AARoads Forum

the west Amarillo loop is the main focus right now, but once that's done, then what?

More 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.

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.

or Sonora where it connects with I-10, that could work too

The only thing I can see happening at all anytime soon on the Dumas segment is a new bypass getting built around the West side of town. And that may only be a friggin' Super 2 with at-grade intersections -just the bare minimum effort in order to secure the ROW for the eventual freeway. Meanwhile more of the Future I-27 activity will happen in the Lubbock area and farther South.

I think it will take a lot of extra federal help in order to boost the Amarillo to Dumas segment into a faster construction time line. Meanwhile I'll just be happy when TX DOT finally finishes that last damned segment of not-4-lane highway between Dumas and Hartley. I drive on that every time I go up to Colorado to visit family. Right now it's a mix of 2-lane road and 3-lane/passing lane stuff. Maybe whenever they finally do the 4-lane project they'll build it with Interstate upgrade potential in mind.

If someone wants to sift through this, they're welcome to:

https://www.portstoplains.com/future-interstate-highway/

I think we'll see a lot more upgrades south of Lubbock than north of Amarillo. I think the Interstate 27N (should have remained Interstate 327) extension may be unnecessary. Expand the corridor to four lanes to the state line or maybe Boise City, OK and call it a day. Maybe the most the US 87/287 corridors north of Amarillo needs are bypasses around the various towns along the routes. Since New Mexico isn't interested in upgrades to its segment of US 87 (I'm not sure about the Oklahoma or Colorado's stance on upgrading their US 287 corridors), bypasses may be sufficient.

I just can't see TX DOT and Texas lawmakers doing any serious extension work of I-27 any farther North than Dumas. The branch to Raton very much hinges on New Mexico doing its part, which seems very unlikely. The branch going North depends on Colorado and that also seems very unlikely.

I doubt ODOT would be all that thrilled pouring money into a short I-27 segment going thru Boise City. ODOT really does need to 4-lane and divide US-287 in that border area with Colorado though. But they can do that without making the highway a full freeway.

Down to San Angelo is a no-brainer from a political standpoint. I'd also guess this might be the only segment of I-27 that ever gets extended.

It's possible the I-27 extension could dead end in San Angelo at least initially. However, I think if Texas gets serious enough to extend I-27 to San Angelo we'll also see other signed segments pop up elsewhere before the highway is completed. For instance, if the Loop 79/US-90 loop outside Del Rio gets upgraded to Interstate standards it's possible TX DOT could sign that as a place-holder stub for I-27 -kind of like what they've done in the far South end of Texas. The same goes for that new half loop around the West side of Big Spring.

I think most of the I-27 work in the near term will involve extending the Interstate farther South of Lubbock down to Tahoka. Then they have to figure out a bypass for Lamesa. After that they fill in the gaps to complete I-27 down to Big Spring. Maybe they also work on the I-27W branch from Lamesa to Midland.

It will be interesting to see how they proceed on these different projects. As far as San Angelo goes, its best hope is TX DOT working on US-87 going NW out of town while other I-27 projects happen elsewhere. It will probably be a long time before new Interstate highway extending from San Angelo gets connected to I-20.

So both I-27E and I-27W probably come with bypasses to Lamesa and Sterling City.

The difference is I-27E doesn't require much work beyond those (and Big Spring direct connector ramps) whereas I-27W on the under hand does, cause it basically has to be built from a 2-4 lane undivided road and two of them that, complete with 8 direct connector ramps (4 of them each) with I-20 in Midland. And if they did do I-27W all the way to the other I-20 intersection in Midland, they still have to make a Garden City bypass after that.

I think the only way I-27W will take priority first is if both Midland and Odessa advocate it loud enough to get it done sooner than later.
Even when TxDOT has bigger fish to fry rather it's around the Texas Triangle or something to do with I-69 (US 59/US 77/US 281), I-14 to BCS and Huntsville, and soon maybe US-287 from Ennis to Dectuar if not Wichita Falls too.

But then again, they both come with bypasses to Lamesa and Sterling City either way.

US 87
Projects overview
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Amarillo District is proposing improvements to US 87 in Hartley and Moore counties, from east of the US 385 Interchange to FM 2589 west of Dumas. The proposed improvements consist of adding capacity to a truck freight corridor. The project is approximately 19.8 miles in length...

The project will make this section a four lane divided highway. It's the last piece of US 87 that isn't four lanes in Texas (north of Amarillo). Certainly a key improvement for the Ports to Plains I 27 corridor. It appears construction may begin in 2025. https://www.amarillo.com/story/news/2024/05/08/txdot-taking-feedback-on-rural-transportation-improvement-plan/73547555007/ 

Will they route I-27 around Amarillo? If so, will they make downtown I-27 a spur?

I-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.

Shifting I-27 to Loop 335 won't happen for a long time though. Probably US-87 would have to be upgraded to Interstate standards to at least Dumas to make the signing shift possible. The 4-lane upgrade of US-87 between Dumas and Hartley could attract more vehicles to the corridor. I'm skeptical whether it will be enough of a bump to make the Amarillo-Dumas segment of Future I-27 a higher priority and I-27 projects farther South.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it make more sense for the existing part of I-27 inside the loop to get a 3di designation? I thought business loops were smaller roadways with traffic light intersections. Since I-27 from the southern loop to I-40 is a freeway, I would think it would be made into a 3di interstate.

Quote from: BJ59 on August 25, 2024, 03:21:37 PM

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it make more sense for the existing part of I-27 inside the loop to get a 3di designation? I thought business loops were smaller roadways with traffic light intersections. Since I-27 from the southern loop to I-40 is a freeway, I would think it would be made into a 3di interstate.

It's apparently a thing to do now (see: future BL 81 in Syracuse).

There are old examples of it: notice BL-80 in Sacramento. That one is a freeway its entire length.

It could just be US 60/US 87 inside Loop 335 (like US 87/US 287 are inside the north side of Loop 335 to just north of US 60-Amarillo Blvd.).

Yeah, it's possible TX DOT could merely sign the orphaned former segment of I-27 as US-60/87. However, in order to have some follow-thru continuity from the South to North side of Amarillo I would almost bet on them applying a BL-27 designation. The green route marker signs could be applied to the entire length within the 335 loop, unlike 3-digit Interstate spur routes.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2024, 09:55:07 PMI think most of the I-27 work in the near term will involve extending the Interstate farther South of Lubbock down to Tahoka. Then they have to figure out a bypass for Lamesa. After that they fill in the gaps to complete I-27 down to Big Spring. Maybe they also work on the I-27W branch from Lamesa to Midland. 

Lamesa is a fairly rough fringe of the oil field town.   It would certainly help them economically to have a true I-route serving them.   Would attempt to bring it as close as possible, on a new N-S alignment to the east.  Of course the obligatory truck stops, fast food joints and chain hotels would spring up at the new exits.    There is an escarpment to the E, so trying to build way out the the east, would have a bunch of terrain issues.   

In overhead Google Earth imagery the edge of the caprock is pretty visible East of Lamesa. It looks like TX DOT has about 4 miles worth of wiggle room to build a new I-27 alignment.

There are obstacles on the East edge of Lamesa. The municipal airport is about 2 miles East of the current US-87 alignment thru town. There is a prison about a mile South of the airport. A large solar energy plant sits between the town and the prison. Another solar energy plant runs a couple miles East from the US-87/US-180 interchange. I-27 needs to go East to avoid all of that. The potential I-27W leg will obviously have to run East-West just to the South of the existing US-87/US-180 interchange.

I would say find a way to connect an interstate from Amarillo to someplace along I-25 near the CO/NM border for easier driving access between Texas and Colorado.  US-287 from Ft. Worth to Amarillo seems like a good route for an interstate (perhaps I-34) and then extend from Amarillo farther northwest in the direction of I-25.

I also agree with those who say to extend I-27 to the south from Lubbock to Midland-Odessa, two of the more sizable metro areas in West Texas, before considering direct northward into OK/KS.  And also as I pointed out before, an Interstate through Amarillo from El Paso to Wichita.  Amarillo currently has three interstate spokes, I would like to believe that the city could logically have seven interstate routes sprouting from there.

Quote from: jgb191 on September 02, 2024, 11:20:07 PMI would say find a way to connect an interstate from Amarillo to someplace along I-25 near the CO/NM border for easier driving access between Texas and Colorado.  US-287 from Ft. Worth to Amarillo seems like a good route for an interstate (perhaps I-34) and then extend from Amarillo farther northwest in the direction of I-25.

