U.S. 287 Corridor Interstate Feasibility Study in Texas

Started by FutureInterstateCorridors, December 03, 2024, 03:23:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

vdeane

Quote from: PColumbus73 on December 09, 2024, 11:11:59 AMJust reinforces to me that politicians shouldn't be in the business of assigning interstate numbers. Would be nice if it were interpreted as a 'spur of I-27' rather than forcing the readopting of suffixed routes.
I think TXDOT originally intended that but then someone decided to can that idea and interpret the statutes literally.  The first section of I-69E to open near I-37 was originally signed as I-69 alone.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.


PColumbus73

Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2024, 12:55:31 PM
Quote from: PColumbus73 on December 09, 2024, 11:11:59 AMJust reinforces to me that politicians shouldn't be in the business of assigning interstate numbers. Would be nice if it were interpreted as a 'spur of I-27' rather than forcing the readopting of suffixed routes.
I think TXDOT originally intended that but then someone decided to can that idea and interpret the statutes literally.  The first section of I-69E to open near I-37 was originally signed as I-69 alone.

I remember the reason for I-69E/C/W was that everyone in the Rio Grande Valley wanted I-69 and not an X69.

Bobby5280

I don't mind the suffix letters being used on Interstate routes that are substantially long, like over 100 miles or more. The three E-C-W I-69 routes qualify there. But a good argument can be made for giving such routes their own dedicated Interstate number (such as I-37 for I-69E and I-33 for I-69C).

The I-27N thing is just illogical. North-South signed Interstates are supposed to get East-West suffixes if they split. The E-W thing is even proposed for the Midland-Big Spring split of future I-27. An East-West signed Interstate would get N-S suffixes, such as the former I-80N (now I-84). A North-South signed highway with a "North" suffix is just damned stupid looking. It's considerably worse than two highways overlapping each other in a wrong way concurrency (like I-81 and I-77 in Virginia).

PColumbus73

Suffixed routes are more of an administrative choice. Texas is not short of interstate numbers considering I-2 and 14 exist without consequence. What irks me is how self-serving these newly proposed suffixed routes are. I-27N or I-69E weren't chosen because they would be navigationally superior, but something catchy a politician can market to their districts.

I agree that The 69s could have been numbered something else to satisfy everyone, although US 77 and 281 are close enough that it should be one or the other, preferably US 77. I-69W could have been I-6.

But who exactly will I-27N serve? Will it just dead-end at US 54? If there's no plans from Oklahoma, Kansas, or Colorado, then 27N is just a vanity project.

I-55

Quote from: PColumbus73 on December 09, 2024, 03:13:51 PMSuffixed routes are more of an administrative choice. Texas is not short of interstate numbers considering I-2 and 14 exist without consequence. What irks me is how self-serving these newly proposed suffixed routes are. I-27N or I-69E weren't chosen because they would be navigationally superior, but something catchy a politician can market to their districts.

I agree that The 69s could have been numbered something else to satisfy everyone, although US 77 and 281 are close enough that it should be one or the other, preferably US 77. I-69W could have been I-6.

But who exactly will I-27N serve? Will it just dead-end at US 54? If there's no plans from Oklahoma, Kansas, or Colorado, then 27N is just a vanity project.

I find situations like this funny, where the state thinks every new freeway needs an interstate number, despite having several non-interstate freeways in the big metros.

Ideally, I-69W would be I-6, I-69C would be I-69, I-69E would be I-37, US-287 would be an even 2di and I-27 would extend north and south without suffixes.
Transportation Engineer
Let's Go Purdue Basketball Whoosh

TheStranger

#55
Quote from: I-55 on December 09, 2024, 04:16:06 PMIdeally, I-69W would be I-6, I-69C would be I-69, I-69E would be I-37, US-287 would be an even 2di and I-27 would extend north and south without suffixes.

IIRC, the I-27E/I-27W split near Midland was originally proposed as a I-27/I-227 situation.

