TX: Ports to Plains corridor study

[triplemultiplex]

OKC-Denver is dissimilar to OKC-STL in that there is nothing in between OKC and Denver.
Tulsa, Joplin, Springfield; a nice string of mid-sized cities line up between OKC and St. Louis.
Taking a diagonal to Denver from OKC and you've got... virtually nothing.  Makes it really hard to justify a major highway with zero noteworthy cities over the intervening distance.
I have similar thoughts about the concept of connecting Vegas and Reno with I-11.  There's nothing in between so that makes it difficult to get excited about spending limited resources on it.

[sprjus4]

Agreed, and while a diagonal might be nice to have, in today's day and age of limited funding, along with the fastest route between them already interstate, albeit slightly less direct (I-35, I-135, I-70), I'd say the odds of such a corridor becoming reality would be minimal. Not to mention, what are the true traffic demands? Are we going to spend billions upon billions of dollars for a highway through nowhere to carry 5,000 AADT? Or is it going to be maintaining 30,000 - 40,000 AADT with 15-20% truck traffic? What's the investment?

If no interstate connection existed, I could see a need. Or if this was the 1950s, road construction was cheap, and the federal government funded majority of the projects, I could see it happening. But nowadays...? Not against the concept, but the likelihood of anything happening is low.

[bwana39]

I've wondered what route people usually take from LA to NYC or vice versa. Part of me thinks I-40 to I-44 point NE is the best but lots of people I know take I-15 to I-70(weather depending of course).

Even North Texas to  San Diego.   From Sherman  is about the same distance whether you go through  DFW & El Paso or Amarillo & Flagstaff.  I prefer the I-40 route during summer for sure and even in winter, it is not a terrible route. From my previous home outside of Greenville, it was 50 miles and less than an hour difference.

[Plutonic Panda]

I've wondered what route people usually take from LA to NYC or vice versa. Part of me thinks I-40 to I-44 point NE is the best but lots of people I know take I-15 to I-70(weather depending of course).

Even North Texas to  San Diego.   From Sherman  is about the same distance whether you go through  DFW & El Paso or Amarillo & Flagstaff.  I prefer the I-40 route during summer for sure and even in winter, it is not a terrible route. From my previous home outside of Greenville, it was 50 miles and less than an hour difference.

Sometimes I'll go out of my way to travel the OKC-LA route on I-10 vs I-40. It's amazing how much of a difference it makes.

[sparker]

I've wondered what route people usually take from LA to NYC or vice versa. Part of me thinks I-40 to I-44 point NE is the best but lots of people I know take I-15 to I-70(weather depending of course).

Even North Texas to  San Diego.   From Sherman  is about the same distance whether you go through  DFW & El Paso or Amarillo & Flagstaff.  I prefer the I-40 route during summer for sure and even in winter, it is not a terrible route. From my previous home outside of Greenville, it was 50 miles and less than an hour difference.

Sometimes I'll go out of my way to travel the OKC-LA route on I-10 vs I-40. It's amazing how much of a difference it makes.

When I lived in the L.A. area and was making trips back east regularly (relatives in SE OK, friends in Atlanta) I'd take I-10 to I-20 when in a hurry (75 mph much of the way helped considerably), but it was either desert or less-than-pleasant plains from Banning, CA east to Abilene, TX, so those trips weren't something I anticipated with any pleasure.  Always preferred the alternative of heading up to I-40 and then going east or west; actually used the pre-I-22 US 78 between Memphis and Birmingham (at least it was mostly freeway back then) on Atlanta trips; at least much of the scenery east of OKC was green, even in summer -- and even the desert was more interesting, broken up by the Arizona Divide.   All in all, trips involving I-40 were much more enjoyable than those using the more southerly route. 

L.A. - NYC?  Done both I-10/15/40/44/70/76/276/95 and I-10/20/30/40/81/78 -- prefer the former, but it's not night and day!   

[Plutonic Panda]

I've wondered what route people usually take from LA to NYC or vice versa. Part of me thinks I-40 to I-44 point NE is the best but lots of people I know take I-15 to I-70(weather depending of course).

