Far west Houston: Alternatives Revealed for Future 36A freeway

[MaxConcrete]

Public meeting was held today.

This is a new freeway along the west and southwest side of exurban Houston. This project has a planning failure similar to US 380 in Collin County (north Dallas): TxDOT waited too long to define a route, and due to development it will be difficult to get a freeway through. TxDOT needs to move fast to preserve a corridor, and the schedule shows a ROD in summer of 2028.

Observations

• The cross section shows a 450-foot-wide (137m) corridor. That's good news. But if they decide on an eastern route, they'll probably need to slim the corridor in certain areas to minimize displacements.
• The cross section view says "intermittent frontage roads will be constructed by others". This is unusual. I don't think I've ever seen this policy statement on a freeway. Or, this could be a clue that TxDOT expects it to be a toll road, although TxDOT is generally administratively prohibited from building newly-designated toll roads.
• Alternatives range from mostly direct to horribly indirect (Alt 3).
• For all alternatives there are only two crossing points at I-10: Woods Road east of Brookshire, and just west of Brookshire where there is a wide median. This project will interface with a separate project north of I-10, so TxDOT appears to have decided on two possible alignments at I-10. While Woods Road is more developed around I-10, following the Woods Road corridor directly north of I-10 is totally clear of development for a very long distance, which suggests Woods Road may have an advantage for interfacing to the north project.
• Alt 1 looks the best for directness and efficiency, but it goes through residential areas near FM 1093 (which is the Westpark Tollway) and near the center of Fulshear. I think this will face serious opposition, and be more expensive. The Brazos River crossing looks like it will need a sharp curve to get a right-angle crossing.
• Alt 3 and Alt 7 also go through Fulshear, so they have the same problems as Alt 1 and are likely non-starters.
• Alts 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 appear to be the feasible. The I-10 crossing point will be a major deciding factor, with 2 and 4 west of Brookshire, and 5, 6, 8 at Woods Road east of Brookshire.
• It's possible new routes or variations will be developed in the next phase of the environmental process.

Link to full size


Link to full size


Llnk to full size


Llnk to full size


Link to full size


Llink to full size

[Chris]

Is this the southern section of the Prairie Parkway?

[MaxConcrete]

Is this the southern section of the Prairie Parkway?

Generally speaking, yes.

However, I believe the Prairie Parkway was discussed to be between I-10 (around Brookshire) and US 290 (around Hempstead), and I'm not aware that there was any discussion of extending it south of I-10.

I also don't know if the Prairie Parkway name is still being used. I think it is not used, but we'll find out when there is a public meeting for the north section. Environmentalists have opposed the route because it crosses through the Katy Prairie, and using the word "prairie" might be bad for marketing.

I seem to remember, maybe around 20 years ago, that there was consideration of extending the Westpark Tollway along FM 359 from Fulshear to Brookshire. That idea was rejected, and there was no public meeting, if my memory is correct. (I was not living in Houston at that time.)

[Stephane Dumas]

I wonder if TXDOT might transfer TX-36A/Prairie Parkway to FBCTRA to speed the development of this project?

[MaxConcrete]

I wonder if TXDOT might transfer TX-36A/Prairie Parkway to FBCTRA to speed the development of this project?

FBCTRA already has more projects on its planning list than it can handle. I don't think FBCTRA has the financial strength to issue the bonds needed for their existing plans

1. Extension and possible expansion of the Westpark Tollway.
2. Extension of the Fort Bend Parkway over the Brazos River to SH 36
3. Construction of the Grand Parkway between I-69 and SH 288 (segment C), which will probably cost around $2 billion.

Realistically, I think TxDOT needs to take control the Grand Parkway in Fort Bend County so FBCTRA can focus on the Fort Bend Parkway and Westpark Tollway.

As for 36A, it will be expensive and TxDOT won't have the money to build it any time soon. For now, the alignment need to be identified and right-of-way needs to be purchased.

[MaxConcrete]

TxDOT has scheduled meetings to reveal the preliminary possible alignments for 36A North, which is between I-10 (Katy Freeway) and US 290. The corridor was formerly called the Prairie Parkway.

36A North will connect to the 36A South corridor which was the subject of the 2025 meeting. There are two possible connection points with 36A South: at Woods Road and West of Brookshire. I'm not aware of elimination of alternatives for 36A south, which could fix the 36A North connection point. Perhaps we'll get some more info about 36A South at the 36A North meeting.

