I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[Danny1022]

I've thought about it and... I've once again made a plan (yes annoying me has come back) on which someone i know gave me part of the idea. 

Express lanes for the 45 nd the 59 parallel to the 59 taking only half of the block rather than the full block.

The main thing would be between runnels street and i-45. They'd be elevated cos there's really no other easy way to do it. And there would be connection to the i-45 gulf freeway hov And the North freeway express lanes And us-59 eastex how as well as the mainlanes of the mentioned highways, and connection to i-10 Katy freeway. And the 288 express.

Plus reconstruction of the i-45 Allen pkwy interchange, i-45/10, i-45/59 interchanges and the us-59 between the spur 527 and i-45,

Blue: reconstructed highways.

Red:express lanes.

All else: kept intact.

 

Sorry for the bad handwriting. And bad drawings. It's pretty much how the final plan may be like. I guess.

Thank you for reading. I guess.

Bye.

 

[j_cuevas713]

I went back and looked at TxDOT's "plan" and this whole idea would cripple the city for a nice long while. It would widen, not close the gap between the East End and Downtown. The Pierce Elevated would be demolished last and it is such a small segment compared to the hell many people, businesses, neighborhoods, etc, would have to go through before anything clears up. And even when it clears up, what have you accomplished??? This would be an absolute disaster for just a small section of covered freeway and a small section of the Pierce elevated demolished in return. Why not make access under 59 more inviting!? Do something with the space provided under the freeway! Double decker 45 and 59 like in other cities! So in summary, TxDOT is going to turn a crap load of dirt for people who can't find another way to get to work other than their cars!? Like give me a break. Those of us who live in the city have to cater to everyone else. I get around just fine on my feet. 

[SkylineView]

I believe that a slug of the 59-288-45 rework has now been funded (article on CommunityImpact).  Specific project list linked here.

 

Additions to the 10yr plan include the 45/59 interchange, the 59/288 interchange, and 59 between spur 527 and 45/59.

 

Big step. 

[cspwal]

Signs have gone up warning about construction to reconfigure the exit from I45 north to US59 north/south.  I got this email about street closures

 

Quote

MAJOR Closures Related to the IH-45 NB to IH-69 SB Direct Connector:
Friday March 3, 2017 through March 2019
TxDOT is redesigning the Direct Connector between IH-45 Northbound and IH-69 Southbound transitioning from a left exit to a right exit. This project has a 25 month projected timeline and construction activity will occur in three phases. Motorists should expect delays and are strongly encouraged to seek alternate routes. Construction schedules are always contingent upon the weather.

 

[JLWM8609]

On 2/25/2017 at 7:51 PM, cspwal said:

Signs have gone up warning about construction to reconfigure the exit from I45 north to US59 north/south.  I got this email about street closures

 

 

 

 

So the construction of the ramp reconfiguration will be complete in 2019, then in 2021, they'll start reconstruction of the whole interchange, most likely demolishing the new ramp. 

[samagon]

It should be minimal, the plans for this project take the adjustments from the other project into consideration.

 

Here's the thread about the project.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by samagon

[Danny1022]

Forget all this mess..

I don't want to hear it..

I give up now that I see that well..i can up with alternatives in vain..

I wasted 14 months doing alternatives..

Try in to convince people to hear me..

But the only people who did..

Are..

A friend I met because of this project..

And an English guy.. 

I wasted 14 months of my life..

Getting frustrated over all of this stupid project..

And school..

And other situations.. 

All..

For nothing..

Thank you for not hearing..

It makes me realise how I was such an idiot by being confident that they'd hear me..

But I was wrong..

It's like losing a friend (well.. not that bad..) 

It was my favourite highway..

But it's gone..

all hope is gone..

All I want to say is..

TxDOT...

I hate you so damn much..

I'm moving to England for sure..

So that won't matter anyway..

Good luck..

 

Dziękuję..

Do widzenia..

