[ENGcons]

Got a certified letter in the mail from the Grand Parkway People. It was a flier talking about the public hearing on July 11th. It had a map on the flier but it looks as if the path for section F-2 has not changed at all. And according to the flier the northern route through montgomery county was not studied due to the lack of need.
Looks like the residents of Spring are going to get screwed. Estimated time for construction to begin on F-2 is 2009.

[mrfootball]

Forgive my lack of knowledge about the ongoing issues with the proposed Grand Pkwy, but which neighborhoods are going to be affected by this? And how are they getting screwed?

[adagio]

mrfootball, on Monday, June 19th, 2006 @ 12:37pm, said:

Forgive my lack of knowledge about the ongoing issues with the proposed Grand Pkwy, but which neighborhoods are going to be affected by this? And how are they getting screwed?

It's okay Mr. Football, many residents that will be impacted by the F2 preferred alignment still do not realize the full impact of the alignment. The Grand Parkway Segment F2 is not a rural highway as stated in the past DEIS. The roadway will be more like Beltway 8 or Hardy Tollroad (Tx Dot is planning on high volume for this segment - The Grand Parkway Association will be using toll revenue from F2 to build more roadways)

Going from East to West the preferred alignment of F2 will impact the following neighborhoods and schools.
From I 45 the Grand Parkway will run next to the railroad track (which will be relocated in sections to accomodate the highway). The Grand Parkway will pass directly behind Forest Ridge and Forest North subdivisions. It will go through the middle of Mossy Oaks and Fox Hollow subdivisons (not to worry say Grand Parkway officials - they will elevate the roadway in those neighborhoods). It will go through the middle of Hyde's Crossing and cross over Gosling (once again elevated). It will then pass within less than a mile from Northampton Pines and Northampton subdivision. The Grand Parkway will pass within 1000 feet from Klein Oak High School (elevated) - and be located under a mile from Hildebrandt Intermediate and Northampton Elementary School.

The highway will then cross Kuykendahl Road and pass right next to Spring Terrace. It will go through the back end of the Klein ISD property that Krimmel Intermediate school is currently being built upon. (It will also be less than a mile from Benignus Elementary School - which is at the entrance of Windrose subdivision.

The Grand Parkway will be located next to Willow Trace, Pinewood Place, Inverness Estates, Glen Hollow, Sugar Berry Place Cottage Gardens, and Gleannloch Farms. As it passes by Gleannloch Farms, it will be located under a mile from Frank Elementary School which is due to open August 2008. It will then pass next to Northern Point, Willow Falls, Three Lakes, and Pinecrest. As it passes these subdivions, it will be under a mile from Kohrville Elementary School.

Many of the neigborhoods that I have cited above have houses built right up to where the alignment has been marked. While many residents would appreciate having accessibility, I am personally not sure how many want to live right next to a freeway with the noise, light, air pollution, and flooding issues that accompany such a project.


The information I am giving you is on http://www.grandpky.com/home/ in the segment section. You can also access the revised DEIS from this website. I am pretty sure there are other subdivisions that are going to be impacted because I continue to see new development spring up as I drive both FM 2920 and Boudreaux Road - The map for the F2 segment of the Grand Parkway needs to be updated.

I hope this gives you some insight into what is happening in this part of Spring.

[Subdude]

Quote

It will go through the middle of Mossy Oaks and Fox Hollow subdivisons (not to worry say Grand Parkway officials - they will elevate the roadway in those neighborhoods). It will go through the middle of Hyde's Crossing and cross over Gosling (once again elevated). It will then pass within less than a mile from Northampton Pines and Northampton subdivision. The Grand Parkway will pass within 1000 feet from Klein Oak High School (elevated) - and be located under a mile from Hildebrandt Intermediate and Northampton Elementary School.

Good grief. If they have to build this thing, can't they at least depress it instead of building elevated sections? Don't we ever learn? Nothing like building giant, noisy walls right through the middle of residential areas.

[ENGcons]

Does the GP come off 249 heading east right ontop of the now existing Boudreax road, or a few yards south of Boudreax road like the original design? The new map on the flier is very misleading as I think is the intent.

And in the Gleannloch Farms edition where you state it passes less than a mile from Frank ES, it is more like it passes about 500 to 1000 yards from it.

