TX: Ports to Plains corridor study

[sparker]

A lot of things have to happen in before any Interstate numbers can be discussed for a Dumas to Raton route. Again, I don't think that route is ever going to become an Interstate-class route. There just isn't enough traffic on it for one thing. If anything, TX DOT and NM DOT need to do more improvements on the existing road.

TX DOT needs to stop dragging its feet in regard to the segment of US-87 between Dumas and Hartley. That needs to be a proper 4-lane divided road. The current 2-lane/3-lane setup stinks. In New Mexico they need to do a lot more upgrade work on road beds between Clayton and Raton. A bunch of it is just asphalt with sub-standard shoulders. It would be nice if it was all concrete super-slab. They've upgraded some spots with concrete main lanes and asphalt shoulders. Anyway they have to do a lot more than that before talk about an Interstate designation can be serious.

Even if the Dumas to Raton segment could be upgraded to a full blown Interstate highway the route would be pretty short for a 2-digit designation. It's certainly not worthy at all of an I-50 designation. It's a toss-up whether it should be given a North-South or East-West designation. Most of the traffic on that route is traveling more North-South to their destinations. I think it would be just as good to give it an "I-27W" designation and have parent route keep its "I-27" name going North of Dumas to Kit Carson and Limon. "I-46" could be another possibility.

Not really a fan of "single-ended" suffixes branching off parents; that's so 1958!  Can grudgingly tolerate I-69's branches, since all terminate at/near a POE (just as I didn't mind the old I-70N/70S split to, respectively, Baltimore and D.C. before the mid-'70's -- another terminating and quite logical split).  But a I-27W from Dumas to Raton's a bit hinky -- seeing as how there's likely to be an additional one in TX with the Big Spring/Midland alternative routings.   As said before, I'd suggest I-46 or I-48 for that corridor branch.  It'll be about 165 miles long -- about the same as I-16, longer than I-4, and a little bit shorter than I-72 -- and it at least would exist within two states!

[Bobby5280]

I-27W or I-46 is a toss-up for that route.

Even though an "I-27W" designation going from Dumas to I-25 in Raton would seem very 1950's in route numbering style it would fit in better with the overall big picture design of the Ports to Plains Corridor. Dumas to Raton is a spur of that route. I-27 stands to be the main route designation or brand for the P2P. An I-27W designation for the Dumas to Raton spur would be a clear statement of that route's relationship with the larger P2P corridor.

At any rate, this discussion is academic. I think odds are exceedingly slim the Dumas to Raton route will ever become an Interstate. It's very likely any such highway upgrade efforts would meet very strong resistance in towns like Dalhart, Texline, Clayton, Des Moines and Capulin. Those last two, smallest towns might be a little more work-able at keeping freeway main lanes very close to the existing route, minimizing the swing a bypass usually takes around a town. In the cases of Dalhart, Texline and Clayton a freeway bypass would be unavoidable.

Even the proposed Northern extension of I-27 to Dumas is generating some concerns over what a bypass might do the town's economy. But Dumas is a big enough town with a diverse enough economy that an Interstate bypass would do more to help than hurt the local economy. Those other smaller towns along the way are more dependent on travelers stopping to fuel up and eat

[r15-1]

I-27W or I-46 is a toss-up for that route.

Even though an "I-27W" designation going from Dumas to I-25 in Raton would seem very 1950's in route numbering style it would fit in better with the overall big picture[/i] design of the Ports to Plains Corridor. Dumas to Raton is a spur of that route. I-27 stands to be the main route designation or brand for the P2P. An I-27W designation for the Dumas to Raton spur would be a clear statement of that route's relationship with the larger P2P corridor.

At any rate, this discussion is academic. I think odds are exceedingly slim the Dumas to Raton route will ever become an Interstate. It's very likely any such highway upgrade efforts would meet very strong resistance in towns like Dalhart, Texline, Clayton, Des Moines and Capulin. Those last two, smallest towns might be a little more work-able at keeping freeway main lanes very close to the existing route, minimizing the swing a bypass usually takes around a town. In the cases of Dalhart, Texline and Clayton a freeway bypass would be unavoidable.

Even the proposed Northern extension of I-27 to Dumas is generating some concerns over what a bypass might do the town's economy. But Dumas is a big enough town with a diverse enough economy that an Interstate bypass would do more to help than hurt the local economy. Those other smaller towns along the way are more dependent on travelers stopping to fuel up and eat

If US 287 from Fort Worth to Dumas and US 87 from Dumas to Raton would ever be upgraded to interstate standards, the much-discussed I-32 designation could be used. If I-27 continues north of Dumas, that would only be roughly a 46-mile I-27/I-32 duplex.

