Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaxConcrete]

http://www.fbctra.com/segment-b2/

The link above reports that preliminary work is set to begin this summer and completion is slated for late 2022. This is a short 1-mile extension. The next extension will take the tollway across the Brazos River, which of course will be expensive and the web page says "currently there is no specific timeline for the construction of Segment C-1, from Sienna Ranch Road across the Brazos River to FM 2759, or Segment C-2, from FM 2759 to the Grand Parkway."

[The Ghostbuster]

Wikipedia says that the FBP will ultimately connect the Grand Parkway with Interstate 610. Is that still the case?

[thisdj78]

Wikipedia says that the FBP will ultimately connect the Grand Parkway with Interstate 610. Is that still the case?

I think they shelved that plan due to the amount of ROW needed in a pretty densely populated area. This was the last article I found on it:

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Fort-Bend-Parkway-connector-to-Loop-610-unlikely-2145310.php

[MaxConcrete]

Wikipedia says that the FBP will ultimately connect the Grand Parkway with Interstate 610. Is that still the case?

As thisdj78 noted, the project has been on hold but not necessarily dead. Last year there was an item on the Harris County Commissioners Court agenda to hire a consultant to update the project schematic. If that contract was actually implemented, it would be the first step toward resurrecting the connector to Loop 610. Of course, the study could also conclude that the connector is infeasible.

https://agenda.harriscountytx.gov/2018/2018-02-27ag.pdf

Brown  &  Gay  Engineers,  Inc.,  in  the  amount  of  $870,000  to  evaluate  and  prepare schematic plans for the alignment of the Fort Bend Parkway Extension, Phase II project from US-90A to IH-610 in Precinct 1.

[MaxConcrete]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oLKz2ZMo3Z7MIrFCgTQTrs9H-0WQooGr/view

The March 2020 agenda of the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority lists the following

• Approval to seek bids for main lane construction for section B-2
• Approval to begin design work for the next section of the tollway, which will extend it over the Brazos River from Sienna Ranch Road to FM-2759.

The second items is somewhat of a surprise to me, since I thought the Brazos crossing was a long-term project. Of course, this is just design so construction is not imminent.

[MaxConcrete]

I drove past the site of the B2 extension today. The eastern end appears to be cleared but now has high grass growing on it.

Tree clearing on the western end at Sienna Ranch Road has not started but there is a sign posted. The project web site says construction will begin in 2021.



The July agenda for the toll road authority authorized solicitation of bids for construction of main lanes. If that proceeds (not a sure thing due to Covid-19 budget impacts), then construction should be underway in 2021.

approval of plans and specifications and authorization to advertise for bids or proposals for construction projects;
ii) (Project No. 1027) Fort Bend Parkway, Segment B-2 main lanes from Sienna Parkway to Sienna Ranch Road;

[MaxConcrete]

Right-of-way preparation is underway. The photo below is in the agenda for next week's FBCTRA board meeting. The complete meeting materials (which has this image) are available only during week of the meeting.
https://www.fbctra.com/about/board-meetings/

Photo link, if your browser won't show the image: http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20211113-Fort-Bend-Parkway-extension.jpg

[MaxConcrete]

This is interesting. A report in the Houston Business Journal provides details on a planned 4700-acre community at the intersection of the planned Grand Parkway and Fort Bend Parkway. I'm thinking this real estate development, which will break ground in Q2 2022, will probably accelerate work on the toll roads. Currently the two projects have been moving very slowly in the preliminary planning phase. The report says both "are in the planning stages."
https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2022/01/21/signorelli-fort-bend-master-planned-community.html

The map shows the Fort Bend Parkway continuing west of the Grand Parkway. All previous planning documents I have seen terminated the Fort Bend Parkway at the Grand Parkway. This map seems to suggest the Fort Bend Parkway west extension would follow Psencik road and could connect into Spur 10 where it intersects Highway 36. Spur 10 connects to IH 69.

