TX: Ports to Plains corridor study

[MaxConcrete]

The presentation for the first virtual public meeting is online. (The 42-minute video is also available, but it doesn't add anything.) This covers the segment from Laredo northward to near Interstate 10 at Sonora, 247 miles.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/statewide/ports-plains/mtg4/051120-p2p-seg3-pres.pdf

Meeting site: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/transportation-planning/051120.html

Interstate status is recommended for this section. Since this is the most desolate section of the corridor, I'm assuming they will recommend Interstate status for the entire corridor. Two more segment meetings are this week.

See page 24 for cost numbers to upgrade to Interstate standards.
Segment 3: $6.7 billion
Entire Ports to Plains corridor: $23.5 billion

My opinion: Interstate standards for the entire corridor and especially segment 3 is unnecessary and major overkill. I've driven on many of these segments over the years, and these areas are very desolate with minimal traffic. What's needed are some relief routes around slowdowns at cities and 4-lane divided highway standards in most areas, and 4-lane undivided in low traffic areas.
I think there is substantial political muscle behind this study which may have fixed the outcome. But supporters are delusional if they think they can ever get anything near the cost estimate of $23.5 billion. It would be much wiser to propose an affordable program that actually meets needs and could be done in a reasonable amount of time.

[Chris]

More detailed raffic volumes can also be viewed here: https://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html

They hardly exceed 3,000 vehicles per day on most of the route. There are a few spikes over 5,000 near larger towns, but the northern portion of segment 3 from Del Rio to Sonora barely gets 1,000 vehicles per day. A two-lane road is sufficient for that kind of traffic volume.

If you look at page 17 of the PDF presentation, you can see the traffic volumes on a map as well. They say the average traffic is 9,400 vehicles per day, but if you look at the map it seems like this 'average' is made up by including I-35 into Laredo, which has a far higher traffic volume than US 83 and US 277.

If you look at other non-freeway, four-lane divided highways in Texas and surrounding states, you can see that there are few with under 5,000 vehicles per day. So even a non-Interstate upgrade is a stretch of the imagined need.

The projected population growth is also minimal, most of that likely near Laredo which is already served by I-35 and will likely have minimal impact on traffic growth farther north.

[mvak36]

Entire Ports to Plains corridor: $23.5 billion

My opinion: Interstate standards for the entire corridor and especially segment 3 is unnecessary and major overkill. I've driven on many of these segments over the years, and these areas are very desolate with minimal traffic. What's needed are some relief routes around slowdowns at cities and 4-lane divided highway standards in most areas, and 4-lane undivided in low traffic areas.
I think there is substantial political muscle behind this study which may have fixed the outcome. But supporters are delusional if they think they can ever get anything near the cost estimate of $23.5 billion. It would be much wiser to propose an affordable program that actually meets needs and could be done in a reasonable amount of time.

I guess I could see the Lubbock to I-10 segment and Segment 1 from Amarillo upto Dalhart and Dumas being upgraded to interstate standards, but the rest of it doesn't look like it has enough traffic to justify upgrading it.

[Henry]

Entire Ports to Plains corridor: $23.5 billion

My opinion: Interstate standards for the entire corridor and especially segment 3 is unnecessary and major overkill. I've driven on many of these segments over the years, and these areas are very desolate with minimal traffic. What's needed are some relief routes around slowdowns at cities and 4-lane divided highway standards in most areas, and 4-lane undivided in low traffic areas.
I think there is substantial political muscle behind this study which may have fixed the outcome. But supporters are delusional if they think they can ever get anything near the cost estimate of $23.5 billion. It would be much wiser to propose an affordable program that actually meets needs and could be done in a reasonable amount of time.

I guess I could see the Lubbock to I-10 segment and Segment 1 from Amarillo upto Dalhart and Dumas being upgraded to interstate standards, but the rest of it doesn't look like it has enough traffic to justify upgrading it.

Yes, this. I'm hoping that I-27 connects to another interstate eventually, aside from I-40. And my guess is that at least the western half of Loop 335 will be included in the upgrade plans, so as to avoid an I-78 situation (running on city streets).

[Plutonic Panda]

This looks more or less like a long term plan rather than building to accommodate current traffic counts. I am curious why they think the median income will go from around 30-40k to 100k by 2050.

[Life in Paradise]

Unless they know something about additional Mexican manufacturing development in Ciudad Acuna and Piedra Negras that would significantly increase truck traffic, the best argument I could give is that they hope that an interstate up that way would siphon off some traffic that would be north and west bound from I-35.  Even with that, I'm not swayed that an interstate is needed at least up to Sonora/I-10.

[bwana39]

Entire Ports to Plains corridor: $23.5 billion

My opinion: Interstate standards for the entire corridor and especially segment 3 is unnecessary and major overkill. I've driven on many of these segments over the years, and these areas are very desolate with minimal traffic. What's needed are some relief routes around slowdowns at cities and 4-lane divided highway standards in most areas, and 4-lane undivided in low traffic areas.
I think there is substantial political muscle behind this study which may have fixed the outcome. But supporters are delusional if they think they can ever get anything near the cost estimate of $23.5 billion. It would be much wiser to propose an affordable program that actually meets needs and could be done in a reasonable amount of time.

I guess I could see the Lubbock to I-10 segment and Segment 1 from Amarillo upto Dalhart and Dumas being upgraded to interstate standards, but the rest of it doesn't look like it has enough traffic to justify upgrading it.

