TX: Ports to Plains corridor study

[Life in Paradise]

I think it would be smart to build bypasses around towns, but I don't think the entire US-87 north of Amarillo needs to be upgraded to a freeway. There's not enough local traffic turning off and on the highway to justify spending millions upgrading rural parts of the highway into a freeway.

This could be said about any rural stretch of existing Interstate highway in the Western US. Yet those roads (with the exception of certain portions of I-10 and I-40 in West Texas) were made limited access. It has just as much to do with safety and helping traffic move efficiently.

If we built highway segments with fully controlled access only where vehicle counts were deemed high enough to justify it (50,000 or more VPD?) there would be hardly any fully complete Interstate routes in the nation.

It's not just the amount of vehicles using the route, but the kinds of vehicles using it too. There is a lot of heavy trucks on US-287 from Amarillo up to Dumas (and even more from Amarillo down to Fort Worth).

If US-287 North of Amarillo was upgraded at all a bypass around Dumas should certainly be up front on the list of priorities. For all I know TX DOT could choose to upgrade the Amarillo-Dumas segment in linear fashion, working from South to North. Upgrades would be fairly easy. Little, if any, new ROW would have to be acquired. Not every at-grade intersection needs its own highway exit either. They can do like what is being done in far South Texas: building short length frontage roads.

$$$.

There was a dedicated source for interstate highway funding back in the 1950s and 1960s, stretching into the 1970s and 80s to complete the original system.

There's no dedicated funding source nowadays. While the vision may be fully controlled access throughout, that should only come when funding permits and it's warranted. The priority now should be bypasses, 4 lanes divided, and no traffic signals.

That is something that might want to be revisited.  It's important for states to have proper funding to build and maintain their road system priorities, but there will continue to be an overall regional/national transportation need for roads in some states (you could include MS/ARK I-69 or roads that traverse a corner of NM or cut across a sliver of OK) that don't a need for the state, but would be good for transportation as a whole.

[Bobby5280]

With the way rural areas of the country are losing population and certain major metros are growing it will force state DOTs and the FHWA to concentrate funding and other resources on major corridors.

For example, Oklahoma has what seems like a countless number of section line roads and county roads along with its collection of state, US and Interstate highways. The state has several thousand bridge structures. All of that stuff costs a lot of money to maintain. But what's the point of keeping it once a certain locale is almost depopulated? The rail industry has "decommissioned" tens of thousands of miles worth of track and is still ripping out more existing rails than it is installing brand new. The same thing is going to end up happening to a lot of rural roads and bridges.

In the future some of the funding for busier 4-lane highways will come from what's not being spent on so many rural roads and bridges.

Like it or not, more tolls are in the future too. Not just on limited access highways either. Gasoline tax rates aren't covering the costs of road maintenance, much less any new construction. The growing amount of electric vehicle use is doing even more to make gasoline taxes an obsolete concept. If a majority of the driving population switches over to electric vehicles different systems of road funding will be required. We can have toll tag readers installed all over the place (giving the gum'ment more ways to track a person's movements). Or we can be paying an annual use fee just like the property tax bill on a house.

[Henry]

For several decades, Lubbock has been the terminus of I-35, and if the planners had their way, three more 2di's could meet there as well (I-69, I-2 and I-27). As for the I-27E/I-27W split for Big Spring and Midland-Odessa, does anyone really believe that these two branches are warranted? I can see why these two areas want a piece of the pie, but they're nothing like the Metroplex or even the Twin Cities, where I-35E and I-35W serve their respective purposes well. Even if I-27 eventually expands south of Lubbock, will it actually reach Laredo? Again, I'm not so sure what to make of this; maybe I'd be on board if US 90 were upgraded between Van Horn and San Antonio as an accommodation (even if it isn't freeway, then at least four-lane divided).

