According to a tweet today by TxDOT (retweet, actually), the project will move forward when right-of-way is acquired, expected to be no later than 2018 and possibly sooner.
This project will extend the freeway from its current terminus at Red Bluff to FM 518, about 3 miles. Due to right-of-way constraints, mainly a high voltage corridor on the west side, about half of the main lanes is an unconventional design with four main lanes on an elevated structure overhanging the surface road.
The environmental assessment lists 53 buildings to be cleared for the project, mostly along the west side of the existing road. So I'm thinking the chances of an early start are probably low.
Official site has the environmental assessment with diagrams and details
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh146-red-bluff.html (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh146-red-bluff.html)
(https://1968d90e831cd27d2017897e0c81e9a12852eb10.googledrive.com/host/0B4gwdXQk1LyieHZHSTBqd0VJSnc/aaroads/sh146-nasa1.jpg)
This view shows some of the properties to be displaced at NASA 1.
(https://1968d90e831cd27d2017897e0c81e9a12852eb10.googledrive.com/host/0B4gwdXQk1LyieHZHSTBqd0VJSnc/aaroads/sh146-section.jpg)
This view shows the planned design to squeeze in the main lanes where the right-of-way is especially narrow (184 feet).
Wouldn't this technically be a sort of Grand Parkway project?
This section of TX-146 could indeed be a part of the Grand Parkway ring. The elevated 4 lane structure is the bare minimum of what could be done though. I'm guessing they might add variable tolls to the elevated structure to control traffic levels. I was pretty surprised when I saw these plans. Just 4 lanes? Really?
TX-DOT probably could have put 3 or even 4 lanes on the elevated structure in each direction if they cut the surface street down to 2 lanes in each direction. But the elevated highway structure would be even bigger with 2 columns of bridge pylons rather than just one. Local residents would regard that as more unsightly. However, a 6 or 8 lane elevated structure would definitely accommodate highway traffic counts for the long term a lot better than a minimal 4 lane structure.
The Houston Business Journal reports on the efforts in progress to relocate the 60+ business which will be displaced by the expansion
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2017/06/01/seabrook-sees-new-highway-leading-to-new.html?ana=SEABROOK1 (http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2017/06/01/seabrook-sees-new-highway-leading-to-new.html?ana=SEABROOK1)
I drove along the corridor several months ago and did not see any right-of-way clearance completed or in progress. According the article, construction is scheduled to begin in Fall 2018. The TxDOT web site lists a $172 million project for bidding in May 2018
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2018/harris.htm#038905116 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2018/harris.htm#038905116)
Here is a new update on the project
http://uhclthesignal.com/wordpress/2017/10/30/the-state-highway-146-expansion-project-is-trucking-ahead-as-planned/ (http://uhclthesignal.com/wordpress/2017/10/30/the-state-highway-146-expansion-project-is-trucking-ahead-as-planned/)
As the article reports, right-of-way clearance is proceeding. I was in the area about 3 weeks ago, and noticed the three fast food restaurants are now closed.
Perhaps more important, the article reports that an agreement has been reached Union Pacific for the railroad right-of-way.
So, everything is looking good for this project to move forward next year. It is currently listed at $178 million for May bidding
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2018/harris.htm#038905116 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2018/harris.htm#038905116)
Bids were opened today. The winner (Webber LLC) bid $201.8 million, $18 million less than the next lowest bidder, so someone will probably lose some sleep about how much money they left on the table.
I was at the site of the work last week, and most of the right-of-way clearance still remains to be done. However, the long bridge and elevated viaduct on the south half of the project can start right away while the ROW clearance continues.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05023201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05023201.htm)
Estimate $191,581,736.10 % Over/Under Company
Bidder 1 $201,835,272.64 +5.35% WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 2 $218,886,537.61 +14.25% WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 3 $222,648,088.60 +16.22% FLUOR HEAVY CIVIL, LLC
Bidder 4 $239,779,521.21 +25.16% BALFOUR BEATTY INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.
Bidder 5 $251,404,776.76 +31.23% JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C.