Just because you study something, doesn't mean it will come to pass. Heck, just because the study recommends it doesn't mean it should come to pass.   Just because the Legislature funds a study doesn't mean the legislature SUPPORTS said project. It just means someone (generally a legislator or group of legislators working for a constituency that supports them or they support , however you choose to look at it)  wanted a study and to get votes for something else the rest of the body went along.

Personally, I look at US-59 which is MUCH higher traffic. It moves well outside of the little towns. It has 4 lanes and mostly a 75 mph speed limit. While the traffic on I-69 MAY justify full controlled access, Ports to  Plains would be better served as a 4-lane divided highway with loops (bypasses) around all the cities and towns enroute. Have grade separation at major intersections.

My look at this would be.
1) Buy ROW for full interstate facility.
2) Build bypass loops on all towns (not necessarily controlled access only.)
3)  Build out 4-lane divided facility without frontage roads.
4) Build over / underpass facilities at major intersections.
5) Build frontage roads and create controlled access as needed when highway facility is encroached by development.

This facility would have 70-75 MPH speed limits in an uninterrupted fashion. Getting it out of the towns is the real point of contention. As much as they bemoan the traffic through their towns, the small towns want the trucks out, but the passenger vehicles kept flowing.  Why? Traffic flow past their small businesses. From mom & pop operations to regional chains (even chains like McDonalds & Subway are generally owned by franchisees), the loss of traffic past their businesses (especially restaurants, hotels, and gas stations / convenience stores) is huge. The cost of moving is prohibitive. While new businesses eventually wind up on the loops / bypasses, it is often decades. Generally when the old businesses that have been bypassed finally either fail, the owners die off, or they fall so far into disrepair no one chooses to use their services new businesses start to build up on the new route. The owners of the businesses on the former route hold near worthless or at least severely devalued properties that they envision as worth far more than their current value.  The second reason is traffic fines. While fines SHOULD be a deterrant to bad behaviors, they are viewed by the various city councils and commisioners courts as a needed revenue stream. Lots more tickets on the 35 MPH through Corrigan than will be on the freeway around it. Believe it or not, the tax values become skewed. The businesses on the old route are worth less and sometimes they can successfully argue as much, other times, they continue to pay taxes using the former valuations with the decreased sales volume.  Many times the land around the reroute is taxed at the agricultural value based on its historic use right up until it is developed. 

There really are few short-term gains for the local community being bypassed. EXCEPT maybe the speculators who buy up what they THINK is the potential route.

[bwana39]

Entire Ports to Plains corridor: $23.5 billion

My opinion: Interstate standards for the entire corridor and especially segment 3 is unnecessary and major overkill. I've driven on many of these segments over the years, and these areas are very desolate with minimal traffic. What's needed are some relief routes around slowdowns at cities and 4-lane divided highway standards in most areas, and 4-lane undivided in low traffic areas.
I think there is substantial political muscle behind this study which may have fixed the outcome. But supporters are delusional if they think they can ever get anything near the cost estimate of $23.5 billion. It would be much wiser to propose an affordable program that actually meets needs and could be done in a reasonable amount of time.

I guess I could see the Lubbock to I-10 segment and Segment 1 from Amarillo upto Dalhart and Dumas being upgraded to interstate standards, but the rest of it doesn't look like it has enough traffic to justify upgrading it.

Segment 1 is as much or more about upgrading the traffic brought in on US-287 from DFW and points beyond.  From my perspective, the 287 corridor back to DFW is a bigger need than the proposed Ports to Plains.

While I get the Mexican ports and maquiladoras, I have to ask ???? What besides DENVER is on the north end of this thing?  Where is said traffic going to go? What is in the western end of the great plains?  Farms and Cattle. Increasingly lower populations to operate said same.  Rail / Barge are still significantly the main methods of transporting grain. Frankly, changing that to trucks is not something I see as a positive.

[Stephane Dumas]

North of Denver, maybe that corridor could amalgate with another one. Multiplex it with I-25 until Cheyenne and link it with Corridor 58/Theodore Roosevelt Expwy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt_Expressway

Edit: I forgotted to mention, another piece of the puzzle, the Heartland exprressway who could link these 2 corridors. https://heartlandexpressway.com

[sprjus4]

My opinions -

Segment 1 - The US-87 corridor / option into New Mexico should ultimately be built out to full interstate standards. The corridor is mostly built to 4 lane divided highway though lacks town bypasses and still has a 2 lane segment between Dumas and Hartley. Work would likely involve upgrading the existing divided highway to interstate standards by constructing frontage roads, overpasses, and ramps, along with town bypasses around Dumas, Hartley, Dalhart, and Texline. The remaining 2 lane segment could receive a similar treatment, simply expanding it to 4 lanes in conjunction with construction of frontage roads, overpasses, and ramps.

Through Amarillo is where it would get tricky. South of Downtown, the corridor is Interstate 27, and north of Downtown it's a 6 lane freeway, though through downtown it's a 6 lane split street at-grade configuration. An upgrade could either demolish every building in the center of the one-way streets and construct an elevated 6 lane urban freeway, or it could follow some out-of-way routing following Loop 335. Ultimately, an upgraded Segment 1 could become apart of a northern extension of Interstate 27, and extend into New Mexico terminating at I-25.

Segment 2 - I generally disagree with the routing of this one. To serve the most traffic and be of most value, such corridor should follow the US-84 corridor between Lubbock and Sweetwater at I-20, the SH-70 / US-277 corridor between Sweetwater and San Angelo, and the US-87 / US-83 corridor between San Angelo and Junction at I-10. Not only would this connect the Lubbock, San Angelo, Junction, and Central / Southern Texas metros, it would serve traffic between Dallas-Fort Worth and Lubbock, San Angelo and Dallas-Fort Worth, and San Angelo / Lubbock and Central / Southern Texas metros (San Antonio, Austin, Houston, etc.). If this routing was revised to something along these lines, I'd agree it should be built out to full interstate standards.