This post has been edited by ENGcons: Monday, June 19, 2006 at 3:05 PM

[adagio]

ENGcons, on Monday, June 19th, 2006 @ 3:02pm, said:

Does the GP come off 249 heading east right ontop of the now existing Boudreax road, or a few yards south of Boudreax road like the original design? The new map on the flier is very misleading as I think is the intent.

And in the Gleannloch Farms edition where you state it passes less than a mile from Frank ES, it is more like it passes about 500 to 1000 yards from it.

You are correct on both accounts. The map shown on the website does not have a scale of miles, nor does it show all the development that has gone on in the last six months. I do not think Frank Elementary is even shown on the map.

The map in the flier is completely useless.

[TheNiche]

adagio, on Monday, June 19th, 2006 @ 2:27pm, said:

Tx Dot is planning on high volume for this segment

So there's demand for the roadway, then?

Seems like relatively few residents (in the grand scheme) will be adversely impacted...even as everyone in a very broad area gets to enjoy the use of the facility.

[pineda]

Yes, there's demand for the roadway. Problem is, the demand is coming from the Woodlands area. However, for some reason, even though they want it built, they don't want it "in their backyards".

[bachanon]

i sent a link about this current information to friends who have a home in windrose. their response was positive. they say they will be happy to have easier access to 249/290 and I-45. it isn't just the woodlands that will benefit.

[ENGcons]

bachanon, on Monday, June 19th, 2006 @ 6:59pm, said:

i sent a link about this current information to friends who have a home in windrose. their response was positive. they say they will be happy to have easier access to 249/290 and I-45. it isn't just the woodlands that will benefit.

These people are happy because they won't lose their property for the addition of a road that is not intended for the residents, but intended as a bypass around Houston proper. It will be a heavy traffic road for traffic traveling along the future I-69 corridor. This is not intended for the locals to gain access to I-45, or FM 249. The people building this road could care less about the residents, which is beconing more obvious as this project moves forward.

[TJones]

I drove down the recently finished part of 59 towards downtown yesterday, which had been elevated for years, and is now "depressed" I have to agree with Subdude, that it is much better, I think doing the same with 99 around the subs would be beneficial, both where noise and aesthetics are concerned.

[adagio]

ENGcons, on Monday, June 19th, 2006 @ 7:39pm, said:

These people are happy because they won't lose their property for the addition of a road that is not intended for the residents, but intended as a bypass around Houston proper. It will be a heavy traffic road for traffic traveling along the future I-69 corridor. This is not intended for the locals to gain access to I-45, or FM 249. The people building this road could care less about the residents, which is beconing more obvious as this project moves forward.

In addition, residents of both Windrose and Gleannloch subdivisions should be concerned because both have schools near this highway that will used by traffic traveling along the future I-69 corridor. This will be a concern for parents with children with asthma and breathing problems. In addition, the placement of the preferred alignment will be a concern for property owners because their properties will lose some marketability with potential customers. This is no longer just a problem pertaining to Klein Oak and surrounding schools.

[pineda]

That's funny, Bach, because I know PLENTY of residents in Windrose who are very upset about the plans for the Grand Parkway. I guess it depends who you ask. I based my Woodlands comments on the fact that every little quasi-governmental group/association in the Woodlands has lent their support to this project, while at the same time, emphatically stating that it stay south of the Spring Creek bridge.

[mrfootball]

They ought to run that damned thing right up Woodlands Parkway.

[Trae]

Depressing the freeway will probably double the time of completion. That was said for the Katy Freeway. 59 looks real nice though. The greenary and freeway aethetics look great. And the lights are not high mast lights. They feels for like neighborhood street lights.

[mrfootball]

They did a nice job with 59...Houston's mini version of Dallas N. Central Expressway.

I'd like to see them respect the neighborhoods they will be intruding on and construct these section below ground level, so that the visual blight and noise are somewhat mitigated.

[TheNiche]

pineda, on Monday, June 19th, 2006 @ 6:39pm, said:

Yes, there's demand for the roadway. Problem is, the demand is coming from the Woodlands area. However, for some reason, even though they want it built, they don't want it "in their backyards".

So basically, the road is needed in this general area, but we've just got down to the point where most every neighborhood is trying to shove off their problems on other neighborhoods? Somebody's going to have to take a bullet...it sucks...but is necessary for the greater good.

