http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Audit-finds-faults-with-TxDOT-design-build-checks-9184040.php?t=0b0f5c7ecc438d9cbb&cmpid=reddit-premium
Looks like this segment will be constructed as a TX Super-2, rather than a four lane tollway. Given the relatively low development out there, this seems to be a reasonable design decision.
On the other hand, of course the state has a problem with how the design-build process is going.
Considering the regional traffic moving purposes of the Grand Parkway, I'm surprised they're choosing to build the Northeast leg of the Grand Parkway as a Super 2. I hope they at least secure enough right of way to flesh the road out completely as Interstate quality super highway in the future. I wonder if this Super 2 will at least be limited access like the TX-49 toll road in Tyler.
Regarding the design-build process, there are definitely pros and cons to it. The obvious plus is "fewer cooks in the kitchen," making the process a whole lot more efficient. The more firms that are involved in a construction project add to organizational and logistical headaches. It increases the chances of miscommunication. It's difficult enough to keep everyone within the same firm on the same page, much less do that with various third parties.
But, yeah, if one firm is able to do everything on a design-build road project there is the possibility they could dramatically pad the construction bill rather than save taxpayers a lot of money over increased efficiency. Some projects are beyond the capabilities of one firm to handle on its own. Some parts of a project might have to be jobbed out to others in order to meet a tight deadline.
One thing is certain: these construction firms are risking cutting their own throats with the ever increasing costs they're handing to taxpayers for infrastructure projects. A political backlash could bring a lot of things to a grinding halt.
http://www.chron.com/news/transportation/article/Next-sections-of-Grand-Parkway-forge-ahead-11036051.php?ipid=layoutrecirc_politics
These segments are getting fast-tracked.
This may be a little off-topic, but were the controversies that have plagued Segment A been resolved (to this date)?
I read that construction has started on this segment, has anyone seen any ground clearing yet? I thought I saw something when flying into Houston last week but it was hard to tell with cloud cover.
Quote from: thisdj78 on May 16, 2019, 07:04:19 AM
I read that construction has started on this segment, has anyone seen any ground clearing yet? I thought I saw something when flying into Houston last week but it was hard to tell with cloud cover.
I was at the IH 10/Grand Parkway intersection last month, and work was in progress at that location. Ground clearing was underway to the north of IH 10, and a few piers for elevated roadway are already in place around IH 10 and to the south.
Some of the clearing work on Section H is now visible in Google Earth. The imagery is dated 2/23/2019.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 17, 2019, 03:10:36 PM
Some of the clearing work on Section H is now visible in Google Earth. The imagery is dated 2/23/2019.
Is that on the desktop version or the app?
I use the desktop "pro" Google Earth application.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 17, 2019, 11:23:36 PM
I use the desktop "pro" Google Earth application.
That's odd...I'm only seeing 1/2/2018 imagery
The northern portion has newer imagery.
click to enlarge
(https://i.imgur.com/2m1AA8I.jpg)
Quote from: Chris on May 22, 2019, 06:07:29 AM
The northern portion has newer imagery.
click to enlarge
(https://i.imgur.com/2m1AA8I.jpg)
So it's basically disconnected.
They're just getting going on the clearing work for Section H. They don't necessarily have to clear the ROW in a linear fashion. So far they've been opening up the path where only trees are in the way. Some properties (along with utilities and other stuff) will have to be cleared in other areas, such as where the toll road will cross River Road (FM 1485).
Photo taken January 4, 2020, near the entrance to Lake Houston Wilderness Park. This is one of the few spots in the immediate area with actual construction underway. Most of the section along FM 1485 in still in the right-of-way and forest clearance phase. Further west near IH69, work is much further along.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20200104_013_1600.jpg&hash=4ae996ef13cccaa400a4aa44cecfa80b64ae5841)
Any new updates? I know this thread is more than 120 days old, but I'm curious.
The map app on the Amazon Fire Stick is more updated, then Google Maps is
You're going to find differences in satellite imagery, both newer and older, in various Internet-based map apps. None are uniformly more up to date than the other.
For example, in Apple Maps it shows newer imagery of CA-58 with the Hinkley bypass completed and the Kramer Junction bypass well under construction. Google Earth/Maps imagery is over 5 years old and shows next to no progress. On the other hand, Google Earth shows newer imagery in Oklahoma of the Kilpatrick Turnpike extension while Apple Maps' imagery is older.
Update on this project from Construction Equipment Magazine:
QuoteGrand Parkway Infrastructure LLC began construction of a $1.2 billion project that will build Segments H, I-1 and I-2 of the Texas Department of Transportation's (TxDOT) SH 99 Grand Parkway project, in an area northeast of the city of Houston in Harris, Montgomery, Liberty, and Chambers counties.
Construction started on July 26, 2018, and is expected to be completed in spring 2022. GPI, which secured the design-build contract on March 28, 2017, consists of Granite Construction Inc., Webber LLC and Ferrovial Construction.
This work will increase capacity by providing a new two-lane tolled controlled access facility (with intermittent four lane sections for passing) from U.S. 59 North to IH 10 East (Segments H and I-1, approximately 37.5 mi.); four additional toll lanes from FM 1405 to SH 146 (Segment I-2B, approximately 6.1 mi.); and upgrade tolling equipment to the existing four-lane tolled facility from IH 10 East to FM 1405 (I-2A, existing 8.7 mi.). Additional elements include bridge work, building of retaining walls, installation of drainage infrastructure, utility relocation and embankment work.
Segment I-2A includes upgrades for the tolling equipment and upgrades to the existing four-lane roadway constructed by TxDOT back in 2008. In addition to the new lanes, there are eight turnarounds and 20 mainline bridges featured within the segments.
More here with photos: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/grand-parkway-infrastructure-links-segments-on-massive-texas-highway-job/53015
Once the segment is done, how long will the "Super 2" segment last, before it becomes 4 lanes (like usual) cause of demand?
My guess is it won't take more than 2-5 years before they start adding the second set of lanes.
I know this is barely related and connected to the Grand Parkway, but how's the work off of SH 146 from League City Parkway to Red Bluff Road?
Quote from: TheBox on July 08, 2021, 01:36:51 AM
Once the segment is done, how long will the "Super 2" segment last, before it becomes 4 lanes (like usual) cause of demand?
My predication there will be the demand for at least 6 lanes within the next two decades.
Quote from: TheBox on August 22, 2021, 02:53:22 PM
I know this is barely related and connected to the Grand Parkway, but how's the work off of SH 146 from League City Parkway to Red Bluff Road?