The US-84 segment is 4 lane divided highway with town bypasses, except Post. Work could upgrade this by constructing frontage roads, overpasses, and ramps, along with a bypass of Post.

The SH-70 / US-277 segment is 2 lane road with no town bypasses. Work could upgrade this by widening to 4 lanes in conjunction with construction of frontage roads, overpasses, and ramps, along with town bypasses.

Near San Angelo, it could follow the SH-306 expressway on the west side fully upgrading to interstate standards by connecting the frontage roads, overpasses at one or two intersection, and a few additional ramps.

The US-87 segment between Eden and San Angelo is 4 lane divided highway with town bypasses (the little that exist), and is also apart of a conceptual I-14 northern route to Midland / Odessa and would have a concurrency with this corridor if both were built out. Work could upgrade this by constructing frontage roads, overpasses, and ramps throughout.

The US-83 segment between Eden and Junction is 2 lane road with no town bypasses. Work could upgrade this by widening to 4 lanes in conjunction with construction of frontage roads, overpasses, and ramps, along with town bypasses of Eden, Menard, and a relocated connecting segment to I-10 near Junction.

Ultimately, an upgraded Segment 2 could become apart of a southern extension of Interstate 27 terminating at I-10 at Junction. It would feature an overlap between Eden and San Angelo with the proposed northern I-14 routing to Midland / Odessa.

Here's a map comparing the official Segment 2 proposal (red) vs. the concept I'm proposing (blue):



Segment 3 - With traffic counts below 5,000 AADT for most of Segment 3, the most I could reasonably see this road is a 4 lane divided highway with town bypasses, though more realistically a three lane road with the center lane alternating to allow passing with no town bypasses. There's just no justification for an interstate highway or freeway for that matter. I can't see any extensive work happening with Segment 3 or being apart of any interstate corridor.

For reference, here is the official Ports-to-Plains Corridor Map:

[armadillo speedbump]

More accurately:  Pork to Plains

[sparker]

Glad to see the good old P-to-P finally getting some overdue attention after a big eclipse by the I-69 conglomerate and, to a lesser extent, the I-14 E-W corridor backers.  This thing's been around since '95, but the record for studies done regarding the corridor has hardly been stellar (if you want to sink a corridor concept, get the Wilbur Smith folks to evaluate it -- with their usual reliance on outdated/incomplete metrics and spurious conclusions). 

My comments:
(1)  Segments 1 & 2 should warrant prioritization; NB commercial traffic not only comes up from Mexico -- primarily through Laredo or Hidalgo -- but will increasingly come from Panamax berthings in Corpus Christi and the immediate vicinity.  That'll primarily be divided between the I-69 "family" and I-37 to WB I-10 and NB I-35 -- and an I-27 corridor branching off at Sonora to serve West Texas and the Front Range would likely host a considerably amount of such movements.   
(2)  The prior post preferring a US 84/Sweetwater corridor notwithstanding, the corridor route from Sonora north to Dumas is likely set.  But I can see considerable controversy about where to proceed from there; both options (Raton vs. Limon) are cited in the HPC #38 legislative language.  Raton is shorter (approx. 165 miles vs. about 280), and NM, if it really wants an I-corridor along US 87, can claim more readily upgradeable existing mileage.  If a decision about routing is made in the wake of the almost-certain near-term budgetary shortfalls by all parties concerned, that may be a primary factor.  The Limon option would probably be the best in the long haul; it would allow interregional traffic to bypass congestion at Pueblo and Colorado Springs and, frankly, be easier on the trucks and truckers by avoiding Raton Pass.  Whether that argument can sway the decision makers remains to be seen. 
(3)  I'm certain TX politics will ensure that Segment 3 will remain largely intact, though developed at a more leisurely pace, which would mean upgrading the Del Rio bypass as a stop-gap measure.  But one thing could be done to potentially kick the traffic potential for this segment up a notch or two -- instead of simply merging it into I-35 at its southern end, curve it around to follow TX 44 east to Freer and ultimately Corpus Christi -- functionally blending it with existing plans for an E-W I-69 connector. 
(4)  If & when the P-to-P actually sees follow-through and development, a couple of side "benefits" may result -- one would be some movement regarding the west end of I-14; it's possible that if that corridor's planning process is partially merged with this one, the "western" P-to-P leg via Midland might become the west end of I-14, with the Midland-Lamesa stretch along TX 349 being something like I-127 or 227 (hopefully it won't continue the suffixed-route madness!).  But it could also prompt an official look at the DFW-Amarillo/US 287 corridor as an additional Interstate "feeder" into the northern (Segment 1) portion of the P-to-P, functionally bringing DFW into the regional mix.  One can only hope! 

But this illustrates the unique TX general attitude toward this sort of major project -- despite other corridors, some well into their own developmental process, potentially siphoning off attention and funding prioritization -- the state "machine" (in/out of official channels) simply refuses to apply a "zero-sum" approach to such things, preferring to self-identify as a singular entity (we're Texas, dammit!) that is capable of keeping multiple circus rings going at once.  I guess we'll see if that juggling act holds up or crashes to the floor! 

[Bobby5280]

Many of these issues have been discussed in previous threads. But I guess it's interesting TX DOT has a new presentation on the subject.

