AARoads Forum

Quotehe Lubbock City Council wants the federal government to extend Interstate 27.  A non-binding resolution addressed to both federal and state officials was on the City Council agenda for Tuesday.

One possible extension of I-27 from Lubbock to Laredo goes through Big Spring.  Another possibility takes I-27 though Midland.

"This resolution supports the designation of the extension of Interstate 27 as a future interstate by the U.S. Congress..."  City of Lubbock records said.

"The proposed extension would connect Interstate 27 with the Interstates 20 and 10 in Texas,"  the city said.  "Further, the eventual extension will serve three existing border crossings with Mexico and provide additional support to the energy and agricultural industries."

https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/lubbock-wants-to-take-interstate-27-south-much-further-south/1879134428

waste of money.

Quote from: silverback1065 on March 26, 2019, 07:03:06 PM
waste of money.

How else will the tumbleweeds migrate south for the winter? Texas winters are no laughing matter.

Can't decide on Big Spring or Odessa/Midland?? You don't have too. Say hello to I-27E & I-27W!!!   :clap::-D :-D :pan:

make the road to Abilene a freeway lol  make it go to Austin

I just read that one part would take it to Laredo, to meet up with I-35, I-69 and I-2. Pretty soon, that small town on the Rio Grande will have lots more interstate choices instead of one!

Kind of makes sense, Hwy 84 is four lanes from Lubbock to Sweetwater.

Might relieve I35/hwy 287 of truck traffic too.

If the choice was up to me I would extend I-27 through Big Spring and down to San Angelo and then continue the diagonal direction to Junction, TX and I-10. That would create a larger Amarillo to San Antonio corridor. If I-27 was extended Northward up to Limon, CO and I-70 that would be an even bigger Denver to San Antonio corridor.

The San Angelo to Junction idea conflicts with the Ports to Plains Corridor concept of going straight South from San Angelo down to Del Rio, TX and the Mexican Border (and then farther South to Laredo and the Rio Grande Valley cities). But those plans, along with the I-69 extension, were drafted when lawmakers in Texas were all about free trade agreements like NAFTA. Now with protectionism and anti-immigrant furor dominating some political circles it's a tougher sell to build a highway the closely hugs the border.

Effectively, they're recommending/pushing that the Ports-to-Plains Corridor to the south become an I-27 extension.  The Corridor splits in the Lamesa vicinity, with one leg following TX 349 to Midland and the other leg continuing down US 87 to Big Spring and beyond.  The two legs rejoin near Sterling City (the Midland leg via TX 158).

I doubt Interstate 27 will be extended either northward or southward anytime soon, if ever. This is probably wishful thinking.

AADT figures from TxDOT (click to enlarge):

(https://i.imgur.com/ePwlgS6.png)

Of these corridors, only SH 349 is not a four lane divided highway, though it seems to be a 4-lane undivided highway for most of its length. The traffic volumes are more or less in the same range for these potential I-27 corridors, US 84 has consistent volumes near or over 10,000 vehicles per day, US 62/385 has a longer stretch with lower volumes halfway Lubbock and Odessa, but US 87 dips to the lowest volumes briefly south of Lamesa, at only 4,000 v.p.d.

Quote from: froggieEffectively, they're recommending/pushing that the Ports-to-Plains Corridor to the south become an I-27 extension.  The Corridor splits in the Lamesa vicinity, with one leg following TX 349 to Midland and the other leg continuing down US 87 to Big Spring and beyond.  The two legs rejoin near Sterling City (the Midland leg via TX 158).

I wouldn't be opposed to a leg of I-27 going through Midland, upgrading the TX-349 and TX-158 corridors. Both roads are mostly undivided 4-lane now. They carry a quite a bit of heavy truck traffic, due in part to all the oil patch activity out there.

What I would not like: if a Southern extension of I-27 to Midland came at the expense of a more direct route going through Big Spring on to San Angelo.

Quote from: The GhostbusterI doubt Interstate 27 will be extended either northward or southward anytime soon, if ever. This is probably wishful thinking.

The Midland-Odessa area is currently growing pretty rapidly (along with several other urban/suburban areas in Texas). That's one factor that would favor extending I-27. The Front Range cities in Colorado have a lot of growth. US-287 is the only halfway decent North-South route in Eastern Colorado that bypasses the mountains to get down to Texas, Oklahoma, etc.

What hurts Texas is the state is so damn big and the state has multiple corridors deserving Interstate quality upgrades, such as US-287 between Amarillo and Dallas-Fort Worth. But there's only so much in the way of resources, even with a state population approaching 30 million. The limited focus going on outside of big metros seems to be focused on I-69 projects.

Quote from: ChrisOf these corridors, only SH 349 is not a four lane divided highway, though it seems to be a 4-lane undivided highway for most of its length. The traffic volumes are more or less in the same range for these potential I-27 corridors, US 84 has consistent volumes near or over 10,000 vehicles per day, US 62/385 has a longer stretch with lower volumes halfway Lubbock and Odessa, but US 87 dips to the lowest volumes briefly south of Lamesa, at only 4,000 v.p.d.

US-87 through Big Spring and San Angelo won't ever develop VPD counts typical of other Interstate highways in its current form. Long distance traffic coming up from other areas, such as San Antonio, will stick with other routes like I-35 and US-287 to get to places in the Texas Panhandle or Colorado Front Range. Build a through route that actually directly connects major destinations like Denver and San Antonio and those VPD counts will shoot up a bunch.

Quote from: Chris on March 27, 2019, 02:33:35 PM
AADT figures from TxDOT (click to enlarge):

(https://i.imgur.com/ePwlgS6.png)

Of these corridors, only SH 349 is not a four lane divided highway, though it seems to be a 4-lane undivided highway for most of its length. The traffic volumes are more or less in the same range for these potential I-27 corridors, US 84 has consistent volumes near or over 10,000 vehicles per day, US 62/385 has a longer stretch with lower volumes halfway Lubbock and Odessa, but US 87 dips to the lowest volumes briefly south of Lamesa, at only 4,000 v.p.d.

How do those counts compare to I-27 North of Lubbock?

Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on March 27, 2019, 03:44:52 PM
How do those counts compare to I-27 North of Lubbock?

15490 @ FM-37
16195 @ I-27-BL (Plainview)
11770 @ FM-3183
11427 @ US-87 (Kress)
9547 @ FM-928
9518 @ SH-86
11310 @ FM-214
11151 @ FM-1881
10556 @ FM-285
11187 @ TX-217
11834 @ US-60 (Canyon)

funny how they built I-27 so many years ago

It would make more sense to terminate it at Del Rio near Laughlin AFB.

Its the last formal border crossing west up the Rio Grande before El Paso that can support trucks and commercial traffic.

Other than that, its doesnt seem viable.

They would be better off replacing the damaged rail bridge at Presidio so they can reconnect Texas Pacifico RR with the port of Topolobampo.

This will bring Asian container traffic directly through Texas instead of the congested port of Long Beach.

I wonder how port traffic at various places along the US coasts (Pacific, Gulf, Atlantic) has changed following the upgrade to the Panama Canal.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2019, 10:23:23 PM
I wonder how port traffic at various places along the US coasts (Pacific, Gulf, Atlantic) has changed following the upgrade to the Panama Canal.

Only a few ports on the east coast upgraded to support Panamax ships. Port of Miami, NY-NJ and Virginia (Norfolk).

There are lots of ports that claim Panamax ability, like Jacksonville, FL, Charleston SC or Savannah GA, but they cannot take full loads due to lack of channel depth. 

All of them are fighting for federal dollars to upgrade and/or dredge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Panamax_port (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Panamax_port)

Regardless of whether a I-27 southern extension uses US 87 via Big Spring or TX 349/158 via Midland (both of which are included in the current HPC #38 language), it's likely to do something like Bobby proposes, but via the proposed I-14 branch down US 83 from Eden to Junction.  Since the I-14 backers from San Angelo and M/O have a bit off a head start regarding PR and probable TXDOT cooperation, if the Lubbock concept indeed takes hold, the two promotional parties will likely sit down at some point and hash out just what'll go where, and what it will be numbered as.  Ironically, San Angelo, with its long history of whining about being excluded from the Interstate network, will have two corridor concepts to play with (and possibly play the parties against one another to maximize their benefits).  The argument will be whether to favor a concept that directs Lubbock and/or M/O traffic to San Antonio and, by extension, Corpus Christi -- or to Del Rio and Laredo en route to I-2 and the lower Rio Grande Valley.  Fancifully, it's Panamax vs. NAFTA; the Gulf of Mexico or Mexico itself (between Asian trade and cross-border commerce, it'd be difficult to determine which of these concepts the Trump administration would hold in greatest contempt!). 

Quote from: cjk374 on March 26, 2019, 09:53:13 PM
Can't decide on Big Spring or Odessa/Midland?? You don't have too. Say hello to I-27E & I-27W!!!   :clap: :-D :-D :pan:

If I-27 is going to Laredo, and a suffixed Interstate was involved in this process the most sensible outcome would probably be a 27W spurring off to Odessa-Midland and the main 27 going off down to Laredo. Although don't see why a 3DI wouldn't do that job, but knowing what Texas pursued with I-69W/69C/69E, wouldn't be surprised if they took the suffixed option.

I-27 always seemed like a dead end.

Quote from: edwaleni on March 27, 2019, 06:48:00 PM
It would make more sense to terminate it at Del Rio near Laughlin AFB.

Its the last formal border crossing west up the Rio Grande before El Paso that can support trucks and commercial traffic.

When I've crossed the border at Del Rio, I've hardly seen any trucks at all.  Monclova and Sabinas just don't seem to be a big node for international commercial traffic.

Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on March 27, 2019, 03:44:52 PM

Quote from: Chris on March 27, 2019, 02:33:35 PM
AADT figures from TxDOT (click to enlarge):

[Map snipped]

Those 3 highways barely warrant 4 lanes. 

Extending I-27 southward would be just another Vanity Interstate Highway.

Quote from: kphoger on March 28, 2019, 12:39:34 PM

Quote from: edwaleni on March 27, 2019, 06:48:00 PM
It would make more sense to terminate it at Del Rio near Laughlin AFB.

Its the last formal border crossing west up the Rio Grande before El Paso that can support trucks and commercial traffic.

When I've crossed the border at Del Rio, I've hardly seen any trucks at all.  Monclova and Sabinas just don't seem to be a big node for international commercial traffic.

QuoteThe city of Mondova accounts for the highest production of steel of Mexico and Latin America, hence its nickname "The Steel Capital".

Today Monclova has one of the highest commercial, industrial and financial developments, and it is currently one of the cities with the lowest poverty rates in Mexico. Its metropolitan area is among the 10 most competitive urban areas in the country, and it also has the highest labor productivity

Honestly anything from there would no doubt cross at Piedras Negras.  Again pointing out that extending I-27 south of Lubbock isn't all that valuable.

Quote from: edwaleni on March 28, 2019, 06:27:27 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 28, 2019, 12:39:34 PM

Quote from: edwaleni on March 27, 2019, 06:48:00 PM
It would make more sense to terminate it at Del Rio near Laughlin AFB.

Its the last formal border crossing west up the Rio Grande before El Paso that can support trucks and commercial traffic.

When I've crossed the border at Del Rio, I've hardly seen any trucks at all.  Monclova and Sabinas just don't seem to be a big node for international commercial traffic.

QuoteThe city of Mondova accounts for the highest production of steel of Mexico and Latin America, hence its nickname "The Steel Capital".

Today Monclova has one of the highest commercial, industrial and financial developments, and it is currently one of the cities with the lowest poverty rates in Mexico. Its metropolitan area is among the 10 most competitive urban areas in the country, and it also has the highest labor productivity

Honestly anything from there would no doubt cross at Piedras Negras.  Again pointing out that extending I-27 south of Lubbock isn't all that valuable.

Commercial traffic I've seen between Monclova and Allende (where the highway splits to either Piedras or Acuña) doesn't even come close to the amount of commrecial traffic I've seen between Monterrey and Laredo.  The trucks I have seen north of Monclova are generally junkier, short-haul rigs that by all appearances have both an origin and a destination within Mexico.  In contrast, trucks north of Monterrey are generally nice and shiny, and a lot of them sport US license plates on the trailer; some are even dual-plated tractors being driven by one of the remaining cross-border companies.

AADT between Allende and Piedras is 15,464 (on the north side of Nava).
AADT between Morelos and Acuña doesn't even top 2,500.

