U.S. 287 Corridor Interstate Feasibility Study in Texas

[motorola870]

hopefully this designation effort speeds up the progress of upgrades between I20 and I45.

[The Ghostbuster]

Anything that speeds up upgrades is good in my book.

[CoreySamson]

I doubt Interstate 44 will be extended further into Texas. If anything, it might be truncated if the US 287 corridor eventually gets an Interstate designation both southeast and northwest of Wichita Falls.

There may not be an immediate need to extend I-44 to Abilene and San Angelo. But I think the time is coming where it may be forced to happen.

It's not going to happen, and frankly, it would be a horrible waste of resources. Outside of Anson and Holiday, the corridor between Wichita Falls and Abilene is all lightly traveled four-lane expressway. Between Abilene and San Angelo, I would think expressway upgrades are enough, with maybe a bypass around Bronte. Texas has like four hundred more important freeway upgrades than this.

[TheBox]

I doubt Interstate 44 will be extended further into Texas. If anything, it might be truncated if the US 287 corridor eventually gets an Interstate designation both southeast and northwest of Wichita Falls.

There may not be an immediate need to extend I-44 to Abilene and San Angelo. But I think the time is coming where it may be forced to happen.

It's not going to happen, and frankly, it would be a horrible waste of resources. Outside of Anson and Holiday, the corridor between Wichita Falls and Abilene is all lightly traveled four-lane expressway. Between Abilene and San Angelo, I would think expressway upgrades are enough, with maybe a bypass around Bronte. Texas has like four hundred more important freeway upgrades than this.

Like US-290 for one

[Molandfreak]

I doubt Interstate 44 will be extended further into Texas. If anything, it might be truncated if the US 287 corridor eventually gets an Interstate designation both southeast and northwest of Wichita Falls.

There may not be an immediate need to extend I-44 to Abilene and San Angelo. But I think the time is coming where it may be forced to happen.

It's not going to happen, and frankly, it would be a horrible waste of resources. Outside of Anson and Holiday, the corridor between Wichita Falls and Abilene is all lightly traveled four-lane expressway. Between Abilene and San Angelo, I would think expressway upgrades are enough, with maybe a bypass around Bronte. Texas has like four hundred more important freeway upgrades than this.

Like US-290 for one

It never fails to amaze me how an I-14 stub got approved and so many ambitious freeway corridors have started moving dirt in west Texas before any serious discussion about upgrading US 290 has happened.

[achilles765]

I would personally prefer the following:

- I-28 between Amarillo & Fort Worth (at 35W)
- I-47 between Fort Worth & Beaumont

An I-28 corridor shouldn't be running much of its length North of I-30. That's why several other possible designations would be better (I-32, I-34, I-36, I-38). At the risk of sounding like a broken record, planners need to keep US-82 in North Texas considered when making choices with Interstate designations.

If an Interstate number is applied to the Amarillo-Fort Worth segment of US-287 it will just make more sense for that number to travel down to the junction with I-45 in Ennis. That would remove any need for a route number overlap with I-45 down to Corsicana. If an I-47 route was built along US-287 its North end would likely be in Corsicana at the merge with I-45.

Or..throwing this out there.... I-32 or I-34 from Amarillo to I-45 at Corsicana...and then just upgrade what's needed from I-45 to Beaumont. Beaumont to Port Arthur can be made into an I-910. 
I do like the idea of truncating US 69 and extending 175 down that route.

Frankly if I were in charge, US 287/interstate 910 would begin in port Arthur, then continue north along its current route, with Us 69 being redesignated as US 175 and US 96 receiving a state highway number. US 175 near Dallas (the freeway section) can be upgraded to become an I-745, and US 287 from I-45 to Amarillo becoming I-32.  Any future plans for US 82 can be a future I-34 or I-36.

[achilles765]

I doubt Interstate 44 will be extended further into Texas. If anything, it might be truncated if the US 287 corridor eventually gets an Interstate designation both southeast and northwest of Wichita Falls.

There may not be an immediate need to extend I-44 to Abilene and San Angelo. But I think the time is coming where it may be forced to happen.

It's not going to happen, and frankly, it would be a horrible waste of resources. Outside of Anson and Holiday, the corridor between Wichita Falls and Abilene is all lightly traveled four-lane expressway. Between Abilene and San Angelo, I would think expressway upgrades are enough, with maybe a bypass around Bronte. Texas has like four hundred more important freeway upgrades than this.

