Aggieland
Sponsored by

TERAFAB Development Watch Companies, Construction & Local Growth

35,856 Views | 277 Replies | Last: 7 days ago by johnnyblaze36
BiochemAg97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CS78 • 12:18p, 8/13/26
AG
CS78 said:
Quote:

It looks like that big circle in your last picture will take the place of the East Loop that the county dropped after opposition.


It looks like they have the east loop ran right down the river bottom. I hate to see that from an ecological standpoint. From a cost standpoint, it would have to be elevated the whole way.


There are multiple route concepts (pale blue). The slightly darker blue between and around the pale blue likely indicates an initial general area that is being narrowed to the pale blue concepts. The further out loop is partly east of Navasota and will have to cross in two places. The closer in is mostly west of the Navasota and, while it gets close, doesn't have to cross. The light blue bands are a very large general area of the route concepts. The ultimate right of way is not that wide. Once a route concept is selected, they will focus in on the chosen concept to refine the exact path of the RoW, in the same way the darker blue is being narrowed to the light blue. There will be additional rounds of public comment as the route gets narrowed.

Environmental and costs are going to continue to be factors in the narrowing until a final ROW is determined.
Reply Quote
2
doubledog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to lawless89 • 12:23p, 8/13/26
lawless89 said:
techno-ag said:
It is not for sure I-14 will take that route. Last I heard they were leaning toward the Hwy 21 route.

Most expensive and largest building in the world is likely to shift I-14 to the HWY30 route.

Not necessarily, a spur (26miles) from 21 running to the Terafab would be acceptable too.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
wareagle044
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 2:26p, 8/13/26
I don't think it was a replacement for the IEL this concept was always going to come out this way regardless of what happened with the IEL. What the IEL potentially could have been was an option in place of this concept. The county was requesting an ROW in IEL that was to interstate standards. The county could have told TxDOT "we've already secured this ROW, just put it here…". That's my own speculation - the county never advertised or admitted to such. Whatever the intent was with IEL was - it was poorly executed and communicated in my opinion - will probably never really know all the driving factors behind it.

What is proposed here is what I always personally envisioned a loop around BCS would look like. It's more in line with where I'd expect something like that to be located but that's always debatable. Some version of the IEL may or may not manifest itself at some point in the future but the county will need to do a much better job planning, communicating and justifying the need.

Terafab and its rippling impact gives a nice talking point - the numbers will have to start to shift to paint the full picture.

Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Ag97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:52p, 8/13/26
AG
I had heard after the East Loop plans were defeated on the local level that the local governments were going to back out and let TXDOT be the bad guy going forward on it. I think they tried to push it through so they had more control over it which makes more sense but in the end they knew if they couldn't get it accomplished that TXDOT would since they are more insulated and that direct ire from the local populace doesn't effect them in any meaningful way.

Development when it effects your personal property sucks but in the case of needed infrastructure, it's necessary. One of the arterial roads on the proposed East Loops would have skirted my property line if it was approved as presented. I would imagine that same possibility exists if TXDOT builds this version of it.

I'm OK with it. If I want my kids to live and work here when they grow up, this community needs to continue to grow. Stagnation doesn't breed as much opportunity for the next generation. We need to continue to grow. If it grows through my property, it will suck but hopefully I get enough money for it that I can afford to move further out and away from the growth.
Reply Quote
10
johnnyblaze36
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:55p, 8/13/26
AG


Reply Quote
10
Rex Racer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:57p, 8/13/26
AG
I've seen a map with both the inner east loop AND loop 214 on it. They are separate things. The inner east loop was going to run just west of my property and loop 214 was and is still planned for at least 3 to 4 miles east of my property.

Found it. The purple dotted line is the Inner East Loop (now defunct) and the blue dotted line is loop 214.

Reply Quote
4
1 edit
BiochemAg97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag97 • 3:14p, 8/13/26
AG
Ag97 said:
I had heard after the East Loop plans were defeated on the local level that the local governments were going to back out and let TXDOT be the bad guy going forward on it. I think they tried to push it through so they had more control over it which makes more sense but in the end they knew if they couldn't get it accomplished that TXDOT would since they are more insulated and that direct ire from the local populace doesn't effect them in any meaningful way.

