Engineer Proposes I-45 Tunnel

[ricco67]

I think of instead of building a tunnel, they should just make the freeways double decker (or maybe even higher in the future) as this would probably be the only feasible way to increase capacity for this particular segment.

yes, it may look bad, but unless you're willing to deal with constant gridlock and the potential for flooding (remember, I said POTENTIAL), or perhaps move the entire freeway alignment, we're going to be back to where we were at the start of the project.

[cwrm4]

I think of instead of building a tunnel, they should just make the freeways double decker (or maybe even higher in the future) as this would probably be the only feasible way to increase capacity for this particular segment.

The noise pollution from 45 and 10 (which are both mostly at or below grade currently) is already bad enough in Woodland Heights; I'm scared to think of the impact a double decker elevated freeway would have.

I just can't seem to understand why 45 needs to be widened? Where is everyone going? The Hardy to 59 is a better alternative for commuting to downtown from the North. And trucks should be forced to use alternative routes (like the Beltway or the East Loop) to keep them out of the "city" as much as possible.

[TheNiche]

The noise pollution from 45 and 10 (which are both mostly at or below grade currently) is already bad enough in Woodland Heights; I'm scared to think of the impact a double decker elevated freeway would have.

I just can't seem to understand why 45 needs to be widened? Where is everyone going? The Hardy to 59 is a better alternative for commuting to downtown from the North. And trucks should be forced to use alternative routes (like the Beltway or the East Loop) to keep them out of the "city" as much as possible.

Inbound is pretty easy in the afternoon and hellish in the morning. That is why it needs to be widened. In addition to added capacity, I-45 needs managed mainlanes and bidirectional HOV lanes that can be shifted depending on the time of day.

I used to work out on the North Loop and would typically commute back home to a condo near the TMC via I-45 and 288. But depending upon the level of congestion, I'd sometimes take I-10 and US 59 around the east side of downtown if that'd save me time (even at the cost of extra miles). If I-45 southbound was congested in the afternoons (pretty rare until downtown, actually), then I'd go around. I've tried that approach a few times in recent months when traveling that area, but have found that even US 59 slows down when you get into the downtown area. It seems that people are catching on. Still, traffic is going to be an increasing problem as the northern suburbs fill in over the life of the expansion project.

But you ask where people are going, and the answer is 'from north to south, vice versa'. There's a good bit of thru-traffic as not all of the jobs are downtown and not all of the households are in the suburbs.

[KinkaidAlum]

I-45 does not need to be expanded.

In fact, I'd be in favor of stopping all further freeway expansion. Compared to most other cities in this country, our freewys are numerous and expansive.

What we really need to do is stop bending over backwards to make developers rich and the people who chose to live in far off places have easier commutes.

If you want to move to the Fulshear, Bridgelands, Alvin, or Rosenburg, good for you. Just have fun sitting in 3 hours of traffic a day.

There are consequences for every life decision and one of the ones far flung suburbanites should suffer through is traffic.

Maybe then they'd move back to the city, ride public transit, pay property taxes to the city they most likely use, and even take an active role in the public school system instead of just running away...

[TheNiche]

I-45 does not need to be expanded.

In fact, I'd be in favor of stopping all further freeway expansion. Compared to most other cities in this country, our freewys are numerous and expansive.

What we really need to do is stop bending over backwards to make developers rich and the people who chose to live in far off places have easier commutes.

If you want to move to the Fulshear, Bridgelands, Alvin, or Rosenburg, good for you. Just have fun sitting in 3 hours of traffic a day.

There are consequences for every life decision and one of the ones far flung suburbanites should suffer through is traffic.

Maybe then they'd move back to the city, ride public transit, pay property taxes to the city they most likely use, and even take an active role in the public school system instead of just running away...

