AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Interstate 2  (Read 125799 times)

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1101
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 08:05:43 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #200 on: January 15, 2015, 09:07:53 PM »

Are there that many end signs in Texas? The only two that I'm aware of are at the I-30/US 75/I-45/I-345 interchange.

Aren't the ones on the north and south ends of 35W still there?  They were last year.
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

txstateends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: north TX, not far from an interstate interchange and a US terminus
  • Last Login: June 05, 2019, 11:30:28 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #201 on: January 16, 2015, 05:14:44 AM »

I've seen "END" on some dead end FM routes but I can't recall any on US highways. Does 27, 37, 44, or the south end of 45 have anything?

I don't remember an END on I-44 in Wichita Falls.  There wasn't an END for I-27 at the I-40 interchange in Amarillo until after it was redone a few years ago; now (per Street View) there is an END/ENDS small BGS for I-27 since then.

The few pix of I-37 (either end) and I-45 (Galveston) I have seen online have not included END signage, although that doesn't include Street View angles I might have missed.
Logged
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

dfwmapper

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 651
  • Location: DFW
  • Last Login: September 12, 2019, 01:30:34 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #202 on: January 16, 2015, 06:59:52 AM »

There's an ENDS sign at the south end of Spur 408. http://goo.gl/maps/hET9H
Logged

rickmastfan67

  • The Invisible One
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2696
  • I want I-67 in PA!!!!

  • Age: 34
  • Location: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:48:27 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #203 on: January 16, 2015, 09:07:10 PM »

There's an ENDS sign at the south end of Spur 408. http://goo.gl/maps/hET9H

Yet there is a ground mounted 'South Spur 408' sign after the 'END' BGS. http://goo.gl/maps/7srp1

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13867
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 08:45:24 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #204 on: January 16, 2015, 09:37:09 PM »

There's an ENDS sign at the south end of Spur 408. http://goo.gl/maps/hET9H

Yet there is a ground mounted 'South Spur 408' sign after the 'END' BGS. http://goo.gl/maps/7srp1
There probably has to be one posted there because that's where the reference marker (the little green rectangle) goes.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Greybear

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 215
  • Age: 51
  • Location: North Texas
  • Last Login: September 06, 2019, 01:38:59 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #205 on: January 16, 2015, 11:38:51 PM »

There is also an "I-635 ENDS" on SB I-635 just before it merges with I-20 WB.
Logged

erik_ram2005

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5
  • Location: McAllen, TX
  • Last Login: August 20, 2015, 11:42:01 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #206 on: January 17, 2015, 01:41:48 AM »

Is there explicit signage of the west end of I-2?

I'm not sure, I haven't been out to the west end of I-2 yet, but I should be able to confirm this within the next week as I will have some errands to run in that direction.

Or does it just go right into Mexico?

I thought the AASHTO approval for I-2 made it clear that the route, for now, ends where the freeway ends, near where Business US 83 peels away from US 83 east of La Joya,  That is fairly close to the border, but AFAIK there are no bridge or ferry crossings of the Rio Grande in that area.

There was no I-2 signage ("begin", "end", or otherwise) at or near freeway's end or the Bus 83 junction, when I drove there last year.  But then I-2 signage was sparse along the entire route.  Maybe that has changed, and is worth checking out.

Made the trip over towards the west I-2 terminus today, and saw no sign of any I-2 ENDS signs or anything indicating I-2 ends or begins (going west to east). The last I-2 shields I saw up were before the last overpass (showers rd). I do believe the official end though is at the business 83 intersection though, but no signs there either. Hopefully this becomes clear when exit numbering is installed soon.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13867
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 08:45:24 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #207 on: January 17, 2015, 02:15:54 AM »

I do believe the official end though is at the business 83 intersection though, but no signs there either.
Nope, it's 1/2 mile west of Showers Road, which is where the frontage roads end.

Hopefully this becomes clear when exit numbering is installed soon.
Hopefully not. Is it really a good idea to use 0 for the current and and have to renumber every time the freeway is extended?
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #208 on: January 17, 2015, 09:35:06 PM »

Is it really a good idea to use 0 for the current and and have to renumber every time the freeway is extended?

