Laredo: bids opened for SH 84 frontage roads (potential future freeway)

[MaxConcrete]

Bid opening page. Map is on page 1 of the plans

This is an all-new highway on the north side of Laredo, generally east-to-west on the north side of Laredo from I-35 to the intersection of Mines Road and La Tiendas Road. It is on a wide right-of-way, generally 400 feet wide, and this $122 million project will build the frontage roads. Eventually we can expect the main lanes to be built, but that could be far in the future.

This project moved through the environmental process to contract award very quickly. The environmental assessment was approved in August 2023.

This area of Laredo has an abundance of warehouses, and I expect more warehouses to be built along SH 84.

County:   WEBB   Let Date:   05/02/24
Type:   CONSTRUCT NEW ROAD   Seq No:   3002
Time:   789 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   STP 2B24(041)MM
Highway:   SH 84   Contract #:   05243002
Length:   0.000   CCSJ:   3483-02-002
Limits:   
From:   FM 1472   Check:   $100,000
To:   IH 35 WEST FRONTAGE ROAD   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $144,625,047.06   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $122,229,769.00   -15.49%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 2   $126,867,899.95   -12.28%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC

[TheBox]

I think you meant Highway 83/US-83 (aka future Interstate 2)

[Bobby5280]

$100 million plus? For a pair of frontage road streets that run 6 or 7 miles? Jeez.

That project might help move traffic more efficiently between the growing Travel Centers of America complex on I-35 and the Columbia-Camino border crossing. But it won't solve the giant crush of truck traffic present on Mines Road. The zone from I-69W up to Millenium Park is really bad. They're going to have to look at building an elevated freeway through there and doing other at-grade freeway upgrades the rest of the way up to the Columbia-Camino crossing.

I doubt this new pair of frontage roads would be related to I-2. Or I-27. I-2 would ultimately end in Laredo at an interchange with I-69W. An eventual I-27 extension down to Laredo would more likely follow US-277 from Eagle Pass to Carrizo Springs and then to I-35. Although the route length would be shorter, it seems less likely I-27 would follow FM-1021 and Mines Road down to Laredo.

[MaxConcrete]

I think you meant Highway 83/US-83 (aka future Interstate 2)

See the environmental assessment.

There is no indication this project has any relation to US 83 or I-2.

3.1 Need
The project is needed to reduce traffic congestion on existing state and local roadways due to the
increased commercial drayage (short haul shipping) traffic between the international ports of entry
locate west FM 1472 and the developing warehouse district located along IH 35 north of Laredo.

3.3 Purpose
The purpose of the proposed project is to accommodate anticipated future growth in the region by
adding necessary additional capacity. Travel times between FM 1472 and IH-35 would be
significantly reduced with the construction of the new roadway. The new roadway would also reduce
traffic on Killam Industrial Blvd., I-69W, FM 1472, and FM 3338 by offering an alternative route
between FM 1472 and IH-35.

[Chris]

$100 million plus? For a pair of frontage road streets that run 6 or 7 miles? Jeez.

It does include several sets of bridges, according to the EA. But not an interchange with I-35, it just dead-ends at the I-35 frontage road.

[The Ghostbuster]

Could this roadway eventually be extended west of FM 1472 and into Mexico?

[Bobby5280]

Could this roadway eventually be extended west of FM 1472 and into Mexico?

It looks like too many new logistics buildings and other stuff is getting built on the other side of Mines Road. Over on the East end of this proposed project the new frontage roads have to loop around the Travel Centers of America complex. A new link over the Rio Grade from Mines Road would have to be built some distance farther North & West where there isn't as much building development. I have a feeling the general idea is making traffic use the Columbia-Camino border crossing. But, if there is massive growth in "near-shoring" industry from China to Mexico the Laredo area may need additional border crossings.

[CoreySamson]

Google Maps satellite view is now showing the frontage roads for TX 84 as largely paved:

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6849727,-99.5091717,11582m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDcwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

The area is absolutely exploding with warehouse development right now. When is the completion date for this section?

