News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

TX: Ports to Plains corridor study

Started by MaxConcrete, May 12, 2020, 09:16:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sprjus4

#25
Quote from: bwana39 on May 17, 2020, 11:02:34 PM
Yes, but history in Texas say we build the 4-lane divided highway between the cities and towns but keep going through them on surface streets.  Texas might have finally figured out how backward this is, but it is not without resistance.
They've gotten in right in some areas, but agreed have lacked in many other places.

The US-59 / US-77 corridor between Corpus Christi and Houston comes to mind. Besides Refugio and Odem on the southern end (which are due to get bypasses in the near future apart of I-69 upgrades), the highway is 75 mph divided throughout with freeway / expressway bypasses of every town (except the aforementioned two) and no traffic signals throughout.

This IMO is an example of a true "expressway". Non-limited-access divided highway without traffic signals, interchanges at major crossroads, freeway segments where warranted, and bypasses around towns. Having continuity is another aspect for defined corridors (one corridor that may utilize different routes, like US-59 and US-77).

Texas has a lot of corridors that come close, but lack the bypass aspect and instead dump traffic through towns. If they complete bypasses, more "expressway" corridors with similar speeds (75 mph) and travel reliability of interstate highways would be in place across the state.

Upgrades to full interstate standards on certain corridors, such as I-69, I-14, and any conceptual I-27 extensions should focus efforts at completing an "expressway" quality roadway (non-limited-access, high speed limits, town bypasses, interchanges at major junctions, no signals, continuity, etc.) before any upgrades begin on rural frontage roads and rural interchanges.

Austin to Houston would be a good beginner candidate for a corridor built to full "expressway" standards, either along US-290 or SH-71. Both are mostly built out, though need town bypasses, full continuity, median throughout, and signals eliminated).


sprjus4

Quote from: brad2971 on May 17, 2020, 11:13:02 PM
Granted, the I-35 / I-135 / I-70 corridor would add distance. But look at it from the vantage point of about 1500-2500 trucks per day that go between DFW and the Colorado Front Range. Compared with not having to go through downtown Lamar (CO), compared with not having to see this: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4788503,-102.7857556,3a,75y,3.84h,85.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXuiQuPga-d9aAsZwbpSD1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656, and compared with not having to go through stop-and-go through most of US 287 TX, the longer distance without the tolls south of Wichita looks very good.
Between Denver and Dallas-Fort Worth, a routing would follow US-87 to I-25, which is mostly 4 lanes divided, not US-287.

Like I said, if the distance was less (maybe only 30 - 40 additional miles), I could see it, but the division is too much (close to 100 miles) to make it viable.

Bobby5280

#27
Only a complete idiot would take the I-35/I-135/I-70 combo to drive from Texas to Colorado. That's a bunch of extra hours of drive time, not to mention a whole lot more fuel and cost. That route is not a valid barometer to judge traffic movement from points in Texas and Oklahoma to Colorado.

I prefer driving on Interstate highways for long distance road trips as much as anyone. But I have never had the desire to up through Kansas for any of my drives from Lawton to Colorado Springs or Denver. Most of the time I've gone through Raton. I've tried US-287 up through Boise City and Lamar a couple times. Raton is the better route, at least for me in my pickup truck.

Quote from: brad2971One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off.

How has traffic "leveled off?" Since the 1980's the United States has added 100 million people. Now, given the ridiculous costs of health care, day care, housing in many places, etc our nation's total fertility rates have fallen below the "replacement level" of 2.2 children per female since the Great Recession in the 2000's. Even before that the rate was hovering near the 2.0 level. It's now 1.7 and dropping farther. Since the early 1970's all our net population growth has happened via immigration. Politically we're even trying to shut the door on that now too. If current trends keep up, then yeah, traffic levels are going to "level off" in a big way along with all sorts of other unpredictable demographic and socio-economic changes.

Going back to 40 years ago, it was also a hell of a lot easier and far less costly to build a new freeway back then. We're pricing ourselves out of so many things now. The added government red tape and law suit nonsense is one issue. The other is engineering and construction firms perversely price gouging the taxpayers.

sprjus4

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2020, 12:06:58 AM
Only a complete idiot would take the I-35/I-135/I-70 combo to drive from Texas to Colorado. That's a bunch of extra hours of drive time, not to mention a whole lot more fuel and cost. That route is not a valid barometer to judge traffic movement from points in Texas and Oklahoma to Colorado.

I prefer driving on Interstate highways for long distance road trips as much as anyone. But I have never had the desire to up through Kansas for any of my drives from Lawton to Colorado Springs or Denver. Most of the time I've gone through Raton. I've tried US-287 up through Boise City and Lamar a couple times. Raton is the better route, at least for me in my pickup truck.
Not from Dallas or Lawton, but from Oklahoma City, the fastest routing actually is the I-35 / I-135 / I-70 combo.