FWIW, in a previous post, I posted about email correspondence with TxDOT indicating that the current western terminus is near Mile 131:

I recently had an email Q & A with TxDOT about whether they intend to install I-2 mileage markers along I-2/US 83. Basically, an extension of I-2 to Laredo is a very long term proposition, but TxDOT has identified the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo as "mile zero" and the current western terminus near Mission is near Mile 131:
Quote
.... For I-2, there is the possibility of carrying it along US 83 up to Laredo, but very long term. Therefore, the “0” mile marker for I-2 begins at the intersection of I-35 and US 83 in Laredo. The mile marker for where I-2 begins on the western end west of Mission is Mile Marker 131. The actual mile marker may not be present. As resources are made available, these will be installed.

I assume that, with this understanding, TxDOT will be able to provide exit numbers for all of the current interchanges, as well.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2015, 09:40:27 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #209 on: January 22, 2015, 12:47:30 PM »

TxDOT recently posted a Notice Affording Opportunity For Public Hearing for the La Joya relief route.  It looks like Phase I of the project will be construction of the frontage roads:
Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is proposing the construction of the US 83 Relief Route at La Joya/Peñitas (a new locationhighway parallel to US 83) in western Hidalgo County. The project would enhance the local and regional transportation system by creating a new location roadway that would reduce traffic congestion and improve connectivity and safety.  The limits of the project are from 0.85 miles east of FM 886 (El Faro Road) to 0.28 miles west of Showers Road a length of approximately 9.2 miles. The project will be constructed in two or more phases. Phase I would involve construction of a four lane divided rural highway consisting of two roadways separated by a depressed median, which would serve as the future frontage roads. Each roadway would consist of two 12-foot wide travel lanes, a 4-foot wide inside and a 10-foot wide outside shoulder. Future phases of construction would include main lanes and overpasses within the depressed median. ....
TxDOT has released the tentative list of projects for the $1.74 billion available. The link has a nice listing and maps
http://www.txdot.gov/apps-cq/prop1/project_info.htm ....
$88 millionImprovements to the west end of US 83 near La Hoya (appears to be non-freeway)
(bottom quote from Texas: Proposition 1 easily passes thread)

The Pharr District list of projects includes construction of the frontage roads for the La Joya relief route:





Granted, this is a minor observation, but I find it interesting that, in a January 14, 2015 presentation linked as "I-69 Alliance Introductory Presentation 1.14.15" on the Alliance for I-69 Texas website, I-2, in the context of the I-69 "system", is referred to as "the I-2 Connector" (page 4/13 of pdf; page 4 of document):

« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 10:26:42 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #210 on: January 30, 2015, 11:11:02 PM »

FWIW, in a previous post, I posted about email correspondence with TxDOT indicating that the current western terminus is near Mile 131:
I recently had an email Q & A with TxDOT about whether they intend to install I-2 mileage markers along I-2/US 83. Basically, an extension of I-2 to Laredo is a very long term proposition, but TxDOT has identified the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo as "mile zero" and the current western terminus near Mission is near Mile 131:
Quote
.... For I-2, there is the possibility of carrying it along US 83 up to Laredo, but very long term. Therefore, the “0” mile marker for I-2 begins at the intersection of I-35 and US 83 in Laredo. The mile marker for where I-2 begins on the western end west of Mission is Mile Marker 131. The actual mile marker may not be present. As resources are made available, these will be installed.
I assume that, with this understanding, TxDOT will be able to provide exit numbers for all of the current interchanges, as well.
I thought I'd mention that TxDOT has scheduled a maintenance contract for the February 2015 letting that calls for updating and replacement of signs on I-2, I-69C, and I-69E (495 total sheets, of which 54 are sign panel detail sheets):
ftp://planuser:txdotplans@plans.dot.state.tx.us/State-Let-Maintenance/February%2015/02%20Plans/Hidalgo%206273-50-001.exe
Caution!  Filesize is 1.7 GB
(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)
Not wishing to download the huge file, I'm going to ask you if there are exit numbers.
(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)

