• Welcome!
    Logout|My Dashboard

I-45 ramp project to ease congestion - The Galveston County Daily News: Local News

September 30, 2016

I-45 ramp project to ease congestion

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • cougargator posted at 9:43 am on Sat, Apr 19, 2014.

    cougargator Posts: 332

    As usual, it's backassward. Build all the shops and then come in to re-do the streets and freeway.

  • vic krc posted at 2:06 pm on Sat, Apr 19, 2014.

    vic krc Posts: 296

    You are exactly right. Perhaps the GDN would like to do some investigative journalism as to why so much public money has been p----d away. Seems to me there is no excuse for such p--s poor planning! Is this some government works project?

  • islandstudent posted at 2:15 pm on Sat, Apr 19, 2014.

    islandstudent Posts: 51

    thankfully, we now have a City Council that gets the job done instead. it's nice to see good governance happening in League City. Kudos!

  • kevjlang posted at 5:30 pm on Sat, Apr 19, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I'm trying to figure out how this affects congestion at 646. I can see how it will improve access to the commercial buildings along the feeder, but trying to understand how it will relieve anything around the intersections.

  • dbeard57 posted at 5:45 pm on Sat, Apr 19, 2014.

    dbeard57 Posts: 1086

    Same number of cars coming off ramp . how does that help congestion. Only hels shoppers entering the shopping center,

  • mickphalen posted at 7:39 am on Sun, Apr 20, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 754

    The ramp reversal was put into the 2010 (2011) CIP to provide near access for the Tanger Mall, which at the time was going to be built on the vacant property north of the Penney's and Best Buy, at 45 / 646.

    It appears the current council sees it as a tool to attract commercial development. Relatively inexpensive for government work - - - all in all, not a bad idea.

    I don't remember easing traffic congestion ever being mentioned during the original approval process. (But it could be a way to get HGAC to fund it - they can fund congestion solutions, not economic development.)

  • chuckd posted at 8:14 am on Sun, Apr 20, 2014.

    chuckd Posts: 259

    Folks, the ramp reversal will indeed ease traffic congestion. First, the strange triple whammy congestion in front of the HEB on the feeder will be gone. That will also increase safety. Second, those going to the Field of Dreams will exit onto the feeder beyond LC Parkway. Every day I deal with the congestion at LC Parkway and I45 feeder south. Even now it backs up to FM518 ON THE INTERSTATE! Anything will help.

    This is an excellent project and a wise use of taxpayer money.

    --Chuck DiFalco

  • vic krc posted at 8:33 am on Sun, Apr 20, 2014.

    vic krc Posts: 296

    I live in the area also and I understand the problems very well. What I do not understand was why the southbound I45 off ramp exit to 646 was placed where it was in the first place. It was , in my opinion, very dangerous to place the exit so close to where cars already on the feeder road were slowing and in some cases stopping before making right turns to the HEB shopping center area. The traffic merge had to be completed too quickly if you wanted to go through to 646.

  • chuckd posted at 9:08 am on Sun, Apr 20, 2014.

    chuckd Posts: 259

    “why the southbound I45 off ramp exit to 646 was placed where it was in the first place”

    I think it was because that’s how interstate ramps were built decades ago. Made sense, too, because if I wanted to get to road X off the freeway, I didn’t want to be driving down a mile of feeder road to get there. Since then, however, ramp (re)design has changed. Maybe it’s because interstates in Texas metro areas are becoming endless miles of commercial centers, in which most off ramps have a congestion problem like I45 and FM646. I'm sure property developers put in their two cents as well.

  • kevjlang posted at 11:47 am on Sun, Apr 20, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Chuck, I don't think we questioned whether it would help with congestion at all, but just whether it will affect congestion on the ramps. I think it is good for mobility along the feeder, but most of the congestion at the traffic lights is for cars going right or left onto 646, and this project doesn't address that at all, so it should not be billed as a project to alleviate congestion at the interchange. To my knowledge, the only project on the books at all is the 646 interchange rebuild, which, I believe, won't begin for a couple years or so yet.

    vic krc, the ramp configuration there now predates Hwy 96, the whole HEB and Victory Lakes developments, etc. Even 15 years ago, it didn't matter what the ramp configuration was, because there wasn't much traffic or development there.

