AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update  (Read 30946 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5914
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:44 AM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #75 on: December 28, 2016, 09:04:10 PM »

I think an Southern extension of I-27 would still work well for Texas' own purposes if the road was built directly from San Angelo to Junction, TX. That would create a fairly straight Interstate path from Amarillo down to Corpus Christi via the huge San Antonio area. Such a thing would probably be easier to justify than a longer, more ambitious extension of I-27 to the Mexican border.

Quote from: sparker
Since US 84 between I-20 and Lubbock is one of the more heavily traveled non-Interstate truck corridors in the state (as well as the whole region), it might well, in time, be considered for an Interstate-level upgrade under a separate portfolio than the P-to-P corridor complex.

US-84 would be the easiest out of 3 major 4-lane routes going South of Lubbock to upgrade to Interstate quality. Slaton and Snyder both have bypasses that are mostly freeway quality. An Interstate quality bypass of Post, on the edge of the caprock, could be a little expensive to build.

Even though US-84 from Lubbock to Roscoe (and I-20) is a major trucking route, Texas has other big routes in need of upgrades. I think US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo should have been upgraded to an Interstate long ago.

Overall, I'm pretty much in agreement with these notions -- particularly the need for an Interstate facility along US 287 from Ft. Worth to Amarillo.  South of San Angelo, I would think (since TXDot seems to avoid completely new-terrain routings as a matter of policy or design choice) that a direct shot south along US 277 to I-10 at Sonora would be their preferred option (less mileage, less private property taken).  And keeping the P-to-P on US 87 via Big Spring, considering the N-S bypass work being done currently, remains the best option from a system standpoint.  If anyone's following the I-14 thread, M-O interests seem to now be focused on making TX 158 into a portion of that corridor; the fact that it's already an ancillary alignment of HPC #38 dovetails into their plan inasmuch as they don't have to place that segment into the HPC "family" to get maximum available Fed $$; it's already there!  So the folks in M-O might have their own new toy to play with even if the P-to-P stays on its original US 87 routing. 

If I-27 plans on the P-to-P actually gel along the Big Spring alignment, the chances of similarly upgrading US 84 Lubbock-Roscoe in the near term would likely lessen considerably since it's unlikely that a second Interstate project in the same region, particularly without a HPC attached, would be prioritized.  No matter -- being a 4-lane mostly divided facility that's also the most direct route from eastern TX (at least via I-20) to the Lubbock area, commercial traffic will continue to utilize it as they do presently.     
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5016
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 08:39:49 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #76 on: December 29, 2016, 10:24:10 AM »

Quote from: sparker
Even though US-84 from Lubbock to Roscoe (and I-20) is a major trucking route, Texas has other big routes in need of upgrades. I think US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo should have been upgraded to an Interstate long ago.
Totally agree! What I wouldn't give to have an all-Interstate routing between Denver and DFW, if you also add in the US 287 section that goes from Amarillo up to Raton, NM.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1786
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 10:38:46 PM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #77 on: December 29, 2016, 12:22:32 PM »

TX DOT does try to use existing roads when it can, but that's often not possible. I-69 will have to be built on a number of new terrain bypasses in East Texas for instance.

Routing an extension of I-27 South through Sonora would only work if the route was going to be extended at least to Del Rio or farther down the Rio Grande Valley (Eagle Pass, Laredo). As an Amarillo to San Antonio corridor the resulting right angle would add over 45 miles to the route. A more direct route between San Angelo and Junction would be roughly 70 miles. It's about 115 miles going straight South to Sonora and then taking I-10 East to Junction. A direct San Angelo to Junction route would pass close to the Fort McKavett State Historical Park.

I think there is little, if any chance at all, for the I-14 effort in Texas to get anywhere. There's too many other more important highway corridors to develop, such as the Ports to Plains Corridor in this case. The best case scenario for this "I-14" in the foreseeable future is US-190 from Copperas Cove to Belton & I-35 getting signed as I-14. It would be like adding another stubby I-97 to the Interstate system. Both I-97 and this I-14 idea should have 3 digit designations instead.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5914
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:44 AM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #78 on: January 01, 2017, 02:33:26 AM »

TX DOT does try to use existing roads when it can, but that's often not possible. I-69 will have to be built on a number of new terrain bypasses in East Texas for instance.