 

[SkylineView]

Am I the only one who's going to miss the elevated portion of 59?  I liked coming from the airport, going elevated past the GRB, diving into the hole under I-45, then rising, like a phoenix to the elevated portion through midtown.  You can see downtown, the med center, midtown... then you dive back down into the Montrose trench with the colored arches.  The elevated portion is cool.  You can see the scope of the city.  

 

I shall miss you.

[kennyc05]

I may be wrong but it doesn't seem like you will be able to view the skyline once everything is trenches. 

[Danny1022]

Behind the scenes of this disgusting project... ugh..

They're trying to benefit the downtown business owners cos they're the ones who requested the pierce to be demolished, without caring about the through traffic which is rerouted in a less convenient way.. and demolish the awesome skyline views from every highway, which is a reason why this is a nonsense project...

 

I just hope the project doesn't happen. That they'll lose all of the funding and I wish txdot bad luck and I hope that they go broke like massdot went in huge debt.

[samagon]

I've also cursed those responsible that the fleas of 1000 camels should infest their armpits.

[Sparrow]

With all of the advancements made by the car companies with regards to driverless car technology, has TxDOT begun considering such technological advances when analyzing future needs? Many hypothesize widespread adoption within a decade. This project may at best be coming online when the major shift will be occurring.   

 

Following distances will likely shrink when humans no longer drive vehicles--will additional lanes really be needed on new highways or are we spending our funds unnecessarily? 

[cspwal]

I would say that making a road more efficient for humans to navigate will make it more efficient for AI to navigate than the current set up.

 

Say you can get X human-piloted cars through the current setup.  With the elimination of left exits and such, the redesign gives us a 1.25X human-piloted cars going through

Now assume all autonomous cars - and assume they are more 50% more efficient doing freeway stuff.  So the current setup would be 1.5X throughput with all AI cars, but the new setup would be 1.875X the number of AI cars.  So improving the interchange will still provide benefits in a self-driving world.

 

Additionally, it is not a given that fully self-driving cars will happen in that time frame.  The technology might hit snags, there might be regulatory hurdles, or the business model that would fund all autonomous cars doesn't work out so they aren't a huge proportion of the fleet.  TxDot needs to plan for what they know now, not what they guess.

[samagon]

Pertaining self driving cars, there was a video I watched a while ago, it gave statistics based on computer models with various percentages of humans driving, vs self driven cars. I think major benefits started to happen around 30% self driving? going up to diminishing returns over 70% self driving.

 

I really hope that if this thing actually happens (I'm still not as convinced as txdot) that it really makes a significant impact for the cost to residents in the immediate area of the areas affected.

[Danny1022]

I know no one has posted here cos it's pointless..

This project totally sucks I want to get all out, I hope that the people who came up with this project get fired, because it'll totally kill downtown Houston and east downtown, and demolish an exaggerated right of way amount 19 blocks at least, am emtire neighbourhood and yeah

But really thinking about it. It's a highway of course it won't be pretty what do they really expect gold and sparkles..? They totally do, itsa highway it's not meant to be freaking pretty, but its not meant to be ugly either, and it's dark below the highway..have you no common sense..?put freaking bright lights to make up for that... have freaking common sense lights can fix the problem.. when it's dark below the highway.

 

I guess the reason why I love elevated highways and I don't complain about them is.. I'm not rich and I grew up where even small overpasses were fascinating. But here overpasses are seen as an ugliness that must be demolished. If it's there then leave it it was built almost 50 years ago most people near there moved there after the highway was built..  and if they chose that then get the he'll over it cos if you chose to live there the deal with the difficulties...

 

So my final words will be.. 

Txdot.. you and your plan both suck yes this is meant to offend you.. 

Goodbye, thank you for not hearing my "trying to make sense" And thank you to those who got this far and read what I've commented... ive more things but this is enough...

Bye..

Edited March 30, 2017 by Danny1022

[cougarpad]

Looking at the maps they are completely taking access to Allen Parkway from I-45 up from Galveston. To get Allen parkway have to exit and go through downtown. They should of left at least two feeder ramps on pierce elevated for northbound traffic on I-45 to Allen Parkway or make pierce into a parkway itself through downtown. Even if you go other way around downtown I do not see any connection of I-45 to the Feeders they planned north of downtown.