[ski-man]

For several decades, Lubbock has been the terminus of I-35, and if the planners had their way, three more 2di's could meet there as well (I-69, I-2 and I-27). As for the I-27E/I-27W split for Big Spring and Midland-Odessa, does anyone really believe that these two branches are warranted? I can see why these two areas want a piece of the pie, but they're nothing like the Metroplex or even the Twin Cities, where I-35E and I-35W serve their respective purposes well. Even if I-27 eventually expands south of Lubbock, will it actually reach Laredo? Again, I'm not so sure what to make of this; maybe I'd be on board if US 90 were upgraded between Van Horn and San Antonio as an accommodation (even if it isn't freeway, then at least four-lane divided).

I think you mean Laredo as Terminus of I-35..........

[DJStephens]

For several decades, Lubbock has been the terminus of I-35, and if the planners had their way, three more 2di's could meet there as well (I-69, I-2 and I-27). As for the I-27E/I-27W split for Big Spring and Midland-Odessa, does anyone really believe that these two branches are warranted? I can see why these two areas want a piece of the pie, but they're nothing like the Metroplex or even the Twin Cities, where I-35E and I-35W serve their respective purposes well. Even if I-27 eventually expands south of Lubbock, will it actually reach Laredo? Again, I'm not so sure what to make of this; maybe I'd be on board if US 90 were upgraded between Van Horn and San Antonio as an accommodation (even if it isn't freeway, then at least four-lane divided).

I think you mean Laredo as Terminus of I-35..........

US - 90 is desolate in the western part of the state.   Look up Valentine, TX.  No need for that, or that ridiculous I-14 "pipe dream" extending way out to the west.   They can't even four lane and improve corridors that should have been completely upgraded and modernized.  Decades ago.  Even with all the money they have.   US - 285 N of Pecos as a prime example, of a "throwaway improvment".     Garbage.     

[The Ghostbuster]

US 90 between Van Horn and San Antonio is the only segment of 90 that isn't paralleled by Interstate 10 (or any other Interstate Highway). US 90 theoretically could have been decommissioned between San Antonio and Jacksonville, but the states obviously saw value not to decommission any of 90. If US 90 had been along any other long-distance Interstate corridor, it likely would have been truncated, if not decommissioned.

[Anthony_JK]

US 90 between Van Horn and San Antonio is the only segment of 90 that isn't paralleled by Interstate 10 (or any other Interstate Highway). US 90 theoretically could have been decommissioned between San Antonio and Jacksonville, but the states obviously saw value not to decommission any of 90. If US 90 had been along any other long-distance Interstate corridor, it likely would have been truncated, if not decommissioned.

US 90 between Lafayette and NOLA says "Hello!!" Also, there's US 90 Alternate between Sealy and Houston.

Also...the chances of decommissioning major intercontinential routes ending in "0" happens to be somewhere between slim and none.

[The Ghostbuster]

True, US 90 between Lafayette and New Orleans isn't presently along an Interstate corridor, but it will be in the future. That is why I didn't mention that segment of 90 in my initial post. I agree that the US 90 designation will remain between Van Horn, TX and Jacksonville, FL. If it was going to be truncated, or decommissioned, it would have been done long ago.

[Bobby5280]

As for the I-27E/I-27W split for Big Spring and Midland-Odessa, does anyone really believe that these two branches are warranted? I can see why these two areas want a piece of the pie, but they're nothing like the Metroplex or even the Twin Cities, where I-35E and I-35W serve their respective purposes well.

I can see merits to upgrading the TX-349 corridor between Midland and Lamesa to Interstate standards or at least a 4-lane divided corridor with at-grade intersections. TX-158 between Midland and Sterling City is more difficult to justify upgrading into a super-highway, be it "I-27W" or "I-14." I guess we'll see what happens over the next couple or so decades.

Even if I-27 eventually expands south of Lubbock, will it actually reach Laredo?

I think that depends on a few factors. If much of the violence and corruption in Mexico could be snuffed out the economy there could explode in growth. Lots of manufacturers really want to get the hell out of China. Mexico isn't the best alternative due to too much instability. Of course us Americans and our vices are one reason why Mexico continues to be as dangerous a place to live and do business. If some positive changes took place we could see a whole lot more traffic crossing the border at Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo.

