TX: Ports to Plains corridor study

[sparker]

Without outside help, Colorado/CDOT probably wouldn't take any action to upgrade the Ports-to-Plains corridor to a freeway even if the future interstate designation is approved. Generally, the transportation funding situation doesn't have any space for new projects at that scale, and CDOT's also concerned that the future interstate designation would take attention away from other priorities.

When the Ports-to-Plains Alliance asked for a letter a support for the future interstate designation, CDOT returned a sort of letter of lack of opposition after the deadline (pdf link); here's a Colorado news article with some more statements. (There's also some more in the "˜Colorado' general thread here.)

Tangentially, I don't know enough about New Mexico to really comment, but apparently NMDOT did give a letter of support for the future interstate designation. I didn't find a high enough resolution version to read the contents, but it's featured a ways down these Oct 28 PtP slides (presentation on YouTube, starts ~49:47).

As it's part of an existing federally designated high priority corridor (#38), the P-to-P would be eligible for the current maximum 80% federal share.  However, it's perennially been the case that it's that last 20% that's the real project-killer; these days most states have too much on their fund-distribution plate to fork over substantial funds for major projects like new Interstates.  TX has generally been able to identify and allocate funds, but the surrounding states, not so much.  CO has exhibited close to zero interest in such things; even the overutilized and underperforming I-25 corridor, outside of metro Denver, hasn't changed much since its initial construction in the '60's.  Frankly, there's not significant local need for an Interstate facility out in the plains through which US 287 travels; the stated and obvious benefit of such a route would be to (a) facilitate interregional commerce and (b) divert some of the TX-bound/originating traffic away from I-25, potentially allowing a more "leisurely" approach to upgrading that corridor (which in itself would be a decidedly mixed bag considering the local needs in the Springs plus Pueblo).  At this point it sounds like CDOT is taking something of a "diplomatic" approach to actually considering fleshing out their portion of the P-to-P; they likely don't want to be seen as the proverbial "roadblock" to the project, but at the same time development of the corridor would be an activity that hasn't been on their agenda since the completion of the budget-breaking Glenwood Canyon I-70 completion in the late '80's and early '90's.  And in the interim transportation priorities have certainly changed; a rural Interstate with limited in-state direct benefits is almost surely something CDOT will wring their hands over until the facility is literally at their doorstep (assuming OK's short section gets built by hook and/or crook!).  All this being said, in all probability they've got at least a couple of decades before TX builds out their portion -- and the section north of Amarillo may well be down the priority list compared to the sections from Lubbock south to I-10 and the border area -- so CDOT has some breathing room before they need to figure out how to squeeze I-27 into their budget.     

[Rothman]

No, the 20% is not a killer of new interstates.  The federal allocations are too low overall, only allowing for condition preservation projects.

[Bobby5280]

Let's also not forget the sheer cost of building Interstate-quality highways has risen dramatically in recent years. The cost today, even adjusting for inflation, is far higher than it was 30-40 years ago when miles of new Interstate highways were being built at a far faster pace (and with routes that were far more direct).

Even with financial reality taken into consideration, CDOT needs to at least work to reserve and preserve ROW along US-287 in Eastern Colorado for future upgrades. That also means enforcing set-backs on how close properties can be built to the highway -leaving enough room for things like frontage roads to be built.

At the very least, much of US-287 in Eastern CO needs to be upgraded to a 4-lane divided highway, even if it isn't Interstate quality and has at-grade intersections and driveways. With intelligent planning and foresight CDOT could build a 4-lane "trunk" highway that didn't break the bank, but would have future upgrade potential. It's relatively common for standard 4-lane highways to feature short stretches of freeway and do spot replacements of at-grade intersections with freeway exits.

CDOT also needs to be doing some serious work on US-24 between Colorado Springs and Limon, especially the stretch going East of Colorado Springs. It's flat out ridiculous that it's only a 2-lane road going through Falcon and Peyton when new, giant housing additions keep getting added out there. US-24 is dangerous through that stretch.

[sparker]

No, the 20% is not a killer of new interstates.  The federal allocations are too low overall, only allowing for condition preservation projects.

HPC's get their "80 points"; but the point about the yearly allocations being low is largely correct; this has been particularly true since the '07-'11 recession -- there is reticence regarding federal commitment to large-scale projects (and the P-to-P certainly qualifies as such) unless there is a high level of congressional interest that can, despite internal rules against advancement of "pet projects", overcome general reluctance to engage in high levels of expenditure (we're looking at the I-69 project in TX, and to a lesser degree in IN and KY, as a current example).  But generally getting Congress to consistently fund corridors, high priority status notwithstanding, is like pulling teeth!