[ADCS]

On 3/31/2017 at 4:54 PM, cougarpad said:

Looking at the maps they are completely taking access to Allen Parkway from I-45 up from Galveston. To get Allen parkway have to exit and go through downtown. They should of left at least two feeder ramps on pierce elevated for northbound traffic on I-45 to Allen Parkway or make pierce into a parkway itself through downtown. Even if you go other way around downtown I do not see any connection of I-45 to the Feeders they planned north of downtown.

 

Or you just take 45 to the downtown connector and go that way.

 

Adding two minutes to your drive isn't a terrible inconvenience. I'd be more sympathetic to the complaints if they weren't either about opposing change because it's change, or putting the perceived interests of EaDo over the rest of the city.

[Danny1022]

6 minutes ago, ADCS said:

 

Or you just take 45 to the downtown connector and go that way.

 

Adding two minutes to your drive isn't a terrible inconvenience. I'd be more sympathetic to the complaints if they weren't either about opposing change because it's change, or putting the perceived interests of EaDo over the rest of the city.

They're actually putting downtown interests over the rest of the city, they were the ones who forced the stupid organisation to take off the pierce from downtown, it would be more convenient for the rest of the city including EaDo to preserve the pierce. Although some lanes may need to be added to the 59/10 corridor even with the pierce preserved..

Just saying.. 

[ADCS]

^^ Simply untrue.

 

The biggest issue with the Pierce is that it is bad at serving its putative purpose, transporting through traffic past downtown. The design was made with the expectation that there would be relatively little through traffic. The expansion of the northern and northwestern suburbs hadn't been foreseen, and as a result, we have the present bottlenecks.

 

Now, we have a situation where the Pierce can't be expanded in a cost-effective manner. TxDOT would have to demolish high-rises to do so, and that can't be justified. Leaving it as is would only exacerbate pressures on the rest of the system as population grows. Alternative solutions were needed, and the present plan is the most cost-effective by far, with the greatest amount of stakeholder support.

 

Someone was going to lose on this one - it always happens with any highway project. However, with the exception of a few trendy bars and coffee shop, an aging apartment midrise (by the time construction starts), and public housing the operating agency does not want to continue supporting, EaDo isn't going to be losing much of its present appeal, at least not in the way the predictions of catastrophe on here describe. It still has a rail line and a popular soccer stadium. It is still close to Downtown and its many amenities. It still has a lot of developer attention.

[Danny1022]

Well... then why not widen the 59. Preserve the pierce, eliminate the ramps from the i-45s to the us-59s and from us-59 North to the i-45n amd put them parallel to the i-10 As direct connectors similar to the ones in the us-290/i-610/i-10 connectors and the pierce would be for through traffic only. If you want to get an idea of it look at the photo that I think ive uploaded ⬇ yes maybe half of a block wide of right of way would be taken but that's better than the entire right of way and an entire neighbourhood (idk if its a neighbourhood or apartment complex) if you don't understand the drawing or the writing that's not my problem I made it as clear as possible.

Just saying I mean I'm 101% sure that no one will agree with me but I'm just saying...

 

[ADCS]

That does nothing to address the through traffic from the North Freeway to the Gulf Freeway. There simply isn't enough space to expand the Pierce without expensive disruptions to surrounding existing property. This is TxDOT we're talking about here - they would not even entertain the notion of permanently relinquishing right-of-way unless engineering constraints made it a particularly viable option.

[Danny1022]

Well... onthe txdot project traffic is improved cos in the 45 there would be 3 lanes in the narrowest point, the thing I did would be also 3 lanes, but traffic taken away from an earlier point. Thus it is improved. I wouldn't widen the pierce and well.. never mind this project sucks thank you for not asking any doubts which is why you assumed that I'd widen the pierce when I wouldn't actually. But I give up think whatever the hell you think besides the txdot plan sucks because of the  curves that have to go on the 45..those already slow down traffic.. 

