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

[RedScare]

Actually, we have 3 miles of bayou without freeways above it. We are spending $58 million making it beautiful and useful. It is too bad that you are unable to enjoy the great parks in your own city. Luckily, many of the rest of us do enjoy our parks. I don't even have to travel to Madrid to do so.

[Slick Vik]

Actually, we have 3 miles of bayou without freeways above it. We are spending $58 million making it beautiful and useful. It is too bad that you are unable to enjoy the great parks in your own city. Luckily, many of the rest of us do enjoy our parks. I don't even have to travel to Madrid to do so.

 

I will try to go biking on it when it cools down. I really enjoyed biking on the riverwalk expansion.

[crunchtastic]

I will try to go biking on it when it cools down.

 

Perhaps a persuasive email to the Buffalo Bayou Partnership about sun shades and misters along the trail would convince them to make the necessary improvements. That way our more delicate young citizens could enjoy Houston's natural amenities and well-designed park spaces. 

 

on topic...I would love to see  the Pierce elevated ( and secondarily 59) removed.  Wouldn't a more natural transition between DT and the adjacent neighborhoods spur more residential interest?

[RedScare]

I will try to go biking on it when it cools down. I really enjoyed biking on the riverwalk expansion.

 

Ha Ha Ha! I bet I am twice your age and I did a 15 mile bike ride on the trails this evening in 95 degree heat! Crunchtastic and I did about 15 miles a few weeks back in 96 or 97. 

 

 

Kids today, they just ain't got any tough in 'em!

[Slick Vik]

Ha Ha Ha! I bet I am twice your age and I did a 15 mile bike ride on the trails this evening in 95 degree heat! Crunchtastic and I did about 15 miles a few weeks back in 96 or 97.

Kids today, they just ain't got any tough in 'em!

It makes no sense to bike in the blaring sun. That proves nothing, it's just dumb. I prefer to run when its dark from a physical perspective. And don't question my toughness I'm an amateur boxer. That takes courage and guts to step into a ring against someone that wants to take your head off, more than biking in heat.

[Montrose1100]

It makes no sense to bike in the blaring sun. That proves nothing, it's just dumb. I prefer to run when its dark from a physical perspective. And don't question my toughness I'm an amateur boxer. That takes courage and guts to step into a ring against someone that wants to take your head off, more than biking in heat.

And I came out of the closet in a very conservative family. You don't see me asking for a gold star... What they were saying is that the climate will not get better, and if they can do it, anyone else can. Which was a direct response to your comment. They didn't just throw that out there, like your boxing statement...

[KinkaidAlum]

So, you're a world traveling amateur boxer who relies on transit but owns several cars and is rich and poor all at the same time.

 

Hello God, It's Me, Margaret.

[barracuda]

Judging from the number of people now doing CM in the summer, the heat isn't an obstacle for many people. 

[livincinco]

There's a number of ideas about reworking the inner freeways and some of them are quite interesting. I personally think that the idea of submerging those freeways and building linear parks over the top of them is pretty interesting, but agree that the cost to do it would probably be huge.

It would be pretty tough to allocate that much funding to a project like that in lieu of other priorities.

[RedScare]

It makes no sense to bike in the blaring sun. That proves nothing, it's just dumb. I prefer to run when its dark from a physical perspective. And don't question my toughness I'm an amateur boxer. That takes courage and guts to step into a ring against someone that wants to take your head off, more than biking in heat.

 

If exercising in the heat scares you, then it becomes obvious why you are an amateur boxer. You clearly do not have the mental or physical toughness to become a professional. So, yes, if you are afraid to do what a man twice your age does daily for recreation, I am free to question your toughness. 

 

No wonder you think of leaving Houston daily. People here who exercise in the heat and humidity scare you. Maybe you should move to Denver. The granola people aren't very scary.   

[Slick Vik]

There's a number of ideas about reworking the inner freeways and some of them are quite interesting. I personally think that the idea of submerging those freeways and building linear parks over the top of them is pretty interesting, but agree that the cost to do it would probably be huge.

It would be pretty tough to allocate that much funding to a project like that in lieu of other priorities.

 

The cost is mainly the tunnels.

[livincinco]

The cost is mainly the tunnels.

Nothing personal, but that's an extremely simplistic response to what would be a highly complex engineering project. One of the main challenges with a project like this is the need to minimize disruption to the existing traffic flow and the surrounding areas. It's much more difficult than building something like this in a non-developed area.

