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

[cspwal]

4 way stop sign. Will probably work better

[ADCS]

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?  

If you look at the proposal schematics, they're looking to put a typical Houston 5-level stack there.

[LoveCowboy]

Oh... there's schematics?  I didn't see those.  Do you have a link?

 

I still have questions.  Given the wacky design of the current interchange, how in the world are they going to go about the construction process while keeping it open? 

[ADCS]

Schematics found here.

 

They'll probably construct the new 45 bridge first, then the 45 to 610 offramps, then reroute 610 in the space where the left turn ramps from 45 were, then reconstruct the 610 to 45 offramps, and then finish expanding 610 beneath the interchange.

[JLWM8609]

One thing I noticed in the schematics was there would still be no direct access to Veterans Memorial from I-45 NB after this giant project is done. You'd still have to do the exit at Little York, take the Victory split to N. Shepherd, to go to Veterans Memorial. I made a suggestion in my public comments to add access to Veterans Memorial from the I-45 NB feeder. The connection would basically allow you to get onto Veterans Memorial from I-45 in a more direct way. You can see what I mean in this modification I made to the schematic. The connection in question is the black line you see there. It would be one way for straight access to Veterans Memorial. I suppose the SB lanes of Veterans Memorial could also be rerouted to take the same route to allow access to I-45 NB from Veterans Memorial since it appears the current left lane onramp will be done away with.

[MaxConcrete]

On Monday I met with a TxDOT representatives and representatives from HNTB, the consulting firm developing the design for the project. We reviewed my points of concern, and I updated my web page with the status of these issues.

 

http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis

 

Although most of my concerns cannot or will not be addressed to the extent I would like to see, I appreciate that TxDOT took a close look at the issues and I think the ultimate design will be the best it can be within the financial limits, political constraints and traffic model results.

 

In most cases, issues are still under study and the any adjustments to the design won't be known until the next round of public meetings when the updated schematic is released. But it appears likely that the following items will be in the next iteration

 

Note that nothing below is final or officially decided for the next version of the plan until TxDOT officially releases it.

 

* Eastbound Allen Parkway will get loop ramp to the northbound downtown connecter, similar to the existing loop ramp

* There will not be connections from Memorial to the downtown connector. Both the City of Houston and TxDOT are against connections. The COH and Downtown Management District are going to provide a recommendation for adjustments to the surface street design around Houston Avenue.

* The George Brown Convention center will necessitate an eastward shift of the trench and also preclude widening the trench. The GRB now uses land underneath the US 59 elevated structure as a staging area for trucks and delivery vehicles. The staging area is critical to the operation of the GRB, but the staging area will be lost when the US 59 elevated structure is removed. So it appears the next plan iteration will shift the trench east as far as possible to St Emanuel street, and widening of the trench will also not be possible since land opened by the shift is needed by the GRB.

* The current proposed plan reduces Interstate 45 to two lanes in each direction through downtown. It appears TxDOT will try to add lanes, but due to GRB issue, it is uncertain to me how much relief can actually be provided.

* The proposed design has a built-in bottleneck at I-45 and North Main (Hollywood Cemetery area) due to the right-of-way issue. They are studying ways to get more lanes through, but I'm not optimistic that the choke point can be fixed.

* TxDOT's preference is to sell the Pierce Elevated land and use the revenue to purchase property needed for the project. Before selling on the open market, TxDOT is first obligated to offer the land to the COH, and then to adjacent land owners. It is unclear what price the COH would have to pay if it wanted the land. But I sensed no indication that the COH is interested in the land. If the COH has any money, it would likely go to a deck park over the trench near the GRB (my opinion, not a TxDOT remark). I expect a full deck park to cost in the $200-300 million range (my number, not TxDOT's).

* Poor connections to the I-45 managed lanes in the downtown area are likely to be fixed in the next plan iteration.

* TxDOT agrees that I-45 would perform better with five regular lanes in each direction between Loop 610 and BW8, and this is under study. I'm hopeful we'll get longer sections with five lanes, hopefully the full length from Loop 610 to BW 8.

