ToryGattis

The Pierce Elevated/I-59 Redesign Thread

Pierce Skypark or Demolish Pierce Elevated?  

107 members have voted

  1. 1. Pierce Skypark or Demolish Pierce Elevated?

    • Pierce Skypark
      33
    • Demolish Pierce Elevated
      74


Recommended Posts

Danny1022    10
7 hours ago, tigereye said:

 

Why waste my time in explaining when you've previously stated nothing will make you change your mind.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

Thank you.. I only apologise for talking harsh. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Danny1022    10
Posted (edited)

So.. here's something that i think some people including me would totally like.. except txdot and many public-transport-phobic people.. meaning It probably won't happen in the next 1000 years

Subway system for Houston(similar to new York subway. Paris metro, Mexico city metro, London underground or Berlin sbahn). Not all areas are covered but.. I made it. and i don't know if it's good for others but it is on my opinion.

Besides there are some that i might have forgotten but yeah.. just saying..

20170610_211915.thumb.jpg.0c75fd8512087605032ba89a0fcdd7de.jpg

Edited by Danny1022
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ross    613
2 hours ago, Danny1022 said:

So.. here's something that i think some people including me would totally like.. except txdot and many public-transport-phobic people.. meaning It probably won't happen in the next 1000 years

Subway system for Houston(similar to new York subway. Paris metro, Mexico city metro, London underground or Berlin sbahn). Not all areas are covered but.. I made it. and i don't know if it's good for others but it is on my opinion.

Besides there are some that i might have forgotten but yeah.. just saying..

20170610_211915.thumb.jpg.0c75fd8512087605032ba89a0fcdd7de.jpg

Subways are a bad idea here. Not because of flooding risk, as there are mitigations for that. The biggest impediment is the existence of thousands of old oil wells scattered all over town, and no one knows exactly were they are. There's probably some arcane laws governing the subsurface that make things even worse. We could build cut and cover tunnels under streets, but no one would be happy about the mess and traffic disruptions. London quit building tunnels like that over 100 years ago for that reason.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BeerNut    299

 

13 hours ago, Danny1022 said:

So.. here's something that i think some people including me would totally like.. except txdot and many public-transport-phobic people.. meaning It probably won't happen in the next 1000 years

Subway system for Houston(similar to new York subway. Paris metro, Mexico city metro, London underground or Berlin sbahn). Not all areas are covered but.. I made it. and i don't know if it's good for others but it is on my opinion.

Besides there are some that i might have forgotten but yeah.. just saying..

20170610_211915.thumb.jpg.0c75fd8512087605032ba89a0fcdd7de.jpg

Heavy commuter rail located in highway ROW?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ross    613
34 minutes ago, BeerNut said:

 

Heavy commuter rail located in highway ROW?  

That makes more sense than subways. You still have to figure out how to get the commuters to the stations, and where they will park. And, the commute times will not be significantly shorter. Even in London, it's only 15 or so minutes faster to take the train over driving, but there's limited parking that makes the train more attractive. And METRO prob ably still thinks that there has to be a complete light rail system to handle the heavy rail commuters before the heavy rail can be built. I'm not sure Houston has reached the stage where the public will accept rail as a viable alternative.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mfastx    442
Posted (edited)

A heavy rail transit system here would certainly be successful in my view.  Much more successful ridership wise than the current light rail system.  A few short light rail lines don't make much of an impact, but a faster heavy rail transit system that reaches out into the suburbs, much like Washington DC's system, would generate a lot of ridership.  Regarding subway vs above ground, I'd imagine that only a few small portions would be in a subway (such as downtown, uptown, TMC) but most of it would be above ground.  

 

It'll never happen of course, but it's fun to dream.  

Edited by mfastx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Danny1022    10
5 hours ago, Ross said:

That makes more sense than subways. You still have to figure out how to get the commuters to the stations, and where they will park. And, the commute times will not be significantly shorter. Even in London, it's only 15 or so minutes faster to take the train over driving, but there's limited parking that makes the train more attractive. And METRO prob ably still thinks that there has to be a complete light rail system to handle the heavy rail commuters before the heavy rail can be built. I'm not sure Houston has reached the stage where the public will accept rail as a viable alternative.

I thought that subways were heavy rail and isnt the London underground a subway system.?

I've only been to one place with subways (I dont know what subways are anymore) I'll just say similar to London or New York. That was in Mexico and t seemed like t was fast but it was convenient cos there were bus routes to take you anywhere, unlike some areas of here.

Note. I would not think that freeways should be dismantled i just think that they should focus on more trains instead of highways but not abandon highways 

Other thing that could be possible would be make bus routes from far places to the stations. Unfortunately the fundingwould have to be a lot more but.. idk... it'd be pretty cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ross    613
Posted (edited)

The London Underground is heavy rail. There are two type of tunnels there, cut and cover, which is the Metropolitan, District, and Circle lines. All the rest of the lines are bored tunnels, which disrupted the surface much less than the cut and cover.

