Grand Parkway Project

[DJ V Lawrence]

Yo, forgive me for my ignorance. If you're for the Grand Parkway, great. If you're not, great as well. What's the Pros and Cons of the Grand Parkway? I've been out of country for a couple years now, and I've never had the opportunity to hear the details of the proposal, or any debate on this. Feel free to slam each other with ease. I'll volunteer to be the unbiased judge. I honestly have no prior opinion or info on this. Well, do you want the Parkway or not? Will anyone be affected by this?

[LTAWACS]

I say no to the GP. All it will do is increase sprawl. We don't need any of that. Nobody needs to live so far from the city.

[GovernorAggie]

Well I don;t know if the Grand Parkway will be the best use of $4 billion, but I think that it will be very useful to suburb-suburb commuting. I don't think that it will induce sprawl anymore than will already happen in those outer areas through routine road and utility improvements (e.g. widening roads like Barker Cypress, connecting roads like Fry, more sewer and waer, etc.). However, I think that it will intensify development within its boundaries. Plus, if built as planned lately, it won't have but a few exits along it and no feeders. For example, I think tha between the Katy Frwy. and 290, there are only about 3-4 exits. I think there's 1 or 2 exits between 290 and 249, and the same number between 249 and 45.

Even though most don't agree with me on this one, I think that GP will be the closest thing to a growth boundary that Houston will ever see. This is due to it being 30 miles from downtown and I also think that "outside Grand Parkway" will become psychologically synonymous with "the country" for the most part and thus too far from the core. There will be outliers (e.g. the Woodlands, Katy, Sugar Land) but there won't be continuous sprawl a la along 290

[pineda]

I think that if the Grand Parkway project was not on any maps anywhere as a potential project, that all the induced-growth suburbs wouldn't be popping up "just minutes from the Grand Parkway" as they already are in anticipation. The future growth population numbers for the northwest quadrant, IMO, are based upon developers future plans for this area, which in turn, are based upon the hoped-for build-out of the Grand Parkway. I have never thought that suburb to suburb commuting was a big necessity. For instance, I have no desire to go to Katy or Kingwood or Sugarland. Everything that they have has already been duplicated right in my own neck of the woods. The need, in my opinion, is to build more "spokes" on the "wheel", not more "rims", and the Grand Parkway does not alleviate any of that problem at all. It has always been a "developer-driven" project, hence the installment of Billy Burge, a developer, as Chairman of the Board of the Grand Parkway Association. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars dressed up to look like a "mobility project". Mobility not being the same as accessibility. Yes, we'll be "mobile" all right, but we won't have any greater access to anything in downtown Houston. We'll just be able to travel around this 170-mile semi-circle with few exits on a toll-road. Great project? I don't think so, guys....

[kjb434]

I think you might be surprised at how much suburban to suburban traffic exits out there.

With all of these large communities that exist along the planned route, suppliers for retail properties and simple commuting will require such a facility. Just look at the traffic that exists along the west belt and north belt in the mornings. The Westchase district has commuters comming from the northside. The southwest side and sugarland has lots of commuters that are going to Weschase, Northwest Crossing and Greenspoint.

Currently, during peak travel times the Portion of the currently build Grand Parkway from I-10 to US 59 has nice volume of traffic. It isn't a traffic jam, but it's a lot of cars. Sugarland is becoming another office center of the city like Westchase, Greenspoint, and Northwest Crossing. Not everyone who works there wants live there. They would rather commute.

Many people love living out in the burbs and don't want to live in an urban environment. They like the sprawl out there. And all the benefits outway the work commute. Also, most parts of the Grand Parkway that is currently being planned and designed from I-45 North to I-10 West is becoming developed alread. Building nothing out there will burden the north-south routes that currently exist.

As for this being a developer back freeway: SH 249, Rebuilds of US 59 North and South side, I-45 north of the Beltway, I-10 Katy, US 290 outside the Beltway were all facilities that were pushed by developers. It can be said that most new roads and road expansions were due to developers.