ALSO...apparently at one point part of what is now planned as I-27W was going to be incorporated into a "I-14 North"
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/statewide/i-14-system-in-texas/050923-i-14-system-in-texas-map.pdf
Chris Sampang

The Ghostbuster

The Interstate 14S leg should be mainline Interstate 14, and the Interstate 14N leg should be Interstate 18. Also, the 27 and 227 designations should have been maintained (same with the 327 designation for 27N). 69E should have been mainline 69, 69C should have been Interstate 202, and I agree 69W should have been Interstate 6.

Bobby5280

Realistically, some of these suffixed Interstate routes will probably never be built. I think the odds are pretty slim on the "I-27N" thing, considering the sparse AADT numbers on US-287 to the North of Dumas. Not exactly Interstate Worthy traffic counts. It's going to be difficult enough just upgrading US-287 to Interstate standards up to Dumas.

Perhaps the situation would be different if Oklahoma and Colorado had serious upgrade plans for their portions of US-287. That might attract greater levels of commercial and personal vehicle traffic. But right now US-287 crossing the OK border into Colorado just sucks. I refuse to take that way going to Colorado Springs. I might feel different if it was 4-lane divided with a barrier separated median. Until then I'm sticking with the route thru Raton. That route isn't exactly great either, but it's at least a 4-lane divided highway the entire way.

The "I-14S" concept happening is about as long as long shots get. It may take decades just to get a primary I-14 route built out to Midland.

IMHO, mainline I-69 should have gone to Laredo. It's the busiest inland "port" for commercial traffic in the nation. The branches going down to McAllen and Brownsville could have had the 2 digit route numbers I mentioned earlier. An "I-6" route could possibly be built from Freer to Corpus Christi. Depending on how further development takes along the Texas Gulf Coast the I-6 route could be extended East across that new bridge in Corpus Christi.

webny99

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 09, 2024, 09:01:08 PMRealistically, some of these suffixed Interstate routes will probably never be built. I think the odds are pretty slim on the "I-27N" thing, considering the sparse AADT numbers on US-287 to the North of Dumas. Not exactly Interstate Worthy traffic counts. It's going to be difficult enough just upgrading US-287 to Interstate standards up to Dumas.

What is the vision for I-27N north of the TX line? If there are no concrete plans for the route in Oklahoma and Colorado, building the Texas portion seems pretty pointless.

Even the number I-27N itself seems rather short-sighted and overtly Texas-focused... like Texas wanted to slap down a number that looks good on paper with little hope of being completed that can easily be pushed to the back burner. And honestly, that's fine by me: the US 87 corridor to Raton has rightly been identified as a much higher priority.

Bobby5280

#59
Quote from: webny99What is the vision for I-27N north of the TX line? If there are no concrete plans for the route in Oklahoma and Colorado, building the Texas portion seems pretty pointless.

I suspect an elected politician dreamed up that "I-27N" idea. It doesn't make any rational sense from a perspective of traffic engineering. The branch to Texline should be "I-27W" and the branch going into OK & CO should be "I-27E".

I agree there is no point in upgrading the Dumas-Stratford segment of US-287 to Interstate standards unless Oklahoma and Colorado openly commit to upgrading their portions of US-287 to Interstate quality. The existing road is 4-lane divided and has AADT counts around 5000. US-287 South of Dumas has AADT counts around 12,000.

Texas can do only so much upgrade work on its highways. Extending I-27 from Lubbock to Laredo would cost several billion dollars. I think that's where the focus on I-27 will be as long as New Mexico and Colorado keep their current policies regarding super highway corridors. I'm just hoping more work can be done on US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth.

webny99

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 10, 2024, 09:34:55 PMTexas can do only so much upgrade work on its highways. Extending I-27 from Lubbock to Laredo would cost several billion dollars. I think that's where the focus on I-27 will be as long as New Mexico and Colorado keep their current policies regarding super highway corridors.

Has New Mexico committed to anything yet regarding their portion of I-27? That should be relatively high priority because it connects Denver and the rest of the I-25 corridor in Colorado with basically all of Texas and vice versa.