I also agree with those who say to extend I-27 to the south from Lubbock to Midland-Odessa, two of the more sizable metro areas in West Texas, before considering direct northward into OK/KS.  And also as I pointed out before, an Interstate through Amarillo from El Paso to Wichita.  Amarillo currently has three interstate spokes, I would like to believe that the city could logically have seven interstate routes sprouting from there.

Routing another interstate to Raton Pass makes no sense whatsoever.  Altitude, inclines, winter weather, poor condition and obsolesence of 25 on the Colorado side, and poor pavement condition on the NM side means that this "branch" of 27 should be withdrawn.   Attracting even more Class A trucking to the Raton Pass is a recipe for disaster.   
The El Paso or rather Las Cruces to Amarillo route is another idea whose time came and went very quickly.  It was one of the submissions for additional mileage in the '68 legislation.    Ironically this subsmisson was by the NM department, Texas at that time didn't want to go along.   There are vestiges of what could have been, along US 70 in New Mexico.  Some decent alignments E of Tularosa, and W of Roswell.   It would have been a very useful diagonal to have today.   But everything built on US 70 since the early - mid eighties has been of poor design and execution.  Regressive in nature, and locking in obsolesence into perpetuity.   

Quote from: jgb191Amarillo currently has three interstate spokes, I would like to believe that the city could logically have seven interstate routes sprouting from there.

While Amarillo is a hub city in the highway network, it's not important enough to warrant that many Interstate routes. I think I-40, I-27 and an additional Interstate from Amarillo to Fort Worth would be good enough. US-60 could be 4-laned farther Northeast thru Pampa and up to Canadian, but that would be about it. That's more of a major freight rail corridor (the Southern Transcon) than a highway corridor.

Lubbock could have a shot at seeing some of its highway "spokes" improved. It's a given I-27 should be extended South. US-84 from Lubbock to Roscoe/I-20 carries a lot of truck traffic. It has a few segments of limited access freeway. The rest is standard 4-lane highway. I can imagine the US-62 corridor going Southwest out of Lubbock being upgraded to a freeway past the current end in Wolfforth. But an extension would probably go no farther than Brownfield (if an extension even made it that far). A lot of traffic splits up at Brownfield, either going West to places like Roswell or farther South to Hobbs or even Odessa (via US-385).

Any new Interstates out in West Texas would need a lot of continuous frontage roads to maintain access to ranch land and oil fields. A lot of the existing 4-lane highways out there will probably not get much better than their current configurations. Towns like Brownfield could get freeway style bypasses unless the local residents block such a thing.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 03, 2024, 01:55:24 PMAny new Interstates out in West Texas would need a lot of continuous frontage roads to maintain access to ranch land and oil fields. A lot of the existing 4-lane highways out there will probably not get much better than their current configurations. Towns like Brownfield could get freeway style bypasses unless the local residents block such a thing.

We'd sooner see lots of continuous frontage roads on I-40 west of Adrian than any new build interstates in Texas requiring long stretches of service roads to serve a sparse population. Decades after being accepted as an Interstate, I-40 still has Texits like this crap: https://maps.app.goo.gl/X1v4VEpW85bhVC9CA (https://maps.app.goo.gl/X1v4VEpW85bhVC9CA)

Yeah, I don't like that first 15 miles of I-40 in the Texas panhandle. All those at-grade intersections (complete with the Yield, One Way and Do Not Enter signs at the crossovers) make it NOT look like an Interstate highway at all. It's just a segment of standard 4-lane highway.

I-10 has a few of those things in West Texas as well. Plus it has dozens of improvised dirt road driveways accessing it directly too.

The 4-lane highways in the Permian Basin "oil patch" carry a lot of service vehicle traffic. That traffic is spread out over a lot of different roads. There probably isn't enough thru traffic between Lubbock and Odessa to make building continuous frontage roads all along US-385 worth it. Freeway bypasses of towns like Brownfield, Seminole and Andrews could still be worthwhile.

Quote from: DJStephens on September 03, 2024, 12:32:13 AMRouting another interstate to Raton Pass makes no sense whatsoever.  Altitude, inclines, winter weather, poor condition and obsolescence of 25 on the Colorado side, and poor pavement condition on the NM side means that this "branch" of 27 should be withdrawn.   Attracting even more Class A trucking to the Raton Pass is a recipe for disaster.   

If the conditions for an interstate is so unfavorable then how (if I'm allowed to ask) did I-25 get built there in the first place and how has it fared over the decades since it was built?  The only reason I see it as logical is the relatively easier access driving from Texas to Colorado, as in if someone wanted to drive from the DFW metroplex to Denver area and vice versa.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 03, 2024, 01:55:24 PM

Quote from: jgb191Amarillo currently has three interstate spokes, I would like to believe that the city could logically have seven interstate routes sprouting from there.

While Amarillo is a hub city in the highway network, it's not important enough to warrant that many Interstate routes. I think I-40, I-27 and an additional Interstate from Amarillo to Fort Worth would be good enough. US-60 could be 4-laned farther Northeast thru Pampa and up to Canadian, but that would be about it. That's more of a major freight rail corridor (the Southern Transcon) than a highway corridor.

You're right Amarillo isn't a major metro area, but it happens to be on the way if you connect the dots if you want to drive from the Desert Southwest to the Great Plains and vice versa.  Or also from DFW to Denver or vice versa.  I wouldn't think being a major city is a requirement for having several spokes from within.  Towns along I-57 in Illinois -- Champaign/Urbana, Effingham, and Mt. Vernon come to mind with multiple spokes.

An Interstate upgrade of US-287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth (and to I-45 in Ennis) is most definitely needed. The other portions of a possible I-27 upgrade farther North are a tougher sell to make.

The towns in Illinois you mentioned, such as Effingham, just happen to be along the path where an Interstate could be built to connect more major specific destinations -like St Louis to Indianapolis. Someone driving from "the Desert Southwest" to "the Great Plains" isn't going anywhere really specific. Phoenix to Albuquerque would be a drive between two big population centers, but there is a lot of mountains in between.

A lot of commercial traffic from Fort Worth heading to Amarillo is looking to connect with I-40 to reach points farther West. Not as much of it is heading North to reach places like Denver. US-287 is definitely a shorter route to take from DFW to Denver. It's roughly 657 miles from the US-287/I-35W split in Fort Worth to the I-70/US-287 split in Limon. It's 774 miles between the same points if you drive via Salina, KS to stay entirely on Interstate routes.

If Amarillo was a much bigger city then it might be worth building a diagonal Interstate from Amarillo to Kansas City (via Wichita). The same Interstate could be extended to Clovis, Roswell and Las Cruces. The Ruidoso area would still pose a very serious obstacle in that scenario -and that's even if the NM state government had its act together when it comes to building and maintaining highways.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 04, 2024, 04:52:54 PMThe towns in Illinois you mentioned, such as Effingham, just happen to be along the path where an Interstate could be built to connect more major specific destinations -like St Louis to Indianapolis. Someone driving from "the Desert Southwest" to "the Great Plains" isn't going anywhere really specific. Phoenix to Albuquerque would be a drive between two big population centers, but there is a lot of mountains in between.

Yeah sorry I should have been more specific.  I meant like drivers living in or near the El Paso and Tucson areas can have a more direct access (and strictly via interstate) to Kansas City, St. Louis.  I would also like to think that a more direct drive between DFW and Denver seems logical.  I'm a big believer in the "build it and they will come" theory.

In the case of motorists driving from DFW to Denver their best option is still going to be going by way of Amarillo up to Limon via US-287. It would be nice if the Amarillo-Limon route was turned into an extension of I-27. But that's not going to happen any time soon, if it ever happens at all. I just wish the existing 2-lane segments of US-287 in Oklahoma and SE Colorado could be upgraded into 4-lane divided configuration. That really needs to be done at the OK/CO border for safety reasons.

The only way a more direct route could be built for DFW-Denver traffic is if a diagonal Interstate was built from Oklahoma City to Limon. I think an OKC-Denver Interstate would be just as valuable to the overall system as I-44 is going from OKC to St Louis. But it wouldn't be to benefit DFW-Denver traffic.

Anyone driving from Tucson to/thru Amarillo is going to take US-70 from Las Cruces to Clovis and then US-60 from Clovis to Canyon. Much of that is a mix of 4 lane divided and 4 lane non-divided highway. We would probably need to see significant rapid population growth in that general region for a Las Cruces-Amarillo Interstate to be feasible. Las Cruces has grown a lot thru the years, but it's still a small city and faux suburb for El Paso.