The difference in this facility is that it will be taken care of earlier so that issues of expansion later is not a problem. Developers helped lay out the facility. Nothing wrong with that. Why do you think US 59 has a curve at Westpark to head southwest to Sugarland? It was because of Sharpstown. The developer had TxDOT and the planning commision move it. US 59 was supposed to follow the path of the current Westpark Tollroad and turn south much further west.

[pineda]

The difference in this facility is that it will be taken care of earlier so that issues of expansion later is not a problem.

This is an old argument that was once used by personnel within the Grand Parkway Association, but even they don't use it anymore because it is not a true statement anymore. Once upon a time, the area in Segment F-2 of the Grand Parkway was rural enough to consider doing such a project. That was 40 years ago. A lot has happened since then. The former and current executive directors of the Grand Parkway Association have both publicly acknowledged that there is no simple way to put in this project, without disrupting the lives of many, many citizens already living there, many of whom have been here long before Lanier and Burge and Kickerillo dreamed up this developers highway that would help facilitate access to their worthless land holdings. It is now too late to try and slip this thing in unnoticed. The expansion has already happened in this area of town, they would have to go out past Conroe and Magnolia to have your statement hold any merit at all. And, one more point if I may, commuting is something I would think of that happens on a daily basis, as part of your daily routine, not something done once in a while, such as visiting relatives in Sugarland or taking the dog to a special vet in Kingwood, or a nursery in Katy. Commuting into Houston requires routes that actually travel into Houston, not around Houston. And yes, while there are many people who live out here and yet work in the Greenspoint area, they too will need north-south access to and from work, not a 170 mile detour around it.

[LTAWACS]

This is an old argument that was once used by personnel within the Grand Parkway Association, but even they don't use it anymore because it is not a true statement anymore. Once upon a time, the area in Segment F-2 of the Grand Parkway was rural enough to consider doing such a project. That was  40 years ago. A lot has happened since then. The former and current executive directors of the Grand Parkway Association have both publicly acknowledged that there is no simple way to put in this project, without disrupting the lives of many, many citizens already living there, many of whom have been here long before Lanier and Burge and Kickerillo dreamed up this developers highway that would help facilitate access to their worthless land holdings. It is now too late to try and slip this thing in unnoticed. The expansion has already happened in this area of town, they would have to go out past Conroe and Magnolia to have your statement hold any merit at all. And, one more point if I may, commuting is something I would think of that happens on a daily basis, as part of your daily routine, not something done once in a while, such as visiting relatives in Sugarland or taking the dog to a special vet in Kingwood, or a nursery in Katy. Commuting into Houston requires routes that actually travel into Houston, not around Houston. And yes, while there are many people who live out here and yet work in the Greenspoint area, they too will need north-south access to and from work, not a 170 mile detour around it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very well said Pineda. They should all move in closer. It will solve so many problems.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Very well said Pineda. They should all move in closer. It will solve so many problems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ALL valid points so far. Personally, I don't see the problem with more sprawl in Houston as Houston seems to be developing urban-style living in a faster rate than years past. I also think the wide selection of choice between citylife and spacious country life is a strong attraction to Houston that not many other cities have, and I also consider it wrong to "force" neighboorhoods to build closer to the city than they want to.

Also, I saw most of my driving in Houston directly from suburb to suburb. I question however if I will ever HAVE to use the Grand Parkway.

So here's da questions in my head to y'all:

1) anyone here got a link to a map of where Grand Parkway will be built (just so I know I'm accurate)

2) does anyone in this thread have anything to gain or lose by this freeway being built?

3) Will Grand Parkway serve it's purpose as a faster commute from Sugarland to Katy to Woodlands?

4) Would the Parkway reduce traffic in the rest of the city?

I love Houston. Hit me up :-)

[pineda]

You can learn more about the project by going to the "support website" of Grand Parkway or by visiting the "opposition website" of Stop the Grand Parkway!. Enjoy!