 

This article has some pictures https://www.theguardian.com/travel/gallery/2013/jan/09/150-years-london-underground-pictures

 

Some more here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259177/London-Underground-Amazing-images-houses-demolished-Tube-1863.html

 

A few more here http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2013/metropolitan-line-1860s/

Edited by Ross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ADCS    308
21 hours ago, Ross said:

That makes more sense than subways. You still have to figure out how to get the commuters to the stations, and where they will park. And, the commute times will not be significantly shorter. Even in London, it's only 15 or so minutes faster to take the train over driving, but there's limited parking that makes the train more attractive. And METRO prob ably still thinks that there has to be a complete light rail system to handle the heavy rail commuters before the heavy rail can be built. I'm not sure Houston has reached the stage where the public will accept rail as a viable alternative.

 

One thing METRO could do is partner with a taxi or ridesharing service and subsidize fares to/from rail stations, to be (partially) recaptured through the fare box. Even if it is mildly exploited by people not going to the station to use the train, it gets people in the mindset of taking shared modes to transit-oriented nodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samagon    1976
19 hours ago, Ross said:

The London Underground is heavy rail. There are two type of tunnels there, cut and cover, which is the Metropolitan, District, and Circle lines. All the rest of the lines are bored tunnels, which disrupted the surface much less than the cut and cover.

 

This article has some pictures https://www.theguardian.com/travel/gallery/2013/jan/09/150-years-london-underground-pictures

 

Some more here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259177/London-Underground-Amazing-images-houses-demolished-Tube-1863.html

 

A few more here http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2013/metropolitan-line-1860s/

 

There's a really cool documentary on netflix, or amazon (unsure which) about the new crosstown line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ross    613
2 hours ago, samagon said:

 

There's a really cool documentary on netflix, or amazon (unsure which) about the new crosstown line.

I've seen that. It's very interesting. Cross town travel has been an issue in London for a long time. Construction of surface stations in Central London was banned in 1846 or so, which is why the mainline rail stations are in a circle around the center. It's really difficult to get freight across London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Houston19514    2120
On 6/18/2017 at 0:04 AM, Ross said:

Subways are a bad idea here. Not because of flooding risk, as there are mitigations for that. The biggest impediment is the existence of thousands of old oil wells scattered all over town, and no one knows exactly were they are. There's probably some arcane laws governing the subsurface that make things even worse. We could build cut and cover tunnels under streets, but no one would be happy about the mess and traffic disruptions. London quit building tunnels like that over 100 years ago for that reason.

 

Were there every really that many oil wells drilled inside the Loop? (Realistically, to the extent there is any chance of ever building subways in Houston they will almost certainly be predominantly inside the Loop.)  Regardless, I would imagine any abandoned oil wells could be dealt with fairly easily in the context of a subway construction project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cspwal    1785

I think the bigger issue is just a fundamental problem of funding for a subway more than anything else

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ianbian    6

Hi everyone -- I thought the group might be interested in the mini novela of comments I sent to TxDOT (see attachment). My focus is on maintaining and improving local, inner-city connectivity options between the East End, Downtown, and neighborhoods west of Downtown. I don't feel like we can afford to lose any more of our existing east-west roadway options, because we already have so few of them. I would hate for our local east-west roadway connectivity to start looking like Austin's north-south connectivity!

 

Remember, comments are due by July 27, 2017. Feel free to use any of the figures/arguments I've put together if you agree with them -- no need to reinvent the wheel!

IH-45 Comments - FINAL (Sharing).pdf

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samagon    1976
On 7/22/2017 at 6:41 AM, Ianbian said:

Hi everyone -- I thought the group might be interested in the mini novela of comments I sent to TxDOT (see attachment). My focus is on maintaining and improving local, inner-city connectivity options between the East End, Downtown, and neighborhoods west of Downtown. I don't feel like we can afford to lose any more of our existing east-west roadway options, because we already have so few of them. I would hate for our local east-west roadway connectivity to start looking like Austin's north-south connectivity!

 

Remember, comments are due by July 27, 2017. Feel free to use any of the figures/arguments I've put together if you agree with them -- no need to reinvent the wheel!

IH-45 Comments - FINAL (Sharing).pdf

 

Well thought out and well written. I think you leave a lot on the table when discussing the impact the removal of the pierce elevated will have though.

 

You reference it as a mode of connectivity only for residents along the i45 corridor, you don't consider the use by residents along 59. More residents than the city and txdot is aware of use the pierce instead of 610 to get to the same destinations you reference (west downtown, BBP, Memorial, etc). Removal of the pierce will have the effect of shifting more traffic onto 610 through the galleria area to go to those destinations, since all of those drivers use the pierce as an alternate to 610 through the galleria anyway. Basically, anyone who uses the pierce elevated as an alternative to 610 through the galleria is going to be negatively impacted. considering the amount of traffic at the 59/527, 59/45, and 45/i10 splits, and the amount of traffic choosing each specific exit.

 

An interesting question, somewhat related to your comments regarding using google maps to show best routes, I wonder if txdot has purchased any travel metadata from google? I'm sure google could easily put together a report for txdot of all regional data specific to origin and destination of people using the pierce elevated. In a day and age when this kind of data is available, you really hope they have done something like this. Considering txdot is a government agency, my money is on no, they haven't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now