Well, I think the alignment of this section is totally absurd, not to mention extremely inefficient for travel and also expensive due to the extra length. But it looks like this will be the alignment, if and when it is actually built.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fww4.hdnux.com%2Fphotos%2F56%2F51%2F46%2F12229047%2F4%2F920x1240.jpg&hash=ab9aebc3337e0133e57e24264e25ae1034df8b23)
This link is subscription-only, so I added some excerpts
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Southern-segment-of-Grand-Parkway-environmentally-10871686.php (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Southern-segment-of-Grand-Parkway-environmentally-10871686.php)
Southern segment of Grand Parkway environmentally cleared
By Dug Begley, Houston Chronicle
January 20, 2017 Updated: January 21, 2017 7:37pm
The Grand Parkway between Texas 288 and Interstate 45 has an officially permitted route, though that's just one step in what could be years of study and planning for another portion of the controversial and costly third ring around Houston.
A record of decision — signaling the end of the long environmental process — was announced Wednesday by the Texas Department of Transportation. Federal officials cleared the project Nov. 30, which is important because anything built after that date would not be eligible for noise abatement paid for by the state.
The route for Segment B starts at Texas 288 near County Road 60 in Brazoria County. The tollway, planned for two lanes in each direction, then swings south to parallel the South Texas Water Co. Canal before joining with Texas 35. The tollway will then mirror Texas 35 northeast, swinging with the highway around Alvin, then break from the highway and head east to connect with I-45 south of League City.
According to officials, the 28.6-mile tollway will require 1,072 acres of new right of way, displacing 13 businesses and 17 residences.
TxDOT estimates the segment to cost $1.2 billion as of July 2016, though cost would be determined by a number of factors, notably when construction begins. Tentatively, officials during the environmental process projected the lanes to be open to traffic in 2035.
The stack interchanges (14 direct connectors in all) amount to a quarter of the entire construction cost.
The toll road itself has a price tag of $ 922 million, or $ 32 million per mile, which doesn't sound extremely expensive.
http://txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/houston/sh99-grandparkway-noa.html
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWEYKE31.jpg&hash=aaf29f0b5b0b3690dbb4d3073e7d2870ed191538)
Boy, that road sure zigzags all over the place! Even the existing section of the Grand Parkway is much more direct in its routing.
Severely crooked and overly long freeways appear to be the new normal with highway building in the United States. Any visions of a big picture view are being replaced by all sorts of legal and political obstructionism. Top to it off, we're quickly making stuff like this prohibitively expensive. At this rate we'll soon not be able to wipe our bottoms without filing an Environmental Impact Statement and spending huge sums of money on special toilet paper.
The increased traffic between 45 and Alvin/ Freeport that this will induce + the development that the toll lanes on 288 will induce makes me think that traffic on 35 south of Alvin is going to get pretty darn salty.
I also think as Alvin gets more developed because of the earlier two projects I mentioned, that the TX35 tollway into (At least the Beltway) Houston gets built following the RR tracks... don't know if it makes its way to Spur 5 at UH though.
The one good thing about this route is that it lends itself to a new bridge at San Luis Pass. This would be useful for hurricane evacuation efforts.
My guess is they're trying to avoid crossing a large area in the Chocolate Bayou directly East of the TX-288 & FM-60 interchange. Perhaps the area is particularly flood prone and expensive to cross. Or maybe it's environmentally sensitive. So they're going to zig-zag the route clear down to meet where TX-35 crosses the Chocolate Bayou and upgrade that existing crossing. Maybe there is less property along TX-35 to buy and remove than running the toll road parallel to FM-1462.
Just saw this:
TxDOT considers removing Grand Parkway segments from 10-year development planQuoteTxDOT's draft 2020 Unified Transportation Program will guide what transportation projects it develops over the next decade. The draft includes removal of toll road projects, including the $1.28 billion segments B-D of the Grand Parkway.
https://communityimpact.com/houston/clear-lake-league-city-nassau-bay/top-stories/2019/07/22/txdot-considers-removing-grand-parkway-segments-from-10-year-development-plan/
The only toll road I have ever seen that charges to use a flyover. Basically the bridges over the connecting road at interchanges are tolled so in essence the interchange bridges are toll bridges.
Drove from I-10 to I-69 and remember stopping for the lights as the toll parts just basically was a way to bypass the signals. After the lights, you would reenter the freeway until the next interchange where you had the choice to stay on the freeway to pay the toll, or exit and cross the connector and get back on.
Silly if you ask me the way its done on that part.
They can wait 50 years to complete, but with the rate of development going on it won't take long for the demand to have it.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 23, 2019, 09:27:40 PM
Silly if you ask me the way its done on that part.
Yes, I agree. But that section with the tolls on the bridges is a product of TxDOT's period of toll hegemony, roughly 2000-2014, and the legacy of that period includes numerous instances of silliness, for example toll ramps on SH121 and IH35E in North Dallas.
Thankfully the era of toll road hegemony is over, and TxDOT is now anti-toll. As chays notes in the prior post, TxDOT is in the process of removing the final remaining toll projects from its 10-year plan, including the south section of the Grand Parkway. But local toll road agencies will still build some long-planned toll roads. In fact, the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority built the bridges on the Grand Parkway between IH-69 and IH-10.
I also noticed that SH 146 is to be part of SH 99 when some more of the Grand Parkway is completed. I imagine that SH 146, which is already a free freeway, will not be tolled as all they would have to do is just change the signs over. Its not an interstate designation so upgrades would not be in order there, so it can function as is.
