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: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed  (Read 31007 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6920
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:54:29 AM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #75 on: March 09, 2020, 02:47:57 AM »

When can we expect the stack interchanges at I-40 to get underway?

If what TxDOT did with the US 87 Big Springs bypass at I-20 is any indication, they may cheap out and simply do a volleyball with 40/335. 
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1281
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: July 02, 2020, 04:02:13 PM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #76 on: March 09, 2020, 03:49:42 AM »

Now I had thought that two four level interchanges were planned at each junction of the entire loop which intersects with I-40 twice.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6920
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:54:29 AM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #77 on: March 09, 2020, 01:45:41 PM »

Now I had thought that two four level interchanges were planned at each junction of the entire loop which intersects with I-40 twice.

If so, that would be outstanding!   TxDOT seems to have a binary view of such interchanges -- do it on the cheap, such as the volleyballs such as mentioned above or the I-35/US 190 facility in Temple or the I-27/Loop 289 one north of Lubbock -- or, alternately, a full stack.  But up until now, they seem to have mostly reserved their stack plans for larger urban areas (DFW, Houston, El Paso); if they're planning a couple for the Amarillo loop, it'll be breaking with their usual pattern -- and may give a hint to the ultimate configuration of Loop 335.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2151
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:36:04 PM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #78 on: March 09, 2020, 03:11:18 PM »

In the near term I would expect the Loop 335 project to have volleyball interchanges initially where the road crosses I-40 (twice), I-27 (once) and US-87/287 (once). The first, short term goal is laying down the frontage roads to permanently block in the ROW needed for the main lanes of the freeway. Then those get built later. Since funding for the project has been coming in at a trickle it has to be completed in stages, with freeway to freeway interchanges being the last items on the to do list.

TX DOT definitely has plans drawn up for the Loop 335/I-40 interchange on the West side of Amarillo. It's currently proposed as a directional 5-level stack (counting the intersecting frontage roads as the first level). The trick is getting the funding for the project.

Regarding the future Loop 335 interchanges with I-40 and I-27, I think the very first thing TX DOT and the city of Amarillo needs to do is acquire and secure the ROW. Unfortunately all of those future interchange sites have properties in the various corners (and some parts of the future Loop 335 main lanes ROW) that will need to be bought and cleared. Some corners are currently vacant and don't need new buildings and parking lots popping up on them. Unrestricted development would do more to leave these interchanges stuck permanently in volleyball configuration.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1281
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: July 02, 2020, 04:02:13 PM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #79 on: March 09, 2020, 06:11:35 PM »

^^^^ itís rough to ponder on Amarillo having a 5 level before the entire state of Oklahoma sees one.
Logged

armadillo speedbump

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 27
  • Location: texas
  • Last Login: June 03, 2020, 07:16:46 PM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #80 on: March 10, 2020, 02:34:59 AM »

When can we expect the stack interchanges at I-40 to get underway?

Hopefully never.  There's nowhere near the traffic demands to warrant such.  It will only get built for pride or pork. 

Money doesn't grow on trees.  Amarillo is adding population, but it is a small metro and the total growth is tiny compared to major metros.  There is nothing of size between there and Albuquerque.  It isn't a shortcut to Lubbock from anywhere significant. 
« Last Edit: March 10, 2020, 02:38:51 AM by armadillo speedbump »
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 374
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 05:10:57 AM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #81 on: March 10, 2020, 11:24:10 AM »

That is not supposed to be Pride And Pork. If they connected U.S. 87 to Interstate 27, that would be Pride And Pork.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2151
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:36:04 PM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #82 on: March 10, 2020, 01:28:04 PM »

Quote from: Plutonic Panda
itís rough to ponder on Amarillo having a 5 level before the entire state of Oklahoma sees one.

Considering how Oklahoma funds its highways and plans projects it's not surprising to me at all. It would be par for the course. Jeez, it's taking ODOT over 10 years just to do a very modest interchange upgrade with I-44 and I-235/Broadway Extension in OKC. That's Oklahoma's "biggest" interchange project currently. The state sucks at planning corridors and preserving ROW -hence the joke of a SW extension of the Kilpatrick Turnpike. Given the track record, I'm kind of surprised the new crosstown freeway in Oklahoma City turned out as good as it did.