Like US-290 for one

It never fails to amaze me how an I-14 stub got approved and so many ambitious freeway corridors have started moving dirt in west Texas before any serious discussion about upgrading US 290 has happened.

I also think this is crazy. I still can't believe there was no discussion about using that route for I-14 instead of the current route which connects a bunch of random country towns through central Texas instead of the capital and largest city.

Would have been smarter for I-14 to use US 290 to Houston, then US 90/TX 105.. and then whatever other route that worked best to reconnect with US 190 if they wanted to so badly.

[Molandfreak]

I doubt Interstate 44 will be extended further into Texas. If anything, it might be truncated if the US 287 corridor eventually gets an Interstate designation both southeast and northwest of Wichita Falls.

There may not be an immediate need to extend I-44 to Abilene and San Angelo. But I think the time is coming where it may be forced to happen.

It's not going to happen, and frankly, it would be a horrible waste of resources. Outside of Anson and Holiday, the corridor between Wichita Falls and Abilene is all lightly traveled four-lane expressway. Between Abilene and San Angelo, I would think expressway upgrades are enough, with maybe a bypass around Bronte. Texas has like four hundred more important freeway upgrades than this.

Like US-290 for one

It never fails to amaze me how an I-14 stub got approved and so many ambitious freeway corridors have started moving dirt in west Texas before any serious discussion about upgrading US 290 has happened.

I also think this is crazy. I still can't believe there was no discussion about using that route for I-14 instead of the current route which connects a bunch of random country towns through central Texas instead of the capital and largest city.

Would have been smarter for I-14 to use US 290 to Houston, then US 90/TX 105.. and then whatever other route that worked best to reconnect with US 190 if they wanted to so badly.

Texas is the Illinois of the 21st century. Requesting all these interstate corridors without regard to future planning or how they will affect the needs of their neighbors.

[Bobby5280]

It's not going to happen, and frankly, it would be a horrible waste of resources. Outside of Anson and Holiday, the corridor between Wichita Falls and Abilene is all lightly traveled four-lane expressway. Between Abilene and San Angelo, I would think expressway upgrades are enough, with maybe a bypass around Bronte. Texas has like four hundred more important freeway upgrades than this.

Right now the AADT counts aren't there to justify an Interstate upgrade of US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene. But I think that could change if much of the I-27 upgrade between Lubbock and Laredo is completed. Mexico is poised to go through some pretty big changes. The current administration running the US government (and its protectionist policies) is not going to last.

I also think this is crazy. I still can't believe there was no discussion about using that route for I-14 instead of the current route which connects a bunch of random country towns through central Texas instead of the capital and largest city.

While I feel the same way regarding I-14 and US-290, the ship has pretty much sailed on that one. US-290 is still eventually going to turn into a 100% Interstate quality corridor between Austin and Houston. And US-290 will have to be upgraded to Interstate quality from the West side of Austin to at least the US-281 corridor, if not I-10. Austin is in a growth-slump currently due to its housing market downturn. But that slump isn't going to last. The growth pattern will resume within the next few years, barring some broader economic catastrophe.

I think US-290 between Austin and Houston (and a ways farther) could be turned into a second I-12 that is considerably longer than the original I-12 in Louisiana. I also think US-290 between Austin and Houston as well as TX-74 from Austin to I-10 in Columbus will both get upgraded to Interstate quality well before I-14 in Texas is ever completed.

Texas is the Illinois of the 21st century. Requesting all these interstate corridors without regard to future planning or how they will affect the needs of their neighbors.

I don't think Texas is exactly going nuts with adding new Interstate designations. Not like North Carolina. Texas is a huge state too; it's a whole lot bigger than Illinois. The I-69 projects are worthwhile (even though the number doesn't make much sense). The Ports to Plains Corridor would only extend an existing Interstate, I-27. I-14 is the only route that seems porky and misplaced. The other corridors being mentioned, such as US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth, don't have an official designation yet.

Also, the Interstate system has multiple examples of duplicate routes that aren't connected. It's not going to any sort of outrage if I-12 gets applied to the US-290 corridor.