Heck SH 1604 in San Antonio is a beltway and it is not even freeway in all parts. Some of it is arterial and has stop lights on it like at I-10 on the east side of the city.
With TxDOT going anti-toll, won't some of their projects languish as a result? There's a lot of different projects on the books that aren't finished yet. Take I-35E in North Dallas for instance. I can't stand the current configuration of I-35E from the North edge of Dallas going up through Lewisville and to Denton. The narrow lanes SUCK. They're scary to use in heavy traffic or speed demon traffic when things aren't jammed. The highway was supposed to go through another big widening phase to add another pair of express toll lanes and get all the lanes adjusted out to proper 12' widths. Now I wonder if that and lots of other projects are going to be seriously delayed or even cancelled.
Fuel taxes these days don't go far at all at funding highway projects. The cost inflation for planning and construction is one thing. Then there's the nonsense going on in places like Oklahoma where the extra money from the first fuel tax hike in over 25 years went mostly to fund teacher pay raises (since Oklahoma has ranked near dead last in the nation on teacher pay). OK's fuel tax needed to be raised a good bit for the roads. The teachers deserved to get paid better as well. But that money has to be raised using other approaches. This state is still moving backwards.
A state Senator is saying that sections B and C of the Grand Parkway will be restored to the TxDOT 10-year plan. The reporter in the video is dressed for the occasion with a high-visibility vest.
https://www.click2houston.com/news/senator-says-grand-parkway-funding-will-not-be-cut (https://www.click2houston.com/news/senator-says-grand-parkway-funding-will-not-be-cut)
Quote from: MaxConcrete on August 02, 2019, 09:20:45 PM
A state Senator is saying that sections B and C of the Grand Parkway will be restored to the TxDOT 10-year plan. The reporter in the video is dressed for the occasion with a high-visibility vest.
https://www.click2houston.com/news/senator-says-grand-parkway-funding-will-not-be-cut (https://www.click2houston.com/news/senator-says-grand-parkway-funding-will-not-be-cut)
Does he have the stroke to get that to happen or is he mouthing off to impress some constituents?
The TxDOT Commission voted on the UTP today. The video is not online yet, but according to the presentation the four toll projects which were slated to be dropped from the plan have been retained.
see page 13
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2019/0829/6-presentation.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2019/0829/6-presentation.pdf)
News report
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Grand-Parkway-stays-put-in-TxDOT-s-10-year-road-14399676.php?utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Premium)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral
(https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Grand-Parkway-stays-put-in-TxDOT-s-10-year-road-14399676.php?utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Premium)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral)
Of course this is no assurance the projects will be built, but planning and pre-construction activities will continue.
I think the real fun will begin once they decide what to do to construct segment A.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2019, 05:08:59 PM
I think the real fun will begin once they decide what to do to construct segment A.
Agreed....how and where would they run that segment? I don't see much ROW through Dickinson.
The only thing I don't like is that ridiculous dip to the south; what could possibly be in the way of a normal straight path? (development and/or environmentally sensitive areas, perhaps)
Quote from: Henry on August 30, 2019, 10:41:31 PM
The only thing I don't like is that ridiculous dip to the south; what could possibly be in the way of a normal straight path? (development and/or environmentally sensitive areas, perhaps)
Here's text from the environmental study for Segment B:
ABSTRACT: The proposed State Highway (SH) 99 (Grand Parkway) Segment B would include the construction of an approximately 28.6-mile alignment, on new location, from SH 288 to Interstate Highway (IH) 45 South through Brazoria and Galveston Counties. The proposed SH 99 Segment B would be constructed as a four-lane, controlled-access tollway facility, consisting of two lanes in each direction within a 400-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) and auxiliary lanes between on-ramps and off-ramps where appropriate. The social, economic, and environmental impacts of the proposed SH 99 Segment B are evaluated for resources such as land use, farmland, social, economics, air quality, noise, wetlands, floodplains, water quality, biology, cultural, parklands, hazardous/regulated materials, and visual aesthetics. The Preferred Build Alternative for the proposed SH 99 Segment B (Preferred Alternative) as analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is comprised of minor alignment adjustments made to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Recommended Alternative that were made after the August 2012 Public Hearing. The Preferred Alternative was chosen as the Alternative Alignment that would best fulfill the need for and purpose of the transportation improvements, while also minimizing impacts to social, economic, and environmental resources. The Preferred Alternative would require new ROW (approximately 1,072 acres), the adjustment of utility lines, and the filling of aquatic resources, including jurisdictional wetlands. Thirteen business and 17 residential displacements would occur. Archeological resources and non-archeological historic-age resources are still under review at the present time. No threatened or endangered species would be impacted. A total of 31 noise receiver locations would experience noise impacts from the Preferred Alternative.
I just watched the video of Thursday's TxDOT commission meeting. There was around 2 hours of comment, mostly from public and elected officials. Houston interests made a huge showing in favor of the project, not only urging its inclusion in the 10-year plan (which was already known) but also urging TxDOT to expedite the project and have it all under construction no later than 2024.
With the very strong political support from Houston, I'm thinking the project could be accelerated. Since it will be tolled, funding is not really an issue, assuming the traffic and revenue studies determine it will be feasible.
