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

[bwana39]

Answer: because the shields have meaning. An Interstate shield means "this route is guaranteed to be a freeway". A U.S. route shield means "this may or may not be a freeway but it's a long-distance route that probably will take you out of state". A state highway shield, especially in Texas, could mean absolutely anything, from a full-on ten-lane freeway to a chipsealed two-lane laid down straight over the hills without much grading. It's one of the things that makes driving in Texas irritating to me–I have no clue what I'm going to get from a Texas highway without looking at a map.

In that sense, states like Illinois and North Carolina that put an Interstate designation on most every freeway are doing it right. Now, Oklahoma isn't blameless here; not every freeway in my home state is an Interstate. But we also don't have anywhere near as many disparate freeways as Texas does, and at least this month Oklahoma took a step toward fixing that with its I-240 extensions and by introducing more 3xx numbers for turnpikes.

The funny thing is, your ideal system looks far more like the European system than the present one.

I have almost never seen a chipseal on a Texas State Highway - that treatment is generally reserved for the Farm/Ranch-to-Market roads. There are a couple of exceptions in West Texas, but in the Triangle, a white square means you're getting good pavement, wide shoulders, and 75 mph in rural areas.

I know we like seeing blue shields everywhere, but consider the perspective of the non-roadgeek, who only registers route numbers or names. From that perspective, changing the route number to give it a blue shield is far more disruptive than upgrading the highway, but keeping the number. If you're going to change the number of the highway just to appeal to some "lines on a map" sense of propriety, isn't that causing a lot of undue navigational stress? It might even cause more accidents than just keeping the number.

As to Chipseal, there used to be several examples of it on the Interstates. So I understand FHWA made them remove it. I-30 in Hopkins county was pre-interstate US-67 with (most of) the at grade crossings removed. (The last of the at grade crossings were fixed around 1990).  Back to the road: It had those LOUD expansion joints. The chipseal really helped. Between 1985 and the early nineties, they took up all of the pre-1955 concrete.

Today, Texas uses MOSTLY Asphaltic Concrete (Hotmix) Overlay on all the divided highways. I say mostly because just like the now disused practice of asphalt overlay on bridges, there are exceptions to almost everything EVEN ON THE INTERSTATES. There is still a good bit of chipseal on the FM Roads and a limited amount on the (primarily two lane) arterials.  Everywhere in Texas, asphalt overlay (even on brand new construction) is the preferred top coat.

I am going to mention one other thing. On here we hear so much about the "Texas Triangle" The triangle is purely a construct that is formed by the Interstate corridor triangle (I-10, I-35, and I-45.) Rural economic development is no more vibrant inside the "Triangle " than without. Realistically, a much better way to look at Texas is East Texas (The part of Texas east of I-35 and I-37) versus western Texas (the part west of them.)  I-10 MIGHT form an southerly barrier, but I-45 really is moot as a barrier or defining point in any differences in rural development including roads. (Building a corridor or two directly from Austin to Houston and getting  Bryan - College Station  into the grid of significant cities are exceptions.) Roads east of the I-35 corridor (which probably extends forty miles more less further west) clearly are better than those west of it.  From a rural highway perspective, the triangle really defines little to nothing.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Funny thing, the first time I heard the "triangle" broken out as a separately considered region was back about 2014 when the first inkling of the I-14 corridor was being publicized (a year before the actual designation).  Obviously it means something to a few folks (possibly Aggie alums) who are residing and/or doing business in the area -- more as a way to provide focus for the area rather than the eastern half of Texas as a whole.  I would suppose DFW and the adjoining regions -- who are increasingly identifying themselves as "North Texas" (I get the Dallas Morning News online daily, so this reference appears with almost every edition), would likely consider themselves separate from "triangle" folks.  I would suppose that a state as large and variegated as Texas would at some point psychically be self-divided and subsequently self-identified by subregion; a quick "defocus" viewing of any map pretty much delineates the "Triangle" by default.  It's probably of little overall consequence except to indicate to the outside world exactly where it is and how it relates to the remainder of the state and national region.  I wouldn't at all be surprised to see any promotional maps delineating the triangle complete with big arrows at or near the corners pointing to the major cities on its perimeter:  Houston, San Antonio>Austin, and DFW, if only to emphasize how close potential facilities located within the triangle are to established commercial centers for efficient travel or shipping.  BCS, and the nearby segments of the I-14 corridor, are likely preparing or already engaged in effort to entice major distribution facilities to that area (being criss-crossed by rail lines enhances that effort considerably!).  The triangle may be an artifice or construct -- but it's a well-placed one!

[bwana39]

First time I ever heard of the triangle, it was  a posting on here. I was killing myself to try to figure out how the posting applied to the only triangle I knew of in Texas (the GOLDEN Triangle: Beaumont, Orange, and Port Arthur)   

As to I-27 extension, I feel pretty confident there are going to be significant improvements made to the US-87 corridor . I expect we will see both alternatives (Abilene and Midland / Odessa) upgraded similarly. Do I see I-27 signs on them; maybe. The maybe comes with two caveats. If the Feds send " Interstate only" money is one. The other is if the attitude of how highways in Texas are (re)numbered.  I know there are lots of people especially OTR truckers who will disagree, but I don't see the cost of upgrading to full freeway through the rural stretches being cost effective or even warranted. I-69 is coming to NE Texas, but I am not sure it is needed through the rural areas. Getting freeway through / around the small and mid-sized towns is a totally different issue.

