I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[Danny1022]

Hi..

I don't know, but I have come up with an alternative to the txdot plan which I can't say it would be cheaper or better than the original plan but i think it wouldn't take so much unnecessary right of way, and it would definitely add more capacity than their proposal, the elevated highways would stay but the underneath of the highways would have walls built and would be filled with some type of dirt like in normal bridges in other parts of the city. Also, most left exits would be eliminated, unlike on the txdot plan in which they keep a lot of left exits and irregular lane configurations.

The US-59 South of tx-288 would be almost the same as the original txdot plan but with exits of the hov to the mainlanes.

An exit from both the tx288 and us59 that would carry traffic to some exits and to the i-10/45N those lanes would carry entrances. They'd be 2 lanes exiting from the us59, merging with 2 from the tx288, making 4 lanes, then at the 45 interchange 2 lanes would merge making 6 lanes, then 4 lanes would exit at the i-10 interchange and the other 2 would continue and merge again at the us-59 main through traffic lanes(there would also be various exits to downtown), 3 lanes would be separated  for through traffic. 

The i-45 and i-10 traffic to the 59 would go on a 4 lame connector similar to the one on the 290/610 to the i-10

The express lanes would be at all 3 highways, the i-10 would have one in each direction as well as the us-59 from i-10 to i-45. The us-59 would have 2 from the 288 to the 45 as well as the i-45 from the i-45hov to the us-59 and from West Dallas street all the way to the beltway 8. The 45 from us-59 to West Dallas street would be 3 lanes wide, there would be a direct connector from the us-59 express to the i-45 express.

The pierce will stay the same width but there would be 3 express lanes in each direction underground.

Also, there would be a direct connector separated but parallel To the 45 which would exit before the 10/45 interchange and would carry traffic to downtown.

In total, the lane configuration would be..

At the i-10/45 interchange 

Current, 21 lanes , txdot: 28, mine 40

I45 at Washington avenue 

Current, 10 lames, txdot 4 (i-45 not included cos rerouted), mine 20(including 6 of the downtown connectors

I-10 at main

Current 8 lanes, txdot 5 lames(3 main, 2 express), mine 5 lanes(4 main and 1 express) (not including their rerouted i-45 and my connector to us 59)

Us-59 elevated and pierce elevated combined.

Currently, 14 lanes total, 7 in each direction, 8 on the 59 and 6 on the 45.

Txdot, 20 total, 11 northbound 9 southbound, 12 on the 59 and 8 on the 45, no express lanes.

Mine, 32 total, 16 on each direction, 10 on the 45 and 12 on the 45, and total of 8 express lanes, 6 on the 45 and 2 on the 59

Us-59 between i-45 and tx-288 

Currently 16 lanes, txdot 20 , mine 20 lanes as well  (4 for direct connectors to the i-45, 8 of exiting traffic, 6 for through traffic, 2 for express lane traffic)

It's probably the most idiotic plan that has ever been invented but.. I guess I wanted to share it, 

[nate4l1f3]

On 12/26/2016 at 9:28 AM, BeerNut said:

This  reminds me I better enjoy all the new developments along St Emanuel while I can...

I'm just reading this thread but everything on St. Emanuel would be torn down?!

 

On 12/26/2016 at 9:28 AM, BeerNut said:

This  reminds me I better enjoy all the new developments along St Emanuel while I can...

 

[BeerNut]

5 hours ago, nate4l1f3 said:

I'm just reading this thread but everything on St. Emanuel would be torn down?!

 

 

Everything on the West side of the st for sure...  Most recent map

[j_cuevas713]

I hope this project doesn't happen. The East End will lose alot.

Edited January 2, 2017 by j_cuevas713

[j_cuevas713]

When you realize the scale of this project, it's almost insanity to let this happen. You lose so much more than you gain. 

[samagon]

I've argued over it so much on this forum already I don't feel like rehashing.

 

I am unsure if there is any political opposition to this, or even a grassroots organization that is going to fight this. If it's still 10 years away, there's still time and I'm sure there is going to be some organization forming opposition to the downtown portion of the realignment, that will be the best way to dedicate your time, rather than the fairly pointless arguments on here.

 

The 225 freeway was stopped. Even though this is a federal thing not local, I still feel the right amount of opposition can make a difference.

[Danny1022]

On 1/3/2017 at 2:28 PM, samagon said:

I've argued over it so much on this forum already I don't feel like rehashing.

 

I am unsure if there is any political opposition to this, or even a grassroots organization that is going to fight this. If it's still 10 years away, there's still time and I'm sure there is going to be some organization forming opposition to the downtown portion of the realignment, that will be the best way to dedicate your time, rather than the fairly pointless arguments on here.

 

The 225 freeway was stopped. Even though this is a federal thing not local, I still feel the right amount of opposition can make a difference.

Yes, exactly. There needs to be opposition, I've tried to convince many people and only 3 didn't become ignorant, the bad thing is only one of those is from Houston. So that's a problem.

The Houstonians either don't know about it or are for it, and I'm sure all people who know about it are for it.

I'll say things to make it make semse. And hopefully some will get some common sense. Cos this plan makes no sense.

1 "how do they know that there'll be 24% higher speeds" They haven't tested the highway cos it hasn't been built. Oh and it's 24%now, in 10 years it'll be a lower number cos the number of cars will rise.

2 they'll clear 14 half blocks of the pierce. 14 halves equals 7 blocks.. kind of. They'll demolish about 20 blocks on the east side.. that's not including an entire apartment complex, they're all like highways like the pierce destroy neighbourhoods, no, the new plan destroys the entire apartment complex, that's just like destroying a neighbourhood in its entirety...

3 distances. And curves of the rerouting. Ugh it makes the routes from west, North and northwest, to the South and southwest longer and harder because of the 3 curves of over 80 degrees at the 3 interchanges of downtown. That'll encourage people to take the already congested 610 or the 59.which are amongst the most congested highways in Texas.

4 the pierce and the 59 elevated are a barrier... the txdot plan is a barrier they close more streets than there already are. They cut Polk street, runnels street and i think commerce street too. And demolish chartres street. Plus the conection to bell street 

And various streets in midtown on the 59.

5 underneath highways in Houston don't work... I'm not saying they might flood, I'm saying they will flood. The pierce can be a good highway since it's elevated..

And they'll need money to pump the water out.

6 they're mostly benefiting the arrogant business owners of those large buildings the ones who asked for the pierce demolition.rather than what most people affected would benefit, most people affected would be through traffic, so then they should be the benefited ones, since they're majority, 

I guess this isn't positive but.. I guess I was trying to get my thoughts out Cos I totally despise this project. And I've tried to get an idea of an alternative but that failed with most people to whom I've showed so I guess using common sense and protesting would thebest way... I guess..

Sorry I wrote so much.

