This has been a long, long, long time coming. Diboll is the worst slowdown between Houston and Lufkin, with three traffic signals, low speed limit and constricted urban environment. I remember being annoyed by it when I first started driving (1983), and nothing has changed...until now!
More good news: TxDOT's design standards are better than usual. The bypass has a wide median (TxDOT is often eliminating medians these days), typical width of the median is 100 feet and it widens briefly to 300 feet at the easternmost extent with a Florida-style wide median. Natural foliage is retained on that wide section of median, another TxDOT rarity.
Spanish firm Sacyr was the low bidder at $140 million, beating out Houston's highly competitive Williams Brothers. The bypass length is around 8.1 miles, so the cost is quite reasonable compared to recent bids for rural 3x3 IH-10 west of Houston.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/12043201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/12043201.htm)
County: ANGELINA Let Date: 12/04/19
Type: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT Seq No: 3201
Time: 713 WORKING DAYS Project ID: NH 2013(218)
Highway: US 59 Contract #: 12193201
Length: 16.400 CCSJ: 0176-03-097
Limits:
From: FM 2108 Check: $100,000
To: 1.15 MI SOUTH OF WHITE OAK CREEK Misc Cost: $267,600.00
Estimate $141,599,693.21 % Over/Under Company
Bidder 1 $140,865,929.00 -0.52% SACYR CONSTRUCTION USA LLC
Bidder 2 $149,743,802.52 +5.75% WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 3 $154,538,109.51 +9.14% JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION, A SOUTHLAND COMPANY
Bidder 4 $157,174,493.81 +11.00% JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C.
Bidder 5 $163,197,015.43 +15.25% A. L. HELMCAMP, INC.
Bidder 6 $184,429,864.05 +30.25% WEBBER, LLC
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20191204-i69-diboll-1.png&hash=f626ee994cdad1eb9a25cfc13445c00d27b34466)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20191204-i69-diboll-2.png&hash=e75124211ed60d7746e59c4567480a5b8e0e7086)
Wide median
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20191204-i69-diboll-3.png&hash=204f0c85f62186fb1a1803661c1117aa2302606f)
Natural foliage retained in area of wide median
Quote from: MaxConcrete on December 04, 2019, 07:38:58 PM
More good news: TxDOT's design standards are better than usual. The bypass has a wide median (TxDOT is often eliminating medians these days), typical width of the median is 100 feet and it widens briefly to 300 feet at the easternmost extent with a Florida-style wide median. Natural foliage is retained on that wide section of median, another TxDOT rarity.
Usually with the median being reduced to a concrete barrier and full left paved shoulders is on upgrade projects, haven't seen it much on new location projects. Nice to see a wide design, sadly it will only be on this segment not the entire corridor. TXDOT plans to eliminate the wide 100 foot median between Houston and Louise in the next decade as they upgrade that long stretch to I-69, and another 40 mile stretch on US-281 between Falfurrias and Edinburg per design plans that all call for a full left paved shoulder and concrete barrier. Recent upgrade projects south of Robstown have utilized a 70 foot grassy median, though the Bishop Bypass was reduced to the usual concrete barrier and full left paved shoulder. I get it in that sense due to the semi-developed environment at Bishop, but do like the fact that they returned the wide median in the rural undeveloped areas - something I wish the other projects would do instead of maintaining the narrow median. I'm not sure how the under construction Driscoll Bypass is being designed, but hopefully with at least a 46 foot median.
Honestly speaking though, I don't mind the reduced design as much, so long as a full left paved shoulder is provided. It allows breathing room, and continues to allow high speed limits, and this is crucial, notably in Texas. There's some areas that they've fully eliminated a full left paved shoulder and there's only about 4 feet between the lane and the concrete barrier, and that IMO isn't the best design and it isn't comfortable driving 80 mph next to wall with no room for error.
are you sure this is i-69? or is this going to be 69 when they connect to it from the south?
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 05, 2019, 01:01:17 PM
are you sure this is i-69? or is this going to be 69 when they connect to it from the south?
