Port to Plains Corridor (I-27 extension) officially signed into law!

[r15-1]

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?

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.

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).

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[vdeane]

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?

[edwaleni]

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. 

[Scott5114]

I-27O!

[Thegeet]

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.

[ethanhopkin14]

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. 

[r15-1]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[rte66man]

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:

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

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/

[DJStephens]

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.   

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

[Bobby5280]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[edwaleni]

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.

[splashflash]

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.

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.

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."

[ethanhopkin14]

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.

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.

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?

[brad2971]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

Is 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.

[DJStephens]

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.   

[Bobby5280]

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.

[abqtraveler]

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.

[DJStephens]

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.