Print

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

[MaxConcrete]

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



This view shows some of the properties to be displaced at NASA 1.



This view shows the planned design to squeeze in the main lanes where the right-of-way is especially narrow (184 feet).

[TXtoNJ]

Wouldn't this technically be a sort of Grand Parkway project?

[Bobby5280]

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.

[MaxConcrete]

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

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

[MaxConcrete]

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/

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

[MaxConcrete]

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


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.

[Chris]

A groundbreaking ceremony was held today:

[MaxConcrete]

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.

[bwana39]

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.

[Bobby5280]

Some of the construction work is visible on Google Street View.

[rte66man]

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.

[bwana39]

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.

[aboges26]

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.

[bluecountry]

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.

[bwana39]

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.

[bluecountry]

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?

[MaxConcrete]

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)


http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20201220_025-1600.jpg South side of project


http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20201220_033-1600.jpg North of the channel bridge

[Anthony_JK]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[MaxConcrete]

The construction contractor posted a video of concrete paving on the bridge deck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHqmuhLFgMI&t=114s

[achilles765]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[thisdj78]

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

[Plutonic Panda]

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.