Even North Texas to  San Diego.   From Sherman  is about the same distance whether you go through  DFW & El Paso or Amarillo & Flagstaff.  I prefer the I-40 route during summer for sure and even in winter, it is not a terrible route. From my previous home outside of Greenville, it was 50 miles and less than an hour difference.

Sometimes I'll go out of my way to travel the OKC-LA route on I-10 vs I-40. It's amazing how much of a difference it makes.

When I lived in the L.A. area and was making trips back east regularly (relatives in SE OK, friends in Atlanta) I'd take I-10 to I-20 when in a hurry (75 mph much of the way helped considerably), but it was either desert or less-than-pleasant plains from Banning, CA east to Abilene, TX, so those trips weren't something I anticipated with any pleasure.  Always preferred the alternative of heading up to I-40 and then going east or west; actually used the pre-I-22 US 78 between Memphis and Birmingham (at least it was mostly freeway back then) on Atlanta trips; at least much of the scenery east of OKC was green, even in summer -- and even the desert was more interesting, broken up by the Arizona Divide.   All in all, trips involving I-40 were much more enjoyable than those using the more southerly route. 

L.A. - NYC?  Done both I-10/15/40/44/70/76/276/95 and I-10/20/30/40/81/78 -- prefer the former, but it's not night and day!   

I still haven't been to NYC yet. I'm looking to change that this year. First time in the NE it will be for me. I've been toying with a lot of potential routes– I'll be driving from OKC.

[sparker]

I've wondered what route people usually take from LA to NYC or vice versa. Part of me thinks I-40 to I-44 point NE is the best but lots of people I know take I-15 to I-70(weather depending of course).

Even North Texas to  San Diego.   From Sherman  is about the same distance whether you go through  DFW & El Paso or Amarillo & Flagstaff.  I prefer the I-40 route during summer for sure and even in winter, it is not a terrible route. From my previous home outside of Greenville, it was 50 miles and less than an hour difference.

Sometimes I'll go out of my way to travel the OKC-LA route on I-10 vs I-40. It's amazing how much of a difference it makes.

When I lived in the L.A. area and was making trips back east regularly (relatives in SE OK, friends in Atlanta) I'd take I-10 to I-20 when in a hurry (75 mph much of the way helped considerably), but it was either desert or less-than-pleasant plains from Banning, CA east to Abilene, TX, so those trips weren't something I anticipated with any pleasure.  Always preferred the alternative of heading up to I-40 and then going east or west; actually used the pre-I-22 US 78 between Memphis and Birmingham (at least it was mostly freeway back then) on Atlanta trips; at least much of the scenery east of OKC was green, even in summer -- and even the desert was more interesting, broken up by the Arizona Divide.   All in all, trips involving I-40 were much more enjoyable than those using the more southerly route. 

L.A. - NYC?  Done both I-10/15/40/44/70/76/276/95 and I-10/20/30/40/81/78 -- prefer the former, but it's not night and day!   

I still haven't been to NYC yet. I'm looking to change that this year. First time in the NE it will be for me. I've been toying with a lot of potential routes– I'll be driving from OKC.

Here's an oddball suggestion OKC>NYC:  Just follow US 62 to I-86 in western upstate NY, then follow that east to see what all the fuss is about on long-planned I-86 in the Catskills!   Hardly the most efficient route, but you'd get to see one hell of a lot of back country along the way, along with a few cities (Hello, Columbus!).  Actually, I wonder if anyone's ever clinched US 62 on one El Paso-Niagara Falls (or vice-versa) trip?

[MikieTimT]

I've wondered what route people usually take from LA to NYC or vice versa. Part of me thinks I-40 to I-44 point NE is the best but lots of people I know take I-15 to I-70(weather depending of course).

Even North Texas to  San Diego.   From Sherman  is about the same distance whether you go through  DFW & El Paso or Amarillo & Flagstaff.  I prefer the I-40 route during summer for sure and even in winter, it is not a terrible route. From my previous home outside of Greenville, it was 50 miles and less than an hour difference.

Sometimes I'll go out of my way to travel the OKC-LA route on I-10 vs I-40. It's amazing how much of a difference it makes.