Development when it effects your personal property sucks but in the case of needed infrastructure, it's necessary. One of the arterial roads on the proposed East Loops would have skirted my property line if it was approved as presented. I would imagine that same possibility exists if TXDOT builds this version of it.

I'm OK with it. If I want my kids to live and work here when they grow up, this community needs to continue to grow. Stagnation doesn't breed as much opportunity for the next generation. We need to continue to grow. If it grows through my property, it will suck but hopefully I get enough money for it that I can afford to move further out and away from the growth.


Our local governments like to blame TXDOT, but I don't think TXDOT can do it on its own. I believe TXDOT projects still require some amount of local funding, not fully paid for by the state.

Take the medians for example. Lots of "oh well it's TXDOT" until it was admitted that the local govts coordinated with TxDoT. Now they are in place, I fully expect the local govts to hide behind TXDOT and say we can't remove the medians because they are TXDOT roads.

For I14, I think TxDoT and Feds can force it through without the city/county because Feds typically foot 90% of interstate highway funding. And having one local govt block a section of I14 kinda kills the value. But I think most county and city govts will prefer a piece of the interstate rather than being bypassed.
Reply Quote
6
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wareagle044 • 3:30p, 8/13/26
AG
wareagle044 said:
I don't think it was a replacement for the IEL this concept was always going to come out this way regardless of what happened with the IEL. What the IEL potentially could have been was an option in place of this concept. The county was requesting an ROW in IEL that was to interstate standards. The county could have told TxDOT "we've already secured this ROW, just put it here…". That's my own speculation - the county never advertised or admitted to such. Whatever the intent was with IEL was - it was poorly executed and communicated in my opinion - will probably never really know all the driving factors behind it.

What is proposed here is what I always personally envisioned a loop around BCS would look like. It's more in line with where I'd expect something like that to be located but that's always debatable. Some version of the IEL may or may not manifest itself at some point in the future but the county will need to do a much better job planning, communicating and justifying the need.

Terafab and its rippling impact gives a nice talking point - the numbers will have to start to shift to paint the full picture.

It just makes a lot of sense to extend 2818 North and make a loop going east. Right now it dead ends in a pasture. Making the rest of 2818 interstate quality would be grand too. They're adding more lights like at Mumford Road which will just continue contributing to congestion on the west side of town.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
5
doubledog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rex Racer • 5:03p, 8/13/26
Rex Racer said:
I've seen a map with both the inner east loop AND loop 214 on it. They are separate things. The inner east loop was going to run just west of my property and loop 214 was and is still planned for at least 3 to 4 miles east of my property.

Found it. The purple dotted line is the Inner East Loop (now defunct) and the blue dotted line is loop 214.


The blue loop runs through a lot of flood plains.
Reply Quote
4
Rex Racer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to doubledog • 5:16p, 8/13/26
AG
doubledog said:
Rex Racer said:
I've seen a map with both the inner east loop AND loop 214 on it. They are separate things. The inner east loop was going to run just west of my property and loop 214 was and is still planned for at least 3 to 4 miles east of my property.

Found it. The purple dotted line is the Inner East Loop (now defunct) and the blue dotted line is loop 214.


The blue loop runs through a lot of flood plains.

Yes. It's also a lot wider than on this map. There is a wide range of possibilities.
Reply Quote
1 edit
wareagle044
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rex Racer • 6:23p, 8/13/26
Rex Racer said:
doubledog said:
Rex Racer said:
I've seen a map with both the inner east loop AND loop 214 on it. They are separate things. The inner east loop was going to run just west of my property and loop 214 was and is still planned for at least 3 to 4 miles east of my property.

Found it. The purple dotted line is the Inner East Loop (now defunct) and the blue dotted line is loop 214.


The blue loop runs through a lot of flood plains.

Yes. It's also a lot wider than on this map. There is a wide range of possibilities.


