AARoads Forum

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/26869232/ports-to-plains-expansion-construction-headed-to-the-panhandle
http://d31hzlhk6di2h5.cloudfront.net/20141020/c4/d0/7c/d8/2173eac43a3e8c2ce61642a5/ports_to_plains_projects_100214.pdf

$900 million is going to 59 different projects in TX, not including anything on the scale of extending I-27 north or south, but it's something.  The .pdf lists several of them, which are centered on the Panhandle.

It's a little encouraging to see plans are in the works to re-build Loop 335 around part of Amarillo as a freeway. However, that Southwest quadrant will have to be extended farther north and eventually wrap back into US-87/US-287 on the North side of town.

It's too bad there's not a practical way to build a freeway through downtown Amarillo. Those stop lights are kind of a pain, but at least they're timed reasonably well. Long term, Loop 335 needs to be upgraded to a freeway completely around Amarillo. I see only a limited amount of traffic (mostly local traffic) using the freeway section of Loop 335 they have planned. There is a lot of traffic, truck traffic in particular, entering the Ports to Plains corridor from US-287 on Amarillo's East side. That's everything coming up from Dallas, Houston and other points in the Deep South. None of that will go to that new SW side freeway. The traffic either goes on the NE quadrant of Loop 335 or it goes through downtown.

If you're on a road trip and heading somewhere, such as Colorado Springs or Denver, and you want to stop and eat, fill up, etc. in Amarillo there's very little in the way of choices along the NE quadrant of Loop 335. That's what gets a lot of US-287 traffic onto I-40 for those services and then going right through the middle of downtown and all those stop lights to get to the highway on the North side of town.

If the oil boom keeps sustaining itself out there in West Texas and New Mexico I can see those construction plans getting revised with further upgrades.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 23, 2014, 04:00:22 PM
It's a little encouraging to see plans are in the works to re-build Loop 335 around part of Amarillo as a freeway.

Well, according to the legend, that segment isn't funded yet.  Based on the traffic backups I've experienced on the west side of 335 at I-40, I suspect any proposed upgrades to that southwest quadrant are intended for the benefit of local drivers as much as for through traffic.  That's the quadrant of Amarillo that's seeing the most growth.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 23, 2014, 04:00:22 PM
There is a lot of traffic, truck traffic in particular, entering the Ports to Plains corridor from US-287 on Amarillo's East side. That's everything coming up from Dallas, Houston and other points in the Deep South. None of that will go to that new SW side freeway. The traffic either goes on the NE quadrant of Loop 335 or it goes through downtown.

I agree, the NE quadrant is probably the most heavily-used segment of 335 in terms of through traffic.  But that's a slightly different issue, because these projects are specifically geared towards the P2P Corridor, which comes up from the south via I-27.  That traffic wouldn't use the east side of the loop; it either goes through downtown (which I prefer), or else uses the west side of the loop (which I avoid).

While I agree that Loop 335 should be rebuilt as a freeway (one that can possibly become an I-x40 route), there's the dilemma of what to do with I-27 is it were to extend further north. You can't go through downtown without tunneling under, and that would be very expensive if undertaken, so the best thing to do is reroute it onto the rebuilt freeway loop and use that to get back to US 287 north of town. But other than that, it's good to hear that the project, however ambitious it may be, is moving forward.

It just isn't feasible to extend I-27 through the middle of downtown Amarillo. Tunneling under downtown would just be too expensive. It's possible to have the two directions of I-27 split apart and elevated over Pierce and Fillmore streets through much of downtown. But that would at least be an eye sore, if not prohibitively expensive.

The Southern terminus of I-44 was re-built as an elevated freeway over part of downtown Wichita Falls, but that overpass runs for only 7 blocks and it isn't in the primary part of the downtown the way US-87 cuts through downtown Amarillo.

Nevertheless, it is a serious problem for I-27 traffic headed north to be pounding over downtown Amarillo streets. If I-27 is extended North it's going to have to be looped around either the East or West side of Amarillo. Either way, Loop 335 needs to be a freeway completely around Amarillo. Right now it's just a cheaper mix of 2-lane and 4-lane road with limited access "exits" at some intersections.

At the very least Amarillo's city government and TXDOT needs to acquire all the ROW needed in order to convert Loop 335 into a fully limited access facility. It's going to become more important as the population of Texas and other cities in the West continue to grow. I can still see a strong case for converting US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth into an Interstate (the "I-32" concept).

This Oct. 22 article (http://www.kcbd.com/story/26864832/mayor-to-meet-with-txdot-next-month-to-extend-i-27) reports that Lubbock's's Mayor plans to meet with TxDOT commissioners in November to begin the process of designating the corridor from I-25 in Texico, NM to I-35 and I-69 in Laredo as Future I-27:

Quote
Lubbock Mayor Glen Robertson says he will meet with TxDOT officials in Austin next month to begin the process of extending Interstate 27.
"I went to the Ports-to-Plains conference in Del Rio about two weeks ago and met with a lot of people along the route, a lot of interested parties, mayors, county judges and I received positive responses,"  Mayor Robertson  said. "The plan now is I will go in and speak to TxDOT commissioners in November, during their November meeting in Austin, and I'm going to ask them for their blessing to form an I-27 extension coalition. When that happens, and we anticipate approval, the plan would be then to hold three or four meetings along the proposed route which would be from Texico all the way down to Laredo."
Mayor Robertson says it will still be a while before people notice any changes, but it is important to get designation early.
"I'll meet with the TxDOT commissioners hopefully in November, I'll start holding meetings in January and February along the proposed route, hopefully we'll have the committee in place by March and I think it will take a year or two years maximum to try and get designation and that's to get designation along the route as future I-27,"  he said. "From that point you're looking at 20 to 30 to 50 years depending on which portions of the route you're talking about, so this is a very long term process and it's a very ambitious program."  ....
"We're really looking at, like I say, going from Texico to Laredo. Texico would get us right across from New Mexico I-25, so we could tie in I-25 there, I-40 in Amarillo, I-20 at Midland Odessa and Big Spring, I-10 at Sonora and then down in Laredo you would tie into I-35 and the future I-69.

Here is a photo from the article showing the route:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5FPLOmk.jpg&hash=943fc2558a438d2236dc2548610e2668890c03df)

Quote from: Grzrd on October 28, 2014, 07:12:05 PM
Here is a photo from the article showing the route:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5FPLOmk.jpg&hash=943fc2558a438d2236dc2548610e2668890c03df)

Looks like the Goog's preferred route between the two, which is NOT the Ports-to-Plains.

Texico isn't on I-25, or Port-to-Plains.

And what about the existing I-27 from Lubbock to Amarillo?

Quote from: english si on October 29, 2014, 07:27:42 AM
Texico isn't on [...] Port-to-Plains.

Lubbock and Laredo are, however. But the P2P is west of the corridor shown. I think they just plugged the endpoints into the Goog and assumed the porky route was the best route. I don't know why Lubbock cares about Texico anyway.

Quote from: Grzrd on October 28, 2014, 07:12:05 PM
This Oct. 22 article (http://www.kcbd.com/story/26864832/mayor-to-meet-with-txdot-next-month-to-extend-i-27):

Quote
Lubbock Mayor Glen Robertson says he will meet with TxDOT officials in Austin next month to begin the process of extending Interstate 27. ...."We're really looking at, like I say, going from Texico to Laredo. Texico would get us right across from New Mexico I-25, so we could tie in I-25 there, I-40 in Amarillo, I-20 at Midland Odessa and Big Spring, I-10 at Sonora and then down in Laredo you would tie into I-35 and the future I-69.

Quote from: english si on October 29, 2014, 07:27:42 AM
Texico isn't on I-25, or Port-to-Plains.
And what about the existing I-27 from Lubbock to Amarillo?

Another article (http://www.myplainview.com/news/article_92d05c1c-5ee4-11e4-b974-7b257c683e0b.html) quotes Robertson, who also serves as Ports-to-Plains treasurer, as envisioning the I-27 extension going "up north through Dalhart", which would make sense as both going through Amarillo and providing a US 87 routing to I-25 near Raton (no mention of Texico in this article, though*):

Quote
Even as Lubbock Mayor Glen Robertson announces an effort to extend Interstate 27 to both the north and south, almost a billion dollars in upgrades are currently in the pipeline on just the Texas portion of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor.
Representatives from the Texas Department of Transportation announced at the recent 17th Annual Ports-to-Plains Alliance Conference in Del Rio that it is working on more than $900 million in projects along the trade route ....
Alliance officials note that since the mid-1990s, their group has been successfully working with local, state and federal officials to expand the existing roadways both north and south of I-27, which runs between Lubbock and Amarillo. The alliance represents more than 250 organizations across a 3,700-mile economic development corridor from Mazatlan in Mexico through nine U.S. states to Fort McMurray in Canada.
Alliance partners include the Heartland Expressway Association, Theodore Roosevelt Expressway Association and Eastern Alberta Trade Corridor.
Robertson, who serves as Ports-to-Plains treasurer, late last week told several Lubbock media outlets that he already has met with TxDOT officials urging them to consider extending I-27, which currently covers about 120 miles from Amarillo through Lubbock. He also hopes to bring officials from communities along I-27 together to formally ask TxDOT to conduct a feasibility study on extending I-27.
"Hopefully in 40 to 50 years, we see it going from Lubbock down to Del Rio and down into Laredo and then on up north through Dalhart and kicking all the way up into Denver," Robertson told KCBD ....
More than half of the 59 current and planned TxDOT projects along the Ports to Plains Corridor involve work on either I-27, US 87 or US 287.

edit

* Maybe Robertson got ahead of himself by envisioning an I-27W in the earlier article.  :spin:

---

Quote from: NE2 on October 28, 2014, 07:53:14 PM
Looks like the Goog's preferred route between the two, which is NOT the Ports-to-Plains.

Here's a snip of a different map accompanying the above-linked article:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKVAt7xQ.jpg&hash=fe8f30b95f68cfb82febf3221a4fbbaa18563a70)

That's just something pulled from the P2P site. But it's probably more correct in showing the corridor discussed than the Googjob.

I-27 could definitely use an extension in both directions, but especially to the south. Amarillo to Lubbock is too short for a 2di these days.

I-27 is going to have to take a number and wait in line behind I-69, I-35, and all of the many projects in DFW, Houston, and Austin.

It should have been done years, if not decades ago.   The obsolescence, and pounding of surface infrastructure clearly evident in the Hobbs / Midland / Odessa areas clearly illustrate the deficiencies of TXDOT planning. 

Given the funding limitations, if TX DOT wants to extend I-27 to the North or South, perhaps having it cover much of the Ports to Plains Corridor, they ought to be working on corridor preservation. They've done it to some degree with US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth. That road wouldn't be very difficult to upgrade into an Interstate highway since most of the ROW needed is already preserved in the US-287 ROW (a very large median in many areas).

I think I-27 might have been extended to the South a long time ago if traffic and political will wasn't split between various areas. From Lubbock to the South where would it be most fair to extend I-27?

My own personal preference is Big Spring, then San Angelo and Junction (where I-27 would hook into I-10). That would create a logical, fairly direct Interstate corridor between Amarillo and Lubbock down to San Antonio and the port of Corpus Christi. A Northern extension of I-27 from Amarillo could eventually establish a San Antonio to Denver link by way of I-10, I-27 and I-70.

Others might prefer a Southern extension of I-27 to swing West to Midland or even farther West to Odessa and then maybe hook back around toward Del Rio and the Mexican border. I don't think that would be nearly as useful. But who knows? I heard the Mexican government is going to allow foreign investment in its oil production (since its own state-run oil industry has very outdated, counter productive infrastructure). That might increase the need to improve roads between both countries.