An I-27 extension down to Del Rio would be pointless if the Interstate was only meant to end at Del Rio and the border crossing there. The route would only work if it extended down thru Eagle Pass and then ultimately to Laredo, where it might possibly meet up with a future I-2. That would give the huge population in the Rio Grande Valley, as well as the traffic in Laredo, a great access route up to the Permian Basin, Texas Panhandle and the Colorado Front Range. That's just reinforcing the Ports to Plains thing. It's not worth it just doing some in-between thing that will serve far fewer motorists.

Extending both I-2 and I-27 to Laredo is a much taller order than my earlier suggestion of just extending I-27 to Junction, TX and I-10 (going through Big Spring and San Angelo). A direct Amarillo to San Antonio corridor would be the end result, something that would be pretty beneficial to traffic movement in Texas. It would pull some traffic off the I-35 corridor.

Quote from: Beltway on March 28, 2019, 01:37:59 PM
Extending I-27 southward would be just another Vanity Interstate Highway.

Hey, it's TX; vanity is taken for granted in those parts!

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 29, 2019, 03:26:00 PM
An I-27 extension down to Del Rio would be pointless if the Interstate was only meant to end at Del Rio and the border crossing there. The route would only work if it extended down thru Eagle Pass and then ultimately to Laredo, where it might possibly meet up with a future I-2. That would give the huge population in the Rio Grande Valley, as well as the traffic in Laredo, a great access route up to the Permian Basin, Texas Panhandle and the Colorado Front Range. That's just reinforcing the Ports to Plains thing. It's not worth it just doing some in-between thing that will serve far fewer motorists.

Extending both I-2 and I-27 to Laredo is a much taller order than my earlier suggestion of just extending I-27 to Junction, TX and I-10 (going through Big Spring and San Angelo). A direct Amarillo to San Antonio corridor would be the end result, something that would be pretty beneficial to traffic movement in Texas. It would pull some traffic off the I-35 corridor.

Within the much-maligned I-14 compendium is that branch along US 83 from Junction north to Eden.  If I-10 east of Junction and the whole of I-37 could be considered as functional extensions of an I-27 concept, the Port-to-Plains concept could be slightly shifted northeast of a Rio Grande Valley path to utilize Corpus Christi's port (which is as much a viable POE as anything to the south down to the border) as a logical corridor terminus (via San Antonio, of course).  Whether the composite corridor along US 87 west of Eden through San Angelo is designated I-27 or I-14 isn't germane to the concept; the basic idea here -- likely fomented by the original backers of the I-14 San Angelo-M/O routing -- is to create a continuous corridor from the populated areas of West Texas (again, M/O, San Angelo, and now Lubbock) down to San Antonio and on to the Gulf Coast.  Since San Antonio is arguably more of a traffic "magnet" than Del Rio, Laredo, or further SE on the nascent I-2 corridor, one can see how the US 83 connector fits into the regional picture. 

As far as prioritizing Austin connections -- I'll reiterate a point I made many posts ago -- if Austin interests wanted an Interstate connection west to I-10 or east toward Houston they would have pressed for one long before today.  But they're more than a bit iconoclastic -- they probably don't care enough about such things to place it on their priority list.  Basically, an area or region has to actually request that a corridor be placed through their territory before one is considered -- particularly in a state as massive as Texas!  The central TX "triangle" and the folks out west in San Angelo and Midland/Odessa requested the I-14 corridor, and that request was accepted.  Yeah, it's intended to attract $$$ into the areas it traverses -- but that's old news.  It may seem that the corridor backers are indeed "gaming the system" -- but they're simply responding to what that system requires.  As the cliche' goes -- you gotta be in it to win it!  The hardest part -- actually obtaining the funding -- is their next obstacle; if they can overcome it and actually get a substantial portion of their corridor built (at least east to I-45) in the next 20 years, that would be not only a minor miracle but a testament to their persistence.  But it is TX:  they like their pulled pork almost as much as their brisket!   :sombrero: 

While would prefer to see it going directly to Odessa/Midland, it likely makes more sense to go to Big Spring and San Angelo.  There is upgraded US 87 mileage in the San Angelo area that could be tied into.   And from there?  Seems to be Junction, on I-10.  Would construct a new terrain route to the east of La Mesa to completely bypass it to the E.   Sure they would be wild about that.   

^^^^^^^^
My own preference would be taking I-27 directly down US 87 through San Angelo to Eden, then south on the corridor proposed by the I-14 backers along US 83 from Eden to I-10 at Junction.  This would provide a reasonably direct route from Lubbock and the Panhandle to San Antonio (and would fulfill at least the spirit of the Port-to-Plains concept by tying in to I-37, which certainly leads to a major Gulf port (Corpus Christi).  If the I-14 promoters from M/O want their piece of the action, they can push for a I-14 route along TX 158 to Sterling City, then multiplex over I-27 to Eden before shooting east to Brady and Temple.  Those composite corridors should be more than sufficient to serve West Texas traffic for the foreseeable future.  However, a Midland-Lamesa route following TX 349 might garner enough political support to "fly"; a x27 could well be in the cards somewhere down the line (never underestimate local TX politicos -- see the I-69 "trident" for confirmation). 

As far as an I-27 extension goes my vote is on a direct San Angelo to Junction diagonal. Routing such an extension through Eden would be an L-shape nearly 90 miles in length. A diagonal from San Angelo to Junction cuts 20 miles off the route. Really if we're going to involve any L-shapes then the I-27 extension might as well turn directly South from San Angelo and go down to meet I-10 at Sonora (on the way to Del Rio).

Regarding where I-14 would supposedly end in West Texas, I would prefer it ending in the Midland-Odessa area, an actual destination of significance rather than way out in the middle of nowhere. And it doesn't add much, if any, mileage at all for traffic headed farther West to places like El Paso. With the possibility of I-27E and I-27W legs of this proposed extension I-14 could just as well end in San Angelo or be multiplexed with the I-27W leg into Midland-Odessa.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 02, 2019, 12:37:12 AM
As far as an I-27 extension goes my vote is on a direct San Angelo to Junction diagonal. Routing such an extension through Eden would be an L-shape nearly 90 miles in length. A diagonal from San Angelo to Junction cuts 20 miles off the route. Really if we're going to involve any L-shapes then the I-27 extension might as well turn directly South from San Angelo and go down to meet I-10 at Sonora (on the way to Del Rio).

Regarding where I-14 would supposedly end in West Texas, I would prefer it ending in the Midland-Odessa area, an actual destination of significance rather than way out in the middle of nowhere. And it doesn't add much, if any, mileage at all for traffic headed farther West to places like El Paso. With the possibility of I-27E and I-27W legs of this proposed extension I-14 could just as well end in San Angelo or be multiplexed with the I-27W leg into Midland-Odessa.

In a perfect world, I'd wholly agree with the above concept.  But the I-14 backers have published their list of corridor options -- and until such time as some are either set in stone or discarded, I for one -- if I were a TXDOT planner -- would tend to "back a horse" that gave me a decent measure of what would be optimal -- and possibly "tweak" it at a later time (such as "cutting off the corners" southwest of Eden or around the east side of Junction).  And the projected "I-14S" concept along US 190 via Menard needs to be 86'ed a.s.a.p.; if they're actually going to build I-14, it should go where the population is centered -- and that means along the US 87 corridor west from Brady and onward to San Angelo and M/O.  The only reason a twin terminating branch concept was even forwarded was to place a section of corridor within two separate Congressional districts so both members could be seen as bringing home the bacon, so to speak (i.e., the "dark side" of the political "force"!).  I'm just surprised that instead of the US 83-based connector, a N-S leg duplicating the P-to-P route down US 277 via Sonora and Del Rio wasn't included in the cluster -- it would have at least included significant mileage in the district to be served by "I-14S" and possibly having the effect of obviating the motivation for the split corridor concept. 

But to paraphrase the great and now-45-years-old film Chinatown: "Fuggetaboutit, Jake -- it's just Texas!"   :-/   

Having driven US-277 all the way from the Oklahoma state line to Del Rio multiple times, I can say that the existing two lanes (with passing lanes) work perfectly well all the way from Abilene to Del Rio.  AADT doesn't even top 3000 on any stretch south of Christoval.  Between Sonora and US-377, AADT doesn't even top 1100.

Quote from: kphoger on April 02, 2019, 02:34:48 PM
Having driven US-277 all the way from the Oklahoma state line to Del Rio multiple times, I can say that the existing two lanes (with passing lanes) work perfectly well all the way from Abilene to Del Rio.  AADT doesn't even top 3000 on any stretch south of Christoval.  Between Sonora and US-377, AADT doesn't even top 1100.

Despite the anemic AADT, the portion of 277 south of San Angelo is part of the greater P-to-P (Laredo-Denver) corridor.  But possibly that very fact may mitigate toward the Eden-Junction/US 83 connector farther east; at least that one serves traffic heading to San Antonio a bit more efficiently.   

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 02, 2019, 12:37:12 AM
As far as an I-27 extension goes my vote is on a direct San Angelo to Junction diagonal. Routing such an extension through Eden would be an L-shape nearly 90 miles in length. A diagonal from San Angelo to Junction cuts 20 miles off the route. Really if we're going to involve any L-shapes then the I-27 extension might as well turn directly South from San Angelo and go down to meet I-10 at Sonora (on the way to Del Rio).

Regarding where I-14 would supposedly end in West Texas, I would prefer it ending in the Midland-Odessa area, an actual destination of significance rather than way out in the middle of nowhere. And it doesn't add much, if any, mileage at all for traffic headed farther West to places like El Paso. With the possibility of I-27E and I-27W legs of this proposed extension I-14 could just as well end in San Angelo or be multiplexed with the I-27W leg into Midland-Odessa.

I completely agree. Extend I-14 to San Angelo then onto Midland. Extend I-27 to San Angelo and create a Y branching off a route to Midland from I-27 which could possibly be I-227 or I-27E.

As a side note: I wonder if an interstate between Fort Worth and Wichita Falls is of higher priority than all of this. I'm not sure what number that would get as it could very well be a future Dallas-Denver interstate.

The funny thing is a direct, diagonal routing of I-27 from San Angelo to Junction would be more beneficial to even I-14 traffic (if I-14 was routed through San Angelo and over to Midland-Odessa). That's because the resulting route would provide Midland-Odessa traffic with a direct Interstate-quality corridor going to San Antonio. Again, it's about directly linking places of significance. People driving I-14 from Midland and going to San Antonio would have 20 miles cut off the route if a direct I-27 leg from San Angelo to Junction was built. That would also speed up drive time for commercial oil field traffic moving between the Permian Basin and Gulf ports.

A North-South diversion at Eden down to Junction just goes out of the way for no good reason. Traffic driving Westbound from places back East are going to use other alternatives to go down to I-10 or points farther South. Such traffic moving through San Angelo would more likely be headed to Midland-Odessa and points farther West. No need to go down to I-10 from Eden for that.

Regarding US-287 between Wichita Falls and Fort Worth, some modest projects are in the works, but nothing grand such as converting the whole corridor between Amarillo and Fort Worth to Interstate standards. "I-32" has been one un-official possible designation.

One project is getting rid of the at-grade driveways on US-287 between the I-35W interchange and TX-114 in Rhome, bringing that up to Interstate standards. Another is a project on the North side of Decatur to convert a portion of US-287 into a freeway. I don't know when they're going to do that, but if/when that is completed Decatur will have freeway segments on both the NW and SE sides of town.

I would sure like to see US-287 brought up to Interstate standards. With all the traffic (especially heavy trucks) it almost seems like driving on an Interstate. For now TxDOT is just doing spot upgrades as needed.

One I'm glad they just finished was Northbound US-287 at the Spur 511 exit in Sunset. It's the south end of the freeway bypass around Bowie. Previously the main lanes of US-287 would shift to the left and go downhill while the exit to Spur 511 would go straight ahead. The intersection was not well lit at night, making the shift of the lanes hard to see. A driver not paying close attention could suddenly find himself rocketing along that off ramp and flying onto Spur 511 at 70mph. TxDOT fixed the geometry of that exit to eliminate that weird lane shift.

