AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: TheBox on June 08, 2021, 06:58:22 PM

Title: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TheBox on June 08, 2021, 06:58:22 PM
...Off of the following:
*US-87 from Tahoka to San Angelo (below Lubbock), and from north of Amarillo to Duma and then to either Raton, NM or Limon, CO (where it merges to I-25, one way or another)
*TX-349/TX-158 from Lamesa to near Sterling City (I-27W)
*US-277/US-377 from San Angelo to Carrizo Springs
*US-83 from Carrizo Springs to merging into I-35 @ Botines?
NOTE: Expect and pay attention to potential bypasses, 4-lane upgrades, and/or overpass upgrades for any of these US routes


the recent Big Spring and Del Rio bypasses are also potentially part of the I-27 extension
(https://townsquare.media/site/192/files/2020/06/I27_CorridorExpansion_VER003_ForKFYOWebsite.jpg)
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/01/36/22/17163409/5/rawImage.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/pfTMz00/Ports-To-Plain.png)
(https://www.americansov.org/images/ports_to_plains_map_2.jpg)
(https://eagle-post-image-archive.s3.amazonaws.com/panhandlepost.com/2013/05/Ports-to-Plains-map-1.jpg)


News of I-27 extension is still going on, with March 2021 at the latest (https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/rep-jackson-backs-bill-to-prep-i-27-for-expansion), whiling I-14 is more or less short-lived cause of funding issues (for now) and will end up like I-27, before the extension plans ironically enough.

With all that being said, we wait for and watch the upgrades happen.  :popcorn:
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: silverback1065 on June 08, 2021, 07:06:40 PM
Quote from: TheBox on June 08, 2021, 06:58:22 PM
...Off of the following:
*US-87 from Tahoka to San Angelo (below Lubbock), and from north of Amarillo to Duma and then to either Raton, NM (where it merges to I-25, one way or another)
*TX-349 from Lamesa to near Sterling City
*US-277 from San Angelo to Carrizo Springs
*US-83 from Carrizo Springs to merging into I-35 @ Botines?
NOTE: Expect and pay attention to potential bypasses, 4-lane upgrades, and/or overpass upgrades for any of these US routes


the recent Big Spring and Del Rio are also potentially part of the I-27 extension

News of I-27 extension is still going on, with March 2021 at the latest (https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/rep-jackson-backs-bill-to-prep-i-27-for-expansion), whiling I-14 is more or less short-lived and will end up like I-27, before the extension plans ironically enough.

With all that being said, we wait for and watch the upgrades happen.  :popcorn:
We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Pixel 5

Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 08, 2021, 08:28:12 PM
That would be news to Texas and North Carolina!
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TheBox on June 08, 2021, 08:33:34 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 08, 2021, 08:28:12 PM
That would be news to Texas and North Carolina!
why North Carolina?

don't you mean Colorado?

EDIT: i think you were talking about I-14, right? which has funding issues
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: In_Correct on June 08, 2021, 08:41:10 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 08, 2021, 07:06:40 PM
Quote from: TheBox on June 08, 2021, 06:58:22 PM
...Off of the following:
*US-87 from Tahoka to San Angelo (below Lubbock), and from north of Amarillo to Duma and then to either Raton, NM (where it merges to I-25, one way or another)
*TX-349 from Lamesa to near Sterling City
*US-277 from San Angelo to Carrizo Springs
*US-83 from Carrizo Springs to merging into I-35 @ Botines?
NOTE: Expect and pay attention to potential bypasses, 4-lane upgrades, and/or overpass upgrades for any of these US routes


the recent Big Spring and Del Rio are also potentially part of the I-27 extension

News of I-27 extension is still going on, with March 2021 at the latest (https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/rep-jackson-backs-bill-to-prep-i-27-for-expansion), whiling I-14 is more or less short-lived and will end up like I-27, before the extension plans ironically enough.

With all that being said, we wait for and watch the upgrades happen.  :popcorn:
We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Pixel 5

What is ridiculous is that people continue to advocate for removal of Interstates instead of construction.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on June 08, 2021, 09:42:52 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 08, 2021, 07:06:40 PM
Quote from: TheBox on June 08, 2021, 06:58:22 PM
...Off of the following:
*US-87 from Tahoka to San Angelo (below Lubbock), and from north of Amarillo to Duma and then to either Raton, NM (where it merges to I-25, one way or another)
*TX-349 from Lamesa to near Sterling City
*US-277 from San Angelo to Carrizo Springs
*US-83 from Carrizo Springs to merging into I-35 @ Botines?
NOTE: Expect and pay attention to potential bypasses, 4-lane upgrades, and/or overpass upgrades for any of these US routes


the recent Big Spring and Del Rio are also potentially part of the I-27 extension

News of I-27 extension is still going on, with March 2021 at the latest (https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/rep-jackson-backs-bill-to-prep-i-27-for-expansion), whiling I-14 is more or less short-lived and will end up like I-27, before the extension plans ironically enough.

With all that being said, we wait for and watch the upgrades happen.  :popcorn:
We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Pixel 5
The corridor from north of I-10 does make sense - all of the eastern portion of Texas from Dallas to San Antonio to Houston lacks any direct interstate connection to the northwest.

From a system perspective, it does make some sense south of I-10 to Laredo as well, given it would connect that metro to the northwest, the only reasonable is questionable is merely low volumes.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: SkyPesos on June 08, 2021, 10:01:33 PM
Is I-27 getting extended north, south or both ways? I only heard of a potential northern extension idea up to I-70 east of Denver, not an extension southward, though a southern extension would compliment the Denver link well.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 08, 2021, 10:25:46 PM
It's going to be a long time before I-27 is ever extended North of Amarillo. There is some potential and even planning work done for bringing US-87/287 up to Interstate standards into Dumas. There has been talk about a West bypass around town; not everyone in Dumas wants it though, but they don't like all the truck traffic through the middle of town either. An I-27 upgrade up to Stratford, TX would not be all that difficult.

I think routing an Interstate from Amarillo to Raton is a non-starter. New Mexico isn't going to have any of it. The existing 4-lane US-64/87 is already sufficient for the most part; it just needs better shoulders and pavement. The only realistic path for I-27 Northward is going up to Boise City, Lamar, Kit Carson and Limon.

A Southern extension would happen first. It's more justifiable. Big Spring has its loop going around town. San Angelo needs to be connected. Obviously the Midland-Odessa metro opens the door for a I-27W/I-27E situation.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: FightingIrish on June 08, 2021, 11:03:19 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 08, 2021, 09:42:52 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 08, 2021, 07:06:40 PM
Quote from: TheBox on June 08, 2021, 06:58:22 PM
...Off of the following:
*US-87 from Tahoka to San Angelo (below Lubbock), and from north of Amarillo to Duma and then to either Raton, NM (where it merges to I-25, one way or another)
*TX-349 from Lamesa to near Sterling City
*US-277 from San Angelo to Carrizo Springs
*US-83 from Carrizo Springs to merging into I-35 @ Botines?
NOTE: Expect and pay attention to potential bypasses, 4-lane upgrades, and/or overpass upgrades for any of these US routes


the recent Big Spring and Del Rio are also potentially part of the I-27 extension

News of I-27 extension is still going on, with March 2021 at the latest (https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/rep-jackson-backs-bill-to-prep-i-27-for-expansion), whiling I-14 is more or less short-lived and will end up like I-27, before the extension plans ironically enough.

With all that being said, we wait for and watch the upgrades happen.  :popcorn:
We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Pixel 5
The corridor from north of I-10 does make sense - all of the eastern portion of Texas from Dallas to San Antonio to Houston lacks any direct interstate connection to the northwest.

From a system perspective, it does make some sense south of I-10 to Laredo as well, given it would connect that metro to the northwest, the only reasonable is questionable is merely low volumes.
This routing would actually give an alternate truck routing away from the crowded I-35 corridor. Most of the road north of I-40 has more regional interest.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Scott5114 on June 09, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 08, 2021, 07:06:40 PM
We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Franklin D. Roosevelt (https://unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2018/06/RG30_Series10_FDRProposedHighways-1.jpg), what are you doing on this road forum?
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: bwana39 on June 09, 2021, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 08, 2021, 07:06:40 PM

We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Pixel 5

I agree with you. I frankly prefer a 4-lane divided highway with grade separations at major intersections and true freeway bypasses around all of the towns in many of the rural areas.  It should be able to be signed and safely traveled at 70 to 75 mph EVERYWHERE.

Some of these roads eventually will need to be fully access controlled. Others will not.  Do it a little bit at a time then see if it needs a full interstate QUALITY road.

Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 09, 2021, 03:59:30 PM
Since 1990 Texas has had a long range plan to develop a "trunk system" of 4 lane divided highways. One feature of the plan was building bypasses around towns or thru routes on existing alignments that would either be freeways or upgradeable to freeways. The US-277 project between Wichita Falls and Abilene is one example of this trunk highway concept. One nice aspect to this plan is the resulting hybrid freeway/expressway roads would have segments easier to upgrade to Interstate quality later if needed.

Some of the corridors we frequently mention, such as this topic of US-87 in relation to I-27, were included in the Phase 1 plan trunk system plan.

A 4-lane divided highway is certainly going to be safer and more efficient at moving traffic than a mere 2-lane road. However 4-lane divided highways still have plenty of conflict points from vehicles turning onto the highway from at-grade streets or driveways. The conflict points are enhanced when thru traffic is moving at speeds of 70mph or more.

I think US-87 through most of the Panhandle down to far South Texas needs to be Interstate quality. Amarillo, Lubbock, Big Spring, Midland-Odessa, San Angelo, Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo form a pretty valuable commercial traffic corridor -one that would be even better connected to the Front Range cities in Colorado.

Statements that suggest Texas is trying to be North Carolina by frivolously signing new Interstates is just ridiculous. Texas is a gigantic state and its existing Interstate quality routes are spaced much farther apart than many states farther East. Texas is also home to four of the biggest urban MSA's in the nation, with Austin & San Antonio effectively merging into one huge MSA. Texas is continuing to add population at a fast rate, some of which is being drawn from the West Coast and Northeast. All that adds up to Texas needing to beef up its highways in a big way. Not every "trunk route" in Texas is worthy of an Interstate upgrade. But there is at least half a dozen corridors in Texas definitely worthy of Interstate upgrades.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: In_Correct on June 09, 2021, 04:06:41 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on June 09, 2021, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 08, 2021, 07:06:40 PM

We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Pixel 5

I agree with you. I frankly prefer a 4-lane divided highway with grade separations at major intersections and true freeway bypasses around all of the towns in many of the rural areas.  It should be able to be signed and safely traveled at 70 to 75 mph EVERYWHERE.

Some of these roads eventually will need to be fully access controlled. Others will not.  Do it a little bit at a time then see if it needs a full interstate QUALITY road.

It is not a new Designation. It is simply an extension of Interstate 27 which has not been extended in Decades. The current appearance of Interstate 27 makes it seem as it ought to be a 3 Digit instead? They want to extend Interstate 27 or it would have been named an X40 ... Also even though they had changed an old alignment of Interstate 540 to become a part of Interstate 49.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 09, 2021, 04:23:45 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 09, 2021, 03:59:30 PM
Since 1990 Texas has had a long range plan to develop a "trunk system" of 4 lane divided highways. One feature of the plan was building bypasses around towns or thru routes on existing alignments that would either be freeways or upgradeable to freeways. The US-277 project between Wichita Falls and Abilene is one example of this trunk highway concept. One nice aspect to this plan is the resulting hybrid freeway/expressway roads would have segments easier to upgrade to Interstate quality later if needed.

Some of the corridors we frequently mention, such as this topic of US-87 in relation to I-27, were included in the Phase 1 plan trunk system plan.

A 4-lane divided highway is certainly going to be safer and more efficient at moving traffic than a mere 2-lane road. However 4-lane divided highways still have plenty of conflict points from vehicles turning onto the highway from at-grade streets or driveways. The conflict points are enhanced when thru traffic is moving at speeds of 70mph or more.

I think US-87 through most of the Panhandle down to far South Texas needs to be Interstate quality. Amarillo, Lubbock, Big Spring, Midland-Odessa, San Angelo, Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo form a pretty valuable commercial traffic corridor -one that would be even better connected to the Front Range cities in Colorado.

Statements that suggest Texas is trying to be North Carolina by frivolously signing new Interstates is just ridiculous. Texas is a gigantic state and its existing Interstate quality routes are spaced much farther apart than many states farther East. Texas is also home to four of the biggest urban MSA's in the nation, with Austin & San Antonio effectively merging into one huge MSA. Texas is continuing to add population at a fast rate, some of which is being drawn from the West Coast and Northeast. All that adds up to Texas needing to beef up its highways in a big way. Not every "trunk route" in Texas is worthy of an Interstate upgrade. But there is at least half a dozen corridors in Texas definitely worthy of Interstate upgrades.

The biggest problem I have with the Texas trunk system is if you are a driver that is not familiar with the areas that have the bypasses (exacerbated by fatigue) you can easily fall into the trap of not knowing where the freeway ends and the expressway begins seeing how you have a 4-lane divided highway in both cases.  It can be quite problematic driving 70 mph and having limited access then suddenly you have a pickup with a trailer pulling into the road from a right angle.  The discrepancy in speed is deadly, and that's one of the biggest reasons why the interstate system exists.  I know lots of people on this forum say a 4-lane rural expressway is "good enough", but I find it to be very scary.  It looks, feels and smells like a freeway so it's easy to relax and feel safe when instead you should be on high alert. 

This system is one of the reasons I am so onboard to construct many miles of rural freeway in Texas.  Simply put, the current setup is dangerous.  I am not saying don't have bypasses, but it's never handled correctly.  A lot of time with small town bypasses in Texas, there is not an "END FREEWAY" assembly.  There are some in the state, but Texas does a very bad job of that crucial detail.  It should be one of three setups:

1. 4-lane expressway with town freeway bypasses, but very well marked where the freeway begins and ends and every crossover between freeway sections clearly marked.

2. Freeway bypasses with undivided highways outside the bypasses.  I hate that too, but it will keep people alert where the freeway ends/begins.

3. Make the whole thing a freeway which is the safest.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on June 09, 2021, 04:45:52 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 09, 2021, 03:59:30 PM
Statements that suggest Texas is trying to be North Carolina by frivolously signing new Interstates is just ridiculous. Texas is a gigantic state and its existing Interstate quality routes are spaced much farther apart than many states farther East. Texas is also home to four of the biggest urban MSA's in the nation, with Austin & San Antonio effectively merging into one huge MSA. Texas is continuing to add population at a fast rate, some of which is being drawn from the West Coast and Northeast. All that adds up to Texas needing to beef up its highways in a big way. Not every "trunk route" in Texas is worthy of an Interstate upgrade. But there is at least half a dozen corridors in Texas definitely worthy of Interstate upgrades.
Agreed, and it's funny to me, because all the proposed corridors for North Carolina also make logical sense for interstate upgrade, for reasons whether it be connectivity, safety, etc.

But no one actually pays attention to the details, they hear "new interstate"  and repeat the same pattern of complaining.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: In_Correct on June 09, 2021, 11:47:13 PM
I also agree. Avenues be placed temporarily between The Bypasses and The Boulevards as long as they have Right Of Way preserved for future upgrades. Unfortunately, Wichita Falls does not.

They need to preserve plenty of space for these:

https://i.imgur.com/XBAJ74O.jpg

On the other hand, at least Wichita Falls constructed grade separations in the middle of town to steer away from stupid at grade Highways that go through town as stupid at grade one way pairs with buildings in the middle of them.

Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 10, 2021, 02:12:43 PM
In the case of Wichita Falls, one thing I find extremely unfortunate is their "plan" for improving US-82/277 between the current West end of Kell Freeway and the Holliday Bypass. Rather than the original plan to build an Interstate quality connector from Kell to the Holliday Bypass they're now going to do a very modest widening project on the existing road. The existing 4-lane undivided segment of Seymour Highway will be 4-lane undivided, but with a center turn lane. That's it.

The property owners along that stretch didn't want to be bypassed by a new freeway. But the property owners are mostly small industrial and agri-business shops. It makes for a very ugly entrance into the West side of Wichita Falls. I don't know what it would have hurt to bypass those corrugated metal buildings with a freeway. It's not like they're restaurants or retailers trying to attract customers off the street.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14The biggest problem I have with the Texas trunk system is if you are a driver that is not familiar with the areas that have the bypasses (exacerbated by fatigue) you can easily fall into the trap of not knowing where the freeway ends and the expressway begins seeing how you have a 4-lane divided highway in both cases.  It can be quite problematic driving 70 mph and having limited access then suddenly you have a pickup with a trailer pulling into the road form a right angle.  The discrepancy in speed is deadly, and that's one of the biggest reasons why the interstate system exists.  I know lots of people on this forum say a 4-lane rural expressway is "good enough", but I find it to be very scary.  It looks, feels and smells like a freeway so it's easy to relax and feel safe when instead you should be on high alert.

Texas used to be big on posting "Freeway Ends" signs ahead of where a freeway was about to downgrade into an ordinary 2-lane or 4-lane highway. They also need to do additional things to improve safety along 4-lane divided highways. At-grade intersections with 4-lane highways needs to be greatly limited. The intersections that are allowed need to be in easily visible locations, properly signed and lighted at night.

I think one of the biggest dangers is at-grade intersections near or just beyond the crest of a hill. If some farmer in a pickup truck hauling a trailer whips out into the main lanes of a 4-lane divided highway you can at least change lanes, slow down, etc if you see him pulling into the road up ahead. But if he is beyond the crest of a hill that's a recipe for disaster. 4-lane divided highways need ample shoulders or even acceleration lanes in some of these cases.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: bwana39 on June 10, 2021, 03:43:23 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 10, 2021, 02:12:43 PM
In the case of Wichita Falls, one thing I find extremely unfortunate is their "plan" for improving US-82/277 between the current West end of Kell Freeway and the Holliday Bypass. Rather than the original plan to build an Interstate quality connector from Kell to the Holliday Bypass they're now going to do a very modest widening project on the existing road. The existing 4-lane undivided segment of Seymour Highway will be 4-lane undivided, but with a center turn lane. That's it.

The property owners along that stretch didn't want to be bypassed by a new freeway. But the property owners are mostly small industrial and agri-business shops. It makes for a very ugly entrance into the West side of Wichita Falls. I don't know what it would have hurt to bypass those corrugated metal buildings with a freeway. It's not like they're restaurants or retailers trying to attract customers off the street.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14The biggest problem I have with the Texas trunk system is if you are a driver that is not familiar with the areas that have the bypasses (exacerbated by fatigue) you can easily fall into the trap of not knowing where the freeway ends and the expressway begins seeing how you have a 4-lane divided highway in both cases.  It can be quite problematic driving 70 mph and having limited access then suddenly you have a pickup with a trailer pulling into the road form a right angle.  The discrepancy in speed is deadly, and that's one of the biggest reasons why the interstate system exists.  I know lots of people on this forum say a 4-lane rural expressway is "good enough", but I find it to be very scary.  It looks, feels and smells like a freeway so it's easy to relax and feel safe when instead you should be on high alert.

Texas used to be big on posting "Freeway Ends" signs ahead of where a freeway was about to downgrade into an ordinary 2-lane or 4-lane highway. They also need to do additional things to improve safety along 4-lane divided highways. At-grade intersections with 4-lane highways needs to be greatly limited. The intersections that are allowed need to be in easily visible locations, properly signed and lighted at night.

I think one of the biggest dangers is at-grade intersections near or just beyond the crest of a hill. If some farmer in a pickup truck hauling a trailer whips out into the main lanes of a 4-lane divided highway you can at least change lanes, slow down, etc if you see him pulling into the road up ahead. But if he is beyond the crest of a hill that's a recipe for disaster. 4-lane divided highways need ample shoulders or even acceleration lanes in some of these cases.

The part of US-82 between the Lamar County Line and a point west of SH-121 near Bonham has better left turn lanes on the crossovers on the four lane divided highway. They have a significant length.   The 4-lane is open and construction is almost through.  GSV still shows the two lane.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: silverback1065 on June 11, 2021, 08:21:57 AM
"port to plains" just seems like a slim excuse to build another interstate we don't really need. just like 69 from memphis to texas, marginally useful. what evidence has been presented that we need to spend billions doing this? will it really impact trade at all? sounds like bs to me.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: MikieTimT on June 11, 2021, 09:19:13 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 11, 2021, 08:21:57 AM
"port to plains" just seems like a slim excuse to build another interstate we don't really need. just like 69 from memphis to texas, marginally useful. what evidence has been presented that we need to spend billions doing this? will it really impact trade at all? sounds like bs to me.

Coming from Indiana, where there is marginal growth, if any at all, I can understand the view that what we have for Interstates is good enough.  Indiana has an adequate system for its population already and can't justify tax expenditures that don't directly benefit themselves.  There are large swathes of the U.S. where that is truly the case, and those that make this argument are undoubtedly from one of those areas, or one where population has started decreasing, which means that the Interstate system in certain areas may truly be or become overbuilt.

However, there are areas in the country where rapid growth is occurring where the original mileage of the Interstate Highway System didn't connect at the time as it was deemed unnecessary or prohibitively expensive.  Texas, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, and certain pockets all around the South and West are booming with growth right now, which means that we either wait until the LOS of every road in the high growth areas falls to D or F, or we plan for the growth and address it whenever there is opportunity and make logical connections between MSAs which will inevitably increase in trade and traffic between them.  The stereotypical view of we shouldn't make changes until the AADT reaches an arbitrary threshold doesn't facilitate the commerce that we desperately need right now to dig the economy and our livelihoods back out of the convulsion that it just experienced.  Infrastructure expenditure almost always provides a multiplier effect to the investment, unless it truly is "pork".  However, just because it doesn't happen in our backyards, doesn't necessarily make the expenditure "pork."  Besides, Texas as a state has lots of mileage of state highways which are Interstate grade which they don't request Interstate designation for, likely because they don't want the feds dictating what happens with the road.  Kind of like their electrical grid, for better or worse.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 11, 2021, 10:23:05 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 11, 2021, 08:21:57 AM
"port to plains" just seems like a slim excuse to build another interstate we don't really need. just like 69 from memphis to texas, marginally useful. what evidence has been presented that we need to spend billions doing this? will it really impact trade at all? sounds like bs to me.

I am going to try to not be the guy that says "I hate it when someone halfway across the country tells me the road I sit in traffic in every day is 'perfectly fine' and doesn't need an upgrade", but I guess I just did. 

Bottom line is Texas can't keep up with the growth the state has been experiencing, largely due to it's own fault.  They tried for as long as they possibly could to pass off their infrastructure meeting bare minimum requirements.  The truth to life is, no matter what your goal is, you will just miss the mark (the old saying aim for the stars so you will hit the moon).  When you shoot for the bare minimum, you will fall short of that too, making a very inadequate product. All those 4-laned interstates between major cites are becoming nightmares to upgrade to multi lane freeways, some just 6-lanes and that's 20 years too late.   The same can be said about regular highways that were once pretty good but are now stupidly sub standard.  I am still pushing for the SH-71 to US 290 corridor through Austin to become an interstate.  I think of all the projects, that one makes the most sense.

Texas has grown in ways I have a hard time fathoming.  The hour drive from Austin to San Antonio that used to take an hour can take up to three now.  You can't book camping at a state park anymore within a 200 mile radius of Austin, San Antonio, Houston or The Metropex unless it's months in advance (which is most of the state parks in Texas).  Stuff that used to have a smattering of people now have waiting lists and require reservations.  South by Southwest used to be a local film and music festival that is now an international event.  This state basically can't keep up with the growth.  A lot of times it's suffocating.  Places I used to go to to "get away" now have tons of people.  There is a reason people say that Texas roads are constantly in the state of repair.  It's because they constantly need upgrading.  The growth has been going on for three decades now, and right now it's gotten to the point it's just too much.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: abqtraveler on June 11, 2021, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on June 11, 2021, 09:19:13 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 11, 2021, 08:21:57 AM
"port to plains" just seems like a slim excuse to build another interstate we don't really need. just like 69 from memphis to texas, marginally useful. what evidence has been presented that we need to spend billions doing this? will it really impact trade at all? sounds like bs to me.

Coming from Indiana, where there is marginal growth, if any at all, I can understand the view that what we have for Interstates is good enough.  Indiana has an adequate system for its population already and can't justify tax expenditures that don't directly benefit themselves.  There are large swathes of the U.S. where that is truly the case, and those that make this argument are undoubtedly from one of those areas, or one where population has started decreasing, which means that the Interstate system in certain areas may truly be or become overbuilt.

However, there are areas in the country where rapid growth is occurring where the original mileage of the Interstate Highway System didn't connect at the time as it was deemed unnecessary or prohibitively expensive.  Texas, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, and certain pockets all around the South and West are booming with growth right now, which means that we either wait until the LOS of every road in the high growth areas falls to D or F, or we plan for the growth and address it whenever there is opportunity and make logical connections between MSAs which will inevitably increase in trade and traffic between them.  The stereotypical view of we shouldn't make changes until the AADT reaches an arbitrary threshold doesn't facilitate the commerce that we desperately need right now to dig the economy and our livelihoods back out of the convulsion that it just experienced.  Infrastructure expenditure almost always provides a multiplier effect to the investment, unless it truly is "pork".  However, just because it doesn't happen in our backyards, doesn't necessarily make the expenditure "pork."  Besides, Texas as a state has lots of mileage of state highways which are Interstate grade which they don't request Interstate designation for, likely because they don't want the feds dictating what happens with the road.  Kind of like their electrical grid, for better or worse.

And to your point, in states that are experiencing large population declines (Michigan sticks out as a shining example, but this would apply to just about anywhere in the Rust Belt), officials should consider either removing or downgrading freeways that were built at a time when the population for a given area peaked, but are now underutilized with the ensuing population decline. For example, as the abandoned neighborhoods that cover large swaths of the Detroit metro area are bulldozed--some of that land reverting back to farming--it would make sense to officials to take a hard look at the region's expansive freeway network and decide which ones should be kept and which ones should be either downgraded to surface roads or removed entirely to reduce the state's recurring costs for maintaining these highways. It would follow the same model in other parts of Michigan where underutilized paved roads were reverted back to dirt or gravel to save money on upkeep. 

Aside from long-haul highways that make up strategic national corridors, freeway building and removal should be based on population trends within a given area.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: silverback1065 on June 11, 2021, 12:07:47 PM
let me clarify, i was referring to the portion outside of texas. why does there need to be an interstate in that part of colorado and montana and the dakotas? your growth argument doesn't seem to apply there at all!
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TXtoNJ on June 11, 2021, 12:32:29 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 10, 2021, 02:12:43 PMTexas used to be big on posting "Freeway Ends" signs ahead of where a freeway was about to downgrade into an ordinary 2-lane or 4-lane highway.

Fair point. Texas has really, really cheapened out on the signage in recent decades (probably because of stretched budgets). I do think California-style "Freeway Entrance" and "End Freeway" signs would be a useful safety improvement (hey, you could even incorporate the Vienna motorway symbol if you wanted to!)
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 11, 2021, 12:37:00 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 11, 2021, 12:07:47 PM
let me clarify, i was referring to the portion outside of texas. why does there need to be an interstate in that part of colorado and montana and the dakotas? your growth argument doesn't seem to apply there at all!

Stuff gotta go somewhere.  If that was the constant conversation during the original interstate plan, we wouldn't have I-86 in Idaho, and we would have never built most of the western parts of I-40 and I-10.  The freeways go through some of the most desolate parts of the country, yes, but as a whole they need to be there.  The interstate system is all about the big picture, not whether or not this particular 100 acre area needs a freeway or not.  Los Angeles needed a link to Phoenix, Houston, New Orleans and Jacksonville, so I-10 was built.  What you get in the process are freeways in the middle of nowhere, but thems the breaks. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TXtoNJ on June 11, 2021, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 11, 2021, 12:37:00 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 11, 2021, 12:07:47 PM
let me clarify, i was referring to the portion outside of texas. why does there need to be an interstate in that part of colorado and montana and the dakotas? your growth argument doesn't seem to apply there at all!

Stuff gotta go somewhere.  If that was the constant conversation during the original interstate plan, we wouldn't have I-86 in Idaho, and we would have never built most of the western parts of I-40 and I-10.  The freeways go through some of the most desolate parts of the country, yes, but as a whole they need to be there.  The interstate system is all about the big picture, not weather or not this particular 100 acre area needs a freeway or not.  Los Angeles needed a link to Phoenix, Houston, New Orleans and Jacksonville, so I-10 was built.  What you get in the process is freeways is the middle of nowhere, but thems the breaks. 

Can't forget the defense justifications, either. I-10 would have been an important materiel transport/defensive line in case of a Soviet amphibious invasion of the Gulf of California.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on June 11, 2021, 12:43:36 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 11, 2021, 12:07:47 PM
let me clarify, i was referring to the portion outside of texas. why does there need to be an interstate in that part of colorado and montana and the dakotas? your growth argument doesn't seem to apply there at all!
Connecting the major areas of Texas like Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, all the way down to Laredo, McAllen, Brownsville, etc. which combined have easily over 10+ million population, to the Denver, the Northwest, etc. and the I-25 and I-70 corridors. There's currently no interstate connection there today.

The part north of I-70 is certainly more debatable in regards to need.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on June 11, 2021, 12:47:32 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 11, 2021, 10:23:05 AM
I am going to try to not be the guy that says "I hate it when someone halfway across the country tells me the road I sit in traffic in every day is 'perfectly fine' and doesn't need an upgrade", but I guess I just did. 
Gotta love these types of posters, they seem to be everywhere. Or the ones that visit an area once and say "there's no need here"  as they drive it at an off peak time and have never experienced any sort of peak congestion.

Then of course the many that solely look at something in terms of traffic volumes, and ignore other factors such as truck percentages, safety, regional connectivity (city to city), etc. and even if everything else is a major factor except that traffic volume one, they say it's not needed. Again, usually the ones who never have driven the corridor or maybe just once or twice.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 11, 2021, 12:58:01 PM
Quote from: TheBox on June 08, 2021, 06:58:22 PM
...Off of the following:
*US-87 from Tahoka to San Angelo (below Lubbock), and from north of Amarillo to Duma and then to either Raton, NM or Limon, CO (where it merges to I-25, one way or another)
*TX-349/TX-158 from Lamesa to near Sterling City (I-27W)
*US-277/US-377 from San Angelo to Carrizo Springs
*US-83 from Carrizo Springs to merging into I-35 @ Botines?
NOTE: Expect and pay attention to potential bypasses, 4-lane upgrades, and/or overpass upgrades for any of these US routes


the recent Big Spring and Del Rio bypasses are also potentially part of the I-27 extension
(https://townsquare.media/site/192/files/2020/06/I27_CorridorExpansion_VER003_ForKFYOWebsite.jpg)
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/01/36/22/17163409/5/rawImage.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/pfTMz00/Ports-To-Plain.png)
(https://www.americansov.org/images/ports_to_plains_map_2.jpg)
(https://eagle-post-image-archive.s3.amazonaws.com/panhandlepost.com/2013/05/Ports-to-Plains-map-1.jpg)


News of I-27 extension is still going on, with March 2021 at the latest (https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/rep-jackson-backs-bill-to-prep-i-27-for-expansion), whiling I-14 is more or less short-lived cause of funding issues (for now) and will end up like I-27, before the extension plans ironically enough.

With all that being said, we wait for and watch the upgrades happen.  :popcorn:

On that top map, I would like to see the section from Del Rio to Laredo be signed as I-2.  Also extending west out of Del Rio tapping into I-10 around Ft. Stockton, making I-2 an east-west connection from the Valley to the desert and Southern California.  Just think of waking up in Harlingen, driving west on I-2 until it defaults on to I-10, taking that into Arizona then branching off onto I-8 to enjoy the sunny beach in San Diego!
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Scott5114 on June 11, 2021, 02:12:26 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 11, 2021, 12:07:47 PM
let me clarify, i was referring to the portion outside of texas. why does there need to be an interstate in that part of colorado and montana and the dakotas? your growth argument doesn't seem to apply there at all!

Colorado is growing just as fast as Texas. Colorado grew by 14.8% in the last ten years, compared to Texas, which grew by 15.9%. When you have two adjacent population centers growing, you're going to get people that want to travel between the two, for business or pleasure. Connecting them can benefit both populations.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 11, 2021, 03:54:01 PM
I think an Interstate 27 southern extension is far more likely than an Interstate 27 northern extension. I see a northern extension of 27 the same way I see an Interstate 45 northern extension; something that could/should be done, but is unlikely to be done (a 45 extension would have been done long ago if the Texas DOT was interested). What are the existing traffic counts on US 87 and US 287 north of Amarillo? Maybe a two-to-four-lane non-freeway conversion would work just as well (assuming 87 or 287 traffic counts warrant an expansion to four lanes).
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 11, 2021, 03:58:51 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 11, 2021, 03:54:01 PM
I think an Interstate 27 southern extension is far more likely than an Interstate 27 northern extension. I see a northern extension of 27 the same way I see an Interstate 45 northern extension; something that could/should be done, but is unlikely to be done (a 45 extension would have been done long ago if the Texas DOT was interested). What are the existing traffic counts on US 87 and US 287 north of Amarillo? Maybe a two-to-four-lane non-freeway conversion would work just as well (assuming 87 or 287 traffic counts warrant an expansion to four lanes).

Your argument is valid but a weird subject.  TxDOT has invested a ton of money for 60 years in the US 75 corridor making it up to interstate standards, so not sure why they have never just signed it up to the state line.  To me that's a slam dunk for TxDOT for doing what they love.  Sign an existing freeway with an interstate shield and back slap the hell out of each other about what they accomplished. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: PastTense on June 11, 2021, 04:47:12 PM
Here's a map of population change by county in Texas from 2010 to 2018:

https://texasalmanac.com/sites/default/files/images/topics/txctychge.jpg

Notice how the counties this proposed freeway goes through are mostly declining in population.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Scott5114 on June 11, 2021, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: PastTense on June 11, 2021, 04:47:12 PM
Here's a map of population change by county in Texas from 2010 to 2018:

https://texasalmanac.com/sites/default/files/images/topics/txctychge.jpg

Notice how the counties this proposed freeway goes through are mostly declining in population.

It's not about connecting the counties marked red on that map to anything. It's about connecting the counties marked blue on that map to counties that would be marked blue on a similar map of Colorado by way of the new road and connections to roads that already exist.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 11, 2021, 05:35:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 11, 2021, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: PastTense on June 11, 2021, 04:47:12 PM
Here's a map of population change by county in Texas from 2010 to 2018:

https://texasalmanac.com/sites/default/files/images/topics/txctychge.jpg

Notice how the counties this proposed freeway goes through are mostly declining in population.

It's not about connecting the counties marked red on that map to anything. It's about connecting the counties marked blue on that map to counties that would be marked blue on a similar map of Colorado by way of the new road and connections to roads that already exist.

Exactly:

The road from point A to point B has to go somewhere.  The land between Point A and Point B may be a wasteland, but that doesn't mean the road connecting the areas doesn't need to exist.

I have used this similar argument for the US-290 to SH-71 corridor being an interstate.  Yes the current traffic between Fredericksburg and Harper is low, but the interstate connection between Austin and El Paso is the issue at hand.  Its not about the interstate in a one mile stretch at this particular junction.  Again, the big picture.  A lot of times it's not good to wait until a non freeway is choked out to then build a freeway.  Sometimes it's better to build it first before the growth. 

This is the reason the interstate system got built in the first place.  Eisenhower saw the system, not the road.  He saw the importance of connecting the country with cross country freeways, not just freeways were the big cities are.  If not for that thinking we would still be trekking across the US on two lane roads in 2021. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: hotdogPi on June 11, 2021, 05:36:13 PM
I would rather have DFW-Amarillo-near Pueblo get one number.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: silverback1065 on June 11, 2021, 05:39:55 PM
none of this explains why it needs to go north of denver...
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: In_Correct on June 11, 2021, 06:02:45 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 11, 2021, 12:07:47 PM
let me clarify, i was referring to the portion outside of texas. why does there need to be an interstate in that part of colorado and montana and the dakotas? your growth argument doesn't seem to apply there at all!

Also I was specifying connecting Interstate 27 to Interstate 20.

There are several other Corridors that badly need to be upgraded to Interstates also ... such as U.S. 281 Wichita Falls To San Antonio. The traffic is immense, and will continue to get immense as nearby Corridors such as Interstate 45 will be for ever Clogged with Traffic. Even if they build these:

https://i.imgur.com/XBAJ74O.jpg

That will also help the traffic, and certainly not demolishing the road upgrades. Even a Super Highway that has decreasing ( unlikely ) traffic can still be useful as an alternative to making U Turns. One example of many benefits to having Upgraded Roads.

But these roads are clogged severely. Even tolling them might compel them to use Public Transportation, but the traffic is not going to ever decrease. At best, it would prevent Multiple Deck Superhighways from being needed ... but every road is going to eventually need ( and in most cases all ready needs and has needed for decades ) shoulders on both sides of the carriageways, and passing lanes, and grade separations, including continuous Frontage Roads.

It might seem difficult for seeing the necessity to provide Necessary Upgrades to roads that are in between the Metropolitan Areas. But even Interstate 10 and Interstate 40 need to have their Necessary Upgrades also. And these upgrades include dedicated Travel Centers that will provide more benefits to Local Economies instead of the "Stop On Your Way Through Town." argument that People In Oklahoma make.

Also perhaps Interstate 27 north of Amarillo can wait in favor of an Interstate connection between Oklahoma City and Some Place In Colorado. Colorado and Oregon are very fast growing places. The Northwest Needs Many More Passages.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: hotdogPi on June 11, 2021, 06:04:43 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on June 11, 2021, 06:02:45 PM
Also perhaps Interstate 27 north of Amarillo can wait in favor of an Interstate connection between Oklahoma City and Some Place In Colorado. Colorado and Oregon are very fast growing places. The Northwest Needs Many More Passages.

Amarillo-Denver will help people in Oklahoma City.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Scott5114 on June 11, 2021, 07:17:41 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 11, 2021, 06:04:43 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on June 11, 2021, 06:02:45 PM
Also perhaps Interstate 27 north of Amarillo can wait in favor of an Interstate connection between Oklahoma City and Some Place In Colorado. Colorado and Oregon are very fast growing places. The Northwest Needs Many More Passages.

Amarillo-Denver will help people in Oklahoma City.

Or at the very least, it gives some options. Now if you extend I-27 to Denver, then extend the proposed US-412 interstate out to Boise City...build some bypasses on US-270 northwest of OKC, and now you're talking...
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on June 11, 2021, 08:38:22 PM
One could reasonably argue that but for the Nixonian notion cobbled up back in '72-'73 (before Watergate watered down that administration's clout) to disperse initiative for any public-sector projects to the states rather than an inception at the federal level (in other words, making sure LBJ's "Great Society" measures wouldn't be repeated any time soon), there would be regular planned additions to the Interstate System, primarily driven by changing population distribution and demographics.  The first -- and to date only -- example of the "national" planned approach was the 1500-mile batch of additions in 1968, during LBJ's last full presidential year.  And that was cut back from 4500 original miles of additions by discretionary funds being shifted to DOD as a result of the Tet offensive in Vietnam that winter.  The 1965 population estimates were used as a basis for the initial route selection, which included such gems as current I-49 (but terminating in Baton Rouge), the Houston-Shreveport section now part of the I-69 corridor, I-22, and an I-40 extension to I-5 via Bakersfield -- among others.  All submitted, vetted, and approved until the funding issue came up, at which point the whittling away began.  But at least there was an expansion plan deployed on a national level back then.  If not for Nixon's machinations, there's a good chance that every ten years -- at least through the 1990's -- there would have been regularized additions, with legislated mileage varying with the national and political mood -- somewhere around 1978, 1988, and 1998 (the 2007-10 recession may well have interrupted the process).  I won't venture speculation about specific routes planned during those periods, but suffice it to say a number of current corridors would likely be included due to regional population growth.  But we might have been spared the phenomenon of long corridors being planned by invested parties along the path with mandated connecting segments of questionable value, which has certainly occurred under the present methodology surrounding "future" Interstate corridors; those might not have survived a vetting process that now is bypassed by legislative language. 

The Interstate system, in its initial stages from wartime preliminary concept to the 1958 original system finalization, was based largely on historical demographics that saw population concentration in the Northeast and Great Lakes region, which is why the initial system included closely-spaced corridors intended to address what was then the nation's central industrial area.  The '68 batch was originally intended to address both nationwide discrepancies as well as demographic shifting since '58; its truncation (which included a deletion of I-27 from Lubbock down to I-20 at Big Spring) only accomplished a fraction of the original intent. 

