Grand Parkway Expansion

[Houston19514]

The money is already being spent widening the current roads. And, there is a big difference between widening the current roads and putting in a 1200-1500' wide new path or river of concrete through a semi-rural area.

Please visit our website at:

United to Save Our Spring

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When one throws out nonsense like a "1200-1500' wide river of concrete" for the Grand Parkway, one starts losing credibility. I don't think there is a freeway in all of Houston that uses a 1200-1500' ROW, or anything even very close to that.

[pineda]

The Grand Parkway is still being considered, to this day, as a potential route for not only I-69 but part of the Trans-Texas Corridor. The width of the I-69 project is 1200', Trans-Texas is a quarter-mile wide.

In the transcripted minutes for the November 18th, 2004 meeting of the TTC (that's the Texas Transportation Commission of the Texas Department of Transportation or TxDOT), Commission Chair Ric Williamson said that the Grand Parkway Association needs to make sure that we look bigger, not smaller on the Alignment, in preparation for the 6 million Texans coming. Especially interesting are the comments agreeing with our assertions by the Executive Director of the Grand Parkway Association, David Gornet. Read it and understand. BTW, there really IS a big difference between widening the current roads (which is happening right now) and creating a brand-new roadway, OF ANY SIZE!

Please visit our website at:

United to Save Our Spring

[GovernorAggie]

The Grand Parkway is still being considered, to this day, as a potential route for not only I-69 but part of the Trans-Texas Corridor. The width of the I-69 project is 1200', Trans-Texas is a quarter-mile wide.

In the transcripted minutes for the November 18th, 2004 meeting of the TTC (that's the Texas Transportation Commission of the Texas Department of Transportation or TxDOT), Commission Chair Ric Williamson said that the Grand Parkway Association needs to

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[pineda]

So I just urge, every time I see you, think bigger, not smaller for the right of way. You know, the crush of the now is always seemingly more painful than the howls of protest for the future, and no one ever wants to give up much of their land or have it taken away from them, and we understand that. But the requirements of the public sometimes override all of our individual wishes. And please tell all who participate in your venture that we need a right of way big enough to contain those 6 million Texans that will move to the southeast Texas area over the next 30 years.

The above statement was made by Ric Williamson at the TxDOT TTC meeting in Austin on 11/18/0504. All we've ever wanted is when Ric is considering the needs of the unknown future population, that he never forget about the needs of the people who already live here.

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

Yes!!! Yee-haw! Maybe I'll have to come down to Houston just to drive on this thing!

[pineda]

Along those same lines, if HCTRA is starting engineering work on the TTC, I highly doubt that it will be I-69, simply because it will be a county-owned and built facility.

I sure hope this is true, we meet with Judge Eckels next week!

[GovernorAggie]

Hmmm, that TTC in the quote Pineda should be GP.

I've made the change in my post.

[pineda]

Gov, I already figured that's what you meant. But, thanks anyway!

[pineda]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: FM 1960/Spring/Klein News

Coalition dealt blow in parkway battle

Save Our Spring tries to regroup after county pushes project

By KIM JACKSON, 02/02/05, Houston Chronicle

GRAND PARKWAY'S SPRING ROUTE

[kjb434]

If the HCTRA is spearheading this, then the F-2 alignment will be inline to be built definitely. The only thing that can stop it now is to have studies show that the road will not support any anticipated traffic, but there are currently studies showing the road is needed. The studies also qualify for use it TxDOT would pursue federal funding.

I'm on the side for building the Grand Parkway, but I also believe full disclosure and public meetings are a must. At least with TxDOT in charge, public concerns are made and can be incorporated. This was recently seen with the commencement of construction of Spur 527 into downtown. Outbound traffic was allowed to continue to use the spur under construction which was not part of TxDOT's plan. TxDOT also assisted the city in mitigating traffic as best as it could. No one can truly argue the construction couldn't move forward because the spur was already past its lifespan and must be replaced.

I believe SOS must show a sizeable presence at every commisioners and HCTRA meeting that comes up. The presence must be of one of cooperation and understanding. I have mentioned before of working with the alignment of the GP and new development in MUD 368 where the western terminus of the F-2 alingment is at Boudreaux and SH 249. Our consultants and the board of MUD 368 have been anticipating this section of the alignment for well over 3 years. The district is pushing on some issues it knows it can win such as sound walls and barriers along the alingment that is near residential areas. The district also sees some benifit with proposed commercial development at SH 249 and Boudreaux Rd which will benifit the residents of the district.

