Decided to make a new thread on this topic.
https://www.lubbockonline.com/story/news/2022/03/15/lubbock-amarillo-interstate-27-expansion-gets-federal-designation-omnibus-bill/7052683001/
https://krtnradio.com/2022/03/15/us-designates-future-interstate-27-part-of-the-interstate-highway-system/
https://www.kcbd.com/2022/03/15/ports-to-plains-i-27-expansion-signed-into-law-with-federal-budget/
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/lubbock-with-help-from-biden-and-congress-on-the-road-to-become-an-international-trade-route/
It's official! The I-27 extension from Lubbock following US 87, US 277, and US 83 to Laredo was signed into law yesterday by President Biden. It also includes an extension of I-27 north of Amarillo to Raton, NM via US 87.
Fuck Boise City And Limon In Particular, Congress Says
A Very Annoying Web Site:
https://www.lubbockonline.com/story/news/2022/03/15/lubbock-amarillo-interstate-27-expansion-gets-federal-designation-omnibus-bill/7052683001/
For Your Convenience:
Quote
Raton to Laredo corridor added to Interstate Highway System, paving way for I-27 expansion
Alex Driggars
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal
Map of the I-27 Corridor study initiated by the Texas Legislature in 2020. The "mainline" I-27 route will start from the existing I-27 from Lubbock, following US 87 to Big Spring, San Angelo, to US 277 to Del Rio and US 83 to Laredo
West Texas lawmakers and public policy leaders are celebrating a huge milestone for the future of Interstate 27, as Pres. Joe Biden signed a bill into law Tuesday that includes federal highway designation for portions of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor in Texas and New Mexico.
As part of the sweeping $1.5 trillion FY 2022 omnibus appropriations bill, the Port-to-Plains Corridor from Raton, New Mexico to Laredo, Texas was added to the federal Interstate Highway System, marking the first step for I-27 to expand from its current Lubbock-to-Amarillo route southward to the Mexican border at Laredo, through the Texas Panhandle, eventually north to the Canadian border.
From Jan.:West Texas leaders say I-27 extension still in play after I-14 gets first nod
"Establishing a four lane, federal highway for I-27 is a game-changer for our economy and quality of life in West Texas for decades to come and will strengthen our food security and energy independence for the entire country," U.S. Rep. Jodey C. Arrington, R-Lubbock, said Tuesday, adding that the designation was one of his top three goals when he took office in 2016. "I had a lot of help from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I'm humbled by the opportunities this will provide for generations of West Texans."
From 2021:Arrington, Cuellar reintroduce Ports-to-Plains act to extend I-27
From 2020:Reps. Arrington, Cuellar introduce bill designating Ports-to-Plains a federal highway
According to a Texas Department of Transportation study, the extension of I-27 could mean big improvements to safety on Texas' roads, decreasing the state's annual crash rate by as much as 21 percent. It could also increase the state's gross domestic product by more than $55 million and add upwards of 22,000 new jobs, Arrington's office said.
"The Ports to Plains Regional effort has been ongoing for decades, and today the interstate designation for I-27 has finally been signed into law," Lubbock Mayor Dan Pope said Tuesday. "Thank you to Congressman Jodey Arrington for his leadership on this project. This momentous achievement is due to the unwavering support from leaders like Randy Neugebauer and Robert Duncan. This designation will ultimately improve necessary infrastructure and increase safety in Texas for commerce and visitors. This is a huge local, regional, and state-wide win."
Good luck getting the funding to construct it. I know I won't live long enough to see much of it complete.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on March 16, 2022, 06:21:16 AM
Good luck getting the funding to construct it. I know I won't live long enough to see much of it complete.
I know that New Mexico will never come up with the money to upgrade US-64/87 to interstate standards, so from my perspective, the Ports to Plains Corridor in New Mexico is dead on arrival.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 16, 2022, 03:46:04 AM
Fuck Boise City And Limon In Particular, Congress Says
True, it would have been nice to have Limon as a control city on two Interstates, not just one.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 16, 2022, 03:46:04 AM
Fuck Boise City And Limon In Particular, Congress Says
It looks like according to some of those articles it will go through the Oklahoma panhandle as well unless I'm misreading something.
QuoteThe Ports-to-Plains Corridor has been an effort for decades, working to open transportation and interstate infrastructure from Colorado across northeast New Mexico and the Oklahoma panhandle, through the Texas panhandle including Lubbock and Amarillo, south through west Texas connecting to Midland and San Angelo before finally connecting to Laredo at the Texas border.
- https://www.kcbd.com/2022/03/15/ports-to-plains-i-27-expansion-signed-into-law-with-federal-budget/
I knew this would happen! If anything, I-27 would stand a far better chance of being built south of Lubbock than it would north of Amarillo, and good luck trying to punch a freeway through the middle of the latter city, unless a Jersey City-type situation would arise, where it would connect two distinct freeway sections via surface streets. Good luck figuring that one out.
Probably a re-Route would have to done in Amarillo. Looks like bypassing the city to the west would be an option.
Quote from: Henry on March 16, 2022, 12:26:41 PM
I knew this would happen! If anything, I-27 would stand a far better chance of being built south of Lubbock than it would north of Amarillo, and good luck trying to punch a freeway through the middle of the latter city, unless a Jersey City-type situation would arise, where it would connect two distinct freeway sections via surface streets. Good luck figuring that one out.
I know the inevitable comments to come to this but guess what I'd propose?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 16, 2022, 02:04:24 PM
Quote from: Henry on March 16, 2022, 12:26:41 PM
I knew this would happen! If anything, I-27 would stand a far better chance of being built south of Lubbock than it would north of Amarillo, and good luck trying to punch a freeway through the middle of the latter city, unless a Jersey City-type situation would arise, where it would connect two distinct freeway sections via surface streets. Good luck figuring that one out.
I know the inevitable comments to come to this but guess what I'd propose?
More than likely, they would reroute I-27 around Amarillo through their loop.
The big question will it have a child loop at Big Springs, as it's proposed to go through both Midland and the aforementioned?
Nothing about taking over Future I-2 southeast to Brownsville or a northern extension to I-70 at Limon?
Man, I just can't wait for Limon to be the most useful control city.
It will be interesting to see what kind of funding the corridor will attract. It's a good bet parts of Future I-27 between Lubbock and Laredo could start getting built sometime soon, starting with US-87 improvements in or near towns along the route. North of Amarillo is more murky. I can imagine a short extension from Amarillo to Dumas happening within 10-20 years. That could be a relatively easy upgrade. It may be a long wait for segments farther North. Not unless the federal government gets fixated on road building again.
Quote from: abqtravelerI know that New Mexico will never come up with the money to upgrade US-64/87 to interstate standards, so from my perspective, the Ports to Plains Corridor in New Mexico is dead on arrival.
Aside from the NM state government's stance on things, there is no value in routing a northern extension of I-27 to Raton, even if US-64/87 in NE NM is part of the Ports to Plains Corridor. If the extension went North along US-287 it would give motorists,
truckers in particular, an alternative to going over Raton Pass to get into Colorado.
I would still go through Raton for my own road trips from Lawton to Colorado Springs. That's the shorter route. But it's a lot easier for someone to drive a passenger vehicle over Raton Pass than driving a loaded semi-truck. Then there is the issue of weather. Having two good quality alternatives between the Texas Panhandle and Southern Colorado would be good in cases of winter weather or summer storms, either of which can close down either route.
Quote from: roadman65The big question will it have a child loop at Big Springs, as it's proposed to go through both Midland and the aforementioned?
Big Spring is not a problem. I-27 would obviously be routed along the new US-87 freeway bypass going around the West side of Big Spring.
Quote from: SkyPesosNothing about taking over Future I-2 southeast to Brownsville or a northern extension to I-70 at Limon?
There is no reason for an I-27 extension ending in Laredo to cannibalize I-2 farther South of Laredo. Leave I-2 alone.
Yes then make Laredo a four interstate City and have I-2 and I-27 head to head end. Yes KC will have it if or when I-49 gets completed as it will end opposite I-29, but that is been with one freeway existing for decades.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 16, 2022, 02:38:26 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 16, 2022, 02:04:24 PM
Quote from: Henry on March 16, 2022, 12:26:41 PM
I knew this would happen! If anything, I-27 would stand a far better chance of being built south of Lubbock than it would north of Amarillo, and good luck trying to punch a freeway through the middle of the latter city, unless a Jersey City-type situation would arise, where it would connect two distinct freeway sections via surface streets. Good luck figuring that one out.
I know the inevitable comments to come to this but guess what I'd propose?
More than likely, they would reroute I-27 around Amarillo through their loop.
Fortunately Amarillo is a relatively small city that wouldn't require some extensive out of the way bypass that be much longer rather than routing it straight the city.
I shudder about my comment earlier (in a similar thread) regarding US-287 in the Oklahoma panhandle near the Colorado border. I'm not a fan of rural 2-lane roads, particularly ones that dip and weave over irregular terrain, like that one does moving over the caprock boundary. One of my girlfriend's friends was killed in a head-on collision out there.
Then this evening I heard about the horrible 2-vehicle crash in West Texas. 9 people killed, 2 in a pickup truck and 7 others in a van. All from a head-on collision on a narrow 2-lane road out in the boonies. Apparently the pickup truck driver swerved over into the van's lane, hitting it head-on at high speed. I'm wondering why a van full of college athletes driving home to Hobbs after a meet in Midland were on FM-1788 rather than US-385. FM-1788 might be a "short cut" from Midland to Seminole. But US-385 is 4-lane divided the whole way, thus a hell of a lot safer from head-on collisions.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaFortunately Amarillo is a relatively small city that wouldn't require some extensive out of the way bypass that be much longer rather than routing it straight the city.
It's a foregone conclusion a Northern extension of I-27 out of Amarillo would be routed around the West half of Loop 335. The whole 335 loop is going to get upgraded to Interstate standards, with the West side of it getting finished first. An I-27 extension Northward may do more to get the proposed directional stack interchange with I-40 and Loop 335 finished earlier than planned. It will be interesting to see how TX DOT accommodates the transition of I-27 onto Loop 335 on Amarillo's South side. It looks like too much development has taken place on the corners of the I-27/Loop-335 volleyball. They may have to build a short freeway connector to jump from I-27 over to Loop 335 to the West of that interchange. It would be similar to the Spur-327 thing on the SW corner of Lubbock.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on March 16, 2022, 01:25:30 AM
Decided to make a new thread on this topic.
https://www.lubbockonline.com/story/news/2022/03/15/lubbock-amarillo-interstate-27-expansion-gets-federal-designation-omnibus-bill/7052683001/
https://krtnradio.com/2022/03/15/us-designates-future-interstate-27-part-of-the-interstate-highway-system/
https://www.kcbd.com/2022/03/15/ports-to-plains-i-27-expansion-signed-into-law-with-federal-budget/
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/lubbock-with-help-from-biden-and-congress-on-the-road-to-become-an-international-trade-route/
It's official! The I-27 extension from Lubbock following US 87, US 277, and US 83 to Laredo was signed into law yesterday by President Biden. It also includes an extension of I-27 north of Amarillo to Raton, NM via US 87.
So now, we have permission to think about it. This is about what the "law" amounts to. There is no dedicated funding. There is no decree to actually build it. It is just a way for local members of Congress to say they are bringing home the bacon , when they really aren't. Texas is probably more likely to build I-27 than Louisiana is to build I-69, but then again just like I-69 (in Louisiana) is that where the actual priorities lie when the spending actually comes to pass?
So now it's in the same category as I-11 north of Vegas. Meh. Update me when there are solid environmental documents and construction plans.
An extension of I-27 from Lubbock to Big Spring and San Angelo would be a plus for all the oil industry activity in the Permian Basin. It will be interesting to see what happens with the "I-27W & I-27E" concept that adds Midland-Odessa into the mix. Big Spring is along the natural main line for the route. But Midland-Odessa has a fairly significant metro population. It's basically the second biggest oil business metro after Houston.
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 16, 2022, 09:22:46 AM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on March 16, 2022, 06:21:16 AM
Good luck getting the funding to construct it. I know I won't live long enough to see much of it complete.
I know that New Mexico will never come up with the money to upgrade US-64/87 to interstate standards, so from my perspective, the Ports to Plains Corridor in New Mexico is dead on arrival.
As for New Mexico, I am guessing they will simply build a bypass of Des Moines and Clayton and let the rest take 40 years since most of it is divided 4 lane anyway, just not interstate standards.
Here is the sign outside Clayton.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51947931782_5d3579890b_b.jpg)
Quote from: edwaleni on March 19, 2022, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 16, 2022, 09:22:46 AM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on March 16, 2022, 06:21:16 AM
Good luck getting the funding to construct it. I know I won't live long enough to see much of it complete.
I know that New Mexico will never come up with the money to upgrade US-64/87 to interstate standards, so from my perspective, the Ports to Plains Corridor in New Mexico is dead on arrival.
As for New Mexico, I am guessing they will simply build a bypass of Des Moines and Clayton and let the rest take 40 years since most of it is divided 4 lane anyway, just not interstate standards.
Couldn't remember how the highway ran through Des Moines so I looked it up on Google Maps. I was shocked to find a street labeled "Swastika Ave". Really??
Quote from: rte66man on March 20, 2022, 07:58:45 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on March 19, 2022, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 16, 2022, 09:22:46 AM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on March 16, 2022, 06:21:16 AM
Good luck getting the funding to construct it. I know I won't live long enough to see much of it complete.
I know that New Mexico will never come up with the money to upgrade US-64/87 to interstate standards, so from my perspective, the Ports to Plains Corridor in New Mexico is dead on arrival.
As for New Mexico, I am guessing they will simply build a bypass of Des Moines and Clayton and let the rest take 40 years since most of it is divided 4 lane anyway, just not interstate standards.
Couldn't remember how the highway ran through Des Moines so I looked it up on Google Maps. I was shocked to find a street labeled "Swastika Ave". Really??
How dare they have a street named after a symbol that's been around for millennia?
I suppose it is strange they haven't changed it.
Quote from: Rothman on March 20, 2022, 08:32:26 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 20, 2022, 07:58:45 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on March 19, 2022, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 16, 2022, 09:22:46 AM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on March 16, 2022, 06:21:16 AM
Good luck getting the funding to construct it. I know I won't live long enough to see much of it complete.
I know that New Mexico will never come up with the money to upgrade US-64/87 to interstate standards, so from my perspective, the Ports to Plains Corridor in New Mexico is dead on arrival.
As for New Mexico, I am guessing they will simply build a bypass of Des Moines and Clayton and let the rest take 40 years since most of it is divided 4 lane anyway, just not interstate standards.
Couldn't remember how the highway ran through Des Moines so I looked it up on Google Maps. I was shocked to find a street labeled "Swastika Ave". Really??
How dare they have a street named after a symbol that's been around for millennia?
I suppose it is strange they haven't changed it.
That's probably the point of his post.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 20, 2022, 10:13:32 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 20, 2022, 08:32:26 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 20, 2022, 07:58:45 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on March 19, 2022, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 16, 2022, 09:22:46 AM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on March 16, 2022, 06:21:16 AM
Good luck getting the funding to construct it. I know I won't live long enough to see much of it complete.
I know that New Mexico will never come up with the money to upgrade US-64/87 to interstate standards, so from my perspective, the Ports to Plains Corridor in New Mexico is dead on arrival.
As for New Mexico, I am guessing they will simply build a bypass of Des Moines and Clayton and let the rest take 40 years since most of it is divided 4 lane anyway, just not interstate standards.
Couldn't remember how the highway ran through Des Moines so I looked it up on Google Maps. I was shocked to find a street labeled "Swastika Ave". Really??
How dare they have a street named after a symbol that's been around for millennia?
I suppose it is strange they haven't changed it.
That's probably the point of his post.
Wonder what the point of yours was.
