Houston: bids opened for all-new section of SH 35 freeway

[MaxConcrete]

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03073001.htm

This project extends the existing Spur 5 near the University of Houston southward to Griggs road, just north of Loop 610. It is full freeway, 8 lanes with no tolls, although it lacks frontage roads south of Alt-90 (Old Spanish Trail), which is unusual for Houston. It follows the railroad corridor on the west side of the railroad. A future project, which I think has completed the environmental process, will add four direct connectors at Loop 610.

Savor the moment. This is an all-new "greenfield" freeway near the center of a major urban area. I'm aware of only two other planned new freeways/tollways near the center of major cities, the Hardy Toll Road extension in Houston and the Tres Rivers Freeway in Phoenix. Of course there are planned freeways near the center of smaller cities, including I-49 in Shreveport and Lafayette. (If anyone knows of other planned freeways near the center of large urban areas, feel free to mention them.)

County:   HARRIS   Let Date:   03/07/23
Type:   CONSTRUCT NEW ROAD   Seq No:   3001
Time:   597 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   C 178-9-18
Highway:   SH 35   Contract #:   03233001
Length:   3.620   CCSJ:   0178-09-018
Limits:   
From:   SH 35/SP 5, FROM IH 45   Check:   $100,000
To:   GRIGGS ROAD   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $96,961,967.73   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $93,945,777.02   -3.11%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 2   $102,456,452.91   +5.67%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Bidder 3   $103,923,727.72   +7.18%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 4   $103,997,456.19   +7.26%   BALFOUR BEATTY INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.
Bidder 5   $113,222,849.47   +16.77%   WEBBER, LLC

[jgb191]

Hopefully this new freeway can give drivers an alternate route to the Hobby Airport from downtown?

[CoreySamson]

I am still amazed that this project is advancing, seemingly without opposition. Hopefully it takes pressure off 288 and I-45. I also wonder if it will eventually tie into the Grand Parkway in Alvin.

[MaxConcrete]

I am still amazed that this project is advancing, seemingly without opposition. Hopefully it takes pressure off 288 and I-45. I also wonder if it will eventually tie into the Grand Parkway in Alvin.

As of about 2 years ago, TxDOT was trying to start the planning process to extend it south to Alvin. But Pearland objected and apparently blocked any planning from proceeding. I don't know the current status.

I'll be surprised if a freeway can proceed south of Beltway 8. And it's no sure thing that the section from Loop 610 to Beltway 8 will be built.

Extending the freeway to the currently-planned terminus south of Loop 610, including 4 direct connectors, will almost surely be built, probably within a few years.

[thisdj78]

I am still amazed that this project is advancing, seemingly without opposition. Hopefully it takes pressure off 288 and I-45. I also wonder if it will eventually tie into the Grand Parkway in Alvin.

As of about 2 years ago, TxDOT was trying to start the planning process to extend it south to Alvin. But Pearland objected and apparently blocked any planning from proceeding. I don't know the current status.

I'll be surprised if a freeway can proceed south of Beltway 8. And it's no sure thing that the section from Loop 610 to Beltway 8 will be built.

Extending the freeway to the currently-planned terminus south of Loop 610, including 4 direct connectors, will almost surely be built, probably within a few years.

Looks like ROW acquisition already occurred immediately south of 610, so it looks like they are preparing for an extension south of there:

https://goo.gl/maps/9obDqf7RTAEFByir8

I can see how the Pearland portion would be tough. The only path is the railroad corridor and even then it would required a lot of property to be cleared in the center of town....the ROW opens up a bit once you get south of Walnut St.

[Bobby5280]

I don't think that vacant land is the result of any ROW acquisition for a future freeway. Looking at historical overhead imagery in Google Earth not much has changed in that neighborhood. A few houses have disappeared closer to Cedar Crest Street. It's likely the house removals were from buildings falling into disrepair and being condemned or perhaps burned down via arson. That's not exactly a great neighborhood.

Farther South near the intersection of Belfort Ave existing residential and commercial development hugs pretty close to Mykawa Road. The existing rail line and its ROW is a significant barrier. I'd be surprised if this TX-35 freeway extended any rather South than I-610.

[thisdj78]

I don't think that vacant land is the result of any ROW acquisition for a future freeway. Looking at historical overhead imagery in Google Earth not much has changed in that neighborhood. A few houses have disappeared closer to Cedar Crest Street. It's likely the house removals were from buildings falling into disrepair and being condemned or perhaps burned down via arson. That's not exactly a great neighborhood.