J N Winkler, thank you very much for providing the following I-2-specific information to NE2:

Yes, there are exit numbers ....
On I-2, Showers Road is Exit 130, the I-69C/US 281 interchange is Exits 146A-B, and the I-69E/US 77 interchange (end of route) is Exit 175.
(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)

It looks like the only way the exit numbers would change would be as a result of a westward extension of I-2 past Laredo.  Not in my lifetime ............

edit

Also, thanks to NE2 for quickly putting together an I-2 exit list:

exit numbers now added to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_2#Exit_list
(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)
« Last Edit: January 31, 2015, 10:27:35 AM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #211 on: February 16, 2015, 07:04:46 PM »

the Texas Transportation Commission has posted an I-69 in South Texas Initiatives Presentation from its Sept. 26 meeting in McAllen that includes an "I-2/US 83 Progress" slide ... (page 11/12 of pdf):
With all the population growth taking place in the far South end of Texas it's pretty obvious TX-DOT really needs to start thinking about the long term possibility of building a South loop relief highway for I-2.
Here you go: http://www.hcrma.net/sh365.html
Seems like a "I-202" type of thing to me.
(bottom two quotes from I-69 in TX thread)

Another possible I-x02 is SH 68, which, as shown in this Handout from a September 9, 2014 Meeting, will provide an eastern connection from I-2 to I-69C (it looks more like an I-x69 to me because of the greater length that is parallel to I-69C, but TxDOT identified it as an "I-2/ US 83" project in the above-quoted slide, apparently because Phase 1 will be from I-2 to FM 1925):



It is possible that ROW acquisition for Phase 1 will begin late 2015 and Phase 1 construction will begin in 2017-2018:

Quote
SH 68 is a proposed 22 mile new road that will connect I-2/US 83 to I-69C/US 281. The proposed new road will connect with I-2/US 83 between Alamo and Donna and run north to I-69C/US 281 at FM 490, north of Edinburg ....
Project Phasing and Description
• Phase 1: Frontage roads from I-2/US 83 to FM 1925
• Phase 2: Frontage roads from FM 1925 to I-69C/
US 281
• Phase 3: Main lanes from I-2/US 83 to I-69C/US 281 ....
All three phases of this project are just beginning the environmental study and preliminary planning process. Phase 1 is the only part of the project that is funded for construction. It is anticipated that the entire project will receive environmental approval in late 2015 and that right of way acquisition for Phase 1 only will begin after that and continue into 2016. Phase 1 construction is anticipated for 2017-2018.

edit

This map shows how SH 68 will connect with the International Bridge Trade Corridor ("IBTC"), which in turn will connect with SH 365:



From this perspective, an I-x02 designation for SH 68 (and the entire loop) makes more sense.

second edit

Later SH 68 developments are discussed in this thread.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2015, 03:27:26 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #212 on: February 24, 2015, 09:48:55 PM »

I recently had an email Q & A with TxDOT about whether they intend to install I-2 mileage markers along I-2/US 83. Basically, an extension of I-2 to Laredo is a very long term proposition, but TxDOT has identified the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo as "mile zero" .... :
Quote
.... For I-2, there is the possibility of carrying it along US 83 up to Laredo, but very long term. Therefore, the “0” mile marker for I-2 begins at the intersection of I-35 and US 83 in Laredo.
This could become part of I-2: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/6.pdf

After posting about recent Loop 20 developments in Laredo in another thread, the possibility of Loop 195 becoming part of I-2 in the Roma/ Rio Grande City area made me think that Loop 20 could possibly become part of I-2 from Rio Bravo to Laredo and that, contrary to the info provided to me by TxDOT, "mile zero" for I-2 may ultimately be the I-69W interchange on Loop 20.  Not being familiar with Laredo, I rely on a summary of the two primary sections of Loop 20 contained in the January 2014 City of Laredo Federal Legislative Agenda: the Bob Bullock Loop and Cuatro Vientos Road (page 55/58 of pdf; page 46 of document):

