Grand Parkway Expansion

[SkylineView]

I agree.  Also the options are pretty bad... you can either go all the way to 610 to cut south with no toll... or drive along one of the main north-south drives... which candidly is tedious to me (though not a terrible value proposition if you want to avoid the toll).  I think you give it 4 years and it will fill up like everything else.

[hbcu]

companies are paying tolls for people to work, people make more money each day, etc.....they can afford tolls so it'll fill up

[ig2ba]

i figure traffic may drop initially when the tolls start, but once construction starts getting more severe along 290 i predict traffic will pick back up on the grand parkway. and by the time 290 construction is finished (and people stop taking GP as a detour) the areas along the grand parkway will be developed enough to sustain traffic on its own.

 

The other parts of the Grand Parkway will be completed (from 290 to 249 to I-45) before the 290 expansion. Right? That should add traffic before 290 reduces it.

[Slick Vik]

companies are paying tolls for people to work, people make more money each day, etc.....they can afford tolls so it'll fill up

What percentage of drivers have tolled paid by companies?

[cloud713]

Is it true they are going to add frontage roads to the grand parkway at 290, underneath 290, making the interchange 5 levels instead of 4?

[BigFootsSocks]

^Yeah I'd like to hear something else on this. They've already paved the northbound 290 frontage road so I assume no, but then again it is closed off while section F is in construction.

[cloud713]

i didnt realize they started construction on the portion between The Woodlands and Kingwood..

[BigFootsSocks]

The angle of the first pic makes it look like those supports are all at the same level...kinda messed with my head for a sec.

Also, this work is F1,F2, and G; so from 290 to 59/69

[cloud713]

wow. i didnt realize segment G was being build simultaneously with F1 and F2, to be delivered by the end of next year. so in a year the Grand Parkway will be over halfway complete (from 69 to 69, plus the I-2 Baytown segment). it only took.. 20+ years. heh

edit. just did the math after realizing 69-69 isnt a full half circle.. segments D through G, and I-2 only add up to 83.1 miles, with segments B,C, H, I-1 adding up to 91 miles. not counting the controversial/undecided segment A.. so the loop still wont even be half way done after 20 years. doh.. at least weve finally been seeing real progress on it the last few years..

Edited May 20, 2014 by cloud713

[IronTiger]

IIRC, 99 will never ever be a full loop anyway. Remember, according to Wikipedia, it took 60 years from Beltway 8 to go from planning to full completion.

[DNAguy]

IIRC, 99 will never ever be a full loop anyway. Remember, according to Wikipedia, it took 60 years from Beltway 8 to go from planning to full completion.

 

True. However, never underestimate the power of developers and the access they get by giving lots of $$$$$ to politicians.

 

The sections of the Grand Parkway from 1-10 south to 59 and 290 east to 45 make sense to me. !10-290? I've driven it. There's nothing out there. Blatant developer welfare. The 45/Hardy to 59 section sort of makes sense. The Baytown section (I think's it's given the I2 section designation) seemed odd to me. Instead of building a road in a field, why didn't they just upgrade 146 to highway standards to I10? Oh yeah, developers. 

 

So now we have a section of the loop from 59 south all the way to 59 north and a stub from 146 to I 10.

I really think that that's all that's needed. 

Who is clamoring for a road in the middle of nowhere in Northeast / east harris county and liberty county? What is the traffic count for those needing to travel from the Woodlands to say Mont Belveiu. Is highway 6 from I45 to 288 and 288 to 59 so overloaded that we need to build a tollway from 45 to Alvin and from Alvin to Sugar land?

 

Really? Those billions would be better spent on making our current roads better. An example is the highway 6 I mentioned. Why not upgrade multiple sections to be grade separated?

 

The answer again comes down to $. Developers have politicians int heir pockets. Politicians in addition don't want to raise taxes. Therefore, the only new $ for roads can only be had by floating bonds and to get that you'll have to toll lanes to pay back the bonds. By state law you cannot toll lanes that already exist. So what do we do?