Progress is good as of my last visit in July. The bridge section is the main focus at this time. The main bridge over the channel is mostly complete. The long elevated approaches on the north and south sides have sections that are mostly complete and sections with mostly piers.
North of NASA 1, progress is slower. Traffic was still on the original pavement. Work on the southbound frontage road and main lanes was the main focus.
In a related development, TxDOT opened bids earlier this month to update SH 146 north to SH 225 to 3x3. This involves adding the third lane in each direction where the existing facility lacks the third lane.
County: HARRIS Let Date: 08/05/21
Type: RECONSTRUCT AND WIDEN FREEWAY FACILITY Seq No: 3201
Time: 1229 WORKING DAYS Project ID: C 389-5-87
Highway: SH 146 Contract #: 08213201
Length: 11.521 CCSJ: 0389-05-087
Limits:
From: S. OF SPENCER HWY Check: $100,000
To: S. OF RED BLUFF Misc Cost:
Estimate $123,933,207.35 % Over/Under Company
Bidder 1 $110,766,237.66 -10.62% WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on August 22, 2021, 07:30:19 PM
Quote from: TheBox on August 22, 2021, 02:53:22 PM
I know this is barely related and connected to the Grand Parkway, but how's the work off of SH 146 from League City Parkway to Red Bluff Road?
Progress is good as of my last visit in July. The bridge section is the main focus at this time. The main bridge over the channel is mostly complete. The long elevated approaches on the north and south sides have sections that are mostly complete and sections with mostly piers.
More clearly, it over Clear Creek / Clear Lake. The marine traffic at this crossing is pretty much all recreational boats including high-masted sailboats. The ship channel is another 10+ miles up from Clear Creek.
I traveled the northwestern quadrant from US 290 to I-69 a couple of weeks ago. Very nice drive with traffic moving at 70-80 mph. Sure beats going by TX 105 from Brenham thru Conroe to get to Cleveland.
here in MapBox has the remaining portion of the SH 99/Grand Parkway section (rather than being cut off of old and outdated satallite):
https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/mapbox/satellite-streets-v11.html?title=true&access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoibWFwYm94IiwiYSI6ImNpejY4M29iazA2Z2gycXA4N2pmbDZmangifQ.-g_vE53SD2WrJ6tFX7QHmA#9.64/29.9725/-94.9706
https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/mapbox/satellite-streets-v11.html?title=true&access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoibWFwYm94IiwiYSI6ImNpejY4M29iazA2Z2gycXA4N2pmbDZmangifQ.-g_vE53SD2WrJ6tFX7QHmA#13.49/29.81156/-94.86852
https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/mapbox/satellite-streets-v11.html?title=true&access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoibWFwYm94IiwiYSI6ImNpejY4M29iazA2Z2gycXA4N2pmbDZmangifQ.-g_vE53SD2WrJ6tFX7QHmA#13.59/29.72533/-94.92896
also SH 146 freeway/overpasses:
https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/mapbox/satellite-streets-v11.html?title=true&access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoibWFwYm94IiwiYSI6ImNpejY4M29iazA2Z2gycXA4N2pmbDZmangifQ.-g_vE53SD2WrJ6tFX7QHmA#12.47/29.555/-95.02109
Re: Houston: SH 99 Grand Parkway widening
« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2022, 04:56:36 PM »
ReplyQuoteModifyModifyRemoveRemove
Also, a closer look
SH 99/Grand Parkway @ US-90:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0044657,-94.9434413,3a,75y,54.83h,86.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQ6yiC69Cdw9JVXYDI5vVYg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DQ6yiC69Cdw9JVXYDI5vVYg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.848%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0145335,-94.9307662,3a,75y,230.39h,83.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNJJksezxuxK4KfgsUb7vkg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DNJJksezxuxK4KfgsUb7vkg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D304.6033%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
SH 99/Grand Parkway @ SH 146:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8677439,-94.8931353,3a,75y,23.02h,75.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSrwQsDwxT6cHt1OlFQADLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
SH 99/Grand Parkway @ IH-10:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8253178,-94.8568958,3a,75y,266.78h,84.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY2Kn_fVXoBXFMxUF77laFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8234753,-94.8758787,3a,15y,83.37h,88.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUCOdcllZClelkSWEtSC_IA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8166019,-94.8616271,3a,15y,342.69h,88.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHjw3m7FDXuXVKGjC5AWTLg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8239764,-94.8665925,3a,75y,119.1h,79.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stsR7rvm0A9dHAs_FZ6jIsg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
SH 99/Grand Parkway @ Baytown area:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8029082,-94.8678467,3a,75y,20.28h,80.84t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGuLXk00ZuFwBfkWFPGUl_Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DGuLXk00ZuFwBfkWFPGUl_Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D289.01016%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.8040308,-94.8681648,3a,75y,208.04h,83.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7jmTJlF0_E5XSjs8Qzhl-g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D7jmTJlF0_E5XSjs8Qzhl-g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D280.53275%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7311734,-94.8770763,3a,75y,43.12h,83.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sj5GomOu-HtSsTD_y9fc7zg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dj5GomOu-HtSsTD_y9fc7zg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D157.19954%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7331798,-94.876146,3a,75y,210.9h,83.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sX9tT_ajC5rkUB1G8elxmdw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DX9tT_ajC5rkUB1G8elxmdw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D113.03552%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7202657,-94.9342198,3a,75y,69.36h,87.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAtK90DZGWsWUraAe4MsGJQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DAtK90DZGWsWUraAe4MsGJQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D307.64926%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7276903,-94.9142444,3a,75y,259.75h,81.28t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sX_fbzQSJGsT-AL5eb-9cAQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DX_fbzQSJGsT-AL5eb-9cAQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D167.27115%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7198219,-94.9461934,3a,75y,265.55h,91.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIP_DF8ScUmK5utZkvd0bTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7207307,-94.9612616,3a,75y,84.47h,87.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFMicLNoWBskwcnu_Py5w0g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DFMicLNoWBskwcnu_Py5w0g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D278.16232%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7139991,-94.9812327,3a,75y,55.54h,87.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s60BVY1uYk6DvR9khNmUG4A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
SH 146 Freeway extension:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5848681,-95.0292621,3a,75y,205.26h,86.47t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVRqfNp2TEIjrVcOxWcK3kA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DVRqfNp2TEIjrVcOxWcK3kA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D144.99644%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5579894,-95.0247504,3a,75y,175.98h,90.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbUvVm3L2zdSQUkiosvxXLw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DbUvVm3L2zdSQUkiosvxXLw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D169.68153%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5280044,-95.0122121,3a,15y,331.11h,88.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMaEev6yKZ2kZIyCg_6taLQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
Quote from: yakra on January 16, 2022, 08:46:06 PM
SE of I-69 on the NE side of Houston, "Construction is anticipated to last through spring 2022" on Segments H and I-1 (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh99-grand-parkway/overview/segment-h-i1.html).
