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

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

Previous topic - Next topic

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

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

Total Members Voted: 27

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



TheBox

Let's just say most people weren't really expecting them to prioritize I-27 north of Amarillo before I-27 south of Lubbock
Wake me up when they upgrade US-290 between the state's largest city and growing capital into expressway standards if it interstate standards.

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

Bobby5280

The Amarillo-Dumas segment is what could be called "low hanging fruit." It's 40 or so miles of divided highway that would be relatively easy to upgrade to Interstate standards. It would be a noticeable change on the map.

South of Lubbock there is more development along the US-87 corridor. An Interstate upgrade is still very do-able, but some properties will have to be acquired and removed. There will be more issues with utility relocation and other hassles. The I-27W segment between Midland and Lamesa will probably have to be all new construction since the existing TX-349 road is undivided 4-lane. The ROW is narrow yet there is a shit-ton of oil drilling infrastructure built up along the highway. It's going to take more time (and money) to build out that segment.

splashflash

South of Lubbock traffic counts are lower than north of Amarillo.  South of Tahoka the counts are just 8,600 aadt versus 10,500 aadt south of Dumas, which is also north of Amarillo.

The recent 4.5 miles of interstate added south of Lubbock was likely expedited because of the Loop 88 construction.

The northern study also assures other states part of Port to Plains Corridor that Texas, with deeper pockets, is serious about the federal legislation that was passed.

Bobby5280

There are some locations South of Lubbock that have comparable AADT numbers, but the traffic levels do drop below 10K at Tahoka.

While the AADT levels on US-287 between Amarillo and Dumas are above 10K the numbers get cut in half on US-287 North of Dumas and US-87 West of Dumas. TX DOT will likely be forced to make an either-or choice regarding which Northward leg of the Ports to Plains Corridor it chooses to develop. I think they'll probably opt for the US-287 leg going up to Stratford and to the OK state line. That highway segment will be easier to upgrade. Plus, Oklahoma might be slightly more likely to do improvements to its portion of US-287 than New Mexico would do with its portion of US-87.

If any work does get completed any time soon it will probably just be the Amarillo-Dumas segment. Most of the emphasis would likely be on Future I-27 segments South of Lubbock. It could be a really long time before any Future I-27 work happens North and/or West of Dumas. Hopefully within the time that passes before then that silly "I-27N" idea will be eliminated. I think it's more likely the I-27 main line would run North of Dumas thru Boise City, OK and into SE CO.

monty

Dumas to Hartley is already slated to be constructed to four lane divided.

Hartley and Moore Counties Included in Panhandle Road Project

Monday, September 02, 2024
Panhandle to receive over $1.24 billion for road improvements

(TxDOT Press Release)

Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced a record $148 billion in investment for Texas' transportation infrastructure.

According to a news release, the investment includes the adoption of a more than $104 billion 10-year transportation plan by TxDOT to improve safety, address congestion and connectivity and preserve roadways for Texas drivers.

Over the next 10 years, over $1.24 billion will be used to improve roads in the Texas Panhandle.

Major projects include the construction of northbound to westbound and eastbound to southbound direct connectors from I-27 to SL 335 and a third-level bridge, widening of US 87 in Hartley and Moore counties and upgrading the southwest section of SL 335 to a freeway.


Share
monty

Bobby5280

It sounds like most of that $1.24 billion is getting spent in the Amarillo area.

Anyone following Ports to Plains Corridor news probably already knew the Dumas-Hartley segment of US-87 was going to get 4-laned. But the question is what kind of configuration will the upgraded road materialize as? Will it be a wide, divided highway on a ROW wide enough to upgrade into a freeway flanked by frontage roads? Will it be a four-lane not-divided road on a narrow ROW and hardly seem like any kind of upgrade at all? Or will it be some odd-ball mix of in between?

monty

From my past reading, I believe that Dumas to Hartley is to be built as a four lane, divided highway. There is very little in the way of cross traffic that entire segment. So, I suspect there will not be frontage roads.

Other reports I have read indicate the big improvement obstacle is a bypass around Dumas. Most indicate a west- side bypass. Bridges over the railroad will be the major expense.
monty

The Ghostbuster

Amarillo never proposed to do to the current northern terminus of Interstate 27 what they did off the end of the current western terminus of Interstate 44 in Withita Falls, have they? Imagine elevated roadways being built on top of N./S. Buchannan St. and N./S. Taylor St. (N./S. Fillmore St. and Pierce St. could also be used, although it would be awkward to build elevated highways that go the opposite direction of the one-way streets below).

Bobby5280

Quote from: montyFrom my past reading, I believe that Dumas to Hartley is to be built as a four lane, divided highway. There is very little in the way of cross traffic that entire segment. So, I suspect there will not be frontage roads.

At least a dozen or more agriculture related businesses are built adjacent to existing US-87 between Dumas and Hartley. Nearly all the rest of the land next to the highway is circular plots of crop land sustained by center pivot irrigation. TX DOT will have to maintain farm/ranch access regardless of what form the upgraded highway takes.