Quote

Depressing the freeway will probably double the time of completion. That was said for the Katy Freeway. 59 looks real nice though. The greenary and freeway aethetics look great. And the lights are not high mast lights. They feels for like neighborhood street lights.

Agreed. But land values inside the Loop abutting the Southwest Freeway are a hell of a lot higher than out in Spring. I could envision a slight depression (like the Katy Frwy. inside the Loop), but recreating US 59 would be prohibitively expensive and wouldn't preserve enough value to justify the expense.

This post has been edited by TheNiche: Monday, June 19, 2006 at 11:55 PM

[pineda]

Quote

So basically, the road is needed in this general area, but we've just got down to the point where most every neighborhood is trying to shove off their problems on other neighborhoods? Somebody's going to have to take a bullet...it sucks...but is necessary for the greater good.

You've got "need" and "demand" confused. Yes, there's a demand for the road by folks in Montgomery County, but the need has yet to be established, even going into the third round of DEIS Public Hearings.

[ENGcons]

TheNiche, on Monday, June 19th, 2006 @ 11:50pm, said:

So basically, the road is needed in this general area, but we've just got down to the point where most every neighborhood is trying to shove off their problems on other neighborhoods? Somebody's going to have to take a bullet...it sucks...but is necessary for the greater good.
Agreed. But land values inside the Loop abutting the Southwest Freeway are a hell of a lot higher than out in Spring. I could envision a slight depression (like the Katy Frwy. inside the Loop), but recreating US 59 would be prohibitively expensive and wouldn't preserve enough value to justify the expense.

Niche, what pineda is sayng is the demand for the roadway is furter north in Montgomery County, not in Harris county in Spring. She is saying the road should be further north because that is where it is needed more.
But John Lindsey apparantly doesn't own some land up there that he can sell to TXDOT, and developers for the road. After all he only wants $5,000 a day to be a consultant for land aquisition for the Grand Parkway after he retires from his seat up in Austin. No wonder he is the biggest cheerleader for this project which seems to be driven by personal gain not a need for the residents.

[Subdude]

Quote

But land values inside the Loop abutting the Southwest Freeway are a hell of a lot higher than out in Spring. I could envision a slight depression (like the Katy Frwy. inside the Loop), but recreating US 59 would be prohibitively expensive and wouldn't preserve enough value to justify the expense.

But wouldn't lower land values mean that more could be spent on aesthetics? I wasn't saying the whole road should be depressed, but it should be when cutting through residential areas, instead of building elevated sections.

[Parrothead]

Here's what I don't understand: there's a huge, wide strip of land that runs parallel to the power lines, why can't the state use their legal power of eminent domain with the power company and build it there?

[mrfootball]

Why not run it down 2920???

Quote

But John Lindsey apparantly doesn't own some land up there that he can sell to TXDOT, and developers for the road. After all he only wants $5,000 a day to be a consultant for land aquisition for the Grand Parkway after he retires from his seat up in Austin. No wonder he is the biggest cheerleader for this project which seems to be driven by personal gain not a need for the residents.

As for this, if true, this needs to see some daylight and be exposed to the public.

This post has been edited by mrfootball: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 12:38 PM

[pineda]

Quote

As for this, if true, this needs to see some daylight and be exposed to the public.

This information has already been widely reported in both the Houston Press & Houston Chronicle. If you want to check it out, go to either publications Search functions.

Quote

Why not run it down 2920???

This was one of the many alternate routes originally considered. The very first route had it going directly on Spring Cypress, but then the landowners who were developing Gleannloch Farms got wind of the idea, and nixed that right away. 'Course now, the folks in G.F. are freaking out about the potential plans to enlarge Hooks Airport to allow bigger planes to land there. Oh well...

This post has been edited by pineda: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 1:34 PM

[mrfootball]

Seriously, if you were able to turn Hooks into premier private jet facility it would naturally be a major draw for corporations looking to re-locate to the new Vintage Park development, as well as current occupants in The Woodlands Town Center. It's convenient to both areas (unfortunately not so convenient for area residents).

I didn't realize Gleannloch butted up to Hooks.

The most common sense path for the Grand Pkway is down 2920. It utilizes existing rights of way, and already serves as a major route.