Lets hope that HCTRA and the commisioners keep in touch with the residents of Spring and members of SOS to achieve the best possible solution.

[pineda]

Yes, definitely, keeping those lines of communication open is a must. And that's just what we have been doing for the last 3 or 4 years with this project. When I call the Grand Parkway Association or anyone at TxDOT, they do take my calls right away and try to answer my questions. However, no one could have predicted what happened last Tuesday at Commissioner's Court. No one at the Grand Parkway Association even knew about Agenda Item #2. For those of you who do not know what that is, you will never will either, because the transcripts for the Harris County Commissioner's Court are not recorded online, unlike TxDOT. Last Tuesday, seemingly out of the blue but really behind a lot of closed doors, the Harris County Commissioner's Court decided to spend $6 Million Dollars on a schematic for Segments F-1, F-2 and G, a blueprint of where they would like to see the tollway built, in effect leap-frogging over the efforts of the Grand Parkway Association. When Commissioner Jerry Eversole was told of the map with the HCTRA, TXDOT and GPA symbols on it dated January 2005, he said in open court that he had never seen it (the project is within his precinct boundaries), and yet he voted to spend $6 Million Dollars without even seeing the map with only one route marked on it. Commissioner Eversole and Senator Lindsay have refused for over 3 years now to even meet with interested homeowners/residents. Senator Lindsay (also president of the North Houston Association) likes to hold closed door meetings with developers only. No one at the Grand Parkway Association has been contacted since the vote to spend $6 Million Dollars on their project. What worries us most of all is that HCTRA seems to be trying to "fast-track" this project. We have yet to see the Traffic Studies that were completed last April that will or won't prove the viability of the Grand Parkway tollroad. We want to know why HCTRA is going around what the Grand Parkway Association is trying to accomplish with their Supplemental EIS, especially since the GPA is now actively studying routes that go into the Southern Montgomery County area. We do have meetings scheduled with some representatives of HCTRA coming up very soon, and have decided to no longer pursue talking with Eversole since his comment to the Houston Chronicle last week that the "road will be built, and if it means my defeat, then it means my defeat." I'm guessing this means he is not seeking re-election. We will continue to keep those lines of communication open that we do have available to us, and as always appreciate any insights or feedback or suggestions that all you informed, tuned-in HAIF members offer to us.

[GovernorAggie]

Wow, those County Commissioners sure have a ton of power--amazing. Maybe I should change my name from GovernorAggie to HarrisCountyJudgeAggie, lol.

This just goes back to the point that myself, MaxConcrete, 27 , and others have said to these organizations. Fight for the details--how the road will look, what kind of character will it take on, how it will fit into the neighborhood. Maybe along with trying to make sure that it is built as and stays a PARKway, maybe it could have bridge and wall treatments and designs that represent the area.

The highway doesn't definitely have to cut the fabric of the area totally. Maybe it could be a "zipper" instead (I know, I know, bad metaphor).

Either way, HCTRA is going to build this thing. Reading the articles make me think of the old Manifest Destiny lessons from U.S. History class.

Pineda, I get the same notion that the County is really trying to fast-track the project. That tells me that things were looking more and more like there would have to be a new alignment, adding years to the project and possibly taking it into Montgomery County--giving them the toll dollars instead of Harris.

Again, I'd suggest using the zeal that you guys have had for years in preventing the road to now use it for making sure that it fits well with your communities. From what I can tell, the County will build this thing without a whole lot of input sought (we've heard the accounts from people on the southwest side not even knowing the HCTRA was currently building the Fort Bend Tollway extension right near their neighborhoods). So I suggest that you pesture them until they at least give ear to your concerns and desires.

[pineda]

Gov, one thing that keeps coming up, and you just reminded me of it again is that the Grand Parkway, Segment F-2, was mandated by the Texas Legislature years ago to be considered as a portion of the National I-69 Highway, or NAFTA Superhighway. Although, much has changed since Perry took office and came up with his visionary Trans-Texas Corridor plan, this does not mean that the Grand Parkway, Segment F-2, has been removed from those plans. Perry asked that the I-69 group consider themselves part and parcel of the Trans-Texas Corridor project, and even though the I-69 project is still just in its' "scoping process", the Grand Parkway is still to this day, being looked at as an alternative route. Either as a "only passenger cars allowed" route part of the TTC, or as a "only heavy tractor-trailer trucks allowed" route part of the TTC. The City of Houston is actually in favor of the 18-wheeler only usage of the Grand Parkway if it will eliminate that kind of traffic from the Central Business District of Houston. So, before we can even begin to "fight for the details", as you say, we still have to deal with the big picture, which we continue to do to this day.

