denver to dallas

[hammondwest]

why is there no direct interstate between these cities?  looking for historical info. as well as anecdotes for a proposed book on the subject.  surely this was considered in the 1950's when the interstate plans were made.  be safe out there!

[NE2]

Presumably this was part of the purpose of I-35W (now I-135) in Kansas.

[corco]

There's not nearly enough traffic on 287 today to justify an interstate- so it was probably even lighter trafficked in the 60s.

I'd guess that a lack of intermediary cities contributes to it- Amarillo is the only substantial metro area between Denver and Dallas, and that's sort of connected to Dallas via I-40 and I-35. A Limon to Amarillo freeway would be one of the most desolate in the country

[NE2]

A Limon to Amarillo freeway would be one of the most desolate in the country

More likely would be Raton to Amarillo. But the current four-laning projects should be more than enough.

[corco]

More likely would be Raton to Amarillo. But the current four-laning projects should be more than enough.

For sure- I know a few people who do that drive quasi-often, and all take 287 anyway (16 miles shorter, much easier drive in the winter, you don't have to fight through the traffic all the way down the Front Range), even with the widening of 87

[brad2971]

why is there no direct interstate between these cities?  looking for historical info. as well as anecdotes for a proposed book on the subject.  surely this was considered in the 1950's when the interstate plans were made.

More likely would be Raton to Amarillo. But the current four-laning projects should be more than enough.

For sure- I know a few people who do that drive quasi-often, and all take 287 anyway (16 miles shorter, much easier drive in the winter, you don't have to fight through the traffic all the way down the Front Range), even with the widening of 87

And frankly, there'd be even less justification for rebuilding 287 in concrete if the Kansas Turnpike Authority would do everyone a favor and remove the tolls south of Wichita. The road gets something like 40-58% of its traffic via trucks. That's often up to 1600 trucks/day. I'm inclined to think that the truck traffic would fall to less than 200/day if the tolls were removed off I-35.

[Roadmaestro95]

I found a map of interstate plans before actual designations of the interstate highways in 1955
http://www.kollewin.com/EX/09-15-20/Interstate_Highway_plan_September_1955.jpg

[Desert Man]

Someday  when the population centers of Colorado's rocky front expands eastward or the North Texas panhandle has more automobile traffic, perhaps the chances of I-27 extended from Amarillo, Tex. to Boise City or Guymon, OK or even Liberal or Elkhart, Ks., to Raton, Pueblo or Denver are possible...and the Denver-Dallas air traffic route must be rather heavy: they connect among the world's top ten largest and busiest major airports. 

[mgk920]

I would think that the lack of a direct I-route between DEN and DFW is due to a combination of:

1) Few major population centers along the way;

2) Distance;

3) Other planned routes that run in the general direction; and

4) Both metros were much, much smaller when things were being laid out during the mid-1950s than they are today (the same reason why there is no I-route running in the Phoenix, AZ-Las Vegas, NV-Reno NV corridor).

Mike

[The High Plains Traveler]

Someday  when the population centers of Colorado's rocky front expands eastward or the North Texas panhandle has more automobile traffic, perhaps the chances of I-27 extended from Amarillo, Tex. to Boise City or Guymon, OK or even Liberal or Elkhart, Ks., to Raton, Pueblo or Denver are possible...and the Denver-Dallas air traffic route must be rather heavy: they connect among the world's top ten largest and busiest major airports. 

Not in my lifetime or yours. The eastern plains of Colorado have been unpopulating for the past 80 years.

[Sykotyk]

why is there no direct interstate between these cities?  looking for historical info. as well as anecdotes for a proposed book on the subject.  surely this was considered in the 1950's when the interstate plans were made.

More likely would be Raton to Amarillo. But the current four-laning projects should be more than enough.

For sure- I know a few people who do that drive quasi-often, and all take 287 anyway (16 miles shorter, much easier drive in the winter, you don't have to fight through the traffic all the way down the Front Range), even with the widening of 87

And frankly, there'd be even less justification for rebuilding 287 in concrete if the Kansas Turnpike Authority would do everyone a favor and remove the tolls south of Wichita. The road gets something like 40-58% of its traffic via trucks. That's often up to 1600 trucks/day. I'm inclined to think that the truck traffic would fall to less than 200/day if the tolls were removed off I-35.

