U.S. 287 Corridor Interstate Feasibility Study in Texas

[Life in Paradise]

I wonder what number they'll go for? It would seem as though the obvious choice is Interstate 47 since it will be mostly between interstate 45 and 49 but if it's going to Amarillo, it could be an I-31 or I-33

They could also opt for an even number interstate.  It also goes quite a long way laterally as well.  We have I 26 that is more N/S than E/W and then the new I-87 which would appear to be more E/W than N/S in North Carolina.

[TheBox]

Texas may get a new interstate running from the coast to the Panhandle

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/us287-texas-interstate-i10-traffic-21208312.php

This would make this the 5th interstate addition Texas wants, between I-69, I-2, I-14, I-27, and now this

I include I-27 cause currently it's more of a spur than it is its own interstate (surprised they didn't connect it to I-20 a long time ago)

All this before the idea of an interstate between the state's metro capital (Austin) and the state's largest city (Houston) btw still.

[ElishaGOtis]

Texas may get a new interstate running from the coast to the Panhandle

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/us287-texas-interstate-i10-traffic-21208312.php

This would make this the 5th interstate addition Texas wants, between I-69, I-2, I-14, I-27, and now this

I include I-27 cause currently it's more of a spur than it is its own interstate (surprised they didn't connect it to I-20 a long time ago)

All this before the idea of an interstate between the state's metro capital (Austin) and the state's largest city (Houston) btw still.

I wonder what number they'll go for? It would seem as though the obvious choice is Interstate 47 since it will be mostly between interstate 45 and 49 but if it's going to Amarillo, it could be an I-31 or I-33

They could also opt for an even number interstate.  It also goes quite a long way laterally as well.  We have I 26 that is more N/S than E/W and then the new I-87 which would appear to be more E/W than N/S in North Carolina.

Guessing the number of this new Interstate would make a good Kalshi bet.

[Henry]

Texas may get a new interstate running from the coast to the Panhandle

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/us287-texas-interstate-i10-traffic-21208312.php

This would make this the 5th interstate addition Texas wants, between I-69, I-2, I-14, I-27, and now this

I include I-27 cause currently it's more of a spur than it is its own interstate (surprised they didn't connect it to I-20 a long time ago)

All this before the idea of an interstate between the state's metro capital (Austin) and the state's largest city (Houston) btw still.

I wonder what number they'll go for? It would seem as though the obvious choice is Interstate 47 since it will be mostly between interstate 45 and 49 but if it's going to Amarillo, it could be an I-31 or I-33

They could also opt for an even number interstate.  It also goes quite a long way laterally as well.  We have I 26 that is more N/S than E/W and then the new I-87 which would appear to be more E/W than N/S in North Carolina.

Guessing the number of this new Interstate would make a good Kalshi bet.

If this new addition goes through, it will eventually replace I-20 in TX as the third-longest in-state  segment on the Interstate system, which is 636 miles long (or 35 miles shorter, since the new corridor would be 671 miles).

[Bobby5280]

I really do not expect the Corsicana-Beaumont segment of this US-287 concept Interstate to ever get built. It's too close to I-45. Plus, most of that route is just 2-lane highway. Not so easy to upgrade.

The segment from Amarillo thru Fort Worth down to Ennis and I-45 is worthy of an Interstate quality upgrade. It's mostly divided four lane highway and a good bit of it already has more than enough ROW for freeway main lanes and frontage roads. The Amarillo-Fort Worth segment of US-287 is more of an East-West route. "I-32" has been tossed around as a possibility. "I-34" would also work, but that designation might be needed for what US-82 is growing into as it spans North Texas and bypasses the North fringe of DFW.

[LilianaUwU]

i did a feasability study tonight as i was taking a shower and i think this is a stupid idea. now give me my $200 million TXDOT

[Molandfreak]

I wouldn't expect a spec of dirt to be moved on the Corsicana to Beaumont segment until all of the I-69 and I-27 systems are complete. Heck, throw I-14 in there, too.

[TheBox]

I wouldn't expect a spec of dirt to be moved on the Corsicana to Beaumont segment until all of the I-69 and I-27 systems are complete. Heck, throw I-14 in there, too.