A groundbreaking ceremony was held today:
(https://i.imgur.com/qrSUj8d.jpg)
Work is well along on the south side of the crossing. There are only a few piers in place on the north side, but work is proceeding well on the section north of NASA Parkway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20201004_008-2000.jpg&hash=a630d68017181170ae7089070c1a646ba1936c40)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20201004_026-2000.jpg&hash=027647aa7ddf7fd38f6ad816a0e8340c550e85cf)
While your picture links are broken, I was in Seabrook a couple of weeks ago. There is significant work both north and south of Nasa1. Including bridge work over Clear Creek / Clear Lake.
Some of the construction work is visible on Google Street View.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 05, 2020, 03:37:05 PM
Some of the construction work is visible on Google Street View.
Taken in February. I would have guessed they would be farther along now. Assuming a COVID slowdown like everything else.
You would not recognize it from the GSV renderings today. There is MUCH more done. It really looks to me as if they have been building at pretty much full force if the GSV is from February.
Quote from: bwana39 on October 06, 2020, 03:43:54 PM
You would not recognize it from the GSV renderings today. There is MUCH more done. It really looks to me as if they have been building at pretty much full force if the GSV is from February.
In my county I witnessed DOT projects and County projects continued unabated through COVID. Mask wearing became prevalent but otherwise it really did not get in the way of progress on existing projects and, if anything, progress sped up slightly due to less traffic on the roads for the first months.
OK, so if I am following this correctly:
1)
-SH 99 will begin (clockwise) at SH 146 in Northern Galveston County just south of SH 96
-SH 99 will end (continuing clockwise) at SH 146 just east of the Fred Hartman Bridge, replacing current SH 146B from where it currently meets SH 99.
-SH 146 between both 'ends' of SH 99 will be a freeway aside from a small section just south of FM 518.
So far, so good?
2) If that is the case, um why not just have SH 99/Grand Parkway co-sign or takeover SH 146 and form a complete loop?
-Doesn't make sense to have an so close but not quite complete loop.
The logic is actually simple. SH99 is not a freeway. SH99 is the frontage roads to the Grand Parkway. The gap you are discussing is free freeway lanes. SH146.
Quote from: bwana39 on October 29, 2020, 11:36:56 PM
The logic is actually simple. SH99 is not a freeway. SH99 is the frontage roads to the Grand Parkway. The gap you are discussing is free freeway lanes. SH146.
OK so why not make SH 146 SH 99/Grand Parkway for a full loop?
Photos taken 12/20/2020. Chrome users must open in a separate browser tab since these photos are on a non-secure server (and AARoads is https)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20201220_025-1600.jpg&hash=c7822acad07597df810046ca9c8ecc6326d9a30b)
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20201220_025-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20201220_025-1600.jpg) South side of project
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20201220_033-1600.jpg&hash=2b01d20807dc15620358cffdbe29aadd195dd616)
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20201220_033-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20201220_033-1600.jpg) North of the channel bridge
Quote from: bluecountry on October 30, 2020, 10:39:53 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on October 29, 2020, 11:36:56 PM
The logic is actually simple. SH99 is not a freeway. SH99 is the frontage roads to the Grand Parkway. The gap you are discussing is free freeway lanes. SH146.
OK so why not make SH 146 SH 99/Grand Parkway for a full loop?
SH 146 extends all the way to the "Texas Wye", just north of the I-45 Galveston Channel bridge where I-45, SH 6, and SH 146 meet. The proposed east terminal of Section B of the Grand Parkway/SH99 would be on I-45 just north of Dickinson at I-45's interchange with FM 646. There right now is no viable means of connecting this section with SH 146, and no plans to upgrade that segment of 146 to freeway any time soon. Also, there's really no development on that portion of metro Houston, so there really is no need right now for a full loop, especially when the Sam Houston Tollway/Loop 8 serves that purpose quite nicely.
Segment A (between TX-146 and I-45) cannot be built as originally conceived. The maps showed it overlapping the League City Parkway (TX-96) for about half the distance. Then it would split off around the Tuscan Lakes Blvd intersection and go due East. That proposed design is now not build-able due to all the residential homes built in the area. Development has encroached the League City Parkway enough to make that road very difficult, if not impossible, to fully upgrade into a freeway.
