I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[IronTiger]

That was one of my worst ideas, which would also be illegal. 

[Purpledevil]

So, what happens to the current 45 freeway between 610 and I-10, if we're shifting everyone over to the new Hardy extension as the new 45? Turn it back into a bayou for flood control? EDIT: Never mind, you stated a spur. Heck, I think we might be better off with the bayou, lol.

By going the route DNAguy describes, wouldn't we be switching freeways from 45 to 610 to "new 45" (Hardy) to 10 to 59 then reconnecting back to 45 at the interchange by GRB, just to go from Northline to Gulfgate? Instead of just scooting by the side of downtown as it is now, on one constant highway? That doesn't sound too appealing. Hardy's extension only goes to 10, right? Then you've got to filter onto 59 to get back towards the on ramp for the Gulf Freeway. Maybe I'm not following something correctly, but that sounds like a big tie up just waiting to happen.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Purpledevil

[Ross]

There is a severe difference of opinion here. Some of us have a vision of what there could be without the pierce. Others can't imagine houston without the pierce because of fear of the unknown. Irontiger who for the most part I don't see eye to eye with on anything had one reasonable idea, shut it down 3-6 months and see what happens.

 

Why would you want to make 100,000+ people per day cross downtown on surface streets?

[DNAguy]

So, what happens to the current 45 freeway between 610 and I-10, if we're shifting everyone over to the new Hardy extension as the new 45? Turn it back into a bayou for flood control? EDIT: Never mind, you stated a spur. Heck, I think we might be better off with the bayou, lol.

By going the route DNAguy describes, wouldn't we be switching freeways from 45 to 610 to "new 45" (Hardy) to 10 to 59 then reconnecting back to 45 at the interchange by GRB, just to go from Northline to Gulfgate? Instead of just scooting by the side of downtown as it is now, on one constant highway? That doesn't sound too appealing. Hardy's extension only goes to 10, right? Then you've got to filter onto 59 to get back towards the on ramp for the Gulf Freeway. Maybe I'm not following something correctly, but that sounds like a big tie up just waiting to happen.

You would have to upgrade east downtown's freeway system as well. There is some row that could be purchased north of grb. From the grb south, you would have to trench 59 farther and stack 45 as an elevated freeway above in the same row.

[Slick Vik]

Why would you want to make 100,000+ people per day cross downtown on surface streets?

Those 100,000 could take 610 or 59. Most of them would avoid the surface street.

And the reason is I want the city to be a better place aesthetically not just a place that's convenient for cars.

[DNAguy]

Those 100,000 could take 610 or 59. Most of them would avoid the surface street.

And the reason is I want the city to be a better place aesthetically not just a place that's convenient for cars.

 

You sir speak with the devil's tounge!

 

[IronTiger]

Those 100,000 could take 610 or 59. Most of them would avoid the surface street.

And the reason is I want the city to be a better place aesthetically not just a place that's convenient for cars.

Wouldn't it make more economical sense to tear down ugly, dilapidated buildings then?

[Sparrow]

Also, Instead of having 59 NB traffic navigate the 59/288 split and weave to get onto I-45, why not extend Spur 527 from its current terminus at Elgin and have it terminate at 45 instead, providing a direct link from 59 to 45 without the weaving at 288?

 

Going way back here y'all, but instead of the suggestion of putting all traffic onto one massive roadway to the east of Downtown as some suggest, why not provide an outlet for traffic to bypass the bottlenecks? Downtown has freeways on all sides, perhaps it would be the most direct solution for the Pierce would be to do the same for Midtown as JLWM8609 suggested. Cut-and-cover a Spur extension all the way to 45. (The inner cartographer in me loves the idea of Midtown being defined fully by clear boundaries on a map.)

 

As an immediate fix perhaps even a simple change in signage could reduce bottlenecks. Have SB 45 traffic wishing to exit 288S/59S do so by taking I-10 EB north of downtown and take the 59S exit behind the GRB--they'd avoid the Pierce altogether. Same for 288NB/59NB exiting to 45N, sign for them to exit I-10W and then join exit 45N. Some of us do this already depending upon traffic one day to the next. TxDot could potentially reduce the Pierce bottleneck simply by providing alternative exit routes. Perhaps label "thru" route exits via the east side of Downtown and keep the current exits labeled as "local"?

