AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Interstate 2  (Read 177281 times)

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1532
  • Last Login: May 17, 2022, 08:19:27 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #475 on: December 16, 2021, 01:35:33 PM »


I'm not sure how a future I-2 route could go slightly South of Sullivan City. If it bypassed the town to the South it would have to go considerably well South to avoid hitting Sam Fordyce Elementary, Sullivan City PD and a couple ponds/lakes. The next town, Narisco Pena, has a short freeway segment there.

It would follow the Union Pacific Railroad and Old Military Road right on the flood ridge of the Rio Grande.

The cross back over for US-83 would be just west of Grulla High School.
Logged

CoolAngrybirdsrio4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 175
  • just looking at roads and stuff

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Ann Arbor
  • Last Login: May 10, 2022, 07:32:24 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #476 on: December 17, 2021, 12:48:35 AM »


Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4
According to Figure 5.2 of Lower Rio Grande Valley Transportation Infrastructure Priorities, it could go slightly south of the city.
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/iro/lrgv/lrgv-ch5.pdf

I'm not sure how a future I-2 route could go slightly South of Sullivan City. If it bypassed the town to the South it would have to go considerably well South to avoid hitting Sam Fordyce Elementary, Sullivan City PD and a couple ponds/lakes. The next town, Narisco Pena, has a short freeway segment there.

Perhaps it would go north of both the elementary school and police department, although it would be close to the original alignment. It is still possible for Interstate 2 to go straight through Sullivan City though.
Logged
Renewed roadgeek

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7510
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:49:08 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #477 on: December 17, 2021, 12:50:10 AM »

^ Is there any confirmation the US-83 improvements beyond the existing I-2 are going to be signed / built as Interstate 2?

As far as Iím aware, itís still fictional.
Logged

CoolAngrybirdsrio4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 175
  • just looking at roads and stuff

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Ann Arbor
  • Last Login: May 10, 2022, 07:32:24 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #478 on: December 17, 2021, 01:11:08 AM »

^ Is there any confirmation the US-83 improvements beyond the existing I-2 are going to be signed / built as Interstate 2?

As far as Iím aware, itís still fictional.

Despite the fact there is no confirmation of an I-2 extension, the freeway portion of US 83 is getting extended by 9 miles north of La Joya. Therefore, it could be at some point Interstate 2 once the project consisting of two phases will be done by 2023. Phase 1 appears to be the frontage roads, and phase 2 is the freeway portion plus drainage.
Logged
Renewed roadgeek

CoolAngrybirdsrio4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 175
  • just looking at roads and stuff

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Ann Arbor
  • Last Login: May 10, 2022, 07:32:24 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #479 on: December 31, 2021, 01:04:40 AM »

https://riograndeguardian.com/casanova-1000-acres-set-to-be-developed-in-north-la-joya-project-includes-900-new-homes/

Quote
A master-planned development that includes retail, industrial and residential components is being forged in the city of La Joya, Mayor Isidro Casanova has confirmed.

In an exclusive interview with the Rio Grande Guardian International News Service, Casanova said city leaders and planners are in discussions with two local landowners. The development could cover more than 100 acres and bring 900 new homes to the city.

According to the 2020 Census, La Joyaís population is 4,321 but Casanova believes there was a sizable undercount.

At the rate of growth that it's going in, I recommend that TxDOT starts working on the designing phases of upgrading US 83 within Sullivan City to the interchange with FM 2360. This would be especially true if La Joya and Sullivan City grow at the same rate Penitas did from 2000 to 2010. Plus, La Joya had announced that it will build their new fire station.
Logged
Renewed roadgeek

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 312
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:38 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #480 on: December 31, 2021, 01:12:25 AM »

^ Is there any confirmation the US-83 improvements beyond the existing I-2 are going to be signed / built as Interstate 2?

As far as Iím aware, itís still fictional.
I could ask TxDOT and see if they have any word about this.
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6194
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 01:55:43 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #481 on: December 31, 2021, 01:24:53 AM »

The current US-101 route from the Bay Area down to LA is a mess of different standards. Bits and pieces of it are up to major Interstate urban freeway standards and other parts are no different than an average bum-f*** 4-lane highway here in Oklahoma, with driveways a-plenty. One freeway interchange will have modern quality ramps while another nearby has ramp designs of 1960's quality.

