Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'i69'.
Found 2 results
Since the Pierce Elevated thread is getting so long that this might not be noticed, and because this is important for us to do, I've decided to start a new thread for just the NHHIP Interactive Map which can found below in the link: http://mycity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=15e9cd4512944ddb9b8f6b23fa9a68c6 If the link doesn't work then go to this link for the entire NHHIP (the link to the map on the website is a few scrolls down): http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/nhhip/index.html Just click the box that says "Let's Comment" then click ok. Once there you will be dropped into the interactive map. Its actually a very comprehensive map. It will initially show just the areas effected, but to the right you will see layers which turn on the schematic drawings. On the left is a window with a template to write your comment. You just click on it and it will ask you to drop it on the map. After that it will ask for more specifics. They even ask for what kind of comment it is. At the bottom of the prompt to select various things is the section "extra comment". This is where you write your actual comment. It has to be brief though as it limits the number of characters. I believe you only get one comment (not sure about that, but its fair to have a limit of one...you know chaos and all that). I've already left a comment. My comment is about the Spur at 59. I've always thought it was awkward that the Spur wasn't part of the original scope. If they are going to focus more on communities with these comments then its worth while to reconsider adding the spur to the scope and submerge it to restitch Montrose and Midtown back together. Its a "once in a lifetime project", right? I encourage my fellow HAIF'ers to leave a comment as well. If this is an opportunity to make your voice heard than you should do so. This is a community that has been discussing this project at length, with ideas and opinions, for years now! Now it seems you will have the ability to act on those ideas and opinions. Of course, keep it civil and sensible. I read one comment about keeping the Pierce as a highway which defeats the purpose of the project which says the person making that comment doesn't understand the purpose of the project. @Urbannizer @Triton is it possible to make this a sticky post? Would appreciate it. Comment away!
TxDOT looking into ways to ease congestion on the Southwest Freeway from 288 all the way to Beltway 8. I guess there's already been a meeting on this last year in September 2014. Here's the TxDOT sight: www.mysouthwestfreeway.com Outside of the "lipstick on a pig" ideas, here are some thoughts (not 100% original btw) on how traffic can be eased on 59 / 69 without much ROW purchased: 1.) Configure on ramps / off ramps on top of each other like at 59/69 and Kirby between 610 and the beltway. That way merging and exiting traffic isn't fighting one another 2.) Build elevated two-way HOV lanes in current HOV ROW from Spur to past the beltway. (possible?) 3.) Reconfigure Chimney Rock exit (headed south) by exiting before the 610 traffic merges into 59/69 and have those exiting 59/69 to 610 do so before the Chimney Rock entrance to the freeway. Either that or eliminate the Chimney Rock exit / entrances all together. Ideas that might require ROW purchase and most definitely be more expensive even if no ROW: 1.) Extend Westpark tollway (WPT) past 610 and grade separate at 610 interchange. Possibly grade separate at Newcastle and have tollway end between Newcastle and Wesleyan. If not, have just have it end between 610 frontage and Newcastle. 2.) Direct connector from 610 traffic headed north to WPT headed west. 3.) Direct connector from WPT headed east to 610 headed south. (I don't think a WPT east to 610 North can fit) 4.) 2 lane Direct connector from 59/69 north to 610 south. Current one lane config. is big bottle neck. 5.) Direct connector from southbound 610 traffic to westbound WPT. To limit ROW, the direct connector would have to be after the 59/69 exit and tie into the extended WPT. Ideas that might require significant ROW but not quite to the level of the Katy freeway redesign: 1.) If previous #5 option not available, have a direct connector from southbound 610 traffic to westbound WPT on the north side of 59/69. It would be something like that of the new 290 to I10 direct connector. However this leads me to my next idea... 2.) Purchase land between 59/69 and Westpark rd. and WPT. Shift 59/69 slightly south and decrease the sharpness of the 59/69 curve at the WPT intersection. Katy Freeway clear-cutting option: 1.) Turn single HOV lane into 3 HOT lanes with the middle lane being bi-directional (much like what 290 was supposed to have) 2.) Add a full 5th lane to each direction of 59/69. 3.) Let them eat cake. Anyone else have any thoughts?