I was driving through Dickinson tonight and I noticed they closed down a gas station and bank that coincidentally are in the path of Segment B. Are these closures a sign that they are buying up ROW for the segment?
(https://i.ibb.co/kB23bCV/unnamed.jpg)
Anyone know if they are in fact starting the Segment B ROW acquisition?
So, in all likelihood, will all segments of 99 be built, and if so, will 99 be a complete loop?
-What will happen to SH 146? Will that be co-signed with 99, or re-signed as 99, or will 99 'end' at 146?
Quote from: bluecountry on August 04, 2020, 03:24:36 PM
So, in all likelihood, will all segments of 99 be built, and if so, will 99 be a complete loop?
-What will happen to SH 146? Will that be co-signed with 99, or re-signed as 99, or will 99 'end' at 146?
I think that segment A will never get built. It's just too unfeasible. I think segments B and C will get built considering how northern Brazoria County is booming, but 99 won't be a complete loop.
146 will probably get widened in Kemah eventually, but nothing else.
Quote from: CoreySamson on August 04, 2020, 04:44:23 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 04, 2020, 03:24:36 PM
So, in all likelihood, will all segments of 99 be built, and if so, will 99 be a complete loop?
-What will happen to SH 146? Will that be co-signed with 99, or re-signed as 99, or will 99 'end' at 146?
I think that segment A will never get built. It's just too unfeasible. I think segments B and C will get built considering how northern Brazoria County is booming, but 99 won't be a complete loop.
146 will probably get widened in Kemah eventually, but nothing else.
Construction is in progress to upgrade SH 146 to a freeway through Seabrook and Kemah, including a new bridge over the Clear Lake channel. There are plans to extend the freeway to south of SH 96. Going further south past SH 96, it is planned to be a 6 lane divided highway.
I don't know what the chances of are of Grand Parkway section A being built. As for sections B and C, last year TxDOT attempted to delete them from the 10-year plan (the UTP), and there was an outpouring of support in favor of the project, so TxDOT restored them to the plan. Strangely, sections B and C are absent from the 2021 draft UTP. I don't know if that means the project is delayed/suspended, or if work is continuing behind the scenes. Since the project has always been planned to be tolled, and any budget reductions at TxDOT should not threaten the project.
If they are upgrading 146 then
-Why not build segment A
-Why not re-sign 146 as 99?
Quote from: bluecountry on August 06, 2020, 10:55:20 AM
If they are upgrading 146 then
-Why not build segment A
-Why not re-sign 146 as 99?
There are a lot of homes and businesses between where segment B meets I-45 and SH146. Certainly it would be unfeasible for segment A to follow FM646 to SH146.
Quote from: nguyenhm16 on August 06, 2020, 02:52:17 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 06, 2020, 10:55:20 AM
If they are upgrading 146 then
-Why not build segment A
-Why not re-sign 146 as 99?
There are a lot of homes and businesses between where segment B meets I-45 and SH146. Certainly it would be unfeasible for segment A to follow FM646 to SH146.
It's interesting because Highway 96, just to the north, has plenty of ROW to build a limited access highway east of Highway 3. I remember when 96 was being built and wondering if it was the Grand Parkway.
If they can figure out a way to utilize the 96 ROW for Segment A and swing it down to meet up with Segment B, they can avoid a lot of businesses and homes, but I think either way, it's unavoidable that some will need to be removed.
Quote from: MaxConcreteConstruction is in progress to upgrade SH 146 to a freeway through Seabrook and Kemah, including a new bridge over the Clear Lake channel. There are plans to extend the freeway to south of SH 96. Going further south past SH 96, it is planned to be a 6 lane divided highway.
For TX-146 going South of the intersection with TX-96, I hope TX DOT at least builds the 6-lane divided highway in a manner where it can be upgraded into a limited access highway later. That would take into consideration possible development farther South. Hopefully they'll preserve as much ROW as possible.
The junction between I-45, TX-6 and TX-146 is an important one. I think TX-146 is worthy of a freeway upgrade going by the oil refineries in Texas City. It has a short freeway segment from the FM-1764 freeway intersection up to TX-197. Then TX-146 is a wide, divided road with a freeway-wide median. Overall TX-146 wouldn't be all that difficult to upgrade from Kemah down to I-45. I would expect some travelers wanting to visit tourist spots in Kemah, Seabrook and down in Galveston to use TX-146 as a back door in order to avoid Houston.
Saw this sign just pop up on Calder Rd in League City. Must have been put up in the last few weeks because it wasn't there as of Mid-December when I last drove through here:
(https://i.ibb.co/Y8nm346/FC094-AA9-DEB9-4-E3-D-98-AE-CD919288-BE59.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bLwTPjx)
What was the nearest crossing street with Calder Road where that sign was posted?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2022, 04:22:16 PM
What was the nearest crossing street with Calder Road where that sign was posted?
Halfway between Ervin St and Cross Colony Dr. I noticed today that there is also a sign on southbound FM646 just south of the Walgreens, west of I-45.
I suppose that possible location for the Grand Parkway crossing of I-45 makes sense, although it looks like the highway will have to straddle a flood control channel. What ever alignment they finally decide to pursue will still require a lot of existing property to be bought and cleared. The longer they hold off at securing ROW will mean ever more properties to buy.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2022, 09:42:24 PM
I suppose that possible location for the Grand Parkway crossing of I-45 makes sense, although it looks like the highway will have to straddle a flood control channel. What ever alignment they finally decide to pursue will still require a lot of existing property to be bought and cleared. The longer they hold off at securing ROW will mean ever more properties to buy.