And don't forget I-2

[vdeane]

I wouldn't expect a spec of dirt to be moved on the Corsicana to Beaumont segment until all of the I-69 and I-27 systems are complete. Heck, throw I-14 in there, too.

And don't forget I-2

Isn't I-2 considered part of the I-69 system?

i did a feasability study tonight as i was taking a shower and i think this is a stupid idea. now give me my $200 million TXDOT

I agree regarding the bit southeast of Fort Worth, but I'd love to see the Amarillo to Fort Worth part, even if only so that the stupid dangling bit of I-44 actually connects to something.

[Bobby5280]

I agree regarding the bit southeast of Fort Worth, but I'd love to see the Amarillo to Fort Worth part, even if only so that the stupid dangling bit of I-44 actually connects to something.

I want I-44 extended farther Southwest into Texas. The US-277 segment from Wichita Falls to Abilene (and I-20) would be a fairly easy upgrade. Not too long ago TX DOT four-laned most of the route and even built a couple or so freeway segments thru/around towns along the way.

Ultimately I'd like I-44 to meet up with I-27 in San Angelo. I-44 is a major corridor for commercial traffic to travel from the Southwest US to Northeast states. If I-44 were to dovetail into I-27 in San Angelo it might help relieve some of the cross-border traffic burden in Laredo and on I-35. There is so much traffic on I-35, especially from San Antonio on up to the Red River, that other alternative routes are needed. I-44 could help serve as a release valve. So could US-281 between San Antonio and Wichita Falls.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

I too wish I-44 would be extended.

[Bobby5280]

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.

In Wichita Falls I-44 already ends at the US-287 corridor. It's a matter of splitting hairs on where I-44 ends. Right now the terminus is at the Broad Street and Holliday Street overheads leading to the Y interchange with Kell Freeway. It's about 3 miles from that point to where I-44 continues North and US-287 goes Northwest.

I don't expect I-44 to be extended Southwest from Wichita Falls any time soon. But I won't say it's a "never" proposition. If we can get back to a more normal political environment regarding cross-border trade and immigration there could be a big surge in traffic moving back and forth across the US/Mexico border.

China is at a dead end on multiple fronts. The nation is in a worsening state of demographic collapse. Its government debt load is increasing in even worse regard than ours. Political upheaval and/or societal collapse is becoming more likely. The point is China has turned into a really bad place for American companies to manufacture their goods. It's not cost-effective to repatriate all of that production back into America. But a good amount of that production can be moved to Mexico.

Another factor: America's agri-business sector. That has been very dependent on migrant labor, much of it illegal labor. As anti-immigrant crackdowns in the US intensify they'll make more American-based agri-businesses close shop and move South of the border. Far more of our beef, pork and produce will be imported.

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

Time will tell. After all, predicting the future is impossible, and I always take future predictions with a grain of salt.

[abqtraveler]

I wonder what number they'll go for? It would seem as though the obvious choice is Interstate 47 since it will be mostly between interstate 45 and 49 but if it's going to Amarillo, it could be an I-31 or I-33

I think US-287 will end up with multiple segments with multiple interstate designations.  My guess that from Beaumont to Corsicana would be I-47, which could probably continue past I-45 and all the way up to I-20 outside of Fort Worth.  The stretch from I-35W to I-40 will probably be I-32 (maybe 34, 36, or 38), since it runs more east-west than north-south. And the stretch of US-287 north of Amarillo has already been designated as part of the future I-27 extension, so the future of that segment is pretty well known.

[Molandfreak]

I sure hope they don't go with a hodgepodge of designations. This is obviously one corridor, grid be damned.

[Bobby5280]

I don't think US-287 going East of the I-45 corridor is all that important. As I said before, it's mostly a 2-lane route from Corsicana down to Beaumont. Maybe the segment around Beaumont and Port Arthur can be beefed up a bit. Even the proposed I-14 spur from Woodville down to Beaumont may be a long shot (the main route of I-14 has to be built after all).