[DNAguy]

Going way back here y'all, but instead of the suggestion of putting all traffic onto one massive roadway to the east of Downtown as some suggest, why not provide an outlet for traffic to bypass the bottlenecks? Downtown has freeways on all sides, perhaps it would be the most direct solution for the Pierce would be to do the same for Midtown as JLWM8609 suggested. Cut-and-cover a Spur extension all the way to 45. (The inner cartographer in me loves the idea of Midtown being defined fully by clear boundaries on a map.)

 

As an immediate fix perhaps even a simple change in signage could reduce bottlenecks. Have SB 45 traffic wishing to exit 288S/59S do so by taking I-10 EB north of downtown and take the 59S exit behind the GRB--they'd avoid the Pierce altogether. Same for 288NB/59NB exiting to 45N, sign for them to exit I-10W and then join exit 45N. Some of us do this already depending upon traffic one day to the next. TxDot could potentially reduce the Pierce bottleneck simply by providing alternative exit routes. Perhaps label "thru" route exits via the east side of Downtown and keep the current exits labeled as "local"?

 

Ummmm... this is a forum for those proposing ideas that cost billions of dollars. Your 'immediate' ideas don't meet the $ threshold.

Edited August 6, 2014 by DNAguy

[cloud713]

Going way back here y'all, but instead of the suggestion of putting all traffic onto one massive roadway to the east of Downtown as some suggest, why not provide an outlet for traffic to bypass the bottlenecks? Downtown has freeways on all sides, perhaps it would be the most direct solution for the Pierce would be to do the same for Midtown as JLWM8609 suggested. Cut-and-cover a Spur extension all the way to 45. (The inner cartographer in me loves the idea of Midtown being defined fully by clear boundaries on a map.)

As an immediate fix perhaps even a simple change in signage could reduce bottlenecks. Have SB 45 traffic wishing to exit 288S/59S do so by taking I-10 EB north of downtown and take the 59S exit behind the GRB--they'd avoid the Pierce altogether. Same for 288NB/59NB exiting to 45N, sign for them to exit I-10W and then join exit 45N. Some of us do this already depending upon traffic one day to the next. TxDot could potentially reduce the Pierce bottleneck simply by providing alternative exit routes. Perhaps label "thru" route exits via the east side of Downtown and keep the current exits labeled as "local"?

That's actually a fantastic idea. I hadn't read that far back into the thread. I always wondered why the spur stopped short of 45 but yeah it would make a great reliever of traffic on the 288 stretch.

[august948]

Those 100,000 could take 610 or 59. Most of them would avoid the surface street.

And the reason is I want the city to be a better place aesthetically not just a place that's convenient for cars.

 

NP...remove the Pierce and widen 610 and 59 to Katy freeway standards...minimum 10 lanes each way.  Rebuild the connectors to allow smooth transition from one to the other and we're good to go.

 

[mollusk]

Going way back here y'all, but instead of the suggestion of putting all traffic onto one massive roadway to the east of Downtown as some suggest, why not provide an outlet for traffic to bypass the bottlenecks? Downtown has freeways on all sides, perhaps it would be the most direct solution for the Pierce would be to do the same for Midtown as JLWM8609 suggested. Cut-and-cover a Spur extension all the way to 45. (The inner cartographer in me loves the idea of Midtown being defined fully by clear boundaries on a map.)

 

As an immediate fix perhaps even a simple change in signage could reduce bottlenecks. Have SB 45 traffic wishing to exit 288S/59S do so by taking I-10 EB north of downtown and take the 59S exit behind the GRB--they'd avoid the Pierce altogether. Same for 288NB/59NB exiting to 45N, sign for them to exit I-10W and then join exit 45N. Some of us do this already depending upon traffic one day to the next. TxDot could potentially reduce the Pierce bottleneck simply by providing alternative exit routes. Perhaps label "thru" route exits via the east side of Downtown and keep the current exits labeled as "local"?

 

That might have worked ten years ago.  Brazos and Bagby are now both crammed with large luxury apartment blocks - they're not even much of a shortcut now as surface streets.

