digit route numbers I mentioned earlier. An "I-6" route could possibly be built from Freer to Corpus Christi. Depending on how further development takes along the Texas Gulf Coast the I-6 route could be extended East across that new bridge in Corpus Christi.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 09, 2024, 09:01:08 PMRealistically, some of these suffixed Interstate routes will probably never be built. I think the odds are pretty slim on the "I-27N" thing, considering the sparse AADT numbers on US-287 to the North of Dumas. Not exactly Interstate Worthy traffic counts. It's going to be difficult enough just upgrading US-287 to Interstate standards up to Dumas.
What is the vision for I-27N north of the TX line? If there are no concrete plans for the route in Oklahoma and Colorado, building the Texas portion seems pretty pointless.
Even the number I-27N itself seems rather short-sighted and overtly Texas-focused... like Texas wanted to slap down a number that looks good on paper with little hope of being completed that can easily be pushed to the back burner. And honestly, that's fine by me: the US 87 corridor to Raton has rightly been identified as a much higher priority.
Quote from: webny99What is the vision for I-27N north of the TX line? If there are no concrete plans for the route in Oklahoma and Colorado, building the Texas portion seems pretty pointless.
I suspect an elected politician dreamed up that "I-27N" idea. It doesn't make any rational sense from a perspective of traffic engineering. The branch to Texline should be "I-27W" and the branch going into OK & CO should be "I-27E".
I agree there is no point in upgrading the Dumas-Stratford segment of US-287 to Interstate standards unless Oklahoma and Colorado openly commit to upgrading their portions of US-287 to Interstate quality. The existing road is 4-lane divided and has AADT counts around 5000. US-287 South of Dumas has AADT counts around 12,000.
Texas can do only so much upgrade work on its highways. Extending I-27 from Lubbock to Laredo would cost several billion dollars. I think that's where the focus on I-27 will be as long as New Mexico and Colorado keep their current policies regarding super highway corridors. I'm just hoping more work can be done on US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 10, 2024, 09:34:55 PMTexas can do only so much upgrade work on its highways. Extending I-27 from Lubbock to Laredo would cost several billion dollars. I think that's where the focus on I-27 will be as long as New Mexico and Colorado keep their current policies regarding super highway corridors.
Has New Mexico committed to anything yet regarding their portion of I-27? That should be relatively high priority because it connects Denver and the rest of the I-25 corridor in Colorado with basically all of Texas and vice versa.
AFAIK New Mexico hasn't said squat about I-27 in their state. NM DOT did such a crappy job with the 4-lane upgrade of US-64/87 from Clayton to Raton that it wouldn't give me any hope on seeing an Interstate thru there. It seems like every time I drive the route on the way to Colorado I'm seeing some sort of asphalt overlay project in one place and the existing road bed badly degrading elsewhere.
I still go by way of Raton rather than drive US-287 into Colorado. The US-287 roadway might be in slightly better shape, but it's only 2 lane and the portion near the CO/OK border is dangerous. I'm not getting myself killed in a head-on collision there.
Maybe future Interstate 27 should terminate at Dumas or terminate at Texline until New Mexico has a change of heart about upgrading its segment of US 87 to Interstate Standards. Or maybe 27's northern terminus should remain at Amarillo, since the northern extension of 27 is still very much up-in-the-air. The 27N proposal should probably be shelved, save for bypasses of Cactus and Stratford.
I think it would be alright to upgrade US-287 to Interstate standards up to Dumas and even build a freeway bypass around the West side of that town. The Dumas bypass would serve as a launching point of future freeway branches to Raton and SE Colorado if NM and CO ever had a change of heart. The choice of signing I-27 up to Dumas would be another matter.
US-287 in the town of Cactus (just North of Dumas) has an existing freeway exit and some partial frontage road. It might be a tight squeeze, but it looks like there is enough room to do a freeway upgrade in place within the existing ROW. Stratford would need a bypass if an Interstate was ever built past it.
What is the end goal if Texas unilaterally builds interstate stubs at the state line?
It sounded to me like Texas and Arkansas's relationship broke down after Arkansas did that with I-49, so what does Texas expect to happen if they try the same move with New Mexico and Oklahoma? Is Texas already trying to work with them to build I-27?
Agree 100% that I-27N should be shelved. Unless there's a grand plan to have it go up to I-70 or 80, there's no point.
One branch of the Ports to Plains Corridor (US-287 going up into Colorado) is supposed to go to Limon (and I-70), if not farther North. Colorado isn't making any efforts to add a second pair of lanes to existing US-287, much less make any of it limited access.
Quote from: PColumbus73What is the end goal if Texas unilaterally builds interstate stubs at the state line?
I think one of the hopes is promoting business development in Texas Panhandle. Towns appear to be more visible on the map if they're served by an Interstate highway.
It doesn't help as much if the Interstate unceremoniously ends at a minor location rather than a significant junction point in the highway network. I think I-27 in West Texas could carry more traffic if it connected to more than just one other Interstate. The I-44
spur ending in Wichita Falls has a similar problem. I think it would attract more long distance traffic if it connected to I-20 in Abilene. The current South ends of both I-27 and I-44 are in modest size cities. Texline, Stratford and even Dumas are small towns.