Now I suppose whether any of this is germane comes down to how one views the Interstate system -- as a one-shot program that has now expanded beyond its original brief, or an organic concept intended to provide maximal national automotive/commercial mobility that can and will expand according to need.  But under the current system, it doesn't really correspond to either idiom -- but with expansion relegated to what comes down to political whim combined with political clout.  The closest thing we've got right now is an amalgam of the NHS and the various high-priority corridors enacted over the last 30 years, with regional backers and legislators pouncing as needed on those corridors to add Interstate designations that may (or may not, for that matter) provide regional benefit if deployed.  But the difference is chargeability; the original system and the '68 additions all received 90% federal funding from a pool not dependent on year-to-year legislative will.  The reason many corridors are in effect "lying fallow" is a combination of that additional 10% of the total bill that needs to be amassed at the state and/or local level as well as short attention spans of those tasked with actually planning and building the facilities -- for some (particularly in the legislative arena) just getting a new Interstate corridor, built or not, on their resume' is sufficient; follow-through, unless it means a massive uptick in district employment for the various projects, is hardly guaranteed. 

The P2P/I-27 corridor concept, which started life in 1995 as HPC #38 -- and later modified with the Midland and Raton "branches" -- pretty much exemplifies the current modus operandi.  Lying dormant since late '90's studies threw cold water on even the Lubbock-to-I-20 segment, other corridor hubbub (particularly nearby I-14) breathed life into it; the substantial uptick in cross-border traffic at Laredo provoked a renewed interest here.  San Angelo and M/O boosters have climbed aboard, as this longer-lived corridor would do essentially the same in terms of overall regional connectivity as the I-14 proposal absent an additional eastern connection -- and it ties together a string of N-S regional commerce centers from Del Rio to Dumas, which I-14 doesn't do.   What the P2P has going for it is a substantial number of places to put things, a good portion of which have enough population to supply a decent initial labor force for those "things", which include warehousing, distribution, and conveyance between locations along the "string".  As an aside, if the regularized Interstate additions discussed earlier had actually come about, it's likely that the P2P would at a minimum have been extended south to Sonora or Junction along I-10, forming the "thickest part" of that string as an extended I-27.  North of Dumas, not so much; from there north to I-70 the corridor should be considered much like I-90 or I-94 across the Dakotas -- a means to get from region "A" to region "B".  As iterated before in the P2P thread, anything north of I-70 is likely to see at best divided expressway development (a la NE 71 between I-80 and Scottsbluff or SD 79 up to Rapid City); a bit too far out to attract the commercial facilities that would be more appropriately deployed in west Texas, so the prospective traffic levels would be lessened accordingly.  The P2P -- within its HPC #38 bounds -- is, IMO, a viable and potentially useful corridor, even though parts of it don't have specific localized value outside of a place to plop down roadside services. 

Thinking about it -- the P2P would make a pretty damn ideal test bed for electric-vehicle charging facility deployment -- since a decent amount of it goes through largely unpopulated territory, spacing out such outlets in order to minimize the chance that one's car would power down out in the middle of the desert or plains would be an informative exercise for DOT's as well as car and battery manufacturers.  Since most of the outlying sections are currently 2-lane rural highway, some such (re)charging facilities could be built from scratch without drawing the ire of current facilities in the more settled sections which would expect such stations to be added to their current layout regardless of whether the location makes sense vis-a-vis optimal intervals.       
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: vdeane on June 12, 2021, 12:31:15 AM
Is there a source for the corridors that were approved for 1968 but later got cut?  My searches are only pulling up the proposals from the states in 1970.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on June 12, 2021, 03:52:12 AM
Quote from: vdeane on June 12, 2021, 12:31:15 AM
Is there a source for the corridors that were approved for 1968 but later got cut?  My searches are only pulling up the proposals from the states in 1970.

Lately those files are really hard to locate; the original 4500-mile system was presented in early 1967 under the auspices of the Commerce Department (USDOT wasn't "broken out" until later that year); that's where I got the original info back in late '68, well after the cutbacks were made (I was an undergraduate at UCR at the time; the research was for a paper I was doing for a land-use seminar in the geography department -- one of my two majors).  One would have to delve into DOC records (have no idea if those have since been transferred to computer files) to see the system additions as originally planned.  The 1970 abortive additions were handled within the then-new USDOT; they're likely more accessible than the DOC stuff.  Unfortunately, my original research notes are long gone -- and undergraduate papers are rarely (if ever) retained, especially since 52+ years have passed since then.  If I had time, I'd reiterate my research and see if USDOC has their records intact and available -- or just get my ass over to the Library of Congress -- but I really don't have the spare time to do that (even though I'm into my 70's, I'm decidedly not retired!).  If you're able to access that info, it would certainly be appreciated if you could please post as much of it as you can.   
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on June 12, 2021, 04:24:36 AM
Not sure how relevant this is: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/1970req.html
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Mapmikey on June 12, 2021, 10:02:43 AM
Also not exactly what you are seeking but a bunch of highway department wish lists for interstate mileage were compiled for a 1968 hearing on Federal-aid highway act, 1968. Hearings, Ninetieth Congress, second session, on H.R. 17134 and related bills ...

Each state responded and most gave specific lists, shown on document pages 795-828 here (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b654568&view=1up&seq=819)

Some good stuff on those state replies of what state highway departments wanted to do with new interstate mileage should it become available.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 12, 2021, 10:05:41 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 09, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 08, 2021, 07:06:40 PM
We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Franklin D. Roosevelt (https://unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2018/06/RG30_Series10_FDRProposedHighways-1.jpg), what are you doing on this road forum?

Another project brought to you by Pork Barrel.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Mapmikey on June 12, 2021, 10:10:28 AM
Here is an actual official list of interstate mileage requested but not not approved as of 3/30/70 (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b643480&view=1up&seq=99)

Lubbock to Roscoe is on this list
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 12, 2021, 10:12:03 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 09, 2021, 04:23:45 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 09, 2021, 03:59:30 PM
Since 1990 Texas has had a long range plan to develop a "trunk system" of 4 lane divided highways. One feature of the plan was building bypasses around towns or thru routes on existing alignments that would either be freeways or upgradeable to freeways. The US-277 project between Wichita Falls and Abilene is one example of this trunk highway concept. One nice aspect to this plan is the resulting hybrid freeway/expressway roads would have segments easier to upgrade to Interstate quality later if needed.

Some of the corridors we frequently mention, such as this topic of US-87 in relation to I-27, were included in the Phase 1 plan trunk system plan.

A 4-lane divided highway is certainly going to be safer and more efficient at moving traffic than a mere 2-lane road. However 4-lane divided highways still have plenty of conflict points from vehicles turning onto the highway from at-grade streets or driveways. The conflict points are enhanced when thru traffic is moving at speeds of 70mph or more.

I think US-87 through most of the Panhandle down to far South Texas needs to be Interstate quality. Amarillo, Lubbock, Big Spring, Midland-Odessa, San Angelo, Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo form a pretty valuable commercial traffic corridor -one that would be even better connected to the Front Range cities in Colorado.

Statements that suggest Texas is trying to be North Carolina by frivolously signing new Interstates is just ridiculous. Texas is a gigantic state and its existing Interstate quality routes are spaced much farther apart than many states farther East. Texas is also home to four of the biggest urban MSA's in the nation, with Austin & San Antonio effectively merging into one huge MSA. Texas is continuing to add population at a fast rate, some of which is being drawn from the West Coast and Northeast. All that adds up to Texas needing to beef up its highways in a big way. Not every "trunk route" in Texas is worthy of an Interstate upgrade. But there is at least half a dozen corridors in Texas definitely worthy of Interstate upgrades.

The biggest problem I have with the Texas trunk system is if you are a driver that is not familiar with the areas that have the bypasses (exacerbated by fatigue) you can easily fall into the trap of not knowing where the freeway ends and the expressway begins seeing how you have a 4-lane divided highway in both cases.  It can be quite problematic driving 70 mph and having limited access then suddenly you have a pickup with a trailer pulling into the road from a right angle.  The discrepancy in speed is deadly, and that's one of the biggest reasons why the interstate system exists.  I know lots of people on this forum say a 4-lane rural expressway is "good enough", but I find it to be very scary.  It looks, feels and smells like a freeway so it's easy to relax and feel safe when instead you should be on high alert. 

This system is one of the reasons I am so onboard to construct many miles of rural freeway in Texas.  Simply put, the current setup is dangerous.  I am not saying don't have bypasses, but it's never handled correctly.  A lot of time with small town bypasses in Texas, there is not an "END FREEWAY" assembly.  There are some in the state, but Texas does a very bad job of that crucial detail.  It should be one of three setups:

1. 4-lane expressway with town freeway bypasses, but very well marked where the freeway begins and ends and every crossover between freeway sections clearly marked.

2. Freeway bypasses with undivided highways outside the bypasses.  I hate that too, but it will keep people alert where the freeway ends/begins.

3. Make the whole thing a freeway which is the safest.

Rural non-freeways are usually sufficient in most cases.  The driver should be aware that driving conditions are constantly changing.  Those pretty red, white and blue signs do not need to dot the entire countryside.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: edwaleni on June 12, 2021, 01:12:15 PM
Since I find the history of highways very fascinating and it looks like others do as well, there are several good books that can be read that discusses at various levels the needs, politics, decisions around highway building in the US.

- The Big Roads: The Untold Story of the Engineers, Visionaries, and Trailblazers Who Created the American Superhighways, by Earl Swift
- The Roads that Built America: The Incredible Story of the U.S. Interstate System, by Dan McNichol
- The Eisenhower Interstate System, by John Murphy

These are just some. They all vary in perspective and some have materials from the same sources.

I am not sure if there is a thread in AARoads that only references books on highways, but I will search it.

There are other books that are more social commentary on the US investment in modern roads;

- Urban sprawl issues
- Social Justice issues and highways (when state DOT's targeted the poorest areas for ROW's)
- Imbalance of the forms of transport (auto, rail, bus, air, etc)

Hope you find something to your liking.

Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on June 12, 2021, 05:45:19 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 12, 2021, 04:24:36 AM
Not sure how relevant this is: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/1970req.html
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 12, 2021, 10:02:43 AM
Also not exactly what you are seeking but a bunch of highway department wish lists for interstate mileage were compiled for a 1968 hearing on Federal-aid highway act, 1968. Hearings, Ninetieth Congress, second session, on H.R. 17134 and related bills ...

Each state responded and most gave specific lists, shown on document pages 795-828 here (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b654568&view=1up&seq=819)

Some good stuff on those state replies of what state highway departments wanted to do with new interstate mileage should it become available.

By the end of 1968, most of the corridors that were to be funded with the legislative additions of that year were already spoken for -- the extensions of I-15 in CA and I-75 in FL among them, with what was to become the original I-72 in IL the pet project of then-Senate Minority Leader Dirksen (his hometown was Decatur) and NY's I-88 inserted at the request of Sen Jacob Javits.  There was apparently some discussion with the TX congressional delegation as to which segment of I-27 should be saved:  the part north of Lubbock or the portion south to Big Spring; Amarillo lobbied for the former and obviously won that argument.  The remainder was filled in over the next year or so:  I-105 in L.A., the reroute of I-82 in WA to serve the Tri-Cities, the soon-to-be-cancelled Hartford-Providence corridor in CT and RI, the extension of I-69 to Flint (Port Huron came later), and a number of spurs and loops including I-380/IA and I-565/AL.  Also of import -- the I-40 extension from I-85 east to I-95 through Raleigh, with the latter junction point originally being Selma; again, the ultimate extension to Wilmington came about later on. 

What's not surprising is that the requests listed in both documents cited in the above posts were largely the corridors that had been discarded by the end of '68, both due to the mileage cutback and the insertion of the politically-motivated projects listed above occupying a chunk of the remaining 1500 miles.  The '70 request list, while in some ways a state-by-state "wish list" (including some speculative corridors that weren't even on the radar two years earlier) with some corridors just ending abruptly at a state line because of lack of interest in adjoining states! -- contained quite a few corridors that didn't make the final '68/'69 cut.  But what the final result of the '68 additions showed was that there were conflicting forces at work here -- while some of the corridors, such as both the I-15 and I-75 southern extensions, reflected a push to provide increased service to rapidly growing areas such as San Diego and the Florida Gulf Coast south of Tampa Bay as evidenced by population data, other "rust belt" additions like I-72 and I-88 were clearly the product of political considerations.  If the regular Interstate augmentation program I speculated about upthread had actually taken place, each batch of additions would have likely reflected that mix of corridors driven by demographic/population data and others with less clear actual warrant but with political support nonetheless.  For better or worse the methodology in place and practice today is tilted toward the political end; if there's a modicum of clout, a corridor gets designated; if that clout is dominating and/or persistent, the corridor actually gets developed.  As observers, we can look at a map -- or even GSV -- and see things that by most standards should warrant a connection (US 287 Fort Worth>Amarillo would already be I-34 or something similar under those circumstances) -- but unless the congressional districts line up just right and interest foments from the region in question, the odds are that little if anything toward that end will occur.  In the case of the P2P, right now the "iron is hot" dynamic appears to be in place -- but it remains to be seen if that enthusiasm will be augmented by a reliable funding stream.       
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: SquonkHunter on June 13, 2021, 12:16:55 PM
IIRC, the original Plains to Ports (aka I-27) corridor in the '70s was to run from Lubbock to Houston. Somewhere along the way it morphed into Lubbock to Laredo (?). Of course that was before NAFTA and its successor agreements. At the bare minimum the Lubbock to Roscoe section should be upgraded to full freeway status, I-27 or not. The US 287 corridor from Fort Worth to Amarillo would also be a prime candidate for full freeway upgrades. While nice, an Interstate designation is not essential IMHO. Just build it already.   
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on June 13, 2021, 12:23:09 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 12, 2021, 10:12:03 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 09, 2021, 04:23:45 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 09, 2021, 03:59:30 PM
Since 1990 Texas has had a long range plan to develop a "trunk system" of 4 lane divided highways. One feature of the plan was building bypasses around towns or thru routes on existing alignments that would either be freeways or upgradeable to freeways. The US-277 project between Wichita Falls and Abilene is one example of this trunk highway concept. One nice aspect to this plan is the resulting hybrid freeway/expressway roads would have segments easier to upgrade to Interstate quality later if needed.

Some of the corridors we frequently mention, such as this topic of US-87 in relation to I-27, were included in the Phase 1 plan trunk system plan.

A 4-lane divided highway is certainly going to be safer and more efficient at moving traffic than a mere 2-lane road. However 4-lane divided highways still have plenty of conflict points from vehicles turning onto the highway from at-grade streets or driveways. The conflict points are enhanced when thru traffic is moving at speeds of 70mph or more.

I think US-87 through most of the Panhandle down to far South Texas needs to be Interstate quality. Amarillo, Lubbock, Big Spring, Midland-Odessa, San Angelo, Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo form a pretty valuable commercial traffic corridor -one that would be even better connected to the Front Range cities in Colorado.

Statements that suggest Texas is trying to be North Carolina by frivolously signing new Interstates is just ridiculous. Texas is a gigantic state and its existing Interstate quality routes are spaced much farther apart than many states farther East. Texas is also home to four of the biggest urban MSA's in the nation, with Austin & San Antonio effectively merging into one huge MSA. Texas is continuing to add population at a fast rate, some of which is being drawn from the West Coast and Northeast. All that adds up to Texas needing to beef up its highways in a big way. Not every "trunk route" in Texas is worthy of an Interstate upgrade. But there is at least half a dozen corridors in Texas definitely worthy of Interstate upgrades.

The biggest problem I have with the Texas trunk system is if you are a driver that is not familiar with the areas that have the bypasses (exacerbated by fatigue) you can easily fall into the trap of not knowing where the freeway ends and the expressway begins seeing how you have a 4-lane divided highway in both cases.  It can be quite problematic driving 70 mph and having limited access then suddenly you have a pickup with a trailer pulling into the road from a right angle.  The discrepancy in speed is deadly, and that's one of the biggest reasons why the interstate system exists.  I know lots of people on this forum say a 4-lane rural expressway is "good enough", but I find it to be very scary.  It looks, feels and smells like a freeway so it's easy to relax and feel safe when instead you should be on high alert. 

This system is one of the reasons I am so onboard to construct many miles of rural freeway in Texas.  Simply put, the current setup is dangerous.  I am not saying don't have bypasses, but it's never handled correctly.  A lot of time with small town bypasses in Texas, there is not an "END FREEWAY" assembly.  There are some in the state, but Texas does a very bad job of that crucial detail.  It should be one of three setups:

1. 4-lane expressway with town freeway bypasses, but very well marked where the freeway begins and ends and every crossover between freeway sections clearly marked.

2. Freeway bypasses with undivided highways outside the bypasses.  I hate that too, but it will keep people alert where the freeway ends/begins.

3. Make the whole thing a freeway which is the safest.

Rural non-freeways are usually sufficient in most cases.  The driver should be aware that driving conditions are constantly changing.  Those pretty red, white and blue signs do not need to dot the entire countryside.
Then why did we build the interstate highway system in the 1956 and 1968 additions?
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on June 13, 2021, 05:52:13 PM
Quote from: SquonkHunter on June 13, 2021, 12:16:55 PM
IIRC, the original Plains to Ports (aka I-27) corridor in the '70s was to run from Lubbock to Houston. Somewhere along the way it morphed into Lubbock to Laredo (?). Of course that was before NAFTA and its successor agreements. At the bare minimum the Lubbock to Roscoe section should be upgraded to full freeway status, I-27 or not. The US 287 corridor from Fort Worth to Amarillo would also be a prime candidate for full freeway upgrades. While nice, an Interstate designation is not essential IMHO. Just build it already.   

The prevailing thought is that if a long-distance corridor like US 287 were to be reconstructed as a full freeway, it may as well be designated as an Interstate -- which over the past 65 years has "morphed" into a brand name (think Kleenex when referring to tissue paper) that carries considerable weight with parties, often based overseas, that are looking to locate distribution sites for their products.  The criteria they generally employ cites rail and Interstate access as boxes to be ticked off during the selection process (some have even gone so far as to parse out Interstate trunks/1-2di's as preferable).  So while the physical characteristics for Interstates are more specific -- shoulder width, bridge clearance, etc.), following those these days with facilities that would be built "from scratch" and/or on new terrain alignment would entail relatively minimal cost differences when considered within the scope of building a new freeway in general. 

I was unaware of a Houston-Lubbock proposal, Interstate or otherwise, outside the overreaching multimodal proposals of the 2000's; but if one was proffered at some point, it sounds like a combination of the I-14 concept in the "Triangle" combined with an Abilene-Temple corridor concept -- and US 84 northwest of there as the last leg.  And it's probably a correct analysis that increased cross-border traffic centered on Laredo prompted the pivot southward starting with the legislation of the initial HPC #38 routing back in 1995.  That being said, there was a 1970-initiated corridor covering that same US 84 leg southeast of Lubbock.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TheBox on June 16, 2021, 09:23:53 PM
Some news, that probably doesn't change much
https://www.conchovalleyhomepage.com/top-news/san-angelo-mayor-and-tom-green-county-judge-on-i-27-ports-to-plains-committee/
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on June 16, 2021, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: TheBox on June 16, 2021, 09:23:53 PM
Some news, that probably doesn't change much
https://www.conchovalleyhomepage.com/top-news/san-angelo-mayor-and-tom-green-county-judge-on-i-27-ports-to-plains-committee/

Well, that adds two likely San Angelo "boosters" to the advisory committee.  As the city that'll likely receive more in the way of benefits than any other on the corridor, it's a way to increase the chances of (a) reasonably timely development and (b) that development being Interstate grade -- or close to it -- in the initial stages rather than a protracted multi-phase approach.  Also, that increases the chances that both the Big Spring/east and Midland/west legs of the split corridor north of San Angelo will be included in those initial stages, since both areas have a vested interest as evidenced by their "I-14-to-M/O" push, the westernmost leg of which would be subsumed by the P2P efforts.   
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: armadillo speedbump on June 17, 2021, 11:52:09 AM
Quote from: SquonkHunter on June 13, 2021, 12:16:55 PM
At the bare minimum the Lubbock to Roscoe section should be upgraded to full freeway status, I-27 or not.

That's unnecessary.  It is already is a mostly free flowing 4-lane divided, with overpasses at most significant intersections.  All that is needed is a Post bypass, 2 miles of freeway upgrade & interchange in SE Lubbock connecting to 289, and maybe overpasses in Hermleigh and Roscoe/608. 

Expressways are sufficient for rural west Texas.  After that, any time savings from the hundreds of millions to upgrade to full freeway (with a ton of wasteful frontage roads) could be counted on the fingers of 1 hand.  There aren't massive numbers of traffic accidents to reduce.  Future truck growth still wouldn't come close to justifying the expensive upgrades to a freeway.

What is needed is for Congress to create a national Expressways program and funding, equivalent to the Interstate program.  Then it could be used for the economic development arguments and designations where businesses previously required Interstate accessibility.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: armadillo speedbump on June 17, 2021, 12:12:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 16, 2021, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: TheBox on June 16, 2021, 09:23:53 PM
Some news, that probably doesn't change much
https://www.conchovalleyhomepage.com/top-news/san-angelo-mayor-and-tom-green-county-judge-on-i-27-ports-to-plains-committee/

Well, that adds two likely San Angelo "boosters" to the advisory committee.  As the city that'll likely receive more in the way of benefits than any other on the corridor, it's a way to increase the chances of (a) reasonably timely development and (b) that development being Interstate grade -- or close to it -- in the initial stages rather than a protracted multi-phase approach.  Also, that increases the chances that both the Big Spring/east and Midland/west legs of the split corridor north of San Angelo will be included in those initial stages, since both areas have a vested interest as evidenced by their "I-14-to-M/O" push, the westernmost leg of which would be subsumed by the P2P efforts.

Hopefully those mostly boondoggle interstate moneywasters aren't started for decades.  Lubbock to S.A./Austin/Killeen only need improvements, not billions in freeway upgrades.

Add a couple of overpasses on the far south outskirts of Lubbock, Tahoka and Lamesa bypasses, and either a few overpasses in Midland or a bypass connector to 250.  349/176 interchange is sufficient for demand.  Interchange improvements and an overpass or two on 158 leaving Midland.  Bypasses of Garden City, Sterling City, San Angelo, Eden, and Menard (the Big Spring segments are already upgraded enough), and upgrade to expressway the remaining 2-lane segments between Eden and Junction.  Eventually upgrade to expressway Eden-Lampasas, Menard-Horseshoe Bay, and Junction-Mason.

Again, we'd be much better off creating a designation that equates Expressways to Interstates.  Save a lot of money from waste.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on June 17, 2021, 12:32:05 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on June 17, 2021, 12:12:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 16, 2021, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: TheBox on June 16, 2021, 09:23:53 PM
Some news, that probably doesn't change much
https://www.conchovalleyhomepage.com/top-news/san-angelo-mayor-and-tom-green-county-judge-on-i-27-ports-to-plains-committee/

Well, that adds two likely San Angelo "boosters" to the advisory committee.  As the city that'll likely receive more in the way of benefits than any other on the corridor, it's a way to increase the chances of (a) reasonably timely development and (b) that development being Interstate grade -- or close to it -- in the initial stages rather than a protracted multi-phase approach.  Also, that increases the chances that both the Big Spring/east and Midland/west legs of the split corridor north of San Angelo will be included in those initial stages, since both areas have a vested interest as evidenced by their "I-14-to-M/O" push, the westernmost leg of which would be subsumed by the P2P efforts.

Hopefully those mostly boondoggle interstate moneywasters aren't started for decades.  Lubbock to S.A./Austin/Killeen only need improvements, not billions in freeway upgrades.

Add a couple of overpasses on the far south outskirts of Lubbock, Tahoka and Lamesa bypasses, and either a few overpasses in Midland or a bypass connector to 250.  349/176 interchange is sufficient for demand.  Interchange improvements and an overpass or two on 158 leaving Midland.  Bypasses of Garden City, Sterling City, San Angelo, Eden, and Menard (the Big Spring segments are already upgraded enough), and upgrade to expressway the remaining 2-lane segments between Eden and Junction.  Eventually upgrade to expressway Eden-Lampasas, Menard-Horseshoe Bay, and Junction-Mason.

Again, we'd be much better off creating a designation that equates Expressways to Interstates.  Save a lot of money from waste.

Wow!  For someone who wants to save bucks, that's a pretty long laundry list of improvements!  This sounds more like a "midwest expressway" format (like the Avenue of the Saints in MO/IA) -- but that's not the aim of the local backers, who are pushing for a full-fledged Interstate corridor.  A further indication regarding that position has come out of Amarillo:
https://www.myhighplains.com/news/local-news/i-27-advisory-committee-to-work-with-txdot-on-expanding-ports-to-plains-corridor/
One proclamation from the above source came from Amarillo city manager Jared Miller about the west side of Loop 335 being the pathway for the I-27 extension north from that city; something previously hinted at via plans for a direct connector to the SW corner of the loop from I-27 south of the current junction.  What will happen to current I-27 north to I-40 has yet TBD (3di?, reversion to US 60/87?).  Guess that will remain unresolved until loop development actually takes place.






Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 17, 2021, 01:40:44 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 17, 2021, 12:32:05 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on June 17, 2021, 12:12:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 16, 2021, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: TheBox on June 16, 2021, 09:23:53 PM
Some news, that probably doesn't change much
https://www.conchovalleyhomepage.com/top-news/san-angelo-mayor-and-tom-green-county-judge-on-i-27-ports-to-plains-committee/

Well, that adds two likely San Angelo "boosters" to the advisory committee.  As the city that'll likely receive more in the way of benefits than any other on the corridor, it's a way to increase the chances of (a) reasonably timely development and (b) that development being Interstate grade -- or close to it -- in the initial stages rather than a protracted multi-phase approach.  Also, that increases the chances that both the Big Spring/east and Midland/west legs of the split corridor north of San Angelo will be included in those initial stages, since both areas have a vested interest as evidenced by their "I-14-to-M/O" push, the westernmost leg of which would be subsumed by the P2P efforts.

Hopefully those mostly boondoggle interstate moneywasters aren't started for decades.  Lubbock to S.A./Austin/Killeen only need improvements, not billions in freeway upgrades.

Add a couple of overpasses on the far south outskirts of Lubbock, Tahoka and Lamesa bypasses, and either a few overpasses in Midland or a bypass connector to 250.  349/176 interchange is sufficient for demand.  Interchange improvements and an overpass or two on 158 leaving Midland.  Bypasses of Garden City, Sterling City, San Angelo, Eden, and Menard (the Big Spring segments are already upgraded enough), and upgrade to expressway the remaining 2-lane segments between Eden and Junction.  Eventually upgrade to expressway Eden-Lampasas, Menard-Horseshoe Bay, and Junction-Mason.

Again, we'd be much better off creating a designation that equates Expressways to Interstates.  Save a lot of money from waste.

Wow!  For someone who wants to save bucks, that's a pretty long laundry list of improvements!  This sounds more like a "midwest expressway" format (like the Avenue of the Saints in MO/IA) -- but that's not the aim of the local backers, who are pushing for a full-fledged Interstate corridor.  A further indication regarding that position has come out of Amarillo:
https://www.myhighplains.com/news/local-news/i-27-advisory-committee-to-work-with-txdot-on-expanding-ports-to-plains-corridor/
One proclamation from the above source came from Amarillo city manager Jared Miller about the west side of Loop 335 being the pathway for the I-27 extension north from that city; something previously hinted at via plans for a direct connector to the SW corner of the loop from I-27 south of the current junction.  What will happen to current I-27 north to I-40 has yet TBD (3di?, reversion to US 60/87?).  Guess that will remain unresolved until loop development actually takes place.

Knowing Texas it would be downgraded to US 87.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: Scott5114Or at the very least, it gives some options. Now if you extend I-27 to Denver, then extend the proposed US-412 interstate out to Boise City...build some bypasses on US-270 northwest of OKC, and now you're talking...

That's still a really huge "L" shape between Woodward and Kit Carson. A diagonal route direct from OKC to Denver would be far better for those two major metro areas, not to mention provide a far more direct gateway from the Front Range to the Southeast US.

Currently there isn't even so much as a very basic 2 lane road connecting Denver diagonally down to the South. I guarantee if the existing Southeast diagonal starting on I-70 East of Denver going down to Limon and continuing as US-287 to Kit Carson was continued to Fort Supply/Woodward, OK there would be a lot of traffic using it. Even if it was just a 2 lane road.

The highway system across much of that huge area of the high plains is a NSEW grid that would benefit a very limited amount of long distance traffic. There are some diagonal routes in that area, such as US-54 & US-56, but those routes are all geared to the old model of moving traffic from the Northeast US down toward California. There are no diagonals at all going Southeast to Northwest. The only exception is US-64/87 in Northern New Mexico, but that is pretty far out of the way for something like traffic going thru OKC heading up to Denver.

The US-412 Interstate proposal is really only going to benefit Oklahoma in terms of a Tulsa to NW Arkansas connector. I could see the Cimarron Turnpike extended from I-35 over to Enid and then maybe Woodward.

Quote from: SquonkHunterIIRC, the original Plains to Ports (aka I-27) corridor in the '70s was to run from Lubbock to Houston. Somewhere along the way it morphed into Lubbock to Laredo (?).

There has never been any Lubbock to Houston proposal of the Ports to Plains Corridor. Given the location of Lubbock, the most direct paths from Lubbock down to Houston go thru the DFW metro via one of two corridors: US-82 to Seymour to pick up TX-114 or US-84 down to Roscoe to pick up I-20. Either route goes into DFW where the traffic would pick up I-45. Any other route combinations are going to be more complicated. Lubbock is not enough of a major destination to gain a 460+ mile long freeway route direct to Houston.

Quote from: sparkerThe prevailing thought is that if a long-distance corridor like US 287 were to be reconstructed as a full freeway, it may as well be designated as an Interstate -- which over the past 65 years has "morphed" into a brand name (think Kleenex when referring to tissue paper) that carries considerable weight with parties, often based overseas, that are looking to locate distribution sites for their products.  The criteria they generally employ cites rail and Interstate access as boxes to be ticked off during the selection process (some have even gone so far as to parse out Interstate trunks/1-2di's as preferable).  So while the physical characteristics for Interstates are more specific -- shoulder width, bridge clearance, etc.), following those these days with facilities that would be built "from scratch" and/or on new terrain alignment would entail relatively minimal cost differences when considered within the scope of building a new freeway in general.

In the case of US-287, a LOT of motorists would benefit by that road being upgraded 100% to Interstate quality from Amarillo down thru DFW to I-45. There are numerous speed zones along the way and plenty of opportunity to get tickets from Texas DPS. Lots of trucks are on that route in general. Traffic gets particularly worse when you get close to Decatur and on into Fort Worth.

Distribution centers are a big and growing business in the Central US. Amazon is already expanding the huge facility they opened in Oklahoma City. Smaller cities with lower costs of living and business can be especially attractive if they're near a road/rail intersection of significance. Wichita Falls could see a boost in business if US-287 was upgraded to Interstate quality.

Quote from: armadillo speedbumpThat's unnecessary.  It is already is a mostly free flowing 4-lane divided, with overpasses at most significant intersections.  All that is needed is a Post bypass, 2 miles of freeway upgrade & interchange in SE Lubbock connecting to 289, and maybe overpasses in Hermleigh and Roscoe/608.

US-84 between Lubbock and I-20/Roscoe is probably sufficient in its current form: 4-lane divided highway with a couple limited access segments.

Quote from: armadillo speedbumpExpressways are sufficient for rural west Texas.

That depends on the location and the big picture purpose of the route. The Ports to Plains Corridor isn't about making it easier for local traffic in small West Texas towns to get around. It's about connecting far more significant destinations (metro Denver, Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland-Odessa, San Angelo, Laredo), just like any other long distance Interstate that crosses through desolate stretches. The leg of US-287 between Amarillo and DFW is more regional in nature: keeping up with the virus-like growth of the DFW metroplex and the increasing demands it will place on the regional highway network.

It's going to take many years (or even decades) for the P2P Corridor to get fully built out into something like an Interstate. But the continuing migration of population in the US to places like Texas and Colorado will increase the urgency to fully build out that corridor. The very least thing that should be happening now is getting freeway loops/bypasses completed in various cities along the way and then working to secure right of way for future expansion. Much of US-287 in between Fort Worth and Amarillo would be easy to upgrade, particularly the Wichita Falls to Fort Worth stretch because much of the freeway ROW has been preserved for decades.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on June 17, 2021, 05:16:26 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
Lubbock is not enough of a major destination to gain a 460+ mile long freeway route direct to Houston.

Tell that to the San Angelo-based I-14 boosters; their city has only 60% of Lubbock's population count.  It's all local politics amplified to higher volumes; making enough waves and having the right folks as allies counts for a lot, especially in TX.

QuoteUS-84 between Lubbock and I-20/Roscoe is probably sufficient in its current form: 4-lane divided highway with a couple limited access segments.

Nevertheless, that segment invariably shows up on maps indicating heavily-trafficked commercial routes; while not on any promotional groups' radar at present, if those trends continue it's likely to attract attention as a potential Interstate corridor (I-28, anyone?)

QuoteIt's going to take many years (or even decades) for the P2P Corridor to get fully built out into something like an Interstate. But the continuing migration of population in the US to places like Texas and Colorado will increase the urgency to fully build out that corridor. The very least thing that should be happening now is getting freeway loops/bypasses completed in various cities along the way and then working to secure right of way for future expansion. Much of US-287 in between Fort Worth and Amarillo would be easy to upgrade, particularly the Wichita Falls to Fort Worth stretch because much of the freeway ROW has been preserved for decades.

It is likely that the initial development of P2P will resemble the "midwest expressway" format, since the more costly segments around towns and requiring more in the way of interchanges and/or structures would be developed first as a hedge against construction inflation; elevating the interim segments to I-standard would follow.  Property values along the P2P will of course lag behind those in the major TX metro regions and even along the I-35 corridor; that will make such locations as San Angelo, Lubbock, and Amarillo quite attractive as distribution centers due to lower initial development costs.  That's probably one of the driving forces behind the P2P/I-27 proposal:  give the developers the Interstate access they desire -- or at least have definitive plans to do so with a reasonable timetable attached -- and they will come to mid-sized cities with an available labor force. 

As far as the US 287 corridor is concerned, there's a lot to do, particularly west of Vernon.  Functional speed traps like Chillicothe, Quanah, and Childress may piss & moan about being bypassed (particularly their lineup of sub-par motels!); they see the through-town truck traffic as something of a semi-precious-metal goose laying the occasional monetary egg.  I-development along that route would likely trigger something of a Darwinian response -- the operations that are at least on solid fiscal ground would relocate to the bypass; the more marginal ones would wither on the old (business) route.  But any protests emanating from those smaller venues would likely resemble Monty Python's Black Knight ("None Shall Pass"), ending up without a leg to stand upon!  But like with Austin-to-Houston farther south, there's no formal plans afoot to upgrade US 287; it's not on any "back burner" -- it's completely off the stove, at least for the time being.  Maybe down the line if the P2P starts funneling DFW originating/bound traffic at Amarillo someone will take notice.   

Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 17, 2021, 05:20:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 17, 2021, 05:16:26 PM

QuoteUS-84 between Lubbock and I-20/Roscoe is probably sufficient in its current form: 4-lane divided highway with a couple limited access segments.

Nevertheless, that segment invariably shows up on maps indicating heavily-trafficked commercial routes; while not on any promotional groups' radar at present, if those trends continue it's likely to attract attention as a potential Interstate corridor (I-28, anyone?)

I-20N!
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: OCGuy81 on June 17, 2021, 07:08:27 PM
I don't think an expansion north and south of the current I-27 is too bad of an idea. As someone mentioned here earlier, Texas has some large cities, a fast growing population, and a connection to the NW would be beneficial, especially as Colorado and a lot of the other mountain west states are quickly growing as well.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on June 17, 2021, 08:45:07 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 17, 2021, 05:20:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 17, 2021, 05:16:26 PM

QuoteUS-84 between Lubbock and I-20/Roscoe is probably sufficient in its current form: 4-lane divided highway with a couple limited access segments.

Nevertheless, that segment invariably shows up on maps indicating heavily-trafficked commercial routes; while not on any promotional groups' radar at present, if those trends continue it's likely to attract attention as a potential Interstate corridor (I-28, anyone?)

I-20N!

Unless it's a split that reunites later (e.g. I-35E/W or the planned I-27E/W) or a terminal split (the I-69 "trident"), I'd just as soon not use a suffixed designation; that's what put the kibosh on suffixes back in the late '70's.  Plenty of unused even 2di numbers; may as well pick the most appropriate one. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on June 17, 2021, 10:14:03 PM
I-70N and I-70S were terminal splits, but I-70S got changed. Honestly, I wouldn't have minded if that stayed.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 18, 2021, 12:36:14 AM
Quote from: sparkerTell that to the San Angelo-based I-14 boosters; their city has only 60% of Lubbock's population count.  It's all local politics amplified to higher volumes; making enough waves and having the right folks as allies counts for a lot, especially in TX.

Um, it's one thing for interests in San Angelo to want a freeway quality connection to Killeen, or Midland. It's another very extremely different thing for someone to want Lubbock, a city of 250,000 way out in the NW part of Texas to have its own personalized, direct Interstate route to Houston. A direct route from Lubbock to Houston is only laughably ridiculous. Honestly, I find it hard to believe any actual serious proposal exists for such a thing. The only legit outlets for Lubbock to Houston go through DFW via US-84 to I-20 or US-82 & TX-114. The US-84 route is obviously the easiest one to upgrade if needed. It's already a 4-lane divided route with plenty of available ROW along much of the way. US-82/TX-114 would take quite a bit more work.

Quote from: sparkerNevertheless, that segment invariably shows up on maps indicating heavily-trafficked commercial routes; while not on any promotional groups' radar at present, if those trends continue it's likely to attract attention as a potential Interstate corridor (I-28, anyone?)

It's more of a North-South route, IMHO. Given the importance of the Ports to Plains Corridor, the US-84 scenario would open the option of having three suffixed legs of I-27. "I-27E" could take up the US-84 portion from Lubbock to Roscoe. Mainline I-27 (or "I-27C") could continue South thru Big Spring. "I-27W" could connect to Midland-Odessa and rejoin "I-27C" as I-27 on the way to San Angelo.

QuoteAs far as the US 287 corridor is concerned, there's a lot to do, particularly west of Vernon.  Functional speed traps like Chillicothe, Quanah, and Childress may piss & moan about being bypassed (particularly their lineup of sub-par motels!); they see the through-town truck traffic as something of a semi-precious-metal goose laying the occasional monetary egg.

US-287 immediately West of I-44 in Wichita Falls gets into odd territory. There are at-grade driveways polluting the highway only about a mile West of that intersection. Nevertheless, it's a problem that can be solved by extending frontage roads.

Chillicothe and Quanah are not exactly desired places for people to relocate. Even with some short-term pain of existing businesses along existing US-287 being bypassed I think the towns people overall would prefer an upgraded US-287 to Interstate standards to do more to put those small towns on the map. Otherwise they'll continue to dry out.

Childress is a big enough town to do just fine with an Interstate quality bypass bowing out just to the North of town. I'm sure there is at least some people in Childress who would prefer all the heavy trucks go around town rather than down the middle of Avenue F.

I think Memphis, TX is a slightly more complicated situation than Childress. The tributaries on the edges of the town work against a freeway bypass being built very close to the existing US-287 route. Plus there's the local municipal airport on the NE side of town. It is geometrically possible to build a new freeway along existing US-287 thru Memphis, mostly as an elevated highway, likely straddling the BNSF rail line. But that would be a pretty expensive thing to build. An at-grade bypass going East or West of Memphis would be less expensive.

Clarendon would need a freeway bypass. No question about that. It's just a matter of whether to build it around the North or South sides of town. The same goes for Claude. US-287 is flanked by frontage roads in Washburn, so that's an EASY upgrade.

Quote from: sprjus4I-70N and I-70S were terminal splits, but I-70S got changed. Honestly, I wouldn't have minded if that stayed.

In the case of Baltimore and Washington, DC the I-70N and I-70S routes seemed 100% legit. IIRC the I-76 route signed into Denver was previously I-80S, which I think sucked. But I-76 seems like a stretch for that short a route as well. However, there are other 2 digit routes that are shorter. So I-76 seems alright. I have no problem at all with I-80N from Utah to Portland being re-signed as a separate I-84 from the one in the Northeast. If any I-84 needs to be reduced to a 2-digit route the one the Northeast would be tagged due to being far shorter in length.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on June 18, 2021, 12:58:52 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 18, 2021, 12:36:14 AM
It's more of a North-South route, IMHO. Given the importance of the Ports to Plains Corridor, the US-84 scenario would open the option of having three suffixed legs of I-27. "I-27E" could take up the US-84 portion from Lubbock to Roscoe. Mainline I-27 (or "I-27C") could continue South thru Big Spring. "I-27W" could connect to Midland-Odessa and rejoin "I-27C" as I-27 on the way to San Angelo.

