I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[TxDave]

I'm quite a bit late to this party, but....

Why in the holy hell would anyone want to tear apart another stretch of I-45 for a park, or parking, or any other such nonsense?

With there being over 6.5 million in the greater Houston Metro area, many of them using that corridor, that would be a terrible and very costly mistake. Our traffic is borked bad enough as it is, and y'all are only asking... nigh, BEGGING for it to become much worse with an idea like this.

Or so it seems, from what I'm reading here. Would anyone care to enlighten this knuckle dragging neanderthal?

[TxDave]

I'm quite a bit late to this party, but....

Why in the holy hell would anyone want to tear apart another stretch of I-45 for a park, or parking, or any other such nonsense?

With there being over 6.5 million in the greater Houston Metro area, many of them using that corridor, that would be a terrible and very costly mistake. Our traffic is borked bad enough as it is, and y'all are only asking... nigh, BEGGING for it to become much worse with an idea like this.

Or so it seems, from what I'm reading here. Would anyone care to enlighten this knuckle dragging neanderthal?

Agreed - pure removal of such a significant route would create major problems and chaos. But a planned redirection of the traffic flows could open up those areas that don't really add any benefit to the path

If I-45 can be redirected to the east side of downtown, or even on an outer loop, removal of the Pierce elevated would reconnect Midtown with downtown and dramatically strengthen center city development

Plus, not mentioned much is how nicely the Buffalo Bayou parks would connect to downtown without the elevated I-45 lanes on the west side of downtown. That amenity is still somewhat cut off today.

While not an easy solution, good planning could provide both good transportation and nice city amenities for all 6.5+ million residents of the region

[samagon]

Plus, not mentioned much is how nicely the Buffalo Bayou parks would connect to downtown without the elevated I-45 lanes on the west side of downtown. That amenity is still somewhat cut off today.

 

 

Go look at the published plans. It's not mentioned much because it's not true.

 

The portion of 45 that goes over the bayou will not be going away, it will become a spur and not have significantly less overhead lanes above the bayou area. Furthermore, they'll be adding grade level streets to the grid over the bayou. 

 

That amenity will still be just as cut off as it is today.

 

So as reasons go for removing the pierce elevated, this ain't one of 'em.

Edited January 26, 2016 by samagon

[samagon]

Here's an image of the most recent document published of the plans around downtown:

 

 

Link to full PDF:

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20150922_NHHIP_Seg3_Updates.pdf

 

by my count there are going to be more lanes overall crossing the bayou? heck, doesn't matter how many lanes. it could be 1 lane and it would be more than enough to obstruct.

Edited January 27, 2016 by samagon

[ADCS]

Here's an image of the most recent document published of the plans around downtown:

 

 

Link to full PDF:

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20150922_NHHIP_Seg3_Updates.pdf

 

by my count there are going to be more lanes overall crossing the bayou? heck, doesn't matter how many lanes. it could be 1 lane and it would be more than enough to obstruct.

 

The integration may be better if they convert the bridge from a beam design to a more attractive arch or cable-stayed/extradosed design with a longer main span. It's the array of piers that causes the psychological barrier (more hiding spaces, more dangerous looking) rather than the deck itself.

Edited January 27, 2016 by ADCS

[samagon]

I guess they might have less piers as the design will be a few decades newer using new processes, but how could they do a cable, arch, or any other bridge that's not beams and piers with the bridges having as many complex curves in them as the current design depicts? 

[ADCS]

I guess they might have less piers as the design will be a few decades newer using new processes, but how could they do a cable, arch, or any other bridge that's not beams and piers with the bridges having as many complex curves in them as the current design depicts? 

 

Here are a few examples of curved bridges with cable-stayed designs:

 

http://structurae.net/structures/bridges-and-viaducts/cable-stayed-bridges-with-curved-deck

[samagon]

oh yeah, I know it's possible to do a curved cable design. however, outside of the foot bridges referenced, all of the bridges are single curve, large radius. does any of the stuff going over the bayou appear that it could be done in this manner? 

 

Don't answer that actually, because feasibility isn't really something I think there's any question about, it could be done. Throw the problem at some engineers, they'll find a solution. The real question is, do you think that txdot would pay for a cable bridge with multiple tight radius curves?

