Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south

[Bobby5280]

An I-27 extension down to Del Rio would be pointless if the Interstate was only meant to end at Del Rio and the border crossing there. The route would only work if it extended down thru Eagle Pass and then ultimately to Laredo, where it might possibly meet up with a future I-2. That would give the huge population in the Rio Grande Valley, as well as the traffic in Laredo, a great access route up to the Permian Basin, Texas Panhandle and the Colorado Front Range. That's just reinforcing the Ports to Plains thing. It's not worth it just doing some in-between thing that will serve far fewer motorists.

Extending both I-2 and I-27 to Laredo is a much taller order than my earlier suggestion of just extending I-27 to Junction, TX and I-10 (going through Big Spring and San Angelo). A direct Amarillo to San Antonio corridor would be the end result, something that would be pretty beneficial to traffic movement in Texas. It would pull some traffic off the I-35 corridor.

[sparker]

Extending I-27 southward would be just another Vanity Interstate Highway.

Hey, it's TX; vanity is taken for granted in those parts!

An I-27 extension down to Del Rio would be pointless if the Interstate was only meant to end at Del Rio and the border crossing there. The route would only work if it extended down thru Eagle Pass and then ultimately to Laredo, where it might possibly meet up with a future I-2. That would give the huge population in the Rio Grande Valley, as well as the traffic in Laredo, a great access route up to the Permian Basin, Texas Panhandle and the Colorado Front Range. That's just reinforcing the Ports to Plains thing. It's not worth it just doing some in-between thing that will serve far fewer motorists.

Extending both I-2 and I-27 to Laredo is a much taller order than my earlier suggestion of just extending I-27 to Junction, TX and I-10 (going through Big Spring and San Angelo). A direct Amarillo to San Antonio corridor would be the end result, something that would be pretty beneficial to traffic movement in Texas. It would pull some traffic off the I-35 corridor.

Within the much-maligned I-14 compendium is that branch along US 83 from Junction north to Eden.  If I-10 east of Junction and the whole of I-37 could be considered as functional extensions of an I-27 concept, the Port-to-Plains concept could be slightly shifted northeast of a Rio Grande Valley path to utilize Corpus Christi's port (which is as much a viable POE as anything to the south down to the border) as a logical corridor terminus (via San Antonio, of course).  Whether the composite corridor along US 87 west of Eden through San Angelo is designated I-27 or I-14 isn't germane to the concept; the basic idea here -- likely fomented by the original backers of the I-14 San Angelo-M/O routing -- is to create a continuous corridor from the populated areas of West Texas (again, M/O, San Angelo, and now Lubbock) down to San Antonio and on to the Gulf Coast.  Since San Antonio is arguably more of a traffic "magnet" than Del Rio, Laredo, or further SE on the nascent I-2 corridor, one can see how the US 83 connector fits into the regional picture. 

As far as prioritizing Austin connections -- I'll reiterate a point I made many posts ago -- if Austin interests wanted an Interstate connection west to I-10 or east toward Houston they would have pressed for one long before today.  But they're more than a bit iconoclastic -- they probably don't care enough about such things to place it on their priority list.  Basically, an area or region has to actually request that a corridor be placed through their territory before one is considered -- particularly in a state as massive as Texas!  The central TX "triangle" and the folks out west in San Angelo and Midland/Odessa requested the I-14 corridor, and that request was accepted.  Yeah, it's intended to attract $$$ into the areas it traverses -- but that's old news.  It may seem that the corridor backers are indeed "gaming the system" -- but they're simply responding to what that system requires.  As the cliche' goes -- you gotta be in it to win it!  The hardest part -- actually obtaining the funding -- is their next obstacle; if they can overcome it and actually get a substantial portion of their corridor built (at least east to I-45) in the next 20 years, that would be not only a minor miracle but a testament to their persistence.  But it is TX:  they like their pulled pork almost as much as their brisket!    

[DJStephens]

While would prefer to see it going directly to Odessa/Midland, it likely makes more sense to go to Big Spring and San Angelo.  There is upgraded US 87 mileage in the San Angelo area that could be tied into.   And from there?  Seems to be Junction, on I-10.  Would construct a new terrain route to the east of La Mesa to completely bypass it to the E.   Sure they would be wild about that.   