I-27C?........oh gawd, no!  Pardon the detour into fictional, but a I-28 could be extended NW over US 84 to I-40 at some point (Santa Rosa or even Tucumcari) as a nice little shunt between I-40 and I-20 -- especially if US 287 were to fail to get traction.  Barring that -- if an odd number were to be selected Roscoe-Lubbock,  I-31's ready, willing, and able! 
Quote

Childress is a big enough town to do just fine with an Interstate quality bypass bowing out just to the North of town. I'm sure there is at least some people in Childress who would prefer all the heavy trucks go around town rather than down the middle of Avenue F.

One of the rattiest shithole motels I ever stayed at as a kid was in Childress; we were trying to make Amarillo but my mom got cranky (not atypical) and wanted to stop sooner.  Big mistake -- literally a "roach motel"!

Quote
If any I-84 needs to be reduced to a 2-digit route the one the Northeast would be tagged due to being far shorter in length.

I think you were meaning a 3-digit route as a reductionist move.  IMO, no change is needed; they're 7 states apart via I-80, and functionally on opposite coasts.  No harm, no foul!
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: SkyPesos on June 18, 2021, 01:17:15 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 17, 2021, 10:14:03 PM
I-70N and I-70S were terminal splits, but I-70S got changed. Honestly, I wouldn't have minded if that stayed.
That's the one terminal split I like, as DC and Baltimore are in the same CSA, and both are large cities. It's not like I-80 splitting into a San Francisco and Portland branch; those two cities are more than 500 miles apart and have no business being suffixes.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 18, 2021, 11:36:43 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 17, 2021, 08:45:07 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 17, 2021, 05:20:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 17, 2021, 05:16:26 PM

QuoteUS-84 between Lubbock and I-20/Roscoe is probably sufficient in its current form: 4-lane divided highway with a couple limited access segments.

Nevertheless, that segment invariably shows up on maps indicating heavily-trafficked commercial routes; while not on any promotional groups' radar at present, if those trends continue it's likely to attract attention as a potential Interstate corridor (I-28, anyone?)

I-20N!

Unless it's a split that reunites later (e.g. I-35E/W or the planned I-27E/W) or a terminal split (the I-69 "trident"), I'd just as soon not use a suffixed designation; that's what put the kibosh on suffixes back in the late '70's.  Plenty of unused even 2di numbers; may as well pick the most appropriate one.

I was stirring the pot with the suffixed route.  I don't want to see anymore suffixed routes.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 18, 2021, 12:24:58 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 18, 2021, 11:36:43 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 17, 2021, 08:45:07 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 17, 2021, 05:20:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 17, 2021, 05:16:26 PM

QuoteUS-84 between Lubbock and I-20/Roscoe is probably sufficient in its current form: 4-lane divided highway with a couple limited access segments.

Nevertheless, that segment invariably shows up on maps indicating heavily-trafficked commercial routes; while not on any promotional groups' radar at present, if those trends continue it's likely to attract attention as a potential Interstate corridor (I-28, anyone?)

I-20N!

Unless it's a split that reunites later (e.g. I-35E/W or the planned I-27E/W) or a terminal split (the I-69 "trident"), I'd just as soon not use a suffixed designation; that's what put the kibosh on suffixes back in the late '70's.  Plenty of unused even 2di numbers; may as well pick the most appropriate one.

I was stirring the pot with the suffixed route.  I don't want to see anymore suffixed routes.

Suffixed routes add character and flair.  They are memorable.  It gives someone the false sense of security in having a major highway running through their backyard.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 18, 2021, 01:06:43 PM
Quote from: sparkerI-27C?........oh gawd, no!  Pardon the detour into fictional, but a I-28 could be extended NW over US 84 to I-40 at some point (Santa Rosa or even Tucumcari) as a nice little shunt between I-40 and I-20 -- especially if US 287 were to fail to get traction.  Barring that -- if an odd number were to be selected Roscoe-Lubbock, I-31's ready, willing, and able!

I-28 would be a work-able designation in the unlikely event that US-84 was upgraded to Interstate quality from Santa Rosa (I-40) thru Lubbock and down to Roscoe (I-20). I think it would be difficult enough as it is just to get the Lubbock to Roscoe segment upgraded.

I think US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo is a more worthy possible future Interstate corridor. Amarillo is a decent hub city for highways and a major one for freight rail. Wichita Falls is a decent sized city halfway between Amarillo and Fort Worth, not to mention the current terminus for I-44.

Growth both North and Northwest of Fort Worth will increase demands for US-287 in that area to be upgraded to Interstate quality. Currently the road really needs to be fully upgraded from the I-35W split up thru Decatur, including a freeway upgrade in Decatur itself. TX DOT needs to get on the stick about ROW preservation between Decatur and Alvord. There is a lot of driveways emptying out onto that busy road. The current ROW looks barely wide enough to squeeze in frontage roads and 2x2 freeway main lanes butted up against each other, separated by only a Jersey barrier.

Quote from: sparkerOne of the rattiest shithole motels I ever stayed at as a kid was in Childress; we were trying to make Amarillo but my mom got cranky (not atypical) and wanted to stop sooner.  Big mistake -- literally a "roach motel"!

Motels everywhere have been going downhill. I can point to a few here in Lawton to avoid. It's funny how some motels will change brands every few years. So many of the operations are run on the cheap and with a great deal of maintenance deferred. Some motels rely heavily on illegal migrant labor because what American-born person in his right mind would want to take a $#!+ job for $#!+ pay (cash under the table) in a no-tell motel?

Quote from: sparkerI think you were meaning a 3-digit route as a reductionist move.  IMO, no change is needed; they're 7 states apart via I-80, and functionally on opposite coasts.  No harm, no foul!

Yeah, that's what I meant. The Eastern I-84 is the older, original I-84 route. But it is significantly shorter than its Western counterpart. Some people are purists and can't stand two instances of a 2-digit route in the Interstate system that aren't connected. I don't mind it. That's one reason why I believe US-290 between Houston and Austin should be upgraded into a 2nd instance of I-12. And then TX-71 can be upgraded to "I-10N" (runs away laughing).
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 18, 2021, 02:50:41 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 18, 2021, 01:06:43 PM
Quote from: sparkerI-27C?........oh gawd, no!  Pardon the detour into fictional, but a I-28 could be extended NW over US 84 to I-40 at some point (Santa Rosa or even Tucumcari) as a nice little shunt between I-40 and I-20 -- especially if US 287 were to fail to get traction.  Barring that -- if an odd number were to be selected Roscoe-Lubbock, I-31's ready, willing, and able!

I-28 would be a work-able designation in the unlikely event that US-84 was upgraded to Interstate quality from Santa Rosa (I-40) thru Lubbock and down to Roscoe (I-20). I think it would be difficult enough as it is just to get the Lubbock to Roscoe segment upgraded.

I think US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo is a more worthy possible future Interstate corridor. Amarillo is a decent hub city for highways and a major one for freight rail. Wichita Falls is a decent sized city halfway between Amarillo and Fort Worth, not to mention the current terminus for I-44.

Growth both North and Northwest of Fort Worth will increase demands for US-287 in that area to be upgraded to Interstate quality. Currently the road really needs to be fully upgraded from the I-35W split up thru Decatur, including a freeway upgrade in Decatur itself. TX DOT needs to get on the stick about ROW preservation between Decatur and Alvord. There is a lot of driveways emptying out onto that busy road. The current ROW looks barely wide enough to squeeze in frontage roads and 2x2 freeway main lanes butted up against each other, separated by only a Jersey barrier.

I have said for years, the US-287 corridor through Amarillo-Wichita Falls-Ft. Worth should be I-32.  I have said that it should be extended past Ft. Worth through Midlothian and Waxahachie terminating in Ennis at I-45, giving the Houston route a true I-45E and I-45W split and connecting Ft. Worth and Houston more directly. 

I-34 would be the US-82 corridor from I-30 in New Boston, skipping the Metroplex and terminating at I-32 east of Wichita Falls.  All these interstates would hopefully move the terminus of US-81 to Bowie!
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on June 18, 2021, 02:56:08 PM
The US-290 corridor is too close to the existing I-12 to be a "western"  I-12.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on June 18, 2021, 04:10:18 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2021, 02:56:08 PM
The US-290 corridor is too close to the existing I-12 to be a "western"  I-12.

Yeah, it's a bit awkward; adjoining states and all!  If either TX 71 or US 290 is ever slated for Interstate development -- and that corridor extends west back to I-10 (as it should, given the massive population increase in that metro area), a "10N/10S" split a la DFW and I-35 would be appropriate.  Ironically, neither route would be a picnic regarding traversing either city during peak times (pick your poison!).  Nothing against San Antonio, but personally I'd almost always opt for "I-10N" just to snag some Franklin's brisket en route!     
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 18, 2021, 06:41:07 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14I have said for years, the US-287 corridor through Amarillo-Wichita Falls-Ft. Worth should be I-32. I have said that it should be extended past Ft. Worth through Midlothian and Waxahachie terminating in Ennis at I-45, giving the Houston route a true I-45E and I-45W split and connecting Ft. Worth and Houston more directly.

It looks very likely US-287 will be 100% Interstate quality from the I-45 split in Ennis up to the TX-114 split in Rhome to the NW of Fort Worth within the next several years. But there has to be a focused push to get US-287 upgraded up to Decatur and farther Northwest.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14I-34 would be the US-82 corridor from I-30 in New Boston, skipping the Metroplex and terminating at I-32 east of Wichita Falls.  All these interstates would hopefully move the terminus of US-81 to Bowie!

US-82 between Henrietta and New Boston is definitely a possible future freeway corridor. Parts of it between Sherman and Paris are already limited access Super-2. Sherman has a freeway quality segment (and volleyball interchange with US-69/75). Unfortunately, just like the US-380 corridor to the South, TX DOT is falling way behind on being able to preserve any ability to upgrade the US-82 corridor. Lots of development is sprouting close to road.

As metro DFW continues to grow and push development closer to the Red River and Lake Texoma region the US-82 corridor will see its traffic burden increase dramatically. There are major attractions within the region. Lake Texoma is a big draw. There are two major casinos on the other side of the Red River.

Quote from: sprjus4The US-290 corridor is too close to the existing I-12 to be a "western"  I-12.

If that corridor was to be fully upgraded to Interstate standards and signed as an Interstate there really wouldn't be any other practical choice than I-12. Otherwise it just stays as a fully Interstate quality US-290.

Quote from: sparkerYeah, it's a bit awkward; adjoining states and all!  If either TX 71 or US 290 is ever slated for Interstate development -- and that corridor extends west back to I-10 (as it should, given the massive population increase in that metro area), a "10N/10S" split a la DFW and I-35 would be appropriate.

The Austin metro (over 2 million people) is certainly big enough to be worthy of its own East-West Interstate quality corridor. That includes having a Western outlet going thru Johnson City and Fredericksburg out West to I-10. Obviously that means upgrading US-290. As fast as the Austin-San Antonio region is growing attention will have to be paid to more than just the US-290 and TX-71 corridors. San Marcos to Luling could be a short, regional super highway corridor. Same goes for New Braunfels to Seguin. And that corridor could go the other direction from New Braunfels westward to Boerne.

Renaming existing I-10 thru San Antonio as I-10S could be potentially pretty disruptive. There are all sorts of consequences to local businesses and other interests with a highway name change.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on June 18, 2021, 08:08:46 PM
^ I-18, as previously suggested. It doesn't have to be "grid compliant"  100% of the time.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on June 18, 2021, 09:19:32 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Any of the suggestions, from a suffixed I-10 all the way to I-18 (save 14!) would work; the I-grid's been busted too many times to be worrisome except to extreme anal retentives (those that can't decide if they need a psychiatrist or a proctologist!).  But the designation is secondary; Job #1 is getting some solid and consistent backing at all levels -- local, state, and national via the regional congressfolks -- for such a corridor's development in the first place.  First thing -- venture a bit north and talk to appropriate folks from Bryan, Temple, and Killeen and pick up some pointers about getting a new corridor into the system.  Pick out a catchy name for your project (Access Austin has a nice ring to it) and get those emails, texts, and even hard-copy fliers out in the affected area.  Avoid commissioning outside "studies"; that's where proposals go to die!  Once you've got that ball rolling, and the requisite legislation written and ready to insert into the FHWA kitty, then you can decide what is to fill in the blank where the Interstate reference is to go. 

(P.S.:  this would apply to US 287 DFW>Amarillo as well -- except for the catchy name.)
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 18, 2021, 10:15:59 PM
Quote from: sparkerAny of the suggestions, from a suffixed I-10 all the way to I-18 (save 14!) would work; the I-grid's been busted too many times to be worrisome except to extreme anal retentives (those that can't decide if they need a psychiatrist or a proctologist!).

Given Texas' history with highways over the past 20-30 years, odds are strong if US-290 and/or TX-71 were upgraded to Interstate standards between Austin and Houston/I-10 the freeways would retain their current numbers rather than gain Interstate designations. The same might go for any new freeway "spokes" between I-35 and I-10 between San Antonio and Austin.

Quote from: sparkerBut the designation is secondary; Job #1 is getting some solid and consistent backing at all levels -- local, state, and national via the regional congressfolks -- for such a corridor's development in the first place.  First thing -- venture a bit north and talk to appropriate folks from Bryan, Temple, and Killeen and pick up some pointers about getting a new corridor into the system.

I think any congratulatory overtures to backers of I-14 are premature. The only thing of substance that has been accomplished so far is renaming an existing short freeway in the Killeen-Copperas Cove-Fort Hood area as I-14. There is little in the way of actual new construction taking place anywhere else that I-14 has been proposed. Even easy tasks, such as adding a second pair of lanes to the existing Super 2 bypass around the South side of Copperas Cove appear to be on the back burner. There are various proposals for snaking I-14 across the "Texas Triangle," but none are final.

Meanwhile rapid growth is happening elsewhere in Texas. That activity does its own thing to incite highway improvements.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on June 19, 2021, 05:55:58 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 18, 2021, 10:15:59 PM
Quote from: sparkerAny of the suggestions, from a suffixed I-10 all the way to I-18 (save 14!) would work; the I-grid's been busted too many times to be worrisome except to extreme anal retentives (those that can't decide if they need a psychiatrist or a proctologist!).

Given Texas' history with highways over the past 20-30 years, odds are strong if US-290 and/or TX-71 were upgraded to Interstate standards between Austin and Houston/I-10 the freeways would retain their current numbers rather than gain Interstate designations. The same might go for any new freeway "spokes" between I-35 and I-10 between San Antonio and Austin.

Quote from: sparkerBut the designation is secondary; Job #1 is getting some solid and consistent backing at all levels -- local, state, and national via the regional congressfolks -- for such a corridor's development in the first place.  First thing -- venture a bit north and talk to appropriate folks from Bryan, Temple, and Killeen and pick up some pointers about getting a new corridor into the system.

I think any congratulatory overtures to backers of I-14 are premature. The only thing of substance that has been accomplished so far is renaming an existing short freeway in the Killeen-Copperas Cove-Fort Hood area as I-14. There is little in the way of actual new construction taking place anywhere else that I-14 has been proposed. Even easy tasks, such as adding a second pair of lanes to the existing Super 2 bypass around the South side of Copperas Cove appear to be on the back burner. There are various proposals for snaking I-14 across the "Texas Triangle," but none are final.

Meanwhile rapid growth is happening elsewhere in Texas. That activity does its own thing to incite highway improvements.

The successful feat of the I-14 backers to date has been to get the corridor on the federal books in the first place.  The signage of US 190 in the Killeen area as I-14 was simply as an exercise to publicize that corridor; actually building it out fully was never a task that was projected to happen overnight.   Those backers had a plan and got it noticed -- period.  What happens after that depends upon follow-through and circumstance.   Unless there's quite a bit of existing Interstate-grade or near to that along the corridor's length there will invariably be delays while negotiations regarding routing and ROW acquisition take place; except for a bit of TX 6 in the State College/Bryan area, everything between I-35 and I-45 is functionally "virgin territory".  I-14's backers therefore have a tougher row to hoe than other in-state corridors with considerable upgradeable or existing mileage, such as I-69/69E/69C.  However, that doesn't diminish my admiration for the way the corridor proponents were able to carve a cohesive plan out of a previously "scattershot" set of concepts, and get it on the TX radar.   The P2P is more of a mixed bag -- while there is considerable divided highway between San Angelo and Lubbock, only some of it is appropriate for "re-use" as an Interstate facility; the rest will require either a full rebuild or a parallel new-terrain alignment.   Also -- the basic P2P concept has been around for nearly 30 years; the I-14 corridor in its present form was germinated less than ten years ago; it's likely the older corridor concept will reach some form of realization considerably sooner than the more recent effort. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: SquonkHunter on June 19, 2021, 10:59:49 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
There has never been any Lubbock to Houston proposal of the Ports to Plains Corridor. Given the location of Lubbock, the most direct paths from Lubbock down to Houston go thru the DFW metro via one of two corridors: US-82 to Seymour to pick up TX-114 or US-84 down to Roscoe to pick up I-20. Either route goes into DFW where the traffic would pick up I-45. Any other route combinations are going to be more complicated. Lubbock is not enough of a major destination to gain a 460+ mile long freeway route direct to Houston.

Actually, there was such a "plan" at one time in the early '70s. I don't think it ever got past the nebulous "proposal" phase and the 1973-74 oil crisis pretty much killed it. The plan was to extend I-27 down US 84 from Lubbock to Roscoe, concurrent along I-20 to Abilene, from there thru Temple and entering Houston via the Northwest Frwy. (US 290). The section from Abilene to Temple was not specified. There was much speculation how it would be routed - TX 36 thru Comanche and Hamilton or US 84 via Brownwood and US 190 to Belton (current I-14).

My Grandfather worked for several different road construction contractors back then and lived in Hamilton County. He was privy to a lot of non-public info. I distinctly remember hearing him speak of it, particularly the potential routing of the Abilene to Temple section. I also remember him commenting later that it would probably never be built now.

A quick search of the 'net didn't turn up anything useful or else I would have posted it for all to see. I guess you'll just have to trust the memories of an old man, or not, as you see fit. Either way, no harm, no foul. Cheers.  ;-) 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TXtoNJ on June 19, 2021, 03:16:31 PM
Quote from: SquonkHunter on June 19, 2021, 10:59:49 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
There has never been any Lubbock to Houston proposal of the Ports to Plains Corridor. Given the location of Lubbock, the most direct paths from Lubbock down to Houston go thru the DFW metro via one of two corridors: US-82 to Seymour to pick up TX-114 or US-84 down to Roscoe to pick up I-20. Either route goes into DFW where the traffic would pick up I-45. Any other route combinations are going to be more complicated. Lubbock is not enough of a major destination to gain a 460+ mile long freeway route direct to Houston.

Actually, there was such a "plan" at one time in the early '70s. I don't think it ever got past the nebulous "proposal" phase and the 1973-74 oil crisis pretty much killed it. The plan was to extend I-27 down US 84 from Lubbock to Roscoe, concurrent along I-20 to Abilene, from there thru Temple and entering Houston via the Northwest Frwy. (US 290). The section from Abilene to Temple was not specified. There was much speculation how it would be routed - TX 36 thru Comanche and Hamilton or US 84 via Brownwood and US 190 to Belton (current I-14).

My Grandfather worked for several different road construction contractors back then and lived in Hamilton County. He was privy to a lot of non-public info. I distinctly remember hearing him speak of it, particularly the potential routing of the Abilene to Temple section. I also remember him commenting later that it would probably never be built now.

A quick search of the 'net didn't turn up anything useful or else I would have posted it for all to see. I guess you'll just have to trust the memories of an old man, or not, as you see fit. Either way, no harm, no foul. Cheers.  ;-) 

I wonder if the current design of the 290-36 interchange in Brenham is a vestige of these plans.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on June 19, 2021, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 19, 2021, 03:16:31 PM
Quote from: SquonkHunter on June 19, 2021, 10:59:49 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
There has never been any Lubbock to Houston proposal of the Ports to Plains Corridor. Given the location of Lubbock, the most direct paths from Lubbock down to Houston go thru the DFW metro via one of two corridors: US-82 to Seymour to pick up TX-114 or US-84 down to Roscoe to pick up I-20. Either route goes into DFW where the traffic would pick up I-45. Any other route combinations are going to be more complicated. Lubbock is not enough of a major destination to gain a 460+ mile long freeway route direct to Houston.

Actually, there was such a "plan" at one time in the early '70s. I don't think it ever got past the nebulous "proposal" phase and the 1973-74 oil crisis pretty much killed it. The plan was to extend I-27 down US 84 from Lubbock to Roscoe, concurrent along I-20 to Abilene, from there thru Temple and entering Houston via the Northwest Frwy. (US 290). The section from Abilene to Temple was not specified. There was much speculation how it would be routed - TX 36 thru Comanche and Hamilton or US 84 via Brownwood and US 190 to Belton (current I-14).

My Grandfather worked for several different road construction contractors back then and lived in Hamilton County. He was privy to a lot of non-public info. I distinctly remember hearing him speak of it, particularly the potential routing of the Abilene to Temple section. I also remember him commenting later that it would probably never be built now.

A quick search of the 'net didn't turn up anything useful or else I would have posted it for all to see. I guess you'll just have to trust the memories of an old man, or not, as you see fit. Either way, no harm, no foul. Cheers.  ;-) 

I wonder if the current design of the 290-36 interchange in Brenham is a vestige of these plans.

Seeing the Brenham bypass comes in on 36 from the north and aims southeast on 290 at the other end, one might think so.  But there's been quite a few bypasses and upgrades on TX 36 between there and Temple, particularly on the section shared with US 190 (occasionally commented upon in the I-14 thread), which tend to point to a sporadic but multi-section TxDOT effort to generally upgrade TX 36.  The Brenham bypass likely acknowledges the reality that much of the commercial traffic using 36 north of there will shift to EB US 290 toward Houston metro; the development of that and other TX 36 upgrades took place between any more comprehensive plan fomented in the 1970's and the current I-14 effort.  That being said, any preliminary studies done back then regarding any such proposal might have indicated that TX 36 was being utilized as a commercial corridor and could use a few upgrades for the sake of safety and/or efficiency. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: monty on July 16, 2021, 11:51:25 PM
I've recently driven US 287 and US 87 from DFW through Dumas, Dalhart and to Raton. That highway carries a lot of truck traffic and travelers from Texas to the Rocky Mountain region. It is driven like a high speed corridor. The danger is that it's not built for the traffic load. It's easy to understand the interest in upgrades. Construction of the new Loop 335 around Amarillo's west side is making good progress.

A primary Relief route that begins just a couple of miles short of the improved 335 project - FR1061 and US 385 going NW out of Amarillo up to Hartley last weekend was jammed with holiday vacation traffic. People driving 85 mph around those going 75 in an endless string of traffic with minimal relief at the too few third passing lane options. Never mind a slow moving vehicle trying to make the trip. I'd hate to be that guy.

Another TXDOT improvement is the addition of passing lanes on Texas 152, which appears as a legitimate Google Maps option via OKC when searching routes from Dallas to Raton.

As others have stated, the rural areas passed through are scarce of people, but not the traffic of those driving the corridors moving regionally.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on July 17, 2021, 04:08:17 AM
Quote from: monty on July 16, 2021, 11:51:25 PM
I've recently driven US 287 and US 87 from DFW through Dumas, Dalhart and to Raton. That highway carries a lot of truck traffic and travelers from Texas to the Rocky Mountain region. It is driven like a high speed corridor. The danger is that it's not built for the traffic load. It's easy to understand the interest in upgrades. Construction of the new Loop 335 around Amarillo's west side is making good progress.

A primary Relief route that begins just a couple of miles short of the improved 335 project - FR1061 and US 385 going NW out of Amarillo up to Hartley last weekend was jammed with holiday vacation traffic. People driving 85 mph around those going 75 in an endless string of traffic with minimal relief at the too few third passing lane options. Never mind a slow moving vehicle trying to make the trip. I'd hate to be that guy.

Another TXDOT improvement is the addition of passing lanes on Texas 152, which appears as a legitimate Google Maps option via OKC when searching routes from Dallas to Raton.

As others have stated, the rural areas passed through are scarce of people, but not the traffic of those driving the corridors moving regionally.

Although the Dumas-Raton segment of US 87 remains included in the P2P/HPC #38 corridor definition as a branch, most of the maps issued by TxDOT and the other backers of corridor development emphasize US 287 north across the OK panhandle and up to I-70 at Limon, CO as the principal "spine" and the one that would be likely to gain the I-27 designation.  Avoidance of the aging I-25 corridor south of Denver, and Raton Pass itself, seems to be a goal of said backers, any number of whom are likely connected to the trucking industry and looking to forge an alternate to the existing I-25/US 87 corridor.  Also likely to be a subject of avoidance:  NM and its oft-derided DOT, which has been loath to deploy free-flow facilities (most likely because of expense) and instead engage in widening or twinning of existing roads (like the heavily criticized US 550 corridor).  A P2P without severe gradients, even though it'll require considerably new construction, is probably going to be one of the governing criteria; avoidance of chokepoints like Pueblo and Colorado Springs would be icing on the cake.

Fancifully (and fictionally), if the new US 412-based Interstate corridor reaches fruition, a westward extension of such might well encompass the Dumas-Raton P2P corridor branch -- but right now that would be pure speculation as that corridor is expected to terminate at I-35.   
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: achilles765 on August 14, 2021, 01:46:56 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 09, 2021, 03:59:30 PM
Since 1990 Texas has had a long range plan to develop a "trunk system" of 4 lane divided highways. One feature of the plan was building bypasses around towns or thru routes on existing alignments that would either be freeways or upgradeable to freeways. The US-277 project between Wichita Falls and Abilene is one example of this trunk highway concept. One nice aspect to this plan is the resulting hybrid freeway/expressway roads would have segments easier to upgrade to Interstate quality later if needed.

Some of the corridors we frequently mention, such as this topic of US-87 in relation to I-27, were included in the Phase 1 plan trunk system plan.

A 4-lane divided highway is certainly going to be safer and more efficient at moving traffic than a mere 2-lane road. However 4-lane divided highways still have plenty of conflict points from vehicles turning onto the highway from at-grade streets or driveways. The conflict points are enhanced when thru traffic is moving at speeds of 70mph or more.

I think US-87 through most of the Panhandle down to far South Texas needs to be Interstate quality. Amarillo, Lubbock, Big Spring, Midland-Odessa, San Angelo, Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo form a pretty valuable commercial traffic corridor -one that would be even better connected to the Front Range cities in Colorado.

Statements that suggest Texas is trying to be North Carolina by frivolously signing new Interstates is just ridiculous. Texas is a gigantic state and its existing Interstate quality routes are spaced much farther apart than many states farther East. Texas is also home to four of the biggest urban MSA's in the nation, with Austin & San Antonio effectively merging into one huge MSA. Texas is continuing to add population at a fast rate, some of which is being drawn from the West Coast and Northeast. All that adds up to Texas needing to beef up its highways in a big way. Not every "trunk route" in Texas is worthy of an Interstate upgrade. But there is at least half a dozen corridors in Texas definitely worthy of Interstate upgrades.

I think its insane when I look at a map and see that a state like Ohio has so many interstate routes and 3dis...as does PA, NY, KY...and most of them just connect dead and dying rust belt towns; but here in Texas we only seem to have the major, long distance routes and a couple of intrastate connectors.. 

I also agree with your statement that a lot of Texas corridors need to be interstate-d.
Ones I immediately think of:
1. US 290 from Austin to Houston should be a western I-12
2. SH 249 should be I-545
3. US 287 from Beaumont to Amarillo and maybe farther north should be I-47, though maybe it ends and the route continuers as I-27 to Denver
4. Spur 330 in Houston should be I-710
5. SH 44 to Freer should be Interstate 6.  Or maybe Interstate 337
6. Beltway 8 should be renumbered I-245.
7. Hardy Toll Road should become I-445.
8. The grand parkway from IH 69 in Porter to IH 69 in Sugar Land should be I-469. Forget about the southern portion, forget the portion from IH 45 to SH 146, and assign SH 99 to the segment from SH 146 to IH 69/US59.
9. Spur 527 into downtown Houston should be I-569
10. Loop 1604 in SA should be I-837.
11. US 69/US96/US287 should be an I-914 from IH 14 to Port Arthur

Im sure I have some other ideas but I always think of those specifically based just on my own experience and familiarity
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TXtoNJ on August 14, 2021, 01:59:53 PM
It's really not insane. Interstate-status ultimately only indicates funding mechanism and basic design standards. The Rust Belt had been able to get that funding because it was still the Manufacturing Belt, and those factory towns had been critical to the WWII effort. Texas received less (though a lot of mileage for underserved rural areas) since ranching, cotton farming, and oil were the primary economic drivers, and freeways were mostly locally needed to get these primary goods from extraction points to the port in Houston or railhead in Dallas-Fort Worth.

The economy has drastically changed since then, as you're aware.

In Texas particularly, state highways are understood to be very good-quality roads. As such, I just don't think there's any practical purpose to slap Interstate labels on highways that are already sufficient. You can see that the most recent interstates (69, 2, 14) are by-and-large vanity projects to make the areas served seem like a bigger deal, nationally (don't think that Dallas having 4 major interstates, and Houston just 2, wasn't a huge motivator behind changing US 59 to I-69).

That's not to say that extending I-27 to Limon would be a vanity project. It would make sense precisely because so few are served on its current route. But to me, at least, you must have a better, more practical reason for creating/extending an Interstate than "lines on a map", completionism, or vanity.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Scott5114 on August 14, 2021, 02:50:22 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on August 14, 2021, 01:46:56 PM
I think its insane when I look at a map and see that a state like Ohio has so many interstate routes and 3dis...as does PA, NY, KY...and most of them just connect dead and dying rust belt towns; but here in Texas we only seem to have the major, long distance routes and a couple of intrastate connectors.. 

Well, that's because in 1956 the rust belt towns weren't dead and dying. In the '50s Ohio had more seats in Congress than Texas did, in fact.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 14, 2021, 01:59:53 PM
In Texas particularly, state highways are understood to be very good-quality roads. As such, I just don't think there's any practical purpose to slap Interstate labels on highways that are already sufficient.

State highways are understood to be very good-quality roads in just about every state that isn't New Mexico. Why not just do away with shields at all and sign the numbers in a square like European countries do?

Answer: because the shields have meaning. An Interstate shield means "this route is guaranteed to be a freeway". A U.S. route shield means "this may or may not be a freeway but it's a long-distance route that probably will take you out of state". A state highway shield, especially in Texas, could mean absolutely anything, from a full-on ten-lane freeway to a chipsealed two-lane laid down straight over the hills without much grading. It's one of the things that makes driving in Texas irritating to me–I have no clue what I'm going to get from a Texas highway without looking at a map.

In that sense, states like Illinois and North Carolina that put an Interstate designation on most every freeway are doing it right. Now, Oklahoma isn't blameless here; not every freeway in my home state is an Interstate. But we also don't have anywhere near as many disparate freeways as Texas does, and at least this month Oklahoma took a step toward fixing that with its I-240 extensions and by introducing more 3xx numbers for turnpikes.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TXtoNJ on August 14, 2021, 03:02:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2021, 02:50:22 PMAnswer: because the shields have meaning. An Interstate shield means "this route is guaranteed to be a freeway". A U.S. route shield means "this may or may not be a freeway but it's a long-distance route that probably will take you out of state". A state highway shield, especially in Texas, could mean absolutely anything, from a full-on ten-lane freeway to a chipsealed two-lane laid down straight over the hills without much grading. It's one of the things that makes driving in Texas irritating to me–I have no clue what I'm going to get from a Texas highway without looking at a map.

In that sense, states like Illinois and North Carolina that put an Interstate designation on most every freeway are doing it right. Now, Oklahoma isn't blameless here; not every freeway in my home state is an Interstate. But we also don't have anywhere near as many disparate freeways as Texas does, and at least this month Oklahoma took a step toward fixing that with its I-240 extensions and by introducing more 3xx numbers for turnpikes.

The funny thing is, your ideal system looks far more like the European system than the present one.

I have almost never seen a chipseal on a Texas State Highway - that treatment is generally reserved for the Farm/Ranch-to-Market roads. There are a couple of exceptions in West Texas, but in the Triangle, a white square means you're getting good pavement, wide shoulders, and 75 mph in rural areas.

I know we like seeing blue shields everywhere, but consider the perspective of the non-roadgeek, who only registers route numbers or names. From that perspective, changing the route number to give it a blue shield is far more disruptive than upgrading the highway, but keeping the number. If you're going to change the number of the highway just to appeal to some "lines on a map" sense of propriety, isn't that causing a lot of undue navigational stress? It might even cause more accidents than just keeping the number.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on August 14, 2021, 03:39:12 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on August 14, 2021, 01:46:56 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 09, 2021, 03:59:30 PM
Since 1990 Texas has had a long range plan to develop a "trunk system" of 4 lane divided highways. One feature of the plan was building bypasses around towns or thru routes on existing alignments that would either be freeways or upgradeable to freeways. The US-277 project between Wichita Falls and Abilene is one example of this trunk highway concept. One nice aspect to this plan is the resulting hybrid freeway/expressway roads would have segments easier to upgrade to Interstate quality later if needed.

Some of the corridors we frequently mention, such as this topic of US-87 in relation to I-27, were included in the Phase 1 plan trunk system plan.

A 4-lane divided highway is certainly going to be safer and more efficient at moving traffic than a mere 2-lane road. However 4-lane divided highways still have plenty of conflict points from vehicles turning onto the highway from at-grade streets or driveways. The conflict points are enhanced when thru traffic is moving at speeds of 70mph or more.

I think US-87 through most of the Panhandle down to far South Texas needs to be Interstate quality. Amarillo, Lubbock, Big Spring, Midland-Odessa, San Angelo, Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo form a pretty valuable commercial traffic corridor -one that would be even better connected to the Front Range cities in Colorado.

Statements that suggest Texas is trying to be North Carolina by frivolously signing new Interstates is just ridiculous. Texas is a gigantic state and its existing Interstate quality routes are spaced much farther apart than many states farther East. Texas is also home to four of the biggest urban MSA's in the nation, with Austin & San Antonio effectively merging into one huge MSA. Texas is continuing to add population at a fast rate, some of which is being drawn from the West Coast and Northeast. All that adds up to Texas needing to beef up its highways in a big way. Not every "trunk route" in Texas is worthy of an Interstate upgrade. But there is at least half a dozen corridors in Texas definitely worthy of Interstate upgrades.

I think its insane when I look at a map and see that a state like Ohio has so many interstate routes and 3dis...as does PA, NY, KY...and most of them just connect dead and dying rust belt towns; but here in Texas we only seem to have the major, long distance routes and a couple of intrastate connectors.. 

I also agree with your statement that a lot of Texas corridors need to be interstate-d.
Ones I immediately think of:
1. US 290 from Austin to Houston should be a western I-12
2. SH 249 should be I-545
3. US 287 from Beaumont to Amarillo and maybe farther north should be I-47, though maybe it ends and the route continuers as I-27 to Denver
4. Spur 330 in Houston should be I-710
5. SH 44 to Freer should be Interstate 6.  Or maybe Interstate 337
6. Beltway 8 should be renumbered I-245.
7. Hardy Toll Road should become I-445.
8. The grand parkway from IH 69 in Porter to IH 69 in Sugar Land should be I-469. Forget about the southern portion, forget the portion from IH 45 to SH 146, and assign SH 99 to the segment from SH 146 to IH 69/US59.
9. Spur 527 into downtown Houston should be I-569
10. Loop 1604 in SA should be I-837.
11. US 69/US96/US287 should be an I-914 from IH 14 to Port Arthur

Im sure I have some other ideas but I always think of those specifically based just on my own experience and familiarity

Austin-Houston has been discussed ad nauseum in several TX threads, with numerous opinions about the efficacy of elevating TX 71 and/or US 290 to Interstates.  Seek out those discussions and you shall find!  The chances are that somewhere down the line US 287 DFW-Amarillo might gain enough consistent backing and corresponding publicity to advance any Interstate plans, but it'll likely be signed as an even 2di in the 30's rather than the northwestern part of a big arc coming up from Beaumont.  And you've got a lot of Houston-based loops & spurs on the list; just be reminded that TxDOT probably won't sign any toll facilities as Interstates until they're paid off.  And the recent I-14 extension legislation specifies just such a spur up US 96 from Port Arthur to the E-W main trunk of I-14 at Jasper -- but don't hold your breath; this is a project that's going to take several decades to get off the ground.   And TX 44 Corpus-Freer?  Could be I-6, could be I-569, could be just about anything related to the grid or the intersecting routes.  Since you're more intimate with Houston-area matters, whether your local corridors are viable is something you need to figure out with additional research -- but the ones in the other part of the state have all gotten some attention -- even if only within this board. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Scott5114 on August 14, 2021, 04:36:54 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 14, 2021, 03:02:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2021, 02:50:22 PMAnswer: because the shields have meaning. An Interstate shield means "this route is guaranteed to be a freeway". A U.S. route shield means "this may or may not be a freeway but it's a long-distance route that probably will take you out of state". A state highway shield, especially in Texas, could mean absolutely anything, from a full-on ten-lane freeway to a chipsealed two-lane laid down straight over the hills without much grading. It's one of the things that makes driving in Texas irritating to me–I have no clue what I'm going to get from a Texas highway without looking at a map.

In that sense, states like Illinois and North Carolina that put an Interstate designation on most every freeway are doing it right. Now, Oklahoma isn't blameless here; not every freeway in my home state is an Interstate. But we also don't have anywhere near as many disparate freeways as Texas does, and at least this month Oklahoma took a step toward fixing that with its I-240 extensions and by introducing more 3xx numbers for turnpikes.

The funny thing is, your ideal system looks far more like the European system than the present one.

I have almost never seen a chipseal on a Texas State Highway - that treatment is generally reserved for the Farm/Ranch-to-Market roads. There are a couple of exceptions in West Texas, but in the Triangle, a white square means you're getting good pavement, wide shoulders, and 75 mph in rural areas.

I know we like seeing blue shields everywhere, but consider the perspective of the non-roadgeek, who only registers route numbers or names. From that perspective, changing the route number to give it a blue shield is far more disruptive than upgrading the highway, but keeping the number. If you're going to change the number of the highway just to appeal to some "lines on a map" sense of propriety, isn't that causing a lot of undue navigational stress? It might even cause more accidents than just keeping the number.

The non-roadgeeks I know of are more confused by the difference between a US shield and a state highway shield than they are between either of those and an Interstate shield. Both of those are "Highway X", but an Interstate is always "I-X". And Interstate = freeway is synonymous in most people's minds. Hell, I remember hearing somewhere that there are people in Ada that refer to their freeway loop as "the interstate", despite the fact that it's signed as State Highway 3 and doesn't even connect to the Interstate System. To these sorts of people a road "becoming an Interstate" makes logical sense because it means the same thing as "becoming a freeway", so long as the new designation is applied right after the upgrade, of course.

Even the FM/RM shield is no indication of quality or lack thereof, though. There's at least one freeway that carries it. So, like the white square shield, since it can mean anything, it means nothing.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 14, 2021, 06:58:03 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJI have almost never seen a chipseal on a Texas State Highway - that treatment is generally reserved for the Farm/Ranch-to-Market roads.

I've personally seen it numerous times out in the Panhandle and other parts of West Texas. For instance TX-256 between US-83 and the US-287 junction in Memphis, TX has been quite a mixed bag of 2-lane road standards over the years. Some portions of the road have been improved to where it is moderately safe. But there are still other parts that suck (rough road surface, next to nothing in terms of shoulders and lots of hills and dips creating many blind spots for any passing).
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: vdeane on August 14, 2021, 11:59:07 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2021, 02:50:22 PM
An Interstate shield means "this route is guaranteed to be a freeway".
Does it (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1270626,-104.8097424,3a,68.1y,155.93h,84.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXOYvKveoqhWUun7Jh2Rt7w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) really (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9427447,-74.0262166,3a,29.9y,305.11h,91.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suTLTSp4DaCAFp2KS96fJfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)?
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Scott5114 on August 15, 2021, 02:26:02 AM
Wyoming doesn't actually exist. Corco made it up.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on August 15, 2021, 03:45:56 AM
Quote from: vdeane on August 14, 2021, 11:59:07 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2021, 02:50:22 PM
An Interstate shield means "this route is guaranteed to be a freeway".
Does it (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1270626,-104.8097424,3a,68.1y,155.93h,84.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXOYvKveoqhWUun7Jh2Rt7w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) really (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9427447,-74.0262166,3a,29.9y,305.11h,91.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suTLTSp4DaCAFp2KS96fJfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)?

