In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...

[ethanhopkin14]

I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.

What states only have majors? If we're not counting auxiliary, I know Kansas and Delaware are on that list too–is this too off topic? LOL

Wyoming and Rhode Island

Maine. 

If is wasn't for I-76 West sticking itself in for a 2 miles, Nebraska would be on this list. 

[Bobby5280]

I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.

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

[ethanhopkin14]

I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.

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

I love that option better anyway, the one to Limon. 

[Some one]

I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.

On the flipside, North Dakota and Vermont are the only states to have non-major interstate routes (excluding Alaska and Hawaii).

[dvferyance]

I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.

On the flipside, North Dakota and Vermont are the only states to have non-major interstate routes (excluding Alaska and Hawaii).

I-94 doesn't count as major?

[Some one]

I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.

On the flipside, North Dakota and Vermont are the only states to have non-major interstate routes (excluding Alaska and Hawaii).

I-94 doesn't count as major?

Technically no. A major interstate highway is one that ends in 5 or 0. This is why I-45 and I-30, while short, are still considered to be major interstates. Although I-94 is one of the most important "non-major" interstate highways.

[Rothman]

I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.

On the flipside, North Dakota and Vermont are the only states to have non-major interstate routes (excluding Alaska and Hawaii).

I-94 doesn't count as major?

Technically no. A major interstate highway is one that ends in 5 or 0. This is why I-45 and I-30, while short, are still considered to be major interstates. Although I-94 is one of the most important "non-major" interstate highways.

Makes me wonder where that definition is codified.  I think the popular YouTube video going around makes that distinction, but I'd like to see a link from FHWA or AASHTO that makes that distinction.

[Bobby5280]

I don't think there is any official definition for what qualifies as a major or minor Interstate highway. If a bad accident or other serious event happens on any 2-digit Interstate the press is likely to refer to the route as a "major" Interstate highway.

Generally, the one or two digit routes that end in "0" or "5" are legitimately major Interstate highways. Then there are others which either run long distances and/or carry large amounts of traffic. I-94 qualifies as a major Interstate. I think I-81 through Virginia and up into Pennsylvania is a very important route. The same goes for I-44 between St Louis and Oklahoma City.

[US 89]

Makes me wonder where that definition is codified.  I think the popular YouTube video going around makes that distinction, but I'd like to see a link from FHWA or AASHTO that makes that distinction.

I found a FHWA page that makes that distinction... but for US highways, and also clarifies that US 2 should be considered on equal standing with the x0 routes:

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

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

For interstate highway numbering, the only FHWA source I was able to find gives the N/S or E/W distinction:

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

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


EDIT: whoa, this is apparently my 5000th post. I feel old.

[Rothman]

Makes me wonder where that definition is codified.  I think the popular YouTube video going around makes that distinction, but I'd like to see a link from FHWA or AASHTO that makes that distinction.

I found a FHWA page that makes that distinction... but for US highways, and also clarifies that US 2 should be considered on equal standing with the x0 routes:

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

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

For interstate highway numbering, the only FHWA source I was able to find gives the N/S or E/W distinction:

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

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


EDIT: whoa, this is apparently my 5000th post. I feel old.

The Interstate information is all that is pertinent and meets my expectations.

[monty]

UTP projects: TxDOT released the following projects around the High Plains that will benefit from the program:

Widening of US 87 in Hartley and Moore counties;
Construction of the northwestern portion of State Loop (SL) 335 from SW 9th Ave. to FM 1719;
Widening I-27 and interchange improvements on I-27 and SL 335 in Randall County;
Safety improvements on FM 2590 from SL 335 in Amarillo to US 60 in Canyon.
Source: https://www.myhighplains.com/news/local-news/amarillo-roadways-to-benefit-from-billion-dollar-transportation-program/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR2JLm-AHj_WCqJUoh4UM6u36fuNDlr0RVyR4Ynv7TSIufbtE3QG8cumyiU
3 of the 4 support the concept of Ports to Plains.

[Bobby5280]

That widening of US-87 between Dumas and Hartley can't happen too soon. It's one of the highway segments I dislike the most in my drives between Oklahoma and Colorado. I-25 on the South side of Colorado Springs was a real P.I.T.A. in a recent drive.

[sprjus4]

^ Additionally, the widening of that segment of US-87 would complete a continuous 4 lane divided highway for the entire Amarillo to Raton route.