Quote
State Loop 20, in Laredo, Texas has been developed in two sections. The first section to be developed was the portion of Loop 20 known as “Bob Bullock Loop” and it is an on-system roadway. It begins on the west side of the City of Laredo at the entrance to Laredo’s World Trade Bridge and begins to circle the city as it crosses under Interstate Highway 35 continuing east and southward through its intersection with U.S. Highway 59 to State Highway 359.
“Cuatro Vientos Road”, which is the second segment of State Loop 20, is an on-system roadway which parallels US 83, beginning at SH 359 on the north, at the intersection of Loop 20, and extend 7.25 miles south to connect with US 83, a Texas Trunk System Road. The road alleviates congestion along US 83
, resulting in better roadway system capacity through increased average peak operating speeds, and reductions in travel times and accidents. The corridor allows residents in South Laredo and nearby communities to access jobs and centers of trade.

A map from the 2010-35 Laredo MTP Roadway Plan provides a good visual of Cuatro Vientos and its relationship to US 83 (page 22/26 of pdf; page 22 of document):



Routing I-2 along Cuatro Vientos (and the short section of the Bob Bullock Loop from SH 359 to I-69W) instead of US 83 would be similar to the routing of I-69W along the Bob Bullock Loop instead of along the former US 59 into Laredo.  It would seem to be much easier to upgrade Cuatro Vientos to an interstate-grade facility than to try and do so with US 83 in Laredo.

The Draft Laredo 2015-2040 MTP has a "Special Issues" section that discusses the interaction with the I-35 and I-69 Advisory Committees (pages 149-152/360 of pdf; pages 5-43 thru 5-46 of document), but I do not see any mention of I-2 in connection with Cuatro Vientos, i.e. (page 152/360 of pdf; page 5-46 of document):

Quote
TxDOT is currently constructing the interchange of Loop 20 and SH 359, which is part of the Cuatro Vientos project which will carry Loop 20 down into south Laredo to offer relief to the US 83 corridor.


Also, the current upgrade of Bob Bullock Loop to I-69W would allow for I-2 signage as Cuatro Vientos would be upgraded to an interstate-grade facility from the I-69W interchange, if TxDOT were inclined to provide a western bookend to the eastern section of I-2.

edit

in a January 14, 2015 presentation linked as "I-69 Alliance Introductory Presentation 1.14.15" on the Alliance for I-69 Texas website, I-2, in the context of the I-69 "system", is referred to as "the I-2 Connector" (page 4/13 of pdf; page 4 of document)

If I-2 is ultimately routed along Cuatro Vientos in the Laredo area, then it truly will be a border-area "connector" for the I-69 system by having its termini at I-69W and I-69E, and an interchange at the southern terminus for I-69C.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2015, 09:38:31 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

US81

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 402
  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: April 23, 2015, 06:11:49 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #213 on: February 25, 2015, 08:58:52 AM »

You just don't understand Texans. We don't do anything everybody else does. That is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing.

signwise - only until 1969. 



after that, you guys started worshipping the federal standards, complete with garish '70 spec shields... and then even decided to adopt Clearview.  not very different at all.


so awesome.  wonder where this is?


I would guess this was at about mm246 on current I-35 SB.
Logged

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: March 28, 2019, 10:31:40 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #214 on: February 25, 2015, 09:33:18 PM »

Cuatro Vientos is being built as an expressway-standard route; it could be subsequently upgraded to a full freeway, and there are accommodations for overpasses at a few cross-roads, but unlike Bob Bullock Loop to the north some areas won't have space for frontage roads where there are at-grade intersections.

That said it's more realistic that a future I-2, when built, would follow Cuatro Vientos and Bob Bullock Loop than US 83 north of Rio Bravo, since the US 83 corridor is heavily built up, particularly on the east-west portion; you'd have to bulldoze between the one-way pair for probably 30 blocks to even get to I-35, and putting an interchange there would take out a whole neighborhood.

