Jump to content

TxDOT Plan For Downtown And I-45: Analysis And Problem List


Recommended Posts

One of the biggest problems I see is the demolition of Clayton Homes, because first off, that property was supposedly renovated recently, and that's a substantial amount of people that have to be relocated. Already the Houston housing authority is a bit short on public housing, and public housing tends to be one of the biggest NIMBYs there is...probably more than freeways. (see the Pinemont P&R discussions for more)

Why not move the Clayton Homes onto the old Pierce Elevated ROW? ;)

But, it's interesting that a freeway will signal the end of Clayton Homes when you look at the history. Clayton Homes was built because of slum clearance projects in the late 50s that cleared out most of Frost Town for the construction of the freeway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Routes 2 and 3 are far slower. I've dne both. They are longer by several miles, and don't move as well as the the through town routes. Using surface streets fir number 1 turns a 10-15 minute trip into an hour long slog. And I generally take surface streets when possible.

The world doesn't revolve around ross

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the biggest problems I see is the demolition of Clayton Homes, because first off, that property was supposedly renovated recently, and that's a substantial amount of people that have to be relocated. Already the Houston housing authority is a bit short on public housing, and public housing tends to be one of the biggest NIMBYs there is...probably more than freeways. (see the Pinemont P&R discussions for more)

 

I'm almost certain TxDOT took this into consideration when drafting the plan. The fact that it's in there suggests that both the CoH and the HHA want Clayton Homes gone, probably as a result of difficulties encountered during the 2007 renovation. They'll probably get more money in the expropriation process than selling on the open market. Just an educated guess, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor does it revolve around you.

I know that. I'm willing to support measures that inconvenience me if it makes this city a better city. My life doesn't revolve around going to my dentist. And if a few minutes are added to make the city more attractive and a better city it's worth it. The selfish mentality of I have to drive wherever I want as fast as possible has made Houston the congested mess it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone have a clue why the highway was ever built with that big curve?

 

I wondered that as well. From looking at the maps it appears they wanted to keep the bayou crossings perpendicular, rather than cross them at a weird angle. The technology of the time probably made it harder to go over at weird angles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned in my analysis http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis, removing the Pierce Elevated is a bad move from the transportation perspective. But it is likely to be a good move for other objectives. I think the Pierce Corridor is highly valuable as a transportation corridor, either for the scenario that you suggest or perhaps for managed lanes or certain connections. But I also think it is almost surely impossible to save the Pierce transportation corridor at this point since the influential downtown folks want it gone. That's why I focused my analysis on improving what is proposed, rather than saving the Pierce transportation corridor.

 

To your point about there being only one freeway corridor wrapping around downtown and thus a single point of failure, it should be mentioned that this is also the case in Atlanta and Chicago. It might be worth looking at how they have done their alignments, both of which are below grade most of the way. This has allowed them to develop a very pleasant "face" on the other side of their downtown, with the freeway side being sort of the backside.

 

My bigger concern is that thru-travelers on I-45 will have to do something like a 70 degree turn as they go from the north side to the east side of downtown. I can't think offhand of any other major freeway that has such a tight turn radius, especially in an area replete with visual distractions. It might actually be BETTER for safety reasons that I-45 is only 2 lanes each direction here, as that is likely to calm drivers and prevent accidents on the turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't think offhand of any other major freeway that has such a tight turn radius, especially in an area replete with visual distractions. 

 

The Schuylkill Expressway in Philly, for one, has a few instances of tight turn radii.

 

I see the concern for thru travelers, but I'm inclined to de-emphasize it. Mainly, I think that part of what's critical toward improving downtown traffic is reducing thru travelers on 45 in the first place. For example, going from The Woodlands to Galveston, both Beltway 8 East and 610 East are faster ways of getting to the Gulf Freeway than going through downtown. Hardy to 59 is a faster way of getting to anywhere inside the Loop other than Downtown. However, people still take 45, either out of force of habit or shunpiking. Introducing moderate disruptions to 45's throughput might counterintuitively improve traffic flow overall, by inducing drivers to make better decisions in their route planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you basically want to screw anyone who doesn't have an EZ tag, since you can't take BW8 East from 45 or 59 without one. Plus the tolls from the North side to 45 South will run $10 or more, round trip. That's more than a lot of folks are willing to pay.