The oil industry goes in boom and bust cycles. Right now it's booming, but it can go bust like the last time it did back in the early 1980's. It takes years of planning to develop an Interstate highway corridor. I think it would be silly to build one in reaction to big rig traffic needs in certain oil producing areas that might see the traffic levels evaporate before the road is finished. Any new Interstate should serve the overall road network's functions rather than catering to a niche need in a certain specific area.

From what I remember of my days around the road construction trade, the I-27 Ports to Plains highway was originally supposed to run from Houston to Lubbock. This would have been late 60s - early 70s time frame. I do remember hearing much speculation as to the exact routing but I don't think one was ever designated. After the '73-'74 oil embargo it looked like the project was scrubbed due to lack of funding. This current proposal appears to be a different creature altogether.   

Speaking of Loop 335 and the recent passage of Texas Prop 1, there's a thought that some of the Prop 1 funds could help continuing to convert Loop 335 into freeway standards:

http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2014-11-03/prop-1-ballot-could-affect-status-loop-335-changes

Quote"We only have one project right now that would benefit from Prop. 1. That would be a new railroad bridge (at the BNSF Railway) that would hook onto the project on Loop 335 we started today,"  said TxDOT Amarillo District spokesman Paul Braun on Monday.

The work that has begun will turn what is also called Hollywood Road into a freeway with exit and entrance ramps, and bridges over major intersections from just east of Interstate 27 to the railroad tracks.

Making Loop 335 a true freeway loop all the way around the city could cost as much as $530 million to make it adequate to handle traffic counts expected in 20 years, according to a TxDOT analysis. Just moving the loop west out of the South Soncy Road corridor to reduce congestion could take $136 million.

Quote from: Grzrd on October 28, 2014, 07:12:05 PM
This Oct. 22 article (http://www.kcbd.com/story/26864832/mayor-to-meet-with-txdot-next-month-to-extend-i-27) reports that Lubbock's's Mayor plans to meet with TxDOT commissioners in November to begin the process of designating the corridor ... as Future I-27

The Texas Transportation Commission has posted the November 20 I-27 Corridor Extension Study Presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/4c-presentation.pdf) that was presented to the Commission.  Here's a snip of a map of the corridor from the presentation (page 6/8 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAC0dHWs.jpg&hash=defd842bca8d9eb92816084f3d31e17f67626b2f)

It's difficult to see in the snip, but the map does include an I-69W shield in Laredo.

I-27 should serve Odessa / Midland.  That area is probably close to 300,000 population presently.   Depending on whom argues with the fracking industry may be around for a long time.  Either by way of a direct connection within the metro area or via means of an I-227 (both or each are shown on map)   

2030 AADT on SH 349 between Midland and Lamesa is only expected to hit 4500 on the least-used section. Even 4 laning would be a bit of a waste if those numbers hold. Alternating passing lanes would be sufficient. A full-on freeway would be serious overkill.

I don't think Midland-Odessa is populous enough to justify steering the primary I-27 route there. Big Spring and San Angelo are on a better corridor line, whether the I-27 corridor is pointed toward San Antonio or Del Rio-Eagle Pass-Laredo. Perhaps Midland-Odessa could be worthy of a I-x27 spur or loop, but the traffic counts don't seem to suggest it.

Another big concern is the boom and bust cycle of the oil and gas industry. They've had several years of booming growth. But now with oil hitting lows of $60 per barrel for WTI crude and OPEC members showing no signs of easing up on production anytime soon I would expect a bunch of job losses happening in the oil industry pretty soon.
:-/

would imagine you like the San Angelo route due to the existing improvements done in the immediate area on US 67 / US 87.  Tying into them and overlaying them does make sense.  Do doubt that there is a great deal of N - S traffic though in the immediate San Angelo area.   

I just drove from Denver-Fort Worth this week, both ways, for the first time and used the I-25 / 87 / 287 route.

I found the Amarillo loop confusing and disappointingly void of services, especially since once you get past it and onto 287 heading to Wichita Falls, things really are very few and far between. We ended up driving another 100 miles and ate lunch at 4:30 pm just because it took us that long to find something that wasn't a Sonic; not that we mind Sonic, but the last thing we wanted to do is sit in our car and eat. It seemed like Sonic was literally the only food establishment we encountered for quite some time. But I digress...

On the way back, when we got to Amarillo this time we ended up going two exits down I-40 to eat and then two exits back east up I-40 to get to the loop, just because we had recalled the lack of services on the trip down. It was kind of a pain but worth doing.

335 seems kind of like a mish-mash and they weren't sure what to do with it. I'd argue that there probably should at least be a freeway connection from I-40 to 87/287 here, at least since 87/287 for 40 miles or so north is already essentially full freeway; you might as well make that un-interrupted.

Anybody know what is planned for the Dumas-Dalhart portion of US 87? This is the only missing link left to complete the 4-lane entire Denver-Dallas route. There's a rather large flyover split where 87 splits from 385 now which seems rather built up for where it is. I took 87-287 through Dumas instead of the 385 route both ways, as 385 seemed rather circuitous and out of our way.

I'm not convinced that interstate status is needed north or west of Amarillo, at least right now. As long as the Dumas-Dalhart gap is completed, I was thinking maybe the expressway was adequate for the time being, although there were so few cross roads and towns along the way that I'm not sure an upgrade would require a great deal of interchange work.

287 to Ft Worth is a whole other story.

Quote from: mrose on January 08, 2015, 03:44:45 AM
On the way back, when we got to Amarillo this time we ended up going two exits down I-40 to eat and then two exits back east up I-40 to get to the loop, just because we had recalled the lack of services on the trip down. It was kind of a pain but worth doing.

I agree with what you're saying about 335.  If I had continued down I-40 another two exits, I don't know if I would've bothered to backtrack to 335, because in my experience, using 87/287 through downtown Amarillo doesn't really add much time to the drive.  There's not much traffic, and it moves pretty well, and at least there's something to see along that route. 

Or another option that I'll probably try next time: just stay on I-40 all the way to exit 57 at Bushland.  FM 2381 north, then FM 1061 west, then US 385 north.  That way you can avoid all interchanges and surface traffic in Amarillo.  Of course that route is all 2-lane, but I would imagine very low traffic volume.

Quote from: mrose on January 08, 2015, 03:44:45 AM
Anybody know what is planned for the Dumas-Dalhart portion of US 87? This is the only missing link left to complete the 4-lane entire Denver-Dallas route. There's a rather large flyover split where 87 splits from 385 now which seems rather built up for where it is. I took 87-287 through Dumas instead of the 385 route both ways, as 385 seemed rather circuitous and out of our way.

From what I've seen, that remaining 24-mile segment is currently under construction for 4-laning.  That flyover was built sometime after 1990, so it may have been funded through the P2P initiative.

QuoteI'm not convinced that interstate status is needed north or west of Amarillo, at least right now. As long as the Dumas-Dalhart gap is completed, I was thinking maybe the expressway was adequate for the time being, although there were so few cross roads and towns along the way that I'm not sure an upgrade would require a great deal of interchange work.

I think at the very least TX DOT ought to be securing ROW for the future as traffic on the corridor increases.

As for Amarillo to Fort Worth, more people than just I have mentioned it ought to be an Interstate. Really, US-287 ought to be Interstate quality from I-40 in Amarillo down to where US-287 meets I-45 South of Dallas.

Quote from: usends on January 08, 2015, 09:49:46 AM

Or another option that I'll probably try next time: just stay on I-40 all the way to exit 57 at Bushland.  FM 2381 north, then FM 1061 west, then US 385 north.  That way you can avoid all interchanges and surface traffic in Amarillo.  Of course that route is all 2-lane, but I would imagine very low traffic volume.

For anyone wanting to try RM 2381 or RM 1061: be careful.  I have read several articles in the Amarillo paper in recent months about bad wrecks.  I'm not sure if people aren't watching for the twists and turns, or they're racing, or they're trying to pass someone, or heaven forbid messing with their phone while driving.  No services either.  For anyone who is fond of Old West-style vistas while driving, that area and that part of the Canadian River valley is a nice sample, though.

Otherwise, the Loop 335 option has been a bit of a head-scratcher for me as well; not only the hodgepodge of road styles, but the services situation.  Not sure why there aren't more services, as there has been *more* than enough time to add places along the way.  The only parts of the loop that have seen retail/economic additions since the highway was finally completed, have been along the west loop at and south of I-40, and around the I-27 intersection.  Nothing really new at I-40 east, except for a couple of recent hotels and the acquisition of another by the way-too-dominant local excuse for a convenience store (they've torn down the hotel to put up their own version of a truckstop-travel center).  I've never understood the lack of in-town services on US 87-US 287 north of Loop 335, either.  Besides making the loop more uniform in construction, the addition of direct ramps at I-40 and at US 87-US 287 should really be considered, especially to keep truck traffic moving.

Quote from: txstateends on January 09, 2015, 04:48:17 AM
For anyone wanting to try RM 2381 or RM 1061: be careful.  I have read several articles in the Amarillo paper in recent months about bad wrecks.  I'm not sure if people aren't watching for the twists and turns, or they're racing, or they're trying to pass someone, or heaven forbid messing with their phone while driving.  No services either.  For anyone who is fond of Old West-style vistas while driving, that area and that part of the Canadian River valley is a nice sample, though.

I wonder if that might be partly due to an increase in non-local traffic: for at least the past several months, Google's default directions from Denver to DFW include the US 385-RM 1061 routing (rather than just staying on US 87).  I know my son (who makes that drive) unquestioningly follows whatever directions his phone gives him, and that's also true of his college-age friends, so presumably that's a common practice with lots of smart-phone navigators.

TxDOT is launching planning to turn the entire Amarillo Loop 335 into a freeway. This request for services was posted yesterday

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/profserv/notice/04-5SDP5001.pdf (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/profserv/notice/04-5SDP5001.pdf)

QuoteThe work to be performed by the Engineer shall consist of providing preliminary engineering services for development of schematic design layout, environmental studies in support of the schematic work, public involvement, permit determination, data collection analysis, mitigation commitments, traffic engineering and operations, surveying and mapping, and Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) services for the conversion of a segment of SL 335 from SW 9th Ave to west of FM 1541 (Washington St) (approximately 30 miles) from a non-freeway to a freeway section (with frontage roads, ramps, grade separations over intersecting cross streets, four general purpose lanes which could ultimately accommodate 6 general purpose lanes) in the City of Amarillo.

The Engineer shall also provide engineering services required for the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) and related documents, for the upgrading of a segment of SL 335 from IH 27 to FM 2186 (approximately 2 miles) from a non-freeway to a freeway section (with frontage roads, ramps, grade separations over intersecting cross streets, four general purpose lanes which could ultimately accommodate 6 general purpose lanes) and direct connectors in the City of Amarillo.

The 30-mile distance specified corresponds to going clockwise around the loop. This distance covers about three-fourths of the loop from the middle of the west section (SW 9th Ave) to the middle of the south section (Washington St). Plans were already in the works for converting the southwest section to a freeway, and this request for engineering services includes a 2-mile part of the southwest ection. Work on the southwest section will proceed first.
 
 

It will be interesting to see what parts of Loop 335 they can get funded for this freeway conversion project. I expected the Southwest portion to come first since that's near a lot of retail development on Amarillo's West side. A bunch of that section will have to be built on a new alignment though. From my own selfish perspective, I'd get a lot more use out of the NE quadrant of Loop 335 getting converted to a freeway for my drives between Oklahoma and Colorado.

Two things I wonder about: 1. Will the converted freeway still be a freeway, or will it end up being tolled? 2. Will the finished freeway loop carry an Interstate designation or just stay as a Texas Loop. "I-427" would be a cool number; it's the same number as a big block V8 engine.