One of the key items I keep seeing here is the road geometry. You don't have to replace the entire road to improve the geometry. If you use Louisiana as an example, an Interstate might have to be built to those standards, there is not a mechanism to enforce they be maintained to said standards (geometry is kind of moot, but  road conditions and even signage are.)  A state doesn't need the Feds to force standards on them. They can make the same choice to upgrade the shortfalls on US and State Highways. If trucking associations would push for  improvements to particular shortfalls, they might be considered. On the other hand, just a generic wish list will seem like the industry wanting it all and want it now.

North Texas: This media phrase has taken hold and generally has overtaken the term the Metroplex. It acknowledges that Dallas and Tarrant counties are not the whole of the D-FW TV market or even the sole counties with significant population. (Collin County has over a million residents and Denton County has over 800,000.)

[TXtoNJ]

So it's okay for TxDOT to botch it so long as it happens where nobody notices?

If a tree falls in the middle of the woods? Lol

And yes, the Triangle is a more recent concept as the region has grown from three good-sized cities to two near megacities with a fast-growing southwestern corner. It's pretty apparent the areas surrounding the large cities have different interests than the ones particularly remote from it, even if they are both rural.

[bwana39]

This is a thread about a proposed or desired RURAL Freeway. This one clearly outside the hyped triangle. The point is the only differences between inside the triangle and outside it, particularly to the east, is road building from  Austin to Houston and Waco to College Station to Houston.

Much of the I-27 (and even I-14) build up work is coming. It is coming just like the Hubbard (Hill County) bypass on SH-31. Maybe we should be clamoring for SH-31 to be I-120 or perhaps I-535?  Even with a loop around every town, the Interstates or even Interstate type roads may be decades (or even centuries) away. Then again Freddie Mercury said it. "I (we) want it all, I want it all, AND I want it now."

Getting away from going through Corrigan or Marshall on US-59 means more than freeway between Carthage and Marshall ever will, This is the case on hundreds of US and State Highways both inside the triangle and outside of it. Fact of business; even outside of Texas.

[sparker]

This is a thread about a proposed or desired RURAL Freeway. This one clearly outside the hyped triangle. The point is the only differences between inside the triangle and outside it, particularly to the east, is road building from  Austin to Houston and Waco to College Station to Houston.

Much of the I-27 (and even I-14) build up work is coming. It is coming just like the Hubbard (Hill County) bypass on SH-31. Maybe we should be clamoring for 31 to be I-120 or perhaps I-535?  Even with a loop around every town, the Interstates or even Interstate type roads may be decades (or even centuries) away. Then again Freddie Mercury said it. "I (we) want it all, I want it all, AND I want it now."

Getting away from going through Corrigan or Marshall on US-59 means more than freeway between Carthage and Marshall ever will, This is the case on hundreds of US and State Highways both inside the triangle and outside of it. Fact of business; even outside of Texas.

At present, the status of the two corridors in the discussion (P2P/I-27, I-14) is quite different -- as far as actual planning (except for the Amarillo bypass), I-14 has the edge, although the overall P2P rationale is more compelling.  Right now P2P remains in the "study" phase; I-14, at least east of Temple, is defining alignments and how it ties in with the other regional arterials (TX 6, TX 249).  But there are some common features besides deciding how they're going to snake through San Angelo -- the I-14 N-S Eden branch would likely vanish if I-27 were to be developed along parallel US 277 -- and the overall efficacy of "I-14S" along the desolate western reaches of US 190 has yet to be parsed out for potential funding (my guess: like the center/AR/MS section of I-69, it'll be the last to be tackled, if at all).  But, hell -- that is a lot of freeway mileage for a relatively small population out in West Texas, and something's got to give at some point.  And at that point, there will be discussion as to just how to "rationalize" the various sections of the various routes, combining and/or eliminating the less reasonable -- unless politics intervenes (which it almost certainly will to some extent) and less needed corridors remain in the mix just because they serve someone's district.  Rep. Hurd, through whose district "I-14S" traveled, is no longer in Congress, but obviously his successor was able to hold on to that corridor portion (although that district will get plenty of work if the P2P finally sees full development).  Also, with a few extra House seats, there's liable to be redistricting, so whoever occupies the new districts, if relevant to these corridors, may have their own agenda. 

Aside from West Texas getting a boatload of Interstate mileage (much of it unnecessary or redundant), this is going to be an exercise in competing projects -- we'll have to see if the various parties can work together to get the most important segments done or simply argue the thing into a constant state of procrastination!