[PColumbus73]

I don't think Texas is exactly going nuts with adding new Interstate designations. Not like North Carolina. Texas is a huge state too; it's a whole lot bigger than Illinois. The I-69 projects are worthwhile (even though the number doesn't make much sense). The Ports to Plains Corridor would only extend an existing Interstate, I-27. I-14 is the only route that seems porky and misplaced. The other corridors being mentioned, such as US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth, don't have an official designation yet.

Also, the Interstate system has multiple examples of duplicate routes that aren't connected. It's not going to any sort of outrage if I-12 gets applied to the US-290 corridor.

My only grievance with Texas is there insistence on dozens of spurs and forks with suffixes and politicians wanting to engineer instead of TxDOT. I don't really care for I-69C paralleling I-69E so close for so long, but I-69E and I-69W (or by another number) to Mexico is worthwhile. If Texas can make the hard choices and pick corridors that are logical, it'll be easier to get on board with their interstate proposals.

For the I-27 / Ports-to-Plains, I feel like Texas really should be making friends with the Central and Plains states so there's not an interstate that dumps off somewhere at the state line.

[Life in Paradise]

I don't think Texas is exactly going nuts with adding new Interstate designations. Not like North Carolina. Texas is a huge state too; it's a whole lot bigger than Illinois. The I-69 projects are worthwhile (even though the number doesn't make much sense). The Ports to Plains Corridor would only extend an existing Interstate, I-27. I-14 is the only route that seems porky and misplaced. The other corridors being mentioned, such as US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth, don't have an official designation yet.

Also, the Interstate system has multiple examples of duplicate routes that aren't connected. It's not going to any sort of outrage if I-12 gets applied to the US-290 corridor.

My only grievance with Texas is there insistence on dozens of spurs and forks with suffixes and politicians wanting to engineer instead of TxDOT. I don't really care for I-69C paralleling I-69E so close for so long, but I-69E and I-69W (or by another number) to Mexico is worthwhile. If Texas can make the hard choices and pick corridors that are logical, it'll be easier to get on board with their interstate proposals.

For the I-27 / Ports-to-Plains, I feel like Texas really should be making friends with the Central and Plains states so there's not an interstate that dumps off somewhere at the state line.

I know that this is slightly off topic, but related to some of the let's make everything an interstate philosophy...why couldn't Texas have made one stretch of I-69 (say US-77) and made it 6 lanes, and kept US281 the same as it was (or vice-versa)?  Wouldn't that have saved a bunch of money fully upgrading both corridors and making one ready for heavier traffic?  In case of US-287, I'm not sure that they have made a good argument that the Port Arthur/Dallas is needing to be interstate ready at this point.  I do agree with the Fort Worth to Amarillo stretch.

[Molandfreak]

I don't think Texas is exactly going nuts with adding new Interstate designations. Not like North Carolina. Texas is a huge state too; it's a whole lot bigger than Illinois. The I-69 projects are worthwhile (even though the number doesn't make much sense). The Ports to Plains Corridor would only extend an existing Interstate, I-27. I-14 is the only route that seems porky and misplaced. The other corridors being mentioned, such as US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth, don't have an official designation yet.

Also, the Interstate system has multiple examples of duplicate routes that aren't connected. It's not going to any sort of outrage if I-12 gets applied to the US-290 corridor.

My only grievance with Texas is there insistence on dozens of spurs and forks with suffixes and politicians wanting to engineer instead of TxDOT. I don't really care for I-69C paralleling I-69E so close for so long, but I-69E and I-69W (or by another number) to Mexico is worthwhile. If Texas can make the hard choices and pick corridors that are logical, it'll be easier to get on board with their interstate proposals.

For the I-27 / Ports-to-Plains, I feel like Texas really should be making friends with the Central and Plains states so there's not an interstate that dumps off somewhere at the state line.

I was thinking about I-14 and the exceptionally dumb I-27N when I said that Texas is the Illinois of the 21st century. 27N should be the main branch and whatever is assigned to US 287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo should continue to Raton.

[Revive 755]

Texas is the Illinois of the 21st century. Requesting all these interstate corridors without regard to future planning or how they will affect the needs of their neighbors.

This seems like it may warrant a new thread in the Great Lakes-Ohio Valley section, but for now:

For all the numbers I recall Illinois requesting:

• I-72
• I-53 (would have been I-155 plus the unconstructed Peoria to I-180 corridor)
• I-88
• I-39 (didn't Wisconsin try to get this as part of I-43?)
• I-37 (later request for what is now I-155)

Were there a bunch of other requests I'm not recalling or aware of?