These schematics are over 10 years old, so not sure if they've made any changes since this was published:
(https://i.ibb.co/mCmhbxw/655199-C4-8-B75-41-A5-9-FCC-9-DE854-B2-F81-C.jpg) (https://ibb.co/XZ9Fjwg)
I was under the impression the Grand Parkway would cross over I-45 on the way East to the TX-146 corridor rather than just end at I-45 in a Y interchange. I guess they still haven't figured out a way to bridge the gap between I-45 and TX-146.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2022, 11:03:42 PM
I was under the impression the Grand Parkway would cross over I-45 on the way East to the TX-146 corridor rather than just end at I-45 in a Y interchange. I guess they still haven't figured out a way to bridge the gap between I-45 and TX-146.
Yeah, Segment A will be very challenging. As such, they don't even have schematics for that portion. Originally it was to follow FM646 all the way to 146 but this was before the shopping center was built. My guess is that it will need to go south of the shopping center and meet back up with 646 east of the shopping center, before HWY 3 (similar to below). It will still require some homes and small
businesses to be torn down for ROW.
(https://i.ibb.co/S7xCDKd/773-E3319-F855-47-B8-80-E1-A719-E64-D72-E7.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Dgb2P78)
The path you drew going East of I-45 looks like the lesser of all the evils.
They would have to go at least another 2 miles farther South to reach a path between I-45 and TX-146 that would take fewer properties. Bridging the gap from around the Tanger Outlets site and going East would mean going over a fair amount of swamp land and Dickinson Bayou. Those extra bridges or causeways would dramatically raise construction costs. Plus the path of the Grand Parkway in that area would be substantially more jagged and out of the way.
$6 million in bonds were approved by League City for FY2023 and FY2024 in support of development and construction:
https://www.leaguecitytx.gov/3485/Grand-Parkway
The TxDOT Project Tracker seems to confirm that SH 99 will use the FM 646 corridor as part of Segment A. I don't believe this was marked last time I checked this map.
(https://imgur.com/IY9zvmj.jpg)
In addition, the portion of Segment B from S Alvin to FM 646 is now projected to begin construction in less than 4 years. The rest of Segment B and C is projected to begin construction in 5-10 years.
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 16, 2023, 11:04:40 PM
The TxDOT Project Tracker seems to confirm that SH 99 will use the FM 646 corridor as part of Segment A. I don't believe this was marked last time I checked this map.
(https://imgur.com/IY9zvmj.jpg)
In addition, the portion of Segment B from S Alvin to FM 646 is now projected to begin construction in less than 4 years. The rest of Segment B and C is projected to begin construction in 5-10 years.
Wow, I wonder how they are going to make that work between I-45 and Highway 3. I guess if ROW property acquisitions start in the next few years, we'll have the answer.
Quote from: thisdj78 on May 16, 2023, 11:14:23 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 16, 2023, 11:04:40 PM
The TxDOT Project Tracker seems to confirm that SH 99 will use the FM 646 corridor as part of Segment A. I don't believe this was marked last time I checked this map.
(https://imgur.com/IY9zvmj.jpg)
In addition, the portion of Segment B from S Alvin to FM 646 is now projected to begin construction in less than 4 years. The rest of Segment B and C is projected to begin construction in 5-10 years.
Wow, I wonder how they are going to make that work between I-45 and Highway 3. I guess if ROW property acquisitions start in the next few years, we'll have the answer.
It may come sooner than you think, since the timeline is being moved up for the project. My guess is they'll get South Alvin to FM 646 out of the way first before they start worrying about the eastern section.
May be "easier" to take parking areas, and lots in front of businesses and malls on 646, than to "swing around" taking only residential areas. Find this whole 99 Parkway debacle ridiculous, no foresight, little to no land preservation years if not decades ago, and very crooked and indirect. No thought was ever given to upgrades of FM 1960, back in the day?
Texas arguably used to be the best in the nation at planning out and preserving ROW for future freeway corridors. Over the past roughly 30 years TX DOT and state lawmakers grew badly complacent at this sort of thing. As a result, just about any new freeway or toll road project in the state is a far bigger pain in the ass to build than it used to be.
And this problem isn't just in giant metros like Houston. For instance, in Wichita Falls there was a plan to extend Kell Freeway farther west to connect into the existing Holliday Bypass. Now that project is pretty much dead. The alternative that will be built instead is a very modest upgrade of US-82/277 from a 4-lane undivided street into a 4-lane undivided street with a center turn lane. Woo hoo!
:rolleyes:
Quote from: DJStephens on May 20, 2023, 05:29:58 PM
May be "easier" to take parking areas, and lots in front of businesses and malls on 646, than to "swing around" taking only residential areas. Find this whole 99 Parkway debacle ridiculous, no foresight, little to no land preservation years if not decades ago, and very crooked and indirect. No thought was ever given to upgrades of FM 1960, back in the day?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 20, 2023, 10:28:32 PM
Texas arguably used to be the best in the nation at planning out and preserving ROW for future freeway corridors. Over the past roughly 30 years TX DOT and state lawmakers grew badly complacent at this sort of thing. As a result, just about any new freeway or toll road project in the state is a far bigger pain in the ass to build than it used to be.
