News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Heartland Expressway

Started by andy3175, June 18, 2014, 01:21:35 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

andy3175

The Nebraska Department of Roads has a webpage providing updates on the progress of constructing the Heartland Expressway (generally following SR 71 south of Scottsbluff) in the Nebraska Panhandle Region:

http://www.transportation.nebraska.gov/projects/heartland-exp/index.htm

A copy of the Corridor Development and Management Plan is posted here, and the introduction section contains a map showing the expressway as not just the Nebraska SR 71 corridor but also portions of connecting routes US 26, US 385, and Nebraska SR L62A. It also shows how the Ports to Plains corridor connects to the south and the Theodore Roosevelt Expressway connects to the north.

QuoteThe Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21) enacted by Congress in May of 1998, authorized highway and other surface transportation programs for the period 1998 through 2003. One element of TEA-21 was the designation of additional High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System (NHS), including the Heartland Expressway Corridor, the Ports to Plains Corridor, and the Theodore Roosevelt Expressway. Together, these three corridors form the Ports to Plains Alliance Corridor connecting Canada to Mexico.

http://www.transportation.nebraska.gov/projects/heartland-exp/Heartland%20Expressway/document/2.0_Development%20Plan.pdf

QuoteThe vision of the proposed Heartland Expressway
improvements consists of the following:
- Widen US 26 to a four-lane divided highway from Torrington, Wyoming to County Road (CR) 10 east of Morrill, Nebraska.
- Widen US 26 to a four-lane divided highway from CR 30 in Minatare, Nebraska to the US 26/L62A junction.
- Widen L62A to four lanes with median from US 26/L62A split to US 385.
- Widen US 385 to four lanes with median from L62A Link to Nebraska Highway 2 (NE 2) in Alliance, Nebraska.2
- Improve US 385 into a "Super-2"  facility to include 12-foot lanes, 10-foot shoulders, auxiliary turn lanes and passing lanes from NE 2 to US 20 in Chadron, Nebraska. This should be constructed in accordance to the Super-2 criteria. The ultimate roadway section would include a four-lane highway when traffic volumes warrant the four-lane section.
- Improve the intersection of US 385 and US 20.
- Improve US 385 into a Super-2 facility to include 12-foot lanes, 10-foot shoulders, auxiliary turn lanes and passing lanes from US 20 west of Chadron, Nebraska to Oelrichs, South Dakota.
- Additional major safety and bottleneck improvements.

QuoteTh ere is a nearly 500 mile wide gap between the I-25 corridor in Wyoming and the I-29 corridor in Iowa. Specifically, there are no four-lane or greater north/south highways fully traversing the State of Nebraska. If one excludes the very short segment of Interstate 76 (I-76) in western Nebraska and the urban interstates (Interstate 180 (I-180) which is confined to Lincoln, Nebraska, and Interstates 480 and 680 (I-480 and I-680) which are confined to Omaha, Nebraska), Nebraska is one of only two lower 48 states with only one through/continuous Interstate Highway. The other state is Maine.

In developing the Interstate Highway System, many links were included for their connectivity rather than travel demand on any particular segment. Examples include Interstate 70 (I-70) through Eastern Utah and the interstate connections to the Canadian and Mexican borders. An objective view of the national highway network clearly indicates that the PTP Alliance Corridor would fi ll a missing gap in the highway network since there are currently no north/south routes through Nebraska. The closest north/south routes are I-25 through Colorado and Wyoming and I-29 in Iowa.

http://www.starherald.com/opinion/opinion-heartland-expressway/article_baaf8976-dfcb-11e3-8258-001a4bcf887a.html (5/20/2014)

QuoteThe long-delayed Heartland Expressway might get a boost from new federal highway legislation. The proposed freeway, which would connect Denver and Rapid City through the Nebraska Panhandle, is part of a larger project that would create an international trade corridor from Canada to Mexico for the region's abundant energy and agricultural products. Local community leaders have been promoting its completion for more than 20 years. It took a big step forward a few years ago when the Nebraska Department of Roads built a new interchange linking Interstate 80 with about 35 miles of expressway between Kimball and Scottsbluff.

QuoteThe NDOR report projects business and job growth and up to $943 million in economic benefits for the region over a 38-year span as a result of the project, through increased traffic volume, travel time savings, improved connections among trade centers, better labor access, improved access to manufacturing centers, better connections between agricultural centers and markets, better access between raw materials and processors, and better access for tourists.

