News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

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

Started by TheBox, June 08, 2021, 06:58:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

-- US 175 --

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 23, 2022, 01:28:05 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on March 23, 2022, 03:44:19 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 22, 2022, 10:05:43 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 22, 2022, 02:47:11 PM
They could route I-27 on the west loop and make it more "direct"  by adding mini spurs. On the south end it almost looks like ROW is set aside for it:




You need to move your south curve a mile west to the new loop

Also, that proposed Interchange needs to be reworked in favor of the new route. People should not need to have to take an Interchange on Interstate 27 in order to stay on Interstate 27. Instead, the ramps should go to the old route.

What are the Legs of Amarillo?

It is an offbeat outdoor sculpture, like the Cadillac Ranch.  IINM, there are similar art collective ties between the two.


ethanhopkin14

Quote from: -- US 175 -- on March 23, 2022, 11:23:57 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 23, 2022, 01:28:05 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on March 23, 2022, 03:44:19 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 22, 2022, 10:05:43 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 22, 2022, 02:47:11 PM
They could route I-27 on the west loop and make it more "direct"  by adding mini spurs. On the south end it almost looks like ROW is set aside for it:




You need to move your south curve a mile west to the new loop

Also, that proposed Interchange needs to be reworked in favor of the new route. People should not need to have to take an Interchange on Interstate 27 in order to stay on Interstate 27. Instead, the ramps should go to the old route.

What are the Legs of Amarillo?

It is an offbeat outdoor sculpture, like the Cadillac Ranch.  IINM, there are similar art collective ties between the two.

On that note, I want to check out "VW Beatle Ranch" on the east side of Amarillo. 

Bobby5280

I'd check out the Bug Ranch during the day time hours. The buildings around it are pretty much abandoned and covered with graffiti. At night it would work well as a spooky location in a rural horror movie.

The Ghostbuster

Maybe existing Interstate 27 north of TX 335 could become Business 27. The Business Route could follow S./N. Pierce St. and S./N. Fillmore St. through downtown, and then follow the Dumas Hwy. freeway northward to the northern TX 335 junction. US 87 could bypass Amarillo with Interstate 27 along TX 335.

bwana39

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 24, 2022, 04:59:20 PM
Maybe existing Interstate 27 north of TX 335 could become Business 27. The Business Route could follow S./N. Pierce St. and S./N. Fillmore St. through downtown, and then follow the Dumas Hwy. freeway northward to the northern TX 335 junction. US 87 could bypass Amarillo with Interstate 27 along TX 335.

No. While some of you seem to see US Highways as subordinate to Interstate Highways, Texans see Business ANYTHING as a road through a populous area riddled with red lights. In Texas, it would be better served from ALL directions if it simply remained as US-87 (Which it is all signed or co-signed as already. )
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

thisdj78

Quote from: rte66man on March 22, 2022, 10:05:43 PM

You need to move your south curve a mile west to the new loop

You're right, I totally forgot about the new alignment of the west loop.

In_Correct


Quote from: I-55 on March 23, 2022, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on March 23, 2022, 11:29:20 AM
Would they still keep the old route as a freeway? Seems like it would be a good 3di of I-27. Also for Loop 335, they could probably do something like the 495 beltway in DC where it is concurrent with I-27 on the western half.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2022, 10:05:12 PM
I wouldn't put it past TX DOT to simply "downgrade" the designation of the existing I-27 segment inside Loop 335 as "US-87." That would at least keep the route naming consistent in downtown and the two freeway segments North and South of downtown Amarillo. TX DOT has shown very little inclination to rename existing Texas Loop highways as Interstate named routes. One half of Loop 335 would be re-named I-27 if I-27 actually gets extended North of Amarillo. In Lubbock I don't expect Loop 289, Spur 327 or even US-82 going thru Lubbock to carry Interstate designations. I think something big would have to happen on the federal level to change the thinking (and that would only happen if the change in mindset included a whole lot of federal funding).

The old route would likely remain a non-interstate freeway. If they really cared about 3di designations there'd be several new designations for existing freeways in the DFW, Houston, and Austin areas in particular. Signing Loop 335 concurrent with I-27 would be consistent to what has been done in Laredo with Loop 20 and US-59 (and I think with I-69W as well)

&

Quote from: Thegeet on March 18, 2022, 11:18:50 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 18, 2022, 08:49:03 PM
I wonder how they will get it through Amarillo. The northern terminus feeds right into Downtown. Will TXDOT route it around the city on Loop 337 with the remaining piece becoming an x27? An elevated freeway would destroy the downtown area and a tunnel would be too expensive.
I don't think they will route the remainder of I-27 until a few decades. I can't unsee them displacing the downtown properties.

