Segment E. of Grand Parkway (Katy Freeway To Highway 290)

[illusionescape]

The Harris County Commissioners Court is set to approve the fast-track development of Segment E of the Grand Parkway in Tuesday's meeting. The plan is for the tollway to ease traffic off of the heavily congested US 290 and feed some of the traffic onto the newly widened Katy Freeway.

Link:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6277272.html

More info about Segment E of Grand Parkway:

http://www.grandpky.com/segments/e/

Here is a map showing the extent of the project:

[westguy76]

I fail to see how this will ease any congestion on 290. This right now is just a north south connection for convienance. Sort of a road to nowhere. It may relieve congestion on Mason and Fry roads between 290 and I-10. I wonder if this includes the much needed fly over ramps (east & west) to connect the existing portion of 99 where it intersects I-10

[h2obuff]

The Harris County Commissioners Court is set to approve the fast-track development of Segment E of the Grand Parkway in Tuesday's meeting. The plan is for the tollway to ease traffic off of the heavily congested US 290 and feed some of the traffic onto the newly widened Katy Freeway.

Link:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6277272.html

More info about Segment E of Grand Parkway:

http://www.grandpky.com/segments/e/

Here is a map showing the extent of the project:

I know two less cars on 290 as soon as this gets built. My wife's when she goes into work, and mine when I run around town.

[lockmat]

I wish they'd get started on Segement F-2 (249 to 45)

[illusionescape]

I wish they'd get started on Segement F-2 (249 to 45)

I'm pretty sure they would only go in consecutive order for construction. With Segment D completed and this one starting next, the segment after that would be Segment F-1, then F-2.

[totheskies]

Yippee!!! Another excuse to build out into nothingness!!!!!!

How many endless roads do we need in this city?? I swear, I have written so many people about this Grand PORKway extension, I'm just tired of it!!

We don't need anymore neighborhoods and endless strip center/Applebee's/Home Depot CRAP out there.

[TheNiche]

We don't need anymore neighborhoods and endless strip center/Applebee's/Home Depot CRAP out there.

Speak for yourself.

[HarrisCountyEx]

Coming from College Station, I would like this. Seems forever to make my way from Hempstead to Brookshire.

[lockmat]

Yippee!!! Another excuse to build out into nothingness!!!!!!

How many endless roads do we need in this city?? I swear, I have written so many people about this Grand PORKway extension, I'm just tired of it!!

We don't need anymore neighborhoods and endless strip center/Applebee's/Home Depot CRAP out there.

I think it's a good move b/c we need to plan for the future. It's good to be proactive. I wish parts of it were done five or ten years ago.

They're gonna build the houses with or without it anyway.

[Houston19514]

I think it's a good move b/c we need to plan for the future. It's good to be proactive. I wish parts of it were done five or ten years ago.

They're gonna build the houses with or without it anyway.

You are right, the houses will be built somewhere, with or without this project. And not building the Grand Parkway will actually encourage the development to occur even further out, because new developments will continue to be strung out along existing highways.

[JLWM8609]

I wonder if people got this worked up when 610 was constructed?

[totheskies]

Speak for yourself.

I already did.

I can understand the road as a relief route, but does it have to be an extension of the Grand Parkway? How many people are there that live in Cypress, and work in Katy (or vice versa)??? Traffic is BAD on 290, not on I-10, so it doesn't make sense to increase traffic on I-10. The problem won't be solved, b/c in 10 years, I-10's traffic will be bad, 290's traffic will be WORSE and the Grand Parkway between the two will be horrible. The answer is to build a relief road for 290 like the Hempstead Tollway. Diverting traffic from 290 to I-10 (especially considering that is a 14 MILE diversion) ain't-a-gonna help nobody.