We've actually set up a system that incentivises toll roads and developers exploit it. 

Crazy.

Edited May 21, 2014 by DNAguy

[BigFootsSocks]

The sections of the Grand Parkway from 1-10 south to 59 and 290 east to 45 make sense to me. !10-290? I've driven it. There's nothing out there. Blatant developer welfare. The 45/Hardy to 59 section sort of makes sense. The Baytown section (I think's it's given the I2 section designation) seemed odd to me. Instead of building a road in a field, why didn't they just upgrade 146 to highway standards to I10? Oh yeah, developers. 

Baytown segment is definitely weird, however the I-10 to 290 segment does make sense IMO. You've got Bridgelands which is going to be split directly down the middle by the GP and most of the rest of the highway has construction on either side or soon to be developed plots. Segment E was really all about getting ahead of the game.

[DNAguy]

Baytown segment is definitely weird, however the I-10 to 290 segment does make sense IMO. You've got Bridgelands which is going to be split directly down the middle by the GP and most of the rest of the highway has construction on either side or soon to be developed plots. Segment E was really all about getting ahead of the game.

 

With Houston's west side developing at a pace roughly 20 years faster than rest of Houston, I guess you're right.

 

I fail to understand the need for the 59 north to I10 east section though. However, Exxon has a big refinery in Baytown and their new campus is right off the Grand parkway. I wouldn't put it past TxDOT to just build the road to help reduce that refinery to campus commute. What's a couple billion bucks anyway?

[BigFootsSocks]

With Houston's west side developing at a pace roughly 20 years faster than rest of Houston, I guess you're right.

I fail to understand the need for the 59 north to I10 east section though. However, Exxon has a big refinery in Baytown and their new campus is right off the Grand parkway. I wouldn't put it past TxDOT to just build the road to help reduce that refinery to campus commute. What's a couple billion bucks anyway?

A couple billion bucks that we, the taxpayers, get to pay more to use! Nothing like public-private highway partnerships, even if they're the only possible way of getting anything done anymore. Hell even the 249 project out to Navasota is going to be toll, and most of it after Magnolia is just a two lane asphalt road!

[mollusk]

Keep in mind that the gas tax has effectively been cut in half by inflation since the last time it was raised a couple decades ago.

 

Tolls and "user fees" are taxes labeled with a different name - it's still a funding method for the government, and not even a particularly voluntary one when applied to things like roads that are the only realistic route to some place.

 

Bonds, when overused as they have been in Texas for the last decade or so, are a way to shift the tax to a different legislature down the line.

 

Remember this when asked to vote for some shill who claims he hasn't raised taxes.

[Houston19514]

A couple billion bucks that we, the taxpayers, get to pay more to use! Nothing like public-private highway partnerships, even if they're the only possible way of getting anything done anymore. Hell even the 249 project out to Navasota is going to be toll, and most of it after Magnolia is just a two lane asphalt road!

 

We, as taxpayers aren't paying for it in the first instance.   So  we don't pay more to use.  Users pay for the road.  Period. The toll roads are built and paid for by issuing bonds, which will be paid off with toll revenues. 

[mollusk]

We, as taxpayers aren't paying for it in the first instance.   So  we don't pay more to use.  Users pay for the road.  Period. The toll roads are built and paid for by issuing bonds, which will be paid off with toll revenues. 

 

Even those of us who opt not to pay to use a toll road end up paying, with the extra expenditure of time and wear on our vehicles to get to the same place "for free," and/or with the diversion of funds from our own favorite routes.

 

Privately building and tolling everything was used as a model before, over 100 years ago.  People eventually realized that we all benefit from decent roads, even those of us that don't use a given route, and that it was cheaper and more efficient as a public work.  That's why it's called the "Department of Public Works" in many places.

[Houston19514]

Even those of us who opt not to pay to use a toll road end up paying, with the extra expenditure of time and wear on our vehicles to get to the same place "for free," and/or with the diversion of funds from our own favorite routes.