Yes, this is future I-69 North of the current Northern terminus and south of Lufkin:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Diboll,+TX+75941/@30.8667969,-94.8152039,9z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x863814c3a2a8da1d:0x9ae1e49cdad2e3f3!8m2!3d31.1871319!4d-94.7810412
However, shouldn't this go in the I-69 Texas thread?
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on December 05, 2019, 01:21:28 PM
However, shouldn't this go in the I-69 Texas thread?
As GreenLanternCorps noted, this is future IH 69 and currently US 59. I felt like this warranted its own post rather than being buried in the IH 69 thread.
On a related note, I noticed in the TxDOT Commission meeting agenda that right-of-way acquisition is in progress for the Corrigan bypass. While the project is not yet listed in the long-range letting schedule (through 2021), I think it could move forward sooner rather than later.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on December 05, 2019, 07:49:36 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on December 05, 2019, 01:21:28 PM
However, shouldn't this go in the I-69 Texas thread?
As GreenLanternCorps noted, this is future IH 69 and currently US 59. I felt like this warranted its own post rather than being buried in the IH 69 thread.
On a related note, I noticed in the TxDOT Commission meeting agenda that right-of-way acquisition is in progress for the Corrigan bypass. While the project is not yet listed in the long-range letting schedule (through 2021), I think it could move forward sooner rather than later.
Expediting Houston-Texarkana seems to be moving forward at a decidedly faster pace recently compared with a few years ago, when everything that wasn't along US 77 near Corpus seemed to be "back-burnered". Looks like the
Alliance for I-69/Texas and their TxDOT counterparts have finally decided to get serious about their effective "prime directive", as several of us have noted previously. Prediction: Houston-Texarkana composite 69/369 completed by 2032-33 at the latest.
^ Right now, I think the main goal is creating an expressway-type road between Houston and Texarkana. A mix of limited-access and non-limited-access segments, a mix of intersections and interchanges - but with one prevailing feature - zero traffic signals.
Houston to Refugio is an expressway-type road, at 117 miles long from Refugio to the southern end of I-69 (in Kendleton), then seamlessly continuing north into Houston as urban interstate highway.
From Refugio, set the cruise at 80 mph, and never stop until you reach Houston or beyond (if you continue onto I-10 East).
The rural segments IMO should be the least priority as they're already rural expressway-type roads. Completion of town bypasses and selective interchanges will complete a continuous expressway-type road, then you can go back and upgrade the non-limited-access segments to rural interstate highway.
Quote from: sprjus4^ Right now, I think the main goal is creating an expressway-type road between Houston and Texarkana. A mix of limited-access and non-limited-access segments, a mix of intersections and interchanges - but with one prevailing feature - zero traffic signals.
The ultimate goal for TX DOT is building a full blown Interstate quality facility between Houston and Texarkana. They're going to use a variety of approaches to get there, either with upgrades along the existing US-59 ROW or new terrain alignments around portions that cannot be upgraded.
Due to funding limitations they obviously cannot build all of the new sections outright in Interstate quality. But I strongly doubt they're going to build anything new where a less than Interstate solution is permanent.
We're certainly not going to see any new terrain alignments built temporarily in 2-lane or 4-lane frontage road configuration that allow short-sighted developers to build right up onto the edge of the road in a selfishly, hair-brained manner. Seriously, that crap needs to stop where it keeps happening elsewhere in various places around the country already. Enforce from freaking set backs!
TX DOT is already prioritizing bypasses around small cities and towns to be built first, preferably as a freeway flanked by frontage roads. But they'll build frontage roads first or even a 2-lane "place holder" road with a wide ROW to the left or right of it if necessary.
The segments in between towns and cities have their own pitfalls. Most segments are going to be the least costly to upgrade along the existing ROW. But there is a significant amount of existing properties that will have to be bought and cleared. There will be other properties whose access to the old US-59 will be severed. It's only natural that at least some litigation is going to occur.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 06, 2019, 11:00:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4^ Right now, I think the main goal is creating an expressway-type road between Houston and Texarkana. A mix of limited-access and non-limited-access segments, a mix of intersections and interchanges - but with one prevailing feature - zero traffic signals.
The ultimate goal for TX DOT is building a full blown Interstate quality facility between Houston and Texarkana. They're going to use a variety of approaches to get there, either with upgrades along the existing US-59 ROW or new terrain alignments around portions that cannot be upgraded.
