Interstate 2

Started by Strider, July 18, 2013, 11:38:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

lordsutch

In my trips from Laredo down to McAllen, using TX 359 to Hebbronville was definitely the way to go rather than US 83; from there, I tried FM 1017  and TX 285 and both ways took about the same time, although northbound I'd imagine the FM 1017 checkpoint is unlikely to be backed up while the one on US 281 south of Falfurrias gets a lot more traffic, being on the main route to San Antonio and points north. Then again, if I had an unreliable car I'd probably want to be use 281 and 285; 1017 is pretty desolate south of Hebbronville until you get to FM 2686 (I don't remember seeing anyone coming the opposite direction for miles at a time). I never tried any of the options using FM 649.

The one time I used US 83 it was over an hour slower, although north of Roma it's not terrible (Zapata is the only town of much note between there and Laredo); the only reason to go that way if you're headed anywhere east of Roma would be to avoid la migra, or if you just want to spend more time near civilization. It's also a little more scenic although much of its alignment is well away from the river.


ethanhopkin14

I can't believe the SPR-100 corridor has not had any serious consideration as an I-2 eastern extension, since it would provide a great hurricane evacuation route for Port Isabel and South Padre Island.

The Ghostbuster

What is the SPR-100 corridor? How does it pertain to a potential Interstate 2 eastern extension? At any rate, I doubt Interstate 2 will be extended further east than it already does.

In_Correct

State Park Road 100 is a corridor that could be Interstate 2 if Interstate 2 were to continue east. If they ever extend Interstate 2 east, there is not much distance between its current east terminus and The Gulf Of Mexico.

At the same time, TX DOT might think Interstate 2 is close enough to The Gulf Of Mexico all ready.
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

kphoger

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 16, 2019, 03:08:39 PM
I can't believe the SPR-100 corridor has not had any serious consideration as an I-2 eastern extension, since it would provide a great hurricane evacuation route for Port Isabel and South Padre Island.

Has hurricane evacuation ever been the reason for constructing an Interstate?

Quote from: In_Correct on July 16, 2019, 05:21:52 PM
TX DOT might think Interstate 2 is close enough to The Gulf Of Mexico all ready.

I don't imagine TxDOT cares very much how far or close I-2 is to the Gulf of Mexico.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

hotdogPi

Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2019, 08:11:11 PM
Has hurricane evacuation ever been the reason for constructing an Interstate?

Fake 87.

Also, while not an Interstate, the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway would not have existed if it wasn't for hurricane evacuation.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

kphoger

Quote from: 1 on July 16, 2019, 08:19:52 PM
Fake 87.

????

Quote from: 1 on July 16, 2019, 08:19:52 PM
Also, while not an Interstate, the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway would not have existed if it wasn't for hurricane evacuation.

While not an Interstate, SPR-100 already exists.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

hotdogPi

Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2019, 08:23:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 16, 2019, 08:19:52 PM
Fake 87.

????

The one in North Carolina. It's one of several reasons, not the only one.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2019, 08:11:11 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 16, 2019, 03:08:39 PM
I can't believe the SPR-100 corridor has not had any serious consideration as an I-2 eastern extension, since it would provide a great hurricane evacuation route for Port Isabel and South Padre Island.

Has hurricane evacuation ever been the reason for constructing an Interstate?



Interstate 37 was constructed largely so there would be a hurricane evacuation route for South Texas coming out of the largest single town in South Texas.

Grzrd

I found this YouTube video from about three weeks ago showing some initial grading, etc. of the La Joya Bypass:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=33kG-IWspaY
Pretty wide open spaces.

sparker

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 17, 2019, 08:51:14 AM
Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2019, 08:11:11 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 16, 2019, 03:08:39 PM
I can't believe the SPR-100 corridor has not had any serious consideration as an I-2 eastern extension, since it would provide a great hurricane evacuation route for Port Isabel and South Padre Island.

Has hurricane evacuation ever been the reason for constructing an Interstate?



Interstate 37 was constructed largely so there would be a hurricane evacuation route for South Texas coming out of the largest single town in South Texas.

Also, one of the rationales for the "I-49 South" extension between NOLA and Lafayette is as an additional evacuation route from the NO metro area -- even though it's closer to potential hurricane landfall areas than something heading more directly inland -- but OTOH, the presence of Lake Ponchartrain has always complicated movement in and out of that city, so when it comes to aggregate provision of evac routes, it's the more lanes out of NO the better!

But getting back to the I-2 service area -- wouldn't an extension of the presently proposed I-169 spur do much the same thing as the SPR-100 corridor cited above?

rte66man

Quote from: Grzrd on August 07, 2020, 07:40:38 PM
I found this YouTube video from about three weeks ago showing some initial grading, etc. of the La Joya Bypass:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=33kG-IWspaY
Pretty wide open spaces.

It's now showing on Google Maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2600584,-98.5054659,4010m/data=!3m1!1e3
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Anthony_JK

Quote from: sparker on August 08, 2020, 01:44:54 AM

[...]

Also, one of the rationales for the "I-49 South" extension between NOLA and Lafayette is as an additional evacuation route from the NO metro area -- even though it's closer to potential hurricane landfall areas than something heading more directly inland -- but OTOH, the presence of Lake Ponchartrain has always complicated movement in and out of that city, so when it comes to aggregate provision of evac routes, it's the more lanes out of NO the better!