Quote from: jgb191 on September 04, 2024, 02:33:43 PM

Quote from: DJStephens on September 03, 2024, 12:32:13 AMRouting another interstate to Raton Pass makes no sense whatsoever.  Altitude, inclines, winter weather, poor condition and obsolescence of 25 on the Colorado side, and poor pavement condition on the NM side means that this "branch" of 27 should be withdrawn.   Attracting even more Class A trucking to the Raton Pass is a recipe for disaster.   

If the conditions for an interstate is so unfavorable then how (if I'm allowed to ask) did I-25 get built there in the first place and how has it fared over the decades since it was built?  The only reason I see it as logical is the relatively easier access driving from Texas to Colorado, as in if someone wanted to drive from the DFW metroplex to Denver area and vice versa.

Interstate 25 was a direct replacement for US - 85, which already existed in the mid fifties.  The N-S demand at that time was on US 85.  Therefore the Interstate routing for 25, was based on extant 85 traffic, meaning then, and the routing for 25 was developed in the early forties.   It could be argued that counts were so low then, it was essentially a "surplus" Interstate then.   US  85 was "decommissioned" in the state of New Mexico likely sometime in the eighties.  It still is posted in El Paso County and in Colorado.   Am of belief it was a poor decision to decommission, and likely had a lot to do with "shedding" maintenance responsibilities.   
   Obviously, traffic counts, and population levels and concentrations are very different now, than in the forties or fifties.   As well as trucking counts.   Not sure there was much in the way of "Just in Time" inventory belief systems in 1950.  The widespread "tear out" of myriad and numerous railroad sidings, spurs  and shortlines had only just begun.     Large scale delivery systems utilizing Class A trucking was in infancy.
    This is directly related to the foolish notion to route large additional numbers of Class A trucking through Raton Pass, when a much better alternative, meaning US - 287 to the east exists, for long distance, inter-regional trucking.   

Whether it's eventually upgraded into a full-blown Interstate or just exists as a "trunk" route for helping move Class A trucks, US-287 thru far Western Oklahoma and Southeast Colorado needs to at least be double-barreled into a four lane divided highway.

Cities along the Front Range of the Colorado Rockies continue to add population. I'm kind of amazed how much the area Northeast of Colorado Springs has grown over the past 20 years. US-24 should be a four lane divided highway between the Springs and Limon. But CDOT continues to do the bare minimum, despite all the fatal collisions that keep happening in the Peyton-Falcon area. With the example shown by other states, such as North Carolina, the Colorado Springs area would have already had an Interstate link between I-25 and I-70. Their foot dragging on improvements to the US-24 corridor is a big reason why I'm pessimistic about them doing any regarding US-287.

I like the alternative idea of a diagonal interstate between Oklahoma City and Denver, and then extend that diagonal route from OKC southeastward to Texarkana (and perhaps even to Monroe, LA). 

Looking at the Interstate system, there is a great big gap within the quadrilateral bounded by I-25, I-70, I-40, and I-35. 

Quote from: jgb191 on September 08, 2024, 10:14:28 PMI like the alternative idea of a diagonal interstate between Oklahoma City and Denver, and then extend that diagonal route from OKC southeastward to Texarkana (and perhaps even to Monroe, LA). 

Looking at the Interstate system, there is a great big gap within the quadrilateral bounded by I-25, I-70, I-40, and I-35. 

Given the lack of urban areas in the interior of that quadrilateral, I doubt it ever gets the political push to happen, despite our roadgeek dreams.  It would take a highly publicized national GoFundMe campaign to ever generate the $'s to make it happen.  Even OTA hasn't seen the $ justification required to do a turnpike within Oklahoma over the same terrain, so I doubt GoFundMe would work either.  As soon as there's a financial justification for doing it, OTA will do their part in Oklahoma, at least up to US-412.  Kansas has their own turnpike system too, so they might even get onboard with a turnpike up to at least US-50/400 near Garden City if Oklahoma would get near the border without making US-412 up to Boise City part of the turnpike instead of crossing US-412 at Fort Supply.

A direct Denver-OKC connection doesn't necessarily have to start out as an Interstate. They could start out with a 2-lane highway. It would most certainly get a lot of use immediately due to the almost complete lack of NW-SE diagonal routes in that whole region.

Significant portions of this diagonal path already exist. It starts on I-70 in Strasburg as the Interstate bends SE to Limon. US-287 continues that diagonal path down to Kit Carson. In Oklahoma US-270 runs on a diagonal path from Fort Supply thru Woodward and down to a point near Watonga. And then there's the OK-3 diagonal going Northwest out of OKC to Okarche. It wouldn't be all that difficult to bridge those gaps. Once the gaps are filled with 2-lane highway it wouldn't be long before traffic demands force a 4-lane upgrade.

QuoteGiven the lack of urban areas in the interior of that quadrilateral, I doubt it ever gets the political push to happen, despite our roadgeek dreams.

There aren't any big cities between OKC and Denver. But this sort of route would serve long distance traffic needs. The Southeast US has added a lot of population. So has the Northwest US. Much of our existing highway network is very outdated. The system was designed with a bias to serve population centers in the Northeast and Southwest. There are all sorts of major and minor diagonal routes that run NE-SW. Far fewer of them run NW-SE. Such diagonals are especially absent in the middle of the nation where important highway hubs exist, like the hub in Oklahoma City. The OKC metro is a far more important hub in the highway network than Amarillo. A diagonal highway that spanned from Denver thru OKC and to Texarkana would open a direct path from the Front Range to Louisiana's Gulf Coast.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 09, 2024, 11:15:54 AMA direct Denver-OKC connection doesn't necessarily have to start out as an Interstate. They could start out with a 2-lane highway. It would most certainly get a lot of use immediately due to the almost complete lack of NW-SE diagonal routes in that whole region.

It would necessarily need to start with the southeastern portion of that route, meaning the part in Oklahoma to prove out the traffic demand, as that's the most densely populated portion.  OK-3 already goes mostly SE<->NW along the diagonal, except for a couple of gaps where it's multiplexed with US highways that run N-S/E-W.  If the induced demand for the facility would be truly served by a 2-lane road initially, we'd already see through traffic transiting OK-3 from one corner of the state to the other through Texarkana and I-49 as that's already the most fully formed diagonal facility being referred to.

I tried using Google Maps to get directions from Denver, CO to Texarkana, AR.  The shortest route it chose was actually through Amarillo, which would utilize the proposed I-27 northern routing through Texas and Oklahoma.  I tried to force it to use OK-3, and get as close to the diagonal as possible using existing routes, but never got below 930 miles as opposed to the 917 miles that it wants to use via US-82 and US-287, which already are planned for various types of upgrades which should reduce travel time below any possible OK-3 cutoffs to complete the diagonal in OK.  Additionally, there would need to be a new terrain facility that would be required in OK, KS, and CO to directly connect Fort Supply, OK and Kit Carson, CO, that would also need to bypass anything of significance in KS (which is already insignificant in population density in that part of the state) to actually save mileage over US-82/US-287.  And we don't even get into the issue of speed reductions of OK-3 going through the towns and cities that it transits, most especially OKC.  I can't think that anyone going from Texarkana to Denver and vice-versa WOULDN'T want to widely bypass OKC to save time at the cost of a few miles.  Sherman and Gainesville, TX would be easier to get through than OKC any day, and they'll likely eventually get bypasses themselves.

As much as I love the idea of a good NW<->SE diagonal as much as the next guy, I can't ever see one coming through OKC.  It's already well served enough with connectivity to serve as enough of a hub in the system without causing more of a bottleneck.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 09, 2024, 11:15:54 AMA diagonal highway that spanned from Denver thru OKC and to Texarkana would open a direct path from the Front Range to Louisiana's Gulf Coast.

Louisiana's Gulf Coast is already served by I-49 running to the NW from Lafayette.  Any traffic heading to Denver wouldn't go all the way up to Texarkana to bypass Dallas at the expense of a 2 lane road running through OKC when I-20 runs W-NW out of Shreveport almost continuing a diagnonal.  Once through Dallas, it's pretty much all US-287 at that point, which already have plans for upgrades to much more than 2 lane facilities and are federal highways.

Amarillo still makes more sense than OKC for a cross country diagonal and is much more likely to actually get development dollars since, after all, it's in Texas and not Oklahoma.  Unless it's a turnpike, Oklahoma isn't interested in the investment anyway.

An OK-3 flesh out to the NW would better serve OK, but not cross country traffic.

Quote from: MikieTimTIt would necessarily need to start with the southeastern portion of that route, meaning the part in Oklahoma to prove out the traffic demand, as that's the most densely populated portion.