In the case of Des Moines it would probably be cheaper just to buy and clear the properties on the North side of the street and upgrade the highway straight thru town. Otherwise the highway would need to bypass the town around its Southwest side. The BNSF rail line runs fairly close to US-64/87, so a bypass around the North side of town would require some significant rail bridge crossings.
An upgrade straight through town would probably be the best thing for the town. The displaced businesses would have a better chance to start over and even thrive after the new highway was completed.
The town of Capulin is another example, although a bypass there would only have to go North about a block to have a fairly clear shot. Only a couple or so properties would need to be removed and others would have much shorter driveway entrances to their homes.
Grenville would be an easy upgrade. That little town is built only on the Southwest side of US-64/87. Same goes for the town of Mount Dora.
Really Clayton and Texline are the two biggest obstacles to an Interstate upgrade of US-64/87.
I think the obvious solution for Clayton is a bypass on the Southwest side of town, about 8 or 10 blocks WSW of the current US-64/87 route thru town. An Interstate bypass would be a mixed blessing. It's possible some of the existing road trip service related businesses in town could shrivel up. But most of those hotels, restaurants and fuel stops are run by national chains. I don't think Loves would have all that much of a problem building a new location along an Interstate exit. A big new Valero store was recently opened in town, even with a separate RV Fueling canopy. There isn't a lot of places out in that region to fuel up and get food. So even if an bypass is built, quite a few motorists would still have to go into Clayton for certain services.
Quote from: Rothman on March 20, 2022, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 20, 2022, 10:13:32 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 20, 2022, 08:32:26 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 20, 2022, 07:58:45 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on March 19, 2022, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 16, 2022, 09:22:46 AM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on March 16, 2022, 06:21:16 AM
Good luck getting the funding to construct it. I know I won't live long enough to see much of it complete.
I know that New Mexico will never come up with the money to upgrade US-64/87 to interstate standards, so from my perspective, the Ports to Plains Corridor in New Mexico is dead on arrival.
As for New Mexico, I am guessing they will simply build a bypass of Des Moines and Clayton and let the rest take 40 years since most of it is divided 4 lane anyway, just not interstate standards.
Couldn't remember how the highway ran through Des Moines so I looked it up on Google Maps. I was shocked to find a street labeled "Swastika Ave". Really??
How dare they have a street named after a symbol that's been around for millennia?
I suppose it is strange they haven't changed it.
That's probably the point of his post.
Wonder what the point of yours was.
What do I need to spell it out with a fucking crayon? It's pretty obvious that it's a weird name. That's my point. I don't think anyone commenting about it really cares or needs to know how long Swastika symbols have been around given they're irrelevant.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 20, 2022, 11:48:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 20, 2022, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 20, 2022, 10:13:32 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 20, 2022, 08:32:26 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 20, 2022, 07:58:45 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on March 19, 2022, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 16, 2022, 09:22:46 AM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on March 16, 2022, 06:21:16 AM
Good luck getting the funding to construct it. I know I won't live long enough to see much of it complete.
I know that New Mexico will never come up with the money to upgrade US-64/87 to interstate standards, so from my perspective, the Ports to Plains Corridor in New Mexico is dead on arrival.
As for New Mexico, I am guessing they will simply build a bypass of Des Moines and Clayton and let the rest take 40 years since most of it is divided 4 lane anyway, just not interstate standards.
Couldn't remember how the highway ran through Des Moines so I looked it up on Google Maps. I was shocked to find a street labeled "Swastika Ave". Really??
How dare they have a street named after a symbol that's been around for millennia?
I suppose it is strange they haven't changed it.
That's probably the point of his post.
Wonder what the point of yours was.
What do I need to spell it out with a fucking crayon?
Sins of a feather evidently flock together.
Quote from: Rothman on March 20, 2022, 11:50:34 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 20, 2022, 11:48:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 20, 2022, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 20, 2022, 10:13:32 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 20, 2022, 08:32:26 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 20, 2022, 07:58:45 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on March 19, 2022, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 16, 2022, 09:22:46 AM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on March 16, 2022, 06:21:16 AM
Good luck getting the funding to construct it. I know I won't live long enough to see much of it complete.
I know that New Mexico will never come up with the money to upgrade US-64/87 to interstate standards, so from my perspective, the Ports to Plains Corridor in New Mexico is dead on arrival.
As for New Mexico, I am guessing they will simply build a bypass of Des Moines and Clayton and let the rest take 40 years since most of it is divided 4 lane anyway, just not interstate standards.
Couldn't remember how the highway ran through Des Moines so I looked it up on Google Maps. I was shocked to find a street labeled "Swastika Ave". Really??
How dare they have a street named after a symbol that's been around for millennia?
I suppose it is strange they haven't changed it.
That's probably the point of his post.
Wonder what the point of yours was.
What do I need to spell it out with a fucking crayon?
Sins of a feather evidently flock together.
Don't you have a freeway to remove in Syracuse or something? Lol
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 20, 2022, 11:23:55 AM
In the case of Des Moines it would probably be cheaper just to buy and clear the properties on the North side of the street and upgrade the highway straight thru town. Otherwise the highway would need to bypass the town around its Southwest side. The BNSF rail line runs fairly close to US-64/87, so a bypass around the North side of town would require some significant rail bridge crossings.
An upgrade straight through town would probably be the best thing for the town. The displaced businesses would have a better chance to start over and even thrive after the new highway was completed.
The town of Capulin is another example, although a bypass there would only have to go North about a block to have a fairly clear shot. Only a couple or so properties would need to be removed and others would have much shorter driveway entrances to their homes.
Grenville would be an easy upgrade. That little town is built only on the Southwest side of US-64/87. Same goes for the town of Mount Dora.
Really Clayton and Texline are the two biggest obstacles to an Interstate upgrade of US-64/87.
I think the obvious solution for Clayton is a bypass on the Southwest side of town, about 8 or 10 blocks WSW of the current US-64/87 route thru town. An Interstate bypass would be a mixed blessing. It's possible some of the existing road trip service related businesses in town could shrivel up. But most of those hotels, restaurants and fuel stops are run by national chains. I don't think Loves would have all that much of a problem building a new location along an Interstate exit. A big new Valero store was recently opened in town, even with a separate RV Fueling canopy. There isn't a lot of places out in that region to fuel up and get food. So even if an bypass is built, quite a few motorists would still have to go into Clayton for certain services.
True, but the powers that be in New Mexico will never get around to performing any upgrades on 64/87, unless Congress earmarks funds specifically to convert 64/87 to an interstate (also highly unlikely) for two reasons: 1) officials in NM believe 64/87 doesn't carry enough traffic to warrant an upgrade to interstate, and more importantly, 2) anything that isn't in--or doesn't connect to--Albuquerque or Santa Fe automatically gets pushed to the bottom of the priority list in NM.
Yep, I agree. But I'm speaking in hypotheticals about what could happen if the NM state government was more in favor of an Interstate upgrade out there. I still think it's more worthwhile to upgrade US-287 straight North into SE Colorado. It would give long haul truckers a good quality alternative to Raton Pass, a divided four lane road with limited access -as opposed to the current US-287 2-lane road that is more dangerous. With Interstates going over Raton Pass and crossing the caprock in the Panhandles truckers could use either route as an alternative for the other in bad weather situations.
I think if TX DOT, ODOT and CDOT put focused effort on upgrading the US-287 corridor it might actually light a fire under the butts of legislators in New Mexico. Those lawmakers might actually get worried motorists that usually pass through NE NM might choose to drive elsewhere and spend money on highway stops elsewhere too.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2022, 04:05:44 PM
I think if TX DOT, ODOT and CDOT put focused effort on upgrading the US-287 corridor it might actually light a fire under the butts of legislators in New Mexico. Those lawmakers might actually get worried motorists that usually pass through NE NM might choose to drive elsewhere and spend money on highway stops elsewhere too.
And also, that might be the occasion to amalgate or merge the Port-to-Plains corridor with another corridor, the Heartland Expressway aka Theodore Roosevelt Expwy.
https://pal.memberclicks.net/assets/newsletter_2022/Benefits_of_the_Heartland_Expressway.pdf
https://www.trexpressway.com/usrfiles/view2.pdf
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on March 21, 2022, 04:39:01 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2022, 04:05:44 PM
I think if TX DOT, ODOT and CDOT put focused effort on upgrading the US-287 corridor it might actually light a fire under the butts of legislators in New Mexico. Those lawmakers might actually get worried motorists that usually pass through NE NM might choose to drive elsewhere and spend money on highway stops elsewhere too.
And also, that might be the occasion to amalgate or merge the Port-to-Plains corridor with another corridor, the Heartland Expressway aka Theodore Roosevelt Expwy.
https://pal.memberclicks.net/assets/newsletter_2022/Benefits_of_the_Heartland_Expressway.pdf
https://www.trexpressway.com/usrfiles/view2.pdf
I fully support a N-S interstate through the Hills, doubt there's traffic to justify anything north of I-70 though. That would also give Saskatchewan an interstate border crossing!
I think I-27 has to get extended up to Limon just to open the door to ideas new limited access corridors farther North.
One thing I wonder: what would an exit list for the extended I-27 look like? Would the road be long enough for the first four-digit exit numbers in this country's history? Either way, I'd like to see a possible exit list!
Quote from: KCRoadFan on March 22, 2022, 06:34:04 PM
One thing I wonder: what would an exit list for the extended I-27 look like? Would the road be long enough for the first four-digit exit numbers in this country's history? Either way, I'd like to see a possible exit list!
Definitely not 4 digits as its planned to end at Laredo (unless we convert to km). However, if it takes over I-2 and makes it to Brownsville, I measured out 910 miles in Texas, though note that I followed US routes (notably US 83, 277, 87) in the measurement the entire way.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 22, 2022, 06:42:02 PM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on March 22, 2022, 06:34:04 PM
One thing I wonder: what would an exit list for the extended I-27 look like? Would the road be long enough for the first four-digit exit numbers in this country's history? Either way, I'd like to see a possible exit list!
Definitely not 4 digits as its planned to end at Laredo (unless we convert to km). However, if it takes over I-2 and makes it to Brownsville, I measured out 910 miles in Texas, though note that I followed US routes (notably US 83, 277, 87) in the measurement the entire way.
It won't go past Laredo. I-2 is the Brownsville-Laredo route.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2022, 04:05:44 PM
Yep, I agree. But I'm speaking in hypotheticals about what could happen if the NM state government was more in favor of an Interstate upgrade out there. I still think it's more worthwhile to upgrade US-287 straight North into SE Colorado. It would give long haul truckers a good quality alternative to Raton Pass, a divided four lane road with limited access -as opposed to the current US-287 2-lane road that is more dangerous. With Interstates going over Raton Pass and crossing the caprock in the Panhandles truckers could use either route as an alternative for the other in bad weather situations.
I think if TX DOT, ODOT and CDOT put focused effort on upgrading the US-287 corridor it might actually light a fire under the butts of legislators in New Mexico. Those lawmakers might actually get worried motorists that usually pass through NE NM might choose to drive elsewhere and spend money on highway stops elsewhere too.
These "lawmakers" and politicians are more concerned with west coast imported "progressive" ideals and thought processes. While in reality, it is a large, western state, that could, and should have had an extensive four lane network in place by now. A network that should have been built to much higher standards. So many deficiencies, and so many mistakes, it is hard to find a place to start.
But yes, would agree with your desire to upgrade US-287 from DFW westward, and to build a future extension of I-27 to Limon, CO, in lieu of any upgrades in NE New Mexico. It is not a good idea to "attract" long distance traffic and trucking to Raton Pass. Period.
I think the state of New Mexico's road system has less to do with culture wars bullshit and more to do with the fact that it's 45th in per-capita GDP, right between Kentucky and South Carolina.
It's really a bit of both. New Mexico's state legislature and its associated bureaucracies are just plain grossly out of touch with reality.
One of the tribes my sign company works with has a project in development off an Interstate at a certain location in New Mexico. They have been going thru red tape f***king hell for the past two years, all for a decent-sized travel stop and casino off an exit where there is really no other development. The state is demanding they spend a shit-ton of money on temporary access roads and entrances built to state standards which the state also demands they spend even more money to remove after the construction is finished since those "temporary" access points would be in the state's right of way. It's tone deaf as hell. I'm surprised the tribe is still even trying to go thru with the project rather than build something similar in a different state.
My own politics are pretty centrist; I'm pretty liberal on some topics and more conservative on others. But this crap of red tape machinery existing just for the sole purpose of stifling business, even tribe-associated business is just too f***king stupid to be believable. But yet New Mexico makes it possible.
I don't enjoy s***-talking New Mexico since I was born there. We have all the aristocrafts sipping their tea in Santa Fe while the rest of the state is a mostly low income backwater. If it wasn't for the oil business in the Southeast region New Mexico would be dead last in every metric.
Oklahoma is bad enough with some of its red tape nonsense. At least our state's leaders are asking some objective questions why things continue to be this way other than just preserving "tradition." I think Oklahoma is a little more jealous of all the growth that has taken place in Texas. New Mexico's state government is too ignorant to even notice.
New Mexico has really been growing on me lately. I used to not care so much about it and I've found that concepts like proper customer service seem to be a complete afterthought there but I'm considering buying some land in northern nm somewhere. Honestly I've been to just every single city, part of the state EXCEPT for Santa Fe go figure. It's on my to do list this year.
I honestly don't think New Mexico has the worst roads but they aren't the best. I think Colorado gives New Mexico a run for its money in regards to an under built system. They really should get on the ball with planning new freeways and conversions around Albuquerque. I have a feeling that city is "undiscovered" so to speak and will experience high growth one day.
I really like Albuquerques six lane road networks. I wish OKC could take note.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 03, 2022, 04:51:28 PM
It's really a bit of both. New Mexico's state legislature and its associated bureaucracies are just plain grossly out of touch with reality.
One of the tribes my sign company works with has a project in development off an Interstate at a certain location in New Mexico. They have been going thru red tape f***king hell for the past two years, all for a decent-sized travel stop and casino off an exit where there is really no other development. The state is demanding they spend a shit-ton of money on temporary access roads and entrances built to state standards which the state also demands they spend even more money to remove after the construction is finished since those "temporary" access points would be in the state's right of way. It's tone deaf as hell. I'm surprised the tribe is still even trying to go thru with the project rather than build something similar in a different state.
My own politics are pretty centrist; I'm pretty liberal on some topics and more conservative on others. But this crap of red tape machinery existing just for the sole purpose of stifling business, even tribe-associated business is just too f***king stupid to be believable. But yet New Mexico makes it possible.
I don't enjoy s***-talking New Mexico since I was born there. We have all the aristocrafts sipping their tea in Santa Fe while the rest of the state is a mostly low income backwater. If it wasn't for the oil business in the Southeast region New Mexico would be dead last in every metric.
Oklahoma is bad enough with some of its red tape nonsense. At least our state's leaders are asking some objective questions why things continue to be this way other than just preserving "tradition." I think Oklahoma is a little more jealous of all the growth that has taken place in Texas. New Mexico's state government is too ignorant to even notice.
If you want State money, you have to play by State rules. Yep, temp roads have to be by State standards...
ETA: If you don't use State standards, whose are you going to go by and ensure safety of the traveling public? My wife works with State reimbursement of municipality transportation expenses and has to deny them all the time because of shoddy, substandard and outright unsafe work.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 03, 2022, 06:04:46 PM
I honestly don’t think New Mexico has the worst roads but they aren’t the best. I think Colorado gives New Mexico a run for its money in regards to an under built system. They really should get on the ball with planning new freeways and conversions around Albuquerque. I have a feeling that city is “undiscovered” so to speak and will experience high growth one day.