This post has been edited by mrfootball: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 2:06 PM

[TheNiche]

Subdude, on Tuesday, June 20th, 2006 @ 9:41am, said:

But wouldn't lower land values mean that more could be spent on aesthetics? I wasn't saying the whole road should be depressed, but it should be when cutting through residential areas, instead of building elevated sections.

Example: $300k to $500k homes line the trenched US 59 section, pretty much continuously. If it'd been at-grade, those homes would likely diminish in value by between $50k and $150k, each.

Homes that are in Spring are more typically priced from $100k to $300k...they don't have as far to fall if a freeway is built next to them. Because the dollar amount of impact per freeway mile is less, there is less of a reason to spend big $$$ on impact mitigation. Noise walls will likely get the biggest bang for the buck.

Quote

Niche, what pineda is sayng is the demand for the roadway is furter north in Montgomery County, not in Harris county in Spring. She is saying the road should be further north because that is where it is needed more.

Actually, it just occurred to me that if you built it further north, you'd alienate many commuters from Spring that are trying to travel southbound on I-45 because they'd first have to go north in order to go south...whereas, commuters from The Woodlands would have a natural predisposition to travel further south in order to access a freeway that would connect them with I-45 so that they could go further south. Seems like demand would be strongest if the freeway was able to serve both areas.

[pineda]

Quote

Actually, it just occurred to me that if you built it further north, you'd alienate many commuters from Spring that are trying to travel southbound on I-45 because they'd first have to go north in order to go south...whereas, commuters from The Woodlands would have a natural predisposition to travel further south in order to access a freeway that would connect them with I-45 so that they could go further south. Seems like demand would be strongest if the freeway was able to serve both areas.

ROTFLMAO!! I just occurred to me that you're seriously trying to yank my chain!

[TheNiche]

pineda, on Tuesday, June 20th, 2006 @ 2:36pm, said:

ROTFLMAO!! I just occurred to me that you're seriously trying to yank my chain!

Uh, no...why? What's so funny?

[Subdude]

Quote

Example: $300k to $500k homes line the trenched US 59 section, pretty much continuously. If it'd been at-grade, those homes would likely diminish in value by between $50k and $150k, each.

Homes that are in Spring are more typically priced from $100k to $300k...they don't have as far to fall if a freeway is built next to them. Because the dollar amount of impact per freeway mile is less, there is less of a reason to spend big $$$ on impact mitigation. Noise walls will likely get the biggest bang for the buck.

I'd hate to think that freeway design features should be based on the housing value in adjacent neighborhoods, and that it is OK to spend to protect high-dollar houses, but inexpensive neighborhoods can make do with elevated or ugly roads, because after all, their values don't have as far to fall.

Noise walls do provide bang for the buck, but would they use them next to an elevated freeway?

[ENGcons]

Niche, people in this area already have good access to I-45, FM249, and US 290, it's called beltway 8. And the home value argument is retarded. So it is ok to lower the value of homes in Spring because they are not the same value in West U? And guess again on that price range, many of the houses that could be affected cost well over 300K. There is a neighborhood right on Boudreax that will either be right under the freeway, or relocated, but those homes are around $90K at the most so it's ok according to your logic.
And sound walls, those are a joke. If you actually think thse work go ask someone who has one in their backyard. Not to mention the three years of construction it will take to complete a section behind these neighborhoods that are already established.

[TheNiche]

ENGcons, on Tuesday, June 20th, 2006 @ 4:59pm, said:

Niche, people in this area already have good access to I-45, FM249, and US 290, it's called beltway 8. And the home value argument is retarded. So it is ok to lower the value of homes in Spring because they are not the same value in West U? And guess again on that price range, many of the houses that could be affected cost well over 300K. There is a neighborhood right on Boudreax that will either be right under the freeway, or relocated, but those homes are around $90K at the most so it's ok according to your logic.
And sound walls, those are a joke. If you actually think thse work go ask someone who has one in their backyard. Not to mention the three years of construction it will take to complete a section behind these neighborhoods that are already established.

Highway access could still be better.

There may be some $300k+ homes that would be adversely affected, but they are few in number.

And yes, I am suggesting that it is better policy to seek transportation alternatives that provide the best bang for the buck...and protecting $200,000 in value in Place A is more important than protecting $50,000 in value in Place B.

