News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Grand Parkway H, I-1 and I-2

Started by TXtoNJ, August 25, 2016, 04:12:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sprjus4

Quote from: TXtoNJ on May 23, 2022, 10:18:39 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on May 20, 2022, 06:59:07 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2022, 12:40:44 AM
Any idea what the speed limit will be on the new section, in the interim with 2 lanes?

Despite Houston's general 65 mph limit on most roads, the newest portion of the Grand Parkway near I-69 North is posted at 75 mph. I imagine the new 4 lane portion will either be a default 70 mph (then raised later, similar to the recent US-183 situation in Austin) or immediately 75 mph, then the two lane portion 65 mph or 70 mph (though ideally 75 mph the whole way).

Quote from: TXtoNJ on May 18, 2022, 09:33:56 AM
My best guess would be 75 mph, since these will be in Montgomery, Liberty, and Chambers Counties. Harris County seems the most enthusiastic about maintaining the 65-70 limits.

The speed limit is signed at 70 mph until you get to south of FM 565/FM 2354 interchange where it drops back down to 65 mph.

Boo
Boo to the 70 mph part or 65 mph?

The entire new road is 70 mph. It drops to 65 mph south of I-10 tying into the existing parkway which was that slower speed.


Thegeet

Quote from: bwana39 on May 23, 2022, 12:09:05 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on May 23, 2022, 10:55:25 AM
I believe since these counties are assigned to the Houston District by TxDOT, they are 65/70 mph.


It isn't the TxDOT districts. It is the particular county and the individual county's (environmental) attainment zone rules. Harris county is still not waivered. All of the roads inside Harris County are 65 mph or less.  Montgomery and Chambers counties have waivers and have speeds up to 75 MPH (Like in North Texas). UP to, they can be set for less.

BTW. The intersection of FM 565 is in Chambers county which is in the Beaumont TxDOT District. The I-69 / Grand Parkway intersection is in Montgomery County which does belong to the Houston TxDOT district but is outside Harris County. .
Don't Montgomery and Chambers county belong to Beaumont district?

bwana39

Quote from: Thegeet on May 24, 2022, 09:24:56 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on May 23, 2022, 12:09:05 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on May 23, 2022, 10:55:25 AM
I believe since these counties are assigned to the Houston District by TxDOT, they are 65/70 mph.


It isn't the TxDOT districts. It is the particular county and the individual county's (environmental) attainment zone rules. Harris county is still not waivered. All of the roads inside Harris County are 65 mph or less.  Montgomery and Chambers counties have waivers and have speeds up to 75 MPH (Like in North Texas). UP to, they can be set for less.

BTW. The intersection of FM 565 is in Chambers county which is in the Beaumont TxDOT District. The I-69 / Grand Parkway intersection is in Montgomery County which does belong to the Houston TxDOT district but is outside Harris County. .
Don't Montgomery and Chambers county belong to Beaumont district?

Just Chambers.  Montgomery is in the Houston District.


https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/txdot/asset_collection/local_information/houston.png

Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

armadillo speedbump


TXtoNJ

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 23, 2022, 08:24:33 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on May 23, 2022, 10:18:39 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on May 20, 2022, 06:59:07 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2022, 12:40:44 AM
Any idea what the speed limit will be on the new section, in the interim with 2 lanes?

Despite Houston's general 65 mph limit on most roads, the newest portion of the Grand Parkway near I-69 North is posted at 75 mph. I imagine the new 4 lane portion will either be a default 70 mph (then raised later, similar to the recent US-183 situation in Austin) or immediately 75 mph, then the two lane portion 65 mph or 70 mph (though ideally 75 mph the whole way).

Quote from: TXtoNJ on May 18, 2022, 09:33:56 AM
My best guess would be 75 mph, since these will be in Montgomery, Liberty, and Chambers Counties. Harris County seems the most enthusiastic about maintaining the 65-70 limits.

The speed limit is signed at 70 mph until you get to south of FM 565/FM 2354 interchange where it drops back down to 65 mph.

Boo
Boo to the 70 mph part or 65 mph?

The entire new road is 70 mph. It drops to 65 mph south of I-10 tying into the existing parkway which was that slower speed.

It's sparse enough out there to warrant 75

sprjus4

^ Agreed, however at least 70 mph is better than 65 mph.