A big complication is the Katy Prairie Preserve, which is in an area of undeveloped land (and otherwise ideal for an alignment). The announcement says alignment options will "[avoid] the primary land holdings of the Coastal Prairie Conservancy to the greatest extent practicable".

Unfortunately this may mean a curving, swerving alignment, unless they select the western option for 36A South. Even a western option may require curving and swerving to avoid displacements.

[CoreySamson]

I'm curious as to why TxDOT is not using the Spur 10 corridor as part of this project. Seems like a waste to build another freeway right beside an existing corridor that isn't overloaded with traffic if they choose alternative 1.

Out of the alternatives proposed, I like 2, 5, and 6 best, in that order. Needville is in the early stages of rapid growth, so a southern bypass will be well warranted.

[MaxConcrete]

I'm curious as to why TxDOT is not using the Spur 10 corridor as part of this project. Seems like a waste to build another freeway right beside an existing corridor that isn't overloaded with traffic if they choose alternative 1.

Out of the alternatives proposed, I like 2, 5, and 6 best, in that order. Needville is in the early stages of rapid growth, so a southern bypass will be well warranted.

The Fort Bend Parkway toll road is planned to terminate at Spur 10 and SH 36. You can see it in the Fort Bend County Thoroughfare Plan (select thoroughfare plan layer). SH 36 has a new overpass at this location. Spur 10 to the northwest is already upgraded to a 4-lane divided. So apparently they decided they don't want a freeway or tollway on Spur 10, in spite of the fact that it would be a continuation of the Fort Bend Parkway.

Maybe they decided it would just be easier to build 36A farther west in less developed areas.

[Scott5114]

Where did this "36A" designation come from?

[CoreySamson]

Where did this "36A" designation come from?

It's not without precedent in Texas. TX 183A in the Austin area exists as a limited-access alternative to US 183, just as this will provide a limited-access alternative to TX 36. Besides, this is Texas! You know they love their suffixes.

I'm curious as to why TxDOT is not using the Spur 10 corridor as part of this project. Seems like a waste to build another freeway right beside an existing corridor that isn't overloaded with traffic if they choose alternative 1.

Out of the alternatives proposed, I like 2, 5, and 6 best, in that order. Needville is in the early stages of rapid growth, so a southern bypass will be well warranted.

The Fort Bend Parkway toll road is planned to terminate at Spur 10 and SH 36.

Ah, interesting! But 36/10 does not seem like a good permanent terminus for it. If I were in charge, I would try to find a way to connect the Fort Bend Parkway with I-69 near Beasley, maybe utilizing the 36A corridor. That way, it could provide the route with some usefulness as an alternate for I-69 traffic.

Speaking of Spur 10 and SH 36, that interchange looked just about ready to open when I drove by yesterday. Much of the other upgrades on SH 36 in the area also opened in the past month or so.

[hurricanehink]

Gotta start planning Houston's next beltway somewhere

[MaxConcrete]

The public meeting for the 36A North preliminary alignments is today.

Observations

• Two crossing points at I-10 are shown, east and west of Brookshire. These points coincide with the 36A South alternative crossing points. This indicates a decision has not been made for 36A South. The two studies (36A North and 36A South) are interdependent, and the selected alignments will need to be made together.
• The preferred alternative will be announced in 2028.
• The right-of-way shown in the presentation is 450 feet wide, the same as 36A south.

PDF alternatives map

Alternatives 1 and 3 look the best for straight, efficient alignments, but they both require the I-10 intersection west of Brookshire. A combination of Alt 5 (south of FM 529) and Alt 3 (north of FM 529) would be a good option for the I-10 intersection east of Brookshire. Alts 2, 4 and 5 have some nasty swerving.

Full size map

[MaxConcrete]

The next public meeting meeting for 36A South is scheduled for August 18.

The meeting announcement reveals that options 4, 8A and 9 are still being studied, with 9 a new option.

As expected, the three eastern alignments (1,3,7) are eliminated. The three middle alignments (2,5,6) are also eliminated. I'm disappointed to see Alt 2 eliminated, since it is the most direct and least curving.

That leaves the westernmost alignments (4, 8). Alt 4 intersects I-10 west of Brookshire, and Alt 8 is east of Brookshire. This suggests there is not yet a decision about going east or west of Brookshire, but the 8A designation suggests it is modified from the original.