Soundwalls are better than nothing and are inexpensive...approximately commensurate with the economic value and subjective quality of most of the housing affected.

[ENGcons]

Niche, I know you are just trolling on this topic. Obviously you have nothing at stake with this road going through, and it is obvious you do not know the area of Spring very well, or anything about road construction.
Soundwalls are not inexpensive, and do not work, the fact that you think they are inexpensive is laughable. I would know,I spent many years in the Heavy Highway construction business. They are nothing more than an attempt in place to appease a neighborhood. When after the fact the neighbors find out they have nothing more than a 15' concrete wall in their backyard to stare at to go along with the noise.
And if you think it is ok to lower the propertyvalue on home that has been there for years before the route of this road was even put in to place, create noise pollution, and be an overall menace to an area that has announced many times that it does not want this road just to give a fraction of the access to a freeway that is already easily accessable then you are nothing more than an ass. Many homes above your estimated price range will be DIRECTLY affected by this road, not that the cost of any home should be an issue on this. Moving this road north puts it in a more rural area so it would have the most minimal impact on decreasing residential property values, yet increase the potential commercial values of the property around it.

[TheNiche]

ENGcons, on Tuesday, June 20th, 2006 @ 6:47pm, said:

Niche, I know you are just trolling on this topic. Obviously you have nothing at stake with this road going through, and it is obvious you do not know the area of Spring very well, or anything about road construction.
Soundwalls are not inexpensive, and do not work, the fact that you think they are inexpensive is laughable. I would know,I spent many years in the Heavy Highway construction business. They are nothing more than an attempt in place to appease a neighborhood. When after the fact the neighbors find out they have nothing more than a 15' concrete wall in their backyard to stare at to go along with the noise.
And if you think it is ok to lower the propertyvalue on home that has been there for years before the route of this road was even put in to place, create noise pollution, and be an overall menace to an area that has announced many times that it does not want this road just to give a fraction of the access to a freeway that is already easily accessable then you are nothing more than an ass. Many homes above your estimated price range will be DIRECTLY affected by this road, not that the cost of any home should be an issue on this. Moving this road north puts it in a more rural area so it would have the most minimal impact on decreasing residential property values, yet increase the potential commercial values of the property around it.

And it seems obvious to me that you do have something at stake. I am attempting to remain impartial as a third-party observer.

Soundwalls are poured concrete that is tilted and anchored into place...if there's anything more to it, then yes, something is escaping me. And they're a hell of a lot less expensive an option than are trenches...even shallow ones. Just try to prove me wrong on that one. I'm not saying that they're the most effective noise mitigation option, but for the price compared to what trenching would cost...

And yes, in the case of transportation, schools, fire stations, dumps, ports, and airports (NIMBY items), I accept that they have to exist and that somebody's going to have to bite the bullet. It sucks...and in an ideal world, they'd be at least partially compensated for those impacts (see Pareto Efficiency)...but it rarely works that way.

There's more to roads than increasing or decreasing property values in the road's immediate viscinity. There's a general positive effect that is felt throughout a broad area by improving accessibility, even if specific areas suffer. Routing the parkway to those northerly reaches would either require that The Woodlands and subdivisions just east of I-45 be affected just the same way but in a configuration that discourages use by residents of Spring, or would require a circuituitous route, just like Beltway 8 at Jersey Village. It wastes peoples' time and puts more traffic on alternate routes within the neighborhoods if a road isn't sufficiently direct.

My thought processes are highly influenced by my formal economic training in cost/benefit analysis. I hate citing economic theory from Wikipedia because they frequently get the little nitpicky things wrong, but they're reasonably close to what I mean to communicate and should provide a general concept. Please see the following:

Welfare Economics

Pareto Efficiency

Kaldor-Hicks Efficiency

[mrfootball]

Ummm, there are some multi-million dollar homes in Gleannloch that would be affected...and a bunch of $400k homes as well...

Doesn't really matter what the value...they need to go ahead and put this thing on 2920. Is it too much to use some ____ing common sense?