Trucks get about 6-7 mpg. 93 miles longer at $3.85/gallon would never equal the $8 or so toll I-35 has from Wichita to the state line.

[brad2971]

Please DO NOT delete "quote" tags!

And frankly, there'd be even less justification for rebuilding 287 in concrete if the Kansas Turnpike Authority would do everyone a favor and remove the tolls south of Wichita. The road gets something like 40-58% of its traffic via trucks. That's often up to 1600 trucks/day. I'm inclined to think that the truck traffic would fall to less than 200/day if the tolls were removed off I-35.

Trucks get about 6-7 mpg. 93 miles longer at $3.85/gallon would never equal the $8 or so toll I-35 has from Wichita to the state line.

Which would make it an even better deal for both Colorado and Kansas. CDOT doesn't have to endure the costs of upgrading 287 in concrete, and Kansas gets extra fuel taxes. Even better, the time difference ends up being negligible after figuring for both low speed on 287 and all the stops in such booming places like Eads, Lamar, and Springfield.

[corco]

Even better, the time difference ends up being negligible after figuring for both low speed on 287 and all the stops in such booming places like Eads, Lamar, and Springfield.

But it doesn't- maybe it's better now that I-70 in Kansas is 75, but before 287 was 65 and I-70 was 70, and the slowdowns in those booming places were really short, because as you indicated they aren't really booming. Trucks are less effected by the 70 to 75 increase in Kansas than anyone else, so I'd say they're more likely to want to use 287, especially if people are starting to go through Kansas because of that increase, lowering the amount of traffic.

In order of preference among people I know who do that drive
1) 287
close 2) 87 (via Raton)
distant 3) Kansas to Oklahoma

[The High Plains Traveler]

Please DO NOT delete "quote" tags!

And frankly, there'd be even less justification for rebuilding 287 in concrete if the Kansas Turnpike Authority would do everyone a favor and remove the tolls south of Wichita. The road gets something like 40-58% of its traffic via trucks. That's often up to 1600 trucks/day. I'm inclined to think that the truck traffic would fall to less than 200/day if the tolls were removed off I-35.

Trucks get about 6-7 mpg. 93 miles longer at $3.85/gallon would never equal the $8 or so toll I-35 has from Wichita to the state line.

Which would make it an even better deal for both Colorado and Kansas. CDOT doesn't have to endure the costs of upgrading 287 in concrete, and Kansas gets extra fuel taxes. Even better, the time difference ends up being negligible after figuring for both low speed on 287 and all the stops in such booming places like Eads, Lamar, and Springfield.

But, Colorado is upgrading 287 in concrete. This is the Ports to Plains Highway, and much of 287 from Lamar to I-70 has been reconstructed as 2-lane, wide-shouldered highway. There is a longer-term plan to bypass Lamar for U.S. 50 and 287 to the east, and if you blink you miss Springfield or Eads. There isn't anything else.

[brad2971]

Please DO NOT delete "quote" tags!

And frankly, there'd be even less justification for rebuilding 287 in concrete if the Kansas Turnpike Authority would do everyone a favor and remove the tolls south of Wichita. The road gets something like 40-58% of its traffic via trucks. That's often up to 1600 trucks/day. I'm inclined to think that the truck traffic would fall to less than 200/day if the tolls were removed off I-35.

Trucks get about 6-7 mpg. 93 miles longer at $3.85/gallon would never equal the $8 or so toll I-35 has from Wichita to the state line.

Which would make it an even better deal for both Colorado and Kansas. CDOT doesn't have to endure the costs of upgrading 287 in concrete, and Kansas gets extra fuel taxes. Even better, the time difference ends up being negligible after figuring for both low speed on 287 and all the stops in such booming places like Eads, Lamar, and Springfield.

But, Colorado is upgrading 287 in concrete. This is the Ports to Plains Highway, and much of 287 from Lamar to I-70 has been reconstructed as 2-lane, wide-shouldered highway. There is a longer-term plan to bypass Lamar for U.S. 50 and 287 to the east, and if you blink you miss Springfield or Eads. There isn't anything else.

I understand CDOT is in the process of upgrading 287. I'm just saying that a little planning into ALL available options could've help avoid having to upgrade the road.