You know, I've presented the win-win theory of congestion reduction many times on this forum and nobody ever has responded to it with any serious criticism. Perhaps you could be the first to tell me why I'm wrong. It goes like this:

The upper crust of society tends to live in the suburbs. They make decisions with respect to the location of corporate offices. If they are unable to quickly commute to their offices downtown, they'll be much more likely to relocate the offices closer to where they live than they are to change the place that they live. As a result, fewer people work downtown or in other places in Houston's urban core that are difficult to access because of congestion.

Empirical data from years past indicates that office absorption is a leading indicator of apartment absorption. The better is central Houston's office market, the more people will want to live in central Houston. Additionally, if corporate relocations to the suburbs become a strong trend, then the City will miss out on a lot of property taxes. It is also entirely possible that the viability of the regional economy will be threatened if traffic congestion becomes too much worse than other regions with which we compete.

If you'd like to frame this as an urban vs. suburban issue, then you might also bear in mind that many of us Inner Loopies (myself included) work in the suburbs. Also, when there is congestion on the freeways, many drivers will take the nearest exit and drive through neighborhoods, bringing the noise and air pollution much closer to home. So don't forget that urbanites are negatively impacted by congestion, too.

For these and many more reasons it is in everyone's best interests to minimize congestion. The only question about which there should be contention is how is the best way to go about doing so.

[cwrm4]

The upper crust of society tends to live in the suburbs. They make decisions with respect to the location of corporate offices. If they are unable to quickly commute to their offices downtown, they'll be much more likely to relocate the offices closer to where they live than they are to change the place that they live. As a result, fewer people work downtown or in other places in Houston's urban core that are difficult to access because of congestion.

In cities where suburban growth happens in one general direction/quadrant, I would agree that the above is true. However, in cities with concentric growth rings, like Houston, I would argue that the wiser business decision is to locate offices within the CBD in order to have access to the entire metro population. In fact, a couple years ago I had a major (500+ corporate staff) client relocate from north of Houston to downtown simply because they felt they would have much better ability to source mid-level talent (e.g. engineers, IT) by being equidistant from all suburban areas.

I did have one client who relocated from the Galleria to the Woodlands, but that move, while PR'd as some sort of Woodlands-is-the-best-place deal, was actually executed as an extremely efficient and, for the company, painless way to reduce administrative/low-level overhead. If the company moves, and you don't want to move with it, your only option is to quit, with no liability/burden to the company. (Roughly 80% of those who decided not to "move" with the company were not replaced).

In Houston I've actually seen, with the McMansionization of Bellaire, West U, Tanglewood, Bunker Hill, etc, a number of "established" corporate execs relocate from the burbs to those areas, and, for the up-and-comers, it is the norm now to buy your first big home in those areas. And, with little kids, that pretty much locks them into an Inner-Loop/Inner-Beltway life as long as they remain in Houston.

Of course I suppose the above makes a case for better and more efficient transportation into downtown; I do not disagree with that. But I am skeptical that simply bulldozing houses and trees and to add more lanes to the already poorly designed I-45 is the right answer. An extension of the Hardy Toll Road directly into downtown (if it can be accomplished without destruction of neighborhoods, of course) would be a much better alternative. People will pay to have a faster commute, so make a toll road their best option.

[Guest danax]

I-45 does not need to be expanded.

In fact, I'd be in favor of stopping all further freeway expansion. Compared to most other cities in this country, our freewys are numerous and expansive.

I wish we didn't have to expand it, but I'd say TXDOT's track record is pretty good for predicting where we need freeway expansion. We've almost doubled our freeway system in the last 20 years or so and we've been able to stave off major congestion fairly well compared to other major US cities because of it. If limiting freeway expansion would indeed actually curtail suburban expansion, then the result truly might be more density but I think it would be density with people still driving cars at about the same level as before, ie; major congestion, and increased property values close in.

I'd like to see less freeway expansion from now on to increase our density somewhat and accelerate inner-beltway development but I'm not sure if anti-growth/anti-freeway cities haven't really screwed themselves up in many ways and Houston is quietly looking "smart" and pragmatic in comparison. We are a car city, not a pedestrian city and not a street car city. In time, we might become both but most of us today won't be around to enjoy it.