As it stands, there is a lot of population growth along the Front Range in Colorado. That translates into more trucking having to go to/from port cities inland and on the Gulf of Mexico. I-25 isn't the best route for trucks to go South due to Raton Pass and the big swing I-25 takes to the West twisting around to Albuquerque. A completed Ports to Plains Corridor would allow that commerce to avoid the Rockies completely.

[BJ59]

US 90 between Van Horn and San Antonio is the only segment of 90 that isn't paralleled by Interstate 10 (or any other Interstate Highway). US 90 theoretically could have been decommissioned between San Antonio and Jacksonville, but the states obviously saw value not to decommission any of 90. If US 90 had been along any other long-distance Interstate corridor, it likely would have been truncated, if not decommissioned.

US 90 between Lafayette and NOLA says "Hello!!" Also, there's US 90 Alternate between Sealy and Houston.

Also...the chances of decommissioning major intercontinential routes ending in "0" happens to be somewhere between slim and none.

What about US-80? It follows I-20 from Mississippi to the DFW metroplex and suddenly ends at I-30. I'm pretty sure it used to go from Georgia to California but was decommissioned in the west.

[abqtraveler]

US 90 between Van Horn and San Antonio is the only segment of 90 that isn't paralleled by Interstate 10 (or any other Interstate Highway). US 90 theoretically could have been decommissioned between San Antonio and Jacksonville, but the states obviously saw value not to decommission any of 90. If US 90 had been along any other long-distance Interstate corridor, it likely would have been truncated, if not decommissioned.

US 90 between Lafayette and NOLA says "Hello!!" Also, there's US 90 Alternate between Sealy and Houston.

Also...the chances of decommissioning major intercontinential routes ending in "0" happens to be somewhere between slim and none.

What about US-80? It follows I-20 from Mississippi to the DFW metroplex and suddenly ends at I-30. I'm pretty sure it used to go from Georgia to California but was decommissioned in the west.

Yes, US-80 used to continue along I-20 and I-10 west of Dallas to around Lordsburg, NM. At Lordsburg, US-80 turned south and went through the New Mexico Bootheel to the Mexican border at Douglas, AZ, and then curved back northwest to I-10 at Benson, AZ, on what is now NM-80 and AZ-80, respectively. I then followed I-10 to west of Phoenix, where it turned south at Buckeye and followed AZ-85 to I-8 at Gila Bend. From there to San Diego, CA, US-80 was replaced by I-8, being bypassed in some areas and I-8 being built directly over the old road in others.

[TXtoNJ]

US 90 between Van Horn and San Antonio is the only segment of 90 that isn't paralleled by Interstate 10 (or any other Interstate Highway). US 90 theoretically could have been decommissioned between San Antonio and Jacksonville, but the states obviously saw value not to decommission any of 90. If US 90 had been along any other long-distance Interstate corridor, it likely would have been truncated, if not decommissioned.

US 90 between Lafayette and NOLA says "Hello!!" Also, there's US 90 Alternate between Sealy and Houston.

Also...the chances of decommissioning major intercontinential routes ending in "0" happens to be somewhere between slim and none.

What about US-80? It follows I-20 from Mississippi to the DFW metroplex and suddenly ends at I-30. I'm pretty sure it used to go from Georgia to California but was decommissioned in the west.

Not to mention 40 being decommissioned west of SLC. Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.

[Scott5114]

Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.

US-70 doesn't have a parallel interstate in Texas or Oklahoma...

[TXtoNJ]

Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.

US-70 doesn't have a parallel interstate in Texas or Oklahoma...

I'd argue that I-40 does serve that purpose, as it's still the fastest route to LA or Phoenix from Southern Oklahoma, not to mention points eastward. I say "arguably", because in my mind, US x0 routes need to serve major points of interest in multiple states, that are not better served by other routes. Roswell-to-Hot Springs simply isn't a corridor that rises to that level.