And yeah, I'm not a suburbanite anymore... I don't understand the necessity to build new neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere, create more roads, utilities, schools, shopping venues, etc. for the county to have to service and maintain when there's already a significant SURPLUS of new and perfectly good homes on the market???? If you got 5,000 empty houses and 3,000 empty lots, it's just dumb to go off and build MORE houses and clear MORE lots.

[TheNiche]

I already did.

I can understand the road as a relief route, but does it have to be an extension of the Grand Parkway? How many people are there that live in Cypress, and work in Katy (or vice versa)??? Traffic is BAD on 290, not on I-10, so it doesn't make sense to increase traffic on I-10. The problem won't be solved, b/c in 10 years, I-10's traffic will be bad, 290's traffic will be WORSE and the Grand Parkway between the two will be horrible. The answer is to build a relief road for 290 like the Hempstead Tollway. Diverting traffic from 290 to I-10 (especially considering that is a 14 MILE diversion) ain't-a-gonna help nobody.

No, the first words you said "we don't need...". Either you misutilized a pronoun, or you spoke for everybody.

Well, you don't speak for me. I need it because I'm an owner of urban commercial properties and I need for the Houston area to continue to have readily-available inexpensive housing with easy access to corridors efficiently leading into and out of my area. Otherwise, jobs in the urban core get moved to the suburbs in order to more effectively tap the suburban labor pool, and that discourages people from living in my area, hurting urban areas and costing me money.

And yeah, I'm not a suburbanite anymore... I don't understand the necessity to build new neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere, create more roads, utilities, schools, shopping venues, etc. for the county to have to service and maintain when there's already a significant SURPLUS of new and perfectly good homes on the market???? If you got 5,000 empty houses and 3,000 empty lots, it's just dumb to go off and build MORE houses and clear MORE lots.

There are so many things wrong with what you just said.

1) Builders build where people will buy. If people stop buying there, builders stop building there. This goes for urban or suburban areas.

2) Neighborhoods cannot be built in the middle of nowhere because nowhere hasn't got boundaries by way of which a middle could be observed. If nowhere is situated relative to somewhere, then nowhere is in fact somewhere.

3) New development creates a larger tax base, vacant homes don't require as many county services to maintain as do populated homes, and populated homes often get a homestead exemption that has adverse consequences on tax revenue.

4) Your data on vacant new homes and vacant developed lots is wrong. According to MetroStudy, there were 18,703 vacant homes in the Houston area at the end of the third quarter of 2008, down 24% over the previous 12 months. Builders started 6,733 new homes and sold 8,525 new homes. And in the vicinity of Cinco Ranch, very near the proposed Segment E, sales were actually up 4.7% year-to-date. There was an excess of vacant homes, however the market is clearing as anticipated.

5) It'll be at least another couple years before Segment E could be built, and by that time, even more increased housing growth in that area will be justified. And as Houston19514 pointed out, the alternative to filling in the gaps between highways is that development only gets pushed out further towards Brookshire and Sealy; pick your poison.

[totheskies]

No, the first words you said "we don't need...". Either you misutilized a pronoun, or you spoke for everybody.

Well, you don't speak for me. I need it because I'm an owner of urban commercial properties and I need for the Houston area to continue to have readily-available inexpensive housing with easy access to corridors efficiently leading into and out of my area. Otherwise, jobs in the urban core get moved to the suburbs in order to more effectively tap the suburban labor pool, and that discourages people from living in my area, hurting urban areas and costing me money.

There are so many things wrong with what you just said.

1) Builders build where people will buy. If people stop buying there, builders stop building there. This goes for urban or suburban areas.

2) Neighborhoods cannot be built in the middle of nowhere because nowhere hasn't got boundaries by way of which a middle could be observed. If nowhere is situated relative to somewhere, then nowhere is in fact somewhere.

3) New development creates a larger tax base, vacant homes don't require as many county services to maintain as do populated homes, and populated homes often get a homestead exemption that has adverse consequences on tax revenue.