[DJStephens]

Although the Dumas-Raton segment of US 87 remains included in the P2P/HPC #38 corridor definition as a branch, most of the maps issued by TxDOT and the other backers of corridor development emphasize US 287 north across the OK panhandle and up to I-70 at Limon, CO as the principal "spine" and the one that would be likely to gain the I-27 designation.  Avoidance of the aging I-25 corridor south of Denver, and Raton Pass itself, seems to be a goal of said backers, any number of whom are likely connected to the trucking industry and looking to forge an alternate to the existing I-25/US 87 corridor.  Also likely to be a subject of avoidance:  NM and its oft-derided DOT, which has been loath to deploy free-flow facilities (most likely because of expense) and instead engage in widening or twinning of existing roads (like the heavily criticized US 550 corridor).  A P2P without severe gradients, even though it'll require considerably new construction, is probably going to be one of the governing criteria; avoidance of chokepoints like Pueblo and Colorado Springs would be icing on the cake.

Have seen the horrible decision-making and poor construction quality in NM up front and personal.  Over the last twenty five years.  Gary Johnson and Pete Rahn.   They locked in regressive design standards, that had started a decade or so before under Anthony Anaya.   Flush medians, skinny "half" shoulders, left hand "acceleration lanes", and shifting and skewing are all some of the low-lights. 
The NM 44/US-550 four lane project (early 00's) increased speeds and did not reduce death tolls on the heavily trafficked roadway between the N edge of Albuquerque, and Farmington.   Simply building a parallel roadway, with a vegetated median, would have prevented most of the fatalities that have occured, in the  last two decades on that route.   No margin of safety, with a "flush median" the errant vehicle goes into oncoming traffic, instead of a vegetated or grass median. 
Am actually surprised, to best of knowledge, that no one has hired a high powered lawyer to sue, because of poor design.  Would think a state department would desire to protect themselves from that sort of action.   Perhaps they are insulated, despite poor decision-making, on a rebuild, from that type of litigation. 
The Raton branch needs to be pruned off.  Not a good idea to direct long-distance freight, along a substandard US 64-87, and then over a pass with pavement that is breaking apart.   

[Bobby5280]

The unfortunate thing is while the state of New Mexico is pretty terrible with its highway standards Colorado is not a hell of a lot better. Colorado appears to be doing as little as possible to improve traffic handling capacity on its highways in the face of population growth along the front range.

For instance, I've seen the Colorado Springs area grow quite a lot over the past 25 years. Highway improvements in that area have been pretty modest in that time span. Some giant new housing addition will get dropped onto the map, complete with wide, landscaped streets. But it all dumps onto a 2-lane arterial no different than when it was wilderness. Oklahoma sucks compared to Colorado in a number of ways. But at least ODOT and the state government can convert a 2-lane road to 4-lane divided after enough traffic and head-on collisions take place.

With that in mind, even if Texas and Oklahoma can work together to get I-27 extended up North of Boise City to the edge of the caprock there is no guarantee Colorado will devote any of its resources to finish the highway up I-70. Such a thing needs to happen. But unless there is very clear (and well funded) prodding from the federal government there is no way I-27 would ever reach Limon.

[sparker]

Although the Dumas-Raton segment of US 87 remains included in the P2P/HPC #38 corridor definition as a branch, most of the maps issued by TxDOT and the other backers of corridor development emphasize US 287 north across the OK panhandle and up to I-70 at Limon, CO as the principal "spine" and the one that would be likely to gain the I-27 designation.  Avoidance of the aging I-25 corridor south of Denver, and Raton Pass itself, seems to be a goal of said backers, any number of whom are likely connected to the trucking industry and looking to forge an alternate to the existing I-25/US 87 corridor.  Also likely to be a subject of avoidance:  NM and its oft-derided DOT, which has been loath to deploy free-flow facilities (most likely because of expense) and instead engage in widening or twinning of existing roads (like the heavily criticized US 550 corridor).  A P2P without severe gradients, even though it'll require considerably new construction, is probably going to be one of the governing criteria; avoidance of chokepoints like Pueblo and Colorado Springs would be icing on the cake.

Have seen the horrible decision-making and poor construction quality in NM up front and personal.  Over the last twenty five years.  Gary Johnson and Pete Rahn.   They locked in regressive design standards, that had started a decade or so before under Anthony Anaya.   Flush medians, skinny "half" shoulders, left hand "acceleration lanes", and shifting and skewing are all some of the low-lights. 
The NM 44/US-550 four lane project (early 00's) increased speeds and did not reduce death tolls on the heavily trafficked roadway between the N edge of Albuquerque, and Farmington.   Simply building a parallel roadway, with a vegetated median, would have prevented most of the fatalities that have occured, in the  last two decades on that route.   No margin of safety, with a "flush median" the errant vehicle goes into oncoming traffic, instead of a vegetated or grass median. 
Am actually surprised, to best of knowledge, that no one has hired a high powered lawyer to sue, because of poor design.  Would think a state department would desire to protect themselves from that sort of action.   Perhaps they are insulated, despite poor decision-making, on a rebuild, from that type of litigation. 
The Raton branch needs to be pruned off.  Not a good idea to direct long-distance freight, along a substandard US 64-87, and then over a pass with pavement that is breaking apart.   

If by (unfortunate) chance a decision is made to shunt I-27 over the Dumas-Raton section of US 87 instead of north along US 287 into OK and CO, it's unlikely that the twinned section of the existing route in NM would be utilized as the basis for the alignment; it would have to be completely rebuilt, with bypasses as required, or replaced with a parallel new-terrain alignment (I'd venture to guess the former, simply to save as much as possible on ROW).  Unfortunately, the overall effect would be to dump traffic onto I-25 over Raton Pass and up through Pueblo and the Springs on a woefully inadequate (for the existing traffic load, no less) facility.  Hopefully, more rational heads will prevail and select the US 287 pathway despite the need for new alignment for most of its length.

