I-45 North Freeway

[HeightsGuy]

CDeb, feeder roads absolutely do not make freeways safer. There are far more accidents caused by people getting off a freeway onto a feeder road and whipping across two lanes to enter a business driveway 100 ft from the exit than there are rear-enders on cars stopped on a backed-up exit.

In most of the free world (besides Houston) where freeways are designed without feeders, steps are taken to offload cars onto an area where they can safely slow down without causing backups on the freeway. Cloverleaf designs come to mind where you can stack a whole lot of exiting cars before they back up onto freeway lanes.

[gnu]

It is CONTINUOUS feeder roads that are totally unnecessary.

1) They cause the commercial blight (not a buffer) that you see along most of our freeways. I would rather have a green buffer of trees behind my house than the delivery area of a big box store or a car lot.

2) They provide a place for everyone to bail off the freeway when there is a fender bender and then they get clogged up too.

3) Because of the commercial, they draw local traffic for short point to point trips where instead these drivers should be using main surface arteries instead. The freeway should be only for longer trips.

If we did not have continuous feeder roads then a lot of our neighborhoods would be in a lot better shape.

They would benefit from the increased commercial investment along the main surface arteries instead of along the freeways.

Why does traffic have to back up onto the main lanes without a feeder road?

Keep enough exit ramp at the street intersection for the traffic volume or design the exit so that you feed directly into the primary streets

AND if you didn't have the businesses and continuous feeders then there would not be as much traffic .

I am indifferent on high mast lighting if it can be directed only towards the freeway and does not bleed into the surrounding areas or into the night sky.

[kjb434]

If no feeder road existed in Houston, all the commercial development along the freeway would have to be located somewhere else. Putting the commercial development along the feeder road limits the amount of traffic having to travel on the majorthoroughfares. This was the initial concept of feeder roads.

Several cities in the US are considering implementing, albeit a much smaller scale, localized feeder roads. Service roads get too backed up.

In Baton Rouge along I-10, feeder roads are being implemented between two exists to do exactly what I mentioned before. It is being implemented between Essen and Bluebonnet roads just after the 12-10 split. It will get the cars off the mainlanes. Several accidents have occured from people not reacting fast enough from the cars being backed up onto the mainlanes. All the cars exiting are attempting to get to the built up commercial that is along these roads. In Houston, these roads would not be as developed and everything would be on the feeder. The traffic would remain in vicinity of the freeway and not going into the surface streets and potentially into the neighborhoods.

[HeightsGuy]

We can debate the safety and traffic pros/cons of feeder roads all day, but I am still sticking to my guns saying feeder roads are the #1 reason people think Houston is ugly, though many may not see the connection when asked.

Why do you think there is such a disconnect between what visitors think of Houston vs. what we residents think? We can talk about the city's beauty til we're blue, but the fact of the matter is all visitors to Houston get their first impression of Houston by driving down 59 or 45 from IAH, or up 45 from Hobby. The first thing they see is a 20 mile long wall of strip centers. The first thing they think is what they heard from others; that Houston is an ugly city. Once they get that impression, you can show them 100 beautiful things about Houston and it wouldn't matter, the first impression was already made.

Only when people spend time here do they finally get it.

[HeightsGuy]

Every city has sprawl, every city has ugly strip centers, but only in Houston and other Texas cities do we put it all out in the open along every freeway for everyone to see.

[The Great Hizzy!]

I trend to agree with Heights Guy. People think strip malls are basically ugly, soulless and a blight on the landscape. To have "aged" strip malls and to have them located in an unbroken chain along both sides of a freeway (which in itself is, according to the same group of people, a blight on the landscape) only exacerbates this notion.

The answer is simple: get rid of the strip malls (or at least get rid of them from the freeways--yes, yes, that's right, I'm talking about the five stretches of freeway where they are most prominent (Baytown East, outer Southwest, North, Gulf and Northwest Freeways)--and people won't make fun of us.

Yes, yes, I know it sounds silly, but it's true. Strip malls worry a lot of people. And that's what it's always going to come down to. Remember, this is a subjective notion, so there is no "right" or "wrong".

A person who has no opinion yea or nay on strip malls isn't the one visiting Houston and having seizures and heart attacks over the condition of the North and Gulf Freeways. They're indifferent. Get it?

We have one of the nation's most striking skylines, one of the greenest landscapes and some of the nicest neighborhoods, yet Houston is "ugly" becuase of some strip malls located on roughly 2.5% of the overall landscape. Why? Perception. Some people tend to harp on what they find the most outlandish more than they would the most striking, and for the anti-strip mall brigade, our freeways are the most outlandish of the outlandish.

