Highway 288

[DNAguy]

Rail is a debatable investment in general, but it certainly makes absolutely no sense for the 288 median - there is already a parallel Main Street line right to the west.  They will eventually continue that south and possibly take it out to Sugar Land.

 

Couldn't you say the same thing about the 288 express lanes?

 

Here:

Rail  288 express lanes is are a debatable investment in general, but it certainly makes absolutely no sense for the 288 median - there is already a parallel Main Street line288 freeway right to the west on either side of it .

 

If TXDot is is so adamant on building a tollway (which they are and why I think they deserve a name change: Texas Department of Tollways), why aren't they building TX-35?  

 

Not only would that help relieve traffic on 288, but it could also attract people from 45 which is crazy congested as well. Dare I say two birds w/ one stone? You could even put a Hobby connector much like the Hardy connector @ IAH.

[BigFootsSocks]

They're so adamant at building tollways because it's the only way they can build freeways now with how underfunded they are. There's simply no way for TXDOT to fund highway building in this massive state without the aid of tollways. It sucks but it's the truth. At least we're not London where they have to pay a toll just to go into the city...not yet at least.

[Slick Vik]

Rail is a debatable investment in general, but it certainly makes absolutely no sense for the 288 median - there is already a parallel Main Street line right to the west. They will eventually continue that south and possibly take it out to Sugar Land.

Where the fort bend commuter rail would end would be nowhere near pearland. Also there is a huge population base in pearland that commutes to the medical center and to an extent downtown. Freeways are an awful investment but you don't say anything about that.

[IronTiger]

Spare me the blubbering about politics

Apparently some people can't handle this and will pull out the pro-rail/anti-freeway card whenever they have an inch to put their foot in the door. Too bad, this went downhill quickly.

[DNAguy]

They're so adamant at building tollways because it's the only way they can build freeways now with how underfunded they are. There's simply no way for TXDOT to fund highway building in this massive state without the aid of tollways. It sucks but it's the truth. At least we're not London where they have to pay a toll just to go into the city...not yet at least.

 

TXDot is underfunded. There is no doubt there. The fact that bonds have to be sold to fund ANY additional road project is sickening. One would think that TXDot would try and build frontage roads along 288 b/f they build a 100 million dollar + tollway in the middle of it. Nope. Any additional lanes HAVE to be funded by bonds b/c there's nothing in the coffers. That means toll lanes b/f frontage lanes. 

 

What kind of sick and twisted logic is that?!

 

However, the funding that they do have is used for crap projects like the Grand Parkway sections to nowhere. We need $ spent on a Porter to mont belvieu direct highway....why?

 

TX-35 tollway addresses two problems: 288 traffic AND 45 traffic. That in my book makes it a great candidate for a entity that's strapped for cash. It should be a tollway b/c there are two 'free' alternatives already. It can have a Hobby connector which brings in lots cars / use... not to mention a new international terminal going up now.

 

The more I think of it, the more I just get pissed off.

 

sorry for the rant.

[BigFootsSocks]

TXDot is underfunded. There is no doubt there. The fact that bonds have to be sold to fund ANY additional road project is sickening. One would think that TXDot would try and build frontage roads along 288 b/f they build a 100 million dollar + tollway in the middle of it. Nope. Any additional lanes HAVE to be funded by bonds b/c there's nothing in the coffers. That means toll lanes b/f frontage lanes.

What kind of sick and twisted logic is that?!

However, the funding that they do have is used for crap projects like the Grand Parkway sections to nowhere. We need $ spent on a Porter to mont belvieu direct highway....why?

TX-35 tollway addresses two problems: 288 traffic AND 45 traffic. That in my book makes it a great candidate for a entity that's strapped for cash. It should be a tollway b/c there are two 'free' alternatives already. It can have a Hobby connector which brings in lots cars / use... not to mention a new international terminal going up now.

The more I think of it, the more I just get pissed off.

sorry for the rant.

There's no money to build free frontage roads though. And the GP segments actually are beneficial as it provides a vital link from the ever-growing Woodlands to 290 and Katy.

Tollanes come before frontage roads because over time they pay themselves off. Just because we've had free highways in the past doesn't mean we're entitled to them. Toll lanes are a business and like any business there are no free handouts. It may suck but that's just the reality of the situation we live in, and because TXDOT won't get adequate funding anytime soon, toll roads aren't going away soon either.