Perhaps it will be increased to 75 mph in the next couple of years - remember 70 mph is the default limit that applies once a new facility is constructed.

thisdj78

I know this is about another segment, but I was on the stretch from 290 to I-69N yesterday around 3-3:30 and couldn't believe how packed it was. Seems like it should have been built as a 6 lane vs 4 lane. I see expansions already needed in the very near future.

sprjus4

^ All of the Grand Parkway should've been built with at least 6 lanes to begin with, at least west of I-69.

East of I-69, 4 lanes would be sufficient, but designed to be easily widened to 6 lanes in the future.

MaxConcrete

#58
The Houston Chronicle published an article about efforts to get the eastern part of section B built. Section B runs from the Gulf Freeway westward to SH 288 (see map below). Local officials are trying to expedite the section from the Gulf Freeway to southwest of Alvin.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/The-next-segments-of-the-Grand-Parkway-are-taking-17500080.php

The article says nothing about section A (between the Gulf Freeway and SH 146) and section C, from SH 288 to IH-69 (Southwest Freeway). My perceptions is that little or nothing is happening for section A. Section C is being handled by the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority, which is moving very slowly on the project and is still trying to define the exact alignment.

Quote
After a long wait, and some uncertainty as Texas lawmakers pivoted from tolls, elected leaders from Kemah to Pearland are pulling together to say it is time for the tollway to come their way.

"I think more than anything people want to know that it is actually going to happen,"  said State Rep. Ed Thompson, the Pearland Republican who represents much of the area where the next tollway segment will go.

Officials have continued to press state officials to keep the segment west of Interstate 45 toward Texas 288 a priority.

Work between League City and Alvin on $231.5 million of tollway could start within five years, according to the region's 10-year plan. That could be followed, eventually, by another 20 miles or so to Texas 288, at a projected cost of $691 million.

Southern segments, with the exception of Segment A east of I-45, already have state and federal clearance for their routes. As drawn, the tollway would move west from FM 646 at I-45 through mostly undeveloped land between League City Parkway and FM 517. Northeast of Alvin, the tollway would have a new interchange with Texas 35, which was built as a bypass to downtown Alvin with a freeway eventually in the center.

Instead of a freeway, however, residents will get the tollway, at least for about 10 miles until the Grand Parkway heads west from north of Liverpool, a tiny town of barely 500 in central Brazoria County that, like Alvin, only became a spot on the map when the railroad decided to stop there.

www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

thisdj78

Quote from: MaxConcrete on October 21, 2022, 10:09:48 AM
The Houston Chronicle published an article about efforts to get the eastern part of section B built. Section B runs from the Gulf Freeway westward to SH 288 (see map below). Local officials are trying to expedite the section from the Gulf Freeway to southwest of Alvin.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/The-next-segments-of-the-Grand-Parkway-are-taking-17500080.php

The article says nothing about section A (between the Gulf Freeway and SH 146) and section C, from SH 288 to IH-69 (Southwest Freeway). My perceptions is that little or nothing is happening for section A. Section C is being handled by the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority, which is moving very slow on the project and is still trying to define the exact alignment.

Quote
After a long wait, and some uncertainty as Texas lawmakers pivoted from tolls, elected leaders from Kemah to Pearland are pulling together to say it is time for the tollway to come their way.

"I think more than anything people want to know that it is actually going to happen,"  said State Rep. Ed Thompson, the Pearland Republican who represents much of the area where the next tollway segment will go.

Officials have continued to press state officials to keep the segment west of Interstate 45 toward Texas 288 a priority.

Work between League City and Alvin on $231.5 million of tollway could start within five years, according to the region's 10-year plan. That could be followed, eventually, by another 20 miles or so to Texas 288, at a projected cost of $691 million.

Southern segments, with the exception of Segment A east of I-45, already have state and federal clearance for their routes. As drawn, the tollway would move west from FM 646 at I-45 through mostly undeveloped land between League City Parkway and FM 517. Northeast of Alvin, the tollway would have a new interchange with Texas 35, which was built as a bypass to downtown Alvin with a freeway eventually in the center.

Instead of a freeway, however, residents will get the tollway, at least for about 10 miles until the Grand Parkway heads west from north of Liverpool, a tiny town of barely 500 in central Brazoria County that, like Alvin, only became a spot on the map when the railroad decided to stop there.



Thanks! I was running into a paywall when I saw this earlier. I'm really curious how they will build the Grand Parkway intersection at 646/I-45 and even more so, extended east to 146. There's a lot of development at that intersection.