^^^^^^^^^
Looking at the terrain between Junction and San Angelo, I would concur that there's no topographical reason why a direct route between the two towns couldn't be done; the most difficult area is right along I-10: pulling a corridor (any corridor) out of the E-W gully that holds I-10; otherwise the elevation doesn't vary more than a few hundred feet, following the generally westward rise of the overall region.  I'd venture to guess that any objection would come from not the area such a diagonal route would traverse, but what would not be served by that alignment.  It might all come down to Menard -- at least two of the various I-14 routes in the cluster(fuck) that comprises the West Texas portion of that corridor pass through/near that town.  Leads me to believe someone from that town has an outsized measure of political clout and wants to ensure his/her city is well-served by any regional corridor plans.  Now I can certainly see a city with at least a 6-figure metro population rightfully flexing what political muscle they have to get corridors aimed at them -- but a town that's maybe 10-15K including outlying areas -- not so much!  Something's happening there -- maybe the congressional critter who got the original corridor strung out along the desolation that is US 190 west of Brady has their roots in Menard.  It's quite likely that even if Eden finds itself not on the path of connectivity down to I-10, Menard will;  US 87 has a lengthy diagonal section between San Angelo & Eden; continuing that trajectory after 87 turns eastward ends up close to -- you guessed it -- Menard! 

I for one have absolutely no idea what the final configuration of these regional corridors will be -- but it's almost a certainty that a high level of political motivation has already crept into the process.  Also, TXDOT seems to be allergic to significant new-terrain routings for major interregional corridors -- even if there's FM routes already probing these areas; they show a marked preference for paralleling existing US and major state routes -- possibly at the insistence of locals who want to retain some sort of access for what's currently arrayed along those major routes (or snag a McDonald's franchise for one or more interchanges).  Whatever the motivation, any corridor concept in the area will almost surely reflect local preferences.   

An I-27 junction at I-10 near Junction, TX is totally do-able. One thing NOT to do is run it over the top of US-83 as that existing road reaches I-10. Too many businesses encroach the road and would have to be cleared. The cut US-83 makes through the hills just North of I-10 would have to be widened. The better alternative is to make a freeway to freeway junction just East of Exit 451 to FM-2291. Bear Creek cuts a decent valley through the hills at that point. Unless that valley is prone to serious flooding it would give I-27 a decent opening to the Northwest. The freeway could sort of overlap FM-2291 a little bit to climb up out of the small river valley and then head diagonally toward Fort McKavett and then San Angelo.

Menard is practically a blink and you miss it town. The town's population is less than 2000 people. I don't know what's so special about that town that it has to be a junction to some extravagant "Y" point for I-14. I just don't see how this I-14 thing even warrants a Southern leg to nowhere. The route is already a hard enough sell just to link Killeen/Fort Hood, San Angelo and Midland-Odessa.

The silly lobbyists promoting I-14 are slapping the highway down onto existing corridors rather than thinking outside of the box to consider better alignments. I think Menard is only involved because it sits along US-190. A new Interstate does not have to strictly follow the route of an existing US Highway. I wonder if these lobbyists are kind of lacking in their knowledge of geography. There may be political favoritism going on to try to include as many towns as possible in the potential pork orgy. In the end we're talking tens of billions of dollars for an Interstate corridor that actually needs to go somewhere and do it directly. It needs to do it without a bunch of giant "W" and "L" shaped bullshit. This is NOT a section line road in freaking Oklahoma. They need to think about drawing the damned highway path with something more than an Etch-A-Sketch.

If the highway can't be built in a direct fashion, and cut significant amounts of mileage off the grid-like paths of existing state & US highway routes, the proposed Interstate will not be worth building at all.

Perhaps there is an extremely wealthy and influential rancher in the Menard area.  One with a lot of political clout.

Quote from: DJStephens on April 03, 2019, 09:29:17 PM
Perhaps there is an extremely wealthy and influential rancher in the Menard area.  One with a lot of political clout.

Was wondering if that might be an offshoot of the exceptionally wealthy Menard family (the one that owns or at least has substantial holdings in the store chain bearing their name) -- even though it almost certainly wouldn't be their NASCAR-driving scion Paul!   Perhaps a distant cousin who set down roots around the town at its inception?

Yeah pretty amazing thought.  An individual drawing not one, but two interstates to his environs.   Would guess that Menard home improvement is based on a similar model to Lowes and Home Depot.  Burn through as many bodies as you can, pay them as little as you can, for maximum short term profits.

Quote from: DJStephens on April 05, 2019, 10:38:48 AM
Yeah pretty amazing thought.  An individual drawing not one, but two interstates to his environs.   Would guess that Menard home improvement is based on a similar model to Lowes and Home Depot.  Burn through as many bodies as you can, pay them as little as you can, for maximum short term profits.

Without digressing too far into hardware store affairs, I generally don't purchase anything of consequence from Home Depot and the like -- mainly paint, stains, plastic shelving -- essentially "fungibles" with minimal price fluctuation vendor to vendor.  But regarding the town of Menard as well as other factors -- it'll be interesting to see how the regional corridor situation pans out in the long haul -- right now, between the I-14 and P-to-P/I-27 corridor concepts there's more proposed routings and branches than money to build them all -- even in Texas!  Some will undoubtedly be discarded -- but it'll be interesting to see small town politics in juxtaposition to mid-size city needs and what gets prioritized -- and whether they work together to get at least some of what they want rather than sabotage the entire process by one party or another trying to "get it all".  Might resemble a multi-ring circus for a while; regardless of the outcome, it'll be a bit of a roller-coaster ride!

Quote from: sparker on April 04, 2019, 12:35:53 PM

Quote from: DJStephens on April 03, 2019, 09:29:17 PM
Perhaps there is an extremely wealthy and influential rancher in the Menard area.  One with a lot of political clout.

Was wondering if that might be an offshoot of the exceptionally wealthy Menard family (the one that owns or at least has substantial holdings in the store chain bearing their name) -- even though it almost certainly wouldn't be their NASCAR-driving scion Paul!   Perhaps a distant cousin who set down roots around the town at its inception?

The folks behind the Menard's home improvement chain hail from Eau Claire, WI.

Quote from: JREwing78 on April 07, 2019, 08:50:57 PM

Quote from: sparker on April 04, 2019, 12:35:53 PM

Quote from: DJStephens on April 03, 2019, 09:29:17 PM
Perhaps there is an extremely wealthy and influential rancher in the Menard area.  One with a lot of political clout.

Was wondering if that might be an offshoot of the exceptionally wealthy Menard family (the one that owns or at least has substantial holdings in the store chain bearing their name) -- even though it almost certainly wouldn't be their NASCAR-driving scion Paul!   Perhaps a distant cousin who set down roots around the town at its inception?

The folks behind the Menard's home improvement chain hail from Eau Claire, WI.

Seeing that driver Paul Menard's NASCAR bio cites that as his hometown, that would be a given.  But if that family is anything like mine (or any number of others), relatives have scattered widely.  Not that there's any semblance of certainty that Menard, TX is named after an outflung member of the WI-based clan -- it's just speculative given that a town of reportedly less than 5K is posited to be the intersection of two branches of a planned corridor cluster.  But only time will tell whether any of those routes will ever be more than lines on a map.   

Seems like it would at least make sense for the Lubbock to Sweetwater highway to be raised to Interstate standards just for Texas Tech alone.  That school has well over 30,000 students, and this would allow all-Interstate travel for those from SA, Austin, Houston and D/FW.

Quote from: O Tamandua on April 09, 2019, 10:53:14 AM
Seems like it would at least make sense for the Lubbock to Sweetwater highway to be raised to Interstate standards just for Texas Tech alone.  That school has well over 30,000 students, and this would allow all-Interstate travel for those from SA, Austin, Houston and D/FW.

Of all the three southward arterial outlets from Lubbock, US 84 sees by far the heaviest volume of traffic (it's even made it into national freight-traffic articles as the most heavily-used non-Interstate corridor in TX).  However, for some reason it didn't make it into the P-to-P cluster, so it's more of a "needy orphan" than anything else.  It might make a decent candidate for a separate project -- maybe a 2di (I-28? I-31?), particularly if I-27 ekes it way south via US 87 and/or TX 349.  Hell, if it's I-31, extend it down to Austin -- such a corridor makes a lot more sense (and would probably see more use) than most of the planned routes in W. Texas!  :rolleyes:

Quote from: sparker on April 09, 2019, 05:29:06 PM

Quote from: O Tamandua on April 09, 2019, 10:53:14 AM
Seems like it would at least make sense for the Lubbock to Sweetwater highway to be raised to Interstate standards just for Texas Tech alone.  That school has well over 30,000 students, and this would allow all-Interstate travel for those from SA, Austin, Houston and D/FW.

Of all the three southward arterial outlets from Lubbock, US 84 sees by far the heaviest volume of traffic (it's even made it into national freight-traffic articles as the most heavily-used non-Interstate corridor in TX).  However, for some reason it didn't make it into the P-to-P cluster, so it's more of a "needy orphan" than anything else.  It might make a decent candidate for a separate project -- maybe a 2di (I-28? I-31?), particularly if I-27 ekes it way south via US 87 and/or TX 349.  Hell, if it's I-31, extend it down to Austin -- such a corridor makes a lot more sense (and would probably see more use) than most of the planned routes in W. Texas!  :rolleyes:

Speaking of US-84 and Lubbock, the city might get an outer loop known as Loop-88. https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/lubbock/outer-route.html
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/lbb/sl88/segment%201-1.pdf

I guess it's too early to tell if Loop-88 would become an I-227/427/627/827. ;)

Quote from: sparker on April 09, 2019, 05:29:06 PM

Quote from: O Tamandua on April 09, 2019, 10:53:14 AM
Seems like it would at least make sense for the Lubbock to Sweetwater highway to be raised to Interstate standards just for Texas Tech alone.  That school has well over 30,000 students, and this would allow all-Interstate travel for those from SA, Austin, Houston and D/FW.

Of all the three southward arterial outlets from Lubbock, US 84 sees by far the heaviest volume of traffic

Yes.  The stretch between Post and Snyder is the only stretch that has any AADT below 9000–and even there, it only briefly drops to 8770.

US-84 AADT
<LUBBOCK>
  16,871
<SLATON>
  11,634
<POST>
  10,536
<SNYDER>
  10,568
<ROSCOE I-20>

US-87 AADT
<LUBBOCK>
  11,539
<TAHOKA>
  7,783
<O'DONNELL>
  7,675
<LAMESA>
  3,949
<ACKERLY>
  7,099
<BIG SPRING I-20>

US-62 & US-385 AADT
<LUBBOCK>
  11,174
<ROPESVILLE>
  10,773
<BROWNFIELD>
  6,426
<WELLMAN>
  6,624
<SEAGRAVES>
  6,838
<SEMINOLE>
  5,698
<ANDREWS>
  11,556
<ODESSA I-20>

Those AADT figures are honestly only good for those existing roads. They're not automatically reflective of the traffic patterns of a new Interstate highway. A new Interstate isn't going to automatically overlap an existing route 100%. And it really shouldn't either.

It's no surprise at all the AADT figures on the existing roads mentioned are best for US-84 from Lubbock to Roscoe/Sweetwater. That's the most direct path from the Texas Panhandle to the DFW area.

The San Antonio area is pretty huge in its own right. And there are important destinations past it. But coming from the Panhandle area there is NO direct way to get there. But building a straight, diagonal freeway from Big Spring into San Angelo and directly to Junction (not bending way the F*** out of the way to Eden in a dopey L shape), would create a pretty damn direct corridor. Not just for Amarillo and Lubbock traffic to access San Antonio and points South but also for traffic coming from the Front Range looking to avoid things like Raton Pass. If I-27 was extended from Lubbock to Junction via San Angelo and Big Spring I'm very certain the vehicle numbers would be well above 10,000 per day.

^^^^^^^^
Since it's already a direct and heavily utilized multilane road, it's likely US 84 between Abilene and Lubbock would see at most marginal gains in traffic as an Interstate facility;  upgrading would be simply to avoid chokepoints at Snyder and Post (more the latter than the former) -- a tip of the hat to the commercial traffic load on that corridor. 