Roadgeekteen

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2020, 12:06:58 AM
Only a complete idiot would take the I-35/I-135/I-70 combo to drive from Texas to Colorado. That's a bunch of extra hours of drive time, not to mention a whole lot more fuel and cost. That route is not a valid barometer to judge traffic movement from points in Texas and Oklahoma to Colorado.

I prefer driving on Interstate highways for long distance road trips as much as anyone. But I have never had the desire to up through Kansas for any of my drives from Lawton to Colorado Springs or Denver. Most of the time I've gone through Raton. I've tried US-287 up through Boise City and Lamar a couple times. Raton is the better route, at least for me in my pickup truck.

Quote from: brad2971One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off.

How has traffic "leveled off?" Since the 1980's the United States has added 100 million people. Now, given the ridiculous costs of health care, day care, housing in many places, etc our nation's total fertility rates have fallen below the "replacement level" of 2.2 children per female since the Great Recession in the 2000's. Even before that the rate was hovering near the 2.0 level. It's now 1.7 and dropping farther. Since the early 1970's all our net population growth has happened via immigration. Politically we're even trying to shut the door on that now too. If current trends keep up, then yeah, traffic levels are going to "level off" in a big way along with all sorts of other unpredictable demographic and socio-economic changes.

Going back to 40 years ago, it was also a hell of a lot easier and far less costly to build a new freeway back then. We're pricing ourselves out of so many things now. The added government red tape and law suit nonsense is one issue. The other is engineering and construction firms perversely price gouging the taxpayers.
For Dallas to Denver the all interstate route is only 45 minutes longer, I could understand using it if a truck driver was scared of two lane roads or something.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

sparker

Quote from: DJStephens on May 17, 2020, 05:58:50 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 15, 2020, 07:18:04 PM
   And the biggest obstacle to a Raton northern extension is the state of NM, which may well procrastinate the project to death.  They've already spent corridor money twinning much of US 64/87; following that up with another round of upgrades might be a fiscal bridge too far -- even if their contribution covers only 20% of the overall costs. 

Agreed.   Would suspect, as well, that the US 64/87 segment in New Mexico, (Clayton-Raton) while four lanes, was built to low standards.   Skinny shoulders, flush medians, inadequate horizontal and vertical curve abatement.  As was pretty much everything else during the Gary Johnson/Pete Rahn regime.  Jan '95 to Jan '03.   Although low standards reach even farther back - the mid to late eighties.  For reasons of topology alone, would simply not route "port to plains" into New Mexico.  The low design standards simply make it a nail in the coffin.   

Just did a GSV of 64/87 between Clayton and Raton; was surprised by a couple of things.  The outer shoulders looked like 10-footers, with the inner shoulders being somewhat narrower; I'd guess 5-6 feet on average.  Outer shoulders contained rumble strips as well, but they looked like they were constructed with chip seal rather than standard asphalt (I suppose that helps since it creates a totally different feel & sound to the ride, so one knows one is off the main carriageway).  Of course, the towns along the way got the 4-lane/undivided or 5-lane treatment.  There are surprisingly few private access points (guess the ranch tracts are pretty large around there) -- but a lot of makeshift dirt tracks running directly into the highway.  Relatively narrow median; would require a K-rail, thrie-beam, or at minimum a cable barrier.  But it indicates that most of that stretch could be upgraded to Interstate standards (repaving would be a must; the view was from 2014, and already there were ruts in the right lanes!), with bypasses of the towns and settlements along the way.  As I stated previously, if the selected plans called for the cheapest possible way to effect the corridor's connection to the Front Range -- and it was assured that NM would be cooperative -- the 115-mile difference between the Raton and Limon options, coupled with about 80 miles of upgradeable facility -- might constitute a deciding factor. 

Re Trincheras Pass as an alternative -- the fact that the easiest-to-upgrade sections (lots of new concrete pavement and bridges) is from Des Moines west to Raton, it's all but certain that if the Raton route is chosen, it'll stay on US 87 northwest of Dalhart all the way to I-25.   Yes, the RR slinks around the hills like a snake on mescaline, but that was to maintain a 1.1% maximum grade in either direction, a goal of the original Colorado & Southern Railroad when it built the line to Texas back in the first decade of the 1900's.  The line was rebuilt in the late '70's to expedite Powder River, WY coal traffic to Texas power plants (most have switched to natural gas these days), which got rid of some of more egregious curvature.  But north of the NM/CO state line, a natural pathway for a road that can, of course, exceed that gradient requirement, would head north to US 160 and then west to I-25 north of Trinidad.  But with the 64/87 improvements, it's actually a moot point.

sprjus4

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 18, 2020, 12:58:03 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2020, 12:06:58 AM
Only a complete idiot would take the I-35/I-135/I-70 combo to drive from Texas to Colorado. That's a bunch of extra hours of drive time, not to mention a whole lot more fuel and cost. That route is not a valid barometer to judge traffic movement from points in Texas and Oklahoma to Colorado.

I prefer driving on Interstate highways for long distance road trips as much as anyone. But I have never had the desire to up through Kansas for any of my drives from Lawton to Colorado Springs or Denver. Most of the time I've gone through Raton. I've tried US-287 up through Boise City and Lamar a couple times. Raton is the better route, at least for me in my pickup truck.

