I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[DNAguy]

I dunno.  As it is, 59/69 southbound past downtown and through the 288 split seems to be a parking lot pretty much any time of the day.  As far as how to get onto 59/69, it may make more sense to use the North Loop, keeping the portion through the Northside down to some point around downtown as a spur.  Using the 10 corridor would end up with a lot of relatively tight curves one right after the other, with a concurrent opportunity for mayhem.

 

I like where your head's at. However, I think you run into problems with the directing the 'regular' through traffic of 45 into the industrial part of Houston. Lots of trucks from 59 to 45 south on 610. Plus you have a large bridge. And the 610 / 225 / 45 area is already loaded up with lands that end and merge in a way that would only add to the nightmare that it is today. 

[DNAguy]

I dunno.  As it is, 59/69 southbound past downtown and through the 288 split seems to be a parking lot pretty much any time of the day.  As far as how to get onto 59/69, it may make more sense to use the North Loop, keeping the portion through the Northside down to some point around downtown as a spur.  Using the 10 corridor would end up with a lot of relatively tight curves one right after the other, with a concurrent opportunity for mayhem.

 

One thing I've come to realize is that when you get rid of a bottle neck in a system, you expose / exacerbate other bottle necks. If this prevents you from fixing a known problem (b/c you know that'll you'll just run into another problem down / upstream), then you in a paralyzed state where nothing gets down.

 

No doubt that 59/288 interchange needs to be fixed. By fixing the 45/59 interchange, you're actually incentivising the earlier action.

[DNAguy]

I know that TxDOT doesn't own the ROW, but why didn't they look into routing 45 from 610 to DT along what will be the Hardy DT connector? You then route it along 59 from I10 to 45 south.

 

The current section of I 45 now becomes I145.

 

Would there be enough ROW? Do the laws permit a swap between HCTRA and TxDOT so that I145 or some spur designation could be tolled? I'm curious if this could actually work.

 

 

 

 

[mollusk]

I like where your head's at. However, I think you run into problems with the directing the 'regular' through traffic of 45 into the industrial part of Houston. Lots of trucks from 59 to 45 south on 610. Plus you have a large bridge. And the 610 / 225 / 45 area is already loaded up with lands that end and merge in a way that would only add to the nightmare that it is today. 

 

 

One thing I've come to realize is that when you get rid of a bottle neck in a system, you expose / exacerbate other bottle necks. If this prevents you from fixing a known problem (b/c you know that'll you'll just run into another problem down / upstream), then you in a paralyzed state where nothing gets down.

 

No doubt that 59/288 interchange needs to be fixed. By fixing the 45/59 interchange, you're actually incentivising the earlier action.

 

Y'all illustrate my point.  How do you reroute eight or ten lanes of traffic over to an already overloaded eight lane route, not to mention adding the weaving of spinning 45 into and out of it?  Culberson's skin mag dream, a/k/a the Katy outside the Loop, would look like a country path in comparison.

[livincinco]

One thing I've come to realize is that when you get rid of a bottle neck in a system, you expose / exacerbate other bottle necks. If this prevents you from fixing a known problem (b/c you know that'll you'll just run into another problem down / upstream), then you in a paralyzed state where nothing gets down.

No doubt that 59/288 interchange needs to be fixed. By fixing the 45/59 interchange, you're actually incentivising the earlier action.

What you're describing is known as the theory of constraints. It's a very well-known manufacturing methodology that identifies why output of a production line does not achieve it's maximum throughput. It applies well to mobility.

[DNAguy]

What you're describing is known as the theory of constraints. It's a very well-known manufacturing methodology that identifies why output of a production line does not achieve it's maximum throughput. It applies well to mobility.

 

If it's so well known as a manufacturing methodology, why did I have to re-invent it 30 years later?

[Luminare]

Umm I'm sure some one has thought of this, but you could just shift the highway a little bit northwest once you get past the convention center which would give you more ROW and not have to do anything with the lofts. The only thing between 59 for a long way off after that is just empty surface lots till the bayou. Sadly I can't seem to get to a point where I can work on my real plan for this

[livincinco]

If it's so well known as a manufacturing methodology, why did I have to re-invent it 30 years later?

And for my next discovery, a little something I call...gravity!

[DNAguy]

And for my next discovery, a little something I call...gravity!

 

Everyone knows that's totes been done, like, forever ago  ......

 

[IronTiger]

I suppose one way to really test any "Pierce Removal" ideas is to just close off the Pierce Elevated completely for a trial period of 3 months, which could swing either way for removal or not.

 

The trick would be convincing people what the real purpose is for: a "test to see what would happen if we removed the Pierce" has all sorts of negative connotations, no one will buy "maintenance" that would require total closure for months, and the most likely explanation is that TxDOT is doing it as some sort of cruel prank. Which is why they shouldn't do it at all.

So here's my proposal...Behold! The "hanging gardens"! A combination elevated/sunken highway with tons of greenery, four lanes each direction, and even a wide/pedestrian lane. Of course, some buildings will have to come down...