AADT counts would support a 4-lane divided upgrade from Palestine down to Crockett and another 4-lane upgrade from Woodville to Beaumont (some portions of those segments are already 4-laned). The AADT numbers are in the 6,000 to 10,000 range. The AADT numbers get higher closer to Beaumont. The other segments have AADT counts only in the 2,000 to 3,000 range. That's hardly enough to justify any kind of 4-lane upgrade, much less a full blown Interstate upgrade.

AADT numbers on US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth are significantly higher. They're consistently above 10,000 between Amarillo and Wichita Falls. The numbers average 20,000 or more between Wichita Falls and Decatur and then go 30,000 and above from Decatur down toward Fort Worth. AADT levels on US-287 hit 80,000 just North of the merge into I-35W.

[NE2]

I sure hope they don't go with a hodgepodge of designations. This is obviously one corridor, grid be damned.

Amarillo to Fort Worth is obviously one corridor. The rest is just a secondary route southeast from DFW. Might as well extend I-45 to Amarillo.

[Bobby5280]

Another problem with a proposed Interstate upgrade of US-287 going east of I-45: the US-175 corridor nearby from Dallas to Athens. The segment of US-175 between Dallas and Kaufman is nearly all freeway. Then there are short freeway segments in Kaufman, Kemp and Mabank. The loop around Athens has a few freeway exits in 2-lane and 4-lane configuration.

If the segment of US-287 between Palestine and Crockett was upgraded to an Interstate quality freeway it looks more likely that freeway would extend up to Athens rather than follow US-287 to Corsicana.

[ElishaGOtis]

I sure hope they don't go with a hodgepodge of designations. This is obviously one corridor, grid be damned.

Amarillo to Fort Worth is obviously one corridor. The rest is just a secondary route southeast from DFW. Might as well extend I-45 to Amarillo.

I would personally prefer the following:

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

I'll probably make a fictional map detailing my idea/preference further.

[Molandfreak]

Another problem with a proposed Interstate upgrade of US-287 going east of I-45: the US-175 corridor nearby from Dallas to Athens. The segment of US-175 between Dallas and Kaufman is nearly all freeway. Then there are short freeway segments in Kaufman, Kemp and Mabank. The loop around Athens has a few freeway exits in 2-lane and 4-lane configuration.

If the segment of US-287 between Palestine and Crockett was upgraded to an Interstate quality freeway it looks more likely that freeway would extend up to Athens rather than follow US-287 to Corsicana.

Honestly, if something needs to be done from Dallas to Beaumont, utilizing the existing US 175 freeway/US 69 expressway is the right way to do it. And that's a big if since I-45 and I-20/I-49 adequately make that connection.

[The Ghostbuster]

I wouldn't support an Interstate designation along US 175. I would support eventually making US 175 a continuous four-lane freeway/tollway between Interstate 45 in Dallas and US 69 in Jacksonville.

[Molandfreak]

I wouldn't support an Interstate designation along US 175. I would support eventually making US 175 a continuous four-lane freeway/tollway between Interstate 45 in Dallas and US 69 in Jacksonville.

Ranking the choices that should have been available if the generously more creative MDOT controlled TXDOT:

*US 75 should absolutely have absorbed US 175 when it was truncated since they seem to have been dead set on keeping the US 75 freeway without extending I-45, but barring that...

*US 69 is truncated in favor of an upgraded US 175 reaching Beaumont. This seems like a good corridor to apply the "not every freeway needs to have a red, white, and blue shield" logic, plus it would also solve the next issue discussed.

*An Interstate designation is applied to the corridor which continues along US 287 to Amarillo. I hate wasting numbers that could conceivably continue just to fit a grid, so if an Interstate designation is necessary, this is how I would prefer to do it. Any change which truncates US 69 also has the benefit of removing a potentially confusing US 69/I-69 interchange.

*An independent Interstate designation from Dallas to Beaumont.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[ElishaGOtis]

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.

I only mention those numbers specifically because they are similar to the existing number of 287, with the 28 in 287 making I-28, and the 7 in 287 making I-47. While they're not perfect either the grid, neither are a bunch more routes... at least they're close lmao 

Regardless, I don't want to tread into fictional territory. For all I know something could have been approved regarding this at the AASHTO Fall meeting lol