[TheNiche]

In cities where suburban growth happens in one general direction/quadrant, I would agree that the above is true. However, in cities with concentric growth rings, like Houston, I would argue that the wiser business decision is to locate offices within the CBD in order to have access to the entire metro population. In fact, a couple years ago I had a major (500+ corporate staff) client relocate from north of Houston to downtown simply because they felt they would have much better ability to source mid-level talent (e.g. engineers, IT) by being equidistant from all suburban areas.

I absolutely agree that this is the pattern that will occur when infrastructure has not been allowed to decay to critical levels...and I would argue that Houston is not critically congested by most measures. But if freeways become so congested that it 1) became difficult for key employees to get to work or 2) the centrality to a labor market is offset by the difficulty of travel, then there will be a flight to the suburbs.

I did have one client who relocated from the Galleria to the Woodlands, but that move, while PR'd as some sort of Woodlands-is-the-best-place deal, was actually executed as an extremely efficient and, for the company, painless way to reduce administrative/low-level overhead. If the company moves, and you don't want to move with it, your only option is to quit, with no liability/burden to the company. (Roughly 80% of those who decided not to "move" with the company were not replaced).

In Houston I've actually seen, with the McMansionization of Bellaire, West U, Tanglewood, Bunker Hill, etc, a number of "established" corporate execs relocate from the burbs to those areas, and, for the up-and-comers, it is the norm now to buy your first big home in those areas. And, with little kids, that pretty much locks them into an Inner-Loop/Inner-Beltway life as long as they remain in Houston.

Although Bellaire, West U, and the greater Memorial area have high concentrations of society's 'Upper Crust', the largest concentrations seem to be in the west, northwest, and northern suburbs. There is an especially dense concentration in the Champions area. The Bellaire/West U crowd seem to be in middle management of large corporations or the owners of relatively small businesses. But the big boys tend to be in River Oaks, Memorial, or in the suburbs...and most are in the suburbs.

Of course I suppose the above makes a case for better and more efficient transportation into downtown; I do not disagree with that. But I am skeptical that simply bulldozing houses and trees and to add more lanes to the already poorly designed I-45 is the right answer. An extension of the Hardy Toll Road directly into downtown (if it can be accomplished without destruction of neighborhoods, of course) would be a much better alternative. People will pay to have a faster commute, so make a toll road their best option.

I agree that the Hardy extension needs to be built, but I-45 needs added capacity too. And I mean in a systematic way. In addition to the North Frwy., the freeway loop around downtown (or at least the Pierce Elevated and I-10) needs double-decking to be able to handle the increased traffic load from I-45, the Hardy, and the recently-completed Eastex Freeway expansion. That'd also create an opportunity to alleviate congestion where the Southwest Frwy. and 288 merge before feeding into downtown.

[KinkaidAlum]

Most of Houston's elite still live in River Oaks (77019), Tanglewood (77056 and 77057), Southampton/West U (77005), or Memorial (77024).

That's where you'll find the names like Mitchell, Lanier, White, Sarofim, Sanders, Kinder, Friedkin, Bush, Reckling, Allen, Wyatt, Fertitta, Pappas, McConn, Goodman, Weingarten, Masterson, Colson, Cozalot, Mulva, Allbritton, Farish, Hines, Baugh, Blanton, and others.

HCC and ROCC will never be trumped by their suburban counterparts and the social set that runs the gala ball circuit will never move too far from their causes (Texas Medical Center insititutions, downtown arts, Menil, MFA, and others).

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Most of Houston's elite still live in River Oaks (77019), Tanglewood (77056 and 77057), Southampton/West U (77005), or Memorial (77024).

This is very true. I am a resident of Champions, and while it has some very nice areas, non compare to these listed.

