Hey Pineda!

[Parrothead]

How was the hearing? I heard some not-very-good things, is it true they aren't moving the parkway? How far is it going to be away from Northampton? We're still checking it out up there, just wondering how it all went!!

[pineda]

story from Spring/Klein edition of Houston Chronicle

The Grand Parkway Segment F-2 is also being discussed in detail on Blog Houston

Two more notes from last night's meeting:

I spoke with a representative from TxDOT and from FHWA. This is what they said:

At this time, there are no "direct connector" planned for the Grand Parkway at I-45, which means that if you think that you can jump on the Grand Parkway at Gleanloch Farms and then it will take you directly to I-45, you are mistaken. You will have to exit the Grand Parkway and then wait in line to enter I-45 either north or south-bound. It could take 20 years or more to have a direct connector built, if ever.

There are no "funding partners" that have been identified as of last night. It was acknowledged that HCTRA (Harris County Toll Road Authority) has backed out of negotiations with TxDOT as of last October, and TxDOT has not been able to get HCTRA back to the table to discuss it. When pressed, the spokesperson from TxDOT said that CINTRA (a Spanish consortium of foreign investors) may be interested in funding the project. CINTRA has already entered into an agreement with the State of Texas to develop the Trans-Texas Corridor. You can find out more about all this at Corridor Watch. This may be the reason why there were posters up last night in the cafeteria regarding the TTC, when they have never been there at any Public Hearing in the past. With CINTRA's involvement, there are possibilities for things like 99 year leases and undetermined toll prices that could fluctuate widely based on what CINTRA decides is best. This was confirmed by TxDOT last night.

Sounds depressing, I know!

Good news is that there were a lot of politicians at the Public Hearing, which is a refreshing change from the last couple of Public Hearings, where we only had State Rep. Debbie Riddle show up to speak out.

My recommendation is that if you live in the vicinity of the Grand Parkway and you oppose the project, contact your local elected officials and tell them you oppose it, and ask them what they're going to do.

[mrfootball]

How close will this thing be to Northampton? Gleannloch Farms? Etc?

[pineda]

Hey Mr. Football-

You can visit Grand Parkway and try to determine how close it comes to everything, BUT...

In looking at maps last night and the night before, even what was presented at the Public Hearings differs from what is on the website. The letter sent out to homeowners notifying them of the Public Hearings contained a map that also differs from both of those. Soooo, good luck with that.

Also, in the presentation last night, it said that there would be possible overpasses, on and off ramps and toll plazas at the following locations;

S.H. 249

Gleanloch Farms Drive

Champion Forest Drive

Boudreaux

Holzwarth

F.M. 2920

Kuykendahl

Gosling

I-45 North

However, even though that was in the presentation, when they showed the aerial map of the areas, they did not show an increase in the width of the Grand Parkway. This was however mentioned in the DEIS. It stated that at these intersections, the increase would go from being 800-1200' wide to being 1200-1500' wide instead.

When questioned about the discrepancy and why it was not addressed in the aerial map like that, I was told that the aerial map shown in the presentation was for "illustration" purposes only and that all these things would be addressed more fully in the Final EIS. Increasing the "footprint" of the Grand Parkway in these areas is something to take into consideration and should have been presented to the public.

Also, when questioned as to the site of detention/retention ponds and how large they would have to be considering the displacement of so much dirt and replacing it with so much concrete, I was given the same type of answer, "it will be addressed later in the Final EIS". I would think that in the creation of these massive detention/retention ponds, that even more homes/businesses would be destroyed because of the already too-tight fit of the Grand Parkway through Spring, and that should have been discussed in the Draft EIS.

To tell people to expect a possible 100,000 more vehicles in your area, but not to expect any additional increases in noise or air pollution, hazardous cargoes, crime, etc. is absolutely hysterical! "No significant impact, yeah right!"

I was also told that the ONLY thing that we really would have any impact or say into the creation of this project would be the location of on and off ramps, overpasses and toll plazas. I'm going to vote for only overpasses at Kuykendahl and at Gosling. No on/off ramps or toll plazas. I wouldn't want to encourage additional vehicular traffic heading south from the Montgomery County area, now would I? >

[Trae]

That's just stupid. No overpasses at I-45 and Grand Parkway. They should atleast have a ramp for GP & 45 south, and a 45 north to GP west and east.

Also, I think overpasses should be at FM 2920, Kuykendahl, and Gosling.