Bobby5280

AFAIK New Mexico hasn't said squat about I-27 in their state. NM DOT did such a crappy job with the 4-lane upgrade of US-64/87 from Clayton to Raton that it wouldn't give me any hope on seeing an Interstate thru there. It seems like every time I drive the route on the way to Colorado I'm seeing some sort of asphalt overlay project in one place and the existing road bed badly degrading elsewhere.

I still go by way of Raton rather than drive US-287 into Colorado. The US-287 roadway might be in slightly better shape, but it's only 2 lane and the portion near the CO/OK border is dangerous. I'm not getting myself killed in a head-on collision there.

The Ghostbuster

Maybe future Interstate 27 should terminate at Dumas or terminate at Texline until New Mexico has a change of heart about upgrading its segment of US 87 to Interstate Standards. Or maybe 27's northern terminus should remain at Amarillo, since the northern extension of 27 is still very much up-in-the-air. The 27N proposal should probably be shelved, save for bypasses of Cactus and Stratford.

Bobby5280

I think it would be alright to upgrade US-287 to Interstate standards up to Dumas and even build a freeway bypass around the West side of that town. The Dumas bypass would serve as a launching point of future freeway branches to Raton and SE Colorado if NM and CO ever had a change of heart. The choice of signing I-27 up to Dumas would be another matter.

US-287 in the town of Cactus (just North of Dumas) has an existing freeway exit and some partial frontage road. It might be a tight squeeze, but it looks like there is enough room to do a freeway upgrade in place within the existing ROW. Stratford would need a bypass if an Interstate was ever built past it.

PColumbus73

What is the end goal if Texas unilaterally builds interstate stubs at the state line?

It sounded to me like Texas and Arkansas's relationship broke down after Arkansas did that with I-49, so what does Texas expect to happen if they try the same move with New Mexico and Oklahoma? Is Texas already trying to work with them to build I-27?

Agree 100% that I-27N should be shelved. Unless there's a grand plan to have it go up to I-70 or 80, there's no point.


Bobby5280

One branch of the Ports to Plains Corridor (US-287 going up into Colorado) is supposed to go to Limon (and I-70), if not farther North. Colorado isn't making any efforts to add a second pair of lanes to existing US-287, much less make any of it limited access.

Quote from: PColumbus73What is the end goal if Texas unilaterally builds interstate stubs at the state line?

I think one of the hopes is promoting business development in Texas Panhandle. Towns appear to be more visible on the map if they're served by an Interstate highway.

It doesn't help as much if the Interstate unceremoniously ends at a minor location rather than a significant junction point in the highway network. I think I-27 in West Texas could carry more traffic if it connected to more than just one other Interstate. The I-44 spur ending in Wichita Falls has a similar problem. I think it would attract more long distance traffic if it connected to I-20 in Abilene. The current South ends of both I-27 and I-44 are in modest size cities. Texline, Stratford and even Dumas are small towns.

Improved safety and improved traffic movement would be the two real benefits for improvement segments of US-87 and US-287 in the Texas Panhandle to Interstate standards.

PColumbus73

How would extending I-27 to the state line attract more businesses to places like Dumas or Stratford over somewhere like Amarillo? I don't mean to sound like I'm insulting those towns, but what resources or advantages do they have over somewhere that already has access to I-40? Most of those towns in the path of 27/27N don't reach 20,000 people.

At least US 87 is 4-lanes between Amarillo and Raton. But I-27N would funnel back down to a two lane highway at the state line. Might give someone a shock if they confused the two trying to get to I-25.

Bobby5280

#67
Quote from: PColumbus73How would extending I-27 to the state line attract more businesses to places like Dumas or Stratford over somewhere like Amarillo?

There is a lot of agri-business activity in the Texas Panhandle. It's more than just round corn fields. A good number of factory size cattle processing facilities operate out there. A good amount of the traffic there is commercial trucks. I like the idea of those vehicles having to use on ramps to enter a 75mph highway rather than making a hard 90 degree turn from a driveway into the main lanes.

For now I think it would be enough to upgrade US-287 to Interstate quality from Amarillo to Dumas. The AADT counts are high enough to meet typical rural Interstate traffic counts (over 10,000 per day).