 

we'll get piers, there'll be beams, it'll be glorious.

[ADCS]

oh yeah, I know it's possible to do a curved cable design. however, outside of the foot bridges referenced, all of the bridges are single curve, large radius. does any of the stuff going over the bayou appear that it could be done in this manner? 

 

Don't answer that actually, because feasibility isn't really something I think there's any question about, it could be done. Throw the problem at some engineers, they'll find a solution. The real question is, do you think that txdot would pay for a cable bridge with multiple tight radius curves?

 

we'll get piers, there'll be beams, it'll be glorious.

 

I actually do think that it's possible to get the city, the Midtown TIRZ or the Parks District to throw some cash at the bridge project to enhance its visual and pedestrian impact. It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a signature addition to what has increasingly become Houston's capstone amenity. I'll certainly be asking around about how we can get funding for the project.

[Montrose1100]

I actually do think that it's possible to get the city, the Midtown TIRZ or the Parks District to throw some cash at the bridge project to enhance its visual and pedestrian impact. It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a signature addition to what has increasingly become Houston's capstone amenity. I'll certainly be asking around about how we can get funding for the project.

It would be nice to have a cool bridge, but I fear a giant white arch appearing in every western view (something not obstructive over the bayou or above). The columns are not my first choice but some multicolored LED lights could spruce it up without blowing the budget.

Getting rid of the Pierce Elevated would help level the disappointment of creating an even larger barrier between Downtown and the immediate neighborhood to the north. If we're getting the Great Wall of 45/10, why leave the Pierce Elevated? I'd rather be punched in the face once than twice.

[IronTiger]

Actually, the recent oil downturn makes me think that this is all irrelevant, at least for now. The gas taxes (which were low before) will now go even further down, draining funds for mega-projects like this, and the land value will also cool down, which will make the "selling the land below the Pierce Elevated" even more of a losing proposition. 

 

On the plus side, it doesn't mean all these plans will go to waste, as I'm sure many of the ideas to try to straighten out the freeways & rework some exits can still be salvaged. Like at Allen Parkway, for instance...it will do everyone better if the lanes tightened into the traditional "exits and frontage roads" configuration with signalized stoplights and pedestrian crosswalks rather than the squiggly mess of tight curves and left hand exits.

[ADCS]

Actually, the recent oil downturn makes me think that this is all irrelevant, at least for now. The gas taxes (which were low before) will now go even further down, draining funds for mega-projects like this, and the land value will also cool down, which will make the "selling the land below the Pierce Elevated" even more of a losing proposition. 

 

On the plus side, it doesn't mean all these plans will go to waste, as I'm sure many of the ideas to try to straighten out the freeways & rework some exits can still be salvaged. Like at Allen Parkway, for instance...it will do everyone better if the lanes tightened into the traditional "exits and frontage roads" configuration with signalized stoplights and pedestrian crosswalks rather than the squiggly mess of tight curves and left hand exits.

 

Gas tax revenue will go up, owing to the increase in consumption that low prices brings. Also, oil had been in the tank for a good nine months when the project was announced.

Edited January 29, 2016 by ADCS

[samagon]

It wouldn't be unprecedented for it to be put on hold.

 

There are quite a few freeways in the Houston area that are only now being built from being planned and put on hold.

 

Spur 5 that currently stops at OST is supposed to eventually go out to Pearland, it's still on the books as planned, it was put on hold in the 70s or 80s.

 

Can't really say how the current economy will affect this rebuild of 45. It may not change a single date, it may be put on ice for 30 years.

Edited January 29, 2016 by samagon

[IronTiger]

As a concept, a signature cable-stayed bridge over the bayou is ridiculous. It would end up stupider than building over Trinity Creek, it would look like a ripoff concept of said bridge (even if the design was completely different), and if you follow through with the Pierce Elevated being removed, it would be a "bridge to nowhere". The Dallas bridges have the benefit of linking downtown to a major thoroughfare in West Dallas (and a freeway corridor).

[ADCS]

As a concept, a signature cable-stayed bridge over the bayou is ridiculous. It would end up stupider than building over Trinity Creek, it would look like a ripoff concept of said bridge (even if the design was completely different), and if you follow through with the Pierce Elevated being removed, it would be a "bridge to nowhere". The Dallas bridges have the benefit of linking downtown to a major thoroughfare in West Dallas (and a freeway corridor).