[N Judah]

Now where are all of those eminent domain faux-libertarian paranoiacs when you need them?

[pl2005]

I think strong neighborhood advocacy groups that really look out for the interests of the neighborhood and its well-being would prove vital to the upkeep of the area.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Citizens may not even know a toll-funded project is being planned for their neighborhood because the toll road authority is not required to hold public meetings. Under current law even municipalities have no legal say over what the toll road authority does within city boundaries. This is particulaly worrisome now because of the huge number of road projects (nearly 12,000 lane miles worth) that were just approved in the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan that will depend on toll funding.

Changes in state law are needed to make the toll road authority accountable to the public it is supposed to be serving. Alvin, Spring, and all other communities threatened by the many "streamlined" toll-funded projects cropping up all over the region need to work together to help change state law.

The Citizens Transportation Coalition (www.citizenstransportationcoalition.org) has asked local state legislators to support changes in state law that would ensure the following:

--All new toll road authority funded projects must have the approval of the municipalities and county governments to be impacted.

--No new toll road authority funded project can proceed to the design and engineering state unless local governments approve the specific project proposed by the toll road authority or TxDOT through an affirmative vote. Inclusion of the project in a Metropolitan Planning Organization's long range plans would not constitute such an approval.

--The State of Texas must certify that a new toll road authority funded project has gone through a robust public citizen review process. This would include public meetings held at least 60 days after a public announcement of the meeting and the public release of information and plans detailing the proposal.

--Citizens can petition for the right to approve or disapprove a new toll road authority funded project by ballot initiative.

--Existing highways or roads can not be converted to toll roads, including the establishment of tolled lanes, without the same approval by local governments.

With the possibility of citizens disapproving a new toll-funded project by ballot initiative hanging over their heads, HCTRA will be forced to involve the public in a meaningful way from the beginning. This will guarantee that the end product is something that communities (not just highway contractors) really want.

If you want to help go to www.citizenstransportationcoalition.org

[pineda]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spring may be host to a toll road

By: JESSICA WELLINGTON, HCN Newspapers

Because of a decision at the Harris County Commissioner's Court, it looks like the F2 segment of the Grand Parkway project (a 12-mile freeway between Texas 249 and Interstate 45 that runs through Spring) may become a toll road.

During the Jan. 25 Commissioner's Court, under the heading of Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA), a request was made and approved to negotiate engineering service agreements for a possible toll road through the northern part of Harris County, including the controversial F2 segment.

The Commissioner's Court authorized the HCTRA to spend $5.6 million dollars on a study to be completed by Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. and Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc.

Residents, including those belonging to United to Save our Spring, an organization dedicated to keeping the parkway out of Spring neighborhoods, are concerned about this new development.

"Harris County seems like they are trying to fast track the project," said Connie O'Donnell with United to Save our Spring. "It looks like it is most definitely going to be a toll road."

According to Patricia Freeze with the HCTRA, the Commissioner's Court approved engineering service agreements to study three segments to determine whether it is economically viable to construct toll facilities and to possibly consider alternate routes.

"We have been asked by TxDOT to take over this project because of their economic restrictions and budget constraints," said Freeze. "They have one year in the contractual agreement to complete the studies."

State Representative Debbie Riddle is concerned about this development because the HCTRA isn't required to consult the public on decisions.

Riddle ensures concerned citizens that she is still looking out for them in regard to this issue.

"I will continue to have the voice of my constituent's heard, even though the Harris County Toll Road Authority can pretty much do what they want to do when they want to!" Riddle said. "They don't have to hold public meetings; they are not required to listen to me or anyone else."

Although the HCTRA is not required to hold public meetings, Freeze encourages citizens to seek information about the project.

"Anytime the community has interest in the status they are more than welcome to talk to us," said Freeze. "Our open forum is Commissioner's Court."

Riddle hopes that everyone can work together and come up with a workable solution.

"I believe if the toll road authority will agree to work with us then we can find some solutions that will benefit everyone," said Riddle. "Mobility is important but we must not forget that the lives of people, their homes and their schools are also important."

[Gary]

I know this is a little to the side of the discussion but I have a question.

I live in Cimmeron which is about a mile from I-10 and about a half a mile from 99. They have already begun construction of the tollway going south but started about a half mile south of I-10. About 200 feet north of where they started is a huge concrete mill (right in the middle) which was obviously put there for the construction project. Now my question is, are they going to build a ramp from I-10 to the tollway or are they going to make people go through the light at 99 to enter the tollway?

