It’d Be Tough, But Houston Could Get Down With Freeways

[nolaboy]

Interstate 45 along Pierce Street, as seen in 2005, is a divider in downtown Houston. Photo: Brett Coomer/Houston Chronicle

Take a step back, or more specifically a step down, and the efforts placed into lifting downtown comes to life. We’ve engineered a way to  build infrastructure in an area that otherwise would be fit only for holding flood waters.

Whether we’ve paved paradise to put up a parking lot is a discussion for another day. The fact is we did it, and with the exception of a little flooding we’re winning and opening up park space. It’s yet another example of how cities can solve a lot of problems if they’re willing to pay for it.

http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2013/08/itd-be-tough-but-houston-could-get-down-with-freeways/

[Slick Vik]

Great idea

[mfastx]

It is a great idea for sure.  Would cost billions, but I'm in favor.  If done right, it'd do wonders for the area and would spark some development.

[livincinco]

It's a nice idea, but paved paradise?  Not only is it one of the most overused song lyrics ever, but also maybe just a little bit of a stretch in this case. 

[brian0123]

I'm confused. While I like the idea, what would happen during a hurricane? We don't live in Dallas or Austin who don't have to worry about coastal flooding from a hurricane. If power were to go out and pump systems failed, would we have a major highway needed to bring in supplies buried in water?

[ig2ba]

I'm confused. While I like the idea, what would happen during a hurricane? We don't live in Dallas or Austin who don't have to worry about coastal flooding from a hurricane. If power were to go out and pump systems failed, would we have a major highway needed to bring in supplies buried in water?

 

Sidney Sherman Bridge (610 east) or the Sam Houston Ship Channel Bridge (BW 8), not to mention numerous other crossings to the west of downtown.

 

If it's that important to make sure I-45 is up and operating within a couple hours after the rain ends, we could build storm gates on each end of the tunnel like here: http://www.tunneltalk.com/Midtown-Tunnel-Nov12-Tide-gates-avert-repeat-of-Hurricane-Isabel-flooding.php. They claim that this tunnel in Norfolk claimed to be operational within 4 hours after Hurricane Sandy passed. And that tunnel is at sea level - a downtown tunnel's approaches in all likelihood would be more than 40 feet above sea level and much further inland.

 

And just FYI, the Washburn Tunnel doesn't flood.

[IronTiger]

Well, I remember some pictures from the 2000 flood that made the highways look like small rivers, so there's that.

 

US-59 has already been sunken in parts, and the bridges look fantastic.

 

I like the idea of the Pierce Elevated being sunken, but I can already see logistical problems with it. The US-59 interchange will have to be rebuilt. Yeah, it is old and probably outmoded--but it's an awfully expensive project just to create a park.

 

Klyde Warren Park worked because the freeway was already sunken. If they wanted to create parkland, try the Fifth Ward. Cap Interstate 10 from Waco Street to Lockwood. Restore Schweikhardt Street and Calles Street, removing those unappealing pedestrian overwalks.

[Montrose1100]

If the commenter "Nordstrom" is on this site, please make yourself known.

Tropical Storm Allison was a once in a blue moon storm. We didn't even flood as bad during Ike. Anywhere within a flood plain (or any bayou or gulley), flooded. Even elevated portions of the freeways in low lying areas flooded. 59's below grade portion helped save some houses, so, in other words, building below grade helps hold water that would otherwise flood a neighborhood for a short time until it is naturally drained.

Oh, and it also floods during a regular thunderstorm. Welcome to Houston.

Back on topic. It would be grand and beautiful to bury every freeway in the loop and put green space above. Unfortunately, it is way too costly and I would prefer the money be spent on fixing the roads we already have, and maybe shave some off for public transportation.

[mfastx]

Agree with Montrose1100.  While I will always support infrastructure improvements, redoing any freeway (whether it's above or below grade) is going cost billions, easy.  Even more if you submerge. 

 

It's a really neat concept and that'd be great if it got done, but if we only have "x" amount of dollars, I'd rather it be spent elsewhere.  Such as reconstructing surface roads, and building sidewalks.