When I lived in the L.A. area and was making trips back east regularly (relatives in SE OK, friends in Atlanta) I'd take I-10 to I-20 when in a hurry (75 mph much of the way helped considerably), but it was either desert or less-than-pleasant plains from Banning, CA east to Abilene, TX, so those trips weren't something I anticipated with any pleasure.  Always preferred the alternative of heading up to I-40 and then going east or west; actually used the pre-I-22 US 78 between Memphis and Birmingham (at least it was mostly freeway back then) on Atlanta trips; at least much of the scenery east of OKC was green, even in summer -- and even the desert was more interesting, broken up by the Arizona Divide.   All in all, trips involving I-40 were much more enjoyable than those using the more southerly route. 

L.A. - NYC?  Done both I-10/15/40/44/70/76/276/95 and I-10/20/30/40/81/78 -- prefer the former, but it's not night and day!   

I still haven't been to NYC yet. I'm looking to change that this year. First time in the NE it will be for me. I've been toying with a lot of potential routes– I'll be driving from OKC.

Here's an oddball suggestion OKC>NYC:  Just follow US 62 to I-86 in western upstate NY, then follow that east to see what all the fuss is about on long-planned I-86 in the Catskills!   Hardly the most efficient route, but you'd get to see one hell of a lot of back country along the way, along with a few cities (Hello, Columbus!).  Actually, I wonder if anyone's ever clinched US 62 on one El Paso-Niagara Falls (or vice-versa) trip?

That would be quite a journey.  I've clinched from Henryetta, OK, to Imboden, AR over several trips, and I can vouch for the scenery in that section.  Not the most expeditious way to get across OK and AR, but certainly one of the most scenic.

[Bobby5280]

OKC-Denver is dissimilar to OKC-STL in that there is nothing in between OKC and Denver.

The route is not about the towns between OKC and Denver as much as it is about serving the larger national system. I-44 wasn't built just to serve Tulsa and Springfield, MO. The far bigger purpose of I-44 is serving longer distance traffic, particularly commercial traffic. An OKC-Denver Interstate would do the same thing.

If every Interstate was required to have a major city along its path every couple hundred miles most of the Interstates in the Western half of the US would never have been built.

[sparker]

OKC-Denver is dissimilar to OKC-STL in that there is nothing in between OKC and Denver.

The route is not about the towns between OKC and Denver as much as it is about serving the larger national system. I-44 wasn't built just to serve Tulsa and Springfield, MO. The far bigger purpose of I-44 is serving longer distance traffic, particularly commercial traffic. An OKC-Denver Interstate would do the same thing.

If every Interstate was required to have a major city along its path every couple hundred miles most of the Interstates in the Western half of the US would never have been built.

While direct diagonal connectors are technically superior, mileage and time-wise, to right-angle connectors (just recall your high school geometry class!), the reality is that not every metro area requires a direct (or semi-direct) connector to another area.  The one under question here -- OKC-Denver, may or may not have the level of dedicated commercial traffic schlepping between the endpoints to warrant the expense of such a facility.  The present Interstate routing, I-35/135/70, is likely efficient enough to suffice for what commercial traffic there is -- and even Wichita, the sole "chokepoint" on that corridor combination, has a bypass (I-235) -- although being a relatively elderly facility, it's now inundated by 'burbs!  But a completed (via US 287 and Limon) P2P would further cut about 30 miles from the aforementioned route combination -- and if Amarillo is bypassed by the extended P2P/I-27, it won't assume the chokepoint role.  While not a crow fly between the cities, a I-40/27/70 journey would be a better than marginal upgrade to the present "normal" corridor via Salina. 