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
My own preference would be taking I-27 directly down US 87 through San Angelo to Eden, then south on the corridor proposed by the I-14 backers along US 83 from Eden to I-10 at Junction.  This would provide a reasonably direct route from Lubbock and the Panhandle to San Antonio (and would fulfill at least the spirit of the Port-to-Plains concept by tying in to I-37, which certainly leads to a major Gulf port (Corpus Christi).  If the I-14 promoters from M/O want their piece of the action, they can push for a I-14 route along TX 158 to Sterling City, then multiplex over I-27 to Eden before shooting east to Brady and Temple.  Those composite corridors should be more than sufficient to serve West Texas traffic for the foreseeable future.  However, a Midland-Lamesa route following TX 349 might garner enough political support to "fly"; a x27 could well be in the cards somewhere down the line (never underestimate local TX politicos -- see the I-69 "trident" for confirmation). 

[Bobby5280]

As far as an I-27 extension goes my vote is on a direct San Angelo to Junction diagonal. Routing such an extension through Eden would be an L-shape nearly 90 miles in length. A diagonal from San Angelo to Junction cuts 20 miles off the route. Really if we're going to involve any L-shapes then the I-27 extension might as well turn directly South from San Angelo and go down to meet I-10 at Sonora (on the way to Del Rio).

Regarding where I-14 would supposedly end in West Texas, I would prefer it ending in the Midland-Odessa area, an actual destination of significance rather than way out in the middle of nowhere. And it doesn't add much, if any, mileage at all for traffic headed farther West to places like El Paso. With the possibility of I-27E and I-27W legs of this proposed extension I-14 could just as well end in San Angelo or be multiplexed with the I-27W leg into Midland-Odessa.

[sparker]

As far as an I-27 extension goes my vote is on a direct San Angelo to Junction diagonal. Routing such an extension through Eden would be an L-shape nearly 90 miles in length. A diagonal from San Angelo to Junction cuts 20 miles off the route. Really if we're going to involve any L-shapes then the I-27 extension might as well turn directly South from San Angelo and go down to meet I-10 at Sonora (on the way to Del Rio).

Regarding where I-14 would supposedly end in West Texas, I would prefer it ending in the Midland-Odessa area, an actual destination of significance rather than way out in the middle of nowhere. And it doesn't add much, if any, mileage at all for traffic headed farther West to places like El Paso. With the possibility of I-27E and I-27W legs of this proposed extension I-14 could just as well end in San Angelo or be multiplexed with the I-27W leg into Midland-Odessa.

In a perfect world, I'd wholly agree with the above concept.  But the I-14 backers have published their list of corridor options -- and until such time as some are either set in stone or discarded, I for one -- if I were a TXDOT planner -- would tend to "back a horse" that gave me a decent measure of what would be optimal -- and possibly "tweak" it at a later time (such as "cutting off the corners" southwest of Eden or around the east side of Junction).  And the projected "I-14S" concept along US 190 via Menard needs to be 86'ed a.s.a.p.; if they're actually going to build I-14, it should go where the population is centered -- and that means along the US 87 corridor west from Brady and onward to San Angelo and M/O.  The only reason a twin terminating branch concept was even forwarded was to place a section of corridor within two separate Congressional districts so both members could be seen as bringing home the bacon, so to speak (i.e., the "dark side" of the political "force"!).  I'm just surprised that instead of the US 83-based connector, a N-S leg duplicating the P-to-P route down US 277 via Sonora and Del Rio wasn't included in the cluster -- it would have at least included significant mileage in the district to be served by "I-14S" and possibly having the effect of obviating the motivation for the split corridor concept. 

But to paraphrase the great and now-45-years-old film Chinatown: "Fuggetaboutit, Jake -- it's just Texas!"      

[kphoger]

Having driven US-277 all the way from the Oklahoma state line to Del Rio multiple times, I can say that the existing two lanes (with passing lanes) work perfectly well all the way from Abilene to Del Rio.  AADT doesn't even top 3000 on any stretch south of Christoval.  Between Sonora and US-377, AADT doesn't even top 1100.

[sparker]

Having driven US-277 all the way from the Oklahoma state line to Del Rio multiple times, I can say that the existing two lanes (with passing lanes) work perfectly well all the way from Abilene to Del Rio.  AADT doesn't even top 3000 on any stretch south of Christoval.  Between Sonora and US-377, AADT doesn't even top 1100.

Despite the anemic AADT, the portion of 277 south of San Angelo is part of the greater P-to-P (Laredo-Denver) corridor.  But possibly that very fact may mitigate toward the Eden-Junction/US 83 connector farther east; at least that one serves traffic heading to San Antonio a bit more efficiently.   

