AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: US 57 border to I-35: Interstate status not justified  (Read 4374 times)

MaxConcrete

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 945
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 11:26:19 PM
US 57 border to I-35: Interstate status not justified
« on: September 30, 2022, 12:04:40 AM »

UPDATE 2022-10-13: The study recommends a future 4-lane highway. Interstate status is not justified.

https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/statewide/us-57-corridor.html

It's probably going to take another 30+ years to finish I-69, especially in east Texas. There are studies underway for I-12 I-14. There has been a recommendation for numerous interstate corridors associated with the I-27 extension.

And now another study for a corridor which surely cannot justify interstate status? (US 57 from the Eagle Pass border crossing to Moore, TX, along I-35, 43 miles south of San Antonio.)

My suspicion is that someone in the legislature requested this and TxDOT is acceding. Of course this is the first study, and maybe it will recommend four-lane divided instead of interstate standards.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2022, 01:10:06 PM by MaxConcrete »
Logged

Some one

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 105
  • Location: Texas
  • Last Login: Today at 02:20:36 AM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2022, 01:09:16 AM »

I-12? Is TxDOT finally considering a Houston to Austin interstate?
Logged

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2322
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 49
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 02:12:23 PM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2022, 06:50:34 AM »

I-12? Is TxDOT finally considering a Houston to Austin interstate?

I-12 in Louisiana would like a word with TxDOT.  :wave:
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 983
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Las Cruces NM 88012
  • Last Login: February 07, 2023, 09:09:16 PM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2022, 07:50:04 AM »

Perhaps the OP meant I-14, W of Copperas Cove.  That is another route that is likely to go nowhere.
Have to wonder, perhaps this proposed US 57 "upgrade" could be called I-69 W II.   
Not familiar with corridor, maybe it does need a double barrelling, and not a "poor boy" or a "flush median" job.   Maybe they'll cook up a three lane, that's what they did with US 285 N of Pecos.  Terrible.   
Logged

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12901
  • Age: 24
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 09:29:04 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2022, 07:54:22 AM »

This is a route that I would like to keep the 57 number, upgrade or not. The number 57 is specifically because it's mainly Mexico's route. It's analogous to NB 95.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus several state routes

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11609
  • Last Login: Today at 12:01:22 AM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2022, 07:54:31 AM »

Wonder how much it's costing...but if they're using Statewide Planning and Research funding (SPR), FHWA has gobs of that...
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Some one

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 105
  • Location: Texas
  • Last Login: Today at 02:20:36 AM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2022, 12:02:38 PM »

This is a route that I would like to keep the 57 number, upgrade or not. The number 57 is specifically because it's mainly Mexico's route. It's analogous to NB 95.
They'll probably rename it to Interstate 57 and find a way to connect it to I-57 in Little Rock. (if/when that happens)  :-D
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7614
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 07:50:58 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2022, 12:57:51 PM »

Oh great, another Interstate corridor in TX? How many more can they get?

I'm surprised that I-35 has only one child in the entire state, that being I-635 in Dallas. Now would be a perfect time to give it another spur route along the US 57 corridor. How about I-135?
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

BlueOutback7

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1751
  • Convert the NY Thruway to mileage based exits

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 11:07:12 PM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2022, 01:13:39 PM »

I-12? Is TxDOT finally considering a Houston to Austin interstate?

Austin to Houston is more of a priority than US 57 given the large population of the two metro areas. What are the traffic counts of US 57 between Eagle Pass and I-35? Is this really necessary?
Logged
Decommission 128 south of Peabody!

SkyPesos

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4785
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Cincinnati, OH/Lafayette, IN
  • Last Login: Today at 12:35:01 AM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2022, 01:16:26 PM »

This is a route that I would like to keep the 57 number, upgrade or not. The number 57 is specifically because it's mainly Mexico's route. It's analogous to NB 95.
They'll probably rename it to Interstate 57 and find a way to connect it to I-57 in Little Rock. (if/when that happens)  :-D
Take over all of I-30, and you got I-57 south to Dallas at least  :-D
Logged
My Fictional Highways

I-70 doesn't go to Baltimore, and I-80 isn't transcon.

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 25164
  • My 2 Achilles' heels: sarcasm & snark

  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: January 16, 2023, 01:26:10 PM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2022, 01:31:17 PM »

2021 AADTs shown below:

Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. Dick
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3732
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 10:14:47 PM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2022, 02:17:44 PM »

Existing US 96 should have been designated US 57 when US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha in 1939. This road should have been given the US 96 designation (or it should have remained TX 57 or TX 76). As for designating US 57 as an Interstate corridor, I agree with the subject thread that it is likely wishful-thinking.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1434
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 11:06:50 PM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2022, 03:48:00 PM »

Existing US 96 should have been designated US 57 when US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha in 1939. This road should have been given the US 96 designation (or it should have remained TX 57 or TX 76). As for designating US 57 as an Interstate corridor, I agree with the subject thread that it is likely wishful-thinking.