[abqtraveler]

Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.

US-70 doesn't have a parallel interstate in Texas or Oklahoma...

Also from the Texas/New Mexico border to Las Cruces, and from Lordsburg to the New Mexico/Arizona border, there is no interstate route US-70 parallels or overlaps.

[rte66man]

Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.

US-70 doesn't have a parallel interstate in Texas or Oklahoma...

I'd argue that I-40 does serve that purpose, as it's still the fastest route to LA or Phoenix from Southern Oklahoma, not to mention points eastward. I say "arguably", because in my mind, US x0 routes need to serve major points of interest in multiple states, that are not better served by other routes. Roswell-to-Hot Springs simply isn't a corridor that rises to that level.

You do realize that US70 is THE main corridor along the Red River in OK. It is also over 100 miles south of I40 so IMO I40 is not a suitable alternative for any trip in the 2 states referenced.

[bwana39]

Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.

US-70 doesn't have a parallel interstate in Texas or Oklahoma...

I'd argue that I-40 does serve that purpose, as it's still the fastest route to LA or Phoenix from Southern Oklahoma, not to mention points eastward. I say "arguably", because in my mind, US x0 routes need to serve major points of interest in multiple states, that are not better served by other routes. Roswell-to-Hot Springs simply isn't a corridor that rises to that level.

You do realize that US70 is THE main corridor along the Red River in OK. It is also over 100 miles south of I40 so IMO I40 is not a suitable alternative for any trip in the 2 states referenced.

From his prospective, we should probably decommission 75% of the US highways period. I will give them, that the coast to coast utility of the X-0 US Highways is long gone for each of them. Just like the rest of the US highways, the utility is almost always as a regional or even local road. If you take the idea most have of 3 digit US Highways and assign that opinion to the 2 digit ones (even the X-0 and X-1's) just the same, it pretty much is the same.   The idea of transcontinental US Highways is pretty much moot in the days of the transcontinental INTERSTATE.  Today, the X-0 and X-1's are absolutely the same as the other two digit AND 3 digit US Highways.

There is one key difference between state and US Highways in most states. All-in-all the RURAL US (Labeled) routes are better maintained, more likely to have more (wider) lanes, and / or shoulders then their state labeled mates; but not ALWAYS.  The argument for keeping the US routes numbered as-is would be the same as the argument that virtually every controlled access freeway should carry an Interstate number that you can ascertain that said route meets a minimum standard for transportation.

[TXtoNJ]

Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.

US-70 doesn't have a parallel interstate in Texas or Oklahoma...

I'd argue that I-40 does serve that purpose, as it's still the fastest route to LA or Phoenix from Southern Oklahoma, not to mention points eastward. I say "arguably", because in my mind, US x0 routes need to serve major points of interest in multiple states, that are not better served by other routes. Roswell-to-Hot Springs simply isn't a corridor that rises to that level.

You do realize that US70 is THE main corridor along the Red River in OK. It is also over 100 miles south of I40 so IMO I40 is not a suitable alternative for any trip in the 2 states referenced.

From his prospective, we should probably decommission 75% of the US highways period. I will give them, that the coast to coast utility of the X-0 US Highways is long gone for each of them. Just like the rest of the US highways, the utility is almost always as a regional or even local road. If you take the idea most have of 3 digit US Highways and assign that opinion to the 2 digit ones (even the X-0 and X-1's) just the same, it pretty much is the same.   The idea of transcontinental US Highways is pretty much moot in the days of the transcontinental INTERSTATE.  Today, the X-0 and X-1's are absolutely the same as the other two digit AND 3 digit US Highways.

There is one key difference between state and US Highways in most states. All-in-all the RURAL US (Labeled) routes are better maintained, more likely to have more (wider) lanes, and / or shoulders then their state labeled mates; but not ALWAYS.  The argument for keeping the US routes numbered as-is would be the same as the argument that virtually every controlled access freeway should carry an Interstate number that you can ascertain that said route meets a minimum standard for transportation.