I wouldn't mind seeing a freeway bypass around Dalhart either. Highway traffic in that town can get a bit heavy, particularly on a Saturday afternoon when lots of people are road-tripping thru the same location.

Quote from: PColumbus73At least US 87 is 4-lanes between Amarillo and Raton.

Not yet it isn't. There's still that lesser stretch of road between Dumas and Hartley.

vdeane

Quote from: FutureInterstateCorridors on December 12, 2024, 12:38:10 AMThe only reason the 25-year rule does not apply to I-27 is because Congress created the corridor.  Once Congress creates the corridor it remains permanently in effect by Federal law for as long as it takes for the states to find funding.  The 25-year rule applies only when the FWHA creates the corridor through administrative actions, which is not the case.  If you read the FHWA website and the Federal law, this is clearly stated.  The only role the AASHTO plays from this point forward is to accept the highways sections when they are completed to interstate-standard and allow the TXDOT to erect interstate signs.  As long as TXDOT gets funding, the highway will be completed even if it takes the next 30-50 years.  That exactly the same as the situation for I-49 and I-69, Congress created the corridors and the states can whatever time it takes to get money and complete them. 
And this post is relevant because???  I looked at the law you mentioned earlier, and the only mention of such a 25 year rule was in respect to future corridor designations (which I really don't see the point of, honestly; they don't mean anything), not with respect to any pieces of interstate that are already designated.

Right now you're giving off a vibe of someone who doesn't know as much as they think they do but wants to be seen as an expert.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

FutureInterstateCorridors

#69
If you don't like the ordinal suffixes added to Interstate numbers, AASHTO does not like them either, beginning after 1973 when they started to get rid of them nationally.  When Congress designated the split of Future I-69 in South Texas to I-2, I-69E (along with I-69C, I-69W), TXDOT requested the numbers designated by Congress.  However, the AASHTO Special Committee for Numbering rejected the applications because of the AASHTO policy written in 1973.  AASHTO administrators knew Congress mandated the ordinal designations by law and had no choice but to reverse itself.  If AASHTO had designated the numbers, they would be I-69, I-169, I-369.  This dispels any myth that AASHTO is arbitrary with interstate number designations.  The new appearance of ordinal designations by the lobby organizations Ports-to-Plains Alliance (I-27N, I-27W) the Gulf Coast Stategic Coalition (I-14N and I-14S) are to please local businessmen and politicians (mayors, city councils) that make up the membership of these organizations.  Below is the  AASHTO Letter to FHWA dated May 10, 2013   

May 10, 2013

Mr. Victor Mendez Administrator
Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Mendez,

At its meeting on May 5, 2013 the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways overruled the decision made by its Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering and Bicycle Route System to disapprove the three interstate route applications made by Texas Department of Transportation.

AASHTO wishes to clarify that the decision to approve the 1-2 and 1-69 routes was based solely on the legislation and that the numbering does not conform to our numbering policy HO21 Establishment of a Marking system of the Routes Comprising the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (Retained from August 10, 1973), item 3. Item 3 states that "No new divided numbers (such as l-35W and I-35E, etc.) shall be adopted. Existing divided Interstate numbers shall be eliminated as rapidly as the State Highway department and the Standing committee on Highways can reach agreement with reference thereto." If the Texas applications were to conform the 1-69 routes east and west would have been designated as 1-69 on one leg and would have been 3-digit numbers (such as 169 and 369) on the other two branches). AASHTO wishes ensure that FHWA does not misunderstand our approval and think that this type of designation is acceptable in the future.

•    Texas, 1-2 Establish Cameron and Hidalgo Counties
•    Texas, l-69E Establish Nueces County
•    Texas, I-69E Establish Willacy and Cameron Counties

It was the consensus of the Special Committee USRN to include a FHWA representative at its future meetings when interstate routes are subject to review and approval. We would welcome the addition to the committee. AASHTO also requests that we have an informal meeting with FHWA Operations/MUTCD staff to discuss this possibility and to discuss issues that were brought up at the Special Committee's meeting on May 4, 2013.