SE of I-60 on the SW side of Houston:
Segment A (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh99-grand-parkway/overview/segment-a.html) "is currently not considered a viable project."
Segment B (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh99-grand-parkway/overview/segment-b.html): "Construction has not been scheduled yet."
Segment C (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh99-grand-parkway/overview/segment-c.html) has its Est. Complete Date listed on the Project Tracker (https://apps3.txdot.gov/apps-cq/project_tracker/) as TBD. Although this page (http://www.idcus.com/portfolio/fort-bend-grand-parkway-toll-road-segment-c-section-c-1-fort-bend-county-texas/) says "Completion Date: 2016". :poke:
Google Maps shows the NE segment to be open. Haven't seen any announcements. Anyone had a chance to drive it?
There is some fairly recent Street View imagery in areas around the NE segment of the Grand Parkway dated 12/2021. Not on the main lanes of it, but on intersecting roads. Google Earth shows two carriageways in some locations, but the Street View imagery suggests there is only one 2 lane segment, such as the intersection with CR 603. Farther South in Kemah there is newer 1/2022 Street View imagery showing construction progress on that segment of the Grand Parkway.
https://www.sh146.com/#:~:text=The%20SH%20146%20Expansion%20is,the%20construction%20contract%20to%20Webber.
At Clear Lake and SH Nasa Road 1, work is at the most as of today, though most of the elevated freeway is constructed along it's planned corridor.
Drove it just now.
Quote from: rte66man on April 10, 2022, 09:02:19 PM
Google Maps shows the NE segment to be open. Haven't seen any announcements. Anyone had a chance to drive it?
Around Christmas, I drove on the Grand Parkway Segment I-2 from Baytown to I-10 and it didn't look like it was close to ready north of I-10. But maybe they got a lot done in the last 3-4 months.
It looks like the project to make freeway upgrades in Seabrook and Kemah currently is five months ahead of schedule. However it was once a year ahead and now got pushed back seven months.
So hopefully the October 23 completion will hold.
Quote from: rte66man on April 10, 2022, 09:02:19 PM
Google Maps shows the NE segment to be open. Haven't seen any announcements. Anyone had a chance to drive it?
Now shown as closed until late June.
Soon.
Edit: And not long after posting, Google Maps went from showing the entire NE quadrant with the closed red striping to just a couple of short sections. But Chrome has become incompetent crap for a lot of websites lately, so I have no idea what y'all may see.
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on April 13, 2022, 07:30:39 PM
Quote from: rte66man on April 10, 2022, 09:02:19 PM
Google Maps shows the NE segment to be open. Haven't seen any announcements. Anyone had a chance to drive it?
Now shown as closed until late June.
Soon.
Edit: And not long after posting, Google Maps went from showing the entire NE quadrant with the closed red striping to just a couple of short sections. But Chrome has become incompetent crap for a lot of websites lately, so I have no idea what y'all may see.
The google maps app on my phone is still showing it completely open.
https://communityimpact.com/houston/lake-houston-humble-kingwood/transportation/2022/05/16/txdot-grand-parkway-segments-from-new-caney-to-baytown-set-to-open-may-19/
It's official: the Grand Parkway's segments H, I-1, and I-2 will be opening to traffic on May 19th, and tolling then will begin two days after opening on May 21st.
I think this could be the largest single highway opening in the history of Houston? This stretch of highway is almost 40 miles long, even though only about half is actually a four lane divided highway.
For historic reference:
(https://i.imgur.com/ehUeiu0.png)
Am I the only one that thinks is premature to only have 2 lanes on a good portion of this? Development is quickly following the newer portions that have opened over the past few years, and some of the stretches in the last 10-15 years are getting near needing 6 lanes already.
I feel like, at minimum, this entire highway should have been a minimum of a four lane highway. Not to mention, it's function as a highway for the overall system, it should meet minimum interstate standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 17, 2022, 05:18:35 PM
Am I the only one that thinks is premature to only have 2 lanes on a good portion of this? Development is quickly following the newer portions that have opened over the past few years, and some of the stretches in the last 10-15 years are getting near needing 6 lanes already.
I feel like, at minimum, this entire highway should have been a minimum of a four lane highway. Not to mention, it's function as a highway for the overall system, it should meet minimum interstate standards.
That's a nice notion, but the main reason it was built in the reduced capacity is exactly because the area needs a facility. Acquiring the needed funds for a full four-lane interstate-quality road would have taken much longer.
I'm sure those 2 lane sections of the Grand Parkway will be upgraded to 4-lane divided in a relatively short amount of time. Those sections won't be Super-2 over the long term, unlike parts of US-82 between McKinney and Paris or the 2-lane toll road around Tyler.
When can we expect the highway to be fully four lanes?
My guess for how long it takes to add the second pair of lanes: 5 to 10 years at the most.
That guess assumes current growth trends in the Houston metro continue for years to come, which seems very likely. Even with a serious economic downturn the state of Texas will probably still continue to draw population from California and the Northeast US.
Any idea what the speed limit will be on the new section, in the interim with 2 lanes?
Despite Houston's general 65 mph limit on most roads, the newest portion of the Grand Parkway near I-69 North is posted at 75 mph. I imagine the new 4 lane portion will either be a default 70 mph (then raised later, similar to the recent US-183 situation in Austin) or immediately 75 mph, then the two lane portion 65 mph or 70 mph (though ideally 75 mph the whole way).
My best guess would be 75 mph, since these will be in Montgomery, Liberty, and Chambers Counties. Harris County seems the most enthusiastic about maintaining the 65-70 limits.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Grand-Parkway-to-get-a-lot-grander-with-new-53-17182097.php (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Grand-Parkway-to-get-a-lot-grander-with-new-53-17182097.php)
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/25/63/41/22493273/3/ratio3x2_1200.jpg)
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/25/63/41/22493275/3/ratio3x2_1200.jpg)
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/25/63/30/22492709/3/1200x0.jpg)
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2022, 12:40:44 AM
Any idea what the speed limit will be on the new section, in the interim with 2 lanes?
Despite Houston's general 65 mph limit on most roads, the newest portion of the Grand Parkway near I-69 North is posted at 75 mph. I imagine the new 4 lane portion will either be a default 70 mph (then raised later, similar to the recent US-183 situation in Austin) or immediately 75 mph, then the two lane portion 65 mph or 70 mph (though ideally 75 mph the whole way).
