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: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south  (Read 7366 times)

afguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 234
  • Location: Douglasville,GA
  • Last Login: July 04, 2020, 10:20:04 PM

Quote
he Lubbock City Council wants the federal government to extend Interstate 27.  A non-binding resolution addressed to both federal and state officials was on the City Council agenda for Tuesday.

One possible extension of I-27 from Lubbock to Laredo goes through Big Spring.  Another possibility takes I-27 though Midland.

“This resolution supports the designation of the extension of Interstate 27 as a future interstate by the U.S. Congress…” City of Lubbock records said.

“The proposed extension would connect Interstate 27 with the Interstates 20 and 10 in Texas,” the city said.  “Further, the eventual extension will serve three existing border crossings with Mexico and provide additional support to the energy and agricultural industries.”
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/lubbock-wants-to-take-interstate-27-south-much-further-south/1879134428
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3126
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 08:38:58 PM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2019, 07:03:06 PM »

waste of money.
Logged

noelbotevera

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3076
  • Now at a Redbox kiosk near you!

  • Age: 16
  • Location: Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
  • Last Login: Today at 02:55:07 AM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2019, 07:08:06 PM »

waste of money.
How else will the tumbleweeds migrate south for the winter? Texas winters are no laughing matter.
Logged
Doing things that nobody wants to do since 2004.
I was THE youngest forum member from May 14th, 2015 to September 25th, 2016.

I am the second Alex, since I currently use my father's name...

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2141
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 46
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 07:36:03 AM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2019, 09:53:13 PM »

Can't decide on Big Spring or Odessa/Midland?? You don't have too. Say hello to I-27E & I-27W!!!   :clap::-D :-D :pan:
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2914
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 01:04:47 AM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2019, 12:40:19 AM »

make the road to Abilene a freeway lol  make it go to Austin
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5589
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:24:24 AM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2019, 11:51:01 AM »

I just read that one part would take it to Laredo, to meet up with I-35, I-69 and I-2. Pretty soon, that small town on the Rio Grande will have lots more interstate choices instead of one!
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

longhorn

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 344
  • Last Login: July 06, 2020, 04:16:40 PM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2019, 12:05:13 PM »

Kind of makes sense, Hwy 84 is four lanes from Lubbock to Sweetwater.

Might relieve I35/hwy 287 of truck traffic too.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2151
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:36:04 PM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2019, 12:24:24 PM »

If the choice was up to me I would extend I-27 through Big Spring and down to San Angelo and then continue the diagonal direction to Junction, TX and I-10. That would create a larger Amarillo to San Antonio corridor. If I-27 was extended Northward up to Limon, CO and I-70 that would be an even bigger Denver to San Antonio corridor.

The San Angelo to Junction idea conflicts with the Ports to Plains Corridor concept of going straight South from San Angelo down to Del Rio, TX and the Mexican Border (and then farther South to Laredo and the Rio Grande Valley cities). But those plans, along with the I-69 extension, were drafted when lawmakers in Texas were all about free trade agreements like NAFTA. Now with protectionism and anti-immigrant furor dominating some political circles it's a tougher sell to build a highway the closely hugs the border.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11106
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 11:12:47 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2019, 12:46:01 PM »

Effectively, they're recommending/pushing that the Ports-to-Plains Corridor to the south become an I-27 extension.  The Corridor splits in the Lamesa vicinity, with one leg following TX 349 to Midland and the other leg continuing down US 87 to Big Spring and beyond.  The two legs rejoin near Sterling City (the Midland leg via TX 158).
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2510
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: March 12, 2020, 06:05:15 PM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2019, 02:19:18 PM »

I doubt Interstate 27 will be extended either northward or southward anytime soon, if ever. This is probably wishful thinking.
Logged

Chris

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2339
  • International road enthusiast

  • Age: 32
  • Location: the Netherlands
  • Last Login: Today at 03:19:31 AM
    • Flickr
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2019, 02:33:35 PM »

AADT figures from TxDOT (click to enlarge):



Of these corridors, only SH 349 is not a four lane divided highway, though it seems to be a 4-lane undivided highway for most of its length. The traffic volumes are more or less in the same range for these potential I-27 corridors, US 84 has consistent volumes near or over 10,000 vehicles per day, US 62/385 has a longer stretch with lower volumes halfway Lubbock and Odessa, but US 87 dips to the lowest volumes briefly south of Lamesa, at only 4,000 v.p.d.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2151
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:36:04 PM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2019, 02:46:11 PM »

Quote from: froggie
Effectively, they're recommending/pushing that the Ports-to-Plains Corridor to the south become an I-27 extension.  The Corridor splits in the Lamesa vicinity, with one leg following TX 349 to Midland and the other leg continuing down US 87 to Big Spring and beyond.  The two legs rejoin near Sterling City (the Midland leg via TX 158).

I wouldn't be opposed to a leg of I-27 going through Midland, upgrading the TX-349 and TX-158 corridors. Both roads are mostly undivided 4-lane now. They carry a quite a bit of heavy truck traffic, due in part to all the oil patch activity out there.

