Jump to content

610 West Loop Express Lanes


Recommended Posts

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/houston/121015.html

Looks like the process has started for adding 4 elevated express lanes down the center of the 610 West Loop between I 10 and I 69. I am betting that TXDOT will stand a better chance of getting this built despite the likely inevitable legal challenges from the Memorial Park Conservancy and various other NIMBY organizations. Fact is, 300k+ cars use this stretch of road every day and it needs the additional capacity big time. The link has a project map and additional details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Sure did and the estate said it was giving to the city only as a park. Or the land goes back the estate.

I heard that too but road widening seems to be legally allowed--otherwise they couldn't have turned Post Oak Road into 610 in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how this relates to an elevated busway for the BRT uptown line

From what I gather, these will be two separate projects, not combined (at least for now). It's gonna be wild looking to see overpasses 35 feet in the air over the major intersections along the route. I guess there just isn't enough ROW along the frontage roads to cantilever those lanes over them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus. Next it will be triple stacked, no really this has been discussed for some Texas freeways since double stacked isn't the answer. The alternative elephant in the room can't even be discussed. The oil/car/construction lobby is too powerful.

 

Look, I like public transportation as much as the rest, but the West Loop needs more capacity. Not our fault that planners failed to design sufficient north-south arterial capacity in the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'd like to see them go one step further and just tunnel 610 from 10 to 59/69, build an express tunnel for both directions, build a local access tunnel for both directions, and put a local access parkway at grade. Double the total number of lanes.

 

I'd imagine the folks with the MP Conservancy would put their positive power behind such a plan.

 

Post Oak Parkway anyone??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'd like to see them go one step further and just tunnel 610 from 10 to 59/69, build an express tunnel for both directions, build a local access tunnel for both directions, and put a local access parkway at grade. Double the total number of lanes.

I'd imagine the folks with the MP Conservancy would put their positive power behind such a plan.

Post Oak Parkway anyone??

Much though I would love to see it, both the engineering peeps at TXDOT and the gazillions of drivers that use this road won't much appreciate it. Ideally I'd like to see those lanes cantilevered over the frontage roads and make some sort of vine covered hanging gardens of Houston. Something akin to the vine walls on 59/69 in Montrose only covering the bridges, posts, and so on.

http://m.chron.com/news/transportation/article/Elevated-lanes-coming-to-Loop-610-eventually-6673795.php?cmpid=hpfc

Additional coverage from The Chron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be beneficial, but two of the biggest causes for backup are drivers that are coming from 290E onto 610S or drivers coming from 59N&S to 610N, and as it sounds now the entrance ramps to the elevated expressway will be before any of these drivers have a chance of taking them instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the extent of the project is too short. On the northern terminus, it should at least go past the US 290 interchange.

I wonder if there will be entrances/exits between these express lanes & the existing main lanes in between I-10 and I-69 terminus (like the Katy Freeway managed lanes). Or instead it will truly act as a West Loop bypass meaning that once you get on, you ride it the full stretch (like the elevated section of I-35 in Austin). I prefer the latter for better traffic flow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice to know the figures for the vehicles, where they are going and where they came from. What percentage of drivers are really traveling from Bellaire to Brookhollow. How much of the congestion will they be easing with this? Will it only be a select few laughing at the parking lot below?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't wait for this to be built. It will cut my travel time by 10 to 15 minutes since this is the only way for us to get north (and we never go to the galleria). The amount of traffic this could reduce will be huge (I would guess at least a 1/3 reduction).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the kind of optimism we should all strive for. However, I doubt it would be that big of a reduction, although it depends on where the new lanes would connect to on the southern segment. In my own experience, it seems like most of the traffic headed south, that doesn't exit for Uptown, heads towards 59/69. Once I get past that exit, traffic headed south over 59/69 is light until you reach the other end of the interchange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'd like to see them go one step further and just tunnel 610 from 10 to 59/69, build an express tunnel for both directions, build a local access tunnel for both directions, and put a local access parkway at grade. Double the total number of lanes.

 

I'd imagine the folks with the MP Conservancy would put their positive power behind such a plan.

 

Post Oak Parkway anyone??