[Slick Vik]

35 won't get built. The neighborhoods would fight it at this point.

As far as tollways I'm all for them. Drivers can pay with their pocketbook if that's their choice of mode of travel. Add in se congestion pricing too.

[DNAguy]

There's no money to build free frontage roads though. And the GP segments actually are beneficial as it provides a vital link from the ever-growing Woodlands to 290 and Katy.

Tollanes come before frontage roads because over time they pay themselves off. Just because we've had free highways in the past doesn't mean we're entitled to them. Toll lanes are a business and like any business there are no free handouts. It may suck but that's just the reality of the situation we live in, and because TXDOT won't get adequate funding anytime soon, toll roads aren't going away soon either.

 

The grand parkway is not vital for the area's mobility. What's vital about Katy to Woodlands traffic? It's a luxury for suburbanites and incentives businesses relocating to the suburbs. It doesn't relieve any real congestion. An argument can be made that its helps keep housing prices lower by opening up more and more land for development, but is that really the business of TXDot when their funding is so tight?

 

I have a real problem w/ our transportation department being in 'business to make $' as well. They aren't there to make $. They're there to provide a service. Frontage roads make more mobility sense for far less $ on 288. 

[Slick Vik]

Feeder roads aren't as necessary as you think.

[BigFootsSocks]

Double post.

Edited August 18, 2014 by BigFootsSocks

[BigFootsSocks]

The grand parkway is not vital for the area's mobility. What's vital about Katy to Woodlands traffic? It's a luxury for suburbanites and incentives businesses relocating to the suburbs. It doesn't relieve any real congestion. An argument can be made that its helps keep housing prices lower by opening up more and more land for development, but is that really the business of TXDot when their funding is so tight?

I have a real problem w/ our transportation department being in 'business to make $' as well. They aren't there to make $. They're there to provide a service. Frontage roads make more mobility sense for far less $ on 288.

Yes it does. People driving to Kary from the Woodlands currently have to use 45 then the beltway to get there. This provides a vital like between the growing energy sector in the Woodlands to the Energy corridor. The purpose of the GP is to allow commuters in the car-centered city of Houston another option of getting to their destination.

TXDOT is not "in the business of making money", they are in the business of getting Texans from Point A to Point B by whatever means possible and as it just so happens in 2014, the only possible means is through toll roads. Frontage roads definitely do not provide better mobility than toll roads. There's stops and slower speed limits and cause more congestion. A toll road provides a continuous service that allows someone to get on and off and sit through way fewer stop lights than feeder roads.

The reason toll roads are being built on 288 rather than frontage roads is because of the sheer amount of traffic congestion on these roads. If people are willing to pay a premium to get to their destination faster then why stop then? They pay to use it and eventually the road pays for itself. It makes more sense to let people pay a toll for a continuous highway than it is to build frontage roads which don't solve congestion.

Edited August 18, 2014 by BigFootsSocks

[DNAguy]

Yes it does. People driving to Kary from the Woodlands currently have to use 45 then the beltway to get there. This provides a vital like between the growing energy sector in the Woodlands to the Energy corridor. The purpose of the GP is to allow commuters in the car-centered city of Houston another option of getting to their destination.

TXDOT is not "in the business of making money", they are in the business of getting Texans from Point A to Point B by whatever means possible and as it just so happens in 2014, the only possible means is through toll roads. Frontage roads definitely do not provide better mobility than toll roads. There's stops and slower speed limits and cause more congestion. A toll road provides a continuous service that allows someone to get on and off and sit through way fewer stop lights than feeder roads.

The reason toll roads are being built on 288 rather than frontage roads is because of the sheer amount of traffic congestion on these roads. If people are willing to pay a premium to get to their destination faster then why stop then? They pay to use it and eventually the road pays for itself. It makes more sense to let people pay a toll for a continuous highway than it is to build frontage roads which don't solve congestion.

 

I doubt there is anything close to significant Katy to Woodlands daily commuting. At least not now. Building a toll road between suburbs is a self fulfilling prophecy when people find they can make that commute in 45 minutes to the Woodlands from Katy, they move out to Katy to work in the Woodlands.... at least for now. In 10 years, people will complain about the traffic on the GP.

 

I understand that a tollway gets you from A to B faster. My argument is that its not the best use of limited resources. To me, its hard to argue that this highway is such a vital link when it doesn't even warrant the need of full frontage roads (in our current Houston highway model -- I understand that not all highways are designed like this and when in a city center it makes less sense. I'm only talking Houston and in the suburbs). How much of 288's traffic is caused by people who 'have' to enter the highway and couldn't get to their location by frontage?