[editor]

A lot of cities are burying their downtown freeways these days.  Cincinnati has already done it with I-71/471.  Seattle is doing it with US-99.  There's a proposal to do it to I-90/94 Chicago.  

 

Cincinnati decked its over with a museum and and public park space, but the timing was bad and it hasn't worked out as well as they expected because the recession killed the promise of more people moving downtown (they're only just trickling in now).

 

In Chicago, the idea is to put parks and office buildings over the freeway.  Chicago has a long history of this sort of thing.  It has an entire network of underground two- and three-story roadways to keep the delivery and garbage trucks off the surface streets.  There are a number of parking garages and train stations that have public parks on top.

 

In San Francisco, they demolished the entire freeway that ran along the waterfront and simply didn't replace it.  They decided that the solution to bad traffic isn't adding more cars.  It's been great for tourism, though, because it opened up the formerly scary waterfront.

 

[Slick Vik]

A lot of cities are burying their downtown freeways these days.  Cincinnati has already done it with I-71/471.  Seattle is doing it with US-99.  There's a proposal to do it to I-90/94 Chicago.  

 

Cincinnati decked its over with a museum and and public park space, but the timing was bad and it hasn't worked out as well as they expected because the recession killed the promise of more people moving downtown (they're only just trickling in now).

 

In Chicago, the idea is to put parks and office buildings over the freeway.  Chicago has a long history of this sort of thing.  It has an entire network of underground two- and three-story roadways to keep the delivery and garbage trucks off the surface streets.  There are a number of parking garages and train stations that have public parks on top.

 

In San Francisco, they demolished the entire freeway that ran along the waterfront and simply didn't replace it.  They decided that the solution to bad traffic isn't adding more cars.  It's been great for tourism, though, because it opened up the formerly scary waterfront.

 

Seoul demolished a freeway, I think Milwaukee did also, and Rochester is thinking about, all in city center areas.

[editor]

Seoul demolished a freeway, I think Milwaukee did also, and Rochester is thinking about, all in city center areas.

 

Yeah, Seoul.  Wow.  That is one city with some terrible urban issues.  

 

It had a system of riverlets similar to Houston's bayous.  The people there value them very little, and so they built their freeway on and over them.  In some cases, on pylons in the middle of the streams.  In other cases, the waterways were decked over.  And sometimes they were drained and replaced with freeways.  

 

I've been to the one river they uncovered and are trying to rehabilitate.  It's little more than a trench with an incomplete walkway.  There's lots and lots of plans to making it into something great, but the bureaucracy is terrible there.

 

I had a sit-down with one of the architects working on the project.  Everything she proposes is rejected as impractical, not from a financial or engineering standpoint, but because there's no legal framework for making certain simple things happen.  For example, the city leaders want the revived waterway to be part of the urban fabric, meaning it should have residential and commercial uses.  But they have no paperwork system in place for allowing a private building (a hot dog stand, or an apartment building) to be put on public land (the riverbank).  And unless there is an existing form for making such a thing happen, no one will allow it, and the bureaucrats won't make new forms without an incredibly cumbersome process.  

 

Seoul has a few nice buildings and a couple of OK neighborhoods, but it's really a terrible city from a livability standpoint.  I doubt I'll ever go back.

[editor]

I forgot to mention -- One of the rivers became a long commercial squatters camp snaking through the city.  When the river was cleared for rehabilitation, all of the "stores" were relocated into a single high-rise "mall" building.  It's like a scary-ass vertical flea market.  It seems popular, but is a little too World War Z for my liking.

[Slick Vik]

I forgot to mention -- One of the rivers became a long commercial squatters camp snaking through the city.  When the river was cleared for rehabilitation, all of the "stores" were relocated into a single high-rise "mall" building.  It's like a scary-ass vertical flea market.  It seems popular, but is a little too World War Z for my liking.

 

What do you think about the viaduct/tunnel project in Seattle? And I-5 running near the waterfront?