Quote from: usends on January 09, 2015, 12:57:42 PM

Quote from: txstateends on January 09, 2015, 04:48:17 AM
For anyone wanting to try RM 2381 or RM 1061: be careful.  I have read several articles in the Amarillo paper in recent months about bad wrecks.  I'm not sure if people aren't watching for the twists and turns, or they're racing, or they're trying to pass someone, or heaven forbid messing with their phone while driving.  No services either.  For anyone who is fond of Old West-style vistas while driving, that area and that part of the Canadian River valley is a nice sample, though.

I wonder if that might be partly due to an increase in non-local traffic: for at least the past several months, Google's default directions from Denver to DFW include the US 385-RM 1061 routing (rather than just staying on US 87).  I know my son (who makes that drive) unquestioningly follows whatever directions his phone gives him, and that's also true of his college-age friends, so presumably that's a common practice with lots of smart-phone navigators.

Yes, Google Maps tried to take me that way too, but I ignored it.

I doubt it would be tolled. Too easy to shunpike. And an Interstate designation seems unlikely unless Ports to Plains gets the I-69 treatment and the politicians can make a big deal out of it, because TxDOT doesn't care. If it were to get one, it would be an x40 not an x27. What I wonder about is if they plan to build flyovers for the 2 big left turn movements (US 287 SB to N Loop 335 EB, and E Loop 335 SB to I-40 EB early on. The other movements could start out as frontage road connections (with room to build direct connectors eventually), but those 2 would be vital for keeping truck traffic moving.

Quote from: dfwmapper on January 11, 2015, 10:35:01 PM
I doubt it would be tolled. Too easy to shunpike.

(Assuming you mean Loop 335 by it) there are a number of Texas toll roads that are trivial to shunpike if you take the frontage roads. But the toll road gets you there a lot faster.

Quote from: NE2 on January 12, 2015, 12:19:58 AM

Quote from: dfwmapper on January 11, 2015, 10:35:01 PM
I doubt it would be tolled. Too easy to shunpike.

(Assuming you mean Loop 335 by it) there are a number of Texas toll roads that are trivial to shunpike if you take the frontage roads. But the toll road gets you there a lot faster.

Indeed, but those are different roads built for different purposes. Most of Loop 335 handles through traffic, a relatively large percentage of it being trucks. Sam Rayburn Tollway (which has continuous frontage roads and is therefore trivial to shunpike if desired) is primarily to serve commuters and sees very little truck traffic. Most of the other toll roads have discontinuous frontage roads that make it more difficult to shunpike, but still see relatively little truck traffic. I look at Loop 335 as being closer to what was done with the US 281 freeway conversion at Falfurrias (future I-69C). Have to maintain continuous frontage roads because of access requirements, fairly undeveloped, only a couple miles long, and most of the traffic on the road is not local, at most stopping to drain one tank and fill another. They originally planned to toll it, but toll studies said they probably wouldn't make enough in tolls to pay for the cost of the toll infrastructure, let alone the road itself.

As it is, Loop 335 is about a 10 minute drive from I-40 to US 287. The downtown route is about 15 minutes, though it depends a lot more on traffic and hitting the lights. Upgrading Loop 335 to a 75mph freeway would only cut the time over the current route by a couple minutes (there's only one stoplight on the current route other than at the I-40 and US 287 frontage roads), though it would slow down the frontage roads because of the extra lights. Likely would push more traffic back through downtown, defeating the purpose of the loop.

I don't know about that. Normally I'll take the Loop 335 bypass to skip around downtown Amarillo, all those stop lights and the increased risk of a fender bender around the Business I-40 intersection. I'll only go by way of downtown if I need to stop to get gas, eat, etc. due to the lack of service businesses along the loop. A lot of the time I'll top off my tank up the road in Dumas.

A pair of flyover ramps from US-287 to Loop 335 would be very good for long distance traffic going from places like Denver to Dallas. The ramps might not be so good for the gas station near that intersection.

 And an Interstate designation seems unlikely unless Ports to Plains gets the I-69 treatment and the politicians can make a big deal out of it, because TxDOT doesn't care.
[/quote]

An I-240 designation would make more sense as I-40 is the dominant route in the panhandle.  The I-427 designation would work on the Loop 289? route around Lubbock. 

Quote from: DJStephens on January 13, 2015, 02:18:10 PM
the duplicitous Border highway

Do you mean duplicative? (Not that there's anything wrong with building two parallel highways rather than one wider highway if the right-of-way is there.) Or are there secret tunnels being built underneath for those Muslim Obama voters to give our Dear Leader a third term?

Edited that out, as it seemed better for a separate thread.  Was regarding to the proposed and or planned west side El Paso "Border Highway".   Which seems very ill conceived, given the poor condition of and given the piecemeal "improvements" done on the existing Interstate 10 corridor in the same general area.   

Quote from: mrose on January 11, 2015, 10:13:14 PM

Quote from: usends on January 09, 2015, 12:57:42 PM
...for at least the past several months, Google's default directions from Denver to DFW include the US 385-RM 1061 routing (rather than just staying on US 87).

Yes, Google Maps tried to take me that way too, but I ignored it.

I just had an opportunity to try this route.  On the way down, I left US 87 at Hartley, instead following 385 to 1061, then 2381 south through Bushland to I-40.  That route took me exactly 1 hour to get from Hartley to the I-40/I-27 interchange (no adverse conditions, very light traffic).

On the way back home, I stayed on US 87 to get from the Amarillo interchange to Hartley.  That took me 16 minutes longer.  Granted, part of that was attributable to a ground blizzard around Dumas.  But the mileage is also longer, plus I was delayed by truck traffic in Dumas.  That town sorely needs a bypass, and unless that happens, I think in most circumstances 385/1061 might be the quicker option for non-truck traffic.

Some general notes: the remaining 2-lane segment of US 87 (between Dumas and Hartley) has recently been widened and resurfaced.  In some sections, it appears to be wide enough for 4-lanes, but currently is striped for only 2.  Other segments don't seem quite wide enough, but I didn't see much in terms of construction, so I'm not sure what the ultimate plan is there.  Both Dumas and Dalhart appear to be thriving: lots of new commercial development.

Interesting results.  Thanks for the update.

I didn't know what traffic has been like in Dumas lately.  I figured that there might be the need for a bypass of some kind, between the truck traffic and the presence of the railroad there.

Didn't mean to be so OTT about my previous posting about the 2 RM back roads, but they just seem to have had more bad-wreck coverage in the Amarillo paper in the last several months than before.

Quote from: txstateends on February 18, 2015, 05:07:24 PM
...the 2 RM back roads... seem to have had more bad-wreck coverage in the Amarillo paper in the last several months than before.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was actually the case: I imagine Google Maps can have a significant impact on traffic patterns.  I doubt I would have considered that route if Goog hadn't suggested it.

Quote from: usends on February 18, 2015, 01:57:07 PM
Some general notes: the remaining 2-lane segment of US 87 (between Dumas and Hartley) has recently been widened and resurfaced.  In some sections, it appears to be wide enough for 4-lanes, but currently is striped for only 2.  Other segments don't seem quite wide enough, but I didn't see much in terms of construction, so I'm not sure what the ultimate plan is there.  Both Dumas and Dalhart appear to be thriving: lots of new commercial development.

Widening to 4 lanes from the US 385 interchange to the Hartley/Moore C/L. There are plans to eventually do the same from there east to the railroad overpass on the west side of Dumas, but I don't think it's funded.

4 laning US-87 between Dumas & Hartley has been planned all along for the Ports to Plains corridor. Unfortunately this last bit of it seems to be a big struggle to complete.

Once TX DOT can finish that 4-lane conversion they might have to start planning in the future for some kind of bypass for Dumas. Obviously it would be better and probably a lot easier to build one on the West side of Dumas not too far from the railroad.

Recent articles on I-27 (as part of the Port to Plains Corridor) show that the initiative is continuing to gain some momentum politically, but who knows where the money to extend I-27 will come from:

http://sanangelolive.com/news/san-angelo/2015-07-31/san-angelo-leaders-approve-txdot-i-27-interstate-feasibility-study

QuoteThe Ports to Plains Alliance proposed extending Interstate 27 to pass through San Angelo and TxDOT is ready to conduct a feasibility study. The interstate is planned to be a part of a system that will eventually connect roads between the borders of Canada and Mexico. ...

According to Floyd, I-27 currently runs from Amarillo to Lubbock, but Ports to Plains's idea is to extend the interstate south to Del Rio. There is currently some discussion about whether the road will run from Big Spring to Midland and what the route would be. ...

Several proposed plans for I-27 suggest bypassing San Angelo to the east or west. And if the roadway runs west and rejoins U.S. 277's current roadway south of the city, the interstate may be placed directly through the Christoval area.

http://www.newswest9.com/story/29602415/big-spring-economic-development-corp-votes-yes-on-i-27-resolution

QuoteI-27 currently only stretches between Lubbock and Amarillo, but could ultimately act as a trade route from Canada to the southern tip of Mexico, with Big Spring acting as a key destination along the way. Gregg Street would become Business 87, while relief routes along Highway 87 would be developed into the new section of I-27.

"That would make us the crossroads of the nation," said Gloria McDonald, a Ports-to-Plains Alliance board member pushing for local support of the long-term project. "They're already building roads and on their way to making it happen [in Mexico]. This would facilitate the transportation of goods and services, and allow for an economic and industrial boom in Big Spring."

Extending I-27 through the city would also make Big Spring home to two interstate highways; one running north-south and another east-west. This infrastructure is currently only found in five Texas cities.

"A lot of major metropolitan areas have two interstates that cross in their communities," said EDC Executive Director Terry Wegman. "This would make Big Spring one of those communities and provide for potential growth and economic development."

The next step involves a "feasibility study" conducted by the Texas Department of Transportation, he explained. Final approval of the project depends on numerous factors, including federal funding.

Construction, if approved, may not start for years and likely would not be completed in Big Spring until 2035, Wegman said.

http://delrionewsherald.com/news/article_2aada1f8-20d6-11e5-b1a4-97fc9d2666e8.html

QuoteThe Rotary Club of Del Rio hosted Michael Reeves, president of the Ports-to-Plains Alliance, at its weekly Tuesday meeting and received a wealth of knowledge about transportation infrastructure.

Reeves presented information on a proposed Interstate 27 extension, which would help Texas connect economically to Canada and Mexico. He believes that an I-27 route would be a much more attractive option for truck traffic than the congested I-35 and that Del Rio could be a part of that extension, via the portion of Highway 277 that runs between here and San Angelo.

http://sanangelolive.com/news/county/2015-05-13/about-building-interstate-through-san-angelo

QuoteAccording to Reeves, the Ports-to-Plains Alliance began back in the mid-90s, as a project that originated from Lubbock City Council and then went to the Chamber of Commerce in Lubbock. "The idea was how I-27 could be extended,"  Reeves said. "Initially that report (from TxDOT) came back [and said] it wasn't feasible for the investment to upgrade to full interstate standards,"  he explained. "It was decided that in the rural industrial area, four lane highways were adequate at the time, and so Ports-to-Plains worked on getting two-lane highways upgraded to four. One of the first successes we had was getting U.S.  87 up to four lanes between Big Spring and San Angelo, so we have seen some progress."  

The movement of goods north to south through the existing network of 2,333 miles of mostly two lane highways extends through ten states, from the Mexican border to the Canadian border.  Funds from the Panhandle area will be to cover the costs of extending I-27 to Big Spring. Reeves played a key role in the collaboration of that effort, citing that Big Spring  acted as a bottle neck for freight bound to the panhandle and beyond to the northern corridor.