Improved safety and improved traffic movement would be the two real benefits for improvement segments of US-87 and US-287 in the Texas Panhandle to Interstate standards.
How would extending I-27 to the state line attract more businesses to places like Dumas or Stratford over somewhere like Amarillo? I don't mean to sound like I'm insulting those towns, but what resources or advantages do they have over somewhere that already has access to I-40? Most of those towns in the path of 27/27N don't reach 20,000 people.
At least US 87 is 4-lanes between Amarillo and Raton. But I-27N would funnel back down to a two lane highway at the state line. Might give someone a shock if they confused the two trying to get to I-25.
Quote from: PColumbus73How would extending I-27 to the state line attract more businesses to places like Dumas or Stratford over somewhere like Amarillo?
There is a lot of agri-business activity in the Texas Panhandle. It's more than just round corn fields. A good number of factory size cattle processing facilities operate out there. A good amount of the traffic there is commercial trucks. I like the idea of those vehicles having to use on ramps to enter a 75mph highway rather than making a hard 90 degree turn from a driveway into the main lanes.
For now I think it would be enough to upgrade US-287 to Interstate quality from Amarillo to Dumas. The AADT counts are high enough to meet typical rural Interstate traffic counts (over 10,000 per day).
I wouldn't mind seeing a freeway bypass around Dalhart either. Highway traffic in that town can get a bit heavy, particularly on a Saturday afternoon when lots of people are road-tripping thru the same location.
Quote from: PColumbus73At least US 87 is 4-lanes between Amarillo and Raton.
Not yet it isn't. There's still that lesser stretch of road between Dumas and Hartley.
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 12, 2024, 12:38:10 AMThe only reason the 25-year rule does not apply to I-27 is because Congress created the corridor. Once Congress creates the corridor it remains permanently in effect by Federal law for as long as it takes for the states to find funding. The 25-year rule applies only when the FWHA creates the corridor through administrative actions, which is not the case. If you read the FHWA website and the Federal law, this is clearly stated. The only role the AASHTO plays from this point forward is to accept the highways sections when they are completed to interstate-standard and allow the TXDOT to erect interstate signs. As long as TXDOT gets funding, the highway will be completed even if it takes the next 30-50 years. That exactly the same as the situation for I-49 and I-69, Congress created the corridors and the states can whatever time it takes to get money and complete them.
And this post is relevant because??? I looked at the law you mentioned earlier, and the only mention of such a 25 year rule was in respect to future corridor designations (which I really don't see the point of, honestly; they don't mean anything), not with respect to any pieces of interstate that are already designated.
Right now you're giving off a vibe of someone who doesn't know as much as they think they do but wants to be seen as an expert.
If you don't like the ordinal suffixes added to Interstate numbers, AASHTO does not like them either, beginning after 1973 when they started to get rid of them nationally. When Congress designated the split of Future I-69 in South Texas to I-2, I-69E (along with I-69C, I-69W), TXDOT requested the numbers designated by Congress. However, the AASHTO Special Committee for Numbering rejected the applications because of the AASHTO policy written in 1973. AASHTO administrators knew Congress mandated the ordinal designations by law and had no choice but to reverse itself. If AASHTO had designated the numbers, they would be I-69, I-169, I-369. This dispels any myth that AASHTO is arbitrary with interstate number designations. The new appearance of ordinal designations by the lobby organizations Ports-to-Plains Alliance (I-27N, I-27W) the Gulf Coast Stategic Coalition (I-14N and I-14S) are to please local businessmen and politicians (mayors, city councils) that make up the membership of these organizations. Below is the AASHTO Letter to FHWA dated May 10, 2013 (https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=2a874ff6-57e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true)
May 10, 2013
Mr. Victor Mendez Administrator
Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590
Dear Mr. Mendez,
At its meeting on May 5, 2013 the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways overruled the decision made by its Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering and Bicycle Route System to disapprove the three interstate route applications made by Texas Department of Transportation.
AASHTO wishes to clarify that the decision to approve the 1-2 and 1-69 routes was based solely on the legislation and that the numbering does not conform to our numbering policy HO21 Establishment of a Marking system of the Routes Comprising the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (Retained from August 10, 1973), item 3. Item 3 states that "No new divided numbers (such as l-35W and I-35E, etc.) shall be adopted. Existing divided Interstate numbers shall be eliminated as rapidly as the State Highway department and the Standing committee on Highways can reach agreement with reference thereto." If the Texas applications were to conform the 1-69 routes east and west would have been designated as 1-69 on one leg and would have been 3-digit numbers (such as 169 and 369) on the other two branches). AASHTO wishes ensure that FHWA does not misunderstand our approval and think that this type of designation is acceptable in the future.
• Texas, 1-2 Establish Cameron and Hidalgo Counties
• Texas, l-69E Establish Nueces County
• Texas, I-69E Establish Willacy and Cameron Counties
It was the consensus of the Special Committee USRN to include a FHWA representative at its future meetings when interstate routes are subject to review and approval. We would welcome the addition to the committee. AASHTO also requests that we have an informal meeting with FHWA Operations/MUTCD staff to discuss this possibility and to discuss issues that were brought up at the Special Committee's meeting on May 4, 2013.