 

Unlike the Katy freeway, this is TXDOT borrowed $ going to build a tollway instead of something else. TXDOT $ didn't go to build the toll roads on I 10. HCTRA $ did. And it was necessary to get the HCTRA $ to speed up the overall construction. The toll road was a TXDot concession. AND it was built for a duel use of HOV which existed there b/f - a HCTRA concession. No HOV lane exists on 288. No concession has been given that commuters could use these lanes for 'free' while single occupancy cars pay a toll. Now how is that the best way to get people from point a to point b the fasted?

 

I don't mind that HOV lanes can be used a toll lane when they're underutilized. I mind when instead of building HOV lanes or frontage lanes, you build a toll road b/c you're broke, you're spending the little $ you do have on frivolous things (grand parkway), and this is the only means of getting funding to address a legitimate (288 traffic) issue.

[BigFootsSocks]

Then you'd be wrong because 45, 290, and 10 are parking lots during rush hour as well as Beltway 8. This is providing a relief for those who are simply traveling down those 3 freeways then to beltway 8.

Like I said before frontage roads are not a viable option for moving traffic. Think of a regular boulevard street. When it comes up on another street there are stop lights. Cars back up and have to sit through the light and more cars back up. Now imagine a freeway where the only stop you have to make is when you exit the freeway. Frontage roads are not a priority because they are not as important in mobility as a highway.

Like it or by but the Grand Parkway is not frivolous spending. As much as Houston is expanding there will be significant use of it in the very near future. Sure when it opens the next 4-6 months won't see that much traffic but to say that no one will use it between I-10 to I-45 is being ignorant of the needs of the Houston driver. Driving is our one way of getting around this massive Metro and opening another vital artery near a population of almost 1 million (Woodlands) to an exploding area like Cypress and Katy is necessary.

I don't really understand your frustration here honestly. TXDOT isn't closing the regular 288 lanes and turning them into tolls, they're simply adding toll lanes that you can use IF you don't feel like sitting in traffic. Toll roads are not as evil as a lot of people think. We are not entitled to free highways and with toll roads they eventually pay for themselves as well as pay for future expansion and maintenance. The fact of the matter is, Houston needs these highways, TXDOT has no money, and the only way to maintain addequate traffic flow is to go with a toll road route. But because these are simply an addition and not a total takeover, you can still use the main lanes and sit in traffic. I, however, will gladly pay at most a few bucks toget home 30-45 minutes faster.

[Slick Vik]

TXDOT is making toll roads because it's broke.

Feeder roads, while I'm not sure of their impact to traffic, are ugly and create swathes of strip malls.

The grand parkway expansion had nothing to do with solving traffic and everything to do with people who owned that land and developers.

It's fascinating TXDOT can look into future patterns and make roads for that but totally ignore rail for the same purpose.

[DNAguy]

Then you'd be wrong because 45, 290, and 10 are parking lots during rush hour as well as Beltway 8. This is providing a relief for those who are simply traveling down those 3 freeways then to beltway 8.

Like I said before frontage roads are not a viable option for moving traffic. Think of a regular boulevard street. When it comes up on another street there are stop lights. Cars back up and have to sit through the light and more cars back up. Now imagine a freeway where the only stop you have to make is when you exit the freeway. Frontage roads are not a priority because they are not as important in mobility as a highway.

Like it or by but the Grand Parkway is not frivolous spending. As much as Houston is expanding there will be significant use of it in the very near future. Sure when it opens the next 4-6 months won't see that much traffic but to say that no one will use it between I-10 to I-45 is being ignorant of the needs of the Houston driver. Driving is our one way of getting around this massive Metro and opening another vital artery near a population of almost 1 million (Woodlands) to an exploding area like Cypress and Katy is necessary.

I don't really understand your frustration here honestly. TXDOT isn't closing the regular 288 lanes and turning them into tolls, they're simply adding toll lanes that you can use IF you don't feel like sitting in traffic. Toll roads are not as evil as a lot of people think. We are not entitled to free highways and with toll roads they eventually pay for themselves as well as pay for future expansion and maintenance. The fact of the matter is, Houston needs these highways, TXDOT has no money, and the only way to maintain addequate traffic flow is to go with a toll road route. But because these are simply an addition and not a total takeover, you can still use the main lanes and sit in traffic. I, however, will gladly pay at most a few bucks toget home 30-45 minutes faster.