* TxDOT's goal is to have signature bridges wherever feasible and is looking to work with neighborhoods and districts to realize local preferences. But signature bridges will cost more and funding could be an issue.

 

See the web link for the status of all issues.

 

 

[Houston19514]

^  Thanks for the update MacConcrete.  Sounds pretty encouraging. 

 

Isn't the answer to the GRB-area space limitations pretty obvious?  Put the trench where originally planned and build the GRB's required staging area on a deck on top of the trench.  I know it's probably expensive, but it seems like it would be worth the cost to maintain the needed lanes through the area.

[cspwal]

Why does GRB have to use the blocks behind the building for staging?  Don't they own blocks to the south where the access ramp comes down?  It just seems like if they had to they should be able to come up with something that doesn't hinder traffic flow for the entire metropolitan area

[MaxConcrete]

Regarding the GRB situation, my comment reflects my understanding of the issue but my understanding could be incomplete or missing key details. The TxDOT rep said that TxDOT is within its guidelines (or whatever agreement is in place) to take away the access under the circumstances of the rebuilding, but politically it was necessary to meet the GRB's needs.

 

It does seem like they could build a partial deck over the trench to support GRB operations. But the new design has a southbound frontage road, and GRB probably does not want the frontage road between the GRB building and the staging area. So then the frontage road would have to swerve away from the GRB on the deck over the freeway. That seems feasible too, but there could be issues and surely financial costs associated with that. The team seems to be considering all options, and I'm thinking the deck-for-GRB option was considered or is being considered, and maybe there are other options in play (like the blocks to the south mentioned by cspwal)

 

As for the exact location of where GRB uses the space under the freeway and how it connects to that access ramp behind the GRB, I don't know.

[Naviguessor]

wrong place

[Sparrow]

What effect should driverless cars have upon TxDOT's thinking for this massive rebuild? Why for instance would we need to reconsider more than 2 lanes for 45 around Downtown if driverless cars are going to potentially radically reduce congestion with their efficient spacing and speed? Driverless cars will in all likelihood be quite mainstream by the time this project would come online. Why build for the future using models reflecting today's technology?

 

 

[MaxConcrete]

What effect should driverless cars have upon TxDOT's thinking for this massive rebuild?

 

Right now, the future of driverless cars is just predictions, and of course most predictions turn out to be wrong. I've seen predictions that driverless cars will radically transform society as soon as the 2020s, and others like this one from McKinsey which predict a slow and incremental transition with a big impact around 2050. And of course, maybe the idea won't even work for consumers but may only be useful for fleets.

 

As far as I know, there is no "approved" prediction that government agencies can use in planning, and government agencies will continue business as usual until there is an accepted way to project the future influence of driverless cars. My understanding is that the I-45/downtown project is being designed using HGAC 2035 traffic projections.

 

If funding is available - and there is a good chance it will be available - it is possible that some of the I-45/downtown project could be done by the early 2020s, and all of it by 2025. I think the transformational impact of driverless cars will be well after 2050. There are around 17 million new cars on the road each year (2014 figure, past years were less), and those cars will be in service for around 20 years. I think even in the 2020s and possibly 2030s most cars will be conventional or conventional with some intelligent safety features, which will extend conventional car domination well past 2050.

 

Keep in mind that driverless cars could unleash many more vehicles on the roads if cars become a cheap, on-demand utility. Low income people will use it for more traveling, and even kids could summon cars to go where they need/want to go.

 

The reduced vehicle separation benefit would only come into play when cars on the road are mostly or fully driverless/automated. That scenario could only occur in the distant future (after 2050) when all conventional cars are retired from service.

 

I also think most people will want to keep private cars, as opposed to using a car utility. After all, why do people buy designer clothing, luxury goods, expensive sneakers or luxury cars? They want to set themselves apart from people who can't afford or don't want to pay for those items, i.e. the status symbol. If cars are a low-cost utility, it will be for the low-income and unable-to-drive crowd. People will retain their status with private cars. It remains to be seen how automated those private cars will be, or how long it will take for widespread adoption of automation.

