Once they’re done with Amarillo, what’s comes next for I-27? North or South?

Started by TheBox, August 20, 2024, 08:14:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

After the Amarillo loop, what will they mostly progress next? north of Amarillo? south of Lubbock? or the Midland portion?

I-27 (US-87) from Dumas to Texline
5 (17.9%)
I-27E (US-87) from Lubbock to San Angelo
19 (67.9%)
I-27W (TX-349/TX-158) from Lamesa to Midland and then Sterling Ciry
4 (14.3%)
I-27N (US-287) from Dumas to Kerrick
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 27

Voting closed: September 03, 2024, 08:14:56 PM

Plutonic Panda

It's also interesting. They're looking at building I-27E to the Oklahoma State line in the panhandle. It makes me wonder if there's been any behind the door discussions with ODOT about continuing the interstate through the panhandle. I'm assuming it would still be I-27E in Oklahoma if built? If so, that would be a first. I could see that happening way before Colorado does anything. And even if Colorado did do something and built the interstate, would they sign it as I-27E as well?


Molandfreak

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2024, 03:43:28 PMIs downtown Amarillo really all that significant? How many historic properties do they have? I personally wouldn't see much of an issue of running a trenched freeway somewhere through downtown Amarillo even if it required the destruction of some buildings in one day if this Prairie city ever warrant that they can build a park cap over it.
They could give it the Wichita Falls treatment and build twin viaducts over one of the one-way pairs, too.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PMAASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

Molandfreak

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2024, 03:46:49 PMIt's also interesting. They're looking at building I-27E to the Oklahoma State line in the panhandle. It makes me wonder if there's been any behind the door discussions with ODOT about continuing the interstate through the panhandle. I'm assuming it would still be I-27E in Oklahoma if built? If so, that would be a first. I could see that happening way before Colorado does anything. And even if Colorado did do something and built the interstate, would they sign it as I-27E as well?
I-27N, but yes, the suffix idea was not well-planned. If US 287 from DFW to Amarillo is upgraded, that number can just continue on the Raton leg and I-27N can just become vanilla I-27.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PMAASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: Molandfreak on December 05, 2024, 03:53:59 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2024, 03:46:49 PMIt's also interesting. They're looking at building I-27E to the Oklahoma State line in the panhandle. It makes me wonder if there's been any behind the door discussions with ODOT about continuing the interstate through the panhandle. I'm assuming it would still be I-27E in Oklahoma if built? If so, that would be a first. I could see that happening way before Colorado does anything. And even if Colorado did do something and built the interstate, would they sign it as I-27E as well?
I-27N, but yes, the suffix idea was not well-planned. If US 287 from DFW to Amarillo is upgraded, that number can just continue on the Raton leg and I-27N can just become vanilla I-27.
Wouldn't it make more sense for it to become a 3DI for the part going through NM to I-25 and have I-27 just continue north through the Oklahoma panhandle of Oklahoma ever decided to take that on? If the idea is get the road to Colorado and north anyways it seems like it'd be a better idea also acting as a bypass from the Raton pass during inclement weather.

Either way it doesn't seem like any of that is happening anytime soon and TxDOT is just focusing on connecting it to Dumas for the time being.

Plutonic Panda

PS, if I-27N is built through the panhandle of Oklahoma I could see the future US-412 interstate being built west to connect to it before Colorado builds a brand new interstate. Oklahoma seems too broke to take on such an endeavor however and Colorado seems to be more and more anti freeway.

Bobby5280

Quote from: Plutonic PandaIs downtown Amarillo really all that significant? How many historic properties do they have? I personally wouldn't see much of an issue of running a trenched freeway somewhere through downtown Amarillo even if it required the destruction of some buildings in one day if this Prairie city ever warrant that they can build a park cap over it.

Amarillo is not a little po-dunk city. 200,000 people live within the city limits. There are fairly tall office buildings downtown. The location is very different from the area where they elevated US-287 by downtown Wichita Falls.

Over the past 20 years a good amount of work has been done to improve the downtown area in Amarillo. That improvement work is still on-going. This can be seen in Google Street View imagery.

Further, where the hell would any bridge piers for an elevated structure be built? In Wichita Falls they were able to offset the elevated freeway viaducts so the bridge piers were built next to Holliday and Broad Streets. But that involved removing some structures. IIRC the surface streets also lost a lane, going from 4 lanes to 3. The four N/S streets in downtown Amarillo (Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan) are only 3 lanes wide as it is. Plus they've enhanced a lot of sidewalks, planted new trees and other greenery. They probably wouldn't be able to build bridge piers as thick as the ones in Wichita Falls, which might mean dual piers on both sides of the surface street. Say bye to those trees and sidewalks.

Again, it's worth repeating the fact an elevated Interstate thru downtown Amarillo would be more than twice the length of the one in Wichita Falls. It would be really expensive to build even if the locals in Amarillo were agreeable to such a thing. The high cost would siphon up a lot of money that could otherwise be used building out other parts of the I-27 extension. A lot more of the future Interstate could be built if it is routed on the loop around Amarillo.