[Bobby5280]

My only grievance with Texas is there insistence on dozens of spurs and forks with suffixes and politicians wanting to engineer instead of TxDOT. I don't really care for I-69C paralleling I-69E so close for so long, but I-69E and I-69W (or by another number) to Mexico is worthwhile. If Texas can make the hard choices and pick corridors that are logical, it'll be easier to get on board with their interstate proposals.

I'm skeptical many of these spurs, especially the ones related to I-14, will ever get built. In the case of I-14 it's going to be hard enough for the main route to get completed in Texas since it will be competing against other in-state corridors for funding.

For the I-27 / Ports-to-Plains, I feel like Texas really should be making friends with the Central and Plains states so there's not an interstate that dumps off somewhere at the state line.

I can't realistically see an extension of I-27 getting any farther North than Dumas unless the states of Colorado and New Mexico have a big change of heart regarding the building of super highways.

I was thinking about I-14 and the exceptionally dumb I-27N when I said that Texas is the Illinois of the 21st century. 27N should be the main branch and whatever is assigned to US 287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo should continue to Raton.

The "I-27N" thing is especially dumb. It would be funny looking at Southbound reassurance signs for I-27N. If the route could get extended North of Dumas, I couldn't see it getting any farther than Stratford -the point where US-287 drops from 4-lane divided down to 2 lanes. That would be a spur about 30 miles long.

This is also assuming another I-27 leg would be built West of Dumas to Hartley, up to Dalhart and Texline. I don't expect any of the Dumas-Texline leg of I-27 to be completed as long as New Mexico has its current stance in place. That would leave any potential extension up to Stratford more likely to just be called I-27.

TX DOT is more likely to focus its I-27 efforts on segments between Lubbock and Laredo in the years ahead. Maybe they'll do something with the Amarillo-Dumas segment too. I wouldn't count on anything past Dumas. I think many years will pass before TX-DOT has an opportunity to apply that "I-27N" nonsense to anything. By the time it is able to happen they might just choose another number.

[Anthony_JK]

Amarillo to Corsicana should be a full freeway worthy of Interstate standards, at the very least to provide a proper terminus for I-44 in Wichita Falls (although I agree with Bobby that an I-44 extension to Abilene is warranted).

Corsicana south to Beaumont/Port Arthur?? Not so much. Four-lane divided expressway with interchanges at major crossroads and/or bypasses at towns will do fine. Perhaps extending the freeway section of US 287 from Kowntze north to US 190/Future I-14 or even US 59/Future I-69, but I seriously doubt that we will see the latter in anyone's recent lifetimes, since there's no way Louisiana's going to build their section(s) of I-14 or I-69 any time soon. I-14, for the forseeable future, isn't going beyond Madisonville. I'd rather use the southern end of 287 as a terminus for I-14 in Beaumont, anyway.

[splashflash]

I-14 isn't progressing east of I-45!at this time.  The Sabine River Bridge replacement on Tx-63 / Louisiana 8, to be located south of the existing structure, only has two lanes.  It appears to be scheduled for 2027.  https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/beaumont/sh63-bridge.html
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/beaumont/2025/sh63la-8-from-sabine-river-fonsi.html

[bwana39]

I-14 isn't progressing east of I-45!at this time.  The Sabine River Bridge replacement on Tx-63 / Louisiana 8, to be located south of the existing structure, only has two lanes.  It appears to be scheduled for 2027.  https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/beaumont/sh63-bridge.html
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/beaumont/2025/sh63la-8-from-sabine-river-fonsi.html

Where exactly would I-14 even run? While mid Toledo Bend seems a good place, buttt.

I-14 has a good bit lower chance in Louisiana than I-69. I can honestly see I-57 in Ferriday (or maybe Alexandria) before I see I-14 in Ferriday or even Alexandria.

Why? Louisiana population (and therefore political power) is mostly below the 31st parallel. The primary goal of any new interstate in Louisiana is Hurricane evacuation. I-69 does little to aid it. I-14 would do very little to help it.

A freewas linking Baton Rouge, Natchez, Ferriday, and up to Pine Bluff (probably through Monroe) would be helpful to evacuation.