"In the city of San Angelo, the economic development group has been very active here with our connections in Mexico, and has opened up a lot of trade opportunities there,"  he said. "I think we can see a significant opening up from the ports of the west coast of Mexico to make this a significant trade corridor across Mexico and this could be a significant distribution center for that,"  he said. "We are also working with a couple of groups all the way up in Alberta, Canada; the energy production up there will benefit us as well. But, we have members all the way down from Northern Canada to the west coast of Mexico, so the project has really grown and we've also maintained and been effective under great leadership."  he said.

Expanding I-27 to include San Angelo would give freight an alternative route out of the state and add another connection to Mexico besides the one in Laredo.  "When we first looked at the expansion of I-27, 20 years ago the traffic counts weren't there, the feasibility wasn't, but we have approached TxDOT again and they are looking at conducting another feasibility study on the interstate expansion,"  Reeves explained.

"Midland/Odessa was concerned about maintaining I-20 itself and were opposed to looking at a new one (interstate). There were some smaller communities that were concerned about being bypassed, which are typical concerns, but overall the feedback was positive.  We expect to hear pretty quickly that they will move ahead and conduct a feasibility study on extending I-27."  

In the end, Reeves was asking for support from the county in bridging west Texas to Mexico and the northern corridor to Canada, promoting the potential for economic growth in San Angelo as a result of directing I-27 through the city. "Having that designation, even if you don't have the interstate constructed through here is a great marketing tool for the economic developers in the community to be able to recruit new business and show that the project is coming through,"  he said. "I think that will be a significant positive step as well."

I never liked how I-27 stops short of reaching I-20 and/or I-10. This would be a great start.

You are talking about Texas now home of I-2.  Yes I know that  one I compared it to is just a feeder into the new I-69 from all those Rio Grande Crossings in the lower Rio Grande Valley, but it functions like I-27 a glorified spur of another interstate when completed.

Quote from: andy3175 on August 13, 2015, 12:06:54 AM
... but who knows where the money to extend I-27 will come from:

I didn't realize the amount of lobbying going on, and I'm also surprised by the extensive advocacy web site http://www.portstoplains.com (http://www.portstoplains.com).

I agree, the chances of getting funding for a true interstate are slim-to-none in Texas since I-69 takes priority and I-69 will require many billions (probably more than $10 billion) and 20+ years for a full build-out.

I don't believe the traffic in that desolate area can justify a full interstate. The route goes near the former polygamist ranch at El Dorado. That's a very desolate area. And around Midland-San Angelo there is not an obvious best route, which is why two options are shown. As one the previous studies concluded, it makes more sense to upgrade several routes to four-lane divided highways as needed, rather than build one interstate.

An extension of I-27 would be built for other reasons than moving local traffic in West Texas more efficiently.

Such a route extension might consolidate a lot of long haul truck traffic onto the route and off other more crowded Interstate highways. IMHO, Denver and other cities along the Front Range of the Rockies need more than just I-25 and I-70. There are no faster, diagonal routes down toward the Gulf Coast. The Ports to Plains Corridor would provide at least some of that. However, I think what is really needed is a diagonal route between Denver and Oklahoma City, much like how I-44 works between OKC and St. Louis. That would be a big benefit to the system since it would direct NW US traffic to much more than just far South Texas cities.

The oil patch in West Texas also produces a LOT of truck traffic. Interstate highways are better designed to deal with that stuff. Without some kind of obvious "main" N-S corridor in the area truckers are going to make all sorts of other random choices.

Some of the segments of US-287 North of Amarillo are badly in need of upgrades for safety purposes. One of my girlfriend's close friends was killed in a head on collision with a semi in the Oklahoma Panhandle last year on a 2-lane segment of US-287 North of Boise City. If that route had been 4-laned that fatal accident never would have happened.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2015, 10:50:19 PM
Such a route extension might consolidate a lot of long haul truck traffic onto the route and off other more crowded Interstate highways. IMHO, Denver and other cities along the Front Range of the Rockies need more than just I-25 and I-70. There are no faster, diagonal routes down toward the Gulf Coast. The Ports to Plains Corridor would provide at least some of that. However, I think what is really needed is a diagonal route between Denver and Oklahoma City, much like how I-44 works between OKC and St. Louis. That would be a big benefit to the system since it would direct NW US traffic to much more than just far South Texas cities.

For that I would just say upgrade US 287 between DFW and Limon, CO to interstate standards (or, at least, make it four lanes).

Quote from: dfwmapper on February 20, 2015, 04:04:55 AM
Widening to 4 lanes from the US 385 interchange to the Hartley/Moore C/L. There are plans to eventually do the same from there east to the railroad overpass on the west side of Dumas, but I don't think it's funded.

Update: just had a chance to drive US 87 between Hartley and Dumas again.  I don't know if further upgrades are planned, but for now construction appears to be done.  This segment is still not four-laned, but it has been improved to a Super-2... if I'm using that term correctly.  There is a passing lane almost the entire way, but for a few miles it's for eastbound traffic only, and then it switches over to westbound for a few miles, and it alternates back and forth like that along the whole segment.

Quote from: usends on December 19, 2016, 12:26:01 AM

Quote from: dfwmapper on February 20, 2015, 04:04:55 AM
Widening to 4 lanes from the US 385 interchange to the Hartley/Moore C/L. There are plans to eventually do the same from there east to the railroad overpass on the west side of Dumas, but I don't think it's funded.

Update: just had a chance to drive US 87 between Hartley and Dumas again.  I don't know if further upgrades are planned, but for now construction appears to be done.  This segment is still not four-laned, but it has been improved to a Super-2... if I'm using that term correctly.  There is a passing lane almost the entire way, but for a few miles it's for eastbound traffic only, and then it switches over to westbound for a few miles, and it alternates back and forth like that along the whole segment.

Doesn't sound like a Super-2; that would involve eliminating private access and the construction of overpasses/interchanges, at least at major intersections.  This sounds like simple alternating passing zones -- one of the more cost-effective way to increase capacity.  Are there any indications that private access has been in any way eliminated or at least reduced?   That would be an indicator that further improvements may be pending down the line.   

That is a super-2. Using that term for a two lane freeway is a roadgeek error.

I definitely would not call US-87 between Dumas, TX and Hartley, TX a "super 2" road. Right now it's like any number of other 2 lane highways in Texas. Lots of driveways and at grade intersections with section line roads. The addition of intermittent passing lanes is better than nothing. But it falls well short of the original intention of building a 4 lane divided highway. Between Amarillo and Raton, NM that 23 mile stretch in the Texas Panhandle is the only part that isn't four laned. Dalhart has some areas of US-87 reduced down to 2 lanes, but that's due to road construction.

http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/rdw/super_2_highways.htm
Read it and weep, Robert.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 19, 2016, 12:10:28 PM
I definitely would not call US-87 between Dumas, TX and Hartley, TX a "super 2" road. Right now it's like any number of other 2 lane highways in Texas. Lots of driveways and at grade intersections with section line roads. The addition of intermittent passing lanes is better than nothing. But it falls well short of the original intention of building a 4 lane divided highway. Between Amarillo and Raton, NM that 23 mile stretch in the Texas Panhandle is the only part that isn't four laned. Dalhart has some areas of US-87 reduced down to 2 lanes, but that's due to road construction.

Quote from: NE2 on December 19, 2016, 12:15:34 PM
http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/rdw/super_2_highways.htm
Read it and weep, Robert.

So TX has their own definition of "Super 2"!  Good to know; will file it away under "Specific State Anomalies".  This is the first time I've heard that term applied to any facility lacking some level of access control.  I've driven that section of US 87 several times -- and have seen slow-moving agricultural equipment crossing or entering the highway on a regular basis -- so I'm guessing that any upgrades besides what's already been done will likely require new alignment.  With their version of "super 2" in place, it'll probably be some time before TXDot revisits this particular corridor segment.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 19, 2016, 12:10:28 PM
Right now it's like any number of other 2 lane highways in Texas.

I disagree: the continuously alternating passing lanes make it slightly better than a typical two-lane.  There may be some Super-2s elsewhere in Texas, but they are certainly not the norm.  However, you are correct that Hartley-Dumas remains the only non-four-laned segment between Amarillo and Raton.

Quote from: sparker on December 19, 2016, 02:38:12 PM
This is the first time I've heard that term applied to any facility lacking some level of access control.

That means you've only heard the erroneous roadgeek definition.

http://www.roads.nebraska.gov/media/4678/super-2-fact-sheet.pdf
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_M15_N1_chap3_128300_7.pdf
http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/PUBS/semisesq/session1/eyler/index.htm "For upgrading an existing roadway, these defining features can serve as a menu of improvements for consideration"

Quote from: Grzrd on November 20, 2014, 07:57:26 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted the November 20 I-27 Corridor Extension Study Presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/4c-presentation.pdf) that was presented to the Commission.  Here's a snip of a map of the corridor from the presentation (page 6/8 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAC0dHWs.jpg&hash=defd842bca8d9eb92816084f3d31e17f67626b2f)

This December 13 article (http://www.myplainview.com/news/article/Ports-to-Plains-seeks-support-for-I-27-extension-10793244.php) reports that the Ports-to-Plains Alliance is feeling a sense of urgency to unite the communities along the corridor in support of an extended I-27, especially with the possibility of President-elect Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure plan:

Quote
Texas does not have a major north-south interstate west of the very congested Interstate 35, and the Ports-to-Plains Alliance would like that to change. The alliance has created a committee of West Texas mayors and community leaders that is leading the effort to unite the region behind the initiative to extend Interstate 27 and is asking West Texas city councils, county commissioner courts, chambers of commerce and other civic groups to pass resolutions of support for the extension.
"Extending Interstate 27 is vitally important for all of Texas and especially for West Texas to remain economically competitive,"  said Ports-to-Plains President Michael Reeves. "With the President-elect Donald Trump proposing a trillion dollar infrastructure plan, it is important that we let our legislators and the Texas Department of Transportation know that I-27 is a top priority and West Texas is united behind the effort."
Ports-to-Plains is distributing a sample resolution of support to its members, and is asking them to forward it to federal and state legislators as well as the Texas Transportation Commission. Individuals may indicate their support at www.portstoplains.com.
"This is a long-term proposition, but that means it is important for us to take the first step and seek a future interstate designation for an extended I-27 today,"  said Reeves.
The current 124-mile I-27 between Lubbock and Amarillo was designated as a future interstate in 1968 and was not completed until 1992 at a total cost of $453 million. The Ports-to-Plains Corridor is nearly 1,000 miles long in Texas and the cost to upgrade that entire corridor to interstate standards is estimated at around $7 billion. To upgrade the approximately 500 miles from Lubbock to Laredo to interstate standards is projected to cost around $5 billion. However that is quite cost-effective when compared to the $4.8 billion it cost to rebuild a 28-mile section of I-35 E from I-635 to U.S. 380 in Dallas County.
According to the Texas Freight Mobility Plan, "By 2040 over 73 percent of Texas' population and 82 percent of the state's employment is projected to be located within five miles of an interstate."  An extended Interstate 27 is critical for the economic competitiveness of West Texas.
U.S.-Mexico trade had doubled since 2004 and approximately 60 percent of U.S.-Mexico trade crossed at a Texas land port in 2015. Laredo is far and away the largest land port and Eagle Pass ranked third in Texas. Much of that freight moves up I-35 and has led to a tremendous increase in congestion. The Interstate 35 segment through Travis County is the No. 1 ranked corridor for truck congestion in the state.
The Texas Freight Mobility Plan notes that further investment alone on I-35 will not fix the problem. The Plan says, "The state must focus not only on improving existing facilities, but also on developing future freight corridors to move products to markets and exports."  It goes on to recommend that TxDOT, "give additional consideration to the extension or designation of other interstate routes. Examples include I-27 and upgrades to portions of US 190 to interstate standards."
The proposed extension of I-27 connects major West Texas population and economic centers including Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland-Odessa and San Angelo in addition to numerous smaller communities. It will cross I-40, I-20 and I-10 and serve three border crossings with Mexico at Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo. An extended I-27 will be a major backbone for the energy industry in Texas serving top oil and gas producing counties as well as the growing wind energy industry. Furthermore, it will serve the agriculture industry including many of Texas top counties for the production of cotton, cattle, corn, grains, sheep and goats and other commodities.
"A future Interstate designation will be a significant new economic development tool for communities along the corridor,"  said Reeves. "Manufacturers, warehousing and distribution will be drawn to the new interstate. Travel services businesses such as hotels, truck stops, convenience stores and restaurants, which can have a dramatic impact on small communities, will also open. This will create much needed new jobs and expanded tax base in rural West Texas."
The Ports-to-Plains Corridor is a Congressionally Designated High Priority Corridor that extends from Denver to Laredo via Intestate 27. The Ports-to-Plains Corridor Coalition has worked to upgrade the corridor to four-lane divided with truck relief routes where needed. Those efforts have led to almost $2 billion in upgrades to the nine-state corridor.