What he said. The US-X0 and US-X1 routes were designed to indicate the best through routes, and they no longer serve this purpose. You could replace US-70 in southern Oklahoma with OK-70 or US-182, and lose nothing in the way of navigability. In the end, New York proved correct about their route numbering philosophy, which is why (outside of cancelled interstates), those numbers have stood the test of time.

[Sykotyk]

Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.

US-70 doesn't have a parallel interstate in Texas or Oklahoma...

I'd argue that I-40 does serve that purpose, as it's still the fastest route to LA or Phoenix from Southern Oklahoma, not to mention points eastward. I say "arguably", because in my mind, US x0 routes need to serve major points of interest in multiple states, that are not better served by other routes. Roswell-to-Hot Springs simply isn't a corridor that rises to that level.

You do realize that US70 is THE main corridor along the Red River in OK. It is also over 100 miles south of I40 so IMO I40 is not a suitable alternative for any trip in the 2 states referenced.

From his prospective, we should probably decommission 75% of the US highways period. I will give them, that the coast to coast utility of the X-0 US Highways is long gone for each of them. Just like the rest of the US highways, the utility is almost always as a regional or even local road. If you take the idea most have of 3 digit US Highways and assign that opinion to the 2 digit ones (even the X-0 and X-1's) just the same, it pretty much is the same.   The idea of transcontinental US Highways is pretty much moot in the days of the transcontinental INTERSTATE.  Today, the X-0 and X-1's are absolutely the same as the other two digit AND 3 digit US Highways.

There is one key difference between state and US Highways in most states. All-in-all the RURAL US (Labeled) routes are better maintained, more likely to have more (wider) lanes, and / or shoulders then their state labeled mates; but not ALWAYS.  The argument for keeping the US routes numbered as-is would be the same as the argument that virtually every controlled access freeway should carry an Interstate number that you can ascertain that said route meets a minimum standard for transportation.

What he said. The US-X0 and US-X1 routes were designed to indicate the best through routes, and they no longer serve this purpose. You could replace US-70 in southern Oklahoma with OK-70 or US-182, and lose nothing in the way of navigability. In the end, New York proved correct about their route numbering philosophy, which is why (outside of cancelled interstates), those numbers have stood the test of time.

Population densities of NY and OK are vastly different, though.

Out east, most non-interstates aren't even really 'highways' as they've become just major arterial roads. Lots of lights, etc. 'Highways' out west are generally perceived to be wide shoulders, elevated slightly from the terrain when necessary, and wide open between towns. Many with speed limits that rival interstates in the east.

West of the Appalachians, the US routes do still serve a purpose. In the shrunken sized, overpopulated eastern corridor from Boston to Atlanta, it's far less noteworthy to be a US route (though a few in VA and PA hold some prominence such as US22, US29, US460, US 219, etc).


Going back to an early statement about the I-27 E/W split. For through traffic, the most notable route would be following US87 through Big Spring. However, since the route turns southwest to Del Rio and wants to hug the Rio Grande to Laredo, it cuts off the primary route. Which is most would take US87 through Big Spring to San Angelo and follow US83 through Eden and Menard to Junction, and either follow I-10 to I-35 or stay on US83 through Uvalde to Carrizo to I-35 near the TX-255 cutoff.

However, that's not the primary route for local traffic. Odessa/Midland is by far more of a destination, especially in the oil field areas of Texas. And splitting in Lamesa southwest to Midland and then back east.

It makes sense that 27E would serve San Angelo. But it's already going to struggle to keep traffic on the interstate if only the Midland stretch were built. If it were to connect to San Angelo and points south fro there.

If only I-27 from Lamesa to Midland to Garden City to San Angelo to Del Rio were built, many would exit at TX137 to Big Lake and Ozona and get on I-10 there over to I-27 to continue the drive. Or, continue on the older two-lane of US83 and avoid the cities of Del Rio and Eagle Pass.