But I just don't see any of that happening for decades at least.

[sparker]

I-27W or I-46 is a toss-up for that route.

Even though an "I-27W" designation going from Dumas to I-25 in Raton would seem very 1950's in route numbering style it would fit in better with the overall big picture[/i] design of the Ports to Plains Corridor. Dumas to Raton is a spur of that route. I-27 stands to be the main route designation or brand for the P2P. An I-27W designation for the Dumas to Raton spur would be a clear statement of that route's relationship with the larger P2P corridor.

At any rate, this discussion is academic. I think odds are exceedingly slim the Dumas to Raton route will ever become an Interstate. It's very likely any such highway upgrade efforts would meet very strong resistance in towns like Dalhart, Texline, Clayton, Des Moines and Capulin. Those last two, smallest towns might be a little more work-able at keeping freeway main lanes very close to the existing route, minimizing the swing a bypass usually takes around a town. In the cases of Dalhart, Texline and Clayton a freeway bypass would be unavoidable.

Even the proposed Northern extension of I-27 to Dumas is generating some concerns over what a bypass might do the town's economy. But Dumas is a big enough town with a diverse enough economy that an Interstate bypass would do more to help than hurt the local economy. Those other smaller towns along the way are more dependent on travelers stopping to fuel up and eat

If US 287 from Fort Worth to Dumas and US 87 from Dumas to Raton would ever be upgraded to interstate standards, the much-discussed I-32 designation could be used. If I-27 continues north of Dumas, that would only be roughly a 46-mile I-27/I-32 duplex.

But I just don't see any of that happening for decades at least.

Well, let's see -- via current US 87, it's about 210 miles from Amarillo to I-25 at Raton.  Unless you've got a vehicle full of kids, and you're smart enough to fill the tank at/near a major city, there's not much of a reason for stopping (OK, to pee!) anywhere along the route between those places; and if an Interstate were to be built, it would likely have at least one bidirectional rest area in the Dumas-Raton stretch.  And if a trucker is accustomed to a particular place to stop, they'd just get off the Interstate to do so.  In reality, it's rarely a major blow to towns to lose the little pass-through business they manage to glean.  They're where they are to serve the local agricultural or mineral extraction businesses; that rationale predates even the 4-laning of the major arteries (inexplicably excepting US 87 from Dumas to Hartley); they'll serve that purpose if and when an Interstate comes calling. 

And while I wholeheartedly agree about US 287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth being one of the region's overlooked corridors in terms of Interstate consideration, if the P2P proposal is formally adopted and funded in a reasonable time frame there might not be the political and/or funding bandwidth to accommodate that particular corridor for some time to come.  The focus will be concentrated on the N-S aspect, since it benefits West Texas as well as the Panhandle.   But if one of the byproducts of the P2P/I-27 project is increased traffic, particularly the commercial variety, on US 287 southeast of Amarillo, that focus could certainly shift after the initial effort is largely complete. 

[Bobby5280]

Well, let's see -- via current US 87, it's about 210 miles from Amarillo to I-25 at Raton. Unless you've got a vehicle full of kids, and you're smart enough to fill the tank at/near a major city, there's not much of a reason for stopping (OK, to pee!) anywhere along the route between those places; and if an Interstate were to be built, it would likely have at least one bidirectional rest area in the Dumas-Raton stretch. And if a trucker is accustomed to a particular place to stop, they'd just get off the Interstate to do so. In reality, it's rarely a major blow to towns to lose the little pass-through business they manage to glean. They're where they are to serve the local agricultural or mineral extraction businesses; that rationale predates even the 4-laning of the major arteries (inexplicably excepting US 87 from Dumas to Hartley); they'll serve that purpose if and when an Interstate comes calling.

In the case of Clayton the town is more reliant now on business from motorists passing through town than in the past. A number of employers have left the area, such as a Dr Pepper bottling plant. Around 10 years ago a large feed lot on the NW side of town closed. My nostrils are thankful for that. In the early 2000's and before when the feed lot was operating at full capacity the stink would be powerful, especially with a north breeze blowing the aroma toward the highway. Anyway, aside from ranching, there isn't a whole lot in the way of employers there.

On my own trips through that area I typically top off my tank in Dumas. That's the last place on my way from Oklahoma to Colorado where the fuel prices are relatively low. The prices jump a good bit when you get to Dalhart and higher in Clayton. Prices are even higher in places like Des Moines, NM. The Loves store in Clayton is a decent place to get snacks, a soft drink or make a pit stop. There are other places in Clayton where people can dine or even see a movie. There is a rest area by Mount Dora for motorists wanting a bathroom break without the temptations to buy a bunch of stuff.