"Overall travel demand in the four-state region in and around the (Panhandle) is expected to increase by approximately 90 percent between now and the year 2035,"  the plan states. "When these improvements are linked with the other Ports to Plains Alliance Corridor improvements located north and south of the Heartland Expressway Corridor, the proportion of trucks on the Heartland Expressway is expected to rise significantly and the overall travel demand share will increase ...."

The plan notes that the region will benefit "only if it is part of a continuous corridor that maintains a reliable and efficient route for freight."  That will require continuous four-lane freeway with higher posted speeds, so truckers and travelers can count on getting to their destinations on time. A piecemeal approach stretched over decades will delay the advantages.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com


M86

Good to see... I know NDOR (and the state legislators) were reluctant to give the Heartland Expressway funding...

It may not have huge traffic counts, but it is vital for truck traffic, and for creating a Denver to Rapid City link

It sounds like South Dakota has done their part...

Henry

It's time that they got really serious about this! While we may not see an I-27 on this corridor anytime soon, at least it's a start.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Bobby5280

I wouldn't mind seeing I-27 extended North into Colorado, following US-287 up through Lamar, Kit Carson and Limon where it meet up with I-70. There's a lot of trucks on that route, despite much of it being just 2 lanes. Many of them use it instead of driving into New Mexico and dealing with Raton Pass. A lot of other motorists do that as well. A lot of cattle processing plants and other facilities that involve heavy trucking border US-287 in North Texas.

I agree with the NDOR about Nebraska and much of the Great Plains being vastly under-serviced by the Interstate highway system. However, I don't think an Interstate highway between Rapid City and Denver is necessarily going to fill some of the really big connectivity holes in the system. One of the biggest, most obvious holes is the huge area inside I-40, I-25 and I-35. I think Denver and Oklahoma City ought to be directly connected by a diagonal Interstate highway. I think this would provide a much greater benefit to the overall Interstate highway system rather than an extension of I-27 -yet another North-South highway.

DJStephens

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 26, 2014, 11:17:00 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing I-27 extended North into Colorado, following US-287 up through Lamar, Kit Carson and Limon where it meet up with I-70. There's a lot of trucks on that route, despite much of it being just 2 lanes. Many of them use it instead of driving into New Mexico and dealing with Raton Pass. A lot of other motorists do that as well. A lot of cattle processing plants and other facilities that involve heavy trucking border US-287 in North Texas.

I agree with the NDOR about Nebraska and much of the Great Plains being vastly under-serviced by the Interstate highway system. However, I don't think an Interstate highway between Rapid City and Denver is necessarily going to fill some of the really big connectivity holes in the system. One of the biggest, most obvious holes is the huge area inside I-40, I-25 and I-35. I think Denver and Oklahoma City ought to be directly connected by a diagonal Interstate highway. I think this would provide a much greater benefit to the overall Interstate highway system rather than an extension of I-27 -yet another North-South highway.

very good post.  there has been a fair amount of work on the US 287 corridor, primarily in the DFW area in the last fifteen? years or so, in making that route a diagonal connector.   (Amarillo to Houston) 
   Read an article in "the Trucker" magazine close to twelve years ago - regarding the "Port to Plains" route.  The options were either US 87 from US 287 to I-25 (Raton, NM) or following the stated US 287 / US 385 route to Limon CO (I-70) to create the northerly extension of I-27 a bit east of Denver.   What ever happened to Port to plains?  Dead?   the easterly route (287/385) makes more sense, imho.   

Bobby5280

Development is still ongoing with the Ports to Plains corridor, although much of it is not being built to limited access, Interstate highway standards. Rather, portions are being built as four lane divided highways with at grade intersections.

There are no immediate plans to extend I-27 North from Amarillo or South from Lubbock. IMHO, it would be worthwhile to extend I-27 South from Lubbock through Big Spring and San Angelo and then dovetail it into I-10 at Junction. There is a huge amount of oil field development overall traffic growth happening out there. Having at least some kind of complete I-27 corridor would be a good thing, even if it has to be built as a toll road. The stretch between San Angelo and Junction would need an entirely new terrain route, especially to provide San Angelo and points North an efficient, direct path toward San Antonio.

I'm happy the US-64/87 four laning project from Clayton to Raton is finally complete. I drive that route whenever I travel from Oklahoma to Colorado to visit family. It was horribly slow and dangerous when it was just a 2 lane facility. US-87 in the Texas panhandle has been getting upgraded to a 4 lane highway over the past decade. The last 2 lane section of US-87 in the panhandle between Hartley and Dumas is under construction now.

