(New Mexico, Texas) 1969 proposal for a Las Cruces-Amarillo Interstate

[J N Winkler]

After being told about California Highways and Public Works in another thread on this board, I decided to search the Internet Archive for additional highway-related materials, and found this report of subcommittee hearings (held in New Mexico in 1969) into a Senate bill to add an Interstate highway between Las Cruces and Amarillo:

http://www.archive.org/details/designatingcerta00unit

This highway would likely have followed what is now the US 70 corridor between Las Cruces and Clovis, and US 60 from Clovis to Amarillo.  Pretty much the entirety of this route is at least four lanes, with the vast majority of it divided, but only a few dozen miles (mainly the US 70 freeway near Las Cruces and the US 60 overlap on I-27 between Canyon and Amarillo) are full freeway.  At the time this idea was receiving Congressional attention, there was talk of expanding the existing Interstate authorization of 42,500 miles by an additional 19,000 miles.  I think this addition, when it was whittled down to a few thousand miles, became what is now known as Howard-Cramer mileage.

[The High Plains Traveler]

After being told about California Highways and Public Works in another thread on this board, I decided to search the Internet Archive for additional highway-related materials, and found this report of subcommittee hearings (held in New Mexico in 1969) into a Senate bill to add an Interstate highway between Las Cruces and Amarillo:

http://www.archive.org/details/designatingcerta00unit

This highway would likely have followed what is now the US 70 corridor between Las Cruces and Clovis, and US 60 from Clovis to Amarillo.  Pretty much the entirety of this route is at least four lanes, with the vast majority of it divided, but only a few dozen miles (mainly the US 70 freeway near Las Cruces and the US 60 overlap on I-27 between Canyon and Amarillo) are full freeway.  At the time this idea was receiving Congressional attention, there was talk of expanding the existing Interstate authorization of 42,500 miles by an additional 19,000 miles.  I think this addition, when it was whittled down to a few thousand miles, became what is now known as Howard-Cramer mileage.

And over 40 years later, how many would argue that the highway in its present configuration is not more than adequate? OK, I would find that the two-lane Roswell "Relief Route", which carries both the U.S. 70 and 285 designations, is underdesigned - the four-way stop at the U.S. 70-285-380 junction west of Roswell is particularly odious - but, that is only a local improvement that is needed, and the rest of that route mostly meets traffic needs with little potential for future growth. (Unless there is a pressing need for a Clovis bypass).

[J N Winkler]

And over 40 years later, how many would argue that the highway in its present configuration is not more than adequate? OK, I would find that the two-lane Roswell "Relief Route", which carries both the U.S. 70 and 285 designations, is underdesigned - the four-way stop at the U.S. 70-285-380 junction west of Roswell is particularly odious - but, that is only a local improvement that is needed, and the rest of that route mostly meets traffic needs with little potential for future growth. (Unless there is a pressing need for a Clovis bypass.)

I made my first trip to the "Little Texas" part of New Mexico in spring 1998.  At that time US 70 was still only two lanes between Portales and Roswell, and that was completely adequate for the modest amount of traffic it had.  Quite frankly, I feel the widening to four-lane divided, which came later (around 2005 or so), ruined what used to be a reasonably pleasant two-lane drive.

I struggle to think of Clovis needing anything more elaborate than a two-lane relief route.

[Sykotyk]

Well, to say it's perfectly designed as it is today is one thing. To not realize in 40 years that development, traffic patterns, preferred routing, etc would be the same is a misnomer.

From the Phoenix/Tucson area, that would be a more angled route tot he northeast than I-17 or taking two-lane US60 near Globe/Show Low.

[Revive 755]

Alternate NAFTA route or a route for balancing the number of LA to Midwest trucks using I-40 versus I-10 perhaps?

I've posted links to freight flow maps for NM, IL, IN, and OH below.  Some of them already show a small trucking corridor the interstate would have served and expanded.

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/state_info/new_mexico/truckflow.htm
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/state_info/illinois/truckflow.htm
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/state_info/indiana/truckflow.htm
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/state_info/ohio/truckflow.htm

[NE2]

I've posted links to freight flow maps for NM, IL, IN, and OH below.  Some of them already show a small trucking corridor the interstate would have served and expanded.

I'm not sure how accurate these maps are with respect to actual routes used by trucks. It seems that they just plugged in origin and destination and found the likely best route. For example, zoom in on New Jersey here: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/images/hi_res_pdf/nhsmajortrkrts2007.pdf
This shows the Garden State Parkway through Monmouth County as yellow, but trucks are required to exit at NJ 18 (which is black).


That said, it's rather interesting to see what the major non-Interstate truck corridors are, even if they're somewhat guessed:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/nhsavglhft2007.htm
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/nhsavglhft2040.htm
One of them actually nicks the west edge of Yellowstone. Take that, anti-Yellowstone Interstate NIMBYs
And check out that split on I-25 north of Denver (do trucks actually cut the corner on US 287, or is that more guesswork?).

[corco]

And check out that split on I-25 north of Denver (do trucks actually cut the corner on US 287, or is that more guesswork?).

Yes, for sure. It's an easier grade for trucks to pass (Happy Jack Summit can be a bitch) and the road is usually better in the winter. 287 has plenty of passing lanes, especially headed northbound- I used to drive that drive all the time and there are a ton of trucks on it.  If you do the drive in the early morning, there's almost always a few trucks camped at the old State Line bar on the Colorado side of the state line.

That's actually one of the main things preventing CDOT/Larimer County from developing a proper 287 bypass of Fort Collins- residents east of Owl Canyon, where the most logical bypass road would run, don't want the added truck noise. The road is actually faster even in current form (good dirt road you can go at least 55-60 on (speed limit 45) with no problems for about half the length, then paved flat rural county road for the other half) than taking 287 to SH-14 to the freeway.  

I recall reading at some point about talks to remove the sign directing Laramie traffic to use 287 from I-25 and replacing it with one directing trucks on I-25 to continue on I-80, because the truck traffic through downtown Fort Collins is a bit of a point of contention- 14 is only a couple blocks from the core  of downtown, and then once you're on College /287 it can be a pretty slow trek to the LaPorte turnoff.

[Sykotyk]

corco's right. US287 is a much better route through to the northwest. Why climb a mountain if you don't have to? As long as you're not driving through Fort Collins during rush hour, it's the faster way. And Wyoming has done some work on their stretch to the state line recently making it four lane for a little longer stretch.

[corco]

And Wyoming has done some work on their stretch to the state line recently making it four lane for a little longer stretch.

The divided highway through Tie Siding is one of the most pointless things ever- it's awesome but by golly, there was really no reason to build it. There was already a long passing lane at the hill just south of it, and the area north is flat enough that passing was either fairly easy or unnecessary.

The justification was that there are a ton of head on collisions on 287 by people passing too aggressively, but that probably has more to do with bad driving and drunks moving between Laramie and Fort Collins than being over capacity or any safety flaws with the original road design.

That said, I'm not complaining.

[Henry]

Although interesting, I really don't see any need for an Interstate connection between Las Cruces and Amarillo, not direct anyway. US 60 and US 70 already function well as they are.