[...]


Not so much for NOLA as for the communities along US 90 from Morgan City on northwestward. NOLA's main evac routes remain I-10 west to I-55, I-10 east to I-59, and the Ponchatrain Causeway.

Grzrd

I came across this website for the construction company that is building the bridge(s) for the La Joys bypass. It has some good pictures of the construction and it mentions that they are building a wildlife bridge, too:

https://www.andersoncolumbia.com/la-joya-bypass.html

Thegeet

I apologize for BUMPing...once again, but I decided to bring this up amid bridge construction. The bypass has purportedly reached the halfway mark in February, according to media. Google maps street view has been updated to show the bridges in construction. Satellite view is outdated, though.

Question: where would I-2 end in Laredo? Would it use the Southern half of the Loop 20 route and terminate at I-69W/US 59, or will it be be a different terminus?

Once again, sorry for bumping.

Bobby5280

I think it's fairly obvious if I-2 is eventually extended to Laredo it would overlap Loop 20 up to the junction with I-69W. Existing US-83 coming up into Laredo from the South could be upgraded easily to a freeway as far North as Masterson Street. Past that point any freeway upgrades would be increasingly harder to build as US-83 gets closer to downtown Laredo. It would be impossible to connect that freeway spur to I-35 without demolishing a lot of properties.

edwaleni

FWIW: The Google Maps car came down I-2 in April 2021 and has recent pictures of the La Joya Bypass under construction.

Includes the overpass being built at Tom Gill Road.

Looks like I-2 will now end just east of Sullivan City when done.


The Ghostbuster


Thegeet

Correct. And I can't wait to see the final product.

sprjus4

^ Has there actually been any plans to designate the new bypass as I-2?

Thegeet

#395
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 02:17:19 PM
^ Has there actually been any plans to designate the new bypass as I-2?
Yes. This bypass will be I-2 soon. Besides traffic control, extending I-2 (and in the future, to Laredo) is another main reason to build this bypass.

https://www.progresstimes.net/2021/02/28/with-new-highway-about-halfway-complete-penitas-poised-for-growth/

sprjus4

Quote from: Thegeet on July 17, 2021, 02:45:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 02:17:19 PM
^ Has there actually been any plans to designate the new bypass as I-2?
Yes. This bypass will be I-2 soon. Besides traffic control, extending I-2 (and in the future, to Laredo) is another main reason to build this bypass.

https://www.progresstimes.net/2021/02/28/with-new-highway-about-halfway-complete-penitas-poised-for-growth/
Any official plans that list the new extension as I-2? As far as I knew, it was US-83.

Not to mention, the whole Laredo extension, is fictional at best. I've never seen any official plans to build it all the way. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it's fictional despite being treated as official by many roadgeeks.

Thegeet

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 02:55:25 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on July 17, 2021, 02:45:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 02:17:19 PM
^ Has there actually been any plans to designate the new bypass as I-2?
Yes. This bypass will be I-2 soon. Besides traffic control, extending I-2 (and in the future, to Laredo) is another main reason to build this bypass.

https://www.progresstimes.net/2021/02/28/with-new-highway-about-halfway-complete-penitas-poised-for-growth/
Any official plans that list the new extension as I-2? As far as I knew, it was US-83.

Not to mention, the whole Laredo extension, is fictional at best. I've never seen any official plans to build it all the way. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it's fictional despite being treated as official by many roadgeeks.
As far as TxDOT goes, none. But, the info I saw with mentions to US 83 is outdated.

bwana39

#398
Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2019, 08:11:11 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 16, 2019, 03:08:39 PM
I can't believe the SPR-100 corridor has not had any serious consideration as an I-2 eastern extension, since it would provide a great hurricane evacuation route for Port Isabel and South Padre Island.

Has hurricane evacuation ever been the reason for constructing an Interstate?

Quote from: In_Correct on July 16, 2019, 05:21:52 PM
TX DOT might think Interstate 2 is close enough to The Gulf Of Mexico all ready.

I don't imagine TxDOT cares very much how far or close I-2 is to the Gulf of Mexico.

That is the reason Louisiana spent money to build I-49 north from Lafayette..
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

MaxConcrete

#399
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 02:55:25 PM
Not to mention, the whole Laredo extension, is fictional at best. I've never seen any official plans to build it all the way. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it's fictional despite being treated as official by many roadgeeks.

Actually, a FONSI was issued on July 1 for a long extension from Rio Grande City to Roma Creek. I'm glad to see that the alignment is straight and direct, without the twists and turns that TxDOT likes to include in most new alignments.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/043021.html

Map
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/phr/sl-195/070121-project-location-map.pdf

However, this extension is designated as SH 195 and is planned as a 4-lane divided highway on a 300-foot-wide right-of-way, except at intersections where the right-of-way is wider. The typical section view shown in the environmental document has a 124-foot-wide median, so that leaves only 50 feet between the outer edge (right side) of the pavement and the edge of the right of way. I suppose frontage roads could be squeezed into that space, but it seems like the design is not intended to be upgraded to limited access in the future.
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com



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.