[pineda]

Yep, Trae, when questioned as to how the Grand Parkway would "interface" with I-45, we were told that the entire approximately 1000' span would be an overpass right over I-45. No exits, no ramps, no nothing.

[Houston19514]

Pineda, where do you get the idea of an 800-1200 foot right of way for the Grand Parkway?

Yep, Trae, when questioned as to how the Grand Parkway would "interface" with I-45, we were told that the entire approximately 1000' span would be an overpass right over I-45. No exits, no ramps, no nothing.

That cannot possibly be correct. Part of the purpose of the Grand Parkway is to connect to the radial freeways (e.g., I-45).

They may have said the Grand Parkway (or Segment F-2) project includes no "direct connectors". That just means you will have to exit Grand Parkway onto a frontage road and then get on the I-45 frontage road to enter I-45, rather than just take a ramp directly from Grand Parkway to I-45. I hate when they do that, but it happens pretty often in Houston. Beltway 8 @ I-45, Beltway 8 @ Eastex for example.

[Trae]

^^But at least those are full five-level interchanges now.

[Houston19514]

^^But at least those are full five-level interchanges now.

Yes, they are. And no doubt this one will be some day too.

[mrfootball]

No direct connectors?

That's retarded.

[pineda]

Pineda, where do you get the idea of an 800-1200 foot right of way for the Grand Parkway?

It was brought up during the DEIS presentation last night at Klein Collins; weren't you there? I was...

[Houston19514]

It was brought up during the DEIS presentation last night at Klein Collins; weren't you there? I was...

No, I was not there. So, it was "brought up." Very slick answer. By whom was it "brought up?" Was it you or one of the other NIMBY's?

It strikes me as highly unlikely that the Grand Parkway would have 800-1200 foot R-O-W's when the massive Katy Freeway is confined to something like 500 foot R-O-W's.

[pineda]

Folks representing the Trans-Texas Corridor brought it up. They weren't around for the other two Public Hearings, but they were out in number at this one, along with full-color posters all around. Basically, what they said was, that since the Grand Parkway Association has no money, and TxDOT has no money, and HCTRA has walked away from all negotiations (since last October), that now CINTRA is being courted to help fund the Grand Parkway Segment F-2. CINTRA is the entity that is now in discussions with Gov. Perry to help the Trans-Texas Corridor. If CINTRA is brought in to build Segment F-2, then it will become a leg of the TTC. They also said that all this will be more fully discussed in the final EIS, at which time yet another Public Hearing will be scheduled. Unless, of course, CINTRA becomes involved in the project before the Final EIS, which means that there won't be any more Public Hearings, or so we're told. CINTRA would have the ability to sign a 99 year lease with the state, and charge undetermined toll prices. From bad to worse...

[mrfootball]

I thought the Trans Texas Corridor simply ran parallel to I-35?

I think it would be good if this new route restricted Hazardous Cargo and ,if possible, large trucks.

[Houston19514]

Actually, for your information, since you weren't there, the kind folks from the Trans-Texas Corridor brought it up. They weren't around for the other two Public Hearings, but they were out in number at this one, along with full-color posters all around. Basically, what they said was, that since the Grand Parkway Association has no money, and TxDOT has no money, and HCTRA has walked away from all negotiations (since last October), that now CINTRA is being courted to help fund the Grand Parkway Segment F-2. CINTRA is the entity that is now in discussions with Gov. Perry to help the Trans-Texas Corridor. If CINTRA is brought in to build Segment F-2, then it will become a leg of the TTC, at which time the corridor will widen up even further. Of course, they also said that all this will be more fully discussed in the final EIS, at which time yet another Public Hearing will be scheduled. Maybe you'll be free that night to attend.

So, you are agreeing then, that it is clearly not the Grand Parkway organization's plan to take an 800-1200 foot R-O-W. That the only way a R-O-W anywhere near such numbers would come into play would be IF no other funding source can be put together, and IF the HCTRA remains uninterested, and IF CINTRA maintains an interest, and IF the state approves CINTRA's participation and IF..., and IF... Quite a string of contingencies that have to play out before there are any condemnations of 800-1200 foot R-O-W's, let alone the 1500 feet you are alarmed about.

[pineda]

What I'm hoping for is that NO agency allocate any monies for the Grand Parkway Segment F-2. Not TxDOT, not HCTRA, and that we don't sign any agreements with CINTRA or any other CDA. I think this project is a huge waste of money and doesn't serve the regional or local transportation needs. I still think that the Northern Alignment Feasibility Study needs to be discussed further before it is so readily dismissed.