 

I'm not against tollways. I think its a better way to speed up road development in places that would probably have to wait 20 years to secure funding. I am against it being used a way to get around a ridiculous anti-tax ideology that ignores the fact that taxes are needed for public works. I'm against it's use when an a project that would normally be non-tolled is developed as a toll so TxDot can use can secure a revenue stream. i'm against an incoherent tolling strategy where for no rhyme or reason, one highway gets tolled expressways and others don't. I'm against building a tollway in the middle of nowhere so that 100 people that happen to live in Katy and work in the Woodlands can get to work in a straight shot.

 

Beltway 8 isn't full b/c Katy drivers are trying to get to the woodlands, its full b/c of all the infill that happened after the Sam Houston's been around for 20+ years and the resulting sprawl. The same will happen to the Grand parkway and in 25 years, TXDOT will be building the Godzilla parkway that connects Rosenberg to Fulshear to Sealy to Prarie View to Magnolia to Conroe b/c company 'x' moved its headquarters there and people need to be able to commute from half way across Texas on a single road to get there.

[BigFootsSocks]

Look I'm not trying to argue against you. Everything you just said I agree with. There are many different reasons as to WHY we must build a toll road rather than a freeway, one among then the lack of increase on the gas tax as cars go longer per gallon of gas. I'm simply explaining the realistic picture of the city we live in, in 2014. Rather than be upset about something I know I have absolutely no control over, I just roll with it. Thankfully I have a job that provides enough money for me to not worry about paying tolls (except the HOV managed lanes because $5 is insane) and because I pay those tolls I can drive on a much more aesthetically pleasing and well maintained road.

You're not wrong about the infill, however I disagree with how you have your causes and effects lined up. The sprawl was goin to happen regardless of whether or not they built the Beltway before or after it. But because the built it before once development caught up with it there was already a well-developed mode of transportation there waiting for the many commuters out there. The same will happen with the Grand Parkway. Id rather they build it early in anticipation if the expected development than wait a few years in more congested traffic.

[BigFootsSocks]

TXDOT is making toll roads because it's broke.

Feeder roads, while I'm not sure of their impact to traffic, are ugly and create swathes of strip malls.

The grand parkway expansion had nothing to do with solving traffic and everything to do with people who owned that land and developers.

It's fascinating TXDOT can look into future patterns and make roads for that but totally ignore rail for the same purpose.

It may have not been solely built to relieve traffic but those developers will create massive amounts of subrbia's and where are all of those people going to go? The Grand Parkway, like the Beltway when it was built, is a preemptive measure at controlling the eventual and expected urban sprawl that our city is so used to. There's a reason the rest of the world looks to Houston and the rest of Texas for our freeway building techniques. We may be excessive about it and do it in ways some of us don't like it but damnit if we're not the best.

[IronTiger]

TXDOT is making toll roads because it's broke.

Feeder roads, while I'm not sure of their impact to traffic, are ugly and create swathes of strip malls.

The grand parkway expansion had nothing to do with solving traffic and everything to do with people who owned that land and developers.

Uh, no. I have to laugh at your assertions about feeder roads and highways, since apparently all the studied experience you have with freeways is anti-freeway/pro-rail literature. As much as you'd like to think that the Grand Parkway was an evil plan created by Rick Perry, Tom DeLay, Bob Lanier, and John Culberson, the Grand Parkway has been in the planning books since the mid-1960s (and named as such) but was axed in the 1970s due to funding concerns. The modern Grand Parkway was indeed re-created by developers with donated land but the state caught on and forced the people in real estate interest off of the "Grand Parkway Association", which was pushing the Grand Parkway to be built and be back on the map. And that was in 1986. It took nearly another decade to get just the first segment built.

It is worth noting that the Grand Parkway was never designed with frontage roads to reduce the commercial clutter, as without it, there would've been wide arterials with strip malls and stoplights (like FM 1960), and that despite being tolled, it is being done with local funds, by way of HCTRA doing the duty rather than TxDOT. (source: Houston Freeways, which has its own citations)

Meanwhile, the reason why 288 doesn't have rail, and we've discussed this before, is that METRO doesn't extend into Pearland and due to tax laws, even if Pearland wanted it, they can't give the METRO tax that it needs, and frankly, using METRO funds to build rail to Pearland might get some resistance in the more urban areas, where METRO is having trouble enough in the Loop as it is.