 

Why? It opens up the area underneath the bridge, i.e. the very valuable Buffalo Bayou park corridor, creating a more inviting and usable landscape. As Houston continues to grow in size and prominence, these are amenities that add considerable value to the area, along with increases in surrounding property values.

 

No one is asking for something like the Margaret Hill bridge - an extradosed design, such as what we see for the I-35 feeders over the Brazos in Waco, would be an elegant solution providing for a long main deck and open area underneath the bridge, while maintaining a low profile.

[IronTiger]

Why? It opens up the area underneath the bridge, i.e. the very valuable Buffalo Bayou park corridor, creating a more inviting and usable landscape. As Houston continues to grow in size and prominence, these are amenities that add considerable value to the area, along with increases in surrounding property values.

 

No one is asking for something like the Margaret Hill bridge - an extradosed design, such as what we see for the I-35 feeders over the Brazos in Waco, would be an elegant solution providing for a long main deck and open area underneath the bridge, while maintaining a low profile.

 

That still doesn't address the whole "bridge to nowhere" problem. Besides, that part of I-45 will run (and will still run) practically on top of the Buffalo Bayou, making a signature bridge even more impractical. That's just the way the highways run unless you want to do something even weirder like redirect Buffalo Bayou down Memorial Parkway between Sawyer and Bagby.

 

I kind of like the improved plan as pictured above as it does at least tighten the area of the lanes that go over it.

[ADCS]

That still doesn't address the whole "bridge to nowhere" problem. Besides, that part of I-45 will run (and will still run) practically on top of the Buffalo Bayou, making a signature bridge even more impractical. That's just the way the highways run unless you want to do something even weirder like redirect Buffalo Bayou down Memorial Parkway between Sawyer and Bagby.

 

I kind of like the improved plan as pictured above as it does at least tighten the area of the lanes that go over it.

 

What bridge to nowhere problem? This is going to be the primary gateway to Midtown from north and west of Houston.

 

There's nothing impractical about this - it's simply a matter of reducing the number of piers by using different bridge designs. In fact, it's particularly practical by opening up more usable space within a park.

[mollusk]

It sure ain't a bridge to nowhere.  In the evenings, northbound Brazos backs up all the way to Spec's with people trying to nudge their way onto NB 45 or Houston Ave / Memorial

[IronTiger]

OK, maybe a "bridge to nowhere" was a bit harsh. But if say, Spur 527 crossed the Buffalo Bayou (and not Interstate 45 as it stands today), would you think a "signature bridge" belonged there, instead of elsewhere?

[ADCS]

OK, maybe a "bridge to nowhere" was a bit harsh. But if say, Spur 527 crossed the Buffalo Bayou (and not Interstate 45 as it stands today), would you think a "signature bridge" belonged there, instead of elsewhere?

 

If it was appropriate and served the functional purpose (extending the main span of the bridge and removing piers), then why not?

Edited February 1, 2016 by ADCS

[IronTiger]

If it was appropriate and served the functional purpose (extending the main span of the bridge and removing piers), then why not?

Well, can't fault you on lack of consistency. I myself just find the idea of a highway spur going over a bayou needing a "signature bridge" a laughable (and in many ways embarrassing) prospect.

[ADCS]

Well, can't fault you on lack of consistency. I myself just find the idea of a highway spur going over a bayou needing a "signature bridge" a laughable (and in many ways embarrassing) prospect.

 

You don't think something like this, adapted for the roadway curves and doubled for capacity, would be appropriate?

 

[astros148]

Once they demolish this section, you guys do know we will have a flurry of parking lots for years to come right?

[ADCS]

Once they demolish this section, you guys do know we will have a flurry of parking lots for years to come right?

 

Yes, but they won't be parking lots with a freeway on top of them.

[CREguy13]

This may have been already stated, but I would love to see them recreate the highline in NYC with the Pierce elevated.  I imagine if they got the right design team and engineers, and with a private backer like the Kinder foundation, it could turn out to be incredible.  I do support the continuity of downtown and midtown, but if you had a raised park that maybe came down to ground level to fuse into Buffalo Bayou park from the Post office and then elevate back up around the bend before coming back down to grade prior to 59.  That could be transformational for Houston's urban green space

[elecpharm]

A linear version of the Gardens by the Bay in Singapore would be spectacular in place of the Pierce.

