They've been moving a lot of dirt, and it's starting to take shape, but haven't seen a sign or anything yet.

Yes, The Ariza

Ugh, I was hoping this wasn't the case.

Being built very close to the road and right-of-way.

I figured it was either a new apartment or the new Amazon headquarters.

The Real Estate Center write-up about the apartments back in September: https://www.recenter.tamu.edu/news/newstalk-texas?Item=17528

And the plans submitted to COCS: https://www.slideshare.net/ColinKillian/harvey-road-apartments

http://cstx.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=24170

Why didn't the city require this property to have a better plan to access HArvey its two lane all the way to HWY 30. There's going to be a bunch of congestion with 266 units trying to get to class/ work it will be stop and go for those of us trying to get to work wish the smart folks in planning in the city would put the cart before the horse and have waited until the road was widened to approve something of this magnitude

Remind me, do we want the City to be pro-devlopment or anti-development? I believe I'm hearing you say the City needs new rules that wouldn't allow private landowners to build on their land without the adjacent roadway meeting certain standards. What do the folks that say College Station is a already the worst city in the state for developers think about this?

ukbb2003 said:

---

Kitten With A Whip said:

---

Watch for lowered speed limits in the area.

---

Won't matter too much, people can't seem to go the speed limit on that road anyway.

---

No kidding. I make a comment to myself the rare times that I approach the speed limit on that road.

City and state road people will tell you, and have always said, the majority of road construction is "to" development, not "for" development. There are exceptions - think parts of TOLL 99 - but it really makes sense. Building a road to have it under used if the economy turns, or a developer has a change of fortune, makes no sense. I will have to drive down Harvey past the development daily. I will get frustrated at the increase in volume, people going even further below the speed limit than they do now, etc. But widening the road is something that will come after the development, not before.

EBrazosAg said:

---

City and state road people will tell you, and have always said, the majority of road construction is "to" development, not "for" development. There are exceptions - think parts of TOLL 99 - but it really makes sense. Building a road to have it under used if the economy turns, or a developer has a change of fortune, makes no sense. I will have to drive down Harvey past the development daily. I will get frustrated at the increase in volume, people going even further below the speed limit than they do now, etc. But widening the road is something that will come after the development, not before.

---

It's a roadway I drive every day as well. As it sits now, even without further development, the roadway is in need of improvements. First and foremost a center left turn lane at a minimum.

As development continues I believe I'll be using University Dr. E for more of my daily commute even though it's further out of the way.

Quote:

---

But widening the road is something that will come after the development, not before.

---

There are town homes right up to the edge of the road on either side. There is one section across from Covenant Church and another directly across from Veterans that aren't developed (yet) but other than that there doesn't seem to be much room for road widening.

I'm not looking for the city to be pro development or anti development. I'm looking for the to use common sense. If you throw 250+ rental units onto a 50 mph two lane road with no additional access somebody's gonna get hurt.

egret said:

---

Quote:

---

But widening the road is something that will come after the development, not before.

---

There are town homes right up to the edge of the road on either side. There is one section across from Covenant Church and another directly across from Veterans that aren't developed (yet) but other than that there doesn't seem to be much room for road widening.

---

There is probably much more ROW than you think. And the state or city will take more if they need it.

It's one or the other...either the government stays out of it and lets landowners do what they choose or the government puts restrictions that many will say is anti-development.