But since we aren't likely to see our strip malls get blown up anytime soon, we can still do some things that might mitigate the alleged scourge in our midsts. I like the Trees For Houston effort to start adding trees to the existing North Freeway. If we can help TFH become even higher profile with a stronger financial base, maybe it will convince TxDOT to include more amibitous landscaping as part of their proposed I-45 expansion/renovation.

[kirbyaustex]

Access/feeder/frontage roads all suck.

[kjb434]

Again, I think there is a complex in Houston where we worry so much about what other people think.

When I first came to Houston, the strip centers didn't negative influence me about the city. I just thought look the same as Dallas. Also, many cities use a service road that is two way and have strips develop along them. This is much worse for traffic and it still is strip centers along the freeway.

Also, we are complaining a lot about these feeder roads. What are you (to everyone) are proposing to do about it?

Should we decomission them? Tell the businesses to go after? They exist and are part of Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio.

I think we miss another reason for the use of feeder roads. Feeder roads allowed the state begin construction of many freeways when they didn't have the money build the main lanes. They can build the feeders roads to provide some mobility early and just add the freeway as needed.

[CDeb]

CDeb, feeder roads absolutely do not make freeways safer. There are far more accidents caused by people getting off a freeway onto a feeder road and whipping across two lanes to enter a business driveway 100 ft from the exit than there are rear-enders on cars stopped on a backed-up exit.

In most of the free world (besides Houston) where freeways are designed without feeders, steps are taken to offload cars onto an area where they can safely slow down without causing backups on the freeway. Cloverleaf designs come to mind where you can stack a whole lot of exiting cars before they back up onto freeway lanes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wait a minute!

You're talking about the danger of feeder roads and then mention cloverleafs as an alternative? That don't compute. Cloverleafs are a safety nightmare, especially for high-traffic interchanges like you'd have in a city like Houston.

If you think feeder roads are ugly, fine. I would probably have to agree. For my purposes in this discussion, I was not concerned with aesthetics. I was simply stating that they add traffic safety and efficiency benefits to freeway operations. That's it.

[kjb434]

Yes, clover leafs are considered archaic. They only apply to low volume roads like Memorial at Waugh. Louisiana has a couple on high volume freeway and problems abound. I-10 at US 167 in Lafayette. Two in Metarie along I-10. One on I-12 in Baton Rouge. Baton Rouge also has a couple at low volume interchanges on none freeways.

The stack interchanges are the interchange of choice mainly for safety and mobility. Cloverleafs may be pretty, but very dangerous.

[HeightsGuy]

Again, I think there is a complex in Houston where we worry so much about what other people think.

KJB, I could care less about what others think, was only pointing out why they think that way....

[kirbyaustex]

Solution: Don't build any more of them on new or expanded highways. A couple of sessions ago, the Lege had a bill that would have stop all feeders on future highways (new or expanded). Well, a bunch of monster companies went apeshit because they didn't think they could get customers without them. Which is total BS. Walmart, Target, Chili's, McDonald's, etc. do just fine in every other place in the world that doesn't have feeders. So, they sent in their lobbists. It was then watered down to something about how many driveway access points there could be on a feeder. I believe even that was killed. The old ones on already expanded would be a problem. I'm sure some smart people could get together and think of something to fill their space. Maybe wooded buffers or rail lines.

[kirbyaustex]

This is fun.

[Subdude]

Feeders are breeders of ugliness. I can't figure out why we need them here when every other state in the country is happy to do without them. Without the consequent on-freeway development, I would bet that a lot of our reputation for being ugly and sprawling would go away. You can rationalize them as being swell for any number of reasons, but it's like zoning - you don't see a lot of other places rushing to follow our example in this area.

[gnu]

Also, we are complaining a lot about these feeder roads.

[HeightsGuy]

CDeb, show me the articles that show clover leaf interchanges being more dangerous than what we have. I think you will find the dangers in clover leaf design are in direct relation to snow/ice conditions. Houston doesn't have much of this. Clover leaf's are outdated mainly because they take up too much valuable commercial space.

A clover leaf done right has no stoplights or cars crossing eachother in an intersection. How does that make it more dangerous?

[RedScare]

Feeders are breeders of ugliness.  I can't figure out why we need them here when every other state in the country is happy to do without them.  Without the consequent on-freeway development, I would bet that a lot of our reputation for being ugly and sprawling would go away.  You can rationalize them as being swell for any number of reasons, but it's like zoning - you don't see a lot of other places rushing to follow our example in this area.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They are there for one reason and one reason only...to give texas developers prime land to develop eyesores that pass for retail developments. Texas' political heirarchy (both sides) are so obsessed with giving the developers anything they want, that when it was announced that the feeder road method of freeway construction was too expensive, the lobbyists descended on Austin and suddenly, it was not as expensive as we thought.