Let's also not forget the sheer cost of building Interstate-quality highways has risen dramatically in recent years. The cost today, even adjusting for inflation, is far higher than it was 30-40 years ago when miles of new Interstate highways were being built at a far faster pace (and with routes that were far more direct).

Even with financial reality taken into consideration, CDOT needs to at least work to reserve and preserve ROW along US-287 in Eastern Colorado for future upgrades. That also means enforcing set-backs on how close properties can be built to the highway -leaving enough room for things like frontage roads to be built.

At the very least, much of US-287 in Eastern CO needs to be upgraded to a 4-lane divided highway, even if it isn't Interstate quality and has at-grade intersections and driveways. With intelligent planning and foresight CDOT could build a 4-lane "trunk" highway that didn't break the bank, but would have future upgrade potential. It's relatively common for standard 4-lane highways to feature short stretches of freeway and do spot replacements of at-grade intersections with freeway exits.

CDOT also needs to be doing some serious work on US-24 between Colorado Springs and Limon, especially the stretch going East of Colorado Springs. It's flat out ridiculous that it's only a 2-lane road going through Falcon and Peyton when new, giant housing additions keep getting added out there. US-24 is dangerous through that stretch.

Like the parable about how to eat an elephant -- one bite at a time -- constructing the P-to-P in eastern CO would more than likely be done as a series of smaller-scale projects, such as a Springfield bypass, a cutoff that functionally "straightlines" the turn at Kit Carson, upgrades through the US 50 "jog" at Lamar, and a terminating interchange with I-70 near Limon.  Those, and a gradual elimination of private access to the rural portions of the highway via frontage roads and/or "joists" over to intersecting roads would set the stage for an eventual 4-lane freeway.  But ROW preservation should, in reality, begin shortly after any state-supported (or, as is likely in the case of CO, grudgingly accepted) commissioning of a future Interstate along the corridor. 

[-- US 175 --]

A 2021 version of a Ports-to-Plains Corridor bill has been co-authored and co-sponsored by 2 US Congressfolks as well as TX state legislators and another from ND.

The map below is the latest version of the Corridor plan, which shows much more representation to the north, as well as in Canada and Mexico.



https://kkam.com/new-version-of-ports-to-plains-highway-bill-authored-in-congress/
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/reps-arrington-cuellar-introduce-ports-to-plains-highway-act-of-2021/
https://www.amarillo.com/story/news/2020/12/08/ports-plains-benefits-hailed/6498549002/
https://www.amarillo.com/story/opinion/2020/06/17/our-view-i-27-extension-must-be-priority-for-west-texas-and-its-people/113845480/

[sparker]

A 2021 version of a Ports-to-Plains Corridor bill has been co-authored and co-sponsored by 2 US Congressfolks as well as TX state legislators and another from ND.

The map below is the latest version of the Corridor plan, which shows much more representation to the north, as well as in Canada and Mexico.



https://kkam.com/new-version-of-ports-to-plains-highway-bill-authored-in-congress/
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/reps-arrington-cuellar-introduce-ports-to-plains-highway-act-of-2021/
https://www.amarillo.com/story/news/2020/12/08/ports-plains-benefits-hailed/6498549002/
https://www.amarillo.com/story/opinion/2020/06/17/our-view-i-27-extension-must-be-priority-for-west-texas-and-its-people/113845480/

Looks like Montana lobbyists have learned something from Texas corridor planners -- put a branch down every highway in the general vicinity of the corridor just to spread out the corridor concept's purported benefits (and Canadian counterparts don't seem too shy about following suit as well!).  But where the fuck is Raymond? -- that border crossing doesn't seem to register with Rand McNally!  Also, it looks like the extended "Heartland" corridor has been appropriated within this cluster -- guess the Dakotas want a piece of I-27 for themselves!

[kphoger]

But where the fuck is Raymond?

The border crossing is right here, at MT-16/SK-6.  The unincorporated community of Raymond is about nine miles to the south.

[Life in Paradise]

But where the fuck is Raymond?

The border crossing is right here, at MT-16/SK-6.  The unincorporated community of Raymond is about nine miles to the south.

Just did a street view on Raymond (who knew there would be one???).  If someone put up a gas station there, it would double property values.  Basically nothing there except a couple of houses from what I saw.