[j_cuevas713]

Why can't TxDot fund a commuter rail system? I really have no clue why they are persistent with roads! I just don't understand why a regional transit solution only involves laying concrete for more cars.

[samagon]

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Why can't TxDot fund a commuter rail system? I really have no clue why they are persistent with roads! I just don't understand why a regional transit solution only involves laying concrete for more cars.

right. how many miles of rail would this 6 billion project make?

[j_cuevas713]

Just now, samagon said:

right. how many miles of rail would this 6 billion project make?

Something isn't right with that organization. They seem so out of touch with what's going on in urban environments and what people want. Clearly it's politics and money, but it's so damn frustrating. 

[gmac]

4 hours ago, samagon said:

right. how many miles of rail would this 6 billion project make?

 

In a perfect world, that $6 billion would get you about 60 miles of light rail at $100 mill. a mile.

 

For something pretty useless to many people.

[JLWM8609]

On 1/18/2017 at 5:11 PM, Danny1022 said:

 

5 underneath highways in Houston don't work... I'm not saying they might flood, I'm saying they will flood. The pierce can be a good highway since it's elevated..

And they'll need money to pump the water out.

 

1

 

I'm not sold on this re-routing plan, but depressed highways flooding are actually a good thing. Otherwise, that water would be going into neighborhoods. I'd rather see our freeways used as spillways than our neighborhoods. They can put sensors and gates at the onramps to keep people from entering the freeways while they're flooded. I live along Brays Bayou so it's better to see 288 underwater than Riverside Terrace, and I'm sure the folks in Meyerland would agree about their neighborhoods, too. I doubt pumps add that much extra cost to depressed freeways, and if streets can flood, freeways at ground level can flood, too. You say the Pierce Elevated would be good since it's elevated, but what good would 2 miles of elevated highway do when the depressed and ground level sections at I-10 are flooded by Buffalo and White Oak Bayous?

Edited January 20, 2017 by JLWM8609

[samagon]

19 hours ago, gmac said:

 

In a perfect world, that $6 billion would get you about 60 miles of light rail at $100 mill. a mile.

 

For something pretty useless to many people.

 

if we're comparing the amount of people that get usefulness out of the money spent...

 

getting rid of the pierce elevated is completely useless to all but a very small number of people. Like, 100% completely useless. Basically, unless you are a developer that will have access to buy that land when TXDOT sells it. it is useless.

 

Can we quantify the number of people in Midtown whose quality of life will improve when they can see through where the pierce elevated sits now?

 

We can absolutely raise quality of life for more people with 60 miles of light rail than the removal of the pierce elevated.

 

I mean, great soundbite, but more people would get far greater usefulness out of 60 miles of light rail than the removal of the pierce elevated.

 

don't get me wrong, they need to fix 45 through town, there's just better ways to do it. remove the dallas dip, add a lane in each direction. remove some connectors (59 south to 45 north? Really? Why?) there's a lot of smart changes to 59/288 from montrose up to the 45 interchange. 

 

but then making 45 go through 3 90 degree turns that's where this project really goes off the rails. it will slow traffic down to maybe 45mph on its own. so any gains they might make in mobility in other locations, rerouting 45 destroys all of that. plus they don't add any additional lanes. so they aren't adding any additional capacity, which is really needed.

 

So why not spend 3-4 billion on making some of the changes, and adding a lane to the current location of 45, removing the dallas dip, and then add 20 miles of light rail. higher capacity, and more mobility options. win for everyone (well everyone except the developers who will be able to get the pierce elevated land and the people who will have better life quality by not seeing the pierce elevated).

 

it's a shame it can't be that way.

Edited January 20, 2017 by samagon

[Danny1022]

I'm sick of this project, I despise it and it's ugly , and tunnels are scary, and elevated highways are the best thing ever..

I've tried to make sense I've tried to make everyone have common sense and have come up with 9 alternatives, all kept the pierce, yet no one listened, and there were only controversy coments, only few people bothered to see these plans. That doesn't matter txdot is stubborn anyway...

Out if all of the people I know who have 'both' hated this project and didn't mention public transportation, only one lives in Houston the rest of the controversy seems to be in Europe or other parrs of the us where they don't mind... nor care.

Tunnels are ugly and scary , but well... I won't take the 45 nor 59 after they do this project.. besides itd make it less complicated to go on the 610 than take 3 curves of over 80° turns to go to southwest Houston.

And by the way. Txdot sucks, not just on this project. But they're messing up on other projects like the 610 bus lanes, the bus system sucks and there isn't a Houston underground or over ground... And the 610 59 project. That'll need to be widened eventually... 

And other mess.  Sorry if you dislike this but it's true

I wish that on the poll above there were a keep pierce option cos I'd definitely choose that one. Cos I'm strongly against that reruting .

Shhh...

[Houston19514]

55 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

if we're comparing the amount of people that get usefulness out of the money spent...

 

getting rid of the pierce elevated is completely useless to all but a very small number of people. Like, 100% completely useless. Basically, unless you are a developer that will have access to buy that land when TXDOT sells it. it is useless.

 

Can we quantify the number of people in Midtown whose quality of life will improve when they can see through where the pierce elevated sits now?

 

We can absolutely raise quality of life for more people with 60 miles of light rail than the removal of the pierce elevated.

 

I mean, great soundbite, but more people would get far greater usefulness out of 60 miles of light rail than the removal of the pierce elevated.

 

don't get me wrong, they need to fix 45 through town, there's just better ways to do it. remove the dallas dip, add a lane in each direction. remove some connectors (59 south to 45 north? Really? Why?) there's a lot of smart changes to 59/288 from montrose up to the 45 interchange. 

 

but then making 45 go through 3 90 degree turns that's where this project really goes off the rails. it will slow traffic down to maybe 45mph on its own. so any gains they might make in mobility in other locations, rerouting 45 destroys all of that. plus they don't add any additional lanes. so they aren't adding any additional capacity, which is really needed.

 

So why not spend 3-4 billion on making some of the changes, and adding a lane to the current location of 45, removing the dallas dip, and then add 20 miles of light rail. higher capacity, and more mobility options. win for everyone (well everyone except the developers who will be able to get the pierce elevated land and the people who will have better life quality by not seeing the pierce elevated).

 

it's a shame it can't be that way.

 

To be fair, the $6 Billion does a lot more than just remove the Pierce Elevated. So your comparison of the benefits of 60 miles of light rail to the benefits of removing the Pierce elevated, while ignoring the other benefits of the $6 Billion project is, to put it nicely, incomplete.

[samagon]

10 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

To be fair, the $6 Billion does a lot more than just remove the Pierce Elevated. So your comparison of the benefits of 60 miles of light rail to the benefits of removing the Pierce elevated, while ignoring the other benefits of the $6 Billion project is, to put it nicely, incomplete.

Too true. the cost of the downtown section (from the houston freeway site) is $4 billion.

http://www.houstonfreeways.com/analysis#cost

 

so only 40 miles. huge difference. sorry for misrepresentation.