[samagon]

Ummmm... this is a forum for those proposing ideas that cost billions of dollars. Your 'immediate' ideas don't meet the $ threshold.

ooh, here's an idea that will cost more than billions, it'll be like tens of billions, and other cities already have the precedence set...

 

Dallas has i35e and i35w. New Orleans has i12.

 

Houston could have 45e, or i47.

 

it would follow 146 from galveston up to i10, then go north past lake houston, then jog west till it meets up with 45.

 

all that traffic that is taking i45 to get through houston could then take i47 to bypass houston!

 

then you demo all freeways inside the loop because i45 is the one that consistently (no matter the time of day/week) really has too much traffic (I always opt to use 59/10 rather than 45, and I always get there quicker eventhough it's nearly a mile longer), and since we're going to demolish that one anyway, we may as well demolish the less used ones too. turn them into parkways. make 610 20 lanes in each direction to handle the increased capacity.

 

simple solution. costs lots of money. win for everyone.

Edited August 6, 2014 by samagon

[mollusk]

I47 - I love it.  Let's see... 146 up to 330, then split off a bit before 10 to avoid Highlands and Crosby, then continue that purdy, expensive new pavement and ROW up between Patton Village and Splendora to eventually hook up with 242 - shoot, you could take it from there along 1488 all the way out to the Aggie Turnpike or whatever the devil they're gonna call it... (which means we'll have Iron Tiger's support, mebbe...  )

 

An' it's for the safety of th' cheeldrun, getting them another way up and out of the way of hurricanes and such...  

[Slick Vik]

NP...remove the Pierce and widen 610 and 59 to Katy freeway standards...minimum 10 lanes each way. Rebuild the connectors to allow smooth transition from one to the other and we're good to go.

Or, destroy pierce and build better mass transit. 610 borders on neighborhoods no way it gets expanded. This obsession with widening and god forbid stacking needs to end.

[Ross]

Or, destroy pierce and build better mass transit. 610 borders on neighborhoods no way it gets expanded. This obsession with widening and god forbid stacking needs to end.

 

Why would we build mass transit that has you as the only rider? I don't see any compelling reason to remove the Pierce. It's a pretty good looking freeway, doesn't interfere with pedestrians, and it goes in directions lots of people want to travel.

 

[IronTiger]

I agree, we should replace the Pierce with a 6-lane parkway. Well, a true parkway wouldn't have dozens of stoplights and I don't want to interrupt the grid. A sunken parkway would have too many bridges and plus there's that thing where it comes into 288 anyway. Plus, all that construction would interrupt the light rail, so let's make it elevated instead.

 

That it. That's what we could replace the Pierce with. 

[august948]

Or, destroy pierce and build better mass transit. 610 borders on neighborhoods no way it gets expanded. This obsession with widening and god forbid stacking needs to end.

 

Run mass transit on a portion of the widened and stacked freeways.  This obsession with living in the 1800's needs to end.

 

[Slick Vik]

Why would we build mass transit that has you as the only rider? I don't see any compelling reason to remove the Pierce. It's a pretty good looking freeway, doesn't interfere with pedestrians, and it goes in directions lots of people want to travel.

If mass transit is built on the right corridors there would be hundreds of thousands of riders.

[Slick Vik]

Run mass transit on a portion of the widened and stacked freeways. This obsession with living in the 1800's needs to end.

Too bad the people on charge won't agree to that either. And evidently you're unaware of rail investment being made worldwide.

[august948]

If mass transit is built on the right corridors there would be hundreds of thousands of riders.

 

You left out the part where you have to tear up all the freeways and outlaw personal vehicles.

 

[august948]

Too bad the people on charge won't agree to that either. And evidently you're unaware of rail investment being made worldwide.

 

I'm not unaware that rail investment is being made elsewhere.  It's just that it's not relevant.

 

[lithiumaneurysm]

The biggest problem with the Pierce Elevated isn't that it exists, but that it's kind of ugly. That can be said for a lot of the freeways that encircle Downtown. If they clean it up a bit, embellish it architecturally and add a lot more lighting underneath (maybe some color?) that entire area would feel more inviting. Plant some trees. Add some vines. The parkway TxDOT proposes is a far worse "barrier" between Downtown and Midtown. Houston can do something creative with an elevated freeway, instead of it being a collection of concrete pillars. You could even get rid of the fenced-off parking lots and put some retail (or something else interesting) under there.