I think the patch-work of different standards along US-101 make the road far less safe than a route that is 100% up to modern Interstate standards.

If you want to get from the S.F. area to L.A. in a hurry and don't want to deal with a patchwork of expressway mixed in with the interstate grade freeway, take I-580 to I-5, distance 383 miles.
Via 101 it's 420 miles, so even if all the patches of expressway were upgraded to freeway it would still take longer than via I-5.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3105
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:23:43 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #482 on: December 31, 2021, 08:56:03 PM »

Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4
At the rate of growth that it's going in, I recommend that TxDOT starts working on the designing phases of upgrading US 83 within Sullivan City to the interchange with FM 2360. This would be especially true if La Joya and Sullivan City grow at the same rate Penitas did from 2000 to 2010. Plus, La Joya had announced that it will build their new fire station.

I really don't think most Americans outside of South Texas realize just how many people live in the Rio Grade Valley region. IMHO, an I-2 upgrade of the US-83 corridor up to Laredo is necessary.

There are plans and studies in progress for areas West of Sullivan City. The cluster of cities from Roma to La Puerta will eventually get a freeway bypass, which could be a further extension of I-2. I think the segment of US-83 from the end of the La Joya bypass thru Sullivan City to La Puerta could be upgraded to Interstate quality along the existing US-83 ROW. It would be a tight squeeze though.

Interstate upgrades of US-83 between Roma and Laredo would be easier since the territory is more desolate. The towns of Zapata and Siesta Shores would need a new terrain bypass out to the East. I imagine there might be an outcry about that from local businesses. But the upshot is the towns would be more visible on the map being connected to the Interstate network.
Logged

Daniel Fiddler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 458
  • https://dfroads.webador.com/

  • Age: 40
  • Location: Jackson, Tennessee
  • Last Login: January 24, 2022, 09:04:51 PM
    • DF Roads
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #483 on: December 31, 2021, 09:14:52 PM »

Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4
At the rate of growth that it's going in, I recommend that TxDOT starts working on the designing phases of upgrading US 83 within Sullivan City to the interchange with FM 2360. This would be especially true if La Joya and Sullivan City grow at the same rate Penitas did from 2000 to 2010. Plus, La Joya had announced that it will build their new fire station.

I really don't think most Americans outside of South Texas realize just how many people live in the Rio Grade Valley region. IMHO, an I-2 upgrade of the US-83 corridor up to Laredo is necessary.

There are plans and studies in progress for areas West of Sullivan City. The cluster of cities from Roma to La Puerta will eventually get a freeway bypass, which could be a further extension of I-2. I think the segment of US-83 from the end of the La Joya bypass thru Sullivan City to La Puerta could be upgraded to Interstate quality along the existing US-83 ROW. It would be a tight squeeze though.

Interstate upgrades of US-83 between Roma and Laredo would be easier since the territory is more desolate. The towns of Zapata and Siesta Shores would need a new terrain bypass out to the East. I imagine there might be an outcry about that from local businesses. But the upshot is the towns would be more visible on the map being connected to the Interstate network.

I do.  Approximately 1.3 million in the Rio Grande Valley, 2/3 of them in the McAllen area and 1/3 of them in the Brownsville area.  And growing!  As is most of Texas.  Very little of Texas is depopulating, Texas overall is one of the fastest-growing states, especially in the Triangle.

Yeah, I would say I-2's extension could be desired, possibly needed.  Although I would say an upgrade of primarily Texas 71 between Austin and Columbus to Interstate quality and designating it I-12 is a higher priority.

You have to remember though, Texas is one of the few states that has very reasonable speed limits on its highways.  Among the best in the nation!  They need Interstates and multi-lane divided highways more for capacity than they do speed!

I would LOVE to have Texas's speed limits!  Tennessee's speed limits, especially on their Interstate highways, suck!  As does most of the East!  Where you have 75 and 80 mph speed limits on your expressways (even 85 on Toll Texas 130!), we are stuck with...70.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2021, 09:20:27 PM by Daniel Fiddler »
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3105
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:23:43 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #484 on: December 31, 2021, 09:27:48 PM »

Quote from: Daniel Fiddler
Yeah, I would say I-2's extension could be desired, possibly needed.  Although I would say an upgrade of primarily Texas 71 to Interstate quality and designating it I-12 is a higher priority.

