The presentation for the first virtual public meeting is online. (The 42-minute video is also available, but it doesn't add anything.) This covers the segment from Laredo northward to near Interstate 10 at Sonora, 247 miles.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/statewide/ports-plains/mtg4/051120-p2p-seg3-pres.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/statewide/ports-plains/mtg4/051120-p2p-seg3-pres.pdf)
Meeting site: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/transportation-planning/051120.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/transportation-planning/051120.html)
Interstate status is recommended for this section. Since this is the most desolate section of the corridor, I'm assuming they will recommend Interstate status for the entire corridor. Two more segment meetings are this week.
See page 24 for cost numbers to upgrade to Interstate standards.
Segment 3: $6.7 billion
Entire Ports to Plains corridor: $23.5 billion
My opinion: Interstate standards for the entire corridor and especially segment 3 is unnecessary and major overkill. I've driven on many of these segments over the years, and these areas are very desolate with minimal traffic. What's needed are some relief routes around slowdowns at cities and 4-lane divided highway standards in most areas, and 4-lane undivided in low traffic areas.
I think there is substantial political muscle behind this study which may have fixed the outcome. But supporters are delusional if they think they can ever get anything near the cost estimate of $23.5 billion. It would be much wiser to propose an affordable program that actually meets needs and could be done in a reasonable amount of time.
More detailed raffic volumes can also be viewed here: https://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html
They hardly exceed 3,000 vehicles per day on most of the route. There are a few spikes over 5,000 near larger towns, but the northern portion of segment 3 from Del Rio to Sonora barely gets 1,000 vehicles per day. A two-lane road is sufficient for that kind of traffic volume.
If you look at page 17 of the PDF presentation, you can see the traffic volumes on a map as well. They say the average traffic is 9,400 vehicles per day, but if you look at the map it seems like this 'average' is made up by including I-35 into Laredo, which has a far higher traffic volume than US 83 and US 277.
If you look at other non-freeway, four-lane divided highways in Texas and surrounding states, you can see that there are few with under 5,000 vehicles per day. So even a non-Interstate upgrade is a stretch of the imagined need.
The projected population growth is also minimal, most of that likely near Laredo which is already served by I-35 and will likely have minimal impact on traffic growth farther north.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 12, 2020, 09:16:08 PM
Entire Ports to Plains corridor: $23.5 billion
My opinion: Interstate standards for the entire corridor and especially segment 3 is unnecessary and major overkill. I've driven on many of these segments over the years, and these areas are very desolate with minimal traffic. What's needed are some relief routes around slowdowns at cities and 4-lane divided highway standards in most areas, and 4-lane undivided in low traffic areas.
I think there is substantial political muscle behind this study which may have fixed the outcome. But supporters are delusional if they think they can ever get anything near the cost estimate of $23.5 billion. It would be much wiser to propose an affordable program that actually meets needs and could be done in a reasonable amount of time.
I guess I could see the Lubbock to I-10 segment and Segment 1 from Amarillo upto Dalhart and Dumas being upgraded to interstate standards, but the rest of it doesn't look like it has enough traffic to justify upgrading it.
Quote from: mvak36 on May 13, 2020, 09:47:07 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 12, 2020, 09:16:08 PM
Entire Ports to Plains corridor: $23.5 billion
My opinion: Interstate standards for the entire corridor and especially segment 3 is unnecessary and major overkill. I've driven on many of these segments over the years, and these areas are very desolate with minimal traffic. What's needed are some relief routes around slowdowns at cities and 4-lane divided highway standards in most areas, and 4-lane undivided in low traffic areas.
I think there is substantial political muscle behind this study which may have fixed the outcome. But supporters are delusional if they think they can ever get anything near the cost estimate of $23.5 billion. It would be much wiser to propose an affordable program that actually meets needs and could be done in a reasonable amount of time.
I guess I could see the Lubbock to I-10 segment and Segment 1 from Amarillo upto Dalhart and Dumas being upgraded to interstate standards, but the rest of it doesn't look like it has enough traffic to justify upgrading it.
Yes, this. I'm hoping that I-27 connects to another interstate eventually, aside from I-40. And my guess is that at least the western half of Loop 335 will be included in the upgrade plans, so as to avoid an I-78 situation (running on city streets).
This looks more or less like a long term plan rather than building to accommodate current traffic counts. I am curious why they think the median income will go from around 30-40k to 100k by 2050.
Unless they know something about additional Mexican manufacturing development in Ciudad Acuna and Piedra Negras that would significantly increase truck traffic, the best argument I could give is that they hope that an interstate up that way would siphon off some traffic that would be north and west bound from I-35. Even with that, I'm not swayed that an interstate is needed at least up to Sonora/I-10.
Quote from: mvak36 on May 13, 2020, 09:47:07 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 12, 2020, 09:16:08 PM
Entire Ports to Plains corridor: $23.5 billion
My opinion: Interstate standards for the entire corridor and especially segment 3 is unnecessary and major overkill. I've driven on many of these segments over the years, and these areas are very desolate with minimal traffic. What's needed are some relief routes around slowdowns at cities and 4-lane divided highway standards in most areas, and 4-lane undivided in low traffic areas.
I think there is substantial political muscle behind this study which may have fixed the outcome. But supporters are delusional if they think they can ever get anything near the cost estimate of $23.5 billion. It would be much wiser to propose an affordable program that actually meets needs and could be done in a reasonable amount of time.
I guess I could see the Lubbock to I-10 segment and Segment 1 from Amarillo upto Dalhart and Dumas being upgraded to interstate standards, but the rest of it doesn't look like it has enough traffic to justify upgrading it.
Just because you study something, doesn't mean it will come to pass. Heck, just because the study recommends it doesn't mean it should come to pass. Just because the Legislature funds a study doesn't mean the legislature SUPPORTS said project. It just means someone (generally a legislator or group of legislators working for a constituency that supports them or they support , however you choose to look at it) wanted a study and to get votes for something else the rest of the body went along.
Personally, I look at US-59 which is MUCH higher traffic. It moves well outside of the little towns. It has 4 lanes and mostly a 75 mph speed limit. While the traffic on I-69 MAY justify full controlled access, Ports to Plains would be better served as a 4-lane divided highway with loops (bypasses) around all the cities and towns enroute. Have grade separation at major intersections.
My look at this would be.
1) Buy ROW for full interstate facility.
2) Build bypass loops on all towns (not necessarily controlled access only.)
3) Build out 4-lane divided facility without frontage roads.
4) Build over / underpass facilities at major intersections.
5) Build frontage roads and create controlled access as needed when highway facility is encroached by development.
This facility would have 70-75 MPH speed limits in an uninterrupted fashion. Getting it out of the towns is the real point of contention. As much as they bemoan the traffic through their towns, the small towns want the trucks out, but the passenger vehicles kept flowing. Why? Traffic flow past their small businesses. From mom & pop operations to regional chains (even chains like McDonalds & Subway are generally owned by franchisees), the loss of traffic past their businesses (especially restaurants, hotels, and gas stations / convenience stores) is huge. The cost of moving is prohibitive. While new businesses eventually wind up on the loops / bypasses, it is often decades. Generally when the old businesses that have been bypassed finally either fail, the owners die off, or they fall so far into disrepair no one chooses to use their services new businesses start to build up on the new route. The owners of the businesses on the former route hold near worthless or at least severely devalued properties that they envision as worth far more than their current value. The second reason is traffic fines. While fines SHOULD be a deterrant to bad behaviors, they are viewed by the various city councils and commisioners courts as a needed revenue stream. Lots more tickets on the 35 MPH through Corrigan than will be on the freeway around it. Believe it or not, the tax values become skewed. The businesses on the old route are worth less and sometimes they can successfully argue as much, other times, they continue to pay taxes using the former valuations with the decreased sales volume. Many times the land around the reroute is taxed at the agricultural value based on its historic use right up until it is developed.
There really are few short-term gains for the local community being bypassed. EXCEPT maybe the speculators who buy up what they THINK is the potential route.
Quote from: mvak36 on May 13, 2020, 09:47:07 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 12, 2020, 09:16:08 PM
Entire Ports to Plains corridor: $23.5 billion
My opinion: Interstate standards for the entire corridor and especially segment 3 is unnecessary and major overkill. I've driven on many of these segments over the years, and these areas are very desolate with minimal traffic. What's needed are some relief routes around slowdowns at cities and 4-lane divided highway standards in most areas, and 4-lane undivided in low traffic areas.
I think there is substantial political muscle behind this study which may have fixed the outcome. But supporters are delusional if they think they can ever get anything near the cost estimate of $23.5 billion. It would be much wiser to propose an affordable program that actually meets needs and could be done in a reasonable amount of time.
I guess I could see the Lubbock to I-10 segment and Segment 1 from Amarillo upto Dalhart and Dumas being upgraded to interstate standards, but the rest of it doesn't look like it has enough traffic to justify upgrading it.
Segment 1 is as much or more about upgrading the traffic brought in on US-287 from DFW and points beyond. From my perspective, the 287 corridor back to DFW is a bigger need than the proposed Ports to Plains.
While I get the Mexican ports and maquiladoras, I have to ask ???? What besides DENVER is on the north end of this thing? Where is said traffic going to go? What is in the western end of the great plains? Farms and Cattle. Increasingly lower populations to operate said same. Rail / Barge are still significantly the main methods of transporting grain. Frankly, changing that to trucks is not something I see as a positive.
North of Denver, maybe that corridor could amalgate with another one. Multiplex it with I-25 until Cheyenne and link it with Corridor 58/Theodore Roosevelt Expwy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt_Expressway
Edit: I forgotted to mention, another piece of the puzzle, the Heartland exprressway who could link these 2 corridors. https://heartlandexpressway.com
My opinions -
Segment 1 - The US-87 corridor / option into New Mexico should ultimately be built out to full interstate standards. The corridor is mostly built to 4 lane divided highway though lacks town bypasses and still has a 2 lane segment between Dumas and Hartley. Work would likely involve upgrading the existing divided highway to interstate standards by constructing frontage roads, overpasses, and ramps, along with town bypasses around Dumas, Hartley, Dalhart, and Texline. The remaining 2 lane segment could receive a similar treatment, simply expanding it to 4 lanes in conjunction with construction of frontage roads, overpasses, and ramps.
Through Amarillo is where it would get tricky. South of Downtown, the corridor is Interstate 27, and north of Downtown it's a 6 lane freeway, though through downtown it's a 6 lane split street at-grade configuration. An upgrade could either demolish every building in the center of the one-way streets and construct an elevated 6 lane urban freeway, or it could follow some out-of-way routing following Loop 335. Ultimately, an upgraded Segment 1 could become apart of a northern extension of Interstate 27, and extend into New Mexico terminating at I-25.
Segment 2 - I generally disagree with the routing of this one. To serve the most traffic and be of most value, such corridor should follow the US-84 corridor between Lubbock and Sweetwater at I-20, the SH-70 / US-277 corridor between Sweetwater and San Angelo, and the US-87 / US-83 corridor between San Angelo and Junction at I-10. Not only would this connect the Lubbock, San Angelo, Junction, and Central / Southern Texas metros, it would serve traffic between Dallas-Fort Worth and Lubbock, San Angelo and Dallas-Fort Worth, and San Angelo / Lubbock and Central / Southern Texas metros (San Antonio, Austin, Houston, etc.). If this routing was revised to something along these lines, I'd agree it should be built out to full interstate standards.
The US-84 segment is 4 lane divided highway with town bypasses, except Post. Work could upgrade this by constructing frontage roads, overpasses, and ramps, along with a bypass of Post.
The SH-70 / US-277 segment is 2 lane road with no town bypasses. Work could upgrade this by widening to 4 lanes in conjunction with construction of frontage roads, overpasses, and ramps, along with town bypasses.
Near San Angelo, it could follow the SH-306 expressway on the west side fully upgrading to interstate standards by connecting the frontage roads, overpasses at one or two intersection, and a few additional ramps.
The US-87 segment between Eden and San Angelo is 4 lane divided highway with town bypasses (the little that exist), and is also apart of a conceptual I-14 northern route to Midland / Odessa and would have a concurrency with this corridor if both were built out. Work could upgrade this by constructing frontage roads, overpasses, and ramps throughout.
The US-83 segment between Eden and Junction is 2 lane road with no town bypasses. Work could upgrade this by widening to 4 lanes in conjunction with construction of frontage roads, overpasses, and ramps, along with town bypasses of Eden, Menard, and a relocated connecting segment to I-10 near Junction.
Ultimately, an upgraded Segment 2 could become apart of a southern extension of Interstate 27 terminating at I-10 at Junction. It would feature an overlap between Eden and San Angelo with the proposed northern I-14 routing to Midland / Odessa.
Here's a map comparing the official Segment 2 proposal (red) vs. the concept I'm proposing (blue):
(https://i.ibb.co/K2qF2DY/Ports-To-Plain-Fictional.png)
Segment 3 - With traffic counts below 5,000 AADT for most of Segment 3, the most I could reasonably see this road is a 4 lane divided highway with town bypasses, though more realistically a three lane road with the center lane alternating to allow passing with no town bypasses. There's just no justification for an interstate highway or freeway for that matter. I can't see any extensive work happening with Segment 3 or being apart of any interstate corridor.
For reference, here is the official Ports-to-Plains Corridor Map:
(https://i.ibb.co/pfTMz00/Ports-To-Plain.png)
More accurately: Pork to Plains
Glad to see the good old P-to-P finally getting some overdue attention after a big eclipse by the I-69 conglomerate and, to a lesser extent, the I-14 E-W corridor backers. This thing's been around since '95, but the record for studies done regarding the corridor has hardly been stellar (if you want to sink a corridor concept, get the Wilbur Smith folks to evaluate it -- with their usual reliance on outdated/incomplete metrics and spurious conclusions).
My comments:
(1) Segments 1 & 2 should warrant prioritization; NB commercial traffic not only comes up from Mexico -- primarily through Laredo or Hidalgo -- but will increasingly come from Panamax berthings in Corpus Christi and the immediate vicinity. That'll primarily be divided between the I-69 "family" and I-37 to WB I-10 and NB I-35 -- and an I-27 corridor branching off at Sonora to serve West Texas and the Front Range would likely host a considerably amount of such movements.
(2) The prior post preferring a US 84/Sweetwater corridor notwithstanding, the corridor route from Sonora north to Dumas is likely set. But I can see considerable controversy about where to proceed from there; both options (Raton vs. Limon) are cited in the HPC #38 legislative language. Raton is shorter (approx. 165 miles vs. about 280), and NM, if it really wants an I-corridor along US 87, can claim more readily upgradeable existing mileage. If a decision about routing is made in the wake of the almost-certain near-term budgetary shortfalls by all parties concerned, that may be a primary factor. The Limon option would probably be the best in the long haul; it would allow interregional traffic to bypass congestion at Pueblo and Colorado Springs and, frankly, be easier on the trucks and truckers by avoiding Raton Pass. Whether that argument can sway the decision makers remains to be seen.
(3) I'm certain TX politics will ensure that Segment 3 will remain largely intact, though developed at a more leisurely pace, which would mean upgrading the Del Rio bypass as a stop-gap measure. But one thing could be done to potentially kick the traffic potential for this segment up a notch or two -- instead of simply merging it into I-35 at its southern end, curve it around to follow TX 44 east to Freer and ultimately Corpus Christi -- functionally blending it with existing plans for an E-W I-69 connector.
(4) If & when the P-to-P actually sees follow-through and development, a couple of side "benefits" may result -- one would be some movement regarding the west end of I-14; it's possible that if that corridor's planning process is partially merged with this one, the "western" P-to-P leg via Midland might become the west end of I-14, with the Midland-Lamesa stretch along TX 349 being something like I-127 or 227 (hopefully it won't continue the suffixed-route madness!). But it could also prompt an official look at the DFW-Amarillo/US 287 corridor as an additional Interstate "feeder" into the northern (Segment 1) portion of the P-to-P, functionally bringing DFW into the regional mix. One can only hope!
But this illustrates the unique TX general attitude toward this sort of major project -- despite other corridors, some well into their own developmental process, potentially siphoning off attention and funding prioritization -- the state "machine" (in/out of official channels) simply refuses to apply a "zero-sum" approach to such things, preferring to self-identify as a singular entity (we're Texas, dammit!) that is capable of keeping multiple circus rings going at once. I guess we'll see if that juggling act holds up or crashes to the floor! :hmmm:
Many of these issues have been discussed in previous threads. But I guess it's interesting TX DOT has a new presentation on the subject.
While it may seem like "major overkill" to build out this entire corridor to Interstate standards, that judgment must be weighed against a couple factors. Under current methods of highway planning and building, it will take decades to complete this. LOTS of things can change during 20-50 or more years. TX DOT needs to at least be planning for what may come to pass. There is a lot of population growth in South Texas. There is a fair amount of growth happening in West Texas. Some key routes in West Texas see a lot of heavy truck traffic and the traffic levels are only going to increase. The pandemic and political complications involved is fueling more interest in American companies to bring Chinese-based manufacturing closer to home. If not in the US, maybe Mexico.
Near term, the portion of Segment 2 from Lubbock down to Midland and/or Big Spring and on to San Angelo is a justifiable Interstate upgrade, even if I-27 dead-ends in San Angelo for some time.
I think more work has to be done to build out I-2 between La Joya and Laredo before an Interstate link between Laredo and Del Rio can be justified. Carrizo Springs could use some kind of a Super 2 truck bypass in the near term. Eagle Pass has parts of an upgrade-able bypass already built (Loop 480). Same goes for Del Rio (Loop 79).
The part of Segment 3 going from Sonora to Del Rio is very desolate for obvious reasons. There's hardly any services out there. The road is mostly 2 lane, which makes it scary when it gets into the more hilly country closer to Del Rio. They've obviously 3-laned and 4-laned some sections of US-277 for safety sake. I'm pretty certain that if I-27 was extended all the way down to Laredo the traffic counts would be considerably higher. A great deal of long distance traffic tries to stay on Interstate routes as much as possible, even if that means driving way out of the way.
I would like to see US-287 improved to Interstate standards North of Amarillo up to Dumas bare minimum. Stratford would be better. Farther North into Oklahoma, I'd be happy if the road was turned into a divided 4-lane facility going across the border into Colorado. It would improve driver safety a great deal.
While I wouldn't mind seeing US-64/87 upgraded to Interstate quality to Raton, I'm skeptical of it ever happening. I don't mind the road as it is, being a divided 4-lane route. Just being able to pass slow pokes without worrying about head-on collisions is good enough for me. Many long haul truckers are going to take US-287 North into Colorado to avoid Raton Pass.
Quote from: bwana39From my perspective, the 287 corridor back to DFW is a bigger need than the proposed Ports to Plains.
Yeah, US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth really needs to be an Interstate quality freeway, whether it carries an Interstate designation or not (but I do like "I-32" for it). In the near term TX DOT needs to get US-287 fully upgraded in the DFW metro area from I-45 in Ennis up
through the other side of Decatur.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 15, 2020, 05:16:35 PM
Many of these issues have been discussed in previous threads. But I guess it's interesting TX DOT has a new presentation on the subject.
While it may seem like "major overkill" to build out this entire corridor to Interstate standards, that judgment must be weighed against a couple factors. Under current methods of highway planning and building, it will take decades to complete this. LOTS of things can change during 20-50 or more years. TX DOT needs to at least be planning for what may come to pass. There is a lot of population growth in South Texas. There is a fair amount of growth happening in West Texas. Some key routes in West Texas see a lot of heavy truck traffic and the traffic levels are only going to increase. The pandemic and political complications involved is fueling more interest in American companies to bring Chinese-based manufacturing closer to home. If not in the US, maybe Mexico.
Near term, the portion of Segment 2 from Lubbock down to Midland and/or Big Spring and on to San Angelo is a justifiable Interstate upgrade, even if I-27 dead-ends in San Angelo for some time.
I think more work has to be done to build out I-2 between La Joya and Laredo before an Interstate link between Laredo and Del Rio can be justified. Carrizo Springs could use some kind of a Super 2 truck bypass in the near term. Eagle Pass has parts of an upgrade-able bypass already built (Loop 480). Same goes for Del Rio (Loop 79).
The part of Segment 3 going from Sonora to Del Rio is very desolate for obvious reasons. There's hardly any services out there. The road is mostly 2 lane, which makes it scary when it gets into the more hilly country closer to Del Rio. They've obviously 3-laned and 4-laned some sections of US-277 for safety sake. I'm pretty certain that if I-27 was extended all the way down to Laredo the traffic counts would be considerably higher. A great deal of long distance traffic tries to stay on Interstate routes as much as possible, even if that means driving way out of the way.
I would like to see US-287 improved to Interstate standards North of Amarillo up to Dumas bare minimum. Stratford would be better. Farther North into Oklahoma, I'd be happy if the road was turned into a divided 4-lane facility going across the border into Colorado. It would improve driver safety a great deal.
While I wouldn't mind seeing US-64/87 upgraded to Interstate quality to Raton, I'm skeptical of it ever happening. I don't mind the road as it is, being a divided 4-lane route. Just being able to pass slow pokes without worrying about head-on collisions is good enough for me. Many long haul truckers are going to take US-287 North into Colorado to avoid Raton Pass.
Quote from: bwana39From my perspective, the 287 corridor back to DFW is a bigger need than the proposed Ports to Plains.
Yeah, US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth really needs to be an Interstate quality freeway, whether it carries an Interstate designation or not (but I do like "I-32" for it). In the near term TX DOT needs to get US-287 fully upgraded in the DFW metro area from I-45 in Ennis up through the other side of Decatur.
In full agreement regarding getting I-2 finished to Laredo as a prerequisite for developing the P-to-P/I-27 corridor; to warrant Segment 3 development as many potential traffic sources for that corridor should be on the ground before that happens -- and with Rio Grande Valley growth, I-2 would be a valuable connector. But I still think adding Corpus Christi to the mix (per my previous post) would help as well.
IMO, if I-27 is finished south to San Angelo, TxDOT won't let it sit there -- unless I-14 development precedes it (an unlikely situation). It'll get down to I-10 by the predetermined US 277 route, which is the shortest path to a I-10 junction (ironically not Junction!). And the biggest obstacle to a Raton northern extension is the state of NM, which may well procrastinate the project to death. They've already spent corridor money twinning much of US 64/87; following that up with another round of upgrades might be a fiscal bridge too far -- even if their contribution covers only 20% of the overall costs. Finally -- if TxDOT
does eventually elect to upgrade US 287 DFW-Amarillo, it will in all likelihood be a full-fledged Interstate; the precedent has been set with the other corridors (and I still like a I-30 western extension for that one!). I'd like to see Ennis-Ft. Worth as a I-245.
I think US-287 from Ennis (I-45) to Amarillo (I-40) needs to be just one number, a 2-digit Interstate number preferably. I've said this before in another thread, I don't like the idea of I-30 doing a "V" shape from Little Rock to DFW to Amarillo. The concept just looks wierd, as if I-30 would be a really long 2-digit loop route for I-40. If it's really important for I-30 to be longer, why not re-number the Western portion of I-20 as I-30?
Really I'm not a big fan of re-numbering existing Interstate routes as something else. It creates all kinds of disruptions to traffic and inflicts a lot of cost to businesses. Anywhere they mention the route in their marketing must be changed.
Regarding a possible Northern extension of I-27, it's already on the minds of many people in the Texas Panhandle. Public meetings have been held in Dumas regarding possible bypass routes around the West or East sides of town. Whatever happens I hope TX DOT completely upgrades the section of US-87 between Dumas and Hartley. I don't like the current 2-lane setup with sporadic 3-lane passing zones.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 16, 2020, 03:16:28 PM
I think US-287 from Ennis (I-45) to Amarillo (I-40) needs to be just one number, a 2-digit Interstate number preferably. I've said this before in another thread, I don't like the idea of I-30 doing a "V" shape from Little Rock to DFW to Amarillo. The concept just looks wierd, as if I-30 would be a really long 2-digit loop route for I-40. If it's really important for I-30 to be longer, why not re-number the Western portion of I-20 as I-30?
Really I'm not a big fan of re-numbering existing Interstate routes as something else. It creates all kinds of disruptions to traffic and inflicts a lot of cost to businesses. Anywhere they mention the route in their marketing must be changed.
Regarding a possible Northern extension of I-27, it's already on the minds of many people in the Texas Panhandle. Public meetings have been held in Dumas regarding possible bypass routes around the West or East sides of town. Whatever happens I hope TX DOT completely upgrades the section of US-87 between Dumas and Hartley. I don't like the current 2-lane setup with sporadic 3-lane passing zones.
Frankly, I don't see a western extension of I-30 as a "renumbering" except for that short segment from the present terminus at I-20 east to I-35W; that could easily be something like I-230. Actually, the "V" (IMO it's more like a sloppy "U") is part of my whole concept of I-30 as a dual-ended feeder from I-40 into DFW. But really, if it gets built, I wouldn't mind it as I-32 or I-34 either -- as long as there would be follow through on the project.
And I'm in full agreement about US 87 between Dumas and Hartley; I've had too many close calls on that stretch -- mostly from ag equipment pulling out onto the roadway -- for comfort. But if that option is selected for an I-27 extension, I'll wager that it'll take a more diagonal tack, either from south of Dumas to somewhere between Hartley and Dalhart -- or if Dumas can muster up some political weight, a bypass of Dumas and
then a diagonal that includes a Dalhart bypass as well (Dumas will want somewhere to place roadside business). That being said -- I'd still like to see I-27 head straight up (more or less) US 287 toward Limon just to avoid Raton Pass and Colorado Springs.
Of course, a US 87 option could potentially veer north from the present route near Des Moines, NM and use Trincheras Pass (with its lower gradients -- where the BNSF line currently goes) up into CO and then turning west to I-25 at Trinidad. But that would take some imagination and a modicum of coordination/cooperation between the two states' DOT's -- and thus it would be unlikely to ever occur to them! It'd be relatively easy construction; I went that way a couple of times in the '80's taking pictures of the extremely long BN coal trains of the day surmounting that summit.
I just don't like the idea of I-30 connecting to I-40 on both ends. My previous post had a bit of a typo, I meant to say any route whose two ends connect to the same parent 2-digit route is essentially reduced to 3-digit route status. With I-30 connecting to I-40 in Amarillo and Little Rock it would effectively be a really long 3-digit loop route for I-40.
There is a lot of should've, would've, could've details that were arguably, mistakenly not built into the original Interstate layout. In the overall national big picture view of the Interstate system layout it might have been better for I-30 to span from Texarakana to Las Cruces, roughly following the US-82 corridor to hit Wichita Falls and Lubbock along the way. Going through Southern New Mexico toward Las Cruces I-10 travels roughly due East. But when I-10 hits Las Cruces it takes a hard turn South to El Paso, which it should. But there still is a natural path going East through the Permian Basin "oil patch" and into North Texas which cross-country traffic could have used. US-82 & US-70 provides a little of that function, but on far more modest, slower routes.
When I said "completely upgrade" in regard to US-87 between Dumas and Hartley I really meant for TX DOT to just finish creating a proper, divided 4-lane route, similar to what they did years ago with upgrades between Hartley and Texline. That 2-lane/3-lane crap has to go. It's dangerous enough as it is with normal traffic. It's even worse when you get stuck behind some tractor hauling a baling machine. At the very least that stretch of road needs to be widened into an undivided 4-lane facility. But it would really be better as a divided 4-lane road with some kind of median.
It may be possible to create a milder path off the caprock in Northern New Mexico than Raton Pass. The main BNSF rail route in Northern New Mexico diverges from US-64/87 and takes quite a swirly path to Folsom and across the CO state line. Then there is a lot of back-tracking to get to Trinidad. The highways in that area aren't quite as crooked, but they don't take straight shots anywhere either. It might be possible to build a significantly more straight super highway route. But it would have to dove-tail into I-25 well North of Trinidad for there to be any significant savings in mileage and time versus the current route going into Raton.
You know, I fed on things others said on here and lambasted an interstate. This is not a PURELY interstate or freeway study.
It is a study. Not study how and where to build a particular kind of road (IE an Interstate HWY quality facility.) It is a study to identify what the needs actually are an figure out how to go forward. There are a range of possibilities from a full interstate facility (or facilities) to No-Build (no new or upgraded construction.)
I would assume there will be a recommendation to build something. It could range from an improved group of two lane roads to a freeway. My particular thought is a freeway on most of this set of corridors would be overkill. As I have said other places, getting the highways off of surface streets through the small towns is a far bigger need than building more lanes outside them. It is also the part that has the biggest local opposition (especially when an interstate doesn't come with it.)
I am not against spending money on needs. The right fit. Balancing the needs with the available funds. Too much is as bad as too little.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 17, 2020, 01:53:02 PM
You know, I fed on things others said on here and lambasted an interstate. This is not a PURELY interstate or freeway study.
It is a study. Not study how and where to build a particular kind of road (IE an Interstate HWY quality facility.) It is a study to identify what the needs actually are an figure out how to go forward. There are a range of possibilities from a full interstate facility (or facilities) to No-Build (no new or upgraded construction.)
I would assume there will be a recommendation to build something. It could range from an improved group of two lane roads to a freeway. My particular thought is a freeway on most of this set of corridors would be overkill. As I have said other places, getting the highways off of surface streets through the small towns is a far bigger need than building more lanes outside them. It is also the part that has the biggest local opposition (especially when an interstate doesn't come with it.)
I am not against spending money on needs. The right fit. Balancing the needs with the available funds. Too much is as bad as too little.
I guess for upgraded construction it could include "rural expressways" like in North Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri for example with freeway bypass around the major towns.
Quote from: sparker on May 15, 2020, 07:18:04 PM
And the biggest obstacle to a Raton northern extension is the state of NM, which may well procrastinate the project to death. They've already spent corridor money twinning much of US 64/87; following that up with another round of upgrades might be a fiscal bridge too far -- even if their contribution covers only 20% of the overall costs.
Agreed. Would suspect, as well, that the US 64/87 segment in New Mexico, (Clayton-Raton) while four lanes, was built to low standards. Skinny shoulders, flush medians, inadequate horizontal and vertical curve abatement. As was pretty much everything else during the Gary Johnson/Pete Rahn regime. Jan '95 to Jan '03. Although low standards reach even farther back - the mid to late eighties. For reasons of topology alone, would simply not route "port to plains" into New Mexico. The low design standards simply make it a nail in the coffin.
I would agree about the low standards on much of US-64/87 in Northern New Mexico. There's a stretch of concrete-based road bed on the East side of Sierra Grande that seems better. But even that has been patched a couple times since it was built. And it has skinny shoulders that don't really live up to current standards. But at least it's a 4-lane road now.
When US-64/87 was just a 2-lane route it was one VERY frustrating road to take. From Clayton to Des Moines the landscape is completely wide open, hardly any trees or anything else obstructing the view for many miles. But the road would do all these odd, undulating curves and dips as it moved through the terrain. So even though you could see for miles and miles it was difficult as hell to pass anyone. Too much of the upcoming road was hidden by the terrain. And, oh my God, driving through during daytime was always a bad choice. Lots of old people in RVs and other slow-poke pleasure drivers would just gum up the works. One slow driver would literally be enough to create a literal train of cars. No one could pass. Everyone was driving freaking 35mph or however slow the obstructionist piece of human garbage up front wanted to drive. Some people would chance passing though. Just floor the vehicle and be doing over 100mph by the time they passed the "leader" acting as the keeper of the speed. I saw a few near head-on collisions during the 1990's and up until the 4-lane project was finished.
Even if the NM state government wanted to do a freeway upgrade of US-64/87 they probably couldn't get the money together on their own to make it happen. It would take a lot of federal help. The main thing they need to be doing with US-64/87 is fixing some of the design problems in the current road. It doesn't really need to be a freeway. But some things still need to be fixed.
Really if any Interstate quality upgrade is going to happen from Texas into Colorado it ought to follow US-287 through Boise City. That's going to be the route most beneficial to truck traffic. There's more cattle and agricultural business along that corridor. They need to at least 4-lane and divide that road anyway. I think I've mentioned it before. One of my girlfriend's friends was killed in a head-on collision North of Boise City where US-287 crosses the border into Colorado. So the issue is somewhat of a personal thing as well.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 17, 2020, 10:26:21 PM
I would agree about the low standards on much of US-64/87 in Northern New Mexico. There's a stretch of concrete-based road bed on the East side of Sierra Grande that seems better. But even that has been patched a couple times since it was built. And it has skinny shoulders that don't really live up to current standards. But at least it's a 4-lane road now.
When US-64/87 was just a 2-lane route it was one VERY frustrating road to take. From Clayton to Des Moines the landscape is completely wide open, hardly any trees or anything else obstructing the view for many miles. But the road would do all these odd, undulating curves and dips as it moved through the terrain. So even though you could see for miles and miles it was difficult as hell to pass anyone. Too much of the upcoming road was hidden by the terrain. And, oh my God, driving through during daytime was always a bad choice. Lots of old people in RVs and other slow-poke pleasure drivers would just gum up the works. One slow driver would literally be enough to create a literal train of cars. No one could pass. Everyone was driving freaking 35mph or however slow the obstructionist piece of human garbage up front wanted to drive. Some people would chance passing though. Just floor the vehicle and be doing over 100mph by the time they passed the "leader" acting as the keeper of the speed. I saw a few near head-on collisions during the 1990's and up until the 4-lane project was finished.
Even if the NM state government wanted to do a freeway upgrade of US-64/87 they probably couldn't get the money together on their own to make it happen. It would take a lot of federal help. The main thing they need to be doing with US-64/87 is fixing some of the design problems in the current road. It doesn't really need to be a freeway. But some things still need to be fixed.
Really if any Interstate quality upgrade is going to happen from Texas into Colorado it ought to follow US-287 through Boise City. That's going to be the route most beneficial to truck traffic. There's more cattle and agricultural business along that corridor. They need to at least 4-lane and divide that road anyway. I think I've mentioned it before. One of my girlfriend's friends was killed in a head-on collision North of Boise City where US-287 crosses the border into Colorado. So the issue is somewhat of a personal thing as well.
One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off. If these corridors had a hard time being justified on a financial basis during the big growth periods from 1985-2005, it's even harder to justify now.
Which is why alternative methods should be considered. Here's one if we're considering a "direct" interstate connection between the DFW Metroplex and the Colorado Front Range: Let's get a sum total of the amount of tolls collected on the Kansas Turnpike between the I-135 interchange in South Wichita and the Oklahoma border for, say, the last 20 years. Then, let's reimburse KDOT/KTA for, say, 75% of that total in return for detolling that section of the Kansas Turnpike. I'm willing to venture that, even if that 20 year total is in the billion dollar range, that it would be far cheaper than adding a second carriageway to US 287 in Colorado, much less upgrade US 64/87 to freeway grade in NE New Mexico.
Let's remember that, per the KDOT traffic maps: https://www.ksdot.org/burtransplan/maps/mapstrafficdist.asp, both I-135 and the Turnpike south of Wichita don't reach more than 20000 VPD until reaching the immediate Wichita vicinity, and that I-70 doesn't have more than 15000 VPD west of Hays until, likely, the Strasburg/Bennett area immediately east of Aurora (CO). There's plenty of room along the I-70/I-135/I-35 route to handle all of the truck traffic that takes US 287 north of Amarillo that goes to the Front Range and then some.
Quote from: brad2971 on May 17, 2020, 10:48:16 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 17, 2020, 10:26:21 PM
I would agree about the low standards on much of US-64/87 in Northern New Mexico. There's a stretch of concrete-based road bed on the East side of Sierra Grande that seems better. But even that has been patched a couple times since it was built. And it has skinny shoulders that don't really live up to current standards. But at least it's a 4-lane road now.
When US-64/87 was just a 2-lane route it was one VERY frustrating road to take. From Clayton to Des Moines the landscape is completely wide open, hardly any trees or anything else obstructing the view for many miles. But the road would do all these odd, undulating curves and dips as it moved through the terrain. So even though you could see for miles and miles it was difficult as hell to pass anyone. Too much of the upcoming road was hidden by the terrain. And, oh my God, driving through during daytime was always a bad choice. Lots of old people in RVs and other slow-poke pleasure drivers would just gum up the works. One slow driver would literally be enough to create a literal train of cars. No one could pass. Everyone was driving freaking 35mph or however slow the obstructionist piece of human garbage up front wanted to drive. Some people would chance passing though. Just floor the vehicle and be doing over 100mph by the time they passed the "leader" acting as the keeper of the speed. I saw a few near head-on collisions during the 1990's and up until the 4-lane project was finished.
Even if the NM state government wanted to do a freeway upgrade of US-64/87 they probably couldn't get the money together on their own to make it happen. It would take a lot of federal help. The main thing they need to be doing with US-64/87 is fixing some of the design problems in the current road. It doesn't really need to be a freeway. But some things still need to be fixed.
Really if any Interstate quality upgrade is going to happen from Texas into Colorado it ought to follow US-287 through Boise City. That's going to be the route most beneficial to truck traffic. There's more cattle and agricultural business along that corridor. They need to at least 4-lane and divide that road anyway. I think I've mentioned it before. One of my girlfriend's friends was killed in a head-on collision North of Boise City where US-287 crosses the border into Colorado. So the issue is somewhat of a personal thing as well.
One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off. If these corridors had a hard time being justified on a financial basis during the big growth periods from 1985-2005, it's even harder to justify now.
Which is why alternative methods should be considered. Here's one if we're considering a "direct" interstate connection between the DFW Metroplex and the Colorado Front Range: Let's get a sum total of the amount of tolls collected on the Kansas Turnpike between the I-135 interchange in South Wichita and the Oklahoma border for, say, the last 20 years. Then, let's reimburse KDOT/KTA for, say, 75% of that total in return for detolling that section of the Kansas Turnpike. I'm willing to venture that, even if that 20 year total is in the billion dollar range, that it would be far cheaper than adding a second carriageway to US 287 in Colorado, much less upgrade US 64/87 to freeway grade in NE New Mexico.
Let's remember that, per the KDOT traffic maps: https://www.ksdot.org/burtransplan/maps/mapstrafficdist.asp, both I-135 and the Turnpike south of Wichita don't reach more than 20000 VPD until reaching the immediate Wichita vicinity, and that I-70 doesn't have more than 15000 VPD west of Hays until, likely, the Strasburg/Bennett area immediately east of Aurora (CO). There's plenty of room along the I-70/I-135/I-35 route to handle all of the truck traffic that takes US 287 north of Amarillo that goes to the Front Range and then some.
The problem with the I-35 / I-135 / I-70 routing is the fact it adds almost an hour of travel time, almost a hundred miles of distance, and traverses the busy Dallas to Oklahoma City corridor, plus through Oklahoma City itself.
The tolls are an inconvenience, but even without tolling, that route simply wouldn't be a viable alternative. If the travel times and distance were closer / similar to the current routing, I could see it, but it's off by a large margin.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on May 17, 2020, 05:17:46 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 17, 2020, 01:53:02 PM
I guess for upgraded construction it could include "rural expressways" like in North Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri for example with freeway bypass around the major towns.
Yes, but history in Texas say we build the 4-lane divided highway between the cities and towns but keep going through them on surface streets. Texas might have finally figured out how backward this is, but it is not without resistance.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 17, 2020, 10:52:12 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on May 17, 2020, 10:48:16 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 17, 2020, 10:26:21 PM
I would agree about the low standards on much of US-64/87 in Northern New Mexico. There's a stretch of concrete-based road bed on the East side of Sierra Grande that seems better. But even that has been patched a couple times since it was built. And it has skinny shoulders that don't really live up to current standards. But at least it's a 4-lane road now.
When US-64/87 was just a 2-lane route it was one VERY frustrating road to take. From Clayton to Des Moines the landscape is completely wide open, hardly any trees or anything else obstructing the view for many miles. But the road would do all these odd, undulating curves and dips as it moved through the terrain. So even though you could see for miles and miles it was difficult as hell to pass anyone. Too much of the upcoming road was hidden by the terrain. And, oh my God, driving through during daytime was always a bad choice. Lots of old people in RVs and other slow-poke pleasure drivers would just gum up the works. One slow driver would literally be enough to create a literal train of cars. No one could pass. Everyone was driving freaking 35mph or however slow the obstructionist piece of human garbage up front wanted to drive. Some people would chance passing though. Just floor the vehicle and be doing over 100mph by the time they passed the "leader" acting as the keeper of the speed. I saw a few near head-on collisions during the 1990's and up until the 4-lane project was finished.
Even if the NM state government wanted to do a freeway upgrade of US-64/87 they probably couldn't get the money together on their own to make it happen. It would take a lot of federal help. The main thing they need to be doing with US-64/87 is fixing some of the design problems in the current road. It doesn't really need to be a freeway. But some things still need to be fixed.
Really if any Interstate quality upgrade is going to happen from Texas into Colorado it ought to follow US-287 through Boise City. That's going to be the route most beneficial to truck traffic. There's more cattle and agricultural business along that corridor. They need to at least 4-lane and divide that road anyway. I think I've mentioned it before. One of my girlfriend's friends was killed in a head-on collision North of Boise City where US-287 crosses the border into Colorado. So the issue is somewhat of a personal thing as well.
One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off. If these corridors had a hard time being justified on a financial basis during the big growth periods from 1985-2005, it's even harder to justify now.
Which is why alternative methods should be considered. Here's one if we're considering a "direct" interstate connection between the DFW Metroplex and the Colorado Front Range: Let's get a sum total of the amount of tolls collected on the Kansas Turnpike between the I-135 interchange in South Wichita and the Oklahoma border for, say, the last 20 years. Then, let's reimburse KDOT/KTA for, say, 75% of that total in return for detolling that section of the Kansas Turnpike. I'm willing to venture that, even if that 20 year total is in the billion dollar range, that it would be far cheaper than adding a second carriageway to US 287 in Colorado, much less upgrade US 64/87 to freeway grade in NE New Mexico.
Let's remember that, per the KDOT traffic maps: https://www.ksdot.org/burtransplan/maps/mapstrafficdist.asp, both I-135 and the Turnpike south of Wichita don't reach more than 20000 VPD until reaching the immediate Wichita vicinity, and that I-70 doesn't have more than 15000 VPD west of Hays until, likely, the Strasburg/Bennett area immediately east of Aurora (CO). There's plenty of room along the I-70/I-135/I-35 route to handle all of the truck traffic that takes US 287 north of Amarillo that goes to the Front Range and then some.
The problem with the I-35 / I-135 / I-70 routing is the fact it adds almost an hour of travel time, almost a hundred miles of distance, and traverses the busy Dallas to Oklahoma City corridor, plus through Oklahoma City itself.
The tolls are an inconvenience, but even without tolling, that route simply wouldn't be a viable alternative. If the travel times and distance were closer / similar to the current routing, I could see it, but it's off by a large margin.
Granted, the I-35 / I-135 / I-70 corridor would add distance. But look at it from the vantage point of about 1500-2500 trucks per day that go between DFW and the Colorado Front Range. Compared with not having to go through downtown Lamar (CO), compared with not having to see this: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4788503,-102.7857556,3a,75y,3.84h,85.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXuiQuPga-d9aAsZwbpSD1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656, and compared with not having to go through stop-and-go through most of US 287 TX, the longer distance without the tolls south of Wichita looks very good.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 17, 2020, 11:02:34 PM
Yes, but history in Texas say we build the 4-lane divided highway between the cities and towns but keep going through them on surface streets. Texas might have finally figured out how backward this is, but it is not without resistance.
They've gotten in right in some areas, but agreed have lacked in many other places.
The US-59 / US-77 corridor between Corpus Christi and Houston comes to mind. Besides Refugio and Odem on the southern end (which are due to get bypasses in the near future apart of I-69 upgrades), the highway is 75 mph divided throughout with freeway / expressway bypasses of every town (except the aforementioned two) and no traffic signals throughout.
This IMO is an example of a true "expressway". Non-limited-access divided highway without traffic signals, interchanges at major crossroads, freeway segments where warranted, and bypasses around towns. Having continuity is another aspect for defined corridors (one corridor that may utilize different routes, like US-59 and US-77).
Texas has a lot of corridors that come close, but lack the bypass aspect and instead dump traffic through towns. If they complete bypasses, more "expressway" corridors with similar speeds (75 mph) and travel reliability of interstate highways would be in place across the state.
Upgrades to full interstate standards on certain corridors, such as I-69, I-14, and any conceptual I-27 extensions should focus efforts at completing an "expressway" quality roadway (non-limited-access, high speed limits, town bypasses, interchanges at major junctions, no signals, continuity, etc.) before any upgrades begin on rural frontage roads and rural interchanges.
Austin to Houston would be a good beginner candidate for a corridor built to full "expressway" standards, either along US-290 or SH-71. Both are mostly built out, though need town bypasses, full continuity, median throughout, and signals eliminated).
Quote from: brad2971 on May 17, 2020, 11:13:02 PM
Granted, the I-35 / I-135 / I-70 corridor would add distance. But look at it from the vantage point of about 1500-2500 trucks per day that go between DFW and the Colorado Front Range. Compared with not having to go through downtown Lamar (CO), compared with not having to see this: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4788503,-102.7857556,3a,75y,3.84h,85.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXuiQuPga-d9aAsZwbpSD1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656, and compared with not having to go through stop-and-go through most of US 287 TX, the longer distance without the tolls south of Wichita looks very good.
Between Denver and Dallas-Fort Worth, a routing would follow US-87 to I-25, which is mostly 4 lanes divided, not US-287.
Like I said, if the distance was less (maybe only 30 - 40 additional miles), I could see it, but the division is too much (close to 100 miles) to make it viable.
Only a complete idiot would take the I-35/I-135/I-70 combo to drive from Texas to Colorado. That's a bunch of extra hours of drive time, not to mention a whole lot more fuel
and cost. That route is not a valid barometer to judge traffic movement from points in Texas and Oklahoma to Colorado.
I prefer driving on Interstate highways for long distance road trips as much as anyone. But I have never had the desire to up through Kansas for any of my drives from Lawton to Colorado Springs or Denver. Most of the time I've gone through Raton. I've tried US-287 up through Boise City and Lamar a couple times. Raton is the better route, at least for me in my pickup truck.
Quote from: brad2971One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off.
How has traffic "leveled off?" Since the 1980's the United States has added 100 million people. Now, given the ridiculous costs of health care, day care, housing in many places, etc our nation's total fertility rates have fallen below the "replacement level" of 2.2 children per female since the Great Recession in the 2000's. Even before that the rate was hovering near the 2.0 level. It's now 1.7 and dropping farther. Since the early 1970's all our net population growth has happened via immigration. Politically we're even trying to shut the door on that now too. If current trends keep up, then yeah, traffic levels are going to "level off" in a big way along with all sorts of other unpredictable demographic and socio-economic changes.
Going back to 40 years ago, it was also a hell of a lot easier and far less costly to build a new freeway back then. We're pricing ourselves out of so many things now. The added government red tape and law suit nonsense is one issue. The other is engineering and construction firms perversely price gouging the taxpayers.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2020, 12:06:58 AM
Only a complete idiot would take the I-35/I-135/I-70 combo to drive from Texas to Colorado. That's a bunch of extra hours of drive time, not to mention a whole lot more fuel and cost. That route is not a valid barometer to judge traffic movement from points in Texas and Oklahoma to Colorado.
I prefer driving on Interstate highways for long distance road trips as much as anyone. But I have never had the desire to up through Kansas for any of my drives from Lawton to Colorado Springs or Denver. Most of the time I've gone through Raton. I've tried US-287 up through Boise City and Lamar a couple times. Raton is the better route, at least for me in my pickup truck.
Not from Dallas or Lawton, but from Oklahoma City, the fastest routing actually is the I-35 / I-135 / I-70 combo.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2020, 12:06:58 AM
Only a complete idiot would take the I-35/I-135/I-70 combo to drive from Texas to Colorado. That's a bunch of extra hours of drive time, not to mention a whole lot more fuel and cost. That route is not a valid barometer to judge traffic movement from points in Texas and Oklahoma to Colorado.
I prefer driving on Interstate highways for long distance road trips as much as anyone. But I have never had the desire to up through Kansas for any of my drives from Lawton to Colorado Springs or Denver. Most of the time I've gone through Raton. I've tried US-287 up through Boise City and Lamar a couple times. Raton is the better route, at least for me in my pickup truck.
Quote from: brad2971One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off.