Plutonic Panda

I know this triggers a lot of people and is a bad word in the states but they ought to at least leave enough room for dare I say tunnel at the eastern of section a. One day it might be a project worth looking at.

thisdj78

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 21, 2022, 05:23:40 PM
I know this triggers a lot of people and is a bad word in the states but they ought to at least leave enough room for dare I say tunnel at the eastern of section a. One day it might be a project worth looking at.

It would have to be a long tunnel, quite a bit of development in that section. The only other option would be to shift the alignment south of Dickinson.

Have there been any detailed schematics for Section A?

skluth

Quote from: thisdj78 on October 21, 2022, 06:35:30 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 21, 2022, 05:23:40 PM
I know this triggers a lot of people and is a bad word in the states but they ought to at least leave enough room for dare I say tunnel at the eastern of section a. One day it might be a project worth looking at.

It would have to be a long tunnel, quite a bit of development in that section. The only other option would be to shift the alignment south of Dickinson.

Have there been any detailed schematics for Section A?

Most of Galveston Bay and Trinity Bay are quite shallow. A bridge-tunnel like those around Tidewater would be possible. Only the shipping channel (500' or so, plus approaches) would need a tunnel. TXDOT would just have to make sure to keep them watertight during hurricanes.

thisdj78

Quote from: skluth on October 21, 2022, 06:50:51 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 21, 2022, 06:35:30 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 21, 2022, 05:23:40 PM
I know this triggers a lot of people and is a bad word in the states but they ought to at least leave enough room for dare I say tunnel at the eastern of section a. One day it might be a project worth looking at.

It would have to be a long tunnel, quite a bit of development in that section. The only other option would be to shift the alignment south of Dickinson.

Have there been any detailed schematics for Section A?

Most of Galveston Bay and Trinity Bay are quite shallow. A bridge-tunnel like those around Tidewater would be possible. Only the shipping channel (500' or so, plus approaches) would need a tunnel. TXDOT would just have to make sure to keep them watertight during hurricanes.

Ah ok, I misunderstood, I thought they meant a tunnel for section A between I-45 and 146. Yes a tunnel from Bacliff to Beach City would make sense, if not for anything another evacuation route.

Bobby5280

Section A of the Grand Parkway is going to be increasingly difficult and costly to build the longer they wait. I can't tell for certain which highway corridor Section A would expand. Are they looking at the TX-96 corridor or FM-646? Or are they (somehow) going to build a new terrain route?

It's likely much of Section A would have to be built as an elevated structure, especially if it follows an existing highway corridor. But I would expect a lot of local outcry against proposals to build an elevated highway structure over an arterial like League City Parkway (TX-96). But that's what they're having to do with the TX-146 freeway upgrade going through Kemah.

MaxConcrete

#65
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 21, 2022, 07:17:41 PM
Section A of the Grand Parkway is going to be increasingly difficult and costly to build the longer they wait. I can't tell for certain which highway corridor Section A would expand. Are they looking at the TX-96 corridor or FM-646? Or are they (somehow) going to build a new terrain route?

There was recently a public meeting about the plan for FM 646. The plan does not include the Grand Parkway, so I think we can rule out that option for the Grand Parkway, which is unfortunate because it was the most logical option.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/houston/fm-646-edmund-way-fm-3436.html

As for SH 96, the right-of-way is narrow but the last time I surveyed the corridor I concluded it was still possible to put the Grand Parkway in that corridor. However, that corridor is close to numerous residential areas, so it will face resistance.

Based on the lack of effort to preserve a corridor for segment A, I don't think Segment A will ever be built. I hope I'm wrong, but with each passing year it becomes more difficult, and eventually it will be impossible.
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

Bobby5280

Maybe they just need to shift Grand Parkway segments A and B farther South.

Actually it would make sense to do so. Segment B is already proposed to dip well South and West of Alvin. The general area around the FM-517 corridor has considerably less development than FM-646. I think TX-146 should be upgraded to Interstate quality all the way down thru Texas City to the complex junction with I-45 and TX-6. Such a thing would give Segment A a few different possible options for being built.

