Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south

Started by afguy, March 26, 2019, 07:01:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sparker

Little thread bump here -- there's been a wee bit of action regarding the P-to-P/I-27 situation as of today; the AASHTO DTU is reporting, via an excerpt from local media, that the TX governor has signed a bill calling for a study to extend I-27 south to Laredo via San Angelo, Del Rio, and Carrizo Springs (the basic HPC #38 concept) -- including a "split" route from Lamesa to Sterling City, with one branch crossing I-20 at Big Spring and the other utilizing TX 349 and TX 158 through Midland.  Sounds like an "all in" approach; I for one would certainly expect details to be worked out later (particularly when duplication of the I-14 backers' plans comes into play). 

The gist of the action can be found at:  https:///www.lubbockonline.com/news/20190612/governor-signs-bill-calling-for-interstate-27-extension-study


Bobby5280

If there is a split of I-27 at Lamesa and Sterling City to send I-27W to Midland and I-27E thru Big Spring then that would limit the reach of I-14. That is if I-14 is ever fully built. The Western terminus of I-14 would end up in San Angelo.

Given all the activity and heavy truck traffic out in in the Permian Oil Patch of West Texas I think I-27 would have a better shot at getting segments funded. The Ports to Plains Corridor serves more people in West Texas than I-14 would. The corridor has been established for two decades. Adding to that, I think conversion of US-87, US-277, TX-349 and TX-158 to Interstate standards would all be easier to do than upgrading US-190 and US-87 between San Angelo and Copperas Cove. Much of the route between Copperas Cove and Brady would need to be built on a new terrain path to get around development and build to Interstate quality grades and geometry.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 15, 2019, 06:11:19 PM
If there is a split of I-27 at Lamesa and Sterling City to send I-27W to Midland and I-27E thru Big Spring then that would limit the reach of I-14. That is if I-14 is ever fully built. The Western terminus of I-14 would end up in San Angelo.

Given all the activity and heavy truck traffic out in in the Permian Oil Patch of West Texas I think I-27 would have a better shot at getting segments funded. The Ports to Plains Corridor serves more people in West Texas than I-14 would. The corridor has been established for two decades. Adding to that, I think conversion of US-87, US-277, TX-349 and TX-158 to Interstate standards would all be easier to do than upgrading US-190 and US-87 between San Angelo and Copperas Cove. Much of the route between Copperas Cove and Brady would need to be built on a new terrain path to get around development and build to Interstate quality grades and geometry.

I doubt if there has been any thought given to attempting to use any of the existing US 190 alignment between the west end of signed I-14 and US 87 at/near Brady; the only alignment that could conceivably be upgraded lies along US 87 between Brady and San Angelo.  And it's likely the corridor backers in San Angelo and M/O don't really give a shit what number eventually serves their city, as long as it gets built; they'd be equally happy with a "I-27W" between San Angelo and M/O than I-14.  It's highly probable that the sole reason the I-14 proposal got any traction at all in W. TX was because of the procrastination/inaction regarding the P-to-P, which has been formally in existence since the 1995 NHS legislation's batch of HPC's. 

I'm going to take a bit of an "educated guess" here that part of the renewed interest in the P-to-P/I-27 proposal emanates as much from the Del Rio area as Lubbock, particularly since if any of the I-14 "cluster" of corridors were actually adopted -- particularly the N-S connector between Eden and Junction (or even the variant suggested by Bobby that directly connects San Angelo with Junction), that would functionally put Del Rio, Eagle Pass, and other borderland areas out of the Interstate mix, since even the most outlandish of the I-14 proposals (the one along US 190 southwest of Brady) bypasses their area.  Since the "split corridor" I-14 concepts were clearly formulated out of political considerations (the San Angelo direct connector along US 87 traverses one congressional district, while the one along US 190 via Menard lies in the adjacent one to the south) -- if the P-to-P proposal is actually adopted as a future Interstate corridor, it would serve the southerly district, giving that particular politico some fresh pork to crow about to his constituents.  The I-14 corridor could be thus cut back to the US 87 alignment and the alternate alignments discarded.  Lubbock-San Antonio would be addressed by the San Angelo-Sonora section of the P-to-P/I-27 routing (indirect as it may be). 

My prediction is that if the I-27 proposal is advanced, regional attention -- and subsequently lobbying for funding -- will shift from I-14 to the older corridor.  I-14 in the "Triangle" will likely proceed in due time, but the segment from Copperas Cove to San Angelo will proceed in a more "leisurely" fashion -- after all, it still remains the first corridor in that region to formally be designated as an Interstate; it's backers won't "give up the ghost" about a westerly extension -- but neither will they be able to claim that the I-14 concept is the sole chance for a new Interstate server in the area.  It'll likely eventually get out to San Angelo -- but it'll be on a timeline about 25-35 years out rather than 15 or 20.  West Texas folks have wanted the P-to-P a lot longer than I-14; the latter was more or less a "consolation prize"; they'll almost surely jump at the chance to get what they wanted all along, while the other will be simply icing on that particular cake! 



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.