I-69 in TX

[bwana39]

I suspect the main reason railroad lines aren't located between a freeway and its frontage road is to avoid having heavy volumes of entering and exiting traffic trying to cross the rail line at speed and on a skew.  While such crossings can be grade-separated, there is a heavy penalty to do so in terms of structure cost, especially since rail needs a minimum clearance of 17 feet.

This said, I'm surprised it's not more common to omit frontage roads when a freeway closely parallels a rail line.

I agree. I don't think skewed angled crossings or 90 degree curves either one are good solutions. I think the sections I am talking about could cross at places where grade separated crossings already exist. Even then, the current traffic volumes on these frontage road sections would probably be in the less than 100 vehicles per day range. It would be two primary types of traffic.
1) People who cross the tracks on the existing (private) grade crossings.
2) Agricultural vehicles

Frankly they are areas where frontage roads really are not highly needed. A FM type road immediately across the tracks would provide a far better access as well as minimizing the numbers of grade crossings altogether. In most cases, rural frontage roads are to provide access to the properties adjacent to the freeway, not for local services to front. An FM road across the tracks would provide that less expensively and make crossing of the railroad tracks safer.

[thisdj78]

I suspect the main reason railroad lines aren't located between a freeway and its frontage road is to avoid having heavy volumes of entering and exiting traffic trying to cross the rail line at speed and on a skew.  While such crossings can be grade-separated, there is a heavy penalty to do so in terms of structure cost, especially since rail needs a minimum clearance of 17 feet.

This said, I'm surprised it's not more common to omit frontage roads when a freeway closely parallels a rail line.

I agree. I don't think skewed angled crossings or 90 degree curves either one are good solutions. I think the sections I am talking about could cross at places where grade separated crossings already exist. Even then, the current traffic volumes on these frontage road sections would probably be in the less than 100 vehicles per day range. It would be two primary types of traffic.
1) People who cross the tracks on the existing (private) grade crossings.
2) Agricultural vehicles

Frankly they are areas where frontage roads really are not highly needed. A FM type road immediately across the tracks would provide a far better access as well as minimizing the numbers of grade crossings altogether. In most cases, rural frontage roads are to provide access to the properties adjacent to the freeway, not for local services to front. An FM road across the tracks would provide that less expensively and make crossing of the railroad tracks safer.

Whenever they replace a major surface road with a freeway, they try to retain the same level of access with the frontage roads. Most of the locals in the area are likely used to crossing the tracks to reach US-59 at various points, so the current method of construction keeps it mostly the same (except they may not be able to cross over to the opposite lanes as easy). I don't think they would be happy about having to get on a freeway just to get down the road (especially if they are in slower moving vehicles). Just my thoughts.

[sprjus4]

The recent upgrades along US-77 south of Robstown are a good example of this.

[J N Winkler]

I looked at US 59 in Google to see how TxDOT has handled this situation in the past.  In some cases, such as the Splendora area, they have built a frontage road on the rail side.  In others, such as between Shepherd and Cleveland, they have omitted it on the rail side even though the frontage road on the other side is one-way only.

The key, as I see it, is that since railroads are already severance corridors, there is typically little to no access for abutters to preserve by building a frontage road.  The main difference between the Splendora and Shepherd-Cleveland situations is that the former has more development off the side roads that cross the rail line and thus a greater need for the local mobility provided by a one-way frontage road in each direction.  (In principle the same mobility could be achieved through a single two-way frontage road, but TxDOT quite properly no longer builds these, owing to the safety impacts.)

[sprjus4]

I think the difference between the two examples is that the Shepherd example does not have any development or private access that would warrant a frontage road, whereas the Splendora example has development that crosses the traffic.

[TheBox]

any updates on either of the Diboll or Nacogdoches bypasses?

[bwana39]

any updates on either of the Diboll or Nacogdoches bypasses?

I drive through both places. The work on both is ongoing.  The interchange in Nacogdoches seems to be moving along smartly.  As to the official timeline, I really don't know.

[Thegeet]

Yesterday I happened to see a bunch of BGS signs on the side of the SB lanes of US 59 near Goliad. One of them read "524 441 Hillje Exit 1/2 Mile" . They were on a trailer ready to be carried out and mounted throughout the highway if needed. I was driving with my parents so I wasn't able to photo it.

[Phudman]

any updates on either of the Diboll or Nacogdoches bypasses?

https://youtu.be/LFh3HdnNtcY

Work has also started on US 59 freeway conversion between Loop 287 at the north side of Lufkin and the FM 2021 overpass.

[edwaleni]

any updates on either of the Diboll or Nacogdoches bypasses?

The guy who does drone work in Diboll says there really isn't enough to video compared to the one he made in 2021.

While they have cleared the trees and been pushing dirt for the landscaping, he said they are mostly working on the bridges and culverts on the north end.

The road deck has been laid from US-59 on the south end to about FM1818. Still a long way to go.

