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

[sparker]

I drove US 287 through eastern Colorado this past spring. It is probably the best 2 lane road I've ever been on. Excellent pavement quality (and a lot of it is concrete, which is not a common sight on a western rural surface street), wide shoulders, center and side rumble strips, great sight lines...

There were a lot of trucks on it, but to be honest based on what I saw I don't even think it needs to be 4 lanes. It could benefit from more passing lanes (and especially from signs giving advance notice of those), and maaaybe 4 lanes might be warranted on the Kit Carson-Limon stretch? But nothing about the road or the traffic on it really screams "interstate worthy"  to me.

It certainly would be useful to have data that broke down truck traffic by (a) origin (b) destination, and (c) route; this is probably "available" from trucking firms, providing they're willing to release their truck logs.  In this case, the obvious comparison would be Amarillo-Denver (or vice-versa) via US 87/I-25 versus US 287/I-70.  Besides the usual data of elapsed time and fuel consumption, a subjective assessment of each route's benefits and drawbacks from driver POV's would go far to see where the folks who will use these corridors set their priorities & preferences.  Would be interesting to see which route garnered the most positive comments (adjusted for amenities, which would definitely skew toward the Raton route!).   

[monty]

There is a lot of truck traffic on US 87 through Dumas and then Dalhart. It would be interesting to see the “split” of northbound truck traffic at Dumas. I’ve witnessed moderate levels of truck traffic on both segments farther north. No good way to measure without some official data.

Similarly, US 54 through Dalhart to Wichita is full of trucks too. It’s just an interesting area (both panhandles and southern KS, eastern NM) that move so much freight ranging from local to medium to long hauls.  All devoid of official interstate routes.

Then there is the tourist traffic that heads to the mountains from Texas. That traffic favors US 87.

[ethanhopkin14]

I drove US 287 through eastern Colorado this past spring. It is probably the best 2 lane road I've ever been on. Excellent pavement quality (and a lot of it is concrete, which is not a common sight on a western rural surface street), wide shoulders, center and side rumble strips, great sight lines...

There were a lot of trucks on it, but to be honest based on what I saw I don't even think it needs to be 4 lanes. It could benefit from more passing lanes (and especially from signs giving advance notice of those), and maaaybe 4 lanes might be warranted on the Kit Carson-Limon stretch? But nothing about the road or the traffic on it really screams "interstate worthy"  to me.

It certainly would be useful to have data that broke down truck traffic by (a) origin (b) destination, and (c) route; this is probably "available" from trucking firms, providing they're willing to release their truck logs.  In this case, the obvious comparison would be Amarillo-Denver (or vice-versa) via US 87/I-25 versus US 287/I-70.  Besides the usual data of elapsed time and fuel consumption, a subjective assessment of each route's benefits and drawbacks from driver POV's would go far to see where the folks who will use these corridors set their priorities & preferences.  Would be interesting to see which route garnered the most positive comments (adjusted for amenities, which would definitely skew toward the Raton route!).

Once again, all of this is really moot.  You are not taking in consideration the truck traffic that originates in Denver and goes to DFW and vice versa.  That traffic probably sticks to the interstates so goes I-70, I-135 to I-35.  If there was a direct route, the truck traffic would triple.  So the ol' 2 lanes are good enough point is out of the question.  Remember when you upgrade a corridor, it's not just an upgrade for the traffic that is currently on it.  It's about funneling all the traffic between City A and City B that spreads to several different corridors because there is not one alpha route. 

[bwana39]

I drove US 287 through eastern Colorado this past spring. It is probably the best 2 lane road I've ever been on. Excellent pavement quality (and a lot of it is concrete, which is not a common sight on a western rural surface street), wide shoulders, center and side rumble strips, great sight lines...

There were a lot of trucks on it, but to be honest based on what I saw I don't even think it needs to be 4 lanes. It could benefit from more passing lanes (and especially from signs giving advance notice of those), and maaaybe 4 lanes might be warranted on the Kit Carson-Limon stretch? But nothing about the road or the traffic on it really screams "interstate worthy"  to me.

It certainly would be useful to have data that broke down truck traffic by (a) origin (b) destination, and (c) route; this is probably "available" from trucking firms, providing they're willing to release their truck logs.  In this case, the obvious comparison would be Amarillo-Denver (or vice-versa) via US 87/I-25 versus US 287/I-70.  Besides the usual data of elapsed time and fuel consumption, a subjective assessment of each route's benefits and drawbacks from driver POV's would go far to see where the folks who will use these corridors set their priorities & preferences.  Would be interesting to see which route garnered the most positive comments (adjusted for amenities, which would definitely skew toward the Raton route!).

Once again, all of this is really moot.  You are not taking in consideration the truck traffic that originates in Denver and goes to DFW and vice versa.  That traffic probably sticks to the interstates so goes I-70, I-135 to I-35.  If there was a direct route, the truck traffic would triple.  So the ol' 2 lanes are good enough point is out of the question.  Remember when you upgrade a corridor, it's not just an upgrade for the traffic that is currently on it.  It's about funneling all the traffic between City A and City B that spreads to several different corridors because there is not one alpha route.