&

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2022, 11:38:55 AM
There is no way I-27 is ever going to get routed up through Downtown Amarillo. That is a pipe dream. Even 20 years ago it was a non-starter. BTW, this issue has been debated here in the past. People often bring up the I-44 viaduct in Wichita Falls as an example of how it could be done in Amarillo. But that is quite an apples to oranges comparison to downtown Amarillo.

The Holliday and Broad Street viaducts span 10 blocks to the West of downtown Wichita Falls. It's a little more than 3/4 of a mile long. A similar approach in Amarillo would be over twice as long, 29 blocks and over 2 miles. The viaducts would have to be built directly through downtown, not off to the side of it. Plus the BNSF rail lines provide an additional obstacle. The intersection with BL-40/Historic US-66 has its own set of complications.

A lot of new development and downtown beautification has taken place in Amarillo's downtown district within the last 10 or so years. Not only are there busy office towers where lots of people are working daily, but there's also now a thriving night life district in the same area. Attempting to build an elevated freeway through that would be highly destructive to all that growth.

The only work-able alternative of pushing I-27 directly thru downtown Amarillo would be a deep bore tunnel. But the costs of tunneling are so hideously extreme. We're talking multiple billions of dollars. There is no point of building such a thing in a modest sized city of 200,000 people. For what it would cost just to tunnel I-27 under downtown Amarillo you could build out much of a North extension of I-27 clear up to Limon, Colorado and I-70. Even a pair of elevated viaducts running nearly 30 city blocks would cost quite a lot of money, funding that could be better spent building out more miles of I-27 elsewhere.

If I-27 gets extended North of Amarillo the designation will get looped around the downtown area.

Quote

Plus the BNSF rail lines provide an additional obstacle.


The reason why so many people think Finishing Downtown is a possibility is be cause of the Rail Roads that the streets go over or under. Going under the tracks makes it seem possible for them to Trench a Superhighway through downtown. Going over the tracks (and buildings) makes it seem they can simply extend these bridges. If they were going to route Superhighways through most downtowns, they would have been constructed as such. It is very ugly for Highways to unravel through downtown and even worse about Amarillo is that The Frontage Roads unravel as well. It would actually be better for Interstate 27 to take the western half of Loop 335 while U.S. 87 takes the eastern half of Loop 335. Perhaps these Tangled Streets can be a B.R. 87 ... It might even look better if The Edges Of Downtown (or what ever those areas are called where the roads change places with each other) to have Roundabouts added to them. 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 17, 2022, 05:10:53 PM
US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo still needs a hell of a lot of work. The section going NW from the I-35W split still isn't up to Interstate standard
Quote from: I-55 on March 23, 2022, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on March 23, 2022, 11:29:20 AM
Would they still keep the old route as a freeway? Seems like it would be a good 3di of I-27. Also for Loop 335, they could probably do something like the 495 beltway in DC where it is concurrent with I-27 on the western half.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2022, 10:05:12 PM
I wouldn't put it past TX DOT to simply "downgrade" the designation of the existing I-27 segment inside Loop 335 as "US-87." That would at least keep the route naming consistent in downtown and the two freeway segments North and South of downtown Amarillo. TX DOT has shown very little inclination to rename existing Texas Loop highways as Interstate named routes. One half of Loop 335 would be re-named I-27 if I-27 actually gets extended North of Amarillo. In Lubbock I don't expect Loop 289, Spur 327 or even US-82 going thru Lubbock to carry Interstate designations. I think something big would have to happen on the federal level to change the thinking (and that would only happen if the change in mindset included a whole lot of federal funding).