[IronTiger]

Milwaukee demolished a freeway that was pre-Interstate standard and had already been functionally replaced.

The Embarcadero was part of a system that never went to completion, so it was razed and replaced with a wide road.

Boston's Central Artery was pre-Interstate standard: it had too many ramps, little merging room, too sharp corners, etc. Burying it created one of the most expensive road projects ever. That's not a goal to shoot for.

[Montrose1100]

On a completely un-related remark, If we were to bury anything, it should be a 4 or 6-lane express freeway that only has on-ramps in the Houston Metro, and then rejoins the freeway outside of the area. So that trucks and people on trips do not have to add to the congestion on the freeways. But that of course is extremely expensive and really only benefits during rush hour, but would help with all these damn rock chips i've gotten (a little bitter). But that is in my sandbox SimHouston.

[Slick Vik]

Milwaukee demolished a freeway that was pre-Interstate standard and had already been functionally replaced.

The Embarcadero was part of a system that never went to completion, so it was razed and replaced with a wide road.

Boston's Central Artery was pre-Interstate standard: it had too many ramps, little merging room, too sharp corners, etc. Burying it created one of the most expensive road projects ever. That's not a goal to shoot for.

 

I think they could easily get rid of 45, 10, and 59 portions that run through downtown since they already have ramps to enter and exit out of downtown. It would probably help street life quite a bit.

[JJxvi]

Seems like you'd just need to bury 59, increase capacity, and run 45 and 59 concurrently underground there on only one side of downtown rather than bury both sections. Just eliminate 45 on the west side of downtown completely.

[infinite_jim]

^I would keep the Pierce Elevated structure as an elevated park like the High Line in NYC. If you destroy it then you have to do something will all those half blocks.

[Slick Vik]

^I would keep the Pierce Elevated structure as an elevated park like the High Line in NYC. If you destroy it then you have to do something will all those half blocks.

That sounds good too

[samagon]

So just remove the possibility to change freeways in town and bury the freeways? This is a confusing idea.

[IronTiger]

I think they could easily get rid of 45, 10, and 59 portions that run through downtown since they already have ramps to enter and exit out of downtown. It would probably help street life quite a bit.

Yeah, because reworking highways is exactly like SimCity, right?

[Slick Vik]

Yeah, because reworking highways is exactly like SimCity, right?

It's happening in many cities around the world.

[IronTiger]

OK, Slick, I'll bite: name five cities who have dug trenches or built tunnels (completed or started) for their downtown freeways in the last five years. Don't write proposals to do so, and don't copy and paste from forums.

[Slick Vik]

OK, Slick, I'll bite: name five cities who have dug trenches or built tunnels (completed or started) for their downtown freeways in the last five years. Don't write proposals to do so, and don't copy and paste from forums.

I'm talking more about the destruction of freeways and conversion into boulevards. I think making a tunnel is an expensive compromise

Milwaukee

San Francisco

Seoul

Portland

Seattle

Vancouver

Paris

New York

And there are many others in planning stages such as Trenton, New York, Rochester, New Orleans and others

[IronTiger]

I'm talking more about the destruction of freeways and conversion into boulevards. I think making a tunnel is an expensive compromise

Milwaukee

San Francisco

Seoul

Portland

Seattle

Vancouver

Paris

New York

And there are many others in planning stages such as Trenton, New York, Rochester, New Orleans and others

 

Well, Slick, you successfully evaded the question. The question was "burying highways", not "removing highways", and I didn't ask for things in "planning stages". You failed to keep into the account of "last five years". You've also failed to understand why freeways are replaced with boulevards. Since you seem to admire outside blogs, take a look at http://keephoustonhouston.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/no-not-really/'>this, but I'll explain to you why each of those happened, starting from Milwaukee.

 

- A pre-Interstate standard highway functionally replaced by a newer freeway. Portland also had the same issue, don't bother bringing it up.

- These were spur systems that were never built out, so their use was already crippled. Also, they were patched up after the earthquake and never fully utilized the same way again.