All this is really pie-in-the-sky, though, since traffic on US 83 drops off almost completely between Rio Bravo and  the north side of Roma. I don't see any need for anything in between besides a Zapata bypass and four-laning the existing route for decades, especially given the real lack of economic interaction between Laredo and the LRGV cities - Laredoans go to San Antonio or Corpus, not McAllen/Pharr/Edinburg, when they want to go to a "big city." Maybe that would change if I-2 made it to Roma and it became less of a pain to get over to McAllen, but I'm not sure - the "back way" via Hebbronville and Falfurrias, despite the CBP inspection stops, is fast enough.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1788
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 02:22:48 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #215 on: February 26, 2015, 05:10:32 PM »

There are possible wild cards that could speed up development along the border region of far South Texas.

The state's population is still growing pretty rapidly. "Flyover" parts of the interior US are seeing more and more people and business relocating from places like California due to economic and tax situations. Per capita income levels in far South Texas are not all that great. Still, there's 1.5 million people living down there.

Panama Canal expansion could bring a lot more ship traffic and business growth to port cities like Brownsville. That could equate into more truck traffic rolling up the potential I-2 corridor to destinations farther North and West.
Logged

ARMOURERERIC

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 985
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Morganton NC
  • Last Login: Today at 07:38:03 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #216 on: February 26, 2015, 08:30:20 PM »

Funny thing is that I just did much research on moving to San Antonio because of some tax breaks Texas offered my duck farm and promptly found that SA is having some serious water supply problems.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1788
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 02:22:48 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #217 on: February 27, 2015, 10:01:25 AM »

Some places in Texas are in pretty rough straits when it comes to water supply.

Cities in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are trying to build up water supply to keep up with booming population growth and industrial demand; they're even trying to take legal action in places here in Oklahoma, claiming water in this state belongs to them. The situation just within Oklahoma is very complicated with various tribes and municipalities like Oklahoma City going to court over water.

A big chunk of West Texas and Western Oklahoma has been stuck in a very serious, prolonged drought. Wichita Falls' reservoirs have been down to under 25% of capacity for much of the past year, forcing them to recycle waste water and truck in water from elsewhere. Several towns here in Oklahoma are under stage 5 water use restrictions. Some say the drought we're in currently is statistically worse than the drought that caused the dust bowl decades ago. The difference now is we have far better soil management policies in place.

As Texas keeps adding more and more people the state will have to build more dams, reservoirs and highways.
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 383
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: August 21, 2019, 10:15:45 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #218 on: March 06, 2015, 01:36:19 PM »

I hope it is not long before GSV makes its way to the valley.  I have been dying to see the new signage without having to drive down there.
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #219 on: March 08, 2015, 08:07:16 PM »

With all the population growth taking place in the far South end of Texas it's pretty obvious TX-DOT really needs to start thinking about the long term possibility of building a South loop relief highway for I-2 ...
Here you go: http://www.hcrma.net/sh365.html
Thanks! ... Seems like a "I-202" type of thing to me.
(above quotes from I-69 in TX thread)
we can still keep up the hope that one day I-2 can extend to South Padre Island ...?
(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)

In a recent post in another thread, I responded to ethanhopkin14's question in part by touching on the possibility of an interstate connection for the SPI 2nd Access project.  Since then, I have run across a December 29, 2014 article that reports on the belief that the SPI 2nd Access will greatly expand the Cameron County tax base, reports on studies indicating that, on peak weekends, 40% of the traffic going to SPI will come from Hidalgo County, reports that FM 1925 will be upgraded to serve "as an alternative to I-2" for the beach traffic by going from I-69C north of I-2 to connect with the Outer Parkway at I-69E (with long-term TxDOT plans to extend it to Starr and Zapata counties, which would put it close to Laredo and Webb County):