[Slick Vik]

I suppose one way to really test any "Pierce Removal" ideas is to just close off the Pierce Elevated completely for a trial period of 3 months, which could swing either way for removal or not.

The trick would be convincing people what the real purpose is for: a "test to see what would happen if we removed the Pierce" has all sorts of negative connotations, no one will buy "maintenance" that would require total closure for months, and the most likely explanation is that TxDOT is doing it as some sort of cruel prank. Which is why they shouldn't do it at all.

So here's my proposal...Behold! The "hanging gardens"! A combination elevated/sunken highway with tons of greenery, four lanes each direction, and even a wide/pedestrian lane. Of course, some buildings will have to come down...

I would be ok with that test period

[Naviguessor]

Maybe we could get Gov Chris Christie down to execute the plan...over night. ;-)

[IronTiger]

Maybe we could get Gov Chris Christie down to execute the plan...over night. ;-)

Yes, it would be very illegal...and there's already enough politicians and others working to manipulate the law behind closed doors.

I like my "hanging gardens" idea nonetheless.

[Naviguessor]

I like the hanging gardens idea. Makes me think of other beautification ideas for overpasses and raised highways. Since they have become one of our few landscape features...make em look good if not convert them into parklands.

[livincinco]

Rather than closing a major highway for 3 months to determine the impact, I would suggest that it might be less invasive to have traffic engineers study the potential impact and provide a report on the expected results.

I know that's crazy talk, but...

[DNAguy]

FYI

 

http://offcite.org/2014/07/28/the-rebuilding-of-i-45-a-once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity-to-improve-houston

[IronTiger]

Well, in another thread, I proposed tunneling new southbound lanes under the Pierce while fixing up the Pierce (better lighting, perhaps a bike path, inner shoulders), because part of the problem is gridlock. It also keeps the infrastructure.

 

The most dangerous suggestion on that page (et. al.) is the land values bit. Now, I'm denying if land values will raise if the Pierce is torn down, but betting on land values like that is a risky move...just ask Six Flags. That "highly valuable land" is still empty nearly a decade later even during a boom!

[Luminare]

You can't really compare that enormous piece of dirt in a sea of parking in the middle of nowhere to land which is in the middle of the city, on the bayou, near the theater district, etc... Sorry but not even going to give you ground on that one.

 

What I think they should do is do the full reroute, and trench both of them. There is is plenty of room to do this and you benefit both sides of the city. I've been wanting to get back to work on my idea for this huge reroute, but just haven't had the time :/

 

The silliest thing they can do is keep it where it is and add to it. Of course the robots at TxDot are going to push that option pretty hard because...reasons? -.-

[Montrose1100]

You can't really compare that enormous piece of dirt in a sea of parking in the middle of nowhere to land which is in the middle of the city, on the bayou, near the theater district, etc... Sorry but not even going to give you ground on that one.

 

What I think they should do is do the full reroute, and trench both of them. There is is plenty of room to do this and you benefit both sides of the city. I've been wanting to get back to work on my idea for this huge reroute, but just haven't had the time :/

 

The silliest thing they can do is keep it where it is and add to it. Of course the robots at TxDot are going to push that option pretty hard because...reasons? -.-

They said it's a once in a lifetime opportunity to "re-connect the neighborhoods". Yet every option in that link show everything BUT connecting the surrounding neighborhoods. I don't get the parkway idea either. It will go from an elevated freeway to a ground freeway with trees? Or will it become connected to the street with traffic lights?

 

Luminare, please use your Illuminati/Freemason abilities to stop this atrocity. Surely they can stop the funneling of money from the FEMA coffins for a month and help this dire situation out.

 

I'm only halfway kidding, I've wanted to use an Illuminati conspiracy joke on you since day one. But I am not kidding about the options they show for re-design.

[mfastx]

I'm assuming that tunneling isn't an option due to cost.  

 

Removing it entirely and widening I-10 and US59 is an interesting idea. 

 

Realistically I don't see anything happening for the foreseeable future.  

[IronTiger]

Sorry, but Montrose's right. There's a disproportionate amount of idealism vs. practicality in the Pierce Elevated threads, and a widened parkway/boulevard will still divide the neighborhoods all while wasting money on the late 1990s rebuild and dismantling it (plus adding capacity to try to fix that), not to mention the service interruptions on METRORail while all that is done. The only way that I could see a proposal like that working is waiting another 20 years to put Pierce up for replacement or making a local Harris County/Houston agency foot a good part of the bill.

[Luminare]

I'm assuming that tunneling isn't an option due to cost.  

 

Removing it entirely and widening I-10 and US59 is an interesting idea. 

 

Realistically I don't see anything happening for the foreseeable future.  

 

Well of course it won't be in the foreseeable future. Right now they are just doing meetings with citizens to discuss these proposals. These aren't even really set in stone. It just helps TxDot know what they will end up doing down the road. The portions of 45 inside loop 610 though are approaching 35-40 years old! I'll be trying to make the next meeting which is later this year. I'm sure whatever is the final decision it won't get underway for another 3-4 years. Lots of time for further input!