[kjb434]

I understand that the F-2 alignment had been developed, but the alignment from I10 Katy to US 290 is more sparce in the GP path. Also, the Alignment from I45 to US59 and from US59 Eastex to I10 East is going to pas nearly 50,000 acres of new development. East of Lake Houston, southeast of Lake Houston along San Jacinto River, and in Montgomery County along East side of San Jacinto are the next big areas of residential development. Feasibility studies throughouth these areas are moving forward and the areas just north of I-10 off the San Jacinto is currently being developed. The north East side is a good example of where tons of proposed development will occur probably a while before the GP gets finished. The areas are finishing being developed the GP should be near completion.

Also, where the GP will cross SH288 in Brazoria county is alread under planning for serveral 1000 acres of new development. Actually, the faster we can get our engineering studies out and plans produce they want get out and build.

So, yes the F-2 alignment is alread fairly developed, but many other segments aren't.

Also, saying that they should all just move in is ridiculous. Many people detest the urban living concept. The like to live out in the burbs. They do it for their family and its cheaper.

Urban develop in this city is moving along nicely and many people moving into the city are new people and middle-aged empty nesters. New people are moving into the city from outside of Houston and many people are moving into the suburbs from ouside of Houston. Growth is occuring everywhere.

The surburbs are growing at the expense of the inner city with people fleeing away from urban areas. That concept had ended in Houston. It is occuring between the loop and the beltway though, but not at the rates that inner cities have felt in the 60's and 70's

[pineda]

Actually, the faster we can get our engineering studies out and plans produce they want get out and build.

Please clarify this statement, your meaning is unclear to me.

The surburbs are growing at the expense of the inner city with people fleeing away from urban areas. That concept had ended in Houston. It is occuring between the loop and the beltway though, but not at the rates that inner cities have felt in the 60's and 70's

What factual information do you base this on? I had heard differently.

So, yes the F-2 alignment is alread fairly developed

And, hey, thanks!

[GovernorAggie]

ALL valid points so far. Personally, I don't see the problem with more sprawl in Houston as Houston seems to be developing urban-style living in a faster rate than years past. I also think the wide selection of choice between citylife and spacious country life is a strong attraction to Houston that not many other cities have, and I also consider it wrong to "force" neighboorhoods to build closer to the city than they want to. 

Also, I saw most of my driving in Houston directly from suburb to suburb. I question however if I will ever HAVE to use the Grand Parkway.

So here's da questions in my head to y'all:

1) anyone here got a link to a map of where Grand Parkway will be built (just so I know I'm accurate)

2) does anyone in this thread have anything to gain or lose by this freeway being built?

3) Will Grand Parkway serve it's purpose as a faster commute from Sugarland to Katy to Woodlands?

4) Would the Parkway reduce traffic in the rest of the city?

I love Houston. Hit me up :-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, I'll try....

1) Pineda gave you the links to the maps of GP.

2) Again, Pineda would be the best source for the latter. He and his community feel that they have a lot to lose (if you don't mind me saying so Pineda).

3)From Sugar Land to Katy--I don't think so. That segment is already like every other Houston freeway--feeders and a lot of development. Throw in the mall that is supposed to built @ 10/GP along with Katy Mills, and you have a lot more traffic on that segment. So, I think that the commute would be negligible at best.

Katy-Woodlands--I think that this commute will be better, especially with the fundamental differences of GP in that area (no feeders, etc.). I only know of one planned huge development along that route--The Bridgelands near Fry Rd. Other than that, there won't be a lot of congestion on the GP, at least for a long time.

4) I don't think that Grand Parkway will really reduce current traffic in the "rest" of the city, because Houston's forecasted growth increase will substitute any traffic "reduction" the GP may give. At the same time, I think that it will provide another way for people to travel along the periphery instead of using BW8.