The proposed routes as illustrated are about 1 mile wide according to the TxDOT reps at the meeting. The final route will be about 500' wide ROW
Reply Quote
3
AGGODDESS
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tailgate88 • 8:51p, 8/13/26
AG
shhhhhhhhh :p
Reply Quote
MyNameIsJeff
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:28a, 8/14/26
AG
https://www.kbtx.com/2026/08/14/ash-terafab-land-clearing-reaches-nearby-iola-property/

I guess I need a subscription to use the appropriate emoji for this.
Reply Quote
1
Rex Racer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wareagle044 • 9:35a, 8/14/26
AG
wareagle044 said:
Rex Racer said:
doubledog said:
Rex Racer said:
I've seen a map with both the inner east loop AND loop 214 on it. They are separate things. The inner east loop was going to run just west of my property and loop 214 was and is still planned for at least 3 to 4 miles east of my property.

Found it. The purple dotted line is the Inner East Loop (now defunct) and the blue dotted line is loop 214.


The blue loop runs through a lot of flood plains.

Yes. It's also a lot wider than on this map. There is a wide range of possibilities.


The proposed routes as illustrated are about 1 mile wide according to the TxDOT reps at the meeting. The final route will be about 500' wide ROW

Here's the interactive map of the proposed possible routes.

https://gis.rsandh.com/portal/apps/instant/reporter/index.html?appid=72b6e2f3b6994e1f9953f8da06143ef3
Reply Quote
3
hopeandrealchange
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BuddysBud • 10:15a, 8/15/26
BuddysBud said:
Bob Yancy said:
BuddysBud said:
Bob Yancy said:
doubledog said:
Bob Yancy said:
BiochemAg97 said:
Bob Yancy said:
BiochemAg97 said:
Bob Yancy said:
Captn_Ag05 said:
Fitch and 30 seems like the most likely area for heavy growth to me. It will be interesting what that area looks like in ten years. Street improvements and infrastructure is going to be essential for that area.


1000%. The inbound and outbound Terafab corridor for College Station is 30 and Fitch. We're ahead of the game- thank you staff and council- as we're resurfacing Fitch now and it's a great gateway for what's coming. Greenfield land is abundant and there are agreements in place for friendly annexations to grow the city's footprint on all sides.

There's plenty of land to serve commercial and residential and mixed use/retail property there and act as a "shock absorber" for the growth to come while not overly stressing the city. But resurfacing Fitch isn't near enough.

To get it done, we'll need plenty of chapter 380 economic development agreements, wisely crafted, and city participation on infrastructure- namely wastewater infrastructure.

Such a strategy would let us leave the city largely intact- albeit growth will come everywhere- while giving growth a place to grow. If ever in the annals of municipal history there was a case to be made for a planned growth district- THIS IS IT.

I will be talking about this area in regards to the budget- which is completely silent on the matter and also leaves no room, as currently proposed, for us to make such investments. I will also be talking about it on the campaign trail- a lot.

The words "SpaceX" or "Terafab" nor any related words even appear in the budget. You elect us to govern the present and set us up for the future. It is my intent to do so.

I am appreciative of the base ingredients that staff and council and council's past have done to set us up for success, but the key ingredients are vision and business acumen and as it relates to Terafab, now approved, those ingredients are in fact missing from this budget, and thus our plans.

I can't state it any plainer than that.

Respectfully and transparently,

Yancy '95


East loop would have been useful.


I don't know that route in relation to this. I do know plowing new homes is never going to work, and that the East Loop is in the past. The future is ahead of us, and we have miles and miles of greenfield coming inbound and outbound directly to and from SpaceX.

It's a "growth absorption district" waiting to happen. Are we to sit on our hands and let this happen to us, and just hope it all works out while we persistently pursuing our pet projects of the past?

Or, we could plan for growth, facilitate it where it makes sense, foster prosperity and make those needed investments we seem so intent upon in a phased way, or AFTER we do the hard work of visioning and controlling our destiny. THEN the resources will be forthcoming to make the best call, without project ramrodding, breaking the bank and more than doubling the capital budget.

That may sound dramatic- but it's exactly the spot we're standing on.

Respectfully

Yancy '95


East loop would have extended from 30/fitch and turned north, opening additional greenfield development.