And having driven over Raton numerous times, avoidance of that particular stretch of I-25 would certainly mitigate against simply using US 87 north and northwest of Amarillo as a corridor toward Colorado's Front Range.  However, I have my doubts about any corridor that simply follows US 287 to I-70 at Limon, CO; both Pueblo and Colorado Springs, destinations and/or "gateways" in their own right, would be shortchanged by such a routing.  Two possibilities are there -- having any northward I-27 extension follow US 87 as far as Des Moines, NM, then switching to a route following the BNSF tracks (near NM 551/CO 389) to I-25 near Trinidad (a much more benign crossing of that range) -- or another option using US 287 north to US 50 then heading west along US 50 to I-25 at Pueblo.  Even better would be another BNSF follower, tracking the other regional N-S BNSF line which veers west from US 287 at Springfield, CO and heads NNW to near Las Animas.  Following the rail line essentially provides a path with proven controlled gradients -- and with a few miles shaved off for good measure.

for northbound to Raton I'd build a bypass around west Amarillo angling it up to Dalhart before heading west to Raton.  The bypass to Trinidad would be fine too.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 11, 2019, 01:12:14 AM
Those AADT figures are honestly only good for those existing roads. They're not automatically reflective of the traffic patterns of a new Interstate highway. A new Interstate isn't going to automatically overlap an existing route 100%. And it really shouldn't either.

It's no surprise at all the AADT figures on the existing roads mentioned are best for US-84 from Lubbock to Roscoe/Sweetwater. That's the most direct path from the Texas Panhandle to the DFW area.

The San Antonio area is pretty huge in its own right. And there are important destinations past it. But coming from the Panhandle area there is NO direct way to get there. But building a straight, diagonal freeway from Big Spring into San Angelo and directly to Junction (not bending way the F*** out of the way to Eden in a dopey L shape), would create a pretty damn direct corridor. Not just for Amarillo and Lubbock traffic to access San Antonio and points South but also for traffic coming from the Front Range looking to avoid things like Raton Pass. If I-27 was extended from Lubbock to Junction via San Angelo and Big Spring I'm very certain the vehicle numbers would be well above 10,000 per day.

All I was doing was to provide numbers for the claim made by sparker.

As for your assertion...  Are you saying that those people who would use the new Interstate are currently travelling via highways whose AADTs I did not cite, or are you saying they're simply staying home instead?

Quote from: texaskdog on April 11, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
for northbound to Raton I'd build a bypass around west Amarillo angling it up to Dalhart before heading west to Raton.  The bypass to Trinidad would be fine too.

The idea I forwarded was to avoid Raton Pass, a major chokepoint on I-25 and a real pain in the ass during winter months (as are most area passes at the close-to-8K-elevation).  As detailed previously, either a detour slightly to the east and merging with I-25 at Trinidad or a plains-bound route via US 287 and US 50 might pose a reasonable alternative (truckers would almost certainly applaud anything that allows them to avoid Raton grades). 

Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2019, 06:04:55 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on April 11, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
for northbound to Raton I'd build a bypass around west Amarillo angling it up to Dalhart before heading west to Raton.  The bypass to Trinidad would be fine too.

The idea I forwarded was to avoid Raton Pass, a major chokepoint on I-25 and a real pain in the ass during winter months (as are most area passes at the close-to-8K-elevation).  As detailed previously, either a detour slightly to the east and merging with I-25 at Trinidad or a plains-bound route via US 287 and US 50 might pose a reasonable alternative (truckers would almost certainly applaud anything that allows them to avoid Raton grades).

Would also keep it out of New Mexico as a b#$%h slap to the ineffectual senators - both past and present.  Bingaman, Domenici, Udall, and Heinreich.  Not effective in advocating for good roads, and the opportunity and jobs they could bring.   Unicorns, and rainbows, instead.   

Quote from: kphoger on April 09, 2019, 06:56:58 PM

Quote from: sparker on April 09, 2019, 05:29:06 PM

Quote from: O Tamandua on April 09, 2019, 10:53:14 AM
Seems like it would at least make sense for the Lubbock to Sweetwater highway to be raised to Interstate standards just for Texas Tech alone.  That school has well over 30,000 students, and this would allow all-Interstate travel for those from SA, Austin, Houston and D/FW.

Of all the three southward arterial outlets from Lubbock, US 84 sees by far the heaviest volume of traffic

Yes.  The stretch between Post and Snyder is the only stretch that has any AADT below 9000–and even there, it only briefly drops to 8770.

*snip AADT values*

There's a fourth arterial routing south of Lubbock that you missed:  US 87 to TX 349.  This is the routing I mentioned upthread that is the Midland leg of the P-to-P.

Quote from: froggie on April 13, 2019, 07:24:22 AM

Quote from: kphoger on April 09, 2019, 06:56:58 PM

Quote from: sparker on April 09, 2019, 05:29:06 PM

Quote from: O Tamandua on April 09, 2019, 10:53:14 AM
Seems like it would at least make sense for the Lubbock to Sweetwater highway to be raised to Interstate standards just for Texas Tech alone.  That school has well over 30,000 students, and this would allow all-Interstate travel for those from SA, Austin, Houston and D/FW.

Of all the three southward arterial outlets from Lubbock, US 84 sees by far the heaviest volume of traffic

Yes.  The stretch between Post and Snyder is the only stretch that has any AADT below 9000–and even there, it only briefly drops to 8770.

*snip AADT values*

There's a fourth arterial routing south of Lubbock that you missed:  US 87 to TX 349.  This is the routing I mentioned upthread that is the Midland leg of the P-to-P.

Actually, IMO that should be considered as a "3.5th" arterial, as it splits in Lamesa -- about halfway between Lubbock & I-20 -- from the central leg, US 87.  US 84 to Abilene via Snyder would be the easternmost "leg", US 87 directly south as a continuation of the I-27 trajectory would be the central (splitting as it would as described above), with US 62/82, eventually segueing to US 385, constituting the western leg.  The legislated definition of the P-to-P (aka HPC #38) originally took it right down US 87 via Big Spring; the SAFETEA-LU additions of 2005 added the Midland "alternative", heading down TX 349 between Lamesa and Midland and TX 158 ESE from Midland, rejoining the original US 87 alignment at Sterling City.  The I-14 backers from the M/O area have staked a claim to the TX 158 portion as the western end of that corridor concept, even though it had been part of P-to-P for 11 years previous to their initial efforts.  How it'll all work out has yet TBD at this point. 

Regarding a possible I-27 route North of Amarillo, the concept of following US-287 up to Limon is the easiest and most likely one to get built, if anything gets built or upgraded at all.

If a new I-27 freeway was to be connected into I-25 rather than I-70 at Limon I'd very much rather see it take a diagonal, new terrain path toward Pueblo after crossing the Oklahoma border into Colorado. At the very least, build a diagonal route splitting from US-287 near Springfield and shooting NW to La Junta. Going clear up to Lamar and then doing a stupid L shape would just be, well, stupid. If the road went as far North as Lamar then it might as well go the rest of the way to Kit Carson and then Limon.

I saw schematic plans a long time ago for upgrading US-50 into a freeway between Pueblo and Lamar. But that is a whole different thing from the Ports to Plains Corridor.

Traffic levels on I-25 are another issue. I wouldn't be surprised to see some resistance to the idea of connecting I-27 into I-25 near Pueblo. A good bit of upgrade work has been done to I-25 in Pueblo, Colorado Springs and Denver. Despite the upgrades the road can still get jammed up pretty good.

QuoteAs for your assertion...  Are you saying that those people who would use the new Interstate are currently travelling via highways whose AADTs I did not cite, or are you saying they're simply staying home instead?

Longer distance traffic is mostly using other better quality routes and going out of their way to use those routes. I know I'm not a big fan of driving long distance using rural 2 lane roads, especially ones going up and down through hilly country like that in Central-West Texas.

^^^^^^^^
Actually, the BNSF main freight line from CO into TX, the principal coal route from the Powder River mines in WY down to TX destinations (for better or worse) departs from the E-W main from La Junta to Kansas City near Las Animas.  Rather than make the awkward "left turn" at Lamar, I would suggest that any I-27 extension entering CO along US 287 generally follow the rail line -- avoiding gradients and cutting considerably mileage off the stretch.  That line diverges from US 287/385 near Springfield and passes through the quaintly-named town of Toonerville.  It's also not inconceivable that Las Animas itself could be bypassed by an alignment heading more or less directly toward La Junta.  That would produce a reasonably efficient corridor that would serve the Front Range from Pueblo north while avoiding Raton Pass. 

Quote from: DJStephens on April 12, 2019, 11:58:49 PM

Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2019, 06:04:55 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on April 11, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
for northbound to Raton I'd build a bypass around west Amarillo angling it up to Dalhart before heading west to Raton.  The bypass to Trinidad would be fine too.

The idea I forwarded was to avoid Raton Pass, a major chokepoint on I-25 and a real pain in the ass during winter months (as are most area passes at the close-to-8K-elevation).  As detailed previously, either a detour slightly to the east and merging with I-25 at Trinidad or a plains-bound route via US 287 and US 50 might pose a reasonable alternative (truckers would almost certainly applaud anything that allows them to avoid Raton grades).

Would also keep it out of New Mexico as a b#$%h slap to the ineffectual senators - both past and present.  Bingaman, Domenici, Udall, and Heinreich.  Not effective in advocating for good roads, and the opportunity and jobs they could bring.   Unicorns, and rainbows, instead.   

Because when you think of "good roads", the first agency that comes to mind is OkDOT... :rolleyes:

Avoiding New Mexico would put your route on the same stretch of road that was built to "elimitante the truck trarffic" [sic].

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 14, 2019, 02:43:17 PM

Quote from: DJStephens on April 12, 2019, 11:58:49 PM

Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2019, 06:04:55 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on April 11, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
for northbound to Raton I'd build a bypass around west Amarillo angling it up to Dalhart before heading west to Raton.  The bypass to Trinidad would be fine too.

The idea I forwarded was to avoid Raton Pass, a major chokepoint on I-25 and a real pain in the ass during winter months (as are most area passes at the close-to-8K-elevation).  As detailed previously, either a detour slightly to the east and merging with I-25 at Trinidad or a plains-bound route via US 287 and US 50 might pose a reasonable alternative (truckers would almost certainly applaud anything that allows them to avoid Raton grades).

Would also keep it out of New Mexico as a b#$%h slap to the ineffectual senators - both past and present.  Bingaman, Domenici, Udall, and Heinreich.  Not effective in advocating for good roads, and the opportunity and jobs they could bring.   Unicorns, and rainbows, instead.   

Because when you think of "good roads", the first agency that comes to mind is OkDOT... :rolleyes:

Avoiding New Mexico would put your route on the same stretch of road that was built to "elimitante the truck trarffic" [sic].

Just because they are functionally illiterate doesn't mean they can't build a road..........  :bigass:

Quote from: rte66man on April 14, 2019, 08:16:32 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 14, 2019, 02:43:17 PM

Quote from: DJStephens on April 12, 2019, 11:58:49 PM

Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2019, 06:04:55 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on April 11, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
for northbound to Raton I'd build a bypass around west Amarillo angling it up to Dalhart before heading west to Raton.  The bypass to Trinidad would be fine too.

The idea I forwarded was to avoid Raton Pass, a major chokepoint on I-25 and a real pain in the ass during winter months (as are most area passes at the close-to-8K-elevation).  As detailed previously, either a detour slightly to the east and merging with I-25 at Trinidad or a plains-bound route via US 287 and US 50 might pose a reasonable alternative (truckers would almost certainly applaud anything that allows them to avoid Raton grades).

Would also keep it out of New Mexico as a b#$%h slap to the ineffectual senators - both past and present.  Bingaman, Domenici, Udall, and Heinreich.  Not effective in advocating for good roads, and the opportunity and jobs they could bring.   Unicorns, and rainbows, instead.   

Because when you think of "good roads", the first agency that comes to mind is OkDOT... :rolleyes:

Avoiding New Mexico would put your route on the same stretch of road that was built to "elimitante the truck trarffic" [sic].

Just because they are functionally illiterate doesn't mean they can't build a road..........  :bigass:

You got that right. :D

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 14, 2019, 02:43:17 PM

Quote from: DJStephens on April 12, 2019, 11:58:49 PM

Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2019, 06:04:55 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on April 11, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
for northbound to Raton I'd build a bypass around west Amarillo angling it up to Dalhart before heading west to Raton.  The bypass to Trinidad would be fine too.

The idea I forwarded was to avoid Raton Pass, a major chokepoint on I-25 and a real pain in the ass during winter months (as are most area passes at the close-to-8K-elevation).  As detailed previously, either a detour slightly to the east and merging with I-25 at Trinidad or a plains-bound route via US 287 and US 50 might pose a reasonable alternative (truckers would almost certainly applaud anything that allows them to avoid Raton grades).