 

 

[cspwal]

Maybe we're looking at this all wrong - we should tear down the pierce, then dig a trench, and it could be a canal water feature, like the river walk in San Antonio except more Lagoon like

[temp]

I think the idea of turning the Pierce Elevated into a High Line type of park is a good one, but I think tearing it down and re-stitching the street grid is an even better idea. Perhaps even incorporate a linear park like the Koreans did with Cheonggyecheon in Seoul: http://inhabitat.com/how-the-cheonggyecheon-river-urban-design-restored-the-green-heart-of-seoul/

Edited February 4, 2016 by temp

[tigereye]

TXDOT looking at Purple City's plan, which would keep the Pierce Elevated in favor of MaxLanes & preserve interesting freeway architecture over Buffalo Bayou. 

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-compelling-alternative-to-i45.html?m=1

Don't like the Pierce Elevated Max Lanes idea & dressing up an overpass to be more street friendly as a way to knit together Midtown & Downtown. Meanwhile, the East End gets stuck with an above/grade & below grade freeway while Midtown gets a pretty overpass? Also I don't like preserving the overpasses over Buffalo Bayou. Posts on the previous page said it best - we need to find to better knit Downtown with Buffalo Bayou Park. A cable-stayed bridge or just a unified overhead lane structure with less column supports would do the trick. The idea of a new Western Gateway with an Allen Pkwy terminus roundabout is awesome.

Also, there are some additional items for BRT & Bike lanes but IIRC, this would be a Metro & city issue that TXDOT would not address. 

Purple City plan

http://purple.city/2016/03/10/a-better-plan-for-the-downtown-ring/

Edited March 19, 2016 by tigereye

[samagon]

It's interesting, as time goes on, more and more people I know and talk to are coming around to the idea that the current txdot plan is horrible. Interestingly, I started out absolutely hating it, and I while I still don't like it, I don't hate it any longer.

The whole purpose of removal of the pierce is to re-unite midtown with downtown. However, the price of doing so is to remove a mile long strip of blocks in eado. currently, these strips hold what makes the area vibrant in the evenings and draws people to live in the area (and Huynh, omg, best Vietnamese in town, imo). Add in some feeder roads, which despite speed limits, encourage high speed driving. Reduce street connectivity from one side of the freeway to the other by 16% (overpasses added at Lamar, McKinney, and Walker are a joke). Throw in the possibility of a green space as a freeway cap (yeah right, considering txdot said they weren't going to fund, and Houston's current money issues, this is never going to happen).

Point is, now that the east end is starting to get a little bit lively with interest of people, we're going to set that area back another 20 years, just for the possibility that downtown and midtown might get a little more friendly. I say 'possibility' and 'might' because the greyhound station and McDonalds isn't moving, the complex of stuff that attracts all the homeless (and as a result scares off all pedestrians) isn't going anywhere, so it really is an unknown whether the areas will connect in a more vibrant manner.

More people are starting to see all of this, and add in, there isn't much added capacity, or how exactly this is going to benefit cross town traffic, they think it's a waste of money when txdot should be funneling money to Houston to increase their mass transit network (and provide oversight so they don't continue to muck up spending).

So yeah, this purple review and submission doesn't remove the pierce elevated. What it absolutely doesn't do though, is it doesn't disrupt the current progress that's been made in the east end close to Houston, that's a win. It increases capacity on i45 through town, that's a win. 59/288 is a bit better. I love all the bicycle paths baked in. Overall, it's not perfect (nothing will be), but it's a fair compromise to add capacity while simultaneously not destroying one up and coming neighborhood to potentially benefit another neighborhood.

Edited March 21, 2016 by samagon

[Joke]

I live in Midtown, bike/walk to downtown, and would _love_ to see the Pierce elevated go (well, really what I want is the portion of 45 that runs north-south from Allen Pkwy to Pierce to be demolished and replaced by more entrances to downtown -- ideally green spaces with ped/bike-friendly entrances to downtown). But I'd love to see the whole thing go; i like the high line park idea.