SE Oklahoma is one of the least populated parts of the state. And it has some of the most difficult terrain for new highway building (assuming OTA tried to build a turnpike through there). The NW part of Oklahoma has better opportunities for improving "free" roads or building a new terrain turnpike.

But ODOT and/or OTA are never going to contribute resources to a comprehensive "gateway highway" from the Front Range to OKC unless there was serious federal involvement to guide multi-state cooperation. Such a highway will never materialize in piece-meal fashion, not unless both Denver and OKC grow quite a lot more. OKC does have potential. The rest of the state is currently holding the city back from realizing that potential.

Quote from: MikieTimTI tried using Google Maps to get directions from Denver, CO to Texarkana, AR.  The shortest route it chose was actually through Amarillo, which would utilize the proposed I-27 northern routing through Texas and Oklahoma.

That's because the route I'm talking about doesn't exist. Google Maps isn't going to route a greenfield path across the greenfield gaps I mentioned. There is no diagonal highway going from Kit Carson to either Syracuse or Garden City. There isn't any going between those towns and Fort Supply. There's a big dogleg between Okarche and Watonga.

Quote from: MikieTimTLouisiana's Gulf Coast is already served by I-49 running to the NW from Lafayette.  Any traffic heading to Denver wouldn't go all the way up to Texarkana to bypass Dallas at the expense of a 2 lane road running through OKC when I-20 runs W-NW out of Shreveport almost continuing a diagonal.

First, not all the existing segments of this diagonal are mere 2-lane roads. US-270 is 4-lane divided from Watonga to Woodward. The Limon-Kit Carson segment is part of the proposed I-27 corridor. Some portions of OK-3 are 4-lane. Also, DFW is a giant metro with giant amounts of traffic. Other regions of the country have freeways or turnpikes bypassing major population centers. DFW doesn't really have any of that at this point.

A direct Denver-OKC highway would help traffic coming from the Front Range to reach a lot more points faster in the Deep South than just Louisiana's Gulf Coast. The Louisiana example would only work if the OK-3 corridor was significantly improved between OKC and some point near Texarkana. Denver is a major hub in the highway system. So is OKC. Amarillo is not.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 09, 2024, 10:18:37 PM

Quote from: MikieTimTIt would necessarily need to start with the southeastern portion of that route, meaning the part in Oklahoma to prove out the traffic demand, as that's the most densely populated portion.

SE Oklahoma is one of the least populated parts of the state. And it has some of the most difficult terrain for new highway building (assuming OTA tried to build a turnpike through there). The NW part of Oklahoma has better opportunities for improving "free" roads or building a new terrain turnpike.

But ODOT and/or OTA are never going to contribute resources to a comprehensive "gateway highway" from the Front Range to OKC unless there was serious federal involvement to guide multi-state cooperation. Such a highway will never materialize in piece-meal fashion, not unless both Denver and OKC grow quite a lot more. OKC does have potential. The rest of the state is currently holding the city back from realizing that potential.

Quote from: MikieTimTI tried using Google Maps to get directions from Denver, CO to Texarkana, AR.  The shortest route it chose was actually through Amarillo, which would utilize the proposed I-27 northern routing through Texas and Oklahoma.

That's because the route I'm talking about doesn't exist. Google Maps isn't going to route a greenfield path across the greenfield gaps I mentioned. There is no diagonal highway going from Kit Carson to either Syracuse or Garden City. There isn't any going between those towns and Fort Supply. There's a big dogleg between Okarche and Watonga.

Quote from: MikieTimTLouisiana's Gulf Coast is already served by I-49 running to the NW from Lafayette.  Any traffic heading to Denver wouldn't go all the way up to Texarkana to bypass Dallas at the expense of a 2 lane road running through OKC when I-20 runs W-NW out of Shreveport almost continuing a diagonal.

First, not all the existing segments of this diagonal are mere 2-lane roads. US-270 is 4-lane divided from Watonga to Woodward. The Limon-Kit Carson segment is part of the proposed I-27 corridor. Some portions of OK-3 are 4-lane. Also, DFW is a giant metro with giant amounts of traffic. Other regions of the country have freeways or turnpikes bypassing major population centers. DFW doesn't really have any of that at this point.

A direct Denver-OKC highway would help traffic coming from the Front Range to reach a lot more points faster in the Deep South than just Louisiana's Gulf Coast. The Louisiana example would only work if the OK-3 corridor was significantly improved between OKC and some point near Texarkana. Denver is a major hub in the highway system. So is OKC. Amarillo is not.

The problem with designing a diagonal that serves something as generic as "the Deep South" is that we're talking about a fairly large geography, which, like a term as broad as the "Gulf Coast", can wildly affect what makes the most sense as a diagonal to serve a national audience.  There are already 3 I-2X interstates that run NW<->SE, but they are all east of the Mississippi River currently.  However, if you are talking about the Deep South from anywhere east of Mobile, then a diagonal through Oklahoma makes less sense than using one of the other I-2X routes that already exist to get to the Mississippi River, and then the system would be better served by an additional diagonal somewhere in Missouri or Nebraska instead.  There's still a predominance of the U.S. population east of 88°W and north of 38°N as of 2020 (median center of population), so it'll be some time before traffic shifts significantly south and west to the point that Oklahoma would make sense for a federally funded diagonal across the state.  We'd sooner see I-22 run from Memphis to K.C. (not that Memphis needs any more truck traffic around it) or I-24 finished to St. Louis with a diagonal across northern MO and IA to Sioux Falls, SD through Des Moines, IA for a big chunk of the Avenue of the Saints.  The fact is that even though both you and I live well west of the center of population of the U.S., the majority still live east of the Illinois/Indiana border, and north of Louisville, KY.  Trucks don't follow population density like the traveling public does, but until Mexico takes over more of China's manufacturing over the next couple of decades, the freight flows aren't moving all that rapidly westward either.

Any diagonal routes over the remaining ~25 years of my lifetime (if I live to an average male lifespan) at least are likely to be an extension of an existing I-2X as it serves more of the motoring public, which still pays the majority of the bills through fuel taxation.

Whether we like it or not, I-27 is going to happen through Amarillo, and the closest thing to a western diagonal is going to run through it as the folks that end up funding this stuff will make sure that it happens in Texas as they have more GDP than all of its bordering states combined (and that includes the Mexican ones).  Oklahoma may still get a piece of it in the panhandle, though, as they're, despite being as cheap as Oklahoma is with roads, much more likely to belly up to the table to send it through Boise City than New Mexico is to do their part with US-87 to Raton for the other option of continuing I-27.

I'm not against I-27 being extended. But an I-27 extension North of Amarillo is not a guaranteed thing at all.

Both Colorado and New Mexico are major stumbling blocks. US-287 in Colorado has been part of the Ports to Plains Corridor for many years. CDOT has done pretty much nothing to even add a second pair of lanes to it anywhere between Limon and the OK border. Doing anything Interstate quality seems like even more of a fantasy. We've seen what a crappy job NM DOT did with the four lane project on US-64/87 in NE New Mexico. I don't expect to see that improved to Interstate quality either. That leaves any potential Northward extension of I-27 dead ending in Texas. I think TX DOT will devote all resources related to extending I-27 to the push South from Lubbock.

Another big problem I-27 faces is a shrinking American tax base in the years and decades ahead. It will take decades for any extensions of I-27 to be built-out. Our nation's demographics are going to change quite a lot in that time frame. The country's entire highway infrastructure is going to be affected by this looming problem. The US is going to be top-heavy with elderly people trying to draw Social Security, Medicare, etc. and there isn't going to be enough working age taxpayers to keep things afloat. That's thanks in part to parenthood being turned into a horribly expensive lifestyle choice. Compound that with cultural changes and people living increasingly isolated, solitary lives.

QuoteThe problem with designing a diagonal that serves something as generic as "the Deep South" is that we're talking about a fairly large geography, which, like a term as broad as the "Gulf Coast", can wildly affect what makes the most sense as a diagonal to serve a national audience.

I-44 was built from St Louis to OKC to serve a similar purpose. OKC is not a small town either. The fact remains that a great deal of America's population has migrated to other areas besides the Northeast US and California. There is no major highway in the center of the country running in a real diagonal path from NW to SE. If I-27 is ever fully built out it will be very much a North South route. That diagonal leg from Limon to Kit Carson is a very tiny portion of the route.

The Southern Great Plains has multiple highways that run NE to SW, such as US-56, US-54 and US-60. There aren't any highways going to opposite angle NW to SE, despite the population growth in Colorado, Idaho, Utah, etc. The highway network is still laid out as if we're living in the 1970's and earlier.