Routing an extension of I-27 South through Sonora would only work if the route was going to be extended at least to Del Rio or farther down the Rio Grande Valley (Eagle Pass, Laredo). As an Amarillo to San Antonio corridor the resulting right angle would add over 45 miles to the route. A more direct route between San Angelo and Junction would be roughly 70 miles. It's about 115 miles going straight South to Sonora and then taking I-10 East to Junction. A direct San Angelo to Junction route would pass close to the Fort McKavett State Historical Park.

Regardless of any shift in pro-to-anti-NAFTA/immigration sentiment within the upcoming administration, there will still be plenty of cross-border traffic, individual and commercial, aside from that related to the maquiledoras.  IMO, the ultimate/extended goal of P-to-P would include service to the border crossings at Del Rio and Eagle Pass; hence a junction with I-10 at or near Sonora would be part of this overall concept.

Nevertheless, if I were to hedge my bet, so to speak, and consider the possibility that the P-to-P corridor would be truncated to I-10 (likely as much for fiscal as temporally political reasons), then a more direct connection near Junction would be a definite consideration.  However, my bet there would be that TXDot would keep such a facility near existing highways -- US 87 east to Eden, then US 83 south to Junction -- to avoid taking more "virgin" land than absolutely necessary  -- and the distance vis-a-vis a direct new-terrain route would not be particularly prohibitive due to US 87's trajectory SE of San Angelo; the distance would be about 90-95 miles, still better than the Sonora option. 
« Last Edit: January 01, 2017, 02:37:54 AM by sparker »
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 602
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Dona Ana NM/Tucson AZ
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 01:11:39 PM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #79 on: January 01, 2017, 02:52:47 PM »

While a routing through Odessa/Midland makes an argument for serving those substantial cities, the US 87 routing through Big Spring, with the utilizing of limited access highway near San Angelo may make more sense, especially if the hypothetical route is to go to San Antonio, via Junction on I-10, instead of Del Rio and Eagle Pass.   
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #80 on: January 10, 2017, 01:12:19 PM »

This article reports that a Texas legislator has filed a bill, HB 869, which would direct TxDOT to study the route. They are already discussing the possibility of suffixed routes:

Quote
Just one day before the start of the 85th Legislature, efforts to improve transportation in West Texas got a small shot in the arm.
Rep. Dustin Burrows of Lubbock filed a bill Monday seeking to direct the Texas Department of Transportation to conduct a feasibility study that would see Interstate 27 extend south of Lubbock to Laredo ....
Burrows said he doesn’t have a preferred route but that he has heard the most talk about going through Big Spring with possibly a spur heading through Midland.
Ports-to-Plains President Michael Reeves said Monday that it’s possible both routes could be designated as I-27.
“When you look at what’s happening with I-69 in East Texas, they have a couple of different stretches designated. Same with I-35; you have I-35 east and west in Fort Worth and Dallas,” he said. “I don’t think it would be unprecedented to have both of those segments designated. But that’s why you have a feasibility study -- to let the professionals and engineers look at it.”

What might work in Midland’s favor is the Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance’s push to re-designate the I-14 project’s western terminus. I-14 is the centerpiece of the congressionally approved Gulf Coast Strategic Highway project, known as “Ports to Forts.”
MOTRAN and other organizations support moving I-14’s western terminus from I-10 and U.S. 190 to a point in western Ector County along I-20, then heading south on what is currently SH 158 and U.S. 87 to Brady.
Reeves said having I-27 and I-14 on the same route would be beneficial. “It’s a wonderful opportunity to get two interstates for the price of one. Overlapping them would be a way to stretch that transportation dollar.”
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1786
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 10:38:46 PM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #81 on: January 11, 2017, 12:22:39 AM »

If I-27 was extended South from Lubbock through both Midland and Big Spring on different, suffixed I-27W and I-27E routes, the I-14 concept would pretty much need to terminate in San Angelo. There would be no point in overlapping I-14 with I-27 and I-27W since the overlap would go all the way to I-20. That's nearly 110 miles of overlap between San Angelo and Midland.

Another alternative: if people in Midland have their hearts set on I-14 merging into I-20 it would be easier to do without the I-27W & I-27E idea. Make I-27 go through Big Spring on the way to San Angelo. I-14 could take the same path and overlap I-27 starting at TX-158/US-87 split just Northwest of Sterling City down to San Angelo. At Lamesa (where an I-27W/I-27E split would happen) a 3di Interstate spur would split from I-27 down to Midland.