 

I don't think we can act like it's feasible for Houston to begin removing freeways. Houston will probably never be an urbanist paradise. Whenever this city does decide to go for a mass transit / commuter rail system, it'll have to adapt to the auto-centric nature of this town. That means lots of park & rides, lots of buses and accepting the fact that improved freeway infrastructure is absolutely a necessity. The city and state should be looking to do three things with the redesign of the Downtown freeway complex: improve traffic flow around Downtown, upgrade the existing infrastructure to modern-day engineering standards, and improve the aesthetic/architectural appearance of the freeways.

 

Do I think Houston could really benefit from an extensive heavy rail system? Yes. But that's a network that needs to fit the city it's being designed for. We shouldn't be copy-pasting ideas from the Northeast or California, or relying on a few miles of light rail to provide a real alternative to the inevitable traffic situation in this city. Otherwise we'll end up like Dallas, with a ridiculous rail system that doesn't actually take into account the fact that it's serving a sprawling, heavily car-dependent area. I think it's possible to have a reasoned discussion about the future of transportation in this city – car or otherwise – without having to resort to outlandish proposals like shutting down freeways or calling the entire concept of rail an "obsession with living in the 1800s." Houston suffers from transportation problems because of a lack of vision and the failure to come up with a real plan to tie the entire metropolitan area together. That's how you end up with a light rail plan that literally does absolutely nothing to address the traffic situation that is clogging up all 600 square miles of the city! Meanwhile it just makes METRO look bad and gives anti-transit politicians plenty of rhetorical ammunition.

 

Can we all just get along, please? Houston needs its freeways, yes. Many of them need to be widened. But it also needs a real mass transit system that commuters can use when freeway capacity just isn't enough. Roads, buses and rail are all essential to the future of the city. We need to innovate to solve the traffic problem, because Houston is a unique city that has an urban form unlike any other in the entire country. Don't demolish freeways. Don't rail against rail. Instead, think about solutions that streamline the roads and provide a working alternative and accommodate the car culture. If you've ever read Houston Freeways, you should know about the incredible amounts of effort and innovation that led to the creation of Houston's world-class freeway network. That same level of dedication can solve the current problem.

[IronTiger]

The biggest problem with the Pierce Elevated isn't that it exists, but that it's kind of ugly. That can be said for a lot of the freeways that encircle Downtown. If they clean it up a bit, embellish it architecturally and add a lot more lighting underneath (maybe some color?) that entire area would feel more inviting. Plant some trees. Add some vines. The parkway TxDOT proposes is a far worse "barrier" between Downtown and Midtown. Houston can do something creative with an elevated freeway, instead of it being a collection of concrete pillars. You could even get rid of the fenced-off parking lots and put some retail (or something else interesting) under there.

 

I don't think we can act like it's feasible for Houston to begin removing freeways. Houston will probably never be an urbanist paradise. Whenever this city does decide to go for a mass transit / commuter rail system, it'll have to adapt to the auto-centric nature of this town. That means lots of park & rides, lots of buses and accepting the fact that improved freeway infrastructure is absolutely a necessity. The city and state should be looking to do three things with the redesign of the Downtown freeway complex: improve traffic flow around Downtown, upgrade the existing infrastructure to modern-day engineering standards, and improve the aesthetic/architectural appearance of the freeways.

 

Do I think Houston could really benefit from an extensive heavy rail system? Yes. But that's a network that needs to fit the city it's being designed for. We shouldn't be copy-pasting ideas from the Northeast or California, or relying on a few miles of light rail to provide a real alternative to the inevitable traffic situation in this city. Otherwise we'll end up like Dallas, with a ridiculous rail system that doesn't actually take into account the fact that it's serving a sprawling, heavily car-dependent area. I think it's possible to have a reasoned discussion about the future of transportation in this city – car or otherwise – without having to resort to outlandish proposals like shutting down freeways or calling the entire concept of rail an "obsession with living in the 1800s." Houston suffers from transportation problems because of a lack of vision and the failure to come up with a real plan to tie the entire metropolitan area together. That's how you end up with a light rail plan that literally does absolutely nothing to address the traffic situation that is clogging up all 600 square miles of the city! Meanwhile it just makes METRO look bad and gives anti-transit politicians plenty of rhetorical ammunition.