And this problem isn't just in giant metros like Houston. For instance, in Wichita Falls there was a plan to extend Kell Freeway farther west to connect into the existing Holliday Bypass. Now that project is pretty much dead. The alternative that will be built instead is a very modest upgrade of US-82/277 from a 4-lane undivided street into a 4-lane undivided street with a center turn lane. Woo hoo!
:rolleyes:
Texas is planning and building more freeways than any other state in the country, by far. Look at once-mightly California, now doing nearly nothing to improve their highways. Of course, New York state has done very little since the 1970s. Atlanta has done very little since the 1980s. Colorado and Washington state do very little or nothing to improve their freeways. Phoenix was a leader in the 1990s and 2000s, but their plan has mostly played out.
The list of planned new freeways and expansions in Texas is so long it would take a very long time to list them all.
Have you seen the DFW long-term plan? https://www.nctcog.org/getmedia/193f11c2-c52c-49cc-8e0c-4484d65c9f5c/Map-Packet-Final-Update.pdf (https://www.nctcog.org/getmedia/193f11c2-c52c-49cc-8e0c-4484d65c9f5c/Map-Packet-Final-Update.pdf)
Have you seen the Williamson County plan? page 35 https://www.wilco.org/Portals/0/Departments/CountyEngineer/LRTP_Revised03302016.pdf?ver=2016-07-01-113807-843 (https://www.wilco.org/Portals/0/Departments/CountyEngineer/LRTP_Revised03302016.pdf?ver=2016-07-01-113807-843)
Do you think any city outside of Texas could plan anything as ambitious as Houston's NHHIP or I-35 in Austin?
And Texas is making steady progress on I-69, building more new rural interstate miles than any other state.
The main reasons for these planning missteps you mention are extremely high growth rate, required environmental studies which take many years (while growth continues), local opposition and lack of funding. TxDOT can't purchase right-of-way until a ROD is received, and it's a very long and difficult process to get the ROD.
Getting back to Houston...
For section A of the Grand Parkway, I'm not aware of local governments advocating for it, so TxDOT focused its limited resources on sections where support existed and the need was greater. Also, those business along FM 646 have mostly been there a long time (mostly since the early and mid 2000s). TxDOT has financial and resource (i.e. manpower) limitations so it needed to focus on the greatest needs and highest priorities, which were elsewhere in the 2000s.
Except for Los Angeles (which has a grid forming multiple loops), Houston is the only city with a complete freeway/tollway second loop. That required planning.
Regarding FM 1960: yes, it should have been planned as a freeway but we need some context here. When Loop 610 was completed in 1975, transportation funding had collapsed nationwide and officials were in a desperate struggle to save Beltway 8. That would have been the same time that right-of-way would have needed to be preserved for an FM 1960/SH 6 freeway. But it just couldn't be done due to lack of funding and the need to focus attention on Beltway 8.
The first section of the Grand Parkway opened in 1994 in west Houston before Cinco Ranch and nearby developments were built. That qualifies as good planning. Rights-of-way were preserved in many areas, for example along a long section Riley Fuzzel road. The recently-opened sections H and I-1 are built through mostly-undeveloped areas.
About 66% of the Grand Parkway is built. No other city has that much of a wide outer loop built. Single-loop Atlanta canceled their Outer Perimeter a long time ago. Single-loop Washington DC needs a second loop but will never get one.
In an ideal world, TxDOT would be buying up right-of-way anywhere and everywhere that could need a freeway in the future. But that's not how our system works. It's a long and difficult process to get approval for a new freeway/tollway, and the cost and complexity of the process means that there will be delays that cause these planning failures.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 21, 2023, 12:48:52 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on May 20, 2023, 05:29:58 PM
May be "easier" to take parking areas, and lots in front of businesses and malls on 646, than to "swing around" taking only residential areas. Find this whole 99 Parkway debacle ridiculous, no foresight, little to no land preservation years if not decades ago, and very crooked and indirect. No thought was ever given to upgrades of FM 1960, back in the day?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 20, 2023, 10:28:32 PM
Texas arguably used to be the best in the nation at planning out and preserving ROW for future freeway corridors. Over the past roughly 30 years TX DOT and state lawmakers grew badly complacent at this sort of thing. As a result, just about any new freeway or toll road project in the state is a far bigger pain in the ass to build than it used to be.
And this problem isn't just in giant metros like Houston. For instance, in Wichita Falls there was a plan to extend Kell Freeway farther west to connect into the existing Holliday Bypass. Now that project is pretty much dead. The alternative that will be built instead is a very modest upgrade of US-82/277 from a 4-lane undivided street into a 4-lane undivided street with a center turn lane. Woo hoo!
:rolleyes:
Texas is planning and building more freeways than any other state in the country, by far.
I think North Carolina could be a close second to Texas, if not tied (in terms of active freeway/interstate projects).
The issue is Texas is not as good at long term planning and follow-thru as it used to be. I've seen long term plans for DFW and other areas around the state. The plans are ambitious, but I'm skeptical about many of those proposals ever being completed.
Yes, in a perfect world TX DOT could convert any road into a divided highway with a freeway-sized median for future upgrades. Obviously they can't do this everywhere. But they did so far more often decades ago than they're doing now.
Am using personal observation of El Paso District and the Oilfields in shaping my comments. Am of belief it gets better in Texas once one is East of the Oilfields. So many mistakes in W Texas, so much squandered.
There is a lot of squandering in the Eastern part of Texas too. Cough: US-380 from Denton to McKinney. Other corridors are getting covered up. TX DOT is being forced to do things like normalizing skinny 11' wide lanes as a permanent feature on some new projects.