Those are just ramp metering lights on I-180.........yeah, that's the ticket! 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: SkyPesos on August 15, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
Quote from: achilles765 on August 14, 2021, 01:46:56 PM
I think its insane when I look at a map and see that a state like Ohio has so many interstate routes and 3dis...as does PA, NY, KY...and most of them just connect dead and dying rust belt towns; but here in Texas we only seem to have the major, long distance routes and a couple of intrastate connectors..
Ohio doesn't really have any 3di that connects one city to another; the 3dis are concentrated within metro areas. Also, unlike NY with I-587 and I-790, there aren't really any "glorified ramp"  3dis either, unless you count I-490 in Cleveland, which was originally planned to be something longer.
Kentucky's intercity 3di are pretty recent, as most of those are on a named parkway: the state's former toll road system.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: I-55 on August 15, 2021, 11:53:01 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 15, 2021, 10:33:30 AM
Quote from: achilles765 on August 14, 2021, 01:46:56 PM
I think its insane when I look at a map and see that a state like Ohio has so many interstate routes and 3dis...as does PA, NY, KY...and most of them just connect dead and dying rust belt towns; but here in Texas we only seem to have the major, long distance routes and a couple of intrastate connectors..
Ohio doesn't really have any 3di that connects one city to another; the 3dis are concentrated within metro areas. Also, unlike NY with I-587 and I-790, there aren't really any "glorified ramp"  3dis either, unless you count I-490 in Cleveland, which was originally planned to be something longer.
Kentucky's intercity 3di are pretty recent, as most of those are on a named parkway: the state's former toll road system.

Populations of Kentucky towns served by new 3dis (per Google):

I-165: Owensboro (59,536), Bowling Green (67,600)

I-365: Glasgow (14,393), Somerset (11,447, Pulaski County 64,979 up 50% since 1980), feeds into I-65 toward BG.

I-569: Most populous on current route would be Central City (5,808). If extended along WK Parkway to Elizabethtown (29,620) and Leitchfield (6,807) are added.

BG Parkway upgrade would connect Elizabethtown with Lexington (320,601)
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TXtoNJ on August 15, 2021, 12:39:05 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 14, 2021, 06:58:03 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJI have almost never seen a chipseal on a Texas State Highway - that treatment is generally reserved for the Farm/Ranch-to-Market roads.

I've personally seen it numerous times out in the Panhandle and other parts of West Texas. For instance TX-256 between US-83 and the US-287 junction in Memphis, TX has been quite a mixed bag of 2-lane road standards over the years. Some portions of the road have been improved to where it is moderately safe. But there are still other parts that suck (rough road surface, next to nothing in terms of shoulders and lots of hills and dips creating many blind spots for any passing).

"There are a couple of exceptions in West Texas, but in the Triangle, a white square means you're getting good pavement, wide shoulders, and 75 mph in rural areas."

I believe this holds up.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2021, 01:29:29 PM
There is a whole lot of Texas outside the triangle. Having driven much of West Texas (and continuing to do so) I stand by my statement. Further, there are FM roads within the Triangle that are clearly better than SH routes outside the Triangle.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TXtoNJ on August 15, 2021, 07:50:32 PM
Not a whole lot of people though. Only about 1.5 million spread over that vast area. So, your statement really doesn't comport with most everyday Texans' experience.

Furthermore, those higher-quality FM roads were why they tried to implement that UR designation 25 years ago.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Scott5114 on August 15, 2021, 07:59:06 PM
So it's okay for TxDOT to botch it so long as it happens where nobody notices?
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: bwana39 on August 15, 2021, 08:07:55 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 14, 2021, 03:02:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2021, 02:50:22 PMAnswer: because the shields have meaning. An Interstate shield means "this route is guaranteed to be a freeway". A U.S. route shield means "this may or may not be a freeway but it's a long-distance route that probably will take you out of state". A state highway shield, especially in Texas, could mean absolutely anything, from a full-on ten-lane freeway to a chipsealed two-lane laid down straight over the hills without much grading. It's one of the things that makes driving in Texas irritating to me–I have no clue what I'm going to get from a Texas highway without looking at a map.

In that sense, states like Illinois and North Carolina that put an Interstate designation on most every freeway are doing it right. Now, Oklahoma isn't blameless here; not every freeway in my home state is an Interstate. But we also don't have anywhere near as many disparate freeways as Texas does, and at least this month Oklahoma took a step toward fixing that with its I-240 extensions and by introducing more 3xx numbers for turnpikes.

The funny thing is, your ideal system looks far more like the European system than the present one.

I have almost never seen a chipseal on a Texas State Highway - that treatment is generally reserved for the Farm/Ranch-to-Market roads. There are a couple of exceptions in West Texas, but in the Triangle, a white square means you're getting good pavement, wide shoulders, and 75 mph in rural areas.

I know we like seeing blue shields everywhere, but consider the perspective of the non-roadgeek, who only registers route numbers or names. From that perspective, changing the route number to give it a blue shield is far more disruptive than upgrading the highway, but keeping the number. If you're going to change the number of the highway just to appeal to some "lines on a map" sense of propriety, isn't that causing a lot of undue navigational stress? It might even cause more accidents than just keeping the number.

As to Chipseal, there used to be several examples of it on the Interstates. So I understand FHWA made them remove it. I-30 in Hopkins county was pre-interstate US-67 with (most of) the at grade crossings removed. (The last of the at grade crossings were fixed around 1990).  Back to the road: It had those LOUD expansion joints. The chipseal really helped. Between 1985 and the early nineties, they took up all of the pre-1955 concrete.

Today, Texas uses MOSTLY Asphaltic Concrete (Hotmix) Overlay on all the divided highways. I say mostly because just like the now disused practice of asphalt overlay on bridges, there are exceptions to almost everything EVEN ON THE INTERSTATES. There is still a good bit of chipseal on the FM Roads and a limited amount on the (primarily two lane) arterials.  Everywhere in Texas, asphalt overlay (even on brand new construction) is the preferred top coat.

I am going to mention one other thing. On here we hear so much about the "Texas Triangle" The triangle is purely a construct that is formed by the Interstate corridor triangle (I-10, I-35, and I-45.) Rural economic development is no more vibrant inside the "Triangle " than without. Realistically, a much better way to look at Texas is East Texas (The part of Texas east of I-35 and I-37) versus western Texas (the part west of them.)  I-10 MIGHT form an southerly barrier, but I-45 really is moot as a barrier or defining point in any differences in rural development including roads. (Building a corridor or two directly from Austin to Houston and getting  Bryan - College Station  into the grid of significant cities are exceptions.) Roads east of the I-35 corridor (which probably extends forty miles more less further west) clearly are better than those west of it.  From a rural highway perspective, the triangle really defines little to nothing.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on August 15, 2021, 09:06:35 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Funny thing, the first time I heard the "triangle" broken out as a separately considered region was back about 2014 when the first inkling of the I-14 corridor was being publicized (a year before the actual designation).  Obviously it means something to a few folks (possibly Aggie alums) who are residing and/or doing business in the area -- more as a way to provide focus for the area rather than the eastern half of Texas as a whole.  I would suppose DFW and the adjoining regions -- who are increasingly identifying themselves as "North Texas" (I get the Dallas Morning News online daily, so this reference appears with almost every edition), would likely consider themselves separate from "triangle" folks.  I would suppose that a state as large and variegated as Texas would at some point psychically be self-divided and subsequently self-identified by subregion; a quick "defocus" viewing of any map pretty much delineates the "Triangle" by default.  It's probably of little overall consequence except to indicate to the outside world exactly where it is and how it relates to the remainder of the state and national region.  I wouldn't at all be surprised to see any promotional maps delineating the triangle complete with big arrows at or near the corners pointing to the major cities on its perimeter:  Houston, San Antonio>Austin, and DFW, if only to emphasize how close potential facilities located within the triangle are to established commercial centers for efficient travel or shipping.  BCS, and the nearby segments of the I-14 corridor, are likely preparing or already engaged in effort to entice major distribution facilities to that area (being criss-crossed by rail lines enhances that effort considerably!).  The triangle may be an artifice or construct -- but it's a well-placed one!


Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: bwana39 on August 16, 2021, 12:20:39 PM
First time I ever heard of the triangle, it was  a posting on here. I was killing myself to try to figure out how the posting applied to the only triangle I knew of in Texas (the GOLDEN Triangle: Beaumont, Orange, and Port Arthur)   

As to I-27 extension, I feel pretty confident there are going to be significant improvements made to the US-87 corridor . I expect we will see both alternatives (Abilene and Midland / Odessa) upgraded similarly. Do I see I-27 signs on them; maybe. The maybe comes with two caveats. If the Feds send " Interstate only" money is one. The other is if the attitude of how highways in Texas are (re)numbered.  I know there are lots of people especially OTR truckers who will disagree, but I don't see the cost of upgrading to full freeway through the rural stretches being cost effective or even warranted. I-69 is coming to NE Texas, but I am not sure it is needed through the rural areas. Getting freeway through / around the small and mid-sized towns is a totally different issue.

One of the key items I keep seeing here is the road geometry. You don't have to replace the entire road to improve the geometry. If you use Louisiana as an example, an Interstate might have to be built to those standards, there is not a mechanism to enforce they be maintained to said standards (geometry is kind of moot, but  road conditions and even signage are.)  A state doesn't need the Feds to force standards on them. They can make the same choice to upgrade the shortfalls on US and State Highways. If trucking associations would push for  improvements to particular shortfalls, they might be considered. On the other hand, just a generic wish list will seem like the industry wanting it all and want it now.

North Texas: This media phrase has taken hold and generally has overtaken the term the Metroplex. It acknowledges that Dallas and Tarrant counties are not the whole of the D-FW TV market or even the sole counties with significant population. (Collin County has over a million residents and Denton County has over 800,000.)
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TXtoNJ on August 16, 2021, 07:34:24 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 15, 2021, 07:59:06 PM
So it's okay for TxDOT to botch it so long as it happens where nobody notices?

If a tree falls in the middle of the woods? Lol

And yes, the Triangle is a more recent concept as the region has grown from three good-sized cities to two near megacities with a fast-growing southwestern corner. It's pretty apparent the areas surrounding the large cities have different interests than the ones particularly remote from it, even if they are both rural.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: bwana39 on August 17, 2021, 08:28:29 AM
This is a thread about a proposed or desired RURAL Freeway. This one clearly outside the hyped triangle. The point is the only differences between inside the triangle and outside it, particularly to the east, is road building from  Austin to Houston and Waco to College Station to Houston.

Much of the I-27 (and even I-14) build up work is coming. It is coming just like the Hubbard (Hill County) bypass on SH-31. Maybe we should be clamoring for SH-31 to be I-120 or perhaps I-535?  Even with a loop around every town, the Interstates or even Interstate type roads may be decades (or even centuries) away. Then again Freddie Mercury said it. "I (we) want it all, I want it all, AND I want it now."

Getting away from going through Corrigan or Marshall on US-59 means more than freeway between Carthage and Marshall ever will, This is the case on hundreds of US and State Highways both inside the triangle and outside of it. Fact of business; even outside of Texas.



Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on August 17, 2021, 12:43:06 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 17, 2021, 08:28:29 AM
This is a thread about a proposed or desired RURAL Freeway. This one clearly outside the hyped triangle. The point is the only differences between inside the triangle and outside it, particularly to the east, is road building from  Austin to Houston and Waco to College Station to Houston.

Much of the I-27 (and even I-14) build up work is coming. It is coming just like the Hubbard (Hill County) bypass on SH-31. Maybe we should be clamoring for 31 to be I-120 or perhaps I-535?  Even with a loop around every town, the Interstates or even Interstate type roads may be decades (or even centuries) away. Then again Freddie Mercury said it. "I (we) want it all, I want it all, AND I want it now."

Getting away from going through Corrigan or Marshall on US-59 means more than freeway between Carthage and Marshall ever will, This is the case on hundreds of US and State Highways both inside the triangle and outside of it. Fact of business; even outside of Texas.


At present, the status of the two corridors in the discussion (P2P/I-27, I-14) is quite different -- as far as actual planning (except for the Amarillo bypass), I-14 has the edge, although the overall P2P rationale is more compelling.  Right now P2P remains in the "study" phase; I-14, at least east of Temple, is defining alignments and how it ties in with the other regional arterials (TX 6, TX 249).  But there are some common features besides deciding how they're going to snake through San Angelo -- the I-14 N-S Eden branch would likely vanish if I-27 were to be developed along parallel US 277 -- and the overall efficacy of "I-14S" along the desolate western reaches of US 190 has yet to be parsed out for potential funding (my guess: like the center/AR/MS section of I-69, it'll be the last to be tackled, if at all).  But, hell -- that is a lot of freeway mileage for a relatively small population out in West Texas, and something's got to give at some point.  And at that point, there will be discussion as to just how to "rationalize" the various sections of the various routes, combining and/or eliminating the less reasonable -- unless politics intervenes (which it almost certainly will to some extent) and less needed corridors remain in the mix just because they serve someone's district.  Rep. Hurd, through whose district "I-14S" traveled, is no longer in Congress, but obviously his successor was able to hold on to that corridor portion (although that district will get plenty of work if the P2P finally sees full development).  Also, with a few extra House seats, there's liable to be redistricting, so whoever occupies the new districts, if relevant to these corridors, may have their own agenda. 

Aside from West Texas getting a boatload of Interstate mileage (much of it unnecessary or redundant), this is going to be an exercise in competing projects -- we'll have to see if the various parties can work together to get the most important segments done or simply argue the thing into a constant state of procrastination!
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: DJStephens on September 05, 2021, 07:01:40 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 17, 2021, 04:08:17 AM
Although the Dumas-Raton segment of US 87 remains included in the P2P/HPC #38 corridor definition as a branch, most of the maps issued by TxDOT and the other backers of corridor development emphasize US 287 north across the OK panhandle and up to I-70 at Limon, CO as the principal "spine" and the one that would be likely to gain the I-27 designation.  Avoidance of the aging I-25 corridor south of Denver, and Raton Pass itself, seems to be a goal of said backers, any number of whom are likely connected to the trucking industry and looking to forge an alternate to the existing I-25/US 87 corridor.  Also likely to be a subject of avoidance:  NM and its oft-derided DOT, which has been loath to deploy free-flow facilities (most likely because of expense) and instead engage in widening or twinning of existing roads (like the heavily criticized US 550 corridor).  A P2P without severe gradients, even though it'll require considerably new construction, is probably going to be one of the governing criteria; avoidance of chokepoints like Pueblo and Colorado Springs would be icing on the cake.

Have seen the horrible decision-making and poor construction quality in NM up front and personal.  Over the last twenty five years.  Gary Johnson and Pete Rahn.   They locked in regressive design standards, that had started a decade or so before under Anthony Anaya.   Flush medians, skinny "half" shoulders, left hand "acceleration lanes", and shifting and skewing are all some of the low-lights. 
The NM 44/US-550 four lane project (early 00's) increased speeds and did not reduce death tolls on the heavily trafficked roadway between the N edge of Albuquerque, and Farmington.   Simply building a parallel roadway, with a vegetated median, would have prevented most of the fatalities that have occured, in the  last two decades on that route.   No margin of safety, with a "flush median" the errant vehicle goes into oncoming traffic, instead of a vegetated or grass median. 
Am actually surprised, to best of knowledge, that no one has hired a high powered lawyer to sue, because of poor design.  Would think a state department would desire to protect themselves from that sort of action.   Perhaps they are insulated, despite poor decision-making, on a rebuild, from that type of litigation. 
The Raton branch needs to be pruned off.  Not a good idea to direct long-distance freight, along a substandard US 64-87, and then over a pass with pavement that is breaking apart.   
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 06, 2021, 01:10:52 AM
The unfortunate thing is while the state of New Mexico is pretty terrible with its highway standards Colorado is not a hell of a lot better. Colorado appears to be doing as little as possible to improve traffic handling capacity on its highways in the face of population growth along the front range.

For instance, I've seen the Colorado Springs area grow quite a lot over the past 25 years. Highway improvements in that area have been pretty modest in that time span. Some giant new housing addition will get dropped onto the map, complete with wide, landscaped streets. But it all dumps onto a 2-lane arterial no different than when it was wilderness. Oklahoma sucks compared to Colorado in a number of ways. But at least ODOT and the state government can convert a 2-lane road to 4-lane divided after enough traffic and head-on collisions take place.

With that in mind, even if Texas and Oklahoma can work together to get I-27 extended up North of Boise City to the edge of the caprock there is no guarantee Colorado will devote any of its resources to finish the highway up I-70. Such a thing needs to happen. But unless there is very clear (and well funded) prodding from the federal government there is no way I-27 would ever reach Limon.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on September 06, 2021, 02:11:14 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on September 05, 2021, 07:01:40 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 17, 2021, 04:08:17 AM
Although the Dumas-Raton segment of US 87 remains included in the P2P/HPC #38 corridor definition as a branch, most of the maps issued by TxDOT and the other backers of corridor development emphasize US 287 north across the OK panhandle and up to I-70 at Limon, CO as the principal "spine" and the one that would be likely to gain the I-27 designation.  Avoidance of the aging I-25 corridor south of Denver, and Raton Pass itself, seems to be a goal of said backers, any number of whom are likely connected to the trucking industry and looking to forge an alternate to the existing I-25/US 87 corridor.  Also likely to be a subject of avoidance:  NM and its oft-derided DOT, which has been loath to deploy free-flow facilities (most likely because of expense) and instead engage in widening or twinning of existing roads (like the heavily criticized US 550 corridor).  A P2P without severe gradients, even though it'll require considerably new construction, is probably going to be one of the governing criteria; avoidance of chokepoints like Pueblo and Colorado Springs would be icing on the cake.

Have seen the horrible decision-making and poor construction quality in NM up front and personal.  Over the last twenty five years.  Gary Johnson and Pete Rahn.   They locked in regressive design standards, that had started a decade or so before under Anthony Anaya.   Flush medians, skinny "half" shoulders, left hand "acceleration lanes", and shifting and skewing are all some of the low-lights. 
The NM 44/US-550 four lane project (early 00's) increased speeds and did not reduce death tolls on the heavily trafficked roadway between the N edge of Albuquerque, and Farmington.   Simply building a parallel roadway, with a vegetated median, would have prevented most of the fatalities that have occured, in the  last two decades on that route.   No margin of safety, with a "flush median" the errant vehicle goes into oncoming traffic, instead of a vegetated or grass median. 
Am actually surprised, to best of knowledge, that no one has hired a high powered lawyer to sue, because of poor design.  Would think a state department would desire to protect themselves from that sort of action.   Perhaps they are insulated, despite poor decision-making, on a rebuild, from that type of litigation. 
The Raton branch needs to be pruned off.  Not a good idea to direct long-distance freight, along a substandard US 64-87, and then over a pass with pavement that is breaking apart.   

If by (unfortunate) chance a decision is made to shunt I-27 over the Dumas-Raton section of US 87 instead of north along US 287 into OK and CO, it's unlikely that the twinned section of the existing route in NM would be utilized as the basis for the alignment; it would have to be completely rebuilt, with bypasses as required, or replaced with a parallel new-terrain alignment (I'd venture to guess the former, simply to save as much as possible on ROW).  Unfortunately, the overall effect would be to dump traffic onto I-25 over Raton Pass and up through Pueblo and the Springs on a woefully inadequate (for the existing traffic load, no less) facility.  Hopefully, more rational heads will prevail and select the US 287 pathway despite the need for new alignment for most of its length.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 06, 2021, 01:10:52 AM
The unfortunate thing is while the state of New Mexico is pretty terrible with its highway standards Colorado is not a hell of a lot better. Colorado appears to be doing as little as possible to improve traffic handling capacity on its highways in the face of population growth along the front range.

For instance, I've seen the Colorado Springs area grow quite a lot over the past 25 years. Highway improvements in that area have been pretty modest in that time span. Some giant new housing addition will get dropped onto the map, complete with wide, landscaped streets. But it all dumps onto a 2-lane arterial no different than when it was wilderness. Oklahoma sucks compared to Colorado in a number of ways. But at least ODOT and the state government can convert a 2-lane road to 4-lane divided after enough traffic and head-on collisions take place.

With that in mind, even if Texas and Oklahoma can work together to get I-27 extended up North of Boise City to the edge of the caprock there is no guarantee Colorado will devote any of its resources to finish the highway up I-70. Such a thing needs to happen. But unless there is very clear (and well funded) prodding from the federal government there is no way I-27 would ever reach Limon.

Quite correct; it'll take a definitive federal "earmark" for any I-27 project north of TX to reach fruition, as well as some prodding of CDOT by state legislators from the eastern plains regions to remind the agency and its executive superiors that the state includes more than the Front Range and the tourist areas in the mountains.  Absent that, a completed I-27 would likely have a long lasting northern "temporary" terminus somewhere around Stratford, TX. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Rothman on September 06, 2021, 09:12:06 AM
Earmarks rarely totally fund a project and commonly only provide a small fraction if the cost.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 06, 2021, 09:45:31 AM
Quote from: sparkerIf by (unfortunate) chance a decision is made to shunt I-27 over the Dumas-Raton section of US 87 instead of north along US 287 into OK and CO, it's unlikely that the twinned section of the existing route in NM would be utilized as the basis for the alignment; it would have to be completely rebuilt, with bypasses as required, or replaced with a parallel new-terrain alignment (I'd venture to guess the former, simply to save as much as possible on ROW).

First, I think it's quite unlikely an extension of I-27 would be built thru Northern New Mexico via Clayton to Raton. As long as individual states are left doing most of the heavy lifting on highway improvement efforts while the federal government tries its best to remain AWOL the state of New Mexico will be free to maintain its standard of sub-standard philosophy on highways.

Hypothetically, if an I-27 extension were built to meet I-25 in Raton it would not be necessary at to build a new terrain, parallel route. Such a thing would be pretty wasteful (not to mention more costly to maintain afterward). Bypasses would be required for towns like Clayton. But in between towns the existing highway could be improved in chunks, 2 lanes at a time. It would still require serious improvements to grading and entirely new road surfaces (such as real concrete super-slab), along with proper shoulders, medians, cable barriers, landscape maintenance, etc. Nevertheless, much of an Interstate quality upgrade could be built over the current highway foot print.

Quote from: sparkerUnfortunately, the overall effect would be to dump traffic onto I-25 over Raton Pass and up through Pueblo and the Springs on a woefully inadequate (for the existing traffic load, no less) facility.  Hopefully, more rational heads will prevail and select the US 287 pathway despite the need for new alignment for most of its length.

Traffic entering I-25 at Raton is (currently) a relatively small contribution to overall traffic levels along I-25 thru the Front Range cities. Population migration to that region is having a greater effect. Far more improvements need to be made to I-25 regardless of what happens with the Ports to Plains Corridor.

CDOT continues to make various head-scratching decisions. I'm still baffled by the re-build of I-25 thru much of Pueblo. The end product still features only 2 lanes in each direction. It stays 2x2 between Pueblo and Colorado Springs, despite traffic levels getting heavier. I-25 doesn't expand past a 2x2 lanes configuration until the exit by World Arena. And that's well inside Colorado Springs, not far from downtown. A lot of work was done to I-25 in the central and Northern part of the Springs. But the end result is little more than a 3x3 setup. Nothing impressive at all. You won't see a 4x4 configuration until the Southern outskirts of Denver. 20+ years ago Powers Blvd in the Springs was intended to be turned into an Interstate quality loop. All these years later it's mostly a glorified city street. Woodmen Road is a similar situation. US-24 remains pretty dangerous going East of the Springs.

So, yeah, it will take a lot of federal money (and stern marching orders) to force CDOT to build its part of an I-27 extension. CDOT and the CO state government will never do that on its own volition.

An I-27 extension up thru Lamar and Kit Carson to Limon might be easier to build with New Mexico removed from that situation. It would require more miles of new Interstate, but the road goes through a lot of sparsely populated area on a currently under-utilized corridor. I'm sure truckers would like such a route with not having to go over Raton Pass. On the other hand, weather in the Panhandles and SE Colorado can get pretty hairy year-round. In the warm months very severe storms are a big threat, especially to high profile vehicles like trucks. From late October to late March (or even April) blizzards can be a problem.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 06, 2021, 03:11:52 PM
^^  I have contested for years if I-27 were to be extended, it would A) be extended as a route with a control city of Denver (in other words, maybe not directly to Denver, but making it to an interstate that does) and B) staying east of the Rockies for easier terrain.  That leaver the US-87 to US-287 corridor (Amarillo-Dumas-Boise City-Kit Carson-Limon).  It makes all the sense.  Why would the interstate bend way west to Raton to dump traffic on the already poor conditioned Raton Pass when you can send the traffic on the very flat plains of the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles plus the flat side of Colorado?  It's a straighter shot and serves as a separate route than I-25 (sans the I-70 section from Limon to Denver). 

I also feel the US-87\US-287 corridor will serve the much needed Dallas/Ft. Worth to Denver corridor better than a route to Raton will (this of course when upgrading the US-287 corridor from Ft. Worth to Amarillo to interstate takes place.  Not if, because it is going to happen).
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on September 06, 2021, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 06, 2021, 09:12:06 AM
Earmarks rarely totally fund a project and commonly only provide a small fraction if the cost.

Unless it's a continuing stream of earmarks, generally from a specific congressperson or even a state delegation, that is sought yearly, a single earmark definitely wouldn't do much to fund a project -- particularly one with the length and separate state jurisdictions of this one.  The principal drawback of such a corridor being principally promoted from one state (as the P2P is re TX) is that adding the other states to the mix often is problematic due to a mismatch of priorities.  In this case, OK probably won't be a continuing problem, as they've already done some preliminary work (Boise City bypass) and the overall mileage is relatively short; it's convincing CO interests to back something in a largely forgotten part of the state that'll probably prove quite daunting.  It's similar in that respect to I-49 in AR:  it doesn't serve the interests of LR -- and when it comes to that corridor, the desire to serve the rapidly growing -- and politically important -- NWA region has resulted in the northern half of I-49 being close to completion, while the remainder, through a decidedly less populated region, continues to languish while specific aspects of the corridor are being hashed out on paper; there seems to be no rush to actually build much of anything.  And the plains of SE CO, while devoid of major mountain obstacles, just haven't been on the state's developmental radar -- it's not as if there would be a significant near-term economic impact beyond the provision of roadside amenities.  It'll likely take a great deal of convincing on the part of the (mostly) TX-based backers -- possibly "buttonholing" at the congressional level -- to get CO parties on board with this.  Even though the mileage is less, the US 87/Raton route would probably pose much the same issues, with the added "we just addressed that route; why would we do it again so soon afterward" counterargument.  Neither corridor branch is an optimal choice regarding political feasibility, but the 287/Limon option does provide the best long-term prospect for regional value.   
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 06, 2021, 08:23:53 PM
In the meantime, given the complications posed by both the New Mexico and Colorado state governments, any substantial upgrades to I-27 will probably stay confined within Texas. It's possible we could see I-27 extended North of Amarillo to Dumas and maybe as far North as Stratford. But most of the improvements would be happening South of Lubbock.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on September 06, 2021, 08:30:38 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on September 06, 2021, 03:11:52 PM
It makes all the sense.  Why would the interstate bend way west to Raton to dump traffic on the already poor conditioned Raton Pass when you can send the traffic on the very flat plains of the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles plus the flat side of Colorado?  It's a straighter shot and serves as a separate route than I-25 (sans the I-70 section from Limon to Denver).
A route via Raton would be 385 miles between Dumas and Denver, as opposed to 375 miles via the plains to I-70. Not seeing how it's "way"  out of the way.

Why would they build the interstate to Raton as opposed to Limon? Cost. The eastern, plains route is nearly 300 miles of new terrain highway paralleling outdated 2 lane road. The route via Raton would involve around 160 miles of largely upgradable, existing 4 lane divided highway.

Traffic today is already likely following the Raton route, so I couldn't see it adding significant amounts of traffic.

There's pros and cons for both routes. Obviously, the Raton route has the I-25 issue. The eastern route has the cost issue.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Rothman on September 06, 2021, 09:31:33 PM


Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2021, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 06, 2021, 09:12:06 AM
Earmarks rarely totally fund a project and commonly only provide a small fraction if the cost.

Unless it's a continuing stream of earmarks, generally from a specific congressperson or even a state delegation, that is sought yearly, a single earmark definitely wouldn't do much to fund a project -- particularly one with the length and separate state jurisdictions of this one. 

Continuing stream of earmarks...got an example of actual federal earmark funding that fully funded a project?

Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on September 07, 2021, 12:51:35 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 06, 2021, 09:31:33 PM


Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2021, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 06, 2021, 09:12:06 AM
Earmarks rarely totally fund a project and commonly only provide a small fraction if the cost.

Unless it's a continuing stream of earmarks, generally from a specific congressperson or even a state delegation, that is sought yearly, a single earmark definitely wouldn't do much to fund a project -- particularly one with the length and separate state jurisdictions of this one. 

Continuing stream of earmarks...got an example of actual federal earmark funding that fully funded a project?



Pre-ISTEA, MD was able to use congressional earmarks to construct/upgrade both I-97 and hidden I-595/US 50, as part of the "Annapolis Triangle" -- now with the middle connector along MD 3 gone.  But the main goal of that project -- an efficient connector to both Annapolis and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge from both Baltimore and Washington, replacing substandard facilities, was in fact realized.  More recently, "backdoor" earmarks, framed as projects furthering another purpose, courtesy of now-departed Sen. Harry Reid resulted in the construction of the O'Callaghan/Tillman bridge near Hoover Dam -- and later the initial outlay for the first stages of the I-11 approach from the NV side.  While not enabling the construction of I-11 outside LV Metro, putting that quasi-urban section with tourism value first echoed the decisions of CA's DOH in the early Interstate years, where the city-sited segments liable to provoke any controversy were developed first, with rural mileage following.  Again referring to the unfinished section of I-49 in AR, the plan is to tackle (a) the US 71 overlay segments up in the mountains first, along with selected bypasses of the various towns along the route.  Such a strategy would likely be viable for US 287 in SE CO; initial bypasses -- even at Super-2 or expressway standards, would be something that probably would be attractive to the citizens of Springfield, Lamar, and Eads; connecting those bypasses with, again Super-2 standards (on a 4-lane ROW) would provide interim benefit to the region; the full I-27 could come later in the process.  Since earmarks have come out of hiding; using them -- one outlay at a time if required -- to incrementally improve the corridor might be an attractive prospect to CO parties, whereas the "big gulp" approach would likely be dead in the water.  If one doesn't overreach when designating said earmarks, they probably have a better chance of actually producing corridor progress.  To paraphrase Mr. Eastwood, a congressman's got to know their limitations!     
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: NE2 on September 07, 2021, 01:40:06 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 06, 2021, 08:30:38 PM
Why would they build the interstate to Raton as opposed to Limon? Cost. The eastern, plains route is nearly 300 miles of new terrain highway paralleling outdated 2 lane road.
Outdated? http://www.codot.gov/news/2011news/06-2011/another-highway-40-287-project-begins
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Rothman on September 07, 2021, 06:52:16 AM


Quote from: sparker on September 07, 2021, 12:51:35 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 06, 2021, 09:31:33 PM


Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2021, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 06, 2021, 09:12:06 AM
Earmarks rarely totally fund a project and commonly only provide a small fraction if the cost.

Unless it's a continuing stream of earmarks, generally from a specific congressperson or even a state delegation, that is sought yearly, a single earmark definitely wouldn't do much to fund a project -- particularly one with the length and separate state jurisdictions of this one. 

Continuing stream of earmarks...got an example of actual federal earmark funding that fully funded a project?



Pre-ISTEA, MD was able to use congressional earmarks to construct/upgrade both I-97 and hidden I-595/US 50, as part of the "Annapolis Triangle" -- now with the middle connector along MD 3 gone.  But the main goal of that project -- an efficient connector to both Annapolis and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge from both Baltimore and Washington, replacing substandard facilities, was in fact realized.  More recently, "backdoor" earmarks, framed as projects furthering another purpose, courtesy of now-departed Sen. Harry Reid resulted in the construction of the O'Callaghan/Tillman bridge near Hoover Dam -- and later the initial outlay for the first stages of the I-11 approach from the NV side.  While not enabling the construction of I-11 outside LV Metro, putting that quasi-urban section with tourism value first echoed the decisions of CA's DOH in the early Interstate years, where the city-sited segments liable to provoke any controversy were developed first, with rural mileage following.  Again referring to the unfinished section of I-49 in AR, the plan is to tackle (a) the US 71 overlay segments up in the mountains first, along with selected bypasses of the various towns along the route.  Such a strategy would likely be viable for US 287 in SE CO; initial bypasses -- even at Super-2 or expressway standards, would be something that probably would be attractive to the citizens of Springfield, Lamar, and Eads; connecting those bypasses with, again Super-2 standards (on a 4-lane ROW) would provide interim benefit to the region; the full I-27 could come later in the process.  Since earmarks have come out of hiding; using them -- one outlay at a time if required -- to incrementally improve the corridor might be an attractive prospect to CO parties, whereas the "big gulp" approach would likely be dead in the water.  If one doesn't overreach when designating said earmarks, they probably have a better chance of actually producing corridor progress.  To paraphrase Mr. Eastwood, a congressman's got to know their limitations!     

You talk like a politician -- filling a response to a question with a lot of verbosity and irrelevance. :D

I wonder about the Tillman Bridge and what type of funding was actually used for it (and if I can actually look it up somehow...).  Regarding I-595, which is now ancient history, I suppose anything went decades ago in Congress, but despite earmarks making a comeback recently, the times they have a-changed.

"Initial outlays" are not full funding and in fact the exact issue I mentioned on earmarks:  States still have to come up with their core federal or state funding to make up the difference.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Henry on September 07, 2021, 11:50:08 AM
Upgrading the Raton route would be a great first step to a nonstop Denver-Dallas route. Along with upgrades to the US 287 corridor south of Amarillo, it can easily be achieved.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on September 07, 2021, 05:34:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 07, 2021, 06:52:16 AM


Quote from: sparker on September 07, 2021, 12:51:35 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 06, 2021, 09:31:33 PM


Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2021, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 06, 2021, 09:12:06 AM
Earmarks rarely totally fund a project and commonly only provide a small fraction if the cost.

Unless it's a continuing stream of earmarks, generally from a specific congressperson or even a state delegation, that is sought yearly, a single earmark definitely wouldn't do much to fund a project -- particularly one with the length and separate state jurisdictions of this one. 

Continuing stream of earmarks...got an example of actual federal earmark funding that fully funded a project?



Pre-ISTEA, MD was able to use congressional earmarks to construct/upgrade both I-97 and hidden I-595/US 50, as part of the "Annapolis Triangle" -- now with the middle connector along MD 3 gone.  But the main goal of that project -- an efficient connector to both Annapolis and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge from both Baltimore and Washington, replacing substandard facilities, was in fact realized.  More recently, "backdoor" earmarks, framed as projects furthering another purpose, courtesy of now-departed Sen. Harry Reid resulted in the construction of the O'Callaghan/Tillman bridge near Hoover Dam -- and later the initial outlay for the first stages of the I-11 approach from the NV side.  While not enabling the construction of I-11 outside LV Metro, putting that quasi-urban section with tourism value first echoed the decisions of CA's DOH in the early Interstate years, where the city-sited segments liable to provoke any controversy were developed first, with rural mileage following.  Again referring to the unfinished section of I-49 in AR, the plan is to tackle (a) the US 71 overlay segments up in the mountains first, along with selected bypasses of the various towns along the route.  Such a strategy would likely be viable for US 287 in SE CO; initial bypasses -- even at Super-2 or expressway standards, would be something that probably would be attractive to the citizens of Springfield, Lamar, and Eads; connecting those bypasses with, again Super-2 standards (on a 4-lane ROW) would provide interim benefit to the region; the full I-27 could come later in the process.  Since earmarks have come out of hiding; using them -- one outlay at a time if required -- to incrementally improve the corridor might be an attractive prospect to CO parties, whereas the "big gulp" approach would likely be dead in the water.  If one doesn't overreach when designating said earmarks, they probably have a better chance of actually producing corridor progress.  To paraphrase Mr. Eastwood, a congressman's got to know their limitations!     

You talk like a politician -- filling a response to a question with a lot of verbosity and irrelevance. :D

I wonder about the Tillman Bridge and what type of funding was actually used for it (and if I can actually look it up somehow...).  Regarding I-595, which is now ancient history, I suppose anything went decades ago in Congress, but despite earmarks making a comeback recently, the times they have a-changed.

"Initial outlays" are not full funding and in fact the exact issue I mentioned on earmarks:  States still have to come up with their core federal or state funding to make up the difference.

I used to write proposals for a living -- for both public and private projects -- so some of that still permeates my writing; sorry if that's a problem for anyone.  And during the "dark years" of 1973 through 1991, when getting an Interstate corridor designated (much less built!) earmarks were a vital part of most efforts unless intrastate transfers or Howard-Cramer mileage could be applied (how the initial I-49 mileage in LA was made possible).  Having friends in high places also helped quite a bit (I-39 in IL); also having a combination of state legislative and DOT support is an immeasurable benefit.  It's not the 80 points that the Feds supply for NHS and/or HPC's, it's that 20 percent that has to be sourced in-state (either the state itself, any relevant MPO's, or local jurisdictions) that invariably proves problematic.  So far, that's been the stumbling block for numerous corridor projects -- and the primary reason why I-69 between TX and Memphis will continue to lag behind the other segments. 

Re the Colorado River bridge:  I-11 wasn't designated until 2 years after its completion; the project was done to restore a direct commercial connection from LV south and east after the Hoover Dam was declared off-limits to such traffic post 9/11; there was general pissing & moaning from the trucking industry about the detour through Laughlin; when that came to a head circa 2004 or so, specific funding (essentially a back-door "earmark") was found for the bridge project; since it was a NHS route, it got the requisite 80% federal funding plus enough grant money to bring the federal share up a couple of points; the rest was split between the Vegas MPO (which came up with much of the remainder), NDOT, and ADOT (the latter got off relatively cheap, as the case was made that LV's growing warehousing industry would be the principal beneficiary of the new bridge).  Again, although the "Canamex" corridor had been designated since 1995, it wasn't until 2012 that the Phoenix-Vegas portion was made I-11; the immediate effect of that was to expedite the Boulder City bypass and approach to the new bridge; with AZ's segment of US 93 being a divided expressway, a high-speed connection to eastward I-40 (with the exception of central Kingman) was finished in 2017, which is what the trucking and warehouse industries wanted in the first place. 

Quote from: Henry on September 07, 2021, 11:50:08 AM
Upgrading the Raton route would be a great first step to a nonstop Denver-Dallas route. Along with upgrades to the US 287 corridor south of Amarillo, it can easily be achieved.

That would be something that would have to be planned separately from the mainline P2P corridor; one could say that if Dumas-to-Limon becomes a reality, the Dumas-Raton "branch" will be at least "back-burnered" as redundant for Amarillo-Denver movements.  The sole salient feature of the Raton option is service to interim points such as Pueblo and Colorado Springs to and from Texas; neither of those have developed into a commercial "hub" like greater Denver; the near-term need to provide similar service there just isn't present. 

   
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Rothman on September 07, 2021, 07:15:03 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 07, 2021, 05:34:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 07, 2021, 06:52:16 AM


Quote from: sparker on September 07, 2021, 12:51:35 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 06, 2021, 09:31:33 PM


Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2021, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 06, 2021, 09:12:06 AM
Earmarks rarely totally fund a project and commonly only provide a small fraction if the cost.

Unless it's a continuing stream of earmarks, generally from a specific congressperson or even a state delegation, that is sought yearly, a single earmark definitely wouldn't do much to fund a project -- particularly one with the length and separate state jurisdictions of this one. 

Continuing stream of earmarks...got an example of actual federal earmark funding that fully funded a project?



Pre-ISTEA, MD was able to use congressional earmarks to construct/upgrade both I-97 and hidden I-595/US 50, as part of the "Annapolis Triangle" -- now with the middle connector along MD 3 gone.  But the main goal of that project -- an efficient connector to both Annapolis and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge from both Baltimore and Washington, replacing substandard facilities, was in fact realized.  More recently, "backdoor" earmarks, framed as projects furthering another purpose, courtesy of now-departed Sen. Harry Reid resulted in the construction of the O'Callaghan/Tillman bridge near Hoover Dam -- and later the initial outlay for the first stages of the I-11 approach from the NV side.  While not enabling the construction of I-11 outside LV Metro, putting that quasi-urban section with tourism value first echoed the decisions of CA's DOH in the early Interstate years, where the city-sited segments liable to provoke any controversy were developed first, with rural mileage following.  Again referring to the unfinished section of I-49 in AR, the plan is to tackle (a) the US 71 overlay segments up in the mountains first, along with selected bypasses of the various towns along the route.  Such a strategy would likely be viable for US 287 in SE CO; initial bypasses -- even at Super-2 or expressway standards, would be something that probably would be attractive to the citizens of Springfield, Lamar, and Eads; connecting those bypasses with, again Super-2 standards (on a 4-lane ROW) would provide interim benefit to the region; the full I-27 could come later in the process.  Since earmarks have come out of hiding; using them -- one outlay at a time if required -- to incrementally improve the corridor might be an attractive prospect to CO parties, whereas the "big gulp" approach would likely be dead in the water.  If one doesn't overreach when designating said earmarks, they probably have a better chance of actually producing corridor progress.  To paraphrase Mr. Eastwood, a congressman's got to know their limitations!     