Yes it is in the past, but failing to plan for development on the east side of the county is exactly the problem you are arguing against.

And quite frankly, "plowing new homes" is also a symptom of not planning for growth. East loop had been on the plan for a long time. Securing the right of way before someone builds a subdivision on would have been a good idea. I would suggest CoCS figure out where they will need arterials before all this area gets developed and ensure there is row to do it when it is time.


Fair opinions that don't require my agreement or disagreement.

As for your last sentence- we already have the biggest, emptiest most undeveloped arterial in the county- and it's the fastest route to SpaceX. It's William D. Fitch.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

The primary bottleneck in this development continues to be the High 30 bridge spanning the Navasota. This is a low, one-mile-long, narrow highway across a river and a major stream is frequently utilized by large garbage trucks, and the situation is expected to deteriorate further with the Terafab development. A significant flood or an accident on this route would completely halt all traffic.

At present, I do not see TxDOT rushing to improve it.


The last time I was out there, TxDOT was working on 4 different spots along that stretch, including a project right by Gibbons Creek.

I'll drive it today to see exactly what you and others are referring to as I've had some Texags direct messages since we started discussing this, too.

Respectfully

Yancy '95


Ideally, with Terafab going in, the Hwy-30 corridor should be the southern leg of I-14. The stretch from Fitch to King Oaks Dr should be a continuous bridge because that entire stretch goes over Navasota River flood plain. Most of that stretch currently goes along a levee. Making the levee wider seems impractical.


I believe that work is underway…

From TxDOT's website …

Proposed improvements
Replace and widen the bridges over the Navasota River, Navasota River Relief No. 1, and Navasota River Relief No. 2.
Widen SH 30 from two lanes to four lanes with a center two-way left turn lane and 10' shoulders.
The proposed project requires additional right-of-way on the north side of the roadway.


Great! Why not skip the intermediate improvements and go straight to I-14? As it is they will likely make these improvements and two years later tear it up for the interstate, wasting time and tax dollars.


BINGO!!!!!!
I would love to hear an intelligent answer to that question.
Reply Quote
2
BiochemAg97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hopeandrealchange • 2:30p, 8/15/26
AG
hopeandrealchange said:
BuddysBud said:
Bob Yancy said:
BuddysBud said:
Bob Yancy said:
doubledog said:
Bob Yancy said:
BiochemAg97 said:
Bob Yancy said:
BiochemAg97 said:
Bob Yancy said:
Captn_Ag05 said:
Fitch and 30 seems like the most likely area for heavy growth to me. It will be interesting what that area looks like in ten years. Street improvements and infrastructure is going to be essential for that area.


1000%. The inbound and outbound Terafab corridor for College Station is 30 and Fitch. We're ahead of the game- thank you staff and council- as we're resurfacing Fitch now and it's a great gateway for what's coming. Greenfield land is abundant and there are agreements in place for friendly annexations to grow the city's footprint on all sides.

There's plenty of land to serve commercial and residential and mixed use/retail property there and act as a "shock absorber" for the growth to come while not overly stressing the city. But resurfacing Fitch isn't near enough.

To get it done, we'll need plenty of chapter 380 economic development agreements, wisely crafted, and city participation on infrastructure- namely wastewater infrastructure.

Such a strategy would let us leave the city largely intact- albeit growth will come everywhere- while giving growth a place to grow. If ever in the annals of municipal history there was a case to be made for a planned growth district- THIS IS IT.

I will be talking about this area in regards to the budget- which is completely silent on the matter and also leaves no room, as currently proposed, for us to make such investments. I will also be talking about it on the campaign trail- a lot.

The words "SpaceX" or "Terafab" nor any related words even appear in the budget. You elect us to govern the present and set us up for the future. It is my intent to do so.

I am appreciative of the base ingredients that staff and council and council's past have done to set us up for success, but the key ingredients are vision and business acumen and as it relates to Terafab, now approved, those ingredients are in fact missing from this budget, and thus our plans.

I can't state it any plainer than that.

Respectfully and transparently,

Yancy '95


East loop would have been useful.