The old route would likely remain a non-interstate freeway. If they really cared about 3di designations there'd be several new designations for existing freeways in the DFW, Houston, and Austin areas in particular. Signing Loop 335 concurrent with I-27 would be consistent to what has been done in Laredo with Loop 20 and US-59 (and I think with I-69W as well)
s after all these years. Now it needs to be widened to at least 3 lanes in each direction, but TX DOT is still farting around getting rid of the at-grade driveways between I-35W and Avondale. A bunch of other driveways and at-grade intersections exist North of there to the TX-114 split at Rhome. US-287 is a mess going through Decatur. If TX DOT can fix that crap in Decatur and up to Alford then Interstate quality upgrades of US-287 farther Northwest toward Wichita Falls will be much easier.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaYeah I-44 should be extended to Abilene and a lot of new alignment roadway would be needed for a more direct connection. This would allow for much better access for I-44 corridor traffic to have to west and SW Texas. I think Texas just sees that as Oklahoma's problem. They'd probably want to extend I-14 to Louisiana before I-44.

I'm not all that big a fan of the angled bends US-277 takes between Wichita Falls and Abilene. There is one serious bend at Munday and another at Anson, which bends the highway into a ESE direction. Still, not much would be gained trying to build a more direct new terrain route between Wichita Falls and Abilene. It would be a whole lot easier just doing further upgrades on US-277. Holliday, Dundee, Seymour, Goree, Munday, Weinert, Haskell and Stamford all had new bypasses built, most of which are at or near Interstate quality. Anson is the only town along the way without a freeway bypass. South of Anson, US-277 is 4-lane divided and flanked by continuous frontage roads. That stretch of US-277 would be easy to upgrade.

In a perfect world it would be nice if there was a Southwest running diagonal route from Anson to Sweetwater. That would be a good alternative for that US-277 back-bend to Abilene. Such a thing might have to be added as a toll road.

Quote

I'm not all that big a fan of the angled bends US-277 takes between Wichita Falls and Abilene.


There is a Gap on the outskirts of Wichita Falls where it is an Non Divided Highway. To avoid additional Bends, the alignment must be East of the current road. It would be a mostly straight alignment.

Quote

Such a thing might have to be added as a toll road.


:bigass:

Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

CoolAngrybirdsrio4

I wonder what caused them to allow the extension north to Raton, NM via Dumas, TX go to through, considering the fact it would complete less of the Ports to Plains corridor than extending it north along US 287 to Limon, Colorado.  :hmmm:
Renewed roadgeek

sprjus4

Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on May 20, 2022, 10:23:00 PM
I wonder what caused them to allow the extension north to Ramon, NM via Dumas, TX go to through, considering the fact it would complete less of the Ports to Plains corridor than extending it north along US 287 to Limon, Colorado.  :hmmm:
It would tie into I-25 at Raton, which then would continue traffic onto Denver and points north.

DJStephens

Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on May 20, 2022, 10:23:00 PM
I wonder what caused them to allow the extension north to Raton, NM via Dumas, TX go to through, considering the fact it would complete less of the Ports to Plains corridor than extending it north along US 287 to Limon, Colorado.  :hmmm:

Good Question.  Must be Texas based lobbyists on their side of the border - perhaps in Dalhart area?  Dalhart could use two bypasses (US 54 and US 87) for long distance trucking, if this pipedream ever moves towards reality, don't believe it ever will.  I cannot fathom anyone in Santa Fe supporting this, aside from a lone / rando representative from the NE corner of New Mexico.   Not saying it wouldn't be beneficial in a few regards, but the biggest downer is to "attract" more long distance freight / trucking / travelers to Raton Pass.   1.3 Billion for this?  In a state that didn't build facilities it should have back in the Day?  i.e. Albuquerque Beltway, N El Paso Bypass, Numerous bypasses state wide, antiquated bridge and interchange replacements, etc .   

abqtraveler

Quote from: DJStephens on May 22, 2022, 10:44:00 AM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on May 20, 2022, 10:23:00 PM
I wonder what caused them to allow the extension north to Raton, NM via Dumas, TX go to through, considering the fact it would complete less of the Ports to Plains corridor than extending it north along US 287 to Limon, Colorado.  :hmmm:

Good Question.  Must be Texas based lobbyists on their side of the border - perhaps in Dalhart area?  Dalhart could use two bypasses (US 54 and US 87) for long distance trucking, if this pipedream ever moves towards reality, don't believe it ever will.  I cannot fathom anyone in Santa Fe supporting this, aside from a lone / rando representative from the NE corner of New Mexico.   Not saying it wouldn't be beneficial in a few regards, but the biggest downer is to "attract" more long distance freight / trucking / travelers to Raton Pass.   1.3 Billion for this?  In a state that didn't build facilities it should have back in the Day?  i.e. Albuquerque Beltway, N El Paso Bypass, Numerous bypasses state wide, antiquated bridge and interchange replacements, etc .