There are movers and shakers in the League City area who still want Segment A built. Segment B & C of the Grand Parkway were under threat from being dropped from the TxDOT 10 year plan last year, but they have remained on the drawing board. Section A is not included in the 10 year plan.
I think planners are looking farther South to other possible alignments for Segment A. Some of the latest talk involves starting Segment A near the intersection of TX-146 and San Leon Road. The alignment of Segment A may end up having to skirt around the South side of Dickinson, perhaps connecting with I-45 near the Hughes Road exit. As fast as metro Houston is growing TX DOT really needs to get on the ball regarding ROW acquisition.
The final design of Segment B (between I-45 and TX-35 in Alvin) is not finalized, but it could be the next segment to get a go-ahead for construction. TxDOT at least has to start securing ROW. Depending on how Segment B develops and where it connects to I-45 it could influence how Segment A is built. I think it's likely Segment B and Segment A may connect to I-45 in different places and that the Grand Parkway could multiplex with I-45 for a couple or so miles.
I would like to see TX-146 fully upgraded into a superhighway all the way down to Texas City. Some parts of the road would be relatively simple to upgrade, such as the segment in Bacliff. The railroad next to the highway has been decommissioned, which opens up a good amount of upgrade space. That's next to a major utility transmission line corridor.
The construction contractor posted a video of concrete paving on the bridge deck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHqmuhLFgMI&t=114s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHqmuhLFgMI&t=114s)
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2020, 12:10:40 PM
Segment A (between TX-146 and I-45) cannot be built as originally conceived. The maps showed it overlapping the League City Parkway (TX-96) for about half the distance. Then it would split off around the Tuscan Lakes Blvd intersection and go due East. That proposed design is now not build-able due to all the residential homes built in the area. Development has encroached the League City Parkway enough to make that road very difficult, if not impossible, to fully upgrade into a freeway.
There are movers and shakers in the League City area who still want Segment A built. Segment B & C of the Grand Parkway were under threat from being dropped from the TxDOT 10 year plan last year, but they have remained on the drawing board. Section A is not included in the 10 year plan.
I think planners are looking farther South to other possible alignments for Segment A. Some of the latest talk involves starting Segment A near the intersection of TX-146 and San Leon Road. The alignment of Segment A may end up having to skirt around the South side of Dickinson, perhaps connecting with I-45 near the Hughes Road exit. As fast as metro Houston is growing TX DOT really needs to get on the ball regarding ROW acquisition.
The final design of Segment B (between I-45 and TX-35 in Alvin) is not finalized, but it could be the next segment to get a go-ahead for construction. TxDOT at least has to start securing ROW. Depending on how Segment B develops and where it connects to I-45 it could influence how Segment A is built. I think it's likely Segment B and Segment A may connect to I-45 in different places and that the Grand Parkway could multiplex with I-45 for a couple or so miles.
I would like to see TX-146 fully upgraded into a superhighway all the way down to Texas City. Some parts of the road would be relatively simple to upgrade, such as the segment in Bacliff. The railroad next to the highway has been decommissioned, which opens up a good amount of upgrade space. That's next to a major utility transmission line corridor.
I agree about 146. I wouldn't mind seeing it made a freeway from the "Y" all the way to Interstate 10.. heck maybe try to get a 3di for it... I-245 or I-810...actually I like the idea of I-810, since thats the only 3di for I-10 that has never been used. But, SH 146 is fine too..
I don't see that much of a need for segment A of the GP....realistically I don't know that I see much for segments B and C either. Most of it seems pretty superfluous aside from the stretch in Katy and Spring, but here we are. It would be weird for it to be an incomplete loop, then our map would look all weird like Dallas-Ft Worth with their jagged incomplete and asymmetrical nonsense. Make 146 a freeway to I-10, run SH 99 concurrent with SH 146, then turn it and run it along NASA 1, connect with I 45, then run concurrent until the end of segment B. Instead of tons of ROW clearing, make it elevated. Have like NASA 1 run on the surface road, then have SH 99 be the elevated freeway.