[hobsini2]

I have driven most of the Dallas-Denver corridor. US 287 between Dallas and Amarillo is a realatively quick 4 lane highway. The only real hangups in the corridor are going through Childress (due to lights and speed) and Memphis (due to speed) but i still manage to make that trip in 5 1/2 to 6 hrs.

As far as the Amarillo to Lamar (as far as I have gone on it), US 287 is a nice 4 lane thru Texas and i can make Boise City OK in 2 hours. The only thing that i would consider doing to this corridor are super 2 bypasses of Dumas, Stratford, Boise City, and Lamar.

[NE2]

As far as the Amarillo to Lamar (as far as I have gone on it), US 287 is a nice 4 lane thru Texas and i can make Boise City OK in 2 hours. The only thing that i would consider doing to this corridor are super 2 bypasses of Dumas, Stratford, Boise City, and Lamar.

Boise City has (or will have?) a bypass: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3206.0

[hobsini2]

Boise City has (or will have?) a bypass: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3206.0

I wasn't aware of this bypass of Boise City. It's been about 4 years since i was in Boise City. TY for the info.

[Henry]

A Limon to Amarillo freeway would be one of the most desolate in the country

More likely would be Raton to Amarillo. But the current four-laning projects should be more than enough.

I've read somewhere that there was a proposal for I-32, but nothing ever came of it. I agree that the four-laning projects along US 287 would better serve this route.

[Mark68]

As someone who made this journey a few times during the 90s, I usually had no problems with using I-25 to Raton, US 87 to Amarillo, then US 287. Nice drive the whole way...unless there is bad weather over Raton Pass.

[lamsalfl]

I found a map of interstate plans before actual designations of the interstate highways in 1955
http://www.kollewin.com/EX/09-15-20/Interstate_Highway_plan_September_1955.jpg

Wow I can't believe I-12 didn't make the original cut.  It'd be a disaster if it wasn't there today.  That said, they are working on/have plans to 6-lane the entire road.

[mgk920]

Boise City has (or will have?) a bypass: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3206.0

I wasn't aware of this bypass of Boise City. It's been about 4 years since i was in Boise City. TY for the info.

Google maps aerial images shows it in the later stages of construction.  Man, not a lot of economic activity there, from what I could tell!

Mike

[texaskdog]

We traveled last year and will again this year to Colorado from Austin, took Raton to Amarillo, but then down to Lubbock & Abilene.  Definitely adding another carraigeway to go from 2 to 4 lanes near Raton.

[Sykotyk]

Boise City's bypass is open, and very nice.

A truck will not take I-25 to US87 in Raton down to Dumas. Why climb a mountain (in a truck) if you don't have to? US287 is basically flat the entire way. Plus, you don't have to drive Monument Hill.

New Mexico is building up US87 because they want to divert traffic into their state (and US87 is pretty desolate out there from Raton to Clayton). But, US287 is much better.

When you depart Limon, you stop to turn south. You slow down in Hugo, you have to slow down in Kit Carson, you have a slow left sweeping turn in Eads, you have to slow down in Wiley, and have a few lights in Lamar (about 5 or so). Then you have a few lights in Springfield and have to slow down in Campo. The bypass around Boise City is open. You have to stop at the four-way stop with US54 in Stratford. You have to slow down in Cactus and have to go through several lights in Dumas. Then you get to take the loop around Amarillo to the east and hit two lights after the ramp and two lights by I-40.

You have a few stops by Claude, Clarendon, and Memphis. Then the last big town to deal with is Childress (about 5-8 lights if I recall right). Your last bit is Quanah where there's a few lights and then  you're basically freeway to Fort Worth. There's a few lights (or at least were, I know they were eliminating them) near Decatur.

If they'd bypass Lamar and Dumas, freeway-tize the Amarillo-Wichita Falls stretch and finish taking out the lights near Decatur, you'd have a great freeway/expressway route with the last stop being Stratford. Which is a town, despite a four-way stop sign, won't probably ever be bypassed. Mostly because both US54 and US287 are deserving of a 'through route' in that town.

[1995hoo]

This thread reminds me of a 2005 Car and Driver article about John Phillips driving a Smart ForTwo around the Oklahoma Panhandle.