Quote from: brad2971One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off.

How has traffic "leveled off?" Since the 1980's the United States has added 100 million people. Now, given the ridiculous costs of health care, day care, housing in many places, etc our nation's total fertility rates have fallen below the "replacement level" of 2.2 children per female since the Great Recession in the 2000's. Even before that the rate was hovering near the 2.0 level. It's now 1.7 and dropping farther. Since the early 1970's all our net population growth has happened via immigration. Politically we're even trying to shut the door on that now too. If current trends keep up, then yeah, traffic levels are going to "level off" in a big way along with all sorts of other unpredictable demographic and socio-economic changes.

Going back to 40 years ago, it was also a hell of a lot easier and far less costly to build a new freeway back then. We're pricing ourselves out of so many things now. The added government red tape and law suit nonsense is one issue. The other is engineering and construction firms perversely price gouging the taxpayers.
For Dallas to Denver the all interstate route is only 45 minutes longer, I could understand using it if a truck driver was scared of two lane roads or something.
The only 2 lane stretch remaining between Fort Worth and I-25 via US-287 and US-87 is an 18 mile segment between Dumas and Hartley, and it's a super-2 75 mph road with an alternating passing lane for the most of it. The remainder of the route is all 4 lane divided highway, largely posted at 75 mph in Texas and posted at 70 mph in New Mexico.

brad2971

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2020, 12:06:58 AM
Only a complete idiot would take the I-35/I-135/I-70 combo to drive from Texas to Colorado. That's a bunch of extra hours of drive time, not to mention a whole lot more fuel and cost. That route is not a valid barometer to judge traffic movement from points in Texas and Oklahoma to Colorado.

I prefer driving on Interstate highways for long distance road trips as much as anyone. But I have never had the desire to up through Kansas for any of my drives from Lawton to Colorado Springs or Denver. Most of the time I've gone through Raton. I've tried US-287 up through Boise City and Lamar a couple times. Raton is the better route, at least for me in my pickup truck.

Quote from: brad2971One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off.

How has traffic "leveled off?" Since the 1980's the United States has added 100 million people. Now, given the ridiculous costs of health care, day care, housing in many places, etc our nation's total fertility rates have fallen below the "replacement level" of 2.2 children per female since the Great Recession in the 2000's. Even before that the rate was hovering near the 2.0 level. It's now 1.7 and dropping farther. Since the early 1970's all our net population growth has happened via immigration. Politically we're even trying to shut the door on that now too. If current trends keep up, then yeah, traffic levels are going to "level off" in a big way along with all sorts of other unpredictable demographic and socio-economic changes.

Going back to 40 years ago, it was also a hell of a lot easier and far less costly to build a new freeway back then. We're pricing ourselves out of so many things now. The added government red tape and law suit nonsense is one issue. The other is engineering and construction firms perversely price gouging the taxpayers.

Per St Louis Federal Reserve bank, this is the 12-month moving total VMT: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M12MTVUSM227NFWA

This site shows the per capita VMT: https://www.enotrans.org/article/trends-in-per-capita-vmt/ Note that the peak per capita VMT is in 2004.

Rothman

Um...VMT from the Fed Reserve?  That...can't be right. :D
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Bobby5280

#34
QuoteNot from Dallas or Lawton, but from Oklahoma City, the fastest routing actually is the I-35 / I-135 / I-70 combo.

The combo of I-40 to Amarillo and then going North to I-25 via Raton is still shorter. It's not the greatest route for truckers though (due to Raton Pass).

Quote from: sparkerJust did a GSV of 64/87 between Clayton and Raton; was surprised by a couple of things.  The outer shoulders looked like 10-footers, with the inner shoulders being somewhat narrower; I'd guess 5-6 feet on average.

The shoulders sure don't look that wide to me. Maybe a couple spots (like the stretch between Texline and Clayton) might have 10' wide outer shoulders. But many other areas of the road look like the outer shoulders couldn't be more than about 6' wide, if even that. The best quality segments of the route are the short runs of concrete slab near Sierra Grande. The outer shoulders on those concrete segments look narrow, like maybe around 6' wide. The inner shoulders can't be more than 3' or 4' wide.

Some of the asphalt based segments of US-64/87 between Texline and Raton have had one or more overlays done. In all fairness, any state DOT is going to have issues maintaining a highway on this kind of unstable, porous soil. It's a lot of crumbly, gravel-like crap. The soil in Colorado to the East of the Front Range has similar problems. The stuff can erode pretty easily. It's something I try to keep in mind when I gripe about things like US-24 not being a 4-lane route 100% of the way between Colorado Springs and Limon.

Quote from: sparkerRe Trincheras Pass as an alternative -- the fact that the easiest-to-upgrade sections (lots of new concrete pavement and bridges) is from Des Moines west to Raton, it's all but certain that if the Raton route is chosen, it'll stay on US 87 northwest of Dalhart all the way to I-25.