[CoreySamson]

Ugh, I hate the jaunt out to San Angelo on that map. Either build out I-14 instead (not a great idea) or build I-27 along the US 87 corridor all the way to San Angelo and have a 3di to Midland (vastly preferable).

[Bobby5280]

Midland is a more out of the way location along the Ports to Plains Corridor than San Angelo. The US-87 route hits I-20 in Big Spring. A new US-87 freeway bypass around the West side of Big Spring is in the late stages of construction. There are sketchy plans to have a Southern extension of I-27 from Lubbock divide into two segments and go through both Midland and Big Spring. Basically it would be an I-27W and I-27E approach with the two E/W splits happening in Lamesa and Sterling City.

Midland-Odessa is a big enough metro to justify an Interstate quality connection to Lubbock. If there was no Ports to Plains Corridor initiative it would probably be natural to simply extend I-27 down to Midland and end it there at I-20. The bigger plans have it potentially going thru Big Spring, San Angelo, down to Del Rio, along the Rio Grande to Eagle Pass and then end at Laredo (where it might meet up with an extension of I-2).

I think I-14 has the best hope of any future expansion within the Texas Triangle to the College Station area and Huntsville. Once those segments get built then maybe the corridor could start pushing West toward San Angelo. But there are a lot of other mouths to feed in terms of competing corridors. US-287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo is a major one. US-281 from San Antonio to the North could be a major relief route for I-35. US-82 through the Lake Texoma region is going through major growing pains due to its proximity to DFW.

[sprjus4]

But there are a lot of other mouths to feed in terms of competing corridors. US-287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo is a major one. US-281 from San Antonio to the North could be a major relief route for I-35.

The one thing I-14 has going - the other corridors are fictional. I-14 is a real plan.

[sparker]

But where the fuck is Raymond?

The border crossing is right here, at MT-16/SK-6.  The unincorporated community of Raymond is about nine miles to the south.

Just did a street view on Raymond (who knew there would be one???).  If someone put up a gas station there, it would double property values.  Basically nothing there except a couple of houses from what I saw.

OK fine -- the way the map is (or isn't) set up, it looks like Raymond is on a direct line NNW from Havre, near the Alberta/Saskatchewan line.  Sorry -- my old & decrepit eyes didn't see the slash after Raymond to indicate it was close to the MT 16 crossing; wasn't even looking for it that far east.

Midland is a more out of the way location along the Ports to Plains Corridor than San Angelo. The US-87 route hits I-20 in Big Spring. A new US-87 freeway bypass around the West side of Big Spring is in the late stages of construction. There are sketchy plans to have a Southern extension of I-27 from Lubbock divide into two segments and go through both Midland and Big Spring. Basically it would be an I-27W and I-27E approach with the two E/W splits happening in Lamesa and Sterling City.

Midland-Odessa is a big enough metro to justify an Interstate quality connection to Lubbock. If there was no Ports to Plains Corridor initiative it would probably be natural to simply extend I-27 down to Midland and end it there at I-20. The bigger plans have it potentially going thru Big Spring, San Angelo, down to Del Rio, along the Rio Grande to Eagle Pass and then end at Laredo (where it might meet up with an extension of I-2).

I think I-14 has the best hope of any future expansion within the Texas Triangle to the College Station area and Huntsville. Once those segments get built then maybe the corridor could start pushing West toward San Angelo. But there are a lot of other mouths to feed in terms of competing corridors. US-287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo is a major one. US-281 from San Antonio to the North could be a major relief route for I-35. US-82 through the Lake Texoma region is going through major growing pains due to its proximity to DFW.

I'd rather see (in a reasonably perfect world) I-27 straightline itself via US 87 and Big Spring, I-14 (eventually) use TX 158 from Sterling City to Midland (after a shortish multiplex with I-27 northwest of San Angelo) and Midland-Lamesa along TX 349 as I-227.  But I wouldn't be at all surprised to see these congressional critters come down with suffix fever, with 27E & 27W the choices -- particularly since this corridor is likely to see more short-term activity than anything along I-14 west of Lampasas.   And I fully concur with Bobby that the first section of I-14 to be completed will be from I-35 across the "triangle" to I-45; the backers may well elect to sit on their laurels for a bit before pushing for a West Texas extension, leaving the Permian Basin to the P2P folks for the time being. 

But there are a lot of other mouths to feed in terms of competing corridors. US-287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo is a major one. US-281 from San Antonio to the North could be a major relief route for I-35.

The one thing I-14 has going - the other corridors are fictional. I-14 is a real plan.