For through traffic, I think that it will be used more than people think, a la people traveling from 290 to Galveston. In 20 years, I would think that the Beltway won't be worth the cost of tolls if its traffic grows with population. GP will present a opportunity to hit I-45 20 minutes from the beach instead of going through Houston.

By the way, it looks like the segments from I-10 to US 59 (Kingwood) will be tolled.

[GovernorAggie]

Please clarify this statement, your meaning is unclear to me.

What factual information do you base this on? I had heard differently.

And, hey, thanks!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I haven't seen factual stuff but I think he's right. Inside 610 is doing well, and outside the Belt is doing well. It's the areas in-between that are becoming more and more shady. Just the invasion-succession and concentric rings theories at work.

[jm1fd]

Very well said Pineda. They should all move in closer. It will solve so many problems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And it will create other problems....

[kjb434]

The population growth of the inner loop grew at a faster rate than most suburbs in Houston. This is a rate. It doesn't mean more people move there than the suburbs. Houston is seeing a trend in inner loop development (and not just townhomes) that is slowly moving towards what many people on this board seem to want: denser development. Governor-Aggie gave a good name for it above. It's happening in other cities too.

As for the engineering studies. We have several projects in process. Some are awaing drainage study approvals to get plans approved and start construction. Some projects we are in early feasibilities (these are the larger tracts). These feasibilities allow us to inform the developer if the purchasing and developing of tracts will make them money. Drainage issues, pipeline issues, poor soils, wetlands, etc. can all effect whether a developer can make money.

We have been getting many request for feasibilities for land between San Jacinto and US 59 in Montgomery, east of Lake Houston, and around GP and SH 288 in Brazoria County. These appear to be some of the hot spots for new development. The faster we can produce our feasibility and write proposals to do the engineering work, the faster they produce lots and/or homes to sell.

[Rehan]

Even though most don't agree with me on this one, I think that GP will be the closest thing to a growth boundary that Houston will ever see.  This is due to it being 30 miles from downtown and I also think that "outside Grand Parkway" will become psychologically synonymous with "the country" for the most part and thus too far from the core.  There will be outliers (e.g. the Woodlands, Katy, Sugar Land) but there won't be continuous sprawl a la along 290

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My take on "The Country" line:

The line constantly moves, or at least in my head it does. I've got a sales job that allows me to travel quite a bit. I have certain boundaries that I consider "the edge of civilization" Once I cross them I consdier myself in the country. I'm only 23 so I don't remember when 59 went nowhere or when 1960 didn't have a traffic light every 100 feet. But here are some examples of how the line has moved as I've gotten older:

1.) North:

Years ago: 1960 was my northern boundary for Houston

Later on: I "annexed" Spring and the Woodlands all the way to the San Jacinto

Now: I consider Conroe part of Houston

2.) Southwest:

Years ago: Highway 6

Later on: Grand Parkway

Now: Highway 36 (already past GP)

3.) Northwest:

Years ago: Highway 6

Later: Spring-Cypress Road

Now: 2920...seriously (also past proposed GP)

I don't think the GP will create any growth boundary. I don't think people mind living in the "country". As a matter of fact, a guy I went to school with complained about how Katy was getting overdevloped, so he moved out to Sealy, and commuted downtown everyday. I don't understand it myself, but that was his reasoning.

As for being "for" or "against" the GP, I have mixed emotions. New options are always nice, but I think improving existing roadways would be more beneficial.

[LTAWACS]

There has to be a way to stop all this sprawl.

[kjb434]

By what, using the government to force people to live in areas? We don't live in a communist country. People that don't want to live in the city won't unless they are forced too, but there is nothing that will force them too.

Also, I think many people assume that suburbanites yearn for a pedestrian friendly dense neighborhoods, but they just don't exist. I think that most suburbanites have urban living as one of the last things on there mind. They are happy with their home in the suburbs.