Edited August 19, 2014 by IronTiger

[Slick Vik]

Uh, no. I have to laugh at your assertions about feeder roads and highways, since apparently all the studied experience you have with freeways is anti-freeway/pro-rail literature. As much as you'd like to think that the Grand Parkway was an evil plan created by Rick Perry, Tom DeLay, Bob Lanier, and John Culberson, the Grand Parkway has been in the planning books since the mid-1960s (and named as such) but was axed in the 1970s due to funding concerns. The modern Grand Parkway was indeed re-created by developers with donated land but the state caught on and forced the people in real estate interest off of the "Grand Parkway Association", which was pushing the Grand Parkway to be built and be back on the map. And that was in 1986. It took nearly another decade to get just the first segment built.

It is worth noting that the Grand Parkway was never designed with frontage roads to reduce the commercial clutter, as without it, there would've been wide arterials with strip malls and stoplights (like FM 1960), and that despite being tolled, it is being done with local funds, by way of HCTRA doing the duty rather than TxDOT. (source: Houston Freeways, which has its own citations)

Meanwhile, the reason why 288 doesn't have rail, and we've discussed this before, is that METRO doesn't extend into Pearland and due to tax laws, even if Pearland wanted it, they can't give the METRO tax that it needs, and frankly, using METRO funds to build rail to Pearland might get some resistance in the more urban areas, where METRO is having trouble enough in the Loop as it is.

And it is a fact that bob Lanier owned massive amounts of land where the Katy prarie portion of the grand parkway was built and is a former highway commissioner. Look you can choose to ignore every coincidence and think everything is happenstance but keep the ignorance in college station.

[IronTiger]

And it is a fact that bob Lanier owned massive amounts of land where the Katy prarie portion of the grand parkway was built and is a former highway commissioner. Look you can choose to ignore every coincidence and think everything is happenstance but keep the ignorance in college station.

I'm genuinely curious if the reason you have this anti-College Station/Aggie view is because you have some unrequited grudge from your college days or if you have some sort of "Inner Loop Master Race" mentality that somehow enables you to ignore all of us suburban peasants.

Anyway, for what it's worth, Lanier did support the Grand Parkway in his tenure as Highway Commissioner but his donation of land was controversial, even in the 1980s. However, the Grand Parkway was actually built years later, long after he had left office. The tract that he owned was in the northwest area (that part isn't drivable yet, even after these years), and most of what really set the Grand Parkway as we know it was in the late 1990s.

Lanier was of course a politician and had many other roles in his Houston-based career. He was chairman of METRO in the late 1980s, too, and we all know that the 2004 lines weren't involved with him either way, because the modern Grand Parkway and his connection with it really became irrelevant even in the late 1990s.

Finding facts is about researching them, not deriving them from coincidences, and research isn't ignorance in the least.

[BigFootsSocks]

I'm going to make an attempt to end this off-topic debate that apparently had been discussed before by the above parties, but I might end up instigating it further. Oh well.

We can all agree that Lanier donating land to a project that goes against the entire purpose of the agency he oversees. Yes that was years ago and he couldn't have known he was going to take over METRO in the future unless he has a time machine. In which case, that's very selfish of him to have not gone back and killed Hitler yet.

However, he was apart of TXDOT at that time. Obviously he was a powerful figure in that agency because he had excess land he could just give away. So if someone were to do any research and a little effort then you could probably find some way he benefited from this transaction years ago. It's just politics.

What Id really like to focus on the most here which fits well with the purpose of the HAIF forum, is the grand parkway development itself and furthermore, the geniuses that envisioned it. This isn't just a recent, new development. City planners all the way back in the early 80's knew that Houston was going to develop as a sprawling city like this. That's almost 35 years ago. Hell I just came across a topographic map for the north portioning Section E(I-10 - 290) from 1979 in my office. The sprawl of Houston is a hot topic on these forums as we grow in size, but this isn't a new revelation. The city planners and developers of the previous century anticipated it and prepared for way in advance.

Look at segment D. Finished in the early 90's because Katy was one of the first areas to explode in growth in the Houston Metro. Now I'm not sure on this but maybe this project wasn't always planned as a toll. The Katy segment is free and before the project was shelved this could've been another free loop. But times change.