I was listening to KKOB radio (yes....I listen to AM talk radio) during my commute out to Kirtland AFB last Wednesday, and during their news segment, KKOB's reporter mentioned that the New Mexico Legislature has allocated some funding for NMDOT to perform an "Engineering Study" along the US-64/87 corridor to determine what work would be required to upgrade the corridor to I-27. Still, I don't think development of the I-27 corridor in New Mexico will advance beyond that engineering study, but at least it gives folks an idea of what it will take to convert 64/87 to an interstate highway.
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: abqtraveler on May 23, 2022, 11:07:35 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on May 22, 2022, 10:44:00 AM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on May 20, 2022, 10:23:00 PM
I wonder what caused them to allow the extension north to Raton, NM via Dumas, TX go to through, considering the fact it would complete less of the Ports to Plains corridor than extending it north along US 287 to Limon, Colorado.  :hmmm:

Good Question.  Must be Texas based lobbyists on their side of the border - perhaps in Dalhart area?  Dalhart could use two bypasses (US 54 and US 87) for long distance trucking, if this pipedream ever moves towards reality, don't believe it ever will.  I cannot fathom anyone in Santa Fe supporting this, aside from a lone / rando representative from the NE corner of New Mexico.   Not saying it wouldn't be beneficial in a few regards, but the biggest downer is to "attract" more long distance freight / trucking / travelers to Raton Pass.   1.3 Billion for this?  In a state that didn't build facilities it should have back in the Day?  i.e. Albuquerque Beltway, N El Paso Bypass, Numerous bypasses state wide, antiquated bridge and interchange replacements, etc .

I was listening to KKOB radio (yes....I listen to AM talk radio) during my commute out to Kirtland AFB last Wednesday, and during their news segment, KKOB's reporter mentioned that the New Mexico Legislature has allocated some funding for NMDOT to perform an "Engineering Study" along the US-64/87 corridor to determine what work would be required to upgrade the corridor to I-27. Still, I don't think development of the I-27 corridor in New Mexico will advance beyond that engineering study, but at least it gives folks an idea of what it will take to convert 64/87 to an interstate highway.

If it ever were to get done that way, US-87 would disappear in New Mexico. 

Bobby5280

Not necessarily. Any town bypasses would leave the existing US-64/87 route intact through town. That would leave at least a chance for US-87 to be signed on those in-town segments. Any new Interstate going through Clayton would have to go around the town, not through the middle of it. I think the towns of Des Moines and Capulin are barely large enough that new terrain bypasses would be necessary. It would be pretty destructive upgrading the existing 64/87 alignment thru those towns. 

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 23, 2022, 04:35:47 PM
Not necessarily. Any town bypasses would leave the existing US-64/87 route intact through town. That would leave at least a chance for US-87 to be signed on those in-town segments. Any new Interstate going through Clayton would have to go around the town, not through the middle of it. I think the towns of Des Moines and Capulin are barely large enough that new terrain bypasses would be necessary. It would be pretty destructive upgrading the existing 64/87 alignment thru those towns.

They usually prefer renaming those in-town routes as business loops to avoid having to sign them on the long rural sections.  They might keep them, I just kinda thought they wouldn't. 

Bobby5280

I'm skeptical we'll get a chance to see what choice they make any time soon. I'll be surprised if they start doing any Interstate-class upgrades on US-64/87 in NE NM within the next 10-20 years. I expect more upgrade activity on US-287 in the TX-OK Panhandles and SE CO within that period of time.

abqtraveler

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 23, 2022, 04:58:38 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 23, 2022, 04:35:47 PM
Not necessarily. Any town bypasses would leave the existing US-64/87 route intact through town. That would leave at least a chance for US-87 to be signed on those in-town segments. Any new Interstate going through Clayton would have to go around the town, not through the middle of it. I think the towns of Des Moines and Capulin are barely large enough that new terrain bypasses would be necessary. It would be pretty destructive upgrading the existing 64/87 alignment thru those towns.

They usually prefer renaming those in-town routes as business loops to avoid having to sign them on the long rural sections.  They might keep them, I just kinda thought they wouldn't.