The unfortunate thing is while the state of New Mexico is pretty terrible with its highway standards Colorado is not a hell of a lot better. Colorado appears to be doing as little as possible to improve traffic handling capacity on its highways in the face of population growth along the front range.

For instance, I've seen the Colorado Springs area grow quite a lot over the past 25 years. Highway improvements in that area have been pretty modest in that time span. Some giant new housing addition will get dropped onto the map, complete with wide, landscaped streets. But it all dumps onto a 2-lane arterial no different than when it was wilderness. Oklahoma sucks compared to Colorado in a number of ways. But at least ODOT and the state government can convert a 2-lane road to 4-lane divided after enough traffic and head-on collisions take place.

With that in mind, even if Texas and Oklahoma can work together to get I-27 extended up North of Boise City to the edge of the caprock there is no guarantee Colorado will devote any of its resources to finish the highway up I-70. Such a thing needs to happen. But unless there is very clear (and well funded) prodding from the federal government there is no way I-27 would ever reach Limon.

Quite correct; it'll take a definitive federal "earmark" for any I-27 project north of TX to reach fruition, as well as some prodding of CDOT by state legislators from the eastern plains regions to remind the agency and its executive superiors that the state includes more than the Front Range and the tourist areas in the mountains.  Absent that, a completed I-27 would likely have a long lasting northern "temporary" terminus somewhere around Stratford, TX. 

[Rothman]

Earmarks rarely totally fund a project and commonly only provide a small fraction if the cost.

[Bobby5280]

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

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

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

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

Traffic entering I-25 at Raton is (currently) a relatively small contribution to overall traffic levels along I-25 thru the Front Range cities. Population migration to that region is having a greater effect. Far more improvements need to be made to I-25 regardless of what happens with the Ports to Plains Corridor.

CDOT continues to make various head-scratching decisions. I'm still baffled by the re-build of I-25 thru much of Pueblo. The end product still features only 2 lanes in each direction. It stays 2x2 between Pueblo and Colorado Springs, despite traffic levels getting heavier. I-25 doesn't expand past a 2x2 lanes configuration until the exit by World Arena. And that's well inside Colorado Springs, not far from downtown. A lot of work was done to I-25 in the central and Northern part of the Springs. But the end result is little more than a 3x3 setup. Nothing impressive at all. You won't see a 4x4 configuration until the Southern outskirts of Denver. 20+ years ago Powers Blvd in the Springs was intended to be turned into an Interstate quality loop. All these years later it's mostly a glorified city street. Woodmen Road is a similar situation. US-24 remains pretty dangerous going East of the Springs.

So, yeah, it will take a lot of federal money (and stern marching orders) to force CDOT to build its part of an I-27 extension. CDOT and the CO state government will never do that on its own volition.

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

[ethanhopkin14]

^^  I have contested for years if I-27 were to be extended, it would A) be extended as a route with a control city of Denver (in other words, maybe not directly to Denver, but making it to an interstate that does) and B) staying east of the Rockies for easier terrain.  That leaver the US-87 to US-287 corridor (Amarillo-Dumas-Boise City-Kit Carson-Limon).  It makes all the sense.  Why would the interstate bend way west to Raton to dump traffic on the already poor conditioned Raton Pass when you can send the traffic on the very flat plains of the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles plus the flat side of Colorado?  It's a straighter shot and serves as a separate route than I-25 (sans the I-70 section from Limon to Denver). 

I also feel the US-87\US-287 corridor will serve the much needed Dallas/Ft. Worth to Denver corridor better than a route to Raton will (this of course when upgrading the US-287 corridor from Ft. Worth to Amarillo to interstate takes place.  Not if, because it is going to happen).

[sparker]

Earmarks rarely totally fund a project and commonly only provide a small fraction if the cost.

Unless it's a continuing stream of earmarks, generally from a specific congressperson or even a state delegation, that is sought yearly, a single earmark definitely wouldn't do much to fund a project -- particularly one with the length and separate state jurisdictions of this one.  The principal drawback of such a corridor being principally promoted from one state (as the P2P is re TX) is that adding the other states to the mix often is problematic due to a mismatch of priorities.  In this case, OK probably won't be a continuing problem, as they've already done some preliminary work (Boise City bypass) and the overall mileage is relatively short; it's convincing CO interests to back something in a largely forgotten part of the state that'll probably prove quite daunting.  It's similar in that respect to I-49 in AR:  it doesn't serve the interests of LR -- and when it comes to that corridor, the desire to serve the rapidly growing -- and politically important -- NWA region has resulted in the northern half of I-49 being close to completion, while the remainder, through a decidedly less populated region, continues to languish while specific aspects of the corridor are being hashed out on paper; there seems to be no rush to actually build much of anything.  And the plains of SE CO, while devoid of major mountain obstacles, just haven't been on the state's developmental radar -- it's not as if there would be a significant near-term economic impact beyond the provision of roadside amenities.  It'll likely take a great deal of convincing on the part of the (mostly) TX-based backers -- possibly "buttonholing" at the congressional level -- to get CO parties on board with this.  Even though the mileage is less, the US 87/Raton route would probably pose much the same issues, with the added "we just addressed that route; why would we do it again so soon afterward" counterargument.  Neither corridor branch is an optimal choice regarding political feasibility, but the 287/Limon option does provide the best long-term prospect for regional value.   