 

and that $40 billion is just an estimate by the most notable newspaper in Houston.

 

I hope he doesn't mind me copy pasting from his site, but his adjustment/idea is really the best possible outcome, it maintains pretty much everything but the removal of the pierce elevated. the cost for that is just too high...

 

• The downtown section of the project is the main budget buster at $4 billion
• Accommodating the desires of downtown Houston interests and inner loop interests caused the cost of the downtown section to skyrocket. Also, this analysis has likely influenced many design adjustments which also incrementally increased the cost.
• The 12-mile section north of downtown, estimated at $3 billion, is more reasonably priced.
• The HGAC TIP financial plan reports that during the four fiscal years from 2017 through 2020, funding for federal and state highway programs is $4.68 billion, or $1.17 billion per year. That amount covers all construction, maintenance, operations and administration in the six-county Houston District, and appears to also include right-of-way funds (although I am not sure about that).
• I'm thinking that around $700 per million year is available for new projects.
• At current funding levels, the downtown section would consume all available Houston-area construction/right-of-way funding for around 6 years and everything north of downtown would consume 4 years of funding, for a total of around 10 years if the project could get all available regional money. Since other priorities will also need to be accommodated, this project could require 15 or more years to complete after construction begins.
• Increased state and/or federal funding would expedite the project. Both Clinton and Trump are calling for increased infrastructure investment, but getting the funding would require a federal gasoline tax increase, which is unlikely to clear congress.
• Some bonds could be issued based on revenue from the MaX lanes. I'm thinking maybe $250 million, which is around 4% of the overall project cost but around 8% of the project cost north of downtown, where the MaX lanes are actually located.
• The section of IH-69 from Spur 527 to SH 288 is slated to proceed first. I fully agree with that plan.
• After the IH-69 section, I prefer to see more cost-effective sections proceed next. That would be the section from Loop 610 to Beltway 8, including the IH-45/IH-610 interchange.
• For downtown (after the IH-69 section between Spur 527 and SH 288), I would prefer to see IH-69 improved and sunk into the trench, leaving IH-45 and IH-10 mostly intact. That should cost in the range of $1 to $1.5 billion if the US 59/IH-10 interchange can be preserved. For that money, IH-69 would get its vaunted 24 mph speed increase and downtown interests would get the freeway sunk below ground level. And it has a price tag which can be funded.

Edited January 20, 2017 by samagon

[Houston19514]

4 minutes ago, samagon said:

Too true. the cost of the downtown section (from the houston freeway site) is $4 billion.

http://www.houstonfreeways.com/analysis#cost

 

so only 40 miles. huge difference. sorry for misrepresentation.

 

and that $40 billion is just an estimate by the most notable newspaper in Houston.

 

Still, there are benefits to even the $4 billion project beyond just the removal of the Pierce Elevated.  

[samagon]

I agree, and I added more to my reply. sorry.

 

My biggest problem with this project is the wasteful removal of the pierce elevated. it's a huge cost burden for everyone that benefits such a small number of people (big money developers and the thousands of residents of midtown). Then the negatives associated with getting the ROW to realign 45. and the realignment is not going to increase capacity on 45. for us taxpayers, that specific part, the realignment of 45 makes no sense.

 

most of the project, yeah, it's ok. go for it. we need additional capacity.

 

but removing the pierce elevated serves no benefit to the people using the freeway system, it's a detriment to everyone living in eado, and the costs associated are just so crazy.

[Danny1022]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

 

if we're comparing the amount of people that get usefulness out of the money spent...

 

getting rid of the pierce elevated is completely useless to all but a very small number of people. Like, 100% completely useless. Basically, unless you are a developer that will have access to buy that land when TXDOT sells it. it is useless.

 

Can we quantify the number of people in Midtown whose quality of life will improve when they can see through where the pierce elevated sits now?

 

We can absolutely raise quality of life for more people with 60 miles of light rail than the removal of the pierce elevated.

 

I mean, great soundbite, but more people would get far greater usefulness out of 60 miles of light rail than the removal of the pierce elevated.

 

don't get me wrong, they need to fix 45 through town, there's just better ways to do it. remove the dallas dip, add a lane in each direction. remove some connectors (59 south to 45 north? Really? Why?) there's a lot of smart changes to 59/288 from montrose up to the 45 interchange. 

 

but then making 45 go through 3 90 degree turns that's where this project really goes off the rails. it will slow traffic down to maybe 45mph on its own. so any gains they might make in mobility in other locations, rerouting 45 destroys all of that. plus they don't add any additional lanes. so they aren't adding any additional capacity, which is really needed.

 

So why not spend 3-4 billion on making some of the changes, and adding a lane to the current location of 45, removing the dallas dip, and then add 20 miles of light rail. higher capacity, and more mobility options. win for everyone (well everyone except the developers who will be able to get the pierce elevated land and the people who will have better life quality by not seeing the pierce elevated).

 

it's a shame it can't be that way.

Yes, that makes sense, one coukd build a subway (either elevated or ground level, to the Katy area or uptown or the north ) and only widen the pierce, reconstruct the 59, allen interchange and modify the i 10 interchange, maybe widen the 59 somewhat staying on the right of way, and also rebuild old bridges, and eliminating some bad merging zones, plus the 59 changes South of the 288. Simple.

It makes more sense than rerouting and making those weird tight turns and put all underground and demolishing 24 blocks next to the 59. 

And make buses that have stops often and that are for shorter routes and affordable rather than for long distances and , and the longer trips made on subway. And if the subway is far then easily take a bus to get close to the subway station, and yeah, similar to cities like London Berlin or Paris. Although that's just a suggestion not a full confirmation. just saying..

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

I agree, and I added more to my reply. sorry.

 

My biggest problem with this project is the wasteful removal of the pierce elevated. it's a huge cost burden for everyone that benefits such a small number of people (big money developers and the thousands of residents of midtown). Then the negatives associated with getting the ROW to realign 45. and the realignment is not going to increase capacity on 45. for us taxpayers, that specific part, the realignment of 45 makes no sense.

 

most of the project, yeah, it's ok. go for it. we need additional capacity.

 

but removing the pierce elevated serves no benefit to the people using the freeway system, it's a detriment to everyone living in eado, and the costs associated are just so crazy.

 

Why would you say the project does not increase capacity on 45?

Edited January 20, 2017 by Houston19514

[UtterlyUrban]

16 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Why would you say the project does not increase capacity on 45?

I believe that his point is this:

 

while it will increase capacity now (if it were built and open now), since it will many years before it is built and open, the increase in traffic between now and when it opens will likely mean that the average commute time today vs the future period when this opens may be the same or worse.

 

this is a typical story of many highway projects..... they are "obsolete before they open."  Whether you agree with that logic or not, is open for debate.

 

i am curious though.....