Let's just agree that running through town is the optimum route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that. I'm willing to support measures that inconvenience me if it makes this city a better city. My life doesn't revolve around going to my dentist. And if a few minutes are added to make the city more attractive and a better city it's worth it. The selfish mentality of I have to drive wherever I want as fast as possible has made Houston the congested mess it is.

You have never expressed a willingness to do anything but screw up the lives of anyone who doesn't agree with you. My trips are proxies for thousands of other trips taken by thousands of other people. If TXDOT announced that the freeways would stop at Downtown, there would be torches and pitchforks everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you basically want to screw anyone who doesn't have an EZ tag, since you can't take BW8 East from 45 or 59 without one. Plus the tolls from the North side to 45 South will run $10 or more, round trip. That's more than a lot of folks are willing to pay.

Let's just agree that running through town is the optimum route.

 

Good thing there is a free circumferential freeway that permits you to bypass downtown without paying a penny.

 

I don't want to "screw" anyone. I simply want to fix some of the inefficient incentives that exist with our freeway system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I will add that to my list. JJxvi's observation about the I-45 ramps being above trench level at that point is probably the reason for the lack of the Polk crossing, but I think the Polk bridge could be raised somewhat at the middle to potentially accommodate the ramps.

 

No need.

 

99% chance the profiles for this schematic were designed to criteria which means super-long sag curve lengths based on 60-70mph design speed. However, AASHTO sag curve calculations are based on headlight sight distance (HLSD). This whole thing is going to be under high mast lighting. Kyser and his minions back in the 70's understood this which is why the existing ramps bottom out quickly, and probably why the current schematic can't replicate all the braided ramp configurations that are out there now.

 

So: Design Exception for sag length on ramps and DCs, contingent on illumination. Set all your sag K values to 20-35, and BAM. Polk street overpass returns, all your local ramps come back, everyone's happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have never expressed a willingness to do anything but screw up the lives of anyone who doesn't agree with you. My trips are proxies for thousands of other trips taken by thousands of other people. If TXDOT announced that the freeways would stop at Downtown, there would be torches and pitchforks everywhere.

Actually I want to make the city better which improves the lives of millions and possible tourists at well. This fear mongering and resistance to change is typical of a stubborn old timer. Change is coming deal with it.

So you basically want to screw anyone who doesn't have an EZ tag, since you can't take BW8 East from 45 or 59 without one. Plus the tolls from the North side to 45 South will run $10 or more, round trip. That's more than a lot of folks are willing to pay.

Let's just agree that running through town is the optimum route.

The interstates were never designed to go through town in the first place. Also there's a freeway called 610.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interstates were never designed to go through town in the first place. Also there's a freeway called 610.

They were not originally envisioned to go through towns, but rest assured, they were indeed designed to go through town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were not originally envisioned to go through towns, but rest assured, they were indeed designed to go through town.

[The President] went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way . . . and that he was certainly not aware of any concept of using the program to build up an extensive intra-city route network as part of the program he sponsored. He added that those who had not advised him that such was being done, and those who steered the program in such a direction, had not followed his wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were not originally envisioned to go through towns, but rest assured, they were indeed designed to go through town.

The idea was that freeways would not cut through downtown areas. And based on the current Interstate freeway system, that is true--otherwise there would be no "mini loop" around downtown. The Pierce Elevated bypassed downtown and hit low density. Sure, it's surrounded by urbanity now--Uptown certainly grew around 610, but the freeways did not cut through downtown.

The Boston Central Artery did cut through downtown, but it was also pre-Interstate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for finding the quote slick, this was exactly my point.

 

[The President] went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way . . . and that he was certainly not aware of any concept of using the program to build up an extensive intra-city route network as part of the program he sponsored. 