I don't expect the TX-146 freeway in Baytown to be extended any farther Northeast from its current end at the Ferry Rd "Y" up toward I-10. Not with the Grand Parkway in close proximity. There is a significant amount of properties hugging close to the non-freeway TX-146 (a non-divided 4-lane street). Some of those could be bought and cleared out of the way. But a freeway expansion would grow really difficult and contentious in the area around Johnny Clark Elementary school. A decent number of newer homes have been built near and North of the school.
Aside from any possible expansions of TX-146, I certainly don't expect TX DOT to apply Interstate designations to it or the Grand Parkway either. They seem perfectly happy leaving existing designations as they are, which is probably easier if a particular corridor (such as TX-146) will be a mix of different highway types.
Quote from: achilles765I don't see that much of a need for segment A of the GP....realistically I don't know that I see much for segments B and C either.
I disagree pretty strongly about Segment A, based on my own driving experiences in that area. Traffic gets pretty ridiculous around Kemah, the Space Center and League City. The super highway upgrade of TX-146 through Kemah is badly needed. At least one or more super highway "spokes" are needed to span between I-45 and TX-146. The trick is figuring out where the the final alignment for Segment A can be built. They might be able to upgrade a portion of League City Parkway. But they're going to have to get pretty creative on how to span the whole gap. One thing is certain: they're going to have to buy and demolish some fairly new properties to get the job done.
Regarding additional spokes between I-45 and TX-146, it's not feasible to upgrade NASA parkway into a freeway farther East to Seabrook and TX-146. But there are some alternatives. TX DOT needs to look at upgrading Red Bluff Road since it's already a
freeway ready divided street. That and the combination of Fairmont Parkway and Bay Area Blvd would make for fast alternative access routes to the Space Center and Kemah, taking some of the load off I-45 and the Pasadena Freeway. There is more open space farther South around the Dickinson area.
I don't really like the shape of Grand Parkway Segment B for the sharp bends in it. Both Segments B and C are under threat of being dropped from the overall plan, which I think would be a shame. At the very least I think TX DOT needs to make efforts to secure ROW of those segments for future use. It will be needed. As for the "asymmetrical nonsense" of the DFW loops, much of that comes from the geography. Dallas is quite a bit bigger than Fort Worth area wise. Various obstacles lead to roads like I-635 being partial loops rather than continuous.
I really think highway planners and lawmakers badly need to update their processes with how corridors are developed. Their slug-slow efforts just aren't working in relation to the kinds of rapid urban/suburban growth we've been seeing the past 20 years in metros like DFW, Austin, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2020, 12:10:40 PM
Segment A (between TX-146 and I-45) cannot be built as originally conceived. The maps showed it overlapping the League City Parkway (TX-96) for about half the distance. Then it would split off around the Tuscan Lakes Blvd intersection and go due East. That proposed design is now not build-able due to all the residential homes built in the area. Development has encroached the League City Parkway enough to make that road very difficult, if not impossible, to fully upgrade into a freeway.
Tear it all down. It's not like there isn't land around to build new on.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 10, 2021, 10:18:24 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2020, 12:10:40 PM
Segment A (between TX-146 and I-45) cannot be built as originally conceived. The maps showed it overlapping the League City Parkway (TX-96) for about half the distance. Then it would split off around the Tuscan Lakes Blvd intersection and go due East. That proposed design is now not build-able due to all the residential homes built in the area. Development has encroached the League City Parkway enough to make that road very difficult, if not impossible, to fully upgrade into a freeway.
Tear it all down. It's not like there isn't land around to build new on.
Here is what the proposed route was which mostly follows 646 and then cuts slightly north to 96. If they stuck to that route it would mostly be businesses impacted, not residential. Looking at the satellite view, you can see some of the ROW still there:
https://i.imgur.com/lrs8R9G_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium
Ah, okay yeah that's pretty dense. They could go 1960s style and just cut a path but not likely to happen.
SH-96 east of 45 seems to have enough ROW for a six lane facility(service roads maybe two each way). Not sure if that'd work or not. There's also land south of Dickinson they could route it on. Would be one heck of a nice bridge over the bay. It's not like they could make it any dirtier than it already is.