US-87 is four laned between Lubbock and San Angelo as well as to US-83 at Eden, TX. From there down to Laredo is a whole lot of 2 lane route that will take many years to convert to 4-lane. I think there's a chance I-2 would be extended up to Laredo before that long stretch of road in Central Texas gets 4-laned.

The important thing is a big picture approach with these long distance corridors. The diagonal one I mentioned between Oklahoma City and Denver would be impossible to build without a lot of cooperation between Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado and the federal government.

I think I-69 is running into trouble entirely over this sort of thing. Each state is on its own to build their section of it. Mississippi apparently isn't going to bother with their portion of I-69 anytime soon, particularly the Great River Bridge part of it. Parts of I-49 may remain un-built for a long time because of lack of cooperation between states and the federal government. An incomplete corridor doesn't help very many people. A complete, through corridor helps a lot more.

Sadly, one state can get a neighboring state to do only so much. I've talked with a couple people who either currently serve on the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority board or have served on it in the past. Some of those people have tried repeatedly over the years to persuade Texas to extend I-44 at least to Abilene and I-20 so that corridor would be a through route. Certainly Southwest Oklahoma would benefit from it via dramatically increased traffic counts on the H.E. Bailey Turnpike. But cities like Wichita Falls and Abilene would benefit as well. Still, the powers that be in Texas won't hear any of it. I guess Texas likes its dead end Interstates.

Scott5114

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 11, 2014, 06:02:17 PM
The important thing is a big picture approach with these long distance corridors. The diagonal one I mentioned between Oklahoma City and Denver would be impossible to build without a lot of cooperation between Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado and the federal government.

I think I-69 is running into trouble entirely over this sort of thing. Each state is on its own to build their section of it. Mississippi apparently isn't going to bother with their portion of I-69 anytime soon, particularly the Great River Bridge part of it. Parts of I-49 may remain un-built for a long time because of lack of cooperation between states and the federal government. An incomplete corridor doesn't help very many people. A complete, through corridor helps a lot more.

If this were a proposal that was being seriously considered, I would imagine such a road, most likely as a turnpike, could be built linking I-40 around Calumet to Woodward along the US-270 corridor as a first SIU (you could also start at SH-3 and Kilpatrick if you acted fast before it has a chance to sprawl up). Politically, this could be pitched as a project to get Woodward linked to the Interstate system and boost the economy of northwest Oklahoma. From there, if you got KS and CO on board, it could be extended to Denver (or, probably more likely, I-70 at Limon). KS would be the sticking point because it would only marginally help Kansas and there are no major population centers along the corridor other than Liberal.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Bobby5280

#7
The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has had conceptual plans of an Oklahoma City to Woodward turnpike in the past. It has gone nowhere toward inching its way into reality. The traffic counts aren't high enough between Woodward and Oklahoma City to make such a turnpike on its own financially feasible.

Some long distance traffic from other parts of the US might use an OKC to Woodward Turnpike to cut at least some mileage off a trek to destinations like Denver and the rapid growth along the Rocky Mountains Front Range. Unfortunately once the cars and trucks reached Woodward they would be stuck wasting time and mileage on a grid of strictly North-South and East-West roads, most of them only 2 lane in nature.

If this conceptual super highway ran as a through route from the OKC suburbs up to Limon, CO and I-70 it would have no problem whatsoever generating the traffic counts needed to make the road financially feasible. The route would provide a major benefit for far reaching parts of the overall Interstate highway system.

Kansas would indeed probably be the most difficult to sell on this route. It wouldn't directly connect to any other superhighways in Kansas or connect to any major population centers. But significant parts of Kansas would still benefit from this route. Traffic from Wichita bound for Denver would have a better, faster route to get there. If the route followed as straight a line between Limon and Woodward it would go halfway between Liberal and Garden City. Even though it wouldn't go directly through those towns (or Dodge City, which would be even farther out of the way) it would still provide a great benefit to that region. Just imagine all the storm chaser vehicles that would be using that route during the Spring. :-P

One figure I heard was 30,000 cars per day is the bare minimum needed to even seriously consider building a new turnpike along a corridor. This is one reason why the Duncan to Davis and Clinton to Snyder turnpikes were proposed and then later cancelled in the 1990s. The roads have to go somewhere, even if they're providing relief to another over-loaded traffic corridor.