I guess I don't understand what a NW->SE interstate in the middle of the US would serve that isn't already served. We have stretches of interstates that do go generally in that direction - I-90 & I-25 from Billings to Cheyenne, I-29 from Sioux Falls to Kansas City, I-45, and I-49 for example. They're not all pointed exactly at 135° obviously.

But also, west of the Mississippi, realize that the vast majority of freight that is moving southeasternly is generally coming from the West Coast - a) there is vastly more population there than in the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains regions and b) there are harbors getting Transpacific shipping. If freight comes off of a ship in Seattle, I-84 serves the NW->SE direction. If it comes off of a ship in the Bay Area, I-5 serves the NW->SE direction. Even if you're trying to ship from Seattle to Houston or something, in general, I-5->I-10 is decently NW->SE that also happens to avoid the Rockies which helps to mitigate any extra distance.

Not to mention the Rockies from Denver to parts Northwest presents a non trivial obstacle to the point that I-70 through them was the last completed segment from the originally planned miles of the IHS.  Also a perfect diagonal would plow right through Yellowstone Natl. Park, which is a nonstarter.  The funding required would be exorbitant even if politically tenable, which as has been stated a couple of posts earlier, will be harder and harder to come by with looming retirements and a smaller generation of workers to replace them.

I also don't see freight flows growing significantly from NW<->SE.  There will be a growing amount of freight coming out of Mexico as it takes more of the manufacturing from China for the North American market at least.  There are significant infrastructure issues in Mexico that prevent that from just being trucked up to the Texas border in large quantities.  Even the rail network isn't great to take on much more capacity without some significant buildout over the next decade.  We would sooner see Mexican goods loaded onto cargo ships on the west coast of Mexico and just floated up to Seattle, Portland, Long Beach, and Los Angeles than run overland through the U.S. on the road and rail network.  It would take the Chinese doing a massive infrastructure buildout in Mexico to better connect the country to the Texas border.  That's perhaps something the Chinese actually will do as they are moving a significant portion of their auto manufacturing down there since their demographics are in decline as well.  They are also trying to abuse the free trade agreement we have with Mexico and get around the tariffs.

The Texas Transportation Commission has a minute order for September 26 that will extend I-27 from its current south end, concurrent with US 87, to the end of the freeway, which it describes as one-tenth of a mile north of County Road 7500, where there's a grade crossing.  That's 4.2 miles.

For basic business like this, these minute orders almost always pass without much discussion.  By the time it gets to this point, the decision's already been made and the meeting is just a rubber stamp.  The agenda shows both a minute order, which just puts the description into official wording with a place for a stamp and signatures, and a presentation.  Basic orders like this don't usually include a presentation.  It may be interesting to see it.  Neither is available at this minute.  Generally the specific files are put online Thursday, Friday, Monday, or Tuesday in the seven-day period before the meeting.

There goes my I-27 clinch that I just finished last month...

That short extension would push I-27 just South of the future interchange with Loop-88, the partial outer loop for Lubbock.

Quote from: MikieTimT on September 09, 2024, 04:41:12 PMAnd we don't even get into the issue of speed reductions of OK-3 going through the towns and cities that it transits, most especially OKC.  I can't think that anyone going from Texarkana to Denver and vice-versa WOULDN'T want to widely bypass OKC to save time at the cost of a few miles.  Sherman and Gainesville, TX would be easier to get through than OKC any day, and they'll likely eventually get bypasses themselves.

Huh? OK3 runs down NW Highway to the Kilpatrick. It follows that and I40/I240 through the OKC metro east to Shawnee. If going 60mph for 10 miles in the urban core is a speed reduction then I'll take it

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/ports-to-plains-project-advances-with-new-feasibility-study-between-amarillo-and-dumas/ar-AA1rF6pq

"TxDOT is fixing (sic) to start a feasibility study from Amarillo to Dumas," said Garduno.

"Right now, they're wanting to do a study to finish up Loop 335 in Amarillo and then do a study between Amarillo and Dumas," said Milton Pax, Ports to Plains board member.

I'm wondering what other studies they need to do with Loop 335. They already have a plan in place to upgrade the whole thing to Interstate quality in various phases.

Meanwhile, the Amarillo-Dumas segment of US-287 would be one of easiest stretches of highway to upgrade to Interstate quality. The difficult thing is deciding which direction to upgrade past Dumas: North or Northwest?

For the Amarillo to Dumas study, the study terminus would be north of Dumas on US 287.  https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/amarillo/i27-feasibility-study-from-amarillo-to-dumas.html
"including extending I-27 from SL 335 to north of Dumas along US 287."

North of Dumas? I guess that would mean a town bypass would be included in the study. If they ultimately choose to extend I-27 farther North of Dumas doing so would be fairly easy thru the town of Cactus and up to the South side of Stratford (where the 4-lane divided highway ends).

https://p2ponlinemeeting.blob.core.windows.net/uploads/81ec20bb-4310-4b40-b809-4bb1831a49c4-Preliminary_Recommended_Upgrade_Projects_PPT_Seg%201.pdf (https://p2ponlinemeeting.blob.core.windows.net/uploads/81ec20bb-4310-4b40-b809-4bb1831a49c4-Preliminary_Recommended_Upgrade_Projects_PPT_Seg%201.pdf)

Let's just say most people weren't really expecting them to prioritize I-27 north of Amarillo before I-27 south of Lubbock

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

$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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

The public meeting (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/amarillo/2024/i27-feasibility-study-from-amarillo-to-dumas.html) 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 (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/ama/i-27/120424-exhibits.pdf).

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).

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.

It's also interesting. They're looking at building I-27E to the Oklahoma State line in the panhandle. It makes me wonder if there's been any behind the door discussions with ODOT about continuing the interstate through the panhandle. I'm assuming it would still be I-27E in Oklahoma if built? If so, that would be a first. I could see that happening way before Colorado does anything. And even if Colorado did do something and built the interstate, would they sign it as I-27E as well?

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2024, 03:43:28 PMIs 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.

They could give it the Wichita Falls treatment and build twin viaducts over one of the one-way pairs, too.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2024, 03:46:49 PMIt's also interesting. They're looking at building I-27E to the Oklahoma State line in the panhandle. It makes me wonder if there's been any behind the door discussions with ODOT about continuing the interstate through the panhandle. I'm assuming it would still be I-27E in Oklahoma if built? If so, that would be a first. I could see that happening way before Colorado does anything. And even if Colorado did do something and built the interstate, would they sign it as I-27E as well?

I-27N, but yes, the suffix idea was not well-planned. If US 287 from DFW to Amarillo is upgraded, that number can just continue on the Raton leg and I-27N can just become vanilla I-27.

Quote from: Molandfreak on December 05, 2024, 03:53:59 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2024, 03:46:49 PMIt's also interesting. They're looking at building I-27E to the Oklahoma State line in the panhandle. It makes me wonder if there's been any behind the door discussions with ODOT about continuing the interstate through the panhandle. I'm assuming it would still be I-27E in Oklahoma if built? If so, that would be a first. I could see that happening way before Colorado does anything. And even if Colorado did do something and built the interstate, would they sign it as I-27E as well?

I-27N, but yes, the suffix idea was not well-planned. If US 287 from DFW to Amarillo is upgraded, that number can just continue on the Raton leg and I-27N can just become vanilla I-27.

Wouldn't it make more sense for it to become a 3DI for the part going through NM to I-25 and have I-27 just continue north through the Oklahoma panhandle of Oklahoma ever decided to take that on? If the idea is get the road to Colorado and north anyways it seems like it'd be a better idea also acting as a bypass from the Raton pass during inclement weather.

Either way it doesn't seem like any of that is happening anytime soon and TxDOT is just focusing on connecting it to Dumas for the time being.

PS, if I-27N is built through the panhandle of Oklahoma I could see the future US-412 interstate being built west to connect to it before Colorado builds a brand new interstate. Oklahoma seems too broke to take on such an endeavor however and Colorado seems to be more and more anti freeway.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaIs 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.

Amarillo is not a little po-dunk city. 200,000 people live within the city limits. There are fairly tall office buildings downtown. The location is very different from the area where they elevated US-287 by downtown Wichita Falls.

Over the past 20 years a good amount of work has been done to improve the downtown area in Amarillo. That improvement work is still on-going. This can be seen in Google Street View imagery.