My thoughts are it could go to just north of 25th AVE in Texas city and cross to the west and meet Emmett Lowery Fwy and go back to I-45. It goes a little bit backward, but it would complete the SH-146 freeway from LaPorte to I-45.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 09, 2021, 11:14:13 AM
I don't expect the TX-146 freeway in Baytown to be extended any farther Northeast from its current end at the Ferry Rd "Y" up toward I-10. Not with the Grand Parkway in close proximity. There is a significant amount of properties hugging close to the non-freeway TX-146 (a non-divided 4-lane street). Some of those could be bought and cleared out of the way. But a freeway expansion would grow really difficult and contentious in the area around Johnny Clark Elementary school. A decent number of newer homes have been built near and North of the school.
Aside from any possible expansions of TX-146, I certainly don't expect TX DOT to apply Interstate designations to it or the Grand Parkway either. They seem perfectly happy leaving existing designations as they are, which is probably easier if a particular corridor (such as TX-146) will be a mix of different highway types.
Quote from: achilles765I don't see that much of a need for segment A of the GP....realistically I don't know that I see much for segments B and C either.
I disagree pretty strongly about Segment A, based on my own driving experiences in that area. Traffic gets pretty ridiculous around Kemah, the Space Center and League City. The super highway upgrade of TX-146 through Kemah is badly needed. At least one or more super highway "spokes" are needed to span between I-45 and TX-146. The trick is figuring out where the the final alignment for Segment A can be built. They might be able to upgrade a portion of League City Parkway. But they're going to have to get pretty creative on how to span the whole gap. One thing is certain: they're going to have to buy and demolish some fairly new properties to get the job done.
Regarding additional spokes between I-45 and TX-146, it's not feasible to upgrade NASA parkway into a freeway farther East to Seabrook and TX-146. But there are some alternatives. TX DOT needs to look at upgrading Red Bluff Road since it's already a freeway ready divided street. That and the combination of Fairmont Parkway and Bay Area Blvd would make for fast alternative access routes to the Space Center and Kemah, taking some of the load off I-45 and the Pasadena Freeway. There is more open space farther South around the Dickinson area.
I don't really like the shape of Grand Parkway Segment B for the sharp bends in it. Both Segments B and C are under threat of being dropped from the overall plan, which I think would be a shame. At the very least I think TX DOT needs to make efforts to secure ROW of those segments for future use. It will be needed. As for the "asymmetrical nonsense" of the DFW loops, much of that comes from the geography. Dallas is quite a bit bigger than Fort Worth area wise. Various obstacles lead to roads like I-635 being partial loops rather than continuous.
I really think highway planners and lawmakers badly need to update their processes with how corridors are developed. Their slug-slow efforts just aren't working in relation to the kinds of rapid urban/suburban growth we've been seeing the past 20 years in metros like DFW, Austin, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc.
Thank you for this perspective: I have not actually been down in that area in a few years so I did not realize what the situation was like down there. I'm inside the loop, in the East End, and have always lived and spent time either inside the loop, to the north or the west. I have read that there were plans to make a freeway along Red Bluff or Fairmont of some kind at some point.
I mean technically it could be feasible for any freeway run through there to just be elevated, right? I mean if they are about to put like 20 miles of elevated lanes in San Antonio, or any of the insane (and awesome looking) stuff i've seen going up in Dallas, I don't see why not...
And I know you are almost certainly right about the interstate designations; all of that is just my own wishful fantasies.
Quote from: achilles765I mean technically it could be feasible for any freeway run through there to just be elevated, right? I mean if they are about to put like 20 miles of elevated lanes in San Antonio, or any of the insane (and awesome looking) stuff i've seen going up in Dallas, I don't see why not...
Elevated freeway structures are sometimes acceptable in busy commercial districts. But they don't go over so well in areas with a lot of residential development.
That's one of the difficulties with League City Parkway (TX-96). A bunch of new homes have been built right next to it in recent years. Portions of the Parkway are wide enough for an upgrade to a freeway (or toll road) closely flanked by frontage roads. But not all of it. The segment going east from I-45 to the TX-3 intersection doesn't have enough space, not to mention the intersection with I-45 is getting packed in with commercial development.
People will even block elevated freeway structures in mostly commercial districts. Look at the long-running saga of Watkins Drive in Kansas City.