I would think NMDOT would keep both US-64 and US-87 regardless of whether they are assigned to the interstate alignment or routed through the towns along the corridor. The only reason I think they would keep 64/87 posted IF and when I-27 is designated is because it's less than 100 miles between adjoining signed sections in north/west of Raton and east/south into Texas, and so there would be continuity of both routes.
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Thegeet

Quote from: -- US 175 -- on March 23, 2022, 11:23:57 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 23, 2022, 01:28:05 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on March 23, 2022, 03:44:19 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 22, 2022, 10:05:43 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 22, 2022, 02:47:11 PM
They could route I-27 on the west loop and make it more "direct"  by adding mini spurs. On the south end it almost looks like ROW is set aside for it:




You need to move your south curve a mile west to the new loop

Also, that proposed Interchange needs to be reworked in favor of the new route. People should not need to have to take an Interchange on Interstate 27 in order to stay on Interstate 27. Instead, the ramps should go to the old route.

What are the Legs of Amarillo?

It is an offbeat outdoor sculpture, like the Cadillac Ranch.  IINM, there are similar art collective ties between the two.
You know what? If it's gonna be bypassed, it might as well take a sharp turn at Loop 335 like I-69 will at I-465. Idc anymore.

Plutonic Panda

^^^ well I do. I'd prefer better standards be the goal moving forward despite of the past.

jtespi

It was in the thread last year, but in case anyone's unaware, TxDOT is moving the Loop 335 alignment about 1 mile west from W Hollywood Road to 1 mile north of I-40.
This should bode well for an I-27 extension as the current Loop 335 alignment (S Soncy Road) has become heavily urbanized as a city street with no ROW from I-40 to SW 45th Avenue. It's pretty odd that just north of I-40, there's a clear 400 ft (120 m) ROW.

Here's a Google Street View from earlier this year at LP-335 and W Hollywood Road: https://goo.gl/maps/Qosa3sT5Y8TAaLmw6
And here's another one from March showing the new I-40 bridge at the future LP-335 alignment: https://goo.gl/maps/2J8AjRNZpG8DuJXM7

The rest of the NW quadrant of LP-335 has adequate ROW and nearly all interchanges built out, albeit some as a super-2 (except for SW 9th Ave).

Bobby5280

Yeah, it has been common knowledge for a few years that segments B-1 and B-2 of the Loop 335 upgrade project were going to shift the Loop 335 alignment a mile West from Soncy Road over to Helium Road. The frontage roads for those segments are visible in Google Earth (imagery dated 2/4/2021). I don't know the time table for the main freeway lanes being completed.

Segments A-1 and A-2 on the South side of Amarillo are nearly complete. It's going to take at least several more years for the rest of the loop to be finished. I'm guessing Segment A-4 and Segment D on the East side of Amarillo will be the last to be built. Then it will be a slow process getting new directional interchanges built. One stack interchange is definitely proposed for I-40 & Loop 335 on the West side of Amarillo. I don't know the plans for I-27 and Loop 335 on the South side, US-87 on the North side or I-40 on the East side. Those could remain as volleyball interchanges for the foreseeable future.

The Ghostbuster

Approximately how long will Interstate 27 be once it is fully extended southward to Laredo and northward to Raton, New Mexico? It will make the existing Lubbock-to-Amarillo route seem podunk in comparison. Of course, I doubt any of us will live to see 27 completed from Laredo to Lubbock, and Amarillo to Raton.

Bobby5280

Overall, a version of I-27 from Raton to Laredo would be about 855 miles long.

It's roughly 510 miles from the current South end of I-27 in Lubbock to the US-83 junction with I-35 just North of Laredo. Existing I-27 is 117 miles from its South end in Lubbock to Loop 335 on the South side of Amarillo. It would be another 18 miles routed on the West half of Loop 335 up to US-87. It's about 210 miles from the North side Amarillo to I-25 in Raton.

ethanhopkin14

I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it. 

Cerlin

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2022, 04:15:10 PM
I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.
What states only have majors? If we're not counting auxiliary, I know Kansas and Delaware are on that list too–is this too off topic? LOL
Hypocritical Leftist who loves driving/highways and all modes of transportation.

MATraveler128

Quote from: Cerlin on July 01, 2022, 04:39:16 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2022, 04:15:10 PM
I just realized, if I-27 does go to Raton, that will remove New Mexico from the small list of states that only have major interstate routes in it.
What states only have majors? If we're not counting auxiliary, I know Kansas and Delaware are on that list too–is this too off topic? LOL

Wyoming and Rhode Island
Decommission 128 south of Peabody!

Lowest untraveled number: 56



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.