Much of the OKC to Denver highway I'm imagining would require a lot of new terrain routing. I would prefer it to start along the Kilpatric Turnpike near the OK-3 exit and then span a major gap between Okarche and Watonga. The route would only parallel US-270 closely once it neared Seiling. Starting this route off the Kilpatric near OK-3 would be difficult. There's a lot of development going there and many other places West of OKC. ODOT and OTA both need to start thinking about ROW acquisition and corridor protection if they have any desire to build any new super highways in the Metro OKC area.

One nice thing: even though the OTA doesn't have official plans for it they do want to connect the Kilpatric Turnpike with the H.E. Bailey turnpike extension and make a complete loop highway. The segment between I-40 through Mustang would be costly for all the property that would have to be bought and cleared. OTOH, far bigger road expansion projects have taken place elsewhere. If OTA had only taken the approach used by Texas for decades, making wide 4 lane streets with huge medians big enough to hold a future freeway, there wouldn't be any problem.

brad2971

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 12, 2014, 12:29:00 AM
The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has had conceptual plans of an Oklahoma City to Woodward turnpike in the past. It has gone nowhere toward inching its way into reality. The traffic counts aren't high enough between Woodward and Oklahoma City to make such a turnpike on its own financially feasible.

Some long distance traffic from other parts of the US might use an OKC to Woodward Turnpike to cut at least some mileage off a trek to destinations like Denver and the rapid growth along the Rocky Mountains Front Range. Unfortunately once the cars and trucks reached Woodward they would be stuck wasting time and mileage on a grid of strictly North-South and East-West roads, most of them only 2 lane in nature.

If this conceptual super highway ran as a through route from the OKC suburbs up to Limon, CO and I-70 it would have no problem whatsoever generating the traffic counts needed to make the road financially feasible. The route would provide a major benefit for far reaching parts of the overall Interstate highway system.

Kansas would indeed probably be the most difficult to sell on this route. It wouldn't directly connect to any other superhighways in Kansas or connect to any major population centers. But significant parts of Kansas would still benefit from this route. Traffic from Wichita bound for Denver would have a better, faster route to get there. If the route followed as straight a line between Limon and Woodward it would go halfway between Liberal and Garden City. Even though it wouldn't go directly through those towns (or Dodge City, which would be even farther out of the way) it would still provide a great benefit to that region. Just imagine all the storm chaser vehicles that would be using that route during the Spring. :-P

One figure I heard was 30,000 cars per day is the bare minimum needed to even seriously consider building a new turnpike along a corridor. This is one reason why the Duncan to Davis and Clinton to Snyder turnpikes were proposed and then later cancelled in the 1990s. The roads have to go somewhere, even if they're providing relief to another over-loaded traffic corridor.

Much of the OKC to Denver highway I'm imagining would require a lot of new terrain routing. I would prefer it to start along the Kilpatric Turnpike near the OK-3 exit and then span a major gap between Okarche and Watonga. The route would only parallel US-270 closely once it neared Seiling. Starting this route off the Kilpatric near OK-3 would be difficult. There's a lot of development going there and many other places West of OKC. ODOT and OTA both need to start thinking about ROW acquisition and corridor protection if they have any desire to build any new super highways in the Metro OKC area.

One nice thing: even though the OTA doesn't have official plans for it they do want to connect the Kilpatric Turnpike with the H.E. Bailey turnpike extension and make a complete loop highway. The segment between I-40 through Mustang would be costly for all the property that would have to be bought and cleared. OTOH, far bigger road expansion projects have taken place elsewhere. If OTA had only taken the approach used by Texas for decades, making wide 4 lane streets with huge medians big enough to hold a future freeway, there wouldn't be any problem.

Here's the problem with everything you've discussed: Wichita ALREADY has a "better, faster route" toward Denver. It's called I-135 to I-70. In fact, there is a whole route from Denver to the DFW metroplex that is already interstate-grade and FREE to the travelling public with the small exception of I-35 from Wichita to the OK border. Nearly all that route between Wichita and Denver registers AADT between 10000-20000 vehicles.

A rather big amount of the dollars CDOT spent to merely pave US287 in concrete in SE Colorado could've been more cost-effectively used to indemnify KDOT/KTA for removing tolls south of Wichita.

Repeat after me: There is no business case for Ports-to-Plains to be had.

Bobby5280

I absolutely will not repeat after you.

You're ignoring the fact there is a giant hole in the Interstate highway system and that it has next to nothing in terms of coverage for long distance traffic traveling between the Northwest US and Southeast US. Being in Denver you might appreciate not being stuck going South on I-25 or East on I-70 for hundreds of miles out of the way to reach something like destinations on the Gulf Coast.