You do realize the Paseo del Norte freeway is the only component of a failed beltway plan that got built? I don't think any new freeway proposal in Albuquerque will ever live to see the light of day. Paseo del Volcan is the only thing that even has a shot, and that's years and years off. Tramway should probably be a freeway, and probably has the ROW for it if you put in tight diamonds/SPUIs for the interchanges (see Bangerter Highway in Salt Lake for a good example of this), but Tramway goes through rich NIMBYland and any upgrades would require moving the bike trail that currently occupies the east half of the ROW. Good luck with that.
Regarding growth... I love Albuquerque and would be happy to live there, but to be honest that's because of family connections. My grandma used to live there and a hell of a lot of other family still does, so I've been there more times than I care to count and I've gotten a pretty good feel for the area. ABQ is not going to grow in the way other inland western cities like Denver or Salt Lake City have been recently until the city's crime stats improve. I have a cousin who is an Albuquerque Police officer and he is...well, not optimistic.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 03, 2022, 03:56:04 PM
I think the state of New Mexico's road system has less to do with culture wars bullshit and more to do with the fact that it's 45th in per-capita GDP, right between Kentucky and South Carolina.
If that is the case, why are states such as Alabama and Mississippi so much better in delivering a product to the motoring public? In terms of planning, design, and construction quality and standards. Well for starters, those southeastern states didn't have Tony Anaya, Gary Johnson, Bill Richardson, or Pete Rahn.
New Mexico is becoming more of a "dumb bell" in terms of wealth distribution. A lot of west coast transplants, coming since the mid to late seventies. In notable numbers. They tend to bring their "politics" and vote in high percentage of their total numbers. And they have brought their money. Some have even become politicians here, as well as public sector types. That's probably where this regressive stuff, here locally, is coming from. Road diets. Tight corner radii. Skewing and Shifting. Skinny shoulders. Bad sight lines. Poor horizontal and vertical curvature. Over-densification of land use.
So a fair amount of "rich" and a fair amount of "poor". It could be argued - not many in the "middle". A lot of public sector types, in NM also, it might have one of the highest percentage of total employment in the public sector workforce - of any state.
Quote from: US 89 on April 03, 2022, 11:51:06 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 03, 2022, 06:04:46 PM
I honestly don't think New Mexico has the worst roads but they aren't the best. I think Colorado gives New Mexico a run for its money in regards to an under built system. They really should get on the ball with planning new freeways and conversions around Albuquerque. I have a feeling that city is "undiscovered" so to speak and will experience high growth one day.
You do realize the Paseo del Norte freeway is the only component of a failed beltway plan that got built? I don't think any new freeway proposal in Albuquerque will ever live to see the light of day. Paseo del Volcan is the only thing that even has a shot, and that's years and years off. Tramway should probably be a freeway, and probably has the ROW for it if you put in tight diamonds/SPUIs for the interchanges (see Bangerter Highway in Salt Lake for a good example of this), but Tramway goes through rich NIMBYland and any upgrades would require moving the bike trail that currently occupies the east half of the ROW. Good luck with that.
Regarding growth... I love Albuquerque and would be happy to live there, but to be honest that's because of family connections. My grandma used to live there and a hell of a lot of other family still does, so I've been there more times than I care to count and I've gotten a pretty good feel for the area. ABQ is not going to grow in the way other inland western cities like Denver or Salt Lake City have been recently until the city's crime stats improve. I have a cousin who is an Albuquerque Police officer and he is...well, not optimistic.
Things can turn around. Look at LA and NYC. Of course they can take a turn for the worse as well. I'm not too familiar with ABQs freeway plans other than I thought there was a proposal to turn Coors BLVD into a freeway but it was killed. Not sure if that's the one I'm thinking of. They need to do some planning at the least.
Quote from: kphoger on March 16, 2022, 04:11:21 PM
Man, I just can't wait for Limon to be the most useful control city.
Limon awarded new International Airport, 2036 Summer Olympics, and new permanent site of Amazon Coachella—Chill Bros. Dispensary Burning Man — Presented by Tesla Festival.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 04, 2022, 12:18:43 AM
Quote from: US 89 on April 03, 2022, 11:51:06 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 03, 2022, 06:04:46 PM
I honestly don't think New Mexico has the worst roads but they aren't the best. I think Colorado gives New Mexico a run for its money in regards to an under built system. They really should get on the ball with planning new freeways and conversions around Albuquerque. I have a feeling that city is "undiscovered" so to speak and will experience high growth one day.
You do realize the Paseo del Norte freeway is the only component of a failed beltway plan that got built? I don't think any new freeway proposal in Albuquerque will ever live to see the light of day. Paseo del Volcan is the only thing that even has a shot, and that's years and years off. Tramway should probably be a freeway, and probably has the ROW for it if you put in tight diamonds/SPUIs for the interchanges (see Bangerter Highway in Salt Lake for a good example of this), but Tramway goes through rich NIMBYland and any upgrades would require moving the bike trail that currently occupies the east half of the ROW. Good luck with that.
Regarding growth... I love Albuquerque and would be happy to live there, but to be honest that's because of family connections. My grandma used to live there and a hell of a lot of other family still does, so I've been there more times than I care to count and I've gotten a pretty good feel for the area. ABQ is not going to grow in the way other inland western cities like Denver or Salt Lake City have been recently until the city's crime stats improve. I have a cousin who is an Albuquerque Police officer and he is...well, not optimistic.
Things can turn around. Look at LA and NYC. Of course they can take a turn for the worse as well. I'm not too familiar with ABQs freeway plans other than I thought there was a proposal to turn Coors BLVD into a freeway but it was killed. Not sure if that's the one I'm thinking of. They need to do some planning at the least.
Though really, what would drive ABQ's growth? The economy is primarily centered on government (Sandia Labs, Kirtland AFB) and education (UNM). There's some tech, but it's not a big software hub, and other cities like Austin or Chattanooga seem to be higher on the growth list. Tourism is decent, but Santa Fe/Taos rise far above it.
Absent the discovery of some particularly useful commodity, there's nothing beyond government intervention that will drive growth. That's largely why the political environment is more reminiscent of Bay Area cities (with the same combo of government/education/tech) than other Interior West cities, whose economies center more on resource extraction.
Albuquerque has a pretty bad reputation for crime and other problems. It's not a city where I would want to live. Movie/TV industry activity is one of the few bright spots I see there. Living costs around the Santa Fe area are insane.
Quote from: RothmanIf you want State money, you have to play by State rules. Yep, temp roads have to be by State standards...
This tribe's project is not getting any state money. The state is forcing them to build these access roads that aren't even needed on the tribe's own dime and then forcing them to remove them afterward. I see construction projects all the time where improvised dirt and gravel roads are used on the build site either to be graded and landscaped-over later or converted into permanent concrete driveways.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaThings can turn around. Look at LA and NYC. Of course they can take a turn for the worse as well. I'm not too familiar with ABQs freeway plans other than I thought there was a proposal to turn Coors BLVD into a freeway but it was killed. Not sure if that's the one I'm thinking of. They need to do some planning at the least.
The gentrification process is the biggest reason why crime rates dropped in NYC. Housing and other living costs within the 5 boroughs grew expensive enough to drive out the "riff raff." Former combat zones like Brownsville and Bedford-Stuyvesant were transformed into trendy neighborhoods for hipsters and yuppies. The city government didn't do anything magical or revolutionary. Even the controversial
stop and frisk policies delivered only so much benefit. Crime has bumped up a good bit in NYC recently, but the numbers are still very far below the record-setting peaks of the late 1980's and early 1990's.
The same thing can be said for Los Angeles and other areas of California. The cost of living has soared so high that it is driving all kinds of people out of the state. A bunch are people who can't afford to stay, which is going to be a real bitch for low wage service industry businesses already struggling to fill job vacancies. Then there's others who are
cashing out, selling their homes at outsized profits and using those profits to buy new homes in places like Texas.
IMHO, cities like NYC and LA are in financially unsustainable situations. They're in a bubble economy. So much property in those cities is being bought and held vacant by investors across the globe. No one knows for sure when the bubble will finally pop, but when it does it won't be pretty.
I would like to see the section from Del Rio to Laredo signed as I-2, but extending I-2 west to branch off I-10 backward I-8 style.
An extension of I-2 past Laredo would have to cannibalize the proposed I-27 extension between Del Rio and Laredo. The bigger question is where an extension of I-2 farther West would meet I-10. Obviously such an extension would have to run over or alongside US-90 going West out of Del Rio. Do you bend it North at Sanderson along US-285 to meet I-10 at Fort Stockton? Or does it keep going along US-90 until hitting I-10 in Van Horn? The latter choice would be most costly to build having to go through more mountainous territory near Big Bend State Park. But it might be great for helping move tourist traffic. On the other hand making I-2 start in Fort Stockton would point the corridor more directly to small cities and towns in the Permian Basin, such as Hobbs, Carlsbad and Roswell. Fort Stockton is more of a regional highway hub than Van Horn.
If Interstate 2 and Interstate 27 both eventually reach Laredo, what is the likelihood that both Interstates will be combined into one Interstate route from Amarillo to Harlingen (more likely as Interstate 27 rather than Interstate 2)?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2022, 07:07:10 PM
If Interstate 2 and Interstate 27 both eventually reach Laredo, what is the likelihood that both Interstates will be combined into one Interstate route from Amarillo to Harlingen (more likely as Interstate 27 rather than Interstate 2)?
I'd say not very likely; they would have to reverse the exit signage for I-2 from east-west to south-north.
Actually, I'm of the opposite direction: I'd run I-27 to end at the Eagle Pass POE, and find a way to extend I-2 westward along the border from Laredo to there, then extend it to end somewhere on I-10 near Fort Stockton or just west of there. An El Paso to South Texas Interstate riding the border would not be too bad.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 04, 2022, 11:16:23 AM
Quote from: RothmanIf you want State money, you have to play by State rules. Yep, temp roads have to be by State standards...
This tribe's project is not getting any state money. The state is forcing them to build these access roads that aren't even needed on the tribe's own dime and then forcing them to remove them afterward. I see construction projects all the time where improvised dirt and gravel roads are used on the build site either to be graded and landscaped-over later or converted into permanent concrete driveways.
You said the Tribe is developing just off an Interstate, right? State roads, State rules of access management, then.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2022, 07:07:10 PM
If Interstate 2 and Interstate 27 both eventually reach Laredo, what is the likelihood that both Interstates will be combined into one Interstate route from Amarillo to Harlingen (more likely as Interstate 27 rather than Interstate 2)?
Virtually ZERO. Texas doesn't tend to do long concurrencies. This would be especially so in this case where it would mostly if not totally concurrent....
I've repeated it before, but there is no problem with an extended I-27 ending at Laredo along with I-2 ending there too. The ultimate North terminus of I-2 would be wherever I-69W departs the Loop 20 route to head towards Freer. The ultimate Southern terminus of I-27 would be at a different point from where I-2 would end. Most likely that would be where US-83 runs into I-35 eight miles North of the I-35/I-69W interchange. That would be coming down from Carrizo Springs. On the other hand, I think it would be worthwhile to run I-27 between Eagle Pass and Laredo much closer to the Rio Grande River, along Eagle Pass Road and then along Mines Road/FM-1472 closer to Laredo. Mines Road on the North side of Laredo passes by a LOT of distribution and industrial facilities. Quite a bit of that divided road is built where it could be upgraded to Interstate standards. Mines Road between the two major border Crossings at and North of Laredo may have to be upgraded into a freeway regardless of what ever happens with I-27.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 04, 2022, 10:14:48 PM
Mines Road between the two major border Crossings at and North of Laredo may have to be upgraded into a freeway regardless of what ever happens with I-27.
Good grief, Mines Road! Lord help you if you need to turn from I-69W SB onto Mines Road WB. Or, really, if you need to use Mines Road at all, anywhere south of... well, anywhere south of NOT LAREDO.
Mines Road already has one long flyover ramp built at its interchange with I-69W. I'm not saying it would be easy to convert that intersection into a Y type freeway interchange, much less upgrade Mines Road into a freeway going North of that interchange with I-69W. But there is one hell of a lot of truck traffic moving through there. Considering the surrounds, I don't think anyone would complain too loudly if an elevated freeway was built over the top of Mines Road for that first 2 miles going North of I-69W. Mines Road spreads out into a wider ROW going North of A.F. Muller Blvd. Freeway main lanes could be built more at-grade from that point going up to the TX-255 intersection by the Columbia border crossing.
Quote from: kphoger on April 04, 2022, 10:31:14 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 04, 2022, 10:14:48 PM
Mines Road between the two major border Crossings at and North of Laredo may have to be upgraded into a freeway regardless of what ever happens with I-27.
Good grief, Mines Road! Lord help you if you need to turn from I-69W SB onto Mines Road WB. Or, really, if you need to use Mines Road at all, anywhere south of... well, anywhere south of NOT LAREDO.
Mines Road was special class of evil. With all the trucks, I think you might average about 10-20 mph in what appears to be a 4 or even 6-lane road...[shudders]
Quote from: formulanone on April 05, 2022, 03:56:37 AM
Mines Road was special class of evil. With all the trucks, I think you might average about 10-20 mph in what appears to be a 4 or even 6-lane road...[shudders]
I think you might be overestimating that average speed...
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 04, 2022, 07:19:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2022, 07:07:10 PM
If Interstate 2 and Interstate 27 both eventually reach Laredo, what is the likelihood that both Interstates will be combined into one Interstate route from Amarillo to Harlingen (more likely as Interstate 27 rather than Interstate 2)?
I'd say not very likely; they would have to reverse the exit signage for I-2 from east-west to south-north.
Actually, I'm of the opposite direction: I'd run I-27 to end at the Eagle Pass POE, and find a way to extend I-2 westward along the border from Laredo to there, then extend it to end somewhere on I-10 near Fort Stockton or just west of there. An El Paso to South Texas Interstate riding the border would not be too bad.
Not to mention a connection from California to the Rio Grande Valley, Extending I-2 to I-10 would be well worth it.
So the corridor is signed into law, but what would keep I-27 from terminating in Del Rio and the Del Rio to Laredo leg becoming just I-2?
If I-2 were extended to meet I-10 in either Fort Stockton or Van Horn then I certainly wouldn't have a problem with I-2 eating the proposed I-27 segment from Del Rio to Laredo.
Quote from: formulanone on April 04, 2022, 07:38:17 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 16, 2022, 04:11:21 PM
Man, I just can't wait for Limon to be the most useful control city.
Limon awarded new International Airport, 2036 Summer Olympics, and new permanent site of Amazon Coachella—Chill Bros. Dispensary Burning Man — Presented by Tesla Festival.
Hell yeah man, the 2035 ACCBDBMPBT-fest was off the hook! :spin:
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on April 05, 2022, 10:29:52 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 04, 2022, 07:19:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2022, 07:07:10 PM
If Interstate 2 and Interstate 27 both eventually reach Laredo, what is the likelihood that both Interstates will be combined into one Interstate route from Amarillo to Harlingen (more likely as Interstate 27 rather than Interstate 2)?
I'd say not very likely; they would have to reverse the exit signage for I-2 from east-west to south-north.
Actually, I'm of the opposite direction: I'd run I-27 to end at the Eagle Pass POE, and find a way to extend I-2 westward along the border from Laredo to there, then extend it to end somewhere on I-10 near Fort Stockton or just west of there. An El Paso to South Texas Interstate riding the border would not be too bad.
Not to mention a connection from California to the Rio Grande Valley, Extending I-2 to I-10 would be well worth it.
So the corridor is signed into law, but what would keep I-27 from terminating in Del Rio and the Del Rio to Laredo leg becoming just I-2?
Since the resolution from the US congress is toothless (no funding / no requirement) , there is no real reason I-27 cannot end in Lubbock. It is you can / you should; not "you MUST". It is a suggestion with absolutely NO requirement that it actually happen. I am not saying it will. I expect it will eventually make it to I-20.
Not sure we need more than controlled access loops around the towns and rural divided highway in the rural sections for any of it. I realize true freeway is better. We have to decide if we want more four-lane miles with a 70 to 75 mph speed limit or fewer miles of divided highway and more freeway miles. You get a mile and a half or more of divided highway for the cost of a mile of freeway. Just saying...