[Plutonic Panda]

As far as an I-27 extension goes my vote is on a direct San Angelo to Junction diagonal. Routing such an extension through Eden would be an L-shape nearly 90 miles in length. A diagonal from San Angelo to Junction cuts 20 miles off the route. Really if we're going to involve any L-shapes then the I-27 extension might as well turn directly South from San Angelo and go down to meet I-10 at Sonora (on the way to Del Rio).

Regarding where I-14 would supposedly end in West Texas, I would prefer it ending in the Midland-Odessa area, an actual destination of significance rather than way out in the middle of nowhere. And it doesn't add much, if any, mileage at all for traffic headed farther West to places like El Paso. With the possibility of I-27E and I-27W legs of this proposed extension I-14 could just as well end in San Angelo or be multiplexed with the I-27W leg into Midland-Odessa.

I completely agree. Extend I-14 to San Angelo then onto Midland. Extend I-27 to San Angelo and create a Y branching off a route to Midland from I-27 which could possibly be I-227 or I-27E.

As a side note: I wonder if an interstate between Fort Worth and Wichita Falls is of higher priority than all of this. I'm not sure what number that would get as it could very well be a future Dallas-Denver interstate.

[Bobby5280]

The funny thing is a direct, diagonal routing of I-27 from San Angelo to Junction would be more beneficial to even I-14 traffic (if I-14 was routed through San Angelo and over to Midland-Odessa). That's because the resulting route would provide Midland-Odessa traffic with a direct Interstate-quality corridor going to San Antonio. Again, it's about directly linking places of significance. People driving I-14 from Midland and going to San Antonio would have 20 miles cut off the route if a direct I-27 leg from San Angelo to Junction was built. That would also speed up drive time for commercial oil field traffic moving between the Permian Basin and Gulf ports.

A North-South diversion at Eden down to Junction just goes out of the way for no good reason. Traffic driving Westbound from places back East are going to use other alternatives to go down to I-10 or points farther South. Such traffic moving through San Angelo would more likely be headed to Midland-Odessa and points farther West. No need to go down to I-10 from Eden for that.

Regarding US-287 between Wichita Falls and Fort Worth, some modest projects are in the works, but nothing grand such as converting the whole corridor between Amarillo and Fort Worth to Interstate standards. "I-32" has been one un-official possible designation.

One project is getting rid of the at-grade driveways on US-287 between the I-35W interchange and TX-114 in Rhome, bringing that up to Interstate standards. Another is a project on the North side of Decatur to convert a portion of US-287 into a freeway. I don't know when they're going to do that, but if/when that is completed Decatur will have freeway segments on both the NW and SE sides of town.

I would sure like to see US-287 brought up to Interstate standards. With all the traffic (especially heavy trucks) it almost seems like driving on an Interstate. For now TxDOT is just doing spot upgrades as needed.

One I'm glad they just finished was Northbound US-287 at the Spur 511 exit in Sunset. It's the south end of the freeway bypass around Bowie. Previously the main lanes of US-287 would shift to the left and go downhill while the exit to Spur 511 would go straight ahead. The intersection was not well lit at night, making the shift of the lanes hard to see. A driver not paying close attention could suddenly find himself rocketing along that off ramp and flying onto Spur 511 at 70mph. TxDOT fixed the geometry of that exit to eliminate that weird lane shift.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
Looking at the terrain between Junction and San Angelo, I would concur that there's no topographical reason why a direct route between the two towns couldn't be done; the most difficult area is right along I-10: pulling a corridor (any corridor) out of the E-W gully that holds I-10; otherwise the elevation doesn't vary more than a few hundred feet, following the generally westward rise of the overall region.  I'd venture to guess that any objection would come from not the area such a diagonal route would traverse, but what would not be served by that alignment.  It might all come down to Menard -- at least two of the various I-14 routes in the cluster(fuck) that comprises the West Texas portion of that corridor pass through/near that town.  Leads me to believe someone from that town has an outsized measure of political clout and wants to ensure his/her city is well-served by any regional corridor plans.  Now I can certainly see a city with at least a 6-figure metro population rightfully flexing what political muscle they have to get corridors aimed at them -- but a town that's maybe 10-15K including outlying areas -- not so much!  Something's happening there -- maybe the congressional critter who got the original corridor strung out along the desolation that is US 190 west of Brady has their roots in Menard.  It's quite likely that even if Eden finds itself not on the path of connectivity down to I-10, Menard will;  US 87 has a lengthy diagonal section between San Angelo & Eden; continuing that trajectory after 87 turns eastward ends up close to -- you guessed it -- Menard! 