[TheBox]

has the Corrigan Bypass been delayed (knowing the 2020 and 2021 delays, probably)

it was supposed to begin in late 2022

[Thegeet]

has the Corrigan Bypass been delayed (knowing the 2020 and 2021 delays, probably)

it was supposed to begin in late 2022

According to TxDOT Project Tracker:
Percent Time Used 6.21%
Percent Budget Used   6.36%

[TheBox]

W.I.P.:
EDIT (forgot this one): I-69E (US-77) Kingsville improvements
I-69E (US-77) Driscoll bypass (should be nearly done)
I-69C (US-281) Premont bypass
I-69 (US 59) Wharton improvements
I-69 (US 59) Cleveland improvements
I-69 (US 59) Diboll bypass
I-69 (US 59) Lufkin improvements
I-69 (US 59) Nacogdoches bypass

Either in Early phase or Study phase (either way, far future):
I-69W (US 59) Laredo loop - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/laredo/archive/032817.html
I-69E (US 77) Sinton improvements - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/us-77-sinton-san-patricio.html
I-69E (US 77) Odem bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/us-77-odem-area.html
I-69E (US 77) Refugio bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/corpus-christi/us77-proposed-woodsboro-refugio.html
I-69C (US 281) Alice overpass/improvements - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/us-281-alice.html
I-69 (US 59) Corrigan bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/lufkin/archive/121715.html
I-69 (US 59) North Nacogdoches - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/lufkin/us-59-us-259-north-nacogdoches-i-69.html
I-369 (US 59/future Loop 390) Marshall bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/atlanta/loop390-us59-i369-harrison-county/south-section-i20-us59.html https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/atlanta/loop390-us59-i369-harrison-county/middle-section-us80-i20.html https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/atlanta/loop390-us59-i369-harrison-county/north-section-us59-us80.html (none of which are funded.....yet)

[abqtraveler]

W.I.P.:
I-69E (US-77) Driscoll bypass (should be nearly done)
I-69C (US-281) Premont bypass
I-69 (US 59) Wharton improvements
I-69 (US 59) Cleveland improvements
I-69 (US 59) Diboll bypass
I-69 (US 59) Lufkin improvements
I-69 (US 59) Nacogdoches bypass

Either in Early phase or Study phase (either way, far future):
I-69W (US 59) Laredo loop - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/laredo/archive/032817.html
I-69E (US 77) Sinton improvements - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/us-77-sinton-san-patricio.html
I-69E (US 77) Odem bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/us-77-odem-area.html
I-69E (US 77) Refugio bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/corpus-christi/us77-proposed-woodsboro-refugio.html
I-69C (US 281) Alice overpass/improvements - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/us-281-alice.html
I-69 (US 59) Corrigan bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/lufkin/archive/121715.html
I-69 (US 59) North Nacogdoches - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/lufkin/us-59-us-259-north-nacogdoches-i-69.html
I-369 (US 59/future Loop 390) Marshall bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/atlanta/loop390-us59-i369-harrison-county/south-section-i20-us59.html https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/atlanta/loop390-us59-i369-harrison-county/middle-section-us80-i20.html https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/atlanta/loop390-us59-i369-harrison-county/north-section-us59-us80.html (none of which are funded.....yet)

Any update on the US-77 bypass around Riviera. Last I saw that was supposed to start this year, but that was from a couple years ago.

[J N Winkler]

Any update on the US-77 bypass around Riviera. Last I saw that was supposed to start this year, but that was from a couple years ago.

According to the latest information from TxDOT (current as of last February 6), the Riviera bypass is being developed under CCSJ 0327-08-002 with letting projected for sometime in 2027.  The latest project with signing I have in my files for US 77 in Riviera is CCSJ 0102-04-104, a mill-and-overlay contract let in May 2017.

[abqtraveler]

Any update on the US-77 bypass around Riviera. Last I saw that was supposed to start this year, but that was from a couple years ago.

According to the latest information from TxDOT (current as of last February 6), the Riviera bypass is being developed under CCSJ 0327-08-002 with letting projected for sometime in 2027.  The latest project with signing I have in my files for US 77 in Riviera is CCSJ 0102-04-104, a mill-and-overlay contract let in May 2017.

From that, it looks like the Rivera Bypass has slipped to the right quite a bit from what I last saw a couple years ago. Once they get that done, there won't be much more to do to get US-77 between Rivera and Raymondville up to interstate standards. The remaining section is about 48 miles long and goes through mainly undeveloped ranchland...should be relatively easy to upgrade that to interstate standards, I would think.

As far as the bypass around Driscoll is concerned, the latest GSV image from this month shows the northbound side complete and open to traffic. The southbound side is mostly complete, except for the interchanges at its north and south ends. The north end interchange is almost finished, only needing the final layer of asphalt, guardrails and striping. It still looks like they're doing final grading at for the interchange at the southern end, with paving to follow. I would think in a few months the Driscoll Bypass will be completely done and fully open in both directions.