[BigFootsSocks]

I appreciate your earlier posts but this latest one is just totally, completely wrong. "Most predictions don't come true"? Well, I mean...when you lump in every single prediction ever, then yeah I guess so...but you're really ignoring the exponential growth in technological advancements. There are numerous projects underway in various testing stages for autonomous vehicles; Google is testing in California and Austin, Tesla is working on an "autopilot" mode, etc.

I really don't understand the comparison's designer clothes and luxury goods either. If we really think about the 1% who lead this lifestyle; most of them (not all) don't care about driving and will adopt autonomous vehicles sooner because of their exclusive status. The ones that do care can be found on Top Gear's test track.

When autonomous cars are rolled out and begin to pick up on mass adoption, it won't be long until many restrictions are placed on "manual" (loose sense) cars for those of us petrol heads. Autonomous cars get rid of the human element and reduce error. It's not unreasonable to think they will become a mainstream item in the very near future.

[mollusk]

I'm not going to hazard a guess about the timeline (though "assisted driving" is starting to show up in the marketplace even now), but absent some sort of massive disruption in how we power the critters (i.e., quit burning dead dinos and get real comfy with Subdude's avatar 'cause we gots to), there will be a lot of conventional cars for a long time.  The average age of what's on the road now is more than 10, after all.

 

Howsoever, while we may well end up with some sort of driverless analogue of METROLift (that gets vacuumed out every now and then) sooner rather than later, I'm sure there will be plenty of market for the autonomous Lexus as well.  Shoot, total isolation is a goal among some of those brands already; how can you get any more isolated than making the jump to taking out that big round thing above your lap and those funny rectangles on the floor, all while luxuriating in soft Corinthian leather?

[JLWM8609]

Shoot, total isolation is a goal among some of those brands already; how can you get any more isolated than making the jump to taking out that big round thing above your lap and those funny rectangles on the floor, all while luxuriating in soft Corinthian leather?

 

Retrofit a driverless system into a 1979 Lincoln Continental with pillowtop seats and a jello tuned suspension and the passengers will have an isolation booth on wheels.

[Specwriter]

Retrofit a driverless system into a 1979 Lincoln Continental with pillowtop seats and a jello tuned suspension and the passengers will have an isolation booth on wheels.

 

but will the requisite video games/wi-fi enhance or detract from the total isolation experience?

 

[Sparrow]

Would TxDOT construct this reroute in segments around Downtown, or would they attack it all at once?

 

What I mean is, would they for instance simply close 59/69 between I-10 and 45 and route everyone to the west of Downtown (and highly suggest using 610 for thru traffic), or would they shift and reduce the number of lanes while doing construction along the same segment? It seems to me we would get to completion more quickly with a complete shutdown of each segment (59, 10, and then Pierce) while under construction. Sure traffic would be a pain for a few years, but wouldn't it be a few years less if TxDOT could do construction of that segment without concern for the traffic in that corridor?

 

Why not do 45N in a similar manner when the time comes? TxDOT could come to some agreement with HCTRA to make the HTR free from the Beltway to Downtown during the construction years and simply shutdown the 45 main lanes for reconstruction. Perhaps in exchange for years of no toll collection HCTRA gets their tolled 45N lanes at no cost to them?

[Triton]

Apparently there are a new round of changes out, not yet on the website.... anyone have the pdf?

 

[Nate99]

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?  

 

I think it is in the mix.

[mollusk]

It's nice to see that the southbound entrance ramp has been restored to its current location and something similar to its current configuration, which generally works pretty well.  Turning it into a traffic circle rather than having stop signs for people coming off of NB Houston is actually an improvement, IMO.

 

[cspwal]

I hope they have some soft bushes on the other side of the roundabout from people who come down the ramp at 75

[mollusk]

I hope they have some soft bushes on the other side of the roundabout from people who come down the ramp at 75

 

You're looking at it backwards.  One either hooks a right hand U turn from northbound Houston Ave or comes south from Main through the current triangle / future roundabout and then down onto the southbound freeway.