[Slick Vik]

Nothing personal, but that's an extremely simplistic response to what would be a highly complex engineering project. One of the main challenges with a project like this is the need to minimize disruption to the existing traffic flow and the surrounding areas. It's much more difficult than building something like this in a non-developed area.

 

I agree that it's complex, but I think the digging of the tunnels is the most expensive overall portion of the project. Your point is true though especially when one thinks of the big dig.

[livincinco]

I agree that it's complex, but I think the digging of the tunnels is the most expensive overall portion of the project. Your point is true though especially when one thinks of the big dig.

 

Right, the estimated final cost of the big dig was over $24 billion in real dollars.  I happen to think that Houston would probably be a lot more efficient than Boston was, but let's throw out a ballpark assumption that the cost to recess I-45 through midtown would be in the $1-$2 billion dollar range which I think is probably conservative. 

 

Assuming that money is available, I think that the city would be much better served by devoting it to executing the Buffalo Bayou Master Plan and accelerating development of the network of bayou parks. 

 

It's a nice idea, but I just don't see it adding more value than a number of other projects that are needing funds.

[RedScare]

As the freeways near the end of their useful life, discussion of moving them underground should take place. There is no reason that the changes could not take place piecemeal, for instance burying one section at a time. It would take longer, but be more affordable. Plus, the success of the first section would encourage support to finish the job. $1 to $2 Billion is probably a good number for 3 or 4 miles of cut and cover plus interchanges, but that is still substantial in today's budget climate.

[Slick Vik]

Right, the estimated final cost of the big dig was over $24 billion in real dollars.  I happen to think that Houston would probably be a lot more efficient than Boston was, but let's throw out a ballpark assumption that the cost to recess I-45 through midtown would be in the $1-$2 billion dollar range which I think is probably conservative. 

 

Assuming that money is available, I think that the city would be much better served by devoting it to executing the Buffalo Bayou Master Plan and accelerating development of the network of bayou parks. 

 

It's a nice idea, but I just don't see it adding more value than a number of other projects that are needing funds.

 

Don't you think it would be cheaper just to tear down the portion and make it into a boulevard instead of making a tunnel? At some point it has to be torn down anyway.

[musicman]

Don't you think it would be cheaper just to tear down the portion and make it into a boulevard instead of making a tunnel? At some point it has to be torn down anyway.

 

that's what it was originally and downtown was the bottleneck. should we have to relive the unpleasant past?

[livincinco]

Don't you think it would be cheaper just to tear down the portion and make it into a boulevard instead of making a tunnel? At some point it has to be torn down anyway.

 

Would it be cheaper?  Sure, the current daily of I-45 is about 265,000 vehicles. Using a ballpark of 1.25 people/vehicle - that's about 330,000 people/day that would be routed to other methods of transit.  Now I'm sure that you're going to say that a good rail system would handle that, but regardless of how you feel about that, it isn't there and even in your most optimistic scenario wouldn't be there in the foreseeable future.

 

The funny thing is that tearing down the interior freeways would probably have exactly the opposite effect that you're aiming for.  It would continue to drive companies to the periphery where they didn't have to deal with the congestion.

[Slick Vik]

Would it be cheaper?  Sure, the current daily of I-45 is about 265,000 vehicles. Using a ballpark of 1.25 people/vehicle - that's about 330,000 people/day that would be routed to other methods of transit.  Now I'm sure that you're going to say that a good rail system would handle that, but regardless of how you feel about that, it isn't there and even in your most optimistic scenario wouldn't be there in the foreseeable future.

 

The funny thing is that tearing down the interior freeways would probably have exactly the opposite effect that you're aiming for.  It would continue to drive companies to the periphery where they didn't have to deal with the congestion.

 

You're wrong. Think outside of the box.

 

Contrary to the popular misconception that elevated roads are needed to carry a fixed amount of car trips, a lot of freeway traffic evaporates when the highway is removed. As Radulovich explained, past freeway removals (as well as freeway expansions) have shown that highways actually generate a certain level of demand for driving that is reduced once they’re gone, especially as transit, walking, and biking alternatives are improved. As the area around Mission Bay grows, maintaining the freeway will only encourage commuters to drive.

“The amount of traffic on city streets is, to some degree, a function of how easy you make it to get there, and how much automobile capacity you provide,” said Radulovich. “Providing more automobile capacity often gets you more vehicle trips, removing it often gets you fewer.”