Due to funding limitations they obviously cannot build all of the new sections outright in Interstate quality. But I strongly doubt they're going to build anything new where a less than Interstate solution is permanent.
We're certainly not going to see any new terrain alignments built temporarily in 2-lane or 4-lane frontage road configuration that allow short-sighted developers to build right up onto the edge of the road in a selfishly, hair-brained manner. Seriously, that crap needs to stop where it keeps happening elsewhere in various places around the country already. Enforce from freaking set backs!
TX DOT is already prioritizing bypasses around small cities and towns to be built first, preferably as a freeway flanked by frontage roads. But they'll build frontage roads first or even a 2-lane "place holder" road with a wide ROW to the left or right of it if necessary.
The segments in between towns and cities have their own pitfalls. Most segments are going to be the least costly to upgrade along the existing ROW. But there is a significant amount of existing properties that will have to be bought and cleared. There will be other properties whose access to the old US-59 will be severed. It's only natural that at least some litigation is going to occur.
I agree the ultimate long-range plan is to complete I-69 between Houston and Texarkana, but for the time being, the highest priority projects, and the ones that are getting done, are all projects that are bypassing towns and congested areas or eliminating traffic signals. With the completion of these short-term relief projects, it's going to create an expressway-type roadway between Texarkana and Houston, and that alone is a major improvement over the current situation. The next task will be upgrading the remainder to rural interstate highway standards and designating it as I-69.
Why do you think US-59 / US-77 has sat so long without any major projects between Refugio and Houston? That's because it's already an expressway-type roadway and the remaining upgrade projects are a low priority. They have a 12 mile stretch under construction from Kendleton to Rosenburg that's upgrading 4-lane non-limited-access highway to 6-lane rural interstate highway, but the remaining piece of that project to upgrade US-59 to 4-lane rural interstate highway down to Louise remains unfunded and low priority as it's already completed high-speed expressway-type roadway with zero traffic signals and interruptions.
The big problem is Texas is just so damn big. And there is so much of I-69 projects to build there. The big projects in the Houston area (particularly on the East side of downtown) cost a massive fortune. Meanwhile there's several hundred miles worth of new Interstate to build elsewhere in Texas. I noticed they're finally working on a modest extension of I-69E North of Raymondville. That goes along with the projects in Bishop and Driscoll farther North in the Corpus area.
The sheer size of Texas and amount of mileage to cover is the main reason why I think TX DOT needs to focus on ROW preservation for future I-69 segments. They can't just wait around for years or even decades before even starting on various project segments. The least they can do is drop down a Super-2 road with a big swath of ROW preserved off to the side. That's the kind of thing that can survive a lot of political shenanigans on the local and state levels.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 06, 2019, 11:27:13 PM
I noticed they're finally working on a modest extension of I-69E North of Raymondville. That goes along with the projects in Bishop and Driscoll farther North in the Corpus area.
The segment between I-37 and Kingsville is mostly completed, with the last section around Driscoll and upgrading the remainder of existing US-77 that's non-limited-access is all currently under construction. The segment between Kingsville and Riviera is fully funded to be completed by 2029 including a bypass of the town, and the section between Riviera and Raymondville is under design, partially funded, and could be completed by that 2029 mark as well. Once these segments are completed, I-69E would be fully completed between I-37 and Mexico.
A similar project to upgrade US-281 between Falfarrius and Edinburg is also in design and could be completed before 2029 as well.
That's close to 100 miles of new interstate highway total that could be completed by 2029.
I wonder though, that once the congested portions are bypassed under the current plans and Houston - Texarkana is a mix of freeway and expressway, further I-69 construction will lose priority?
I would consider those 70-75 mph four lane divided highways with no stops a blessing though, there isn't really anything like that in Europe once you're off the freeways. Most Europeans underestimate just how incredibly large the American road network with 4 or more lanes is. It's *much* larger than just the Interstate system, the U.S. road system with at least 4 lanes spans over 220,000 miles, with some 155,000 miles of those being rural (Interstate, other freeway or arterial, per FHWA statistics).