[DaTrain]

I agree that the Hardy extension needs to be built, but I-45 needs added capacity too. And I mean in a systematic way. In addition to the North Frwy., the freeway loop around downtown (or at least the Pierce Elevated and I-10) needs double-decking to be able to handle the increased traffic load from I-45, the Hardy, and the recently-completed Eastex Freeway expansion. That'd also create an opportunity to alleviate congestion where the Southwest Frwy. and 288 merge before feeding into downtown.

If I-45 is double-deckered, I hope it does NOT be the case in front of downtown where it crosses Buffalo Bayou three times. Doin so will cause permanent blindness to ppl who want those classic dt views from Sabine Street; don't nobody want no "Embarcadero" type of freeway. This is Houston, doggone it.

In the case of the North Freeway, I might be the first one to suggest this: elevate it continuously between Beltway 8 and North Loop. Expand it to ten lanes this way without tearing down businesses and shitting up the entry to Houston from Dallas landscape, with 5 lanes in each direction on each bridge supported by the super-strength bridge columns. Proof that businesses will still be there: the wide bridges cast shadows on the frontage roads. This isn't nuthin new because Texas already has these: I-35/I-10 in San Antonio west of downtown, US Highway 183 in Austin west of I-35 and I-44 in Wichita Falls. Drive down any access road of these three and you'll see businesses still standing.

Similary, it can work for the Pierce Elevated: expand right on top of Pierce Street, add 2 more lanes, cast a shadow on Pierce Street. It's not called Pierce Elevated for nuthin, knawmean.

[kennyc05]

got dammit put it underground

[TheNiche]

Most of Houston's elite still live in River Oaks (77019), Tanglewood (77056 and 77057), Southampton/West U (77005), or Memorial (77024).

That's where you'll find the names like Mitchell, Lanier, White, Sarofim, Sanders, Kinder, Friedkin, Bush, Reckling, Allen, Wyatt, Fertitta, Pappas, McConn, Goodman, Weingarten, Masterson, Colson, Cozalot, Mulva, Allbritton, Farish, Hines, Baugh, Blanton, and others.

HCC and ROCC will never be trumped by their suburban counterparts and the social set that runs the gala ball circuit will never move too far from their causes (Texas Medical Center insititutions, downtown arts, Menil, MFA, and others).

I'm just looking at a dot-density map that depicts concentrations of the "Upper Crust" psychographic, as defined by Claritas, Inc. Believe it or not, not everybody with gobs of money even wants to live in RO or Memorial. A fair number of them prefer to be more discrete or would rather use the money that they spend on land to build a bigger home.

Also, a lot of the names that you threw out there are either big philanthropists (i.e. inherently interested in prestige conveyed by these areas) or are/were City politicians...and if you're going to be a wealthy politician campaigning in the City of Houston, it does a bit of good to...you know...LIVE THERE.

If I-45 is double-deckered, I hope it does NOT be the case in front of downtown where it crosses Buffalo Bayou three times. Doin so will cause permanent blindness to ppl who want those classic dt views from Sabine Street; don't nobody want no "Embarcadero" type of freeway. This is Houston, doggone it.

I-45 in front of downtown (if you assume I-45 to be the "front) is already elevated pretty high up. I'd like the double-decking to be either a grade-level and elevated system that is no taller than it already is or to bury one level and keep the other at or near grade-level. In either case, express lanes would be profoundly useful.

[KinkaidAlum]

I'm just looking at a dot-density map that depicts concentrations of the "Upper Crust" psychographic, as defined by Claritas, Inc. Believe it or not, not everybody with gobs of money even wants to live in RO or Memorial. A fair number of them prefer to be more discrete or would rather use the money that they spend on land to build a bigger home.

Also, a lot of the names that you threw out there are either big philanthropists (i.e. inherently interested in prestige conveyed by these areas) or are/were City politicians...and if you're going to be a wealthy politician campaigning in the City of Houston, it does a bit of good to...you know...LIVE THERE.