Of course there's a very slim chance on getting all this stuff funded any time soon. I'm hoping for an I-27 extension from Lubbock down through San Angelo at least.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5914
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:44 AM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #82 on: January 11, 2017, 05:35:20 AM »

If I-27 was extended South from Lubbock through both Midland and Big Spring on different, suffixed I-27W and I-27E routes, the I-14 concept would pretty much need to terminate in San Angelo. There would be no point in overlapping I-14 with I-27 and I-27W since the overlap would go all the way to I-20. That's nearly 110 miles of overlap between San Angelo and Midland.

Another alternative: if people in Midland have their hearts set on I-14 merging into I-20 it would be easier to do without the I-27W & I-27E idea. Make I-27 go through Big Spring on the way to San Angelo. I-14 could take the same path and overlap I-27 starting at TX-158/US-87 split just Northwest of Sterling City down to San Angelo. At Lamesa (where an I-27W/I-27E split would happen) a 3di Interstate spur would split from I-27 down to Midland.

Of course there's a very slim chance on getting all this stuff funded any time soon. I'm hoping for an I-27 extension from Lubbock down through San Angelo at least.

Very valid overall observations & analysis.  Completely correct about funding chances; IMO P-to-P stands a marginally better chance of actual development than does the I-14 corridor, particularly if it sticks to the original US 87/Big Spring alignment.  But given the level of interest in Midland/Odessa, a "SIU" section along TX 158 might be the sole I-14 segment to be built in the Permian region over the next couple of decades, connecting two of the largest metro areas between I-35 and El Paso.     
Logged

adventurernumber1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1603
  • David Carson

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Dalton, Georgia, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:31 AM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #83 on: January 13, 2017, 06:05:46 PM »

I am honestly all for extending Interstate 27, and in both directions. I think the extension of I-27 would be an undeniably excellent addition to the interstate system.

I agree with the notions in this thread that I-27 should be routed through Big Spring, San Angelo, and Junction, going south. This, IMHO, is the ideal routing of Interstate 27's southern extension.

I also agree that it would be a fantastic idea if I-27 was extended northward to Limon, Colorado, creating Denver-Amarillo and Denver-elsewhere corridors via I-70.

I would say an even I-x27 loop could work just fine for serving the Midland-Odessa Metro Area, but it probably isn't that necessary. Should the I-x27 not be built, I'm sure Midland/Odessa-bound motorists from Lubbock, Amarillo, and elsewhere would be fine taking US 62 and US 385 (divided highway), or I-27 South to I-20 West - correct me if I'm wrong, though. I do think a I-x27 loop could definitely be worthwhile. I would be less in favor of a suffixed I-27W & I-27E.


I also completely agree that all of US 287 from Amarillo to I-45 should be brought up to interstate standards, as something such as Interstate 32, as mentioned. That would also indeed be a nice addition to the interstate system.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 06:07:49 PM by adventurernumber1 »
Logged
Alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4938
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 10:47:26 PM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #84 on: January 13, 2017, 09:16:59 PM »

For this routing through Big Spring and San Angelo, what about traffic headed from Lubbock to El Paso?  Seems like a swing east to have it go the way it is proposed.

Not like this will ever happen, though.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Life in Paradise

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 237
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 11:58:01 AM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #85 on: January 13, 2017, 09:31:00 PM »

Big Spring is almost directly south of Lubbock.  US-87 swings west to go through Lamesa.  I-27 would just need to bypass to the east of Lamesa towards Big Spring.  That looks like a reasonable plan to me.
Logged

dfwmapper

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 651
  • Location: DFW
  • Last Login: September 12, 2019, 01:30:34 AM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #86 on: January 14, 2017, 01:23:51 AM »

For this routing through Big Spring and San Angelo, what about traffic headed from Lubbock to El Paso?  Seems like a swing east to have it go the way it is proposed.

Not like this will ever happen, though.
Lubbock to El Paso traffic is taking US 62 no matter where any potential I-27 extension goes. It's 4 lanes from Lubbock to where it crosses from New Mexico back into Texas, and is 2 lanes with frequent passing lanes (and just 2000-2500 AADT) from there until you drop out of the Hueco Mountains into the El Paso area where it goes back to 4. The Texas portions are mostly 75mph and most of NM is 70. Any all-Interstate route would be significantly longer and the slightly higher speed limits wouldn't make up for it.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1786
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 10:38:46 PM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #87 on: January 14, 2017, 04:10:31 PM »

Yeah, it would be way way out of the way for Lubbock traffic to go clear down to I-20 in the Midland-Odessa area and then head West toward El Paso. US-62 through Hobbs, Carlsbad and Guadalupe Peak is far more direct.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5914
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:44 AM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #88 on: January 14, 2017, 09:19:31 PM »

For this routing through Big Spring and San Angelo, what about traffic headed from Lubbock to El Paso?  Seems like a swing east to have it go the way it is proposed.