But at the same time, I just find it hard to believe that the Pierce elevated itself (the elevated stretch running along Pierce from Brazos to 45) is necessarily an impediment to pedestrian connectivity between midtown and downtown. Yes, it's kind of unpleasant to look at and walk under, and yes it can be a bit intimidating at night because the columns provide hiding places for potential evildoers. But I absolutely refuse to believe that creative types couldn't overcome these concerns with a fairly modest budget, e.g.:

- Tons of bright lighting on the sides and underside of the overpass, to remove some fear of threat

- Ivy and other plants grown all along the the sides and underside of the overpass, and over all the columns, to turn a sad concrete jungle into a nice green spot

- Food kiosks or food trucks or something directly under the overpass right at the sidewalk's edge. Maybe use the space behind the frontage for outdoor seating. Mandate that these be in operation from early morning to late night.

- In addition to or in place of some of the plantings, do something cool with the look of the overpass, art or something.

I think the real problem with connectivity is where 45 acts as a _physical_ barrier between downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods (as mentioned before, the stretch of 45 from Allen Parkway to Pierce). I really think that the mental barriers could be overcome with just a little effort.

[samagon]

14 hours ago, Joke said:

I live in Midtown, bike/walk to downtown, and would _love_ to see the Pierce elevated go (well, really what I want is the portion of 45 that runs north-south from Allen Pkwy to Pierce to be demolished and replaced by more entrances to downtown -- ideally green spaces with ped/bike-friendly entrances to downtown). But I'd love to see the whole thing go; i like the high line park idea.

What's unfortunate is that in the current txdot plan, connectivity northwest of Brazos doesn't improve. They have a spur to connect traffic from 45/i10 to Jefferson and Pease. The current connectivity of Dallas street being the only current exit route between Brazos and Allen pkwy won't change.

Oh, and rather than add a new post, I'll just edit this one. I counted the number of blocks in 'eado' both before and after the txdot improvements. it will decimate, in the most literal sense of the word decimate (remove 1 of every 10 in a group), the number of blocks in eado. I count roughly 180 blocks in eado right now, the re-alignment reduces eado by 19 blocks. 

Edited March 22, 2016 by samagon

[IronTiger]

I like the Purple City plan, as the 59/I-10 alignment doesn't make a giant canyon with a "well, maybe you could make a deck park" justification, instead creating cantilevered lanes over 59. It also makes marginal improvements over the existing set-up (whereas the TxDOT plan just made everything worse save for some straightening of the freeways).

Really, though, I've never heard a good and compelling argument for removing the Pierce beyond speculation and "muh urbanism". At least arguments against I-10's widening were valid, as the plan had a bunch of S/F homes condemned, loss of Spring Valley Village's tax base, and a lot of increased noise pollution.

Edited March 24, 2016 by IronTiger

[ADCS]

11 hours ago, IronTiger said:

"muh urbanism"

Printed up those "Keep Houston Suburban" shirts yet?

[H-Town Man]

Sounds like a bunch of New Urbanist goodies (street level retail under Pierce! preserve old freeway architecture!) are dangled out for us in exchange for basically putting a toll road where we were hoping downtown, the bayou park, and midtown would finally connect.

[IronTiger]

21 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

Sounds like a bunch of New Urbanist goodies (street level retail under Pierce! preserve old freeway architecture!) are dangled out for us in exchange for basically putting a toll road where we were hoping downtown, the bayou park, and midtown would finally connect.

Even from an urban perspective, the removal project does far more damage to the urban fabric than it fixes. You're trading nine half-blocks in Midtown/Downtown for 19 blocks in EaDo, with all but three of them having buildings on them.

[samagon]

and most of those buildings are occupied.

one of the blocks is part of a pretty nice, established apartment complex. 

furthermore, stating that downtown and the bayou park would finally connect is a laugh, in a very sad way. Either you're misinformed, or being misleading. there will still be freeway lanes, and exit ramps, and entrance ramps, and surface streets that clutter the air above the bayou the same as it does now.

as far as calling the ideas 'new urbanist movements' in some method to pull legitimacy from them, it's pretty far from the truth. Look at what the aquarium downtown has done under that little bit of freeway. yeah, some of it is parking, but it's a vibrant area now where once was a foreboding patch of scariness. If you have a destination with nice colors and bright lights for people to visit, rather than dull concrete colors, bad lighting, and half empty parking lots with chain link fences that don't seem to work at keeping people out, it will work.