It does look like TX DOT is in very early stages of widening the Dumas-Hartley segment of US-87. Right now it's utility relocation. Going West out of Dumas there is a column of new utility poles getting installed to the South of the existing column. I can't tell the spacing difference just eye-balling it, but it looks like the new poles are about 60 feet South of the existing poles. That would certainly create enough room for a proper 4-lane divided highway with a grassy median. It may not be enough to fit frontage roads comfortably.
US-64/87 in New Mexico is still in crappy shape. I-25 on either side of Raton Pass doesn't look great either. And that's despite all the construction that has taken place on it over the past several years.
I'm mentioning these highway segments since they're still related to the Ports to Plains Corridor, like US-287.
BTW, traffic on US-287 to the East of Amarillo was heavy this weekend.
Quote from: edwaleni on December 07, 2024, 01:34:13 AMQuote from: TheStranger on December 06, 2024, 02:56:09 PM- the recently approved I-27 extensions, including the planned I-27W/E split near Midland and the I-27N concept going into Oklahoma
Small correction. I-27N will never see Oklahoma. It will extend to New Mexico and end in Raton.
Nope. New Mexico has terrible transportation policy. Lack of funding. Defects in decision-making. Ignorance of realities. The governor and the two senators are absent from the process. Maintenance backlogs. Shoddy work. "Practical" design. A long list of problems, many are "baked" in, and would require an immense effort to reverse.
The ostrich-like crony progressive politics, that emanate from Santa Fe, and lack of support for such a fantasy, outside of very localized Raton area support, means it will never happen. A monorail for unicorns in downtown Santa Fe might have a better chance of funding.
It is foolish to even consider the "western" branch as even being feasible or logical. Mainly, the climb to the Pass. Makes no sense. Given the altitude, the terrain and topography, and the conditions in winter on the existing 25 route. And they want to do what - direct potentially thousands of additional Class A rigs to Raton Pass? Insanity.
The I-27 route going straight North from Dumas into Colorado makes more sense. Not "I-27N." Just I-27. It would provide an alternative route to I-25. In some cases when Raton Pass is getting socked in with snow US-287 farther East is still pass-able. But the current US-287 route going thru the Oklahoma panhandle into SE Colorado just freaking SUCKS. It is DANGEROUS. They need to four-lane that bastard already, even if it never becomes Interstate quality.
I noticed they re-opened the big cattle feed lot on the West side of Clayton, NM. It had been vacant for at least the past several years or more.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 23, 2024, 12:50:32 PMThe I-27 route going straight North from Dumas into Colorado makes more sense. Not "I-27N." Just I-27. It would provide an alternative route to I-25. In some cases when Raton Pass is getting socked in with snow US-287 farther East is still pass-able. But the current US-287 route going thru the Oklahoma panhandle into SE Colorado just freaking SUCKS. It is DANGEROUS. They need to four-lane that bastard already, even if it never becomes Interstate quality.
I noticed they re-opened the big cattle feed lot on the West side of Clayton, NM. It had been vacant for at least the past several years or more.
The Colorado Department of Transportation opposed extending I-27 through the state and Congress then proceeded to limit I-27 to Texas and New Mexico. The people of Stafford were promised an interstate from Dumas, so Port-to-Plain Alliance convinced Congress to create I-27N to Stafford, with no hope of any further extension northward to Colorado.
If all there would be is a spur from Dumas to Stratford it should not get a suffixed route name, much less anything bizarre and stupid as "I-27N". The route would be a little over 30 miles long. That's short enough to get a normal 3-digit Interstate number such as "I-127".
IMHO, CDOT and the Colorado state government has blood on its hands. Their refusal to "double barrel" 2-lane highways, such as US-287 in the SE part of the state or US-24 between Colorado Springs and Limon is contributing to fatal collisions that could otherwise be prevented.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 28, 2024, 11:25:54 AMIMHO, CDOT and the Colorado state government has blood on its hands. Their refusal to "double barrel" 2-lane highways, such as US-287 in the SE part of the state or US-24 between Colorado Springs and Limon is contributing to fatal collisions that could otherwise be prevented.
I would say that both are good contenders for interstates. US 287 would be the best path for I-27 if only CDOT were willing to build it, and US 24 would make a good 3di connecting Colorado Springs to I-70. And if Limon were the junction of three interstates, maybe roadgeeks would have fewer arguments over whether it should be a control city.
Quote from: vdeane on December 28, 2024, 02:20:35 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on December 28, 2024, 11:25:54 AMIMHO, CDOT and the Colorado state government has blood on its hands. Their refusal to "double barrel" 2-lane highways, such as US-287 in the SE part of the state or US-24 between Colorado Springs and Limon is contributing to fatal collisions that could otherwise be prevented.
I would say that both are good contenders for interstates. US 287 would be the best path for I-27 if only CDOT were willing to build it, and US 24 would make a good 3di connecting Colorado Springs to I-70. And if Limon were the junction of three interstates, maybe roadgeeks would have fewer arguments over whether it should be a control city.
Limon has a great truck stop that makes a good pit stop for charter buses going from NWA to Colorado Springs. That itself makes it a worthy control city.
Quote from: MikieTimT on December 28, 2024, 04:05:18 PMQuote from: vdeane on December 28, 2024, 02:20:35 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on December 28, 2024, 11:25:54 AMIMHO, CDOT and the Colorado state government has blood on its hands. Their refusal to "double barrel" 2-lane highways, such as US-287 in the SE part of the state or US-24 between Colorado Springs and Limon is contributing to fatal collisions that could otherwise be prevented.