4) Your data on vacant new homes and vacant developed lots is wrong. According to MetroStudy, there were 18,703 vacant homes in the Houston area at the end of the third quarter of 2008, down 24% over the previous 12 months. Builders started 6,733 new homes and sold 8,525 new homes. And in the vicinity of Cinco Ranch, very near the proposed Segment E, sales were actually up 4.7% year-to-date. There was an excess of vacant homes, however the market is clearing as anticipated.

5) It'll be at least another couple years before Segment E could be built, and by that time, even more increased housing growth in that area will be justified. And as Houston19514 pointed out, the alternative to filling in the gaps between highways is that development only gets pushed out further towards Brookshire and Sealy; pick your poison.

Didn't give any firm data... just examples. I'm am not a} a developer b} a statistician so I didn't feel the need to give specific numbers for the GHO housing surplus. Significant is as significant does, and to a person who comes from a town of less than 18,000 persons, that constitutes a "significant" surplus (thanks for supplying some data btw).

And yeah, I definitely don't speak for you... nor do I speak for Katy Mills mall, or my former employer at Katy Music Studio. This extension is a great thing for her b/c it means more homes, which mean more families, which mean more kids to take piano lessons and boost her income and expand her business. And yeah, it's increased tax revenue for the county. It's increased a LOT of stuff for the county, but what's it's not is efficient.

This ain't gonna relieve traffic on Fry road, b/c traffic on Fry road is due to all of the businesses that are already there. Most people aren't using Fry to get between Katy and Cypress... they're using it to go to Wal-Mart and everything else that is there. So how?? is this going to benefit traffic in the area? I-10 just got expanded, but it still backs up. If you divert 290 traffic onto I-10, it's going to HELLA back up. Pretty soon it'll be like a daily dose of Rita evacuations (yay!)

Have we completely fogotten July and August of '08? Gas prices could actually go back up again... I mean it is possible. But for those people that do a super and super-duper commute, I hope they've got a back plan if that happens.

[TheNiche]

Didn't give any firm data... just examples. I'm am not a) a developer a statistician so I didn't feel the need to give specific numbers for the GHO housing surplus. Significant is as significant does, and to a person who comes from a town of less than 18,000 persons, that constitutes a "significant" surplus (thanks for supplying some data btw).

And yeah, I definitely don't speak for you... nor do I speak for Katy Mills mall, or my former employer at Katy Music Studio. This extension is a great thing for her b/c it means more homes, which mean more families, which mean more kids to take piano lessons and boost her income and expand her business. And yeah, it's increased tax revenue for the county. It's increased a LOT of stuff for the county, but what's it's not is efficient.

This ain't gonna relieve traffic on Fry road, b/c traffic on Fry road is due to all of the businesses that are already there. Most people aren't using Fry to get between Katy and Cypress... they're using it to go to Wal-Mart and everything else that is there. So how?? is this going to benefit traffic in the area? I-10 just got expanded, but it still backs up. If you divert 290 traffic onto I-10, it's going to HELLA back up. Pretty soon it'll be like a daily dose of Rita evacuations (yay!)

Have we completely fogotten July and August of '08? Gas prices could actually go back up again... I mean it is possible. But for those people that do a super and super-duper commute, I hope they've got a back plan if that happens.

OK, so we have an admission of incorrect pronoun use. I'm already largely satisfied.

For the sake of wrapping up loose ends, I just want you to understand that home building is like any other kind of manufacturing in that inventory is essential to ensure adequate customer service (where the term "customer service" is strict industry jargon used by operations management professionals). Having excessive inventory is not desirable, however the data that I presented indicates that inventory is rapidly diminishing. Before very long we'll be back to a state of equilibrium inventory, and that will necessitate an increase in new construction. One way or the other, the current state of things will not persist. A state of momentary disequilibrium should not derail long-term transportation planning.