- Seoul had built their freeway on a river. While the river needed to be restored, accounts seem to suggest that it was ill-advised the way it is now.

- Seattle is talking about burying the Alaskan Viaduct. No other discussions have been planned.

- Vancouver never built any freeways to begin with.

- Paris I have no information for. Please describe?

- New York City removed one that was never open--it was damaged soon after a section was built and never reopened.

 

With the exception of Seoul (which is an entirely different issue), all of these were either out of date or so poorly utilized it didn't make sense to maintain them as freeways. The only place in Houston where you could even make a case of removing is Spur 5, and even then, would be a viable, modern standards highway if they finished it.

[Montrose1100]

So just remove the possibility to change freeways in town and bury the freeways? This is a confusing idea.

 

If you are reffering to my post, I guess I should have mentioned that we keep our current ones, adding a 4-6 lane underneith for "express".

[Slick Vik]

Well, Slick, you successfully evaded the question. The question was "burying highways", not "removing highways", and I didn't ask for things in "planning stages". You failed to keep into the account of "last five years". You've also failed to understand why freeways are replaced with boulevards. Since you seem to admire outside blogs, take a look at this, but I'll explain to you why each of those happened, starting from Milwaukee.

 

- A pre-Interstate standard highway functionally replaced by a newer freeway. Portland also had the same issue, don't bother bringing it up.

- These were spur systems that were never built out, so their use was already crippled. Also, they were patched up after the earthquake and never fully utilized the same way again.

- Seoul had built their freeway on a river. While the river needed to be restored, accounts seem to suggest that it was ill-advised the way it is now.

- Seattle is talking about burying the Alaskan Viaduct. No other discussions have been planned.

- Vancouver never built any freeways to begin with.

- Paris I have no information for. Please describe?

- New York City removed one that was never open--it was damaged soon after a section was built and never reopened.

 

With the exception of Seoul (which is an entirely different issue), all of these were either out of date or so poorly utilized it didn't make sense to maintain them as freeways. The only place in Houston where you could even make a case of removing is Spur 5, and even then, would be a viable, modern standards highway if they finished it.

 

Seattle already started tearing downt the viaduct and is in the process of digging the tunnel. New York and New Orleans have both made recommendations to tear down the Sheridan Expressway and Claiborne Expressway respectively. And there are many more cities which are in the planning stages.

 

One example that I didn't mention is Madrid, here's an article for you

 

Madrid Río is a project whose audacity and scale, following the urban renewal successes of Barcelona, Spain’s civic trendsetter, can bring to a New Yorker’s mind the legacy of the street-grid plan, which this year celebrates its 200th anniversary. That’s because the park belongs to a larger transformation that includes the construction of dozens of new metro and light-rail stations that link far-flung, disconnected and often poor districts on Madrid’s outskirts to downtown.

 

More than six miles long, it transforms a formerly neglected area in the middle of Spain’s capital. Its creation, in four years, atop a complex network of tunnels dug to bury an intrusive highway, also rejuvenates a long-lost stretch of the Manzanares River, and in so doing knits together neighborhoods that the highway had cut off from the city center.

 

During the 1970s, the M-30, a ring road constructed along both sides of the river, ripped a crippling gash through the city. Neighborhoods on both sides of it declined. Tourists had little or no clue this area of town even existed, and most Madrileños avoided it, save for trips to the soccer stadium of Atlético Madrid or along the highway, which turned into an infamous bottleneck.

 

That was then. Two centuries back, Goya painted bucolic picnickers in shaded pastures above the Manzanares. After decades of the highway, they’re returning.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/arts/design/in-madrid-even-maybe-the-bronx-parks-replace-freeways.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[RedScare]

Yeah, Houston is doing that with its rio. We call it a bayou. You should go check it out sometime. 

[Slick Vik]

Yeah, Houston is doing that with its rio. We call it a bayou. You should go check it out sometime. 

 

It's not. That would require tearing down the parkways and freeway portions that are above the bayou.