^^^^ build it lower and market it as a flood retention pond during bad storms lol
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 13, 2021, 01:19:22 AM
Quote from: achilles765I mean technically it could be feasible for any freeway run through there to just be elevated, right? I mean if they are about to put like 20 miles of elevated lanes in San Antonio, or any of the insane (and awesome looking) stuff i've seen going up in Dallas, I don't see why not...
Elevated freeway structures are sometimes acceptable in busy commercial districts. But they don't go over so well in areas with a lot of residential development.
That's one of the difficulties with League City Parkway (TX-96). A bunch of new homes have been built right next to it in recent years. Portions of the Parkway are wide enough for an upgrade to a freeway (or toll road) closely flanked by frontage roads. But not all of it. The segment going east from I-45 to the TX-3 intersection doesn't have enough space, not to mention the intersection with I-45 is getting packed in with commercial development.
People will even block elevated freeway structures in mostly commercial districts. Look at the long-running sage of Watkins Drive in Kansas City.
I think the original planned route from I-45 along 646 (and then along Tuscan Lakes Blvd to continue on 96 to 146) is still the best and doesn't impact any residential homes from what I see.
It's mainly businesses that would be impacted along 646 that can easily be relocated nearby which I'm sure they already anticipated when the route was planned. There's been commercial property along that stretch for as long as I can remember....with the shopping center being there at least for the last 10-15 years.
According to this article (https://communityimpact.com/houston/bay-area/transportation/2021/09/22/completion-of-hwy-146-widening-delayed-until-fall-2023/) the completion date for the freeway conversion will be delayed until fall 2023.
I also learned this:
QuoteAs part of the project, a 5-mile stretch of Hwy. 146 between FM 518 and FM 517 will be widened from four to six lanes "to decrease traffic congestion; increase mobility; and improve hurricane evacuation, operational efficiency and safety along SH 146," per TxDOT's website.
The anticipated letting date–which is when bids will open for construction companies–for this section of Hwy. 146 will be in September 2022, but that is subject to change, according to George.
The current TX-146 expansion project goes down to the intersection with TX-96. From that point down to the intersection with FM-1764 in Texas City it looks like it would be fairly simple to upgrade into a freeway. Only one spot along the way, on the North side of Dickinson Bayou, has any buildings that would have to be bought and removed.
The notion of expanding a portion of that existing section of TX-146 from a 4-lane street to a 6-lane street seems like a very modest, interim solution.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 15, 2022, 04:46:48 PM
The notion of expanding a portion of that existing section of TX-146 from a 4-lane street to a 6-lane street seems like a very modest, interim solution.
The next SH 146 project, from FM 518 to Dickinson Bayou, is slated to receive bids in May 2023. Estimated cost is $177.8 million. As the news article mentions, the widening will extend the freeway southward with an overpass at SH 96. But south of SH 96, it SH 146 becomes a 6-lane boulevard on the minimum needed right-of-way.
Looking at the schematic, there is right-of-way acquisition on the east side of SH146 from FM 518 to Bay Avenue (just south of SH 96), including displacements at Meadow. There is no right-of-way acquisition south of Bay Avenue.
As far as I know, this widening is the ultimate design and no further expansion is planned.
How's the work down there currently?
Quote from: TheBox on November 17, 2023, 08:59:57 PM
How's the work down there currently?
Progress is very good and it is nearing completion
As of two weeks ago, main lanes north of NASA 1 look around 99% complete including striping and signage, with just a few spots needing final details.
The long elevated structure and bridge look substantially complete.
As of two weeks ago, work was focusing on the ground-level street on the Kemah side.
On October 24, Webber posted on twitter that the last of 1542 beams has been placed.
https://twitter.com/webberllc/status/1716848008040423456
Almost all of the elevated freeway is built off center (to the west). I'm wondering if this is some kind of interim design to add another elevated highway next to it once the time comes to expand capacity to eight or more lanes?
July 2023 satellite image:
(https://i.imgur.com/i2xoXH0.jpg)
Quote from: Chris on November 23, 2023, 05:39:18 PM
Almost all of the elevated freeway is built off center (to the west). I'm wondering if this is some kind of interim design to add another elevated highway next to it once the time comes to expand capacity to eight or more lanes?
