Grand Parkway Expansion

[BigFootsSocks]

Something something build it and they will come.

But seriously, Bridgelands is about o push over, and the section towards i10 is doing pretty well.

[cspwal]

I remember my grandmother telling me about when 610 was being built it was in the middle of nowhere.  I think she was even referring to west loop...

[Houston19514]

I spent some time over on the grand parkway website trying to figure out what the latest idea was for completion of the leg over to 59. At one point I think I read it was supposed to be open by the end of 2015, but it looks like they have expunged any and all references to when it will be complete, apart from this picture:

 

 

http://www.grandpky.com/home/

 

http://www.grandparkway99.com/

 

Any other news on it?

 

I saw it from the air last weekend.  It is quite far along.  I was surprised; didn't realize it was proceeding that quickly. 

[BigFootsSocks]

OK, here's a workable plan that doesn't involve rebuilding the mainlanes but still integrates just as well as a four stack. The new northside NB frontage roads for 99 split off in at-grade ramps (or at least that's what it appears to be) from the westbound frontage roads of 290, with the northside SB roads merging in with the westbound 290. To integrate the system, one thing that could happen is that there could be one railroad crossing where the southside frontage roads meet and intersect with 290, with additional bridges at the same grade of the 99 mainlanes going to the other side. Here's what I mean, sorta:

 

I only just now saw this, and I still don't think it's feasible. It honestly comes down to those railroad crossings; if TXDOT and/or HCTRA could get clearance to cross them, they would've built an overpass here when they rebuilt/extended 290 a few years back. Getting permission to cross railroad tracks is pretty much non-existent for RR companies; if the city/county wants a crossing they pretty much have to give up a crossing somewhere else. The liability risk is too high for RR companies.

[LoveCowboy]

I saw it from the air last weekend.  It is quite far along.  I was surprised; didn't realize it was proceeding that quickly. 

 

Well if they're going to have it done by the end of this year as originally stated, they'd better be proceeding that quickly. 

 

Building a brand new freeway in an already-clear right-of-way can go rather quickly as compared to something like the 290 widening which requires allowing people to still use the thing at the same time. 

 

[Nate99]

Getting from Kingwood to the Woodlands currently takes about as long as Kingwood to The Galleria. It will be interesting to see how this new access changes things.  I tend to agree with Tory Gattis’ idea that Kingwood will be pulled in to The Woodlands’ orbit.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Nate99

[MaxConcrete]

Photos taken today at US 59 north at at FM 1314

 

Looking north along US 59

 

 

Looking west from US 59. Only two connection ramps are included in this phase.

 

 

Lookiing northwest

 

Looking east at FM 1314. The median is surprisingly narrow. There is space to add only two more lanes. I'm assuming there will be a concrete or wire rope barrier with such a narrow median. It is disappointing so see low design standards on a new project, but on these toll projects the only thing that matters is the money so these compromises get made. It also looks to me that the corridor width is less than 400 feet, probably more like 300 feet. All through the environmental process the schematics showed a 400-foot wide corridor, but it may have been downsized for cost-cutting.

 

 

[BigFootsSocks]

Nope, it's 400ft. That's a state or federal requirement I believe. 

[towerjunkie]

We should call this "The Grass Belt" on the westside. "That creepy tree filled highway thats creepy at night but surprisingly calming during daylight" on the northside. 

[Twinsanity02]

I believe segments H and I-1 are scheduled to begin construction March 2016 with a completion date of October 2020

[BigFootsSocks]

Have they awarded a bid yet?

[Twinsanity02]

This is what I read from TDOT.  

 

SH 99 Segment H,I-1 and I-2

 

 

Final RFP  April 30,2015

 

Proposals Due  October 27, 2015

Contract Execution  March 2016   ( I assume this means start of construction)

Construction Completion Date  October 2020

 

Quincy Allen P.E

Tucker Ferguson P.E

 

[BigFootsSocks]

Oh wow they're about to put it to bid, that's interesting.

No, the contract execution is when everyone signs all the necessary documents, and then there's probably a month or so delay and then they'll start after the clearing & grubbing is finished.

Edit: they can execute the contracts but will have to wait for the funding approval to go through and a Notice to Proceed.

Edited September 18, 2015 by BigFootsSocks

[Twinsanity02]

Thanks for the info

[BigFootsSocks]

With a 2020 completion date it sounds like they'd be starting somewhere around the end of 2016, which makes sense. There are already a lot of land deals going on in that area for future residential and office/warehouse. I think if those deals get locked down quicker then the start date will get pushed up. It all depends on how much longer this oil slump will last tbh

[Triton]

Wish we could get more aerials of this project.

[IronTiger]

Wish we could get more aerials of this project.

Me too. The main aerials (barring the fuzzy and incomplete ones from earlier this spring) of the Houston area go back to around spring 2014, taken soon after the Axis Apartments fire.

[MaxConcrete]

I posted photos taken today, showing progress of the construction

 

http://houstonfreeways.com/photos/grand-parkway-october-2015

 

It looks like the westmost section, from US 290 to SH 249, could be ready for opening soon, by the end of the year. From SH 249 eastward to US 59 there is still a lot of work to be done in certain spots, so I'm thinking those sections will open in spring and summer of 2016.

 

Regarding BigFootSocks earlier comment that the right-of-way width is required to be 400ft: The right-of-way width varies and is 400 feet in some places but definitely not everywhere. Some spots are very narrow, such as at Hufsmith-Kohrville where it is less than 300 feet.