Farther South near the intersection of Belfort Ave existing residential and commercial development hugs pretty close to Mykawa Road. The existing rail line and its ROW is a significant barrier. I'd be surprised if this TX-35 freeway extended any rather South than I-610.

I don't know....that's a pretty clear and distinct line where they started tearing down houses. It could very well be that this started several years ago, but it appears to be for the highway extension:


2015 s550 0 60

[Bobby5280]

I repeat: look at the historical imagery in Google Earth. Just about all that vacant land has been there going back to the 1980's. None of it was cleared recently. Plus, if any of it was meant for a future highway ROW the clearing would have happened closer to Mykawa Road and the existing rail line.

I'm sure there are other reasons for that vacant space being there. One factor might be zoning. All the properties along the West side of Cedar Crest St in that neighborhood are industrial. Maybe some of the land on the East side of that street is also zoned industrial. Or maybe it's a green space to put at least some distance between the homes and industrial businesses. Recent 2022 imagery at the corner of Iron Rock Ave and Cedar Crest St shows much of that land covered up with a bunch of square wood beams.

[ethanhopkin14]

I am still amazed that this project is advancing, seemingly without opposition. Hopefully it takes pressure off 288 and I-45. I also wonder if it will eventually tie into the Grand Parkway in Alvin.

As of about 2 years ago, TxDOT was trying to start the planning process to extend it south to Alvin. But Pearland objected and apparently blocked any planning from proceeding. I don't know the current status.

I'll be surprised if a freeway can proceed south of Beltway 8. And it's no sure thing that the section from Loop 610 to Beltway 8 will be built.

Extending the freeway to the currently-planned terminus south of Loop 610, including 4 direct connectors, will almost surely be built, probably within a few years.

Looks like ROW acquisition already occurred immediately south of 610, so it looks like they are preparing for an extension south of there:

https://goo.gl/maps/9obDqf7RTAEFByir8

I can see how the Pearland portion would be tough. The only path is the railroad corridor and even then it would required a lot of property to be cleared in the center of town....the ROW opens up a bit once you get south of Walnut St.

According to Harris CAD, some of the lots are owned by Harris County and some of the lots are owned by TxDOT.  I think maybe those lots were condemned due to flooding years ago and the county got them by condemnation and TxDOT is trying to buy them?

[thisdj78]

I repeat: look at the historical imagery in Google Earth. Just about all that vacant land has been there going back to the 1980's. None of it was cleared recently. Plus, if any of it was meant for a future highway ROW the clearing would have happened closer to Mykawa Road and the existing rail line.

I'm sure there are other reasons for that vacant space being there. One factor might be zoning. All the properties along the West side of Cedar Crest St in that neighborhood are industrial. Maybe some of the land on the East side of that street is also zoned industrial. Or maybe it's a green space to put at least some distance between the homes and industrial businesses. Recent 2022 imagery at the corner of Iron Rock Ave and Cedar Crest St shows much of that land covered up with a bunch of square wood beams.

I just found the schematics and exactly as I thought, those homes were cleared for the ROW. It could have been done decades ago but the vacant driveways are a clear indication that homes used to be there:

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/sh35-spur5-i45-i610/120622-schematic.pdf

[thisdj78]

I am still amazed that this project is advancing, seemingly without opposition. Hopefully it takes pressure off 288 and I-45. I also wonder if it will eventually tie into the Grand Parkway in Alvin.

As of about 2 years ago, TxDOT was trying to start the planning process to extend it south to Alvin. But Pearland objected and apparently blocked any planning from proceeding. I don't know the current status.

I'll be surprised if a freeway can proceed south of Beltway 8. And it's no sure thing that the section from Loop 610 to Beltway 8 will be built.

Extending the freeway to the currently-planned terminus south of Loop 610, including 4 direct connectors, will almost surely be built, probably within a few years.

Looks like ROW acquisition already occurred immediately south of 610, so it looks like they are preparing for an extension south of there:

https://goo.gl/maps/9obDqf7RTAEFByir8

I can see how the Pearland portion would be tough. The only path is the railroad corridor and even then it would required a lot of property to be cleared in the center of town....the ROW opens up a bit once you get south of Walnut St.

According to Harris CAD, some of the lots are owned by Harris County and some of the lots are owned by TxDOT.  I think maybe those lots were condemned due to flooding years ago and the county got them by condemnation and TxDOT is trying to buy them?

Check out the schematics I posted above. The extension goes right though the cleared land and ultimately ends just south of that neighborhood.

[jlwm]

I'm sure there are other reasons for that vacant space being there. One factor might be zoning.