I find it very interesting that we were told two years that that particular study would be given just as much weight as all the other alignments and options and that it would be the cornerstone of this Public Hearing. Yet, there were no advance copies given out of the study, just a re-hash of the same old tired DEIS with outdated charts/graphs/maps from the year 2000.

When asked where the study was, we were told that some "revisions" had to made by the Grand Parkway Association to it before it could be released and that it would be presented for the first time in a limited format (hard copy of text on table alone) at the Public Hearing. They told us they had to "tweak" it! And then during the aerial map presentation, the narrator to the video stated that "it did not fit the purpose and need of the Grand Parkway Association?" Does that sound acceptable to anyone?

[Houston19514]

What I'm hoping for is that NO agency allocate any monies for the Grand Parkway Segment F-2. Not TxDOT, not HCTRA, and that we don't sign any agreements with CINTRA or any other CDA. I think this project is a huge waste of money and doesn't serve the regional or local transportation needs. I still think that the Northern Alignment Feasibility Study needs to be discussed further before it is so readily dismissed.

I find it very interesting that we were told two years that that particular study would be given just as much weight as all the other alignments and options and that it would be the cornerstone of this Public Hearing. Yet, there were no advance copies given out of the study, just a re-hash of the same old tired DEIS with outdated charts/graphs/maps from the year 2000.

When asked where the study was, we were told that some "revisions" had to made by the Grand Parkway Association to it before it could be released and that it would be presented for the first time in a limited format (hard copy of text on table alone) at the Public Hearing. They told us they had to "tweak" it! And then during the aerial map presentation, the narrator to the video stated that "it did not fit the purpose and need of the Grand Parkway Association?" Does that sound acceptable to anyone?

In your opinion, how would the Northern Alignment serve the regional or local transportation needs better than the F-2 alignments being discussed?

[Houston19514]

By the way, the Northern Alignment Feasibility Study is on the Grand Parkway Association's website:

Northern Alignment Feasibility Study

After looking it over briefly, I think their comments at the hearing sound perfectly "acceptable." That is basically the conclusion the study came to.

[MaxConcrete]

I think it is clear the F-2 section is not a sure thing to be built. However, I rate the probably of F-2 being built over 50% (my best guess is 60%) for these reasons

1. Hurricane evacuation. Although not as critical as the southern and western sections, F-2 would aid in evacuation and help minimize problems like the collossal jam on I-45 at the Woodlands during Rita.

2. Profit. F-2 is surely the section of the Grand Parkway with the most profit potential, and all potential players (HCTRA, TxDOT, Cintra) want to tap into the money.

3. Need. As north and northwest Harris County fully urbanize, there will be a critical need for this facility.

I think it is highly unlikely we'll see a corridor width greater than 400 feet wide. I would be very surprised if this project gets converted into a Trans-Texas Corridor. I just don't see that as a realistic possibility.

As for serving the regional interest, F-2 will be a huge asset and will fill a need for east-west travel in north Harris County. It will be particularly beneficial to the Tomball and surrounding area, which is becoming a large population center. A few neighborhoods in Spring might have some negative impact, but the region overall will receive a great benefit. So from the regional perspective, this project should move forward.

As for the ultimate outcome, I certainly hope we see HCTRA in charge as opposed to Cintra.

[Houston19514]

I think it is clear the F-2 section is not a sure thing to be built. However, I rate the probably of F-2 being built over 50% (my best guess is 60%) for these reasons

1. Hurricane evacuation. Although not as critical as the southern and western sections, F-2 would aid in evacuation and help minimize problems like the collossal jam on I-45 at the Woodlands during Rita.

2. Profit. F-2 is surely the section of the Grand Parkway with the most profit potential, and all potential players (HCTRA, TxDOT, Cintra) want to tap into the money.

3. Need. As north and northwest Harris County fully urbanize, there will be a critical need for this facility.

I think it is highly unlikely we'll see a corridor width greater than 400 feet wide. I would be very surprised if this project gets converted into a Trans-Texas Corridor. I just don't see that as a realistic possibility.

As for serving the regional interest, F-2 will be a huge asset and will fill a need for east-west travel in north Harris County. It will be particularly beneficial to the Tomball and surrounding area, which is becoming a large population center. A few neighborhoods in Spring might have some negative impact, but the region overall will receive a great benefit. So from the regional perspective, this project should move forward.

As for the ultimate outcome, I certainly hope we see HCTRA in charge as opposed to Cintra.