If an Interstate bypass was built around Clayton it would definitely hurt the local economy there in the first several years or more after such a bypass were to open. Service businesses, such as that big Love's location, would have to re-locate near the Interstate exits.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unless NM, via their congressional delegation, presses for I-27 to come their way via US 87, there's better than even odds that the Interstate-designated portion of the P2P will simply maintain its northward trek up US 287 toward Limon; as a commercial traffic destination, Denver outstrips the more southerly Front Range cities (i.e. Pueblo and the Springs) in terms of being a regional hub.  If the trucking industry chimes in about this, it's probably going to be overwhelmingly favoring that corridor option simply because it avoids Raton Pass as well as congestion in the Springs and Pueblo on I-25.  Also, it's likely that the present divided US 64/87 route in NM will require a comprehensive rebuild before approaching Interstate standards; so the roughly 100 mile difference between a terminus in Raton and one in Limon (this is assuming some mild "corner-cutting" at Kit Carson) may not be a particularly onerous obstacle. 

Nevertheless, as of late neither NM nor CO have shown much interest in new Interstate corridors; it will probably take a significantly higher portion of the bill to be assumed at the federal level to garner support from and within those states.  Also, if the eastern/Limon option is selected, OK would likely want to see virtually negligible state outlay for the portion passing through their Panhandle, since there would be limited state benefits accruing from such a project.     

[DJStephens]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unless NM, via their congressional delegation, presses for I-27 to come their way via US 87, there's better than even odds that the Interstate-designated portion of the P2P will simply maintain its northward trek up US 287 toward Limon; as a commercial traffic destination, Denver outstrips the more southerly Front Range cities (i.e. Pueblo and the Springs) in terms of being a regional hub.  If the trucking industry chimes in about this, it's probably going to be overwhelmingly favoring that corridor option simply because it avoids Raton Pass as well as congestion in the Springs and Pueblo on I-25.  Also, it's likely that the present divided US 64/87 route in NM will require a comprehensive rebuild before approaching Interstate standards; so the roughly 100 mile difference between a terminus in Raton and one in Limon (this is assuming some mild "corner-cutting" at Kit Carson) may not be a particularly onerous obstacle. 

Nevertheless, as of late neither NM nor CO have shown much interest in new Interstate corridors; it will probably take a significantly higher portion of the bill to be assumed at the federal level to garner support from and within those states.  Also, if the eastern/Limon option is selected, OK would likely want to see virtually negligible state outlay for the portion passing through their Panhandle, since there would be limited state benefits accruing from such a project.     

In short, simply not happening.  There is no appetite in the state of NM to even maintain current basic conditions.  Surface pavements are falling apart statewide.  Fog seals are currently being sprayed on major highways, in an attempt to forestall failure.  Leave it long enough, and then you have a full depth reconstruction on your hands involving the subgrade.   In many areas, it is obvious the underlying basecourse is compromised.  Design standards have been in the toilet,  circling the bowl, for close to forty years.   
Over a BILLION dollars have been spent on three "pet" projects - a spaceport, a train, and most recently a fantasy bus lane on Central Ave in Albuquerque.  All three benefit a handful of rich, elites, or celebrities.   Tiny numbers benefit, in terms of the total outlay spent.   

[Bobby5280]

All those realities are duly noted, adding to why I said this scenario is academic earlier. The federal government would literally have to come in and fully fund as well as oversee such an Interstate upgrade project. Even in that unlikely event the towns along US-64/87 would likely be very opposed to such a project.

I'm just praying US-64/87 between Texline and Raton doesn't completely fall apart anytime soon. Parts of it do need attention unfortunately. I don't like taking US-287 up into Colorado to get to Colorado Springs. It's well out of the way and there is a decent number of cattle processing plants and feed lots along US-287 North of Dumas going into Oklahoma. And the 2-lane route North of Boise City is not very safe.

[sparker]

All those realities are duly noted, adding to why I said this scenario is academic earlier. The federal government would literally have to come in and fully fund as well as oversee such an Interstate upgrade project. Even in that unlikely event the towns along US-64/87 would likely be very opposed to such a project.

I'm just praying US-64/87 between Texline and Raton doesn't completely fall apart anytime soon. Parts of it do need attention unfortunately. I don't like taking US-287 up into Colorado to get to Colorado Springs. It's well out of the way and there is a decent number of cattle processing plants and feed lots along US-287 North of Dumas going into Oklahoma. And the 2-lane route North of Boise City is not very safe.