As you already pointed out, if Segment E of the Grand Parkway is meant to divert traffic to I-10 it goes so far out of the way as that you can't hardly expect a whole lot of users. And I agree with that; its stated purpose is dubious. It won't actually divert very much traffic volume from 290, and so the argument that it would cause I-10 to back up is also dubious. This is about increasing the amount of land in our metro area that can be intensively developed, and that is done to keep housing costs low; furthermore, if the road can be paid for with user fees, then I don't see nearly any kind of fiscal objection as being realistic.

Gas prices probably will go up again. I just don't think it matters; Houston's rate of both suburban and urban growth peaked when gas prices were high, and it's not a coincidence. Rather than being cautious when it comes to developing suburban infrastructure because gas prices will probably rise in the future, we should be aggressive and for that very same reason.

[livincinco]

I already did.

How many people are there that live in Cypress, and work in Katy (or vice versa)???

I'm not sure I understand why every project has to relate to the urban core. As someone who lives and works in the suburbs, I can tell you that Beltway 8 is a lot more important to my daily life than the 610 loop, as would a Grand Parkway extension.

This is about people who work in the energy corridor and the continued westward expansion of that area. There are currently 73,000 people that work there and it has a high growth rate that is likely to continue. Extension of Grand Parkway makes it viable to live in the Cypress area and commute to that region.

I don't want to turn this into a prolonged discussion about the pros/cons of urban sprawl, because I think we have mutiple threads about that already. I think that we can all admit that Houston will continue to grow outward regardless of our personal feelings about it.

[Ianbian]

This is about people who work in the energy corridor and the continued westward expansion of that area. There are currently 73,000 people that work there and it has a high growth rate that is likely to continue. Extension of Grand Parkway makes it viable to live in the Cypress area and commute to that region.

Yes, people will continue to live far out west, and yes, they need improved transportation options, but the Grand Parkway is a terrible way of doing that. Major highways like this need an adequate support network, and those just aren't being built. Traffic on I-10 has traditionally been poor and will be poor once again (if it's not already) not because it lacks capacity, but because the local roads around it lack capacity.

Building the Grand Parkway may open up more land (environmentally-sensitive land, at that) to affordable housing, but it's only going to be raising that one shoe further and further up -- and eventually the other one is gonna have to drop. A good friend of mine lives out in Katy, and Clay Road and I-10 are his main/only ways of getting around. His traffic situation is currently atrocious, but the Grand Parkway is just going to dump more vehicles on those already-congested roads. He needs more options, more local roads, so it doesn't take him 10 minutes to get to the grocery store, or 45 minutes to get to his relatively close job at the Beltway. That's only going to happen if we start focusing on building up infrastructure to serve existing residents and not on devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to projects that will only serve to further stress that infrastructure.

[Ianbian]

As an example of what we SHOULD be doing instead of projects, like the Grand Parkway, take a look at the suburbs of Vancouver (wish I could provide a copy of the map itself instead of just linking to it -- anyone know how?):

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source...mp;t=h&z=14

Vancouver's suburbs look like suburbs. Nice houses, big yards, cul-de-sacs, the whole 9-yards. But the big difference is the amount of local transportation infrastucture that has been provided. Arterials are very regularly spaced every 1/2-mile. Major, expensive projects like the Grand Parkway are not needed, and traffic works better to boot.

[lockmat]

Yes, people will continue to live far out west, and yes, they need improved transportation options, but the Grand Parkway is a terrible way of doing that. Major highways like this need an adequate support network, and those just aren't being built. Traffic on I-10 has traditionally been poor and will be poor once again (if it's not already) not because it lacks capacity, but because the local roads around it lack capacity.

