Regional Boards > Mid-South
SH 146 upgrade to freeway, Kemah/Seabrook
bwana39:
My thoughts are it could go to just north of 25th AVE in Texas city and cross to the west and meet Emmett Lowery Fwy and go back to I-45. It goes a little bit backward, but it would complete the SH-146 freeway from LaPorte to I-45.
achilles765:
--- Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 09, 2021, 11:14:13 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Thank you for this perspective: I have not actually been down in that area in a few years so I did not realize what the situation was like down there. I'm inside the loop, in the East End, and have always lived and spent time either inside the loop, to the north or the west. I have read that there were plans to make a freeway along Red Bluff or Fairmont of some kind at some point.
I mean technically it could be feasible for any freeway run through there to just be elevated, right? I mean if they are about to put like 20 miles of elevated lanes in San Antonio, or any of the insane (and awesome looking) stuff i've seen going up in Dallas, I don't see why not...
And I know you are almost certainly right about the interstate designations; all of that is just my own wishful fantasies.
Bobby5280:
--- Quote from: achilles765 ---I mean technically it could be feasible for any freeway run through there to just be elevated, right? I mean if they are about to put like 20 miles of elevated lanes in San Antonio, or any of the insane (and awesome looking) stuff i've seen going up in Dallas, I don't see why not...
--- End quote ---
Elevated freeway structures are sometimes acceptable in busy commercial districts. But they don't go over so well in areas with a lot of residential development.
That's one of the difficulties with League City Parkway (TX-96). A bunch of new homes have been built right next to it in recent years. Portions of the Parkway are wide enough for an upgrade to a freeway (or toll road) closely flanked by frontage roads. But not all of it. The segment going east from I-45 to the TX-3 intersection doesn't have enough space, not to mention the intersection with I-45 is getting packed in with commercial development.
People will even block elevated freeway structures in mostly commercial districts. Look at the long-running saga of Watkins Drive in Kansas City.
Plutonic Panda:
^^^^ build it lower and market it as a flood retention pond during bad storms lol
thisdj78:
--- Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 13, 2021, 01:19:22 AM ---
--- Quote from: achilles765 ---I mean technically it could be feasible for any freeway run through there to just be elevated, right? I mean if they are about to put like 20 miles of elevated lanes in San Antonio, or any of the insane (and awesome looking) stuff i've seen going up in Dallas, I don't see why not...
--- End quote ---
Elevated freeway structures are sometimes acceptable in busy commercial districts. But they don't go over so well in areas with a lot of residential development.
That's one of the difficulties with League City Parkway (TX-96). A bunch of new homes have been built right next to it in recent years. Portions of the Parkway are wide enough for an upgrade to a freeway (or toll road) closely flanked by frontage roads. But not all of it. The segment going east from I-45 to the TX-3 intersection doesn't have enough space, not to mention the intersection with I-45 is getting packed in with commercial development.
People will even block elevated freeway structures in mostly commercial districts. Look at the long-running sage of Watkins Drive in Kansas City.
--- End quote ---
I think the original planned route from I-45 along 646 (and then along Tuscan Lakes Blvd to continue on 96 to 146) is still the best and doesn’t impact any residential homes from what I see.
It’s mainly businesses that would be impacted along 646 that can easily be relocated nearby which I’m sure they already anticipated when the route was planned. There’s been commercial property along that stretch for as long as I can remember….with the shopping center being there at least for the last 10-15 years.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version