Quibbling over the route numbers is the least of anyone's worries...
Quote from: bwana39 on April 05, 2022, 04:13:43 PM
there is no real reason I-27 cannot end in Lubbock.
Indeed, it already does.
Quote from: bwana39Not sure we need more than controlled access loops around the towns and rural divided highway in the rural sections for any of it. I realize true freeway is better. We have to decide if we want more four-lane miles with a 70 to 75 mph speed limit or fewer miles of divided highway and more freeway miles. You get a mile and a half or more of divided highway for the cost of a mile of freeway. Just saying...
I would prefer some consolidation of resources to prioritize certain major corridors over smaller ones. Some corridors need to be 100% controlled access to reinforce driver safety. When people get into the mindset they're driving on a type of super highway they're not as alert for things like oil field pickup trucks whipping out onto the main lanes from some gravel driveway.
There are multiple factors that justify the Interstate highways that are currently planned/in-progress in South Texas. The size of population centers in the Rio Grande Valley and Laredo is a big enough reason. There is a great deal of commerce activity are various border crossings from Del Rio and farther South. Finally there is a great deal of heavy truck and industrial traffic from South Texas up into the Permian Basin.
I'm certain I-2 needs to be built up to Laredo and the 3 legs of I-69 built-out as well. The current I-27 route is a small part of the larger Ports to Plains Corridor. An extension of I-2 up thru Del Rio to either Fort Stockton or Van Horn is the toughest one to sell, even though the national highway network would benefit from it. Perhaps the first step is getting ROW secured for bypasses or thru routes in towns along the way.
Quote from: bwana39 on April 04, 2022, 09:37:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2022, 07:07:10 PM
If Interstate 2 and Interstate 27 both eventually reach Laredo, what is the likelihood that both Interstates will be combined into one Interstate route from Amarillo to Harlingen (more likely as Interstate 27 rather than Interstate 2)?
Virtually ZERO. Texas doesn't tend to do long concurrencies. This would be especially so in this case where it would mostly if not totally concurrent....
I don't think he meant I-2 and I-27 run together (which would only be used if it had two concurrency ends, see I-20/59)I think he meant either I-2 absorbed into I-27, or vice versa. And the answer is unlikely. Texas is not a state that commonly renames highways, unless it's I-69.
https://krtnradio.com/2022/03/15/us-designates-future-interstate-27-part-of-the-interstate-highway-system/
https://s3.amazonaws.com/oasis-prod01-unlayer/1647379715412-Interstate_Route_Map_tx_nm_600px.png
Quote
US Designates Future Interstate 27 Part of the Interstate Highway System
BY MARTY MAYFIELD ON MARCH 15, 2022
Image
US Designates Future Interstate 27 Part of the Interstate Highway System
(LUBBOCK, TX) — The designation of future Interstate 27 (I-27) became official on Tuesday, March 15 as President Biden signed into law the appropriation bill. The designation recognizes the Ports-to-Plains Corridor from Laredo, Texas to Raton, New Mexico as an addition to the Interstate Highway System.
"I am very excited that the I-27 highway expansion project is now written into law with the passage of the FY22 omnibus appropriations bill," said Henry Cuellar, U.S. Rep. for District 28. This designation will make Texas and New Mexico eligible for increased federal funding to complete the I-27 highway expansion project, creating economic growth, jobs, trade opportunities across those two states. The I-27 expansion will grow the Texas GDP by $17.2 billion and create 178,000 construction jobs. It will also add 17,000 long-term employment opportunities in the new I-27 corridor. With this project, Laredo will also become the only port of entry that has three corridors: I-35, I-69, I-27–a boon for our trade economy. As a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, I will continue to fund projects in south Texas that bring good-paying jobs and ease quality of life for my constituents."
"Establishing a four lane, federal highway for I-27 is a game-changer for our economy and quality of life in West Texas for decades to come and will strengthen our food security and energy independence for the entire country," said Jodey Arrington, U.S. Rep. for District 19. "I had three big goals for a better and stronger West Texas when I took office in 2016 — get cotton back in the farm bill, secure the B-21 bomber at Dyess, and establish a federal highway for West Texas. I had a lot of help from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I'm humbled by the opportunities this will provide for generations of West Texans."
Receiving the future interstate designation is the first step to begin fundraising for the extension of I-27. As TxDOT's feasibility study determined, the extension of I-27 impacts the state of Texas in improving the safety of the roads by reducing the annual crash rate by 21% and providing more access and opportunities for rural America.
"I am ecstatic we received the future interstate designation for I-27 which will allow for the necessary infrastructure improvement to bring growth to our region and the state of Texas," said Dan Pope, mayor for the City of Lubbock. "As with most momentous achievements, our thanks are due to many in their support of this project. From the Governor to our U.S. Senators and Representatives, as well as our State Representatives, this will be a changing moment in Texas for decades."
"This exciting news represents years of planning and collaboration by so many people," said Ginger Nelson, mayor for the city of Amarillo. "The extension of I-27 is vital to our future growth."
"One of the most significant events of today was the inclusion of the designation of I-27 in the appropriation bill," said Brenda Gunter, mayor for the city of San Angelo. "We are seeing a project that will have a significant impact on the Texas economy as well as our national GDP. The hard work and effort to accomplish this designation is finally paying off with a tremendous impact on the future of our region and the state of Texas. Thank you to all who have been a part of the process."
The Corridor represents three of the eight border crossings along the Texas-Mexico border: Laredo, Eagle Pass and Del Rio. As the next steps to fund and construct the extension of I-27 begin, the economic benefit for the U.S. is the addition of 1.7 million jobs and a $287 billion increase in GDP along the Corridor.
"The impact of this designation is tremendous as it allows for the enhancement of infrastructure for domestic and international markets, creates safer roads for leisure and business travels, and connects underrepresented communities throughout the Corridor with outside markets," John Osborne, chairman of the board for Ports-to-Plains Alliance. "We would not be celebrating this historic moment without the support of Congressman Arrington and Cuellar and Congresswoman Granger, Senators Heinrich and Lujan, as well as our team of advocates at Hance Scarborough. We are grateful for their leadership and support of this project."
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/oasis-prod01-unlayer/1647379715412-Interstate_Route_Map_tx_nm_600px.png)
This one has a video player that follows you when you try to scroll.
And the text does not display easily when High Contrast is Enabled.
https://www.kcbd.com/2022/03/15/ports-to-plains-i-27-expansion-signed-into-law-with-federal-budget/
Quote
Ports-to-Plains: I-27 expansion signed into law with federal budget
By Brad Burt
Published: Mar. 15, 2022 at 4:45 PM CDT|Updated: Mar. 15, 2022 at 4:55 PM CDT
LUBBOCK, Texas (KCBD) - Texas Representatives say critical advances in the long discussed Ports-to-Plains Corridor expansion for Interstate 27 have been signed into law by President Joe Biden, included with infrastructure funding under the FY 22 omnibus appropriations bill.
The Ports-to-Plains Corridor has been an effort for decades, working to open transportation and interstate infrastructure from Colorado across northeast New Mexico and the Oklahoma panhandle, through the Texas panhandle including Lubbock and Amarillo, south through west Texas connecting to Midland and San Angelo before finally connecting to Laredo at the Texas border.
Part of funding legislation signed by President Biden on Tuesday designates the Texas and New Mexico portions of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor as a future interstate, making these portions eligible for increased funding to complete the I-27 expansion into a four-lane federal highway.
The I-27 Federal Highway expansion will provide more direct links for local energy and agricultural industries to state, national, and international trade, with an estimated $690 million per year in travel cost savings outside of the corridor. The expansion providing a new trade route will also reduce congestion on I-35 in East Texas.
According to the Ports-to-Plains Alliance, the corridor represents an expected economic benefit for the United States by adding 1.7 million jobs and a $287 billion increase in GDP, starting at three border crossings through the corridor along the Texas-Mexico border: Laredo, Eagle Pass and Del Rio.
Representative Jodey Arrington of Lubbock and Representative Henry Cuellar of Laredo, the congress members behind the Ports-to-Plains Highway Act of 2020, responded to the designation with excitement, saying the achievement of this project will be an immense economic win for Texas, and the United States.
In 2020, Rep. Arrington said the corridor brings an estimated cost of $25.5 billion, but would be 55 percent of the nation's economic activity. Texas Gross Domestic Product is expected to increase by $55.6 billion in the first 20 years with this designation.
Rep. Cuellar said the I-27 expansion will grow the Texas GDP by $17.2 billion and create 178,000 construction jobs, with 17,000 long-term employment opportunities in the new I-27 corridor.
"Establishing a four lane, federal highway for I-27 is a game-changer for our economy and quality of life in West Texas for decades to come and will strengthen our food security and energy independence for the entire country," Rep. Arrington said.
Arrington said he had three major goals when taking office in 2016: getting cotton back in the farm bill, securing a B-21 bomber at Dyess Air Force Base, and establishing a federal highway for West Texas.
"I had a lot of help from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I'm humbled by the opportunities this will provide for generations of West Texans," Arrington said.
Ports-to-Plains Alliance Chairman and Lubbock Economic Development Alliance CEO John Osborne said, "the impact of this designation is tremendous as it allows for the enhancement of infrastructure for domestic and international markets, creates safer roads for leisure and business travels, and connects underrepresented communities throughout the Corridor with outside markets."
Osborne added this designation would not have been possible without the support of congress and advocates with Hance Scarbrough, the law firm of former Texas Tech chancellor Kent Hance.
Lubbock mayor Dan Pope spoke in support, saying the I-27 designation will ultimately improve necessary infrastructure and increase safety in Texas for commerce and visitors.
"The Ports to Plains Regional effort has been ongoing for decades, and today the interstate designation for I-27 has finally been signed into law. Thank you to Congressman Jodey Arrington for his leadership on this project. This momentous achievement is due to the unwavering support from leaders like Randy Neugebauer and Robert Duncan," Pope said. "This is a huge local, regional, and state-wide win."
KLBK | KAMC | EverythingLubbock.com | NEXSTAR:
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/lubbock-with-help-from-biden-and-congress-on-the-road-to-become-an-international-trade-route/
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/35/2022/03/interstatemap.jpg?resize=876,492
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/35/2022/03/interstatemap.jpg
Quote
LOCAL NEWS
Lubbock, with help from Biden, Arrington and Congress, on the road to become an international trade route
by: James Clark
Posted: Mar 15, 2022 / 02:18 PM CDT
Updated: Mar 15, 2022 / 10:42 PM CDT
SHARE
CORRECTION: The Interstate-27 portion of Ports-to-Plains will not go as far north as described in the initial publication of this story.
LUBBOCK, Texas – President Biden signed federal legislation Tuesday that designates a portion of Ports to Plains as "interstate highway." It brings Lubbock and the South Plains one step closer to having Interstate 27 reach all way from Laredo up to a connection with Interstate 25, which then goes to Denver and other points to the north.
Congressman Jodey Arrington R-Lubbock and Congressman Henry Cuellar D-Laredo filed bipartisan legislation to extend Interstate 27, which currently ends at 82nd Street in Lubbock. (South of 82nd, the road is currently designated as U.S. Highway 87.)
Arrington said the designation recognizes Ports-to-Plains as interstate highway from Laredo to Raton, New Mexico. This does not mean the extension of I-27 is already fully funded.
"This designation will make Texas and New Mexico eligible for increased federal funding to complete the I-27 highway expansion project," Cuellar said. "I will continue to fund projects in south Texas that bring good-paying jobs and ease quality of life for my constituents."
U.S. Senators John Cornyn R-Texas and Ted Cruz R-Texas both supported legislation to designate Ports-to-Plains as a federal interstate highway.
However, Cruz voted against the current bill, saying federal spending at a time of inflation only hurts people. Cruz supports the I-27 corridor as "a key transportation priority for Texas." Cruz said extending I-27 will help the nation as a whole.
(https://www.everythinglubbock.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/35/2022/03/interstatemap.jpg?resize=876,492)
(Nexstar/Staff)
Arrington issued the following statement, calling Tuesday's development a big win for West Texas:
US Designates Interstate 27 Part of the Interstate Highway System
(LUBBOCK, TX) — The designation of Interstate 27 (I-27) became official on Tuesday, March 15 as President Biden signed into law the appropriation bill. The designation recognizes the Ports-to-Plains Corridor from Laredo, Texas to Raton, New Mexico as an addition to the Interstate Highway System.
"Establishing a four lane, federal highway for I-27 is a game-changer for our economy and quality of life in West Texas for decades to come and will strengthen our food security and energy independence for the entire country," said Jodey Arrington, U.S. Rep. for District 19. "I had three big goals for a better and stronger West Texas when I took office in 2016 — get cotton back in the farm bill, secure the B-21 bomber at Dyess, and establish a federal highway for West Texas. I had a lot of help from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I'm humbled by the opportunities this will provide for generations of West Texans."
Receiving the interstate designation is the first step to begin fundraising for the extension of I-27. As TxDOT's feasibility study determined, the extension of I-27 impacts the state of Texas in improving the safety of the roads by reducing the annual crash rate by 21% and providing more access and opportunities for rural America.
"I am ecstatic we received the interstate designation for I-27 which will allow for the necessary infrastructure improvement to bring growth to our region and the state of Texas," said Dan Pope, mayor for the City of Lubbock. "As with most momentous achievements, our thanks are due to many in their support of this project; specifically, Congressman Jodey Arrington, who has been an incredible advocate in this bipartisan effort, led the charge for what will be a changing moment for West Texas for decades to come."
The Corridor represents three of the eight border crossings along the Texas-Mexico border: Laredo, Eagle Pass and Del Rio. As the next steps to fund the extension of I-27 begin, the economic benefit for the state of Texas within the first 20 years of completion is estimated at $55.6 million increase in GDP and 22,110 new jobs.
"The impact of this designation is tremendous as it allows for the enhancement of infrastructure for domestic and international markets, creates safer roads for leisure and business travels, and connects underrepresented communities throughout the Corridor with outside markets," John Osborne, chairman of the board for Ports-to-Plains Alliance. "We would not be celebrating this historic moment without the support of TxDOT, NMDOT, Congressman Arrington and Cuellar and Congresswoman Granger, as well as our team of advocates at Hance Scarborough. We are grateful for their leadership and support of this project."
The following is a statement from Ports-to-Plains:
US Designates Future Interstate 27 Part of the Interstate Highway System
(LUBBOCK, TX) — The designation of future Interstate 27 (I-27) became official on Tuesday, March 15 as President Biden signed into law the appropriation bill. The designation recognizes the Ports-to-Plains Corridor from Laredo, Texas to Raton, New Mexico as an addition to the Interstate Highway System.
"I am very excited that the I-27 highway expansion project is now written into law with the passage of the FY22 omnibus appropriations bill," said Henry Cuellar, U.S. Rep. for District 28. This designation will make Texas and New Mexico eligible for increased federal funding to complete the I-27 highway expansion project, creating economic growth, jobs, trade opportunities across those two states. The I-27 expansion will grow the Texas GDP by $17.2 billion and create 178,000 construction jobs. It will also add 17,000 long-term employment opportunities in the new I-27 corridor. With this project, Laredo will also become the only port of entry that has three corridors: I-35, I-69, I-27–a boon for our trade economy. As a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, I will continue to fund projects in south Texas that bring good-paying jobs and ease quality of life for my constituents."
"Establishing a four lane, federal highway for I-27 is a game-changer for our economy and quality of life in West Texas for decades to come and will strengthen our food security and energy independence for the entire country," said Jodey Arrington, U.S. Rep. for District 19. "I had three big goals for a better and stronger West Texas when I took office in 2016 — get cotton back in the farm bill, secure the B-21 bomber at Dyess, and establish a federal highway for West Texas. I had a lot of help from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I'm humbled by the opportunities this will provide for generations of West Texans."