Would also keep it out of New Mexico as a b#$%h slap to the ineffectual senators - both past and present.  Bingaman, Domenici, Udall, and Heinreich.  Not effective in advocating for good roads, and the opportunity and jobs they could bring.   Unicorns, and rainbows, instead.   

Because when you think of "good roads", the first agency that comes to mind is OkDOT... :rolleyes:

Avoiding New Mexico would put your route on the same stretch of road that was built to "elimitante the truck trarffic" [sic].

The same stretch of road - are you referring to US 287 in the panhandles?  Both TX and OK. 
OK did four lane the short US 54 segment in most of the OK panhandle.  Surrounding states KS and TX are still largely two lane to best of knowledge.  But they did not build high grade (Interstate grade) bypasses around locales such as Guymon and Hooker.  Haven't been on 54 in years maybe it has changed.   

US-287 is decent from Amarillo on North to Dumas and then Stratford where the divided highway ends. I haven't been able to find any specific plans on it, but I know the town of Dumas has had at least some public meetings about a possible US-287 bypass, which could then pave the way as part of an eventual extension of I-27 in the some time in the future.

North of Stratford US-287 drops down to an undivided 3 lane configuration (alternating 2 one way for passing and 1 lane the opposite direction). TxDOT has been doing 3 lane conversions on quite a few rural 2 lane routes. US-287 drops down to 2 lanes at the OK border. US-287 is mostly 2-lane on its brief run in the OK Panhandle except for a couple spots where a passing lane has been added. I personally would like the road made as a divided highway through there; one of my girlfriend's friends was killed in a head-on collision driving on US-287 near the Colorado border. The only significant improvement on US-287 in Oklahoma was the Super-2 bypass around Boise City. There's a limited access exit for US-412/OK-3. But US-287 is still on a 2-lane alignment through there. It looks like there is enough room to add a second set of lanes and even upgrade it to Interstate quality. US-287 in SE CO is, well, just a rural 2 lane road going almost straight North to Kit Carson. Nothing special about it.

^^^^^^^^
The Boise City Super-2 and about a mile on either side seem devoid of private access; outside of that, most of the 2-lane facility in OK and CO, at least as far as Springfield, is unimproved 2-lane with full access; likely any improvement of the existing alignment would consist of adding either a parallel carriageway (but retaining access to the widened facility) or simply 5-laning what's on the ground presently.  A viable Interstate-grade alignment would almost certainly have to be a new facility -- dodging as many crop circles as needed to avoid local NIMBYism (after all, that's kinda what they do for a living around those parts!).  But if a facility does what has been suggested earlier, and angles NW from near Springfield en route to La Junta, keeping it a bit west of the extant US 287/385 might produce a relatively seamless corridor.   

A new Interstate along the US-287 corridor from the OK border to Springfield, CO could be configured a bit like parts of I-25 in Southern CO. Some sections have an old 2-lane road running parallel on one side for ranch access. Some parts of I-25 are flanked by frontage roads. And then there's the concept TxDOT is supposed to roll out with the legs of I-69 in South Texas: short frontage roads alongside the Interstate just long enough to provide ranch/farm access without being a stupid, dangerous at-grade crossing. There are alternatives to building a traditional Texas-style Interstate with full frontage roads the whole way.

Nevertheless an extension of I-27 into SE CO would have to be built brand new, regardless if it consumes parts of US-287 or runs parallel to the existing road. Current US-287 is not all that great; it's certainly not Super 2 quality.

The scenario of an I-27 extension breaking from US-287 at Springfield and going diagonal NW up to La Junta could open the possibility of the route going farther NW to the Eastern outskirts of Colorado Springs. From there it could serve as an Eastern relief route for I-25. Back in the early 2000's I recall my father talking about some private effort to build a toll road running East of the Front Range cities as an I-25 reliever. But the plans didn't go anywhere. IIRC, a bunch of property owners were really angry over how the developer was posturing on eminent domain plans. My dad thought it was just a scam to grab up a bunch of private property for cheap on a wide swath along the corridor.

I'm not a big fan of toll roads in Colorado; the E-470 toll road in Denver is a freaking price gouge. I don't have their proprietary tag. The toll one way from the I-25/C-470 interchange up to Denver Int'l Airport (28 miles) is $13.25 for the license plate toll rate ($8.35 if you have their tag). I can drive I-44 from Lawton clear to Joplin, MO (290 miles) across 3 turnpikes and that toll (PikePass) one way is $12.50. Pretty ridiculous difference in the toll cost per mile. So if an extension of I-27 was built into Colorado as a toll road there's no telling how crazy expensive it might be to drive on the thing.

^^^^^^^^
IIRC, the development in the Parker area and further south along CO 83 prompted the speculation about a "relief route" for I-25, perhaps extending all the way to Colorado Springs.  But if it were a toll facility, the chances are that it wouldn't carry I-27 shields.  In my long-range estimation, any I-27 development in CO may well have two separate segments initially -- the one we've been talking about coming in from the TX panhandle, and possibly at some future date one utilizing the "Heartland" corridor north into western NE and SD via CO 71 north of I-76.  Although the definition of that corridor was extended south to Limon (staying on CO 71) back in 2005, there's just not enough traffic -- or even the projections of such -- to warrant an enhanced facility along any part of CO 71 below I-76; activity toward development of the northerly stretches would likely have to be initiated well outside CO circles.  However -- and this is one big IF -- if a relief route was indeed considered well down the line because of Front Range development extending east into the plains -- it could well utilize CO 71 all the way down to the La Junta area -- with the segment along US 50 into Pueblo becoming a x25 or x27 -- or even part of an E-W route along US 50 and/or US 400 in CO & KS via Wichita (OK, enough Fictional for now!).  That routing would be just as useful as an all-287 route via Kit Carson and Limon.  But that implies outsize development in CO -- something that regional politicos would likely take measures to limit.  Somehow, a through I-27 concept skirting the Front Range and ending up in Rapid City or thereabouts probably won't see the light of day in any of our lifetimes.   

Any new Interstate being built into SE CO and going into the Front Range cities would have to be in service of long distance traffic connecting major destinations on the Front Range (Denver in particular) to big cities to the South or Southeast.

If the interest is just serving local traffic in Eastern Colorado towns then the current roads are just fine as they are. No need to upgrade anything to a super highway just for those needs.

I think a high speed Denver to San Antonio corridor would be a very good thing. And towns like Limon and Kit Carson would be along the way for that. Another concept I think would be just as good is a Denver to Oklahoma City diagonal corridor, mirroring how I-44 works between OKC and St Louis. I'm absolutely positive such a route would draw a big amount of commercial traffic. There are zero other diagonal highways like that of any kind in the middle of the country, not 2-lane or 4-lane much less Interstate quality. You could literally have one of these highways start along the I-70 diagonal that ends at Limon and continue it SE. Another split would happen at Kit Carson. One highway would go into Kansas and then Oklahoma. The other would go straight South down toward the Texas Panhandle.

The Front Range cities in Colorado do need a regional Eastern bypass. Unfortunately Colorado seems to do about as little as it can at upgrading roads. I've watched the situation in Colorado Springs for more than 20 years now and been pretty non-plused about it. I'm really annoyed CDOT won't 4-lane more of US-24 going NE out of Colorado Springs. I don't know how many fatal collisions it's going to take for them to get on the stick about it. Here in Oklahoma we don't have nearly as many residents as Colorado or nearly as large a tax base. But we have a lot more miles of roads and whole hell of a lot more 4-lane roads in rural areas than Colorado. Our roads aren't the greatest by a long shot, but at least the state seems to make an effort to improve a given road when a tragedy happens along a stretch of it.

^^^^^^^^^
Since, as previously mentioned, the Front Range cities south of Denver are growing as well -- which is why I suggested that a northerly extended I-27 intersect I-25 down in Pueblo in order to provide a corridor that would serve not only metro Denver but the southerly cities as well.  Of course, this would also entail a widening/upgrade of I-25, that might well include bypass arcs of both Pueblo and Colorado Springs, seeing as how I-25's current facility through either city has scant room for expansion.   Frankly, with Colorado Springs being one of the fastest growing areas in the West, I'm surprised a CS-Limon Interstate corridor along US 24 hasn't gotten much in the way of traction.  But not building a freeway out in the plains between US 50 and Limon but rather deploy the Pueblo "reroute" and an I-25 fix would serve -- by far -- a much greater population base.  But CO either isn't interested in much outside Denver metro or simply intends to kick the can down the road as long as possible -- so even if impetus for a I-27 corridor actually reaches the initial planning stages elsewhere, once that corridor hits the CO state line it might hit the proverbial wall of indifference; I wouldn't anticipate an initially positive response from CDOT, although such a route might hold the promise of increased road-related revenue.   

I just get the feeling the powers that be in Colorado just don't want to spend any more money on roads than what they're forced to spend through emergency action. Otherwise they're going to be in the mindset of thinking all will be pedaling around on their trail bikes after smoking a blunt.
:-P

When it comes to infrastructure it is cheaper to appeal to the more activist, environmentalist types who prefer more bike paths rather than new roads. A lawmaker can be "fiscally conservative" and appeal to the "bunny hugger" types while spending next to nothing. It's the perfect arrangement.

Nevertheless, I think Denver to Oklahoma City is a GIANT missing spoke in the Interstate highway system.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 19, 2019, 12:36:08 AM
Any new Interstate being built into SE CO and going into the Front Range cities would have to be in service of long distance traffic connecting major destinations on the Front Range (Denver in particular) to big cities to the South or Southeast.

If the interest is just serving local traffic in Eastern Colorado towns then the current roads are just fine as they are. No need to upgrade anything to a super highway just for those needs.

I think a high speed Denver to San Antonio corridor would be a very good thing. And towns like Limon and Kit Carson would be along the way for that. Another concept I think would be just as good is a Denver to Oklahoma City diagonal corridor, mirroring how I-44 works between OKC and St Louis. I'm absolutely positive such a route would draw a big amount of commercial traffic. There are zero other diagonal highways like that of any kind in the middle of the country, not 2-lane or 4-lane much less Interstate quality. You could literally have one of these highways start along the I-70 diagonal that ends at Limon and continue it SE. Another split would happen at Kit Carson. One highway would go into Kansas and then Oklahoma. The other would go straight South down toward the Texas Panhandle.

The Front Range cities in Colorado do need a regional Eastern bypass. Unfortunately Colorado seems to do about as little as it can at upgrading roads. I've watched the situation in Colorado Springs for more than 20 years now and been pretty non-plused about it. I'm really annoyed CDOT won't 4-lane more of US-24 going NE out of Colorado Springs. I don't know how many fatal collisions it's going to take for them to get on the stick about it. Here in Oklahoma we don't have nearly as many residents as Colorado or nearly as large a tax base. But we have a lot more miles of roads and whole hell of a lot more 4-lane roads in rural areas than Colorado. Our roads aren't the greatest by a long shot, but at least the state seems to make an effort to improve a given road when a tragedy happens along a stretch of it.

Oklahoma is right in the middle of the United States Of America. It needs to have 4 lane roads to accommodate traffic to and from Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico, and also Old Mexico (United Mexican States) , and coast to coast traffic.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 20, 2019, 12:52:11 AM
I just get the feeling the powers that be in Colorado just don't want to spend any more money on roads than what they're forced to spend through emergency action. Otherwise they're going to be in the mindset of thinking all will be pedaling around on their trail bikes after smoking a blunt.
:-P

When it comes to infrastructure it is cheaper to appeal to the more activist, environmentalist types who prefer more bike paths rather than new roads. A lawmaker can be "fiscally conservative" and appeal to the "bunny hugger" types while spending next to nothing. It's the perfect arrangement.

Nevertheless, I think Denver to Oklahoma City is a GIANT missing spoke in the Interstate highway system.

Ooh-- biking in the Colorado mountains after smoking weed -- might just be a backdoor method of millennial population control!   But as far as political chicanery goes, you might just be on to something there!  ;-)

Quote from: In_Correct on April 20, 2019, 01:32:28 PM
Oklahoma is right in the middle of the United States Of America. It needs to have 4 lane roads to accommodate traffic to and from...

Colorado, missing
Kansas, I-35
Missouri, I-44
Arkansas, I-40
Texas, I-35 & I-40 & I-44
New Mexico, I-40
and also Old Mexico (United Mexican States) , I-35
and coast to coast traffic. I-40

Yep, there's the missing spoke.