Houston doesn't have zoning.

[Bobby5280]

Houston doesn't have "zoning" in the traditional sense, like a part of town being marked as R1 for single family unattached homes. Houston does have ordinance codes, which do pretty much the same things as "zoning." There are fewer restrictions, but it is by no means a free-for-all. You can't simply plant a huge industrial building or warehouse in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

[armadillo speedbump]

I think getting to BW8 would probably be good enough.  But not getting south of 610 would seem to make this a huge and duplicative waste that doesn't serve or help much.

I can see the political opposition from having to take homes, but really it's just for a half mile stretch from north of Bellfort to airport, some of which are already in a flood zone that I remember has flooded.  The rest of the way to BW8 is all industrial and doable.  I bet it would significantly help the overloaded most of the day 610 E to 45 S direct connector.

Not sure BW8 to Pearland is that difficult, when the time comes.  Just south of BW8 you might have to take some low densities homes (less than 10) to get past the 1/4 mile of cemetery, but beyond that I don't think they'd have to take any more residences, just commercial/industrial.  May not be cheap, may have to build above the railroad tracks for a short section or two, but doable if don't require continuous frontage roads (tollway and no preexisting requirement most of the way) and perhaps limited to 2 lanes each way.  2x2 is likely enough for demand that far south, unless the Ike Dyke actually gets completed and opens up more development south of 35 between Alvin and Angleton (which would still probably be a bad idea for dense development).  I realize no one wants to live next to a freeway, so political opposition may win out.  But the route had already been laid out in county and HGAC planning docs before most of those houses were built.  If I were forced to bet, I'd go with eventually it making it all the way to Alvin.

Can't tell for sure from the schematics, but I'm guessing that the future project of realigning Griggs/Mykawa/Long is grade separated from the railroads by those roads going under rather than over the tracks?  That would matter in regards to a long term future commuter rail and light rail potential projects (without getting into a long discussion as to why).

[thisdj78]

I think getting to BW8 would probably be good enough.  But not getting south of 610 would seem to make this a huge and duplicative waste that doesn't serve or help much.

I can see the political opposition from having to take homes, but really it's just for a half mile stretch from north of Bellfort to airport, some of which are already in a flood zone that I remember has flooded.  The rest of the way to BW8 is all industrial and doable.  I bet it would significantly help the overloaded most of the day 610 E to 45 S direct connector.

Not sure BW8 to Pearland is that difficult, when the time comes.  Just south of BW8 you might have to take some low densities homes (less than 10) to get past the 1/4 mile of cemetery, but beyond that I don't think they'd have to take any more residences, just commercial/industrial.  May not be cheap, may have to build above the railroad tracks for a short section or two, but doable if don't require continuous frontage roads (tollway and no preexisting requirement most of the way) and perhaps limited to 2 lanes each way.  2x2 is likely enough for demand that far south, unless the Ike Dyke actually gets completed and opens up more development south of 35 between Alvin and Angleton (which would still probably be a bad idea for dense development).  I realize no one wants to live next to a freeway, so political opposition may win out.  But the route had already been laid out in county and HGAC planning docs before most of those houses were built.  If I were forced to bet, I'd go with eventually it making it all the way to Alvin.

Can't tell for sure from the schematics, but I'm guessing that the future project of realigning Griggs/Mykawa/Long is grade separated from the railroads by those roads going under rather than over the tracks?  That would matter in regards to a long term future commuter rail and light rail potential projects (without getting into a long discussion as to why).

Though it's not a detailed schematic, it looks like the freeway will follow the railroad corridor pretty much all the way to Alvin, which most definitely will require some homes to be removed in central Pearland. I imagine the highway will look similar to Hardy Tollroad between Crosstimbers and Aldine Mail:

https://www.pearland.com/msg/sh-35-tollway-project-info.php?p=994055

[armadillo speedbump]

Like I said, if they are willing to pay the expense of building above the railroad tracks on a short stretch through downtown Pearland (and maybe near the cemetery south of BW8) and limit it to 2x2 without frontage roads, they can avoid any residential takings.  The choke point is just south of Broadway.  The railroad ROW is 100' wide and 1on the west side of that another 50' to any structure.  A 2x2 bridge with 12' lanes and 12' inner and outer shoulders should be less than 110' wide.  20' on either side should be enough for drainage, etc.