It's the ultimate design, not an interim design. The freeway will end just to the south, south of SH 96. Construction work is just getting started south of SH 96, but it won't be a freeway.
https://www.galvnews.com/news/state-highway-146-to-be-finished-by-february/article_e9aa949f-becc-529c-83a1-f61e0c060726.html
The long-anticipated state Highway 146 widening project is slated to be completed on time by February, the Texas Department of Transportation confirmed on Monday.
https://www.facebook.com/cityofkemahtx/posts/pfbid02GnwNidZHnUSJ99f9ubvR22p27oCdPMXvETYQaHfqowYbr2CKpBj9ctUsE4Q45bLFl
The city of Kemah reported on Facebook that the elevated lanes of SH 146 opened southbound on Friday (March 8) and northbound today (March 12).
Quote from: Chris on March 12, 2024, 10:28:29 AM
https://www.facebook.com/cityofkemahtx/posts/pfbid02GnwNidZHnUSJ99f9ubvR22p27oCdPMXvETYQaHfqowYbr2CKpBj9ctUsE4Q45bLFl
The city of Kemah reported on Facebook that the elevated lanes of SH 146 opened southbound on Friday (March 8) and northbound today (March 12).
Thanks for the update. I'll go drive it soon, pending suitable weather (this weekend may not be suitable.)
Good to hear the project is pretty much complete. I still think they should extend the super highway farther South at least to Texas City, if not all the way down to I-45. Aside from just helping improve general traffic flow TX-146 could serve as an additional hurricane evacuation route. I-45 is currently the only road without stop lights going North of Galveston. TX-146 could work as a relief valve for I-45.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on November 23, 2023, 07:53:08 PM
Quote from: Chris on November 23, 2023, 05:39:18 PM
Almost all of the elevated freeway is built off center (to the west). I'm wondering if this is some kind of interim design to add another elevated highway next to it once the time comes to expand capacity to eight or more lanes?
It's the ultimate design, not an interim design. The freeway will end just to the south, south of SH 96. Construction work is just getting started south of SH 96, but it won't be a freeway.
The offset section is a former rail ROW that was converted to an easement for a major electric transmission line.
I drove the new freeway on Saturday. I think it's extremely clever how they were able to keep the old bridge and thoroughfare through Kemah while fitting in a freeway alongside it.
@MaxConcrete any chance this leads to work being done on the Red Bluff Freeway? Between Bayport, the need for hurricane evacuation, and Kemah's continuing growth, it seems like the time is ripe for reviving this project.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on March 18, 2024, 05:54:44 PM
@MaxConcrete any chance this leads to work being done on the Red Bluff Freeway? Between Bayport, the need for hurricane evacuation, and Kemah's continuing growth, it seems like the time is ripe for reviving this project.
The last I heard about Red Bluff road is that it was studied by HCTRA for toll feasibility but was rejected as being infeasible. Fairmont Parkway was also determined to be infeasible. That was probably at least 10 years ago.
The most recent long term H-GAC plan (http://2045rtp.com/documents/plan/Appendix-D-Fiscal-Constraint-and-Project-Listing-03-26-21.pdf) I can find does not list any improvements for Red Bluff Road south of Fairmont Parkway (which is the section in a frontage road configuration).
The last aerial drone view from January before it opened
And also a drive thru under the highway before it opened
And just now realized and surprised that none of the local news stations (NBC 2 KRPC, CBS 11 KHOU, ABC 13 KTRK, FOX 26, etc.) covered it..........at least not yet
https://i45.disciplemedia.com/posts/4121?sh=Fe386BdU&fbclid=IwAR0r1nciu8a2X861o75tIaQk2DjCrNvrzU_WscpsprZ2IAfCccBQ4qbcsW4
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 18, 2024, 03:37:21 PM
I drove the new freeway on Saturday. I think it's extremely clever how they were able to keep the old bridge and thoroughfare through Kemah while fitting in a freeway alongside it.
Yeah I just realized that they are keeping the old bridge as part of the "access road".