Quote from: TXtoNJ on May 18, 2022, 09:33:56 AM
My best guess would be 75 mph, since these will be in Montgomery, Liberty, and Chambers Counties. Harris County seems the most enthusiastic about maintaining the 65-70 limits.
The speed limit is signed at 70 mph until you get to south of FM 565/FM 2354 interchange where it drops back down to 65 mph.
Found on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbgT7JMFIgY
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on May 20, 2022, 06:59:07 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2022, 12:40:44 AM
Any idea what the speed limit will be on the new section, in the interim with 2 lanes?
Despite Houston's general 65 mph limit on most roads, the newest portion of the Grand Parkway near I-69 North is posted at 75 mph. I imagine the new 4 lane portion will either be a default 70 mph (then raised later, similar to the recent US-183 situation in Austin) or immediately 75 mph, then the two lane portion 65 mph or 70 mph (though ideally 75 mph the whole way).
Quote from: TXtoNJ on May 18, 2022, 09:33:56 AM
My best guess would be 75 mph, since these will be in Montgomery, Liberty, and Chambers Counties. Harris County seems the most enthusiastic about maintaining the 65-70 limits.
The speed limit is signed at 70 mph until you get to south of FM 565/FM 2354 interchange where it drops back down to 65 mph.
Boo
I believe since these countries are assigned to the Houston District by TxDOT, they are 65/70 mph.
Quote from: Thegeet on May 23, 2022, 10:55:25 AM
I believe since these counties are assigned to the Houston District by TxDOT, they are 65/70 mph.
It isn't the TxDOT districts. It is the particular county and the individual county's (environmental) attainment zone rules. Harris county is still not waivered. All of the roads inside Harris County are 65 mph or less. Montgomery and Chambers counties have waivers and have speeds up to 75 MPH (Like in North Texas). UP to, they can be set for less.
BTW. The intersection of FM 565 is in Chambers county which is in the Beaumont TxDOT District. The I-69 / Grand Parkway intersection is in Montgomery County which does belong to the Houston TxDOT district but is outside Harris County. .
Quote from: TXtoNJ on May 23, 2022, 10:18:39 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on May 20, 2022, 06:59:07 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2022, 12:40:44 AM
Any idea what the speed limit will be on the new section, in the interim with 2 lanes?
Despite Houston's general 65 mph limit on most roads, the newest portion of the Grand Parkway near I-69 North is posted at 75 mph. I imagine the new 4 lane portion will either be a default 70 mph (then raised later, similar to the recent US-183 situation in Austin) or immediately 75 mph, then the two lane portion 65 mph or 70 mph (though ideally 75 mph the whole way).
Quote from: TXtoNJ on May 18, 2022, 09:33:56 AM
My best guess would be 75 mph, since these will be in Montgomery, Liberty, and Chambers Counties. Harris County seems the most enthusiastic about maintaining the 65-70 limits.
The speed limit is signed at 70 mph until you get to south of FM 565/FM 2354 interchange where it drops back down to 65 mph.
Boo
Boo to the 70 mph part or 65 mph?
The entire new road is 70 mph. It drops to 65 mph south of I-10 tying into the existing parkway which was that slower speed.
Quote from: bwana39 on May 23, 2022, 12:09:05 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on May 23, 2022, 10:55:25 AM
I believe since these counties are assigned to the Houston District by TxDOT, they are 65/70 mph.
It isn't the TxDOT districts. It is the particular county and the individual county's (environmental) attainment zone rules. Harris county is still not waivered. All of the roads inside Harris County are 65 mph or less. Montgomery and Chambers counties have waivers and have speeds up to 75 MPH (Like in North Texas). UP to, they can be set for less.
BTW. The intersection of FM 565 is in Chambers county which is in the Beaumont TxDOT District. The I-69 / Grand Parkway intersection is in Montgomery County which does belong to the Houston TxDOT district but is outside Harris County. .
Don't Montgomery and Chambers county belong to Beaumont district?
Quote from: Thegeet on May 24, 2022, 09:24:56 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 23, 2022, 12:09:05 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on May 23, 2022, 10:55:25 AM
I believe since these counties are assigned to the Houston District by TxDOT, they are 65/70 mph.
It isn't the TxDOT districts. It is the particular county and the individual county's (environmental) attainment zone rules. Harris county is still not waivered. All of the roads inside Harris County are 65 mph or less. Montgomery and Chambers counties have waivers and have speeds up to 75 MPH (Like in North Texas). UP to, they can be set for less.
BTW. The intersection of FM 565 is in Chambers county which is in the Beaumont TxDOT District. The I-69 / Grand Parkway intersection is in Montgomery County which does belong to the Houston TxDOT district but is outside Harris County. .
Don't Montgomery and Chambers county belong to Beaumont district?
Just Chambers. Montgomery is in the Houston District.
https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/txdot/asset_collection/local_information/houston.png
Quote from: yakra on May 22, 2022, 08:33:47 PM
Found on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbgT7JMFIgY
Thanks, that was awesome!
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 23, 2022, 08:24:33 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on May 23, 2022, 10:18:39 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on May 20, 2022, 06:59:07 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2022, 12:40:44 AM
Any idea what the speed limit will be on the new section, in the interim with 2 lanes?
Despite Houston's general 65 mph limit on most roads, the newest portion of the Grand Parkway near I-69 North is posted at 75 mph. I imagine the new 4 lane portion will either be a default 70 mph (then raised later, similar to the recent US-183 situation in Austin) or immediately 75 mph, then the two lane portion 65 mph or 70 mph (though ideally 75 mph the whole way).
Quote from: TXtoNJ on May 18, 2022, 09:33:56 AM
My best guess would be 75 mph, since these will be in Montgomery, Liberty, and Chambers Counties. Harris County seems the most enthusiastic about maintaining the 65-70 limits.
The speed limit is signed at 70 mph until you get to south of FM 565/FM 2354 interchange where it drops back down to 65 mph.
Boo
Boo to the 70 mph part or 65 mph?
The entire new road is 70 mph. It drops to 65 mph south of I-10 tying into the existing parkway which was that slower speed.
It's sparse enough out there to warrant 75
^ Agreed, however at least 70 mph is better than 65 mph.
Perhaps it will be increased to 75 mph in the next couple of years - remember 70 mph is the default limit that applies once a new facility is constructed.