How has traffic "leveled off?" Since the 1980's the United States has added 100 million people. Now, given the ridiculous costs of health care, day care, housing in many places, etc our nation's total fertility rates have fallen below the "replacement level" of 2.2 children per female since the Great Recession in the 2000's. Even before that the rate was hovering near the 2.0 level. It's now 1.7 and dropping farther. Since the early 1970's all our net population growth has happened via immigration. Politically we're even trying to shut the door on that now too. If current trends keep up, then yeah, traffic levels are going to "level off" in a big way along with all sorts of other unpredictable demographic and socio-economic changes.
Going back to 40 years ago, it was also a hell of a lot easier and far less costly to build a new freeway back then. We're pricing ourselves out of so many things now. The added government red tape and law suit nonsense is one issue. The other is engineering and construction firms perversely price gouging the taxpayers.
For Dallas to Denver the all interstate route is only 45 minutes longer, I could understand using it if a truck driver was scared of two lane roads or something.
Quote from: DJStephens on May 17, 2020, 05:58:50 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 15, 2020, 07:18:04 PM
And the biggest obstacle to a Raton northern extension is the state of NM, which may well procrastinate the project to death. They've already spent corridor money twinning much of US 64/87; following that up with another round of upgrades might be a fiscal bridge too far -- even if their contribution covers only 20% of the overall costs.
Agreed. Would suspect, as well, that the US 64/87 segment in New Mexico, (Clayton-Raton) while four lanes, was built to low standards. Skinny shoulders, flush medians, inadequate horizontal and vertical curve abatement. As was pretty much everything else during the Gary Johnson/Pete Rahn regime. Jan '95 to Jan '03. Although low standards reach even farther back - the mid to late eighties. For reasons of topology alone, would simply not route "port to plains" into New Mexico. The low design standards simply make it a nail in the coffin.
Just did a GSV of 64/87 between Clayton and Raton; was surprised by a couple of things. The outer shoulders looked like 10-footers, with the inner shoulders being somewhat narrower; I'd guess 5-6 feet on average. Outer shoulders contained rumble strips as well, but they looked like they were constructed with chip seal rather than standard asphalt (I suppose that helps since it creates a totally different feel & sound to the ride, so one knows one is off the main carriageway). Of course, the towns along the way got the 4-lane/undivided or 5-lane treatment. There are surprisingly few private access points (guess the ranch tracts are pretty large around there) -- but a lot of makeshift dirt tracks running directly into the highway. Relatively narrow median; would require a K-rail, thrie-beam, or at minimum a cable barrier. But it indicates that most of that stretch could be upgraded to Interstate standards (repaving would be a must; the view was from 2014, and already there were ruts in the right lanes!), with bypasses of the towns and settlements along the way. As I stated previously, if the selected plans called for the cheapest possible way to effect the corridor's connection to the Front Range -- and it was assured that NM would be cooperative -- the 115-mile difference between the Raton and Limon options, coupled with about 80 miles of upgradeable facility -- might constitute a deciding factor.
Re Trincheras Pass as an alternative -- the fact that the easiest-to-upgrade sections (lots of new concrete pavement and bridges) is from Des Moines west to Raton, it's all but certain that if the Raton route is chosen, it'll stay on US 87 northwest of Dalhart all the way to I-25. Yes, the RR slinks around the hills like a snake on mescaline, but that was to maintain a 1.1% maximum grade in either direction, a goal of the original Colorado & Southern Railroad when it built the line to Texas back in the first decade of the 1900's. The line was rebuilt in the late '70's to expedite Powder River, WY coal traffic to Texas power plants (most have switched to natural gas these days), which got rid of some of more egregious curvature. But north of the NM/CO state line, a natural pathway for a road that can, of course, exceed that gradient requirement, would head north to US 160 and then west to I-25 north of Trinidad. But with the 64/87 improvements, it's actually a moot point.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 18, 2020, 12:58:03 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2020, 12:06:58 AM
Only a complete idiot would take the I-35/I-135/I-70 combo to drive from Texas to Colorado. That's a bunch of extra hours of drive time, not to mention a whole lot more fuel and cost. That route is not a valid barometer to judge traffic movement from points in Texas and Oklahoma to Colorado.
I prefer driving on Interstate highways for long distance road trips as much as anyone. But I have never had the desire to up through Kansas for any of my drives from Lawton to Colorado Springs or Denver. Most of the time I've gone through Raton. I've tried US-287 up through Boise City and Lamar a couple times. Raton is the better route, at least for me in my pickup truck.
Quote from: brad2971One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off.
How has traffic "leveled off?" Since the 1980's the United States has added 100 million people. Now, given the ridiculous costs of health care, day care, housing in many places, etc our nation's total fertility rates have fallen below the "replacement level" of 2.2 children per female since the Great Recession in the 2000's. Even before that the rate was hovering near the 2.0 level. It's now 1.7 and dropping farther. Since the early 1970's all our net population growth has happened via immigration. Politically we're even trying to shut the door on that now too. If current trends keep up, then yeah, traffic levels are going to "level off" in a big way along with all sorts of other unpredictable demographic and socio-economic changes.
Going back to 40 years ago, it was also a hell of a lot easier and far less costly to build a new freeway back then. We're pricing ourselves out of so many things now. The added government red tape and law suit nonsense is one issue. The other is engineering and construction firms perversely price gouging the taxpayers.
For Dallas to Denver the all interstate route is only 45 minutes longer, I could understand using it if a truck driver was scared of two lane roads or something.
The only 2 lane stretch remaining between Fort Worth and I-25 via US-287 and US-87 is an 18 mile segment between Dumas and Hartley, and it's a
super-2 75 mph road with an alternating passing lane for the most of it. The remainder of the route is all 4 lane divided highway, largely posted at 75 mph in Texas and posted at 70 mph in New Mexico.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2020, 12:06:58 AM
Only a complete idiot would take the I-35/I-135/I-70 combo to drive from Texas to Colorado. That's a bunch of extra hours of drive time, not to mention a whole lot more fuel and cost. That route is not a valid barometer to judge traffic movement from points in Texas and Oklahoma to Colorado.
I prefer driving on Interstate highways for long distance road trips as much as anyone. But I have never had the desire to up through Kansas for any of my drives from Lawton to Colorado Springs or Denver. Most of the time I've gone through Raton. I've tried US-287 up through Boise City and Lamar a couple times. Raton is the better route, at least for me in my pickup truck.
Quote from: brad2971One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off.
How has traffic "leveled off?" Since the 1980's the United States has added 100 million people. Now, given the ridiculous costs of health care, day care, housing in many places, etc our nation's total fertility rates have fallen below the "replacement level" of 2.2 children per female since the Great Recession in the 2000's. Even before that the rate was hovering near the 2.0 level. It's now 1.7 and dropping farther. Since the early 1970's all our net population growth has happened via immigration. Politically we're even trying to shut the door on that now too. If current trends keep up, then yeah, traffic levels are going to "level off" in a big way along with all sorts of other unpredictable demographic and socio-economic changes.
Going back to 40 years ago, it was also a hell of a lot easier and far less costly to build a new freeway back then. We're pricing ourselves out of so many things now. The added government red tape and law suit nonsense is one issue. The other is engineering and construction firms perversely price gouging the taxpayers.
Per St Louis Federal Reserve bank, this is the 12-month moving total VMT:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M12MTVUSM227NFWA This site shows the per capita VMT:
https://www.enotrans.org/article/trends-in-per-capita-vmt/ Note that the peak per capita VMT is in 2004.
Um...VMT from the Fed Reserve? That...can't be right. :D
QuoteNot from Dallas or Lawton, but from Oklahoma City, the fastest routing actually is the I-35 / I-135 / I-70 combo.
The combo of I-40 to Amarillo and then going North to I-25 via Raton is still shorter. It's not the greatest route for truckers though (due to Raton Pass).
Quote from: sparkerJust did a GSV of 64/87 between Clayton and Raton; was surprised by a couple of things. The outer shoulders looked like 10-footers, with the inner shoulders being somewhat narrower; I'd guess 5-6 feet on average.
The shoulders sure don't look that wide to me. Maybe a couple spots (like the stretch between Texline and Clayton) might have 10' wide outer shoulders. But many other areas of the road look like the outer shoulders couldn't be more than about 6' wide, if even that. The best quality segments of the route are the short runs of concrete slab near Sierra Grande. The outer shoulders on those concrete segments look narrow, like maybe around 6' wide. The inner shoulders can't be more than 3' or 4' wide.
Some of the asphalt based segments of US-64/87 between Texline and Raton have had one or more overlays done. In all fairness, any state DOT is going to have issues maintaining a highway on this kind of unstable, porous soil. It's a lot of crumbly, gravel-like crap. The soil in Colorado to the East of the Front Range has similar problems. The stuff can erode pretty easily. It's something I try to keep in mind when I gripe about things like US-24 not being a 4-lane route 100% of the way between Colorado Springs and Limon.
Quote from: sparkerRe Trincheras Pass as an alternative -- the fact that the easiest-to-upgrade sections (lots of new concrete pavement and bridges) is from Des Moines west to Raton, it's all but certain that if the Raton route is chosen, it'll stay on US 87 northwest of Dalhart all the way to I-25.
Another thing to consider is Raton is already a fairly important junction for long road trips. I never get fuel there (fuel prices are ridiculous; I top off in Dumas and then fill up in Colorado Springs). But I'll sometimes stop in Raton to get something to snack on or drink,
if I didn't stop earlier at the Love's store in Clayton. Aside from my own habits, a brand new highway corridor through remote areas can take a long time to attract new businesses along the exits. A new freeway route through Trincheras Pass would have to bypass both Raton and Trinidad to provide good time/mileage savings versus going through Raton and over Raton Pass. I think there would be some considerable political fallout from such a route bypassing both Raton and Trinidad.
^^^^^^^^^^^
The last time I was actually on 64/87 in the area was well prior to the 4-laning, so I don't have anything to go on but what I saw in GSV and a close-up overhead view as well. I'll concede that the inside shoulders vary quite a bit, but assuming 12' wide lanes, they don't seem to be any less than 4' at any point except through the towns, of course. Including the rumble strips, the outer shoulders, particularly from Clayton west to Grenville, seem to be only slightly narrower than the lane itself. If anyone can obtain NMDOT specifications on the various segments from Clayton to Raton that would certainly be helpful. But if that type of rutting is evident only 8-10 years after the road was twinned, then it's likely that while the ROW could be utilized in place, the facility would have to be rebuilt quite a bit more robustly -- possibly concrete, like sporadically seen west of Des Moines -- to at least partially ameliorate the soil and drainage issues. BTW, I've noticed this type of pavement wear on US 60 west of Clovis as well, and to a lesser degree on I-40 between Santa Rosa and Tucumcari -- so it's likely Bobby's spot on about the underpinning problems of roads on the Front Range alluvial. I wonder -- by staying 70-100 miles east, as with a US 287/Limon option, the worst of that problem could possibly be avoided -- and if that particular issue is on the radar of those charged with making routing decisions regarding the P-to-P (i.e.-- the "cheapest" option may turn out not to be all that cheap in the long haul!).
The soil farther East along the US-287 corridor going into SE CO might be a little bit more stable, but even it has its own issues. Red clay poses its own challenges to road building. Nevertheless, Oklahoma has 4-laned a decent number of rural highways in the last 30 years.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 20, 2020, 02:37:10 PM
The soil farther East along the US-287 corridor going into SE CO might be a little bit more stable, but even it has its own issues. Red clay poses its own challenges to road building. Nevertheless, Oklahoma has 4-laned a decent number of rural highways in the last 30 years.
Most of I-80 in the Sierras between Auburn and Yuba Gap travels through red clay; the Division of Highways had problems with the banks on the side of cuts crumbling and having to be re-graded numerous times during the 1959-60 period that section was constructed. Made lousy fill as well; they had to bring in rock from elsewhere for that purpose.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2020, 01:47:00 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 18, 2020, 12:58:03 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2020, 12:06:58 AM
Only a complete idiot would take the I-35/I-135/I-70 combo to drive from Texas to Colorado. That's a bunch of extra hours of drive time, not to mention a whole lot more fuel and cost. That route is not a valid barometer to judge traffic movement from points in Texas and Oklahoma to Colorado.
I prefer driving on Interstate highways for long distance road trips as much as anyone. But I have never had the desire to up through Kansas for any of my drives from Lawton to Colorado Springs or Denver. Most of the time I've gone through Raton. I've tried US-287 up through Boise City and Lamar a couple times. Raton is the better route, at least for me in my pickup truck.
Quote from: brad2971One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off.
How has traffic "leveled off?" Since the 1980's the United States has added 100 million people. Now, given the ridiculous costs of health care, day care, housing in many places, etc our nation's total fertility rates have fallen below the "replacement level" of 2.2 children per female since the Great Recession in the 2000's. Even before that the rate was hovering near the 2.0 level. It's now 1.7 and dropping farther. Since the early 1970's all our net population growth has happened via immigration. Politically we're even trying to shut the door on that now too. If current trends keep up, then yeah, traffic levels are going to "level off" in a big way along with all sorts of other unpredictable demographic and socio-economic changes.
Going back to 40 years ago, it was also a hell of a lot easier and far less costly to build a new freeway back then. We're pricing ourselves out of so many things now. The added government red tape and law suit nonsense is one issue. The other is engineering and construction firms perversely price gouging the taxpayers.
For Dallas to Denver the all interstate route is only 45 minutes longer, I could understand using it if a truck driver was scared of two lane roads or something.
The only 2 lane stretch remaining between Fort Worth and I-25 via US-287 and US-87 is an 18 mile segment between Dumas and Hartley, and it's a super-2 75 mph road with an alternating passing lane for the most of it. The remainder of the route is all 4 lane divided highway, largely posted at 75 mph in Texas and posted at 70 mph in New Mexico.
You forgot the town you still go through at 45 MPH
Quote from: bwana39 on May 17, 2020, 11:02:34 PM
Yes, but history in Texas say we build the 4-lane divided highway between the cities and towns but keep going through them on surface streets. Texas might have finally figured out how backward this is, but it is not without resistance.
This is plainly visible on the US-60 corridor between Canyon (I-27) and the NM state line (Texico)
reasonably decent four lane divided sections, then the corridor going through every small to medium town. Bovina, Hereford, etc. Providing Interstate grade bypasses around these towns should have been done decades ago. Have always thought the entire I-10 to I-40 diagonal should have been at the very least an I grade limited access around and near small and medium towns, with minimal access outside of them in the rural sections.
Quote from: DJStephens on May 29, 2020, 10:54:37 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 17, 2020, 11:02:34 PM
Yes, but history in Texas say we build the 4-lane divided highway between the cities and towns but keep going through them on surface streets. Texas might have finally figured out how backward this is, but it is not without resistance.
This is plainly visible on the US-60 corridor between Canyon (I-27) and the NM state line (Texico)
reasonably decent four lane divided sections, then the corridor going through every small to medium town. Bovina, Hereford, etc. Providing Interstate grade bypasses around these towns should have been done decades ago. Have always thought the entire I-10 to I-40 diagonal should have been at the very least an I grade limited access around and near small and medium towns, with minimal access outside of them in the rural sections.
Much of the older 4-lane/conventional access mileage in TX was accomplished by twinning or at best rebuilding in as narrow a footprint as feasible. When they got to a town, since there was scant room for 4 lanes + median, the practice was to simply construct the facility as a 4 lane arterial (later 5 became an option) to avoid property taking which would have been (a) controversial and/or (b) budget-busting. US 287 northwest of Vernon is the archetypal example of that standard. I first drove that corridor circa '82; after over three decades there hasn't been any substantial change. Plain and simple -- capacity increase on the cheap! It wasn't until plans were forwarded for new Interstate corridors several years later that the alternate TX-favored method of constructing frontage roads with room for a freeway in the median was instituted. So right now there are known designated future Interstate corridors which use either this method or interim Super-2 lanes -- and everything else. It seems to depend upon long-term corridor planning. Right now most of the P-to-P follows the US 287 model -- although some things such as the San Angelo freeways and the Big Springs bypass indicate some foresight regarding future corridor development in the midst of the older facilities. But if plans advance to the next level, expect to see accommodation, even on a "future"/long term basis, for I-grade geometry and enough room to deploy structures in regards to any further construction.
The US 60 segment from NM to Canyon is also an example of the "twinning" methodology described earlier; interestingly, in the aborted 1970 effort to legislate a second batch of new Interstate corridors in the wake of the '68 additions, a corridor in NM from the TX line along US 54 north of El Paso via Roswell and Clovis and ending at Texico was submitted as part of that effort. It's pretty obvious that TX extensions would be south to El Paso on the SW end and northeast to Canyon/Amarillo on the other. But TX declined to submit plans for what would have been their segments of a full I-10 to I-40 diagonal corridor, leaving the NM-based section as a virtual "orphan". Of course, that effort failed -- probably since this example was not the only instance of corridor submissions ending at state lines, indicating lack of universal or even consistent support for the project(s). But it seems the pattern is clear -- a 4-lane conventional TX highway will likely stay that way until such time as clear & distinct plans are in the works for what to date have been legislatively-designated Interstate corridors. You want upgrades; get your committee together and start browbeating your state and federal legislators.
Quote from: sparker on May 29, 2020, 09:55:34 PM
The US 60 segment from NM to Canyon is also an example of the "twinning" methodology described earlier; interestingly, in the aborted 1970 effort to legislate a second batch of new Interstate corridors in the wake of the '68 additions, a corridor in NM from the TX line along US 54 north of El Paso via Roswell and Clovis and ending at Texico was submitted as part of that effort. It's pretty obvious that TX extensions would be south to El Paso on the SW end and northeast to Canyon/Amarillo on the other. But TX declined to submit plans for what would have been their segments of a full I-10 to I-40 diagonal corridor, leaving the NM-based section as a virtual "orphan". Of course, that effort failed -- probably since this example was not the only instance of corridor submissions ending at state lines, indicating lack of universal or even consistent support for the project(s). But it seems the pattern is clear -- a 4-lane conventional TX highway will likely stay that way until such time as clear & distinct plans are in the works for what to date have been legislatively-designated Interstate corridors. You want upgrades; get your committee together and start browbeating your state and federal legislators.
Not nit-picking, your knowledge base is incredible, but believe the corridor that is on the March 1970 FHWA map of possible additions is the US 70 corridor across WSMR and not the US 54 corridor down to El Paso. There was a Johnson-Rahn expansion of US 54 N of the texas state line in the late nineties, along with a "relief" route or "bypass" of Alamogordo. Bad standards throughout, not enough median separation, skinny shoulders and traffic signals starting to sprout on "bypass". T-Bone trucker tragedy in the making. There is an area of expansive subgrade just N of the southern end of the "bypass" with extensive dips and crowns, even the guardrail is heaved. Noticed just this past week some "new mexico patch" had been spread in the area, to smooth it out somewhat. Plenty of open land still exists on either end of "bypass" has been listed for sale for decades, should have been partially acquired to construct fully limited access interchanges at that time.
Quote from: DJStephens on May 31, 2020, 11:12:31 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 29, 2020, 09:55:34 PM
The US 60 segment from NM to Canyon is also an example of the "twinning" methodology described earlier; interestingly, in the aborted 1970 effort to legislate a second batch of new Interstate corridors in the wake of the '68 additions, a corridor in NM from the TX line along US 54 north of El Paso via Roswell and Clovis and ending at Texico was submitted as part of that effort. It's pretty obvious that TX extensions would be south to El Paso on the SW end and northeast to Canyon/Amarillo on the other. But TX declined to submit plans for what would have been their segments of a full I-10 to I-40 diagonal corridor, leaving the NM-based section as a virtual "orphan". Of course, that effort failed -- probably since this example was not the only instance of corridor submissions ending at state lines, indicating lack of universal or even consistent support for the project(s). But it seems the pattern is clear -- a 4-lane conventional TX highway will likely stay that way until such time as clear & distinct plans are in the works for what to date have been legislatively-designated Interstate corridors. You want upgrades; get your committee together and start browbeating your state and federal legislators.
Not nit-picking, your knowledge base is incredible, but believe the corridor that is on the March 1970 FHWA map of possible additions is the US 70 corridor across WSMR and not the US 54 corridor down to El Paso. There was a Johnson-Rahn expansion of US 54 N of the texas state line in the late nineties, along with a "relief" route or "bypass" of Alamogordo. Bad standards throughout, not enough median separation, skinny shoulders and traffic signals starting to sprout on "bypass". T-Bone trucker tragedy in the making. There is an area of expansive subgrade just N of the southern end of the "bypass" with extensive dips and crowns, even the guardrail is heaved. Noticed just this past week some "new mexico patch" had been spread in the area, to smooth it out somewhat. Plenty of open land still exists on either end of "bypass" has been listed for sale for decades, should have been partially acquired to construct fully limited access interchanges at that time.
Just pawed through my old files, and, yes, that '70 addition terminated at Las Cruces rather than El Paso, making the corridor a fully NM potential project. But that still doesn't alter the fact that TX opted out of an extension along US 60 NE of Texico, "stranding" the project there. That year's attempt to authorize more Interstate additions was hardly well thought out -- not to mention not particularly well-coordinated among the various states. And seeing how the country was still mired in Vietnam as well as coming out of a minor recession, the timing for such an effort, which saw zero support from the Nixon administration (while the '68 additions, initiated in Johnson's term, were considered a logical addendum to that administration's "Great Society" agenda), could not have been much worse.
Ironically, TXDOT ran US 54 north to almost the NM line as an Interstate-grade freeway in the ensuing years, so if by some chance the '70 corridor concept were to be renewed, an El Paso option (if the substandard Alamogordo bypass features can be dealt with) could be a possibility.
Political leaders (and those who want to be) are trying a new push to get I-27 routed through Midland-Odessa instead of Big Spring.
https://www.amarillo.com/news/20200614/permian-basin-leaders-make-case-for-new-interstate-route
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on June 15, 2020, 12:53:22 PM
Political leaders (and those who want to be) are trying a new push to get I-27 routed through Midland-Odessa instead of Big Spring.
https://www.amarillo.com/news/20200614/permian-basin-leaders-make-case-for-new-interstate-route
A routing through Midland-Odessa would add approximately 35 miles onto the routing and still would be 15 - 20 minutes slower than four-lane US-87 if a consistent 75 mph speed limit was posted.
It would benefit Midland-Odessa greater than it would for through traffic if constructed through there then onto SR-158 and US-87 to San Angelo.
Another option could be to have the interstate follow SR-349 to I-10, though that would bypass San Angelo.
I still don't believe any new construction needs to occur south of I-10 due to very low traffic volumes and very little demand for even a four-lane highway.
A few things could happen -
- A routing via Midland-Odessa and San Angelo bypassing Big Spring will be chosen, creating an indirect routing overall that would not benefit through traffic.
- A routing via Midland-Odessa to I-10 via SR-349 will be chosen, creating a relatively direct routing overall for through traffic, but would bypass San Angelo.
- A split I-27W / I-27E routing, one via Midland-Odessa and one via Big Spring will be chosen, creating one option (I-27E) that would benefit through traffic, and one option that would benefit Midland-Odessa traffic (I-27W).
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and more importantly if one option does route through Midland-Odessa, how does it traverse through there? Does it go through Midland or Odessa? Reasonably, it would follow existing freeways through Midland, though there will likely be some desire by Odessa to have it come through there instead. Perhaps a new terrain routing directly in the middle?
Even if San Angelo or Midland-Odessa are bypassed, they will both likely at least get I-14 to serve the area, assuming I-14 is logically routed along US-87 and SR-158 via San Angelo and Midland-Odessa.
My personal belief is that if a Midland-Odessa routing is chosen, I-27 should continue to follow SR-349 to I-10 and terminate. I-14 should be constructed along SR-158 and US-87 from Midland-Odessa to San Angelo and eastward onto Killeen, College Station, and terminating at Beaumont at I-10.
Portions of SR-349 carry under 1,000 AADT south of Midland-Odessa, though that is due to other routes currently carrying Midland-Odessa traffic to I-10 that is not SR-349. An interstate highway likely would draw additional traffic off of those surface routes and onto the freeway, probably getting up to at least 5,000 AADT or greater.
Ultimately, TxDOT will likely chose an indirect routing that follows SR-349 and SR-158 to pass through Midland-Odessa from Lubbock then onto San Angelo that will have a greater benefit to Midland-Odessa traffic than through traffic that can shave off about 15 - 20 minutes by following four-lane 75 mph US-87 via Big Spring.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 15, 2020, 02:32:13 PM
Ultimately, TxDOT will likely chose an indirect routing that follows SR-349 and SR-158 to pass through Midland-Odessa from Lubbock then onto San Angelo that will have a greater benefit to Midland-Odessa traffic than through traffic that can shave off about 15 - 20 minutes by following four-lane 75 mph US-87 via Big Spring.
I think that's probably the right thing to do, too.
If I-27 was routed to Midland rather than Big Spring there would be no good reason to extend it any farther South. It would just need to terminate at I-20. There is no benefit to long distance travelers to take TX-349 South to I-10.
Anyone driving South from Lubbock, Amarillo (or from points farther North) and going to destinations like San Antonio or Del Rio would simply get off this version of I-27 at Lamesa. From that point they would take US-87 South to Big Spring, San Angelo and on farther. The existing US-87 route between Lamesa and San Angelo is 4-laned the entire way, most of it divided. So it's not a terrible down-grade from a full fledged Interstate.
Most drivers headed South out of the Midland-Odessa area is really headed SE toward San Angelo. I-14 would cover that leg if it ever gets built.
If anyone was driving from the Lubbock area and going to El Paso or points farther West they would never drive on TX-349 clear down to I-10. That's way out of the way. Most drivers probably wouldn't even go down as far as Midland-Odessa. US-62 West out of Lubbock is a much shorter route. US-62 is four-laned from Lubbock down to Seminole, Hobbs, Carlsbad and the TX/NM border. There's that one desolate stretch going around Guadalupe Peak, but it's kind of a scenic drive. Coming down from Amarillo and going to El Paso or farther West the route of choice is going to be US-60 to Clovis, US-70 to Alamogordo and then either US-54 to El Paso or US-70 to Las Cruces.
Diverting the I-27 route to Midland would be beneficial to the Midland-Odessa area, but it would be less efficient for the big picture Interstate network.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 15, 2020, 04:14:00 PM
If I-27 was routed to Midland rather than Big Spring there would be no good reason to extend it any farther South. It would just need to terminate at I-20. There is no benefit to long distance travelers to take the TX-349 South to I-10.
Anyone driving South from Lubbock, Amarillo (or from points farther North) and going to destinations like San Antonio or Del Rio would simply get off this version of I-27 at Lamesa. From that point they would take US-87 South to Big Spring, San Angelo and on farther. The existing US-87 route between Lamesa and San Angelo is 4-laned the entire way, most of it divided. So it's not a terrible down-grade from a full fledged Interstate.
Most drivers headed South out of the Midland-Odessa area is really headed SE toward San Angelo. I-14 would cover that leg if it ever gets built.
If anyone was driving from the Lubbock area and going to El Paso or points farther West they would never drive on TX-349 clear down to I-10. That's way out of the way. Most drivers probably wouldn't even go down as far as Midland-Odessa. US-62 West out of Lubbock is a much shorter route. US-62 is four-laned from Lubbock down to Seminole, Hobbs, Carlsbad and the TX/NM border. There's that one desolate stretch going around Guadalupe Peak, but it's kind of a scenic drive. Coming down from Amarillo and going to El Paso or farther West the route of choice is going to be US-60 to Clovis, US-70 to Alamogordo and then either US-54 to El Paso or US-70 to Las Cruces.
Diverting the I-27 route to Midland would be beneficial to the Midland-Odessa area, but it would be less efficient for the big picture Interstate network.
Given TX regional political reality, it's likely that
both the Big Spring and Midland "legs" of the P-to-P will be developed -- but, in all likelihood, not all at once. Initially, the most likely first path would be straight down US 87 via Big Springs; that bypass is already in service (although the I-20 interchange will require upgrades, of course). I'd venture a guess that Midland-Sterling City along TX 158 might see development soon after --
if and only if the I-14 and P-to-P folks get together and promote the living shit out of that corridor segment -- it wouldn't provide much in the way of time savings from San Angelo to Midland over a Big Spring-based freeway route for traffic from either corridor concept. But, as I have already stated (sometimes to death, I know!) this is TX and like the cliche' says, all politics is local, so TX 158 may see Interstate-grade upgrades despite its duplicative nature. Being designated as part of two individual corridor has its advantages.
Less certain is TX 349 Midland-Lamesa. If the petroleum economy that drives the region flags somewhat -- a likely situation within the next half-century, it would make any "27W" or "227" corridor down 349 less and less likely; the combined commercial and recreational traffic just wouldn't be sufficient to warrant such a facility.
Quote from: sparkerGiven TX regional political reality, it's likely that both the Big Spring and Midland "legs" of the P-to-P will be developed -- but, in all likelihood, not all at once. Initially, the most likely first path would be straight down US 87 via Big Springs; that bypass is already in service (although the I-20 interchange will require upgrades, of course). I'd venture a guess that Midland-Sterling City along TX 158 might see development soon after -- if and only if the I-14 and P-to-P folks get together and promote the living shit out of that corridor segment -- it wouldn't provide much in the way of time savings from San Angelo to Midland over a Big Spring-based freeway route for traffic from either corridor concept.
I don't picture the interests driving the Ports to Plains Corridor working with the proponents of I-14 in any kind of cooperative fashion. Only the locals in Midland-Odessa would have motivation to do that.
Quote from: sparkerLess certain is TX 349 Midland-Lamesa. If the petroleum economy that drives the region flags somewhat -- a likely situation within the next half-century, it would make any "27W" or "227" corridor down 349 less and less likely; the combined commercial and recreational traffic just wouldn't be sufficient to warrant such a facility.
I think the best case scenario for TX-349 is a divided 4-lane expressway route with at-grade intersections. Even that may be pretty iffy. These days Texas seems pretty big on doing undivided 4-lane & 5-lane arrangements as upgrades for 2-lane roads. And that's if they don't just cheap out and merely patch on some intermittent passing lanes on the existing 2-lane road (like the Dumas to Hartley nonsense I put up with on US-87 from time to time).
A decent amount of heavy trucks do drive all over the Permian Basin oil patch, but they cover an expanse far more than just what TX-349 covers. Many of the vehicles are smaller service trucks that can handle driving on gravel or dirt roads.
Then there's the frequent boom/bust cycles the oil business experiences out there. That can even hurt the incentives to build a new Interstate highway directly to Midland, never mind any extra efforts to extend a freeway farther into desolate area with a lot of pump jacks and very few people.
Bit of a news flash courtesy of the AASHTO DTU, to which I subscribe. A move is afoot to officially append the I-27 designation to the Laredo-Lubbock portion of HPC #38/Port-to-Plains corridor. The map included in the report simply reiterates the "double leg" through, respectively, Big Spring and Midland. The report, which concludes that without the I-27 designation as the principal "selling point", the corridor prospects are less certain. The report can be found at:
https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-politics/ports-to-plains-alliance-reveals-new-data-from-interstate-27-expansion-study/
Apparently the segment north of Amarillo is expected to be addressed separately.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 16, 2020, 04:23:55 PM
I don't picture the interests driving the Ports to Plains Corridor working with the proponents of I-14 in any kind of cooperative fashion. Only the locals in Midland-Odessa would have motivation to do that.
With all due respect, I think some level of cooperation will actually be necessary to see that either or both corridors reach fruition -- for two basic reasons. One is the fact that San Angelo has a lot to gain from either corridor being developed -- but their lot would be improved from a purely logistical sense by being the locale of a E-W and N-S junction (I-14 & I-27) -- but the greater push may come from the simple fact that one corridor traverses one set of Congressional districts and the other another set, at least east of San Angelo. What it'll do is serve to winnow down the "scattershot" I-14 plans in the region, since the P-to-P obviates several of those options, since I-27 south of San Angelo will provide a corridor in the district where the southern (and, IMO, ludicrous) "option" along the sparsely-populated US 190 corridor west of Brady was shown on the initial corridor layout. That'll leave the northern option along US 87 directly to San Angelo as the nominal path.
That being said -- if local political will is directed toward I-27, it would be expected that the initial concentration will be to complete that corridor, the continued presence of the I-14 backers notwithstanding. If the P-to-P push continues relatively unabated over the course of the next 15 years or so, I'd think at least Sonora-San Angelo-Big Springs-Lubbock will be well under way by about 2035 or so -- while a western extension of I-14 past Lampasas will likely lag that by a good decade. The initial cooperation of the 27 and 14 folks will probably be confined to the Sterling City-Midland/TX 158 section, which has been the subject of much drooling by both San Angelo and M/O local boosters for years. We may see an outflung and independent I-14 section there years before San Angelo-Lampasas even hits the formal planning stage.
Quote from: sparkerBit of a news flash courtesy of the AASHTO DTU, to which I subscribe. A move is afoot to officially append the I-27 designation to the Laredo-Lubbock portion of HPC #38/Port-to-Plains corridor.
Which of course makes perfect sense. There really isn't any other logical number designation that could be applied other than I-27. Ultimately, perhaps multiple decades from now, I-2 and I-27 would converge in Laredo.
I'm not opposed to a I-27W & I-27E "double leg" approach to connect both Midland-Odessa and Big Spring. Nevertheless, Big Spring is on the more direct, big picture, main line route. The main thing that warrants splitting I-27 into East & West legs is the Midland-Odessa CSA has around 230,000 residents and has a lot of heavy industrial business there. Big Spring has only about 30,000 residents, but it sits on an important junction between US-87 and I-20.
Regarding the extension of I-27 North of Amarillo, obviously the different segments of the Ports of Plains Corridor are going to be developed and funded in separate SIU's. Plans have been germinating for years regarding I-27 North. I think the freeway bypass for Dumas would be one of the first projects built.
Quote from: sparkerWith all due respect, I think some level of cooperation will actually be necessary to see that either or both corridors reach fruition
The only location where the interests of the Ports to Plains Corridor and I-14 align is the segment between Midland and San Angelo. For all the other segments one corridor will be fighting to take funding from the other. I think the Ports to Plains Corridor is a hell of a lot more important to the overall Interstate highway system than I-14.
The main development activity with I-14 will be within the Texas triangle. And even in that region there will be battles over funding with other corridors in need of development, like the corridor spokes between Austin and Houston (US-290, TX-71) and closer to San Antonio (San Marcos to Luling and New Braunfels to Seguin). The region between Austin and San Antonio is growing rapidly. The I-35 corridor is getting over-loaded; that may turn US-281 into an important N-S relief route in that region. All of that stuff going on will make it pretty difficult to push I-14 out West of Copperas Cove and Lampasas. With that being said, I think the best hope Midland-Odessa has on getting an Interstate connection to San Angelo is by way of the Ports to Plains Corridor.
At the risk of getting into politics, President Trump is floating a $1 trillion infrastructure project idea, with a lot of it going into roads. It's a big "if" for the legislation to get passed, but if it does it could speed along a bunch of "shovel ready" highway projects.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2020, 11:39:03 AM
Which of course makes perfect sense. There really isn't any other logical number designation that could be applied other than I-27. Ultimately, perhaps multiple decades from now, I-2 and I-27 would converge in Laredo.
Reasonable, IMO, I can't see I-27 being constructed south of I-10.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2020, 11:39:03 AM
I'm not opposed to a I-27W & I-27E "double leg" approach to connect both Midland-Odessa and Big Spring. Nevertheless, Big Spring is on the more direct, big picture, main line route. The main thing that warrants splitting I-27 into East & West legs is the Midland-Odessa CSA has around 230,000 residents and has a lot of heavy industrial business there. Big Spring has only about 30,000 residents, but it sits on an important junction between US-87 and I-20.
Midland-Odessa would still gets it outlet to San Angelo and I-27 South by way of the proposed I-14, I think the biggest thing is Midland-Odessa's potential connection to Lubbock and I-27 North.
One way to go about it is to create something similar to the how I-41 and I-43 operate in Wisconsin. I-43 provides a direct routing between Milwaukee and Green Bay, whereas I-41 provides a less direct U shaped routing to the west, but serves the Ford du Lac / Oshkosh / Appleton region and connects them to the north and south. Applying that setup here, I-27 would naturally follow US-87 between San Angelo and Lubbock, whereas I-14 could be extended from its proposed terminus at Midland-Odessa northward along SH-358 to meet back up with I-27 North at Lamesa.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2020, 11:39:03 AM
The main development activity with I-14 will be within the Texas triangle. And even in that region there will be battles over funding with other corridors in need of development, like the corridor spokes between Austin and Houston (US-290, TX-71) and closer to San Antonio (San Marcos to Luling and New Braunfels to Seguin). The region between Austin and San Antonio is growing rapidly. The I-35 corridor is getting over-loaded; that may turn US-281 into an important N-S relief route in that region. All of that stuff going on will make it pretty difficult to push I-14 out West of Copperas Cove and Lampasas. With that being said, I think the best hope Midland-Odessa has on getting an Interstate connection to San Angelo is by way of the Ports to Plains Corridor.
One important thing to note is that none of those projects, US-290 / TX-71 or US-281, are even official proposals on paper. I-14 and I-27 have at least made it onto paper and are now only being held up by lack of funding. Once funding is enabled, those projects would get the green light before any non-proposed projects.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2020, 11:39:03 AM
At the risk of getting into politics, President Trump is floating a $1 trillion infrastructure project idea, with a lot of it going into roads. It's a big "if" for the legislation to get passed, but if it does it could speed along a bunch of "shovel ready" highway projects.
Continuing to keep politics aside, I agree that we need a revived and reliable federal program, and have for the past 30 years. I'd say the biggest issue is funding. In the past, toll financing was proposed to fund the majority of improvements, and that is one element I'm largely against. I'd rather see a gas tax increase nationwide, though with the Republican administration being against tax increases, it's hard to see this one through. The only option would be adding to the deficit, which seems to have no problem piling up with other bills with larger spending that have been passed.
If we can get a successful program up and running, especially in light of COVID-19, I think funding should be largely dedicated to -
- Overhauling the original interstate highway system. Funding allocated for major 6 to 8 lane widening on long-haul corridors that have high truck volumes / congestion issues, such as I-81, I-70, I-40, I-95, I-85, and multiple others.
- Urban projects. Funding allocated for urban road improvements, both arterial and interstate, with a likely bias toward major interstate projects such as bridge projects.
- "Future" interstate highway corridors. Funding allocated to speed along a new generation of interstate highways. This includes many corridors such as the incomplete portions of I-69, I-49, I-73, I-11, I-14, I-27, I-42, I-87, I-57, I-86, and others. This could also include new corridors if any are desired.
- Other rural road projects that are not on the interstate highway system. Funding allocated for safety improvements on thousands of miles of rural road, could include four-lane widening on regional corridors, etc.
There's a lot of potential, and if another round of a large federal program as seen in the later 1900s is on the books, I think it's worthwhile to get it passed and shovels turned.
^^^^^^^^^^^
If and when a comprehensive transportation measure -- maybe not the $1T floated but perhaps half to two-thirds that -- is passed, I would agree that fixing substandard or outdated sections of the current system should be Job #1A, with 1B being completion of corridors that have seen substantial work since '91's ISTEA (i.e., I-49, I-69, most of I-11, even I-86/NY!). In short, if the states have taken it on themselves to get as much done as possible considering eked-out Federal support, supply them the wherewithal to get the job(s) done. Newer corridors being studied -- like the two in TX (P-to-P/I-27, I-14) would be job #2, along with obvious commercial corridors either designated future Interstates or undesignated but warranting action (in CA, CA 99 and CA 58; US 287 DFW>Amarillo in TX; US 69/I-45 in OK). Let's not Fritz it -- but face it, there are some deserving corridors out there that if Nixon hadn't FU'd the process back in the '70's, would have periodically been added to the system.
One main problem is the perception of state equity. There are quite a few states that just won't contain much -- or even zero -- in the way of arguably warrantable Interstate corridor mileage. Neither of the Dakotas will fall under consideration (unless the Heartland corridor is included south of Rapid City); can't see Montana getting anything significant, nor much of New England unless Interstate upgrades to extant freeways are considered. Florida might piss and moan about competition with their pending toll roads (except in the Panhandle), so they may not be terribly cooperative. But you can damn well bet that they'll ask for compensation in some form. Maybe an expanded expressway/Super 2 program for highways deemed problematic in terms of safety or efficiency can be instituted in the states without significant Interstate development activity; that would be a reasonable addendum to any Interstate expansion.
This is the type of program -- though obviously a pre-election "incentivization" by the current administration in its present form/state -- that would probably survive an administrative change in November. Once a positive set of projects has been proposed by any party, a successor administration would be loath to pull it back even if internally unpopular by some of its adherents and/or factions. This is particularly significant given the recent unforeseen economic downturn; injection of funding into local projects promising jobs, particularly in regards to the greater labor force is something that tends to survive ideological attack (ironically, the $1T figure originally floated was immediately criticized as excessive/wasteful by many on the right side of the fence). This is going to be a "serve-and-volley" process between the administration, Congress, and (likely) the Biden campaign, with all sides attempting to claim some high ground. But if at this economic juncture the greater public sees the potential for money shoveled in their direction, it'll be difficult to assume and maintain a naysaying position, both pre- and post-election. Remember -- it's one short electoral cycle until the 2022 campaigns; taking the proverbial candy away from the baby might not be the optimal strategy!
Quote from: sprjus4Reasonable, IMO, I can't see I-27 being constructed south of I-10.
It would not be worth doing if the road was only built to Del Rio. If that was the case it would be far better to build I-27 from San Angelo direct to Junction where it would merge into I-10 and create a direct Interstate link between Amarillo and Lubbock down to San Antonio.
I-27 would become a far important corridor if the Ports to Plains Corridor was built out fully from the Front Range of the Rockies down to the Gulf Coast. If I-27 was extended to Laredo
and I-2 extended up to Laredo such a corridor would link Amarillo, Lubbock
and maybe Midland-Odessa with Laredo (a fairly big city) and the over million residents down in the Rio Grande Valley. An I-27 route to Laredo combined with I-2 would link all the major ports of entry along the Rio Grande to the Interstate system. The port in Brownsville would have improved access to the rest of the Interstate system. Same goes for the tourism industry at South Padre Island.
Quote from: sprjus4Applying that setup here, I-27 would naturally follow US-87 between San Angelo and Lubbock, whereas I-14 could be extended from its proposed terminus at Midland-Odessa northward along SH-359 to meet back up with I-27 North at Lamesa.
It would be really goofy looking to have an I-14 route do a 90 degree hook up to Lamesa to meet a highway it already had crossed in San Angelo. An Interstate route along the TX-359 corridor between Midland and Lamesa only makes sense as an I-27 variant, be it "I-27W," "I-227" or even I-27 itself if interests in Midland pull the whole route over there at the expense of the broader P2P corridor.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 18, 2020, 01:55:16 PM
It would be really goofy looking to have an I-14 route do a 90 degree hook up to Lamesa to meet a highway it already had crossed in San Angelo. An Interstate route along the TX-359 corridor between Midland and Lamesa only makes sense as an I-27 variant, be it "I-27W," "I-227" or even I-27 itself if interests in Midland pull the whole route over there at the expense of the broader P2P corridor.
See I-43 and I-41 in Wisconsin.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2020, 01:58:41 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 18, 2020, 01:55:16 PM
It would be really goofy looking to have an I-14 route do a 90 degree hook up to Lamesa to meet a highway it already had crossed in San Angelo. An Interstate route along the TX-359 corridor between Midland and Lamesa only makes sense as an I-27 variant, be it "I-27W," "I-227" or even I-27 itself if interests in Midland pull the whole route over there at the expense of the broader P2P corridor.
See I-43 and I-41 in Wisconsin.
Given that the only "common ground" among the P-to-P boosters and their I-14 counterparts is that TX 158 segment, it's likely that any "meeting of the minds" will put I-27 through Big Springs and I-14 to Midland, where it'll either snake around the south side of town and terminate somewhere in Odessa (plans to that effect have been floated) or simply interchange with I-20 as its terminus (probably depending upon whether TxDOT is in the mood to spend extra $$ on a localized project). Unless there's serious safety issues with TX 349 between Midland & Lamesa that can be conflated into near-term action, that segment might just be kicked down the road for a while. But it sounds like the P-to-P coalition includes voices from its south reaches (Del Rio, Eagle Pass, and even Laredo), so while that section is set up to be addressed separately from the coalition's press releases and documentation, sooner or later a freeway from Sonora to I-35 will be at least formally planned (adoption, some ROW purchase, etc.) -- IMO the first step would be to upgrade the Del Rio bypass as the "keystone" for the segment; the ROW's already there, and it would have local value in addition to starting the ball rolling on the remainder.
I've mentioned this before -- and it sort of verges on fictional -- but if the P-to-P southern section could somehow be curved just a wee bit north to cross I-35 and utilize/parallel the west end of TX 44 to Freer it could dovetail with the nascent Freer-Corpus I-69 auxiliary branch.
Really turn the whole shooting match into a real undeniable Ports to Plains by not only addressing the various ports of entry from Brownsville up to Del Rio but also the now-Panamax port at Corpus -- while providing an additional source of commercial traffic for I-27.
Quote from: sparker on June 18, 2020, 04:37:59 PM
I've mentioned this before -- and it sort of verges on fictional -- but if the P-to-P southern section could somehow be curved just a wee bit north to cross I-35 and utilize/parallel the west end of TX 44 to Freer it could dovetail with the nascent Freer-Corpus I-69 auxiliary branch. Really turn the whole shooting match into a real undeniable Ports to Plains by not only addressing the various ports of entry from Brownsville up to Del Rio but also the now-Panamax port at Corpus -- while providing an additional source of commercial traffic for I-27.
I-10, I-37, and the future I-69 spurs provide an adequate connection from the west to Corpus Christi, Brownsville, and McAllen.
There's little need for another connection, especially considering those highways can be improved for much lower of cost.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 18, 2020, 05:02:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 18, 2020, 04:37:59 PM
I've mentioned this before -- and it sort of verges on fictional -- but if the P-to-P southern section could somehow be curved just a wee bit north to cross I-35 and utilize/parallel the west end of TX 44 to Freer it could dovetail with the nascent Freer-Corpus I-69 auxiliary branch. Really turn the whole shooting match into a real undeniable Ports to Plains by not only addressing the various ports of entry from Brownsville up to Del Rio but also the now-Panamax port at Corpus -- while providing an additional source of commercial traffic for I-27.
I-10, I-37, and the future I-69 spurs provide an adequate connection from the west to Corpus Christi, Brownsville, and McAllen.
There's little need for another connection, especially considering those highways can be improved for much lower of cost.
Which would obviate the Freer-Corpus segment as well, since from that seaport pretty much everything north and west can be accessed by I-37 in any case, parsed out at San Antonio for specific destinations. And the amount of commercial traffic heading for Corpus from the Laredo POE would be, in the long run, dwarfed by that heading straight up US 59/I-69W to the more established distribution center of Houston -- can't envision much inbound Laredo merchandise simply being trans-loaded to ships; that would have occurred previously in Mexico. But the Freer-Corpus "branch" was established anyway. My I-27 extension concept was simply to provide a relief route for I-37 avoiding the San Antonio chokepoint -- no more, no less, based on the principle that if you're going to build something, have it perform as many functions as feasible. On a purely relative basis, the portion of the P-to-P between the Laredo area and I-10 is markedly less vital and useful than the segment north of there -- but this being TX and the political implications of such, the southern portion will likely be constructed at some point. But I have no compunctions about "tweaking" a corridor to render it a bit more useful than without such modifications -- especially if said corridor is redundant or subject to potential underutilization anyway.
The Ports to Plains Corridor does not need to go to Freer at all. That's way out of the way. It's far better for the road to meet up with I-2 in Laredo. Freer is already at the intersection with I-69W and I-69C, plus any I-x69 route that could be built over TX-44 from Freer to Corpus Christi.
If any alteration was going to be made to the
Future I-27 route I'd have it hug closer to the Rio Grade for a more direct connection bewteen Laredo and Eagle Pass. For now the Ports to Plains Corridor is routed along US-83 up to Carrizo Springs and then US-277 to Eagle Pass.
Mines Road on the North side of Laredo has a lot of industrial and distribution activity. The road is four laned and divided between the Bob Bullock Loop and TX-255 to the North. Over the long term it may have to be upgraded into a freeway. Mines Road (aka FM-1472) turns into Eagle Pass Road. A more direct Interstate route could be built on top of or parallel with that road. Of course the folks in Carrizo Springs would not like that at all.
Quote from: sprjus4See I-43 and I-41 in Wisconsin.
