TX: Ports to Plains corridor study

[sprjus4]

The new US-87 half-loop bypass around Big Spring is nearly 14 miles long. Texas could apply to have that added to the Interstate system and signed as either I-27 or I-27E.

The US-87 Big Spring bypass isn't fully up to interstate standards, some private farm access points exist along with a few median breaks with turn lanes (for turnarounds). Those would need to be addressed before that segment can become I-27.

Additionally, I'm not sure it counts as "connected" to I-20 due to the lack of direct ramp connectors. Interstate highways can only be designated if they connect directly to another interstate highway.

[monty]

US 87 from Dumas to Hartley is slated to be four-laned and divided. This is the last rural segment of US 87 north of Amarillo to New Mexico that is currently just 2 - 3 lanes.

[Bobby5280]

Interstate highways can only be designated if they connect directly to another interstate highway.

We have "Breezewood" style interchanges in Pennsylvania. I-110 in El Paso doesn't directly connect to I-10 at all (it's only off-ramps of off-ramps) and no one driving on I-10 in El Paso sees any signs for I-110. Now we have new oddities like an I-240 route and I-335 route dead-ending into each other at a partial exit to a surface street. In that context a sub-standard volleyball interchange between two signed Interstates wouldn't surprise me.

The US-87 bypass around Big Spring will still need a good bit of work to meet Interstate standards regardless of the volleyball situation with I-20. They did cut some corners building the bypass. But the bypass and its ROW is set in place. That's a big part of the equation.

US 87 from Dumas to Hartley is slated to be four-laned and divided.

[Rothman]

Interstate highways can only be designated if they connect directly to another interstate highway.

We have "Breezewood" style interchanges in Pennsylvania. I-110 in El Paso doesn't directly connect to I-10 at all (it's only off-ramps of off-ramps) and no one driving on I-10 in El Paso sees any signs for I-110. Now we have new oddities like an I-240 route and I-335 route dead-ending into each other at a partial exit to a surface street. In that context a sub-standard volleyball interchange between two signed Interstates wouldn't surprise me.

The US-87 bypass around Big Spring will still need a good bit of work to meet Interstate standards regardless of the volleyball situation with I-20. They did cut some corners building the bypass. But the bypass and its ROW is set in place. That's a big part of the equation.

US 87 from Dumas to Hartley is slated to be four-laned and divided.

FHWA has become stricter about Interstate standards for new designations...going back almost 20 years now.  See I-86 in NY...

[DJStephens]

Interstate highways can only be designated if they connect directly to another interstate highway.

We have "Breezewood" style interchanges in Pennsylvania. I-110 in El Paso doesn't directly connect to I-10 at all (it's only off-ramps of off-ramps) and no one driving on I-10 in El Paso sees any signs for I-110. Now we have new oddities like an I-240 route and I-335 route dead-ending into each other at a partial exit to a surface street. In that context a sub-standard volleyball interchange between two signed Interstates wouldn't surprise me. 
The US-87 bypass around Big Spring will still need a good bit of work to meet Interstate standards regardless of the volleyball situation with I-20. They did cut some corners building the bypass. But the bypass and its ROW is set in place. That's a big part of the equation. 

US 87 from Dumas to Hartley is slated to be four-laned and divided.

By I-110 in El Paso, if you are speaking of the "Patriot Frwy" yes it has direct ramps to I-10.   Am of belief it should have been torn down though, and completely reconstructed, with either a segmental or box beam design for the flyovers.  Designs with some measure of seismic resistance.   Instead the agency found close to $900 million to waste on a west side "tollway".   The 10/110 interchange has numerous flaws, to include weaving, congestion, lane drops, curvature, and a missing section of WB frontage through it's core.   

[Bobby5280]

On I-10 there are no signs posted for I-110. Even after the interchange was recently updated vehicles on I-10 have to take off-ramps for US-54 and then take ramps that split off those off-ramps in order to reach I-110. There appears to be less signage on US-54 listing exit ramps for I-110. It's almost an unsigned Interstate.