 

Privately building and tolling everything was used as a model before, over 100 years ago.  People eventually realized that we all benefit from decent roads, even those of us that don't use a given route, and that it was cheaper and more efficient as a public work.  That's why it's called the "Department of Public Works" in many places.

 

 

There is no diversion of funds from your favored routes.  Without the toll road, the funds would not exist. The alleged wear and tear on your vehicle caused by your using some other longer route is not the fault of the toll road and would not be cured by not building the toll road (and your cost would probably actually be increased by not building the toll road because that many more people would be with you on your underinvested favorite routes.)

 

The toll roads may or may not be the best public policy or the best transportation policy.  A fair and reasonable argument can be made that we should raise gasoline taxes and fund more of our road projects in the traditional manner.  But it is flat-out false to claim that you are paying anything for toll roads you do not use or that they somehow magically impose costs on your transportation.

 

(And FWIW, these are not privately built; Harris County's toll roads are all being built and funded and owned and operated by public agencies.)

Edited May 22, 2014 by Houston19514

[mollusk]

(And FWIW, these are not privately built; Harris County's toll roads are all being built and funded and owned and operated by public agencies.)

 

True in Harris County, perhaps, but not elsewhere in Texas - and this is a statewide issue.  The southern portion of Highway 130, from Seguin north to 183, was done by and is managed by Cintra Zachry, who are collecting revenue from it for the next 50 years.  see http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Toll-road-use-fluctuates-dropped-recently-5190801.php to see just how dandy that is working out.

[MexAmerican_Moose]

i just don't understand why the gas tax hasn't been increased since it was implemented, at the very minimum increase it to keep up with inflation, damn politicians

[DNAguy]

We, as taxpayers aren't paying for it in the first instance.   So  we don't pay more to use.  Users pay for the road.  Period. The toll roads are built and paid for by issuing bonds, which will be paid off with toll revenues. 

 

Well, not exactly.

 

If TxDOT builds a toll road, then it has to issue bonds. 

Tolls on the roads are, in principle, supposed to go to pay off those bonds. However, this really isn't the case. To TxDOT, money in is money in. In addition, they also leverages tolls + gas tax revenue to float more bonds for future projects. They count the tolls as income just as gas taxes. All they did is just take out a loan to build a road. So the $ to pay off the bonds comes from the whole pie of incoming TxDOT $. The extra 3, 7 , 9% could have build / maintained more lanes. So we really are stuck with a road that we paid more to build than if we had the $ today and the prospect of paying to use it forever. When $ is tight, there is always a premium to have something built faster.

 

I'm not saying whether there actually isn't any benefit for building highways as tollways, but lets call it what it is. It disincentives use and incentives other means of transportation / mass transit. One could argue that all highways should be tolled.

[Luminare]

Well, not exactly.

 

If TxDOT builds a toll road, then it has to issue bonds. 

Tolls on the roads are, in principle, supposed to go to pay off those bonds. However, this really isn't the case. To TxDOT, money in is money in. In addition, they also leverages tolls + gas tax revenue to float more bonds for future projects. They count the tolls as income just as gas taxes. All they did is just take out a loan to build a road. So the $ to pay off the bonds comes from the whole pie of incoming TxDOT $. The extra 3, 7 , 9% could have build / maintained more lanes. So we really are stuck with a road that we paid more to build than if we had the $ today and the prospect of paying to use it forever. When $ is tight, there is always a premium to have something built faster.

 

I'm not saying whether there actually isn't any benefit for building highways as tollways, but lets call it what it is. It disincentives use and incentives other means of transportation / mass transit. One could argue that all highways should be tolled.

 

There are actually plenty of countries that do this. I remember during my study abroad trip in Italy, all of their highways are essentially tollways, but they are at the city limits or main entrances into the highway.

[IronTiger]

I think that the Grand Parkway should become a full loop: just send the 99 designation down 146 while expanding the existing Seabrook Road into a wide boulevard by taking out the old railroad.