[Bobby5280]

In the meantime, given the complications posed by both the New Mexico and Colorado state governments, any substantial upgrades to I-27 will probably stay confined within Texas. It's possible we could see I-27 extended North of Amarillo to Dumas and maybe as far North as Stratford. But most of the improvements would be happening South of Lubbock.

[sprjus4]

It makes all the sense.  Why would the interstate bend way west to Raton to dump traffic on the already poor conditioned Raton Pass when you can send the traffic on the very flat plains of the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles plus the flat side of Colorado?  It's a straighter shot and serves as a separate route than I-25 (sans the I-70 section from Limon to Denver).

A route via Raton would be 385 miles between Dumas and Denver, as opposed to 375 miles via the plains to I-70. Not seeing how it's "way"  out of the way.

Why would they build the interstate to Raton as opposed to Limon? Cost. The eastern, plains route is nearly 300 miles of new terrain highway paralleling outdated 2 lane road. The route via Raton would involve around 160 miles of largely upgradable, existing 4 lane divided highway.

Traffic today is already likely following the Raton route, so I couldn't see it adding significant amounts of traffic.

There's pros and cons for both routes. Obviously, the Raton route has the I-25 issue. The eastern route has the cost issue.

[Rothman]

Earmarks rarely totally fund a project and commonly only provide a small fraction if the cost.

Unless it's a continuing stream of earmarks, generally from a specific congressperson or even a state delegation, that is sought yearly, a single earmark definitely wouldn't do much to fund a project -- particularly one with the length and separate state jurisdictions of this one. 

Continuing stream of earmarks...got an example of actual federal earmark funding that fully funded a project?

[sparker]

Earmarks rarely totally fund a project and commonly only provide a small fraction if the cost.

Unless it's a continuing stream of earmarks, generally from a specific congressperson or even a state delegation, that is sought yearly, a single earmark definitely wouldn't do much to fund a project -- particularly one with the length and separate state jurisdictions of this one. 

Continuing stream of earmarks...got an example of actual federal earmark funding that fully funded a project?

Pre-ISTEA, MD was able to use congressional earmarks to construct/upgrade both I-97 and hidden I-595/US 50, as part of the "Annapolis Triangle" -- now with the middle connector along MD 3 gone.  But the main goal of that project -- an efficient connector to both Annapolis and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge from both Baltimore and Washington, replacing substandard facilities, was in fact realized.  More recently, "backdoor" earmarks, framed as projects furthering another purpose, courtesy of now-departed Sen. Harry Reid resulted in the construction of the O'Callaghan/Tillman bridge near Hoover Dam -- and later the initial outlay for the first stages of the I-11 approach from the NV side.  While not enabling the construction of I-11 outside LV Metro, putting that quasi-urban section with tourism value first echoed the decisions of CA's DOH in the early Interstate years, where the city-sited segments liable to provoke any controversy were developed first, with rural mileage following.  Again referring to the unfinished section of I-49 in AR, the plan is to tackle (a) the US 71 overlay segments up in the mountains first, along with selected bypasses of the various towns along the route.  Such a strategy would likely be viable for US 287 in SE CO; initial bypasses -- even at Super-2 or expressway standards, would be something that probably would be attractive to the citizens of Springfield, Lamar, and Eads; connecting those bypasses with, again Super-2 standards (on a 4-lane ROW) would provide interim benefit to the region; the full I-27 could come later in the process.  Since earmarks have come out of hiding; using them -- one outlay at a time if required -- to incrementally improve the corridor might be an attractive prospect to CO parties, whereas the "big gulp" approach would likely be dead in the water.  If one doesn't overreach when designating said earmarks, they probably have a better chance of actually producing corridor progress.  To paraphrase Mr. Eastwood, a congressman's got to know their limitations!     

[NE2]

Why would they build the interstate to Raton as opposed to Limon? Cost. The eastern, plains route is nearly 300 miles of new terrain highway paralleling outdated 2 lane road.

Outdated? http://www.codot.gov/news/2011news/06-2011/another-highway-40-287-project-begins

[Rothman]

Earmarks rarely totally fund a project and commonly only provide a small fraction if the cost.

Unless it's a continuing stream of earmarks, generally from a specific congressperson or even a state delegation, that is sought yearly, a single earmark definitely wouldn't do much to fund a project -- particularly one with the length and separate state jurisdictions of this one. 

Continuing stream of earmarks...got an example of actual federal earmark funding that fully funded a project?