Extrapolating from the 1956 "brief" of Interstates, which was to connect as many cities of 50K population or more -- since the population has a little more than doubled since that time (about 160M then and about 336M today), one could say that the threshold has grown to cities of 100K population.  As the concept of collective metro areas as a cohesive entity was in its infancy 65 years ago, the metric was still incorporated population of a "center" city itself (most suburbs were "communities" rather than separate jurisdictional units and were generally counted as part of the county and not parsed out as they are today, particularly in regards to smaller -- <50K -- cities with some populated areas outside city limits).  Even then, the '56-'58 41K/miles system still missed quite a few over 50K cities (out here in CA when the US 101 corridor was eliminated from consideration, Santa Barbara and Salinas joined those ranks, as well as Bakersfield and Fresno when I-5 was moved to the Westside Freeway at the end of 1957).  Now -- if you take the area bounded by I-40 on the south, I-25 on the west, I-70 on the north, and I-135 (then 35W) & I-35 on the east, there were zero cities not along the bounding routes over 50K and only one, Hutchinson, KS, over 25K population in the 1955 census estimates -- and even today, only that same city, Hutchinson, rises above the old 50K criterion -- but only within today's metro metrics; its 2015 incorporated estimate is only about 46K!.  While it's true that there need not actually be substantial interim population to serve if one considers connecting endpoints as a goal, getting a new corridor on the map more often than not requires some sort of advocacy toward that end emanating from the served area to "kick-start" designation activity into being.  I-22 would not have gotten off the ground if not for boosters from Tupelo, MS (who wanted to lure a Toyota plant to their outskirts) and Jasper, AL (industrial-park developers there formed the core of AL-based support); likewise Bryan/State College and the greater Temple/Belton/Killeen areas in central TX clamored for a connecting corridor and cobbled up I-14 to fit their bill.  At this point it's difficult to see any particular town or zone between OKC and Denver garnering enough pull to match those efforts.  The only endpoint-oriented corridor to see designational success in recent years, I-11 re Phoenix and Las Vegas, was able to publicize its way to success because of the outsized population growth of those two metro areas -- and the fact that it included a "signature" project along the way, the O'Callaghan/Tillman arch bridge over the Colorado River next to Hoover Dam.  Not to disparage the region through which a more-or-less direct OKC-Denver corridor would run, but the only really recognizable/salient locale along the way would be Dodge City as a touchstone of the Old West (even though Gunsmoke has been off the air for 46 years now except in cable reruns).  Unless overwhelming call for such a corridor comes from both OKC and Denver pretty much simultaneously, localized support for such a corridor is unlikely to be forthcoming. 

[Bobby5280]

The one under question here -- OKC-Denver, may or may not have the level of dedicated commercial traffic schlepping between the endpoints to warrant the expense of such a facility.  The present Interstate routing, I-35/135/70, is likely efficient enough to suffice for what commercial traffic there is -- and even Wichita, the sole "chokepoint" on that corridor combination, has a bypass (I-235) -- although being a relatively elderly facility, it's now inundated by 'burbs!

Anyone choosing to drive from OKC to Denver via I-35/I-135/I-70 should have his head examined. That's a huge L-shaped right angle. No one is going to use that route combo to travel between OKC and St Louis. I-44 is the hypotenuse on that right triangle.

Not to disparage the region through which a more-or-less direct OKC-Denver corridor would run, but the only really recognizable/salient locale along the way would be Dodge City as a touchstone of the Old West (even though Gunsmoke has been off the air for 46 years now except in cable reruns).

You are still not getting it. To repeat, it's not about the towns between OKC and Denver, it's about the big cities beyond OKC and Denver. On one end you have Seattle, Portland, Boise, Salt Lake and the Denver metro. On the other end you have OKC, Memphis, Birmingham, Atlanta, DFW, etc. Make the route Denver thru OKC to Texarkana and you end up with a pretty direct route from Denver to New Orleans.

The system-wide, national-level functions are the only reasons why there are any Interstates in the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming or even Nebraska. Even Idaho would be a stretch for having any Interstates if building the things was solely about serving local traffic counts.

[sprjus4]

The only endpoint-oriented corridor to see designational success in recent years, I-11 re Phoenix and Las Vegas, was able to publicize its way to success because of the outsized population growth of those two metro areas -- and the fact that it included a "signature" project along the way, the O'Callaghan/Tillman arch bridge over the Colorado River next to Hoover Dam.

Not to mention, that unlike Denver and Oklahoma City, there's currently no interstate highway connection between the two cities.

Anyone choosing to drive from OKC to Denver via I-35/I-135/I-70 should have his head examined. That's a huge L-shaped right angle.

You keep saying this, but according to Google Maps, it's the fastest route between the two cities. There's not many other viable alternatives.

