TX: Ports to Plains corridor study

[vdeane]

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.

[brad2971]

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.

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.

[TheCatalyst31]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

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).

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).

Meanwhile, 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.

[vdeane]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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?

[Scott5114]

Apparently moving out of Oklahoma doesn't mean Texas will stop annoying me.

[Bobby5280]

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).

[vdeane]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[DJStephens]

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!   

[Bobby5280]

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.

[kphoger]

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.)

[Bobby5280]

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.

[kphoger]

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?

[Bobby5280]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[Bobby5280]

Is 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.

[kphoger]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[triplemultiplex]

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?"

[vdeane]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.