Highway Funding Crunch

[The Great Hizzy!]

The Link

[MidtownCoog]

This is good news IMHO. If we are just building roads so tax payers can move in, it's a short sighted approach.

Especially considering 290 is a nightmare. Whey continue to build out Northwest, when the infrastructure needed to get into the city is beyond reapair?

Without an infusion of bond money, Radack said he may delay building or widening major thoroughfares that would provide access to pasture land where subdivisions could be built, creating more taxpayers to pay for county services, Radack said.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

This is good news IMHO.  If we are just building roads so tax payers can move in, it's a short sighted approach.

Especially considering 290 is a nightmare.  Whey continue to build out Northwest, when the infrastructure needed to get into the city is beyond reapair?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to the article, the Commissioner's logic is this:

Improve county roads through undeveloped land to stimulate development, leading to increases in property values and thus increasing property taxes collected. Lather, rinse and repeat as necessary.

[MidtownCoog]

Bad planning IMHO.

[HeightsGuy]

Radack said he may delay building or widening major thoroughfares that would provide access to pasture land where subdivisions could be built, creating more taxpayers to pay for county services, Radack said.

Can anyone explain to me how, as an inner-looper, I can read this statement and not have it reinforce my belief that my hard-earned tax dollars continue to be used to subsidize land development in the sub(ex)urbs.

[pineda]

Open note to Steve Radack-

If you're worried about providing access to infrastructure, why don't you just tell Bridgelands (Rouse Corp.) to build their OWN access, instead of having the taxpayers pay for it? Bridgelands can afford it, we can't. Go ahead, Steve, you can do it.

[YakuzaIce]

Open note to Steve Radack-

If you're worried about providing access to infrastructure, why don't you just tell Bridgelands (Rouse Corp.) to build their OWN access, instead of having the taxpayers pay for it? Bridgelands can afford it, we can't. Go ahead, Steve, you can do it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree.

I don't understand his logic totally. Raise taxes so we can have more taxpayers. I guess it makes sense for him, but it kind of screws over tax payers.

[kjb434]

The county forces developers to build as least half of a major thoroughfare that is not currently build. Often the developer will have to build the thoroughfare out. The ones the county builds are the ones that are already existing which means the county is force to keep up with demand and FUTURE demand.

Should TxDOT not widened the freeway for future traffic projections?

Also, Mr. Raddack is not a developer; he's a politician. Harris can no long justify building infrastructure for increasing tax base. The infrastructure has to be based upon future projections of need. This means the county can't build a road with the anticpation a developer will build along it.

Also, it is easy enough for the county to force the developer to put up the costs for building the thoroughfares anyway since they'll get reimbursed through bonds issued to the MUDs. And you'll see more of it if the county doesn't have the money spend.

[RedScare]

This was an article about Harris County road building, not TxDOT. Radack's quote is suggesting that developers will build in Harris County versus further counties, if the thoroughfares are built or widened. Considering land is more expensive in Harris County versus farther out, I see his point. Part of the way to create "infill", if you can call building a subdivision on 290 such, is that you may have to use a carrot and stick approach.

If this is what he is doing, I am OK with that. If he's just sucking up to his developer friends, who were going to build there anyway, then he needs to spend our money elsewhere.

[pineda]

I wonder how the plans for advancing the Grand Parkway project north and west from Radack's area into Eversole's will be impacted?

[kjb434]

I wasn't saying this was TxDOT. I just through TxDOT as an example of building out before demand occurs as TxDOT often does. Lately they've been playing catch up though.

I don't think this will affect the Grand Parkway other than getting Major Thoroughfares to the Parkway that aren't already built. Since the Grand Parkway has been leaning more towards being a Toll Road, the County can issue bonds without raising taxes to build it under HCTRA.

If it is left up to TxDOT, the county would not be involved in financing the construction.

The third possibility is that TxDOT will perform a lot of the early work on the segments as already is undergoing. HCTRA would probably come in the end to do final plans and letting for construction since they can raise the bonds. TxDOT will have to be involved in all the early aspects (which includes public meetings) if they want the facility to eventually be a part of I-69. This is why the project hasn't been completely turned over to HCTRA.

[MidtownCoog]

Radack needs a new job.

[pineda]

TxDOT will have to be involved in all the early aspects (which includes public meetings) if they want the facility to eventually be a part of I-69.

We've heard repeatedly that the Grand Parkway, Segment F-2, will NOT become part of I-69. That dream is long gone. What part of the Grand Parkway are you referring to, that may eventually become part of I-69?

[kjb434]

The Eastern portion is still open. I know the path is crazy and doesn't make sense, but since the I-69 is primarily being pushed because of truck traffic and freight the eastern portion will take it through the port and around the city.

The are already build the section south of I-10 to the Harris County line. Eventually it'll use the new bridge acros the bay and head down 146 to Galveston County. Then it'll head west until it meets up with US 59.

This will would be a great truck route for bypassing the city and not taking it through the primarily residential north. When the Grand Parkway was mentioned relieveing traffic, they meant shifting of truck traffic from the core of the city. I don't think they conveyed this information correctly though, implying it was for relieving commuter congestion.

Also, TxDOT is looking at the TTC as mention before and I think you are well aware of to handle I-69.

[N Judah]

The county forces developers to build as least half of a major thoroughfare that is not currently build.  Often the developer will have to build the thoroughfare out.  The ones the county builds are the ones that are already existing which means the county is force to keep up with demand and FUTURE demand.

Should TxDOT not widened the freeway for future traffic projections?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The catch about this kind of thinking is that the future demand wouldn't exist if these same thoroughfares weren't built. Kind of like getting rid of a hole by digging a bigger hole around it.

Nice that the county makes developers build (*only*) half of streets to connect their development to the existing road network. Does that also apply to freeway expansion or tollways? Just wondering.

[pineda]

Trans-Texas Corridor to miss Montgomery County

[CE_ugh]

How in the hell do they expect to run a interstate cooridor down 146?

[kjb434]

It's all ready partially a freeway from the Fred Hartman to Seabrook.

The converstion in that area would be easiy. The Galveston County part would be harder. SH 146 was originally planned to be a freeway, but it never materialized with funding shortfalls.