Ports-to-Plains Corridor update

[NE2]

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

[Bobby5280]

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.

[NE2]

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

[sparker]

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.

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.

[usends]

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.

[NE2]

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"

[Grzrd]

The Texas Transportation Commission has posted the November 20 I-27 Corridor Extension Study Presentation that was presented to the Commission.  Here's a snip of a map of the corridor from the presentation (page 6/8 of pdf):

This December 13 article 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:

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

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?

[sparker]

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"

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!

[NE2]

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.

[wxfree]

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+").

[NE2]

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

[sparker]

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.   

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

[compdude787]

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

[sparker]

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.       
   

[NE2]

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

[sparker]

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.   

[Bobby5280]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[sparker]

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. 

[andy3175]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[sparker]

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.     

[Bobby5280]

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).

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.

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.

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.