Further, where the hell would any bridge piers for an elevated structure be built? In Wichita Falls they were able to offset the elevated freeway viaducts so the bridge piers were built next to Holliday and Broad Streets. But that involved removing some structures. IIRC the surface streets also lost a lane, going from 4 lanes to 3. The four N/S streets in downtown Amarillo (Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan) are only 3 lanes wide as it is. Plus they've enhanced a lot of sidewalks, planted new trees and other greenery. They probably wouldn't be able to build bridge piers as thick as the ones in Wichita Falls, which might mean dual piers on both sides of the surface street. Say bye to those trees and sidewalks.

Again, it's worth repeating the fact an elevated Interstate thru downtown Amarillo would be more than twice the length of the one in Wichita Falls. It would be really expensive to build even if the locals in Amarillo were agreeable to such a thing. The high cost would siphon up a lot of money that could otherwise be used building out other parts of the I-27 extension. A lot more of the future Interstate could be built if it is routed on the loop around Amarillo.

There are a few buildings in downtown that have tunnel connections to each other, so trenching/tunnelling I-27 would have to be a carefully thought out and planned process, if it were considered.  I'm not sure if city higher-ups would like the elevated option, but that would depend on placement and where.

Would it be cheaper to realign I-27 along the west side of the Loop 335? Downtown Amarillo will still have I-40 and an I-X27 spur taking over the former alignment, so it's not like they're going to lose anything.

If Amarillo experiences rapid growth, akin to Austin, it would probably be easier to expand the Loop 335 route versus a downtown route. There are also government offices between Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan streets.

Loop 335 is getting built out around Amarillo regardless of what ultimately happens with I-27. So, yeah, it would be far cheaper to simply route I-27 along the East or West side of the 335 loop.

Quote from: abqtraveler on November 18, 2024, 09:21:22 AM

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.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2024, 03:43:28 PMIs 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.

If they could do the Marsha Sharp Fwy in Lubbock, then maybe this would be do-able as well.  Painful, but doable.  Obviously they are two different cities.   Remember traveling N-S straight through Amarillo, way back in the mid-late nineties, and viewing the odd couplets there.  What on earth was the history, the thinking and planning there? And thinking, why didn't they plan here?   Meaning planning towards creating a limited access route, even way then.  Likely answer - there was none. There was likely a lot less development then, and likely far less density in the downtown then.  Then would have been the time to actively start planning for such a N-S depressed facility.  By even including it as an alternative, is likely to generate a firestorm of opposition, now, even if it is a good idea.   

Quote from: DJStephens on December 11, 2024, 05:25:35 PMIf they could do the Marsha Sharp Fwy in Lubbock, then maybe this would be do-able as well.  Painful, but doable.  Obviously they are two different cities. 

I seem to recall the Marsha Sharp Freeway was a high priority for Lubbock, especially Texas Tech University. There was plenty of local support, so it eventually was done.

For I-27 in downtown Amarillo, the local position on the freeway (for/against) will be the main decision criteria. If locals are against it, then it surely will be determined to be infeasible, and that's the end of it. If locals really want it and lobby for it, the feasibility study could identify it as a feasible option, which would carry it forward to the next phase of study - an alignment study.

As others have noted, it will be very expensive to bring it through downtown. It would require a major right-of-way clearance, and/or elevated or trenched main lanes. I don't think it will be financially feasible even if locals really want it. If the downtown freeway is ultimately the recommended option, it will take a very long time to get it done.

The Marsha Sharp Freeway in Lubbock does not go straight through the middle of downtown. That freeway runs several blocks North. The area where the freeway was built wasn't in great shape either. A huge grain silo building that was no longer served by rail track was the most significant thing that had to be removed. Pushing a new freeway through the middle of downtown Amarillo would be much more disruptive, controversial and expensive.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 11, 2024, 07:09:20 PMThe Marsha Sharp Freeway in Lubbock does not go straight through the middle of downtown. That freeway runs several blocks North. The area where the freeway was built wasn't great shape either. A huge grain silo building that was no longer served by rail track was the most significant thing that had to be removed. Pushing a new freeway through the middle of downtown Amarillo would be much more disruptive, controversial and expensive.

Looking at Amarillo in Google Maps...would the railroad corridor to the east of downtown be useful as possible right of way?

Amarillo has one of the most active rail hubs in the nation. The Southern Transcon line runs through it.

Even if an elevated freeway structure could be built over the rail yards East and North of the downtown district that would get a new freeway only part of the way to the freeway spur on the North side of town.

Quote from: TheStranger on December 11, 2024, 08:39:12 PMLooking at Amarillo in Google Maps...would the railroad corridor to the east of downtown be useful as possible right of way?

The logical side of me says it's a waste of time to even contemplate an alignment, since there's a 99% chance a downtown route will be dismissed as infeasible. But my inner planning voice succumbed to the temptation to consider possibilities.

While the railroad to the east could be a possibility, I think a western bypass along or near Van Buren Street (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2136563,-101.8358347,2899m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) (both north and south) would be more feasible. Van Buren Street has plenty of vacant land, parking lots and low-value commercial buildings. Also, very few residences, which are the biggest obstacle to right-of-way clearance.

There is a large building (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2220878,-101.8350437,3a,75y,175.06h,92.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1surRSAs4d6fljG6NyoSNNpw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-2.723846248456283%26panoid%3DurRSAs4d6fljG6NyoSNNpw%26yaw%3D175.06278443337183!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) in this path at I-40 business (W Amarillo Blvd). But looking at street view, it appears to be abandoned. Does anybody know anything about that property? (Are there any plans for it?)

Quote from: MaxConcrete on December 11, 2024, 10:43:06 PMThere is a large building (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2220878,-101.8350437,3a,75y,175.06h,92.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1surRSAs4d6fljG6NyoSNNpw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-2.723846248456283%26panoid%3DurRSAs4d6fljG6NyoSNNpw%26yaw%3D175.06278443337183!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) in this path at I-40 business (W Amarillo Blvd). But looking at street view, it appears to be abandoned. Does anybody know anything about that property? (Are there any plans for it?)

This was part of the former St. Anthony's Hospital. It ran into financial trouble several years ago. After a failed merger with 1 area hospital, the other hospital in the area ended up being St. Anthony's saving grace (as it were).  None of St. Anthony's campus was retained in the deal.  It has since sat vacant, until now.  A local firm has come in to redevelop the former hospital (I'm not sure about all of it, but at least some of it) into a senior residential complex. I don't know when the residential project will open.

Just noticed that the Aaroads map now shows "Future I-27" and "Future I-27N" north of Amarillo (though no signs of future I-27/I-27W/I-27E south of Lubbock yet)
https://www.aaroads.com/aamaps/

Quote from: TheStranger on December 31, 2024, 05:17:27 PMJust noticed that the Aaroads map now shows "Future I-27" and "Future I-27N" north of Amarillo (though no signs of future I-27/I-27W/I-27E south of Lubbock yet)
https://www.aaroads.com/aamaps/

Who updates that map and is there a method to decide which future highways get signage on it? It seems nonsensical to include these portions of I-27 with future signage and not, say, the highways linking the completed sections of I-57 and I-49.

Quote from: TheStranger on December 31, 2024, 05:17:27 PMJust noticed that the Aaroads map now shows "Future I-27" and "Future I-27N" north of Amarillo (though no signs of future I-27/I-27W/I-27E south of Lubbock yet)
https://www.aaroads.com/aamaps/

Egads.  I didn't know that existed.

Quote from: Molandfreak on December 31, 2024, 05:36:27 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on December 31, 2024, 05:17:27 PMJust noticed that the Aaroads map now shows "Future I-27" and "Future I-27N" north of Amarillo (though no signs of future I-27/I-27W/I-27E south of Lubbock yet)
https://www.aaroads.com/aamaps/

Who updates that map and is there a method to decide which future highways get signage on it? It seems nonsensical to include these portions of I-27 with future signage and not, say, the highways linking the completed sections of I-57 and I-49.

So I looked through there and there's not a single Future I-57, Future I-69(E/C), nor Future I-49 sign, even on the parts that are in progress

Quote from: TheStranger on December 31, 2024, 05:17:27 PMJust noticed that the Aaroads map now shows "Future I-27" and "Future I-27N" north of Amarillo (though no signs of future I-27/I-27W/I-27E south of Lubbock yet)
https://www.aaroads.com/aamaps/

They've been there for at least nine months. I remember they changed some things for April Fools' Day, and I thought that was one of the fools when it turned out not to be.