I would say that both are good contenders for interstates. US 287 would be the best path for I-27 if only CDOT were willing to build it, and US 24 would make a good 3di connecting Colorado Springs to I-70. And if Limon were the junction of three interstates, maybe roadgeeks would have fewer arguments over whether it should be a control city.
Limon has a great truck stop that makes a good pit stop for charter buses going from NWA to Colorado Springs. That itself makes it a worthy control city.
So Buc-ee's should be a control city? :bigass: :bigass: /s
On a serious note, the multiple truck stops combined with the junctions of US highways made it a good candidate. It would make more sense maybe US-24 were 4-laned, or if the city were larger in size...
Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 28, 2024, 04:15:05 AMThe Colorado Department of Transportation opposed extending I-27 through the state and Congress then proceeded to limit I-27 to Texas and New Mexico
Do you have a source for either of these assertions?
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 29, 2024, 04:42:44 AMQuote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 28, 2024, 04:15:05 AMThe Colorado Department of Transportation opposed extending I-27 through the state and Congress then proceeded to limit I-27 to Texas and New Mexico
Do you have a source for either of these assertions?
I do seem to remember some roadgeek saying that they were tempted to test the waters with copy-and-paste crap or AI-generated stuff some time ago...
Given the anti-highway attitude of the New Mexico and Colorado governments, it may be time to consider a northerly extension of Interstate 27 north of Stratford through the Oklahoma Panhandle and far western Kansas to reach Interstate 70 near Goodland, Kansas. Western Kansas would get Interstate access to Texas as Interstate 27 is extended southward to San Angelo and points south. Oklahoma and Kansas are not anti-highway and if needed, tolls could be used as both states have toll roads, especially Oklahoma.
I don't think there is any point of extending I-27 North out of the Texas Panhandle unless it can reach a logical, significant highway junction. Goodland, KS is not such a junction. Even if the highway was diverted to Guymon, OK and then Liberal, KS and Garden City, KS such an extension still wouldn't make sense.
Limon, CO would be a more logical North terminus for I-27 since that would point toward the Denver metro and some other points along the Front Range.
In the meantime (which means in the next decade or so) TX DOT just needs to focus on its in-state portions of I-27 expansion. If they can get I-27 extended to Dumas that might be nice. I don't expect an I-27 (or "I-27N") expansion to Stratford happening any time soon. If such a thing did happen it could spur Oklahoma to at least 4-lane its portion of US-287. I don't expect CDOT to do anything with US-287 on their side of the OK/CO border. It appears they find the current 2-lane road and head-on collisions there to be acceptable.
Side note: on the way back to Oklahoma this past weekend I looked closely at the utility relocation taking place on US-87 between Dumas and Hartley. The new utility poles are about 90' South of the existing utility poles. That observation is based on some visual reference points on a property along the highway and how things measured in Google Earth overhead imagery. It looks like the expanded ROW will be about 250' wide. That's enough for a standard 4-lane divided highway. But it would be a pretty tight squeeze for a rural Interstate flanked by frontage roads.
Quote from: nhoward45 on December 30, 2024, 02:01:07 PMGiven the anti-highway attitude of the New Mexico and Colorado governments, it may be time to consider a northerly extension of Interstate 27 north of Stratford through the Oklahoma Panhandle and far western Kansas to reach Interstate 70 near Goodland, Kansas. Western Kansas would get Interstate access to Texas as Interstate 27 is extended southward to San Angelo and points south. Oklahoma and Kansas are not anti-highway and if needed, tolls could be used as both states have toll roads, especially Oklahoma.
Colorado and New Mexico have no apparent interest in completing their portions of the Ports to Plains Corridor, albeit for different reasons. In 2022, Colorado passed a law that prioritizes funding for mass transit projects over highway projects, which resulted in the cancellation of a project to widen I-25 through downtown Denver, among other things. Gov. Jared Polis has gone as far as to say his goal for Colorado is to "get more people out of their cars and onto mass transit." Colorado's anti-highway sentiment is for real, and their motivation is driven by combating climate change.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/colorados-bold-new-approach-to-highways-not-building-them/
The situation in New Mexico is a bit different in that New Mexico is (and always has been) a cash-poor state, relative to its neighbors. With that, major investments in highway are heavily prioritized toward Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces. Elsewhere, the state provides the minimum amount of funding to preserve the existing road network. For example, there is close to $1 billion worth of major highway projects in the pipeline to fix I-25 through Albuquerque that are either ongoing or will be underway within the next decade. There is a new Rio Grande river crossing that is being built in Los Lunas, along with a second interchange with I-25 there. Finally, the state has fully funded the replacement of the bridges that carry NM-500 over the Rio Grande on the south side of Albuquerque.
Yes, New Mexico has its own climate initiatives that are focused more on renewable energy production, but unlike Colorado, leaders in New Mexico have not completely bought into the idea of forcing people onto mass transit by making driving as miserable as possible.
Assuming a hypothetical route through Kansas, I think I-27 would have to go to I-80 near Ogallala or Julesburg to get decent usage. I-27 from 40 to 70 would at best be a stair-step route between Denver and Oklahoma City.