Bobby5280

It does look like TX DOT is in very early stages of widening the Dumas-Hartley segment of US-87. Right now it's utility relocation. Going West out of Dumas there is a column of new utility poles getting installed to the South of the existing column. I can't tell the spacing difference just eye-balling it, but it looks like the new poles are about 60 feet South of the existing poles. That would certainly create enough room for a proper 4-lane divided highway with a grassy median. It may not be enough to fit frontage roads comfortably.

US-64/87 in New Mexico is still in crappy shape. I-25 on either side of Raton Pass doesn't look great either. And that's despite all the construction that has taken place on it over the past several years.

I'm mentioning these highway segments since they're still related to the Ports to Plains Corridor, like US-287.

BTW, traffic on US-287 to the East of Amarillo was heavy this weekend.

DJStephens

#71
Quote from: edwaleni on December 07, 2024, 01:34:13 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 06, 2024, 02:56:09 PM- the recently approved I-27 extensions, including the planned I-27W/E split near Midland and the I-27N concept going into Oklahoma


Small correction. I-27N will never see Oklahoma. It will extend to New Mexico and end in Raton.
Nope.  New Mexico has terrible transportation policy.  Lack of funding.  Defects in decision-making.  Ignorance of realities.  The governor and the two senators are absent from the process.  Maintenance backlogs.  Shoddy work. "Practical" design.  A long list of problems, many are "baked" in, and would require an immense effort to reverse.   
   The ostrich-like crony progressive politics, that emanate from Santa Fe, and lack of support for such a fantasy, outside of very localized Raton area support, means it will never happen.  A monorail for unicorns in downtown Santa Fe might have a better chance of funding. 
   It is foolish to even consider the "western" branch as even being feasible or logical.  Mainly, the climb to the Pass.  Makes no sense.  Given the altitude, the terrain and topography, and the conditions in winter on the existing 25 route.  And they want to do what - direct potentially thousands of additional Class A rigs to Raton Pass?  Insanity.     

Bobby5280

The I-27 route going straight North from Dumas into Colorado makes more sense. Not "I-27N." Just I-27. It would provide an alternative route to I-25. In some cases when Raton Pass is getting socked in with snow US-287 farther East is still pass-able. But the current US-287 route going thru the Oklahoma panhandle into SE Colorado just freaking SUCKS. It is DANGEROUS. They need to four-lane that bastard already, even if it never becomes Interstate quality.

I noticed they re-opened the big cattle feed lot on the West side of Clayton, NM. It had been vacant for at least the past several years or more.

FutureInterstateCorridors

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 23, 2024, 12:50:32 PMThe I-27 route going straight North from Dumas into Colorado makes more sense. Not "I-27N." Just I-27. It would provide an alternative route to I-25. In some cases when Raton Pass is getting socked in with snow US-287 farther East is still pass-able. But the current US-287 route going thru the Oklahoma panhandle into SE Colorado just freaking SUCKS. It is DANGEROUS. They need to four-lane that bastard already, even if it never becomes Interstate quality.

I noticed they re-opened the big cattle feed lot on the West side of Clayton, NM. It had been vacant for at least the past several years or more.
The Colorado Department of Transportation opposed extending I-27 through the state and Congress then proceeded to limit I-27 to Texas and New Mexico.  The people of Stafford were promised an interstate from Dumas, so Port-to-Plain Alliance convinced Congress to create I-27N to Stafford, with no hope of any further extension northward to Colorado.

Bobby5280

If all there would be is a spur from Dumas to Stratford it should not get a suffixed route name, much less anything bizarre and stupid as "I-27N". The route would be a little over 30 miles long. That's short enough to get a normal 3-digit Interstate number such as "I-127".

IMHO, CDOT and the Colorado state government has blood on its hands. Their refusal to "double barrel" 2-lane highways, such as US-287 in the SE part of the state or US-24 between Colorado Springs and Limon is contributing to fatal collisions that could otherwise be prevented.



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.