Building the Grand Parkway may open up more land (environmentally-sensitive land, at that) to affordable housing, but it's only going to be raising that one shoe further and further up -- and eventually the other one is gonna have to drop. A good friend of mine lives out in Katy, and Clay Road and I-10 are his main/only ways of getting around. His traffic situation is currently atrocious, but the Grand Parkway is just going to dump more vehicles on those already-congested roads. He needs more options, more local roads, so it doesn't take him 10 minutes to get to the grocery store, or 45 minutes to get to his relatively close job at the Beltway. That's only going to happen if we start focusing on building up infrastructure to serve existing residents and not on devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to projects that will only serve to further stress that infrastructure.

I'm not familiar with that side of town, but I believe you. It's a city-wide problem and it should be fixed; period.

But that doesn't mean the grand parkway should be eliminated. Both need to happen.

[TheNiche]

Yes, people will continue to live far out west, and yes, they need improved transportation options, but the Grand Parkway is a terrible way of doing that. Major highways like this need an adequate support network, and those just aren't being built. Traffic on I-10 has traditionally been poor and will be poor once again (if it's not already) not because it lacks capacity, but because the local roads around it lack capacity.

I think what you just said is that I-10 itself is not severely congested but that the thoroughfares that feed it are inadequate, causing severe congestion just trying to get to the freeway. I would agree with that assessment, however it strikes me that Segment E would include northbound and southbound flyover ramps to and from I-10, and that many of the vehicles that currently congest grade-level thoroughfares in the Katy area would be enticed to use the Grand Parkway instead because it would offer a more seamless way to get onto I-10. It would seem to go a long way towards solving some of the problems that you have identified.

Of course, you'd be correct to say that Morton Road, Clay Road, Stockdick School Road, Beckendorff Road (aka W. Little York), and Freeman Road (all currently-existing two-lane rural roads) would need to be expanded to accommodate increased traffic that gets shifted away from the north/south thoroughfares. But this sounds like an HCTRA project, and HCTRA does invest a calculated amount of funds in expanding non-toll thoroughfares if the increased capacity can get more people to use their toll roads, so something to that effect would probably be in the cards.

[h2obuff]

Building the Grand Parkway may open up more land (environmentally-sensitive land, at that) to affordable housing, but it's only going to be raising that one shoe further and further up -- and eventually the other one is gonna have to drop.

Define economically sensitive? Have you been out along Segment, E, I have, it is all laser-leveled rice fields. Not much rice is currently growing, just lots of grazing cows. Do you think this is what the area looked like before 1930? Nope, not at all, the farms around that time clear cut, leveled, used the land for whatever purpose they desired.

One good thing developments like Bridgeland are doing (and most will do because of current regulations) is provide better drainage from flooding events, protect riparian corridors around the few real areas of beauty (like Cypress Creek) which in turn provides habitats for wildlife, all while still providing marketable, affordable residential and commercial properties.

The EIS for GP also shows how they will mitigate any areas disturbed by construction to existing or greater conditions. You also have to remember that "wetland" areas found in this part of the county are not naturally occurring, but are where pools of water collect due to poor maintenance and/or farming practices, not because that is the way it has been for hundreds or thousands of years.

As an example of what we SHOULD be doing instead of projects, like the Grand Parkway, take a look at the suburbs of Vancouver (wish I could provide a copy of the map itself instead of just linking to it -- anyone know how?):

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source...mp;t=h&z=14

Vancouver's suburbs look like suburbs. Nice houses, big yards, cul-de-sacs, the whole 9-yards. But the big difference is the amount of local transportation infrastucture that has been provided. Arterials are very regularly spaced every 1/2-mile. Major, expensive projects like the Grand Parkway are not needed, and traffic works better to boot.

The City of Houston and its ETJ does have a major thoroughfare plan, set up on a 1-mile grid:

Map

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Developm...s/2005_MTFP.pdf

Site

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Developm...s/frwy_plan.htm

it is by no means perfect, but it does provide the necessary framework to get collector system traffic moving in areas. Most development is required to follow this and even build it. it is in those areas where existing two lane roads currently lie that the county, city, metro, etc. need to step up and improve the roads in a more timely manner (such as on Spring Cypress and Cypress Rosehill recently, just in a much more timely manner).