 

Can we all just get along, please? Houston needs its freeways, yes. Many of them need to be widened. But it also needs a real mass transit system that commuters can use when freeway capacity just isn't enough. Roads, buses and rail are all essential to the future of the city. We need to innovate to solve the traffic problem, because Houston is a unique city that has an urban form unlike any other in the entire country. Don't demolish freeways. Don't rail against rail. Instead, think about solutions that streamline the roads and provide a working alternative and accommodate the car culture. If you've ever read Houston Freeways, you should know about the incredible amounts of effort and innovation that led to the creation of Houston's world-class freeway network. That same level of dedication can solve the current problem.

Some of the things I was proposing earlier, without saying anything against rails.

 

I don't think anyone wants to call the entire concept of rail an "obsession with living in the 1800s" nor was the intent. With one HAIFer in particular taking an absolute hard-line against the Pierce and believes himself to be a visionary, the "obsession" was just rhetoric mocking the world he idealizes with no freeways and a heavy reliance on mass transit.

 

That's not saying that was called for (despite the idea of tearing down the Pierce with no adequate replacement), but it's a problem. One of the biggest issues we can work with is a metro-wide solution. Houston is more than the Inner Loop, the metropolitan area extends beyond Harris County, and the entire region includes even more detached locales.

[Slick Vik]

Some of the things I was proposing earlier, without saying anything against rails.

I don't think anyone wants to call the entire concept of rail an "obsession with living in the 1800s" nor was the intent. With one HAIFer in particular taking an absolute hard-line against the Pierce and believes himself to be a visionary, the "obsession" was just rhetoric mocking the world he idealizes with no freeways and a heavy reliance on mass transit.

That's not saying that was called for (despite the idea of tearing down the Pierce with no adequate replacement), but it's a problem. One of the biggest issues we can work with is a metro-wide solution. Houston is more than the Inner Loop, the metropolitan area extends beyond Harris County, and the entire region includes even more detached locales.

I would say the hard line is for keeping the pierce. Proposing that it get torn down gets people up in arms around here.

[DNAguy]

The biggest problem with the Pierce Elevated isn't that it exists, but that it's kind of ugly. That can be said for a lot of the freeways that encircle Downtown. If they clean it up a bit, embellish it architecturally and add a lot more lighting underneath (maybe some color?) that entire area would feel more inviting. Plant some trees. Add some vines. The parkway TxDOT proposes is a far worse "barrier" between Downtown and Midtown. Houston can do something creative with an elevated freeway, instead of it being a collection of concrete pillars. You could even get rid of the fenced-off parking lots and put some retail (or something else interesting) under there.

 

I don't think we can act like it's feasible for Houston to begin removing freeways. Houston will probably never be an urbanist paradise. Whenever this city does decide to go for a mass transit / commuter rail system, it'll have to adapt to the auto-centric nature of this town. That means lots of park & rides, lots of buses and accepting the fact that improved freeway infrastructure is absolutely a necessity. The city and state should be looking to do three things with the redesign of the Downtown freeway complex: improve traffic flow around Downtown, upgrade the existing infrastructure to modern-day engineering standards, and improve the aesthetic/architectural appearance of the freeways.

 

Do I think Houston could really benefit from an extensive heavy rail system? Yes. But that's a network that needs to fit the city it's being designed for. We shouldn't be copy-pasting ideas from the Northeast or California, or relying on a few miles of light rail to provide a real alternative to the inevitable traffic situation in this city. Otherwise we'll end up like Dallas, with a ridiculous rail system that doesn't actually take into account the fact that it's serving a sprawling, heavily car-dependent area. I think it's possible to have a reasoned discussion about the future of transportation in this city – car or otherwise – without having to resort to outlandish proposals like shutting down freeways or calling the entire concept of rail an "obsession with living in the 1800s." Houston suffers from transportation problems because of a lack of vision and the failure to come up with a real plan to tie the entire metropolitan area together. That's how you end up with a light rail plan that literally does absolutely nothing to address the traffic situation that is clogging up all 600 square miles of the city! Meanwhile it just makes METRO look bad and gives anti-transit politicians plenty of rhetorical ammunition.