-- US 175 --

There are a few buildings in downtown that have tunnel connections to each other, so trenching/tunnelling I-27 would have to be a carefully thought out and planned process, if it were considered.  I'm not sure if city higher-ups would like the elevated option, but that would depend on placement and where.

PColumbus73

Would it be cheaper to realign I-27 along the west side of the Loop 335? Downtown Amarillo will still have I-40 and an I-X27 spur taking over the former alignment, so it's not like they're going to lose anything.

If Amarillo experiences rapid growth, akin to Austin, it would probably be easier to expand the Loop 335 route versus a downtown route. There are also government offices between Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan streets.

Bobby5280

Loop 335 is getting built out around Amarillo regardless of what ultimately happens with I-27. So, yeah, it would be far cheaper to simply route I-27 along the East or West side of the 335 loop.

DJStephens

Quote from: abqtraveler on November 18, 2024, 09:21:22 AM
Quote from: Henry on August 20, 2024, 10:26:07 PMMore likely, they'll start the expansion south of Lubbock to at least San Angelo. If they can somehow get it to Laredo, good for them.
I would guess the priority would be to get I-27 finished between Lubbock and I-20 first. If TxDOT were to route I-27 along US-87 from Lubbock to Big Spring, that's 100 miles, give or take. All of US-87 between Lubbock and Big Spring is 4-lane, with a few freeway segments. The biggest piece would be a bypass around Lamesa.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2024, 03:43:28 PMIs downtown Amarillo really all that significant? How many historic properties do they have? I personally wouldn't see much of an issue of running a trenched freeway somewhere through downtown Amarillo even if it required the destruction of some buildings in one day if this Prairie city ever warrant that they can build a park cap over it.
If they could do the Marsha Sharp Fwy in Lubbock, then maybe this would be do-able as well.  Painful, but doable.  Obviously they are two different cities.   Remember traveling N-S straight through Amarillo, way back in the mid-late nineties, and viewing the odd couplets there.  What on earth was the history, the thinking and planning there? And thinking, why didn't they plan here?   Meaning planning towards creating a limited access route, even way then.  Likely answer - there was none. There was likely a lot less development then, and likely far less density in the downtown then.  Then would have been the time to actively start planning for such a N-S depressed facility.  By even including it as an alternative, is likely to generate a firestorm of opposition, now, even if it is a good idea.   

MaxConcrete

Quote from: DJStephens on December 11, 2024, 05:25:35 PMIf they could do the Marsha Sharp Fwy in Lubbock, then maybe this would be do-able as well.  Painful, but doable.  Obviously they are two different cities. 

I seem to recall the Marsha Sharp Freeway was a high priority for Lubbock, especially Texas Tech University. There was plenty of local support, so it eventually was done.

For I-27 in downtown Amarillo, the local position on the freeway (for/against) will be the main decision criteria. If locals are against it, then it surely will be determined to be infeasible, and that's the end of it. If locals really want it and lobby for it, the feasibility study could identify it as a feasible option, which would carry it forward to the next phase of study - an alignment study.

As others have noted, it will be very expensive to bring it through downtown. It would require a major right-of-way clearance, and/or elevated or trenched main lanes. I don't think it will be financially feasible even if locals really want it. If the downtown freeway is ultimately the recommended option, it will take a very long time to get it done.
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

Bobby5280

The Marsha Sharp Freeway in Lubbock does not go straight through the middle of downtown. That freeway runs several blocks North. The area where the freeway was built wasn't in great shape either. A huge grain silo building that was no longer served by rail track was the most significant thing that had to be removed. Pushing a new freeway through the middle of downtown Amarillo would be much more disruptive, controversial and expensive.

TheStranger

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 11, 2024, 07:09:20 PMThe Marsha Sharp Freeway in Lubbock does not go straight through the middle of downtown. That freeway runs several blocks North. The area where the freeway was built wasn't great shape either. A huge grain silo building that was no longer served by rail track was the most significant thing that had to be removed. Pushing a new freeway through the middle of downtown Amarillo would be much more disruptive, controversial and expensive.

Looking at Amarillo in Google Maps...would the railroad corridor to the east of downtown be useful as possible right of way?
Chris Sampang

Bobby5280

Amarillo has one of the most active rail hubs in the nation. The Southern Transcon line runs through it.

Even if an elevated freeway structure could be built over the rail yards East and North of the downtown district that would get a new freeway only part of the way to the freeway spur on the North side of town.

MaxConcrete

Quote from: TheStranger on December 11, 2024, 08:39:12 PMLooking at Amarillo in Google Maps...would the railroad corridor to the east of downtown be useful as possible right of way?

The logical side of me says it's a waste of time to even contemplate an alignment, since there's a 99% chance a downtown route will be dismissed as infeasible. But my inner planning voice succumbed to the temptation to consider possibilities.

While the railroad to the east could be a possibility, I think a western bypass along or near Van Buren Street (both north and south) would be more feasible. Van Buren Street has plenty of vacant land, parking lots and low-value commercial buildings. Also, very few residences, which are the biggest obstacle to right-of-way clearance.