I don't know that route in relation to this. I do know plowing new homes is never going to work, and that the East Loop is in the past. The future is ahead of us, and we have miles and miles of greenfield coming inbound and outbound directly to and from SpaceX.

It's a "growth absorption district" waiting to happen. Are we to sit on our hands and let this happen to us, and just hope it all works out while we persistently pursuing our pet projects of the past?

Or, we could plan for growth, facilitate it where it makes sense, foster prosperity and make those needed investments we seem so intent upon in a phased way, or AFTER we do the hard work of visioning and controlling our destiny. THEN the resources will be forthcoming to make the best call, without project ramrodding, breaking the bank and more than doubling the capital budget.

That may sound dramatic- but it's exactly the spot we're standing on.

Respectfully

Yancy '95


East loop would have extended from 30/fitch and turned north, opening additional greenfield development.

Yes it is in the past, but failing to plan for development on the east side of the county is exactly the problem you are arguing against.

And quite frankly, "plowing new homes" is also a symptom of not planning for growth. East loop had been on the plan for a long time. Securing the right of way before someone builds a subdivision on would have been a good idea. I would suggest CoCS figure out where they will need arterials before all this area gets developed and ensure there is row to do it when it is time.


Fair opinions that don't require my agreement or disagreement.

As for your last sentence- we already have the biggest, emptiest most undeveloped arterial in the county- and it's the fastest route to SpaceX. It's William D. Fitch.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

The primary bottleneck in this development continues to be the High 30 bridge spanning the Navasota. This is a low, one-mile-long, narrow highway across a river and a major stream is frequently utilized by large garbage trucks, and the situation is expected to deteriorate further with the Terafab development. A significant flood or an accident on this route would completely halt all traffic.

At present, I do not see TxDOT rushing to improve it.


The last time I was out there, TxDOT was working on 4 different spots along that stretch, including a project right by Gibbons Creek.

I'll drive it today to see exactly what you and others are referring to as I've had some Texags direct messages since we started discussing this, too.

Respectfully

Yancy '95


Ideally, with Terafab going in, the Hwy-30 corridor should be the southern leg of I-14. The stretch from Fitch to King Oaks Dr should be a continuous bridge because that entire stretch goes over Navasota River flood plain. Most of that stretch currently goes along a levee. Making the levee wider seems impractical.


I believe that work is underway…

From TxDOT's website …

Proposed improvements
Replace and widen the bridges over the Navasota River, Navasota River Relief No. 1, and Navasota River Relief No. 2.
Widen SH 30 from two lanes to four lanes with a center two-way left turn lane and 10' shoulders.
The proposed project requires additional right-of-way on the north side of the roadway.


Great! Why not skip the intermediate improvements and go straight to I-14? As it is they will likely make these improvements and two years later tear it up for the interstate, wasting time and tax dollars.


BINGO!!!!!!
I would love to hear an intelligent answer to that question.


I'll take a stab at it.

A) SH30 is one of multiple possible routes and may not ever become I14. Terafab might make that route more favorable. If you look at all the prior maps, it looked like the 190 route was the more favored route and 30 was a backup option. The new route concepts show 3 routes with a new middle shorter route through Iola and Bedias. But that leaves 30 as 1 of 3 potential options.

B) environmental and all other permitting for the current project has been in the works for the current scope for about couple of years. Going back to the drawing board to make it interstate compliant would delay the project another couple of years. Given the immediate need and soon to be increased need from Terafab, not doing anything for another few years would be worse.

C) widening to IH standards isn't necessarily as bad as you think. Watch 6 and how they widen all the bridges. Most won't be a complete tear down and rebuild but rather an add on the side to expand. Unless the IH standards require the bridge to be higher, you really are just talking widening things. Ground level road surface might be another issue. If they are doing asphalt, I assume it would all be torn up and replaced with concrete for the interstate. If they are doing concrete, then it is just adding additional lanes.