I-35 / I-135 / I-70 - 9h 31m, 678 miles
I-40 / US-270 / US-412 / US-183 / SH-34 / US-400 / US-283 / I-70 - 9h 52m, 640 miles
I-40 / SH-6 / SH-152 / US-87 / I-25 - 10h 2m, 661 miles

Why is following a route that's 20 minutes faster over the other routes and is fully interstate highway, which long distance traffic will prefer, a reason that someone should "have his head examined" ?

What route do you recommend that would beat all of these time wise?

[Scott5114]

The only endpoint-oriented corridor to see designational success in recent years, I-11 re Phoenix and Las Vegas, was able to publicize its way to success because of the outsized population growth of those two metro areas -- and the fact that it included a "signature" project along the way, the O'Callaghan/Tillman arch bridge over the Colorado River next to Hoover Dam.

Not to mention, that unlike Denver and Oklahoma City, there's currently no interstate highway connection between the two cities.

I-17→I-40→I-15. Sure it goes way out of the way, but so does I-35→I-135→I-70.

Anyone choosing to drive from OKC to Denver via I-35/I-135/I-70 should have his head examined. That's a huge L-shaped right angle.

You keep saying this, but according to Google Maps, it's the fastest route between the two cities. There's not many other viable alternatives.

I-35 / I-135 / I-70 - 9h 31m, 678 miles
I-40 / US-270 / US-412 / US-183 / SH-34 / US-400 / US-283 / I-70 - 9h 52m, 640 miles
I-40 / SH-6 / SH-152 / US-87 / I-25 - 10h 2m, 661 miles

Why is following a route that's 20 minutes faster over the other routes and is fully interstate highway, which long distance traffic will prefer, a reason that someone should "have his head examined" ?

I-35 / I-135 / I-70 - 9h 31m, 678 miles–71.3 mph average
I-40 / US-270 / US-412 / US-183 / SH-34 / US-400 / US-283 / I-70 - 9h 52m, 640 miles–64.8 mph average

If you were to upgrade the second route so that you could maintain an average speed of 71.3 like you can on the all-interstate route, it would be 30 minutes faster than the existing route. You could also do better by cutting a diagonal from US-400 straight to Limon–that saves about 75 miles, so you'd be looking at 565 miles, which at a speed of 71.3 mph, would be 7h 55m, saving just less than an hour between OKC and Denver.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Look -- the lack of direct connectors in that part of the country is rampant, largely because except in this forum there's been a concurrent lack of official support for such.  Even the corridor that's on pretty much everyone's Top Ten list of being overdue for significant improvement if not the full Interstate treatment, US 287 Fort Worth>Amarillo, doesn't seem to be on any official radar although the traffic volumes, particularly of the commercial variety, have been elevated at least since the late '70's, when the initial 4-laning was completed.  And that corridor, in conjunction with the "middle" part of the P2P (between I-40 and I-70), makes for a dandy little quasi-direct DFW>Denver routing (don't think any trucker would piss & moan if that composite corridor saw full development!)  And when reference to end points "beyond" OKC are mentioned, one of the more obvious is DFW or, by extension, Houston.  True, a US 287 improvement wouldn't help traffic looking to head east from OKC on I-40, but it would enhance anything originating on or near I-10, I-20, and their feeders.  If anyone can demonstrate actual need or warrant for a direct OKC-Denver connector, based upon actual data (I'm certain that can be gleaned from trucking firms and/or public AADT records) I for one would be inclined to reassess my position that such a corridor would draw enough traffic to be fiscally feasible.  But in an overall regional ranking of worthy -- and doable -- projects, such a corridor pales before the P2P concept as well as the aforementioned US 287 corridor that actually starts in metro DFW.  And the one thing about 287 southeast of Amarillo -- it's in TX, which seems to find a way to develop corridors as contrasted with their neighbor to the north, which always seem to find ways to avoid such a thing.  It's taken TX politicos and officials 30+ years to actually formulate legislation to authorize P2P; it would probably be another three decades before the cited portion of US 287 gets similar treatment.  Still, without a sea change in OK's philosophy and methodology re such things, TX would have plans for that corridor in place before OK would even seriously explore anything NW of OKC, be it toll road or freeway.  Kinda like those odds!   

[Bobby5280]

You keep saying this, but according to Google Maps, it's the fastest route between the two cities.