I'm not really a big fan of I-41 in Wisconsin, particularly the goofy multiplex with I-94 down to the Illinois border. Nevertheless, neither I-43 or I-41 turn into East-West routes for significant amounts of their paths. They're still primarily North-South roads with only short exceptions in Milwaukee, Appleton and Green Bay.
Routing I-14 from Midland up to Lamesa would turn that highway into a North-South route for roughly 50 miles. That's not good.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 19, 2020, 02:27:25 PM
Mines Road on the North side of Laredo has a lot of industrial and distribution activity. The road is four laned and divided between the Bob Bullock Loop and TX-255 to the North. Over the long term it may have to be upgraded into a freeway. Mines Road (aka FM-1472) turns into Eagle Pass Road. A more direct Interstate route could be built on top of or parallel with that road.
For what it's worth...
52,709 = AADT @ FM-1472 (Mines Road, Laredo) / Las Cruces Drive
32,124 = AADT @ FM-1472 / Sombreretito Creek
22,979 = AADT @ FM-1472 / Millennium Park
16,556 = AADT @ FM-1472 / west of FM-3338
6,132 = AADT @ FM-1472 / Phelps Road
8,882 = AADT @ FM-1472 / Scot Camp Tank
1,244 = AADT @ FM-1472 / Galvan Road
125 = AADT @ FM-1021 / middle of nowhere
278 = AADT @ FM-1021 / FM-2644
1,033 = AADT @ FM-1021 / Canal Street
1,030 = AADT @ FM-1021 / El Indio Park
13,647 = AADT @ FM-1021 / Rosita North
23,486 = AADT @ FM-1021 (El Indio Highway, Eagle Pass) / Camarinos Drive
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 19, 2020, 02:27:25 PM
The Ports to Plains Corridor does not need to go to Freer at all. That's way out of the way. It's far better for the road to meet up with I-2 in Laredo. Freer is already at the intersection with I-69W and I-69C, plus any I-x69 route that could be built over TX-44 from Freer to Corpus Christi.
I-69C will not pass through Freer, it's slated to traverse the US-281 corridor east of there.
I've not heard of any discussion regarding any potential Interstate 2 extension outside of this forum.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 19, 2020, 02:27:25 PM
If any alteration was going to be made to the Future I-27 route I'd have it hug closer to the Rio Grade for a more direct connection bewteen Laredo and Eagle Pass. For now the Ports to Plains Corridor is routed along US-83 up to Carrizo Springs and then US-277 to Eagle Pass.
Mines Road on the North side of Laredo has a lot of industrial and distribution activity. The road is four laned and divided between the Bob Bullock Loop and TX-255 to the North. Over the long term it may have to be upgraded into a freeway. Mines Road (aka FM-1472) turns into Eagle Pass Road. A more direct Interstate route could be built on top of or parallel with that road. Of course the folks in Carrizo Springs would not like that at all.
Highly unlikely any new routing would be built in that desolate area, considering US-277 and US-83 already exist and could be upgraded on existing alignment largely, assuming any interstate is built in this area.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 19, 2020, 02:27:25 PM
I'm not really a big fan of I-41 in Wisconsin, particularly the goofy multiplex with I-94 down to the Illinois border. Nevertheless, neither I-43 or I-41 turn into East-West routes for significant amounts of their paths. They're still primarily North-South roads with only short exceptions in Milwaukee, Appleton and Green Bay.
That segment with I-94 is north-south, yet signed east-west because the overall route is. The supposed reason for signing I-41 was indicate clearly was "north" and "south" was, but I do agree it's an unnecessary overlap.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 19, 2020, 02:27:25 PM
Routing I-14 from Midland up to Lamesa would turn that highway into a North-South route for roughly 50 miles. That's not good.
For a route that would traverse over 500 miles in Texas, even more if ever extended eastwards into Louisiana, that's insignificant. Highways with east-west designations don't strictly have to only go east-west, and the same for north-south. I-40 in North Carolina was extended in the 1980s from Raleigh to Wilmington on a mostly north-south routing. I-94 between Milwaukee and Chicago is a north-south routing. I-44 between Oklahoma City and Wichita Falls is a mostly north-south routing. I-10 between Tucson and Phoenix is a largely north-south routing. I-26 between Charleston and Asheville is a mostly north-south routing, and the more recent 2002 extension from Asheville to Kingsport is a north-south routing. I-69 between Lansing and Port Huron is an east-west routing, and even changes cardinal directions on signs to represent such. Plenty other examples exist of the same nature.
It's just one idea, you could also go with I-27W and I-27E with an overlap with I-14 between Midland and Sterling City, or pull a Michigan and make I-14 between Midland and Lubbock "north-south".
^^^^^^^^
If I-14 is indeed applied to the TX 158 portion of the P-to-P, rather than multiplex it with another number the best bet would be to apply a different number to Midland-Lamesa, particularly if the local plans to extend I-14 west to Odessa materialize. Suggestion: I-227 for that largely N-S segment. Whereas the southern leg, after merging with the I-27 main line at Sterling City, will diverge again into the two separate trunks at San Angelo, the northern leg simply merges with I-27 -- hence the "child" designation is more than appropriate.
Quote from: sprjus4I-69C will not pass through Freer, it's slated to traverse the US-281 corridor east of there.
My mistake. I-69C will go through Alice, TX. But there is the potential of an I-x69 route starting in Freer at I-69W and going through Alice and Robstown on the way to Corpus Christi.
And then there's the fictional "I-6" concept that would link Laredo and Corpus Christi, pretty much on this same path.Neverthless an I-27 route extended along the Southern reaches of the Ports to Plains Corridor would be extremely better going to Laredo and hitting Del Rio and Eagle Pass along the way. Diverting I-27 to Freer instead of Laredo just doesn't work.
Quote from: sprjus4I've not heard of any discussion regarding any potential Interstate 2 extension outside of this forum.
Yet the exit numbers on I-2 correspond with the notion of its "exit 0" starting in Laredo.
Quote from: sprjus4For a route that would traverse over 500 miles in Texas, even more if ever extended eastwards into Louisiana, that's insignificant.
It's still a very stupid looking end to an Interstate. It's more appropriate to end a 2-digit Interstate at a more significant destination (Midland) and at a more significant highway intersection (I-20). Making it bend North for 50 additional miles up to Lamesa is only absurd and nothing more. If I-27 is ever going to be extended down across the I-20 corridor then a Midland-Lamesa leg could only ever be a variant of I-27, be it
I-227 or
I-27W.
Jump-starting this thread again -- both TX US senators (Cornyn, Cruz) are throwing their weight toward designating I-27 over the full Port-to-Plains corridor; this is likely to be something they'll push during the "lame-duck" congressional session post-election. The story can be seen here:
https://thetexan.news/push-for-ports-to-plains-interstate-corridor-moves-to-u-s-senate/
Wonder if this will entail a "27W/27E" split re M/O and Big Spring, or a similar move for the branches north of Dumas along both US 87 and US 287. Guess we'll see at some point.
I hope I live long enough to see the project completed. While I would welcome the Dumas to Raton leg of the P2P Corridor upgraded to Interstate standards I don't expect such a thing to ever happen. The US-287 leg going North out of Dumas into Colorado has better long term prospects. One thing I wish ODOT and CDOT would do ASAP: widen US-287 into at least a divided 4-lane highway along the Oklahoma-Colorado border area North of Boise City. The highway winds through the caprock elevation change there. Fatal head-on collisions are a risk there.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 28, 2020, 07:10:19 PM
I hope I live long enough to see the project completed. While I would welcome the Dumas to Raton leg of the P2P Corridor upgraded to Interstate standards I don't expect such a thing to ever happen. The US-287 leg going North out of Dumas into Colorado has better long term prospects. One thing I wish ODOT and CDOT would do ASAP: widen US-287 into at least a divided 4-lane highway along the Oklahoma-Colorado border area North of Boise City. The highway winds through the caprock elevation change there. Fatal head-on collisions are a risk there.
With the ongoing reluctance of OK to develop actual freeways, it's likely that any congressional action past a simple designation process would likely have to include an "enhanced" federal share of such a corridor -- well past the 80% allotted to NHS routes. While TX historically finds a way to finance and deploy such corridors, once the corridor(s) cross state lines, it's out of their control. Hopefully Messrs. Cruz and Cornyn will at least engage in some "vetting" regarding their intent to their counterparts in NM, OK, and CO if for nothing else but to give them a "heads up" regarding the designation. Then again the map included in the article only showed the TX-bound portions of the corridor; like the I-14/HPC #84 corridor ending abruptly at the TX/LA state line, this could be an instance of the I-27 designation simply petering out along US 87 and/or 287 at the NM/OK state lines -- depending on how the legislation is written.
In the case of the 40 mile segment of US-287 in Oklahoma, I feel certain the federal government would have to get involved somehow to get that future leg of I-27 built. The Oklahoma state government, ODOT and Oklahoma Turnpike Authority have very little incentive to upgrade that highway segment into an Interstate. ODOT has little incentive to even add a second pair of lanes to divide the highway, other than to prevent head-on collisions. US-287 is a 2-lane highway on both the TX and CO sides of Oklahoma's border.
It would be kind of funny if I-27 in Oklahoma wound up being built as a turnpike. US-287 has never figured into the OTA's long term plans. I do remember seeing a conceptual map of possible future turnpikes that included a turnpike from OKC up to Woodward and across to Boise City. Obviously nothing substantial has happened with that effort, unless anyone would call 4-laning portions of OK-3 leading into Woodward substantial.
TX DOT may be able to get US-287 upgraded and signed as I-27 as far North as the US-54 junction in Stratford. Both Colorado and Oklahoma would have to be on board going any farther North.
^
This is why I imagine any I-27 extension would likely follow US-87 into New Mexico to I-25.
New Mexico's segment is already 4 lanes divided and could be upgraded easier on existing location.
I-25 is already interstate highway through Colorado up to Denver.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 30, 2020, 07:07:10 AM
^
This is why I imagine any I-27 extension would likely follow US-87 into New Mexico to I-25.
New Mexico's segment is already 4 lanes divided and could be upgraded easier on existing location.
I-25 is already interstate highway through Colorado up to Denver.
New Mexico has no money and no incentive to upgrade 64/87 to an interstate. Furthermore, upgrading the 64/87 corridor would create a bottleneck at Raton and over the Raton Pass. There's not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of widening I-25 over Raton Pass to accommodate the additional traffic a new interstate corridor would generate.
I hope it goes through Oklahoma.
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 30, 2020, 01:59:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 30, 2020, 07:07:10 AM
^
This is why I imagine any I-27 extension would likely follow US-87 into New Mexico to I-25.
New Mexico's segment is already 4 lanes divided and could be upgraded easier on existing location.
I-25 is already interstate highway through Colorado up to Denver.
New Mexico has no money and no incentive to upgrade 64/87 to an interstate. Furthermore, upgrading the 64/87 corridor would create a bottleneck at Raton and over the Raton Pass. There's not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of widening I-25 over Raton Pass to accommodate the additional traffic a new interstate corridor would generate.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2020, 02:11:51 PM
I hope it goes through Oklahoma.
Long-term, continuing the corridor north to I-70 at Limon, CO would make the most sense; it would divert Denver-Texas commercial (and other) traffic away from the underpowered stretch of I-25 south of metro Denver (probably allowing CDOT a more "leisurely" schedule for upgrades there!) as well as Raton itself. If a Raton-terminating I-27 section were to be constructed, it may well have the effect of dumping more traffic onto I-25 north of there, which certainly wouldn't be a good idea as per that corridor's present configuration -- which would also affect local traffic in Pueblo and Colorado Springs. Better to construct a new corridor in the (relative) flatlands; the lack of a 4+% grade to surmount would likely prompt truckers to shift to I-27 (if they didn't have interim business south on I-25, of course). And since NMDOT has already spent funds to get US 87 into its present state, they would probably balk at any further improvements unless the Federal share approached "full".
That being said -- farther down the line, if I-27 indeed is deployed over US 287 north to I-70/Limon, I'd expect either US 87 or possibly US 50 (both high priority corridors) to be built out to Interstate grade as a "shunt" for traffic to access the Front Range cities, particularly if there's a significant population increase along the I-25 corridor. Have zero ideas about a designation for such; a bit premature right now.
Quote from: sprjus4This is why I imagine any I-27 extension would likely follow US-87 into New Mexico to I-25. New Mexico's segment is already 4 lanes divided and could be upgraded easier on existing location. I-25 is already interstate highway through Colorado up to Denver.
US-64/87 is 4-lane divided
between towns. It turns into an undivided 4 lane street when passing through Texline, Clayton, Grenville, Des Moines, Capulin and the last couple or so miles going into Raton. It might be possible to build a freeway exit in Grenville on the spot of the NM-453 intersection. But in all the other towns along the way: freeway bypasses in some form would be needed to avoid wiping out a bunch of existing property. I think there would be a hell of a lot of political resistance in any of those towns to a freeway going around their communities, even if the bypass stayed relatively close to the original route.
On top of that, the existing main lanes of US-64/87 between Texline and Raton weren't built fully up to Interstate standards. The quality of the road surface, the shoulder widths and the grading is sub-par and would need pretty substantial upgrades. That doesn't address where to build freeway exits, partial or full frontage roads or where to simply eliminate at-grade access from driveways and dirt roads.
For the time being I think the best case scenario for upgrading US-64/87 is improving the existing main lanes, then adding frontage roads and even freeway exits
where it's feasible to do so. It's going to take some long term planning and careful negotiations with property owners in towns along US-64/87 to do an I-27 upgrade through there.
Quote from: abqtravelerNew Mexico has no money and no incentive to upgrade 64/87 to an interstate. Furthermore, upgrading the 64/87 corridor would create a bottleneck at Raton and over the Raton Pass. There's not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of widening I-25 over Raton Pass to accommodate the additional traffic a new interstate corridor would generate.
New Mexico doesn't have a freeway-friendly culture, at least not in the state government. Albuquerque is one of the largest cities in the US (if not the largest) without any kind of limited access loop or spur super highways. There's I-25, I-40 and then lots of streets with lots of traffic signals everywhere else.
If US-64/87 was upgraded into I-27 (or a "W" leg of I-27), I'm not sure it would funnel so much new traffic onto I-25 that it would have to be widened from 2-2 to 3-3 thru Raton Pass. It would depend on how well the Ports to Plains Corridor is fleshed out in Texas. If I-27 was extended all the way down to Laredo and I-2 was built up to Laredo to meet it, then such an I-27 route built to Raton would indeed generate a lot of new traffic. On the other hand, there still is a great deal of commercial/truck traffic that tries to avoid Raton Pass by going up through Boise City, OK and into SE Colorado.
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 (https://wp-cpr.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2020/09/CDOT-Ports-to-Plains-Not-Opposed.pdf)); here's (https://www.cpr.org/2020/09/29/gardner-bill-would-push-long-sought-eastern-plains-interstate-closer-to-reality/) a Colorado news article with some more statements. (There's also some more in the "˜Colorado' general thread here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=514.msg2537502#msg2537502).)
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 (https://portstoplains.com/images/events/conference/2020_conference/presentations/3_Paving-the_Way_with_an_Interstate_John_Osborne_PTP_Update_Annual_Conference.pdf) (presentation on YouTube (https://youtu.be/lC2J1CbCvvk?t=2987), starts ~49:47).
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 30, 2020, 01:59:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 30, 2020, 07:07:10 AM
^
This is why I imagine any I-27 extension would likely follow US-87 into New Mexico to I-25.
New Mexico's segment is already 4 lanes divided and could be upgraded easier on existing location.
I-25 is already interstate highway through Colorado up to Denver.
New Mexico has no money and no incentive to upgrade 64/87 to an interstate. Furthermore, upgrading the 64/87 corridor would create a bottleneck at Raton and over the Raton Pass. There's not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of widening I-25 over Raton Pass to accommodate the additional traffic a new interstate corridor would generate.
US 64/87 W of Clayton, NM was built to "Pete Rahn" standards. Close to Flush median in places, narrow shoulders, sight lines not improved where they could have been. Lousy in general. There have now been THREE "flush median" jobs done since 2000. NM 44, later US 550, US 70 and most recently, US 82 E of Artesia. All could have been built, in stages, as much better facilities. Vehicles have gone across these flush medians and collided with oncoming traffic. NM 44/US 550 likely has the worst toll, in this regard. Personally hold Gary Johnson largely responsible for this.
Quote from: DJStephens on November 01, 2020, 12:00:32 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 30, 2020, 01:59:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 30, 2020, 07:07:10 AM
^
This is why I imagine any I-27 extension would likely follow US-87 into New Mexico to I-25.
New Mexico's segment is already 4 lanes divided and could be upgraded easier on existing location.
I-25 is already interstate highway through Colorado up to Denver.
New Mexico has no money and no incentive to upgrade 64/87 to an interstate. Furthermore, upgrading the 64/87 corridor would create a bottleneck at Raton and over the Raton Pass. There's not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of widening I-25 over Raton Pass to accommodate the additional traffic a new interstate corridor would generate.
US 64/87 W of Clayton, NM was built to "Pete Rahn" standards. Close to Flush median in places, narrow shoulders, sight lines not improved where they could have been. Lousy in general. There have now been THREE "flush median" jobs done since 2000. NM 44, later US 550, US 70 and most recently, US 82 E of Artesia. All could have been built, in stages, as much better facilities. Vehicles have gone across these flush medians and collided with oncoming traffic. NM 44/US 550 likely has the worst toll, in this regard. Personally hold Gary Johnson largely responsible for this.
A few years ago NMDOT was pressed on what they were planning to do to address the number of fatal head-on collisions on 550, and their answer was pretty much, "Nothing." They could have installed cable barriers at a relatively low cost, but this was back when New Mexico completely drained its transportation budget to complete that $200 million boondoggle in Albuquerque known as ART. And we're still paying for ART two years later.
Quote from: Elm on October 30, 2020, 08:17:03 PM
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 (https://wp-cpr.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2020/09/CDOT-Ports-to-Plains-Not-Opposed.pdf)); here's (https://www.cpr.org/2020/09/29/gardner-bill-would-push-long-sought-eastern-plains-interstate-closer-to-reality/) a Colorado news article with some more statements. (There's also some more in the "˜Colorado' general thread here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=514.msg2537502#msg2537502).)
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 (https://portstoplains.com/images/events/conference/2020_conference/presentations/3_Paving-the_Way_with_an_Interstate_John_Osborne_PTP_Update_Annual_Conference.pdf) (presentation on YouTube (https://youtu.be/lC2J1CbCvvk?t=2987), 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.
No, the 20% is not a killer of new interstates. The federal allocations are too low overall, only allowing for condition preservation projects.
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.
Quote from: Rothman on November 05, 2020, 08:36:36 PM
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!
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 05, 2020, 09:54:42 PM
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.
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://www.portstoplains.com/images/ptp_intermodal_map_2013wlogo-page-001_1275x1650.jpg)
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/
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on March 10, 2021, 04:17:54 AM
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://www.portstoplains.com/images/ptp_intermodal_map_2013wlogo-page-001_1275x1650.jpg)
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!
Quote from: sparker on March 10, 2021, 04:53:38 AM
But where the fuck is Raymond?
The border crossing is right here (https://goo.gl/maps/st6y7Jug2Jo3iLp77), at MT-16/SK-6. The unincorporated community of Raymond is about
nine miles to the south (https://goo.gl/maps/kbod86rrSCdjaEZn6).
Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2021, 09:55:38 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 10, 2021, 04:53:38 AM
But where the fuck is Raymond?
The border crossing is right here (https://goo.gl/maps/st6y7Jug2Jo3iLp77), at MT-16/SK-6. The unincorporated community of Raymond is about nine miles to the south (https://goo.gl/maps/kbod86rrSCdjaEZn6).
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.
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).
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 10, 2021, 07:09:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on March 10, 2021, 01:03:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2021, 09:55:38 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 10, 2021, 04:53:38 AM
But where the fuck is Raymond?
The border crossing is right here (https://goo.gl/maps/st6y7Jug2Jo3iLp77), at MT-16/SK-6. The unincorporated community of Raymond is about nine miles to the south (https://goo.gl/maps/kbod86rrSCdjaEZn6).
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 10, 2021, 07:09:58 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 10, 2021, 07:18:24 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 10, 2021, 07:09:58 PM
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.
Quote from: sparker on March 10, 2021, 04:53:38 AM
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on March 10, 2021, 04:17:54 AM
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://www.portstoplains.com/images/ptp_intermodal_map_2013wlogo-page-001_1275x1650.jpg)
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.
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 11, 2021, 09:54:56 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 10, 2021, 04:53:38 AM
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on March 10, 2021, 04:17:54 AM
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://www.portstoplains.com/images/ptp_intermodal_map_2013wlogo-page-001_1275x1650.jpg)
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.
Quote from: ski-man on March 11, 2021, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 11, 2021, 09:54:56 AM
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 (https://goo.gl/maps/AFvN8tagJTqpqDFt5).
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 11, 2021, 09:54:56 AM
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!
Quote from: ski-man on March 11, 2021, 02:54:48 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 11, 2021, 05:30:16 PM
Quote from: ski-man on March 11, 2021, 02:54:48 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4The 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.
Quote from: sparkerActually, 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.
Quote from: kphoger on March 11, 2021, 05:42:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 11, 2021, 05:30:16 PM
Quote from: ski-man on March 11, 2021, 02:54:48 PM
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.
Quote from: sparker on March 11, 2021, 05:03:03 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 11, 2021, 09:54:56 AM
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.
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 12, 2021, 09:41:11 AM
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.
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 12, 2021, 11:45:29 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 12, 2021, 09:41:11 AM
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.
Meh. Go ahead and name it Interstate 50.
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 13, 2021, 12:20:14 PM
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.
Not really a fan of "single-ended" suffixes branching off parents; that's so
1958! Can grudgingly tolerate I-69's branches, since all terminate at/near a POE (just as I didn't mind the old I-70N/70S split to, respectively, Baltimore and D.C. before the mid-'70's -- another terminating and quite logical split). But a I-27W from Dumas to Raton's a bit hinky -- seeing as how there's likely to be an additional one in TX with the Big Spring/Midland alternative routings. As said before, I'd suggest I-46 or I-48 for that corridor branch. It'll be about 165 miles long -- about the same as I-16, longer than I-4, and a little bit shorter than I-72 -- and it at least would exist within two states!
I-27W or I-46 is a toss-up for that route.
Even though an "I-27W" designation going from Dumas to I-25 in Raton would seem very 1950's in route numbering style it would fit in better with the overall big picture design of the Ports to Plains Corridor. Dumas to Raton is a spur of that route. I-27 stands to be the main route designation or brand for the P2P. An I-27W designation for the Dumas to Raton spur would be a clear statement of that route's relationship with the larger P2P corridor.
At any rate, this discussion is academic. I think odds are exceedingly slim the Dumas to Raton route will ever become an Interstate. It's very likely any such highway upgrade efforts would meet very strong resistance in towns like Dalhart, Texline, Clayton, Des Moines and Capulin. Those last two, smallest towns might be a little more work-able at keeping freeway main lanes very close to the existing route, minimizing the swing a bypass usually takes around a town. In the cases of Dalhart, Texline and Clayton a freeway bypass would be unavoidable.
Even the proposed Northern extension of I-27 to Dumas is generating some concerns over what a bypass might do the town's economy. But Dumas is a big enough town with a diverse enough economy that an Interstate bypass would do more to help than hurt the local economy. Those other smaller towns along the way are more dependent on travelers stopping to fuel up and eat
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 13, 2021, 09:47:10 PM
I-27W or I-46 is a toss-up for that route.
Even though an "I-27W" designation going from Dumas to I-25 in Raton would seem very 1950's in route numbering style it would fit in better with the overall big picture[/i] design of the Ports to Plains Corridor. Dumas to Raton is a spur of that route. I-27 stands to be the main route designation or brand for the P2P. An I-27W designation for the Dumas to Raton spur would be a clear statement of that route's relationship with the larger P2P corridor.
At any rate, this discussion is academic. I think odds are exceedingly slim the Dumas to Raton route will ever become an Interstate. It's very likely any such highway upgrade efforts would meet very strong resistance in towns like Dalhart, Texline, Clayton, Des Moines and Capulin. Those last two, smallest towns might be a little more work-able at keeping freeway main lanes very close to the existing route, minimizing the swing a bypass usually takes around a town. In the cases of Dalhart, Texline and Clayton a freeway bypass would be unavoidable.
Even the proposed Northern extension of I-27 to Dumas is generating some concerns over what a bypass might do the town's economy. But Dumas is a big enough town with a diverse enough economy that an Interstate bypass would do more to help than hurt the local economy. Those other smaller towns along the way are more dependent on travelers stopping to fuel up and eat
If US 287 from Fort Worth to Dumas and US 87 from Dumas to Raton would ever be upgraded to interstate standards, the much-discussed I-32 designation could be used. If I-27 continues north of Dumas, that would only be roughly a 46-mile I-27/I-32 duplex.
But I just don't see any of that happening for decades at least.
Quote from: r15-1 on March 14, 2021, 12:12:14 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 13, 2021, 09:47:10 PM
I-27W or I-46 is a toss-up for that route.
Even though an "I-27W" designation going from Dumas to I-25 in Raton would seem very 1950's in route numbering style it would fit in better with the overall big picture[/i] design of the Ports to Plains Corridor. Dumas to Raton is a spur of that route. I-27 stands to be the main route designation or brand for the P2P. An I-27W designation for the Dumas to Raton spur would be a clear statement of that route's relationship with the larger P2P corridor.
At any rate, this discussion is academic. I think odds are exceedingly slim the Dumas to Raton route will ever become an Interstate. It's very likely any such highway upgrade efforts would meet very strong resistance in towns like Dalhart, Texline, Clayton, Des Moines and Capulin. Those last two, smallest towns might be a little more work-able at keeping freeway main lanes very close to the existing route, minimizing the swing a bypass usually takes around a town. In the cases of Dalhart, Texline and Clayton a freeway bypass would be unavoidable.
Even the proposed Northern extension of I-27 to Dumas is generating some concerns over what a bypass might do the town's economy. But Dumas is a big enough town with a diverse enough economy that an Interstate bypass would do more to help than hurt the local economy. Those other smaller towns along the way are more dependent on travelers stopping to fuel up and eat
If US 287 from Fort Worth to Dumas and US 87 from Dumas to Raton would ever be upgraded to interstate standards, the much-discussed I-32 designation could be used. If I-27 continues north of Dumas, that would only be roughly a 46-mile I-27/I-32 duplex.
But I just don't see any of that happening for decades at least.
Well, let's see -- via current US 87, it's about 210 miles from Amarillo to I-25 at Raton. Unless you've got a vehicle full of kids, and you're smart enough to fill the tank at/near a major city, there's not much of a reason for stopping (OK, to pee!) anywhere along the route between those places; and if an Interstate were to be built, it would likely have at least one bidirectional rest area in the Dumas-Raton stretch. And if a trucker is accustomed to a particular place to stop, they'd just get off the Interstate to do so. In reality, it's rarely a major blow to towns to lose the little pass-through business they manage to glean. They're where they are to serve the local agricultural or mineral extraction businesses; that rationale predates even the 4-laning of the major arteries (inexplicably excepting US 87 from Dumas to Hartley); they'll serve that purpose if and when an Interstate comes calling.
And while I wholeheartedly agree about US 287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth being one of the region's overlooked corridors in terms of Interstate consideration, if the P2P proposal is formally adopted and funded in a reasonable time frame there might not be the political and/or funding bandwidth to accommodate
that particular corridor for some time to come. The focus will be concentrated on the N-S aspect, since it benefits West Texas as well as the Panhandle. But if one of the byproducts of the P2P/I-27 project is increased traffic, particularly the commercial variety, on US 287 southeast of Amarillo, that focus could certainly shift after the initial effort is largely complete.
Quote from: SparkerWell, let's see -- via current US 87, it's about 210 miles from Amarillo to I-25 at Raton. Unless you've got a vehicle full of kids, and you're smart enough to fill the tank at/near a major city, there's not much of a reason for stopping (OK, to pee!) anywhere along the route between those places; and if an Interstate were to be built, it would likely have at least one bidirectional rest area in the Dumas-Raton stretch. And if a trucker is accustomed to a particular place to stop, they'd just get off the Interstate to do so. In reality, it's rarely a major blow to towns to lose the little pass-through business they manage to glean. They're where they are to serve the local agricultural or mineral extraction businesses; that rationale predates even the 4-laning of the major arteries (inexplicably excepting US 87 from Dumas to Hartley); they'll serve that purpose if and when an Interstate comes calling.
In the case of Clayton the town is more reliant now on business from motorists passing through town than in the past. A number of employers have left the area, such as a Dr Pepper bottling plant. Around 10 years ago a large feed lot on the NW side of town closed. My nostrils are thankful for that. In the early 2000's and before when the feed lot was operating at full capacity the stink would be powerful, especially with a north breeze blowing the aroma toward the highway. Anyway, aside from ranching, there isn't a whole lot in the way of employers there.
On my own trips through that area I typically top off my tank in Dumas. That's the last place on my way from Oklahoma to Colorado where the fuel prices are relatively low. The prices jump a good bit when you get to Dalhart and higher in Clayton. Prices are even higher in places like Des Moines, NM. The Loves store in Clayton is a decent place to get snacks, a soft drink or
make a pit stop. There are other places in Clayton where people can dine or even see a movie. There is a rest area by Mount Dora for motorists wanting a bathroom break without the temptations to buy a bunch of stuff.
If an Interstate bypass was built around Clayton it would definitely hurt the local economy there in the first several years or more after such a bypass were to open. Service businesses, such as that big Love's location, would have to re-locate near the Interstate exits.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unless NM, via their congressional delegation, presses for I-27 to come their way via US 87, there's better than even odds that the Interstate-designated portion of the P2P will simply maintain its northward trek up US 287 toward Limon; as a commercial traffic destination, Denver outstrips the more southerly Front Range cities (i.e. Pueblo and the Springs) in terms of being a regional hub. If the trucking industry chimes in about this, it's probably going to be overwhelmingly favoring that corridor option simply because it avoids Raton Pass as well as congestion in the Springs and Pueblo on I-25. Also, it's likely that the present divided US 64/87 route in NM will require a comprehensive rebuild before approaching Interstate standards; so the roughly 100 mile difference between a terminus in Raton and one in Limon (this is assuming some mild "corner-cutting" at Kit Carson) may not be a particularly onerous obstacle.
Nevertheless, as of late neither NM nor CO have shown much interest in new Interstate corridors; it will probably take a significantly higher portion of the bill to be assumed at the federal level to garner support from and within those states. Also, if the eastern/Limon option is selected, OK would likely want to see virtually negligible state outlay for the portion passing through their Panhandle, since there would be limited state benefits accruing from such a project.
Quote from: sparker on March 18, 2021, 08:32:28 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unless NM, via their congressional delegation, presses for I-27 to come their way via US 87, there's better than even odds that the Interstate-designated portion of the P2P will simply maintain its northward trek up US 287 toward Limon; as a commercial traffic destination, Denver outstrips the more southerly Front Range cities (i.e. Pueblo and the Springs) in terms of being a regional hub. If the trucking industry chimes in about this, it's probably going to be overwhelmingly favoring that corridor option simply because it avoids Raton Pass as well as congestion in the Springs and Pueblo on I-25. Also, it's likely that the present divided US 64/87 route in NM will require a comprehensive rebuild before approaching Interstate standards; so the roughly 100 mile difference between a terminus in Raton and one in Limon (this is assuming some mild "corner-cutting" at Kit Carson) may not be a particularly onerous obstacle.
Nevertheless, as of late neither NM nor CO have shown much interest in new Interstate corridors; it will probably take a significantly higher portion of the bill to be assumed at the federal level to garner support from and within those states. Also, if the eastern/Limon option is selected, OK would likely want to see virtually negligible state outlay for the portion passing through their Panhandle, since there would be limited state benefits accruing from such a project.
In short, simply not happening. There is no appetite in the state of NM to even maintain current basic conditions. Surface pavements are falling apart statewide. Fog seals are currently being sprayed on major highways, in an attempt to forestall failure. Leave it long enough, and then you have a full depth reconstruction on your hands involving the subgrade. In many areas, it is obvious the underlying basecourse is compromised. Design standards have been in the toilet, circling the bowl, for close to forty years.
Over a BILLION dollars have been spent on three "pet" projects - a spaceport, a train, and most recently a fantasy bus lane on Central Ave in Albuquerque. All three benefit a handful of rich, elites, or celebrities. Tiny numbers benefit, in terms of the total outlay spent.
All those realities are duly noted, adding to why I said this scenario is academic earlier. The federal government would literally have to come in and fully fund as well as oversee such an Interstate upgrade project. Even in that unlikely event the towns along US-64/87 would likely be very opposed to such a project.
I'm just praying US-64/87 between Texline and Raton doesn't completely fall apart anytime soon. Parts of it do need attention unfortunately. I don't like taking US-287 up into Colorado to get to Colorado Springs. It's well out of the way and there is a decent number of cattle processing plants and feed lots along US-287 North of Dumas going into Oklahoma. And the 2-lane route North of Boise City is not very safe.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 19, 2021, 12:34:42 AM
All those realities are duly noted, adding to why I said this scenario is academic earlier. The federal government would literally have to come in and fully fund as well as oversee such an Interstate upgrade project. Even in that unlikely event the towns along US-64/87 would likely be very opposed to such a project.
I'm just praying US-64/87 between Texline and Raton doesn't completely fall apart anytime soon. Parts of it do need attention unfortunately. I don't like taking US-287 up into Colorado to get to Colorado Springs. It's well out of the way and there is a decent number of cattle processing plants and feed lots along US-287 North of Dumas going into Oklahoma. And the 2-lane route North of Boise City is not very safe.
It'll be
very interesting to see how the P2P authorizing legislation wrings out -- whether the actual I-27 designation extends past the TX state line -- or even north of Amarillo -- since the TX priorities seem to center around the portion from Laredo through the Permian Basin (the region likely to express political support for "all-out" corridor development). I concur that NM is probably out of the picture unless overt public and official support -- emanating from NM parties -- for a Raton corridor becomes overwhelming, something that is unlikely to occur anytime soon. But if the corridor does strike out north along US 287, it may be the case that OK and CO get drawn into the process kicking and screaming about (a) having to pony up funds for internal TX prioritizations, and (b, specifically in the case of CO) countering the state's public "green" persona by accepting a new Interstate corridor, even in the "forgotten" (read not conducive to recreational and/or tourist activity) part of the state. Now -- it could be that any infrastructure initiatives by or during the Biden administration may have to suck it up and include a substantial number of road projects, particularly those benefiting "red states", to gain political support for a more "omnibus" bill also addressing urban transit needs. If that proves to be the case, expect some expediting "earmarked" funding for corridors such as P2P as well as currently drawn-out development of I-49, I-69, and maybe even I-14 if there's budgetary room. And to make the projects more palatable to the states, money-wise, it wouldn't be surprising to see the federal share start creeping up toward the original chargeable Interstate level of 90%, which would make budget-strapped states somewhat more amenable to new corridor development efforts.
QuoteIt'll be very interesting to see how the P2P authorizing legislation wrings out -- whether the actual I-27 designation extends past the TX state line -- or even north of Amarillo -- since the TX priorities seem to center around the portion from Laredo through the Permian Basin (the region likely to express political support for "all-out" corridor development).
There has been some buzz in the past several years (and even public meetings) about I-27 possibly going North from Amarillo to Dumas
and points beyond. The upgrade from the North side of Amarillo up to the Southern edge of Dumas would be relatively easy. The same is true for the segment of US-287 from Dumas up to Stratford.
People in Dumas are generally on board with at least getting some kind of relief truck route built as soon as possible. The amount of heavy trucks on Dumas Ave (US-287) is creating safety issues and adversely affecting business. Still there are fears a relief route will work as a double edge sword, putting areas in the center of town at risk of seeing business activity dry up.
Another bypass (albeit smaller) would have to be built around Stratford. North of Stratford US-287 drops down to a 2-lane route and pretty much stays that way clear to Limon, CO and I-70. US-287 widens into 4-lanes for only brief bits in Springfield and Lamar.
Regarding Oklahoma's short 40 mile segment of the Ports to Plains Corridor, yeah, I think the feds would have to pony up a lot of funding to help get that leg built. Oklahoma has a lot of other priorities in other areas of the state with far higher population numbers. Boise City has only around 1100 residents. US-287 already has a pseudo Super 2 bypass around the East side of Boise City. It would be fairly easy to upgrade that stretch of road to Interstate standards. I think the biggest challenge out there is maintaining farm/ranch access to the lands out there.
Even though the Oklahoma Panhandle is very sparsely populated I can recall seeing a conceptual map from the OTA showing possible future turnpikes. That map included one running from the OKC area to Woodward, Guymon and Boise City. If I-27 went through Boise City it could light a fire under OTA to revisit such a plan. Given the OTA's bond situation, such a road might have to be built first as a Super-2 turnpike and then upgraded later.
Quote
Regarding Oklahoma's short 40 mile segment of the Ports to Plains Corridor, yeah, I think the feds would have to pony up a lot of funding to help get that leg built. Oklahoma has a lot of other priorities in other areas of the state with far higher population numbers. Boise City has only around 1100 residents. US-287 already has a pseudo Super 2 bypass around the East side of Boise City. It would be fairly easy to upgrade that stretch of road to Interstate standards. I think the biggest challenge out there is maintaining farm/ranch access to the lands out there.
That wouldn't stop an Interstate designation. I-40 in west Texas and I-555 in Arkansas are certainly poster children for maintaining access without the cost of access roads. An I-27 wouldn't have the traffic of either of those roads, so it shouldn't be much of an impediment.
Quote from: MikieTimT on March 19, 2021, 03:28:22 PM
That wouldn't stop an Interstate designation. I-40 in west Texas and I-555 in Arkansas are certainly poster children for maintaining access without the cost of access roads. An I-27 wouldn't have the traffic of either of those roads, so it shouldn't be much of an impediment.
I'm not so sure that, just because there exist some places where ranch traffic access is maintained, that means such "shouldn't be much of an impediment".
Let's not build anymore interstates with at grade access please. I don't care if it is only one car a day. Standards should be held.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 19, 2021, 02:58:25 PM
Even though the Oklahoma Panhandle is very sparsely populated I can recall seeing a conceptual map from the OTA showing possible future turnpikes. That map included one running from the OKC area to Woodward, Guymon and Boise City. If I-27 went through Boise City it could light a fire under OTA to revisit such a plan. Given the OTA's bond situation, such a road might have to be built first as a Super-2 turnpike and then upgraded later.
I don't know how much call there is for an additional turnpike heading NW (ostensibly more or less along OK 3 and then US 412) from OKC to the Panhandle, but another possibility would be a straightforward western extension of the Cimarron Turnpike along 412 out to Boise City (something more approaching a statewide "grid pattern" rather than a radial layout. Not to get too fictional here, but that (eventually) could be the long-sought I-50 that gets bandied about repeatedly -- maybe extending all the way to I-49 in AR -- or, fancifully, west via Clayton, NM to Raton. But ODOT and their state legislative & executive handlers would have to get some semblance of their shit together first -- and if they've been unable to do so regarding other in-state corridors with more pressing needs (and we know what those are!), the prospects don't look particularly good.
Quote from: kphoger on March 19, 2021, 03:52:13 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on March 19, 2021, 03:28:22 PM
That wouldn't stop an Interstate designation. I-40 in west Texas and I-555 in Arkansas are certainly poster children for maintaining access without the cost of access roads. An I-27 wouldn't have the traffic of either of those roads, so it shouldn't be much of an impediment.
I'm not so sure that, just because there exist some places where ranch traffic access is maintained, that means such "shouldn't be much of an impediment".
Those ranch accesses west of Amarillo and west of Albuquerque were on stretches of I-40 that were previously 4-lane divided sections of US-66. They were grandfathered when they were added to the interstate system in the '60s. They won't be able to get away with that today.
Quote from: sparker on March 19, 2021, 05:21:17 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 19, 2021, 12:34:42 AM
All those realities are duly noted, adding to why I said this scenario is academic earlier. The federal government would literally have to come in and fully fund as well as oversee such an Interstate upgrade project. Even in that unlikely event the towns along US-64/87 would likely be very opposed to such a project.
I'm just praying US-64/87 between Texline and Raton doesn't completely fall apart anytime soon. Parts of it do need attention unfortunately. I don't like taking US-287 up into Colorado to get to Colorado Springs. It's well out of the way and there is a decent number of cattle processing plants and feed lots along US-287 North of Dumas going into Oklahoma. And the 2-lane route North of Boise City is not very safe.
It'll be very interesting to see how the P2P authorizing legislation wrings out -- whether the actual I-27 designation extends past the TX state line -- or even north of Amarillo -- since the TX priorities seem to center around the portion from Laredo through the Permian Basin (the region likely to express political support for "all-out" corridor development). I concur that NM is probably out of the picture unless overt public and official support -- emanating from NM parties -- for a Raton corridor becomes overwhelming, something that is unlikely to occur anytime soon. But if the corridor does strike out north along US 287, it may be the case that OK and CO get drawn into the process kicking and screaming about (a) having to pony up funds for internal TX prioritizations, and (b, specifically in the case of CO) countering the state's public "green" persona by accepting a new Interstate corridor, even in the "forgotten" (read not conducive to recreational and/or tourist activity) part of the state. Now -- it could be that any infrastructure initiatives by or during the Biden administration may have to suck it up and include a substantial number of road projects, particularly those benefiting "red states", to gain political support for a more "omnibus" bill also addressing urban transit needs. If that proves to be the case, expect some expediting "earmarked" funding for corridors such as P2P as well as currently drawn-out development of I-49, I-69, and maybe even I-14 if there's budgetary room. And to make the projects more palatable to the states, money-wise, it wouldn't be surprising to see the federal share start creeping up toward the original chargeable Interstate level of 90%, which would make budget-strapped states somewhat more amenable to new corridor development efforts.
Major improvements for 287 running south from the OK/CO border are scheduled for next year on the ODOT 8-Year plan:
https://www.odot.org/cwp-8-year-plan/cwp_ffy2021-ffy2028/8_year_cwp_division6_map.pdf
Hopefully some of Bobby's safety concerns will be addressed.
As far as making it a part of any future interstate, ODOT has a less than 1% interest on that. As mentioned many times above, ODOT priorities are a) getting back their "stolen" dedicated funds that the Legislature divereted and b) completing the major progress on improving our once terrible bridges.
I think we are trying to overthink this.
Everyone seems to want to read Ports to Plains INTERSTATE corridor.
I personally think that a fully controlled access corridor there is not needed. A four-lane-divided highway would suffice in the rural areas. Controlled access loops around (or through) most of the cities and towns would keep traffic flowing at road speeds. There would need to be grade separation at MAJOR intersections. This would make it a much more drivable route at a far lower price point.
The real issue is getting the roadways outside the small towns. US-287 between Decatur and Amarillo is a key point. The traffic flows well on the Rural Divided Highway. Then it comes to a creep through small towns like Vernon, Childress, Electra, etc.
The study has a broad scope. They can propose building anything from NOTHING at all additional to a fully controlled access interstate facility with full through service roads. I know there are budget hawks and transportation haters who would prefer the no-build. There are those who will shoot for the moon. What is the right choice for Texas? What is the right choice for the US transportation grid.
I say focus on four lane widening and town bypasses to provide an "expressway" corridor with 65+ mph speed limits, no traffic signals, 4 lanes, etc., then later focus towards interstate upgrades along rural portions of the corridor with frontage roads and minor grade separations and interchanges.
The portion of the corridor in Texas will most likely be built as I-27 to interstate standards. Not sure about north of there.
Quote from: bwana39 on March 20, 2021, 12:30:04 PM
I think we are trying to overthink this.
Everyone seems to want to read Ports to Plains INTERSTATE corridor.
I personally think that a fully controlled access corridor there is not needed. A four-lane-divided highway would suffice in the rural areas. Controlled access loops around (or through) most of the cities and towns would keep traffic flowing at road speeds. There would need to be grade separation at MAJOR intersections. This would make it a much more drivable route at a far lower price point.
The real issue is getting the roadways outside the small towns. US-287 between Decatur and Amarillo is a key point. The traffic flows well on the Rural Divided Highway. Then it comes to a creep through small towns like Vernon, Childress, Electra, etc.
The study has a broad scope. They can propose building anything from NOTHING at all additional to a fully controlled access interstate facility with full through service roads. I know there are budget hawks and transportation haters who would prefer the no-build. There are those who will shoot for the moon. What is the right choice for Texas? What is the right choice for the US transportation grid.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 20, 2021, 02:32:50 PM
I say focus on four lane widening and town bypasses to provide an "expressway" corridor with 65+ mph speed limits, no traffic signals, 4 lanes, etc., then later focus towards interstate upgrades along rural portions of the corridor with frontage roads and minor grade separations and interchanges.
The portion of the corridor in Texas will most likely be built as I-27 to interstate standards. Not sure about north of there.
It's almost a dead-shot certainty that the P2P will be Interstate standard at least from Laredo to Amarillo; that's something on which both the backers and TxDOT will concur. Almost as certain is the remainder in the Panhandle, regardless of whether it turns west toward NM or continues north toward eastern CO via a bit of OK; the I-27 designation will, as per practice over the last 20 years, be appended to the authorizing legislation. Now -- whether the other states involved here will accede to that standard has yet TBD; it could be that once out of TX the corridor ceases being signed as I-27 and will be, at least initially, at expressway standard: 2-or-4 lane or a combination of both -- or a variation of the "midwest" approach of freeway bypasses around significant towns, interchanges at major crossing routes, and the rest expressway with at-grade intersections as needed. But it'll probably be upgradeable (hopefully not a series of commercial "5-lane" strips) so when and if OK and CO elect to go the Interstate route, it can be expanded as such. I don't see anything north of I-70 advancing beyond the expressway stage in the foreseeable future; the traffic and need just aren't there.
But then TX folks might do a decent sales (naysayers may say "con") job in regards to their OK and CO counterparts, and in relatively short time there will be a completed & signed I-27 from Laredo to Limon. Never can tell about these things until the dust clears!
It would make the most sense for Oklahoma to build a US-287 turnpike. After all, most of the traffic is pass-through and the only Oklahoma residents it would benefit are basically only the residents of Boise City. Ideal situation for collecting maintenance funds from the people that use it and not requiring the folks from the body of the state to foot the bill.
Quote from: sparker on March 19, 2021, 04:28:22 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 19, 2021, 02:58:25 PM
Even though the Oklahoma Panhandle is very sparsely populated I can recall seeing a conceptual map from the OTA showing possible future turnpikes. That map included one running from the OKC area to Woodward, Guymon and Boise City. If I-27 went through Boise City it could light a fire under OTA to revisit such a plan. Given the OTA's bond situation, such a road might have to be built first as a Super-2 turnpike and then upgraded later.
I don't know how much call there is for an additional turnpike heading NW (ostensibly more or less along OK 3 and then US 412) from OKC to the Panhandle, but another possibility would be a straightforward western extension of the Cimarron Turnpike along 412 out to Boise City (something more approaching a statewide "grid pattern" rather than a radial layout.
Problem is the state's largest metro area smack-dab in the center of the state, so if you want to maximize traffic on the new road, a diagonal is the best way to go about that. A Cimarron Turnpike extension would benefit traffic coming from the Tulsa area, but nobody from OKC would use it, instead sticking to SH-3 and friends.
Quote from: sparker on March 19, 2021, 04:28:22 PM
But ODOT and their state legislative & executive handlers would have to get some semblance of their shit together first -- and if they've been unable to do so regarding other in-state corridors with more pressing needs (and we know what those are!), the prospects don't look particularly good.
You really want OTA to get their shit together, not ODOT–they are separate agencies, which is important because OTA has bonding authority whereas ODOT is constitutionally prohibited from having it. Not that OTA ever really has its shit together in any meaningful way other than financially. They're basically like ODOT's rich twin brother.
Quote from: sparkerI don't know how much call there is for an additional turnpike heading NW (ostensibly more or less along OK 3 and then US 412) from OKC to the Panhandle, but another possibility would be a straightforward western extension of the Cimarron Turnpike along 412 out to Boise City (something more approaching a statewide "grid pattern" rather than a radial layout.