Finally, TXDOT is footing the bill for the current project. If it is designated I14, then Feds will pay for about 90% of the future improvement. Yes govt waste at its finest because it is coming from different pots of money.
Reply Quote
10
Aggie_Fire
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:09p, 8/17/26
AG
I-14 public meeting tomorrow night at Legends in Bryan:
=========================================
The TxDOT Bryan District is holding a series of open house public meetings in August for the I-14 Central Texas Corridor Study. It includes the future I-14 corridor from Rogers in Bell County to Huntsville in Walker County, plus the designated Loop I-214 around Bryan-College Station. TxDOT will introduce conceptual alternative routes for the corridor and is asking for public comments at the events.
An open house will be held at Legends Event Center in Bryan on Tuesday, August 18 from 4:30-6:30PM. You will also be able to view the meeting materials online and provide comments.
More information can be found at https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/i14-corridor-study.html

If you are unable to attend Tuesday there will be a meeting on Wednesday

A reminder that open house public meetings on the I-14 Central Texas Corridor Study will take place this week:

Tuesday, August 18, 4:30-6:30PM
Legends Event Center, Bryan

Wednesday, August 19, 4:30-6:30PM
Grimes County Fairgrounds, Navasota
Reply Quote
1
EriktheRed
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:36p, 8/17/26
AG
Lots of burning again out there today, can see it to the east and/or on radar
Reply Quote
1
EBrazosAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to EriktheRed • 2:49p, 8/17/26
AG
There was a stationary pyrocumulus cloud in the smoke column.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
MiMi
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to EBrazosAg • 11:22p, 8/17/26
S
EBrazosAg said:
There was a stationary pyrocumulus cloud in the smoke column.


I think I saw it ! Was driving south on Hwy 6 near Fitch this afternoon and pointed out the odd cloud formation. It was very unique.
Reply Quote
1
TLRS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:05p, 8/20/26
AG
I'm not sure what to make of this. Am I crazy?

These slides were presented yesterday at the Greater Brazos Partnership Economic Outlook. Take a look at the numbers in the two photos.

The model projects Terafab being developed in four phases, with only 383 direct jobs per phase and 1,532 total direct jobs by 2037. It also projects only 4,955 additional residents across the region attributable to Terafab over the next 11 years.

Here's the problem:

The State of Texas announced on August 6 that Phase 1 alone is expected to create at least 3,000 jobs and represents a $16.8 billion investment.

Elon Musk has since said that the 3,000 jobs are just Phase 1 of 10 planned phases.

That means the 3,000 jobs already announced for Phase 1 alone are nearly twice the 1,532 jobs this model projects for the entire project through 2037.

I'm not suggesting we simply multiply 3,000 10 and assume Terafab will ultimately employ 30,000 people. Nobody knows what the later phases will look like, how quickly they will be built, or how automation will affect employment.

But I do think there's a very strong argument that these projections are far too conservative based on what we know today.

The population projection is especially interesting. This model attributes only 14% of the region's projected growth through 2037 to Terafabjust 4,955 people.

If Phase 1 alone really brings 3,000 permanent jobs, plus thousands of construction workers, suppliers, contractors and supporting businessesand additional phases followI have a hard time believing Terafab's impact on the Brazos Valley will be that small.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the development happens faster than the timeline shown here. That's obviously something we'll have to watch.

Either way, Phase 1 by itself is already a massive project. Anything beyond Phase 1 only increases the potential impact on housing, land, infrastructure, retail and development throughout Grimes County and the BryanCollege Station area.

Curious what everyone else thinks. Are these projections too conservative, or am I missing something in the way they're modeling Terafab's impact?

TLRS
Reply Quote
tu ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TLRS • 3:17p, 8/20/26
AG
Who was presenting and where did the data come from?
Reply Quote
3
TLRS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:27p, 8/20/26
AG
I honestly don't know who developed the projections or exactly what data they used. My bigger concern is how these numbers could influence planning decisions.

If city and county officials are being shown projections of only 1,532 direct Terafab jobs by 2037, when the State and SpaceX have announced 3,000+ jobs for Phase 1 alone, it could significantly understate what may be coming.

I'd much rather see our communities plan for the larger scenario and get ahead of housing, roads, utilities and infrastructure now than underestimate Terafab's impact and spend the next decade trying to catch up.
TLRS
Reply Quote
2
Bob Yancy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TLRS • 3:36p, 8/20/26
TLRS said:
I honestly don't know who developed the projections or exactly what data they used. My bigger concern is how these numbers could influence planning decisions.