If I were to do anything at all I would just build an eastern interstate-quality bypass around Lamesa and have it connect to TX 349 south of town and call it a day. Those roads all have 75 mph speed limits once you are out of town. Building an interstate just seems like a total waste of money and I doubt there is that much traffic there.

Quote from: US 41 on April 22, 2019, 10:52:48 PM
If I were to do anything at all I would just build an eastern interstate-quality bypass around Lamesa and have it connect to TX 349 south of town and call it a day. Those roads all have 75 mph speed limits once you are out of town. Building an interstate just seems like a total waste of money and I doubt there is that much traffic there.

Of course they should be Interstates. As long as they don't make them curvy and pointy.

Quote from: US 41 on April 22, 2019, 10:52:48 PM
If I were to do anything at all I would just build an eastern interstate-quality bypass around Lamesa and have it connect to TX 349 south of town and call it a day. Those roads all have 75 mph speed limits once you are out of town. Building an interstate just seems like a total waste of money and I doubt there is that much traffic there.

That was essentially the conclusion reached by the Wilbur Smith consultants back around 2000 when the Port-to-Plains corridor was previously contemplated -- particularly for the segment south of Lubbock.  Essentially the prior improvements of the three main corridors heading down toward I-20 from Lubbock: US 62/385 to the SW toward Odessa, US 87 south to Big Spring, and US 84 SE to near Sweetwater ironically mitigated against any recommendations -- at least at that time -- of further improvement to any of the corridors -- the conclusion reached by the Smith folks was that the three corridors effectively split traffic heading south, rendering no one corridor vital enough to be considered for further upgrades, particularly to Interstate standards.  With that report in hand, TXDOT let the P-to-P regional promoters that they weren't going to prioritize the corridor and went off to deal with the I-69 complex instead.  It wasn't until a rival corridor concept, I-14, made incursions into the area regarding planning efforts that a reiteration of the P-to-P/I-27 concept was revived.  And since there's quite a bit of duplication of efforts by both promotional groups in the San Angelo-Midland/Odessa area, it'll be interesting to see which corridor segments survive and which are discarded -- my own guess is that portions that actually serve regional gaps (like Lubbock down to I-10) will eventually see development, along with some eastern connection to Temple and the central-state "triangle", which has its own subset of promoters and advocates.  As far as anything involving other states is concerned, the in-state promotional and publicity "machine" may well find itself spread a bit too thin -- or simply without much clout in the outside venues.  So far most of the rumblings have emanated from and deal with West Texas interests and concepts; once some sort of concrete activity commences on those corridor segments, it's likely that aspirations north of Amarillo may just have to cool its heels until the impact of funding improvements further south have been internalized and the various parties are looking to line up the next project.

Quote from: US 41 on April 22, 2019, 10:52:48 PM
I doubt there is that much traffic there.

Where, specifically?  I've already posted a lot of AADT figures in this thread.

Quote from: US 41If I were to do anything at all I would just build an eastern interstate-quality bypass around Lamesa and have it connect to TX 349 south of town and call it a day. Those roads all have 75 mph speed limits once you are out of town. Building an interstate just seems like a total waste of money and I doubt there is that much traffic there.

Traffic counts have been going up, especially truck traffic. The Permian Basin oil patch has been booming. The drilling companies just keep getting better and better at pulling oil out of the ground. An extension of I-27 through the region would improve long distance traffic safety. However, building an extension of I-27 wouldn't be for just serving local traffic needs in that part of West Texas. The real thing is to establish a longer distance corridor between a couple or more major destinations. That's why I keep repeating the notion of a Denver/Front Range to San Antonio/Gulf of Mexico highway.

Quote from: sparkerThat was essentially the conclusion reached by the Wilbur Smith consultants back around 2000 when the Port-to-Plains corridor was previously contemplated -- particularly for the segment south of Lubbock.

Things have changed in that region over the past 19 years. Now, granted, if all that was ever going to built was just an extension of I-27 down to Big Spring or the Midland-Odessa area the project would be tough to justify. The benefits of extending I-27 wouldn't be seen unless the road was connecting big, significant destinations. By the way, that's the chief thing working against the I-14 pork-express highway. It doesn't connect to any major cities. The very crooked mileage/time wasting route being proposed ruins any value of I-14 functioning as a relief route for I-10 or I-20. The route would only be of interest to local traffic. Long distance drivers are not going to go way out of their way to take a zig-zag super highway when the long established routes run far more direct. Worse yet, even if I-14 was built to Midland-Odessa the route has little value to all the oil-commerce business there. They're far less concerned about rural points in East Texas than they are moving back and forth between the Gulf of Mexico or other major Texas cities.

^^^^^^^^
Most of the oil will move via pipeline; it's the deployment and maintenance of equipment to pull it from the ground that requires, in the aggregate, a big ass fleet of trucks and the network of highways on which to travel.  M/O is "ground zero" for that particular enterprise (San Angelo is relegated to "branch office" status in that regard); it's understandable that they'd like to have a direct efficient (no slogging through towns) corridor toward the distribution centers in San Antonio and Houston.  Now anything from Lubbock and/or M/O that would hit I-10 around Junction or thereabouts would certainly satisfy the San Antonio end of things.  But one of the things that seems to be driving the West TX interest in the I-14 corridor is the possibility of a more direct route to Houston that avoids any congestion endemic to a city of 1M+ (San Antonio of course) to expedite equipment movements originating there, since that seems to be where most of the bespoke industry equipment originates.  And it's likely that the M/O or San Angelo people couldn't give a rat's ass whether I-14 goes east of I-45 or not, as long as they can shave an hour or two off a shipment of drilling bits.  And they have no compunctions about using the whole "cross the South" I-14 concept to expedite development of that portion of the corridor that benefits them.  But they'll be happy to take what they can get in increments; my money would initially be on an I-27 corridor south from Lubbock to San Angelo and getting somehow to Junction, with a possible outflung segment of I-14 along TX 158 to placate the M/O folks.  I don't see any work further east on I-14 toward Lampasas and Temple until at least 2030 -- by which time a final corridor alignment through the Triangle will have been worked out. 

From the legal (HPC #38) definition of the Port-to-Plains, it's clear that the "ports" that were in the mind of the corridor's progenitors were more "ports of entry" (meaning Del Rio down to Laredo) rather than seaports (remember, that corridor was designated in 1995, at the height of the Clinton-era NAFTA "craze").  But the current realities of commercial needs -- what they are and how they're dispersed -- are informing the situation as it exists today.  With the USA's current trends away from fossil fuel consumption (despite the best/worst efforts of the current administration), most of the future Permian Basin petroleum production will be exports to be shipped overseas; while that will undoubtedly be accomplished by pipelines to tanker loading (probably along the Gulf coast from Corpus Christi all the way to Port Arthur); with Panamax a reality, a lot of that will head to East Asia.  So while direct product shipment won't depend upon commercial trucking (save some "specialty" oil products), it likely will result in prioritization being shifted -- if it hasn't already done so -- from POE's along the border to regional seaports as far as deployment of new or upgraded facilities, including road corridors.           

Quote from: sparkerNow anything from Lubbock and/or M/O that would hit I-10 around Junction or thereabouts would certainly satisfy the San Antonio end of things.  But one of the things that seems to be driving the West TX interest in the I-14 corridor is the possibility of a more direct route to Houston that avoids any congestion endemic to a city of 1M+ (San Antonio of course) to expedite equipment movements originating there, since that seems to be where most of the bespoke industry equipment originates.

As I said earlier, any benefit of I-14 serving as a relief route to I-10 (or even I-20) is totally offset by the wasteful zig-zag, crooked nature of the proposed route. Traffic in San Antonio can get bad. But it's possible for any motorist to time his trip through there to avoid the peak rush hour periods in return for the benefit of using a more direct, faster route.

If I-14 is ever built beyond the tiny stub from I-35 into Killeen I'm not optimistic the powers that be will straighten out that route any. They gotta try to include every town that they can on the whole pork parade. Let's also not forget the potential of legal/regulatory hurdles to make the route even more crooked. I-69 in Southern Indiana and Kentucky is a good example of modern Interstate building. I-14 can set an even more ridiculous standard. The proposed route through the Texas Triangle is a big "W" shape. All that extra mileage does cost in terms of extra time and fuel.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 24, 2019, 12:30:08 AM

Quote from: sparkerNow anything from Lubbock and/or M/O that would hit I-10 around Junction or thereabouts would certainly satisfy the San Antonio end of things.  But one of the things that seems to be driving the West TX interest in the I-14 corridor is the possibility of a more direct route to Houston that avoids any congestion endemic to a city of 1M+ (San Antonio of course) to expedite equipment movements originating there, since that seems to be where most of the bespoke industry equipment originates.

As I said earlier, any benefit of I-14 serving as a relief route to I-10 (or even I-20) is totally offset by the wasteful zig-zag, crooked nature of the proposed route. Traffic in San Antonio can get bad. But it's possible for any motorist to time his trip through there to avoid the peak rush hour periods in return for the benefit of using a more direct, faster route.

If I-14 is ever built beyond the tiny stub from I-35 into Killeen I'm not optimistic the powers that be will straighten out that route any. They gotta try to include every town that they can on the whole pork parade. Let's also not forget the potential of legal/regulatory hurdles to make the route even more crooked. I-69 in Southern Indiana and Kentucky is a good example of modern Interstate building. I-14 can set an even more ridiculous standard. The proposed route through the Texas Triangle is a big "W" shape. All that extra mileage does cost in terms of extra time and fuel.

Time will tell regarding the precise nature of I-14 across the Triangle.  If the routing gets too "choppy" (i.e., following the series of right angles that is US 190 rather than cutting across the "peaks & valleys"), that wouldn't please the West Texas promoters that are looking for efficiency.  It might come down to which of the involved parties holds sway politically.  The only thing that seems certain is that at least some of the TX 6 freeway around Bryan and State College will be part of the corridor (enough Aggies in TX state government circles to predict that); the rest is up for grabs.  And the only reason for the big "L" on I-69 in KY is the presence of an existing set of upgradeable facilities -- and it seems that in IN just about everyone connected with the project (with the notable exception of Bloomington itself and IU) insisted on running the corridor through Bloomington rather than down the IN 57/67 corridor, which would have been the more direct choice.  Maybe "sticking it" to Bloomington by ramming I-69 down their throat was a poorly hidden agenda in itself -- or possibly there was a cadre of influential Indy folks (IU parents perhaps?) who wanted to ensure that the project included a safer IN 37 between that city and the university town.   But then the original I-69 segment north of Indy was itself rerouted to serve Anderson and Muncie rather than continue in a straighter line toward Fort Wayne -- so there was ample in-state precedent for such an action. 

But aside from the aforementioned freeway along TX 6 there's no existing Triangle facility that is compelling usage like the KY parkways -- just a couple of towns that may or may not piss & moan about being bypassed.  Again, it'll all come down to who is driving the project.  All I can say is stay tuned -- this'll be a very intriguing process.     

Quote from: sparkerTime will tell regarding the precise nature of I-14 across the Triangle.  If the routing gets too "choppy" (i.e., following the series of right angles that is US 190 rather than cutting across the "peaks & valleys"), that wouldn't please the West Texas promoters that are looking for efficiency.

If any of the promoters of I-14 had the slightest bit of interest in "efficiency" they wouldn't have drawn up the proposed route map like they did in the first place. They could push I-14 from the Southern outskirts of Temple to the College Station area in a far more direct manner. The road doesn't have to go to Milano, take a hard left turn up to Hearne and then a hard right turn to finally go down toward College Station. And then there's stupid bit of sending I-14 from College Station up to Madisonville instead of going directly East to Huntsville. Why does the road need to make a stop in Madisonville (much less Milano and Hearne) other than pandering to porky interests?

Much of I-14 through the Texas Triangle will have to be built completely new. Very little of existing US-190 in that region is near current Interstate standards (the freeway in the College Station area). So if it all has to be built new why not build it on a more direct alignment? Less miles of new highway would have to be built. That would actually save money. Ping-ponging I-14 around to include more towns will mean more bypasses around those towns maybe making the route even longer in mileage than existing US-190 through there.

Quote from: sparkerAnd the only reason for the big "L" on I-69 in KY is the presence of an existing set of upgradeable facilities -- and it seems that in IN just about everyone connected with the project (with the notable exception of Bloomington itself and IU) insisted on running the corridor through Bloomington rather than down the IN 57/67 corridor, which would have been the more direct choice.