 

But since you agree then I must be wrong like always cos I suck at highways and everything that. I say is wrong and when I don't agree with something every one whos against me is right. I hate life.

[Nate99]

I see this approach as TxDOT trying out a theory. In the end there will be some upside, but mostly I just expect the whole traffic situation to be annoying in new, unforeseen ways.

 

Has anyone bothered to hazard a guess as to how long this might take? I put the over/under at 11 years.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Nate99

[Sparrow]

Gonna go a bit off into left field here, but how effective would it be to just re-sign I-10, I-45, and I-69 to portions of I-610 around the city's central core and designate the portions of those freeways inside of 610 as spurs (i.e. I-345, I-569, and I-910)? The thinking is that thru traffic is more likely to simply stay on course than to jump from one highway to another and back again.

 

Re-signing I-45 to the North and East Loops would add about 3 miles. Re-signing I-69 to the West and North Loops would add just 1 mile. Re-signing I-10 to the North Loop adds about 2 miles to the trip. Not really all that significant extensions to thru traffic trips.

 

If simply re-signing the routes could take just 5 or 10% of the thru traffic from the central core, would this expensive project even be necessary? Perhaps spending those funds on West Loop thru lanes and North Loop expansion would be more cost effective and less economically disruptive than in Downtown.

 

Surely TxDOT would have already modeled such though, right?

[KinkaidAlum]

Your plan makes a ton of sense but the politicians don't get their concrete lobby cash if there's no bidding and building. 

[samagon]

indeed the smartest solution would have been to expand 610 north and east of town from i45 to i45.

 

Even still, I drive the pierce at the worst of times, and the issues are not particularly with the amount of lanes, sure it could use 1 or 2 more, but the curves teamed with elevation changes at the same time, that's what slows down the traffic on pierce itself. other slow downs are all around it, not actually on it. the exit from gulf fwy to 59. in the evenings it's like there's really only 1 lane actually staying on 45. there are 2 forced lanes onto 59 south, and 1 exit for 59 north. most of the traffic in that right most lane in the evenings is going onto 59 north.

 

but pierce actually moves pretty smooth through midtown, all the way till it gets about 200 feet from the Dallas dip, then it slows down to a snails pace. They could do so much to improve flow on the pierce just by fixing the slight curves around buffalo bayou and 6th ward, and get rid of all the elevation changes (most importantly make the dallas underpass an overpass, what were they thinking when they put that under??).

 

They could certainly widen the pierce if they were willing to build more over pierce street, add 1 lane in each direction, and smooth out flow, that would serve everyone so much better.

[ADCS]

15 hours ago, Sparrow said:

Gonna go a bit off into left field here, but how effective would it be to just re-sign I-10, I-45, and I-69 to portions of I-610 around the city's central core and designate the portions of those freeways inside of 610 as spurs (i.e. I-345, I-569, and I-910)? The thinking is that thru traffic is more likely to simply stay on course than to jump from one highway to another and back again.

 

Re-signing I-45 to the North and East Loops would add about 3 miles. Re-signing I-69 to the West and North Loops would add just 1 mile. Re-signing I-10 to the North Loop adds about 2 miles to the trip. Not really all that significant extensions to thru traffic trips.

 

If simply re-signing the routes could take just 5 or 10% of the thru traffic from the central core, would this expensive project even be necessary? Perhaps spending those funds on West Loop thru lanes and North Loop expansion would be more cost effective and less economically disruptive than in Downtown.

 

Surely TxDOT would have already modeled such though, right?

 

I've been pushing for something similar for a long time. TxDOT does regional traffic a great disservice by not signing 610 for thru traffic.

 

For example, 610 at the North Freeway SB could be signed:

 

610 West: Austin, San Antonio

610 East: Beaumont, Pasadena, Galveston

45 South: Downtown

 

My guess is that TxDOT operates off the assumption that most people navigate by route number, rather than control city. However, in the age of GPS navigation, it would seem to me that control cities are a much more potent navigation tool than route numbers.

