I-2 (US 83) freeway projects

[sprjus4]

Is there any Interstate 2 signage erected yet?

Has there been any actual official plans of designation of I-2 along the bypass? I have yet to hear of that.

Sometimes they don't release that information until much later, nearing the designation.

Perhaps with I-69. I still have not seen any official plans to extend I-2 beyond its current terminus, let alone to Laredo. I believe that is all fictional.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Bobby5280]

The exit numbers on I-2 definitely imply an eventual extension to Laredo.

[The Ghostbuster]

Interstate 2 will likely terminate at its future junction with Interstate 69W. Would anyone hazard a guess as to where exactly in the Laredo area 2 and 69W might meet?

[Bobby5280]

Most likely (in the long run) I-2 will end on Bob Bullock Loop just South of Texas A&M International University or just North of it. Those two locations are (IMHO) the most likely route alternatives where I-69W will leave the loop and divert to the East.

I think there is zero chance I-69W will be routed along US-59 all the way to the Bob Bullock Loop. There is just too much property along US-59 near the loop. It's easier to have I-69W bypass Lake Casa Blanca to the North. And they'll be able to kick the can down the road years longer on how to handle the portion of the Bob Bullock Loop that passes by the Casa Blanca golf course and Lake Casa Blanca levee. They'll deal with that problem if/when I-2 is built over it.

[thisdj78]

The exit numbers on I-2 definitely imply an eventual extension to Laredo.

Yep. Assuming the exit numbers correlate with mile markers, that would put the beginning just south of Laredo.

[MaxConcrete]

Bids were opened this week for the first phase of the Rio Grande City bypass, currently signed as State Loop (SL) 195.

Estimate: $75 million
Low bid: $62.3 million by Posillico Civil Inc.

This project is between FM 765 and FM 3167, not the entire segment shown in the map. The section between FM 3167 and FM 649 is scheduled to receive bids in September 2026.

Looking at the plans, the design is a 4 lane (2x2) divided on a 300-foot-wide corridor. There is a 120-foot wide median. Due to the placement of the lanes, there is not enough space for frontage roads on the sides or main lanes in the median, so this appears to be the final configuration which should eventually be converted into limited access by adding overpasses and removing crossovers.

Link to full resolution

[Bobby5280]

Ditching the frontage roads would save a substantial amount of money. Also, it kind of looks like the development on the northern fringes of Rio Grande City is mostly residential. If the bypass had frontage roads it could seed commercial development that would impact those neighborhoods. If the bypass has a minimal number of exits it might force a lot of commercial activity to stick to the existing US-83 corridor.

I'm a bit surprised a new freeway bypass that has no frontage roads needs a 300' wide ROW. A 2x2 freeway with no frontage roads could fit in a ROW half that width and still have some "breathing room."

[Henry]

Ditching the frontage roads would save a substantial amount of money. Also, it kind of looks like the development on the northern fringes of Rio Grande City is mostly residential. If the bypass had frontage roads it could seed commercial development that would impact those neighborhoods. If the bypass has a minimal number of exits it might force a lot of commercial activity to stick to the existing US-83 corridor.

I'm a bit surprised a new freeway bypass that has no frontage roads needs a 300' wide ROW. A 2x2 freeway with no frontage roads could fit in a ROW half that width and still have some "breathing room."

I'm used to seeing frontage roads along OK and TX freeways, so not including them here would be blasphemy. Then again, US 83 is there to the south, so there's probably no concern about that.

[Bobby5280]

I think the issue of frontage roads or no frontage roads might have more to do with available funding than anything else. If TX DOT only has to build two carriageways rather than four they'll probably be able to get more of the bypass built faster. Actually, I'm a little surprised this isn't starting out as an upgrade-able Super 2 facility.

[TBKS1]

Relevant to this thread but the old alignment of US 83 between US 83 Business at Penitas has been designated as SPUR 83.

April 2025 GSV imagery shows this. I was kinda surprised this number was available, but that's new.

(GSV imagery)

[The Ghostbuster]

Have they added exit numbers or Interstate 2 signage yet? If not, are there plans to do so, or will we have to wait until another extension of Interstate 2 is completed?

[kphoger]

Relevant to this thread but the old alignment of US 83 between US 83 Business at Penitas has been designated as SPUR 83.

April 2025 GSV imagery shows this. I was kinda surprised this number was available, but that's new.

https://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hdf_search.html?rtePrefix=defaultRtePrefix&rteNumber=83

It's not technically State Spur 83, but rather US Highway Spur 83.  Texas occasionally (often?) uses State Spur shields for such US Spurs.

Route Name — UP0083

Order — 1

Title — Minute Order 114383, dated 09/24/2015

Description — In and near the city of Penitas, a segment of US 83 was redesignated on the state highway system as US Highway Spur 83 (UP 83) from the intersection of existing BU 83-S eastward to the location of new US 83, a distance of approximately 0.4 mile. (Hidalgo County) New Designation: Due to Redesignation of Other Route

[TBKS1]

Yeah that's something I didn't realize they did, you also have the same thing with US 277 Spur in Del Rio too.

[kphoger]

you also have the same thing with US 277 Spur in Del Rio too.

Heh.  I almost mentioned that exact example, then decided not to and erased it before posting.