Another thing to consider is Raton is already a fairly important junction for long road trips. I never get fuel there (fuel prices are ridiculous; I top off in Dumas and then fill up in Colorado Springs). But I'll sometimes stop in Raton to get something to snack on or drink, if I didn't stop earlier at the Love's store in Clayton. Aside from my own habits, a brand new highway corridor through remote areas can take a long time to attract new businesses along the exits. A new freeway route through Trincheras Pass would have to bypass both Raton and Trinidad to provide good time/mileage savings versus going through Raton and over Raton Pass. I think there would be some considerable political fallout from such a route bypassing both Raton and Trinidad.

sparker

^^^^^^^^^^^
The last time I was actually on 64/87 in the area was well prior to the 4-laning, so I don't have anything to go on but what I saw in GSV and a close-up overhead view as well.  I'll concede that the inside shoulders vary quite a bit, but assuming 12' wide lanes, they don't seem to be any less than 4' at any point except through the towns, of course.  Including the rumble strips, the outer shoulders, particularly from Clayton west to Grenville, seem to be only slightly narrower than the lane itself.  If anyone can obtain NMDOT specifications on the various segments from Clayton to Raton that would certainly be helpful.  But if that type of rutting is evident only 8-10 years after the road was twinned, then it's likely that while the ROW could be utilized in place, the facility would have to be rebuilt quite a bit more robustly -- possibly concrete, like sporadically seen west of Des Moines -- to at least partially ameliorate the soil and drainage issues.  BTW, I've noticed this type of pavement wear on US 60 west of Clovis as well, and to a lesser degree on I-40 between Santa Rosa and Tucumcari -- so it's likely Bobby's spot on about the underpinning problems of roads on the Front Range alluvial.  I wonder -- by staying 70-100 miles east, as with a US 287/Limon option, the worst of that problem could possibly be avoided -- and if that particular issue is on the radar of those charged with making routing decisions regarding the P-to-P (i.e.-- the "cheapest" option may turn out not to be all that cheap in the long haul!).   

Bobby5280

The soil farther East along the US-287 corridor going into SE CO might be a little bit more stable, but even it has its own issues. Red clay poses its own challenges to road building. Nevertheless, Oklahoma has 4-laned a decent number of rural highways in the last 30 years.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 20, 2020, 02:37:10 PM
The soil farther East along the US-287 corridor going into SE CO might be a little bit more stable, but even it has its own issues. Red clay poses its own challenges to road building. Nevertheless, Oklahoma has 4-laned a decent number of rural highways in the last 30 years.

Most of I-80 in the Sierras between Auburn and Yuba Gap travels through red clay; the Division of Highways had problems with the banks on the side of cuts crumbling and having to be re-graded numerous times during the 1959-60 period that section was constructed.  Made lousy fill as well; they had to bring in rock from elsewhere for that purpose.   

bwana39

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2020, 01:47:00 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 18, 2020, 12:58:03 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2020, 12:06:58 AM
Only a complete idiot would take the I-35/I-135/I-70 combo to drive from Texas to Colorado. That's a bunch of extra hours of drive time, not to mention a whole lot more fuel and cost. That route is not a valid barometer to judge traffic movement from points in Texas and Oklahoma to Colorado.

I prefer driving on Interstate highways for long distance road trips as much as anyone. But I have never had the desire to up through Kansas for any of my drives from Lawton to Colorado Springs or Denver. Most of the time I've gone through Raton. I've tried US-287 up through Boise City and Lamar a couple times. Raton is the better route, at least for me in my pickup truck.

Quote from: brad2971One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off.

How has traffic "leveled off?" Since the 1980's the United States has added 100 million people. Now, given the ridiculous costs of health care, day care, housing in many places, etc our nation's total fertility rates have fallen below the "replacement level" of 2.2 children per female since the Great Recession in the 2000's. Even before that the rate was hovering near the 2.0 level. It's now 1.7 and dropping farther. Since the early 1970's all our net population growth has happened via immigration. Politically we're even trying to shut the door on that now too. If current trends keep up, then yeah, traffic levels are going to "level off" in a big way along with all sorts of other unpredictable demographic and socio-economic changes.

Going back to 40 years ago, it was also a hell of a lot easier and far less costly to build a new freeway back then. We're pricing ourselves out of so many things now. The added government red tape and law suit nonsense is one issue. The other is engineering and construction firms perversely price gouging the taxpayers.
For Dallas to Denver the all interstate route is only 45 minutes longer, I could understand using it if a truck driver was scared of two lane roads or something.
The only 2 lane stretch remaining between Fort Worth and I-25 via US-287 and US-87 is an 18 mile segment between Dumas and Hartley, and it's a super-2 75 mph road with an alternating passing lane for the most of it. The remainder of the route is all 4 lane divided highway, largely posted at 75 mph in Texas and posted at 70 mph in New Mexico.