 

what would it cost to dig a true tunnel the few miles it would need to be dug?  No land would need to be purchased (a big element of the total cost of the current project, I'll bet).  And there would be minimal surface impacts during construction.  Any ideas on cost?  

[MaxConcrete]

21 minutes ago, UtterlyUrban said:

I

what would it cost to dig a true tunnel the few miles it would need to be dug?  No land would need to be purchased (a big element of the total cost of the current project, I'll bet).  And there would be minimal surface impacts during construction.  Any ideas on cost?  

 

Tunnel options were studied as alternatives early in the process, around 5 to 6 years ago. You can find details of the tunnel alignments in the meeting documents on the official project web site. The tunnels would not have replaced existing freeways, but provided additional capacity, presumably toll/HOV.. These documents provide a good overview

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs/Universe_of_Alts_Seg_3.pdf

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs/IH45_Universe_of_Alts_Summary.pdf

 

The cost figure they reported was $700 million per mile for a four-lane bored tunnel with two lanes on each of two levels (i.e. a double-deck tunnel). Costs have surely risen since then, so $800 million per mile would probably be a rough estimate.

[samagon]

On 1/20/2017 at 3:59 PM, Houston19514 said:

 

Why would you say the project does not increase capacity on 45?

Overall, the entire system will have added capacity.

 

Specifically, the realignment of 45 through downtown will not. What changes that are made to make the system run smoother (no left exits/entries) could be done within the existing ROW. There are no additional lanes. Furthermore, have you ever taken the turn from the existing gulf freeway NB to 59 NB? That radius, that curve, is about what the new one will be. 90% of drivers slow down to 35mph on that curve. I don't look for it because I don't drive a rig, but I believe there are signs that state the maximum for high load vehicles is 35mph. The new radius appears to only slightly be more open. cars will slow down. the same is true as 45 turns from being aligned with 59 to being aligned with 10. cars will slow down immensely for this curve. is there any elevation change while these are curving? Due to the tight nature of things, I can't see there not being elevation change during the turns, this will further complicate the corner for drivers making them want to slow down even more.

 

Next time you're going north through downtown on 45, take the route on the freeway as it is currently. Imagine taking those same corners, only slightly more open, but with 2 lanes of hundreds of cars and trucks and 18 wheelers trying to not to drift into each other. 

 

So yeah, specifically, the realignment of 45 from the pierce elevated to follow 59 and 10 does absolutely nothing for the greater whole.

 

This is all so some developers can snatch some land, and a very small minority of residents can feel better that for the distance of about 1 mile, there isn't a freeway anymore.

 

The overall project is ok, the realignment of 45 is very bad.

Edited January 22, 2017 by samagon

[Houston19514]

9 minutes ago, samagon said:

Overall, the entire system will have added capacity.

 

Specifically, the realignment of 45 through downtown will not. What changes that are made to make the system run smoother (no left exits/entries) could be done within the existing ROW. There are no additional lanes. Furthermore, have you ever taken the turn from the existing gulf freeway NB to 59 NB? That radius, that curve, is about what the new one will be. 90% of drivers slow down to 35mph on that curve. I don't look for it because I don't drive a rig, but I believe there are signs that state the maximum for high load vehicles is 35mph. The new radius appears to only slightly be more open. cars will slow down. the same is true as 45 turns from being aligned with 59 to being aligned with 10. cars will slow down immensely for this curve. is there any elevation change while these are curving? Due to the tight nature of things, I can't see there not being elevation change during the turns, this will further complicate the corner for drivers making them want to slow down even more.

 

Next time you're going north through downtown on 45, take the route on the freeway as it is currently. Imagine taking those same corners, only slightly more open, but with 2 lanes of hundreds of cars and trucks and 18 wheelers trying to not to drift into each other. 

 

So yeah, specifically, the realignment of 45 from the pierce elevated to follow 59 and 10 does absolutely nothing for the greater whole.

 

This is all so some developers can snatch some land, and a very small minority of residents can feel better that for the distance of about 1 mile, there isn't a freeway anymore.

 

The overall project is ok, the realignment of 45 is very bad.

 

Prett sure it actually does add lanes to I-45 through downtown.

[samagon]

21 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Prett sure it actually does add lanes to I-45 through downtown.

 

 

 

Currently,  NB where 45 goes over 59 it drops to 2 lanes. then it gradually expands to 3-4 lanes, depending on where you are in the rest of the system.

 

future state has 3 lanes of 45/59 interchange, it expands to 5 lanes, then drops to 4 lanes, eventually where 45 continues on it's original ROW from i10 it drops to 2 lanes.

 

currently, SB where 45 and 10 do their thing, there's 3 lanes of 45, then 4 lanes when it picks up i10 traffic, then it dumps to 3 again. and finally, where 45 crosses 59 there's 2 current lanes. further, there's 2 lanes that can exit 45 to join 59/288 south. 

 

future state has 3 lanes of 45 through joining to 2 lanes of i10 funneling down to 3 total lanes throughout. there's only 1 lane that exits for 59 and another for 288. my experience is that way more people want to get off for 59 from 45, rather than 288.

 

anyway, yeah. using the existing alignment it looks like they could buy that small passport photo place, and easily add an additional lane of traffic in each direction throughout the entire length with marginal row needed. get rid of the dallas dip by making that go over rather than under, get rid of left exits/entries, that would do so much better for the overall project.

 

Anyway, the project has at least one really interesting easter egg in it. 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20160428_NHHIP_Seg3_Project_Updates.pdf

 

go to where 45 and i10 merge. follow the regular 45 SB traffic. It's a yellow highlighted line. where does it go? it disappears under i10 express, then just miraculously springs into being again. It's clearly not right. Same for 45 NB. it goes from being a tiny 2 lane to a wide 4 lane. What? 

 

on that pdf, go to where holly and spring street merge, it's near WOB, just look at the interchange.

Edited January 22, 2017 by samagon

[Danny1022]

24 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Prett sure it actually does add lanes to I-45 through downtown.

It does add capacity only because it would be a longer distance, and the addition of lanes depends on where they're adding the lanes, 

But the fact that there are 3 extreme curves immediately forces the speed limit to drop dramatically.

Also they don't eliminate every left exit that exists, in some parts there are even many exits in one place instead of one exit to carry all traffic and then would split. When its necessary 

2 lanes are added on the 59, on the 45 southbound it stays 3 lanes wide(same as today), but on the 45 northbound it's 5 lanes. And indeed the 45 is widened to 3 lanes at the 59 interchange, but those 3 lanes include traffic coming from the 59 eastex freeway.