[Bobby5280]

It's surprising to see how many new logistics buildings have appeared in that area North of Laredo over the past few years. If that continues they'll have to add the freeway main lanes in the near future. And they might have to look at how to squeeze freeway main lanes into the median of Mines Road between TX-48 and TX-255.

[Chris]

It's surprising to see how many new logistics buildings have appeared in that area North of Laredo over the past few years.

Is this due to the Jones Act? Which bans 'cabotage', the transportation of cargo between U.S. destinations by foreign carriers. This was a shipping act but I thought it applies to trucking as well.

Mexican truck drivers transport cargo into the U.S. to these warehouses, and U.S. carriers truck it farther inland. Given the trade volumes between Mexico and the U.S., this could explain why so many logistics hubs are being built there.

[kphoger]

Is this due to the Jones Act? Which bans 'cabotage', the transportation of cargo between U.S. destinations by foreign carriers. This was a shipping act but I thought it applies to trucking as well.

Mexican truck drivers transport cargo into the U.S. to these warehouses, and U.S. carriers truck it farther inland. Given the trade volumes between Mexico and the U.S., this could explain why so many logistics hubs are being built there.

Despite a NAFTA mandate that Canadian, US, and Mexican trucks be given full access to all three countries, only the US–Canadian country-pair has ever been in compliance.  Other than a three-year trial period (2011 to 2014) during which the number of cross-border carriers was increased, no real attempt has been made to give US truckers free access to Mexico or vice versa.  That pilot program was then canceled, and things went back to the status quo.

The status quo is that US truckers are generally not allowed to operate in Mexico, nor are Mexican truckers generally allowed to operate in the USA.  There are exceptions for carriers who were grandfathered in years ago, which is why you can occasionally see dual-tagged trucks on US highways.  Rather, each side's truckers drop off their international loads in drayage yards, where drayage trucks pick them up and transport them to the other side's drayage yards.  These drayage trucks do nothing but shuttle loads from one side of the border to the other.

Obviously, this is an inefficient way of transporting goods, and eliminating the drayage requirements would undoubtedly lead to lower consumer prices.  But, if you'll allow me to get political for a moment, those drayage truckers are Teamsters, and that union has fought tirelessly for the system's persistence.  To that end, they have promulgated a mostly-unfounded fear of dangerous Mexican trucks plying America's highways and lobbied for politicians to block any opening-up of the border that might cost their drivers their jobs.  The aforementioned U.S.–Mexico Cross-Border Trucking Pilot Program was by any objective standard a success, and should have put to bed any fears that Mexican trucks in the USA would lead to more incidents on the road, but instead it was simply ended without any further progress since then that I'm aware of.  It is, of course, a fight that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want to fight—even if for different reasons.

[Bobby5280]

Doesn't the US government use drug interdiction as another rationale (or excuse) for making Mexican truck drivers stay in Mexico and US truck drivers stay in the US? If semi trucks could cross more freely between the US/Mexico border the fear would be drug smuggling would increase.

As the current system stands, it's pretty obvious plenty of illegal drugs are getting across the US/Mexico border anyway. Some of it is being hauled across in trucks, but plenty of it is coming across in other kinds of vehicles too.

[kphoger]

If semi trucks could cross more freely between the US/Mexico border the fear would be drug smuggling would increase.

The thing is, though, the same number of trucks and trailers would be crossing the border either way.  It's just that, with the current system, if you ship a trailer from Monterrey to Fort Worth, there are three trucks involved instead of just one truck—but, either way, one truck does the actual border crossing:  truck A goes from Monterrey to Nuevo Laredo, truck B shunts it across to Laredo, truck C goes from Laredo to Fort Worth.

The pilot program from fifteen years ago had stringent requirements for the trucking companies that they allowed into the program, and I don't think there's any reason to think such requirements would have needed to be relaxed in order to fully comply with the NAFTA mandate.  Only the safest carriers with the best-trained and -vetted drivers were allowed into the pilot program, and I don't think that the NAFTA mandate required that every carrier be allowed free access without meeting whatever standards were decided upon by each country.  I suppose I could be mistaken about that.