The routing in Kentucky is just being cheap. Send the road on two sides of a right triangle rather than building a new terrain route on the direct hypotenuse. In Indiana I didn't mind I-69 going through Bloomington, as opposed to sending I-69 up to Terre Haute (big L shape for I-69 there getting to Indianapolis). Unfortunately the routing through Southern Indiana is crooked as hell. I understand the need to bypass the Crane Naval Depot. But making I-69 an East-West highway from Elnora to Owensburg was a pretty extreme way of making that bypass. It took away most of the mileage savings that would have been gained by avoiding the Evanville-Terre Haute-Indy L-shaped idea.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 29, 2019, 12:47:19 PM
In Indiana I didn't mind I-69 going through Bloomington, as opposed to sending I-69 up to Terre Haute (big L shape for I-69 there getting to Indianapolis). Unfortunately the routing through Southern Indiana is crooked as hell. I understand the need to bypass the Crane Naval Depot. But making I-69 an East-West highway from Elnora to Owensburg was a pretty extreme way of making that bypass. It took away most of the mileage savings that would have been gained by avoiding the Evanville-Terre Haute-Indy L-shaped idea.

That looks like the routing got bent to use more favorable terrain.

^^^^^^^^^
About the only Triangle towns arrayed along the proposed I-14 corridor that would have enough clout to successfully press for service would be -- aside from the Bryan/College Station area -- Cameron, Hearne, and Huntsville (aka the I-45 junction).  As I've averred previously, it's likely the corridor will cross the Brazos River near where US 79/190 crosses it today, simply because they've channelized the river there and there's less in the way of floodplain to cross (less berms/structures=somewhat reduced cost).  Something direct from Cameron to Hearne (that channelization is due west of the latter town) would be a likely prospect, as would something paralleling TX 30 from College Station to Huntsville.  And, yes, TX 6's freeway through the A&M area isn't up to snuff currently; it will require some upgrading (but at least the ROW's intact).  It'll be interesting to see if it is eventually decided to use as much of the TX 6 corridor as possible (maybe down toward Navasota) before turning it east toward Huntsville; that'll depend upon (a) where the TX 249 connection will be made and (b) how much in the way of improved properties in the area TXDOT is willing to usurp for the corridor.  My guess is that it'll depart from TX 6 somewhere around the Speedway and head east from there. 

Even with ongoing development of I-69 north of Houston, it's unlikely I-14 will be extended to meet it anytime soon because of the presence of Lake Livingston, which will have to be (a) bypassed using considerable extra mileage or (b) bridged at equally considerable structural expense.  Either way, it won't be cheap.  Barring LA action toward developing their segment by Ft. Polk, IMO any I-14 projects east of Huntsville will be kicked indefinitely down the road -- it'll remain simply a "line on a map" for the foreseeable future. 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 29, 2019, 12:47:19 PM

Quote from: sparkerTime will tell regarding the precise nature of I-14 across the Triangle.  If the routing gets too "choppy" (i.e., following the series of right angles that is US 190 rather than cutting across the "peaks & valleys"), that wouldn't please the West Texas promoters that are looking for efficiency.

If any of the promoters of I-14 had the slightest bit of interest in "efficiency" they wouldn't have drawn up the proposed route map like they did in the first place. They could push I-14 from the Southern outskirts of Temple to the College Station area in a far more direct manner. The road doesn't have to go to Milano, take a hard left turn up to Hearne and then a hard right turn to finally go down toward College Station. And then there's stupid bit of sending I-14 from College Station up to Madisonville instead of going directly East to Huntsville. Why does the road need to make a stop in Madisonville (much less Milano and Hearne) other than pandering to porky interests?

Much of I-14 through the Texas Triangle will have to be built completely new. Very little of existing US-190 in that region is near current Interstate standards (the freeway in the College Station area). So if it all has to be built new why not build it on a more direct alignment? Less miles of new highway would have to be built. That would actually save money. Ping-ponging I-14 around to include more towns will mean more bypasses around those towns maybe making the route even longer in mileage than existing US-190 through there.

Quote from: sparkerAnd the only reason for the big "L" on I-69 in KY is the presence of an existing set of upgradeable facilities -- and it seems that in IN just about everyone connected with the project (with the notable exception of Bloomington itself and IU) insisted on running the corridor through Bloomington rather than down the IN 57/67 corridor, which would have been the more direct choice.

The routing in Kentucky is just being cheap. Send the road on two sides of a right triangle rather than building a new terrain route on the direct hypotenuse. In Indiana I didn't mind I-69 going through Bloomington, as opposed to sending I-69 up to Terre Haute (big L shape for I-69 there getting to Indianapolis). Unfortunately the routing through Southern Indiana is crooked as hell. I understand the need to bypass the Crane Naval Depot. But making I-69 an East-West highway from Elnora to Owensburg was a pretty extreme way of making that bypass. It took away most of the mileage savings that would have been gained by avoiding the Evanville-Terre Haute-Indy L-shaped idea.

Keep Interstate 14 as straight as possible. The nearby cities can have Upgraded Spurs.

^^^^^^^^^
Within the Triangle, the only "city" of a size to warrant any type of 3di would be the Bryan/College Station area -- and the TX 6, presumably the alignment to be utilized (with necessary upgrades) as part of the I-14 corridor, already bisects the area; chances are that any spur won't be necessary.  Now -- how either I-27 or I-14 traverses the San Angelo area, and which of the several existing freeway segments they'll utilize, has yet TBD -- there might be some spur or loop action there, as well as out in M/O; it depends upon final plans that have yet to surface.  Right now determination of an actual West Texas route is the principal task before the planners (TXDOT & local); speculation about auxiliary routes is premature;  the completion of that main task needs to precede any concern with such details. 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 29, 2019, 12:47:19 PM

Quote from: sparkerTime will tell regarding the precise nature of I-14 across the Triangle.  If the routing gets too "choppy" (i.e., following the series of right angles that is US 190 rather than cutting across the "peaks & valleys"), that wouldn't please the West Texas promoters that are looking for efficiency.

If any of the promoters of I-14 had the slightest bit of interest in "efficiency" they wouldn't have drawn up the proposed route map like they did in the first place. They could push I-14 from the Southern outskirts of Temple to the College Station area in a far more direct manner. The road doesn't have to go to Milano, take a hard left turn up to Hearne and then a hard right turn to finally go down toward College Station. And then there's stupid bit of sending I-14 from College Station up to Madisonville instead of going directly East to Huntsville. Why does the road need to make a stop in Madisonville (much less Milano and Hearne) other than pandering to porky interests?

Much of I-14 through the Texas Triangle will have to be built completely new. Very little of existing US-190 in that region is near current Interstate standards (the freeway in the College Station area). So if it all has to be built new why not build it on a more direct alignment? Less miles of new highway would have to be built. That would actually save money. Ping-ponging I-14 around to include more towns will mean more bypasses around those towns maybe making the route even longer in mileage than existing US-190 through there.

Quote from: sparkerAnd the only reason for the big "L" on I-69 in KY is the presence of an existing set of upgradeable facilities -- and it seems that in IN just about everyone connected with the project (with the notable exception of Bloomington itself and IU) insisted on running the corridor through Bloomington rather than down the IN 57/67 corridor, which would have been the more direct choice.

The routing in Kentucky is just being cheap. Send the road on two sides of a right triangle rather than building a new terrain route on the direct hypotenuse. In Indiana I didn't mind I-69 going through Bloomington, as opposed to sending I-69 up to Terre Haute (big L shape for I-69 there getting to Indianapolis). Unfortunately the routing through Southern Indiana is crooked as hell. I understand the need to bypass the Crane Naval Depot. But making I-69 an East-West highway from Elnora to Owensburg was a pretty extreme way of making that bypass. It took away most of the mileage savings that would have been gained by avoiding the Evanville-Terre Haute-Indy L-shaped idea.

And in Tennessee the opposite seems to be occurring.  Avoidance of upgradeable sections of US 51, in favor of all new terrain alignments.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 29, 2019, 12:47:19 PM
Send the road on two sides of a right triangle rather than building a new terrain route on the direct hypotenuse.

Oh no, not again...

^^^^^^^^
The original mapping effort for I-14 wasn't so much laying out a route as showing something for the sake of the efforts to get the corridor in the federal books (as high priority corridor #84).  That sort of thing was commonplace even in the original '56 iteration of the system -- the corridors were initially shown on maps as following major highways, but when it came to actual development, a lot of new-terrain alignments were substituted for those; I-65 between Indianapolis and Chicagoland was a prime example; the original maps showed it using US 52 from Indianapolis to US 41 and US 41 north of there -- but that isn't what the final configuration turned out to be, of course.  And I-71 from Cincinnati to Columbus originally was shown as using a combination of US 22 and US 62, while the actual construction was more in a straight line between those end points.  I wouldn't be too concerned with I-14 blindly tracing US 190 across the Triangle; as long as Temple, Hearne, and Bryan/College Station are served (which can be done with a minimum of twisting and turning) and there's reasonable connectivity to Houston (likely via I-45 or a TX 249 extension), I don't see an issue with this corridor turning out any different than any other TX interstate effort; by the time final plans are issued, any "sawtooth" alignment profile should be long gone.   And, yes, what I'm talking about could be considered a "hypotenuse" in relation to what's currently on the ground with US 190.  But nobody will be ripping up huge swaths of Chicago to accomplish the task at hand -- so in this case, it's a good thing! :-P

Now if they can just mitigate that "I-14S/I-14N" bullshit out west of Brady; there's no need for a branch running along US 190 west of there (there's even less along that route than along I-10, which is the poster child for "desolate").  If it's really gonna be built, just construct the one leg to San Angelo and maybe M/O -- where there are actually people to be served!   

After the I-69E/C/W thing, I don't think we can trust Texas to use common sense in implementing corridors in the real world.

Quote from: vdeane on May 01, 2019, 08:58:32 PM
After the I-69E/C/W thing, I don't think we can trust Texas to use common sense in implementing corridors in the real world.

At least the existing facilities along all three branches of the I-69 "trident" are presently carrying decent volumes of commercial traffic (who'da thunk it, but US 281/I-69C's present commercial volume is leading the pack).  Of the three, 69W is the most questionable (doesn't save all that much Laredo-Houston over 35/10) -- but that just may change upon completion -- particularly if the Corpus Christi branch (I-6??!!) is on line about the same time.  Besides, the Rio Grande Valley is experiencing outsized growth, so the "E" and "C" branches might well have been prescient.  But US 190 west of Brady?  Really?  No trucker in his right mind would consider using that highway corridor (unless avoiding LEO's) -- if they're delivering to the Permian Basin, they'll use US 87 through San Angelo; anywhere west of there they shoot right down to I-10 and head on out.   Maybe there's both money and the will to spend it on new Interstate corridors in TX -- but chances are, that largess isn't infinite.  When apportioning real $$ for actually building the damn thing, it's likely, at least in this case, that the least useful branches will get pruned!

They could have at least numbered them something else.  I don't take the view that the corridor being named "I-69 East" requires it to be literally signed as I-69E (which was actually signed as just I-69 originally, so clearly the split wasn't originally intended).  Let I-69E be an extension of I-37, I-69C can be I-69, and I-69W can be I-6, with whatever is going to Corpus Christi being a 3di.

Though it does seem like the amount of mileage may be excessive.

Quote from: vdeane on May 02, 2019, 08:13:38 PM
They could have at least numbered them something else.  I don't take the view that the corridor being named "I-69 East" requires it to be literally signed as I-69E (which was actually signed as just I-69 originally, so clearly the split wasn't originally intended).  Let I-69E be an extension of I-37, I-69C can be I-69, and I-69W can be I-6, with whatever is going to Corpus Christi being a 3di.

Though it does seem like the amount of mileage may be excessive.