Quote from: ChrisI wonder though, that once the congested portions are bypassed under the current plans and Houston - Texarkana is a mix of freeway and expressway, further I-69 construction will lose priority?
At the rate Texas continues to add popluation I think it's a foregone conclusion Texas will complete all of its I-69 related projects
eventually. I think the Houston-Texarkana leg is urgently needed to allow long distance traffic heading between points in South Texas and places farther north to bypass the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex.
Quote from: ChrisI would consider those 70-75 mph four lane divided highways with no stops a blessing though, there isn't really anything like that in Europe once you're off the freeways. Most Europeans underestimate just how incredibly large the American road network with 4 or more lanes is. It's *much* larger than just the Interstate system, the U.S. road system with at least 4 lanes spans over 220,000 miles, with some 155,000 miles of those being rural (Interstate, other freeway or arterial, per FHWA statistics).
Some American states are better than others at expanding 2 lane roads into 4 lane divided expressways with few, if any, stop lights. Colorado is badly deficient at improving its rural highways. Colorado has done next to nothing with its share of the Ports to Plains Corridor. US-287 in Eastern CO is still mostly 2-lane only, despite a quite a bit of truck traffic using it to avoid Raton Pass. I think US-24 should be a 4 lane divided highway from Colorado Springs to Limon & I-70 for safety sake. It should be 4-laned to Calhan at least. Meanwhile Oklahoma has a lot of rural 4-lane roads, many of which were improved to reduce head-on collisions. Colorado has 5.7 million people while Oklahoma has 3.9 million, yet OK has more 4-lane roads, more bridges crossing creeks, etc. If Colorado has an excuse I don't know what it could be.
I signed up just to post "Hallelujah!" I despise those tiny speed trap towns that fought against logical bypasses for so long. Always filled up in Livingston or Cleveland so as to never spend a cent in speed trap towns (but will use their bathrooms...)
Don't care a whit if they never make I-69 a full freeway the entire route, just as long as they remove all the stoplights, stop signs, and way too low speed limit zones.
Wish they would bypass corrupt Tenaha, however. That's the town that would make bogus traffic stops and illegally seize autos by abusing the asset forfeiture laws. Google them. I always go through Mt. Enterprise to Carthage instead, 4 minutes faster and 6 miles shorter, though there's not enough passing lanes and there's usually pokey trucks clogging up the no-passing sections.
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on December 11, 2019, 06:05:43 PM
I signed up just to post "Hallelujah!" I despise those tiny speed trap towns that fought against logical bypasses for so long. Always filled up in Livingston or Cleveland so as to never spend a cent in speed trap towns (but will use their bathrooms...)
Don't care a whit if they never make I-69 a full freeway the entire route, just as long as they remove all the stoplights, stop signs, and way too low speed limit zones.
Wish they would bypass corrupt Tenaha, however. That's the town that would make bogus traffic stops and illegally seize autos by abusing the asset forfeiture laws. Google them. I always go through Mt. Enterprise to Carthage instead, 4 minutes faster and 6 miles shorter, though there's not enough passing lanes and there's usually pokey trucks clogging up the no-passing sections.
I know this is off-topic for this particular thread but what's the status on the stretch between Timpson and Tenaha? Currently it's a 4 lane "poor boy" and I'm surprised TxDOT put a 75 mph speed limit on that section to me. It feels "claustrophobic" to me. I noticed the last time I went through the area, I noticed a "Future I-69" sign posted on that section.
My guess is TX DOT is putting the priority on building bypasses around towns along the future I-69 corridor. Filling the gaps between towns is a secondary priority. I think the gaps are going to get filled moving up from the Houston area. The short gap between Midline and Cleveland is overdue to be filled (especially with Cleveland being a control city on I-69 signs in Houston). Some work is being done between Cleveland and Shepherd. The Timpson-Tenaha segment may only happen much later.