  • Cpointe_Mod posted at 7:28 am on Mon, Apr 21, 2014.

    Cpointe_Mod Posts: 222

    If anyone has located a diagram depicting this project, can you please post the URL or source for it here? There's a good amount of confusion on this project in part because many folks don't have a spatial sense of it. I put a couple of simple diagrams in a blog post this morning but I don't know that they are accurate because I can't find sufficient project detail online.

    This project is interesting because, although it will clearly *increase* safety, I'm not so sure that it will *optimize* safety. I'm afraid it's more about optimizing property values. Some interesting ethical questions in there.

  • mickphalen posted at 8:16 am on Mon, Apr 21, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 754

    Good Morning Cpointe_Mod,

    LC website - - Departments > Public Works > Capital Improvement Projects > Economic Development Capital Improvement Projects

    I also looked at the status report (all CIP projects), and found this project status description:

    "Management District development agreement approved by Council December 3, 2013; first payment to TXDoT made December 2013; City's final payment to TXDoT January 2014; construction possible as early as Spring 2014. TXDoT updated construction estimate is $2.2 million. City's responsibility is $1.25 million with remainder due from the Management District.

  • mickphalen posted at 8:31 am on Mon, Apr 21, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 754

    Also, another project in that area (which will alleviate some congestion) is a "back door" called the "Brookport Extension".

    Description can be found at the Economic Development link on the City's website.

  • mickphalen posted at 8:32 am on Mon, Apr 21, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 754

    correction: the Economic Development CIP link ...

  • Cpointe_Mod posted at 2:10 pm on Thu, Apr 24, 2014.

    Cpointe_Mod Posts: 222

    LC website - - Departments > Public Works > Capital Improvement Projects > Economic Development Capital Improvement Projects

    Channel security error. I've tried that a few times and it won't load.

  • mickphalen posted at 9:05 am on Fri, Apr 25, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 754


    Haven't had the problem you describe - - - try this one:


  • vic krc posted at 10:55 am on Fri, Apr 25, 2014.

    vic krc Posts: 296

    Thank you for posting that picture. Now I understand what is happening, I think. I am still a little more than irritated as to why people called planners that are paid to understand and plan for the impact of economic development and demographics on traffic flow can't get it right. We have been, in this area at least, subjected to too many do and re-do traffic construction projects. Oh well, in this day and time what is another $ 1 - $1.5 million of OPM. Perhaps I have become too curmudgeonly in my old age. [sad]

  • Alvinbr62 posted at 12:09 pm on Fri, Apr 25, 2014.

    Alvinbr62 Posts: 538

    Next project we need an overpass on 96 over Hwy 3 . That intersection get more conjested and dangerous by the day . Many red light runners at that intersection .
    Don't know how many people have been killed there but it is just a matter of time with the road rage frustrated drivers .

  • mickphalen posted at 12:47 pm on Fri, Apr 25, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 754

    Alvinbr62, I suppose red light cameras can't be discussed? [smile]

  • mickphalen posted at 12:57 pm on Fri, Apr 25, 2014.

    mickphalen Posts: 754

    I think funding "economic development projects" is justified when City government gets reasonable return on investment in the form of new commercial property tax income and new sales tax income .

    In this case, it's a good commercial property, and this ramp reversal is a good thing for everyone. The City should get a quick return on the $1mm+ invested.

  • Alvinbr62 posted at 2:01 pm on Fri, Apr 25, 2014.

    Alvinbr62 Posts: 538

    Mick sure you can discuss . The intersection at Hwy3 and 96 might have been only intersection in LC where it would make sense to have a red light camera.
    The men in blue do not police this intersection . I have personally witnessed police officers witness vehicles running that light and did nothing .

  • kevjlang posted at 3:16 pm on Fri, Apr 25, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    We'd already have that ROI had they done the ramp reversal when they had the freeway all torn up with the 96 interchange. The existing ramps in the northern part of that stretch were re-cut and re-paved as part of the Hwy 96 build. However, with all of the cost and schedule overruns on the project, someone decided it wasn't worth adding any more changes, even if those would have been good changes. IIRC, that's also why they didn't carry the overpass over Hwy 3. With those houses on the NW corner of the interchange now, it would be politically difficult to put an overpass in there now.