Segment A could start a little way South of the FM-646/TX-146 intersection and swoop Southwest to cross I-45 just North of the Tangier Outlet complex. From there Segment B could shoot due West to Alvin.

bwana39

#67
Quote from: skluth on October 21, 2022, 06:50:51 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 21, 2022, 06:35:30 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 21, 2022, 05:23:40 PM
I know this triggers a lot of people and is a bad word in the states but they ought to at least leave enough room for dare I say tunnel at the eastern of section a. One day it might be a project worth looking at.

It would have to be a long tunnel, quite a bit of development in that section. The only other option would be to shift the alignment south of Dickinson.

Have there been any detailed schematics for Section A?

Most of Galveston Bay and Trinity Bay are quite shallow. A bridge-tunnel like those around Tidewater would be possible. Only the shipping channel (500' or so, plus approaches) would need a tunnel. TXDOT would just have to make sure to keep them watertight during hurricanes.


That is to assume the area over south of Annuac on the east side of Trinity Bay has development potential. Itis mostly marsh and low lying areas. It isn't even viable beach / waterfront property.

As to a tunnel. There were two tunnels under the ship channel (the Washburn Tunnel is still operational) Flooding while a concern, never has been a real problem.  Drafting it deep enough for maritime traffic is a bigger problem.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

thisdj78

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 21, 2022, 07:17:41 PM
Section A of the Grand Parkway is going to be increasingly difficult and costly to build the longer they wait. I can't tell for certain which highway corridor Section A would expand. Are they looking at the TX-96 corridor or FM-646? Or are they (somehow) going to build a new terrain route?

It's likely much of Section A would have to be built as an elevated structure, especially if it follows an existing highway corridor. But I would expect a lot of local outcry against proposals to build an elevated highway structure over an arterial like League City Parkway (TX-96). But that's what they're having to do with the TX-146 freeway upgrade going through Kemah.

Originally, it was planned to be built along FM646 from I-45 to SH146 but this link below shows a much wider area being considered:

https://www.txdot.gov/content/txdotreimagine/us/en/home/projects/projects-studies/houston/sh99-grand-parkway/overview/segment-a.html

nolia_boi504

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 21, 2022, 09:10:46 PM
Maybe they just need to shift Grand Parkway segments A and B farther South.

Actually it would make sense to do so. Segment B is already proposed to dip well South and West of Alvin. The general area around the FM-517 corridor has considerably less development than FM-646. I think TX-146 should be upgraded to Interstate quality all the way down thru Texas City to the complex junction with I-45 and TX-6. Such a thing would give Segment A a few different possible options for being built.

Segment A could start a little way South of the FM-646/TX-146 intersection and swoop Southwest to cross I-45 just North of the Tangier Outlet complex. From there Segment B could shoot due West to Alvin.

As a resident of the Katy area, i would love for Segment A and the eastern part of B to be shifted south. It would make a lot more sense for us to use it to get to/from Galveston (relieving I-45 significantly), not to mention a better hurricane evac route.

I'd imagine shifting south would be highly unfavorable for Alvin, but I think it makes more sense to connect/overlay HWY 6 near the I-45 junction, and continue the loop north overlaying SH-146 connecting to I-2 in Baytown.

armadillo speedbump

#70
Moving the GP further south is a bad idea, for multiple reasons.  More out of the way for most of the demand, but more importantly that would hasten development in areas more vulnerable to storm surge.  Which is why the way out of the way dip down to Liverpool is stupid, pretty much everything on the southeast side of Hwy 35 is in a Cat 4 storm surge zone, most of that Cat 3 or less.

https://www.bls.gov/cew/publications/hurricane-flood-zones-maps/maps/texas/brazoria-county.pdf

(Just a link, I couldn't get the image to load.)

Last I checked the Ike Dike is still not guaranteed to be built.  (Basically a sea wall with gates from around Freeport to maybe Port Arthur.  Hugely expensive but a very good idea, since the foolish overdevelopment in the surge zone of both housing and industry would be an insurance disaster if a Cat.5 surge hits Houston.  Nearly every industry all the way up to well into the ship channel would be damaged.  Funnel effect could raise the surge up the channel higher than for other areas of the coast.)



(Note that the evac zones on the left map go beyond the at risk elevations.  I'm guessing that might have to do with inland flooding from creeks and sewers that would back up from being unable to drain because of the surge downstream.  Just a guess, but the map on the right of elevations better conforms to the separate storm surge risk maps.)