Actually I'm a little more surprised a full directional stack hasn't been built in Lubbock yet. The west side interchange with Loop 289 and US-62/82 (Marsha Sharp Freeway) has only 2 flyover ramps. The Loop 289 interchange with I-27 is a volleyball design.

One thing that might favor a stack being built at Loop 335 and I-40 on the West side of Amarillo: that's where most of the new retail and residential development is happening. The West side is the busy side of Amarillo.

Of course, having plans on the books for a directional stack is one thing. Building it is another. As I said earlier I really do not expect them to build out Loop 335 with anything more than volleyball interchanges. If directional ramps do get built, I think they'll get added in piece-meal style, one or two ramps at a time. It won't be like a project in Dallas or Houston where the entire interchange gets built out in one big phase.

Quote from: armadillo speedbump
There's nowhere near the traffic demands to warrant such. It will only get built for pride or pork.

A reasonably completed Ports to Plains corridor upgrade could make a pretty big difference.

TX DOT also isn't big on building cloverleaf freeway to freeway interchanges these days. Cloverleaf ramps suck due to the conflicting traffic movements. TX DOT also likes flanking freeways with frontage roads and running the frontage roads through the freeway interchanges. Any cloverleaf ramps would have to be completely elevated. Might as well build a directional stack in that case. Cloverleafs and pinwheel interchanges are (usually) less expensive to build, but require a great deal of ROW.

Quote from: In_Correct
If they connected U.S. 87 to Interstate 27, that would be Pride And Pork.

Pushing I-27 through downtown Lubbock, either on bridges or in a tunnel would be hella expensive. Elevated structures would be a non-starter politically. A pair of tunnels would be a budget buster.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2020, 01:31:41 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6920
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:54:29 AM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #83 on: March 10, 2020, 05:30:34 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^^
At the risk of straying a little bit into the fictional realm here, if I-27 were ever to be extended north as per the P-to-P conceptualization, it would likely subsume one of the halves of the total 335 loop, with the present section up to I-40 relegated to a 3di.  Now -- whether TxDOT is hedging its bets in that regard by at least designing (and possibly reserving the ROW for) stack interchange(s) remains to be determined.  With the on-off/active-shelved history of that corridor,  anything's possible in the long term -- but one shouldn't hold their breath for the next decade or two.   
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2151
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:36:04 PM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #84 on: March 10, 2020, 06:56:27 PM »

I don't think it's in the fictional realm to mention possible Northern extensions of I-27. TX DOT officials and people in communities North of Amarillo, such as Dumas, have had meetings to discuss long term plans. If portions of the Ports to Plains Corridor are upgraded to Interstate quality the sections connecting directly to existing I-27 will likely carry the same designation.

If TX DOT were to re-route I-27 around the West half of Loop 335 it would be interesting to see how they transition I-27 into the sW corner of the loop. Considering the slanted SW to NE angle I-27 takes as it approaches the South side of Amarillo, I wouldn't build a standard stack (or cloverleaf) interchange where Loop 335 crosses current I-27. I'd build one pair of long ramps to connect with the SW corner of Loop 335 similar to how Spur 327 jumps between US-62/82 and Loop 289 in Lubbock. The short spur route would solve the problem a full stack at current I-27 & Loop 335 would have regarding all the property at the SW corner of that interchange.
Logged

Chef

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Amarillo, TX
  • Last Login: June 15, 2020, 03:06:10 PM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #85 on: June 06, 2020, 06:56:10 PM »

I'm from around here and they're currently working on Helium Road conversion. Went down Hillside yesterday and sure enough there was construction, as well as Xcel laid down new telephone pole lines on the future frontage roads.



From the looks of it, TXDot probably won't be going through the stack interchange after reviewing their website for the project.