Your Google Maps route comparison is irrelevant because the direct, diagonal route I'm describing DOES NOT EXIST in any form. No 2 lane, 4 lane or whatever equivalent. There is no Google maps data on it to pull up.

By your logic I might as well avoid I-44 for driving from OKC to St Louis and use I-35/I-135 and I-70 instead. No need for diagonal highways like I-44. Let's just have a square, idiot grid. And that's all there is in Eastern Colorado, Northern Oklahoma and Western Kansas. Checkerboard grid.

[sprjus4]

You keep saying this, but according to Google Maps, it's the fastest route between the two cities.

Your Google Maps route comparison is irrelevant because the direct, diagonal route I'm describing DOES NOT EXIST in any form. No 2 lane, 4 lane or whatever equivalent. There is no Google maps data on it to pull up.

No, the comparison is relevant when you're making claims like this.

Anyone choosing to drive from OKC to Denver via I-35/I-135/I-70 should have his head examined. That's a huge L-shaped right angle.

How do you expect one to drive between the cities without having to get their head examined?

[sparker]

You keep saying this, but according to Google Maps, it's the fastest route between the two cities.

Your Google Maps route comparison is irrelevant because the direct, diagonal route I'm describing DOES NOT EXIST in any form. No 2 lane, 4 lane or whatever equivalent. There is no Google maps data on it to pull up.

By your logic I might as well avoid I-44 for driving from OKC to St Louis and use I-35/I-135 and I-70 instead. No need for diagonal highways like I-44. Let's just have a square, idiot grid. And that's all there is in Eastern Colorado, Northern Oklahoma and Western Kansas. Checkerboard grid.

Under most circumstances I tend to concur with what you say about the state of regional highways -- but in this instance, the logic is less than straightforward, particularly with regards to why I-44 is there and being well-used.  It wasn't an "original concept" to connect St. Louis with Tulsa and OKC; obviously, the US 66 corridor preceded it and was, in essence, used as the "model" for I-44.  But that corridor had been there for decades prior to the designation of US 66 (formerly 60); the SLSF ("Frisco") main line blazed that particular trail through the northern reaches of the Ozarks and onward through the middle of OK before ending up in Quanah, TX.  But there is no equivalent "pioneering" rail line heading northwest from OKC to anywhere, much less all the way to Denver!  Except for branch lines built to access grain elevators, the two main rail lines traversing NW OK are diagonals but in the opposite orientation. SW>NE!  The closest thing to a diagonal highway is OK 3, at least until it gets out to the Panhandle, where it turns west, more recently multiplexed with US 412.  If any connector from OKC to the P2P -- at least an all-OK affair -- were to be developed, it would likely follow OK 3 for most of its length.  That whole OK 3 affair looks like an older ODOT attempt to make it look like that part of the state is not forgotten in regards to connectivity (i.e., "give 'em something that sort of looks like a radial route") -- even if much of what lies west of US 281 is relatively devoid of population, at least at the level that would warrant a dedicated high-capacity corridor there (although it appears that there has been some halting effort made to 4-lane much of that diagonal, starting with exit #108 on I-40).  A few decades back I traveled around that area, "railfanning" the original Santa Fe main freight line through Shattuck and Woodward (loved that old silver/red locomotive paint scheme!).  Didn't notice a lot of long-distance type trucks in Woodward; ostensibly, if there were such employing the OK 3 diagonal as a "shortcut" to either Boise City or western KS, presumably as touchpoints toward a farther destination, they would have passed through there.  But on that same trip I also took pictures of the former Rock Island (then owned by SP) line that follows US 54 diagonally through the Panhandle -- and that route was rife with trucking -- in all probability trucks off I-40 in Tucumcari "shortcutting" toward Wichita and KC (and this was back around 1984).  To that effect, back in 2005's massive addition of HPC corridors in that year's SAFETEA-LU legislation, all of US 54 from El Paso to Wichita was designated as HPC #51; probably some federal funds were used to 4-lane 54 in OK.  At this point I'd venture an educated guess -- based on that anecdotal evidence -- that there is some warrant for a diagonal route through the bounded area that's being discussed here -- but, again, in the opposing direction! That's where the "action" seems to lie here; more as part of a cross-country strategy on the part of the trucking sector than a way to expedite OKC-Denver traffic, which is in all likelihood considerably less robust than I-40 to KC and beyond.  Bobby may be correct in his view that this area has long been overlooked when it comes to viable corridors -- but in terms of sheer need and overall volume, it's the SW-to-NE diagonal corridor concept, exemplified by US 54, that is in more immediate need of extensive upgrades.     