Or take just those old couple of apartment buildings (and some commercial property) and they probably don't need to build over the railroad.  The next choke point is Pear St and S. Sacramento Ave.  120' available between the railroad ROW line and that intersection.  More if you round off that intersection taking the grassy portion of the street easement and part of the corner house's front yard.  (Will need room for a sound wall, but that doesn't have to take a wide footprint).  However, looking at Streetview I'd bet that the corner home, and several more on Sacramento, have flooded before.  So they might be willing to sell out.

Which brings up a question I've always forgot to ask:  Can Texas do some kind of Fair Market Value Plus on certain road projects?  Meaning does TXDOT have the leeway to negotiate and offer more than FMV for property in certain circumstances?  For example, a policy that can purchase a replacement home within X miles and do a swap with a home in a project's path? 

Moving can be a royal pain, but upgrading from one of those older Sacramento shacks to a modern amenity home in a non-flooding lot might be enticing. 

Yes, the Westpark Tollway, such as near Harwin at Belle Park Dr is a good example.  Fit into 150' between curb to curb of side streets, but note that 50' of that had to be reserved for future transit corridor use per the ROW agreement with Houston Metro (who bought it from the original freight railroad).  So really a 100' tollway footprint, including the sound wall and greenery buffer along the north side street (Montmarte).

A route through central Pearland without taking residences is possible, and can be done more affordably by taking one or two old multifamily buildings and maybe 1-3 older homes on Sacramento.  Building over the RR is probably not going to be necessary (nor preferred) but at least may be a last resort option (nothing is a sure thing when negotiating with railroads, who usually have the upper hand.  BNSF has in the past been more open to negotiation than others, but that can always change and is situation dependent.)

BTW, I believe one of the proposals floated for the tollway had it plowing through a number of homes, not always right next to the RR tracks in Pearland.  I can definitely see resistance to that and requiring refinement.  I could be remembering wrong, but want to say it followed Mykawa Rd south all the way to around Walnut, then cut over to the RR tracks.  Back before the subdivision south of Walnut had been built.

[Exered]

Like I said, if they are willing to pay the expense of building above the railroad tracks on a short stretch through downtown Pearland (and maybe near the cemetery south of BW8) and limit it to 2x2 without frontage roads, they can avoid any residential takings.  The choke point is just south of Broadway.  The railroad ROW is 100' wide and 1on the west side of that another 50' to any structure.  A 2x2 bridge with 12' lanes and 12' inner and outer shoulders should be less than 110' wide.  20' on either side should be enough for drainage, etc.

Or take just those old couple of apartment buildings (and some commercial property) and they probably don't need to build over the railroad.  The next choke point is Pear St and S. Sacramento Ave.  120' available between the railroad ROW line and that intersection.  More if you round off that intersection taking the grassy portion of the street easement and part of the corner house's front yard.  (Will need room for a sound wall, but that doesn't have to take a wide footprint).  However, looking at Streetview I'd bet that the corner home, and several more on Sacramento, have flooded before.  So they might be willing to sell out.

Which brings up a question I've always forgot to ask:  Can Texas do some kind of Fair Market Value Plus on certain road projects?  Meaning does TXDOT have the leeway to negotiate and offer more than FMV for property in certain circumstances?  For example, a policy that can purchase a replacement home within X miles and do a swap with a home in a project's path? 

Moving can be a royal pain, but upgrading from one of those older Sacramento shacks to a modern amenity home in a non-flooding lot might be enticing. 

Yes, the Westpark Tollway, such as near Harwin at Belle Park Dr is a good example.  Fit into 150' between curb to curb of side streets, but note that 50' of that had to be reserved for future transit corridor use per the ROW agreement with Houston Metro (who bought it from the original freight railroad).  So really a 100' tollway footprint, including the sound wall and greenery buffer along the north side street (Montmarte).

A route through central Pearland without taking residences is possible, and can be done more affordably by taking one or two old multifamily buildings and maybe 1-3 older homes on Sacramento.  Building over the RR is probably not going to be necessary (nor preferred) but at least may be a last resort option (nothing is a sure thing when negotiating with railroads, who usually have the upper hand. It will be like a book later https://freebooksummary.com/category/everyday-use about our new routine.  BNSF has in the past been more open to negotiation than others, but that can always change and is situation dependent.)

BTW, I believe one of the proposals floated for the tollway had it plowing through a number of homes, not always right next to the RR tracks in Pearland.  I can definitely see resistance to that and requiring refinement.  I could be remembering wrong, but want to say it followed Mykawa Rd south all the way to around Walnut, then cut over to the RR tracks.  Back before the subdivision south of Walnut had been built.

Sounds like a plan, but I think we need to wait for an official response on the completed project