[index]

...Off of the following:
*US-87 from Tahoka to San Angelo (below Lubbock), and from north of Amarillo to Duma and then to either Raton, NM (where it merges to I-25, one way or another)
*TX-349 from Lamesa to near Sterling City
*US-277 from San Angelo to Carrizo Springs
*US-83 from Carrizo Springs to merging into I-35 @ Botines?
NOTE: Expect and pay attention to potential bypasses, 4-lane upgrades, and/or overpass upgrades for any of these US routes


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

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

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

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

Pixel 5

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

Interstates plowing through urban areas, which is what people want gone, and important future regional connectors, wihch is what we're discussing here, aren't the same. They're completely different animals. Nobody's saying get rid of I-80 in Iowa.

[US 89]

Interstates plowing through urban areas, which is what people want gone, and important future regional connectors, wihch is what we're discussing here, aren't the same. They're completely different animals. Nobody's saying get rid of I-80 in Iowa.

I mean... yeah, nobody in any serious position of power or at all close to it is taking that position - but I'm sure there are some fringe groups out there that want to see that because they think it would shift us to using trains more.

[Bobby5280]

The United States is a pathetic, hopeless laughing stock when it comes to building passenger rail infrastructure. I would like it if the US had a credible national passenger rail network; something better than the partial "network" Amtrak provides. But we just can't get it done. Not at standard travel speeds, much less true high speed. We suck.

[The Ghostbuster]

The United States will likely never have a "credible" passenger rail system. I believe the reason rail works better in places like Europe is that the cities are closer together, older and more compact, and the entire continent's society is more homogeneous. The land mass of the lower 48 states and the entirety of Europe are similar in size (The US's land mass is 3,796,742 sq mi; Europe's land mass is 3,930,000 sq mi). I think freight rail has a better future here in the United States than passenger rail does in this country.

[kphoger]

Right.  It's not like the railroads don't exist here.  There just aren't passenger trains on most of them anymore.

[Rothman]

The United States is a pathetic, hopeless laughing stock when it comes to building passenger rail infrastructure. I would like it if the US had a credible national passenger rail network; something better than the partial "network" Amtrak provides. But we just can't get it done. Not at standard travel speeds, much less true high speed. We suck.

Psst.  We have these things called planes.

[vdeane]

The United States will likely never have a "credible" passenger rail system. I believe the reason rail works better in places like Europe is that the cities are closer together, older and more compact, and the entire continent's society is more homogeneous. The land mass of the lower 48 states and the entirety of Europe are similar in size (The US's land mass is 3,796,742 sq mi; Europe's land mass is 3,930,000 sq mi). I think freight rail has a better future here in the United States than passenger rail does in this country.

Less car-friendly cities certainly has something to do with it, but I imagine most of it is in how things are prioritized, both in terms of government infrastructure investment, and in terms of passenger trains getting priority over freight trains in terms of track utilization and dispatching while it's the opposite in the US.

[Some one]

The United States is a pathetic, hopeless laughing stock when it comes to building passenger rail infrastructure. I would like it if the US had a credible national passenger rail network; something better than the partial "network" Amtrak provides. But we just can't get it done. Not at standard travel speeds, much less true high speed. We suck.

Psst.  We have these things called planes.

Psst. We can have more than one means of transportation.

[Some one]

While I think an extensive rail network covering America probably won't happen in a while (or ever), having a regional rail network could work, and the Acela Express and Brightline are good examples of that.

[abqtraveler]

The United States will likely never have a "credible" passenger rail system. I believe the reason rail works better in places like Europe is that the cities are closer together, older and more compact, and the entire continent's society is more homogeneous. The land mass of the lower 48 states and the entirety of Europe are similar in size (The US's land mass is 3,796,742 sq mi; Europe's land mass is 3,930,000 sq mi). I think freight rail has a better future here in the United States than passenger rail does in this country.

Less car-friendly cities certainly has something to do with it, but I imagine most of it is in how things are prioritized, both in terms of government infrastructure investment, and in terms of passenger trains getting priority over freight trains in terms of track utilization and dispatching while it's the opposite in the US.

There are other obstacles to creating a national passenger rail network aside from car-centric infrastructure in the United States. Outside of a few heavily-urbanized regions (e.g., Northeast Corridor, LA-San Francisco, the Texas Triangle, etc.), most of the United States does not have the population density to support a nationwide high-speed rail network. Moreover, high-speed rail can't compete with the speed and efficiency of commercial aircraft for cross-country travel.

High-speed rail would be most suitable for trips in the 300-500 mile range, where it's faster to get from Point A to Point B by car, and faster than air travel due to the time wasted waiting at the terminal for your flight, flying from the originating airport, waiting at a hub airport for your connecting flight, and taking the connecting flight to your destination.

[Alps]

please don't get off topic, no way does the i-27 corridor make any sense for rail

[Bobby5280]

The problem is certain powers that be have fantasies of Americans just using bicycles and trains to get around. That goes right along with the fantasy of New Urbanism.