While it may seem like "major overkill" to build out this entire corridor to Interstate standards, that judgment must be weighed against a couple factors. Under current methods of highway planning and building, it will take decades to complete this. LOTS of things can change during 20-50 or more years. TX DOT needs to at least be planning for what may come to pass. There is a lot of population growth in South Texas. There is a fair amount of growth happening in West Texas. Some key routes in West Texas see a lot of heavy truck traffic and the traffic levels are only going to increase. The pandemic and political complications involved is fueling more interest in American companies to bring Chinese-based manufacturing closer to home. If not in the US, maybe Mexico.

Near term, the portion of Segment 2 from Lubbock down to Midland and/or Big Spring and on to San Angelo is a justifiable Interstate upgrade, even if I-27 dead-ends in San Angelo for some time.

I think more work has to be done to build out I-2 between La Joya and Laredo before an Interstate link between Laredo and Del Rio can be justified. Carrizo Springs could use some kind of a Super 2 truck bypass in the near term. Eagle Pass has parts of an upgrade-able bypass already built (Loop 480). Same goes for Del Rio (Loop 79).

The part of Segment 3 going from Sonora to Del Rio is very desolate for obvious reasons. There's hardly any services out there. The road is mostly 2 lane, which makes it scary when it gets into the more hilly country closer to Del Rio. They've obviously 3-laned and 4-laned some sections of US-277 for safety sake. I'm pretty certain that if I-27 was extended all the way down to Laredo the traffic counts would be considerably higher. A great deal of long distance traffic tries to stay on Interstate routes as much as possible, even if that means driving way out of the way.

I would like to see US-287 improved to Interstate standards North of Amarillo up to Dumas bare minimum. Stratford would be better. Farther North into Oklahoma, I'd be happy if the road was turned into a divided 4-lane facility going across the border into Colorado. It would improve driver safety a great deal.

While I wouldn't mind seeing US-64/87 upgraded to Interstate quality to Raton, I'm skeptical of it ever happening. I don't mind the road as it is, being a divided 4-lane route. Just being able to pass slow pokes without worrying about head-on collisions is good enough for me. Many long haul truckers are going to take US-287 North into Colorado to avoid Raton Pass.

From my perspective, the 287 corridor back to DFW is a bigger need than the proposed Ports to Plains.

Yeah, US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth really needs to be an Interstate quality freeway, whether it carries an Interstate designation or not (but I do like "I-32" for it). In the near term TX DOT needs to get US-287 fully upgraded in the DFW metro area from I-45 in Ennis up through the other side of Decatur.

[sparker]

Many of these issues have been discussed in previous threads. But I guess it's interesting TX DOT has a new presentation on the subject.

While it may seem like "major overkill" to build out this entire corridor to Interstate standards, that judgment must be weighed against a couple factors. Under current methods of highway planning and building, it will take decades to complete this. LOTS of things can change during 20-50 or more years. TX DOT needs to at least be planning for what may come to pass. There is a lot of population growth in South Texas. There is a fair amount of growth happening in West Texas. Some key routes in West Texas see a lot of heavy truck traffic and the traffic levels are only going to increase. The pandemic and political complications involved is fueling more interest in American companies to bring Chinese-based manufacturing closer to home. If not in the US, maybe Mexico.

Near term, the portion of Segment 2 from Lubbock down to Midland and/or Big Spring and on to San Angelo is a justifiable Interstate upgrade, even if I-27 dead-ends in San Angelo for some time.

I think more work has to be done to build out I-2 between La Joya and Laredo before an Interstate link between Laredo and Del Rio can be justified. Carrizo Springs could use some kind of a Super 2 truck bypass in the near term. Eagle Pass has parts of an upgrade-able bypass already built (Loop 480). Same goes for Del Rio (Loop 79).

The part of Segment 3 going from Sonora to Del Rio is very desolate for obvious reasons. There's hardly any services out there. The road is mostly 2 lane, which makes it scary when it gets into the more hilly country closer to Del Rio. They've obviously 3-laned and 4-laned some sections of US-277 for safety sake. I'm pretty certain that if I-27 was extended all the way down to Laredo the traffic counts would be considerably higher. A great deal of long distance traffic tries to stay on Interstate routes as much as possible, even if that means driving way out of the way.

I would like to see US-287 improved to Interstate standards North of Amarillo up to Dumas bare minimum. Stratford would be better. Farther North into Oklahoma, I'd be happy if the road was turned into a divided 4-lane facility going across the border into Colorado. It would improve driver safety a great deal.

While I wouldn't mind seeing US-64/87 upgraded to Interstate quality to Raton, I'm skeptical of it ever happening. I don't mind the road as it is, being a divided 4-lane route. Just being able to pass slow pokes without worrying about head-on collisions is good enough for me. Many long haul truckers are going to take US-287 North into Colorado to avoid Raton Pass.

From my perspective, the 287 corridor back to DFW is a bigger need than the proposed Ports to Plains.

Yeah, US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth really needs to be an Interstate quality freeway, whether it carries an Interstate designation or not (but I do like "I-32" for it). In the near term TX DOT needs to get US-287 fully upgraded in the DFW metro area from I-45 in Ennis up through the other side of Decatur.

In full agreement regarding getting I-2 finished to Laredo as a prerequisite for developing the P-to-P/I-27 corridor; to warrant Segment 3 development as many potential traffic sources for that corridor should be on the ground before that happens -- and with Rio Grande Valley growth, I-2 would be a valuable connector.  But I still think adding Corpus Christi to the mix (per my previous post) would help as well. 