This post has been edited by mrfootball: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 10:30 PM

[ENGcons]

Again I am the idiot for responding to Niche, and now that you claim to be an economist shows me you have no real world experience.
Sound walls are more than poured concrete. Actually they are 8" thick precast concrete panels about 15' tall and 10' wide containing a few tons of steel reinforcement placed on a concrete grade beam with anchor bolts, and supporrted by additional cast in place columns on each side of each panel. Since you are a self proclaimed economist I guess you would know what concrete is going for these days, and steel is going for these days, not to mention the high cost of these being precast pieces as is industry standard. Your looking around $5,000 per panel, not including the grade beam work, the columns for support and the labor to install.
This is not an economics debate genius, it is an enviromental one, and how this road will impact the residential communites that already exists. You want the economics of it here it is, existing residential property will decrease, potential commercial property value will increase. More tax dollars are generated through the commercial business than from the residential, so guess who wins there. Not to mention developers like the ones in Gleannloch Farms have already filled up the residential zones in their community, no w they could care less abou those folks they are goin go to do whatever it takes to in crease the value of their commercial zones, which is why they have DONATED land for the GP. and already made plans on future commercial development around it. It is now nothing more than a money grab for them. As far as economics is concerned in this case you should know that the need for the road does not balance with the expense for it. This road is not driven by need, it is driven by the allmighty dollar.
And yes I do have something at stake in this, the value of my home, which by your logic is irrelevnat becasue it not worth a half million and located in West Universty, or the Woodlands. Us poor people in Spring who only have $350,000 homes can take the hit I guess.

[westguy]

The sound walls won't be 15'. If HCTRA builds this, they will be about 8' like the ones they've been using on other roads. They don't seem to do much anyway. If this is cutting through residential subdivisions then I can only assume that runoff will go into the neighborhoods. It's against the law, but if no one speaks up, they can do whatever they want to do.

[CE_ugh]

Is Dan Patrick still against the Grand Parkway?

[pineda]

Quote

Is Dan Patrick still against the Grand Parkway?

YEP!

So is Debbie Riddle, Mike McCaul and Ted Poe.

[GovernorAggie]

This goes back to what I suggested on the last big Grand Parkway thread...I think that those in the north can figth the Grand Parkway, but I think that you can be multi-dimensional about it. Fight it, but simulatneously as part of negotiations, work with TxDOT/HCTRA in designing a facility that you want to be in your neighborhood. Offer alternatives other than new locations, because that also isn't totally fair. That's like praying for a hurricane not to hit your city but to go somewhere else--it's not cool. After all, you're the ones that have to deal with it daily, not those who travel on it.

I also suggest that you implore TxDOT/HCTRA to be open on their tolling policy. If they're so concerned about the costs of making the roadway actually worth something rather than the cheapest facility they can get away with, get them to increase the tolls on the facility--maybe even the entire system. Instead of 1.25, make it 1.50 or 1.75. That would easily pay for better design for future toll projects. It's time for the County to get out of the easy chair. That extra .50 toll could become nearly $200 million--extra--for better design of tollways and context-sensitive planning.

[TheNiche]

ENGcons, on Wednesday, June 21st, 2006 @ 9:10am, said:

Again I am the idiot for responding to Niche, and now that you claim to be an economist shows me you have no real world experience.
Sound walls are more than poured concrete. Actually they are 8" thick precast concrete panels about 15' tall and 10' wide containing a few tons of steel reinforcement placed on a concrete grade beam with anchor bolts, and supporrted by additional cast in place columns on each side of each panel. Since you are a self proclaimed economist I guess you would know what concrete is going for these days, and steel is going for these days, not to mention the high cost of these being precast pieces as is industry standard. Your looking around $5,000 per panel, not including the grade beam work, the columns for support and the labor to install.
This is not an economics debate genius, it is an enviromental one, and how this road will impact the residential communites that already exists. You want the economics of it here it is, existing residential property will decrease, potential commercial property value will increase. More tax dollars are generated through the commercial business than from the residential, so guess who wins there. Not to mention developers like the ones in Gleannloch Farms have already filled up the residential zones in their community, no w they could care less abou those folks they are goin go to do whatever it takes to in crease the value of their commercial zones, which is why they have DONATED land for the GP. and already made plans on future commercial development around it. It is now nothing more than a money grab for them. As far as economics is concerned in this case you should know that the need for the road does not balance with the expense for it. This road is not driven by need, it is driven by the allmighty dollar.
And yes I do have something at stake in this, the value of my home, which by your logic is irrelevnat becasue it not worth a half million and located in West Universty, or the Woodlands. Us poor people in Spring who only have $350,000 homes can take the hit I guess.