Quote
Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority Executive Director Pete Sepulveda, Jr. ....
Sepulveda said that over the last ten years, CCRMA’s work has expanded from two projects to over 20. He said two of them are as big as one is ever likely to work on – upgrading U.S. 77 to interstate standards between Brownsville and Corpus Christi, and building a second causeway to South Padre Island ....
The other major, “once in a lifetime,” project CCRMA is working on, Sepulveda told the Border to Border Transportation Conference, is a second access point to South Padre Island.
“The island is only half a mile wide and three miles long. There is no access to north, so that is as much as it can grow. Twenty percent of county’s tax base comes from South Padre Island. If we were able to provide access to the north, that island has the ability to double or triple in growth. You all can figure what that does to our tax valuation. So, this is a very important project,” Sepulveda said ....
Another interesting point about the South Padre Island project, he said, is that CCRMA has, through its studies, found that on a peak weekend 40 percent of the traffic going to the Island comes from Hidalgo County. “That is huge. It really makes it a regional transportation project,” he said ....
The final project Sepulveda mentioned at the Border to Border Transportation Conference is a link between I-69 Central in Edinburg and I-69 East north of Harlingen along FM 1925. He said four miles of this project are in Hidalgo County and six miles are in Cameron County. He said the link would then be extended eastwards to South Padre Island via the planned second causeway. Eventually, Sepulveda said, TxDOT would like to see FM 1925 extend westwards to Starr and Zapata counties. For now, though, it is a project being developed jointly between CCRMA and Hidalgo County RMA. “This is a great project (bearing in mind) the UT-Rio Grande Valley and the UTRGV Medical School component and the second access to South Padre Island. It will be an alternative to I-2 (Expressway 83).

Here is a snip of a slide from the November, 2014 Border to Border Conference referenced in the Dec. 29 article:



Could there ultimately be an "I-402" type of connection to South Padre Island?

edit

Later FM 1925, SPI 2nd Access and Outer Parkway developments are discussed in this thread.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 12:34:50 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2494
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 04:43:27 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #220 on: March 09, 2015, 07:56:37 AM »

Some places in Texas are in pretty rough straits when it comes to water supply.

Cities in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are trying to build up water supply to keep up with booming population growth and industrial demand; they're even trying to take legal action in places here in Oklahoma, claiming water in this state belongs to them. The situation just within Oklahoma is very complicated with various tribes and municipalities like Oklahoma City going to court over water.

A big chunk of West Texas and Western Oklahoma has been stuck in a very serious, prolonged drought. Wichita Falls' reservoirs have been down to under 25% of capacity for much of the past year, forcing them to recycle waste water and truck in water from elsewhere. Several towns here in Oklahoma are under stage 5 water use restrictions. Some say the drought we're in currently is statistically worse than the drought that caused the dust bowl decades ago. The difference now is we have far better soil management policies in place.

As Texas keeps adding more and more people the state will have to build more dams, reservoirs and highways.

It's pouring in Austin today.  Been a very rainy 2015 so I think it's starting to even out.
Logged

iBallasticwolf2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 952
  • :/

  • Location: Kenton County, KY
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 05:10:29 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #221 on: March 21, 2015, 09:40:53 PM »

I think I-2 to Larado would be extremely useful
Logged
Only two things are infinite in this world, stupidity, and I-75 construction

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #222 on: April 23, 2015, 02:27:58 PM »

TxDOT recently posted a Notice Affording Opportunity For Public Hearing for the La Joya relief route.  It looks like Phase I of the project will be construction of the frontage roads:
Quote
Phase I would involve construction of a four lane divided rural highway consisting of two roadways separated by a depressed median, which would serve as the future frontage roads.
TxDOT has released the tentative list of projects for the $1.74 billion available. The link has a nice listing and maps
http://www.txdot.gov/apps-cq/prop1/project_info.htm ....
$88 millionImprovements to the west end of US 83 near La Hoya (appears to be non-freeway)
(quote from Texas: Proposition 1 easily passes thread)
The Pharr District list of projects includes construction of the frontage roads for the La Joya relief route:

This April 10 article reports that TxDOT will accept bids on the two La Joya relief route frontage road projects on July 15:

