Search the Community

HCTRA is planning to replace the Beltway 8 Ship Channel Bridge with two Cable-stayed suspension bridges. Public Notice attached from the Coast Guard is attached. Has this been mentioned already? Couldn't find an ongoing topic. Public notice - bridge application - 091815.pdf

"ConocoPhillips refining offshoot Phillips 66 will build a new headquarters facility no more than 10 miles away from the company’s current location, “within the I-10 and Beltway 8 corridors,”......" http://swamplot.com/...ton/2012-03-20/ This will probably be a suburban campus-type property like the existing headquarters, but this is still cool to hear.

TxDOT looking into ways to ease congestion on the Southwest Freeway from 288 all the way to Beltway 8. I guess there's already been a meeting on this last year in September 2014. Here's the TxDOT sight: www.mysouthwestfreeway.com Outside of the "lipstick on a pig" ideas, here are some thoughts (not 100% original btw) on how traffic can be eased on 59 / 69 without much ROW purchased: 1.) Configure on ramps / off ramps on top of each other like at 59/69 and Kirby between 610 and the beltway. That way merging and exiting traffic isn't fighting one another 2.) Build elevated two-way HOV lanes in current HOV ROW from Spur to past the beltway. (possible?) 3.) Reconfigure Chimney Rock exit (headed south) by exiting before the 610 traffic merges into 59/69 and have those exiting 59/69 to 610 do so before the Chimney Rock entrance to the freeway. Either that or eliminate the Chimney Rock exit / entrances all together. Ideas that might require ROW purchase and most definitely be more expensive even if no ROW: 1.) Extend Westpark tollway (WPT) past 610 and grade separate at 610 interchange. Possibly grade separate at Newcastle and have tollway end between Newcastle and Wesleyan. If not, have just have it end between 610 frontage and Newcastle. 2.) Direct connector from 610 traffic headed north to WPT headed west. 3.) Direct connector from WPT headed east to 610 headed south. (I don't think a WPT east to 610 North can fit) 4.) 2 lane Direct connector from 59/69 north to 610 south. Current one lane config. is big bottle neck. 5.) Direct connector from southbound 610 traffic to westbound WPT. To limit ROW, the direct connector would have to be after the 59/69 exit and tie into the extended WPT. Ideas that might require significant ROW but not quite to the level of the Katy freeway redesign: 1.) If previous #5 option not available, have a direct connector from southbound 610 traffic to westbound WPT on the north side of 59/69. It would be something like that of the new 290 to I10 direct connector. However this leads me to my next idea... 2.) Purchase land between 59/69 and Westpark rd. and WPT. Shift 59/69 slightly south and decrease the sharpness of the 59/69 curve at the WPT intersection. Katy Freeway clear-cutting option: 1.) Turn single HOV lane into 3 HOT lanes with the middle lane being bi-directional (much like what 290 was supposed to have) 2.) Add a full 5th lane to each direction of 59/69. 3.) Let them eat cake. Anyone else have any thoughts?