Environmental economics is a field highly dependent upon theories of welfare economics, like those that I referred you to. Dollar values can be placed upon all forms of impacts, both beneficial and adverse. The only trick is to have an objective study done by a competent professional...both qualifications can be hard to come by unfortunately. If you read through my links and take the time to understand them, perhaps you'll have a better respect for my position.

A couple things to bear in mind: 1) a community with particular demographics will support a certain amount of commercial space regardless of the presence of a freeway...the only difference between the with/without freeway scenarios is the specific location of those businesses. But in most cases, you can rest assured that the taxing entities would be the same and that the freeway won't induce a great deal of business that wouldn't have been there in the first place. 2) In welfare economics, the amount taxed doesn't typically matter in scenarios like this particular one...what matters is that the social benefit was greater than the social cost. 3) It doesn't matter who 'grabs the money'. They'll spend or invest their profit eventually, benefitting the economy. 4) Need can be measured in dollars. 5) The value of your home is relevent...it probably just doesn't weigh as heavily as you'd personally prefer...a good cost/benefit guy would certainly factor in the depreciated home value into the model...but saving peoples' time is money in a society's pocket.

If and when the road gets built past you, the depreciation potential of your home will be used again to decide which mitigation option is most preferable...if it doesn't warrant the cost of a trench (and I doubt it), then don't expect one. Noise mitigation walls are far from ideal, but at least they're something.

Btw, the low cost of noise walls cannot be considered either "high" or "low" unless compared with alternative options. The next less expensive noise mitigation option is to not mitigate. The next most expensive option is to dig trenches...relative to the cost of digging trenches (and putting up retaining walls like on U.S. 59, as was suggested earlier in the thread) is relatively massive. You certainly cannot dispute that.

[PureAuteur]

I'd be supportive of a freeway around there if it were not just a section of a greater loop around the Houston area. The Grand Parkway is a horrible idea because it allows criminals from SW and south sides of Houston to commit crimes in nice areas and then easily escape from the law.

I agree that they need to build a small freeway (2 or 3 lane) between Spring and The Woodlands, but it needs to be only for those residents and not part of a loop around Houston proper. So, maybe residents could work out some kind of compromise where the Grand Parkway doesn't go through Spring, but they get a separate freeway instead that only runs between I-45 and 2978 or something like that. I see Magnolia becoming a boom area in the future also. This might work.

It may be, however, that no freeway ends up being constructed. If I know Spring people, they will find a way to stop it. This is not just some suburb in Houston. It's a very very strong community with people who like things to be serene and tranquil.

[CE_ugh]

PureAuteur, on Friday, June 23rd, 2006 @ 12:05pm, said:

I'd be supportive of a freeway around there if it were not just a section of a greater loop around the Houston area. The Grand Parkway is a horrible idea because it allows criminals from SW and south sides of Houston to commit crimes in nice areas and then easily escape from the law.

I agree that they need to build a small freeway (2 or 3 lane) between Spring and The Woodlands, but it needs to be only for those residents and not part of a loop around Houston proper. So, maybe residents could work out some kind of compromise where the Grand Parkway doesn't go through Spring, but they get a separate freeway instead that only runs between I-45 and 2978 or something like that. I see Magnolia becoming a boom area in the future also. This might work.

It may be, however, that no freeway ends up being constructed. If I know Spring people, they will find a way to stop it. This is not just some suburb in Houston. It's a very very strong community with people who like things to be serene and tranquil.

Every post you make is sweeping generalizations. Yes, there are ABSOLUTELY NO criminals on the north side.

[mrfootball]

Crime rates are fairly low in the Far North, Far NW, and Far West Houston.

There are statistically higher crime rates the closer you get to freeways.

[TheNiche]

mrfootball, on Friday, June 23rd, 2006 @ 3:06pm, said:

Crime rates are fairly low in the Far North, Far NW, and Far West Houston.

There are statistically higher crime rates the closer you get to freeways.

Be careful when citing correlations...even if your assertions are accurate (and they are), those kinds of statements carry the implicit message that there is a causality link between freeways and crime.