Edited July 29, 2014 by Luminare

[DNAguy]

They said it's a once in a lifetime opportunity to "re-connect the neighborhoods". Yet every option in that link show everything BUT connecting the surrounding neighborhoods. I don't get the parkway idea either. It will go from an elevated freeway to a ground freeway with trees? Or will it become connected to the street with traffic lights?

Luminare, please use your Illuminati/Freemason abilities to stop this atrocity. Surely they can stop the funneling of money from the FEMA coffins for a month and help this dire situation out.

I'm only halfway kidding, I've wanted to use an Illuminati conspiracy joke on you since day one. But I am not kidding about the options they show for re-design.

The parkway idea as they drew it up leaves more questions than answers.

What I dont understand is the need for a parkway on the southside of downtown. The only area that would need something like a parkway is the west side of downtown. You can repurpose the 45 row on the west side of downtown as the parkway and then tie into the existing street grid. The St Joseph parkway is of sufficient width to handle the traffic. Then you sell / repurpose the ROW to recover some of the great costs that this is going to take.

[samagon]

Why is the growth that has happened in midtown so much more important than the growth that is happening to the east of downtown, or the growth that is poised to happen north of downtown?

 

I think making the gulf bigger between downtown and two of these, and doing so on the hope to increase connectivity to the one is a bad move.

[Houston19514]

Why is the growth that has happened in midtown so much more important than the growth that is happening to the east of downtown, or the growth that is poised to happen north of downtown?

 

I think making the gulf bigger between downtown and two of these, and doing so on the hope to increase connectivity to the one is a bad move.

 

Not to mention, replacing the elevated freeway with an at-surface multi-lane "parkway" will actually decrease connectivity, not increase it.

[Slick Vik]

Alternative 11 sounds the best out of the options but it's unfortunate that 59 has to be widened as a result. All a catch 22

[samagon]

Alternative 11 sounds the best out of the options but it's unfortunate that 59 has to be widened as a result. All a catch 22

 

I don't think so.

 

They don't address how this at grade parkway will deal with the current rail line on Main street, nor do they address how they will deal with the rail line that extends under the freeway on the bayou.

 

They don't address how a parkway links downtown with anything on the other side of it.... While it can be intimidating to pedestriate under pierce elevated, it is actually very easy to do so. replace it with an at-grade parkway and it is not only intimidating, but harder to cross than before.

 

True it would totally displace all the people who sleep under it, but I suspect they would just find some other areas that are protected from watery elements nearby to call bed.

[Sparrow]

TxDot has said tunneling isn't an option, but if they really wanted to provide better neighborhood connectivity why wouldn't they consider cut-and-cover? Cut-and-cover the Spur under Bagby/Brazos/Smith and do the same for the 45 main lanes under Pierce/St Joseph/Jefferson. All in all wouldn't be that much of a pain during construction with the many parallel options downtown/midtown provide for local traffic. Freeway traffic would maintain the status quo until the new tunnels are completed. If the "lack of space for shoulders" is the issue as TxDot has said in the past, why not just build two levels of tunnel and just split the traffic? That might even be better to separate local and thru traffic. Austin has a split and so does San Antonio. And don't tell me you can't tunnel in Houston because it would flood. All tunnels require pumping stations, Houston would do the same. Both Midtown and Downtown would see big benefits with a Spur extension and below grade freeways. TxDot could even sell of the valuable land the Elevated currently occupies after they are done dismantling it.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Sparrow

[IronTiger]

TxDOT said that tunneling isn't an option for replacing Pierce Elevated...one of my plans involve tunneling new southbound lanes and leaving the Pierce structure intact, while restriping the old Pierce to have inner and outer shoulders plus a bike path/pede with another lane (or two). The Pierce definitely needs a facelift: Shepherd under 59 has no lights at all!

[DNAguy]

TxDot has said tunneling isn't an option, but if they really wanted to provide better neighborhood connectivity why wouldn't they consider cut-and-cover? Cut-and-cover the Spur under Bagby/Brazos/Smith and do the same for the 45 main lanes under Pierce/St Joseph/Jefferson. All in all wouldn't be that much of a pain during construction with the many parallel options downtown/midtown provide for local traffic. Freeway traffic would maintain the status quo until the new tunnels are completed. If the "lack of space for shoulders" is the issue as TxDot has said in the past, why not just build two levels of tunnel and just split the traffic? That might even be better to separate local and thru traffic. Austin has a split and so does San Antonio. And don't tell me you can't tunnel in Houston because it would flood. All tunnels require pumping stations, Houston would do the same. Both Midtown and Downtown would see big benefits with a Spur extension and below grade freeways. TxDot could even sell of the valuable land the Elevated currently occupies after they are done dismantling it.

 

I would entertain a split northbound and southbound I 45 if the pierce elevated is replaced w/ a trenched southbound 45... The cut and cover would be a nice bonus too.

 

I really think that this might be enough of a compromise to actually work... but I'm not holding my breath