US-96 and US59 were simply switched from Teneha south and the part of SH35 from Teneha to Houston (more or less) was filled in.

Honestly, 59 should not have been changed and the route from Teneha to Mexico given a new number. This was probably a swap that was made when new route numbers were not being approved. Texas wanted a single number route from Texarkana to the RGV.

 US-96 where it currently is SHOULD have been either an X-59 or an X-69 if US-59 was going to follow its current route. No one wanted to lose 2-digit US highway numbers back then. Pretty much still don't unless it is superseded by an interstate number (and probably a 2di at that.).
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3590
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 09:33:34 PM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2022, 09:10:09 PM »

US-57 from Eagle Pass to the Y-junction with I-35 in Moore? Nah, I'm not feeling that for an Interstate corridor. Standard 4-lane divided with at-grade intersections maybe. Even that might be a stretch. The only thing I think helping this concept at all is the relatively short distance of the route (around 96 miles). I think Laredo to Corpus Christi is a far easier potential Interstate corridor to justify building. I-69W would at least cover half the distance to Freer.

Eagle Pass is a significant border crossing, but it pales in comparison drastically to the Laredo crossing. Laredo is on a direct path between Monterrey (5 million metro pop.) and San Antonio. Mexico Autopista route 85D is mostly limited access, pointing into the I-35 corridor. Route 57 going up to Piedras Negras/Eagle pass is a mix of 4-lane divided and 2-lane, but not limited access. If truckers are looking to bypass all the traffic going into Laredo they'll be more likely to take Route 29 up to Ciudad Acuña to cross the river at Del Rio.

An I-27 extension that goes down to San Angelo, then down to Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo would be more valuable than this US-57 idea. It would be even more valuable still if San Angelo and Abilene were linked with a 4-lane divided route. That would provide a higher quality connection into the I-44 corridor. Trucks could more easily bypass Laredo and all the I-35 traffic in Texas by going thru Del Rio. IMHO, I-44 should be extended down to San Angelo to meet an I-27 extension there.

But, yeah, TX DOT has lots of different fish to fry.

The I-69 corridor is one priority. Progress is slow-going. But if they can get finish enough segments in/around small cities like Lufkin, Nacogdoches and Marshall it may create enough momentum to finish more rural segments faster.

The I-14 corridor has its own uphill battles. Even though there is no Interstate-halo floating over the US-290 and TX-71 corridors those two routes are going to end up getting more and more limited access spot upgrades by virtue of all the growth in Austin and Houston. I can easily imagine both corridors being 100% limited access before I-14 is substantially complete within the Texas Triangle. The TX-80 and TX-46 corridors are important connections to I-10 for the rapidly growing cities of San Marcos and New Braunfels. Buc-ee's is planning its biggest ever store in Luling, where TX-80 meets I-10. I've gotta keep beating the dead horse on US-287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth.

With all that going on, the concept of US-57 as an Interstate from Eagle Pass to I-35 just makes me go: huh? :confused:

Quote from: cjk374
I-12 in Louisiana would like a word with TxDOT.

I-74, I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, I-88. I-49 remains disconnected even though there are long term plans to connect both segments eventually. I-57 may exist in a similar manner for some time. I-69 has multiple disconnected segments. So it's not going to hurt anything for Texas to have a much longer and more significant I-12 route that doesn't connect at all to the one in Louisiana.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2022, 09:24:53 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 25164
  • My 2 Achilles' heels: sarcasm & snark

  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: January 16, 2023, 01:26:10 PM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2022, 09:47:41 PM »

If truckers are looking to bypass all the traffic going into Laredo they'll be more likely to take Route 29 up to Ciudad Acuña to cross the river at Del Rio.

And they don't.  I've hardly ever seen any international trucks at all on Mexico-29 between Allende and Ciudad Acuña, and I've driven that highway probably ten times.  It's pretty much all passenger vehicles and local trucks.  I do occasionally see dual-plated trucks on US-277 between Del Rio and Sonora, but still not very many.