There are indeed higher crime rates when you get closer to freeways, but areas within Beltway 8 are almost all within close proximity to freeways...and are also denser, generally less affluent, and have a lower median population age.

[GovernorAggie]

TheNiche, on Friday, June 23rd, 2006 @ 3:55pm, said:

Be careful when citing correlations...even if your assertions are accurate (and they are), those kinds of statements carry the implicit message that there is a causality link between freeways and crime.

There are indeed higher crime rates when you get closer to freeways, but areas within Beltway 8 are almost all within close proximity to freeways...and are also denser, generally less affluent, and have a lower median population age.

Yes I agree. And if you're including crime reports like shoplifting, car burglary, and the like--then of course areas near the freeways will be higher--since that's where more cars and retail outlets are.

[nmainguy]

Is this road needed or just wanted? If needed, by who? If wanted-same question.

[TheNiche]

nmainguy, on Friday, June 23rd, 2006 @ 5:31pm, said:

Is this road needed or just wanted? If needed, by who? If wanted-same question.

For all practical purposes, "need" equates to "want". I know that you're going to try to nail me on this assertion, but all you're going to do is incite me to write a few pages of deconstructive literature about the uselessness of the word "need". That's something that I'd rather not do...and you won't agree with me anyway...so lets not go down that road.

The road is wanted by commuters who stand to shave a few minutes off of their drive. The road is also wanted by developers because developers understand that once the road is place, many people will want a home in the general area because the area has become more accessible. Other developers want the road because they understand that commercial tenants will want stores situated in the most accessible place to the greatest number of people that would want the services provided by those stores.

People presently living at a residence within a mile (and particularly within a half-mile) of the proposed freeway may not want it, however, because they fear that externalities will reduce the number of people that would want their home.

That's really the jist of it.

[ENGcons]

Niche it is becoming painfully obvious to me and probabaly a few others that you have no idea about things that occur outside a book. Don't get me wrong, when it comes to quoting economic theories that can be looked up in a half second on google your great, but, when the real world needs a problem solved you would probably be one of the last people to call.
I suggest that if you don't know the particular details about a very controversial topic like the Grand Parkway, speciffically segment F-2, and concrete sound barriers you shouldn't chime in. Leave the discussion to those who actually do know what is going on.

Economist

[TheNiche]

ENGcons, on Friday, June 23rd, 2006 @ 8:48pm, said:

I suggest that if you don't know the particular details about a very controversial topic like the Grand Parkway, speciffically segment F-2, and concrete sound barriers you shouldn't chime in. Leave the discussion to those who actually do know what is going on.

Of course, because we ALL know that Spring is an absolutely unique place, where the historical experiences of other communities simply cannot be applied. To do so would in fact be a travesty!

The rules just...change once you exit I-45. The whole notion of causality is reversed. Correlations must inherently be causal. Freeway noise is amplified and ubiquitous within many miles of the source. The citizenry likes to be stuck in traffic and will in fact avoid alternative routes in favor of hitting stoplights. And of course, prospective homebuyers refuse to gravitate to any place that is too accessible.


Get over yourself.

[nmainguy]

TheNiche, on Friday, June 23rd, 2006 @ 6:33pm, said:

For all practical purposes, "need" equates to "want". I know that you're going to try to nail me on this assertion, but all you're going to do is incite me to write a few pages of deconstructive literature about the uselessness of the word "need". That's something that I'd rather not do...and you won't agree with me anyway...

I was hoping for a reply from those directly impacted-not another wordy screed opening with another whiney attack.

Anyone?

This post has been edited by nmainguy: Friday, June 23, 2006 at 9:20 PM

[TheNiche]

nmainguy, on Friday, June 23rd, 2006 @ 9:20pm, said:

I was hoping for a reply from those directly impacted-not another wordy screed opening with another whiney attack.

Anyone?

"Directly impacted"? Well I've driven every single peice of freeway (except Fort Bend Pkwy) in Houston within the past year in order to complete work-related assignments...I'd say that the odds are good that I'll one day use F-2, thus making me "directly impacted", as per your requirement. I'll probably also be tolled in the process...another "direct impact".

Happy?

This post has been edited by TheNiche: Friday, June 23, 2006 at 9:36 PM