As an undivided 4-lane road the upgrade would be pretty easy. TX DOT might be able to build much of that without having to acquire any more ROW. A divided highway with some sort of center median would need additional ROW. A road with future upgrade potential to Interstate quality would need even more ROW, even if frontage roads weren't continuous.

Quote from: montyOther reports I have read indicate the big improvement obstacle is a bypass around Dumas. Most indicate a west- side bypass. Bridges over the railroad will be the major expense.

I don't know the latest progress on studies or planning for a Dumas bypass, but the subject has been discussed for years. I think they've already had at least a couple public meetings in Dumas about it.

Even if the two North legs of the Ports to Plains Corridor didn't officially exist it would be silly to route a bypass of Dumas around the East side of town. Such a bypass would have to be much longer since most of the town is built East of US-287. There is less development on the West side, yet that's where the rail corridor is located, along with a lot of industrial and agricultural business. The Moore County Airport is out there too. It would be better and less expensive to build a freeway bypass on the West side of Dumas. That would also provide a natural outlet for a possible Interstate leg going West to Hartley (and on to places like Raton and I-25).

Quote from: The GhostbusterAmarillo never proposed to do to the current northern terminus of Interstate 27 what they did off the end of the current western terminus of Interstate 44 in Wichita Falls, have they? Imagine elevated roadways being built on top of N./S. Buchannan St. and N./S. Taylor St. (N./S. Fillmore St. and Pierce St. could also be used, although it would be awkward to build elevated highways that go the opposite direction of the one-way streets below).

That topic has been discussed several times in this forum already. There is absolutely no way I-27 is going to be routed North thru Downtown Amarillo. The elevated viaducts in Wichita Falls are only about 3/4 of a mile in length. And those bridges actually go over streets that are blocks West of the actual old downtown area of Wichita Falls. Elevated viaducts in Amarillo would have to be nearly 2 miles long. They would be far more disruptive and costly to build than the setup in Wichita Falls. Tunnelling under downtown Amarillo would be an even more ridiculous proposal costing several billion dollars. Most of the rest of the Ports to Plains Corridor could be upgraded to Interstate quality for what a freeway tunnel under downtown Amarillo would cost.

monty

Here is the TXDOT release:
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/amarillo/US-87.html

States four-lane divided for 19.8 miles.

"At least a dozen or more agriculture related businesses are built adjacent to existing US-87 between Dumas and Hartley. Nearly all the rest of the land next to the highway is circular plots of crop land sustained by center pivot irrigation. TX DOT will have to maintain farm/ranch access regardless of what form the upgraded highway takes."
How does TXDOT deal with center pivots in a project like this? That is a good point. Do they simply pay for modifications? Could be some wells in the ROW too.
monty

splashflash

$110M for Hartley County for 4 lane divided highway 87 in 2025
$56.2M for Moore County for 4 lane divided highway 87 in 2025.  This was deferred from 2023 or 2024.

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/ama/rural-tip/050124-presentation.pdf

splashflash

Installation of cable barrier north of Dumas and south of Cactus on US 287 for $5.1M for letting in 2025.

Multiple bridge replacements south of Dumas in 2027 or 28, perhaps coordinating with new interstate upgrade.

Bobby5280

Quote from: montyHow does TXDOT deal with center pivots in a project like this? That is a good point. Do they simply pay for modifications? Could be some wells in the ROW too.

The circular crop fields next to US-87 are in 1 mile wide or half mile wide plots. But the irrigation structures are modular. They can be reduced to less standard lengths. Every module (or span) in a center-pivot setup has it own wheels, which create the circular stripes visible in the crop fields. The stripes are spaced around 150' or 133' apart, depending on what kind of center pivot model the field is using.

If TX DOT decides it wants to expand the US-87 ROW from around 100'-150' wide to 300' wide. It can give those fields "a haircut". The farmers would have to modify their center pivots, removing one or two modules to make room for the wider highway.

There is a handful of oil pump jacks along US-87 between Dumas and Hartley. At least one or two are in the corner just outside circular plots of crop land. The pump jacks I've seen on road trips driving through there have been positioned at least a couple hundred feet away from the highway. An expanded US-87 ROW 250' or 300' wide would have no problem avoiding those pump jacks.

Scott5114

Quote from: splashflash on November 07, 2024, 12:57:13 PM"TxDOT is fixing (sic) to start a feasibility study from Amarillo to Dumas," said Garduno.