You forgot the town you still go through at 45 MPH
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

DJStephens

#39
Quote from: bwana39 on May 17, 2020, 11:02:34 PM
Yes, but history in Texas say we build the 4-lane divided highway between the cities and towns but keep going through them on surface streets.  Texas might have finally figured out how backward this is, but it is not without resistance.

This is plainly visible on the US-60 corridor between Canyon (I-27) and the NM state line (Texico)
reasonably decent four lane divided sections, then the corridor going through every small to medium town.  Bovina, Hereford,  etc.   Providing Interstate grade bypasses around these towns should have been done decades ago.   Have always thought the entire I-10 to I-40 diagonal should have been at the very least an I grade limited access around and near small and medium towns, with minimal access outside of them in the rural sections.   

sparker

Quote from: DJStephens on May 29, 2020, 10:54:37 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 17, 2020, 11:02:34 PM
Yes, but history in Texas say we build the 4-lane divided highway between the cities and towns but keep going through them on surface streets.  Texas might have finally figured out how backward this is, but it is not without resistance.

This is plainly visible on the US-60 corridor between Canyon (I-27) and the NM state line (Texico)
reasonably decent four lane divided sections, then the corridor going through every small to medium town.  Bovina, Hereford,  etc.   Providing Interstate grade bypasses around these towns should have been done decades ago.   Have always thought the entire I-10 to I-40 diagonal should have been at the very least an I grade limited access around and near small and medium towns, with minimal access outside of them in the rural sections.   

Much of the older 4-lane/conventional access mileage in TX was accomplished by twinning or at best rebuilding in as narrow a footprint as feasible.  When they got to a town, since there was scant room for 4 lanes + median, the practice was to simply construct the facility as a 4 lane arterial (later 5 became an option) to avoid property taking which would have been (a) controversial and/or (b) budget-busting.  US 287 northwest of Vernon is the archetypal example of that standard.  I first drove that corridor circa '82; after over three decades there hasn't been any substantial change.  Plain and simple -- capacity increase on the cheap!  It wasn't until plans were forwarded for new Interstate corridors several years later that the alternate TX-favored method of constructing frontage roads with room for a freeway in the median was instituted.  So right now there are known designated future Interstate corridors which use either this method or interim Super-2 lanes  -- and everything else.  It seems to depend upon long-term corridor planning.  Right now most of the P-to-P follows the US 287 model -- although some things such as the San Angelo freeways and the Big Springs bypass indicate some foresight regarding future corridor development in the midst of the older facilities.  But if plans advance to the next level, expect to see accommodation, even on a "future"/long term basis, for I-grade geometry and enough room to deploy structures in regards to any further construction. 

The US 60 segment from NM to Canyon is also an example of the "twinning" methodology described earlier; interestingly, in the aborted 1970 effort to legislate a second batch of new Interstate corridors in the wake of the '68 additions, a corridor in NM from the TX line along US 54 north of El Paso via Roswell and Clovis and ending at Texico was submitted as part of that effort.  It's pretty obvious that TX extensions would be south to El Paso on the SW end and northeast to Canyon/Amarillo on the other.  But TX declined to submit plans for what would have been their segments of a full I-10 to I-40 diagonal corridor, leaving the NM-based section as a virtual "orphan".  Of course, that effort failed -- probably since this example was not the only instance of corridor submissions ending at state lines, indicating lack of universal or even consistent support for the project(s).  But it seems the pattern is clear -- a 4-lane conventional TX highway will likely stay that way until such time as clear & distinct plans are in the works for what to date have been legislatively-designated Interstate corridors.  You want upgrades; get your committee together and start browbeating your state and federal legislators.                                       

DJStephens

Quote from: sparker on May 29, 2020, 09:55:34 PM
The US 60 segment from NM to Canyon is also an example of the "twinning" methodology described earlier; interestingly, in the aborted 1970 effort to legislate a second batch of new Interstate corridors in the wake of the '68 additions, a corridor in NM from the TX line along US 54 north of El Paso via Roswell and Clovis and ending at Texico was submitted as part of that effort.  It's pretty obvious that TX extensions would be south to El Paso on the SW end and northeast to Canyon/Amarillo on the other.  But TX declined to submit plans for what would have been their segments of a full I-10 to I-40 diagonal corridor, leaving the NM-based section as a virtual "orphan".  Of course, that effort failed -- probably since this example was not the only instance of corridor submissions ending at state lines, indicating lack of universal or even consistent support for the project(s).  But it seems the pattern is clear -- a 4-lane conventional TX highway will likely stay that way until such time as clear & distinct plans are in the works for what to date have been legislatively-designated Interstate corridors.  You want upgrades; get your committee together and start browbeating your state and federal legislators.                                     