Might be a separate discussion, but I noticed there aren't many northwest trending diagonal interstates west of the Mississippi. An interstate between Oklahoma City and Ogallala or Cheyenne might be more valuable than I-27.
Quote from: abqtravelerColorado and New Mexico have no apparent interest in completing their portions of the Ports to Plains Corridor, albeit for different reasons. In 2022, Colorado passed a law that prioritizes funding for mass transit projects over highway projects, which resulted in the cancellation of a project to widen I-25 through downtown Denver, among other things. Gov. Jared Polis has gone as far as to say his goal for Colorado is to "get more people out of their cars and onto mass transit." Colorado's anti-highway sentiment is for real, and their motivation is driven by combating climate change.
Meanwhile ridership numbers on Denver buses and metro rail remain well below numbers prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of that could be from the trend of people working remotely. But other negative factors can't be dismissed. Who wants to freeze their ass off standing at a bus stop during winter time?
City buses don't always run on schedule. Apparently there is quite a bit of crime around Denver's transit authority complex.
New Mexico sucks at building and maintaining its highways, especially the ones in rural areas not close to Santa Fe. But they'll at least double-barrel a problem highway, such as US-64/87 between Raton and Texline. Colorado can't even seem to manage that, despite having a larger and more affluent population as well as a larger tax base. Like I said, they have blood on their hands for many otherwise preventable fatal collisions.
Quote from: PColumbus73Might be a separate discussion, but I noticed there aren't many northwest trending diagonal interstates west of the Mississippi. An interstate between Oklahoma City and Ogallala or Cheyenne might be more valuable than I-27.
A diagonal Interstate going NW from Oklahoma City could tie into the I-27 thing at Kit Carson, CO. I-70 and US-287 already have a good portion of diagonal highway started there. It just needs to be extended down to Woodward, OK to tie into the OK-3 diagonal route.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2024, 01:10:53 PMA diagonal Interstate going NW from Oklahoma City could tie into the I-27 thing at Kit Carson, CO. I-70 and US-287 already have a good portion of diagonal highway started there. It just needs to be extended down to Woodward, OK to tie into the OK-3 diagonal route.
I think getting it to I-80 would be ideal to connect the Sun Belt to the PNW. If it does go through I-27 in Colorado, extending it to I-25 near Fort Collins would work, too.
With the aforementioned political climate in Colorado, might be a good idea to see if Kansas might be on board and revise the Ports-to-Plains plan. I assume Oklahoma is starting to follow Texas and North Carolina's lead after signing I-335 & 344.
There are no major population centers in Western Kansas or any major junction points in the national highway network there. It's not worth the expense of building a new North-South Interstate highway into that territory if the Interstate won't connect to anything of significance.
Building a diagonal Interstate from the OKC area to Cheyenne would be quite a bit longer and more expensive than dove-tailing a route from OKC into the Ports to Plains Corridor at Kit Carson, CO. Denver and the cluster of other Front Range towns/cities around it is a far more major destination and important junction point than Cheyenne.
Anyone driving from Seattle or Portland to places in the South or Southeast US would probably want an "oasis" of city/suburb stuff along the Front Range as a stopping point after driving through so many hundreds of miles of fairly desolate territory.
Colorados anti freeway sentiment is fucking ridiculous.
Yeah it really is ridiculous. They're doing the bare minimum, if even that, on "major" highway projects. They tore up I-25 to the South of Colorado Springs, pretty much re-building the main lanes from scratch. When I saw the finished project I was pretty disappointed to see a 2x2 lanes configuration. BTW, it was a real pain in the ass driving thru that just recently for the Christmas holiday. With only two lanes it's easy to get stuck behind a slow poke doing 50mph while a column of passing traffic in the left lane is doing 80mph. Out of nowhere everyone has to hit the brakes. I guess the governor thinks we all should have been using bicycles for our road trips instead.
I-25 expansion North of Colorado Springs is laughable. 2 general purpose lanes and 1 toll lane in each direction. Suck-tastic.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2024, 03:27:54 PMThere are no major population centers in Western Kansas or any major junction points in the national highway network there. It's not worth the expense of building a new North-South Interstate highway into that territory if the Interstate won't connect to anything of significance.
I-70 isn't significant? Or is this too far east to act in place of a route to Limon? It's only ~70 miles longer and would avoid a lot of two-lane roads.
I-70 in Western Kansas is out in the middle of friggin' nowhere. Limon is already a good ways East of Denver. But Western Kansas? That just sucks. Anyone driving from points in West Texas to cities along the Front Range will stick to using either US-87 to Raton or US-287 to Limon. An I-27 route going up into Western Kansas to unceremoniously end at a "T" junction with I-70 would result in a highway junction about as useful as tits on a bull.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2025, 12:07:06 AMabout as useful as tits on a bull.
Interesting. I've always heard it as "tits on a boar hog."
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2025, 12:07:06 AMI-70 in Western Kansas is out in the middle of friggin' nowhere. Limon is already a good ways East of Denver. But Western Kansas? That just sucks. Anyone driving from points in West Texas to cities along the Front Range will stick to using either US-87 to Raton or US-287 to Limon. An I-27 route going up into Western Kansas to unceremoniously end at a "T" junction with I-70 would result in a highway junction about as useful as tits on a bull.
