News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south

Started by afguy, March 26, 2019, 07:01:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

kphoger

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

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

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

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

As for your assertion...  Are you saying that those people who would use the new Interstate are currently travelling via highways whose AADTs I did not cite, or are you saying they're simply staying home instead?
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.


sparker

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

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

DJStephens

Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2019, 06:04:55 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 11, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
for northbound to Raton I'd build a bypass around west Amarillo angling it up to Dalhart before heading west to Raton.  The bypass to Trinidad would be fine too.

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

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

froggie

Quote from: kphoger on April 09, 2019, 06:56:58 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 09, 2019, 05:29:06 PM

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

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

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

*snip AADT values*

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

sparker

Quote from: froggie on April 13, 2019, 07:24:22 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 09, 2019, 06:56:58 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 09, 2019, 05:29:06 PM

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

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

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

*snip AADT values*

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


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

Bobby5280

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

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

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

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

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

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

sparker

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

Scott5114

Quote from: DJStephens on April 12, 2019, 11:58:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2019, 06:04:55 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 11, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
for northbound to Raton I'd build a bypass around west Amarillo angling it up to Dalhart before heading west to Raton.  The bypass to Trinidad would be fine too.

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

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

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

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

rte66man

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 14, 2019, 02:43:17 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on April 12, 2019, 11:58:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2019, 06:04:55 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 11, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
for northbound to Raton I'd build a bypass around west Amarillo angling it up to Dalhart before heading west to Raton.  The bypass to Trinidad would be fine too.

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

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

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

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

Just because they are functionally illiterate doesn't mean they can't build a road..........  :bigass:
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Verlanka

Quote from: rte66man on April 14, 2019, 08:16:32 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 14, 2019, 02:43:17 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on April 12, 2019, 11:58:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2019, 06:04:55 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 11, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
for northbound to Raton I'd build a bypass around west Amarillo angling it up to Dalhart before heading west to Raton.  The bypass to Trinidad would be fine too.

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

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

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

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

Just because they are functionally illiterate doesn't mean they can't build a road..........  :bigass:
You got that right. :D

DJStephens

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 14, 2019, 02:43:17 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on April 12, 2019, 11:58:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2019, 06:04:55 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 11, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
for northbound to Raton I'd build a bypass around west Amarillo angling it up to Dalhart before heading west to Raton.  The bypass to Trinidad would be fine too.

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

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

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

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

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

Bobby5280

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

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

sparker

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

Bobby5280

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

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

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

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

sparker

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

Bobby5280

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

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

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

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

sparker

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

Bobby5280

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

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

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

In_Correct

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

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

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

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

Oklahoma is right in the middle of the United States Of America. It needs to have 4 lane roads to accommodate traffic to and from Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico, and also Old Mexico (United Mexican States) , and coast to coast traffic.
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

sparker

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

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

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

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

kphoger

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

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

Yep, there's the missing spoke.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

US 41

If I were to do anything at all I would just build an eastern interstate-quality bypass around Lamesa and have it connect to TX 349 south of town and call it a day. Those roads all have 75 mph speed limits once you are out of town. Building an interstate just seems like a total waste of money and I doubt there is that much traffic there.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

In_Correct

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

Of course they should be Interstates. As long as they don't make them curvy and pointy.
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

sparker

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

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

kphoger

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

Where, specifically?  I've already posted a lot of AADT figures in this thread.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.



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