I think there might be some new direct routes From DFW or even OKC to Denver for trucks, but the reason the ones that go the extra 100+ miles and 75 minutes on a clear day and drive through OKC and Wichita is a terminal network that carries them along this route.  I am relative sure the point to point trucks are mostly going through Amarillo already. Have you looked at the trucker rest areas along US-287?

Google calls the first US-287 to Amarillo and the SECOND to go to Abilene on I-20 then head to Amarillo. I-35/135/70 is a distant third.

[sparker]

I drove US 287 through eastern Colorado this past spring. It is probably the best 2 lane road I've ever been on. Excellent pavement quality (and a lot of it is concrete, which is not a common sight on a western rural surface street), wide shoulders, center and side rumble strips, great sight lines...

There were a lot of trucks on it, but to be honest based on what I saw I don't even think it needs to be 4 lanes. It could benefit from more passing lanes (and especially from signs giving advance notice of those), and maaaybe 4 lanes might be warranted on the Kit Carson-Limon stretch? But nothing about the road or the traffic on it really screams "interstate worthy"  to me.

It certainly would be useful to have data that broke down truck traffic by (a) origin (b) destination, and (c) route; this is probably "available" from trucking firms, providing they're willing to release their truck logs.  In this case, the obvious comparison would be Amarillo-Denver (or vice-versa) via US 87/I-25 versus US 287/I-70.  Besides the usual data of elapsed time and fuel consumption, a subjective assessment of each route's benefits and drawbacks from driver POV's would go far to see where the folks who will use these corridors set their priorities & preferences.  Would be interesting to see which route garnered the most positive comments (adjusted for amenities, which would definitely skew toward the Raton route!).

Once again, all of this is really moot.  You are not taking in consideration the truck traffic that originates in Denver and goes to DFW and vice versa.  That traffic probably sticks to the interstates so goes I-70, I-135 to I-35.  If there was a direct route, the truck traffic would triple.  So the ol' 2 lanes are good enough point is out of the question.  Remember when you upgrade a corridor, it's not just an upgrade for the traffic that is currently on it.  It's about funneling all the traffic between City A and City B that spreads to several different corridors because there is not one alpha route. 

OK, sports fans -- I was talking about Amarillo-Denver as end reference points, not the end of the final commercial journey, which could be DFW, San Antonio, Houston, or any other principal TX hub.  While I agree that a Denver-DFW trip would likely, to a dispatcher viewing the road situation as it exists currently, specify the 70/135/35 route as, if not the shortest, the least likely to cause confusion or require schlepping through the middle of small towns.  But that's not what we're talking about here; we're discussing the P2P/I-27 corridor; in this case, the pros and cons of placing the Interstate designation on either the US 87 Raton>Dumas route or the US 287 Limon>Dumas route.  Obviously, if there were a direct Amarillo-DFW Interstate along US 287 that would eliminate the aforementioned "schlepping", it'd be pretty much a "slam dunk" for either P2P option, since it would be shorter and would also eliminate traffic issues in Wichita and OKC.  But that's a separate concern and not presently included in the P2P corridor compendium.  So considering the current Wichita/OKC route as a virtual "third option" just isn't relative to the discussion (not all commercial shipments in this region originate or end in DFW!).  That being said, truck traffic counts -- and personal experience -- indicates that there's one hell of a lot of trucks on 287 from DFW to Amarillo -- and probably not all of them originated from westerly points on I-40.  So the inference is that Amarillo is a "hinge point" for such traffic, providing some validation for the point made in the post directly above (#128) that direct runs between TX points and Denver more often than not go through Amarillo.  And that leaves the remaining question of Raton vs. Limon -- and which would by commercial driver assessment regarding such things as gradients/topology, chokepoints/congestion, and amenities would, in the aggregate, determine preference.  Of course, the chokepoint factor (small towns) would be eliminated with the construction of an Interstate.  Mileage-wise, there's not a lot of difference: 369 miles via the Limon option vs. 379 via Raton Pass.  Of course, you've got 6-7% gradients on Raton that you don't have via the eastern route, which definitely are slow going with a semi.  Both routes have the potential to be problematic in winter to the point of occasional closure (it would be nice to build out both options, but that wouldn't be fiscally or politically feasible).  As far as amenities go -- at under 400 miles, it's probably a single-day trip for a trucker, so the salient feature here is food -- and anything involving an existing Interstate going through populated areas certainly has the edge in that department!  But the presence of an open-plains Interstate-grade facility would, under conditions not involving blizzards, generally make for a faster run between those two points (and some level of on-road amenities would probably follow in short order).  But it still would, IMO, be a useful idea to get some sort of comparative feedback from drivers -- preferably who have utilized both alternatives.   

[Bobby5280]

Need break that stuff up into separate paragraphs. And maybe word it a little less like some contract drawn up by a team of attorneys.