That leaves Alt 9. The announcement says

Reasonable Alternative 4 would require approximately 3,091 acres of proposed right of way (ROW) and would potentially displace 23 residences and 2 non-residential structures. Reasonable Alternative 8A would require approximately 2,659 acres of proposed ROW and would potentially displace 36 residences and 6 non-residential structures. Reasonable Alternative 9 would require approximately 1,295 acres of proposed ROW and would potentially displace 25 residences and 8 non-residential structures.

Alt 9 requires drastically less right-of-way than Alts 4 and 8A - only 42% as much as Alt 4 and 49% as much as 8A. Assuming it's not a typo, I don't know how this is possible. The announcement says the corridor is 41 miles and doesn't suggest Alt 9 is shorter. That leaves 2 options: it is following established corridors and piggybacks on existing right-of-way, or the corridor width has been drastically narrowed from the 450 feet shown at the previous meeting. Both are probably necessary to cut the ROW in half.

For Alt 9, there could also be inclusion of the Fort Bend Parkway into the project. The Fort Bend Parkway terminates at SH 36 and Gerken Road. Maybe Alt 9 starts at that point, uses the ROW for Spur 10 and then passes next to the planned 2000 acre Mainline Texas Industrial Park, subsuming Spur 10. I'm sure the industrial park would like the freeway.

I think the risk of a bad outcome - a swerving, indirect alignment or a narrow corridor - has become very high.  We'll find out on August 18.

Here are the alignments from the previous meeting


Mainline Industrial Park

[MaxConcrete]

The mystery about Alternative 9 is solved. I received a meeting announcement in the mail with a map of the alternatives.

• Alt 9 is exactly as I speculated in the previous post. The only surprise is that it goes straight through the middle of Needville, rather than bypassing it. It seems like it will be politically difficult to get a freeway through Needville. It's possible the section south of Spur 10 will not be a freeway. Construction is currently in progress to upgrade SH 36 to a four-lane-divided between Needville and Spur 10.
• Alt 9 connects into the Fort Bend Parkway. Just today, Tesla announced intentions (pending tax abatements) to construct a $10 billion factory at FBP and the Grand Parkway.
• The crossing point at I-10 is decided, and it is the east crossing. This crossing is next to the large new Tesla battery pack factory.
• 8A is also a good alignment. Realistically I think both 9 and 8A will be needed in the future, but there's surely not enough money for both.
• All alignments appear to cross the Brazos along FM 1489.

I think Alt 9 is surely the expected winner with its connection to the FBP and Tesla. The main question in my mind is if the corridor width of Alt 9 is compromised, and if the freeway is eliminated or has low standards in Needville.

Full size

[CoreySamson]

It's already difficult enough trying to expand TX 36 to four lanes through Needville. The ROW is not there for a freeway, as you can see in this photo I took 3 days ago of TX 36 through Needville:


Perhaps an eastern bypass of Needville could work if alternative 9 becomes the main thing. I noticed while I was driving through that there was a VMS advertising the meeting about 36A that was mentioned last week:

[MaxConcrete]

On July 29 I mentioned that the right-of-way requirement for Alt 9 is drastically lower than the other two alternatives. The public meeting revealed the design of Alt 9. It's ridiculous! For about 14 miles it requires negligible new right-of-way and places the main lanes on an elevated structure above existing roads. This makes no sense at all to me, because most of the land (outside Needville) along the Alt 9 corridor is vacant land.

Of course this design makes Alt 9 is the most expensive option
Alt 4: $3.79 billion
Alt 8A: $3.71 billion
Alt 9: $4.95 billion

In my view, they have poison-pilled Alt 9 to ensure it won't be selected. This is a shame, because the alignment has substantial benefits with its connection to the end of the Fort Bend Parkway. But 8A is a decent alignment and it should be the selected option.

I'm inclined to go to the in-person public meeting next week ask the project manager about the rationale for the ridiculous elevated structure.

Full size

[CoreySamson]

Yeah, let's just slap a freeway on top (literally on top) of the existing route through a town of 3000 people rather than going around it. What the heck were they thinking?

[Henry]

Full size

From the looks of it, I think 8A would be my preferred choice. In addition to going through Needville, 9 looks very out-of-the-way as it follows the same meandering path as the existing surface road. TX 36 can be upgraded to 4 lanes, but putting a freeway on top is overkill, even with all the vacant land outside the town.