 

They were not originally envisioned to go through towns, 

 

 

He added that those who had not advised him that such was being done, and those who steered the program in such a direction, had not followed his wishes.

 

but rest assured, they were indeed designed to go through town.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for finding the quote slick, this was exactly my point.

They were not originally envisioned to go through towns,

but rest assured, they were indeed designed to go through town.

False

This is the point I try to convey to people, particularly this board. American highways were never intended to carry “urban commuters”. They were intended as long-distance cross-country travel like European highways.

Political pressure has forced highway alignments to cut through the city. We don’t like it, highway engineers don’t like it, but to politicians, it’s a good way of saying “we got something accomplished”.

Unfortunately, we as a country are making our cars do what it’s not designed to do: Urban commuting

That’s very standard in Europe as well. Highways don’t simply stop right at a city. It goes around. If it does go “to” a city, it transitions into a limited-access large arterial before it reaches the city. This reduces the amount of traffic being dumped at the city center.

Again, the problem with the U.S. is that we’ve turned highways into short-distance express arterials, which was not its original intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

False

This is the point I try to convey to people, particularly this board. American highways were never intended to carry “urban commuters”. They were intended as long-distance cross-country travel like European highways.

Political pressure has forced highway alignments to cut through the city. We don’t like it, highway engineers don’t like it, but to politicians, it’s a good way of saying “we got something accomplished”.

Unfortunately, we as a country are making our cars do what it’s not designed to do: Urban commuting

That’s very standard in Europe as well. Highways don’t simply stop right at a city. It goes around. If it does go “to” a city, it transitions into a limited-access large arterial before it reaches the city. This reduces the amount of traffic being dumped at the city center.

Again, the problem with the U.S. is that we’ve turned highways into short-distance express arterials, which was not its original intent.

That may not have been its original intention, but it sure as hell is the reality now. I really don't understand why we're arguing about the past, when we should be discussing how engineers should tackle these issues in the future.

You're not ever going to change the mindset of millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

False

This is the point I try to convey to people, particularly this board. American highways were never intended to carry “urban commuters”. They were intended as long-distance cross-country travel like European highways.

Political pressure has forced highway alignments to cut through the city. We don’t like it, highway engineers don’t like it, but to politicians, it’s a good way of saying “we got something accomplished”.

Unfortunately, we as a country are making our cars do what it’s not designed to do: Urban commuting

That’s very standard in Europe as well. Highways don’t simply stop right at a city. It goes around. If it does go “to” a city, it transitions into a limited-access large arterial before it reaches the city. This reduces the amount of traffic being dumped at the city center.

Again, the problem with the U.S. is that we’ve turned highways into short-distance express arterials, which was not its original intent.

 

You need to really expand your vocabulary. Specifically as it pertains to the connotative and denotative definitions of the words "Envision", and "Design".

 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what Eisenhower 'envisioned' over 50 years ago (based on a design that was envisioned nearly 100 years ago by Hitler), times and needs change, and urban commuting is what these freeways are needed for in Houston.

 

Those European highways you are heralding as being used primarily as cross country travel, you need to take another look, in large cities and small cities alike they are very much exactly like they are in the US of A. In town there are plenty of on/off ramps to allow your urban commute around town. Yes, they often do not go directly through the core, there is a ring, but those cities also often have buildings inside that ring that have been there since before the Allen brothers even knew what Texas was. But the ring roads have entrances and exits at every major thoroughfare that crosses that ring road and highways have on and off ramps for every little town and hamlet, and they are all very much used for urban and suburban commuting.

 

Urban Commuting on major interconnected highway systems is a fact of pretty much every highway system everywhere and planners design the systems with this in mind. Who cares what Eisenhower's limited imagination allowed him to envision? He was shortsighted in the need of the system and thankfully, others were forward thinking enough to design the system the way it needed to be designed, not the way that Eisenhower envisioned it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

urban commuting is what these freeways are needed for in Houston.

 

It's what they're used for. It's not necessarily what they're needed for. The sole insistence on the urban freeway paradigm is part of what's gotten us into the traffic mess that we're in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to really expand your vocabulary. Specifically as it pertains to the connotative and denotative definitions of the words "Envision", and "Design".