[Houston19514]

19 hours ago, Sparrow said:

Gonna go a bit off into left field here, but how effective would it be to just re-sign I-10, I-45, and I-69 to portions of I-610 around the city's central core and designate the portions of those freeways inside of 610 as spurs (i.e. I-345, I-569, and I-910)? The thinking is that thru traffic is more likely to simply stay on course than to jump from one highway to another and back again.

 

Re-signing I-45 to the North and East Loops would add about 3 miles. Re-signing I-69 to the West and North Loops would add just 1 mile. Re-signing I-10 to the North Loop adds about 2 miles to the trip. Not really all that significant extensions to thru traffic trips.

 

If simply re-signing the routes could take just 5 or 10% of the thru traffic from the central core, would this expensive project even be necessary? Perhaps spending those funds on West Loop thru lanes and North Loop expansion would be more cost effective and less economically disruptive than in Downtown.

 

Surely TxDOT would have already modeled such though, right?

 

Have you ever driven on the West Loop?  It doesn't take a traffic engineer to know that rerouting I-69/US59 over the West Loop is not a solution.

[samagon]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Have you ever driven on the West Loop?  It doesn't take a traffic engineer to know that rerouting I-69/US59 over the West Loop is not a solution.

 

However, judging by the amount of afternoon traffic that exits gulf freeway to go up 59 north, and the lack of traffic on the east loop, it doesn't take a traffic engineer to see that this should be part of the solution.

there's more to the loop than just the west loop through the galleria, and most of it is under-utilized. it could be better utilized if there was better signage as alternate routes.

 

Imagine if 610 east and north from gulf freeway to 45 north were labeled "45 bypass", and inside the loop 45 was labeled "45 alternate".

 

that frees up through traffic coming off 59 and onto the pierce to not have as much traffic going through downtown from south to north on 45.

 

I agree though, the poop-storm that is southwest freeway from shepherd to the pierce elevated sucks and needs to be addressed, trying to get people to take the west loop (its own poop-storm) wouldn't really help.

Edited April 4, 2017 by samagon

[JLWM8609]

8 hours ago, samagon said:

They could certainly widen the pierce if they were willing to build more over pierce street, add 1 lane in each direction, and smooth out flow, that would serve everyone so much better.

1

That was an option. They'd have to take one lane away from Pierce St but they could have cantilevered the freeway over Pierce St. to expand it. 

[JLWM8609]

7 hours ago, ADCS said:

 

I've been pushing for something similar for a long time. TxDOT does regional traffic a great disservice by not signing 610 for thru traffic.

 

For example, 610 at the North Freeway SB could be signed:

 

610 West: Austin, San Antonio

610 East: Beaumont, Pasadena, Galveston

45 South: Downtown

 

My guess is that TxDOT operates off the assumption that most people navigate by route number, rather than control city. However, in the age of GPS navigation, it would seem to me that control cities are a much more potent navigation tool than route numbers.

 

 

That makes sense. That's what they do with I-285 in Atlanta. 

[Dolphin]

It would be great if they could build the Pierce Skypark and integrate the station for the bullet train to Dallas into it. That way the train could drop people right downtown.

[Ross]

29 minutes ago, Dolphin said:

It would be great if they could build the Pierce Skypark and integrate the station for the bullet train to Dallas into it. That way the train could drop people right downtown.

That's hilarious, since there's no way to get the bullet train there without using eminent domain on a bunch of properties that belong to people with the money to fight. Bullet train terminus belongs at Northwest Mall.

[JLWM8609]

5 hours ago, Ross said:

That's hilarious, since there's no way to get the bullet train there without using eminent domain on a bunch of properties that belong to people with the money to fight. 

1

Not really. One of the proposals to bring the bullet train downtown was to elevate it along I-10 so it wouldn't go through residential areas near Washington Ave.

http://www.chron.com/news/transportation/article/High-speed-rail-route-would-affect-Houston-6085167.php

[Sparrow]

19 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Have you ever driven on the West Loop?  It doesn't take a traffic engineer to know that rerouting I-69/US59 over the West Loop is not a solution.