 

 

[BigFootsSocks]

Thanks for the pics!

I meant 400ft on the platted route. As in, there's 400ft dedicated to the route, but not all 400 ft is utilized. Basically, I meant an imaginary line. Kinda like the equator. I could be wrong though!

So looking at ur page I see that you addressed this point. From what I've read of the latest articles on this new segment, it seems TXDOT is taking a very low-cost philosophy for this. The contractor mentioned that there are overpasses for future thoroughfares, but no on or off ramps are built for most of these intersections where no road exists. The recently completed segment E does have on and off ramps constructed for those overpasses with no connection, but most are blocked by temporary barriers.

As for freeway width, I would be very surprised if TXDOT did not purchase the land for a 400ft width route. I would not be surprised, however; if TXDOT saved a few $'s by just reducing the amount of trees that needed to be cleared for this initial opening.

I'm curious if there's some extra cost associated with clearing trees between 45 and 69 due to the heavily forested area between the two. Not sure if there's some park or National Forest there.

Edited October 18, 2015 by BigFootsSocks

[IronTiger]

Thanks for the pics!

I meant 400ft on the platted route. As in, there's 400ft dedicated to the route, but not all 400 ft is utilized. Basically, I meant an imaginary line. Kinda like the equator. I could be wrong though!

So looking at ur page I see that you addressed this point. From what I've read of the latest articles on this new segment, it seems TXDOT is taking a very low-cost philosophy for this. The contractor mentioned that there are overpasses for future thoroughfares, but no on or off ramps are built for most of these intersections where no road exists. The recently completed segment E does have on and off ramps constructed for those overpasses with no connection, but most are blocked by temporary barriers.

As for freeway width, I would be very surprised if TXDOT did not purchase the land for a 400ft width route. I would not be surprised, however; if TXDOT saved a few $'s by just reducing the amount of trees that needed to be cleared for this initial opening.

I'm curious if there's some extra cost associated with clearing trees between 45 and 69 due to the heavily forested area between the two. Not sure if there's some park or National Forest there.

I believe part of it is, or at least was, a nature reserve, near Riley Fuzzell Rd.

[BigFootsSocks]

If so, then wouldn't TXDOT be forced to get a permit to cut down a certain amount of trees?

I don't know, but he mentions in his blog post that it looks like there won't be room for more than 3 lanes. Do we really think that this side of the GP will really need more than three lanes for the foreseeable future?

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

if you build it, they will come.

 

so, make it 3 lanes- do it right the first time  

[BigFootsSocks]

That's a waste of money though, so no

[jackie21love]

I totally agree. How many times we hear lots of city mayors talk about new projects like "it will solve problems for the next 20/30/50 years" but turned to be not enough after 3 or 5 years…

To develop a city, you have to build infrastructures to attract motivation somehow, instead of waiting for chances to come. Don't put all arguments on findings, how much funding you can get, no matter public or private, partially depend on how hard you work on it.

Take a look at highway system and conditions in China, we should feel ashamed.

if you build it, they will come.

so, make it 3 lanes- do it right the first time

[BigFootsSocks]

I think you're right, obviously. However, I doubt taxpayers would be pleased with paying extra money for two additional lanes that we would end up paying to use anyway.

[mollusk]

(sigh...) I imagine that digging out the narrow underpasses must be cheaper than building overpasses, notwithstanding that when the inevitable widening beyond three lanes to a side occurs it's going to cost a lot more money to accomplish.

[IronTiger]

For the section south of 290 and I-10 (Section G?), I'm not sure if the frontage roads are permanently canned or not, but I did do some looking at the plans of the Grand Parkway and I think that they are going to be there, though just not yet.

 

They are going to be sunken and not at-grade crossings, much like the original Beltway 8/I-10 interchange when the railroad still paralleled it. This would mean that the frontage roads would be sunken, but not the mainlanes, which would have to be bridges, and those already have permanent signage.

 

The section north of 290 has a "stub" point just near where the westbound frontage road curves off into the northbound frontage road.

 

Since 290 was significantly widened with lanes being shifted around all the time, it's possible that the mainlanes may have been rebuilt to support something being under them.

 

Probably one of the things preventing the building of frontage roads right now is that it would have been sort of useless...they would be used only for local access, and the two roads it would connect to are just essentially dead-end turn-around points.

 

The only evidence I could see for "frontage roads being axed" is that they seem to have built drainage structures near where the road would go over, just north of the Mound Road (the more northern one) stub, and the fact that the median between the 290 mainlanes and the frontage roads already seem to be used as drainage.

 

[BigFootsSocks]

I doubt they're going to put frontage lanes in IT. That would require building a bridge span for both sides of 290, bringing the support columns down for the Grand Parkeay overpasses, and getting approval from the RR company (UP? BNSF?) to build bridges for the rail crossing over these "sunken frontage roads." That alone will never happen because RR companies are notoriously difficult in negotiating that sort of thing. They won't put in an at-grade RR crossing unless they are highly motivated, or an existing crossing is removed.

It's just not gonna happen. The 290 west frontage road has an entrance into the GP ramp already. That alone says enough.

[Twinsanity02]

I was under the impression that the I-69 to I-45 segment was on schedule for completion at the end of 2015. I know the wet Spring slowed things down, but since late May it has been fairly dry. I wonder if penalties will be invoked.

[Twinsanity02]

Any news, rumors, drunken drivel, anything, on when these segments are opening?