I for one have absolutely no idea what the final configuration of these regional corridors will be -- but it's almost a certainty that a high level of political motivation has already crept into the process.  Also, TXDOT seems to be allergic to significant new-terrain routings for major interregional corridors -- even if there's FM routes already probing these areas; they show a marked preference for paralleling existing US and major state routes -- possibly at the insistence of locals who want to retain some sort of access for what's currently arrayed along those major routes (or snag a McDonald's franchise for one or more interchanges).  Whatever the motivation, any corridor concept in the area will almost surely reflect local preferences.   

[Bobby5280]

An I-27 junction at I-10 near Junction, TX is totally do-able. One thing NOT to do is run it over the top of US-83 as that existing road reaches I-10. Too many businesses encroach the road and would have to be cleared. The cut US-83 makes through the hills just North of I-10 would have to be widened. The better alternative is to make a freeway to freeway junction just East of Exit 451 to FM-2291. Bear Creek cuts a decent valley through the hills at that point. Unless that valley is prone to serious flooding it would give I-27 a decent opening to the Northwest. The freeway could sort of overlap FM-2291 a little bit to climb up out of the small river valley and then head diagonally toward Fort McKavett and then San Angelo.

Menard is practically a blink and you miss it town. The town's population is less than 2000 people. I don't know what's so special about that town that it has to be a junction to some extravagant "Y" point for I-14. I just don't see how this I-14 thing even warrants a Southern leg to nowhere. The route is already a hard enough sell just to link Killeen/Fort Hood, San Angelo and Midland-Odessa.

The silly lobbyists promoting I-14 are slapping the highway down onto existing corridors rather than thinking outside of the box to consider better alignments. I think Menard is only involved because it sits along US-190. A new Interstate does not have to strictly follow the route of an existing US Highway. I wonder if these lobbyists are kind of lacking in their knowledge of geography. There may be political favoritism going on to try to include as many towns as possible in the potential pork orgy. In the end we're talking tens of billions of dollars for an Interstate corridor that actually needs to go somewhere and do it directly. It needs to do it without a bunch of giant "W" and "L" shaped bullshit. This is NOT a section line road in freaking Oklahoma. They need to think about drawing the damned highway path with something more than an Etch-A-Sketch.

If the highway can't be built in a direct fashion, and cut significant amounts of mileage off the grid-like paths of existing state & US highway routes, the proposed Interstate will not be worth building at all.

[DJStephens]

Perhaps there is an extremely wealthy and influential rancher in the Menard area.  One with a lot of political clout.

[sparker]

Perhaps there is an extremely wealthy and influential rancher in the Menard area.  One with a lot of political clout.

Was wondering if that might be an offshoot of the exceptionally wealthy Menard family (the one that owns or at least has substantial holdings in the store chain bearing their name) -- even though it almost certainly wouldn't be their NASCAR-driving scion Paul!   Perhaps a distant cousin who set down roots around the town at its inception?

[DJStephens]

Yeah pretty amazing thought.  An individual drawing not one, but two interstates to his environs.   Would guess that Menard home improvement is based on a similar model to Lowes and Home Depot.  Burn through as many bodies as you can, pay them as little as you can, for maximum short term profits.

[sparker]

Yeah pretty amazing thought.  An individual drawing not one, but two interstates to his environs.   Would guess that Menard home improvement is based on a similar model to Lowes and Home Depot.  Burn through as many bodies as you can, pay them as little as you can, for maximum short term profits.

Without digressing too far into hardware store affairs, I generally don't purchase anything of consequence from Home Depot and the like -- mainly paint, stains, plastic shelving -- essentially "fungibles" with minimal price fluctuation vendor to vendor.  But regarding the town of Menard as well as other factors -- it'll be interesting to see how the regional corridor situation pans out in the long haul -- right now, between the I-14 and P-to-P/I-27 corridor concepts there's more proposed routings and branches than money to build them all -- even in Texas!  Some will undoubtedly be discarded -- but it'll be interesting to see small town politics in juxtaposition to mid-size city needs and what gets prioritized -- and whether they work together to get at least some of what they want rather than sabotage the entire process by one party or another trying to "get it all".  Might resemble a multi-ring circus for a while; regardless of the outcome, it'll be a bit of a roller-coaster ride!

[JREwing78]

Perhaps there is an extremely wealthy and influential rancher in the Menard area.  One with a lot of political clout.

Was wondering if that might be an offshoot of the exceptionally wealthy Menard family (the one that owns or at least has substantial holdings in the store chain bearing their name) -- even though it almost certainly wouldn't be their NASCAR-driving scion Paul!   Perhaps a distant cousin who set down roots around the town at its inception?