Quote from: TheBox on December 31, 2024, 07:09:22 PM

Quote from: Molandfreak on December 31, 2024, 05:36:27 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on December 31, 2024, 05:17:27 PMJust noticed that the Aaroads map now shows "Future I-27" and "Future I-27N" north of Amarillo (though no signs of future I-27/I-27W/I-27E south of Lubbock yet)
https://www.aaroads.com/aamaps/

Who updates that map and is there a method to decide which future highways get signage on it? It seems nonsensical to include these portions of I-27 with future signage and not, say, the highways linking the completed sections of I-57 and I-49.

So I looked through there and there's not a single Future I-57, Future I-69(E/C), nor Future I-49 sign, even on the parts that are in progress

It especially raises an eyebrow from me that the Future I-27 signs continue into New Mexico, where no construction is actively being planned. With reasoning like that, we might as well just map out the whole Future I-73 corridor.

Quote from: Rothman on December 31, 2024, 06:26:03 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on December 31, 2024, 05:17:27 PMJust noticed that the Aaroads map now shows "Future I-27" and "Future I-27N" north of Amarillo (though no signs of future I-27/I-27W/I-27E south of Lubbock yet)
https://www.aaroads.com/aamaps/

Egads.  I didn't know that existed.

My first time seeing it too. The linework is impressively clean, I love the style.

North of Amarillo, the I-27 Feasibility Study from Amarillo to Dumas is currently underway by TxDOT (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/amarillo/i27-feasibility-study-from-amarillo-to-dumas.html).

More public engagement meetings are planned in the next few months. The presentation slide deck [PDF] (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/ama/i-27/012325-presentation.pdf) has some very helpful preliminary route and exit plans.

(https://i.imgur.com/0XcqBJL.png)

The purple Concept G would have I-27 bypass Dumas to the west of the airport and would run mostly through farmland. Concepts E (yellow) and F (white) would run just to the east of the airport, near Burnett Road. Again, it would run through farmland with no impact to existing homes or businesses.

Concept C (cyan) is the worst as it has an unnecessary curve for a railroad bridge on the southwest side of Dumas. Concept D (green) takes a more straight shot near where Concept C runs.

The eastern alignments are Concepts A (pink) and B (teal). I don't think the eastern alignments are good as it makes it harder to tie into the future western branch of I-27 that will go to Dalhart, Clayton, and Raton.

I'd say all the western alignments except Concept C are good. Concept G (purple) goes really far west and would only be best if mainline I-27 turns towards Dalhart. Traffic going north to Stratford and Boise City on future I-27N has to swing way far out to the west.


What do you all think would be the best alignment through Dumas?

A near-bypass of Dumas would be more practical than a far bypass. I would pick Concept E as the best alternative, although they should probably include a freeway-to-freeway interchange just north of the future US 87 interchange, just in case New Mexico gets their rear-in-gear about allowing Interstate 27 within their state.

I think I prefer the Concept C (Cyan) alignment since it runs nearest to Dumas. It also looks like it would do a better job of missing some large homes on the West side of Dumas since it runs on an alignment closer to the BNSF rail line.

The Concept D (Green) alignment looks the best at first glance, but it would run closer to the homes on Peggy Lane, if not go over the top of them.

The Yellow (E) and White (F) alignments look possibly easier to build, but run roughly a mile farther West of town. On the other hand they would have more open land space for larger interchanges with US-87, such as a "Y" system interchange for the possible I-27 spur to Raton. The Yellow alignment would need to run well to the left of existing Lena Lane to avoid mowing over a bunch of homes on the right side of that street.

The Purple (G) concept looks almost like an outer loop thing for Dumas. Its interchange with US-87 West of Dumas would be 3.5 miles West of the US-287/US-87 intersection in the middle of Dumas. The spur going around the East side of town would be 2.5 miles from the US-287/US-87 intersection.

I think I'd pick either E or F--both plenty close enough to Dumas proper to be useful to the town, yet won't require any homes or businesses be taken down.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 07, 2025, 01:34:32 PMA near-bypass of Dumas would be more practical than a far bypass. I would pick Concept E as the best alternative, although they should probably include a freeway-to-freeway interchange just north of the future US 87 interchange, just in case New Mexico gets their rear-in-gear about allowing Interstate 27 within their state.

Yeah, Concept E looks like it strikes a good middle ground in terms of distance from the center of Dumas.

Just curious, if you have local knowledge, what's the difference between Concepts E and F? They are very close together on the map, so it's kinda odd TxDOT made them separate concepts.

Concept F (white) runs a more comfortable distance West from Lena Lane while Concept E (Yellow) would probably re-build the existing Lena Lane gravel road as a paved frontage road. The Moore County Airport is West of both alignment concepts. The white alignment would do more to threaten an existing property on the South side of US-87 if a freeway to freeway Y interchange was built with US-87.

C or D.  They are somewhat more direct, and efficient.  Concepts that are largely missing from alignment studies today.    The curves, even on those (C and D) are to avoid creating a "diagonal" rail road crossing am guessing, as opposed to building  "easier" perpendicular crossings. So additional earthwork is deemed preferable to a "diagonal" crossing.  Wouldn't costs cancel each other out?  The outlying proposals come close to absurdity.  Meaning western G, and the easterly one.  Very far flung and inefficient.   

E or F, as long as it minimizes taking houses.

But I don't mind G.

More public meetings

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/txdot-launches-study-on-us-87us-287-upgrade-to-interstate-standards/ar-AA1Cahmr

The in-person public meetings will be held in Dumas on April 7 and in Amarillo on April 8, with sessions from 2-4 p.m. and 6-8 p.m. each day.

Virtual meeting materials will be available online starting April 7 at 2 p.m. on TxDOT.gov, where the public can also provide location-specific comments via a social engagement map.

The public comment period is open from April 7 to April 23. Comments must be postmarked or received by April 23, to be included in the official record. Responses to comments will be available online once prepared.

A west side Dumas bypass makes the most sense. Traffic movement west along US 87 has to be the favored exit off the mainline N&S US 287 flow. The city of Dumas surely will have a say in the final route location. But if the bypass was on the east side, there would need to be an exit on TX 152 and that westbound US 87 traffic would need to go back through town. Not ideal.

Last time I drove US 87 through to Hartley,the utility relocations were well under way for that segment's upgrade to a divided highway.

Observations from the public meeting (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/amarillo/2025/i27-feasibility-study-from-amarillo-to-dumas.html) materials and presentation with alignment maps (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/ama/i-27/040725-presentation.pdf):

Dumas
There was a large amount of activity for considering alternatives in the last 4 months. The presentation shows refined and new alternatives each month (Jan, Feb, March, April). The presentation frequently mentions a local desire to have the alignment as close as possible to Dumas. In March a full loop was added as an option.

In the April iteration, the options are reduced to two alignments (which are three alternatives), east and west which together form a loop. After all the iteration, the usual criteria prevailed: minimize displacements. The west alternative (yellow) is by far the highest ranking in the matrix. Unfortunately, it is a curving and swerving alignment (ugh), which seems unnecessary because the area of swerving is through an undeveloped area. Apparently the swerving alignment is to avoid displacements on the southwest side of the city, but bring the alignment close to the city on the northwest side.

Amarillo
The only two options are around the Loop 335. Of course, we all agreed that there was no way the alignment would go through the center of Amarillo, but it was surprising that the first meeting included the central route as an option. No impact matrix is shown, but the east route appears to need many displacements, which suggests the west route will be selected. The only item with details in the presentation is the interchange on the north side of Amarillo.

What is driving the need for an eastern bypass at all?  An interstate grade freeway loop around a town of 15,000 seems egregiously overdone.

Quote from: I-35 on April 08, 2025, 01:41:16 PMWhat is driving the need for an eastern bypass at all?  An interstate grade freeway loop around a town of 15,000 seems egregiously overdone.

I'm not sure but, looking at the numbers, Concept B (teal) appears to sacrifice plenty of residential properties but leave almost all commercial properties alone.  With either A or B, only one commercial building (fourteen total commercial lots) are impacted.

However, I don't know if those numbers are out of date, because the concept was carried forward with modifications based on new eastside development.

The West/Yellow alternative looks like the most realistic (least costly] remaining option. I think it's the only alternative that could be built out completely all at once.

I suppose they could plan for either the South Split alternative or Loop alternative, but such a thing would more likely have to be built in various phases. The cost would probably require building out Super 2 alignments with or without grade separated interchanges just to get the ROW secured. Then the interchanges and/or second sets of lanes would get added in later construction phases over a period of years (or decades).

Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2025, 02:10:12 PM

Quote from: I-35 on April 08, 2025, 01:41:16 PMWhat is driving the need for an eastern bypass at all?  An interstate grade freeway loop around a town of 15,000 seems egregiously overdone.