IMO, if I-27 is finished south to San Angelo, TxDOT won't let it sit there -- unless I-14 development precedes it (an unlikely situation).  It'll get down to I-10 by the predetermined US 277 route, which is the shortest path to a I-10 junction (ironically not Junction!).   And the biggest obstacle to a Raton northern extension is the state of NM, which may well procrastinate the project to death.  They've already spent corridor money twinning much of US 64/87; following that up with another round of upgrades might be a fiscal bridge too far -- even if their contribution covers only 20% of the overall costs.  Finally -- if TxDOT does eventually elect to upgrade US 287 DFW-Amarillo, it will in all likelihood be a full-fledged Interstate; the precedent has been set with the other corridors (and I still like a I-30 western extension for that one!).  I'd like to see Ennis-Ft. Worth as a I-245.

[Bobby5280]

I think US-287 from Ennis (I-45) to Amarillo (I-40) needs to be just one number, a 2-digit Interstate number preferably. I've said this before in another thread, I don't like the idea of I-30 doing a "V" shape from Little Rock to DFW to Amarillo. The concept just looks wierd, as if I-30 would be a really long 2-digit loop route for I-40. If it's really important for I-30 to be longer, why not re-number the Western portion of I-20 as I-30?

Really I'm not a big fan of re-numbering existing Interstate routes as something else. It creates all kinds of disruptions to traffic and inflicts a lot of cost to businesses. Anywhere they mention the route in their marketing must be changed.

Regarding a possible Northern extension of I-27, it's already on the minds of many people in the Texas Panhandle. Public meetings have been held in Dumas regarding possible bypass routes around the West or East sides of town. Whatever happens I hope TX DOT completely upgrades the section of US-87 between Dumas and Hartley. I don't like the current 2-lane setup with sporadic 3-lane passing zones.

[sparker]

I think US-287 from Ennis (I-45) to Amarillo (I-40) needs to be just one number, a 2-digit Interstate number preferably. I've said this before in another thread, I don't like the idea of I-30 doing a "V" shape from Little Rock to DFW to Amarillo. The concept just looks wierd, as if I-30 would be a really long 2-digit loop route for I-40. If it's really important for I-30 to be longer, why not re-number the Western portion of I-20 as I-30?

Really I'm not a big fan of re-numbering existing Interstate routes as something else. It creates all kinds of disruptions to traffic and inflicts a lot of cost to businesses. Anywhere they mention the route in their marketing must be changed.

Regarding a possible Northern extension of I-27, it's already on the minds of many people in the Texas Panhandle. Public meetings have been held in Dumas regarding possible bypass routes around the West or East sides of town. Whatever happens I hope TX DOT completely upgrades the section of US-87 between Dumas and Hartley. I don't like the current 2-lane setup with sporadic 3-lane passing zones.

Frankly, I don't see a western extension of I-30 as a "renumbering" except for that short segment from the present terminus at I-20 east to I-35W; that could easily be something like I-230.  Actually, the "V" (IMO it's more like a sloppy "U") is part of my whole concept of I-30 as a dual-ended feeder from I-40 into DFW.  But really, if it gets built, I wouldn't mind it as I-32 or I-34 either -- as long as there would be follow through on the project. 

And I'm in full agreement about US 87 between Dumas and Hartley; I've had too many close calls on that stretch -- mostly from ag equipment pulling out onto the roadway -- for comfort.  But if that option is selected for an I-27 extension, I'll wager that it'll take a more diagonal tack, either from south of Dumas to somewhere between Hartley and Dalhart -- or if Dumas can muster up some political weight, a bypass of Dumas and then a diagonal that includes a Dalhart bypass as well (Dumas will want somewhere to place roadside business).  That being said -- I'd still like to see I-27 head straight up (more or less) US 287 toward Limon just to avoid Raton Pass and Colorado Springs. 

Of course, a US 87 option could potentially veer north from the present route near Des Moines, NM and use Trincheras Pass (with its lower gradients -- where the BNSF line currently goes) up into CO and then turning west to I-25 at Trinidad.  But that would take some imagination and a modicum of coordination/cooperation between the two states' DOT's -- and thus it would be unlikely to ever occur to them!   It'd be relatively easy construction; I went that way a couple of times in the '80's taking pictures of the extremely long BN coal trains of the day surmounting that summit. 

[Bobby5280]

I just don't like the idea of I-30 connecting to I-40 on both ends. My previous post had a bit of a typo, I meant to say any route whose two ends connect to the same parent 2-digit route is essentially reduced to 3-digit route status. With I-30 connecting to I-40 in Amarillo and Little Rock it would effectively be a really long 3-digit loop route for I-40.

There is a lot of should've, would've, could've details that were arguably, mistakenly not built into the original Interstate layout. In the overall national big picture view of the Interstate system layout it might have been better for I-30 to span from Texarakana to Las Cruces, roughly following the US-82 corridor to hit Wichita Falls and Lubbock along the way. Going through Southern New Mexico toward Las Cruces I-10 travels roughly due East. But when I-10 hits Las Cruces it takes a hard turn South to El Paso, which it should. But there still is a natural path going East through the Permian Basin "oil patch" and into North Texas which cross-country traffic could have used. US-82 & US-70 provides a little of that function, but on far more modest, slower routes.