People wouldn't drive an extra 70 miles to have an all-interstate route with higher speed limits and no traffic lights or stop signs?
Quote from: bmorrill on January 01, 2025, 11:12:42 AMQuote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2025, 12:07:06 AMabout as useful as tits on a bull.
Interesting. I've always heard it as "tits on a boar hog."
Or just tits on a boar.
Quote from: vdeanePeople wouldn't drive an extra 70 miles to have an all-interstate route with higher speed limits and no traffic lights or stop signs?
Most people would stick to using the shortest distance route. The existing routes of the Ports to Plains Corridor in the Texas Panhandle, New Mexico and Colorado don't exactly have lots of stop lights along the way. Speed limits vary between 70mph and 75mph. I usually drive to Colorado via Raton Pass. There's a few speed zones here and there. At most they cost me a few minutes of time. I'm sure not driving more than an hour out of my way, burning through a few gallons more of fuel, just to avoid slowing down in towns like Clayton or Mount Dora.
I think people would stick to the fastest route, even if it isn't the shortest distance.
I-27 would be going through miles of nothing whether it be Kansas or Colorado. The miles of nothing exist on several interstates like 70, 80, 90, 94. The gap between Billings and Bismarck is over 400 miles with only a smattering of small towns in between. I agree that no one would enjoy driving a route like I-94 where there is a large gap without decently populated towns or services, but if it provides a link that didn't previously exist, then folks would deal with it as they would with the others.
Yep, it was the one pretty irritating thing about living there. Denver tends to look after Denver; the rest of the state, not so much.
I'm not opposed entirely to the concept of more mass transit but there isn't much need for it outside the Denver metro and they've done a terrible job with the airport light rail.
I think it is very short-sighted to suggest that you need to stop building roads completely, especially when there is a fairly good need for this corridor to come to fruition.
Maybe if they decided to build it with toll lanes.... :banghead:
Quote from: mrose on January 02, 2025, 10:36:30 AMI think it is very short-sighted to suggest that you need to stop building roads completely, especially when there is a fairly good need for this corridor to come to fruition.
Maybe if they decided to build it with toll lanes.... :banghead:
Over the past decade it seems as though 90% of freeway lanes Colorado builds is tolled lanes. Making it worse is Colorado has some of the most expensive tolls in the country. US 287 thru the eastern plains is the best route to take I-27. I drive to Texas multiple times a year and do not take 287 anymore due to the dangers on that road. It needs upgraded. I either go over Raton Pass or thru Kansas to I-135 to I-35.
At the very least US-287 in SE Colorado needs to be converted to a standard 4-lane divided highway. The 2-lane configuration sucks. I think it's the most dangerous in the area crossing the CO/OK border. Colorado is being cheap as hell not doing anything about that highway.
Even I-25 needs a good amount of work. There are locations along that road South of Colorado Springs that clearly do not meet current Interstate standards. A couple of exits down that way are damned near hard right turns. Some of the bridges look like they date back to the 1960's or earlier.
Quote from: ski-man on January 02, 2025, 01:29:39 PMQuote from: mrose on January 02, 2025, 10:36:30 AMI think it is very short-sighted to suggest that you need to stop building roads completely, especially when there is a fairly good need for this corridor to come to fruition.
Maybe if they decided to build it with toll lanes.... :banghead:
Over the past decade it seems as though 90% of freeway lanes Colorado builds is tolled lanes. Making it worse is Colorado has some of the most expensive tolls in the country. US 287 thru the eastern plains is the best route to take I-27. I drive to Texas multiple times a year and do not take 287 anymore due to the dangers on that road. It needs upgraded. I either go over Raton Pass or thru Kansas to I-135 to I-35.
What about a full-up toll ROAD? :bigass: US-290 and US-183 in Austin come to mind.
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on January 02, 2025, 03:43:02 PMQuote from: ski-man on January 02, 2025, 01:29:39 PMQuote from: mrose on January 02, 2025, 10:36:30 AMI think it is very short-sighted to suggest that you need to stop building roads completely, especially when there is a fairly good need for this corridor to come to fruition.
Maybe if they decided to build it with toll lanes.... :banghead:
Over the past decade it seems as though 90% of freeway lanes Colorado builds is tolled lanes. Making it worse is Colorado has some of the most expensive tolls in the country. US 287 thru the eastern plains is the best route to take I-27. I drive to Texas multiple times a year and do not take 287 anymore due to the dangers on that road. It needs upgraded. I either go over Raton Pass or thru Kansas to I-135 to I-35.
What about a full-up toll ROAD? :bigass: US-290 and US-183 in Austin come to mind.
As much as I hate toll roads, I would be perfectly fine with Colorado connecting a toll road to the Oklahoma panhandle up to Limon which would obviously connect to Texas' I-27.
You all can have a discussion about north of Amarillo. Just make it all controlled access from Ennis to about Vernon or so and I will be happy.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2025, 02:59:09 PMEven I-25 needs a good amount of work. There are locations along that road South of Colorado Springs that clearly do not meet current Interstate standards. A couple of exits down that way are damned near hard right turns. Some of the bridges look like they date back to the 1960's or earlier.
That stretch of I-25 between Pueblo and Colorado Springs was mostly built directly over the old US-85/87 roadway. Some of those interchanges are RIRO interchanges, which were previously at-grade intersections that were closed off to cross-traffic to allow the interstate designation.