The opening ceremony was today and the contractor Webber posted photos on X. It looks like the the express lanes (or at least one side) was closed for the event. See the tweet for full size images X post (https://twitter.com/webberllc/status/1777743686257836259)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKvQdNWXoAAaapj?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKvQdLSW8AATg8D?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
They finally got a bypass of the stoplights in Kemah and The People's Republic of Seabrook, so I'm starting to feel confident that the Segment A missing link of the Grand Parkway will eventually be built.
Don't hold your breath. I highly doubt the Grand Parkway will ever be fully completed. Segments B and C might eventually be constructed, but Segment A is unviable and likely will have too many right-of-way acquisitions for construction to ever occur (not to mention the controversy of building that segment). If construction ever begins on Segment A, I will be shocked.
TxDot missed the boat on Segment A.
Oh well IMO.
What needs to be done is to just incorporate the Texas City spur (sorry IDK what designation / # it actually is) into the Grand Parkway.
How? Well, either cross 45 and use Highway 3 / Old Galveston Rd ROW OR have Section B terminate at 45 near the outlets / Buccee's and then have Grand Parkway piggy back on 45 for the 3 miles or so to the Texas City spur.
You can even grade separate it if they want to maybe IDK. But it make far more sense to do this IMO than to not complete the circle so to speak.
Believe me, the development will come. It's Houston. If you build the freeway, they will come.
Segment A doesn't have to be a traditional freeway, a stoplight-free superstreet would be sufficient and serve the purpose. Route it north on I-45 less than 2 miles and then east on hwy 96. Google Satellite tells the real story. Check the actual setbacks, the width is there except for a short choke point. Most of it close to 300'wide.
If one looks at the US90A superstreet in SW Houston, it fits within a 205-230' wide ROW at several intersections with 3x3 overpasses, all turn lanes, sidewalks, and grass buffers. The full pavement width at Gessner is about 175', at Fondren about 180', about 195' at Hillcroft, plus 10-20' per side for sidewalks with a grassy buffer. The 4x4 stretches in between have pavement widths as narrow as 120'.
The first 1.3 miles east of I-45 is the only real choke point. Probably only have to take 1 small business building at Link Road, plus a gas station and office building on the south side of the W. Walker intersection. Might can spare the building by simply removing the fronting parking and shift it to part of the powerline ROW behind it. The park fields could be shifted south some of the parking moved to adjacent unused areas of the powerline ROW. Put up a median barrier and convert the side street intersections to one way with u-turns under the Hwy 3 and W. Walker intersections. A bit of frontage property would be needed, but wouldn't take any homes. Maybe also take 2 businesses at Tree Bake Lane.
The remaining 5 miles of the corridor is wide enough already based on the deep setbacks. The existing bridges over the railroad are wide enough to be restriped for 3x3 (without shoulders, same as Hwy 90A) and room for feeder road bridges. At the very east end of 96 the ROW may be as narrow as 205', but may be like further west with required setbacks resulting in a wider available ROW. Of course the Google measuring tools may be slightly off, but not enough to make a difference.
Segment A is technically doable. Just a matter of political will and money.
I read eventually SH 146 will become a part of the long circular SH 99, but unlike the rest it will be free.
Quote from: DNAguy on April 12, 2024, 01:17:53 PMTxDot missed the boat on Segment A.
Oh well IMO.
What needs to be done is to just incorporate the Texas City spur (sorry IDK what designation / # it actually is) into the Grand Parkway.
How? Well, either cross 45 and use Highway 3 / Old Galveston Rd ROW OR have Section B terminate at 45 near the outlets / Buccee's and then have Grand Parkway piggy back on 45 for the 3 miles or so to the Texas City spur.
You can even grade separate it if they want to maybe IDK. But it make far more sense to do this IMO than to not complete the circle so to speak.
Believe me, the development will come. It's Houston. If you build the freeway, they will come.
I think this route (Orange) is the best way to go. Yes, some homes and small businesses would be in this path, but it's the least congested route vs. following 646 through the I-45 intersection or trying to follow 96 west of Dickinson Ave:
(https://i.ibb.co/XDFqfg0/IMG-2252.jpg) (https://ibb.co/MfPmy4w)