What would slow down traffic the most are mostly mostly the curves at the interchanges, plus the fact that most traffic in downtown is through traffic. And also keep in mind the levels of traffic now compared to how they'll Be in the future, when they Finnish the project there may even be the same speed and Sane number of traffic jams

So the 45 could be widened, the 59 too but just one lane added, and the Allen pkwy interchange coild just be reconstructed and have all right exits and the 45 won't have To go from 5 lane to 3 lanes and instead from 5 lanes to 4 lanes, as well as the 10 interchange which could be just be redesigned and widen the 10 where it merges to 2 lane because that is a bad bottleneck. As well as adding space for cars to merge easily
Maybe widen the 59  to 5 or maximum 6 lanes but not sure, and widen from 1 to 2 lanes the 59 eastex to 45 gulf and from the 59 South to the 10 Katy
Also have comments about the 45 North of the 10 but that's another story.
Maybe on future plans have an express lane highway parallel next to the railroad in the EaDo part, but as long term plans.
That'll solve the bottlenecks on the 45 59 and 10 on a more reasonable amount of money.. benefiting all through traffic the same as their project would. hope this is satisfying for most although I know I'll get at least one complaint.

[Houston19514]

NM

Edited January 22, 2017 by Houston19514

[Houston19514]

5 hours ago, samagon said:

 

 

 

Currently,  NB where 45 goes over 59 it drops to 2 lanes. then it gradually expands to 3-4 lanes, depending on where you are in the rest of the system.

 

future state has 3 lanes of 45/59 interchange, it expands to 5 lanes, then drops to 4 lanes, eventually where 45 continues on it's original ROW from i10 it drops to 2 lanes.

 

currently, SB where 45 and 10 do their thing, there's 3 lanes of 45, then 4 lanes when it picks up i10 traffic, then it dumps to 3 again. and finally, where 45 crosses 59 there's 2 current lanes. further, there's 2 lanes that can exit 45 to join 59/288 south. 

 

future state has 3 lanes of 45 through joining to 2 lanes of i10 funneling down to 3 total lanes throughout. there's only 1 lane that exits for 59 and another for 288. my experience is that way more people want to get off for 59 from 45, rather than 288.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, samagon said:

 

 

 

Currently,  NB where 45 goes over 59 it drops to 2 lanes. then it gradually expands to 3-4 lanes, depending on where you are in the rest of the system.

 

future state has 3 lanes of 45/59 interchange, it expands to 5 lanes, then drops to 4 lanes, eventually where 45 continues on it's original ROW from i10 it drops to 2 lanes.

 

currently, SB where 45 and 10 do their thing, there's 3 lanes of 45, then 4 lanes when it picks up i10 traffic, then it dumps to 3 again. and finally, where 45 crosses 59 there's 2 current lanes. further, there's 2 lanes that can exit 45 to join 59/288 south. 

 

future state has 3 lanes of 45 through joining to 2 lanes of i10 funneling down to 3 total lanes throughout. there's only 1 lane that exits for 59 and another for 288. my experience is that way more people want to get off for 59 from 45, rather than 288.

 

 

With respect, you need to look at the future plans again.  45 NB does not drop to 2 lanes where it continues on its original ROW from I10.  It is 4 lanes in that section (and that's without counting the downtown connector and I-45 max lanes).

 

You've acknowledged the addition of northbound lanes on the south end of downtown at the 45/59 pinch point.  It's rather odd that you know of this lane addition and yet insist that no lanes are added to I45. It is exactly at the pinchpoints that we need added lanes;  that's where the congestion is created.

 

The key lane addition on 45 SB is also at the pinch point.  As you acknowledged, currently there are only 2 through lanes for I-45 SB where it meet I-69. However, as you failed to acknowledge, the new plan has 4 through lanes for I-45 SB traffic where it meets I-69.

 

The fact is, the plan does add lanes to I-45, at least at the crucial points, and it does add capacity to I-45.

 

 

 

[samagon]

No respect necessary, I saw it wrong. you're right. There are still very serious corners that will slow traffic just as bad as the current pinches though. and the money cost just to realign and remove the pierce is so high.

[JLWM8609]

13 hours ago, samagon said:

Anyway, the project has at least one really interesting easter egg in it. 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20160428_NHHIP_Seg3_Project_Updates.pdf

 

go to where 45 and i10 merge. follow the regular 45 SB traffic. It's a yellow highlighted line. where does it go? it disappears under i10 express, then just miraculously springs into being again. It's clearly not right. Same for 45 NB. it goes from being a tiny 2 lane to a wide 4 lane. What? 

 

on that pdf, go to where holly and spring street merge, it's near WOB, just look at the interchange.

 

 

The I-10 express lanes are elevated over the I-45 SB mainlanes. That's why the I-45 SB mainlanes disappear in the schematics.

[ADCS]

9 hours ago, samagon said:

No respect necessary, I saw it wrong. you're right. There are still very serious corners that will slow traffic just as bad as the current pinches though. and the money cost just to realign and remove the pierce is so high.

 

Slowing traffic isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it keeps moving. This is a highway in the center of the city - serving through traffic at high speed isn't necessarily the ideal use of the corridors. Again, if you're going from north of Houston to Galveston or vice-versa, best practices would have you taking the East Loop, anyway. 

 

The problem with the current pinches isn't a reduction in speed - it's last minute and indecisive merging from unexpected lane ends (particularly the 45NB to 288/59SB) causing conflicts within and backpressure on the traffic flow. Part of the reason for the current design plans, by my estimation, is that reconfiguring the Pierce Elevated to meet these design goals would be too expensive due to the needed land acquisition.

[samagon]

17 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

 

 

With respect, you need to look at the future plans again.  45 NB does not drop to 2 lanes where it continues on its original ROW from I10.  It is 4 lanes in that section (and that's without counting the downtown connector and I-45 max lanes).

 

You've acknowledged the addition of northbound lanes on the south end of downtown at the 45/59 pinch point.  It's rather odd that you know of this lane addition and yet insist that no lanes are added to I45. It is exactly at the pinchpoints that we need added lanes;  that's where the congestion is created.

 

The key lane addition on 45 SB is also at the pinch point.  As you acknowledged, currently there are only 2 through lanes for I-45 SB where it meet I-69. However, as you failed to acknowledge, the new plan has 4 through lanes for I-45 SB traffic where it meets I-69.

 

The fact is, the plan does add lanes to I-45, at least at the crucial points, and it does add capacity to I-45.

 

even with the current pinch points traffic is still bad/slow after the pinches. that is with the same number of lanes that will be there in the future. there are 3 lanes all along the pierce elevated, traffic speeds do not increase in this unpinched area. that's in a straight line. so you're removing a pinch point, but retaining the same number of lanes through curves now instead of a straight line?

 

how is the new way going to be better again?

[samagon]

13 minutes ago, ADCS said:

 

Slowing traffic isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it keeps moving. This is a highway in the center of the city - serving through traffic at high speed isn't necessarily the ideal use of the corridors. Again, if you're going from north of Houston to Galveston or vice-versa, best practices would have you taking the East Loop, anyway. 