Quote
... and three-level interchanges (I-40 East, I-40 West, I-27 and US 87).
(volleyball interchanges such as Loop-289/I-27)

They plan to complete Coulter bridge construction and full conversion of Helium Road by Spring of 2021. The interchange of I-40 west is not planned to be complete until spring 2024.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 07:02:38 PM by Chef »
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1281
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: July 02, 2020, 04:02:13 PM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #86 on: June 06, 2020, 09:50:38 PM »

That sucks to hear to about the downgraded stack interchange.
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 374
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 05:10:57 AM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #87 on: June 07, 2020, 02:46:47 AM »

They at least need to keep the space cleared for future Stack Interchanges when they ever change their minds.
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 713
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Las Cruces NM 88012
  • Last Login: July 06, 2020, 09:30:14 PM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #88 on: June 07, 2020, 12:08:47 PM »

What is a "downgraded" stack interchange?  Two or four flyovers, with a volleyball for the Frontage roads?   
Logged

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1243
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 11:41:54 AM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #89 on: June 07, 2020, 12:13:15 PM »

At what point will the alignment join back to Soncy Road north of 40?  There is already an interchange at FM1061
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6920
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:54:29 AM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #90 on: June 07, 2020, 02:00:15 PM »

What is a "downgraded" stack interchange?  Two or four flyovers, with a volleyball for the Frontage roads?   

The one thing about a volleyball interchange -- which plays into TxDOT's penchant for extensive one-way frontage roads -- is that unless a complete teardown/rebuild is anticipated, about the only upgraded direct interchange that could conceivably be laid down on top of it would be the aforementioned stack; the proximity of the interchanging frontage roads functionally precludes both cloverleaf (at least with C/D provision) and turbine types.  But even planning for a stack down the line will run into trouble unless the ROW for such would be preserved -- which means resisting efforts to place commercial development at the frontage corners.  For something like a I-40/Loop 335 facility (on either side of central Amarillo) that shouldn't be terribly difficult, since there's not much out there right now -- unlike some of the other volleyballs (US 75/82 at Sherman, I-27/Loop 289 north of Lubbock), acquisition of developed properties won't be an additional major expense.   
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1281
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: July 02, 2020, 04:02:13 PM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #91 on: June 08, 2020, 11:37:36 AM »

What is a "downgraded" stack interchange?  Two or four flyovers, with a volleyball for the Frontage roads?
I should have left the word "stack" out. I meant the interchange in general was downgraded.
Logged

-- US 175 --

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 126
  • Location: Somewhere between north-central and east-central TX
  • Last Login: July 07, 2020, 05:23:14 PM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #92 on: June 08, 2020, 12:49:14 PM »

At what point will the alignment join back to Soncy Road north of 40?  There is already an interchange at FM1061

It's supposed to merge with Soncy at or near where SW 9th Avenue crosses.
Logged

Ro@dgeek 47

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13
  • Last Login: June 26, 2020, 08:27:57 PM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #93 on: June 08, 2020, 02:22:44 PM »

I wonder if they will designate I-27 on the western side of 335 and the current route it takes becomes a 3di to Interstate 40?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6920
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:54:29 AM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #94 on: June 08, 2020, 04:24:42 PM »

I wonder if they will designate I-27 on the western side of 335 and the current route it takes becomes a 3di to Interstate 40?

I'd wait until northern extension plans for the Port-to-Plains gel somewhat before speculating about which half of the Amarillo loop, if any, an extended I-27 will utilize, and whether a 3di is warranted around the other side.  Right now all the local projects are geared toward a simple upgrade of the loop; anything beyond that is purely speculative.  That being said, it is likely that if all that does occur, the remainder of the current route north to I-40 almost certainly will become a 3di simply because it remains chargeable Interstate mileage (added in 1968). 
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: July 05, 2020, 08:35:58 PM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #95 on: June 08, 2020, 09:17:35 PM »

What is a "downgraded" stack interchange?  Two or four flyovers, with a volleyball for the Frontage roads?   

The one thing about a volleyball interchange -- which plays into TxDOT's penchant for extensive one-way frontage roads -- is that unless a complete teardown/rebuild is anticipated, about the only upgraded direct interchange that could conceivably be laid down on top of it would be the aforementioned stack; the proximity of the interchanging frontage roads functionally precludes both cloverleaf (at least with C/D provision) and turbine types.  But even planning for a stack down the line will run into trouble unless the ROW for such would be preserved -- which means resisting efforts to place commercial development at the frontage corners.  For something like a I-40/Loop 335 facility (on either side of central Amarillo) that shouldn't be terribly difficult, since there's not much out there right now -- unlike some of the other volleyballs (US 75/82 at Sherman, I-27/Loop 289 north of Lubbock), acquisition of developed properties won't be an additional major expense.   