What I would not like: if a Southern extension of I-27 to Midland came at the expense of a more direct route going through Big Spring on to San Angelo.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster
I doubt Interstate 27 will be extended either northward or southward anytime soon, if ever. This is probably wishful thinking.

The Midland-Odessa area is currently growing pretty rapidly (along with several other urban/suburban areas in Texas). That's one factor that would favor extending I-27. The Front Range cities in Colorado have a lot of growth. US-287 is the only halfway decent North-South route in Eastern Colorado that bypasses the mountains to get down to Texas, Oklahoma, etc.

What hurts Texas is the state is so damn big and the state has multiple corridors deserving Interstate quality upgrades, such as US-287 between Amarillo and Dallas-Fort Worth. But there's only so much in the way of resources, even with a state population approaching 30 million. The limited focus going on outside of big metros seems to be focused on I-69 projects.

Quote from: Chris
Of these corridors, only SH 349 is not a four lane divided highway, though it seems to be a 4-lane undivided highway for most of its length. The traffic volumes are more or less in the same range for these potential I-27 corridors, US 84 has consistent volumes near or over 10,000 vehicles per day, US 62/385 has a longer stretch with lower volumes halfway Lubbock and Odessa, but US 87 dips to the lowest volumes briefly south of Lamesa, at only 4,000 v.p.d.

US-87 through Big Spring and San Angelo won't ever develop VPD counts typical of other Interstate highways in its current form. Long distance traffic coming up from other areas, such as San Antonio, will stick with other routes like I-35 and US-287 to get to places in the Texas Panhandle or Colorado Front Range. Build a through route that actually directly connects major destinations like Denver and San Antonio and those VPD counts will shoot up a bunch.
Logged

GreenLanternCorps

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 326
  • What's behind me, is not important!

  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ohio
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 05:42:38 PM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2019, 03:44:52 PM »

AADT figures from TxDOT (click to enlarge):



Of these corridors, only SH 349 is not a four lane divided highway, though it seems to be a 4-lane undivided highway for most of its length. The traffic volumes are more or less in the same range for these potential I-27 corridors, US 84 has consistent volumes near or over 10,000 vehicles per day, US 62/385 has a longer stretch with lower volumes halfway Lubbock and Odessa, but US 87 dips to the lowest volumes briefly south of Lamesa, at only 4,000 v.p.d.

How do those counts compare to I-27 North of Lubbock?
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12965
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 05:50:52 PM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2019, 04:06:14 PM »

How do those counts compare to I-27 North of Lubbock?

15490 @ FM-37
16195 @ I-27-BL (Plainview)
11770 @ FM-3183
11427 @ US-87 (Kress)
 9547 @ FM-928
 9518 @ SH-86
11310 @ FM-214
11151 @ FM-1881
10556 @ FM-285
11187 @ TX-217
11834 @ US-60 (Canyon)
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2914
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 01:04:47 AM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2019, 04:20:34 PM »

funny how they built I-27 so many years ago
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 700
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 03:22:28 PM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2019, 06:48:00 PM »

It would make more sense to terminate it at Del Rio near Laughlin AFB.

Its the last formal border crossing west up the Rio Grande before El Paso that can support trucks and commercial traffic.

Other than that, its doesnt seem viable.

They would be better off replacing the damaged rail bridge at Presidio so they can reconnect Texas Pacifico RR with the port of Topolobampo.

This will bring Asian container traffic directly through Texas instead of the congested port of Long Beach.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2151
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:36:04 PM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2019, 10:23:23 PM »

I wonder how port traffic at various places along the US coasts (Pacific, Gulf, Atlantic) has changed following the upgrade to the Panama Canal.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 700
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 03:22:28 PM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2019, 11:38:57 PM »

I wonder how port traffic at various places along the US coasts (Pacific, Gulf, Atlantic) has changed following the upgrade to the Panama Canal.

Only a few ports on the east coast upgraded to support Panamax ships. Port of Miami, NY-NJ and Virginia (Norfolk).

There are lots of ports that claim Panamax ability, like Jacksonville, FL, Charleston SC or Savannah GA, but they cannot take full loads due to lack of channel depth. 

All of them are fighting for federal dollars to upgrade and/or dredge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Panamax_port

Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6922
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:37:04 AM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2019, 02:55:47 AM »

Regardless of whether a I-27 southern extension uses US 87 via Big Spring or TX 349/158 via Midland (both of which are included in the current HPC #38 language), it's likely to do something like Bobby proposes, but via the proposed I-14 branch down US 83 from Eden to Junction.  Since the I-14 backers from San Angelo and M/O have a bit off a head start regarding PR and probable TXDOT cooperation, if the Lubbock concept indeed takes hold, the two promotional parties will likely sit down at some point and hash out just what'll go where, and what it will be numbered as.  Ironically, San Angelo, with its long history of whining about being excluded from the Interstate network, will have two corridor concepts to play with (and possibly play the parties against one another to maximize their benefits).  The argument will be whether to favor a concept that directs Lubbock and/or M/O traffic to San Antonio and, by extension, Corpus Christi -- or to Del Rio and Laredo en route to I-2 and the lower Rio Grande Valley.  Fancifully, it's Panamax vs. NAFTA; the Gulf of Mexico or Mexico itself (between Asian trade and cross-border commerce, it'd be difficult to determine which of these concepts the Trump administration would hold in greatest contempt!). 
Logged

index

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 637
  • Vintage tech connoisseur