If city and county officials are being shown projections of only 1,532 direct Terafab jobs by 2037, when the State and SpaceX have announced 3,000+ jobs for Phase 1 alone, it could significantly understate what may be coming.

I'd much rather see our communities plan for the larger scenario and get ahead of housing, roads, utilities and infrastructure now than underestimate Terafab's impact and spend the next decade trying to catch up.


I believe the axiom "under promise and over deliver" is in play. I feel these numbers are low.

Respectfully

Yancy '95
Reply Quote
7
EFR
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:23p, 8/20/26
The only problem with the "under promise and over deliver" is that Musk is known for the exact opposite. He throws a wild idea out and MAY come close to it years past his projected date. I'm not saying he hasn't done big things, but when you look at what he says it usually ends up that way.
Reply Quote
4
BiochemAg97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TLRS • 5:41p, 8/20/26
AG
I had ChatGPT dig through the agreements and govt announcements.

Comptroller's analysis has phases 1-4 scheduled back to back through 2036 and has the 3000 jobs with all 4 phases complete.

The jobs promised in the JETI agreements with Iola ISD and Anderson-Shiro CISD total 1000 and covers phase 1.

Grimes County agreement is 1800 full time employees by 2035 and a $5 billion investment by 2030. Phase 2 is scheduled from 2029 to 2031, so the $5 billion doesn't cover everything in phase 2. But the 1800 employees could include phase 3 scheduled to finish in 2034.

My guess is SpaceX isn't necessarily committing to the full scope with the Grimes County Agreement, because they would be stuck if they didn't build all phases or slowed down on the construction timeline. $5 billion is probably mostly phase 1. The 1800 employees by 2035 is probably mostly phase 1 and 2, but phase 3 will optimistically be completed so it can pick up any slack on employees.

SpaceX doesn't appear to have committed to the 3000 number, and that is just estimates for the full project (phase 1-4) from the comptroller. The agreements give SpaceX the flexibility to shift headcount if they increase automation along the way. 1000 in phase 1, 1800 potentially spread across phases 1-3.

As a side note, I watched a video of Musk talking to what seemed like SpaceX employees, shortly after their quarter earnings report. He made some pretty wild statements.

AI now accounts for more of SpaceX revenue than launching rockets.

He estimates AI will account for 95% of SpaceX revenue in 5-10 years.

They have thought enough about lunar manufacturing and launch of AI satellites to have made an animation about it, suggesting manufacturing will get heavily automated pretty fast. Can't imagine you would want to have to put 1000 employees on the moon for LunaFab. Although he did promise a trip to the moon/mars for any employee that wants to go.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
Tailgate88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BiochemAg97 • 5:49p, 8/20/26
AG
I think this is the one you saw:


Reply Quote
4
1 edit
BiochemAg97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tailgate88 • 10:59p, 8/20/26
AG
Yes, that is the one. 99% in 5 years, even more extreme than I recalled.
Reply Quote
MS08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:46a, 8/22/26
AG
https://share.google/ZdHPe8ZOKcOKnybOX

Supposedly tied to 4600 acres now, see link above.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
johnnyblaze36
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:30p, 8/24/26
AG
Reply Quote
8
lawless89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to johnnyblaze36 • 7:25p, 8/24/26
This guy is a good follow. He just posted this as well and it shows there's already been something "constructed".

Reply Quote
6
halibut sinclair
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:14p, 8/24/26
Land holdings up from 4600 last week to over 7700 now:

https://www.kbtx.com/2026/08/24/spacexs-grimes-county-land-holdings-nearly-double-just-four-days/
Reply Quote
2
johnnyblaze36
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to lawless89 • 9:34p, 8/24/26
AG
Yeah I only started following him recently when he popped up in my X feed and I posted a video of his a page or two back about the construction already happening.

He seems to have some special access perhaps granted by Elon to do all sorts of videos and drone filming of multiple Musk related projects all over the place.
Reply Quote
2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.