Texas simply does not do cloverleafs. It is either the so-called volleyball (split level diamond)or a stack where a regular diamond doesn't fit in for traffic flow.

For me a lifelong Texan, a cloverleaf (corkscrew) interchange is just curves placed where a relatively straight bridge would do the trick far better.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6920
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:54:29 AM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #96 on: June 08, 2020, 10:28:00 PM »

What is a "downgraded" stack interchange?  Two or four flyovers, with a volleyball for the Frontage roads?   

The one thing about a volleyball interchange -- which plays into TxDOT's penchant for extensive one-way frontage roads -- is that unless a complete teardown/rebuild is anticipated, about the only upgraded direct interchange that could conceivably be laid down on top of it would be the aforementioned stack; the proximity of the interchanging frontage roads functionally precludes both cloverleaf (at least with C/D provision) and turbine types.  But even planning for a stack down the line will run into trouble unless the ROW for such would be preserved -- which means resisting efforts to place commercial development at the frontage corners.  For something like a I-40/Loop 335 facility (on either side of central Amarillo) that shouldn't be terribly difficult, since there's not much out there right now -- unlike some of the other volleyballs (US 75/82 at Sherman, I-27/Loop 289 north of Lubbock), acquisition of developed properties won't be an additional major expense.   

Texas simply does not do cloverleafs. It is either the so-called volleyball (split level diamond)or a stack where a regular diamond doesn't fit in for traffic flow.

For me a lifelong Texan, a cloverleaf (corkscrew) interchange is just curves placed where a relatively straight bridge would do the trick far better.

Caltrans has been more or less continuously replacing old tight-corner cloverleaf interchanges, where possible, with parclos or even diamonds (or, more recently, "dogbone" quasi-diamonds with roundabouts).  However, there are a few system cloverleaves remaining, such as the I-5/I-80 interchange in the Natomas district north of Sacramento, which does feature a turbine-style direct ramp from WB 80 to SB 5 to facilitate the large volume of traffic into downtown Sacramento.  Mimicking that is the I-580/680 interchange in Dublin, which was modified with a SB>EB flyover (and they really need a WB>SB equivalent!).  But the cloverleaf seems to be one of the more common default designs in the central part of the country (excepting TX): the infamous TOTSO at I-74/80/280 east of Rock Island, IL and the I-80/88 interchange directly north of that; I-69/I-94 at Marshall, MI, I-70/135 near Salina, KS, and the most recent addition, the I-22/269 interchange in Byhalia, MS.  At least the latter features double C/D lanes and slightly larger-radius loops.  It likely depends upon the AADT figures at planning time as well as just how much money each DOT was willing to spend on the facility (even with chargeable Interstates, coming up with the remaining 10% could be an uphill battle for less-prosperous states).  But Texas has, with its system of freeway lanes + frontage roads has largely precluded itself from deploying cloverleaves.  If they maintain sufficient space between the main carriageways and the frontage facilities, bents supporting stack ramps should be readily constructed when a volleyball is upgraded. 
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2151
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 03:36:04 PM
Re: Amarillo: new I-27/Loop 335 project proposed
« Reply #97 on: June 09, 2020, 05:17:10 PM »

I would expect TX DOT to keep the stack interchange designs handy for later use. Obviously a volleyball setup will be the first step. The city of Amarillo just needs to not be stupid about things and keep the ROW preserved for future interchange work rather than letting some friends in the Good 'ole Boys Network "make some deals" and eat up the corners with development.

TX DOT needs all the money it can get to complete the upgrade of the Loop 335 main lanes around Amarillo. Perhaps once the loop upgrade is complete then TX DOT will direct more of its attention to the two interchanges with I-40 and the I-27 interchange on the South side. A piece-meal approach would be likely. Maybe one or two direct connect ramps at a time would be built and include stubs to connect other ramps. Texas has a few of these partial stack interchanges in various parts of the state. The I-35/I-69W interchange in Laredo comes to mind; that can be upgraded into a full stack. In San Antonio the US-281/Loop 1604 interchange on the North side is being upgraded from a partial to full stack.
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.