Pre-ISTEA, MD was able to use congressional earmarks to construct/upgrade both I-97 and hidden I-595/US 50, as part of the "Annapolis Triangle" -- now with the middle connector along MD 3 gone.  But the main goal of that project -- an efficient connector to both Annapolis and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge from both Baltimore and Washington, replacing substandard facilities, was in fact realized.  More recently, "backdoor" earmarks, framed as projects furthering another purpose, courtesy of now-departed Sen. Harry Reid resulted in the construction of the O'Callaghan/Tillman bridge near Hoover Dam -- and later the initial outlay for the first stages of the I-11 approach from the NV side.  While not enabling the construction of I-11 outside LV Metro, putting that quasi-urban section with tourism value first echoed the decisions of CA's DOH in the early Interstate years, where the city-sited segments liable to provoke any controversy were developed first, with rural mileage following.  Again referring to the unfinished section of I-49 in AR, the plan is to tackle (a) the US 71 overlay segments up in the mountains first, along with selected bypasses of the various towns along the route.  Such a strategy would likely be viable for US 287 in SE CO; initial bypasses -- even at Super-2 or expressway standards, would be something that probably would be attractive to the citizens of Springfield, Lamar, and Eads; connecting those bypasses with, again Super-2 standards (on a 4-lane ROW) would provide interim benefit to the region; the full I-27 could come later in the process.  Since earmarks have come out of hiding; using them -- one outlay at a time if required -- to incrementally improve the corridor might be an attractive prospect to CO parties, whereas the "big gulp" approach would likely be dead in the water.  If one doesn't overreach when designating said earmarks, they probably have a better chance of actually producing corridor progress.  To paraphrase Mr. Eastwood, a congressman's got to know their limitations!     

You talk like a politician -- filling a response to a question with a lot of verbosity and irrelevance.

I wonder about the Tillman Bridge and what type of funding was actually used for it (and if I can actually look it up somehow...).  Regarding I-595, which is now ancient history, I suppose anything went decades ago in Congress, but despite earmarks making a comeback recently, the times they have a-changed.

"Initial outlays" are not full funding and in fact the exact issue I mentioned on earmarks:  States still have to come up with their core federal or state funding to make up the difference.

[Henry]

Upgrading the Raton route would be a great first step to a nonstop Denver-Dallas route. Along with upgrades to the US 287 corridor south of Amarillo, it can easily be achieved.

[sparker]

Earmarks rarely totally fund a project and commonly only provide a small fraction if the cost.

Unless it's a continuing stream of earmarks, generally from a specific congressperson or even a state delegation, that is sought yearly, a single earmark definitely wouldn't do much to fund a project -- particularly one with the length and separate state jurisdictions of this one. 

Continuing stream of earmarks...got an example of actual federal earmark funding that fully funded a project?

Pre-ISTEA, MD was able to use congressional earmarks to construct/upgrade both I-97 and hidden I-595/US 50, as part of the "Annapolis Triangle" -- now with the middle connector along MD 3 gone.  But the main goal of that project -- an efficient connector to both Annapolis and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge from both Baltimore and Washington, replacing substandard facilities, was in fact realized.  More recently, "backdoor" earmarks, framed as projects furthering another purpose, courtesy of now-departed Sen. Harry Reid resulted in the construction of the O'Callaghan/Tillman bridge near Hoover Dam -- and later the initial outlay for the first stages of the I-11 approach from the NV side.  While not enabling the construction of I-11 outside LV Metro, putting that quasi-urban section with tourism value first echoed the decisions of CA's DOH in the early Interstate years, where the city-sited segments liable to provoke any controversy were developed first, with rural mileage following.  Again referring to the unfinished section of I-49 in AR, the plan is to tackle (a) the US 71 overlay segments up in the mountains first, along with selected bypasses of the various towns along the route.  Such a strategy would likely be viable for US 287 in SE CO; initial bypasses -- even at Super-2 or expressway standards, would be something that probably would be attractive to the citizens of Springfield, Lamar, and Eads; connecting those bypasses with, again Super-2 standards (on a 4-lane ROW) would provide interim benefit to the region; the full I-27 could come later in the process.  Since earmarks have come out of hiding; using them -- one outlay at a time if required -- to incrementally improve the corridor might be an attractive prospect to CO parties, whereas the "big gulp" approach would likely be dead in the water.  If one doesn't overreach when designating said earmarks, they probably have a better chance of actually producing corridor progress.  To paraphrase Mr. Eastwood, a congressman's got to know their limitations!     

You talk like a politician -- filling a response to a question with a lot of verbosity and irrelevance.

I wonder about the Tillman Bridge and what type of funding was actually used for it (and if I can actually look it up somehow...).  Regarding I-595, which is now ancient history, I suppose anything went decades ago in Congress, but despite earmarks making a comeback recently, the times they have a-changed.

"Initial outlays" are not full funding and in fact the exact issue I mentioned on earmarks:  States still have to come up with their core federal or state funding to make up the difference.

I used to write proposals for a living -- for both public and private projects -- so some of that still permeates my writing; sorry if that's a problem for anyone.  And during the "dark years" of 1973 through 1991, when getting an Interstate corridor designated (much less built!) earmarks were a vital part of most efforts unless intrastate transfers or Howard-Cramer mileage could be applied (how the initial I-49 mileage in LA was made possible).  Having friends in high places also helped quite a bit (I-39 in IL); also having a combination of state legislative and DOT support is an immeasurable benefit.  It's not the 80 points that the Feds supply for NHS and/or HPC's, it's that 20 percent that has to be sourced in-state (either the state itself, any relevant MPO's, or local jurisdictions) that invariably proves problematic.  So far, that's been the stumbling block for numerous corridor projects -- and the primary reason why I-69 between TX and Memphis will continue to lag behind the other segments. 

