[MontroseNeighborhoodCafe]

June 8, 2005, 10:12PM
Engineer proposes I-45 tunnel
Heights resident says expansion alternative less harmful to area
By TOM MANNING
Chronicle Correspondent


Houston Chronicle Article

I-45 CONCEPT

To view a Power Point presentation on Gonzalo Camacho's I-45 tunnel concept, visit the Web site at www.camachoassociates.com and click on "Alternative design" under case studies.

[LTAWACS]

I think I've seen some renderings on this. It would go underground for about 2 miles or so. Then come back up past the bayou. It looked pretty cool. Anyone have a link to the rendering I'm talking about?

[hokieone]

That's an interesting idea. My only concern with tunnels is typically the backup that occurs in them, I have been through both of the ones in Virginia within the past week and the 20-30 minute delays getting through them is not pleasant. However, I am assuming that since this would be a new project, they would gauge the appropriate number of lanes and what not ahead of time.

Who knows if the city/ TxDot will actually consider it, but I for one would like to see a fresh approach taken and if the concept of not affecting current freeways during construction is true, it definitely would be an improvement over the current approach.

[GovernorAggie]

I'm going to guess that TxDOT may not pay much attention to this option, but it seems to me that they should. After all, wouldn't they like to be known as "the agency that built America's longest tunnel?"

My only question is the complexities of this proposed I-45 freeway/tollway's interchanges with 10 and 610. I would think that there would not be direct connector interchanges with the lowest level being 200 feet below the surface of the earth right? If so, I think that will push the costs WAY up--but it would make for probably the world's coolest freeway driving experience. I think that I-45 would probably return to at-grade for these interchanges.

[jghall00]

GovernorAggie, on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 @ 8:55am, said:

I'm going to guess that TxDOT may not pay much attention to this option, but it seems to me that they should.  After all, wouldn't they like to be known as "the agency that built America's longest tunnel?" 

My only question is the complexities of this proposed I-45 freeway/tollway's interchanges with 10 and 610.  I would think that there would not be direct connector interchanges with the lowest level being 200 feet below the surface of the earth right?  If so, I think that will push the costs WAY up--but it would make for probably the world's coolest freeway driving experience.  I think that I-45 would probably return to at-grade for these interchanges.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The bottom line is that we can do pretty much anything we want, given enough money. Given the cost overruns due to ROW acquisition on the I-10 project, TXDOT should take a real serious look at this proposal. Whatever they think it'll cost to expand I-45, the lawsuits and ROW expense are going to add significantly to that. Perhaps they should build the tunnel as tolled express only lanes, with no exit before the Beltway, and the current configuration can service the area inside the Beltway. Kinda like what the Katy corrider people proposed for I-10. Or, do two reversible HOT lanes in the median. I commute to the Woodlands from the Galleria for work. Outbound traffic isn't bad enough to require HOT lanes in both directions.

[GovernorAggie]

Concerning the money, I think Massachusetts owes us (and anyone else who asks) a favor. Can you imagine Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry throwing support for federal money to build America's longest tunnel in President Bush's home state and city? They got money for the most expensive public works project in American history (even if it was $10 BILLION--iirc--more than initially estimated). Now it's time to pay up.

[jghall00]

GovernorAggie, on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 @ 9:50am, said:

Concerning the money, I think Massachusetts owes us (and anyone else who asks) a favor.  Can you imagine Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry throwing support for federal money to build America's longest tunnel in President Bush's home state and city?  They got money for the most expensive public works project in American history (even if it was $10 BILLION--iirc--more than initially estimated).  Now it's time to pay up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We owe Massachuesetts for the revolution Seriously though, I'm sure if you looked in absolute dollars contributed to the federal goverment, Massaschuesetts likely rates as a donor state. I think it's only when you limit your observation to the gas tax that it looks like they're getting a free ride. This is because Northeast states tend to be more transit dependent.

[westguy]

I remember hearing that Massachusetts gets something like 86 cents back for every dollar they put into federal transportation. We get about 83 cents. If anyone owes us money, it is Alaska which gets about 4-5 dollars back. Hawaii is also another recipient of largesse, with about 2-3 dollars back.