Not nit-picking, your knowledge base is incredible, but believe the corridor that is on the March 1970 FHWA map of possible additions is the US 70 corridor across WSMR and not the US 54 corridor down to El Paso.   There was a Johnson-Rahn expansion of US 54 N of the texas state line in the late nineties, along with a "relief" route or "bypass" of Alamogordo.   Bad standards throughout, not enough median separation, skinny shoulders and traffic signals starting to sprout on "bypass".  T-Bone trucker tragedy in the making.  There is an area of expansive subgrade just N of the southern end of the "bypass" with extensive dips and crowns, even the guardrail is heaved.  Noticed just this past week some "new mexico patch" had been spread in the area, to smooth it out somewhat.  Plenty of open land still exists on either end of "bypass" has been listed for sale for decades, should have been partially acquired to construct fully limited access interchanges at that time.   

sparker

Quote from: DJStephens on May 31, 2020, 11:12:31 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 29, 2020, 09:55:34 PM
The US 60 segment from NM to Canyon is also an example of the "twinning" methodology described earlier; interestingly, in the aborted 1970 effort to legislate a second batch of new Interstate corridors in the wake of the '68 additions, a corridor in NM from the TX line along US 54 north of El Paso via Roswell and Clovis and ending at Texico was submitted as part of that effort.  It's pretty obvious that TX extensions would be south to El Paso on the SW end and northeast to Canyon/Amarillo on the other.  But TX declined to submit plans for what would have been their segments of a full I-10 to I-40 diagonal corridor, leaving the NM-based section as a virtual "orphan".  Of course, that effort failed -- probably since this example was not the only instance of corridor submissions ending at state lines, indicating lack of universal or even consistent support for the project(s).  But it seems the pattern is clear -- a 4-lane conventional TX highway will likely stay that way until such time as clear & distinct plans are in the works for what to date have been legislatively-designated Interstate corridors.  You want upgrades; get your committee together and start browbeating your state and federal legislators.                                     

Not nit-picking, your knowledge base is incredible, but believe the corridor that is on the March 1970 FHWA map of possible additions is the US 70 corridor across WSMR and not the US 54 corridor down to El Paso.   There was a Johnson-Rahn expansion of US 54 N of the texas state line in the late nineties, along with a "relief" route or "bypass" of Alamogordo.   Bad standards throughout, not enough median separation, skinny shoulders and traffic signals starting to sprout on "bypass".  T-Bone trucker tragedy in the making.  There is an area of expansive subgrade just N of the southern end of the "bypass" with extensive dips and crowns, even the guardrail is heaved.  Noticed just this past week some "new mexico patch" had been spread in the area, to smooth it out somewhat.  Plenty of open land still exists on either end of "bypass" has been listed for sale for decades, should have been partially acquired to construct fully limited access interchanges at that time.   

Just pawed through my old files, and, yes, that '70 addition terminated at Las Cruces rather than El Paso, making the corridor a fully NM potential project.  But that still doesn't alter the fact that TX opted out of an extension along US 60 NE of Texico, "stranding" the project there.  That year's attempt to authorize more Interstate additions was hardly well thought out -- not to mention not particularly well-coordinated among the various states.  And seeing how the country was still mired in Vietnam as well as coming out of a minor recession, the timing for such an effort, which saw zero support from the Nixon administration (while the '68 additions, initiated in Johnson's term, were considered a logical addendum to that administration's "Great Society" agenda), could not have been much worse. 

Ironically, TXDOT ran US 54 north to almost the NM line as an Interstate-grade freeway in the ensuing years, so if by some chance the '70 corridor concept were to be renewed, an El Paso option (if the substandard Alamogordo bypass features can be dealt with) could be a possibility. 

-- US 175 --

Political leaders (and those who want to be) are trying a new push to get I-27 routed through Midland-Odessa instead of Big Spring.

https://www.amarillo.com/news/20200614/permian-basin-leaders-make-case-for-new-interstate-route

sprjus4

#44
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on June 15, 2020, 12:53:22 PM
Political leaders (and those who want to be) are trying a new push to get I-27 routed through Midland-Odessa instead of Big Spring.

https://www.amarillo.com/news/20200614/permian-basin-leaders-make-case-for-new-interstate-route
A routing through Midland-Odessa would add approximately 35 miles onto the routing and still would be 15 - 20 minutes slower than four-lane US-87 if a consistent 75 mph speed limit was posted.

It would benefit Midland-Odessa greater than it would for through traffic if constructed through there then onto SR-158 and US-87 to San Angelo.

Another option could be to have the interstate follow SR-349 to I-10, though that would bypass San Angelo.

I still don't believe any new construction needs to occur south of I-10 due to very low traffic volumes and very little demand for even a four-lane highway.

A few things could happen -
- A routing via Midland-Odessa and San Angelo bypassing Big Spring will be chosen, creating an indirect routing overall that would not benefit through traffic.
- A routing via Midland-Odessa to I-10 via SR-349 will be chosen, creating a relatively direct routing overall for through traffic, but would bypass San Angelo.
- A split I-27W / I-27E routing, one via Midland-Odessa and one via Big Spring will be chosen, creating one option (I-27E) that would benefit through traffic, and one option that would benefit Midland-Odessa traffic (I-27W).

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and more importantly if one option does route through Midland-Odessa, how does it traverse through there? Does it go through Midland or Odessa? Reasonably, it would follow existing freeways through Midland, though there will likely be some desire by Odessa to have it come through there instead. Perhaps a new terrain routing directly in the middle?