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Indian Trail, N.C.
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 01:37:18 PM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2019, 08:18:29 AM »

Can't decide on Big Spring or Odessa/Midland?? You don't have too. Say hello to I-27E & I-27W!!!   :clap: :-D :-D :pan:


If I-27 is going to Laredo, and a suffixed Interstate was involved in this process the most sensible outcome would probably be a 27W spurring off to Odessa-Midland and the main 27 going off down to Laredo. Although don't see why a 3DI wouldn't do that job, but knowing what Texas pursued with I-69W/69C/69E, wouldn't be surprised if they took the suffixed option.
Logged
North Carolinian born in Fairfax Co, VA. Advocate for slapping an interstate over every freeway and US route corridor in NC.



State under shield (2DI/US only) = partial clinch.

Counties traveled (outdated)

Roadgeekteen

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5612
  • Interstates everywhere to everything

  • Age: 16
  • Location: boston metro area
  • Last Login: Today at 01:40:26 AM
    • old interstate plans
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2019, 08:39:43 AM »

I-27 always seemed like a dead end.
Logged
I'm a young roadgeek who has been interested in roads since I was a little kid.

New Interstate plans:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/edit?mid=1iR-EhsnAaBtsadqOPdZqMTHr17bKjNlB&ll=45.48421495543849%2C-76.02345977441325&z=7

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12965
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 05:50:52 PM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2019, 12:39:34 PM »

It would make more sense to terminate it at Del Rio near Laughlin AFB.

Its the last formal border crossing west up the Rio Grande before El Paso that can support trucks and commercial traffic.

When I've crossed the border at Del Rio, I've hardly seen any trucks at all.  Monclova and Sabinas just don't seem to be a big node for international commercial traffic.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6783
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: July 02, 2020, 11:47:55 PM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2019, 01:37:59 PM »

AADT figures from TxDOT (click to enlarge):
[Map snipped]

Those 3 highways barely warrant 4 lanes. 

Extending I-27 southward would be just another Vanity Interstate Highway.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Cotι, 2002)

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 700
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 03:22:28 PM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2019, 06:27:27 PM »

It would make more sense to terminate it at Del Rio near Laughlin AFB.

Its the last formal border crossing west up the Rio Grande before El Paso that can support trucks and commercial traffic.

When I've crossed the border at Del Rio, I've hardly seen any trucks at all.  Monclova and Sabinas just don't seem to be a big node for international commercial traffic.

Quote
The city of Mondova accounts for the highest production of steel of Mexico and Latin America, hence its nickname "The Steel Capital".

Today Monclova has one of the highest commercial, industrial and financial developments, and it is currently one of the cities with the lowest poverty rates in Mexico. Its metropolitan area is among the 10 most competitive urban areas in the country, and it also has the highest labor productivity

Honestly anything from there would no doubt cross at Piedras Negras.  Again pointing out that extending I-27 south of Lubbock isn't all that valuable.

Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12965
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 05:50:52 PM
Re: Lubbock wants to take Interstate 27 south – much further south
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2019, 01:21:10 PM »

It would make more sense to terminate it at Del Rio near Laughlin AFB.

Its the last formal border crossing west up the Rio Grande before El Paso that can support trucks and commercial traffic.

When I've crossed the border at Del Rio, I've hardly seen any trucks at all.  Monclova and Sabinas just don't seem to be a big node for international commercial traffic.

Quote
The city of Mondova accounts for the highest production of steel of Mexico and Latin America, hence its nickname "The Steel Capital".

Today Monclova has one of the highest commercial, industrial and financial developments, and it is currently one of the cities with the lowest poverty rates in Mexico. Its metropolitan area is among the 10 most competitive urban areas in the country, and it also has the highest labor productivity

Honestly anything from there would no doubt cross at Piedras Negras.  Again pointing out that extending I-27 south of Lubbock isn't all that valuable.

Commercial traffic I've seen between Monclova and Allende (where the highway splits to either Piedras or Acuρa) doesn't even come close to the amount of commrecial traffic I've seen between Monterrey and Laredo.  The trucks I have seen north of Monclova are generally junkier, short-haul rigs that by all appearances have both an origin and a destination within Mexico.  In contrast, trucks north of Monterrey are generally nice and shiny, and a lot of them sport US license plates on the trailer; some are even dual-plated tractors being driven by one of the remaining cross-border companies.

AADT between Allende and Piedras is 15,464 (on the north side of Nava).
AADT between Morelos and Acuρa doesn't even top 2,500.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

 


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.