Not like this will ever happen, though.
Lubbock to El Paso traffic is taking US 62 no matter where any potential I-27 extension goes. It's 4 lanes from Lubbock to where it crosses from New Mexico back into Texas, and is 2 lanes with frequent passing lanes (and just 2000-2500 AADT) from there until you drop out of the Hueco Mountains into the El Paso area where it goes back to 4. The Texas portions are mostly 75mph and most of NM is 70. Any all-Interstate route would be significantly longer and the slightly higher speed limits wouldn't make up for it.
Yeah, it would be way way out of the way for Lubbock traffic to go clear down to I-20 in the Midland-Odessa area and then head West toward El Paso. US-62 through Hobbs, Carlsbad and Guadalupe Peak is far more direct.

Can't see a lot of commercial long-distance traffic between El Paso & Lubbock in any case; most TX distribution centers and container terminals are farther east, either along the I-35 corridor or in the Houston area.  This accounts for the high volume of truck traffic on US 84 between Roscoe/I-20 & Lubbock.  The present configuration of US 62 is more than adequate to handle the sort of traffic that route sees.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1786
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 10:38:46 PM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #89 on: January 14, 2017, 10:31:07 PM »

Longer distance traffic heading to/from Lubbock via points farther West than El Paso (cities in Arizona and California) would not even go through El Paso. It would pick up US-70 in Las Cruces, head NE to Alamogordo and then either through Roswell (US-70/US-380) or Artesia (US-82) on the way to Lubbock and then points farther East if necessary.

There is a lot of oil patch activity in far West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. Lots and lots of trucks out there in the Permian Basin.

This is all the more reason to keep any Southern extension of I-27 primarily directed through Big Spring and then San Angelo.
Logged

dfwmapper

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 651
  • Location: DFW
  • Last Login: September 12, 2019, 01:30:34 AM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #90 on: January 14, 2017, 11:30:07 PM »

There is a lot of oil patch activity in far West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. Lots and lots of trucks out there in the Permian Basin.
And the oil traffic doesn't need a new Interstate, it needs better maintenance of existing state highways, FM roads, and county roads that are getting beat to death by heavy trucks carrying the the oil.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1786
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 10:38:46 PM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #91 on: January 15, 2017, 01:35:49 AM »

Plus, all that oil patch truck traffic is mostly dispersed across many different roads. It does tend to funnel and concentrate into a few key spots where oil refineries are located. But such roads only need additional upgrades where the traffic is most concentrated.
Logged

aboges26

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 125
  • GIS Enthusiast / Canyon Country Adventurer

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Farmington, NM
  • Last Login: September 05, 2019, 10:15:33 PM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #92 on: January 17, 2017, 11:52:06 PM »

I would say an even I-x27 loop could work just fine for serving the Midland-Odessa Metro Area, but it probably isn't that necessary. Should the I-x27 not be built, I'm sure Midland/Odessa-bound motorists from Lubbock, Amarillo, and elsewhere would be fine taking US 62 and US 385 (divided highway), or I-27 South to I-20 West - correct me if I'm wrong, though. I do think a I-x27 loop could definitely be worthwhile. I would be less in favor of a suffixed I-27W & I-27E.

No.  US 62/385 has tons of towns along it and arcs too far to the west.  TX 349 south out of Lamesa is a 75 miles an hour road that goes through no towns whatsoever, so Lubbock and Amarillo traffic headed to Midland/Odessa, and points west will always take TX 349 over US 62/385.  The direct connection with no towns along its length will necessitate the need for an interstate spur should the I-27 south extension ever come to fruition, because this will be the most direct and quickest path.  Currently the road needs to become a 4 lane divided road connecting to a Lamesa bypass due to all the traffic that utilizes the roads, but the desire for a bypass is not there in Lamesa nor are the funds to significantly upgrade TX 349.
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 602
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Dona Ana NM/Tucson AZ
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 01:11:39 PM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #93 on: January 20, 2017, 09:56:59 PM »

Longer distance traffic heading to/from Lubbock via points farther West than El Paso (cities in Arizona and California) would not even go through El Paso. It would pick up US-70 in Las Cruces, head NE to Alamogordo and then either through Roswell (US-70/US-380) or Artesia (US-82) on the way to Lubbock and then points farther East if necessary.