I am not at all optimistic Trump will get anywhere with his $1 trillion infrastructure idea. I think that was just a bunch of grand talk. Good luck getting the plan pushed through Congress, even with the same political party controlling all branches of government. The problem is where Trump would get the money for this plan. Can't get that kind of money while promising tax cuts at the same time.

Quote from: Bobby5280Right now it's like any number of other 2 lane highways in Texas.

Quote from: usendsI disagree: the continuously alternating passing lanes make it slightly better than a typical two-lane.  There may be some Super-2s elsewhere in Texas, but they are certainly not the norm.

The alternating passing lanes on US-87 between Dumas and Hartley are not unique. There is a bunch of other roads in Texas where TX DOT has added the same thing. This is why I said that portion of US-87 was like any number of other 2 lane roads in Texas. It is.

The alternating passing lanes are nice. It's not as good as a real 4 lane divided highway, but better than nothing. Throwing around a "Super 2" term to describe roads like this is meaningless. It seems like the "official" definition from various authorities were relaxed for political purposes. Make idiots believe their dinky 2 lane road is kind of like a super highway when the road really is no such thing. It might have a smooth grade for higher speed travel, but that's about it.

To me, a "Super 2" road is indeed one with much or all of its access controlled similar to a 4 lane super highway with divided roadways. The Chickasaw Turnpike in Oklahoma is one example of such a road. Parts of US-82 between Sherman and Paris, TX are 2 lane with freeway style exits. If any regular 2 lane road can be called a "Super 2" then what the hell do you call these kind of roads? Ultra 2? Booyah 2? Too much 2?

Quote from: NE2 on December 20, 2016, 06:14:31 PM

Quote from: sparker on December 19, 2016, 02:38:12 PM
This is the first time I've heard that term applied to any facility lacking some level of access control.

That means you've only heard the erroneous roadgeek definition.

http://www.roads.nebraska.gov/media/4678/super-2-fact-sheet.pdf
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_M15_N1_chap3_128300_7.pdf
http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/PUBS/semisesq/session1/eyler/index.htm "For upgrading an existing roadway, these defining features can serve as a menu of improvements for consideration"

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 21, 2016, 01:09:57 AM
To me, a "Super 2" road is indeed one with much or all of its access controlled similar to a 4 lane super highway with divided roadways. The Chickasaw Turnpike in Oklahoma is one example of such a road. Parts of US-82 between Sherman and Paris, TX are 2 lane with freeway style exits. If any regular 2 lane road can be called a "Super 2" then what the hell do you call these kind of roads? Ultra 2? Booyah 2? Too much 2?

So we have 3 different sources emanating from 3 individual institutions in 3 separate states -- with no agreement as to what constitutes a "super 2"; the Iowa State definition is essentially the "roadgeek" idiom, while the other two more or less take a broader view that does not necessarily include access control as a criterion.  Thus the answer is that the definition varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction -- where one stands is where one sits, so to speak!

Quote from: sparker on December 21, 2016, 03:54:07 AM
So we have 3 different sources emanating from 3 individual institutions in 3 separate states

Those three sources agree on the general idea: a two-lane road that functions like a four-lane.

I don't like the term "two-lane freeway."  If all it takes to slow you down is a single slow vehicle in the one lane in your direction, that doesn't seem like very free movement.  To me, "multi-lane divided" is a fundamental part of the freeway definition.  If we were to have a universal definition for "Super 2" I'd propose that it replace "two-lane freeway."  I think there should be a term for two-lane roads with repeated passing lanes.  My thought is "two-plus" (or "2 plus", or maybe "2+").

If all it takes to slow you down is a toll plaza, that doesn't seem like very free movement. Yet toll roads can be freeways :D

Quote from: NE2 on December 21, 2016, 08:23:48 AM

Quote from: sparker on December 21, 2016, 03:54:07 AM
So we have 3 different sources emanating from 3 individual institutions in 3 separate states

Those three sources agree on the general idea: a two-lane road that functions like a four-lane.

OK!  New terminology:  enhanced two lane or economy multilane.  Even quasi-4-lane might work.  In any case, ambivalent terminology notwithstanding, we're addressing facilities where the governing jurisdiction has decided that a divided multilane facility is either not necessary or fiscally problematic (or possibly both).  As I mentioned previously, the improvements to the section of US 87 referred to here are in all likelihood done for the time being -- it does provide a level of capacity increase while still serving as an access point for the agricultural businesses along the highway -- likely the temporal goal of TXDot.  If the long-term P-to-P-related goal is a limited access/Interstate-grade facility along US 87, it will likely utilize an alignment that will do some "corner cutting" around Dumas and Hartley, leaving the present facility as the local server it is today.   

Quote from: NE2If all it takes to slow you down is a toll plaza, that doesn't seem like very free movement. Yet toll roads can be freeways.

That's true. However, modern toll roads have been adopting RFID tags and license plate readers and re-designing plazas to allow drivers to buzz through the plaza without slowing down.

Thanks to all the "unfunded mandates" involving our infrastructure (the traditional gasoline tax ain't working anymore) I think there is a good chance we'll start seeing toll tag readers popping up on all sorts of highways and even city streets.

In Europe, these sorts of roads where there are alternating passing lanes in each direction are called 2+1 roads.

At this point, I think we've expended enough time and energy on the terminology for various 2-lane upgrade techniques at the expense of the OP.  What is notable is that the E-W section of US 87 between Dumas & Hartley is the only part of the P-to-P corridor north of Amarillo -- at least concerning the western/Raton "branch" -- that hasn't received the divided 4-lane treatment from TXDot; they're apparently content to take a minimalist approach with this segment.  Speculating why this is the case leads to some possibilities:
     (a) The agribusinesses along this stretch have wielded enough influence to forestall any substantial taking of       
          property, while at the same time ensuring continued access to the roadway.
     (b) The local TXDot district simply didn't have the budgetary wherewithal to construct a 4-lane divided road at
          this time; whether such a decision came down from above (wasn't in the current STIP, statewide attention
          focused elsewhere) or promulgated closer to home (micro- rather than macro- prioritization, influenced in
          part by (a) above) remains to be determined.
     (c) As speculated earlier in the thread, the improvements that were done was merely a "stop-gap" project
          intended to satisfy safety concerns while somewhat increasing US 87 capacity; a more comprehensive
          interregional P-to-P corridor concept will utilize a different and, hopefully, more efficient alignment vis-a-vis the
          overall corridor trajectory.

It looks as if those who would like to see an all-out effort to deploy the P-to-P corridor as at least a divided expressway along its length are in for some disappointment -- at least for the near term.  Unless fiscal conditions improve significantly and/or statewide priorities are shifted, a multi-state corridor such as P-to-P -- particularly if it's in an outlying area of TX such as the northern Panhandle -- will almost invariably get the short end of the stick, so to speak.       
   

Maybe that piece just gets less traffic? Ockham's Razor.

Quote from: NE2 on December 24, 2016, 10:23:51 AM
Maybe that piece just gets less traffic? Ockham's Razor.

Don't have the AADT at my fingertips, but anecdotally the last several times I've driven the road (last about 2004) the traffic was extremely heavy (relatively little space between vehicles in either direction) and dominated by trucks as well as farm equipment regularly turning on and off the roadway.  Not surprising, as 87 is the most direct route to I-25; the alternatives involve long segments of lesser-capacity 2-lane roads.  And although US 287 north of Dumas seems to see usage as an alternative commercial route from Amarillo to the Colorado front range cities -- at least as far north as US 50 -- most traffic, commercial & otherwise, does still make the left/west turn onto US 87 at Dumas, at least in my own experience.   

I think TX DOT is trying to prioritize some other arguably more urgent projects, which is causing this segment of US-87 between Dumas and Hartley to be left in the lurch. There is a bunch of road improvement going on in Dalhart. US-287 needs improvement work in Dumas. There are also plans in the works for a Dumas bypass that could one day be part of a I-27 extension North from Amarillo.

Having driven from Oklahoma to Colorado Springs many times and taken both US-87 to Raton and US-287 up through Eastern Colorado I'll certainly agree more traffic goes up through Raton. It's a faster route, even though it involves going through Raton Pass. Out East of the Front Range there just isn't much of anything in terms of diagonal routes. I really wish there was a diagonal Interstate from Limon, CO down to Oklahoma City. IMHO that would be just as complimentary to the entire Interstate system as I-44 is running from OKC to St Louis.

A decent amount of truck traffic does travel US-287 into Eastern Colorado. But I see a lot more just concentrated in the Texas Panhandle for all the agriculture and cattle business, not to mention the oil business. Once you get North of Boise City, OK US-287 gets pretty desolate.

What is the likelihood that Interstate 27 will actually be extended in either direction in the near or distant future? Portions of the corridor may receive upgrades in the future, but I'm not sure that an Interstate shield would accompany such upgrades.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 27, 2016, 03:32:52 PM
What is the likelihood that Interstate 27 will actually be extended in either direction in the near or distant future? Portions of the corridor may receive upgrades in the future, but I'm not sure that an Interstate shield would accompany such upgrades.

It's certainly been talked about for at least a couple of decades, but for the present it's likely that most improvements will involve 4-lane facilities with at-grade intersections -- with varying levels of access control, depending upon location and situation.  If any new multilane facilities are laid atop existing full-access 2-lane alignments, access control wouldn't be -- at least initially -- expected.  Even expressways would be nice -- but taking care of local access seems to be of prime TXDot concern -- and the non-limited access portions of this corridor haven't, AFAIK, been as of yet officially proposed as a frontage-road-first and limited-access-later series of projects as seen elsewhere in TX. 

Quote from: sparker on December 27, 2016, 08:03:53 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 27, 2016, 03:32:52 PM
What is the likelihood that Interstate 27 will actually be extended in either direction in the near or distant future? Portions of the corridor may receive upgrades in the future, but I'm not sure that an Interstate shield would accompany such upgrades.

It's certainly been talked about for at least a couple of decades, but for the present it's likely that most improvements will involve 4-lane facilities with at-grade intersections -- with varying levels of access control, depending upon location and situation.  If any new multilane facilities are laid atop existing full-access 2-lane alignments, access control wouldn't be -- at least initially -- expected.  Even expressways would be nice -- but taking care of local access seems to be of prime TXDot concern -- and the non-limited access portions of this corridor haven't, AFAIK, been as of yet officially proposed as a frontage-road-first and limited-access-later series of projects as seen elsewhere in TX. 