There is a large building in this path at I-40 business (W Amarillo Blvd). But looking at street view, it appears to be abandoned. Does anybody know anything about that property? (Are there any plans for it?)

www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

-- US 175 --

Quote from: MaxConcrete on December 11, 2024, 10:43:06 PMThere is a large building in this path at I-40 business (W Amarillo Blvd). But looking at street view, it appears to be abandoned. Does anybody know anything about that property? (Are there any plans for it?)

This was part of the former St. Anthony's Hospital. It ran into financial trouble several years ago. After a failed merger with 1 area hospital, the other hospital in the area ended up being St. Anthony's saving grace (as it were).  None of St. Anthony's campus was retained in the deal.  It has since sat vacant, until now.  A local firm has come in to redevelop the former hospital (I'm not sure about all of it, but at least some of it) into a senior residential complex. I don't know when the residential project will open.

TheStranger

Just noticed that the Aaroads map now shows "Future I-27" and "Future I-27N" north of Amarillo (though no signs of future I-27/I-27W/I-27E south of Lubbock yet)
https://www.aaroads.com/aamaps/
Chris Sampang

Molandfreak

Quote from: TheStranger on December 31, 2024, 05:17:27 PMJust noticed that the Aaroads map now shows "Future I-27" and "Future I-27N" north of Amarillo (though no signs of future I-27/I-27W/I-27E south of Lubbock yet)
https://www.aaroads.com/aamaps/
Who updates that map and is there a method to decide which future highways get signage on it? It seems nonsensical to include these portions of I-27 with future signage and not, say, the highways linking the completed sections of I-57 and I-49.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PMAASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

Rothman

Quote from: TheStranger on December 31, 2024, 05:17:27 PMJust noticed that the Aaroads map now shows "Future I-27" and "Future I-27N" north of Amarillo (though no signs of future I-27/I-27W/I-27E south of Lubbock yet)
https://www.aaroads.com/aamaps/

Egads.  I didn't know that existed.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

TheBox

Quote from: Molandfreak on December 31, 2024, 05:36:27 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 31, 2024, 05:17:27 PMJust noticed that the Aaroads map now shows "Future I-27" and "Future I-27N" north of Amarillo (though no signs of future I-27/I-27W/I-27E south of Lubbock yet)
https://www.aaroads.com/aamaps/
Who updates that map and is there a method to decide which future highways get signage on it? It seems nonsensical to include these portions of I-27 with future signage and not, say, the highways linking the completed sections of I-57 and I-49.

So I looked through there and there's not a single Future I-57, Future I-69(E/C), nor Future I-49 sign, even on the parts that are in progress
Wake me up when they upgrade US-290 between the state's largest city and growing capital into expressway standards if it interstate standards.

Giddings bypass, Elgin bypass, and Elgin-Manor freeway/tollway when?

hotdogPi

Quote from: TheStranger on December 31, 2024, 05:17:27 PMJust noticed that the Aaroads map now shows "Future I-27" and "Future I-27N" north of Amarillo (though no signs of future I-27/I-27W/I-27E south of Lubbock yet)
https://www.aaroads.com/aamaps/

They've been there for at least nine months. I remember they changed some things for April Fools' Day, and I thought that was one of the fools when it turned out not to be.
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US 13, 50
MA 22, 35, 40, 53, 107, 109, 126, 141, 159
NH 27, 78, 111A(E); CA 90; NY 366; GA 42, 140; FL A1A, 7; CT 32, 320; VT 2A, 5A; PA 3, 51, 60, WA 202; QC 162, 165, 263; 🇬🇧A100, A3211, A3213, A3215, A4222; 🇫🇷95 D316

Lowest untraveled: 36

Molandfreak

Quote from: TheBox on December 31, 2024, 07:09:22 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 31, 2024, 05:36:27 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 31, 2024, 05:17:27 PMJust noticed that the Aaroads map now shows "Future I-27" and "Future I-27N" north of Amarillo (though no signs of future I-27/I-27W/I-27E south of Lubbock yet)
https://www.aaroads.com/aamaps/
Who updates that map and is there a method to decide which future highways get signage on it? It seems nonsensical to include these portions of I-27 with future signage and not, say, the highways linking the completed sections of I-57 and I-49.

So I looked through there and there's not a single Future I-57, Future I-69(E/C), nor Future I-49 sign, even on the parts that are in progress
It especially raises an eyebrow from me that the Future I-27 signs continue into New Mexico, where no construction is actively being planned. With reasoning like that, we might as well just map out the whole Future I-73 corridor.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PMAASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

I-55

Quote from: Rothman on December 31, 2024, 06:26:03 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 31, 2024, 05:17:27 PMJust noticed that the Aaroads map now shows "Future I-27" and "Future I-27N" north of Amarillo (though no signs of future I-27/I-27W/I-27E south of Lubbock yet)
https://www.aaroads.com/aamaps/

Egads.  I didn't know that existed.

My first time seeing it too. The linework is impressively clean, I love the style.
Transportation Engineer
Let's Go Purdue Basketball Whoosh



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.