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

---

Lunch at Yankees FTW!

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.

KBTX article today:

Land clearing already underway near Terafab site in Grimes County

https://www.kbtx.com/2026/08/11/land-clearing-already-underway-near-terefab-site-grimes-county/

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.

---

Plus the bridge at the Navasota has been closed within the last couple of years due to flooding concerns when the river is high. The route around through Anderson adds an extra 45 minutes if coming from Colleges Station.

I don't think we can afford to let that be a variable when Terafab is open. A bridge over all of it is the right move.

EBrazosAg said:

---

That's not what's being done starting early 2027. They are replacing the bridge and widening the levee so the road is divided with turn lane. No new bridges through the levee/dam that backs up the river when it or Wickson Creek floods. I've seen the engineering docs.

---

Sounds about par for the course for state government.

Only after there are problems will there be a "study" to suggest changes to fix it.

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.

---

I-14 is over a decade away, if not even longer. Congress has not authorized any funding for the construction of the interstate. To ignore necessary maintenance and repairs now with the hopes that I-14 actually happens any time soon would be foolish.

Aggie_Fire said:

---

I-14 is over a decade away, if not even longer. Congress has not authorized any funding for the construction of the interstate. To ignore necessary maintenance and repairs now with the hopes that I-14 actually happens any time soon would be foolish.

---

The other day Fullhart said 20 years before ground breaks.

techno-ag 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.

---

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.

Juusst outside Houston:

https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/articles/elon-musk-plans-spend-119-104137281.html

halibut sinclair said:

---

Juusst outside Houston

---

Every politician for 100 miles is hooking their horse to this wagon.

100 billion!!?!?

Turns out, the 3,000 Terafab jobs are just the opening act.

Elon says they’re only for phase 1 of a 10-phase build.

With investment potentially passing $100 billion, Terafab is being built to make the huge number of chips Tesla and SpaceX expect to need for FSD, Cybercab,… https://t.co/YuLOVMKvOT pic.twitter.com/3jTyd0sLt5

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) August 11, 2026

I would be okay if TXDOT just built out Highway 30 to interstate (freeway) standard even if it isn't designated I-14.

aggies4life said:

---

100 billion!!?!?

Turns out, the 3,000 Terafab jobs are just the opening act.

Elon says they’re only for phase 1 of a 10-phase build.

With investment potentially passing $100 billion, Terafab is being built to make the huge number of chips Tesla and SpaceX expect to need for FSD, Cybercab,… https://t.co/YuLOVMKvOT pic.twitter.com/3jTyd0sLt5

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) August 11, 2026

---

I thought the last estimate was 120+ billion

aggies4life said:

---

Yes. Number I keep seeing is $119 billion. Crazy to think….all these so close to us!

---

Most of this has been known for 2-3 months now.
Bob's been all over it since day 1.

mason12 said:

---

I would be okay if TXDOT just built out Highway 30 to interstate (freeway) standard even if it isn't designated I-14.

---

https://www.kbtx.com/2026/08/13/txdot-plans-45m-upgrade-sh-30-near-grimes-county-line/?fbclid=IwdGRleATqIP5wZG9mAWZkaWQWUMb_pS6XgaE8US6yo7g86VXUSY3chGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkCjY2Mjg1NjgzNzkAAR7vD1I3hy1rxu65S-JOyjOrC3TseVI8WEyrfMfFXZczjIdXvQAu-sDTQLfCVg_aem_92q3qV_tNL9zsagjiubhpQ

aggies4life said:

---

https://www.kbtx.com/2026/08/13/txdot-plans-45m-upgrade-sh-30-near-grimes-county-line/?fbclid=IwdGRleATqIP5wZG9mAWZkaWQWUMb_pS6XgaE8US6yo7g86VXUSY3chGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkCjY2Mjg1NjgzNzkAAR7vD1I3hy1rxu65S-JOyjOrC3TseVI8WEyrfMfFXZczjIdXvQAu-sDTQLfCVg_aem_92q3qV_tNL9zsagjiubhpQ

---

We have been asking for this for 40 years. Thank you Elon.

They have been buying land for 2 years and are letting for bid this fall. Very old news. All the utilities have been moving lines for 18 months. Nothing to do with Terafab.

BuddysBud said:

---

mason12 said:

---

I would be okay if TXDOT just built out Highway 30 to interstate (freeway) standard even if it isn't designated I-14.

---

---

At the I-14 meeting in Cameron last night, I specifically asked how the Terafab project could accelerate timelines or need. The response that I got is that it certainly COULD for that area. The 3 proposed routes currently are not funded (none are funded in any of the in west / central / east sub-areas) however, if funding arises due to need (or Elon says here you go!) they could start where needed.

The photo is the East Sub-Area (Grimes County stretch to Huntsville) anything beyond Huntsville will likely be the Lufkin TxDOT offices.


I would imagine it will work similarly to what has happened in Rogers with the bypass there. It was built to I-14 standards but was not technically an I-14 project. I received confirmation from a representative of Waco TxDOT that Rogers bypass WILL be I-14.

The interstate will not necessarily develop in order from west to east but rather piece milled together as need and funding arises. The very first upgrade they will be making is the section between Hearne and Bryan on Hwy 6. Every representative mentioned those designs will be released soon and it WILL be the first area to get dirt moved officially.

One TxDOT representative used the lowest route in the east sub-rea (Grimes Co.) as an example to explain. If Elon gets funding to improve that area to standard they'll do what's needed to accommodate what is required. If another route in that area is ultimately selected they'll will still make improvements to the other routes as necessary. What I took from that is that change could be imminent for any of the proposed routes in that area even if only one is the primary I-14.


The grey area between Hearne and Bryan is the first section that will get dirt moving officially in the Bryan districts area of operation.

EBrazosAg said:

---

They have been buying land for 2 years and are letting for bid this fall. Very old news. All the utilities have been moving lines for 18 months. Nothing to do with Terafab.

---

And yet the start time has been moved up to 2027. Do you think they would have finished this project in our lifetime without Terafab?

They need to start working on SH90, specifically at Hwy 6 in Navasota and thru Anderson. Both spots are currently a mess and are worse when school is in session. FM244 will need upgraded as well to support the traffic from Navasota.

It was moved up over a year ago. I guess if you think Terafab was a well guarded secret in early 2025 then you could be right. No one keeps secrets anymore. It was happening when it happens with or without. I'm not saying other things won't be accelerated. But widening the Navasota bridge - replacing bridges that have chunks falling out of them - and making it 4 lane with a turn lane was happening in 2027 either way.