The United States is in a serious dilemma from all of the funding shortfalls that it seems every agency faces in 2014. From an article I read last year TXDOT needs almost $14 billion to adequately maintain and meet the growing transportation needs of Texans. Because the American public majority is so adamant on not raising taxes (which is another debate for another day), TXDOT is forced to come up with the best possible solution to fund highway projects to keep up with the growing Texas population, thus we get toll roads. Essentially, tolls are just the extra tax TXDOT needs to fund highways but can't get.

[DNAguy]

Uh, no. I have to laugh at your assertions about feeder roads and highways, since apparently all the studied experience you have with freeways is anti-freeway/pro-rail literature. As much as you'd like to think that the Grand Parkway was an evil plan created by Rick Perry, Tom DeLay, Bob Lanier, and John Culberson, the Grand Parkway has been in the planning books since the mid-1960s (and named as such) but was axed in the 1970s due to funding concerns. The modern Grand Parkway was indeed re-created by developers with donated land but the state caught on and forced the people in real estate interest off of the "Grand Parkway Association", which was pushing the Grand Parkway to be built and be back on the map. And that was in 1986. It took nearly another decade to get just the first segment built.

It is worth noting that the Grand Parkway was never designed with frontage roads to reduce the commercial clutter, as without it, there would've been wide arterials with strip malls and stoplights (like FM 1960), and that despite being tolled, it is being done with local funds, by way of HCTRA doing the duty rather than TxDOT. (source: Houston Freeways, which has its own citations)

Meanwhile, the reason why 288 doesn't have rail, and we've discussed this before, is that METRO doesn't extend into Pearland and due to tax laws, even if Pearland wanted it, they can't give the METRO tax that it needs, and frankly, using METRO funds to build rail to Pearland might get some resistance in the more urban areas, where METRO is having trouble enough in the Loop as it is.

 

Wrong. HCTRA hasn't funded the Grand Parkway. All Grand parkway $ has been TXDOT or FBTRA $. 

Edited August 19, 2014 by DNAguy

[IronTiger]

Wrong. HCTRA hasn't funded the Grand Parkway. All Grand parkway $ has been TXDOT or FBTRA $.

Admittedly, the book was written over a decade ago, so the bit about funding may have been compromised. Never the less, the Grand Parkway was planned years in advance for the sprawl that would eventually reach out to that point, and it has. Sure, some people benefitted off of it, but couldn't that be said about every project?

[BigFootsSocks]

Admittedly, the book was written over a decade ago, so the bit about funding may have been compromised. Never the less, the Grand Parkway was planned years in advance for the sprawl that would eventually reach out to that point, and it has. Sure, some people benefitted off of it, but couldn't that be said about every project?

Just because everyone does it doesn't mean it's right and benefits Houstonians in what they need not what some politican wants.

[DNAguy]

Admittedly, the book was written over a decade ago, so the bit about funding may have been compromised. Never the less, the Grand Parkway was planned years in advance for the sprawl that would eventually reach out to that point, and it has. Sure, some people benefitted off of it, but couldn't that be said about every project?

 

Yeah, it was planned WAY back. Back when highways were considered the greatest thing since sliced bread, gas was $0.31 / gallon, the US was manufacturing everything in the world, and the Texas state government used tax money to fund public works.

 

I'm pretty sure since all of those things are the same, that the Grand Parkway is still the same great idea.

 

/friendly sarcasm

[BigFootsSocks]

In all seriousness though, the GP was planned so long ago because we knew how this city was going to grow and sprawl. Just like the beltway suburbia will catch up with the GP and we'll all be glad we don't have to whatever highway into beltway 8 and then out.

[IronTiger]

Just because everyone does it doesn't mean it's right and benefits Houstonians in what they need not what some politican wants.

What I was arguing was the ridiculous assertion is that the Grand Parkway was primarily built for developer's interests, which, like any good lie, has an element of truth to it. In reality planners in the 1960s anticipated that the sprawl would eventually reach that point anyway, and as for the plan revival in the 1980s, politicians that didn't have any interest in real estate still supported it, otherwise it would never have gotten off the ground. An article from the Houston Chronicle ("Lanier checks conflict laws following flap over parkway land", February 27, 1986) lists several key facts:

1. Lanier's land was in the northwest segment, at the time, the Grand Parkway route wasn't set in stone and no one knew if the GP plan would actually go through it.