So, Midland will command more traffic than Big Spring, but through traffic won't follow it. Regardless where it originates. UNLESS it's just Midland to San Angelo traffic. But, then, just a few bypasses should suffice for that route.

[vdeane]

I don't understand why the I-27E/W split needs to exist.  Is I-27W even worth building?  The time difference to get between the US 87/TX 158 split and Midland via TX 158 vs. US 87/I-20 is less than ten minutes.  Just build I-27E, call it I-27, and let the Midland traffic use a bit of I-20 to connect.

[splashflash]

Alternatively just have I-27 for Midland but end further south at I-10.  San Angelo would be served by I -14, eventually.

[US 89]

Not to mention 40 being decommissioned west of SLC. Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.

There is no parallel interstate to US 40 between Salt Lake City and Denver...

[TXtoNJ]

Not to mention 40 being decommissioned west of SLC. Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.

There is no parallel interstate to US 40 between Salt Lake City and Denver...

70 and 80 handle that traffic. Hardly anyone is taking 40 to go between those two cities.

[DJStephens]

For several decades, Lubbock has been the southern terminus of I-27, and if the planners had their way, three more 2di's could meet there as well (I-69, I-2 and I-27). As for the I-27E/I-27W split for Big Spring and Midland-Odessa, does anyone really believe that these two branches are warranted? I can see why these two areas want a piece of the pie, but they're nothing like the Metroplex or even the Twin Cities, where I-35E and I-35W serve their respective purposes well. Even if I-27 eventually expands south of Lubbock, will it actually reach Laredo? Again, I'm not so sure what to make of this; maybe I'd be on board if US 90 were upgraded between Van Horn and San Antonio as an accommodation (even if it isn't freeway, then at least four-lane divided).

Maybe it was the opposite.  Would argue that perhaps there was an "abdication" of state wide corridor planning in the state of Texas.  Just like in New Mexico they took their initial share or dole out of I routes.  Yes there were changes, like the cancellation of the original 27 routing SE to Sweetwater.   Am guessing the US 84 overlay (becoming I-27) was seen at one time as cheap and easy.  But realization came later that N-S demand was elsewhere (meaning farther west).  There was seemingly no planning or foresight for additional mileage, for a long time, where it would have been advantageous and cheaper, back in the day, to do.  At least three decades of hand-sitting, status quo and vacillation.  May four?  Mid seventies onward.  Nor was there additional designation of 3DI loops, where it would have been logical and coherent to do so.  El Paso and San Antonio were perhaps the most glaring examples, where a true beltway for El Paso lay stagnant for decades (the result, and what is there today is flawed), and San Antonio (a large place with extensive military facilities) didn't move on a I grade outer beltway.    Really a head scratcher.   So much money (Rick Perry forward), but so many opportunities and funds squandered.   
Am of belief there is considerable more demand for traffic to head to Odessa / Midland, than Big Spring / San Angelo but more aggressive political heads are pulling for the eastern branch harder.  And there is pre-existing limited access mileage (perhaps 20-25 years old) in San Angelo environs that will be used in said eastern branch.   

[Bobby5280]

The problem with Midland is it's an out of the way point in relation to the overall Ports to Plains Corridor. Big Spring and San Angelo are along the "main line" of sorts on the way to Del Rio.

At the very least TX-349 between Midland and Lamesa should be converted into a divided 4-lane highway. The existing road is 4-laned but not divided. Making the highway divided would improve safety for traffic moving between Midland and Lubbock.

Outside of the I-69 efforts Texas hasn't appeared to do very much for improving important highway corridors in rural areas across the state. Even the I-69 system has been slow-walked a great deal. I think lawmakers have their minds on other issues, ones that attract more attention from cable news networks. Roads are boring to TV networks.

The last serious effort Texas put forth for rural highways was the program that helped 4-lane US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene. That's going back to the 1990's. Even the Ports to Plains Corridor effort is getting pretty old.

Texas has gained a lot of population over the past 20 years. And not just in the Texas Triangle either. I can think of at least half a dozen corridors across Texas that need serious upgrade work.