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6541162,-97.7587528,3a,40y,228.95h,81.85t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVEAMXAdFs5pnqxzfJIDeKg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DVEAMXAdFs5pnqxzfJIDeKg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D16.81775%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

[sprjus4]

^ I understand it is cheaper to upgrade the rural segments of US-77 south of Riviera to interstate standards, but why are they continuing to push off bypasses around Odem and Refugio? Those are scheduled now for after 2030, and they represent areas of significant chokepoints for long-distance traffic, having to encounter slow speed limits, traffic lights, and congestion.

The segment of US-77 between Riviera and Raymondville, on the other hand, is going to be constructed this decade, when that already exists as a four-lane divided highway with a 75 mph speed limit and no traffic signals or really any major intersections, to begin with.

I understand the whole thing will eventually need to be upgraded, but I think the priorities are wrong. Corpus Christi to Houston is an important corridor and already exists as a free-flowing 75 mph highway with no traffic signals or interruptions, with only those two exceptions. Completing bypasses around Odem and Refugio would at least complete a free-flowing uninterrupted highway between Houston and Brownsville.

[J N Winkler]

I suspect--without having done any digging into the specifics--that the rural segments are being programmed for earlier construction because they are cheaper on a per-mile basis and present fewer headaches in terms of land acquisition and utility relocation.  While doing the town bypasses first would front-load the time savings to through traffic, I can easily see it leading to bottlenecks in terms of staffing for project development.

[abqtraveler]

^ I understand it is cheaper to upgrade the rural segments of US-77 south of Riviera to interstate standards, but why are they continuing to push off bypasses around Odem and Refugio? Those are scheduled now for after 2030, and they represent areas of significant chokepoints for long-distance traffic, having to encounter slow speed limits, traffic lights, and congestion.

The segment of US-77 between Riviera and Raymondville, on the other hand, is going to be constructed this decade, when that already exists as a four-lane divided highway with a 75 mph speed limit and no traffic signals or really any major intersections, to begin with.

I understand the whole thing will eventually need to be upgraded, but I think the priorities are wrong. Corpus Christi to Houston is an important corridor and already exists as a free-flowing 75 mph highway with no traffic signals or interruptions, with only those two exceptions. Completing bypasses around Odem and Refugio would at least complete a free-flowing uninterrupted highway between Houston and Brownsville.

A big part of the reason TxDOT going full-court press to complete I-69E between Raymondville and I-37 near Corpus Christi is due to federal legislation that allowed the signing of I-69E, I-69C, and I-2 in the Rio Grande Valley. That legislation, signed circa 2010, stipulated that those interstate segments in the RGV have to be connected to the rest of the interstate highway system within 25 years of designation, or their interstate designations would have to be removed. From a technical perspective, the stretch of US-77 between Raymondville and I-37 was determined to be the easiest segment to upgrade to interstate standards to meet that federal requirement within the established timeframe; thus it was prioritized over the other two branches between the Mexican border and Victoria, and the stretch of I-69E from I-37 to Victoria.

[sprjus4]

^ But then I also see them prioritizing upgrades to US-281 over the next decade, again, before getting to US-77 north of I-37. And not even the full rural stretches of US-77 north of I-37 need to be prioritized, just simply the two town bypasses.

[sprjus4]

I suspect--without having done any digging into the specifics--that the rural segments are being programmed for earlier construction because they are cheaper on a per-mile basis and present fewer headaches in terms of land acquisition and utility relocation.  While doing the town bypasses first would front-load the time savings to through traffic, I can easily see it leading to bottlenecks in terms of staffing for project development.

It's just surprising to me, given TxDOT virtually everywhere else has seemingly pushed for town bypasses first well before doing rural upgrades. I mean, look at US-59 north of Houston, for example. You'd think on terms of prioritization, even though they're cheaper per mile, the rural segments would be lower priority than relief routes.

[abqtraveler]

^ But then I also see them prioritizing upgrades to US-281 over the next decade, again, before getting to US-77 north of I-37. And not even the full rural stretches of US-77 north of I-37 need to be prioritized, just simply the two town bypasses.

That's because, from a technical perspective, US-281 from Edinburg to where it would join I-69W (US-59) at George West is probably the next easiest section to upgrade. It's 4 lane, mostly through remote ranchland, with a few towns that will require bypasses, some of which are already built or being built. If you're looking for low-hanging fruit, US-281 and US-77 (between Raymondville and I-37) would be it.

[sprjus4]

^ But by that point, in terms of meeting the requirement to be connected to the system, it wouldn't matter. Because I-69E would connect with I-37, and I-2 connects both I-69E and I-69W, so there would be no gap.

[abqtraveler]

^ But by that point, in terms of meeting the requirement to be connected to the system, it wouldn’t matter. Because I-69E would connect with I-37, and I-2 connects both I-69E and I-69W, so there would be no gap.

I don't think upgrading 281 is about connecting the RGV interstates to the rest of the system; rather, its about TxDOT completing what they think is the next easiest segment to get done.

[sprjus4]

^ True, but are they just going to use that logic to permanently keep Odem and Refugio there? If TxDOT used that easy to get done logic everywhere, then urban projects or new freeway alignments would not exist...