 

The problem with the current pinches isn't a reduction in speed - it's last minute and indecisive merging from unexpected lane ends (particularly the 45NB to 288/59SB) causing conflicts within and backpressure on the traffic flow. Part of the reason for the current design plans, by my estimation, is that reconfiguring the Pierce Elevated to meet these design goals would be too expensive due to the needed land acquisition.

 

two things then. direct through traffic onto 610, this isn't done or encouraged or 610 would be a lot more busy and we'd be spending money expanding that freeway right now.

 

if the problem is bad planning of exits and merges they can fix that in the existing ROW without needing to take 19 blocks from the east side of downtown and calling it a quality of life improvement.

 

in fact, there is a plan already on the books to move the 59 NB/SB exit to a different location entirely. Gotta wonder how that is going to adjust traffic flow through town.

 

Again, my point is that everything they are planning on doing by taking 19 blocks from the east end (and kicking a lot of people out of established neighborhoods) they can do in the existing corridors with minimal ROW expansion. The only benefit of removing the 1 mile stretch of ROW that is the pierce elevated is to make high end developers a lot of money. sure there are going to also be people that smile when the pierce is gone, but that number will be about the same as the people who are out on their ass because their home was condemned.

 

edit, maybe a component of this should be that the housing that is removed from the east end of town be put in the current pierce elevated location... everyone wins! pierce removed, low income residents of clayton homes aren't put out on their ass, they are moved to a better part of town where their kids have a better chance of success.

Edited January 23, 2017 by samagon

[ADCS]

3 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

two things then. direct through traffic onto 610, this isn't done or encouraged or 610 would be a lot more busy and we'd be spending money expanding that freeway right now.

 

if the problem is bad planning of exits and merges they can fix that in the existing ROW without needing to take 19 blocks from the east side of downtown and calling it a quality of life improvement.

 

in fact, there is a plan already on the books to move the 59 NB/SB exit to a different location entirely. Gotta wonder how that is going to adjust traffic flow through town.

 

Again, my point is that everything they are planning on doing by taking 19 blocks from the east end (and kicking a lot of people out of established neighborhoods) they can do in the existing corridors with minimal ROW expansion. The only benefit of removing the 1 mile stretch of ROW that is the pierce elevated is to make high end developers a lot of money. sure there are going to also be people that smile when the pierce is gone, but that number will be about the same as the people who are out on their ass because their home was condemned.

 

1. Agree that TxDOT should do a better job of directing traffic onto bypass routes. Then again, they hardly put control cities on major interstate junctions around here. Never understood why.

 

2. Do you have engineering schematics demonstrating that everything they're planning on adding can be handled with minimal ROW expansion in existing corridors?

[Houston19514]

50 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

even with the current pinch points traffic is still bad/slow after the pinches. that is with the same number of lanes that will be there in the future. there are 3 lanes all along the pierce elevated, traffic speeds do not increase in this unpinched area. that's in a straight line. so you're removing a pinch point, but retaining the same number of lanes through curves now instead of a straight line?

 

how is the new way going to be better again?

 

I'm not certain exactly what you talking about. It seems you are talking about I45 NB.  But after the I45/I69/TX288 intersection, I45 NB currently has 3 lanes.  In the future plan, after the I45/I69/TX288 intersection, I45 NB has 5 lanes (and runs in a straight line for a longer stretch than does the Pierce Elevated).

 

If you are talking about I45 SB after the I10 interchange, an accurate analysis is a little more complicated.  You are probably looking at the proposed I-45 lanes on the north end of downtown where it is proposed to run next to I-10.  That area indeed shows 3 lanes, just as the current I45 SB has on the west and south sides of downtown.  Here's the complication:  Those proposed I45 SB lanes on the north side of downtown do not have to carry all the traffic that the current I45 SB lanes carry, because they don't carry the I10 WB to I45 SB traffic (and maybe not all of the I10EB to I45 SB traffic).  That doesn't join in until you get past the northeast corner, at which point there are I45 SB lanes.

 

THAT, in part, is how the new way is going to be better. (Capacity can/will also be added by curves being less tight (as you have acknowledged) and possibly by banking the surface in the curves, and one hopes by avoiding sharp dips/curves such as currently exist on I45)

[samagon]

1 hour ago, ADCS said:

 

1. Agree that TxDOT should do a better job of directing traffic onto bypass routes. Then again, they hardly put control cities on major interstate junctions around here. Never understood why.

 

2. Do you have engineering schematics demonstrating that everything they're planning on adding can be handled with minimal ROW expansion in existing corridors?

 

No, but you can look at the google map and make a good approximation of what land would be needed to add lanes to the existing pierce elevated.

[cspwal]

They could go the opposite way and have a 2 level freeway where the upper level has no exits to downtown, I-10, or 59.  You could double the freeway lanes (because you have two levels) along the same right of way.  It would block some of 2016 main's windows for sure but it would increase capacity.

[Danny1022]

9 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

No, but you can look at the google map and make a good approximation of what land would be needed to add lanes to the existing pierce elevated.

Then one could simply take off one lane from pierce street and that'd make it easier, besides the downtown streets are too wide and so busy compared to other avenues including the 45 like in the photo which I hope it got uploaded, and drawings aren't so great.

[ADCS]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 

I'm not certain exactly what you talking about. It seems you are talking about I45 NB.  But after the I45/I69/TX288 intersection, I45 NB currently has 3 lanes.  In the future plan, after the I45/I69/TX288 intersection, I45 NB has 5 lanes (and runs in a straight line for a longer stretch than does the Pierce Elevated).

 

If you are talking about I45 SB after the I10 interchange, an accurate analysis is a little more complicated.  You are probably looking at the proposed I-45 lanes on the north end of downtown where it is proposed to run next to I-10.  That area indeed shows 3 lanes, just as the current I45 SB has on the west and south sides of downtown.  Here's the complication:  Those proposed I45 SB lanes on the north side of downtown do not have to carry all the traffic that the current I45 SB lanes carry, because they don't carry the I10 WB to I45 SB traffic (and maybe not all of the I10EB to I45 SB traffic).  That doesn't join in until you get past the northeast corner, at which point there are I45 SB lanes.

 

THAT, in part, is how the new way is going to be better. (Capacity can/will also be added by curves being less tight (as you have acknowledged) and possibly by banking the surface in the curves, and one hopes by avoiding sharp dips/curves such as currently exist on I45)

 

Not only that, but the new 45 lanes only carry through traffic - local traffic will take the Downtown Connector. This further reduces movements and conflicts along that stretch.

[samagon]

On 1/23/2017 at 9:57 AM, Houston19514 said:

 

I'm not certain exactly what you talking about. It seems you are talking about I45 NB.  But after the I45/I69/TX288 intersection, I45 NB currently has 3 lanes.  In the future plan, after the I45/I69/TX288 intersection, I45 NB has 5 lanes (and runs in a straight line for a longer stretch than does the Pierce Elevated).