Anyway, the Southern Great Plains is a common nexus criss-crossing zone for traffic originating from all over the US heading to other points across the country. However, the bulk of that traffic likes sticking to the Interstates whenever possible. It's due to the faster, far less interrupted flow of traffic, far fewer speed zones, perceived greater level of driving safety and a much greater number of services along such highways. I know people who have driven from my part of Oklahoma to Denver by way of Salina, KS just to stay 100% on Interstates. I think it's a giant waste of fuel and time going that route, but I get why they do it.

US-287 in SE CO is sparsely traveled by both commercial and personal vehicles because it lacks all the advantages I mentioned about Interstate corridors. It's out in the boonies and there's hardly any services out there. It may be a nicer 2-lane facility now, but it's still a 2-lane road and grisly, fatal head-on collisions are still easily possible (especially in that area North of Boise City transitioning over the caprock). There are speed zones and speed traps in some spots. To top it off, the cattle processing plants and feed lots North of Dumas going into Oklahoma are not pleasant at all to drive past. An Interstate-class highway wouldn't improve the smell situation any, but it might help a driver move past that location faster.

If the Ports to Plains Corridor was fully built-out into at least a 4-lane divided expressway, if not built up to full Interstate standards, it would attract a lot more commercial traffic. It could take a little longer for personal vehicle traffic counts to grow since some of that depends up the uptake and growth of service businesses along the corridor.

Even if the P2P is fully built-out, I think another route, a diagonal one, needs to piggy-back off of it starting in Kit Carson, continuing the diagonal that starts outside of Denver down to OKC and then down to Texarkana. Such a route would be beneficial to traffic moving between the Northwest to the Deep South. And it's far enough away from US-287 in Texas not to be in competition. Interstate corridors West of the Mississippi River are very spread out compared to those East of it.

I think it's strange how there are more diagonal freight rail routes crossing SE CO, SW KS and the panhandles of TX and OK while much of the highway network out there is on a dopey, very inefficient N-S-E-W grid.

[ztonyg]

I always wondered by Denver - Dallas wasn't a higher priority corridor. US 287 between the two metro areas really should be an interstate. If Denver - Omaha can get a diagonal interstate connection (I know it's shorter) but Denver - Dallas should as well.

I'd even be fine ending the Denver - Dallas interstate in Raton.

[sparker]

Need break that stuff up into separate paragraphs. And maybe word it a little less like some contract drawn up by a team of attorneys.

Anyway, the Southern Great Plains is a common nexus criss-crossing zone for traffic originating from all over the US heading to other points across the country. However, the bulk of that traffic likes sticking to the Interstates whenever possible. It's due to the faster, far less interrupted flow of traffic, far fewer speed zones, perceived greater level of driving safety and a much greater number of services along such highways. I know people who have driven from my part of Oklahoma to Denver by way of Salina, KS just to stay 100% on Interstates. I think it's a giant waste of fuel and time going that route, but I get why they do it.

US-287 in SE CO is sparsely traveled by both commercial and personal vehicles because it lacks all the advantages I mentioned about Interstate corridors. It's out in the boonies and there's hardly any services out there. It may be a nicer 2-lane facility now, but it's still a 2-lane road and grisly, fatal head-on collisions are still easily possible (especially in that area North of Boise City transitioning over the caprock). There are speed zones and speed traps in some spots. To top it off, the cattle processing plants and feed lots North of Dumas going into Oklahoma are not pleasant at all to drive past. An Interstate-class highway wouldn't improve the smell situation any, but it might help a driver move past that location faster.

If the Ports to Plains Corridor was fully built-out into at least a 4-lane divided expressway, if not built up to full Interstate standards, it would attract a lot more commercial traffic. It could take a little longer for personal vehicle traffic counts to grow since some of that depends up the uptake and growth of service businesses along the corridor.

Even if the P2P is fully built-out, I think another route, a diagonal one, needs to piggy-back off of it starting in Kit Carson, continuing the diagonal that starts outside of Denver down to OKC and then down to Texarkana. Such a route would be beneficial to traffic moving between the Northwest to the Deep South. And it's far enough away from US-287 in Texas not to be in competition. Interstate corridors West of the Mississippi River are very spread out compared to those East of it.

I think it's strange how there are more diagonal freight rail routes crossing SE CO, SW KS and the panhandles of TX and OK while much of the highway network out there is on a dopey, very inefficient N-S-E-W grid.

I always wondered by Denver - Dallas wasn't a higher priority corridor. US 287 between the two metro areas really should be an interstate. If Denver - Omaha can get a diagonal interstate connection (I know it's shorter) but Denver - Dallas should as well.

I'd even be fine ending the Denver - Dallas interstate in Raton.

I tend to write more like an academic than an attorney (I was married to one, so that style is familiar).  Nevertheless, the point about the paragraphs is noted; I normally write these things in between doing other things so I simply "thought-stream", and it comes out that way.