A diagonal Interstate between OKC and Denver would allow drivers from Wichita to cut more than 40 miles off a drive to Denver, as opposed to driving in your preferred L-shape route of I-135 to I-70. The suggestion of DFW drivers traveling clear to Salina, KS to pick up I-70 and go to Denver is just plain stupid. They all take US-287 to Amarillo and then travel up to Raton, NM.

BTW, Colorado's network of roads are a pretty bad (and dangerous) joke. I can't tell if CDOT is spending much money at all on its network of roads. If they are it's not actually getting into the pavement. For example, if Oklahoma had a road like US-24 between Colorado Springs and Limon (Jct I-70) it would be 4 laned. It seems like every time I visit my parents in the 'Springs some poor driver is getting splattered on US-24.

DJStephens

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 11, 2014, 06:02:17 PM
Development is still ongoing with the Ports to Plains corridor, although much of it is not being built to limited access, Interstate highway standards. Rather, portions are being built as four lane divided highways with at grade intersections.

There are no immediate plans to extend I-27 North from Amarillo or South from Lubbock. IMHO, it would be worthwhile to extend I-27 South from Lubbock through Big Spring and San Angelo and then dovetail it into I-10 at Junction. There is a huge amount of oil field development overall traffic growth happening out there. Having at least some kind of complete I-27 corridor would be a good thing, even if it has to be built as a toll road. The stretch between San Angelo and Junction would need an entirely new terrain route, especially to provide San Angelo and points North an efficient, direct path toward San Antonio.

Have been in Hobbs, NM several times - to work at the under - staffed home depot there, and the road network in the "oil patch" is terrible - and taking a beating from the high levels of trucking criss - crossing the area.  The Hobbs "bypass" is a joke - a four lane twisted route without a center turn lane on the northwest side of town.  The US 62 - 180 mainline should have been placed on an Interstate grade bypass skirting the northwest side of town - farther out.  Another route that needs upgrading is the NM 529 connector between US 62-180 and US 82 - really ought to have three lanes throughout, for passing oil field traffic, with twelve foot shoulders.  Investing in modern surface infrastructure in the southeastern corner of NM certainly would have made more sense than  fantasy trains and spaceports.   

SD Mapman

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 26, 2014, 11:17:00 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing I-27 extended North into Colorado, following US-287 up through Lamar, Kit Carson and Limon where it meet up with I-70. There's a lot of trucks on that route, despite much of it being just 2 lanes. Many of them use it instead of driving into New Mexico and dealing with Raton Pass. A lot of other motorists do that as well. A lot of cattle processing plants and other facilities that involve heavy trucking border US-287 in North Texas.

I agree with the NDOR about Nebraska and much of the Great Plains being vastly under-serviced by the Interstate highway system. However, I don't think an Interstate highway between Rapid City and Denver is necessarily going to fill some of the really big connectivity holes in the system.
You know, if it's already going to be into CO, why not pull it up to the Bakken? It would make sense.
Quote from: andy3175 on June 18, 2014, 01:21:35 AM
QuoteThe vision of the proposed Heartland Expressway
improvements consists of the following:
- Widen US 26 to a four-lane divided highway from Torrington, Wyoming to County Road (CR) 10 east of Morrill, Nebraska.
- Widen US 26 to a four-lane divided highway from CR 30 in Minatare, Nebraska to the US 26/L62A junction.
- Widen L62A to four lanes with median from US 26/L62A split to US 385.
- Widen US 385 to four lanes with median from L62A Link to Nebraska Highway 2 (NE 2) in Alliance, Nebraska.2
- Improve US 385 into a "Super-2"  facility to include 12-foot lanes, 10-foot shoulders, auxiliary turn lanes and passing lanes from NE 2 to US 20 in Chadron, Nebraska. This should be constructed in accordance to the Super-2 criteria. The ultimate roadway section would include a four-lane highway when traffic volumes warrant the four-lane section.
- Improve the intersection of US 385 and US 20.
- Improve US 385 into a Super-2 facility to include 12-foot lanes, 10-foot shoulders, auxiliary turn lanes and passing lanes from US 20 west of Chadron, Nebraska to Oelrichs, South Dakota.
- Additional major safety and bottleneck improvements.
I also like how NDOR just assumes they can tell WYDOT and SDDOT what to do. We already have it 4-lane to the border!
The traveler sees what he sees, the tourist sees what he has come to see. - G.K. Chesterton



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.