Which is why, despite perceived need or warrant, I-14 will happen before anything addressing Austin connectivity sees formalized plans -- there's just no framework in place or in the works for any additional Interstate or even Interstate-grade corridors serving the capital -- toward Houston or elsewhere.   

[abqtraveler]

A 2021 version of a Ports-to-Plains Corridor bill has been co-authored and co-sponsored by 2 US Congressfolks as well as TX state legislators and another from ND.

The map below is the latest version of the Corridor plan, which shows much more representation to the north, as well as in Canada and Mexico.



https://kkam.com/new-version-of-ports-to-plains-highway-bill-authored-in-congress/
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/reps-arrington-cuellar-introduce-ports-to-plains-highway-act-of-2021/
https://www.amarillo.com/story/news/2020/12/08/ports-plains-benefits-hailed/6498549002/
https://www.amarillo.com/story/opinion/2020/06/17/our-view-i-27-extension-must-be-priority-for-west-texas-and-its-people/113845480/

Looks like Montana lobbyists have learned something from Texas corridor planners -- put a branch down every highway in the general vicinity of the corridor just to spread out the corridor concept's purported benefits (and Canadian counterparts don't seem too shy about following suit as well!).  But where the fuck is Raymond? -- that border crossing doesn't seem to register with Rand McNally!  Also, it looks like the extended "Heartland" corridor has been appropriated within this cluster -- guess the Dakotas want a piece of I-27 for themselves!

A couple of thoughts I have on the Ports to Plains Corridor map. 

First, good luck on getting anything built through South Dakota's Black Hills. You're going to get one helluva fight from locals and particularly the Native American tribes who claim the Black Hills are "sacred ground."

Second, I see that the US-64/US-87 corridor between Dalhart, Texas and Raton New Mexico is regarded as a "spur," and the mainline Ports to Plains Corridor follows US-287 and US-385 north from Amarillo, Texas to I-70 at Limon, Colorado. IMO, that makes sense since routing the mainline corridor over 64/87 to I-25 would create a huge bottleneck at Raton Pass, at which there aren't a whole lot of good options to increase roadway capacity to handle the expected increase in traffic. 

[ski-man]

A 2021 version of a Ports-to-Plains Corridor bill has been co-authored and co-sponsored by 2 US Congressfolks as well as TX state legislators and another from ND.

The map below is the latest version of the Corridor plan, which shows much more representation to the north, as well as in Canada and Mexico.



https://kkam.com/new-version-of-ports-to-plains-highway-bill-authored-in-congress/
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/reps-arrington-cuellar-introduce-ports-to-plains-highway-act-of-2021/
https://www.amarillo.com/story/news/2020/12/08/ports-plains-benefits-hailed/6498549002/
https://www.amarillo.com/story/opinion/2020/06/17/our-view-i-27-extension-must-be-priority-for-west-texas-and-its-people/113845480/

Looks like Montana lobbyists have learned something from Texas corridor planners -- put a branch down every highway in the general vicinity of the corridor just to spread out the corridor concept's purported benefits (and Canadian counterparts don't seem too shy about following suit as well!).  But where the fuck is Raymond? -- that border crossing doesn't seem to register with Rand McNally!  Also, it looks like the extended "Heartland" corridor has been appropriated within this cluster -- guess the Dakotas want a piece of I-27 for themselves!

A couple of thoughts I have on the Ports to Plains Corridor map. 

First, good luck on getting anything built through South Dakota's Black Hills. You're going to get one helluva fight from locals and particularly the Native American tribes who claim the Black Hills are "sacred ground."

I think the corridor just up the eastern side of the Black Hills to Rapid City. For most of that route it is already a freeway. May not be to current interstate standards, but is limited access most of the route.

[kphoger]

First, good luck on getting anything built through South Dakota's Black Hills. You're going to get one helluva fight from locals and particularly the Native American tribes who claim the Black Hills are "sacred ground."

I think the corridor just up the eastern side of the Black Hills to Rapid City. For most of that route it is already a freeway. May not be to current interstate standards, but is limited access most of the route.

Correct.  It's already four lanes.

[sparker]

I see that the US-64/US-87 corridor between Dalhart, Texas and Raton New Mexico is regarded as a "spur," and the mainline Ports to Plains Corridor follows US-287 and US-385 north from Amarillo, Texas to I-70 at Limon, Colorado. IMO, that makes sense since routing the mainline corridor over 64/87 to I-25 would create a huge bottleneck at Raton Pass, at which there aren't a whole lot of good options to increase roadway capacity to handle the expected increase in traffic. 