Why do you think the F-2 section has the most profit potential?

[MaxConcrete]

Why do you think the F-2 section has the most profit potential?

Mainly because of urbanization in the Tomball area and commuters looking to travel to the Woodlands area or I-45 corridor for employment.

Also, there is already a large population in the area who are candidates use the tollway.

Which other Grand Parkway sections do you think would be more profitable?

Sections B and C (south Houston) will probably not even be toll viable for a long time. Forget about profit.

Building the tolled main lanes on section D would probably be profitable, but I just don't see a large commute pattern from Sugar Land to Katy.

Section E will probably be profitable over a period of time, but not right away.

Section F-1 is similar to E.

Section G will take a long time to become profitable because most commuters on the far north US 59 corridor are going into town on US 59. I just don't see a large Spring to Splendora pattern.

[Houston19514]

Mainly because of urbanization in the Tomball area and commuters looking to travel to the Woodlands area or I-45 corridor for employment.

Also, there is already a large population in the area who are candidates use the tollway.

Which other Grand Parkway sections do you think would be more profitable?

I wasn't disagreeing with you or being argumentative. I was just curious as to your reasoning (I most often find your opinions to be well-reasoned and based on facts, rather than emotion).

[pineda]

The GPA first said that Segment F-2 was being developed for "local" needs. When we pointed out that the need was greater to the north of us, then they switched their answer to saying that it was being developed more for "regional" traffic needs. Now after they presented the Northern Alignment Feasibility Study, they say that building it in Montgomery County won't serve the "local" needs of Spring, and that should take precedence over "regional" needs. We repeatedly have asked for the traffic studies to back up their claims that the traffic in Spring far exceeds that of current and future Montgomery County. We have been asking for these studies for over two years now. We've been told that they'd been completed, but that they're not ready to be presented until the Final EIS. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of northern Harris County and Montgomery County and north of that can see that the growth patterns are greater in Montgomery County and north, more so than in Spring. If the purpose is to help relieve local and regional traffic, as they say, the need would be greater further north than Spring. BTW, hurricane evacuation is no longer listed as a primary objective, since the only portion currently builds FLOODS when it rains. Plus, how much sense does it really make to collect traffic all along the Grand Parkway only to have it exit at I-45 and wait in line to go north?

[Houston19514]

The GPA first said that Segment F-2 was being developed for "local" needs. When we pointed out that the need was greater to the north of us, then they switched their answer to saying that it was being developed more for "regional" traffic needs. Now after they presented the Northern Alignment Feasibility Study, they say that building it in Montgomery County won't serve the "local" needs of Spring, and that should take precedence over "regional" needs. We repeatedly have asked for the traffic studies to back up their claims that the traffic in Spring far exceeds that of current and future Montgomery County. We have been asking for these studies for over two years now. We've been told that they'd been completed, but that they're not ready to be presented until the Final EIS. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of northern Harris County and Montgomery County and north of that can see that the growth patterns are greater in Montgomery County and north, more so than in Spring. If the purpose is to help relieve local and regional traffic, as they say, the need would be greater further north than Spring. BTW, hurricane evacuation is no longer listed as a primary objective, since the only portion currently builds FLOODS when it rains. Plus, how much sense does it really make to collect traffic all along the Grand Parkway only to have it exit at I-45 and wait in line to go north?

So, if I may summarize, you think the Northern Alignment better serves regional and local transportation needs because it is Not In My [your] Back Yard. Did I get that about right?

(And by the way, you just sound silly claiming that the GPA first said the the F-2 Segment was being developed for local traffic needs. The whole of Grand Parkway is being developed tp serve the regional mobility needs of metropolitan Houston area; it has always been thus and has been so stated. Local transportation benefits are a happy side-effect. But then we're used to you sounding silly when it comes to the Grand Parkway, e.g. your claims that it will have an 800-1500 foot R-O-W, that it will have no connection with I-45...)

[pineda]

So, if I may summarize, you think the Northern Alignment better serves regional and local transportation needs because it is Not In My [your]Back Yard. Did I get that about right?

(And by the way, you just sound silly claiming that the GPA first said the the F-2 Segment was being developed for local traffic needs. The whole of Grand Parkway is being developed tp serve the regional mobility needs of metropolitan Houston area; it has always been thus and has been so stated. Local transportation benefits are a happy side-effect. But then we're used to you sounding silly when it comes to the Grand Parkway, e.g. your claims that it will have an 800-1500 foot R-O-W, that it will have no connection with I-45...)