I know this is about another segment, but I was on the stretch from 290 to I-69N yesterday around 3-3:30 and couldn't believe how packed it was. Seems like it should have been built as a 6 lane vs 4 lane. I see expansions already needed in the very near future.
^ All of the Grand Parkway should've been built with at least 6 lanes to begin with, at least west of I-69.
East of I-69, 4 lanes would be sufficient, but designed to be easily widened to 6 lanes in the future.
The Houston Chronicle published an article about efforts to get the eastern part of section B built. Section B runs from the Gulf Freeway westward to SH 288 (see map below). Local officials are trying to expedite the section from the Gulf Freeway to southwest of Alvin.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/The-next-segments-of-the-Grand-Parkway-are-taking-17500080.php (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/The-next-segments-of-the-Grand-Parkway-are-taking-17500080.php)
The article says nothing about section A (between the Gulf Freeway and SH 146) and section C, from SH 288 to IH-69 (Southwest Freeway). My perceptions is that little or nothing is happening for section A. Section C is being handled by the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority, which is moving very slowly on the project and is still trying to define the exact alignment.
Quote
After a long wait, and some uncertainty as Texas lawmakers pivoted from tolls, elected leaders from Kemah to Pearland are pulling together to say it is time for the tollway to come their way.
"I think more than anything people want to know that it is actually going to happen," said State Rep. Ed Thompson, the Pearland Republican who represents much of the area where the next tollway segment will go.
Officials have continued to press state officials to keep the segment west of Interstate 45 toward Texas 288 a priority.
Work between League City and Alvin on $231.5 million of tollway could start within five years, according to the region's 10-year plan. That could be followed, eventually, by another 20 miles or so to Texas 288, at a projected cost of $691 million.
Southern segments, with the exception of Segment A east of I-45, already have state and federal clearance for their routes. As drawn, the tollway would move west from FM 646 at I-45 through mostly undeveloped land between League City Parkway and FM 517. Northeast of Alvin, the tollway would have a new interchange with Texas 35, which was built as a bypass to downtown Alvin with a freeway eventually in the center.
Instead of a freeway, however, residents will get the tollway, at least for about 10 miles until the Grand Parkway heads west from north of Liverpool, a tiny town of barely 500 in central Brazoria County that, like Alvin, only became a spot on the map when the railroad decided to stop there.
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/27/75/63/23059684/5/1200x0.jpg)
Quote from: MaxConcrete on October 21, 2022, 10:09:48 AM
The Houston Chronicle published an article about efforts to get the eastern part of section B built. Section B runs from the Gulf Freeway westward to SH 288 (see map below). Local officials are trying to expedite the section from the Gulf Freeway to southwest of Alvin.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/The-next-segments-of-the-Grand-Parkway-are-taking-17500080.php (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/The-next-segments-of-the-Grand-Parkway-are-taking-17500080.php)
The article says nothing about section A (between the Gulf Freeway and SH 146) and section C, from SH 288 to IH-69 (Southwest Freeway). My perceptions is that little or nothing is happening for section A. Section C is being handled by the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority, which is moving very slow on the project and is still trying to define the exact alignment.
Quote
After a long wait, and some uncertainty as Texas lawmakers pivoted from tolls, elected leaders from Kemah to Pearland are pulling together to say it is time for the tollway to come their way.
"I think more than anything people want to know that it is actually going to happen," said State Rep. Ed Thompson, the Pearland Republican who represents much of the area where the next tollway segment will go.
Officials have continued to press state officials to keep the segment west of Interstate 45 toward Texas 288 a priority.
Work between League City and Alvin on $231.5 million of tollway could start within five years, according to the region's 10-year plan. That could be followed, eventually, by another 20 miles or so to Texas 288, at a projected cost of $691 million.
Southern segments, with the exception of Segment A east of I-45, already have state and federal clearance for their routes. As drawn, the tollway would move west from FM 646 at I-45 through mostly undeveloped land between League City Parkway and FM 517. Northeast of Alvin, the tollway would have a new interchange with Texas 35, which was built as a bypass to downtown Alvin with a freeway eventually in the center.
Instead of a freeway, however, residents will get the tollway, at least for about 10 miles until the Grand Parkway heads west from north of Liverpool, a tiny town of barely 500 in central Brazoria County that, like Alvin, only became a spot on the map when the railroad decided to stop there.
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/27/75/63/23059684/5/1200x0.jpg)
Thanks! I was running into a paywall when I saw this earlier. I'm really curious how they will build the Grand Parkway intersection at 646/I-45 and even more so, extended east to 146. There's a lot of development at that intersection.
I know this triggers a lot of people and is a bad word in the states but they ought to at least leave enough room for dare I say tunnel at the eastern of section a. One day it might be a project worth looking at.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 21, 2022, 05:23:40 PM
I know this triggers a lot of people and is a bad word in the states but they ought to at least leave enough room for dare I say tunnel at the eastern of section a. One day it might be a project worth looking at.
It would have to be a long tunnel, quite a bit of development in that section. The only other option would be to shift the alignment south of Dickinson.
Have there been any detailed schematics for Section A?
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 21, 2022, 06:35:30 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 21, 2022, 05:23:40 PM
I know this triggers a lot of people and is a bad word in the states but they ought to at least leave enough room for dare I say tunnel at the eastern of section a. One day it might be a project worth looking at.
It would have to be a long tunnel, quite a bit of development in that section. The only other option would be to shift the alignment south of Dickinson.
Have there been any detailed schematics for Section A?
Most of Galveston Bay and Trinity Bay are quite shallow (https://charts.noaa.gov/PDFs/11326.pdf). A bridge-tunnel like those around Tidewater (https://www.virginiadot.org/travel/hro-tunnel-default.asp) would be possible. Only the shipping channel (500' or so, plus approaches) would need a tunnel. TXDOT would just have to make sure to keep them watertight during hurricanes (https://www.wavy.com/news/remembering-hurricane-isabel-the-aftermath/).
Quote from: skluth on October 21, 2022, 06:50:51 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 21, 2022, 06:35:30 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 21, 2022, 05:23:40 PM
I know this triggers a lot of people and is a bad word in the states but they ought to at least leave enough room for dare I say tunnel at the eastern of section a. One day it might be a project worth looking at.
It would have to be a long tunnel, quite a bit of development in that section. The only other option would be to shift the alignment south of Dickinson.
Have there been any detailed schematics for Section A?
Most of Galveston Bay and Trinity Bay are quite shallow (https://charts.noaa.gov/PDFs/11326.pdf). A bridge-tunnel like those around Tidewater (https://www.virginiadot.org/travel/hro-tunnel-default.asp) would be possible. Only the shipping channel (500' or so, plus approaches) would need a tunnel. TXDOT would just have to make sure to keep them watertight during hurricanes (https://www.wavy.com/news/remembering-hurricane-isabel-the-aftermath/).