As with any proposed large-scale freeway upgrade of any corridor (whether it's I-27, I-14, I-11, I-69, I-73, etc.), a US/state route freeway upgrade, or any existing Interstate highway expansion/reconstruction, key issues normally include:

- Funding (not a whole lot of tax-based road-building funding out there, and tolls must have traffic forecasts to ensure long-term viability)
- Existing land use impacts (difficult to buy expensive land in constrained urban locations and need to avoid certain important areas such as existing residential areas)
- Compliance with state, county, regional, and municipal planning documents
- Environmental considerations (includes avoidance of sensitive habitats and wetlands, understand that the freeway will cause a loss of land, potential loss of agriculture, avoidance of historical and cultural resources, and compromise potential other uses of the same land)
- Alternative multimodal options to achieve transportation (such as implementing light rail instead of building a freeway)
- Political will (the project needs a champion, presumably an elected official)
- Community support and/or opposition
- Technical feasibility (rhetorically speaking for an example, is it really possible to drill a tunnel under Chicago to build a new superhighway?)
- Overall network need (such as traffic counts existing/future and ability of the new corridor to relieve another overburdened corridor, such as we hear with I-11 potentially alleviating I-5 of truck traffic)

There may be others; these are just the ones I can think of. Given that many of these proposed Interstates will take decades to construct most likely on an ad-hoc basis, it is premature to declare most of these corridors as unnecessary, but it also premature to declare any of them guaranteed.

Regarding the I-27 corridor and the I-14 corridor, I imagine (but don't know for sure -- others can chime in) that TXDOT will implement spot upgrades on the existing roadway corridor as they can to alleviate traffic issues, just as sparker mentioned. So yes, it is possible to see US 87 upgrades in the coming decades, even if those projects aren't in the appropriate multi-year transportation plan. Anything is "possible." Whether it is likely, however, will come down to those factors I mentioned above.

Ghostbuster, it seems like you continue to ask questions about the feasibility/viability of any given freeway upgrade, and usually you offer a pessimistic appraisal of the situation. While I think it's appropriate to look at all road projects as "possible" without a guarantee of completion (hence your and many others' feelings that may of these proposed road projects are doomed to the dustbin of proposed yet unfulfilled/failed highway projects), I also think it's difficult for any of us as road enthusiasts to know with any certainty to know the "likelihood that Interstate 27 will actually be extended in either direction in the near or distant future." We can offer educated guesses, but with nearly all of these huge, sweeping road proposals, the likelihood in general is based on the impacts listed above. So hopefully the above information helps you understand likelihood for many of these long-term highway proposals. I-27, just like I-14 and I-69 and the rest, has a huge cost and major impact associated with it. It will take decades and decades to see that route (and the others) through to completion.

I would suggest to you that as you continue to read the Forum that you modify your questions to ones that we in the road community on the AARoads forum can actually answer rather than asking questions no one here can reasonably answer without the aid of a crystal ball. A good way to do this would be to start researching the status of these proposals, which you can usually find on the project proponent web page or in the popular media (local newspaper, nearest regional newspaper of broad distribution, etc.). Then you can reference this in your future posts and ask questions based on your own research rather than speculating about the same factors that come into play on any highway expansion/upgrade that is being discussed. Hopefully this info will help  you.

The only way I-27 will ever get extended is if a focused effort is made on at least connecting it to another Interstate, such as I-20.

I think the best shot is a Southerly extension to Big Spring. All of US-87 is already 4-laned between Lubbock and Big Spring. Some portions, like the segment in Tahoka, are freeway quality. There are full frontage roads or partial frontage roads on other parts of US-87 between Lubbock and Big Spring. Lamesa would need an Eastern bypass. TX DOT is building a new truck bypass around the Western half of Big Spring and that bypass will not be difficult to upgrade completely to Interstate quality. They're already securing enough ROW in this bypass to do such a thing. Some intersections will have interchanges rather than at grade crossings.

Of course there are interests in the Midland-Odessa area wanting I-27 extended there, despite Big Spring being along the logical main path of the Ports to Plains Corridor. I could even see some people pushing for I-27 to be extended from Lubbock along US-84 to the Roscoe-Sweetwater area. Both US-84 and US-385 in West Texas are 4-lane divided highways just like US-87.

Grander visions of I-27 in Texas, like the extensions to San Angelo, Del Rio and Eagle Pass will be tougher to do. Projects related to I-69 seem to be the greatest priority right now for anything not getting built in a huge city. But if the population of the Rio Grande Valley continues to swell it might provide some long term push to upgrade more of the Ports to Plains Corridor in Texas to Interstate standard with extensions of I-2 and I-27.

I would like to see I-27 extended North into Colorado, up to Limon and I-70. I think more of US-287 between Amarillo and the OK border will get segments upgraded to freeway quality. But I-27 shields won't appear on any of that unless the road has definite plans to be extended to I-70.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 28, 2016, 12:07:32 AM
The only way I-27 will ever get extended is if a focused effort is made on at least connecting it to another Interstate, such as I-20.

I think the best shot is a Southerly extension to Big Spring. All of US-87 is already 4-laned between Lubbock and Big Spring. Some portions, like the segment in Tahoka, are freeway quality. There are full frontage roads or partial frontage roads on other parts of US-87 between Lubbock and Big Spring. Lamesa would need an Eastern bypass. TX DOT is building a new truck bypass around the Western half of Big Spring and that bypass will not be difficult to upgrade completely to Interstate quality. They're already securing enough ROW in this bypass to do such a thing. Some intersections will have interchanges rather than at grade crossings.

Of course there are interests in the Midland-Odessa area wanting I-27 extended there, despite Big Spring being along the logical main path of the Ports to Plains Corridor. I could even see some people pushing for I-27 to be extended from Lubbock along US-84 to the Roscoe-Sweetwater area. Both US-84 and US-385 in West Texas are 4-lane divided highways just like US-87.

Grander visions of I-27 in Texas, like the extensions to San Angelo, Del Rio and Eagle Pass will be tougher to do. Projects related to I-69 seem to be the greatest priority right now for anything not getting built in a huge city. But if the population of the Rio Grande Valley continues to swell it might provide some long term push to upgrade more of the Ports to Plains Corridor in Texas to Interstate standard with extensions of I-2 and I-27.

I would like to see I-27 extended North into Colorado, up to Limon and I-70. I think more of US-287 between Amarillo and the OK border will get segments upgraded to freeway quality. But I-27 shields won't appear on any of that unless the road has definite plans to be extended to I-70.

The original Port-to-Plains corridor did utilize US 87 via Big Spring, but (presumably) Midland-Odessa interests had a branch designated within the 2005 Safetea-LU legislation extending west along TX 158 from Sterling City to Midland and then turning north along TX 349 to rejoin the original corridor at Lamesa.  Given the TX penchant for suffixed routes, I wouldn't be at all surprised if, in the back of their minds, they were eventually conceiving a I-27E/27W sort of arrangement (even absent available funding for either leg). 

Since US 84 between I-20 and Lubbock is one of the more heavily traveled non-Interstate truck corridors in the state (as well as the whole region), it might well, in time, be considered for an Interstate-level upgrade under a separate portfolio than the P-to-P corridor complex.     

Quote from: sparkerThe original Port-to-Plains corridor did utilize US 87 via Big Spring, but (presumably) Midland-Odessa interests had a branch designated within the 2005 Safetea-LU legislation extending west along TX 158 from Sterling City to Midland and then turning north along TX 349 to rejoin the original corridor at Lamesa.  Given the TX penchant for suffixed routes, I wouldn't be at all surprised if, in the back of their minds, they were eventually conceiving a I-27E/27W sort of arrangement (even absent available funding for either leg).

The problem with this Midland branch of the Ports to Plains Corridor and building a branch of I-27 along it is mostly just 2 lane roads on narrow ROW. TX-349 between Midland and Lamesa is on open, flat land, but running through a very dense oil drilling patch. Some of it is 4-laned, but on a single not divided roadway. Much of TX-158 between Midland and Sterling City goes through dense oil field activity, but with the 2 lane road running through more irregular terrain. Upgrading this to an Interstate class road would be a lot more expensive than an upgrade of US-87 through Big Spring.

It's easy to understand the motives for interests in Midland-Odessa wanting to divert the PTP corridor their way. In the bigger picture view of the overall corridor it makes far more sense for it to route through Big Spring on the way to San Angelo.

Given the anti-NAFTA and anti-immigration political climate of the incoming federal adminstration chances for an I-27 extension to Del Rio, Eagle Pass, etc. may be dwindling to nothing for the time being. However, I think an Southern extension of I-27 would still work well for Texas' own purposes if the road was built directly from San Angelo to Junction, TX. That would create a fairly straight Interstate path from Amarillo down to Corpus Christi via the huge San Antonio area. Such a thing would probably be easier to justify than a longer, more ambitious extension of I-27 to the Mexican border.

Quote from: sparkerSince US 84 between I-20 and Lubbock is one of the more heavily traveled non-Interstate truck corridors in the state (as well as the whole region), it might well, in time, be considered for an Interstate-level upgrade under a separate portfolio than the P-to-P corridor complex.

US-84 would be the easiest out of 3 major 4-lane routes going South of Lubbock to upgrade to Interstate quality. Slaton and Snyder both have bypasses that are mostly freeway quality. An Interstate quality bypass of Post, on the edge of the caprock, could be a little expensive to build.

Even though US-84 from Lubbock to Roscoe (and I-20) is a major trucking route, Texas has other big routes in need of upgrades. I think US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo should have been upgraded to an Interstate long ago.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 28, 2016, 10:21:29 AM
I think an Southern extension of I-27 would still work well for Texas' own purposes if the road was built directly from San Angelo to Junction, TX. That would create a fairly straight Interstate path from Amarillo down to Corpus Christi via the huge San Antonio area. Such a thing would probably be easier to justify than a longer, more ambitious extension of I-27 to the Mexican border.

Quote from: sparkerSince US 84 between I-20 and Lubbock is one of the more heavily traveled non-Interstate truck corridors in the state (as well as the whole region), it might well, in time, be considered for an Interstate-level upgrade under a separate portfolio than the P-to-P corridor complex.

US-84 would be the easiest out of 3 major 4-lane routes going South of Lubbock to upgrade to Interstate quality. Slaton and Snyder both have bypasses that are mostly freeway quality. An Interstate quality bypass of Post, on the edge of the caprock, could be a little expensive to build.

Even though US-84 from Lubbock to Roscoe (and I-20) is a major trucking route, Texas has other big routes in need of upgrades. I think US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo should have been upgraded to an Interstate long ago.

Overall, I'm pretty much in agreement with these notions -- particularly the need for an Interstate facility along US 287 from Ft. Worth to Amarillo.  South of San Angelo, I would think (since TXDot seems to avoid completely new-terrain routings as a matter of policy or design choice) that a direct shot south along US 277 to I-10 at Sonora would be their preferred option (less mileage, less private property taken).  And keeping the P-to-P on US 87 via Big Spring, considering the N-S bypass work being done currently, remains the best option from a system standpoint.  If anyone's following the I-14 thread, M-O interests seem to now be focused on making TX 158 into a portion of that corridor; the fact that it's already an ancillary alignment of HPC #38 dovetails into their plan inasmuch as they don't have to place that segment into the HPC "family" to get maximum available Fed $$; it's already there!  So the folks in M-O might have their own new toy to play with even if the P-to-P stays on its original US 87 routing. 

If I-27 plans on the P-to-P actually gel along the Big Spring alignment, the chances of similarly upgrading US 84 Lubbock-Roscoe in the near term would likely lessen considerably since it's unlikely that a second Interstate project in the same region, particularly without a HPC attached, would be prioritized.  No matter -- being a 4-lane mostly divided facility that's also the most direct route from eastern TX (at least via I-20) to the Lubbock area, commercial traffic will continue to utilize it as they do presently.     