The grid-like layout of roads in Northern Oklahoma, Western Kansas and Eastern Colorado is part of what makes that region of the national highway system really suck. No one from the Oklahoma City area would take I-35 up to the US-412 junction near Enid and then take a turnpike West to Woodward or farther. It's a big "L" shape. OKC traffic would stick to OK-3. Tulsa is the only big metro in the state that would derive any benefit from an upgrade of US-412.
OKC is a big enough metro and big enough national highway hub that additional radial spokes would be justified. Just like I-44 goes from OKC to St Louis I believe there should be a similar diagonal route going from OKC to Denver. Shorter diagonal turnpikes from OKC to Woodward would be more difficult to justify. Woodward is not a major destination and doesn't generate a great deal of traffic on its own between OKC. About the best anyone can hope for is OK-3 being four-laned from OKC to Woodward. If a turnpike from OKC to Woodward was ever built hopefully it would run on a more direct path from Okarche to Watonga. But it's still likely such a thing would be built as a less expensive Super 2 turnpike rather than something fully Interstate quality.
Without any organized efforts such as the Ports to Plains Corridor initiative US-287 in Eastern Colorado would have zero hope of seeing any highway upgrades. Traffic on the current 2-lane route is fairly low.
But a pretty significant amount of that traffic is heavy trucks.Quote from: rte66manMajor improvements for 287 running south from the OK/CO border are scheduled for next year on the ODOT 8-Year plan:
https://www.odot.org/cwp-8-year-plan/cwp_ffy2021-ffy2028/8_year_cwp_division6_map.pdf
I can't tell from the map what the upgrades specifically involve. The road is going to be widened,
but widened into what? One of my girlfriend's female friends was killed in a head-on collision with a semi on US-287 in that border zone. I'd bet that's not the only fatal collision that has happened out there. Obviously I think US-287 through that zone should be nothing less than a divided 4-lane route with a median and/or some kind of hard physical barrier. I would be disappointed if the upgrade ended up being a single roadway striped with 4 lanes and no barrier other than a double yellow line. An undivided 3-lane road would be even worse.
Quote from: bwana39The real issue is getting the roadways outside the small towns. US-287 between Decatur and Amarillo is a key point. The traffic flows well on the Rural Divided Highway. Then it comes to a creep through small towns like Vernon, Childress, Electra, etc.
I don't think US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth is part of the Ports to Plains Corridor. Nevertheless, that is a busy enough route to warrant a full blown Interstate upgrade. I couldn't believe the amount of trucks on the route a couple weeks ago when I drove down to DFW. US-287 from I-35W to TX-114 is long overdue for a full Interstate upgrade. US-287 needs to be Interstate quality all the way through Decatur. That zone is really becoming a mess.
US-287 North of Amarillo is more difficult to justify in terms of Interstate upgrades. I think an extension of I-27 South of Lubbock is worthy. TX DOT really needs to do a lot of work out in the Permian Basin region. I'm pretty sure once the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic dies down the oil business is going to be going full blast out there once again. There is a lot of heavy truck traffic out there. Then there is the issue that West Texas has a number of cities along the US-87 corridor that are significant in size. Laredo has a quarter million people. Midland-Odessa is a big enough location on its own to deserve an Interstate link to Lubbock, along with other highway improvements. Big Spring and San Angelo are decent sized cities on their own and on the main P2P road.
Quote from: sparker on March 20, 2021, 03:56:08 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 20, 2021, 12:30:04 PM
I think we are trying to overthink this.
Everyone seems to want to read Ports to Plains INTERSTATE corridor.
I personally think that a fully controlled access corridor there is not needed. A four-lane-divided highway would suffice in the rural areas. Controlled access loops around (or through) most of the cities and towns would keep traffic flowing at road speeds. There would need to be grade separation at MAJOR intersections. This would make it a much more drivable route at a far lower price point.
The real issue is getting the roadways outside the small towns. US-287 between Decatur and Amarillo is a key point. The traffic flows well on the Rural Divided Highway. Then it comes to a creep through small towns like Vernon, Childress, Electra, etc.
The study has a broad scope. They can propose building anything from NOTHING at all additional to a fully controlled access interstate facility with full through service roads. I know there are budget hawks and transportation haters who would prefer the no-build. There are those who will shoot for the moon. What is the right choice for Texas? What is the right choice for the US transportation grid.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 20, 2021, 02:32:50 PM
I say focus on four lane widening and town bypasses to provide an "expressway" corridor with 65+ mph speed limits, no traffic signals, 4 lanes, etc., then later focus towards interstate upgrades along rural portions of the corridor with frontage roads and minor grade separations and interchanges.
The portion of the corridor in Texas will most likely be built as I-27 to interstate standards. Not sure about north of there.
It's almost a dead-shot certainty that the P2P will be Interstate standard at least from Laredo to Amarillo; that's something on which both the backers and TxDOT will concur. Almost as certain is the remainder in the Panhandle, regardless of whether it turns west toward NM or continues north toward eastern CO via a bit of OK; the I-27 designation will, as per practice over the last 20 years, be appended to the authorizing legislation. Now -- whether the other states involved here will accede to that standard has yet TBD; it could be that once out of TX the corridor ceases being signed as I-27 and will be, at least initially, at expressway standard: 2-or-4 lane or a combination of both -- or a variation of the "midwest" approach of freeway bypasses around significant towns, interchanges at major crossing routes, and the rest expressway with at-grade intersections as needed. But it'll probably be upgradeable (hopefully not a series of commercial "5-lane" strips) so when and if OK and CO elect to go the Interstate route, it can be expanded as such. I don't see anything north of I-70 advancing beyond the expressway stage in the foreseeable future; the traffic and need just aren't there.
But then TX folks might do a decent sales (naysayers may say "con") job in regards to their OK and CO counterparts, and in relatively short time there will be a completed & signed I-27 from Laredo to Limon. Never can tell about these things until the dust clears!
I am afraid you are right that it will be built to Interstate Standards. IF it is EVER built. The best estimate for a significant start is 2035. Building a road (or roads) that will travel at 65 to 75 MPH everywhere can be done in the next 15 years for as little as 45% of the interstate cost.
I will add this. I am not even sure that the traffic volume can EVER justify this (proposed) interstate. It would go from the Gulf (more or less) to the area of the US with the lowest population density. All it can possibly accomplish north of Amarillo is to supplant rail carriage for farm goods.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 20, 2021, 08:27:05 PM
OKC is a big enough metro and big enough national highway hub that additional radial spokes would be justified. Just like I-44 goes from OKC to St Louis I believe there should be a similar diagonal route going from OKC to Denver. Shorter diagonal turnpikes from OKC to Woodward would be more difficult to justify. Woodward is not a major destination and doesn't generate a great deal of traffic on its own between OKC. About the best anyone can hope for is OK-3 being four-laned from OKC to Woodward. If a turnpike from OKC to Woodward was ever built hopefully it would run on a more direct path from Okarche to Watona. But it's still likely such a thing would be built as a less expensive Super 2 turnpike rather than something fully Interstate quality.
A turnpike to Woodward (or more accurately for what I'm about to say, to Fort Supply) may not bring people all the way to their destination, but it would at least bring them to a spot where portions of the traffic goes their separate ways to western Kansas or continue on down the panhandle toward Denver.
If you're wanting to facilitate Denver-OKC traffic, it may be better later on to extend the turnpike to somewhere it could turn north and enter Colorado without clipping the corner of Kansas. Southwest Kansas wouldn't benefit much from a Denver-OKC freeway, so it could make it more buildable to just leave them out of the loop, even though that would increase the mileage somewhat. ETA: The other option, going through SW KS, would probably involve using US-183 to K-23 to US-50/400, then cut northwest at Garden City and cross into Colorado west of Tribune. That would at least make it worth it for Kansas to get involved, as it'd serve the two biggish cities in that part of the state (Garden and Dodge City).
No more toll roads in Oklahoma please.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 20, 2021, 09:02:12 PM
No more toll roads in Oklahoma please.
The only way to get anything done in a timely manner is toll roads, unless somehow we get a state constitutional amendment passed to give ODOT bonding power.
I don't mind toll roads so much because I don't have to go anywhere that requires using them on a regular basis, and our state highway system is robust enough that they can be bypassed on conventional roads if you just don't feel like paying.
Quote from: Scott5114A turnpike to Woodward (or more accurately for what I'm about to say, to Fort Supply) may not bring people all the way to their destination, but it would at least bring them to a spot where portions of the traffic goes their separate ways to western Kansas or continue on down the panhandle toward Denver.
If you're wanting to facilitate Denver-OKC traffic, it may be better later on to extend the turnpike to somewhere it could turn north and enter Colorado without clipping the corner of Kansas. Southwest Kansas wouldn't benefit much from a Denver-OKC freeway, so it could make it more buildable to just leave them out of the loop, even though that would increase the mileage somewhat. ETA: The other option, going through SW KS, would probably involve using US-183 to K-23 to US-50/400, then cut northwest at Garden City and cross into Colorado west of Tribune. That would at least make it worth it for Kansas to get involved, as it'd serve the two biggish cities in that part of the state (Garden and Dodge City).
The route I had in mind would go from Woodward (and Fort Supply where the OK-3 diagonal ends) up to the Southern outskirts of Garden City, KS and then go diagonally up to Kit Carson, CO -where it would overlap the Ports to Plains Corridor to Limon and I-70. That would create a fairly straight shot between Denver and OKC.
From Fort Supply to Kit Carson the road would have to be all new highway. It would be an interesting experiment just to build something out on that path as an upgrade-able Super 2, even with at grade intersections -just to get the corridor started. I think the road would get a lot of use immediately.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaNo more toll roads in Oklahoma please.
We pretty much can't get new super highways built in Oklahoma without them being toll roads.
Here's another funny thing about toll roads in the US. They don't all have the same toll costs. When I hear people in Oklahoma gripe about the toll roads I immediately think they're clueless about toll prices elsewhere. If they had driven E-470 in Denver, or even express lanes in DFW during peak times, they would then see the toll prices on Oklahoma's turnpikes are a bargain.
So I don't mind driving on toll roads, just as long as I'm not getting price gouged.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 20, 2021, 09:05:43 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 20, 2021, 09:02:12 PM
No more toll roads in Oklahoma please.
The only way to get anything done in a timely manner is toll roads, unless somehow we get a state constitutional amendment passed to give ODOT bonding power.
I don't mind toll roads so much because I don't have to go anywhere that requires using them on a regular basis, and our state highway system is robust enough that they can be bypassed on conventional roads if you just don't feel like paying.
The problem with deploying a toll road on the corridor in question here -- i.e., 40 miles of US 287 across the Panhandle -- is that the abject lack of toll facilities in the general region means the chances of anyone residing within a couple hundred miles having a toll transponder of any variety isn't terribly great. There would almost certainly have to be a cash-option lane on such a facility; toll-by-plate would likely result in a sizeable number of out-of-state drivers simply not paying (and the attempted collection costs for those would make the whole tolled concept unsustainable). Face it -- a corridor crossing a narrow and outflung part of a state is a unique situation; "cookie-cutter" current toll collection policies, which are almost universally automated and invoice-based, wouldn't work well with the P2P. A couple of manned tollbooths may actually be a mini-boom to local employment! But OTA
should also deploy transponder sensors as well; enough truckers probably have them to make that aspect of the P2P section relatively simple to deal with. It's the CO or TX regional user that'll likely be a thorn in the side of tolling.
But the point of providing a non-tolled option, particularly for local residents, is a point well-taken; except for the Boise City bypass, the new P2P corridor would best be a parallel new-terrain facility, tolled or not.
I would prefer an upgraded US-287 through the Oklahoma Panhandle to be a toll free road, even if it is something built up to Interstate standards. But such a road would put much more pressure on the federal government to fund since US-287 provides little direct benefit to the rest of Oklahoma. ODOT and state legislators won't place a high priority on the US-287 corridor balanced against other more significant corridors within the state.
The OTA is moving forward on cash-less tolling with PikePass compatible transponders and pay by plate methods. If a new 40 mile turnpike was built alongside the short US-287 corridor in the OK Panhandle it would be remotely detached from the rest of the OTA toll road network. But the same is true for the new TX-375 toll road in El Paso. It works on the TX Tag toll transponder network, which is now compatible with OTA's PikePass.
Pay by Plate has its own drawbacks, as does tolling by RFID transponders (there are significant numbers of mis-reads). But trying to get a new super highway built solely on a state's gas tax revenues has its own drawbacks. And the drawbacks are gigantic in the case of Oklahoma. Its recent, modest increase on gasoline taxes largely went to fund teacher pay raises, since Oklahoma's public school teachers are among the lowest paid in the nation.
Public school teachers need to be paid much better (and make that profession much more competitive). However, the pay raises should not have come at the expense of highway funding, especially when Oklahoma's roads have been grossly under-funded for decades and continue to be under-funded now. Teachers need salaries paid through more traditional funding mechanisms, but with Oklahoma being a red state and property owners not wanting to pay their fair share in taxes the teachers not only get the short end of the stick, but also get vilified. There is a focused effort by conservatives to bash teachers and public schools in general because they somehow think both are purveyors of liberal thought. Lately that has been countered by teachers leaving Oklahoma in droves and threatening to make the schools in many districts, especially rural ones, inoperable. When a small town's school closes that small town DIES. So the state legislature cooked up the idea to raise gasoline taxes for the first time in decades and use that to pay teachers to try to keep them from leaving.
Getting back to US-287, even though a turnpike way out there would be do-able, I think chances are very low such a thing would be built. A turnpike would have to be built as a parallel facility alongside US-287. Such a road would be easily shun-piked. On the other hand, a "free" US-287 (or I-27) freeway through that area could be built as a direct upgrade of existing US-287, overlapping the existing highway. That would cost less to build.
Shunpiking is really not much of a concern in the modern day, since most people plot routes using a satnav device, and the algorithm on those devices will always put you on a controlled-access facility unless you specifically tell it to avoid tolls. Even then, it's obvious that much of the public straight up doesn't bother to do that–the Turner Turnpike is very easily shunpiked by using SH-66 (hell, it even has a song about it!) and yet it's the most profitable road in the entire system. Set the speed limit on US-287 to 65 and the speed limit on the toll road to 80 and it'll sort itself out...
Also, OTA historically doesn't seem to care much whether the roads in their system meet up. The Chickasaw Turnpike is quite a way away from any other OTA road, though not as far as Boise City is. If it was an otherwise insurmountable problem, though, maybe they could contract the maintenance out to ODOT.
I don't know that having a cash collection lane is too much of an impediment. Giving a dozen toll collector jobs to Boise City residents isn't the worst thing in the world.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 21, 2021, 08:31:22 PM
Shunpiking is really not much of a concern in the modern day, since most people plot routes using a satnav device, and the algorithm on those devices will always put you on a controlled-access facility unless you specifically tell it to avoid tolls. Even then, it's obvious that much of the public straight up doesn't bother to do that–the Turner Turnpike is very easily shunpiked by using SH-66 (hell, it even has a song about it!) and yet it's the most profitable road in the entire system. Set the speed limit on US-287 to 65 and the speed limit on the toll road to 80 and it'll sort itself out...
Also, OTA historically doesn't seem to care much whether the roads in their system meet up. The Chickasaw Turnpike is quite a way away from any other OTA road, though not as far as Boise City is. If it was an otherwise insurmountable problem, though, maybe they could contract the maintenance out to ODOT.
I don't know that having a cash collection lane is too much of an impediment. Giving a dozen toll collector jobs to Boise City residents isn't the worst thing in the world.
It not only wouldn't be an impediment, deploying a "traditional" on-site toll collection system would probably provide, as the above post states, a benefit to Boise City and environs -- an area that would likely welcome a few extra employment opportunities if an outflung turnpike were to be developed. That being said, if the P2P authorization can garner some of the newly-reinstituted congressional "earmarks", OTA's involvement may not be an issue, as the OK segment of the corridor could simply be a freeway -- and except for in and around Boise City itself, there wouldn't be a substantial amount of interchanges required, keeping the overall costs at a doable level. But parsing out such details will only happen after the authorizing legislation successfully winds its way through Congress -- job #1 for corridor backers.
The Cherokee Turnpike along US-412 is also not connected to any other part of the system, at least directly.
Quote from: sparker on March 21, 2021, 04:11:51 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 20, 2021, 09:05:43 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 20, 2021, 09:02:12 PM
; toll-by-plate would likely result in a sizeable number of out-of-state drivers simply not paying (and the attempted collection costs for those would make the whole tolled concept unsustainable).
It is far easier to collect out-of-state Tolls / Fines than in-state ones. Actually not as easy initially, but the out-of-state scofflaws get the their driver's license, registration, professional licenses, or bonding suspended / revoked far easier than in-state residents. As far as that goes it also is the case with delinquent out-of-state child support.
In-state it drags out for months even years. If you live in an out-of-state compact state, they just summarily gig you in as little as 3 months.
Quote from: sparkerIt not only wouldn't be an impediment, deploying a "traditional" on-site toll collection system would probably provide, as the above post states, a benefit to Boise City and environs -- an area that would likely welcome a few extra employment opportunities if an outflung turnpike were to be developed.
Isn't this all going to be a moot point
when OTA goes cash-less on all of Oklahoma's turnpike system? Unless I missed the mention of it elsewhere in this or another related thread, does anyone know the time line when the turnpikes will go completely cash-less?
Even for the existing cash lanes still in operation there are limits. They don't have attendants in the toll booths 24 hours per day. Overnight drivers are left on their own to feed coins into coin baskets. And if they need to make change, good luck on that bill changer! They don't always work so well. I remember one bad experience driving back to Lawton from OKC. We were at the Newcastle toll booth in my girlfriend's car. She didn't have a PikePass and avoided getting one for years. It was after midnight. We didn't have enough exact change, so we had to use a bill changer and it was crappy. It ate a couple dollars without giving me any coins. I paid upwards of $4 for what should have been around a $2 toll. Cars were backed up behind us, drivers getting irritated, etc. After that episode my girlfriend relented and finally got a PikePass.
I don't understand why some people in Oklahoma to this day still avoid getting a PikePass. Don't they realize you get a modest discount on the tolls? You don't have to slow down and stop at a toll booth (unless you're going through the crappy Walters toll booth on I-44).
In my experience, the cash lanes at the mainline plazas on the Turner and Will Rogers are always staffed. The sidegate plazas are hit or miss.
I didn't get a PikePass for years simply because I didn't use the turnpikes often enough to bother with setting up (I live on the opposite side of the OKC metro from the Kilpatrick Turnpike, and rarely have a reason to go to Lawton or Tulsa–any time I wanted to use a turnpike, it was known well enough in advance that I could grab my change jar). I only got one in preparation of a trip to South Texas so I could use TX-130. Now I use it fairly frequently, since one of the businesses I own is located off the Norman Spur.
There needs to be more toll roads. Every new Superhighway needs to be a Toll Road. Nothing changes in The Oklahoma 8 Year Plan. They simply modify the F.F.Y. Dates. Also, The Chickasaw Turnpike needs to be finished.
Since Small Towns do not want to be Bypassed claiming that it would reduce customers, placing Toll Roads near the Small Towns would benefit the local economies. Building Archways would also help.
And U.S. 287 would be a perfect part of Ports To Plains. Very large travel plazas would also be important.
While I am not sure that I don't agree that we may not need more INTERSTATES, I clearly believe we need highway upgrades. That is more lanes at places, fewer red lights, stop signs, and more highway-speed miles. Part of the infrastructure problems is overuse. Expanding capacities is the answer.
My issue with interstates comes from my home state TEXAS. Due to access laws, through frontage roads are almost a given. So almost any time you build a four-lane freeway, you build eight lanes of road. I fully agree that there need to be significant upgrades in the ports-to-plains corridor. All of it should be four-lane divided highway with a MINIMUM speed limit of 65 MPH. That means controlled access loops around most if not all of the cities and towns. It means an interstate grade facility at points. It means grade separated overpasses at major intersections. On the other hand, most of the rural stretches could be what TXDOT calls Multi-lane Rural Highway (4-lane divided). Yes, there would be multiple uncontrolled access points. There would be crossovers.
Far more value for the buck, but not an interstate.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 20, 2021, 09:59:04 PM
Quote from: Plutonic PandaNo more toll roads in Oklahoma please.
We pretty much can't get new super highways built in Oklahoma without them being toll roads.
Here's another funny thing about toll roads in the US. They don't all have the same toll costs. When I hear people in Oklahoma gripe about the toll roads I immediately think they're clueless about toll prices elsewhere. If they had driven E-470 in Denver, or even express lanes in DFW during peak times, they would then see the toll prices on Oklahoma's turnpikes are a bargain.
So I don't mind driving on toll roads, just as long as I'm not getting price gouged.
I don't like basically paying twice for roads. If we want to switch to all tolls fine but that money should exclusively be used for freeways & roads and all other user fees like registration fees and fuel taxes removed.
I personally would love an OKC to Denver interstate. If such an initiative like P2P is funded I agree that lots of the northern portions likely won't be full interstate but I find it odd how OKC was not included with the influence zone on the map yet far flung cities to the north are. Are all of these cities marketing themselves for this or was that just purely conceptual by the senators who proposed this?
I don't know if the traffic exists for such a facility but I wonder if a direct high speed interstate from OKC to Denver with an 80-85 MPH speed limit would entice any traffic from Dallas. Currently traffic from Dallas to Denver points NW but treks through a lot of non-interstate quality roads.
I'm borderlining Frizt Owl territory with this and after I'll shut up about but if a connection was made from Texarkana to OKC it would provide a more direct route to Denver from New Orleans. Ideally if such a route could be justified from Louisiana to Denver crossing through OKC potentially luring some DFW traffic as well maybe it could be justified.
Quote from: sparker on March 12, 2021, 02:57:08 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 11, 2021, 05:42:08 PM
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.
Quote from: bwana39 on March 20, 2021, 12:30:04 PM
I think we are trying to overthink this.
Everyone seems to want to read Ports to Plains INTERSTATE corridor.
I personally think that a fully controlled access corridor there is not needed. A four-lane-divided highway would suffice in the rural areas.
Not me. I never thought it was supposed to be all freeway anyway.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 23, 2021, 12:50:59 PM
I don't like basically paying twice for roads. If we want to switch to all tolls fine but that money should exclusively be used for freeways & roads and all other user fees like registration fees and fuel taxes removed.
In Oklahoma and Kansas, at least, you
don't pay twice. Toll money is used to fund the toll road system, and gas tax money is used to fund the free roads. They don't cross over. In Oklahoma, revenue from the Turner and Will Rogers turnpikes is enough that it basically covers the rest of the system.
Quote
I'm borderlining Frizt Owl territory with this and after I'll shut up about but if a connection was made from Texarkana to OKC it would provide a more direct route to Denver from New Orleans. Ideally if such a route could be justified from Louisiana to Denver crossing through OKC potentially luring some DFW traffic as well maybe it could be justified.
I think that would be a boon to Oklahoma as well. There are a lot of biggish towns in SE Oklahoma that are awkward as hell to reach from Oklahoma City-Norman (Norman to Ada is a drive I make fairly frequently, and the lack of any sort of diagonal connection between Norman and OK-3W in Pontotoc County kills me). Connecting them to the Interstate system with direct four-lane roads would be very helpful and make it easier for people to do business with those towns. At the very least we could use a "Southeast Passage" to go with the "Northwest Passage" of four-lane expressway to Woodward.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 23, 2021, 05:45:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 23, 2021, 12:50:59 PM
I don't like basically paying twice for roads. If we want to switch to all tolls fine but that money should exclusively be used for freeways & roads and all other user fees like registration fees and fuel taxes removed.
In Oklahoma and Kansas, at least, you don't pay twice. Toll money is used to fund the toll road system, and gas tax money is used to fund the free roads. They don't cross over. In Oklahoma, revenue from the Turner and Will Rogers turnpikes is enough that it basically covers the rest of the system.
Quote
I'm borderlining Frizt Owl territory with this and after I'll shut up about but if a connection was made from Texarkana to OKC it would provide a more direct route to Denver from New Orleans. Ideally if such a route could be justified from Louisiana to Denver crossing through OKC potentially luring some DFW traffic as well maybe it could be justified.
I think that would be a boon to Oklahoma as well. There are a lot of biggish towns in SE Oklahoma that are awkward as hell to reach from Oklahoma City-Norman (Norman to Ada is a drive I make fairly frequently, and the lack of any sort of diagonal connection between Norman and OK-3W in Pontotoc County kills me). Connecting them to the Interstate system with direct four-lane roads would be very helpful and make it easier for people to do business with those towns. At the very least we could use a "Southeast Passage" to go with the "Northwest Passage" of four-lane expressway to Woodward.
That is pretty impressive. I didn't know it covered the rest of the system. Still, I wish Oklahoma would abolish toll roads completely. It would come at a cost though and taxes would have to be raised elsewhere. I think the end result would be worth it.
Regarding freeways in the SE part, I wonder when/if communities like Ada will ever become part of the CSA. Lots of weird roads having half freeway like interchanges. OkDOT should at least secure ROW for such facilities.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 23, 2021, 05:52:53 PM
Still, I wish Oklahoma would abolish toll roads completely. It would come at a cost though and taxes would have to be raised elsewhere. I think the end result would be worth it.
I think we all wish there were no toll roads, no fuel tax, etc. Let's go a step farther, let's abolish charging for fuel, make cars free (I want my MTV).
Toll roads serve a purpose. They are universally derided. Taxes in general are. Tolls are a very specific use tax. In most if not all cases if you choose to, you can go around them. The detour may be slower, less convenient, and less comfortable, but generally there is a free or lower cost alternative: especially for surface roads (bridges and tunnels are a slightly different story).
Toll roads while not ideal are the better choice over no roads (or just no freeways) at all. There was a huge string on the Lake Charles I-10 bridge replacement that talked about little besides "SHUNPIKING" . The bottom line is we all hate taxes, we may choose one form of tax over another to hate more(especially if it applies directly to you), but the bottom line is we all have to pay some sort of taxes. Roads are built with taxes in one way or another.
Quote from: bwana39 on March 23, 2021, 06:05:59 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 23, 2021, 05:52:53 PM
Still, I wish Oklahoma would abolish toll roads completely. It would come at a cost though and taxes would have to be raised elsewhere. I think the end result would be worth it.
I think we all wish there were no toll roads, no fuel tax, etc. Let's go a step farther, let's abolish charging for fuel, make cars free (I want my MTV).
Toll roads serve a purpose. They are universally derided. Taxes in general are. Tolls are a very specific use tax. In most if not all cases if you choose to, you can go around them. The detour may be slower, less convenient, and less comfortable, but generally there is a free or lower cost alternative: especially for surface roads (bridges and tunnels are a slightly different story).
Toll roads while not ideal are the better choice over no roads (or just no freeways) at all. There was a huge string on the Lake Charles I-10 bridge replacement that talked about little besides "SHUNPIKING" . The bottom line is we all hate taxes, we may choose one form of tax over another to hate more(especially if it applies directly to you), but the bottom line is we all have to pay some sort of taxes. Roads are built with taxes in one way or another.
Tell that California, Utah, Arizona, Texas, etc. Guess there is no way to do it without tolls lol. I know that's a strawman but seriously there is a way to do it and suggesting to remove other sources of funding because I suggested to remove tolls is ridiculous.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 22, 2021, 11:24:22 PM
Quote from: sparkerIt not only wouldn't be an impediment, deploying a "traditional" on-site toll collection system would probably provide, as the above post states, a benefit to Boise City and environs -- an area that would likely welcome a few extra employment opportunities if an outflung turnpike were to be developed.
Isn't this all going to be a moot point when OTA goes cash-less on all of Oklahoma's turnpike system? Unless I missed the mention of it elsewhere in this or another related thread, does anyone know the time line when the turnpikes will go completely cash-less?
Even for the existing cash lanes still in operation there are limits. They don't have attendants in the toll booths 24 hours per day. Overnight drivers are left on their own to feed coins into coin baskets. And if they need to make change, good luck on that bill changer! They don't always work so well. I remember one bad experience driving back to Lawton from OKC. We were at the Newcastle toll booth in my girlfriend's car. She didn't have a PikePass and avoided getting one for years. It was after midnight. We didn't have enough exact change, so we had to use a bill changer and it was crappy. It ate a couple dollars without giving me any coins. I paid upwards of $4 for what should have been around a $2 toll. Cars were backed up behind us, drivers getting irritated, etc. After that episode my girlfriend relented and finally got a PikePass.
I don't understand why some people in Oklahoma to this day still avoid getting a PikePass. Don't they realize you get a modest discount on the tolls? You don't have to slow down and stop at a toll booth (unless you're going through the crappy Walters toll booth on I-44).
My point was that a toll facility deployed as OK's portion of the P2P along US 287 would likely have to be an exception to the "cashless" policy simply because of its status as a connector between two other states. While such things as moving violations by out-of-state drivers can provoke inter-state measures to ensure that fines are paid, simple failure to pay the five to ten bucks that a 40-mile isolated stretch would be charged to a noncommercial vehicle would likely show up on one's credit report rather than a uniformed knock on the door in the state of that vehicle's owner's residence (the service of which would cost the tolling state money out of pocket). Of course, the states could choose to get pretty draconian about such things -- but that would likely be counterproductive in the long run. But maybe, as iterated previously, those 40 miles could be built without tolls if enough federal money is sent that way. Just put an EV charging station somewhere outside Boise City, accept credit/debit cards, and apportion the funds appropriately. I for one wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the funding issue regarding EV's dealt with as an effective "excise tax" collected at the recharging sites -- and if the P2P gets some form of earmarks -- and this administration follows through on its commitment to EV technology -- the entire corridor will be built with what will be combo rest areas and recharging stations spaced regularly along the route.
Quote from: sparker on March 23, 2021, 06:48:26 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 22, 2021, 11:24:22 PM
Quote from: sparkerIt not only wouldn't be an impediment, deploying a "traditional" on-site toll collection system would probably provide, as the above post states, a benefit to Boise City and environs -- an area that would likely welcome a few extra employment opportunities if an outflung turnpike were to be developed.
Isn't this all going to be a moot point when OTA goes cash-less on all of Oklahoma's turnpike system? Unless I missed the mention of it elsewhere in this or another related thread, does anyone know the time line when the turnpikes will go completely cash-less?
Even for the existing cash lanes still in operation there are limits. They don't have attendants in the toll booths 24 hours per day. Overnight drivers are left on their own to feed coins into coin baskets. And if they need to make change, good luck on that bill changer! They don't always work so well. I remember one bad experience driving back to Lawton from OKC. We were at the Newcastle toll booth in my girlfriend's car. She didn't have a PikePass and avoided getting one for years. It was after midnight. We didn't have enough exact change, so we had to use a bill changer and it was crappy. It ate a couple dollars without giving me any coins. I paid upwards of $4 for what should have been around a $2 toll. Cars were backed up behind us, drivers getting irritated, etc. After that episode my girlfriend relented and finally got a PikePass.
I don't understand why some people in Oklahoma to this day still avoid getting a PikePass. Don't they realize you get a modest discount on the tolls? You don't have to slow down and stop at a toll booth (unless you're going through the crappy Walters toll booth on I-44).
My point was that a toll facility deployed as OK's portion of the P2P along US 287 would likely have to be an exception to the "cashless" policy simply because of its status as a connector between two other states. While such things as moving violations by out-of-state drivers can provoke inter-state measures to ensure that fines are paid, simple failure to pay the five to ten bucks that a 40-mile isolated stretch would be charged to a noncommercial vehicle would likely show up on one's credit report rather than a uniformed knock on the door in the state of that vehicle's owner's residence (the service of which would cost the tolling state money out of pocket). Of course, the states could choose to get pretty draconian about such things -- but that would likely be counterproductive in the long run. But maybe, as iterated previously, those 40 miles could be built without tolls if enough federal money is sent that way. Just put an EV charging station somewhere outside Boise City, accept credit/debit cards, and apportion the funds appropriately. I for one wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the funding issue regarding EV's dealt with as an effective "excise tax" collected at the recharging sites -- and if the P2P gets some form of earmarks -- and this administration follows through on its commitment to EV technology -- the entire corridor will be built with what will be combo rest areas and recharging stations spaced regularly along the route.
Louisiana suspends drivers licenses, holds renewals on registration, and will pull professional licenses for claims over ANY and all unpaid tolls in Texas. I might give you the Oklahoma panhandle is a bad place for a tollway. I was discussing tolls as a user levy in general, not for this specific place.
Essentially there is no "free lunch" when it comes to using highways. You're going to pay for using them either at toll gates or at the gasoline pump. Some states collect considerably more in fuel taxes than others (such as Oklahoma) and/or collect considerably more at toll gates too. Oklahoma could get rid of its turnpikes, but it would result in massive increases in fuel taxes.
The way things are going, I really believe it's a possibility we may start seeing toll tag readers or license plate cameras set up to charge tolls on a lot of regular highways and even city streets.
Quote from: Scott5114I didn't get a PikePass for years simply because I didn't use the turnpikes often enough to bother with setting up (I live on the opposite side of the OKC metro from the Kilpatrick Turnpike, and rarely have a reason to go to Lawton or Tulsa–any time I wanted to use a turnpike, it was known well enough in advance that I could grab my change jar). I only got one in preparation of a trip to South Texas so I could use TX-130. Now I use it fairly frequently, since one of the businesses I own is located off the Norman Spur.
I've had a PikePass since around 2000. I had avoided getting one for several years, but caved after a really infuriating experience at the recently completed Newcastle toll booth on I-44. Some clown in an old pickup truck hauling a trailer caused a really long traffic jam because he was arguing with the toll booth clerk over his toll and number of axles. I swore I'd never allow myself to be held up by such selfish idiocy on the highway ever again. That Monday after the weekend I was at the tag agency getting a PikePass (back when they were the portable soap bar variety).
Quote from: Plutonic PandaI personally would love an OKC to Denver interstate. If such an initiative like P2P is funded I agree that lots of the northern portions likely won't be full interstate but I find it odd how OKC was not included with the influence zone on the map yet far flung cities to the north are. Are all of these cities marketing themselves for this or was that just purely conceptual by the senators who proposed this?
I think the Ports to Plains Corridor idea was first floated back in the 1990's. IIRC it was deemed a "high priority corridor" when all those HPCs rolled out many years ago. Someone else might know who first conceived the idea. Nevertheless it is common for lawmakers to back
or oppose such projects.
To me OKC to Denver makes just as much sense as the I-44 going from OKC to St Louis. It would be a 180° flip of how I-44 operates, providing a more direct connection from Northwest parts of the US to the Deep South. An OKC-Denver Interstate would have been nonsense 30 years ago, but with how population in the US has been shifting such a corridor makes much more sense now.
And, yes, I think a OKC-Denver Interstate would be that much better if it extended from OKC to the Texarkana area, where it could connect with I-49. That would create a fairly direct Denver to New Orleans route. As Scott5114 said, the route would indeed be beneficial to Oklahoma. Right now we just have 2-lane OK-3 sort of serving that purpose in SE OK. For Texas traffic coming up from DFW and going to Denver the route up I-35 to this route going straight to Limon would probably be more direct than using US-287.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 24, 2021, 01:39:37 AM
To me OKC to Denver makes just as much sense as the I-44 going from OKC to St Louis. It would be a 180° flip of how I-44 operates, providing a more direct connection from Northwest parts of the US to the Deep South. An OKC-Denver Interstate would have been nonsense 30 years ago, but with how population in the US has been shifting such a corridor makes much more sense now.
Well, almost as much sense. I-44 is part of one of the two main routes from Chicago to Dallas & Laredo. It's hard to top that sort of commercial traffic draw.
(Of course, saying that might steer this thread into discussion about Interstate-ing US-69/US-75 in Oklahoma, but that's for another thread.)
The Interstate highway system has several diagonal corridors of significance that run from the Southwest up to the Northeast. But there are very few running the opposite direction, Northwest down to Southeast. There are none in the geographical center of the nation. That's why I argue the OKC to Denver leg is a giant hole in the system.
I-44 is an important corridor, but in the bigger picture I-70 Eastward from St Louis continues the diagonal line I-44 starts from OKC. A considerable amount of cross-country traffic uses that corridor, such as vehicles moving from New York to Los Angeles.
The combination of I-20 & I-30 in Texas to I-40 thru Tennessee is another long diagonal. And that dovetails into the continuing line of I-59/I-75/I-40/I-81. All of I-85 is a SW to NE diagonal.
The Northwest US has large metros such as Denver (and the other Front Range cities), Salt Lake, Portland and Seattle. The Boise area is growing fast. There are very few Interstate routes serving that region of the nation compared to a far more densely packed Interstate system in the East. None of those locations in the Northwest have direct diagonal access from the edge of the Rockies down to the Deep South and Gulf Coast. In most scenarios drivers coming from the Northwest pretty much have to cross the Mississippi before finding any freeways that run diagonal toward the South.
The Ports to Plains Corridor design will help vehicles traveling from the Front Range cities to South Texas without having to deal with Raton Pass. But it doesn't really do much to move traffic more effectively to destinations such as Memphis, Atlanta, Nashville, New Orleans, etc. A direct leg from Denver to OKC would do that.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 24, 2021, 03:35:22 PM
The Northwest US has large metros such as Denver (and the other Front Range cities), Salt Lake, Portland and Seattle. The Boise area is growing fast. There are very few Interstate routes serving that region of the nation compared to a far more densely packed Interstate system in the East. None of those locations in the Northwest have direct diagonal access from the edge of the Rockies down to the Deep South and Gulf Coast. In most scenarios drivers coming from the Northwest pretty much have to cross the Mississippi before finding any freeways that run diagonal toward the South.
The Ports to Plains Corridor design will help vehicles traveling from the Front Range cities to South Texas without having to deal with Raton Pass. But it doesn't really do much to move traffic more effectively to destinations such as Memphis, Atlanta, Nashville, New Orleans, etc. A direct leg from Denver to OKC would do that.
Yeah. I'm just saying that the sheer volume of NE-SW commercial traffic is hard to match, especially when it comes to commercial traffic. 'Large city' does not equal 'major logistics hub'.
There is a larger volume of traffic moving between the Southwestern US and the Northeastern US. As such there are multiple diagonal Interstate corridors running in parallel to serve that traffic. There needs to be at least one proper diagonal corridor flipped 180° the opposite direction from Northwest US to Southeast US. Denver and OKC are major hub cities in their own right. They should be connected directly with a high quality super highway link. That would solve a good bit of the problem. Other corridors would have to be addressed too. I think I-22 should be extended from Birmingham down thru Columbus, GA and to Jacksonville, FL. And I think a good case could be made to extend what is now I-555 to Springfield, MO.
I've wondered what route people usually take from LA to NYC or vice versa. Part of me thinks I-40 to I-44 point NE is the best but lots of people I know take I-15 to I-70(weather depending of course).
OKC-Denver is dissimilar to OKC-STL in that there is nothing in between OKC and Denver.
Tulsa, Joplin, Springfield; a nice string of mid-sized cities line up between OKC and St. Louis.
Taking a diagonal to Denver from OKC and you've got... virtually nothing. Makes it really hard to justify a major highway with zero noteworthy cities over the intervening distance.
I have similar thoughts about the concept of connecting Vegas and Reno with I-11. There's nothing in between so that makes it difficult to get excited about spending limited resources on it.
Agreed, and while a diagonal might be nice to have, in today's day and age of limited funding, along with the fastest route between them already interstate, albeit slightly less direct (I-35, I-135, I-70), I'd say the odds of such a corridor becoming reality would be minimal. Not to mention, what are the true traffic demands? Are we going to spend billions upon billions of dollars for a highway through nowhere to carry 5,000 AADT? Or is it going to be maintaining 30,000 - 40,000 AADT with 15-20% truck traffic? What's the investment?
If no interstate connection existed, I could see a need. Or if this was the 1950s, road construction was cheap, and the federal government funded majority of the projects, I could see it happening. But nowadays...? Not against the concept, but the likelihood of anything happening is low.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 24, 2021, 04:35:12 PM
I've wondered what route people usually take from LA to NYC or vice versa. Part of me thinks I-40 to I-44 point NE is the best but lots of people I know take I-15 to I-70(weather depending of course).
Even North Texas to San Diego. From Sherman is about the same distance whether you go through DFW & El Paso or Amarillo & Flagstaff. I prefer the I-40 route during summer for sure and even in winter, it is not a terrible route. From my previous home outside of Greenville, it was 50 miles and less than an hour difference.
Quote from: bwana39 on March 24, 2021, 05:58:12 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 24, 2021, 04:35:12 PM
I've wondered what route people usually take from LA to NYC or vice versa. Part of me thinks I-40 to I-44 point NE is the best but lots of people I know take I-15 to I-70(weather depending of course).
Even North Texas to San Diego. From Sherman is about the same distance whether you go through DFW & El Paso or Amarillo & Flagstaff. I prefer the I-40 route during summer for sure and even in winter, it is not a terrible route. From my previous home outside of Greenville, it was 50 miles and less than an hour difference.
Sometimes I'll go out of my way to travel the OKC-LA route on I-10 vs I-40. It's amazing how much of a difference it makes.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 24, 2021, 06:30:01 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 24, 2021, 05:58:12 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 24, 2021, 04:35:12 PM
I've wondered what route people usually take from LA to NYC or vice versa. Part of me thinks I-40 to I-44 point NE is the best but lots of people I know take I-15 to I-70(weather depending of course).
Even North Texas to San Diego. From Sherman is about the same distance whether you go through DFW & El Paso or Amarillo & Flagstaff. I prefer the I-40 route during summer for sure and even in winter, it is not a terrible route. From my previous home outside of Greenville, it was 50 miles and less than an hour difference.
Sometimes I'll go out of my way to travel the OKC-LA route on I-10 vs I-40. It's amazing how much of a difference it makes.
When I lived in the L.A. area and was making trips back east regularly (relatives in SE OK, friends in Atlanta) I'd take I-10 to I-20 when in a hurry (75 mph much of the way helped considerably), but it was either desert or less-than-pleasant plains from Banning, CA east to Abilene, TX, so those trips weren't something I anticipated with any pleasure. Always preferred the alternative of heading up to I-40 and then going east or west; actually used the pre-I-22 US 78 between Memphis and Birmingham (at least it was mostly freeway back then) on Atlanta trips; at least much of the scenery east of OKC was green, even in summer -- and even the desert was more interesting, broken up by the Arizona Divide. All in all, trips involving I-40 were much more enjoyable than those using the more southerly route.
L.A. - NYC? Done both I-10/15/40/44/70/76/276/95 and I-10/20/30/40/81/78 -- prefer the former, but it's not night and day!
Quote from: sparker on March 24, 2021, 06:50:47 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 24, 2021, 06:30:01 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 24, 2021, 05:58:12 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 24, 2021, 04:35:12 PM
I've wondered what route people usually take from LA to NYC or vice versa. Part of me thinks I-40 to I-44 point NE is the best but lots of people I know take I-15 to I-70(weather depending of course).
Even North Texas to San Diego. From Sherman is about the same distance whether you go through DFW & El Paso or Amarillo & Flagstaff. I prefer the I-40 route during summer for sure and even in winter, it is not a terrible route. From my previous home outside of Greenville, it was 50 miles and less than an hour difference.
Sometimes I'll go out of my way to travel the OKC-LA route on I-10 vs I-40. It's amazing how much of a difference it makes.
When I lived in the L.A. area and was making trips back east regularly (relatives in SE OK, friends in Atlanta) I'd take I-10 to I-20 when in a hurry (75 mph much of the way helped considerably), but it was either desert or less-than-pleasant plains from Banning, CA east to Abilene, TX, so those trips weren't something I anticipated with any pleasure. Always preferred the alternative of heading up to I-40 and then going east or west; actually used the pre-I-22 US 78 between Memphis and Birmingham (at least it was mostly freeway back then) on Atlanta trips; at least much of the scenery east of OKC was green, even in summer -- and even the desert was more interesting, broken up by the Arizona Divide. All in all, trips involving I-40 were much more enjoyable than those using the more southerly route.
L.A. - NYC? Done both I-10/15/40/44/70/76/276/95 and I-10/20/30/40/81/78 -- prefer the former, but it's not night and day!
I still haven't been to NYC yet. I'm looking to change that this year. First time in the NE it will be for me. I've been toying with a lot of potential routes– I'll be driving from OKC.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 24, 2021, 07:27:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 24, 2021, 06:50:47 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 24, 2021, 06:30:01 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 24, 2021, 05:58:12 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 24, 2021, 04:35:12 PM
I've wondered what route people usually take from LA to NYC or vice versa. Part of me thinks I-40 to I-44 point NE is the best but lots of people I know take I-15 to I-70(weather depending of course).
Even North Texas to San Diego. From Sherman is about the same distance whether you go through DFW & El Paso or Amarillo & Flagstaff. I prefer the I-40 route during summer for sure and even in winter, it is not a terrible route. From my previous home outside of Greenville, it was 50 miles and less than an hour difference.
Sometimes I'll go out of my way to travel the OKC-LA route on I-10 vs I-40. It's amazing how much of a difference it makes.
When I lived in the L.A. area and was making trips back east regularly (relatives in SE OK, friends in Atlanta) I'd take I-10 to I-20 when in a hurry (75 mph much of the way helped considerably), but it was either desert or less-than-pleasant plains from Banning, CA east to Abilene, TX, so those trips weren't something I anticipated with any pleasure. Always preferred the alternative of heading up to I-40 and then going east or west; actually used the pre-I-22 US 78 between Memphis and Birmingham (at least it was mostly freeway back then) on Atlanta trips; at least much of the scenery east of OKC was green, even in summer -- and even the desert was more interesting, broken up by the Arizona Divide. All in all, trips involving I-40 were much more enjoyable than those using the more southerly route.
L.A. - NYC? Done both I-10/15/40/44/70/76/276/95 and I-10/20/30/40/81/78 -- prefer the former, but it's not night and day!
I still haven't been to NYC yet. I'm looking to change that this year. First time in the NE it will be for me. I've been toying with a lot of potential routes– I'll be driving from OKC.
Here's an oddball suggestion OKC>NYC: Just follow US 62 to I-86 in western upstate NY, then follow
that east to see what all the fuss is about on long-planned I-86 in the Catskills! Hardly the most efficient route, but you'd get to see one hell of a lot of back country along the way, along with a few cities (Hello, Columbus!). Actually, I wonder if anyone's ever clinched US 62 on one El Paso-Niagara Falls (or vice-versa) trip?
Quote from: sparker on March 24, 2021, 08:59:01 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 24, 2021, 07:27:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 24, 2021, 06:50:47 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 24, 2021, 06:30:01 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 24, 2021, 05:58:12 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 24, 2021, 04:35:12 PM
I've wondered what route people usually take from LA to NYC or vice versa. Part of me thinks I-40 to I-44 point NE is the best but lots of people I know take I-15 to I-70(weather depending of course).
Even North Texas to San Diego. From Sherman is about the same distance whether you go through DFW & El Paso or Amarillo & Flagstaff. I prefer the I-40 route during summer for sure and even in winter, it is not a terrible route. From my previous home outside of Greenville, it was 50 miles and less than an hour difference.
Sometimes I'll go out of my way to travel the OKC-LA route on I-10 vs I-40. It's amazing how much of a difference it makes.
When I lived in the L.A. area and was making trips back east regularly (relatives in SE OK, friends in Atlanta) I'd take I-10 to I-20 when in a hurry (75 mph much of the way helped considerably), but it was either desert or less-than-pleasant plains from Banning, CA east to Abilene, TX, so those trips weren't something I anticipated with any pleasure. Always preferred the alternative of heading up to I-40 and then going east or west; actually used the pre-I-22 US 78 between Memphis and Birmingham (at least it was mostly freeway back then) on Atlanta trips; at least much of the scenery east of OKC was green, even in summer -- and even the desert was more interesting, broken up by the Arizona Divide. All in all, trips involving I-40 were much more enjoyable than those using the more southerly route.
L.A. - NYC? Done both I-10/15/40/44/70/76/276/95 and I-10/20/30/40/81/78 -- prefer the former, but it's not night and day!
I still haven't been to NYC yet. I'm looking to change that this year. First time in the NE it will be for me. I've been toying with a lot of potential routes– I'll be driving from OKC.
Here's an oddball suggestion OKC>NYC: Just follow US 62 to I-86 in western upstate NY, then follow that east to see what all the fuss is about on long-planned I-86 in the Catskills! Hardly the most efficient route, but you'd get to see one hell of a lot of back country along the way, along with a few cities (Hello, Columbus!). Actually, I wonder if anyone's ever clinched US 62 on one El Paso-Niagara Falls (or vice-versa) trip?