But back to the point at hand -- you've touted a diagonal Denver (via Limon/Kit Carson) to OKC diagonal for some time now despite (or because) of a lack of facilities that presently could be used at least in part for such.  The regional rail/road diagonals you site skew to the opposite bias (NE-SW) due to the historic desire to access lower-elevation crossings of the Continental Divide than found in CO.  But if the P2P eventually is located along the 287 corridor, such a NW>SE diagonal could be useful.  The problem, as per usual these days, is finding multi-state support for such a concept; the P2P at least has been around since the '90's, so it's a known quantity to the jurisdictions it traverses. 

That may pose a problem for the parties in CO and KS who would have to back -- or at least sign off -- on the corridor concept.  There may be few perceived benefits to those states for the type of direct route described here; even slightly diverting it to the one potential point of general/tourist interest in SW KS, Dodge City, may not, in these times (46 years after "Gunsmoke" went off the air), provide that much of a fiscal incentive.   Just can't see KS and CO joining such a proposal; a cost/benefit calculus would likely close that door rather quickly.

Perhaps a "striking while the iron is hot" proposal within a single state --OK -- might have a better chance at success -- provided the P2P does follow US 287.  It might not be a perfect diagonal as such, but something basically following OK 3 from Boise City to OKC at least would have the effect of cutting off quite a few miles than the "right-angle" choices currently centered at Salina, KS and Amarillo.  And since OK's congressional delegation just got their US 412-based Interstate corridor approved, they might, with a little prompting from interested parties, be open (in conjunction with ODOT, of course) to designating such a corridor as an adjunct to the P2P.  And being OK, there probably will be "to toll or not to toll" discussions!

As far as taking the corridor all the way to the southeast corner of the state, if it were me I wouldn't push the issue that far right away; just have proposals ready at hand once the NW quadrant initial project is under way.
Any further discussion should be transferred to Fictional; maybe a dedicated thread for the whole thing would be appropriate.

And the dopey grid pattern of roads can be laid at the feet of both rail and settlement land grants back in the 19th century.  North of the Arkansas River much of that is straight N-S/E-W; the diagonal cant in the SW portion of the state can be attributed to the grandiose RR plans about that same time, with many of the "granger" RR lines of the Midwest and prairie states had ambitions to reach the West Coast (some via Mexico!); and the higher reaches of the Rockies stood in their way, so southwest they went.  Except for the Santa Fe, none of them even made it to within shouting distance of the Continental Divide, instead opting to terminate at junctions where they could transfer cars and cargo to those lines that did cross the mountains. 

As far as the prospects for the Raton P2P option, the last several posts in this thread have amply hashed that out; just go back and have a second look.       

[Bobby5280]

I always wondered by Denver - Dallas wasn't a higher priority corridor. US 287 between the two metro areas really should be an interstate. If Denver - Omaha can get a diagonal interstate connection (I know it's shorter) but Denver - Dallas should as well.

The leg of US-287 going NW out of the DFW metro up to Amarillo serves much more than being a merely a Dallas-Denver route. It's the fastest way for highway traffic going out of DFW to reach locations like Albuquerque, Flagstaff, Las Vegas or various points in Central and Northern California. That's in addition to locations along the Front Range in Colorado or points farther Northwest. Considering the enormous size of the DFW metro and rapid growth there still taking place, I think it's really stupid that US-287 is not fully a 100% Interstate-class facility between Amarillo and Fort Worth. That nonsense needs to change. In some respects I think that stretch of US-287 should be a higher priority than most of the I-69 projects happening elsewhere in Texas. It's that important.

Going North of Amarillo the upgrades to US-287 get more tricky for various reasons explained earlier. I think it's worth it for US-287 to be a limited access, Interstate-quality (if not Interstate-named) route from Amarillo up to Limon. I personally use the Dumas to Raton leg every time I drive from Oklahoma up to Colorado Springs to see family up there. I wouldn't mind that being an Interstate route the whole way. But I know how New Mexico is with roads. At this point, I'm just thankful US-64/87 is a four lane divided road. I was a real P.I.T.A. to use when it was just a 2-lane facility.

But back to the point at hand -- you've touted a diagonal Denver (via Limon/Kit Carson) to OKC diagonal for some time now despite (or because) of a lack of facilities that presently could be used at least in part for such.  The regional rail/road diagonals you site skew to the opposite bias (NE-SW) due to the historic desire to access lower-elevation crossings of the Continental Divide than found in CO.  But if the P2P eventually is located along the 287 corridor, such a NW>SE diagonal could be useful.  The problem, as per usual these days, is finding multi-state support for such a concept; the P2P at least has been around since the '90's, so it's a known quantity to the jurisdictions it traverses.

The Ports to Plains Corridor and the diagonal one I've mentioned do not serve the same traffic movement purposes. Both can co-exist and even complement each other. I think the Amarillo to Limon extension of I-27 should get established first. This other diagonal to OKC can build off of that.