It'll be very interesting to see how the P2P authorizing legislation wrings out -- whether the actual I-27 designation extends past the TX state line -- or even north of Amarillo -- since the TX priorities seem to center around the portion from Laredo through the Permian Basin (the region likely to express political support for "all-out" corridor development).  I concur that NM is probably out of the picture unless overt public and official support -- emanating from NM parties -- for a Raton corridor becomes overwhelming, something that is unlikely to occur anytime soon.  But if the corridor does strike out north along US 287, it may be the case that OK and CO get drawn into the process kicking and screaming about (a) having to pony up funds for internal TX prioritizations, and (b, specifically in the case of CO) countering the state's public "green" persona by accepting a new Interstate corridor, even in the "forgotten" (read not conducive to recreational and/or tourist activity) part of the state.  Now -- it could be that any infrastructure initiatives by or during the Biden administration may have to suck it up and include a substantial number of road projects, particularly those benefiting "red states", to gain political support for a more "omnibus" bill also addressing urban transit needs.  If that proves to be the case, expect some expediting "earmarked" funding for corridors such as P2P as well as currently drawn-out development of I-49, I-69, and maybe even I-14 if there's budgetary room.  And to make the projects more palatable to the states, money-wise, it wouldn't be surprising to see the federal share start creeping up toward the original chargeable Interstate level of 90%, which would make budget-strapped states somewhat more amenable to new corridor development efforts. 

[Bobby5280]

It'll be very interesting to see how the P2P authorizing legislation wrings out -- whether the actual I-27 designation extends past the TX state line -- or even north of Amarillo -- since the TX priorities seem to center around the portion from Laredo through the Permian Basin (the region likely to express political support for "all-out" corridor development).

There has been some buzz in the past several years (and even public meetings) about I-27 possibly going North from Amarillo to Dumas and points beyond. The upgrade from the North side of Amarillo up to the Southern edge of Dumas would be relatively easy. The same is true for the segment of US-287 from Dumas up to Stratford.

People in Dumas are generally on board with at least getting some kind of relief truck route built as soon as possible. The amount of heavy trucks on Dumas Ave (US-287) is creating safety issues and adversely affecting business. Still there are fears a relief route will work as a double edge sword, putting areas in the center of town at risk of seeing business activity dry up.

Another bypass (albeit smaller) would have to be built around Stratford. North of Stratford US-287 drops down to a 2-lane route and pretty much stays that way clear to Limon, CO and I-70. US-287 widens into 4-lanes for only brief bits in Springfield and Lamar.

Regarding Oklahoma's short 40 mile segment of the Ports to Plains Corridor, yeah, I think the feds would have to pony up a lot of funding to help get that leg built. Oklahoma has a lot of other priorities in other areas of the state with far higher population numbers. Boise City has only around 1100 residents. US-287 already has a pseudo Super 2 bypass around the East side of Boise City. It would be fairly easy to upgrade that stretch of road to Interstate standards. I think the biggest challenge out there is maintaining farm/ranch access to the lands out there.

Even though the Oklahoma Panhandle is very sparsely populated I can recall seeing a conceptual map from the OTA showing possible future turnpikes. That map included one running from the OKC area to Woodward, Guymon and Boise City. If I-27 went through Boise City it could light a fire under OTA to revisit such a plan. Given the OTA's bond situation, such a road might have to be built first as a Super-2 turnpike and then upgraded later.

[MikieTimT]

Regarding Oklahoma's short 40 mile segment of the Ports to Plains Corridor, yeah, I think the feds would have to pony up a lot of funding to help get that leg built. Oklahoma has a lot of other priorities in other areas of the state with far higher population numbers. Boise City has only around 1100 residents. US-287 already has a pseudo Super 2 bypass around the East side of Boise City. It would be fairly easy to upgrade that stretch of road to Interstate standards. I think the biggest challenge out there is maintaining farm/ranch access to the lands out there.

That wouldn't stop an Interstate designation.  I-40 in west Texas and I-555 in Arkansas are certainly poster children for maintaining access without the cost of access roads.  An I-27 wouldn't have the traffic of either of those roads, so it shouldn't be much of an impediment.

[kphoger]

That wouldn't stop an Interstate designation.  I-40 in west Texas and I-555 in Arkansas are certainly poster children for maintaining access without the cost of access roads.  An I-27 wouldn't have the traffic of either of those roads, so it shouldn't be much of an impediment.

I'm not so sure that, just because there exist some places where ranch traffic access is maintained, that means such "shouldn't be much of an impediment".

[Plutonic Panda]

Let's not build anymore interstates with at grade access please. I don't care if it is only one car a day. Standards should be held.