The folks behind the Menard's home improvement chain hail from Eau Claire, WI.

[sparker]

Perhaps there is an extremely wealthy and influential rancher in the Menard area.  One with a lot of political clout.

Was wondering if that might be an offshoot of the exceptionally wealthy Menard family (the one that owns or at least has substantial holdings in the store chain bearing their name) -- even though it almost certainly wouldn't be their NASCAR-driving scion Paul!   Perhaps a distant cousin who set down roots around the town at its inception?

The folks behind the Menard's home improvement chain hail from Eau Claire, WI.

Seeing that driver Paul Menard's NASCAR bio cites that as his hometown, that would be a given.  But if that family is anything like mine (or any number of others), relatives have scattered widely.  Not that there's any semblance of certainty that Menard, TX is named after an outflung member of the WI-based clan -- it's just speculative given that a town of reportedly less than 5K is posited to be the intersection of two branches of a planned corridor cluster.  But only time will tell whether any of those routes will ever be more than lines on a map.   

[O Tamandua]

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.

[sparker]

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 (it's even made it into national freight-traffic articles as the most heavily-used non-Interstate corridor in TX).  However, for some reason it didn't make it into the P-to-P cluster, so it's more of a "needy orphan" than anything else.  It might make a decent candidate for a separate project -- maybe a 2di (I-28? I-31?), particularly if I-27 ekes it way south via US 87 and/or TX 349.  Hell, if it's I-31, extend it down to Austin -- such a corridor makes a lot more sense (and would probably see more use) than most of the planned routes in W. Texas! 

[Stephane Dumas]

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 (it's even made it into national freight-traffic articles as the most heavily-used non-Interstate corridor in TX).  However, for some reason it didn't make it into the P-to-P cluster, so it's more of a "needy orphan" than anything else.  It might make a decent candidate for a separate project -- maybe a 2di (I-28? I-31?), particularly if I-27 ekes it way south via US 87 and/or TX 349.  Hell, if it's I-31, extend it down to Austin -- such a corridor makes a lot more sense (and would probably see more use) than most of the planned routes in W. Texas! 

Speaking of US-84 and Lubbock, the city might get an outer loop known as Loop-88. https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/lubbock/outer-route.html
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/lbb/sl88/segment%201-1.pdf

I guess it's too early to tell if Loop-88 would become an I-227/427/627/827.

[kphoger]

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.

US-84 AADT
<LUBBOCK>
  16,871
<SLATON>
  11,634
<POST>
  10,536
<SNYDER>
  10,568
<ROSCOE I-20>

US-87 AADT
<LUBBOCK>
  11,539
<TAHOKA>
  7,783
<O'DONNELL>
  7,675
<LAMESA>
  3,949
<ACKERLY>
  7,099
<BIG SPRING I-20>

US-62 & US-385 AADT
<LUBBOCK>
  11,174
<ROPESVILLE>
  10,773
<BROWNFIELD>
  6,426
<WELLMAN>
  6,624
<SEAGRAVES>
  6,838
<SEMINOLE>
  5,698
<ANDREWS>
  11,556
<ODESSA I-20>

[Bobby5280]

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.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Since it's already a direct and heavily utilized multilane road, it's likely US 84 between Abilene and Lubbock would see at most marginal gains in traffic as an Interstate facility;  upgrading would be simply to avoid chokepoints at Snyder and Post (more the latter than the former) -- a tip of the hat to the commercial traffic load on that corridor. 

And having driven over Raton numerous times, avoidance of that particular stretch of I-25 would certainly mitigate against simply using US 87 north and northwest of Amarillo as a corridor toward Colorado's Front Range.  However, I have my doubts about any corridor that simply follows US 287 to I-70 at Limon, CO; both Pueblo and Colorado Springs, destinations and/or "gateways" in their own right, would be shortchanged by such a routing.  Two possibilities are there -- having any northward I-27 extension follow US 87 as far as Des Moines, NM, then switching to a route following the BNSF tracks (near NM 551/CO 389) to I-25 near Trinidad (a much more benign crossing of that range) -- or another option using US 287 north to US 50 then heading west along US 50 to I-25 at Pueblo.  Even better would be another BNSF follower, tracking the other regional N-S BNSF line which veers west from US 287 at Springfield, CO and heads NNW to near Las Animas.  Following the rail line essentially provides a path with proven controlled gradients -- and with a few miles shaved off for good measure.

[texaskdog]

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.