That would be quite a journey. I've clinched from Henryetta, OK, to Imboden, AR over several trips, and I can vouch for the scenery in that section. Not the most expeditious way to get across OK and AR, but certainly one of the most scenic.
Quote from: triplemultiplexOKC-Denver is dissimilar to OKC-STL in that there is nothing in between OKC and Denver.
The route is not about the towns between OKC and Denver as much as it is about serving the larger national system. I-44 wasn't built just to serve Tulsa and Springfield, MO. The far bigger purpose of I-44 is serving longer distance traffic, particularly commercial traffic. An OKC-Denver Interstate would do the same thing.
If every Interstate was required to have a major city along its path every couple hundred miles most of the Interstates in the Western half of the US would never have been built.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2021, 12:36:33 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplexOKC-Denver is dissimilar to OKC-STL in that there is nothing in between OKC and Denver.
The route is not about the towns between OKC and Denver as much as it is about serving the larger national system. I-44 wasn't built just to serve Tulsa and Springfield, MO. The far bigger purpose of I-44 is serving longer distance traffic, particularly commercial traffic. An OKC-Denver Interstate would do the same thing.
If every Interstate was required to have a major city along its path every couple hundred miles most of the Interstates in the Western half of the US would never have been built.
While direct diagonal connectors are technically superior, mileage and time-wise, to right-angle connectors (just recall your high school geometry class!), the reality is that not every metro area requires a direct (or semi-direct) connector to another area. The one under question here -- OKC-Denver, may or may not have the level of dedicated commercial traffic schlepping between the endpoints to warrant the expense of such a facility. The present Interstate routing, I-35/135/70, is likely efficient enough to suffice for what commercial traffic there is -- and even Wichita, the sole "chokepoint" on that corridor combination, has a bypass (I-235) -- although being a relatively elderly facility, it's now inundated by 'burbs! But a completed (via US 287 and Limon) P2P would further cut about 30 miles from the aforementioned route combination -- and if Amarillo is bypassed by the extended P2P/I-27, it won't assume the chokepoint role. While not a crow fly between the cities, a I-40/27/70 journey would be a better than marginal upgrade to the present "normal" corridor via Salina.
Extrapolating from the 1956 "brief" of Interstates, which was to connect as many cities of 50K population or more -- since the population has a little more than doubled since that time (about 160M then and about 336M today), one could say that the threshold has grown to cities of 100K population. As the concept of collective metro areas as a cohesive entity was in its infancy 65 years ago, the metric was still incorporated population of a "center" city itself (most suburbs were "communities" rather than separate jurisdictional units and were generally counted as part of the county and not parsed out as they are today, particularly in regards to smaller -- <50K -- cities with some populated areas outside city limits). Even then, the '56-'58 41K/miles system still missed quite a few over 50K cities (out here in CA when the US 101 corridor was eliminated from consideration, Santa Barbara and Salinas joined those ranks, as well as Bakersfield and Fresno when I-5 was moved to the Westside Freeway at the end of 1957). Now -- if you take the area bounded by I-40 on the south, I-25 on the west, I-70 on the north, and I-135 (then 35W) & I-35 on the east, there were zero cities not along the bounding routes over 50K and only one, Hutchinson, KS, over 25K population in the 1955 census estimates -- and even today, only that same city, Hutchinson, rises above the old 50K criterion --
but only within today's metro metrics; its 2015 incorporated estimate is only about 46K!. While it's true that there need not actually be substantial interim population to serve if one considers connecting endpoints as a goal, getting a new corridor on the map more often than not requires some sort of advocacy toward that end emanating from the served area to "kick-start" designation activity into being. I-22 would not have gotten off the ground if not for boosters from Tupelo, MS (who wanted to lure a Toyota plant to their outskirts) and Jasper, AL (industrial-park developers there formed the core of AL-based support); likewise Bryan/State College and the greater Temple/Belton/Killeen areas in central TX clamored for a connecting corridor and cobbled up I-14 to fit their bill. At this point it's difficult to see any particular town or zone between OKC and Denver garnering enough pull to match those efforts. The only endpoint-oriented corridor to see designational success in recent years, I-11 re Phoenix and Las Vegas, was able to publicize its way to success because of the outsized population growth of those two metro areas -- and the fact that it included a "signature" project along the way, the O'Callaghan/Tillman arch bridge over the Colorado River next to Hoover Dam. Not to disparage the region through which a more-or-less direct OKC-Denver corridor would run, but the only really recognizable/salient locale along the way would be Dodge City as a touchstone of the Old West (even though
Gunsmoke has been off the air for 46 years now except in cable reruns). Unless overwhelming call for such a corridor comes from both OKC and Denver pretty much simultaneously, localized support for such a corridor is unlikely to be forthcoming.
Quote from: sparkerThe one under question here -- OKC-Denver, may or may not have the level of dedicated commercial traffic schlepping between the endpoints to warrant the expense of such a facility. The present Interstate routing, I-35/135/70, is likely efficient enough to suffice for what commercial traffic there is -- and even Wichita, the sole "chokepoint" on that corridor combination, has a bypass (I-235) -- although being a relatively elderly facility, it's now inundated by 'burbs!
Anyone choosing to drive from OKC to Denver via I-35/I-135/I-70 should have his head examined. That's a huge L-shaped right angle. No one is going to use that route combo to travel between OKC and St Louis. I-44 is the hypotenuse on that right triangle.
Quote from: sparkerNot to disparage the region through which a more-or-less direct OKC-Denver corridor would run, but the only really recognizable/salient locale along the way would be Dodge City as a touchstone of the Old West (even though Gunsmoke has been off the air for 46 years now except in cable reruns).
You are still not getting it. To repeat, it's not about the towns between OKC and Denver, it's about the big cities beyond OKC and Denver. On one end you have Seattle, Portland, Boise, Salt Lake and the Denver metro. On the other end you have OKC, Memphis, Birmingham, Atlanta, DFW, etc. Make the route Denver thru OKC to Texarkana and you end up with a pretty direct route from Denver to New Orleans.
The system-wide, national-level functions are the only reasons why there are any Interstates in the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming or even Nebraska. Even Idaho would be a stretch for having any Interstates if building the things was solely about serving local traffic counts.
Quote from: sparker on March 27, 2021, 05:10:35 AM
The only endpoint-oriented corridor to see designational success in recent years, I-11 re Phoenix and Las Vegas, was able to publicize its way to success because of the outsized population growth of those two metro areas -- and the fact that it included a "signature" project along the way, the O'Callaghan/Tillman arch bridge over the Colorado River next to Hoover Dam.
Not to mention, that unlike Denver and Oklahoma City, there's currently no interstate highway connection between the two cities.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2021, 11:18:21 AM
Anyone choosing to drive from OKC to Denver via I-35/I-135/I-70 should have his head examined. That's a huge L-shaped right angle.
You keep saying this, but according to Google Maps, it's the fastest route between the two cities. There's not many other viable alternatives.
I-35 / I-135 / I-70 - 9h 31m, 678 miles
I-40 / US-270 / US-412 / US-183 / SH-34 / US-400 / US-283 / I-70 - 9h 52m, 640 miles
I-40 / SH-6 / SH-152 / US-87 / I-25 - 10h 2m, 661 miles
Why is following a route that's 20 minutes faster over the other routes and is fully interstate highway, which long distance traffic will prefer, a reason that someone should "have his head examined" ?
What route do you recommend that would beat all of these time wise?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 27, 2021, 12:13:53 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 27, 2021, 05:10:35 AM
The only endpoint-oriented corridor to see designational success in recent years, I-11 re Phoenix and Las Vegas, was able to publicize its way to success because of the outsized population growth of those two metro areas -- and the fact that it included a "signature" project along the way, the O'Callaghan/Tillman arch bridge over the Colorado River next to Hoover Dam.
Not to mention, that unlike Denver and Oklahoma City, there's currently no interstate highway connection between the two cities.
I-17→I-40→I-15. Sure it goes way out of the way, but so does I-35→I-135→I-70.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 27, 2021, 12:13:53 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2021, 11:18:21 AM
Anyone choosing to drive from OKC to Denver via I-35/I-135/I-70 should have his head examined. That's a huge L-shaped right angle.
You keep saying this, but according to Google Maps, it's the fastest route between the two cities. There's not many other viable alternatives.
I-35 / I-135 / I-70 - 9h 31m, 678 miles
I-40 / US-270 / US-412 / US-183 / SH-34 / US-400 / US-283 / I-70 - 9h 52m, 640 miles
I-40 / SH-6 / SH-152 / US-87 / I-25 - 10h 2m, 661 miles
Why is following a route that's 20 minutes faster over the other routes and is fully interstate highway, which long distance traffic will prefer, a reason that someone should "have his head examined" ?
I-35 / I-135 / I-70 - 9h 31m, 678 miles–71.3 mph average
I-40 / US-270 / US-412 / US-183 / SH-34 / US-400 / US-283 / I-70 - 9h 52m, 640 miles–64.8 mph average
If you were to upgrade the second route so that you could maintain an average speed of 71.3 like you can on the all-interstate route, it would be 30 minutes faster than the existing route. You could also do better by cutting a diagonal from US-400 straight to Limon–that saves about 75 miles, so you'd be looking at 565 miles, which at a speed of 71.3 mph, would be 7h 55m, saving just less than an hour between OKC and Denver.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Look -- the lack of direct connectors in that part of the country is rampant, largely because except in this forum there's been a concurrent lack of official support for such. Even the corridor that's on pretty much everyone's Top Ten list of being overdue for significant improvement if not the full Interstate treatment, US 287 Fort Worth>Amarillo, doesn't seem to be on any official radar although the traffic volumes, particularly of the commercial variety, have been elevated at least since the late '70's, when the initial 4-laning was completed. And that corridor, in conjunction with the "middle" part of the P2P (between I-40 and I-70), makes for a dandy little quasi-direct DFW>Denver routing (don't think any trucker would piss & moan if that composite corridor saw full development!) And when reference to end points "beyond" OKC are mentioned, one of the more obvious is DFW or, by extension, Houston. True, a US 287 improvement wouldn't help traffic looking to head east from OKC on I-40, but it would enhance anything originating on or near I-10, I-20, and their feeders. If anyone can demonstrate actual need or warrant for a direct OKC-Denver connector, based upon actual data (I'm certain that can be gleaned from trucking firms and/or public AADT records) I for one would be inclined to reassess my position that such a corridor would draw enough traffic to be fiscally feasible. But in an overall regional ranking of worthy -- and doable -- projects, such a corridor pales before the P2P concept as well as the aforementioned US 287 corridor that actually starts in metro DFW. And the one thing about 287 southeast of Amarillo -- it's in TX, which seems to find a way to develop corridors as contrasted with their neighbor to the north, which always seem to find ways to avoid such a thing. It's taken TX politicos and officials 30+ years to actually formulate legislation to authorize P2P; it would probably be another three decades before the cited portion of US 287 gets similar treatment. Still, without a sea change in OK's philosophy and methodology re such things, TX would have plans for that corridor in place before OK would even seriously explore anything NW of OKC, be it toll road or freeway. Kinda like those odds!
Quote from: sprjus4You keep saying this, but according to Google Maps, it's the fastest route between the two cities.
Your Google Maps route comparison is irrelevant because
the direct, diagonal route I'm describing DOES NOT EXIST in any form. No 2 lane, 4 lane or whatever equivalent. There is no Google maps data on it to pull up.
By your logic I might as well avoid I-44 for driving from OKC to St Louis and use I-35/I-135 and I-70 instead. No need for diagonal highways like I-44. Let's just have a square, idiot grid. And that's all there is in Eastern Colorado, Northern Oklahoma and Western Kansas. Checkerboard grid.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2021, 09:33:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4You keep saying this, but according to Google Maps, it's the fastest route between the two cities.
Your Google Maps route comparison is irrelevant because the direct, diagonal route I'm describing DOES NOT EXIST in any form. No 2 lane, 4 lane or whatever equivalent. There is no Google maps data on it to pull up.
No, the comparison is relevant when you're making claims like this.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2021, 11:18:21 AM
Anyone choosing to drive from OKC to Denver via I-35/I-135/I-70 should have his head examined. That's a huge L-shaped right angle.
How do you expect one to drive between the cities without having to get their head examined?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2021, 09:33:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4You keep saying this, but according to Google Maps, it's the fastest route between the two cities.
Your Google Maps route comparison is irrelevant because the direct, diagonal route I'm describing DOES NOT EXIST in any form. No 2 lane, 4 lane or whatever equivalent. There is no Google maps data on it to pull up.
By your logic I might as well avoid I-44 for driving from OKC to St Louis and use I-35/I-135 and I-70 instead. No need for diagonal highways like I-44. Let's just have a square, idiot grid. And that's all there is in Eastern Colorado, Northern Oklahoma and Western Kansas. Checkerboard grid.
Under most circumstances I tend to concur with what you say about the state of regional highways -- but in this instance, the logic is less than straightforward, particularly with regards to why I-44 is there and being well-used. It wasn't an "original concept" to connect St. Louis with Tulsa and OKC; obviously, the US 66 corridor preceded it and was, in essence, used as the "model" for I-44. But that corridor had been there for decades prior to the designation of US 66 (formerly 60); the SLSF ("Frisco") main line blazed that particular trail through the northern reaches of the Ozarks and onward through the middle of OK before ending up in Quanah, TX. But there is no equivalent "pioneering" rail line heading northwest from OKC to
anywhere, much less all the way to Denver! Except for branch lines built to access grain elevators, the two main rail lines traversing NW OK are diagonals but
in the opposite orientation. SW>NE! The closest thing to a diagonal highway is OK 3, at least until it gets out to the Panhandle, where it turns west, more recently multiplexed with US 412. If any connector from OKC to the P2P -- at least an all-OK affair -- were to be developed, it would likely follow OK 3 for most of its length. That whole OK 3 affair looks like an older ODOT attempt to make it look like that part of the state is not forgotten in regards to connectivity (i.e., "give 'em something that sort of looks like a radial route") -- even if much of what lies west of US 281 is relatively devoid of population, at least at the level that would warrant a dedicated high-capacity corridor there (although it appears that there has been some halting effort made to 4-lane much of that diagonal, starting with exit #108 on I-40). A few decades back I traveled around that area, "railfanning" the original Santa Fe main freight line through Shattuck and Woodward (loved that old silver/red locomotive paint scheme!). Didn't notice a lot of long-distance type trucks in Woodward; ostensibly, if there were such employing the OK 3 diagonal as a "shortcut" to either Boise City or western KS, presumably as touchpoints toward a farther destination, they would have passed through there. But on that same trip I also took pictures of the former Rock Island (then owned by SP) line that follows US 54 diagonally through the Panhandle -- and that route was rife with trucking -- in all probability trucks off I-40 in Tucumcari "shortcutting" toward Wichita and KC (and this was back around 1984). To that effect, back in 2005's massive addition of HPC corridors in that year's SAFETEA-LU legislation, all of US 54 from El Paso to Wichita was designated as HPC #51; probably some federal funds were used to 4-lane 54 in OK. At this point I'd venture an educated guess -- based on that anecdotal evidence -- that there is some warrant for a diagonal route through the bounded area that's being discussed here -- but, again,
in the opposing direction! That's where the "action" seems to lie here; more as part of a cross-country strategy on the part of the trucking sector than a way to expedite OKC-Denver traffic, which is in all likelihood considerably less robust than I-40 to KC and beyond. Bobby may be correct in his view that this area has long been overlooked when it comes to viable corridors -- but in terms of sheer need and overall volume, it's the SW-to-NE diagonal corridor concept, exemplified by US 54, that is in more immediate need of extensive upgrades.
And yes, I've used the I-70/135/35 routing a couple of times; it wasn't too terribly bad (albeit a bit boring!). And according to at least a couple of my exes, I do need my head examined! Nevertheless, I emerged none the worse for wear! ;-)
Quote from: sparker on March 28, 2021, 02:35:44 PM
That whole OK 3 affair looks like an older ODOT attempt to make it look like that part of the state is not forgotten in regards to connectivity (i.e., "give 'em something that sort of looks like a radial route") -- even if much of what lies west of US 281 is relatively devoid of population, at least at the level that would warrant a dedicated high-capacity corridor there (although it appears that there has been some halting effort made to 4-lane much of that diagonal, starting with exit #108 on I-40).
The attempt didn't come from ODOT, but from Gov. George Nigh, which OK-3 is named after. This article (https://www.oklahoman.com/article/3116880/vision-for-road-has-faded-with-time) summarizes the history pretty well. In short:
Quote from: George Nigh
I wanted all 77 counties to feel represented. ...The people in the Panhandle deserved a nice highway, too.
But also:
Quote from: George Nigh
What really caught my attention were the skiers. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, right? Well, I learned that many skiers heading to Colorado would instead drive to Amarillo and then move across into Colorado. We had tourists bypassing all the hotels, motels, gift shops we had to offer, and I knew we could do better if we had a road that would get them through our communities.
I think it's worth noting that Denver's emergence as a major US city–and thus a place likely to be a destination–is a relatively recent thing. Its 1950 MSA population was only 560,000, but that doubled to over a million by 1970, and doubled again to two million by the year 2000. Meanwhile, the Oklahoma City MSA only had 325,000 in 1950 and that has grown to an estimated 1.4 million in 2019. When the railroad system was set up, there wasn't much need to connect the two cities, and when the Interstate system was planned, nobody felt the need to go out of their way to connect a metro of 560,000 to a metro of 325,000. But things are very different now.
If Interstate 27 is extended northward along US 87 and 287, how will it get through downtown Amarillo without destroying the downtown area? Perhaps two of the four streets that span northward from the 27/40 interchange (S. Buchannan St./Pierce St. S./S. Fillmore St./S. Taylor St.), will have elevated freeways constructed over the existing streets similar to the ones built off the end of Interstate 44 in Wichita Falls.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 28, 2021, 09:54:25 PM
If Interstate 27 is extended northward along US 87 and 287, how will it get through downtown Amarillo without destroying the downtown area? Perhaps two of the four streets that span northward from the 27/40 interchange (S. Buchannan St./Pierce St. S./S. Fillmore St./S. Taylor St.), will have elevated freeways constructed over the existing streets similar to the ones built off the end of Interstate 44 in Wichita Falls.
I-27 is slated to run along the west side of Loop 335 when the time comes with the remainder of I-27 inside the loop becoming a 3DI. There is no chance of I-27 being extended north from its current terminus.
I think the biggest question you have to ask is What is the road supposed to support?
There are no population centers at the northern end except Denver. The rail lines are winnowing down more in that direction than in other places in the US. There may be a dearth of freeways leading there, but there may be a reason. There really is not the demand for commercial transportation going from south Texas to Colorado.
There is a freeway from Juárez to Denver. (Closer than Laredo). LA is almost as close as the Gulf Coast for ocean cargo. There are freeways from LA to Denver. Someone mentioned Seattle. I just don't see much (if any) traffic between South Texas and Seattle.
This road is lacking, but I just do not see the need for an Interstate (grade) highway. I am sure there is a consultant who can give me skewed data to prove me wrong, but....
That is totally disregarding the point that New Mexico or Colorado are only marginally on board if at all .
Simple question: If the P2P is developed as an Interstate as far north as Limon, what path would a connector from that facility do OKC take? Chances are it would follow the above-cited "Nigh" route at least as far as Fort Supply -- but would it simply veer west toward Boise City, or would there be an attempt to bring KS into the process to produce a more direct connection to that corridor somewhere near Kit Carson, CO? It's difficult to see KS acceding to such a proposal, since it wouldn't provide much in the way of benefits to that state besides the income from a few roadside businesses; the costs of such a corridor, unless almost fully borne by other parties outside the state, would likely not be covered by those limited benefits. Such a connector would almost certainly be an all-OK affair if pursued at all. Nevertheless, as opined before, that in itself isn't terribly encouraging for the prospects of such a connector unless the current political atmosphere within OK circles shifts back to a building mode -- with an eye toward fulfilling the Nigh concept and providing an upgradable 4-lane OK 3 all the way to Boise City. With a few strategically-placed bypasses, such an expressway may be a reasonable solution.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 24, 2021, 01:39:37 AM
And, yes, I think a OKC-Denver Interstate would be that much better if it extended from OKC to the Texarkana area, where it could connect with I-49. That would create a fairly direct Denver to New Orleans route. As Scott5114 said, the route would indeed be beneficial to Oklahoma. Right now we just have 2-lane OK-3 sort of serving that purpose in SE OK. For Texas traffic coming up from DFW and going to Denver the route up I-35 to this route going straight to Limon would probably be more direct than using US-287.
Would it be enough to upgrade the Indian Nation Turnpike to what it needs to get an interstate shield, then build something new terrain from there due east to connect to I-49 just northeast of the OK-TX-AR point? Kind of a zig-zag diagonal, but still a diagonal accomplished on the cheap?
Quote from: sparker on March 29, 2021, 03:30:51 AM
Simple question: If the P2P is developed as an Interstate as far north as Limon, what path would a connector from that facility do OKC take? Chances are it would follow the above-cited "Nigh" route at least as far as Fort Supply -- but would it simply veer west toward Boise City, or would there be an attempt to bring KS into the process to produce a more direct connection to that corridor somewhere near Kit Carson, CO? It's difficult to see KS acceding to such a proposal, since it wouldn't provide much in the way of benefits to that state besides the income from a few roadside businesses; the costs of such a corridor, unless almost fully borne by other parties outside the state, would likely not be covered by those limited benefits.
A straight diagonal from Fort Supply to Limon would serve nothing much in Kansas, meaning Kansas wouldn't be likely to support it. Cut north at Fort Supply to Dodge City, then over to Garden City, then to Limon, though, and now you might get Kansas's attention. That would serve the two major population centers in southwest Kansas, and tie into the US-54/400 corridor toward Wichita (remember the I-66 idea that caused US-400's creation?) It's less direct, sure, but serves more people.
Quote from: Finrod on March 29, 2021, 04:57:50 AM
Would it be enough to upgrade the Indian Nation Turnpike to what it needs to get an interstate shield, then build something new terrain from there due east to connect to I-49 just northeast of the OK-TX-AR point? Kind of a zig-zag diagonal, but still a diagonal accomplished on the cheap?
Problem is, if you do that, you miss Ada. Ada is a medium-size city that normally wouldn't matter in the scheme of things like this, but it's the Chickasaw capital, which means you can probably get them to throw a few million into the pot if you point the thing at Ada. You'd also get the Chickasaws' political support, which is not nothing. The turnpike package that created the Kilpatrick, Creek, and Cherokee turnpikes was only passed on the condition that Ada was invited to the party too (which is why the two-lane Chickasaw Turnpike exists).
Quote from: Finrod on March 29, 2021, 04:57:50 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 24, 2021, 01:39:37 AM
And, yes, I think a OKC-Denver Interstate would be that much better if it extended from OKC to the Texarkana area, where it could connect with I-49. That would create a fairly direct Denver to New Orleans route. As Scott5114 said, the route would indeed be beneficial to Oklahoma. Right now we just have 2-lane OK-3 sort of serving that purpose in SE OK. For Texas traffic coming up from DFW and going to Denver the route up I-35 to this route going straight to Limon would probably be more direct than using US-287.
Would it be enough to upgrade the Indian Nation Turnpike to what it needs to get an interstate shield, then build something new terrain from there due east to connect to I-49 just northeast of the OK-TX-AR point? Kind of a zig-zag diagonal, but still a diagonal accomplished on the cheap?
Expanding the volume of traffic on the Indian Nation turnpike would be a positive. This is kind of the problem I see with P2P. You build it and it still doesn't come.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 29, 2021, 06:04:01 AM
A straight diagonal from Fort Supply to Limon would serve nothing much in Kansas, meaning Kansas wouldn't be likely to support it. Cut north at Fort Supply to Dodge City, then over to Garden City, then to Limon, though, and now you might get Kansas's attention. That would serve the two major population centers in southwest Kansas, and tie into the US-54/400 corridor toward Wichita (remember the I-66 idea that caused US-400's creation?) It's less direct, sure, but serves more people.
Which is what I had said to Bobby in the other thread on this topic. It doesn't matter that "if you build a straight shot interstate, it'll be quicker than 70->135->35". No one is building this highway unless it serves the very few cities in the path (Liberal, Garden City, Lamar, La Junta, whatever). Once you make the road curve to serve those cities, it ceases being any quicker than the current set up. No state is spending millions of dollars to create a highway that either a) doesn't serve any population centers or b) doesn't speed up commerce. I really feel like a lot of people who want to see this come to fruition have never been to southwest Kansas or southeast Colorado. There is damn near nothing there.
It's the same reason we don't discuss an Albuquerque-Tucson interstate. Would good would it serve?
Chris
Quote from: bwana39 on March 29, 2021, 03:59:44 PM
Quote from: Finrod on March 29, 2021, 04:57:50 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 24, 2021, 01:39:37 AM
And, yes, I think a OKC-Denver Interstate would be that much better if it extended from OKC to the Texarkana area, where it could connect with I-49. That would create a fairly direct Denver to New Orleans route. As Scott5114 said, the route would indeed be beneficial to Oklahoma. Right now we just have 2-lane OK-3 sort of serving that purpose in SE OK. For Texas traffic coming up from DFW and going to Denver the route up I-35 to this route going straight to Limon would probably be more direct than using US-287.
Would it be enough to upgrade the Indian Nation Turnpike to what it needs to get an interstate shield, then build something new terrain from there due east to connect to I-49 just northeast of the OK-TX-AR point? Kind of a zig-zag diagonal, but still a diagonal accomplished on the cheap?
Expanding the volume of traffic on the Indian Nation turnpike would be a positive. This is kind of the problem I see with P2P. You build it and it still doesn't come.
Interestingly, the P2P poses an
inverse situation re the other mostly N-S TX-backed corridor, I-69. The center section (Shreveport-Memphis) of that composite corridor is widely considered to be the least useful and almost certainly the last section to be developed. With the P2P/I-27 corridor, it's the
middle section, roughly from I-10 (near Sonora, TX) into the northern Panhandle around Dumas, that is anticipated to host the greatest volume of traffic as both a "cutoff" from the San Antonio area and a connector between populated points in west TX (San Angelo, M/O/Big Spring, Lubbock). The section south of there through Del Rio and on to Laredo will likely depend upon traffic originating elsewhere -- at one of the POE's or even seaports like Corpus -- to justify its existence. The Permian will generate its own level of regional traffic to augment through movements; that will extend into the agricultural region north of there that extends well into the Panhandle. But north of, say, Stratford the corridor will likely revert to a through-traffic conduit; there's little between TX and I-70 to churn up much in the way of local usage. Now -- US 287 already carries a decent amount of commercial traffic from TX to Denver and vice-versa, particularly savvy truckers who are simply trying to not only avoid Raton Pass and its nasty grades but also the rolling congestion of Pueblo and Colorado Springs on I-25, which is definitely showing its age. As long as they can do a consistent 65 out on the plains with only a few slow-speed obstacles, there will always be a commercial contingent who will favor that routing. As iterated previously in this thread, the developmental scenario may see full Interstate development within TX (having your principal political backers within a state that constitutes 3/4 of the corridor really helps in that regard!) but a full build-out to that level might be a bit more "leisurely" north of the TX line -- possibly some super-2's, some 2-lane controlled-access sections, and even some 4-lane expressways (with a freeway bypass or two around the likes of Springfield and Lamar). Probably looking at a 30-35-year timeline outside TX to get I-27 built & signed up to I-70 (unless some fiscal incentives to do so are dangled in front of ODOT and CDOT).
Quote from: sparker on March 29, 2021, 10:32:55 PM
The section south of there through Del Rio and on to Laredo will likely depend upon traffic originating elsewhere -- at one of the POE's or even seaports like Corpus -- to justify its existence.
Traffic from Corpus Christi is still going to have a faster and more direct route following I-37 and I-10 via San Antonio... as for the Valley, there could some potential if and only if I-2 / I-27 is constructed as a full interstate highway between McAllen, Laredo, Del Rio, and I-10. Otherwise, the winner is still going to be I-69E/C, I-37, and I-10 via San Antonio.
I still see very little warrant for any interstate highway between Laredo and I-10... perhaps a cutoff between I-35 and I-10 along the SH-173 corridor between Kerrville and Devine corridor if a connection between I-10 West and I-35 South is warranted, but that's about it.
The only segment that has the true warrants to be constructed to interstate highway standards and signed as I-27 is between I-10 and I-70 or I-25.
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 29, 2021, 04:20:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 29, 2021, 06:04:01 AM
A straight diagonal from Fort Supply to Limon would serve nothing much in Kansas, meaning Kansas wouldn't be likely to support it. Cut north at Fort Supply to Dodge City, then over to Garden City, then to Limon, though, and now you might get Kansas's attention. That would serve the two major population centers in southwest Kansas, and tie into the US-54/400 corridor toward Wichita (remember the I-66 idea that caused US-400's creation?) It's less direct, sure, but serves more people.
Which is what I had said to Bobby in the other thread on this topic. It doesn't matter that "if you build a straight shot interstate, it'll be quicker than 70->135->35". No one is building this highway unless it serves the very few cities in the path (Liberal, Garden City, Lamar, La Junta, whatever). Once you make the road curve to serve those cities, it ceases being any quicker than the current set up. No state is spending millions of dollars to create a highway that either a) doesn't serve any population centers or b) doesn't speed up commerce.
I did the math on a previous page and came up with an hour time savings on a path that serves Dodge-Garden.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 30, 2021, 01:23:32 AM
I did the math on a previous page and came up with an hour time savings on a path that serves Dodge-Garden.
But that was also entering Colorado and not routing through any SE Colorado cities, so why would Colorado pay for that? It doesn't help Colorado enough.
Chris
BUMP!!
Looks like TxDOT got some real $$$ in the Infrastructure Act to move forward on planning.
https://www.fox34.com/2023/01/19/funding-secured-ports-to-plains-corridor-projects/
Quote
Funding secured for Ports-to-Plains Corridor projects
By Joshua Ramirez
Published: Jan. 18, 2023 at 6:49 PM CST
LUBBOCK, Texas (KCBD) - New funding is secure for the future of the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor.
Those federal dollars will be crucial in bringing the Ports-to-Plains Corridor from concept to construction. The grants will fund multiple studies throughout Congressional District 19. Chairman of the Ports-to-Plains alliance, John Osborne, says it's the next step in making the corridor a reality. "Without those planning dollars, you can never get to the construction side." Osborne said.
Those funds will now be available since President Biden signed the 2023 Omnibus Appropriations Bill at the end of December. In addition to the $1.6 million Lubbock congressman Jodey Arrington requested, TxDOT will add another $400,000 in funding. That will foot the bill for project feasibility, preliminary design, and environmental studies. "That $2 million will actually go to help fund as much of those studies as possible," Osborne said
Once the studies are completed, the project can go into a unified transportation plan to determine when construction can begin. "The fact that we've got planning dollars coming into the Ports-to-Plains Corridor is really important to help TxDOT fast track those projects into the UTP plan," Osborne said. Those projects are already benefiting the Hub City, but Osborne says the City of Lubbock will continue to benefit for decades to come. "We'll also see over the course of the next 50 and 100 years the opportunity to continue to grow and expand our city," Osborne said. "Because of that trade route being opened up."
Two other federal grants worth a total of $4 million were also approved, along with another million from TxDOT, to help fund construction related to Loop 88. The first will bring part of FM 1585 from Avenue U to half a mile east of Highway 87 up to interstate standard. The second will eventually connect Highway 87 to Loop 88 and convert two miles of the highway from 114th Street to 146th to interstate standard as well.
I know a lot of you cite current traffic studies; however, I appreciate that these folks are planning for future growth. And it's pretty reasonable to expect that the areas on either end of this corridor will grow significantly over time. Hard to say now, but planners also ask for the moon and stars up front and often end up with just enough to build what they wanted in the first place, which could be a somewhat reduced, yet useful corridor.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on January 19, 2023, 10:31:28 AM
I know a lot of you cite current traffic studies; however, I appreciate that these folks are planning for future growth. And it's pretty reasonable to expect that the areas on either end of this corridor will grow significantly over time. Hard to say now, but planners also ask for the moon and stars up front and often end up with just enough to build what they wanted in the first place, which could be a somewhat reduced, yet useful corridor.
And it's pretty reasonable to expect the areas in between either end to lose population significantly over time.
Tiny po-dunk towns along the way will likely lose population (just like tiny towns are losing residents across the nation). However, the Ports to Plains Corridor does pass through some significant population centers between Denver and Laredo. That helps make the corridor more justifiable to build.
Lubbock and Amarillo are both growing. Big Spring and San Angelo are big enough they're not suffering the same problems facing tiny towns. Plus a new super highway corridor may attract more development to those places. The same could apply to Del Rio and Eagle Pass. Then there's the oil and gas business in the Permian Basin. Lots of trucks and other company vehicles move all over that region. A new Interstate would improve movement of that traffic out there.
It's still questionable if Midland will get a "I-27W" leg from the Ports to Plains Corridor. But the city is at least intended to be the West terminus for I-14. That would effectively build out half of that I-27W leg by default. If the Ports to Plains Corridor is fully built-out it's more likely I-27 would just be signed thru Big Spring. I-14 would come up to Midland from the San Angelo area. A spur from the North side of Midland to Lamesa would probably just carry a 3-digit Interstate designation (or just continue being signed as TX-349).
It is the Ports to Plains Corridor Study
Not the Ports to Plains Interstate Highway Study
While there is a significant number who will suggest that this is the ONLY alternative, there are several things that might happen.
The whole monte. Interstate or interstate equivalent all the way from IH-70 to Laredo (or even Interstate 2) including splits going Through Midland, Odessa, or Abilene or maybe all three.
A straight shot Interstate or Interstate equivalent mostly following US-87 through Big Spring again all the way from I-70 to Mexico.
Nothing the route remains basically as it is with repairs and minor upgrades as population and traffic changes. Simply the " NO BUILD" option.
I believe the study will show that it needs to mostly be four laned. It needs some loops and bypasses to get around particularly the smaller towns.
This is a study to see what is needed. Not a study to rubber stamp a NGO agency's desire to increase the value of scrubby land into commercial property.
First of all, that "scrubby land" out there generates a shit-ton of oil and natural gas. There is a hell of a lot of industrial activity associated with it. That means lots of commercial trucks pulling out onto various roads.
Also, that "scrubby land" is not desolate like Northern Nevada. Obviously Amarillo, Lubbock and Midland-Odessa are the biggest population centers within the corridor. Around 120,000 people live in the San Angelo metro; it's one of the biggest cities in the US to not have any Interstate connections at all. There's several other towns along the way in the 30,000 population range.
And then the other consideration is the Ports to Plains Corridor is NOT meant to be a local service road. It's more of a big picture corridor helping to move goods more efficiently to/from major population centers and ports. The cities along the Front Range of the Colorado Rockies is a major population center. The cluster of cities in far South Texas is another. Laredo and Brownsville are both major ports. The corridor doesn't need to ping-pong connect to every town in the region (which is why the main line goes thru Big Spring and not Midland).
If the criteria for building an Interstate highway required there to be major cities every 100-200 miles a whole lot of the existing Interstate highway system would not be built. None of them would run completely from one end of the country to the other.
Quote from: bwana39I believe the study will show that it needs to mostly be four laned. It needs some loops and bypasses to get around particularly the smaller towns.
That pretty much describes the existing highway from San Angelo up to Stratford in the TX Panhandle. It's all four-laned, most of it divided. There are a few limited access exits scattered along the way. Big Spring has a new freeway bypass. Amarillo's freeway loop is in progress. Lubbock's loop could use some improvement.
South of San Angelo US-87 is mostly 2-laned all the way to Del Rio. The road is pretty hilly and curvy between Sonora and Del Rio. I wouldn't like driving on that road in its existing configuration. Great recipe for a head-on collision. I already refuse to take US-287 into SE Colorado because that 2-lane road is indeed dangerous.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 19, 2023, 05:18:30 PM
Also, that "scrubby land" is not desolate like Northern Nevada. Obviously Amarillo, Lubbock and Midland-Odessa are the biggest population centers within the corridor.
The scrubby land I was describing was not meant to place judgement on the permian basin , the RGV, or any place in particular. There is scrubby land in the lush verdant east Texas region as well.
The scrubbly land I was discussing could just as well have been the intersection of US-82 and I-30 circa 1965. The intersection of US-287 and I-69 outside of Corrigan, or yes, an intersection of US-180 and US-87 (or I-27) on the east side of Lamesa. The point being that this land at the intersections of a freeway becomes exponentially more valuable.
This increase of value is much of what the regional highway groups are searching for. It isn't increased safety. There might be nominal desire to create jobs. Any way you look at it is building loops around town creates new commercial property. If a city supports building a loop . land speculators or investors control the rhetoric. If a city opposes the building of a loop, it is likely the small business owners whose establishments will be bypassed control the rhetoric.
I hate being Debbie Downer, but as much as the majority want highway improvement for transportation's sake, that is not the prevailing wisdom(?) in these small and midsized towns.
Quote from: bwana39This increase of value is much of what the regional highway groups are searching for. It isn't increased safety.
I disagree with that. Certain safety issues I hate along the US-287 corridor going North thru the Panhandles of TX & OK into CO as well as the US-87 corridor going down to Del Rio could be fixed simply by turning the existing 2-lane roads into a 4-lane divided configuration.
The other factor is moving commerce more effectively between the Front Range and the Gulf Coast. Cities along the Front Range of the Rockies have been growing pretty significantly. The old status quo highway setup from when those cities were much smaller isn't cutting it anymore. Those cities need limited access connections to the South and Southeast other than just I-25 and I-70.
I'm skeptical about towns using future Interstate highways as drivers for economic development. That really comes down to location, location and location. Still, a city such as Amarillo could make out really big if I-27 was extended North to the Denver area and down to Laredo. That would put Amarillo in an even more prime spot for logistical distribution center activity.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 21, 2023, 01:34:43 AM
Quote from: bwana39This increase of value is much of what the regional highway groups are searching for. It isn't increased safety.
I disagree with that. Certain safety issues I hate along the US-287 corridor going North thru the Panhandles of TX & OK into CO as well as the US-87 corridor going down to Del Rio could be fixed simply by turning the existing 2-lane roads into a 4-lane divided configuration.
The other factor is moving commerce more effectively between the Front Range and the Gulf Coast. Cities along the Front Range of the Rockies have been growing pretty significantly. The old status quo highway setup from when those cities were much smaller isn't cutting it anymore. Those cities need limited access connections to the South and Southeast other than just I-25 and I-70.
I'm skeptical about towns using future Interstate highways as drivers for economic development. That really comes down to location, location and location. Still, a city such as Amarillo could make out really big if I-27 was extended North to the Denver area and down to Laredo. That would put Amarillo in an even more prime spot for logistical distribution center activity.
The point I was trying to make was that the local groups who are clamoring for new interstates are in solely for economic development and gave my strong opinion of what said groups goals are and are not.
I agree fully that most of this could be fixed could be fixed simply by
turning the existing 2-lane roads into a 4-lane divided configuration. with some bypasses / loops and over / underpasses at significant intersections (most if not all state highways including FM's and select city & county roads.)
While I think an interstate would be nice, trading cars every year would be nice for me. On the other hand, economically it may not be feasible.
The very least they can do is secure the ROW needed to make any upgrades to 4-lane divided for fully limited access feasible.
Texas used to be really good at doing that. They would upgrade a 2-lane highway to 4-lane divided with a huge median that could hold a freeway years or decades later. Stretches of US-287 between Wichita Falls and Fort Worth were built like that. In some other cases they would just have a wide swath of ROW alongside a 2-lane road. A bunch of US-82 between Sherman and Paris was like that, in various stages of Super-2 configuration. The upgraded more and more intersections to limited access. Lately they've been adding in the second pair of lanes.
TX DOT (along with ODOT and CDOT) need to be doing this kind of work with the Ports to Plains Corridor. They need to get big on ROW preservation. Another thing they need to do when upgrading 2-lane sections to 4-lane divided is improving the highway geometry and sight lines -basically making the main lanes Interstate grade without necessarily making it limited access. Blind curves and rises can be pretty hazardous if there are at-grade intersections, driveways or dirt roads connecting directly to the main lanes.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 21, 2023, 01:33:01 PM
The very least they can do is secure the ROW needed to make any upgrades to 4-lane divided for fully limited access feasible.
Texas used to be really good at doing that. They would upgrade a 2-lane highway to 4-lane divided with a huge median that could hold a freeway years or decades later. Stretches of US-287 between Wichita Falls and Fort Worth were built like that. In some other cases they would just have a wide swath of ROW alongside a 2-lane road. A bunch of US-82 between Sherman and Paris was like that, in various stages of Super-2 configuration. The upgraded more and more intersections to limited access. Lately they've been adding in the second pair of lanes.
TX DOT (along with ODOT and CDOT) need to be doing this kind of work with the Ports to Plains Corridor. They need to get big on ROW preservation. Another thing they need to do when upgrading 2-lane sections to 4-lane divided is improving the highway geometry and sight lines -basically making the main lanes Interstate grade without necessarily making it limited access. Blind curves and rises can be pretty hazardous if there are at-grade intersections, driveways or dirt roads connecting directly to the main lanes.
While they tend to use it more in transitional urban and suburban areas
They would upgrade a 2-lane highway to 4-lane divided with a huge median that could hold a freeway years or decades later. is just building the frontage roads first and being able to build the main lanes at a later date. There are advantages to both; that and building the main lanes first and then the frontage roads later. The primary advantage to the frontage lanes first then the main lanes is that the connections to adjacent properties are already tied in and there is less disturbance when the overpasses and lanes are built between the existent frontage roads.
The primary advantage to building the main lanes along the center is there is a smaller path to mow. In a lot of cases, when they buy the entire ROW and only build a smaller initial facility, they allow the original landholders to use (and maintain) the parts along the perimeter. This is generally the case for agricultural land. I could see some places where it might apply in more urban areas in a case by case basis. Even when the land is separated / fenced from the original property, it doesn't have to be cleared, mowed,and maintained until it is time for construction activities to proceed.
In the case of Texas, they GENERALLY spread expansions from a center 35' (more or less) from the left or right of a 2-laned road in rural areas. 25' in developed suburban areas. (The ideal depressed median is from 48' to 78'.)
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 21, 2023, 01:33:01 PM
The very least they can do is secure the ROW needed to make any upgrades to 4-lane divided for fully limited access feasible.
Texas used to be really good at doing that. They would upgrade a 2-lane highway to 4-lane divided with a huge median that could hold a freeway years or decades later. Stretches of US-287 between Wichita Falls and Fort Worth were built like that. In some other cases they would just have a wide swath of ROW alongside a 2-lane road. A bunch of US-82 between Sherman and Paris was like that, in various stages of Super-2 configuration. The upgraded more and more intersections to limited access. Lately they've been adding in the second pair of lanes.
TX DOT (along with ODOT and CDOT) need to be doing this kind of work with the Ports to Plains Corridor. They need to get big on ROW preservation. Another thing they need to do when upgrading 2-lane sections to 4-lane divided is improving the highway geometry and sight lines -basically making the main lanes Interstate grade without necessarily making it limited access. Blind curves and rises can be pretty hazardous if there are at-grade intersections, driveways or dirt roads connecting directly to the main lanes.
Before they could do any of that, they would need to complete all of their NEPA work done. Given the length of the corridor, I would expect that TxDOT, ODOT, CDOT, and NMDOT would have to work together and perform a two-tier NEPA analysis, like what was done for I-69 in Indiana (I think Texas took a 2 tier approach for their portion of I-69 as well). The Tier I EIS and ROD would approve the general corridor. The broader corridor would then be divided up into smaller segments of independent utility, each with its own Tier II NEPA study. Only after the Tier II RODs are issued can the respective states acquire property for the ROW, assuming funding is available for ROW acquisition by that point.
Despite the Ports to Plains Corridor being a national highway project all the work done thus far points to TX DOT, ODOT and CDOT trying to build out the corridor in a very piece-meal (and stupid) fashion.
It would make 100% perfect sense for them to get all the NEPA paperwork done up front and then work on future steps, like securing ROW, then re-locating utilities, etc. But it appears they don't want to fart around with any of that leg work until they are forced to do so. The problem is if they wait until then the whole job is going to be far more difficult, if not impossible. And maybe that's what some of the bureaucrats want: a no-build option made by default due to procrastination.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 24, 2023, 04:50:41 PM
Despite the Ports to Plains Corridor being a national highway project all the work done thus far points to TX DOT, ODOT and CDOT trying to build out the corridor in a very piece-meal (and stupid) fashion.
It would make 100% perfect sense for them to get all the NEPA paperwork done up front and then work on future steps, like securing ROW, then re-locating utilities, etc. But it appears they don't want to fart around with any of that leg work until they are forced to do so. The problem is if they wait until then the whole job is going to be far more difficult, if not impossible. And maybe that's what some of the bureaucrats want: a no-build option made by default due to procrastination.
All roadbuilding in the US is done by the local DOT's. Each have their own agendas and their own way of doing things. While once they start construction, there are some minimums they have to adhere to (based on the branding of the highway SH,US, IH) they pretty much get to do what they want, when they want, and how they want. As much as we would like a cognizant plan to build out these freeways, the fact there is no requirement to do anything in particular and very little guidance from congress to do anything. Just like someone mentioned above, the feds sent $1.6 million. Texas chipped in $400K. 80% federal funding, 20% TXDOT.
I am going to add one thing here. 2 million wouldn't pay the engineering to decide what property to buy for the ROW in a single county.
While construction expense is out the roof, engineering (consultant and in-house) expense dwarfs constructions costs, period.
^ It's worth noting that states don't have full freedom to do things "when they want". Once a project is designed, it has to go out to construction within a certain amount of time, or the state is forced to pay back the design money to the feds. And a NEPA evaluation can't be too far before construction, either. So no "just get NEPA done and buy ROW and then sit on the project until the money is available for construction".
Quote from: vdeane on January 24, 2023, 09:35:22 PM
^ It's worth noting that states don't have full freedom to do things "when they want". Once a project is designed, it has to go out to construction within a certain amount of time, or the state is forced to pay back the design money to the feds. And a NEPA evaluation can't be too far before construction, either. So no "just get NEPA done and buy ROW and then sit on the project until the money is available for construction".
Good point. DOT environmental units probably spend half their time updating expired docs.
However, FHWA has become more lax on the 10-Year PE rule. I am sure they still keep an eye on it, but even they got sick of dealing with reviewing the justifications and other associated busywork.
(personal opinion expressed)
Quote from: vdeane on January 24, 2023, 09:35:22 PM
^ It's worth noting that states don't have full freedom to do things "when they want". Once a project is designed, it has to go out to construction within a certain amount of time, or the state is forced to pay back the design money to the feds. And a NEPA evaluation can't be too far before construction, either. So no "just get NEPA done and buy ROW and then sit on the project until the money is available for construction".
To that point, the FHWA has been withholding approval of EISs and RODs until the DOT overseeing the project presents a financial plan showing how they plan to fund all elements of the project from design to ROW acquisition and construction. The FHWA is requiring the financial plan to be included with the NEPA documentation so projects don't languish for years or decades while they await funding.
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2023, 10:54:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 24, 2023, 09:35:22 PM
^ It's worth noting that states don't have full freedom to do things "when they want". Once a project is designed, it has to go out to construction within a certain amount of time, or the state is forced to pay back the design money to the feds. And a NEPA evaluation can't be too far before construction, either. So no "just get NEPA done and buy ROW and then sit on the project until the money is available for construction".
Good point. DOT environmental units probably spend half their time updating expired docs.
However, FHWA has become more lax on the 10-Year PE rule. I am sure they still keep an eye on it, but even they got sick of dealing with reviewing the justifications and other associated busywork.
(personal opinion expressed)
I seem to recall hearing there was something in the transportation bill passed in the last few years that loosened up some of the time restrictions.
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 25, 2023, 10:15:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 24, 2023, 09:35:22 PM
^ It's worth noting that states don't have full freedom to do things "when they want". Once a project is designed, it has to go out to construction within a certain amount of time, or the state is forced to pay back the design money to the feds. And a NEPA evaluation can't be too far before construction, either. So no "just get NEPA done and buy ROW and then sit on the project until the money is available for construction".
To that point, the FHWA has been withholding approval of EISs and RODs until the DOT overseeing the project presents a financial plan showing how they plan to fund all elements of the project from design to ROW acquisition and construction. The FHWA is requiring the financial plan to be included with the NEPA documentation so projects don't languish for years or decades while they await funding.