Regarding the rail routes out there, yes, those were established from old US population migration patterns where most Americans were in the Northeast states and migrating to the Southwest toward California. Some of those patterns have changed. The highway grid out there was laid out more to divide up plots of farm land than move cross country traffic efficiently.

In recent decades certain metros in the Northwest, such as Seattle, Portland and Salt Lake City, have grown dramatically. Lately Boise is growing rapidly. Colorado cities along the Front Range are booming with growth. Meanwhile there has also been a great deal of population migration and growth taking place in Texas and across the Deep South. America's highway network has done very little to adjust to those growth patterns. You literally have to go well East of the Mississippi River to find NW to SE diagonal routes covering any significant distances.

Kansas could gain come real benefits from a diagonal Interstate directly linking Denver and OKC. Anyone in Garden City, Dodge City or Wichita driving to Denver is for the most part stuck driving a checkerboard grid of some choice to get there -or just drive clear to Pueblo and then hang a hard right. A diagonal route from Kit Carson to Garden City (and then down to Woodward, OK) would shave a good bit of time/mileage off that route. The real point for such a route is the longer distance links, such as Denver to Memphis. With the diagonal extended from OKC to Texarkana, a faster Denver to New Orleans route would be possible (via I-49).

[sparker]

I always wondered by Denver - Dallas wasn't a higher priority corridor. US 287 between the two metro areas really should be an interstate. If Denver - Omaha can get a diagonal interstate connection (I know it's shorter) but Denver - Dallas should as well.

The leg of US-287 going NW out of the DFW metro up to Amarillo serves much more than being a merely a Dallas-Denver route. It's the fastest way for highway traffic going out of DFW to reach locations like Albuquerque, Flagstaff, Las Vegas or various points in Central and Northern California. That's in addition to locations along the Front Range in Colorado or points farther Northwest. Considering the enormous size of the DFW metro and rapid growth there still taking place, I think it's really stupid that US-287 is not fully a 100% Interstate-class facility between Amarillo and Fort Worth. That nonsense needs to change. In some respects I think that stretch of US-287 should be a higher priority than most of the I-69 projects happening elsewhere in Texas. It's that important.

Going North of Amarillo the upgrades to US-287 get more tricky for various reasons explained earlier. I think it's worth it for US-287 to be a limited access, Interstate-quality (if not Interstate-named) route from Amarillo up to Limon. I personally use the Dumas to Raton leg every time I drive from Oklahoma up to Colorado Springs to see family up there. I wouldn't mind that being an Interstate route the whole way. But I know how New Mexico is with roads. At this point, I'm just thankful US-64/87 is a four lane divided road. I was a real P.I.T.A. to use when it was just a 2-lane facility.

But back to the point at hand -- you've touted a diagonal Denver (via Limon/Kit Carson) to OKC diagonal for some time now despite (or because) of a lack of facilities that presently could be used at least in part for such.  The regional rail/road diagonals you site skew to the opposite bias (NE-SW) due to the historic desire to access lower-elevation crossings of the Continental Divide than found in CO.  But if the P2P eventually is located along the 287 corridor, such a NW>SE diagonal could be useful.  The problem, as per usual these days, is finding multi-state support for such a concept; the P2P at least has been around since the '90's, so it's a known quantity to the jurisdictions it traverses.

The Ports to Plains Corridor and the diagonal one I've mentioned do not serve the same traffic movement purposes. Both can co-exist and even complement each other. I think the Amarillo to Limon extension of I-27 should get established first. This other diagonal to OKC can build off of that.

Regarding the rail routes out there, yes, those were established from old US population migration patterns where most Americans were in the Northeast states and migrating to the Southwest toward California. Some of those patterns have changed. The highway grid out there was laid out more to divide up plots of farm land than move cross country traffic efficiently.

In recent decades certain metros in the Northwest, such as Seattle, Portland and Salt Lake City, have grown dramatically. Lately Boise is growing rapidly. Colorado cities along the Front Range are booming with growth. Meanwhile there has also been a great deal of population migration and growth taking place in Texas and across the Deep South. America's highway network has done very little to adjust to those growth patterns. You literally have to go well East of the Mississippi River to find NW to SE diagonal routes covering any significant distances.

Kansas could gain come real benefits from a diagonal Interstate directly linking Denver and OKC. Anyone in Garden City, Dodge City or Wichita driving to Denver is for the most part stuck driving a checkerboard grid of some choice to get there -or just drive clear to Pueblo and then hang a hard right. A diagonal route from Kit Carson to Garden City (and then down to Woodward, OK) would shave a good bit of time/mileage off that route. The real point for such a route is the longer distance links, such as Denver to Memphis. With the diagonal extended from OKC to Texarkana, a faster Denver to New Orleans route would be possible (via I-49).