[2112]

HELLOOOO! It's time for trains.

[jghall00]

2112, on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 @ 10:53am, said:

HELLOOOO!  It's time for trains.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can't, city is too spread out. They'd be empty most of the time.

[westguy]

No they wouldn't. The park and rides on the SW side are very busy, and a train along the nearby Westpark corridor would be packed.

[jghall00]

westguy, on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 @ 11:03am, said:

No they wouldn't. The park and rides on the SW side are very busy, and a train along the nearby Westpark corridor would be packed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're thinking rush hour. What about the other 20 hours in the day?

[skwatra]

what about the commuter rail in LA? is it utilized off-peak? i always have a car when i go there so i have no idea, but wouldn't that be a good comparison?
i know the population and density are higher, but its also very spread out.

[jghall00]

skwatra, on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 @ 11:23am, said:

what about the commuter rail in LA? is it utilized off-peak? i always have a car when i go there so i have no idea, but wouldn't that be a good comparison?
i know the population and density are higher, but its also very spread out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good question. I don't know the answer, because I've always driven in LA too. But, the problem is Houston roads are not congested during off-peak travel times. No one is going to use rail when it's easier to drive.

[UrbaNerd]

Interesting idea, but 200 feet below grade? How about flooding issues? We'd need some ultra-uber pumps to keep the thing dry. If this plan is done, though, it would be awesome.

"Cost of the tunnel project would be about 25 percent higher than that of an at-grade project, Camacho estimates.

By comparison, he said an elevated highway would cost about 85 percent more than an at-grade project, and a depressed freeway would cost 40 percent more."

This is something to think about...

[jghall00]

UrbaNerd, on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 @ 11:36am, said:

Interesting idea, but 200 feet below grade?  How about flooding issues?  We'd need some ultra-uber pumps to keep the thing dry.  If this plan is done, though, it would be awesome.

"Cost of the tunnel project would be about 25 percent higher than that of an at-grade project, Camacho estimates.

By comparison, he said an elevated highway would cost about 85 percent more than an at-grade project, and a depressed freeway would cost 40 percent more."

This is something to think about...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The individual proposing the tunnels said the entrances and exits would be elevated so water could not gain entrance.

If we can build tunnels underwater, then I don't see why we can't build tunnels underground that won't flood. Now, the expense associated with doing so is a big fat question mark.

[2112]

jghall00, on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 @ 11:59am, said:

Can't, city is too spread out.  They'd be empty most of the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Commuter trains with limited stations in the city, like downtown, 610, Belt, and outlying park and rides. I bet they would be packed every day for both rush hours.

[2112]

jghall00, on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 @ 12:15pm, said:

You're thinking rush hour.  What about the other 20 hours in the day?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You wouldnt run them like that. That's what the light-rail network is for. It would be like the trains that run into Grande Central Station: they close shop at some point...In our case the trains would run only during the day. At night, the freeways have plenty of capacity and dont need to be expanded for that traffic time.

[jghall00]

2112, on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 @ 12:15pm, said:

You wouldnt run them like that.  That's what the light-rail network is for.  It would be like the trains that run into Grande Central Station: they close shop at some point...In our case the trains would run only during the day.  At night, the freeways have plenty of capacity and dont need to be expanded for that traffic time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see the wisdom of building train routes for tens of millions PER MILE to run them 4 - 6 hours per day, 5 days per week. Commuters are better served by HOT lanes and buses. When Houston gets its land usage issues under control, then we can talk about rail to low density suburban areas. Unfortunately, the more the state and local authorities pump into freeways, the longer it'll be before commuter rail makes sense for the region. I'm not holding my breathe, I think Houston will look like LA, or worse (less geographic restriction) before we get decent rail transit.

[RedScare]

With the Katy currently costing almost $100 million dollars per mile to expand capacity by about 50,000 vehicles daily, $10 million per mile for commuter rail sounds like a bargain.