 

If you are talking about I45 SB after the I10 interchange, an accurate analysis is a little more complicated.  You are probably looking at the proposed I-45 lanes on the north end of downtown where it is proposed to run next to I-10.  That area indeed shows 3 lanes, just as the current I45 SB has on the west and south sides of downtown.  Here's the complication:  Those proposed I45 SB lanes on the north side of downtown do not have to carry all the traffic that the current I45 SB lanes carry, because they don't carry the I10 WB to I45 SB traffic (and maybe not all of the I10EB to I45 SB traffic).  That doesn't join in until you get past the northeast corner, at which point there are I45 SB lanes.

 

THAT, in part, is how the new way is going to be better. (Capacity can/will also be added by curves being less tight (as you have acknowledged) and possibly by banking the surface in the curves, and one hopes by avoiding sharp dips/curves such as currently exist on I45)

 

yeah, 45NB.

 

so it's okay, in your mind, to take 3 lanes, add 2 lanes, yeah, it's 5 lanes for a bit, but then it drops to 4 lanes? that's not a pinch point? Or, it's not a pinch point to the level of pinching that you find unacceptable? all this while there's lots of turning involved.

 

I'm just not seeing the advantage that makes the cost worthwhile. I guess that's the main point. In my mind, the cost (monetary and to lives impacted) is too great.

 

find a way that the people displaced from clayton homes will be put in shiny new housing in midtown where the pierce currently sits and we get closer to lowering the impact.

[Danny1022]

I know this is stupid But... I'm sick of this project in sick of it why don't they demolish every freeway like this post says.

I know it's an April fools post... but I feel... like we need to shut the mouths of those complainers. So this should be done. Cos it's annoying.

 

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2016/04/txdot-responds-to-mayor-turners-call-to.html?m=1

I don't care... but that way people will stop complaining because they'll beg to bring back the freeways and no one will hear them.

Ugkkhhhh

[JJxvi]

I feel like capacity of the system is greatly increased.  The ROW on the east side looks like it is a massive 18 mainlanes, and on the north...16?  Each freeway currently has 6 mainlanes, so combining without increasing capacity would be a highway with 12 lanes, which these ROW of 16 and 18 are 33%-50% greater than that even before I take into account what seems to be more integrated and complete feeder roads, especially in east downtown, and the managed lanes in the I-10 corridor, all seem to add up to vastly improved capacity for these roads.  

Edited February 2, 2017 by JJxvi

[JJxvi]

It appears to me that the I-45 marked lanes in the new design (correct me if I'm very wrong) are basically express through lanes that bypass downtown.  They cannot be considered as the "same 3 lanes each way" that 45 currently has because traffic on the current 45 includes people that want to exit downtown, 10, 59, or 288.  With those people now shunted off 45 and onto brand new giant 12 and 14 lane I10 and I69, 3 lanes would seem very adequate for the I45 lanes, especially since we're talking express lanes with no exits.

 

In other words, in a real sense this is NOT an expansion of 45 in the downtown sections.  This is a big time capacity expansion of both I-10 and I-69, both of which seem like their marked lanes will be able to carry maybe more than 100% each of what they can right now.  These two become the heavy lifters for carrying the local traffic downtown, and the I-45 lanes have the load taken off of them so they can be used for through traffic.

Edited February 2, 2017 by JJxvi

[Danny1022]

3 hours ago, JJxvi said:

It appears to me that the I-45 marked lanes in the new design (correct me if I'm very wrong) are basically express through lanes that bypass downtown.  They cannot be considered as the "same 3 lanes each way" that 45 currently has because traffic on the current 45 includes people that want to exit downtown, 10, 59, or 288.  With those people now shunted off 45 and onto brand new giant 12 and 14 lane I10 and I69, 3 lanes would seem very adequate for the I45 lanes, especially since we're talking express lanes with no exits.

 

In other words, in a real sense this is NOT an expansion of 45 in the downtown sections.  This is a big time capacity expansion of both I-10 and I-69, both of which seem like their marked lanes will be able to carry maybe more than 100% each of what they can right now.  These two become the heavy lifters for carrying the local traffic downtown, and the I-45 lanes have the load taken off of them so they can be used for through traffic.

You probably are misunderstanding..

(Although your idea isn't as bad as the txdot mess...) 

They're demolishing the stupid pierce...  I don't know why, probably to benefit a friend they have working in downtown Houston. (Sounds more disgusting than cheese)

But there arent express lanes, there's nothing, only reruting of the 45 which sounds bad And add 2 lanes to the 59 

And I don't get how 99.99999% of the people who know about this project are in favour of the pierce demolition. 

 

In their plan. 3 lanes go on the 45 southbound. (Same as before) some ramps are reduced to 1 lane. Thousands of houses/businesses are demolished, it costs 4 thousand million dollars, how is this a good idea. Why not simply have common sense because nothing makes sense.

Every one says they won't widen the pierce cos it's a barrier (barrier is the new project they cut some necessary streets) their alternative isn't a good idea. Ughh...

[samagon]

13 hours ago, Danny1022 said:

In their plan. 3 lanes go on the 45 southbound. (Same as before) some ramps are reduced to 1 lane. Thousands of houses/businesses are demolished, it costs 4 thousand million dollars, how is this a good idea. Why not simply have common sense because nothing makes sense.

Every one says they won't widen the pierce cos it's a barrier (barrier is the new project they cut some necessary streets) their alternative isn't a good idea. Ughh...

 

thousands of homes and businesses is a pretty strong exaggeration. maybe you did it for effect? 

 

hundreds of homes demolished with half of them being low income housing with no alternative mentioned.

 

19 full city blocks demolished.

 

of major through streets in the east end (Leeland/Telephone, Polk, Harrisburg and Navigation), one will be cut off from downtown.

[Danny1022]

46 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

thousands of homes and businesses is a pretty strong exaggeration. maybe you did it for effect? 

 

hundreds of homes demolished with half of them being low income housing with no alternative mentioned.

 

19 full city blocks demolished.

 

of major through streets in the east end (Leeland/Telephone, Polk, Harrisburg and Navigation), one will be cut off from downtown.

 

Thousands of houses and businesses yes maybe im exaggerating, but really if there's a way to not take right of way then I would consider that if there's mo space then take it, but don't just randomly take houses that aren't necessary to take. But really including the ones North of the 10 that becomes over a thousand. 

The 24 blocksI include parking lot blocks and the ones at the curve of the 45 59 interchange. But blocks with houses or businnesee are 19

 

Whatever this project is the damn worst crap I've seen, every crap O say is controversial. This is the first time someone replies to me, although to complain haha, I hate myself... cos I come up with alternatives, either no one hears or everyone complains, i try to make common sense no one hears, i would list them but I know no one will hear and all I'll get are complains so I shall not. whatever. I'm glad I'm considering moving to England for university.

Houston sucks anyway. 

Thank you.