There is a lot of oil patch activity in far West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. Lots and lots of trucks out there in the Permian Basin.

This is all the more reason to keep any Southern extension of I-27 primarily directed through Big Spring and then San Angelo.

Would suspect that they would "pick up" US 70 where it is not duplexed - on the western side of las Cruces, on I-10, exit 135.   
Logged

dfwmapper

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 651
  • Location: DFW
  • Last Login: September 12, 2019, 01:30:34 AM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #94 on: January 20, 2017, 11:38:53 PM »

Too many stoplights on US 70 through Las Cruces. Even though it adds 7 miles, taking I-10 and I-25 is a couple minutes faster at off-peak times and even better during peak times.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1786
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: September 17, 2019, 10:38:46 PM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #95 on: January 21, 2017, 02:16:29 AM »

Either way, that traffic from AZ & CA on I-10 headed to more Northeast destinations isn't going to go through El Paso. US-70 & US-380 through Alamogordo and Roswell is a pretty logical route.

A long time ago I had a fictional highway idea of I-44 going from Wichita Falls through Lubbock, Roswell and Alamogordo to I-10 in Las Cruces. That would have been another play off the kind of route US-66 ran in decades past (even though it took more of the I-40 corridor). I would be just as happy if I-44 was merely extended from Wichita Falls down to Abilene and I-20 (or maybe to San Angelo and a possible I-27 extension).
Logged

adventurernumber1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1603
  • David Carson

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Dalton, Georgia, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:31 AM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #96 on: January 22, 2017, 12:10:34 AM »

Either way, that traffic from AZ & CA on I-10 headed to more Northeast destinations isn't going to go through El Paso. US-70 & US-380 through Alamogordo and Roswell is a pretty logical route.

A long time ago I had a fictional highway idea of I-44 going from Wichita Falls through Lubbock, Roswell and Alamogordo to I-10 in Las Cruces. That would have been another play off the kind of route US-66 ran in decades past (even though it took more of the I-40 corridor). I would be just as happy if I-44 was merely extended from Wichita Falls down to Abilene and I-20 (or maybe to San Angelo and a possible I-27 extension).

I would completely support an I-44 extension. I've said Abilene is good, but San Angelo is even better. I think that I-44, I-27, and my proposed I-18 would make for a fantastic interstate system in San Angelo.
Logged
Alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 602
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Dona Ana NM/Tucson AZ
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 01:11:39 PM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #97 on: January 22, 2017, 01:00:02 PM »

Too many stoplights on US 70 through Las Cruces. Even though it adds 7 miles, taking I-10 and I-25 is a couple minutes faster at off-peak times and even better during peak times.

Meant that westbound freight from the Lubbock area would yes travel through El Paso (on US 62 / 180) and then use I-10 to the west side of las Cruces where US 70 would join I-10 on the west mesa above the Rio Grande Valley.   No other efficient way.  US 380-70 involves two mountain ranges, and possible hold ups crossing white sands missile range.  Loop 375 on the north side of El Paso features an 8% grade crossing the franklin mountain range and is not a credible class A trucking route, although it seems to be touted as one by texdot.   A second route "around" El Paso involves entering it on the east, via US 62 / 180, or I-10, then using the Loop (375) to the northeast side of El  Paso, then zig  zagging up to Anthony Gap in New Mexico to reach I-10 again. 
There is an effort underway to "strip" the US 70 route designation from the W. Picacho and N. Main St. corridors in las Cruces and to "stick" it on the Interstates south (I-10) and east (I-25) of town, which exists as a V shaped alignment.  The I-10 / I-25 interchange was reconstructed in 2012, to less than an ideal configuration.   Very indirect, but likely still faster than  traveling through town.  A limited access alignment, north of las Cruces, which should have been built in the 1965 - 1990 timeframe, could have carried an Interstate grade alignment for US 70 north of the city.  Believe that the US 70 / US 60 corridor between las Cruces and Amarillo was considered for inclusion in the 1968 additional Interstate mileage legislation, but political myopia prevented it  from happening.   
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 02:14:55 PM by DJStephens »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #98 on: November 17, 2017, 02:04:58 PM »

This article reports that a Texas legislator has filed a bill, HB 869, which would direct TxDOT to study the route.