Receiving the future interstate designation is the first step to begin fundraising for the extension of I-27. As TxDOT's feasibility study determined, the extension of I-27 impacts the state of Texas in improving the safety of the roads by reducing the annual crash rate by 21% and providing more access and opportunities for rural America.
"I am ecstatic we received the future interstate designation for I-27 which will allow for the necessary infrastructure improvement to bring growth to our region and the state of Texas," said Dan Pope, mayor for the City of Lubbock. "As with most momentous achievements, our thanks are due to many in their support of this project. From the Governor to our U.S. Senators and Representatives, as well as our State Representatives, this will be a changing moment in Texas for decades."
"This exciting news represents years of planning and collaboration by so many people," said Ginger Nelson, mayor for the city of Amarillo. "The extension of I-27 is vital to our future growth."
"One of the most significant events of today was the inclusion of the designation of I-27 in the appropriation bill," said Brenda Gunter, mayor for the city of San Angelo. "We are seeing a project that will have a significant impact on the Texas economy as well as our national GDP. The hard work and effort to accomplish this designation is finally paying off with a tremendous impact on the future of our region and the state of Texas. Thank you to all who have been a part of the process."
The Corridor represents three of the eight border crossings along the Texas-Mexico border: Laredo, Eagle Pass and Del Rio. As the next steps to fund and construct the extension of I-27 begin, the economic benefit for the U.S. is the addition of 1.7 million jobs and a $287 billion increase in GDP along the Corridor.
"The impact of this designation is tremendous as it allows for the enhancement of infrastructure for domestic and international markets, creates safer roads for leisure and business travels, and connects underrepresented communities throughout the Corridor with outside markets," John Osborne, chairman of the board for Ports-to-Plains Alliance.
"We would not be celebrating this historic moment without the support of Congressman Arrington and Cuellar and Congresswoman Granger, Senators Heinrich and Lujan, as well as our team of advocates at Hance Scarborough. We are grateful for their leadership and support of this project."
QuoteHowever, Cruz voted against the current bill, saying federal spending at a time of inflation only hurts people. Cruz supports the I-27 corridor as "a key transportation priority for Texas." Cruz said extending I-27 will help the nation as a whole.
what the fuck does this even mean
Does he think it's helpful or harmful??
How many times are we going to see the same story posted over and over again from different sources?
Here Is Full Size Version Of Image:
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/35/2022/03/interstatemap.jpg
(https://www.everythinglubbock.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/35/2022/03/interstatemap.jpg)
The "original" 1968 I-27 application was to utilize US 84 traveling SE of Lubbock to I-20 at Sweetwater. That would still be the "easiest" to upgrade and designate.
Can understand them wanting to route it through San Angelo, and utilize the segments of limited access highway constructed there in more recent times.
Would have preferred to see it go right through (between) Odessa-Midland, but can understand the more easterly routing. It should give locales such as LaMesa a much needed shot in the arm. Traveled through there a year ago (on US 180) and the town was in rough shape. A lot of broken down homes and abandoned/marginal businesses. There was extensive street work that was ongoing, concrete pavement, and a lot of concrete curb and gutter was being placed. So that probably didn't help in the initial observation of the place. An eastern N - S Bypass of Lamesa would most likely be pursued. As one travels E from there, on US 180, the escarpment is reached, as the "table land or Mesa" drops off to the next lower level (Gail area) and it would be difficult to construct a highway N-S through it.
South of San Angelo, it does seem "porky" although it will be beneficial in the long run to have it for connectivity to the border regions of Del Rio and Eagle Pass. And of course Laredo. Would doubt N-S traffic between Laredo and San Angelo is significant. Now. Later, most likely more. Might take decades to take shape, however. Meaning both the traffic counts, and the limited access four lane.
I think traffic counts along the Ports to Plains Corridor will increase dramatically once most of the corridor is substantially completed enough to make it a desirable route for commercial traffic as well as personal vehicles. Currently too much of the existing route is only 2 lanes and not great for long distance driving.
As for the Midland-Odessa area, the corridor maps they're publicizing continue to suggest a I-27E/I-27W arrangement. Big Spring is obviously on the main line since it's on the direct path. But Midland-Odessa isn't out of the running to get a suffixed twin of the route. It's a big enough metro to justify the upgrade of TX-349 from Lamesa to Midland and TX-158 from Midland to Sterling City. Plus there's the long shot of I-14 being extended West to Midland someday.
I would expect I-27 to bypass Lamesa to the East. But, yeah, such a bypass could be built at a maximum of about 5 or 6 miles East of town due to that drop-off from the caprock. It's possible business owners in Lamesa might prefer an I-27 alignment closer to town to reduce losses of business from highway traffic.
FFR, will I-27 use existing corridors (like I-69) or will it be built on new terrain?
I would expect the extension from Lubbock Southward to upgrade existing US-87 with not much new terrain road needed. Nearly all the properties along US-87 between Lubbock and Tahoka are on enough of a setback to allow continuous frontage roads to be added (where they're not already present). I don't know if the US-87 freeway segment in Tahoka will need any minor upgrades; that freeway segment has existing since at least the early 1980's.
Obviously Lamesa needs a new bypass to the East of town. A possible I-27W/I-27E split would happen South of town. Problems in Big Spring are already solved with the new half loop bypass that was recently completed. It will be interesting to see how TX DOT deals with that volleyball interchange. Will they convert that into a 5-level directional stack?
Sterling City, the other location where I-27W/I-27E would begin/end would need a new terrain bypass, probably around the North side of town to avoid the Concho River on the South side of town. US-87 going SE into the San Angelo area looks like it would be pretty easy to upgrade to full Interstate standards. Most of the road that hasn't already been upgraded to a freeway is flanked by existing frontage roads. I can't tell if there would be any road curve geometry issues US-277 between San Angelo and Del Rio. The terrain out there has lots of small hills.
An I-27 extension North out of Amarillo looks a little more iffy. Building I-27 up to Dumas would pose little problem other than having to build short frontage road segments to maintain ranch or oil well access in spots. Dumas needs a freeway bypass though. If TX DOT is serious about building an I-27 leg from Dumas to Texline that would push any Dumas bypass around the West side of town. That would still be the easiest location anyway.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 12, 2022, 01:44:17 PM
I can't tell if there would be any road curve geometry issues US-277 between San Angelo and Del Rio. The terrain out there has lots of small hills.
Not just small hills. US-277 between TX-55 and US-377 is very hilly and curvy–especially curvy. I take
speed advisories (https://goo.gl/maps/6sBkwj5QoDvtroW47) pretty seriously along that stretch, especially because a number of them combine hills and curves such that active braking is required to navigate. Most notable in my mind is just above Mail Trail Creek, which gets a well-deserved
55 mph speed advisory (https://goo.gl/maps/A2K7drrxYetx6WAk6).
(It's especially nerve-racking at dusk, when 62,000 deer like to feed right along the edge lines.)
I don't think there should be any Interstate 27Es or 27Ws. Two of them should be mainline 27 and the other two should be numbered Interstate 227 and Interstate 427. They were able to get away with Interstates 35E and 35W in Dallas/Fort Worth, they shouldn't have got away with Interstates 69C/69E/69W, and they defiantly shouldn't get away with any 27Es or 27Ws. By the way, has the 27E/W designations actually been proposed in Lamesa and Sterling City, or is there still time to make them 227 and 427?
The I-27E/I-27W thing doesn't bother me. Midland-Odessa is a bigger metro than Big Spring, but Big Spring is on the US-87 main line where I-27 needs to be. A suffixed I-27E/I-27W approach would split the difference and not leave either metro feeling like they got short changed.
Here's another idea. Mind you, I don't like the I-14 thing, but that route number could be used as a consolation prize for Midland-Odessa. Big Spring gets the I-27 main line. Midland gets two different Interstate routes. From Lamesa down to Midland that route could be signed as a I-X27 route, such as "I-227". Connect it into Loop-250 and flip a coin on whether "I-227" takes over the East half or West half of Loop-250. I-14 would begin at I-20 somewhere on the Southeast side of Midland and then overlap TX-158 to Sterling City. From there you would have a I-14/I-27 concurrency into San Angelo.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 13, 2022, 11:32:42 PM
The I-27E/I-27W thing doesn't bother me. Midland-Odessa is a bigger metro than Big Spring, but Big Spring is on the US-87 main line where I-27 needs to be. A suffixed I-27E/I-27W approach would split the difference and not leave either metro feeling like they got short changed.
Here's another idea. Mind you, I don't like the I-14 thing, but that route number could be used as a consolation prize for Midland-Odessa. Big Spring gets the I-27 main line. Midland gets two different Interstate routes. From Lamesa down to Midland that route could be signed as a I-X27 route, such as "I-227". Connect it into Loop-250 and flip a coin on whether "I-227" takes over the East half or West half of Loop-250. I-14 would begin at I-20 somewhere on the Southeast side of Midland and then overlap TX-158 to Sterling City. From there you would have a I-14/I-27 concurrency into San Angelo.
Texas wants to have tons of suffixed route apparently. I don't really care, but it does take the charm out of I-35 having the only remaining pair of suffixed routes now 69 and possibly has them. As soon as I say that, that statement is still technically true. I-35 has the only remaining suffixed routes from the original plan that had suffixes before suffixes were outlawed.
I like your idea for an I-14/27 cosign, if I didn't hate the I-14 concept to begin with.
Can we rename some interstates while we're at it just to get a few more suffixes in the state? I-37 is now I-35SE. I-45 can now be I-35EE making it so I-49 can now be I-45. I-30 can be I-20N40S!
There are too many suffixed Interstates in the state of Texas. The reason for the 69 suffixes is because it was a congressional mandate. But they should be avoided as the FHWA doesn’t allow them. I don’t think I-27 needs them. Couldn’t they go with an I-127 to Midland/Odessa?
Wash the I-27W and I-27E designation as a result of Congress (like I-69 WCE) or was it something else?
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on April 14, 2022, 10:51:22 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 13, 2022, 11:32:42 PM
The I-27E/I-27W thing doesn't bother me. Midland-Odessa is a bigger metro than Big Spring, but Big Spring is on the US-87 main line where I-27 needs to be. A suffixed I-27E/I-27W approach would split the difference and not leave either metro feeling like they got short changed.
Here's another idea. Mind you, I don't like the I-14 thing, but that route number could be used as a consolation prize for Midland-Odessa. Big Spring gets the I-27 main line. Midland gets two different Interstate routes. From Lamesa down to Midland that route could be signed as a I-X27 route, such as "I-227". Connect it into Loop-250 and flip a coin on whether "I-227" takes over the East half or West half of Loop-250. I-14 would begin at I-20 somewhere on the Southeast side of Midland and then overlap TX-158 to Sterling City. From there you would have a I-14/I-27 concurrency into San Angelo.
Texas wants to have tons of suffixed route apparently. I don't really care, but it does take the charm out of I-35 having the only remaining pair of suffixed routes now 69 and possibly has them. As soon as I say that, that statement is still technically true. I-35 has the only remaining suffixed routes from the original plan that had suffixes before suffixes were outlawed.
I like your idea for an I-14/27 cosign, if I didn't hate the I-14 concept to begin with.
Can we rename some interstates while we're at it just to get a few more suffixes in the state? I-37 is now I-35SE. I-45 can now be I-35EE making it so I-49 can now be I-45. I-30 can be I-20N40S!
I-27 is already I-86ESSESSSES (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10974.0) :bigass:
The problem I have with designating any Interstate 27Es or Interstate 27Ws is that I completely agree with AASHTO that they should not be used (at least AASHTO used to be against designating them). Like I said in my previous post, the two Interstate 35Es and Interstate 35Ws in Texas and Minnesota were forgivable, but Interstates 69C/E/W should never have been approved. I've even heard that Texas may designate an Interstate 14N and an Interstate 14S in the future (14S should be mainline 14 and 14N should be Interstate 18). I don't know why Texas is being given an exemption from the long-standing discouragement of Interstate suffixes, but I think if one state is given a pass, all the states should also get one as well. it makes no sense to me.
Quote from: BlueOutback7There are too many suffixed Interstates in the state of Texas. The reason for the 69 suffixes is because it was a congressional mandate. But they should be avoided as the FHWA doesn't allow them. I don't think I-27 needs them. Couldn't they go with an I-127 to Midland/Odessa?
The Lamesa-Midland segment would need to be an even-numbered route since it would terminate at Interstate highways on both ends. That's why I suggested "I-227" earlier.
The only thing I wouldn't like about an I-27E/I-27W arrangement is a potentially screwy route the I-27W route would have to take moving through Midland. If I-27W is routed around the East half of Loop 250 there isn't a simple way to get past the I-20/Loop 250 volleyball interchange down to TX-158. The West half of Loop 250 has more of an open door going South past I-20 there. But a lot more ground has to be covered to get back East to TX-158. Just having I-14 named on TX-158 would make the situation slightly easier.
QuoteThe problem I have with designating any Interstate 27Es or Interstate 27Ws is that I completely agree with AASHTO that they should not be used (at least AASHTO used to be against designating them).
I have no problem with twin "E" and "W" routes serving "binary" cities, like what I-35 does. Midland-Odessa and Big Spring falls into a similar situation. The suffix routes for I-69 are more questionable. I think I-69E should have been an extension of I-37. I think the I-69 main line should go to Laredo, the busiest inland border city. I'm not sure what I-69C could have been called. "I-33" would be a possibility; I think the US-281 corridor going North out of San Antonio could become I-33 eventually. A creative overlap with I-37 could help create a much longer single route. The I-14 suffix route ideas are pretty ridiculous. Those should just be 3-digit routes off an I-14 parent route.
Midland—Odessa is a binary city.
Midland—Big Spring is not.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 14, 2022, 01:44:20 PM
The problem I have with designating any Interstate 27Es or Interstate 27Ws is that I completely agree with AASHTO that they should not be used (at least AASHTO used to be against designating them). Like I said in my previous post, the two Interstate 35Es and Interstate 35Ws in Texas and Minnesota were forgivable, but Interstates 69C/E/W should never have been approved. I've even heard that Texas may designate an Interstate 14N and an Interstate 14S in the future (14S should be mainline 14 and 14N should be Interstate 18). I don't know why Texas is being given an exemption from the long-standing discouragement of Interstate suffixes, but I think if one state is given a pass, all the states should also get one as well. it makes no sense to me.
Seems to be a similar situation to Louisiana that begat I-12.
Quote from: MikieTimT on April 14, 2022, 03:29:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 14, 2022, 01:44:20 PM
The problem I have with designating any Interstate 27Es or Interstate 27Ws is that I completely agree with AASHTO that they should not be used (at least AASHTO used to be against designating them). Like I said in my previous post, the two Interstate 35Es and Interstate 35Ws in Texas and Minnesota were forgivable, but Interstates 69C/E/W should never have been approved. I've even heard that Texas may designate an Interstate 14N and an Interstate 14S in the future (14S should be mainline 14 and 14N should be Interstate 18). I don't know why Texas is being given an exemption from the long-standing discouragement of Interstate suffixes, but I think if one state is given a pass, all the states should also get one as well. it makes no sense to me.
Seems to be a similar situation to Louisiana that begat I-12.
I-69E, C, and W were designated as such because their designations were written into law by Congress. AASHTO had no choice in that decision, despite their antipathy toward suffixed route designations.
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 14, 2022, 04:43:13 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on April 14, 2022, 03:29:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 14, 2022, 01:44:20 PM
The problem I have with designating any Interstate 27Es or Interstate 27Ws is that I completely agree with AASHTO that they should not be used (at least AASHTO used to be against designating them). Like I said in my previous post, the two Interstate 35Es and Interstate 35Ws in Texas and Minnesota were forgivable, but Interstates 69C/E/W should never have been approved. I've even heard that Texas may designate an Interstate 14N and an Interstate 14S in the future (14S should be mainline 14 and 14N should be Interstate 18). I don't know why Texas is being given an exemption from the long-standing discouragement of Interstate suffixes, but I think if one state is given a pass, all the states should also get one as well. it makes no sense to me.
