[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.

[westender]

Screw Trains and screw planes and screw cars. It's all about teleportation baby. get used to it!!

[jghall00]

RedScare, on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 @ 2:22pm, said:

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.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where'd you come up with 10 million? The main street line was 40+/mile. Also the Katy is used for revenue generating uses. Getting to work doesn't count. A lot of goods are shipped through there. Can't say the same for a commuter rail line.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see more rail as much as the next person, but I don't think this area will be ready for it, for a very long time. Why? Because of the highway construction. The thing that will make commuter rail viable is increased congestion, and increased density inside the loop. With all the freeway and roadway expansion, we're not getting any closer. Eventually we'll hit a wall where we can't expand roadways anymore, but that time isn't here yet. Given the Texas predilection for funding roads, things will likely get better before they get worse. In 10 or so years, we'll be dealing with the NEW, Re-congested Katy Freeway.

There are already plans on the drawing board to increase capacity on 290, 288, and now I-45. How can rail compete in that environment? Answer? It can't. Now, when the powers that be say "That's it!, we just can't afford to expand these roads anymore, the litigation and ROW expense is just too high!", then it'll be time for the rail conversation. In the meantime, I suggest we agitate for a more efficient land use policy in preparation.

[NewMND]

I would be scared to drive in a 14.5 mile tunnel. I think I have some kind of weird tunnel clausterphobia phobia thing going on. But I think the tunnel idea would be a good thing for the city of Houston, and since I never use that portion of I-45, it wouldn't affect me and I won't have to overcome any fears.

[GovernorAggie]

jghall00, on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 @ 10:57am, said:

We owe Massachuesetts for the revolution   <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point. But if you go according to the history boards at the Alamo, almost every southwestern state (NM, AZ, CA, CO, NV) owes Houston a big one thanks to--General Sam Houston. That is, unless they'd rather be in Mexico. Maybe the support of California is better than Massachussetts anyway.

[citykid09]

The other day I started a tread about tunnels in Houston.
http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...?showtopic=2382
And now a big one could come true!

[largeTEXAS]

I just wrote to TxDOT (albiet a general email box) and encourage you guys to do the same. Here's what I wrote:

Dear Mr. Gary Trietsch and others,

Please consider the plans Mr. Gonzolo Camacho has prenented to you concerning the expansion of I-45 in the Houston area.

The central Houston I-45 expansion plans from downtown to Beltway 8 should reflect what Mr. Camacho, an engineer with the I-45 Coalition, has proposed. This includes tunneling the expanded roadway approximately 100 ft underground, making the above ground right of way less problematic for residents and commuters.

I strongly believe a tunneled I-45 will have positive impacts on residents, workers, commuters, and those in need of quick and reliable transportation should an evacuation be necessary.

Thank you for your time.

Here's the link to the comments section. Just make sure the section under "Who would you like to send this e-mail to?" is "Transportation Planning and Programming Division." http://www.dot.state...bin/mailform.pl

[RedScare]

The county did a study on commuter rail out 290 and 249 (ironically, to try to defeat the rail bond issue), and came up with an estimated construction cost of $3 to $5 million. Knowing that the real cost would escalate, I doubled it to be conservative.

[citykid09]

If they can build the tunnel for cars, why not trains?

[UrbaNerd]

Because auto tunnels are high volume (say, like 250k a day for I-45N+) and more economically feasible for Houston than train tunnels, which may only have a volume of 30K a day. Plus, it would be difficult to have the train tunnel entrance elevated, especially if you have many interchanges, stations, etc. With the freeway, you already have the ROW.

[citykid09]

Just put the train in there with the cars. That would be neat.

[UrbaNerd]

Then, we'd have cars crashing into the train, causing traffic backups in the freeway! cmon, tis Houston!
Plus, they would have to cram all of those mechanics in there. Also, the configuration of stations, etc would cause prices to skyrocket.

Besides, there is perfectly good land on top of the tunnel for rail! (cheaper than putting it in with the cars)

im not an engineer, so i can't really tell you too much.

[LTAWACS]

UrbaNerd, on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 @ 10:56pm, said:

Then, we'd have cars crashing into the train, causing traffic backups in the freeway!  cmon, tis Houston!
Plus, they would have to cram all of those mechanics in there.  Also, the configuration of stations, etc would cause prices to skyrocket.

Besides, there is perfectly good land on top of the tunnel for rail! (cheaper than putting it in with the cars)

im not an engineer, so i can't really tell you too much.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[LTAWACS]

So does does anyone have pics?