Hey, if all three states involved in a direct (or, if routed via Dodge City, quasi-direct) route from somewhere around Kit Carson down to OKC would be willing to fund and construct such a route, then more power to the corridor's backers.  Of course, as I've posited in more than a few posts, the first step is to assemble some sort of "task force" to convince the states and their DOT's and their congressional delegations that the corridor is necessary.  Waiting until plans for P2P are finalized is probably a good approach, especially since the NW end of such a corridor would essentially "piggyback" on that route.  Then get the various congressional delegations to get it designated as a HPC with a future Interstate addendum; and subsequently insert it into the next USDOT yearly outlay bill.  And you've got the corridor at least on the books.   Then comes the fun part -- scrabbling for funding each FY until it's fully let.

The sole reason I earlier suggested an all-OK alignment goes directly to avoiding having to deal with multiple jurisdictions and multiple delegations; only one unit of each needs to be convinced.  But something like that is always there as "plan B" if the optimal diagonal/multi-state corridor falters for one reason or another. 

[Bobby5280]

I don't see much value in an all-OK alignment for a diagonal OKC-Denver route. I assume you're implying a route that goes up to Woodward and then across to Boise City to connect to US-287, correct? The goal should be shaving off as many right/left angles as possible. Otherwise the resulting route would provide very little benefit to the highway network. Sending the route clear over to Boise City confines the route to more grid nonsense. The big picture image I see for such a route is like flipping the I-44 corridor 180 degrees. The I-44 corridor isn't polluted with a lot of right angles.

From the Woodward location the route needs to be turning NNE up into Kansas -and doing so pretty much all new-terrain route. It would skirt the South side of Garden City before heading up to Kit Carson to dove-tail into an extended I-27.

I think Dodge City is a little too far East to be included in such a route. It would be better for US-50 to be upgraded between Dodge City and Garden City from a 2-lane road to divided 4-lane.

[US 89]

If you're already going through Garden City and Woodward, working simply from straight-line distance it only adds 10 miles to route your new highway through Dodge City. That is short enough that it should deserve to be on this new route given their population (also note that Dodge is bigger than Garden City).

That said though, I'm not sure any highway construction on that scale is necessary. Looking at Google, the Denver-Dallas driver has several routes to choose from:

- 70-135-35 (all-interstate, via Salina/OKC): 12h 2m, 881 miles
- 25-87-287 (almost all 4 lane, via Raton/Amarillo): 11h 37m, 799 miles
- 70-287 (lots of 2 lane, via Lamar/Boise City): 12h 0m, 787 miles
- 70-283-400-K34-183-270-40-35 (lots of 2 lane, via Dodge City/Woodward/OKC): 12h 30m, 847 miles

These lower-quality, more direct routes really don't shave that much mileage off. The all-interstate route here gets you an average speed of 1.22 miles every minute (that's about 73 mph). So even if you upgrade 287 to full freeway between Limon and Amarillo, assuming that same average speed it will still take you 10h 45m to make the full Denver-Dallas drive.

I have driven most of 287 from Amarillo to Limon, including the entire portion in Colorado. It has a fair amount of truck traffic, but really the vast majority of time you lose on that road is getting stuck in towns. Some more 4-lane sections, interchanges at some of the busier intersections, and bypasses of some of the bigger towns (like what Boise City already has) would go a long way towards improving travel times and safety while also being considerably cheaper. Besides, Colorado has bigger fish to fry - US 24 from the Springs to Limon and US 287 from Wyoming to Fort Collins deserve some 4-lane improvements long before anything major happens with 287 south of Lamar.

A diagonal freeway through Woodward with the purpose of serving Denver-OKC traffic is nonsense. Depending on how you route it (do you minimize new freeway construction? do you include Garden City? etc), the mileage savings are somewhere between 30 and 60 miles. For comparison, I-70 was constructed because it saved over 200 miles on the Denver-Los Angeles drive.

[sprjus4]

And from a cost standpoint, the comparisons to I-44 are moot given I-44 serves major population centers between Oklahoma City and St. Louis. A western equivalent would serve a lot of... nothing.

[TXtoNJ]

I always wondered by Denver - Dallas wasn't a higher priority corridor. US 287 between the two metro areas really should be an interstate. If Denver - Omaha can get a diagonal interstate connection (I know it's shorter) but Denver - Dallas should as well.

I'd even be fine ending the Denver - Dallas interstate in Raton.

Logistics is everything here, and there are a lot of factors deemphasizing a Denver-Dallas route (because ultimately, Dallas would only be a logistical stop between Denver and the major ports at Houston and New Orleans.)

Because Denver is equidistant from both Houston and LA, and is on the route between LA and Chicago, most of its O-D traffic goes to the west coast. Likewise, LA doesn't have to worry about Panamax size constraints, so sending container trucks there is much more economical than sending them to the Port of Houston. Finally, there are much laxer size restrictions to the west of Denver than there are to the east, again increasing cost-effectiveness per shipment.

Remember - it's not Denver and Omaha that get a diagonal connection: it's Denver and Chicago that do, and after the construction of I-70 into Utah, Los Angeles and Chicago. I-80S/I-76 have been in the plan from the beginning because Chicago is the shortest and least expensive route to the Atlantic from Denver, through the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence.