Feeders have nothing to do with safety or congestion. As stated before, they add to it, not improve it.

[gnu]

They are there for one reason and one reason only...to give texas developers prime land to develop eyesores that pass for retail developments.

[kjb434]

The Grand Parkway will use little to no feeders. It's part of the goal of the facility to be more of a park like setting driving through the country.

HeightsGuy,

Cloverleafs are considered dangerous by AASHTO (Amercian Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). This groups was created when the FHA was created and USDOT. They set standards of design that are adhered to in all states to keep some continuity in the roads across our country.

Cloverleafs were used in the beginning just as you said because they simple. In fact, they do take up less rea estate than modern interchanges that avoid at grade crosssing. Just look at the Beltway at any freeway. Look at I-610 at every freeway crossing.

Cloverleaf info

[nmainguy]

What design elements would you like to see with regard to the reconstruction of I-45 from the North Sam to DT?

Mine:

1.) A trenched section from West Little York to the North Loop. The overpasses would have the name of the street lit up and each overpass would have its own distinctive design, from something Art Deco to something avant garde.

2.) On/Exit ramps with design elements similar to those along the trenched section of US 59 (read: the Shepherd exit)

3.) A mix of palms and pines lining the outer walls of the freeway

4.) Uniquely "Houston" miles-to and exit signs rather than the generic green sheet with white lettering.

5) Maybe a fountain-type display at the North Loop interchange.

$$$ no option! Splurge! It's your design...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

$$$ no option??? THAT'S for me! So since we're all dreaming lets dream deep: tunnel the sucker in 2 double decked tunnels. Put the freeway, rail and HOV

100 feet deep with limited access and exits-maybe only at Shepard and 610. An engineer from Woodland Heights, Gonzalo Comacho has a tentative plan worked out. Read about it here http://www.camachoassociates.com/news.htm from the Press and the Chronicle. You said $$$ no option. I took you up on that.

[kjb434]

We had a whole other thread on just that topic.

[kirbyaustex]

Your last post has nothing to do with this thread.

[CDeb]

How does that make it more dangerous?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Three words:

Tight Weaving Areas.

There's four of 'em in a cloverleaf interchange.

That's OK for low volume roads. It's hell on a busy freeway. Tight weaving areas are being eliminated in many freeway projects around the nation because they also greatly decrease roadway capacity. For instance, the Charles River Crossings in Boston's Central Artery Project. There's a good article about this in the March ITE journal, but it requires a membership.

[nmainguy]

We had a whole other thread on just that topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

who's last post?

[kjb434]

I think the thread was entitle about "Tunnel for I-45" or something.

It's in this topic area.

[CDeb]

Louisiana has a couple on high volume freeway and problems abound.  I-10 at US 167 in Lafayette. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Coincidentally, I worked on a conceptual design for a new stack interchange at this location for a school project. This also happens to be the southern terminus of I-49, which will eventually continue down this corridor through Lafayette to New Orleans along the current US-90 corridor.

[nmainguy]

Your last post has nothing to do with this thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

sorry, kjb434-I clicked on the wrong reply button...this is for kirbyaustex:

who's last post?

[Kirzania]

$$$ no option??? THAT'S for me! So since we're all dreaming lets dream deep: tunnel the sucker in 2 double decked tunnels. Put the freeway, rail and  HOV

100 feet deep with limited access and exits-maybe only at Shepard and 610. An engineer from Woodland Heights, Gonzalo Comacho has a tentative plan worked out. Read about it here

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Brilliant, Holmes! Given the "money doesn't matter" option, why the heck not? Except I would propose main lanes of traffic in the tunnels with rail on top. A commuter rail with service from airport to downtown, maybe only one or two stops in between. Maybe run one or two lane Express/Toll lanes alongside the rail? Actually, not express lanes, but minimal frontage roads for "Exit-to-exit" traffic, so the locals can still have a "highway" of sorts - perhaps that doesn't completely run into downtown.. Could open the way for more residential and mixed projects.

Or, just to be daring... Why not trees run trees along the rail tracks? Everyone loves trees! Go with the Grand Parkway's scheme of a "ride in the country."

[CDeb]

Well shoot, if money is no object, I'd prefer to just be teleported straight to my desk, thank you very much!

Beam me up, Scotty!

[kirbyaustex]

Yours, because we've gotten so far off of what we would do to 45 that I thought your post was funny. You know, by actually being on topic. Kjb434 posted before I could. Whatever. Your idea for 45 is dead on.