 

[cspwal]

Yep I am looking at it backwards. Thought the ramp going to Main Street was an off ramp

[MaxConcrete]

I attended a meeting at TxDOT on September 4 where TxDOT provided an update on the status of the plan. Overall the news is good. The items which are my most serious concerns are being fixed. Numerous other issues are still under review, and some items won't be changed to the extent I would like to see. But overall, I'm pleased.

 

The plan analysis has been updated: http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis

 

Highlights

 

Good news on expected modifications
1. Interstate 45 will have at least three continuous lanes through downtown. This fixes my most serious design concern of the entire project, although details on the merging and transition zones need to be verified to be sufficient in the next official release.

2. Interstate 45 will have five regular lanes in each direction under North Main, and five regular lanes in each direction between Loop 610 and downtown. A long northbound collector lane from downtown functioning like a long on-ramp will help minimize the risk of a bottleneck in this area. There will also be numerous other improvements in the area addressing neighborhood concerns. No additional right-of-way is needed except for maybe a minor impact to the fuel station on the northwest corner at North Main. This design looks like it will be the best is can be given the constraints, and fixes my second most serious design concern.

3. A ramp from westbound I-10 to the southbound downtown spur is expected to be added, solving the problem of downtown access from westbound I-10.

Promising modifications under study
In order to maintain a staging area for the GRB center, they are looking at placing the staging area on a deck over the freeway trench and then swerving Hamilton toward the east, away from the GRB, so that the staging area is immediately adjacent to the GRB. Hamilton would be above the freeway trench in this area, rather than on the ground on the west side of the trench as shown in the original plan.

Observation on the Pierce Elevated
HNTB mentioned that the price of downtown land around the Pierce Elevated is around $100 per square foot, with a net to TxDOT after legal and professional fees around $65. Since the Pierce Elevated uses around 14 half blocks, with each half block around 250x125 feet (31,250 square feet), that translates to $3.1 million per half block or $43 million overall, with a net around $28 million. Of course, those numbers are rough ballpark numbers and real estate prices fluctuate.

It seems feasible and reasonable that the City of Houston could afford $28 million for Pierce Skypark land. In comparison, the proposed park on a deck over the freeway near the GRB will be far more expensive, at least $100 million just for the deck and a total cost between $150 and $300 million, depending on the size and amount of features.

Items still under review
For eastbound Allen Parkway into downtown, it originally appeared that a loop on-ramp would be added (similar to the existing loop ramp), but now more options are being considered, including adding a northbound on-ramp at West Dallas which Allen Parkway traffic would also use.

For the downtown spur section south of Allen Parkway, the configuration with Heiner Street (currently side-by-side) is under review and could be changed to a configuration with frontage roads.

Previously reported
Access to the I-45 managed lanes in the downtown area will be improved, and some access points are still being studied.

Better connections between the I-45 managed lanes and Loop 610, although details were not available.

No connections between Memorial and the downtown spur.

Items of Concern which TxDOT says do not need changes, or cannot be changed
No additional regular lane capacity on I-45 is expected between Loop 610 and Beltway 8. As of July this was under consideration, but appears to be rejected. I'm still hoping for a longer section of five regular lanes each way north of Loop 610.

Changes to the access between downtown and SH 288 will be minimal, with only a potential minor improvement to the southbound ramp at downtown entrance.

In the south Midtown area, changes to the on/off ramps to/from US 59 are also expected to be minor, but this area is still under review with a meeting planned in Midtown later this month.

[Houston19514]

I attended a meeting at TxDOT on September 4 where TxDOT provided an update on the status of the plan. Overall the news is good. The items which are my most serious concerns are being fixed. Numerous other issues are still under review, and some items won't be changed to the extent I would like to see. But overall, I'm pleased.

 

The plan analysis has been updated: http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis

 

Highlights

 

Observation on the Pierce Elevated

HNTB mentioned that the price of downtown land around the Pierce Elevated is around $100 per square foot, with a net to TxDOT after legal and professional fees around $65. Since the Pierce Elevated uses around 14 half blocks, with each half block around 250x125 feet (31,250 square feet), that translates to $3.1 million per half block or $43 million overall, with a net around $28 million. Of course, those numbers are rough ballpark numbers and real estate prices fluctuate.