[sparker]

Even though the Oklahoma Panhandle is very sparsely populated I can recall seeing a conceptual map from the OTA showing possible future turnpikes. That map included one running from the OKC area to Woodward, Guymon and Boise City. If I-27 went through Boise City it could light a fire under OTA to revisit such a plan. Given the OTA's bond situation, such a road might have to be built first as a Super-2 turnpike and then upgraded later.

I don't know how much call there is for an additional turnpike heading NW (ostensibly more or less along OK 3 and then US 412) from OKC to the Panhandle, but another possibility would be a straightforward western extension of the Cimarron Turnpike along 412 out to Boise City (something more approaching a statewide "grid pattern" rather than a radial layout.  Not to get too fictional here, but that (eventually) could be the long-sought I-50 that gets bandied about repeatedly -- maybe extending all the way to I-49 in AR -- or, fancifully, west via Clayton, NM to Raton.  But ODOT and their state legislative & executive handlers would have to get some semblance of their shit together first -- and if they've been unable to do so regarding other in-state corridors with more pressing needs (and we know what those are!), the prospects don't look particularly good. 

[abqtraveler]

That wouldn't stop an Interstate designation.  I-40 in west Texas and I-555 in Arkansas are certainly poster children for maintaining access without the cost of access roads.  An I-27 wouldn't have the traffic of either of those roads, so it shouldn't be much of an impediment.

I'm not so sure that, just because there exist some places where ranch traffic access is maintained, that means such "shouldn't be much of an impediment".

Those ranch accesses west of Amarillo and west of Albuquerque were on stretches of I-40 that were previously 4-lane divided sections of US-66. They were grandfathered when they were added to the interstate system in the '60s. They won't be able to get away with that today.

[rte66man]

All those realities are duly noted, adding to why I said this scenario is academic earlier. The federal government would literally have to come in and fully fund as well as oversee such an Interstate upgrade project. Even in that unlikely event the towns along US-64/87 would likely be very opposed to such a project.

I'm just praying US-64/87 between Texline and Raton doesn't completely fall apart anytime soon. Parts of it do need attention unfortunately. I don't like taking US-287 up into Colorado to get to Colorado Springs. It's well out of the way and there is a decent number of cattle processing plants and feed lots along US-287 North of Dumas going into Oklahoma. And the 2-lane route North of Boise City is not very safe.

It'll be very interesting to see how the P2P authorizing legislation wrings out -- whether the actual I-27 designation extends past the TX state line -- or even north of Amarillo -- since the TX priorities seem to center around the portion from Laredo through the Permian Basin (the region likely to express political support for "all-out" corridor development).  I concur that NM is probably out of the picture unless overt public and official support -- emanating from NM parties -- for a Raton corridor becomes overwhelming, something that is unlikely to occur anytime soon.  But if the corridor does strike out north along US 287, it may be the case that OK and CO get drawn into the process kicking and screaming about (a) having to pony up funds for internal TX prioritizations, and (b, specifically in the case of CO) countering the state's public "green" persona by accepting a new Interstate corridor, even in the "forgotten" (read not conducive to recreational and/or tourist activity) part of the state.  Now -- it could be that any infrastructure initiatives by or during the Biden administration may have to suck it up and include a substantial number of road projects, particularly those benefiting "red states", to gain political support for a more "omnibus" bill also addressing urban transit needs.  If that proves to be the case, expect some expediting "earmarked" funding for corridors such as P2P as well as currently drawn-out development of I-49, I-69, and maybe even I-14 if there's budgetary room.  And to make the projects more palatable to the states, money-wise, it wouldn't be surprising to see the federal share start creeping up toward the original chargeable Interstate level of 90%, which would make budget-strapped states somewhat more amenable to new corridor development efforts. 

Major improvements for 287 running south from the OK/CO border are scheduled for next year on the ODOT 8-Year plan:
https://www.odot.org/cwp-8-year-plan/cwp_ffy2021-ffy2028/8_year_cwp_division6_map.pdf

Hopefully some of Bobby's safety concerns will be addressed.

As far as making it a part of any future interstate, ODOT has a less than 1% interest on that. As mentioned many times above, ODOT priorities are a) getting back their "stolen" dedicated funds that the Legislature divereted and b) completing the major progress on improving our once terrible bridges.

[bwana39]

I think we are trying to overthink this.

Everyone seems to want to read Ports to Plains INTERSTATE corridor.

I personally think that a fully controlled access corridor there is not needed. A four-lane-divided highway would suffice in the rural areas. Controlled access loops around (or through) most of the cities and towns would keep traffic flowing at road speeds. There would need to be grade separation at MAJOR intersections. This would make it a much more drivable route at a far lower price point.