[DJStephens]

If by (unfortunate) chance a decision is made to shunt I-27 over the Dumas-Raton section of US 87 instead of north along US 287 into OK and CO, it's unlikely that the twinned section of the existing route in NM would be utilized as the basis for the alignment; it would have to be completely rebuilt, with bypasses as required, or replaced with a parallel new-terrain alignment (I'd venture to guess the former, simply to save as much as possible on ROW).

First, I think it's quite unlikely an extension of I-27 would be built thru Northern New Mexico via Clayton to Raton. As long as individual states are left doing most of the heavy lifting on highway improvement efforts while the federal government tries its best to remain AWOL the state of New Mexico will be free to maintain its standard of sub-standard philosophy on highways.

Hypothetically, if an I-27 extension were built to meet I-25 in Raton it would not be necessary at to build a new terrain, parallel route. Such a thing would be pretty wasteful (not to mention more costly to maintain afterward). Bypasses would be required for towns like Clayton. But in between towns the existing highway could be improved in chunks, 2 lanes at a time. It would still require serious improvements to grading and entirely new road surfaces (such as real concrete super-slab), along with proper shoulders, medians, cable barriers, landscape maintenance, etc. Nevertheless, much of an Interstate quality upgrade could be built over the current highway foot print.

Unfortunately, the overall effect would be to dump traffic onto I-25 over Raton Pass and up through Pueblo and the Springs on a woefully inadequate (for the existing traffic load, no less) facility.  Hopefully, more rational heads will prevail and select the US 287 pathway despite the need for new alignment for most of its length.

An I-27 extension up thru Lamar and Kit Carson to Limon might be easier to build with New Mexico removed from that situation. It would require more miles of new Interstate, but the road goes through a lot of sparsely populated area on a currently under-utilized corridor. I'm sure truckers would like such a route with not having to go over Raton Pass. On the other hand, weather in the Panhandles and SE Colorado can get pretty hairy year-round. In the warm months very severe storms are a big threat, especially to high profile vehicles like trucks. From late October to late March (or even April) blizzards can be a problem.

The US 64 - 87 "four laning" in NM was done fairly recently.  Believe during the Richardson Administration, in the mid to late 00's.  After the departure of Johnson and Rahn, but low standards were carried over.  It could have (notice emphasis on could have) been built to a much higher standard, in anticipation of possible P2P inclusion.  The concept of P2P existed then, yet the NM department chose a "cheapie" build.  It could have, and should have been built to a higher standard.   The route rises as one travels to the WNW, towards I-25, and then turns N along 25 to reach Raton Pass.  Why there would be a desire to encourage long distance freight, to choose that substandard route, when there is a better alternative E, (US - 287) is beyond my comprehension.   

[Scott5114]

I think it's a little silly that the justification for I-11 is that it was necessary to link two large adjacent cities (Phoenix and Las Vegas) without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet Denver and Oklahoma City are two large, adjacent cities without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet we're told it's not needed to have one, despite the fact that both Denver and Oklahoma City are larger than Las Vegas.

[hotdogPi]

I think it's a little silly that the justification for I-11 is that it was necessary to link two large adjacent cities (Phoenix and Las Vegas) without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet Denver and Oklahoma City are two large, adjacent cities without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet we're told it's not needed to have one, despite the fact that both Denver and Oklahoma City are larger than Las Vegas.

The all-freeway route between Phoenix and Las Vegas is worse than a right angle.

[Bobby5280]

If you're already going through Garden City and Woodward, working simply from straight-line distance it only adds 10 miles to route your new highway through Dodge City.

Measuring routes out in Google Earth the numbers look like this:

From OKC to Limon using I-35, I-135 and I-70 it's 573 miles.
That's from the I-44/I-35/Kilpatrick junction in OKC to the US-287/I-70 junction.

From OKC to Limon using OK-3 & US-287 via Boise City it's 526 miles.
That's from the NW Corner of the Kilpatrick to the Limon US-287/I-70 junction.

My diagonal route idea from OKC to Limon is 436 miles.
That's starting from the NW corner of the Kilpatrick,
going via Woodward, skirting South of Garden City to Kit Carson.

Garden City to Kit Carson is 157 miles using existing roads:
US-83 to Scott City, KS-96/CO-96 to Eads, US-287 to Kit Carson.

A straight diagonal from Kit Carson to Garden City is 114 miles. That's significantly more than a 10 mile savings.

And from a cost standpoint, the comparisons to I-44 are moot given I-44 serves major population centers between Oklahoma City and St. Louis. A western equivalent would serve a lot of... nothing.

By that standard we might as well rip out all the Interstates in the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc since they're traversing areas of a whole lot of nothing. But those Interstates rightfully exist because they are serving a much bigger picture interest of an overall super highway network. They're linking major destinations over long distances. A diagonal route directly linking the Denver area to the INTERSTATE HUB in Oklahoma City would be beneficial to the overall highway network. Pushing the diagonal THRU the OKC area down to the Texarkana area would be even better still. It's highway hubs directly linking other highway hubs. There would be a relatively straight shot from Denver to New Orleans.