And yes, I've used the I-70/135/35 routing a couple of times; it wasn't too terribly bad (albeit a bit boring!).  And according to at least a couple of my exes, I do need my head examined!  Nevertheless, I emerged none the worse for wear!        

[Scott5114]

That whole OK 3 affair looks like an older ODOT attempt to make it look like that part of the state is not forgotten in regards to connectivity (i.e., "give 'em something that sort of looks like a radial route") -- even if much of what lies west of US 281 is relatively devoid of population, at least at the level that would warrant a dedicated high-capacity corridor there (although it appears that there has been some halting effort made to 4-lane much of that diagonal, starting with exit #108 on I-40).

The attempt didn't come from ODOT, but from Gov. George Nigh, which OK-3 is named after. This article summarizes the history pretty well. In short:

I wanted all 77 counties to feel represented. ...The people in the Panhandle deserved a nice highway, too.

But also:

What really caught my attention were the skiers. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, right? Well, I learned that many skiers heading to Colorado would instead drive to Amarillo and then move across into Colorado. We had tourists bypassing all the hotels, motels, gift shops we had to offer, and I knew we could do better if we had a road that would get them through our communities.

I think it's worth noting that Denver's emergence as a major US city–and thus a place likely to be a destination–is a relatively recent thing. Its 1950 MSA population was only 560,000, but that doubled to over a million by 1970, and doubled again to two million by the year 2000. Meanwhile, the Oklahoma City MSA only had 325,000 in 1950 and that has grown to an estimated 1.4 million in 2019. When the railroad system was set up, there wasn't much need to connect the two cities, and when the Interstate system was planned, nobody felt the need to go out of their way to connect a metro of 560,000 to a metro of 325,000. But things are very different now.

[The Ghostbuster]

If Interstate 27 is extended northward along US 87 and 287, how will it get through downtown Amarillo without destroying the downtown area? Perhaps two of the four streets that span northward from the 27/40 interchange (S. Buchannan St./Pierce St. S./S. Fillmore St./S. Taylor St.), will have elevated freeways constructed over the existing streets similar to the ones built off the end of Interstate 44 in Wichita Falls.

[aboges26]

If Interstate 27 is extended northward along US 87 and 287, how will it get through downtown Amarillo without destroying the downtown area? Perhaps two of the four streets that span northward from the 27/40 interchange (S. Buchannan St./Pierce St. S./S. Fillmore St./S. Taylor St.), will have elevated freeways constructed over the existing streets similar to the ones built off the end of Interstate 44 in Wichita Falls.

I-27 is slated to run along the west side of Loop 335 when the time comes with the remainder of I-27 inside the loop becoming a 3DI.  There is no chance of I-27 being extended north from its current terminus.

[bwana39]

I think the biggest question you have to ask is What is the road supposed to support?

There are no population centers at the northern end except Denver. The rail lines are winnowing down more in that direction than in other places in the US.  There may be a dearth of freeways leading there, but there may be a reason. There really is not the demand for commercial transportation going from south Texas to Colorado.

There is a freeway from Juárez to Denver. (Closer than Laredo).  LA is almost as close as the Gulf Coast for ocean cargo. There are freeways from LA to Denver.  Someone mentioned Seattle. I just don't see much (if any) traffic between South Texas and Seattle.

This road is lacking, but I just do not see the need for an Interstate (grade) highway. I am sure there is a consultant who can give me skewed data to prove me wrong, but....

That is totally disregarding the point that New Mexico or Colorado are only marginally on board if at all  .