This is normal procedure for FHWA, so it's hard to characterize it as being "held up."
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2023, 11:03:59 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 25, 2023, 10:15:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 24, 2023, 09:35:22 PM
^ It's worth noting that states don't have full freedom to do things "when they want". Once a project is designed, it has to go out to construction within a certain amount of time, or the state is forced to pay back the design money to the feds. And a NEPA evaluation can't be too far before construction, either. So no "just get NEPA done and buy ROW and then sit on the project until the money is available for construction".
To that point, the FHWA has been withholding approval of EISs and RODs until the DOT overseeing the project presents a financial plan showing how they plan to fund all elements of the project from design to ROW acquisition and construction. The FHWA is requiring the financial plan to be included with the NEPA documentation so projects don't languish for years or decades while they await funding.
This is normal procedure for FHWA, so it's hard to characterize it as being "held up."
From what I've seen, the FHWA has become more stringent on requiring the financial plan within the past 15-20 years that shows that the state will fund and build the project within a reasonable amount of time. It's interesting that a lot of folks don't realize that an approved EIS/ROD has a "shelf life," at least unofficially, if not officially. If the project sits dormant for too long after the EIS and ROD are approved, the responsible agency will have to go back and "re-evaluate" the approved EIS/ROD and determine if either a Supplemental EIS or even a new EIS would be required before the project could proceed.
I'm thinking this could certainly be the case for Mississippi's section of I-69, whose EIS and ROD were approved over 10 years ago, or the Charles W. Dean Bridge, for which the EIS and ROD were approved back in 2004; not not even a shovel-full of dirt has been moved for either of these projects due to lack of funding. These are the kind of things the FHWA is trying to avoid by requiring the lead agencies to show that funding has been secured before they approve the EIS and ROD.
The IIJA relaxed the 10-year rule. Just was in a meeting the other day where the implications of the IIJA were still being meted out (e.g., projects that broke the rule before the IIJA but FHWA hadn't made a final determination on waivers or repayments). It's fun when laws change and regulatory agencies have to sift through hundreds of pages of legalese to stay out of trouble.
Has there been anyone who has overlayed the maps of the proposed I14 WITH the I27 extension as well?
There's some overlap there, isn't there?
My grand idea here would be the following:
Brady to Midland would become I-18. Then, in Midland I-327 connects to I-27 / US-87 in Lamessa.
I-14 takes its southern route and eventually terminates into I10.
The San Angelo to Sterling City along current US87 will be duplexed as I-27 and I-18.
This way, there's no I27W and I27E.
There are other ways to number this too.... If you didn't want to use I18.
I guess you could make a I-X14 spur between Brady and San Angelo.
Then you'd likely make the western loop from Lamessa to Sterling city I-627... but my guess is they'll likely make that the dreaded E / W of I27.
The only overlap between the proposed I-14 route and a possible South extension of I-27 is the segment between Midland and San Angelo.
I think chances are between extremely slim and absolutely none that a Southern leg of I-14 would ever be built to I-10. If it was built it would most likely result in I-14N and I-14S routes, regardless if anyone likes suffixed routes or not. By the way, if any highway corridor out in West Texas was worthy of an Eastward Interstate branch off I-10 it would be US-290 going to Austin. Not friggin' Brady or Killeen.
If I-14 was ever built out as far West as Midland it would help eliminate the need of a I-27W/I-27E split, assuming the Ports to Plains Corridor was upgraded to Interstate standards. I-14 would consume the I-27W route from Sterling City to Midland. TX-349 from Lamesa down to Midland could be given a 3-digit I-x27 designation or just remain named as TX-349.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 31, 2023, 02:06:35 PM
The only overlap between the proposed I-14 route and a possible South extension of I-27 is the segment between Midland and San Angelo.
I think chances are between extremely slim and absolutely none that a Southern leg of I-14 would ever be built to I-10. If it was built it would most likely result in I-14N and I-14S routes, regardless if anyone likes suffixed routes or not. By the way, if any highway corridor out in West Texas was worthy of an Eastward Interstate branch off I-10 it would be US-290 going to Austin. Not friggin' Brady or Killeen.
If I-14 was ever built out as far West as Midland it would help eliminate the need of a I-27W/I-27E split, assuming the Ports to Plains Corridor was upgraded to Interstate standards. I-14 would consume the I-27W route from Sterling City to Midland. TX-349 from Lamesa down to Midland could be given a 3-digit I-x27 designation or just remain named as TX-349.
Yeah but... Fort Hood trumps Austin any day.
Quote from: bwana39 on January 19, 2023, 02:57:25 PM
It is the Ports to Plains Corridor Study
Not the Ports to Plains Interstate Highway Study
While there is a significant number who will suggest that this is the ONLY alternative, there are several things that might happen.
1. Interstate or interstate equivalent all the way from IH-70 to Laredo (or even Interstate 2) including splits going Through Midland, Odessa, or Abilene or maybe all three.
2. A straight shot Interstate or Interstate equivalent mostly following US-87 through Big Spring again all the way from I-70 to Mexico.
3. Nothing, the route remains basically as it is with repairs and minor upgrades as population and traffic changes. Simply the " NO BUILD" option.
I believe the study will show that it needs to mostly be four laned. It needs some loops and bypasses to get around particularly the smaller towns.
This is a study to see what is needed. Not a study to rubber stamp a NGO agency's desire to increase the value of scrubby land into commercial property.
Believe #3, (Nothing) has already occurred. In the fairly distant past. Money designated for Interstate upgrades to US 84 SE of Lubbock to I-20 (Sweetwater) was shifted elsewhere. US 84 would be the easiest to upgrade, as it's all four lane divided. While would personally prefer a Midland / Odessa target for the 27 mainline, can understand the Big Spring / San Angelo routing as well. Two fairly large population centers, not quite as big as O - M, preexisting four lane limited access incorporation, and providing San Angelo with I connection, where there is none now.
https://www.chron.com/business/article/senate-passes-act-create-i-27-west-midland-18270534.php
Looks like they steered away from the 3DIs, in what is becoming a very Texan numbering scheme.
BUSINESS
Senate passes act to create I-27 West through Midland
SB 992 designates the route numbers for the future interstate highway through Texas and into New Mexico as Laredo to Sterling City as I-27, the connection from Sterling City through Midland to Lamesa as I-27W, the corridor between Sterling City and Lamesa as I-27E, Lamesa northbound through Lubbock to Amarillo passing through Dumas to Raton, New Mexico, as I-27 and the corridor north of Dumas as I-27N.
More Interstate suffixes in Texas? As if 69W/69C/69E were bad enough. I would prefer the Interstate 227 designation for 27W, like the first picture shows. Also, what do you all think about an Interstate 327 spur north of Dumas?
I don't know. I don't mind the I-27W and I-27E concept as much as vanity designations such as I-99 in Pennsylvania. But the style definitely takes us back to the 1960's and 1970's when suffixed Interstates were more common. I wonder if anyone will try bringing back the odd looking vertical Interstate shields, such as the ones used on I-15E way back then.
Really, I don't care how they number the routes just as long as they start building some key segments of it soon.
Last Saturday I drove back home from Colorado and drove over the Raton-Amarillo segment of the P2P corridor. Um, holy shit, Dumas needs a damned freeway bypass badly! I topped off my fuel tank at the Walmart location on the South side of town. It was around 5:30pm. I had a hell of a time trying to make an at-grade left turn out of that parking lot onto SB US-287. There were so many damned semi trucks along with a lot of other vehicles, some of whom were turning into Walmart in front of me. I finally had to gun-it to get the hell out of there.
I could see building a 3-digit I-x27 route North of Dumas up to Stratford (where the 4-lane US-287 highway reverts to 2-lanes). I don't think it's appropriate calling the spur "I-27N" at all. That would create a conflict with the NB and SB cardinal directions listed on signage. It would either have to be "I-27E" or another 2-digit designation, such as "I-31." But that would only be worth doing if the Interstate was built up thru Boise City into Colorado and up to the junction with I-70 in Limon. If the spur stops at Stratford or the OK border it should just be called something like "I-127."
Judging by how New Mexico has "maintained" the US-64/87 four lane road in the NE corner of the state, I figure it's going to be a cold day in hell before the NM state government devotes any of its tax dollars to building an Interstate quality upgrade of that route. And I could imagine business owners in towns like Clayton possibly raising hell over any proposed freeway bypasses. Still, it doesn't look like anyone is moving to that part of NM at all. So, who knows? Maybe some people there might see a new Interstate as a way to get them on the map and save their towns.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 09, 2023, 12:15:51 AM
I topped off my fuel tank at the Walmart location on the South side of town. It was around 5:30pm. I had a hell of a time trying to make an at-grade left turn out of that parking lot onto SB US-287. There were so many damned semi trucks along with a lot of other vehicles, some of whom were turning into Walmart in front of me. I finally had to gun-it to get the hell out of there.
Should've used the ol' "Michigan left" in that situation. ;)
Quote from: splashflash on August 08, 2023, 10:30:36 PM
https://www.chron.com/business/article/senate-passes-act-create-i-27-west-midland-18270534.php
Looks like they steered away from the 3DIs, in what is becoming a very Texan numbering scheme.
BUSINESS
Senate passes act to create I-27 West through Midland
SB 992 designates the route numbers for the future interstate highway through Texas and into New Mexico as Laredo to Sterling City as I-27, the connection from Sterling City through Midland to Lamesa as I-27W, the corridor between Sterling City and Lamesa as I-27E, Lamesa northbound through Lubbock to Amarillo passing through Dumas to Raton, New Mexico, as I-27 and the corridor north of Dumas as I-27N.
They can pass all the enabling legislation they want. If they don't put money with it it means nothing. As long as the highway money comes in user defined grants, the user (TXDOT) will define where it is used. The Texas legislature could mandate it, but I don't see this one mandated by the Legislature.
Quote from: bwana39 on August 10, 2023, 10:18:09 AM
Quote from: splashflash on August 08, 2023, 10:30:36 PM
https://www.chron.com/business/article/senate-passes-act-create-i-27-west-midland-18270534.php
Looks like they steered away from the 3DIs, in what is becoming a very Texan numbering scheme.
BUSINESS
Senate passes act to create I-27 West through Midland
SB 992 designates the route numbers for the future interstate highway through Texas and into New Mexico as Laredo to Sterling City as I-27, the connection from Sterling City through Midland to Lamesa as I-27W, the corridor between Sterling City and Lamesa as I-27E, Lamesa northbound through Lubbock to Amarillo passing through Dumas to Raton, New Mexico, as I-27 and the corridor north of Dumas as I-27N.
They can pass all the enabling legislation they want. If they don't put money with it it means nothing. As long as the highway money comes in user defined grants, the user (TXDOT) will define where it is used. The Texas legislature might mandate it,but I don't see this one mandated by the Legislature.
Will never happen. The NM section, at least. With current mentalities regarding surface infrastructure in Santa Fe, that have existed since Anthony Anaya, no upgrades to US 64 - 87 in terms of I grade improvements will take place. They "could have" done it right, back in the early 00's, instead of when they did a cheapie Pete Rahn inspired four lane. Meaning they could have designed a stepping stone type of approach, where several steps would have been taken, towards a full limited access condition. 1. Buy ROW, including corridors for bypasses. 2. Partial build out perhaps a super two on one side of ROW, or an Indiana/Ohio style divided expressway that could be limited accessed later. But that was not done. The definition of what was done then, is "throwaway improvement". Personally, don't think "funneling" additional Class A trucking to Raton Pass, is a good idea, so I don't support any I designation for US 64 - 87 W of Dumas. Some four laning of remaining two lane sections, fine. As long as they have an adequate median and aren't regressively designed. But put the 27 mainline on US 287, with some straightening and more directness to Limon, CO.
Quote from: DJStephens on August 11, 2023, 12:34:40 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 10, 2023, 10:18:09 AM
Quote from: splashflash on August 08, 2023, 10:30:36 PM
https://www.chron.com/business/article/senate-passes-act-create-i-27-west-midland-18270534.php
Looks like they steered away from the 3DIs, in what is becoming a very Texan numbering scheme.
BUSINESS
Senate passes act to create I-27 West through Midland
SB 992 designates the route numbers for the future interstate highway through Texas and into New Mexico as Laredo to Sterling City as I-27, the connection from Sterling City through Midland to Lamesa as I-27W, the corridor between Sterling City and Lamesa as I-27E, Lamesa northbound through Lubbock to Amarillo passing through Dumas to Raton, New Mexico, as I-27 and the corridor north of Dumas as I-27N.
They can pass all the enabling legislation they want. If they don't put money with it it means nothing. As long as the highway money comes in user defined grants, the user (TXDOT) will define where it is used. The Texas legislature might mandate it,but I don't see this one mandated by the Legislature.
Will never happen. The NM section, at least. With current mentalities regarding surface infrastructure in Santa Fe, that have existed since Anthony Anaya, no upgrades to US 64 - 87 in terms of I grade improvements will take place. They "could have" done it right, back in the early 00's, instead of when they did a cheapie Pete Rahn inspired four lane. Meaning they could have designed a stepping stone type of approach, where several steps would have been taken, towards a full limited access condition. 1. Buy ROW, including corridors for bypasses. 2. Partial build out perhaps a super two on one side of ROW, or an Indiana/Ohio style divided expressway that could be limited accessed later. But that was not done. The definition of what was done then, is "throwaway improvement". Personally, don't think "funneling" additional Class A trucking to Raton Pass, is a good idea, so I don't support any I designation for US 64 - 87 W of Dumas. Some four laning of remaining two lane sections, fine. As long as they have an adequate median and aren't regressively designed. But put the 27 mainline on US 287, with some straightening and more directness to Limon, CO.
As I have said before, routing I-27 to Raton makes no sense, as it would create a huge bottleneck of traffic going over Raton Pass into Colorado. As it is right now, I-25 going over Raton Pass is narrow, steep, and winding with a 55 mph speed limit for obvious reasons. NMDOT has performed a number of construction projects on its side of Raton Pass in recent years to improve the interchange at the top of the pass and add climbing lanes in certain places, but even with those improvements, the current route would not be able to handle the additional traffic load coming from Amarillo and points south/east should I-27 ever be completed. IMHO, I-27 should be routed north from Amarillo along US-287 and US-385 to I-70 around Limon, Colorado.
Aside from the bottleneck at Raton Pass, the US-287 corridor really needs to be 4-lane divided with a median or concrete barrier as it crosses the caprock at the OK/CO border. The existing 2 lane road is dangerous. A while back one of my girlfriend's friends was killed in a head-on collison on that stretch of highway.
Route it through Boise City as an OTA project, and ensure that Oklahoma derives some benefit from it. I'm sure most trucks would rather pay $30 in tolls rather than risk Raton Pass, especially in the winter time.
US-287 covers only about 41 miles on its current alignment. I don't think that's really enough to justify building a turnpike. And if a turnpike was built I think, legally, it would have to be built on a new terrain alignment so the original "free" US-287 route could be available as an alternative. Every existing turnpike in Oklahoma can be "shun-piked" to some degree. If US-287 was upgraded to an Interstate class facility on much of its current alignment no "free" alternative road would be needed.
I do think either OTA or ODOT needs to look at building a limited access route Northwest out of the OKC metro up to Woodward. The OTA's long term planning maps have shown such proposals in the past. A new turnpike could directly bridge the odd dog-leg gap between Okarche and Watonga. Really I think the general OK-3 corridor needs to be improved from the NW corner of the state down to the SE corner. If I-27 was extended North along the US-287 corridor up to Limon and I-70 that would cover an incremental segment of a possible OKC-Denver diagonal Interstate corridor. Kit Carson, CO to Fort Supply, OK would be the gap to fill with a diagonal route to cut through the N-S-E-W grid highway layout.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2023, 06:47:21 PM
US-287 covers only about 41 miles on its current alignment. I don't think that's really enough to justify building a turnpike. And if a turnpike was built I think, legally, it would have to be built on a new terrain alignment so the original "free" US-287 route could be available as an alternative. Every existing turnpike in Oklahoma can be "shun-piked" to some degree. If US-287 was upgraded to an Interstate class facility on much of its current alignment no "free" alternative road would be needed.
I do think either OTA or ODOT needs to look at building a limited access route Northwest out of the OKC metro up to Woodward. The OTA's long term planning maps have shown such proposals in the past. A new turnpike could directly bridge the odd dog-leg gap between Okarche and Watonga. Really I think the general OK-3 corridor needs to be improved from the NW corner of the state down to the SE corner. If I-27 was extended North along the US-287 corridor up to Limon and I-70 that would cover an incremental segment of a possible OKC-Denver diagonal Interstate corridor. Kit Carson, CO to Fort Supply, OK would be the gap to fill with a diagonal route to cut through the N-S-E-W grid highway layout.
There's literally no reason for Oklahoma to build this route if tolls can't be extracted. The long-distance trucks aren't going to be stopping much in Boise City, even if there's a Love's there.
It's 40 miles to almost exclusively serve out-of-state traffic. There will never be the political will within ODOT to spend the ~$250-400 million on this route when that money could go to OKC or Tulsa projects. On the other hand, if this diverts Raton-bound traffic and brings dollars to Oklahoma that wouldn't be spent there to begin with, the route starts to make a lot more sense. It's the exact reason I-95 in Delaware and New Hampshire is tolled.
I think Interstate 27 might have a more difficult time getting constructed north of Amarillo than getting constructed south of Lubbock. An Amarillo-to-Dumas upgrade to interstate standards would likely be doable, but then it would depend on where Interstate 27 would go from there. If 27 followed US 87 to Raton, NM, it would follow a roadway that is two lanes between Dumas and Hartley, but four lanes the rest of the way to Raton, save for the numerous towns it goes through. That route would probably be preferable to sending 27 up the US 287 corridor to Limon, which would go through sparsely populated land with a few towns here and there. The US 287 corridor likely doesn't need any further upgrades to the existing highway, certainly not an upgrade to an interstate standard freeway. I would start with extending 27 towards Laredo first, then concentrate on extending it to Raton.
Quote from: TXtoNJThere's literally no reason for Oklahoma to build this route if tolls can't be extracted.
Safety issues, such as head-on collisions, make a legit case for that portion of US-287 to at least be a 4-lane divided (and barrier separated) highway.
Some people dislike driving over Raton Pass. The US-64/87 highway thru NE NM kind of sucks. But I still prefer driving over both rather than taking US-287 into Southern Colorado. The route via Raton is safer.
The OTA can cross-pledge turnpike bonds from one turnpike project to another. Still, I think a 40 mile tolled segment of
possible-future I-27 is going to operate more substantially in the red than most other turnpikes in OTA's system. Depending on the tolls charged quite a few drivers might shun-pike it, especially if the existing US-287 2-lane road remains available to use. I think it would be more cost effective to build that highway as a "free" Interstate. That way there isn't a parallel "free" 2-lane legacy US-287 to maintain along with a new 40 mile turnpike. If that segment of US-287 was upgraded as a toll-free facility the highway upgrades could be phased in more gradually (four lane it first then add grade separations later).
The thing that needs to happen is the Feds need to fund most of the highway upgrade, like a 90-10 split or better. This short chunk of US-287 is still part of the Ports to Plains Corridor. It's not a local street or highway of only state interest. ODOT and OTA aren't going to fund much of that project on their own.
Quote from: The GhostbusterIf 27 followed US 87 to Raton, NM, it would follow a roadway that is two lanes between Dumas and Hartley, but four lanes the rest of the way to Raton, save for the numerous towns it goes through. That route would probably be preferable to sending 27 up the US 287 corridor to Limon, which would go through sparsely populated land with a few towns here and there.
The 2/3 lane road between Dumas and Hartley is due to be expanded to four lanes sometime in the (maybe) near future.
The Feds would pretty much have to foot the whole bill and maybe even watch-dog construction progress in order for an I-27 route to make its way thru NE New Mexico. State leaders aren't going to cough up any tax dollars for it.
I'm very certain US-287 thru OK and SE CO would attract a great deal more truck traffic if the road was at least four lane divided. It already has an advantage of not going over Raton Pass. But the road in that OK/CO border region is dicey as a mere 2-lane facility.
I think NE NM and SE CO are comparable in terms of sparse population. Towns like Clayton, Capulin and Raton aren't really any bigger than Lamar, Springfield and Eads. NE NM just has better scenery (and it doesn't have any many stinky feed lots and cattle processing facilities near the road).
Colorado seems to have as little interest as NM in new interstates. CDOT planned only a couple miles of passing lanes for US 287. Nebraska is at least twinning US 26 and 385 and L62.
Maybe Kansas would be interested. Shoot the corridor straight north from Stratford, hugging the KS / CO border to KS 27?
I wouldn't see any mileage or time savings value in diverting a possible North extension of I-27 into the Western edge of Kansas. There wouldn't be any point of extending I-27 North of Amarillo if the extension wouldn't overlap either US-64/87 to Raton and/or US-287 up to Limon. Interstates should connect to other Interstates (or other major destinations, such as a coastal port or national border crossing).
In terms of building any new corridors, I still think a Denver-OKC corridor would be a very beneficial thing to the larger highway network. If they just started with an ordinary 2-lane road going diagonal from Kit Carson, CO to Fort Supply, OK it would attract a lot of commercial traffic as well as other motorists in personal vehicles.
As someone who has driven from Salt Lake City or Denver to and from the southeastern US many times, the lack of NW/SE diagonal routes is noticeable and I would most certainly use any high-quality corridor that went southeast from Denver. Honestly, even a simple complete four-laned US 287 from Amarillo to Limon would be really nice. Bypasses around towns like Lamar would only make that more attractive.
A corridor further to the southeast (i.e. towards OKC) would be nice as well, but 287 needs the attention first and there's no way Colorado is going to be on board with a brand new corridor. If you want to see that, you'll have to convince Oklahoma to four-lane US 412 and US 270 heading east and southeast from Boise City, which seems like a pretty hard sell.
A diagonal corridor from Denver to OKC could be built out in a series of incremental chunks.
Like I said earlier, the Ports to Plains corridor would extend the diagonal segment from Limon down to Kit Carson. That's at least one significant portion of the diagonal road. The next chunk would be a diagonal from Kit Carson to the Western outskirts of Garden City, KS. Such a thing would help a lot of commercial traffic move more efficiently between the Denver area and the towns of Garden City and Dodge City (where a hell of a lot of livestock and agri-business activity takes place).
In Oklahoma ODOT has to do something about that gawd-awful bend in OK-3 between Okarche and Watonga. There needs to be a more efficient 4-lane route from the OKC metro up to Woodward. The route upgrade doesn't need to go all the way to Boise City. Just run it up to Fort Supply where that diagonal ends.
The two diagonals that end at Kit Carson and Fort Supply are pretty much pointing at each other. If that gap was filled directly, even with just a 2-lane road to start, it would be pretty convenient for a lot of motorists cutting across the Great Plains. There is really very little in our national highway network allowing traffic from the Mountain/Pacific Northwest to go directly to the Southeast US. There's lots of diagonals going the opposite direction SW to NE. The nation's population has been shifting very significantly. There is a lot of population growth along the Front Range in Colorado as well as parts of Utah. And the Boise area is booming (at least for now). A lot of people have been moving to the Southeast US too.
But, yeah, the P2P up US-287 needs to be a priority. And ODOT (or OTA) needs to make a priority out of OK-3 in the NW part of the state. If those issues are handled it will set the stage for the rest of the thing to be built.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 09, 2023, 12:15:51 AM
I could see building a 3-digit I-x27 route North of Dumas up to Stratford (where the 4-lane US-287 highway reverts to 2-lanes). I don't think it's appropriate calling the spur "I-27N" at all. That would create a conflict with the NB and SB cardinal directions listed on signage. It would either have to be "I-27E" or another 2-digit designation, such as "I-31."
If congress writes a designation into law, it will be signed as whatever they say and there's not a damned thing anyone else can do about it. So I-27N it is, if any of it ever gets built. Yes, this is a good argument for why congress shouldn't be in the business of picking route numbers, but they are.
Especially since route number choices get political. The plan previously was to have 27E just be 27 and to have 27W be 227 which makes
sense, but an advocacy group out of Odessa-Midland bitched that they were getting shafted getting only a 3di with the "primary" route avoiding them. So they successfully got it changed to 27E/W to ensure they stay on (perceived) equal footing with the shortcut route.
The people making these decisions don't know or care that FHWA made deliberate effort to eliminated suffixed interstates. Nor do they necessarily care what roads do or don't make objective sense to improve to interstate standards. They grab their crayon and draw a few lines.
An "I-27N" thing running North-South would be ridiculous. There have been wrong-way concurrencies of two routes. But I don't think we've had a wrong-way signed single route before, but that's what Southbound I-27N would be. It would fun to troll these idiot politicians, "I-27N is wrong, it should be I-27S! Cuz, I-27S would be SUPER!"
Quote from: aboges26 on March 28, 2021, 10:00:48 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 28, 2021, 09:54:25 PM
If Interstate 27 is extended northward along US 87 and 287, how will it get through downtown Amarillo without destroying the downtown area? Perhaps two of the four streets that span northward from the 27/40 interchange (S. Buchannan St./Pierce St. S./S. Fillmore St./S. Taylor St.), will have elevated freeways constructed over the existing streets similar to the ones built off the end of Interstate 44 in Wichita Falls.
I-27 is slated to run along the west side of Loop 335 when the time comes with the remainder of I-27 inside the loop becoming a 3DI. There is no chance of I-27 being extended north from its current terminus.
Welcome to the forum. Participants here have debated the notion of I-27 getting extended North thru Downtown Amarillo. I think more of us agree such a thing is not practical.
There is too much distance to cover between the current end of I-27 (at SE 11th Avenue) and the beginning of the US-87 freeway North of downtown. The distance is about 1.75 miles. That's roughly 3 times the distance the elevated freeway covers next to downtown Wichita Falls where I-44 currently ends. Any proposal to build an elevated freeway thru downtown Amarillo would meet a great deal of resistance. Probably even more so given the revitalization efforts that have been going on in downtown Amarillo.
It also seems more logical to route I-27 over the West half of Loop 335 since that's where more of the business and residential growth in the city is taking place.
Maybe Interstate 27's northern terminus should remain at its present location at Interstate 40. Do the present-day US 87 and US 287 corridors north of Amarillo have high enough traffic volumes to warrant an upgrade to an Interstate Standard Freeway? Perhaps extending Interstate 27 southward should be the priority.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 18, 2023, 01:20:51 PM
Maybe Interstate 27's northern terminus should remain at its present location at Interstate 40. Do the present-day US 87 and US 287 corridors north of Amarillo have high enough traffic volumes to warrant an upgrade to an Interstate Standard Freeway? Perhaps extending Interstate 27 southward should be the priority.
The answer is that 287 from DFW is clearly the high traffic feeder. At some point there needs to be a freeway to either Raton, or to Limon.
I personally think that the freeway from Lubbock to I-20 is likely to be completed before it, but because Colorado, Oklahoma, and / or New Mexico lack the funding to pay for it, not because the need is greater.
Maybe in the interim, each town along the US 87 corridor between Raton, NM and Amarillo, TX should get bypasses (freeway-standard or not). Maybe they should have already had bypasses proposed and constructed by now.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 18, 2023, 01:38:37 PM
Maybe in the interim, each town along the US 87 corridor between Raton, NM and Amarillo, TX should get bypasses (freeway-standard or not). Maybe they should have already had bypasses proposed and constructed by now.
My take from a cost perspective is we should be building loops around every small to medium town to freeway or at least 75 mph standard and then have 4-lane divided between them. I think this is a whole lot more bang for the buck and sooner. Is a freeway a better choice? From a truck driver's perspective sure. That said, what I suggest is better than what is there right now....
Quote from: The GhostbusterMaybe Interstate 27's northern terminus should remain at its present location at Interstate 40. Do the present-day US 87 and US 287 corridors north of Amarillo have high enough traffic volumes to warrant an upgrade to an Interstate Standard Freeway?
I know there is enough traffic (heavy truck traffic in particular) to justify a freeway upgrade to Dumas at the very least. From there the P2P splits in two directions, one going to Raton and the other up into SE Colorado. One or two freeways North of that split are tougher to justify.
Quote from: The GhostbusterMaybe in the interim, each town along the US 87 corridor between Raton, NM and Amarillo, TX should get bypasses (freeway-standard or not). Maybe they should have already had bypasses proposed and constructed by now.
I do like the idea of building freeway bypasses around towns and then doing freeway upgrades between the towns later.
TX DOT applied this kind of treatment to the US-277 upgrade between Wichita Falls and Abilene. The towns of Stamford, Haskell, Munday, Goree and Seymour got new bypasses at or near Interstate quality. The rest is standard 4-lane divided, but can be upgraded to Interstate quality easily
now that the town bypasses are (mostly) handled.Unfortunately I'm very certain people in Clayton, NM and other small towns along the way would not like their towns bypassed. Even in Dumas,
where they're dealing with all sorts of problems that come with too many semis pounding down the main street, some residents there are voicing their opposition to plans of a bypass. They worry it's going to kill business. I think Dumas is a big enough town to do just fine with a freeway bypass. Still, people there are letting their worries be known.
I think if a town like Clayton were to get a bypass, maybe it could start out as a Super 2. That would get semis passing thru and not stopping to go around and remove some of the burden off the main street. It might give local businesses some time to relocate close to the new highway.
Maybe the government could help those businesses do that.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 18, 2023, 08:58:02 PM
Quote from: The GhostbusterMaybe Interstate 27's northern terminus should remain at its present location at Interstate 40. Do the present-day US 87 and US 287 corridors north of Amarillo have high enough traffic volumes to warrant an upgrade to an Interstate Standard Freeway?
I know there is enough traffic (heavy truck traffic in particular) to justify a freeway upgrade to Dumas at the very least. From there the P2P splits in two directions, one going to Raton and the other up into SE Colorado. One or two freeways North of that split are tougher to justify.
Quote from: The GhostbusterMaybe in the interim, each town along the US 87 corridor between Raton, NM and Amarillo, TX should get bypasses (freeway-standard or not). Maybe they should have already had bypasses proposed and constructed by now.
I do like the idea of building freeway bypasses around towns and then doing freeway upgrades between the towns later.
TX DOT applied this kind of treatment to the US-277 upgrade between Wichita Falls and Abilene. The towns of Stamford, Haskell, Munday, Goree and Seymour got new bypasses at or near Interstate quality. The rest is standard 4-lane divided, but can be upgraded to Interstate quality easily now that the town bypasses are (mostly) handled.
Unfortunately I'm very certain people in Clayton, NM and other small towns along the way would not like their towns bypassed. Even in Dumas, where they're dealing with all sorts of problems that come with too many semis pounding down the main street, some residents there are voicing their opposition to plans of a bypass. They worry it's going to kill business. I think Dumas is a big enough town to do just fine with a freeway bypass. Still, people there are letting their worries be known.
I think if a town like Clayton were to get a bypass, maybe it could start out as a Super 2. That would get semis passing thru and not stopping to go around and remove some of the burden off the main street. It might give local businesses some time to relocate close to the new highway. Maybe the government could help those businesses do that.
Dumas is as Dumas does.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 18, 2023, 08:58:02 PM
Quote from: The GhostbusterMaybe Interstate 27's northern terminus should remain at its present location at Interstate 40. Do the present-day US 87 and US 287 corridors north of Amarillo have high enough traffic volumes to warrant an upgrade to an Interstate Standard Freeway?
I know there is enough traffic (heavy truck traffic in particular) to justify a freeway upgrade to Dumas at the very least. From there the P2P splits in two directions, one going to Raton and the other up into SE Colorado. One or two freeways North of that split are tougher to justify.
Quote from: The GhostbusterMaybe in the interim, each town along the US 87 corridor between Raton, NM and Amarillo, TX should get bypasses (freeway-standard or not). Maybe they should have already had bypasses proposed and constructed by now.
I do like the idea of building freeway bypasses around towns and then doing freeway upgrades between the towns later.
TX DOT applied this kind of treatment to the US-277 upgrade between Wichita Falls and Abilene. The towns of Stamford, Haskell, Munday, Goree and Seymour got new bypasses at or near Interstate quality. The rest is standard 4-lane divided, but can be upgraded to Interstate quality easily now that the town bypasses are (mostly) handled.
Unfortunately I'm very certain people in Clayton, NM and other small towns along the way would not like their towns bypassed. Even in Dumas, where they're dealing with all sorts of problems that come with too many semis pounding down the main street, some residents there are voicing their opposition to plans of a bypass. They worry it's going to kill business. I think Dumas is a big enough town to do just fine with a freeway bypass. Still, people there are letting their worries be known.
I think if a town like Clayton were to get a bypass, maybe it could start out as a Super 2. That would get semis passing thru and not stopping to go around and remove some of the burden off the main street. It might give local businesses some time to relocate close to the new highway. Maybe the government could help those businesses do that.
Am guessing Dumas already has a Wal-Mart. What has that done to local businesses? Maybe the town fathers need to look at themselves in a mirror, and say, what did we do when we let Wal-Mart in?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 18, 2023, 08:58:02 PM
Quote from: The GhostbusterMaybe Interstate 27's northern terminus should remain at its present location at Interstate 40. Do the present-day US 87 and US 287 corridors north of Amarillo have high enough traffic volumes to warrant an upgrade to an Interstate Standard Freeway?
I know there is enough traffic (heavy truck traffic in particular) to justify a freeway upgrade to Dumas at the very least. From there the P2P splits in two directions, one going to Raton and the other up into SE Colorado. One or two freeways North of that split are tougher to justify.
Quote from: The GhostbusterMaybe in the interim, each town along the US 87 corridor between Raton, NM and Amarillo, TX should get bypasses (freeway-standard or not). Maybe they should have already had bypasses proposed and constructed by now.
I do like the idea of building freeway bypasses around towns and then doing freeway upgrades between the towns later.
TX DOT applied this kind of treatment to the US-277 upgrade between Wichita Falls and Abilene. The towns of Stamford, Haskell, Munday, Goree and Seymour got new bypasses at or near Interstate quality. The rest is standard 4-lane divided, but can be upgraded to Interstate quality easily now that the town bypasses are (mostly) handled.
Unfortunately I'm very certain people in Clayton, NM and other small towns along the way would not like their towns bypassed. Even in Dumas, where they're dealing with all sorts of problems that come with too many semis pounding down the main street, some residents there are voicing their opposition to plans of a bypass. They worry it's going to kill business. I think Dumas is a big enough town to do just fine with a freeway bypass. Still, people there are letting their worries be known.
I think if a town like Clayton were to get a bypass, maybe it could start out as a Super 2. That would get semis passing thru and not stopping to go around and remove some of the burden off the main street. It might give local businesses some time to relocate close to the new highway. Maybe the government could help those businesses do that.
It's also a matter of how close or how far the bypass is from the town being bypassed. The last stretch of I-40 through New Mexico wasn't completed until the mid-1980s due to a fight between NMDOT and the town of San Jon. NMDOT wanted to build I-40 several miles north of San Jon, while San Jon wanted I-40 to pretty much go through town. After years of back-and-forth, NMDOT and San Jon settled on the alignment that was built, which skirts the northern edge of the town. Bypasses, if placed correctly, can be a huge economic benefit to a town.
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 19, 2023, 01:08:11 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 18, 2023, 08:58:02 PM
Quote from: The GhostbusterMaybe Interstate 27's northern terminus should remain at its present location at Interstate 40. Do the present-day US 87 and US 287 corridors north of Amarillo have high enough traffic volumes to warrant an upgrade to an Interstate Standard Freeway?
I know there is enough traffic (heavy truck traffic in particular) to justify a freeway upgrade to Dumas at the very least. From there the P2P splits in two directions, one going to Raton and the other up into SE Colorado. One or two freeways North of that split are tougher to justify.
Quote from: The GhostbusterMaybe in the interim, each town along the US 87 corridor between Raton, NM and Amarillo, TX should get bypasses (freeway-standard or not). Maybe they should have already had bypasses proposed and constructed by now.
I do like the idea of building freeway bypasses around towns and then doing freeway upgrades between the towns later.
TX DOT applied this kind of treatment to the US-277 upgrade between Wichita Falls and Abilene. The towns of Stamford, Haskell, Munday, Goree and Seymour got new bypasses at or near Interstate quality. The rest is standard 4-lane divided, but can be upgraded to Interstate quality easily now that the town bypasses are (mostly) handled.
Unfortunately I'm very certain people in Clayton, NM and other small towns along the way would not like their towns bypassed. Even in Dumas, where they're dealing with all sorts of problems that come with too many semis pounding down the main street, some residents there are voicing their opposition to plans of a bypass. They worry it's going to kill business. I think Dumas is a big enough town to do just fine with a freeway bypass. Still, people there are letting their worries be known.
I think if a town like Clayton were to get a bypass, maybe it could start out as a Super 2. That would get semis passing thru and not stopping to go around and remove some of the burden off the main street. It might give local businesses some time to relocate close to the new highway. Maybe the government could help those businesses do that.
It's also a matter of how close or how far the bypass is from the town being bypassed. The last stretch of I-40 through New Mexico wasn't completed until the mid-1980s due to a fight between NMDOT and the town of San Jon. NMDOT wanted to build I-40 several miles north of San Jon, while San Jon wanted I-40 to pretty much go through town. After years of back-and-forth, NMDOT and San Jon settled on the alignment that was built, which skirts the northern edge of the town. Bypasses, if placed correctly, can be a huge economic benefit to a town.
So that's why I-40 dips a bit to the south at San Jon. Didn't know that.
Quote from: DJStephensAm guessing Dumas already has a Wal-Mart. What has that done to local businesses?
There is a Walmart Supercenter on the South side of town. I can't tell if it has hurt any local businesses in Dumas (chances are at least some have closed). On the other hand the Walmart location has caused a number of other new businesses to open near it. There's a couple new chain hotels and restaurants nearby.
Quote from: abqtravelerIt's also a matter of how close or how far the bypass is from the town being bypassed.
In the case of Dumas, it's a no-brainer to build a freeway bypass around the West side of town. Most of Dumas is on the East side of US-287. A new freeway could be built through a lot of fairly open territory near the BNSF rail line. TX DOT could built a new US-287 freeway bypass as close as a half-mile West of the current US-287 surface street.
Dumas would honestly be an easier bypass project to build than ones in other towns farther North. US-87 splits right thru the middle of Dalhart. That town would need a substantial half-loop built around it.
https://highplainsobserverdumas.com/will-the-community-survive-a-bypass-p12471-1.htm
An article from 2015 about a bypass, but at the same time an interstate was not believed to enlikelynto be built within 30 years.
Some bullet points, among others, about the project.
-The most desirable route would start just south of Dumas and travel to the end of the overpass, and continue north to 287 just outside of the city.
- I-27 is not a project, it is only a vision initiated by the mayor of Lubbock, and TxDOT feels if it becomes a project, and it would take at least 30 years before it happens.
- Dalhart will not get our money.
- TxDOT officials in Austin have recommended that we initiate our own Transportation Plan. This plan would indicate our desires and needs that they would utilize in any future discussions or plans for a bypass, or for preparing in the event an interstate is developed in the next few decades.
Quote from: splashflash on August 19, 2023, 03:30:52 PM
https://highplainsobserverdumas.com/will-the-community-survive-a-bypass-p12471-1.htm
An article from 2015 about a bypass, but at the same time an interstate was not believed to enlikelynto be built within 30 years.
Some bullet points, among others, about the project.
-The most desirable route would start just south of Dumas and travel to the end of the overpass, and continue north to 287 just outside of the city.
- I-27 is not a project, it is only a vision initiated by the mayor of Lubbock, and TxDOT feels if it becomes a project, and it would take at least 30 years before it happens.
- Dalhart will not get our money.
- TxDOT officials in Austin have recommended that we initiate our own Transportation Plan. This plan would indicate our desires and needs that they would utilize in any future discussions or plans for a bypass, or for preparing in the event an interstate is developed in the next few decades.
While this is nearly a decade old, it succinctly says what I have been saying seemingly forever. Local politicians and interest groups tout their vision of what they dream a road should be. It may not be on the radar at TxDOT at all. Regional politicians may even give it lip service or even fund "studies". Studies are a neat thing. You take a fairly routine regional traffic study and put a title on it (Port to Plains) and suddenly the local pols are emboldened, people of online BBS are talking about it.
IT IS GONNA HAPPEN!; but is it?
The best plan virtually is loops around most every town, grade separation at most significant roads and railroad tracks, and divided highway in between. Why doesn't it happen this way? Generally in a small town, one of three constituencies run things.
1) Local (small) business owners.
2) Commercial Property Developers
3) Average residents.
The local small business owners will fight a loop / bypass at all costs. The traffic count at their driveways will dwindle to virtually nil. This is particularly apt for restaurants, convenience stores / gas stations, and hotels or motels.
The commercial property developers will be all for a loop / bypass. Each intersection will suddenly have newly minted commercial property. The ones who are especially adept will buy up or have binding offers on almost all the properties in the projected R.O.W.
The average residents will MOSTLY support a loop/bypass to get the 18-wheeler traffic out of the CBD. On the other hand, a loop/bypass will accelerate the demise of the town as they have historically known it. You can never tell. That said, there are fewer and fewer of these types of local control scenarios anyway.
Local business people control most of the under 5K towns. They want to retain the access to the locally owned businesses. Just like the I-49 inner city connection in Shreveport as the groups in power shift, so do the priorities. TxDOT generally reacts to the shifting priorities by doing little or nothing. So, even if the tide turns and the pro-bypass faction gains control for a cycle or two, in the glacially slow workings of TxDOT there still is not time to change the plan, before the local priorities shift again.
So is I-27 gonna expand in the next 50 years? Good question. It isn't yet.
Quote from: bwana39The average residents will MOSTLY support a loop/bypass to get the 18-wheeler traffic out of the CBD. On the other hand, a loop/bypass will accelerate the demise of the town as they have historically known it. You can never tell. That said, there are fewer and fewer of these types of local control scenarios anyway.
None of these small towns in the High Plains is adding population as it is. That's without any freeway bypasses accelerating the process. It takes a lot of key people (cops, teachers, fire fighters, plumbers, etc) and a healthy tax base for a town to function properly. That doesn't happen without a strong percentage of working age, tax-paying adults. Too many small towns across the Great Plains just don't have that. They see their young people grow up and then
GTFO if they have the means to do so. Older people tend to enjoy small town life, but even they can be forced to move to bigger towns or cities if their own town no longer has important services. A small town with no police department and no medical clinic isn't going to be a safe place for an eldery person to live.
Dumas is a big enough town (over 10,000 in population) that it's unlikely it could ever turn into a ghost town within the next 50 years, barring some kind of natural, economic or military disaster. OTOH, Dumas is no longer growing. The town lost about 200 people from the 2010 to 2020 census.
A town like Clayton, NM (home to less than 3000 people) is more exposed to demographic decline. A highway agency can draw up plans and wait 10-20 years for the town to wither enough. Then there won't be as much opposition to block a highway project. A town that is shrinking, seeing all its young people leave, might actually welcome something like an Interstate to help get them
back on the map and (hopefully) fuel some economic development.
Clayton is just an example. I don't know who all the major employers are there. But the main businesses I see operating there are chain restaurants and convenience stores. There's other stuff that looks boarded-up and closed for good. It's not a big deal for these chain stores to relocate to a new bypass. Love's can certainly do it. They've re-built that Clayton location at least once already and the daytime traffic is pretty bad there now. If Clayton had a new freeway bypass Love's could build a nicer location with better parking capacity and easier in/out access.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2023, 11:38:40 PM
Quote from: bwana39The average residents will MOSTLY support a loop/bypass to get the 18-wheeler traffic out of the CBD. On the other hand, a loop/bypass will accelerate the demise of the town as they have historically known it. You can never tell. That said, there are fewer and fewer of these types of local control scenarios anyway.
None of these small towns in the High Plains is adding population as it is. That's without any freeway bypasses accelerating the process. It takes a lot of key people (cops, teachers, fire fighters, plumbers, etc) and a healthy tax base for a town to function properly. That doesn't happen without a strong percentage of working age, tax-paying adults. Too many small towns across the Great Plains just don't have that. They see their young people grow up and then GTFO if they have the means to do so. Older people tend to enjoy small town life, but even they can be forced to move to bigger towns or cities if their own town no longer has important services. A small town with no police department and no medical clinic isn't going to be a safe place for an eldery person to live.
Dumas is a big enough town (over 10,000 in population) that it's unlikely it could ever turn into a ghost town within the next 50 years, barring some kind of natural, economic or military disaster. OTOH, Dumas is no longer growing. The town lost about 200 people from the 2010 to 2020 census.
A town like Clayton, NM (home to less than 3000 people) is more exposed to demographic decline. A highway agency can draw up plans and wait 10-20 years for the town to wither enough. Then there won't be as much opposition to block a highway project. A town that is shrinking, seeing all its young people leave, might actually welcome something like an Interstate to help get them back on the map and (hopefully) fuel some economic development.
Clayton is just an example. I don't know who all the major employers are there. But the main businesses I see operating there are chain restaurants and convenience stores. There's other stuff that looks boarded-up and closed for good. It's not a big deal for these chain stores to relocate to a new bypass. Love's can certainly do it. They've re-built that Clayton location at least once already and the daytime traffic is pretty bad there now. If Clayton had a new freeway bypass Love's could build a nicer location with better parking capacity and easier in/out access.
Look at Clarksville TX. about 35 years ago, they had a bond vote for a local reservoir. It
passed.It would have provided water for Clarksville and Red River County for decades (Probably at least 50 years including projected growth.) The aginners voted two of the commissioners out of office (one already was opposed). They never sold the bonds. They never built the lake. Clarksville is a much smaller town now than in 1985. I am not going to say if this is good or bad. What I will say is one segment of the population wanted to circumvent change and it worked. Clarksville 2023 is closer to Clarksville 1953 than even 1983. Ironically, both US-82 and SH-37 have bypassed town. There is still almost zero development out there nearly 2 decades in. My point is that some folks do not want any change whatsoever.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2023, 11:38:40 PM
Quote from: bwana39The average residents will MOSTLY support a loop/bypass to get the 18-wheeler traffic out of the CBD. On the other hand, a loop/bypass will accelerate the demise of the town as they have historically known it. You can never tell. That said, there are fewer and fewer of these types of local control scenarios anyway.
None of these small towns in the High Plains is adding population as it is. That's without any freeway bypasses accelerating the process. It takes a lot of key people (cops, teachers, fire fighters, plumbers, etc) and a healthy tax base for a town to function properly. That doesn't happen without a strong percentage of working age, tax-paying adults. Too many small towns across the Great Plains just don't have that. They see their young people grow up and then GTFO if they have the means to do so. Older people tend to enjoy small town life, but even they can be forced to move to bigger towns or cities if their own town no longer has important services. A small town with no police department and no medical clinic isn't going to be a safe place for an eldery person to live.
Dumas is a big enough town (over 10,000 in population) that it's unlikely it could ever turn into a ghost town within the next 50 years, barring some kind of natural, economic or military disaster. OTOH, Dumas is no longer growing. The town lost about 200 people from the 2010 to 2020 census.
A town like Clayton, NM (home to less than 3000 people) is more exposed to demographic decline. A highway agency can draw up plans and wait 10-20 years for the town to wither enough. Then there won't be as much opposition to block a highway project. A town that is shrinking, seeing all its young people leave, might actually welcome something like an Interstate to help get them back on the map and (hopefully) fuel some economic development.
Clayton is just an example. I don't know who all the major employers are there. But the main businesses I see operating there are chain restaurants and convenience stores. There's other stuff that looks boarded-up and closed for good. It's not a big deal for these chain stores to relocate to a new bypass. Love's can certainly do it. They've re-built that Clayton location at least once already and the daytime traffic is pretty bad there now. If Clayton had a new freeway bypass Love's could build a nicer location with better parking capacity and easier in/out access.
Have viewed the banality, that is the new mexico department up close on job sites and meetings, etc for 25-28 years. There is no way an I grade facility will ever be built on the US 64/87 corridor, in the NE corner of the state. With current mentalities, which have existed for at least 40 years now. A western state, 125,000 +/- square miles in size, should have had an aggressive four lane and new terrain construction program, bolstered by near unamimous solid political support and appropriate funding. The "fall off" of design standards should never have happened. Quite a bit, if not most of what has been "constructed" in the last thirty years is regressive, in design and nature, and in an ideal scenario, should be ripped out and done correctly.
Quote from: bwana39My point is that some folks do not want any change whatsoever.