[vdeane]

On I-10 there are no signs posted for I-110. Even after the interchange was recently updated vehicles on I-10 have to take off-ramps for US-54 and then take ramps that split off those off-ramps in order to reach I-110. There appears to be less signage on US-54 listing exit ramps for I-110. It's almost an unsigned Interstate.

It looks like a lot of the signs for I-110 were removed around the time the US 62 interchange was removed and it became a glorified ramp to Mexico.

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe Interstate 110 would be better signposted if it had continued along US 54 north of Interstate 10 (perhaps terminating at US 54's Exit 32). Is the Patriot Freeway north of Interstate 10 up to Interstate Standards?

[jtespi]

By I-110 in El Paso, if you are speaking of the "Patriot Frwy" yes it has direct ramps to I-10.  Am of belief it should have been torn down though, and completely reconstructed, with either a segmental or box beam design for the flyovers.  Designs with some measure of seismic resistance. 
  The 10/110 interchange has numerous flaws, to include weaving, congestion, lane drops, curvature, and a missing section of WB frontage through it's core. 

I too am disappointed that the I-10/US-54 El Paso "Spaghetti Bowl" basically only got a new fresh coat of paint and 1 ramp redone. It should have been completely redone since the entire interchange is old '60s highway design, especially the guardrails which will do nothing to stop a big semi truck. TxDOT is finally fixing the '60s guardrails on the I-10 mainlines near Sunland Park and  putting proper 48" concrete constant slope barriers over the arroyo bridges.

The ramp from I-10 west to I-110 (Bridge of the Americas) backs up horribly every weekday and slows down traffic on I-10 west near Paisano. The Paisano westbound on ramp is also substandard. I can't wait until TxDOT rips up and replaces the entire stretch of I-10 from Schuster to Airway. It's old '60s highway design.

Maybe Interstate 110 would be better signposted if it had continued along US 54 north of Interstate 10 (perhaps terminating at US 54's Exit 32). Is the Patriot Freeway north of Interstate 10 up to Interstate Standards?

I believe US-54 is up to Interstate standards north of I-10 until the freeway ends at Sean Haggerty. Speaking of that, TxDOT has taken 20 years to extend the freeway! Around 2004 is when they built the overpass for MLK Jr Blvd.

This merge from MLK southbound to US-54 south is the only major issue.

[DJStephens]

10 W of the "spaghetti" bowl may be "old sixties design" but frankly it's better geometrically than most of the stuff that is concocted today.  Ten lanes, or a 5 X 5 cross section exists between downtown and that spaghetti bowl.   Had the spaghetti bowl been completely replaced - one could have:

1. Extended a 5 X 5 cross section further E, due to the lack of credible El Paso limited access coherent  bypass, would have worked to get it all the way E to Exit 34, the loop 375 interchange. The drop to a 3 lane cross section, for 10 EB traffic, at the spaghetti bowl, is simply asinine.  A lot of these new "high mast" lighting towers, didn't seem well thought out, in terms of placement for future widening, which is needed.   
 
2. Eliminate access at Raynolds, and rebuilt the Raynolds overpass with a new structure with greater clearances - both vertical and horizontal.  Instead - public monies were wasted on frills and decorations - paint, towers, rocks, and steel stars.  Useless.  So now obsolescence is now locked in. 

3. Weaving reductions.   There is dangerous weaving present for EB traffic seeking to exit for Paisano, for the connection to Montana (US 62/180) EB.  The spaghetti on ramp, from Patriot Frwy SB to 10 EB, and the exit for Paisano are simply too close together.  Given the $$ spent on "decorations' in this area, seems their locking this in, permanently.   There is also weaving on 10 WB, from the Paisano to 10 WB ramp and the conflicts with the enourmous amounts of traffic seeking to exit for the border crossing.   Elimination of ramp movements @ Raynolds would lessen weaving issues as well.   

4. Missing WB frontage.  There is no WB 10 frontage through the spaghetti bowl core.  Probably due to space limitations and issues present in the early seventies, when the thing was squeezed in, a few years after 10 was opened.  Traffic counts were far lower then.   Suspect that is why they didn't close off Raynolds access then.   

And finally, if there is a seismic event - this entire bowl will likely be compromised, and come down.