Re the Colorado River bridge:  I-11 wasn't designated until 2 years after its completion; the project was done to restore a direct commercial connection from LV south and east after the Hoover Dam was declared off-limits to such traffic post 9/11; there was general pissing & moaning from the trucking industry about the detour through Laughlin; when that came to a head circa 2004 or so, specific funding (essentially a back-door "earmark") was found for the bridge project; since it was a NHS route, it got the requisite 80% federal funding plus enough grant money to bring the federal share up a couple of points; the rest was split between the Vegas MPO (which came up with much of the remainder), NDOT, and ADOT (the latter got off relatively cheap, as the case was made that LV's growing warehousing industry would be the principal beneficiary of the new bridge).  Again, although the "Canamex" corridor had been designated since 1995, it wasn't until 2012 that the Phoenix-Vegas portion was made I-11; the immediate effect of that was to expedite the Boulder City bypass and approach to the new bridge; with AZ's segment of US 93 being a divided expressway, a high-speed connection to eastward I-40 (with the exception of central Kingman) was finished in 2017, which is what the trucking and warehouse industries wanted in the first place. 

Upgrading the Raton route would be a great first step to a nonstop Denver-Dallas route. Along with upgrades to the US 287 corridor south of Amarillo, it can easily be achieved.

That would be something that would have to be planned separately from the mainline P2P corridor; one could say that if Dumas-to-Limon becomes a reality, the Dumas-Raton "branch" will be at least "back-burnered" as redundant for Amarillo-Denver movements.  The sole salient feature of the Raton option is service to interim points such as Pueblo and Colorado Springs to and from Texas; neither of those have developed into a commercial "hub" like greater Denver; the near-term need to provide similar service there just isn't present. 

   

[Rothman]

Earmarks rarely totally fund a project and commonly only provide a small fraction if the cost.

Unless it's a continuing stream of earmarks, generally from a specific congressperson or even a state delegation, that is sought yearly, a single earmark definitely wouldn't do much to fund a project -- particularly one with the length and separate state jurisdictions of this one. 

Continuing stream of earmarks...got an example of actual federal earmark funding that fully funded a project?

Pre-ISTEA, MD was able to use congressional earmarks to construct/upgrade both I-97 and hidden I-595/US 50, as part of the "Annapolis Triangle" -- now with the middle connector along MD 3 gone.  But the main goal of that project -- an efficient connector to both Annapolis and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge from both Baltimore and Washington, replacing substandard facilities, was in fact realized.  More recently, "backdoor" earmarks, framed as projects furthering another purpose, courtesy of now-departed Sen. Harry Reid resulted in the construction of the O'Callaghan/Tillman bridge near Hoover Dam -- and later the initial outlay for the first stages of the I-11 approach from the NV side.  While not enabling the construction of I-11 outside LV Metro, putting that quasi-urban section with tourism value first echoed the decisions of CA's DOH in the early Interstate years, where the city-sited segments liable to provoke any controversy were developed first, with rural mileage following.  Again referring to the unfinished section of I-49 in AR, the plan is to tackle (a) the US 71 overlay segments up in the mountains first, along with selected bypasses of the various towns along the route.  Such a strategy would likely be viable for US 287 in SE CO; initial bypasses -- even at Super-2 or expressway standards, would be something that probably would be attractive to the citizens of Springfield, Lamar, and Eads; connecting those bypasses with, again Super-2 standards (on a 4-lane ROW) would provide interim benefit to the region; the full I-27 could come later in the process.  Since earmarks have come out of hiding; using them -- one outlay at a time if required -- to incrementally improve the corridor might be an attractive prospect to CO parties, whereas the "big gulp" approach would likely be dead in the water.  If one doesn't overreach when designating said earmarks, they probably have a better chance of actually producing corridor progress.  To paraphrase Mr. Eastwood, a congressman's got to know their limitations!     

You talk like a politician -- filling a response to a question with a lot of verbosity and irrelevance.

I wonder about the Tillman Bridge and what type of funding was actually used for it (and if I can actually look it up somehow...).  Regarding I-595, which is now ancient history, I suppose anything went decades ago in Congress, but despite earmarks making a comeback recently, the times they have a-changed.

"Initial outlays" are not full funding and in fact the exact issue I mentioned on earmarks:  States still have to come up with their core federal or state funding to make up the difference.

It's not the 80 points that the Feds supply for NHS and/or HPC's, it's that 20 percent that has to be sourced in-state (either the state itself, any relevant MPO's, or local jurisdictions) that invariably proves problematic.  So far, that's been the stumbling block for numerous corridor projects -- and the primary reason why I-69 between TX and Memphis will continue to lag behind the other segments.   

This statement (and the rest that followed stemming from the same logic) represents a significant misunderstanding of how federal funding is apportioned to the States and the pressures on those funds.

This is why I focused on the type of funding.  Earmarks received their own FHWA program code, separate from core federal funding.  By "core federal funding," I mean the major fund sources: NHPP, STBG (people still call it STP), HSIP, and CMAQ.