Texas is a big enough state to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time in terms of building out highway projects.

The Austin-San Antonio megapolis is growing rapidly. A full Interstate-quality upgrade of TX-71 looks like it could be in the cards. I also think US-290 between the NW fringes of the Houston metro to Austin is in every bit as much need of Interstate quality upgrading, if not even more so. That's actually where I would stick an I-12 designation. As it stands, TX DOT doesn't seem all that keen in re-naming existing highways into Interstates. The I-69 thing is an exception, but that has been a national effort. Also the TX-80 corridor between San Marcos and Luling may need serious Interstate-quality upgrading in the near future. Same goes for the TX-46 corridor between New Braunfels and Seguin. TX-46 could be yet another Interstate quality partial ring around the Northern reaches of San Antonio.

All of that is a different issue from what affects the Rio Grande Valley and far South Texas. Just like the traffic development needs of Dallas Fort Worth are separate from those of Houston.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3426
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: May 17, 2022, 10:21:11 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #485 on: December 31, 2021, 09:30:57 PM »

How long before Interstate 2 will finally reach Laredo? My rough guess would be in about 40 or 50 years.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3105
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:23:43 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #486 on: December 31, 2021, 09:48:36 PM »

There is no telling. But the La Joya bypass is going to be finished pretty soon. I think freeway upgrades of US-83 farther West thru Sullivan City to La Puerta would be fairly simple, which means that could be done before 2030. The bypass around the Roma-Rio Grande City-La Puerta cluster is already in the works. So that could be in progress by 2030 or sooner.

The gap between Laredo and Roma is the biggest question mark since it is the most sparsely populated. The Zapata area is the only significant population center in between. That segment of highway would be the easiest to target with procrastination. It would be up to the cities in the Rio Grande Valley and Laredo to push hard enough to get the highway fully completed. Perhaps others across the rest of Texas could see value in a completed I-2 as well as an extension of I-27 to Laredo. That would make for a pretty interesting West Texas corridor, one even more interesting if it extended into Colorado.
Logged

CoolAngrybirdsrio4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 175
  • just looking at roads and stuff

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Ann Arbor
  • Last Login: May 10, 2022, 07:32:24 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #487 on: December 31, 2021, 11:17:31 PM »

It seems the Lower Rio Grande Valley has been gaining around 100,000+ from 2010 to 2020, with most of the growth from Hidalgo County.
Logged
Renewed roadgeek

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 312
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:38 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #488 on: January 01, 2022, 02:23:04 AM »

^ Is there any confirmation the US-83 improvements beyond the existing I-2 are going to be signed / built as Interstate 2?

As far as Iím aware, itís still fictional.
I could ask TxDOT and see if they have any word about this.
I have asked TxDOT just now. They should reply within 2 weeks.
Logged

MaxConcrete

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 850
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: May 17, 2022, 11:12:58 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #489 on: February 23, 2022, 10:31:35 PM »

There is a very large amount of right-of-way acquisition for SL 195 in this month's TxDOT minute order.

I didn't plot all the parcels, but it appears to be most of the ROW needed from Rio Grande City (east end) to US 83 at Loma Blanca Road north of Roma.

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2022/0223/5.pdf

SL 195 can be seen in this map (as mentioned, the ROW is for the section from Rio Grande City to Roma)
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/phr/major-projects.pdf

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3105
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:23:43 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #490 on: February 24, 2022, 12:30:49 AM »

I'm glad they're taking real steps forward with the Loop 195 project to skirt the Rio Grande City-Roma cluster of towns. Maybe one day in the not too distant future it will be signed as I-2.

The PDF map of proposed major projects in the Rio Grande Valley region is interesting:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/phr/major-projects.pdf
Obviously not all of them will be Interstate quality freeways. Still if a lot of those projects are built-out it will make that far South Texas area look far more like a major metro on a map than it does now.
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1282
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: May 17, 2022, 05:09:50 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #491 on: February 24, 2022, 11:40:32 AM »

Anderson Columbia, a construction company based in Lake City, Florida, is scheduled to finish Phase I by February 2022.
That article is almost a year old though, and I haven't seen any more recent news.
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3105
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:23:43 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #492 on: March 23, 2022, 12:07:31 AM »

Google updated some of the satellite imagery in Google Earth for the Rio Grande Valley region. More progress on I-69E is visible going North of Raymondville. That progress makes it a little more clear what they intend with limited length frontage roads to maintain ranch connections.