You talk like a politician -- filling a response to a question with a lot of verbosity and irrelevance. :D

I wonder about the Tillman Bridge and what type of funding was actually used for it (and if I can actually look it up somehow...).  Regarding I-595, which is now ancient history, I suppose anything went decades ago in Congress, but despite earmarks making a comeback recently, the times they have a-changed.

"Initial outlays" are not full funding and in fact the exact issue I mentioned on earmarks:  States still have to come up with their core federal or state funding to make up the difference.

It's not the 80 points that the Feds supply for NHS and/or HPC's, it's that 20 percent that has to be sourced in-state (either the state itself, any relevant MPO's, or local jurisdictions) that invariably proves problematic.  So far, that's been the stumbling block for numerous corridor projects -- and the primary reason why I-69 between TX and Memphis will continue to lag behind the other segments.   


This statement (and the rest that followed stemming from the same logic) represents a significant misunderstanding of how federal funding is apportioned to the States and the pressures on those funds.

This is why I focused on the type of funding.  Earmarks received their own FHWA program code, separate from core federal funding.  By "core federal funding," I mean the major fund sources: NHPP, STBG (people still call it STP), HSIP, and CMAQ.

Yes, the 80% or 90% is problematic for States when it comes to large, new construction projects because States already have standing capital programs.  So, when you get an earmark, you assign that dinky bit of money to a project (your "initial outlay").  The outstanding amount comes out of a State's federal apportionment.  That's money that the State could dedicate to preservation rather than new construction.  There are more needs than there are funds for, so the 80% is definitely problematic.

So, no, it is not the dinky 20% match that holds up major projects (I'd also wonder about a State that would make this claim).  It is the overall demand on the available funding, whether federal or state.  In fact, during my career, I can say that I have never encountered a major project where NYSDOT was worried about coming up with the match.  It was always about how to find the funding for a project within yearly statewide amounts -- fitting it into the overall puzzle without breaking the annual bank.

That also gets us to "advance construction" versus obligation and the race to obligate funds before the end of the FFY, while worrying about encumbering your State funding by the end of the SFY.  These pressures also come to bear on major projects without having any real worry on coming up with the match.  Heck, I know some offices that throw the match into their spreadsheets when tallying up "federal funds" (causing some confusion amongst engineers -- "Wait, I have State funds that can be used on federal-aid ineligible roads on this project, right?" "NO!"). 

Also remember that the vast majority of federal funding is a reimbursement program.  States have to have all the money up front anyway.

I still think it is highly unlikely given today's climate that you'll ever see earmarks "strung together" year after year to fully fund a project, especially given the design process, come to think of it (i.e., going from scoping to design approval to PS&E, while needing time for ROW incidentals and acquisition -- the timing's off).  Earmarks will always be a congressperson's "let them eat cake" way of showing support for a project and appeasing constituents, but the real meat will always fall on a State's back to find in its core apportionments (which DOTs can lobby their delegations to increase)...or through borrowing the funds outright.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on September 07, 2021, 09:56:11 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OK, point taken -- in your position you probably deal with this stuff on a continuing basis.  I can see how a DOT can view a piece of congressional action as just another unfunded project (and hardly a "mandate", given the disconnect between political will and fiscal reality).  But another reality -- beyond road policy differences among the states -- is that some states, like yours and mine -- and TX, for that matter, likely are able to amass sufficient funds, even considering the "upfront" requirement, to at least do incremental work on their federally-funded corridors and routes; a lot, particularly in low-tax/low-service states, may have trouble in this regard.  Major projects in these states simply sit there as lines on a map for this reason -- again, MS provides a prime example.  They certainly got lucky with I-22; most of the route within the state was already finished to freeway standards, albeit somewhat substandard, due to its ADC status (which was successfully "milked" by successive congressional delegations to include those standards); so once Interstate status was conferred in 2004 it only took 12 years to complete and sign it both within the state but also neighboring AL.  I for one would certainly like to see a spreadsheet of the funding approach to that project.  But apparently MS "blew their wad" on that project plus the new-terrain I-269; everything since then has been directed to rehabilitation (and Ida probably set them back 3-5 years as well); fortunately, no one's whining too much about the lack of MS progress on I-69 (even in this forum!).  But the relatively flush states, except TX and NC, tend to push the congressional corridors to the rear of the queue these days (this includes I-86 in NY -- something that should have been fully completed at least west of Binghamton) in favor of maintenance/rehabiitation needs  (the obvious "squeaky wheel", so to speak) -- not that it's anything less than a fully valid choice, but I do question prioritizing such things as teardowns (already well-discussed) over finishing longstanding projects -- the result of political mandates of another kind! 

With earmarks making a comeback, it'll be interesting to see if they serve to at least prompt some states to actually let the initial phases of corridor projects.  One thing about I-27, though -- the Interstate designation(s) for the corridor didn't make it into the original Senate draft; while the House reconciliation is yet to be released, it's unlikely that P2P will make it this year; one massive 5-state corridor concept (I-14, of course) probably ate up virtually all of the available bandwidth for such things, particularly within a bill ostensibly intended to prioritize rail and transit.  But Interstates are "red meat" projects -- particularly rural corridors (possibly the only type we'll see going forward) that hold the promise of construction jobs followed by roadside business jobs in regions experiencing historically low income levels.  That's one of the reasons they get proposed in the first place.  So expect these "unfunded concepts" to continue to be rolled out.  Occasionally one or two make sense and actually have real value -- but until such time as a nationally-vetted chargeable Interstate program is revived (hardly likely within my lifetime!) this process is likely to remain the norm.   
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 07, 2021, 10:08:26 PM
Quote from: sprjus4Why would they build the interstate to Raton as opposed to Limon? Cost. The eastern, plains route is nearly 300 miles of new terrain highway paralleling outdated 2 lane road.
Quote from: NE2Outdated? http://www.codot.gov/news/2011news/06-2011/another-highway-40-287-project-begins

How much of that new construction is 4-lane divided highway with Interstate quality grading? As far as I can tell the only thing CDOT is doing is replacing existing 2-lane road with a better driving surface.

Quote from: sparkerThe sole salient feature of the Raton option is service to interim points such as Pueblo and Colorado Springs to and from Texas; neither of those have developed into a commercial "hub" like greater Denver; the near-term need to provide similar service there just isn't present.

Colorado Springs is not some small town, even though the highway network in Colorado tries to treat Colorado Springs that way.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: US 89 on September 08, 2021, 01:20:37 AM
I drove US 287 through eastern Colorado this past spring. It is probably the best 2 lane road I've ever been on. Excellent pavement quality (and a lot of it is concrete, which is not a common sight on a western rural surface street), wide shoulders, center and side rumble strips, great sight lines...

There were a lot of trucks on it, but to be honest based on what I saw I don't even think it needs to be 4 lanes. It could benefit from more passing lanes (and especially from signs giving advance notice of those), and maaaybe 4 lanes might be warranted on the Kit Carson-Limon stretch? But nothing about the road or the traffic on it really screams "interstate worthy"  to me.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on September 08, 2021, 03:33:50 AM
Quote from: US 89 on September 08, 2021, 01:20:37 AM
I drove US 287 through eastern Colorado this past spring. It is probably the best 2 lane road I've ever been on. Excellent pavement quality (and a lot of it is concrete, which is not a common sight on a western rural surface street), wide shoulders, center and side rumble strips, great sight lines...

There were a lot of trucks on it, but to be honest based on what I saw I don't even think it needs to be 4 lanes. It could benefit from more passing lanes (and especially from signs giving advance notice of those), and maaaybe 4 lanes might be warranted on the Kit Carson-Limon stretch? But nothing about the road or the traffic on it really screams "interstate worthy"  to me.

It certainly would be useful to have data that broke down truck traffic by (a) origin (b) destination, and (c) route; this is probably "available" from trucking firms, providing they're willing to release their truck logs.  In this case, the obvious comparison would be Amarillo-Denver (or vice-versa) via US 87/I-25 versus US 287/I-70.  Besides the usual data of elapsed time and fuel consumption, a subjective assessment of each route's benefits and drawbacks from driver POV's would go far to see where the folks who will use these corridors set their priorities & preferences.  Would be interesting to see which route garnered the most positive comments (adjusted for amenities, which would definitely skew toward the Raton route!).   
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: monty on September 08, 2021, 07:39:46 PM
There is a lot of truck traffic on US 87 through Dumas and then Dalhart. It would be interesting to see the “split” of northbound truck traffic at Dumas. I’ve witnessed moderate levels of truck traffic on both segments farther north. No good way to measure without some official data.

Similarly, US 54 through Dalhart to Wichita is full of trucks too. It’s just an interesting area (both panhandles and southern KS, eastern NM) that move so much freight ranging from local to medium to long hauls.  All devoid of official interstate routes.

Then there is the tourist traffic that heads to the mountains from Texas. That traffic favors US 87.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 09, 2021, 01:14:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 08, 2021, 03:33:50 AM
Quote from: US 89 on September 08, 2021, 01:20:37 AM
I drove US 287 through eastern Colorado this past spring. It is probably the best 2 lane road I've ever been on. Excellent pavement quality (and a lot of it is concrete, which is not a common sight on a western rural surface street), wide shoulders, center and side rumble strips, great sight lines...

There were a lot of trucks on it, but to be honest based on what I saw I don't even think it needs to be 4 lanes. It could benefit from more passing lanes (and especially from signs giving advance notice of those), and maaaybe 4 lanes might be warranted on the Kit Carson-Limon stretch? But nothing about the road or the traffic on it really screams "interstate worthy"  to me.

It certainly would be useful to have data that broke down truck traffic by (a) origin (b) destination, and (c) route; this is probably "available" from trucking firms, providing they're willing to release their truck logs.  In this case, the obvious comparison would be Amarillo-Denver (or vice-versa) via US 87/I-25 versus US 287/I-70.  Besides the usual data of elapsed time and fuel consumption, a subjective assessment of each route's benefits and drawbacks from driver POV's would go far to see where the folks who will use these corridors set their priorities & preferences.  Would be interesting to see which route garnered the most positive comments (adjusted for amenities, which would definitely skew toward the Raton route!).

Once again, all of this is really moot.  You are not taking in consideration the truck traffic that originates in Denver and goes to DFW and vice versa.  That traffic probably sticks to the interstates so goes I-70, I-135 to I-35.  If there was a direct route, the truck traffic would triple.  So the ol' 2 lanes are good enough point is out of the question.  Remember when you upgrade a corridor, it's not just an upgrade for the traffic that is currently on it.  It's about funneling all the traffic between City A and City B that spreads to several different corridors because there is not one alpha route. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: bwana39 on September 09, 2021, 04:41:10 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on September 09, 2021, 01:14:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 08, 2021, 03:33:50 AM
Quote from: US 89 on September 08, 2021, 01:20:37 AM
I drove US 287 through eastern Colorado this past spring. It is probably the best 2 lane road I've ever been on. Excellent pavement quality (and a lot of it is concrete, which is not a common sight on a western rural surface street), wide shoulders, center and side rumble strips, great sight lines...

There were a lot of trucks on it, but to be honest based on what I saw I don't even think it needs to be 4 lanes. It could benefit from more passing lanes (and especially from signs giving advance notice of those), and maaaybe 4 lanes might be warranted on the Kit Carson-Limon stretch? But nothing about the road or the traffic on it really screams "interstate worthy"  to me.

It certainly would be useful to have data that broke down truck traffic by (a) origin (b) destination, and (c) route; this is probably "available" from trucking firms, providing they're willing to release their truck logs.  In this case, the obvious comparison would be Amarillo-Denver (or vice-versa) via US 87/I-25 versus US 287/I-70.  Besides the usual data of elapsed time and fuel consumption, a subjective assessment of each route's benefits and drawbacks from driver POV's would go far to see where the folks who will use these corridors set their priorities & preferences.  Would be interesting to see which route garnered the most positive comments (adjusted for amenities, which would definitely skew toward the Raton route!).

Once again, all of this is really moot.  You are not taking in consideration the truck traffic that originates in Denver and goes to DFW and vice versa.  That traffic probably sticks to the interstates so goes I-70, I-135 to I-35.  If there was a direct route, the truck traffic would triple.  So the ol' 2 lanes are good enough point is out of the question.  Remember when you upgrade a corridor, it's not just an upgrade for the traffic that is currently on it.  It's about funneling all the traffic between City A and City B that spreads to several different corridors because there is not one alpha route.

I think there might be some new direct routes From DFW or even OKC to Denver for trucks, but the reason the ones that go the extra 100+ miles and 75 minutes on a clear day and drive through OKC and Wichita is a terminal network that carries them along this route.  I am relative sure the point to point trucks are mostly going through Amarillo already. Have you looked at the trucker rest areas along US-287?

Google calls the first US-287 to Amarillo and the SECOND to go to Abilene on I-20 then head to Amarillo. I-35/135/70 is a distant third.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on September 09, 2021, 06:55:14 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on September 09, 2021, 01:14:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 08, 2021, 03:33:50 AM
Quote from: US 89 on September 08, 2021, 01:20:37 AM
I drove US 287 through eastern Colorado this past spring. It is probably the best 2 lane road I've ever been on. Excellent pavement quality (and a lot of it is concrete, which is not a common sight on a western rural surface street), wide shoulders, center and side rumble strips, great sight lines...

There were a lot of trucks on it, but to be honest based on what I saw I don't even think it needs to be 4 lanes. It could benefit from more passing lanes (and especially from signs giving advance notice of those), and maaaybe 4 lanes might be warranted on the Kit Carson-Limon stretch? But nothing about the road or the traffic on it really screams "interstate worthy"  to me.

It certainly would be useful to have data that broke down truck traffic by (a) origin (b) destination, and (c) route; this is probably "available" from trucking firms, providing they're willing to release their truck logs.  In this case, the obvious comparison would be Amarillo-Denver (or vice-versa) via US 87/I-25 versus US 287/I-70.  Besides the usual data of elapsed time and fuel consumption, a subjective assessment of each route's benefits and drawbacks from driver POV's would go far to see where the folks who will use these corridors set their priorities & preferences.  Would be interesting to see which route garnered the most positive comments (adjusted for amenities, which would definitely skew toward the Raton route!).

Once again, all of this is really moot.  You are not taking in consideration the truck traffic that originates in Denver and goes to DFW and vice versa.  That traffic probably sticks to the interstates so goes I-70, I-135 to I-35.  If there was a direct route, the truck traffic would triple.  So the ol' 2 lanes are good enough point is out of the question.  Remember when you upgrade a corridor, it's not just an upgrade for the traffic that is currently on it.  It's about funneling all the traffic between City A and City B that spreads to several different corridors because there is not one alpha route. 

OK, sports fans -- I was talking about Amarillo-Denver as end reference points, not the end of the final commercial journey, which could be DFW, San Antonio, Houston, or any other principal TX hub.  While I agree that a Denver-DFW trip would likely, to a dispatcher viewing the road situation as it exists currently, specify the 70/135/35 route as, if not the shortest, the least likely to cause confusion or require schlepping through the middle of small towns.  But that's not what we're talking about here; we're discussing the P2P/I-27 corridor; in this case, the pros and cons of placing the Interstate designation on either the US 87 Raton>Dumas route or the US 287 Limon>Dumas route.  Obviously, if there were a direct Amarillo-DFW Interstate along US 287 that would eliminate the aforementioned "schlepping", it'd be pretty much a "slam dunk" for either P2P option, since it would be shorter and would also eliminate traffic issues in Wichita and OKC.  But that's a separate concern and not presently included in the P2P corridor compendium.  So considering the current Wichita/OKC route as a virtual "third option" just isn't relative to the discussion (not all commercial shipments in this region originate or end in DFW!).  That being said, truck traffic counts -- and personal experience -- indicates that there's one hell of a lot of trucks on 287 from DFW to Amarillo -- and probably not all of them originated from westerly points on I-40.  So the inference is that Amarillo is a "hinge point" for such traffic, providing some validation for the point made in the post directly above (#128) that direct runs between TX points and Denver more often than not go through Amarillo.  And that leaves the remaining question of Raton vs. Limon -- and which would by commercial driver assessment regarding such things as gradients/topology, chokepoints/congestion, and amenities would, in the aggregate, determine preference.  Of course, the chokepoint factor (small towns) would be eliminated with the construction of an Interstate.  Mileage-wise, there's not a lot of difference: 369 miles via the Limon option vs. 379 via Raton Pass.  Of course, you've got 6-7% gradients on Raton that you don't have via the eastern route, which definitely are slow going with a semi.  Both routes have the potential to be problematic in winter to the point of occasional closure (it would be nice to build out both options, but that wouldn't be fiscally or politically feasible).  As far as amenities go -- at under 400 miles, it's probably a single-day trip for a trucker, so the salient feature here is food -- and anything involving an existing Interstate going through populated areas certainly has the edge in that department!  But the presence of an open-plains Interstate-grade facility would, under conditions not involving blizzards, generally make for a faster run between those two points (and some level of on-road amenities would probably follow in short order).  But it still would, IMO, be a useful idea to get some sort of comparative feedback from drivers -- preferably who have utilized both alternatives.   
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 10, 2021, 11:26:10 AM
Need break that stuff up into separate paragraphs. And maybe word it a little less like some contract drawn up by a team of attorneys.

Anyway, the Southern Great Plains is a common nexus criss-crossing zone for traffic originating from all over the US heading to other points across the country. However, the bulk of that traffic likes sticking to the Interstates whenever possible. It's due to the faster, far less interrupted flow of traffic, far fewer speed zones, perceived greater level of driving safety and a much greater number of services along such highways. I know people who have driven from my part of Oklahoma to Denver by way of Salina, KS just to stay 100% on Interstates. I think it's a giant waste of fuel and time going that route, but I get why they do it.

US-287 in SE CO is sparsely traveled by both commercial and personal vehicles because it lacks all the advantages I mentioned about Interstate corridors. It's out in the boonies and there's hardly any services out there. It may be a nicer 2-lane facility now, but it's still a 2-lane road and grisly, fatal head-on collisions are still easily possible (especially in that area North of Boise City transitioning over the caprock). There are speed zones and speed traps in some spots. To top it off, the cattle processing plants and feed lots North of Dumas going into Oklahoma are not pleasant at all to drive past. An Interstate-class highway wouldn't improve the smell situation any, but it might help a driver move past that location faster.

If the Ports to Plains Corridor was fully built-out into at least a 4-lane divided expressway, if not built up to full Interstate standards, it would attract a lot more commercial traffic. It could take a little longer for personal vehicle traffic counts to grow since some of that depends up the uptake and growth of service businesses along the corridor.

Even if the P2P is fully built-out, I think another route, a diagonal one, needs to piggy-back off of it starting in Kit Carson, continuing the diagonal that starts outside of Denver down to OKC and then down to Texarkana. Such a route would be beneficial to traffic moving between the Northwest to the Deep South. And it's far enough away from US-287 in Texas not to be in competition. Interstate corridors West of the Mississippi River are very spread out compared to those East of it.

I think it's strange how there are more diagonal freight rail routes crossing SE CO, SW KS and the panhandles of TX and OK while much of the highway network out there is on a dopey, very inefficient N-S-E-W grid.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ztonyg on September 10, 2021, 12:40:59 PM
I always wondered by Denver - Dallas wasn't a higher priority corridor. US 287 between the two metro areas really should be an interstate. If Denver - Omaha can get a diagonal interstate connection (I know it's shorter) but Denver - Dallas should as well.

I'd even be fine ending the Denver - Dallas interstate in Raton.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on September 10, 2021, 08:35:46 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 10, 2021, 11:26:10 AM
Need break that stuff up into separate paragraphs. And maybe word it a little less like some contract drawn up by a team of attorneys.

Anyway, the Southern Great Plains is a common nexus criss-crossing zone for traffic originating from all over the US heading to other points across the country. However, the bulk of that traffic likes sticking to the Interstates whenever possible. It's due to the faster, far less interrupted flow of traffic, far fewer speed zones, perceived greater level of driving safety and a much greater number of services along such highways. I know people who have driven from my part of Oklahoma to Denver by way of Salina, KS just to stay 100% on Interstates. I think it's a giant waste of fuel and time going that route, but I get why they do it.

US-287 in SE CO is sparsely traveled by both commercial and personal vehicles because it lacks all the advantages I mentioned about Interstate corridors. It's out in the boonies and there's hardly any services out there. It may be a nicer 2-lane facility now, but it's still a 2-lane road and grisly, fatal head-on collisions are still easily possible (especially in that area North of Boise City transitioning over the caprock). There are speed zones and speed traps in some spots. To top it off, the cattle processing plants and feed lots North of Dumas going into Oklahoma are not pleasant at all to drive past. An Interstate-class highway wouldn't improve the smell situation any, but it might help a driver move past that location faster.

If the Ports to Plains Corridor was fully built-out into at least a 4-lane divided expressway, if not built up to full Interstate standards, it would attract a lot more commercial traffic. It could take a little longer for personal vehicle traffic counts to grow since some of that depends up the uptake and growth of service businesses along the corridor.

Even if the P2P is fully built-out, I think another route, a diagonal one, needs to piggy-back off of it starting in Kit Carson, continuing the diagonal that starts outside of Denver down to OKC and then down to Texarkana. Such a route would be beneficial to traffic moving between the Northwest to the Deep South. And it's far enough away from US-287 in Texas not to be in competition. Interstate corridors West of the Mississippi River are very spread out compared to those East of it.

I think it's strange how there are more diagonal freight rail routes crossing SE CO, SW KS and the panhandles of TX and OK while much of the highway network out there is on a dopey, very inefficient N-S-E-W grid.

Quote from: ztonyg on September 10, 2021, 12:40:59 PM
I always wondered by Denver - Dallas wasn't a higher priority corridor. US 287 between the two metro areas really should be an interstate. If Denver - Omaha can get a diagonal interstate connection (I know it's shorter) but Denver - Dallas should as well.

I'd even be fine ending the Denver - Dallas interstate in Raton.

I tend to write more like an academic than an attorney (I was married to one, so that style is familiar).  Nevertheless, the point about the paragraphs is noted; I normally write these things in between doing other things so I simply "thought-stream", and it comes out that way.

But back to the point at hand -- you've touted a diagonal Denver (via Limon/Kit Carson) to OKC diagonal for some time now despite (or because) of a lack of facilities that presently could be used at least in part for such.  The regional rail/road diagonals you site skew to the opposite bias (NE-SW) due to the historic desire to access lower-elevation crossings of the Continental Divide than found in CO.  But if the P2P eventually is located along the 287 corridor, such a NW>SE diagonal could be useful.  The problem, as per usual these days, is finding multi-state support for such a concept; the P2P at least has been around since the '90's, so it's a known quantity to the jurisdictions it traverses. 

That may pose a problem for the parties in CO and KS who would have to back -- or at least sign off -- on the corridor concept.  There may be few perceived benefits to those states for the type of direct route described here; even slightly diverting it to the one potential point of general/tourist interest in SW KS, Dodge City, may not, in these times (46 years after "Gunsmoke" went off the air), provide that much of a fiscal incentive.   Just can't see KS and CO joining such a proposal; a cost/benefit calculus would likely close that door rather quickly.

Perhaps a "striking while the iron is hot" proposal within a single state --OK -- might have a better chance at success -- provided the P2P does follow US 287.  It might not be a perfect diagonal as such, but something basically following OK 3 from Boise City to OKC at least would have the effect of cutting off quite a few miles than the "right-angle" choices currently centered at Salina, KS and Amarillo.  And since OK's congressional delegation just got their US 412-based Interstate corridor approved, they might, with a little prompting from interested parties, be open (in conjunction with ODOT, of course) to designating such a corridor as an adjunct to the P2P.  And being OK, there probably will be "to toll or not to toll" discussions!

As far as taking the corridor all the way to the southeast corner of the state, if it were me I wouldn't push the issue that far right away; just have proposals ready at hand once the NW quadrant initial project is under way.
Any further discussion should be transferred to Fictional; maybe a dedicated thread for the whole thing would be appropriate.

And the dopey grid pattern of roads can be laid at the feet of both rail and settlement land grants back in the 19th century.  North of the Arkansas River much of that is straight N-S/E-W; the diagonal cant in the SW portion of the state can be attributed to the grandiose RR plans about that same time, with many of the "granger" RR lines of the Midwest and prairie states had ambitions to reach the West Coast (some via Mexico!); and the higher reaches of the Rockies stood in their way, so southwest they went.  Except for the Santa Fe, none of them even made it to within shouting distance of the Continental Divide, instead opting to terminate at junctions where they could transfer cars and cargo to those lines that did cross the mountains. 

As far as the prospects for the Raton P2P option, the last several posts in this thread have amply hashed that out; just go back and have a second look.       
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 11, 2021, 01:56:34 PM
Quote from: ztonygI always wondered by Denver - Dallas wasn't a higher priority corridor. US 287 between the two metro areas really should be an interstate. If Denver - Omaha can get a diagonal interstate connection (I know it's shorter) but Denver - Dallas should as well.

The leg of US-287 going NW out of the DFW metro up to Amarillo serves much more than being a merely a Dallas-Denver route. It's the fastest way for highway traffic going out of DFW to reach locations like Albuquerque, Flagstaff, Las Vegas or various points in Central and Northern California. That's in addition to locations along the Front Range in Colorado or points farther Northwest. Considering the enormous size of the DFW metro and rapid growth there still taking place, I think it's really stupid that US-287 is not fully a 100% Interstate-class facility between Amarillo and Fort Worth. That nonsense needs to change. In some respects I think that stretch of US-287 should be a higher priority than most of the I-69 projects happening elsewhere in Texas. It's that important.

Going North of Amarillo the upgrades to US-287 get more tricky for various reasons explained earlier. I think it's worth it for US-287 to be a limited access, Interstate-quality (if not Interstate-named) route from Amarillo up to Limon. I personally use the Dumas to Raton leg every time I drive from Oklahoma up to Colorado Springs to see family up there. I wouldn't mind that being an Interstate route the whole way. But I know how New Mexico is with roads. At this point, I'm just thankful US-64/87 is a four lane divided road. I was a real P.I.T.A. to use when it was just a 2-lane facility.

Quote from: sparkerBut back to the point at hand -- you've touted a diagonal Denver (via Limon/Kit Carson) to OKC diagonal for some time now despite (or because) of a lack of facilities that presently could be used at least in part for such.  The regional rail/road diagonals you site skew to the opposite bias (NE-SW) due to the historic desire to access lower-elevation crossings of the Continental Divide than found in CO.  But if the P2P eventually is located along the 287 corridor, such a NW>SE diagonal could be useful.  The problem, as per usual these days, is finding multi-state support for such a concept; the P2P at least has been around since the '90's, so it's a known quantity to the jurisdictions it traverses.

The Ports to Plains Corridor and the diagonal one I've mentioned do not serve the same traffic movement purposes. Both can co-exist and even complement each other. I think the Amarillo to Limon extension of I-27 should get established first. This other diagonal to OKC can build off of that.

Regarding the rail routes out there, yes, those were established from old US population migration patterns where most Americans were in the Northeast states and migrating to the Southwest toward California. Some of those patterns have changed. The highway grid out there was laid out more to divide up plots of farm land than move cross country traffic efficiently.

In recent decades certain metros in the Northwest, such as Seattle, Portland and Salt Lake City, have grown dramatically. Lately Boise is growing rapidly. Colorado cities along the Front Range are booming with growth. Meanwhile there has also been a great deal of population migration and growth taking place in Texas and across the Deep South. America's highway network has done very little to adjust to those growth patterns. You literally have to go well East of the Mississippi River to find NW to SE diagonal routes covering any significant distances.

Kansas could gain come real benefits from a diagonal Interstate directly linking Denver and OKC. Anyone in Garden City, Dodge City or Wichita driving to Denver is for the most part stuck driving a checkerboard grid of some choice to get there -or just drive clear to Pueblo and then hang a hard right. A diagonal route from Kit Carson to Garden City (and then down to Woodward, OK) would shave a good bit of time/mileage off that route. The real point for such a route is the longer distance links, such as Denver to Memphis. With the diagonal extended from OKC to Texarkana, a faster Denver to New Orleans route would be possible (via I-49).
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sparker on September 11, 2021, 04:26:35 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 11, 2021, 01:56:34 PM
Quote from: ztonygI always wondered by Denver - Dallas wasn't a higher priority corridor. US 287 between the two metro areas really should be an interstate. If Denver - Omaha can get a diagonal interstate connection (I know it's shorter) but Denver - Dallas should as well.

The leg of US-287 going NW out of the DFW metro up to Amarillo serves much more than being a merely a Dallas-Denver route. It's the fastest way for highway traffic going out of DFW to reach locations like Albuquerque, Flagstaff, Las Vegas or various points in Central and Northern California. That's in addition to locations along the Front Range in Colorado or points farther Northwest. Considering the enormous size of the DFW metro and rapid growth there still taking place, I think it's really stupid that US-287 is not fully a 100% Interstate-class facility between Amarillo and Fort Worth. That nonsense needs to change. In some respects I think that stretch of US-287 should be a higher priority than most of the I-69 projects happening elsewhere in Texas. It's that important.

Going North of Amarillo the upgrades to US-287 get more tricky for various reasons explained earlier. I think it's worth it for US-287 to be a limited access, Interstate-quality (if not Interstate-named) route from Amarillo up to Limon. I personally use the Dumas to Raton leg every time I drive from Oklahoma up to Colorado Springs to see family up there. I wouldn't mind that being an Interstate route the whole way. But I know how New Mexico is with roads. At this point, I'm just thankful US-64/87 is a four lane divided road. I was a real P.I.T.A. to use when it was just a 2-lane facility.

Quote from: sparkerBut back to the point at hand -- you've touted a diagonal Denver (via Limon/Kit Carson) to OKC diagonal for some time now despite (or because) of a lack of facilities that presently could be used at least in part for such.  The regional rail/road diagonals you site skew to the opposite bias (NE-SW) due to the historic desire to access lower-elevation crossings of the Continental Divide than found in CO.  But if the P2P eventually is located along the 287 corridor, such a NW>SE diagonal could be useful.  The problem, as per usual these days, is finding multi-state support for such a concept; the P2P at least has been around since the '90's, so it's a known quantity to the jurisdictions it traverses.

The Ports to Plains Corridor and the diagonal one I've mentioned do not serve the same traffic movement purposes. Both can co-exist and even complement each other. I think the Amarillo to Limon extension of I-27 should get established first. This other diagonal to OKC can build off of that.

Regarding the rail routes out there, yes, those were established from old US population migration patterns where most Americans were in the Northeast states and migrating to the Southwest toward California. Some of those patterns have changed. The highway grid out there was laid out more to divide up plots of farm land than move cross country traffic efficiently.

In recent decades certain metros in the Northwest, such as Seattle, Portland and Salt Lake City, have grown dramatically. Lately Boise is growing rapidly. Colorado cities along the Front Range are booming with growth. Meanwhile there has also been a great deal of population migration and growth taking place in Texas and across the Deep South. America's highway network has done very little to adjust to those growth patterns. You literally have to go well East of the Mississippi River to find NW to SE diagonal routes covering any significant distances.

Kansas could gain come real benefits from a diagonal Interstate directly linking Denver and OKC. Anyone in Garden City, Dodge City or Wichita driving to Denver is for the most part stuck driving a checkerboard grid of some choice to get there -or just drive clear to Pueblo and then hang a hard right. A diagonal route from Kit Carson to Garden City (and then down to Woodward, OK) would shave a good bit of time/mileage off that route. The real point for such a route is the longer distance links, such as Denver to Memphis. With the diagonal extended from OKC to Texarkana, a faster Denver to New Orleans route would be possible (via I-49).

Hey, if all three states involved in a direct (or, if routed via Dodge City, quasi-direct) route from somewhere around Kit Carson down to OKC would be willing to fund and construct such a route, then more power to the corridor's backers.  Of course, as I've posited in more than a few posts, the first step is to assemble some sort of "task force" to convince the states and their DOT's and their congressional delegations that the corridor is necessary.  Waiting until plans for P2P are finalized is probably a good approach, especially since the NW end of such a corridor would essentially "piggyback" on that route.  Then get the various congressional delegations to get it designated as a HPC with a future Interstate addendum; and subsequently insert it into the next USDOT yearly outlay bill.  And you've got the corridor at least on the books.   Then comes the fun part -- scrabbling for funding each FY until it's fully let.

The sole reason I earlier suggested an all-OK alignment goes directly to avoiding having to deal with multiple jurisdictions and multiple delegations; only one unit of each needs to be convinced.  But something like that is always there as "plan B" if the optimal diagonal/multi-state corridor falters for one reason or another. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 12, 2021, 10:21:24 AM
I don't see much value in an all-OK alignment for a diagonal OKC-Denver route. I assume you're implying a route that goes up to Woodward and then across to Boise City to connect to US-287, correct? The goal should be shaving off as many right/left angles as possible. Otherwise the resulting route would provide very little benefit to the highway network. Sending the route clear over to Boise City confines the route to more grid nonsense. The big picture image I see for such a route is like flipping the I-44 corridor 180 degrees. The I-44 corridor isn't polluted with a lot of right angles.

From the Woodward location the route needs to be turning NNE up into Kansas -and doing so pretty much all new-terrain route. It would skirt the South side of Garden City before heading up to Kit Carson to dove-tail into an extended I-27.

I think Dodge City is a little too far East to be included in such a route. It would be better for US-50 to be upgraded between Dodge City and Garden City from a 2-lane road to divided 4-lane.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: US 89 on September 12, 2021, 11:08:25 AM
If you're already going through Garden City and Woodward, working simply from straight-line distance it only adds 10 miles to route your new highway through Dodge City. That is short enough that it should deserve to be on this new route given their population (also note that Dodge is bigger than Garden City).

That said though, I'm not sure any highway construction on that scale is necessary. Looking at Google, the Denver-Dallas driver has several routes to choose from:

- 70-135-35 (all-interstate, via Salina/OKC): 12h 2m, 881 miles
- 25-87-287 (almost all 4 lane, via Raton/Amarillo): 11h 37m, 799 miles
- 70-287 (lots of 2 lane, via Lamar/Boise City): 12h 0m, 787 miles
- 70-283-400-K34-183-270-40-35 (lots of 2 lane, via Dodge City/Woodward/OKC): 12h 30m, 847 miles

These lower-quality, more direct routes really don't shave that much mileage off. The all-interstate route here gets you an average speed of 1.22 miles every minute (that's about 73 mph). So even if you upgrade 287 to full freeway between Limon and Amarillo, assuming that same average speed it will still take you 10h 45m to make the full Denver-Dallas drive.

I have driven most of 287 from Amarillo to Limon, including the entire portion in Colorado. It has a fair amount of truck traffic, but really the vast majority of time you lose on that road is getting stuck in towns. Some more 4-lane sections, interchanges at some of the busier intersections, and bypasses of some of the bigger towns (like what Boise City already has) would go a long way towards improving travel times and safety while also being considerably cheaper. Besides, Colorado has bigger fish to fry - US 24 from the Springs to Limon and US 287 from Wyoming to Fort Collins deserve some 4-lane improvements long before anything major happens with 287 south of Lamar.

A diagonal freeway through Woodward with the purpose of serving Denver-OKC traffic is nonsense. Depending on how you route it (do you minimize new freeway construction? do you include Garden City? etc), the mileage savings are somewhere between 30 and 60 miles. For comparison, I-70 was constructed because it saved over 200 miles on the Denver-Los Angeles drive.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on September 12, 2021, 11:34:34 AM
And from a cost standpoint, the comparisons to I-44 are moot given I-44 serves major population centers between Oklahoma City and St. Louis. A western equivalent would serve a lot of... nothing.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TXtoNJ on September 12, 2021, 12:05:49 PM
Quote from: ztonyg on September 10, 2021, 12:40:59 PM
I always wondered by Denver - Dallas wasn't a higher priority corridor. US 287 between the two metro areas really should be an interstate. If Denver - Omaha can get a diagonal interstate connection (I know it's shorter) but Denver - Dallas should as well.

I'd even be fine ending the Denver - Dallas interstate in Raton.

Logistics is everything here, and there are a lot of factors deemphasizing a Denver-Dallas route (because ultimately, Dallas would only be a logistical stop between Denver and the major ports at Houston and New Orleans.)

Because Denver is equidistant from both Houston and LA, and is on the route between LA and Chicago, most of its O-D traffic goes to the west coast. Likewise, LA doesn't have to worry about Panamax size constraints, so sending container trucks there is much more economical than sending them to the Port of Houston. Finally, there are much laxer size restrictions to the west of Denver than there are to the east, again increasing cost-effectiveness per shipment.

Remember - it's not Denver and Omaha that get a diagonal connection: it's Denver and Chicago that do, and after the construction of I-70 into Utah, Los Angeles and Chicago. I-80S/I-76 have been in the plan from the beginning because Chicago is the shortest and least expensive route to the Atlantic from Denver, through the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: DJStephens on September 12, 2021, 03:45:59 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 06, 2021, 09:45:31 AM
Quote from: sparkerIf by (unfortunate) chance a decision is made to shunt I-27 over the Dumas-Raton section of US 87 instead of north along US 287 into OK and CO, it's unlikely that the twinned section of the existing route in NM would be utilized as the basis for the alignment; it would have to be completely rebuilt, with bypasses as required, or replaced with a parallel new-terrain alignment (I'd venture to guess the former, simply to save as much as possible on ROW).

First, I think it's quite unlikely an extension of I-27 would be built thru Northern New Mexico via Clayton to Raton. As long as individual states are left doing most of the heavy lifting on highway improvement efforts while the federal government tries its best to remain AWOL the state of New Mexico will be free to maintain its standard of sub-standard philosophy on highways.

Hypothetically, if an I-27 extension were built to meet I-25 in Raton it would not be necessary at to build a new terrain, parallel route. Such a thing would be pretty wasteful (not to mention more costly to maintain afterward). Bypasses would be required for towns like Clayton. But in between towns the existing highway could be improved in chunks, 2 lanes at a time. It would still require serious improvements to grading and entirely new road surfaces (such as real concrete super-slab), along with proper shoulders, medians, cable barriers, landscape maintenance, etc. Nevertheless, much of an Interstate quality upgrade could be built over the current highway foot print.

Quote from: sparkerUnfortunately, the overall effect would be to dump traffic onto I-25 over Raton Pass and up through Pueblo and the Springs on a woefully inadequate (for the existing traffic load, no less) facility.  Hopefully, more rational heads will prevail and select the US 287 pathway despite the need for new alignment for most of its length.
An I-27 extension up thru Lamar and Kit Carson to Limon might be easier to build with New Mexico removed from that situation. It would require more miles of new Interstate, but the road goes through a lot of sparsely populated area on a currently under-utilized corridor. I'm sure truckers would like such a route with not having to go over Raton Pass. On the other hand, weather in the Panhandles and SE Colorado can get pretty hairy year-round. In the warm months very severe storms are a big threat, especially to high profile vehicles like trucks. From late October to late March (or even April) blizzards can be a problem.

The US 64 - 87 "four laning" in NM was done fairly recently.  Believe during the Richardson Administration, in the mid to late 00's.  After the departure of Johnson and Rahn, but low standards were carried over.  It could have (notice emphasis on could have) been built to a much higher standard, in anticipation of possible P2P inclusion.  The concept of P2P existed then, yet the NM department chose a "cheapie" build.  It could have, and should have been built to a higher standard.   The route rises as one travels to the WNW, towards I-25, and then turns N along 25 to reach Raton Pass.  Why there would be a desire to encourage long distance freight, to choose that substandard route, when there is a better alternative E, (US - 287) is beyond my comprehension.   
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Scott5114 on September 12, 2021, 07:57:09 PM
I think it's a little silly that the justification for I-11 is that it was necessary to link two large adjacent cities (Phoenix and Las Vegas) without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet Denver and Oklahoma City are two large, adjacent cities without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet we're told it's not needed to have one, despite the fact that both Denver and Oklahoma City are larger than Las Vegas.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: hotdogPi on September 12, 2021, 08:10:16 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2021, 07:57:09 PM
I think it's a little silly that the justification for I-11 is that it was necessary to link two large adjacent cities (Phoenix and Las Vegas) without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet Denver and Oklahoma City are two large, adjacent cities without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet we're told it's not needed to have one, despite the fact that both Denver and Oklahoma City are larger than Las Vegas.