I'm kind of surprised the Diboll bypass is being moved up ahead of other I-69 bypass projects closer to Houston. Goodrich needs improvements to its segment of US-59. Livingston has a section of freeway running through it, but US-59 is a mess North & South of that town. Leggett, Moscow and Corrigan will need a new terrain bypasses. Then the route gets to Diboll. I suppose Diboll moved up due to its proximity to Lufkin, which is part of a larger Lufkin-Nacogdoches project. Much of that looks like it will have to be built on new terrain.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 15, 2019, 03:11:15 PM
... Lufkin, which is part of a larger Lufkin-Nacogdoches project. Much of that looks like it will have to be built on new terrain.
I'm a little surprised they picked the I-69 route to follow the east portion of Loop 287. The few times I've been on it, it always felt narrow and squeezed through there, especially on the south side by Lufkin Mall. There's no way I-69 can fit in the same ROW. There would have to be much in the way of land acquisition throughout the Loop area, as well as the north & south approaches. I guess it'll be a few years before the locals there have to deal with that.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 15, 2019, 03:11:15 PM
My guess is TX DOT is putting the priority on building bypasses around towns along the future I-69 corridor. Filling the gaps between towns is a secondary priority. I think the gaps are going to get filled moving up from the Houston area. The short gap between Midline and Cleveland is overdue to be filled (especially with Cleveland being a control city on I-69 signs in Houston). Some work is being done between Cleveland and Shepherd. The Timpson-Tenaha segment may only happen much later.
I'm kind of surprised the Diboll bypass is being moved up ahead of other I-69 bypass projects closer to Houston. Goodrich needs improvements to its segment of US-59. Livingston has a section of freeway running through it, but US-59 is a mess North & South of that town. Leggett, Moscow and Corrigan will need a new terrain bypasses. Then the route gets to Diboll. I suppose Diboll moved up due to its proximity to Lufkin, which is part of a larger Lufkin-Nacogdoches project. Much of that looks like it will have to be built on new terrain.
Diboll is historically a horrendous speed trap. It has 30 mph speed zones. While the speed trap is less now than it used to be, the 30 mph is a big deal. Those of us who live north of Nacogdoches have always picked Diboll as the worst town to go through. I think right now, that Corrigan is worse. It generally takes two or more cycles to get through the traffic signal at 287.
Not that anyone would know, but was N. Henricks Ave. the original alignment of US 59 through Diboll? I have the inclination that N. Temple Dr. (and S. 1st St. north of Diboll) was a later-built alignment of US 59. Can anyone confirm this?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 11, 2020, 04:37:38 PM
Not that anyone would know, but was N. Henricks Ave. the original alignment of US 59 through Diboll? I have the inclination that N. Temple Dr. (and S. 1st St. north of Diboll) was a later-built alignment of US 59. Can anyone confirm this?
That does appear to be the case. The 1940 map seems to indicate this.
https://tslarc.tsl.texas.gov/maps/map04783.jpg (https://tslarc.tsl.texas.gov/maps/map04783.jpg)
North of Burke and south of Diboll, it shows the proposed new location. In Diboll, it shows a crooked course, which appears to be on Hendricks to the north and on Booker to the south. You can look up old Texas maps at this link. I generally type in a county name, but you can also search by city or town. You can select "Image" if you want to see only results with images on the site.
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/apps/arc/maps/ (https://www.tsl.texas.gov/apps/arc/maps/)
There are also Angelina County maps from 1961 and 1972. Note that multi-part maps, such as those showing only parts of a county or a detailed area of a city, are shown on the same page. If you click on one of the newer Angelina County maps, the link, not the picture, the west side will be shown on the top of the page, while the east side is down the page.
Has future 69 been constructed through Lufkin and Nacogdoches yet?
I'm so happy that I-69 is going to be built in new places like this. I wonder what the progress is from Laredo/McAllen/Brownsville-Harlingen to Houston; anything new planned for those sections?
Quote from: dariusb on February 12, 2020, 01:56:00 AM
Has future 69 been constructed through Lufkin and Nacogdoches yet?
Aside from a few intersection enhancements, no.
Quote from: dariusb on February 12, 2020, 01:56:00 AM
Has future 69 been constructed through Lufkin and Nacogdoches yet?
Here in Nacogdoches they're building the flyovers to bypass the horrible bottleneck of an intersection of LP 224 and US 59. Nothing has been upgraded to interstate standards. Lufkin is the closest, however there's driveways all along the "freeway" section. Sharp curves, lack of true shoulders.
