Regional Boards > Mid-South

SH 146 upgrade to freeway, Kemah/Seabrook

<< < (5/7) > >>

achilles765:

--- Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2020, 12:10:40 PM ---Segment A (between TX-146 and I-45) cannot be built as originally conceived. The maps showed it overlapping the League City Parkway (TX-96) for about half the distance. Then it would split off around the Tuscan Lakes Blvd intersection and go due East. That proposed design is now not build-able due to all the residential homes built in the area. Development has encroached the League City Parkway enough to make that road very difficult, if not impossible, to fully upgrade into a freeway.

There are movers and shakers in the League City area who still want Segment A built. Segment B & C of the Grand Parkway were under threat from being dropped from the TxDOT 10 year plan last year, but they have remained on the drawing board. Section A is not included in the 10 year plan.

I think planners are looking farther South to other possible alignments for Segment A. Some of the latest talk involves starting Segment A near the intersection of TX-146 and San Leon Road. The alignment of Segment A may end up having to skirt around the South side of Dickinson, perhaps connecting with I-45 near the Hughes Road exit. As fast as metro Houston is growing TX DOT really needs to get on the ball regarding ROW acquisition.

The final design of Segment B (between I-45 and TX-35 in Alvin) is not finalized, but it could be the next segment to get a go-ahead for construction. TxDOT at least has to start securing ROW. Depending on how Segment B develops and where it connects to I-45 it could influence how Segment A is built. I think it's likely Segment B and Segment A may connect to I-45 in different places and that the Grand Parkway could multiplex with I-45 for a couple or so miles.

I would like to see TX-146 fully upgraded into a superhighway all the way down to Texas City. Some parts of the road would be relatively simple to upgrade, such as the segment in Bacliff. The railroad next to the highway has been decommissioned, which opens up a good amount of upgrade space. That's next to a major utility transmission line corridor.

--- End quote ---

I agree about 146.  I wouldn't mind seeing it made a freeway from the "Y" all the way to Interstate 10.. heck maybe try to get a 3di for it... I-245 or I-810...actually I like the idea of I-810, since thats the only 3di for I-10 that has never been used. But, SH 146 is fine too..

I don't see that much of a need for segment A of the GP....realistically I don't know that I see much for segments B and C either.  Most of it seems pretty superfluous aside from the stretch in Katy and Spring, but here we are.  It would be weird for it to be an incomplete loop, then our map would look all weird like Dallas-Ft Worth with their jagged incomplete and asymmetrical nonsense. Make 146 a freeway to I-10, run SH 99 concurrent with SH 146, then turn it and run it along NASA 1, connect with I 45, then run concurrent until the end of segment B.  Instead of tons of ROW clearing, make it elevated.  Have like NASA 1 run on the surface road, then have SH 99 be the elevated freeway.

Bobby5280:
I don't expect the TX-146 freeway in Baytown to be extended any farther Northeast from its current end at the Ferry Rd "Y" up toward I-10. Not with the Grand Parkway in close proximity. There is a significant amount of properties hugging close to the non-freeway TX-146 (a non-divided 4-lane street). Some of those could be bought and cleared out of the way. But a freeway expansion would grow really difficult and contentious in the area around Johnny Clark Elementary school. A decent number of newer homes have been built near and North of the school.

Aside from any possible expansions of TX-146, I certainly don't expect TX DOT to apply Interstate designations to it or the Grand Parkway either. They seem perfectly happy leaving existing designations as they are, which is probably easier if a particular corridor (such as TX-146) will be a mix of different highway types.


--- Quote from: achilles765 ---I don't see that much of a need for segment A of the GP....realistically I don't know that I see much for segments B and C either.
--- End quote ---

I disagree pretty strongly about Segment A, based on my own driving experiences in that area. Traffic gets pretty ridiculous around Kemah, the Space Center and League City. The super highway upgrade of TX-146 through Kemah is badly needed. At least one or more super highway "spokes" are needed to span between I-45 and TX-146. The trick is figuring out where the the final alignment for Segment A can be built. They might be able to upgrade a portion of League City Parkway. But they're going to have to get pretty creative on how to span the whole gap. One thing is certain: they're going to have to buy and demolish some fairly new properties to get the job done.

Regarding additional spokes between I-45 and TX-146, it's not feasible to upgrade NASA parkway into a freeway farther East to Seabrook and TX-146. But there are some alternatives. TX DOT needs to look at upgrading Red Bluff Road since it's already a freeway ready divided street. That and the combination of Fairmont Parkway and Bay Area Blvd would make for fast alternative access routes to the Space Center and Kemah, taking some of the load off I-45 and the Pasadena Freeway. There is more open space farther South around the Dickinson area.

I don't really like the shape of Grand Parkway Segment B for the sharp bends in it. Both Segments B and C are under threat of being dropped from the overall plan, which I think would be a shame. At the very least I think TX DOT needs to make efforts to secure ROW of those segments for future use. It will be needed. As for the "asymmetrical nonsense" of the DFW loops, much of that comes from the geography. Dallas is quite a bit bigger than Fort Worth area wise. Various obstacles lead to roads like I-635 being partial loops rather than continuous.

I really think highway planners and lawmakers badly need to update their processes with how corridors are developed. Their slug-slow efforts just aren't working in relation to the kinds of rapid urban/suburban growth we've been seeing the past 20 years in metros like DFW, Austin, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc.

Plutonic Panda:

--- Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2020, 12:10:40 PM ---Segment A (between TX-146 and I-45) cannot be built as originally conceived. The maps showed it overlapping the League City Parkway (TX-96) for about half the distance. Then it would split off around the Tuscan Lakes Blvd intersection and go due East. That proposed design is now not build-able due to all the residential homes built in the area. Development has encroached the League City Parkway enough to make that road very difficult, if not impossible, to fully upgrade into a freeway.


--- End quote ---
Tear it all down. Itís not like there isnít land around to build new on.

thisdj78:

--- Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 10, 2021, 10:18:24 PM ---
--- Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2020, 12:10:40 PM ---Segment A (between TX-146 and I-45) cannot be built as originally conceived. The maps showed it overlapping the League City Parkway (TX-96) for about half the distance. Then it would split off around the Tuscan Lakes Blvd intersection and go due East. That proposed design is now not build-able due to all the residential homes built in the area. Development has encroached the League City Parkway enough to make that road very difficult, if not impossible, to fully upgrade into a freeway.


--- End quote ---
Tear it all down. Itís not like there isnít land around to build new on.

--- End quote ---

Here is what the proposed route was which mostly follows 646 and then cuts slightly north to 96. If they stuck to that route it would mostly be businesses impacted, not residential. Looking at the satellite view, you can see some of the ROW still there:


https://i.imgur.com/lrs8R9G_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

Plutonic Panda:
Ah, okay yeah thatís pretty dense. They could go 1960s style and just cut a path but not likely to happen.

SH-96 east of 45 seems to have enough ROW for a six lane facility(service roads maybe two each way). Not sure if thatíd work or not. Thereís also land south of Dickinson they could route it on. Would be one heck of a nice bridge over the bay. Itís not like they could make it any dirtier than it already is.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version