 

Can we all just get along, please? Houston needs its freeways, yes. Many of them need to be widened. But it also needs a real mass transit system that commuters can use when freeway capacity just isn't enough. Roads, buses and rail are all essential to the future of the city. We need to innovate to solve the traffic problem, because Houston is a unique city that has an urban form unlike any other in the entire country. Don't demolish freeways. Don't rail against rail. Instead, think about solutions that streamline the roads and provide a working alternative and accommodate the car culture. If you've ever read Houston Freeways, you should know about the incredible amounts of effort and innovation that led to the creation of Houston's world-class freeway network. That same level of dedication can solve the current problem.

 

I disagree with this your opening assertion. The biggest problem with the Pierce is that it exists. It's an under-performing asset (transportation-wise) that drags down property values and prevents the needed blending of Midtown's residential focus w/ downtown's business focus.

 

We wouldn't need to subsidize builders to the tune of 10+ million dollars to build apartments downtown if we didn't have such a barrier between downtown and midtown. There would be a more organic blending of the two together if not for such a stark elevated freeway barrier.

 

Planting trees won't help property values immediately adjacent to the elevated freeway. Growing vines won't help disperse the homeless that congregate under the Pierce. 

 

I agree that bulling a parkway from Bagby to 59 does something similar in dividing the two areas. That's why I think its a stupid idea. The downtown street grid is more than capable of handling east/west traffic from 59 to west downtown  in the midtown/downtown junction. If we take the Pease/Jefferson and combine it w/ Pirece/St. Joesph couplet, you've got 20 total lanes full lanes of traffic. Taking away turning / bus lanes, that's still 12 dedicated lanes of East/west flow. 

 

I've read Houston Freeways and while I believe that lot's of effort went into building Houston's freeways, there was little 'innovation' outside of the original Gulf freeway. I might give you reversible HOV lanes, but technically that was funded by METRO. Freeways were built without regard to surrounding neighborhoods. That is not a way we should operate nowadays. I mean, what are the tax implications for 13 new and almost total blocks city that would be added to downtown if the Pierce were to disappear tomorrow? What does the cost of re-routing 45 along other freeways come out to when TxDOT could sell 13 different lots of prime midtown/downtown Houston real estate?

Edited August 7, 2014 by DNAguy

[Ross]

Those 13 alleged prime lots are probably worth about $300 million, going by the HCAD values of downtown land, and subtracting some for being further South. Doesn't really offset the 2-3 billion dollars to do the reroute and upgrades to other freeways, plus you probably have less capacity overall.

 

The thought of running interstate freeway traffic on East-West surface streets is not rational, and is possibly the worst thing I've heard in years for traffic. Talk about killing pedestrian, train, and other North/South traffic. You cannot take interstate traffic and put it on signal controlled surface streets for any length of  time.

 

 

[IronTiger]

I disagree with this your opening assertion. The biggest problem with the Pierce is that it exists. It's an under-performing asset (transportation-wise) that drags down property values and prevents the needed blending of Midtown's residential focus w/ downtown's business focus.

Under-performing? It's over capacity as it is. While I agree that's not the focus, how is that "under performing"?

 

 

We wouldn't need to subsidize builders to the tune of 10+ million dollars to build apartments downtown if we didn't have such a barrier between downtown and midtown. There would be a more organic blending of the two together if not for such a stark elevated freeway barrier.

I don't think the Pierce is the reason why there's needs to be subsidization. It's very hard to get new construction in formerly run-down areas: developers have tended to prefer suburbs because they're cheap to build in, and every downtown in America has struggled in some way or another. If you want to raise land values and make the area nicer, get rid of the bus station. That bus station is the sole reason why the nearby McDonald's has a bad reputation.

 

 

 

 

Planting trees won't help property values immediately adjacent to the elevated freeway. Growing vines won't help disperse the homeless that congregate under the Pierce.