Even if San Angelo or Midland-Odessa are bypassed, they will both likely at least get I-14 to serve the area, assuming I-14 is logically routed along US-87 and SR-158 via San Angelo and Midland-Odessa.

My personal belief is that if a Midland-Odessa routing is chosen, I-27 should continue to follow SR-349 to I-10 and terminate. I-14 should be constructed along SR-158 and US-87 from Midland-Odessa to San Angelo and eastward onto Killeen, College Station, and terminating at Beaumont at I-10.

Portions of SR-349 carry under 1,000 AADT south of Midland-Odessa, though that is due to other routes currently carrying Midland-Odessa traffic to I-10 that is not SR-349. An interstate highway likely would draw additional traffic off of those surface routes and onto the freeway, probably getting up to at least 5,000 AADT or greater.

Ultimately, TxDOT will likely chose an indirect routing that follows SR-349 and SR-158 to pass through Midland-Odessa from Lubbock then onto San Angelo that will have a greater benefit to Midland-Odessa traffic than through traffic that can shave off about 15 - 20 minutes by following four-lane 75 mph US-87 via Big Spring.

kphoger

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 15, 2020, 02:32:13 PM
Ultimately, TxDOT will likely chose an indirect routing that follows SR-349 and SR-158 to pass through Midland-Odessa from Lubbock then onto San Angelo that will have a greater benefit to Midland-Odessa traffic than through traffic that can shave off about 15 - 20 minutes by following four-lane 75 mph US-87 via Big Spring.

I think that's probably the right thing to do, too.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

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

Bobby5280

#46
If I-27 was routed to Midland rather than Big Spring there would be no good reason to extend it any farther South. It would just need to terminate at I-20. There is no benefit to long distance travelers to take TX-349 South to I-10.

Anyone driving South from Lubbock, Amarillo (or from points farther North) and going to destinations like San Antonio or Del Rio would simply get off this version of I-27 at Lamesa. From that point they would take US-87 South to Big Spring, San Angelo and on farther. The existing US-87 route between Lamesa and San Angelo is 4-laned the entire way, most of it divided. So it's not a terrible down-grade from a full fledged Interstate.

Most drivers headed South out of the Midland-Odessa area is really headed SE toward San Angelo. I-14 would cover that leg if it ever gets built.

If anyone was driving from the Lubbock area and going to El Paso or points farther West they would never drive on TX-349 clear down to I-10. That's way out of the way. Most drivers probably wouldn't even go down as far as Midland-Odessa. US-62 West out of Lubbock is a much shorter route. US-62 is four-laned from Lubbock down to Seminole, Hobbs, Carlsbad and the TX/NM border. There's that one desolate stretch going around Guadalupe Peak, but it's kind of a scenic drive. Coming down from Amarillo and going to El Paso or farther West the route of choice is going to be US-60 to Clovis, US-70 to Alamogordo and then either US-54 to El Paso or US-70 to Las Cruces.

Diverting the I-27 route to Midland would be beneficial to the Midland-Odessa area, but it would be less efficient for the big picture Interstate network.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 15, 2020, 04:14:00 PM
If I-27 was routed to Midland rather than Big Spring there would be no good reason to extend it any farther South. It would just need to terminate at I-20. There is no benefit to long distance travelers to take the TX-349 South to I-10.

Anyone driving South from Lubbock, Amarillo (or from points farther North) and going to destinations like San Antonio or Del Rio would simply get off this version of I-27 at Lamesa. From that point they would take US-87 South to Big Spring, San Angelo and on farther. The existing US-87 route between Lamesa and San Angelo is 4-laned the entire way, most of it divided. So it's not a terrible down-grade from a full fledged Interstate.

Most drivers headed South out of the Midland-Odessa area is really headed SE toward San Angelo. I-14 would cover that leg if it ever gets built.

If anyone was driving from the Lubbock area and going to El Paso or points farther West they would never drive on TX-349 clear down to I-10. That's way out of the way. Most drivers probably wouldn't even go down as far as Midland-Odessa. US-62 West out of Lubbock is a much shorter route. US-62 is four-laned from Lubbock down to Seminole, Hobbs, Carlsbad and the TX/NM border. There's that one desolate stretch going around Guadalupe Peak, but it's kind of a scenic drive. Coming down from Amarillo and going to El Paso or farther West the route of choice is going to be US-60 to Clovis, US-70 to Alamogordo and then either US-54 to El Paso or US-70 to Las Cruces.

Diverting the I-27 route to Midland would be beneficial to the Midland-Odessa area, but it would be less efficient for the big picture Interstate network.