Ah ok, I misunderstood, I thought they meant a tunnel for section A between I-45 and 146. Yes a tunnel from Bacliff to Beach City would make sense, if not for anything another evacuation route.
Section A of the Grand Parkway is going to be increasingly difficult and costly to build the longer they wait. I can't tell for certain which highway corridor Section A would expand. Are they looking at the TX-96 corridor or FM-646? Or are they (somehow) going to build a new terrain route?
It's likely much of Section A would have to be built as an elevated structure, especially if it follows an existing highway corridor. But I would expect a lot of local outcry against proposals to build an elevated highway structure over an arterial like League City Parkway (TX-96). But that's what they're having to do with the TX-146 freeway upgrade going through Kemah.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 21, 2022, 07:17:41 PM
Section A of the Grand Parkway is going to be increasingly difficult and costly to build the longer they wait. I can't tell for certain which highway corridor Section A would expand. Are they looking at the TX-96 corridor or FM-646? Or are they (somehow) going to build a new terrain route?
There was recently a public meeting about the plan for FM 646. The plan does not include the Grand Parkway, so I think we can rule out that option for the Grand Parkway, which is unfortunate because it was the most logical option.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/houston/fm-646-edmund-way-fm-3436.html (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/houston/fm-646-edmund-way-fm-3436.html)
As for SH 96, the right-of-way is narrow but the last time I surveyed the corridor I concluded it was still possible to put the Grand Parkway in that corridor. However, that corridor is close to numerous residential areas, so it will face resistance.
Based on the lack of effort to preserve a corridor for segment A, I don't think Segment A will ever be built. I hope I'm wrong, but with each passing year it becomes more difficult, and eventually it will be impossible.
Maybe they just need to shift Grand Parkway segments A and B farther South.
Actually it would make sense to do so. Segment B is already proposed to dip well South and West of Alvin. The general area around the FM-517 corridor has considerably less development than FM-646. I think TX-146 should be upgraded to Interstate quality all the way down thru Texas City to the complex junction with I-45 and TX-6. Such a thing would give Segment A a few different possible options for being built.
Segment A could start a little way South of the FM-646/TX-146 intersection and swoop Southwest to cross I-45 just North of the Tangier Outlet complex. From there Segment B could shoot due West to Alvin.
Quote from: skluth on October 21, 2022, 06:50:51 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 21, 2022, 06:35:30 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 21, 2022, 05:23:40 PM
I know this triggers a lot of people and is a bad word in the states but they ought to at least leave enough room for dare I say tunnel at the eastern of section a. One day it might be a project worth looking at.
It would have to be a long tunnel, quite a bit of development in that section. The only other option would be to shift the alignment south of Dickinson.
Have there been any detailed schematics for Section A?
Most of Galveston Bay and Trinity Bay are quite shallow (https://charts.noaa.gov/PDFs/11326.pdf). A bridge-tunnel like those around Tidewater (https://www.virginiadot.org/travel/hro-tunnel-default.asp) would be possible. Only the shipping channel (500' or so, plus approaches) would need a tunnel. TXDOT would just have to make sure to keep them watertight during hurricanes (https://www.wavy.com/news/remembering-hurricane-isabel-the-aftermath/).
That is to assume the area over south of Annuac on the east side of Trinity Bay has development potential. Itis mostly marsh and low lying areas. It isn't even viable beach / waterfront property.
As to a tunnel. There were two tunnels under the ship channel (the Washburn Tunnel is still operational) Flooding while a concern, never has been a real problem. Drafting it deep enough for maritime traffic is a bigger problem.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 21, 2022, 07:17:41 PM
Section A of the Grand Parkway is going to be increasingly difficult and costly to build the longer they wait. I can't tell for certain which highway corridor Section A would expand. Are they looking at the TX-96 corridor or FM-646? Or are they (somehow) going to build a new terrain route?
It's likely much of Section A would have to be built as an elevated structure, especially if it follows an existing highway corridor. But I would expect a lot of local outcry against proposals to build an elevated highway structure over an arterial like League City Parkway (TX-96). But that's what they're having to do with the TX-146 freeway upgrade going through Kemah.
Originally, it was planned to be built along FM646 from I-45 to SH146 but this link below shows a much wider area being considered:
https://www.txdot.gov/content/txdotreimagine/us/en/home/projects/projects-studies/houston/sh99-grand-parkway/overview/segment-a.html
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 21, 2022, 09:10:46 PM
Maybe they just need to shift Grand Parkway segments A and B farther South.
Actually it would make sense to do so. Segment B is already proposed to dip well South and West of Alvin. The general area around the FM-517 corridor has considerably less development than FM-646. I think TX-146 should be upgraded to Interstate quality all the way down thru Texas City to the complex junction with I-45 and TX-6. Such a thing would give Segment A a few different possible options for being built.
Segment A could start a little way South of the FM-646/TX-146 intersection and swoop Southwest to cross I-45 just North of the Tangier Outlet complex. From there Segment B could shoot due West to Alvin.
As a resident of the Katy area, i would love for Segment A and the eastern part of B to be shifted south. It would make a lot more sense for us to use it to get to/from Galveston (relieving I-45 significantly), not to mention a better hurricane evac route.
I'd imagine shifting south would be highly unfavorable for Alvin, but I think it makes more sense to connect/overlay HWY 6 near the I-45 junction, and continue the loop north overlaying SH-146 connecting to I-2 in Baytown.
Moving the GP further south is a bad idea, for multiple reasons. More out of the way for most of the demand, but more importantly that would hasten development in areas more vulnerable to storm surge. Which is why the way out of the way dip down to Liverpool is stupid, pretty much everything on the southeast side of Hwy 35 is in a Cat 4 storm surge zone, most of that Cat 3 or less.
https://www.bls.gov/cew/publications/hurricane-flood-zones-maps/maps/texas/brazoria-county.pdf (https://www.bls.gov/cew/publications/hurricane-flood-zones-maps/maps/texas/brazoria-county.pdf)
(Just a link, I couldn't get the image to load.)
Last I checked the Ike Dike is still not guaranteed to be built. (Basically a sea wall with gates from around Freeport to maybe Port Arthur. Hugely expensive but a very good idea, since the foolish overdevelopment in the surge zone of both housing and industry would be an insurance disaster if a Cat.5 surge hits Houston. Nearly every industry all the way up to well into the ship channel would be damaged. Funnel effect could raise the surge up the channel higher than for other areas of the coast.)