[TheNiche]

As an example of what we SHOULD be doing instead of projects, like the Grand Parkway, take a look at the suburbs of Vancouver (wish I could provide a copy of the map itself instead of just linking to it -- anyone know how?):

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source...mp;t=h&z=14

Vancouver's suburbs look like suburbs. Nice houses, big yards, cul-de-sacs, the whole 9-yards. But the big difference is the amount of local transportation infrastucture that has been provided. Arterials are very regularly spaced every 1/2-mile. Major, expensive projects like the Grand Parkway are not needed, and traffic works better to boot.

I can't help but notice that lot sizes in Vancouver's suburbs are typically smaller than in Houston's suburbs, and rather than there being leap-frog development the boundary between suburb and countryside seems precisely defined. Higher density makes a tighter grid more palatable. Also, Vancouver is both smaller geographically and in terms of population than Houston is. It's 56 miles of flat land between the east and west segments of Houston's Grand Parkway but the Vancouver area has only 22 miles of irregular-shaped coastal terrain between the US/Canada border and mountains. Vancouver has freeways but they have no freeway loop; a freeway loop wouldn't fit very well or serve the same purpose as they do in Houston.

[totheskies]

I'm not sure I understand why every project has to relate to the urban core. As someone who lives and works in the suburbs, I can tell you that Beltway 8 is a lot more important to my daily life than the 610 loop, as would a Grand Parkway extension.

This is about people who work in the energy corridor and the continued westward expansion of that area. There are currently 73,000 people that work there and it has a high growth rate that is likely to continue. Extension of Grand Parkway makes it viable to live in the Cypress area and commute to that region.

I don't want to turn this into a prolonged discussion about the pros/cons of urban sprawl, because I think we have mutiple threads about that already. I think that we can all admit that Houston will continue to grow outward regardless of our personal feelings about it.

I wholeheartedly agree... but just to clarify, you live and work in the suburbs, but you still have to commute. I've never done the drive from Katy eastward in the morning, but I assume that you hit traffic on your way to work, right? Even the shorter distance that you're traveling is still putting people on I-10 and making the overall commute longer for someone else. This is understandable... we live in the nation's 9th largest metropolitan area, so there's going to be traffic at many (if not most) times of the day. But we can have discussions about possible solutions for that traffic and how to make travel throughout our area more efficient, which improves our overall quality of life in Southeast Texas.

My concern is that segment E of the Grand Parkway is not going to improve traffic conditions, but it's a temporary "solution" to a growing problem. With the existing GP, the quickest way to improve traffic will be the grade-separated interchange... that way people can get to I-10 or the GP without playing the stop-and-go game for 20 minutes, 30 minutes or more.

Secondly, it is possible to connect Cypress to the energy corridor and bypass Katy completely. This would provide relief to US 290, which IMO is Houston's top priority freeway to relieve/expand/improve right now. As we all know from daily traffic reports, the number of people who travel between Cypress and Houston far exceeds the number of people traveling between Cypress and Katy. We also know that a good number of Cypress commuters are heading to places like the Energy Corridor, Memorial City, and Westchase. You build a freeway to get them to West Houston, and it's going to be more beneficial in the long run. This also allows for some side road expansion in and around the Energy corridor too, which not only relieves I-10, but also might help people get to and from their workplaces more efficiently.

Houston is never going to be a "downtown city", but we certainly don't have to diffuse ourselves forever in all directions either. We could continue to develop in smart systematic ways that will make the city more livable and enjoyable for all.

[lockmat]

My concern is that segment E of the Grand Parkway is not going to improve traffic conditions, but it's a temporary "solution" to a growing problem.

In a way, I agree with you.

The reason for the grand parkway is probably two fold. One, to provide a transportation option for future residents of that area (proactive) and two, to provide better access from one side of the city to the other for those out in the burbs.