The people calling the shots can't (or won't) do anything to keep up with the pace of development -a trend that has been steady since at least the early 1990's. The growth has been staggering, but also predictable. I think those guys are more obsessed with other priorities than highway infrastructure concerns.
Statewide, billions on clearview, landscaping and architectural frills. Where are the watchdogs and whistleblowers?
I don't understand how Clearview would be costing billions on its own. Not unless they're buying literally hundreds of thousands of licenses. Otherwise a typeface isn't going to make much of any difference with on-going highway sign costs. Highway sign faces have a limited life span. The type III retroreflective sheeting backgrounds will degrade noticeably in 7-10 years or even sooner in some regions. The "engineer's grade" reflective lettering applied to many big green signs is cracking and starting to flake off the sign by around year 5. Any state DOT is (hopefully) going to have an on-going program to replace the graphics on sign structures as needed.
A bunch of the extra visual frills on retaining walls, bridge structures, etc are nice. But when the state DOT is being forced to incorporate 11' wide lanes into a freeway project's permanent design the frills are definitely a misplaced priority. I'm guessing the visual enhancements are done to make people who live and work in the immediate area of that project more happy with the finished result.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 23, 2023, 11:57:36 PM
I don't understand how Clearview would be costing billions on its own. Not unless they're buying literally hundreds of thousands of licenses. Otherwise a typeface isn't going to make much of any difference with on-going highway sign costs. Highway sign faces have a limited life span. The type III retroreflective sheeting backgrounds will degrade noticeably in 7-10 years or even sooner in some regions. The "engineer's grade" reflective lettering applied to many big green signs is cracking and starting to flake off the sign by around year 5. Any state DOT is (hopefully) going to have an on-going program to replace the graphics on sign structures as needed.
I was in Houston & Austin earlier this year, and was just surprised at how bad some of the overhead signs looked with peeling front. Thought it looked pretty bad.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 23, 2023, 11:57:36 PM
I don't understand how Clearview would be costing billions on its own. Not unless they're buying literally hundreds of thousands of licenses. Otherwise a typeface isn't going to make much of any difference with on-going highway sign costs. Highway sign faces have a limited life span. The type III retroreflective sheeting backgrounds will degrade noticeably in 7-10 years or even sooner in some regions. The "engineer's grade" reflective lettering applied to many big green signs is cracking and starting to flake off the sign by around year 5. Any state DOT is (hopefully) going to have an on-going program to replace the graphics on sign structures as needed.
A bunch of the extra visual frills on retaining walls, bridge structures, etc are nice. But when the state DOT is being forced to incorporate 11' wide lanes into a freeway project's permanent design the frills are definitely a misplaced priority. I'm guessing the visual enhancements are done to make people who live and work in the immediate area of that project more happy with the finished result.
By "billions" on clearview, was stating belief of cost, of all signage erected since this change to this font in the '00 timeframe. All 34-36 districts. Am of belief it was simply not needed. A lot of perfectly fine condition FHWA signage was taken down and replaced, unneccesarilly.
As for "frills" have noticed all sorts of landscape elements installed. Terraces. Steel Stars. Excessive inlays and elements. Quite a bit of it is visually overwhelming, and unneccessary.
A good deal of regressive design has been applied with interchange replacements on the 10 corridor in the El Paso District. Mainly lack of vertical, and some horizontal curvature improvements. Failure to "cut down" hills where it would have been obvious, and beneficial.
Overall, the last 25-27 years have been very piecemeal.
Quote from: DJStephensBy "billions" on clearview, was stating belief of cost, of all signage erected since this change to this font in the '00 timeframe. All 34-36 districts. Am of belief it was simply not needed. A lot of perfectly fine condition FHWA signage was taken down and replaced, unneccesarilly.
I know New Mexico is notoriously cheap with a lot of its highway maintenance and improvement projects, despite decorative frills included on some of the upgrade projects. So I would be surprised if, during the switch to Clearview, they did more than simply replacing the graphics on many existing sign faces. That's far less expensive that unnecessarily replacing entire sign structures. These graphics replaced have to happen at least once every several years, if not more often given the quality of "engineers grade" white reflective vinyl lettering. Routed letters with button copy can last many years. This reflective cut vinyl does not.
Here in Oklahoma much of the shift to Clearview was phased in -with new graphics on existing sign faces. Not entirely new sign structures. The only instances where I've seen ODOT erect new sign structures is on sections of freeways that were completely re-built with new pavement and maybe with additional lanes added. The old, outdated structures get replaced then.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 04, 2023, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: DJStephensBy "billions" on clearview, was stating belief of cost, of all signage erected since this change to this font in the '00 timeframe. All 34-36 districts. Am of belief it was simply not needed. A lot of perfectly fine condition FHWA signage was taken down and replaced, unneccesarilly.
I know New Mexico is notoriously cheap with a lot of its highway maintenance and improvement projects, despite decorative frills included on some of the upgrade projects. So I would be surprised if, during the switch to Clearview, they did more than simply replacing the graphics on many existing sign faces. That's far less expensive that unnecessarily replacing entire sign structures. These graphics replaced have to happen at least once every several years, if not more often given the quality of "engineers grade" white reflective vinyl lettering. Routed letters with button copy can last many years. This reflective cut vinyl does not.
