COMMENT OF THE DAY: RING ROAD REASONING “And people said there is no need to build the Grand Parkway. If Exxon forces all the people out at the West Houston Location they’ll need [the] parkway to get [to] this site.” [kjb434, commenting on Is Springwoods Village the New Exxon Mobil Eco-City?]
Sign up for the Newsletter
But is four lanes enough?
Ultimate build out of the GP is 6 lanes. Interim construction will be for with a grass median. The median will convert to two additional lanes and an inside shoulder with barrier in the future. This is the configuration for the segment from I-10 to US-290
Ring road reasoning indeed. Would Exxon build here if the Grand Parkway were not being planned?
From RWB:
Ring road reasoning indeed. Would Exxon build here if the Grand Parkway were not being planned?
————————–
RIGHT there? Probably not, but they’d probably still want to be reasonably close to IAH for obvious reasons.
so i can work longer, so i can earn more….so i can do more coke…so i can work longer…
An observation: building roads like this is exactly the kind of planning-oriented social engineering that many seem to find appalling when it results in things like trains or requirements for high density along transit lines and such. But when it involves roads in outer regions of the city… somehow it’s not so upsetting.
Note that I am offering no opinion on whether or not these things are good ideas, smart responses to the region’s growth, etc. – that’s a discussion worth having but I’m not having it now. I just think it would be interesting if all such discussions were more about practical issues than ideological purity…
John:
It’s upsetting to me.
Tail wags dog again.