And, living in the loop with what you get out in the burbs costs way too much. The neighborhoods that they could afford have to be redeveloped. Most suburbanites don't want to be pioneers going into old neighborhoods to revitalize them.

[LTAWACS]

By what, using the government to force people to live in areas?  We don't live in a communist country.  People that don't want to live in the city won't unless they are forced too, but there is nothing that will force them too.

Also,  I think many people assume that suburbanites yearn for a pedestrian friendly dense neighborhoods, but they just don't exist.  I think that most suburbanites have urban living as one of the last things on there mind.  They are happy with their home in the suburbs.

And, living in the loop with what you get out in the burbs costs way too much.  The neighborhoods that they could afford have to be redeveloped.  Most suburbanites don't want to be pioneers going into old neighborhoods to revitalize them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There should be a limit. Past a certain point it does more harm than good. The government should step in because most people don't know what they are doing.

[kjb434]

Do you really believe the government can do a better job? What happens to freedom? Should you get penalized because you want to live somewhere in this country that happens to be on the edge of the city. I rather trust the American public than government to define where sprawl should end. The biggest problem is that we don't have many physical boundaries to stop it. The majority of the land being built on is not in anyway environmentally sensitive because they were farmlands. Up north, the development is certainly not hurting the wild animal population they way people thing.

The best way is to convince people to move into the loop or choose the inner city lifestyle, but you can't make them. I chose to live in the loop, but I have many friends that don't. Sometimes I would like a personal yard, but I don't want to keep it up. My friends love their yard. Also, I'm not going to have any kids, so I don't have to worry about living near good schools. Which is a big concern to many new home owners.

[N Judah]

We should just stop giving people incentives to live in the suburbs. Or, at the very least, if we continue to give them incentives to live in the suburbs, we should give them equal incentive to live in the city. Which is what we're doing in Houston, to some extent.

[pineda]

Or here's a radical idea; if developers want to build a new suburb in a far-flung remote area that is almost inaccessible, (think Cinco Ranch-the early years or Bridgelands), then why not let them pay for the roads to be built out to their profitable little suburb instead of making taxpayers pay to subsidize them?

[kjb434]

The do pay for the roads! Its called MUD taxes. The developer builds the roads and will be reimbursed up to 70% by the state in bonds. The MUD is then responsible for paying off the bonds. This goes for the sanitary, water and storm sewer in most MUD's too.

The developers also are typically required to pay for boulevards or half boulevards for the County as part of the Major Thoroughfare plan. If the major thoroughfare passes through the development, the developer has to completely build the boulevard.

The idea is novel, it's just been in place for over 20 years.

The city has the same thing for in-city MUD's. Currently on work for two of them. On is off of North Wayside at Little York and the other one is at Southbelt at I-45. The Wayside one is for affordable housing in a blighted neighborhood.

Eitherway, the people living in the subdivisions pay for the roads and utilities.

In cities like Austin and Dallas where the MUD concept isn't often used, the developer has to recoup the cost from the sale of the houses often ending up in much higher house prices per square-foot.

[pineda]

In a letter received this past weekend from Landtech Consultants, Inc. (hope that's not you, kjb34!), it begins thusly:

"Landtech Consultants, Inc. has been contracted by the Harris County Toll Road Authority to conduct a survey for the acquisition of right-of-way and design of the Grand Parkway in Tomball and Spring, Harris County, from State Highway 249 to Interstate 45. The survey work will consist of locating property corners, improvements and topography upon your land. This will require survey personnel to enter upon your land."

According to Judge Eckels office, the Harris County Toll Road Authority has not taken over the project from the Grand Parkway Association, and this is a project of TxDOT, not HCTRA, even though HCTRA's name is on this letter.

Also according to Eckels office, the survey work being conducted is based upon Alignment "D", which is south of Spring Stuebner. However, all the people getting these letters have property in Alignment "E", not "D".

According to the Grand Parkway Association, there are currently "no maps", and "no preferred or recommended routes". One month ago, there were both.