UPDATE (2022-01-27): As reported by the Houston Chronicle (see link in subsequent post), this map is just a proposal and is not final

[CoreySamson]

I like how the developers left room for the FBT and the Grand Parkway in the plans. Doesn’t seem like many developers leave room for that these days.

I wonder where the eventual south (or west) terminus of the Fort Bend Tollway will be. If it does connect to Spur 10, will the terminus be at I-69? That seems like the best place for it. Such a route could provide a bypass of the Southwest Freeway similarly to how the Hardy Toll Road relieves I-45.

[Bobby5280]

I like how the developers left room for the FBT and the Grand Parkway in the plans. Doesn’t seem like many developers leave room for that these days.

If those red colored areas on the map are targeted for commercial development (they're marked "COM") it doesn't look like they're leaving any room for ramps in a direct interchange between the Grand Parkway and Fort Bend Tollway. The drawing suggests movements between the two roads would be confined to a frontage road volleyball arrangement.

[MaxConcrete]

The Houston Chronicle reported on the planned tollways in this area. The alignments are not final and are generating controversy.

The alignments were changed to place the intersection in the Signorelli property, but the landowner who would have benefited from the originally-planned alignment is now voicing opposition to the new plan.

"A fight has erupted over where to put a Grand Parkway intersection. Millions of dollars are at stake."
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Grand-Parkway-Fort-Bend-Tollway-land-16807213.php#photo-21957183

For years, the location of the crossing was envisioned on land owned by the George Foundation, the 80-year-old nonprofit created “for the betterment of the people of Fort Bend County.” The foundation, which Adamson runs, has plans for a master-planned community the size and scope of The Woodlands across more than 12,000 acres, anchored at the crossing.

Commissioners Court shook up that vision last Oct. 12, voting with no public discussion to approve an agreement with Rosenberg Land Holdings, an entity formed by The Signorelli Company. The agreement states it is the county’s intent to move the intersection to land the Signorelli company has an option to buy. Two months later, the court, again without public comment or explanation, voted to change the county’s road plan to reflect the new location of the interchange.

With their properties separated by less than a mile, the foundation and Signorelli remain far apart in terms of which is better for the county: Build now or reap potentially more much later.

[bwana39]

I like how the developers left room for the FBT and the Grand Parkway in the plans. Doesn’t seem like many developers leave room for that these days.

If those red colored areas on the map are targeted for commercial development (they're marked "COM") it doesn't look like they're leaving any room for ramps in a direct interchange between the Grand Parkway and Fort Bend Tollway. The drawing suggests movements between the two roads would be confined to a frontage road volleyball arrangement.

They had volleyball at DNT and SRT in Frisco for years. From a traffic standpoint, it could be better. From developing retail property, it is far better than the other propositions. It puts cars adjacent to the stores, restaurants, and services. 

[Bobby5280]

They had volleyball at DNT and SRT in Frisco for years. From a traffic standpoint, it could be better. From developing retail property, it is far better than the other propositions. It puts cars adjacent to the stores, restaurants, and services.

Yeah, but that could come at the cost of traffic snarls right there at the interchange. A quartet of frontage road traffic signals would be used by the surface street traffic and any vehicles leaving one toll road for the other. That issue combined with on/off ramps placed in the usual manner could lead to traffic back-building up the ramps and onto the toll road main lanes. IMHO, Turnpike to Turnpike movements are best isolated in their own discrete interchange separate from surface street traffic.

Construction began on the DNT/SRT volleyball interchange in Frisco in the early 2000's. Frisco still had a lot of empty space out there back then. The explosion of development growth was only just getting started. Construction on the SRT and DNT extension thru Frisco wasn't finished until around 2008. Only a couple years later they started working on all the direct connect flyover ramps at that interchange. That work finished in 2012. People in driving thru Frisco didn't have to deal with that volleyball for very long at all.

[bwana39]

They had volleyball at DNT and SRT in Frisco for years. From a traffic standpoint, it could be better. From developing retail property, it is far better than the other propositions. It puts cars adjacent to the stores, restaurants, and services.