Seems to be a similar situation to Louisiana that begat I-12.
I-69E, C, and W were designated as such because their designations were written into law by Congress. AASHTO had no choice in that decision, despite their antipathy toward suffixed route designations.
A less literal reading of the law could probably dispute that. In any case, the I-69 situation is the poster child for why such decisions should be left with civil servants and not elected officials.
If it were up to me:
-I-35E TX would be a combo of a 3di and an extension of I-45; I-35W would be I-35.
-I-35E MN would be a 3di (truck restriction) and I-35W would be I-35.
-I-69E would be I-37, I-69C would be I-69, and I-69W would be I-6.
-I-27E would be I-27 and I-27W would be either no-build or a 3di depending on traffic needs.
-I-14N would be I-14 and I-14S would be no-build.
I'd keep the I-35 splits in DFW and MSP since they serve the same overall metro areas.
If I had my druthers on I-69, I-69W from Laredo to Victoria would become the original I-69 as proposed; I-69C would revert back to US 281, I-69E would become an extended I-37, and TX 44 would be upgraded as is.
I do agree on I-14 and I-27: one side of the split remains as the mainline, the other, if feasible, goes as a 3di.
Quote from: kphoger on April 14, 2022, 02:07:32 PM
Midland—Odessa is a binary city.
Midland—Big Spring is not.
Was using US - 62/385 SSW of Lubbock ever proposed? For upgrading to a potential I corridor? Not super direct, but it shows on the map, as being all four lane down to Odessa, and it penetrates the Oil fields. Also believe there were some minor upgrades just outside the Lubbock loop, a grade separation/interchange in Wolfforth, some time ago.
There must be significant political pull coming from tiny Big Spring, and also medium sized San Angelo. Am going to have to assume there is greater N-S traffic counts from Odessa/Midland to Lubbock, than from Big Spring/San Angelo N-S to Lubbock.
I've never seen any I-27 proposals that utilize the US-385 corridor down into Odessa. It's too far out of the way for main line I-27 traffic heading to points farther South in Texas. The ultimate goal is an I-27 extension that connects to border cities in South Texas. That works more to push the route thru Big Spring and maybe have a possible West leg going through Midland. An I-27 extension to Odessa would only work if I-27 ended in Odessa.
On the original map of the Ports to Plains corridor, it shows a route up US 287 to the Oklahoma panhandle. Is this supposed to imply a future route up to Limon? If this is real, it shouldn't dead end as soon as it reaches Oklahoma.
The maps that have been tossed around lately just show Texas' portion of the Ports to Plains Corridor, with a fantasy leg going into NE New Mexico to connect to Raton.
The Ports to Plains Corridor, as originally drawn, does include Colorado and the tip of the Oklahoma Panhandle. Ultimately a North extension of I-27 could end at in Limon at I-70.
Without a lot of federal involvement (and funding) the entire corridor will be left up to individual states to develop on their own. Texas has far more motivation to build I-27 South out of Lubbock toward Laredo than it does extending it North out of Amarillo. That isn't going to change unless Colorado and Oklahoma show more interest in building out their portions of the corridor. I wish they would do so, because as a 2-lane route US-287 is not a safe drive going North of Boise City, OK into SE Colorado. That caprock transition area is a prime spot to have a fatal head-on collision, maybe with a semi truck. The very least thing they could do is divide the road into a standard 4-lane highway.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 15, 2022, 12:13:58 PM
The maps that have been tossed around lately just show Texas' portion of the Ports to Plains Corridor, with a fantasy leg going into NE New Mexico to connect to Raton.
The Ports to Plains Corridor, as originally drawn, does include Colorado and the tip of the Oklahoma Panhandle. Ultimately a North extension of I-27 could at in Limon at I-70.
Without a lot of federal involvement (and funding) the entire corridor will be left up to individual states to develop on their own. Texas has far more motivation to build I-27 South out of Lubbock toward Laredo than it does extending it North out of Amarillo. That isn't going to change unless Colorado and Oklahoma show more interest in building out their portions of the corridor. I wish they would do so, because as a 2-lane route US-287 is not a safe drive going North of Boise City, OK into SE Colorado. That caprock transition area is a prime spot to have a fatal head-on collision, maybe with a semi truck. The very least thing they could do is divide the road into a standard 4-lane highway.
Then I'm sure you will be glad to see this from the 8-Year Plan:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52008971859_57975de4f2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2neRznn)
That would be good to see. The sooner they can re-build that stretch of US-287 as a four lane divided road may translate into more lives saved. I just hope they build the road in a manner where a later upgrade to Interstate status would be easy.
Some of the four lane divided highways expanded from 2 lanes in the Lawton area within the last 30 years have been partly in response to fatal head-on collisions. That was the case with OK-7 between Lawton and Duncan. And it was certainly true for OK-49 in the Medicine Park area (from I-44 to the OK-58 turn up to Lake Lawtonka. I think plans are in the works to 4-lane OK-58 thru the Lake Lawtonka area. There is a growing amount of residential development there. And tourism traffic is much heavier now than it has been in the past.
Oklahoma generally has a better record on improving highways for safety than Colorado. Honestly Colorado is just pathetic in this category. I've talked about US-24 going Northeast out of Colorado Springs. CDOT 4-laned it to Falcon a long time ago, but haven't done squat past Falcon since then. And that's despite numerous fatal accidents happening. The turns off US-24 to intersecting roads are tricky. Visibility is poor at night. There's a shit-ton of new residential development getting built out there. With the increasing traffic flow the road is getting more dangerous. Over the long term US-24 could be a freeway corridor eventually. But Colorado isn't thinking about the future, such as trying to preserve ROW along a 2-lane highway that should have been 4-lanes a long time ago.
Anyway, that policy of doing little as possible has me concerned about Colorado's portion of US-287 in the border region with Oklahoma. Will they ever 4-lane their part of it? Or will the New Urbanists try to pitch everyone on the idea of riding bicycles way out there?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 16, 2022, 06:01:48 PM
That would be good to see. The sooner they can re-build that stretch of US-287 as a four lane divided road may translate into more lives saved.
Out of curiosity, how many people die per year on this stretch?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 15, 2022, 11:46:00 AM
I've never seen any I-27 proposals that utilize the US-385 corridor down into Odessa. It's too far out of the way for main line I-27 traffic heading to points farther South in Texas. The ultimate goal is an I-27 extension that connects to border cities in South Texas. That works more to push the route thru Big Spring and maybe have a possible West leg going through Midland. An I-27 extension to Odessa would only work if I-27 ended in Odessa.
Yes that is true, using US - 385 to the W side of Odessa, would make it very hard to justify anything to the S of the I-20 corridor, in that area. A whole lot of nothing. Despite the 50 plus miles of four lane S of I-20. And additional mileage, through nothing, including additional mountains, to bring it back to the US - 277 corridor. In order to service Eagle Pass, Del Rio, and Laredo.
A west leg (I-27 W) might overlay/utilize State route 349 S of Lamesa, and then wrap around Midland on the western side of Loop 250, before following State route 158 back to US - 87. This could also have the effect of creating a Full Loop around Midland, by making an arc around it's southern edge.
Quote from: JayhawkCOOut of curiosity, how many people die per year on this stretch?
I don't have any numbers on it. One my girlfriend's friends died in a head-on colision on that stretch of road. I've driven the road myself and seen the potential hazards. It needs to be 4-lane divided and with some kind of physical barrier, even if it's just a cable barrier.
Quote from: DJStephensA west leg (I-27 W) might overlay/utilize State route 349 S of Lamesa, and then wrap around Midland on the western side of Loop 250, before following State route 158 back to US - 87. This could also have the effect of creating a Full Loop around Midland, by making an arc around it's southern edge.
It would be shorter for an I-27W route to use the East half of Loop 250 then span down to TX-158 along or near CR-1130. Unfortunately there is a lot of obstacles in the way, some of which include large homes with high income residents. The West half of Loop 250 meets I-20 at more of an open door with Antelope Trail. There is more room to build a freeway to freeway interchange with I-20. It looks like Antelope Trail starts what could be a South loop from I-20 back over to TX-158. I'm not 100% certain on this though. There are numerous pipeline corridors in the Midland-Odessa area too. But this looks like a planned road with at least enough ROW for a 4-lane divided road with at-grade intersections.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 14, 2022, 02:02:19 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7There are too many suffixed Interstates in the state of Texas. The reason for the 69 suffixes is because it was a congressional mandate. But they should be avoided as the FHWA doesn't allow them. I don't think I-27 needs them. Couldn't they go with an I-127 to Midland/Odessa?
The Lamesa-Midland segment would need to be an even-numbered route since it would terminate at Interstate highways on both ends. That's why I suggested "I-227" earlier.
The only thing I wouldn't like about an I-27E/I-27W arrangement is a potentially screwy route the I-27W route would have to take moving through Midland. If I-27W is routed around the East half of Loop 250 there isn't a simple way to get past the I-20/Loop 250 volleyball interchange down to TX-158. The West half of Loop 250 has more of an open door going South past I-20 there. But a lot more ground has to be covered to get back East to TX-158. Just having I-14 named on TX-158 would make the situation slightly easier.
QuoteThe problem I have with designating any Interstate 27Es or Interstate 27Ws is that I completely agree with AASHTO that they should not be used (at least AASHTO used to be against designating them).
I have no problem with twin "E" and "W" routes serving "binary" cities, like what I-35 does. Midland-Odessa and Big Spring falls into a similar situation. The suffix routes for I-69 are more questionable. I think I-69E should have been an extension of I-37. I think the I-69 main line should go to Laredo, the busiest inland border city. I'm not sure what I-69C could have been called. "I-33" would be a possibility; I think the US-281 corridor going North out of San Antonio could become I-33 eventually. A creative overlap with I-37 could help create a much longer single route. The I-14 suffix route ideas are pretty ridiculous. Those should just be 3-digit routes off an I-14 parent route.
Interstate spur routes start with odd numbers, as all of the proposed Midland-Odessa connections would be. And it is certainly not precedent for even numbering just because both ends connect to another Interstate when a loop is not formed. Look at I-135 and I-335 in Kansas between I-35 and I-70.
Quote from: r15-1 on May 03, 2022, 04:13:12 PM
And it is certainly not precedent for even numbering just because both ends connect to another Interstate when a loop is not formed. Look at I-135 and I-335 in Kansas between I-35 and I-70.
I'll look, but only if you agree to look at I-635 in that same state of Kansas.
Or I-280 in Ohio.
Quote from: r15-1 on May 03, 2022, 04:13:12 PM
Interstate spur routes start with odd numbers, as all of the proposed Midland-Odessa connections would be. And it is certainly not precedent for even numbering just because both ends connect to another Interstate when a loop is not formed. Look at I-135 and I-335 in Kansas between I-35 and I-70.
Why would they have two separate interstate numbers? Wouldn't it be more logical to have one even 2di starting south of there, looping over to Midland-Odessa, and then returning to I-27 north of there?
That said, taking I-10 to I-27 doesn't look like it would be that out of the way. Is it really worth it to build another interstate or two just to save 5-10 minutes?
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2022, 07:55:01 PM
Quote from: r15-1 on May 03, 2022, 04:13:12 PM
Interstate spur routes start with odd numbers, as all of the proposed Midland-Odessa connections would be. And it is certainly not precedent for even numbering just because both ends connect to another Interstate when a loop is not formed. Look at I-135 and I-335 in Kansas between I-35 and I-70.
Why would they have two separate interstate numbers? Wouldn't it be more logical to have one even 2di starting south of there, looping over to Midland-Odessa, and then returning to I-27 north of there?
That said, taking I-10 to I-27 doesn't look like it would be that out of the way. Is it really worth it to build another interstate or two just to save 5-10 minutes?
Naw, this is Texas we are talking about. 27C, 27E and 27W. build them all. :-D
I-27O!
I thought that suffixes only indicated the location relative to other descendants routes (West, East, North, South). Except maybe Central. I don't think they would get city initials like in the 1950s/60s.
Quote from: Thegeet on May 04, 2022, 01:44:44 AM
I thought that suffixes only indicated the location relative to other descendants routes (West, East, North, South). Except maybe Central. I don't think they would get city initials like in the 1950s/60s.
I still feel I-69C is overkill. I get that there is some literal reading going on in the law, but wouldn't it have been better to say that I-69E and I-69W exist, and the middle portion be just I-69?
Didn't mean to go I-69 in the I-27 thread, but that one fascinates me.
The suffixes were fun because all but two pairs were eliminated. Now we have I-69 and I-27 trying to play along and it's like anything else in the world. They were fun because they were unique, but creating a bunch takes the charm away and makes it dumb.
I guess that America, everything worth doing is worth overdoing.
Quote from: kphoger on May 03, 2022, 04:24:23 PM
Quote from: r15-1 on May 03, 2022, 04:13:12 PM
And it is certainly not precedent for even numbering just because both ends connect to another Interstate when a loop is not formed. Look at I-135 and I-335 in Kansas between I-35 and I-70.
I'll look, but only if you agree to look at I-635 in that same state of Kansas.
Or I-280 in Ohio.
I-635 in Kansas and Missouri is even numbered for two reasons. It is part of the inner loop of the Kansas City metro area (I-435 is the outer loop) even though it is not the entire loop. You can get back to the I-635 southern terminus by taking I-29 south from the I-635 northern terminus to where I-29 and I-35 are concurrent and then by continuing south on I-35. And I-635 also functions as a short connecting route (about 12 miles) between I-29 and I-35.
Ohio I-280 is an even number since it is a short connecting route between I-80/I-90 and I-75 to bypass Toledo. I-280 is also just over 12 miles long.
I don't believe any of the proposed I-27 spurs could be considered to function as part of a metropolitan loop. They also would not be short connecting routes as they would be most likely be considerably longer than the Kansas-Missouri I-635 or the Ohio I-280.
If only one I-x27 connecting route is eventually built between the proposed mainline I-27 and I-20, even numbering would be more plausible. But if multiple spurs are to be built, they should be numbered as spurs (odd) because that is how they would function.
I totally agree that there is no good reason for I-27 to be suffixed. IMO the only situation a suffix would ever be appropriate is like in Dallas-Fort Worth and Minneapolis-St. Paul where mainline I-35 splits and later rejoins. The I-69 splits should never have been given suffixes and would not have been except for political reasons. Same goes for proposed I-27.
Quote from: r15-1 on May 04, 2022, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 03, 2022, 04:24:23 PM
Quote from: r15-1 on May 03, 2022, 04:13:12 PM
And it is certainly not precedent for even numbering just because both ends connect to another Interstate when a loop is not formed. Look at I-135 and I-335 in Kansas between I-35 and I-70.
I'll look, but only if you agree to look at I-635 in that same state of Kansas.
Or I-280 in Ohio.
Ohio I-280 is an even number since it is a short connecting route between I-80/I-90 and I-75 to bypass Toledo. I-280 is also just over 12 miles long.
My point is that I-280 has "both ends connect to another Interstate when a loop is not formed". (Remember that I-280 predates I-475.)
As for I-135, its number was suggested by KDOT to AASHTO because the former "believed this route qualifies for a spur number off of Route I 35" (its former number was I-35W). Such a conclusion won't necessarily be reached when deciding on a number for the Lamesa—Midland route; it could be seen as a loop alternative to the mainline route. Maybe, maybe not.
Quote from: rte66man on April 16, 2022, 02:34:12 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 15, 2022, 12:13:58 PM
The maps that have been tossed around lately just show Texas' portion of the Ports to Plains Corridor, with a fantasy leg going into NE New Mexico to connect to Raton.
The Ports to Plains Corridor, as originally drawn, does include Colorado and the tip of the Oklahoma Panhandle. Ultimately a North extension of I-27 could at in Limon at I-70.