 

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/02/07/the-case-for-removing-the-280-freeway/

 

In 1986, San Francisco became engaged in debate over the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway. Opponents, who won the dispute, argued that its removal would cause gridlock. While it seemed the discussion was over and the freeway there to stay, the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 damaged the freeway, re-opening the debate. As the freeway was closed due to these damages and gridlock did not become a problem, opponents’ specious arguments against highway removal proved to have no merit (see also Induced Traffic ). So, in 1991, the Embarcadero Freeway was removed.

 

http://streetswiki.wikispaces.com/Embarcadero+Freeway+Removal

 

Instead of reducing congestion, the freeways encouraged people to move to remote suburbs and drive long distances to work and to shopping, increasing traffic dramatically. One study found that, five years after a major freeway project is completed in California, 95% of the new capacity fills up with traffic that would not have existed if the freeway had not been built¹.

 

Manhattan's West Side Highway, an elevated freeway along the Hudson River, collapsed and was closed in 1973. When it was closed, 53 percent of the traffic that had used this freeway simply disappeared.

 

http://www.planetizen.com/node/23300

[Slick Vik]

Although it seems counterintuitive, many traffic experts understand that creating more road capacity via highways actually tends to increase congestion in urban areas.  Highways force (or, at least, cause) too many drivers to use a single route that often has inadequate access points to a city, rather than distributing the traffic more evenly over a network of roads.  High-speed routes introduce inefficiencies by inducing drivers to go out of their way in an attempt to save a minute or two, as opposed to taking a more direct route on local streets.  Even the mere ability of drivers to move faster can cause traffic problems.  As explained in a 2006 SmartMobility report, “peed is confused with capacity.  An urban street can carry more vehicle traffic at 30 m.p.h. than it can at 50 m.p.h. because the capacity is controlled at signalized intersections.”

 

When a highway is eliminated, traffic tends to adapt quickly.  Drivers spread across grid networks, with replacement streets serving much of the same traffic and previously underutilized routes absorbing the rest.  Often, traffic in the impacted area appears to simply “disappear,” as drivers adopt alternative routes, travel times, and even modes of transportation.  As noted in a 1998 study that analyzed the effects of seventy cases of reduced road capacity (although not necessarily highway removal), “traffic problems are usually far less serious that predicted,” and “widespread, long-term disruption is hardly ever reported.”

 

Proponents of highway removal continued to argue that the Portland highway system had excess capacity and could handle the traffic that would be diverted from a closed Harbor Drive. And the effect on traffic?  In the words of Portland Traffic Engineer Don Bergstrom, who had previously declared the removal of Harbor Drive to be impossible, “there wasn’t a ripple.”

 

Embarcadero Freeway, San Francisco, California: For decades, the Embarcadero Freeway cut off physical and visual access to the San Francisco Bay, but fears of gridlock killed proposals for its removal.  Those fears disappeared after the freeway was damaged by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, with traffic quickly adjusting to the inability to use the freeway.

 

Central Freeway, San Francisco, California: Like the Embarcadero Freeway, San Francisco’s Central Freeway was damaged and closed as a result of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, triggering a battle over whether to remove or rebuild it.  When the freeway—which accommodated 97,00 cars per day—was finally closed for demolition and later replaced by the new Octavia Boulevard, fears of “unprecedented” gridlock were shown to be baseless.  Total traffic volumes were reduced, with the street grid successfully distributing and absorbing the remaining traffic.  Commenting on the smooth transition, a California Department of Transportation spokesman said, “We have a traffic phantom out there.  We don’t know where everybody went.”

 

As noted in a 2007 update by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, “on balance, removal of the freeway provided a range of benefits to the community without substantial negative impacts for commuters.”

 

West Side Highway, New York, New York: New York City’s West Side Highway, the first elevated highway, partially collapsed in 1973.  After a decade long battle to rebuild the highway, it was finally demolished and replaced with an improved West Street (the boulevard that ran under the elevated highway), public park, bike path, and pedestrian promenade along the Hudson River.  As noted by the Preservation Institute, “53 percent of the traffic that had used this highway disappeared, dramatic proof that building freeways generates traffic and that removing freeways reduces traffic.”  In a 2007 interview, transit guru and former NYCDOT Chief Engineer “Gridlock” Sam Schwartz said that “over time, we didn’t see any increase in traffic: the other avenues absorbed it and we weren’t able to trace it . . . . a highway carrying 80,000 vehicles a day collapsed and . . . nothing.  We couldn’t even measure a change in speeds!”