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 28, 2016, 10:21:29 AM

Quote from: sparker
Even though US-84 from Lubbock to Roscoe (and I-20) is a major trucking route, Texas has other big routes in need of upgrades. I think US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo should have been upgraded to an Interstate long ago.

Totally agree! What I wouldn't give to have an all-Interstate routing between Denver and DFW, if you also add in the US 287 section that goes from Amarillo up to Raton, NM.

TX DOT does try to use existing roads when it can, but that's often not possible. I-69 will have to be built on a number of new terrain bypasses in East Texas for instance.

Routing an extension of I-27 South through Sonora would only work if the route was going to be extended at least to Del Rio or farther down the Rio Grande Valley (Eagle Pass, Laredo). As an Amarillo to San Antonio corridor the resulting right angle would add over 45 miles to the route. A more direct route between San Angelo and Junction would be roughly 70 miles. It's about 115 miles going straight South to Sonora and then taking I-10 East to Junction. A direct San Angelo to Junction route would pass close to the Fort McKavett State Historical Park.

I think there is little, if any chance at all, for the I-14 effort in Texas to get anywhere. There's too many other more important highway corridors to develop, such as the Ports to Plains Corridor in this case. The best case scenario for this "I-14" in the foreseeable future is US-190 from Copperas Cove to Belton & I-35 getting signed as I-14. It would be like adding another stubby I-97 to the Interstate system. Both I-97 and this I-14 idea should have 3 digit designations instead.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2016, 12:22:32 PM
TX DOT does try to use existing roads when it can, but that's often not possible. I-69 will have to be built on a number of new terrain bypasses in East Texas for instance.

Routing an extension of I-27 South through Sonora would only work if the route was going to be extended at least to Del Rio or farther down the Rio Grande Valley (Eagle Pass, Laredo). As an Amarillo to San Antonio corridor the resulting right angle would add over 45 miles to the route. A more direct route between San Angelo and Junction would be roughly 70 miles. It's about 115 miles going straight South to Sonora and then taking I-10 East to Junction. A direct San Angelo to Junction route would pass close to the Fort McKavett State Historical Park.

Regardless of any shift in pro-to-anti-NAFTA/immigration sentiment within the upcoming administration, there will still be plenty of cross-border traffic, individual and commercial, aside from that related to the maquiledoras.  IMO, the ultimate/extended goal of P-to-P would include service to the border crossings at Del Rio and Eagle Pass; hence a junction with I-10 at or near Sonora would be part of this overall concept.

Nevertheless, if I were to hedge my bet, so to speak, and consider the possibility that the P-to-P corridor would be truncated to I-10 (likely as much for fiscal as temporally political reasons), then a more direct connection near Junction would be a definite consideration.  However, my bet there would be that TXDot would keep such a facility near existing highways -- US 87 east to Eden, then US 83 south to Junction -- to avoid taking more "virgin" land than absolutely necessary  -- and the distance vis-a-vis a direct new-terrain route would not be particularly prohibitive due to US 87's trajectory SE of San Angelo; the distance would be about 90-95 miles, still better than the Sonora option. 

While a routing through Odessa/Midland makes an argument for serving those substantial cities, the US 87 routing through Big Spring, with the utilizing of limited access highway near San Angelo may make more sense, especially if the hypothetical route is to go to San Antonio, via Junction on I-10, instead of Del Rio and Eagle Pass.   

This article (http://www.mrt.com/news/state/article/Is-I-27-in-Midland-s-future-10845936.php) reports that a Texas legislator has filed a bill, HB 869 (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Search/DocViewer.aspx?ID=85RHB008691B&QueryText=%22hb+869%22&DocType=B), which would direct TxDOT to study the route. They are already discussing the possibility of suffixed routes:

Quote
Just one day before the start of the 85th Legislature, efforts to improve transportation in West Texas got a small shot in the arm.
Rep. Dustin Burrows of Lubbock filed a bill Monday seeking to direct the Texas Department of Transportation to conduct a feasibility study that would see Interstate 27 extend south of Lubbock to Laredo ....
Burrows said he doesn't have a preferred route but that he has heard the most talk about going through Big Spring with possibly a spur heading through Midland.
Ports-to-Plains President Michael Reeves said Monday that it's possible both routes could be designated as I-27.
"When you look at what's happening with I-69 in East Texas, they have a couple of different stretches designated. Same with I-35; you have I-35 east and west in Fort Worth and Dallas,"  he said. "I don't think it would be unprecedented to have both of those segments designated. But that's why you have a feasibility study -- to let the professionals and engineers look at it."
What might work in Midland's favor is the Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance's push to re-designate the I-14 project's western terminus. I-14 is the centerpiece of the congressionally approved Gulf Coast Strategic Highway project, known as "Ports to Forts."
MOTRAN and other organizations support moving I-14's western terminus from I-10 and U.S. 190 to a point in western Ector County along I-20, then heading south on what is currently SH 158 and U.S. 87 to Brady.
Reeves said having I-27 and I-14 on the same route would be beneficial. "It's a wonderful opportunity to get two interstates for the price of one. Overlapping them would be a way to stretch that transportation dollar."

If I-27 was extended South from Lubbock through both Midland and Big Spring on different, suffixed I-27W and I-27E routes, the I-14 concept would pretty much need to terminate in San Angelo. There would be no point in overlapping I-14 with I-27 and I-27W since the overlap would go all the way to I-20. That's nearly 110 miles of overlap between San Angelo and Midland.

Another alternative: if people in Midland have their hearts set on I-14 merging into I-20 it would be easier to do without the I-27W & I-27E idea. Make I-27 go through Big Spring on the way to San Angelo. I-14 could take the same path and overlap I-27 starting at TX-158/US-87 split just Northwest of Sterling City down to San Angelo. At Lamesa (where an I-27W/I-27E split would happen) a 3di Interstate spur would split from I-27 down to Midland.

Of course there's a very slim chance on getting all this stuff funded any time soon. I'm hoping for an I-27 extension from Lubbock down through San Angelo at least.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 11, 2017, 12:22:39 AM
If I-27 was extended South from Lubbock through both Midland and Big Spring on different, suffixed I-27W and I-27E routes, the I-14 concept would pretty much need to terminate in San Angelo. There would be no point in overlapping I-14 with I-27 and I-27W since the overlap would go all the way to I-20. That's nearly 110 miles of overlap between San Angelo and Midland.

Another alternative: if people in Midland have their hearts set on I-14 merging into I-20 it would be easier to do without the I-27W & I-27E idea. Make I-27 go through Big Spring on the way to San Angelo. I-14 could take the same path and overlap I-27 starting at TX-158/US-87 split just Northwest of Sterling City down to San Angelo. At Lamesa (where an I-27W/I-27E split would happen) a 3di Interstate spur would split from I-27 down to Midland.

Of course there's a very slim chance on getting all this stuff funded any time soon. I'm hoping for an I-27 extension from Lubbock down through San Angelo at least.

Very valid overall observations & analysis.  Completely correct about funding chances; IMO P-to-P stands a marginally better chance of actual development than does the I-14 corridor, particularly if it sticks to the original US 87/Big Spring alignment.  But given the level of interest in Midland/Odessa, a "SIU" section along TX 158 might be the sole I-14 segment to be built in the Permian region over the next couple of decades, connecting two of the largest metro areas between I-35 and El Paso.     

I am honestly all for extending Interstate 27, and in both directions. I think the extension of I-27 would be an undeniably excellent addition to the interstate system.

I agree with the notions in this thread that I-27 should be routed through Big Spring, San Angelo, and Junction, going south. This, IMHO, is the ideal routing of Interstate 27's southern extension.

I also agree that it would be a fantastic idea if I-27 was extended northward to Limon, Colorado, creating Denver-Amarillo and Denver-elsewhere corridors via I-70.

I would say an even I-x27 loop could work just fine for serving the Midland-Odessa Metro Area, but it probably isn't that necessary. Should the I-x27 not be built, I'm sure Midland/Odessa-bound motorists from Lubbock, Amarillo, and elsewhere would be fine taking US 62 and US 385 (divided highway), or I-27 South to I-20 West - correct me if I'm wrong, though. I do think a I-x27 loop could definitely be worthwhile. I would be less in favor of a suffixed I-27W & I-27E.


I also completely agree that all of US 287 from Amarillo to I-45 should be brought up to interstate standards, as something such as Interstate 32, as mentioned. That would also indeed be a nice addition to the interstate system.

For this routing through Big Spring and San Angelo, what about traffic headed from Lubbock to El Paso?  Seems like a swing east to have it go the way it is proposed.

Not like this will ever happen, though.

Big Spring is almost directly south of Lubbock.  US-87 swings west to go through Lamesa.  I-27 would just need to bypass to the east of Lamesa towards Big Spring.  That looks like a reasonable plan to me.

Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2017, 09:16:59 PM
For this routing through Big Spring and San Angelo, what about traffic headed from Lubbock to El Paso?  Seems like a swing east to have it go the way it is proposed.

Not like this will ever happen, though.

Lubbock to El Paso traffic is taking US 62 no matter where any potential I-27 extension goes. It's 4 lanes from Lubbock to where it crosses from New Mexico back into Texas, and is 2 lanes with frequent passing lanes (and just 2000-2500 AADT) from there until you drop out of the Hueco Mountains into the El Paso area where it goes back to 4. The Texas portions are mostly 75mph and most of NM is 70. Any all-Interstate route would be significantly longer and the slightly higher speed limits wouldn't make up for it.

Yeah, it would be way way out of the way for Lubbock traffic to go clear down to I-20 in the Midland-Odessa area and then head West toward El Paso. US-62 through Hobbs, Carlsbad and Guadalupe Peak is far more direct.

Quote from: dfwmapper on January 14, 2017, 01:23:51 AM

Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2017, 09:16:59 PM
For this routing through Big Spring and San Angelo, what about traffic headed from Lubbock to El Paso?  Seems like a swing east to have it go the way it is proposed.

Not like this will ever happen, though.

Lubbock to El Paso traffic is taking US 62 no matter where any potential I-27 extension goes. It's 4 lanes from Lubbock to where it crosses from New Mexico back into Texas, and is 2 lanes with frequent passing lanes (and just 2000-2500 AADT) from there until you drop out of the Hueco Mountains into the El Paso area where it goes back to 4. The Texas portions are mostly 75mph and most of NM is 70. Any all-Interstate route would be significantly longer and the slightly higher speed limits wouldn't make up for it.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 14, 2017, 04:10:31 PM
Yeah, it would be way way out of the way for Lubbock traffic to go clear down to I-20 in the Midland-Odessa area and then head West toward El Paso. US-62 through Hobbs, Carlsbad and Guadalupe Peak is far more direct.

Can't see a lot of commercial long-distance traffic between El Paso & Lubbock in any case; most TX distribution centers and container terminals are farther east, either along the I-35 corridor or in the Houston area.  This accounts for the high volume of truck traffic on US 84 between Roscoe/I-20 & Lubbock.  The present configuration of US 62 is more than adequate to handle the sort of traffic that route sees.

Longer distance traffic heading to/from Lubbock via points farther West than El Paso (cities in Arizona and California) would not even go through El Paso. It would pick up US-70 in Las Cruces, head NE to Alamogordo and then either through Roswell (US-70/US-380) or Artesia (US-82) on the way to Lubbock and then points farther East if necessary.

There is a lot of oil patch activity in far West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. Lots and lots of trucks out there in the Permian Basin.

This is all the more reason to keep any Southern extension of I-27 primarily directed through Big Spring and then San Angelo.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 14, 2017, 10:31:07 PM
There is a lot of oil patch activity in far West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. Lots and lots of trucks out there in the Permian Basin.

And the oil traffic doesn't need a new Interstate, it needs better maintenance of existing state highways, FM roads, and county roads that are getting beat to death by heavy trucks carrying the the oil.