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what Eisenhower 'envisioned' over 50 years ago (based on a design that was envisioned nearly 100 years ago by Hitler), times and needs change, and urban commuting is what these freeways are needed for in Houston.

Those European highways you are heralding as being used primarily as cross country travel, you need to take another look, in large cities and small cities alike they are very much exactly like they are in the US of A. In town there are plenty of on/off ramps to allow your urban commute around town. Yes, they often do not go directly through the core, there is a ring, but those cities also often have buildings inside that ring that have been there since before the Allen brothers even knew what Texas was. But the ring roads have entrances and exits at every major thoroughfare that crosses that ring road and highways have on and off ramps for every little town and hamlet, and they are all very much used for urban and suburban commuting.

Urban Commuting on major interconnected highway systems is a fact of pretty much every highway system everywhere and planners design the systems with this in mind. Who cares what Eisenhower's limited imagination allowed him to envision? He was shortsighted in the need of the system and thankfully, others were forward thinking enough to design the system the way it needed to be designed, not the way that Eisenhower envisioned it.

Disagree on your last paragraph vehemently. There was no forward thinking, just political shrewdness. Even the engineers agreed with Eisenhower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree on your last paragraph vehemently. There was no forward thinking, just political shrewdness. Even the engineers agreed with Eisenhower.

 

Then the politicians got it right by accident and the engineer's view was as myopic as President Eisenhower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then the politicians got it right by accident and the engineer's view was as myopic as President Eisenhower.

If your concern is just about hopping in your car and getting where you need as fast as possible, the aesthetic value of your city be damned, along with many minority neighborhoods as well, then your point is valid. Otherwise it was a disastrous idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your concern is just about hopping in your car and getting where you need as fast as possible, the aesthetic value of your city be damned, along with many minority neighborhoods as well, then your point is valid. Otherwise it was a disastrous idea.

 

Aesthetics are important, but functionality does come first.

 

Arguably, I think that the Pierce Elevated actually was none of the things you originally accused it as, a wall dividing urban areas. In reality, if you draw a finger from the I-10 to the US-59/I-45 interchange which would be the "fastest way" (i.e. least distance) you'd hit a lot of the downtown.

 

The Pierce, I believe, was designed to be a low-impact, urban-avoiding highway while still fulfilling its purpose to connect I-45 to the pre-existing Gulf Freeway. The Pierce's S curve avoids most of downtown while its elevated features allow roads to pass under it (urban planning at the time decreed that elevated highways had less impact than sunken freeways). It even only took up half a block instead of a full city block because there were no frontage roads or medians. The city sprang up around it, not unlike Uptown around 610.

 

You could make an argument as to whether the Pierce has outlived its usefulness, but you can't pretend that the city was as dense as it in that part of town is before the freeway was put in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since it's still very fresh on everyone's mind, it seems that trenching all the freeways around downtown seems like a splendid idea. I guess closing all the freeways once every 10-15 years is probably a good thing, you know, a nice power washing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since it's still very fresh on everyone's mind, it seems that trenching all the freeways around downtown seems like a splendid idea. I guess closing all the freeways once every 10-15 years is probably a good thing, you know, a nice power washing.

Better to have an extra temporary detention basin than a sea of concrete monoliths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since it's still very fresh on everyone's mind, it seems that trenching all the freeways around downtown seems like a splendid idea. I guess closing all the freeways once every 10-15 years is probably a good thing, you know, a nice power washing.

There were actually people outraged at the I-45 meeting I went to last week for the Northside. A TXDOT rep was there and they kept saying they thought it was stupid to trench I-45 closer towards 610. I think this flood event just proves why it's actually a great thing to have these trenched... better to have cars flooded than entire neighborhoods!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So.... getting back on topic

 

There is one big elephant in the room that does not appear to have been specifically addressed in the TxDOT proposal, though surely it has to be part of the plan... what are they going to do with that god-awful interchange at the North Freeway and loop 610?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...