That stretch of I-25 definitely sucks. One of those hard right turn exits is near the BNSF rail bridge that partially collapsed via a major train derailment not too long ago.
Even when CDOT has re-built portions of that I-25 segment they do the bare minimum. They re-built the I-25 main lanes on the South side of Colorado Springs but didn't add any new lanes. They kept it in 2x2 configuration, despite the heavy traffic that occurs there. A portion of I-25 on the North side of Pueblo was re-built a few years ago. Again, the finished product was a mostly 2x2 road. But they did build some decorative flourishes on some of the bridges and ramps.
I-25 on the South side of Pueblo is like a friggin' slalom course. I'll usually drive it going 55mph or slower. And I'll see people speeding through there going 70mph or faster nearly losing it in through those S-turns.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2025, 09:53:25 PMThat stretch of I-25 definitely sucks. One of those hard right turn exits is near the BNSF rail bridge that partially collapsed via a major train derailment not too long ago.
Even when CDOT has re-built portions of that I-25 segment they do the bare minimum. They re-built the I-25 main lanes on the South side of Colorado Springs but didn't add any new lanes. They kept it in 2x2 configuration, despite the heavy traffic that occurs there. A portion of I-25 on the North side of Pueblo was re-built a few years ago. Again, the finished product was a mostly 2x2 road. But they did build some decorative flourishes on some of the bridges and ramps.
I-25 on the South side of Pueblo is like a friggin' slalom course. I'll usually drive it going 55mph or slower. And I'll see people speeding through there going 70mph or faster nearly losing it in through those S-turns.
That's the unfortunate byproduct of Colorado enacting legislation to prioritize funding for mass transit over roads in the name of "social justice" and combating climate change. They truly believe that by making your drive as miserable as possible, they can force more people out of their cars and onto the bus or the train. Their approach does not appear to be working as they hoped.
They need to do both. Their "HSR" plan is laughable with the first phase averaging something like 45 or 50 mph. Then they claim upgrades will come later to make it faster. I don't even think the first phase is scheduled to come online until the 2030s or later. It doesn't feel like Colorado is serious about much.
Quote from: abqtravelerThat's the unfortunate byproduct of Colorado enacting legislation to prioritize funding for mass transit over roads in the name of "social justice" and combating climate change. They truly believe that by making your drive as miserable as possible, they can force more people out of their cars and onto the bus or the train. Their approach does not appear to be working as they hoped.
The lawmakers pushing this stuff are grossly out of touch. For one thing: they don't practice what they preach. Do any of these people use mass transit? Hell no. I don't imagine any of those people standing out in the rain or snow at a bus stop. If they're not driving their own expensive personal vehicles they might be using a private car service. Or they might be commuting in the back seats of limousines, getting driven around by chauffeurs named Sanders. Whip out a jar of Grey Poupon™ mustard from the back seat fridge for good measure.
But these same people insist mass transit is
good enough for ordinary people. They don't bother to think just how damned spread-out the cities and towns are along the Front Range. They don't bother to think how impractical it can be for people to commute using mass transit. Unless someone lives in a really dense urban area they might be walking a long way to the nearest bus stop or light rail station. Once they're there they might be waiting a good while for the next bus or train. That wait can be extremely not-pleasant depending on the weather. When the passenger is finally on the bus or train the actual ride goes quite a bit slower than that of an automobile. If it's a long ride it will equal lots more stops and even more time lost. That still doesn't factor in all the "interesting" people the passenger may encounter along the way. Personal vehicles at least have doors that lock.
I'm think a bunch of these mass transit and "high speed rail" plans are just good ole boy network scams. Lawmakers make deals with friends and take the taxpayers for a ride.
I'm not against mass transit, but the modes of transportation need to be presented to the public realistically. Warts and all. And they need to not be financial black holes that waste vast amounts of money.
If lawmakers are truly desperately concerned about climate change, why not do a full court press push for work-at-home setups? Cut out the damned daily commute to downtown completely.
Minutes now available on TxDot US 287 Interstate Study page.
Scroll to bottom of page to get access to meeting PDFs.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/statewide/us287-corridor-interstate-feasibility-study.html
Haven't read the reports yet, but thought I'd share links now. Total cost $24B.
Any word on what the cost would be from the segment from Fort Worth to Amarillo?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 01, 2025, 02:04:46 PMAny word on what the cost would be from the segment from Fort Worth to Amarillo?
PowerPoint presentations don't break it down into increments other than the three segments.
$7.2B for the central segment - 40 projects
$2.5B for the northwest segment - 107 projects
The first thing I would do is concentrate on getting bypasses built around the towns that don't currently have bypasses. Still, it's going to take a lot of work to upgrade US 287 into an Interstate Standard freeway.
Quote from: splashflash on May 02, 2025, 03:33:11 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on May 01, 2025, 02:04:46 PMAny word on what the cost would be from the segment from Fort Worth to Amarillo?
PowerPoint presentations don't break it down into increments other than the three segments.
$7.2B for the central segment - 40 projects
$2.5B for the northwest segment - 107 projects
$2.5 billion seems low for the northwest segment, since it is 292 miles long and needs multiple bypasses. For example the Riviera bypass on US 77 (I-69E) is listed for July bidding at $206 million. By the time any projects move forward (probably after 2050) for US 287, full rebuild of existing pavement will generally be needed.