Without a lot of federal involvement (and funding) the entire corridor will be left up to individual states to develop on their own. Texas has far more motivation to build I-27 South out of Lubbock toward Laredo than it does extending it North out of Amarillo. That isn't going to change unless Colorado and Oklahoma show more interest in building out their portions of the corridor. I wish they would do so, because as a 2-lane route US-287 is not a safe drive going North of Boise City, OK into SE Colorado. That caprock transition area is a prime spot to have a fatal head-on collision, maybe with a semi truck. The very least thing they could do is divide the road into a standard 4-lane highway.
Then I'm sure you will be glad to see this from the 8-Year Plan:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52008971859_57975de4f2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2neRznn)
and this from Monday's ODOT Commission meeting for the tentative August Bid Opening:
13337(06) US287 3.98 miles $11,000,000
Grade, Drain, Bridge, and Surface
Begin appx 9.3 miles north of Van Buren in Boise City. Extend north.
It looks like 1.3 billion for an interstate conversion from NM/TX state line to Raton. I'd have thought it would be closer to 2 billion. NM ideally should be able to handle that at least in phases.
QuoteThe study looked at two possible options for this project with estimated costs ranging between $219 million to rehabilitate the current corridor and $1.3 billion to convert the existing highway in the corridor to an interstate.
https://www.cpr.org/2022/05/05/a-new-interstate-highway-between-texas-and-northern-new-mexico-could-connect-to-i-25-in-raton/
Still fail to understand why one would wish to attract trucking and long distance traffic to Raton Pass. Not a good idea. It is moot, anyhow, the new mexico department will never pursue the hypothetical upgrades.
Quote from: DJStephens on May 07, 2022, 09:51:18 PM
Still fail to understand why one would wish to attract trucking and long distance traffic to Raton Pass. Not a good idea. It is moot, anyhow, the new mexico department will never pursue the hypothetical upgrades.
Honest question because I don't know NMDOT that well, why wouldn't they? They did the studies so they won't be interested in anything further?
A bunch of people in the NM state government think everyone should be riding bicycles on all their trips. Super highways are a symbol of what they despise. It doesn't matter how vital those super highways are to moving commerce and helping ordinary citizens get from point A to point B.
Upgrading US-64/87 to Interstate standards from the TX state line to Raton would be relatively easy. Clayton would need a new terrain bypass though. I'm sure that wouldn't sit well with residents of that town. Minor bypasses would be needed for Des Moines and Capulin. The biggest part of the job would be upgrading the main roadways to something that actually passes for Interstate quality. That will be the costliest part of the deal. The current road is mostly asphalt, not up to Interstate grades and lacks Interstate quality shoulders for much of the way. The NM state legislature doesn't appear to be too keen on supporting such a project. The current road is "good enough" by their standards.
The Ports to Plains Corridor has long had two proposed legs. The path to Raton is one of them. The route up through the top of the Texas Panhandle, thru the Oklahoma Panhandle and into SE Colorado the other leg. That's the more realistic one which can be built. I think if more work is done on the leg up thru Boise City, OK into SE Colorado it could strike a bit of fear into the New Mexico folks about the possibility of lost business.
If New Mexico cares about lost business then wouldn't be proactive? BTW, because of my personal bias, I'd prefer to see this go through Oklahoma.
It's a good question, aggregating all that traffic just to send them over Raton Pass.
Is there a way to send a better road up to the Arkansas River valley and junction at Pueblo?
May be cheaper to funnel all that traffic via Raton because it will use existing ROW, but the wasted fuel and winter time considerations...seems we would waste billions on fuel to get all that commerce up and over the pass than we would spend on a potential valley route over the next 30 years.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 06, 2022, 12:53:28 PM
It looks like 1.3 billion for an interstate conversion from NM/TX state line to Raton. I'd have thought it would be closer to 2 billion. NM ideally should be able to handle that at least in phases.
QuoteThe study looked at two possible options for this project with estimated costs ranging between $219 million to rehabilitate the current corridor and $1.3 billion to convert the existing highway in the corridor to an interstate.
https://www.cpr.org/2022/05/05/a-new-interstate-highway-between-texas-and-northern-new-mexico-could-connect-to-i-25-in-raton/
More from the article continues with traffic prospects:
"Generally for Raton," Berry said of improving the connection to I-25, "our economic development plan is built around a lot of traffic on that highway."
According to the study, improving the route to Interstate Highway standards, "traffic is projected to increase between 1% and 2%." "Improvement or expansion of the corridor would not create traffic congestion along the corridor," it goes on to say.
The last sentence in the article seems to sum up the sentiment found on this forum:
"It could be decades before anyone is driving on the new interstate highway."
Quote from: splashflash on May 08, 2022, 11:05:19 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 06, 2022, 12:53:28 PM
It looks like 1.3 billion for an interstate conversion from NM/TX state line to Raton. I'd have thought it would be closer to 2 billion. NM ideally should be able to handle that at least in phases.
QuoteThe study looked at two possible options for this project with estimated costs ranging between $219 million to rehabilitate the current corridor and $1.3 billion to convert the existing highway in the corridor to an interstate.
https://www.cpr.org/2022/05/05/a-new-interstate-highway-between-texas-and-northern-new-mexico-could-connect-to-i-25-in-raton/
More from the article continues with traffic prospects:
"Generally for Raton," Berry said of improving the connection to I-25, "our economic development plan is built around a lot of traffic on that highway."
According to the study, improving the route to Interstate Highway standards, "traffic is projected to increase between 1% and 2%."
"Improvement or expansion of the corridor would not create traffic congestion along the corridor," it goes on to say.
The last sentence in the article seems to sum up the sentiment found on this forum:
"It could be decades before anyone is driving on the new interstate highway."
SO will traffic increase or stay the same?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 07, 2022, 11:25:47 PM
A bunch of people in the NM state government think everyone should be riding bicycles on all their trips. Super highways are a symbol of what they despise. It doesn't matter how vital those super highways are to moving commerce and helping ordinary citizens get from point A to point B.
Upgrading US-64/87 to Interstate standards from the TX state line to Raton would be relatively easy. Clayton would need a new terrain bypass though. I'm sure that wouldn't sit well with residents of that town. Minor bypasses would be needed for Des Moines and Capulin. The biggest part of the job would be upgrading the main roadways to something that actually passes for Interstate quality. That will be the costliest part of the deal. The current road is mostly asphalt, not up to Interstate grades and lacks Interstate quality shoulders for much of the way. The NM state legislature doesn't appear to be too keen on supporting such a project. The current road is "good enough" by their standards.
The Ports to Plains Corridor has long had two proposed legs. The path to Raton is one of them. The route up through the top of the Texas Panhandle, thru the Oklahoma Panhandle and into SE Colorado the other leg. That's the more realistic one which can be built. I think if more work is done on the leg up thru Boise City, OK into SE Colorado it could strike a bit of fear into the New Mexico folks about the possibility of lost business.
Right now, it can be fairly assumed that the relationship between Lea+Eddy counties in SE New Mexico, which between the two of them produce 1.3 million barrels of oil per day, and Santa Fe is...not a good one. It's not often that one sees a state's most conservative region be the pack horse for the rest of the state (CO and Weld County is another example BTW). But I would have to think that Santa Fe, Lea, and Eddy Counties would have to be united in opposing the very silly idea to upgrade an already 4-lane US 64-87 to interstate standards.
Quote from: brad2971 on May 08, 2022, 12:16:03 PM
Right now, it can be fairly assumed that the relationship between Lea+Eddy counties in SE New Mexico, which between the two of them produce 1.3 million barrels of oil per day, and Santa Fe is...not a good one. It's not often that one sees a state's most conservative region be the pack horse for the rest of the state (CO and Weld County is another example BTW). But I would have to think that Santa Fe, Lea, and Eddy Counties would have to be united in opposing the very silly idea to upgrade an already 4-lane US 64-87 to interstate standards.
O&G is a far smaller percentage of the Colorado economy than it is in New Mexico. Data I've seen suggests it to be NM's biggest private-sector industry, while it's #6 in CO.
I have a good amount of family in the SE part of New Mexico (and was born there). With as much oil and gas business that is generated in that part of the state it certainly could use some highway improvement. US-70 should at least be four-lane divided between Las Cruces and Roswell. Parts of US-82 could use 4-laning as well for safety sake.
Quote from: edwaleniIs there a way to send a better road up to the Arkansas River valley and junction at Pueblo?
I don't think that would do much good. A bunch would have to either be built on new terrain or run very in-direct L-shapes. The most obvious avenue of approach is upgrading US-287 going North out of the Texas Panhandle into SE Colorado. Almost all the upgrades could take place along the existing highway alignment up to Limon, CO.
Once some version of the Ports to Plains Corridor is complete it could set the stage for a more direct diagonal route from Denver to the Southeast US via that 45 degree turn at Kit Carson. Draw a line between Kit Carson and Woodward, OK. That's the gap that should be spanned at some point in the future, even if it starts out as a 2 lane road.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 07, 2022, 11:25:47 PM
A bunch of people in the NM state government think everyone should be riding bicycles on all their trips. Super highways are a symbol of what they despise. It doesn't matter how vital those super highways are to moving commerce and helping ordinary citizens get from point A to point B.
Upgrading US-64/87 to Interstate standards from the TX state line to Raton would be relatively easy. Clayton would need a new terrain bypass though. I'm sure that wouldn't sit well with residents of that town. Minor bypasses would be needed for Des Moines and Capulin. The biggest part of the job would be upgrading the main roadways to something that actually passes for Interstate quality. That will be the costliest part of the deal. The current road is mostly asphalt, not up to Interstate grades and lacks Interstate quality shoulders for much of the way. The NM state legislature doesn't appear to be too keen on supporting such a project. The current road is "good enough" by their standards.
The Ports to Plains Corridor has long had two proposed legs. The path to Raton is one of them. The route up through the top of the Texas Panhandle, thru the Oklahoma Panhandle and into SE Colorado the other leg. That's the more realistic one which can be built. I think if more work is done on the leg up thru Boise City, OK into SE Colorado it could strike a bit of fear into the New Mexico folks about the possibility of lost business.
The 64/87 corridor in NM was "improved" not that long ago. Mid 00's. In typical fashion, it was poorly designed and executed. Pete Rahn. Minimal twinning, insufficient median and shoulders, inadequate horizontal and vertical curvature, a typical cheap out for here. Could have been a stepping stone for what they are talking about in the article. The article shows a picture of the route entering Raton. Flush median, albeit a 12-16 foot one, instead of a wider grassed median. Lousy.
Yep. I drive that segment of US-64/87 at least a couple times a year driving up to Colorado. I'm at least thankful it is no longer a 2-lane road. It really sucked driving on that highway back then. The terrain is wide open out there -hardly any trees at all, just lots of seemingly flat, open grassland. But the terrain ebbs and rolls a lot and the highway goes through lots of minor dips and curves crossing that terrain. Visibility for passing slow vehicles was terrible. A motorist could see hills and mountains 40 or more miles in the distance, but not be able to see enough road ahead in the opposing lane to pass. That's frustrating. I'd usually drive through there at night when there was far less traffic. During the day, one slow driving RV could create a long train of vehicles backed up behind it.
It's much easier driving on US-64/87 in NE NM now. But, yeah, the road quality is not very good. A bunch of it is not graded to Interstate standards. For much of it they just built a second asphalt roadway next to the previously existing 2-lane highway. So the finished 4-lane highway still has all the odd dips and curves, especially between Clayton and Mount Dora.
IIRC there is only one partially good quality of stretch on US-64/87 between Clayton and Raton, the zone leading up to Mount Dora. Parts of that are concrete and are graded better. Still, for any full-blown Interstate upgrade almost all of that road would have to be re-built.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 10, 2022, 11:36:56 AM
IIRC there is only one partially good quality of stretch on US-64/87 between Clayton and Raton, the zone leading up to Mount Dora. Parts of that are concrete and are graded better. Still, for any full-blown Interstate upgrade almost all of that road would have to be re-built.
That's one of the few small segments of highway that's paved in concrete in New Mexico. Originally, most of New Mexico's interstate highways were paved with concrete. Due to the soil conditions out here, they found out that concrete pavement degrades rather quickly due to an alkali-silica reaction, and so NMDOT had to completely reconstruct almost all of its interstate highways during the '90s and 2000s. They removed the original concrete pavement, regraded the roadbed and repaved the interstates mostly with asphalt. The few sections of I-40 through Albuquerque and Gallup that were rebuilt with concrete pavement use low-alkali cement that was imported from Mexico. These sections have held up pretty well, but paving with low-alkali cement is rather expensive compared to asphalt, since the cement has to be imported. So in most other areas, NMDOT went the cheap route and used asphalt.
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 11, 2022, 09:49:01 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 10, 2022, 11:36:56 AM
IIRC there is only one partially good quality of stretch on US-64/87 between Clayton and Raton, the zone leading up to Mount Dora. Parts of that are concrete and are graded better. Still, for any full-blown Interstate upgrade almost all of that road would have to be re-built.
That's one of the few small segments of highway that's paved in concrete in New Mexico. Originally, most of New Mexico's interstate highways were paved with concrete. Due to the soil conditions out here, they found out that concrete pavement degrades rather quickly due to an alkali-silica reaction, and so NMDOT had to completely reconstruct almost all of its interstate highways during the '90s and 2000s. They removed the original concrete pavement, regraded the roadbed and repaved the interstates mostly with asphalt. The few sections of I-40 through Albuquerque and Gallup that were rebuilt with concrete pavement use low-alkali cement that was imported from Mexico. These sections have held up pretty well, but paving with low-alkali cement is rather expensive compared to asphalt, since the cement has to be imported. So in most other areas, NMDOT went the cheap route and used asphalt.
Yep, "mill and fill" is a cottage industry here. You might?? get 10 years out of an asphalt surface, before the sun and heat, causes raveling and erosion of the surface. 10 years if your'e lucky.
Remember the hype over "superpave" in the late nineties. SP-3 and SP-4. Frankly doesn't seem to hold up. I would have spent the money to pave all the urban / semi-urban stretches in concrete, while sticking with asphalt in the rural areas, the majority of the lane miles.
Quote from: DJStephens on May 11, 2022, 10:36:55 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 11, 2022, 09:49:01 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 10, 2022, 11:36:56 AM
IIRC there is only one partially good quality of stretch on US-64/87 between Clayton and Raton, the zone leading up to Mount Dora. Parts of that are concrete and are graded better. Still, for any full-blown Interstate upgrade almost all of that road would have to be re-built.
That's one of the few small segments of highway that's paved in concrete in New Mexico. Originally, most of New Mexico's interstate highways were paved with concrete. Due to the soil conditions out here, they found out that concrete pavement degrades rather quickly due to an alkali-silica reaction, and so NMDOT had to completely reconstruct almost all of its interstate highways during the '90s and 2000s. They removed the original concrete pavement, regraded the roadbed and repaved the interstates mostly with asphalt. The few sections of I-40 through Albuquerque and Gallup that were rebuilt with concrete pavement use low-alkali cement that was imported from Mexico. These sections have held up pretty well, but paving with low-alkali cement is rather expensive compared to asphalt, since the cement has to be imported. So in most other areas, NMDOT went the cheap route and used asphalt.
Yep, "mill and fill" is a cottage industry here. You might?? get 10 years out of an asphalt surface, before the sun and heat, causes raveling and erosion of the surface. 10 years if your'e lucky.
Remember the hype over "superpave" in the late nineties. SP-3 and SP-4. Frankly doesn't seem to hold up. I would have spent the money to pave all the urban / semi-urban stretches in concrete, while sticking with asphalt in the rural areas, the majority of the lane miles.