Galveston County loves the tax base, hence the development approvals, but will want the rest of the country to bail them out when their irresponsible developments floods.  The rest of the state already partially subsidizes the Houston area insurance rates, thanks to Houston politicians.  But the county will side with the NIMBY's on blocking segment A, inconveniencing Brazoria and Harris County residents that need to travel through that corridor.

As for a very long, very expensive, and very unneeded tunnel under Galveston Bay, as already noted, the marshy lowlands east of the bay and south of I-10 are not needed for housing or industry and are some of the worst areas for development.  Almost all storm surge prone, and even if the Ike Dyke is built will always be flood prone.  Not that long ago I-10 was even impassable for a few days from heavy flooding.  The whole area is flat and at risk.  Far better for natural habitat and agriculture.  There is no need for housing or industry there, Baytown and the ship channel can be served by higher areas north of I-10 (though east of the Trinity is still a problem area.)  Jobs on the west side of the bay can be served by the above surge areas of Brazoria and Ft. Bend counties, there is plenty of undeveloped land left.

Any tunnel or bridge would be best on the much shorter route from Galveston to the Bolivar Peninsula that the ferries run, though I bet the traffic level doesn't justify such a bridge or tunnel.  As we saw with Ike, the Bolivar Peninsula is an incredibly stupid place to build a home (other than as a vacation home or a rental), but some wealthy people still like to do that, especially since the US Congress decades ago required the rest of us to subsidize beachfront housing.  No coincidence that many Congressmen at the time owned second homes on coastal beaches.

But this is Texas, where taking the donations of developers and financers usually outweighs responsible planning.  Bipartisan foolishness.

Getting back to the GP, it's time to move segment B forward, a large subdivision is already under construction in the wide swath east of Alvin that remained open for so long until this year.  And big, dense subdivisions have moved south along 288 to within 3 miles of the planned GP route.  So 5-15 years from now the traffic demand will probably be there for most of segment B.  I'd bet Ft. Bend starts filling in on the south side of the Brazos within 10 years, too.



thisdj78

Quote from: thisdj78 on October 14, 2022, 10:56:53 AM
I know this is about another segment, but I was on the stretch from 290 to I-69N yesterday around 3-3:30 and couldn't believe how packed it was. Seems like it should have been built as a 6 lane vs 4 lane. I see expansions already needed in the very near future.

Well, what do you know!

https://communityimpact.com/houston/spring-klein/transportation/2022/11/22/increasing-traffic-drives-grand-parkway-widening-in-spring-area/

dariusb

Quote from: thisdj78 on October 14, 2022, 10:56:53 AM
I know this is about another segment, but I was on the stretch from 290 to I-69N yesterday around 3-3:30 and couldn't believe how packed it was. Seems like it should have been built as a 6 lane vs 4 lane. I see expansions already needed in the very near future.
It seems like it would make more sense and save a lot of money if they'd build enough lanes the first time so they won't have to disrupt traffic and tear roads up in the future.
It's a new day for a new beginning.

Chris

https://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html

The traffic volume data (for 2021) shows 40,000 - 50,000 vehicles per day between US 290 and SH 249 and 62,000 - 64,000 between SH 249 and I-45.

MaxConcrete

#74
Bids were opened yesterday to widen the original section of the Grand Parkway (opened in the 1990s) to 3x3 with auxiliary lanes. The widening is from I-10 (Katy Freeway) to the Westpark Tollway. New connector ramps are under construction at the Westpark Tollway.

I think TxDOT should have widened this section to 4x4, but any expansion is way overdue so it's good something is being done. This is the first large project in a while to be under estimate. A job in San Antonio was also under estimate http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/01063237.htm

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/01053001.htm
County:   FORT BEND   Let Date:   01/05/23
Type:   ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM   Seq No:   3001
Time:   780 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   STP 2022(936)MM
Highway:   SH 99   Contract #:   01233001
Length:   7.306   CCSJ:   3510-04-019
Limits:   
From:   FORT BEND COUNTY LINE   Check:   $100,000
To:   IH 10   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $102,182,803.45   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $90,916,059.57   -11.03%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 2   $94,736,075.85   -7.29%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Bidder 3   $96,222,637.24   -5.83%   MAIN LANE INDUSTRIES LTD.
Bidder 4   $99,492,208.88   -2.63%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 5   $104,431,315.55   +2.20%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 6   $107,999,999.97   +5.69%   GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Bidder 7   $108,127,332.27   +5.82%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.