This article reports that TxDOT will undergo a feasibility study for the I-27 extension from Lubbock to Laredo:

Quote
Efforts to extend Interstate 27 received a significant boost Thursday as the Texas Transportation Commission approved a plan that recommends feasibility study for extending I-27 from Lubbock to Laredo.
“This is a big step for Ports-to-Plains and our goal to extend I-27.
We commend the Transportation Commission and the Texas Freight Advisory Committee for recognizing that the Texas freight network has a significant gap without a major north-south interstate highway west of I-35, and taking action to meet the need,” said Lubbock Mayor and Ports-to-Plains Alliance Board Member Dan Pope ....
TxDOT has been working since August 2016 to develop the Texas Freight Mobility Plan (TFMP) 2017 that meets all Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act requirements. The first Texas Freight Mobility Plan was adopted by the Texas Transportation Commission in January 2016. In December 2015, MAP-21 (the former federal funding and authorization bill) was replaced by the FAST Act. The FAST Act provided a new freight focused funding program, the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP), and also created new requirements for state freight plans to have in place by December 2017 in order to qualify for the NHFP funding. These new requirements include: creation of Critical Rural Freight Corridors, creation of Critical Urban Freight Corridors, and development of a fiscally constrained freight investment plan.
A section of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor, US 87 between Big Spring and San Angelo, was designated as a Critical Rural Freight Corridor by the plan.
“It is rewarding to see TxDOT recognize how important the Ports-to-Plains Corridor is to the state. This is the result of years of hard work from several dedicated people. We also recognize that there is still more to be done and we look forward to working with TxDOT to make sure they have the resources necessary to fully implement this plan,” said Ports-to-Plains Alliance Chairman John Bertsch.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5914
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:44 AM
Re: Ports-to-Plains Corridor update
« Reply #99 on: November 17, 2017, 04:01:04 PM »

This article reports that a Texas legislator has filed a bill, HB 869, which would direct TxDOT to study the route.

This article reports that TxDOT will undergo a feasibility study for the I-27 extension from Lubbock to Laredo:

Quote
Efforts to extend Interstate 27 received a significant boost Thursday as the Texas Transportation Commission approved a plan that recommends feasibility study for extending I-27 from Lubbock to Laredo.
“This is a big step for Ports-to-Plains and our goal to extend I-27.
We commend the Transportation Commission and the Texas Freight Advisory Committee for recognizing that the Texas freight network has a significant gap without a major north-south interstate highway west of I-35, and taking action to meet the need,” said Lubbock Mayor and Ports-to-Plains Alliance Board Member Dan Pope ....
TxDOT has been working since August 2016 to develop the Texas Freight Mobility Plan (TFMP) 2017 that meets all Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act requirements. The first Texas Freight Mobility Plan was adopted by the Texas Transportation Commission in January 2016. In December 2015, MAP-21 (the former federal funding and authorization bill) was replaced by the FAST Act. The FAST Act provided a new freight focused funding program, the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP), and also created new requirements for state freight plans to have in place by December 2017 in order to qualify for the NHFP funding. These new requirements include: creation of Critical Rural Freight Corridors, creation of Critical Urban Freight Corridors, and development of a fiscally constrained freight investment plan.
A section of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor, US 87 between Big Spring and San Angelo, was designated as a Critical Rural Freight Corridor by the plan.
“It is rewarding to see TxDOT recognize how important the Ports-to-Plains Corridor is to the state. This is the result of years of hard work from several dedicated people. We also recognize that there is still more to be done and we look forward to working with TxDOT to make sure they have the resources necessary to fully implement this plan,” said Ports-to-Plains Alliance Chairman John Bertsch.

If the P-to-P, and ostensibly I-27 along for the ride, is indeed headed to Laredo via Big Spring and San Angelo (and probably via Del Rio en route southward), then that may have an effect on the push to route the I-14 corridor via San Angelo: it could either (a) take the wind out of the sails by causing San Angelo backers to refocus their efforts on the P-to-P, or (b) actually assist the I-14 "cause" by giving that route another corridor with which to connect in San Angelo -- but possibly delaying any extension over TX 158 to Midland/Odessa, since while shorter, the I-27 routing via Big Spring would function well as an Interstate-grade San Angelo-M/O connector for the time being (at least until M/O activists start whining, which in time is inevitable!).

IMO, it's about time some concrete activity toward the P-to-P took place; glad to hear TxDOT rather than some spurious regional politicos are taking the lead on this. 

 
Logged

 


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