[sparker]

Simple question:  If the P2P is developed as an Interstate as far north as Limon, what path would a connector from that facility do OKC take?  Chances are it would follow the above-cited "Nigh" route at least as far as Fort Supply -- but would it simply veer west toward Boise City, or would there be an attempt to bring KS into the process to produce a more direct connection to that corridor somewhere near Kit Carson, CO?  It's difficult to see KS acceding to such a proposal, since it wouldn't provide much in the way of benefits to that state besides the income from a few roadside businesses; the costs of such a corridor, unless almost fully borne by other parties outside the state, would likely not be covered by those limited benefits.  Such a connector would almost certainly be an all-OK affair if pursued at all.  Nevertheless, as opined before, that in itself isn't terribly encouraging for the prospects of such a connector unless the current political atmosphere within OK circles shifts back to a building mode -- with an eye toward fulfilling the Nigh concept and providing an upgradable 4-lane OK 3 all the way to Boise City.  With a few strategically-placed bypasses, such an expressway may be a reasonable solution.

[Finrod]

And, yes, I think a OKC-Denver Interstate would be that much better if it extended from OKC to the Texarkana area, where it could connect with I-49. That would create a fairly direct Denver to New Orleans route. As Scott5114 said, the route would indeed be beneficial to Oklahoma. Right now we just have 2-lane OK-3 sort of serving that purpose in SE OK. For Texas traffic coming up from DFW and going to Denver the route up I-35 to this route going straight to Limon would probably be more direct than using US-287.

Would it be enough to upgrade the Indian Nation Turnpike to what it needs to get an interstate shield, then build something new terrain from there due east to connect to I-49 just northeast of the OK-TX-AR point?  Kind of a zig-zag diagonal, but still a diagonal accomplished on the cheap?

[Scott5114]

Simple question:  If the P2P is developed as an Interstate as far north as Limon, what path would a connector from that facility do OKC take?  Chances are it would follow the above-cited "Nigh" route at least as far as Fort Supply -- but would it simply veer west toward Boise City, or would there be an attempt to bring KS into the process to produce a more direct connection to that corridor somewhere near Kit Carson, CO?  It's difficult to see KS acceding to such a proposal, since it wouldn't provide much in the way of benefits to that state besides the income from a few roadside businesses; the costs of such a corridor, unless almost fully borne by other parties outside the state, would likely not be covered by those limited benefits.

A straight diagonal from Fort Supply to Limon would serve nothing much in Kansas, meaning Kansas wouldn't be likely to support it. Cut north at Fort Supply to Dodge City, then over to Garden City, then to Limon, though, and now you might get Kansas's attention. That would serve the two major population centers in southwest Kansas, and tie into the US-54/400 corridor toward Wichita (remember the I-66 idea that caused US-400's creation?) It's less direct, sure, but serves more people.

Would it be enough to upgrade the Indian Nation Turnpike to what it needs to get an interstate shield, then build something new terrain from there due east to connect to I-49 just northeast of the OK-TX-AR point?  Kind of a zig-zag diagonal, but still a diagonal accomplished on the cheap?

Problem is, if you do that, you miss Ada. Ada is a medium-size city that normally wouldn't matter in the scheme of things like this, but it's the Chickasaw capital, which means you can probably get them to throw a few million into the pot if you point the thing at Ada. You'd also get the Chickasaws' political support, which is not nothing. The turnpike package that created the Kilpatrick, Creek, and Cherokee turnpikes was only passed on the condition that Ada was invited to the party too (which is why the two-lane Chickasaw Turnpike exists).

[bwana39]

And, yes, I think a OKC-Denver Interstate would be that much better if it extended from OKC to the Texarkana area, where it could connect with I-49. That would create a fairly direct Denver to New Orleans route. As Scott5114 said, the route would indeed be beneficial to Oklahoma. Right now we just have 2-lane OK-3 sort of serving that purpose in SE OK. For Texas traffic coming up from DFW and going to Denver the route up I-35 to this route going straight to Limon would probably be more direct than using US-287.

Would it be enough to upgrade the Indian Nation Turnpike to what it needs to get an interstate shield, then build something new terrain from there due east to connect to I-49 just northeast of the OK-TX-AR point?  Kind of a zig-zag diagonal, but still a diagonal accomplished on the cheap?

Expanding the volume of traffic on the Indian Nation turnpike would be a positive. This is kind of the problem I see with P2P. You build it and it still doesn't come.