[citykid09]

Well I mean have them seperated, but also have them where they can see eachother.

[The Voice of University Oaks]

RedScare, on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 @ 8:39pm, said:

The county did a study on commuter rail out 290 and 249 (ironically, to try to defeat the rail bond issue), and came up with an estimated construction cost of $3 to $5 million.  Knowing that the real cost would escalate, I doubled it to be conservative.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. Bob Eckels came up with that commuter rail feasibility study as a "red herring" to try to defeat the METROSolutions plan. And the estimated construction cost is way too low to be taken seriously. The study contains some cost assumptions that are absolutely ridiculous. For example, they assumed only three stations per line, with parking for only 250 cars at each lot.

For comparison's stake, METRO currently has over 2,500 spaces at the Northwest Station Park and Ride alone.

As I've said on another thread: with the exception of 90A and possibly 249, we're not likely to see commuter rail in Houston for a long time.

[GovernorAggie]

I thought that the county study said costs would be near $300 million.

[RedScare]

That's true...$295 million...for 2 rail lines totalling 82 miles, or $3.6 million per mile.

[RedScare]

Sorry...cite

http://www.offthekuf...ves/003207.html

[citykid09]

What ever there going to do, I want to see some action start soon, I hate waiting, the only way I am happy is if I can see progress.

[houston_urban_fan]

There is a full-length interview with the I45 Tunnel Plan's author at:

www.downtownhouston.com


For those that are skeptical, remember that tunnels are nothing new to Houston.
This back-water town built two before the reichstag in Austin took over.

[GovernorAggie]

I really hope TxDOT does this tunnel, even if it's just in part (say replacing the Pierce Elevated with a tunnel or making it a tunnel inside 610 where it's already mostly below grade anyway). The only thing is that it will take away from the skyline views, but I think that's a small thing compared to having a substantial infrastructure put in place.

[citykid09]

I think it would be very neat, for people who have never been to Houston and there first time coming in from the airport driving into the tunnel way up there before the skyline and inner city is visable, and then, finally coming out of the tunnel once you get into the core city. Do you know how amazing that would look! Houston would look very urban, and the tunnels would help with the urban look. Think about it.... Have you ever seen a tunnel in somewhere out in a rural area? No, but you have seen the other types of roads. So it would really give it an urban feel.

[MidtownCoog]

More self-serving Heights residents.

This guy is just worried about his hood. Can't say I blame him, but if you are worried about pollution, don't live near the freeway.

[oaksinger]

Does this plan deal with the issue of digging under the bayous? That to me would seem like a major challenge.

[RedScare]

Digging under a bayou presents no more challenge, generally, than dry land. Once you hit the water table, which in Houston, is only a few feet deep, you must deal with water. Tunnels are designed to be watertight, so going under a bayou is not a big issue.

[kjb434]

Maybe a tunnel in portions, but not the whole stretch of road.

[rhinolaw]

kjb434, on Monday, June 13th, 2005 @ 11:19am, said:

Maybe a tunnel in portions, but not the whole stretch of road.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

why not
a friend told me about this bulleting and took the time to read your comments. rather enjoyable i would say.
what i do need to do is generate a rendering of what the I-45 tunnel could look like... in the mean time think of two tunnels (one northbound and one southbound) designed for through traffic... reconstruct the at-grade I-45 into a parkway (similar to the allen parkway/memorial) where there is more green space and few traffic signals...this will be for local traffic (in HGAC's terms is called express street)... and don't forget for metro to place a light rail or brt or some kind of mass transit in the middle.... this will link greenspoint to downtown...a quick and future link to the airports...
so, think of the pierce elevated gone and replaced with a nice parkway with lots of trees and a metro express route...not bad comming from a self serving heights fellow...
14.5 miles of tunnel would be the longest in the USA and would certainly get world attention...not bad....now we are placing houston where it should be...up there with the best cities...
thank you for your comments. they certainly help me identify areas that i need to communicate better.
gonzalo camacho

[RedScare]

Hey Gonzalo:

From one self-serving Heights resident to another, keep up the good work! Great to see someone unafraid to think big. And welcome to the board. Come back often.

[GovernorAggie]

Glad to see you here, Gonzalo.

[ricco67]

Redscare sez:

Quote

Tunnels are designed to be watertight, so going under a bayou is not a big issue.

Oh? Perhaps someone should tell that to the Boston Tunnel from the Big dig. They have been having leaking issues after the first year of operation.

Ricco