Back in late 2010 I actually wrote a numbering proposal to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, suggesting the following:  I-69 mainline down what's now I-69E, I-6 along I-69W, and I-169 for I-69C, which would have turned east on what's now I-2 to Harlingen.  Also: I-47 for the I-369 corridor (hey, it's 115 miles long!).  Received a reply after a few weeks stating that as far as numbering, their hands were tied by the legal definitions attached to the original HPC 18 & 20 legislation.  I shot back that those appeared to be simply "placeholder" designations to delineate the three branches (and 69W wasn't even mentioned in the original language), and that any of their "pet" area congressfolks could slip in amendments to specify different numbers.  That got a quick reply essentially inferring that they didn't want to deviate one little bit from the original legislation, since the support for the project was on relatively thin ice at the time (this was around the time of the 2010 midterm elections) and that some of the newly elected conservatives from TX would have to be persuaded to support the concept and its associated expenditures -- and that selling the whole "69" package as is to the new congressional delegation was job #1 in order to maintain what progress was being made.  Thus, to them, every segment of the cluster had to reference the number "69" to avoid confusing those legislators who weren't the sharpest pencils in the box!  :sleep:

At that point I simply rolled my eyes, figuring any further comment would be pointless.  But if they were dealing with elected legislators, I could -- with some imaginative stretch -- see their POV; they'd put a lot more aggregate effort into their corridor than had I!  But I still think my ideas had some merit -- but the chances of any changes being made is ultra-slim -- now that there is nascent suffixed signage on all 3 branches (plus I-2!).  Still, it would be nice if the Freer-Corpus Christi/TX 44 segment got an I-6 designation rather than a cookie-cutter x69.  Might restore a smidgen of what little remains of my faith in institutional intelligence! 

Freer to Corpus Christi is less than 100 miles. That might make it tough to sell an I-6 designation on that corridor. On the other hand, there is really no other logical place in the nation where an I-6 route could be designated. I would actually prefer I-6 to run from Laredo to Corpus Christi (and maybe even take over the TX-358 freeway to end on the JFK Causeway). Let I-69W end in Freer. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle as far as I-69W goes in Laredo.

The Laredo metro is experiencing higher than average population growth, just like the cluster of cities down in the Rio Grande Valley. Over the next 30 years Laredo's metro population is expected to grow from 250,000 people to nearly 500,000. That growth will put pressure on completing I-69W, getting more of I-2 built and maybe even getting the highway between Freer and Corpus built, whatever it's going to be called (I-6, I-269?).

^^^^^^^^
Laredo growth might also prompt the corridor that's the subject of this thread to sashay down in that direction -- whether through Del Rio or simply down US 83 from Junction -- if indeed I-27 intersects I-10 at that location.  If that occurs, it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine the Freer-Corpus Christi corridor being extended west to provide a "shortcut" from the P-to-P to an actual port rather than a simple border POE. 

And no one actually has to "sell" I-6; the current methodology for such matters is to simply specify that number in authorizing legislation; at that point AASHTO is effectively bypassed; and FHWA would pipe in only to authorize signage on segments up to Interstate standards. 

Perhaps the fact that support for the I-69 corridors was/is on thin ice should have been a clue to the Alliance that they over-reached in wanting three different corridors to the area.

If any of the legs of I-69 in South Texas are on thin ice I would say I-69W is the one most in that predicament. The "C" and "E" legs can be justified based on the already immense population of the Rio Grande Valley cities. I always thought I-37 should have been extended South to Brownsville, but now that route is I-69E.
:-/

Monterrey is not too far away on the other side of the Mexican border. I don't know how much commerce and traffic moves North from there to Laredo versus traveling NE to the Rio Grande Valley cities. Either way all the traffic coming up from Mexico via M-85D and M-40D is one of the primary inspirations for the whole I-69 extension effort.

Quote from: sparkerLaredo growth might also prompt the corridor that's the subject of this thread to sashay down in that direction -- whether through Del Rio or simply down US 83 from Junction -- if indeed I-27 intersects I-10 at that location.  If that occurs, it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine the Freer-Corpus Christi corridor being extended west to provide a "shortcut" from the P-to-P to an actual port rather than a simple border POE.

I would just as soon end I-27 in Junction, TX at I-10 (going diagonally direct down from San Angelo, of course). I think an I-27 extension to Laredo would only work if the route followed the Ports to Plains Corridor routing, going directly South out of San Angelo, hitting I-10 at Sonora and going down to Del Rio, then follow the Rio Grande to Eagle Pass and Laredo. Connections to Del Rio and Eagle Pass would appear to be simple since both towns have new limited access Super 2 half-loops under construction. I-27 could take over both and bump them from single to dual carriageways.

The folks in Carrizo Springs wouldn't like this, but I would prefer an I-27 route between Eagle Pass and Laredo take a direct, new terrain path closer to the Rio Grande River. Eagle Pass Road (FM-1021, FM-1472) already covers that territory while US-277 does a big curve out of the way to swing over to Carrizo Springs.

^^^^^^^^
I've always wondered what there is about that undeveloped land along the Rio Grande NW of Laredo and west of US 83, and why a more direct arterial corridor -- even a conventional facility -- hasn't been routed through there in the 180+ years Texas has been with us!  GE/GSV doesn't show any particularly impassible topology -- it might have to do with land grants and land ownership -- whomever that may be simply not wishing the land to be developed.

Or maybe it's Texas' version of Area 51!!!!! :hmmm: :sombrero:

I-27 should extend along future I-2 to Brownsville, which would make it something like an 850 mile Interstate, the 17th longest in the country out of 70. And it doesn't leave Texas!

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 03, 2019, 12:58:32 PM
Freer to Corpus Christi is less than 100 miles. That might make it tough to sell an I-6 designation on that corridor. On the other hand, there is really no other logical place in the nation where an I-6 route could be designated. I would actually prefer I-6 to run from Laredo to Corpus Christi (and maybe even take over the TX-358 freeway to end on the JFK Causeway). Let I-69W end in Freer. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle as far as I-69W goes in Laredo.

The Laredo metro is experiencing higher than average population growth, just like the cluster of cities down in the Rio Grande Valley. Over the next 30 years Laredo's metro population is expected to grow from 250,000 people to nearly 500,000. That growth will put pressure on completing I-69W, getting more of I-2 built and maybe even getting the highway between Freer and Corpus built, whatever it's going to be called (I-6, I-269?).

There may be a good case to be made for an I-6 using TX 44 from Freer to Corpus, then using TX 358 across the Causeway, then running along a new terrain route along the South Texas coast up to at least TX 288 near Freeport or even to I-45 north of the "Texas Wye" (TX 146/TX 6 interchange) north of Galveston.

If I-2 can be extended to Laredo or even further west to meet I-10, that could justify rerouting an extended I-27 south to Eagle Pass. Otherwise, I'd just extend it to meet I-10 near Junction.

Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2019, 09:24:11 PM
Perhaps the fact that support for the I-69 corridors was/is on thin ice should have been a clue to the Alliance that they over-reached in wanting three different corridors to the area.

Back in 2010 funding for the proposal was on thin ice due to a conflict between a couple of South Texas representatives (one R, one D) whose feud over which subregion (lower Rio Grande valley versus further up the Gulf Coast) would be prioritized for initial I-69 developmental efforts threatened to disrupt the project; the designation of I-2 a couple of years later, along with earlier letting dates for some I-69C segments, was part of the compromise reached to maintain both peace among the politicos as well as continuous progress in the overall region.  There has never been a lack of local support, particularly in the Lower Valley, for the construction of multiple corridors into and within the region, which is largely dependent upon jobs in the cross-border trade sector; the issues were always with the various congressional districts attempting to get I-69 (and related) projects in their areas prioritized.     

Quote from: sparkerI've always wondered what there is about that undeveloped land along the Rio Grande NW of Laredo and west of US 83, and why a more direct arterial corridor -- even a conventional facility -- hasn't been routed through there in the 180+ years Texas has been with us!  GE/GSV doesn't show any particularly impassible topology -- it might have to do with land grants and land ownership -- whomever that may be simply not wishing the land to be developed.

Oil drilling and wells is the primary activity in that territory. I don't know if there is any agricultural use of that land. El Indio is the only town out there.

Little thread bump here -- there's been a wee bit of action regarding the P-to-P/I-27 situation as of today; the AASHTO DTU is reporting, via an excerpt from local media, that the TX governor has signed a bill calling for a study to extend I-27 south to Laredo via San Angelo, Del Rio, and Carrizo Springs (the basic HPC #38 concept) -- including a "split" route from Lamesa to Sterling City, with one branch crossing I-20 at Big Spring and the other utilizing TX 349 and TX 158 through Midland.  Sounds like an "all in" approach; I for one would certainly expect details to be worked out later (particularly when duplication of the I-14 backers' plans comes into play). 

The gist of the action can be found at:  https:///www.lubbockonline.com/news/20190612/governor-signs-bill-calling-for-interstate-27-extension-study

If there is a split of I-27 at Lamesa and Sterling City to send I-27W to Midland and I-27E thru Big Spring then that would limit the reach of I-14. That is if I-14 is ever fully built. The Western terminus of I-14 would end up in San Angelo.

Given all the activity and heavy truck traffic out in in the Permian Oil Patch of West Texas I think I-27 would have a better shot at getting segments funded. The Ports to Plains Corridor serves more people in West Texas than I-14 would. The corridor has been established for two decades. Adding to that, I think conversion of US-87, US-277, TX-349 and TX-158 to Interstate standards would all be easier to do than upgrading US-190 and US-87 between San Angelo and Copperas Cove. Much of the route between Copperas Cove and Brady would need to be built on a new terrain path to get around development and build to Interstate quality grades and geometry.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 15, 2019, 06:11:19 PM
If there is a split of I-27 at Lamesa and Sterling City to send I-27W to Midland and I-27E thru Big Spring then that would limit the reach of I-14. That is if I-14 is ever fully built. The Western terminus of I-14 would end up in San Angelo.

Given all the activity and heavy truck traffic out in in the Permian Oil Patch of West Texas I think I-27 would have a better shot at getting segments funded. The Ports to Plains Corridor serves more people in West Texas than I-14 would. The corridor has been established for two decades. Adding to that, I think conversion of US-87, US-277, TX-349 and TX-158 to Interstate standards would all be easier to do than upgrading US-190 and US-87 between San Angelo and Copperas Cove. Much of the route between Copperas Cove and Brady would need to be built on a new terrain path to get around development and build to Interstate quality grades and geometry.

I doubt if there has been any thought given to attempting to use any of the existing US 190 alignment between the west end of signed I-14 and US 87 at/near Brady; the only alignment that could conceivably be upgraded lies along US 87 between Brady and San Angelo.  And it's likely the corridor backers in San Angelo and M/O don't really give a shit what number eventually serves their city, as long as it gets built; they'd be equally happy with a "I-27W" between San Angelo and M/O than I-14.  It's highly probable that the sole reason the I-14 proposal got any traction at all in W. TX was because of the procrastination/inaction regarding the P-to-P, which has been formally in existence since the 1995 NHS legislation's batch of HPC's. 

I'm going to take a bit of an "educated guess" here that part of the renewed interest in the P-to-P/I-27 proposal emanates as much from the Del Rio area as Lubbock, particularly since if any of the I-14 "cluster" of corridors were actually adopted -- particularly the N-S connector between Eden and Junction (or even the variant suggested by Bobby that directly connects San Angelo with Junction), that would functionally put Del Rio, Eagle Pass, and other borderland areas out of the Interstate mix, since even the most outlandish of the I-14 proposals (the one along US 190 southwest of Brady) bypasses their area.  Since the "split corridor" I-14 concepts were clearly formulated out of political considerations (the San Angelo direct connector along US 87 traverses one congressional district, while the one along US 190 via Menard lies in the adjacent one to the south) -- if the P-to-P proposal is actually adopted as a future Interstate corridor, it would serve the southerly district, giving that particular politico some fresh pork to crow about to his constituents.  The I-14 corridor could be thus cut back to the US 87 alignment and the alternate alignments discarded.  Lubbock-San Antonio would be addressed by the San Angelo-Sonora section of the P-to-P/I-27 routing (indirect as it may be). 

My prediction is that if the I-27 proposal is advanced, regional attention -- and subsequently lobbying for funding -- will shift from I-14 to the older corridor.  I-14 in the "Triangle" will likely proceed in due time, but the segment from Copperas Cove to San Angelo will proceed in a more "leisurely" fashion -- after all, it still remains the first corridor in that region to formally be designated as an Interstate; it's backers won't "give up the ghost" about a westerly extension -- but neither will they be able to claim that the I-14 concept is the sole chance for a new Interstate server in the area.  It'll likely eventually get out to San Angelo -- but it'll be on a timeline about 25-35 years out rather than 15 or 20.  West Texas folks have wanted the P-to-P a lot longer than I-14; the latter was more or less a "consolation prize"; they'll almost surely jump at the chance to get what they wanted all along, while the other will be simply icing on that particular cake!