Quote
Three projects expected to ease congestion on the west side of the county will get moving this year.
The Texas Department of Transportation is scheduled to begin accepting bids July 15 on La Joya Bypass project, which was broken into two parts. The combined total of the two pieces add up to $88 million, with nearly $26 million coming from Proposition 1, an item approved by voters in November that moved $1.74 billion of oil and gas revenues into the State Highway Fund.
La Joya Bypass project has been in the plans for more than a decade. It will allow traffic to move north of U.S. 83 around La Joya and Peñitas. City officials in La Joya have eagerly anticipated the project, believing it will bring additional opportunities for economic development into the area ....
Octavio Saenz, TxDOT spokesman for the Pharr district ....
Saenz said consideration was given to projects that could immediately relieve congestion in the community. He said part of the scoring relied on average daily traffic counts, which showed more than 33,000 vehicles cross over La Joya and Peñitas daily on U.S. 83.
There's been a lot of growth throughout the entire Valley, but the most congested area is here in the Hidalgo County," Saenz said. "The projects in essence echo what the people want. These are much needed road projects and we all heard it last November when we realized from the Texas voters that the transportation projects are paramount for the area."
Traffic counts are higher in other parts of the county, like Pharr and McAllen, but Saenz said projects are already in the works to alleviate traffic in those areas. For example, he said,TxDOT is restructuring Interstate 2 at Bicentennial to create an underpass.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2015, 02:41:57 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #223 on: May 12, 2015, 01:04:42 PM »

With all the population growth taking place in the far South end of Texas it's pretty obvious TX-DOT really needs to start thinking about the long term possibility of building a South loop relief highway for I-2 ...
Here you go: http://www.hcrma.net/sh365.html
Thanks! ... Seems like a "I-202" type of thing to me.
(above quotes from I-69 in TX thread)

The Hidalgo County Regional Mobility Authority ("HCRMA") and TxDOT will hold a public hearing regarding SH 365 on May 26:

Quote
The purpose of the hearing is to present the proposed State Highway 365 (SH 365) controlled access tolled facility from Farm‐to‐Market Road (FM) 1016 (Conway Avenue) east to U.S. Highway 281 (Military Highway) in Hidalgo County, Texas, and to receive public comment.
The intent of the proposed project is to
: improve east‐west mobility and interconnectivity necessary to effectively distribute traffic between existing and planned border crossings and local freight transfer facilities; reduce community disruption south of Interstate Highway 2 (I‐2/US 83) associated with increasing freight movement originating from and destined to the border to access local freight transfer facilities; address safety concerns regarding the mix of vehicle types and conflicting movements on the arterial and local street network; and construct the proposed project through the use of vehicle registration fees, toll revenue bonds, state/federal funding, SIB loan, TIFIA Bonds, and TRZ revenues, as the funding needs cannot be addressed through traditional non-tolled funding sources.
The proposed SH 365 project would initially be developed as a four‐lane divided controlled access toll facility divided by a grassy median with Rights‐of‐Way (ROW) reserved for future widening for the ultimate facility when necessary. The ultimate facility would consist of six travel lanes divided by a flushed median with a concrete barrier. The 16.53‐milelong proposed tolled facility is primarily on new location within a typical 300‐foot ROW, which varies from 160 feet to 400 feet ... The logical termini for the proposed project are from FM 1016 (Conway Avenue) to US 281 (Military Highway) with construction limits for the proposed toll project from 0.5 mile west of FM 1016 (Conway Avenue) east to Spur 29 (Veterans Boulevard), located south of US 281 (Military Highway).

edit

Later SH 365 developments are discussed in this thread.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2015, 03:31:59 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #224 on: July 18, 2015, 02:07:34 PM »

The Pharr District list of projects includes construction of the frontage roads for the La Joya relief route:

TxDOT has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact ("FONSI") for the La Joya relief route and has made it available for public review (the Notice does not appear to provide online access to the FONSI):

Quote
Notice of Availabilty - US 83 Relief Route Finding of No Significant Impact

Location: Pharr
Date: 07/17/15
Purpose: This notice is to advise the public that TxDOT has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed US 83 Relief Route from 0.85 miles east of FM 886 (El Faro Road) to 0.28 miles west of Showers Road in the cities of La Joya and Peñitas both in Cameron County, Texas.

The Notice on the TxDOT website can be found here.

La Joya and Peñitas in Cameron County?
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.