Even though a decent number of upgrades have taken place on Loop 287 in Lufkin isn't TX DOT still looking at building I-69 as a new terrain bypass to the East of Lufkin? Or are they actually trying to bring at least one half of 287 loop up to Interstate standards?
I also thought Nacogdoches was going to get a new terrain bypass as well.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 09, 2020, 03:51:11 PM
Even though a decent number of upgrades have taken place on Loop 287 in Lufkin isn't TX DOT still looking at building I-69 as a new terrain bypass to the East of Lufkin? Or are they actually trying to bring at least one half of 287 loop up to Interstate standards?
I also thought Nacogdoches was going to get a new terrain bypass as well.
Originally, the movement was toward new east-of-Lufkin and west-of-Nacogdoches I-69 alignments, but now it appears the east part of Loop 287 and the west part of Loop 224 will be included in the I-69 path. I'm not sure that was the best option, especially Loop 287 down by Lufkin Mall. It's going to be such a tight squeeze to put anything more along there that resembles interstate standards.
I think a bigger issue is getting past Angelina College and the Church Retreat further south. The mall area will just get flyovers stacked up.It may require the loop to lose some of its direct connection, but it can be fit in there pretty neatly.
A better idea would have had it stay west of the tracks all the way from Diboll and connect with Loop 287 farther south. They committed against that over a decade ago though.
Quote from: BigMattFromTexas on March 09, 2020, 12:27:44 AM
Quote from: dariusb on February 12, 2020, 01:56:00 AM
Has future 69 been constructed through Lufkin and Nacogdoches yet?
Here in Nacogdoches they're building the flyovers to bypass the horrible bottleneck of an intersection of LP 224 and US 59. Nothing has been upgraded to interstate standards. Lufkin is the closest, however there's driveways all along the "freeway" section. Sharp curves, lack of true shoulders.
Wow, I'm sure they'll replace some of those driveways with caps or frontage roads.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 06, 2019, 06:18:47 PM
^ Right now, I think the main goal is creating an expressway-type road between Houston and Texarkana. A mix of limited-access and non-limited-access segments, a mix of intersections and interchanges - but with one prevailing feature - zero traffic signals.
Houston to Refugio is an expressway-type road, at 117 miles long from Refugio to the southern end of I-69 (in Kendleton), then seamlessly continuing north into Houston as urban interstate highway.
From Refugio, set the cruise at 80 mph, and never stop until you reach Houston or beyond (if you continue onto I-10 East).
The rural segments IMO should be the least priority as they're already rural expressway-type roads. Completion of town bypasses and selective interchanges will complete a continuous expressway-type road, then you can go back and upgrade the non-limited-access segments to rural interstate highway.
Also, the goal should include ZERO speed zones. In other words, limited access bypasses around each and every town / village along US 59 (I-369 & I-69).
Quote from: capt.ron on March 23, 2021, 01:34:14 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 06, 2019, 06:18:47 PM
^ Right now, I think the main goal is creating an expressway-type road between Houston and Texarkana. A mix of limited-access and non-limited-access segments, a mix of intersections and interchanges - but with one prevailing feature - zero traffic signals.
Houston to Refugio is an expressway-type road, at 117 miles long from Refugio to the southern end of I-69 (in Kendleton), then seamlessly continuing north into Houston as urban interstate highway.
From Refugio, set the cruise at 80 mph, and never stop until you reach Houston or beyond (if you continue onto I-10 East).
The rural segments IMO should be the least priority as they're already rural expressway-type roads. Completion of town bypasses and selective interchanges will complete a continuous expressway-type road, then you can go back and upgrade the non-limited-access segments to rural interstate highway.
Also, the goal should include ZERO speed zones. In other words, limited access bypasses around each and every town / village along US 59 (I-369 & I-69).
Agreed. In the case of Texas, a blanket 75 mph speed limit with a road designed to handle that speed throughout with no slowdowns. No random 60, 65 mph or 70 mph zones that pop out of nowhere. If there's a problematic area, construct grade separations, frontage roads, etc.
The loop segment around Diboll and Burke is going fairly quickly. In just a matter of months they went from clearing thickets to pouring bridge posts. They are on-task on this one at least right now!