When I said "completely upgrade" in regard to US-87 between Dumas and Hartley I really meant for TX DOT to just finish creating a proper, divided 4-lane route, similar to what they did years ago with upgrades between Hartley and Texline. That 2-lane/3-lane crap has to go. It's dangerous enough as it is with normal traffic. It's even worse when you get stuck behind some tractor hauling a baling machine. At the very least that stretch of road needs to be widened into an undivided 4-lane facility. But it would really be better as a divided 4-lane road with some kind of median.

It may be possible to create a milder path off the caprock in Northern New Mexico than Raton Pass. The main BNSF rail route in Northern New Mexico diverges from US-64/87 and takes quite a swirly path to Folsom and across the CO state line. Then there is a lot of back-tracking to get to Trinidad. The highways in that area aren't quite as crooked, but they don't take straight shots anywhere either. It might be possible to build a significantly more straight super highway route. But it would have to dove-tail into I-25 well North of Trinidad for there to be any significant savings in mileage and time versus the current route going into Raton.

[bwana39]

You know, I fed on things others said on here and lambasted an interstate. This is not a PURELY interstate or freeway study.

It is a study. Not study how and where to build a particular kind of road (IE an Interstate HWY quality facility.) It is a study to identify what the needs actually are an figure out how to go forward.  There are a range of possibilities from a full interstate facility (or facilities) to No-Build (no new or upgraded construction.)

I would assume there will be a recommendation to build something. It could range from an improved group of two lane roads to a freeway. My particular thought is a freeway on most of this set of corridors would be overkill. As I have said other places, getting the highways off of surface streets through the small towns is a far bigger need than building more lanes outside them. It is also the part that has the biggest local opposition (especially when an interstate doesn't come with it.)

I am not against spending money on needs. The right fit.  Balancing the needs with the available funds. Too much is as bad as too little.

[Stephane Dumas]

You know, I fed on things others said on here and lambasted an interstate. This is not a PURELY interstate or freeway study.

It is a study. Not study how and where to build a particular kind of road (IE an Interstate HWY quality facility.) It is a study to identify what the needs actually are an figure out how to go forward.  There are a range of possibilities from a full interstate facility (or facilities) to No-Build (no new or upgraded construction.)

I would assume there will be a recommendation to build something. It could range from an improved group of two lane roads to a freeway. My particular thought is a freeway on most of this set of corridors would be overkill. As I have said other places, getting the highways off of surface streets through the small towns is a far bigger need than building more lanes outside them. It is also the part that has the biggest local opposition (especially when an interstate doesn't come with it.)

I am not against spending money on needs. The right fit.  Balancing the needs with the available funds. Too much is as bad as too little.

I guess for upgraded construction it could include "rural expressways" like in North Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri for example with freeway bypass around the major towns.

[DJStephens]

   And the biggest obstacle to a Raton northern extension is the state of NM, which may well procrastinate the project to death.  They've already spent corridor money twinning much of US 64/87; following that up with another round of upgrades might be a fiscal bridge too far -- even if their contribution covers only 20% of the overall costs. 

Agreed.   Would suspect, as well, that the US 64/87 segment in New Mexico, (Clayton-Raton) while four lanes, was built to low standards.   Skinny shoulders, flush medians, inadequate horizontal and vertical curve abatement.  As was pretty much everything else during the Gary Johnson/Pete Rahn regime.  Jan '95 to Jan '03.   Although low standards reach even farther back - the mid to late eighties.  For reasons of topology alone, would simply not route "port to plains" into New Mexico.  The low design standards simply make it a nail in the coffin.   

[Bobby5280]

I would agree about the low standards on much of US-64/87 in Northern New Mexico. There's a stretch of concrete-based road bed on the East side of Sierra Grande that seems better. But even that has been patched a couple times since it was built. And it has skinny shoulders that don't really live up to current standards. But at least it's a 4-lane road now.

When US-64/87 was just a 2-lane route it was one VERY frustrating road to take. From Clayton to Des Moines the landscape is completely wide open, hardly any trees or anything else obstructing the view for many miles. But the road would do all these odd, undulating curves and dips as it moved through the terrain. So even though you could see for miles and miles it was difficult as hell to pass anyone. Too much of the upcoming road was hidden by the terrain. And, oh my God, driving through during daytime was always a bad choice. Lots of old people in RVs and other slow-poke pleasure drivers would just gum up the works. One slow driver would literally be enough to create a literal train of cars. No one could pass. Everyone was driving freaking 35mph or however slow the obstructionist piece of human garbage up front wanted to drive. Some people would chance passing though. Just floor the vehicle and be doing over 100mph by the time they passed the "leader" acting as the keeper of the speed. I saw a few near head-on collisions during the 1990's and up until the 4-lane project was finished.

Even if the NM state government wanted to do a freeway upgrade of US-64/87 they probably couldn't get the money together on their own to make it happen. It would take a lot of federal help. The main thing they need to be doing with US-64/87 is fixing some of the design problems in the current road. It doesn't really need to be a freeway. But some things still need to be fixed.

Really if any Interstate quality upgrade is going to happen from Texas into Colorado it ought to follow US-287 through Boise City. That's going to be the route most beneficial to truck traffic. There's more cattle and agricultural business along that corridor. They need to at least 4-lane and divide that road anyway. I think I've mentioned it before. One of my girlfriend's friends was killed in a head-on collision North of Boise City where US-287 crosses the border into Colorado. So the issue is somewhat of a personal thing as well.

[brad2971]

I would agree about the low standards on much of US-64/87 in Northern New Mexico. There's a stretch of concrete-based road bed on the East side of Sierra Grande that seems better. But even that has been patched a couple times since it was built. And it has skinny shoulders that don't really live up to current standards. But at least it's a 4-lane road now.