But truckers aren't looking to bypass Laredo anyway.  As I've hammered home over and over again on the forum, only a handful of carriers are granted permission to run dual-plated long-haul runs between the US and Mexico (or vice versa).  Everyone else has to drop their trailer in a drayage yard near the border, where it will then be picked up by a dedicated drayage driver, who then drops it off in a drayage yard on the other side of the border, where it then gets picked up by a carrier licensed to operate in that country.  And those drayage yards are in and around Laredo.  I don't think Del Rio and Acuña really have them—not that I've noticed, anyway.  Maybe Eagle Pass and Piedras Negras have some?  I haven't made it down to that border crossing yet, so I'm not sure.

Not only is Monterrey the #3 city in Mexico, but it's also a huge manufacturing center.  Monclova and Castaños have industry, but most of it is national industry, not necessarily stuff that gets exported to the US.  Saltillo goods might as well go through Monterrey anyway.  And, for the most part, all that cargo is going to head through Dallas or Houston anyway, so crossing the border farther upriver would just add miles for no real benefit.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. Dick
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3590
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 09:33:34 PM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2022, 12:11:28 AM »

Then that's probably all the more reason to make Laredo a key focal point. I-69W is already going there. I-2 is sort penciled in to do so as well (since its exit numbers reflect a likely long-term possibility). The ultimate South terminus for I-27 is Laredo too. I think I-27 should clip Del Rio and Eagle Pass as well, but if it goes all the way to Laredo it will help the other border cities along the way. If it all can be built the end result would be continuous Interstate from the Texas Panhandle down to the South tip of Texas.
Logged

jgb191

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 531
  • My favorite Interstate!

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 11:34:37 PM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2022, 12:30:28 AM »

I-12? Is TxDOT finally considering a Houston to Austin interstate?

That should have been done decades ago!  It's makes perfect sense to connect the state's capital to the state's largest city.  And get rid of that cloverleaf ramp at Brenham when continuing on US-290 Westbound while we're at it.
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 345
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: February 06, 2023, 11:26:13 AM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2022, 05:07:22 AM »

Perhaps the OP meant I-14, W of Copperas Cove.  That is another route that is likely to go nowhere.
Have to wonder, perhaps this proposed US 57 "upgrade" could be called I-69 W II.   
Not familiar with corridor, maybe it does need a double barrelling, and not a "poor boy" or a "flush median" job.   Maybe they'll cook up a three lane, that's what they did with US 285 N of Pecos.  Terrible.
I think they may have a point in I-12. I-14 is to be N of Houston (Livingston).
Logged

-- US 175 --

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 266
  • Location: Somewhere between north-central and east-central TX
  • Last Login: February 06, 2023, 11:08:22 AM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2022, 02:03:55 PM »

I've gotta keep beating the dead horse on US-287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth.

Seemingly no legislative or transportation officials want to see the regional connective importance (much less the likely growing traffic counts) of the Fort Worth-Amarillo segment of US 287.  Logically, it's much more important (and needed) than the I-14 thing (which is better off a 3di along the portion that exists now) or whatever the US 57 proposal turns out to be.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3590
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 09:33:34 PM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2022, 02:11:40 PM »

Quote from: jgb191
And get rid of that cloverleaf ramp at Brenham when continuing on US-290 Westbound while we're at it.

It's very likely if/when a US-290 freeway is extended West out of Brenham it will have to be built on a new terrain path. The existing road West of that partial cloverleaf interchange has too much development hugging close to the ROW.

Quote from: US 175
Seemingly no legislative or transportation officials want to see the regional connective importance (much less the likely growing traffic counts) of the Fort Worth-Amarillo segment of US 287.  Logically, it's much more important (and needed) than the I-14 thing (which is better off a 3di along the portion that exists now) or whatever the US 57 proposal turns out to be.

A bunch of the road would be EASY to upgrade to Interstate standards. Vernon thru Wichita Falls, down thru Bowie and Alford could be done fast with hardly any new ROW needed. Getting closer to Fort Worth is more tricky. From Alford down to Decatur is a tighter squeeze but still do-able. Decatur itself is the toughest nut to crack, but that segment badly needs upgrading. South of Decatur more Interstate quality upgrades are likely.