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

It will be a 5-level interchange, like the Beltway 8. If you go to KatyFreeway.org, you cansee schematics of this interchange.

[MaxConcrete]

Now my question is, are they going to build a ramp from I-10 to the tollway or are they going to make people go through the light at 99 to enter the tollway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A full five-level interchange is planned but is not included in the current phase of construction. So for the indefinite future vehicles will need to pass through the traffic light at I-10. As far as I know, none of the ramps at the interchange are funded.

Also, you're calling the new SH 99 construction a tollway, but has that been established at this time? That project is being funded by TxDOT with gasoline tax funds. TxDOT is now tolling most gasoline-tax-funded projects, but not necessarily all gas-tax-funded projects. I'm not aware of any official decisions, although I know that TxDOT would like to turn over the entire existing section of SH 99 to HCTRA or FBTRA so it can be tolled.

[Gary]

A full five-level interchange is planned but is not included in the current phase of construction. So for the indefinite future vehicles will need to pass through the traffic light at I-10. As far as I know, none of the ramps at the interchange are funded.

Also, you're calling the new SH 99 construction a tollway, but has that been established at this time? That project is being funded by TxDOT with gasoline tax funds. TxDOT is now tolling most gasoline-tax-funded projects, but not necessarily all gas-tax-funded projects. I'm not aware of any official decisions, although I know that TxDOT would like to turn over the entire existing section of SH 99 to HCTRA or FBTRA so it can be tolled.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe it's not a tollway. I had a few people in the neighborhood tell me that it was. I also think your right about the interchange not being in the immediate plans.

The mill they put up looks like it's going to be there a long time and man it's as ugly as you can possibly imagine. Why did they put that stupid thing in the middle of the road??????? On top of that the dust in this area from the mill and the trucks coming in and of of the area is just murder.

[pineda]

Grand Parkway's plans for 2005 & Beyond

[kjb434]

Cool!!!

I appears that the full parkway could be ready for for 2013. Can't wait!!

[Houston19514]

But wait! I thought someone on this board told us that the Grand Parkway east of 59 was dead in the water. For the uninitiated, that would be segments H and I1.

Pineda, please tell me you have not fed us bad information AGAIN...

[pineda]

But wait! I thought someone on this board told us that the Grand Parkway east of 59 was dead in the water. For the uninitiated, that would be segments H and I1.

Pineda, please tell me you have not fed us bad information AGAIN...

Accuracy of information (especially any pertaining to this project) all depends on whose telling you that information. According to a representative of the Grand Parkway Association that I spoke to very recently, they said that anything east is "on hold" for now because the viability of developing that portion has not been proven. Their response to questions asked about any sections east of 59 has never wavered in all the time we've spent discussing this issue. But, then again, no representatives of the Grand Parkway Association were present or even knowledgeable of the meeting held in Harris County Commissioner's Court recently where approximately $6 Million Dollars was given to Kellogg, Brown and Root to study the schematics for certain sections of the Grand Parkway.

This latest information I posted just became available on the GPA website, so I posted it, but have not been able to get in touch with anyone from the GPA...yet. I do try to bring the latest information forward, as I get it, but since there's so many groups involved like TxDOT, GPA, and now HCTRA, it doesn't ever seem like I can get straight answers from any of them as to what's currently happening. I did also just come into possession of some feasibility studies and revenue projection reports of some of the sections, and maybe if you beg me real nice, I'll post them for you, but I'll warn you, you probably won't understand them...

[MaxConcrete]

It appears that the full parkway could be ready for for 2013.  Can't wait!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Grand Parkway Association's timelines have always been overly optimistic. Going back 20 years, they always seem to be saying that there will be progress in the next few years, but there almost never is.

The schedule shown probably represents the soonest the Parkway could be built if everything moved forward as fast as possible starting from the publication date (Dec 2004, I believe).

Realistically this is not going to happen. Since everything will be tolled, financing is subject to the ability to generate toll revenue. In my view only sections F (F1 and F2) and possibly E can attract significant traffic. Section C could be viable, but forget about the rest of the sections. Right now only right-of-way protection is warranted.

[Houston19514]

Accuracy of information (especially any pertaining to this project) all depends on whose telling you that information. According to a representative of the Grand Parkway Association that I spoke to very recently, they said that anything east is "on hold" for now because the viability of developing that portion has not been proven. Their response to questions asked about any sections east of 59 has never wavered in all the time we've spent discussing this issue. But, then again, no representatives of the Grand Parkway Association were present or even knowledgeable of the meeting held in Harris County Commissioner's Court recently where approximately $6 Million Dollars was given to Kellogg, Brown and Root to study the schematics for certain sections of the Grand Parkway.