 

[JJxvi]

15 hours ago, Danny1022 said:

You probably are misunderstanding..

(Although your idea isn't as bad as the txdot mess...) 

They're demolishing the stupid pierce...  I don't know why, probably to benefit a friend they have working in downtown Houston. (Sounds more disgusting than cheese)

But there arent express lanes, there's nothing, only reruting of the 45 which sounds bad And add 2 lanes to the 59 

And I don't get how 99.99999% of the people who know about this project are in favour of the pierce demolition. 

 

In their plan. 3 lanes go on the 45 southbound. (Same as before) some ramps are reduced to 1 lane. Thousands of houses/businesses are demolished, it costs 4 thousand million dollars, how is this a good idea. Why not simply have common sense because nothing makes sense.

Every one says they won't widen the pierce cos it's a barrier (barrier is the new project they cut some necessary streets) their alternative isn't a good idea. Ughh...

 

I know they are demolishing pierce.  I'm not gonna get into cost and benefit, or about the pros and cons of all the ROW acquisition that would need to be done. My posts were only concerning the capacity.  Its clear to me this is a massive capacity increase, mostly by expanding lanes that are signed I-10 and I-69.  In east downtown the freeway cross section at Rusk is 21 lanes wide.  That is a MASSIVE freeway, and to argue that these represent no capacity increase from the current elevated I45 on the pierce and US59 in east downtown which have 6-8 lanes each cannot be true.  

 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20160428_NHHIP_Seg3_Project_Updates.pdf

 

Yes the yellow lanes in the diagram are similar to the already existing I-45 routed at Pierce, but my point is that most local traffic getting to downtown will be directed off those lanes onto massively expanded I-10 lanes and I69 lanes or onto direct downtown connectors.  The yellow lanes are therefore not expected to carry as much traffic (mainly only through traffic that wants to go from the Gulf Freeway onto the North freeway or vice versa), and yet they have basically the same or more lanes than the Pierce currently has. This is a capacity increase.

Edited February 3, 2017 by JJxvi

[Danny1022]

4 minutes ago, JJxvi said:

 

I know they are demolishing pierce.  I'm not gonna get into cost and benefit, or about the pros and cons of all the ROW acquisition that would need to be done. My posts were only concerning the capacity.  Its clear to me this is a massive capacity increase, mostly by expanding lanes that are signed I-10 and I-69.  In east downtown the freeway cross section at Rusk is 21 lanes wide.  That is a MASSIVE freeway, and to argue that these represent no capacity increase from the current elevated I45 on the pierce and US59 in east downtown which have 6-8 lanes each cannot be true.  

 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20160428_NHHIP_Seg3_Project_Updates.pdf

 

Yes the yellow lanes in the diagram are similar to the already existing I-45 routed at Pierce, but my point is that most local traffic getting to downtown will be directed off those lanes onto massively expanded I-10 lanes and I69 lanes or onto direct downtown connectors.  The yellow lanes are therefore not expected to carry as much traffic (mainly only through traffic that wants to go from the Gulf Freeway onto the North freeway or vice versa), and yet they have basically the same or more lanes than the Pierce currently has. This is a capacity increase.

I wish I could delete my post...

[samagon]

3 hours ago, JJxvi said:

 

I know they are demolishing pierce.  I'm not gonna get into cost and benefit, or about the pros and cons of all the ROW acquisition that would need to be done. My posts were only concerning the capacity.  Its clear to me this is a massive capacity increase, mostly by expanding lanes that are signed I-10 and I-69.  In east downtown the freeway cross section at Rusk is 21 lanes wide.  That is a MASSIVE freeway, and to argue that these represent no capacity increase from the current elevated I45 on the pierce and US59 in east downtown which have 6-8 lanes each cannot be true.  

 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20160428_NHHIP_Seg3_Project_Updates.pdf

 

Yes the yellow lanes in the diagram are similar to the already existing I-45 routed at Pierce, but my point is that most local traffic getting to downtown will be directed off those lanes onto massively expanded I-10 lanes and I69 lanes or onto direct downtown connectors.  The yellow lanes are therefore not expected to carry as much traffic (mainly only through traffic that wants to go from the Gulf Freeway onto the North freeway or vice versa), and yet they have basically the same or more lanes than the Pierce currently has. This is a capacity increase.

 

Read through this:

http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis#cost

 

specifically, the last bullet point:

• For downtown (after the IH-69 section between Spur 527 and SH 288), I would prefer to see IH-69 improved and sunk into the trench, leaving IH-45 and IH-10 mostly intact. That should cost in the range of $1 to $1.5 billion if the US 59/IH-10 interchange can be preserved. For that money, IH-69 would get its vaunted 24 mph speed increase and downtown interests would get the freeway sunk below ground level. And it has a price tag which can be funded.

for me at least, I think this is a decent compromise, depending on what ROW would be still needed, and what, if any street closures there would be.

 

this would reduce costs, yet still increase capacity.

Edited February 3, 2017 by samagon

[Danny1022]

What is even good about sinking the highway, tbey Would get the same benefits with widening the elevated highway, plus not massively destroy an entire neighbourhood  (of apartment complex with an appearance of a neighbourhood) And many blocks maybe demolish half of the block is fine, but not the entire block,  And not blockading various streets.

And the fact that the elevated highways are barriers is nonsense, ive crossed under the pierce elevated and it's not bad you can still get to the other side without even realising that there's an elevated highway there.(okay you realise it but you don't have to stop and go around various blocks away to get to the other side)

Whilst i-45 North, you go on some random city street, turns out it's blockaded by the freeway, great now I've to go to airline drive or Tidwell or West or any, to get to the other side. The elevated highway was made to not create a barrier, so that the cars could cross on the streets below, it's downtown Houston, not the old West Berlin. And why do they not demolish the convention centre, that's a barrier too. It takes like 10 blocks,.(I'm assuming) 

And if they want to do it because we "don't have enough parks" that's nonsense. We have many parks compared to other cities.and I don't know about you but nearly every time I've been to downtown they're not crowded, except once but it was because it was new year.

And the worst.... rerouting the 45 creating curves where you have to curve more than 80 degrees... and it's longer and pointless. Makes drivers not want to take that highway. 

And besides they're covering it so its a tunnel. Have you ever been in a tunnel.? It's terrifying, you get the feeling like you dont have enough space to breathe and like it all will collapse you and the noise makes the closed in space (as my friend calls it) too uncomfortable And the lights inside the tunnel don't make it better. It's scary.

I hope this project doesn't happen, and that elevated highway stay up cos elevated highways are the best thing ever. (I used to be (amd still am) so fascinated by the fact that there were many elevated highways here when I moved here... but i guess the Houstonians and every one else hates it)

 

So I'm trying to peacefully and not aggressively make sense. I hope someone reads. That... i want to get this project cancelled which I've tried for 14 months and only 1 person (who moved to Europe) understood 

Just saying idk..