Once they’re done with Amarillo, what’s comes next for I-27? North or South?

[jgb191]

Routing another interstate to Raton Pass makes no sense whatsoever.  Altitude, inclines, winter weather, poor condition and obsolescence of 25 on the Colorado side, and poor pavement condition on the NM side means that this "branch" of 27 should be withdrawn.   Attracting even more Class A trucking to the Raton Pass is a recipe for disaster.   

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

[jgb191]

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

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

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

[Bobby5280]

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

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

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

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

[jgb191]

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

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

[Bobby5280]

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

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

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

[DJStephens]

Routing another interstate to Raton Pass makes no sense whatsoever.  Altitude, inclines, winter weather, poor condition and obsolescence of 25 on the Colorado side, and poor pavement condition on the NM side means that this "branch" of 27 should be withdrawn.   Attracting even more Class A trucking to the Raton Pass is a recipe for disaster.   

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

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

[Bobby5280]

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

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

[jgb191]

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

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

[MikieTimT]

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

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

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

[Bobby5280]

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

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

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

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

[MikieTimT]

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

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

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

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

[MikieTimT]

A diagonal highway that spanned from Denver thru OKC and to Texarkana would open a direct path from the Front Range to Louisiana's Gulf Coast.

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

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

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

[Bobby5280]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MikieTimT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bobby5280]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JayhawkCO]

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

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

[MikieTimT]

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

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

[wxfree]

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

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

[US 89]

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

[Bobby5280]

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

[rte66man]

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

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

[splashflash]

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

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

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

[Bobby5280]

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

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

[splashflash]

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

[Bobby5280]

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