It seems feasible and reasonable that the City of Houston could afford $28 million for Pierce Skypark land. In comparison, the proposed park on a deck over the freeway near the GRB will be far more expensive, at least $100 million just for the deck and a total cost between $150 and $300 million, depending on the size and amount of features.

 

 

You seem to be estimating low for the Pierce Elevated park costs and high for the deck park over the east-side freeways.

 

1.  The numbers you presented show a market value of $43 Million for the Pierce Elevated land.  That would be the cost to the city, not DOT's expected net of $28 Million.  (The city might be able to work a below-market price deal with DOT since the DOT might avoid some brokerage fees, but they would not avoid the other legal and professional fees necessary for a conveyance, so there is no reason to expect the City could get the land for $28 Million.)  Plus, that only gives you the land (and I guess the elevated structures).  Add in the cost of converting that into a usable park - presumably at least comparable to  your estimates of $50-200 Million estimate for creating a park on the freeway decks;  Now you're up to $93-$243 Million.

 

2.  Your estimate for decking over the freeways seems quite high.  The total cost of Dallas's Klyde Warren Park was in the neighborhood of $100 Million, including decking the freeway.  If anything, putting decking over a freeway while it is being designed and built ought to be less expensive than retrofitting a pre-existing freeway. 

[IronTiger]

But Klyde Warren Park was also much smaller than some of the Houston proposals in terms of land, wasn't it?

[MaxConcrete]

You seem to be estimating low for the Pierce Elevated park costs and high for the deck park over the east-side freeways.

 

1.  The numbers you presented show a market value of $43 Million for the Pierce Elevated land.  That would be the cost to the city, not DOT's expected net of $28 Million.  (The city might be able to work a below-market price deal with DOT since the DOT might avoid some brokerage fees, but they would not avoid the other legal and professional fees necessary for a conveyance, so there is no reason to expect the City could get the land for $28 Million.)  Plus, that only gives you the land (and I guess the elevated structures).  Add in the cost of converting that into a usable park - presumably at least comparable to  your estimates of $50-200 Million estimate for creating a park on the freeway decks;  Now you're up to $93-$243 Million.

 

2.  Your estimate for decking over the freeways seems quite high.  The total cost of Dallas's Klyde Warren Park was in the neighborhood of $100 Million, including decking the freeway.  If anything, putting decking over a freeway while it is being designed and built ought to be less expensive than retrofitting a pre-existing freeway. 

 

#1: I think the City of Houston would be expected to pay the net that TxDOT would expect to receive, or $28 million if the land is in fact worth $100 per square foot. Why would the COH be expected to pay for appraisals. legal fees and commissions that would not even occur? Keep mind that a city purchase would be a single transaction, whereas the 14 half-blocks for market sale would be around 14 transactions. Also, if the city wants the land, the cost will be a politically-influenced number, which will probably make it lower than market value, not higher.

 

#2:

The contract award for the deck for Klyde Warren park was $44.5 million in 2009 (see bid numbers below). That was the bottom of the Great Recession, and bid prices were generally very low (although the winning bid was above the estimate). I'm thinking the deck would cost $55 to $60 million in today's market. I'll use $50 million to be conservative.

 

The proposed trench for the US59/I-69/I45 freeways will be more than twice as wide as Woodall Rodgers freeway, around 18 lanes vs. 8 lanes for Woodall Rodgers. Assuming some cost benefit for making provisions for the deck in the original design, we'll call it twice as wide for cost estimating purposes.

 

So for a park the same length as Klyde Warren Park, the deck cost will be around $100 million.

 

The TxDOT drawings show "potential greenspace" from Lamar to Commerce, about 3300 feet. Klyde Warren Park is around 1100 feet long. So for a buildout of the total potential greenspace, the deck will cost around $300 million.