I-45 in front of downtown (if you assume I-45 to be the "front) is already elevated pretty high up. I'd like the double-decking to be either a grade-level and elevated system that is no taller than it already is or to bury one level and keep the other at or near grade-level. In either case, express lanes would be profoundly useful.

What the heck is a psychographic?

While it is true that many wealthy folks opt to live in The Woodlands, Sugar Land, Fulshear, Cypress, etc... the fact will never change that the old guard and the people who want to take their place, will always choose to live close in. And, while many of the names on the list later became known as politicians or philanthropists, most of them started off as big wigs in businesses like Texas State Optical, Texas Commerce Bank, Sysco, Sarofim Investments, Sanders/Morris, Goodman Air Conditioning, Quanta, Marathon Oil, Conoco Phillips, Humble Oil/Exxon, Kinder Morgan, and a host of others. Some are famous lawyers like Jamail and O'Quinn. Fertitta and Pappas built restaurant empires. The list left off the most famous doctors who almost all choose to live near the TMC. It also left off names like Strake, Baker, Cheney, and others who are nationally well known and all lived in Tanglewood.

[ricco67]

What the heck is a psychographic?

While it is true that many wealthy folks opt to live in The Woodlands, Sugar Land, Fulshear, Cypress, etc... the fact will never change that the old guard and the people who want to take their place, will always choose to live close in. And, while many of the names on the list later became known as politicians or philanthropists, most of them started off as big wigs in businesses like Texas State Optical, Texas Commerce Bank, Sysco, Sarofim Investments, Sanders/Morris, Goodman Air Conditioning, Quanta, Marathon Oil, Conoco Phillips, Humble Oil/Exxon, Kinder Morgan, and a host of others. Some are famous lawyers like Jamail and O'Quinn. Fertitta and Pappas built restaurant empires. The list left off the most famous doctors who almost all choose to live near the TMC. It also left off names like Strake, Baker, Cheney, and others who are nationally well known and all lived in Tanglewood.

psy

[RedScare]

I realize that the people around that particular region would howl in protest over the potential eyesore, but it's either that or lose their land.

Actually, TxDOT is tentatively saying that the section of I-45 inside the Loop can be expanded without taking property. They are still working on it, but some combination of cantilevered feeder roads/exit ramps or eliminating low-use feeders in that section may be employed.

[TheNiche]

What the heck is a psychographic?

In market segmentation, a psychographic is a set of divisions into which people can be categorized based upon correlations between demographic indicators (age, household income, household size, marital status, race, home ownership status, home value, home structure type, etc.) and psychographic traits which can include nearly any combination of a wide variety of traits. The most common are those related to consumption patterns, either of goods and services, or of media. Other traits may be linked to sociological patterns, voting patterns, employment patterns, financial activities, or nearly any other dataset for which there is correlation between variables of interest and demographic segments.

Each defined segment is kind of like a stereotyped mean around which there is some statistical deviation.

I personally use Claritas' PRIZM NE database, which divides the U.S. population into 66 segments, ranging from the very top of the social strata (Upper Crust) to the very bottom (Bedrock America).

[Montrose1100]

Actually, TxDOT is tentatively saying that the section of I-45 inside the Loop can be expanded without taking property. They are still working on it, but some combination of cantilevered feeder roads/exit ramps or eliminating low-use feeders in that section may be employed.

Good, the 'feeders' need to go.

[zebra]

Good, the 'feeders' need to go.

i dont know what evreyone's problim is with feeder roads. when i'm stuck in trafick, i likee the option of riding on the feeder to byepass some of the trafick

[Subdude]

They tend to funnel traffic taking local trips onto freeways, thereby potentially worsening traffic by lining the freeways with shopping centers. Freeways were originally designed for through traffic, not local. Also, the development along the freeways is perceived as ugly, and contributes to our reputation of sprawling and ugly.