Here in Oklahoma much of the shift to Clearview was phased in -with new graphics on existing sign faces. Not entirely new sign structures. The only instances where I've seen ODOT erect new sign structures is on sections of freeways that were completely re-built with new pavement and maybe with additional lanes added. The old, outdated structures get replaced then.
When they did new signs for I-35 in OKC, they erected new monotube structures.
Quote from: rte66manWhen they did new signs for I-35 in OKC, they erected new monotube structures.
Was that on a section where they did other improvements to the roadway? Typically ODOT installs new monotube sign structures as part of an overall highway improvement project, such as building a new interchange or replacing the road bed and/or widening it. ODOT doesn't always replace existing sign structures on these projects either. I can point to examples of it on I-44 South of OKC. ODOT has simply replaced the sign face graphics and nothing else.
The notion the Clearview typeface would force a DOT to replace entire sign structures is just plain silly.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 07, 2023, 02:00:48 PM
Quote from: rte66manWhen they did new signs for I-35 in OKC, they erected new monotube structures.
Was that on a section where they did other improvements to the roadway? Typically ODOT installs new monotube sign structures as part of an overall highway improvement project, such as building a new interchange or replacing the road bed and/or widening it. ODOT doesn't always replace existing sign structures on these projects either. I can point to examples of it on I-44 South of OKC. ODOT has simply replaced the sign face graphics and nothing else.
The notion the Clearview typeface would force a DOT to replace entire sign structures is just plain silly.
They did a dowel bar retrofit about that time.
Was in Tulsa over the weekend and noticed that US412 west from downtown to Sand Springs had all monotube sign assemblies.
The new monotube structures on that part of US-412 are related to the new interchange with the new segment of the Gilcrease Expressway. Funny enough, the type on those signs is set in FHWA Series Gothic. There are still lots of the old truss style overhead sign structures across the state, many of them pre-dating Clearview.
Why does every thread derail into something going on in Oklahoma? Jeez
H-GAC (the regional planning council) approved plans for work on section B to begin in 2026.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/grand-parkway-alvin-league-city-txdot-18267055.php
QuoteI-45 to Alvin segment of Grand Parkway set for late 2026 construction start
Portions of the Grand Parkway through Galveston County are scheduled to begin in slightly more than three years, as state highway officials cue up construction for Houston's third outer ring.
Texas Department of Transportation officials said work on segments of Interstate 45 in League City to south of Alvin is planned for late 2026 or early 2027, entirely funded by borrowing against future toll revenues. The Houston-Galveston Area Council's Transportation Policy on Friday amended its four-year construction plan, organizing all of the projects for the tollway and interchanges at I-45 and Texas 35 into fiscal 2026.
The timing gives TxDOT officials time to acquire rights of way, prepare for the relocation of utilities and prepare the final design, said Varuna Singh, deputy district engineer for TxDOT's Houston office.
The project includes two key connections, at I-45 and Texas 35, creating a new route west of the interstate.
The work is only part of Segment B of the tollway, which has been divided to allow for faster construction to Alvin. The portion in Brazoria County — where the county still retains the option to build the tollway themselves west of FM 2403 — would likely come later.
The I-45-to-Alvin project, which based on current estimates would cost $656.7 million, will likely be packaged as one large job for a contractor that will finish the design and then build the tollway, Singh said. It is among the most sought-after highway connections in the Houston area.
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/27/75/63/23059684/5/1200x0.jpg)
Quote from: MaxConcrete on August 01, 2023, 09:06:24 AM
H-GAC (the regional planning council) approved plans for work on section B to begin in 2026.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/grand-parkway-alvin-league-city-txdot-18267055.php
Have you seen any updated schematics of where Segment B intersects with I-45? Really curious to see how they build that. That will likely provide clues on how they will build Segment A (if they ever do).
I don't like that all these curves along the proposed southern arc. Why not keep it as straight as possible? Like the Sam Tollway/Beltway 8: with the exception of Jersey Village, there are not a lot of curves around the beltway. The segment between I-45 and TX-288 looks too winding and awkward; maybe straighten it out be keeping it parallelling FM-1462 between Alvin and TX-288.
Quote from: jgb191 on August 01, 2023, 01:25:30 PM
I don't like that all these curves along the proposed southern arc. Why not keep it as straight as possible? Like the Sam Tollway/Beltway 8: with the exception of Jersey Village, there are not a lot of curves around the beltway. The segment between I-45 and TX-288 looks too winding and awkward; maybe straighten it out be keeping it parallelling FM-1462 between Alvin and TX-288.
Acquiring land for freeways (on new terrain) is a lot different today vs. 30-40 years ago. Case in point, look at the new I-69 in Indiana between Bloomington and Evansville compared to the existing I-69 north of Indianapolis.
According to the Houston freeways book, much of the land for freeways was even donated by landowners back in the day.
Quote from: Chris on August 01, 2023, 04:09:47 PM
According to the Houston freeways book, much of the land for freeways was even donated by landowners back in the day.
I could see that. There was a lot of pride in the interstate freeway system being built out in the 50s/60s. Of course that all changed with the freeway revolts in the 70s.
Quote from: thisdj78 on August 01, 2023, 11:32:49 PM
Quote from: Chris on August 01, 2023, 04:09:47 PM
According to the Houston freeways book, much of the land for freeways was even donated by landowners back in the day.
I could see that. There was a lot of pride in the interstate freeway system being built out in the 50s/60s. Of course that all changed with the freeway revolts in the 70s.