Quote from: bwana39 on April 05, 2021, 12:36:09 AM
The loop segment around Diboll and Burke is going fairly quickly. In just a matter of months they went from clearing thickets to pouring bridge posts. They are on-task on this one at least right now!
Does anyone have a map and/or pics of the Diboll Bypass? From what I recall from previous news articles, it was being routed around the east side of Diboll. Is that still the case?
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 08, 2021, 11:49:13 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on April 05, 2021, 12:36:09 AM
The loop segment around Diboll and Burke is going fairly quickly. In just a matter of months they went from clearing thickets to pouring bridge posts. They are on-task on this one at least right now!
Does anyone have a map and/or pics of the Diboll Bypass? From what I recall from previous news articles, it was being routed around the east side of Diboll. Is that still the case?
I have driven down the existing US-59 in recent weeks and it is indeed to the east. I don't have any pictures, but here is the schematic https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/approved-schematic.pdf
Quote from: bwana39 on April 08, 2021, 12:10:26 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 08, 2021, 11:49:13 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on April 05, 2021, 12:36:09 AM
The loop segment around Diboll and Burke is going fairly quickly. In just a matter of months they went from clearing thickets to pouring bridge posts. They are on-task on this one at least right now!
Does anyone have a map and/or pics of the Diboll Bypass? From what I recall from previous news articles, it was being routed around the east side of Diboll. Is that still the case?
I have driven down the existing US-59 in recent weeks and it is indeed to the east. I don't have any pictures, but here is the schematic https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/approved-schematic.pdf
Great, thanks. No updates to Google Maps or GSV in the Diboll area to show construction yet.
https://goo.gl/maps/JKsVkRfJsjgi1qLG9
This one is on the south side....
Bing Maps Aerial view shows the entire bypass.
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a (https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a)
Quote from: edwaleni on August 14, 2023, 10:36:57 AM
Bing Maps Aerial view shows the entire bypass.
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a (https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a)
It also shows the the work north of Lufkin between the loop and the underpass
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a
As well as the Nacodogches flyover when it was far more developed
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a
Quote from: TheBox on August 17, 2023, 11:08:57 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on August 14, 2023, 10:36:57 AM
Bing Maps Aerial view shows the entire bypass.
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a (https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a)
It also shows the the work north of Lufkin between the loop and the underpass
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a
As well as the Nacodogches flyover when it was far more developed
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a
Both of these links are for Diboll. You have to recenter Bing Maps on the location before copying the link otherwise it will keep providing the original map location you started with.
Quote from: edwaleni on August 17, 2023, 12:43:00 PM
Quote from: TheBox on August 17, 2023, 11:08:57 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on August 14, 2023, 10:36:57 AM
Bing Maps Aerial view shows the entire bypass.
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a (https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a)
It also shows the the work north of Lufkin between the loop and the underpass
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a
As well as the Nacodogches flyover when it was far more developed
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a
Both of these links are for Diboll. You have to recenter Bing Maps on the location before copying the link otherwise it will keep providing the original map location you started with.
Or you can just use the Diboll map and move the view to where you want to look. Obviously that is what the OP did and thought the URL would change.
Quote from: edwaleni on August 17, 2023, 12:43:00 PM
Quote from: TheBox on August 17, 2023, 11:08:57 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on August 14, 2023, 10:36:57 AM
Bing Maps Aerial view shows the entire bypass.
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a (https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a)
It also shows the the work north of Lufkin between the loop and the underpass
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a
As well as the Nacodogches flyover when it was far more developed
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a
Both of these links are for Diboll. You have to recenter Bing Maps on the location before copying the link otherwise it will keep providing the original map location you started with.
I was on my iPhone on the site in the Google Chrome app
I'm on my laptop this time, so here's the real Nacogdoches bypass and real Lufkin progress (between the Redland underpass and north of the Lufkin loop)
Nacogdoches bypass - https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.573538%7E-94.674679&lvl=13.3&style=h
Lufkin progress north of loop and south of the Redland underpass (the one with the Love's) - https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.383655%7E-94.711102&lvl=13.3&style=h