 

Park East Freeway, Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Built in 1969, the Park East Freeway isolated Milwaukee’s north side, disrupted the street grid by permitting access to downtown at only three points, and acted as a barrier to the city’s redevelopment efforts.  Although the freeway was used by an average of 54,000 vehicles per day in 1999, it was removed a few years later and replaced with a landscaped boulevard at a fraction of the cost of rebuilding the deteriorated freeway.  As a result of this effort led by visionary Mayor John Norquist, the urban grid was restored (thus mitigating traffic impacts by creating better connections to existing streets), the value of adjacent properties skyrocketed, and dozens of acres of newly-developable land attracted hundreds of millions of dollars of investment.

 

http://citytoriver.org/blog/?p=306

 

A particularly dramatic case in point comes to us from traffic-clogged Seoul, Korea, where a few years ago a handful of “crazy” visionaries in the transport department somehow managed to sell a new mayor on the demolition of an elevated downtown highway. Fast-forward to today: the highway’s gone, a formerly paved-over river has been rehabilitated, the resulting green space is a source of urban pride, and — wait for it — motor vehicle travel times have actually improved in the neighborhood of the old highway.

 

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/05/13/does-destroying-highways-solve-urban-traffic-congestion/

 

One final tidbit on the economic costs of traffic: according to the Texas Transportation Institute, traffic congestion costs us $87 billion a year in wasted fuel. And that’s not even counting all those hours lost (and road rage)!

[IronTiger]

Uh-oh, he's back to copying and pasting forum threads again. 

 

Here is a big hint: telling us the same thing over and over again isn't going to change facts.

 

And copying and pasting forum threads/articles us the impression that you are not only a liar (given the multiple-choice backstory), but a simpleton who cannot understand the magnitude of highway projects and a troll who cannot think for himself.

[livincinco]

Did you even read what I said before saying that I was wrong? I agree with you that reducing capacity will reduce the number of trips in that area. Where I disagree with you is that you're making the assumption that it will force walkabiilty and I don't see that happening at all. I expect that difficulty with efficiently moving workers into the center of the city will drive more companies to locate satellite offices on the periphery so that they can be closer to their workers.

San Francisco and Manhattan are very questionable examples to use because they have geography that forces density. Houston doesn't. There are far less compelling reasons to locate inside the loop than there is in either SF or Manhattan.

[IronTiger]

And don't question my toughness I'm an amateur boxer.

 

[Slick Vik]

Uh-oh, he's back to copying and pasting forum threads again. 

 

Here is a big hint: telling us the same thing over and over again isn't going to change facts.

 

And copying and pasting forum threads/articles us the impression that you are not only a liar (given the multiple-choice backstory), but a simpleton who cannot understand the magnitude of highway projects and a troll who cannot think for himself.

 

The fact is adding capacity adds traffic. I gave various examples all around the country and even in other countries. If you choose to ignore this, that's on you.

[Slick Vik]

Did you even read what I said before saying that I was wrong? I agree with you that reducing capacity will reduce the number of trips in that area. Where I disagree with you is that you're making the assumption that it will force walkabiilty and I don't see that happening at all. I expect that difficulty with efficiently moving workers into the center of the city will drive more companies to locate satellite offices on the periphery so that they can be closer to their workers.

San Francisco and Manhattan are very questionable examples to use because they have geography that forces density. Houston doesn't. There are far less compelling reasons to locate inside the loop than there is in either SF or Manhattan.

 

It has added walkability in Milwaukee, Seoul, San Francisco, New York, Madrid, Paris, and Portland, basically all the cities where freeway removal has taken place. Is that not enough evidence for you? Or is Houston just so different and unique it can not be compared to any other city, as you usually say.

[livincinco]

It has added walkability in Milwaukee, Seoul, San Francisco, New York, Madrid, Paris, and Portland, basically all the cities where freeway removal has taken place. Is that not enough evidence for you? Or is Houston just so different and unique it can not be compared to any other city, as you usually say.

Your responses are once again proving why you consistently get labelled as a troll, because, as usual, you are ignoring any nuance to the situation and slandering whoever you have a conversation with. At no point have I ever claimed that Houston is unique. I have however pointed out that density is highly reliant on geography. If you're attempting to claim that being surrounded by water on three sides, such as both San Francisco and Manhattan are, has no impact on how those areas have developed, then you are a fool.

Milwaukee has consistently lost population for the last forty years. It's not particularly surprising that they have a lower transit demand as a result. Houston by comparison has grown dramatically during that same period. Again, I would count that as a significant difference.