Actually, I'm surprised that one of the options didn't simply turn west near Lamar, CO along US 50 to intersect I-25 at Pueblo -- US 50 at that point is itself a HPC (#48) and parts of it are upgradable expressway.  That would avoid Raton plus place Pueblo and Colorado Springs on the TX-to-Denver route.  But since that doesn't seem to be part of the plan (probably since the Raton "branch" was legislatively authorized back in 2005), the question of whether both the US 287/Limon and the US 87/Raton branches will be constructed as one composite corridor (like the I-69 South Texas branches) or whether Raton will be treated as an individual project.  Regardless, that Raton branch, being primarily E-W, would most appropriately receive an even number from the available pool in the 40's and 50's; it's a bit long for a 3di -- unless "suffix fever" infects that decision as well!

[sprjus4]

I think the corridor just up the eastern side of the Black Hills to Rapid City. For most of that route it is already a freeway. May not be to current interstate standards, but is limited access most of the route.

The SH-79 corridor is 4 lane divided highway, though is not limited access or freeway. Still a number of driveways and intersecting roads along with a couple of towns.

You would have to capture a limited access right of way along the route, construct miles of frontage roads, a number of interchanges and overpasses and probably a couple of short bypasses. The roadway itself would also need to be widened to provide a consistent 10 foot right shoulder and 4 foot left shoulder on both carriageways.

Then there's the issue of Rapid City itself and connecting to I-90. You could probably route the interstate on the existing eastern bypass and upgrade that, it does not seem like much of a task.

[kphoger]

I think the corridor just up the eastern side of the Black Hills to Rapid City. For most of that route it is already a freeway. May not be to current interstate standards, but is limited access most of the route.

The SH-79 corridor is 4 lane divided highway, though is not limited access or freeway. Still a number of driveways and intersecting roads along with a couple of towns.

You would have to capture a limited access right of way along the route, construct miles of frontage roads, a number of interchanges and overpasses and probably a couple of short bypasses. The roadway itself would also need to be widened to provide a consistent 10 foot right shoulder and 4 foot left shoulder on both carriageways.

Then there's the issue of Rapid City itself and connecting to I-90. You could probably route the interstate on the existing eastern bypass and upgrade that, it does not seem like much of a task.

I didn't think the P2P was intended to become a full freeway–just a four-lane divided route.

[Bobby5280]

The one thing I-14 has going - the other corridors are fictional. I-14 is a real plan.

Uh, NO. Not really. The proposed "W" shaped path of I-14 within the Texas triangle is a laugh-riot joke. And then the path out to Midland is sketchy at best.

Meanwhile the Ports to Plains corridor is NOT fictional at all. Planning for that corridor started a long time before the first fantasies of I-14 started to gel.

Actually, I'm surprised that one of the options didn't simply turn west near Lamar, CO along US 50 to intersect I-25 at Pueblo -- US 50 at that point is itself a HPC (#48) and parts of it are upgradable expressway.

Coming up from Amarillo to Lamar and then going due West to Pueblo is a freaking right angle. That hard of a turn would warrant two completely different highway route numbers.

I don't mind them building a limited access route from Amarillo up to Kit Carson and then Limon and I-70 and giving it the I-27 designation. But Lamar to Pueblo as a freeway would only need to be an upgraded US-50.

BTW, even though I travel this route often, I have next to no hope at all of the US-64/87 corridor going from the Texas panhandle to Raton of being upgraded to Interstate standards. I think the current 4-lane divided route between towns is as good as it's going to ever be. I just don't see bypasses being allowed to go around remote towns like Clayton and Capulin.

[sparker]

I think the corridor just up the eastern side of the Black Hills to Rapid City. For most of that route it is already a freeway. May not be to current interstate standards, but is limited access most of the route.

The SH-79 corridor is 4 lane divided highway, though is not limited access or freeway. Still a number of driveways and intersecting roads along with a couple of towns.

You would have to capture a limited access right of way along the route, construct miles of frontage roads, a number of interchanges and overpasses and probably a couple of short bypasses. The roadway itself would also need to be widened to provide a consistent 10 foot right shoulder and 4 foot left shoulder on both carriageways.

Then there's the issue of Rapid City itself and connecting to I-90. You could probably route the interstate on the existing eastern bypass and upgrade that, it does not seem like much of a task.

I didn't think the P2P was intended to become a full freeway–just a four-lane divided route.