That (sic) tells me you've never been to Texas/Oklahoma (and you probably ain't fixing to change that, either).
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

abqtraveler

Quote from: Henry on August 20, 2024, 10:26:07 PMMore likely, they'll start the expansion south of Lubbock to at least San Angelo. If they can somehow get it to Laredo, good for them.
I would guess the priority would be to get I-27 finished between Lubbock and I-20 first. If TxDOT were to route I-27 along US-87 from Lubbock to Big Spring, that's 100 miles, give or take. All of US-87 between Lubbock and Big Spring is 4-lane, with a few freeway segments. The biggest piece would be a bypass around Lamesa.
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

The Ghostbuster

I believe there was a proposal in the mid-1990s (predating the Ports to Plains study by a few years) to extend Interstate 27 to Interstate 10, and it wasn't determined to be economically feasible. I think Interstate 27 should have connected Interstate 20 with Interstate 40 from the get-go, but maybe the portion south of Lubbock wasn't feasible when Interstate 27 was first proposed as an Interstate in 1968.

Bobby5280

I think the situation out in West Texas is a good bit different now. Horizontal oil drilling was still in its infancy 30 years ago. Its use started really booming in the 2000's. While a great deal of oil fracked out of the Permian Basin "oil patch" is sent thru pipelines the oil industry still uses a great deal of heavy trucks and other service vehicles. There may not have been much of a need to extend I-27 back in the 1990's, but the need to do so is much more legit now.

Aside from the oil and gas industry's impact on highway traffic the West Texas region is an increasingly important viaduct for commercial traffic. Laredo is the most heavily traveled inland border crossing for commercial trucking. But other towns like Del Rio and Eagle Pass are important alternatives. An extended I-27 can help move that traffic to growing regions like the Front Range cities in Colorado.

US 89

As someone who has spent a good amount of time driving across these areas, I just don't see the need for more interstate mileage here.

Does that mean I'm opposed to upgrades? Absolutely not. I'd love to see more four-lane upgrades in this part of the country with some bypasses around some of the larger (and smaller!) towns along those roads. But building an entire corridor up to interstate standards just seems like a waste of money that could have been better spent elsewhere. It just seems to me the cost of the fancy shield won't meaningfully improve the situation on the ground, especially when you can use that money to widen some existing busier 2-lane corridors.

Put it this way: in a rural area with no towns to bypass, you get way more bang for your buck by upgrading a 2-lane highway to a 4-lane divided one than by upgrading a 4-lane divided highway to interstate standards.

The Ghostbuster

Whether one wants more Interstate mileage or not, plenty more is coming in both Texas and North Carolina. Sure, upgrading portions of existing four-lane expressways to freeway standards, but not to Interstate Standards may be preferable, but that is not the path Texas and North Carolina have taken. I don't see this stopping anytime soon.

monty

Noticed this week that the power lines are being moved south for the expanded US 87 ROW west of Dumas.
monty

Bobby5280

It will be interesting to see how far South they move the power lines from the existing road. That may be a good clue for what they ultimately plan to build -either an "ordinary" 4-lane divided road or one with enough room for Interstate upgrade potential.

monty

An uneducated guess - the new power lines looked to be positioned maybe 20 yards south of the old ones.

Some of the property owners already had their new fences up. The visible ROW expansion disappeared around the Hartley County line. The new power line project was moving from east to west beginning at Dumas.

There is a lot of three lane roadway in this segment. One would assume that the state would utilize what exists and simply twin the highway. I am not familiar with a Texas standard procedure.

A side observation, Texas 152 that ends at Dumas at the US 87 / US 287 junction, has seen huge improvements with added passing lanes all the way to its termination at the Oklahoma state line. To me, this denotes more east - west traffic across the northern Texas panhandle,parallel to I 40, adding to the flow into New Mexico and the proposed I 27 Ports to Plains corridor.
monty

MaxConcrete

The public meeting materials are online for the I-27 Feasibility Study from Amarillo to Dumas.

Interesting and surprising is that building I-27 through downtown Amarillo appears to be an option being considered. See page 17 in this presentation.

Many years ago I surveyed downtown in the area where I-27 would come through, and I concluded it would be impossible, the same conclusion as Bobby5280. Looking at the image on page 17 of the presentation, it's obvious many large, modern buildings would need to be demolished. A right-of-way clearance on the north half (north of the railroad) could be feasible, but I can't imagine it would be feasible in the south half.

Ghostbuster's suggestion for an elevated structure through the south half is a possibility, but one which will surely get plenty of opposition, especially since the alignment would be only one block west of the Amarillo civic complex.

This is just a feasibility study, and it may be part of the process to officially declare a downtown link infeasible before routing I-27 around the Loop.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 25, 2024, 11:47:41 AMI-27 would definitely be re-routed on the West half of Loop 335. There is absolutely no practical way for I-27 to be extended through downtown Amarillo. The existing segment of I-27 inside the loop would probably be re-named a business "loop" for I-27, similar to how BL-40 in Amarillo operates now.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2024, 02:55:52 PMAmarillo never proposed to do to the current northern terminus of Interstate 27 what they did off the end of the current western terminus of Interstate 44 in Withita Falls, have they? Imagine elevated roadways being built on top of N./S. Buchannan St. and N./S. Taylor St. (N./S. Fillmore St. and Pierce St. could also be used, although it would be awkward to build elevated highways that go the opposite direction of the one-way streets below).
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

Plutonic Panda

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



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.