Yeah, but that could come at the cost of traffic snarls right there at the interchange. A quartet of frontage road traffic signals would be used by the surface street traffic and any vehicles leaving one toll road for the other. That issue combined with on/off ramps placed in the usual manner could lead to traffic back-building up the ramps and onto the toll road main lanes. IMHO, Turnpike to Turnpike movements are best isolated in their own discrete interchange separate from surface street traffic.

Construction began on the DNT/SRT volleyball interchange in Frisco in the early 2000's. Frisco still had a lot of empty space out there back then. The explosion of development growth was only just getting started. Construction on the SRT and DNT extension thru Frisco wasn't finished until around 2008. Only a couple years later they started working on all the direct connect flyover ramps at that interchange. That work finished in 2012. People in driving thru Frisco didn't have to deal with that volleyball for very long at all.

I certainly don't disagree with you. The point is the developers may WANT the volleyball type intersection to put the traffic past the establishments they are building at least in the short run. My point is that the development may have been helped by the traffic being forced onto the frontage roads.

[Bobby5280]

Developers may like the idea of a tollroad to tollroad interchange confined to a surface street volleyball. Ultimately all that extra traffic on the frontage roads would likely turn into a double-edged sword for their businesses. There are certain spots in the North Dallas and Addison areas I try my best to avoid completely due to past experiences 20+ years ago with traffic snarls. I hate Beltline Road in that area. I'll look on the map for another similar kind of business elsewhere in the DFW metroplex.

If the retail developers are smart for the long term they would welcome highway designs that allow the most efficient movement of traffic. That way it won't be as stressful for motorists to drive thru that location. More vehicles can freely move through that location at once. The retailers can still advertise to all the passing traffic via their store fronts. Install some effective building signs and other visuals to make the store front stand out. Motorists will still be able to see that on repeated passes thru that location.

[Plutonic Panda]

Could always place the “flyovers” underground.

[thisdj78]

1604 @ 281 in San Antonio had a volleyball intersection for many years with retail right up to the corners and they were still able to squeeze in flyovers later….so it can be done later. Optimally the planners or developers will leave some open land at the corners for the Fort Bend/GP interchange:

[Anthony_JK]

I like how the developers left room for the FBT and the Grand Parkway in the plans. Doesn’t seem like many developers leave room for that these days.

If those red colored areas on the map are targeted for commercial development (they're marked "COM") it doesn't look like they're leaving any room for ramps in a direct interchange between the Grand Parkway and Fort Bend Tollway. The drawing suggests movements between the two roads would be confined to a frontage road volleyball arrangement.

The way that Texas develops their urban freeways/tollways, they can squeeze the direct connectors in without much further takings of ROW. See what they did in Houston with I-10/Katy Tollway and Grand Parkway, and in DFW with their "High Five" US 75/I-435 interchange.

[Bobby5280]

1604 @ 281 in San Antonio had a volleyball intersection for many years with retail right up to the corners and they were still able to squeeze in flyovers later….so it can be done later. Optimally the planners or developers will leave some open land at the corners for the Fort Bend/GP interchange

The situation with the FM-1604/US-281 interchange in San Antonio is not an optimal solution. It's generally not a good idea to have direct connect ramps spanning over parking lots and parked cars.

The Classic Chevrolet dealership in Grapevine has blue awnings erected through much of its vehicle lot. The really long EB TX-114 to SB TX-121 ramp crosses diagonally over the car lot. The ramp itself has tall fences installed. But motorists can still throw all sorts of crap over those fences onto the vehicles below. Hence the blue awnings.

Obviously another consequence of building stack interchange flyover ramps closer to the center of the interchange is a tighter curve radius. That results in slower speeds thru the interchange. The ramps in the FM-1604/US-281 interchange have 45mph and 35mph rated speeds, even with flashing warning lights on some of the signs.