Those kinds of people are in every small town and even small cities. When those people are in a town that is losing population, aging and seeing its tax base shrink, there is little they can do to stop a highway from bypassing their town,
especially if the state DOT builds the alignment completely outside the town's property limits.In the early 1990's Lawton didn't have any decent sit-down restaurant chain locations in town. People had to drive to OKC or Wichita Falls just to eat at a place like the Olive Garden. When Applebee's proposed opening a location a bunch of local businessmen (most of whom owned restaurants) raised hell with the city council over it. The city council couldn't do anything legally to block it. The same thing happened when Walmart proposed building its first "supercenter" store here. 20+ years later, Lawton has a lot more chain restaurant locations (and 3 Walmart stores). The local restaurants that were good still managed to survive. We don't have any locally owned grocery stores (there are other rivals to Walmart).
Today local business people here are singing a bit of a different tune regarding
outsiders. They want to encourage economic development and recruit new businesses. That way there might be enough jobs and opportunity for their adult children and grandchildren to stay in Lawton. Even this town has seen a lot of Lawton-born youth leave permanently for OKC, Dallas, etc after college. Right now the buzz is all about a cobalt refinery to be built out on the West side of town.
Quote from: DJStephensHave viewed the banality, that is the new mexico department up close on job sites and meetings, etc for 25-28 years. There is no way an I grade facility will ever be built on the US 64/87 corridor, in the NE corner of the state.
Like I said, my comments about Clayton were just an example, a hypothetical one. I do think it is very possible and plausible for Decatur to get a new Interstate quality bypass. The same goes for upgrading US-287 to Interstate standards from Amarillo up to Stratford and even the OK state line. Texas is more likely to get shit done than any of the other states involved in the Ports to Plains Corridor.
The foot-draggers in the New Mexico state government also benefit from Colorado's hair-brained policies toward highway development. If CDOT was allowed to get more serious with the US-287 and US-50 corridors the results could shift a good amount of traffic
(and highway stop business) away from the US-64/87 corridor.
Quote from: bwana39 on August 22, 2023, 12:39:21 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2023, 11:38:40 PM
Quote from: bwana39The average residents will MOSTLY support a loop/bypass to get the 18-wheeler traffic out of the CBD. On the other hand, a loop/bypass will accelerate the demise of the town as they have historically known it. You can never tell. That said, there are fewer and fewer of these types of local control scenarios anyway.
None of these small towns in the High Plains is adding population as it is. That's without any freeway bypasses accelerating the process. It takes a lot of key people (cops, teachers, fire fighters, plumbers, etc) and a healthy tax base for a town to function properly. That doesn't happen without a strong percentage of working age, tax-paying adults. Too many small towns across the Great Plains just don't have that. They see their young people grow up and then GTFO if they have the means to do so. Older people tend to enjoy small town life, but even they can be forced to move to bigger towns or cities if their own town no longer has important services. A small town with no police department and no medical clinic isn't going to be a safe place for an eldery person to live.
Dumas is a big enough town (over 10,000 in population) that it's unlikely it could ever turn into a ghost town within the next 50 years, barring some kind of natural, economic or military disaster. OTOH, Dumas is no longer growing. The town lost about 200 people from the 2010 to 2020 census.
A town like Clayton, NM (home to less than 3000 people) is more exposed to demographic decline. A highway agency can draw up plans and wait 10-20 years for the town to wither enough. Then there won't be as much opposition to block a highway project. A town that is shrinking, seeing all its young people leave, might actually welcome something like an Interstate to help get them back on the map and (hopefully) fuel some economic development.
Clayton is just an example. I don't know who all the major employers are there. But the main businesses I see operating there are chain restaurants and convenience stores. There's other stuff that looks boarded-up and closed for good. It's not a big deal for these chain stores to relocate to a new bypass. Love's can certainly do it. They've re-built that Clayton location at least once already and the daytime traffic is pretty bad there now. If Clayton had a new freeway bypass Love's could build a nicer location with better parking capacity and easier in/out access.
Look at Clarksville TX. about 35 years ago, they had a bond vote for a local reservoir. It passed.It would have provided water for Clarksville and Red River County for decades (Probably at least 50 years including projected growth.) The aginners voted two of the commissioners out of office (one already was opposed). They never sold the bonds. They never built the lake. Clarksville is a much smaller town now than in 1985. I am not going to say if this is good or bad. What I will say is one segment of the population wanted to circumvent change and it worked. Clarksville 2023 is closer to Clarksville 1953 than even 1983. Ironically, both US-82 and SH-37 have bypassed town. There is still almost zero development out there nearly 2 decades in. My point is that some folks do not want any change whatsoever.
Shocking, for a place with a Confederate monument in the center of town
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 22, 2023, 08:08:30 PM
Shocking, for a place with a Confederate monument in the center of town
Yeah, the petition to remove it had more signatures than the whole population of Clarksville and probably more than the AA population in Red River COunty.
https://eparisextra.com/trending-topics-2/residents-of-clarksville-call-for-removal-of-confederate-statue/
As far as I know, the statue is still there.
I think it would be smart to build bypasses around towns, but I don't think the entire US-87 north of Amarillo needs to be upgraded to a freeway. There's not enough local traffic turning off and on the highway to justify spending millions upgrading rural parts of the highway into a freeway. I think in other examples, such as US-287 between Decatur to Fort Worth, it would make more sense as there is a lot more local traffic trying to use the at-grade intersections. But the US-87 corridor north of Amarillo is carrying traffic that will stay on US-87, so I think a freeway upgrade is only necessary in the big towns
Quote from: BJ59 on August 23, 2023, 05:33:34 PM
I think it would be smart to build bypasses around towns, but I don't think the entire US-87 north of Amarillo needs to be upgraded to a freeway. There's not enough local traffic turning off and on the highway to justify spending millions upgrading rural parts of the highway into a freeway. I think in other examples, such as US-287 between Decatur to Fort Worth, it would make more sense as there is a lot more local traffic trying to use the at-grade intersections. But the US-87 corridor north of Amarillo is carrying traffic that will stay on US-87, so I think a freeway upgrade is only necessary in the big towns
I agree - the town bypasses should be the highest priority - along with widening any 2 lane portions to 4 lanes divided. Any other rural improvement - specifically access control - should come last, and only when traffic volumes on the mainline rise to the levels to warrant it from a safety aspect.
Texas is one of the few states in this country that permit a 75 mph speed limit regardless of access control or not, so it wouldn't make any difference to the flow and speed of mainline traffic, especially if it's lower.
Quote from: BJ59I think it would be smart to build bypasses around towns, but I don't think the entire US-87 north of Amarillo needs to be upgraded to a freeway. There's not enough local traffic turning off and on the highway to justify spending millions upgrading rural parts of the highway into a freeway.
This could be said about any rural stretch of existing Interstate highway in the Western US. Yet those roads (with the exception of certain portions of I-10 and I-40 in West Texas) were made limited access. It has just as much to do with safety and helping traffic move efficiently.
If we built highway segments with fully controlled access only where vehicle counts were deemed high enough to justify it (50,000 or more VPD?) there would be hardly any fully complete Interstate routes in the nation.
It's not just the amount of vehicles using the route, but the kinds of vehicles using it too. There is a lot of heavy trucks on US-287 from Amarillo up to Dumas (and even more from Amarillo down to Fort Worth).
If US-287 North of Amarillo was upgraded at all a bypass around Dumas should certainly be up front on the list of priorities. For all I know TX DOT could choose to upgrade the Amarillo-Dumas segment in
linear fashion, working from South to North. Upgrades would be fairly easy. Little, if any, new ROW would have to be acquired. Not every at-grade intersection needs its own highway exit either. They can do like what is being done in far South Texas: building short length frontage roads.
Yeah I agree. Using only ADTs to determine whether a particular section of an overall larger interstate corridor should be built or not is ridiculous.
The town bypasses should be constructed even if Interstate 27 is never extended north of Amarillo (and I am not 100% convinced it should be).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 23, 2023, 09:21:29 PM
Quote from: BJ59I think it would be smart to build bypasses around towns, but I don't think the entire US-87 north of Amarillo needs to be upgraded to a freeway. There's not enough local traffic turning off and on the highway to justify spending millions upgrading rural parts of the highway into a freeway.
This could be said about any rural stretch of existing Interstate highway in the Western US. Yet those roads (with the exception of certain portions of I-10 and I-40 in West Texas) were made limited access. It has just as much to do with safety and helping traffic move efficiently.
If we built highway segments with fully controlled access only where vehicle counts were deemed high enough to justify it (50,000 or more VPD?) there would be hardly any fully complete Interstate routes in the nation.
It's not just the amount of vehicles using the route, but the kinds of vehicles using it too. There is a lot of heavy trucks on US-287 from Amarillo up to Dumas (and even more from Amarillo down to Fort Worth).
If US-287 North of Amarillo was upgraded at all a bypass around Dumas should certainly be up front on the list of priorities. For all I know TX DOT could choose to upgrade the Amarillo-Dumas segment in linear fashion, working from South to North. Upgrades would be fairly easy. Little, if any, new ROW would have to be acquired. Not every at-grade intersection needs its own highway exit either. They can do like what is being done in far South Texas: building short length frontage roads.
$$$.
There was a dedicated source for interstate highway funding back in the 1950s and 1960s, stretching into the 1970s and 80s to complete the original system.
There's no dedicated funding source nowadays. While the vision may be fully controlled access throughout, that should only come when funding permits and it's warranted. The priority now should be bypasses, 4 lanes divided, and no traffic signals.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 23, 2023, 11:12:22 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 23, 2023, 09:21:29 PM
Quote from: BJ59I think it would be smart to build bypasses around towns, but I don't think the entire US-87 north of Amarillo needs to be upgraded to a freeway. There's not enough local traffic turning off and on the highway to justify spending millions upgrading rural parts of the highway into a freeway.
This could be said about any rural stretch of existing Interstate highway in the Western US. Yet those roads (with the exception of certain portions of I-10 and I-40 in West Texas) were made limited access. It has just as much to do with safety and helping traffic move efficiently.
If we built highway segments with fully controlled access only where vehicle counts were deemed high enough to justify it (50,000 or more VPD?) there would be hardly any fully complete Interstate routes in the nation.
It's not just the amount of vehicles using the route, but the kinds of vehicles using it too. There is a lot of heavy trucks on US-287 from Amarillo up to Dumas (and even more from Amarillo down to Fort Worth).
If US-287 North of Amarillo was upgraded at all a bypass around Dumas should certainly be up front on the list of priorities. For all I know TX DOT could choose to upgrade the Amarillo-Dumas segment in linear fashion, working from South to North. Upgrades would be fairly easy. Little, if any, new ROW would have to be acquired. Not every at-grade intersection needs its own highway exit either. They can do like what is being done in far South Texas: building short length frontage roads.
$$$.
There was a dedicated source for interstate highway funding back in the 1950s and 1960s, stretching into the 1970s and 80s to complete the original system.
There's no dedicated funding source nowadays. While the vision may be fully controlled access throughout, that should only come when funding permits and it's warranted. The priority now should be bypasses, 4 lanes divided, and no traffic signals.
That is something that might want to be revisited. It's important for states to have proper funding to build and maintain their road system priorities, but there will continue to be an overall regional/national transportation need for roads in some states (you could include MS/ARK I-69 or roads that traverse a corner of NM or cut across a sliver of OK) that don't a need for the state, but would be good for transportation as a whole.
With the way rural areas of the country are losing population and certain major metros are growing it will force state DOTs and the FHWA to concentrate funding and other resources on major corridors.
For example, Oklahoma has what seems like a countless number of section line roads and county roads along with its collection of state, US and Interstate highways. The state has several thousand bridge structures. All of that stuff costs a lot of money to maintain. But what's the point of keeping it once a certain locale is almost depopulated? The rail industry has "decommissioned" tens of thousands of miles worth of track and is still ripping out more existing rails than it is installing brand new. The same thing is going to end up happening to a lot of rural roads and bridges.
In the future some of the funding for busier 4-lane highways will come from what's not being spent on so many rural roads and bridges.
Like it or not, more tolls are in the future too. Not just on limited access highways either. Gasoline tax rates aren't covering the costs of road maintenance, much less any new construction. The growing amount of electric vehicle use is doing even more to make gasoline taxes an obsolete concept. If a majority of the driving population switches over to electric vehicles different systems of road funding will be required. We can have toll tag readers installed all over the place (giving the gum'ment more ways to track a person's movements). Or we can be paying an annual use fee just like the property tax bill on a house.
For several decades, Lubbock has been the terminus of I-35, and if the planners had their way, three more 2di's could meet there as well (I-69, I-2 and I-27). As for the I-27E/I-27W split for Big Spring and Midland-Odessa, does anyone really believe that these two branches are warranted? I can see why these two areas want a piece of the pie, but they're nothing like the Metroplex or even the Twin Cities, where I-35E and I-35W serve their respective purposes well. Even if I-27 eventually expands south of Lubbock, will it actually reach Laredo? Again, I'm not so sure what to make of this; maybe I'd be on board if US 90 were upgraded between Van Horn and San Antonio as an accommodation (even if it isn't freeway, then at least four-lane divided).
Quote from: Henry on August 25, 2023, 10:13:55 PM
For several decades, Lubbock has been the terminus of I-35, and if the planners had their way, three more 2di's could meet there as well (I-69, I-2 and I-27). As for the I-27E/I-27W split for Big Spring and Midland-Odessa, does anyone really believe that these two branches are warranted? I can see why these two areas want a piece of the pie, but they're nothing like the Metroplex or even the Twin Cities, where I-35E and I-35W serve their respective purposes well. Even if I-27 eventually expands south of Lubbock, will it actually reach Laredo? Again, I'm not so sure what to make of this; maybe I'd be on board if US 90 were upgraded between Van Horn and San Antonio as an accommodation (even if it isn't freeway, then at least four-lane divided).
I think you mean Laredo as Terminus of I-35..........
Quote from: ski-man on August 25, 2023, 11:12:49 PM
Quote from: Henry on August 25, 2023, 10:13:55 PM
For several decades, Lubbock has been the terminus of I-35, and if the planners had their way, three more 2di's could meet there as well (I-69, I-2 and I-27). As for the I-27E/I-27W split for Big Spring and Midland-Odessa, does anyone really believe that these two branches are warranted? I can see why these two areas want a piece of the pie, but they're nothing like the Metroplex or even the Twin Cities, where I-35E and I-35W serve their respective purposes well. Even if I-27 eventually expands south of Lubbock, will it actually reach Laredo? Again, I'm not so sure what to make of this; maybe I'd be on board if US 90 were upgraded between Van Horn and San Antonio as an accommodation (even if it isn't freeway, then at least four-lane divided).
I think you mean Laredo as Terminus of I-35..........
US - 90 is desolate in the western part of the state. Look up Valentine, TX. No need for that, or that ridiculous I-14 "pipe dream" extending way out to the west. They can't even four lane and improve corridors that should have been completely upgraded and modernized. Decades ago. Even with all the money they have. US - 285 N of Pecos as a prime example, of a "throwaway improvment". Garbage.
US 90 between Van Horn and San Antonio is the only segment of 90 that isn't paralleled by Interstate 10 (or any other Interstate Highway). US 90 theoretically could have been decommissioned between San Antonio and Jacksonville, but the states obviously saw value not to decommission any of 90. If US 90 had been along any other long-distance Interstate corridor, it likely would have been truncated, if not decommissioned.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 26, 2023, 01:39:24 PM
US 90 between Van Horn and San Antonio is the only segment of 90 that isn't paralleled by Interstate 10 (or any other Interstate Highway). US 90 theoretically could have been decommissioned between San Antonio and Jacksonville, but the states obviously saw value not to decommission any of 90. If US 90 had been along any other long-distance Interstate corridor, it likely would have been truncated, if not decommissioned.
US 90 between Lafayette and NOLA says "Hello!!" Also, there's US 90 Alternate between Sealy and Houston.
Also...the chances of decommissioning major intercontinential routes ending in "0" happens to be somewhere between slim and none.
True, US 90 between Lafayette and New Orleans isn't presently along an Interstate corridor, but it will be in the future. That is why I didn't mention that segment of 90 in my initial post. I agree that the US 90 designation will remain between Van Horn, TX and Jacksonville, FL. If it was going to be truncated, or decommissioned, it would have been done long ago.
Quote from: HenryAs for the I-27E/I-27W split for Big Spring and Midland-Odessa, does anyone really believe that these two branches are warranted? I can see why these two areas want a piece of the pie, but they're nothing like the Metroplex or even the Twin Cities, where I-35E and I-35W serve their respective purposes well.
I can see merits to upgrading the TX-349 corridor between Midland and Lamesa to Interstate standards or at least a 4-lane divided corridor with at-grade intersections. TX-158 between Midland and Sterling City is more difficult to justify upgrading into a super-highway, be it "I-27W" or "I-14."
I guess we'll see what happens over the next couple or so decades.Quote from: HenryEven if I-27 eventually expands south of Lubbock, will it actually reach Laredo?
I think that depends on a few factors. If much of the violence and corruption in Mexico could be snuffed out the economy there could explode in growth. Lots of manufacturers really want to get the hell out of China. Mexico isn't the best alternative due to too much instability. Of course us Americans and our vices are one reason why Mexico continues to be as dangerous a place to live and do business. If some positive changes took place we could see a whole lot more traffic crossing the border at Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo.
As it stands, there is a lot of population growth along the Front Range in Colorado. That translates into more trucking having to go to/from port cities inland and on the Gulf of Mexico. I-25 isn't the best route for trucks to go South due to Raton Pass and the big swing I-25 takes to the West twisting around to Albuquerque. A completed Ports to Plains Corridor would allow that commerce to avoid the Rockies completely.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 26, 2023, 06:05:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 26, 2023, 01:39:24 PM
US 90 between Van Horn and San Antonio is the only segment of 90 that isn't paralleled by Interstate 10 (or any other Interstate Highway). US 90 theoretically could have been decommissioned between San Antonio and Jacksonville, but the states obviously saw value not to decommission any of 90. If US 90 had been along any other long-distance Interstate corridor, it likely would have been truncated, if not decommissioned.
US 90 between Lafayette and NOLA says "Hello!!" Also, there's US 90 Alternate between Sealy and Houston.
Also...the chances of decommissioning major intercontinential routes ending in "0" happens to be somewhere between slim and none.
What about US-80? It follows I-20 from Mississippi to the DFW metroplex and suddenly ends at I-30. I'm pretty sure it used to go from Georgia to California but was decommissioned in the west.
Quote from: BJ59 on August 27, 2023, 12:47:20 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 26, 2023, 06:05:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 26, 2023, 01:39:24 PM
US 90 between Van Horn and San Antonio is the only segment of 90 that isn't paralleled by Interstate 10 (or any other Interstate Highway). US 90 theoretically could have been decommissioned between San Antonio and Jacksonville, but the states obviously saw value not to decommission any of 90. If US 90 had been along any other long-distance Interstate corridor, it likely would have been truncated, if not decommissioned.
US 90 between Lafayette and NOLA says "Hello!!" Also, there's US 90 Alternate between Sealy and Houston.
Also...the chances of decommissioning major intercontinential routes ending in "0" happens to be somewhere between slim and none.
What about US-80? It follows I-20 from Mississippi to the DFW metroplex and suddenly ends at I-30. I'm pretty sure it used to go from Georgia to California but was decommissioned in the west.
Yes, US-80 used to continue along I-20 and I-10 west of Dallas to around Lordsburg, NM. At Lordsburg, US-80 turned south and went through the New Mexico Bootheel to the Mexican border at Douglas, AZ, and then curved back northwest to I-10 at Benson, AZ, on what is now NM-80 and AZ-80, respectively. I then followed I-10 to west of Phoenix, where it turned south at Buckeye and followed AZ-85 to I-8 at Gila Bend. From there to San Diego, CA, US-80 was replaced by I-8, being bypassed in some areas and I-8 being built directly over the old road in others.
Quote from: BJ59 on August 27, 2023, 12:47:20 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 26, 2023, 06:05:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 26, 2023, 01:39:24 PM
US 90 between Van Horn and San Antonio is the only segment of 90 that isn't paralleled by Interstate 10 (or any other Interstate Highway). US 90 theoretically could have been decommissioned between San Antonio and Jacksonville, but the states obviously saw value not to decommission any of 90. If US 90 had been along any other long-distance Interstate corridor, it likely would have been truncated, if not decommissioned.
US 90 between Lafayette and NOLA says "Hello!!" Also, there's US 90 Alternate between Sealy and Houston.
Also...the chances of decommissioning major intercontinential routes ending in "0" happens to be somewhere between slim and none.
What about US-80? It follows I-20 from Mississippi to the DFW metroplex and suddenly ends at I-30. I'm pretty sure it used to go from Georgia to California but was decommissioned in the west.
Not to mention 40 being decommissioned west of SLC. Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 27, 2023, 04:22:09 PM
Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.
US-70 doesn't have a parallel interstate in Texas or Oklahoma...
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 27, 2023, 04:48:44 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 27, 2023, 04:22:09 PM
Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.
US-70 doesn't have a parallel interstate in Texas or Oklahoma...
I'd argue that I-40 does serve that purpose, as it's still the fastest route to LA or Phoenix from Southern Oklahoma, not to mention points eastward. I say "arguably", because in my mind, US x0 routes need to serve major points of interest in multiple states, that are not better served by other routes. Roswell-to-Hot Springs simply isn't a corridor that rises to that level.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 27, 2023, 04:48:44 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 27, 2023, 04:22:09 PM
Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.
US-70 doesn't have a parallel interstate in Texas or Oklahoma...
Also from the Texas/New Mexico border to Las Cruces, and from Lordsburg to the New Mexico/Arizona border, there is no interstate route US-70 parallels or overlaps.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 27, 2023, 05:42:35 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 27, 2023, 04:48:44 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 27, 2023, 04:22:09 PM
Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.
US-70 doesn't have a parallel interstate in Texas or Oklahoma...
I'd argue that I-40 does serve that purpose, as it's still the fastest route to LA or Phoenix from Southern Oklahoma, not to mention points eastward. I say "arguably", because in my mind, US x0 routes need to serve major points of interest in multiple states, that are not better served by other routes. Roswell-to-Hot Springs simply isn't a corridor that rises to that level.
You do realize that US70 is THE main corridor along the Red River in OK. It is also over 100 miles south of I40 so IMO I40 is not a suitable alternative for any trip in the 2 states referenced.
Quote from: rte66man on August 28, 2023, 05:04:46 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 27, 2023, 05:42:35 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 27, 2023, 04:48:44 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 27, 2023, 04:22:09 PM
Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.
US-70 doesn't have a parallel interstate in Texas or Oklahoma...
I'd argue that I-40 does serve that purpose, as it's still the fastest route to LA or Phoenix from Southern Oklahoma, not to mention points eastward. I say "arguably", because in my mind, US x0 routes need to serve major points of interest in multiple states, that are not better served by other routes. Roswell-to-Hot Springs simply isn't a corridor that rises to that level.
You do realize that US70 is THE main corridor along the Red River in OK. It is also over 100 miles south of I40 so IMO I40 is not a suitable alternative for any trip in the 2 states referenced.
From his prospective, we should probably decommission 75% of the US highways period. I will give them, that the coast to coast utility of the X-0 US Highways is long gone for each of them. Just like the rest of the US highways, the utility is almost always as a regional or even local road. If you take the idea most have of 3 digit US Highways and assign that opinion to the 2 digit ones (even the X-0 and X-1's) just the same, it pretty much is the same. The idea of transcontinental US Highways is pretty much moot in the days of the transcontinental INTERSTATE. Today, the X-0 and X-1's are absolutely the same as the other two digit AND 3 digit US Highways.
There is one key difference between state and US Highways in most states. All-in-all the RURAL US (Labeled) routes are better maintained, more likely to have more (wider) lanes, and / or shoulders then their state labeled mates; but not ALWAYS. The argument for keeping the US routes numbered as-is would be the same as the argument that virtually every controlled access freeway should carry an Interstate number that you can ascertain that said route meets a minimum standard for transportation.
Quote from: bwana39 on August 29, 2023, 10:00:49 AM
Quote from: rte66man on August 28, 2023, 05:04:46 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 27, 2023, 05:42:35 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 27, 2023, 04:48:44 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 27, 2023, 04:22:09 PM
Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.
US-70 doesn't have a parallel interstate in Texas or Oklahoma...
I'd argue that I-40 does serve that purpose, as it's still the fastest route to LA or Phoenix from Southern Oklahoma, not to mention points eastward. I say "arguably", because in my mind, US x0 routes need to serve major points of interest in multiple states, that are not better served by other routes. Roswell-to-Hot Springs simply isn't a corridor that rises to that level.
You do realize that US70 is THE main corridor along the Red River in OK. It is also over 100 miles south of I40 so IMO I40 is not a suitable alternative for any trip in the 2 states referenced.
From his prospective, we should probably decommission 75% of the US highways period. I will give them, that the coast to coast utility of the X-0 US Highways is long gone for each of them. Just like the rest of the US highways, the utility is almost always as a regional or even local road. If you take the idea most have of 3 digit US Highways and assign that opinion to the 2 digit ones (even the X-0 and X-1's) just the same, it pretty much is the same. The idea of transcontinental US Highways is pretty much moot in the days of the transcontinental INTERSTATE. Today, the X-0 and X-1's are absolutely the same as the other two digit AND 3 digit US Highways.
There is one key difference between state and US Highways in most states. All-in-all the RURAL US (Labeled) routes are better maintained, more likely to have more (wider) lanes, and / or shoulders then their state labeled mates; but not ALWAYS. The argument for keeping the US routes numbered as-is would be the same as the argument that virtually every controlled access freeway should carry an Interstate number that you can ascertain that said route meets a minimum standard for transportation.
What he said. The US-X0 and US-X1 routes were designed to indicate the best through routes, and they no longer serve this purpose. You could replace US-70 in southern Oklahoma with OK-70 or US-182, and lose nothing in the way of navigability. In the end, New York proved correct about their route numbering philosophy, which is why (outside of cancelled interstates), those numbers have stood the test of time.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 05, 2023, 01:45:50 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on August 29, 2023, 10:00:49 AM
Quote from: rte66man on August 28, 2023, 05:04:46 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 27, 2023, 05:42:35 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 27, 2023, 04:48:44 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 27, 2023, 04:22:09 PM
Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.
US-70 doesn't have a parallel interstate in Texas or Oklahoma...
I'd argue that I-40 does serve that purpose, as it's still the fastest route to LA or Phoenix from Southern Oklahoma, not to mention points eastward. I say "arguably", because in my mind, US x0 routes need to serve major points of interest in multiple states, that are not better served by other routes. Roswell-to-Hot Springs simply isn't a corridor that rises to that level.
You do realize that US70 is THE main corridor along the Red River in OK. It is also over 100 miles south of I40 so IMO I40 is not a suitable alternative for any trip in the 2 states referenced.
From his prospective, we should probably decommission 75% of the US highways period. I will give them, that the coast to coast utility of the X-0 US Highways is long gone for each of them. Just like the rest of the US highways, the utility is almost always as a regional or even local road. If you take the idea most have of 3 digit US Highways and assign that opinion to the 2 digit ones (even the X-0 and X-1's) just the same, it pretty much is the same. The idea of transcontinental US Highways is pretty much moot in the days of the transcontinental INTERSTATE. Today, the X-0 and X-1's are absolutely the same as the other two digit AND 3 digit US Highways.
There is one key difference between state and US Highways in most states. All-in-all the RURAL US (Labeled) routes are better maintained, more likely to have more (wider) lanes, and / or shoulders then their state labeled mates; but not ALWAYS. The argument for keeping the US routes numbered as-is would be the same as the argument that virtually every controlled access freeway should carry an Interstate number that you can ascertain that said route meets a minimum standard for transportation.
What he said. The US-X0 and US-X1 routes were designed to indicate the best through routes, and they no longer serve this purpose. You could replace US-70 in southern Oklahoma with OK-70 or US-182, and lose nothing in the way of navigability. In the end, New York proved correct about their route numbering philosophy, which is why (outside of cancelled interstates), those numbers have stood the test of time.
Population densities of NY and OK are vastly different, though.
Out east, most non-interstates aren't even really 'highways' as they've become just major arterial roads. Lots of lights, etc. 'Highways' out west are generally perceived to be wide shoulders, elevated slightly from the terrain when necessary, and wide open between towns. Many with speed limits that rival interstates in the east.
West of the Appalachians, the US routes do still serve a purpose. In the shrunken sized, overpopulated eastern corridor from Boston to Atlanta, it's far less noteworthy to be a US route (though a few in VA and PA hold some prominence such as US22, US29, US460, US 219, etc).
Going back to an early statement about the I-27 E/W split. For through traffic, the most notable route would be following US87 through Big Spring. However, since the route turns southwest to Del Rio and wants to hug the Rio Grande to Laredo, it cuts off the primary route. Which is most would take US87 through Big Spring to San Angelo and follow US83 through Eden and Menard to Junction, and either follow I-10 to I-35 or stay on US83 through Uvalde to Carrizo to I-35 near the TX-255 cutoff.
However, that's not the primary route for local traffic. Odessa/Midland is by far more of a destination, especially in the oil field areas of Texas. And splitting in Lamesa southwest to Midland and then back east.
It makes sense that 27E would serve San Angelo. But it's already going to struggle to keep traffic on the interstate if only the Midland stretch were built. If it were to connect to San Angelo and points south fro there.
If only I-27 from Lamesa to Midland to Garden City to San Angelo to Del Rio were built, many would exit at TX137 to Big Lake and Ozona and get on I-10 there over to I-27 to continue the drive. Or, continue on the older two-lane of US83 and avoid the cities of Del Rio and Eagle Pass.
So, Midland will command more traffic than Big Spring, but through traffic won't follow it. Regardless where it originates. UNLESS it's just Midland to San Angelo traffic. But, then, just a few bypasses should suffice for that route.
I don't understand why the I-27E/W split needs to exist. Is I-27W even worth building? The time difference to get between the US 87/TX 158 split and Midland via TX 158 vs. US 87/I-20 is less than ten minutes. Just build I-27E, call it I-27, and let the Midland traffic use a bit of I-20 to connect.
Alternatively just have I-27 for Midland but end further south at I-10. San Angelo would be served by I -14, eventually.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 27, 2023, 04:22:09 PM
Not to mention 40 being decommissioned west of SLC. Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.
There is no parallel interstate to US 40 between Salt Lake City and Denver...
Quote from: US 89 on September 24, 2023, 12:12:02 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 27, 2023, 04:22:09 PM
Not to mention 40 being decommissioned west of SLC. Both it and 70 arguably should be decommissioned entirely, as both either have parallel Interstate routes that have superseded the route, or are multiplexed where not.
There is no parallel interstate to US 40 between Salt Lake City and Denver...
70 and 80 handle that traffic. Hardly anyone is taking 40 to go between those two cities.
Quote from: Henry on August 25, 2023, 10:13:55 PM
For several decades, Lubbock has been the southern terminus of I-27, and if the planners had their way, three more 2di's could meet there as well (I-69, I-2 and I-27). As for the I-27E/I-27W split for Big Spring and Midland-Odessa, does anyone really believe that these two branches are warranted? I can see why these two areas want a piece of the pie, but they're nothing like the Metroplex or even the Twin Cities, where I-35E and I-35W serve their respective purposes well. Even if I-27 eventually expands south of Lubbock, will it actually reach Laredo? Again, I'm not so sure what to make of this; maybe I'd be on board if US 90 were upgraded between Van Horn and San Antonio as an accommodation (even if it isn't freeway, then at least four-lane divided).
Maybe it was the opposite. Would argue that perhaps there was an "abdication" of state wide corridor planning in the state of Texas. Just like in New Mexico they took their initial share or dole out of I routes. Yes there were changes, like the cancellation of the original 27 routing SE to Sweetwater. Am guessing the US 84 overlay (becoming I-27) was seen at one time as cheap and easy. But realization came later that N-S demand was elsewhere (meaning farther west). There was seemingly no planning or foresight for additional mileage, for a long time, where it would have been advantageous and cheaper, back in the day, to do. At least three decades of hand-sitting, status quo and vacillation. May four? Mid seventies onward. Nor was there additional designation of 3DI loops, where it would have been logical and coherent to do so. El Paso and San Antonio were perhaps the most glaring examples, where a true beltway for El Paso lay stagnant for decades (the result, and what is there today is flawed), and San Antonio (a large place with extensive military facilities) didn't move on a I grade outer beltway. Really a head scratcher. So much money (Rick Perry forward), but so many opportunities and funds squandered.
Am of belief there is considerable more demand for traffic to head to Odessa / Midland, than Big Spring / San Angelo but more aggressive political heads are pulling for the eastern branch harder. And there is pre-existing limited access mileage (perhaps 20-25 years old) in San Angelo environs that will be used in said eastern branch.
The problem with Midland is it's an out of the way point in relation to the overall Ports to Plains Corridor. Big Spring and San Angelo are along the "main line" of sorts on the way to Del Rio.
At the very least TX-349 between Midland and Lamesa should be converted into a divided 4-lane highway. The existing road is 4-laned but not divided. Making the highway divided would improve safety for traffic moving between Midland and Lubbock.
Outside of the I-69 efforts Texas hasn't appeared to do very much for improving important highway corridors in rural areas across the state. Even the I-69 system has been slow-walked a great deal. I think lawmakers have their minds on other issues, ones that attract more attention from cable news networks. Roads are boring to TV networks.
The last serious effort Texas put forth for rural highways was the program that helped 4-lane US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene. That's going back to the 1990's. Even the Ports to Plains Corridor effort is getting pretty old.
Texas has gained a lot of population over the past 20 years. And not just in the Texas Triangle either. I can think of at least half a dozen corridors across Texas that need serious upgrade work.
Contrary to popular belief, US-87 (future I-27) between south of Lubbock and north of San Angelo is already a 4-lane divided expressway actually. Just needs a bypass for O'Donnell?. Lamesa (where it branches and splits with TX-349 which is 4-lane but undivided for a few years now), Sterling City (which is where it reunites with TX-158 which is also 4-lane but mostly undivided) and of course San Angelo itself.
They even built a Big Spring bypass several years ago
(https://i.imgur.com/Nfmf1d7.png)
Future I-27W (a.k.a. TX-349 and TX-158) will have to be divided before any bypasses are done like Patricia and Garden City, later down the road (no pun intended), with the hardest part being Midland itself.
They are building an overpass over TX-137 west of Garden City incase that isn't finished already.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Lubbock,+TX/San+Angelo,+TX/@31.5516757,-100.6282402,56996m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m15!4m14!1m5!1m1!1s0x86fe12add37ddd39:0x1af0042922e84287!2m2!1d-101.8456417!2d33.5845617!1m5!1m1!1s0x8657e583a53b7191:0x827e3d0b3754c742!2m2!1d-100.4370375!2d31.4637723!3e0!5i1?authuser=1&entry=ttu
The problem is anything south of San Angelo (via US-277 and later US-83), cause it is all 2-lane undivided and this is before any bypasses too...............except for Del Rio which is a Super-2 bypass.
Much of US-87 between Lubbock and San Angelo is indeed 4-lane divided. But not much of the existing main lanes are up to current Interstate standards. A lot of that will have to be re-built. Still, an upgrade to Interstate quality is very do-able since it looks like hardly any new ROW would be needed between towns. There aren't many properties adjacent to the existing US-87 highway that would be in any danger of having to be removed to make room for upgraded main lanes or frontage roads.
Lamesa will obviously need a new terrain bypass, preferably to the East
but not too far East due to the drop-off of terrain about 10 miles East. TX-349, which could become a I-27 spur (or "I-27W") would have to skirt South of Lamesa to hook into that Eastern I-27 bypass.
Sterling City would need a new terrain bypass, but it wouldn't be as long as the one for Lamesa. US-87 in Carlsbad, TX could be upgraded in place. US-87 would be fairly easy to upgrade coming into the NW side of San Angelo. But once the frontage roads end at Humble Road near the OC Fisher Dam US-87 gets tightly packed in with development. TX DOT would have to build an elevated expressway over the existing divided street in order to connect it with the Houston Harte Expressway (US-277).
Quote from: The BoxThe problem is anything south of San Angelo (via US-277 and later US-83), cause it is all 2-lane undivided and this is before any bypasses too...............except for Del Rio which is a Super-2 bypass.
I think there is a good chance an I-27 route South of San Angelo will have to be built on a lot of new terrain alignment to get proper grading and curve geometry. El Dorado and Sonora will need bypasses. I'm not sure how TX DOT would proceed with upgrading US-277 to Interstate standard from Sonora down to Del Rio. The terrain gets increasingly hilly South of I-10. That might put more pressure on TX DOT to upgrade as much of the existing highway as possible.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 08, 2023, 02:17:00 PM
I'm not sure how TX DOT would proceed with upgraded US-277 to Interstate standard from Sonora down to Del Rio.
Yeah, that's a wild thought. I'd love to drive it through
Buffalo Draw (https://maps.app.goo.gl/jdVK1PvzPBrr8cxL6), with its
northern (https://maps.app.goo.gl/NnbsMmmxRJAe8svY8) and
southern (https://maps.app.goo.gl/wm6GsMKy86RzY5hY8) approaches. It would probably become one of the most underappreciated stretches of Interstate.
Nothing new, just some progress of them getting I-27 designated as early as 2024 whiling for input
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/update-on-the-ports-to-plains-corridor-naming-interstate-27/amp/
https://abc7amarillo.com/amp/news/local/progress-made-on-ports-to-plains-corridor-project-aimed-at-enhancing-transportation-and-safety-in-texas-panhandle-lauren-garduno-milton-pax-dumas-texas
That's funny. That news anchor at that Amarillo TV station worked at our ABC affiliate in Lawton for quite a while.
Aside from that, I'm glad to see there is considerably more official effort at extending I-27 both North and South. That would give the Ports to Plains Corridor greater aspirations than merely being a 4-lane divided highway with at-grade intersections and driveways. Not to mention it would (eventually) provide a means to get the US-64/87 project from Texline to Raton fixed properly.
If the US Congress passes the resolution to designate the Ports to Plains Corridor as I-27 (or Future I-27) that would at least get it on the books. According to the news article the Senate has already passed it; now it's up to the House. Who knows how that will go. Even if the resolution is passed much of it will still be an unfunded mandate. But at least the intentions will be more than just a rumor.
They're also building another overpass south of Woodrow
https://maps.app.goo.gl/K7Tq1FjUckkLfWHk6?g_st=ic
As for Midland, how do we connect TX-349 and TX-158 with Loop TX-250?
Quote from: TheBox on November 09, 2023, 09:53:31 AM
As for Midland, how do we connect TX-349 and TX-158 with Loop TX-250?
What do you mean? TX 349 is already concurrent with I-20 at the west end of TX Loop 250, and TX 158 has a concurrency with TX Loop 250 heading north from I-20 there.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 09, 2023, 10:40:58 AM
Quote from: TheBox on November 09, 2023, 09:53:31 AM
As for Midland, how do we connect TX-349 and TX-158 with Loop TX-250?
What do you mean? TX 349 is already concurrent with I-20 at the west end of TX Loop 250, and TX 158 has a concurrency with TX Loop 250 heading north from I-20 there.
What I mean is how do we make space for the freeway (TX-349 and TX-158), frontage roads and direct connector ramps?
There's lots of businesses at the TX-158 @ I-20 intersection (even if they're all industrial) whiling the TX-349 @ Loop 250 is tight with a sports complex and a cemetery on each side of TX-349
Actually TX-349 does not reach Loop-250 at all. It diverts to the West about 3.5 miles North of the 250 loop. TX-349 goes West around the North side of Midland and then cuts down to meet the TX-191 freeway halfway between Midland and Odessa. It's mostly a 2-lane road with one limited access exit for TX-158. It looks like this portion of TX-349 has enough ROW available to be expanded into a freeway flanked by frontage roads. Some additional ROW will be needed to make a Y interchange with TX-191.
Looking at the I-27 interactive map, West Texas may not depend on DFW (or in the case of Dollar General, Longview in East Texas...........or San Antonio if closer to I-10) anymore as far as distribution is concerned, due to the potential economic benefits and growth from I-27.
https://txdot.mysocialpinpoint.com/ports-to-plains/map#/
West Texas only has their own Walmart, O'Reilly, and Family Dollar distribution centers (still too far from El Paso, not that it matters to the last one)
Currently DFW distributes Target, the Pizza trinity (Domino's, Papa Johns, Little Caesars), McDonalds, Walgreens, CVS, AutoZone and to an lesser extent Costco all for West Texas (among other aeras around them).
Same with El Paso but replace DFW with Phoenix AZ (and in the case of Walmart Albuquerque NM).
I asked if the Ports to Plains would be better served using new rail from Laredo/Del Rio and up to Abilene where it could reach several ways to serve the RM basin. Cheaper to build rail than to build a 4 lane highway and maintain it for 30 years I assume.
I was reminded that there are already 2 ways to serve that audience today by rail.
From Del Rio to El Paso and then north over Raton Pass.
From Laredo to DFW and all cites west.
The one debit on rail was timing. It would probably take a railroad 3 times as long to move a consist to Denver from Laredo than a truck would on I-27.
Quote from: edwaleni on November 13, 2023, 06:29:52 PM
I asked if the Ports to Plains would be better served using new rail from Laredo/Del Rio and up to Abilene where it could reach several ways to serve the RM basin. Cheaper to build rail than to build a 4 lane highway and maintain it for 30 years I assume.
I was reminded that there are already 2 ways to serve that audience today by rail.
From Del Rio to El Paso and then north over Raton Pass.
From Laredo to DFW and all cites west.
The one debit on rail was timing. It would probably take a railroad 3 times as long to move a consist to Denver from Laredo than a truck would on I-27.
Rail is slow because of the railroads trying to build trains that are complete (as opposed to needing cars switched out.) The railroads only carry the most profitable loads. The problem is the railroads don't want additional business. They have found their sweet spot and are content to languor in it.
Quote from: bwana39 on November 13, 2023, 07:56:24 PM
Rail is slow because of the railroads trying to build trains that are complete (as opposed to needing cars switched out.) The railroads only carry the most profitable loads.
Or/And: Much rail transport operates on tonnage, not time.
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2023, 10:38:52 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on November 13, 2023, 07:56:24 PM
Rail is slow because of the railroads trying to build trains that are complete (as opposed to needing cars switched out.) The railroads only carry the most profitable loads.
Or/And: Much rail transport operates on tonnage, not time.
They bill on tonnage, not time. There used to be express freight trains. Most of the time, it just is not in their interests to put time into the equation. There are some full load trailer or container trains that are time based too. There is minimal competition. They operate more like a single vehicle cartage company than a consolidate freight hauler.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53330140093_587196dfd0_b.jpg)
I'm confused what this map is supposed to be showing me. If you go out of the way, but drive 15mph faster, you can get from Laredo to St. Louis a little quicker?
Quote from: edwaleni on November 14, 2023, 04:11:50 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53330140093_587196dfd0_b.jpg)
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Laredo,+Texas/St.+Louis,+Missouri/@34.9897001,-97.6310629,7z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x8660c06ca7f93d25:0xb4407a5349567491!2m2!1d-99.5075519!2d27.5035613!1m5!1m1!1s0x87d8b4a9faed8ef9:0xbe39eaca22bbe05b!2m2!1d-90.1994042!2d38.6270025!3e0?entry=ttu
Either way it is still 5 hours out of the way? (Laredo to ST Louis through Texarkana or Tulsa.....)
If commercial vehicles heading from Laredo to St Louis wanted to bypass I-35 the US-83/US-277/I-44 corridor would be a better alternative than driving up to Del Rio and then clear up to Amarillo before heading East. That's going way out of the way.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on November 14, 2023, 04:31:41 PM
I'm confused what this map is supposed to be showing me. If you go out of the way, but drive 15mph faster, you can get from Laredo to St. Louis a little quicker?
I think it's assuming there will be more traffic congestion along the I-35 route hence it being 15MPH on average slower. Possibly if you hit Dallas and Austin at the wrong time and OKC can have traffic issues on I-35 but it's not very often and a bypass is planned. I-35 is being improved in Austin and there is a growing push to expand SH-130 which bypasses Austin traffic. Dallas is the only real issue but that can be overcome with planning out trip times.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 14, 2023, 07:15:36 PM
I think it's assuming there will be more traffic congestion along the I-35 route hence it being 15MPH on average slower. Possibly if you hit Dallas and Austin at the wrong time and OKC can have traffic issues on I-35 but it's not very often and a bypass is planned. I-35 is being improved in Austin and there is a growing push to expand SH-130 which bypasses Austin traffic. Dallas is the only real issue but that can be overcome with planning out trip times.
Aren't I-69 and I-369 (in combination with a few other corridors) going to provide a better alternative to I-35 for any Laredo to St. Louis traffic? Or is the Houston area going to be too big of problem and in need of a super bypass?
Driving through the middle of Houston can be a real bitch at times. The downtown area is going to be a real mess once they're able to get started on that I-10/I-45/I-69 expansion project. Tolls on Loop 8 and The Grand Parkway can get pretty expensive (especially for trucks).
Plus, I-69 isn't going to be a functional Laredo-St Louis route for a long time. Aside from the I-69 projects in Texas, I-57 would need to be completed between I-40 and I-55. And that's not such a direct route since I-55 kind of bends backwards to get up to St Louis. If MO DOT can do build more grade separations on US-67 between Poplar Bluff and the Southern outskirts of St Louis that might make a I-69/I-369/I-30/I-57/US-67 combo a better route to dodge Dallas.
I still think TX DOT needs to put more work into the US-281 corridor going North out of San Antonio and up to Wichita Falls. Even if it's not full Interstate quality (but with segments of freeway) it could still be an effective relief route for I-35. Four-laning US-277 between Abilene and San Angelo would also help. That and a completed Ports to Plains Corridor would make Del Rio a more attractive border crossing for commercial traffic. They could bypass the crush of activity at Laredo and bypass the San Antonio, Austin and DFW metros and hit I-35 in OKC.
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 14, 2023, 09:49:23 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 14, 2023, 07:15:36 PM
I think it's assuming there will be more traffic congestion along the I-35 route hence it being 15MPH on average slower. Possibly if you hit Dallas and Austin at the wrong time and OKC can have traffic issues on I-35 but it's not very often and a bypass is planned. I-35 is being improved in Austin and there is a growing push to expand SH-130 which bypasses Austin traffic. Dallas is the only real issue but that can be overcome with planning out trip times.
Aren't I-69 and I-369 (in combination with a few other corridors) going to provide a better alternative to I-35 for any Laredo to St. Louis traffic? Or is the Houston area going to be too big of problem and in need of a super bypass?
Dallas and Houston both need a super bypass. Houston kind of has one but soon sprawl will engulf it and make it another suburban tollway.
What they really need to do is build elevated lanes through the cities they have VERY few exits(I mean like maybe one or two) to create and elevated bypass of city traffic. I'm not sure if they could build fuel areas that exclusively service these bypass which themselves would be elevated as well. I don't think there's anything like that in the world so it'd be a challenge.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 14, 2023, 05:44:59 PM
If commercial vehicles heading from Laredo to St Louis wanted to bypass I-35 the US-83/US-277/I-44 corridor would be a better alternative than driving up to Del Rio and then clear up to Amarillo before heading East. That's going way out of the way.
I just did this a few months ago.
Wichita → I-35 → Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City → I-44 → Wichita Falls
Wichita Falls → US-277 → Abilene
Abilene → US-83 → Uvalde
(cut over on FM-117 back to I-35, but only because our hotel reservation was in Cotulla)
It's a wonderful route for bypassing I-35 in Texas, but I'm not so sure a lot of truckers would want to deal with the hills and curves between the Dry Frio River and TX-39.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaWhat they really need to do is build elevated lanes through the cities they have VERY few exits(I mean like maybe one or two) to create and elevated bypass of city traffic. I'm not sure if they could build fuel areas that exclusively service these bypass which themselves would be elevated as well. I don't think there's anything like that in the world so it'd be a challenge.
Elevated express routes thru urban areas would be a non-starter for multiple factors. It's difficult to build elevated highways in urban areas due to public opposition; they dislike the look of elevated highways. The structures would cost a great deal to build and maintain yet carry limited amounts of thru traffic. That could lead to some really high toll rates. The limited number of exits along an elevated structure would make emergency service access pretty bad.