[BigFootsSocks]

I think that the Grand Parkway should become a full loop: just send the 99 designation down 146 while expanding the existing Seabrook Road into a wide boulevard by taking out the old railroad.

I'm pretty sure this is what's going to eventually happen.

[DNAguy]

I think that the Grand Parkway should become a full loop: just send the 99 designation down 146 while expanding the existing Seabrook Road into a wide boulevard by taking out the old railroad.

 

For the full loop, the section that is the thorniest isn't actually 146 itself. The issues comes when you try and get from 45 south to 146 to complete the loop. 

I just don't see the people of League city being all that jazzed about having a tollway replace Loop 646 / 16th street. 

[BigFootsSocks]

For the full loop, the section that is the thorniest isn't actually 146 itself. The issues comes when you try and get from 45 south to 146 to complete the loop. 

I just don't see the people of League city being all that jazzed about having a tollway replace Loop 646 / 16th street. 

Are all of the remaining segments planned to be tolls? I assume they are in order to get built but then there's segment D which is nice and free.

[DNAguy]

Are all of the remaining segments planned to be tolls? I assume they are in order to get built but then there's segment D which is nice and free.

 

Yes. All segments will be tolled except for the section between I10 and the westpark tollway.

[IronTiger]

So they updated the imagery to as recently as this March, so now I can see the Grand Parkway/290 interchange fully, and I can't make heads or tails of it. I saw a rendering that basically looked like they were going to make it a five stack, but from the aerial, it looks like Grand Parkway is going back to ground level, as if to possibly submerge under 290. But another look at that PDF suggests something else, something I didn't see before. 

 

Notice that the frontage roads for 99 are blue, except around 290, where they're chlorine-colored. Notice also that where they put the 290 frontage road at the 99 junction is currently undeveloped and not on the same ROW as the existing westbound frontage road (in that map, westbound is "up"). This suggests that 290 will stay where it is on ground level, then the frontage roads of 99 and 290 rise over the railroad (which makes sense) to provide the second "level" directly over the 290 mainlanes, the Grand Parkway would be at the third level, and the ramps compose the 4th and 5th. Now, would two additional bridges fit under the existing flyover ramps? I sure hope so!

[Marcus Allen]

I, for one, applaud the visionaries for creating this (third or fourth loop, depending on whether you consider Hwy6/1960 to be Htown's 3rd one). I get the need to create jobs, but don't understand when developers create a two lane something or other when we all know darn well, when it comes to Houston, that two laner will someday soon have to become a four lane, then six lane, then freeway, etc. Yes, NoW it doesn't make sense. Give it 20 years. It will. I witnessed the creation of the Sam Houston Tollway when I was in college, 1987 to it's completion. Parts of the corridors were open farm land. Look at it today. To me, it's called long term planning. Build baby build.

[BigFootsSocks]

So they updated the imagery to as recently as this March, so now I can see the Grand Parkway/290 interchange fully, and I can't make heads or tails of it. I saw a rendering that basically looked like they were going to make it a five stack, but from the aerial, it looks like Grand Parkway is going back to ground level, as if to possibly submerge under 290. But another look at that PDF suggests something else, something I didn't see before.

Notice that the frontage roads for 99 are blue, except around 290, where they're chlorine-colored. Notice also that where they put the 290 frontage road at the 99 junction is currently undeveloped and not on the same ROW as the existing westbound frontage road (in that map, westbound is "up"). This suggests that 290 will stay where it is on ground level, then the frontage roads of 99 and 290 rise over the railroad (which makes sense) to provide the second "level" directly over the 290 mainlanes, the Grand Parkway would be at the third level, and the ramps compose the 4th and 5th. Now, would two additional bridges fit under the existing flyover ramps? I sure hope so!

I doubt they will do this as the flyover for the grand parkway looks to be on the second level and they've already poured the frontage road for the westbound side