The real issue is getting the roadways outside the small towns.  US-287 between Decatur and Amarillo is a key point. The traffic flows well on the Rural Divided Highway. Then it comes to a creep through small towns like Vernon, Childress, Electra, etc.

The study has a broad scope. They can propose building anything from NOTHING at all additional to a fully controlled access interstate facility with full through service roads.  I know there are budget hawks and transportation haters who would prefer the no-build. There are those who will shoot for the moon. What is the right choice for Texas? What is the right choice for the US transportation grid.

[sprjus4]

I say focus on four lane widening and town bypasses to provide an "expressway" corridor with 65+ mph speed limits, no traffic signals, 4 lanes, etc., then later focus towards interstate upgrades along rural portions of the corridor with frontage roads and minor grade separations and interchanges.

The portion of the corridor in Texas will most likely be built as I-27 to interstate standards. Not sure about north of there.

[sparker]

I think we are trying to overthink this.

Everyone seems to want to read Ports to Plains INTERSTATE corridor.

I personally think that a fully controlled access corridor there is not needed. A four-lane-divided highway would suffice in the rural areas. Controlled access loops around (or through) most of the cities and towns would keep traffic flowing at road speeds. There would need to be grade separation at MAJOR intersections. This would make it a much more drivable route at a far lower price point.

The real issue is getting the roadways outside the small towns.  US-287 between Decatur and Amarillo is a key point. The traffic flows well on the Rural Divided Highway. Then it comes to a creep through small towns like Vernon, Childress, Electra, etc.

The study has a broad scope. They can propose building anything from NOTHING at all additional to a fully controlled access interstate facility with full through service roads.  I know there are budget hawks and transportation haters who would prefer the no-build. There are those who will shoot for the moon. What is the right choice for Texas? What is the right choice for the US transportation grid.

I say focus on four lane widening and town bypasses to provide an "expressway" corridor with 65+ mph speed limits, no traffic signals, 4 lanes, etc., then later focus towards interstate upgrades along rural portions of the corridor with frontage roads and minor grade separations and interchanges.

The portion of the corridor in Texas will most likely be built as I-27 to interstate standards. Not sure about north of there.

It's almost a dead-shot certainty that the P2P will be Interstate standard at least from Laredo to Amarillo; that's something on which both the backers and TxDOT will concur.  Almost as certain is the remainder in the Panhandle, regardless of whether it turns west toward NM or continues north toward eastern CO via a bit of OK; the I-27 designation will, as per practice over the last 20 years, be appended to the authorizing legislation.  Now -- whether the other states involved here will accede to that standard has yet TBD; it could be that once out of TX the corridor ceases being signed as I-27 and will be, at least initially, at expressway standard: 2-or-4 lane or a combination of both -- or a variation of the "midwest" approach of freeway bypasses around significant towns, interchanges at major crossing routes, and the rest expressway with at-grade intersections as needed.  But it'll probably be upgradeable (hopefully not a series of commercial "5-lane" strips) so when and if OK and CO elect to go the Interstate route, it can be expanded as such.  I don't see anything north of I-70 advancing beyond the expressway stage in the foreseeable future; the traffic and need just aren't there. 

But then TX folks might do a decent sales (naysayers may say "con") job in regards to their OK and CO counterparts, and in relatively short time there will be a completed & signed I-27 from Laredo to Limon.  Never can tell about these things until the dust clears!   

[Scott5114]

It would make the most sense for Oklahoma to build a US-287 turnpike. After all, most of the traffic is pass-through and the only Oklahoma residents it would benefit are basically only the residents of Boise City. Ideal situation for collecting maintenance funds from the people that use it and not requiring the folks from the body of the state to foot the bill.

Even though the Oklahoma Panhandle is very sparsely populated I can recall seeing a conceptual map from the OTA showing possible future turnpikes. That map included one running from the OKC area to Woodward, Guymon and Boise City. If I-27 went through Boise City it could light a fire under OTA to revisit such a plan. Given the OTA's bond situation, such a road might have to be built first as a Super-2 turnpike and then upgraded later.

I don't know how much call there is for an additional turnpike heading NW (ostensibly more or less along OK 3 and then US 412) from OKC to the Panhandle, but another possibility would be a straightforward western extension of the Cimarron Turnpike along 412 out to Boise City (something more approaching a statewide "grid pattern" rather than a radial layout.