 

The total cost of Klyde Warren park was $110 million, or $65 million in addition to the deck. The cost of building a park on the Houston deck is dependent on the length, complexity and number of amenities, so it could vary over a wide range. I think it is reasonable to assume a minimum of $50 million, and up to $100 million for a fancy park 3300 feet long.

 

So my numbers are not high, as you suggest. The range is from $150 million for an 1100-foot-park, up to $400 million for a 3300 foot fancy park. For reference, Discovery Green cost $57 million for land and $125 million for construction, $182 million total about 10 years ago. http://www.discoverygreen.com/history-of-discovery-green

 

The cost of building Pierce Skypark could vary widely depending on the design. My proposal is a recreation park with walking and running paths, nothing fancy. The cost for that would be relatively low, probably less than $20 million. There would be more cost to connect it to Buffalo Bayou, add $10 million. So, my rough estimation is that for as low as $60 million you could have a highly distinctive recreation park on the Pierce Elevated. That is vastly lower than $150 million for a short (1100-foot) deck park near the GRB.

 

And a deck park near the GRB would be very similar to Discovery Green. Why do we need to spend so much on more of the same? A recreation park on the Pierce Elevated would be something different and much more useful to downtown/Midtown residents. (Think Memorial Park running trail)

http://pierceelevatedpark.com/

 

 

 

TYPE    CONSTRUCT DECK AND PLAZA OVER FREEWAY               DATE    07/07/09                     CONTRACT NUMBER            07093002

TIME     831 WORKING DAYS                                                                        CHECK                      $100,000

LIMITS  FROM:WEST OF SAINT PAUL                    TO:EAST OF PEARL ST                           MISCELLANEOUS COST      $1200000.00

                                                                                                                                    

                                                  $42,941,714.23  *****ESTIMATE*****                                                

                                       BIDDER 1   $44,492,730.83  ARCHER-WESTERN CONTRACTORS, LTD.                                  

                                       BIDDER 2   $45,243,248.05  AUI CONTRACTORS, INC.                                             

                                       BIDDER 3   $50,251,165.67  AUSTIN BRIDGE & ROAD, LP                                          

                                       BIDDER 4   $50,858,651.94  BALFOUR BEATTY INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.                               

                                       BIDDER 5   $51,999,372.22  WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.                          

                                       BIDDER 6   $52,390,333.85  TEXAS STERLING CONSTRUCTION CO.                                   

                                       BIDDER 7   $52,672,868.01  ED BELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY                                      

                                       BIDDER 8   $53,079,126.93  MCCARTHY BUILDING COMPANIES, INC.                                 

                                       BIDDER 9   $53,650,908.07  J.D. ABRAMS, L.P.        

 

Klyde Warren Park, which cost $110 million in public and private funds, will feature a performance stage, dog park and fountains.

By DAVID FLICK

Staff Writer

dflick@dallasnews.com

Published: 28 June 2012 11:40 PM

Supporters of Klyde Warren Park have announced the dates — Oct. 27-28 — for its opening celebration.

A statement released by the Woodall Rodgers Park Foundation Board promises a multiday round of activities reminiscent of the weekend-long celebration that inaugurated the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge in March.

“It’s the big reveal,” said Mark Banta, park president. “It’s a celebration for something that people have waited a long time for with great anticipation.”

...

When completed, the 5.2-acre park will include a performance stage, fountains, a botanical garden, a dog park and a children’s garden. A restaurant will open there next spring.

The $110 million amenity was funded through a combination of city bond money, state highway funds, federal funds and private donations.

“Whether you call the park the city’s heart, the front lawn or the town square, it’s clear that Dallas is ready to turn an old freeway into a truly special destination,” said Jody Grant, chairman of the Woodall Rodgers Park Foundation Board.

[Slick Vik]

Just counting down to the demolition of the pierce.

[Ross]

Just counting down to the demolition of the pierce.

 

That would be a misguided move on the part of TxDOT. There's nothing wrong with the Pierce as it is, other than needing some fixes at the merges with other freeways.

 

[BigFootsSocks]

Nah it's pretty freaking lame, I hope they set charges up and blow it straight back to hell