[H-Town Man]

3 hours ago, IronTiger said:

Even from an urban perspective, the removal project does far more damage to the urban fabric than it fixes. You're trading nine half-blocks in Midtown/Downtown for 19 blocks in EaDo, with all but three of them having buildings on them.

Only if you count impact purely by the number of blocks it eliminates. But I don't think it works exactly like that. I think when you run a freeway through a neighborhood, a certain psychological impact exists that only varies slightly with the number of blocks the freeway takes up. The main difference, to me, is that in one plan you have a freeway going through EaDo, whereas in the other plan, you have a freeway going through both EaDo and Midtown.

[H-Town Man]

3 hours ago, samagon said:

and most of those buildings are occupied.

one of the blocks is part of a pretty nice, established apartment complex. 

furthermore, stating that downtown and the bayou park would finally connect is a laugh, in a very sad way. Either you're misinformed, or being misleading. there will still be freeway lanes, and exit ramps, and entrance ramps, and surface streets that clutter the air above the bayou the same as it does now.

as far as calling the ideas 'new urbanist movements' in some method to pull legitimacy from them, it's pretty far from the truth. Look at what the aquarium downtown has done under that little bit of freeway. yeah, some of it is parking, but it's a vibrant area now where once was a foreboding patch of scariness. If you have a destination with nice colors and bright lights for people to visit, rather than dull concrete colors, bad lighting, and half empty parking lots with chain link fences that don't seem to work at keeping people out, it will work.

No, the air above the bayou will not be cluttered "the same as now" in the first plan. The downtown connector is a much slimmer, lighter, less noisy impact over the bayou than is I-45 in its current configuration.

The point about the new plan dangling new urbanist goodies is valid. TxDOT is not going to pretty up the underside of the freeway, and probably no one else is either, or they would have done so already. You still end up with the Pierce Elevated sitting there in its current form, while the other freeways downtown are meanwhile widened. The pretty renderings of retail underneath the Pierce are just an attempt to distract people from the fact that the net amount of pavement encircling and strangling downtown vastly increases in this new plan. 

[samagon]

strangling? hyperbole much?

the fact still remains that under the plan to remove the pierce you are still taking away 19 whole city blocks.

No one is even talking about the low income housing that is just plowed into the ground for this to become a reality.

As you walk down the bayou trails, will you even think once about the people of Clayton Homes who had to be removed from their houses so you could enjoy a walk down the bayou with a downtown connector that has a slimmer, lighter, less noisy impact over the bayou? 

[H-Town Man]

2 hours ago, samagon said:

strangling? hyperbole much?

the fact still remains that under the plan to remove the pierce you are still taking away 19 whole city blocks.

No one is even talking about the low income housing that is just plowed into the ground for this to become a reality.

As you walk down the bayou trails, will you even think once about the people of Clayton Homes who had to be removed from their houses so you could enjoy a walk down the bayou with a downtown connector that has a slimmer, lighter, less noisy impact over the bayou? 

Strangling is a metaphor, not a hyperbole. I addressed the issue of the number of blocks above, and would also add that a below grade freeway is less impacting than an above grade.

And no, moving a couple of dozen residents to a different affordable housing site did not factor into my views on the path of freeways through downtown Houston for the next half century.

[IronTiger]

9 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

No, the air above the bayou will not be cluttered "the same as now" in the first plan. The downtown connector is a much slimmer, lighter, less noisy impact over the bayou than is I-45 in its current configuration.

The point about the new plan dangling new urbanist goodies is valid. TxDOT is not going to pretty up the underside of the freeway, and probably no one else is either, or they would have done so already. You still end up with the Pierce Elevated sitting there in its current form, while the other freeways downtown are meanwhile widened. The pretty renderings of retail underneath the Pierce are just an attempt to distract people from the fact that the net amount of pavement encircling and strangling downtown vastly increases in this new plan. 