Turnpikes and even freeways can be designed with very limited amounts of access. It just comes down to the choices of where exits and interchanges are built
and NOT built. Some turnpikes in the US already have very limited amounts of access and long distances between exits/interchanges. Heck, I-44 between Lawton and Oklahoma City has very little access. In urban areas a super highway and surface street traffic can be isolated from each other via the super highway having few exits and no frontage roads built alongside it.
The DFW and Houston metros both need
relief routes. The trick is building up corridors that could function in such a manner.
In the Houston region the combo of US-290, the Grand Parkway and US-90 to Beaumont could work as a Northern bypass. Farther North the TX-105 corridor has potential, but it is getting covered up with development in the Montgomery, Conroe and Cleveland areas. North of that we're talking Future I-14 from College Station to Huntsville. I-14 could work as a Northern East-West relief route around Houston
if it had an alignment good enough to attract thru traffic.
US-281 could turn into an effective North-South relief route for I-35 to bypass Austin and DFW. The US-380 and US-82 corridors North of DFW could be additional East-West super highway corridors.
If they ever build Loop 9 around DFW that could be a good way to get from I-35 to I-30 and bypass Dallas, provided that the city doesn't grow out to the loop. From there you could get to a future I-57 to St. Louis. But that doesn't solve the Austin traffic congestion...
I think the idea of US-281 is interesting because it almost runs parallel to I-35 and skips all the big metros. It seems more direct than the future I-27 route, which even though it saves an hour according to the map, it seems so out of the way. It is 250 miles longer than the I-35 route. If only there was a way to have a more direct route that skipped all the big metros.
Quote from: BJ59 on November 15, 2023, 07:34:16 PM
But that doesn't solve the Austin traffic congestion...
SH-130 is a great route to bypass the metro.
So I edited TX-349 loop last week and told Google to make that a national highway cause it'll be important in the future
Today they listened and applied for it
Pleasanton to Tyler to Paris (or Texarkana).. There is not a road that tracks anything close. As far as that goes, practically no roads run from NE to SW east of I-35.
IE Match up with I-49 or INT.
Perhaps catch up with I-69 around Nacogdoches.
I have a interesting question
If and when I-27W is completed 100% whiling I-27(E) is interstate standards between Lubbock and San Angelo, would the I-20 West signs in DFW replace Abilene with Midland or maybe add in Midland in addition to Abilene?
EDIT: and in Abilene, replace El Paso one the sign with Midland or add in Midland in addition to El Paso
US 54 expansion northeast of Stratford. https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/amarillo/us-54-expansion-111423.html
Txdot is proposing four and five laning US 54 northeast of Stratford to the Oklahoma border. The project complements the upcoming I-27N(!) from Dumas to Stratford.
Quote from: splashflash on November 17, 2023, 01:13:04 AM
US 54 expansion northeast of Stratford. https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/amarillo/us-54-expansion-111423.html
Txdot is proposing four and five laning US 54 northeast of Stratford to the Oklahoma border. The project complements the upcoming I-27N(!) from Dumas to Stratford.
I thought P2P was going to use US-87 to Raton, not going through Oklahoma?
Quote from: edwaleni on November 17, 2023, 10:08:15 AM
Quote from: splashflash on November 17, 2023, 01:13:04 AM
US 54 expansion northeast of Stratford. https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/amarillo/us-54-expansion-111423.html
Txdot is proposing four and five laning US 54 northeast of Stratford to the Oklahoma border. The project complements the upcoming I-27N(!) from Dumas to Stratford.
I thought P2P was going to use US-87 to Raton, not going through Oklahoma?
That's the main I-27 route (US-87)
I-27N is US-54
There are two Northern legs of the the Ports to Plains Corridor. One leg goes to Raton. The other goes North past Dumas, following US-287 into Colorado.
Quote from: splashflashTxdot is proposing four and five laning US 54 northeast of Stratford to the Oklahoma border.
A 5-lane undivided road is going to be a waste of money unless they build it with Interstate quality grading and secure enough ROW to add frontage road segments where needed. The center turn lane can have a Jersey installed through the middle of it if/when the road is converted to limited access.
Quote from: edwaleni on November 17, 2023, 10:08:15 AM
Quote from: splashflash on November 17, 2023, 01:13:04 AM
US 54 expansion northeast of Stratford. https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/amarillo/us-54-expansion-111423.html
Txdot is proposing four and five laning US 54 northeast of Stratford to the Oklahoma border. The project complements the upcoming I-27N(!) from Dumas to Stratford.
I thought P2P was going to use US-87 to Raton, not going through Oklahoma?
Common sense needs to prevail, and the corridor routed N, overlaying and or paralleling US - 287.
The US-287 leg going thru the OK pandhandle and into SE CO needs to take priority. The segment between Boise City, OK and Springfield, CO needs to be upgraded to a divided 4-lane highway for safety reasons. Just North of Boise City the road transitions off the caprock and goes over the Cimarron River. The 2-lane road has visibility problems with on-coming traffic there. The same goes for where US-287 crosses the OK/CO border. The road takes some broad turns over rolling terrain. Oncoming traffic is hidden. The road is solid double-yellow striped. But that doesn't stop motorists from taking dangerous gambles passing slower vehicles. Head-on collisions happen.
US-64/87 in NM is already 4-laned. The job was badly executed, but at least the two directions of traffic are separated and the chances of collisions are lower.
Why is TxDOT investigating twinning US 54 before US 287 north of Stratford? Would it be because US 287 would need to bypass Stratford as an interstate and that and federal funding might be thought as the needed cover of to placate opposition in Stratford? A bit odd.
Does the northern leg of US 54 in Texas have more traffic than US 287 north of Stratford? That is the only explanation I can think of.
There is a hell of a lot of cattle ranching business out there. US-54 going out of Stratford can point commercial trucks closer to Liberal, Garden City and Dodge City. Dodge City in particular has a hell of a lot of feed lots and processing facilities. US-54 runs parallel with a somewhat busy rail line. It's not as busy as the Southern Transcon line just to the South and East. But there is a fair amount of freight traffic.
US 87 from Dumas to Hartley is planned to be twinned by TXDOT. That will make most all of the P2P to I 27 four lane, mostly divided. http://txdot.gov/en/home/projects/hearings-meetings/amarillo/archive/080421.html
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 18, 2023, 05:19:04 PM
Does the northern leg of US 54 in Texas have more traffic than US 287 north of Stratford? That is the only explanation I can think of.
Looks like that is the case. 3400 (US 287) vs 4800 (US 54).
https://txdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=06fea0307dda42c1976194bf5a98b3a1
Interesting that US 87 counts north of Amarillo (12,000) are higher than south on I-27 (10,200).
Quote from: monty on November 18, 2023, 08:19:43 PM
US 87 from Dumas to Hartley is planned to be twinned by TXDOT. That will make most all of the P2P to I 27 four lane, mostly divided. http://txdot.gov/en/home/projects/hearings-meetings/amarillo/archive/080421.html
What about US-277 south of San Angelo and US-83 south of Carrizo Springs?
Yes I know Del Rio and Eagle Pass have super 2 bypasses
Quote from: splashflash on November 17, 2023, 01:13:04 AM
US 54 expansion northeast of Stratford. https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/amarillo/us-54-expansion-111423.html
Txdot is proposing four and five laning US 54 northeast of Stratford to the Oklahoma border. The project complements the upcoming I-27N(!) from Dumas to Stratford.
Decades overdue. Looking at the plans, it appears at least generally acceptable. There is a median provided, and seperation of opposing lanes of traffic, so it may be mostly not a "poor boy". US - 54 from Tucumcari to Kingman KS needs to be finally upgraded, in stages, with an upgradable "Ohio" style four lane expressway as the first stage. Am of opinion a "cheapie" four lane S of Santa Rosa should not be pursued. Do it right, or don't do it at all.
Quote from: splashflash on November 18, 2023, 08:50:34 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 18, 2023, 05:19:04 PM
Does the northern leg of US 54 in Texas have more traffic than US 287 north of Stratford? That is the only explanation I can think of.
Looks like that is the case. 3400 (US 287) vs 4800 (US 54).
https://txdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=06fea0307dda42c1976194bf5a98b3a1
Interesting that US 87 counts north of Amarillo (12,000) are higher than south on I-27 (10,200).
This is simple. Much of the traffic northbound arrived in Amarillo on US-287 from points east (inc DFW)
The traffic counts are significantly higher west on I-40 than east on I-40 too, so US 287 through traffic splits and feeds into both. It's ashame nobody has championed US 287 between Amarillo and Witchita Falls for overdue upgrades for safety alone.
US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth is pretty busy. There is a lot of commercial truck traffic on it (in addition to all the regular vehicles). US-287 is one of the better Westbound outlets going out of the DFW metro. I-20 is good to reach locations like Midland-Odessa in the "oil patch," but damn, the route dips way the hell down and then back up to reach El Paso. US-287 can be a better alternative in some cases. A good argument could be made for turning that corridor into an Interstate. I've seen "I-32" suggested from time to time.
Quote from: montyUS 87 from Dumas to Hartley is planned to be twinned by TXDOT.
Yeah, that's the last remaining 2/3 lane segment of the Amarillo-Raton leg of the P2P Corridor. It's a long overdue upgrade.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 19, 2023, 12:42:13 AM
US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth is pretty busy. There is a lot of commercial truck traffic on it (in addition to all the regular vehicles). US-287 is one of the better Westbound outlets going out of the DFW metro. I-20 is good to reach locations like Midland-Odessa in the "oil patch," but damn, the route dips way the hell down and then back up to reach El Paso. US-287 can be a better alternative in some cases. A good argument could be made for turning that corridor into an Interstate. I've seen "I-32" suggested from time to time.
Quote from: montyUS 87 from Dumas to Hartley is planned to be twinned by TXDOT.
Yeah, that's the last remaining 2/3 lane segment of the Amarillo-Raton leg of the P2P Corridor. It's a long overdue upgrade.
The last time I drove US-287 from DFW to Amarillo....busy from DFW to Wichita Falls, less busy to Vernon, and only trucks the rest of the way to Amarillo.
Pretty boring from Hedley to Claude.
Was going to Bakersfield CA from DFW and was best route to reach I-40.
I regularly drive on the segment of US-287 between Memphis and Amarillo (on road trips to Colorado) and the segment of US-287 from Wichita Falls down to DFW. The Wichita Falls-DFW segment is definitely more busy. In Wichita Falls US-287 loses some of its traffic count to vehicles taking I-44 in Oklahoma. US-287 also sheds a bit of traffic taking US-82/277 to places like Lubbock. Still, when I get on US-287 at Memphis and drive to Amarillo I still see plenty of vehicles, particularly commercial trucks.
Quote from: edwaleniPretty boring from Hedley to Claude.
There isn't a lot of scenery out there between towns, except for the occasional freight train. BNSF needs to double-track that line between Amarillo and Fort Worth. Some motorists have a tendency to drive faster in desolate areas. That's not a good idea to do on that part of US-287. Texas DPS patrols that area very well.
Probably the most boring stretch of highway I see on my road trips to Colorado is Dalhart to Texline. It's just flat farm land.
Map showing current and future projects for this corridor (at the time of last year), just for a reminder:
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/tpp/i-27/tabloid-ports-to-plains-activeprojects-20211012.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1oZxTWrC6HDPnFGYmIwVewpL40IWEamnCbY1aSOWzSBotwyUl2PGbHS40
Quote from: edwaleni on November 19, 2023, 01:19:55 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 19, 2023, 12:42:13 AM
US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth is pretty busy. There is a lot of commercial truck traffic on it (in addition to all the regular vehicles). US-287 is one of the better Westbound outlets going out of the DFW metro. I-20 is good to reach locations like Midland-Odessa in the "oil patch," but damn, the route dips way the hell down and then back up to reach El Paso. US-287 can be a better alternative in some cases. A good argument could be made for turning that corridor into an Interstate. I've seen "I-32" suggested from time to time.
Quote from: montyUS 87 from Dumas to Hartley is planned to be twinned by TXDOT.
Yeah, that's the last remaining 2/3 lane segment of the Amarillo-Raton leg of the P2P Corridor. It's a long overdue upgrade.
The last time I drove US-287 from DFW to Amarillo....busy from DFW to Wichita Falls, less busy to Vernon, and only trucks the rest of the way to Amarillo.
Pretty boring from Hedley to Claude.
Was going to Bakersfield CA from DFW and was best route to reach I-40.
The time to LA or even San Diego are not significantly more. Actually from even Dallas google sends you that way.
In the snowy season, I-10 is probably a better choice as during the extreme heat of summer, I-40 is the better choice.
That is with US-287 as it currently exists. With freeway to Amarillo it would only be faster.
Does the US 287 corridor north of Dumas really need to be upgraded into an Interstate corridor, such as Interstate 27N or Interstate 327? I think the most they may need to do is expand 287 to four lanes north of Stratford, but not upgrade it into a freeway.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 21, 2023, 02:46:18 PM
Does the US 287 corridor north of Dumas really need to be upgraded into an Interstate corridor, such as Interstate 27N or Interstate 327? I think the most they may need to do is expand 287 to four lanes north of Stratford, but not upgrade it into a freeway.
It's currently 2-lane undivided north of Stratford too, so yes but they won't anytime soon or for a long time for that matter in our lifetimes
Currently it's not necessary to upgrade US-287 North of Dumas to Interstate standards. However, the highway needs to be modified in a manner where a potential Interstate upgrade is possible in the future. Bare minimum for the near term: US-287 needs to be a 4-lane divided highway from Stratford, TX thru Boise City, OK and up to Springfield, CO just for safety reasons alone, never mind VPD counts.
If the Ports to Plains Corridor is completed down to Del Rio and Laredo that will lead to more traffic taking US-287 North of Dumas into Colorado. Over the long term I-27 (or "I-27N") could be extended from Dumas to Limon. Until then the highway would have to exist in various interim phases.
Just a basic recent article talking about how'll they'll get I-27: Ports to Plains passed to the house and then signed to law ASAP
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/Interstate-27-naming-bill
The article has an interesting tid bit. They mention Laredo one day being the only port of entry with four Interstate corridors: I-35, I-69W, I-27 and I-2.
We're probably a few decades from seeing Interstate 2 reach Laredo, and several decades from Interstate 27 from reaching the city. Those expecting to see four Interstates in the Laredo area may be in for a long wait.
I don't think it's going to take that long to complete I-2. A bypass around Roma and Rio Grande City is in the planning stages. That's the most difficult segment between the current end of I-2 and Laredo. I think that bypass will be completed by the late 2030's at the latest. The rest of the future I-2 corridor between Roma and Laredo is mostly rural territory. I can see that being filled in with Interstate upgrades by 2050.
Certain developments could influence the time line. If there is a widespread crackdown on illegal immigration in the US that would likely result in a lot of cattle and agriculture businesses moving production into Mexico. Many of these operations depend heavily on migrant labor, like it or not. If all the manpower is in Mexico then we would be buying a hell of a lot of imported food.
I'm not mad about 27E and 27W since they at least reconnect with each other, even if 27E is obviously the better thru route. But 27N? Come on. They could have gone with I-31 or I-23 for that stretch if they weren't happy with the three-digit designation.
Realistically speaking, I don't see the I-27 main line being able to reach Raton, not as long as the development would depend on the New Mexico state government for significant amounts of the funding.
Chances are better for I-27 to be extended North into Colorado. But those chances are currently not all that much better. Colorado's state government appears to act as if the SE part of the state doesn't even exist. Their focus is along the I-25 corridor and points West of it. That's where the money is after all.
I remember years ago hearing about the stretch of US 64-US 87 west of Clayton being prone to snow closures during the winter. It was always one of the first roads to close when a snow storm came through. IDK if that will ever be a determining factor in where I-27 goes outside TX. IMO, combining I-25 with traffic from I-27 at Raton Pass might not be the best thing in the wintertime.
And whoever came up with the "I-27N" labeling idea needs his mouth taped shut!
If New Mexico won't fund improvements to their portion of US 87, maybe the northern terminus of Interstate 27 should remain at Interstate 40 in Amarillo. In lieu of extending Interstate 27 northward, US 287 should be widened to four lanes north of Stratford northward, with bypasses being built around the towns along the 87 and 287 corridors.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 25, 2023, 02:26:11 PM
Realistically speaking, I don't see the I-27 main line being able to reach Raton, not as long as the development would depend on the New Mexico state government for significant amounts of the funding.
Chances are better for I-27 to be extended North into Colorado. But those chances are currently not all that much better. Colorado's state government appears to act as if the SE part of the state doesn't even exist. Their focus is along the I-25 corridor and points West of it. That's where the money is after all.
You are aware that it is already a 4 lane highway from the Texas border to the Raton city limits? Just not an interstate grade.
Quote from: edwaleni on November 26, 2023, 03:34:03 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 25, 2023, 02:26:11 PM
Realistically speaking, I don't see the I-27 main line being able to reach Raton, not as long as the development would depend on the New Mexico state government for significant amounts of the funding.
Chances are better for I-27 to be extended North into Colorado. But those chances are currently not all that much better. Colorado's state government appears to act as if the SE part of the state doesn't even exist. Their focus is along the I-25 corridor and points West of it. That's where the money is after all.
You are aware that it is already a 4 lane highway from the Texas border to the Raton city limits? Just not an interstate grade.
4-lane divided between Hartley TX and Raton NM too, which is more than I remembered west of Dumas TX; speaking of.
The one exception being between Hartley and Dumas, everywhere else just needs a bypass, replace at-grade intersections with overpasses, and knowing TxDOT probably replace asphalt with concrete too
Quote from: -- US 175 --I remember years ago hearing about the stretch of US 64-US 87 west of Clayton being prone to snow closures during the winter. It was always one of the first roads to close when a snow storm came through. IDK if that will ever be a determining factor in where I-27 goes outside TX. IMO, combining I-25 with traffic from I-27 at Raton Pass might not be the best thing in the wintertime.
There is a couple of locations along US-64/87 between Clayton and Raton where they have snow drift fences built. The threat of road closures due to snow storms is real. But this is one key reason why I believe it is important to, at the very least, make US-287 a 4-lane divided highway from Stratford, TX up to Limon, CO.
Blizzards can certainly close roads in Eastern Colorado too. But it's not all that often a winter storm is big enough to shut down both Raton Pass and US-287 in Eastern Colorado at the same time. Usually if one road is closed the other one might still be open and be a functional alternative. Making one or both roads Interstate quality would be a huge bonus. But both can at least be divided highways for considerably less money.
Quote from: The GhostbusterIf New Mexico won't fund improvements to their portion of US 87, maybe the northern terminus of Interstate 27 should remain at Interstate 40 in Amarillo. In lieu of extending Interstate 27 northward, US 287 should be widened to four lanes north of Stratford northward, with bypasses being built around the towns along the 87 and 287 corridors.
That may end up being what happens. It would be wierd to extend the I-27 designation up to towns like Dumas, Stratford or Texline only for the designation to end there. The I-27 designation should only go North from Amarillo if it can end at another Interstate, be it I-25 in Raton or I-70 in Limon.
Meanwhile TX DOT will (hopefully) do some improvements to the US-87 and US-287 corridors in the TX Panhandle to make them more friendly to Interstate upgrades. Dumas needs a half loop around the West side of town. Stratford would need one too. In Oklahoma the bypass around Boise City could be upgraded to Interstate quality pretty easily. But ODOT would only double-barrel the highway and convert at-grade intersections to freeway exits if they knew there was a concrete plan on part of both TX and CO to finish I-27 to Limon.
Quote from: edwaleniYou are aware that it is already a 4 lane highway from the Texas border to the Raton city limits? Just not an interstate grade.
US-64/87 from Texline is Raton is not a very good 4-lane divided highway. I've driven that stretch of road a bunch of times. The main lanes much of the way would have to be completely re-built to comply with Interstate standards.
There isn't a great deal of at-grade intersections and driveways along US-64/87. But there is enough of them that it will require some difficult choices on how to maintain access to those roads. Most of them do not justify the expense of a freeway exit. They'll need to be cut off by other kinds of access roads. Or they can be served by frontage roads the length of a typical rest area.
[quote author=edwaleni link=topic=26868.msg2887077#msg2887077 date=170103084
You are aware that it is already a 4 lane highway from the Texas border to the Raton city limits? Just not an interstate grade.
[/quote]
The cheapie four lane is not that old. 20-22 years perhaps. It could have been done "better" back then. Pete Rahn. Known as a "throwaway improvement". Way too many of them in this state, and there have been needless casualities and fatalities because of them.
Quote from: Molandfreak on November 24, 2023, 10:54:00 PM
I'm not mad about 27E and 27W since they at least reconnect with each other, even if 27E is obviously the better thru route. But 27N? Come on. They could have gone with I-31 or I-23 for that stretch if they weren't happy with the three-digit designation.
How is I-27N supposed to help traffic? Is there an I-27S somewhere? I'm interested to know the reasoning behind naming it that instead of a three-digit
Interstate 27N should be discarded. I don't think an Interstate along the US 287 corridor is necessary. An expansion to four lanes is likely all that will be needed.
Quote from: DJStephensThe cheapie four lane is not that old. 20-22 years perhaps.
It's not even that old. NM DOT was still working on four laning US-64/87 between Clayton and Raton in 2012. I didn't see the four laning project finished until 2013.
Quote from: BJ59How is I-27N supposed to help traffic? Is there an I-27S somewhere?
I think the "I-27N" thing will just confuse motorists. This would be the first time a suffix letter on an Interstate route would copy or conflict with a cardinal direction on the route. I-35 is a North-South route, so its suffixes are "E" and "W." The same goes for I-69 (it does have that extra "C" thing, but that isn't going to clash with North-South cardinal directions). I-80N and I-70S were East-West routes.
The notion of people driving Southbound on I-27N is just kooky. The distance between Dumas, TX and Limon, CO is long enough that a "I-31" route would be plausible
if I-27 actually got built out to Raton.
Fictional concept: An I-31 or I-33 along the US-287 corridor entirely from Fort Worth, TX to Limon, CO.
I-27 would overlap from Amarillo to Dumas, then split off to the west heading toward Raton, NM.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 28, 2023, 12:38:37 AM
Fictional concept: An I-31 or I-33 along the US-287 corridor entirely from Fort Worth, TX to Limon, CO.
I-27 would overlap from Amarillo to Dumas, then split off to the west heading toward Raton, NM.
Decades ago, there was discussion of I-45 following SH-114 to US-287 and US-287 to at least Amarillo. I feel really comfortable if I-45 is extended now, it almost surely would be along US-75.
Quote from: sprjus4Fictional concept: An I-31 or I-33 along the US-287 corridor entirely from Fort Worth, TX to Limon, CO.
Even though US-287 is technically a North-South highway the route between Fort Worth and Amarillo is much more of an East-West route. A long time ago the Roads and Bridges publication suggested "I-32" as a route from Fort Worth to Raton via Amarillo.
With the way the North Texas region is growing around the DFW metroplex and some larger population migration trends I can see the potential of I-32 and I-34 getting used up there.
That is if the corridors don't get impossibly covered up with development. US-287 from Fort Worth to Amarillo is do-able (although building thru Decatur will be a serious hurdle). I think US-82 from Wichita Falls to Texarkana (technically Henrietta to New Boston) needs a lot of improvements. The Gainseville to Sherman segment is getting urgent. More encroachment is happening along US-82. It could turn into another mess similar to US-380 between Denton and McKinney.
I think chances of extending I-27 to Limon are much better than Raton. Maybe if the Feds got back into a 90/10 funding arrangement it might be possible to get NM lawmakers on board. But even that might not be a guarantee.
Quote from: bwana39Decades ago, there was discussion of I-45 following SH-114 to US-287 and US-287 to at least Amarillo. I feel really comfortable if I-45 is extended now, it almost surely would be along US-75.
I'd certainly prefer I-45 extended along US-75 and US-69 in Oklahoma.
Just announced I 27 designations passed by House and Senate: https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/ports-to-plains-corridor-set-for-interstate-status-with-passage-of-i-27-numbering-act/amp/
Laredo to Sterling City as I-27
Sterling City through Midland to Lamesa as I-27W
Sterling City to Lamesa as I-27E
Lamesa northbound through Lubbock to Amarillo passing through Dumas to Raton, New Mexico as I-27
The corridor north of Dumas as I-27N
Quote from: monty on March 09, 2024, 10:45:40 AM
Laredo to Sterling City as I-27
Sterling City through Midland to Lamesa as I-27W
Sterling City to Lamesa as I-27E
Lamesa northbound through Lubbock to Amarillo passing through Dumas to Raton, New Mexico as I-27
The corridor north of Dumas as I-27N
I don't understand why they don't turn I-27W, I-27E, and I-27N into 3dis of I-27.... The same thing goes for I-69E and I-69W.
They really should have used the 27 and 227 designations for the 27E and 27W segments, and the 327 designation for 27N (as was originally proposed).
Meanwhile, I don't think all those legs are needed in the first place. Is I-27W really needed? It doesn't look like it would be that far out of the way to take I-20 to I-27E. I don't see why both I-27 and I-27N would be needed either. Pick one based on whichever state(s) you can get on board to connect it up (either NM or OK and CO). I would say that the OK and CO route is better, but it's out of the way enough that OK might not care, and CO doesn't seem exactly on board with building new things right now. Then again, NM isn't either. Regardless, adding all these suffixes further bastardizes the numbering of the once-glorious system, so ugh. Why does Texas have to be that way? It was bad enough when Tennessee and others did it to US routes, but at least in that case it wasn't banned. :ded:
Quote from: vdeane on March 09, 2024, 03:41:16 PM
Meanwhile, I don't think all those legs are needed in the first place. Is I-27W really needed? It doesn't look like it would be that far out of the way to take I-20 to I-27E. I don't see why both I-27 and I-27N would be needed either. Pick one based on whichever state(s) you can get on board to connect it up (either NM or OK and CO). I would say that the OK and CO route is better, but it's out of the way enough that OK might not care, and CO doesn't seem exactly on board with building new things right now. Then again, NM isn't either. Regardless, adding all these suffixes further bastardizes the numbering of the once-glorious system, so ugh. Why does Texas have to be that way? It was bad enough when Tennessee and others did it to US routes, but at least in that case it wasn't banned. :ded:
1. As far as CO "not building anything:" The current major project is the widening of I-70 in the Floyd Hill area, which will be tearing up a fair amount of mountain pass where the US 6 interchange is east of the tunnels. Construction will last through 2028.
2. Again, all of this legislative rigamarole in order to have commercial trucks avoid I-35 between Wichita and the OK border. Going up I-35/I-135 to an underutilized I-70 to the CO Front Range only adds 100 miles to the trip. There are already truck stops, warehouses, and other logistics facilities on that route; there's no reason not to use them. It's just simply easier and cheaper to indemnify the Kansas Turnpike Authority for detolling I-35 south of Wichita, especially since Love's is now running the Belle Plaine service area along that stretch.
I don't love Texas adding all these suffixed interstates that could be 3dis. The only plausible reason for using suffixes instead of 3dis is to appease local chambers of commerce and the like. I can buy that excuse for Dallas and Fort Worth, but surely you can tell friggin' Midland to pound sand.
Also, the worst part of this is that if I-27N gets extended up the US 287 corridor, we could have a suffixed interstate with Limon, Colorado as a control city. That might trigger the roadgeek apocalypse.
Quote from: StriderI don't understand why they don't turn I-27W, I-27E, and I-27N into 3dis of I-27.... The same thing goes for I-69E and I-69W.
It's over 20 years after the fact on the I-69E/W/C stuff. It's not going away. With congressional approval granted to these I-27 designations (even the screwy I-27N stuff going North of Dumas) the suffixes are pretty much a done deal.
Quote from: The GhostbusterThey really should have used the 27 and 227 designations for the 27E and 27W segments, and the 327 designation for 27N (as was originally proposed).
I-327 would make far more logical sense than "I-27N," especially since the Interstate spur would probably not make it any farther North than Stratford (where the current 4-lane US-287 route drops to 2 lanes).
QuoteMeanwhile, I don't think all those legs are needed in the first place. Is I-27W really needed?
I think an Interstate route between Midland and Lamesa is justifiable. Midland-Odessa is a fairly big metro. A decent amount of traffic moves between that metro and Lubbock.
The Southern leg from Midland to Sterling City would actually be a part of the proposed I-14 route.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 09, 2024, 09:36:41 PM
I think an Interstate route between Midland and Lamesa is justifiable. Midland-Odessa is a fairly big metro. A decent amount of traffic moves between that metro and Lubbock.
The Southern leg from Midland to Sterling City would actually be a part of the proposed I-14 route.
It still feels redundant, though. I don't think both would have been built if the corridor were part of the original interstate system. It feels like the effort to include anything and everything in these newer corridors has caused them to lose the elegance the original system had.
The population in Texas has grown tremendously in the decades after the original Interstate system was established. Interstate routes are densely packed in the Northeast region of the US and far more spread out in the West. Americans have been migrating in huge numbers from the Northeast to the South and Southwest. California and Oregon have been losing population. Lately Texas has been the fastest growing state. New Interstate corridors are needed.
The main route North out of Midland up to Lamesa is TX-349. It's a four lane road divided only by a double yellow line. Midland-Odessa, Lubbock and Amarillo make up a logical corridor in West Texas. But the Ports to Plains route takes a more direct route thru Big Spring.
One question hangs out there. With the I-14 route proposed to go thru Sterling City and end in Midland would the I-27W route end up only being signed from Lamesa to Midland? Or would I-14 wind up ending in San Angelo?
Apparently moving out of Oklahoma doesn't mean Texas will stop annoying me.
California annoys the living hell out of the rest of the nation. It's only natural for Texas to start doing the same thing (especially since so many Californians are relocating there).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 09, 2024, 10:27:58 PM
The population in Texas has grown tremendously in the decades after the original Interstate system was established. Interstate routes are densely packed in the Northeast region of the US and far more spread out in the West. Americans have been migrating in huge numbers from the Northeast to the South and Southwest. California and Oregon have been losing population. Lately Texas has been the fastest growing state. New Interstate corridors are needed.
I wasn't disputing extending I-27. I was disputing the need for both I-27E and I-27W. Taking I-20 to the I-27E part of the corridor doesn't look like that big of a detour, and Midland-Odessa isn't that big (not even breaking 350k). Moreover, even the areas with more established populations don't do this either. The only comparable situations I can see in the whole country are I-10/I-12 (which I supposed would be I-10S and I-10N if TXDOT ran Louisiana), with New Orleans being more than three times as large, and I-5/CA 99, where I-5 connects significantly larger cities and I still question whether two corridors were needed there; IMO it might have been a good idea for California to route I-5 along CA 99 and instead better develop the freeway networks of Bakersfield, Fresno, and Modesto.
Not much along the proposed paths of the I-27 extensions has been upgraded to Interstate standards. It will probably take decades to complete. Over that span of time the E and W branches will likely be scrutinized repeatedly by different lawmaking administrations. The Midland-Odessa metro could be much larger 20 or 30 years from now
or not. But Texas may have the largest population out of all states by then.
Midland-Odessa is the center of the Permian Basin "oil patch." A great deal of the oil may be pumped out of that region by pipes, but there is a hell of a lot of commercial trucking traffic that supports the industry. There are various highway upgrades that are overdue out there aside from the Ports to Plains Corridor.
The route thru Big Spring is the unofficial main line of the Ports to Plains Corridor. I think I-27 efforts on that path should take priority over the branch proposed thru Midland. Efforts with I-14 will do more, incidentally, to help get the Midland branch completed. But I-14 itself is kind of its own question. It does seem iffy for it to exist any significant distance outside the Texas Triangle.
Quote from: vdeaneI wasn't disputing extending I-27. I was disputing the need for both I-27E and I-27W. Taking I-20 to the I-27E part of the corridor doesn't look like that big of a detour, and Midland-Odessa isn't that big (not even breaking 350k).
The TX-356 and US-87 corridors going thru Midland and Big Spring are about 40 miles apart. There is a lot of Interstate highways and other freeways or toll roads spaced closer together than that in the Northeast US. New Hampshire provides some examples in low population areas.
Quote from: vdeaneIMO it might have been a good idea for California to route I-5 along CA 99 and instead better develop the freeway networks of Bakersfield, Fresno, and Modesto.
I think it's ridiculous CA-99 is not up to full Interstate standards. I'm not sure about agreeing on I-5 going through cities like Bakersfield and Fresno though. I-5 works as a sort of relief route bypassing those population zones, kind of like I-295 and the New Jersey Turnpike bypassing the Philadelphia metro.
I was thinking in terms of shape and not just distance... although, come to think of it, I-95/I-295 and I-93/US 3/the Everett aren't too far off. Not sure what the deal with those are.
Also I-35/the Kansas Turnpike, but I'm not sure the free piece of I-35 was really needed either.
Out in West Texas any highway expansions have been hard-won. The metros along the Texas Triangle gobble up the vast majority of any available highway funding, despite cities like El Paso, Amarillo, Lubbock as well as Midland-Odessa being pretty substantial in size. This I-27 project in relation to the overall Ports to Plains Corridor effort could do a lot to help West Texas.
One good sign is there are efforts to expand I-20 thru the Midland-Odessa metro, to rebuild it into a modern 3x3 lanes facility across the entire metro area.
Have seen some of the "improvements" done in the oil patch in recent years. Woefully inadequate. US - 285 three lane NW of Pecos. Are you freaking kidding?! A poor boy and not even a poor boy four lane like Pete Rahn would build, but a poor boy THREE lane? Huge backups at the "new" four way stop in Orla. They couldn't build a modern (well seventies standard) divided, safe four lane, with a MEDIAN and spot interchanges?? FM 652 is another joke, chicken scratching here and there, but no complete rebuild with curvature and sight line improvements and FULL needed shoulders!
TX DOT definitely has been doing things on the cheap out in West Texas for many years. The Texas Triangle takes the bulk of the funding and the rest of the state gets table scraps. The new Loop-335 on the West side of Amarillo has a stack interchange proposed for the intersection with I-40. But I'll be surprised if TX DOT builds that stack any time soon after the main lanes of Loop-335 are completed through there. I think chances are high it will exist as a volleyball interchange for many years. Then they'll piece-meal one or two ramps at a time over the course of many years. Or maybe they'll build just a couple ramps and leave it at that permanently, kind of like what they've done in Lubbock with interchanges along Loop 289.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2024, 07:12:51 PM
TX DOT definitely has been doing things on the cheap out in West Texas for many years. The Texas Triangle takes the bulk of the funding and the rest of the state gets table scraps.
[
having grown up in a small town] How dare they spend all their money where all the people live and drive!
(The triangle now boasts more than two-thirds of the state population.)
The differences in quality of highways between East Texas and West Texas is pretty extreme, to the point of being hazardous. That really goes for some highways in the Midland-Odessa region (as DJStephens pointed out earlier). I guess people in West Texas should just be thankful those highways have pavement.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2024, 09:49:49 PM
The differences in quality of highways between East Texas and West Texas is pretty extreme, to the point of being hazardous. That really goes for some highways in the Midland-Odessa region (as DJStephens pointed out earlier). I guess people in West Texas should just be thankful those highways have pavement.
I haven't been to the Midland–Odessa region in more than twenty years, but might it also have something to do with all the oilfield traffic doing heavy damage to the pavement?
The highways in the region around Midland-Odessa do see a lot of use from service/commercial trucks related to the oil and gas industry. The trucks do exert a lot of wear and tear on those roads. But the inadequate design of those roads just allows them to get worn down even faster.
Then there are hazards all these trucks pose to other personal vehicles on these small, non-divided highways. Obviously not every highway can be a 4-lane divided highway with physical barriers separating opposing lanes of traffic. But roads such as TX-158 going SE out of Midland and TX-349 going North out of Midland should at least be divided (and cable barrier separated) 4-lane highways. If those roads are converted into branches of I-27 and/or I-14 the opposing roadways will be divided. Dozens of access roads going into oil/gas fields won't be making direct contact with the main lanes of the highway either. That will improve safety even more.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 12, 2024, 06:54:46 PM
Then there are hazards all these trucks pose to other personal vehicles on these small, non-divided highways. Obviously not every highway can be a 4-lane divided highway with physical barriers separating opposing lanes of traffic. But roads such as TX-158 going SE out of Midland and TX-349 going North out of Midland should at least be divided (and cable barrier separated) 4-lane highways. If those roads are converted into branches of I-27 and/or I-14 the opposing roadways will be divided. Dozens of access roads going into oil/gas fields won't be making direct contact with the main lanes of the highway either. That will improve safety even more.
It wasn't in Mexico that I first encountered the practice of slower traffic riding the shoulder and faster traffic passing right down the centerline. No, it was on TX-158, heading east out of Goldsmith, back in the late 1990s. I was in an '88 Camry with bicycles on the roof. The slow trucker in front of me slid over onto the shoulder, three oncoming truckers did likewise, and I happily accepted their invitation to the middle of the road.
A few years ago, during a drive down US-277 to Mexico and back, I either witnessed or engaged in that practice probably a dozen times just between Abilene and Sonora (and back). Is that sort of thing also common in east Texas? I've never driven east of I-35/TX-130.
Quote from: kphogerIs that sort of thing also common in east Texas? I've never driven east of I-35/TX-130.
The only examples I can recall seeing in East Texas (and Oklahoma) that are at all similar is farm vehicles taking the shoulder (when a shoulder is there).
East of I-35 Texas gets far more green and increasingly covered with trees. It's not wide open space like a lot of the Llano Estacado in West Texas and SE New Mexico. Any 2-lane or 3-lane roads are usually going to be curving more and not have as much visibility for vehicles to pass.
It's not really necessary for a truck to shift partly onto the shoulder to let faster traffic pass if the highway has 4 lanes. But when the two opposing directions are separated by only a double yellow line and there is a lot of truck traffic going both directions the driving experience can be a bit hairy for people in ordinary passenger vehicles.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 12, 2024, 10:09:29 PM
It's not really necessary for a truck to shift partly onto the shoulder to let faster traffic pass if the highway has 4 lanes. But when the two opposing directions are separated by only a double yellow line and there is a lot of truck traffic going both directions the driving experience can be a bit hairy for people in ordinary passenger vehicles.
Sorry if my response implied that I thought four-laning was pointless because it's common to ride the shoulder. I actually intended that anecdote to highlight the fact that truck traffic in the region can greatly affect driving on the two-laners. I just didn't know if that was a Texas-wide custom, or if it was unique to west Texas. The only person I personally know who has talked about it hails originally from Dilley, so not very far east.
I've seen the practice before on roads in West Texas and New Mexico, but more often in the past (like during my childhood years). I certainly appreciated it when a trucker would let me pass on a 2-lane road. One good example was US-64/87 in NE NM back when it was a 2-lane road. That road was often frustrating back then. The terrain is wide open, hardly any trees at all, mountains are visible in the far distance. But the road rolled with the terrain just enough to make passing slower vehicles difficult. All it took was one slow poke to create a "train" of traffic behind him. The upgrade 4-lane road sucks for how badly it was built. But you can at least pass slow vehicles.
It's just a theory, but I think people drive considerably more selfish now than in the past. That's despite all the dash cams and other things that can get road-ragers in trouble.
Well more suffixed alphabet soup for Texas, but at least it's just another unfunded mandate, so the odds of actually seeing those shields in the field any time soon are zilch.
There are states that proclaim, "This corridor will one day be Interstate XX! Maybe some of you will still be alive when it is."
Then there are states that actually build the freeway first and then say, "Hey can we make this an interstate?"
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 15, 2024, 12:41:53 PM
Then there are states that actually build the freeway first and then say, "Hey can we make this an interstate?"
That's how it's
supposed to be done. Too many states seem to want all the economic benefits of having an interstate without actually paying to build or maintain one.
Quote from: triplemultiplexWell more suffixed alphabet soup for Texas, but at least it's just another unfunded mandate, so the odds of actually seeing those shields in the field any time soon are zilch.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, based on all the short and disconnected segments of I-69 in the state (not to mention I-14).
I-69W is signed for only a couple or so miles on the North end of the Bob Bullock loop in Laredo. The new US-87 half-loop bypass around Big Spring is nearly 14 miles long. Texas could apply to have that added to the Interstate system and signed as either I-27 or I-27E.
I'm not very optimistic any freeway upgrades will happen on US-287 North of Amarillo any time soon. A freeway bypass of Dumas is the only thing I can see possibly happening within the next 10-20 years. I think TX DOT will do more on future I-27 gong South of Lubbock. Near-shoring activity to move more manufacturing from China to other places, such as Mexico, could dramatically increase US/Mexico border traffic and force a faster pace of improvements around Laredo, Eagle Pass and Del Rio.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 15, 2024, 01:39:33 PM
The new US-87 half-loop bypass around Big Spring is nearly 14 miles long. Texas could apply to have that added to the Interstate system and signed as either I-27 or I-27E.
The US-87 Big Spring bypass isn't fully up to interstate standards, some private farm access points exist along with a few median breaks with turn lanes (for turnarounds). Those would need to be addressed before that segment can become I-27.
Additionally, I'm not sure it counts as "connected" to I-20 due to the lack of direct ramp connectors. Interstate highways can only be designated if they connect directly to another interstate highway.
US 87 from Dumas to Hartley is slated to be four-laned and divided. This is the last rural segment of US 87 north of Amarillo to New Mexico that is currently just 2 - 3 lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4Interstate highways can only be designated if they connect directly to another interstate highway.
We have "Breezewood" style interchanges in Pennsylvania. I-110 in El Paso doesn't directly connect to I-10 at all (it's only off-ramps of off-ramps) and no one driving on I-10 in El Paso sees any signs for I-110. Now we have new oddities like an I-240 route and I-335 route dead-ending into each other at a partial exit to a surface street. In that context a sub-standard volleyball interchange between two signed Interstates wouldn't surprise me.
The US-87 bypass around Big Spring will still need a good bit of work to meet Interstate standards regardless of the volleyball situation with I-20. They did cut some corners building the bypass. But the bypass and its ROW is set in place. That's a big part of the equation.
Quote from: montyUS 87 from Dumas to Hartley is slated to be four-laned and divided.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 15, 2024, 10:49:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4Interstate highways can only be designated if they connect directly to another interstate highway.
We have "Breezewood" style interchanges in Pennsylvania. I-110 in El Paso doesn't directly connect to I-10 at all (it's only off-ramps of off-ramps) and no one driving on I-10 in El Paso sees any signs for I-110. Now we have new oddities like an I-240 route and I-335 route dead-ending into each other at a partial exit to a surface street. In that context a sub-standard volleyball interchange between two signed Interstates wouldn't surprise me.
The US-87 bypass around Big Spring will still need a good bit of work to meet Interstate standards regardless of the volleyball situation with I-20. They did cut some corners building the bypass. But the bypass and its ROW is set in place. That's a big part of the equation.
Quote from: montyUS 87 from Dumas to Hartley is slated to be four-laned and divided.
FHWA has become stricter about Interstate standards for new designations...going back almost 20 years now. See I-86 in NY...
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 15, 2024, 10:49:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4Interstate highways can only be designated if they connect directly to another interstate highway.
We have "Breezewood" style interchanges in Pennsylvania. I-110 in El Paso doesn't directly connect to I-10 at all (it's only off-ramps of off-ramps) and no one driving on I-10 in El Paso sees any signs for I-110. Now we have new oddities like an I-240 route and I-335 route dead-ending into each other at a partial exit to a surface street. In that context a sub-standard volleyball interchange between two signed Interstates wouldn't surprise me.
The US-87 bypass around Big Spring will still need a good bit of work to meet Interstate standards regardless of the volleyball situation with I-20. They did cut some corners building the bypass. But the bypass and its ROW is set in place. That's a big part of the equation. Quote from: montyUS 87 from Dumas to Hartley is slated to be four-laned and divided.
By I-110 in El Paso, if you are speaking of the "Patriot Frwy" yes it has direct ramps to I-10. Am of belief it should have been torn down though, and completely reconstructed, with either a segmental or box beam design for the flyovers. Designs with some measure of seismic resistance. Instead the agency found close to $900 million to waste on a west side "tollway". The 10/110 interchange has numerous flaws, to include weaving, congestion, lane drops, curvature, and a missing section of WB frontage through it's core.
On I-10 there are no signs posted for I-110. Even after the interchange was recently updated vehicles on I-10 have to take off-ramps for US-54 and then take ramps that split off those off-ramps in order to reach I-110. There appears to be less signage on US-54 listing exit ramps for I-110. It's almost an unsigned Interstate.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 18, 2024, 12:24:06 PM
On I-10 there are no signs posted for I-110. Even after the interchange was recently updated vehicles on I-10 have to take off-ramps for US-54 and then take ramps that split off those off-ramps in order to reach I-110. There appears to be less signage on US-54 listing exit ramps for I-110. It's almost an unsigned Interstate.
It looks like a lot of the signs for I-110 were removed around the time the US 62 interchange was removed and it became a glorified ramp to Mexico.
Maybe Interstate 110 would be better signposted if it had continued along US 54 north of Interstate 10 (perhaps terminating at US 54's Exit 32). Is the Patriot Freeway north of Interstate 10 up to Interstate Standards?
Quote from: DJStephens on March 18, 2024, 11:44:49 AMBy I-110 in El Paso, if you are speaking of the "Patriot Frwy" yes it has direct ramps to I-10. Am of belief it should have been torn down though, and completely reconstructed, with either a segmental or box beam design for the flyovers. Designs with some measure of seismic resistance.
The 10/110 interchange has numerous flaws, to include weaving, congestion, lane drops, curvature, and a missing section of WB frontage through it's core.
I too am disappointed that the I-10/US-54 El Paso "Spaghetti Bowl" basically only got a new fresh coat of paint and 1 ramp redone. It should have been completely redone since the entire interchange is old '60s highway design, especially the guardrails which will do nothing to stop a big semi truck. TxDOT is finally fixing the '60s guardrails on the I-10 mainlines near Sunland Park and putting proper 48" concrete constant slope barriers over the arroyo bridges.
The ramp from I-10 west to I-110 (Bridge of the Americas) backs up horribly every weekday and slows down traffic on I-10 west near Paisano. The Paisano westbound on ramp is also substandard. I can't wait until TxDOT rips up and replaces the entire stretch of I-10 from Schuster to Airway. It's old '60s highway design.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 18, 2024, 06:06:20 PMMaybe Interstate 110 would be better signposted if it had continued along US 54 north of Interstate 10 (perhaps terminating at US 54's Exit 32). Is the Patriot Freeway north of Interstate 10 up to Interstate Standards?
I believe US-54 is up to Interstate standards north of I-10 until the freeway ends at Sean Haggerty. Speaking of that, TxDOT has taken 20 years to extend the freeway! Around 2004 is when they built the overpass for MLK Jr Blvd.
This merge (https://maps.app.goo.gl/oTFMqvfWikGHWsna9) from MLK southbound to US-54 south is the only major issue.
10 W of the "spaghetti" bowl may be "old sixties design" but frankly it's better geometrically than most of the stuff that is concocted today. Ten lanes, or a 5 X 5 cross section exists between downtown and that spaghetti bowl. Had the spaghetti bowl been completely replaced - one could have:
1. Extended a 5 X 5 cross section further E, due to the lack of credible El Paso limited access coherent bypass, would have worked to get it all the way E to Exit 34, the loop 375 interchange. The drop to a 3 lane cross section, for 10 EB traffic, at the spaghetti bowl, is simply asinine. A lot of these new "high mast" lighting towers, didn't seem well thought out, in terms of placement for future widening, which is needed.
2. Eliminate access at Raynolds, and rebuilt the Raynolds overpass with a new structure with greater clearances - both vertical and horizontal. Instead - public monies were wasted on frills and decorations - paint, towers, rocks, and steel stars. Useless. So now obsolescence is now locked in.
3. Weaving reductions. There is dangerous weaving present for EB traffic seeking to exit for Paisano, for the connection to Montana (US 62/180) EB. The spaghetti on ramp, from Patriot Frwy SB to 10 EB, and the exit for Paisano are simply too close together. Given the $$ spent on "decorations' in this area, seems their locking this in, permanently. There is also weaving on 10 WB, from the Paisano to 10 WB ramp and the conflicts with the enourmous amounts of traffic seeking to exit for the border crossing. Elimination of ramp movements @ Raynolds would lessen weaving issues as well.
4. Missing WB frontage. There is no WB 10 frontage through the spaghetti bowl core. Probably due to space limitations and issues present in the early seventies, when the thing was squeezed in, a few years after 10 was opened. Traffic counts were far lower then. Suspect that is why they didn't close off Raynolds access then.
And finally, if there is a seismic event - this entire bowl will likely be compromised, and come down.