I'm not sure but, looking at the numbers, Concept B (teal) appears to sacrifice plenty of residential properties but leave almost all commercial properties alone.  With either A or B, only one commercial building (fourteen total commercial lots) are impacted.

However, I don't know if those numbers are out of date, because the concept was carried forward with modifications based on new eastside development.

Quote from: I-35 on April 08, 2025, 01:41:16 PMWhat is driving the need for an eastern bypass at all?  An interstate grade freeway loop around a town of 15,000 seems egregiously overdone.

Dumas is a very congested little city. Lots and lots of trucks have to get through a good number of stoplights. Several of them are right at / near the courthouse square. The stoplight intersection on the north side with US 87, US 287, and TX 152 has a lot of turning traffic and frequently backs up. Parallel to US 287 is a busy BNSF railroad that makes the west side bypass challenging.

Dumas definitely needs some sort of freeway bypass.

The main North-South street thru town is Dumas Ave, which also carries US-87/287. When I drive through there during daylight hours that street is typically really busy. It might not seem like traffic is all that heavy approaching Dumas from the South. Everyone is doing 70mph or more and the vehicles are spread out. When every motorist starts hitting the speed zones and reaches the Walmart on the South side of town the traffic load compresses like an accordion. The drive can turn into a slog until I reach the intersection of Dumas Ave and 1st Street, which is also the point where US-87 splits from US-287.

Traffic on Dumas Avenue would flow more efficiently if the town had a freeway bypass, preferably on the West side of town. Heavy trucks merely passing through could use the bypass. People road-tripping in personal vehicles would probably still stop in Dumas. It's the last good place to top off the gasoline tank before prices jump noticeably farther North.

A full loop around Dumas would be harder to justify. Most of the problems could be solved with a bypass going East or West around town.

If you go east, you're going to need a bridge over the railway as part of a 3/4ths loop, or have US87 still go through that stoplight.

OK, going west means two bridges, but you can arrange with BNSF to minimise downtime and do closures when they close. But it's a single track and wouldn't take too long to get the bit over the railway

Plus you avoid the terrain issues SE of the city that the urban area abuts. It's also considerably shorter (as there's not much west of the railway), so is likely cheaper despite the extra bridge.

A full loop is totally mad, combining all the negatives of both.

I'm pretty sure TX DOT and construction crews wouldn't have much problem avoiding disruptions to freight trains while building bridges over the BNSF rail line. The biggest headache will be all the earth berm building and grading work needed to span over the rail line. They'll be looking at the same headaches with the US-87 interchange on the West side of town.

The only time rail service may be disrupted is when cranes are hoisting concrete or steel bridge beams to span over the track. That would be fairly late into the project.

The North-South BNSF line running through Dumas isn't all that busy. I doubt it carries as many trains as the line that splits off West going thru Hartley, Dalhart and up to Trinidad, CO. Neither of those rail lines have train frequency like the Southern Transcon that goes thru Amarillo. Now that's a busy friggin' rail line. Plenty of road bridges are spanning it, even in rural areas. Not only does the Southern Transcon carry a lot of trains, but some of the trains can be very long. It really sucks if you're stuck at an at-grade railroad crossing waiting on one 3 mile long train and another one comes up going the opposite direction keeping you stuck that much longer.

Midland only just now joined the Ports-2-Plains Alliance recently. They were only registered up until now.

https://www.mrt.com/news/article/midland-ports-to-plains-alliance-20311236.php

It's funny how the news article didn't make any mention of the proposed I-27 route having two East and West legs through that region.

Or this article: https://www.yourbasin.com/news/i-27-and-i-14-developments-when-to-expect-construction/

(https://www.yourbasin.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/78/2025/04/I-27-and-I-14-pic.png?resize=592,775)

Quote from: splashflash on May 08, 2025, 04:07:17 AMOr this article: https://www.yourbasin.com/news/i-27-and-i-14-developments-when-to-expect-construction/

(https://www.yourbasin.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/78/2025/04/I-27-and-I-14-pic.png?resize=592,775)

Makes me think that I-27E should just be I-27 and I-27W should just be a pair of 3dis.

That would be the logical thing to do, but Texas now seems to be obsessed with Interstate Suffixes. As if Interstates 35E/W weren't the only suffixes that should exist in the state of Texas.

I actually don't mind the I-35 E/W thing but the others are a bit ridiculous.

I couldn't agree more about Interstate 35E/W in Dallas and Fort Worth (as well as 35E/W in Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota).

At least the 27E/W split follows the same logic as the 35E/W ones, so I don't think that one is the worst thing in the world. All of these suffix spurs are just awful, though.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 08, 2025, 02:09:58 PMThat would be the logical thing to do, but Texas now seems to be obsessed with Interstate Suffixes. As if Interstates 35E/W weren't the only suffixes that should exist in the state of Texas.

Just imagine of other states decide to jump in the bandwagon and even ask to bring back from the dead I-80N, I-80S.  :-D

Quote from: Molandfreak on May 09, 2025, 06:24:58 AMAt least the 27E/W split follows the same logic as the 35E/W ones, so I don't think that one is the worst thing in the world. All of these suffix spurs are just awful, though.

Dallas & Ft Worth are considerably larger than Midland & Odessa, even at the time I-35E/W came into existence. Secondly, the distance between the downtowns of Midland & Odessa are about half compared to that of Dallas & Ft Worth.

I think it would have been well enough to have I-27 cut through the middle of the two, like along SH 349 and combine Loop 250 & 338 into an I-X27 or X20

The Midland-Odessa metro has a large enough population (nearly 300,000) to justify a direct Interstate link to Lubbock and Amarillo. Big Spring is along the main line of the Ports to Plains Corridor (current US-87, future I-27 or I-27E).

Splitting the difference between Big Spring and Midland wouldn't solve any problems. It would require a new route built mostly on new terrain. Existing TX-137, running from Lamesa down thru Stanton, is a 2 lane route with an assortment of existing properties built close to it.

Existing US-87 from Lamesa thru Big Spring and down to San Angelo is a divided 4-lane highway and can be upgraded in place most of the way. Big Spring has a new freeway bypass. The TX-349 corridor going North of Midland doesn't have much of anything next to it besides the occasional oil pump jack. It can probably be upgraded to Interstate quality on the existing alignment between Lamesa and Midland. Getting an I-27W leg into Midland and to I-20 will be a challenge. Those last few miles will have to be built on a new terrain path.

I think I misinterpreted the graphic as I-27W going to Odessa and I-27E going to Midland.

Understanding that the ship might have sailed and the proposed 27s are what they are, this could be solved by adding an I-23 for the Midland-Odessa branch, a la I-10/12.

Or something like Macon, where I-27 goes to Midland-Odessa while an I-x27 is built as the bypass route.

OR Texas politicians just pick a single mainline corridor.

Quote from: Molandfreak on May 09, 2025, 06:24:58 AMAt least the 27E/W split follows the same logic as the 35E/W ones, so I don't think that one is the worst thing in the world. All of these suffix spurs are just awful, though.

I'm not really a fan of either, but I think I mind the splits at the end less.  At least then there isn't a break in the "real" route (actually, if they could pick a mainline and leave the suffixes for loops/spurs that don't really fit as a 3di, I think I'd mind them less, probably because it's what I'm used to in NY where suffixes are used for child routes).  I like my routes to be possible to clinch by starting at one end and driving straight to the other.

If the choice was up to me I'd leave the mainline I-27 going thru Big Spring since Midland could (some time in the future) get I-14 ending there. I think chances are between extremely slim and none that western I-14N/S split will ever get built. It's going to be tough enough just funding an Interstate route from San Angelo to Midland. The route that would be "I-27W" from Lamesa to Midland could just be a 3-digit I-x27 route. Either way the route could continue along TX-349 as it loops around the North and West sides of Midland. It would connect to I-20 halfway between Midland and Odessa. That might even allow for a re-naming of the TX-191 freeway between Midland and Odessa as another I-x27 route.

I feel like the I-14S route should be killed or shortened to connect Junction to mainline I-14. I think it's a waste of resources to have parallel interstate highways within 15-20 miles of one another in rural West Texas.

I agree if Midland-Odessa gets I-14; they should be satisfied if I-27 misses them and gets an X27 instead. I-27W looks like it would have a dead-end overlap south of I-20, so it would save an unnecessary route.

Sorry it's a bit of old news, but I wanted to post it in case someone missed it. I was going to post it 2 weeks ago but the forum was down.

The Virtual Public Meeting (#2) for the Amarillo to Dumas Study is available unlisted on TxDOT's YouTube page (linked below).