Slimming down the connector doesn't make removing the Pierce necessary. The TxDOT plan DID straighten out a few freeways, and that was an improvement. Secondly, while TxDOT is not going to do the "prettying up" of the Pierce Elevated, they certainly aren't going to fund a deck park over 59/45, and the former will be substantially less expensive either way. Thirdly, I'm pretty sure the "net amount of pavement" is going to increase substantially with the TxDOT plan. 

9 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

Only if you count impact purely by the number of blocks it eliminates. But I don't think it works exactly like that. I think when you run a freeway through a neighborhood, a certain psychological impact exists that only varies slightly with the number of blocks the freeway takes up. The main difference, to me, is that in one plan you have a freeway going through EaDo, whereas in the other plan, you have a freeway going through both EaDo and Midtown.

For what it's worth, even Slick "Freeways are the Devil" Vik admitted that overpasses (and by extension, underpasses) make less of an impact by how wide or narrow they are. Would you be under a two-track railroad viaduct or an 8-lane freeway? Does a canyon nearly the size of the Katy Freeway separating EaDo and Downtown not matter (especially given there will be more limited road access) or does it not matter since it's an underpass?

2 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

Strangling is a metaphor, not a hyperbole. I addressed the issue of the number of blocks above, and would also add that a below grade freeway is less impacting than an above grade.

And no, moving a couple of dozen residents to a different affordable housing site did not factor into my views on the path of freeways through downtown Houston for the next half century.

Even if "impact" is that much of a matter, the amount of space "freed up" will be parking lots for the next 15-20 years, if we take the removal of the Central Freeway in San Francisco as an example. As for Clayton Homes, there's 296 units and given the Houston "affordable housing" situation, I would wager that all or most of them are full (calculating for spouses and children, that's probably at least 700 people affected). Hardly "a couple of dozen residents" you're claiming. So adding another 125 units from the Lofts at the Ballpark building (the full complex has about 375 units), you've got all that, some 19 businesses and restaurants (that's just from "things from Google Maps that are in the direct pathway" and thus a very conservative estimate), a soup kitchen, and a plastic fabrication company, not to mention the whole impact it will have on that entire neighborhood, all so you don't have to look at a freeway on your morning walk. 

Edited March 29, 2016 by IronTiger

[samagon]

10 hours ago, IronTiger said:

Slimming down the connector doesn't make removing the Pierce necessary. The TxDOT plan DID straighten out a few freeways, and that was an improvement. Secondly, while TxDOT is not going to do the "prettying up" of the Pierce Elevated, they certainly aren't going to fund a deck park over 59/45, and the former will be substantially less expensive either way. Thirdly, I'm pretty sure the "net amount of pavement" is going to increase substantially with the TxDOT plan

I do enjoy that he states that the ways to make the pierce elevated less uninviting to scared rich people would never happen cause no one would pay for it, then assumes that someone will pay for the cover of the huge trench.

as far as more pavement... until the city can put in some real alternatives that reduce freeway traffic, more pavement is exactly what is needed, not less. 610 needs to be expanded on the entirety of the east side of town. they need to figure out how to have 5 lanes of uninterrupted traffic flowing throughout every freeway inside of 610. 

keeping the pierce elevated does one major thing, even if it doesn't increase the pavement, it retains the right of way. more pavement, we need more pavement. talk about strangling downtown, the whole city is going to strangle if something isn't done to reduce traffic. it's almost round the clock traffic on 59 from shepherd up to 45. 

Edited March 29, 2016 by samagon

[ADCS]

Mature cities have traffic.  A lot of traffic. At nearly all hours. The important part isn't reducing traffic, it's making traffic patterns regular and predictable.

It's not necessarily a bad thing if it always takes 45 minutes to get from one side of the loop to the other, so long as it always takes 45 minutes, with 95%+ certainty. This allows for a greater ability to plan trips and regularize transportation decision-making.

With respect to through traffic on 45 downtown, we need to focus less on catering to their needs, and more on inducing them to use alternative routes where available (for example, the East Loop, bypassing downtown altogether).

[IronTiger]

19 minutes ago, ADCS said:

Mature cities have traffic.  A lot of traffic. At nearly all hours. The important part isn't reducing traffic, it's making traffic patterns regular and predictable.