When US-64/87 was just a 2-lane route it was one VERY frustrating road to take. From Clayton to Des Moines the landscape is completely wide open, hardly any trees or anything else obstructing the view for many miles. But the road would do all these odd, undulating curves and dips as it moved through the terrain. So even though you could see for miles and miles it was difficult as hell to pass anyone. Too much of the upcoming road was hidden by the terrain. And, oh my God, driving through during daytime was always a bad choice. Lots of old people in RVs and other slow-poke pleasure drivers would just gum up the works. One slow driver would literally be enough to create a literal train of cars. No one could pass. Everyone was driving freaking 35mph or however slow the obstructionist piece of human garbage up front wanted to drive. Some people would chance passing though. Just floor the vehicle and be doing over 100mph by the time they passed the "leader" acting as the keeper of the speed. I saw a few near head-on collisions during the 1990's and up until the 4-lane project was finished.

Even if the NM state government wanted to do a freeway upgrade of US-64/87 they probably couldn't get the money together on their own to make it happen. It would take a lot of federal help. The main thing they need to be doing with US-64/87 is fixing some of the design problems in the current road. It doesn't really need to be a freeway. But some things still need to be fixed.

Really if any Interstate quality upgrade is going to happen from Texas into Colorado it ought to follow US-287 through Boise City. That's going to be the route most beneficial to truck traffic. There's more cattle and agricultural business along that corridor. They need to at least 4-lane and divide that road anyway. I think I've mentioned it before. One of my girlfriend's friends was killed in a head-on collision North of Boise City where US-287 crosses the border into Colorado. So the issue is somewhat of a personal thing as well.

One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off. If these corridors had a hard time   being justified on a financial basis during the big growth periods from 1985-2005, it's even harder to justify now.

Which is why alternative methods should be considered. Here's one if we're considering a "direct" interstate connection between the DFW Metroplex and the Colorado Front Range: Let's get a sum total of the amount of tolls collected on the Kansas Turnpike between the I-135 interchange in South Wichita and the Oklahoma border for, say, the last 20 years. Then, let's reimburse KDOT/KTA for, say, 75% of that total in return for detolling that section of the Kansas Turnpike. I'm willing to venture that, even if that 20 year total is in the billion dollar range, that it would be far cheaper than adding a second carriageway to US 287 in Colorado, much less upgrade US 64/87 to freeway grade in NE New Mexico.

Let's remember that, per the KDOT traffic maps: https://www.ksdot.org/burtransplan/maps/mapstrafficdist.asp, both I-135 and the Turnpike south of Wichita don't reach more than 20000 VPD until reaching the immediate Wichita vicinity, and that I-70 doesn't have more than 15000 VPD west of Hays until, likely, the Strasburg/Bennett area immediately east of Aurora (CO). There's plenty of room along the I-70/I-135/I-35 route to handle all of the truck traffic that takes US 287 north of Amarillo that goes to the Front Range and then some.

[sprjus4]

I would agree about the low standards on much of US-64/87 in Northern New Mexico. There's a stretch of concrete-based road bed on the East side of Sierra Grande that seems better. But even that has been patched a couple times since it was built. And it has skinny shoulders that don't really live up to current standards. But at least it's a 4-lane road now.

When US-64/87 was just a 2-lane route it was one VERY frustrating road to take. From Clayton to Des Moines the landscape is completely wide open, hardly any trees or anything else obstructing the view for many miles. But the road would do all these odd, undulating curves and dips as it moved through the terrain. So even though you could see for miles and miles it was difficult as hell to pass anyone. Too much of the upcoming road was hidden by the terrain. And, oh my God, driving through during daytime was always a bad choice. Lots of old people in RVs and other slow-poke pleasure drivers would just gum up the works. One slow driver would literally be enough to create a literal train of cars. No one could pass. Everyone was driving freaking 35mph or however slow the obstructionist piece of human garbage up front wanted to drive. Some people would chance passing though. Just floor the vehicle and be doing over 100mph by the time they passed the "leader" acting as the keeper of the speed. I saw a few near head-on collisions during the 1990's and up until the 4-lane project was finished.

Even if the NM state government wanted to do a freeway upgrade of US-64/87 they probably couldn't get the money together on their own to make it happen. It would take a lot of federal help. The main thing they need to be doing with US-64/87 is fixing some of the design problems in the current road. It doesn't really need to be a freeway. But some things still need to be fixed.

Really if any Interstate quality upgrade is going to happen from Texas into Colorado it ought to follow US-287 through Boise City. That's going to be the route most beneficial to truck traffic. There's more cattle and agricultural business along that corridor. They need to at least 4-lane and divide that road anyway. I think I've mentioned it before. One of my girlfriend's friends was killed in a head-on collision North of Boise City where US-287 crosses the border into Colorado. So the issue is somewhat of a personal thing as well.

One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off. If these corridors had a hard time   being justified on a financial basis during the big growth periods from 1985-2005, it's even harder to justify now.

Which is why alternative methods should be considered. Here's one if we're considering a "direct" interstate connection between the DFW Metroplex and the Colorado Front Range: Let's get a sum total of the amount of tolls collected on the Kansas Turnpike between the I-135 interchange in South Wichita and the Oklahoma border for, say, the last 20 years. Then, let's reimburse KDOT/KTA for, say, 75% of that total in return for detolling that section of the Kansas Turnpike. I'm willing to venture that, even if that 20 year total is in the billion dollar range, that it would be far cheaper than adding a second carriageway to US 287 in Colorado, much less upgrade US 64/87 to freeway grade in NE New Mexico.