Portland has an urban growth boundary and strong government controls on density, as opposed to Houston which has no growth boundary and weak controls on density. International cities have so many differences that it's difficult to isolate a single factor.

Basically, what you're saying is that every city will react the same way to a change like removing a highway and I'm saying that is an incredibly simplistic statement without considering contributing factors. You're like a doctor who prescribes the same medicine for everything. Regardless of the patient or the symptoms.

BTW, you might want to compare the list of cities that have removed freeways to the list of cities that have constructed new freeways in the same time period. Which list do you think is going to be longer?

[Slick Vik]

Your responses are once again proving why you consistently get labelled as a troll, because, as usual, you are ignoring any nuance to the situation and slandering whoever you have a conversation with. At no point have I ever claimed that Houston is unique. I have however pointed out that density is highly reliant on geography. If you're attempting to claim that being surrounded by water on three sides, such as both San Francisco and Manhattan are, has no impact on how those areas have developed, then you are a fool.

Milwaukee has consistently lost population for the last forty years. It's not particularly surprising that they have a lower transit demand as a result. Houston by comparison has grown dramatically during that same period. Again, I would count that as a significant difference.

Portland has an urban growth boundary and strong government controls on density, as opposed to Houston which has no growth boundary and weak controls on density. International cities have so many differences that it's difficult to isolate a single factor.

Basically, what you're saying is that every city will react the same way to a change like removing a highway and I'm saying that is an incredibly simplistic statement without considering contributing factors. You're like a doctor who prescribes the same medicine for everything. Regardless of the patient or the symptoms.

BTW, you might want to compare the list of cities that have removed freeways to the list of cities that have constructed new freeways in the same time period. Which list do you think is going to be longer?

 

You do realize that some of the cities that have removed freeways have MORE traffic than Houston right? Paris, New York, and Seoul. Yet somehow the traffic has gone down in the areas where freeways were removed. People have the ability to adapt. I'm acknowledging that it has a chance to work in Houston, while most simply laugh at the idea without looking at examples all over the world where it HAS worked, similar with your theories about rail transit. Nothing makes Houston special in this regard.

[musicman]

You're wrong. Think outside of the box.

“The amount of traffic on city streets is, to some degree, a function of how easy you make it to get there, and how much automobile capacity you provide,” said Radulovich. “Providing more automobile capacity often gets you more vehicle trips, removing it often gets you fewer.”

Yes let's make it more difficult to get to downtown so more businesses will flee to the suburbs.

[Slick Vik]

Yes let's make it more difficult to get to downtown so more businesses will flee to the suburbs.

 

Tell me how it would be more difficult to get in and out of downtown. From 45 north and south, 59 north and south, 10 east and west, there already are ramps to get in and out of downtown. The only difference this would make would be for people who are cutting through downtown.

[livincinco]

You do realize that some of the cities that have removed freeways have MORE traffic than Houston right? Paris, New York, and Seoul. Yet somehow the traffic has gone down in the areas where freeways were removed. People have the ability to adapt. I'm acknowledging that it has a chance to work in Houston, while most simply laugh at the idea without looking at examples all over the world where it HAS worked, similar with your theories about rail transit. Nothing makes Houston special in this regard.

Again, you're once again missing my point. The fact that this has succeeded in places with high density doesn't surprise me at all.

Paris - removing a highway blocking access to the Seine.

New York - removed a highway blocking the waterfront.

San Francisco - removed a highway blocking the waterfront.

Seoul - restored an urban river and created a park in a city that desperately in need of park space.

These are all cities that had a high level of density already. Creating open space is desirable in each of those cities because of the minimal open space that exists. Each of those had a strong urban population before the removal.

The other cities that you've referenced, Milwaukee and Rochester are both shrinking cities that removed unnecessary capacity. Milwaukee removed a functionally useless freeway from a city that has lost approximately 25% of its population over the last 50 years. Rochester similarly has lost 33% of its population since its original highway system was completed.

By means of comparison, Houston's population has grown by 400% over the same time period. I don't think that anyone is likely to seriously argue that the inner loop of Houston has the same appeal as living in Manhattan, San Francisco, or Paris, so yes, I do think that it's reasonable to question whether Houston would have the same results as those other cities if we removed capacity from the freeways.

Houston has a much more decentralized job market than the cities that you referenced. Many companies choose to locate in the periphery today. I'm not arguing that removing capacity from downtown is going to cause gridlock, I'm just stating that it will be another reason for companies to consider following the example of Exxon rather than the example of Chevron.