That does require a Mississippi River Crossing, but with waivers, the ones in Natchez will suffice. There would be 60 miles in Mississippi that might be a problem, but....

The Alexandria option would help some especially if it went all the way down to US-190

The bottom line is Louisiana has no interest in I-14. It would take just short of a promise to close Fort Polk if it were not built to get it done.

[Bobby5280]

Alexandria is the only destination location in Louisiana where I-14 could logically run. It's the only city where it makes sense. In Louisiana I-14 would have to follow the LA-28 corridor thru Alexandria towards Natchez. But, yeah, if Louisiana doesn't have money to build the road they're not going to build it, especially with the other projects they have on their plate, like I-49 and various new Mississippi River bridges.

TX DOT (and the TX state legislature) has to figure out what their plan is to push I-14 to the Louisiana border. It's clear they don't have that settled. I keep complaining about the W-shaped route North of College Station. Lake Livingston is a serious obstacle. So if TX DOT is obsessed about routing I-14 through Madisonville they may be able to make I-14 skirt the North side of that big lake. But if they do that then they'll probably need to make I-14 hop directly East from Cameron to Hearne and then Madisonville and still cut out that W-shaped route bullshit anyway. I-14 could dodge the North side of Lake Livingston and then merge into US-190 just West of Woodville and then go towards Jasper and the Louisiana border.

The Bryan-College Station metro would lose out on being connected with I-14 in that scenario though.

[Molandfreak]

I don't see any real benefit of I-14 outside of Texas. Might as well just send it down to end in Beaumont to become a long-range bypass of Houston and San Antonio.

[PColumbus73]

I don't see any real benefit of I-14 outside of Texas. Might as well just send it down to end in Beaumont to become a long-range bypass of Houston and San Antonio.

Then it gets to be Houston's 4th or 5th (partial) beltway, lol.

[Bobby5280]

Madisonville and even Huntsville are pretty far North of Houston for I-14 to function as any sort of relief corridor for the Houston metro.

The TX-105 corridor from Navasota to Conroe and Cleveland could have been the beginnings of a 4th ring around the Houston metro, but the highway looks like it might be a lost cause. The ROW is pretty narrow (200' or less). A lot of development has gone up from Montgomery and moving East to I-45 and I-69. Converting TX-105 thru that area into a super highway would require a lot of properties to be bought and cleared. Even the act of properly building out the loop in Conroe appears really difficult.

[Molandfreak]

Madisonville and even Huntsville are pretty far North of Houston for I-14 to function as any sort of relief corridor for the Houston metro.

I'm actually saying that thru traffic on I-10 that is neither going to Houston nor San Antonio can use it to avoid traffic hell in both cities since they don't really have a reason to go through either. Call it I-12 on steroids.

I realize that's a pretty niche, obscure reason to build the corridor since it would only apply to a few hundred vehicles per day, but hey, that seems to be the entire justification for I-69 in Arkansas and Louisiana.

[Anthony_JK]

I-14 isn't progressing east of I-45!at this time.  The Sabine River Bridge replacement on Tx-63 / Louisiana 8, to be located south of the existing structure, only has two lanes.  It appears to be scheduled for 2027.  https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/beaumont/sh63-bridge.html
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/beaumont/2025/sh63la-8-from-sabine-river-fonsi.html

Where exactly would I-14 even run? While mid Toledo Bend seems a good place, buttt.

I-14 has a good bit lower chance in Louisiana than I-69. I can honestly see I-57 in Ferriday (or maybe Alexandria) before I see I-14 in Ferriday or even Alexandria.

Why? Louisiana population (and therefore political power) is mostly below the 31st parallel. The primary goal of any new interstate in Louisiana is Hurricane evacuation. I-69 does little to aid it. I-14 would do very little to help it.

A freewas linking Baton Rouge, Natchez, Ferriday, and up to Pine Bluff (probably through Monroe) would be helpful to evacuation.

That does require a Mississippi River Crossing, but with waivers, the ones in Natchez will suffice. There would be 60 miles in Mississippi that might be a problem, but....

The Alexandria option would help some especially if it went all the way down to US-190

The bottom line is Louisiana has no interest in I-14. It would take just short of a promise to close Fort Polk if it were not built to get it done.

(Comment response moved to I-14 thread to avoid threadjacking.)