Through routes directly benefited rural landowners. Suburban distributor routes do not.
Quote from: jgb191 on August 01, 2023, 01:25:30 PM
I don't like that all these curves along the proposed southern arc. Why not keep it as straight as possible? Like the Sam Tollway/Beltway 8: with the exception of Jersey Village, there are not a lot of curves around the beltway. The segment between I-45 and TX-288 looks too winding and awkward; maybe straighten it out be keeping it parallelling FM-1462 between Alvin and TX-288.
The part in and south of Alvin in particular that contributes to the wonkiness parallels TX 35 before splitting off south of the Chocolate Bayou bridge. My guess is TxDOT didn't want to have to build a highway through all the homes between TX 35 and FM 1462 on the south side of Alvin. South of the bayou, there is a lot less resistance; I would imagine it's a lot easier to just parallel 35 (which needs upgrading anyway) for that stretch than to tear down tons of homes and county road connections in that area.
Meanwhile, the part of 35 in and through Alvin has had the freeway ROW set aside for a long time now, so it makes sense to route the new highway on the designated ROW. It's not as straight as it ideally could've been, but it'll probably be fine IRL.
You can start to see the ROW for Segment B between Dickinson and Alvin:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GJTvuohAs7qBFv8Q8?g_st=ic
Quote from: DJStephens on May 23, 2023, 11:24:53 PM
Statewide, billions on clearview, landscaping and architectural frills. Where are the watchdogs and whistleblowers?
Can you enumerate what you are calling these boondoggles?
Yes, clearview license is not free. There is landscaping being done. There are some architectural flourishes on some bridge pillars and other concrete.
All the signing, landscaping, and architectural add-ons MAY add up to a billion (or two) over time. The biggest landscaping costs right now are mowing the right of ways and the ongoing removal of trees that have grown in the ROWs for decades. These are not "add-ons." The tree trimming / removal is a safety issue and is actually to fully meet FHWA specs for interstates. The limited flowers and other decorative plants really are negligible in costs. Contouring the roadbed and ROW is not to be confused with decorative landscaping.
The architectural flourishes might cost as much as $100 a piece. Maybe. Probably less. It simply is a function of building the forms.
All in all TXDOT goes overboard in sign replacement, but it isn't clearview that is the big cost.
Texas DOES spend billions making freeway intersections be more free flowing. The 3 & 4 level stacks don't come cheap. While on the surface, much of the newer cable stayed bridges look decorative, it is almost all functional*.
Clearview. Some of you guys hate it. In times past there have been thousand post threads on here about it. Some hate it because the licensure is expensive and adds not insignificant cost. Some feel that even if it is marginally better, that the added cost exceeds any value. Others of you just do not like the font PERIOD.
*There are exceptions. The Dallas "signature bridges" are almost totally decorative, but there were significant civic donations for their building. The caps over subsurface freeways are generally paid for by local sources: the city / county governments; often through donations. The whole removal of the Pierce Elevated is a boondoggle that TxDOT is paying for almost completely.
Now that Segment B has a construction date of 2026 (with a planned completion date of 2030 or so), does Segment C have a construction date yet?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 25, 2023, 11:15:51 AM
Now that Segment B has a construction date of 2026 (with a planned completion date of 2030 or so), does Segment C have a construction date yet?
I don't think a timeline has been established. The Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority (not TxDOT) has authority to build it, and they have been studying it for years. FBCTRA appears to be defining the final alignment. See the separate thread about the Fort Bend Parkway for the alignment near the Fort Bend Parkway.
A document for this month's board meeting of the GPTRA lists the cost for section C around $1.2 billion. ROW alone is around $351 million. This will be a very heavy lift for Fort Bend County. In fact, I don't know if they can actually get it done, considering their ambitious (and expensive) plans for extending the Fort Bend Parkway and Westpark Tollway.
My view is that TxDOT is going to need to take over segment C if work is going to start before 2030.
FBCTRA has quite a hostile policy towards drivers from outside of the region with their 'everyone without a TxTAG is in violation' approach.
Operating a vehicle on any toll road operated by the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority without a valid electronic toll tag is a violation and can result in a citation, toll violation notice, and additional fines and fees.
https://www.fbctra.com/toll-roads/#tollroads
E-ZPass is not an accepted toll tag and they do not offer pay-by-mail or any other form of payment.
I wonder if this kind of approach would fly on the beltway of one of the largest cities in the U.S. So far they seem to be getting away with this.
Quote from: Chris on September 25, 2023, 04:28:30 PM
FBCTRA has quite a hostile policy towards drivers from outside of the region with their 'everyone without a TxTAG is in violation' approach.
Operating a vehicle on any toll road operated by the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority without a valid electronic toll tag is a violation and can result in a citation, toll violation notice, and additional fines and fees.
https://www.fbctra.com/toll-roads/#tollroads
E-ZPass is not an accepted toll tag and they do not offer pay-by-mail or any other form of payment.
I wonder if this kind of approach would fly on the beltway of one of the largest cities in the U.S. So far they seem to be getting away with this.
Their "violations" only cost $2.50 in additional fees if you pay within 30 days. Houston and especially Fort Bend County is kind of out-of-the-way; someone doing a cross-country drive is unlikely to get hit with a FBCTRA toll.
Grand Parkway construction between League City and Alvin set for 2027 at nearly $1B cost
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/grand-parkway-alvin-i45-growth-txdot-18418138.php