And then there's I-2. All of the La Joya Bypass route construction is now visible. Holy cow, that first turn on the East end of the bypass looks pretty sharp. Is that even going rated at a 55mph speed limit? Just a short drive North of that and you get another turn, but not quite as sharp. It was one thing seeing the proposed path, but another actually seeing it getting built out.
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 312
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:38 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #493 on: March 23, 2022, 12:59:42 AM »

I donít appear to see any new satellite imagery: the I-69E was from around last year. The I-2 only shows construction on the West side.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7510
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:49:08 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #494 on: March 23, 2022, 06:11:41 AM »

And then there's I-2. All of the La Joya Bypass route construction is now visible. Holy cow, that first turn on the East end of the bypass looks pretty sharp. Is that even going rated at a 55mph speed limit? Just a short drive North of that and you get another turn, but not quite as sharp. It was one thing seeing the proposed path, but another actually seeing it getting built out.
The speed limit will be posted at 65 mph, with an advisory speed of 55 mph.

The speed limit on the end of the existing freeway is 65.  Going westbound, the speed limit will remain 65 through the first curve.  There will be an advisory speed of 55.  The speed limit increases to 70 in the second curve, with no advisory speed.  Eastbound, the speed limit will reduce to 65 in the first curve, and the second curve will have an advisory speed of 55.  Frontage road speed limits are 55 near the interchange.  The business route has a speed limit of 65 on the east end, reducing to 55 before the first intersection.  There is no increase to 75, although that may happen after they have the opportunity to study the traffic.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12287
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: May 17, 2022, 11:34:52 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #495 on: March 23, 2022, 11:27:24 AM »

Anderson Columbia is the contractor. This project will most likely drag for years.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3105
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:23:43 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #496 on: March 23, 2022, 04:50:59 PM »

Quote from: Thegeet
I donít appear to see any new satellite imagery: the I-69E was from around last year. The I-2 only shows construction on the West side.

The new imagery is visible in Google Earth Pro. I don't see it yet in Google Maps. For some odd reason the imagery date doesn't show up on my work computer, but I'm pretty sure it's from early this year (2022).

Quote from: roadman65
Anderson Columbia is the contractor. This project will most likely drag for years.

In the case of the LaJoya Bypass, it is pretty far along in progress. Barring really bad weather, like hurricanes or floods, it looks like it should be finished before the end of 2022.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12287
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: May 17, 2022, 11:34:52 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #497 on: March 23, 2022, 07:25:44 PM »

GSV does show the eastern end of the bypass being built from US 83.  It shows the two flyovers being built above the current US 83 as part of the future interchange carrying the main freeway over the future business route.
https://goo.gl/maps/FBLZ5kjaPv2CEAS2A

Then at the west end, goggle does show it in Sattellite imagery as well as Street View.
https://goo.gl/maps/XHJuUXb6ohPAexZc6
« Last Edit: March 23, 2022, 07:37:24 PM by roadman65 »
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3105
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:23:43 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #498 on: March 23, 2022, 10:36:50 PM »

The new overhead imagery of the LaJoya Bypass has to be from early 2022, maybe even late February. The Street View imagery of the East End of the bypass is dated 11/2021 and the interchange bridges with US-83/I-2 are only partially erected. The bridge structures are fully built out in the overhead imagery, plus the new berms leading to the overpasses are in place. All that's needed is for the road decks to be finished.
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 312
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:38 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #499 on: March 25, 2022, 01:45:45 AM »

Quote from: Thegeet
I donít appear to see any new satellite imagery: the I-69E was from around last year. The I-2 only shows construction on the West side.

The new imagery is visible in Google Earth Pro. I don't see it yet in Google Maps. For some odd reason the imagery date doesn't show up on my work computer, but I'm pretty sure it's from early this year (2022).

Quote from: roadman65
Anderson Columbia is the contractor. This project will most likely drag for years.

In the case of the LaJoya Bypass, it is pretty far along in progress. Barring really bad weather, like hurricanes or floods, it looks like it should be finished before the end of 2022.
Can you please upload an image since mine doesnít show it.
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.