Plus, all that oil patch truck traffic is mostly dispersed across many different roads. It does tend to funnel and concentrate into a few key spots where oil refineries are located. But such roads only need additional upgrades where the traffic is most concentrated.

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 13, 2017, 06:05:46 PM
I would say an even I-x27 loop could work just fine for serving the Midland-Odessa Metro Area, but it probably isn't that necessary. Should the I-x27 not be built, I'm sure Midland/Odessa-bound motorists from Lubbock, Amarillo, and elsewhere would be fine taking US 62 and US 385 (divided highway), or I-27 South to I-20 West - correct me if I'm wrong, though. I do think a I-x27 loop could definitely be worthwhile. I would be less in favor of a suffixed I-27W & I-27E.

No.  US 62/385 has tons of towns along it and arcs too far to the west.  TX 349 south out of Lamesa is a 75 miles an hour road that goes through no towns whatsoever, so Lubbock and Amarillo traffic headed to Midland/Odessa, and points west will always take TX 349 over US 62/385.  The direct connection with no towns along its length will necessitate the need for an interstate spur should the I-27 south extension ever come to fruition, because this will be the most direct and quickest path.  Currently the road needs to become a 4 lane divided road connecting to a Lamesa bypass due to all the traffic that utilizes the roads, but the desire for a bypass is not there in Lamesa nor are the funds to significantly upgrade TX 349.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 14, 2017, 10:31:07 PM
Longer distance traffic heading to/from Lubbock via points farther West than El Paso (cities in Arizona and California) would not even go through El Paso. It would pick up US-70 in Las Cruces, head NE to Alamogordo and then either through Roswell (US-70/US-380) or Artesia (US-82) on the way to Lubbock and then points farther East if necessary.

There is a lot of oil patch activity in far West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. Lots and lots of trucks out there in the Permian Basin.

This is all the more reason to keep any Southern extension of I-27 primarily directed through Big Spring and then San Angelo.

Would suspect that they would "pick up" US 70 where it is not duplexed - on the western side of las Cruces, on I-10, exit 135.   

Too many stoplights on US 70 through Las Cruces. Even though it adds 7 miles, taking I-10 and I-25 is a couple minutes faster at off-peak times and even better during peak times.

Either way, that traffic from AZ & CA on I-10 headed to more Northeast destinations isn't going to go through El Paso. US-70 & US-380 through Alamogordo and Roswell is a pretty logical route.

A long time ago I had a fictional highway idea of I-44 going from Wichita Falls through Lubbock, Roswell and Alamogordo to I-10 in Las Cruces. That would have been another play off the kind of route US-66 ran in decades past (even though it took more of the I-40 corridor). I would be just as happy if I-44 was merely extended from Wichita Falls down to Abilene and I-20 (or maybe to San Angelo and a possible I-27 extension).

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 21, 2017, 02:16:29 AM
Either way, that traffic from AZ & CA on I-10 headed to more Northeast destinations isn't going to go through El Paso. US-70 & US-380 through Alamogordo and Roswell is a pretty logical route.

A long time ago I had a fictional highway idea of I-44 going from Wichita Falls through Lubbock, Roswell and Alamogordo to I-10 in Las Cruces. That would have been another play off the kind of route US-66 ran in decades past (even though it took more of the I-40 corridor). I would be just as happy if I-44 was merely extended from Wichita Falls down to Abilene and I-20 (or maybe to San Angelo and a possible I-27 extension).

I would completely support an I-44 extension. I've said Abilene is good, but San Angelo is even better. I think that I-44, I-27, and my proposed I-18 would make for a fantastic interstate system in San Angelo.

Quote from: dfwmapper on January 20, 2017, 11:38:53 PM
Too many stoplights on US 70 through Las Cruces. Even though it adds 7 miles, taking I-10 and I-25 is a couple minutes faster at off-peak times and even better during peak times.

Meant that westbound freight from the Lubbock area would yes travel through El Paso (on US 62 / 180) and then use I-10 to the west side of las Cruces where US 70 would join I-10 on the west mesa above the Rio Grande Valley.   No other efficient way.  US 380-70 involves two mountain ranges, and possible hold ups crossing white sands missile range.  Loop 375 on the north side of El Paso features an 8% grade crossing the franklin mountain range and is not a credible class A trucking route, although it seems to be touted as one by texdot.   A second route "around" El Paso involves entering it on the east, via US 62 / 180, or I-10, then using the Loop (375) to the northeast side of El  Paso, then zig  zagging up to Anthony Gap in New Mexico to reach I-10 again. 
There is an effort underway to "strip" the US 70 route designation from the W. Picacho and N. Main St. corridors in las Cruces and to "stick" it on the Interstates south (I-10) and east (I-25) of town, which exists as a V shaped alignment.  The I-10 / I-25 interchange was reconstructed in 2012, to less than an ideal configuration.   Very indirect, but likely still faster than  traveling through town.  A limited access alignment, north of las Cruces, which should have been built in the 1965 - 1990 timeframe, could have carried an Interstate grade alignment for US 70 north of the city.  Believe that the US 70 / US 60 corridor between las Cruces and Amarillo was considered for inclusion in the 1968 additional Interstate mileage legislation, but political myopia prevented it  from happening.   

Quote from: Grzrd on January 10, 2017, 01:12:19 PM
This article (http://www.mrt.com/news/state/article/Is-I-27-in-Midland-s-future-10845936.php) reports that a Texas legislator has filed a bill, HB 869 (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Search/DocViewer.aspx?ID=85RHB008691B&QueryText=%22hb+869%22&DocType=B), which would direct TxDOT to study the route.

This article (http://www.myplainview.com/news/article/TxDOT-recoomends-I-27-study-12365722.php) reports that TxDOT will undergo a feasibility study for the I-27 extension from Lubbock to Laredo:

Quote
Efforts to extend Interstate 27 received a significant boost Thursday as the Texas Transportation Commission approved a plan that recommends feasibility study for extending I-27 from Lubbock to Laredo.
"This is a big step for Ports-to-Plains and our goal to extend I-27. We commend the Transportation Commission and the Texas Freight Advisory Committee for recognizing that the Texas freight network has a significant gap without a major north-south interstate highway west of I-35, and taking action to meet the need,"  said Lubbock Mayor and Ports-to-Plains Alliance Board Member Dan Pope ....
TxDOT has been working since August 2016 to develop the Texas Freight Mobility Plan (TFMP) 2017 that meets all Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act requirements. The first Texas Freight Mobility Plan was adopted by the Texas Transportation Commission in January 2016. In December 2015, MAP-21 (the former federal funding and authorization bill) was replaced by the FAST Act. The FAST Act provided a new freight focused funding program, the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP), and also created new requirements for state freight plans to have in place by December 2017 in order to qualify for the NHFP funding. These new requirements include: creation of Critical Rural Freight Corridors, creation of Critical Urban Freight Corridors, and development of a fiscally constrained freight investment plan.
A section of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor, US 87 between Big Spring and San Angelo, was designated as a Critical Rural Freight Corridor by the plan.
"It is rewarding to see TxDOT recognize how important the Ports-to-Plains Corridor is to the state. This is the result of years of hard work from several dedicated people. We also recognize that there is still more to be done and we look forward to working with TxDOT to make sure they have the resources necessary to fully implement this plan,"  said Ports-to-Plains Alliance Chairman John Bertsch.

Quote from: Grzrd on November 17, 2017, 02:04:58 PM

Quote from: Grzrd on January 10, 2017, 01:12:19 PM
This article (http://www.mrt.com/news/state/article/Is-I-27-in-Midland-s-future-10845936.php) reports that a Texas legislator has filed a bill, HB 869 (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Search/DocViewer.aspx?ID=85RHB008691B&QueryText=%22hb+869%22&DocType=B), which would direct TxDOT to study the route.

This article (http://www.myplainview.com/news/article/TxDOT-recoomends-I-27-study-12365722.php) reports that TxDOT will undergo a feasibility study for the I-27 extension from Lubbock to Laredo:

Quote
Efforts to extend Interstate 27 received a significant boost Thursday as the Texas Transportation Commission approved a plan that recommends feasibility study for extending I-27 from Lubbock to Laredo.
"This is a big step for Ports-to-Plains and our goal to extend I-27. We commend the Transportation Commission and the Texas Freight Advisory Committee for recognizing that the Texas freight network has a significant gap without a major north-south interstate highway west of I-35, and taking action to meet the need,"  said Lubbock Mayor and Ports-to-Plains Alliance Board Member Dan Pope ....
TxDOT has been working since August 2016 to develop the Texas Freight Mobility Plan (TFMP) 2017 that meets all Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act requirements. The first Texas Freight Mobility Plan was adopted by the Texas Transportation Commission in January 2016. In December 2015, MAP-21 (the former federal funding and authorization bill) was replaced by the FAST Act. The FAST Act provided a new freight focused funding program, the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP), and also created new requirements for state freight plans to have in place by December 2017 in order to qualify for the NHFP funding. These new requirements include: creation of Critical Rural Freight Corridors, creation of Critical Urban Freight Corridors, and development of a fiscally constrained freight investment plan.
A section of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor, US 87 between Big Spring and San Angelo, was designated as a Critical Rural Freight Corridor by the plan.
"It is rewarding to see TxDOT recognize how important the Ports-to-Plains Corridor is to the state. This is the result of years of hard work from several dedicated people. We also recognize that there is still more to be done and we look forward to working with TxDOT to make sure they have the resources necessary to fully implement this plan,"  said Ports-to-Plains Alliance Chairman John Bertsch.

If the P-to-P, and ostensibly I-27 along for the ride, is indeed headed to Laredo via Big Spring and San Angelo (and probably via Del Rio en route southward), then that may have an effect on the push to route the I-14 corridor via San Angelo: it could either (a) take the wind out of the sails by causing San Angelo backers to refocus their efforts on the P-to-P, or (b) actually assist the I-14 "cause" by giving that route another corridor with which to connect in San Angelo -- but possibly delaying any extension over TX 158 to Midland/Odessa, since while shorter, the I-27 routing via Big Spring would function well as an Interstate-grade San Angelo-M/O connector for the time being (at least until M/O activists start whining, which in time is inevitable!).

IMO, it's about time some concrete activity toward the P-to-P took place; glad to hear TxDOT rather than some spurious regional politicos are taking the lead on this. 

 

I would much rather see parts of I-27 extended than I-14, especially if we're talking West Texas. In the big picture scope of things I-27 could provide a faster, more efficient, less mountainous path for traffic between the Gulf Coast, high plains cities like Amarillo & Lubbock but more importantly the bigger cities like Denver and Colorado Springs on the front range of the Rockies. I-14 doesn't have any of that big picture reach. The backers of I-14 are using the goal of linking military posts as a way to sell this concept, but highways aren't the primary mode to move military hardware these days. Air and rail are actually more important. I can see building I-14 East to College Station and Huntsville, but that's about it for now.

Actually, if plans to extend the P-to-P down to Laredo as a southern I-27 extension (via San Angelo & Del Rio) solidify, that would effectively satisfy the wishes of Rep. Will Hurd -- the leading objector to an I-14 alignment toward San Angelo rather than SW to I-10 because it would avoid his district -- for an additional Interstate route within that district (#23).  Essentially US 277, the basic alignment for most of the extension, features most of its mileage within the district itself; that should make Rep. Hurd happy as a clam, since the chances are that the P-to-P will see funding long before any part of the I-14 corridor west of Lampasas.  But attention to I-27 will likely have the effect of clearing the path for locating I-14 along a Brady-San Angelo alignment rather than down to I-10 -- although that corridor will simply be a line on a map for quite some time to come unless dedicated funds somehow miraculously emerge.  But this is Texas -- so one never knows!