To your point, there's a stretch of Eubank Boulevard here in Albuquerque that was last resurfaced about 5 or 6 years ago. Today that stretch is completely rutted with potholes. The City of Albuquerque is milling and resurfacing that stretch of Eubank this week, and from the looks of it, they're milling off the top layer of asphalt and only putting down about 2 inches of new asphalt. Since they're doing things on the cheap, they'll be back out there in 5 years resurfacing again.
Regarding Raton, this would work better as a diagonal 2di to Dallas/Fort Worth and/or Texarkana. Something like 28 to 38 would work, and never mind that the westernmost part would be north of I-40. The government of NM needs to get its head out of its ass and listen to suggestions like these.
Quote from: Henry on May 12, 2022, 12:40:33 PM
Regarding Raton, this would work better as a diagonal 2di to Dallas/Fort Worth and/or Texarkana. Something like 28 to 38 would work, and never mind that the westernmost part would be north of I-40. The government of NM needs to get its head out of its ass and listen to suggestions like these.
They won't though, because New Mexico officials pretty much won't invest in anything that doesn't serve Albuquerque or Santa Fe.
There are items in the state, either never built, or in dire need of replacing, that could be argued would have greater importance, and more benefits, than the "port to plains" branch
1. 3/4 Albuquerque circumferential
2. Straightening, widening and depressing I-25 S of the "Big I" project area
3. Anthony Gap - the N section of an El Paso bypass
4. Oil Field investments - four lane US 285 S to Texas state line, bypass of Loving / Malaga. Carlsbad and Hobbs US 62 / 180 bypasses
5. US 70 bypasses - W to E - Las Cruces, Alamogordo, Ruidoso Downs, Roswell, Portales, Clovis
6. Nogal Canyon twin bridge replacement on I-25 of archaic narrow fifties structure present there now
7. Full depth reconstruction of remaining Original pre-1960/65 sections of both 25 and 40
8. Full reconstruction of several sections of pre-1960 sections of I-10 with complete interchange replacements.
I've not personally driven the stretch of US-64 / US-87 east of I-25, but what are the major issues with it? Doing a quick glance at various sections on Google Street view, it seems like a typical rural 4 lane divided highway with a 40 foot median, relatively level, and some form of shoulders at any given time. It's not perfectly interstate-grade but it certainly appears sufficient.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 12, 2022, 10:12:19 PM
I've not personally driven the stretch of US-64 / US-87 east of I-25, but what are the major issues with it? Doing a quick glance at various sections on Google Street view, it seems like a typical rural 4 lane divided highway with a 40 foot median, relatively level, and some form of shoulders at any given time. It's not perfectly interstate-grade but it certainly appears sufficient.
I've been scratching my head too. I drove it from Capulin to Clayton two years ago, and I don't remember there being any problem with it, other than wishing a lot of it had a higher speed limit.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 12, 2022, 10:12:19 PM
I've not personally driven the stretch of US-64 / US-87 east of I-25, but what are the major issues with it? Doing a quick glance at various sections on Google Street view, it seems like a typical rural 4 lane divided highway with a 40 foot median, relatively level, and some form of shoulders at any given time. It's not perfectly interstate-grade but it certainly appears sufficient.
IF...and that's a big IF...New Mexico ever gets around to upgrading 64/87 to an interstate, NMDOT would probably have to build bypasses around Clayton, Greenville, and Capulin, and probably build a connector to a new interchange with I-25 south of Raton. I don't think it would take much to upgrade the rest of 64/87 to interstate standards on the spot.
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 13, 2022, 10:13:47 AM
IF...and that's a big IF...New Mexico ever gets around to upgrading 64/87 to an interstate, NMDOT would probably have to build bypasses around Clayton, Greenville, and Capulin, and probably build a connector to a new interchange with I-25 south of Raton. I don't think it would take much to upgrade the rest of 64/87 to interstate standards on the spot.
Let's not forget the 15mph school zone speed limit in Des Moines. https://goo.gl/maps/bT8MxBndf9Aa5PiCA
Note that the school zone is
not on the stretch of highway closest to the high school. Rather, it is on the stretch of highway adjacent to Freedom School, which closed twenty years ago.
Quote from: kphoger on May 13, 2022, 10:24:17 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 13, 2022, 10:13:47 AM
IF...and that's a big IF...New Mexico ever gets around to upgrading 64/87 to an interstate, NMDOT would probably have to build bypasses around Clayton, Greenville, and Capulin, and probably build a connector to a new interchange with I-25 south of Raton. I don't think it would take much to upgrade the rest of 64/87 to interstate standards on the spot.
Let's not forget the 15mph school zone speed limit in Des Moines. https://goo.gl/maps/bT8MxBndf9Aa5PiCA
Note that the school zone is not on the stretch of highway closest to the high school. Rather, it is on the stretch of highway adjacent to Freedom School, which closed twenty years ago.
Ahh...I forgot the bypass around Des Moines they'll need to build as well. Thanks!
Quote from: sprjus4I've not personally driven the stretch of US-64 / US-87 east of I-25, but what are the major issues with it?
There isn't much wrong with US-64/87 in NE NM if it only has to function as a standard divided 4-lane highway with some grand-fathered features. As a target for potential Interstate upgrades the highway is seriously deficient. Overall it looks a bit cheap compared to other 4-lane divided highways I use on road trips between Lawton and Colorado Springs, not to mention other 4-lane divided highways in this region.
Very little mileage of the US-64/87 main lanes was built with Interstate-quality grading. It's very difficult to see all the little bends and dips in the road via Google Street View. When driving on it for real it's clear the road doesn't have Interstate geometry. In some ways I'm kind of surprised 65mph or 70mph speed limits are allowed. Much of it was 55mph or even 50mph when it was just a 2-lane highway. As I said earlier, NM DOT simply laid down a second asphalt roadway next to the existing 2-lane highway for much of the project.
The shoulders on US-64/87 aren't up to Interstate standards either, much less current 4-lane divided highway standards. Here in Oklahoma I've seen quite a few improvement projects done to existing 4-lane highways to widen shoulders, do grading work to improve drainage, add cable barriers, update guardrails and other features. Some of the work has included replacing main lane roadways. Since the 4-laning of US-64/87 has been finished most of the improvement work I've seen is just asphalt overlay.
Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2022, 10:22:48 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 12, 2022, 10:12:19 PM
I've not personally driven the stretch of US-64 / US-87 east of I-25, but what are the major issues with it? Doing a quick glance at various sections on Google Street view, it seems like a typical rural 4 lane divided highway with a 40 foot median, relatively level, and some form of shoulders at any given time. It's not perfectly interstate-grade but it certainly appears sufficient.
I've been scratching my head too. I drove it from Capulin to Clayton two years ago, and I don't remember there being any problem with it, other than wishing a lot of it had a higher speed limit.
I think it's not so much that there's a problem with the routing itself, but more that using it to get to Colorado will inevitably bring one to Raton Pass, which sucks, and that the politics of New Mexico is such that it's somehow even less likely that limited-access upgrades will happen than it would be if it crossed the Oklahoma panhandle. (Surprisingly, Oklahoma seems to be willing to upgrade US-287 in Cimarron County, if the ODOT 8-year plan is to be believed.)
I think its a horrible idea to shove more traffic through Raton Pass. Stay east of the range and give Ports-to-Plains traffic another way to Denver without having to go through that horrible stretch of road.
The other important issue aside from the steep grades of Raton Pass is weather. Funneling everything through Raton Pass is putting all your eggs in one basket and not being able to use that basket at all when the pass is slammed with a blizzard. Some redundancy is needed in the highway system out in that region. The Front Range Cities in Colorado need more than I-25 and I-70 as good quality exit points to the Southeast.
Making US-287 4-lane divided 100% of the way up through the Texas Panhandle and up to Limon would be a big improvement for safety and efficiency. Turning the highway into an extension of I-27 would be even better. If Raton Pass is getting hit with a snow storm there is at least a good chance the US-287 corridor won't be affected. Likewise, if a blizzard has rolled out into the plains there is a chance clearing could be underway at Raton.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2022, 09:37:57 AM
I think its a horrible idea to shove more traffic through Raton Pass. Stay east of the range and give Ports-to-Plains traffic another way to Denver without having to go through that horrible stretch of road.
I went across Raton Pass in a driving snow storm in February of 2021. There was seemingly as much traffic there as on I-40 west of Amarillo. This would seemingly add traffic to an already very busy freeway in an area where significant snow and ice are not at all unusual.
US 64-US 87 (Clayton and NW) always seemed to be prone to closure in the winter time (blowing snow, drifting snow, whiteouts), even when other routes in and around the TX panhandle weren't as affected.
Have you guys already forgotten this:
Quote from: splashflash on May 08, 2022, 11:05:19 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 06, 2022, 12:53:28 PM
It looks like 1.3 billion for an interstate conversion from NM/TX state line to Raton. I'd have thought it would be closer to 2 billion. NM ideally should be able to handle that at least in phases.
Quote
The study looked at two possible options for this project with estimated costs ranging between $219 million to rehabilitate the current corridor and $1.3 billion to convert the existing highway in the corridor to an interstate.
https://www.cpr.org/2022/05/05/a-new-interstate-highway-between-texas-and-northern-new-mexico-could-connect-to-i-25-in-raton/
More from the article continues with traffic prospects:
"Generally for Raton," Berry said of improving the connection to I-25, "our economic development plan is built around a lot of traffic on that highway."
According to the study, improving the route to Interstate Highway standards, "traffic is projected to increase between 1% and 2%."
"Improvement or expansion of the corridor would not create traffic congestion along the corridor," it goes on to say.
A traffic increase of 1% to 2% hardly appears to be something that will "shove more traffic through" or "add traffic to an already very busy freeway".
Quote from: kphoger on May 16, 2022, 01:58:50 PM
Have you guys already forgotten this:
Quote
More from the article continues with traffic prospects:
“Generally for Raton,” Berry said of improving the connection to I-25, “our economic development plan is built around a lot of traffic on that highway.”
According to the study, improving the route to Interstate Highway standards, "traffic is projected to increase between 1% and 2%."
“Improvement or expansion of the corridor would not create traffic congestion along the corridor,” it goes on to say.
Quote
A traffic increase of 1% to 2% hardly appears to be something that will "shove more traffic through" or "add traffic to an already very busy freeway".
If it will only increase traffic by 1% to 2% why are we discussing doing it? Capacity doesn't seem to be a real problem. It will become a little safer and a little more convenient, but will it really make a big enough difference to justify the expense?
I do think that bypasses of the towns along the route is prudent, but a full-fledged freeway for the entirety, not so much...
Safety and efficiency are two benefits of a freeway that have little to do with capacity.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 16, 2022, 09:45:14 PM
Safety and efficiency are two benefits of a freeway that have little to do with capacity.
I agree to a point. The question is the marginal improvement over the current facility actually worth the cost of the upgrade. I don't know the safety records on this stretch of road, but, my guess is the marginal improvement would be fairly low.
US-64/87 in NE NM is considerably safer now as a 4 lane divided road than it was as a 2 lane route. Still the rolling nature of terrain between Clayton and Mount Dora creates some visibility hazards with vehicles using ranch access roads connecting directly to the main lanes. If the main lanes had been graded more to Interstate standards the sight lines would be better. Thankfully not many vehicles use those access roads.
I think US-287 is a bigger problem. It drops down to 2 lanes North of Stafford, TX. From there US-287 stays in 2-lane form up to Limon, CO with only a few brief exceptions. There's a Northbound passing lane near the OK/CO border. US-287 expands into 5-lane surface streets going thru Springfield and Lamar. There's a brief 4-lane divided stretch with the overlap of US-50. The rest of it is just 2 lane highway. I don't know the overall traffic counts of that highway, but you can easily see in Google Earth that a lot of semi trucks use it. That highway would be a lot safer as a 4-lane divided highway, if not a limited access Interstate.
NM media story: https://www.myhighplains.com/news/regional-news/plans-in-place-for-a-new-interstate-between-texas-and-new-mexico/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR2N0v5iGM5B8qT_SBilf-anFws0fwUW2F0PvB3xwy1epNLOXqugyc-ychI
When I travel from WYO to Texas I do not go US 287 anymore. I have had two close calls with semis drifting into the oncoming traffic. One time I saw a light coming for me. There are a lot of trucks that use that road from Limon to Amarillo. Even though that way shows it as the quicker route on the maps, I now always go over Raton Pass, or if I want different scenery I cut down to US 81 to I-135 to I-35 and pay a small toll. Just seems safer to me.
Quote from: monty on May 17, 2022, 03:05:46 PM
NM media story: https://www.myhighplains.com/news/regional-news/plans-in-place-for-a-new-interstate-between-texas-and-new-mexico/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR2N0v5iGM5B8qT_SBilf-anFws0fwUW2F0PvB3xwy1epNLOXqugyc-ychI
Wishful thinking. The "progressive" type politicos in Santa fe will never approve funding for such a scheme. Rainbows and Unicorns instead.
Quote from: ski-manWhen I travel from WYO to Texas I do not go US 287 anymore. I have had two close calls with semis drifting into the oncoming traffic. One time I saw a light coming for me.
When driving on any rural 2-lane highway it is critical for a motorist to keep eyes on the road
and on-coming traffic. Distracted driving habits, like texting while driving, can end up being lethal. It's very easy for a motorist to allow a vehicle to drift out of the lane while doing risky things such as texting on a phone.
Out in the Texas/Oklahoma panhandles and going into Southeast Colorado US-287 has risk multipliers. US-287 goes through some hills and curves as it crosses the caprock transition. That creates blind spots. The remote location translates to a significant number of people driving long distance trips. Drowsy driving is a factor. Motorists can get "road hypnotized" when driving on very straight, monotonous stretches of road. SE Colorado has some of those kinds of boring, desolate stretches of highway. Zoning out at the wrong time could mean having a head-on with a semi truck.
TX DOT, ODOT and CDOT at least need to get a second roadway added to that stretch of US-287, even if it's a modest upgrade like the US-64/87 project in NE NM.
Meanwhile, even though it might seem like overkill, an Interstate upgrade of US-64/87 in NE NM could be completed in a series of less financially painful phases. If it was my call I'd start with building the town bypasses and then fill in the gaps between towns later. That could start with Raton, Capulin and Des Moines. Those look pretty easy to do and wouldn't veer far away from the existing US-64/87 highway. It looks like it would be relatively simple to build a Y interchange on I-25 and create an outlet to US-64/87. There's very little development in Raton to the East of I-25. Bypasses for Capulin and Des Moines would be very modest. The tiny towns of Grenville and Mt Dora are so small US-64/87 could be upgraded over the existing alignment pretty easily. Those two towns just need a freeway exit and that's it.
Bypasses around Clayton, Texline and Dalhart could start out as Super-2 bypasses just to get the ROW reserved. A lot of existing traffic would still stick to the existing highway going through town. Then the second set of lanes could be added to those bypasses later as more progress happens with the rest of the corridor. Even the grade separations and exit ramps can be added in phases.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 17, 2022, 07:37:47 PM
Bypasses around Clayton, Texline and Dalhart could start out as Super-2 bypasses just to get the ROW reserved. A lot of existing traffic would still stick to the existing highway going through town. Then the second set of lanes could be added to those bypasses later as more progress happens with the rest of the corridor. Even the grade separations and exit ramps can be added in phases.
Like Oklahoma did with Boise City? :bigass: :bigass:
Yeah, kind of like what ODOT did with Boise City. Except not seemingly permanent like what ODOT has done in Boise City.
That section of US-287 going around the East and North sides of Boise City would be fairly simple to upgrade into a future segment of I-27. ODOT might have to acquire a little more ROW for exit ramps at North Cimarron Avenue on the North side of town. They would need even more ROW still if they wanted to add continuous frontage roads alongside the future freeway. Currently they do have just enough room in place to add a second set of highway lanes.
The town of Campo, just across the border into Colorado might have to be treated in a similar fashion. Build a Super-2 bypass and then flesh it out into a complete Interstate quality facility over time.