(https://ncptt.nps.gov/wp-content/uploads/DanReillyHurricane2020-124-16.png)
(Note that the evac zones on the left map go beyond the at risk elevations. I'm guessing that might have to do with inland flooding from creeks and sewers that would back up from being unable to drain because of the surge downstream. Just a guess, but the map on the right of elevations better conforms to the separate storm surge risk maps.)
Galveston County loves the tax base, hence the development approvals, but will want the rest of the country to bail them out when their irresponsible developments floods. The rest of the state already partially subsidizes the Houston area insurance rates, thanks to Houston politicians. But the county will side with the NIMBY's on blocking segment A, inconveniencing Brazoria and Harris County residents that need to travel through that corridor.
As for a very long, very expensive, and very unneeded tunnel under Galveston Bay, as already noted, the marshy lowlands east of the bay and south of I-10 are not needed for housing or industry and are some of the worst areas for development. Almost all storm surge prone, and even if the Ike Dyke is built will always be flood prone. Not that long ago I-10 was even impassable for a few days from heavy flooding. The whole area is flat and at risk. Far better for natural habitat and agriculture. There is no need for housing or industry there, Baytown and the ship channel can be served by higher areas north of I-10 (though east of the Trinity is still a problem area.) Jobs on the west side of the bay can be served by the above surge areas of Brazoria and Ft. Bend counties, there is plenty of undeveloped land left.
Any tunnel or bridge would be best on the much shorter route from Galveston to the Bolivar Peninsula that the ferries run, though I bet the traffic level doesn't justify such a bridge or tunnel. As we saw with Ike, the Bolivar Peninsula is an incredibly stupid place to build a home (other than as a vacation home or a rental), but some wealthy people still like to do that, especially since the US Congress decades ago required the rest of us to subsidize beachfront housing. No coincidence that many Congressmen at the time owned second homes on coastal beaches.
But this is Texas, where taking the donations of developers and financers usually outweighs responsible planning. Bipartisan foolishness.
Getting back to the GP, it's time to move segment B forward, a large subdivision is already under construction in the wide swath east of Alvin that remained open for so long until this year. And big, dense subdivisions have moved south along 288 to within 3 miles of the planned GP route. So 5-15 years from now the traffic demand will probably be there for most of segment B. I'd bet Ft. Bend starts filling in on the south side of the Brazos within 10 years, too.
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 14, 2022, 10:56:53 AM
I know this is about another segment, but I was on the stretch from 290 to I-69N yesterday around 3-3:30 and couldn't believe how packed it was. Seems like it should have been built as a 6 lane vs 4 lane. I see expansions already needed in the very near future.
Well, what do you know!
https://communityimpact.com/houston/spring-klein/transportation/2022/11/22/increasing-traffic-drives-grand-parkway-widening-in-spring-area/
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 14, 2022, 10:56:53 AM
I know this is about another segment, but I was on the stretch from 290 to I-69N yesterday around 3-3:30 and couldn't believe how packed it was. Seems like it should have been built as a 6 lane vs 4 lane. I see expansions already needed in the very near future.
It seems like it would make more sense and save a lot of money if they'd build enough lanes the first time so they won't have to disrupt traffic and tear roads up in the future.
https://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html
The traffic volume data (for 2021) shows 40,000 - 50,000 vehicles per day between US 290 and SH 249 and 62,000 - 64,000 between SH 249 and I-45.
Bids were opened yesterday to widen the original section of the Grand Parkway (opened in the 1990s) to 3x3 with auxiliary lanes. The widening is from I-10 (Katy Freeway) to the Westpark Tollway. New connector ramps are under construction at the Westpark Tollway.
I think TxDOT should have widened this section to 4x4, but any expansion is way overdue so it's good something is being done. This is the first large project in a while to be under estimate. A job in San Antonio was also under estimate http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/01063237.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/01063237.htm)
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/01053001.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/01053001.htm)
County: FORT BEND Let Date: 01/05/23
Type: ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Seq No: 3001
Time: 780 WORKING DAYS Project ID: STP 2022(936)MM
Highway: SH 99 Contract #: 01233001
Length: 7.306 CCSJ: 3510-04-019
Limits:
From: FORT BEND COUNTY LINE Check: $100,000
To: IH 10 Misc Cost:
Estimate $102,182,803.45 % Over/Under Company
Bidder 1 $90,916,059.57 -11.03% WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 2 $94,736,075.85 -7.29% JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Bidder 3 $96,222,637.24 -5.83% MAIN LANE INDUSTRIES LTD.
Bidder 4 $99,492,208.88 -2.63% ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 5 $104,431,315.55 +2.20% WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 6 $107,999,999.97 +5.69% GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Bidder 7 $108,127,332.27 +5.82% PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 25, 2022, 11:07:59 PM
^ Agreed, however at least 70 mph is better than 65 mph.
Perhaps it will be increased to 75 mph in the next couple of years - remember 70 mph is the default limit that applies once a new facility is constructed.
My hopes for any increase is basically gone...
The last segment of SH-99 to still retain a 75 mph speed limit, the newer portion between I-45 and I-69, has been lowered to 70 mph, according to December 2022 Street View, just like the portion to the west was lowered in phases over the last few years down to 65 mph. It was still posted for 75 mph this past summer.
What is the reason for these decreases? I drove the road between I-10 west (Katy) and I-69 north this past summer, and the road can easily handle 75 - 80 mph travel throughout. Even on the 65 mph portions that used to be 70 mph or 75 mph, traffic was still moving at 80+ mph. The decreases have done nothing except create an artificial limit that is not obeyed, on a roadway that was designed for faster travel.
I'm expecting the entire northern loop of SH-99 to eventually be lowered to 65 mph, along with the newest 2-lane toll road portion down to I-10 east.
I'll add this: I find it ironic a lot of the northern part of the loop was opened at 65 mph or 70 mph, increased to 75 mph, then decreased back down within just a couple of years.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 23, 2023, 12:46:10 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 25, 2022, 11:07:59 PM
^ Agreed, however at least 70 mph is better than 65 mph.
Perhaps it will be increased to 75 mph in the next couple of years - remember 70 mph is the default limit that applies once a new facility is constructed.
My hopes for any increase is basically gone...
The last segment of SH-99 to still retain a 75 mph speed limit, the newer portion between I-45 and I-69, has been lowered to 70 mph, according to December 2022 Street View, just like the portion to the west was lowered in phases over the last few years down to 65 mph. It was still posted for 75 mph this past summer.