It's not necessarily a bad thing if it always takes 45 minutes to get from one side of the loop to the other, so long as it always takes 45 minutes, with 95%+ certainty. This allows for a greater ability to plan trips and regularize transportation decision-making.

With respect to through traffic on 45 downtown, we need to focus less on catering to their needs, and more on inducing them to use alternative routes where available (for example, the East Loop, bypassing downtown altogether).

Ideally, there should ALWAYS be alternate routes, because predictability and regularity is a moving target. For example, yesterday evening, a stalled truck in the center lanes of Katy Freeway near Eldridge caused a backup on the main lanes all the way back to 610. 

[Montrose1100]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

as far as more pavement... until the city can put in some real alternatives that reduce freeway traffic, more pavement is exactly what is needed, not less. 610 needs to be expanded on the entirety of the east side of town. they need to figure out how to have 5 lanes of uninterrupted traffic flowing throughout every freeway inside of 610. 

keeping the pierce elevated does one major thing, even if it doesn't increase the pavement, it retains the right of way. more pavement, we need more pavement. talk about strangling downtown, the whole city is going to strangle if something isn't done to reduce traffic. it's almost round the clock traffic on 59 from shepherd up to 45. 

I wrote a really long reply but realized it would veer us off topic. 

We don't need more pavement, we need better flow management. Walls, rubber reflectors, ordinances with more regulation on the freeways, PSA's (and interchage redesigns. 59/288 is terrible).. Should every freeway be wide enough to accommodate a couple of hours of "rush" a day? 

[ADCS]

30 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

Ideally, there should ALWAYS be alternate routes, because predictability and regularity is a moving target. For example, yesterday evening, a stalled truck in the center lanes of Katy Freeway near Eldridge caused a backup on the main lanes all the way back to 610. 

Transtar does a fairly poor job utilizing the VMS network set up around the city. For example, there is no reason you could not use them to redirect non-truck traffic to Westview/Memorial/Briar Forest/Westheimer, and coordinate with police to ticket any through trucks that peel off the National System. "MAJOR ACCIDENT" does nothing but inform you that your day is going to get that much worse.

[samagon]

20 minutes ago, Montrose1100 said:

I wrote a really long reply but realized it would veer us off topic. 

We don't need more pavement, we need better flow management. Walls, rubber reflectors, ordinances with more regulation on the freeways, PSA's (and interchage redesigns. 59/288 is terrible).. Should every freeway be wide enough to accommodate a couple of hours of "rush" a day? 

Off topic would be refreshing compared to the skewed views of h-town man. I'm not sure whether I should laugh, or just be disgusted with his way of thinking.

regarding better flow management, wouldn't keeping the pierce elevated as max lanes, or even as variable cost tolls allow for better flow management than to simply redirect traffic down a different ROW?

11 minutes ago, ADCS said:

Transtar does a fairly poor job utilizing the VMS network set up around the city. For example, there is no reason you could not use them to redirect non-truck traffic to Westview/Memorial/Briar Forest/Westheimer, and coordinate with police to ticket any through trucks that peel off the National System. "MAJOR ACCIDENT" does nothing but inform you that your day is going to get that much worse.

Or that you need to pull off the road and drink that much more beer at the closest bar until traffic clears.

Edited March 29, 2016 by samagon

[IronTiger]

23 minutes ago, Montrose1100 said:

I wrote a really long reply but realized it would veer us off topic. 

We don't need more pavement, we need better flow management. Walls, rubber reflectors, ordinances with more regulation on the freeways, PSA's (and interchage redesigns. 59/288 is terrible).. Should every freeway be wide enough to accommodate a couple of hours of "rush" a day? 

How would any of these ordinances be enforced? The speed limit rarely is.

Maybe it might help to put up blinking lights at I-45 S to tell all through trucks to take I-10 E to 610 S, though.

[H-Town Man]

3 hours ago, samagon said:

I do enjoy that he states that the ways to make the pierce elevated less uninviting to scared rich people would never happen cause no one would pay for it, then assumes that someone will pay for the cover of the huge trench.

When did I assume that someone would pay for covering the trench? Both of you act like I said that, and yet I said nothing of the sort. Can't really have a productive conversation here if you are gloating about things I said that I never said.