You wonder why we're confused and angry? Is this not proof enough?

EXTRA! EXTRA!

Channel 11 covering this story beginning at 6:00 p.m. tonight (Monday).

[debmartin]

"Most suburbanites don't want to be pioneers going into old neighborhoods to revitalize them."(quote, kjb434)

and the ones that would like to are largely priced out of doing so. i recently read a post where someone remarked that with "only $150,000 to spend, they were priced out of the city and would be forced to become a suburbanite. i guess they could remain in the city, renting an apartment but when home ownership is the goal people are forced to settle where their wallet sets the limit. that said, i wonder where billy burge and the other development experts reside, probably inside the loop because they keep getting richer selling us projects like the GP instead of working to get existing roadways updated, expanded and improved. i live in the city by choice, know many who live outside the beltway by choice and feel fortunate to chose where i live. but in my "dream" world people would have more options available, instead of being sorted out by subdivsion and feeling lucky to join in the american dream. as for the GP, for me the verdict is still out as i can understand the potential but cannot ignore more of the obvious drawbacks. and i had to laugh reading about it being detoured around sharpstown, since i can't imagine why they would do that.

deb martin

[pineda]

You can go to Lone Star Times to hear the posted MP3 of Billy Burge in his "full glory". It's scary as all get out to know that he's the Chairman of the Grand Parkway Association!

[westguy]

I don't use the GP and never will. I thought I lived far out, but this is still miles to the west of me. If I want to go to Applebees, CVS, Wal-Mart, and Home Depot, I probably wouldn't need the GP to go to Katy to get to those places.

[marc]

Well I don;t know if the Grand Parkway will be the best use of $4 billion, but I think that it will be very useful to suburb-suburb commuting.  I don't think that it will induce sprawl anymore than will already happen in those outer areas through routine road and utility improvements (e.g. widening roads like Barker Cypress, connecting roads like Fry, more sewer and waer, etc.).  However, I think that it will intensify development within its boundaries.  Plus, if built as planned lately, it won't have but a few exits along it and no feeders.  For example, I think tha between the Katy Frwy. and 290, there are only about 3-4 exits.  I think there's 1 or 2 exits between 290 and 249, and the same number between 249 and 45.

Even though most don't agree with me on this one, I think that GP will be the closest thing to a growth boundary that Houston will ever see.  This is due to it being 30 miles from downtown and I also think that "outside Grand Parkway" will become psychologically synonymous with "the country" for the most part and thus too far from the core.  There will be outliers (e.g. the Woodlands, Katy, Sugar Land) but there won't be continuous sprawl a la along 290

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said GovenorAggie, well said.

Being a native Houstonian, (i now live in LA) i like seeing Houston gobble up about 1/4 th of TX. Haha. Just kidding. But i have always been an enthusiast of Houston's success. BUT....now that i live in LA i am witness to sprawl gone unchecked. OH MY GOD! i would hate for Houston to become like the monster LA is. What i mean is the transportation nightmare. Houstonians, like Angelenos, love their cars, and mass transit, try as it might, is slow in coming to both cities.

If what you say becomes reality, i am sort of glad we are seeing the start of some sort of boundary around Houston. Think about it: just in a mere twenty years, Houston has gone from one loop (610) to three. (SH tollway/beltway) and the HWY 6, Grand Parkway situation. Perhaps, then developers can concentrate more on mass transit rail lines and think vertically. i would like to see that for Houston.

m.

[C2H]

I'm kind of pissed off with the approval of this project. enough freeways. Houston is already too bright to look at when the sun comes out reflecting off all the freeways. Put some of that money into extending another rail line from downtown to uptown in the AIR. Houston's in dire need of something like that.

[Lowbrow]

You can go to Lone Star Times to hear the posted MP3 of Billy Burge in his "full glory". It's scary as all get out to know that he's the Chairman of the Grand Parkway Association!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OMG I just listened to that. If that is for real we are in trouble.