The all-freeway route between Phoenix and Las Vegas is worse than a right angle.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 13, 2021, 11:29:49 AM
Quote from: US 89If you're already going through Garden City and Woodward, working simply from straight-line distance it only adds 10 miles to route your new highway through Dodge City.

Measuring routes out in Google Earth the numbers look like this:

From OKC to Limon using I-35, I-135 and I-70 it's 573 miles.
That's from the I-44/I-35/Kilpatrick junction in OKC to the US-287/I-70 junction.

From OKC to Limon using OK-3 & US-287 via Boise City it's 526 miles.
That's from the NW Corner of the Kilpatrick to the Limon US-287/I-70 junction.

My diagonal route idea from OKC to Limon is 436 miles.
That's starting from the NW corner of the Kilpatrick,
going via Woodward, skirting South of Garden City to Kit Carson.

Garden City to Kit Carson is 157 miles using existing roads:
US-83 to Scott City, KS-96/CO-96 to Eads, US-287 to Kit Carson.

A straight diagonal from Kit Carson to Garden City is 114 miles. That's significantly more than a 10 mile savings.

Quote from: sprjus4And from a cost standpoint, the comparisons to I-44 are moot given I-44 serves major population centers between Oklahoma City and St. Louis. A western equivalent would serve a lot of... nothing.

By that standard we might as well rip out all the Interstates in the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc since they're traversing areas of a whole lot of nothing. But those Interstates rightfully exist because they are serving a much bigger picture interest of an overall super highway network. They're linking major destinations over long distances. A diagonal route directly linking the Denver area to the INTERSTATE HUB in Oklahoma City would be beneficial to the overall highway network. Pushing the diagonal THRU the OKC area down to the Texarkana area would be even better still. It's highway hubs directly linking other highway hubs. There would be a relatively straight shot from Denver to New Orleans.

QuoteThe US 64 - 87 "four laning" in NM was done fairly recently.  Believe during the Richardson Administration, in the mid to late 00's.  After the departure of Johnson and Rahn, but low standards were carried over.  It could have (notice emphasis on could have) been built to a much higher standard, in anticipation of possible P2P inclusion.  The concept of P2P existed then, yet the NM department chose a "cheapie" build.  It could have, and should have been built to a higher standard.   The route rises as one travels to the WNW, towards I-25, and then turns N along 25 to reach Raton Pass.  Why there would be a desire to encourage long distance freight, to choose that substandard route, when there is a better alternative E, (US - 287) is beyond my comprehension.

The Clayton-Capulin-Raton stretch of US-64/87 is definitely a lot more scenic than US-287 in SE Colorado. And it's less smelly too! -they closed that feed lot in Clayton umpteen years ago.

Raton Pass is a big obstacle for commercial trucks. Why funnel more of that kind of traffic through there? I do see the potential for tourism-related traffic to continue growing along that route. The surfaces of the main lanes and shoulders really need improvement regardless if US-64/87 is ever brought up to Interstate standards. I just can't see that happening though. Towns along the way like Texline, Clayton and Capulin might fight like hell to keep from being bypassed even though the service businesses at those stops could re-locate to the bypasses. Local businesses dependent on travelers might get hurt pretty bad by it though, unless the state or feds helped them relocate alongside to the new highway.

Quote from: 1The all-freeway route between Phoenix and Las Vegas is worse than a right angle.

The version of I-11 currently proposed doesn't even go to Phoenix. It's more like Las Vegas to 30 freaking miles West of #$!&king Buckeye! At this rate, I won't be surprised by hearing proposals of a Vegas to Phoenix route by way a Blythe! Right angles are no longer in distance than diagonals to some people.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TXtoNJ on September 13, 2021, 12:29:56 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 12, 2021, 08:10:16 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2021, 07:57:09 PM
I think it's a little silly that the justification for I-11 is that it was necessary to link two large adjacent cities (Phoenix and Las Vegas) without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet Denver and Oklahoma City are two large, adjacent cities without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet we're told it's not needed to have one, despite the fact that both Denver and Oklahoma City are larger than Las Vegas.

The all-freeway route between Phoenix and Las Vegas is worse than a right angle.

Not to mention I-11 will be the best truck route between the Bay Area (and points north) and the interior of Mexico.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: splashflash on September 13, 2021, 01:19:53 PM

Quote from: 1The all-freeway route between Phoenix and Las Vegas is worse than a right angle.

The version of I-11 currently proposed doesn't even go to Phoenix. It's more like Las Vegas to 30 freaking miles West of #$!&king Buckeye! At this rate, I won't be surprised by hearing proposals of a Vegas to Phoenix route by way a Blythe! Right angles are no longer in distance than diagonals to some people.
[/quote]

Once SR 30 gets built and links to SR 85, I-11 could overlay that route to the middle of Phoenix.  It won't go through even Wickenburg now, but feeder routes link all over.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: splashflash on September 13, 2021, 01:30:00 PM
[ the INTERSTATE HUB in Oklahoma City would be beneficial to the overall highway network. Pushing the diagonal THRU the OKC area down to the Texarkana area would be even better still. It's highway hubs directly linking other highway hubs. There would be a relatively straight shot from Denver to New Orleans.

Why not Tulsa?  The Indian Nation Turnpike is ready for more use and skirts Dallas.  US 412 will be upgraded West of Tulsa. Why funnel through OKC instead of Tulsa?
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Scott5114 on September 13, 2021, 02:03:14 PM
Because Denver→Tulsa→Dallas is longer than Denver→OKC→Dallas, and the road between OKC and Dallas is already a freeway and the road between Tulsa and Dallas isn't? About the only person who would like that proposal is the mayor of Stringtown.

I will never understand why people who have never been to Oklahoma will fall all over themselves to declare we don't need better roads here.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: splashflash on September 13, 2021, 02:38:25 PM
Skirt Dallas may have been misleading - miss Dallas to get to locations east.  Avoid it altogether with a "diagonal"not New Orleans , Texarkana etc.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Rothman on September 13, 2021, 03:12:46 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 13, 2021, 02:03:14 PM
Because Denver→Tulsa→Dallas is longer than Denver→OKC→Dallas, and the road between OKC and Dallas is already a freeway and the road between Tulsa and Dallas isn't? About the only person who would like that proposal is the mayor of Stringtown.

I will never understand why people who have never been to Oklahoma will fall all over themselves to declare we don't need better roads here.
Oklahoma is OK as is.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 13, 2021, 04:35:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2021, 07:57:09 PM
I think it's a little silly that the justification for I-11 is that it was necessary to link two large adjacent cities (Phoenix and Las Vegas) without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet Denver and Oklahoma City are two large, adjacent cities without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet we're told it's not needed to have one, despite the fact that both Denver and Oklahoma City are larger than Las Vegas.

Because it's not sexy enough a corridor.  It's one of the many things wrong with the world of perception.  Phoenix and Las Vegas need to be connected, but Denver and Oklahoma City don't?  DFW doesn't need to be connected to I-40 more directly?
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on September 13, 2021, 04:49:03 PM
Phoenix to Las Vegas has no freeway options that are reasonable, period.

Denver to Oklahoma City may not be the most direct, but at least the fastest route is all freeway (I-70, I-135, I-35).
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: bwana39 on September 13, 2021, 06:02:00 PM
Quote from: US 89 on September 08, 2021, 01:20:37 AM
I drove US 287 through eastern Colorado this past spring. It is probably the best 2 lane road I've ever been on. Excellent pavement quality (and a lot of it is concrete, which is not a common sight on a western rural surface street), wide shoulders, center and side rumble strips, great sight lines...

There were a lot of trucks on it, but to be honest based on what I saw I don't even think it needs to be 4 lanes. It could benefit from more passing lanes (and especially from signs giving advance notice of those), and maaaybe 4 lanes might be warranted on the Kit Carson-Limon stretch? But nothing about the road or the traffic on it really screams "interstate worthy"  to me.

In Texas and I am sure some other states, just because there is asphalt as the topping it doesn't mean there is not concrete as the basis. Asphalt is quieter and is more easily removed to be retopped. Anyone who has driven Texas interstates in summer is sorely aware of the near constant milling the asphalt off and putting a fresh coat on top of the concrete.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 13, 2021, 07:14:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4Denver to Oklahoma City may not be the most direct, but at least the fastest route is all freeway (I-70, I-135, I-35).

The I-35/I-135/I-70 combo might arguably be the most safe route from OKC to Denver since it's all limited access. But it's a toss-up on being the fastest existing route. OK-3 to Boise City and US-287 on Northward is the shortest existing route between OKC and Denver. One thing is certain: the route from OKC to Denver via Boise City is more dangerous. A couple years ago one of my girlfriend's female friends got killed in a head-on collision North of Boise City near the CO border.

On long road trips I overwhelmingly prefer 4-lane divided routes, especially when driving at night. Before smart phones we mainly had to worry about drunks out on the highway. Distracted driving is at epidemic levels. On a 2-lane road it's very easy for someone to drift into on-coming traffic while trying to read or type out a text message. The drunks and drowsy drivers and mostly hazards late at night. Distracted drivers can cause accidents any time of day.

Not every 2-lane highway can be expanded into 4-lanes (and divided). Texas had added a lot of passing lanes on its 2-lane highways. Oklahoma does deserve some credit for 4-laning a number of rural routes around the state to make them safer. Here locally OK-7 between Lawton and Duncan is one example. OK-49 from the I-44 Medicine Park exit to the junction with OK-58 is another. That particular road had a number of terrible collision accidents when I first moved to this area. That stretch of OK-49 is so much safer now.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on September 13, 2021, 07:31:53 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 13, 2021, 07:14:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4Denver to Oklahoma City may not be the most direct, but at least the fastest route is all freeway (I-70, I-135, I-35).

The I-35/I-135/I-70 combo might arguably be the most safe route from OKC to Denver since it's all limited access. But it's a toss-up on being the fastest existing route. OK-3 to Boise City and US-287 on Northward is the shortest existing route between OKC and Denver.
How exactly? That route is over 30 minutes longer.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Scott5114 on September 13, 2021, 09:06:24 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 13, 2021, 07:31:53 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 13, 2021, 07:14:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4Denver to Oklahoma City may not be the most direct, but at least the fastest route is all freeway (I-70, I-135, I-35).

The I-35/I-135/I-70 combo might arguably be the most safe route from OKC to Denver since it's all limited access. But it's a toss-up on being the fastest existing route. OK-3 to Boise City and US-287 on Northward is the shortest existing route between OKC and Denver.
How exactly? That route is over 30 minutes longer.

Distance? The fact that I-35 goes through major metropolitan areas that have rush hours and OK-3 doesn't?
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: hotdogPi on September 13, 2021, 09:10:14 PM
I still think "I-32" (DFW-Amarillo-somewhere on I-25) is good enough for Oklahoma. It reduces the distance from Oklahoma City to Denver over the current all-freeway route, and it doesn't require backtracking if Colorado Springs (or Pueblo), rather than Denver, is your start or end point. It also serves Wichita Falls, TX along the way,
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: thisdj78 on September 13, 2021, 11:18:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 13, 2021, 09:06:24 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 13, 2021, 07:31:53 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 13, 2021, 07:14:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4Denver to Oklahoma City may not be the most direct, but at least the fastest route is all freeway (I-70, I-135, I-35).

The I-35/I-135/I-70 combo might arguably be the most safe route from OKC to Denver since it's all limited access. But it's a toss-up on being the fastest existing route. OK-3 to Boise City and US-287 on Northward is the shortest existing route between OKC and Denver.
How exactly? That route is over 30 minutes longer.

Distance? The fact that I-35 goes through major metropolitan areas that have rush hours and OK-3 doesn't?

Wichita? That's the only major metro between OKC and Denver and barely any rush hour traffic there.

As far as suburban traffic in OKC and Denver, I guess it all depends on what parts of the cities one is traveling from and to. But I-25 between Denver and Colorado Springs is under construction so that could add time if someone were taking the more "direct"  route.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 13, 2021, 11:52:11 PM
Quote from: 1I still think "I-32" (DFW-Amarillo-somewhere on I-25) is good enough for Oklahoma. It reduces the distance from Oklahoma City to Denver over the current all-freeway route, and it doesn't require backtracking if Colorado Springs (or Pueblo), rather than Denver, is your start or end point. It also serves Wichita Falls, TX along the way,

The DFW-Amarillo "I-32" route does little, if anything for motorists in Oklahoma. It's 100% irrelevant to anyone in Oklahoma near or North of I-40.

The only drivers from Oklahoma that would derive any benefit from an all Interstate DFW-Amarillo segment would be in SW parts of the state, like Lawton or Altus. Motorists driving to the Denver area from places like OKC or Tulsa would have to continue either driving on existing routes to Boise City or clear up to Salina, KS. An improved, 4-lane divided US-287 between Boise City and Limon would be safer, but drivers from OKC have to bounce around the path OK-3 takes over to Boise City to get there.

US-287 definitely needs to be upgraded fully to Interstate standards between DFW and Amarillo. But that should not be sold at all as some kind of benefit for Oklahoma motorists or drivers going through Oklahoma. It's a different corridor.

Quote from: thisdj78As far as suburban traffic in OKC and Denver, I guess it all depends on what parts of the cities one is traveling from and to. But I-25 between Denver and Colorado Springs is under construction so that could add time if someone were taking the more "direct"  route.

CDOT (or more like the CO state government) is pretty bad at under-estimating traffic capacity needs on its highways. I-25 has gone through pretty much a complete re-build through Colorado Springs over the past 20 years. The end result: no more than 3 thru lanes in each direction. Ugh.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: hotdogPi on September 14, 2021, 06:35:07 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 13, 2021, 11:52:11 PM
Quote from: 1I still think "I-32" (DFW-Amarillo-somewhere on I-25) is good enough for Oklahoma. It reduces the distance from Oklahoma City to Denver over the current all-freeway route, and it doesn't require backtracking if Colorado Springs (or Pueblo), rather than Denver, is your start or end point. It also serves Wichita Falls, TX along the way,

The DFW-Amarillo "I-32" route does little, if anything for motorists in Oklahoma. It's 100% irrelevant to anyone in Oklahoma near or North of I-40.

The only drivers from Oklahoma that would derive any benefit from an all Interstate DFW-Amarillo segment would be in SW parts of the state, like Lawton or Altus. Motorists driving to the Denver area from places like OKC or Tulsa would have to continue either driving on existing routes to Boise City or clear up to Salina, KS. An improved, 4-lane divided US-287 between Boise City and Limon would be safer, but drivers from OKC have to bounce around the path OK-3 takes over to Boise City to get there.

US-287 definitely needs to be upgraded fully to Interstate standards between DFW and Amarillo. But that should not be sold at all as some kind of benefit for Oklahoma motorists or drivers going through Oklahoma. It's a different corridor.

I think you missed that the corridor included a section northwest of Amarillo, to somewhere such as Raton (but could be anywhere on I-25 in that general area).
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 14, 2021, 09:33:33 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 13, 2021, 11:52:11 PM
Quote from: 1I still think "I-32" (DFW-Amarillo-somewhere on I-25) is good enough for Oklahoma. It reduces the distance from Oklahoma City to Denver over the current all-freeway route, and it doesn't require backtracking if Colorado Springs (or Pueblo), rather than Denver, is your start or end point. It also serves Wichita Falls, TX along the way,

The DFW-Amarillo "I-32" route does little, if anything for motorists in Oklahoma. It's 100% irrelevant to anyone in Oklahoma near or North of I-40.

The only drivers from Oklahoma that would derive any benefit from an all Interstate DFW-Amarillo segment would be in SW parts of the state, like Lawton or Altus. Motorists driving to the Denver area from places like OKC or Tulsa would have to continue either driving on existing routes to Boise City or clear up to Salina, KS. An improved, 4-lane divided US-287 between Boise City and Limon would be safer, but drivers from OKC have to bounce around the path OK-3 takes over to Boise City to get there.

US-287 definitely needs to be upgraded fully to Interstate standards between DFW and Amarillo. But that should not be sold at all as some kind of benefit for Oklahoma motorists or drivers going through Oklahoma. It's a different corridor.

Quote from: thisdj78As far as suburban traffic in OKC and Denver, I guess it all depends on what parts of the cities one is traveling from and to. But I-25 between Denver and Colorado Springs is under construction so that could add time if someone were taking the more "direct"  route.

CDOT (or more like the CO state government) is pretty bad at under-estimating traffic capacity needs on its highways. I-25 has gone through pretty much a complete re-build through Colorado Springs over the past 20 years. The end result: no more than 3 thru lanes in each direction. Ugh.

On a side note, curious question to you:

You living in Lawton, and there was a I-32 (basically the US-287 corridor from Ennis to Amarillo), would you take I-44 to I-32 to I-40 to get to points west, or would you take a more direct route?
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Scott5114 on September 14, 2021, 03:57:41 PM
I feel like the correct routing in that case would involve US-62 west (which is four lane divided between Lawton and Altus.) After leaving OK, TX-256 continues the route west and intersects US-287 in Memphis TX.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 15, 2021, 08:23:38 PM
Quote from: 1I think you missed that the corridor included a section northwest of Amarillo, to somewhere such as Raton (but could be anywhere on I-25 in that general area).

As I said earlier, I think chances are between very slim and none US-64/87 is ever upgraded to Interstate quality in Northern New Mexico. There is a somewhat better shot at US-287 being upgraded to Interstate quality going straight North thru the Texas panhandle.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14You living in Lawton, and there was a I-32 (basically the US-287 corridor from Ennis to Amarillo), would you take I-44 to I-32 to I-40 to get to points west, or would you take a more direct route?

It would be really stupid to drive South to Wichita Falls to pick up an Interstate going West-Northwest. Like Scott5114 said, the correct route for anyone driving from Lawton to Amarillo is using US-62 and TX-256 to pick up US-287 in Memphis. I use that route, along with going up to Raton, when driving from Lawton to Colorado Springs.

I live in the SW part of OK, close enough to the US-287 corridor to get some partial benefit using it driving to Amarillo. No one in the Oklahoma City area, Tulsa or other notable areas in Central and Northern Oklahoma would go no farther South than I-40. The "I-32" concept means nothing to those drivers for road trips to Colorado and points farther Northwest. Unless drivers from those areas intend to stop in Amarillo for something specific they're going to save time and mileage by taking OK-3 up to Boise City. Even the OK-3 option is pretty inefficient for the hard angles it has to take, the biggest one being the hard right at US-287 in Boise City.

I personally wouldn't get very much benefit from a OKC-Denver diagonal Interstate. But that corridor idea is not about me or other people in Lawton. It's about much bigger picture functions for the overall Interstate system. Denver is an important hub in the highway network. So is Oklahoma City. Diagonally linking the two would provide a much more direct pathway between the Northwest and Southeast.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: hotdogPi on September 15, 2021, 08:46:11 PM
If a direct diagonal connection is built, Colorado Springs should not be left out. It's fairly large and growing.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 16, 2021, 11:47:25 AM
The drive time/distance from a place like Oklahoma City to Colorado Springs would still be improved by a direct diagonal OKC-Denver route. The segment from Garden City to Kit Carson would place motorists near the CO-94/US-287 intersection a little ways West of Kit Carson. CO-94 would be used for the rest of the drive into Colorado Springs.

The OKC-Denver route I've been kicking around at least tries to utilize some existing highway corridors, such as OK-3 in Oklahoma and the Limon-Kit Carson segment of US-287. The gap between Woodward and Kit Carson just needs to be filled in with something, even if it's just a Super 2 to establish things and preserve ROW for the future.

If the Ports to Plains Corridor is fully built-out the stretch of CO-94 going East out of Colorado Springs might end up needing to be upgraded at least to a 4-lane divided expressway. Unfortunately CDOT is moving glacier slow on corridors in even more need of improvement, such as US-24 between Colorado Springs and Limon. US-24 should be a 4-lane divided highway, if not something that can eventually be upgraded into an Interstate-class route. I think it's criminally negligent US-24 isn't 4-lane divided to at least some point East of Peyton. The road is freaking dangerous going Northeast of Falcon up thru Peyton and Calhan. I'm nervous every time I drive on it.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 17, 2021, 01:43:46 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 16, 2021, 11:47:25 AM
The drive time/distance from a place like Oklahoma City to Colorado Springs would still be improved by a direct diagonal OKC-Denver route. The segment from Garden City to Kit Carson would place motorists near the CO-94/US-287 intersection a little ways West of Kit Carson. CO-94 would be used for the rest of the drive into Colorado Springs.

The OKC-Denver route I've been kicking around at least tries to utilize some existing highway corridors, such as OK-3 in Oklahoma and the Limon-Kit Carson segment of US-287. The gap between Woodward and Kit Carson just needs to be filled in with something, even if it's just a Super 2 to establish things and preserve ROW for the future.

If the Ports to Plains Corridor is fully built-out the stretch of CO-94 going East out of Colorado Springs might end up needing to be upgraded at least to a 4-lane divided expressway. Unfortunately CDOT is moving glacier slow on corridors in even more need of improvement, such as US-24 between Colorado Springs and Limon. US-24 should be a 4-lane divided highway, if not something that can eventually be upgraded into an Interstate-class route. I think it's criminally negligent US-24 isn't 4-lane divided to at least some point East of Peyton. The road is freaking dangerous going Northeast of Falcon up thru Peyton and Calhan. I'm nervous every time I drive on it.

I call I-48 or I-50 for the Denver-OKC route!!
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 18, 2021, 12:56:37 AM
If the number was up to me (it isn't) I'd go with "I-46." That's only because its Northwestern terminus would be near the end of I-76. It would seem kind of fitting to have two I-x6 routes ending in the same neighborhood. I-46 is also the next even number step up from I-44. With the possibility being discussed with US-412 being upgraded to an Interstate from I-35 thru Tulsa to Springdale that one might be a better I-48. If an Interstate upgrade of US-412 was extended farther West through Enid and over to Woodward it would hook into this fictional "I-46" route from a more Northward angle. That would make the I-48 designation over the US-412 corridor even more sensible.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2021, 09:31:25 PM
Maybe someone should ask FritzOwl what his/her opinion would be on the matter. You can never go wrong with FritzOwl!
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: 3467 on September 28, 2021, 10:53:59 AM
Today's Sep 28  Federal Register has Final approvals for several Texas highway projects including US 87 from Dumas to Hartley . It's an EA maybe someone could link it. It improves a 2 lane with passing lanes to a four lane divided and found no significant environmental impact.
Maybe the EA discussed  the 27 idea or Dallas Denver.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 28, 2021, 10:49:14 PM
I'm really glad they're finally going to do something about that Dumas-Hartley segment of US-87. That will make my road trips from Lawton to Colorado Springs go a little bit better. I hope they're able to break ground on the project soon.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2021, 08:41:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 15, 2021, 08:46:11 PM
If a direct diagonal connection is built, Colorado Springs should not be left out. It's fairly large and growing.
I'm not sure what you mean by left out but any connection to Colorado Springs should be the burden of Colorado to build a spur to. Now I am a little biased because I do have a place in Oklahoma City as well as living in Hollywood and traveling very frequently to Moab and several other cities along I 70 in Colorado I would benefit greatly from a direct interstate from OKC to Denver.

With that said as another poster has pointed out OKC and Denver are two major cities that are both important hubs on the interstate system, that have no direct connection, and in the grand scheme of things aren't that far from each other. However putting my personal bias aside a direct route to OKC from Denver would only benefit the interstate system so as long as this Rall would continue Southeast to connect in Texarkana potentially allowing several cities in the south a better connection to the northwest.

I'm not sure how many tens of billions of dollars it would cost but there is absolutely no way this happens without a major federal government investment even though Oklahoma would still benefit greatly and probably the most of any state this new route would affect.

This would top any project in my wish list coming close to the 710 or ca 2 tunnel or perhaps and I-40 tunnel from kingman into California all things I'd love. But a Denver to Texarkana interstate going straight through Oklahoma City would definitely top any of those things for me.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TheBox on January 16, 2022, 12:09:03 PM
still a drought for I-27 extension
https://www.lubbockonline.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lubbockonline.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2F2022%2F01%2F09%2Finterstate-14-map-texas-biden-infrastructure-bill-interstate-27%2F9135835002%2F

also, stupid paywall

EDIT: https://www.lubbockonline.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lubbockonline.com%2Fstory%2Fopinion%2F2022%2F01%2F11%2Fstrong-effort-still-underway-behalf-interstate-27%2F9170344002%2F (also behind a paywal)
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 17, 2022, 03:35:56 PM
Will any segments of the proposed extensions of Interstate 14 and Interstate 27 be constructed anytime soon? It seems to me like both Interstates will remain at their present lengths for quite some time to come. Are extending 14 and 27 as much a priority as building Interstate 69 and its spurs?
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2022, 03:56:47 PM
It seems Texas is going to need to find ways to increase its transportation funding. I-14, I-69, I-27 are all projects in great need of funding and will cost billions.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: bwana39 on January 17, 2022, 06:08:18 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 17, 2022, 03:35:56 PM
Will any segments of the proposed extensions of Interstate 14 and Interstate 27 be constructed anytime soon? It seems to me like both Interstates will remain at their present lengths for quite some time to come. Are extending 14 and 27 as much a priority as building Interstate 69 and its spurs?

No, I-69 clearly has a greater priority.  I might even add, I feel fairly certain that I-27 and I-14 don't even fall next in line.

The I-14 CORRIDOR will probably see significant improvement from Temple to I-69. I think that means loops around towns , rural divided highway, and grade separations at MAJOR intersections. Currently there is not a firm path for it and None of the adjacent states have even MINIMAL interest. I think that there will likely be freeway from I-35 to BCS in 20 years, but it could be from Waco (TX-6) as much as US-190 from Temple. Likewise the I-27 corridor.

I-69 is a twenty year project. I don't see I-14 or 27 doing much in 20 years.

Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 17, 2022, 10:30:32 PM
I think it's going to take a good bit more business growth (and maybe population growth as well) for the expansion of I-27 to gain more traction. The same goes for the proposed Western portions of I-14.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on March 16, 2022, 01:04:18 AM
https://www.lubbockonline.com/story/news/2022/03/15/lubbock-amarillo-interstate-27-expansion-gets-federal-designation-omnibus-bill/7052683001/
https://krtnradio.com/2022/03/15/us-designates-future-interstate-27-part-of-the-interstate-highway-system/
https://www.kcbd.com/2022/03/15/ports-to-plains-i-27-expansion-signed-into-law-with-federal-budget/

It's official! The I-27 extension from Lubbock following US 87, US 277, and US 83 to Laredo was signed into law yesterday by President Biden. It also includes an extension of I-27 north of Amarillo to Raton, NM via US 87.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: roadman65 on March 16, 2022, 09:55:51 AM
Why not renumber proposed and eventually existing I-2 to become that route as well.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 16, 2022, 11:57:32 AM
It will be good for Oklahoma if they can build their part through the panhandle. Is that included in this as well?
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 16, 2022, 01:23:36 PM
This may be extremely small potatoes, but US-87 is a limited access freeway for a few miles south of the official southern end of the I-27 designation.  I wonder with this new bill being signed, that section will immediately get the interstate designation.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 16, 2022, 04:37:52 PM
Quote from: RoadmanWhy not renumber proposed and eventually existing I-2 to become that route as well.

I-2 is already established. It may run more North-South as it eventually gets extended to Laredo, but it will be a mostly East-West route. So the I-2 number needs to stay. There is nothing wrong with Laredo having yet another Interstate (I-27) end there. It is the busiest inland port of entry in the US. That makes it natural for Laredo to be a hub for I-35, I-69W, I-27 and I-2.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaIt will be good for Oklahoma if they can build their part through the panhandle. Is that included in this as well?

Technically it would be included since US-287 runs through Boise City. But ODOT isn't going to start planning on doing anything with their segment of US-287 until it looks like TX DOT will send an extension of I-27 that way rather than pushing it over to Texline (and toward Raton). ODOT does at least need to four lane that damned route. The area where US-287 crosses the border into Colorado is not very safe at all as a 2-lane road. Head-on collisions are a greater risk there.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14This may be extremely small potatoes, but US-87 is a limited access freeway for a few miles south of the official southern end of the I-27 designation.  I wonder with this new bill being signed, that section will immediately get the interstate designation.

I guess it depends on how strict TX DOT and others will be at following rules for signing Interstates. I wouldn't have any problem with them signing those 5 miles of US-87 freeway South of the 289 Loop as I-27. It makes me wonder what they'll do with the exit numbering though.

US-87 from Lubbock down to US-380 in Tahoka could be upgraded to Interstate quality pretty easily. Even going South of there wouldn't be bad. The big question is what they'll do with I-27 in/near Lamesa. My guess is they would build a new terrain bypass to the East. That would shave off a few miles of distance. The biggest challenge out in much of that Permian Basin region is dealing with all the oil field service roads and ranch access roads. They'll have to build a lot of miles worth of frontage road.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: US 89 on March 16, 2022, 08:27:34 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 16, 2022, 04:37:52 PM
Quote from: Plutonic PandaIt will be good for Oklahoma if they can build their part through the panhandle. Is that included in this as well?

Technically it would be included since US-287 runs through Boise City. But ODOT isn't going to start planning on doing anything with their segment of US-287 until it looks like TX DOT will send an extension of I-27 that way rather than pushing it over to Texline (and toward Raton). ODOT does at least need to four lane that damned route. The area where US-287 crosses the border into Colorado is not very safe at all as a 2-lane road. Head-on collisions are greater risk there.

Reading the actual article and looking at the map, it looks like this will not do anything in Oklahoma.

Quote(LUBBOCK, TX) — The designation of future Interstate 27 (I-27) became official on Tuesday, March 15 as President Biden signed into law the appropriation bill. The designation recognizes the Ports-to-Plains Corridor from Laredo, Texas to Raton, New Mexico as an addition to the Interstate Highway System.

Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: jlam on March 16, 2022, 08:47:06 PM
I doubt that any of us will live to see New Mexico fulfill their part.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: kphoger on March 16, 2022, 08:48:12 PM
That stretch from Del Rio to Sonora will be one heck of a gas desert.  Beautiful driving, though!  Maybe the Loma Alta "gas station" will finally be replaced with something that sells gas for more than 20 minutes a week or whatever.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 16, 2022, 09:30:17 PM
Quote from: US 89 on March 16, 2022, 08:27:34 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 16, 2022, 04:37:52 PM
Quote from: Plutonic PandaIt will be good for Oklahoma if they can build their part through the panhandle. Is that included in this as well?

Technically it would be included since US-287 runs through Boise City. But ODOT isn't going to start planning on doing anything with their segment of US-287 until it looks like TX DOT will send an extension of I-27 that way rather than pushing it over to Texline (and toward Raton). ODOT does at least need to four lane that damned route. The area where US-287 crosses the border into Colorado is not very safe at all as a 2-lane road. Head-on collisions are greater risk there.

Reading the actual article and looking at the map, it looks like this will not do anything in Oklahoma.

Quote(LUBBOCK, TX) — The designation of future Interstate 27 (I-27) became official on Tuesday, March 15 as President Biden signed into law the appropriation bill. The designation recognizes the Ports-to-Plains Corridor from Laredo, Texas to Raton, New Mexico as an addition to the Interstate Highway System.


So will that Spur be? That's so weird. Will it be a 3DI? Is it built with the possibility in mind of it being extended to Limon at some point in the future? I'm really scratching my head at that.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Scott5114 on March 16, 2022, 10:28:41 PM
Hopefully they have plans to do something a bit more direct between Dalhart and Amarillo. That hard left turn at Dumas looks stupid as hell.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: bwana39 on March 16, 2022, 10:55:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 16, 2022, 10:28:41 PM
Hopefully they have plans to do something a bit more direct between Dalhart and Amarillo. That hard left turn at Dumas looks stupid as hell.

Right now, Google Maps routes you on a FM road through Boys Ranch.

Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: US 89 on March 16, 2022, 11:16:55 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 16, 2022, 10:28:41 PM
Hopefully they have plans to do something a bit more direct between Dalhart and Amarillo. That hard left turn at Dumas looks stupid as hell.

Dumas would shrivel and dry up if you followed the direct route between those two points. I drove US 87 from Amarillo to Clayton last spring and Dumas seemed like a shell of a former self, barely staying alive from traffic passing through on US 87 or 287.

I will say that the US 87 east-west jog between US 287 and US 385 could stand to be four laned. Most of it is currently an undivided alternating 2+1 configuration.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 16, 2022, 11:18:24 PM
They also need to upgrade US-287 to a full interstate route between Amarillo and Dallas. I'm honestly surprised this hasn't been discussed more. I mean wouldn't that route see more traffic than Lubbock to I-20?

Plus you could potentially justify building it through NW New Mexico more given the Colorado/NM bound traffic from Dallas along with the traffic from Dallas heading to I-40 for the west. Extend the part through Oklahoma's panhandle and connect a freeway to OKC from it along with Tulsa's 412 intestate conversion you'd suddenly have tons of cities that would be connected directly to each other via interstate. I know that is fantasy territory at this point but it'd sure be sweet to see a bunch of regional leaders get together and lobby for that to get national funds.

Even if just half of that happened it be big. Maybe I'm overestimating it but if that entire system were built I'd imagine it would see a fairly impressive amount of traffic.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 17, 2022, 12:08:41 AM
Quote from: US 89Reading the actual article and looking at the map, it looks like this will not do anything in Oklahoma.

In the press releases they keep mentioning this crap about I-27 opening a route to Canada. Well, sending the route over to Raton, NM will make it come up short of that goal by 3 whole states. US-287 going thru the Oklahoma Panhandle and into SE Colorado is also part of the Ports to Plains Corridor. That route actually gets the I-27 extension pointed a little farther toward Canada.

Quote from: Scott5114Hopefully they have plans to do something a bit more direct between Dalhart and Amarillo. That hard left turn at Dumas looks stupid as hell.

I have a strong feeling the North extension of I-27 will come to an unceremonious end in Dumas and stay that way for a long time. With politics being what they are in New Mexico TX DOT would waste a hell of a lot of money building out I-27 to Texline and the NM border. If I-27 is going to be stuck as an Intra-state I-route they might as well route it up US-287 North of Dumas. All the trucks servicing feed lots North of Dumas would benefit from it. Stratford has a significant crossing of rail routes there. I have a feeling if TX DOT built I-27 up to the OK border then ODOT would at least 4-lane US-287, if not turn it into a limited access route.

Quote from: US 89I will say that the US 87 east-west jog between US 287 and US 385 could stand to be four laned. Most of it is currently an undivided alternating 2+1 configuration.

I think TX DOT has plans on the books to upgrade US-87 between Dumas and Hartley to at least a 4-lane undivided facility in the near term and then 4-lane divided some time after that. The town of Dumas and TX DOT have had some public meetings about a freeway bypass (of course it's generating some controversy). Some residents want it because it might do more to put Dumas more prominently on the map. Others fear a bypass would kill local business.

Quote from: US 89Dumas would shrivel and dry up if you followed the direct route between those two points. I drove US 87 from Amarillo to Clayton last spring and Dumas seemed like a shell of a former self, barely staying alive from traffic passing through on US 87 or 287.

I've been driving thru Dumas from time to time going back to the late 1990's. It's along my road trip path going from Lawton up to Colorado to visit family up there. I have not noticed Dumas shrinking at all. The town isn't booming either, but it has slowly added more businesses. The South side of town has considerably more services now (such as hotels) than it did in the past. I usually stop at the Walmart on the South side of Dumas to top off my fuel tank, because gasoline prices after that stop get ridiculous pretty fast farther North.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaThey also need to upgrade US-287 to a full interstate route between Amarillo and Dallas. I'm honestly surprised this hasn't been discussed more. I mean wouldn't that route see more traffic than Lubbock to I-20?

Yeah, US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth is a sore spot for me. Amarillo is an important junction along I-40. Dallas-Fort Worth is the 4th largest MSA in the nation and an even bigger highway hub. The amount of truck traffic on US-287 is pretty ridiculous. I usually drive the segments between Wichita Falls and the TX-114 turn at Rhome when going to Dallas and the segment from Memphis to Amarillo on my road trips to Colorado. To me the traffic levels on that road are just as heavy as some Interstates. Hell, there's probably more traffic on US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth than there is traffic on I-44 from OKC down to Wichita Falls. Traffic on I-44 thru Lawton and Wichita Falls would probably be heavier if US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene was upgraded to Interstate quality and designated as I-44. On Monday I talked with Gene Love, who is the chairman of the Oklahoma Turnpike Commission board. Over 20 years ago he, another OTA rep from Lawton named Gib Gibson and some others visited with TX DOT imploring them to extend I-44 down to Abilene. TX DOT at least 4-laned the route and added some snippets of freeway along the way. Extending I-44 doesn't seem to be even a distant priority for TX DOT.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaPlus you could potentially justify building it through NW New Mexico more given the Colorado/NM bound traffic from Dallas along with the traffic from Dallas heading to I-40 for the west. Extend the part through Oklahoma's panhandle and connect a freeway to OKC from it along with Tulsa's 412 intestate conversion you'd suddenly have tons of cities that would be connected directly to each other via interstate. I know that is fantasy territory at this point but it'd sure be sweet to see a bunch of regional leaders get together and lobby for that to get national funds.

The New Mexico state government is a major obstacle for any I-27 upgrades on US-64/87 in NE NM. Town residents in Clayton might raise hell over fears what a bypass would do to their town. Clayton already suffered some downturns with losses of business like the big feed lot that used to operate on the NW side of town. Obviously my nostrils are glad the feed lot is no longer there when I drive thru the place!
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: bwana39 on March 17, 2022, 08:23:44 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 17, 2022, 12:08:41 AM

Quote from: Plutonic PandaThey also need to upgrade US-287 to a full interstate route between Amarillo and Dallas. I'm honestly surprised this hasn't been discussed more. I mean wouldn't that route see more traffic than Lubbock to I-20?

Yeah, US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth is a sore spot for me. Amarillo is an important junction along I-40. Dallas-Fort Worth is the 4th largest MSA in the nation and an even bigger highway hub. The amount of truck traffic on US-287 is pretty ridiculous. I usually drive the segments between Wichita Falls and the TX-114 turn at Rhome when going to Dallas and the segment from Memphis to Amarillo on my road trips to Colorado. To me the traffic levels on that road are just as heavy as some Interstates. Hell, there's probably more traffic on US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth than there is traffic on I-44 from OKC down to Wichita Falls. Traffic on I-44 thru Lawton and Wichita Falls would probably be heavier if US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene was upgraded to Interstate quality and designated as I-44. On Monday I talked with Gene Love, who is the chairman of the Oklahoma Turnpike Commission board. Over 20 years ago he, another OTA rep from Lawton named Gib Gibson and some others visited with TX DOT imploring them to extend I-44 down to Abilene. TX DOT at least 4-laned the route and added some snippets of freeway along the way. Extending I-44 doesn't seem to be even a distant priority for TX DOT.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaPlus you could potentially justify building it through NW New Mexico more given the Colorado/NM bound traffic from Dallas along with the traffic from Dallas heading to I-40 for the west. Extend the part through Oklahoma's panhandle and connect a freeway to OKC from it along with Tulsa's 412 intestate conversion you'd suddenly have tons of cities that would be connected directly to each other via interstate. I know that is fantasy territory at this point but it'd sure be sweet to see a bunch of regional leaders get together and lobby for that to get national funds.

The New Mexico state government is a major obstacle for any I-27 upgrades on US-64/87 in NE NM. Town residents in Clayton might raise hell over fears what a bypass would do to their town. Clayton already suffered some downturns with losses of business like the big feed lot that used to operate on the NW side of town. Obviously my nostrils are glad the feed lot is no longer there when I drive thru the place!

Even without some "official congressional mandate", this (US-287) is being upgraded more and more as the years pass. The difference from when my son was at WTAM versus now is dramatic. Less than 15 years. There were still some 2-lane sections then. I cannot imagine that this route won't be improved to near interstate standards before the proposed I-27 extension  is more than 287 was 20 years ago. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2022, 08:45:13 AM
Yeah I-44 should be extended to Abilene and a lot of new alignment roadway would be needed for a more direct connection. This would allow for much better access for I-44 corridor traffic to have to west and SW Texas. I think Texas just sees that as Oklahoma's problem. They'd probably want to extend I-14 to Louisiana before I-44.

Regarding Clayton, I am sure you're right but we really need to stop letting towns like that become an obstacle if they really would yield the power to stop this. Hold some meetings, let the citizens bitch, and take no consideration to what they have to say. I don't say that without empathy but efficient regional movement is more important than keeping a town alive like Breezewood that relies on traffic being forced on its surface streets.