Problem is the state's largest metro area smack-dab in the center of the state, so if you want to maximize traffic on the new road, a diagonal is the best way to go about that. A Cimarron Turnpike extension would benefit traffic coming from the Tulsa area, but nobody from OKC would use it, instead sticking to SH-3 and friends.

But ODOT and their state legislative & executive handlers would have to get some semblance of their shit together first -- and if they've been unable to do so regarding other in-state corridors with more pressing needs (and we know what those are!), the prospects don't look particularly good. 

You really want OTA to get their shit together, not ODOT–they are separate agencies, which is important because OTA has bonding authority whereas ODOT is constitutionally prohibited from having it. Not that OTA ever really has its shit together in any meaningful way other than financially. They're basically like ODOT's rich twin brother.

[Bobby5280]

I don't know how much call there is for an additional turnpike heading NW (ostensibly more or less along OK 3 and then US 412) from OKC to the Panhandle, but another possibility would be a straightforward western extension of the Cimarron Turnpike along 412 out to Boise City (something more approaching a statewide "grid pattern" rather than a radial layout.

The grid-like layout of roads in Northern Oklahoma, Western Kansas and Eastern Colorado is part of what makes that region of the national highway system really suck. No one from the Oklahoma City area would take I-35 up to the US-412 junction near Enid and then take a turnpike West to Woodward or farther. It's a big "L" shape. OKC traffic would stick to OK-3. Tulsa is the only big metro in the state that would derive any benefit from an upgrade of US-412.

OKC is a big enough metro and big enough national highway hub that additional radial spokes would be justified. Just like I-44 goes from OKC to St Louis I believe there should be a similar diagonal route going from OKC to Denver. Shorter diagonal turnpikes from OKC to Woodward would be more difficult to justify. Woodward is not a major destination and doesn't generate a great deal of traffic on its own between OKC. About the best anyone can hope for is OK-3 being four-laned from OKC to Woodward. If a turnpike from OKC to Woodward was ever built hopefully it would run on a more direct path from Okarche to Watonga. But it's still likely such a thing would be built as a less expensive Super 2 turnpike rather than something fully Interstate quality.

Without any organized efforts such as the Ports to Plains Corridor initiative US-287 in Eastern Colorado would have zero hope of seeing any highway upgrades. Traffic on the current 2-lane route is fairly low. But a pretty significant amount of that traffic is heavy trucks.

Major improvements for 287 running south from the OK/CO border are scheduled for next year on the ODOT 8-Year plan:
https://www.odot.org/cwp-8-year-plan/cwp_ffy2021-ffy2028/8_year_cwp_division6_map.pdf

I can't tell from the map what the upgrades specifically involve. The road is going to be widened, but widened into what? One of my girlfriend's female friends was killed in a head-on collision with a semi on US-287 in that border zone. I'd bet that's not the only fatal collision that has happened out there. Obviously I think US-287 through that zone should be nothing less than a divided 4-lane route with a median and/or some kind of hard physical barrier. I would be disappointed if the upgrade ended up being a single roadway striped with 4 lanes and no barrier other than a double yellow line. An undivided 3-lane road would be even worse.

The real issue is getting the roadways outside the small towns.  US-287 between Decatur and Amarillo is a key point. The traffic flows well on the Rural Divided Highway. Then it comes to a creep through small towns like Vernon, Childress, Electra, etc.

I don't think US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth is part of the Ports to Plains Corridor. Nevertheless, that is a busy enough route to warrant a full blown Interstate upgrade. I couldn't believe the amount of trucks on the route a couple weeks ago when I drove down to DFW. US-287 from I-35W to TX-114 is long overdue for a full Interstate upgrade. US-287 needs to be Interstate quality all the way through Decatur. That zone is really becoming a mess.

US-287 North of Amarillo is more difficult to justify in terms of Interstate upgrades. I think an extension of I-27 South of Lubbock is worthy. TX DOT really needs to do a lot of work out in the Permian Basin region. I'm pretty sure once the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic dies down the oil business is going to be going full blast out there once again. There is a lot of heavy truck traffic out there. Then there is the issue that West Texas has a number of cities along the US-87 corridor that are significant in size. Laredo has a quarter million people. Midland-Odessa is a big enough location on its own to deserve an Interstate link to Lubbock, along with other highway improvements. Big Spring and San Angelo are decent sized cities on their own and on the main P2P road.

[bwana39]

I think we are trying to overthink this.

Everyone seems to want to read Ports to Plains INTERSTATE corridor.

I personally think that a fully controlled access corridor there is not needed. A four-lane-divided highway would suffice in the rural areas. Controlled access loops around (or through) most of the cities and towns would keep traffic flowing at road speeds. There would need to be grade separation at MAJOR intersections. This would make it a much more drivable route at a far lower price point.