Okay, agreed, forget re-signing I-69 for the short term, but I-45 and I-10 could be done with the North Loop and East Loop with very little effort. Take the money intended for the Big EaDo project and instead of giving the West Loop one (~2) express lane each direction as planned, build 4+ express lanes each direction as an elevated viaduct.

 

Added capacity is needed for the West Loop regardless--the current plan for that will help for about two weeks. More funding on the West side (with the end game intent of re-signing for I-69 thru traffic) will help both Downtown and Uptown without the need to acquire large amounts of land and with what could likely be a faster, less disruptive construction period. Little change would be needed for the current infrastructure--simply leave it as is. Build two segmented elevated viaducts just like US 183 in north Austin.

[ADCS]

How about let's look at loop expansion while keeping the 45 reroute project. Both are needed. But I'm afraid a larger West Loop express lane would be a non-starter, as you'd have substantial opposition due to nuisance and park impact concerns. That's something I often see missed - no one likes els in their neighborhood, period. Removing an el is far more politically viable than adding one, even if the el is much cheaper than excavation.

 

We'll have to wait 20-25 years before the West Loop is reconstructed in line with what they did with North LBJ in Dallas. It's a near-miracle that we're getting the express lane now.

 

What I see missed about the 45 reroute is that capacity is indeed added. The Downtown Connector is new capacity that draws traffic away from the thru traffic. 

[cspwal]

I think re-signing just I-45 could work.  Going along 610 is only 3.2 miles longer than going along the current alignment of I-45; if you're maintaining 60 mph that whole time instead of dropping down to 45 mph for downtown, travel time would most likely be similar.  A caution though is that Google maps doesn't suggest that as an alternate route even during bad traffic downtown; a higher speed limit on the east loop might be necessary to lure people onto the new bypass

[Danny1022]

1 hour ago, Sparrow said:

Okay, agreed, forget re-signing I-69 for the short term, but I-45 and I-10 could be done with the North Loop and East Loop with very little effort. Take the money intended for the Big EaDo project and instead of giving the West Loop one (~2) express lane each direction as planned, build 4+ express lanes each direction as an elevated viaduct.

 

Added capacity is needed for the West Loop regardless--the current plan for that will help for about two weeks. More funding on the West side (with the end game intent of re-signing for I-69 thru traffic) will help both Downtown and Uptown without the need to acquire large amounts of land and with what could likely be a faster, less disruptive construction period. Little change would be needed for the current infrastructure--simply leave it as is. Build two segmented elevated viaducts just like US 183 in north Austin.

This is totally true, I like this.

Maybe the 610 East could be renumbered as i-45 and widened to be able to carry the extra traffic the bad thing is that it would need to modify 5 interchanges including possible full reconstruction of 4 of them (i-45/610, 610/255, 59/610 and 45/610n) I th8nk that the i-10/610 mightnot need such huge reconstruction.. also it would include the reconstruction of the ship channel bridge if lanes are added. That would be expensive but the speed limit wouldn't be lowered and the right of way taking would be less. There would also be a need to fix various bottlenecks in downtown,like at I 45 and us'59 And i'45 And Allen pkwy.. eliminate most bad merges and left exits/entrances. Take off one lane from pierce street to give space for a reconstructed pierce 4 lanes wide. As well as making the i-45 inside the 610 turned into like business route or an i-245 or I don't know 

Also the i-45/610 North interchange could be kind of like a high five with a hov connector and same with the one at the South except it wouldn't have so many changes... like the i-45 north.

I'm just saying. The US 59 might need widening though... yeah... I suck atexplaining well.

[samagon]

2 hours ago, cspwal said:

I think re-signing just I-45 could work.  Going along 610 is only 3.2 miles longer than going along the current alignment of I-45; if you're maintaining 60 mph that whole time instead of dropping down to 45 mph for downtown, travel time would most likely be similar.  A caution though is that Google maps doesn't suggest that as an alternate route even during bad traffic downtown; a higher speed limit on the east loop might be necessary to lure people onto the new bypass

 

that is weird, it doesn't even list it as an alternative. right this second it says it will take 28 minutes to go from edgebrook to airline, but if you drop a waypoint on the east loop, it says travel time is 29 minutes.