Muskogee did the same crap which resulted in Stitt canceling the proposed US-69 bypass of the town. Now they're going to build a six lane surface street and mark my words a new bypass will be built in the future and the city will propose a road diet to be trendy and cool.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 17, 2022, 03:01:36 PM
The only thing needed now it US-287 to go into the phone booth and come out as I-32.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 17, 2022, 05:10:53 PM
US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo still needs a hell of a lot of work. The section going NW from the I-35W split still isn't up to Interstate standards after all these years. Now it needs to be widened to at least 3 lanes in each direction, but TX DOT is still farting around getting rid of the at-grade driveways between I-35W and Avondale. A bunch of other driveways and at-grade intersections exist North of there to the TX-114 split at Rhome. US-287 is a mess going through Decatur. If TX DOT can fix that crap in Decatur and up to Alford then Interstate quality upgrades of US-287 farther Northwest toward Wichita Falls will be much easier.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaYeah I-44 should be extended to Abilene and a lot of new alignment roadway would be needed for a more direct connection. This would allow for much better access for I-44 corridor traffic to have to west and SW Texas. I think Texas just sees that as Oklahoma's problem. They'd probably want to extend I-14 to Louisiana before I-44.

I'm not all that big a fan of the angled bends US-277 takes between Wichita Falls and Abilene. There is one serious bend at Munday and another at Anson, which bends the highway into a ESE direction. Still, not much would be gained trying to build a more direct new terrain route between Wichita Falls and Abilene. It would be a whole lot easier just doing further upgrades on US-277. Holliday, Dundee, Seymour, Goree, Munday, Weinert, Haskell and Stamford all had new bypasses built, most of which are at or near Interstate quality. Anson is the only town along the way without a freeway bypass. South of Anson, US-277 is 4-lane divided and flanked by continuous frontage roads. That stretch of US-277 would be easy to upgrade.

In a perfect world it would be nice if there was a Southwest running diagonal route from Anson to Sweetwater. That would be a good alternative for that US-277 back-bend to Abilene. Such a thing might have to be added as a toll road.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 17, 2022, 07:46:54 PM
Well, as with all of these Congressionally-determined routes, money talks, BS walks. It's a number on a page until someone gets some money flowing.

I think the prospect of I-27 existing south of I-10 is pure FritzOwl fantasy.  There's no way demand justifies a freeway along that route in the next few decades. Also, isn't that Midland-San Angelo segment part of Texas' I-14 fever dream?

I'm sure they'll make good progress on this expansion just in time for the Permian Basin to dry up. :-D
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 18, 2022, 12:24:05 AM
Del Rio is a significant border crossing into Mexico. And Laredo is a major border crossing. Still, I've usually thought it would make more sense for I-27 to be extended thru Big Spring to San Angelo and then diagonally down to Junction. That would create a fairly straight shot for Panhandle traffic to reach the San Antonio area. I think the powers that be are fixated on the movement of cross-border commerce.

The Rio Grande Valley in far South Texas is basically an undiscovered major metropolis. One could make a good argument that the rest of America has been racist for overlooking that region. Most of the people living there are of Latino heritage. There is no one single "major" city down there, but that cluster adds up to well over a million people. There are less populous areas of the US that are far better represented by the Interstate highway network. I have no problem with an I-27 extension that would ultimately end in Laredo along with I-2, I-69W and I-35.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: kphoger on March 18, 2022, 08:49:19 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 18, 2022, 12:24:05 AM
Del Rio is a significant border crossing into Mexico.

Eagle Pass is much more significant.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: monty on March 18, 2022, 08:33:40 PM
New I27 corridor progress announced: https://www.myhighplains.com/news/your-local-election-hq/i-27-designated-as-part-of-interstate-highway-system/?fbclid=IwAR0eUpqYxmJszkVXjAkKH6xktrVjRVzjxeYywqqzvSdXEEYnwFGMqqB4V7c
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: MATraveler128 on March 18, 2022, 08:49:03 PM
I wonder how they will get it through Amarillo. The northern terminus feeds right into Downtown. Will TXDOT route it around the city on Loop 335 with the remaining piece becoming an x27? An elevated freeway would destroy the downtown area and a tunnel would be too expensive.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Thegeet on March 18, 2022, 11:18:50 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 18, 2022, 08:49:03 PM
I wonder how they will get it through Amarillo. The northern terminus feeds right into Downtown. Will TXDOT route it around the city on Loop 337 with the remaining piece becoming an x27? An elevated freeway would destroy the downtown area and a tunnel would be too expensive.
I don't think they will route the remainder of I-27 until a few decades. I can't unsee them displacing the downtown properties.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 19, 2022, 12:30:37 AM
Quote from: kphogerEagle Pass is much more significant.

Eagle Pass is definitely near a more important junction in Mexico's highway network. On the bright side Eagle Pass is South of Del Rio, in between Del Rio and Laredo. An I-27 extension intended to bounce to Del Rio and then Laredo would obviously have to pass through Eagle Pass along the way.

What will be interesting is how an I-27 link would be built between Eagle Pass and Laredo. Will it follow US-277 and US-83 in that out of the way bend to Carrizo Springs? Or will it take a more straight shot, hugging closer to the Rio Grande? There would be advantages to the latter. It would cut some miles off the route. It could upgrade the FM-1472 corridor and more closely serve a lot of distribution facilities on the North side of Laredo.

Quote from: BlueOutback7I wonder how they will get it through Amarillo. The northern terminus feeds right into Downtown. Will TXDOT route it around the city on Loop 337 with the remaining piece becoming an x27? An elevated freeway would destroy the downtown area and a tunnel would be too expensive.

It's a foregone conclusion an extension of I-27 North out of Amarillo would be routed around the West half of Loop 335. There is no way I-27 is going to get extended directly thru downtown Amarillo. The existing I-27 route inside the 335 loop would be re-numbered somehow. Maybe a 3-digit I-27 spur. Much of the freeway upgrade of Loop 335 will probably be finished before any work gets started on I-27 between Amarillo and Dumas.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: DJStephens on March 20, 2022, 12:04:27 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 18, 2022, 08:49:03 PM
I wonder how they will get it through Amarillo. The northern terminus feeds right into Downtown. Will TXDOT route it around the city on Loop 337 with the remaining piece becoming an x27? An elevated freeway would destroy the downtown area and a tunnel would be too expensive.

Don't believe it will ever be routed straight through (it should have been routed straight through back in the day) but a twin viaduct system similar to the ones in Wichita Falls could be pursued.   Am of belief a "cut and cover" trench is the best long term solution.   With deck park(s), and air rights being sold.
Remember the first time in Amarillo, mid nineties, there were a lot more vacant properties in between and around the twin one way couplets that have existed for a long time.   
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Stephane Dumas on March 20, 2022, 01:38:14 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on March 20, 2022, 12:04:27 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 18, 2022, 08:49:03 PM
I wonder how they will get it through Amarillo. The northern terminus feeds right into Downtown. Will TXDOT route it around the city on Loop 337 with the remaining piece becoming an x27? An elevated freeway would destroy the downtown area and a tunnel would be too expensive.

Don't believe it will ever be routed straight through (it should have been routed straight through back in the day) but a twin viaduct system similar to the ones in Wichita Falls could be pursued.   Am of belief a "cut and cover" trench is the best long term solution.   With deck park(s), and air rights being sold.
Remember the first time in Amarillo, mid nineties, there were a lot more vacant properties in between and around the twin one way couplets that have existed for a long time.   

Talk about a missed opportunity, when these properties was vacant...

Then when TXDOT will reroute I-27 on Loop-335, if they had studied the possibility to use the Eastern loop part since it pass near the airport?
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Thegeet on March 20, 2022, 10:15:24 PM
hot take: I think they will somehow force the freeway thru town, even if it means a revolt.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: MATraveler128 on March 20, 2022, 10:21:32 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on March 20, 2022, 10:15:24 PM
hot take: I think they will somehow force the freeway thru town, even if it means a revolt.

I guess they could, although it would be very destructive. At least the ICC in Shreveport doesn't pass through heavy commercial development. Sending it through downtown would rip it apart. Just loop it on TX 335.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: bwana39 on March 21, 2022, 01:08:25 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 20, 2022, 10:21:32 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on March 20, 2022, 10:15:24 PM
hot take: I think they will somehow force the freeway thru town, even if it means a revolt.

I guess they could, although it would be very destructive. At least the ICC in Shreveport doesn't pass through heavy commercial development. Sending it through downtown would rip it apart. Just loop it on TX 335.

I agree fully!. There is no reason to route I-27 through downtown Amarillo.

My point was the "Renaissance at Allendale" was built as either a stop to I-49 ICC or more likely as a way to make money by the almost sure forced sale.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2022, 11:38:55 AM
There is no way I-27 is ever going to get routed up through Downtown Amarillo. That is a pipe dream. Even 20 years ago it was a non-starter. BTW, this issue has been debated here in the past. People often bring up the I-44 viaduct in Wichita Falls as an example of how it could be done in Amarillo. But that is quite an apples to oranges comparison to downtown Amarillo.

The Holliday and Broad Street viaducts span 10 blocks to the West of downtown Wichita Falls. It's a little more than 3/4 of a mile long. A similar approach in Amarillo would be over twice as long, 29 blocks and over 2 miles. The viaducts would have to be built directly through downtown, not off to the side of it. Plus the BNSF rail lines provide an additional obstacle. The intersection with BL-40/Historic US-66 has its own set of complications.

A lot of new development and downtown beautification has taken place in Amarillo's downtown district within the last 10 or so years. Not only are there busy office towers where lots of people are working daily, but there's also now a thriving night life district in the same area. Attempting to build an elevated freeway through that would be highly destructive to all that growth.

The only work-able alternative of pushing I-27 directly thru downtown Amarillo would be a deep bore tunnel. But the costs of tunneling are so hideously extreme. We're talking multiple billions of dollars. There is no point of building such a thing in a modest sized city of 200,000 people. For what it would cost just to tunnel I-27 under downtown Amarillo you could build out much of a North extension of I-27 clear up to Limon, Colorado and I-70. Even a pair of elevated viaducts running nearly 30 city blocks would cost quite a lot of money, funding that could be better spent building out more miles of I-27 elsewhere.

If I-27 gets extended North of Amarillo the designation will get looped around the downtown area.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 21, 2022, 12:39:48 PM
I don't really the issue of rerouting the new interstate west of Amarillo. It doesn't much it any travel time Amarillo is still small enough where it won't have to be built that far out of the way unlike it would in a metro like Dallas.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 21, 2022, 05:56:23 PM
Given how I-27 approaches Amarillo from the SW, using Loop 335 is a no-brainer.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Henry on March 21, 2022, 08:02:27 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 19, 2022, 12:30:37 AM
Quote from: kphogerEagle Pass is much more significant.

Eagle Pass is definitely near a more important junction in Mexico's highway network. On the bright side Eagle Pass is South of Del Rio, in between Del Rio and Laredo. An I-27 extension intended to bounce to Del Rio and then Laredo would obviously have to pass through Eagle Pass along the way.

What will be interesting is how an I-27 link would be built between Eagle Pass and Laredo. Will it follow US-277 and US-83 in that out of the way bend to Carrizo Springs? Or will it take a more straight shot, hugging closer to the Rio Grande? There would be advantages to the latter. It would cut some miles off the route. It could upgrade the FM-1472 corridor and more closely serve a lot of distribution facilities on the North side of Laredo.

Quote from: BlueOutback7I wonder how they will get it through Amarillo. The northern terminus feeds right into Downtown. Will TXDOT route it around the city on Loop 337 with the remaining piece becoming an x27? An elevated freeway would destroy the downtown area and a tunnel would be too expensive.

It's a foregone conclusion an extension of I-27 North out of Amarillo would be routed around the West half of Loop 335. There is no way I-27 is going to get extended directly thru downtown Amarillo. The existing I-27 route inside the 335 loop would be re-numbered somehow. Maybe a 3-digit I-27 spur. Much of the freeway upgrade of Loop 335 will probably be finished before any work gets started on I-27 between Amarillo and Dumas.
Well, since there are no I-x27s around (will Loop 289 in Lubbock ever get upgraded into one?), I think it would only be right that I-127 be created after the western reroute around Loop 335 has been completed. While we're at it, let's upgrade the eastern half of Loop 335 as well and then try to decide whether to number it an I-x27 or I-x40 (and the westernmost I-x40 is I-240 in Oklahoma City!).
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2022, 10:05:12 PM
I wouldn't put it past TX DOT to simply "downgrade" the designation of the existing I-27 segment inside Loop 335 as "US-87." That would at least keep the route naming consistent in downtown and the two freeway segments North and South of downtown Amarillo. TX DOT has shown very little inclination to rename existing Texas Loop highways as Interstate named routes. One half of Loop 335 would be re-named I-27 if I-27 actually gets extended North of Amarillo. In Lubbock I don't expect Loop 289, Spur 327 or even US-82 going thru Lubbock to carry Interstate designations. I think something big would have to happen on the federal level to change the thinking (and that would only happen if the change in mindset included a whole lot of federal funding).
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: bwana39 on March 21, 2022, 10:34:22 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2022, 10:05:12 PM
I wouldn't put it past TX DOT to simply "downgrade" the designation of the existing I-27 segment inside Loop 335 as "US-87." That would at least keep the route naming consistent in downtown and the two freeway segments North and South of downtown Amarillo. TX DOT has shown very little inclination to rename existing Texas Loop highways as Interstate named routes. One half of Loop 335 would be re-named I-27 if I-27 actually gets extended North of Amarillo. In Lubbock I don't expect Loop 289, Spur 327 or even US-82 going thru Lubbock to carry Interstate designations. I think something big would have to happen on the federal level to change the thinking (and that would only happen if the change in mindset included a whole lot of federal funding).

The term DOWNGRADE seems to suggest the road would be diminished when in fact it is only the label that would be downgraded.

I-20 from Terrell to I-30 in far east Dallas was made to be JUST US-80 when I-20 was rerouted around the southern sides of Dallas , Fort Worth and Arlington.  It has expanded from 2x2 to 3x3 or more in the decades since. Clearly not a downgrade.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on March 22, 2022, 05:50:24 AM
^ That route is still mostly a 4 lane limited access highway.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Henry on March 22, 2022, 10:41:41 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 21, 2022, 10:34:22 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2022, 10:05:12 PM
I wouldn't put it past TX DOT to simply "downgrade" the designation of the existing I-27 segment inside Loop 335 as "US-87." That would at least keep the route naming consistent in downtown and the two freeway segments North and South of downtown Amarillo. TX DOT has shown very little inclination to rename existing Texas Loop highways as Interstate named routes. One half of Loop 335 would be re-named I-27 if I-27 actually gets extended North of Amarillo. In Lubbock I don't expect Loop 289, Spur 327 or even US-82 going thru Lubbock to carry Interstate designations. I think something big would have to happen on the federal level to change the thinking (and that would only happen if the change in mindset included a whole lot of federal funding).

The term DOWNGRADE seems to suggest the road would be diminished when in fact it is only the label that would be downgraded.

I-20 from Terrell to I-30 in far east Dallas was made to be JUST US-80 when I-20 was rerouted around the southern sides of Dallas , Fort Worth and Arlington.  It has expanded from 2x2 to 3x3 or more in the decades since. Clearly not a downgrade.
The antithesis of this would be I-69 through Houston, since that was (and still is) known as US 59. There's also I-69C and I-69E, which are also taking over existing US routes in McAllen and Brownsville, respectively. So as this would show, the cookie crumbles both ways.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 22, 2022, 11:56:01 AM
Quote from: bwana39The term DOWNGRADE seems to suggest the road would be diminished when in fact it is only the label that would be downgraded.

I never suggested the freeway would be physically reduced to some kind of surface street. I clearly wrote TX DOT would likely "downgrade" the highway's designation, not its highway type.

Such a move would be consistent with TX DOT policies. They only seem to be in agreement with signing new Interstate routes when there is some political push behind it, like with I-69 and I-14. Otherwise they seem perfectly happy allowing freeways and toll roads to carry US Highway or State Highway designations.

My own guess is there's maybe a 10%-20% chance TX DOT would give I-27 inside Loop-335 a new 3-digit Interstate designation to I-40 and downtown. It would raise a question about what to do with the US-87 freeway North of downtown Amarillo. Would that have to be given another 3-digit I-x27 name? It's just a lot easier for them to name that whole stretch inside Loop-335 as US-87.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: thisdj78 on March 22, 2022, 02:47:11 PM
They could route I-27 on the west loop and make it more "direct"  by adding mini spurs. On the south end it almost looks like ROW is set aside for it:

(https://i.ibb.co/3B2BbP1/1-E16-C9-A4-5-B58-4333-ABCA-DFDCA7-C13-E93.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cD0D9sJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/fGNnB38/B8476046-D4-FF-4500-9723-197-A6-EEBDB2-F.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Z1gYtQH)
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2022, 02:54:44 PM
^^^ thank you! That is exactly how I envisioned it as well. Of course we could also do it my way and build a tunnel under downtown.  :bigass:
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Thegeet on March 22, 2022, 05:16:47 PM
Good idea but  I don't see TxDOT being motivated to build curves.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: KCRoadFan on March 22, 2022, 06:38:24 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on March 20, 2022, 12:04:27 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 18, 2022, 08:49:03 PM
I wonder how they will get it through Amarillo. The northern terminus feeds right into Downtown. Will TXDOT route it around the city on Loop 337 with the remaining piece becoming an x27? An elevated freeway would destroy the downtown area and a tunnel would be too expensive.

Don't believe it will ever be routed straight through (it should have been routed straight through back in the day) but a twin viaduct system similar to the ones in Wichita Falls could be pursued.   Am of belief a "cut and cover" trench is the best long term solution.   With deck park(s), and air rights being sold.
Remember the first time in Amarillo, mid nineties, there were a lot more vacant properties in between and around the twin one way couplets that have existed for a long time.

<sarcasm>
Do it like I-78 in Jersey City - just route it along the streets with the traffic lights! Maybe work with the City of Amarillo or TXDOT (whoever maintains those streets) to sync the lights up and create longer green intervals for the north-south traffic.
</sarcasm>
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: rte66man on March 22, 2022, 10:05:43 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 22, 2022, 02:47:11 PM
They could route I-27 on the west loop and make it more "direct"  by adding mini spurs. On the south end it almost looks like ROW is set aside for it:

(https://i.ibb.co/3B2BbP1/1-E16-C9-A4-5-B58-4333-ABCA-DFDCA7-C13-E93.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cD0D9sJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/fGNnB38/B8476046-D4-FF-4500-9723-197-A6-EEBDB2-F.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Z1gYtQH)

You need to move your south curve a mile west to the new loop
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Thegeet on March 23, 2022, 01:01:46 AM
If they decide to loop it, I think they will only use sharp turns or half hearted flyovers.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: In_Correct on March 23, 2022, 03:44:19 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 22, 2022, 10:05:43 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 22, 2022, 02:47:11 PM
They could route I-27 on the west loop and make it more "direct"  by adding mini spurs. On the south end it almost looks like ROW is set aside for it:

(https://i.ibb.co/3B2BbP1/1-E16-C9-A4-5-B58-4333-ABCA-DFDCA7-C13-E93.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cD0D9sJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/fGNnB38/B8476046-D4-FF-4500-9723-197-A6-EEBDB2-F.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Z1gYtQH)

You need to move your south curve a mile west to the new loop

Also, that proposed Interchange needs to be reworked in favor of the new route. People should not need to have to take an Interchange on Interstate 27 in order to stay on Interstate 27. Instead, the ramps should go to the old route.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: mvak36 on March 23, 2022, 11:29:20 AM
Quote from: In_Correct on March 23, 2022, 03:44:19 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 22, 2022, 10:05:43 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 22, 2022, 02:47:11 PM
They could route I-27 on the west loop and make it more "direct"  by adding mini spurs. On the south end it almost looks like ROW is set aside for it:

(https://i.ibb.co/3B2BbP1/1-E16-C9-A4-5-B58-4333-ABCA-DFDCA7-C13-E93.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cD0D9sJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/fGNnB38/B8476046-D4-FF-4500-9723-197-A6-EEBDB2-F.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Z1gYtQH)

You need to move your south curve a mile west to the new loop

Also, that proposed Interchange needs to be reworked in favor of the new route. People should not need to have to take an Interchange on Interstate 27 in order to stay on Interstate 27. Instead, the ramps should go to the old route.

Would they still keep the old route as a freeway? Seems like it would be a good 3di of I-27. Also for Loop 335, they could probably do something like the 495 beltway in DC where it is concurrent with I-27 on the western half.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 23, 2022, 01:28:05 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on March 23, 2022, 03:44:19 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 22, 2022, 10:05:43 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 22, 2022, 02:47:11 PM
They could route I-27 on the west loop and make it more "direct"  by adding mini spurs. On the south end it almost looks like ROW is set aside for it:

(https://i.ibb.co/3B2BbP1/1-E16-C9-A4-5-B58-4333-ABCA-DFDCA7-C13-E93.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cD0D9sJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/fGNnB38/B8476046-D4-FF-4500-9723-197-A6-EEBDB2-F.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Z1gYtQH)

You need to move your south curve a mile west to the new loop

Also, that proposed Interchange needs to be reworked in favor of the new route. People should not need to have to take an Interchange on Interstate 27 in order to stay on Interstate 27. Instead, the ramps should go to the old route.

What are the Legs of Amarillo?
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: I-55 on March 23, 2022, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on March 23, 2022, 11:29:20 AM
Would they still keep the old route as a freeway? Seems like it would be a good 3di of I-27. Also for Loop 335, they could probably do something like the 495 beltway in DC where it is concurrent with I-27 on the western half.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2022, 10:05:12 PM
I wouldn't put it past TX DOT to simply "downgrade" the designation of the existing I-27 segment inside Loop 335 as "US-87." That would at least keep the route naming consistent in downtown and the two freeway segments North and South of downtown Amarillo. TX DOT has shown very little inclination to rename existing Texas Loop highways as Interstate named routes. One half of Loop 335 would be re-named I-27 if I-27 actually gets extended North of Amarillo. In Lubbock I don't expect Loop 289, Spur 327 or even US-82 going thru Lubbock to carry Interstate designations. I think something big would have to happen on the federal level to change the thinking (and that would only happen if the change in mindset included a whole lot of federal funding).

The old route would likely remain a non-interstate freeway. If they really cared about 3di designations there'd be several new designations for existing freeways in the DFW, Houston, and Austin areas in particular. Signing Loop 335 concurrent with I-27 would be consistent to what has been done in Laredo with Loop 20 and US-59 (and I think with I-69W as well)
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: DJStephens on March 23, 2022, 07:04:34 PM
Quote from: jlam on March 16, 2022, 08:47:06 PM
I doubt that any of us will live to see New Mexico fulfill their part.

Agreed.  The section of US 64 - 87 W of the texas line, has been four laned already.  But in sloppy low budget style.   Roughly seventeen to twenty years ago.   They could have re-built it then, to much higher standards.  And am still opposed to the notion of sending long distance freight to Raton Pass.  Makes no sense.   
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: -- US 175 -- on March 23, 2022, 11:23:57 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 23, 2022, 01:28:05 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on March 23, 2022, 03:44:19 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 22, 2022, 10:05:43 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 22, 2022, 02:47:11 PM
They could route I-27 on the west loop and make it more "direct"  by adding mini spurs. On the south end it almost looks like ROW is set aside for it:

(https://i.ibb.co/3B2BbP1/1-E16-C9-A4-5-B58-4333-ABCA-DFDCA7-C13-E93.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cD0D9sJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/fGNnB38/B8476046-D4-FF-4500-9723-197-A6-EEBDB2-F.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Z1gYtQH)

You need to move your south curve a mile west to the new loop

Also, that proposed Interchange needs to be reworked in favor of the new route. People should not need to have to take an Interchange on Interstate 27 in order to stay on Interstate 27. Instead, the ramps should go to the old route.

What are the Legs of Amarillo?

It is an offbeat outdoor sculpture, like the Cadillac Ranch.  IINM, there are similar art collective ties between the two.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 24, 2022, 12:41:30 PM
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on March 23, 2022, 11:23:57 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 23, 2022, 01:28:05 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on March 23, 2022, 03:44:19 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 22, 2022, 10:05:43 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 22, 2022, 02:47:11 PM
They could route I-27 on the west loop and make it more "direct"  by adding mini spurs. On the south end it almost looks like ROW is set aside for it:

(https://i.ibb.co/3B2BbP1/1-E16-C9-A4-5-B58-4333-ABCA-DFDCA7-C13-E93.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cD0D9sJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/fGNnB38/B8476046-D4-FF-4500-9723-197-A6-EEBDB2-F.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Z1gYtQH)

You need to move your south curve a mile west to the new loop

Also, that proposed Interchange needs to be reworked in favor of the new route. People should not need to have to take an Interchange on Interstate 27 in order to stay on Interstate 27. Instead, the ramps should go to the old route.

What are the Legs of Amarillo?

It is an offbeat outdoor sculpture, like the Cadillac Ranch.  IINM, there are similar art collective ties between the two.

On that note, I want to check out "VW Beatle Ranch" on the east side of Amarillo. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 24, 2022, 02:28:05 PM
I'd check out the Bug Ranch during the day time hours. The buildings around it are pretty much abandoned and covered with graffiti. At night it would work well as a spooky location in a rural horror movie.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 24, 2022, 04:59:20 PM
Maybe existing Interstate 27 north of TX 335 could become Business 27. The Business Route could follow S./N. Pierce St. and S./N. Fillmore St. through downtown, and then follow the Dumas Hwy. freeway northward to the northern TX 335 junction. US 87 could bypass Amarillo with Interstate 27 along TX 335.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: bwana39 on March 24, 2022, 10:12:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 24, 2022, 04:59:20 PM
Maybe existing Interstate 27 north of TX 335 could become Business 27. The Business Route could follow S./N. Pierce St. and S./N. Fillmore St. through downtown, and then follow the Dumas Hwy. freeway northward to the northern TX 335 junction. US 87 could bypass Amarillo with Interstate 27 along TX 335.

No. While some of you seem to see US Highways as subordinate to Interstate Highways, Texans see Business ANYTHING as a road through a populous area riddled with red lights. In Texas, it would be better served from ALL directions if it simply remained as US-87 (Which it is all signed or co-signed as already. )
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: thisdj78 on March 25, 2022, 06:13:12 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 22, 2022, 10:05:43 PM

You need to move your south curve a mile west to the new loop

You're right, I totally forgot about the new alignment of the west loop.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: In_Correct on March 25, 2022, 09:26:30 AM

Quote from: I-55 on March 23, 2022, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on March 23, 2022, 11:29:20 AM
Would they still keep the old route as a freeway? Seems like it would be a good 3di of I-27. Also for Loop 335, they could probably do something like the 495 beltway in DC where it is concurrent with I-27 on the western half.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2022, 10:05:12 PM
I wouldn't put it past TX DOT to simply "downgrade" the designation of the existing I-27 segment inside Loop 335 as "US-87." That would at least keep the route naming consistent in downtown and the two freeway segments North and South of downtown Amarillo. TX DOT has shown very little inclination to rename existing Texas Loop highways as Interstate named routes. One half of Loop 335 would be re-named I-27 if I-27 actually gets extended North of Amarillo. In Lubbock I don't expect Loop 289, Spur 327 or even US-82 going thru Lubbock to carry Interstate designations. I think something big would have to happen on the federal level to change the thinking (and that would only happen if the change in mindset included a whole lot of federal funding).

The old route would likely remain a non-interstate freeway. If they really cared about 3di designations there'd be several new designations for existing freeways in the DFW, Houston, and Austin areas in particular. Signing Loop 335 concurrent with I-27 would be consistent to what has been done in Laredo with Loop 20 and US-59 (and I think with I-69W as well)

&

Quote from: Thegeet on March 18, 2022, 11:18:50 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 18, 2022, 08:49:03 PM
I wonder how they will get it through Amarillo. The northern terminus feeds right into Downtown. Will TXDOT route it around the city on Loop 337 with the remaining piece becoming an x27? An elevated freeway would destroy the downtown area and a tunnel would be too expensive.
I don't think they will route the remainder of I-27 until a few decades. I can't unsee them displacing the downtown properties.

&

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2022, 11:38:55 AM
There is no way I-27 is ever going to get routed up through Downtown Amarillo. That is a pipe dream. Even 20 years ago it was a non-starter. BTW, this issue has been debated here in the past. People often bring up the I-44 viaduct in Wichita Falls as an example of how it could be done in Amarillo. But that is quite an apples to oranges comparison to downtown Amarillo.

The Holliday and Broad Street viaducts span 10 blocks to the West of downtown Wichita Falls. It's a little more than 3/4 of a mile long. A similar approach in Amarillo would be over twice as long, 29 blocks and over 2 miles. The viaducts would have to be built directly through downtown, not off to the side of it. Plus the BNSF rail lines provide an additional obstacle. The intersection with BL-40/Historic US-66 has its own set of complications.

A lot of new development and downtown beautification has taken place in Amarillo's downtown district within the last 10 or so years. Not only are there busy office towers where lots of people are working daily, but there's also now a thriving night life district in the same area. Attempting to build an elevated freeway through that would be highly destructive to all that growth.

The only work-able alternative of pushing I-27 directly thru downtown Amarillo would be a deep bore tunnel. But the costs of tunneling are so hideously extreme. We're talking multiple billions of dollars. There is no point of building such a thing in a modest sized city of 200,000 people. For what it would cost just to tunnel I-27 under downtown Amarillo you could build out much of a North extension of I-27 clear up to Limon, Colorado and I-70. Even a pair of elevated viaducts running nearly 30 city blocks would cost quite a lot of money, funding that could be better spent building out more miles of I-27 elsewhere.

If I-27 gets extended North of Amarillo the designation will get looped around the downtown area.

Quote

Plus the BNSF rail lines provide an additional obstacle.


The reason why so many people think Finishing Downtown is a possibility is be cause of the Rail Roads that the streets go over or under. Going under the tracks makes it seem possible for them to Trench a Superhighway through downtown. Going over the tracks (and buildings) makes it seem they can simply extend these bridges. If they were going to route Superhighways through most downtowns, they would have been constructed as such. It is very ugly for Highways to unravel through downtown and even worse about Amarillo is that The Frontage Roads unravel as well. It would actually be better for Interstate 27 to take the western half of Loop 335 while U.S. 87 takes the eastern half of Loop 335. Perhaps these Tangled Streets can be a B.R. 87 ... It might even look better if The Edges Of Downtown (or what ever those areas are called where the roads change places with each other) to have Roundabouts added to them. 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 17, 2022, 05:10:53 PM
US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo still needs a hell of a lot of work. The section going NW from the I-35W split still isn't up to Interstate standard
Quote from: I-55 on March 23, 2022, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on March 23, 2022, 11:29:20 AM
Would they still keep the old route as a freeway? Seems like it would be a good 3di of I-27. Also for Loop 335, they could probably do something like the 495 beltway in DC where it is concurrent with I-27 on the western half.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2022, 10:05:12 PM
I wouldn't put it past TX DOT to simply "downgrade" the designation of the existing I-27 segment inside Loop 335 as "US-87." That would at least keep the route naming consistent in downtown and the two freeway segments North and South of downtown Amarillo. TX DOT has shown very little inclination to rename existing Texas Loop highways as Interstate named routes. One half of Loop 335 would be re-named I-27 if I-27 actually gets extended North of Amarillo. In Lubbock I don't expect Loop 289, Spur 327 or even US-82 going thru Lubbock to carry Interstate designations. I think something big would have to happen on the federal level to change the thinking (and that would only happen if the change in mindset included a whole lot of federal funding).

The old route would likely remain a non-interstate freeway. If they really cared about 3di designations there'd be several new designations for existing freeways in the DFW, Houston, and Austin areas in particular. Signing Loop 335 concurrent with I-27 would be consistent to what has been done in Laredo with Loop 20 and US-59 (and I think with I-69W as well)
s after all these years. Now it needs to be widened to at least 3 lanes in each direction, but TX DOT is still farting around getting rid of the at-grade driveways between I-35W and Avondale. A bunch of other driveways and at-grade intersections exist North of there to the TX-114 split at Rhome. US-287 is a mess going through Decatur. If TX DOT can fix that crap in Decatur and up to Alford then Interstate quality upgrades of US-287 farther Northwest toward Wichita Falls will be much easier.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaYeah I-44 should be extended to Abilene and a lot of new alignment roadway would be needed for a more direct connection. This would allow for much better access for I-44 corridor traffic to have to west and SW Texas. I think Texas just sees that as Oklahoma's problem. They'd probably want to extend I-14 to Louisiana before I-44.

I'm not all that big a fan of the angled bends US-277 takes between Wichita Falls and Abilene. There is one serious bend at Munday and another at Anson, which bends the highway into a ESE direction. Still, not much would be gained trying to build a more direct new terrain route between Wichita Falls and Abilene. It would be a whole lot easier just doing further upgrades on US-277. Holliday, Dundee, Seymour, Goree, Munday, Weinert, Haskell and Stamford all had new bypasses built, most of which are at or near Interstate quality. Anson is the only town along the way without a freeway bypass. South of Anson, US-277 is 4-lane divided and flanked by continuous frontage roads. That stretch of US-277 would be easy to upgrade.

In a perfect world it would be nice if there was a Southwest running diagonal route from Anson to Sweetwater. That would be a good alternative for that US-277 back-bend to Abilene. Such a thing might have to be added as a toll road.

Quote

I'm not all that big a fan of the angled bends US-277 takes between Wichita Falls and Abilene.


There is a Gap on the outskirts of Wichita Falls where it is an Non Divided Highway. To avoid additional Bends, the alignment must be East of the current road. It would be a mostly straight alignment.

Quote

Such a thing might have to be added as a toll road.


:bigass:

Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on May 20, 2022, 10:23:00 PM
I wonder what caused them to allow the extension north to Raton, NM via Dumas, TX go to through, considering the fact it would complete less of the Ports to Plains corridor than extending it north along US 287 to Limon, Colorado.  :hmmm:
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on May 20, 2022, 10:37:25 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on May 20, 2022, 10:23:00 PM
I wonder what caused them to allow the extension north to Ramon, NM via Dumas, TX go to through, considering the fact it would complete less of the Ports to Plains corridor than extending it north along US 287 to Limon, Colorado.  :hmmm:
It would tie into I-25 at Raton, which then would continue traffic onto Denver and points north.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: DJStephens on May 22, 2022, 10:44:00 AM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on May 20, 2022, 10:23:00 PM
I wonder what caused them to allow the extension north to Raton, NM via Dumas, TX go to through, considering the fact it would complete less of the Ports to Plains corridor than extending it north along US 287 to Limon, Colorado.  :hmmm:

Good Question.  Must be Texas based lobbyists on their side of the border - perhaps in Dalhart area?  Dalhart could use two bypasses (US 54 and US 87) for long distance trucking, if this pipedream ever moves towards reality, don't believe it ever will.  I cannot fathom anyone in Santa Fe supporting this, aside from a lone / rando representative from the NE corner of New Mexico.   Not saying it wouldn't be beneficial in a few regards, but the biggest downer is to "attract" more long distance freight / trucking / travelers to Raton Pass.   1.3 Billion for this?  In a state that didn't build facilities it should have back in the Day?  i.e. Albuquerque Beltway, N El Paso Bypass, Numerous bypasses state wide, antiquated bridge and interchange replacements, etc .   
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: abqtraveler on May 23, 2022, 11:07:35 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on May 22, 2022, 10:44:00 AM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on May 20, 2022, 10:23:00 PM
I wonder what caused them to allow the extension north to Raton, NM via Dumas, TX go to through, considering the fact it would complete less of the Ports to Plains corridor than extending it north along US 287 to Limon, Colorado.  :hmmm:

Good Question.  Must be Texas based lobbyists on their side of the border - perhaps in Dalhart area?  Dalhart could use two bypasses (US 54 and US 87) for long distance trucking, if this pipedream ever moves towards reality, don't believe it ever will.  I cannot fathom anyone in Santa Fe supporting this, aside from a lone / rando representative from the NE corner of New Mexico.   Not saying it wouldn't be beneficial in a few regards, but the biggest downer is to "attract" more long distance freight / trucking / travelers to Raton Pass.   1.3 Billion for this?  In a state that didn't build facilities it should have back in the Day?  i.e. Albuquerque Beltway, N El Paso Bypass, Numerous bypasses state wide, antiquated bridge and interchange replacements, etc .

I was listening to KKOB radio (yes....I listen to AM talk radio) during my commute out to Kirtland AFB last Wednesday, and during their news segment, KKOB's reporter mentioned that the New Mexico Legislature has allocated some funding for NMDOT to perform an "Engineering Study" along the US-64/87 corridor to determine what work would be required to upgrade the corridor to I-27. Still, I don't think development of the I-27 corridor in New Mexico will advance beyond that engineering study, but at least it gives folks an idea of what it will take to convert 64/87 to an interstate highway.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 23, 2022, 11:26:02 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 23, 2022, 11:07:35 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on May 22, 2022, 10:44:00 AM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on May 20, 2022, 10:23:00 PM
I wonder what caused them to allow the extension north to Raton, NM via Dumas, TX go to through, considering the fact it would complete less of the Ports to Plains corridor than extending it north along US 287 to Limon, Colorado.  :hmmm:

Good Question.  Must be Texas based lobbyists on their side of the border - perhaps in Dalhart area?  Dalhart could use two bypasses (US 54 and US 87) for long distance trucking, if this pipedream ever moves towards reality, don't believe it ever will.  I cannot fathom anyone in Santa Fe supporting this, aside from a lone / rando representative from the NE corner of New Mexico.   Not saying it wouldn't be beneficial in a few regards, but the biggest downer is to "attract" more long distance freight / trucking / travelers to Raton Pass.   1.3 Billion for this?  In a state that didn't build facilities it should have back in the Day?  i.e. Albuquerque Beltway, N El Paso Bypass, Numerous bypasses state wide, antiquated bridge and interchange replacements, etc .

I was listening to KKOB radio (yes....I listen to AM talk radio) during my commute out to Kirtland AFB last Wednesday, and during their news segment, KKOB's reporter mentioned that the New Mexico Legislature has allocated some funding for NMDOT to perform an "Engineering Study" along the US-64/87 corridor to determine what work would be required to upgrade the corridor to I-27. Still, I don't think development of the I-27 corridor in New Mexico will advance beyond that engineering study, but at least it gives folks an idea of what it will take to convert 64/87 to an interstate highway.

If it ever were to get done that way, US-87 would disappear in New Mexico. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 23, 2022, 04:35:47 PM
Not necessarily. Any town bypasses would leave the existing US-64/87 route intact through town. That would leave at least a chance for US-87 to be signed on those in-town segments. Any new Interstate going through Clayton would have to go around the town, not through the middle of it. I think the towns of Des Moines and Capulin are barely large enough that new terrain bypasses would be necessary. It would be pretty destructive upgrading the existing 64/87 alignment thru those towns. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 23, 2022, 04:58:38 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 23, 2022, 04:35:47 PM
Not necessarily. Any town bypasses would leave the existing US-64/87 route intact through town. That would leave at least a chance for US-87 to be signed on those in-town segments. Any new Interstate going through Clayton would have to go around the town, not through the middle of it. I think the towns of Des Moines and Capulin are barely large enough that new terrain bypasses would be necessary. It would be pretty destructive upgrading the existing 64/87 alignment thru those towns.

They usually prefer renaming those in-town routes as business loops to avoid having to sign them on the long rural sections.  They might keep them, I just kinda thought they wouldn't. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 23, 2022, 09:45:22 PM
I'm skeptical we'll get a chance to see what choice they make any time soon. I'll be surprised if they start doing any Interstate-class upgrades on US-64/87 in NE NM within the next 10-20 years. I expect more upgrade activity on US-287 in the TX-OK Panhandles and SE CO within that period of time.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: abqtraveler on May 23, 2022, 11:30:31 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 23, 2022, 04:58:38 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 23, 2022, 04:35:47 PM
Not necessarily. Any town bypasses would leave the existing US-64/87 route intact through town. That would leave at least a chance for US-87 to be signed on those in-town segments. Any new Interstate going through Clayton would have to go around the town, not through the middle of it. I think the towns of Des Moines and Capulin are barely large enough that new terrain bypasses would be necessary. It would be pretty destructive upgrading the existing 64/87 alignment thru those towns.

They usually prefer renaming those in-town routes as business loops to avoid having to sign them on the long rural sections.  They might keep them, I just kinda thought they wouldn't.