How did I know you were just going to come back with your same tired response? Predictable.

And by the way, you're so right. It did sound silly to us also when we first heard David Gornet tell us that the Grand Parkway Segment F-2 was being developed for local traffic congestion relief. We didn't believe him either. Whichever group he talked to about the Grand Parkway, he just geared his speeches to that particular group. Good thing we never took him at his word. Oh, I guess if you had found time in your busy schedule you could have come to the Public Hearing for yourself and talked with the gentlemen from TxDOT about the Trans-Texas Corridor/Grand Parkway plan, and talked with the people from TxDOT who stated that there may never be any direct connectors built to I-45. But, I guess it's just easier for you to sit at your computer and call people names rather than get involved in your community. I'm just glad that there are other folks like me who don't give up so easily when it comes to fighting City Hall. Silly me!

[Parrothead]

I'd say if one wasn't at the hearing, one should think twice about making speculations and forming opinions about things that were discussed at the hearing. But, that's just me.

[Trae]

I think it should go near the Woodlands. Maybe if there was better planning, it would go where Woodlands Parkway is now. Then start curving south afterwards.

TxDot is dumb for not making Highway 6/1960 a freeway. That is much needed. Is it to late for it?

[Coaster]

TxDot is dumb for not making Highway 6/1960 a freeway. That is much needed. Is it to late for it?

I think most people would say that it's too late to turn 6/1960 into a freeway. But who knows, if people are seriously considering tunneling under 45 to create an underground freeway there, then a freeway under 6/1960 (or just about anywhere) may be possible. But, I would say the chances of that happening are very, very slim anytime within the immediate (or even distant) future. The freeway/tunnel idea sounds kind of cool, but it also sounds a little like science fiction- especially after what just happened in Boston.

Right now people have a chance to stop some of the roads in northern Harris County from sharing the same fate as 6/1960. That stretch of road is an absolute NIGHTMARE. If you think its bad now you should have seen it in the early 1980s, before the Beltway was created, when there was no choice. If these people who oppose the GP succeed, then you can expect 1960s running all over northern Harris County in the future.

I can understand why people want to protect their homes and their own personal interest, so I don't fault them from wanting to be heard. Steps should be taken to minimize the impact on existing homes and business as much as possible through reasonable compromise ON BOTH SIDES of the issue. But F-2 should ultimately be built, for the greater good. In the long run if F-2 is not built, or at very least the land to create it is not reserved, the whole area will suffer in the not-too-distant future.

The interests of a few should not take precidence over a project that will ultimately benefit the majority.

[Trae]

^^Thats what I'm thinking. TxDot sohuld at least make a four to six lane tollway/freeway, but minimize the home impact. Degrading might be to much money, but its worth it (Dallas North Tollway). Retaining walls can get ugly, too.

[nmainguy]

How did I know you were just going to come back with your same tired response? Predictable.

And by the way, you're so right. It did sound silly to us also when we first heard David Gornet tell us that the Grand Parkway Segment F-2 was being developed for local traffic congestion relief. We didn't believe him either. Whichever group he talked to about the Grand Parkway, he just geared his speeches to that particular group. Good thing we never took him at his word. Oh, I guess if you had found time in your busy schedule you could have come to the Public Hearing for yourself and talked with the gentlemen from TxDOT about the Trans-Texas Corridor/Grand Parkway plan, and talked with the people from TxDOT who stated that there may never be any direct connectors built to I-45. But, I guess it's just easier for you to sit at your computer and call people names rather than get involved in your community. I'm just glad that there are other folks like me who don't give up so easily when it comes to fighting City Hall. Silly me!

On this topic, I have found it to be un-wise in discounting pineda. No where on this forum has there been anyone more passionate and up on their facts then pineda. I also recall being told it would be for local use. Clearly that was a falsehood-infact the falsehoods regarding F2 could fill a dump-truck.

From this site http://www.grandpky.com/home/:

The Grand Parkway (SH99) is a proposed 170-mile circumferential scenic highway

Well, you can put lipstick on a pig but when driving down F2 with little Johnny, telling him how scenic it is...er was..."Look Johnny! There used to be woods and fields and farms over there where the Super Walmart is now. It was very scenic when grandma and grandpa took us there on pick-nicks. But don't worry, when we get home I'll show you some pictures."

Of course, little Johnny knows better and wonders why a minority of speculators got to decide on what goes where.

Keep it up, pineda.