Let's remember that, per the KDOT traffic maps: https://www.ksdot.org/burtransplan/maps/mapstrafficdist.asp, both I-135 and the Turnpike south of Wichita don't reach more than 20000 VPD until reaching the immediate Wichita vicinity, and that I-70 doesn't have more than 15000 VPD west of Hays until, likely, the Strasburg/Bennett area immediately east of Aurora (CO). There's plenty of room along the I-70/I-135/I-35 route to handle all of the truck traffic that takes US 287 north of Amarillo that goes to the Front Range and then some.

The problem with the I-35 / I-135 / I-70 routing is the fact it adds almost an hour of travel time, almost a hundred miles of distance, and traverses the busy Dallas to Oklahoma City corridor, plus through Oklahoma City itself.

The tolls are an inconvenience, but even without tolling, that route simply wouldn't be a viable alternative. If the travel times and distance were closer / similar to the current routing, I could see it, but it's off by a large margin.

[bwana39]

I guess for upgraded construction it could include "rural expressways" like in North Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri for example with freeway bypass around the major towns.

Yes, but history in Texas say we build the 4-lane divided highway between the cities and towns but keep going through them on surface streets.  Texas might have finally figured out how backward this is, but it is not without resistance. 

[brad2971]

I would agree about the low standards on much of US-64/87 in Northern New Mexico. There's a stretch of concrete-based road bed on the East side of Sierra Grande that seems better. But even that has been patched a couple times since it was built. And it has skinny shoulders that don't really live up to current standards. But at least it's a 4-lane road now.

When US-64/87 was just a 2-lane route it was one VERY frustrating road to take. From Clayton to Des Moines the landscape is completely wide open, hardly any trees or anything else obstructing the view for many miles. But the road would do all these odd, undulating curves and dips as it moved through the terrain. So even though you could see for miles and miles it was difficult as hell to pass anyone. Too much of the upcoming road was hidden by the terrain. And, oh my God, driving through during daytime was always a bad choice. Lots of old people in RVs and other slow-poke pleasure drivers would just gum up the works. One slow driver would literally be enough to create a literal train of cars. No one could pass. Everyone was driving freaking 35mph or however slow the obstructionist piece of human garbage up front wanted to drive. Some people would chance passing though. Just floor the vehicle and be doing over 100mph by the time they passed the "leader" acting as the keeper of the speed. I saw a few near head-on collisions during the 1990's and up until the 4-lane project was finished.

Even if the NM state government wanted to do a freeway upgrade of US-64/87 they probably couldn't get the money together on their own to make it happen. It would take a lot of federal help. The main thing they need to be doing with US-64/87 is fixing some of the design problems in the current road. It doesn't really need to be a freeway. But some things still need to be fixed.

Really if any Interstate quality upgrade is going to happen from Texas into Colorado it ought to follow US-287 through Boise City. That's going to be the route most beneficial to truck traffic. There's more cattle and agricultural business along that corridor. They need to at least 4-lane and divide that road anyway. I think I've mentioned it before. One of my girlfriend's friends was killed in a head-on collision North of Boise City where US-287 crosses the border into Colorado. So the issue is somewhat of a personal thing as well.

One of the things we must all realize is that, since the initial studies for Ports To Plains/Heartland/Theodore Roosevelt expressway corridors came out is that nationwide traffic counts have largely leveled off. If these corridors had a hard time   being justified on a financial basis during the big growth periods from 1985-2005, it's even harder to justify now.

Which is why alternative methods should be considered. Here's one if we're considering a "direct" interstate connection between the DFW Metroplex and the Colorado Front Range: Let's get a sum total of the amount of tolls collected on the Kansas Turnpike between the I-135 interchange in South Wichita and the Oklahoma border for, say, the last 20 years. Then, let's reimburse KDOT/KTA for, say, 75% of that total in return for detolling that section of the Kansas Turnpike. I'm willing to venture that, even if that 20 year total is in the billion dollar range, that it would be far cheaper than adding a second carriageway to US 287 in Colorado, much less upgrade US 64/87 to freeway grade in NE New Mexico.

Let's remember that, per the KDOT traffic maps: https://www.ksdot.org/burtransplan/maps/mapstrafficdist.asp, both I-135 and the Turnpike south of Wichita don't reach more than 20000 VPD until reaching the immediate Wichita vicinity, and that I-70 doesn't have more than 15000 VPD west of Hays until, likely, the Strasburg/Bennett area immediately east of Aurora (CO). There's plenty of room along the I-70/I-135/I-35 route to handle all of the truck traffic that takes US 287 north of Amarillo that goes to the Front Range and then some.

The problem with the I-35 / I-135 / I-70 routing is the fact it adds almost an hour of travel time, almost a hundred miles of distance, and traverses the busy Dallas to Oklahoma City corridor, plus through Oklahoma City itself.

The tolls are an inconvenience, but even without tolling, that route simply wouldn't be a viable alternative. If the travel times and distance were closer / similar to the current routing, I could see it, but it's off by a large margin.

Granted, the I-35 / I-135 / I-70 corridor would add distance. But look at it from the vantage point of about 1500-2500 trucks per day that go between DFW and the Colorado Front Range. Compared with not having to go through downtown Lamar (CO), compared with not having to see this: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4788503,-102.7857556,3a,75y,3.84h,85.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXuiQuPga-d9aAsZwbpSD1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656, and compared with not having to go through stop-and-go through most of US 287 TX, the longer distance without the tolls south of Wichita looks very good.