Given TX regional political reality, it's likely that both the Big Spring and Midland "legs" of the P-to-P will be developed -- but, in all likelihood, not all at once.  Initially, the most likely first path would be straight down US 87 via Big Springs; that bypass is already in service (although the I-20 interchange will require upgrades, of course).  I'd venture a guess that Midland-Sterling City along TX 158 might see development soon after -- if and only if the I-14 and P-to-P folks get together and promote the living shit out of that corridor segment -- it wouldn't provide much in the way of time savings from San Angelo to Midland over a Big Spring-based freeway route for traffic from either corridor concept.  But, as I have already stated (sometimes to death, I know!) this is TX and like the cliche' says, all politics is local, so TX 158 may see Interstate-grade upgrades despite its duplicative nature.  Being designated as part of two individual corridor has its advantages. 

Less certain is TX 349 Midland-Lamesa.  If the petroleum economy that drives the region flags somewhat -- a likely situation within the next half-century, it would make any "27W" or "227" corridor down 349 less and less likely; the combined commercial and recreational traffic just wouldn't be sufficient to warrant such a facility. 

Bobby5280

Quote from: sparkerGiven TX regional political reality, it's likely that both the Big Spring and Midland "legs" of the P-to-P will be developed -- but, in all likelihood, not all at once.  Initially, the most likely first path would be straight down US 87 via Big Springs; that bypass is already in service (although the I-20 interchange will require upgrades, of course).  I'd venture a guess that Midland-Sterling City along TX 158 might see development soon after -- if and only if the I-14 and P-to-P folks get together and promote the living shit out of that corridor segment -- it wouldn't provide much in the way of time savings from San Angelo to Midland over a Big Spring-based freeway route for traffic from either corridor concept.

I don't picture the interests driving the Ports to Plains Corridor working with the proponents of I-14 in any kind of cooperative fashion. Only the locals in Midland-Odessa would have motivation to do that.

Quote from: sparkerLess certain is TX 349 Midland-Lamesa.  If the petroleum economy that drives the region flags somewhat -- a likely situation within the next half-century, it would make any "27W" or "227" corridor down 349 less and less likely; the combined commercial and recreational traffic just wouldn't be sufficient to warrant such a facility.

I think the best case scenario for TX-349 is a divided 4-lane expressway route with at-grade intersections. Even that may be pretty iffy. These days Texas seems pretty big on doing undivided 4-lane & 5-lane arrangements as upgrades for 2-lane roads. And that's if they don't just cheap out and merely patch on some intermittent passing lanes on the existing 2-lane road (like the Dumas to Hartley nonsense I put up with on US-87 from time to time).

A decent amount of heavy trucks do drive all over the Permian Basin oil patch, but they cover an expanse far more than just what TX-349 covers. Many of the vehicles are smaller service trucks that can handle driving on gravel or dirt roads.

Then there's the frequent boom/bust cycles the oil business experiences out there. That can even hurt the incentives to build a new Interstate highway directly to Midland, never mind any extra efforts to extend a freeway farther into desolate area with a lot of pump jacks and very few people.

sparker

Bit of a news flash courtesy of the AASHTO DTU, to which I subscribe.  A move is afoot to officially append the I-27 designation to the Laredo-Lubbock portion of HPC #38/Port-to-Plains corridor.  The map included in the report simply reiterates the "double leg" through, respectively, Big Spring and Midland.  The report, which concludes that without the I-27 designation as the principal "selling point", the corridor prospects are less certain.  The report can be found at:
https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-politics/ports-to-plains-alliance-reveals-new-data-from-interstate-27-expansion-study/

Apparently the segment north of Amarillo is expected to be addressed separately.
 
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 16, 2020, 04:23:55 PM
I don't picture the interests driving the Ports to Plains Corridor working with the proponents of I-14 in any kind of cooperative fashion. Only the locals in Midland-Odessa would have motivation to do that.

With all due respect, I think some level of cooperation will actually be necessary to see that either or both corridors reach fruition -- for two basic reasons.  One is the fact that San Angelo has a lot to gain from either corridor being developed -- but their lot would be improved from a purely logistical sense by being the locale of a E-W and N-S junction (I-14 & I-27) -- but the greater push may come from the simple fact that one corridor traverses one set of Congressional districts and the other another set, at least east of San Angelo.  What it'll do is serve to winnow down the "scattershot" I-14 plans in the region, since the P-to-P obviates several of those options, since I-27 south of San Angelo will provide a corridor in the district where the southern (and, IMO, ludicrous) "option" along the sparsely-populated US 190 corridor west of Brady was shown on the initial corridor layout.  That'll leave the northern option along US 87 directly to San Angelo as the nominal path. 

That being said -- if local political will is directed toward I-27, it would be expected that the initial concentration will be to complete that corridor, the continued presence of the I-14 backers notwithstanding.  If the P-to-P push continues relatively unabated over the course of the next 15 years or so, I'd think at least Sonora-San Angelo-Big Springs-Lubbock will be well under way by about 2035 or so -- while a western extension of I-14 past Lampasas will likely lag that by a good decade.  The initial cooperation of the 27 and 14 folks will probably be confined to the Sterling City-Midland/TX 158 section, which has been the subject of much drooling by both San Angelo and M/O local boosters for years.  We may see an outflung and independent I-14 section there years before San Angelo-Lampasas even hits the formal planning stage.



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