The US 64 - 87 "four laning" in NM was done fairly recently.  Believe during the Richardson Administration, in the mid to late 00's.  After the departure of Johnson and Rahn, but low standards were carried over.  It could have (notice emphasis on could have) been built to a much higher standard, in anticipation of possible P2P inclusion.  The concept of P2P existed then, yet the NM department chose a "cheapie" build.  It could have, and should have been built to a higher standard.   The route rises as one travels to the WNW, towards I-25, and then turns N along 25 to reach Raton Pass.  Why there would be a desire to encourage long distance freight, to choose that substandard route, when there is a better alternative E, (US - 287) is beyond my comprehension.

The Clayton-Capulin-Raton stretch of US-64/87 is definitely a lot more scenic than US-287 in SE Colorado. And it's less smelly too! -they closed that feed lot in Clayton umpteen years ago.

Raton Pass is a big obstacle for commercial trucks. Why funnel more of that kind of traffic through there? I do see the potential for tourism-related traffic to continue growing along that route. The surfaces of the main lanes and shoulders really need improvement regardless if US-64/87 is ever brought up to Interstate standards. I just can't see that happening though. Towns along the way like Texline, Clayton and Capulin might fight like hell to keep from being bypassed even though the service businesses at those stops could re-locate to the bypasses. Local businesses dependent on travelers might get hurt pretty bad by it though, unless the state or feds helped them relocate alongside to the new highway.

The all-freeway route between Phoenix and Las Vegas is worse than a right angle.

The version of I-11 currently proposed doesn't even go to Phoenix. It's more like Las Vegas to 30 freaking miles West of #$!&king Buckeye! At this rate, I won't be surprised by hearing proposals of a Vegas to Phoenix route by way a Blythe! Right angles are no longer in distance than diagonals to some people.

[TXtoNJ]

I think it's a little silly that the justification for I-11 is that it was necessary to link two large adjacent cities (Phoenix and Las Vegas) without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet Denver and Oklahoma City are two large, adjacent cities without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet we're told it's not needed to have one, despite the fact that both Denver and Oklahoma City are larger than Las Vegas.

The all-freeway route between Phoenix and Las Vegas is worse than a right angle.

Not to mention I-11 will be the best truck route between the Bay Area (and points north) and the interior of Mexico.

[splashflash]

The all-freeway route between Phoenix and Las Vegas is worse than a right angle.

The version of I-11 currently proposed doesn't even go to Phoenix. It's more like Las Vegas to 30 freaking miles West of #$!&king Buckeye! At this rate, I won't be surprised by hearing proposals of a Vegas to Phoenix route by way a Blythe! Right angles are no longer in distance than diagonals to some people.
[/quote]

Once SR 30 gets built and links to SR 85, I-11 could overlay that route to the middle of Phoenix.  It won't go through even Wickenburg now, but feeder routes link all over.

[splashflash]

[ the INTERSTATE HUB in Oklahoma City would be beneficial to the overall highway network. Pushing the diagonal THRU the OKC area down to the Texarkana area would be even better still. It's highway hubs directly linking other highway hubs. There would be a relatively straight shot from Denver to New Orleans.

Why not Tulsa?  The Indian Nation Turnpike is ready for more use and skirts Dallas.  US 412 will be upgraded West of Tulsa. Why funnel through OKC instead of Tulsa?

[Scott5114]

Because Denver→Tulsa→Dallas is longer than Denver→OKC→Dallas, and the road between OKC and Dallas is already a freeway and the road between Tulsa and Dallas isn't? About the only person who would like that proposal is the mayor of Stringtown.

I will never understand why people who have never been to Oklahoma will fall all over themselves to declare we don't need better roads here.

[splashflash]

Skirt Dallas may have been misleading - miss Dallas to get to locations east.  Avoid it altogether with a "diagonal"not New Orleans , Texarkana etc.

[Rothman]

Because Denver→Tulsa→Dallas is longer than Denver→OKC→Dallas, and the road between OKC and Dallas is already a freeway and the road between Tulsa and Dallas isn't? About the only person who would like that proposal is the mayor of Stringtown.

I will never understand why people who have never been to Oklahoma will fall all over themselves to declare we don't need better roads here.

Oklahoma is OK as is.

[ethanhopkin14]

I think it's a little silly that the justification for I-11 is that it was necessary to link two large adjacent cities (Phoenix and Las Vegas) without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet Denver and Oklahoma City are two large, adjacent cities without a direct NW-SE Interstate connection, and yet we're told it's not needed to have one, despite the fact that both Denver and Oklahoma City are larger than Las Vegas.

Because it's not sexy enough a corridor.  It's one of the many things wrong with the world of perception.  Phoenix and Las Vegas need to be connected, but Denver and Oklahoma City don't?  DFW doesn't need to be connected to I-40 more directly?