2. Lanier said he never voted on the plan that would involve his land.

3. The Grand Parkway Association was acknowledged to have developer interests, it wasn't some deep-pocketed conspiracy.

Another 1991 article explains that Lanier did use his influence and did profit in land holdings and highways, $10M worth (most of that was related to Highway 249). Was it wrong to do that? Maybe. Was it illegal? Nope. Was he solely responsible for the Grand Parkway? Nope.

While it may benefit the people living in the far outer belt (hell, I'm not using it everyday, if ever) it does benefit the region as a whole, just like the Red Line extension that opened the same day as the Grand Parkway segment between Katy and Cypress. Outer loopers (and many inner loopers) don't use the rail, but it is a benefit to regional mobility as a whole.

[Slick Vik]

What I was arguing was the ridiculous assertion is that the Grand Parkway was primarily built for developer's interests, which, like any good lie, has an element of truth to it. In reality planners in the 1960s anticipated that the sprawl would eventually reach that point anyway, and as for the plan revival in the 1980s, politicians that didn't have any interest in real estate still supported it, otherwise it would never have gotten off the ground. An article from the Houston Chronicle ("Lanier checks conflict laws following flap over parkway land", February 27, 1986) lists several key facts:

1. Lanier's land was in the northwest segment, at the time, the Grand Parkway route wasn't set in stone and no one knew if the GP plan would actually go through it.

2. Lanier said he never voted on the plan that would involve his land.

3. The Grand Parkway Association was acknowledged to have developer interests, it wasn't some deep-pocketed conspiracy.

Another 1991 article explains that Lanier did use his influence and did profit in land holdings and highways, $10M worth (most of that was related to Highway 249). Was it wrong to do that? Maybe. Was it illegal? Nope. Was he solely responsible for the Grand Parkway? Nope.

While it may benefit the people living in the far outer belt (hell, I'm not using it everyday, if ever) it does benefit the region as a whole, just like the Red Line extension that opened the same day as the Grand Parkway segment between Katy and Cypress. Outer loopers (and many inner loopers) don't use the rail, but it is a benefit to regional mobility as a whole.

What's ridiculous is living in denial.

Educate yourself

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/11/02/texas-sprawl-builders-funneled-taxpayer-to-highway-that-enriched-them/

[Slick Vik]

In an October 1, 1991 issue of the Houston Chronicle says, "Houston mayoral candidate Bob Lanier voted to build a highway through a real estate development owned by a Houston savings and loan while he was serving as a paid consultant for the institution. Additionally, Lanier, as Chairman of the Texas Highway Commission (1983-1987) voted in November 1986 to spend state funds to construct a 5.6 mile segment of the Grand Parkway." "Lanier also owns property along the Grand Parkway route. Highway Commission records show that Lanier voted on six separate occasions to approve and fund the Grand Parkway, in spite of the fact that the highway increased the value of Lanier's 1,462 acre Westbourne development at Texas 249. A statewide lobbying group chaired by Lanier, Texas Good Roads, fought attempts in the past legislative session to tighten conflict-of-interest regulations governing members of the Highway Commission.

http://m.yourhoustonnews.com/archives/residents-upset-over-grand-parkway/article_913dac5e-e45e-51f4-b28e-715a413514c3.html?mode=jqm

[Slick Vik]

From the first article

In April, when Streetsblog interviewed Billy Burge, head of the pro-highway, non-profit Grand Parkway Association, he conceded that the outerbelt’s latest expansion — Segment E, through the Katy Prairie — wasn’t even intended to handle increased traffic. He was pretty clear that the project was about enabling the development of rural land into large-lot, detached single-family homes.

But Burge didn’t mention that before becoming head of the Grand Parkway Association, he had cashed in on that growth as a developer. Or that, thanks to a special Texas regulation, the Grand Parkway Association had been granted quasi-governmental powers.

He was also the developer of Cinco Ranch, a five-square-mile master-planned community that is now home to 11,000 people. The first segment of the Grand Parkway directly bisected Burge’s development.

The pair worked in partnership with the Grand Parkway Association — basically an interest group formed to ensure the highway’s completion. At the time, the Grand Parkway Association counted some of the region’s biggest real estate magnates among its members, including Walter Mischer Jr., developer of 120,000 homes in the Houston region.

Funding for construction was secured by Ed Emmett, a state rep who was also working as the paid director of a non-profit pro-suburban development group called the North Houston Association. The law enabled the creation of the Grand Parkway Association.

The truth hurts