What is the reason for these decreases? I drove the road between I-10 west (Katy) and I-69 north this past summer, and the road can easily handle 75 - 80 mph travel throughout. Even on the 65 mph portions that used to be 70 mph or 75 mph, traffic was still moving at 80+ mph. The decreases have done nothing except create an artificial limit that is not obeyed, on a roadway that was designed for faster travel.
I'm expecting the entire northern loop of SH-99 to eventually be lowered to 65 mph, along with the newest 2-lane toll road portion down to I-10 east.
I'll add this: I find it ironic a lot of the northern part of the loop was opened at 65 mph or 70 mph, increased to 75 mph, then decreased back down within just a couple of years.
I can guess why. I drove on there a few more times this past fall....mostly between the 3pm - 5pm timeframe. Traffic was definitely more dense than I expected and I'm sure more than was expected when they opened it. Once they add lanes, I'm sure the limit will go back up....but I can see how they may think 75 is a bit high on a 4 lane that is quickly approaching traffic jam status during peak hours.
As quickly as the Northern fringes of the Houston metro area are growing I'm not surprised speed limits would be decreased on those sections of the Grand Parkway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 17, 2022, 05:18:35 PM
Am I the only one that thinks is premature to only have 2 lanes on a good portion of this? Development is quickly following the newer portions that have opened over the past few years, and some of the stretches in the last 10-15 years are getting near needing 6 lanes already.
I feel like, at minimum, this entire highway should have been a minimum of a four lane highway. Not to mention, it's function as a highway for the overall system, it should meet minimum interstate standards.
Nah, I don't see sprawl happening in Chambers or Liberty County.
^ Maybe not, but how about all that traffic heading to I-10, Baytown, Galveston?
I'm curious what the growth projections for traffic counts is.
Those 2-lane segments of TX-99 on the NE quadrant of the outer loop are temporary. It's a safe bet that by 2030 they'll either be in the process of adding the second pair of lanes or the second pair of lanes will already be finished by then.
As for the possibility of Houston's suburban sprawl creeping farther Northeast: I could certainly see the completion of TX-99 helping it happen. There are limits to how building can be done. There is a lot of swamp land and other flood-prone areas on the Eastern outskirts of the Houston metro. The TX-99 route runs across a lot of land that can be turned into housing subdivisions. I kind of expect the Crosby Freeway (US-90) going Northwest out of Houston to be extended farther -at least to the TX-99 interchange.
SH 99 really opened up Liberty County for development, I was browsing on Google Earth and this caught my eye. You can see SH 99 just on the lower part of the gif. This development seems to be mainly accessible through the Grand Parkway.
(https://i.imgur.com/s4PC3Ky.gif)
Quote from: Chris on March 12, 2023, 06:05:03 PM
SH 99 really opened up Liberty County for development, I was browsing on Google Earth and this caught my eye. You can see SH 99 just on the lower part of the gif. This development seems to be mainly accessible through the Grand Parkway.
(https://i.imgur.com/s4PC3Ky.gif)
That development along Plum Grove road is a massive trailer park mainly targeting the Spanish-speaking market. When I recently drove through the area, there were plenty of signs for "terrenos" and "nueva casas". Streets are built to low standards, with open ditch drainage, and lots are large. I was surprised to see such a large development for manufactured housing (i.e. trailers) being allowed, but this is Houston (where anything goes) and there appears to be an ample market for lots suitable for trailers.
I don't know about the curving street grid on the east side of the view. But looking on Google street view, it appears to be more trailer-ready development, which is no surprise since the nearby trailer communities make the area unattractive for better-quality development.
Here is a report from 2017
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/New-colonia-transforms-Plum-Grove-10842579.php (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/New-colonia-transforms-Plum-Grove-10842579.php)
QuoteThe developer, New Caney-based Colony Ridge Land, has carved more than 9,000 lots from woods in and around Plum Grove. In neighborhoods with names like Bella Vista and Montebello, property owners - mostly working-class Latinos - occupy concrete-block houses, battered trailers and shacks of wood and tar paper while pursuing part of the American Dream.
The newcomers speak joyously of Eden. Among them, Carlos and Janet Macedo are constructing a house - one wall and window at a time - on a half-acre they bought for $20,900.
...
Still, there was an expectation that the fast-moving edge of metropolitan Houston would reach them, too. They had heard rumors of the woodsy landscape becoming "another Kingwood," the master-planned community with high, handsome homes.
But the expanse of flat, relatively inexpensive land in Plum Grove and unincorporated Liberty County was transformed in another way. In 2011, Colony Ridge began selling half-acre lots with basic electricity, water and sewage hookups for between $20,000 and $30,000 apiece, seeking to entice buyers through advertisements on Spanish-language television and radio.
The company offers financing for as little as $500 down, but the interest rate runs as high as 14 percent - more akin to credit cards than mortgages. Many of the fresh arrivals start with used trailers or tents and then upgrade as their finances improve.
Colony Ridge's five subdivisions have paved roads and parks with soccer goals and swing sets. But they don't yet have sidewalks, streetlights or shoulders and curbs along the roadways.
By the end of 2016, the developer had sold nearly 7,200 lots, according to Liberty County Appraisal District records. Only a fraction of the lots have structures.
Housing policy experts define such places as "new colonias" because of the substandard dwellings and inability of many residents to pay for connections to utilities.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on March 12, 2023, 09:57:40 PM
Quote from: Chris on March 12, 2023, 06:05:03 PM
SH 99 really opened up Liberty County for development, I was browsing on Google Earth and this caught my eye. You can see SH 99 just on the lower part of the gif. This development seems to be mainly accessible through the Grand Parkway.
(https://i.imgur.com/s4PC3Ky.gif)
That development along Plum Grove road is a massive trailer park mainly targeting the Spanish-speaking market. When I recently drove through the area, there were plenty of signs for "terrenos" and "nueva casas". Streets are built to low standards, with open ditch drainage, and lots are large. I was surprised to see such a large development for manufactured housing (i.e. trailers) being allowed, but this is Houston (where anything goes) and there appears to be an ample market for lots suitable for trailers.
I don't know about the curving street grid on the east side of the view. But looking on Google street view, it appears to be more trailer-ready development, which is no surprise since the nearby trailer communities make the area unattractive for better-quality development.
Trailer parks are far more valuable than raw land. As you said, the infrastructure in the trailer parks was shoddy at best. It will sell like prime streets. The owner will play the "disadvantaged residents" card to jack the price, but since they actually have nominal political clout, he would be able to get them out easily to close the sale. He spent very little and will multiply his investment.