$7.2 billion seems high for the 163-mile central segment, since all the expensive urban sections are already built. The area around Corsicana could be expensive.
$2.3 billion seems low for the 216-mile southeast segment, which currently has the lowest standards.
As SplashFlash says, it's impossible to reach any conclusions since no project-specific costs are provided. It's not clear if these costs are for full interstate upgrade, or just the recommended projects.
Some projects in the Central section will proceed in the near future. In my opinion, most of the proposed projects for the northwest and southeast sections are post-2050, or may never happen, depending on future funding and traffic levels.
The $11.99B figure appears to be the sum total of short, medium and long term projects. $24B appears to be for whole route to become an interstate. Maybe only the central segment is to become an interstate + multimodal (grade separated rail?). The report should be out soon as the April 2, 2025 slide show it was 90% complete while at the end of February it was 50% complete.
Quote from: MaxConcrete$2.5 billion seems low for the northwest segment, since it is 292 miles long and needs multiple bypasses.
The $2.5 billion figure might seem low, but the Northwest segment would be, by far, the easiest one to build.
The study map makes it look like the East end of the NW segment starts at the Montague/Wise County line near Sunset. US-287 turns into a freeway at that point and runs several miles, bypassing Bowie. Henrietta has an existing freeway bypass. Jolly has an existing exit. Bellevue presents the only real construction challenge between Bowie and Wichita Falls.
US-287 is
mostly a freeway from Wichita Falls to Vernon. A few odd-ball driveways connecting to the main highway lanes could be cut off by extending frontage roads. Some exit ramps will have to be re-built to current standards (and to help deal with those driveways). New terrain freeway bypasses would be needed in Chillicothe, Quanah, Childress, Memphis, Clarendon and Claude. Some of those bypasses may not be very long or out of the way. It might be cheaper/easier to upgrade US-287 in place thru the even smaller towns (Lelia Lake, Hedley, Estelline, Goodlett). Between the towns US-287 is often in wide open space where options like adding frontage roads or building new freeway lanes between the existing highway lanes is do-able.
US-87/287 between Amarillo and Dumas is another easy upgrade,
at least logistically speaking.Quote from: MaxConcrete$7.2 billion seems high for the 163-mile central segment, since all the expensive urban sections are already built. The area around Corsicana could be expensive.
I wonder if they're factoring in some of the urban upgrades to the US-287 corridor within Fort Worth to that cost figure. There is still a lot of work to do with US-287 between I-20 and I-45. While some new segments of freeway exist, such as recent work in Ennis, there is still a lot of regular 4-lane road with at-grade intersections and driveways.
Decatur remains the biggest issue for US-287 NW of Fort Worth. Not only does it need a new freeway upgrade thru town on the existing US-287 alignment, that upgraded freeway probably needs to be at least 3x3 lanes wide. When I'm driving to DFW I already feel like I'm in the DFW metro when I reach Decatur.
QuoteThe study map makes it look like the East end of the NW segment starts at the Montague/Wise County line near Sunset. New terrain freeway bypasses would be needed in Chillicothe, Quanah, Childress, Memphis, Clarendon and Claude.QuoteUnfortunately bypasses were resisted by towns, shown on the pinmaps and comments by the district attorney of Childress on page 10 of the 4th round of the Northwest section report minutes. Interstate may be outside even long-term plans for that segment.
If they oppose building bypasses around their towns, what other options are there (besides no-build)? It's not like they will allow freeway conversions to plow straight through their towns.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2025, 11:02:08 PMIf they oppose building bypasses around their towns, what other options are there (besides no-build)? It's not like they will allow freeway conversions to plow straight through their towns.
Or offer buyouts or relocation grants to fuel and convenience stations.
Quote from: The GhostbusterIf they oppose building bypasses around their towns, what other options are there (besides no-build)? It's not like they will allow freeway conversions to plow straight through their towns.
TX DOT has built freeway segments straight thru some towns. The I-69C segment in Falfurrias is one fairly recent example. That town isn't much smaller than Childress; it has 4420 residents compared to 5770 in Childress.
Still, it would be pretty damned destructive to plow a freeway upgrade thru Childress on the existing US-287 alignment. They would basically have to buy and clear all the properties along one side of US-287.
TX DOT had to do something similar when building that freeway segment in Falfurrias. In this case the property takings would risk the existing county emergency management building and quite a few local/chain businesses. They might be able to shift the property clearings between the North side of US-287 and South side. But they definitely would have to dodge the county courthouse on the South side of the road in the middle of town. Such an undertaking would be very costly even if the locals largely agreed to the plan.
One other idea they could do in Childress is build a new freeway segment alongside or over the top of the BNSF rail line. Armstrong Park would get erased. That would at least keep the Interstate in town rather than going well outside of it.
The most practical solution is a green-field route around the North side of town.
I'm sure TX DOT would have a much faster/easier time building out new freeway segments between the towns and then handle the bypasses later. At any rate, the biggest mouth to feed with the whole US-287 corridor in Texas is the segment from Decatur to Ennis. That will suck up much of any available funding. All the at-grade driveway crap in the Wichita Falls area needs to be fixed.