 

the really odd thing is one of the alternative routes it shows is 45 > 610 > 10 > 45 which is showing as an extra minute over taking 45 > 610 > 45?

 

google AI is not smart enough for Houston, it would seem.

 

and since writing this post, it seems that the times are 26 minutes for both, and still longer for the google alternate route.

Edited April 5, 2017 by samagon

[Triton]

Potential new rendering 

[BeerNut]

They keep putting the park in the renderings trying to sell this thing.  If the park doesn't happen this will be a huge loss for EADO.

[Danny1022]

I swear that the hell.. destroy a highway to build a stupid park is stupid there are already enough parks in downtown, 

And why don't they have common sense, they take excessive right of way, but that doesn't matter cos the companies in downtown Houston are selfish and dont care about what happens and now the majority has to face the disadvantages because txdot doesn't realise that the pierce is needed...

Whatever, hell this project. That photo looks like trash.. yes that last sentence is meant to be offensive.

 

[cspwal]

What will also suck is there won't be as good E/W connections - no polk, and it looks like leeland will also be affected (right now it splits over 59 into bell and leeland)

[EllenOlenska]

I get it, it'll be a mess.

But there's never enough parks. 

[Danny1022]

There are already various parks meaning that isn't a priority but their and downtown act as if it were a priority, Boston didn't have enough parks so it made sense, in New  Orleans the highway destroyed a park so it makes sense, but Houston already has many parks so parks aren't a priority, 

Or at least only bury the 59 but the pierce is necessary. As long as it doesn't look to take or too modern.

[cspwal]

I'm genuinely curious why the chose this plan.  Having 45 jog the way it will doesn't seem like the shortest path, and expanding a trench can't be cheap, so why do it?

The main bottle neck is the narrow right of way for the Pierce elevated.  You could double deck it (so there would be room for 6 lanes each way) but that would be a large eyesore (since it would be minimum 3 stories tall) and would make the 59 interchange difficult and make it hard to go into the west side downtown connector jumble.

You could cantilever it over pierce, but that might actually be blocked by the federal building and the new Hamilton apartment building.  I do wonder if they looked at it though - seems the simplest method since you're just widening the existing highway.

If I had to guess, it came down to money - selling the land where the pierce elevated is now is going to pay for the rest of the project in downtown, where if they didn't the budget would be much higher and they wouldn't get to do it at all.

[samagon]

25 minutes ago, cspwal said:

I'm genuinely curious why the chose this plan.  Having 45 jog the way it will doesn't seem like the shortest path, and expanding a trench can't be cheap, so why do it?

The main bottle neck is the narrow right of way for the Pierce elevated.  You could double deck it (so there would be room for 6 lanes each way) but that would be a large eyesore (since it would be minimum 3 stories tall) and would make the 59 interchange difficult and make it hard to go into the west side downtown connector jumble.

You could cantilever it over pierce, but that might actually be blocked by the federal building and the new Hamilton apartment building.  I do wonder if they looked at it though - seems the simplest method since you're just widening the existing highway.

If I had to guess, it came down to money - selling the land where the pierce elevated is now is going to pay for the rest of the project in downtown, where if they didn't the budget would be much higher and they wouldn't get to do it at all.

 

Considering how close to the freeway that new apartment building at the 59/45 interchange is, there's plenty of room to expand near the federal building without encroaching.

[cspwal]

They could just have direct access - drive in/drive out on to 45 N

[Danny1022]

Why not build the 45 connectors to us 59 South which would be parallel to the i-10 to make the pierce elevated only carry through traffic.

I've suggestedthat before. At least reply to that idea. Just saying..

[JJxvi]

I don't know how it would be paid for or how much it would cost (Im guessing that tax increment from TIRZ 15 and TIRZ 24 would be funneled into it)  but that park would not be anything to sneeze at.  By my rough estimate that park is over 40 acres or roughly 4 times the size of discovery green and roughly the same size as Eleanor Tinsley Park.

Edited April 17, 2017 by JJxvi