Amarillo may not be as much of a highway network hub as DFW or OKC. But it's an important stop. Buc-ee's is planning a big super store near the I-40/US-287 junction. Buc-ee's tends to build big stores near important highway junctions. Amarillo's city council already approved it. But progress is being held up due to a legal fight between property owners and Love's, who owns the Speedco Truck Lube and Tires shop. There's a back entrance to it from Juett Attebury Road. The new Buc-ee's location would remove that back entrance. Until the legal issues are solved Buc-ee's won't buy the land.
Logged

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2984
  • Age: 66
  • Location: Palm Springs, CA
  • Last Login: February 05, 2023, 05:20:10 PM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2022, 03:38:04 PM »

^
I know I'm getting dangerously close to fantasy here. Curious about how much traffic is actually going to/from Fort Worth. If most of the traffic is going through Fort Worth, it would probably be easier and cheaper to run a freeway east from Decatur to I-35 at Denton along the US 380 corridor rather than continuing down to Fort Worth. Too bad it's probably too late to upgrade US 380 to freeway from Denton to the other side of McKinney; it would have made part of a great bypass of the entire metro.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1434
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 11:06:50 PM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2022, 06:26:48 PM »

^
I know I'm getting dangerously close to fantasy here. Curious about how much traffic is actually going to/from Fort Worth. If most of the traffic is going through Fort Worth, it would probably be easier and cheaper to run a freeway east from Decatur to I-35 at Denton along the US 380 corridor rather than continuing down to Fort Worth. Too bad it's probably too late to upgrade US 380 to freeway from Denton to the other side of McKinney; it would have made part of a great bypass of the entire metro.


As grown up as it is, 380 will probably be freeway from at least Decatur to Princeton and probably eventually I-30.

As to 287, Rhome and TX114 is the plan for the Dallas Route. TXDOT already has the ROW for full freeway from Decatur to Rhome and US-287 is already freeway from Rhome to Fort Worth.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 17600
  • Nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

  • Age: 33
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 02:42:04 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2022, 07:25:05 PM »

I'm surprised that I-35 has only one child in the entire state, that being I-635 in Dallas. Now would be a perfect time to give it another spur route along the US 57 corridor. How about I-135?

There's five odd x35s available in TX, and you want to use the one that would duplicate a major 100-mile route accessible within a day's travel of TX? Why?

535, 735, or 935 would be preferable. Personally, I vote 735. It has both a 5 and a 7 in it, and there's no I-735 anywhere in the country.

Existing US 96 should have been designated US 57 when US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha in 1939. This road should have been given the US 96 designation (or it should have remained TX 57 or TX 76). As for designating US 57 as an Interstate corridor, I agree with the subject thread that it is likely wishful-thinking.

US-57 has that number because it connects to Mexico 57. It wasn't ever intended to fit in the grid.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3590
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 09:33:34 PM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2022, 08:41:10 PM »

Quote from: bwana39
I know I'm getting dangerously close to fantasy here. Curious about how much traffic is actually going to/from Fort Worth. If most of the traffic is going through Fort Worth, it would probably be easier and cheaper to run a freeway east from Decatur to I-35 at Denton along the US 380 corridor rather than continuing down to Fort Worth.

Just in terms of traffic movement within the greater DFW region the US-287 corridor from Decatur to Fort Worth needs to be upgraded to Interstate standards regardless of US-380.

US-380 is a whole other legit issue. It has rapidly growing demands and needs for a Interstate-class upgrade from Decatur to Greenville. The Denton to McKinney segment is especially urgent, yet difficult to tackle due to the massive amount of development that has already taken place along the corridor. Add US-82 to this mix; that corridor from Gainesville to Sherman needs a full blown upgrade ASAP. If the DFW metro continues growing like it has for the past 30 years than it will be eventually necessary for the US-82 corridor to be upgraded from Henrietta clear over to New Boston.
Logged

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1700
  • Location: Oklahoma City, OK
  • Last Login: February 07, 2023, 10:10:54 AM
Re: Another wishful-thinking rural Interstate study in Texas
« Reply #24 on: October 04, 2022, 12:05:13 PM »

^
I know I'm getting dangerously close to fantasy here. Curious about how much traffic is actually going to/from Fort Worth. If most of the traffic is going through Fort Worth, it would probably be easier and cheaper to run a freeway east from Decatur to I-35 at Denton along the US 380 corridor rather than continuing down to Fort Worth. Too bad it's probably too late to upgrade US 380 to freeway from Denton to the other side of McKinney; it would have made part of a great bypass of the entire metro.


As grown up as it is, 380 will probably be freeway from at least Decatur to Princeton and probably eventually I-30.

As to 287, Rhome and TX114 is the plan for the Dallas Route. TXDOT already has the ROW for full freeway from Decatur to Rhome and US-287 is already freeway from Rhome to Fort Worth.

Not quite yet. There are at least 4 at-grade crossings with a large number of private drives on 287 between Rhome and Avondale. The stretch from Avondate to 35W still has a number of private drives and no frontage roads. I believe that stretch is being addressed by TxDOT over the next few years.
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.