Yes, the 80% or 90% is problematic for States when it comes to large, new construction projects because States already have standing capital programs.  So, when you get an earmark, you assign that dinky bit of money to a project (your "initial outlay").  The outstanding amount comes out of a State's federal apportionment.  That's money that the State could dedicate to preservation rather than new construction.  There are more needs than there are funds for, so the 80% is definitely problematic.

So, no, it is not the dinky 20% match that holds up major projects (I'd also wonder about a State that would make this claim).  It is the overall demand on the available funding, whether federal or state.  In fact, during my career, I can say that I have never encountered a major project where NYSDOT was worried about coming up with the match.  It was always about how to find the funding for a project within yearly statewide amounts -- fitting it into the overall puzzle without breaking the annual bank.

That also gets us to "advance construction" versus obligation and the race to obligate funds before the end of the FFY, while worrying about encumbering your State funding by the end of the SFY.  These pressures also come to bear on major projects without having any real worry on coming up with the match.  Heck, I know some offices that throw the match into their spreadsheets when tallying up "federal funds" (causing some confusion amongst engineers -- "Wait, I have State funds that can be used on federal-aid ineligible roads on this project, right?" "NO!"). 

Also remember that the vast majority of federal funding is a reimbursement program.  States have to have all the money up front anyway.

I still think it is highly unlikely given today's climate that you'll ever see earmarks "strung together" year after year to fully fund a project, especially given the design process, come to think of it (i.e., going from scoping to design approval to PS&E, while needing time for ROW incidentals and acquisition -- the timing's off).  Earmarks will always be a congressperson's "let them eat cake" way of showing support for a project and appeasing constituents, but the real meat will always fall on a State's back to find in its core apportionments (which DOTs can lobby their delegations to increase)...or through borrowing the funds outright.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OK, point taken -- in your position you probably deal with this stuff on a continuing basis.  I can see how a DOT can view a piece of congressional action as just another unfunded project (and hardly a "mandate", given the disconnect between political will and fiscal reality).  But another reality -- beyond road policy differences among the states -- is that some states, like yours and mine -- and TX, for that matter, likely are able to amass sufficient funds, even considering the "upfront" requirement, to at least do incremental work on their federally-funded corridors and routes; a lot, particularly in low-tax/low-service states, may have trouble in this regard.  Major projects in these states simply sit there as lines on a map for this reason -- again, MS provides a prime example.  They certainly got lucky with I-22; most of the route within the state was already finished to freeway standards, albeit somewhat substandard, due to its ADC status (which was successfully "milked" by successive congressional delegations to include those standards); so once Interstate status was conferred in 2004 it only took 12 years to complete and sign it both within the state but also neighboring AL.  I for one would certainly like to see a spreadsheet of the funding approach to that project.  But apparently MS "blew their wad" on that project plus the new-terrain I-269; everything since then has been directed to rehabilitation (and Ida probably set them back 3-5 years as well); fortunately, no one's whining too much about the lack of MS progress on I-69 (even in this forum!).  But the relatively flush states, except TX and NC, tend to push the congressional corridors to the rear of the queue these days (this includes I-86 in NY -- something that should have been fully completed at least west of Binghamton) in favor of maintenance/rehabiitation needs  (the obvious "squeaky wheel", so to speak) -- not that it's anything less than a fully valid choice, but I do question prioritizing such things as teardowns (already well-discussed) over finishing longstanding projects -- the result of political mandates of another kind! 

With earmarks making a comeback, it'll be interesting to see if they serve to at least prompt some states to actually let the initial phases of corridor projects.  One thing about I-27, though -- the Interstate designation(s) for the corridor didn't make it into the original Senate draft; while the House reconciliation is yet to be released, it's unlikely that P2P will make it this year; one massive 5-state corridor concept (I-14, of course) probably ate up virtually all of the available bandwidth for such things, particularly within a bill ostensibly intended to prioritize rail and transit.  But Interstates are "red meat" projects -- particularly rural corridors (possibly the only type we'll see going forward) that hold the promise of construction jobs followed by roadside business jobs in regions experiencing historically low income levels.  That's one of the reasons they get proposed in the first place.  So expect these "unfunded concepts" to continue to be rolled out.  Occasionally one or two make sense and actually have real value -- but until such time as a nationally-vetted chargeable Interstate program is revived (hardly likely within my lifetime!) this process is likely to remain the norm.   

[Bobby5280]

Why would they build the interstate to Raton as opposed to Limon? Cost. The eastern, plains route is nearly 300 miles of new terrain highway paralleling outdated 2 lane road.

Outdated? http://www.codot.gov/news/2011news/06-2011/another-highway-40-287-project-begins

How much of that new construction is 4-lane divided highway with Interstate quality grading? As far as I can tell the only thing CDOT is doing is replacing existing 2-lane road with a better driving surface.

The sole salient feature of the Raton option is service to interim points such as Pueblo and Colorado Springs to and from Texas; neither of those have developed into a commercial "hub" like greater Denver; the near-term need to provide similar service there just isn't present.

Colorado Springs is not some small town, even though the highway network in Colorado tries to treat Colorado Springs that way.

[US 89]

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

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