My guess is (in agreeing with your "temporary solution" issue) that it will simply become another clogged freeway some day, as are all of them.

I'm not so sure it's necessarily meant to be a solution to existing traffic congestion though.

To prevent it from becoming just another clogged freeway, I say txdot should be proactive in another way...in providing more/bigger thoroughfares between BW8 and GPWY and between I-10 and 290, just as IanBian suggested is the current problem with I-10.

[westguy76]

In a way, I agree with you.

The reason for the grand parkway is probably two fold. One, to provide a transportation option for future residents of that area (proactive) and two, to provide better access from one side of the city to the other for those out in the burbs.

My guess is (in agreeing with your "temporary solution" issue) that it will simply become another clogged freeway some day, as are all of them.

I'm not so sure it's necessarily meant to be a solution to existing traffic congestion though.

To prevent it from becoming just another clogged freeway, I say txdot should be proactive in another way...in providing more/bigger thoroughfares between BW8 and GPWY and between I-10 and 290, just as IanBian suggested is the current problem with I-10.

Spot On.

The Westpark Tollway is just such a thoroughfare for the burbs, and does relieve traffic from I-10.

The GP is not a solution to congestion and is not intended to be, it is an access corridor, an outer loop. There is no way someone will come off of 290 down the new segment and in I-10 to save time. And I hate it when people presume everyone who lives in an exburb or a suburb commutes into town, so I won't. I see this as having little to do with commuting.

[livincinco]

I wholeheartedly agree... but just to clarify, you live and work in the suburbs, but you still have to commute. I've never done the drive from Katy eastward in the morning, but I assume that you hit traffic on your way to work, right? Even the shorter distance that you're traveling is still putting people on I-10 and making the overall commute longer for someone else. This is understandable... we live in the nation's 9th largest metropolitan area, so there's going to be traffic at many (if not most) times of the day. But we can have discussions about possible solutions for that traffic and how to make travel throughout our area more efficient, which improves our overall quality of life in Southeast Texas.

My concern is that segment E of the Grand Parkway is not going to improve traffic conditions, but it's a temporary "solution" to a growing problem. With the existing GP, the quickest way to improve traffic will be the grade-separated interchange... that way people can get to I-10 or the GP without playing the stop-and-go game for 20 minutes, 30 minutes or more.

Secondly, it is possible to connect Cypress to the energy corridor and bypass Katy completely. This would provide relief to US 290, which IMO is Houston's top priority freeway to relieve/expand/improve right now. As we all know from daily traffic reports, the number of people who travel between Cypress and Houston far exceeds the number of people traveling between Cypress and Katy. We also know that a good number of Cypress commuters are heading to places like the Energy Corridor, Memorial City, and Westchase. You build a freeway to get them to West Houston, and it's going to be more beneficial in the long run. This also allows for some side road expansion in and around the Energy corridor too, which not only relieves I-10, but also might help people get to and from their workplaces more efficiently.

Houston is never going to be a "downtown city", but we certainly don't have to diffuse ourselves forever in all directions either. We could continue to develop in smart systematic ways that will make the city more livable and enjoyable for all.

I agree with you to a point. It might be possible to connect Cypress directly to the Energy Corridor, but my guess is that it would be significantly more expensive than the current plan because you would be going across a higher percentage of developed land. IMO, the real problem with that is that you would be building roads to where the demand is today instead of where the demand will be in 5-10 years when the road opens.

I don't think that any of us can deny that Houston is moving west and all projections show that it will continue to do so in the future. If you look at population projections by region for 2020, I think building the road in its planned location will make a lot more sense.

[Ianbian]

I see this as having little to do with commuting.

One of the main excuses for this thing is to improve traffic commutes on 290 -- even though there are far more cost effective (though not necessarily cheaper) way of doing just that. The worst thing about the Grand Parkway is that it will be taking away county resources from directly tackling the real, existing transportation problems we face. Planning for future growth is all well and fine, but you have to take care of the existing problems first. It's like stock investing -- you never start until you pay down your credit card debt. There are SO many other things that Judge Emmett and the gang should be worrying about before they try to tackle issues related to future growth.