[CoreySamson]

But honestly, what sort of traffic volumes are going to be using this interchange? I would argue that once complete, the proposed Grand Parkway/FBT interchange will likely be one of the least used freeway-to-freeway connections in the Houston Metro (if, of course, the FBT doesn’t eventually interchange with I-69). The FBT south of TX-6 right now (and heck, maybe the entire route) is one of the most abandoned freeways I’ve seen in Texas. Its interchange with Beltway 8 is currently a volleyball, and I’d expect that that interchange would be busier than the proposed Grand Parkway interchange; so why would the latter need to be a stack? Not every interchange needs to be a stack. Even just a partial stack with flyovers for the busiest movements would be overkill.

[thisdj78]

1604 @ 281 in San Antonio had a volleyball intersection for many years with retail right up to the corners and they were still able to squeeze in flyovers later….so it can be done later. Optimally the planners or developers will leave some open land at the corners for the Fort Bend/GP interchange

The situation with the FM-1604/US-281 interchange in San Antonio is not an optimal solution. It's generally not a good idea to have direct connect ramps spanning over parking lots and parked cars.

The Classic Chevrolet dealership in Grapevine has blue awnings erected through much of its vehicle lot. The really long EB TX-114 to SB TX-121 ramp crosses diagonally over the car lot. The ramp itself has tall fences installed. But motorists can still throw all sorts of crap over those fences onto the vehicles below. Hence the blue awnings.

Obviously another consequence of building stack interchange flyover ramps closer to the center of the interchange is a tighter curve radius. That results in slower speeds thru the interchange. The ramps in the FM-1604/US-281 interchange have 45mph and 35mph rated speeds, even with flashing warning lights on some of the signs.

Just to clarify, those blue awnings at the dealership were there before the flyovers, I remember them in the late 2000s when I lived in McKinney and would pass through that area often. The awnings were to protect the vehicles from hail.

Regarding the interchange in SA, I agree….definitely not optimal, I was just providing an example of it being done when retail goes all the way to the intersection.

[sprjus4]

But honestly, what sort of traffic volumes are going to be using this interchange? I would argue that once complete, the proposed Grand Parkway/FBT interchange will likely be one of the least used freeway-to-freeway connections in the Houston Metro (if, of course, the FBT doesn’t eventually interchange with I-69). The FBT south of TX-6 right now (and heck, maybe the entire route) is one of the most abandoned freeways I’ve seen in Texas. Its interchange with Beltway 8 is currently a volleyball, and I’d expect that that interchange would be busier than the proposed Grand Parkway interchange; so why would the latter need to be a stack? Not every interchange needs to be a stack. Even just a partial stack with flyovers for the busiest movements would be overkill.

Future growth... just because it's rural now doesn't mean it will be in 20 years. Houston has been growing outward, significantly.

Also... any modern freeway to freeway interchange should have direct connections that don't involve surface roads and traffic signals. Regardless of location.

[Bobby5280]

The Fort Bend Toll Road is an oddity. It begins on US-90A, which isn't a freeway. The interchange with the Sam Houston Tollway is a volleyball. All the other exits are in mostly residential areas. The current South terminus is not a major destination in the Houston area. So it should be no surprise traffic is currently very light on that toll road. But if the toll road is extended far enough West to a significant connection, such as I-69, the traffic counts will jump.

I'm not demanding an interchange between the Grand Parkway and Fort Bend Toll Road be built initially as a five level directional stack. I would expect it to be built first as a volleyball. However that volleyball configuration should not be locked in as permanent by structures encroaching the interchange. They should preserve enough green space at the corners for flyover ramps with at least 55mph curve radii.

[sprjus4]

The Fort Bend Toll Road is an oddity. It begins on US-90A, which isn't a freeway.

US-90A, while not a freeway, still functions as a “jersey freeway” with RIRO intersections, no traffic signals, interchanges, and a 55 mph speed limit.

Additionally, I believe plans originally called to extend the road northward to I-610, though were scrapped.