 

I was thinking of something similar, but potentially less expensive: full double deck, but the lower deck would be a trench like 59 east of Shepherd.  The upper deck would be a cap on it, with plenty of room for air gaps as needed for ventilation.  And it solves the problem of lanes elevated high in the air (which seems to upset all the adjacent people).  The tricky part would be the bayou, of course.  It may have to be a tunnel or elevated for just that portion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking of something similar, but potentially less expensive: full double deck, but the lower deck would be a trench like 59 east of Shepherd.  The upper deck would be a cap on it, with plenty of room for air gaps as needed for ventilation.  And it solves the problem of lanes elevated high in the air (which seems to upset all the adjacent people).  The tricky part would be the bayou, of course.  It may have to be a tunnel or elevated for just that portion.

 

As much as I'd like to see that, the other big problem with the Post Oak Road partial redevelopment into 610 is the fact that Post Oak Road merges back into 610 S. Would be nice to see that become one big road again from Bellaire to Northwest Mall, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I'd like to see that, the other big problem with the Post Oak Road partial redevelopment into 610 is the fact that Post Oak Road merges back into 610 S. Would be nice to see that become one big road again from Bellaire to Northwest Mall, really.

 

That would probably help a little with traffic congestion - add a true north south alternative 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've posted the schematics and some renderings that were presented at tonight's open house on the website.

Clearly this is a flawed design. The express lanes go from 1 lane as it ramps up, to 2 lanes in the middle section, then back to 1 lane as it ramps down. It's going to bottleneck for sure. What a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've posted the schematics and some renderings that were presented at tonight's open house on the website.

Clearly this is a flawed design. The express lanes go from 1 lane as it ramps up, to 2 lanes in the middle section, then back to 1 lane as it ramps down. It's going to bottleneck for sure. What a joke.

 

Agreed, I really don't see this as improving much at all. Looks like a bus lane that they've converted into a general express lane on account of the opposition to the Post Oak busway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, I really don't see this as improving much at all. Looks like a bus lane that they've converted into a general express lane on account of the opposition to the Post Oak busway.

 

The Post Oak busway looks to be a separate structure from this.  I can't imagine why they would bother having 2 lanes at any point if there are no exits and the beginning and end are both single lane ramps.  It's almost like they were going to have it go longer distance or connect to 59 or 10 and changed their mind before going to the public

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Post Oak busway looks to be a separate structure from this. 

 

Schematic 1 from the TXDOT website above shows the proposed dedicated bus lanes: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/121015-schematic-01.pdf

 

Gray colored lanes in the plan and elevation views. Looks as though the bus lanes bump the express lanes out of the I-610 median south of Woodway.

 

Edit: Also looks like they want to rebuild the 610 main lanes over 59 (blue lanes in Schematic 2). I wonder why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't like how it would further obstruct the skyline and add more blight at a higher altitude, for what seemingly doesn't seem like it will be that much traffic benefit. At that cost, why not just doubledeck fully with the upper deck having no exits?

 

3DLxYWV.jpg

 

nTciHbu.jpg

 

X9JCyTX.jpg

 

IMn3qUc.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.

So let me get this straight. A structure like this is proposed to hold more cars and reduce traffic and the general concensus is that this is a great idea, we have the money for this, people are all for it, there is no opposition from local congressman or senators.

But if we were to build the exact same structures over our freeways or over the HOV lanes of I-10, 45, or 288 and then.......PUT A TRAIN ON IT that holds way more people than cars do, and SUDDENLY it's a HORRIBLE idea, it's completely not feasible, we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY FOR IT, and it would be a HORRIBLE APPROPRIATION of funds to spend any money on it, do I have that about right? :rolleyes:

Man, **** **** ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.

So let me get this straight. A structure like this is proposed to hold more cars and reduce traffic and the general concensus is that this is a great idea, we have the money for this, people are all for it, there is no opposition from local congressman or senators.

But if we were to build the exact same structures over our freeways or over the HOV lanes of I-10, 45, or 288 and then.......PUT A TRAIN ON IT that holds way more people than cars do, and SUDDENLY it's a HORRIBLE idea, it's completely not feasible, we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY FOR IT, and it would be a HORRIBLE APPROPRIATION of funds to spend any money on it, do I have that about right? :rolleyes:

Man, **** **** ****.

 

Sounds about right.  More people would benefit from a train (because a train can hold more people).  Therefore you get more people moved per dollar.  This would be a smart decision.  The government is making the decision.  Therefore we get the highway lanes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds about right.  More people would benefit from a train (because a train can hold more people).  Therefore you get more people moved per dollar.  This would be a smart decision.  The government is making the decision.  Therefore we get the highway lanes

 

To be fair, the schematic does include dedicated, elevated bus lanes. They even run along the center of 610 for a stretch. And isn't there some possibility that the bus lanes will be converted into light rail lines in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...