[lockmat]

One of the main excuses for this thing is to improve traffic commutes on 290 -- even though there are far more cost effective (though not necessarily cheaper) way of doing just that. The worst thing about the Grand Parkway is that it will be taking away county resources from directly tackling the real, existing transportation problems we face. Planning for future growth is all well and fine, but you have to take care of the existing problems first. It's like stock investing -- you never start until you pay down your credit card debt. There are SO many other things that Judge Emmett and the gang should be worrying about before they try to tackle issues related to future growth.

I

[westguy76]

One of the main excuses for this thing is to improve traffic commutes on 290 -- even though there are far more cost effective (though not necessarily cheaper) way of doing just that. The worst thing about the Grand Parkway is that it will be taking away county resources from directly tackling the real, existing transportation problems we face. Planning for future growth is all well and fine, but you have to take care of the existing problems first. It's like stock investing -- you never start until you pay down your credit card debt. There are SO many other things that Judge Emmett and the gang should be worrying about before they try to tackle issues related to future growth.

Again how is this going to help commuters on 290? I don't see where all these cars on 290 are heading into town and then U-turning and heading down I-10 westbound to the energy corridor. I suggest that the GP in theory will have little effect on congestion along 290 nor is that it's purpose. It is part of a loop.

For instance does the 610 loop improve traffic commutes traffic on 59 or Hwy 288? That is not it's purpose.

Does Beltway 8 relieve traffic on 290 commuters? on 1-10 commuters?

The Westpark Tollway relieves traffic congestion on I-10.

The Hardy Toll Rd does the same for 45.

The expansion of I-10 relieves it's own congestion.

A road that heads off a total different direction is a path to another place, not a means of improving congestion for commuters.

[westguy76]

I wholeheartedly agree... but just to clarify, you live and work in the suburbs, but you still have to commute. I've never done the drive from Katy eastward in the morning, but I assume that you hit traffic on your way to work, right? Even the shorter distance that you're traveling is still putting people on I-10 and making the overall commute longer for someone else. This is understandable... we live in the nation's 9th largest metropolitan area, so there's going to be traffic at many (if not most) times of the day. But we can have discussions about possible solutions for that traffic and how to make travel throughout our area more efficient, which improves our overall quality of life in Southeast Texas.

My concern is that segment E of the Grand Parkway is not going to improve traffic conditions, but it's a temporary "solution" to a growing problem. With the existing GP, the quickest way to improve traffic will be the grade-separated interchange... that way people can get to I-10 or the GP without playing the stop-and-go game for 20 minutes, 30 minutes or more.

Secondly, it is possible to connect Cypress to the energy corridor and bypass Katy completely. This would provide relief to US 290, which IMO is Houston's top priority freeway to relieve/expand/improve right now. As we all know from daily traffic reports, the number of people who travel between Cypress and Houston far exceeds the number of people traveling between Cypress and Katy. We also know that a good number of Cypress commuters are heading to places like the Energy Corridor, Memorial City, and Westchase. You build a freeway to get them to West Houston, and it's going to be more beneficial in the long run. This also allows for some side road expansion in and around the Energy corridor too, which not only relieves I-10, but also might help people get to and from their workplaces more efficiently.

Houston is never going to be a "downtown city", but we certainly don't have to diffuse ourselves forever in all directions either. We could continue to develop in smart systematic ways that will make the city more livable and enjoyable for all.

So Where are you suggesting this alternate route that would relieve congestion on 290?

Halfway between 6 and Belt-8?

If there are lots of people commuting to the energy corridor from Cypress, what route are they taking now?

Getting to Memorial City and Westchase seem to be served just fine by the beltway.