[Montrose1100]

They tend to funnel traffic taking local trips onto freeways, thereby potentially worsening traffic by lining the freeways with shopping centers. Freeways were originally designed for through traffic, not local. Also, the development along the freeways is perceived as ugly, and contributes to our reputation of sprawling and ugly.

Amen.

[shinoda28107]

Amen.

If no one likes our town for maturing (sprawling) like it has...oh well! THAT isn't going to change. Thousands have invested their lives in building business that are now along our feeders. The REAL problem is that congestion needs to be relieved in many areas without the overwhelming possibility that these businesses relocate.

I wish that Hi-Speed rail lines connecting the suburbs with the major business districts (Downtown, Uptown, TMC, Greenway plaza, even Westchase and Greenspoint) could be on the MTA's agenda. Sure it would be nice to connect downtown with U.H. but I think that it is slightly more important (and conveinient) to give residents of Sugarland, Woodlands, Bridgelands, etc.... a faster alternative to get to and from work.

look at the benefits:

-Lower pollution

-New Businesses (they love relocating to areas where their employees don't spend too much time in traffic)

-Happy residents

-More global recognition

...and I'm sure much more to it.

The chance of this happening anytime soon is very low....but I hope something like this can happen (for the "sprawler's" sake).

[MiDTOWNeR]

give residents of Sugarland, Woodlands, Bridgelands, etc.... a faster alternative to get to and from work.

They could always live closer to work. Why must we cater to those who choose to live such distances from work and then complain about it.

give residents of Sugarland, Woodlands, Bridgelands, etc.... a faster alternative to get to and from work.

They could always live closer to work. Why must we cater to those who choose to live such distances from work and then complain about it.

[shinoda28107]

They could always live closer to work. Why must we cater to those who choose to live such distances from work and then complain about it.

THAT's is what is SUPPOSED to happen when these people pay their taxes. If nothing caters to them...then they have no reasons to pay taxes.

PLUS! This project benefits EVERYONE in the Houston area (meaning it caters to YOU-if you live here)

[TheNiche]

They could always live closer to work. Why must we cater to those who choose to live such distances from work and then complain about it.

Because they still make up the vast majority of the population, and that majority seems to like living in the suburbs on the whole. For every one new resident inside Beltway 8, there are another EIGHT that move beyond it. Is that not revealed preference?

Besides, one of Houston's competitive advantages to other cities is that its land values are much lower. That is only the case because so much land is so easily accessible from the various employment centers. If open land is removed from accessibility, then more people look to the city for housing, but in doing so, they drive prices sky high. Wealthier folks tend to like it because they tend to be able to absorb the cost (and also comprise the bulk of existing landowners of inner-city real estate), but the poorer folks would suffer because they would now either have to pay excessive housing costs or endure a slow commute from places where land and housing are less in demand.

The other undesirable effect is that firms in a congested central city will tend to move closer to where key employees and a skilled pool of labor lives, decentralizing the employment base. After all, the only reason that a Central Business District is desirable to employers is because it is convenient to the largest share of the population...but if getting there is too much of a hassle then the locational advantage is lost.

[Montrose1100]

I love the logic that if you don't expand your freeways, people will automatically centrally locate and out of the blue we'll have a sea of highrises and instant rail transit.

If we didn't (or don't) expand our freeways, people will move elsewhere.

[CDeb]

I love the logic that if you don't expand your freeways, people will automatically centrally locate and out of the blue we'll have a sea of highrises and instant rail transit.

If we didn't (or don't) expand our freeways, people will move elsewhere.

Or we'd be like Austin: the people came anyway, the south, west and north sides of town exploded with low-density development, and now you can't freakin' drive anywhere in the city while every new freeway project is a toll facility.

Planner's paradise never quite seems to work out....

[kennyc05]

Whats the deal on this?

[VelvetJ]

It's a no go. They decided the traditional freeway expansion is what they will do.

[cwrm4]

It's a no go. They decided the traditional freeway expansion is what they will do.

And the facts to support that statement are ????