This latest information I posted just became available on the GPA website, so I posted it, but have not been able to get in touch with anyone from the GPA...yet. I do try to bring the latest information forward, as I get it, but since there's so many groups involved like TxDOT, GPA, and now HCTRA, it doesn't ever seem like I can get straight answers from any of them as to what's currently happening. I did also just come into possession of some feasibility studies and revenue projection reports of some of the sections, and maybe if you beg me real nice, I'll post them for you, but I'll warn you, you probably won't understand them...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I appreciate that we're often dealing with something of a moving target especially when discussing something like the Grand Parkway, which nobody expects or intends to be completed for a very long time. However, I will note that "dead in the water" is quite different from "'on hold' for now" (and I can't help but notice that no source was provided for the "dead in the water" pronouncement).

[pineda]

However, I will note that "dead in the water" is quite different from "'on hold' for now" (and I can't help but notice that no source was provided for the "dead in the water" pronouncement).

If it'll make you feel better, you can call the Grand Parkway Association and ask Robin Sterry or David Gornet about the status of anything Grand Parkway related east of 59, and they will tell you the same. I don't think I have it in writing, but if you need to hear it yourself, feel free to call them. One explanation I've heard is that no developers are that interested in doing anything east of 59 right now, the hot spot is definitely the 290 area and north of there. Another explanation that I've heard from Texas Parks and Wildlife is that the area east of 59 is more "ecologically sensitive" and the route originally planned plowed right through a state park area. I believe my contact's name was Phil, if that makes you feel any better, my little fact-checker buddy, you....

[Houston19514]

If it'll make you feel better, you can call the Grand Parkway Association and ask Robin Sterry or David Gornet about the status of anything Grand Parkway related east of 59, and they will tell you the same. I don't think I have it in writing, but if you need to hear it yourself, feel free to call them. One explanation I've heard is that no developers are that interested in doing anything east of 59 right now, the hot spot is definitely the 290 area and north of there. Another explanation that I've heard from Texas Parks and Wildlife is that the area east of 59 is more "ecologically sensitive" and the route originally planned plowed right through a state park area. I believe my contact's name was Phil, if that makes you feel any better, my little fact-checker buddy, you....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is it they are going to tell me? That it is "dead in the water" or "on hold for now"? It should hardly be surprising that the segments east of 59 would be the last to be completed and are not on the front burner... especially given that the segment of BW8 east of 59 is not done and will be the last segment of the Beltway to be completed. But as I said in my previous post (and you apparently ignored or did not understand), saying a project is "on hold for now" is quite different from saying it is "dead in the water" (especially when you follow the "dead in the water" statement with "so much for the circle they all envisioned".) You have presented us today with information (both in your initial posting of the Grand Parkway schedule showing activity on these segment scheduled this year and in your later response stating that your sources tell you it is on hold for now) that is directly contractictory to what you told us just one month ago.

[pineda]

What is it they are going to tell me? That it is "dead in the water" or "on hold for now"? It should hardly be surprising that the segments east of 59 would be the last to be completed and are not on the front burner... especially given that the segment of BW8 east of 59 is not done and will be the last segment of the Beltway to be completed. But as I said in my previous post (and you apparently ignored or did not understand), saying a project is "on hold for now" is quite different from saying it is "dead in the water" (especially when you follow the "dead in the water" statement with "so much for the circle they all envisioned".) You have presented us today with information (both in your initial posting of the Grand Parkway schedule showing activity on these segment scheduled this year and in your later response stating that your sources tell you it is on hold for now) that is directly contractictory to what you told us just one month ago.

As I stated earlier, whatever information one is able to ascertain at any given moment about this project is whatever may true only for that moment. The information I received from the GPA is that which I have stated repeatedly that there are no active studies for anything east of 59, due to various reasons previously stated. The new schedule posted today that I saw on their website is contradictory to what they have previously stated, but that's not really anything new either. They will also tell you that the Grand Parkway (unless this has changed, too, depending on who you ask) that the Grand Parkway is likely to be more of a "C" shape than the 40 year old dream of a super loop. As I am able to get new information (hopefully from HCTRA) soon, I will of course post it here for all my HAIF friends to read and discuss the merits of such information. Thank you for your continued discourse and interest in my favorite subject.