If it's a homeless problem, they will move out. Besides, the homeless problem isn't as big of an issue as it was in the 1980s. Surely that's not a valid reason to tear down the Pierce, is it? Homeless people?

 

 

 

I agree that bulling a parkway from Bagby to 59 does something similar in dividing the two areas. That's why I think its a stupid idea. The downtown street grid is more than capable of handling east/west traffic from 59 to west downtown  in the midtown/downtown junction. If we take the Pease/Jefferson and combine it w/ Pirece/St. Joesph couplet, you've got 20 total lanes full lanes of traffic. Taking away turning / bus lanes, that's still 12 dedicated lanes of East/west flow.

Yeah, but the Pierce also carries north-south traffic, which is why detouring around curvy areas and ramps seems like a pretty poor idea at best.

 

 

 

 

I've read Houston Freeways and while I believe that lot's of effort went into building Houston's freeways, there was little 'innovation' outside of the original Gulf freeway. I might give you reversible HOV lanes, but technically that was funded by METRO. Freeways were built without regard to surrounding neighborhoods. That is not a way we should operate nowadays. I mean, what are the tax implications for 13 new and almost total blocks city that would be added to downtown if the Pierce were to disappear tomorrow? What does the cost of re-routing 45 along other freeways come out to when TxDOT could sell 13 different lots of prime midtown/downtown Houston real estate?

Well, first off. The main part of the Pierce Elevated that everyone complains about takes about 11 half blocks, and throw a few more blocks it somehow divides and you've got about 6 new blocks total. There are well over a dozen surface lots in downtown already, and the most likely scenario will involve surface lots taking over where the Pierce was, and there's a chance that the loss of the Pierce will result in depressed commercial land value. If you believe that the "induced demand" effect will reverse with the loss with the Pierce Elevated, there's even greater reason to believe that, since adding new freeways will raise C land values.

Furthermore, while I agree that 1960s land planning was not the best of strategies, METRO didn't fund the HOV lanes. METRO was created by the state, and those HOV lanes were done with federal transit money, which is why METRO (and bus lanes in general) were given a voice and a compromise in the Katy Freeway rebuild.

Edited August 7, 2014 by IronTiger

[cloud713]

Also, Instead of having 59 NB traffic navigate the 59/288 split and weave to get onto I-45, why not extend Spur 527 from its current terminus at Elgin and have it terminate at 45 instead, providing a direct link from 59 to 45 without the weaving at 288?

In keeping with this theme, I sketched up a revised downtown highway layout. Run 59 up the trenched spur to old 45/Pierce, and have the old 45 on the west side of downtown become new 59, which jumps over the north side back to 59. 288 would dogleg over to 59 and have a boulevard option for people wanting to continue on towards the south side of downtown and new 45. New 45 would turn up the old 59 road on the east side of downtown, before jumping over north downtown back to the current 45. There would also be an elevated 4 lane by pass, built similar to Westpark, following the spur 5/rail lines through the east end (highly controversial and they already stopped 225 but if they could implement it along the railroad tracks it might not be the end of the world) to pass all the local downtown traffic on 45, and possibly leave an option of merging directly into the Hardy Toll Road at the north end of the bypass.

All of this allows the elimination of the southern Pierce Elevated, arguably the worst segment, opening up midtown to downtown, while keeping capacity the same on the new 59 (it doesn't really back up like 45 does, so idk that it needs additional capacity), and have the 4 lane bypass of 45 alternate to add capacity to 45 which badly needs it, without creating any new barriers in the area.

Edited August 7, 2014 by cloud713

[IronTiger]

I remember having the idea of building 45 on the railroad line, if the area hadn't gentrified a bit, that would've been a preferable option in 1997, which could've also entailed widening and straightening Interstate 10 in that segment. Of course, it would've been a massive multi-year project instead of closing three lanes of the Pierce, fixing it up, and doing the other three lanes.

If a private organization sponsored the takedown of the Pierce and financed studies to actually take the load off (rerouting traffic on ramps and Interstate 10 isn't gonna cut it), then I could see it happening.

For the theoretical money it would take to demolish the Pierce Elevated, I would wager I wouldn't be alone in saying that I'd rather see it go to mass transit.