I would think NMDOT would keep both US-64 and US-87 regardless of whether they are assigned to the interstate alignment or routed through the towns along the corridor. The only reason I think they would keep 64/87 posted IF and when I-27 is designated is because it's less than 100 miles between adjoining signed sections in north/west of Raton and east/south into Texas, and so there would be continuity of both routes.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Thegeet on May 24, 2022, 09:22:40 PM
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on March 23, 2022, 11:23:57 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 23, 2022, 01:28:05 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on March 23, 2022, 03:44:19 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 22, 2022, 10:05:43 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 22, 2022, 02:47:11 PM
They could route I-27 on the west loop and make it more "direct"  by adding mini spurs. On the south end it almost looks like ROW is set aside for it:

(https://i.ibb.co/3B2BbP1/1-E16-C9-A4-5-B58-4333-ABCA-DFDCA7-C13-E93.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cD0D9sJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/fGNnB38/B8476046-D4-FF-4500-9723-197-A6-EEBDB2-F.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Z1gYtQH)

You need to move your south curve a mile west to the new loop

Also, that proposed Interchange needs to be reworked in favor of the new route. People should not need to have to take an Interchange on Interstate 27 in order to stay on Interstate 27. Instead, the ramps should go to the old route.

What are the Legs of Amarillo?

It is an offbeat outdoor sculpture, like the Cadillac Ranch.  IINM, there are similar art collective ties between the two.
You know what? If it's gonna be bypassed, it might as well take a sharp turn at Loop 335 like I-69 will at I-465. Idc anymore.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Plutonic Panda on May 24, 2022, 10:14:01 PM
^^^ well I do. I'd prefer better standards be the goal moving forward despite of the past.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: jtespi on July 01, 2022, 03:13:10 AM
It was in the thread last year, but in case anyone's unaware, TxDOT is moving the Loop 335 alignment about 1 mile west from W Hollywood Road to 1 mile north of I-40.
This should bode well for an I-27 extension as the current Loop 335 alignment (S Soncy Road) has become heavily urbanized as a city street with no ROW from I-40 to SW 45th Avenue. It's pretty odd that just north of I-40, there's a clear 400 ft (120 m) ROW.

Here's a Google Street View from earlier this year at LP-335 and W Hollywood Road: https://goo.gl/maps/Qosa3sT5Y8TAaLmw6 (https://goo.gl/maps/Qosa3sT5Y8TAaLmw6)
And here's another one from March showing the new I-40 bridge at the future LP-335 alignment: https://goo.gl/maps/2J8AjRNZpG8DuJXM7 (https://goo.gl/maps/2J8AjRNZpG8DuJXM7)

The rest of the NW quadrant of LP-335 has adequate ROW and nearly all interchanges built out, albeit some as a super-2 (except for SW 9th Ave).
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 01, 2022, 01:38:11 PM
Yeah, it has been common knowledge for a few years that segments B-1 and B-2 of the Loop 335 upgrade project were going to shift the Loop 335 alignment a mile West from Soncy Road over to Helium Road. The frontage roads for those segments are visible in Google Earth (imagery dated 2/4/2021). I don't know the time table for the main freeway lanes being completed.

Segments A-1 and A-2 on the South side of Amarillo are nearly complete. It's going to take at least several more years for the rest of the loop to be finished. I'm guessing Segment A-4 and Segment D on the East side of Amarillo will be the last to be built. Then it will be a slow process getting new directional interchanges built. One stack interchange is definitely proposed for I-40 & Loop 335 on the West side of Amarillo. I don't know the plans for I-27 and Loop 335 on the South side, US-87 on the North side or I-40 on the East side. Those could remain as volleyball interchanges for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 01, 2022, 01:48:53 PM
Approximately how long will Interstate 27 be once it is fully extended southward to Laredo and northward to Raton, New Mexico? It will make the existing Lubbock-to-Amarillo route seem podunk in comparison. Of course, I doubt any of us will live to see 27 completed from Laredo to Lubbock, and Amarillo to Raton.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 01, 2022, 02:20:56 PM
Overall, a version of I-27 from Raton to Laredo would be about 855 miles long.

It's roughly 510 miles from the current South end of I-27 in Lubbock to the US-83 junction with I-35 just North of Laredo. Existing I-27 is 117 miles from its South end in Lubbock to Loop 335 on the South side of Amarillo. It would be another 18 miles routed on the West half of Loop 335 up to US-87. It's about 210 miles from the North side Amarillo to I-25 in Raton.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2022, 04:15:10 PM
I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Cerlin on July 01, 2022, 04:39:16 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2022, 04:15:10 PM
I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.
What states only have majors? If we're not counting auxiliary, I know Kansas and Delaware are on that list too–is this too off topic? LOL
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: MATraveler128 on July 01, 2022, 04:41:17 PM
Quote from: Cerlin on July 01, 2022, 04:39:16 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2022, 04:15:10 PM
I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.
What states only have majors? If we're not counting auxiliary, I know Kansas and Delaware are on that list too–is this too off topic? LOL

Wyoming and Rhode Island
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2022, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on July 01, 2022, 04:41:17 PM
Quote from: Cerlin on July 01, 2022, 04:39:16 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2022, 04:15:10 PM
I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.
What states only have majors? If we're not counting auxiliary, I know Kansas and Delaware are on that list too–is this too off topic? LOL

Wyoming and Rhode Island

Maine. 

If is wasn't for I-76 West sticking itself in for a 2 miles, Nebraska would be on this list. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 01, 2022, 11:05:40 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.

I don't have any realistic expectations New Mexico's state government will follow through building a leg of I-27. US-287 going up into SE CO has the best chance for upgrades.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 02, 2022, 11:04:41 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 01, 2022, 11:05:40 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.

I don't have any realistic expectations New Mexico's state government will follow through building a leg of I-27. US-287 going up into SE CO has the best chance for upgrades.

I love that option better anyway, the one to Limon. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Some one on July 02, 2022, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2022, 04:15:10 PM
I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.
On the flipside, North Dakota and Vermont are the only states to have non-major interstate routes (excluding Alaska and Hawaii).
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: dvferyance on July 02, 2022, 08:06:25 PM
Quote from: Some one on July 02, 2022, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2022, 04:15:10 PM
I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.
On the flipside, North Dakota and Vermont are the only states to have non-major interstate routes (excluding Alaska and Hawaii).
I-94 doesn't count as major?
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Some one on July 03, 2022, 12:21:52 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 02, 2022, 08:06:25 PM
Quote from: Some one on July 02, 2022, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2022, 04:15:10 PM
I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.
On the flipside, North Dakota and Vermont are the only states to have non-major interstate routes (excluding Alaska and Hawaii).
I-94 doesn't count as major?
Technically no. A major interstate highway is one that ends in 5 or 0. This is why I-45 and I-30, while short, are still considered to be major interstates. Although I-94 is one of the most important "non-major" interstate highways.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Rothman on July 03, 2022, 08:47:15 AM
Quote from: Some one on July 03, 2022, 12:21:52 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 02, 2022, 08:06:25 PM
Quote from: Some one on July 02, 2022, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2022, 04:15:10 PM
I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.
On the flipside, North Dakota and Vermont are the only states to have non-major interstate routes (excluding Alaska and Hawaii).
I-94 doesn't count as major?
Technically no. A major interstate highway is one that ends in 5 or 0. This is why I-45 and I-30, while short, are still considered to be major interstates. Although I-94 is one of the most important "non-major" interstate highways.
Makes me wonder where that definition is codified.  I think the popular YouTube video going around makes that distinction, but I'd like to see a link from FHWA or AASHTO that makes that distinction.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 03, 2022, 01:25:25 PM
I don't think there is any official definition for what qualifies as a major or minor Interstate highway. If a bad accident or other serious event happens on any 2-digit Interstate the press is likely to refer to the route as a "major" Interstate highway.

Generally, the one or two digit routes that end in "0" or "5" are legitimately major Interstate highways. Then there are others which either run long distances and/or carry large amounts of traffic. I-94 qualifies as a major Interstate. I think I-81 through Virginia and up into Pennsylvania is a very important route. The same goes for I-44 between St Louis and Oklahoma City.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: US 89 on July 03, 2022, 02:34:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 03, 2022, 08:47:15 AM
Makes me wonder where that definition is codified.  I think the popular YouTube video going around makes that distinction, but I'd like to see a link from FHWA or AASHTO that makes that distinction.

I found a FHWA page (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/numbers.cfm) that makes that distinction... but for US highways, and also clarifies that US 2 should be considered on equal standing with the x0 routes:

QuoteFor the principal east-west routes, James assigned two-digit numbers ending in zero. For the principal north-south routes, he assigned numbers ending in 1 or 5. With these base routes numbered, the remaining routes could be numbered accordingly. He thought three-digit numbers, which he considered inevitable, should be assigned to short sections, cutoffs, and crossovers. Logical alternate routes should be given the number of the principal line of traffic, plus 100. Thus, under his original scheme, an alternate for U.S. 55 would be U.S. 155.

On September 25, the Committee of Five met in the Jefferson Hotel in St. Louis to complete the numbering plan. The committee followed James' concept. Transcontinental and principal east-west routes were assigned multiples of 10, with the lowest number along the Canadian border (U.S. 2, chosen to avoid a U.S. 0). The principal north-south routes were given numbers ending in 1, with U.S. 1 along the East Coast. The north-south routes of considerable length but secondary importance were given numbers ending in 5.

For interstate highway numbering, the only FHWA source (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page07.cfm) I was able to find gives the N/S or E/W distinction:

QuoteThe Interstate route marker is a red, white, and blue shield, carrying the word "Interstate", the State name, and the route number. Officials of AASHTO developed the procedure for numbering the routes. Major Interstate routes are designated by one- or two-digit numbers. Routes with odd numbers run north and south, while even numbered run east and west. For north-south routes, the lowest numbers begin in the west, while the lowest numbered east-west routes are in the south. By this method, Interstate Route 5 (I-5) runs north-south along the west coast, while I-10 lies east-west along the southern border.

Also worth noting from that page is that they do not consider I-40, I-70, or I-25 to be "transcontinental" highways. I feel like a lot of people in the road community think of some of those as "close enough".


EDIT: whoa, this is apparently my 5000th post. I feel old.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Rothman on July 03, 2022, 04:31:08 PM
Quote from: US 89 on July 03, 2022, 02:34:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 03, 2022, 08:47:15 AM
Makes me wonder where that definition is codified.  I think the popular YouTube video going around makes that distinction, but I'd like to see a link from FHWA or AASHTO that makes that distinction.

I found a FHWA page (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/numbers.cfm) that makes that distinction... but for US highways, and also clarifies that US 2 should be considered on equal standing with the x0 routes:

QuoteFor the principal east-west routes, James assigned two-digit numbers ending in zero. For the principal north-south routes, he assigned numbers ending in 1 or 5. With these base routes numbered, the remaining routes could be numbered accordingly. He thought three-digit numbers, which he considered inevitable, should be assigned to short sections, cutoffs, and crossovers. Logical alternate routes should be given the number of the principal line of traffic, plus 100. Thus, under his original scheme, an alternate for U.S. 55 would be U.S. 155.

On September 25, the Committee of Five met in the Jefferson Hotel in St. Louis to complete the numbering plan. The committee followed James' concept. Transcontinental and principal east-west routes were assigned multiples of 10, with the lowest number along the Canadian border (U.S. 2, chosen to avoid a U.S. 0). The principal north-south routes were given numbers ending in 1, with U.S. 1 along the East Coast. The north-south routes of considerable length but secondary importance were given numbers ending in 5.

For interstate highway numbering, the only FHWA source (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page07.cfm) I was able to find gives the N/S or E/W distinction:

QuoteThe Interstate route marker is a red, white, and blue shield, carrying the word "Interstate", the State name, and the route number. Officials of AASHTO developed the procedure for numbering the routes. Major Interstate routes are designated by one- or two-digit numbers. Routes with odd numbers run north and south, while even numbered run east and west. For north-south routes, the lowest numbers begin in the west, while the lowest numbered east-west routes are in the south. By this method, Interstate Route 5 (I-5) runs north-south along the west coast, while I-10 lies east-west along the southern border.

Also worth noting from that page is that they do not consider I-40, I-70, or I-25 to be "transcontinental" highways. I feel like a lot of people in the road community think of some of those as "close enough".


EDIT: whoa, this is apparently my 5000th post. I feel old.
The Interstate information is all that is pertinent and meets my expectations.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: monty on August 31, 2022, 09:48:31 PM
UTP projects: TxDOT released the following projects around the High Plains that will benefit from the program:

Widening of US 87 in Hartley and Moore counties;
Construction of the northwestern portion of State Loop (SL) 335 from SW 9th Ave. to FM 1719;
Widening I-27 and interchange improvements on I-27 and SL 335 in Randall County;
Safety improvements on FM 2590 from SL 335 in Amarillo to US 60 in Canyon.
Source: https://www.myhighplains.com/news/local-news/amarillo-roadways-to-benefit-from-billion-dollar-transportation-program/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR2JLm-AHj_WCqJUoh4UM6u36fuNDlr0RVyR4Ynv7TSIufbtE3QG8cumyiU
3 of the 4 support the concept of Ports to Plains.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 01, 2022, 12:38:15 AM
That widening of US-87 between Dumas and Hartley can't happen too soon. It's one of the highway segments I dislike the most in my drives between Oklahoma and Colorado. I-25 on the South side of Colorado Springs was a real P.I.T.A. in a recent drive.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on September 01, 2022, 11:36:47 AM
^ Additionally, the widening of that segment of US-87 would complete a continuous 4 lane divided highway for the entire Amarillo to Raton route.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: index on September 01, 2022, 11:45:57 AM
Quote from: In_Correct on June 08, 2021, 08:41:10 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 08, 2021, 07:06:40 PM
Quote from: TheBox on June 08, 2021, 06:58:22 PM
...Off of the following:
*US-87 from Tahoka to San Angelo (below Lubbock), and from north of Amarillo to Duma and then to either Raton, NM (where it merges to I-25, one way or another)
*TX-349 from Lamesa to near Sterling City
*US-277 from San Angelo to Carrizo Springs
*US-83 from Carrizo Springs to merging into I-35 @ Botines?
NOTE: Expect and pay attention to potential bypasses, 4-lane upgrades, and/or overpass upgrades for any of these US routes


the recent Big Spring and Del Rio are also potentially part of the I-27 extension

News of I-27 extension is still going on, with March 2021 at the latest (https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/rep-jackson-backs-bill-to-prep-i-27-for-expansion (https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/rep-jackson-backs-bill-to-prep-i-27-for-expansion)), whiling I-14 is more or less short-lived and will end up like I-27, before the extension plans ironically enough.

With all that being said, we wait for and watch the upgrades happen.  :popcorn:
We don't need an interstate to every area of America. This is starting to get ridiculous!

Pixel 5

What is ridiculous is that people continue to advocate for removal of Interstates instead of construction.

Interstates plowing through urban areas, which is what people want gone, and important future regional connectors, wihch is what we're discussing here, aren't the same. They're completely different animals. Nobody's saying get rid of I-80 in Iowa.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: US 89 on September 01, 2022, 12:46:08 PM
Quote from: index on September 01, 2022, 11:45:57 AM
Interstates plowing through urban areas, which is what people want gone, and important future regional connectors, wihch is what we're discussing here, aren't the same. They're completely different animals. Nobody's saying get rid of I-80 in Iowa.

I mean... yeah, nobody in any serious position of power or at all close to it is taking that position - but I'm sure there are some fringe groups out there that want to see that because they think it would shift us to using trains more.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 01, 2022, 05:15:24 PM
The United States is a pathetic, hopeless laughing stock when it comes to building passenger rail infrastructure. I would like it if the US had a credible national passenger rail network; something better than the partial "network" Amtrak provides. But we just can't get it done. Not at standard travel speeds, much less true high speed. We suck.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 01, 2022, 07:22:19 PM
The United States will likely never have a "credible" passenger rail system. I believe the reason rail works better in places like Europe is that the cities are closer together, older and more compact, and the entire continent's society is more homogeneous. The land mass of the lower 48 states and the entirety of Europe are similar in size (The US's land mass is 3,796,742 sq mi; Europe's land mass is 3,930,000 sq mi). I think freight rail has a better future here in the United States than passenger rail does in this country.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: kphoger on September 01, 2022, 09:25:44 PM
Right.  It's not like the railroads don't exist here.  There just aren't passenger trains on most of them anymore.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Rothman on September 01, 2022, 09:38:30 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 01, 2022, 05:15:24 PM
The United States is a pathetic, hopeless laughing stock when it comes to building passenger rail infrastructure. I would like it if the US had a credible national passenger rail network; something better than the partial "network" Amtrak provides. But we just can't get it done. Not at standard travel speeds, much less true high speed. We suck.
Psst.  We have these things called planes.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: vdeane on September 01, 2022, 09:42:03 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 01, 2022, 07:22:19 PM
The United States will likely never have a "credible" passenger rail system. I believe the reason rail works better in places like Europe is that the cities are closer together, older and more compact, and the entire continent's society is more homogeneous. The land mass of the lower 48 states and the entirety of Europe are similar in size (The US's land mass is 3,796,742 sq mi; Europe's land mass is 3,930,000 sq mi). I think freight rail has a better future here in the United States than passenger rail does in this country.
Less car-friendly cities certainly has something to do with it, but I imagine most of it is in how things are prioritized, both in terms of government infrastructure investment, and in terms of passenger trains getting priority over freight trains in terms of track utilization and dispatching while it's the opposite in the US.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Some one on September 01, 2022, 10:15:16 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 01, 2022, 09:38:30 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 01, 2022, 05:15:24 PM
The United States is a pathetic, hopeless laughing stock when it comes to building passenger rail infrastructure. I would like it if the US had a credible national passenger rail network; something better than the partial "network" Amtrak provides. But we just can't get it done. Not at standard travel speeds, much less true high speed. We suck.
Psst.  We have these things called planes.
Psst. We can have more than one means of transportation.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Some one on September 01, 2022, 10:18:57 PM
While I think an extensive rail network covering America probably won't happen in a while (or ever), having a regional rail network could work, and the Acela Express and Brightline are good examples of that.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: abqtraveler on September 01, 2022, 10:26:06 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 01, 2022, 09:42:03 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 01, 2022, 07:22:19 PM
The United States will likely never have a "credible" passenger rail system. I believe the reason rail works better in places like Europe is that the cities are closer together, older and more compact, and the entire continent's society is more homogeneous. The land mass of the lower 48 states and the entirety of Europe are similar in size (The US's land mass is 3,796,742 sq mi; Europe's land mass is 3,930,000 sq mi). I think freight rail has a better future here in the United States than passenger rail does in this country.
Less car-friendly cities certainly has something to do with it, but I imagine most of it is in how things are prioritized, both in terms of government infrastructure investment, and in terms of passenger trains getting priority over freight trains in terms of track utilization and dispatching while it's the opposite in the US.
There are other obstacles to creating a national passenger rail network aside from car-centric infrastructure in the United States. Outside of a few heavily-urbanized regions (e.g., Northeast Corridor, LA-San Francisco, the Texas Triangle, etc.), most of the United States does not have the population density to support a nationwide high-speed rail network. Moreover, high-speed rail can't compete with the speed and efficiency of commercial aircraft for cross-country travel.

High-speed rail would be most suitable for trips in the 300-500 mile range, where it's faster to get from Point A to Point B by car, and faster than air travel due to the time wasted waiting at the terminal for your flight, flying from the originating airport, waiting at a hub airport for your connecting flight, and taking the connecting flight to your destination.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Alps on September 01, 2022, 11:01:21 PM
please don't get off topic, no way does the i-27 corridor make any sense for rail
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2022, 12:47:13 AM
The problem is certain powers that be have fantasies of Americans just using bicycles and trains to get around. That goes right along with the fantasy of New Urbanism.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: In_Correct on September 02, 2022, 04:37:05 AM
And They expect The Electricity Infrastructure to be able accommodate Vehicles ... Both Road, And Rail must be powered by Electricity despite The Electricity Infrastructure being even more insufficient than Transportation.

It has taken numerous decades for Them to finally even consider Extending Interstate 27. Roads should never be demolished. They should instead be converted to Beautiful Toll Roads. This provides the much needed roads to be constructed. Including Passenger Rail would require adding additional tracks ( not demolish them ) and it would require Grade Separating them.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lubbock,+TX/@32.2364907,-101.5501062,285m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86fe12add37ddd39:0x1af0042922e84287!8m2!3d33.5778631!4d-101.8551665

Public Transportation can be added later.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: sprjus4 on September 02, 2022, 09:53:35 AM
Quote from: In_Correct on September 02, 2022, 04:37:05 AM
Roads should never be demolished. They should instead be converted to Beautiful Toll Roads. This provides the much needed roads to be constructed.
What?
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2022, 12:35:09 PM
I'm not opposed to building things like passenger rail lines to connect cities or building dedicated bike paths in urban centers and suburbs. What I don't like is those projects costing such ridiculous amounts of money, especially anything related to rail travel. The situation with the high speed rail project in California is a perfect example for how absurd and pathetic the situation is in the United States. The airline lobby is another villain in this equation.

Like it or not, the US is still an extremely car-oriented nation. That isn't changing any time soon. Especially not while New Urbanism ideology continues to be a big lie in light of an intense housing affordability crisis. Most Americans will continue to need to travel by auto for the foreseeable future. Pete Buttigieg needs to remember that if he's wanting to redirect highway funding into rail lines and bike paths.

The Ports to Plains Corridor project is not something new. This is an effort that has been limping along since the 1990's. There is a legit need for the corridor to be fully built-out, which should include extensions of I-27 and I-2 to Laredo.

Quote from: In_CorrectRoads should never be demolished. They should instead be converted to Beautiful Toll Roads.

Beautiful toll roads? I see little visual difference between a newly upgraded stretch of gas tax-funded super highway (like I-35 between DFW and Austin) or a toll-funded segment (like the 3x3 upgrade of the Turner Turnpike SW of Tulsa). Both highways look similar.

If electric powered vehicles eventually make up a much greater percentage of cars on the highways the US and individual states will have to re-think how roads are funded. For quite some time gasoline taxes have not generated adequate funding. A increasing surge of electronic vehicle sales will dramatically worsen the imbalance. In the not too distant future we may end up seeing RFID toll tag readers being installed on every type of highway and city street. Or motorists may just end up being taxed for every mile they drive, regardless of where they drive. You gotta pay for streets and highways somehow. They don't get built or maintained for free.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: kphoger on September 02, 2022, 12:47:04 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2022, 12:35:09 PM
I'm not opposed to building things like passenger rail lines to connect cities or building dedicated bike paths in urban centers and suburbs. What I don't like is those projects costing such ridiculous amounts of money, especially anything related to rail travel.

Again...  The railroad tracks are already there.  The following BNSF corridors already exist:

Amarillo - Lubbock
Lubbock - Brownwood - Belton - Galveston
Amarillo - Wichita Falls - Fort Worth

I assume that adding passenger rail wouldn't exactly require all new r/o/w.  Some double- or triple-tracking, platforms and stations, etc.  HSR is a whole other ball of wax, but HSR isn't required to have "a national passenger rail network".
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: longhorn on September 02, 2022, 06:12:03 PM
Just because the railroad is there does not mean the freight railroads want to deal with scheduling their freights around passenger trains. Have you taken Amtrak lately?
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: In_Correct on September 02, 2022, 07:26:40 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2022, 12:35:09 PM
I'm not opposed to building things like passenger rail lines to connect cities or building dedicated bike paths in urban centers and suburbs. What I don't like is those projects costing such ridiculous amounts of money, especially anything related to rail travel. The situation with the high speed rail project in California is a perfect example for how absurd and pathetic the situation is in the United States. The airline lobby is another villain in this equation.

Like it or not, the US is still an extremely car-oriented nation. That isn't changing any time soon. Especially not while New Urbanism ideology continues to be a big lie in light of an intense housing affordability crisis. Most Americans will continue to need to travel by auto for the foreseeable future. Pete Buttigieg needs to remember that if he's wanting to redirect highway funding into rail lines and bike paths.

The Ports to Plains Corridor project is not something new. This is an effort that has been limping along since the 1990's. There is a legit need for the corridor to be fully built-out, which should include extensions of I-27 and I-2 to Laredo.

Quote from: In_CorrectRoads should never be demolished. They should instead be converted to Beautiful Toll Roads.

Beautiful toll roads? I see little visual difference between a newly upgraded stretch of gas tax-funded super highway (like I-35 between DFW and Austin) or a toll-funded segment (like the 3x3 upgrade of the Turner Turnpike SW of Tulsa). Both highways look similar.

If electric powered vehicles eventually make up a much greater percentage of cars on the highways the US and individual states will have to re-think how roads are funded. For quite some time gasoline taxes have not generated adequate funding. A increasing surge of electronic vehicle sales will dramatically worsen the imbalance. In the not too distant future we may end up seeing RFID toll tag readers being installed on every type of highway and city street. Or motorists may just end up being taxed for every mile they drive, regardless of where they drive. You gotta pay for streets and highways somehow. They don't get built or maintained for free.

Quote

Beautiful toll roads? I see little visual difference between a newly upgraded stretch of gas tax-funded super highway (like I-35 between DFW and Austin) or a toll-funded segment (like the 3x3 upgrade of the Turner Turnpike SW of Tulsa). Both highways look similar.


Quote

For quite some time gasoline taxes have not generated adequate funding.


You explained it by your self. The Honorable George Bush Heavenly Turnpike have been 3 X 3 or in some areas 4 X 4 much earlier than Interstate 35, Interstate 35E, Interstate 35W.

There are Managed Lanes, which are insufficient. There is also the problem at Valley View where N.I.M.B.Y. Numb Skulls got in the way. Perhaps they can redesign The Frontage Roads to be elevated. However, since they downgraded U.S. 77, I doubt they are going to raise The Frontage Roads, which would require raising the main carriage way bridges. Or they can tunnel under the B.N.S.F.. ... which requires installing Storm Drains. ... They might be left with no other choice except to close that At Grade Crossing and build a Grade Separation over or under it elsewhere.

In other words, Interstate 35 is under construction while The Honorable President George Bush Heavenly Turnpike was constructed years ago. 

And The Gantries with Orange Circles also makes them Beautiful.

Quote from: kphoger on September 02, 2022, 12:47:04 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2022, 12:35:09 PM
I'm not opposed to building things like passenger rail lines to connect cities or building dedicated bike paths in urban centers and suburbs. What I don't like is those projects costing such ridiculous amounts of money, especially anything related to rail travel.

Again...  The railroad tracks are already there.  The following BNSF corridors already exist:

Amarillo - Lubbock
Lubbock - Brownwood - Belton - Galveston
Amarillo - Wichita Falls - Fort Worth

I assume that adding passenger rail wouldn't exactly require all new r/o/w.  Some double- or triple-tracking, platforms and stations, etc.  HSR is a whole other ball of wax, but HSR isn't required to have "a national passenger rail network".

Lots of double tracking and lots of triple tracking must be done. The D.C.T.A. does not own any tracks, and utilizes mostly single tracks. ... Last time I checked any ways.

There most certainly can not be A National Passenger Rail Network. That would up set Air Lines. I agree with Emily Hartley: Planes Suck.

Quote from: longhorn on September 02, 2022, 06:12:03 PM
Just because the railroad is there does not mean the freight railroads want to deal with scheduling their freights around passenger trains. Have you taken Amtrak lately?

It is possible I shall attend University hours away. I would stay in The Dorms during most of the week. Riding there would require Vanpools, Greyhound, and Amtrak. Amtrak by itself takes 24 hours in one direction. Omitting Amtrak does not save much time either.

Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: kphoger on September 02, 2022, 07:27:01 PM
Quote from: longhorn on September 02, 2022, 06:12:03 PM
Just because the railroad is there does not mean the freight railroads want to deal with scheduling their freights around passenger trains. Have you taken Amtrak lately?

That's kind of my point, though.  People keep talking about "building" a passenger rail network.  It isn't the "building" of it that's needed.  It's already built, for the most part.  But our cities are too far apart, our culture is already car-centric in a way many others aren't, and the railroads have little to no incentive to prioritize (in any sense of that word) passenger rail.  As for convenience, there's little that rail can do to match air travel.  As for serving small- and medium-sized towns, there's little that rail can do to match the potential of bus transportation.

If a robust passenger rail network were feasible on a large scale in this country, then it would already be better than it is.  If getting a robust passenger rail network into reality requires a zillion dollars up front, then it's bound to require a quarter-zillion dollars every year to keep going.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Cerlin on September 02, 2022, 08:35:29 PM
I mean it's common sense that infrastructure should be upgraded to standard no matter what type, so an I-27 corridor is a big priority. But, I think as a nation that upholds "freedom of choice" , you should be able to comfortably move around not only in your city but between cities with whatever mode of transportation you want. Forcing an entire country to use car dependent infrastructure is stupid.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TXtoNJ on September 02, 2022, 09:49:17 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2022, 12:47:13 AM
The problem is certain powers that be have fantasies of Americans just using bicycles and trains to get around. That goes right along with the fantasy of New Urbanism.

No they don't. That's silly. There are certainly groups that grift off this vision, but they don't have the power that car dealers and local construction contractors do.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Some one on September 03, 2022, 12:58:13 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 02, 2022, 09:49:17 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2022, 12:47:13 AM
The problem is certain powers that be have fantasies of Americans just using bicycles and trains to get around. That goes right along with the fantasy of New Urbanism.

No they don't. That's silly. There are certainly groups that grift off this vision, but they don't have the power that car dealers and local construction contractors do.
They saw the I-45 project get temporarily halted and now they're making up scenarios in their heads.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 03, 2022, 12:02:55 PM
Quote from: kphogerAgain...  The railroad tracks are already there.  The following BNSF corridors already exist:

The existing freight rail network does not cover all the gaps in what could be a national passenger rail network. The US freight rail network is not designed at all for city to city passenger travel. It is designed 100% for moving freight from ports of entry to other distribution hubs within the US.

Just look at how the routes are designed. One example: the Southern Transcon is double-tracked most of the way between Kansas City and Los Angeles. But it bypasses Wichita and Oklahoma City on the way to Amarillo. Oklahoma City is a major metro, but all it gets is a North-South stub route down to DFW.

A real passenger rail network would take passengers from one city center to another city center -kind of like what the "Bullet Train" in Japan has done for over 50 years. The problem is we don't have any way to build anything like that as a brand new thing without it exploding to breath-taking levels of cost.

The cost situation is starting to get that bad in terms of highway construction. There's no telling how many billions of dollars will have to be spent to fully flesh-out the Ports to Plains Corridor as a (mostly) Interstate quality corridor.

Quote from: TXtoNJNo they don't. That's silly. There are certainly groups that grift off this vision, but they don't have the power that car dealers and local construction contractors do.

Mayor Pete panders at least a little bit to the crowd dreaming the New Urbanist vision. Those groups are succeeding at blocking some highway projects.

I think it would be great if people could live in more densely developed downtown-style areas and have multiple options how to commute to work, go shopping or do other activities. The "new urbanism" dream doesn't work unless everyone, regardless of income class, can live there. Lots of housing units are being built in city centers, but only as "luxury condos." None of the people waiting tables, tending bar, etc in trendy downtown businesses can afford condo prices starting at $500K. What happens is the top 1% income group buys those condos as downtown crash pads. Or they buy them as assets to hold or sell, just like stocks. We have a severe housing affordability crisis in the US. Young adults are getting hit hardest by this.

I already have a lot of selfish concerns about a possible baby bust in the future and what it could mean for me being able to draw social security or get Medicare benefits 20 years from now. We could also be looking at quite a real estate catastrophe too. The middle aged and older folks buying up all these McMansions out in the suburbs now are doing so from the mindset they'll be able to sell those huge homes for a profit later. But what that hell does a single, unmarried adult with no kids need with a 4000 square foot home? Single people without kids is one of the fastest growing demographics.

In the meantime, if the New Urbanist crowd wants to block a downtown highway project -fine. Let them. Divert the funding to more rural highway projects, like extending I-27. Let the douchey priced city centers suffocate in traffic.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 03, 2022, 12:09:39 PM
I'm not so pessimistic about the future of passenger rail in this country but do I think we're going to have HSR left and right going from NYC to LA? No. But that doesn't mean we can't create corridors where we can have MagLev, traditional HSR, and upgrade most lines to run from 90-120MPH. I don't see why we couldn't do that. It's also up to each of the cities to increase alternative modes of transport and when I say that I don't mean making cities hostile to cars and neglecting car infrastructure but giving other people options rather than driving being the only one that really makes sense.

We need to move in a direction that is multimodal. I still think cars will be king but increasing the modal share of alternative transit by about 10-15 percent is something I think is doable. That said I'm more in favor of eliminating choke points, rebuilding neglected interstates, and building new interstate routes like I-11 between Vegas and Phoenix before embarking on some nationwide passenger rail revolution.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: hotdogPi on September 03, 2022, 01:14:56 PM
I think the Texas Triangle is the best place to put high-speed rail. Building it will be cheaper than more built-up areas.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 05, 2022, 03:27:05 PM
Considering all the practical (and political) issues in play, it's all but guaranteed if the US ever does get any kind of true high speed rail networks off the ground they'll have serious drawbacks.

For one thing, it's pretty much impossible to build new true high speed rail rated tracks directly into a city center. The general public hates elevated viaducts for highways. Why would they feel any different about an elevated rail line? Building tunnels in the US costs too much money.

What will end up happening is the high speed rail stations will have to be built way out on the edge of cities, in the same manner as airports. And that would ruin any time advantage the high speed trains would have over planes. The passenger rail companies would have to market the service in a different way, such as sight-seeing rather than saving time. Unfortunately a lot of the sights one sees along Amtrak routes is either freight yards and other industrial looking stuff or just trees right by the window. New true high speed rail routes would need to be on their own dedicated tracks rather than any of their shared nonsense with existing freight tracks.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: TXtoNJ on September 06, 2022, 01:31:09 PM
Quote from: Some one on September 03, 2022, 12:58:13 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 02, 2022, 09:49:17 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2022, 12:47:13 AM
The problem is certain powers that be have fantasies of Americans just using bicycles and trains to get around. That goes right along with the fantasy of New Urbanism.

No they don't. That's silly. There are certainly groups that grift off this vision, but they don't have the power that car dealers and local construction contractors do.
They saw the I-45 project get temporarily halted and now they're making up scenarios in their heads.

Temporary is the key. Removing the Pierce is the best New Urbanist development in years, but it got held up because of changes in the Harris County power structure. A different set of consultants needed to wet their beaks - the ideology is just the window dressing.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Scott5114 on September 06, 2022, 11:42:09 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 05, 2022, 03:27:05 PM
Considering all the practical (and political) issues in play, it's all but guaranteed if the US ever does get any kind of true high speed rail networks off the ground they'll have serious drawbacks.

For one thing, it's pretty much impossible to build new true high speed rail rated tracks directly into a city center. The general public hates elevated viaducts for highways. Why would they feel any different about an elevated rail line? Building tunnels in the US costs too much money.

What will end up happening is the high speed rail stations will have to be built way out on the edge of cities, in the same manner as airports. And that would ruin any time advantage the high speed trains would have over planes.

I don't think that's enough to ruin the time advantage–you'd just have to have some sort of facility there where you could change to some other mode of transportation for the last mile. (Transfer to city metro system, city bus system, rental car, taxi/Uber, etc.)
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Some one on September 07, 2022, 01:43:17 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 06, 2022, 01:31:09 PM
Quote from: Some one on September 03, 2022, 12:58:13 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 02, 2022, 09:49:17 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2022, 12:47:13 AM
The problem is certain powers that be have fantasies of Americans just using bicycles and trains to get around. That goes right along with the fantasy of New Urbanism.

No they don't. That's silly. There are certainly groups that grift off this vision, but they don't have the power that car dealers and local construction contractors do.
They saw the I-45 project get temporarily halted and now they're making up scenarios in their heads.

Temporary is the key. Removing the Pierce is the best New Urbanist development in years, but it got held up because of changes in the Harris County power structure. A different set of consultants needed to wet their beaks - the ideology is just the window dressing.
From what I've heard, the main problem isn't that they're removing the pierce elevated or trenching 59, but it's that they're doing it while doubling the ROW, essentially destroying a portion of the EaDo neighborhood. It is annoying they halted right as construction is about to start but it's somewhat understandable (an unpopular opinion here I know).
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: bwana39 on September 07, 2022, 01:39:37 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 06, 2022, 01:31:09 PM
Quote from: Some one on September 03, 2022, 12:58:13 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 02, 2022, 09:49:17 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2022, 12:47:13 AM
The problem is certain powers that be have fantasies of Americans just using bicycles and trains to get around. That goes right along with the fantasy of New Urbanism.

No they don't. That's silly. There are certainly groups that grift off this vision, but they don't have the power that car dealers and local construction contractors do.
They saw the I-45 project get temporarily halted and now they're making up scenarios in their heads.

Temporary is the key. Removing the Pierce is the best New Urbanist development in years, but it got held up because of changes in the Harris County power structure. A different set of consultants needed to wet their beaks - the ideology is just the window dressing.

Consultants: TXDOT has more engineers per lane mile than they did when they engineered virtually everything in-house.  Today consultants do most of the engineering and TXDOT primarily does quality control.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: J N Winkler on September 07, 2022, 02:46:16 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on September 07, 2022, 01:39:37 PMConsultants: TXDOT has more engineers per lane mile than they did when they engineered virtually everything in-house.  Today consultants do most of the engineering and TXDOT primarily does quality control.

Plan production has changed too.  The original construction plans for the Four Level interchange in Los Angeles, the first Maltese cross stack in the world, had fewer than 100 sheets.  Even as late as the 1960's, interchanges of similar design had construction plans sets aggregating to fewer than 2000 sheets.  In 2001, the High Five alone had more than 5000 sheets.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Rick Powell on September 07, 2022, 03:40:35 PM
Quote from: Cerlin on September 02, 2022, 08:35:29 PM
I mean it's common sense that infrastructure should be upgraded to standard no matter what type, so an I-27 corridor is a big priority. But, I think as a nation that upholds "freedom of choice" , you should be able to comfortably move around not only in your city but between cities with whatever mode of transportation you want. Forcing an entire country to use car dependent infrastructure is stupid.
Redundancy costs money. Duplicating every possible type of service wherever travel exists would be a debilitating expense.

As for the matter of forcing people into automobiles, transportation is a function of moving people and goods from Point A to Point B. By their nature, roads serve more Points A and B than any other mode and nearly every residence in the US is served by one directly or nearby. Planes can fly to wherever someone provided a landing strip, and there are around 5,000 public airports in the US. Rail and other guided vehicles can only go where the guideway goes, but Amtrak serves over 500 locations, and there are 30 commuter rail, 17 light rail, and 15 heavy rail systems in the US with multiple stops. Roads can be made more friendly to bicyclists and pedestrians, and options such as on-call passenger van service, fixed route bus service, vanpooling, and commercial providers like taxi service and Uber/Lyft can provide additional flexibility for people who don't/can't drive or own an automobile. There's lots of options right there. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: bwana39 on September 07, 2022, 04:51:37 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 07, 2022, 02:46:16 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on September 07, 2022, 01:39:37 PMConsultants: TXDOT has more engineers per lane mile than they did when they engineered virtually everything in-house.  Today consultants do most of the engineering and TXDOT primarily does quality control.

Plan production has changed too.  The original construction plans for the Four Level interchange in Los Angeles, the first Maltese cross stack in the world, had fewer than 100 sheets.  Even as late as the 1960's, interchanges of similar design had construction plans sets aggregating to fewer than 2000 sheets.  In 2001, the High Five alone had more than 5000 sheets.

You have to ask "Is this a good thing?" IS microengineering everything something that insures quality of just creates minutiae that increases the price and expands  the likelihood of exceptions that have to be corrected on technicalities versus real defect.

I started examples. Lots of stuff that used to be (and probably still should be) boilerplate has clean sheets drawn for cloned sections. Each concrete section has a clean sheet for it. It goes overboard. Every section is SPECIAL (or specific) and requires customization in bidding, constructing, and pricing. 
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Scott5114 on September 08, 2022, 07:59:40 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on September 07, 2022, 03:40:35 PM
Quote from: Cerlin on September 02, 2022, 08:35:29 PM
I mean it's common sense that infrastructure should be upgraded to standard no matter what type, so an I-27 corridor is a big priority. But, I think as a nation that upholds "freedom of choice" , you should be able to comfortably move around not only in your city but between cities with whatever mode of transportation you want. Forcing an entire country to use car dependent infrastructure is stupid.
Redundancy costs money. Duplicating every possible type of service wherever travel exists would be a debilitating expense.

I mean, you could say, because redundancy costs money, that you should never buy pens because they cannot be erased and pencils can. But most everybody has both pens and pencils in their house because they are useful for different tasks.
Title: Re: In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 01, 2022, 01:45:51 AM
Map showing current and future projects for this corridor: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/tpp/i-27/tabloid-ports-to-plains-activeprojects-20211012.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1oZxTWrC6HDPnFGYmIwVewpL40IWEamnCbY1aSOWzSBotwyUl2PGbHS40

I wonder when the flyover fairy will bless Lubbock. I was hoping to see more projects adding direct connector ramps in the Lubbock area.