The real issue is getting the roadways outside the small towns.  US-287 between Decatur and Amarillo is a key point. The traffic flows well on the Rural Divided Highway. Then it comes to a creep through small towns like Vernon, Childress, Electra, etc.

The study has a broad scope. They can propose building anything from NOTHING at all additional to a fully controlled access interstate facility with full through service roads.  I know there are budget hawks and transportation haters who would prefer the no-build. There are those who will shoot for the moon. What is the right choice for Texas? What is the right choice for the US transportation grid.

I say focus on four lane widening and town bypasses to provide an "expressway" corridor with 65+ mph speed limits, no traffic signals, 4 lanes, etc., then later focus towards interstate upgrades along rural portions of the corridor with frontage roads and minor grade separations and interchanges.

The portion of the corridor in Texas will most likely be built as I-27 to interstate standards. Not sure about north of there.

It's almost a dead-shot certainty that the P2P will be Interstate standard at least from Laredo to Amarillo; that's something on which both the backers and TxDOT will concur.  Almost as certain is the remainder in the Panhandle, regardless of whether it turns west toward NM or continues north toward eastern CO via a bit of OK; the I-27 designation will, as per practice over the last 20 years, be appended to the authorizing legislation.  Now -- whether the other states involved here will accede to that standard has yet TBD; it could be that once out of TX the corridor ceases being signed as I-27 and will be, at least initially, at expressway standard: 2-or-4 lane or a combination of both -- or a variation of the "midwest" approach of freeway bypasses around significant towns, interchanges at major crossing routes, and the rest expressway with at-grade intersections as needed.  But it'll probably be upgradeable (hopefully not a series of commercial "5-lane" strips) so when and if OK and CO elect to go the Interstate route, it can be expanded as such.  I don't see anything north of I-70 advancing beyond the expressway stage in the foreseeable future; the traffic and need just aren't there. 

But then TX folks might do a decent sales (naysayers may say "con") job in regards to their OK and CO counterparts, and in relatively short time there will be a completed & signed I-27 from Laredo to Limon.  Never can tell about these things until the dust clears!   

I am afraid you are right that it will be built to Interstate Standards. IF it is EVER built. The best estimate for a significant start is 2035. Building a road (or roads) that will travel at 65 to 75 MPH everywhere can be done in the next 15 years for as little as 45% of the interstate cost.

I will add this. I am not even sure that the traffic volume can EVER justify this (proposed) interstate. It would go from the Gulf (more or less) to the area of the US with the lowest population density.  All it can possibly accomplish north of Amarillo is to supplant rail carriage for farm goods.

[Scott5114]

OKC is a big enough metro and big enough national highway hub that additional radial spokes would be justified. Just like I-44 goes from OKC to St Louis I believe there should be a similar diagonal route going from OKC to Denver. Shorter diagonal turnpikes from OKC to Woodward would be more difficult to justify. Woodward is not a major destination and doesn't generate a great deal of traffic on its own between OKC. About the best anyone can hope for is OK-3 being four-laned from OKC to Woodward. If a turnpike from OKC to Woodward was ever built hopefully it would run on a more direct path from Okarche to Watona. But it's still likely such a thing would be built as a less expensive Super 2 turnpike rather than something fully Interstate quality.

A turnpike to Woodward (or more accurately for what I'm about to say, to Fort Supply) may not bring people all the way to their destination, but it would at least bring them to a spot where portions of the traffic goes their separate ways to western Kansas or continue on down the panhandle toward Denver.

If you're wanting to facilitate Denver-OKC traffic, it may be better later on to extend the turnpike to somewhere it could turn north and enter Colorado without clipping the corner of Kansas. Southwest Kansas wouldn't benefit much from a Denver-OKC freeway, so it could make it more buildable to just leave them out of the loop, even though that would increase the mileage somewhat. ETA: The other option, going through SW KS, would probably involve using US-183 to K-23 to US-50/400, then cut northwest at Garden City and cross into Colorado west of Tribune. That would at least make it worth it for Kansas to get involved, as it'd serve the two biggish cities in that part of the state (Garden and Dodge City).

[Plutonic Panda]

No more toll roads in Oklahoma please.

[Scott5114]

No more toll roads in Oklahoma please.

The only way to get anything done in a timely manner is toll roads, unless somehow we get a state constitutional amendment passed to give ODOT bonding power.

I don't mind toll roads so much because I don't have to go anywhere that requires using them on a regular basis, and our state highway system is robust enough that they can be bypassed on conventional roads if you just don't feel like paying.