From the description of the proposed legislation, it looks like an I-27 designation will be applied; how much of the corridor will fall under Interstate standards is still TBD.  Probably all of the TX mileage; and hopefully at least the portion north to Limon, although there might be localized lobbying for Interstate status for the Raton "branch".  If the overall $$ outlay looks like it might be prohibitive, north of Dumas (TX) possibly only one option, to Raton or to Limon, would include the I-27 appendage legislation (IMO, hopefully the latter).  North of I-70, I have my doubts as to whether any proposed corridor segments would warrant Interstate standards; if I-27 eventually extends from Laredo to Limon, that would be more than enough to expedite commercial traffic between the more populated sections of the Front Range and Texas.  North of there, divided 4-lanes, expressway sections; the Midwest "model" of town bypasses connected by divided 4-lane would be more than sufficient for the principal N-S arteries; 2-lane limited access facilities with decent provision of passing lanes would be appropriate for the other corridor segments. 

[abqtraveler]

I see that the US-64/US-87 corridor between Dalhart, Texas and Raton New Mexico is regarded as a "spur," and the mainline Ports to Plains Corridor follows US-287 and US-385 north from Amarillo, Texas to I-70 at Limon, Colorado. IMO, that makes sense since routing the mainline corridor over 64/87 to I-25 would create a huge bottleneck at Raton Pass, at which there aren't a whole lot of good options to increase roadway capacity to handle the expected increase in traffic. 

Actually, I'm surprised that one of the options didn't simply turn west near Lamar, CO along US 50 to intersect I-25 at Pueblo -- US 50 at that point is itself a HPC (#48) and parts of it are upgradable expressway.  That would avoid Raton plus place Pueblo and Colorado Springs on the TX-to-Denver route.  But since that doesn't seem to be part of the plan (probably since the Raton "branch" was legislatively authorized back in 2005), the question of whether both the US 287/Limon and the US 87/Raton branches will be constructed as one composite corridor (like the I-69 South Texas branches) or whether Raton will be treated as an individual project.  Regardless, that Raton branch, being primarily E-W, would most appropriately receive an even number from the available pool in the 40's and 50's; it's a bit long for a 3di -- unless "suffix fever" infects that decision as well!

I think the 64/87 corridor between Dalhart and Raton would be a good candidate to become Interstate 50, if New Mexico ever comes up with the money to bring its portion of the corridor up to interstate standards.

[CoreySamson]

I think the 64/87 corridor between Dalhart and Raton would be a good candidate to become Interstate 50, if New Mexico ever comes up with the money to bring its portion of the corridor up to interstate standards.

Way too short for an x0. I would number that I-525 instead.

[sparker]

I think the 64/87 corridor between Dalhart and Raton would be a good candidate to become Interstate 50, if New Mexico ever comes up with the money to bring its portion of the corridor up to interstate standards.

Way too short for an x0. I would number that I-525 instead.

Another super-long 3di?  This ain't the US Highway methodology redux.  I agree it's too short for a x0; maybe the I-46 that the southern I-87 should have been to begin with; or possibly I-48 -- or even 52 or 58 (54 & 56 being interfering US routes actually crossing the alignment).  Regardless, Raton-Dumas won't happen overnight; I wouldn't anticipate any developmental action for at least 15-20 years, and a lot can happen during that time.   

[In_Correct]

Meh. Go ahead and name it Interstate 50.

[Bobby5280]

A lot of things have to happen in before any Interstate numbers can be discussed for a Dumas to Raton route. Again, I don't think that route is ever going to become an Interstate-class route. There just isn't enough traffic on it for one thing. If anything, TX DOT and NM DOT need to do more improvements on the existing road.

TX DOT needs to stop dragging its feet in regard to the segment of US-87 between Dumas and Hartley. That needs to be a proper 4-lane divided road. The current 2-lane/3-lane setup stinks. In New Mexico they need to do a lot more upgrade work on road beds between Clayton and Raton. A bunch of it is just asphalt with sub-standard shoulders. It would be nice if it was all concrete super-slab. They've upgraded some spots with concrete main lanes and asphalt shoulders. Anyway they have to do a lot more than that before talk about an Interstate designation can be serious.

Even if the Dumas to Raton segment could be upgraded to a full blown Interstate highway the route would be pretty short for a 2-digit designation. It's certainly not worthy at all of an I-50 designation. It's a toss-up whether it should be given a North-South or East-West designation. Most of the traffic on that route is traveling more North-South to their destinations. I think it would be just as good to give it an "I-27W" designation and have parent route keep its "I-27" name going North of Dumas to Kit Carson and Limon. "I-46" could be another possibility.